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

[Varenne Rodin]

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

People are very easily offended these days. Respecting someone else's beliefs doesn't extend to me praising them or holding back criticism. You don't like the word "retarded"? I understand that, but I meant it scientifically. Retardation is another term for a severe deficiency. It can be mental or motor. In this case, I would have to do significant brain damage to myself in order to achieve delusions on such a grand level.

I was speaking on a personal level. I do not wish to retard myself. I hope this brings more clarity to my earlier post.

If someone is huffing paint and telling their kids to huff paint, I can respect their right to harm their brains and raise damaged children, but I don't have to say I like it. I have the right to say it disgusts me.

Merry Christmas, Christians! Keep sipping that kool-aid!

PS
I'm not angry or militant. If that's the conclusion you've jumped to, you're taking me way too seriously.

[Scheherazade]

W a r n i n g

Please do not personalise your comments.

If you are unable to show respect towards those whose views are different from yours, please refrain from taking part in this discussion.

Posts containing inflammatory or personal comments will be removed without further notice.

[DanielBenoit]

A question to atheists: what value if any do you find in religion? Do you believe that religious belief doesn't necessarily have to be based on an ontology and can in a sense an attempt to understand ourselves and not necessarily the universe?

What I'm tired of is hearing these religious debates turn into a debate on evolution and creationism. The latter is just a stupid way to try to counter the supposed threat of science on religious belief and in fact devalues the value of the religious experience into some kind of political or scientific argument, which is anything but faith.

I think the main problem I have with atheism of the Dawkins-crowd is not that it doesn't believe in a religion (for I do not) but that it is so antagonistic towards religious belief, sentiment and scripture. Just discrediting it as mere fairy tales and nonsense. I think it is the prime error of normative Judeo-Christianity that the stories of the Bible are to be taken literarly. It is mandatory that one understands (or tries to understand) the historical and literary contexts of the Biblical canon and recognize that much of it was not intended as historical truth (the idea of writing history during the time of the writing of Genesis for example was totally different from ours).

[Drkshadow03]

People are very easily offended these days. Respecting someone else's beliefs doesn't extend to me praising them or holding back criticism. You don't like the word "retarded"? I understand that, but I meant it scientifically. Retardation is another term for a severe deficiency. It can be mental or motor. In this case, I would have to do significant brain damage to myself in order to achieve delusions on such a grand level.

I was speaking on a personal level. I do not wish to retard myself. I hope this brings more clarity to my earlier post.

If someone is huffing paint and telling their kids to huff paint, I can respect their right to harm their brains and raise damaged children, but I don't have to say I like it. I have the right to say it disgusts me.

Merry Christmas, Christians! Keep sipping that kool-aid!

PS
I'm not angry or militant. If that's the conclusion you've jumped to, you're taking me way too seriously.

Criticism involves a rigorous questioning of an idea or showing a lack of evidence for it or demonstrating evidence that counters it (all of which can be done and has been done by the posters prior to you). Calling something a "mental illness" and an act of "mental retardation" is just an insult and I would argue a dehumanizing act that isn't so much attacking the belief, but the people who profess it.

[Varenne Rodin]

A question to atheists: what value if any do you find in religion? Do you believe that religious belief doesn't necessarily have to be based on an ontology and can in a sense an attempt to understand ourselves and not necessarily the universe?


...I think the main problem I have with atheism of the Dawkins-crowd is not that it doesn't believe in a religion (for I do not) but that it is so antagonistic towards religious belief, sentiment and scripture. Just discrediting it as mere fairy tales and nonsense. I think it is the prime error of normative Judeo-Christianity that the stories of the Bible are to be taken literarly. It is mandatory that one understands (or tries to understand) the historical and literary contexts of the Biblical canon and recognize that much of it was not intended as historical truth (the idea of writing history during the time of the writing of Genesis for example was totally different from ours).

Atheists view religion as mythology. What value do you place on religions and/or mythologies that you feel have been disproven or simply not supported by enough evidence for you to attach your faith to them? Do you place a high value on ancient Roman or Greek mythologies? From a literary standpoint, some of the stories are entertaining.

I am atheist and I do not take the bible literally. I don't view that as an atheist problem. I have been confronted by fundamentalist Christians who do take the bible literally, and attempt to use the text as evidence to support their claims, as is their right. If a question is posed in a literal way, I will have to answer it in kind with scientific evidence, as is the right of the atheist. This type of debate might at some point lead to better understanding.

A lot of bible stories came from Jews, who have themselves acknowledged that these are simply fables for schooling people toward decent behaviors (morals). This atheist understands that and it further contributes to my choice to be non-religious. I haven't encountered the atheists who are attached to literal meanings in the bible. Not saying they aren't out there. Stranger things have happened.

[Varenne Rodin]

Criticism involves a rigorous questioning of an idea or showing a lack of evidence for it or demonstrating evidence that counters it (all of which can be done and has been done by the posters prior to you). Calling something a "mental illness" and an act of "mental retardation" is just an insult and I would argue a dehumanizing act that isn't so much attacking the belief, but the people who profess it.

You have misjudged me greatly. Really though, some context. I did not say Christianity was "an act of mental retardation." I said I couldn't retard my awareness to a level of delusion that would allow me to have faith. If you don't understand that I'm not calling anyone retarded by saying that, I can only apologize for the confusion I have caused you.

It's like if I told you I had a doctorate, and pointed out that someone else was only in the beginning stages of medical school, you would accuse me of abusing them and calling them retarded. Statistically, people with a higher education are less likely to be extremely religious. That doesn't mean all educated people are non-religious and it doesn't mean that religious people are retarded. I have reached a level of awareness in which religion has been negated for me. To go back to my own previous level of awareness, in which I was a Christian, I would have to retard my mental database. Again, this in no way makes Christians retarded.

If nothing else, I hope this fosters a better understanding of vocabulary. I mean no insult to anyone.

As to the mental illness classification, in my recent psychology classes we learned that religion is largely convincing based on a sort of indoctrination that occurs in the "nurture" environment. It is not genetic, it is socioculturally influenced. It is also used by a great many people as a sort of therapy, a means of feeling good, or better, or to separate from things a person finds unpleasant. Since prayer is not a chemical or biological treatment, it's effectiveness is based on mental reaction, it can be classified as a placebo. Placebo effects generate a mental disorder in which q subject feels they have been "treated" or "healed" or "saved."

Now that you know the derrivation of my comments, I hope you don't feel so injured by me. I'm a really nice girl and I don't enjoy having my opinions misrepresented or malice assigned to my intentions when there is none. I do understand the confusion, and my apology is sincere. I have friends and family who are Christian, and their faith and kindness is endearing to me, but I can't pretend to relate to them theologically. If that is an offense to you, you may be destined to be offended by atheism (without or anti-theism).

[DanielBenoit]

Atheists view religion as mythology. What value do you place on religions and/or mythologies that you feel have been disproven or simply not supported by enough evidence for you to attach your faith to them? Do you place a high value on ancient Roman or Greek mythologies? From a literary standpoint, some of the stories are entertaining.

Again, this is the typical ontological stance that is taken by atheists. Religion, especially when you actually understand and read scripture (this is not just Judeo-Christian scripture) is more than just simply believing the in the validity of these myths. It is a terrible misreading of normative Judeo-Christian religions to take stories like the Garden of Eden or the Tower of Babel as literal fact. The people who wrote them were writing a tradition of mythology and ritual in establishing their national/ethnic/cultural identity. Yahweh may not exist, but there is profound spiritual truth to be found in the stories of the Torah and to disregard them as useless myths or just mere entertainment is like disregarding Shakespeare as a mere crowd-pleaser.

People adopt a religion not out of their antagonism towards science (something Dawkinites constantly spout), but because it is spiritually fulfilling for them. Science is totally valid but it cannot provide you with what religion provides because they are two completely separate things.

And btw, the stories can't be "disproved" because they were never meant to be proved or taken as fact. The foundation of a religion is to create a mythology that explains this or that groups view of the universe and human nature. This is philosophical and not scientific and it was never meant to be.

I am atheist and I do not take the bible literally.

But when you take the Bible as a text trying to establish a science (or from your view a pseudoscience) you are taking it literally, even though you might not believe in it.

For example: Both atheists and fundimentalists take a reading of the Garden of Eden as literal. The only difference is that fundimentalists accept the historical validity of the stories on faith while atheists look at them as absurd (the talking snake etc.). Both approaches do injustice to the depths of the text.

Like I said, you're asking for proof of a theory that doesn't even attempt to be a theory. It's kind of ironic but most atheists, like fundimentalists, do indeed treat the Bible as science, the only difference is that atheists find it to be utterly untrue and "disproven".

A lot of bible stories came from Jews, who have themselves acknowledged that these are simply fables for schooling people toward decent behaviors (morals).

Even though I'm not Jewish, I like to take the approach many Jews seem to take towards the Bible (and my outlook on the Bible is essentially Jewish). There's some joke I heard that every rabbi you meet will have a different opinion on the Torah. I think it is important in understanding these tales not only as morality tales (in fact the Old Testament is a chronicle of human failure and not exactly morals) but of a deeper understanding of life and of ourselves.

Whether we like it our not, religions form a basis of civilizations. This does not mean that the good outweighs the bad or vice-versa, but we must recognize that almost all Western thought is derivative of the Bible (the rest is derivative of ancient Greek thought).

My final statement is this: Religion is not a science and thus it is not meant to do what science does. If I'm not mistaken (anyone correct me if I'm wrong) the idea of having faith in God is a Christian concept and the "in-way" to becoming a Christian. For Jews it is whether or not you trust in Yahweh's covenant and with Muslims it is if you submit to Allah. These are different epistemic approaches and to apply the Christian idea of faith to Judiaism or Islam will make no sense because they are all different traditions (or rather, different approaches to a single tradition).

[Drkshadow03]

Varenne: Fair enough. I was just defending some of the other posters who I thought you were insulting.

There's some joke I heard that every rabbi you meet will have a different opinion on the Torah. I think it is important in understanding these tales not only as morality tales (in fact the Old Testament is a chronicle of human failure and not exactly morals) but of a deeper understanding of life and of ourselves.

Two Jews, three opinions?

[DanielBenoit]

Two Jews, three opinions?

Lol yeah.

[Varenne Rodin]

Varenne: Fair enough. I was just defending some of the other posters who I thought you were insulting.

Thank you, Shadow. I reread what I wrote and it did come off much snarkier than I had intended. It was certainly my error. For what it's worth, I appreciate the compassion you've shown to your fellow litnetters, and I look forward to reading more of your opinions and insights.

I think we essentially agree, Daniel. That being said, I am a scientist without religion. I try to explain everything with science, or I wouldn't be a scientist. However, I understand that there are some things that have not been explained by science, so people concoct mythologies to attempt a better understanding of the abstract. In a way, there are many fables that I have embraced in my life that have contributed greatly to my happiness and my decent set of ethics. I just want to know more about why we're here, and some aspects and practitioners of some religions can greatly hinder physical sciences; with legislation, protest, shunning of information, attempted censorship of educational materials, and costly faith driven wars. In the face of that I have to speak up for science, but I'm not one of the ones trying to insert the science factor into someone's faith in attempts to bust it up just 'cause.

I like some shows of faith. It's alright with me when it brings people happiness, as long as it isn't harming others. The issue I sometimes take with Christianity is that some of it's groups have caused great damage to my life and mankind. With good intentions, religious groups have often blocked scientific practices, methods and researches that could already have extended human lives by hundreds of years. As an atheist, my predicament is that I don't have the luxury of thinking there's an afterlife. I want to live as long as I can, forever, if ever possible. When so many people seem content to die when it's "their time" or when it's "God's plan," it worries me that doctors and scientists won't ever have the support needed to prolong life indefinitely. It makes me feel doomed to obscurity.

So maybe, if other atheists feel as I do, they're just quick to explain the sciences of life in the hopes that people will care more about making this life good and long lasting. Whereas the Christians I have known want to make good, finite lives, with paradise awaiting after. The big difference might be that Christians find a way to be content to die, and atheists only feel content if we don't give up on life. Both causes are admirable in their own ways.

I am sleepy. Ha.

Oh! I should mention that I am American. There are a lot of evangelical Christians here who definitely take the bible literally and force and bend legislation often and dangerously. My disclaimer is that these individuals have influenced all of my religious debates. There's no way around it, but I'm sorry if my views have been incompatible with those of people residing in countries that tend to embrace common sense more frequently.

[The Atheist]

We are a society of whining, sissy victims.

Bravo!

A question to atheists: what value if any do you find in religion?

It's hard to quantify, because I must look at the net result of religion.

I believe there are net benefits to being part of a religion, but that religion itself is a net cost to society.

The issue is enormously complicated, and exacerbated by there not really being any counter-cultural groupings that give the same kind of personal benefits as religion.

On the other hand, there are few organisations as corrupt and evil as some religious sects.

Do you believe that religious belief doesn't necessarily have to be based on an ontology and can in a sense an attempt to understand ourselves and not necessarily the universe?

How would an atheist care why people follow a religion? I'm sure there is no one reason, so it's an unanswerable question.

I think the main problem I have with atheism of the Dawkins-crowd is not that it doesn't believe in a religion (for I do not) but that it is so antagonistic towards religious belief, sentiment and scripture. Just discrediting it as mere fairy tales and nonsense.

Unfortunately, you'll have to do a lot more than say the bible isn't fairytales and nonsense, because to me, that's precisely what it is.

The morality of the bible is a joke and isn't even followed by the vast majority of christians. Should we not eat pork? Are crayfish "unclean"? Should we wear beards or not? Which parts of the bible's morality should we accept as valid or reasonable?

Even if we use Jesus' morality exclusively, we would do away with law courts at once because everyone involved in the legal process will have sinned at some time, so cannot judge another.

If you think you can show how biblical morality has moved human morality forwards rather than backwards - as I believe it has - have a crack. Given that absurd rules were made across vast tracts of Europe for centuries because someone wrote something 2000 years beforehand your position may be somewhat difficult to defend.

Oh! I should mention that I am American. There are a lot of evangelical Christians here who definitely take the bible literally and force and bend legislation often and dangerously. My disclaimer is that these individuals have influenced all of my religious debates. There's no way around it, but I'm sorry if my views have been incompatible with those of people residing in countries that tend to embrace common sense more frequently.

Yes, it's a common problem with Americans, and as I live in the bible belt of NZ, where US-style evangelical/Pentecostal churches are growing quickly, I feel your pain!

[JuniperWoolf]

I think we essentially agree, Daniel. That being said, I am a scientist without religion. I try to explain everything with science, or I wouldn't be a scientist.

You're not a science psycholgist. I'm too tired to get into this conversation right now (it takes me a clear mind to come up with a good post), but before I come back tomorrow, try to think about religion from the point of view of psychological science (and not just an explination, which is obvious, but some of the benefits and costs, and which route is more "worth it").

Yes, it's a common problem with Americans, and as I live in the bible belt of NZ, where US-style evangelical/Pentecostal churches are growing quickly, I feel your pain!

Ah, two of our most vocal atheists are right in the thick of the whole mess! That actually explains a lot - being Canadian, we aren't overwhelmed with evangelists (I think that the last one I saw was three years ago when I was waitressing) and we don't have anything that even resembles Fox News.

[Drkshadow03]

You're not a science psycholgist. I'm too tired to get into this conversation right now (it takes me a clear mind to come up with a good post), but before I come back tomorrow, try to think about religion from the point of view of psychological science (and not just an explination, which is obvious, but some of the benefits and costs, and which route is more "worth it").



Ah, two of our most vocal atheists are right in the thick of the whole mess! That actually explains a lot - being Canadian, we aren't overwhelmed with evangelists (I think that the last one I saw was three years ago when I was waitressing) and we don't have anything that even resembles Fox News.

Eh, it depends where you live in the states too. There isn't really much of an evangelical presence in NY, at least where I'm from. Oh sure, there are some. I dated an evangelical, for example, but you almost have to be looking specifically for them. I think people get this weird perception that everywhere in U.S. is like the deep south.

Unfortunately, you'll have to do a lot more than say the bible isn't fairytales and nonsense, because to me, that's precisely what it is.

The morality of the bible is a joke and isn't even followed by the vast majority of christians. Should we not eat pork? Are crayfish "unclean"? Should we wear beards or not? Which parts of the bible's morality should we accept as valid or reasonable?

Even if we use Jesus' morality exclusively, we would do away with law courts at once because everyone involved in the legal process will have sinned at some time, so cannot judge another.

If you think you can show how biblical morality has moved human morality forwards rather than backwards - as I believe it has - have a crack. Given that absurd rules were made across vast tracts of Europe for centuries because someone wrote something 2000 years beforehand your position may be somewhat difficult to defend.

Of course, Daniel made no comment whatsoever about the morality of the Bible. Nevertheless, I certainly think one can draw some decent enough morals from the Bible, such as the golden rule, helping one's neighbors, showing respect towards one's parents, treating all people with respect (with limitations, of course), etc.

Of course, no one is saying these morals are exclusive to the Bible.

[YesNo]

For example: Both atheists and fundimentalists take a reading of the Garden of Eden as literal. The only difference is that fundimentalists accept the historical validity of the stories on faith while atheists look at them as absurd (the talking snake etc.). Both approaches do injustice to the depths of the text.

I hadn't thought of it like this before, but I think you are right. Both atheists and fundamentalists take the Bible literally, and I might add, they are only interested in the Bible, no other religious tradition.

There are other positions independent of this bipolar social division between atheists and fundamentalist Christians, just like in the US there aren't just Democrats and Republicans. There are also independents.

Whether we like it our not, religions form a basis of civilizations. This does not mean that the good outweighs the bad or vice-versa, but we must recognize that almost all Western thought is derivative of the Bible (the rest is derivative of ancient Greek thought).

This is a good reason to read other cultural traditions. We are lucky they exist to give us a fresh perspective.

[Drkshadow03]

I hadn't thought of it like this before, but I think you are right. Both atheists and fundamentalists take the Bible literally, and I might add, they are only interested in the Bible, no other religious tradition.

Not only is Daniel right, I noticed the same exact phenomena when I began re-reading the bible eight months ago.

I wrote this on my blog on April 10 2010:

"Indeed, when I thought about why I wanted to pursue this project of re-reading the Bible from beginning to end and commenting on each piece, I realized that I considered both the Christian fundamentalist literal readings of the Bible and the skeptical atheist readings that assumes it's all a myth, complains that sections are illogical, and full of atrocities, which invariably relies on its own form of literal reading of the Bible, to be two sides of the same corroded coin. After all, if you're going to question biblical narrative from strict logic and science then you're reading the text in a literal fashion. For example, if a skeptic claims that it makes no sense that light exists prior to the stars and sun existing in Genesis 1, then they're reading in a literal fashion; by asking such a question of the text it presupposes the text was meant to be taken literally and fails to consider the literary reasoning behind the text, the possibility that such details might fulfill a symbolic, thematic, and structural purpose where the authors didn't care about the impossibility of light coming prior to the existence of the sun; they were more interested in the symbolic meaning behind the ordering. I find such literal readings to be short-sighted because it fails to step into the shoes of the original authors; the Bible employs very sophisticated literary techniques that may not always be obvious, especially to those not willing to try to understand the text on its own terms. Nevertheless, I'm not solely interested in reading it on its own terms, or trying to reconstruct the Bible of the Ancient Israelites. This isn't to say I don't want to reconstruct the meanings behind the text, but I also want to delve into what this text means to me today as both a Jew and as an individual interested in literature. I want to read it through my own lens; I want to share Eric's interpretation of the Bible with my readers."

There are other positions independent of this bipolar social division between atheists and fundamentalist Christians, just like in the US there aren't just Democrats and Republicans. There are also independents.

Yes, exactly. One of the biggest problems with these debates is the assumption that there are two sides or at least that's how people tend to act, while there are in fact hundreds of slightly different positions.

I'm a cultural Jew who celebrates the major Jewish holidays, never goes to synagogue, and believes in God most of the time (which is really the position that I have no idea if God exists or not, but I'm leaning towards he does, and some days I lean towards he probably doesn't), and basically live a 98% secular life. The hardcore theists drive me just as nuts as most atheists; I want evolution to be taught and think it's terrible when the religious nutjobs interfere with education, but at the same time certain atheists have annoyed me because they act like that last 2% somehow offends them.

This is a good reason to read other cultural traditions. We are lucky they exist to give us a fresh perspective.

Yeah, I think it's important to read the literature and the cultural traditions of other people.