Atheism, 21st century-style. New? Militant?

[OrphanPip]

I have long heard the expression "There are no atheists in foxholes" and up until two months ago had thought it to be a platitude. But after my family's harrowing bereavement recently, I now tend to believe that there is no atheism among mourners.

I'm not sure that's true. I've lost family before, and frankly, it has done nothing to inspire any religious belief. In fact, watching someone like my grandmother waste away slowly, and in drug induced delirium, from cancer, I'm fairly sure I would be quite angry at any supposed supreme being if it did exist. What sadistic creator would make a world so full of suffering?

[YesNo]

But after my family's harrowing bereavement recently, ...

My condolences to you and your family.

I believe those near-death experiences that people have reported, which I consider as scientific evidence rather than based on any religious belief, imply that the universe is very, shall we say, "friendly".

[OrphanPip]

My condolences to you and your family.

I believe those near-death experiences that people have reported, which I consider as scientific evidence rather than based on any religious belief, imply that the universe is very, shall we say, "friendly".

Or that oxygen deprivation to the brain causes a sense of euphoria, thus why huffing glue and auto-asphyxiation are popular with some individuals.

[The Atheist]

... I now tend to believe that there is no atheism among mourners.

Well, that would be a very silly belief.

I wasn't drawn to any gods when my father died when I was 22, nor did I seek any gods when my mother died 16/17 years ago.

While I'd be devastated if one of my kids died, I can't imagine any circumstances any god would be mentioned at the funeral, or that either myself or my wife would have any desire to salve the grief with any part of religion or gods.

I've also been to secular funerals where thoughts of gods have been non-existent to the extent that the dead person's lack of belief in them has been a central theme.

Or that oxygen deprivation to the brain causes a sense of euphoria, thus why huffing glue and auto-asphyxiation are popular with some individuals.

Which is why auto-asphyxiation among 11-13 year olds has become popular across the western world in the past couple of years. I just read the other day - reporting on an inquest of a Kiwi kid who had a death experience rather than a NDE because of it - that UK is suspected of having 85 kids died from auto-asphyxiation in the past year.

I saw kids doing it 40 years ago when I was in that age group. It still attracts kids because those that survive it have one hell of a trip. Those who don't, don't.

Plus ce change...

[JuniperWoolf]

^In that hypothetical situation, you wouldn't even hold out the slightest hope that some part of you child's... I don't know... "them-ness" could still exist somewhere? I'm not talking about a "god" (and yeah, if any supreme deity existed that would just sit there and let someone that I love waste away I would likely want to kick him in the balls) I'm more wondering if even the smallest, most private part of you would hold out hope that maybe your kid lived on in some way (be it reincarnation, or their joining some universal energy source, or any other way that maybe hasn't been theorized yet). Grief is a strong motivator, it must be tough to reconcile pure atheism with the loss of a loved one. As I've said before, that's an example of more than admirable intellectual discipline.

[The Atheist]

^In that hypothetical situation, you wouldn't even hold out the slightest hope that some part of you child's... I don't know... "them-ness" could still exist somewhere? I'm not talking about a "god" (and yeah, if any supreme deity existed that would just sit there and let someone that I love waste away I would likely want to kick him in the balls) I'm more wondering if even the smallest, most private part of you would hold out hope that maybe your kid lived on in some way (be it reincarnation, or their joining some universal energy source, or any other way that maybe hasn't been theorized yet). Grief is a strong motivator, it must be tough to reconcile pure atheism with the loss of a loved one. As I've said before, that's an example of more than admirable intellectual discipline.

Honestly, it wouldn't even occur to me. I don't see continuing after death as desirable in any way, so no, I would not harbour any supernatural hopes.

Maybe you find it difficult looking in from outside, because reconciling death with finality is actually pretty simple. I look around and I'm used to things dying - plants, animals, stars... you name it, it's going to die sometime and I don't see anything special about the atoms that make up humans.

[AuntShecky]

I've noticed that the video link in my reply #75 does not automatically bring you to the site. You can access this wonderful, worthwhile video by going to www.youtube.com and typing "Debate: Does the Universe have a purpose?" in the search engine window.

Yesterday I watched the entire video and found much to think about from both sides of the debate. (One of the scientists seems fond of the favorite phrase of our original poster,"The Atheist,": "straw man.") Michael Shermer, editor of The Skeptic Magazine, was already familiar to me, as I had read --and totally agreed with-- his debunking of the hysteria surrounding the paranoiac myths about 2012. On this panel Shermer said that making a commitment for doing good in this life can bring purpose to an individual's life. He didn't use the phrase "secular humanist," but that's what he meant. I find no fault in that position, as far as it goes.

All six of the main speakers (3 on the science side, 3 on the faith side) were impressive, but one of the best comments came from a physicist, Michio Kaku, who wasn't on either panel, and thus not given the same amount of time. Dr. Kaku said that neither the scientists nor the "theists" were 100% correct, and that, as a scholar of string theory, he (Dr. Kaku) has found that there had been a cosmic event previous to the "Big Bang." Who started the string theory, he wondered and guessed that we may never find the answer to the God question, even a hundred years from now.

One school of thought neither side ever mentioned was that of Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit theologian and paleontologist who spent a lifetime reconciling the truth of evolution with the truth of ultimate faith. His complex theories were contemporary and future-oriented, and nearly incomprehensible. But I really think Teilhard was on to something.

One of the more interesting facts brought out by the scientists was the fact that there may be a "God gene," a program in an individual's DNA code which determines whether he or she believes in God. If so, that would cover a lot of people: those who have the gene, those who don't, those who think they have it, and those who think they don't have it. That's okay, but the religious counterpart to the DNA answer is that Faith is a gift -- perhaps manifested in the tangible form of a gene? Who knows? One thing I do know is that anyone who requires physical evidence upon which to base his or her religious belief may have a "belief" but it certainly isn't "faith." And in that case your faith is nothing. This statement does not originate with me but from Douglas "The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy" Adams, who was an avowed atheist.

Rabbi Wolpe (on the "theist" side) was both logical and emotional and, in my opinion, the most powerful of all six main speakers, and not just because I'm tending -- tending, mind you -- toward his side. Only once did Rabbi Wolpe quote scripture, from the Book of Job:
"Though He slay me, yet I will believe in Him."

We have to be careful, I think, about attributing all the evil, suffering, and discord to an Act of God. It may be part of a grand plan, or perhaps, as the 18th century Deists believed, the Supreme Being was the Great Clockmaker, who set the Universe in motion and left it to run according to its own rules, one of which, I hasten to add, is human free will. Perhaps a death of an individual may be a tiny piece of the puzzle of great purpose, maybe not. But it's extremely arrogant, I think, to pronounce everything that goes wrong or contrary to our desires as "God's Will." As I wrote in my blog, it's just as bad to say that death is merely part of the natural cycle, which in its exquisite abstraction, does nothing to comfort a person when he or his loved one is dying.

For 2000 years of history, a great population has believed in a God who -- far from causing death or "allowing" death-- conquered death. When my mother died when I was only 11 years old, my father when I was 22, when the older of my two children was diagnosed with a pervasive and permanent disability, when my only brother passed away two years ago, followed by my youngest sister just a week ago yesterday, I did not blame God. I did not think that cancer, illness, or a life-changing condition was a judgement of God but a question of chance, a quirk of nature.

But let me tell you something-- with her earthquakes, floods, killer storms and all manner of cataclysms, Nature is a gentle, cookie-cutting grandmother compared to the horrifying things we do to each other.

William James, a scientist and philosopher, said that we believe certain ideas to be "good" because "we are fond of them" but also because "they are helpful in life's practical struggles." Some of us, struggling with grief and ongoing troubles, look both inward and outward to something beyond our puny selves, for truth. Some of us find certain beliefs to be helpful even though others may find these very beliefs to be --as Dawkins says in the video -- "silly and childish."

Life is tough enough without faith. Some of us tend to certain beliefs because without them the universe is even more indifferent, pointless, and cold. Some of us need to believe that the Universe has a purpose, and find a semblance of solace in the idea of a metaphysical presence of ultimate benevolence.

Forgive me, but to deny that tiny comfort to another human being in the grip of grief --to call it "silly"-- seems unspeakably heartless and cruel.

[The Atheist]

Forgive me, but to deny that tiny comfort to another human being in the grip of grief --to call it "silly"-- seems unspeakably heartless and cruel.

You need to read more carefully - I didn't say that.

I said it would be silly for you to believe there were no atheist mourners, because it is demonstrably incorrect.

[AuntShecky]

You need to read more carefully - I didn't say that.

I said it would be silly for you to believe there were no atheist mourners, because it is demonstrably incorrect.

I meant Dawkins, who used the word "silly" to describe
believers.

[The Atheist]

I meant Dawkins, who used the word "silly" to describe
believers.

Gotcha; I think it was you calling him "Dawson" got me confused.

[JuniperWoolf]

One of the scientists seems fond of the favorite phrase of our original poster,"The Atheist,": "straw man."

I've also noticed that phrase being bandied about a lot lately. I haven't decided how I feel about it yet: I've been accused of creating "straw men" before, and it seems to me like an effort to polarize an issue. It's like you can't make good points for both sides of a debate, you HAVE to pick a side and pretend that the opposing arguments don‘t exist or else are easy to disprove. I hate polarizing issues, because it tends to make people prejudice and creates groupthink situations. On the other hand, it is describing a method of argument that's been used a lot lately which can be fairly blinding and effective. I've read articles before in which the writer is clearly building an idea up just to tear it apart in the in the second half, and as a reader you go along with her reasoning and the conclusion that she pretends to reach is easy to swallow - much easier than if her point had just been a simple counter argument (which is really much more honest and less underhanded).

One of the more interesting facts brought out by the scientists was the fact that there may be a "God gene," a program in an individual's DNA code which determines whether he or she believes in God."

I really don't like that idea, and I also disagree. It takes free will and reason right out of the equation. Not everything that we do and think can be attributed to genetics. Someone in one of my psych classes once tried to argue that there was a genetic predisposition among white European descendants which made them more likely to prefer apples over oranges than other racial and cultural groups, it's ridiculous. People do have the ability to think, we aren't slaves to our genetics. It's like when people blame their genetics on drug use or alcoholism, or when they blame their adultery on gender. Sorry buddy, you have a rational mind and you make your own decisions, no passing the buck. You know, there are court cases where people try to get away with crimes by blaming their genetics?

It reminds me of the behaviourists in the '50's who were trying to prove that absolutely everything was the effect of conditioning, there are so many problems with both of these schools of thought. Why are some people believers early in life and then atheists later on? If theism is dependant on genetics, shouldn't it be consistent? Why isn't a child who was born of theistic parents and then adopted by atheists more likely to tend towards atheism? Why is the world gradually becoming more atheistic, are atheists more evolved than theists? Can't be, theists reproduce much faster. So many holes.

For 2000 years of history, a great population has believed in a God who -- far from causing death or "allowing" death-- conquered death.

I could see that with death - if you believe that your “you-ness” continues after your body ceases to function then really there IS no death - but that doesn't really apply to suffering, which definitely exists whether you believe in god or not. If there is an omnipotent being out there that's supposed to be watching over us (even the watchmaker metaphor doesn't work - watches have to be take in for repairs fairly often, right?), then it must be just sitting there allowing so much suffering to go on.

Forgive me, but to deny that tiny comfort to another human being in the grip of grief --to call it "silly"-- seems unspeakably heartless and cruel.

Agreed, as long as they keep it to themselves. When Christians try to shove their ideas down your throat or imply that you're a bad person because you don't pretend to care about the thing that they worship, then I take issue.

[YesNo]

People do have the ability to think, we aren't slaves to our genetics.

I agree.

Basically, I suspect we become what we love to think about. Focusing the mind on money, for example, we become, to the best of our physical ability, what we love. Focus on something better, and there might be a better outcome even if to others all we think about are dreams and illusions.

I could see that with death - if you believe that your “you-ness” continues after your body ceases to function then really there IS no death - but that doesn't really apply to suffering, which definitely exists whether you believe in god or not. If there is an omnipotent being out there that's supposed to be watching over us (even the watchmaker metaphor doesn't work - watches have to be take in for repairs fairly often, right?), then it must be just sitting there allowing so much suffering to go on.

If you consider the possibility that your "you-ness" can't die, even if you commit suicide, maybe the point of suffering is not to avoid it. Who knows?

[Varenne Rodin]

I think we wink out like a light turned off. The "youness" is gone. We just have to get over being upset about that and enjoy our "selves" while we can. Trying to extend our lives seems like a really important thing to do also. We won't figure out what the keys are to unlocking the mysteries of our bizarre universe if we keep reproducing people who live very short lives.

I saw my brother's dead body. It did not inspire the mental retardation required to start deluding myself that his spirit would go on. The energy ceased to flow through his body and brain, thus ending his awareness and his flow of thoughts and memories, thereby completing his "self". His body was just a dead machine. Like a broken computer. Nothing was spared. Not the hard drive. Not anything. Just the skin casing until that got burned up in the incinerator.

We are a society of whining, sissy victims. It's time to get brave. Religion is giving up on curiosity and succumbing to mental illness brought on by fear. End of story.

Try this: Chill out, cutie cupcakes! Have some fun. Read books.

[Drkshadow03]

I think we wink out like a light turned off. The "youness" is gone. We just have to get over being upset about that and enjoy our "selves" while we can. Trying to extend our lives seems like a really important thing to do also. We won't figure out what the keys are to unlocking the mysteries of our bizarre universe if we keep reproducing people who live very short lives.

I saw my brother's dead body. It did not inspire the mental retardation required to start deluding myself that his spirit would go on. The energy ceased to flow through his body and brain, thus ending his awareness and his flow of thoughts and memories, thereby completing his "self". His body was just a dead machine. Like a broken computer. Nothing was spared. Not the hard drive. Not anything. Just the skin casing until that got burned up in the incinerator.

We are a society of whining, sissy victims. It's time to get brave. Religion is giving up on curiosity and succumbing to mental illness brought on by fear. End of story.

Try this: Chill out, cutie cupcakes! Have some fun. Read books.

You know, it's probably not a good idea to call people who believe in the afterlife retarded. Deluded? Maybe. Wrong? Possibly. Mistaken? Sure.

[DanielBenoit]

What do I think of the new militancy in atheist movements? One word comes to mind: Annoying.

Just as annoying as the new bouts of evangelicalism throughout the country.