Should we leave them alone?

[Openmind]

Recently, I was engaged with a debate with a strong (ie. extremely faith-bound) Christian. However, she is also a very weak-minded person. That is, she cannot discern fact from fiction, has an immense dislike of science, and finds religion a "prettier" alternative to reality. Not very popular, and with poor self-image, I had little doubt as to why she was such a strong member of the God-Squad.

She then sent me a letter, about 200 words of consisted of the following kind of diatribe:

"God loves me...God is my rock...God picks me up when I'm down...When I'm crying, he's there for me...God is the only one who truly loves me"

I realised, this girl REALLY needs a sense of comfort in her life, because she is such a screwed up person who has little else. That may seem harsh, but it is the truth. So...would it be wrong of me to continue my discussions, and continue to dissuade her from Christianity. Indeed, is it wrong to dissuade any "weaker" people from something that gives them such comfort???

Note: By no means do I discuss religion with someone who is unwilling.

[upallnite]

Note: By no means do I discuss religion with someone who is unwilling.

That is a rule I try to stick to, also. My best friend is a devout Christian. He knows I am an Atheist. He brought the subject up once. I asked him if he wants to be an Atheist. He said, "No." So, I told him he does not want to talk about religion with me. Cocky I know, but we have been friends for years since and it has never been a problem.

Does her being a Christian hurt her or you?
If yes, take it to her ass.
If no, let her be.
If no but she wants to continue debating, inform her that a continued debate will turn her into an Atheist. As long as she is willing to take the chance, take it to her ass.

[Furrowed Brow]

I'd go with let them be. However, if they teach their children that evolution is false, poor science etc then I feel compelled to confront them. There are other areas I'd also feel the need to speak up over.

[Openmind]

Thanks for your opinions. I think you are both correct, if it doesn't harm them, and they aren't secure enough to do without it, just let them have it.

And Furrowed Brow, I agree about the poor science education. They can spread myths about their own beliefs, but when they spread myths about science....well that's a different issue.

[McCulloch]

The idea the atheisms do not need religion while so-called other people do is divisive and places the criticism on individuals rather than on religion. Many atheists are former people of faith. If they survived the transition from faith to unbelief, so will others. People do not need religion. They need effective coping mechanisms to deal with existential anxieties. Death is a frightening and isolating fact. Cosmic indiffernce seems cruel, and meaningless suffering pointless. Religion offers a way to cope with these realities by denying them. Atheism offers so much more, and atheists who think that other people need religion will fail to promote alternatives. Life is sweeter for its brevity. Cosmic indifference is liberating. The purpose of life is to live it and to focus on the here an now. To punish ourselves for past mistakes is unproductive; to place all hope in the next life provides no incentive to make the best of this one. Wile religionists choose to focus on the differences between their faiths and others, atheists understand that the human condition is universal. Let us not make the same mistake religionists make: focusing on our differences rather than our collective potential.

[Openmind]

That's a good point McCulloch, but I really don't think it applies to everyone. This girl I know has nothing without her beliefs. I think it would be very hard to help her cope with existentialist realities. That article perhaps applies to more capable people.

[McCulloch]

That's a good point McCulloch, but I really don't think it applies to everyone. This girl I know has nothing without her beliefs. I think it would be very hard to help her cope with existentialist realities. That article perhaps applies to more capable people.

This is sad indeed. She has nothing without her beliefs and her beliefs are nothing.

[Galphanore]

That's a good point McCulloch, but I really don't think it applies to everyone. This girl I know has nothing without her beliefs. I think it would be very hard to help her cope with existentialist realities. That article perhaps applies to more capable people.

Then maybe you should focus more on giving her something else to believe in and less on trying to take away what she has. Try introducing her to humanism instead of disproving Christianity. If you are able to show her other things she can use to maintain her sanity then she will be more willing to let go of her Christian Blankie.

[Cathar1950]

I was just reading earlier where Wells writes about theology being a form of psychology.
So this stuck out.

They need effective coping mechanisms to deal with existential anxieties.

Do we all?
Many of us find it in our friends and family or even out work and hobbies.
As some grow they feel more connected to the universe and even love is a form of sympathy if it is not completely hedonist(NOT THAT THERE IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT) or narcissistic(A little more dangerous due to drowning).

As Furrowed Brow says, “ I'd go with let them be. However, if they teach their children that evolution is false, poor science etc then I feel compelled to confront them. There are other areas I'd also feel the need to speak up over. “

I think this may be one of my concerns as how far do we go when they claim as fact what is clearly interpretations of ancient human writings which were interpretations or personal belief?

I like quoting Whitehead when he wrote, The Purpose of Reason is to Promote the Art of Living.Or as Patricia Guzikowski puts it, “The purpose of life is to live it and to focus on the here an now.”
I can agree with the advice given by Openmind,
“Note: By no means do I discuss religion with someone who is unwilling”.

[Ctrl Y]

Should we leave the religous alone? Are they happier living in delusion? I would argue not, because a person can only reliably achieve their goals by living in accordance with reality.

We live in an objective world. By that, I mean that reality doesn't change based upon mere whims or wishes. To live effectively and acheive our desires, we have to take action to impact the world. If we are to take action in the world, we must first know what the nature of the world is. False beliefs and flawed premises to our actions will result in failure and despair. Therefore, we have to test ideas against the standard of the real world before accepting them if we are to live happily and productively. If the religious maintain their false beliefs, they are in principle less likely to live happy or productive lives.