On 25-10-2009 6:47, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> An interesting aside to this discussion:
> 
>
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/10/when-anyone-is-watching.html

> 
> 
> Premise - Believers that argue for the value of the story, but not the 
> literal truth of it, yet get terribly offended by anyone saying, "its 
> made up", basically actually think like this: "We don't really believe 
> anything that you have demonstrated to be absurd...while anyone is 
> watching." Greta herself admits this is how she thought about some 
> things, like Tarot, depending on if she was talking to other believers, 
> or someone that didn't, before she finally gave up any belief in it at all.

You should also consider the reverse: why do atheists get upset if 
someone comes up to them and bluntly states that God does exist?

I think an important factor is that believing in God is not an 
independent factor. It is connected to every other believe and 
conviction one may have. I couldn't care less if the president of the US 
did believe in a god or not if it weren't for the fact that it 
influences his decisions. When I know that he doesn't care for nature, 
because his religion teaches that man was independently created to rule 
the world. Or that he was taught that those in power are there because 
God wants them there and that they are therefore justified in getting 
even more rich at the expense of others. Then it becomes very relevant 
indeed. (I know that strangely at precisely these points there are other 
Christian churches that preach precisely the opposite)

What is often included in any religious or atheist packet is that 
believers are one group. In essence, if an atheist goes to a believer 
and say that he/she got the facts wrong, the atheist is at the same time 
implying that he/she is not really a true human. They may not mean it 
that way and even vigorously deny it, but that is the effect of the remark.

Post a reply to this message