tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13734864.post2491530473920079527..comments2024-01-04T08:02:29.500-05:00Comments on Attempts: A Liberal Society Must Tolerate Proselytizers -- Even if They're AtheistsStephenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16524368948187746248noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13734864.post-21090145674281858192007-12-22T11:09:00.000-05:002007-12-22T11:09:00.000-05:00I've tried to find a single point to question in y...I've tried to find a single point to question in your analysis here. I can't. This is a really thoughtful critique.<BR/><BR/>I am not <I>quite</I> an atheist, and I have been a missionary, working to bring people to christ. But one way in which I have always felt that atheists are morally superior to devoutly proselytizing people of faith is that atheists don't imagine some big figure in the sky smiling on their beliefs and frowning on everyone else. That's not just a tautology--I'm not just pointing out that atheists don't believe in God and people who believe in God do. It's that even when I was a believer I found it fairly arrogant to imagine that there was some great authority in the universe, some big sky daddy, who endorsed your actions and beliefs and condemned everyone who didn't think and act like you. And having been on the inside of the "let's convert the sinners so they don't burn in hell" camp, I really believe that the "visceral contempt" atheists feel for believers is not as deadly and vicious, to individuals or society, as the contempt many believers imagine God feels for atheists or adherents of other faiths, and so feel entitled to express and enact themselves.Hollyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16506658008234465418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13734864.post-37717334977434321012007-12-18T19:37:00.000-05:002007-12-18T19:37:00.000-05:00"Now, it's worth pointing out that Dawkins doesn't..."Now, it's worth pointing out that Dawkins doesn't take this claim to its logical conclusion..."<BR/><BR/>This does not make his position any better. If I said: "Atheists are like Nazis, not that I'm saying we should take legal action against them." I'd be rightly called out for it the intellectually bankrupt ad hominem nature of the statement. <BR/><BR/>Nothing Dawkins says changes that he called people who are religious around kids to child molesters! An underhanded tactic as bad as any religion has done. <BR/><BR/>If his concern is simply kids having beliefs forced on them before their old enough to make their own decisions then are not Atheists that declare the non-existince of G-d to their kids, or parents who make their political beliefs knowen to their kids just as bad?<BR/><BR/>"No one says to believers that they shouldn't go out and try to convince people that they're right. Believers of nearly every faith try, in various ways, to convince others that they're right."<BR/><BR/>Whats your definition of "...nearly every faith..."? Christianity, Isalm, and some segments of Judaism? Most other faiths in history haven't bothered. <BR/><BR/>I recall reading about a new religion that had sprung up amongst some Native American groups. The reaction of a beliver of an belif? That well he could go out and preach to them but, in the end he'd only convince one or two. And in the end what people belive is their business, even if he felt that it would destroy their souls.<BR/><BR/>But you are right: "A Liberal Society Must Tolerate Proselytizers..." But I don't think we should trust them. It often takes the belif that one has a monopoly on truth to become a proselytizer, a belif that is poison to free thinking.NathanShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16318655557022495392noreply@blogger.com