No, they can be deceived by others, don't you think? If I wake up tomorrow and there is an ambulance in my driveway and they are carting my theoretical wife away, I'm thinking something is really wrong. Then if everyone says "Ha Ha, June fools", I see that I have been deceived, but that's not self deception.
The possibility of being deceived by others is neither precluded by anything I have written nor does it detract from my argument. Introducing it serves no useful purpose.
I don't think that a strong atheist has to believe that religious people endanger themselves and others. I just don't. 6 billion people on the earth living longer and longer lives, where do you get the imminent danger and radical harm done by religion? Would you prefer 60 billion people living to the age of 150? Why does every atheist objectively have to come down on your side? An atheist can believe that anybody can believe *anything* and still live a decent life. Look around, is everybody you know in imminent danger because of religious people? I know some people try to scare us into thinking so, but is it true?
Sigh. Please show me where I have attached the labels "imminent" and "radical" to "danger" and "harm," respectively. Thereafter, please review prior posts for the distinctions I have drawn between "strong" and "weak" atheism, and agnosticism. Also,
deceive should not automatically be read with an unstated
deliberate. A
strong atheist must conclude as I have stated for the same reason that one denounces quack medicine or a belief in guardian angels: one can conceive of situations in which a false belief prompts inappropriate action that endangers or harms someone. Moreover, I am fairly certain, though unfortunately I can present no proof of it, that the majority of god-doubters are agnostics or
weak atheists - I base this purely on personal experience - and these two further categories are not forced to the same conclusions since they allow that god might exist. Consequently, you spuriously impute to me the claim that all atheists must conclude alike. I would kindly ask that you refrain from such kneejerk responses since they offend, are likely to be answered in kind, as well as being counterproductive.
I wasn't just talking about money. I get a lot of free meals at church. An atheist has never offerred me a free meal.
How about the Protestant work ethic? Isn't that, by definition, material benefit linked to religious belief?
Perhaps you need to engage with more atheists then. As far as generosity goes, I cannot say whether belief or unbelief influences it to any appreciable extent, so you may be right.
The
Protestant work ethic is contingent on a particular conception of god, and is motivated through a specific interpretation of scripture. More importantly, a belief in god isn't necessary for one to agree that this ethic is both admirable and likely to spawn success if diligently followed. Atheists will reject the "prosperity as a sign of god's grace" assumption as unnecessary, and the resulting ethic would hardly be any different in effect. In other words, ensuing material benefit does not
require a belief in god (whereas acceding to pay a tithe does), although such belief could provide the
impetus to pursue wealth. The wealth then derives purely (in an ideal world!) from the effort that is expended, not from the act of believing itself. If we read "belief in god" to include all of the ancillary baggage associated with particular instances of such belief, then you are of course correct, but thus far the debate has been about atheism versus belief absent these encumbrances.
'Luthon64
