Do you really hate "religion"...

[writergal]

Soooo, I'm passive-aggressive? Or I used this as a tactic to attack posters and rip them into shreds?

 

FTR, it's a spin from another thread that I committed to start...

 

Look. With all due respect it's obvious that religious people (at least in this thread) can't just say, "hey we respect that you don't believe," and really mean it. No one here has shown any interest in why people don't believe in religion. And that is the crux of the problem with this conversation. It is exactly why you'll never see an Atheist and Religious person discuss their beliefs with each other civilly. Each side feels threatened by the other side, so they take a defensive position, arm themselves with quotes or whatever, and shoot to destroy the other person's ego in the process.

 

If you or M30USA or any other religious member here would stop slinging the Bible references around and for once just hear "us" (Atheists) side of things, and when I say hear I mean actually take an interest in, and ask questions as opposed to the punish and attack defensive position that is often used, then the "great divide" could be closed.

 

But that'll never happen. Will it?

[writergal]

Where's my threat to you? I'm merely quoting the historical words of Jesus of Nazareth. Please stop making this a personal issue.

 

Go back and read your post. Don't deflect. It was a personal threat and you know it. Really M30USA, it's the same tactic you use with everyone who disagrees with your religious beliefs. Denial ain't just a river...

 

I challenge you to actually stop doing that and just try to genuinely listen and understand a non-religious person's POV. But maybe you can't do that without always bringing religion into it.

[M30USA]

This is my last post on here because I will respect the wishes of JaneSays and Writergal by not discussing religion anymore.

[pureinheart]

Look. With all due respect it's obvious that religious people (at least in this thread) can't just say, "hey we respect that you don't believe," and really mean it. No one here has shown any interest in why people don't believe in religion. And that is the crux of the problem with this conversation. It is exactly why you'll never see an Atheist and Religious person discuss their beliefs with each other civilly. Each side feels threatened by the other side, so they take a defensive position, arm themselves with quotes or whatever, and shoot to destroy the other person's ego in the process.

 

If you or M30USA or any other religious member here would stop slinging the Bible references around and for once just hear "us" (Atheists) side of things, and when I say hear I mean actually take an interest in, and ask questions as opposed to the punish and attack defensive position that is often used, then the "great divide" could be closed.

 

But that'll never happen. Will it?

 

Seriously, I'm tripping because all of a sudden me and another poster are getting attacked verbally (exaggerated this, but can't think of any other words) and I'm not sure why, still. This is probably wrong, but I'm not here to convert anyone. I'm thinking you guys hate Bible verses, this has been established.

 

Hey, I'm a space case…and I probably shouldn't post with four dogs and three grandkids all wanting something at the same time. I get distracted easily…the walking and chewing gum thing you know:D

 

Kids screaming at each other, dogs barking…and then peace- the glorious sound of the Ice Cream Truck. Hey, can we all take a deep breath and have an ice cream? My treat:)

 

Actually, I have several Atheists for friends and we do discuss, well actually they discuss how Christianity is the reasons for all of the wrong in the world. Should I say a word, no matter how nice, it would be a war and I know it. Same with my Liberal friends that say Conservatives are the main problem in America. I like to discuss and like to state opinion too.

[Mr Scorpio]

Today the world is unable to see that things are healthier and run more efficient following Gods laws. I could bring up a few and will later, but what I meant to say was more on the lines of trusting Him whether one believes in Him or not.

 

But my dear, how is that even possible? How can one trust something in which they don't even believe?

 

For example, I believe in gravity. Therefore, if you had me stand on the edge of a high rooftop, my body would naturally recoil in fear. You could say "don't worry, if you slip off the building you won't fall to the ground". I wouldn't believe you, and therefore I couldn't trust you.

 

You know, I'm seeing indoctrination in many things, especially the secular, but this seems to be acceptable and even praised in some cases, with the very same people calling me (and others) interesting terms.

 

You'd have to provide specific examples for me to give a specific reply. However, I will offer this point. Indoctrination, by definition, implies teaching someone to fully accept one idea and to not even consider other ideas. I cannot think of many secular areas where this is the case, especially where science is involved. Science, by definition, involves observation and experimentation. It involves critical thinking and objective criteria.

 

Religion, on the other hand, demands indoctrination.

[Keenly]

Many words...but you still have to deal with Jesus. Forget about me and any hypocrisy I might have. Jesus isn't going away just by not getting it jammed down your proverbial throat--and his identity should concern everyone including atheists.

 

Writergal says atheism is "the only way to live a real life".

 

Jesus Christ said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life..."

 

One of the above two people is wrong.

 

No, sorry.

you have an opinion. She has an opinion. Neither of them is wrong or right. They simply are.

 

 

How can you expect to coexist with non beleivers when you can't even respect some ones free will.

[pureinheart]

But my dear, how is that even possible? How can one trust something in which they don't even believe?

For example, I believe in gravity. Therefore, if you had me stand on the edge of a high rooftop, my body would naturally recoil in fear. You could say "don't worry, if you slip off the building you won't fall to the ground". I wouldn't believe you, and therefore I couldn't trust you.

 

 

 

You'd have to provide specific examples for me to give a specific reply. However, I will offer this point. Indoctrination, by definition, implies teaching someone to fully accept one idea and to not even consider other ideas. I cannot think of many secular areas where this is the case, especially where science is involved. Science, by definition, involves observation and experimentation. It involves critical thinking and objective criteria.

 

Religion, on the other hand, demands indoctrination.

 

Well, I'm not sure in todays day and hour, although Pharaoh did. I don't really know how to answer as I would never ask you to even contemplate jumping off of a roof and trust that all would be well- they do do this in the movies though:laugh: amazing how they all come out ok!

 

Indoctrination can be effective in the secular world, I would cite Edward Bernays the father of PR.

 

Edward Bernays - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

…but, you and I both know science is fallible.

 

This might sound weird, but I do consider other ways per se, and do enjoy learning about them. Even knowing I won't agree, it's nice to know how and why others think the way they do.

[Allumere]

I understand the frustration of the folks on this thread that are not Christian or are atheist. It's in the delivery people. If you are going to make statements about God or Jesus in terms of belief to someone of another faith or someone who does not believe in a God, in the least explain yourself. You can say that you are a Christian and as a Christian you believe X, Y,Z because you view the bible as word of god, etc. Generally when you explain folks will be "I get ya" or "I believe..." or some other form of dialog. Seriously, how would a random statement from Jesus mean anything when pitched out to an atheist? And if the person you are talking to doesn't express interest by entering into a "why" or "tell me more" kinda way, you need to back away.

(Ok, non Christian folk or atheist, I going down a path you won't be interested)

 

I know where the desire to tell folks everything comes from. I know part of being Christian is to "spread the word." The intent is good. You are living for and loving God first and because you are to love your neighbor as yourself you want them to be on the same path as you, you want them to have salvation. I get it....but you have to be able to accept where they are and what they believe cause that is part of loving them as well. And as someone else also suggested, pray for them all you want if you are concerned....just do it quietly. Although we are all asked to share the good news, let me tell ya, we ain't all equipped for one reason or another. Know you strengths and weaknesses. Again, live your life in a way that reflects really how we are instructed to live and I guarantee that will inspire folks to ask questions and perhaps listen when you explain how and/or why you are at the place where you are.

[Madman81]

Many words...but you still have to deal with Jesus. Forget about me and any hypocrisy I might have. Jesus isn't going away just by not getting it jammed down your proverbial throat--and his identity should concern everyone including atheists.

 

Writergal says atheism is "the only way to live a real life".

 

Jesus Christ said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life..."

 

One of the above two people is wrong.

No... actually, you're wrong about this, at least as it relates to me and to other atheists (and non-Christians). To me, Jesus went away a little less than 2,000 years ago, just like all the people who died around the same time. The fact that he said a few nice things during his life (and a bunch of wacky ones) doesn't make him any more worthy of my time than any other person who claims to be the "son of God". David Koresh, to name one, proclaimed himself to be the final prophet, "the Son of God, the Lamb". There's no real reason to attach any less credibility to his words than those of Jesus. Or to the words of any of the dozens of other people who have claimed divine heritage. Or to the words of the thankfully dead Fred Phelps.

 

You can't win an argument with people who don't share your beliefs, or convince them to agree with your beliefs, by throwing out quotations from your beliefs. Doing so is the same as me trying to convince you that the earth is round "because somebody else said it in a book, and I believe them." Now, if I show you photos and videos taken from space, or took you in a spacecraft into orbit, that's another matter -- at least I'm showing you some EVIDENCE to support my "orthodoxy". Not just more of the orthodoxy.

 

Throwing out more orthodoxy isn't engaging in serious discussion or debate. And it's a good example of what I referred to earlier about organized religion getting people to switch off their thinking and mindlessly spout thousand-year-old doctrine as undeniable fact.

Edited March 22, 2014 by Madman81

[writergal]

Seriously, I'm tripping because all of a sudden me and another poster are getting attacked verbally (exaggerated this, but can't think of any other words) and I'm not sure why, still. This is probably wrong, but I'm not here to convert anyone. I'm thinking you guys hate Bible verses, this has been established.

 

Hey, I'm a space case…and I probably shouldn't post with four dogs and three grandkids all wanting something at the same time. I get distracted easily…the walking and chewing gum thing you know:D

 

Kids screaming at each other, dogs barking…and then peace- the glorious sound of the Ice Cream Truck. Hey, can we all take a deep breath and have an ice cream? My treat:)

 

Actually, I have several Atheists for friends and we do discuss, well actually they discuss how Christianity is the reasons for all of the wrong in the world. Should I say a word, no matter how nice, it would be a war and I know it. Same with my Liberal friends that say Conservatives are the main problem in America. I like to discuss and like to state opinion too.

 

Look, the only reason you even started this thread is exactly what I wrote: to passive aggressively start an argument with non-believers so that you can spout your religion to justify why religious people are right, and non-religious people are wrong.

 

If you'd actually started this thread to genuinely discuss why people don't believe in God then you'd cease and desist with your spiritual propaganda. That's the most insulting part of this whole discussion. It's not even a two-way discussion because that's not allowed here.

 

I think you created this thread to air your grievances about Atheists and were hoping some Atheists would join your thread naively believing that you were genuinely interested to hear the other side's perspectives, but that was never your agenda. Was it.

[writergal]

No, sorry.

you have an opinion. She has an opinion. Neither of them is wrong or right. They simply are.

 

 

How can you expect to coexist with non beleivers when you can't even respect some ones free will.

 

Bingo!!! ^^

[writergal]

But my dear, how is that even possible? How can one trust something in which they don't even believe?

 

For example, I believe in gravity. Therefore, if you had me stand on the edge of a high rooftop, my body would naturally recoil in fear. You could say "don't worry, if you slip off the building you won't fall to the ground". I wouldn't believe you, and therefore I couldn't trust you.

 

 

 

You'd have to provide specific examples for me to give a specific reply. However, I will offer this point. Indoctrination, by definition, implies teaching someone to fully accept one idea and to not even consider other ideas. I cannot think of many secular areas where this is the case, especially where science is involved. Science, by definition, involves observation and experimentation. It involves critical thinking and objective criteria.

 

Religion, on the other hand, demands indoctrination.

 

Yep!! ^^ Agreed!

[writergal]

No... actually, you're wrong about this, at least as it relates to me and to other atheists (and non-Christians). To me, Jesus went away a little less than 2,000 years ago, just like all the people who died around the same time. The fact that he said a few nice things during his life (and a bunch of wacky ones) doesn't make him any more worthy of my time than any other person who claims to be the "son of God". David Koresh, to name one, proclaimed himself to be the final prophet, "the Son of God, the Lamb". There's no real reason to attach any less credibility to his words than those of Jesus. Or to the words of any of the dozens of other people who have claimed divine heritage. Or to the words of the thankfully dead Fred Phelps.

 

You can't win an argument with people who don't share your beliefs, or convince them to agree with your beliefs, by throwing out quotations from your beliefs. Doing so is the same as me trying to convince you that the earth is round "because somebody else said it in a book, and I believe them." Now, if I show you photos and videos taken from space, or took you in a spacecraft into orbit, that's another matter -- at least I'm showing you some EVIDENCE to support my "orthodoxy". Not just more of the orthodoxy.

 

Throwing out more orthodoxy isn't engaging in serious discussion or debate. And it's a good example of what I referred to earlier about organized religion getting people to switch off their thinking and mindlessly spout thousand-year-old doctrine as undeniable fact.

 

Agree 100% and yet that's what all religious people do! They beat non-believers over the head with their spiritual propaganda and expect non-believers to suddenly convert and accept their beliefs as fact which is insane.

[Mr Scorpio]

Well, I'm not sure in todays day and hour, although Pharaoh did. I don't really know how to answer as I would never ask you to even contemplate jumping off of a roof and trust that all would be well- they do do this in the movies though:laugh: amazing how they all come out ok!

 

 

No, but you would ask me to consider -- if not believe in -- resurrection, virgin birth, a being whose existence cannot be verified empirically. To me, all of these claims are on par with claiming I wouldn't fall.

 

 

 

Indoctrination can be effective in the secular world, I would cite Edward Bernays the father of PR.

 

 

Of course indoctrination can be effective in the secular world. However, that isn't providing examples. But that is okay, for indoctrination should very rarely be accepted in any form. In my opinion, fact that it may be used for secular purposes doesn't validate its use for religious purposes

 

 

…but, you and I both know science is fallible.

 

 

Indeed it is, and when a scientific-theory fails, it is often because it has been replaced by a superior form in a whole-sale change (chemistry replacing alchemy). Religion, by its very nature allows for one to simply twist the story.

 

 

Science establishes that the Earth cannot be a mere 7,000 years old. The Church responds claiming that God simply made planets such that light was already in transit towards Earth, and that Satan placed dinosaur skeletons into the ground to deceive man from the truth.

 

 

Someone has the curiosity to ask what happens to children who die before they are baptized or can otherwise accept Jesus. The church, knowing that a just God could not allow an innocent to be condemned to hell (and therefore people would be less likely to follow this unpalatable idea) comes up with predestination. Of course, no one ever seems to assume that their child was predestined for eternal damnation.

 

 

And so it is with a supposedly omnipotent being. No matter what evidence or assertion the believer is confronted with, they can rely on omnipotence or "mysterious ways" to explain it away.

 

 

Imagine if we could revive a well educated Christian from the Fourteenth century. This person would prove to be an idiot, except in regard to faith. The person's knowledge of geography, astronomy, and medicine would be embarrassing, but they would more or less everything that there is to no about God.

 

 

They would be an idiot to believe that the Earth is the center of the universe, or that trepanning is a valid medical procedure. They would be a fool to think that people could transform into cats or cast spells to raise storms and destroy crops, but they're knowledge of religion would be beyond reproach (since by now the church had loosened its grip such that people were allowed to own a bible).

 

So, either humanity perfected its religious understanding of the world over a thousand-years ago, when our knowledge of other areas was incomplete, or religion is merely the maintenance of dogma and does not allow for progress.

 

This might sound weird, but I do consider other ways per se, and do enjoy learning about them. Even knowing I won't agree, it's nice to know how and why others think the way they do.

 

It doesn't sound weird at all. I would hope that you would be interested in how and why others think the way they do.

[Haydn]

my late Father was a committed christian. I am not and our arguments went long into the nights! When he was dying i saw how much it meant to him. And i respected it immensely. But it is not me and never will be. If my daughter decides its for her then thats no problem.

[Madman81]

Well, I'm not sure in todays day and hour, although Pharaoh did. I don't really know how to answer as I would never ask you to even contemplate jumping off of a roof and trust that all would be well- they do do this in the movies though:laugh: amazing how they all come out ok!

 

Indoctrination can be effective in the secular world, I would cite Edward Bernays the father of PR.

 

Edward Bernays - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

…but, you and I both know science is fallible.

 

This might sound weird, but I do consider other ways per se, and do enjoy learning about them. Even knowing I won't agree, it's nice to know how and why others think the way they do.

You do have a point, but it's not that simple.

 

Edward Bernays, for those who don't know, was Sigmund Freud's nephew, who rose to prominence by creating the industry of public relations. Basically he took his uncle's teachings and used them to tap into fundamental human desires as a means of making marketing and advertising more effective. His impact on the 20th century was pretty staggering; check out a 4-part BBC documentary called "The Century of the Self". Well worth watching.

 

Mr. Scorpio didn't say that indoctrination doesn't exist outside religion; however, I would agree with you that his words were overly restrictive. Indoctrination has been used, to great effect, outside of the confines of religion. In other areas in which the intention was to get people to fully accept one idea and to not even consider other ideas.

 

An obvious example is fascism, which as a political philosophy requires the switching off of free thought and debate, which brooks no deviance from the orthodoxy, and which metes out punishment for such deviation.

 

Hmmm....

[wuggle]

I see all religous people as 'child-like', but not in a nasty condescending way, looking for meaning in things and often blindly believing the explanations passed down by their parents (and lets be honest its difficult not too). Not to be pitied or ridiculed or condescended to, but argued with until the ridiculous nature of their 'beliefs' becomes apparent to them and they start to think for themselves.

 

I think most atheists think this way.

[Madman81]

but argued with until the ridiculous nature of their 'beliefs' becomes apparent to them and they start to think for themselves.

 

I think most atheists think this way.

Only when they insist on jamming their beliefs down others' throats, or using their beliefs to hurt others. Otherwise, I'm content to leave 'em be.

[pureinheart]

Mr. Scorpio made some excellent comments above. Of course Christianity is going to be the most frequent target of anti-religious speech in this part of the world: it's the dominant religion in this part of the world. It's the religion predominantly promoted by those in government in North America. It's the religion in this part of the world making the loudest and most frequent comments on social issues. It's the religion in this part of the world that's seeking most strongly to influence people's lives.

I believe that organized religion is detrimental to the advancement of humanity. At its core, it seeks to divide people into "cliques" which seek to promote their own superiority to the other cliques. Every religion, and most strains within those religions, believe that theirs is the only true path to heaven. They can't all be right.

 

It's important to remember the time period from which religion emerged: the time period before modern science. A time period in which people had no way of understanding or explaining the things they saw around them each day, and created stories to make the uncertainty and awesomeness a little bit easier to deal with. They prayed to their gods to save them from X, Y and Z, and then when X, Y and Z nonetheless happened, they could simply shrug and say "oh well, it's God's will, I can't presume to know why he/she does what he/she does." Religion thus became a pre-packaged, ready-made means for those seeking power to subjugate those willing to believe in it.

 

Modern science has answered most of the questions that religion was originally developed to explain, and yet there are still millions who follow it. The problem is that religion is so rigid and so dogmatic that it regularly leads people, who are otherwise intelligent, rational in most respects and full of curiosity, to shut off their minds and follow fairy tales that have been kicking around for millennia, and which are blatantly at odds with everything we now know about science.

 

That's my view. Having said that, I'm not opposed to people believing whatever they want to believe in their own lives, and hanging out with others who share the same beliefs. If they want to believe things that are at odds with modern science and understanding, who am I to tell them they can't? Naturally, however, I reserve the right to think they're wrong, or foolish, and to call them out on that when I feel like it. That's the essence of free speech: nobody's right to say what they think is in any way superior to anybody else's right to call them out on it.

 

What I object to is the efforts of the religious to control others based on their religious beliefs that others don't share. The most obvious current examples are abortion rights and gay marriage. You don't believe in abortion or gay marriage? Bully for you. Don't participate in either. I, and millions of others, do believe in them. And please -- extend to me the same respect for my beliefs that you demand for yours. You wouldn't like it if I picketed your church/mosque/synagogue because I don't agree with your beliefs and how you practice them, so don't picket an abortion clinic or gay pride parade where those who don't agree with your beliefs practice theirs. Recognize that others have different views, don't try to impose your views on them, and we'll all get along much better. You want to practice sharia law in your personal affairs? No problem. Just recognize that religious law ISN'T the law of the land in North America, and that where your religious law conflicts with it, the law of the land wins. Sorry if that means you have to remove your burqa in order to have a driver's license photo taken, but that's the law here. Deal with it.

 

So, as a non-believer in organized religion, what do I believe in? In terms of legality, I believe in rationality over emotionality. I believe that each person should be free to run his or her life as they see fit, as long as they don't negatively affect somebody else's life in the process. I am open to the possibility that there's something out there greater than humanity, greater than anything we've observed so far, but I also believe that it doesn't resemble any description the religious have seen fit to assign to it. And I believe that it's the height of human arrogance for any of us to claim to understand it or speak to it.

 

And I'm pretty sure that it doesn't need financing, or human organization.

 

I would disagree with you the Christianity is dominant in this part of the world, think it is more of a mixture, but that is only my opinion. I would also debate that Atheism is in fact a faith having no faith. Atheists do believe in something, it's more "self" orientated, as in "self" is the god.

 

Actually, here in the US, the dominant governmental party speaks slightly of Christianity, but they don't follow it, it's more self orientated. I wanted to avoid politics, but I guess it's impossible given it's all intertwined in a strange sort of way…

 

You know MM, what I thoroughly don't understand and can already tell you this won't be worded right and will find correct words later, is why when there are religions and non religions out there that do tell others what to do (for real) and will kill you as to look at you…why do you guys see Christianity such a threat? Ya we disagree and such, but from where I sit, voting is still in operation. All we can seriously do is voice our views. How does this threaten society? Does it only threaten it because it's not your view (your in general)? Or is there fear that your views will be outnumbered in the voting arena?

 

I partially agree with the bolded portion (soon, I promise to learn to break up the post in sections with remarks directly below) …some Christianity has turned cliquish …that is disturbing to me.

[Janesays]

Listen, if I were to write my 100% honest unfiltered opinions on what I think about the concept of God and religion, I would be banned by the end of the day. So the fact that I still have posting privileges just proves how carefully I edit my thoughts on the subject to avoid offending or hurting the religious folks on this board.

 

Yet....yet....where is that same respect and restraint? I didnt see it in this thread when writer gal was being threatened with 'God's wrath,' that's for sure.

 

But let me guess..you feel as though YOU are being attacked, right?

 

Christians: no matter how nasty and disrespectful, THEY are ALWAYS the victim.

 

It's laughable.

[writergal]

OP, I thought the purpose of your thread was to invite Atheists to come and discuss why they don't believe in God. Yet that's not the direction this thread took. Insults, Biblical references, and disrespect towards Atheists is what this thread has become.

 

It's just proof AGAIN that Christians will never allow Atheists to openly share their opinions. Otherwise, you'd have a thread where Atheists openly shared our opinions without being attacked by people who believe in God.

 

What has been accomplished in this thread? Absolutely nothing but arguments from both sides.

 

Just once I'd like someone who claims to be a Christian to actually allow us Atheists the opportunity to freely share our opinions without being attack or judged. But like God, that is just a myth, and not real.

[Mr Scorpio]

I would disagree with you the Christianity is dominant in this part of the world, think it is more of a mixture, but that is only my opinion.

 

By one count, 78.4% of adults identified as Christian. Another count placed the rate at 76% in 2008. I currently have my choice between 12 different Christian television stations, 3 Jewish stations, and 0 Islamic stations.

 

I would also debate that Atheism is in fact a faith having no faith. Atheists do believe in something, it's more "self" orientated, as in "self" is the god.

 

Atheism is a lack of belief -- or disbelief -- in God(s). Nothing more, nothing less. Anything to the contrary is an attempt to impeach an individual's intellectual consistency. Even if successful, this does nothing to substantiate religious-faith.

 

Actually, here in the US, the dominant governmental party speaks slightly of Christianity, but they don't follow it, it's more self orientated. I wanted to avoid politics, but I guess it's impossible given it's all intertwined in a strange sort of way…

 

It is very possible my dear. The issue isn't whether or not you -- or anyone else -- believes that the Democratic party ascribes to a "correct" definition of Christianity. The issue is why Christianity receives so much criticism. Claiming that America is predominately Christian because you don't personally care for President's policies is a tenuous argument at best.

 

As an atheist, I don't care whether or not liberals have "Christianity wrong". I care that religion influences policy decisions that effect all of us. I care the government even pays lip-service to religion in the first place.

 

You know MM, what I thoroughly don't understand and can already tell you this won't be worded right and will find correct words later, is why when there are religions and non religions out there that do tell others what to do (for real) and will kill you as to look at you…why do you guys see Christianity such a threat?

 

I don't believe anyone used the word "threat". Again, it isn't Christianity per se, it is faith in general. It is belief in the absence of evidence. Such beliefs are antithetical towards human progress. Specifically, Christian-influence actions have provided the motive to those who would kill me as they look at me.

 

It wasn't that long ago that Christian ideas formed the basis of violence in America. Such violence continues to this day. Thousands-upon-thousands of people killing each other, and over? Antiquated tales of how the world came to be. Sad.

[writergal]

OP this link is for you and every single Christian/religious person who has assumptions about why people become Atheists, and what Atheists believe.

 

I hope you'll actually open it and read it.

 

10 myths?and 10 Truths?About Atheism : : Sam Harris

 

And in case not, here's the cut and pasted article:

 

10 MYTHS—AND 10 TRUTHS—ABOUT ATHEISM

 

image

 

By Sam Harris

The Los Angeles Times

 

SEVERAL POLLS indicate that the term “atheism” has acquired such an extraordinary stigma in the United States that being an atheist is now a perfect impediment to a career in politics (in a way that being black, Muslim or homosexual is not). According to a recent Newsweek poll, only 37% of Americans would vote for an otherwise qualified atheist for president.

 

Atheists are often imagined to be intolerant, immoral, depressed, blind to the beauty of nature and dogmatically closed to evidence of the supernatural.

 

Even John Locke, one of the great patriarchs of the Enlightenment, believed that atheism was “not at all to be tolerated” because, he said, “promises, covenants and oaths, which are the bonds of human societies, can have no hold upon an atheist.”

 

That was more than 300 years ago. But in the United States today, little seems to have changed. A remarkable 87% of the population claims “never to doubt” the existence of God; fewer than 10% identify themselves as atheists — and their reputation appears to be deteriorating. Given that we know that atheists are often among the most intelligent and scientifically literate people in any society, it seems important to deflate the myths that prevent them from playing a larger role in our national discourse.

 

1) Atheists believe that life is meaningless.

 

On the contrary, religious people often worry that life is meaningless and imagine that it can only be redeemed by the promise of eternal happiness beyond the grave. Atheists tend to be quite sure that life is precious. Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived. Our relationships with those we love are meaningful now; they need not last forever to be made so. Atheists tend to find this fear of meaninglessness … well … meaningless.

 

2) Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history.

 

People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

 

3) Atheism is dogmatic.

 

Jews, Christians and Muslims claim that their scriptures are so prescient of humanity’s needs that they could only have been written under the direction of an omniscient deity. An atheist is simply a person who has considered this claim, read the books and found the claim to be ridiculous. One doesn’t have to take anything on faith, or be otherwise dogmatic, to reject unjustified religious beliefs. As the programmer Stephen F. Roberts* once said: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

 

4) Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance.

 

No one knows why the universe came into being. In fact, it is not entirely clear that we can coherently speak about the “beginning” or “creation” of the universe at all, as these ideas invoke the concept of time, and here we are talking about the origin of space-time itself.The notion that atheists believe that everything was created by chance is also regularly thrown up as a criticism of Darwinian evolution. As Richard Dawkins explains in his marvelous book, “The God Delusion,” this represents an utter misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Although we don’t know precisely how the Earth’s early chemistry begat biology, we know that the diversity and complexity we see in the living world is not a product of mere chance. Evolution is a combination of chance mutation and natural selection. Darwin arrived at the phrase “natural selection” by analogy to the “artificial selection” performed by breeders of livestock. In both cases, selection exerts a highly non-random effect on the development of any species.

 

5) Atheism has no connection to science.

 

Although it is possible to be a scientist and still believe in God — as some scientists seem to manage it — there is no question that an engagement with scientific thinking tends to erode, rather than support, religious faith. Taking the U.S. population as an example: Most polls show that about 90% of the general public believes in a personal God; yet 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not. This suggests that there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is.

 

6) Atheists are arrogant.

 

When scientists don’t know something — like why the universe came into being or how the first self-replicating molecules formed — they admit it. Pretending to know things one doesn’t know is a profound liability in science. And yet it is the life-blood of faith-based religion. One of the monumental ironies of religious discourse can be found in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while claiming to know facts about cosmology, chemistry and biology that no scientist knows. When considering questions about the nature of the cosmos and our place within it, atheists tend to draw their opinions from science. This isn’t arrogance; it is intellectual honesty.

 

7) Atheists are closed to spiritual experience.

 

There is nothing that prevents an atheist from experiencing love, ecstasy, rapture and awe; atheists can value these experiences and seek them regularly. What atheists don’t tend to do is make unjustified (and unjustifiable) claims about the nature of reality on the basis of such experiences. There is no question that some Christians have transformed their lives for the better by reading the Bible and praying to Jesus. What does this prove? It proves that certain disciplines of attention and codes of conduct can have a profound effect upon the human mind. Do the positive experiences of Christians suggest that Jesus is the sole savior of humanity? Not even remotely — because Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and even atheists regularly have similar experiences.There is, in fact, not a Christian on this Earth who can be certain that Jesus even wore a beard, much less that he was born of a virgin or rose from the dead. These are just not the sort of claims that spiritual experience can authenticate.

 

8) Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding.

 

Atheists are free to admit the limits of human understanding in a way that religious people are not. It is obvious that we do not fully understand the universe; but it is even more obvious that neither the Bible nor the Koran reflects our best understanding of it. We do not know whether there is complex life elsewhere in the cosmos, but there might be. If there is, such beings could have developed an understanding of nature’s laws that vastly exceeds our own. Atheists can freely entertain such possibilities. They also can admit that if brilliant extraterrestrials exist, the contents of the Bible and the Koran will be even less impressive to them than they are to human atheists.From the atheist point of view, the world’s religions utterly trivialize the real beauty and immensity of the universe. One doesn’t have to accept anything on insufficient evidence to make such an observation.

 

9) Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society.

 

Those who emphasize the good effects of religion never seem to realize that such effects fail to demonstrate the truth of any religious doctrine. This is why we have terms such as “wishful thinking” and “self-deception.” There is a profound distinction between a consoling delusion and the truth. In any case, the good effects of religion can surely be disputed. In most cases, it seems that religion gives people bad reasons to behave well, when good reasons are actually available. Ask yourself, which is more moral, helping the poor out of concern for their suffering, or doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it or will punish you for not doing it?

 

10) Atheism provides no basis for morality.

 

If a person doesn’t already understand that cruelty is wrong, he won’t discover this by reading the Bible or the Koran — as these books are bursting with celebrations of cruelty, both human and divine. We do not get our morality from religion. We decide what is good in our good books by recourse to moral intuitions that are (at some level) hard-wired in us and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes and possibilities of human happiness.

 

We have made considerable moral progress over the years, and we didn’t make this progress by reading the Bible or the Koran more closely. Both books condone the practice of slavery — and yet every civilized human being now recognizes that slavery is an abomination. Whatever is good in scripture — like the golden rule — can be valued for its ethical wisdom without our believing that it was handed down to us by the creator of the universe.

 

December 24, 2006

* Regrettably, the original version of this article credited the wrong “Stephen Roberts” for this wonderful line. Sorry Stephen!—SH

- See more at: http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/10-myths-and-10-truths-about-atheism1#sthash.q3YldJ7G.dpuf

Edited March 22, 2014 by writergal

[pureinheart]

No, but you would ask me to consider -- if not believe in -- resurrection, virgin birth, a being whose existence cannot be verified empirically. To me, all of these claims are on par with claiming I wouldn't fall.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course indoctrination can be effective in the secular world. However, that isn't providing examples. But that is okay, for indoctrination should very rarely be accepted in any form. In my opinion, fact that it may be used for secular purposes doesn't validate its use for religious purposes

 

 

 

 

 

Indeed it is, and when a scientific-theory fails, it is often because it has been replaced by a superior form in a whole-sale change (chemistry replacing alchemy). Religion, by its very nature allows for one to simply twist the story.

 

 

Science establishes that the Earth cannot be a mere 7,000 years old. The Church responds claiming that God simply made planets such that light was already in transit towards Earth, and that Satan placed dinosaur skeletons into the ground to deceive man from the truth.

 

 

Someone has the curiosity to ask what happens to children who die before they are baptized or can otherwise accept Jesus. The church, knowing that a just God could not allow an innocent to be condemned to hell (and therefore people would be less likely to follow this unpalatable idea) comes up with predestination. Of course, no one ever seems to assume that their child was predestined for eternal damnation.

 

 

And so it is with a supposedly omnipotent being. No matter what evidence or assertion the believer is confronted with, they can rely on omnipotence or "mysterious ways" to explain it away.

 

 

Imagine if we could revive a well educated Christian from the Fourteenth century. This person would prove to be an idiot, except in regard to faith. The person's knowledge of geography, astronomy, and medicine would be embarrassing, but they would more or less everything that there is to no about God.

 

 

They would be an idiot to believe that the Earth is the center of the universe, or that trepanning is a valid medical procedure. They would be a fool to think that people could transform into cats or cast spells to raise storms and destroy crops, but they're knowledge of religion would be beyond reproach (since by now the church had loosened its grip such that people were allowed to own a bible).

 

So, either humanity perfected its religious understanding of the world over a thousand-years ago, when our knowledge of other areas was incomplete, or religion is merely the maintenance of dogma and does not allow for progress.

 

 

 

It doesn't sound weird at all. I would hope that you would be interested in how and why others think the way they do.

 

Man Mr.S…I HAVE GOT to learn the quoting thing, it would come in so handy now, so please try to bare with me!

 

I took your analogy literally, as it was easier, but did recognize a deeper understanding, just wasn't sure I had it right. No, Mr.S, I don't expect anyone to believe the way I do. It's hard for me to believe the way I do sometimes, but know it's the truth, and in talking with you specifically, it's "my" truth.

 

I get what you are saying and have to say that's the first of hearing the dinosaur analogy, that is different, but would need to study it to see why they believe this way. Just on my current knowledge would not agree with that.

 

As far as what happens to children before the age of accountability, the jury is still out on that one. I've read all sides and don't quite understand all of it yet, I just know that my God is just and trust in that…which brings me to what you have to say about "mysteries" …there are mysteries in everything. Do any of us have every answer? I'm ok with mysteries, even in science, and do respect most of what science has to say.

 

That is very interesting what you said about those in the 14th century. I can't comment, but think it's fascinating!

[pie2]

Hate is a very strong word. I think those who have responded by saying they hate religion are being honest and accurate about their feelings. But it's sad that they're going through life with all of this animosity inside. I mean, you can't really escape the religious -- they're everywhere!

 

 

I think people get defensive when they hear Christian beliefs (which always seem to strike a chord). But the truth is, most Christians warn of the consequences of non-belief out of love. There is a genuine worry that if you don't do X (believe) then Y (not going to heaven) is going to happen to you.

 

 

Would it be loving if your doctor, who's told you you have cancer, doesn't let you know what the remedy is? No! Now, you can take the remedy or not...your choice. But don't kill the messenger, just because you don't like the message!

 

 

The religious are free to proselytize, just as others are free to ignore.

 

 

Just once I'd like someone who claims to be a Christian to actually allow us Atheists the opportunity to freely share our opinions without being attack or judged. But like God, that is just a myth, and not real.

 

 

If an atheists would like to start a thread about their non-belief, they should. It just probably shouldn't go in the Spirituality and Religious Beliefs forum.