Is Atheism Just A Rant Against Religion?

[Jubilant]

[

Edit: Oh forget that idea. Anyone that mispells the name of their own God (Jahovah, instead of Jehovah), doesn't look promising for going much further than the standard canned arguments. Oh well... is this what the world of xtianity has come to here?

 

Not to mention the Hebrew spellings, i.e. Yahweh, YHWH (God), Y'shua, Yeshua (Jesus). Did you know that there is actually a movement called "The Sacred Name Movement"? They believe that if you do not say the true name of God/Jesus that you will not saved.

[Antlerman]

May I ask what church you were part of? The comparison to the Krishna cult above seems much more like what I have experienced in ultra-fundamentalism. I don’t consider fundamentalists mainstream Christianity.

 

This is probably a good place to start in my response. I think a better question would be to ask what part of the country I'm from. That you don't consider fundamentalism mainstream makes me think you are from an area in the US were indeed it is not. I was born and raised in Boise Idaho. Most of my youth was spent in the Nazarene church. My community, Nampa, has Northwest Nazarene University and the town boasts 12 Nazarene churches if I remember correctly. Roughly 20-30% of my community was Nazarene and another 20-30% were LDS.

I'll pick up from this later, but a few links I wanted to provide first to this for reference:

 

1. http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/...igion/flash.htm Click on the state to show breakdown of groups. I'm in Minnesota. Grew up here since I was 9 years old.

 

2. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm A little dated info, but still pertainent to our discussion. Recommend reading all of it.

 

3. http://www.beliefnet.com/politics/religiousaffiliation.html Another breakdown of states.

 

4. http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=8415 Last but not least, my own thread about "Truth is Regional".

 

I'm looking forward to picking this up later.

[Antlerman]

Sorry still not much time to respond, but I wanted to add a couple more references so we can focus on what "mainstream" refers to, and define where on the curve the types of Churches fall that many of us came out of and view Christianity by.

 

 

 

 

Mainstream Christianity is a widely used[89] term, used to refer to collectively to the common views of major denominations of Christianity (such as Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, Anglicanism, Orthodox Christianity) as against the particular tenets of other sects or Christian denomination. The context is dependent on the particular issues addressed, but usually contrasts the orthodox majority view against heterodox minority views. In the most common sense, "mainstream" refers to Nicene Christianity, or rather the traditions which continue to claim adherence to the Nicene Creed.[90][91]

 

Some groups identifying themselves as Christian deviate from the tenets considered basic by most Christian organizations. These groups are often considered heretical, or even non-Christian, by many mainstream Christians. This is particularly true of non-trinitarians.

 

More to the world of Protestant Mainstream:

 

The Reformation came about through a number of factors, both political and theological. But different Reformations had both a different character and different result depending on the region, culture, and theological doctrines. So while Martin Luther's "95 Theses" (1517) (preceded by the Hussites and Waldensians) offers the theological roots for much of Protestantism, the English Reformation (for example) was initiated by the English monarch taking control of the English Church. Hence, many historians divide Protestantism into Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism and Anabaptism as four different directions taken by early Protestants.

 

These distinctions were to some degree inherited to descendant churches, called "denominations," and notable differences remain between liturgical churches, such as the Anglican Communion and Lutheran churches, and other Protestant churches (Pentecostal, Calvinist, etc.). Calvinism strongly influenced Anglican Puritanism, which led to the founding of the Presbyterian, Baptist, and Congregationalist churches and of the Quakers. Pietism, a movement within Lutheranism, begat Anabaptism, the Church of the Brethren, the Moravian Church, and Arminianism, which then influenced the Anglican founders of Methodism. Two hundred years after the Reformation, in the United States, the "Great Awakenings" brought Restorationism, which intends to restore the form of early Christianity and includes such Protestant groups as the Churches of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons (the last two groups hold significantly divergent views from "mainstream" Protestantism.) The holiness movement bought together elements of Methodism and Quakerism and lead to the twentieth century beginnings of Pentecostalism.

 

Protestantism currently predominates in many first-world countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom. Certain forms of Protestantism —in particular, Evangelicalism (including Baptists and Pentecostals) — are currently experiencing significant growth in countries such as China (Christian News Service), India and many nations in Europe as well as Africa.

 

The types of Chruches we came out of were in this stream of denominations that arose out of "the Great Disappointment", as it's called. The holiness movement and Pentecostalism are not considered mainstream. The Biblical Literalists were born out of the wake of churches born during this time. Their views are not considered mainstream Christianity, even within Protestanism here in the states. Fundamentalists do not reflect the religious culutre at large.

[Jun]

[

Edit: Oh forget that idea. Anyone that mispells the name of their own God (Jahovah, instead of Jehovah), doesn't look promising for going much further than the standard canned arguments. Oh well... is this what the world of xtianity has come to here?

 

Not to mention the Hebrew spellings, i.e. Yahweh, YHWH (God), Y'shua, Yeshua (Jesus). Did you know that there is actually a movement called "The Sacred Name Movement"? They believe that if you do not say the true name of God/Jesus that you will not saved.

 

How does one know it's the True^tm name of "God." Did "God" name himself, as he didn't have parents did he now.

[Jubilant]

[

Edit: Oh forget that idea. Anyone that mispells the name of their own God (Jahovah, instead of Jehovah), doesn't look promising for going much further than the standard canned arguments. Oh well... is this what the world of xtianity has come to here?

 

Not to mention the Hebrew spellings, i.e. Yahweh, YHWH (God), Y'shua, Yeshua (Jesus). Did you know that there is actually a movement called "The Sacred Name Movement"? They believe that if you do not say the true name of God/Jesus that you will not saved.

 

How does one know it's the True^tm name of "God." Did "God" name himself, as he didn't have parents did he now.

 

Hold on, I think I found the answer!

 

He named himself...Exodus 34: 14--for ©you shall not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God--

 

There you have it.

 

As far as *mainstream* Christianity, I think that my area definitely fits the profil....Home to Creationist Kent Hovind and Dinosaur Adventureland, Brownsville Revival (literally within 1.5 miles of my home), Pensacola Christian Academy, Pensacola Christian College, one of the Baptist Preachers ran for US President under the Constitution Party, not to mention that there are tons of churches on every street and corner.

[Grandpa Harley]

"Baptist Preachers ran for US President under the Constitution Party"

 

That's something you don't see in a sentence very often... unless it's to do with dismantling the first amendment...

[Jubilant]

"Baptist Preachers ran for US President under the Constitution Party"

 

That's something you don't see in a sentence very often... unless it's to do with dismantling the first amendment...

 

Here is their site, and good ole' Chuck Baldwin's face is plastered in the corner. He's the pastor of Crossroads Baptist.

 

I hear you, they *claim* to want to uphold the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

 

During the last election, I was still a fundy and actually voted for him...YIKES!!!

[Grandpa Harley]

and they say a year is a long time in politics... in three you've done something that one you thought would be the end of the world...

[Antlerman]

Boise is not unique in America. There are many, many areas of the country like it where fundamentalism is in fact mainstream. The first time I moved to DC, I was actually shocked at the lack of fundamentalist xianity there.

 

So, herein may lay some of our differences in this discussion. I can see that you have made some valid points when applying your arguments to religion in general. However, when the factor of fundamentalism is applied, I believe many of the points I have attempted to make are apt as well.

Ok, moving back on topic in this discussion thread (because I'm busy doesn't mean I've abandoned this discussion). I think what I’m driving at in recognizing what is mainstream and what isn’t, is the role of religion in the larger picture of human society. A majority of Mormons in Utah does not qualify Mormons to be called “mainstream Christianity.” outside Utah. To call them mainstream because you live in Utah is a confusion of the language when talking about things on a global scale. They aren’t considered mainstream by the larger Christian culture. Neither are the folks like Ken Ham and company. They are subgroups, and even fringe within those subgroups.

 

Also a common mistake to be constantly on guard against is taking personal or limited regional experiences and projecting them out beyond our own borders. “All this”, or “All that”, based on repeated experiences of a limited group. “All men are selfish pigs”, or, “All women are only interested in gossiping all the time”, are assessments of someone who has takes their own personal experiences and concludes the whole world looks like this. Of course that’s a logic fallacy as it’s not an objective evaluation of “All men”, or “All women”. At best it’s an expression that really speaks about a person’s feelings, and has nothing to do with an objective look at anything.

 

What rhetoric like, “All men, or all women, or all religion is evil” does, is pander to those sorts of emotional sentiments. But is that helpful, even to the person expressing it?

 

Can’t it be said that the religion exists because those people had different values than the “secular” (non-them) society?.

 

Yes, and here is an area where I agree with you if you are just talking about non fundamentalist religion. The religion I was exposed to, however, indoctrinated their members. New members were not attracted to many of the core church values, but to "front" values and by the threat of hell for noncompliance. They were then "discipled" and taught what values they must adopt.

Well this is a good point. I know what you’re talking about, as I’ve seen and experienced it first hand. This is the behavior of cults. But does this describe someone’s experience in say, a Lutheran church?

 

This really is my emphasis. Attacking religion is attacking the meme they turn to for their sustenance. It’s not going to be met with any consideration on their part.

 

Here I think I have always agreed with you, even if I've failed to mention it before. It feels good sometimes to attack the religion, but I realize it's not going to have any effect.

Well there we go. Yes I love to let loose every now and then and stick it to them. In my moments like that here, I’m sure I look hypocritical in contrast to this moderate attitude I assume otherwise, but this forum really is a great big group therapy for all of us. I’m just continuing on my own personal healing on this road, and this is where I have come to in that process.

 

There is that balance between being negative about religion as an expression of our frustration; or putting up a wall of defense surrounding us for us to try to heal, and us assuming negative attitudes that are more destructive both to ourselves first then the world surrounding us. Getting angry or frustrated is good for motivating towards action, but those actions and thoughts shouldn’t be an angry one. It accomplishes the opposite from what we really want which is to find peace for ourselves.

 

If we talk to them with respect to their “sacred cows”, chances are much higher they will listen..

 

Here, if you are discussing the issue with more open minded and thoughtful people, you might make some inroads, but I spent 25 years listening to pastors warning against watering down the gospel. Those coming from similar backgrounds as mine are paying attention and if you go off topic, they are going to consider you a wolf in sheep's clothing. At that point they will shut you down in the same way that they would if you just attacked their religion directly.

 

Again, when the element of fundamentalism is removed, your point becomes more valid.

Well that’s a tough situation when you’re dealing with the brain-washed, the truly brain-washed in cult fashion, and not just someone who simply uses the meme as part of mainstream religion. The best that can be done is to live our lives sincerely and openly and confidently about our own beliefs. There’s nothing like someone seeing something in humans that contradicts the programming of propaganda to set in motion a series of dissonances for them to consider in their own lives. I know this is what happened for you.

 

Your last sentence then agrees with me if we remove the element of fundamentalism. So as I’m looking at religion globally and not in geographical pockets, do you see the point of how religion is something different for the majority of people than what you have been exposed to personally?

 

Aren’t they simply more oppressive values?

..

 

I still have a hard time believing that many of these values would thrive without the religion. In fundamentalist xianity, members are taught to deny their flesh and they are indoctrinated with values that they would not naturally adopt outside the religion. In fact, after a few weeks of non attendance, they start to feel like they have backslidden against the values they were indoctrinated with. I feel like you are arguing that these "more oppressive" values are values that these people would have with or without the religion. I argue that no, they wouldn't. They weren't even attracted to the church for these values. Many of these values were pushed on them in the name of discipleship only after their emotion-driven conversions achieved the desired effect of opening new believers to the religion and closing them off to other realities.

They have the disposition for these sorts of values. Leaders of these groups will use the religion to expand their own values to others within the group – those who are there because they have the propensity towards this. And that propensity comes from many places – family upbringing, surrounding culture, and personality. Not everyone gets sucked into fundamentalism. Those who do, it somehow appealed to them.

 

I made a comment in my other thread about Pat Robertson, how that if he would have been born in Saudi Arabia, he would have been praying five times a day to Mecca and not be a born-again Christian. However, what he would more likely have been would be Fundamentalist Cleric of Islam. Islam likewise has your average, mainstream believer who otherwise respects humans as members of the world. Then you have the black and white thinkers. And fundamentalism appeals to them.**

 

Again, what led me to break away from fundamentalism wasn’t some new “truth” that contradicted the doctrines I was taught (i.e., scientific fact). It was that my thinking in general changed. I saw the world as much less black and white as when I was young, and consequently that system of belief offered less and less to me. Fundamentalism doesn’t create this sort of thinking, it sells to it and exploits and nurtures that sort of thinking in those who think that way. You’re right it does take it further, but it was already there in them.

 

Fundamentalism is unhealthy in this way, that it only fosters negativity in the minds o f people like this, rather than move them forward to something more positive. Rather than teaching them a more moderate understanding of how human beings are, they strive for unrealistic perfection – black and white worlds of good versus evil. This to me is distasteful, illogical, and emotionally irrational. And that applies to both religious and secular fundamentalist thinking.

 

I want to pick up discussion at the biological evolution points later. For now I have to go.

 

**Edit: What I should add to or clarify as part of Black and White thinking, is mainly applied to the pursuit of Answers. Everyone looks for answers, but to some those answers need to be more clearly defined, "this is right, and that is wrong". That's black and white thinking, and what fundamentalism appeals to.

[Vigile]

Sorry for the delayed response. I missed your response here.

 

I'm not really sure why this discussion over mainstream has escalated. I guess I need to run back through this thread again to see why it's important to the discussion at hand. Of course generalizing something as big as christianity is going to lead to falacies. And of course one of those falacies would be one of applying provincial thinking to broader issues.

 

Perhaps I should be more clear that most of my criticisms of xianity are directed at the fundementalist brand. If the fundementalist brand were truly marginalized, it wouldn't be a major problem. You may be able to make an academic case for the idea that fundementalism is not mainstream, but it is certainly not marginalized. It's beamed into livingrooms across the globe via satelite, it has a major seat at the table in the US government, millions of people raise their kids with fundementalist ideas, potentially repressing their sexuality, and feeding their anxiety by threatening hell. An important voting block believes that Araghedon is a real event that demands a US presence in the ME, and that same powerful voting block forces its influence on the public domain on issues related to science and education. Mainstream or no, it is not marginalized and it is this group that I criticize.

 

This is the behavior of cults. But does this describe someone’s experience in say, a Lutheran church?

 

Nope.

 

Getting angry or frustrated is good for motivating towards action, but those actions and thoughts shouldn’t be an angry one. It accomplishes the opposite from what we really want which is to find peace for ourselves.

 

Yep, agreed.

 

So as I’m looking at religion globally and not in geographical pockets, do you see the point of how religion is something different for the majority of people than what you have been exposed to personally?

 

Sure AM. As you know, I've spent years now living in cultures not my own. I know that the brand of xianity I grew up with is not represented outside pockets in the US and perhaps a few minor pockets in Asia, England, and Australia/NZ. Again, my problem is with the fact that the brand I grew up with has gained a foothold on the power structure of the world and has a major hold on many local issues in the US. The commander and cheif of the most powerful, and agressive military in the world is one of those cult members, and whether he is a true believer or not, he panders to a powerful block of constituents who are. This affects us all and it is for this reason it is even an issue to me. Were it not, I would just write them all off in my mind as provincial cultist.

 

They have the disposition for these sorts of values.

 

They do? I was born into that value system and my struggles with these values led only to anxiety. I still feel you are trying to say that these values are naturally occuring, or at least they represent the mainstream of the current culture. I still say that they are values represented by the meme, which is more a holdover to past cultures. Rather than being reflective of a current culture, I would argue that meme is a hinderance to the evolution of culture. But more than that, these memes are a distortion of culture and values.

 

Leaders of these groups will use the religion to expand their own values to others within the group.

 

Yes! Absolutely. This is the danger and why I criticize.

 

those who are there because they have the propensity towards this

 

And here is where I disagree. Some have the propensitity toward this, others are just weak minded and easily molded. Others, like me, are just indoctrinated with no choice. This is my problem with it.

 

You say that those who get sucked into fundementalism, fundementalism appeals to them. I got sucked into it, but I had no choice. Once I aquired the tools, I happily escaped. And yes, of course, there are some in the grasps of fundementalism who have personalities it truly does appeal to. There are many more, I think, who are stuck in its grasps because they don't have the tools available for them to see an alternative. Moreover, they are scared to ask questions or to aquire the tools. It's all they know and the meme is designed in such a way that it is all they will ever know. These people are victims and we all suffer because so many are victims to this meme due to the fact that they have so much influence.

 

All I have ever offered as a solution to these problems is better education. I understand that education is not going to reach them all. But it will reach many. Especially if better education in the areas of science and logic are provided at early ages. We don't have to just throw up our hands and say that we are all required to suffer along with those who are suffering cultural growing pains. We have the tools to speed things right along and leave the dangerous nonsense behind. If some wish to hold onto the less dangerous nonsense, then I don't care. I'm not the thought police. What you are focused on, I think, is this less dangerous form of nonsense you refer to as mainstream. And yeah, I can live and thrive next to that just fine. I can even be friends with it. It's the other, influentual version that I want to see change. And it's the victims that I would like to see freed; through better education (history of religion, basic rules of logic, logical falacies, basic science [which is not being taught regardless of the fact that many think it is]). Tools.

 

Again, what led me to break away from fundamentalism wasn’t some new “truth” that contradicted the doctrines I was taught

 

Agreed, we aren't going to lead anyone to a better version of truth. We can, however, give them tools to uncover that which is not true. From their people will become a much less dangerous breed of animal from those convinced they "know" what truth is.

 

 

Ok, the wife just told me I have to go. I'll try to pick this up again later. (no time to correct spelling. Ack!)

[Vigile]

Fundamentalism is unhealthy in this way, that it only fosters negativity in the minds o f people like this, rather than move them forward to something more positive. Rather than teaching them a more moderate understanding of how human beings are, they strive for unrealistic perfection – black and white worlds of good versus evil.

 

Here we are back at our original point of contention. You've made some interesting arguments, but I'm still not sure that you've proven that fundamentalism merely attracts binary thinkers as opposed to creating them. My own limited personal experience says to me that it creates them. And, since I don't see the same types of binary thinking in countries where fundamentalist religion does not thrive, this piece of anecdotal evidence suggests to me that it creates not just attracts.

[Antlerman]

Sorry for the delayed response. I missed your response here.

 

I'm not really sure why this discussion over mainstream has escalated. I guess I need to run back through this thread again to see why it's important to the discussion at hand. Of course generalizing something as big as christianity is going to lead to falacies. And of course one of those falacies would be one of applying provincial thinking to broader issues.

 

Perhaps I should be more clear that most of my criticisms of xianity are directed at the fundementalist brand. If the fundementalist brand were truly marginalized, it wouldn't be a major problem. You may be able to make an academic case for the idea that fundementalism is not mainstream, but it is certainly not marginalized.

 

It's beamed into livingrooms across the globe via satelite, it has a major seat at the table in the US government, millions of people raise their kids with fundementalist ideas, potentially repressing their sexuality, and feeding their anxiety by threatening hell. An important voting block believes that Araghedon is a real event that demands a US presence in the ME, and that same powerful voting block forces its influence on the public domain on issues related to science and education. Mainstream or no, it is not marginalized and it is this group that I criticize.

The reason for the emphasis on distinguishing the mainstream from the fundamentalists is because when discussing eliminating religion, it would include the vast majority who do not approach religion like the fundis. The complaint is about the fundis, so is the cry from those like Dawkins who are frustrated with this face of religion saying all religion is bad and needs to be done away with a response that sounds helpful? How does it speak to those in the middle, who themselves are frustrated with fundamentalism? Since it’s not the face of the God they believe in, this talk would in fact sound like ranting to them.

 

I hear too often the broad-brush of criticism applied to mainstream religion, citing the radical wing of the religion as cause for its demise. I am more than willing to hear complaints about the religion as a whole, for instance the idea of fallen man, but it’s hard to be intellectually honest in a discussion of what’s wrong with Christianity when the face is that of fundamentalism and not the mainstream. That’s the complaint from others within mainstream Christianity against people like Dawkins. I’ve heard him referred to as “The Village Atheist,” with the comment, “I don’t know whose God he’s talking about, but it certainly isn’t mine”.

 

I guess for myself I try to say “fundamentalism” when talking about the world I knew in Christianity, unless the criticism applies legitimately to all of Christianity. For the most part it is about the literalist, black and white thinking world of the fundamentalist I’m talking about in my complaints. I just try to be as fair and accurate as I can, but it doesn’t always work out that way.

 

As far as fundamentalism being marginalized, I would still maintain that fundamentalism is disagreed with by the mainstream. Even though it has a strong political impetus right now due to the activist wing of the religious conservatives, I have little doubt whatsoever that this will balance itself right out. Its place in politics has little to do with a general acceptance by the mainstream. It’s a politics thing, along with a growth pain of our current society. I don’t see it being too close to being considered mainstream at this point, even though its numbers have increased here in the States. It’s through marketing strategies that things like Mega-Churches are beling built which offer things like day-care to families, and become little a mini-city for people to turn to for needs, etc.

 

Even though numbers may be there more than in the past, I would lay even money that given options from mainstream churches addressing these sorts of social needs, they would jump ship on them. Why? Just because they attend these mini-city churches, it doesn’t mean they share the political/social views of the hard-core fundis. Within those types of churches, I would be surprised that more that half was true fundi-heads.

 

There was an example of an evangelical mega-church here in the Twin Cities where their pastor said no to using the pulpit to introduce Republican candidates, to using the vestibule to hand out anti-abortion fliers, to handing out anti-gay parade announcements, etc. He lost over 1000 members the day he spoke out against any of this stuff belonging in the church or part of the message of Christianity - BUT 4000 people applauded this action against that and remained. Most people are there for other reasons than ideological.

 

So even though it may not be as marginalized as say the JW’s, they still are not as powerful as their growl may sound. This current swing was allowed to happen by society due to many complex reasons, but it will swing back hard at the next elections. Bush and clowns will be sent back to Jokesville with the rest of their circus crowd. The mainstream still holds the power.

 

Sure AM. As you know, I've spent years now living in cultures not my own. I know that the brand of xianity I grew up with is not represented outside pockets in the US and perhaps a few minor pockets in Asia, England, and Australia/NZ. Again, my problem is with the fact that the brand I grew up with has gained a foothold on the power structure of the world and has a major hold on many local issues in the US. The commander and cheif of the most powerful, and agressive military in the world is one of those cult members, and whether he is a true believer or not, he panders to a powerful block of constituents who are. This affects us all and it is for this reason it is even an issue to me. Were it not, I would just write them all off in my mind as provincial cultist.

Agreed. It is scary, and I take solace in trends of society as promising the end of this nightmare called the Bush Administration. I can only hope the fool doesn’t in fact create the Armageddon I wouldn’t be surprised he believes he is part of in some Divine providence. One only has to ask what happened within our society that the mainstream allowed these freaks to come into power. The fault is really ours. Freaks will be freaks, but who let them in??

 

But again, back to the point of the topic: calling for the end of religion sounds eerily as radical as the fundi’s cry for God’s Kingdom on Earth eliminating sin. In this case, sin is religion. Where’s the balance? Where’s the moderated, realistic approach to solving complex issues? How does this get people to work towards resolving issues? What’s Hamas’s solution for their problem with Israel? Try to find a middle ground for peaceful co-existence, or calling for their outright elimination?

 

They have the disposition for these sorts of values.

 

They do? I was born into that value system and my struggles with these values led only to anxiety. I still feel you are trying to say that these values are naturally occuring, or at least they represent the mainstream of the current culture. I still say that they are values represented by the meme, which is more a holdover to past cultures. Rather than being reflective of a current culture, I would argue that meme is a hinderance to the evolution of culture. But more than that, these memes are a distortion of culture and values.

I’m sorry if what I said was misunderstood to also refer to those who are born into it. Of course I recognize that children may not know any better due to their indoctrination into it from childhood, but you should also note that despite having been indoctrinated into as a child, you left it. I had stated earlier that personality plays a part of it. Emotional EQ is part of it too. How is it that some who are born into it remain in it for life, while other’s don’t?

 

I am not saying that the values of the far right represent the mainstream of the current culture, but I should add they are a reflection of some sentiments that run through it. Again the bell curve: progressives are on the far left edge pulling the middle towards the future, conservatives are on the far right pulling back on the middle towards the past, the middle confronted with both these aspects of itself, both these philosophies, both these choices. The middle the majority of the whole society, but the right and left are also in it with them, and are part of them as such. Both voices are heard, and both voices reflect something about that society itself.

 

As such, I do say these values are naturally occurring. They are all naturally occurring aspects of the culture that allows them to exist. This is why something like American fundamentalism is out of place in another culture. This is also why, as a minor footnote, I see trying to impose a system of democracy and social values on a society that didn’t create it themselves through the course of natural social evolution as it did in our own country, is doomed to failure. Fundamentalism here evolved out of our culture. It is symptomatic of a problem, and to suggest rooting it out surgically doesn’t address the cause of it. The problem that created it will still be there, and why I say something equally as foul smelling will come in its place. So yes, I see it as naturally occurring.

 

As far as the meme being a distortion and a hindrance to culture, yes I agree. They are a distortion both of the Christian religion and as an image of the past. They aren’t. All they are is selling themselves as a means this – because the society has an outstanding need to hang onto the past, or better stated, to slow their progress into the future. Fundamentalism is a marketing angle, and it isn’t what it claims it is. They sell hope, an illusion that the past can be lived again, nothing more.

 

Society created a market for it. Appeal to the needs of the majority in society, and the appeal of these groups will fall away.

Leaders of these groups will use the religion to expand their own values to others within the group.

 

Yes! Absolutely. This is the danger and why I criticize.

Society creates the environment for these people to come to power. They are a part of every culture in every time. Like a disease, they become a larger power when the body is sick. Again, treat the cause, rather than attack the symptom.

 

You say that those who get sucked into fundementalism, fundementalism appeals to them. I got sucked into it, but I had no choice. Once I aquired the tools, I happily escaped. And yes, of course, there are some in the grasps of fundementalism who have personalities it truly does appeal to. There are many more, I think, who are stuck in its grasps because they don't have the tools available for them to see an alternative. Moreover, they are scared to ask questions or to aquire the tools. It's all they know and the meme is designed in such a way that it is all they will ever know. These people are victims and we all suffer because so many are victims to this meme due to the fact that they have so much influence.

With this I am in complete agreement with you on. Those who are stuck in there not understanding there are other options available to them is a tragic thing. I am absolutely in favor of education, exposing everyone, everywhere to knowledge of other ideas and philosophies in an unbiased way. Exposure to knowledge allows each individual to explore for themselves their own potentials. It’s ironic how those who claim the loudest to have the Truth, are the ones most hell-bent on suppressing knowledge outside their own beliefs. This alone should speak volumes to the lack of veracity in their bold claims of truth. Why should knowledge be afraid of knowledge?

 

But again, attacking a religion as an evil is not teaching knowledge. Teach knowledge and let people choose for themselves where in the spectrum of society they see themselves fitting. You did. I did.

 

We don't have to just throw up our hands and say that we are all required to suffer along with those who are suffering cultural growing pains. We have the tools to speed things right along and leave the dangerous nonsense behind.

I’ve never suggested resign, or even pacifism. We are all part of society and our voices should be heard as well. I’m just in favor of a voice of moderation to speak to the middle who wrestle with the issues the right and left of society represent. The vast majority of people don’t want a choice of one extreme or the other. They don’t see themselves as either, yet they see themselves as a little of both.

 

If you want to move society in the direction of the future instead of the past, you have to talk their language. It’s not fence riding, indecisiveness, wishy-washy, or even uncommitted, it’s effective communication, it’s speaking with respect to people’s values and sensibilities in a way that creates a voice that’s easier to listen to than one who say’s they should simply abandon 1000’s of years worth of tradition. That will never happen. At least not that way.

 

Agreed, we aren't going to lead anyone to a better version of truth. We can, however, give them tools to uncover that which is not true. From their people will become a much less dangerous breed of animal from those convinced they "know" what truth is.

The only thing I want to add a thought to here is that we are teaching people through exposure to knowledge to be more discerning. This is a good thing. All parents should raise their children this way. Once someone can see that claims of absolute Truth are shaky at best, from their they can decide for themselves what makes sense. And from there, exposure to options is a good thing. But don't forget my complaint how people are attracted to simpler choices? You and I are explorers of sorts, but is this a univeral thing?

 

 

Here we are back at our original point of contention. You've made some interesting arguments, but I'm still not sure that you've proven that fundamentalism merely attracts binary thinkers as opposed to creating them. My own limited personal experience says to me that it creates them. And, since I don't see the same types of binary thinking in countries where fundamentalist religion does not thrive, this piece of anecdotal evidence suggests to me that it creates not just attracts.

Again I agree that the meme feeds itself, in a way. People create it so it can serve them. It serves them by enforcing what they as a society feed it. The meme attracts those who like the food it feeds back to them, and it attempts to create a continuation of the society that created it. It really is God. Man creates God and serves God, and compells others to serve their God, so that God can in turn serve then by keeping their society in tact in the way the want it through the distillation of the values people collectively feed the Holy Organism. So it’s both. It does affect society around it as it tries to grow. It seeks out more bodies to keep itself alive. God needs worshippers.

[Vigile]

The reason for the emphasis on distinguishing the mainstream from the fundamentalists is because when discussing eliminating religion, it would include the vast majority who do not approach religion like the fundis.

 

Ok, I can see how this issue pertains to the thread. It doesn't really pertain to my own position, since I'm not in favor of measures to remove religion from society. I personally don't see a need for superstitious beliefs, but I realize they aren't going away anytime soon. As I've mentioned already, I merely support providing better tools, which will hopefully help in removing the element of ignorance that contributes to more dangerous binary thinking.

 

Heck, my philosophy teacher, who first exposed me to a list of biblical contradictions, still attended mass. Providing better education won't, I know, make religion go away, nor does this need to be anyone's goal.

 

 

from those like Dawkins who are frustrated with this face of religion saying all religion is bad and needs to be done away with a response that sounds helpful.

 

Just a quick note in support of Dawkins, who I don't think is nearly as extreme as some of his quotes (I may be wrong, as I haven't read his books, just seen a couple of short videos). Sometimes you have to ask for a mile when all you really expect to get is an inch. At least that's probably a lesson he learned from politics (it may be a misapplication of the principle here, but he's only human afterall).

 

As far as fundamentalism being marginalized, I would still maintain that fundamentalism is disagreed with by the mainstream. .

 

That may be so, but a vocal and organized minority can do a lot of damage when a complacent majority does nothing to hinder their efforts. Just look at all Bush has accomplished as an example.

 

They are all naturally occurring aspects of the culture that allows them to exist. This is why something like American fundamentalism is out of place in another culture. .

 

Good point, and it exemplifies the primary reason I choose not to live in that culture anymore. There are good and interesting people in the US, but this thread, which you speak of, is something that is difficult to avoid in US society. I don't hate them for it, but after living abroad a number of years and then trying to live in the US again afterward, I just never felt that I fit in. In fact, the first time I moved to Italy, I felt for the first time in my life that I actually did fit in somewhere.

 

This is also why, as a minor footnote, I see trying to impose a system of democracy and social values on a society that didn’t create it themselves through the course of natural social evolution as it did in our own country, is doomed to failure .

 

Well put, I've often remarked that some societies are just not ready to have democracy imposed on them. You provide an excellent diagnosis why.

 

 

Fundamentalism here evolved out of our culture. It is symptomatic of a problem, and to suggest rooting it out surgically doesn’t address the cause of it..

 

Yeah, it's my hope that better tools will help, but the fact is, most kids are going to sit through these classes with a blank stare and leave without digesting the implications.

 

 

Again, treat the cause, rather than attack the symptom...

 

You treat the cause, life's too short. I'll just live elsewhere

 

 

With this I am in complete agreement with you on. Those who are stuck in there not understanding there are other options available to them is a tragic thing. I am absolutely in favor of education, exposing everyone, everywhere to knowledge of other ideas and philosophies in an unbiased way. Exposure to knowledge allows each individual to explore for themselves their own potentials. It’s ironic how those who claim the loudest to have the Truth, are the ones most hell-bent on suppressing knowledge outside their own beliefs. This alone should speak volumes to the lack of veracity in their bold claims of truth. Why should knowledge be afraid of knowledge?

.

 

Well, my original point of contention with your position was that I was under the mistaken impression that you had a fundamental disagreement with this very issue. I can see now that we have primarily always been on the same page, but that we have both gotten off on side issues. That's not a bad thing as we have explored and dug into some very interesting and important areas of the culture we are both part of. I have at least learned a few things in this discussion.

 

But don't forget my complaint how people are attracted to simpler choices? You and I are explorers of sorts, but is this a univeral thing?

 

.

 

All too true. Sigh...

[Antlerman]

Well, I feel like we've covered a huge amount of ground in this discussion. It's been like dumping tons of my thoughts from many areas all into one single thread, yet there is a lot more that could be added to it. I've never felt any of it really strayed off topic or was unnecessary, as all the things we've discussed play into the larger picture of what the topic addresses. Understanding that the face of religion portrayed by the extremes is not the face of religion for the majority of people, hopefully tempers the rhetoric and opens a door of mutual respect and advancement of the society we all live in together. We live in a modern world, and if we expect our voices to be heard, we have to hear others. And to hear others, we have to really listen and not just be reactionaries.

 

Reading back over the opening post after this discussion puts things into an even clearer light for me. Just one excerpt from it stood out to me:

 

By Benedicta CipollaReligion News Service

Saturday, May 26, 2007; Page B09

 

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

 

<snip>

 

"

Atheists don't really ask the question, what are the vital needs that religion meets? They give you the sense that religion is the enemy, which is absurd

," said Ronald Aronson, professor of humanities at Wayne State University in Detroit.

 

"There are some questions we secularists have to answer: Who am I, what am I, what can I know? Unless we can answer these questions adequately for ourselves and for others, we can't expect people to even begin to be interested in living without God."

 

This is why to me understanding what needs people have for creating and turning to religion, is a question about us as human beings. To dismiss it out of hand as irrational nonsense, to me, is to irrationally cut myself off from understanding something vital. What makes us human? Recognizing that allows us to look for ways to fulfill our humanity without giving over control of our lives to the guardians of the past. We create truth.

 

 

This has been a great converstation Vigile. I've really appreciated all of it. I imagine I may drop some extra thoughts to this along the way as they come up. Of course it's open for anyone else to add to also. It's a vital topic to the changes that we're all faced with today as atheists and ex-Christians.

[a skeptical believer]

The only thing I want to add a thought to here is that we are teaching people through exposure to knowledge to be more discerning. This is a good thing. All parents should raise their children this way. Once someone can see that claims of absolute Truth are shaky at best, from their they can decide for themselves what makes sense. And from there, exposure to options is a good thing.

 

I agree with this 100%. What a fascinating intellectual discussion. It has certainly made me reflect on some of my responses in an earlier post and got me thinking that others have made good points concerning memes and knee-jerk reactions when my religious convictions have been questioned. Thanks Antlerman for giving me the opportunity to self-reflect.

[Antlerman]

The only thing I want to add a thought to here is that we are teaching people through exposure to knowledge to be more discerning. This is a good thing. All parents should raise their children this way. Once someone can see that claims of absolute Truth are shaky at best, from their they can decide for themselves what makes sense. And from there, exposure to options is a good thing.

 

I agree with this 100%. What a fascinating intellectual discussion. It has certainly made me reflect on some of my responses in an earlier post and got me thinking that others have made good points concerning memes and knee-jerk reactions when my religious convictions have been questioned. Thanks Antlerman for giving me the opportunity to self-reflect.

Wow, that's nice to hear. This was a good discussion that really let me voice some thoughts in one place. BTW, I absolutely love the avatar photo you chose. That's probably one of my favorite places on earth. It's St. Mary's Lake in Glacier National Park. I used to take the Going to Sun Highway in there every few weekends when I lived out in Havre, MT. One of the most beautiful places on this planet. Stunning, inspiring, pristine. I loved the bear grass growing up at Logan's Pass with the Mountain goats scaling the peaks as I walked out there. If there was a god, he lived somewhere like that. (Almost got stranded there in a snow storm once in late October. Pretty hairy getting down through the storm). Very cool. Nice to know my thoughts mean something to others. Thanks.

[Mankey]

Greg M. Epstein

Humanist Chaplain of Harvard University.

 

Greg Epstein is a flaccid penis. Who the fuck elected him pope of humanism. Chaplin? Fuck that. We don need no fucking Chaplin. He smells like a religionist.

 

Hows that for dogmatic rhetoric?

 

[Mankey]

I do not feel that it is a bad thing that anti-theists are useful to just plain old atheists who are bashed for no good reasons, but this humanist "chaplain" is such a dick. He reminds me of the apostle paul.

[Valgeir]

Reading through this again I find it funny that I didn't catch this before, but.. seriously, Humanist Chaplain? I wish the people who read this news understood that there really is no such thing, as there is no "church" of atheism. In fact, atheism is really not even a belief system, it's a descriptor. So since this guy doesn't have any actual power in the minds of atheists (since there is no First Church of Atheism-ism) he really doesn't represent... well, ANYTHING.

[Antlerman]

Reading through this again I find it funny that I didn't catch this before, but.. seriously, Humanist Chaplain? I wish the people who read this news understood that there really is no such thing, as there is no "church" of atheism. In fact, atheism is really not even a belief system, it's a descriptor. So since this guy doesn't have any actual power in the minds of atheists (since there is no First Church of Atheism-ism) he really doesn't represent... well, ANYTHING.

Just to point out, there is a difference between atheism and humanism. Humanism is actually considered philosophical, where as atheism is not.

 

From wikipedia:

Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities—particularly rationality. Humanism is a component of a variety of more specific philosophical systems, and is incorporated into several religious schools of thought. Humanism entails a commitment to the search for truth and morality through human means in support of human interests. In focusing on the capacity for self-determination, humanism rejects the validity of transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on faith, the supernatural, or divinely revealed texts. Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of the human condition, suggesting that solutions to human social and cultural problems cannot be parochial.

 

 

If someone asks me what I believe, I would say I am a secular humanist, not "I am a believer in atheism" (though defacto I am a atheist)

 

I've actually pondered that idea that religion has organization and hence a sense of community and society for people of common thought. What lacks in a world of secular philosophies is something like this. So I actually see the idea of a Humanist Chaplin, a novel approach to this. Why not?

[Lycorth]

I've actually pondered that idea that religion has organization and hence a sense of community and society for people of common thought. What lacks in a world of secular philosophies is something like this. So I actually see the idea of a Humanist Chaplin, a novel approach to this. Why not?

 

I agree completely

 

Religions provide a sense of community, of commonality, for their followers. A religion is like the umbrella which people gather under, united by commonly-shared ideas and goals. A problem for many Atheists, I think, is that there is little such unity, which can only hamper what Atheists try to do.

 

Secular Humanism, on the other hand, is a fine replacement for religion for those Atheists who are not inclined towards ritual and ceremony and so forth. Secular Humanism would, I think, serve all the positive functions of a religion for Atheists. I think more Atheists (and non-Atheists) should consider it, if they're the socially active sort who are interested in trying to change things.

 

For those who aren't, they needn't worry. Society will eventually slouch away from Xianity, though it'd take far longer without giving it constant shoves in the right direction.

[Mankey]

I've actually pondered that idea that religion has organization and hence a sense of community and society for people of common thought. What lacks in a world of secular philosophies is something like this. So I actually see the idea of a Humanist Chaplin, a novel approach to this. Why not?

 

I am sorry but the first thing that comes to my mind when I think of religion is corruption. Is my fear irrational? Perhaps....I'm not sure.

 

Another thing. I really think it is a good idea that atheists have some dialogue with actual anti-theists without buying into any preconceived notions and propaganda.

 

Harvard humanist conference -RRS thread ( I still think Epstein is a flaccid penis- an apostle paul )

 

Even if the criticism about religion out there is off the mark it is not even comparable to the blatant prejudice that comes from some theists about atheists and humanists....to compare anti-theists with fundies is real stupid. It is possible to be reasonably wrong believe it or not. What we get from certain theists is blatant prejudice. There is a big difference.

 

"The humanists are taking advantage of renewed interest in atheism -- in effect riding the coattails of Dawkins and Harris into the mainstream -- to gain attention for their big-tent model."

Translation: Some "humanists" are using propaganda against people who openly question or criticize religion....

 

...while in no way wanting to offer humanistic thought to those that have previously not heard of the idea. A lot of people hear about it from everyone but humanists.

 

I see a real double standard where it is tolerated when people express their theism...but it is not acceptable when people express why they do not believe in God. Some of our reasons really conflict with a theists "reasons" for believing. All I see here is propaganda being used to suppress Free Thought. To suppress criticism of religion while giving religion a free pass.

 

Atheists stand aside. There are new super villains in town. Anti-theists. Your evil is nothing compared to ours. Hehe. You just don't cut it as real villains. Theists will eventually realize that and maybe cut you some slack more often. I think it will turn out that way eventually. I don't mind that much. But this Epstein and others like him really piss me off in that I do not think they need to slander anti-theists in order to offer people a better tomorrow. Instead they play on prejudices so that they can get support for a "smart "people only club.

 

Guess what. Not all anti-theists are such hard asses and actually do offer a real product instead of just criticizing or complaining about religion. They interact with people they know or run into and bring up that they are Free Thinkers and what Free Thought is. They actually try to peek some ones interest in science. Philosophy. Humanism. Some do it without being hard asses about someones theism.

 

I have said this before...if a Christian were to style themselves a Free Thinker I would never tell them that they are not. Is theism irrational? Yes. But so am I about other things and I can still be a Free Thinker. If people are curious and like to question then in my opinion they belong to us.

 

I say this because I am an anti-theist through and through. People like Epstein keep the status quo of everyone being shielded from other resoned concerns, ideas and beliefs. I am against this.

[R. S. Martin]

Humanists say to atheists/Atheists say to humanists.........

I think someone is confused about definitions.

 

Atheist=unbeliever regarding deity

 

Humanist=person who adopts humanist values, philosophy, etc., and joins a humanist organization. Humanists tend not to believe in deity. Humanists generally identify as atheist or agnostic.

 

Thus it is rather unreasonable to talk about humanists telling atheists something or vice versa.

[R. S. Martin]

As for a humanist chaplain. What's your problem with that? Humanists who don't want the Church officiating at their wedding or funeral are/should be grateful that there is such a thing as a humanist chaplain.

 

Here in Canada the word we use is "officiant." I think the term they use in Australia is "celebrant." Apparently the Americans just borrow the Christian term. So what? If you don't like it then don't ask for their services. But please don't ostracize those of us who appreciate what the chaplains/officiants/celebrants have to offer.

[Mankey]

Humanists say to atheists/Atheists say to humanists.........

I think someone is confused about definitions.

 

Atheist=unbeliever regarding deity

 

Humanist=person who adopts humanist values, philosophy, etc., and joins a humanist organization. Humanists tend not to believe in deity. Humanists generally identify as atheist or agnostic.

 

Thus it is rather unreasonable to talk about humanists telling atheists something or vice versa.

A humanist can be an atheist, but an atheist is not necessarily a humanist.

 

I am a humanist and an atheist who disagrees with certain other humanists...kind of.