- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
You don't have to be a fish to be a good ichthyologist. You don't have to be a bird to be an excellent ornithologist. And there is nothing to be ashamed of and hide your name here. Just don't do propaganda.
The question contains or intentionally broadcasts the cliche that atheism = unscrupulousness and immorality. They say that if you are not afraid of God, then you are capable of anything. Even to teach theology, to inculcate faith, if money is paid for it.
I believe that this is indeed possible. Another thing is that people are different and there are enough kind and principled people among atheists.
Very strange question. Who do you call an “expert atheist”? If there are at least two such people, then it is already possible that one will agree and the other will refuse. If there are at least five, then the third person can still take time to think, the fourth person will offer an alternative lecture on the history of religion, and the fifth person will simply ignore the offer. If you take all the atheists, then there are millions of them with a million independent opinions and positions, including agreeing or refusing some proposals. So there is no definitive answer about an unknown atheist expert until we ask a specific person if they are willing to do something for a good salary.
In the morning an atheist lectures in favor of atheism, in the evening INCOGNITO in favor of religion??? And if the payment is high enough, then it turns out to be a rhetorical question, especially if it is an insincere political atheist.
Similarly, in the case of an insincere political-religious lecturer….???
Rationale-in the political and ideological spheres, people with a very flexible worldview and behavior work…. and ” material power always breaks the non-material rotten straw.”..
For a very good salary (and for just a good one) and without any incognito, I will give you lectures on why people have always believed, believe and will continue to believe in deities, what needs they cover in this way and what problems they solve.
I'll also tell you what creationists are right and biologists are wrong (the spoiler is in the very fact of the dispute with creationists).
I will also tell you why religious communities, rules and rituals are needed, and why religious thinking and faith will not die out even at the highest level of scientific and technological development.
To understand what existential needs are, you don't have to believe in anything.
I taught a course in the history of religion. At the same time, I taught history, not atheism or theology. I'm not an atheist, but I'm also not a fan of the Church. And when the children, obviously from the families of believers, asked questions, I answered as objectively as possible, mentally taking the position of clerics. And I didn't see anything terrible in it. I did not conduct propaganda or sermons, I taught to understand and think. I was carrying information, not instilling my own worldview.
Your question is based on the assumption that every teacher is engaged in agitation and propaganda. I have never met such people while studying or teaching. Moreover, our university teacher of the history of religion studied for some time in the Kiev Pechersk Lavra, dreamed of being a priest and was an exemplary Orthodox believer. Nor were his lectures lessons in the law of God…