UPDATE 04/05: In light of a very thoughtful email response (which I have asked permission to repost) I need to make a couple of clarifications to this post. I see in retrospect that I have not been as clear as I ought to have been with regard to what I am calling certainty. As you read this post, please be sure that you take all declarations of certainty as meaning the following: Unless and until the evidence changes drastically, X is so overwhelmingly certain as to be well beyond any reasonable debate whatsoever. Even the most certain scientific principles can eventually succumb to new discoveries. (Newtonian Physics, for instance.) I do not mean to declare that the debate between atheism and theism is dead for all time beyond the possibility of any new evidence coming to light. That would be absurd. I mean to say that the evidence at this time is so overwhelming that any “debate” which does not include previously undiscovered evidence is not a debate at all, but a rehashing of an issue which has already been resolved as well as humanly possible.
I forget sometimes that some things that seem obvious to scientific-minded non-theists are not at all obvious to theists, or to nontheists who are not particularly science minded. I guess sometimes I project my own little sphere onto the rest of the world. Among my friends, it is well understood that any mention of certainty is not meant to imply the strawman of certainty of which many theists accuse us. Every child who graduates from grade school ought to be well equipped to live the rest of his life without thinking of that ridiculous strawman, but unfortunately, we live in a world where many people genuinely believe that is the way we atheists think. So, once again, let me encourage you to read this blog entry as it was originally posted, but please bear in mind that I am not using the Christian, or Fascist version of certainty. In all cases, I mean: As the evidence stands, this thing is so monumentally supported by the evidence as to eliminate the practical possibility of debate.
*****************************
*****************************
I had a very nice visit with a good friend in Greenville over the weekend, although my brief car tour around the outside of Bob Jones Univeristy left me feeling a little like Nixon in China. In any case, I apologize that I haven’t had my normal time to read and research this week, so I don’t have anything earth-shattering today.
I do have a couple of thoughts on the debate between theism and atheism, though. Recently, another theist demanded a “real debate” on an atheist site, and was defeated with one short paragraph before the debate could even begin. I have pretty much given up debating theists. I used to do it, and I dare say I was pretty good at it, but after perhaps a hundred debates, on topics ranging from proofs of God to evolution to the nature of knowledge, I’ve come to realize a simple truth:
There is no debate between theism and atheism. There are only people who didn’t get the memo that the debate was won decades ago, if not centuries.
As many of my readers probably know, Richard Dawkins has a blanket refusal to debate creationists. His standard response to requests goes something like this. ”I’m sure such a debate would enhance his CV. It wouldn’t enhance mine.” This witty answer highlights the real problem with theist-atheist debates. One side is simply unprepared for the debate.
It turns out, even a lot of atheists don’t know a simple truth about debate, but anyone who’s ever been on a debate team is well aware that in order to debate on a topic, one must know his opponent’s position at least as well as he knows his own. As an example, if someone is going to argue that Creationism is true, he must know Evolution at least as well or better than his opponent!
This is where every evolution/creation debate I’ve ever seen fails. The creationist is ignorant of even the most basic aspects of evolutionary theory. My own response to demands for debates with Creationists is not so kind as Professor Dawkins. I tell my interlocutor that I will debate him on one condition — that I get to ask him five questions about evolution, all of which would be common knowledge to any undergraduate in evolutionary biology. If he can answer the five questions, I’ll debate. Otherwise, it’s obvious from the beginning that it wouldn’t be a debate — it would be a lecture with a heckler in the audience.
The fact is, there is no question that evolution occurs. None whatsoever. The debate has been over since 1953, when Francis Crick and James Watson discovered the structure of the evolutionary unit of selection. Similarly, there is no debate between theism and atheism. By the only coherent rules of debate, it is patently obvious that theists cannot overcome the burden of proof. All debates about proving God should follow exactly this format:
Atheist: Prove God.
Theist: blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Atheist: You have failed to prove God.
Debate over.
Anything more than this is giving too much credibility to the theist side. I’ve noticed that many theists do not understand the rules of logic or debate well enough to know that they lose the debate by default if they cannot prove God. There are only so many arguments for god, and all of them have been soundly defeated — most of them within hours of being proposed.
Over the past few years, my tactics have changed significantly. While I recognize that there’s a need for the occasional demonstration of anti-theism arguments, I now believe that formal debate gives the opposition the appearance of having validity that it simply doesn’t have. Instead of debate, I now believe in education. In other words, I will not debate a theist anymore, but I will spend time teaching him why he is unprepared for a debate, and I will teach him why his position is in error. Maybe this sounds condescending — and maybe theists would be right to take offense that I would so blatantly insult their intelligence. But you know what? I’m over being worried that the truth might offend them.
This “war” between theism and atheism has long been won. What we have now is a confederacy of the ignorant waging a political battle against the informed, and the ignorant are winning — by a long shot. I’ve vowed to myself that I will always try to remember that there are two very different arenas — intellectual and political. The intellectual war is over. The political war is the one that needs attention. Rather than waste my time arguing with theists over things that they don’t know, I prefer to empower and educate atheists, in the hope that they will join me in treating theism with the only thing it deserves — utter disdain.
Only when we, the atheist community, embrace the fact that we’ve won will we be powerful enough to improve the world on any kind of grand scale. Only when we have the guts to stand up and call Creationism what it is, without fear of offending the ignorant, will we have hope to see our intellectual victory manifested in the real world. Religion is a scourge upon the earth. It is a mind virus. It is harmful to children. It incites war, hatred, bigotry, and fear. Moderate religious people, though very well meaning, are on the wrong side of the fence. There is simply no reason to accept religion on any intellectual ground. It has been soundly defeated on all levels. All we have to do is be brave enough to accept our victory.
Hambydammit: “Only when we have the guts to stand up and call Creationism what it is, without fear of offending the ignorant, will we have hope to see our intellectual victory manifested in the real world. Religion is a scourge upon the earth. It is a mind virus. It is harmful to children. It incites war, hatred, bigotry, and fear. Moderate religious people, though very well meaning, are on the wrong side of the fence. There is simply no reason to accept religion on any intellectual ground. It has been soundly defeated on all levels. All we have to do is be brave enough to accept our victory.”
I think this is where reading Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens becomes absolutely vital. What does a person mean when they claim to be religious, but it’s ‘a personal thing’ for themselves? Well, frankly, they mean that they aren’t religious.
‘Religion’ and ‘Religious’ are words that simply lend themselves to far too much confusion for anyone’s well-being (much to the delight of those whom most abuse the power that religion gives them over others). It’s up to rational minds clear away that confusion and tell theists, “Religion is this. It’s bad for you. If you’re religious, you need to stop being religious,”
Pantheism is not a religion. Deism is not a religion. There are no idols of worship, no ‘divinely inspired’ rules and no dogma. For all intents and purposes, being a deist or pantheist is exactly the same thing as being an atheist.
Here’s my (perhaps unpopular) definition of what a religion is: a religion is any belief that motivates any one or combination of the things Hamby mentioned (conflict, hatred, bigotry or fear) towards anything else without needing further premise (i.e. : Homosexuality is wrong because I believe homosexuality is wrong). If it doesn’t do this, it’s not religion. If it does, it is.
This is also important to consider, IMHO, for anyone who frowns upon Dr. Dawkins’s (or anyone else’s) decision to not ‘debate’ people on matters regarding their religion. Religion can’t be argued with because it only has one premise, usually accompanied by a barrage of excuses. It does not matter how many excuses an atheist can cut down; they’re only excuses, just serving as a smoke screen for something that wasn’t even a proper argument to begin with.
Posted by Kevin R Brown | April 2, 2009, 11:09 pmAnd the pendulum swings both ways. No matter how much evidence is given to an atheist they refuse to hear it. The atheist religion does not allow for honest discussion.
P.S. Do not ask for evidence for God because as I stated, you won’t listen if I do .
Posted by mcoville | April 3, 2009, 9:55 amI suspect there are lots of people that would accuse you of defining religion into an evil thing to serve your own purposes. I don’t think I would define religion in exactly the same way — not because I disagree with you, but because there are more neutral ways to define it, and they end up at the same place.
In the end, though, I agree with you. Religion, theism, and deism are different entities. Deism, pantheism, panentheism, and other “universe-god beliefs” are, in my opinion, just comfortable ways to avoid saying you’re an atheist. If the universe is god, why not just call it the universe? If a deist god doesn’t interfere with the universe, why address it as a concern in the first place? Panentheism… what can you say? Really… what is there to say about it? Postmodernism meets deism? Most of my readers know of my disdain for postmodernism. I’ll leave it at that.
Theism — when I address it — is defined as the belief in an interactive god of some sort or another. To be a theist, I think you have to believe that god does something. If you don’t, you’re just inventing a term for… well… nothing.
Religion is the practice of god belief. As I’ve detailed in my essay on science and knowledge, any belief that does not come from the scientific method is unreliable at best, so any religious practice is necessarily less valuable than a scientific practice. That being the case, we can easily say that in all cases, religion is worse for the planet than science.
I need to address this in a full length essay. There are too many misconceptions to be dealt with in a single reply.
Posted by Hambydammit | April 3, 2009, 3:31 pmMcoville, thanks for posting. The beautiful thing about science and logic is that they do not need human approval. In other words, it doesn’t matter whether I accept your evidence or not. My approval is not what determines your evidence’s validity. Instead, the universe itself functions in an orderly, describable way which lends itself to codification. No matter your sex, language, age, occupation, or political bias, logic and science are just as repeatable for you as they are for me. Consider that if Newton had not written Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, we would still know how to send spacecraft to the outer planets. This is because the principles of science are there to be discovered by anyone. If Newton hadn’t done it, one of his contemporaries would have figured it out, or perhaps it would have taken another generation or two, but rest assured, we would still know all about newtonian physics. We’d just call it something else.
Evidence is the same way, mcoville. Scientists all over the world know how to incorporate evidence into their findings. The reason a scientist from Japan can submit to a Dutch science journal that includes Brazilians on the review panel is that the rules of science are deductive and inductive, and a scientific principle that works in Japan will also work in Brazil.
I’m sorry to say, mcoville, that you’re helping me prove my point. Scientific methodology is one of the first courses required in all science curricula all over the world. Trying to do science without knowing how science works is like trying to write a novel without learning grammar. The difference between you, poor credulous person, and a scientist, is that you insist you can do science without learning science. You can defy any logic or science you want because you’re correct. Nevermind that your system is unfalsifiable, untestable, and has not produced a single usable principle in its entire history. You’re right anyway.
Once again, we see the theist accusing the atheist of their own fault.
Posted by hambydammit | April 3, 2009, 3:45 pmThe problem with Kevin’s definition of course, is that by it we’ll never get rid of religion and that religion is [by his definition] the only cause of ills.
The bottom line is nothing done with religion [good or bad] cannot also be done with a secular motive .
So yeah, Kevie, you’re merely re-defining something
As for the other “non-religious” believers, they’re not atheists by [the correct] definition of atheist.
Notice how he also tried to re-define atheist as somebody who does not hold to a religion.
An atheist is somebody who does not believe in God.
This is particulary common in regards to President Obama. Some say he’s not Christian, some say he is.
Sorry, you can’t pick and choose whether or not somebody else is a Christian based on their actions.
All the re-defining does is just create a big mess in which anybody and anybody could be atheist or religious and you just pick and choose what’s convient.
Posted by Alison | April 3, 2009, 5:36 pmRead the definition again. Kevin’s definition does not imply that religion is the only cause of ills. It states that religion is only founded on ills. This leaves open the possibility of other things causing or founded on ills. Review your truth tables, kiddo.
I do see how this definition could confuse people as to the real meaning of atheist.
I’m not sure what this has to do with Obama’s actions. I’ll be honest, Alison, I know the thread you’re referring to, and I never did understand what your issue was in that line of questioning.
Posted by hambydammit | April 3, 2009, 6:11 pmHamby notice how in that definition all the bad things can fit into it?
A group cites Y to justify X.
X promotes hatred, war, etc…
They did X because of Y.
Since Y is most likely an irrational foundation, it could easily fit into Kev’s definition, regardless of whether or not Y is political, social or religious
Religion relates to a God or supernatural agent.
And even if the action does, while the action itself may be religious, we must determine whether the root cause of the action is. Remember a lot of Theists attribute to God when they do something hard like get a medical degree [God blessed me with knowledge, or God wanted me to be a doctor], doesn’t mean they wouldn’t have gotten it if they didn’t believe
As for Obama he’s the first example that came to mind as an example of picking and choosing who’s atheist or not based on whether or not they fit your schema of Theists.
Posted by Alison | April 3, 2009, 9:23 pmAlison: “The problem with Kevin’s definition of course, is that by it we’ll never get rid of religion and that religion is [by his definition] the only cause of ills.”
Nowhere in the definition is it stated that religion is the sole cause of the world’s problems.
The definition is fairly specific, and something I thought about for a fairly long time: the act one using only one premise, typically screened by a barrel load of excuses, to formulate an ‘argument’ that promotes fear, hatred, bigotry and conflict against a specific target, is being religious.
Alison: “The bottom line is nothing done with religion [good or bad] cannot also be done with a secular motive.”
You’re correct. You can be religious without ever having any belief in a deity or the supernatural (and the reverse is also true).
Alison: “So yeah, Kevie, you’re merely re-defining something”
Don’t bring your sour grapes with me onto Hamby’s personal blog, thank-you.
Religion is scarcely defined to begin with, so I don’t at all mind being accused of making my perspective regarding what it is more concrete.
Alison: “As for the other “non-religious” believers, they’re not atheists by [the correct] definition of atheist.
Notice how he also tried to re-define atheist as somebody who does not hold to a religion.”
Alison, I did no such thing. I said that, functionally, there is no significant difference between a deist (like yourself), a pantheist or an atheist. None of the mentioned persons worships anything, follows a strict doctrine, dogmatically adheres to given principles based on their belief / lack of belief in a deity alone, etc.
I did not say that, “An atheist is someone who does not have a religion.” That’s a ridiculous statement, and completely undercuts my given definition.
Alison: “An atheist is somebody who does not believe in God.”
I totally agree. Nothing I said contradicts this.
Alison: “This is particulary common in regards to President Obama. Some say he’s not Christian, some say he is.
Sorry, you can’t pick and choose whether or not somebody else is a Christian based on their actions.”
You’re right. Barack Obama is definitely a Christian.
What does that have to do with anything I’ve said?
Alison: “All the re-defining does is just create a big mess in which anybody and anybody could be atheist or religious and you just pick and choose what’s convient.”
So, in your opinion, definitions – regardless of how incomplete, vague, spurious, etc they might initially be – should never change? They should be static and constant, regardless of any confusion that itself might cause.
Frankly, I don’t see how being very specific about what I mean when I say, “This person is religious about this issue,” somehow muddies the waters or makes things more confusing. It’s offering further clarity regarding the word I’m using.
Alison: “Hamby notice how in that definition all the bad things can fit into it?
A group cites Y to justify X.
X promotes hatred, war, etc…
They did X because of Y.”
‘All the bad things’? I don’t get what you mean.
Yes, any ‘bad’ action can be religiously motivated; as you later articulate, it’s the motivations, not the specific action itself, that’s the point of real contention here. I also posit that religion specifically refers to motivations that drive negative actions, though this is largely just my opinion (feel free to dismiss it as such), included for the benefit of helping you understand why I only refer to religion in the negative sense.
Here; I’ll use, in your favor, an example of a Palestinian suicide bomber who is not religiously motivated. Our hypothetical young boy has just had his family killed by an Israeli air strike on his home and is now out for revenge in a fit of blind rage. He might be theistic, he might not; it’s not relevant. He’s pissed that his loved ones were unfairly killed without any justification the prior day and he wants to pay back the nearest IDF soldier he finds by blowing them off the face of the planet with his final act.
That doesn’t at all fit my description of being religiously motivated. There was no one single belief that ultimately led to the act (an act which, incidentally, could cause it’s own spiral of misery, suffering, hatred and anger – separate from any religion getting involved. See? I just said, again, that these thing can and do happen outside of religion): the boy loved his parents, was angry that they were taken away from him, perhaps despaired that he no longer had anything to live for, and decided he would take-out his anger on the organization that did this to him via a bomb strapped to his body.
Posted by Kevin R Brown | April 4, 2009, 12:07 amKevin “You can be religious without ever having any belief in a deity or the supernatural (and the reverse is also true).”
Well since religion is by definition something that relates to a Deity or supernatural being then no, you can’t
War and hatred existed long before religion.
Kevin “So, in your opinion, definitions – regardless of how incomplete, vague, spurious, etc they might initially be – should never change? They should be static and constant, regardless of any confusion that itself might cause.”
You’re the one making it vague. Even if it’s vague, doesn’t mean you can just re-define it to suit your needs.
I think the Dennett definition is accurate, [paraphrasing] “actions commited to please a God or supernatural being”
Posted by Alison | April 4, 2009, 1:55 pmAlison, there is no deity in Buddhism. Are you calling the third largest religion on the planet a “not-religion”? Yeah, yeah, I know the Mahayana somewhat deifies the Buddha, but in large chunks of Buddhism, it’s quite clear that there is no deity worship, and the goal is for humans to ascend to their destined level of existence. While this may be supernatural in nature, are you sure you want to go this route? Lots of stuff the various Art Bell wackos believe is supernatural in nature.
Look, I’m not necessarily defending Kevin’s definition. I’m mainly pointing out that this meta-discussion has spiraled off into the ether, and I can’t for my life figure out what it has to do with the post. Would either of you mind clueing me in? What does any of this have to do with whether theists have a leg to stand on in any of the current “debates”?
Posted by hambydammit | April 4, 2009, 2:45 pmWell, my point was that unless we pin down exactly what we mean when we say, “Religious,” a theist will always have a leg-up in the political debate because they can then simply say, “Oh, well, that’s not true religion,” and use the term’s amorphic quality to relate to something else entirely (typically human morality).
Of course, theists in general (Alison being no exception) don’t want a concrete definition laid down as then they have the last legs of the argument in favor of religion knocked-out from under them.
Alison: You’ve attacked the same strawman twice (of course war existed before religion did). Give the guy a break.
You also have yet to explain how it is ‘more vague’ to have provided a precise definition for a word when I use it. Now, I’m not going to insist that everyone use that definition when they use the word, but I do want it to be clear that this is what I mean when I use it.
Posted by Kevin R Brown | April 4, 2009, 4:14 pmHamby, if you’re going to go and eliminate religion then you should at least define it. And actually define it in a way that doesn’t open up to double standards.
Under many of the definitions of religion from anti-religious atheists I see, religion will still be here even if everybody was atheist. Since religion by definition entails God belief, then this just doesn’t pan out.
i.e some will persist that Marxism/Nationalism/911 conspiracies/ etc…. are religious
Do you see how if you say “Religion is a scourge upon the Earth” different people will think different things? They may think “Yeah X Y Z is religious and a scourge upon the Earth” while you may or may not think X Y Z could fit into YOUR definition of religious. Take the three examples I listed above.
You see? So now you think Q W T are religious, Kevin thinks L T N are religious, Joe the anti-religious atheist thinks A B T are religious etc…..
You are bound to overlap somewhere, but you could still be talking about totally different things.
I would think that you Hamby, would actually realize that in order to unite people to speak out against religion, you need to define it, and define it properly, and not losely which is why I brought in the example of Obama. I could classify many things he does/says as ‘religious’, but that doesn’t mean those things are necessarly candidates to get eradicated off the Earth.
Posted by Alison | April 5, 2009, 6:00 pmMy original response:
Your post deserves a full response.
An individual debate can be won or lost at any given point in time, but that does not mean that an issue is decided conclusively for eternity. Study the history of the understanding of gravity for more information on this. That doesn’t mean that we should go around granting a forum to any zealous person who wants one. It does mean that we need to keep an open mind even about things that we can be rather sure of.
I am convinced that there is no god, but I know exactly what it would take to altar my confidence, verifiable evidence. If a religious prophet had made well-documented and detailed predictions about the universe that turned out to be true, those would make me scratch my head. For example, if Moses had come down from a mountain with tablets that explained germs, particle physics, or the characteristics of Uranus, and if these theories would have been passed down unaltered through the generations until they were finally verified via scientific analysis, then I would think that something fishy was going on. Of course, one would need a great deal more evidence than that to conclude that a god exists, but something like that (assuming it wasn’t a hoax) would force us to re-examine things a bit.
Now, I don’t anticipate that any sort of verifiable evidence will ever be discovered that supports any piece of religious dogma. In fact, it seems that as time goes on, more and more evidence is found that contradicts religious dogma. However, I think it is important that we don’t have some sort of open bias against any idea. If someone comes to us and says that there is a god, our response should be, “Fine, what new verifiable evidence do you have to present?”
Education is when you replace a misunderstanding or a lack of understanding with a better understanding. And the only way to educate someone is to convince him or her that your ideas are better than the ones they currently have. Debate is simply competitive education. It is impossible to debate without educating.
Your approach is dangerous for two reasons. First, you alienate those who would otherwise be sympathetic to secular ideas. Second, your approach of declaring a victory of ideas will necessarily lead to misunderstandings, misapplications, and mistakes. I assure you that every totalitarian regime that has ever existed on this planet also felt that it had conclusively won a war of ideas. This approach is especially dangerous because American Atheists seem to be closely allied with a new movement toward socialism. We really don’t want socialists to have a taboo on questioning their ideas.
Posted by ck | April 5, 2009, 6:33 pmMy updated response:
Your modifications are fair. I think I often disagree with the rhetoric of many Atheists rather than their intended message. Still, I think it is important that our rhetoric reflects pro-critical thinking rather than simply anti-theism.
Posted by ck | April 5, 2009, 6:38 pmAlison: To quote myself, ” I think there are a couple of very legitimate and worthwhile ways to use the words “Religious” and “Religion.” In the broadest sense in which I use the word, it means, “The practice of theism or the practice of a belief in a supernatural or otherwise non-scientific view of the universe.” By this definition, a religion need not be organized — a person can invent their own woo-woo and be the only practitioner in the world, and they’re still practicing religion. Also, it includes non-thiest practices, such as Buddhism. I separate theism and religion. That is, one can be a theist and not practice a religion. I’d say you fall into this category because you apparently don’t have any actual practices directed at your fuzzy god who doesn’t actually do anything anyway.”
I’m ok with calling certain political ideologies “religions.” In some totalitarian regimes, the state itself is viewed as almost a supernatural infallible entity, and some dictators as flawless demigods. Frankly, I wouldn’t be upset if someone wanted to lump state-worship in with other religions, but it’s not how I choose to use the word. I generally don’t get into politics one way or another, except to support or oppose various legislative acts. (Plus, arguing with Marxists is slightly more maddening than arguing with Creation Scientists.)
I really don’t see it as a huge problem if the definition of religion is broad. My anti-religious stance is a product of my stance on anti-intellectualism. I’m equally opposed to astrology, holistic healing, Feng Shui, state worship, and dozens of other non-scientific worldviews. I single religion out because I think it’s the most dangerous. I’d say that virtually all of my anti-religious arguments could be applied to any non-scientific worldview, whether it involves god and church or not.
CK: I’m a little puzzled by something you said about American atheism. Pretty much all the atheists I know would be considered political moderates anywhere but America, where they fall anywhere from libertarian to advocating very limited socialist institutions like healthcare. I can only think of one or two genuine socialists. Maybe I’m just missing something big, but perhaps the perception of atheists as socialists is simply mistaken.
In any case, to be clear, atheism is not a foundation of my worldview. It’s a consequence, and it’s really kind of extraneous. As I’ve mentioned before, atheism literally doesn’t lead to any worldview at all, and I maintain that anyone claiming that a political system is founded on atheism doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
Posted by hambydammit | April 5, 2009, 9:37 pmI actually had this “Theist/Atheist” debate with my husband this evening because we were talking about something related, and he stated that he wanted to see how that debate worked. He’s a theist. I’m an atheist. What happened was particularly disturbing. First of all, he asked me for an example of what I would accept as scientific evidence. I gave him one. He constructed a strawman and attacked it. He asked me this question over and over asserting that I never answered the question. I kept giving him the same answer.
I said that if we defined god (some amount of this definition is self evident-i.e. look up god in the dictionary) and had an instrument to reliably and predictably measure this god, I’d have to accept that as evidence meeting scientific criteria and rethink the whole god thing. Then he said, “Well, we don’t have that. So you’re saying that this means that there’s no god?” I said, “Yes, according to the rules of debate and science, this means that there’s no god.” I also said that it doesn’t mean that there can’t be scientific evidence in the future, but it was pretty certain that it was unlikely that there would be.
Then he started talking about how he believes in god, as if this has any place in a debate. I stated that it did not. In the end, he totally got his panties in an uproar and constructed a strawman stating that I said that people don’t have a right to their beliefs. He litterally screamed at me while shaking his finger at me, “Who are YOU to decide what people can and can’t believe!”
Did I mention that currently I am going through an extremely difficult drug withdrawal from benzodiazepines after being prescribed them for almost 15 years straight? I ended up crying. Then he said that he really felt sorry for me because I didn’t have any beliefs at all. I said that I didn’t care if he felt sorry for me about this because I don’t want or need beliefs. I base my life on scientific fact. I also said he was being condescending. He went on to say that when I’m on my deathbed that he’s going to make me state whether or not I believe in god. Really?! He’s going to badger me with this shit while I’m on my deathbed? Unbelievable!
Since my whole family and my spouse are theists, have you found any effective way of dealing with this sort of behavior? They seem to think it’s ok for them to badger me with their theism, and I can’t mention anything about atheism or somehow I’m just being awful. How does one deal with this? It’s getting to be an upset in my life a whole lot more than I care for.
Posted by Valerie Kelley | April 12, 2009, 2:13 am