Hell: An Excessive Punishment

[shantonu]

I'm often amused by the fact that ex-Christians have such a limited understanding of Christian history.

 

Yes, it's rather amusing how ignorant we ex-Christians are.

 

Most people are rejecting what they were taught. Not everyone is a scholar, but there are many scholars and former pastors here. The realization most people seem to have when they deconvert is that the Bible is a highly flawed document with a shady history. Since the book is the entire basis for all versions of Christianity, all Christian beliefs are discarded. There is equal evidence for a Hell and no Hell, tongues and no tongues, and also for various other doctrines. That is why there are thousands of denominations, and of course each one the only correct one.

 

For the record, former Christians generally have a better understanding of church history and the Bible than practicing Christians. That's why they become former Christians.

 

It is meeting places like this where we learn more about the various beliefs that we didn't personally experience in our religious journey. It's amusing to me how not only practicing Christians who visit here, but ex-Christians as well, like to explain how we all have the wrong view of the religion and that we have not interpreted the Bible correctly.

 

We may not have your extensive knowledge, but we know Christianity and the Bible are bullshit.

 

Again, I thought you and I had this discussion already. Saying "Christianity is bullshit," though perhaps true, is not particularly elevating. It's a bit like saying the U.S. history we learn in school is bullshit. Well that's true, and it's a great begininng, but it's not a sastifcatory place to end the discussion.

 

We are all at different stages of deconverting or whatever the term is. I've been an atheist since 2001. But at no time did I ever think that orthodox religious people were stupid. I thought they were deluded and in error, but I never thought they were stupid.

 

I suppose this is because I came to atheism by reading Spong's book, Why Christianity Must Change or Die. And that book made me feel closer to Jesus, even as my theism fell away. Thus I see great value in Christianity.

 

Also, I was raised a Roman Catholic, and every reasonably educated Catholic knows that his own church has a "shady history," full of "flawed documents," and quite a number of murders. So it wasn't much of a shock for me to realize that in a real sense it was all a bunch of bullshit.

 

But of course, literature, art, and music (not to mention much of philosophy) are all just a bunch of bullshit too. Their uselessness and fakery are part of what makes us prize them so much. I don't see how dismissing Christianity does anyone any lasting good. It feels good at first, but ultimately I don't think it's very satisfactory. Daniel Dennet, an ardent atheist, still goes to church (for the songs). And Richard Dawkins describes himself as a "cultural Christian."

[florduh]

But of course, literature, art, and music (not to mention much of philosophy) are all just a bunch of bullshit too. Their uselessness and fakery are part of what makes us prize them so much. I don't see how dismissing Christianity does anyone any lasting good.

 

The difference between religion and art, music, or philosophy is that religion is construed by believers to be the definitive picture of reality. Religion breeds divisiveness and war. Religion is detrimental to society and causes distress, fear and hatred among its followers, in addition to providing them with a false view of reality.

 

That, is true bullshit. It's fun to read the thoughts of others, and build philosophical perspectives on religion, but in the end, you are not contemplating Truth, just ruminating over what others think and choosing that which suits you. For example, you may resonate with the view of Pelagius because that view is more reasonable than what the Bible says, but so what? Does Pelagius have some special knowledge and insight into what is real and true? No, you just happen to agree.

 

There is no right or wrong, truth or falsehood when it comes to religion. People make up anything they feel comfortable with, and then attach a label to their beliefs. I fail to see any value in that.

[shantonu]

But of course, literature, art, and music (not to mention much of philosophy) are all just a bunch of bullshit too. Their uselessness and fakery are part of what makes us prize them so much. I don't see how dismissing Christianity does anyone any lasting good.

 

The difference between religion and art, music, or philosophy is that religion is construed by believers to be the definitive picture of reality. Religion breeds divisiveness and war. Religion is detrimental to society and causes distress, fear and hatred among its followers, in addition to providing them with a false view of reality.

 

That, is true bullshit. It's fun to read the thoughts of others, and build philosophical perspectives on religion, but in the end, you are not contemplating Truth, just ruminating over what others think and choosing that which suits you. For example, you may resonate with the view of Pelagius because that view is more reasonable than what the Bible says, but so what? Does Pelagius have some special knowledge and insight into what is real and true? No, you just happen to agree.

 

There is no right or wrong, truth or falsehood when it comes to religion. People make up anything they feel comfortable with, and then attach a label to their beliefs. I fail to see any value in that.

 

You said that "religion is construed by believers to be the definitive picture of reality." Must religion be viewed as "the definitive picture of reality? I don't think so.

 

I just finished reading Owen Chadwick's book The Reformation. Toward the end, he describes exactly this question: How could there be toleration of differences if religion was the definitive picture of reality? If I think that the Catholic veneration of saints is idolatry and you think my rejection of Catholicism is heresy, how can we live together? There were very active debates about this. In the end, through the work of Hugh Grotius and Sebastian Castellio, toleration was born with the understanding that religion is not and cannot be the definitive picture of reality. Grotius writes that "it is dangerous to speak the truth about God." Castellio found that the entire notion of heresy was misplaced saying "I have carefully examined what the word heretic means, and I cannot make it mean more than this, a heretic is man with whom you disagree."

 

So rather than the view you suggest, the history of Christianity shows considerable disagreement with the notion that it presents a definitive picture of reality.

 

The remainder of your points are well-taken, but I don't see how that devalues discussion of religion or makes religion less central to a full understanding of our past and our present condition. Of course most of it is subjective. So is most art appreciation. Religion, like music, can enoble the human spirit and lead us to truth. Just because it doesn't correspond with anything in the real world does not deprive it of its power. The Christian tradition is like music, art, mathematical and legal systems, and other great expressions of the human mind.

 

If atheism is the simplistic rejection of religion as nonsense, then atheism is a very poor thing indeed. Rather, I think that atheism should be a tool whereby the seeker can look at the systems of the past for what they are--heartfelt though errant attempts to figure out the world and the indvidual's place the world. I mean, do you really think that St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin were, you know, just full of shit? When Martin Luther King said that racial segregation was wrong because it conflicted with God's law, do you think he was just stating his subjective opinion, that he was, basically, bullshitting?

[nightflight]

When Martin Luther King said that racial segregation was wrong because it conflicted with God's law, do you think he was just stating his subjective opinion, that he was, basically, bullshitting?

 

He was picking out parts of the Bible to support his view. There were many segregationists who used the Bible to defend segregation. So in a sense, yeah, he was bullshitting.

[Deva]

I mean, do you really think that St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin were, you know, just full of shit?

 

Actually, yes.

[florduh]

You said that "religion is construed by believers to be the definitive picture of reality." Must religion be viewed as "the definitive picture of reality? I don't think so.

 

 

Must it be viewed as reality? Of course not, but in practice it generally is seen to be the practitioner's special truth about the universe.

 

Wondering what this or that verse really means, or deciding if so-and-so's take on it makes sense to you, can be fun in an abstract or academic way. Discussing the historical views that philosophers have had regarding religion is one thing. Embracing a particular belief as true is something else. That is the danger of religion. Most do not approach it as an intellectual exercise, but as reality. Therein lies the problem. Understanding their religion as Truth and Reality brings us witch hunts, Crusades, terrorist attacks, unnecessary guilt, low self-esteem, family conflict and a host of other negative effects.

 

 

 

Religion, like music, can enoble the human spirit and lead us to truth.

 

Evidence for that conclusion? Have any of these endeavors led you to truth?

[shantonu]

I mean, do you really think that St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin were, you know, just full of shit?

 

Actually, yes.

 

I don't know how our civilization and way of life can stand if modern, intelligent people think that Martin Luther King and Thomas Aquinas can be dismissed in such a cavalier manner.

 

I'm not sure that atheism must lead to this result. I hope it does not because I can't see what this view has in kinship with the atheism of Bertrand Russell, Jean Paul Sartre, or any atheism worthy of serious consideration.

[Guest kcdad]

I'm often amused by the fact that ex-Christians have such a limited understanding of Christian history.

 

Yes, it's rather amusing how ignorant we ex-Christians are.

 

Most people are rejecting what they were taught. Not everyone is a scholar, but there are many scholars and former pastors here. The realization most people seem to have when they deconvert is that the Bible is a highly flawed document with a shady history. Since the book is the entire basis for all versions of Christianity, all Christian beliefs are discarded. There is equal evidence for a Hell and no Hell, tongues and no tongues, and also for various other doctrines. That is why there are thousands of denominations, and of course each one the only correct one.

 

For the record, former Christians generally have a better understanding of church history and the Bible than practicing Christians. That's why they become former Christians.

 

It is meeting places like this where we learn more about the various beliefs that we didn't personally experience in our religious journey. It's amusing to me how not only practicing Christians who visit here, but ex-Christians as well, like to explain how we all have the wrong view of the religion and that we have not interpreted the Bible correctly.

 

We may not have your extensive knowledge, but we know Christianity and the Bible are bullshit.

 

Again, I thought you and I had this discussion already. Saying "Christianity is bullshit," though perhaps true, is not particularly elevating. It's a bit like saying the U.S. history we learn in school is bullshit. Well that's true, and it's a great begininng, but it's not a sastifcatory place to end the discussion.

 

We are all at different stages of deconverting or whatever the term is. I've been an atheist since 2001. But at no time did I ever think that orthodox religious people were stupid. I thought they were deluded and in error, but I never thought they were stupid.

 

I suppose this is because I came to atheism by reading Spong's book, Why Christianity Must Change or Die. And that book made me feel closer to Jesus, even as my theism fell away. Thus I see great value in Christianity.

 

Also, I was raised a Roman Catholic, and every reasonably educated Catholic knows that his own church has a "shady history," full of "flawed documents," and quite a number of murders. So it wasn't much of a shock for me to realize that in a real sense it was all a bunch of bullshit.

 

But of course, literature, art, and music (not to mention much of philosophy) are all just a bunch of bullshit too. Their uselessness and fakery are part of what makes us prize them so much. I don't see how dismissing Christianity does anyone any lasting good. It feels good at first, but ultimately I don't think it's very satisfactory. Daniel Dennet, an ardent atheist, still goes to church (for the songs). And Richard Dawkins describes himself as a "cultural Christian."

 

BRAVO! (Your last part reminds me of Anton Chekov's The Bet)

[nightflight]

I mean, do you really think that St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin were, you know, just full of shit?

 

Actually, yes.

 

I don't know how our civilization and way of life can stand if modern, intelligent people think that Martin Luther King and Thomas Aquinas can be dismissed in such a cavalier manner.

 

I'm not sure that atheism must lead to this result. I hope it does not because I can't see what this view has in kinship with the atheism of Bertrand Russell, Jean Paul Sartre, or any atheism worthy of serious consideration.

 

 

A person can be full of shit on certain issues without having to be rejected totally. For example, Isaac Newton was a great scientist. He also dabbled in alchemy.

[shantonu]

You said that "religion is construed by believers to be the definitive picture of reality." Must religion be viewed as "the definitive picture of reality? I don't think so.

 

Must it be viewed as reality? Of course not, but in practice it generally is seen to be the practitioner's special truth about the universe.

 

Wondering what this or that verse really means, or deciding if so-and-so's take on it makes sense to you, can be fun in an abstract or academic way. Discussing the historical views that philosophers have had regarding religion is one thing. Embracing a particular belief as true is something else. That is the danger of religion. Most do not approach it as an intellectual exercise, but as reality. Therein lies the problem. Understanding their religion as Truth and Reality brings us witch hunts, Crusades, terrorist attacks, unnecessary guilt, low self-esteem, family conflict and a host of other negative effects.

 

 

But we agree on this. If religion is viewed as some particular, exclusive truth, then yes it's false and detrimental for the reasons you state. But that's not the only way of looking at religion. It's the majority view to be sure. But why should we limit our view of the thing to the majority view of it?

 

As for proving that religion can lead people to truth, I think the example of toleration that I gave earlier is good example. Toleration is a good thing. We need it. It definitely has its origins in religious disputes in France, Germany and England in the 15th and 16th centuries. We might have arrived at that same result by a different avenue, but the historical fact remains that we got their by means of religious disputation and debate.

[shantonu]

I mean, do you really think that St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin were, you know, just full of shit?

 

Actually, yes.

 

I don't know how our civilization and way of life can stand if modern, intelligent people think that Martin Luther King and Thomas Aquinas can be dismissed in such a cavalier manner.

 

I'm not sure that atheism must lead to this result. I hope it does not because I can't see what this view has in kinship with the atheism of Bertrand Russell, Jean Paul Sartre, or any atheism worthy of serious consideration.

 

 

A person can be full of shit on certain issues without having to be rejected totally. For example, Isaac Newton was a great scientist. He also dabbled in alchemy.

 

But the entire work of Thomas Aquinas centers around religion. Does it therefore all have to go down the toilet? I don't think so. I think we can profitably read it and gain profound insights even if we reject the theistic belief system upon which it is based.

[Guest kcdad]

When Martin Luther King said that racial segregation was wrong because it conflicted with God's law, do you think he was just stating his subjective opinion, that he was, basically, bullshitting?

 

He was picking out parts of the Bible to support his view. There were many segregationists who used the Bible to defend segregation. So in a sense, yeah, he was bullshitting.

 

If you believe that, you need to read and hear some of his writings and speeches in their entirety.

http://www.thekingcenter.org/mlk/index.html

 

There is a place to start. He was a liberation theologist in the same vein as Oscar Romero, Gandhi and many others. He was a "true believer". There is no doubt about that.

[Guest kcdad]

I mean, do you really think that St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin were, you know, just full of shit?

 

Actually, yes.

 

 

wow. Must be nice to be as enlightened as you.

[Guest kcdad]

You said that "religion is construed by believers to be the definitive picture of reality." Must religion be viewed as "the definitive picture of reality? I don't think so.

 

 

Must it be viewed as reality? Of course not, but in practice it generally is seen to be the practitioner's special truth about the universe.

 

Wondering what this or that verse really means, or deciding if so-and-so's take on it makes sense to you, can be fun in an abstract or academic way. Discussing the historical views that philosophers have had regarding religion is one thing. Embracing a particular belief as true is something else. That is the danger of religion. Most do not approach it as an intellectual exercise, but as reality. Therein lies the problem. Understanding their religion as Truth and Reality brings us witch hunts, Crusades, terrorist attacks, unnecessary guilt, low self-esteem, family conflict and a host of other negative effects.

 

 

 

Religion, like music, can enoble the human spirit and lead us to truth.

 

Evidence for that conclusion? Have any of these endeavors led you to truth?

 

Where do you think Gandhi's nonviolent resistance ideas came from? Where do you think the anti-slavery movement came from? Where did the idea of universities come from?

[Guest kcdad]

I mean, do you really think that St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin were, you know, just full of shit?

 

Actually, yes.

 

I don't know how our civilization and way of life can stand if modern, intelligent people think that Martin Luther King and Thomas Aquinas can be dismissed in such a cavalier manner.

 

I'm not sure that atheism must lead to this result. I hope it does not because I can't see what this view has in kinship with the atheism of Bertrand Russell, Jean Paul Sartre, or any atheism worthy of serious consideration.

 

 

A person can be full of shit on certain issues without having to be rejected totally. For example, Isaac Newton was a great scientist. He also dabbled in alchemy.

 

How does that make someone full of anything except curiosity?

[Deva]

I mean, do you really think that St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin were, you know, just full of shit?

 

Actually, yes.

 

 

wow. Must be nice to be as enlightened as you.

 

 

Why, thank you.

[florduh]

Where do you think Gandhi's nonviolent resistance ideas came from? Where do you think the anti-slavery movement came from? Where did the idea of universities come from?

 

I'm not saying that no good ideas have been taken from religion, but they are outweighed by the bad. The university began in China to strengthen the leadership of the country, and of course the Buddhists were in charge. Ghandi was officially a Hindu, but had ideas either taken from, or in common with, several religious disciplines including some teachings of Jesus. Slavery has been both defended and vilified among Christians - depends on whom you ask and when.

 

What exactly is a great religious truth anyway? The Golden Rule? An eye for an eye? Turn the other cheek? Is a religious belief necessary to have understanding of what works in society/life and what doesn't? Those good ideas found in the religions are truisms, not Truth. Beyond offering some common sense ideas that can be shown to work in real life, religions step beyond that into the supernatural. When people think there is a god, and he is on their side, atrocities happen.

 

As I said, the vast majority of people do not approach or understand their religion from an academic or philosophical standpoint. That way of viewing a religion robs it of its power, and neither the priests nor practitioners want that.

 

 

 

 

edutid fer speling

[MathGeek]

How about the simple fact that the majority of human beings in the USA are not criminals? How about the simple fact that some people don't let materialism be their driving force? How about the simple fact that people still respect for their elders? How about the simple fact there are good people out there who live day to day without being thanked? How about the simple fact that many people can be relied on for assistance? How about the simple fact that many people were not swindled by the lie that Obama stands for change? How about the simple fact that there are students who work their butts off to do good despite what the rest of their peers think? How about the simple fact that atheists follow the law even though it appears philosophically two-faced in your mind?

 

Do I need to go on? I find those things to be intrinsically good regardless of the personal motivation.

 

1) Not criminal has more to do with the nature of criminal laws than human behavior. (As Peter Beagle wrote: The fundamental problem in society is not criminals, it is the law.)

 

2) Your "simple facts" are much too simple, and not very factual.

 

3) as for your fact about students... I have found it is the rare student that "works his butt off", in contrast, most do as little possible to achieve whatever degree they can in order to ... surprise!!!! get a better paying job... there is that dang materialism sneaking in...

 

I guess I am not you or him. Those things inspire me regularly.

 

And that is different from believing in fairies or the innate goodness of our government, how?

 

I don't know. At least those hopes of mine have some ground in the natural world. I guess there is no difference. What point are you trying to make?

[Antlerman]

Yes and no. It depends what exposures you had as a Christian, what organization, what theology you were a part of. I can't speak for all ExCs here, but it would not surprise me if a huge percentage of us came out of your more American Evangelical flavor. Trust me, they do not talk about other views except in a light that puts them down in order to make themselves look good. I had never even heard of Pelagius until many years after leaving behind those views in my religious past. To me it's not a surprise that there's a steep learning curve to be had when one has lived life having information withheld from you.

 

For those who don't know who Pelagius is, this is worth your read: http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/chri...st_pelagius.htm

 

I know that Catholicism has adopted a more "semi-Pelagian" theology, that man is born fallen, but once he's saved then his nature has been changed to a good one. Leave it to the Catholics to try to appease both camps.

 

You're right. We've touched on this subject before, but I find the ex-Evangelicals simply do not give enough credit the diversity of Christian experience. It's frustrating because I understand their anger, but I fear they will wind up with an atheism that is as intolerant and ignorant as the fundamentalism they rejected.

 

So we hear such dismissive statements as "God is Santa Claus for adults," etc. My reaction is something like . . . really? Is that really it? Thomas More, Erasmus, and the other 2000 years of culture and achievement just flushed down the toilet like that?

I understand what you are saying. I would hate to see anyone simply end up swapping one religious fundamentalism for another. But a couple things to bear in mind is that literalism is a product of our culture and that voices that speak in absolutes appeals to individuals conditioned to think that way. Christianity was seen as absolutely true; then when it is found lacking, it's seen as absolutely false. The *real* danger with this, is that to position a non-theistic philosophy as representing Reality™, as I've hear held forth so often as showing why religious is wrong, is that it make that word a religious belief!

 

We don't know reality, nor can we ever lay claim to say "This far, and no further". We have ideas of reality, and that's all. And those ideas are ever shifting and changing with new information, sometimes overthrowing older ideas, but never estabilishing once and for all "The Truth™" That notion that we can lay claim to absolute truth is a driving force behind seeking answers both through religion and science. For me personally, the answer is the question; the truth is in the discovery.

 

Here's the hope. The heart. You are right about the process. To be sure, many, myself included, throw up walls around us by crying "bullshit" to what is trying to be sold to us as The Answer from the religious camps. I've tended to pendulum swing in the past, but found that right there in the middle of this "me" and that "me", was the true me. All the while what was driving it was a heart that wanted peace and fulfillment through love and hope. And the mistake was in thinking it was in finding answers to what is "right and wrong".

 

There is truth in religion because there is truth in humans, and humans create religion to express that. This is undeniable. Humans also create and pursue knowledge through the disciplines of science. And there is likewise great value in that, because it is meaningful to humans. You are completely correct that it is unfortunate to dismiss what you currently don't see value in as "bullshit". The Christian who sees no value in science calls it bullshit. I know this because I was amongst them. But you know what saved me from them? My heart. My recognizing that the vast majority of humans are sincere. That these things are not bullshit, but have value. HOW they have value, is a matter of my willingness to move beyond my particular "groups" doctrines to see something larger; to see a picture that is vaster, more inclusive than exclusive, one that views it all as portraits of something internal to us that we see beyond us.

 

So the problem really is mythology. It's the mythologies we create as products of our culture, whether it's religious or rationalistic, that sees Truth as either here or there, as opposed to in everything and through everything.

 

 

BTW, everything I've read from this point following to the end of the next page from both you and kcdad, I agree with. I appreciate what you're offering here.

[florduh]

I am becoming terribly confused.

 

I see self proclaimed atheists proposing that there is inherent value and truth in Christianity IF WE INTERPRET IT CORRECTLY (the way you have interpreted it, of course).

 

Everyone who takes a stab at understanding the Bible must "cherry pick." The internal contradictions and conflicts of the book require it. One cannot believe that X equals Y while maintaining that X does NOT equal Y. So readers of the text will have to choose if Hell is a lake of fire, or just separation from God. One must choose if the gift of tongues is the sign of a spirit-filled believer, or if it is no longer a valid practice. And so on, and so on.

 

The Bible is an attempt at mythology, derivative or at least similar to earlier myths. Where is the problem with discarding the book and the religions it spawned? It may be interesting to those of a philosophical and historical bent as an insight into history and psychological makeup of Man. As a useful guide to Truth it is useless.

[chefranden]

But the entire work of Thomas Aquinas centers around religion. Does it therefore all have to go down the toilet? I don't think so. I think we can profitably read it and gain profound insights even if we reject the theistic belief system upon which it is based.

 

Well, name some profound Aquinas bits that would be an actual insight.

[chefranden]

When Martin Luther King said that racial segregation was wrong because it conflicted with God's law, do you think he was just stating his subjective opinion, that he was, basically, bullshitting?

 

When MLK said that racial segregation conflicted with God's law he was full of shit, because it does not conflict with God's law it obeys God's law.

 

That doesn't mean MLK wasn't right about segregation. He was just right for the wrong reason. Oh and I don't think that he knew he was full of shit. If I had had the chance to know him, I would have told him he was full of shit about God just like I do to my Christian friends, but I would have marched along with him anyway -- especially when he started working for economic justice to go along with racial justice. He was a great man, and he wouldn't have got much of a hearing without being a preacher. However, that doesn't mean that religion is great.

[shantonu]

But the entire work of Thomas Aquinas centers around religion. Does it therefore all have to go down the toilet? I don't think so. I think we can profitably read it and gain profound insights even if we reject the theistic belief system upon which it is based.

 

Well, name some profound Aquinas bits that would be an actual insight.

 

To be honest, I've never read a single word of Thomas Aquinas. I've attened a few lectures on the relationship between socialism and Christianty and Aquinas was mentioned as a forerunner of some aspects of Liberation Theology and the gospel of social justice.

 

My point is that one can (I presume) read Aquinas profitably even though the reader may not share Aquinas's theism.

 

At some point I guess I'll get around to reading an abrigment of Aquinas. No time soon though. I've got about 30 more books on the Reformation before I get to old Tom.

[shantonu]

When Martin Luther King said that racial segregation was wrong because it conflicted with God's law, do you think he was just stating his subjective opinion, that he was, basically, bullshitting?

 

When MLK said that racial segregation conflicted with God's law he was full of shit, because it does not conflict with God's law it obeys God's law.

 

That doesn't mean MLK wasn't right about segregation. He was just right for the wrong reason. Oh and I don't think that he knew he was full of shit. If I had had the chance to know him, I would have told him he was full of shit about God just like I do to my Christian friends, but I would have marched along with him anyway -- especially when he started working for economic justice to go along with racial justice. He was a great man, and he wouldn't have got much of a hearing without being a preacher. However, that doesn't mean that religion is great.

 

 

Fair enough. I'm an atheist after all. I don't myself believe that segregation is wrong because it conflicts with God's law. I think segregation is wrong because it violates the 14th Amendment and more importantly it is harmful to real people because it forecloses oportunties for people to flourish.

 

So I'm all for saying MLK was wrong about that in the technical sense. But in a deeper sense--the sense that we need to get to--he was right. He was saying that segregation violates the human spirit in some fundamental way. He didn't know how to put his finger on it and therefore used theologically laden terms to describe what he was talking about it.

 

We don't have to use those same exact terms, but we do need understand those terms. How can we meaningfully interpret those terms if we don't make any effort to meet them on their own terms. And we can't meet them on their own terms if we think they are just a bunch of bullshit.

 

Religion is not just a bunch of bullshit. No serious atheist thinks this. The most influential atheist of all time said that "religion is the general theory of this world. Religious suffering is the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions."

[florduh]

Religion is not just a bunch of bullshit. No serious atheist thinks this.

 

This one does.

 

All you are saying with this statement is that you don't take seriously those who disagree with your assessment of the great value of religion.