Atheism 3.0

Something from a mainstream website like MSNBC, CNN, religioustolerance, a major magazine like The Atlantic, Newsweek, The Economist, etc. Something that is held accountable by virtue of it being widely read or viewed and thus can't stray too far from reality (though we may quibble on what that last bit is).

 

I consider myself athiest purely because I have seen or experienced nothing that provides evidence of a god or gods.


I am open to being wrong however and if I experienced something that couldn't be explained through natural/scientific/psycological means OR if someone came forwards with evidence that had been peer reviewed and accepted on the whole then I would change my stance.

 

Personally, I view atheism simply as that I don't have reason to believe in a god. Nothing more to the term. The ideas of an interventionist god I disagree with more strongly, because there are specific claims there that I don't think there is evidence for. But god on a more general sense, that is something that is much less cut and dry.
I do also consider it not a seperate catagory from agnostic/gnostic, as I think the areas where a god could be involved can't really be known. I had this conversation at work today with someone I work with that's Catholic. Had gotten on the topic somehow, and one of the things I'd said was how I was atheist just because I didn't have any reason not to be, but it had never been a big issue. She'd asked me if I ever wondered where we came from, and what would be the cause for the Big Bang, and if that would then be god. I'd said that I don't feel a need to give that an answer, I want to know, but I'm also very comfortable with having "I don't know"s in how I view the world. In that sense, just because I don't know a cause of it, I don't then therefore assume that a god did it. I need more than that. Had I spiritual reasons that led me toward theism, then agnostic theist would be an option, I just don't have any experiences that have made me feel that way.

I'd agree entirely. To go into my personal story I think I've broken out a time or two, when I was 12 a friend of mine was murdered. I hadn't been raised with religion as an issue, and so I didn't have a way to cope with this. Not to say there's an easy way to deal with this, but I really wished, at that time, that I could be able to just believe that he was "in a better place" and all, but I couldn't get beyond that in killing him, he had, in a very real sense, simply ceased to be. And I had 6 years of heavy depression to finally get over that. It would have been so much easier to have been religious at that time, and feel like he had some greater reward, but I couldn't convince myself of it. It just felt like I was lying to myself.

 

There are two statements I'm making based on this post. The first is, for the question of just what thinks of atheism, the very first part of this is, I think, a truthful answer on nancy's part directly to the question at hand. It is aimed at the concept of atheism, and since this is purely what one thinks about it, saying so is valid, even if one would counter that it is a distorted or otherwise wrong view of atheism being indicated by that statement. Its on topic and answering the question, and that seems to be an entirely honest answer regarding atheism.

The second part is a warning I am going to make, only as a warning as I was at work earlier and not able to add this as far as guidelines go beforehand and I want one chance to make this clear as a general statement before it leads to any actions.
This is a general discussion thread on the topic of atheism. It is meant to allow for discussion, and a greater general understanding. That is its sole agenda. Comments that imply that others are here to reassure oneself (or that they are not adequately doing) also carry a clear implication that this thread is specifically about your views of the topic, and not about the general discussion. That is not what this thread is here for.

Further, I think one would be hard pressed to argue that there is something meaningful being contributed to the discussion in saying "thus far it has to be said there is little wonder atheists are feared and hated." That reads as an insult to the atheists that are posting here, and not a criticism of atheism. I will repeat that. That reads as an insult to the atheists that are posting here. I want to make it very clear, I hope, that I do not intend to let a fresh thread get ruined by insulting and baiting of theists OR atheists. There is nothing being contributed by such comments to the discussion by such comments.

I am more than willing to explain any further concerns via PM

 

Not the time or the place for this. Look at what the topic is and stay focused on that.

 

Current computer can't watch video (or technically, can't hear audio), so I can't comment on it atm.

 

I do wish you wouldn't look to the likes of Dawkins as being the spokesperson for ALL athiests.


Dawkins is a very clever man who happens to be very anti religious. He would potentially fall into the fanatical/fundamentalist anti theist bracket.

Fanatical/fundamentalist people are usually a small minority that happen to carry a big voice but they do not speak for the majority.

So while you will find websites that push a very strong anti-religion agenda I can guarantee that you can also find religious websites that push a very strong anti-athiesm agenda and they will both carry similar levels of vitriol and hate.


Dawkins, Harris etc... do not speak for me or my opinions, I may agree with some of their arguements but I certainly do not agree with all of them and I'll think you'll find most level headed athiests are the same.


You'll find the odd quackjob in all walks of life and faiths (or lack of)

 

I see atheism as justifying intolerance of religion, paving the way for anti theism and the destruction of theism.

The example of western Europe is instructive. Religion is dying out in places like Austria and Germany and the Netherlands and France, not because the atheists have risen up to crush theists, but for lack of interest. People got bored with religion. Christianity is dying out.

And it isn't dying out in some kind of cataclysmic civil war between theists and atheists, it is dying with a whimper there from inattention, neglect.

 

Perhaps that's why some theist groups are becoming more intolerant of atheists? That they might see it as an attack rather than for what it is and since they have to have someone to blame.... I don't know. I'm just posing the question.


Thanks, Lowbacca for the red post!


I've been an atheist for a long time, since I was a kid. Scared the heck out of me to think that once I was dead, I was dead. I became very religious for a while but that honesty thing just made it impossible for me to lie to myself any longer.

I don't push any atheistic agenda on anyone. I believe that they have to find their own path to it.

 

Look at the Anglican church debacle. It's splitting because of a schism between liberal and conservative outlooks, because the liberal Anglican section is trying to keep its dying flock interested, while the conservatives are, by and large, Third World countries that are still preaching the fire and brimstone thing that doesn't go down too well here in Western Europe.

As for atheism, I simply see it as lack of belief in God, nothing else. I class myself about 70% atheist, 30% anti-theist. I'd like to see religion die, but I'm not going to follow the example of theist terrorists and crash planes into buildings or bomb abortion clinics. As for Dawkins and Harris, when militant anti-theism is nothing more than writing books about how religion is unnecessary, I don't see a problem at all with it. Here in Europe religion is, as Jabbadabbado has said, dying with a whimper. One day it will spread and begin to die everywhere else.

 

Perhaps that's why some theist groups are becoming more intolerant of atheists? That they might see it as an attack rather than for what it is and since they have to have someone to blame.... I don't know. I'm just posing the question.

Scapegoating is part of the problem. Certainly, nancyallen has misidentified the "enemy" of Christianity. The real "enemies" are high levels of education and wealth.

Conversely, the real "friends" of Christianity in the U.S. are the flaws in our education system and the unequal distribution of wealth -- the relatively high level of illiteracy, the high level of high school dropouts, the erosion of the middle class, the increasing gap between the rich and poor.

 

Muhammad Ali? Jim Caviezel? Dame Judi Dench? Mel Gibson? Nicole Kidman? Ben Kingsley? Joe Lieberman? Evangeline Lilly? George Lucas for hells sake. You could question Gibson's and Liberman's intelligence I question education and fortune being responsible for one's beliefs.

http://www.religionfacts.com/celebrities/religions_of_celebrities.htm

 

I'm just talking about demographic trends, not about individuals. Christianity had a good 1500 year run, but now the clock is ticking. Theism is of course alive and well in the form of Islam, and for much the same reason: ignorance + poverty = bliss.

 

Conversely, the real "friends" of Christianity in the U.S. are the flaws in our education system and the unequal distribution of wealth -- the relatively high level of illiteracy, the high level of high school dropouts, the erosion of the middle class, the increasing gap between the rich and poor.

Jabbadabbado - I would agree with that on a general level. There will always be exceptions. I know many scientists (I work in a lab) that are religious but compartmentalize their religious and scientific philosophies.


I once took a Greek Archaeology class and the professor made an interesting observation. He said that as the ancient Greek society increased in turmoil (with wars, famines, etc), the number of religious sites grew.

Unfortunately, I can't prove that at the moment. I'm about to go to work. I'll try and find a link when I get home.

 

I just realized something while reading this part of your quote. Robert Dawkins and other promament anti-thiests are all called militant or some varient of that concept. Yet all they have done is write books. But Thiests seem to tink that this literature is equivelent to bombing abortion clinics or destroying Christianity.

But if reading a book is enough to break your belief then that might be the problem.

 

Where do you get that figure? Quantifying the amount of atheists in the world is a bit tricky because of the equivocation between "atheist", "no religion" and variants thereof. Also, I would imagine the figure is significantly higher in the Western World, because of the afformentioned ongoing extinction of religion in Europe.

 

And a great way it is to get it relegated to the place from whence it came!

I think the biggest mistake in the US is to separate church and state, because in Sweden we have this lazy, lethargic behemoth that is the Lutheran state church, and, well, it's a dinosaur that stopped twitching ages ago. Nobody cares.

As I said many times, a Swede visits church 4 times in his lifetime... and he is carried in two of them.

/Z

 

Another example: the state-sponsored catholic church in Austria.

 

Circling the wagons is a common strategy for groups to use, particularly large ones (well, small ones too, but the consequences are more obvious when we're talking about millions of people). You close ranks, blame outsiders and hold to more conservative ideas. This continues past whatever the tipping point will later deemed to have been, until it just doesn't work anymore, and things just start to fade away.

That's what happened with civil rights in the South. Of course, there's still plenty of prejudice and bigotry, but it can no longer be institutionalized.

 

If God were to actually exist or care about the affairs of humans, do you really think God would allow theism to be completely destroyed?

Interestingly, persecution of Jesus' disciples was foretold. For all you know, theistic intolerance is merely a fulfillment of Bible prophecy.

 

I was once an atheist, and prided myself on purely scientific thought and a rejection of all matters theistic or supernatural. Now, without having lost my scientific thinking or supernatural skepticism, I believe in a power beyond/within humankind that is unquantifiable, and which unites us all together with each other and with the rest of the cosmos. If this sounds similar to Kenobi's description of the Force in 'ANH', you're on the right track! Whether this "God-Force" is intelligent in the human conception of the term is a mystery to me, but I feel that I've experienced this Force myself and seen it work its will in others. This is not a scientifically testable proposition, but here I make a conscious leap of faith in order to explain phenomena that I have witnessed/experienced, but for which science has no answers.

To detractors of religion in general ("anti-theists"), I'd like to point out that religious institutions -- churches, synagogues, etc. -- make enormous contributions toward social and cultural cohesion, toward the charitable caretaking of the impoverished and disabled, and toward the comforting and pacification of the uneasy mind of human beings. In times of trouble and conflict, human thoughts naturally tend towards anxiety, fear of death and of failure, and in many people, a desire to give in and surrender to the unjust and undeserved forces or persons that oppose them. Religion provides a tool to strengthen one's resolve, to banish one's fear of the unknown, to rest easy in the sure (if questioned) knowledge that all will be made right in the end, that justice will ultimately be served. Religion offers a theistic person an opportunity to put one's fears and anxieties in the hands of a higher power, and so abolish them. Religion also reminds us that we are all brothers and sisters, all children of God, and specifically in the form of Christ's teachings, exhorts us to "love our neighbor as ourselves". This is hardly a thoughtform or mode of living to be vehemently opposed.

Certainly many evils have been and are still being done in the name of religion. But I submit that those evils are the evils of humanity and that religion is only being twisted to justify such acts. We can all agree, I think, that the Inquisition, the witch trials, and the Nazi Holocaust were wrong, but do I need to remind the critics that social forces were at the heart of such movements, not religion? Religion was abused in those instances, a tool that was made to serve greedy and/or murderous ends; but so too a weapon of defense might be abused to serve the same ends. This does not make the weapon evil or in need of destruction: it is the wielder, not the sword, that delivers the killing blow.

 

Certainly many good things have been done and are still being done in the name of religion. But I submit that those good things are the goodness of humanity and that religion is only be used to justify such acts. This does not make the tool good; it is the wielder, not the tool, that is good and delivers the goodness.

 

Agreed, there would still be aid being delivered to places that desperately needed it. Help would be offered to victims of earthquakes, famine etc...

Religion is not the only institution that offer's aid at a time of need and if religion didn't exist there would be other institutions that would do this in it's place.


However. religion can be the cause of issues or a hinderance in places where aid, guidance and help are desperately needed. e.g the AIDS epidemic in Africa, I'm quite sure it wouldn't be as bad as it is if not for some really crappy information passed out because someone believed in a 2000 year old book

 

Besides, the question of whether religion is good for society or not is irrelevant. The question is: does religion reveal truth/reality. If you don't believe god exists, religion is the equivalent of lies or deception.

I also think it is ironic that the whole purpose of Christianity is to evangilize:

yet when atheists try to evangilize, it is some evil plot to destroy all good in the world.