A discourse on Atheism (not a religious debate)

[Charles Darnay]

PREFACE:
This is not a religious debate, nor is it meant to be. Please do not make it one. I mean this as a philosophic discourse wherein the opinions of all are encouraged/welcome.

PREAMBLE:
Whether you personally believe it or not, I think you can agree that Atheism is generally viewed as a reactionary idea: against Theism. I think we can also say without much debate that “reactionary ideas qua reactionary ideas” are doomed to failure. Example: The Protestant Reformation was successful not because Luther et al said “we hate Catholics, Catholics suck, go away” but because they said “here is what we believe in – here are my points.” Whereas the Counter-Reformation did not succeed outside of the world of art because it existed only as a reactionary idea.
__________________________________________________ _

So the question is: does Atheism (as it is generally viewed) exist as anything but a reactionary idea? Could it? I suppose the first issue is that Atheism is still in the stage that 16th century Protestants were in: where many groups are using the idea to suit themselves as they see it. I have seen the Satre-esque Atheist brand, the “using evolutionary theory as the cornerstone of belief” Atheist brand, and the revival of Renaissance Humanism removed from any context of God Atheist brand – the first focusing on independent power, the second focusing on the physical world, the third as spiritual as any “religion”. But the only thing that unifies these groups (and I’m sure there are more) is that initial reactionary idea.
So………I want to know: if you are an Atheist, what are your “positive points” – meaning points that go beyond reactionary ideas. And for theists out there – do you see any points in Atheism beyond the reactionary ideas? Should there be “the Atheist Bible/manifesto/whatever” or will this inevitably create the same problems that spawned it in the first place? Is Atheism doomed to be a reactionary idea until something completely different comes to take it up?

[cafolini]

PREFACE:
This is not a religious debate, nor is it meant to be. Please do not make it one. I mean this as a philosophic discourse wherein the opinions of all are encouraged/welcome.

PREAMBLE:
Whether you personally believe it or not, I think you can agree that Atheism is generally viewed as a reactionary idea: against Theism. I think we can also say without much debate that “reactionary ideas qua reactionary ideas” are doomed to failure. Example: The Protestant Reformation was successful not because Luther et al said “we hate Catholics, Catholics suck, go away” but because they said “here is what we believe in – here are my points.” Whereas the Counter-Reformation did not succeed outside of the world of art because it existed only as a reactionary idea.
__________________________________________________ _

So the question is: does Atheism (as it is generally viewed) exist as anything but a reactionary idea? Could it? I suppose the first issue is that Atheism is still in the stage that 16th century Protestants were in: where many groups are using the idea to suit themselves as they see it. I have seen the Satre-esque Atheist brand, the “using evolutionary theory as the cornerstone of belief” Atheist brand, and the revival of Renaissance Humanism removed from any context of God Atheist brand – the first focusing on independent power, the second focusing on the physical world, the third as spiritual as any “religion”. But the only thing that unifies these groups (and I’m sure there are more) is that initial reactionary idea.
So………I want to know: if you are an Atheist, what are your “positive points” – meaning points that go beyond reactionary ideas. And for theists out there – do you see any points in Atheism beyond the reactionary ideas? Should there be “the Atheist Bible/manifesto/whatever” or will this inevitably create the same problems that spawned it in the first place? Is Atheism doomed to be a reactionary idea until something completely different comes to take it up?

There is no question that atheism is a reactionary idea. But I think it is past tense and fully overcome. What it proposes at the root is precisely what cannot be sustained independently apart from the entanglement with religion.
In mentioning the protestant revolution there was not much reaction on the part of the Lutherans. The latter found a way to overcome slavery (the Roman yoke and work duties) by postulating grace vs. work. It was a step forward in the evolution of religion in the sense that as they postulated it (in the struggle for power) only God could save anyone, for whatever reason, but by grace alone. The minister no longer had a direct connection to the will of God (acted more as a facilitator to the understanding of the books, and few sacraments were left standing).
Going forward to the situation of today of both Protestantism and Atheism, the evolutionary current is in the hands of science: It is no longer justified to confront humanistic studies with scientific studies. Humanity in its two dimensions has been overcome and we move on. We can no longer discuss humanism or anything related, like philosophy, religion, atheism, etc. but within a historical perspective. Of course the inertia of the cultural entanglements will go on with Christianity as much as with any other form of belief system, but it will never go back to be of gobal consequence.

[Darcy88]

I don't think atheism is all that reactionary. To my mind its just a side-effect of the scientific revolution. Empiricism rose to the fore and for many people the belief in God was discarded as a result. Rather than atheism being necessarily characterized as something against God, against belief, you could instead view it as a mind-set that's pro-science, pro-empiricism. For instance I see a biblical literalist first and foremost as someone who is affirming the literal truth of the bible, not as someone who is against science before all else.

[BienvenuJDC]

I don't think atheism is all that reactionary. To my mind its just a side-effect of the scientific revolution. Empiricism rose to the fore and for many people the belief in God was discarded as a result. Rather than atheism being necessarily characterized as something against God, against belief, you could instead view it as a mind-set that's pro-science, pro-empiricism. For instance I see a biblical literalist first and foremost as someone who is affirming the literal truth of the bible, not as someone who is against science before all else.

I personally see the "Science revolution" as reactionary. Since there is much relied on theories and not empiricism at all. It seems that there is more theorizing than observing.

[cafolini]

I don't think atheism is all that reactionary. To my mind its just a side-effect of the scientific revolution. Empiricism rose to the fore and for many people the belief in God was discarded as a result. Rather than atheism being necessarily characterized as something against God, against belief, you could instead view it as a mind-set that's pro-science, pro-empiricism. For instance I see a biblical literalist first and foremost as someone who is affirming the literal truth of the bible, not as someone who is against science before all else.

The point, Darcy, is that anything pro-science does no longer need any defense or philosophical consideration. Of course you will always have the quackers postulating science as compatible with religion. It's futile to respond to such aberrations. One of the funny things of late was a group trying to prove scientifically that the Jews crossed the Red Sea because God parted the waters with high winds that mysteriously did not carry the Jews away as they crossed. Then God stops the wind and the Red Sea traps the persecuting Egyptian army. And there are all kinds of maniacs thinking they are using science. Let them be. They are inoffensive. And they are extremely funny when you think about it.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'll answer by saying what I mean when I say I'm an atheist. I don't believe there is a God. This doesn't mean I don't think it's possible--I just don't know, and from what I've seen, I'm inclined to think there is no God. I used to say I'm agnostic (and sometimes still do because it seems so much less pot-stirring), but that really isn't right. It is partly reactionary, I guess, since I tried to believe in God and couldn't.

I'll also say this: I follow no atheist manifesto/bible. I have my own definition that happens to be along the lines of many other, but not all, atheists.

I also say I'm anti-religious, which is different than being atheist, because this has nothing to do with God. This means I'm against organized religions, plain and simple. Now this is completely reactzionary.

[Jack of Hearts]

Whether you personally believe it or not, I think you can agree that Atheism is generally viewed as a reactionary idea: against Theism.

This reader assumes you made this claim because there seems to be monotheism and polytheism throughout human history. And then, about 700 BC comes Thales who proposes an arche- apparently he just wasn't content to think that the explanation "Gods did it!" was good enough to account for everything anymore.

And a tenet of secular humanism is that neither should you. So there's bias in the rhetoric. Why not call it 'evolutionary' instead of 'reactionary' (haha, see, we can have fun with it); evolutionary in the sense that, as human kind develops, we are destined to be Godless (and if you think there's no pattern that could show this, consider how religion in the western world has dwindled since Descartes published Meditations on First Philosophy).

But it's easy to draw the conclusion that Atheism is reactionary because religion/magic/etc was here first. Maybe these things were just the best explanations people had at the time. But the more people advance themselves in terms of critical thinking, science and philosophy, the more it's out with the old and in with the new.

It's easy to call Atheism reactionary because a lot of people who practice it are, themselves, reacting to anger about the world around them. This reader is not an atheist, but he knows a few. And they're mostly mad at either 'being lied to' about the existence of a deity/authenticity of a holy book, or they're pissed that other people are sheeplike (which probably grounds itself in something personal as well) or 'holding back advancement of mankind', etc. Some people are just self-righteous, regardless of any beliefs. Atheism is becoming more and more affiliated with these things.

So, this reader thinks atheism itself isn't inherently a reaction to anything, it's more of an evolution of mankind. It's just some of the people who practice it that are reactionary.





J

[Charles Darnay]

The reason I made the claim was to stress the "generally viewed" part. While I do not disagree with your distinction of "evolutionary" over "reactionary" - I don't think it's a popular view (maybe it should be)....

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Be careful, guys. If this thread gets too interesting it will surely be locked.

[JuniperWoolf]

I used to say I'm agnostic (and sometimes still do because it seems so much less pot-stirring), but that really isn't right.


I don't even define myself as anything anymore. If anyone asks me what my religious beliefs are, I'll usually tell them that I'm "devoutly apathetic." If you simply say that you're "agnostic" or "apathetic," some people see that as a conversion invitation, so I like to throw the term "devout" in there to let them know that I don't want to hear it (and sometimes I'll tell them that I worship the snake god Apophis just to **** with people).


I also say I'm anti-religious, which is different than being atheist, because this has nothing to do with God. This means I'm against organized religions, plain and simple.

Ditto. I'll keep it off the boards, but I'm not ashamed to admit it.

[Theunderground]

I think this is a very astute distinction. I myself was concerned that most movements are intially reactionary (which is fine.) but then over time fail to throw away this reactionary mood. I mean how pitiful to define oneself by either for or against god. I dont want to know what you are against,what are you for? This is why atheism,humanism,naturalism and satanism suffer by virtue of their negativity and their acccruing of dogmas,creeds and frozen defintions over time. First and foremost i define myself by what i stand for,what are my values,what i am opposed to (though important.) is somewhat secondary.And in fact what is more important than defining or talking is 'doing your values',so to speak.
I myself follow my emotions,my personal insight,my values and my human apsirations,i feel that is enough to define myself. I am oppsed to whatever stops me from fulfilling my aspirations but i focus on the positive not the negative.

[YesNo]

Most people are atheists with respect to specific Gods. If none come to mind, try Zeus. More earnestly, Christians are atheists with respect to Allah. Jews and Muslims are atheists with respect to Jesus. Other people are atheists with respect to all three of the Judeo-Christo-Islamic Gods.

Sometimes these atheists promote other Gods or alternative philosophies instead. When they do, they are no longer reactionaries, because they now have something positive to support.

The atheists I hear on these forums seem primarily opposed to all three of the Judeo-Christo-Islamic Gods, but they haven't found anything to promote in their place. The arguments they have with Christians are their way of breaking away from the religious culture they were born into.

Some will become Buddhists, because they hear Buddhists worship no God. Others will start practicing yoga or some other meditative or self-help discipline sometimes influenced by people such as Deepak Chopra. Consciousness becomes the God-replacement and mindfulness the worship. Somewhere in this category is where I would be.

Others will try to use science as a justification for their atheism and reject in theory the existence of any kind of God and generally insist that consciousness is derivative from matter-energy rather than the other way around. This would be the atheism that I disagree with. The main reason I reject this is because the science that would justify such atheism had its high point around the 1800s and I see it being replaced.

[Darcy88]

My first philosophy professor said he takes issue with most self-proclaimed agnostics. He says the word denotes not one who is not ultimately assured of either the existence or non existence of God, but, rather, someone who sees the evidence as 50/50, equal on both sides and pointing to neither conclusion.

[Charles Darnay]

My first philosophy professor said he takes issue with most self-proclaimed agnostics. He says the word denotes not one who is not ultimately assured of either the existence or not existence of God, but, rather, someone who sees the evidence as 50/50, equal on both sides and pointing to neither conclusion.

I agree with this sentiment, though I would not phrase it in this way. Agnosticism has always struck as "I don't know enough and so I don't want to exert my own opinion" - which in certain cases is fine, but when dealing with a belief system I think it's better to take the time to know where you stand. This does not mean you have to be either monotheist/atheist - you could believe in any number of things, but it is worth it to have a belief.

(Of course, this applies solely to spirituality and not the concept of organized religions. As has been stated, to be "against god" is different than "against religion"

[Darcy88]

Also, being an atheist doesn't mean that one is necessarily against the idea of God. I wish there was a God. Like Sarte I feel in my heart a void where God ought to be. I've tried to believe. Just can't do it. I've read too much Nietzsche and have always been a skeptic to the core. If there's a God I fail to see his reasoning in making faith so insurmountable a challenge, in situating himself beyond this unbridgable gulf. It smacks of indifference.

[mal4mac]

I'm reading the excellent "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris at the moment and he suggests that "atheist" should not exist as a word - it's as useful as "anti-alchemist". With something ridiculous you don't need a word to denote a person who is anti-"ridiculous". That would just be ridiculous :) Once we all accept how ridiculous the various religions are then the word will disappear. In fact it would be a good idea to stop using it, because it suggests that sensible people take "the religious" seriously. If my eccentric uncle came to me and said he was an alchemist I'd treat him as kindly as ever, but I wouldn't vote him into a position of responsibility... So if you are a Christian and your nice friends are atheists, note that they think of you in this way... Read Sam Harris and get rational...

[cafolini]

Also, being an atheist doesn't mean that one is necessarily against the idea of God. I wish there was a God. Like Sarte I feel in my heart a void where God ought to be. I've tried to believe. Just can't do it. I've read too much Nietzsche and have always been a skeptic to the core. If there's a God I fail to see his reasoning in making faith so insurmountable a challenge, in situating himself beyond this unbridgable gulf. It smacks of indifference.

"Who would think of a God when things go well. But in misery it is an imperative." ~ F. Nietzsche.

[Ragnar Freund]

gone.

[BienvenuJDC]

I was about to write a comment when I saw this one, which echoes my sentiments accurately and succinctly. I never refer to myself as an atheist because I refuse to define myself by a negative, especially when the positive is something as foolish as religion. The problem is, what do you use instead? Richard Dawkins suggests Bright, but really, come on!

Consider the hospitals and schools that have been established in the name of religion. Yes, there are negative aspects of organized religion, but to consider the idea of a God is no more ridiculous than the idea of there not being a God. It is a biased consideration that is made in that respect. I guess that notion defines you.

[JuniperWoolf]

The negatives FAR outweigh the positives, and those positives (hospitals for example) have been provided via secular methods such as government or charity far more often than religion.

Regarding "new atheists," here's the thing: most "new atheists" (which I think could be more accurately described as the new "anti-organized religious," since they're not even all atheists) were born in the 80's which means: when they were children, they watched Muslims fly airplanes into New York City; when AIDS developed, they were babies and grew up watching people die by the millions in Africa because the Catholic Church refused to allow people to use condoms; when they were growing up, the Catholic Church's histoy of institutionalized coverups of priests molesting children was exposed; they were also kids during the most active phase of the Gay Rights Movement. Of course, why deny the same legal rights to people just because of what they choose to do in the privacy of their own homes, the resolution sounds obvious. The only opposition? Religious people, who say disturbing things about homosexuality being "wrong" and send kids to unbelievably ****ed up "learn how to be straight" seminar retreats. Their behaviour caused many gay people to commit suicide. On top of that, many people see the Iraq war as a holy war.

So in summation, BY FAR the biggest topics on the news throughout their entire lives were: thousands of people being crushed and burned to death, millions of people dying slowly of aids, children being molested and the supposed "good guys" lying about it to protect themselves, gay suicide and denial of human rights, and for what? From the "new anti-organized religion," vantage point, each religious belief seems equally (in)valid, so to them it looks like people are fighting about which has the toughest invisible friend, and they're making people suffer because it's what that invisible friend wants. Insane.

So, taking these things into consideration, is it really any wonder that "new atheists" feel so much disgust and anger towards organized religion (and specifically, the Judeo-Christo-Islamic religions)? Profound disgust towards organized religion seems to be one of the main features of my generation, one only needs to mention Christianity in a classroom for this to become apparent, and it's not the "liberal professors" who are putting these ideas into our heads like many people claim, kids aren't stupid sheep: our opinions arise from our own observation of the screwed up world in which we were raised.

[Drkshadow03]

The problem with these conversations is usually they present the extremely religious as representative of the religious and the extreme anti-theists as the atheists, without acknowledging the very wide middle ground between those positions.

[BienvenuJDC]

So, taking these things into consideration, is it really any wonder that "new atheists" feel so much disgust and anger towards organized religion (and specifically, the Judeo-Christo-Islamic religions)? Hating religion seems to be one of the main features of my generation, one only needs to mention Christianity in a classroom for this to become apparent, and it's not the "liberal professors" who are putting these ideas into our heads like many people claim, kids aren't stupid sheep: our opinions arise from our own observation of the evils in the world around us.

You are able to see the bad in religious people, but you are blind to the good. You are judgmental and intolerant. Your words here show a tremendous prejudice. I'm hoping that your ideology will die out soon. It is one thing to not believe in God, but to have a hatred toward sincere religious people is evil. If this is how you define "new atheist", it is apparent that a bigger enemy arises against culture than that of the organized religions. How many of the atheists have collectively done good for their community? How many hospitals or schools have they started? What atheist groups or movements at feeding the poor in soup kitchens? There is much good in religion, evil is found in all mankind.

[JuniperWoolf]

I'm hoping that your ideology will die out soon.

It won't. Not as long as people are still killing and denying human rights in the name of religion.

[BienvenuJDC]

It won't. Not as long as people are still killing and denying people human rights in the name of religion.

Then God help us all.
Do you think that your attitude is a positive response to the atrocities done by religion? You repay evil with evil. Is that what we should expect from atheists?

[Darcy88]

"Religion makes good people better and bad people worse."

-Reinhold Niebuhr

I think part of it is that its the crazy rabid hate-mongering Christians and Muslims who shout loudest and attract the most attention. The humble and devout individual motivated by his or her faith to become a better person doesn't get the same amount of publicity as the Pat Robertsons and Anwar al-Awlakis of the world. Such dimwitted buffoons should not be taken as representative of the faithful as a whole. There are good and bad Christians just as there are good and bad liberals, police men, marathon runners, and fans of chocolate cake.

[JuniperWoolf]

You repay evil with evil.

What evil? Evil = killing and denying human rights. I would rather die than kill a Christian, or strip him of his basic human rights. Where's the evil in being disgusted by disgusting events such as mass murder (and I include the Catholic's refusal to allow AIDS riddled Africa to use condoms as mass murder by the way, I'm not just talking about the WTCs)?

[BienvenuJDC]

What evil? Evil = killing and denying human rights. I would rather die than kill a Christian, or strip him of his basic human rights. Where's the evil in being disgusted by disgusting events such as mass murder?

Because you hate.

I'm done with anymore discussion about this on this thread.

[JuniperWoolf]

Because you hate.

Yes, I hate a behaviour, not a person. Show me the sane human who doesn't hate child rape. When that rape is tolerated because of a religious institution, I feel complete disgust towards the upper echelon of that institution and I think that people should turn away from it because it isn't trustworty and is commiting gross acts of betrayal and outright criminal negligence.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The problem with these conversations is usually they present the extremely religious as representative of the religious and the extreme anti-theists as the atheists, without acknowledging the very wide middle ground between those positions.
Bingo. Plus, when someone who is in the middle ground, they are accused and demeaned by one, if not both sides.

I'm hoping that your ideology will die out soon.


It won't. Not as long as people are still killing and denying human rights in the name of religion.


Then God help us all.

This is an odd exchange. Bien, are you conceding that killing and denying human rights are an unavoidable biproduct of religion? You hope her ideology dies out, she says it won't as long as this occurs, and then you invoke God's help. Like I said, it seemed odd.

Also, does hate equal evil?

[JuniperWoolf]

Such dimwitted buffoons should not be taken as representative of the faithful as a whole.

Yeah, but it's not just that the "buffoons" are being loud and mean, they're causeing millions of people to suffer, become diseased and die. They should be taken seriously.

[Charles Darnay]

See, this is what I didn't want to happen. I know OPs don't have the power to censor but this was meant to try to lay down ideological grounds, not bring up specific attacks/defenses of theism/atheism - there are plenty of spaces for those.

[JuniperWoolf]

Sorry dude, but you made a thread asking if atheism was reactionary. It isn't, but anti-theism is. Ergo, discussion of anti-theism and it's distinction from atheism which leads to a defence of anti-theism. That's how it goes. It looks like it's impossible to keep people on the same topic and repeating the same arguments once a thread gets past the first page.

Also, did you seriously expect that you could make a thread about atheism being reationary without it turning into another religious debate? Religious debates are all the rage since StuntPickle came along, there are three other active ones as we speak.

[BienvenuJDC]

This is an odd exchange. Bien, are you conceding that killing and denying human rights are an unavoidable biproduct of religion? You hope her ideology dies out, she says it won't as long as this occurs, and then you invoke God's help. Like I said, it seemed odd.

Also, does hate equal evil?

The original context of the "hate" is not toward any action or evil deed, but it is being focused on particular groups. I concede that killing and denying human rights is an unavoidable biproduct of PEOPLE, not religions. Unless the said religion teaches to kill. However, denying human rights is too subjective to discuss in generalities. Just because a religion does not condone (or even speaks condemnation upon) a particular action, it doesn't mean that the religion is denying human rights.

Let me ask this: Is it evil to hate a group of people? It's been evident that particular people here on this site (and elsewhere) have shown behavior of hatred (not of ideology or philosophy, but) of people. So to answer your question...yes, hatred of this type is evil.

[JuniperWoolf]

I concede that killing and denying human rights is an unavoidable biproduct of PEOPLE, not religions.

My response to this can be found here:


So in summation, BY FAR the biggest topics on the news throughout their entire lives were: thousands of people being crushed and burned to death, millions of people dying slowly of aids, children being molested and the supposed "good guys" lying about it to protect themselves, gay suicide and denial of human rights.

The horrors inflicted because of organized religion have been the dominant global events for my entire life. I don't think it's a coincidence, or a byproduct of "the human condition," that there has been so much pain caused by religion in the 23 years since my birth. You can't even call it "fanaticism" or "fundamentalism" when it's the friggin' pope himself causing so much death and disease.


It's been evident that particular people here on this site (and elsewhere) have shown behavior of hatred (not of ideology or philosophy, but) of people. So to answer your question...yes, hatred of this type is evil.

Nope, it's the ideology and it's consequences that we hate. I don't hate you because you're religious. Pen ends all of his posts with "God Bless," and I don't mind, because he's not saying "God Bless unless you're a fag, and if you disagree with that you're going to suffer in hell for all eternity." I certainly don't hate Pendragon, I like him, and he's quite religious.

[Darcy88]

Yeah, but it's not just that the "buffoons" are being loud and mean, they're causeing millions of people to suffer, become diseased and die. They should be taken seriously.

I agree. In my opinion fundamentalist Christianity is one the greatest threats to world peace. I just don't think that all Christians should be characterized according to the words and actions of these truly anti-Christian buffoons who shout down their more moderate brethren. Many Christians are out doing good work around the globe as we speak. Many strive to live up to the ideal set out in the sermon on the mount. I know Christians who consider Pat Robertson an absolutely repugnant human being. The problem is that Christianity has been high-jacked by these apocalyptic hate-mongering sheisters who wouldn't know Christ if they ran straight into him.

[BienvenuJDC]

I agree. In my opinion fundamentalist Christianity is one the greatest threats to world peace. I just don't think that all Christians should be characterized according to the words and actions of these truly anti-Christian buffoons who shout down their more moderate brethren. Many Christians are out doing good work around the globe as we speak. Many seek to live up to the ideal set out in the sermon on the mount. I know Christians who consider Pat Robertson an absolutely repugnant human being. The problem is that Christianity has been high-jacked by these apocalyptic hate-mongering sheisters who wouldn't know Christ is they ran straight into him.

I totally agree about Pat Robertson and the like. In fact, I don't know of any televangelists that are a good representation of true Christianity, nor is the pope a representation of Christianity.

[Darcy88]

I totally agree about Pat Robertson and the like. In fact, I don't know of any televangelists that are a good representation of true Christianity, nor is the pope a representation of Christianity.

The first thing that enters my mind at the mention of Christ is humility. The last thing that enters my mind at the mention of humility is the pope.

And preaching against both abortion and condom use seems a little.... ridiculous, insane, stupid, mind-blowingly thoughtless and out of touch.

[BienvenuJDC]

seems a little.... ridiculous, insane, stupid, mind-blowingly thoughtless and out of touch.

Come on, Darcy, tell us how you REALLY feel...don't hold back...
:lol:

[kensington]

Come on, Darcy, tell us how you REALLY feel...don't hold back...
:lol:

That's right, you wouldn't want Bien to be here just talking to himself.

Got to keep him laughing! :lol:

[stuntpickle]

PREFACE:
Is Atheism doomed to be a reactionary idea until something completely different comes to take it up?

The current atheism DOES have a philosophical grounding. The idea that one could state a position of atheism otherwise is absurd. Considering statements of truth is a capacity entailed in some variety of worldview; you must, after all, have a mechanism for judgment. To remain skeptical of some truth implies, at the very least, some variety of skepticism.

The phenomenon of atheists not understanding their worldview owes to that the current atheism is a popular movement largely divorced from the philosophies that spawned it. If you look at what someone like Dawkins states, calling people "meat chunks", describing love and minds in terms of deterministic routines and suggesting that science is the primary arbiter of truth, you can see what sort of worldview underlies his thinking. Dawkins seems to be describing something like a blend of logical positivism and mereological nihilism, in which there are no true objects beyond particles, excepting perhaps biological structures. Daniel Dennett is an eliminative materialist, which essentially means he thinks human consciousness is an illusion and, consequently, that neither you nor I exist as anything more than a biological system.

I think you make the mistake of thinking that this iteration of atheism is just getting underway, when really the entire operation has already concluded. The movement probably owes to 9/11, which was perpetrated by Islamic fanatics; the ensuing Iraqi war prosecuted by what many saw as a fundamentalist administration in the White House; and an attempt to include intelligent design in science curricula in the US. The original goal of New Atheism was to institutionalize the ridicule of theists so that they could not properly engage in the public discourse.

The self-described four horsemen of the Apocalypse were Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, who was widely considered to be the foremost among them. They all wrote books that quickly became popular and, soon thereafter, discovered academic opposition they hadn't anticipated.

The first major bump in the road came in the form of The Dawkins Delusion, written by Oxford Professor of Historical Theology Alister McGrath. Of course, the New Atheists dismissed McGrath as just a "theologian." But then, soon after, John Lennox, Oxford professor of Mathematics, roundly defeated Dawkins in a debate in which, at times, Lennox even seemed to have to explain Dawkins's own position to him. Although the books written by the New Atheists were wildly popular, critical reception was poor, and the most vocal criticisms were from secularists and atheist philosophers who were trying to distance themselves from what were, after all, some fairly amateurish books.

What the New Atheists did not know, perhaps could not have known, was that, for the past several decades, a group of Christian scholars had been organizing an opposition to secularism and were represented in significant numbers at Oxford and a few universities in the US. For the sake of convenience, we will call these persons the New Christians. Their goal was to restore the intellectual reputation of Christianity, which had since the first half the 20th Century been considered parochial and intellectually vacant.

These New Christians were entirely unlike the apologists of old, who were country preachers convinced that dinosaurs and humans coexisted; the New Christians were PhD's, most of them entirely familiar with cosmology and theories of time, and many of them worked in academic positions entirely separated from churches. For decades, they were studying quietly, reading all about the opposition and looking for weakness. These were fairly serious intellectuals who were spoiling for a fight and had a robust tradition of debate. Of course, finding a proper public platform proved difficult for the New Christians; after all, no one took them seriously. But then the New Atheists offered them this platform.

The unlikely clash between these groups was rather interesting. First, the New Atheists never intended on picking a fight with the New Christians since they didn't even know the New Christians existed. But when atheism became the topic dujour in the presses, the media scrambled to find dissenting opinions. Thirty years ago they would have probably had to ask someone like Jerry Falwell, but now there were a number of university professors agitating against the New Atheists. The New Atheists had thought they were going to embarrass the fundamentalists with a few quick quips, but now they had this group of professors, who had been training their entire lives for this moment, screaming to debate the topic.

The major intellectual figures in the New Christian movement were probably Alvin Plantinga and Peter van Inwagen, both professors at Notre dame, but the preeminent instrument of the movement was definitely William Lane Craig, who, although having written a number of scholarly papers and books, was better described as the consummate debater. In commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of the BBC'S broadcast of the debate between Copleston and Russell, the University of Wisconsin held a debate between Craig and Anthony Flew, who was, till the emergence of the New Atheists, the preeminent atheist in the public view. Flew seemed flustered and nearly senile during the debate, and most persons agree that Craig thoroughly savaged him. A couple years later, Flew converted to deism because of what he said were philosophical and scientific developments. Craig was, rightly or wrongly, credited with having defeated the most widely recognized atheist in a scholarly debate and perhaps having even converted him, and, more importantly, having avenged the defeat of the debate that was being commemorated.

After the New Atheists finished debating several theists on international speaking tours, they finally had to deal with William Lane Craig who many regarded as the most problematic opponent for them. Eventually Craig thoroughly trounced and, moreover, embarrassed Harris and Hitchens in public debates that were attended by so many that additional rooms had to broadcast the debate on closed circuit television. At a philosophy conference, Craig, who was sharing a stage with Daniel Dennett, thoroughly refuted what Dennett had earlier said so that even Dennett applauded him afterwards. Everyone was excited to see a debate between the foremost atheist Richard Dawkins and the foremost apologist William Lane Craig, but Dawkins flatly refused causing other prominent atheists to call him a coward. Dawkins further responded, in the Guardian, by saying he would never debate anyone who supported genocide and referred to the slaughters in the Old Testament. The Guardian ran another article condemning Dawkins. This I suspect will be regarded in the future as the end of the New Atheist movement.

Of course, the issue of whether God exists was hardly decided, but that was never the point. Both New Atheists and New Christians succeeded in some manner. First, the New Atheists failed to remove religion from public discourse, but they did succeed in creating a popular movement among students in the US and Britain. The New Christians vindicated the intellectual position of theism in both the academy and the eyes of the public and went so far as to put atheism on the intellectual defensive--a strange position for atheists since the early 20th Century.

My point is that the atheistic movement you're referring to isn't really in need of the agenda you're trying to give it. The practical and philosophical issues at stake all came to a head over the past ten years. Perhaps many of the students who converted to atheism during the movement can redeem atheism from the defeat of the New Atheists, but it will require the same sort of preparation that the New Christians had before engaging in this last ideological clash. Of course, what the New Christians won was not necessarily the argument, but rather they won a right to sit at the table, and frankly, they're probably interested in more of the table. The great irony of the clash was that although they were in part successful, the New Atheists, hand delivered the victory the New Christians wanted; essentially the New Atheists, rather than shutting the theists out of the discourse, actually worked to enlarge the respect of philosophical theism, which was the exact opposite of their goal.

[Charles Darnay]

...

First off, great post! Alright....I have seen and heard some of the debates you refer to, and they are fascinating. Still, my initial reaction was "these are just highly academic forms of the same debates you find everywhere else" that is, Atheists trying to root out theists and "New Christians" standing their ground.

As an aside, in my initial contemplation I was referring to contemporary Atheism. I am aware that atheism is nothing new - that you can call Buddhism, Tau, and Deism (sort of) forms of atheism.

After some reflection I began to consider that I might indeed be looking at this the wrong way.

Imagine if you will in some sci-fi scenario, someone came by and removed from our minds all knowledge of God or organized religions. There are many places in countries such as Canada, US, Britain, France in which life would just continue on as normal. Even Christmas would progress as it is now.

And as prevalent as theism seems to be (prompting Atheist reactions) - this prevalence has been relegated to intellectual spheres such as these debates. That is why the "New Christians" had to build up their academic defense, as you say, to try to reclaim religion's place in society which is lost.

So is theism indeed reacting to atheism now?

The obvious counter to this is that there are still policies that exist (particularly in the US) that are rooted in Christianity. But even these are losing their ground.

Going back to what Juniper wrote earlier....the negatives of Christianity outweigh the positives...I tend to agree with this. And here is why.

The spreading of material via the Internet tends to force every little act of religious fundamentalism into the media and we are constantly bombarded with examples of "why Christianity is counter to human rights" in a way that we were not exposed to 10-20 years ago. And then of course, there is 9/11 which spurred on the anti-fundamentalist movement. And then you have certain persons vying for high office of a certain country who releases an ad publicly denouncing gay rights on religious grounds.....the reaction that appeared to this horrible ad demonstrates that we may exist not in the "atheism is reactionary to theism" but now "theism has become reactionary to atheism."

[stuntpickle]

"atheism is reactionary to theism" but now "theism has become reactionary to atheism."

I think this represents a slight misunderstanding. Belief in God will never go out of style while people must face death. And even if genetics can radically extend the lives of humans, immortality will never be achieved since there will always exist circumstances conducive to the annihilation of humans. In perhaps one of the greatest ironies of history, Evangelical Christianity, brewed in the great western power founded explicitly on having no state religion, is being exported across the Atlantic. Islam, because of immigration, and Evangelical Christianity are the fastest growing religions in Europe.

The recent ideological conflict between Christians and atheists is probably better described as a clash between rationalists and skeptics/sophists. We are finally emerging from the inanities of post modernism, and these New Christians are more than simply apologists. A hundred years ago science suggested an eternal universe and evolved creatures. Today science suggests a beginning of the universe and evolved creatures possessing DNA with a startling level of complexity. The great ideological struggle is yet to come. These New Christians never intended to fight atheists, but rather secularists. The atheists simply enhanced their prestige.

Supreme Court Justice Roberts has suggested that Roe v. Wade is incompatible with the double homicide of a pregnant woman and that stare decisis can be overlooked if the case in question is more problematic than beneficial.

Relativism is over, and the culture war is just getting started.

[cafolini]

I think this represents a slight misunderstanding. Belief in God will never go out of style while people must face death. And even if genetics can radically extend the lives of humans, immortality will never be achieved since there will always exist circumstances conducive to the annihilation of humans. In perhaps one of the greatest ironies of history, Evangelical Christianity, brewed in the great western power founded explicitly on having no state religion, is being exported across the Atlantic. Islam, because of immigration, and Evangelical Christianity are the fastest growing religions in Europe.

The recent ideological conflict between Christians and atheists is probably better described as a clash between rationalists and skeptics/sophists. We are finally emerging from the inanities of post modernism, and these New Christians are more than simply apologists. A hundred years ago science suggested an eternal universe and evolved creatures. Today science suggests a beginning of the universe and evolved creatures possessing DNA with a startling level of complexity. The great ideological struggle is yet to come. These New Christians never intended to fight atheists, but rather secularists. The atheists simply enhanced their prestige.

Supreme Court Justice Roberts has suggested that Roe v. Wade is incompatible with the double homicide of a pregnant woman and that stare decisis can be overlooked if the case in question is more problematic than beneficial.

Relativism is over, and the culture war is just getting started.

Einstenian relativism is over. It was over before it started. The undercurrent of today, where science is at work full force is Newtonian. The quacks and the entanglements will go on inconsequential. Religion is unavoidable. But there will never occur a unified church other than in the imagination.

[OrphanPip]

Personally, any objection I have to religion is political and ethical, I just don't agree with the ethics of most religious institutions. I also have issues with the conception of revealed authoritative morality, which is the cornerstone of "fundamentalist" and Islamic morality but also plays a prominent role in most religious ethical systems. I think moral arguments can only be debated off of the principle of mutually accepted basic statements: such as, "it is wrong to harm other human beings." A body of people who accept the same basic statements can then debate and arrive at a mutually agreed upon moral standard. Even if one believes murder is wrong in some transcendent objective sense, it doesn't really mean much when it comes to getting a society to agree on that point.

My atheism is easy enough to explain, I grew up in a religious household that failed to convince me of why I should believe, and I have since seen no reason to believe in any specific religious doctrine. There are moderately convincing deistic arguments, but I think they are meaningless when it comes to how I live my life, so why bother with them.

[stuntpickle]

Personally, any objection I have to religion is political and ethical, I just don't agree with the ethics of most religious institutions. I also have issues with the conception of revealed authoritative morality, which is the cornerstone of "fundamentalist" and Islamic morality but also plays a prominent role in most religious ethical systems. I think moral arguments can only be debated off of the principle of mutually accepted basic statements: such as, "it is wrong to harm other human beings." A body of people who accept the same basic statements can then debate and arrive at a mutually agreed upon moral standard. Even if one believes murder is wrong in some transcendent objective sense, it doesn't really mean much when it comes to getting a society to agree on that point.

My atheism is easy enough to explain, I grew up in a religious household that failed to convince me of why I should believe, and I have since seen no reason to believe in any specific religious doctrine. There are moderately convincing deistic arguments, but I think they are meaningless when it comes to how I live my life, so why bother with them.

The arguments for God do not intend to tell you how to live, but I think the New Testament does. At some point, Pip, everyone has to make a decision about something. Atheism is the great negation. My decision was more optimistic. I don't think religious upbringing is ever convincing. Real Christianity is essentially a relationship with a book and, if he exists, the God it talks about. I see my conversion to Christianity as artistic triumph rather than a moral one. Atheism, for me, is the worst sort of literalism and antithetical to everything I love. You might be interested to know that Jesus, himself, never mentions homosexuality. Anyone who uses Christianity to indict other persons has missed the entire point of Christianity.

The great beauty of Christianity is that it is about a God who has impossible demands for humanity and an impossible love for it, and He can only reconcile these things by punishing himself. It's a wonderful tragedy.

[KCurtis]

[QUOTE=Mutatis-Mutandi;1096345]I'll answer by saying what I mean when I say I'm an atheist. I don't believe there is a God. This doesn't mean I don't think it's possible--I just don't know, and from what I've seen, I'm inclined to think there is no God. I used to say I'm agnostic (and sometimes still do because it seems so much less pot-stirring), but that really isn't right. It is partly reactionary, I guess, since I tried to believe in God and couldn't. [QUOTE]

Yes, I did this too! I also said I was agnostic for precisely that reason, although now I refuse to participate in religious discussions with religious people (in person). I also tried to believe in God but could not, so I was not honest with myself. I just cannot help it- I just don't believe it. And I don't think I can just believe in some things about a religion and not the whole of it.
I also do not join any athiest groups or have discussions on athiesim. It is just what I think on my own, and the conclusions I have come to on my own.

[KCurtis]

Most people are atheists with respect to specific Gods. If none come to mind, try Zeus. More earnestly, Christians are atheists with respect to Allah. Jews and Muslims are atheists with respect to Jesus. Other people are atheists with respect to all three of the Judeo-Christo-Islamic Gods.


I don't think this is entirely true. Christians, Jews and Muslims all have the same God. Allah is the arabic word for God-just a different language! Any muslims out there can correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think I am.

[KCurtis]

The negatives FAR outweigh the positives, and those positives (hospitals for example) have been provided via secular methods such as government or charity far more often than religion.


I don't know about that- the only thing that helped black african slaves in America was the church, certainly not the government at the time of slavery.

[KCurtis]

Then God help us all.
Do you think that your attitude is a positive response to the atrocities done by religion? You repay evil with evil. Is that what we should expect from atheists?

Absolutely not.

[KCurtis]

I agree. In my opinion fundamentalist Christianity is one the greatest threats to world peace.


Then I really hope that you think that Muslim fundamentalism-terrorist- fanaticism is THE greatest threat to world peace.

[Darcy88]

The great beauty of Christianity is that it is about a God who has impossible demands for humanity and an impossible love for it, and He can only reconcile these things by punishing himself. It's a wonderful tragedy.

This here is why I will never be a Christian. The trinity is a logical catastrophe. If there is a father and a son then there are two, not one. Its polytheism and I doubt polytheism can be reconciled with the old testament. I've heard highly intelligent Christians articulate explanations and none of them came close to anything satisfactory. For this reason, even if I were to miraculously surmount the Everest of my disbelief, I'd turn to Islam, not Christianity.

[JuniperWoolf]

I don't know about that- the only thing that helped black african slaves in America was the church, certainly not the government at the time of slavery.

Actually I believe that one of the main influences was, at the time, pressure from trading partners overseas. So oddly enough slavery in America was abolished in large part because of Europe.

I know about one religious guy during the years leading up of the American civil war who did organize and lead violent action against slavery and he was a catalyst, but still - wasn't the South pretty religious too? The fact that he was religious was consequential since church leaders = community leaders in those days, you really can't give religion the credit for freeing American slaves.

[YesNo]

I don't think this is entirely true. Christians, Jews and Muslims all have the same God. Allah is the arabic word for God-just a different language! Any muslims out there can correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think I am.
You may be right. The orthodox language, metaphors and traditions in which each these approaches to God is expressed might be the only real difference.

[Drkshadow03]

Actually I believe that one of the main influences was, at the time, pressure from trading partners overseas. So oddly enough slavery in America was abolished in large part because of Europe.

I know about one religious guy during the years leading up of the American civil war who did organize and lead violent action against slavery and he was a catalyst, but still - wasn't the South pretty religious too? The fact that he was religious was consequential since church leaders = community leaders in those days, you really can't give religion the credit for freeing American slaves.

The Quakers were one of the first religious groups involved in the abolition of slavery and played a large role in the abolitionist movement. There was other prominent religious leaders like John Rankin and many others who took a religious moral stance against slavery and played prominent roles in the abolitionist movement. Religious opposition to slavery on moral grounds played a clear and important role in the abolitionist movement. But, of course, the south justified their slavery on religious grounds too. So it also played an important role in justifying the slavery in the first place.

[BienvenuJDC]

I don't think this is entirely true. Christians, Jews and Muslims all have the same God. Allah is the arabic word for God-just a different language! Any muslims out there can correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think I am.

As a Christian, I will speak for the God that I serve. I do NOT serve the God of the muslims. Christianity serves a God that is part of a trinity Godhead that includes Jesus Christ as deity, as well as the Holy Spirit. You cannot separate them out to an equivalent to being allah.

[Darcy88]

As a Christian, I will speak for the God that I serve. I do NOT serve the God of the muslims. Christianity serves a God that is part of a trinity Godhead that includes Jesus Christ as deity, as well as the Holy Spirit. You cannot separate them out to an equivalent to being allah.

I never thought of it that way. I suppose you could say then that the Christian god is distinct from Allah. But Allah is still synonymous with Yahweh, which is also the Christian god. Very confusing.

[stuntpickle]

This here is why I will never be a Christian. The trinity is a logical catastrophe. If there is a father and a son then there are two, not one. Its polytheism and I doubt polytheism can be reconciled with the old testament. I've heard highly intelligent Christians articulate explanations and none of them came close to anything satisfactory. For this reason, even if I were to miraculously surmount the Everest of my disbelief, I'd turn to Islam, not Christianity.

I can never take people's criticism of the Trinity seriously. The idea that it's just entirely incoherent is laughable. The average child understands it. Does the fact that matter can exist in different forms--solid, gas, liquid--completely bewilder you? Does the fact that you, yourself, have different aspects of your person give you a headache? Jesus was the Logos, which Philo used to mean not "word", but "mind". Does the fact that the mind of God was put into a mortal body seem totally incomprehensible to you? Does the division of being into mind/body/spirit seem entirely outlandish?

As for conquering your disbelief and joining Islam, I would recommend you be absolutely sure about such a decision since the penalty for changing your mind is death.

[KCurtis]

I never gave credit to religion and the church for freeing American slaves! I know my history. The Church at that time, in part, helped slaves escape through the underground railroad, (yeah, I know it's not a railroad underground), helped hide them, etc. Ask black Americans what they think about southern churches during the civil rights movement too.
And if it were not for the Anglican Church in South Africa during apartheid, more black south Africans would have been killed.





Actually I believe that one of the main influences was, at the time, pressure from trading partners overseas. So oddly enough slavery in America was abolished in large part because of Europe.

I know about one religious guy during the years leading up of the American civil war who did organize and lead violent action against slavery and he was a catalyst, but still - wasn't the South pretty religious too? The fact that he was religious was consequential since church leaders = community leaders in those days, you really can't give religion the credit for freeing American slaves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KCurtis
I don't know about that- the only thing that helped black african slaves in America was the church, certainly not the government at the time of slavery.[/QUOTE]

__________________

[KCurtis]

As a Christian, I will speak for the God that I serve. I do NOT serve the God of the muslims. Christianity serves a God that is part of a trinity Godhead that includes Jesus Christ as deity, as well as the Holy Spirit. You cannot separate them out to an equivalent to being allah.

You are wrong. Allah is the Arabic word for God, plain and simple. Religious prejudice is separate from this- look in an Arabic dictionary.

[KCurtis]

I can never take people's criticism of the Trinity seriously. The idea that it's just entirely incoherent is laughable. The average child understands it. Does the fact that matter can exist in different forms--solid, gas, liquid--completely bewilder you? Does the fact that you, yourself, have different aspects of your person give you a headache? Jesus was the Logos, which Philo used to mean not "word", but "mind". Does the fact that the mind of God was put into a mortal body seem totally incomprehensible to you? Does the division of being into mind/body/spirit seem entirely outlandish?

As for conquering your disbelief and joining Islam, I would recommend you be absolutely sure about such a decision since the penalty for changing your mind is death.
matter existing in different forms doesn't bewilder me. And, for the average muslim, changing ones mind does not equal a penalty of death. That is only for radical Islam.

[KCurtis]

The Quakers were one of the first religious groups involved in the abolition of slavery and played a large role in the abolitionist movement. There was other prominent religious leaders like John Rankin and many others who took a religious moral stance against slavery and played prominent roles in the abolitionist movement. Religious opposition to slavery on moral grounds played a clear and important role in the abolitionist movement. But, of course, the south justified their slavery on religious grounds too. So it also played an important role in justifying the slavery in the first place.

Thankyou for your sensible historical reminders of this time period- you are absolutely correct.

[BienvenuJDC]

You are wrong. Allah is the Arabic word for God, plain and simple. Religious prejudice is separate from this- look in an Arabic dictionary.

Just because the words mean the same thing doesn't mean that it's the same god. When you look at the teachings from them, they are not comparable at all. I'm sorry, but Jehovah and Allah are not the same. Allah never claimed Jesus Christ as his son. You can claim that as much as you want, but it doesn't make it reality.

[Darcy88]

I can never take people's criticism of the Trinity seriously. The idea that it's just entirely incoherent is laughable. The average child understands it. Does the fact that matter can exist in different forms--solid, gas, liquid--completely bewilder you? Does the fact that you, yourself, have different aspects of your person give you a headache? Jesus was the Logos, which Philo used to mean not "word", but "mind". Does the fact that the mind of God was put into a mortal body seem totally incomprehensible to you? Does the division of being into mind/body/spirit seem entirely outlandish?

As for conquering your disbelief and joining Islam, I would recommend you be absolutely sure about such a decision since the penalty for changing your mind is death.

My objection is not as easily dismissed as you make it out to be. God created Christ. Christ is the son, God the father. Christ speaks to God in the new testament. Only by a fantastic leap can you make "he gave his only begotton son" mean what you would have it mean. I share my humanity with my father as Christ supposedly shared his divinity with his. We are, however, not one and the same person.

[stuntpickle]

My objection is not as easily dismissed as you make it out to be. God created Christ. Christ is the son, God the father. Christ speaks to God in the new testament. Only by a fantastic leap can you make "he gave his only begotton son" mean what you would have it mean. I share my humanity with my father as Christ supposedly shared his divinity with his. We are, however, not one and the same person.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Word-->Logos

[Darcy88]

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Word-->Logos

"This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."

"But to us there is but ONE GOD, THE FATHER, of whom are all things and we in Him; and ONE LORD, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things and we by him."

"I came not to do mine own will."
"I can of myself do nothing."
"The Son can do nothing of himself."
"The Father that is in me, he doeth the works."
He calls himself, "he whom the Father hath sanctified and sent."
He says, "I am come in my Father's name."
And after his resurrection he says, "I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God."

"Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God, by signs and wonders which God did by him."
"Appointed to be a Prince and Saviour."
"at the right hand of God exalted."
"made both Lord and Christ."
Because of his obedience unto death, "God hath highly exalted him and given him a name above every name."
In the end he shall "deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father, that God may be all in all."

I think you have a few things going on here. Some thought Jesus was merely a man chosen by God. Some thought he was the Son of God. Some thought he was God himself. It is clear to me that Christ is subordinate to God. And why people pray to Jesus when he is as you say the physcial manifestation of God, I don't know. Is he physically there somewhere still to this day?

[Charles Darnay]

ah, the monophysite debate. I can't think of it without being reminded of that time Arius died on the toilet. Such was the will of God. (seriously, look it up)

[Darcy88]

Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

I think that one clinches it, or at the very least leaves the matter wide open to debate.

[BienvenuJDC]

My objection is not as easily dismissed as you make it out to be. God created Christ. Christ is the son, God the father. Christ speaks to God in the new testament. Only by a fantastic leap can you make "he gave his only begotton son" mean what you would have it mean. I share my humanity with my father as Christ supposedly shared his divinity with his. We are, however, not one and the same person.

He was the only begotten in the consideration of the the only heir. There is much that you don't understand. and I don't think that you're willing to accept with a sincere desire to understand.

[Darcy88]

He was the only begotten in the consideration of the the only heir. There is much that you don't understand. and I don't think that you're willing to accept with a sincere desire to understand.

Actually I do have a sincere desire to understand. I've thought long and hard about this. I've read a fair bit on it. Its just that, given those quotes I put up earlier, I don't see how it makes sense that the father and son combine to form a single God.

[YesNo]

I agree with Darcy88 in the discussion of whether Jesus is separate from his Father. It appears to me that there are, at least metaphorically, two Gods involved here. The number three probably had some significance to early Christians, so the Holy Spirit was added. Since the Holy Spirit is gender-neutral, I think, the early Christians missed their chance to add a female deity.

But the original question of this thread was about atheism and whether it is only reactionary and because of that doomed to failure.

To tie this to Darcy88's questioning of Christians, the problem of a general atheism is that it rejects all spirituality. If atheism is not purely reactionary, what sort of alternative could an atheist offer to this Christian trinity of Gods--or for that matter to a Hindu's millions of Gods? I'll answer that question: It offers nothing. General atheism, the kind promoted in these forums, acknowledges nothing spiritual--not even a significance to the consciousness of the people in the discussion.

I take the Christian trinity as a metaphor of God. I take the Hindu collection of deities as a metaphor of God. I take the Buddhist non-Atman meditative investigations as a metaphor of God. I take Israel's Yahweh and Islam's Allah as monotheistic metaphors for God.

The key point related to the OP is that there is nothing from atheism that I can use as a metaphor of God. And because of that, it is a waste of time.

[Darcy88]

I agree with Darcy88 in the discussion of whether Jesus is separate from his Father. It appears to me that there are, at least metaphorically, two Gods involved here. The number three probably had some significance to early Christians, so the Holy Spirit was added. Since the Holy Spirit is gender-neutral, I think, the early Christians missed their chance to add a female deity.

But the original question of this thread was about atheism and whether it is only reactionary and because of that doomed to failure.

To tie this to Darcy88's questioning of Christians, the problem of a general atheism is that it rejects all spirituality. If atheism is not purely reactionary, what sort of alternative could an atheist offer to this Christian trinity of Gods--or for that matter to a Hindu's millions of Gods? I'll answer that question: It offers nothing. General atheism, the kind promoted in these forums, acknowledges nothing spiritual--not even a significance to the consciousness of the people in the discussion.

I take the Christian trinity as a metaphor of God. I take the Hindu collection of deities as a metaphor of God. I take the Buddhist non-Atman meditative investigations as a metaphor of God. I take Israel's Yahweh and Islam's Allah as monotheistic metaphors for God.

The key point related to the OP is that there is nothing from atheism that I can use as a metaphor of God. And because of that, it is a waste of time.

I can't agree that atheism precludes spirituality. One can be a Taoist or a Buddhist and still be an atheist. Atheists can still attach transcendent value to things like love, beauty and compassion. Reality may be limited to the material but there is no limitation on how reality can be interpreted.

[YesNo]

I can't agree that atheism precludes spirituality. One can be a Taoist or a Buddhist and still be an atheist. Atheists can still attach transcendent value to things like love, beauty and compassion. Reality may be limited to the material but there is no limitation on how reality can be interpreted.
I don't know about much about Taoism, but Buddhism has reincarnation. Do atheists find that acceptable? My suspicion is that atheists who want to practice Buddhist mindfulness will ignore that part of Buddhism.

I'm guessing here, but I suspect that when Buddhists promote their non-Atman type of "atheism" they are rejecting the avatar love relationships that Hindus have with Rama or Krishna--or Christians have with Jesus. I suspect some of them replace these avatars with the Buddha himself. There are still other-worldly, supernatural hells and heavens where the dead wait until their next reincarnation. A Buddhist would expect to continue to go through these cycles until he or she got enlightened. Is that an idea that Dawkins would tolerate?

But to get back to the thread, what is the alternative that atheists would have to the Christian trinity? I agree with you; the Christian trinity implies three more or less separate Gods.

Reality can't be limited to the material if there was a finite beginning to that material stuff. Also out-of-body experiences provide other evidence that this material stuff is not all there is. Atheists try to use ideas to deny these experiences. They provide nothing to help interpret these experiences since they refuse to acknowledge the evidence. Because of the rejection of these experiences I view atheists the way they view people who think that humans co-inhabited the earth with dinosaurs like T-Rex.

[Darcy88]

I don't know about much about Taoism, but Buddhism has reincarnation. Do atheists find that acceptable? My suspicion is that atheists who want to practice Buddhist mindfulness will ignore that part of Buddhism.

I'm guessing here, but I suspect that when Buddhists promote their non-Atman type of "atheism" they are rejecting the avatar love relationships that Hindus have with Rama or Krishna--or Christians have with Jesus. I suspect some of them replace these avatars with the Buddha himself. There are still other-worldly, supernatural hells and heavens where the dead wait until their next reincarnation. A Buddhist would expect to continue to go through these cycles until he or she got enlightened. Is that an idea that Dawkins would tolerate?

But to get back to the thread, what is the alternative that atheists would have to the Christian trinity? I agree with you; the Christian trinity implies three more or less separate Gods.

Reality can't be limited to the material if there was a finite beginning to that material stuff. Also out-of-body experiences provide other evidence that this material stuff is not all there is. Atheists try to use ideas to deny these experiences. They provide nothing to help interpret these experiences since they refuse to acknowledge the evidence. Because of the rejection of these experiences I view atheists the way they view people who think that humans co-inhabited the earth with dinosaurs like T-Rex.

I was once a Zen Buddhist and I held no supernatural beliefs. The interconnectedness of all things and the transcendent value of compassion constitute spirituality in my opinion.

As we previously discussed, near death experiences have been induced in laboratory settings, thus proving that they have a material cause.

If by atheism you mean materialism then I suppose yes, atheists recognize nothing beyond the material, scientifically verifiable world.

[YesNo]

Yes, near-death and shared-death experiences, since they are experiences, have a cause. I think we agree on that.

The only atheism that I'm opposed to, based on your comments, would be "materialism". There are plenty of Gods I don't believe in so I would not want to be opposed to atheism in general.

[JuniperWoolf]

Thankyou for your sensible historical reminders of this time period- you are absolutely correct.

He's also correct in stating that the SOUTH was very religious as well. Saying that abolition was the result of religious people in order to prove the inherant goodness of religion is like saying it was the result of people with brown hair, and therefor people with brown hair are morally good. The vast majority of people were Christian at that time period. Also, my OP specified that I was discussing the last two decades, not 1861.

[KCurtis]

Yes it did, I went back and re-read it. I am dismayed that your generation feels this way. I understand it, and while I am not religious at all, it saddens me because of my past history, and how it was different than yours because I saw first hand the good that Churches did when I was a kid. I still think there are great religious people out there, and many people are helped by them. All I can say is I am so grateful for the freedom I have to NOT have to have a religion, and the freedom others have to believe in theirs. I like young people, and want to understand them. But there are still young people who are religious too.


He's also correct in stating that the SOUTH was very religious as well. Saying that abolition was the result of religious people in order to prove the inherant goodness of religion is like saying it was the result of people with brown hair, and therefor people with brown hair are morally good. The vast majority of people were Christian at that time period. Also, my OP specified that I was discussing the last two decades, not 1861.


The negatives FAR outweigh the positives, and those positives (hospitals for example) have been provided via secular methods such as government or charity far more often than religion.

Regarding "new atheists," here's the thing: most "new atheists" (which I think could be more accurately described as the new "anti-organized religious," since they're not even all atheists) were born in the 80's which means: when they were children, they watched Muslims fly airplanes into New York City; when AIDS developed, they were babies and grew up watching people die by the millions in Africa because the Catholic Church refused to allow people to use condoms; when they were growing up, the Catholic Church's histoy of institutionalized coverups of priests molesting children was exposed; they were also kids during the most active phase of the Gay Rights Movement. Of course, why deny the same legal rights to people just because of what they choose to do in the privacy of their own homes, the resolution sounds obvious. The only opposition? Religious people, who say disturbing things about homosexuality being "wrong" and send kids to unbelievably ****ed up "learn how to be straight" seminar retreats. Their behaviour caused many gay people to commit suicide. On top of that, many people see the Iraq war as a holy war.

So in summation, BY FAR the biggest topics on the news throughout their entire lives were: thousands of people being crushed and burned to death, millions of people dying slowly of aids, children being molested and the supposed "good guys" lying about it to protect themselves, gay suicide and denial of human rights, and for what? From the "new anti-organized religion," vantage point, each religious belief seems equally (in)valid, so to them it looks like people are fighting about which has the toughest invisible friend, and they're making people suffer because it's what that invisible friend wants. Insane.

So, taking these things into consideration, is it really any wonder that "new atheists" feel so much disgust and anger towards organized religion (and specifically, the Judeo-Christo-Islamic religions)? Profound disgust towards organized religion seems to be one of the main features of my generation, one only needs to mention Christianity in a classroom for this to become apparent, and it's not the "liberal professors" who are putting these ideas into our heads like many people claim, kids aren't stupid sheep: our opinions arise from our own observation of the screwed up world in which we were raised.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'm really not sure if the negatives of religion far outweigh the positives or not . . . and I'm not really sure if there's any way to know one way or another. The problem with trying to determine whether or not this is the case is that the negatives will always get way more attention than the positives. Suicide bombings, wars in the Middle-East, those idiots that hold the "God hates fags" signs at soldiers' funerals, those will always get news coverage. The churches that do help the needy, donate to hospitals (or even run hospitals), etc; none of them get barely any publicity because it's not sensational.

Here's my opinion. The positives and the negatives, if anything, seem to cancel each other out, leaving the "goodness" of religion rendered neutral. It's neither good nor bad, it's just another thing in the world that does both in extremes at both ends of the spectrum, while probably 95% of what's done in the name of religion is pretty harmless. Religion is just there,

[Drkshadow03]

Yes it did, I went back and re-read it. I am dismayed that your generation feels this way. I understand it, and while I am not religious at all, it saddens me because of my past history, and how it was different than yours because I saw first hand the good that Churches did when I was a kid. I still think there are great religious people out there, and many people are helped by them. All I can say is I am so grateful for the freedom I have to NOT have to have a religion, and the freedom others have to believe in theirs. I like young people, and want to understand them. But there are still young people who are religious too.

Sure, I was born in the 80s, witnessed all those things, and I don't feel that way about religion.

[Darcy88]

I think a good analogy is politics. Politics leads to much evil and much good. For all the horrid things done in the name of religion, there have been equally horrid things done for the sake of secular ideologies, such as communism and fascism.

Like politics I think religion reflects our flawed, imperfect humanity. In some instances it may itself worsen us, but in general I'd say its a reflection, more of an effect than a cause.

[Freudian Monkey]

And corporate capitalism?

[Darcy88]

And corporate capitalism?

Same thing. A projection of the worst, of the darkness lurking in the soul of man. Nothing relating to the affairs of humanity operates independently of human nature, not politics, not religion. Severing religion from its origins in human nature is like separating a tree from its roots.

[BienvenuJDC]

Same thing. A projection of the worst, of the darkness lurking in the soul of man. Nothing relating to the affairs of humanity operates independently of human nature, not politics, not religion. Severing religion from its origins in human nature is like separating a tree from its roots.

I'm sorry, but there are religions that do not have their roots in human nature...oh, but you don't believe that's possible.

[Varenne Rodin]

Watch "Tree of Life".

[JuniperWoolf]

I believe that people who are in positions of power are driven by greed and the desire to control resources, but the average suicide bomber? He's being controlled by religion. If religion wasn't so societal and it wasn't taken so seriously, I think that people in positions of power would have a much more difficult time convincing people to kill each other and themselves.

[Drkshadow03]

I believe that people who are in positions of power are driven by greed and the desire to control resources, but the average suicide bomber? He's being controlled by religion. If religion wasn't so societal and it wasn't taken so seriously, I think that people in positions of power would have a much more difficult time convincing people to kill each other and themselves.

Nah, it turns out people manage to kill each other just fine without religious reasons for doing so. Also, in those societies that had government-endorsed atheism (Communist Russia, the First French Republic during the reign of terror) that didn't stem killing by any means.

[Freudian Monkey]

Watch "Tree of Life".

A weird mixture of Kubrick's Space Odyssey and a story of oedipal struggle in a stereotypical southern family, with a LOT of discovery channel high-speed cam stock footage. Even though I usually enjoy symbolism and ambiguousity in films, this one didn't win me over. Might get better with multiple viewings, although I doubt it.

[JuniperWoolf]

Nah, it turns out people manage to kill each other just fine without religious reasons for doing so. Also, in those societies that had government-endorsed atheism (Communist Russia, the First French Republic during the reign of terror) that didn't stem killing by any means.

I'm not talking about people killing each other, I'm talking about fanatics killing innocent people for absolutely no reason (that they know of - "so that people from my own country can gain maintain control of monetary gain via oil" is technically a reason, but if someone tried to sell them suicide bombing with that line I doubt they'd be too enthusiastic about the idea). Killing someone in a war because you are trying to protect the citizens or sovereignty of your nation is one thing - killing someone because your god is real and theirs is obviously isn't real (and I don't think I have to say, although I will anyway, that ALL gods are equally valid) which means that you can't tolerate their existance and have to blow them up, children and all, is something different entirely.

Basically what I'm saying is that fighting people is sometimes necessary, but your resoning behind it and your main motivating factor should never be religion, that's just nuts. I've seen enough of it to make my stomach churn and to turn me off of organized religion for good. In today's world, religion is taken way too seriously by way too many loud, angry, horrible people.

Also, I'm not talking about communist Russia or the First French Republic, I'm talking about now, because that's what's pertinent. The global situation today, and the viewpoints and motivations of people today, are much different than half a century ago, or in 1800. Could people kill each other purely to force atheism? Sure, I could picture it, people could do anything. Do they? Not right now, no. Right now they're killing each other to force their religion, so that's what I'm going to worry about.

[Drkshadow03]

killing someone because your god is real and theirs is obviously isn't real (and I don't think I have to say, although I will anyway, that ALL gods are equally valid) which means that you can't tolerate their existance and have to blow them up, children and all, is something different entirely.

Basically what I'm saying is that fighting people is sometimes necessary, but your resoning behind it and your main motivating factor should never be religion, that's just nuts.

Oh, was that the main motivating factor?

Also since you refined your position from:


If religion wasn't so societal and it wasn't taken so seriously, I think that people in positions of power would have a much more difficult time convincing people to kill each other and themselves.

I'm assuming you've accepted this claim is wrong given the historical examples provided demonstrates people in positions of power can easily convince people to kill each other and themselves without religion (including innocents).

[Darcy88]

I'm sorry, but there are religions that do not have their roots in human nature...oh, but you don't believe that's possible.

Oh I fully acknowledge the possibility that Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, the cult of Dionysius, Mormonism, Bahai, Rastafarianism, Mithraism, Sikhism, Jainism and Scientology may be divinely inspired. Its impossible to know which if any though, the evidence for each being equal.

[Climacus]

Oh I fully acknowledge the possibility that Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, the cult of Dionysius, Mormonism, Bahai, Rastafarianism, Mithraism, Sikhism, Jainism and Scientology may be divinely inspired. Its impossible to know which if any though, the evidence for each being equal.
But, Darcy, competing religious claims are sometimes contraries and sometimes contradictories, how then can the evidence for each be equal? You're not a dialetheist are you?

[cafolini]

But, Darcy, competing religious claims are sometimes contraries and sometimes contradictories, how then can the evidence for each be equal? You're not a dialetheist are you?

There occurs no evidence for any of them. So the evidence is all equal, i.e., nil.

[JuniperWoolf]

I'm assuming you've accepted this claim is wrong given the historical examples provided demonstrates people in positions of power can easily convince people to kill each other and themselves without religion (including innocents).

Um, no. The key phrase in the part of my post that you quoted was "more difficult." If people IN THIS SITUATION weren't convinced that they would be treated like gods in the afterlife do you really think they would have been as eager to bomb school children and kill themselves in the process? I doubt it. Also, you used an example from 1795 which no one cares about except for in an historical context. I'm talking about TODAY. Religious fanaticism is providing a lot of fuel for this mess, and if you don't believe that then you should probably watch the news more often. I could give you a stat that I came across the other day which states how many Christians have been murdered in Egypt since the 80's, but I have to find it. It was quite high. It's not just the taliban either, there are a lot of people who are causing problems in the middle east because they hold their religious organization way too close. We get them on litnet sometimes, "if you deny that Muhammad is the true prophet, blah blah blah." You must have come across a few, it's creepy.

I also assert that if people didn't thump their bible so hard, they might actually think about other people before condemning homosexuals to hell and denying them their legal human rights on the grounds of "it's what God wants."

Also, if the Catholic church wasn't literally handed so much power and cash, do you think that there would be as many people currently dying of AIDS in Africa? Do you think that when it was exposed in 2005 that the current pope knowingly advocated the coverup of sexual abuse scandals in Texas he would have still been able to obtain immunity from prosecution on the grounds that he's head of state of the Holy See? People still throw their money and support at the catholic church, even though it's been irrefutably proven that the leaders knowlingly hid evidence of child molestation. Seriously, the fact that they STILL have followers is a testiment to the fact that people hold their religious organization too closely. If the heads of the organization are corrupt, change organizations. There's nothing sacred about a group that would come face to face with someone raping kids and then saying "we'd better not let this get out, it might hurt our image." I understand the value of spirituality, and I'll admit, I have some doubts about materialism. The organization itself though? They're not holy, they're just normal people who have too much power.

My favorite solution to decreasing the ferver with which people defend their religious organization is that we should make fun of it, and we should be allowed to make fun of it. This latter point is mostly regarding Islam since we're already allowed to mock Christianity (which is good), although the catholic church did once press for an Itallian comedian to be thrown in prison for five years for insulting the pope. You can't find a network that would so much as show an image of Muhammad, let alone allow their writers to make fun of him, because they're (understandably) afraid that they'll be bombed. I think that we should push for the ability to make light of Muhammad, and I guess we could start by doing so on the internet (because you can't bomb the internet). I've always thought that comedy has power in society, you can trace the affects of various comedic trends. *shrug* I was still reading cartoon strips from the French Revolution in highschool. Comedy affects public opinion, and it really plays a role in preventing people from taking something too much to heart, which is what I'm saying is a big problem right now in regards to people's relationship with their church.

[Drkshadow03]

Um, no. The key phrase in the part of my post that you quoted was "more difficult." If people IN THIS SITUATION weren't convinced that they would be treated like gods in the afterlife do you really think they would have been as eager to bomb school children and kill themselves in the process? I doubt it. Also, you used an example from 1795 which no one cares about except for in an historical context. I'm talking about TODAY. Religious fanaticism is providing a lot of fuel for this mess, and if you don't believe that then you should probably watch the news more often. I could give you a stat that I came across the other day which states how many Christians have been murdered in Egypt since the 80's, but I have to find it. It was quite high. It's not just the taliban either, there are a lot of people who are causing problems in the middle east because they hold their religious organization way too close. We get them on litnet sometimes, "if you deny that Muhammad is the true prophet, blah blah blah." You must have come across a few, it's creepy.

I also assert that if people didn't thump their bible so hard, they might actually think about other people before condemning homosexuals to hell and denying them their legal human rights on the grounds of "it's what God wants."

Also, if the Catholic church wasn't literally handed so much power and cash, do you think that there would be as many people currently dying of AIDS in Africa? Do you think that when it was exposed in 2005 that the current pope knowingly advocated the coverup of sexual abuse scandals in Texas he would have still been able to obtain immunity from prosecution on the grounds that he's head of state of the Holy See? People still throw their money and support at the catholic church, even though it's been irrefutably proven that the leaders knowlingly hid evidence of child molestation. Seriously, the fact that they STILL have followers is a testiment to the fact that people hold their religious organization too closely. If the heads of the organization are corrupt, change organizations. There's nothing sacred about a group that would come face to face with someone raping kids and then saying "we'd better not let this get out, it might hurt our image." I understand the value of spirituality, and I'll admit, I have some doubts about materialism. The organization itself though? They're not holy, they're just normal people who have too much power.

My favorite solution to decreasing the ferver with which people defend their religion is that we should make fun of it, and we should be allowed to make fun of it. This latter point is mostly regarding Islam since we're already allowed to mock Christianity (which is good), although the catholic church did once press for an Itallian comedian to be thrown in prison for five years for insulting the pope. You can't find a network that would so much as show an image of Muhammad, let alone allow their writers to make fun of him, because they're (understandably) afraid that they'll be bombed. I think that we should push for the ability to make light of Muhammad, and I guess we could start by doing so on the internet (because you can't bomb the internet). I've always thought that comedy has power in society, you can trace the affects of various comedic trends. *shrug* I was still reading cartoon strips from the French Revolution in highschool. Comedy affects public opinion, and it really plays a role in preventing people from taking something too much to heart, which is what I'm saying is a big problem right now in regards to people's relationship with their church.

You clearly are not understanding why I brought up the French Revolution and Communism. :banghead: The point is from what evidence we can look at from history it doesn't seem people would have any difficulty whatsoever finding other reasons to kill and oppress each other without religion as a pretext. So I'm talking about today too. If there was no religion today, people would still do awful crap to each other, plain and simple.

So belaboring the same points about the evils of religion seems to be you having a desire to strain you're typing fingers. It doesn't disprove anything I said.

Yes, religion can motivate some bad behavior, but given history and what I've seen of human behavior today, it isn't hard to imagine people finding other ways to justify these actions or simply performing other horrible actions.

[JuniperWoolf]

You clearly are not understanding why I brought up the French Revolution and Communism.

Er, no. I got it. I addressed that point several posts ago:


Could people kill each other purely to force atheism? Sure, I could picture it, people could do anything. Do they? Not right now, no. Right now they're killing each other to force their religion, so that's what I'm going to worry about.

You seem to be saying "meh, if there were no religious fanatics everything would still be the same":


If there was no religion today, people would still do awful crap to each other, plain and simple.

Yeah, they'd still be doing all of the awful crap that they're already doing to each other that isn't religiously motivated, but they wouldn't do the religiously motivated stuff, which adds up to a lot. It would be worth the effort to subtract the religiously-motivated hate crimes. Unless you're saying that they'd still do the same stuff, except they'd find other reasons to do it, in which case I disagree. They'd still war over oil (they'd have less suicide bombers though, and less people randomly killing innocent people, people who are of their own nationality, while they're just minding their own business at school or church or something), but if there were no catholic church, would someone feel the need to step up in a secular way and attempt to convince Africans not to use condoms in the middle of an AIDS outbreak? What would motivate them to do that?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I think we'd have pretty much the same amount of violence and horrible behavior without religion. Humanity doesn't need much of an excuse to be horrible.

[JuniperWoolf]

But that doesn't make sense, the suffering caused with religion as the main or primary motivating factor are numerically significant. How could reducing the motivation not decrease the behaviour? That would mean that if the Catholic church wasn't getting away with hiding child molestation for fifty years, someone else would. That doesn't reflect reality.

[Calidore]

Religion isn't the cause. The cause is inside the people who commit the acts. Religion is their excuse. To use your example above, without the Catholic Church, the molesters who were covered for by the church would still be predators, and the people currently doing the covering up would be covering something else up wherever they were working. It's not about protecting child molesters in their mind; it's about protecting the church, which they see as bigger and more important. Were they working in government or the corporate world, they'd do the same, because that's their philosophy.

Drkshadow03 and Mutatis are correct IMO. People are the same, regardless of religion, political party, or what have you. The good people will be good, and the bad ones will be bad.

[JCamilo]

But that doesn't make sense, the suffering caused with religion as the main or primary motivating factor are numerically significant. How could reducing the motivation not decrease the behaviour? That would mean that if the Catholic church wasn't getting away with hiding child molestation for fifty years, someone else would. That doesn't reflect reality.

Well, I would say the prime factor is writting. The majority of big wars had to do with people writting "i will make a war with you" and the other said writting back "fine, saturday after the football"

Very few of the wars are among illiterate leaders. I think you should consider it.

[Darcy88]

Religion isn't the cause. The cause is inside the people who commit the acts. Religion is their excuse. To use your example above, without the Catholic Church, the molesters who were covered for by the church would still be predators, and the people currently doing the covering up would be covering something else up wherever they were working. It's not about protecting child molesters in their mind; it's about protecting the church, which they see as bigger and more important. Were they working in government or the corporate world, they'd do the same, because that's their philosophy.

Drkshadow03 and Mutatis are correct IMO. People are the same, regardless of religion, political party, or what have you. The good people will be good, and the bad ones will be bad.

Calidore, while I agree with the overall tenor of your post I must take issue with the part in bold. There are such a high number of pedophile priests because the church forbids them from having sex or marrying. Their natual sex instinct is suppressed and thereby perverted. You do hear of coaches and other persons molesting children but not nearly as often as you hear of priests. The reason behind their not being allowed to marry is really quite sinister. I heard a historian explain that the vatican instituted this ban so that their priests would be left without heirs and their property thus turned over to the church. Much of the church's staggering fortune and land holdings have come about due to this.

[Darcy88]

If religion wasn't so societal and it wasn't taken so seriously, I think that people in positions of power would have a much more difficult time convincing people to kill each other and themselves.

This makes sense. I'm wary of blaming religion for all the world's ills as some militant atheists are prone to do, but it is culpable for many atrocities that have happened or are happening. How many muslim youth could be persuaded to blow themelves and others up were it not for their faith rendering them pawns? Would there be any other reason for condom use to be deemed evil in aids-stricken Africa? I think not. If religion were to vanish the sum total of human suffering may meaningfully lessen. It would not dissapear however. For every evil done in the name of religion I could name several done for the sake of greed.

[Ecurb]

Calidore, while I agree with the overall tenor of your post I must take issue with the part in bold. There are such a high number of pedophile priests because the church forbids them from having sex or marrying. Their natual sex instinct is suppressed and thereby perverted. You do hear of coaches and other persons molesting children but not nearly as often as you hear of priests. The reason behind their not being allowed to marry is really quite sinister. I heard a historian explain that the vatican instituted this ban so that their priests would be left without heirs and their property thus turned over to the church. Much of the church's staggering fortune and land holdings have come about due to this.

I disagree. My guess is that many pedophiles are attracted to the priesthood because they know they are sexually attracted to children, and they WANT to abstain from sex (because they know sex with children is both evil and socially unacceptable). Unfortunately, they are unable to abstain (and, no doubt, the Church is to blame because they have not rooted out a culture of sex abuse).

I'd guess a high percentage of priests in the past were gay, for the same reason.

[Darcy88]

I disagree. My guess is that many pedophiles are attracted to the priesthood because they know they are sexually attracted to children, and they WANT to abstain from sex (because they know sex with children is both evil and socially unacceptable). Unfortunately, they are unable to abstain (and, no doubt, the Church is to blame because they have not rooted out a culture of sex abuse).

I'd guess a high percentage of priests in the past were gay, for the same reason.

A Catholic with profound spiritual yearnings, feeling himself called upon to serve God, is going to enter the priesthood, regardless of sexuality. I'm sure there is an element of what you say, but its not enough to account for the high percentage of pedophiles in the priesthood. Its a silly rule and ought to be abolished.

[Ecurb]

A Catholic with profound spiritual yearnings, feeling himself called upon to serve God, is going to enter the priesthood, regardless of sexuality. I'm sure there is an element of what you say, but its not enough to account for the high percentage of pedophiles in the priesthood. Its a silly rule and ought to be abolished.

My guess is just a guess. However, based on what we know about human sexuality it doesn't seem like people would suddenly become attracted to children just because they were not allowed to have sex. Priests could just as easily have elicit sex with adults, if that was their sexual proclivity.

I agree it's a silly rule, though.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

But that doesn't make sense, the suffering caused with religion as the main or primary motivating factor are numerically significant. How could reducing the motivation not decrease the behaviour? That would mean that if the Catholic church wasn't getting away with hiding child molestation for fifty years, someone else would. That doesn't reflect reality.
I'm primarily talking about violence--murder, death, etc. I don't disagree that there is a clear link between Catholic priests and molestation, but I also wonder if these pedophiles need religion to commit these acts--it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they still turned out to be pedophiles without becoming priests. It's not that someone else would, just that the same people would for a different reason.

Make sense or not, it's what I believe. I think religion is often more of an excuse than a reason for people to commit violence. A lot of the suicide bombers and the like come from very poor socio-economic situations, and are ripe from brain-washing. It's how most terrorists are recruited. They have nothing to live for, and once they are given something to live for, they latch on to it, even if it means committing suicide. If they didn't do it for religion, maybe their reasons would be completely political (which has already been the case).

All I'm saying is that violence will find a way. It doesn't need religion. I'm not defending religion here, I'm just saying that if it wasn't religion, it'd be something else.

[Alexander III]

I'm primarily talking about violence--murder, death, etc. I don't disagree that there is a clear link between Catholic priests and molestation, but I also wonder if these pedophiles need religion to commit these acts--it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they still turned out to be pedophiles without becoming priests. It's not that someone else would, just that the same people would for a different reason.

Make sense or not, it's what I believe. I think religion is often more of an excuse than a reason for people to commit violence. A lot of the suicide bombers and the like come from very poor socio-economic situations, and are ripe from brain-washing. It's how most terrorists are recruited. They have nothing to live for, and once they are given something to live for, they latch on to it, even if it means committing suicide. If they didn't do it for religion, maybe their reasons would be completely political (which has already been the case).

All I'm saying is that violence will find a way. It doesn't need religion. I'm not defending religion here, I'm just saying that if it wasn't religion, it'd be something else.

I agree with Mutis here, religion, comunism, fascism, liberty, freedom, patriotism, civilization - all of these ahave been used as flags to motivate the masses into behaving as wanted by the elite. Religion per se is not the problem.

Besides, I am not religious, but what is not being accounted for in this discussion is the relief that religion has provided to millions of people. I mean we all know life is tough, especialy for those is the non western world, and we all have those dark moments. For many relligion offers them some hope, some relief from that pain. I do not care if it is an illusion or not, what the people feel is real and to want to take that away from them for the sake of "truth" or "progress" seems machinelike and soulless.

[Climacus]

There occurs no evidence for any of them. So the evidence is all equal, i.e., nil.
Well, that's not overweening at all, is it?

[Climacus]

But, Darcy, competing religious claims are sometimes contraries and sometimes contradictories, how then can the evidence for each be equal? You're not a dialetheist are you?
Still, waiting to hear your response, Darcy. Or do you agree with Cafolini?

[Darcy88]

Still, waiting to hear your response, Darcy. Or do you agree with Cafolini?

I have no idea what a dialetheist is. I've never encountered the word before through all my years of reading.

I do agree with Cafolini. That was the point I was trying to make. I don't think any of the religions I mentioned can be proven to be more or less logical or contradictory than the others. Maybe scientology, but overall they all rely on faith and they're all rife with contradiction.

[cafolini]

I have no idea what a dialetheist is. I've never encountered the word before through all my years of reading.

I do agree with Cafolini. That was the point I was trying to make. I don't think any of the religions I mentioned can be proven to be more or less logical or contradictory than the others. Maybe scientology, but overall they all rely on faith and they're all rife with contradiction.

That's also true, Darcy. We might be able to give Scientology some points for Dianetics. Problem confrontatiion made some scientific contributions to pshycology. But overall it is a religion.

[cafolini]

I have no idea what a dialetheist is. I've never encountered the word before through all my years of reading.

I do agree with Cafolini. That was the point I was trying to make. I don't think any of the religions I mentioned can be proven to be more or less logical or contradictory than the others. Maybe scientology, but overall they all rely on faith and they're all rife with contradiction.

That's also true, Darcy. We might be able to give Scientology some points for Dianetics. Problem confrontatiion made some scientific contributions to psychology. But overall it is a religion.

[JuniperWoolf]

If religion were to vanish the sum total of human suffering may meaningfully lessen. It would not dissapear however.

Well I don't mean that I want all spirituallity to completely vanish and for everyone to become atheists, that would mean that people would be terrified and depressed when they and their loved ones are facing death and suffering. I've always believed that many people need to imagine that they're being taken care of. What I keep stressing is that people take their organization too seriously (that's really the key point), and they equate the organization with their god, when in reality there are several organizations offering spiritual guidance based on the same god. General public opinion should be altered (which is what happens when there is freedom of speech and expression) so that people will be persuaded by their societal norms to think for themselves and to be okay with questioning their religious authority figures. That way, if their organization is corrupt on the highest levels of it's operation or if their leaders seem to be going against the relatively peaceful teachings of their holy book by trying to convince their followers to hurt people, then everyone can feel free to change to a different organization. That takes power away from the corrupt, violent leaders. I think that it's worth my time and effort to work towards a time in which one's religious organization isn't taken too much to heart.


I don't disagree that there is a clear link between Catholic priests and molestation, but I also wonder if these pedophiles need religion to commit these acts--it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they still turned out to be pedophiles without becoming priests.

Of course child molesters would still be child molesters, but I think that there's a very good chance that their crimes would have come to light decades earlier (plus several molested children earlier) if they weren't actively hidden by the church. I also agree with Ecurb's point that paedophiles are attracted to the church often because they're able to work with kids in an environment to which everyone turns a blind eye.

I also disagree with people who claim that the catholic church turns people into paedophiles because of their no-sex law. If a normal person was told that they weren't allowed to have sex, and they got really, really horny, why would they suddenly decide to have sex with children? Why wouldn't they just bang the butcher's slutty wife who keeps giving them the eye?


Make sense or not, it's what I believe. I think religion is often more of an excuse than a reason for people to commit violence.

So you don't think that it's being used in a huge way as a tool for control, or that it's the most dangerous tool for control since it's impossible to argue against (being a religion, there are no counter-arguments that will work) and also because while people all over the world are open to criticisms of political instiutions (everyone complains about the "damn government, no matter who's in charge), many people won't tolerate criticism for their religious institution?


All I'm saying is that violence will find a way. It doesn't need religion. I'm not defending religion here, I'm just saying that if it wasn't religion, it'd be something else.

Well that sort of just seems like lazy thinking. If you honestly want to help things get better than they are right now, you've really got to take each situation one at a time and then try to figure out which stance might help things improve (and I believe that they can improve). It's too easy to just say "meh, people suck."

[cafolini]

Human/inhuman violence has always been the result of demagogues, despots and nepotists using religion as a means to instigate war and conquest, OR mentally balanced freedom fighters defending rights and peace. All governments are ultimately based on faith. Ultimately what matters is what's the faith. Is it posed in freedom of religion, evolution and expansion of choices, or is it based on slavery to some religion, some culture and involution? That's a better question than the well-known and superficial one of 2br02b.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Of course child molesters would still be child molesters, but I think that there's a very good chance that their crimes would have come to light decades earlier (plus several molested children earlier) if they weren't actively hidden by the church. I also agree with Ecurb's point that paedophiles are attracted to the church often because they're able to work with kids in an environment to which everyone turns a blind eye.
I agree. Do not think I'm defending the Catholic church in any way. The Catholic church simply sickens me.

So you don't think that it's being used in a huge way as a tool for control, or that it's the most dangerous tool for control since it's impossible to argue against (being a religion, there are no counter-arguments that will work) and also because while people all over the world are open to criticisms of political instiutions (everyone complains about the "damn government, no matter who's in charge), many people won't tolerate criticism for their religious institution?
Yes, I think it's being used as a tool for control, just as many other things are.

Well that sort of just seems like lazy thinking. If you honestly want to help things get better than they are right now, you've really got to take each situation one at a time and then try to figure out which stance might help things improve (and I believe that they can improve). It's too easy to just say "meh, people suck."
Well, they do.

I believe a person can improve. I'm not sold on the idea that people can.

[cafolini]

My question is: Do you think that if the clergy followed the law it would stop them from molesting children who just turned 18? Or you think that a child just stops being a child the day of his 18th birthday?
And a corollary quuestion: What does all of this have to do with celibacy? And please, please, please, do not come to me and tell me that the practice of celibacy was founded on the idea that a celibate priest would have more time to dedicate himself to his job.

[JuniperWoolf]

I believe a person can improve. I'm not sold on the idea that people can.

Haha, I'm the exact opposite. I don't think that people often change, but I believe that their children can be better people than their parents were if they're raised in a more lighthearted world with wide-reaching social variation and connection (say, for example, one with the internet).

[BienvenuJDC]

My question is: Do you think that if the clergy followed the law it would stop them from molesting children who just turned 18? Or you think that a child just stops being a child the day of his 18th birthday?
And a corollary quuestion: What does all of this have to do with celibacy? And please, please, please, do not come to me and tell me that the practice of celibacy was founded on the idea that a celibate priest would have more time to dedicate himself to his job.

The interesting thing is that there are more passages in the Bible condemning a celibacy requirement, than there are that would support it.

[Varenne Rodin]

The interesting thing is that there are more passages in the Bible condemning a celibacy requirement, than there are that would support it.

So, the bible wants holy types to get it on? I never heard that one.

[Drkshadow03]

So, the bible wants holy types to get it on? I never heard that one.

Be Fruitful and Multiply!

[YesNo]

I've heard that Buddhist monks are expected to be celibate. So celibacy is not something peculiar to Catholicism if I've got my facts straight.

Although I can sort of see a motivation for celibacy in putting all one's energy into worship or meditation or whatever one practices, having a family offers many more challenges that may even be more useful spiritually. When I see a couple fighting, and they claim to be of a particular religion, I assume that their religion is not very useful or they aren't effectively practicing it.

The same would go for atheists who fight within their family which brings this back to the OP which was about atheism and not religion. Do atheists offer any better practice to make their family lives better?

[Climacus]

I have no idea what a dialetheist is. I've never encountered the word before through all my years of reading.
Dialeltheists think that some propositions are both true and false. But not in the sense that subjectivists do - that is, true for me and false you. Dialeltheists think that they are both true and false objectively. They reject the principle of non-contradiction, what Aristotle called "the most certain of all principles." Why would they do that? Well, certain paradoxical propositions do seem to be both true and false. Take the following proposition: "This proposition is false." Now, if it's true, then it's false. And if it's false, then it's true. The trouble is that this paradoxicalness only occurs with self-referential propositions. And I think it's merely an articulative problem - that is, not a logical problem, but a problem with certain man-made logics.


I do agree with Cafolini. That was the point I was trying to make. I don't think any of the religions I mentioned can be proven to be more or less logical or contradictory than the others. Maybe scientology, but overall they all rely on faith and they're all rife with contradiction.
And you don't mean this hyperbolically? But to draw this conclusion, you need to canvass the religions for truth-claims, quantify them, assign truth values to them, and do the math. Surely you're not saying that you've done something like this?

[Varenne Rodin]

I've heard that Buddhist monks are expected to be celibate. So celibacy is not something peculiar to Catholicism if I've got my facts straight.

Although I can sort of see a motivation for celibacy in putting all one's energy into worship or meditation or whatever one practices, having a family offers many more challenges that may even be more useful spiritually. When I see a couple fighting, and they claim to be of a particular religion, I assume that their religion is not very useful or they aren't effectively practicing it.

The same would go for atheists who fight within their family which brings this back to the OP which was about atheism and not religion. Do atheists offer any better practice to make their family lives better?

I practice all sorts of things to make my family life better. Of course I do. Why wouldn't I?

"Name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer." - Hitchens

Religion is useless to me. I don't need sanctions and threats to make me behave decently to other people. If a person thinks they need that, there is something wrong with their thinking.

[Darcy88]

And you don't mean this hyperbolically? But to draw this conclusion, you need to canvass the religions for truth-claims, quantify them, assign truth values to them, and do the math. Surely you're not saying that you've done something like this?

Yes, I've pretty much done that. You have too if you believe in one or none of them. We're all at least vaguely familiar with the truth claims of most religions. All or most of them are faith-based and therefore empirically equivalent.

[Climacus]

I practice all sorts of things to make my family life better. Of course I do. Why wouldn't I?

"Name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer." - Hitchens

Religion is useless to me. I don't need sanctions and threats to make me behave decently to other people. If a person thinks they need that, there is something wrong with their thinking.
Well, when theists say things like "we can't be good without God," they don't mean "we can't be good if we don't believe in God." (Unless they're morons, of course, and we needn't discuss morons.) They mean that if God doesn't exists, then good and evil don't exist either, at least not objectively. And so we can be neither good nor evil. (Maybe they're wrong about this, but that's what they mean.)

The soundness of Hitchens' sentiment, on the other hand, is contingent on whether or not God exists. For if God exists, then there are good actions that atheists cannot perform. In example, if God exists - an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing being - then it is a good thing to reverence him. But if you don't believe in him, you can't do so.

[Varenne Rodin]

Well, when theists say things like "we can't be good without God," they don't mean "we can't be good if we don't believe in God." (Unless they're morons, of course, and we needn't discuss morons.) They mean that if God doesn't exists, then good and evil don't exist either, at least not objectively. And so we can be neither good nor evil. (Maybe they're wrong about this, but that's what they mean.)

The soundness of Hitchens' sentiment, on the other hand, is contingent on whether or not God exists. For if God exists, then there are good actions that atheists cannot perform. In example, if God exists - an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing being - then it is a good thing to reverence him. But if you don't believe in him, you can't do so.

No. I don't agree that it would be a good thing to reverence him. That would be akin to slavery. Is slavery a good thing? A person can decide to be a slave to their god, but even if it is real, they will not convince me that I and my children should be slaves.

If a god created the universe, I would appreciate the enormity of that, but I would wonder at the choices for earthlings to live mortal suffering lives. I would wonder at a deity's complacency to the torture of his "children". I do not agree with sacrificing children. If theists do, there is something wrong with theists.

"If slavery isn't wrong, then nothing is wrong." Abe Lincoln

[Calidore]

Calidore, while I agree with the overall tenor of your post I must take issue with the part in bold. There are such a high number of pedophile priests because the church forbids them from having sex or marrying. Their natual sex instinct is suppressed and thereby perverted. You do hear of coaches and other persons molesting children but not nearly as often as you hear of priests. The reason behind their not being allowed to marry is really quite sinister. I heard a historian explain that the vatican instituted this ban so that their priests would be left without heirs and their property thus turned over to the church. Much of the church's staggering fortune and land holdings have come about due to this.

Way late in responding, sorry, and other people have already weighed in, but here's my thoughts:

I hadn't heard your reason for the marriage ban, but it certainly sounds plausible. I do disagree that priests who were previously normal men become active predators of children because their sex drive is suppressed.

I wonder if the numbers on clerical predation have ever been crunched by anyone without an axe to grind. Are there really proportionally more predators in the priesthood than, say, teachers, coaches, etc.? Or do we simply hear about it more now because 1) decades worth of cases previously suppressed are all coming out at once; 2) people smell money and want some.... Damn, I know I had a 3) when I started, but now it's gone.

[Calidore]

I have no idea what a dialetheist is.

One who doesn't believe in rotary phones.

[Climacus]

No. I don't agree that it would be a good thing to reverence him. That would be akin to slavery. Is slavery a good thing? A person can decide to be a slave to their god, but even if it is real, they will not convince me that I and my children should be slaves.
Well, I guess theists wouldn't agree that reverence is akin to or synonymous with slavery. They would think it a good thing to reverence the good. And they think that God is supremely good. Here's another way of looking at it. Most cultures throughout history have thought it a good thing to reverence parents. Because, among other things, parents are the source of our being and are - or ought to be - our benefactors. But, if God exists, he's ever so much more our source of being and benefactor. So we should reverence him too. It's a sort of a fortiori argument. Again this is predicated on the conditional, if God exists . . .

[Climacus]

One who doesn't believe in rotary phones.

:biggrin5:

[Varenne Rodin]

Well, I guess theists wouldn't agree that reverence is akin to or synonymous with slavery. They would think it a good thing to reverence the good. And they think that God is supremely good. Here's another way of looking at it. Most cultures throughout history have thought it a good thing to reverence parents. Because, among other things, parents are the source of our being and are - or ought to be - our benefactors. But, if God exists, he's ever so much more our source of being and benefactor. So we should reverence him too. It's a sort of a fortiori argument. Again this is predicated on the conditional, if God exists . . .

If a parent is abusive or neglectful, that parent should no longer be revered. It should be fought. This god "parent" theists revere sits by while his children are mutilated, decapitated, burned, hanged, shot, stabbed, raped, beaten, gorged, eaten by disease, executed, enslaved, starved. For thousands of years there have been genocides and plagues. The horrors of North Korea, AIDS in Africa, starvation in Somalia, the holocaust, the dark ages, hundreds of years of extremely high infant mortality rates. If there is a god, if this is by design, it's evil.

Much better to realize we alone have responsibility for our lives and how we effect others than to leave everything in the hands of a god who, if there, ignores atrocity. If he rewards suffering with another life, he is still sick. It's like a slave holder. There is no gray area here. There is no interpreting torture differently. Torture is torture. Painting a rosy picture of it only further enables it. I would rather enjoy my life and seek genuine truths for the entirety of it than abide torture in the hopes of a paradise reward. Theism is fantasy. It should be kept private and not thrust upon a vulnerable society.

[Varenne Rodin]

I'll state it more simply. Theists who believe their god should be revered are like abused wives living in denial of what is being done to them. They are afraid of misbehaving for fear of punishment. The abuser buys them a present and it's all good again. That sucks. We should empower people to get out of that mindset. It's false security and the abandonment of freedom.

[cafolini]

And you don't mean this hyperbolically? But to draw this conclusion, you need to canvass the religions for truth-claims, quantify them, assign truth values to them, and do the math. Surely you're not saying that you've done something like this?

You are amazing Climacus. I think only you could do that job because in your bizarre book, there is not even 0.000000001% of the staggering number of claims. Actually you are the most credible Protagorian that ever lived, except perhaps Erasmus of Rotterdam and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.

[Climacus]

I'll state it more simply. Theists who believe their god should be revered are like abused wives living in denial of what is being done to them. They are afraid of misbehaving for fear of punishment. The abuser buys them a present and it's all good again. That sucks. We should empower people to get out of that mindset. It's false security and the abandonment of freedom.
You struggle with the problem of evil. I understand that. Don't we all? All I was doing was suggesting a theistic line of thought, a way to understand the theist's point of view. Your analogy doesn't hold for the theist.

[Climacus]

You are amazing Climacus. I think only you could do that job because in your bizarre book, there is not even 0.000000001% of the staggering number of claims. Actually you are the most credible Protagorian that ever lived, except perhaps Erasmus of Rotterdam and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.
What book are you talking about, a religious book? I never said I was religious.

[Varenne Rodin]

You struggle with the problem of evil. I understand that. Don't we all? All I was doing was suggesting a theistic line of thought, a way to understand the theist's point of view. Your analogy doesn't hold for the theist.

I understand theists quite well. I was raised by theists. I live in the united states. What's to misunderstand? They're very vocal about their causes.

[YesNo]

Well, when theists say things like "we can't be good without God," they don't mean "we can't be good if we don't believe in God." (Unless they're morons, of course, and we needn't discuss morons.) They mean that if God doesn't exists, then good and evil don't exist either, at least not objectively. And so we can be neither good nor evil. (Maybe they're wrong about this, but that's what they mean.)

The soundness of Hitchens' sentiment, on the other hand, is contingent on whether or not God exists. For if God exists, then there are good actions that atheists cannot perform. In example, if God exists - an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing being - then it is a good thing to reverence him. But if you don't believe in him, you can't do so.
Nice way of putting that. I agree.

---------------------

Although this thread is about atheism, it keeps going back to religion and then a criticism or defense of religion. What I am wondering is if atheism has any sort of specific practice that helps the atheist live a good life, specifically, how do atheists avoid fighting within their own families? In other words, I'm trying to find out if atheism has anything positive to offer or if all it has is a critique of what other people want to believe in.

Now I can see the sort of things that some atheists actually practice--at least the vocal ones. Here are two things that I see atheists practice:

(1) They tend to practice self-righteousness when it comes to other people's spirituality.

(2) They tend to refuse to forgive religious people because, I suspect, that would defuse the first practice.

Now, I'm not saying religious people are any better, but neither of these habits or practices seem like something that would make an atheist's family life joyful. When tensions arise in the family, I can see the self-righteousness and unforgiving attitude get directed at a spouse, parent, child or other close relative.

[Darcy88]

Nice way of putting that. I agree.

---------------------

Although this thread is about atheism, it keeps going back to religion and then a criticism or defense of religion. What I am wondering is if atheism has any sort of specific practice that helps the atheist live a good life, specifically, how do atheists avoid fighting within their own families? In other words, I'm trying to find out if atheism has anything positive to offer or if all it has is a critique of what other people want to believe in.

Now I can see the sort of things that some atheists actually practice--at least the vocal ones. Here are two things that I see atheists practice:

(1) They tend to practice self-righteousness when it comes to other people's spirituality.

(2) They tend to refuse to forgive religious people because, I suspect, that would defuse the first practice.

Now, I'm not saying religious people are any better, but neither of these habits or practices seem like something that would make an atheist's family life joyful. When tensions arise in the family, I can see the self-righteousness and unforgiving attitude get directed at a spouse, parent, child or other close relative.

Well, since we aren't under the impression that women were made from our rib for the purpose of being our helper, since we don't ascribe to the doctrine of male headship, I'd suspect most atheist marriages are based upon terms of equality in contrast with many Christian/Muslim ones.

The only difference between a moral atheist and a moral theist is that the atheist is moral for the sake of being moral, not because he or she has been ordered to do so under threat of eternal damnation.

Research secular humanism.

[YesNo]

Well, since we aren't under the impression that women were made from our rib for the purpose of being our helper, since we don't ascribe to the doctrine of male headship, I'd suspect most atheist marriages are based upon terms of equality in contrast with many Christian/Muslim ones.

The only difference between a moral atheist and a moral theist is that the atheist is moral for the sake of being moral, not because he or she has been ordered to do so under threat of eternal damnation.

Research secular humanism.
So there is no fighting in families with atheists because their ideas keep them from fighting? They all live peacefully together.

[Darcy88]

So there is no fighting in families with atheists because their ideas keep them from fighting? They all live peacefully together.

I doubt there's any more or less fighting in atheist households than religious ones. In my experience the best and worst people can belong to either side.

[BienvenuJDC]

Well, since we aren't under the impression that women were made from our rib for the purpose of being our helper, since we don't ascribe to the doctrine of male headship, I'd suspect most atheist marriages are based upon terms of equality in contrast with many Christian/Muslim ones.

The only difference between a moral atheist and a moral theist is that the atheist is moral for the sake of being moral, not because he or she has been ordered to do so under threat of eternal damnation.

Research secular humanism.

You shouldn't assume that a Christian is moral ONLY because he/she is ORDERED to be. There are many Christians that serve God because of love, not because of any threat.

[Varenne Rodin]

You shouldn't assume that a Christian is moral ONLY because he/she is ORDERED to be. There are many Christians that serve God because of love, not because of any threat.

The problem with that is the "serve" part. Master/slave relationship. A dog loves its master no matter what the master does. The Christian master doesn't seem to care much about what happens to his dogs.

[JuniperWoolf]

So there is no fighting in families with atheists because their ideas keep them from fighting? They all live peacefully together.

Nope, there's fighting. There's fighting in EVERY family, except for perhaps the very un-fulfilled ones who just don't give a **** anymore.

What's with your aversion to family squabbles? If both partners are equal, and they have an idea which differs from that of their partner, both should feel free to express their point. To me, that seems a hell of a lot healthier than one person putting their head down, "yes, you're right dear, of course..." (which seems to be the Christian solution to all family matters from what I've read in the bible and from parable spinners such as Hans Christian Anderson). Argument is essential to arriving at a compromise, or to finding the most effective solution to a problem which is affecting the entire family. In fact, I've read that families in which never ever fight are more likely fo feel unfulfilled and file for divorce, although I'll have to root out where that came from. I think it was a textbook.

Then of course there's the issue of human nature. I don't think that it's in our nature to meekly put our heads down and do whatever another person tells us to do, especially when that person is suggesting something which seems profoundly stupid and which will affect our entire lives and our families. The Christian wives that I know aren't meek little sock puppets. To suggest so, or to suggest that they SHOULD be or else they're "obviously not taking their religion very seriously", is somewhat insulting.

[YesNo]

Generally, I look at service in a positive light, however, I suppose it all depends on who or what one is serving. If one is a Christian serving Jesus or a Hindu serving Rama, I think that service is positive. Love, not any threat, is what drives the morality as BienvenuJDC points out.

If one is serving oneself, pursuing transitory pleasure, it is very easy to get caught up serving greed, lust or anger. That service I would consider negative.

[YesNo]

Nope, there's fighting. There's fighting in EVERY family, except for perhaps the very un-fulfilled ones who just don't give a **** anymore.

What's with your aversion to family squabbles? If both partners are equal, and they have an idea which differs from that of their partner, both should feel free to express their point. To me, that seems a hell of a lot healthier than one person putting their head down, "yes, you're right dear, of course..." (which seems to be the Christian solution to all family matters from what I've read in the bible and from parable spinners such as Hans Christian Anderson). Argument is essential to arriving at a compromise, or to finding the most effective solution to a problem which is affecting the entire family. In fact, I've read that families in which never ever fight are more likely fo feel unfulfilled and file for divorce, although I'll have to root out where that came from. I think it was a textbook.

Then of course there's the issue of human nature. I don't think that it's in our nature to meekly put our heads down and do whatever another person tells us to do, especially when that person is suggesting something which seems profoundly stupid and which will affect our entire lives and our families. The Christian wives that I know aren't meek little sock puppets. To suggest so, or to suggest that they SHOULD be, is somewhat insulting.
I'm more interested in what atheists do than Christians since this thread is about atheism. You seem to justify family fighting as healthy, but I'm not so sure. I'd be interested in any research you might come up with.

[JuniperWoolf]

Love, not any threat, is what drives the morality as BienvenuJDC points out.

Yes - love for one's partner, love for one's children and love for one's fellow man, NOT love for one's invisible friend.


You seem to justify family fighting as healthy, but I'm not so sure. I'd be interested in any research you might come up with.

Ugh. Sure, but I wish that you'd do it yourself because research is tedious and I've already learned about one vs. two-sided relationships and the strenght of each accordingly in my first year. To go back and root through the mountain of family hostility research in order to find specific examples which pertain to this subject for the sake of a stupid internet debate doesn't sound like a good time.

Here, go nuts:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/

Also, please address the rest of my post and not just the part you've put in bold.

[JuniperWoolf]

In example, if God exists - an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing being - then it is a good thing to reverence him. But if you don't believe in him, you can't do so.

...and if he doesn't exist then you're wasting a lot of your life literally worshipping something that isn't real, and if he DOES exist and honestly does strongly want people to worship him or else he'll send them to a place where they'll be tortured for all eternity, then he sounds more like a psychopathic narcissist than a benevolent diety and I'd really rather not. If that's the case than I'll take the torture, thank you. Better that than being a forced sycophant.

However, I very strongly doubt that if there is a god(s), that it(they) actually care about whether or not humans revere it(them). Why would it(they)?

[Varenne Rodin]

I'm more interested in what atheists do than Christians since this thread is about atheism. You seem to justify family fighting as healthy, but I'm not so sure. I'd be interested in any research you might come up with.

Atheists aren't part of a group, we're individuals. We don't have some specific doctrine or moral code. I think when a person is an atheist, it seems important to make the best of the life they have (and all of the wonderful things that go along with that), because it's viewed as the only life there is unless and/or until we find out otherwise.

[cafolini]

Hey, you guys. God is going to come at night and tickle your feet while you are sleeping. Then you'll see a good joke for the first time.

[JuniperWoolf]

Atheists aren't part of a group, we're individuals. We don't have some specific doctrine or moral code.

I thought that was obvious, but now that I look back that does seem to be what he's asking for, doesn't it?

I guess I'll just pull out my atheist hand manual and check under "family welfare."

[Varenne Rodin]

I thought that was obvious, but now that I look back that does seem to be what he's asking for, doesn't it?

I guess I'll just pull out my atheist hand manual and check under "family welfare."

Hahaha. Just don't reveal the secret handshake. We have to keep our sect secure.

Seriously, what do human beings like? Some of us like to be hugged, we like affection, music, art, books (pick your pleasure). We like mutual respect. What do we not like? We don't like being hurt or judged harshly for our genetics. It's not that difficult to figure out how to behave. I've been a Christian and an atheist, and I stress a lot less as an atheist. Things are less confusing for me. Be good to people, be good to yourself. That's all. No worries about big brother watching my every move (if he is watching he's a bit pervy). I just don't care about the superfluous junk that people get all tense over. I don't care about it until someone tries to force me to agree to their "god's" standards (how can they know?) for what is good and bad. It's not necessary.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I don't buy the "atheists aren't a group" thing. Of course we are. If atheists weren't a part of a group, there wouldn't be a need for an atheist label. I think it would be more accurate to say that atheists aren't an established community, though I still think that's easily arguable.

[Drkshadow03]

I don't buy the "atheists aren't a group" thing. Of course we are. If atheists weren't a part of a group, there wouldn't be a need for an atheist label. I think it would be more accurate to say that atheists aren't an established community, though I still think that's easily arguable.

Yeah. Exactly what you said.


I'm primarily talking about violence--murder, death, etc. I don't disagree that there is a clear link between Catholic priests and molestation, but I also wonder if these pedophiles need religion to commit these acts--it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they still turned out to be pedophiles without becoming priests. It's not that someone else would, just that the same people would for a different reason.

Make sense or not, it's what I believe. I think religion is often more of an excuse than a reason for people to commit violence. A lot of the suicide bombers and the like come from very poor socio-economic situations, and are ripe from brain-washing. It's how most terrorists are recruited. They have nothing to live for, and once they are given something to live for, they latch on to it, even if it means committing suicide. If they didn't do it for religion, maybe their reasons would be completely political (which has already been the case).

All I'm saying is that violence will find a way. It doesn't need religion. I'm not defending religion here, I'm just saying that if it wasn't religion, it'd be something else.

This, too, is spot on. It basically would've been my reply to Juniper.

[Climacus]

All atheists are a group in the same sense that all theists are a group: they're all species and subspecies of the same genus.

[Varenne Rodin]

I don't buy the "atheists aren't a group" thing. Of course we are. If atheists weren't a part of a group, there wouldn't be a need for an atheist label. I think it would be more accurate to say that atheists aren't an established community, though I still think that's easily arguable.

You bring up a good point. There isn't a need for an atheist label, and there's nothing specifically wrong with organizing support groups. I don't happen to belong to a group. Atheism is not a theism or a governing system. We don't have a code of behavior. We don't have official atheist buildings that I'm aware of. We don't enjoy tax exemption. Saying we're not a group was probably too general a statement. Some of the posts were questioning our family lifestyles as though there must be a commonality among us as atheists. We're humans. Are humans a comparable group to theist groups? We don't believe in gods. I think that's where similarity ends if we're not counting random things that lots of people have in common.

[Climacus]

I don't buy the "atheists aren't a group" thing. Of course we are. If atheists weren't a part of a group, there wouldn't be a need for an atheist label. I think it would be more accurate to say that atheists aren't an established community, though I still think that's easily arguable.
Theists as theists aren't an established community either. Remember, "theist" and "atheist" are genera. To find established communities you have to venture from genus into species. This seems too obvious to mention, but people overlook the fact.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Theists as theists aren't an established community either. Remember, "theist" and "atheist" are genera. To find established communities you have to venture from genus into species. This seems too obvious to mention, but people overlook the fact.

I never said theists were an established community.

And what are we talking about all of a sudden, here, biology? :skep:

[mal4mac]

The suggestion that terrorists come from very poor socio-economic situations, and that this makes them ripe from brain-washing, is not born out by the facts. Terrorists are often engineers!

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2009/12/buildabomber.html

"Terrorists tend to be wealthier and better-educated than their countrymen."

The mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Mohamed Atta, was an architectural engineer. Khalid Sheikh Mohamed got his degree in mechanical engineering. Two of the three founders of Lashkar-e-Taibi, the group believed to be behind the Mumbai attacks, were professors at the University of Engineering and Technology in Lahore.

Diego Gambetta and Steffen Hertog looked at more than 400 radical Islamic terrorists from more than 30 nations in the Middle East and Africa born mostly between the 1950s and 1970s. They found that engineers were three to four times more likely to become violent terrorists than their peers in finance, medicine or the sciences. The next most radicalizing graduate degree, in a distant second, was Islamic Studies.

Even among Islamic terrorists born or raised in the West, nearly 60 percent had engineering backgrounds.

Engineers described themselves as "strongly conservative" and "deeply religious" more often than professors in any other field. They have a mind-set that disdains ambiguity and compromise. They might be more passionate about bringing order to their society and see the rigid, religious law put forward in radical Islam as the best way of achieving those goals.

Terrorist organizations seem to have recognized this proclivity. A 2005 report from British intelligence noted that Islamic extremists were frequenting college campuses, looking for "inquisitive" students who might be susceptible to their message. In particular, the report noted, they targeted engineers.

Maybe schools and universities should look to providing a broader education for engineers? An education that can puncture "certainty" and "fundamentalism"? Literature could have a large part to play in this.

[Drkshadow03]

The suggestion that terrorists come from very poor socio-economic situations, and that this makes them ripe from brain-washing, is not born out by the facts. Terrorists are often engineers!

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2009/12/buildabomber.html

"Terrorists tend to be wealthier and better-educated than their countrymen."

The mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Mohamed Atta, was an architectural engineer. Khalid Sheikh Mohamed got his degree in mechanical engineering. Two of the three founders of Lashkar-e-Taibi, the group believed to be behind the Mumbai attacks, were professors at the University of Engineering and Technology in Lahore.

Diego Gambetta and Steffen Hertog looked at more than 400 radical Islamic terrorists from more than 30 nations in the Middle East and Africa born mostly between the 1950s and 1970s. They found that engineers were three to four times more likely to become violent terrorists than their peers in finance, medicine or the sciences. The next most radicalizing graduate degree, in a distant second, was Islamic Studies.

Even among Islamic terrorists born or raised in the West, nearly 60 percent had engineering backgrounds.

Engineers described themselves as "strongly conservative" and "deeply religious" more often than professors in any other field. They have a mind-set that disdains ambiguity and compromise. They might be more passionate about bringing order to their society and see the rigid, religious law put forward in radical Islam as the best way of achieving those goals.

Terrorist organizations seem to have recognized this proclivity. A 2005 report from British intelligence noted that Islamic extremists were frequenting college campuses, looking for "inquisitive" students who might be susceptible to their message. In particular, the report noted, they targeted engineers.

Maybe schools and universities should look to providing a broader education for engineers? An education that can puncture "certainty" and "fundamentalism"? Literature could have a large part to play in this.

Good point. Thanks for correcting our incorrect facts.

[YesNo]

Ugh. Sure, but I wish that you'd do it yourself because research is tedious and I've already learned about one vs. two-sided relationships and the strenght of each accordingly in my first year. To go back and root through the mountain of family hostility research in order to find specific examples which pertain to this subject for the sake of a stupid internet debate doesn't sound like a good time.

Here, go nuts:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/

Also, please address the rest of my post and not just the part you've put in bold.
Thanks for the response. I didn't find anything in the link that could be used to justify the argument that family fighting was healthy. Was there something in your post that I missed? If it doesn't interest you, no need to research it further.

Anyway, the topic is atheism, not religion, and I'm interested in what atheists practice to make their lives and so their family lives better. What the religious groups that I am most attracted to offer is mantra recitation, meditation, spiritual reading, slowing down and mindfulness. People such as Deepak Chopra would offer similar things in a non-religious context as self-help techniques.

The reason I think atheists may especially have a problem with family living is the negative practice of hostility toward others. This includes self-righteousness and a refusal to forgive religious people for whatever they happen to be blaming them for at the moment. I think the same problem would apply to political opponents, but we are specifically discussing atheism. The OP, if I understood it, seemed to specifically ask for what atheists supported as well.

On a side note, I also liked the link mal4mac sited about how fundamentalists tend to pursue engineering careers.

[Climacus]

I never said theists were an established community.

And what are we talking about all of a sudden, here, biology? :skep:

Sorry Mutatis-Mutandi. I had Varenne's comment in mind, this one: "Atheism is not a theism or a governing system."

Genus and species are, dare I say it, logical terms that the sciences borrowed. (Sorry to bring up logic again :p ). What I meant was that "atheism" and "theism" are genera and thus are literally generic. If I walk up to you and say "I'm a theist" or "I'm an atheist," then you know very little about me either way, because you don't what species or subspecies I belong to. If I say "I'm a theist," then all you know is that I believe in some or other god of some or other kind. Maybe he's impersonal, maybe he's non-interventionist, maybe he's amoral, etc. In other words, by knowing merely that someone's a theist you know nothing of their morality or metaphysics or epistemology or whatever. And by knowing merely that someone's an atheist, it's the same.

[cafolini]

Sorry Mutatis-Mutandi. I had Varenne's comment in mind, this one: "Atheism is not a theism or a governing system."

Genus and species are, dare I say it, logical terms that the sciences borrowed. (Sorry to bring up logic again :p ). What I meant was that "atheism" and "theism" are genera and thus are literally generic. If I walk up to you and say "I'm a theist" or "I'm an atheist," then you know very little about me either way, because you don't what species or subspecies I belong to. If I say "I'm a theist," then all you know is that I believe in some or other god of some or other kind. Maybe he's impersonal, maybe he's non-interventionist, maybe he's amoral, etc. In other words, by knowing merely that someone's a theist you know nothing of their morality or metaphysics or epistemology or whatever. And by knowing merely that someone's an atheist, it's the same.

Apparently good speech. But how do you know they have methaphysics or epistemology. Of the three things you mentioned the only one you can be sure they have is merely some form of morality, twisted or otherwise. Morality is intrinsic, residing in the unavoidable sense of good and bad. But methaphysics and epistemology are not realities for everyone, and nowadays are museum pieces archived scientifically.

[Varenne Rodin]

Sorry Mutatis-Mutandi. I had Varenne's comment in mind, this one: "Atheism is not a theism or a governing system."

Genus and species are, dare I say it, logical terms that the sciences borrowed. (Sorry to bring up logic again :p ). What I meant was that "atheism" and "theism" are genera and thus are literally generic. If I walk up to you and say "I'm a theist" or "I'm an atheist," then you know very little about me either way, because you don't what species or subspecies I belong to. If I say "I'm a theist," then all you know is that I believe in some or other god of some or other kind. Maybe he's impersonal, maybe he's non-interventionist, maybe he's amoral, etc. In other words, by knowing merely that someone's a theist you know nothing of their morality or metaphysics or epistemology or whatever. And by knowing merely that someone's an atheist, it's the same.

That's actually somewhat supportive of my point (shock). YesNo seems insistent on saying that atheists have a specific way of life, and that it's particularly negative, hostile, and self-righteous. My point was that I can only speak for myself and my family on this matter, and that I do not share in communal practices with other atheists. I have not noticed this hostility YesNo claims as an atheist trait, and certainly not within my family life. I don't fight with anyone much. When Christians tell me my children will burn in hell, or when their children push my son down at school and beat him for not going to church, I take offense to that. I like a few Christians, but I loathe Christianity in this country. That is where the hostility is. It's not at home with me. The focus of my life does not revolve around theism and atheism.

YesNo, you seem to have ignored my earlier post about being good to others and taking care of ourselves. To answer your question, I do meditate. There is no prayer to anyone involved in that meditation. I also do yoga. I hike mountain trails every day. There are lots of things that human beings do to feel healthy and peaceful without the need for a group mentality or crutch. I can't say what other atheists do. I have heard about secular humanists arranging food and clothing drives for the poor. Some humanists get together in groups and meet up for beach volleyball, Google tells me.

I'm starting to think your question is less like a question and more like another avenue to harangue atheism again.

Climacus, I apologize if any of my text offends your education. It's early. I haven't poured my coffee, and I've heard these comments so many times that I'm no longer interested in giving carefully considered responses. I predict the outcome will be the same. Christians as eternal enemies. No big deal.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The suggestion that terrorists come from very poor socio-economic situations, and that this makes them ripe from brain-washing, is not born out by the facts. Terrorists are often engineers!

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2009/12/buildabomber.html

"Terrorists tend to be wealthier and better-educated than their countrymen."

The mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Mohamed Atta, was an architectural engineer. Khalid Sheikh Mohamed got his degree in mechanical engineering. Two of the three founders of Lashkar-e-Taibi, the group believed to be behind the Mumbai attacks, were professors at the University of Engineering and Technology in Lahore.

Diego Gambetta and Steffen Hertog looked at more than 400 radical Islamic terrorists from more than 30 nations in the Middle East and Africa born mostly between the 1950s and 1970s. They found that engineers were three to four times more likely to become violent terrorists than their peers in finance, medicine or the sciences. The next most radicalizing graduate degree, in a distant second, was Islamic Studies.

Even among Islamic terrorists born or raised in the West, nearly 60 percent had engineering backgrounds.

Engineers described themselves as "strongly conservative" and "deeply religious" more often than professors in any other field. They have a mind-set that disdains ambiguity and compromise. They might be more passionate about bringing order to their society and see the rigid, religious law put forward in radical Islam as the best way of achieving those goals.

Terrorist organizations seem to have recognized this proclivity. A 2005 report from British intelligence noted that Islamic extremists were frequenting college campuses, looking for "inquisitive" students who might be susceptible to their message. In particular, the report noted, they targeted engineers.

Maybe schools and universities should look to providing a broader education for engineers? An education that can puncture "certainty" and "fundamentalism"? Literature could have a large part to play in this.
Interesting. I heard what I said on some news story, and took them for their word. Still, I wonder what the percentage of the suicide bombers are who're engineers (they were sort of the group I was thinking of). I doubt terrorist organizations would send out their best and brightest to blow themselves up. I think they target low socio-economic people for those positions, since they have "nothing to live for," as it were. I could be wrong, though.

Sorry Mutatis-Mutandi. I had Varenne's comment in mind, this one: "Atheism is not a theism or a governing system."

Genus and species are, dare I say it, logical terms that the sciences borrowed. (Sorry to bring up logic again :p ). What I meant was that "atheism" and "theism" are genera and thus are literally generic. If I walk up to you and say "I'm a theist" or "I'm an atheist," then you know very little about me either way, because you don't what species or subspecies I belong to. If I say "I'm a theist," then all you know is that I believe in some or other god of some or other kind. Maybe he's impersonal, maybe he's non-interventionist, maybe he's amoral, etc. In other words, by knowing merely that someone's a theist you know nothing of their morality or metaphysics or epistemology or whatever. And by knowing merely that someone's an atheist, it's the same.
Got it. :nod:

[JuniperWoolf]

Thanks for the response. I didn't find anything in the link that could be used to justify the argument that family fighting was healthy.

Yes, that's because I gave you a link to a database.


Anyway, the topic is atheism, not religion, and I'm interested in what atheists practice to make their lives and so their family lives better.

All atheists aren't the same, and they don't all do the same things to "make their lives and so their family lives better." Some Christians are jerks who beat their kids, and some are great people who encourage family discussions and spend time with their kids. The same is true of atheists. The same is true for ALL people. (duh)


The reason I think atheists may especially have a problem with family living is the negative practice of hostility toward others.

Hostility and self-righteousness, huh? Doesn't the church have kind of an enormous, centuries-spanning history of... you know... killing people? How could anyone say that secular people are bad at raising families and religious people aren't because unlike religious people, atheists are naturally "hostile?" Also, speaking of self-righteousness, aren't you the one who just made the claim that atheists can't properly raise their own children? Really, I'm asking, did you have a straight face when you typed that?

[Charles Darnay]

Hostility and self-righteousness, huh? Doesn't the church have kind of an enormous, centuries-spanning history of... you know... killing people? How could anyone say that secular people are bad at raising families and religious people aren't because unlike religious people, atheists are naturally "hostile?" Also, speaking of self-righteousness, aren't you the one who just made the claim that atheists can't properly raise their own children? Really, I'm asking, did you have a straight face when you typed that?

I think the general view (from a Christian pov) of an atheist family sitting down to dinner is a lot like the dinner scene from American Beauty. Or rather:

Pa: so did you here ---

Son: no dad! you're wrong!

Daughter: no you're wrong stupid.


And you see, there's no Bible to immediately turn to so you can't resolve the debate by looking it up.

[Varenne Rodin]

I think the general view (from a Christian pov) of an atheist family sitting down to dinner is a lot like the dinner scene from American Beauty. Or rather:

Pa: so did you here ---

Son: no dad! you're wrong!

Daughter: no you're wrong stupid.


And you see, there's no Bible to immediately turn to so you can't resolve the debate by looking it up.

That's one of the most obtuse things I have read. I don't ever fight at the dinner table. We smile, we thank each other for all of the help with the meal. If we had a disagreement we would settle it nonviolently because we care for each other. If your religion makes you suspect people of being evil to the people they love, without anything to support that idea, your religion breeds hate and distrust without cause.

[Varenne Rodin]

I think the general view (from a Christian pov) of an atheist family sitting down to dinner is a lot like the dinner scene from American Beauty. Or rather:

Pa: so did you here ---

Son: no dad! you're wrong!

Daughter: no you're wrong stupid.


And you see, there's no Bible to immediately turn to so you can't resolve the debate by looking it up.

That's one of the most obtuse things I have read. I don't ever fight at the dinner table. We smile, we thank each other for all of the help with the meal. If we had a disagreement we would settle it nonviolently because we care for each other. If your religion makes you suspect people of being evil to the people they love, without anything to support that idea, your religion breeds hate and distrust without cause.

[BienvenuJDC]

That's one of the most obtuse things I have read. I don't ever fight at the dinner table. We smile, we thank each other for all of the help with the meal. If we had a disagreement we would settle it nonviolently because we care for each other. If your religion makes you suspect people of being evil to the people they love, without anything to support that idea, your religion breeds hate and distrust without cause.

Varenne, that is one of the most obtuse things that I have ever read as well, and it's totally not true. Since I actually am a Christian, I can tell you my point of view, that I think an atheist family is much like a Christian family sitting at the dinner table. We don't think about such things. I'm not even sure why someone would make up something about someone else's point of view. It would be a good thing if we stopped stereotyping each other so much...and that goes for both sides.

[Varenne Rodin]

Varenne, that is one of the most obtuse things that I have ever read as well, and it's totally not true. Since I actually am a Christian, I can tell you my point of view, that I think an atheist family is much like a Christian family sitting at the dinner table. We don't think about such things. I'm not even sure why someone would make up something about someone else's point of view. It would be a good thing if we stopped stereotyping each other so much...and that goes for both sides.

Thank you, Bien. That is appreciated.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I think Charles was making a joke. . . .

[Calidore]

I think so also. Scans like satire.

[Varenne Rodin]

Haha. Usually I pick up on that type of thing. It's pretty funny either way.

[cafolini]

I think the general view (from a Christian pov) of an atheist family sitting down to dinner is a lot like the dinner scene from American Beauty. Or rather:

Pa: so did you here ---

Son: no dad! you're wrong!

Daughter: no you're wrong stupid.


And you see, there's no Bible to immediately turn to so you can't resolve the debate by looking it up.

What you mean, Charles? Don't they have the collection of Atlantic Magazine and many others? Take a look in Wiki for a list of atheist authors. Never mind. Funny point.

[cafolini]

Look at some of the things Atheists bibled inconspicuously, little by little. And there are many more volumes to look up.

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.

Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer.

Religions are like pills, which must be swallowed whole without chewing.

Atheists will celebrate life, while you’re in church celebrating death.

The Bible – A Fairytale book of rules brainwashing millions. Obliviously used to help create war, kill, hate, judge and discriminate.

Most religions prophecy the end of the world and then consistently work together to ensure that these prophecies come true.

Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea.

Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power but absolute power is corrupt only in the hands of the absolutely faithful.

Since the Bible and the church are obviously mistaken in telling us where we came from, how can we trust them to tell us where we are going?

Blind faith is an ironic gift to return to the Creator of human intelligence.

If all the Christians who have called other Christians “not really a Christian” were to vanish, there’d be no Christians left.

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime; give a man religion and he will die praying for a fish.

I have no need for religion, I have a conscience.

The finality of death is the coldest truth one must face. Religion makes the perfect distraction.

Jesus hardly made the greatest sacrifice. He knew he would be resurrected anyway.

On the first day, man created God.

A believer states everything must have a creator but fail to say how he was created.

The world holds two classes of men – intelligent men without religion, and religious men without intelligence.

[Climacus]

Apparently good speech. But how do you know they have methaphysics or epistemology. Of the three things you mentioned the only one you can be sure they have is merely some form of morality, twisted or otherwise. Morality is intrinsic, residing in the unavoidable sense of good and bad. But methaphysics and epistemology are not realities for everyone, and nowadays are museum pieces archived scientifically.

Like everything else I remember you saying about philosophy, this is wide of the mark. By the time a person has reached the level of intellectual maturity that allows them to say “I’m a theist” or “I’m an atheist,” they will have developed both a metaphysic and an epistemology, of some sort. They may be merely nascent, they may be ill-articulated, they may be incoherent, but they’ll be there. (“God exists” or “God doesn’t exist” are already metaphysical statements.) Only a true agnostic or a pyrrhonistic doubter can lack these things. Example: Take a hypothetical atheist that is also a materialist. She believes that only material things exist. That is her metaphysic. She also believes that we can know about things only sensibly – that is, through our senses. That is her epistemology.

[cafolini]

Like everything else I remember you saying about philosophy, this is wide of the mark. By the time a person has reached the level of intellectual maturity that allows them to say “I’m a theist” or “I’m an atheist,” they will have developed both a metaphysic and an epistemology, of some sort. They may be merely nascent, they may be ill-articulated, they may be incoherent, but they’ll be there. (“God exists” or “God doesn’t exist” are already metaphysical statements.) Only a true agnostic or a pyrrhonistic doubter can lack these things. Example: Take a hypothetical atheist that is also a materialist. She believes that only material things exist. That is her metaphysic. She also believes that we can know about things only sensibly – that is, through our senses. That is her epistemology.

Well, metaphysics and epistemology are not by themselves in the museum. Have fun, champ.

[Varenne Rodin]

Like everything else I remember you saying about philosophy, this is wide of the mark. By the time a person has reached the level of intellectual maturity that allows them to say “I’m a theist” or “I’m an atheist,” they will have developed both a metaphysic and an epistemology, of some sort. They may be merely nascent, they may be ill-articulated, they may be incoherent, but they’ll be there. (“God exists” or “God doesn’t exist” are already metaphysical statements.) Only a true agnostic or a pyrrhonistic doubter can lack these things. Example: Take a hypothetical atheist that is also a materialist. She believes that only material things exist. That is her metaphysic. She also believes that we can know about things only sensibly – that is, through our senses. That is her epistemology.

"She" doesn't have to believe that only material things exist in order to observe the material world and not observe the metaphysical. How do you determine what exists and what doesn't, Climacus? It makes sense to observe the observable, does it not?

[Charles Darnay]

I think Charles was making a joke. . . .

ca c'est correct.


And Bien, I did mean to stress "general" - as, no not everyone subscribes to this, but there is a view I have seen expressed regarding atheists time and time again that: because the foundation of atheism is based on deconstructionism, atheists will jump into an argument about anything - taken to a satirical point: about absolutely nothing.

[cafolini]

ca c'est correct.


And Bien, I did mean to stress "general" - as, no not everyone subscribes to this, but there is a view I have seen expressed regarding atheists time and time again that: because the foundation of atheism is based on deconstructionism, atheists will jump into an argument about anything - taken to a satirical point: about absolutely nothing.

May I modify your last phrase? "about absolutely nothing of consequence."

Atheists existed long before Derrida. But they were persecuted. Naturally, when they found expression, they overfed talking to walls.
We have come such a long ways in science that now the three stooges of history, namely the theist, the atheist and the agnostic have been placed together with humanity/inhumanity in a confortable museum awaiting recycling. And they are not coming back as anything of consequence.

[Charles Darnay]

May I modify your last phrase? "about absolutely nothing of consequence."

Atheists existed long before Derrida. But they were persecuted. Naturally, when they found expression, they overfed talking to walls.
We have come such a long ways in science that now the three stooges of history, namely the theist, the atheist and the agnostic have been placed together with humanity/inhumanity in a confortable museum awaiting recycling. And they are not coming back as anything of consequence.

Yeah, I don't know why the Farrelly Brothers are re-making 3 Stooges either....you know it will be bad.

[Ecurb]

Yeah, I don't know why the Farrelly Brothers are re-making 3 Stooges either....you know it will be bad.

If it is bad, then it may be an accurate remake of the work of a trio of the worst comedians of all time.

[BienvenuJDC]

ca c'est correct.


And Bien, I did mean to stress "general" - as, no not everyone subscribes to this, but there is a view I have seen expressed regarding atheists time and time again that: because the foundation of atheism is based on deconstructionism, atheists will jump into an argument about anything - taken to a satirical point: about absolutely nothing.

I think that you are noting a small minority of "pious" Christians, or even militant Christians, for there are those fundamentalist Christians out there that do not want anyone believing any different than they themselves. There are good people out there in both camps, but unfortunately we like to label everyone according to the extremists out there.

I've been labeled both pious and fundamentalist, but as far as I know, I don't think that I am either. I'm just a Christian, and I care about the well-being of all my fellow humans.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I've been labeled both pious and fundamentalist,
And both in the same sentence, no less. :D

[Climacus]

Well, metaphysics and epistemology are not by themselves in the museum. Have fun, champ.
Metaphysics and epistemology are branches of philosophy. How can the trunk be long-dead and decomposing while the branches are alive and flourishing? Why don't you just quit with the farcical "philosophy is dead" posturing. You're only making yourself sound ill-informed and under-educated.

[cafolini]

Metaphysics and epistemology are branches of philosophy. How can the trunk be long-dead and decomposing while the branches are alive and flourishing? Why don't you just quit with the farcical "philosophy is dead" posturing. You're only making yourself sound ill-informed and under-educated.

Definitely under-educated. What a relief it is! Ha!

[Drkshadow03]

Metaphysics and epistemology are branches of philosophy. How can the trunk be long-dead and decomposing while the branches are alive and flourishing? Why don't you just quit with the farcical "philosophy is dead" posturing. You're only making yourself sound ill-informed and under-educated.

What do you expect from someone who can't tell the difference between his dissected bug collection and a Shakespeare sonnet? :D

[russellb]

I'm not sure that atheism could ever have any 'positive points' It is simply the belief that God does not exist. This belief may be a feature of a 'positive' system of ideas as in humanist thinking,say, but in and of itself it is essentially just the negation of a specific assertion. A religous person may well say atheism negates morality too. An atheist may accept this and so here there is i suppose a 'positive point' in the liberation from the constraints of virtue. But such a position is not essential to atheism in as much as many atheists would accept the existence of morality and probably argue that their atheism has no bearing on this. An atheist might infer the meaningless or indeed richness of their existence from their atheism but could these ever be essential features? Really the question is 'is atheism the belief that God does not exist and nothing more?'
Or does it have necessary implications that would entail something 'positive' something more than just its obvious negation?

[Varenne Rodin]

I don't know, Russell, but I enjoy being an atheist. I enjoy freedom from religion. :)

[russellb]

i guess what you are saying Varenne is that there may be more to atheism than simply denying the existence of god and that it frees one from the strictures of religion. However, i would say that in modern liberal theology there is a great emphasis on freedom and autonomy. The unitarian church speaks of 'building your own theology, and this can include embracing atheism. Here at least atheism and religion are not incompatible.

[Varenne Rodin]

Good points. Every individual is different. I became an atheist during college (though I was always skeptical of stories in a sort of telephone game from ancient peoples), mainly while studying the anatomy of the brain. Fascinating stuff. I could never personally join any religion. For me, my atheism does prevent it. I think of it as being aware that I haven't unlocked all of the answers to the questions of the universe and existing. If there are other people who agree with me, I still don't think it can be called a religion. There aren't specific rules or groups that I adhere and belong to. I'm an earthling. Is that a religion? The good of it all for me is that knowing I only have one life to live (based on the only physical information I have), makes me want to live my life well and without injury to other persons. I can't say how atheism effects other people.

[russellb]

i think there is so much about this universe that we don't understand but there is no terminology for this. Atheist agnostic theist all define attitudes towards GOd. I would like a term that pertained to the sheer mystery of it all. As it is i can be pretty fluid in my outlook and I waver somewhere or other around the three positions

[cafolini]

Okay. Now to business. Religion will never die. But the power of religion over the state has been dead for many decades. So what's the point in endless discussions on this boring issue, be it atheist, theist or agnostic. Let's move on to where the action is: freedom of choice.

[Paulclem]

i think there is so much about this universe that we don't understand but there is no terminology for this. Atheist agnostic theist all define attitudes towards GOd. I would like a term that pertained to the sheer mystery of it all. As it is i can be pretty fluid in my outlook and I waver somewhere or other around the three positions

I have heard God referred to as "The Ground Of Being", - it was theologian Paul Tillich. (Just looked it up).

he also says:

Philosophy formulates the questions implied in human existence, and theology formulates the answers implied in divine self-manifestation under the guidance of the questions implied in human existence. This is a circle which drives man to a point where question and answer are not separated. This point, however, is not a moment in time

If I were Christian, it would be a more appealing approach than the God, Eternal Father Figure which seems an unsophisticated view of a proposed ultimate being.

[russellb]

It occurred to me that many Christians might think that viewing God as 'the ground of being' is to think of 'Him' in rather impersonal terms. Perhaps the psychological appeal of Christianity (and a reason for its historical success) is due to the idea of a personal (and parental) God in heaven. However psychological accounts of religion can tend to be stereotyped We could even say that each 'faith' is different and that say Tillich's is of a more intellectual variety. What is suitable for one person makes little sense to someone else. But then i guess this goes back to psychological generalizaions,,.

[cafolini]

I have heard God referred to as "The Ground Of Being", - it was theologian Paul Tillich. (Just looked it up).

he also says:

Philosophy formulates the questions implied in human existence, and theology formulates the answers implied in divine self-manifestation under the guidance of the questions implied in human existence. This is a circle which drives man to a point where question and answer are not separated. This point, however, is not a moment in time

If I were Christian, it would be a more appealing approach than the God, Eternal Father Figure which seems an unsophisticated view of a proposed ultimate being.

This is old hat. The purpose of filosophy in ancient Greece was to produce an environ directed by the areopagus to generate ancient theology to finish with pagan mythology. Some of the philosophies that started with Thales and many of his friends already had marked bits of theology.

[Darcy88]

This is old hat. The purpose of filosophy in ancient Greece was to produce an environ directed by the areopagus to generate ancient theology to finish with pagan mythology. Some of the philosophies that started with Thales and many of his friends already had marked bits of theology.

Thales was under the direction of the Aeropagus in Persian occupied Ionia long before the days of the Athenian Empire? This is interesting. Tell me more. I've never heard this before, this link between the Aeropagus and philosophy.

[Paulclem]

This is old hat. The purpose of filosophy in ancient Greece was to produce an environ directed by the areopagus to generate ancient theology to finish with pagan mythology. Some of the philosophies that started with Thales and many of his friends already had marked bits of theology.

Yeah? Tell Paul Tillich - oh no sorry. He's dead.

[russellb]

Some people are atheists because they cannot get round the problem of evil. Then again some theists argue that we cannot spiritually develop in a universe without evil. Some atheists say there is no evidence. To which a theist might reply 'what more evidence do you want?' The question that occurs to me is do atheists and theists have, on a certain level, differently structured minds that determine how they think on the matter. One point of reply might be that a person or mind is not a monolithic entity and a person might continually slip from atheism to theism and back again. Or does this mean that conflicting structures may inhere in the same psyche?

[russellb]

Would like to add that if atheism is a mental structure there may be varieties that express the different ways in which an atheist can think. Of course they would share a fundamental feature ie non belief in God

[russellb]

Some people are atheists because they cannot get round the problem of evil. Then again some theists argue that we cannot spiritually develop in a universe without evil. Some atheists say there is no evidence. To which a theist might reply 'what more evidence do you want?' The question that occurs to me is do atheists and theists have, on a certain level, differently structured minds that determine how they think on the matter. One point of reply might be that a person or mind is not a monolithic entity and a person might continually slip from atheism to theism and back again. Or does this mean that conflicting structures may inhere in the same psyche?

[Varenne Rodin]

Russell, I'm an atheist. I will never be a theist. :)