ZJ: Someone recently asked me why it is that atheists share their views with others or try to persuade people that atheism is true. They pointed out that when religious people "witness", as they call it, they're usually doing it because their religion commands them to introduce others into the faith, and because they're worried about what could happen to people who don't follow their religion–for instance, they think we need to be saved from hell. But atheists, on the other hand, would have no such motives for spreading atheism. So why do we do it?
Well, not all of us are so concerned with people's religious beliefs. There are some atheists who consider it a personal and private matter, and so they just won't bring it up. They're content with keeping it to themselves. But some of us do care. And here's why.
We think it's better to hold correct beliefs about the world than incorrect beliefs. We think it's important for beliefs to accurately reflect reality, and we expect that others will also care about whether their beliefs are true. We consider it inherently undesirable to go through life believing something that's false. Why? Because beliefs are important. We decide how to act based on what we believe. And this means that believing things that are wrong can lead to doing things that are wrong.
Acting on an incorrect belief can result in pointless, wasteful, even dangerous behavior. It is always a mistake. For that reason, we're concerned about the effects that religious belief has on individual people and on society as a whole.
Believers are often compelled to engage in regular religious observance and donate to religious organizations that serve to promote and spread their faith. But if their religion is wrong, that means they've been wasting their time and money, which could have been used for something better. What good is it to devote a significant portion of your life and your income to something that isn't even real? Religious people also tend to pray, often to request some kind of assistance from their gods or saints. But if they don't exist, then prayer will never accomplish anything, and there's really no point to it. And if believers were aware of this, they might choose to take action themselves instead.
There's also the issue of stress and anxiety caused by religious beliefs. People of faith can often be deeply bothered by the possibility of eternal torture in hell, both for themselves and for others. Many of them actually believe this is real, leading to a constant concern over their eventual fate–a concern which they pass on to others, including children. But if there's no such thing as hell, then there are a great number of people who are very worried about this when they really don't need to be.
Similarly, religious people might believe they need to constantly police their very thoughts to stamp out any trace of blasphemy or heresy, because they're under the impression that a god is constantly eavesdropping on everything that runs through their head. This is not a small burden, and if there is no god, then these people are experiencing a great deal of needless concern.
Belief in religious doctrine can also cause distorted moral reasoning. There are certain religions–very popular ones–which actually teach that being angry is the same as killing someone. More generally, this is often extended into the idea that anything considered a "sin" is morally equivalent: from lying, to robbery, to genocide. It's all the same. When you're unable to recognize such a massive difference of degree, that's not healthy.
The concept of hell also ties into this, in that it's usually viewed as the only possible punishment for any sin, no matter how small. Both Hitler and the common shoplifter apparently deserve the exact same penalty. Anyone who seriously believes this has been robbed of the ability to understand the importance of a proportional response. If a person goes through life believing that nearly everyone around them deserves to be tortured forever for their most minor transgressions, that's kind of a problem.
Another issue is the potential for religious differences to cause conflict within families. Most religions don't look favorably upon nonbelievers, to say the least, and disagreements over what people seriously believe to be matters of mortal importance can provoke all kinds of division. Even Jesus proclaimed that his teachings would be so controversial, they would split families apart. But if none of this is true, then these beliefs have turned people against one another for no good reason at all.
In extreme cases, religious beliefs can lead people to deny life-saving medical treatments. Jehovah's Witnesses have been known to refuse blood transfusions and die as a result, and the unfortunately-named Christian Scientists will often avoid any medical care. But if their beliefs are actually false, then these people have died for nothing. If it weren't for their religion, there's a good chance that they would have lived. And that's very sad.
Beyond the consequences for individuals, there's also a cumulative impact on society when large numbers of religious people act on their beliefs. Many religions have organized to oppose any legal recognition of the equality of gays and lesbians, based on their teachings and doctrines. But if their religion is wrong, then there's no reason for them to do this. Innocent people are being portrayed as inferior and subjected to obvious injustice because of these false religions.
Similarly, religious morality equating embryos to full-grown infants is largely responsible for the erosion of women's reproductive rights. More directly, these beliefs often lead to the organized harassment of patients and staff at abortion clinics, sometimes escalating to violence. If these religions are false, then all of this is for nothing.
Many schools have chosen to weaken the standards for science education and sex education in order to bring them in line with certain religious views. The people whose very job is to teach students are instead intentionally compromising their education, just to satisfy their religious beliefs. And if it weren't for these beliefs, this wouldn't be happening.
There's also the role of religion in responding to the AIDS crisis in Africa. There are actually religious movements operating in Africa which are telling people they shouldn't use condoms to prevent the spread of STDs, because it's contrary to their religion. These beliefs are now responsible for people being infected with an incurable and deadly disease, and if it weren't for religion, they might be alive and well today.
In the same vein, there are families who will refuse to seek any medical treatment for their children, instead opting for totally ineffective attempts at "faith healing". Sometimes, their children die due to neglect. If they had realized that their religion is false and their faith is futile, they would have taken their child to a doctor instead.
Some religions have inspired the creation of legal systems where victims of rape can be sentenced to lashings or even death by public stoning. Victims of rape would not be viciously executed if it weren't for the religious beliefs that support this.
As if that's not bad enough, African believers in witchcraft have tortured and murdered thousands of children, even infants, because they were thought to be witches. Thousands more children accused of witchcraft have been abandoned on the streets. All because of people who think witchcraft is real.
Now, if you were there at the moment when these people were about to burn a child alive for being a "witch", wouldn't you tell them, "Stop that! There's no such thing as witchcraft! You don't need to do this!"? Of course you would. Any reasonable person would. Anyone who cares about human life and well-being would. And if you can understand why you would do that, then you can also understand why atheists oppose religion. The beliefs may be different, the damage may come in other forms, but the principle is the same.
To ask why atheists share their views is to ask why we care about what's true, or why we care if our beliefs about the world are accurate. We're not concerned about what could happen to people in the afterlife. We're worried about what's happening to people in this life. Belief in false things is causing problems. This bothers us. We would like it to stop. And we need your help.
Re:Why Do Atheists "Witness"?
« Reply #1 on: 2010-08-11 19:24:47 »
Mo: ZJ engages a video response to his first video. this is Will's counterpoint to ZJ's first video:
Its pretty short at under five min. watch it before or after if you like, but I think ZJ's response below is both thoroughly responsive and stands on its own as well and so I include his transcript.
Mo's personal note to ZJ: Very thorough, and nothing tripped off my objection/bullshit detector. I already posted/embedded your first one to my favorite BBS and I'm going to put this one there too. http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=4 We have no choice but to take our own responsibility as memetic engineers if as a species we hope to not join the other 99% of biological species which have already gone extinct. Pawning off our ethical responsibilities onto supernatural propositions is a dogmatic dead end game to extinction. -Mo
ZJ: Hi, Will. I saw your video, and it was very interesting. I think you brought up some issues that should be explored further.
One of the first things you mentioned is how you were puzzled that atheists would "witness", because you thought that most of them would say it's "wrong to pressure your beliefs on other people". But, if you noticed, many of the problems I pointed out in my video are specifically the result of religious people spreading their beliefs and forcing them on others. In fact, that's exactly what we take issue with. Objecting to this, and discouraging them from doing that, is really not the same thing as doing that ourselves. Supporting something, and opposing it, are actually the exact opposite of one another. It's like saying "do this!" versus "no, don't!" In any case, atheism does not entail any position on whether to spread one's atheism or keep it private, and as I said, this is matter of personal preference among atheists.
You then said that it's up to atheists to prove that your beliefs are false and that the Christian god does not exist. Okay. But before we get to that, you should first prove that your beliefs are true and that your god exists. Your belief is not something that can automatically be assumed to be true simply because you believe it. It's not up to the rest of us to prove you wrong if you haven't yet gone to the effort of proving why you're right. Otherwise, anyone could demand that you disprove any number of things, without having even proven them in the first place. There should at least be some reason for why we should consider something to be true, before we go about the task of proving it false.
You later noted that I recognize that there are objective truths, and from there, you went on to assume that this must mean there are objective moral values. You said that if we don't believe good and evil exist, then this means there is no objective truth, and so we have no grounds to say anything is false. But that's not necessarily so. Just because some things are objectively true does not mean that there must be objective truths which consist of moral statements. You're conflating two separate things here. Of course there are objective truths. There just might not be any that are statements of morality. And it seems that this may be the case.
Obviously there are plenty of people who have claimed that their morality is objectively true. They'd like to think that their morality is a pure and simple fact, embedded in the universe itself. The thing is, none of them have been able to show that such objective morals exist. So, in the absence of any objective morals, where do we go from here in terms of morality? I think this makes it clear that morality is a human invention, and something we have to work out for ourselves.
For some issues, it may be possible to make better arguments for certain moral principles than for others. And for other issues, this may not be as clear-cut. It's possible that a strong enough case could be made for some morals that they could, for all intents and purposes, be treated as objective—unless and until they're superseded by better ones. But this doesn't mean that any of these morals are actually objective, or that any objective morals exist. I'm not denying that they could, but at present, there seems to be no reason to believe they do.
So, if you're wondering what I'm talking about when I say that something is right or wrong if I'm not referring to any objective morals, I'm simply articulating my own understanding of morality. And I'm also making a case for why my view of morality is worth adhering to and should be considered more valid than other kinds of morality. I believe my sense of morality is defensible, and I'm willing to engage with people who have other perspectives.
Similarly, if you, for example, want to explain why the writings of Paul the Apostle have any bearing on the acceptability of same-sex relationships, or why people should die rather than accept blood transfusions, or why African witch hunters should be allowed to set children on fire, you're certainly welcome to try and make a case for that. And, in turn, other people might disagree with you and argue that their own morals are better than yours. This is the way it's always been: it's up to us to figure it out.
If this strikes you as inelegant, time-consuming, or possibly even dangerous with the potential for serious mistakes... well, maybe it is. But it's all we have. Morality is never so simple as just saying something is wrong for no reason other than "Sorry, it's objective, end of story." That's religious thinking. Certainly it might be comforting and convenient to imagine that our preferred morals are simply prefabricated, ready-to-use objective facts and that's that, but there's nothing to indicate that this is the case. And if this is uncomfortable to contemplate, well, that's just something we have to come to terms with.
We're not so much moral explorers, seeking out and discovering objective morals that already exist in reality, as we are moral architects and scientists, creating morals and putting them to the test to see how well they fare. To me, this seems to be the most accurate accounting of how morality functions, where our morals come from, how they're developed, how they progress, and why we consider them to be valid.
Now, you also offered a syllogism which argued that if good and evil exist, then objective moral values exist, and that these objective morals must have come from a "transcendent being" which you say is God. But what are good and evil, and what does it mean to say that they exist? Are they actual objective properties that exist in reality? Or are they just expressions of our own individual assessment of whether we consider something to be right or wrong? Just because people might think certain things are good or evil, this does not mean that they actually are, or that these things possess a real attribute of being good or evil.
You defined evil as a "deviation" from "how things ought to be", which you see as a "design plan" that is laid out by a "designer". Yet the apparent absence of objective morals suggests that no such design plan actually exists or has been developed by a designer. So, who determines "how things ought to be"? It seems that we're the only ones deciding that. We are the "designers" here. And no, I am not saying that we are gods. There are no gods. That's why we're the ones who have to create a design plan of how things should be. Just like morality, this sense of what "ought to be" is a human construction.
But even if we do accept for the sake of argument that there are objective moral values that exist as a subset of objective truths, what makes you think these objective morals must have come from a transcendent being? There are already objective truths which do exist, without needing to be handed down by a transcendent being. For example: The fact that when you group one object with another object, you now have two objects, is objectively true without requiring any transcendent being to make it true. It's objectively true in and of itself. (Indeed, I'd be interested to hear of any possible way for a transcendent being to make this untrue.)
So why is it that an objective moral could not also be true in and of itself, as an intrinsic property of the universe? Why should that require a transcendent being when other objective truths don't? And if a transcendent being did have to create these objective morals, doesn't that mean that if it didn't create them, they wouldn't have existed as truths at all, and the only reason they are true is because something decided they should be? How can that be considered "objective"? Doesn't that make them just as much of an artificiality as the morals that we come up with?
There's also the question of how you can go from positing a transcendent source of objective morals to concluding that this is a god, but that's a whole other issue. Anyhow, I appreciate the response—it's certainly been thought-provoking. And to everyone, if I've gotten anything wrong here, please let me know. -ZJ
Re:Why Do Atheists "Witness"?
« Reply #3 on: 2010-08-11 23:03:47 »
I think Virian ethics are effectively just such an ethical answer to ZJ's discussion. ZJ seems to like to use the words "belief" and "beliefs" in ways some in the CoV might think of as sloppy, but I think he manages to keep the topic coherent and reasoned regardless. In some ways it probably even helps him to communicate with more religious people because it somewhat mirrors their own vocabulary even though he's employing it in a different way.
10:09:29 Lucifer pop quiz! Is it morally acceptable to take from the rich and give to the poor? 10:09:45 Sat might makes right. 10:09:59 Sat So if the poor are strong enough to take from the rich. sure 10:10:09 Sat (and get away with it) 10:10:25 Lucifer I don't agree with your premise (that right makes right) 10:10:25 Sat The rich are rich, because of thier might. 10:10:58 Lucifer might has the upper hand and almost always gets their way 10:11:09 Sat And if they are mighty enough they will continue to keep thier wealth 10:11:12 Sat * Sat chuckles 10:11:16 Lucifer but how does that make it right? 10:11:36 Sat How is a lion eating a gazelle right? 10:11:48 Sat It's just nature. 10:11:59 MoEnzyme * MoEnzyme accepts that government is redistributative by its very nature. 10:12:03 Lucifer Did the lion pay for the gazelle? 10:12:13 Lucifer * Lucifer snorts 10:12:23 Sat Yes. It paid by working: stalking, waiting, etc. 10:12:31 Sat It paid by learning to hunt. 10:12:38 Lucifer Will the lion compensate the herd? 10:12:43 Sat Yes. 10:12:55 Sat The lion plays an essential role of thinning out the weak 10:13:01 Sat and forcing the herd to move 10:13:18 Sat without the forced moving the gazeeles would over graze areasd 10:13:33 Sat and fuck up the biosphere they live in 10:13:40 Lucifer Anyway I agree that not all actions are right or wrong. That doesn't mean there is no such thing as morality. 10:14:05 Sat morailty is the tool the weak use to try to gain might over those stronger than them 10:14:07 Lucifer What happens in nature has little bearing on the ethics of wealth redistribution in human civilization 10:14:26 Sat It's like the gazeele saying, "not fair! you snuck up on me!" 10:14:40 Sat Humans are a part of nature. 10:14:48 Lucifer So your argument is to go meta and invoke Satanism? 10:14:54 Sat To be apart from would imply humans are non-natural. 10:15:07 MoEnzyme * MoEnzyme agrees with Lucifer re: nature v ethics. 10:15:23 Lucifer Human civilization is non-natural by definition 10:15:42 Lucifer If you lose the distinction, then nature has no meaning 10:15:50 Sat non-natural by definition is outside of nature. It's superstition. 10:16:06 MoEnzyme plus gazelles and lions are different species, unlike wealthy poor. 10:16:19 Sat show me one thing that exists outside the natural order or does not follow from it 10:16:20 MoEnzyme so bad example. 10:16:28 Sat even ethics and morals follow from it 10:16:52 Lucifer google: natural fallacy 10:16:53 googlebot googling for natural fallacy 10:16:53 googlebot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy 10:17:07 Sat whether one chooses to use the ethics or morals is simply a matter of how one chooses to exercise might. 10:17:26 MoEnzyme There are some as-if ethical behaviors in nature, but they are mostly between related specimens. 10:17:37 MoEnzyme or with a species. 10:17:40 Lucifer more specifically, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy#Appeal_to_nature 10:17:43 MoEnzyme rather than interspecies. 10:18:09 Sat How can we be separate from the universe in which we live. Saying we are not-natural is saying that. 10:18:25 MoEnzyme I agree its a fallacy, although some analogies can be helpful for instructive purposes. 10:18:27 Sat what humans had supernatural help? 10:18:43 Lucifer If you accept your own argument, Sat, then you must also say that genocides are moral... correct? 10:19:05 MoEnzyme I think of it as natural v. cultural (instead of non-natura) 10:19:06 Sat yes. 10:19:26 Sat Humans are exactly what we are today due to our genocidal nature. 10:19:44 Sat we've thinnied our own heard. 10:19:51 Sat kill *all* the competition 10:19:52 Lucifer I don't disagree with that assertion 10:20:01 MoEnzyme * MoEnzyme nods 10:20:12 Lucifer but I don't see how that relates to what ought to be 10:20:32 Sat Those who are the richest of the rich come from a long line of uber-brutal, mighty, families 10:20:32 Lucifer I don't see the murder and rape of innocents as a good thing generally 10:20:42 MoEnzyme It may be how we got here, but that doesn't mean other things aren't possible. 10:20:59 Sat they have thier wealth based on the fact that they have been the strongest, meanest, smartest fuckers around 10:21:02 Lucifer I realize I'm really going out on a limb there :-p 10:21:23 Sat And, they haven't acted morally and have been rewarded. 10:21:41 Sat If the poor can gang up on them and take thier wealth so be it. 10:22:04 Sat I suspect the uber=wealthy have been fending that off for a many generations 10:22:08 Sat with sucess. 10:22:18 Sat * Sat grins 10:22:28 MoEnzyme Indeed, one might suggest that's actually the purpse of government. An orderly redistribution in lieu of civil war. 10:22:39 Sat in *any* case someone's feelings are hurt. 10:22:41 Sat boo hoo. 10:22:44 Sat * Sat chuckles 10:23:37 MoEnzyme The wealthy agree because it a good trade. 10:23:45 MoEnzyme taxes instead of violence. 10:23:54 Sat Is it cosmically right? Sure any possible outcome is right in that the rules of the universe allow for it. 10:24:17 Sat So if Lucifer can use ethical argument to defend his wealth. Huzzah 10:24:28 Sat he's defeated those who want to take 10:24:29 Sat it 10:24:37 Sat he's mightier 10:24:57 Sat If they still take it despite his intellectual arguments... 10:25:03 Sat thier right. 10:25:20 Sat In either case one or the other is "deprived" of something. 10:26:08 MoEnzyme Really Lucifers question is a question about the existential morality of government. 10:26:21 Sat If a huge lion is way better at grabbing gazelles he has the right to eat them. 10:26:35 Sat if he eats so many that other lions starve he's still right 10:26:51 Sat if the starving lions gang up on his and kill his ass thier right 10:26:54 Sat * Sat shrugs 10:27:00 Sat seems simple enough to me. 10:27:45 MoEnzyme Lions are actually very nice too each other. 10:27:58 Sat morality and ethics are simply tools used in the struggle to attain dominance over others 10:27:59 MoEnzyme very sociable cats. 10:28:44 MoEnzyme certainly there are fights, but they are generally about reproduction rather than food. 10:29:13 Sat bbiab. have to attend to a few things. my position has been stated. feel free to rip it apart. 10:29:15 Sat 10:30:11 MoEnzyme As a general rule they don't let anyone in the pride starve if they can help it. 10:31:16 MoEnzyme They'll even let nearby prides have leftovers if there's enough to go around. 10:35:11 MoEnzyme I think natural examples of social behavior are appropriate for instructive moral purposes, but ethics are more than nature. 10:36:18 MoEnzyme supernatural (in a strictly materialistic sense) even. 10:37:34 MoEnzyme nature + culture --> ethics/morality 10:40:16 MoEnzyme ZJ got into a lot of those issues especially in his second video --> http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=4;action=display;threadid=43512 10:40:37 MoEnzyme about objective morality etc. 10:41:10 MoEnzyme not in the natural sense, but more in a social sense. 10:42:49 MoEnzyme "Obviously there are plenty of people who have claimed that their morality is objectively true. They'd like to think that their morality is a pure and simple fact, embedded in the universe itself. The thing is, none of them have been able to show that such objective morals exist. 10:43:07 MoEnzyme So, in the absence of any objective morals, where do we go from here in terms of morality? I think this makes it clear that morality is a human invention, and something we have to work out for ourselves." 10:44:21 MoEnzyme http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=4;action=display;threadid=43512
Re:Why Do Atheists "Witness"?
« Reply #5 on: 2010-08-13 13:38:23 »
Regarding Sat's Position and the Naturalistic Fallacy:
My position is probably more easily summed up via the BBS rather than the ad hoc method of irc chat. Basically I'm saying...
Might is Right. By this I mean that any method the game rules allow which enables one agent to gain over another is intrinsically correct. In the case of this universe the rules seem fairly clear. The stronger more clever agent(s) wins.
All morality is a human invention, including the idea that might is right. Our morals and ethics are tools we use to trick others into accepting our goals. They are tools in the struggle to attain might or dominance over others.
We can achieve might by any method, and often ethics are simply a ploy to do this.
These strategies occur precisely because they are natural. God or bad, as objective values, do not exist outside the basic game rules (natural law) and specifically in the game rules themselves. Our subjective definitions of good and evil, while following from the game rules may or may not be correct, and as subjective agents, by definition, we cannot know all of the object without being outside the object. To completely know the object, in this case the universe, we must completely model the object. We must have an overview which includes the whole thing in every detail. Human brains, while pretty fucking powerful, are no where near strong enough to model an object which is in effect infinite.
As materialists we posit that anything beyond nature, or anything non-natural, is by definition supernatural and does not exist. If it exists it's contained within nature.
To say that the Sat-anic argument is falling prey to the naturalistic fallacy isn't correct. I'm not saying that natural = good. I'm saying that all agents are natural agents, subjective ones, and because we are not objective, or supernatural, our values are subjective as well. Yes they are natural and part of the natural system. The system itself is neither good or evil. It simply is.
So those agents who have attained wealth have done so precisely because they are better at exploiting the intrinsic game rules. If other agents wish to take the wealth of these first wealthier agents it's neither good or bad if they do so. In either case resources are being hoarded by agents.
In either case the agents without the resources, or who'se resources are being taken, or perceive resources as being taken from them, get hurt feelings. Thier ability to continue playing the game (survival) is impaired.
Those taking are viewed as evil by those who have been taken. All agents consider themselves good.
Re:Why Do Atheists "Witness"?
« Reply #6 on: 2010-08-15 11:20:23 »
I understand the importance of our natural origins in order to order to have a discussion of ethics and morals, but that understanding doesn't end the discussion. That would be the naturalistic fallacy. The understanding of our origins, our nature, the way things are only makes the opening for a discussion about the way things ought to be.
Might makes right? Perhaps sometime it does, but I'd not assume either way. I think empathy plays an important role as well.
Re:Why Do Atheists "Witness"?
« Reply #7 on: 2010-08-15 20:07:02 »
Re: my previous statement that might sometimes does make right. I'm actually okay with that when its done through democratic governmental means, or other legitimate consensus creation. Law and order politics is all about amassing might, and a certain amount of that is necessary for a civilized society to exist and to protect from predators. That was the crux of my later chat with Sat about his post and my response.
09:28:50 MoEnzyme Might make right in the sense that a lack of might (governement) can lead to disorder and collapse. 09:29:57 Sat Yup. Goverment is an expression of might. We work with others to insure that the biggest, smartest individuals don't totally exploit us. 09:29:58 MoEnzyme "nation building" is all about amassing and organizing might. 09:30:24 Sat On the other hand the mighty exploit government to thier own ends. 09:31:01 Sat I think the game changer is the net. 09:31:20 Sat We ought to be able to truly self govern now. 09:31:32 Sat Get rid of the representatives. 09:31:39 MoEnzyme * MoEnzyme totally exploits Sat with googlebot. 09:31:44 googlebot One thing vampire children have to be taught early on is, don't run with wooden stakes. 09:32:31 MoEnzyme I think we should secede from the union
Author
Logged
-Mo
