Is Atheism Just A Rant Against Religion?

[Antlerman]

I am hearing this guy saying it’s much better to focus on the positive things that each side of the discussion brings to the table.

 

I think the reaction you are seeing here AM is a result of the fact that most of us spent years in church being told what they should and shouldn't do. When we deconverted, we reflected on this and came to the conclusion that we just want to live our own lives sans any particular code of conduct. We are fed up with others moralizing to us, even in indirect forms. I suppose that atheists who have never been religious or who hadn't suffered through years of indoctrination, would not react the same way we are. At least I think this is true for me.

You do understand that I was exposed to this also, correct? I have knee-jerk reactions to this day over certain things that feel like anyone is trying to shove anything on me as a moral obligation. However, to say we decided “to live our own lives sans any particular code of conduct,” is a bit of a misnomer. We all live our lives every day following codes of conduct. If we didn’t, we would be in jail. What we really want is to follow codes of conduct that make sense to us; codes that are chosen “on our own” without some moralistic authority figure wagging a finger of judgment at us.

 

But being open to hearing and accepting constructive criticism is different than sitting in a church being told what some almighty judge thinks of you. It’s being part of a society. And in this particular case, he has valid points that he’s making. Taking radical or dogmatic positions on any belief or cause are not conducive to a healthy world. I agree with this wholeheartedly.

 

Wouldn’t you say that Dawkins saying all religion should be done away with, is pretty much taking the exact same moralistic position of superiority over other’s differing opinions as the radical religionist who thinks his religion should be the one true religion for all humanity? To me, that’s true moralizing. Just because I may agree with a lot of Dawkins atheistic ideas personally (which I do), that doesn’t change the fact that that type of approach isn’t healthy. I would consider it personal hypocrisy to say it’s wrong for Islam to want to take over the world with their beliefs, but not say it wasn’t wrong for the atheist to say that.

 

So is the problem religion, or human beings?

 

Humans are certainly not without their flaws. But religion is a meme, (like any ism is) that exacerbates those flaws on an exponential level, so yeah, I'd say the problem is mostly with religion.

Humans control the meme. It just takes time, effort, and persistence to change it. Who created it in the first place? Memes are dynamic truths, not static.

 

So is the problem religion, or human beings?

 

 

I second that

 

I've maintainted for a long time that it's not religion per-se that is the problem, but rather taking one's beliefs to illogical extremes and letting them cause oneself harm or encourage harm to others. That, and the despotic Abrahamic cults are not the only religions that exist, since those things are not exclusively synonomous with each other.

 

I like that.

 

The problem isn't the idea of god itself, but rather what people do with the idea of god. The fact that the idea of god is so vague and can be used to justify anything is what makes it so prevailent and popular.

 

It's an easy out for any difficult thinking, and can be used to justify suspect moral actions.

 

God = an irrefutable excuse for any stupid/evil idea or act.

 

God is the perfect tool for immoral, greedy, selfish, violent, behavior. Quite literally a 'get out of jail free' card for anyone who can figure out how to spin the truth.

 

Plus, he's a fit's everything explination for anything you don't feel like thinking about.

 

God really does make life easier, if you're willing to be an ignorant self centered prick.

 

I found it interesting above how everything that was mentioned about belief in God was only the negatives. If humans are both good and bad, and humans created God in their image, then where’s the good?

 

I agree, people most certainly do use God to justify bad behavior. However, if they didn’t have God, those same people would find something else to justify their bad behavior. Like maybe a twisted view of science to justify beliefs of Arian superiority, as one example. Another example would be using economic models to justify the existence of a poverty class, etc.

 

On the opposite side however you have those who see God as a symbol of positive human virtues; virtues that are agreed upon by a society in its own best self-interest. That’s one huge reason why most people use the God symbol, and why to them when they hear someone like me say “I don’t believe in God”, it causes shock and dismay. To them I’m saying I reject those ideals that God symbolizes.

 

When I try to respect others views of God, I’m trying to understand them as human beings and what “God” means to them. We have common ground with “believers” in most of these areas, and recognizing that and discussing that with them promotes and expresses mutual respect. That promotes a healthy society. To not bother to understand beyond the negative uses of the word God, only serves to create division.

 

This is what motivates me: to be bigger than just taking one side. I learn more that way, I grow more that way, and it helps me feel better about the world. This is just something that I’ve come to in my journey out of one-sided thinking of the Christian environment I chose to be part of once in my lifetime. I began moving away from black and white thinking, and that's what started my road of deconversion. I didn't just change camps of what I believed in. I changed how I think.

[Vigile]

You do understand that I was exposed to this also, correct?

 

I understand. This is why I left the disclaimer that this is at least true for me.

 

I have knee-jerk reactions to this day over certain things that feel like anyone is trying to shove anything on me as a moral obligation. However, to say we decided “to live our own lives sans any particular code of conduct,” is a bit of a misnomer.

 

True, and I should have explained further. For me there is a difference between following the laws of the land and following the laws handed down to me from others who tell me how I should behave based on the label that is applied to me. I don't need anyone to tell me how a "good" atheist should behave. I didn't pledge membership to an atheist club and I don't follow any club charter. This smacks of religious moralizing. It's fine with me that you don't feel the same way. That's how I feel and the feeling runs pretty deep. I'm sure it's grounded in emotionalism. I don't really care.

 

 

Taking radical or dogmatic positions on any belief or cause are not conducive to a healthy world. I agree with this wholeheartedly.

 

I agree this is probably true. What I am not sure about is that the atheists in question have actually taken this radical position that has been ascribed to them. It occurs to me that this is a form of ad hom that allows others to dismiss their points. I'm basing this on articles and short videos I've been exposed to from these writers. I've not read their books.

 

Wouldn’t you say that Dawkins saying all religion should be done away with, is pretty much taking the exact same moralistic position of superiority over other’s differing opinions as the radical religionist who thinks his religion should be the one true religion for all humanity?

 

Certainly, if this is taken at face value. If Dawkins wishes to take action beyond just even-handed education, then I don't support his cause. I believe people should be free to choose religion if they wish. At the same time, I agree with him that the world would be much better off without religion. This is the context I read his statement in.

 

I would consider it personal hypocrisy to say it’s wrong for Islam to want to take over the world with their beliefs, but not say it wasn’t wrong for the atheist to say that.

 

That makes the assumption that atheism is a belief. I see nothing wrong with providing students with a proper education in science and logic. Let the chips fall where they may. In Europe they have done this and atheism is on the rise big time.

 

Humans control the meme. It just takes time, effort, and persistence to change it. Who created it in the first place? Memes are dynamic truths, not static.

 

I believe you are making a semantical argument here. Humans create computer viruses as well, but it's the virus that does the damage, not human nature in general. Humans will always find ways to mess up the world. For example, I don't blame religion for wars the way that many do. Wars are caused by greed, lust for power, and political strategy; religion is just a way to get the masses behind what the elite desires.

 

However, without religion you are highly unlikely to see the level of hatred that exists for homosexuals (especially the self hatred) that has existed, you are unlikely to see such overwhelming support for efforts to suppress the advancement of science, and many other irrational positions that crop up in response to the way the meme causes the brain to think. Pointing out that humans created the meme does not address the damage that the meme does as a stand alone product.

 

All JMO of course.

[Valgeir]

One simple question to the moderates- why be moderate?

[Legion]

One simple question to the moderates- why be moderate?

The same is true, then, of temperance, bravery , and the other virtues. For if, for instance someone avoids and is afraid of everything, standing firm against nothing, he becomes cowardly; if he is afraid of nothing at all and goes to face everything, he becomes rash. Temperance and bravery, then, are […] preserved by the mean. -Aristotle

 

Unlimited activity, of whatever kind, must end in bankruptcy.

- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

[Ouroboros]

One simple question to the moderates- why be moderate?

I'm very moderate regarding that position...

[Antlerman]

One simple question to the moderates- why be moderate?

The Bell Curve. Statistical Normal Distribution. The majority of people are in the middle. The extreme edges on the left and on the right are volitle, but a necessary part of the process. The edges explore possiblity and create discussion in the middle, but the change happens in the middle. The power is in the middle.

 

Beyond this, there is value in listening to others. No one person has a monopoloy on "truth", be they religious or secular. I don't believe in limited myself by thinking one-sided. Another reason, "You can attract flies between with honey, than with vineger." You show respect to human beings when you honestly try to listen to them. If you dismiss them, if you dismiss what are held as sacred beliefs to them without regard, you do far more damage to relations then good. No one has the truth, and everyone does.

 

I could go on and on about it. Maybe because I'm just tired of war and find that this works better?

[Valgeir]

Firstly, don't forget, you catch more flies with shit than with honey.

 

Second of all, as to the "monopoly on 'truth'" I disagree. The truth does NOT always lay in the middle. If I were to say that the world was run by a vast Jewish alien conspiracy, I wouldn't be "part right," I would be WRONG. It IS possible to be wrong.

 

Thirdly, yes, listening to people is wonderful, but if they bring nothing to the table, then dismissing them is perfectly acceptable.

 

Fourthly, since you promote tolerance, is it therefore acceptable to tolerate intolerance? Surely I must be willing to listen to the wonderful people who tell me the filthy niggers are ruining America, since "no one has the truth, and everyone does," correct? I wouldn't want to dismiss them all wholesale, since that would be too black and white and EXTREMIST...

 

Religion is a very real factor in modern human discourse, and as such is PERFECTLY within the realm of criticism. Granting someone's religious beliefs some sort of status which is beyond reproach is backward and counterproductive. I don't have to accept an irrational and harmful belief, just because someone believes it. Rationality is not a field upon which compromise can be had. There isn't a middle ground- those looking for it find themselves firmly placed within the camp of the irrational.

[Vigile]

The truth does NOT always lay in the middle.

 

Yeah, that's how I see it as well. Truth isn't a consensus. Frankly, those in the middle don't seem to have a lot to offer unless you are a politician stumping for votes. The middle is a group of sheep.

 

I certainly don't want war, but I do want an honest pursuit of truth even if the ultimate can never be obtained. It's not good to take a position where one "knows" they are right, but at the same time, it's not good to be wishy washy and take no position on anything in order to just get along. Ideas need to be challenged and tried by fire. Debate is a good thing as long as it remains civil. Disagreement does not mean that friendship cannot coexist. Advancement demands a revolutionary.

[Grandpa Harley]

The problem with revolutions is you often wind up with the same old shit, just further down the line...

[Vigile]

The problem with revolutions is you often wind up with the same old shit, just further down the line...

 

Right there with you Gramps. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. I don't even see how the American revolution achieved much. Canada avoided the bloody mess and they aren't in such bad shape today.

 

I was talking about revolutionary ideas, not a political revolution. Sorry for the confusion.

[Alice]

In the same way that I think it unhelpful to use phrases like 'science must destroy religion', I think the article quoted for the opening post could have been worded in a way that maybe wouldn't have gotten up people's noses in quite the way that it has.

 

I agree with the content however and wouldn't want to align myself with anyone who spoke of a need to 'destroy religion' and adopted any kind of black or white thinking on the subject.

 

If by 'destroy religion' what is meant is providing access to an education that includes scientific and rational thinking ... so that people can make informed choices - then why not say this?

 

'Destroy' sounds violent and oppressive.

 

Sometimes I see religion getting 'blamed' for things that are simply just not caused by 'religion'. If one limited one's knowledge of child abuse to articles posted on this site one would think that religion definitely played a huge role in this area. However I've worked in child protection for nineteen years and have only ever had two cases where religious belief was a factor. All the rest of the cases occurred in non believing families. I do not think that atheism has anything to do with child abuse, just that I live in a society were the followers of religion are an increasing minority. I'm left with believing that its just a statistics thing. Nothing has really changed in terms of how many 'good' or 'bad' people are out and about. I can't see any evidence to suggest that religion makes a difference one way or another - people can be violent and oppressive with it or without it. People can be kind and compassionate with it or without it.

 

I know I'm happier with who I am without it - in fact I felt born again when I deconverted and I know many here have had similar experiences but I wouldn't be honest if I didn't also say that I know many that have 'improved' and gotten happier and more loving through their adoption of religion (and many who haven't)

 

 

There are some that will tell you that society has gotten worse because people are 'turning away from God' and some that will tell you life won't get better until more people give up the 'evil of religion'.

 

I would love to believe that the solution to the problems in the world was as simple as removing religion - but the evidence just isn't there IMO that 'religion is to blame'. Sometimes it seems to me that the problem is the attitude that 'getting rid' will solve the 'problems'.

 

Which takes me right back to square one - and my feeling that the 'debate' would be more constructive if some of the protagonists would 'get rid' of some of their phraseology. I'm English and I'm moderate - what more can I say ...

[Antlerman]

Firstly, don't forget, you catch more flies with shit than with honey.

It’s a metaphor about human behavior. Metaphors are not meant to be analyzed as literal comparisons, much in the same way the literalists read the book of Genesis as factual events. Do you disagree with the intent of the metaphor that human beings by and large respond more favorably to being persuaded to act of their own free will, as opposed to being persuaded through insults, intimidation, threats, and the general coercions of dictators?

 

Second of all, as to the "monopoly on 'truth'" I disagree. The truth does NOT always lay in the middle. If I were to say that the world was run by a vast Jewish alien conspiracy, I wouldn't be "part right," I would be WRONG. It IS possible to be wrong.

I did not say the truth lay in the middle. I wouldn’t say that. My exact words were, “No one person has a monopoly on "truth", be they religious or secular.” You may be implying that because I said I choose a path of moderation that suggests I side with everything the middle thinks. That’s not the case at all. Many times I will agree with the minority opinion, as is clearly the case in my stating I am an Atheist. But my moderation is about my approach to dialog and to looking for solutions that will work by taking into account those in the middle, not where on the scale my beliefs fall.

 

My statement of “No one person has a monopoly on the truth” is to me an axiom. I reject notions of “absolute” truth being anything that any human being is capable of knowing. That’s the claim of the religious fundamentalist. Everyone looking at the same thing is going to see it slightly different from each other. Just because you can’t put yourself into their eyes, nor they into yours, doesn’t make either one “wrong”, nor either one “right”. Truth, on a human level, is not black and white. It’s really more long lines of varying shades of grey. I see things in terms of less likely, to more likely, but never The Truth™, or The Lie™. So you don’t misconstrue this, I do act on things that I may state as “truth” for myself, but based on this understanding of the nature of truth, I am not married to any idea. All things are open-ended.

 

Thirdly, yes, listening to people is wonderful, but if they bring nothing to the table, then dismissing them is perfectly acceptable.

Are you so certain they are bringing nothing to the table? Or are you having a hard time seeing what that might be? There is a difference. One approach is dismissive and insulting to others. The other approach takes more effort to try to listen, even if that may be extremely difficult in some cases. I feel the latter approach is a much more productive way to go, and what I define as being a moderate. The former approach divides, not builds.

 

Fourthly, since you promote tolerance, is it therefore acceptable to tolerate intolerance?

Don’t mistake shortcomings in language with the validity of what the words are trying to express. There are hundreds of examples where language fails, like saying “there are no absolutes”, “I am lying now”, “the only truth is there is no truth”, etc. What it expresses is valid, even if our language hasn’t evolved a way to express that perfectly. Language is a product of thoughts that evolves. There is nothing invalid in saying “I am intolerant of intolerance.”

 

Surely I must be willing to listen to the wonderful people who tell me the filthy niggers are ruining America, since "no one has the truth, and everyone does," correct? I wouldn't want to dismiss them all wholesale, since that would be too black and white and EXTREMIST...

That’s kind of taking extreme cases to argue against taking a more moderate approach to these things. Should I look at this example and say that based on this, I should just round up everyone I disagree with and put them away?

 

No, in your example I would listen to what they’re saying, and try to understand why they are saying this. Listening does not mean you have to agree! I would look at what factors are going on that leads them into this sort of negative attitude and try to address those issues, if there is to be any hope of communicating. Is there any “truth” to what they say? Here’s the real rub, to me mostly definitely NOT, but to them it is truth. If it operates as truth to them, then you have to understand that’s how they see the world. If you understand that’s truth to them, then you have a starting point to hopefully move them in a different direction. However that said, and to head this argument off at the pass, we MUST protect the rights of individuals from being victimized by others, and whether they view these things as truth or not as irrelevant at that point. Individual rights have to be weighed in a balance against personal beliefs.

 

It’s the same thing with religious radicals. Do we just “round ‘em up and shoot ‘em”? Or do we try to find a more productive way to deal with it? What suggestions do you have?

 

Religion is a very real factor in modern human discourse, and as such is PERFECTLY within the realm of criticism. Granting someone's religious beliefs some sort of status which is beyond reproach is backward and counterproductive.

I agree with everything you say here

 

I don't have to accept an irrational and harmful belief, just because someone believes it.

I find it curious how often when a topic like this comes up how people equate tolerance with acceptance. That’s a strawman argument.

 

Rationality is not a field upon which compromise can be had. There isn't a middle ground- those looking for it find themselves firmly placed within the camp of the irrational.

With this I disagree. It’s arrogance to think one has a corner on truth. Rationality is filtered through your own two eyes, so to speak. No two people are identical, and no two conclusions will be 100% the same. At best you have majority consensus. It may not be rational to others, and in fact may be quite irrational to others. Have you considered that they may view you as equally irrational, and be equally as right in saying so?

 

Black and white thinking to me is very irrational. It limits itself, then passes judgement. It's when I thought like this myself that I joined the fundamentalist camp. Fundamentalism appeals to black and white thinking.

 

Edit: You may find this discussion of using logic arguments applicable. http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/logic.htm It's used to speak of how Creationists use logic arguments as evidence of the truth of their claims, but it makes a point. I like this quote from it:

The bottom line is that logic alone can tell us nothing new about the real world. Ditto for mathematics, as Albert Einstein observed: "Insofar as mathematics is exact, it does not apply to reality; and insofar as mathematics applies to reality, it is not exact."

[Lycorth]

Just can't help but remark that here:

 

Religion is a very real factor in modern human discourse, and as such is PERFECTLY within the realm of criticism. Granting someone's religious beliefs some sort of status which is beyond reproach is backward and counterproductive.

 

and here:

 

Black and white thinking to me is very irrational. It limits itself, then passes judgement. It's when I thought like this myself that I joined the fundamentalist camp. Fundamentalism appeals to black and white thinking.

 

are found two brilliant little gems of wisdom. Always good stuff to keep in mind, and I've found it pays off well to do so

[Vigile]

Antlerman, I appreciate your attempt to try and find middle ground so that things can constructively move forward. I love a good debate, but don't like war and alienation any more than you.

 

I was thinking about your response in which you cited the bell curve as a reason to adopt a moderate approach to the issues of religion, and more importantly, the quest for truth. I would point out that IQs run along the bell curve as well. So by appealing to the center are you not necessarily lowering the bar of the discussion to appeal to the average at the expense of that which is above average? Perhaps I'm missing your intent and your main point somewhere.

 

Ortega y Gasset once argued that the advancement of new discovery has always been achieved on the backs of a very small number of revolutionary thinkers who have challenged the norms within their own professions (he was referring primarily to scientists who challenge/d the ideas of their peers).

 

I agree with you, there is no need for condescension, but is consensus building really that necessary in a non political realm of ideas? I rather think that intelligent free thinkers will set the course on the path to discovery and the rest will eventually follow along.

 

Disclaimer: I am an unabashed elitist. But not necessarily in the classic sense of the word.

[Legion]

Moderation is the inseparable companion of wisdom, but with it genius has not even a nodding acquaintance.

- Charles Caleb Colton

 

I think there is value in temporarily taking extreme positions and seeing what may be entailed thereby. Imagination is important. What if (insert extreme position here)? By momentarily stepping outside the muck in the middle I think it is possible to gain insight.

 

What if markets were entirely unregulated?

What if all profits were put into a common pool and then distributed equally amongst all?

What if I abandoned all trappings of convention?

What if I endeavor to conform to others completely?

What if I fight all potential battles?

What if I fight none?

What if I had sex all the time?

What if I abstained entirely?

What if everything is an illusion?

 

However, insofar as day to day living is concerned, I think moderation is indeed the inseperable companion of wisdom.

[Alice]

I can see the value in adopting an extreme position in a debate to further discussion and thinking. Attitude seems to be key however. Saying 'imagine no religion' results in a different kind of discussion than proposing 'religion should be destroyed'.

[LosingMyReligion]

The argument the Humanists are presenting is totally redundant.

 

Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins are not advocating that people give up religion and become atheist militants(they've obviously never read ANY of the books by the authors). In order to grow you have to first wean yourself off the huge tit(God)...Then you move on from there. The previously mentioned authors have just opened our minds to another alternative. We don't need Jesus to be happy and fulfilled in life, case closed. There is nothing fundamentalist about that. God cannot be proven so why should we keep even entertaining the the concept?

 

This whole divide is incredibly stupid, and the Humanists are simply begging for a place at the table amongst the Christian Right. "Look, see we're just like you." Well, guess what...They still think you're going to rot in hell no matter how pretty the package your atheism comes wrapped in.

 

As for me I just don't care. I'm pretty sure there isn't a God, but it won't bother me if there is. I'm more concerned with life on Earth as opposed to some magical Nirvana.

[Legion]

I can see the value in adopting an extreme position in a debate to further discussion and thinking. Attitude seems to be key however. Saying 'imagine no religion' results in a different kind of discussion than proposing 'religion should be destroyed'.

I think that is right on Alice!

[Antlerman]

I was thinking about your response in which you cited the bell curve as a reason to adopt a moderate approach to the issues of religion, and more importantly, the quest for truth. I would point out that IQs run along the bell curve as well. So by appealing to the center are you not necessarily lowering the bar of the discussion to appeal to the average at the expense of that which is above average? Perhaps I'm missing your intent and your main point somewhere.

I appreciate your moderate response.

 

Let’s not confuse IQ in the Bell Curve with what I’m trying to look at. IQ and religious belief are not necessarily related. In fact in the most part I’d say they’re not. I’m not talking about appealing to logic. I’m talking about appeal to emotional sensibilities.

 

For me, understanding the relative nature of truth helps me to try to be more understanding of how others might see reality, and in this I don’t elevate my perception of it too highly, and in doing this doors of dialog are opened instead of being closed. How do any of like it when the Christian fundi comes along and says to us, “You are a sinner,” or, “you never were a true Christian”? What is it we find so offensive in that? Is it the presumption on their part that their idea of reality is superior to our own? That stream flows both ways, even though now someone may think they have a more rational idea of what the truth is. It’s attitudes and what it communicates that offends.

 

I try to remember how pusuaded back then just how "right" I was. Everyone is convinced they're right. So how do we respond to that? How do we best pursuade people to our ideas? Pure rationality? Doesn't work, sorry to say.

 

When I talk about the Bell Curve in this context, I’m talking where the true power-base for change lies. I’m talking about taking a open-minded, moderate approach to dialog that appeals to the middle. Why do I want to that? Because I’m selfish. Plain and simple. I'm selfish. I want a world where my ideas are respected, and where hopefully others may share those values. It’s not going to happen through force. Black and white thinking only has force as its ally, and forced compliance never offers respect. Respect is earned.

 

I think it is entirely possible to respect, and even admire beliefs that I don’t agree with myself. At worst, I can learn to tolerate beliefs that I find offensive out of respect to the people who believe them (up to the point it violates the rights of others). But to dismiss something that we can't understand for ourselves as "rational", calling something out of hand as “shit”, says far more about the person saying that, than criticism of merit about the idea they’re rejecting. To me it’s being lazy and does more harm than anything else.

 

Ortega y Gasset once argued that the advancement of new discovery has always been achieved on the backs of a very small number of revolutionary thinkers who have challenged the norms within their own professions (he was referring primarily to scientists who challenge/d the ideas of their peers).

I agree with this. To the IQ on the Bell. Inovators are always on the edges. I consider myself in many areas to be on the edges, yet in others I fall in the middle. I think this is true of most people. In any issue, in any belief, in any thing, it will always follow the pattern of normal distribution, which looks like a Bell Curve. On the issue of dress, I tend to “fit” in for the most part with the middle, but you have those on the edges who still wear clothing from the mid 1800’s, and on the other extreme, those who dress in innovated styles, and may in fact become trend-setters. Same thing with ideas.

 

Regarding higher IQ’s however, actually those who are on the extreme upper limits of IQ are usually the worst teachers. I would say that those of above average to higher IQ’s (120’s to 140’s) are good at bridging that gap between the “geniuses” and those in the average IQ range. I tend to fall more in that area than some “brilliant” thinker. To me, being able to communicate well is more powerful that being “brilliant”. I guess I’m smart enough to know my limits, and wise enough to know what’s effective and what’s not.

 

Revolutionaries thinkers still need to be persuasive to sell there ideas. Ideas start on the edges, but change happens in the middle.

 

I agree with you, there is no need for condescension, but is consensus building really that necessary in a non political realm of ideas? I rather think that intelligent free thinkers will set the course on the path to discovery and the rest will eventually follow along.

I don’t know if I’m talking so much about consensus building, as it is being good leaders. I just find telling people that their ideas about God are stupid and should be abandoned isn’t very helpful. It’s unrealistic. Additionally it impresses me as something as contentless as some kid saying to another, "You're stupid", and the other kid responding "No, you're stupid". It's just a pissing contest, a power struggle, not a disscussion of anything productive or useful.

 

I come back to ideas, or memes. My hope is to influence changes in the memes. If someone who is an atheist presents themselves as fair-minded, respecting others differences of opinion, yet being clear, articulate and reasonable in talking about their own views, this is the only hope for those ideas being recognized by the mainstream of society as having legitamate value, and perhaps appeal to them to move in that direction themselves. Once that happens, the memes become normalized and enforcing of a new ideal, a new "truth".

 

That defines what I am talking about. Radical voices get attention and they start a conversation, but persuasion is only going to happen when the middle on whatever issue moves as a whole in one direction. Generals are good at waging wars, but diplomats win the peace. Generals are a necessary evil, but I prefer the path of the diplomat. It accomplishes something far more powerful and lasting.

 

 

P.S. I apologize if I'm not articulating my thoughts very well today. I had things I wanted to say, but feel its not coming out as well as it could. I'll try to clarify more later.

 

 

I can see the value in adopting an extreme position in a debate to further discussion and thinking. Attitude seems to be key however. Saying 'imagine no religion' results in a different kind of discussion than proposing 'religion should be destroyed'.

Well... geesh! All those words I typed and you said it in only 40! (I don't believe in being concise it seems )

[NotBlinded]

I would love to believe that the solution to the problems in the world was as simple as removing religion - but the evidence just isn't there IMO that 'religion is to blame'. Sometimes it seems to me that the problem is the attitude that 'getting rid' will solve the 'problems'.

I agree with you.

 

I say it has more to do with ego about who is right and who is wrong. One side screams they are right just as loudly as the other. Shouts turn to violence so one can strut away with victory under their belt. Nothing is gained other than a false sense of pride...until someone louder and stronger comes along. It's a cycle that has continued for thousands of years. The ego just loves religion a little more because it makes them feel special and chosen. Until people can understand that it is human behavior responsbile for the problem and not the tools they use, then it will continue, IMO. I've never seen a sword proud to kill.

[Grandpa Harley]

Generally, human nature needs a 'good' excuse to manifest its excessive darkness... From the Crusades to Abu Ghraib... we need permission to be nasty. Only the monster, the Bundys and the Dahmers, can be self-actualised in their depravity. Based on my late father's tales of Nuremberg, most of the people he guarded were {quote} 'pretty normal'... Quiet middle class types... who'd done terrible things because they could... they had permission, and no one stopped them as they got worse and worse and less 'tasteful' in what they did...

[UnholyBlackDeath]

Firstly, don't forget, you catch more flies with shit than with honey.

 

Second of all, as to the "monopoly on 'truth'" I disagree. The truth does NOT always lay in the middle. If I were to say that the world was run by a vast Jewish alien conspiracy, I wouldn't be "part right," I would be WRONG. It IS possible to be wrong.

 

Thirdly, yes, listening to people is wonderful, but if they bring nothing to the table, then dismissing them is perfectly acceptable.

 

Fourthly, since you promote tolerance, is it therefore acceptable to tolerate intolerance? Surely I must be willing to listen to the wonderful people who tell me the filthy niggers are ruining America, since "no one has the truth, and everyone does," correct? I wouldn't want to dismiss them all wholesale, since that would be too black and white and EXTREMIST...

 

Religion is a very real factor in modern human discourse, and as such is PERFECTLY within the realm of criticism. Granting someone's religious beliefs some sort of status which is beyond reproach is backward and counterproductive. I don't have to accept an irrational and harmful belief, just because someone believes it. Rationality is not a field upon which compromise can be had. There isn't a middle ground- those looking for it find themselves firmly placed within the camp of the irrational.

 

Amen brother! I too am unwilling to compromise with religion. It deserves no respect and I will act acordingly. I am sick of this shit and I am taking my stand. I am not saying that people do not have a right to believe as they wish. I am just saying that I am in no way obligated to show any sort of respect or validation towards said beliefs. Blasphemy is one of my favorite hobbies. It is fun to see Christians cry when you attack their precious god. The only point most atheists will agree on is that there is no god and religion is B.S. Beyond that, there is nothing else to be said about their beliefs (or lack thereof).

[Antlerman]

It is fun to see Christians cry when you attack their precious god.

Really? It gives you pleasure to make people cry?

[Grandpa Harley]

There are times one ponders who is the more jackbooted... I'll put up with all sorts of delusions people hold if it stops them raping, killing and otherwise generally being less than good company...

[Valgeir]

Antlerman, I see a lot of things that I agree with and a lot that I disagree with in your writings. I think I can distill my position to this:

 

I believe in a nonviolent and proactive approach to the problem of religion. However, I do believe we should see it as that- a problem. Holding beliefs based on entirely unverifiable, unchanging, dogmatic principles is anathema to growth and development as a species. If I am willing to accept one conjecture without any evidence (e.g. "There is a god"), what is to stop me from accepting another (e.g. "All Slavs must be executed")?

 

There exists a tremendous gap between religion and action, today. God's domain has continued to shrink as we've learned more about the world we exist within. People will profess the most irrational beliefs, yet otherwise act in a perfectly rational way. This is because all healthy human beings see the value in acting rationally.

 

Yet, there is still that tumor of irrationality, religion, which festers in our collective body. It exists within almost every one of us. Fortunately, as most moderates with regards to religion will state, it is, in most cases, a benign tumor. But this tumor has a tremendous potential for becoming malignant! By allowing it to remain where it is, we passively grant it the opportunity to do so, and given such a chance, in many people it will. Once this cancer begins to spread, that person is lost to logic, and will accept whatever their god "tells" them to do.

 

It cannot be argued that these people are in the fringes of society- those who accept the Bible as literal truth, or the even more inconsistent people who accept it as partially literal and partially metaphorical, compose the bulk of our populace. It may be true that they are harmless, and for the most part, good people- but that tumor is still there. If it doesn't take them, then it may take their children, or their grandchildren, but rest assured, as long as that tumor is left unchecked, it will, eventually, begin wreaking its havoc.