undefined | Better HN

0 pointsnobody99992y ago0 comments

>Why would you hold opinions that you don't think would benefit from your strongest advocacy? Why believe things yourself that you don't think other people should believe?

I am an atheist. As such, I strongly believe that there is no "omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent 'creator'."

However, regardless of how strongly I hold that opinion (especially as it, in almost every respect, reflects our understanding of the universe and how it works), I don't do any atheism "advocacy," nor do I proselytize an atheistic viewpoint -- despite the fact that I see belief systems that include such a creator, all of them not just the Abrahamic religions, to be demonstrably false.

Another strongly held opinion of mine is that it's not my responsibility to disabuse others of their misconceptions in that respect.

Based on your statement, it seems that you would claim (incorrectly) that I don't hold my views as to the (non-)existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator, as well as my aversion to attempting to force such views down the throats of others. strongly at all. Is that the case, or am I misunderstanding your point?

Edit: Fixed typo.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

shawnz2y ago· 1 in thread

No, I'm not saying you don't hold your views strongly. What I am saying is that I disagree that it's not your responsibility to convince others of your point of view. It is your responsibility and you owe it to your peers to do your best job of making sure that your reasoning and the perspective which led to that reasoning is fully understood by them.

Consider for example how your own opinion was formed based on reasoning that was at least in part put forward by people who came before you. If they had all kept to themselves and you never had access to the ideas/thinking of past atheists to help you make an informed decision, don't you think they would have effectively been doing you a disservice?

Note that I'm not necessarily saying hardcore proselytizing is the right approach to achieve that. In fact hardcore proselytizing can in some cases turn people away from your opinions, so it could actually be worse than doing nothing.

nobody9999OP2y ago

>It is your responsibility and you owe it to your peers to do your best job of making sure that your reasoning and the perspective which led to that reasoning is fully understood by them.

I understand that perspective, but strongly disagree. While it certainly is appropriate (and often beneficial) to discuss one's perspectives and compare them with that of others. Especially, but not limited to, those who disagree with those perspectives.

This is important (as you point out) to make sure that your own ideas are rooted in fact, and are amenable to rhetorical defense by subjecting them to questioning and reasonable inquiry.

I am most certainly not responsible, to you or anyone else, in arguing for or against anything. Should I choose to do so (and I do, from time to time), I am responsible only to myself for such activities.

To put a fine point on that, while there certainly are circumstances which might argue in favor of addressing a particular issue as part of the social discourse, those circumstances do not imbue some sort of societal responsibility to do so.

Assuming you disagree, what would be your counterargument?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse