I would like to declare from the beginning of this topic that I see myself as a convinced atheist.
My conviction goes in my opinion farther then the "almost" certainly non existence of God as described in the TGD by two more "cranes":
-one "crane "is the undoubted fact that the Gods of religions ,whether abrahamic or others are a creation of man "in his image" as a result of certain provable needs of human beings.
-the second "crane" is my idea ,(albeit controversial) that causality and randomness are two intertwined laws of nature.
On both "cranes I am going to elaborate in another topic.
This was only an introduction to the topic, meant to fend off criticizers who will try to call me a hidden believer in God.
Now the problem I am trying to arise is the way of convincing believers in God of the justness of atheism.
RD writes in TGD that the book "is intended to raise consciousness to the fact that to be an atheist is a realistic aspiration and a brave and splendid one".
The motif of "consciousness rising " is repeated in many chapters and could be regarded as a "leit motif" of the whole book.
With all due respect to RD the notion of "consciousness rising" sounds to me patronizing, borderline to arrogance, because it means that the others "non atheists" are of low consciousness which we are willingly ready to rise.
Millions of people around the world consider that religion is fine for them that it helps them in their daily life.
To convince them of the rightness of atheism is one thing ,to treat them from a patronizing level is an other thing and don't tell me that it is a matter of semantics because it is not
For people who lived in countries of the not so late (only 20 years) disappeared communist regime, many thousands of them living now in free western countries, the
notion of "consciousness rising" has a bad after smell. It was a favorite expression of
the rulers meaning to brainwash the people to work harder for the sake of "construction of socialism "and fighting of "imperialism". During the infamous "Cultural Revolution " in Mao's China it was used as a repressive motive for sending millions of educated people to the country side for "reeducation".
In conclusion I think that "convincing" is a pretty good way for the debate for sake of atheism ,meaning to look eye in eye with your opponent and not from an elated position., which could be not only offending but also contra productive.
My conviction goes in my opinion farther then the "almost" certainly non existence of God as described in the TGD by two more "cranes":
-one "crane "is the undoubted fact that the Gods of religions ,whether abrahamic or others are a creation of man "in his image" as a result of certain provable needs of human beings.
-the second "crane" is my idea ,(albeit controversial) that causality and randomness are two intertwined laws of nature.
On both "cranes I am going to elaborate in another topic.
This was only an introduction to the topic, meant to fend off criticizers who will try to call me a hidden believer in God.
Now the problem I am trying to arise is the way of convincing believers in God of the justness of atheism.
RD writes in TGD that the book "is intended to raise consciousness to the fact that to be an atheist is a realistic aspiration and a brave and splendid one".
The motif of "consciousness rising " is repeated in many chapters and could be regarded as a "leit motif" of the whole book.
With all due respect to RD the notion of "consciousness rising" sounds to me patronizing, borderline to arrogance, because it means that the others "non atheists" are of low consciousness which we are willingly ready to rise.
Millions of people around the world consider that religion is fine for them that it helps them in their daily life.
To convince them of the rightness of atheism is one thing ,to treat them from a patronizing level is an other thing and don't tell me that it is a matter of semantics because it is not
For people who lived in countries of the not so late (only 20 years) disappeared communist regime, many thousands of them living now in free western countries, the
notion of "consciousness rising" has a bad after smell. It was a favorite expression of
the rulers meaning to brainwash the people to work harder for the sake of "construction of socialism "and fighting of "imperialism". During the infamous "Cultural Revolution " in Mao's China it was used as a repressive motive for sending millions of educated people to the country side for "reeducation".
In conclusion I think that "convincing" is a pretty good way for the debate for sake of atheism ,meaning to look eye in eye with your opponent and not from an elated position., which could be not only offending but also contra productive.
