Is Atheism Just A Rant Against Religion?

[Vigile]

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.

 

My initial reaction to this is that I think we are approaching this differently due to the differences in our personalities. Perhaps I will come around more after I digest more of what you are saying.

 

You seem to have a lot more patience for believer's beliefs than I. I'm just not an everyman and I'm fine with that.

 

IQ and religious belief are not necessarily related. In fact in the most part I’d say they’re not. .

 

Well, that's probably true just due to the fact that indoctrination usuaully takes place when people are at their most impressionable stage in life, when they are children. However, wouldn't you say that there is a seemingly strong correlation between IQ and those who eventually deconvert? As such, I think IQ is an important factor to consider here. Intellectual honesty is another important factor. I've encountered a great deal of intelligent xians who were utterly intellectually dishonest. I don't really have a lot of empathy for that and as such don't really see how dialog about their beliefs can be fruitful.

[Alice]

There's something in this conversation that reminds me of that Diderot quote - one I really dislike,

 

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."

 

I've seen it around quoted but I've not read it in context. I've always hoped that it is better in context. Out of context - whilst I understand the idea that freedom for the individual will come when we stop handing over responsibility for ourselves to outside authorities, the violence of the quote appalls me.

 

To me - man will never be free until we are free from the idea that there would be any freedom in imposing a new system by death and destruction.

 

Maybe Diderot was using hyperbole to make a point? And if so - maybe this is what some of the current day high profile atheists are trying to do? Hyperbole can be good - but maybe not advisable in conversation with people who currently believe in a God who is likely to be cool with the whole entrails strangling thing? Gives them grounds to think their extreme position is mirrored by other extreme positions I think. Anyone know the context? Anyone fond of quoting it have any insight to offer? I'm interested in understanding other perspectives.

[Lunar Shadow]

By Benedicta CipollaReligion News Service

Saturday, May 26, 2007; Page B09

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=sec-religion

 

.......

Humanist Chaplain Greg Epstein went so far as to use the (other) f-word in describing his unbelieving brethren.

 

.......

 

 

 

Does anyone else find it funny that his title is Chaplin?? I mean last I checked Chaplin is a religious title???

 

 

Fuck Epstein... I have been spending a lot of time over that the Rational Response Squad site and in their Stickam chat room and well lets just say by the back stabbing Epstein has done to them I have no love for the man. He can get fucked by a big spikey metal cock for all I care

[Jun]

By Benedicta CipollaReligion News Service

Saturday, May 26, 2007; Page B09

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=sec-religion

 

.......

Humanist Chaplain Greg Epstein went so far as to use the (other) f-word in describing his unbelieving brethren.

 

.......

 

Does anyone else find it funny that his title is Chaplin?? I mean last I checked Chaplin is a religious title???

 

Chaplains aren't necessarily of a "religious" denomination. Non-ordained lay people can also be called Chaplain, and those who are not associated with any of the major Judeo-Christian denominations can also be Chaplains. The word Chaplain, like Reverend; is not a noun, so it is not a synonym for an ordained person.

 

Anyhow, as with any other title, what gives religions the only right to use them?

[Antlerman]

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.

 

My initial reaction to this is that I think we are approaching this differently due to the differences in our personalities. Perhaps I will come around more after I digest more of what you are saying.

 

You seem to have a lot more patience for believer's beliefs than I. I'm just not an everyman and I'm fine with that.

I recognize and respect that. Actually, my first reaction is to be highly cynical about all of it, but there is that part of me that tries not to run with my first instincts to mercilessly incinerate what I see as unbelievable stupidity. Instead I deliberately try to open myself up to looking at the world through a different set of eyes, legitimately try, as a matter of philosophy. It helps me to base my thoughts about something from a broader, more humanistic, anthropological understanding, rather than solely through the eyes of my own emotional reaction to it. Much more often than not, I learn something quite valuable, and in turn that changes how I respond to people, and more importantly how they response to me in kind.

 

IQ and religious belief are not necessarily related. In fact in the most part I’d say they’re not.

Well, that's probably true just due to the fact that indoctrination usuaully takes place when people are at their most impressionable stage in life, when they are children. However, wouldn't you say that there is a seemingly strong correlation between IQ and those who eventually deconvert? As such, I think IQ is an important factor to consider here. Intellectual honesty is another important factor. I've encountered a great deal of intelligent xians who were utterly intellectually dishonest. I don't really have a lot of empathy for that and as such don't really see how dialog about their beliefs can be fruitful.

I like this conversation. We should do this more often! You raise good points here about indoctrination in youth, and the question of IQ being a factor in those who deconvert.

 

Let me offer a different thought. It’s not IQ we’re looking at here, but EQ = Emotional Intelligence Quotient. Is it really intelligence that you’re seeing in people who deconvert, or an emotional ability to be honest with themselves? There is a difference. In fact someone with an average to below average IQ can have equally the same ability for emotional intelligence.

 

This is what I see as the defining factor in child rearing and/or life experience. If a child is raised to have a sense of themselves and are rewarded for practicing individuality, then I would say they have a far greater chance of making choices for change away from the conventions and traditions they may have grown up with if they find they are not working in their lives. On the other hand, if the child’s environment is one where they are criticized by parents for having their own thoughts, I would think it would have a major factor in how “comfortable” they may feel to venture far from the herd in later life, no matter how intelligent they are.

 

There is a difference between emotions and intelligence. Beliefs in God are not based on intelligence. They are based on emotions, despite what any teleological argument some evangelical apologist may try to persuade you with. Those types of arguments are meant to appease the intellectual side of people who may feel conflicted between reason and emotion. Here’s the rub, is that if the emotional desire to “believe” (or be a part of the particular herd they associate their personal identities with) is strong enough, the willingness to consider ideas that are perceived to potentially threaten their emotional relationships is going to be resisted strongly.

 

You can perceive this as “intellectual dishonesty” (as I’ve called it myself a thousand times), but really it’s more about an emotional quotient of how able someone is to look at something like this. They are certainly capable intellectually of processing information and problem solving. They do it everyday of their lives. But emotional ability, now that’s something altogether different. It has little to do with IQ.

 

In looking back, it was my emotional ability to look at my beliefs intellectually that took me to where I am today. My intelligence was simply a tool that I used to help me get where I am. But if someone has more rudimentary tools available to them, I would say it wouldn’t be hindrance to them in helping them deconvert. It’s those same tools they use everyday, and they know how to make them work for them.

 

Now here’s a thought I’ll leave this at. Isn’t someone who is an atheist being unwilling to see any merits whatsoever in religion based on the same EQ factor? To me, I perceive it as intellectually dishonest to say anything is ALL bad. But a strong or weak IQ doesn’t seem to be the factor at all on either side of the issue.

 

Your thoughts sir?

 

 

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")?

I appreciate what you’re saying. But I always come back to people. People who are willing to go from “God is Love,” to “kill the Slavs” are not doing this because religion makes them like this. They have this capability with or without a belief in a god. “God” is simply a political excuse used by the warmongers for people to justify their inhumanities with. If they didn’t have God, they would have their ethnic traditions and identities, or the National identity, or the political identity, etc.

 

People who are less prone to manipulation will be neither more nor less susceptible to go against their core human values if they believe in a God. I see it this way: People create God in their own image. People choose a God that fits their own image. That God choice reflects their values and themselves as people. It’s people who are the issue, not religion.

 

One thing I want to look at from above, is that the majority of religious believers do not hold onto unchanging, dogmatic principles. That characterization is reflective of fundamentalism, not mainstream religion. Fundamentalism was born as direct reaction against changes in Church teachings. In other words, the teachings do change.

 

People change so God changes. It’s how it works because people create God in their own image.

 

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.

See my thoughts above about EQ.

 

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.

This is where it gets interesting. People are irrational by nature it seems. Yet this “transcendent” quality of humanity is not entirely without root in the real world. Like I said above, “People change so God changes.” What we really have with your cancer analogy is “dead cells”. Religion does change. Fundamentalism however is a system of dead beliefs. Fundamentalism is the cancer you describe.

 

Societies create God and societies change. If that God is held out to stop the changes of the society, it could lead to the death of that society. However, in reality, even fundamentalism changes, just at a much retarded rate. Fundamentalism acts as a call out to conservatives to put a brake on society to keep it from changing faster than people can keep up with.

 

If a society changes too fast, it may loose sense of its own identity and as a result its cohesion as a group will fall apart. But in the end, the forces of evolution are unstoppable and change happens. Fundamentalists if they hope to have any connection whatsoever with society as it continues to change will of absolute necessity need to change and adapt themselves to it. This is the irony of the claims of “fundamentalists” to me. They aren’t the original version of anything! In reality I suppose you could call them social and cultural retards.

 

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.

In the Bell Curve stats, the literalists are in the minority. The big bulge in the center of people who identify with religion approach beliefs as far more metaphorical. It’s the loud mouths in the minority who take all the headlines and get all the attention, and consequently give the impression they are representative of people of faith. They aren’t.

 

I agree with your cancer analogy, but only as applied to fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are the death of spirituality, and a threat to society. However I take hope in the forces of evolution. Like Jeff Goldbloom’s character in Jurassic Park said, “Life will find a way.”

[Legion]

Antlerman, do you ever read over your own words and think, "damn, I'm good!"?

[Antlerman]

Antlerman, do you ever read over your own words and think, "damn, I'm good!"?

No never. I'm far too humble for that! Actually, I did like my thoughts on the EQ today. It answers a lot for me. I'm going to run with this for a long time now I suspect.

[Vigile]

I recognize and respect that. Actually, my first reaction is to be highly cynical about all of it, but there is that part of me that tries not to run with my first instincts to mercilessly incinerate what I see as unbelievable stupidity. Instead I deliberately try to open myself up to looking at the world through a different set of eyes, legitimately try, as a matter of philosophy. It helps me to base my thoughts about something from a broader, more humanistic, anthropological understanding, rather than solely through the eyes of my own emotional reaction to it. Much more often than not, I learn something quite valuable, and in turn that changes how I respond to people, and more importantly how they response to me in kind.

 

Well, here is where you and I are cut from the same cloth. We are both mullers. I've been accused of thinking too much as long as I can remember.

 

Let me offer a different thought. It’s not IQ we’re looking at here, but EQ = Emotional Intelligence Quotient. Is it really intelligence that you’re seeing in people who deconvert, or an emotional ability to be honest with themselves? There is a difference. In fact someone with an average to below average IQ can have equally the same ability for emotional intelligence. .

 

It may have something to do with EQ as well. I need some time to mull (ha ha). My observation about IQ is based solely on this board. I think it goes without question that the average member here is miles above average. But then we may all be outlyers who were attracted to one another

 

I'll try and respond more when I have time. I have to go now; friend's b-day tonight.

[Valgeir]

I appreciate what you’re saying. But I always come back to people. People who are willing to go from “God is Love,” to “kill the Slavs” are not doing this because religion makes them like this. They have this capability with or without a belief in a god. “God” is simply a political excuse used by the warmongers for people to justify their inhumanities with. If they didn’t have God, they would have their ethnic traditions and identities, or the National identity, or the political identity, etc.

 

People who are less prone to manipulation will be neither more nor less susceptible to go against their core human values if they believe in a God. I see it this way: People create God in their own image. People choose a God that fits their own image. That God choice reflects their values and themselves as people. It’s people who are the issue, not religion.

 

One thing I want to look at from above, is that the majority of religious believers do not hold onto unchanging, dogmatic principles. That characterization is reflective of fundamentalism, not mainstream religion. Fundamentalism was born as direct reaction against changes in Church teachings. In other words, the teachings do change.

 

People change so God changes. It’s how it works because people create God in their own image.

 

It sounds here as though you are stating that belief does not influence actions. I hate to borrow from Sam Harris, but he handily does away with that assertion. Imagine that you believe you've just won ten million dollars- won't that change the way you act? Or how about you believe you have only two weeks to live. This will certainly create a marked difference in behavior. Now let's assume you believe there is an entity, beyond observance and thus "disproving" who wishes for you to do certain things. This will undeniably affect your behavior. I would say that all humans have the capacity for such a leap as the one you described, the only thing preventing it is circumstance, and belief is a major, possibly the primary, circumstance.

 

As far as your statement on fundamentalists versus liberals... what's the difference? They both believe highly irrational things, they just believe DIFFERENT highly irrational things. Both sets of beliefs are equally "uncontaminated by evidence." What's more, at least fundamentalists are consistent with regards to their beliefs (or, as consistent as they can be, due to the inconsistent texts their beliefs are based upon). I personally can't STAND liberal religion, because it, to me, is the epitome of stubbornness. They are essentially admitting that their god isn't real, without letting go of said god. If you are a Christian, you must believe what is written in the, for lack of a better phrase, Christian manual. To say that you don't have to believe this, or this is metaphorical, barring God's own personal scribblings in the margin saying so, is even more irrational than believing every word in the book.

 

Furthermore, as long as there are Christians, there will be fundamentalist Christians. As long as there are fundamentalist Christians, they will be actively chaining our society to ancient and long-dismissed mythology, and resisting progress away from such. This can be said of any religion.

[Legion]

Valgeir if you want to try and eradicate religion then go for it. As for me, the primary thing I’ll be trying to eradicate is my own lack of understanding.

[Valgeir]

Thanks for your permission.

 

I consistently work on the eradication of my own lack of understanding. I also encourage others to do so. Which means denying religion- you can't seek understanding if you've already decided you know what's right and will simply deny anything that contradicts it.

[Legion]

Thanks for your permission.

Ah, quite right. Please allow me to ammend my statement.

 

If you want to eradicate religion then I think you should go for it.

 

I consistently work on the eradication of my own lack of understanding. I also encourage others to do so. Which means denying religion- you can't seek understanding if you've already decided you know what's right and will simply deny anything that contradicts it.

Personally, I know my own understanding to be so poor as to feel that I am not in a position to ecourage, to the point of demanding, that others rectify their own lack of understanding.

[Valgeir]

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your statement about going for it. I thought it was intended to be condescending. If not, then oops, mea culpa. I also don't think you should underestimate your own understanding of things- true, there are some deep philosophical questions which none of us can answer. With regards to those, I'm glad to say I'm a passenger on the same boat as you. However, with regards to the reality around us, logic, and the standards we set for what we choose to believe in, you and I, and all people, are capable of perceiving and understanding, and to deny those capabilities, or their exercise, would be tantamount to treason against ourselves.

 

I dislike religion because it doesn't hold water when held up to the light of logic. I believe that anything making a claim about our external reality, which cannot withstand this simple test, should be done away with, for our betterment as a whole. As far as "eradicating" it, well, yes, I do think that's best. But not in a violent way, and not without applying that test of logic first- who knows when or where we may find a nugget of truth? But, it is necessary to refine this truth to its purest, and leave the rest.

[Antlerman]

I appreciate what you’re saying. But I always come back to people. People who are willing to go from “God is Love,” to “kill the Slavs” are not doing this because religion makes them like this. They have this capability with or without a belief in a god. “God” is simply a political excuse used by the warmongers for people to justify their inhumanities with. If they didn’t have God, they would have their ethnic traditions and identities, or the National identity, or the political identity, etc.

 

People who are less prone to manipulation will be neither more nor less susceptible to go against their core human values if they believe in a God. I see it this way: People create God in their own image. People choose a God that fits their own image. That God choice reflects their values and themselves as people. It’s people who are the issue, not religion.

 

One thing I want to look at from above, is that the majority of religious believers do not hold onto unchanging, dogmatic principles. That characterization is reflective of fundamentalism, not mainstream religion. Fundamentalism was born as direct reaction against changes in Church teachings. In other words, the teachings do change.

 

People change so God changes. It’s how it works because people create God in their own image.

 

It sounds here as though you are stating that belief does not influence actions. I hate to borrow from Sam Harris, but he handily does away with that assertion. Imagine that you believe you've just won ten million dollars- won't that change the way you act? Or how about you believe you have only two weeks to live. This will certainly create a marked difference in behavior. Now let's assume you believe there is an entity, beyond observance and thus "disproving" who wishes for you to do certain things. This will undeniably affect your behavior. I would say that all humans have the capacity for such a leap as the one you described, the only thing preventing it is circumstance, and belief is a major, possibly the primary, circumstance.

I should have said it as I usually do, “Man creates God in his own image, so God can create man in His.” In other words, certainly beliefs influence our actions. That’s why man creates God: to be a symbol of man’s collective and personal hopes, desires, and rules of moral conduct. Man feeds God, so God can in turn feed man’s desire for himself. We are the God we seek. This is the function of a symbol.

 

With all this in mind, “belief” is really in effect acknowledging and embracing the values of that adopted system. Belief influences actions toward the end that the desire by believing/creating them in the first place. It’s a system. It’s a human system. Now the question before us, is it ALL bad? Or is there some baby in that bathwater?

 

At the outset it was said that man is both good and bad, and man created religion, so is religion somehow only bad? Just on principle I have a hard time accepting that, because it has been successful and adopted by many people in healthy ways, along with those who adopt it in unhealthy ways.

 

I am however very open to a discussion of how the bad may outweigh whatever good it may offer. That’s a different argument, and one that is far more open to a fair evaluation. I just resist one-sided, dismissive rhetoric, as I believe everyone should no matter what the discussion is about.

 

As far as your statement on fundamentalists versus liberals... what's the difference? They both believe highly irrational things, they just believe DIFFERENT highly irrational things. Both sets of beliefs are equally "uncontaminated by evidence." What's more, at least fundamentalists are consistent with regards to their beliefs (or, as consistent as they can be, due to the inconsistent texts their beliefs are based upon). I personally can't STAND liberal religion, because it, to me, is the epitome of stubbornness. They are essentially admitting that their god isn't real, without letting go of said god. If you are a Christian, you must believe what is written in the, for lack of a better phrase, Christian manual. To say that you don't have to believe this, or this is metaphorical, barring God's own personal scribblings in the margin saying so, is even more irrational than believing every word in the book.

It’s interesting you saw me referring to liberals. I wasn’t. Are you taking the words of fundamentalists in speaking about mainstream churches? They always call them liberals as a matter of negative dismissal. I was referring to mainstream Christianity. I was referring to your average 80% center bulge of the bell curve church-goer. Liberal Christians are on the far left down slope of the curve, and the fundamentalists are on the far right down slope of the curve.

 

I see a difference between fundamentalists and the rest of the statistics. First fundamentalists are inconsistent with their beliefs, because they use rationality to defend the literal interpretations on one hand, then contradict that approach on the next. They are full of hypocrisies and double standards. The mainstream however doesn’t approach the beliefs as literal. So it is open to interpretation by default. This isn’t hypocrisy, its consistency.

 

To say if you are a Christian you must believe what is written in the Bible, is to not understand how they think. It’s an apples and oranges comparison for them. The Bible to them is NOT literally true, but it contains many things of value for them. They have no problem understanding that man wrote it, that many of the things in it were only relevant to the culture of the time, that some of the teachings are universal principles that apply to today. They view it as man’s journey and man’s words about God, and that through those things were they read and can connect to themselves today, they find “God” in it for them.

 

To say you must interpret it literally is an artificial rule created by the fundamentalists. Do the Jews read the book of Genesis the same as fundi’s? No they don’t. Are they reading it wrong? Is there a right and wrong way to read it? It’s metaphor. Is it irrational to understand the book of Genesis as metaphor? I would say definitely not. It’s clearly not literal, and I highly, highly doubt the original Sumerian Creation story was taken literally either.

 

It seems fundamentalists don’t understand the intent of mythology. Most people outside them do. Is it hypocritical of them to understand God differently than the literalists do? If so, how?

 

Furthermore, as long as there are Christians, there will be fundamentalist Christians. As long as there are fundamentalist Christians, they will be actively chaining our society to ancient and long-dismissed mythology, and resisting progress away from such. This can be said of any religion.

As long as there are Republicans, there will be ultra-conservatives. As long as there are atheists, there will be ultra-atheists. It’s the bell curve. No matter what the belief, no matter what the issue, no matter what height, weight, hair color, ethnicity, political affiliation, etc, you will always encounter statistical Standard Normal Distribution

 

Remove the issue the fundamentalists are seen in, and they will reappear in another issue, dragging in the opposite direction of the progressive end of the curve. This is how societies are. They always will be. You can’t get rid of fundamentalists by getting rid of religion. You have to deal with the middle if you want progressive positive change.

 

Does this help explain more why I say the middle is where the power is? The extremes on either end of the curve are starting the conversation in the middle. But it’s the voices in the middle that will drive the direction of the change. You can’t speak to the middle if you’re alienating them with hard-line rhetoric that dismisses things they don’t see the same way as the fundamentalists.

 

You (3rd party ‘you’) can’t say to them, “Your belief in a god is stupid,” if your understanding of their belief in God is in the light of what the fundamentalists believe. That’s not their idea of God, and a comment like that would be taken quite differently by them. To them you’re saying, “I reject all the culture values you hold, and all your ideas of what is beautiful.” How far does that go to helping people respect those who claim to be atheists? That’s what God is to most people, not some jealous volcano deity who demands worship and the bloodshed of animal and human sacrifices to appease his anger towards evil mankind, as the fundamentalists imagine.

 

BTW, what has long ago been dismissed is the literal, scientific reading of a myth, not the metaphorical value. That’s what the mainstream (and liberals) take from it, and what the fundamentalists try to hang onto in the face of changes in scientific knowledge and biblical scholarship.

[Legion]

I thought it was intended to be condescending.

If I came across as condescending then it wasn’t intentional. I guess one of the things we really lack in this medium is a tone of voice.

 

I also don't think you should underestimate your own understanding of things- true, there are some deep philosophical questions which none of us can answer. With regards to those, I'm glad to say I'm a passenger on the same boat as you.

I hope that I am not underestimating my understanding. The question “what is life?” has become an obsession of mine. And as far as I know it’s not a philosophical question. Perhaps it was first seriously posed by Schrodinger. I don’t know the answer and few would claim to know it. Someone has said that this is really a “why” question in disguise. Why is a specific material system an organism an not something else? This has all the makings of a scientific question and one that may be central to biology. Perhaps when I can answer this question with some amount of authority then I will feel like I’m in a better position to encourage and guide others.

 

I heard an author once who said... “At the core of each of us is a paradox. The paradox takes the form of a question. The question becomes the journey that defines our lives.”

 

I wish you nothing but the best in your journey Valgeir.

[Valgeir]

It’s interesting you saw me referring to liberals. I wasn’t. Are you taking the words of fundamentalists in speaking about mainstream churches? They always call them liberals as a matter of negative dismissal. I was referring to mainstream Christianity. I was referring to your average 80% center bulge of the bell curve church-goer. Liberal Christians are on the far left down slope of the curve, and the fundamentalists are on the far right down slope of the curve.

 

Actually I'm using a more traditional sense of the word- liberal meaning non-literal, changing interpretation, as opposed to conservative meaning literal, unchanging interpretation.

 

You (3rd party ‘you’) can’t say to them, “Your belief in a god is stupid,” if your understanding of their belief in God is in the light of what the fundamentalists believe. That’s not their idea of God, and a comment like that would be taken quite differently by them. To them you’re saying, “I reject all the culture values you hold, and all your ideas of what is beautiful.” How far does that go to helping people respect those who claim to be atheists? That’s what God is to most people, not some jealous volcano deity who demands worship and the bloodshed of animal and human sacrifices to appease his anger towards evil mankind, as the fundamentalists imagine.

 

My issue is with any irrational belief. The belief in an intelligent, existential, anthropomorphic, self-aware, personal god is irrational. In fact, the belief in ANY consciousness prior to existence is irrational. Now, I'm not dismissing these beliefs per se, but rather dismissing them due to lack of any indication of truth. I'd be the first one shaking his hand if someone brought God down from the sky, but until then, the notion is absurd. As for mythology, I'm all for it. I love mythology, in fact; I find it endlessly interesting. I'm an avid fantasy fan, so the great epics composed by the races of humanity are of extreme appeal to me. Presenting morality in the sense of a story, I approve of- presenting an interesting tale for the entertaining and encouraging of a people, I approve of as well. But once we begin interpreting those stories as factual reality, as the actual representation of what happened, I have to draw a line and say, "This is ridiculous."

 

I heard an author once who said... “At the core of each of us is a paradox. The paradox takes the form of a question. The question becomes the journey that defines our lives.”

 

I wish you nothing but the best in your journey Valgeir.

 

Sounds a bit like obsessive compulsive disorder. Speaking as a person in therapy for aforementioned affliction, sweating the small stuff can be dangerous.

 

But joking aside, I thank you, and wish absolutely nothing less than the same for you. I hope you find the answers you look for, and I'd love for you to share them when you do.

[Vigile]

With all this in mind, “belief” is really in effect acknowledging and embracing the values of that adopted system. Belief influences actions toward the end that the desire by believing/creating them in the first place. It’s a system. It’s a human system. Now the question before us, is it ALL bad? Or is there some baby in that bathwater?

 

I think this is fundamental to the differences we have on this subject. And first, to be clear, I think what we are discussing is whether or not religion in society is a bad thing or not. Stop. Because I, like you, don't advocate ridding society of religion through any other means than providing better tools for the young to make their decisions with.

 

IMO, there is some baby in the bathwater, but the bathwater is so toxic that it would be an excellent idea to rescue that baby from the bathwater and to completely separate that baby from any and all contact with that toxic substance.

 

Just as a minor example. I grew up in a religious family and community that had a lot of good attributes. They were for the most part loving, caring people. There was a lot of baby in the bathwater. At the same time they all supported sexual repression, beliefs that left me and other members debilitated by guilt, etc... The good values (the baby) can thrive without the religion and would have regardless of the poisonous beliefs members of my community maintained.

 

We are all adults. Do we really need to wrap up our values in a shroud of "we make god in our own image"? Can't we just focus more directly on the values that we support without cloaking them in religious lingo? For with that religious lingo necessarily comes a lot of really toxic water.

 

Frankly, if I were to say this more bluntly, society just needs to grow up and look at religion for what it is, a lot of unfounded superstition. And while I don't support any official detoxification efforts, I would embrace more media, such as documentaries, etc... that exposed the superstition for what it is. I also want to see schools teach children how superstition works and how to recognize it where it exists; a simple course in statistics and in logical errors would be helpful I think.

 

I see no need in protecting believers beliefs. Helping society rid itself of this cancer won't fix all of societies ills, but it would certainly improve things. This is not a radical position to take even though I'm sure the religionists would insist that it is.

 

BTW, I don't expect the already indoctrinated to give up their superstitious ideas. It's the younger generation that we have to give better tools to. And I do believe that we need to fight against the religionist's efforts to keep the masses ignorant.

[Vigile]

There is a difference between emotions and intelligence. Beliefs in God are not based on intelligence. They are based on emotions, despite what any teleological argument some evangelical apologist may try to persuade you with.

 

I agree that god belief is grounded in emotion. Nevertheless, the emotion is built on a foundation of poor rationale. It's a superstition and the superstition is fed by a poor understanding of how the brain operates and how statistically probable or improbable certain phenomena happen to be.

 

For example, we look at a complex world, and without tools to know better and/or intelligence to understand available tools, it stands to reason that something intelligent created what we see around us. Prayers offered up in request for healing, new jobs, etc... have no better chance at being answered than just pure chance. It takes a certain degree of intelligence to understand this concept. A lack of intelligence almost automatically dictates that a fantastic explanation is best just due to the evolutionary make up of the human mind, which searches for patterns and contrives them even when they don't exist. It's been my experience that these realities are lost on those without the brainpower to understand them.

 

Here’s the rub, is that if the emotional desire to “believe” (or be a part of the particular herd they associate their personal identities with) is strong enough, the willingness to consider ideas that are perceived to potentially threaten their emotional relationships is going to be resisted strongly.

 

No argument there.

 

You can perceive this as “intellectual dishonesty” (as I’ve called it myself a thousand times), but really it’s more about an emotional quotient of how able someone is to look at something like this. They are certainly capable intellectually of processing information and problem solving. They do it everyday of their lives. But emotional ability, now that’s something altogether different. It has little to do with IQ..

 

I see your point here, but then it begs the question, what makes us different? I also felt a strong identity with my belief system. I to felt threatened by alternative explanations. I struggled through that all because I wanted truth, even if it hurt. My process of deconversion started with an honest and prayerful quest for wisdom and truth. Others told me not to think so much, but something burned in me that forced me to examine my beliefs. So would I be reading you right to say that I'm not necessarily more intellectually honest than others, but that it is more accurate to say that my EQ is somehow higher than average?

 

Now here’s a thought I’ll leave this at. Isn’t someone who is an atheist being unwilling to see any merits whatsoever in religion based on the same EQ factor? To me, I perceive it as intellectually dishonest to say anything is ALL bad. But a strong or weak IQ doesn’t seem to be the factor at all on either side of the issue...

 

As you will see in my response above this one, I don't argue that religion is all bad. I have never thought that it was. Just that the bad in it is so bad that I think people would be better off without it and that the good can be salvaged in other forms.

[Alice]

Have to say - this thread is fab and a priviledge to read .... I wish I knew you guys in real life!

 

I think it is likely that the stronger the sense of identity one has with christianity the greater one's EQ would need to be in order to 'safely' deconvert. I guess I would have to believe this as it took me so long to deconvert! Rather than saying I was low down on the EQ scale I can believe that the hold on my identity was so strong I needed a very high EQ to manage the transition.

 

I know that I didn't deconvert until I was ready. I look back now on some of the conversations I had that led to my deconversion and think that if I had experienced the same challenge to my belief system earlier in life I might not have survived emotionally. This maybe why I feel 'protective' of other people's religious beliefs?

 

I also consider the conversations and enquiries into my belief system that were presented in the gentlest and least threatening way made the greatest advances in helping me see the flaws in my thinking. I rarely listened to anyone who told me that religion was stupid or bad, I was too focused on defending my position to think in any productive way about what was being spoken.

 

The toxic bathwater detail works for me - how to rescue the baby (which also appeals to me!) seems to be the thing.

 

If I erradicated all religion from my life I do think there would be gaps I don't yet know how to fill - in terms of ways to teach through myth and metaphor, ways to celebrate life through festivals and gatherings, ways to live in community and ways to talk about 'life's big questions'. I'm not saying it would be impossible, but at the moment I don't think I'd be feeling all that grateful if someone removed all the vestiges of religion from the society I live in.

[Vigile]

I look back now on some of the conversations I had that led to my deconversion and think that if I had experienced the same challenge to my belief system earlier in life I might not have survived emotionally. This maybe why I feel 'protective' of other people's religious beliefs?

 

That's an interesting perspective.

 

I took my faith more seriously than most of my peers in church. When my faith faced its first major challenge, I happened to be with a group of my peers out street witnessing. A young teenager, who was into Taoism challenged our belief system, pointing out questions to which I didn't have answers to. I was floored by this, while my peers scoffed at him and just threw scriptures in his face. I think no one could argue that they had more identity tied up in their faith than I did, but after that event I vowed to study and explore my faith so that I could understand it more completely. This is why I consider my peers to be intellectually dishonest and it is why I, differently from you Alice, feel absolutely no urge to protect the religious beliefs of others.

[Grandpa Harley]

What were the questions?

[Antlerman]

With all this in mind, “belief” is really in effect acknowledging and embracing the values of that adopted system. Belief influences actions toward the end that the desire by believing/creating them in the first place. It’s a system. It’s a human system. Now the question before us, is it ALL bad? Or is there some baby in that bathwater?

 

I think this is fundamental to the differences we have on this subject. And first, to be clear, I think what we are discussing is whether or not religion in society is a bad thing or not. Stop. Because I, like you, don't advocate ridding society of religion through any other means than providing better tools for the young to make their decisions with.

 

IMO, there is some baby in the bathwater, but the bathwater is so toxic that it would be an excellent idea to rescue that baby from the bathwater and to completely separate that baby from any and all contact with that toxic substance.

I agree this is the fundamental issue we need to look at. I have many thoughts I've been wanting to flesh out in this area, and it seem now that opportunity is presenting itself in this discussion. However, I'm limited in time right now so I will try to offer my thoughts within the next day or two (or even some perhaps if I have any time over lunch today).

 

In the mean time... would anyone object to requesting this thread be moved out of the News and Current Events forum to one of the discussion forums? This has gone way beyond talking about a news story, to dissussing a much larger topic of interest to many of us here. I think others who may not frequent this part of the forum may benefit from exposrue to it, and they may wish to join our disccussion. I don't know if Jun needs to request it be moved to say, the Colleseum, or General Issues, or if I can. Any obections to a move request?

 

I'll get to my thoughts as soon as able. Great conversation.

[Alice]

I look back now on some of the conversations I had that led to my deconversion and think that if I had experienced the same challenge to my belief system earlier in life I might not have survived emotionally. This maybe why I feel 'protective' of other people's religious beliefs?

 

That's an interesting perspective.

 

I took my faith more seriously than most of my peers in church. When my faith faced its first major challenge, I happened to be with a group of my peers out street witnessing. A young teenager, who was into Taoism challenged our belief system, pointing out questions to which I didn't have answers to. I was floored by this, while my peers scoffed at him and just threw scriptures in his face. I think no one could argue that they had more identity tied up in their faith than I did, but after that event I vowed to study and explore my faith so that I could understand it more completely. This is why I consider my peers to be intellectually dishonest and it is why I, differently from you Alice, feel absolutely no urge to protect the religious beliefs of others.

 

I guess this would bring me back to the suggestion that Antlerman was making about whether its intellectual dishonesty or a lower EQ that keeps some people from deconverting - maybe it was their limited emotional capacity to deal with the fallout of the questions that had your peers scoffing? And while they are scoffing they are not really listening. I admire you for having been strong enough to question in your teens despite having your identity so closely aligned to christianity.

 

Although I asked questions in my teens I only survived at the time by compartmentalising my life and I was knocking on the door of forty before I was able to really examine my beliefs in an open way. The thought of knocking the cane away before someone is ready to stand seems like such a big risk - although I guess I like to believe the whole 'the teacher arrives when the student is ready' thing!

 

The reasons why I would be cautious are not limited to protectiveness - I also just find a less dismissive response gets better results! Recently I've started just expressing more of an interest in people's religious beliefs and asking more questions - I basically talked myself out of my beliefs fastest when others just allowed me to attempt to explain them and offered no commentary on the validity of my position other than the opportunity to compare it with theirs. (in fact your opening line in this post made me smile - as I've taken to saying 'that's an interesting perspective' when others talk to me about their faith!)

 

I guess I'm seeing the response that worked on me - as the most efffective response, and maybe so is everyone else?

 

 

I'd also like to know the questions that got you thinking!

[Jun]

With all this in mind, “belief†is really in effect acknowledging and embracing the values of that adopted system. Belief influences actions toward the end that the desire by believing/creating them in the first place. It's a system. It's a human system. Now the question before us, is it ALL bad? Or is there some baby in that bathwater?

 

I think this is fundamental to the differences we have on this subject. And first, to be clear, I think what we are discussing is whether or not religion in society is a bad thing or not. Stop. Because I, like you, don't advocate ridding society of religion through any other means than providing better tools for the young to make their decisions with.

 

IMO, there is some baby in the bathwater, but the bathwater is so toxic that it would be an excellent idea to rescue that baby from the bathwater and to completely separate that baby from any and all contact with that toxic substance.

I agree this is the fundamental issue we need to look at. I have many thoughts I've been wanting to flesh out in this area, and it seem now that opportunity is presenting itself in this discussion. However, I'm limited in time right now so I will try to offer my thoughts within the next day or two (or even some perhaps if I have any time over lunch today).

 

In the mean time... would anyone object to requesting this thread be moved out of the News and Current Events forum to one of the discussion forums? This has gone way beyond talking about a news story, to dissussing a much larger topic of interest to many of us here. I think others who may not frequent this part of the forum may benefit from exposrue to it, and they may wish to join our disccussion. I don't know if Jun needs to request it be moved to say, the Colleseum, or General Issues, or if I can. Any obections to a move request?

 

I'll get to my thoughts as soon as able. Great conversation.

 

I'm all for it being moved to the Colosseum. This has become one of the better discussions on here for a while. Could the mods please move it there?

[Ouroboros]

I'm all for it being moved to the Colosseum. This has become one of the better discussions on here for a while. Could the mods please move it there?

Done.