(September 3, 2012 at 5:27 am)genkaus Wrote: There is no difference between the two positions since atheism doesn't say that it is the only truth and it doesn't say that everyone should convert to it. What you are talking about is rationalism, which is a common, though not necessary ideology giving rise to the atheism. And there are no "two paths" within it. Both of your statements are part of the same path.
For example, I believe there is singular objective truth reality, that atheism is one of those truths and yes, that the world would be a better place if everyone thought in the same manner. But ultimately, I also think that they should be free to find their own way. That does not mean that I'm saying that there are subjective truths, it simply means that I recognize their right to delude themselves.
I actually wanted to account for this position because it was a unique one: It would be the only position which would incorporate both atheism as a singular ideology, as well as defensive atheism, ie atheism that just seeks to preserve its role as coexisting with others.
But this is a special case. Ie, your statement in bold is only correct in one situation, and is wrong in every other situation.
It's not a coincidence that you hold the exact position that makes it valid.
But I don't think it's an easy position to hold. On some level you will certainly feel like the world needs to know the truth and you can't sit by with lies being perpetuated.
I don't think anybody can fight that urge. Sooner or later they will move to a singular ideological position. Because you will feel like a douchebag, as I would, if I knew the truth and didn't convince the world of it.
