Who Needs God?

[Legion]

It should probably come as no surprise that I mostly agree with Antlerman here. I think to equate religion with superstition may be over simplifying things a bit.

 

I suspect people of all stripes have experienced transcendent principles at work in their lives. And this is often a good thing I think. But I suspect that some have the impulse to enshrine these experiences, to bottle them up and institutionalize them. And thus they may give birth to religions.

 

I think if people like Dawkins reconnected with that impulse that lead them to become scientists in the first place they might better understand religion. I think that the underlying principle or the faith (if you will, for lack of a better term) of science is that everything makes sense. And I have had moments in which I FELT this principle. Not only did I acknowledge it, I FELT it. I suspect that in these moments I released even the partial understanding I had, and all of my frames and templates dissolved. And what was left was a raw recognition that everything potentially could be understood. I cherish these moments and they have been accompanied by euphoria, and a sense of connectedness and peace. Some might make a religion at this point. Whereas I merely sighed knowing that the moment will pass, and that I must return to the arduous task of methodically adding to my partial understanding.

 

I bet Dawkins has had similar moments. I bet he knew them in his youth. If he were able to experience such moments at will, then he might better be able to communicate with those who cling to religion and a belief in the divine.

[Alice]

I really appreciate the nationalism analogy here. I have often heard moderate religious beliefs criticised as a 'breeding ground' for fundamentalist religious beliefs ~ all manner of analogies apply, another would be to suggest that clear consistent parenting guidance on boundary setting for children allows the rise of violent physical chastisement of children ... I guess there are hundreds of analogies, and that they would pretty much all fail to convince anyone that a moderate approach to anything encourages the rise of an extremist version,

 

but before now the suggestion that moderate religion encouraged fundamentalist religion did worry me intellectually although it was never one I felt I could relate to emotionally.

 

I am interested in the material v the spiritual here. I recently watched a Derren Brown experiement in which a group of people were asked to find ways they could 'encourage' a counter to reach 100, at which point they were to be substantially rewarded. Un beknown to them the counter was linked to an unseen fish tank in which every time the fish swam past the central line the counter recorded one more hit. Very quickly the group began to connect the points with the activity they were undertaking at the time the counter showed another hit. This resulted in a some very bizarre behaviour as the group tried to 'influence' the random point generator, many becoming convinced that if they all held yellow objects and hopped on one leg ... or all but one of them sat down ... or a range of funny things to watch. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=IDi2NlsA4nI&...feature=related

 

 

I still find there is a lot I find insightful, inspiring, moving, and so on ~ in many of the world religions, when I apply them to my inner jorney and don't try and use them to guide my interation with the material world.

 

I would like to see people freed up to break the link between 'things' that happen at random and events that have no link to the individual concerned. Part of consciousness appears to be a 'sense' in which we think we have influenced events beyond our control or responsibility. We see this in the psychological response to personal loss and bereavement as well as in 'superstitious' behaviour. Many religions have aspects that manipulate these human tendenancies and I'd love to see these links educated away. These are the aspects of human expereince that I think would be drivers in recreating religion, if some attempt was made to erradicate it.

 

I agree with the comments about Richard Dawkins and his lack of grasp as to what religion is .... I recently emailed him and told him this in the nicest way I could think of ... I haven't heard back ... but on the last show of his I watched you see him reading out insults and death threats from fundamentalists that flood his inbox, I guess this takes up a lot of his time.

[Neon Genesis]

Isn't the very foundation of most Christianity the literal belief in a Christ who died and was resurrected to save humanity from original sin? By extension, the story of Adam and Eve would have to be taken literally as well, otherwise there is no original sin to save us from, so either (1) there wasn't a resurrection, or (2) the pain and suffering of Jesus did nothing for our salvation and he wasn't resurrected, or (3) none of those events really happened.

This is another problem I have with Dawkins. Dawkins makes the same mistake that many fundies make. They both presume that because they think their way of reading the bible is the correct way, then everyone else reads it the same way and are just cherry pickers. Dawkins doesn't even try to make an effort to understand liberal Christianity by trying to look at things from their point of view, or you know, maybe by actually interviewing some liberal Christians. Original sin is not actually in the bible itself, but was added in by the Catholic church to combat gnosticism because obviously anything that the "true" Christians say must be correct because they say so. Quoted from Wikipedia,

The Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists mostly dealt with topics other than original sin.[2] The doctrine of original sin was first developed in second-century Bishop of Lyon Irenaeus's struggle against Gnosticism.

 

Sure, some people may call themselves Christians because they like the philosophies that were attributed to Jesus, but in all the churches I visited in my believing days, they all taught about a literal execution and resurrection of the Christ. Based on my own experience and from what I have read online, I would say that the vast majority of Christians take the resurrection story literally, which means they would have to believe the fall of man story literally as well, otherwise Jesus (if he existed) was just another Socrates or Confucius, and I don't see any churches worshiping them.

I suspect the main reason why the original sin version of Christianity is popular today is because biblical literalists tortured anyone who defied what they said (Salem witch trials and Spanish Inquisition, anyone?) and even today, biblical literalists persecute anyone with beliefs they deem to be heretical, though on a lesser scale than in the past. Really, fundamentalism is like a popularity contest but I fail to see how popularity = correctness. Again, see the nationalism analogy from earlier in the thread that I posted. That hardly seems like a legitimate reason to me as to why fundies should be counted as the only "real" Christians, especially since the bible never actually says to read everything literally. And as I said before, even most fundies will accept some things in the bible as being metaphors like the hating your family verses, so if liberal Christians are "cherry pickers", then fundies are "cherry pickers" too and are hardly "true" believers, if being a "true" believer is based on how much you cherry pick. If gnostic Christianity had become popular instead of the current version of Christianity, would we be claiming gnostic Christianity to be the "true" Christians and debating whether or not fundies are cherry pickers?

 

I haven't read Hitchens, but the point I made in my first paragraph is the point that Dawkins makes in The Root of All Evil?. I have also read The God Delusion, but I don't recall him advocating the elimination of all religion. As it seems to me, he merely wants to inform people about how the world really works, while attacking straw men arguments that are erected by creationists. If he appears a little arrogant, it is simply because he is dumbfounded at how anyone can possibly believe some of the baseless creationist nonsense he keeps hearing, that flies contrary to all known fact.

But even in the opening chapter, Dawkins criticizes agnosticism as being just as unreasonable as theism and makes the mistake that agnosticism is some other form of belief when it isn't, showing again how ignorant and narrow Dawkins' view of religion is. Dawkins retaliates this criticism by claiming you don't need to be a fairyologist to disprove the existence of fairies, but he misses the point entirely. The point isn't about proving or disproving god, but that he misrepresents his opponents' arguments and thinks he's scored a victory against something he doesn't understand, but when someone points out his information is incorrect, he just puts his fingers in his ears and ignores them when the point is he isn't presenting his facts correctly. Of course you don't need to be a fairyologist to disprove the existence of fairies, but if you want to discuss the finer points of fairyology with fans of fairy mythology, then you certainly do have to actually read and research fairy mythology and its history if you want its fans to take you seriously. One must wonder why Dawkins never actually cites liberal Christians in The God Delusion when he starts ranting about them. He also later states in the book when he's speaking about Douglas Adams that he wrote The God Delusion to deconvert the religious, so it seems pretty clear to me that he wants to eradicate religion. He might want to do so through education rather than force, but it's still eradicating religion all the same.

[Taphophilia]

Fundamentalist Christianity, as we know it today, started as a backlash to what was then mainstream Christianity's acceptance of scientific theory and philosophy. It seems that throughout religious history, where there is acceptance and toleration there is a backlash of rejection and intolerance. Liberal Christianity has contributed much good to our society, like civil rights. It's easy to allow others their views and beliefs when we agree with them, but in order to be truly tolerant and accepting is to allow others their views and beliefs that we don't agree with. Especially those who don't have an agenda to make the world think and believe exactly like they do.

[Antlerman]

Isn't the very foundation of most Christianity the literal belief in a Christ who died and was resurrected to save humanity from original sin? By extension, the story of Adam and Eve would have to be taken literally as well, otherwise there is no original sin to save us from, so either (1) there wasn't a resurrection, or (2) the pain and suffering of Jesus did nothing for our salvation and he wasn't resurrected, or (3) none of those events really happened.

It may seem a little hard to wrap the mind around, but there is a difference between saying one believes in the story, and saying one believes it was an actual, literal event. When a mainstream, non-Evangelical Christian says "I believe Jesus died for me", what really are they saying? It's that story of Jesus that they utilize to talk about their relationship with God, and as such it has "meaning" to them and they "believe in it".

 

Ever talk about the story of Romeo and Juliet to describe love, and when you do you will speak of Romeo as though he was a real person? In fact in your mind you imagine him as a person, even though you know he is a character in a story. But when it comes to religious thought, the character of Christ is an object of devotion, a whole mythology that people utilize to talk about life. At this point it's not just a character of a story, but something more. It's a symbol that they've invested their world views into and empowered with themselves. And as such, you're going to have lines of commonality as to what this "character", this religious symbol represents that's going to follow social lines and individual personalities.

 

So is Christ literal to them? It's my view that it's not a question of literal to them, so much as it as question of significance. When they "believe" in Christ, it's not so much literally as it is symbolically. The average person likely doesn't plumb the depths of understanding the symbolic nature of it this way, and they just will simply assent to it claiming to believe it is "true" (or significant as 'true' suggests in this context).

 

The literalist on the other hand however, in my opinion is the one who lacks the power of the symbol in their life, whatever that symbol may be. By understanding the symbol as "factual", they diminish it's transcendent power. They instead reduce the symbol to something that can be argued about and tested on an earthly level. To view Adam and Eve as literal people, makes them subject to falsification and distracts from their truer symbolic natures. In other worlds, the literalist loses something in spending time imagining that in reality, the origin of man can be traced back to them. Imagine how much value of the story of Romeo and Juliet would be lost if you insisted Romeo was real, or that in order to "believe" in it, you must first accept it as factual?

 

So to answer the question, no, a literal belief about these things are not the foundation of Christian belief. A "belief" in them - as having symbolic significance, is.

 

Sure, some people may call themselves Christians because they like the philosophies that were attributed to Jesus, but in all the churches I visited in my believing days, they all taught about a literal execution and resurrection of the Christ. Based on my own experience and from what I have read online, I would say that the vast majority of Christians take the resurrection story literally, which means they would have to believe the fall of man story literally as well, otherwise Jesus (if he existed) was just another Socrates or Confucius, and I don't see any churches worshiping them.

Of course taking one's personal exposure, and in exposure to the things on the Internet are most definitely limited and unbalanced if trying to evaluate how these beliefs are really distributed. That's where polls come in, and even those are very difficult to reflect accurately how people believe.

 

A quick break down:

 

There are 2.1 Billion Christians in the world; only 350 million of those are Protestant; and of those less than 35 percent are Evangelicals; and of those, a much smaller fraction of them are strict literalists in their Biblical hermeneutic. The significant here in America is that Evangelicals have swelled to almost 50 percent of Protestants here. So that would lend itself to the view that, "They all think this way". The Internet is also a place where the most vocal will speak about religion, so the loudest does not imply the greatest in number. In fact, the most vocal are usually in the minority. They're noisy because they need to be.

[EdwardAbbey]

Here 's a good video for some of you religious sympathizers who have bleeding hearts for theists and religion in our world. Antlerman should pay attention too. If religion isn't superstition than what do you consider a belief in a talking snake, food that multiplies magically, a virgin impregnated by a ghost, a dead man who comes back to life, then flys into outer space, the first human created from dirt and the woman from his rib and most of all superstiotions, prayer? I think some of you guys need a wake up call when it comes to the dangers of religion in the world and how harmful, repugnant and false it is. Especially when it is taken literally. And that's not to get the moderates off the hook either. But at least they're easier to reason with. The fundies are the ones that are impossible because they are so freakin brain washed and about the only thing left for refuting their crazy beliefs is ridicule and showing the absurdity of their beliefs. As long as religion is treated as a harmless myth then I wouldn't have much of a problem with it. But that just doesn't seem to be the case with the religions we have in the world. They're being taken to the point of influencing our government to dangerous levels especially the nations majority belief, Christianity. I don't see "In God We Trust" & One Nation Under Gawd" going anywhere to soon either. We're a pre-theocracy and frankly I'm fed up with all this religious bullshit taking control of our society. If you guys can't see that, then get your heads out of your asses already.

 

Take your god and shove him:

 

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=M114bK4qaiM

[Alice]

Hi EdwardAbbey,

 

I think a number of people here, including Antlerman, have highlighted the complexities and context of concepts such as 'belief'.

 

You and I have some very different perspectives on things but we appear to share a view that wake up calls are needed ~ my own preference is for those who tar all religious believers with the same brush to wake up to the damage this does.

 

Rather than moderate religion being the breeding ground for extremism, I'm worried about the the 'wipe them out, they are obviously wrong' crowd.

 

Although we have a different viewpoint here, I would not think it useful to suggest you 'get your head out of your ass already', especially given this is the Colosseum.

 

The common usage of 'belief' has changed over time and means different things in different settings. Having been raised in a literalist evangelical circles, you could have knocked me down with a feather when I met my first real life 'christian' who did not believe literally in the resurrection or the virgin birth or the talking snake ... back then of course I decided he 'wasn't a true christian'. This kind of moderate follower of Jesus, makes up the vast majority of chrsitians in the UK. Literalists are a tiny and concerning fraction (I do share your concern about literalism).

 

The liberal and moderate christains (who despite not sharing my previously held literal beliefs) would not tell someone of a different faith to 'take their god and shove him' ... they are the ones that actually get into dialogue and are well placed to educate those who have fallen into the modernist mindset of reading scriptures literally.

[Antlerman]

If religion isn't superstition than what do you consider a belief in a talking snake, food that multiplies magically, a virgin impregnated by a ghost, a dead man who comes back to life, then flys into outer space, the first human created from dirt and the woman from his rib and most of all superstiotions, prayer?

A mythology. You really should actually read what I say, rather that making assumptions about what motivates me, or what I believe: It's just a couple posts above.

 

Do you understand what superstition is, and how it's different than how myth works? Are you free from all myths in your life? I'll bet you not.

 

I think some of you guys need a wake up call when it comes to the dangers of religion in the world and how harmful, repugnant and false it is.

I'm sure their are plenty of militants out there with the arsenal of Truth ™ to enlighten us unaware folk who are a bunch of "bleeding heart liberals" with the Real Truth ™. Soldiers of the Truth ™.

 

Especially when it is taken literally.

I'd argue only when its taken literally. Care to explore my thoughts, or just assume I'm ignorant to the Truth ™

 

And that's not to get the moderates off the hook either. But at least they're easier to reason with.

Are you easy to reason with? Care to explore my thoughts, rather than casting political slogans, like "bleeding heart liberal", or "sinner" or any such non-argument?

 

As long as religion is treated as a harmless myth then I wouldn't have much of a problem with it.

Oh, I would never treat it as a harmless myth, I'd treat it as a powerful one. That's the beginning of understanding why it exists, how it functions, and the powers and dangers of it. But if you'd rather just called it "stupid superstitions" and not bother to try to understand it, then that pretty much kills all dialog about it, sort of like when a Creationist blocks everything from scientists since their all just atheists.

 

But that just doesn't seem to be the case with the religions we have in the world. They're being taken to the point of influencing our government to dangerous levels especially the nations majority belief, Christianity. I don't see "In God We Trust" & One Nation Under Gawd" going anywhere to soon either.

You don't see branding everyone religious as the same thing to be itself a dangerous thing? All atheists are this, all Christians are this, all Blacks are this, etc?

 

We're a pre-theocracy and frankly I'm fed up with all this religious bullshit taking control of our society. If you guys can't see that, then get your heads out of your asses already.

I guess I'm just ignorant. I should become militant and go after the evil Christians, before they get us atheists. I'll just go with a biologist in understanding what the Real Truth™ is, instead of exploring sociology, anthropology, comparative religious studies, history, literature, the arts, etc, etc. When it's time to go to war, you don't need understanding that comes from education. I just need to pull my head out of s my ass and just tell them all to take their God and shove him up their ASS! The ignorant fools!

 

Take your god and shove him:

 

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=M114bK4qaiM

He's as guilty of literalism as those he attacks. Opposite sides of the exact same coin.

[Legion]

I don't see "In God We Trust" & One Nation Under Gawd" going anywhere to soon either. We're a pre-theocracy and frankly I'm fed up with all this religious bullshit taking control of our society.

I have a hard time believing that we here in the States are a pre-theocracy. We can’t even agree to make English our national language. How much more dissent would there be over which religion should be the national religion? Not to mention that such a development is expressly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.

 

Please relax EdwardAbbey. Every little thing is going to be alright.

[Neon Genesis]

I'm still waiting for someone to answer how do moderate believers make a space for fundamentalists and why should we not work together with moderate believers.

[Euthyphro's Thorn]

I disagree about Dawkins at this point, but maybe I'll read The God Delusion again in the near future and see if I don't pick up on some of what you're saying.

 

You're right, it's very hard for me to wrap my mind around. Every pastor, preacher, reverend, etc., I've ever heard speak in a church has spoken as though Jesus literally died, was resurrected, and will return -- or so it seemed to me -- so it's hard to imagine more than a tiny fraction of Christians not believing in a literal resurrection.

 

But, you've given me food for thought, Antlerman. Thank you. I think I'll pose this question to my Pastor friend and the other Christians at a board we recently started together, and maybe add a poll to it. It might set a good foundation for our other debates, as I still haven't quite figured out exactly what it is he really believes and teaches his congregation. I do know that one Christian there swears that the Bible is scientifically proven to be accurate, but that's only from debating that nut case elsewhere, and another Christian there doesn't understand simple analogy. Ugh.

 

Sorry if I derailed this topic.

[Antlerman]

You're right, it's very hard for me to wrap my mind around. Every pastor, preacher, reverend, etc., I've ever heard speak in a church has spoken as though Jesus literally died, was resurrected, and will return -- or so it seemed to me -- so it's hard to imagine more than a tiny fraction of Christians not believing in a literal resurrection.

This awareness is what's driven me to unravel this "foreign" way of thinking ever since I first learned of it many years ago. It's a fascinating understanding that is difficult for someone who is thinking in literal terms, as I had been conditioned to do, to be able see it. When the pastor speaks of Jesus on the cross, depending on his understanding, he may speaking of him in terms of the symbol to his congregation, like saying "Juliet on the balcony". To someone who has been taught this was a literal event, they will hear him speaking of a literal event, and assume that how they are understanding it is what he is thinking as well. The same would go in reverse, where some liberal Christian may be a little taken off guard to hear a literalist be so focused on the "actual event". That too is a foreign way of thinking to those who think symbolically. To them that just seems weird.

 

I really see the problem behind so much of this literalism is that our culture has been driven to separate out our stories from facts discovered through science, and all the rich symbolisms that were previously just "believed" for their significance are now called into question as having value, based on their "truthfulness" - from a scientific point of view. Those that can't learn to separate out the value through the symbolic nature from it become Biblical literalists and reject science as being correct if it shows that the stories were not real events. But the problem is in their ability to think symbolically.

 

I think what drove the response into truly literal thinking was the rise of theologies that worked off of enlightenment philosophies which in the minds of the average, rural lay person went too far, redefining the stories in a new light which to them, not understanding all the philosophies underlying it, perceived it as a denial of its "truth". What occurred was a recoil, and the baby got thrown out with the bath water and you have a rise of anti-intellectualism, anti-science, and a rise of pseduo-sciences in response that would support the Bible. Then, in response to that, you have voices like Dawkins reacting back against that reaction with an equal but opposite reaction.

 

This is why I say he is the opposite side of the same coin. Neither side comprehends the middle through becoming so polarized in their positions. Their arguments have become directed to the opposite side of the issue, seemingly unable to either recognize or comprehend anything but arguments of literal truth - either religiously, or scientifically.

 

But, you've given me food for thought, Antlerman. Thank you. I think I'll pose this question to my Pastor friend and the other Christians at a board we recently started together, and maybe add a poll to it. It might set a good foundation for our other debates, as I still haven't quite figured out exactly what it is he really believes and teaches his congregation. I do know that one Christian there swears that the Bible is scientifically proven to be accurate, but that's only from debating that nut case elsewhere, and another Christian there doesn't understand simple analogy. Ugh.

Again though, I think it's the rare person who, even though they are a symbolic thinker (versus as literalist thinker) can articulate it this way in their thinking to themselves or to others. They just basically think that way. It's how they process. So you may find on your site that they might not say this exactly like this, but my bet is if you listen to how they're talking you will hear it being expressed. They might not be able to come out and say, "No, I know the stories are just stories," but that doesn't mean they don't treat them that way. Really, it's how far they go to deny facts in support of the stories' value that betrays what sort of thinker they are, what sort of imagination or lack thereof they have.

 

To the knowledgeable minister, he may be able talk about this in terms of Carl Marx for instance, how that the words have power through connotative significance etc, but would he necessarily express them openly to his congregation? Chance are, doing so could drive a lot of people, even if they were symbolic thinkers, out the door because these are difficult concepts for the average lay person to process, which is why I suggest the recoil into full literalist thinking began happening. Keeping things in simple terms, is... simpler. But the problem is, doing so limits or destroys the complexity, the subtly, the nuances, and the power of our full humanity. I say this is true to both literalist religious and secular thinking.

 

Sorry if I derailed this topic.

I see it as directly relevant to the OP which asks:

 

Why do people think they need God to get through the day?

 

People who believe in God seem to think that He gives them reason to live and without God they have no meaning and purpose. I think that is kind of a sad way to look at life.

 

I wonder what would happen to some of these people if they came to the realization and conclusion that God is just as fake as Santa Claus and there just is no God at all?

 

How would you live your life with the knowledge there is no God?

Everything I've talked about, that you brought up directly addresses that question, even though it does so by addressing it from an angle other than a literal one, one that explores the depths and complexities of the realities that that question should look into if it truly want to try to understand. If there's a derailing, it's in looking at it like this, rather than just responding in complete agreement. But the forum is for serious discussion about the topic, which this is, even though the response to my examining this has been considered a case of me just "having my head up my ass".

[EdwardAbbey]

If religion isn't superstition than what do you consider a belief in a talking snake, food that multiplies magically, a virgin impregnated by a ghost, a dead man who comes back to life, then flys into outer space, the first human created from dirt and the woman from his rib and most of all superstiotions, prayer?

A mythology. You really should actually read what I say, rather that making assumptions about what motivates me, or what I believe: It's just a couple posts above.

 

Do you understand what superstition is, and how it's different than how myth works? Are you free from all myths in your life? I'll bet you not.

 

I think some of you guys need a wake up call when it comes to the dangers of religion in the world and how harmful, repugnant and false it is.

I'm sure their are plenty of militants out there with the arsenal of Truth to enlighten us unaware folk who are a bunch of "bleeding heart liberals" with the Real Truth . Soldiers of the Truth .

 

Especially when it is taken literally.

I'd argue only when its taken literally. Care to explore my thoughts, or just assume I'm ignorant to the Truth

 

And that's not to get the moderates off the hook either. But at least they're easier to reason with.

Are you easy to reason with? Care to explore my thoughts, rather than casting political slogans, like "bleeding heart liberal", or "sinner" or any such non-argument?

 

As long as religion is treated as a harmless myth then I wouldn't have much of a problem with it.

Oh, I would never treat it as a harmless myth, I'd treat it as a powerful one. That's the beginning of understanding why it exists, how it functions, and the powers and dangers of it. But if you'd rather just called it "stupid superstitions" and not bother to try to understand it, then that pretty much kills all dialog about it, sort of like when a Creationist blocks everything from scientists since their all just atheists.

 

But that just doesn't seem to be the case with the religions we have in the world. They're being taken to the point of influencing our government to dangerous levels especially the nations majority belief, Christianity. I don't see "In God We Trust" & One Nation Under Gawd" going anywhere to soon either.

You don't see branding everyone religious as the same thing to be itself a dangerous thing? All atheists are this, all Christians are this, all Blacks are this, etc?

 

We're a pre-theocracy and frankly I'm fed up with all this religious bullshit taking control of our society. If you guys can't see that, then get your heads out of your asses already.

I guess I'm just ignorant. I should become militant and go after the evil Christians, before they get us atheists. I'll just go with a biologist in understanding what the Real Truth is, instead of exploring sociology, anthropology, comparative religious studies, history, literature, the arts, etc, etc. When it's time to go to war, you don't need understanding that comes from education. I just need to pull my head out of s my ass and just tell them all to take their God and shove him up their ASS! The ignorant fools!

 

Take your god and shove him:

 

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=M114bK4qaiM

He's as guilty of literalism as those he attacks. Opposite sides of the exact same coin.

 

 

It's spineless atheists like you who are the root cause for superstition prevailing in our society. I'm amazed at how atheists like you cower every time a true atheist takes a bold stand against superstition they are labeled by other atheists as "militant" or too dogmatic or whatever. Maybe you should take a look at some real atheist philosophers have to say about what atheism really is as opposed to the wuss mentality you've been expressing in your posts:

 

The conception of gods originated in fear and curiosity. Primitive man, unable to understand the phenomena of nature and harassed by them, saw in every terrifying manifestation some sinister force expressly directed against him; and as ignorance and fear are the parents of all superstition, the troubled fancy of primitive man wove the God idea. --- Emma Goldman

 

You can read the rest of the story here if you have the courage to come out of your little comfortable shell of complacency :

 

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/goldman.htm

[Ouroboros]

I'm still waiting for someone to answer how do moderate believers make a space for fundamentalists and why should we not work together with moderate believers.

To play the devil's advocate a little: does moderate/liberal atheists enable a space for the militant/fundamentalist atheists?

 

Basically I think the problem exists wherever you go, and whatever you do. It's not a matter of eradicating the possibility of extremism in society--because we probably can not--but rather keep it a bay through proper education (like learning to think critically, rationally, and logically).

[Alice]

EdwardAbbey,

 

Your comments are not in the spirit of the colosseum ~ it would assist the dialogue if you stopped insulting people who contributing to the thread.

 

Can you provide any evidence for your asertion that moderate atheists are the root cause for superstition prevailing in your society?

[Neon Genesis]

Last I checked, atheism was not a philosophy and anyone who claims there are "true" atheists and "false" atheists doesn't understand what atheism is. Atheism is merely the lack of beliefs in gods. Saying there's "true" atheists and "false" atheists is like saying there's true and false a-fairyists. And how do you define what a "true" atheist is? What, are we a religion now? Why didn't I get the memo and where's the atheist bible at?

[Antlerman]

Since I'm moderating this discussion I'll allow for this outburst as a point of serious discussion, and an example what happens when fundamentalist mentality exhibits itself. In other words for the moment, this serves a purpose...

 

It's spineless atheists like you who are the root cause for superstition prevailing in our society.

I can pretty much guarantee I'm pretty close to a thousand times stronger than you are. Power is in knowledge and knowing how to control it in order to use it most effectively, in more constructive ways. Rather than bashing with the fist out of frustration such as you do, and take the time to understand the true enemy in order to solve a problem, rather than just throwing rocks ineffectively. Your's in an example of someone who feels powerless and lashes out violently, because they are in fact weaker. Spineless in not the right word for me.

 

I'm amazed at how atheists like you cower every time a true atheist takes a bold stand against superstition they are labeled by other atheists as "militant" or too dogmatic or whatever.

I'll bet you were exactly like this as a Christian, weren't you? Ever consider you just changed religions?

 

Maybe you should take a look at some real atheist philosophers have to say about what atheism really is as opposed to the wuss mentality you've been expressing in your posts:

Real atheists philosophers? Certainly I have. Here's a few names: Jean Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, and Friedrich Nietzsche.

 

Do you consider Dawkins to be a philosopher???

 

Regarding Emma Goldman you seem to respect, from Wiki:

"Emma Goldman (June 27, 1869 – May 14, 1940) was an anarchist known for her political activism, writing, and speeches. She was lionized as a free-thinking "rebel woman" by admirers, and

derided as an advocate of politically motivated murder and violent revolution by her critics

"

 

Nice. You should try reading some real atheist philosophers sometime, like the one's I mentioned.

 

You can read the rest of the story here if you have the courage to come out of your little comfortable shell of complacency :

Comfortable shell of complacency? I spend more time and energy deep into thought and study investigating understandings of this than you could possibly begin to fathom. That's hardly complacency. You are light years out of your league here, and are compensating for it with a blind zealotry that is inherently anti-intellectual, and potentially dangerous - exactly the same as the rabid Christian fundamentalist camp you switched sides from to this one you're in now.

 

 

So... are you going to discuss your points of view in opposition to the alternative thoughts I've researched that I'm presenting here in the spirit of this forum, or are you going to cop out like a fundi-apologist in their ideological complacency and just start casting personal insults in the place of a real argument? I enjoy a good discussion. Up to it? You called me a coward. I'm right here waiting for a challenge from you. Have one?

[Neon Genesis]

To play the devil's advocate a little: does moderate/liberal atheists enable a space for the militant/fundamentalist atheists?

 

Basically I think the problem exists wherever you go, and whatever you do. It's not a matter of eradicating the possibility of extremism in society--because we probably can not--but rather keep it a bay through proper education (like learning to think critically, rationally, and logically).

I don't think moderate atheists enable a space for fundamentalist atheists because I don't think there's such a thing as a "moderate" or "fundamentalist" atheist anymore than there are "moderate" and "fundamentalist" a-fairyists. This is because atheism is not a philosphopy or dogma and has no beliefs to be moderate or fundamentalist towards. It's like you say that the problem exists everywhere. So, maybe it's not even neccessarily a problem with religion, but the real problem is people who are arrogant and closed minded in general.

[Antlerman]

I'm still waiting for someone to answer how do moderate believers make a space for fundamentalists and why should we not work together with moderate believers.

To play the devil's advocate a little: does moderate/liberal atheists enable a space for the militant/fundamentalist atheists?

 

Basically I think the problem exists wherever you go, and whatever you do. It's not a matter of eradicating the possibility of extremism in society--because we probably can not--but rather keep it a bay through proper education (like learning to think critically, rationally, and logically).

I wanted to respond to this, but waited until Neon had a chance first. My thoughts about the fundamentalists on either side of the spectrum are that they are useful to the discussion in the middle. The only positive actions that will occur, will occur in the middle, in the moderate zone. That's where the majority lives, and where the majority of power lays. The positive thing about the radicals is that the get the discussion going, it get's the middle talking about the issues. Therefore Richard Dawkins warfare (not philosophy), is a voice that counters those like Pat Robertson and that ilk. Not balances out, mind you, but creates an opposite extreme. If left unchecked by the voices of reason - reason in the sense of moderate reason, of measured reasonable thought as opposed to hard-core rationality "reason" - this opposite extreme has a negative effect by creating polarization of society. They serve a purpose, but in no way shape or form do they offer any sort of workable solution. That's going to come from the middle.

 

The other negative thing for the radical camp, is when serious discussion is being pursued by the middle, they don't actually particpate in offering practical, reasoned thought, but instead persist in the only thing they have, which is rhetoric, political slogans, and just generally in-your-face behavior, calling you names and insulting, etc. They have a positive role to play, but not in serious disscusion as a voice of reason.

[Ouroboros]

...

If left unchecked by the voices of reason - reason in the sense of moderate reason, of measured reasonable thought as opposed to hard-core rationality "reason" - this opposite extreme has a negative effect by creating polarization of society. They serve a purpose, but in no way shape or form do they offer any sort of workable solution. That's going to come from the middle.

...

Agree, since that's is my point. Without people learning to think for themselves, we only will have followers of the extremes.

[sojourner]

Antlerman

 

I enjoyed that last post and it sums it up nicely. Reminds me of the many protests Ive watched, never participated cause Im a middle person. But you have two sides yelling at each other. Nothing gets accomplished as far as the situation at the center because they are two focused on each other. And that is really what they are about. Its more about 'they are wrong and Im right' than 'what can we do to solve this?'

 

But it does bring the situation to light to those that can do something and discussion between those that will talk and listen and learn and do.

 

Neon, you just cut to the chase dont ya. love that about you. lol

 

I hope this doesnt sound rude cause I dont mean it too. But to me black and white thinking and speaking is lazy. It takes thought, listening and a desire to learn and must come from a place of realizing you may not be right in order to have true communication. And extremism and fundamentalism to me is lazy. Its categorizing and labeling to me. Rather than really deeply thinking. Thats too easy and never really allows for change. That is why when you said Keith something to the affect of not really changing just changing sides. But being the same. That is lazy thinking to me.

 

It takes time, energy and selflessness to truly listen to people and bring about change in the world.

 

sojourner

[sojourner]

One more quick reply

 

I am being lazy too in that I havent truly read any more than quotes of Dawkins and Hitchens, cause i just dont do black and white well although I look great in black haha

 

So Im going to read their books, and get back to ya on them. Im being lazy too when it comes to them

 

In fact, I guess Im really no different in a way. Ive come to easily label what I term fundamentalism or extremism and quit looking at their points. Thats no different really.

 

so I openly confess that and will try and ammend my ways

 

sojourner

[EdwardAbbey]

EdwardAbbey,

 

Your comments are not in the spirit of the colosseum ~ it would assist the dialogue if you stopped insulting people who contributing to the thread.

 

Can you provide any evidence for your assertion that moderate atheists are the root cause for superstition prevailing in your society?

 

There's plenty of evidence. Just watch this video:

 

 

These are some of the reasons why there are atheists like me who are motivated to expose and challenge the prevailing superstitions in our society. If they go unchallenged they will win by default.

 

Get the picture?

[EdwardAbbey]

This is just my personal opinion, but I don't think religion is necessarily a dangerous threat to society in and itself.

 

 

If you don't see anything dangerous about religion then you're not paying much attention to what's happening in our society and maybe you should watch the video I posted in my last post to Ms Alice?

 

I've also noticed that since I started this thread it has gone way off the topic in my first post.

 

The questions I was asking didn't have anything to do with getting rid of religion whether it be by force or politically or whatever.

 

It was basically intended for the Christians who come in here challenging them to think about their beliefs in a God and what would they do if they learned there is no God:

 

Why do people think they need God to get through the day?

 

People who believe in God seem to think that He gives them reason to live and without God they have no meaning and purpose. I think that is kind of a sad way to look at life.

 

I wonder what would happen to some of these people if they came to the realization and conclusion that God is just as fake as Santa Claus and there just is no God at all?

 

How would you live your life with the knowledge there is no God?

[Neon Genesis]

If you don't see anything dangerous about religion then you're not paying much attention to what's happening in our society and maybe you should watch the video I posted in my last post to Ms Alice?

Nice job at taking my posts out of context. Are you here to preach to us or are you going to actually read what we post? My point wasn't that religion couldn't be used as a danger to society. My point is that religion is a correlation of the problems of society, not the causation. If you're so naive as to think atheism is magically going to make everybody nicer and be the messiah to society, you're no different from the fundamentalists who think the answer to the Iraq war is to bring Jesus to the Muslims.

 

 

The questions I was asking didn't have anything to do with getting rid of religion whether it be by force or politically or whatever.

 

It was basically intended for the Christians who come in here challenging them to think about their beliefs in a God and what would they do if they learned there is no God:

This is a contradiction. First, you claim that you didn't start this thread with the intent of getting rid of religion. Then you turn around and admit that you started this thread to challenge people's beliefs, which is the same thing. It's no different than the fundies who come by here and say "Oh, we're not here to convert you, we just want to get to know you" when their true intention was conversion all along. AND ANSWER MY QUESTION. How does belief in god enable a space for fundamentalism and why should we not work together with moderate believers? I will not respond to this thread any further until the anti-theists in this thread answer this question