Read and discuss!

American "evangelical" atheists. Not agnostics. Not live-and-let-live non-believers. A group of people who argue that all religion is a negative force. I'm sure they've always existed, but you don't often hear much about them.

Before I give my own personal take, I have to disclose bias. I went through my formative years as a largely unindoctrinated "Catholic." Catholic on paper, at least. In high school, I became involved in a Catholic youth group, became active in the Church, became very educated and outspoken in defense of it, and ultimately decided to become a seminarian (priest-in-training). I enjoyed the freedom of dorm life, and the novelty of a small, insular community. However, as time went on, I noticed some less positive changes in myself. For a plethora of interrelated reasons that I don't feel the need to disclose, my life spiralled out of control, and I was ultimately expelled for a failure to properly blend in with the community. I intended to leave at the end of the semester, so...my complaints against my expulsion actually have nothing to do with being removed. In retrospect, entering the seminary was the most unhealthy decision I ever made in my life. Months after the shock wore off, I came to realize that my motivations for supporting the Church were largely emotional, and with the supportive but brainwashed community out of the picture, I rejected the faith on largely intellectual grounds. I now waver between agnosticism and atheism.

So, disclaimer out of the way...I appreciate that there's a counterbalance to the guilt that the hardline religious like to lay on the openly nonreligious. I appreciate that there could someday be another force to tug at the "moderate," wishy-washy crowd that has a religious affiliation on paper. Still, it seems like a rather large step to take.

I'm aware that the crowd we have gathered here is going to be mostly agnostic, with moderately sized groups of liberal practitioners and neopagans on the side (and of course a smattering of everything else), so the only people who are likely to be negative targets of their efforts won't be arguing from the traditional, Christian evangelical standpoint anyways. You all aren't a great group to survey. Anyways, I'd still like to hear people's thoughts!

I'm reading the God Delusion at the moment.

I'm finding it interesting, but a little limited. I also find the evangelising deeply dull - I'm interested in the arguments, not in converting to some sort of Dawkins led movement...

I've always maintained that you are free to your own beliefs, be it with or without God. Just leave mine alone and do not try to convert me to your beliefs. I personally believe this is fair, but many others believe that their way is the 'best' or 'only' way.

I can still state my opinion however; I do not personally like the restrictions placed on us by religion, I do not like that people can get so overzealous to begin wars with religion at their back and as their reasons. But I will put a personal belief that there is something beyond us. And it is not evil to think such.

This sort of subjective thought I've rejected a long, long time ago. No matter my state in life, I've always thought that truth and reality are both very objective and very interrelated. It makes no sense to me to say "I really think the sky is blue, but if it looks orange to you, that's ok. I can't say that it's a sign of colorblindness, poor education, or stubbornness on your part." Of course it's more complicated when you're dealing with things beyond the tangible, and this is a gross oversimplification, but the theory is the same. Real is real. Fake is fake. Belief in the real is superior to belief in the fake. I don't feel bad saying this while admitting that I'm not sure which is which. Pascal can just go away.



Expound!

Eh, I don't believe in God, but I don't see any reason to go out and preach that religion is a fraud. If they believe in religion and don't hurt anything in doing so, more power to them. It's just not something I feel any reason to believe.

Again, you're welcome to believe such. I wont stop you.


As for further to my comment...

I believe that there is a possibility that when we die, its not a final statement. We are reborn in some way. I believe that the old ways, Pagan beliefs, may have been actually touching on something. Faeries, Spirits, etc. Whether we be reborn in our minds, we think it, I believe that some part of us is carried on.

Is that enough?

Well, from a Christian who no one likes to hear from... I have a few issues to pose up against this whole 'New Athiest' Movement.


1.) If God does not exist, then why the frack should he care if people believe in it or not. If He doesn't exist, then so what. I'd rather live life believing in God then not, because it gives every death a little more meaning.

2.) Religion is the number 1 institution for establishing 'morals.' Yes, there are extremists, but by and by, most people gain their sense of respect for their fellow man from some form of religious practice. While I am not saying an athiest is not capable of delivering this message, it is no where near as effective. (I will go into why in a moment.)

3.) Lastly, why does this guy fear religion, why is it evil. And if he is going to be extremely anti-religious, is that any better then being extremly religious?


Ok, why an indivdual atheist can not effective teach social values.

A.) Human beings are social. They do not learn from one source, they learn from many. This is why effective education systems will frequently revisit topics with discussion. This opens up learned from many angles.

B.) An individual can not teach group values, but only individual values. Teaching of group values requires a group to observe and mimic.

Now, if a group of atheists got together and decided to teach values, great. But you know what would happen... they would create stories to teach the values with. May not be as mythical as the Bible, but in time, they will become 'scripture' and they will have formed a religion. You end up with a religion similar to Buddhism, which lacks a divine figure. (Buddha is not a God.)

There is a reason that not a single culture in this world did not develop some form of religion. It is human nature to use institution to define and coordinate social life.


There a non-religious argument to why atheism, in the terms of this article 'New Atheism,' is very bad.

Especially for the spiritual-but-not-religious crowd, I'm curious as to what makes you hold said beliefs.

As for rejecting subjectivism...I really think one of the greatest failures of modern society, especially Western democracies, is how so many of us are content to let our neighbor's beliefs go unchallenged just because bringing it up risks making someone uncomfortable. There are no more debates that matter. There is no more open forum discussion. Politics, religion, sexuality...all of these have become hidden away, and because of that, they're used more for affiliation than anything else, and that's horrible. These things decide the fate of more than just the people who ascribe to certain beliefs.

I'm open to hear any idea. Really. I think that's my biggest issue with the proposed movement...I don't think these things are evil. I don't think that the liberal masses de facto empower the extremists. I don't think someone is evil just for holding a belief, so long as it is held sincerely and with proper examination. The proper examination part is important, though!

Dawkins and Dennett annoy me to no end, because they're so righteous, full of themselves and convinced of their own intellectual and moral superiority - which, above all, makes for annoying reading. I was of this opinion long before their little atheist crusade. As for New Atheism, it's downright offensive. They refer to atheists as "Brights", and every deist, by implication, is dim. Well, as a deist, I find that rude, and they ought not expect me to engage their arguments until they phrase them in more civil terms.

I also find the notion of an atheist crusade ironic because outspoken atheists are often so very fond of pointing out the evils caused by religious institutions throughout history, not recognising that the evils are due to extremism, no matter its cause. Human beings will use any fundamental belief as an excuse to cause harm and impose their own views on others - and I don't see why religious belief and anti-religious belief should differ in that respect.

Yay, more groups of people actively working to undermine the entire civilization we live in. Isn't life grand?


Edit: AHHH! So this is what Southpark was mocking, I thought they were mocking internetdebates in general like Dilbert was that weak. Interesting how all the pop culture melds together.

Ha, I was just talking about something related with someone the other night - how ridiculously framed the whole abortion debate is. The vast moderate pro-choice majority can't understand why people who don't believe in abortion can't simply accept that other people are entitled to their own choice. (Well, when you think someone's killing little children, you don't usually shrug and call it a lifestyle choice.) The pro-life majority keeps telling people it's wrong to kill babies. (Well, they don't think those are babies.) And the real issue rarely gets tackled.

No, subjectivism doesn't work really well when it comes to the big, important beliefs in life, because the options tend to be mutually exclusive. Saying that you hold one opinion, but you can accept that other people will hold different opinions, frequently amounts to saying, "I don't really want to bother thinking about it or debating it. I can live my life comfortably ignoring the moral issues."

I have spent some time trying to come up with an Athiest morality. My criteria were as follows. What can I learn from all of reality about how to live my life removing all precepts that are based on the existance of a god who is involved in our lives.

I came up with a couple of theories.

1. Emulate the animal kingdom in all its ways. Amorality rules. Whatever works, works, and go with that process. If the only way for Shiites in Iraq to live the way they feel works best for themselves is to kill off all the Suunis, then do so. There is nothing wrong with it, because the the enviroment will define the type of people who live there. Diverisity is important in ideas as well as biology so that if one idea is every destroyed by some mental virus others can propigate themselves and not die out completely. The very act of killing large populations will help ensure that only the viable population remains.

2. Stop treating humans as being not a part of the natural environment. Meaning, PETA. The life of a flea is just as important as the life of a human, we should uphold all animals to the same standards as humans. If my dog steals the bone of the dog next door it should be liable for jail time or manual labor.

3. Apathy. Do whatever the people around you are doing, it doesn't really matter anyways. To Xavius, I say, "proper examination?" Pah! its a waste of time, I have some DNA to spread.




Another small comment on this topic.

1. Deciding to say that "I did it for emotional reasons, but then saw the light and followed my intellect" is a very Spiritually Human thing to do. Animals don't do that. Seperating yourself from your animal self is an inherently spirtual activity, even if it seams the most non spiritual thing in the world, because its "logical."

2. As great as theory is and how great the "intelect" is ... Experience is more important, even when I find out the experience is fake, the fake experience actually affects my body chemistry, its more important. Some people, like myself, have experienced the realm of the illogical and know its there. Thats not helpfull for anyone who has not experienced it, or for those who reject the experiences as "fake" but its there and no amount of "evidence" will remove that.

It's 'atheist', dammit.

Oh, and read the bible. Don't sheep through it, really read it. I am deeply disturbed by the sort of morals exposed throughout the bible, in which people are stoned all the time for doing practically anything; in fact, I am deeply disturbed by the sort of morals expected from modern Christians, Jews, and Muslims as well.

Oh, and I am offended by the notion that atheists are incapable of moral. In my experience, atheists I know are more moral and tolerant than theists.


He's not shooting anyone, so yeah, it is. The man is making documentaries. He's not telling people to blow themselves up, invade foreign countries, or impose Bronze Age morality upon everyone by manipulating governments. And religion is something to be scared of, particularly beard-in-the-sky type religions. The quotation on my signature pretty much summarizes my feelings regarding organized religion.


Er... Just because it involves a body of stories with a moral intent doesn't make it a religion. Classic fables had an intent of teaching morals, but they weren't religions - People, or at least adults, were fully aware of how bizarrely unrealistic they are (Talking animals, etc.) but understood the moral value. And fiction is not the only means of teaching morality or group values.


Institution != Religion. There are plenty of examples of cultures without centrally arranged religion, plenty of examples of cultures where everyone is a part of the group's spirituality, plenty of examples of cultures which aren't controlled by their temples. You're drawing from a very narrow pool of context here. Additionally, it's not 'human nature' - It's the god of the gaps, filling up the space left unknown. And the gaps are closing in on him - Actual, real knowledge of how the Universe works kills religious belief.

There is a totally non-biased, independent argument for why I am the paragon of human development. Really. Just take my word for it.

And I agree with Xavius... subjectivism nowadays is taken to such ridiculous extremes. We spend so much time trying to ignore the massive elephants in the room, such as the simple fact that some cultures thrive and some cultures die off - Some memeplexes are better at spreading, and some make for better societies to live in.

Based on which system of morality?

I had to take moral development classes in school, it was really quite interesting. So which morality system are you talking about?

And I don' think you have ever actually read the bible, it sounds to me more like you read passages in the bible, because I only know of 5 people stoned to death in it.

Its great that you have been shown verses which look bad out of context, the bible is full of them if you don't understand the holistic picture presented, and you use different standards of what is good and bad.

A common example is the stoning of a child who rebels against their parents. The context of this verse, and the grammar used in the Hebrew is often overlooked, but the verse teaches more about how to parent with a single voice and the expected outcomes of behavior you can have when there is fighting between the parents than it is about stoning people. This reading of the text has been presented to parents since at least the 1100s, probably even before then. But like all things in life, often people ignore whats written down and just behave however their neighbors are behaving or however their parents behaved.

I can't say for how the original recipients of the Bible read it, but I can tell you that from the year 70.C.E. and onwards, punishments in the bible were seen as "This is what should happen, from an evolutionary , building society point of view, but in reality since we are people we have lesser punishments." In the year 110 B.C.E (I think thats the year, I could be wrong) They looked back on all the courts and said if a Court killed more than 1 person every seven years it was was a harsh and viscious court.

And Xenthos hasn't posted anything.

I have a little inkling that this thread is going to open a great big can of worms. Which will be fun to watch.

No kidding eh?

One that stems for actual respct for oneself and humanity, not fear that some bizarre multiple-personality Bronze Age deity is going to kick your arse in the afterlife. One thing theists seem to have trouble understanding is that morality does not need to stem from a central authority, much less through fear.

You want me to list *every* person stoned to death in the bible? Do you think I live for this kind of shit? Do you think I get kicks out of looking at the appallingly bad moral standards set of by the Old Testament?

You want a holistic picture? How many times does Yahweh commit mass murder in the Old Testament? I am appalled at how people can keep a straight face while claiming that drowning an entire civilization, including newborn children, is moral. I am appalled at the belief that everyone has done something immoral, even when they're not old enough to do much more than squirm. I am appalled at the entire culture of 'morality' based on guilt, punishment and retribution that permeates the Old Testament. I don't really need to quote anything out of context for it; Genesis is, as a whole, the tale of a deity set on keeping his faithful both ignorant and obedient.

Luckily. If we were to behave like people in the Bible do... To paraphrase Monty Python, "Being stoned wouldn't be against the law... it would BE THE LAW."

Oh, and I have two words for you: Lot's daughters.


Ah, yes. Love the hypocrisy of that. "We have this book. It basically says, 'Make copies of me and read me every day, and obey me'. But we're going to ignore that third bit while continuously claiming that it is the inspired gospel of our uber mofo deity and should be taken literally at all times, because it is easier than actually coming up with a system of law and morality that works."

You see, this is why the Romans conquered Judea, and not the other way around.

Please do not quote me, then twist my meanings. When I said people use institutions to define morality, I was not only refering to religion, hence me using institution instead of religion. I was not going to say school, family, government, etc... had no say. Although you may of liked me to say that...

And religion, as a descriptor, is any institution in which the moral and spiritual needs of a community are met and or established.

Onto your other post...

It is only a very loud minority of Christians who say take the bible literally. Any Christian scholar does not take it literally. Furthermore, you are once again pulling passages from the bible blindly, and using them to make your point without considering the whole picture of the section of the bible you are refering to, or the entire bible for that matter.

With that in mind, I am going to stop reading this forum, because quite simply... if I want an argument about how the bible is evil and all that, I would visit the GLBT club here on campus and argue with them about the bible.

Before I go... my post was not a 'Christian' based post, it was a religion in general. Sorry that you missed the point completely, but that is the problem with the New Atheist movement. It willfully chooses to ignore that there are far more religions then just Christianity. It also lacks any tact what so ever, because ever religion tells its followers that those who would rob them of the 'spirtual' reward will call the teachings of the religion wrong and evil, etc...

In other words... if you miss the point, don't try and pervert reality until the bullseye moves under your arrow point.

You are right, I 100% agree with everything you said.

Except that you know NOTHING about the "old testament" , A Nun knows more about Evolution than you know about the bible.

Huh? This is another example of theists trying to get 'morality' and 'religion' to stick together like they're indivisible. Wake up, they're not. I can't find a definition for 'religion' that matches this. Religion is a complex of memes related to belief in a set of supernatural entities. It has nothing to do with moral needs, and everything to do with filling gaps in human understanding with bizarre mythology and giving its proponents moral and secular authority.

The whole 'consider the whole picture' drivel is inane and meaningless. There is no context in which mass murder is anywhere close to acceptable. If you take the easy way out and say it's an 'allegory' or 'metaphor', then please explain what the hell kind of metaphor it is, and why it gets used so often and in such literal terms. If you flatly deny that it's true or an allegory, then you're denying that part of the bible is true, and therefore denying that it's the inspired word of God, which means you're deceiving yourself about the entire basis of your religion. There's really no real way out of the notion that, as a moral standard, the Old Testament sets an appallingly bad example. No wonder so few people actually read it.

The thing is, Buddhists aren't running amok with guns and blowing themselves up for the Dalai Lama. There are no extremist Ganesh bomber corps. There's no Neo-Pagan liberation front. I don't see the Hare Krishna going around chanting while they plant bombs on Shintoist temples. If we target Abrahamic religions, it's becase Abrahamic religions are the ones being naughty.

And, we tried the tact thing. It didn't work out. There comes a point when you need to stop being meek.