Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

I've Made Up My Mind To Come Out


blackpudd1n

Recommended Posts

I've read almost all the output of the so-called new atheists, and I have found almost nothing to offend me. If people are offended to find their delusions called delusions in these works, I see that as their problem. While this is not the sort of thing I would consider polite behavior in a social setting, I see it as perfectly acceptable for a book. Authors must have the freedom to express their opinions in their own ways, and nobody has to read it.

 

I see no basis for comparing Dennett, Dawkins, Harris, or Hitchens to fundamentalists.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
I see no basis for comparing Dennett, Dawkins, Harris, or Hitchens to fundamentalists.

Hear, hear.

 

"Fundamentalist" is a perfectly good word that doesn't automatically carry an insult with it. Christianity comes in thousands of shades, from fundamentalist snake handlers to Unitarians, but atheism actually is a fundamental thing - one either believes or he does not. There are no shades or denominations of atheism. If someone's belief system demands that I shall be going to Hell, it is not "fundamentalist" (in the derogatory sense) to call them on their delusion. It can be done gently or obnoxiously, but the style of delivering the information in no way affects the fundamental position of non-belief.

 

Some atheists may perceive the negative impact of religions and become anti-theist, which is a different animal in my estimation, and actively fight religious intrusions. I find that perfectly acceptable, considering the attacks on secularism mounted by the religious right. I wish them well, but the militant stance is not to everyone's taste, and often they shoot themselves in the foot because they forget that faith can't be reasoned with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is so much easier to confront people by removing their humanity, transforming them into aberrations, abominations or collections of neuroses and psychoses.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people are offended to find their delusions called delusions in these works, I see that as their problem.

Interesting way you chose to frame this. What about those who find those works offense where their beliefs aren't even addressed in them, and yet think the conclusions are sophomoric and offense? Is that their problem too, or are they delusional too because they don't think like Dawkins? If we don't like the term fundamentalist, how about presumptions and arrogant? Does that fit better?

 

 

but atheism actually is a fundamental thing - one either believes or he does not. There are no shades or denominations of atheism.

Nonsense. It is the tenor with which someone takes this position and goes off expounding their ignorance as truth and heads off on a mission to proclaim their gospel to the unenlightened that makes them fundamentalist. Jean Paul Sartre was an atheist, but he sure has hell had nothing to do with the likes of the neo-Atheists. You're wrong if you say there is not a wide spectrum of atheism out there. I identified as an atheist for years as a rational position, but never, once, did I find Dawkins representative of my approach. This is just playing with words to make it an oversimplified equation to wash it all away. Is/Is not. True/False.

 

Some atheists may perceive the negative impact of religions and become anti-theist, which is a different animal in my estimation, and actively fight religious intrusions.

Which means there are shades of atheism, just like there are shades of believers....

 

I find that perfectly acceptable, considering the attacks on secularism mounted by the religious right.

Really? You find it perfectly acceptable to go on a mission to wipe out the mainstream and the left too because of the antics of the religious right? Fantastic. How do you justify this rationally, or is rationality unimportant when it comes to wiping out all the camps where the enemy might be hiding?

 

I wish them well, but the militant stance is not to everyone's taste, and often they shoot themselves in the foot because they forget that faith can't be reasoned with.

So we support the militia from afar, bidding them godspeed on their crusade mission to destroy the heathens religious?

 

Really? You think like this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, bold move... I don't think I could have done that. I've decided to let the news spread without my involvement. I told the people I felt like I should tell and let them do what they wanted with the information. I'm also uncomfortable with the term "atheist," but I think it has many different shades. There is some stigma attached to the term, and claiming to be an atheist will usually require a bit of explanation. Still, I found myself having to do that as a Christian as well. Don't sweat the label too much, but I do recommend coming clean about who you are. It's not a fun secret to keep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people are offended to find their delusions called delusions in these works, I see that as their problem.

Interesting way you chose to frame this. What about those who find those works offense where their beliefs aren't even addressed in them, and yet think the conclusions are sophomoric and offense? Is that their problem too, or are they delusional too because they don't think like Dawkins? If we don't like the term fundamentalist, how about presumptions and arrogant? Does that fit better?

 

 

If it is not their problem, whose is it? Not Dawkins's, I would say; controversy won't hurt his sales (or, presumably, his feelings) any. Certainly not mine, because I don't care if you are offended by a new atheist or not. I might want to inquire why and even argue some points if I am in the mood for that kind of discussion, but ultimately you are entitled to your opinion, as am I.

 

I don't think you are necessarily delusional if you don't like Dawkins, and if you want to call him presumptuous and/or arrogant, I suppose that is your business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
Really? You find it perfectly acceptable to go on a mission to wipe out the mainstream and the left too because of the antics of the religious right? Fantastic. How do you justify this rationally, or is rationality unimportant when it comes to wiping out all the camps where the enemy might be hiding?

 

How did "actively fighting religious intrusion" become "wipe out the mainstream and the left too?"

 

Did you even read my post, or just assume a defensive position while imagining what I must be saying?

 

You seem to be a "fundamentalist" in your way as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? You find it perfectly acceptable to go on a mission to wipe out the mainstream and the left too because of the antics of the religious right? Fantastic. How do you justify this rationally, or is rationality unimportant when it comes to wiping out all the camps where the enemy might be hiding?

 

How did "actively fighting religious intrusion" become "wipe out the mainstream and the left too?"

Alright fine. I misread how you stated this. The entire quote read,

 

"Some atheists may perceive the negative impact of religions and become
anti-theist
, which is a different animal in my estimation, and actively fight religious intrusions. I find that perfectly acceptable..."

 

 

I took the first part of what you said and ran it straight through into the second part. I made an assumption of your views, although based on history, you should be able to see how you haven't come off too careful in what you judge and go chasing off after as 'woo-woo' in the past, lumping everything together. My mistake. I knee jerked based on an anticipated response in this instance.

 

You seem to be a "fundamentalist" in your way as well.

Don't be a moron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to be a "fundamentalist" in your way as well.

Don't be a moron.

Yeah jackass that's HIS pejorative not yours.

 

mwc

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a Yoda voice, "So literal, are you?" They were in essence the same thing as atheists. It's irrelevant whether they claimed God literally existed or not. They were saying to their culture, "YOUR God doesn't exist". Not to mention the fact that people of their culture claimed Christians were in fact atheists because they didn't accept the traditional gods. You're hung up on the literal beliefs. The role they played is the same, hence in essence, they were the atheists of the day. I say the difference though is they developed a program for their vision, rather than just saying what's wrong with the current system. I'm just looking at this as a social movement. You view it as a religious movement. The latter became the tack-on; the vehicle.

I'm hung up on the issue that xians were doing anything in the name of atheism. They didn't.

You still don't get it. In effect, in essence, the end result, etc. Of course it wasn't directly in the name of atheism. The comparison is in essence, iconoclasm. Smash the sacred idols of the establishment in favor of a new paradigm. Do you honestly believe historically Christianity was simply a religious reformation movement? I don't. If you do, then this comparison fails for you. You would see Jesus more like Martin Luther. But if you see him more as a Cynic Sage, then what I suggest is a valid comparison. The disagreement is in how we view early Christianity.

 

The rest of what you're saying appears to be mostly anachronistic projection.

 

mwc

No more than you assuming historically early Christianity looks like inherited myth about it that was created. That's anachronistic as well. The difference I see between the social movement model vs. the 'miracle boy from heaven teaching his 12 who taught the Bishops of Rome who present to you the Holy Bible in their name' model, is that the former can be seen in action across all cultures throughout history. It follows patterns of human and social behaviors and therefore seems reasonable and fits the data. The latter is believing in a miracle as a matter of faith and takes some squinting of the eyes just right for it to work.

 

If what I am saying is anachronistic than the entire study of history is.

 

 

 

You seem to be a "fundamentalist" in your way as well.

Don't be a moron.

Yeah jackass that's HIS pejorative not yours.

 

mwc

lmao_99.gif

 

Actually, I use fundamentalist to describe a set of behaviors, typical black and white, inflexible thinking that wishes to push itself on others without considering anything reasonable in a discussion response. If someone says they see me as that, then the term is being used by them as a meaningless pejorative. If someone sees my thinking as inflexible, I welcome seeing the support for that, otherwise, the statement is moronic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
Don't be a moron.

Being a moron is not a choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't be a moron.

Being a moron is not a choice.

:HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe that I will ever be able to call myself a bona fide atheist. To do so I feel would be disrespectful to the valuable lessons and world view that I have learned from paganism. Pagan thought did play a role in my deconversion, and opened my eyes to other points of view.

 

My experience is exactly the same as yours. When I deconverted, being able to sense the world around me in a mystical sense is what delivered the killing blow to my faith. I was able to see for myself that common christian teachings (holy spirit, god working miracles, etc.) were wrong and could be explained through other means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe that I will ever be able to call myself a bona fide atheist. To do so I feel would be disrespectful to the valuable lessons and world view that I have learned from paganism. Pagan thought did play a role in my deconversion, and opened my eyes to other points of view.

 

My experience is exactly the same as yours. When I deconverted, being able to sense the world around me in a mystical sense is what delivered the killing blow to my faith. I was able to see for myself that common christian teachings (holy spirit, god working miracles, etc.) were wrong and could be explained through other means.

 

isn't it ironic, that paganism, which has been reviled for so long by christianity, is actually a much nicer, less intrusive, more honest belief system? No wonder the christians don't like it LOL :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Either form of extremism whether fundy xian or material realist atheist is narrow mindedness, imho. I may not like xianity but that doesnt mean I have to abandon all notions of the supernatural. I like allowing myself optional ways of thinking. Deconverting from xianity was more than giving up the bible and biblegod, it is opening up to more than one narrow path of thought. So if I think elves and fairies are responsible for keeping the lawn mowed out front because I never see who actually mows it, then I'm good with that. The elves don't care if I believe in them or not nor do they want 10% of my income. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see no basis for comparing Dennett, Dawkins, Harris, or Hitchens to fundamentalists.

Hear, hear.

 

"Fundamentalist" is a perfectly good word that doesn't automatically carry an insult with it. Christianity comes in thousands of shades, from fundamentalist snake handlers to Unitarians, but atheism actually is a fundamental thing - one either believes or he does not. There are no shades or denominations of atheism. If someone's belief system demands that I shall be going to Hell, it is not "fundamentalist" (in the derogatory sense) to call them on their delusion. It can be done gently or obnoxiously, but the style of delivering the information in no way affects the fundamental position of non-belief.

 

Some atheists may perceive the negative impact of religions and become anti-theist, which is a different animal in my estimation, and actively fight religious intrusions. I find that perfectly acceptable, considering the attacks on secularism mounted by the religious right. I wish them well, but the militant stance is not to everyone's taste, and often they shoot themselves in the foot because they forget that faith can't be reasoned with.

 

 

Dawkins said he was an atheist but only rated himself a 6 out of 7 , 7 being total, for sure atheist (according to the God Delusion). So, he's only 85% sure yet calls himself an atheist and writes books about why god doesn't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe that I will ever be able to call myself a bona fide atheist. To do so I feel would be disrespectful to the valuable lessons and world view that I have learned from paganism. Pagan thought did play a role in my deconversion, and opened my eyes to other points of view.

 

My experience is exactly the same as yours. When I deconverted, being able to sense the world around me in a mystical sense is what delivered the killing blow to my faith. I was able to see for myself that common christian teachings (holy spirit, god working miracles, etc.) were wrong and could be explained through other means.

 

isn't it ironic, that paganism, which has been reviled for so long by christianity, is actually a much nicer, less intrusive, more honest belief system? No wonder the christians don't like it LOL tongue.png

 

Christians are trained to hate free thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Either form of extremism whether fundy xian or material realist atheist is narrow mindedness, imho.

 

If the material realist atheist is willing to consider evidence to the contrary, I don't see it as narrow-minded. For some people, like those who only believe what can be proved or what at least makes sense to them, such a position can be seen as a reasonable default position. Narrow-mindedness to me means rejecting compelling evidence out-of-hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MWC, I've split our separate discussion off from this thread to one in the General Theological area. The new topic is The Historical Jesus?

 

Link: http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/48890-the-historical-jesus/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.