One thing:

“With the modofication I made above, you’re able to, surely? There is no punishment for believing wrongly, there’s no punishment for not following the religious ethics, there is little or no reason to feel shame.”

I dislike the implication here, as I know for a fact you’re not arguing a world of no ethics, and thus there would be just as much reason to feel shame for not conforming to the norms, the norms and their basis would just be different ones (and, to my mind, usually less rational, too, without the divine right to back them up, though that’s mostly irrelevant to my objection here). The implication I thus dislike is your basic “my ethics and practices are the good kind, so it’s okay that those not conforming to them feel shame about it, while THEIR ethics and practices are dubious and it’s thus liberating/empowering to be relieved from feeling shame for not conforming to them”-stance. We’re all to some degree victims of feeling like that about our own values over others’ values, of course, but I don’t like it when it becomes a foundation for arguments against other people’s lifestyles, beliefs, practices norms and values.

Sigh. It seems as if I have once again messed up by not choosing my words carefully enough. Or possibly by not thinking things through at least twice before posting. Thing is, you see, I’ve never really been much concerned about faith in itself. However, I have been concerned with the practice of religion, and while religious faith might be perceived as constrictive, religious practice is much more so. I might have forgotten that this is the thing I really care about, and been carried away by my more ontologically and epistemologically oriented friends, and for this I am sorry. Thank you, though, for helping me remember.

“I honestly see no good reason why an atheist would think someone else benefitted from seeing things his way if they were happy in their beliefs. There is no God, so there is no punishment for believing wrongly.”

With the modofication I made above, you’re able to, surely? There is no punishment for believing wrongly, there’s no punishment for not following the religious ethics, there is little or no reason to feel shame.

There’s no otherwordly reward for behaving as religion would have you behave, so if you feel like, say, the pietism of your parents or religious community is stifling you, go do something else.

Naturally and also rather unfortunately, harmless religious faith and harmful religious practice are often rather close-knit, and so it becomes easy to take one when you meant to go after the other, and to forget that it’s the one you dislike, not the other. But in general, I’m not one of those atheists who nag on about the dogma of religious faith, and although at times I don’t understand how intelligent people can hold religious beliefs, I acknowledge that this is one of my many shortcomings, and not necessarily one of theirs.

Their harmful religious practice, on the other hand, is solely their own.

To conclude:
“If someone is happy in their beliefs, what do you, as a missionary-atheist, add to their lives if you convince them they are wrong?”

Nothing, if the only thing that changes is their beliefs.

As for the issue of empowerment, I believe I have turned that into something of a moot point by now (I’m probably wrong, though), as you seemed to object primarily to my claim that the abandonment of a spiritual faith could be empowering, but seeing as I was my usual hamfisted self when I wrote that, I’ll try to explain myself.

“And what makes empowerment for its own sake positive?”

Empowerment… You know, I have somne problems, myself, figuring out what the Hell I meant with that term. It is of course obvious that for, say, a homosexual Muslim, abandoning a faith that robs him of his humanity might be a good thing. If his family and (former) friends still hated him for his sexual preference, at least he would have less reason to despise himself. Abandoning many of the religious faiths that include some form of predestination or determinism might also cause a sensation of liberation (probably a better word than “empowerment”, although I guess what I was thinking of is something in the area between these). And, to say it with Marx, the salvation religions that promise that everything will be alright after death if you just behave in life, can be seriously harmful to human progress.

But obviously, while connected to spiritual faith, all these examples are primarily more typically examples of religious practice. More purely spiritual faith-related examples are a little bit beyond me at the moment, and while I suspect that they might exist, I am not familiar enough with the various religions in the world to point to them, and the examples I think I come up with, usually turn out to be examples of religious practice, as they’re not really problematic until they manifest themselves in the world we experience together (as opposed to our minds, which we don’t share, obviously), and then they’ve become religious practice.

It feels like I’m satisfied with my answers now, but it’s late, and I’ve been ranting for an hour or two, so I would understand if I still don’t make any sense. I do however hope that I make more sense than I used to, and that if you’re not content with my explanations, you’ll take the time to say so.

(Also, sorry for the long absence, again; I went home and to Røros last week.)

I honestly fail to see how that, then, is at all an illusion and not an actual self. If the self is convinced from second to second that it is the one and same self, and the only thing to define it is the continuous thought-processes, then wouldn’t the illusion by all means there is to define it actually be real?”

My claim is that “the self” is the result of processes continually changing, but that we see these processes as the result of a continous self (or if not a result of the self, then as the result of either other personalities or natural laws). And I object to defining something using meta-physics. The self can be defined by chemical and electrical impulses in the brain. The impulses can be measured using the correct equipment in an objective (as objective as anything is, anyways) fashion.

Empower? How? I can see how a religious person’s belief in the hierarchy, the structure and the authorities of his or her religion might be something they’d be empowered (in a certain p.o.v. anyway) if they let go of, but there actual spiritual beliefs? Letting go of them would empower them? How? And what makes empowerment for its own sake positive? To me, it sounds as though you are advocating empowerment (though as I said, I don’t understand in what way) at the cost of mental safety and tranquility for empowerments own sake. If that’s the case, then logically, to be a little crass, you’re also okay with my advocating my right to empower myself by killing my next-door neighbour, because upsetting him and his loved one’s peace and tranquility is okay since I’m being empowered.

I honestly see no good reason why an atheist would think someone else benefitted from seeing things his way if they were happy in their beliefs. There is no God, so there is no punishment for believing wrongly. As far as I know, there is no statistics indicating atheists are happier, more successful or live longer than religious people. There is no value in being right for being right’s sake when the matter in which you’re right is irrelevant – believing there is no God if there really is no God if you’re still going to adhere to the same basic moral codes as the people who does seems to me to be about as useful as believing there is no such thing as a green and purple breed of lion when there isn’t. If someone is happy in their beliefs, what do you, as a missionary-atheist, add to their lives if you convince them they are wrong?

“In my own arse-headed way, I find them somewhat worse – at least, if you’re a theist, you have valid reason to bug everybody about it; if there IS a God, and you want people to be well, you need to let them know. It’s a kindness.”

And what could be refered to as “atheist mission activity” isn’t? If you believe there is no gods, and believe that rejecting religion would empower people in some way, isn’t it a kindness to try and bring people around to your way of seeing things?

Granted, we’re talking dogmatic atheists here (at least I am), who like the dogmatic theists don’t even consider the idea that there might be the slimmest chance that they are wrong, and both these camps tend to be both obnoxious and destructive in the way they relate to “the other side”. But even non-dogmatic atheists such as myself can at times feel the need to challenge the (from our, admittedly subjective, point of view) “empty” beliefs of our religious friends, relatives, acquaintances, strangers and enemies — because we perceive it as a kindness.

Also, peace of mind is kinda overrated. Sure, it’s nice to have faith that everything’ll turn out a-okay in the end (a parody of a presentation of religious belief, I know, but bear with me for the sake of brevity here), but believing that things won’t has its own rewards, too.

“I just wasn’t aware that this was New Insight for you.”

In the sense that I’ve just recently thought this out on my own, it’s new, yes.

“I mean – you DID watch “Not Fade Away” some time back, I have that on good authority… But yeah. If nothing matters, all that matters is what you do. If nothing has value, then all that has value is what someone chooses to value. Projected meaning.”

Right-o. Thing is, things tend to go in one eye and out the other, or whatever one should say. Not too good at connecting these kinds of dots, this fellow you know as Terje. Also, if I should happen to connect dots, they’re sure to be disconnected in just a matter of days as I don’t tend to remember stuff like this very well. Which is one of the reasons why I’m half-way trying to write it down like this.

“It’s hardly ground-shatteringly original, though, and I have to admit some measure of surprise this hadn’t occured to you before. (And I’m trying pretty hard to find some way to do that which doesn’t make me seem obnoxious…)”

Hehe, you don’t sound obnoxious, at least not here. I’m just not very good at intellectually handling abstract concepts and pure logic.

(Also, sorry ’bout the long posting intervals. Although I see you’ve been able to keep yourselves occupied during my absence.)

I honestly fail to see how that, then, is at all an illusion and not an actual self. If the self is convinced from second to second that it is the one and same self, and the only thing to define it is the continuous thought-processes, then wouldn’t the illusion by all means there is to define it actually be real?