I've Made Up My Mind To Come Out

[Antlerman]

What does this say? Apparently I don't have the Truth?

 

Maybe it says he did not consider you a promising prospect for his organization. Maybe he is looking for someone who is willing to self-identify as an atheist and commit himself to the goals of the organization.

Yes, I kind of gathered that myself as the context was a joint-meeting of atheist and religious dialog. Still though, I do know the guy and he does have a pretty single point of view on things and sort of rolls his eyes at anything he doesn't agree with. But still, I think you're right here. He was momentarily interested in me as maybe a potential voice for his cause, and I wasn't that.

[blackpudd1n]

For me the term I like, and perhaps you may like it as well, is integral aperspectival. That means that you do not hold to any one point of view as absolute truth or *reality*, but instead glean from multiple perspectives in an integral way into your life, expanding your understandings and appreciations for how we see and interact with the world, making them part of the richness of your own experiences. That, is deconverting from the cause of fundamentalism: black and white thinking.

 

I do like the sound of that term. I will look into it- perhaps it is a better description for where I currently stand. It is not one I have heard before, so I'm going to check it out Thanks for that

[blackpudd1n]

I have a problem with this idea, simply because it is not quite honest. It tip-toes around the issue.

Does it? It's a fine line, I suppose. I admit that part of the fundy mindset is to buy into the fiction that the Christian life is wonderful by making nice with friends and family members, having a sort of "don't ask, don't tell" policy in discussing doubts, fears, negative emotions, or anything that goes counter to the gospel according to happy-clappy songs like "Life is a victory, since the Man of Calvary, turned my discord into song, now I'm singing all day long ...".

 

Combine this with the fact that I am a pleaser type anyway, and I'll confess, it's hard for me -- or at least, unnatural and grating -- to offend other's sensibilities.

 

That said, aren't other people entitled to their illusions until they're ready to let go of them? And aren't you entitled to pick your battles? Is it your mission in life to save your sister or anyone else? Ultimately they can only save themselves. I guess what I'm saying is, to the extent I may be carrying fundie conflict aversion forward into my post-Christian existence, you may also be carrying a fundie Jesus complex forward into your post-Christian experience. Likely, the truth -- or at least the balance -- is somewhere in the middle. We grouse a lot here about fundies having the impertinence to think we need saving -- if so, do we have the right to think THEY need saving?

 

These questions are entirely rhetorical and do not presuppose what you ought to do. You're clearly an uncommonly intelligent and thoughtful and caring person and you know your sister far better than anyone else. I'm just playing devil's advocate a bit ;-)

 

--Bob

 

hehehe- jesus complex, I like that I had a little giggle at it I think I'm okay there. I won't deny that I would be ecstatic should my sister one day deconvert, but at the same time that is her journey to take, in her own time. You are correct, that it is something that I guess we must all be aware of; but my sister is her own person. I cannot request respect if I do not first give it, and actively trying to change someone to your way of thinking is not respectful. So I just tend to do what I do, I tell my sister where I am at, and I leave her to it. One of the stronger points of our relationship is our mutual acknowledgement that we have many different points of view, extremely different points of view, and we are open about it but we do not bother arguing about it. It is what it is, and we will ask questions about each other's point of view, and discuss why we don't agree, for what ever reason, and then we drop it. The only things neither of us ever bring up or discuss are incidents that occured between us as children. We leave that where it belongs- in the past. We were children then, and we are adults now- there is no point holding onto old grudges. The only time this unwritten rule was ever broken was when we were talking about my sister's upcoming graduation a few months ago, and I'd told her I wanted to come, she said she'd like that, because no family members had been at her high school graduation. And finally, after 11 years, I said to her, "actually, I was there". She was like, "no you weren't". And I said, "actually, I was". It had just started, and I was sitting in class, and I thought to myself, I don't want to ever have to say that I at least didn't see her graduate. So I got permission from my teacher to go (only siblings were allowed to leave class to attend the graduation ceremonies), and I sneaked in the back. I'm glad I did go- I know my sister was pleased when she found out

[blackpudd1n]

The deed is done. I guess we'll just have to see what happens next.

[kclark]

I'm so sick of this "woo-woo" name calling crap. It's so "religious", upper-case A Atheist, my beliefs are the True Beliefs™, flip-side of Christian fundamentalism.

I'm with you on the militant Atheism thing. It's always seemed less than credible to me. I have trouble with people like Dawkins who seem to take pleasure in ridiculing the beliefs of others, yet can't see how that's every bit as impertinent and disrespectful as the religiosity they decry. If you want to demonstrate that a thought-system is superior it seems like you would take the high road and show some contrast. Some otherwise smart people seem to actually think that the way to get religious people to quit being assholes is to act like an asshole. I've never gotten that.

 

I agree that the militant brand of atheism can be grating, especially in a one-on-one conversation or televised "debates" that are more like "Who can be the biggest douche" snarkfests. But on the other hand, shouldn't we call out religious beliefs/practices/theologies that have been proven and/or have the potential to be harmful (like faith-based, abstinence only sex ed, "pray the gay away" ministries, organizations that try to limit women's reproductive rights, etc.) and try to encourage skepticism/critical thought (albeit in a way that is not assholish)?

[DesertBob]

I agree that the militant brand of atheism can be grating, especially in a one-on-one conversation or televised "debates" that are more like "Who can be the biggest douche" snarkfests. But on the other hand, shouldn't we call out religious beliefs/practices/theologies that have been proven and/or have the potential to be harmful (like faith-based, abstinence only sex ed, "pray the gay away" ministries, organizations that try to limit women's reproductive rights, etc.) and try to encourage skepticism/critical thought (albeit in a way that is not assholish)?

I think we should speak out against harmful practices of any kind, religious or not. However, it's also true that people tend to have a lot of ego invested in harmful practices and are singularly unwilling to see themselves as douchebags, preferring to think of themselves as saints. I don't always choose those battles because I don't see ways to have good outcomes. It's not my job to save everyone from themselves.

 

As for encouraging critical thought and skepticism, I wouldn't frame it that way. I prefer to encourage awareness and openness and honesty. Somehow front loading the whole thing with skepticism and criticism suggests a prejudgment that is not conducive to being truly objective.

 

--Bob

[Antlerman]

The deed is done. I guess we'll just have to see what happens next.

[Vigile]

I think what I was speaking to is the context of making a declaration of change of belief; I was a Christian, now I am an Atheist. The problem is that in today's culture the word atheist is not the 'easy definition' that Ro-bear uses, or that I myself used to say exactly the same thing. Atheist when people hear that word is big "A", Atheist. It doesn't simply mean I don't believe in external gods, no matter what belief or religion, it is the militant face that proclaims a positive Atheist belief, that all religion, all beliefs in god(s) are bad and should be gotten rid of. That is in fact not just simply a lack of belief, or a disagreement with the belief, but a fully positive position. "No-God" is the 'true God' sort of deal.

 

I dropped the atheist term because, besides it being in fact limited to beliefs in external gods as the definition of God, but because in fact it is a charged word because of the militancy of the neo-Atheists which I frankly never was anything close to in my position. Atheism to me was a little "a" atheism, and that being in the context of not accepting the external, mythic-God views. That was valid in that context, but I see more than that now and the term was self-limiting - as I talked to Bob tonight with that whole limiting power of labeling yourself this or that.

 

As far you as believing that the atheist views that Ro-bear expressed (that lower case "a" atheist), being the mainstream around here, maybe it has become that and folks like you are now dominating. That would be nice. I'm so sick of this "woo-woo" name calling crap. It's so "religious", upper-case A Atheist, my beliefs are the True Beliefs™, flip-side of Christian fundamentalism.

 

I gotta tell you, it's stuff like this that reinforces my resolve not to move back to the US. I have none of these worries or misunderstandings where I live. People could really care less what I do or don't believe, whether it is related to politics or religion. I can be myself and not worry about setting someone off or offending them in any way.

 

I'm rebellious enough, however, to use the label atheist if I lived in the US just because it's taboo with some. I don't like others dictating to me how I should live or what I should or shouldn't believe through use of social pressures and misguided sensibilities. Fortunately, in the west where I grew up, this wasn't much of an issue. It seems to be more of an issue in the south and bible belt. Where I grew up, most people seemed to have the attitude that if you aren't hurting anyone, you keep your beliefs to yourself, then you can be a Romellian for all they care. There are a lot of xians where I grew up, but it seemed the majority were mostly secular and those who took religion too seriously were seen as a bit loopy. I happened to be one of the loopy ones.

[Ro-bear]

Maybe it's not as bad as you think it is, Vigile. I am an out-of-the-closet (not in-your-face) atheist in East Tennessee, and I rarely have a problem from it. I don't wear a Fuck Jesus t-shirt, but if someone asks me if I go to church or what I believe I say "I don't."

 

We had a few little squirts in daycare tell my daughters that they and their parents are going to hell. When my kids came home a bit upset and told me about it, I said "Your friends worship a god that would put sweet little girls in hell? Oh my!" From then on they pretty much saw it as the other kids' problem.

[Vigile]

I realize the atheism issue isn't that big of a deal in the US. Politics, OTH, is though. You can't imagine how freeing it is to not have to worry about offending people because you used or didn't use the right buzz words or because you did or didn't support a particular candidate/party. Polarization in the US offends my personal sensibilities.

[blackpudd1n]

I realize the atheism issue isn't that big of a deal in the US. Politics, OTH, is though. You can't imagine how freeing it is to not have to worry about offending people because you used or didn't use the right buzz words or because you did or didn't support a particular candidate/party. Polarization in the US offends my personal sensibilities.

 

You know, it's a bit hard for Aussies to understand the seemingly love or hate attitude many Americans seem to have towards their politicians. Loving a politician? That is such a foreign concept over here. We can't stand ANY of ours, just to varying degrees. When you have someone here that is a die-hard fan of some politician, we kind of have an attitude of, "there's something not right with them". We tell jokes about our politicians, we give them nicknames, we expect them to lie. And the whole Clinton impeachment- we're kind of like, so he got a blow job. Big whoop. Really, that's an issue for him and his wife, in our eyes. Kevin Rudd went to a strip club. It had nothing to do with him getting ousted. The media tried to make it into a big deal, but it didn't last long. It's kind of funny, and you still hear the odd joke about it. Making fun of pollies is an Aussie pastime, and being a fanatical supporter of a pollie is just more fuel for the fire. Pauline Hanson and her supporters gave us a lot of good laughs. So, yeah, we just don't get it lol

[blackpudd1n]

So, I sneaked a look, using my fiancee's facebook account, to see how it was going. So far, so good- I was surprised that one of the girls I used to go to church with liked the status, though I was beginning to suspect she had moved away from christianity herself. Another christian friend wrote "you know I'll always respect you, darl". He can be a bit hard-core about his faith at times, and will sometimes post religious stuff on facebook, but I never let it get to me- I'm pretty damn certain that he's got bipolar himself, though he refuses to acknowledge it, and I'm used to him going from an obnoxious arse, to spouting off-colour jokes, to being a die-hard "warrior for christ", as he says. I think his religious experiences confuse him more than anyone else- the most recent one ended up with him getting "In god we trust" tattooed on his forearms. He's a very complicated person, always trying to run from his demons, so I don't challenge his religious experiences. I'm probably just lucky I got him on a stable day lol

[mwc]

Why does this come up time after time?

 

Atheist = a (without) + theos (god/s)

Agnostic = a (without) + gnosis (knowledge)

 

These words answer two different questions.

 

Do you have a god? Yes or no? If you have a god then you are theistic. If not then you are atheistic.

 

Pretty simple. It is very binary.

 

Do you have a god? I am agnostic. I am without knowledge.

 

What are you answering here? You don't have knowledge of what? Whether or not you have a god(s)? Are you feeble-minded? Surely you must know your own thoughts. The problem is you are answer an entirely different question. Are there any god(s)? You are in the wrong to replace one question with your own and then answering that question. That's somewhat of a strawman. No one asked that.

 

And to answer "Are there any god(s)?" with "I am an atheist" is also incorrect. You have no god(s) but that doesn't answer whether or not there are any. At best you have given only a partial answer. Because you're agnostic? That may be acceptable. But what knowledge are you without? To have gnosis, or knowledge, here is generally special in nature and it's unlikely anyone can claim it (gnosis, in this case is generally of a "spiritual" nature and would manifest itself through the gifts mentioned by Paul such as tongues and the like). This gnosis would be special evidence used for god(s). I make no claim to it but as many ancient "prophets" have attested this "gift" often just presents itself whether you lay claim to it or not. I will again make reference to Paul.

 

So I am without god(s). I do not possess special knowledge of god(s). I am atheist. I am agnostic. This does not preclude me from these things (gods and/or knowledge thereof) if they do, in fact, exist. They are statements of fact and proper usage for these terms. These terms are not special. They are not unusual. They need to stop being treated as such.

 

mwc

[blackpudd1n]

Why does this come up time after time?

 

Atheist = a (without) + theos (god/s)

Agnostic = a (without) + gnosis (knowledge)

 

These words answer two different questions.

 

Do you have a god? Yes or no? If you have a god then you are theistic. If not then you are atheistic.

 

Pretty simple. It is very binary.

 

Do you have a god? I am agnostic. I am without knowledge.

 

What are you answering here? You don't have knowledge of what? Whether or not you have a god(s)? Are you feeble-minded? Surely you must know your own thoughts. The problem is you are answer an entirely different question. Are there any god(s)? You are in the wrong to replace one question with your own and then answering that question. That's somewhat of a strawman. No one asked that.

 

And to answer "Are there any god(s)?" with "I am an atheist" is also incorrect. You have no god(s) but that doesn't answer whether or not there are any. At best you have given only a partial answer. Because you're agnostic? That may be acceptable. But what knowledge are you without? To have gnosis, or knowledge, here is generally special in nature and it's unlikely anyone can claim it (gnosis, in this case is generally of a "spiritual" nature and would manifest itself through the gifts mentioned by Paul such as tongues and the like). This gnosis would be special evidence used for god(s). I make no claim to it but as many ancient "prophets" have attested this "gift" often just presents itself whether you lay claim to it or not. I will again make reference to Paul.

 

So I am without god(s). I do not possess special knowledge of god(s). I am atheist. I am agnostic. This does not preclude me from these things (gods and/or knowledge thereof) if they do, in fact, exist. They are statements of fact and proper usage for these terms. These terms are not special. They are not unusual. They need to stop being treated as such.

 

mwc

 

Uh...

 

Basically, I don't bother with the term agnostic, because I feel it is a premise of humanity- we can't possibly know everything. It is impossible. So we are all then agnostic in some way, but some of us are willing to admit it and others aren't. That is just my understanding of the term. So, for me, if I say I am an atheist, I am also acknowledging that I am agnostic, due to my human inability to be all-knowing. By adding that I have a soft spot for paganism, I am merely acknowledging that of all the belief systems out there, this is the one that influences my approach to atheism. I am without a spiritual god, but I value the pagan worldview and approach without committing myself to taking on another god or belief system. And pagans are pretty cool with that, because as part of their belief system, you don't have to agree with all of it.

[mwc]

It's difficult to comment since I fear I would only be repeating myself.

 

The issue apparently lies on how "gnosis" is used. So I'll just steal from Wikipedia which will hopefully better make my point:

Etymology

 

Gnosis is a feminine Greek noun, which means "knowledge."^[1]

[edit] Related adjective gnostikos

 

A related term is the adjective gnostikos, "cognitive,"^[2] a reasonably common adjective in Classical Greek.^[3] Plato, uses the plural adjective γνωστικοί – gnostikoi and the singular feminine adjective γνωστικὴ ἐπιστήμη – gnostike episteme in his Politikos where Gnostike episteme was also used to indicate one's aptitude.^{[citation needed]} The terms do not appear to indicate any mystic, esoteric or hidden meaning in the works of Plato, but instead expressed a sort of higher intelligence and ability analogous to talent.^[4]

Plato The Statesman 258e

— Stranger: In this way, then, divide all science into two arts, calling the one practical (

praktikos

), and the other purely intellectual (

gnostikos

). Younger Socrates: Let us assume that all science is one and that these are its two forms.

^[5]

However, by the Helenistic era, the term became especially associated with the mystery-cults.

Gnosis is used throughout Greek philosophy as a technical term for experience knowledge (see gnosiology) in contrast to theoretical knowledge or epistemology.^{[citation needed]} The term is also related to the study of knowledge retention or memory (see also cognition). In relation to ontic or ontological, which is how something actually is rather than how something is captured (abstraction) and stored (memory) in the mind.^{[citation needed]}

Gnosis is a special type of "spiritual" knowledge. Gnostikos is reasoned knowledge.

 

We've (not strictly you and me) somehow conflated these two into one which clouds many issues.

 

mwc

[blackpudd1n]

It's difficult to comment since I fear I would only be repeating myself.

 

The issue apparently lies on how "gnosis" is used. So I'll just steal from Wikipedia which will hopefully better make my point:

Etymology

 

Gnosis is a feminine Greek noun, which means "knowledge."^[1]

[edit] Related adjective gnostikos

 

A related term is the adjective gnostikos, "cognitive,"^[2] a reasonably common adjective in Classical Greek.^[3] Plato, uses the plural adjective γνωστικοί – gnostikoi and the singular feminine adjective γνωστικὴ ἐπιστήμη – gnostike episteme in his Politikos where Gnostike episteme was also used to indicate one's aptitude.^{[citation needed]} The terms do not appear to indicate any mystic, esoteric or hidden meaning in the works of Plato, but instead expressed a sort of higher intelligence and ability analogous to talent.^[4]

Plato The Statesman 258e

— Stranger: In this way, then, divide all science into two arts, calling the one practical (

praktikos

), and the other purely intellectual (

gnostikos

). Younger Socrates: Let us assume that all science is one and that these are its two forms.

^[5]

 

However, by the Helenistic era, the term became especially associated with the mystery-cults.

Gnosis is used throughout Greek philosophy as a technical term for experience knowledge (see gnosiology) in contrast to theoretical knowledge or epistemology.^{[citation needed]} The term is also related to the study of knowledge retention or memory (see also cognition). In relation to ontic or ontological, which is how something actually is rather than how something is captured (abstraction) and stored (memory) in the mind.^{[citation needed]}

Gnosis is a special type of "spiritual" knowledge. Gnostikos is reasoned knowledge.

 

We've (not strictly you and me) somehow conflated these two into one which clouds many issues.

 

mwc

 

I think I'll just stay away from the word agnostic altogether. There's not really much point in using a word that many people seem to be confused on the meaning of (in terms of society in general). However, the general population has an idea of what it means to be an atheist that can be expanded upon. When it comes to the use of words, I think it's important to meet people where they are at, otherwise they won't understand any of what you are talking about. Getting wrapped up in precise meanings only inhibits effective communication, from my point of view.

 

Besides which, agnostic is one of those words that has always done my head in lol

[florduh]

I think the term "agnostic" is misinterpreted even more than "atheist." Many theists seem to think it means you are on the fence, undecided about (their particular) god. To tell them I am an atheist clearly informs them I do not share their belief.

 

To speculate on some other "reality" that is not our reality is a waste of time. There is no way to know one way or the other if spirits, fairies, gods, gnomes, demons, angels, etc. actually exist in some undetectable invisible realm. All evidence points to the nonexistence of such a realm. Realizing this, it is therefore reasonable to not believe in any gods and consequently adopt an atheistic view. I don't have to prove to myself there are no gods to be assured the concept is irrelevant to real life in the natural world. All of life's questions may not be answered yet, but that is no reason to assume a supernatural solution until we get the real answer. History shows that the more answers we find, the more gods get eliminated - take that to its logical conclusion.

[ConureDelSol]

You know there a lot of people out there who are against being labeled as anything. However, if a Christian comes up to you and asks what your faith is and you give an answer like, "Well, I don't really believe in this, but I do believe in this," they are going to see you as some sort of "seeker" or something. They think you're some sort of lost soul and that they can save you.

 

On the other hand if you say "I'm an Atheist/Deist, so leave me the fuck alone," It makes it a bit more clear that you have made up your mind. They'll still probably preach at you, but hey, at least they have a inkling of what you are. I hate it when someone mistakes me for some sort of "poor soul that's seeking God and not even realizing it."

 

I feel that agnosticism tends to make the impression that you're the "lost soul."

[flockoff]

To those who have said here that New Atheism is just the flip side of fundy xianity ... I can respect the idea that it can be at times dogmatic and counterproductive in ways that mimic fundyism, but isn't it dogmatic in itself to say that it's "just as bad?" To me it looks like setting up a false dichotomy where it's either just as bad or not bad at all.

 

Did Dawkins ever tell an unaffiliated group of people they were responsible for a major terrorist attack, or suggest that victims of a natural disaster deserved what they got for living counter to his beliefs? I suppose there's no reasoning for him to say that if he wanted to, but shouldn't there have been some equivalent if what you're saying is true?

 

Shouldn't parents who are overtly atheist have guilt for something equal to telling their kids they're responsible for the murder/suicide of god's son and they're going to be burned and tortured for all eternity?

 

Are atheists going into churches asking to distribute copies of God Is Not Great to kids in Sunday school to "preach the controversy?"

 

I'm open to be proven wrong about this, but I'm just not seeing it.

 

Similar in some rhetoric, okay maybe. I think people naturally latch on to the spicier things Dawkins says, and he probably relishes that, but he's also shown incredible candor. I'm sure we've all seen the Wendy Wright interview.

[Antlerman]

To those who have said here that New Atheism is just the flip side of fundy xianity ... I can respect the idea that it can be at times dogmatic and counterproductive in ways that mimic fundyism, but isn't it dogmatic in itself to say that it's "just as bad?"

Fundamentalism is fundamentalism. It doesn't matter what belief it is about. Fundamentalism is a mentality.

 

Is it dogmatic to call all forms of fundamentalism 'bad'? No. No more than saying a piece of rancid meat smells bad and makes you sick if you eat it is 'dogma'.

 

To me it looks like setting up a false dichotomy where it's either just as bad or not bad at all.

Are you saying because you have some agreement with some of the things the militant atheists say they are 'not as bad'? What if you believed in some of the things the religious fundamentalists believed too, even though you yourself would never be so fanatical about it? Are they then not as bad as the atheist ones? This reasoning goes both ways.

 

Did Dawkins ever tell an unaffiliated group of people they were responsible for a major terrorist attack, or suggest that victims of a natural disaster deserved what they got for living counter to his beliefs?

Many of his followers do. They takes his opinions as socially and culturally informed (which they are not), and use them to blame all religion for the worlds ills. When someone like Dawkins calls belief in God a mental delusion, where do you think this will go? Anti-religion? I prefer a reasoned approach to problems, rather that oversimplifying and scapegoating. That is an earmark of fundamentalist reasoning. Dawkins is a champion of the disenchanted masses with religion. A Populist figure, by another term, like Oprah's path to spirituality for the consumerist culture.

 

Shouldn't parents who are overtly atheist have guilt for something equal to telling their kids they're responsible for the murder/suicide of god's son and they're going to be burned and tortured for all eternity?

Sam Harris early on whipped up a bunch of fanatic atheists who took his writings and blamed mainstream religion for creating fundamentalism, making them responsible for this mess. I believe since then he has grown up a bit and dropped than line of bad reasoning. Of course, the seeds are planted in the masses and persists as a truth to them.

 

Are atheists going into churches asking to distribute copies of God Is Not Great to kids in Sunday school to "preach the controversy?"

Some would if given the right leadership. You imagine that it is all some deep philosophical movement?? There is a wide a spectrum of 'believers' there as there is in Christianity, all the way from the deeply insightful, to the fanatic evangelist. No difference. It is simply a matter of group dynamics, and has nothing to do with the belief. Fundamentalism is fundamentalism.

 

I'm open to be proven wrong about this, but I'm just not seeing it.

You're looking at organized movements as the guage of the degree of fundamentalism. That is not the cause. The mentality is. Given the right political environment, fundamentalism is still fundamentalism. How ugly it gets is simply a matter of opportunity.

 

Similar in some rhetoric, okay maybe. I think people naturally latch on to the spicier things Dawkins says, and he probably relishes that, but he's also shown incredible candor. I'm sure we've all seen the Wendy Wright interview.

Oh course, as I said, he is a populist figure, not a thinker. Thinkers are never hot fodder for the masses! Again, it is the mentality that given the right opportunity will be exactly what you see in those we blame 'religion' for their behaviors. I blame rigid, this is true, this is false, black and white mentalities looking for Answers with a capital A to give them the illusion of security.

[flockoff]

AM,

 

By addressing some people as saying it's "just as bad," I meant just as dogmatic or just as fanatical. I'm not saying that it's ok to scream and shout one point of view and not the other. I agree that fundamentalism is bad in all its forms. My point was that opposite doesn't necessarily mean polar opposite. Just as in politics saying there's only far right/far left/smack dab in the middle isn't an accurate representation.

 

Shouldn't parents who are overtly atheist have guilt for something equal to telling their kids they're responsible for the murder/suicide of god's son and they're going to be burned and tortured for all eternity?

Sam Harris early on whipped up a bunch of fanatic atheists who took his writings and blamed mainstream religion for creating fundamentalism, making them responsible for this mess. I believe since then he has grown up a bit and dropped than line of bad reasoning. Of course, the seeds are planted in the masses and persists as a truth to them.

But do you have a direct answer for this question? Or are you saying that calling people out on childhood indocrination is somehow just as harmful as the indoctrination itself?

 

"You're looking at organized movements as the guage of the degree of fundamentalism."

No, I'm responding to a specific point made about organized movements.

 

You say it's a matter of opportunity and militant atheists would be doing the same things the fundys are doing if given enough, I guess, power. I don't contest that ... Dawkins has attacked Harry Potter for encouraging kids to live in a fantasy world, so I could imagine atheist book burnings if certain conditions were reversed. (edit -- ehh, probably not something that obvious, but something similar if someone said it was too closely akin to religion)

 

But of course, the conditions aren't reversed and we don't live in that world. We live in a world where atheists are a misunderstood minority and the influence of religious fundamentalism in the US is still problematic. And you said yourself that thinkers are not fodder for the masses, populists are. So while cool headed, reasoned debate might be more peaceable, how far do you expect it to go? It's going to stay in the walls of universities and in books people generally don't read. Where would other cultural movements in the last century be without a few firebrands?

 

And to be honest, I'm not entirely convinced that fundamentalism in an America where the majority didn't believe in god would be so pervasive. There's nothing to be done in the name of atheism. There isn't the name of an all powerful judge to thump around when someone gets out of line. The fundamentalism comes out of a collectivist drive for social change. Unless you want to make points about Stalinist Russia, which really came out of authoritarianism and not a public zeal for disbelieving in god.

[Antlerman]

AM,

 

By addressing some people as saying it's "just as bad," I meant just as dogmatic or just as fanatical. I'm not saying that it's ok to scream and shout one point of view and not the other. I agree that fundamentalism is bad in all its forms. My point was that opposite doesn't necessarily mean polar opposite. Just as in politics saying there's only far right/far left/smack dab in the middle isn't an accurate representation.

Of course yes. There is a whole spectrum between extremes. Richard Dawkins is nothing like Fred Felps, for instance! I put Dawkins somewhere in the camp of a Rush Limbaugh, when it comes to his actual knowledge and thoughts about religion beyond just shooting holes in fundi arguments and calling that religion. That's like shooting wooden ducks in a shooting gallery. Don't get me wrong, it's an important thing to do and kudos to him for doing so, but it would behoove him to recognize the world beyond that artificial reality. Outside that, in the area of biology, he's great, unlike Limbaugh who is really only great at being a bombastic clown.

 

Shouldn't parents who are overtly atheist have guilt for something equal to telling their kids they're responsible for the murder/suicide of god's son and they're going to be burned and tortured for all eternity?

Sam Harris early on whipped up a bunch of fanatic atheists who took his writings and blamed mainstream religion for creating fundamentalism, making them responsible for this mess. I believe since then he has grown up a bit and dropped than line of bad reasoning. Of course, the seeds are planted in the masses and persists as a truth to them.

But do you have a direct answer for this question? Or are you saying that calling people out on childhood indocrination is somehow just as harmful as the indoctrination itself?

I guess I didn't quite get the question. Do parents who impart a primitive belief system to their children experience guilt over it? I'm not really getting the question. If that is the parents beliefs, then they believe they are doing good and won't feel any guilt until such a time as they changed they views and took on a different perspective.

 

Is "calling people out" on these teachings just as bad as the teaching itself? From a certain point of view, you not teaching children they are going to hell is a heinous act itself towards the child. To someone whose culture that is, you are immoral one. Belief structures are highly relative to the place where those people are at. I used to believe it was my responsibility to warn people of the risk of hell. Yes, that is what I was taught, but it was all part and parcel with being part of a group. And group identification, social cohesiveness, cultural immersion, is in fact part of what every human goes through in their path to maturity. These myths of their god and demons and whatnot, are in fact the very symbols of that structure. So when we go storming into that culture and attack their myths, we are threatening a whole lot more than just a belief or two here and there. As that outsider, we are the very embodiment of evil to them.

 

From our perspective today, it is 'wrong' to teach about hell. We don't believe in hell. We can cite a long litany of reasons why the myth is invalid. In fact, it is invalid - in our present structure. In their structure, it is valid. The argument then is our structure superior, is it 'better'? Obviously to us it is. But beyond the subjective reasons for loving the world as we experience it, I believe there are also objective reasons why it is 'better'. It allows for greater compassion, human rights, tolerance and respect, etc. These are more positive things than exclusion, particularly in an environment which demands these things function lest we tear ourselves to pieces.

 

You say it's a matter of opportunity and militant atheists would be doing the same things the fundys are doing if given enough, I guess, power. I don't contest that ... Dawkins has attacked Harry Potter for encouraging kids to live in a fantasy world, so I could imagine atheist book burnings if certain conditions were reversed. (edit -- ehh, probably not something that obvious, but something similar if someone said it was too closely akin to religion)

 

But of course, the conditions aren't reversed and we don't live in that world. We live in a world where atheists are a misunderstood minority and the influence of religious fundamentalism in the US is still problematic.

You'll have to forgive me but as I read the last two sentences I was thinking, 'this is what the early Christians would have said in the first Century.' In fact, I've often thought of modern atheism as a lot like what early Christianity would have really been (not the myth about it in the Bible). I believe it was a counter-culture movement, sort of like the hippies. They were the atheists of the day, denying the traditional gods, gathering the young upstarts bucking the traditions of their fathers, and so on. They were the misunderstood minority, persecuted, etc. In many regards, that's a positive. But as we know from what it blatantly obvious.... it too became a religion.

 

And you said yourself that thinkers are not fodder for the masses, populists are. So while cool headed, reasoned debate might be more peaceable, how far do you expect it to go? It's going to stay in the walls of universities and in books people generally don't read. Where would other cultural movements in the last century be without a few firebrands?

Firebrands start the discussion - like the one we're having now. But it's those like you and me who find the workable solutions, as opposed to 'burn the heretics!'.

 

And to be honest, I'm not entirely convinced that fundamentalism in an America where the majority didn't believe in god would be so pervasive.

Imagine a hypothetical society where the majority didn't believe in God and some radical niche of uber atheists wanted political sway to hang on to the mainstream atheists from being influenced by a radical group of upstarts who in fact believe in a God! They didn't care for the lukewarmness of the mainstream atheists who were letting these religionists influence them into thinking there was a God, and thereby threatening their ideal society, free of all religion. And so, a political party, lets call them hypothetically, Republicans, saw that the radical non-believers could be used to manipulate the mainstream non-believers and they pandered to them to help implement a policies that would ensure religion was kept out of society...

 

I could go on, but the point is it the dynamics of the system, not the content of the beliefs. Fundamentalism would still be doing it's fundamentalist thing. It wouldn't be different, unless the entire paradigm itself shifted. Something I would propose.

 

There's nothing to be done in the name of atheism.

Yet. Imagine the first groups of Christians saying the same thing, those radical atheist hippies.

[flockoff]

Just to be clear, while I'm studying biology and owe part of my inspiration to Dawkins, he's mostly a guilty pleasure when it comes to religion. Totally agree with the ducks analogy. Limbaugh was a little harsh, though.

 

When I said "guilt" in the indoctrination question I should've said "fault." Most of them do see what they're doing as the best interest of the child, but I can't think of what an atheist might tell their kids that is as bad. You had to look at it from their perspective to get the counterexample of us telling them they're just going to die when there really *is* a hell and we're terrible people for not warning them ... but even then, I disagree. I have enough certainty that if it turned out YHWH does exist, he's an absolute monster, that he's probably lied to us about the devil being the bad guy, and that serving him whilst realizing these things just makes you a giant pussy and a traitor to the human race, that I wouldn't be instilling this in my kids, even if I still thought there was a hell.

 

The objective vs. subjective part of your reply is probably just going to eventually lead us to the point where we can't hang a value judgment on anything. Of course what we're saying is subjective, ultimately. It's the actual end result according to what we believe that I'm getting at.

 

In your hypothetical society, I'm sure there would be a conservative agenda against the upstart religionists. And if this world took place in our future, with religion being a relic of the bloody past, I can certainly see the status quo being alarmed over it. But again ... with the absence of a supposed central lawmaker threatening to send famines and pestilences, with the absence of a moral code associated with atheism (as is now) ... I'm not sure. Without atheism giving people an excuse to hate a whole bunch of people and not just the ones who reject it .... I'm not sure. I doubt the 'areligious right' would have just as big a bat to swing in getting people defensive and hysterical and thinking they're a persecuted minority when in fact they aren't.

 

Are you sure the content of the beliefs doesn't inform the enormity of the outcome and it's all about dynamics? That it wouldn't have been any better if instead of being executed, the bible had just been interpreted as saying witches had to be force-fed ice cream?

 

What if instead of anything to do with religion, people were fanatical about saying, "butter your toast every time, or you're out of the family?"

 

That would still be messed up, but would you not rather have that world than the one where we're forcing teenage rape victims to carry on their pregnancies because that's what Jesus would want?

[blackpudd1n]

I think the only thing we need to really be aware of, no matter what label we give ourselves, is how our former expression of belief may impact on our current expression of non-belief. From my understanding, that is the point that Antlerman is also trying to get across. And it is something that I am aware of in myself, my own propensity to lean towards extremism no matter what belief system or non-belief thought process I now subscribe to. I feel that a careful attempt to be moderate at all times is really the only way to deal with myself, as a former extremist. Other people may not have my problem, and may be able to be level-headed in whatever new belief or thought process they have; right now, I don't have that ability, unfortunately.

[Antlerman]

When I said "guilt" in the indoctrination question I should've said "fault." Most of them do see what they're doing as the best interest of the child, but I can't think of what an atheist might tell their kids that is as bad. You had to look at it from their perspective to get the counterexample of us telling them they're just going to die when there really *is* a hell and we're terrible people for not warning them ... but even then, I disagree. I have enough certainty that if it turned out YHWH does exist, he's an absolute monster, that he's probably lied to us about the devil being the bad guy, and that serving him whilst realizing these things just makes you a giant pussy and a traitor to the human race, that I wouldn't be instilling this in my kids, even if I still thought there was a hell.

Again though, you are speaking from your understanding of reality what you see as truth. In some future generation, the ideas we instill in our offspring coming from our perspective may be seen as equally damaging to children, for instance the unhealthy ideas our culture has about human sexuality and all the neurosis we create in ourselves and our children with such views. Doctrines of hell are coming out of a myth-based reality. An error is to assume somehow our current view of truth and reality is somehow the actual *real* one. Tomorrow, today will be comparatively naive and harmful as we now view the mythic worldviews of the past, using those structures as vehicles of communication to instill cultural sensibilities in each other.

 

"Hell" is really about one thing: group-conformity. It is a form of ostracizing, which if you were part of a culture of the past would be like being condemned to death. In today's world, that notion is not felt like a time where the entire community rejected you, and no neighboring village would take you in either. You were condemned to homelessness. Hell is saying, "obey the rules of the village". Those who use it, are thinking in these sorts of a tighter group-membership identification.

 

The objective vs. subjective part of your reply is probably just going to eventually lead us to the point where we can't hang a value judgment on anything. Of course what we're saying is subjective, ultimately. It's the actual end result according to what we believe that I'm getting at.

I was careful to add in my previous post a qualification to show I am not speaking in strict terms of some extreme forms of postmodernism. I added that there are objective reasons for saying some things are 'better' than others. I stated,

 

"But beyond the subjective reasons for loving the world as we experience it, I believe there are also objective reasons why it is 'better'. It allows for greater compassion, human rights, tolerance and respect, etc. These are more positive things than exclusion, particularly in an environment which demands these things function lest we tear ourselves to pieces."

 

 

 

The point I am making is that there will be better than today tomorrow. People are always at a particular stage of growth. I believe a rationality-based worldview is superior to a mythic-based worldview, however I don't assume we've arrived and now have the Truth™. The mythic-mode of thought believed they had arrived at Reality too. It's what we do. I fully believe how we see the world now is not Reality™ either. We always assume we understand reality, and find all manner of supports to tell ourselves this, to self-validate the systems of thought we use.

 

In your hypothetical society, I'm sure there would be a conservative agenda against the upstart religionists. And if this world took place in our future, with religion being a relic of the bloody past, I can certainly see the status quo being alarmed over it. But again ... with the absence of a supposed central lawmaker threatening to send famines and pestilences, with the absence of a moral code associated with atheism (as is now) ... I'm not sure.

You brought this point up before I didn't address. Is the difference between the two the use of some authority to bang you over the head with to force compliance? "God will damn you if you don't believe!!!", sort of threat? So let's say this society is still functioning on the mythic-membership level. Bear with me on this one...

 

Atheism, as a mode of self-identification, can in fact function identically to those who wear a cross on the shirts and say to one another, "Hello fellow-Christian!". "Hello fellow-Atheist!" These are fictions of family we create through group-membership. It is a fiction we create to allow us to see others as connected to us through invisible ties. Religion is one of those identifiers people use. "We share the same beliefs. We are brothers and sisters". Atheism in fact can act in that same way. "We have a common belief that says the world is better without God(s). We share the same beliefs. We are common to each other. We are brothers. Atheists unite for a better tomorrow." It's the same thing.

 

So that said, back to ostracizing. When you have any group that is held together underneath of banner of common belief, that now becomes the power to enforce conformity. "You're no true unbeliever! I saw that little altar in the corner of your house! Come let me bring reason to you so you will see the truth and be one of us again." The "Bible", the new Scriptures, in that new group-identity is then Science, with a capital S. You will be shown how ridiculous you are because Science shows your beliefs are a "Delusion". "The Right Reverend Dawkins has proved this beyond a doubt. You don't want to be delusional, do you?" Believe me, if the pressure for acceptance of a larger support community were so dominant there was nowhere else to go, non-conformity brings its own fear-based motivations. "Ha ha, he still believes in gods!! What an idiot!", the children taunt...

 

My point is, what we need is a higher mind altogether, not just a change of belief. We need to replace group-identity, with a global-identity that of necessity must recognize with compassion all identities, all modes of thinking. We raise the bar for ourselves as well as everyone everywhere.

 

Are you sure the content of the beliefs doesn't inform the enormity of the outcome and it's all about dynamics? That it wouldn't have been any better if instead of being executed, the bible had just been interpreted as saying witches had to be force-fed ice cream?

I'll throw this out there. Those who do posses a higher mind, don't read it as though he possessed an unenlightened mind through fear and superstition. Same book, different hands. What makes the difference? The book? Now many will argue that the book is dangerous in unenlightened hands, and frankly, that was in fact one of the deep concerns of the Church ages ago in having the 'common' person read it. They lacked a broader education through which to filter one's understanding of it. The craziness of all these little 30,000 various Protestant religions, all claiming they read the Bible says this or that and starting their own cult off of that in some ego-power play, is really a conformation of that. This whole literalism business is a Post-Reformation phenomena of Protestant religions. So in a sense, is the Bible to blame, or the fact that idiots are all thinking it says what they believe and are climbing like monkeys to uses it to be the latest guru?

 

I'm imagining, how someone, lets say a non-scientist, let's call them a "lay person", takes some scientific papers and reads them through their ill-educated minds, believing they know what the hell all this means. Then they go forth using this paper to prove how what they believe is supported right here in the Science™ paper. "You're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with Science!". *sigh*. I say this because in my experience I hear again, and again, the expression of a naive-empiricism which those in the sciences themselves have long since recognized as something to acknowledge and avoid, being repeated as proving Science shows us *real* reality. It is used time and again to deny and reject any point of view that doesn't agree with how this lay person reads the Book of Science as his authority. Same behavior. Same mindset. Different Bible. Same error.

 

That would still be messed up, but would you not rather have that world than the one where we're forcing teenage rape victims to carry on their pregnancies because that's what Jesus would want?

This is true, hopefully we can move beyond mythic-membership altogether so any abuse of authority will go away.