Quote:
Originally posted by Beamer
1. Is it fair to ask the question if "atheism" is only meant for the elite then? Elite in terms of educational and moral sophistication.
2. How else can a simple mind be so enlightened to constantly debate in his mind about the rights and wrongs in social norms and code while playing God, messenger and executioner at the same time? Certainly not meant for the masses of ignorant God fearing lot, who stay with their lord no matter what happens to them. They praise the Lord for all the good fortunes and pray for forgiveness when the Tsunami unleashes hell on them to atone their sins.
3. Organized religion definitely has an upper hand beacuse they are able to articulate the omni -present existence of divinity, whether real or unreal is a matter of irrelevance. Don't you think that it should dissuade the billions of hungry and poor in this world to question the existence of God? Yet, they don't and cling on to their respective religion and God. You need to be educationally superior to ask these questions. Sounds like a very elitist "ism" to me.
4. I asked you earlier whether there can be atheism without religion? You didn't answer or chose not to. I would still like to know your view on that.
5. Totaly respect on your position and belief in the non-existence of God. Also, respect people who are absolutely convinced that God exists. Fundamentally, not much difference between the two. Both are driven by the conviction or intuition of their respective belief. Neither show any proof. In the end, blind faith wins!
|
1. I am not sure I agree with your definition of elitism as in educational and moral sophistication. Elitism is more like a comparative term for a given place and time. When you say someone is "elite", you are making a comparative judgment about him with respect to the whole of society. I don't see how this intrinsically relates to atheism. Atheism is not a result of elitism. But a thoughtful atheist MIGHT be considered an elite IF a majority of the rest of the society isn't as philosophically sophisticated as he is. But there is no absolute guarantee that a majority of any society will always remain philosophically challenged. Just as there is no absolute guarantee that a majority of Bangladeshi people will always remain illiterate. Society changes over time. And usually for the better when it comes to education. And as people become more morally enlightened, as education spreads, atheism could be in a pretty commonplace position. That is the beauty of atheism. Atheism (at least my kind) comes from accomplishing a certain threshold of reading, pondering, deliberation, etc. If the time comes when a majority of the poeple in a society are able to accomplish the same kind of thinking exercises, atheism will not be elite any more. So I disagree, it is not fair to say to say that atheism is only meant for the elite.
2. Via education (of the philosophical and moral kind)? Think abuot it, humans on average now know infinitely more about the physical nature than, say, our grandparents. Are we "elitists" compared to our grandparents? Are we "enlightened"? Absolutely. So what? That's how education/enlightenment works. It improves people. Trace the history of political order. Think about how democracy came into being. Doesn't it seem unbelievable that monarchy and feudalism that worked for thousands of years ultimately gave way to rational democracy?
3. I think the situation you are trying to describe here is much more complicated. Religion ESPECIALLY works on poor and hungry people, and not so much on well-to-do people. Why the poor and hungry do not embrace atheism and cutches on to religion has more to do with human psychology than rationality. The poor and hungry don't voluntarily decide to cling to God. Their circumstances probably force them to clutch on to something, may be a message of hope. And religious leaders, who are neither poor nor hungry, take advantage of this situation. That's how religion (or any other faith-based cult) thrives. It thrives on the mentally weak.
4. I didn't answer because I don't see any relevance of the question to our discussion. Atheism is most probably natural. When you were born, you did not know of any God. The idea of God came to you via your parents, your society, or may be your parents and the majority of your society were atheists (unlikely) and you found God through your own (in my opinion, irrational) thinking. Either way, the question whether religion exists without atheism or whether atheism exists without religion seems like an irrelevant, speculative question, because atheism and religion both have been in the human society for a LONG time. There were atheist philosophers (and probably common atheist folks) in every civilization of the past. So I don't know what you are trying to get at here.
5. I don't know what kind of atheists you have been talking to so far, but atheism is not really about "absolute conviction" about the non-existence of God. It could be that someone is an atheist because the idea of God doesn't make any sense to him, just like the idea of the a pink cow grazing on the surface of Jupiter might not make any sense to a lot of us. Am I practicing blind faith when I say I don't believe in the existence any such pink cow? No, I am absolutely rationally justified to say so. Similarly, I don't believe in the idea of God stemming from the same kind of rational justification, i.e., I am a non-believer of the idea of God, and subsequently I am an atheist.
Edited on, March 25, 2005, 6:16 PM GMT, by Arnab.
Edited on, March 25, 2005, 6:16 PM GMT, by Arnab.