The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: Nick_Miller on December 21, 2018, 09:48:40 AM
-
Maybe more of a rant, but I am very interested in how other atheists constantly hold their tongues...
I admit that one of the reasons I like this place so much is that I get a vibe that some other folks here aren't all that religious. Why does it matter you ask? Well, it's not that I can't have awesome relationships with some religious folks (I can, as long as they are the "live and let live" types that don't try to inject their religion into gov't), but honestly even with these "nice" religious folks, I still have to hold my tongue.
Things I can't say to my religious friends...
1) You realize that mythologies used to be religions, right? People used to worship Thor. Now he's an Avenger.
2) You realize there have been like thousands of religions? Doesn't that tell you something?
3) Do you think you'd become a heathen ax murderer if you deconverted today? If not, doesn't that tell you something?
4) When you say that you "talk with God," or that "God talked to me," WTF do you mean? Did you hear an actual voice, or did you think to yourself?
5) If God is all-knowing, meaning he knows every decision we will ever make before we make it, how do we still have free will? We would just be programmed puppets. For example, let's say God talks to me on Saturday. I ask, "God, what tie will I wear tomorrow?" God says, "You will wear a yellow tie." Flash forward to Sunday. I look in my closet and choose a tie out of the dozens I have in all sorts of colors. Can I pick a non-yellow tie? Why or why not?"
6) Have you read the whole Bible? Do you realize there are hundreds of editions and that the text is actually different and that different churches "interpret" the word differently? How can a perfect road map be so vague and nebulous, with so many internal inconsistencies? Doesn't it worry you that you are basing your worldview on this? How did you choose your particular denomination and interpretation?
7) Deep down, do you mostly go to church because "other good people do," and you like the socialization it provides?
8) Do you really think me and my wife, and my little kids are going to burn...forrrrr eternity...in Hell? Seriously? (note: if answer is "yes," friendship is obviously severed..this has actually happened).
9) Do you think there might be a sliiiight chance that religions have been used to keep people in place, explain things that couldn't be understood at the time, placate people from their sometimes miserable lots in life (slaves, second class citizens including women for most of history) by promising a "perfect afterlife," and to consolidate power?
10) Name ONE moral virtue taught in the Bible that is exclusive to the Bible. Surely this perfect map has some unique wisdom found nowhere else.
I could go on and on, but I've rambled too much. Do other atheists have similar feelings? Do you use any particular techniques to either bite your tongue, or to gently introduce any of these questions? Are some of you folks in the "I just don't think about religion at all" camp?
I wish I could get there, I really do, but with people constantly injecting religion (almost always Christianity) into school board decisions, and in legislatures, and pretty much trying to make rules based on their specific religious beliefs, I'm not sure how any atheist in America who values reason and science can mentally (or financially) bow out of this conflict.
-
I'm agnostic in Canada, and yes, I do feel out of step with the mainstream.
And sometimes go past what you wrote into straight-up scared - like, what do you mean we are in the latter days and the world is about to end, and you are happy to see things going so badly because it means the end is near? And are maybe doing your bit to help things along?
And I hate seeing what mainstream Christianity does to non-Christians here in Canada (not to mention sectarian issues elsewhere), and what main-stream other religions do to religious minorities in their countries.
When I was younger and more religious I used to thank God that my ancestors got the hell out of Ireland before the Troubles.
-
I view atheism as a religious concept the same way I view "off" as a TV channel. The first rule of religion is that you don't talk about religion.
It's never been a problem for me. Just a couple awkward conversations with my grandma with some smiling, nodding, and changing of the subject. And one wacko former coworker with all kinds of other personal social issues.
-
I don't mingle a ton with overly religous people.
Two things bother me:
Thanking god for acheivements (specifically professional sports) "Thank you god for making me so great!"
Peoples kids.
Ie posts on facebook
"Just had a wonderful conversation with little Billy about evolution and how dinosaurs aren't in the bible. He now understands where we came from, such a smart boy!"
-
I simply don't listen to people who try to prosthelytize to me, and therefore give the courtesy of not doing so to them. Your list of questions is proselytizing.
I don't believe in god, and have no spirituality, was raised outside religion and spirituality entirely, so come by it honestly. I am not an "atheist", I feel no need to give myself a label as something that I am not. My parents did not use that term at all either. I see it like needing a special word to describe myself as not being anything. I am not a golfer - I don't need a word for that either.
Do you know why you self describe as an atheist? Why you need that label? Your list of questions make it seem like you adopted the label for political reasons.
-
I don't mingle a ton with overly religous people.
Two things bother me:
Thanking god for acheivements (specifically professional sports) "Thank you god for making me so great!"
Peoples kids.
Ie posts on facebook
"Just had a wonderful conversation with little Billy about evolution and how dinosaurs aren't in the bible. He now understands where we came from, such a smart boy!"
Wow!
Those two are in my mind COMPLETELY different. The first is a positive statement of humility more or less expressing that the athlete/entertainer owes some debt of gratitude to the force that has given them the unique gifts they did not and are not capable of endowing upon themselves. Perhaps they could alternatively thank their parents for having sex and favorable genes if you want to leave belief in god out of it, but that would be a weird thank you as their parents did not create their own genes either and having sex tends to come pretty naturally to us.
Whereas teaching your children young earth creationism is truly awful and willfully ignorant.
-
Your list of questions had me cracking up! Especially the one about Thor. Well played.
I'm guessing you live in an area where religion is pretty in-your-face and present in daily life. I grew up in a place like that, so I feel you. There was always the "I'll pray for you" people and being invited to school friends' church functions.
For me, I have gradually come to a place where I realize we *all* take comfort in certain beliefs that are probably not grounded in reality. Those beliefs vary but the human need to believe in something doesn't ever go away. For example, on this forum we hold a belief that our lives will be better off when we are free of the need to work for pay. Other people believe in an all powerful Man in the Sky.* As long as another person's beliefs aren't harmful I try to ignore them. If I hear, "I'll pray for you" I just nod and smile. No comment needed.
*If you haven't seen the film The Invention of Lying you should do so right now. Relevant to the conversation here and super funny.
-
I simply don't listen to people who try to prosthelytize to me, and therefore give the courtesy of not doing so to them. Your list of questions is proselytizing.
This. I've only recently started thinking of myself as an atheist, but I've always found those people who want to "have a conversation about God" with me at best annoying and at worst spiritual bullies. No, I don't want to hear about your God! What about our previous interactions makes you think I do?
Similarly, I guarantee you that unless they've asked about your spiritual beliefs, the religious people in your life DO NOT want to hear about your atheism. They particularly don't want to hear about it if your primary argument is "Let me tell you about the 217 reason religion is dumb." What kind of productive discussion is going to come from that?
As far as I can tell, the world can be an unforgiving, isolating, and hopeless place. For a lot of people, religion helps them beat that back. For billions of people, it's a source of community and stability and hope that, somehow, justice and goodness ultimately prevail. Why would I shit on that? If someone''s religion makes their world a little brighter (as long as they're not using it to hurt or oppress others), that's probably fine.
If someone does want to have a conversation about your spiritual beliefs, that's fine too. I try to start from a place of "I don't need God to see wonderful, beautiful things in the world. I see it all the time, in nature and in the kindness people show to each other, other creatures, and the planet." Sort of a positive atheism (emphasizing the glory of everything around us as it is without resort to the supernatural) versus a negative atheism (degrading religions). Or, if they're just using that as an opportunity to proselytize, I discontinue the conversation.
TLDR - I hear where you're coming from. Really. And this time of year makes me extra annoyed with religion too. But those rants are best shared with people who share those beliefs or, better yet, the inside of your own head.
-
I don't mingle a ton with overly religous people.
Two things bother me:
Thanking god for acheivements (specifically professional sports) "Thank you god for making me so great!"
Peoples kids.
Ie posts on facebook
"Just had a wonderful conversation with little Billy about evolution and how dinosaurs aren't in the bible. He now understands where we came from, such a smart boy!"
Wow!
Those two are in my mind COMPLETELY different. The first is a positive statement of humility more or less expressing that the athlete/entertainer owes some debt of gratitude to the force that has given them the unique gifts they did not and are not capable of endowing upon themselves. Perhaps they could alternatively thank their parents for having sex and favorable genes if you want to leave belief in god out of it, but that would be a weird thank you as their parents did not create their own genes either and having sex tends to come pretty naturally to us.
Whereas teaching your children young earth creationism is truly awful and willfully ignorant.
hmm I guess I don't see it as a statement of humility in that context. To me, it comes off as overly narcisistic and virtue signaling.
And maybe it's just become part of the standard...throw a touchdown and point to the sky after you fistpump.
-
Maybe more of a rant, but I am very interested in how other atheists constantly hold their tongues...
I admit that one of the reasons I like this place so much is that I get a vibe that some other folks here aren't all that religious. Why does it matter you ask? Well, it's not that I can't have awesome relationships with some religious folks (I can, as long as they are the "live and let live" types that don't try to inject their religion into gov't), but honestly even with these "nice" religious folks, I still have to hold my tongue.
Things I can't say to my religious friends...
1) You realize that mythologies used to be religions, right? People used to worship Thor. Now he's an Avenger.
2) You realize there have been like thousands of religions? Doesn't that tell you something?
3) Do you think you'd become a heathen ax murderer if you deconverted today? If not, doesn't that tell you something?
4) When you say that you "talk with God," or that "God talked to me," WTF do you mean? Did you hear an actual voice, or did you think to yourself?
5) If God is all-knowing, meaning he knows every decision we will ever make before we make it, how do we still have free will? We would just be programmed puppets. For example, let's say God talks to me on Saturday. I ask, "God, what tie will I wear tomorrow?" God says, "You will wear a yellow tie." Flash forward to Sunday. I look in my closet and choose a tie out of the dozens I have in all sorts of colors. Can I pick a non-yellow tie? Why or why not?"
6) Have you read the whole Bible? Do you realize there are hundreds of editions and that the text is actually different and that different churches "interpret" the word differently? How can a perfect road map be so vague and nebulous, with so many internal inconsistencies? Doesn't it worry you that you are basing your worldview on this? How did you choose your particular denomination and interpretation?
7) Deep down, do you mostly go to church because "other good people do," and you like the socialization it provides?
8) Do you really think me and my wife, and my little kids are going to burn...forrrrr eternity...in Hell? Seriously? (note: if answer is "yes," friendship is obviously severed..this has actually happened).
9) Do you think there might be a sliiiight chance that religions have been used to keep people in place, explain things that couldn't be understood at the time, placate people from their sometimes miserable lots in life (slaves, second class citizens including women for most of history) by promising a "perfect afterlife," and to consolidate power?
10) Name ONE moral virtue taught in the Bible that is exclusive to the Bible. Surely this perfect map has some unique wisdom found nowhere else.
I could go on and on, but I've rambled too much. Do other atheists have similar feelings? Do you use any particular techniques to either bite your tongue, or to gently introduce any of these questions? Are some of you folks in the "I just don't think about religion at all" camp?
I wish I could get there, I really do, but with people constantly injecting religion (almost always Christianity) into school board decisions, and in legislatures, and pretty much trying to make rules based on their specific religious beliefs, I'm not sure how any atheist in America who values reason and science can mentally (or financially) bow out of this conflict.
Maybe it would be more helpful if you described situations in which you felt compelled to say something (and hence hold your tongue)?
For background, my wife is Hindu and I consider myself atheist. Despite this fact I don't really find myself in many situations where I feel compelled to point out my contentions with her religion (or religion in general). Most of our discussion around religion is her simply stating that she is going to go pray in the morning. I don't feel the need to interject my own opinions on prayer, I simply utter "ok" and let her go about her business.
Similarly, a few months back I attended a meetup with some members of this forum. One of them mentioned the desire to become a minister when he FIREs. Would it have been appropriate of me to state my opinions on religion in this setting? Absolutely not. Why would I? This is someone who come across as genuinely nice and through conversation appeared to have a pretty "liberal" worldview. It is not my place to try and "convert" him, so bully for him if he is doing what he wants to do.
Another anecdote, I had someone come to my door who asked if they could share the word of god with me. I politely told them no thanks. When they prodded why not, I just stated that I am not interested and I thanked them for dropping by. The person bid me a good day and moved on to the next house. I just didn't feel the need to get into it with them, there was nothing to gain there.
-
I get it. I admit that I do sometimes (okay, often) have to suppress an eye-roll when one of my religious friends (seems like it's mostly the Christians) says something from the list you made above. But I don't ever engage with any of it, unless they are directly proselytizing to *me*, as in trying to get me to say that I agree with their perspective, or trying to convince me of it.
When someone does that, I will try once to push them off without engaging. (E.g., "I'm not Christian, so..." and then just change the subject.) If they keep insisting (which at this point in my life means they're not really in my "friend" group anyway), then I consider that their persistence is a signal that I am also allowed to push my perspective just as aggressively. At that point, I will actually say one of the things that you wrote/ranted above.
It usually kills the argument pretty quickly, because people don't like to hear stuff like that. But if they're rude enough to have gotten the conversation to that point, then I'm not too worried about how they'll react to my words. That's their problem.
-
Great responses thus far, and to be clear, I do NOT go around picking fights with folks for no reason...I am generally pretty chill in real life. I think humor and good intentions go a long way with most people! I try to be funny and light here most of the time, but in this case I am just being brutally honest and venting.
I vented here because it's safe to vent here. And I specifically targeted my questions to other atheists. I am not asking religious folks to pipe up and answer these questions. I think that was pretty clear. I'm not trying to start a fight or hurt anyone's feelings.
But honestly...the questions I listed are...just common sense. They aren't unique or genius or anything.
I mean, if you base your worldview on a book, shouldn't you have read the book? Studied every inch of the book? Understand who wrote the book, and why, and when, and the history of its many translations, and how the book says different things based on the version?
I honestly don't think most religious people think about most of this. I think most of them are on "cruise control" and equate "religion" with "being a good person." I know we all tend to go on cruise control on certain things, but essential building blocks to a person's entire worldview are not the right place to get lazy in one's analysis.
-
I've learned to just not engage. I have some family members that still insist on saying things like "BlueHouse is going through doubts, but will eventually come back" or when I am asked to participate in certain events that are the polar opposite of what I believe in, and I say that I can't participate in that activity, I'm accused of spoiling the moment. The worst is when I'm told to keep my opinions quiet, ostensibly so that others don't overhear. It's as if I'm screaming "there's no Santa Clause" in the middle of a pre-school. My opinions should have no bearing on what others choose to believe.
So to answer your question, I try to just not engage and when someone really tries to draw me in, I am very patronizing when I say "oh, I don't believe in that stuff", the same way they act when you talk about the number of fairies that can fit on a pinhead. When I make them feel like an ass, they tend not to want to follow up with me. (ever again).
-
I view atheism as a religious concept the same way I view "off" as a TV channel. The first rule of religion is that you don't talk about religion.
It's never been a problem for me. Just a couple awkward conversations with my grandma with some smiling, nodding, and changing of the subject. And one wacko former coworker with all kinds of other personal social issues.
This. I have lots of religious friends and relatives. My parents are believers. I tend not to willingly spend a lot of time with people who believe I'm going to hell, and the people I do spend time with (including my parents) tend to be of a more liberal mindset and have the good manners not to proselytize. I grant them the same courtesy. I'm willing to talk about my agnostic atheism and about various religions, because I find religious faith to be a fascinating topic. But I generally don't bring it up—I rarely think about it because religion plays no role in my day to day life or decision-making process—and have no qualms about arguing when a believer is rude or condescending to me because I'm a non-believer.
-
Meh. I find believing in supernatural things so baffling and ridiculous that I've always felt out of step with the mainstream. Not just religious people, but new agers, people into astrology, etc. The drawbacks of these sorts of beliefs are patently obvious. However, with time I've come to recognize that there are some mental and sociological benefits to peoples' belief is supernatural things, and I try to acknowledge and remind myself of those when I feel too eye-roll-y.
I live in a part of the country where Christianity is EVERYWHERE...the water we drink and the air we breathe. I've regularly had doctors at the University Medical Center ask if they could pray with me at the end of appointments. Pretty much all admin/clerk types/grocery baggers, etc. of every sort and every business say, "Have a blessed day" as a matter of course. Most privately owned businesses have crucifixes or religious sayings posted in their business lobbies. It's EVERYWHERE.
Generally, my attitude is there is no point in picking fights about it as long as they aren't trying to engage me in active discussion about religion. With doctors I say, I'm not religious but if you feel it is important for YOUR beliefs to pray, go ahead. With businesses, I ignore it or I couldn't get business done. We do have a "No Proselytizing" sign on our door, which has dramatically cut down the number of annoying knocks. But generally, I rarely associate willingly with people who want to talk in depth about their supernatural belief systems in anything more than a casual, throwaway way. Once in a while, if I'm feeling particularly irritable, I'll respond to "Have a blessed day" with "Blessed be" (needless to say, I'm not a practicing pagan, though I like a lot of neo-pagan symbols and philosophies).
DH occasionally will push it a little. In a recent meeting with University admin higher ups, he noted that it might be nice for them to consider that having an explicitly Christian prayer to open every big University event might be considered to be creating a hostile work environment for non Christian students, staff, and faculty. The dean promptly whined that 'he wasn't going to be made to feel ashamed of his beliefs!'. So DH asked how the dean would feel if he had to hear an explicitly Muslim prayer every time. Dean refused to answer question. Again, nothing will change and this university will continue promoting Christianity at every event, but that's about as far as DH could push it. No point wasting energy fighting a wave of silliness that you can't overcome.
-
In my part of the world religion is private, and not something you talk about with casual friends or acquaintances. The few times I have experienced someone starting to talk about god stuff out of the blue, it has been immigrants or tourists. If those are people I like, I will explain that they should stop immidiately, because what they are doing is considered incredibly rude. If they seem like annoying people that I will never see again, I'll just leave them to it. I've had one friend who belived I was heading for hell with my entire family. I thought it was quite funny, especially since he became rather distressed about the whole situation. He is a really kind person who normally doesn't bother anyone else with his christianity, so our friendship didn't change because of his delusions. He might still be praying for us, but as long as he doesn't say anything about it, it doesn't bother me.
This documentary about religion in the Nordics, where they bring in a conservative pastor from the southern US, is quite fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-kANR1vJkM
-
I'm agnostic and find your list of questions condescending. I get that's your point, you find the whole thing silly and beneath you, but you could have actual conversations with religious people instead. Be genuinely interested in what drew them to this church or that temple, how it enhances their lives, and yes, what drawbacks they might see with the church structure or discrimination or whatever. Or even whether they have doubts. You'll never get to that point if you start with "YOU REALIZE YOU'RE AN IDIOT RIGHT???"
-
I grew up in a family that went to church but didn’t discuss religion. Through the years I became a none believer but it hasn’t been much of a issue. We don’t live in a religious part of the country. I usually don’t discuss it with people. If someone says they will pray for me I say thanks. Most of my friends are not religious. I would be annoyed if a doctor suggested we pray together. Also we have a no soliciting sign on our door because the Mormons and jehova witnesses were at the door weekly. Ugh!
-
I am not an "atheist", I feel no need to give myself a label as something that I am not. My parents did not use that term at all either. I see it like needing a special word to describe myself as not being anything. I am not a golfer - I don't need a word for that either.
Do you know why you self describe as an atheist? Why you need that label? Your list of questions make it seem like you adopted the label for political reasons.
I think I get what you mean—not believing in stuff should just be the default. We don't call dogs or ants atheists. They just don't concern themselves with such labels.
Sometimes labels are useful. For example, when some behavior is common, or seen as the default, having a word to describe abstaining from that behavior is handy. People who don't have sex are "abstinent". People who don't drink alcohol "teetotalers". People who don't eat meat "vegetarians". I'd love to live in a world where the default for humans is to not have a religion. But that's not the world we live in. Being non-religious is still pretty uncommon, so having a term is still useful. I don't think it's necessarily political at all.
-
Evangelical Christian chiming in - not to proselytize, but to say that if any of my close friends had your list of questions, I would be happy to answer them. You might be surprised that several of them are the subject of intense debate among Christians and that volumes of books have been written on the subject.
Even the Thor question, which is a little condescending if you directed it to a friend, is at the heart of what it means to be a Christian: how do you know there is only one way and that this is the right one? That would take a lifetime to answer, and I would do a poor job of trying to do so here. But if you have close friends who are Chrstian, and they act the way you think a Christian SHOULD act, try asking. Maybe start with one question at a time, though, if you want an honest answer.
-
Evangelical Christian chiming in - not to proselytize, but to say that if any of my close friends had your list of questions, I would be happy to answer them. You might be surprised that several of them are the subject of intense debate among Christians and that volumes of books have been written on the subject.
Even the Thor question, which is a little condescending if you directed it to a friend, is at the heart of what it means to be a Christian: how do you know there is only one way and that this is the right one? That would take a lifetime to answer, and I would do a poor job of trying to do so here. But if you have close friends who are Chrstian, and they act the way you think a Christian SHOULD act, try asking. Maybe start with one question at a time, though, if you want an honest answer.
Here's the thing, though. Your comment sort of presumes that none of the people commenting here grew up in a Christian household environment.
Most atheists I know in the US -- myself included -- grew up in households that were at least nominally Christian. I grew up going to church, have been baptised and confirmed, and had read the entire Bible by the time I was eighteen. The fact is, I actually have had most of the conversations Nick_Miller enumerates above. It's not that I haven't heard the answers. It's that, frankly, the answers I have heard seem ridiculous.
-
I didn’t presume anything: the OP said he had to hold his tongue, and I am suggesting that he may not have to do so. Of course, I am a big believer in having deep conversations with people I disagree with and trying to do so with an open mind. If OP’s friends aren’t like-minded, he likely won’t have much success.
I certainly meant no disrespect to anyone’s tradition or their path in getting there. For me, I believe that genuine commitment to any religion is only possible in an environment where it is 100% optional. Brute force conversion doesn’t work. Even deep conversations may not change anyone’s mind, but they may at least give both sides some perspective.
-
Evangelical Christian chiming in - not to proselytize, but to say that if any of my close friends had your list of questions, I would be happy to answer them. You might be surprised that several of them are the subject of intense debate among Christians and that volumes of books have been written on the subject.
Even the Thor question, which is a little condescending if you directed it to a friend, is at the heart of what it means to be a Christian: how do you know there is only one way and that this is the right one? That would take a lifetime to answer, and I would do a poor job of trying to do so here. But if you have close friends who are Chrstian, and they act the way you think a Christian SHOULD act, try asking. Maybe start with one question at a time, though, if you want an honest answer.
Here's the thing, though. Your comment sort of presumes that none of the people commenting here grew up in a Christian household environment.
Most atheists I know in the US -- myself included -- grew up in households that were at least nominally Christian. I grew up going to church, have been baptised and confirmed, and had read the entire Bible by the time I was eighteen. The fact is, I actually have had most of the conversations Nick_Miller enumerates above. It's not that I haven't heard the answers. It's that, frankly, the answers I have heard seem ridiculous.
Yeah I am with @Kris here. The answers you get to those questions are ridiculous. Nothing about it is logical. It is all about emotion and brainwashing and "feeling good." I was raised in a religious household. I used to get scared at night that the horns would sound and the end of the world would happen. Looking back, I really liken it to child abuse. I think it's absolutely horrible to teach kids this crap, scare them to death, encourage them to rely on "faith" instead of reason and facts, and turn them into smug little know-it-alls who think they have the secret to eternal life.
I have read all of the Bible. Hell, reading the Bible lead me to deconverting. I read the Bible as an adult, with a critical eye, and I kept making notes like:
"This is ridiculous" or
"This is inconsistent with this other part," or
"Even if THIS god made himself known to me and proved his existence, I would not worship him because he is evil." (see the whole "she-bears clawing the kids/teens to death thing)
It ALL falls apart if you apply just the slightest bit of logic. But it's not about logic. Religion keeps people in with emotion.
-
I will add one more anecdote....
I didn't leave the church into WELL into adulthood, like early 30s, so yes I felt like the biggest idiot for a number of years after.
But getting to the story, when I left the church, I had lunch with two different pastors there (it was a pretty big church). Here's how the lunches went...
LUNCH 1 with SENIOR PASTOR: I give it a C. We were both civil to each other. There was no ill will, at least from my side. But he couldn't' answer ANY of my questions. Literally none of them. He just said things like "We can't necessarily understand why God acts as he does." It was VERY frustrating for me. I left thinking, "If this guy who has studied this stuff for a life-time can't answer the simplest questions, what does that say for the other members of the church? Do they even think about this stuff?"
LUNCH 2 with JUNIOR PASTOR: I give it an A+. I loved this guy, and still do. For years I kept our talk secret because I didn't want him to lose his job. (He left the church a few years later). In any case, he honestly told me, "Nick Miller, I can't even tell you that Jesus is the only way to happiness. I think there are lots of ways. And then he talked about different religions and even "just being a good person." He answered my questions I think as honestly and openly as he could. He expressed a lot of doubts and kept referring to the Bible stories as "examples," saying that he didn't necessary think you had to believe the events actually happened. We shook hands and left on good terms (I bought him lunch), but I left thinking, "If this guy who has studied this stuff for 15 years is admitting he doesn't even think Christianity is the "only way," what does that say about the whole belief system?"
So I have had these talks with "learned" people. They can't answer the tough questions because the religion is based on myths from over 2,000 years ago. But I didn't understand that until I was in my early 30s, and I consider myself a smart person, so I understand how powerful the socialization is.
-
Evangelical Christian chiming in - not to proselytize, but to say that if any of my close friends had your list of questions, I would be happy to answer them. You might be surprised that several of them are the subject of intense debate among Christians and that volumes of books have been written on the subject.
Even the Thor question, which is a little condescending if you directed it to a friend, is at the heart of what it means to be a Christian: how do you know there is only one way and that this is the right one? That would take a lifetime to answer, and I would do a poor job of trying to do so here. But if you have close friends who are Chrstian, and they act the way you think a Christian SHOULD act, try asking. Maybe start with one question at a time, though, if you want an honest answer.
Here's the thing, though. Your comment sort of presumes that none of the people commenting here grew up in a Christian household environment.
Most atheists I know in the US -- myself included -- grew up in households that were at least nominally Christian. I grew up going to church, have been baptised and confirmed, and had read the entire Bible by the time I was eighteen. The fact is, I actually have had most of the conversations Nick_Miller enumerates above. It's not that I haven't heard the answers. It's that, frankly, the answers I have heard seem ridiculous.
Yeah I am with @Kris here. The answers you get to those questions are ridiculous. Nothing about it is logical. It is all about emotion and brainwashing and "feeling good." I was raised in a religious household. I used to get scared at night that the horns would sound and the end of the world would happen. Looking back, I really liken it to child abuse. I think it's absolutely horrible to teach kids this crap, scare them to death, encourage them to rely on "faith" instead of reason and facts, and turn them into smug little know-it-alls who think they have the secret to eternal life.
I have read all of the Bible. Hell, reading the Bible lead me to deconverting.
Amen.
(lol)
-
OP,
I can certainly respect that you’ve made your decision after a lifetime of experiences. Obviously, I’ve reached a different conclusion, but that shouldn’t keep people from talking to one another if you have real questions. I suppose I’m not surprised people have a hard time answering - they are hard, real questions that require self-awareness to answer. That seems lacking all around these days.
If you want answers, I hope you find them. If you have your answers, I hope you can maintain deep friendships with people, even if they disagree with you. And if you ever want someone to pray with and an Internet stranger is your best option, feel free to reach out.
Either way, I hope you get to spend the holidays with loved ones; I am on my way to do so.
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays
-
Ok, this is a point of view of someone raised in a church, but NOT fundamentalist. I view Fundamentalism as a very widespread cult (those are the people who are shoving pamphlets at you and say you are going to Hell). The things that they preach and practice and judge, other than times such as the inquisition, are not really following in the same footsteps of thousands of years of Biblical scripture and practice.
That said, I would say most people who go to church, don't ask these kind of questions especially on a regular basis. Being a Methodist or Lutheran, it is the same as being part of you as your ethnic background, your family background, and also your community. And for much of history you didn't really have a "choice". It just is. And even now no one is giving lie detector tests to those who show up at church, whether Jesus well and truly is the only son of God who died for our sins, etc etc. Instead it is part of your culture and you participate. Church participation has real measurable benefits. It increases your social and emotional support. It literally increases your lifespan, and your recovery after illness. There is a reason why Church (or Temple, or Mosque) and religion are a part of many people's lives and culture.
The closest I would say, is talking with my deceased FIL who was a Christian, went to church, did many good acts, was part of a Bible study group that he attended and participated in. We didn't go into a lot, but the stories and the meanings of the stories in the Bible made him reflect, gave him an aspiration (be Christ-like), and made him a better person. He freely admits that the Bible doesn't answer every question. And there is room for doubt and discussion. In fact he even hinted doubts, whether Jesus was truly the incarnate Son of God. But him being part of the church and participating and regularly reading the Bible did make him a better person and gave him comfort in his final days.
So, I guess I would say even though this sounds heretical, many of the questions you ask, are besides the point. Do first. The phillosophical questions were really only a luxury for those who had the time to dwell on them. But only after doing, perhaps for a lifetime.
-
I've been an Atheist since I was eleven years old and started reading adult books at the library. In reading Science Fiction novels, I realized that I wasn't alone in my lack of belief in gods, goblins, and things that go bump in the night.
As for it being a political label, why would you say that? It simply means "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods." Nothing political there.
I used to wonder how otherwise intelligent people could believe any of this stuff, and then I read books such as Michael Shermer's The Believing Brain, which shed some light on the neurological activity that lies behind religion (and other beliefs).
https://www.amazon.com/Believing-Brain-Conspiracies-How-Construct-Reinforce/dp/1250008808/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1545434232&sr=8-1&keywords=the+believing+brain
I used to argue religion with people when I was a teenager, but quickly realized that you can't use logic to argue religion, so there's really no point. I don't care if someone is religious as long as they're not pushing it on me or using it to bully people.
It's not so obvious when you live in the US, but in general, religion seems to be in decline - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/21/christianity-non-christian-europe-young-people-survey-religion
Even where I grew up, in a country that was 94% Catholic, religion is not anywhere near as popular as it was thirty years ago. For people my age (fifties), our parents were really the last very religious group. Most of my peers were a lot less into practicing religion, even if they were still believers, and many of us have children who are associated with religion in name only, and then only to keep their grandparents happy.
One thing that still cracks me up is when someone survives a fire/car accident/tornado, etc, and they tell people that God saved them! Wait, God just set your house on fire/threw a deer through your windshield/tried to transport you to Oz, and you're thanking him? Um, ok...
-
Maybe more of a rant, but I am very interested in how other atheists constantly hold their tongues...
Do you use any particular techniques to either bite your tongue, or to gently introduce any of these questions? Are some of you folks in the "I just don't think about religion at all" camp?
As a free-speech absolutist it is not my nature to ever "bite my tongue."
I am a literalist so I always scratch my head (figuratively speaking) when believers speak of "everlasting life."
When believers claim "everlasting life" I have, on occasion, politely told them I cannot accept their claim in light of billions of pieces of physical evidence to the contrary.
-
I always felt sad for my father who was convinced both his kids were doomed to burn in hell forever. If you really believe that, which he did, how horrible to believe that and not be able to do anything about it.
Then when he was 102 or 103 years old he began to have doubts, or at least he began to admit he had doubts. He wondered if he would soon see mom again and his brothers and sisters, and if his mother would be waiting for him. It was pretty clear that he was just going through the motions, praying, etc. for his last few months.
When my cousin was dying of cancer a few years ago I was pleased that she firmly believed she was on her way to heaven. What a nice way to die.
Meanwhile, my brother and I were annoyed that dad took so long to have doubts. For all our childhoods we had to go to church twice every Sunday, go to christian school, catechism once a week, and pray before and after every meal. And then as adults we had to occasionally go to church, like on fathers day, and when my dad couldn't drive he shamed my brother into driving him to church once a month. We could have been saved all that.
-
I always felt sad for my father who was convinced both his kids were doomed to burn in hell forever.
I've asked believers about hell's locus, about its distance below the surface of the Earth.
And I've asked them where hell's portal is.
None of them ever answered either question.
-
I always felt sad for my father who was convinced both his kids were doomed to burn in hell forever.
I've asked believers about hell's locus, about its distance below the surface of the Earth.
And I've asked them where hell's portal is.
None of them ever answered either question.
Hell is other people.
-
My mother sometimes wanted to go to church on Xmas eve and we would all go and never begrudged her that. Yes I had to do all the Lutheran religious stuff as a kid or teen. My mom really believed but as adults were free to do as we wanted with no ridicule. I also never told her I quit believing because why would I want to hurt her. She never asked. I had the kids baptized for my grandma but we didn’t go to church.
-
I always felt sad for my father who was convinced both his kids were doomed to burn in hell forever.
I've asked believers about hell's locus, about its distance below the surface of the Earth.
And I've asked them where hell's portal is.
None of them ever answered either question.
Hell is other people.
Some of them, yes.
HAPPPY NEW YEAR!
-
I view atheism as a religious concept the same way I view "off" as a TV channel.
+1
-
Are there celestial or supernatural beings?
Who or what made the world?
These are two entirely separate questions, and it is important to not to conflate the two.
When I read Milton’s Paradise Lost, I could see that God need not have created heaven and earth, in which case He and the other denizens of heaven could be seen as beings more powerful and exalted than we are.
Consider a young dolphin born at sea. Dolphins are clever creatures who work together in packs to catch fish. I imagine they regard fish as dim witted. Then one day this young dolphin swims into a bay, puts his head above water, and sees people on land. If he watches people long enough he is likely to regard them as being as clever as dolphins, perhaps even more so. People are flesh and blood, but are exalted.
The late British astronomer Fred Hoyle wrote a science fiction novel called The Black Cloud. The Black Cloud was a huge cloud of gas in space, but sentient. Such a being would have a life span as long as the life of the universe, and would qualify as a celestial being.
Some astronomers have wondered about the existence of parallel universes, some having laws of nature that are more favourable than ours, others with laws of nature less favourable. It is possible that once a species attains enough knowledge, that species will move into a more favourable parallel universe, which could be regarded as heaven. Perhaps we will do that in a few hundred years.
-
One of my favorite podcasts is Exploring My Strange Bible by Tim Mackey. He is sooo smart and flips almost everything you thought you knew about religion and the Bible upside down! Try it! I think you'll like it!
-
I'm religious (Christian) as can be. I was raised atheist. I horrified my mother by converting to Christianity at 26. She's still coming to terms with it. We avoid talking about it. I've read the whole Bible several times. Including Judges (it's insane). I've vowed never to get involved in a debate about religion online again. Just wanted to chime in that there are a lot of ways of being Christian.
-
Just move to Australia, where irreverent criticism is central to our way of life. Fuck the queen, the pope, the president, the prophet, the emperor, and any other northern bastards trying to tell us what to think or do. We're perfectly capable of fucking it up ourselves, thank you very much.
-
Ok, this is a point of view of someone raised in a church, but NOT fundamentalist. I view Fundamentalism as a very widespread cult (those are the people who are shoving pamphlets at you and say you are going to Hell). The things that they preach and practice and judge, other than times such as the inquisition, are not really following in the same footsteps of thousands of years of Biblical scripture and practice.
That said, I would say most people who go to church, don't ask these kind of questions especially on a regular basis. Being a Methodist or Lutheran, it is the same as being part of you as your ethnic background, your family background, and also your community. And for much of history you didn't really have a "choice". It just is. And even now no one is giving lie detector tests to those who show up at church, whether Jesus well and truly is the only son of God who died for our sins, etc etc. Instead it is part of your culture and you participate. Church participation has real measurable benefits. It increases your social and emotional support. It literally increases your lifespan, and your recovery after illness. There is a reason why Church (or Temple, or Mosque) and religion are a part of many people's lives and culture.
The closest I would say, is talking with my deceased FIL who was a Christian, went to church, did many good acts, was part of a Bible study group that he attended and participated in. We didn't go into a lot, but the stories and the meanings of the stories in the Bible made him reflect, gave him an aspiration (be Christ-like), and made him a better person. He freely admits that the Bible doesn't answer every question. And there is room for doubt and discussion. In fact he even hinted doubts, whether Jesus was truly the incarnate Son of God. But him being part of the church and participating and regularly reading the Bible did make him a better person and gave him comfort in his final days.
So, I guess I would say even though this sounds heretical, many of the questions you ask, are besides the point. Do first. The phillosophical questions were really only a luxury for those who had the time to dwell on them. But only after doing, perhaps for a lifetime.
I really like this, it echoes much of my thoughts about religion in my life.
Raised Catholic, went to Catholic schools and a Jesuit college. Being a Catholic is part of my family identity. That doesn't mean I mindlessly parrot ideas that have been a part of Catholicism in the past that I don't agree with. I realise the trappings of the religion have accumulated lots of additional baggage along the centuries. I try to shift out the extraneous stuff, and adhere to the basics as best as I can determine. I believe those basics are largely similar in many other religions. I don't think anyone has the one true faith, and everyone else is doomed. I'd like everyone to be free to believe (or not) as they see fit; no one should ever be pushed or bullied into changing their beliefs by another. So those types of religions get me a bit worked up.
I read the bible as a historical document, evidence of how people millennia ago thought about things they couldn't understand, and the things we still struggle with today like conflicts between people. I try to read between the lines, figuring out the important part the authors were trying to impart, but which are often lost in shifting societal ideas and translations. I still go to church every Sunday, not so much to pray, but for the experience, the ritual, the society. Listening to the readings, that I've heard dozens of times so that I know them well, I'm now trying to look deeper into significance of words. After 50 years, I'm hearing details I missed before, and there are many passages that strike me differently now. I hear the differences in different authors - I took classical Latin in HS, and Paul's Roman background is distinguishable in his phrasing, vs the other non-Roman Jews' writing like James. Paul was an excellent writer, but I really dislike the way he changed the basic early Christian beliefs, his misogyny, etc., so I'm always trying to distinguish between an individual's ideas, and the consensus ideas in the bible.
I have come to reject religious beliefs that I don't agree with, or that aren't logical, or that are obviously contradictory. My beliefs are more generalized, I have no desire to debate nitpicky details that serve no purpose but to divide.
I've noticed that in my community, the most active and positive community members (the ones who seem to get everything done in the town, the movers and doers) are usually active in some church. Not sure if it's cause or effect, but the decline in church members definitely seems to correlate with the decline in community involvement. Maybe it's just the frequent meetings more than any beliefs, but it's enough that I want to maintain my church community links for the sake of my larger community.
So my biggest reasons for remaining an active church member are largely social, both family and community, with a bit of regular personal introspection/meditation grounding.
-
Overtly religious behaviour is definitely not mainstream in NZ, and although there are evangelical groups, it would generally be considered rather weird to mention God in the course of a general conversation. Unless as swearing. When most people would not even notice. A doctor offering to pray with a patient who had not requested it would most likely be subject to disciplinary action.
Seems this is probably a cultural thing, We would probably politely shut down the conversation if a friend started going all religious, and consider them rather socially inept.
However it is interesting in our country that opening an occasion with a prayer in the Maori language (karakia) is more common now than it used to be, and is seem as appropriately bi-cultural, rather than religious.
-
I'm also an atheist and my husband and most of my friends are non-religious although my husband was raised Catholic. But, unfortunately, even though fewer and fewer young Italians attend church, the Church (ie. the Catholic Church) continues to largely control certain aspects of Italian politics - mostly to do with the family. For example, IVF is severely restricted here, generally only married heterosexual couples can adopt, sperm banks are illegal here, gay marriage not legal and sterilization is not legal here (I was once advised by a doctor that the only way to get my tubes tied would be a 'back alley' sterilization - no thanks!) This drives me crazy as there is so much hypocrisy in a bunch of celibate men telling the rest of us what to do with our reproductive health and, also, the fact that Italy has one of the lowest birth rates in the world yet they restrict IVF.
On the topic of keeping my mouth shut as an atheist. I've found that a significant proportion of people are truly shocked that I'm an atheist and/or take it as an invitation for them to try to convert me to their religion so I generally don't say anything. Also, I can see that religion is psychologically comforting to some so I try to respect their religious beliefs and just smile and nod. But what drives me nuts is people who continually try to convert me and won't back down. I'm polite and say things like "I can see that those beliefs are very comforting to you although I'm not religious myself." and then try to change the topic. But they keep trying.
There is a mother at my kids' school who I've had to block as she keeps sending me religious materials, sermons etc. Everything was fine with her until one day I was upset about something and she told me that I had to "let Jesus into my heart". It was really awkward and I tried to be polite but I guess she took that as some kind of invitation. And I considered her to be a friend.
-
I am actually curious how folks handle this with their kids? I don't like to be the type that tells my kids what to think. My daughter was asked by one of her friends (I was within earshot) if she is a Christian. My daughter of course said no. And then she asked if she was Catholic and my daughter wasn't really sure how to answer, since she didn't know what being Catholic actually meant. I stepped in and told her friend we aren't really anything. That was the end of the conversation.
When we got home I explained to her the best way to respond is something along the lines of what I stated. I explained it's perfectly fine for other kids to have religious beliefs and she should be respectful of them. I've also made it a point to explain that she is free to believe in a religion if she wants to but that she should ask questions and seek out answers, not just do it because her friends are doing it. I've encouraged her to do that in all areas of her life.
-
@Nick_Miller, you’ve posted questions like this before. I’ve always followed along, and at this point you seem more hurt than angry. Stung that some group judges you immoral, using rules you never agreed to.
Being judged by unagreed on rules is bullshitty, and also ubitiquous. I’m gay, and many people loath me. You’re a white dude, during a time when white dudes are undergoing far more criticism than ever before. We’re both American, in a world where some would happily kill us for being a citizen.
There’s far more judgement and hatred, for far more reasons, than could be dreamt of in your rant, Horatio! Yet, you’re stuck on the single unfairness of being judged by evangelicals. They clearly still have power over your thoughts and actions. For your own comfort, why not simply let it all go? Sure, you’d lose the deliciousness of righteous indignation, but you’d gain the comfort of seriously not giving a fuck.
-
I am actually curious how folks handle this with their kids? I don't like to be the type that tells my kids what to think. My daughter was asked by one of her friends (I was within earshot) if she is a Christian. My daughter of course said no. And then she asked if she was Catholic and my daughter wasn't really sure how to answer, since she didn't know what being Catholic actually meant. I stepped in and told her friend we aren't really anything. That was the end of the conversation.
We're trying to just let our kids decide although, of course, we don't go to church and the kids don't do catechism, which sets them apart. We let both our kids do the religion class at school (here in Italy, at public school you either do a "religion" class which means Catholic religion or you do a class called "alternative" which is usually just the kids sitting around and coloring). Older kid dropped out of the religion class by choice in 1st grade but younger kid is still doing it as she likes the religion teacher and he plays the guitar. They read Bible stories and I think it's cute when she tells me about Jesus making water into wine or loaves and fishes etc. If/when she decides to stop doing the religion class then we'll take her out.
-
@Nick_Miller, you’ve posted questions like this before. I’ve always followed along, and at this point you seem more hurt than angry. Stung that some group judges you immoral, using rules you never agreed to.
Being judged by unagreed on rules is bullshitty, and also ubitiquous. I’m gay, and many people loath me. You’re a white dude, during a time when white dudes are undergoing far more criticism than ever before. We’re both American, in a world where some would happily kill us for being a citizen.
There’s far more judgement and hatred, for far more reasons, than could be dreamt of in your rant, Horatio! Yet, you’re stuck on the single unfairness of being judged by evangelicals. They clearly still have power over your thoughts and actions. For your own comfort, why not simply let it all go? Sure, you’d lose the deliciousness of righteous indignation, but you’d gain the comfort of seriously not giving a fuck.
Wise words, as often from Sailor Sam. As I've moved into middle age, this is what I try to aim for in my personal interactions. It's much harder for me to give up blinding rage related to religiously-influenced political issues, but I do try to separate that from my attitudes toward individuals that I interact with.
-
I am actually curious how folks handle this with their kids? I don't like to be the type that tells my kids what to think. My daughter was asked by one of her friends (I was within earshot) if she is a Christian. My daughter of course said no. And then she asked if she was Catholic and my daughter wasn't really sure how to answer, since she didn't know what being Catholic actually meant. I stepped in and told her friend we aren't really anything. That was the end of the conversation.
When we got home I explained to her the best way to respond is something along the lines of what I stated. I explained it's perfectly fine for other kids to have religious beliefs and she should be respectful of them. I've also made it a point to explain that she is free to believe in a religion if she wants to but that she should ask questions and seek out answers, not just do it because her friends are doing it. I've encouraged her to do that in all areas of her life.
We have spent a lot of time explaining and discussing the difference between science and religion. Science is fact, and can be discussed based on more facts and knowledge. We encourage the kids to try to disprove scientific theories, but we won't accept statesment about "believing" or "not believing" in science. When it comes to religion, they can believe whatever they want, and we encourage them to let everyone else do the same. When they were smaller, they had quite complex beliefs that included the christian god, jesus, angels, Thor, Freya, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, easter bunny, trolls, and elves. We had a lot of fun in Iceland looking for elves and trolls, and they did enjoy going to church with their grandparents. Now, in their early teens, I don't think they believe in anything.
My oldest daughter came home one day and said her friend believed in creationism, not evolution, and she wanted me to say that her friend was wrong. My answer was that she was trying to compare apples to the feeling of being sad. If her friend believes in creationism, that is religion, and not something we can discuss with her. Faith is faith, and she should respect that her friend believes something else, (however stupid it sounds). If she wanted to discuss the topic with her friend, she should stick with evolution, since discussions are the whole point of science.
-
This is really difficult for me too. I grew up in a mormon family, but became atheist around age 15 after studying greek philosophy.
For much of my life, I was never sure how to handle family and the drastic differences in beliefs. Now that I'm much older, I've finally realized it's best to just respect people and whatever beliefs they hold. I basically try to avoid any conflict or debate, unless the person is a reasonable person (which is rare). No one ever gets convinced of a different position in these debates, so it's never worth it. But if you can approach these discussions in a respectful and perhaps with a socratic approach, they can sometimes be good when both people are reasonable. I've found when you treat people with deep respect even when their opinions are the opposite of yours, many times they will return that respect. This of course is sometimes extremely hard to do depending on the person.
-
I'm not even remotely a religious person, but I think absolutely none of those things because people can believe whatever they want to believe.
It sounds like you should take a look inward, if this stuff is really getting to you that much.
-
I grew up in a religious family that heavily participated in religious community. As an adult, my beliefs would probably be best described as secular humanist. I have a high level of religious education, especially within the religion of my family of origin & to a lesser extent as a student of other world religions.
What helps me in the scenarios you're describing are:
(1) To remember that lots of people of faith are REALLY smart, way smarter than I am. The questions you raise of morality and philosophy, free will, and human suffering are not new. Really smart people have grappled with these questions for millennia. Developed religions likely have complex answers for all of these hard questions, and many people of faith have to make peace with what works for them (within or outside the official teachings of their religious group). There are people who are more scientifically knowledgeable than we are, in today's world, and remain people of faith. Give them some credit for not being idiots.
(2) To remember that once upon a time, I also was a person of faith. I may have grappled more or less than another. But I wasn't a dumb automaton THEN or lesser because I was theist (or at least more theist than not). I think this part gets a lot of people stuck - they feel duped or see themselves as more evolved on account of their personal history with religion. Whereas I see it as something that helps me understand and have empathy for the circumstances of someone whose experiences are different from mine. If anything, I'm mostly wistful now for not feeling like I can participate in community or get comfort in hard times that I know other people of faith do experience.
(3) To separate personal beliefs that turn into political acts that do me or others harm. I DON'T have tolerance and acceptance for people who hate me or hate other groups of people or whose faith is the CAUSE of bad acts. I object to people or groups that use faith as a weapon and don't generalize that to all people of faith.
(4) To surround myself with people whose belief system - whatever it is - has space for mine to coexist. I don't want to be hanging around with people who secretly think I'm going to hell & will burn in hellfire. I mean, I'd rather be around the people who keep it to themselves than the people who act on that belief. But that IS a real impediment to the closeness I can have to someone. So is being around people who feel the need to proselytize to me (because it's a sign that they do not accept me as I am). In general, I am uncomfortable being surrounded by those public displays of religion that do not leave space for someone else to not share the same faith. Being in a community where you are surrounded by a dominant, evangelical religion can feel hostile. So...I don't hang out in those space, and I choose where I live carefully because of that.
-
I always felt sad for my father who was convinced both his kids were doomed to burn in hell forever.
I've asked believers about hell's locus, about its distance below the surface of the Earth.
And I've asked them where hell's portal is.
None of them ever answered either question.
Well, there is the doorway... Neat place to visit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumaean_Sibyl
-
I really don't mind other people's religious beliefs. I find most of them interesting, especially the hardcore believers because they actually get into the details of their belief. I've accepted Jesus twice into my life, now atheist tho, and found most believers decent people. What I find off-putting more are people who make it their mission to assert their belief is best, be it religious or atheist-and as an atheist I'll say other atheists are REALLY annoying in this regard. For me, the term truly applies-lack of belief in a god, not an active belief there is no god.
-
I will add one more anecdote....
I didn't leave the church into WELL into adulthood, like early 30s, so yes I felt like the biggest idiot for a number of years after.
But getting to the story, when I left the church, I had lunch with two different pastors there (it was a pretty big church). Here's how the lunches went...
LUNCH 1 with SENIOR PASTOR: I give it a C. We were both civil to each other. There was no ill will, at least from my side. But he couldn't' answer ANY of my questions. Literally none of them. He just said things like "We can't necessarily understand why God acts as he does." It was VERY frustrating for me. I left thinking, "If this guy who has studied this stuff for a life-time can't answer the simplest questions, what does that say for the other members of the church? Do they even think about this stuff?"
LUNCH 2 with JUNIOR PASTOR: I give it an A+. I loved this guy, and still do. For years I kept our talk secret because I didn't want him to lose his job. (He left the church a few years later). In any case, he honestly told me, "Nick Miller, I can't even tell you that Jesus is the only way to happiness. I think there are lots of ways. And then he talked about different religions and even "just being a good person." He answered my questions I think as honestly and openly as he could. He expressed a lot of doubts and kept referring to the Bible stories as "examples," saying that he didn't necessary think you had to believe the events actually happened. We shook hands and left on good terms (I bought him lunch), but I left thinking, "If this guy who has studied this stuff for 15 years is admitting he doesn't even think Christianity is the "only way," what does that say about the whole belief system?"
So I have had these talks with "learned" people. They can't answer the tough questions because the religion is based on myths from over 2,000 years ago. But I didn't understand that until I was in my early 30s, and I consider myself a smart person, so I understand how powerful the socialization is.
Add God's rape of Mary to that list of insane things in the Bible.
-
What I find off-putting more are people who make it their mission to assert their belief is best, be it religious or atheist-and as an atheist I'll say other atheists are REALLY annoying in this regard.
I agree with you. "Virtue Signaling" is just as annoying as proselytizing, and this can come from both extremes. Ironically both sides can't stand each other -- if only they realized how much they have in common.
-
I always felt sad for my father who was convinced both his kids were doomed to burn in hell forever.
I've asked believers about hell's locus, about its distance below the surface of the Earth.
And I've asked them where hell's portal is.
None of them ever answered either question.
Well, there is the doorway... Neat place to visit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumaean_Sibyl
I’ve been to Hell several times - my MIL is from that area. There is a large airport (Vaernes) close to it, but I prefer the train: https://www.google.no/maps/place/Hell,+7517+Hell/@63.4459592,10.8989406,16z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x466d16012658213b:0xadefaabe98f832cc
(Hell is a common place name, meaning flat stone or cave. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_Station)
Alternatively, Helvete (Norwegian for Hell) is a really beautiful place: https://www.google.no/maps/place/Helvete+Potholes,+2658+Gausdal/@61.3627038,9.6700516,15z/data=!4m6!1m3!3m2!1s0x466ac7f6d33ffa11:0x91afbc7dd175c6ea!2sHelvete,+2658+Espedalen!3m1!1s0x466ac7f6a5c77095:0x8fbbc687db81d2ae?hl=nb-no&gl=no
-
What I find off-putting more are people who make it their mission to assert their belief is best, be it religious or atheist-and as an atheist I'll say other atheists are REALLY annoying in this regard.
I agree with you. "Virtue Signaling" is just as annoying as proselytizing, and this can come from both extremes. Ironically both sides can't stand each other -- if only they realized how much they have in common.
Yep. I used to work with someone I described as an "evangelical atheist." That person never hid their contempt for anyone who believed in a higher power.
By nature, I'm more of a live-and-let-live agnostic atheist and don't feel the need to rant about believers. I left the Catholic church as an adult and still have many friends that I met at my former parish, as well as other friends who are active in other local Catholic parishes, Protestant churches, synagogues, and mosques. They're good people. None of them try to convert me and I don't trash their beliefs, so we get along just fine.
-
To answer you question about contradictions etc, I wanted to point out that evangelials believe that the Bible is the word of God, full stop. Most other sects believe that the Bible was inspired by God, written by humans (otherwise each book would be: God, God, God, vs. John, Luke, Paul etc). As someone else mentioned, Paul took it upon himself to change the nature of Jesus teachings and affected the course of Christian Church for millennia. As far of question of hell and everlasting life, obviously it is not a physical life they are referring to but some other kind of existence. The church I was raised in describes hell as being spiritually unaware or unaccepting of God's existence, while heaven is the state of after leading a godly life on Earth, state of being in God's love after death. I do think it's interesting that almost all major religions precepts (Christianity is 10 commandments) cover the same ground. The details and rituals and traditions, I feel, are not so much about being a "good" person, but serve the purpose of
maintaining ingroup and outgroup status and identity. Though adherence to those rituals, attendance and dietary rules definitely do "virtue signal" to others.
-
I really don't mind other people's religious beliefs. I find most of them interesting, especially the hardcore believers because they actually get into the details of their belief. I've accepted Jesus twice into my life, now atheist tho, and found most believers decent people. What I find off-putting more are people who make it their mission to assert their belief is best, be it religious or atheist-and as an atheist I'll say other atheists are REALLY annoying in this regard. For me, the term truly applies-lack of belief in a god, not an active belief there is no god.
Yeah, as someone else said, the OP sounds hurt, and it sounds like he might have some internal conflicts he's trying to work through.
-
I grew up in a religious family that heavily participated in religious community. As an adult, my beliefs would probably be best described as secular humanist. I have a high level of religious education, especially within the religion of my family of origin & to a lesser extent as a student of other world religions.
What helps me in the scenarios you're describing are:
(1) To remember that lots of people of faith are REALLY smart, way smarter than I am. The questions you raise of morality and philosophy, free will, and human suffering are not new. Really smart people have grappled with these questions for millennia. Developed religions likely have complex answers for all of these hard questions, and many people of faith have to make peace with what works for them (within or outside the official teachings of their religious group). There are people who are more scientifically knowledgeable than we are, in today's world, and remain people of faith. Give them some credit for not being idiots.
(2) To remember that once upon a time, I also was a person of faith. I may have grappled more or less than another. But I wasn't a dumb automaton THEN or lesser because I was theist (or at least more theist than not). I think this part gets a lot of people stuck - they feel duped or see themselves as more evolved on account of their personal history with religion. Whereas I see it as something that helps me understand and have empathy for the circumstances of someone whose experiences are different from mine. If anything, I'm mostly wistful now for not feeling like I can participate in community or get comfort in hard times that I know other people of faith do experience.
(3) To separate personal beliefs that turn into political acts that do me or others harm. I DON'T have tolerance and acceptance for people who hate me or hate other groups of people or whose faith is the CAUSE of bad acts. I object to people or groups that use faith as a weapon and don't generalize that to all people of faith.
(4) To surround myself with people whose belief system - whatever it is - has space for mine to coexist. I don't want to be hanging around with people who secretly think I'm going to hell & will burn in hellfire. I mean, I'd rather be around the people who keep it to themselves than the people who act on that belief. But that IS a real impediment to the closeness I can have to someone. So is being around people who feel the need to proselytize to me (because it's a sign that they do not accept me as I am). In general, I am uncomfortable being surrounded by those public displays of religion that do not leave space for someone else to not share the same faith. Being in a community where you are surrounded by a dominant, evangelical religion can feel hostile. So...I don't hang out in those space, and I choose where I live carefully because of that.
Beautiful post. Points 1 and 3 especially resonated with me.
I was raised atheist (and still am). I used to feel pretty angry with Christians, since they told me I was going to hell and such when I was a kid. I've become more empathetic with religious viewpoints over the years, especially since becoming acquainted with my very religious in-laws. I used to feel like "bless you," and "I'm praying for you," and similar language was a.bit passive aggressive. Now, I see it as a different way of processing the world and take it at face value. Maybe they don't mean me well, but I feel happier if I assume they do and move on.
-
I don't mingle a ton with overly religous people.
Two things bother me:
Thanking god for acheivements (specifically professional sports) "Thank you god for making me so great!"
I love these geniuses. They give "all glory to God" when they win, but the week before, when they lost 63-7, did they blame God for forsaking them?
When a kid survives cancer, they "give all glory to God" (rather than the doctors), but when a kid dies from cancer (which is far more frequent), do they blame their God?
And why did their peaceful, loving, and merciful God give 2-year old Jimmy cancer to begin with?
Wake up, Skippy, there isn't a "God" controlling this! Little Jimmy did not offend "God" to deserve this horrible and inevitable death.
I generally hold my tongue around these morons in real life, but it's nice to vent online.
Religion is what happens when nonsense is beaten into people's brains from the day they are born. It affects even intelligent people who should know better.
-
Amen.
(lol)
Praise Jesus. Or Allah. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Or Zeus. Or the Great Turtle. Or (insert name of any of a thousand mythical "Gods" here).
Everyone is at least 99+% atheist. Even the most fervent evangelical Christian or radical Muslim denounces 99+% of the Gods man has dreamed up. We atheists just take it the final 1%...
-
I simply don't listen to people who try to prosthelytize to me, and therefore give the courtesy of not doing so to them. Your list of questions is proselytizing.
I don't believe in god, and have no spirituality, was raised outside religion and spirituality entirely, so come by it honestly. I am not an "atheist", I feel no need to give myself a label as something that I am not. My parents did not use that term at all either. I see it like needing a special word to describe myself as not being anything. I am not a golfer - I don't need a word for that either.
Do you know why you self describe as an atheist? Why you need that label? Your list of questions make it seem like you adopted the label for political reasons.
No one in the USA adopts the term atheist for "political reasons." In the USA, a convicted child rapist would have more political viability than someone who dared profess disbelief in the locally favored mythical being (or "God").
It would be nice if people gave up their belief in "God" just as they give up their belief in "Santa Claus" once they reach a level of maturity.
Unfortunately for those of us who have embraced reason over faith, this rarely happens. As long as the prevailing "wisdom" favors belief in a mythical being, we are forced to use a term that clearly states that we do not believe the prevailing nonsense.
-
I don't mingle a ton with overly religous people.
Two things bother me:
Thanking god for acheivements (specifically professional sports) "Thank you god for making me so great!"
I love these geniuses. They give "all glory to God" when they win, but the week before, when they lost 63-7, did they blame God for forsaking them?
When a kid survives cancer, they "give all glory to God" (rather than the doctors), but when a kid dies from cancer (which is far more frequent), do they blame their God?
And why did their peaceful, loving, and merciful God give 2-year old Jimmy cancer to begin with?
Wake up, Skippy, there isn't a "God" controlling this! Little Jimmy did not offend "God" to deserve this horrible and inevitable death.
I generally hold my tongue around these morons in real life, but it's nice to vent online.
Religion is what happens when nonsense is beaten into people's brains from the day they are born. It affects even intelligent people who should know better.
I agree. Praise God when something good happens or they are spared, not a peep when something bad happens. Makes me smh.
My favorite <S> question I have been asked as an Atheist is "Why do you hate God so much?". I struggle with it, because I don't really know how to answer it. I don't 'hate' God, I just don't believe he exists is my usual answer but then they launch into reasons they think he does, which really doesn't provide proof of anything. Conversations usually head south after that.
The one thing I can't stand is those who makes the laws and their push to put their God everywhere. Florida now has a law that requires the motto "In God We Trust" to be hung in schools. Why? For what purpose? Is hanging this motto suddenly going to stop school shootings, drug use, pregnancy, bullying? I just don't get it.
-
I don't mingle a ton with overly religous people.
Two things bother me:
Thanking god for acheivements (specifically professional sports) "Thank you god for making me so great!"
I love these geniuses. They give "all glory to God" when they win, but the week before, when they lost 63-7, did they blame God for forsaking them?
When a kid survives cancer, they "give all glory to God" (rather than the doctors), but when a kid dies from cancer (which is far more frequent), do they blame their God?
And why did their peaceful, loving, and merciful God give 2-year old Jimmy cancer to begin with?
Wake up, Skippy, there isn't a "God" controlling this! Little Jimmy did not offend "God" to deserve this horrible and inevitable death.
I generally hold my tongue around these morons in real life, but it's nice to vent online.
Religion is what happens when nonsense is beaten into people's brains from the day they are born. It affects even intelligent people who should know better.
I agree. Praise God when something good happens or they are spared, not a peep when something bad happens. Makes me smh.
My favorite <S> question I have been asked as an Atheist is "Why do you hate God so much?". I struggle with it, because I don't really know how to answer it. I don't 'hate' God, I just don't believe he exists is my usual answer but then they launch into reasons they think he does, which really doesn't provide proof of anything. Conversations usually head south after that.
The one thing I can't stand is those who makes the laws and their push to put their God everywhere. Florida now has a law that requires the motto "In God We Trust" to be hung in schools. Why? For what purpose? Is hanging this motto suddenly going to stop school shootings, drug use, pregnancy, bullying? I just don't get it.
I just say I don't "hate God" anymore than I "hate" Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, or The Great Pumpkin.
I just don't believe any of them exist.
Except for the Great Pumpkin. We all know he's real. Because I saw it on TV.
Right?
-
I don't mingle a ton with overly religous people.
Two things bother me:
Thanking god for acheivements (specifically professional sports) "Thank you god for making me so great!"
I love these geniuses. They give "all glory to God" when they win, but the week before, when they lost 63-7, did they blame God for forsaking them?
When a kid survives cancer, they "give all glory to God" (rather than the doctors), but when a kid dies from cancer (which is far more frequent), do they blame their God?
And why did their peaceful, loving, and merciful God give 2-year old Jimmy cancer to begin with?
Wake up, Skippy, there isn't a "God" controlling this! Little Jimmy did not offend "God" to deserve this horrible and inevitable death.
I generally hold my tongue around these morons in real life, but it's nice to vent online.
Religion is what happens when nonsense is beaten into people's brains from the day they are born. It affects even intelligent people who should know better.
What I would say, or was told, is that you are raised to believe that God created you and the world, universe, etc. That when good things happen you should have gratitude for that. You should simply have gratitude every day, for the fact of your existence. When bad things happen it is because we do not know everything , God's will is inscrutable, and the Lord works in mysterious ways. This is a condundrum that pretty much every person raised Christian runs across. A good book that discusses (but doesn't answer) this paradox is "The Brother's Karamasov".
-
I really don't mind other people's religious beliefs. I find most of them interesting, especially the hardcore believers because they actually get into the details of their belief. I've accepted Jesus twice into my life, now atheist tho, and found most believers decent people. What I find off-putting more are people who make it their mission to assert their belief is best, be it religious or atheist-and as an atheist I'll say other atheists are REALLY annoying in this regard. For me, the term truly applies-lack of belief in a god, not an active belief there is no god.
Yeah, as someone else said, the OP sounds hurt, and it sounds like he might have some internal conflicts he's trying to work through.
I read OP's problem as being that the theists are constantly imposing actions based on their beliefs on the rest of us, and how do atheists counter that? Which seems a reasonable question to me: I'm not getting hurt or internal conflict from it. I do agree challenging the peculiar beliefs of the religious probably isn't the way to go if getting a productive non-religious way forward is the aim, but I can certainly understand the frustration - it is hard to argue against the irrational.
I don't think anyone disagrees that people are free to believe what they like, it's when believers act in ways which impose the limitations selected by those belief systems on the rest of us that the problems arise.
-
What I'm hearing here is, "I don't want to talk about religion. But I also have all these things I want to say to religious people. So I do actually want to talk about it, I just don't want to hear about it." Some of your things you want to say are questions. Do you actually, genuinely, respectfully want to hear the answers? What are you planning to do when they are, presumably, not the same answers as you have? Tell them what to think, in the same way that you complain they're telling you what to think? I suspect it may well be the case that you don't want to gently introduce any of these questions in order to listen to and attempt to understand the speaker. Instead, you want to wait for them to finish so you can think (or tell them) what a moron they are. Do you think there might be a sliiiight chance that it's reflected in your tone or demeanour, and that might stymie a respectful and interesting discussion?
I mean, if you base your worldview on a book, shouldn't you have read the book? Studied every inch of the book? Understand who wrote the book, and why, and when, and the history of its many translations, and how the book says different things based on the version?
I base many of my worldviews on books that I haven't read. On the Origin of Species. Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Relativity: The Special and the General Theory. But I understand the basics and cleverer people than me have told me that they're probably true. There are reams and reams of biblical criticism and exegesis and church teaching. Aquinas's Summa leaps to mind.
"If this guy who has studied this stuff for a life-time can't answer the simplest questions, what does that say for the other members of the church? Do they even think about this stuff?"
I'm glad you managed to have lunch with those two pastors. I'm sorry one of them was so disappointing for you. I wonder if this is a helpful analogy for you.
Imagine someone of average intelligence and life experience tells me that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the moon in 1969. Oh wow! The moon! I ask them how they did it. They say they flew there. But humans can't fly. No, they went in a rocket, like a giant plane. But planes can only fly so far and can only carry so much fuel before they get too heavy to fly - where did they refuel? Nowhere. What, they flew all the way to the moon on one tank of fuel? I...no...er...yes...um... I start to suspect that maybe this person is winding me up because their rocket story sounds a little far fetched. Hm, I think, I'd better go and talk to someone who's dealt with this stuff all their life. I go to ask a physics teacher. They explain about jettisoning boosters and suchlike, but I'm also wanting to know how they knew where to go - I mean, you can't buy an A-Z of space! And while this physics teacher is great on the basics, advanced space navigation is beyond their capability. After all, they may have a degree in physics generally and teach it to other people all day, but this is some pretty high-level stuff. So I have to go all the way to a university professor of astrophysics before I can find someone who can explain to me how they knew which way to point the rocket - although I've got to admit it's pretty hard to understand because I don't have much knowledge of astrophysics generally and he's not great at explaining it to a relative idiot. It's the teacher who's good at explaining things to people who don't know anything about them. But I came very close to believing the moon landings were fake - and maybe I'm still suspicious because I'm convinced this professor has some kind of agenda. Like, if the moon landings didn't happen (if space doesn't even exist!) then he'd be out of a job, right? So of course he'd perpetuate the moon landing conspiracy. He's got the most to lose here!
Can you see how the average person (bearing in mind that half the world's population is below average) in the street and maybe even the teacher cannot adequately explain something that really happened? And how easy it is, if you're convinced the moon landings didn't happen, to doubt even the word of the expert? And how that might apply to your experience of talking to people about Christianity?
To answer your original question, the problem many people have is conflating Christianity with the kind of obnoxious buttheads who bring it up all the time. I imagine your experience of talking to religious people can feel something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8 You just don't want tea!!! If I were basing my perception of atheists solely on those who specifically brought up their atheism, I would think atheists were absolute arseholes who couldn't fucking shut up about it if their life depended on it and were always all up in my business. So actually, imo, your problem is not with Christians. Your problem is with obnoxious buttheads. It just so happens that the topic in question is Christianity. For obnoxious buttheads of any description, I recommend Captain Awkward: https://captainawkward.com A basic summary of her advice is blandly don't engage and then move the conversation on. "That's interesting + subject change." If they persist, be more explicit: "I don't want to talk about that + subject change." If they still persist, they are being obnoxious buttheads and they started it so just leave: "I said I didn't want to talk about it + physically walk away." This is applicable to anything people keep going on about like an obnoxious butthead (You should get your hair cut! Have you tried Crossfit?! I'm vegan now!!!) It's OK to set boundaries around your conversation - you just want to avoid being an obnoxious butthead yourself.
-
I honestly don't think most religious people think about most of this. I think most of them are on "cruise control" and equate "religion" with "being a good person." I know we all tend to go on cruise control on certain things, but essential building blocks to a person's entire worldview are not the right place to get lazy in one's analysis.
I know you posted this a while ago, but that's... not really accurate at all. I can see how you might think that, but Christians who know what they are talking about when it comes to their own faith know that they are fundamentally bad (sinful) people who need God/Jesus/the Holy Spirit to save them from themselves.
For me, I was raised Roman Catholic, and I really appreciate Catholic Social Teaching (it's pretty... ah... socialist): https://www.mncatholic.org/seven-themes-of-catholic-social-teaching/ I'm not super devout and don't attend church regularly, but I do appreciate being raised in a faith tradition. I also took Catholic apologetics, which is a wild ride. :)
-
I've been an atheist since I was 11 and I'm enjoying this discussion. I've definitely had to work at the not engaging, and I've gotten a lot better at it, but it's still a work in progress. I just hate the idea that my silence can be mistaken for agreement. I think there are lots of Christians in our society who don't even acknowledge that there are those with other belief systems and that they deserve the same respect and consideration the Christians expect as their due.
-
Merry Christmas
-
Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas!
-
Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas!
God solsnu (Happy turn of the sun)!
-
Io Saturnalia!
-
As an “atheist” there are so many embarrassing posts in this thread that are the reason I don’t typically use that term for myself. The outspoken atheists who believe there is any value in trying to argue about religion are just as bad as the pressy religious people that push their views on others.
-
As an “atheist” there are so many embarrassing posts in this thread that are the reason I don’t typically use that term for myself. The outspoken atheists who believe there is any value in trying to argue about religion are just as bad as the pressy religious people that push their views on others.
I think the point is more about the frustration of trying to deflect agressive proselytizing. Personally, I would never push my beliefs (or rather lack of them) on others. But damn, I get sick of pushy Christians.
-
As an “atheist” there are so many embarrassing posts in this thread that are the reason I don’t typically use that term for myself. The outspoken atheists who believe there is any value in trying to argue about religion are just as bad as the pressy religious people that push their views on others.
I think the point is more about the frustration of trying to deflect agressive proselytizing. Personally, I would never push my beliefs (or rather lack of them) on others. But damn, I get sick of pushy Christians.
The OP stated that they’ve severed friendships because of these differing beliefs. All it takes is one person to be the bigger person and back out of these discussions, or just bite their tongue. Yes, I’m aware it’s very hard sometime. As many can see on the forum I have a very hard time often biting my tongue.
I have been seething as in meetings as work, I have worked jobs where every morning someone held a big open Christian prayer. It was very uncomfortable, but I’m not going to make some huge fuss out of it. Same with tonight at dinner when saying grace with my parents beforehand. What value would it add causing some sort of scene or stupid argument?
-
As an “atheist” there are so many embarrassing posts in this thread that are the reason I don’t typically use that term for myself. The outspoken atheists who believe there is any value in trying to argue about religion are just as bad as the pressy religious people that push their views on others.
I think the point is more about the frustration of trying to deflect agressive proselytizing. Personally, I would never push my beliefs (or rather lack of them) on others. But damn, I get sick of pushy Christians.
The OP stated that they’ve severed friendships because of these differing beliefs. All it takes is one person to be the bigger person and back out of these discussions, or just bite their tongue. Yes, I’m aware it’s very hard sometime. As many can see on the forum I have a very hard time often biting my tongue.
I have been seething as in meetings as work, I have worked jobs where every morning someone held a big open Christian prayer. It was very uncomfortable, but I’m not going to make some huge fuss out of it. Same with tonight at dinner when saying grace with my parents beforehand. What value would it add causing some sort of scene or stupid argument?
I get that you are committed to believing you are the bigger person.
Merry Christmas.
-
As an “atheist” there are so many embarrassing posts in this thread that are the reason I don’t typically use that term for myself. The outspoken atheists who believe there is any value in trying to argue about religion are just as bad as the pressy religious people that push their views on others.
I think the point is more about the frustration of trying to deflect agressive proselytizing. Personally, I would never push my beliefs (or rather lack of them) on others. But damn, I get sick of pushy Christians.
The OP stated that they’ve severed friendships because of these differing beliefs. All it takes is one person to be the bigger person and back out of these discussions, or just bite their tongue. Yes, I’m aware it’s very hard sometime. As many can see on the forum I have a very hard time often biting my tongue.
I have been seething as in meetings as work, I have worked jobs where every morning someone held a big open Christian prayer. It was very uncomfortable, but I’m not going to make some huge fuss out of it. Same with tonight at dinner when saying grace with my parents beforehand. What value would it add causing some sort of scene or stupid argument?
I get that you are committed to believing you are the bigger person.
Merry Christmas.
Not only am I committed to believing that I am the bigger person, I also have to make sure you are aware of it. I am glad it’s been recognized.
-
The posts that frustrate me the most are the "Oh, either way, it's fine. People can choose to believe or not believe" type of posts.
And they irritate me because they equate the two positions of "belief" and "non belief." But they are NOT equal.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Carl Sagan. Can anyone really argue against this?
You have one side, Side A, saying, "I believe in (and worship) a divine invisible deity who is all knowing and all powerful, and who created all things, and who created men, and then women (out of a rib), and then flooded the earth because of the evil men did (even though, being all knowing, the deity knew this would happen from the beginning), and then kills all of the people and animals except somehow two of each critter was lured from over the globe to an ark..." I am stopping here but could go on for pages.
And you have the other side, Side B, saying, "Where is the proof of this?"
Those are the two sides. And it's nuts to me that me pointing this out is "disrespectful," and that Side B is the MINORITY. I mean, wtf?
It just shows how entrenched this religious thinking is in most people's minds. The socialization is so powerful. Does anyone think that religion would survive if kids weren't brainwashed and were taught secular and logical values from the start?
And sometimes people, even atheists will say, "Oh leave them alone. If it brings them comfort, why needle them?" And yes, I understand the sentiment, and it's not like anyone is going to a funeral and yelling "There is no heaven!" So give people some credit...timing is important yes.
But the question still remains, "Is it a good thing for billions of people to rely on religion as a crutch to get through their lives? Wouldn't it be better if they learned to build strength from within, and to rely on others, instead of putting all their eggs into the "faith" basket? I mean, is mass delusion the best way for people to deal with their problems?
I 100% percent believe in everything I just typed. And to be CLEAR, this thread is NOT for religious folks. This is NOT a thread for "back and forth" between theists and non-theists. I am looking to talk with other atheists about these things.
(EDITED TO ADD: I updated the thread name to make it clear this thread is for atheists. I do not want to be accused of trying to fight or bait or bash Christian members of this forum. I am just looking to vent and discuss stuff with other secular folks without having to "hold my tongue" as I have to in real life)
-
I will add one more anecdote....
I didn't leave the church into WELL into adulthood, like early 30s, so yes I felt like the biggest idiot for a number of years after.
But getting to the story, when I left the church, I had lunch with two different pastors there (it was a pretty big church). Here's how the lunches went...
LUNCH 1 with SENIOR PASTOR: I give it a C. We were both civil to each other. There was no ill will, at least from my side. But he couldn't' answer ANY of my questions. Literally none of them. He just said things like "We can't necessarily understand why God acts as he does." It was VERY frustrating for me. I left thinking, "If this guy who has studied this stuff for a life-time can't answer the simplest questions, what does that say for the other members of the church? Do they even think about this stuff?"
LUNCH 2 with JUNIOR PASTOR: I give it an A+. I loved this guy, and still do. For years I kept our talk secret because I didn't want him to lose his job. (He left the church a few years later). In any case, he honestly told me, "Nick Miller, I can't even tell you that Jesus is the only way to happiness. I think there are lots of ways. And then he talked about different religions and even "just being a good person." He answered my questions I think as honestly and openly as he could. He expressed a lot of doubts and kept referring to the Bible stories as "examples," saying that he didn't necessary think you had to believe the events actually happened. We shook hands and left on good terms (I bought him lunch), but I left thinking, "If this guy who has studied this stuff for 15 years is admitting he doesn't even think Christianity is the "only way," what does that say about the whole belief system?"
So I have had these talks with "learned" people. They can't answer the tough questions because the religion is based on myths from over 2,000 years ago. But I didn't understand that until I was in my early 30s, and I consider myself a smart person, so I understand how powerful the socialization is.
Add God's rape of Mary to that list of insane things in the Bible.
No. She consented.
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Luke-1-38/
-
I always felt sad for my father who was convinced both his kids were doomed to burn in hell forever.
I've asked believers about hell's locus, about its distance below the surface of the Earth.
And I've asked them where hell's portal is.
None of them ever answered either question.
Well, there is the doorway... Neat place to visit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumaean_Sibyl
and you forgot these ; \
https://agreekadventure.com/gates-hades-underworld-greece/
-
Nick, I find it odd that you are so frustrated by people that don’t really care if others believe or not. I could care less. My step son became a Christian about 4 years ago. It’s very important to him and we went to his baptism. He never try’s to convert us and we have talked about it. He believes that his brother won’t be in heaven because he’s gay. Yet we all went to the other brother’s wedding including my religious step son. I think it’s all about respecting others’ believes.
-
Nick, I find it odd that you are so frustrated by people that don’t really care if others believe or not. I could care less. My step son became a Christian about 4 years ago. It’s very important to him and we went to his baptism. He never try’s to convert us and we have talked about it. He believes that his brother won’t be in heaven because he’s gay. Yet we all went to the other brother’s wedding including my religious step son. I think it’s all about respecting others’ believes.
That's the point. He started this thread specifically ABOUT people who are Christians and won't keep their beliefs to themselves and not try to convert/convince others.
-
Nick, I find it odd that you are so frustrated by people that don’t really care if others believe or not. I could care less. My step son became a Christian about 4 years ago. It’s very important to him and we went to his baptism. He never try’s to convert us and we have talked about it. He believes that his brother won’t be in heaven because he’s gay. Yet we all went to the other brother’s wedding including my religious step son. I think it’s all about respecting others’ believes.
Well, if you think that religion is getting in the way of making this a better world (and I can sympathise with that point), then having people say "let them get on with their wars and their bigotry, it's all right with me" is a cop-out. Much like the whole Republican party has been letting Trump do what he likes as long as they've got theirs, thanks.
-
As an “atheist” there are so many embarrassing posts in this thread that are the reason I don’t typically use that term for myself. The outspoken atheists who believe there is any value in trying to argue about religion are just as bad as the pressy religious people that push their views on others.
I think it is important to push back on religion because so many people make political decisions based on their religion. Things like we don't need to do anything about climate change because god put all of these resources on earth for us to use them all. We don't need to do anything about gun control because god wanted those children dead because he needed more angels. Etc, etc...
-
Nick, I find it odd that you are so frustrated by people that don’t really care if others believe or not. I could care less. My step son became a Christian about 4 years ago. It’s very important to him and we went to his baptism. He never try’s to convert us and we have talked about it. He believes that his brother won’t be in heaven because he’s gay. Yet we all went to the other brother’s wedding including my religious step son. I think it’s all about respecting others’ believes.
But why do crazy religious beliefs deserve "respect?" I mean, why?
Most all atheists agree those beliefs (not the people themselves) are nuts. Just plain nuts. Why does accepting crazy made-up shit as "fact" and then basing your whole worldview around it deserve "respect?"
If I said, "Invisible unicorns live in my yard and they protect my family from an evil, also invisible, dragon," you would "respect" those beliefs? I mean, why would you? Don't you call out "beliefs" as crazy at some point? Should people "respect" my belief in a flying spaghetti monster if I said I follow his noodly wisdom?
It's like people label crazy shit as "religion" and think the mere word "religion" means that we all must "respect" the craziness.
-
Fire, I am certainly not going to try to push my beliefs on anyone. That’s just as obnoxious. Plus no one changes their mind due to a argument with someone. People change their beliefs when something big happens that forces them to look at religion or when they have thought about it for a long period of time.
-
Nick, I think it’s different because people are taught religion as children so you are talking about deeply ingrained beliefs. Plus the majority are believers so most of society doesn’t see it as crazy. My mom was such a believer that she would have been willing to die before renouncing God. Most of the world doesn’t believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Personally I have no desire to shut in someone’s Wheatees.
-
I'm as atheist as they come, but to denounce all religious people as "crazy" or insane" is absurdly arrogant and immature. There are much much much smarter people than you or me living now and in the past that have/had very compelling reasons for believing in a God. Have you read through all the legendary Greek and Roman philosophers and their arguments? If not, they are very convincing from a logic and reason standpoint, if you can grasp the logic. After reading/studying through these works in college, I still decided I was atheist, but I have a deeper respect for those who have decided to believe in a deity. St Augustine's Confessions alone is extremely moving. Worth a read if you are intelligent enough to grasp it. Arguing with people who are deeply religious isn't going to get you anywhere, especially from such a smug attitude. If you approached it as a genuine intellectual discussion you might have better success, but from your posts I can tell you aren't capable of that.
-
Nick, I think it’s different because people are taught religion as children so you are talking about deeply ingrained beliefs. Plus the majority are believers so most of society doesn’t see it as crazy. My mom was such a believer that she would have been willing to die before renouncing God. Most of the world doesn’t believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Personally I have no desire to shut in someone’s Wheatees.
The beliefs are every bit as crazy as believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Thor or invisible unicorns. When enough people start calling it out, in an Emperor Has No Clothes way, we'll reach critical mass. But we need folks to be willing to call people out, even on "deeply ingrained" beliefs.
I don't think that means we have to fight every person every time. I think it means being more visible, proudly making known our secular worldview, making sure people understand that religion is not needed to lead a moral life, etc. I also think that it means sharing our deconversion stories if we have them. A few religious people have asked me, and I tell them why I left religion. I don't think that means they are also going to deconvert (one did), but it lays the foundation for them say, "Okay Nick is a good guy and not religious at all. Hmmm."
-
I'm as atheist as they come, but to denounce all religious people as "crazy" or insane" is absurdly arrogant and immature. There are much much much smarter people than you or me living now and in the past that have/had very compelling reasons for believing in a God. Have you read through all the legendary Greek philosophers and their arguments? If not, they are very convincing from a logic and reason standpoint, if you can grasp the logic. After reading/studying through these works in college, I still decided I was atheist, but I have a deeper respect for those who have decided to believe in a deity. St Augustine's Confessions alone is extremely moving.
1) You obviously rejected whatever "logic" you saw in those arguments.
2) How many religious people do you think ground their faith in the (I assume) very complex arguments you are referencing? .001%? Lower?
Yes, there are very smart religious people. I went to a Catholic institution. I've talked with folks about it. My take from most of them was that they treated it as an interesting philosophical exercise about the nature of a divine being, the meaning of life, the origins of the universe, etc. None of these "smart people" attempted to argue for arks full of critters, or snakes speaking Hebrew. They try to skirt around the more ridiculous parts to focus on the less objectionable.
You focused your comment on belief "in a god." EVEN IF someone could successfully argue and prove the existence of a divine being, it's a whole other argument to say that this divine being should be worshiped. And of course, if someone proved the existence of a divine being who was all-knowing and all-powerful, my argument of "this is ridiculous" would indeed disappear. So I patiently wait for someone to prove this so I can be proven wrong. Considering it has never happened, I might be waiting a while.
-
I find this an interesting topic, because in my family there is such a diverse response to the desire to connect with a life that is more spiritually and ethically fulfilling. My grandfather was not religious but was part of the "ethical society" which meant regularly. (if curious https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_movement). My grandmother was a lapsed Catholic. My mother growing up wanted to be a member of a church, so her parents encouraged her to try out different churches and she did and ended up joining the Methodist church. She dressed herself and walked by herself to church every Sunday).
My father was raised eastern Orthodox, my mother converted and we were raised eastern Orthodox. Wasn't just a religion but a big part of the culture of that side of the family. I would have felt a lack if I was not raised as my cousins were raised.
What I am saying is there is a human impulse to be part of something that is larger than oneself and gives meaning and spiritual purpose. You can scoff but it is just as much part of being human as family units and music and song and funerals and many other uniquely human social creations.
-
I find this an interesting topic, because in my family there is such a diverse response to the desire to connect with a life that is more spiritually and ethically fulfilling. My grandfather was not religious but was part of the "ethical society" which meant regularly. (if curious it still is around https://ethicalhuman.org/). My grandmother was a lapsed Catholic. My mother growing up wanted to be a member of a church, so her parents encouraged her to try out different churches and she did and ended up joining the Methodist church. She dressed herself and walked by herself to church every Sunday).
My father was raised eastern Orthodox, my mother converted and we were raised eastern Orthodox. Wasn't just a religion but a big part of the culture of that side of the family. I would have felt a lack if I was not raised as my cousins were raised.
What I am saying is there is a human impulse to be part of something that is larger than oneself and gives meaning and spiritual purpose. You can scoff but it is just as much part of being human as family units and music and song and funerals and many other uniquely human social creations.
I don't disagree. However, it's interesting that for so many people, doing so requires them to believe in the supernatural. I've never really understood why that is.
-
I find this an interesting topic, because in my family there is such a diverse response to the desire to connect with a life that is more spiritually and ethically fulfilling. My grandfather was not religious but was part of the "ethical society" which meant regularly. (if curious it still is around https://ethicalhuman.org/). My grandmother was a lapsed Catholic. My mother growing up wanted to be a member of a church, so her parents encouraged her to try out different churches and she did and ended up joining the Methodist church. She dressed herself and walked by herself to church every Sunday).
My father was raised eastern Orthodox, my mother converted and we were raised eastern Orthodox. Wasn't just a religion but a big part of the culture of that side of the family. I would have felt a lack if I was not raised as my cousins were raised.
What I am saying is there is a human impulse to be part of something that is larger than oneself and gives meaning and spiritual purpose. You can scoff but it is just as much part of being human as family units and music and song and funerals and many other uniquely human social creations.
I don't disagree. However, it's interesting that for so many people, doing so requires them to believe in the supernatural. I've never really understood why that is.
You ninja'ed me. I was going to say something similar. Reaching out and helping others in our communities IS being "a part of something that is larger than oneself." And it doesn't require the existence of supernatural entities or divine retribution or belief in things that never happened.
-
I find this an interesting topic, because in my family there is such a diverse response to the desire to connect with a life that is more spiritually and ethically fulfilling. My grandfather was not religious but was part of the "ethical society" which meant regularly. (if curious it still is around https://ethicalhuman.org/). My grandmother was a lapsed Catholic. My mother growing up wanted to be a member of a church, so her parents encouraged her to try out different churches and she did and ended up joining the Methodist church. She dressed herself and walked by herself to church every Sunday).
My father was raised eastern Orthodox, my mother converted and we were raised eastern Orthodox. Wasn't just a religion but a big part of the culture of that side of the family. I would have felt a lack if I was not raised as my cousins were raised.
What I am saying is there is a human impulse to be part of something that is larger than oneself and gives meaning and spiritual purpose. You can scoff but it is just as much part of being human as family units and music and song and funerals and many other uniquely human social creations.
I don't disagree. However, it's interesting that for so many people, doing so requires them to believe in the supernatural. I've never really understood why that is.
You are right. That is a separate question. I am in enough wonder and awe of this universe and the living creations on this planet, to not need anything more incredible than that! And I feel you can feel gratitude of existence without attributing that gratitude to a particular "deity". But mileage varies. My only disagreement again is when evangelicals use their interpretation of the Bible to restrict or impinge on the rights and freedoms of other people. This country has separation of church and state.
-
As an “atheist” there are so many embarrassing posts in this thread that are the reason I don’t typically use that term for myself. The outspoken atheists who believe there is any value in trying to argue about religion are just as bad as the pressy religious people that push their views on others.
I think it is important to push back on religion because so many people make political decisions based on their religion. Things like we don't need to do anything about climate change because god put all of these resources on earth for us to use them all. We don't need to do anything about gun control because god wanted those children dead because he needed more angels. Etc, etc...
If the problem is that people are making the "wrong" political decision because of their religion, do you really think that telling them their religion is wrong or that it doesn't belong in the political sphere is going to change their mind? I think it would be more effective (if political decision-making really is your true concern) to argue within their religious perspective. There are a lot of Christian ecological thinkers (see the concept of stewardship) and Christian pacifists. I'm pretty sure you would get more done that way.
-
I guess I qualify as an agnostic atheist - I am willing to concede that something beyond our understanding is/has been happening, the universe is massive, complex and we are just barely down from the trees to start figuring it out.
However, the leap from 'something vast and possibly divine is happening' to 'this specific book or creed describes what is happening' is just not possible for me.
I know that faith helps a lot of people in a lot of ways. Some members of my family are deeply religious and have derived great comfort from their faith (various faiths depending on the relative). Good for them and I am always respectful of their views, unless they try to recruit my kids, which for the most part they do not.
A couple of years ago one of my oldest friends was killed in a motorcycle crash, and his 13 year old was injured and lost his only parent, essentially because a bad driver failed to shouldercheck. My brother in law, another atheist, said something really great to me: "I wish I could offer some kind of comfort or reason, but the fact is there is no reason. It just sucks."
The fact that random shitty things are not 'God's will' is actually quite comforting, because if 'God' killed my friend then God is an asshole.
My father in law is a Greek who is not religious, though he loves the holidays (Xmas, Easter). One Easter my wife's grandmother, a very religious woman, greeted us all with 'He died for us you know' (referencing Jesus). My FIL smiled and said 'He didn't ask me'.
-
The posts that frustrate me the most are the "Oh, either way, it's fine. People can choose to believe or not believe" type of posts.
And they irritate me because they equate the two positions of "belief" and "non belief." But they are NOT equal.
As an atheist who makes statements like yours above, not caring what others believe, your understanding of “us” is wrong.
We are not equating believing and not believing. It has nothing to do with that at all.
It has to do with not wasting our time, emotions, relationships with others, etc., into being concerned what others “believe” or don’t believe. Based on your posts in this thread, you seem distressed by the whole situation, and I’m sure that most people that “don’t care,” make an effort in life to not worry about things outside of their control. This is not possible for everyone, and even my “holier than thou” self, gets upset about tons of things outside my control on a very regular basis, religion just typically isn’t one of them.
For example - I have some super religious friends on Facebook. I don’t want to see their posts so I simply hide their posts from my news feed. Problem solved.
Another thing I have grown to realize, and I believe has been mentioned here, is that the vast majority of people are a certain religion because that’s how they were raised. In a “sense” it’s almost outside of their control. Yes - I was raised catholic and could just never buy into it, but I think that’s a tough pill to swallow to expect every person on earth to have that same mindset. I’d bet $ that if we traded an equal amount of newborn American babies with Christian parents, with newborn middle eastern babies with Muslim parents, they’d overwhelmingly be raised and believe the religion they learned growing up.
-
I don't mingle a ton with overly religous people.
Two things bother me:
Thanking god for acheivements (specifically professional sports) "Thank you god for making me so great!"
I love these geniuses. They give "all glory to God" when they win, but the week before, when they lost 63-7, did they blame God for forsaking them?
When a kid survives cancer, they "give all glory to God" (rather than the doctors), but when a kid dies from cancer (which is far more frequent), do they blame their God?
And why did their peaceful, loving, and merciful God give 2-year old Jimmy cancer to begin with?
Wake up, Skippy, there isn't a "God" controlling this! Little Jimmy did not offend "God" to deserve this horrible and inevitable death.
I generally hold my tongue around these morons in real life, but it's nice to vent online.
Religion is what happens when nonsense is beaten into people's brains from the day they are born. It affects even intelligent people who should know better.
As a parent to a child with cancer (he is doing very well now) I would correct your post in that the majority of kids with cancer do survive, although most have lifelong disabilities associated with treatment and a few childhood cancers have atrociously bad outcomes (like DIPG with a 0% 5 year survival rate). My son's cancer has a 5 year survival rate of 85%.
My son's cancer reinforced my atheism. People are shocked that we have not given up our beliefs and finally turned to god, but we did not. (the theory of no atheists in foxholes) I am continually comforted by the fact that everybody who can do something to save my son's life - medical staff, family, friends, community, etc. is doing it. There is no magical being up in the sky that could cure my son with the snap of his fingers and just chooses not to because we did not beg him hard enough. I also know that it is not personal - with no supernatural being that controls all - nobody gave my son cancer, it was just a series of random mutations in the machine that is the human body.
It is very difficult to watch other cancer families who are believers who not only have to go through the pain and suffering of the cancer itself - it is a special level of hell to watch a child suffer and wither away - they have to come to terms with the fact that their supposedly all loving god not only is not curing their child, but never stopped it in the first place. I have witnessed parents who question this in a support group setting only to be jumped on by the other Christians who haven't reached that spot spewing bullshit like "god has a plan" " god is here for our kids", etc.
I developed a relationship with a fellow mom who was deeply religious and also had a teenage son with cancer. We got along for the most part despite the religious differences but as her son was dying, it became increasingly awkward. She had a wonderful support system and community of faith who organized many prayer services, prayers were initiated on facebook, etc. and then it got to the point where the only hope left was god and we were all asked to pray on hyperdrive. I never once said anything to her about this futile effort as it would be extremely cruel at her worst hour. Then when he was about to die, the miracle from god became that he would pass away and go to heaven to be pain free (he had excruciating pain towards the end). Wait. . . . What? Basically the second she accepted he was dying, god still got credit because he let her son die and stop the pain.
After his death she saw signs from god and her son everywhere and all her FB friends reinforced it with their own "sightings". The day she posted a picture of a chemtrail from an airplane as a sign from god because her son liked the number 11, I had to stop following her on FB. I was dealing with my own psychological crap from my own son's cancer and just couldn't take all the superstition and delusion any more.
I never once said anything to her about her beliefs or religion, and respect the fact that she fell back on what she knew best in one of the worst things that could happen to a parent. But I find the whole thing so incredibly sad.
-
I don't mingle a ton with overly religous people.
Two things bother me:
Thanking god for acheivements (specifically professional sports) "Thank you god for making me so great!"
I love these geniuses. They give "all glory to God" when they win, but the week before, when they lost 63-7, did they blame God for forsaking them?
When a kid survives cancer, they "give all glory to God" (rather than the doctors), but when a kid dies from cancer (which is far more frequent), do they blame their God?
And why did their peaceful, loving, and merciful God give 2-year old Jimmy cancer to begin with?
Wake up, Skippy, there isn't a "God" controlling this! Little Jimmy did not offend "God" to deserve this horrible and inevitable death.
I generally hold my tongue around these morons in real life, but it's nice to vent online.
Religion is what happens when nonsense is beaten into people's brains from the day they are born. It affects even intelligent people who should know better.
As a parent to a child with cancer (he is doing very well now) I would correct your post in that the majority of kids with cancer do survive, although most have lifelong disabilities associated with treatment and a few childhood cancers have atrociously bad outcomes (like DIPG with a 0% 5 year survival rate). My son's cancer has a 5 year survival rate of 85%.
My son's cancer reinforced my atheism. People are shocked that we have not given up our beliefs and finally turned to god, but we did not. (the theory of no atheists in foxholes) I am continually comforted by the fact that everybody who can do something to save my son's life - medical staff, family, friends, community, etc. is doing it. There is no magical being up in the sky that could cure my son with the snap of his fingers and just chooses not to because we did not beg him hard enough. I also know that it is not personal - with no supernatural being that controls all - nobody gave my son cancer, it was just a series of random mutations in the machine that is the human body.
It is very difficult to watch other cancer families who are believers who not only have to go through the pain and suffering of the cancer itself - it is a special level of hell to watch a child suffer and wither away - they have to come to terms with the fact that their supposedly all loving god not only is not curing their child, but never stopped it in the first place. I have witnessed parents who question this in a support group setting only to be jumped on by the other Christians who haven't reached that spot spewing bullshit like "god has a plan" " god is here for our kids", etc.
I developed a relationship with a fellow mom who was deeply religious and also had a teenage son with cancer. We got along for the most part despite the religious differences but as her son was dying, it became increasingly awkward. She had a wonderful support system and community of faith who organized many prayer services, prayers were initiated on facebook, etc. and then it got to the point where the only hope left was god and we were all asked to pray on hyperdrive. I never once said anything to her about this futile effort as it would be extremely cruel at her worst hour. Then when he was about to die, the miracle from god became that he would pass away and go to heaven to be pain free (he had excruciating pain towards the end). Wait. . . . What? Basically the second she accepted he was dying, god still got credit because he let her son die and stop the pain.
After his death she saw signs from god and her son everywhere and all her FB friends reinforced it with their own "sightings". The day she posted a picture of a chemtrail from an airplane as a sign from god because her son liked the number 11, I had to stop following her on FB. I was dealing with my own psychological crap from my own son's cancer and just couldn't take all the superstition and delusion any more.
I never once said anything to her about her beliefs or religion, and respect the fact that she fell back on what she knew best in one of the worst things that could happen to a parent. But I find the whole thing so incredibly sad.
Thank you so much for sharing that very personal story. And I'm so happy to hear that your son is doing better.
-
My wife is catholic. I have to go to church at Christmas and Easter. It could be a lot worse for you.
I've learnt that although religion is clearly something a little weird it is also something that a huge number of people have decided to believe in. It may provide them with some good guidelines to live their life or it might even be that practicing a religion is somehow good for you from a psychological perspective.
There are people that believe in all funny sorts of things and I don't really think focusing on religion is really going for low hanging fruit. I think that there are weirder belief systems out there.
-
Cindybs thank you for sharing your story. I had the opposite thing happen where someone I knew and admired who was not particularly religious, became so at the very end of her fight with cancer. She was also grasping at anything for a cure, like fungal extracts and diet. She was scared sh*less because she had young kids and wanted some kind of hope she was going to make it and watch her kids grow up. Her denial and wanting only to be positive impacted her kids, because even though her doctor and friends advised her to not put off having the "talk" with the kids that Mommy might not make it, she kept putting it off, putting it off, so her kids were not prepared, and it was even more traumatic to them.
It was a tragedy all the way around. She was one of those people who was special. A lot of people would have sacrificed some of their own life force to keep her going, if that was something possible, and if prayers worked the way people think they should she would still be living.
-
I'm late, but I just wanted to add my "Merry Christmas" to the thread as well.
-
My mom and grandma were both on the verge of tears as they were talking about how their friend's friend's son (someone they didn't even know) had an atheist girlfriend. I, being the only other person in the room with them, pretended I had to go to the bathroom while they got over their... ahem, "loss."
I'm the only atheist in my family, and the way that I hear most of my religious family members talk about atheists makes me afraid to ever tell them what my beliefs are. I've been in the closet about this for well over a decade, and I'm still not sure if it's even worth it for me to tell them.
I would like my family members to know that I don't place any value whatsoever on feeling correct about how the universe came into existence, so then I can stop worrying that they'll catch me off guard and find out about my atheism before I've had a chance to figure out how to tell them gently. Once they know, I can finally have my "♫Let it Go♫" moment, and break into song and dance right there in front of them or something, lmao.
I was listening to some atheist podcast the other day (don't remember which one) where someone said something like "It's better to be your genuine self than to try to meet other people more than half way." I like that idea in theory. In practice, I guess I don't like rocking the boat. As it stands right now, I tense up uncontrollably around people when then topic of religion comes up. Also, anxiety is a bitch, and it gives me literal headaches over this stuff sometimes, so that sucks.
However, I also don't want to cause my family any unnecessary grief over what I consider to be an extremely trivial and inconsequential matter. Right now they seem pretty happy to assume that I'm some sort of non-practicing Christian, so I guess I'll just let them keep thinking that until they explicitly ask me. Hey, at least they already know I don't go to church. Telling them that was a HUGE step for me, seriously. I'll be really careful with my wording if I do come out as non-religious, though. I think it's safe to assume the word "atheist" would not accurately convey my beliefs or values to them, at least not without a lot of follow-up explanation. I think there would be much less of a chance for miscommunication if I used the word "agnostic," though I'm sure even that would compel them to up their "we must bring him back into the fold" game. I don't think I should tell them that I find the concept of "worship" to be totally abhorrent and immoral, too. Guess I'll just keep that one to myself.
From my perspective, being incorrect about the nature of the universe is just a given. The universe is weird and cool. So what if it got created by an intentional process? I wouldn't feel the need to call the creator a "god," because that word has been overloaded with too many definitions, stipulations, and stories anyway. I wouldn't call it "supernatural" either; that word is dumb and lazy.
From the perspective of my Christian relatives, it seems like the universe is neither weird nor cool. Rather, it's some kind of scary 1000-question test that you're supposed to pass with flying colors, with eternal consequences for being lucky enough to have been born into the culture that gives you the most accurate study guide. Man, I'm really glad I was never convinced by the "hell for nonbelievers" narrative when I was a kid. That made the initial process of deconversion... hella easy. (◕‿◕)
I feel sorry for kids that have to shed that belief. I hope my nieces and nephews either won't have to, or if they do, that it's as easy for them as it was for me.
PS: It's pretty telling that I usually seek out discussions with fellow non-religious people right after coming home from visiting relatives over the holidays, and here I am, doing it again. I just can't resist :P
-
I'm not atheist, but I just wanted to tell you folks that if you refrain from being insulting and treating religious people like they are somehow mentally deficient, then they will generally be kinder to you. There are always crazies, of course, but generally that's a good rule of thumb with other human beings.
-
WTC, you are absolutely right. I never told my mom who I was very close to and discussed many things with her that I no longer believed. Why would I want to hurt her? Some things are better left unsaid.
-
ND, I'm sorry for your troubles. I'm sure you are right that telling would do more harm than good.
I agree that it doesn't help to challenge other people's beliefs, outside very specific circumstances. I'm happy for people to believe whatever they want. But I'm not happy for them to try to impose those beliefs on me, and far too often that is what the more extremely religious (although in my experience not usually the most devoutly religious) try to do far too often. Sometimes I can let it go, sometimes I can just walk away. Occasionally I have to stand up for my own world view, in which case I'm not trying to impose it on anyone, I'm just trying to get them to leave me alone with it.
-
I came out to my parents as an atheist back in high school, but never saw any point in attacking their belief. They were shocked and I'm sure my mom is still sad about it, but it honestly just doesn't come up very often. They pray before meals and I quietly bow my head, and they attend church on Sundays while I sleep in (in my own house). Every funeral I attend is overtly religious, but if the thought of a happy afterlife makes the passing of a loved-one easier for them, then that's fine with me. I'm more of a "You want a physicist to speak at your funeral" type person, and I'm going to explicitly ask that that be read at my funeral.
I do not shy away from the term atheist, because the literal definition is "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods", which describes me exactly. No point in using different language to "soften the blow" for others, even if I sometimes have to follow up with the definition for them so that they understand. So far almost everybody in my life has understood.
-
Hmm...interesting stories and experiences. I thank everyone for sharing.
I suppose I am more "militant" than most of you all, although again I don't go around picking fights in my day to day life. Hell, as others said, it doesn't come up a ton anyway. I try to be gracious; when I'm at a event where everyone prays I just stand there with my eyes open but I don't make a scene.
But when I say I'm more "militant," I mean that I think it would be good for religion to die. I think religion makes it harder for believers to separate fact from fiction. I think it teaches people to mislead their children. I think it teaches people to cling to a very narrow worldview at a time when we are learning more and more about the cosmos (still obviously we're just at the start). It divides people. Religions are different "teams" and many of them hate each other. As someone said earlier, atheists discount all gods, while most theists simply discount all gods but their own. Everyone is discounting a ton.
I don't think religion allows people to do anything they couldn't do without religion.
You can build hospitals and care for the poor without religion. You don't have to act out of hope for some perfect afterlife or out of fear for some eternal damnation. You can do good simply to do good. You can strive to be a good human without buying into ancient belief systems. I do.
Now does verbally "punching people in the face" work? Normally, no I don't think it does. You are basically dealing with a brainwashed person. How do you "deprogram" someone who has SO much tied up into a belief system? You could compare it to confronting a Trumper. Even if that Trumper is starting to question their own decisions, they have so much tied up into it. No one wants to admit they are wrong about something very important. Going from theist to atheist forces you to admit "I was spending mental time and energy worshiping some invisible being who doesn't exist. Am I a fool?" Very few people want to have that conversation with themselves. It is easier to just keep going.
When I deconverted, I did feel like a fool. I was angry with myself. I asked myself, "Nick, you are 32 years old. You are a grown man. You are an attorney. Why the fuck did you devote mental energy to ancient myths and superstition? You are better than this." I read the whole Bible. Most people don't do that, at least not with a critical eye. I almost threw up when I read the she bear passage. Like literally I almost vomited. How could ANYONE read this and say, "Yes, sign me up for this!" is beyond my comprehension.
And what kills me the most is that it's so obvious. It's not like you have to be a genius to see through the charade. It's not some gigantic puzzle. All you have to do is tug on a thread and it all unravels. But somehow I'm the asshole for tugging on the thread. Somehow it is "cruel" or "disrespectful" to point out the obvious. Those attacks have kept people from criticizing religion for centuries. Look at anti-blasphemy laws. I mean, wtf? What does it mean when a government has to come in to say, "No no no, these beliefs are so precious that they cannot be criticized in any way?" How fragile is the whole system when people say, "No No no, it's not nice to say bad things about this religion?"
It's like a child clinging to Santa. "Should we tell her?" "No no, let her enjoy it one more time this year. Maybe next year." "Okay."
So when you are like me and you basically view the majority of people as being brainwashed into cults, no you do not view that as a normal or good thing. You try to figure out how to unbrainwash them, but it's a really f'ing difficult thing to do, or else someone would have done it by now.
-
I'm not atheist, but I just wanted to tell you folks that if you refrain from being insulting and treating religious people like they are somehow mentally deficient, then they will generally be kinder to you. There are always crazies, of course, but generally that's a good rule of thumb with other human beings.
I've never had a problem with religious people not being 'kind' to me (they have been) or me being 'kind' to them (I have been). I don't ever recall having a seriously unpleasant personal encounter with any religious person (not counting the only time I tried to argue with a stranger about it my freshman year in college...I was young, and I learned from that encounter). Most people get along fine with each other, including atheists and religious types.
The problem only arises when they want to convince me of their nutty ideas, and unexpectedly or inappropriately decide to do so. The one truly unpleasant encounter I can remember was a second or third cousin at my grandmother's funeral, who approached me seemingly to 'chat and catch up', but in reality was just waiting for an opening. When I realized what was going on, I could not believe how tacky it was. That is one time I actually did kind of lose composure. I think I said something like, "Wait, you are going to do this NOW? What a dick move." But I didn't engage, I just turned and walked away to the other side of the room. (And warned my sisters).
-
Stories, you say? I can share one!
For what it's worth, I had a really wonderful experience discussing the very issues that trouble you, while being interrogated by a swarm of Christians.
***
I was a young gently atheist man working in the Bible Belt at a store owned by a family of evangelical pastors. I shared an office at the edge of the building with the only other Christ-ignorer. One day, he came to work troubled.
"What's wrong?" asked Friendly Lady Who Works With Us. Buddy responded, "I had a very confusing dream." After he gave details, she responded that he was probably being sent a message, and ought to listen to it.
It should be noted that her response was palpably based in warm sincere listening to his troubles, and caring for him as a fellow being. It was equally deft in stating her interpretation, while explicitly leaving the response up to him. He took the ball and ran with it. Within days, he was a new convert.
One day it occurred to him to wonder about me. Sincerely curious, Buddy asked "Are you saved?" I responded with my own sincerity: "That's not really how I view it."
Within minutes, the ensuing conversation had attracted onlookers, who in turn became participants. Each time I answered an honest Christian question with a simple explanation - "I don't really believe in God" or "no, I don't need Him to stop me from doing wrong things, I like being honest anyway..." - the conversation deepened the pattern of being an honest meeting of the minds, a sincere exploration of how I and my questioners felt as humans, and how we viewed the world. After 45 minutes, their questions and my answers covered most of the ground your concerns do, though perhaps more gently. My favorite question was when the company CFO asked "If you're not afraid of being punished by God, how do you deal with temptation?"
Sure, being surrounded by a standing Inquisition of Christians as the only atheist, sitting at my desk being quizzed by people who in some cases pay my paycheck when my stash was three figures could have felt different. But my matter of fact explanations and warm tone, plus Buddy's sincere curiosity, made the whole event retain a tone of mutual respect.
It seemed that I had opened some of their minds to the possibility that a real person with understandable feelings was not a Christian. The CFO basically said that, to much head nodding, and thanked me. I could tell from their other behavior that such kindness wasn't automatic in their religious practice; this was a special and unusual event. No one changed their religious views from it, but it was a heartwarming experience. Honestly, I felt we bonded from it.
PS. Re militance - I should say that no one changed their religious views at the time. But someone once told me "What people tell you now doesn't matter. It's how they feel three years from now that matters. Because people change over time. It starts with them seeing something in you that makes them curious. Later they work with it on their own." Did the possibility of not needing God to keep temptations in check later lead to a change of religious view on the CFO's part? Or a future shift by Buddy? I don't know.
-
Is it religion generally that is troublesome to you or Christianity in particular?
I was raised Lutheran, went through confirmation, the whole bit, but I never believed. It was not the fantastical elements of the Christian story that bothered so much as it was that I am deeply disturbed by many of the foundational elements of the Christian faith. Faith over works and the Christian concept of heaven and hell, to name a couple of examples.
At this point in time, I consider myself agnostic, but mostly I'd say that my core belief is that humans as animals lack the ability to process why we are here and how we got here. And while I believe science is a fantastic tool for revealing truths, I also believe that it is a very flawed and crude method. Essentially, we are but tiny and inconsequential collections of cells floating through the universe who have no clue whatsoever what is going on most of the time.
Something that has benefited me greatly in grappling with my distaste for Christianity in particular is to study other religions, non-Abrahamic religions specifically. Not every religion believes in life after death. Not every religion emphasizes faith. Some religions don't even have a God! Buddhism in particular resonates with me as a very compelling way of understanding life and its meaning across time. Would I call myself a Buddhist? No, not at this time. But I completely get why someone would be a Buddhist. It makes sense to me in a way that Christianity just never has. And while I personally still find Christianity deeply uncompelling, understanding why people would be attracted to other religions, like Buddhism, has given me more patience with the faith of Christians.
-
Things I can't say to my religious friends...
1) You realize that mythologies used to be religions, right? People used to worship Thor. Now he's an Avenger.
2) You realize there have been like thousands of religions? Doesn't that tell you something?
3) Do you think you'd become a heathen ax murderer if you deconverted today? If not, doesn't that tell you something?
4) When you say that you "talk with God," or that "God talked to me," WTF do you mean? Did you hear an actual voice, or did you think to yourself?
5) If God is all-knowing, meaning he knows every decision we will ever make before we make it, how do we still have free will? We would just be programmed puppets. For example, let's say God talks to me on Saturday. I ask, "God, what tie will I wear tomorrow?" God says, "You will wear a yellow tie." Flash forward to Sunday. I look in my closet and choose a tie out of the dozens I have in all sorts of colors. Can I pick a non-yellow tie? Why or why not?"
6) Have you read the whole Bible? Do you realize there are hundreds of editions and that the text is actually different and that different churches "interpret" the word differently? How can a perfect road map be so vague and nebulous, with so many internal inconsistencies? Doesn't it worry you that you are basing your worldview on this? How did you choose your particular denomination and interpretation?
7) Deep down, do you mostly go to church because "other good people do," and you like the socialization it provides?
8) Do you really think me and my wife, and my little kids are going to burn...forrrrr eternity...in Hell? Seriously? (note: if answer is "yes," friendship is obviously severed..this has actually happened).
9) Do you think there might be a sliiiight chance that religions have been used to keep people in place, explain things that couldn't be understood at the time, placate people from their sometimes miserable lots in life (slaves, second class citizens including women for most of history) by promising a "perfect afterlife," and to consolidate power?
10) Name ONE moral virtue taught in the Bible that is exclusive to the Bible. Surely this perfect map has some unique wisdom found nowhere else.
I could go on and on, but I've rambled too much. Do other atheists have similar feelings? Do you use any particular techniques to either bite your tongue, or to gently introduce any of these questions? Are some of you folks in the "I just don't think about religion at all" camp?
I wish I could get there, I really do, but with people constantly injecting religion (almost always Christianity) into school board decisions, and in legislatures, and pretty much trying to make rules based on their specific religious beliefs, I'm not sure how any atheist in America who values reason and science can mentally (or financially) bow out of this conflict.
I'm not religious, but I have to ask, WHY would you feel the need to say any of that to a religious person?
Saying any one of those things to a religious person would be just as assholish as them trying to turn you Catholic. Do you really want to be that guy?
I would recommend attempting to respect their views first, even if you have don't agree with their conclusions. If you start from a place of respect, you'll find it's a lot easier for them to respect your views as well.
If respecting their views and value as a human being is too much (it's okay, some people are hardwired this way), then you have a choice to either keep your mouth shut, or to not associate with people of differing views.
-
Things I can't say to my religious friends...
1) You realize that mythologies used to be religions, right? People used to worship Thor. Now he's an Avenger.
2) You realize there have been like thousands of religions? Doesn't that tell you something?
3) Do you think you'd become a heathen ax murderer if you deconverted today? If not, doesn't that tell you something?
4) When you say that you "talk with God," or that "God talked to me," WTF do you mean? Did you hear an actual voice, or did you think to yourself?
5) If God is all-knowing, meaning he knows every decision we will ever make before we make it, how do we still have free will? We would just be programmed puppets. For example, let's say God talks to me on Saturday. I ask, "God, what tie will I wear tomorrow?" God says, "You will wear a yellow tie." Flash forward to Sunday. I look in my closet and choose a tie out of the dozens I have in all sorts of colors. Can I pick a non-yellow tie? Why or why not?"
6) Have you read the whole Bible? Do you realize there are hundreds of editions and that the text is actually different and that different churches "interpret" the word differently? How can a perfect road map be so vague and nebulous, with so many internal inconsistencies? Doesn't it worry you that you are basing your worldview on this? How did you choose your particular denomination and interpretation?
7) Deep down, do you mostly go to church because "other good people do," and you like the socialization it provides?
8) Do you really think me and my wife, and my little kids are going to burn...forrrrr eternity...in Hell? Seriously? (note: if answer is "yes," friendship is obviously severed..this has actually happened).
9) Do you think there might be a sliiiight chance that religions have been used to keep people in place, explain things that couldn't be understood at the time, placate people from their sometimes miserable lots in life (slaves, second class citizens including women for most of history) by promising a "perfect afterlife," and to consolidate power?
10) Name ONE moral virtue taught in the Bible that is exclusive to the Bible. Surely this perfect map has some unique wisdom found nowhere else.
I could go on and on, but I've rambled too much. Do other atheists have similar feelings? Do you use any particular techniques to either bite your tongue, or to gently introduce any of these questions? Are some of you folks in the "I just don't think about religion at all" camp?
I wish I could get there, I really do, but with people constantly injecting religion (almost always Christianity) into school board decisions, and in legislatures, and pretty much trying to make rules based on their specific religious beliefs, I'm not sure how any atheist in America who values reason and science can mentally (or financially) bow out of this conflict.
I'm not religious, but I have to ask, WHY would you feel the need to say any of that to a religious person?
Saying any one of those things to a religious person would be just as assholish as them trying to turn you Catholic. Do you really want to be that guy?
I would recommend attempting to respect their views first, even if you have don't agree with their conclusions. If you start from a place of respect, you'll find it's a lot easier for them to respect your views as well.
If respecting their views and value as a human being is too much (it's okay, some people are hardwired this way), then you have a choice to either keep your mouth shut, or to not associate with people of differing views.
Did you read the other posts? I know it's a lot, but I explain a lot in other posts.
But long story short, we just disagree. You are equating belief and non-belief as equally valid. They are not, IMO. One makes extraordinary claims and requires extraordinary evidence. The other simply asks for that extraordinary evidence and points out the lack thereof.
And I've addressed this (many times) before, but WHY do I need to "respect" their views when their views are based on ancient myths, impossibilities, and internal inconsistencies? I'm not being sarcastic when I ask this, I promise. I am just trying to understand better. What makes their views worthy of respect when they make no sense? The mere fact that they hold those views? So no matter what someone thinks, as long as they legitimately believe it, we can never call it out?
-
So when you are like me and you basically view the majority of people as being brainwashed into cults, no you do not view that as a normal or good thing. You try to figure out how to unbrainwash them, but it's a really f'ing difficult thing to do, or else someone would have done it by now.
People do not change their beliefs unless they want to. Changing beliefs takes a willingness and desire to change. That doesn't just extend to religion, it relates to nearly any belief you have. Fear of dogs? Fear of spiders? Fear of snakes? Even things like losing weight are almost always tied to your beliefs.
As an adult looking back on what I learned as a young child, the experience seems tailored to brainwashing young children. I can't tell you the number of bonfires I went to where the sole purpose was to instill fear in me that if I did not follow, the heat from the bonfire would not even come close to the pain and heat I would experience as I burned in hell. For eternity. I was probably 6 or 7 when that started. That's just one example.
People believe for a number of reasons and provided they are respectful, it shouldn't bother you. For those who were born into it, they don't believe because they are idiots; some of them believe because the people they trusted most in the world (parents) taught them this. The parents believed they were doing the right thing. And, everything they learned until the age of 18-22 reinforced their beliefs. Those children will grow up going to church a few days a week and they will attend religious school five days a week where these ideas are reinforced until they are 18. They will be pushed to attend certain religious institutions (i.e. Bob Jones University, Brigham Young, etc.) and they will mingle with others who believe the same things they do. They will marry one of those people and have 2.3 children where the cycle will repeat itself. They were born into it; they didn't ask for it.
-
So when you are like me and you basically view the majority of people as being brainwashed into cults, no you do not view that as a normal or good thing. You try to figure out how to unbrainwash them, but it's a really f'ing difficult thing to do, or else someone would have done it by now.
People do not change their beliefs unless they want to. Changing beliefs takes a willingness and desire to change. That doesn't just extend to religion, it relates to nearly any belief you have. Fear of dogs? Fear of spiders? Fear of snakes? Even things like losing weight are almost always tied to your beliefs.
As an adult looking back on what I learned as a young child, the experience seems tailored to brainwashing young children. I can't tell you the number of bonfires I went to where the sole purpose was to instill fear in me that if I did not follow, the heat from the bonfire would not even come close to the pain and heat I would experience as I burned in hell. For eternity. I was probably 6 or 7 when that started. That's just one example.
People believe for a number of reasons and provided they are respectful, it shouldn't bother you. For those who were born into it, they don't believe because they are idiots; some of them believe because the people they trusted most in the world (parents) taught them this. The parents believed they were doing the right thing. And, everything they learned until the age of 18-22 reinforced their beliefs. Those children will grow up going to church a few days a week and they will attend religious school five days a week where these ideas are reinforced until they are 18. They will be pushed to attend certain religious institutions (i.e. Bob Jones University, Brigham Young, etc.) and they will mingle with others who believe the same things they do. They will marry one of those people and have 2.3 children where the cycle will repeat itself. They were born into it; they didn't ask for it.
I think we agree on pretty most of this. I understand that the cycle repeats over and over. I get that. Once in a while someone escapes the cycle, but then I'm sure some atheists lose their children to religion (this would personally kill me, but it is what it is).
But I don't get the "It shouldn't bother you" comment. Yes it bothers me because...
1) Many of these people inject their beliefs into government. That is unacceptable and MUST be countered.
2) It is not healthy for people to function under delusions. It's just not. I mean, when does "crazy" start? If I said I had invisible unicorns in my yard wouldn't you be concerned about me?
3) These people keep trying to win MORE and MORE converts to their crazy. Hell, they go to foreign countries and try to inject their crazy into societies who don't want it.
My counter is, why doesn't any of the above bother you?? I mean, you even seem to agree that it brainwashes children. When is brainwashing EVER a good thing , or something not to be worried about?
-
Things I can't say to my religious friends...
1) You realize that mythologies used to be religions, right? People used to worship Thor. Now he's an Avenger.
2) You realize there have been like thousands of religions? Doesn't that tell you something?
3) Do you think you'd become a heathen ax murderer if you deconverted today? If not, doesn't that tell you something?
4) When you say that you "talk with God," or that "God talked to me," WTF do you mean? Did you hear an actual voice, or did you think to yourself?
5) If God is all-knowing, meaning he knows every decision we will ever make before we make it, how do we still have free will? We would just be programmed puppets. For example, let's say God talks to me on Saturday. I ask, "God, what tie will I wear tomorrow?" God says, "You will wear a yellow tie." Flash forward to Sunday. I look in my closet and choose a tie out of the dozens I have in all sorts of colors. Can I pick a non-yellow tie? Why or why not?"
6) Have you read the whole Bible? Do you realize there are hundreds of editions and that the text is actually different and that different churches "interpret" the word differently? How can a perfect road map be so vague and nebulous, with so many internal inconsistencies? Doesn't it worry you that you are basing your worldview on this? How did you choose your particular denomination and interpretation?
7) Deep down, do you mostly go to church because "other good people do," and you like the socialization it provides?
8) Do you really think me and my wife, and my little kids are going to burn...forrrrr eternity...in Hell? Seriously? (note: if answer is "yes," friendship is obviously severed..this has actually happened).
9) Do you think there might be a sliiiight chance that religions have been used to keep people in place, explain things that couldn't be understood at the time, placate people from their sometimes miserable lots in life (slaves, second class citizens including women for most of history) by promising a "perfect afterlife," and to consolidate power?
10) Name ONE moral virtue taught in the Bible that is exclusive to the Bible. Surely this perfect map has some unique wisdom found nowhere else.
I could go on and on, but I've rambled too much. Do other atheists have similar feelings? Do you use any particular techniques to either bite your tongue, or to gently introduce any of these questions? Are some of you folks in the "I just don't think about religion at all" camp?
I wish I could get there, I really do, but with people constantly injecting religion (almost always Christianity) into school board decisions, and in legislatures, and pretty much trying to make rules based on their specific religious beliefs, I'm not sure how any atheist in America who values reason and science can mentally (or financially) bow out of this conflict.
I'm not religious, but I have to ask, WHY would you feel the need to say any of that to a religious person?
Saying any one of those things to a religious person would be just as assholish as them trying to turn you Catholic. Do you really want to be that guy?
I would recommend attempting to respect their views first, even if you have don't agree with their conclusions. If you start from a place of respect, you'll find it's a lot easier for them to respect your views as well.
If respecting their views and value as a human being is too much (it's okay, some people are hardwired this way), then you have a choice to either keep your mouth shut, or to not associate with people of differing views.
Did you read the other posts? I know it's a lot, but I explain a lot in other posts.
But long story short, we just disagree. You are equating belief and non-belief as equally valid. They are not, IMO. One makes extraordinary claims and requires extraordinary evidence. The other simply asks for that extraordinary evidence and points out the lack thereof.
And I've addressed this (many times) before, but WHY do I need to "respect" their views when their views are based on ancient myths, impossibilities, and internal inconsistencies? I'm not being sarcastic when I ask this, I promise. I am just trying to understand better. What makes their views worthy of respect when they make no sense? The mere fact that they hold those views? So no matter what someone thinks, as long as they legitimately believe it, we can never call it out?
Some of the difficulty here might be figuring out how different posters are using the word 'respect' and how to put your reaction to religion (specifically a fairly fundamentalist Christianity) in a broader context of your reactions to ALL SORTS of peoples' beliefs, opinions, and actions. What about peoples' political beliefs (often not subject to evidence-based thinking)? What about their eating behaviors (vegan vs not)? What about their consumer habits or environmental practices? Personally, I find DOZENS OF KINDS of beliefs and behaviors that people hold or do to be stupid, dangerous, repugnant, or generally socially counterproductive (including a few behaviors that I do even though I 1) know better, and 2) try not to). So in one specific sense, I'm like you. I don't respect many of these beliefs or actions at all and no one is ever going to convince me to do so with pablum about how we should 'respect peoples' choices'.
HOWEVER, there are a lot of ways/areas in which I can and do 'respect' such people.
I do support free speech, so I think people should be able to espouse any belief they want, within legal limits relating to direct harm of others. I think a lot of people are stupid and uneducated and probably shouldn't be voting, but I respect and strongly support their right to vote anyway. I respect peoples' right to go through their days mostly free from random harassment, so I generally try not to deliberately pick fights or comment derisively about things I vehemently disagree with. I truly empathize with the fact that people gotta get through the dark nights somehow (including me), and some beliefs/behaviors that I think are dumb help them do that. I also recognize that, for all the harm that magical thinking does to society, there are still some social and personal benefits to believing/doing some of things I find laughable. E.g., there are even a few ways that I specifically recognize my own life would be better and happier if I were a religious believer, so I try to absorb and learn from the areas of religious belief/behavior that I admire.
In other words, I find that often I can respect and admire some individual actions or character traits possessed by people that ALSO do/believe things that I don't 'respect'. Etc.
In that regard, my 'respect' for religious people is no difference than my respect for people in general, or even myself. I try not throw all concept of a person's worth out just b/c I disagree with some of their beliefs or actions. It's sometimes a struggle, and I have some limits, but of course all human interaction is kind of a struggle in that way.
-
My son's cancer reinforced my atheism.
Cindy, glad your son is doing well.
I work in the cancer field so I see this every day. As an athiest, the "God has a plan" and "it's God's will" infuriates me beyond belief. Enrages me that something as destructive and unstoppable as cancer gets a pass. "I'll pray for you" doesn't do shit. Why don't you cook a meal or scrub a toilet for someone who has cancer? Or their family? The unfairness of cancer is so hard to see day in and day out. But then, I see after the person's passing that they have more relief... "They are with God now". They will see their loved ones again in Heaven. Religion and belief give them something that I don't have. Something to hold on to. Sometimes I'm jealous of this rationalization. I'm definitely jealous of the ideas of the afterlife, and seeing the people you love again- healthy, happy, in another time and place.
Me, I just know that dead is dead and it takes courage and bravery to face that the end of our existence is near... There is no going back, there is no second chances, and there are no more goodbyes.
Be present, love hard the people that you love, and do not go quietly into that goodnight.
-
So when you are like me and you basically view the majority of people as being brainwashed into cults, no you do not view that as a normal or good thing. You try to figure out how to unbrainwash them, but it's a really f'ing difficult thing to do, or else someone would have done it by now.
People do not change their beliefs unless they want to. Changing beliefs takes a willingness and desire to change. That doesn't just extend to religion, it relates to nearly any belief you have. Fear of dogs? Fear of spiders? Fear of snakes? Even things like losing weight are almost always tied to your beliefs.
As an adult looking back on what I learned as a young child, the experience seems tailored to brainwashing young children. I can't tell you the number of bonfires I went to where the sole purpose was to instill fear in me that if I did not follow, the heat from the bonfire would not even come close to the pain and heat I would experience as I burned in hell. For eternity. I was probably 6 or 7 when that started. That's just one example.
People believe for a number of reasons and provided they are respectful, it shouldn't bother you. For those who were born into it, they don't believe because they are idiots; some of them believe because the people they trusted most in the world (parents) taught them this. The parents believed they were doing the right thing. And, everything they learned until the age of 18-22 reinforced their beliefs. Those children will grow up going to church a few days a week and they will attend religious school five days a week where these ideas are reinforced until they are 18. They will be pushed to attend certain religious institutions (i.e. Bob Jones University, Brigham Young, etc.) and they will mingle with others who believe the same things they do. They will marry one of those people and have 2.3 children where the cycle will repeat itself. They were born into it; they didn't ask for it.
I think we agree on pretty most of this. I understand that the cycle repeats over and over. I get that. Once in a while someone escapes the cycle, but then I'm sure some atheists lose their children to religion (this would personally kill me, but it is what it is).
But I don't get the "It shouldn't bother you" comment. Yes it bothers me because...
1) Many of these people inject their beliefs into government. That is unacceptable and MUST be countered.
2) It is not healthy for people to function under delusions. It's just not. I mean, when does "crazy" start? If I said I had invisible unicorns in my yard wouldn't you be concerned about me?
3) These people keep trying to win MORE and MORE converts to their crazy. Hell, they go to foreign countries and try to inject their crazy into societies who don't want it.
My counter is, why doesn't any of the above bother you??
I don't typically like to get involved in discussions like this for a number of reasons. But, I'll answer your sincere question as I'm hoping you're genuinely interested in hearing opinions that may differ from yours. My statement, "People believe for a number of reasons and provided they are respectful, it shouldn't bother you" means this: I'm not suggesting what people do with their beliefs shouldn't bother you (#1), I'm suggesting the idea that they believe shouldn't bother you. I want to make sure I'm clear on that.
I think all of your points basically point to a frustration with #1. And, I, too, am bothered by religion being injected into the government, no matter the religion. For those who are bothered by it, I urge them to get involved in politics and if they are already involved and still dissatisfied, do more. Your time will be better spent getting involved, or getting more involved, rather than taking issue with the believer. This goes back to the idea that you are very unlikely to change someone's belief unless they are willing and determined to do so.
As for #2, here is my take: the definition of delusion is "an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder". I more or less disagree with your use of the word delusion in this context. I understand you view it as a delusion, but that's subjective and I think there are more appropriate terms with less flair. Unless your belief in invisible unicorns impacted me (#1), it wouldn't bother me. When your belief in unicorns impacted my rights (#1), I would get involved as previously stated. This isn't to say I am not concerned about my fellow man, but realistically, we all make choices that aren't the best for our health and who is to say what the standard should be?
Overall, I think your main concern with #2 is really #1 unless you're regularly in the habit of talking to people about how bad meat is for them and the environment, how smoking will kill them, how they shouldn't be eating that cookie because the sugar is bad for them, etc. This isn't really an issue of their health, it's really an issue of these people taking their beliefs and injecting them into the government. Again, a valid concern, but I don't view the solution as telling them they are delusional and wrong.
As for #3, again, this only impacts you if you are concerned about #1. I urge you to be open-minded, flexible, and to view some data. Most of the people causing #1 are the people who are fundamentalists and more extreme Christian sects. Those people are the minority (1). If you look at those extreme groups, their numbers are decreasing*(2) and overall, church attendance is dwindling (3) which is an important aspect of it because of the community and group think that occurs.
Humans and the world are constantly evolving, changing, and growing. If you look at how the world once was, at any point in history, there is no denying that we are progressing (some people and countries faster than others). If you look at how faith has shaped the U.S., you will see the immense progress that has been made. It may not be fast enough for you, but there is no denying that this shift has taken place.
My main thought is that you risk alienating people when you put them down under the guise of wanting to help them. I would urge you to be a little more flexible in your thinking and approach.
1: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/how-the-faithful-voted-a-preliminary-2016-analysis/ and http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/07/how-religious-groups-voted-in-the-midterm-elections/
2: https://news.gallup.com/poll/210704/record-few-americans-believe-bible-literal-word-god.aspx
*Initially said dwindling, which was hyperbolic. Decreasing is more appropriate.
3: http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/attendance-at-religious-services/ and
-
Seeing as this thread is an atheist thread now, my fellow non-believers, how do you feel about determinism versus free will? I'm firmly in the camp that everything that ever happened and will ever happen is set in the proverbial stone, and free will an illusion. I believed this as a Christian as well, but as an atheist makes even more sense to me. Every decision ever made in an act of "will" can be traced to things totally out of our control, from our genes, to the parents raising us, to the TV, to the time and age we were born into, and various other factors. Taken to extremes, this belief might come to many unpleasant conclusions (think criminals and punishment), but also some pleasant ones as well (thinking about risk taking). Whatever happens was meant to be.
I know I'm not articulating this perfectly, but I'm curious if anyone feels similar.
-
Things I can't say to my religious friends...
1) You realize that mythologies used to be religions, right? People used to worship Thor. Now he's an Avenger.
2) You realize there have been like thousands of religions? Doesn't that tell you something?
3) Do you think you'd become a heathen ax murderer if you deconverted today? If not, doesn't that tell you something?
4) When you say that you "talk with God," or that "God talked to me," WTF do you mean? Did you hear an actual voice, or did you think to yourself?
5) If God is all-knowing, meaning he knows every decision we will ever make before we make it, how do we still have free will? We would just be programmed puppets. For example, let's say God talks to me on Saturday. I ask, "God, what tie will I wear tomorrow?" God says, "You will wear a yellow tie." Flash forward to Sunday. I look in my closet and choose a tie out of the dozens I have in all sorts of colors. Can I pick a non-yellow tie? Why or why not?"
6) Have you read the whole Bible? Do you realize there are hundreds of editions and that the text is actually different and that different churches "interpret" the word differently? How can a perfect road map be so vague and nebulous, with so many internal inconsistencies? Doesn't it worry you that you are basing your worldview on this? How did you choose your particular denomination and interpretation?
7) Deep down, do you mostly go to church because "other good people do," and you like the socialization it provides?
8) Do you really think me and my wife, and my little kids are going to burn...forrrrr eternity...in Hell? Seriously? (note: if answer is "yes," friendship is obviously severed..this has actually happened).
9) Do you think there might be a sliiiight chance that religions have been used to keep people in place, explain things that couldn't be understood at the time, placate people from their sometimes miserable lots in life (slaves, second class citizens including women for most of history) by promising a "perfect afterlife," and to consolidate power?
10) Name ONE moral virtue taught in the Bible that is exclusive to the Bible. Surely this perfect map has some unique wisdom found nowhere else.
I could go on and on, but I've rambled too much. Do other atheists have similar feelings? Do you use any particular techniques to either bite your tongue, or to gently introduce any of these questions? Are some of you folks in the "I just don't think about religion at all" camp?
I wish I could get there, I really do, but with people constantly injecting religion (almost always Christianity) into school board decisions, and in legislatures, and pretty much trying to make rules based on their specific religious beliefs, I'm not sure how any atheist in America who values reason and science can mentally (or financially) bow out of this conflict.
I'm not religious, but I have to ask, WHY would you feel the need to say any of that to a religious person?
Saying any one of those things to a religious person would be just as assholish as them trying to turn you Catholic. Do you really want to be that guy?
I would recommend attempting to respect their views first, even if you have don't agree with their conclusions. If you start from a place of respect, you'll find it's a lot easier for them to respect your views as well.
If respecting their views and value as a human being is too much (it's okay, some people are hardwired this way), then you have a choice to either keep your mouth shut, or to not associate with people of differing views.
Did you read the other posts? I know it's a lot, but I explain a lot in other posts.
But long story short, we just disagree. You are equating belief and non-belief as equally valid. They are not, IMO. One makes extraordinary claims and requires extraordinary evidence. The other simply asks for that extraordinary evidence and points out the lack thereof.
And I've addressed this (many times) before, but WHY do I need to "respect" their views when their views are based on ancient myths, impossibilities, and internal inconsistencies? I'm not being sarcastic when I ask this, I promise. I am just trying to understand better. What makes their views worthy of respect when they make no sense? The mere fact that they hold those views? So no matter what someone thinks, as long as they legitimately believe it, we can never call it out?
Some of the difficulty here might be figuring out how different posters are using the word 'respect' and how to put your reaction to religion (specifically a fairly fundamentalist Christianity) in a broader context of your reactions to ALL SORTS of peoples' beliefs, opinions, and actions. What about peoples' political beliefs (often not subject to evidence-based thinking)? What about their eating behaviors (vegan vs not)? What about their consumer habits or environmental practices? Personally, I find DOZENS OF KINDS of beliefs and behaviors that people hold or do to be stupid, dangerous, repugnant, or generally socially counterproductive (including a few behaviors that I do even though I 1) know better, and 2) try not to). So in one specific sense, I'm like you. I don't respect many of these beliefs or actions at all and no one is ever going to convince me to do so with pablum about how we should 'respect peoples' choices'.
HOWEVER, there are a lot of ways/areas in which I can and do 'respect' such people.
I do support free speech, so I think people should be able to espouse any belief they want, within legal limits relating to direct harm of others. I think a lot of people are stupid and uneducated and probably shouldn't be voting, but I respect and strongly support their right to vote anyway. I respect peoples' right to go through their days mostly free from random harassment, so I generally try not to deliberately pick fights or comment derisively about things I vehemently disagree with. I truly empathize with the fact that people gotta get through the dark nights somehow (including me), and some beliefs/behaviors that I think are dumb help them do that. I also recognize that, for all the harm that magical thinking does to society, there are still some social and personal benefits to believing/doing some of things I find laughable. E.g., there are even a few ways that I specifically recognize my own life would be better and happier if I were a religious believer, so I try to absorb and learn from the areas of religious belief/behavior that I admire.
In other words, I find that often I can respect and admire some individual actions or character traits possessed by people that ALSO do/believe things that I don't 'respect'. Etc.
In that regard, my 'respect' for religious people is no difference than my respect for people in general, or even myself. I try not throw all concept of a person's worth out just b/c I disagree with some of their beliefs or actions. It's sometimes a struggle, and I have some limits, but of course all human interaction is kind of a struggle in that way.
I guess I feel like you're making it more complicated than it needs to be. Either you find positive value in your relationships with people of faith, or you don't. If you can't interact with the religious without getting judgy and and urgent need to say something offensive, then you should probably just cut those relationships off.
More to the point, why does it matter to you what other people believe?
For me personally, many of my best friends are people that have views I strongly disagree with and sometimes find offensive. This works for me because I don't feel the constant need to prove I'm right and they're wrong. You'll be much happier if you limit your circle of friends to those you agree with if you can't find a way to do this yourself.
PS. I freely admit I am too lazy to read the whole thread. Just saying my piece.
-
I am atheist/agnostic/indifferent to religion on a personal basis. My dad is a minister and I do not think any of my siblings believe in god and it is just not a thing. I am very interested in it from sociological and historical basis because it is one of the tools that people have used to explain the universe, understand mysteries, and expand the definition of "us" past the natural limit of 150-200 people and enable the building of civilisations. Belief is a force in human culture and you can either judge it and hold yourself apart and superior to it or you can seek to understand what purpose it serves.
Possibly part of the issue is militant evangelicalism as a force in American political culture because from the other side of the world, your experience of religion is just not the religious culture in other places.*
*in the last census >50% of the population was non-religious.
-
I think all of your points basically point to a frustration with #1. And, I, too, am bothered by religion being injected into the government, no matter the religion.
I agree, it sounds like this is ultimately your grievance, which is a reasonable one, imo. I'm curious how you feel about the devout (NOT evangelical) Christians who vote for things like legalization of gay marriage, even though they think it's a sin, because they feel everyone is free to make their own decisions. The Christians you'd never know were religious because to them it's a personal matter, and it's not something that would come up in normal conversation. I ask because I would say these are the majority. It's the minority that are loud and causing a ruckus and voting to hold down and oppress people who are 'different' from them. Those are the ones you hear about in the news.
For the ones whose religion doesn't effect others, does it really matter what they believe? If someone literally believed in the flying spaghetti monster, and it didn't effect anyone, would you care? If so, why?
-
Seeing as this thread is an atheist thread now, my fellow non-believers, how do you feel about determinism versus free will? I'm firmly in the camp that everything that ever happened and will ever happen is set in the proverbial stone, and free will an illusion. I believed this as a Christian as well, but as an atheist makes even more sense to me. Every decision ever made in an act of "will" can be traced to things totally out of our control, from our genes, to the parents raising us, to the TV, to the time and age we were born into, and various other factors. Taken to extremes, this belief might come to many unpleasant conclusions (think criminals and punishment), but also some pleasant ones as well (thinking about risk taking). Whatever happens was meant to be.
I know I'm not articulating this perfectly, but I'm curious if anyone feels similar.
Yeah, someone brought this up to me years ago, and I still think about it from time to time. Also, on that note, nothing is truly "random".
-
Things I can't say to my religious friends...
1) You realize that mythologies used to be religions, right? People used to worship Thor. Now he's an Avenger.
2) You realize there have been like thousands of religions? Doesn't that tell you something?
3) Do you think you'd become a heathen ax murderer if you deconverted today? If not, doesn't that tell you something?
4) When you say that you "talk with God," or that "God talked to me," WTF do you mean? Did you hear an actual voice, or did you think to yourself?
5) If God is all-knowing, meaning he knows every decision we will ever make before we make it, how do we still have free will? We would just be programmed puppets. For example, let's say God talks to me on Saturday. I ask, "God, what tie will I wear tomorrow?" God says, "You will wear a yellow tie." Flash forward to Sunday. I look in my closet and choose a tie out of the dozens I have in all sorts of colors. Can I pick a non-yellow tie? Why or why not?"
6) Have you read the whole Bible? Do you realize there are hundreds of editions and that the text is actually different and that different churches "interpret" the word differently? How can a perfect road map be so vague and nebulous, with so many internal inconsistencies? Doesn't it worry you that you are basing your worldview on this? How did you choose your particular denomination and interpretation?
7) Deep down, do you mostly go to church because "other good people do," and you like the socialization it provides?
8) Do you really think me and my wife, and my little kids are going to burn...forrrrr eternity...in Hell? Seriously? (note: if answer is "yes," friendship is obviously severed..this has actually happened).
9) Do you think there might be a sliiiight chance that religions have been used to keep people in place, explain things that couldn't be understood at the time, placate people from their sometimes miserable lots in life (slaves, second class citizens including women for most of history) by promising a "perfect afterlife," and to consolidate power?
10) Name ONE moral virtue taught in the Bible that is exclusive to the Bible. Surely this perfect map has some unique wisdom found nowhere else.
I could go on and on, but I've rambled too much. Do other atheists have similar feelings? Do you use any particular techniques to either bite your tongue, or to gently introduce any of these questions? Are some of you folks in the "I just don't think about religion at all" camp?
I wish I could get there, I really do, but with people constantly injecting religion (almost always Christianity) into school board decisions, and in legislatures, and pretty much trying to make rules based on their specific religious beliefs, I'm not sure how any atheist in America who values reason and science can mentally (or financially) bow out of this conflict.
I'm not religious, but I have to ask, WHY would you feel the need to say any of that to a religious person?
Saying any one of those things to a religious person would be just as assholish as them trying to turn you Catholic. Do you really want to be that guy?
I would recommend attempting to respect their views first, even if you have don't agree with their conclusions. If you start from a place of respect, you'll find it's a lot easier for them to respect your views as well.
If respecting their views and value as a human being is too much (it's okay, some people are hardwired this way), then you have a choice to either keep your mouth shut, or to not associate with people of differing views.
Did you read the other posts? I know it's a lot, but I explain a lot in other posts.
But long story short, we just disagree. You are equating belief and non-belief as equally valid. They are not, IMO. One makes extraordinary claims and requires extraordinary evidence. The other simply asks for that extraordinary evidence and points out the lack thereof.
And I've addressed this (many times) before, but WHY do I need to "respect" their views when their views are based on ancient myths, impossibilities, and internal inconsistencies? I'm not being sarcastic when I ask this, I promise. I am just trying to understand better. What makes their views worthy of respect when they make no sense? The mere fact that they hold those views? So no matter what someone thinks, as long as they legitimately believe it, we can never call it out?
Some of the difficulty here might be figuring out how different posters are using the word 'respect' and how to put your reaction to religion (specifically a fairly fundamentalist Christianity) in a broader context of your reactions to ALL SORTS of peoples' beliefs, opinions, and actions. What about peoples' political beliefs (often not subject to evidence-based thinking)? What about their eating behaviors (vegan vs not)? What about their consumer habits or environmental practices? Personally, I find DOZENS OF KINDS of beliefs and behaviors that people hold or do to be stupid, dangerous, repugnant, or generally socially counterproductive (including a few behaviors that I do even though I 1) know better, and 2) try not to). So in one specific sense, I'm like you. I don't respect many of these beliefs or actions at all and no one is ever going to convince me to do so with pablum about how we should 'respect peoples' choices'.
HOWEVER, there are a lot of ways/areas in which I can and do 'respect' such people.
I do support free speech, so I think people should be able to espouse any belief they want, within legal limits relating to direct harm of others. I think a lot of people are stupid and uneducated and probably shouldn't be voting, but I respect and strongly support their right to vote anyway. I respect peoples' right to go through their days mostly free from random harassment, so I generally try not to deliberately pick fights or comment derisively about things I vehemently disagree with. I truly empathize with the fact that people gotta get through the dark nights somehow (including me), and some beliefs/behaviors that I think are dumb help them do that. I also recognize that, for all the harm that magical thinking does to society, there are still some social and personal benefits to believing/doing some of things I find laughable. E.g., there are even a few ways that I specifically recognize my own life would be better and happier if I were a religious believer, so I try to absorb and learn from the areas of religious belief/behavior that I admire.
In other words, I find that often I can respect and admire some individual actions or character traits possessed by people that ALSO do/believe things that I don't 'respect'. Etc.
In that regard, my 'respect' for religious people is no difference than my respect for people in general, or even myself. I try not throw all concept of a person's worth out just b/c I disagree with some of their beliefs or actions. It's sometimes a struggle, and I have some limits, but of course all human interaction is kind of a struggle in that way.
I guess I feel like you're making it more complicated than it needs to be. Either you find positive value in your relationships with people of faith, or you don't. If you can't interact with the religious without getting judgy and and urgent need to say something offensive, then you should probably just cut those relationships off.
More to the point, why does it matter to you what other people believe?
For me personally, many of my best friends are people that have views I strongly disagree with and sometimes find offensive. This works for me because I don't feel the constant need to prove I'm right and they're wrong. You'll be much happier if you limit your circle of friends to those you agree with if you can't find a way to do this yourself.
PS. I freely admit I am too lazy to read the whole thread. Just saying my piece.
Point a...That's what my post said: it's not particularly complicated; it works more or less like all beliefs and values and how they affect relationships. I was pointing this out b/c the OP seemed to perhaps be categorizing religious beliefs and how they affect interactions as quite separate from others. I'm not sure what you were interpreting my post to say.
Point b....well, this has all been discussed in multiple posts in this thread already, and the dividing line for most people in this thread seems to be they start caring what peoples' beliefs are when they directly affect them (e.g., in political decisions or life decisions that affect them). If you are someone to whom other peoples' beliefs truly don't matter to you in relationships, I'm not sure what to think about that. Perhaps you are an exceptional person, but I assume you draw the line SOMEWHERE in terms of conversing or socializing with people, which inherently involves judgement. E.g., Presumably if your parents had disowned you for being gay, then their beliefs would in fact affect your view of them. I doubt that you've never had a judgemental thought about an opinion or behavior of someone you like or love. That would be normal, b/c after all, most people are fully capable of admiring some characteristics of people we know and not others, and everyone has things they can and cannot tolerate in relationships. And nowhere did I advocate running around voicing judgemental thoughts aloud as a matter of course.
But generally, I agree with you. Inter-personally, many beliefs I disagree with (including religious ones) don't affect my relationships that much. Sometimes they do, but usually that is situation-specific (different morals re: approach to work, etc., might mean I don't want to work with someone, etc.). But I definitely have lines. I have very different political beliefs from some family members, but talking a little bit of politics isn't a problem. However, some of my family members are racist or sexist. With those people, if they want to keep spouting racist or sexist bullshit in conversation with me, I would soon stop having conversations and close relationships with them.
-
Seeing as this thread is an atheist thread now, my fellow non-believers, how do you feel about determinism versus free will? I'm firmly in the camp that everything that ever happened and will ever happen is set in the proverbial stone, and free will an illusion. I believed this as a Christian as well, but as an atheist makes even more sense to me. Every decision ever made in an act of "will" can be traced to things totally out of our control, from our genes, to the parents raising us, to the TV, to the time and age we were born into, and various other factors. Taken to extremes, this belief might come to many unpleasant conclusions (think criminals and punishment), but also some pleasant ones as well (thinking about risk taking). Whatever happens was meant to be.
I know I'm not articulating this perfectly, but I'm curious if anyone feels similar.
I don't care much about determinism vs free will. I lean toward a three part mix: some general baseline determinism by culture, some inherent personality variance by genes, but a fair bit of free will on the individual level, especially within the bounds of the first two parts. You can make choices that affect yourself and others, etc.
1) Many of these people inject their beliefs into government. That is unacceptable and MUST be countered.
2) It is not healthy for people to function under delusions. It's just not. I mean, when does "crazy" start? If I said I had invisible unicorns in my yard wouldn't you be concerned about me?
3) These people keep trying to win MORE and MORE converts to their crazy. Hell, they go to foreign countries and try to inject their crazy into societies who don't want it.
My counter is, why doesn't any of the above bother you?? I mean, you even seem to agree that it brainwashes children. When is brainwashing EVER a good thing , or something not to be worried about?
1) Countering is fine. Counter away! I'd love it if you would focus on creating a commons acceptable to all, though, rather than trying to bludgeon religious people into abandoning their faith. A commons welcoming to all faith perspectives is thing of great societal value. You can defend that and get support from most Americans.
2) This is where I differ most, @Nick_Miller - respectfully and joyously, because anyone who cares about goodness and justice and healthy humans is my friend, and you clearly care about these. My view is that:
a. your passion and that of the determined evangelical seem to be two sides of the same coin. Specifically, they're expressions of a conception of goodness that developed about 500 years ago, in which the most important thing is truth, and it's very important that people believe what is true, and a good person has a duty to persuade others of the truth. Several centuries of wars were fought over this issue, killing millions. It is a known consequence of this high determination level that bad things can happen from good intentions, hence a live and let live approach is helpful. A gentle approach can good too - example, my story a few posts upthread.
b. There is such a thing as a paradigm. At least, paradigms seem to be a really accurate way of describing human viewpoints, where a paradigm is an overall viewpoint that starts from certain assumptions and then proceeds from there. No paradigm solves all problems, it can only solve some while accepting others. No paradigm can be proven to people who don't already accept its fundamental tenets. People who believe in different paradigms each usually think they can prove their view; the other person thinks they're crazy and wrong and their proof is foolish or makes no sense. Obviously militant atheism and fundamentalist religion are paradigms with contrary specifics. As an outsider, I note that both paradigms include the vehement proselytizing conception of goodness I tried to describe in part a, which is why I called them two sides of the same coin. In other words, to me you look just like your family does, you're in as evangelical a mode as they are; you've just shifted the specifics you want to convince others about. To answer directly: Yes, I'm concerned about you! You seem to be repeating some of the same mistakes that were done to you by others. Please don't be offended, I'm just offering my honest response to your question. I guess my own view could be called the paradigm of Mellow Atheist or Live and Let Live Atheist. If you wish to emerge from the set of oppressive paradigms you still appear to be in, challenge yourself by reading Thomas Kuhn's book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions."
3) True. Sometimes evangelists do a lot of good along the way. Sometimes their crusades, jihads and great leaps forward kill millions of people. I am personally acquainted with a budding evangelist from a country where Christians still get killed for their religion. I hope my acquaintance doesn't become a martyr, as I suspect he may (at some risk to his family of origin, I might add). Overall, I think that restraint is best, rather than angry-proselytizing-viewed-as-noble-action. Anything you can do to develop inner peace and establish relationships that don't require agreement on religious tenets would be a great contribution.
-
You are equating belief and non-belief as equally valid.
No one is doing this, but you keep repeating it. You might want to spend some time comprehending what people are saying. Respecting someone and her beliefs is not the same as holding those beliefs as equally valid.
-
You are equating belief and non-belief as equally valid.
No one is doing this, but you keep repeating it. You might want to spend some time comprehending what people are saying. Respecting someone and her beliefs is not the same as holding those beliefs as equally valid.
Correct. Or "his" beliefs, as well.
-
You are equating belief and non-belief as equally valid.
No one is doing this, but you keep repeating it. You might want to spend some time comprehending what people are saying. Respecting someone and her beliefs is not the same as holding those beliefs as equally valid.
So when is it okay to not "respect" someone's beliefs? If someone thinks LGBTQ people are abominations, is it okay to not "respect" their beliefs? I have more to follow up with, but I will stop there and let you answer that specific question.
And I can comprehend just fine, pal! I have 3 semesters of law school and a zombie novel under my belt!
(*I am switching to IC Nick Miller mode to make sure we keep some levity as we discuss these issues and all remain friends)
-
You're still missing the point.
Take some time to think it over. Maybe look go get a refund on the law school.
MOD NOTE: Please don't be rude.
-
You're still missing the point. Take some time to think it over. Maybe look go get a refund on the law school.
Perhaps you could try to explain instead of being unkind.
-
You are equating belief and non-belief as equally valid.
No one is doing this, but you keep repeating it. You might want to spend some time comprehending what people are saying. Respecting someone and her beliefs is not the same as holding those beliefs as equally valid.
So when is it okay to not "respect" someone's beliefs? If someone thinks LGBTQ people are abominations, is it okay to not "respect" their beliefs? I have more to follow up with, but I will stop there and let you answer that specific question.
And I can comprehend just fine, pal! I have 3 semesters of law school and a zombie novel under my belt!
(*I am switching to IC Nick Miller mode to make sure we keep some levity as we discuss these issues and all remain friends)
LGBTQ-type person, here. To answer your question: yes, it is correct for someone to think me an abomination, and to respect their belief. Allow me to elaborate.
Every adult has a deeply held theory of what they consider a good, prosperous, helpful, and overall moral society. Many adults fall into basic groups. Liberal. Conservative. Vegan. Christian. Such on, and so forth. What @Kris called a paradigm.
To the fundamentalist Christian, a good, prosperous, helpful, and overall moral society is predicated on the inerrant and infallible word of God, which is communicated through the bible. The bible has several critical passages that say homosexuality is a sin. Therefore, homosexuality is not part of a good, prosperous, helpful, and overall moral society, and must be suppressed. Suppressing homosexuality isn't done from a standpoint of hate; it's done from a standpoint of ensuring society remains moral. In my experience, many fundamentalist show a surprising amount of compassion, totally free of repugnance, towards an individual homosexual. They think my sexual desire an abomination, but believe I have a soul worth saving.
Such people are striving for a moral society, and I can fully respect that. We simply disagree on the definition of moral. Obviously I tend to believe that a good, prosperous, helpful, and overall moral society is based on acceptance of most things that fall under identity politics. I will, in fact, fight the fundamentalist idea of sexuality with every fiber of my being. But I can respect the consistency of thought and their desire for a moral society. It's the same desire I have.
-
So when is it okay to not "respect" someone's beliefs? If someone thinks LGBTQ people are abominations, is it okay to not "respect" their beliefs? I have more to follow up with, but I will stop there and let you answer that specific question.
I think you are confusing values with the things from which we derive our values, beliefs, and principles (AKA epistemic principles).
The problem with thinking that LGBTQ people are "abominations" isn't that someone believes it for the wrong reasons. The problem is when that belief causes harm, it hurts real people. I believe it is wrong to hurt people, and evidently you do too; that is a value we share. But we might share that value, while basing it on entirely different epistemic principles. As long as we arrive at the same conclusion (that it's wrong to dehumanize any group of people), and are willing to stand up for people's rights, do the underlying epistemics honestly matter?
Moreover, if I say that it's wrong to cause harm to LGBTQ people, then I have to center that on the real, lived experiences & trauma of LGBTQ people. That tends to lead to better outcomes (in a whole variety of ways), and means that the entire discussion is centered on the real lives of the people who are most affected. If I center my arguments around the idea that theists are dumb & crazy...well, LGBTQ people barely even show up in that discussion, because it's all about abstract philosophy and the hurt feelings of theists (not to mention, plenty of theists are LGBTQ, and vice-versa). Not just ineffective, but actually contrary to my values around inclusion and basic justice.
TL/DR: I think you're asking all the wrong questions.
-
I think as a starting point we should acknowledge that dehumanizing aliens and robots is wrong, and that it's fine to hold and tongue religious friends if they consent to it.
-
I think as a starting point we should acknowledge that dehumanizing aliens and robots is wrong, and that it's fine to hold and tongue religious friends if they consent to it.
My guess is that most of my religious friends would not consent to being "tongued" by me.
Also, yuck. I am pickier then that.
-
I was raised Catholic but stopped going to church at 15. I told my mother that not only wasn't I getting anything out of it, but I was probably ruining it for others because I wasn't paying attention and behaving respectfully. Mom agreed that if I felt that way, I shouldn't go. Out of habit I continued to identify as Catholic if asked.
After college, one of my friends was sincerely worried for me after listening to her evangelical Christian neighbor proselytize that all Catholics were going to Hell. I burst out laughing: "Really? Mother Teresa is going to Hell? Your neighbor thinks she's holier than Mother Teresa?!"
-
Nick_Miller - Most of your posts feel like something I would write myself. I was raised as a Lutheran, my family is from Texas; although I spent a lot of time in other places as an Air Force Brat.
I became a full on atheist in college after trying (very hard) to connect with god during my youth and adolescence. Only after the complete blank non-response of any kind from any type of higher power did I even begin to question anything. BUT, once I did start questioning, boy oh boy did shit unravel, fast.
Anyway, I "Came Out" to my parents as an atheist when I was 22. Shock and sadness was the response. Which I never understood. Honestly, becoming an atheist felt oddly freeing.
Best thing I ever did, move to Denver. People just aren't very religious there, or at least are far less so than Texas, haha.
I also agree that religious belief is harmful, and religious people don't see it, because they are in a position of privilege - their default beliefs are the social fabric we live in. My best advice - whenever possible, speak up about not believing. Don't be a dick about it. But be firm and do not soft shoe it.
I'm typing this now from my parents home in Texas. It's my first time back in a while and being away from Christianity for so long really clarifies just how insane the actual beliefs are. A dude rises from the dead? A virgin gives birth? God's perfect and perfectly good, yet there's evil in the world? Matthew and Luke can't even agree on who Jesus' grandfather was (or the majority of his genealogy?). The gospels weren't even written by the apostles but were some anonymous 3rd party that didn't even know Jesus directly? Seriously, it's all just a bunch of gobbledygook. But you have to be away from it for a bit before that comes into sharp focus. Or at least I did.
Here's the good news. It's changing. IME, religion is a tool that ancient man used to try to explain the world. And for a long time it was better than anything else around. But almost every "mystery" that religion tries to answer is now answered much better by science. And that trend is accelerating. Science is not a crude tool as someone else in this thread said. Science is a wonderfully precise and self correcting way of understanding the world.
It's helpful to have some science facts at your fingertips to share with believers whenever these discussions come up. The universe is 14.6 billion years old. The earth is 4.6 billion. Single celled life started 3.6 billion years ago. The first "Homo" species emerged about 2.8 million years ago. Homo Sapiens between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago. Farming a little more than 10,000 years ago. Written language about 5000 years ago. Judaism didn't even enter the picture until about 3800 years ago and Christianity is a total baby at 2000 years old.
We know all of these things because of science. As an atheist, it's not enough to just be "against religion". You must be "for" something. It's your responsibility to have a positive, alternative world view that you can offer as a better option.
Obviously don't be a jerk about it because that just turns people off. But you're lucky that you have the facts on your side. Present them. Don't worry if people aren't immediately convinced. That rarely happens. Mostly you're just planting a seed that might bear fruit 3 years down the line (as another poster astutely pointed out).
-
So when is it okay to not "respect" someone's beliefs? If someone thinks LGBTQ people are abominations, is it okay to not "respect" their beliefs? I have more to follow up with, but I will stop there and let you answer that specific question.
I don't know if you saw my post upthread, #66, but this is exactly what I was talking about. You are conflating all Christians (of all denominations, apparently!) with the kind of obnoxious buttheads who are annoying you by being objectively obnoxious buttheads. Your problem is not "How do I deal with Christians?", it's "How do I deal with obnoxious buttheads?" To which the answer is basically that two wrongs don't make a right and you need to disengage and change the subject.
I agree with other posters that you don't seem to understand the way people are using the word "respect". In its simplest form, to respect someone's belief means to not be an obnoxious butthead about it. You can disagree fundamentally and completely with the belief that LGBT people are abominations while not being an obnoxious butthead about it. You don't have to ignore their expressed belief, or pretend you agree with it. You just have to not be an obnoxious butthead. It's ridiculous to try to fight fire with fire. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you!
After college, one of my friends was sincerely worried for me after listening to her evangelical Christian neighbor proselytize that all Catholics were going to Hell. I burst out laughing: "Really? Mother Teresa is going to Hell? Your neighbor thinks she's holier than Mother Teresa?!"
Hah! Thanks for the laugh! :D
-
So when is it okay to not "respect" someone's beliefs? If someone thinks LGBTQ people are abominations, is it okay to not "respect" their beliefs? I have more to follow up with, but I will stop there and let you answer that specific question.
I don't know if you saw my post upthread, #66, but this is exactly what I was talking about. You are conflating all Christians (of all denominations, apparently!) with the kind of obnoxious buttheads who are annoying you by being objectively obnoxious buttheads. Your problem is not "How do I deal with Christians?", it's "How do I deal with obnoxious buttheads?" To which the answer is basically that two wrongs don't make a right and you need to disengage and change the subject.
I agree with other posters that you don't seem to understand the way people are using the word "respect". In its simplest form, to respect someone's belief means to not be an obnoxious butthead about it. You can disagree fundamentally and completely with the belief that LGBT people are abominations while not being an obnoxious butthead about it. You don't have to ignore their expressed belief, or pretend you agree with it. You just have to not be an obnoxious butthead. It's ridiculous to try to fight fire with fire. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you!
After college, one of my friends was sincerely worried for me after listening to her evangelical Christian neighbor proselytize that all Catholics were going to Hell. I burst out laughing: "Really? Mother Teresa is going to Hell? Your neighbor thinks she's holier than Mother Teresa?!"
Hah! Thanks for the laugh! :D
I agree with shelivesthedream's prescription for how to act, but I think I'd call that good manners and/or good negotiating technique rather than "respect".
-
I would describe "respect" as having good internal manners as well as good external ones.
-
I would describe "respect" as having good internal manners as well as good external ones.
Yes, up to a point. (And apologies for using the incorrect version of your screen name in my previous post.)
My external manners bow to necessity, to social niceties and to any desire I feel to persuade. My internal ones do not. If someone's religion disrespects one of my LGBTQ friends then I may show external good manners but my internal ones are for me alone and are not necessarily so constrained - after all, I have to show good manners to the rights of my LGTBQ friends as well and the two can be in conflict.
-
I would describe "respect" as having good internal manners as well as good external ones.
Yes, up to a point. (And apologies for using the incorrect version of your screen name in my previous post.)
My external manners bow to necessity, to social niceties and to any desire I feel to persuade. My internal ones do not. If someone's religion disrespects one of my LGBTQ friends then I may show external good manners but my internal ones are for me alone and are not necessarily so constrained - after all, I have to show good manners to the rights of my LGTBQ friends as well and the two can be in conflict.
Supposing my views on the abomination status of LGBT people were in conflict with someone else's I could, internally, do two things:
1. Rage and scream and tantrum at the other person. Tear my hair out and tell them they were an ignorant asshole. Call them all kinds of names. Insist their entire worldview was stupid stupid stupid la la la la and pound my worldview into them with a fist.
2. Calmly explain that I disagree with them. Ask them to explain their worldview thoroughly. Listen silently. Explain my worldview thoroughly. Ask them to listen silently. Ask clarifying questions of each other. Explain, presumably, that I still disagree with them and would not like to hear their views in general conversation any longer. Decide whether to quietly spend less time with them if they can't be a grown up about it. This isn't a great way of explaining it, but its hard to put into words - respect is about tone.
One can do that internally as much as externally. That's respect. Of course those aren't literally the only courses of action, but they serve well to illustrate the two main intellectual and emotional courses of action available.
I know people in the UK whose relationships have broken up over Brexit. My friend asked me how I could stand to be married to someone who voted leave. The topic of Brexit comes up almost daily at the moment at some point. We really would struggle to escape it. Well, neither my husband nor I rage at each other for voting the wrong way. We don't call each other stupid. We don't speak to each other in a condescending tone. We speak respectfully to each other (even as he is pleased with the idea of a No Deal Brexit) and think respectfully about each other. Your thought become your words, etc etc. I make a great effort to use respectful vocabulary in my thoughts as well as my words. I guess I'd call that something like integrity, if you included actions as well.
-
You are equating belief and non-belief as equally valid.
No one is doing this, but you keep repeating it. You might want to spend some time comprehending what people are saying. Respecting someone and her beliefs is not the same as holding those beliefs as equally valid.
So when is it okay to not "respect" someone's beliefs? If someone thinks LGBTQ people are abominations, is it okay to not "respect" their beliefs? I have more to follow up with, but I will stop there and let you answer that specific question.
And I can comprehend just fine, pal! I have 3 semesters of law school and a zombie novel under my belt!
(*I am switching to IC Nick Miller mode to make sure we keep some levity as we discuss these issues and all remain friends)
LGBTQ-type person, here. To answer your question: yes, it is correct for someone to think me an abomination, and to respect their belief. Allow me to elaborate.
Every adult has a deeply held theory of what they consider a good, prosperous, helpful, and overall moral society. Many adults fall into basic groups. Liberal. Conservative. Vegan. Christian. Such on, and so forth. What @Kris called a paradigm.
To the fundamentalist Christian, a good, prosperous, helpful, and overall moral society is predicated on the inerrant and infallible word of God, which is communicated through the bible. The bible has several critical passages that say homosexuality is a sin. Therefore, homosexuality is not part of a good, prosperous, helpful, and overall moral society, and must be suppressed. Suppressing homosexuality isn't done from a standpoint of hate; it's done from a standpoint of ensuring society remains moral. In my experience, many fundamentalist show a surprising amount of compassion, totally free of repugnance, towards an individual homosexual. They think my sexual desire an abomination, but believe I have a soul worth saving.
Such people are striving for a moral society, and I can fully respect that. We simply disagree on the definition of moral. Obviously I tend to believe that a good, prosperous, helpful, and overall moral society is based on acceptance of most things that fall under identity politics. I will, in fact, fight the fundamentalist idea of sexuality with every fiber of my being. But I can respect the consistency of thought and their desire for a moral society. It's the same desire I have.
Wow @Sailor Sam , that's pretty freakin' articulate.
-
Most atheists I know in the US -- myself included -- grew up in households that were at least nominally Christian. I grew up going to church, have been baptised and confirmed, and had read the entire Bible by the time I was eighteen. The fact is, I actually have had most of the conversations Nick_Miller enumerates above. It's not that I haven't heard the answers. It's that, frankly, the answers I have heard seem ridiculous.
The most powerful way to people turn away from religion is to encourage them to read the Bible--the whole thing. Not just snippets. It certainly shattered my faith.
-
Most atheists I know in the US -- myself included -- grew up in households that were at least nominally Christian. I grew up going to church, have been baptised and confirmed, and had read the entire Bible by the time I was eighteen. The fact is, I actually have had most of the conversations Nick_Miller enumerates above. It's not that I haven't heard the answers. It's that, frankly, the answers I have heard seem ridiculous.
The most powerful way to people turn away from religion is to encourage them to read the Bible--the whole thing. Not just snippets. It certainly shattered my faith.
Yes.
-
I kinda fall in a No-Man's land.. Christians and religious people think I'm atheist. Atheists think I'm religious. What I do think is that religions, particularly Christianity, carry some truth though I don't accept or reject it 100%. I agree with a lot of the philosophies in Christianity. And I'm also very interested in religion's explanation for the metaphysical and the occult (not necessarily limited to just Christianity). I'm also very interested in exploring the spiritual realm like the astral plane. However, there are also parts of religion that i don't quite agree with either, including daily/weekly worship (I almost never go to church these days) or faith in God or a higher power.
One of the few people whom I share similar views and attitudes towards Christianity is Jordan Peterson.
-
Most of my life has been spent in the Bible belt. With more churches than gas stations and the blatant and in your face assumption that EVERYONE of course is Christian.
I moved out of the Bible belt for a few yearsv and it really is a whole different world out there!
I could fill this thread up with some more stories about outrageous in your face evangelism... But there's probably enough of that (tbh I only read about the first 70 responses before skipping to a reply).
I'm really hear here to share my latest coping mechanism: imagine everyone talking about Christianity is in a fandom. Honestly this isn't far from the truth. It's a ridiculously successful and long running fandom. Some of the subgenres have amazing garb and rituals, some just meet like any normal bookclub.
Harry Potter, Bronies, Star Wars, WOW, Star trek...I can listen to people talk excitedly about things like this and when I just equate Christianity to another fandom I am surprisingly so much more accepting. I also get secret enjoyment from this amusement.
Your milage may vary.
-
Seeing as this thread is an atheist thread now, my fellow non-believers, how do you feel about determinism versus free will? I'm firmly in the camp that everything that ever happened and will ever happen is set in the proverbial stone, and free will an illusion. I believed this as a Christian as well, but as an atheist makes even more sense to me. Every decision ever made in an act of "will" can be traced to things totally out of our control, from our genes, to the parents raising us, to the TV, to the time and age we were born into, and various other factors. Taken to extremes, this belief might come to many unpleasant conclusions (think criminals and punishment), but also some pleasant ones as well (thinking about risk taking). Whatever happens was meant to be.
I know I'm not articulating this perfectly, but I'm curious if anyone feels similar.
If a murderer's actions are purely deterministic, then other people would also be deterministically protecting themselves by locking the murderer in a cage.
I'm not under the impression that my awareness of determinism is going to lead me to any actionable conclusions. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
-
Most of my life has been spent in the Bible belt. With more churches than gas stations and the blatant and in your face assumption that EVERYONE of course is Christian.
I moved out of the Bible belt for a few yearsv and it really is a whole different world out there!
I could fill this thread up with some more stories about outrageous in your face evangelism... But there's probably enough of that (tbh I only read about the first 70 responses before skipping to a reply).
I'm really hear here to share my latest coping mechanism: imagine everyone talking about Christianity is in a fandom. Honestly this isn't far from the truth. It's a ridiculously successful and long running fandom. Some of the subgenres have amazing garb and rituals, some just meet like any normal bookclub.
Harry Potter, Bronies, Star Wars, WOW, Star trek...I can listen to people talk excitedly about things like this and when I just equate Christianity to another fandom I am surprisingly so much more accepting. I also get secret enjoyment from this amusement.
Your milage may vary.
I actually think this is hilarious and awesome advice.
-
I would describe "respect" as having good internal manners as well as good external ones.
Yes, up to a point. (And apologies for using the incorrect version of your screen name in my previous post.)
My external manners bow to necessity, to social niceties and to any desire I feel to persuade. My internal ones do not. If someone's religion disrespects one of my LGBTQ friends then I may show external good manners but my internal ones are for me alone and are not necessarily so constrained - after all, I have to show good manners to the rights of my LGTBQ friends as well and the two can be in conflict.
Supposing my views on the abomination status of LGBT people were in conflict with someone else's I could, internally, do two things:
1. Rage and scream and tantrum at the other person. Tear my hair out and tell them they were an ignorant asshole. Call them all kinds of names. Insist their entire worldview was stupid stupid stupid la la la la and pound my worldview into them with a fist.
2. Calmly explain that I disagree with them. Ask them to explain their worldview thoroughly. Listen silently. Explain my worldview thoroughly. Ask them to listen silently. Ask clarifying questions of each other. Explain, presumably, that I still disagree with them and would not like to hear their views in general conversation any longer. Decide whether to quietly spend less time with them if they can't be a grown up about it. This isn't a great way of explaining it, but its hard to put into words - respect is about tone.
One can do that internally as much as externally. That's respect. Of course those aren't literally the only courses of action, but they serve well to illustrate the two main intellectual and emotional courses of action available.
I know people in the UK whose relationships have broken up over Brexit. My friend asked me how I could stand to be married to someone who voted leave. The topic of Brexit comes up almost daily at the moment at some point. We really would struggle to escape it. Well, neither my husband nor I rage at each other for voting the wrong way. We don't call each other stupid. We don't speak to each other in a condescending tone. We speak respectfully to each other (even as he is pleased with the idea of a No Deal Brexit) and think respectfully about each other. Your thought become your words, etc etc. I make a great effort to use respectful vocabulary in my thoughts as well as my words. I guess I'd call that something like integrity, if you included actions as well.
You are undoubtedly a better person than I am. I respect the right to freedom of thought, speech and religion, but that is not about the individual, it is about the legal, constitutional and societal rights under which some of us are lucky enough to live. I can also respect the individual's right to exercise those freedoms. But respecting the way in which they exercise those freedoms looks very much like giving them a pass on beliefs and actions which hurt others and disrespect their rights to life and to freedom of thought, speech and even religion. Hopefully I will be able to express my disagreement in ways which take the conversation forward, but that is about manners and negotiating tactics not a fundamental response to the ideas they hold.
SomedayStache's fandom idea is both hilarious and useful, but the comparison breaks down when active harm is the result of the religious beliefs.
-
You are equating belief and non-belief as equally valid.
No one is doing this, but you keep repeating it. You might want to spend some time comprehending what people are saying. Respecting someone and her beliefs is not the same as holding those beliefs as equally valid.
So when is it okay to not "respect" someone's beliefs? If someone thinks LGBTQ people are abominations, is it okay to not "respect" their beliefs? I have more to follow up with, but I will stop there and let you answer that specific question.
And I can comprehend just fine, pal! I have 3 semesters of law school and a zombie novel under my belt!
(*I am switching to IC Nick Miller mode to make sure we keep some levity as we discuss these issues and all remain friends)
LGBTQ-type person, here. To answer your question: yes, it is correct for someone to think me an abomination, and to respect their belief. Allow me to elaborate.
Every adult has a deeply held theory of what they consider a good, prosperous, helpful, and overall moral society. Many adults fall into basic groups. Liberal. Conservative. Vegan. Christian. Such on, and so forth. What @Kris called a paradigm.
To the fundamentalist Christian, a good, prosperous, helpful, and overall moral society is predicated on the inerrant and infallible word of God, which is communicated through the bible. The bible has several critical passages that say homosexuality is a sin. Therefore, homosexuality is not part of a good, prosperous, helpful, and overall moral society, and must be suppressed. Suppressing homosexuality isn't done from a standpoint of hate; it's done from a standpoint of ensuring society remains moral. In my experience, many fundamentalist show a surprising amount of compassion, totally free of repugnance, towards an individual homosexual. They think my sexual desire an abomination, but believe I have a soul worth saving.
Such people are striving for a moral society, and I can fully respect that. We simply disagree on the definition of moral. Obviously I tend to believe that a good, prosperous, helpful, and overall moral society is based on acceptance of most things that fall under identity politics. I will, in fact, fight the fundamentalist idea of sexuality with every fiber of my being. But I can respect the consistency of thought and their desire for a moral society. It's the same desire I have.
Wow @Sailor Sam , that's pretty freakin' articulate.
Hey, thanks! However, don't assign me sainthood yet. I view the evangelists the same as I view the eugenicists of the the 1900s, or McCarthyists of the 1950s. The founders of the movement are vicious, cold minded, and have wider agendas. But such movements do usually contain a smattering of people who are purely motivated. All they want is to usher in a better world, and I can respect that they are pushing for what they truly view as the greater good.
That's the limit of my respect. Because purity of motivation does not remove responsibility for the consequences. The consequences of evangelical suppressing homosexuality is despair, hopelessness, and suicide. Usually among the youngest and most vulnerable of my people. Evangelism is a scourge, and each person who embraces such ideas have their own small responsibility towards the next teenager that opens their veins in order to make the pain stop.
Please don't mistake my rationality for lack of rage.
-
Harry Potter, Bronies, Star Wars, WOW, Star trek...I can listen to people talk excitedly about things like this and when I just equate Christianity to another fandom I am surprisingly so much more accepting. I also get secret enjoyment from this amusement.
Yes absolutely. And don't forget political party fandom, it definitely falls in the same category.
-
SomedayStache's fandom idea is both hilarious and useful, but the comparison breaks down when active harm is the result of the religious beliefs.
Right. I realize this as well and my initial post had a paragraph regarding this exact subject which I deleted. The fandom bit allows me to get through conversations with relatives at weddings with a minimum of emotional angst on my part but there's a whole lot of historical baggage and active harm still being done by the church that needs addressing.
-
SomedayStache's fandom idea is both hilarious and useful, but the comparison breaks down when active harm is the result of the religious beliefs.
Right. I realize this as well and my initial post had a paragraph regarding this exact subject which I deleted. The fandom bit allows me to get through conversations with relatives at weddings with a minimum of emotional angst on my part but there's a whole lot of historical baggage and active harm still being done by the church that needs addressing.
Not to get too off-topic, but fandom has harms too. There have been many studies like this: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/10/study-domestic-violence-increases-after-major-sporting-events/263570/
-
But I don't get the "It shouldn't bother you" comment. Yes it bothers me because...
...
2) It is not healthy for people to function under delusions. It's just not. I mean, when does "crazy" start? If I said I had invisible unicorns in my yard wouldn't you be concerned about me?
I am not sure the data supports this conclusion. Talking to those invisible unicorns may be good for your health. ;-)
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2521827 (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2521827)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15569904 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15569904)
-
I have been on both sides of this. For 35 years I was the world's biggest agnostic atheist who thought Christians were a deluded bunch of fools. Now I am a sovereign grace five point TULIP Calvinist. God works in mysterious ways in the conversion of His elect.
-
I have been on both sides of this. For 35 years I was the world's biggest agnostic atheist who thought Christians were a deluded bunch of fools. Now I am a sovereign grace five point TULIP Calvinist. God works in mysterious ways in the conversion of His elect.
What?
I played guitar in my wife's church band for 3 years. I strongly believe that others are free to believe or not however they want. I would never volunteer speak during service. After my first "no" to the offer for me to offer the prayer, I was left alone. I was there for the music and expansion of my guitar skills and ability to play in a band. I'm too old and still have kids so am not going to get into some cover band and play bars on weekends. Playing at the church worked fine. Why did I leave? My wife (a believer) finally confronted me about playing in a church band while not believing. I finished the 2 next Sundays I had committed to and then blocked all dates in the online availability calendar forever and never went back.
How did I deal with a bunch of bible thumpers (evangelistic church) with the "let's pray before practice, let's pray after practice, let's pray about practice"....kind of people. I simply held my tongue and always just kept my mouth shut. I did often think to myself "man, these people sure waste a lot of time for some old timey myths".
-
I have been on both sides of this. For 35 years I was the world's biggest agnostic atheist who thought Christians were a deluded bunch of fools. Now I am a sovereign grace five point TULIP Calvinist. God works in mysterious ways in the conversion of His elect.
What?
I played guitar in my wife's church band for 3 years. I strongly believe that others are free to believe or not however they want. I would never volunteer speak during service. After my first "no" to the offer for me to offer the prayer, I was left alone. I was there for the music and expansion of my guitar skills and ability to play in a band. I'm too old and still have kids so am not going to get into some cover band and play bars on weekends. Playing at the church worked fine. Why did I leave? My wife (a believer) finally confronted me about playing in a church band while not believing. I finished the 2 next Sundays I had committed to and then blocked all dates in the online availability calendar forever and never went back.
How did I deal with a bunch of bible thumpers (evangelistic church) with the "let's pray before practice, let's pray after practice, let's pray about practice"....kind of people. I simply held my tongue and always just kept my mouth shut. I did often think to myself "man, these people sure waste a lot of time for some old timey myths".
Interesting. I had a somewhat similar experience. I used to play with a group of people who all went to the same church, and I got pulled in because I was friends with one of the members. I was the only member. We'd do stuff like go to old folks' homes to entertain them, that kind of stuff. I considered it one of my volunteer gigs.
Why did I quit? Mounting pressure from the band members about my church non-belief. It pissed me off that they had asked me to play with them and do this thing, and then give me shit because I wasn't measuring up. So, I left. Screw that.
-
I have been on both sides of this. For 35 years I was the world's biggest agnostic atheist who thought Christians were a deluded bunch of fools. Now I am a sovereign grace five point TULIP Calvinist. God works in mysterious ways in the conversion of His elect.
I'm not sure what your point is. I would guess most people here have also been on both sides of this. I was a devout Mormon until I was 23, and I bet a lot of the atheist/agnostic folks posting here were raised to believe in a religion.
This conversation could really apply to any difference in religion. How does a Catholic person hold their tongue when a Protestant person says something that contradicts their beliefs?
-
I am an old atheist and can assure you, OP, that atheists are just as tiresome as overly religious people.
You are probably too young to know about Madelyn Murray OHare and her motley crew, but there was some atheists you do not want to align with.
-
What I find off-putting more are people who make it their mission to assert their belief is best, be it religious or atheist-and as an atheist I'll say other atheists are REALLY annoying in this regard.
I agree with you. "Virtue Signaling" is just as annoying as proselytizing, and this can come from both extremes. Ironically both sides can't stand each other -- if only they realized how much they have in common.
Yep. I used to work with someone I described as an "evangelical atheist." That person never hid their contempt for anyone who believed in a higher power....
Yes, you will find too many of these people in the local Unitarian Universalist Church congregation. Many (most?) of these have the fervor of the newly converted, they were raised as Baptist/Catholic/Jewish/whatever and have newly broken free and are distainfil of those who have not broken free of the shackles.
Usually by the 2nd generation the atheist fervor dies down.
Iris—raised as 4th generation UU but now unchurched
-
Did you read the other posts? I know it's a lot, but I explain a lot in other posts.
But long story short, we just disagree. You are equating belief and non-belief as equally valid. They are not, IMO. One makes extraordinary claims and requires extraordinary evidence. The other simply asks for that extraordinary evidence and points out the lack thereof.
And I've addressed this (many times) before, but WHY do I need to "respect" their views when their views are based on ancient myths, impossibilities, and internal inconsistencies? I'm not being sarcastic when I ask this, I promise. I am just trying to understand better. What makes their views worthy of respect when they make no sense? The mere fact that they hold those views? So no matter what someone thinks, as long as they legitimately believe it, we can never call it out?
I could be wrong, but the impression I get is that you're coming from a position of disbelief not simply non-belief.
-
Did you read the other posts? I know it's a lot, but I explain a lot in other posts.
But long story short, we just disagree. You are equating belief and non-belief as equally valid. They are not, IMO. One makes extraordinary claims and requires extraordinary evidence. The other simply asks for that extraordinary evidence and points out the lack thereof.
And I've addressed this (many times) before, but WHY do I need to "respect" their views when their views are based on ancient myths, impossibilities, and internal inconsistencies? I'm not being sarcastic when I ask this, I promise. I am just trying to understand better. What makes their views worthy of respect when they make no sense? The mere fact that they hold those views? So no matter what someone thinks, as long as they legitimately believe it, we can never call it out?
I could be wrong, but the impression I get is that you're coming from a position of disbelief not simply non-belief.
I can't PROVE no super-powerful entity exists! I can't PROVE that snakes didn't speak Hebrew and that pigs weren't possessed by evil spirits. I can't PROVE that she bears didn't "tear asunder" 42 teenagers under divine orders. All I can say is that those things are wildly inconsistent with everything we know about snakes and pigs and bears.
But I don't have to prove anything. Extraordinary claims require the extraordinary evidence. So I will wait and remain a skeptic until and unless such evidence is tendered. I hate waiting. I don't even like waiting 30 minutes to be seated at Chilis.
I keep coming back to how crazy it is that the people requiring evidence are the minority.
-
I keep coming back to how crazy it is that the people requiring evidence are the minority.
That one's easy. Religious faith is not about knowing (ie having evidence), it's about believing (ie having faith). By requiring evidence you are demonstrating that you are operating outside the context of religious belief. Two completely different systems of thought and nary the twain shall meet.
-
Did you read the other posts? I know it's a lot, but I explain a lot in other posts.
But long story short, we just disagree. You are equating belief and non-belief as equally valid. They are not, IMO. One makes extraordinary claims and requires extraordinary evidence. The other simply asks for that extraordinary evidence and points out the lack thereof.
And I've addressed this (many times) before, but WHY do I need to "respect" their views when their views are based on ancient myths, impossibilities, and internal inconsistencies? I'm not being sarcastic when I ask this, I promise. I am just trying to understand better. What makes their views worthy of respect when they make no sense? The mere fact that they hold those views? So no matter what someone thinks, as long as they legitimately believe it, we can never call it out?
I could be wrong, but the impression I get is that you're coming from a position of disbelief not simply non-belief.
I can't PROVE no super-powerful entity exists! I can't PROVE that snakes didn't speak Hebrew and that pigs weren't possessed by evil spirits. I can't PROVE that she bears didn't "tear asunder" 42 teenagers under divine orders. All I can say is that those things are wildly inconsistent with everything we know about snakes and pigs and bears.
But I don't have to prove anything. Extraordinary claims require the extraordinary evidence. So I will wait and remain a skeptic until and unless such evidence is tendered. I hate waiting. I don't even like waiting 30 minutes to be seated at Chilis.
I keep coming back to how crazy it is that the people requiring evidence are the minority.
Okay, but who is actually making the claim in these situations? Is it you, your religious friends or both of you?
Honestly, if your claim is that god does not exist, then I'd say your claim is the more extraordinary (def. very unusual or remarkable) one since most of humanity is still religious.
Just for the record, I consider myself agnostic(-ish).
-
I keep coming back to how crazy it is that the people requiring evidence are the minority.
That one's easy. Religious faith is not about knowing (ie having evidence), it's about believing (ie having faith). By requiring evidence you are demonstrating that you are operating outside the context of religious belief. Two completely different systems of thought and nary the twain shall meet.
Trust me, I understand that they are operating on emotion, not logic. It's just a shame that people operating on logic are so outnumbered.
-
I keep coming back to how crazy it is that the people requiring evidence are the minority.
That one's easy. Religious faith is not about knowing (ie having evidence), it's about believing (ie having faith). By requiring evidence you are demonstrating that you are operating outside the context of religious belief. Two completely different systems of thought and nary the twain shall meet.
Trust me, I understand that they are operating on emotion, not logic. It's just a shame that people operating on logic are so outnumbered.
Is it a “shame?” Not necessarily. You value logic over emotion in (perhaps) all things. I am not so sure I would agree with you. Are you like this IRL? It wouldnt be fun, being your friend.
-
How does life form from a goo puddle? That is a leap of faith right there. Look at the complexity of a living plant or animal. That doesn't happen by accident. It is designed. The chances of some random chemical accidents creating life is simply astronomically impossible.
-
How does life form from a goo puddle? That is a leap of faith right there. Look at the complexity of a living plant or animal. That doesn't happen by accident. It is designed. The chances of some random chemical accidents creating life is simply astronomically impossible.
A goo puddle is already life. You just can’t see it without the aid of a microscope.
-
How does life form from a goo puddle? That is a leap of faith right there. Look at the complexity of a living plant or animal. That doesn't happen by accident. It is designed. The chances of some random chemical accidents creating life is simply astronomically impossible.
A goo puddle is already life. You just can’t see it without the aid of a microscope.
'Life forming from a goo puddle' was a metaphor for abiogenesis. It is just another god-of-the-gaps argument we can ignore.
For those of us who don't fall prey to such fallacies, here is a recent development in the area that hasn't even made it onto the wikipedia list of hypotheses yet https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02742-3 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02742-3).
-
I'm an atheist. Sometimes I hold my tongue. Sometimes I make a joke, but I don't discuss it anymore because they are played out and a waste of time. Of more concern is when religious people manipulate our institutions to brainwash people. For example, we have a new church in our town called "The Warehouse Church." Their members who are faculty at elementary schools are currently running prayer groups at said schools. Obviously, it's illegal to run religious groups by public school faculty. The students have to be able to organize them themselves and elementary school kids are too young to do that. Since my kids will be going to one of those schools in a few years, I'm pissed off about it and thankfully, our county is being sued at the moment for it.
-
How does life form from a goo puddle? That is a leap of faith right there. Look at the complexity of a living plant or animal. That doesn't happen by accident. It is designed. The chances of some random chemical accidents creating life is simply astronomically impossible.
You're assuming people become atheists because they found a better explanation for Everything. I cannot explain the origin of life but still think that talking snakes, resurrections and virgins giving birth are kinda silly.
-
I'm an atheist. Sometimes I hold my tongue. Sometimes I make a joke, but I don't discuss it anymore because they are played out and a waste of time. Of more concern is when religious people manipulate our institutions to brainwash people. For example, we have a new church in our town called "The Warehouse Church." Their members who are faculty at elementary schools are currently running prayer groups at said schools. Obviously, it's illegal to run religious groups by public school faculty. The students have to be able to organize them themselves and elementary school kids are too young to do that. Since my kids will be going to one of those schools in a few years, I'm pissed off about it and thankfully, our county is being sued at the moment for it.
If we are going to exchange tales of undue religious influence, I watched a local Muslim Imam and his followers play victim in a building project where they refused to follow historic building codes because they claimed it was contrary to their goals. Reasonable people in this neighborhood spoke clearly about the architectural standards and their plan, making sure that everyone understood this congregation was welcome but their design was flawed. No matter, their victim status earned them variances. Also pissed off here, but due process has been exhausted and we will have an ugly one story building not oriented toward the street surrounded by Victorian buildings of a different nature. Victims winning again, yay! Not.
I was involved in another Muslim demand, where a young, fervent disciple of Mohammed demanded that the public library place the Koran on the highest shelf above all books in the library. Yeah pretty silly, but that is the where we are.
-
I'm an atheist. Sometimes I hold my tongue. Sometimes I make a joke, but I don't discuss it anymore because they are played out and a waste of time. Of more concern is when religious people manipulate our institutions to brainwash people. For example, we have a new church in our town called "The Warehouse Church." Their members who are faculty at elementary schools are currently running prayer groups at said schools. Obviously, it's illegal to run religious groups by public school faculty. The students have to be able to organize them themselves and elementary school kids are too young to do that. Since my kids will be going to one of those schools in a few years, I'm pissed off about it and thankfully, our county is being sued at the moment for it.
If we are going to exchange tales of undue religious influence, I watched a local Muslim Imam and his followers play victim in a building project where they refused to follow historic building codes because they claimed it was contrary to their goals. Reasonable people in this neighborhood spoke clearly about the architectural standards and their plan, making sure that everyone understood this congregation was welcome but their design was flawed. No matter, the victim status one of them variances. Victims winning again, yay! Not.
I was involved in amother Muslim demand, where a young fervent disciple of Mohammed Just said that the public library must place the Caraun on the high shelf above all books in the library. Yeah pretty silly, but that is the where we are.
I'm not familiar with this text. Is it like the bybel? :)
-
I'm an atheist. Sometimes I hold my tongue. Sometimes I make a joke, but I don't discuss it anymore because they are played out and a waste of time. Of more concern is when religious people manipulate our institutions to brainwash people. For example, we have a new church in our town called "The Warehouse Church." Their members who are faculty at elementary schools are currently running prayer groups at said schools. Obviously, it's illegal to run religious groups by public school faculty. The students have to be able to organize them themselves and elementary school kids are too young to do that. Since my kids will be going to one of those schools in a few years, I'm pissed off about it and thankfully, our county is being sued at the moment for it.
If we are going to exchange tales of undue religious influence, I watched a local Muslim Imam and his followers play victim in a building project where they refused to follow historic building codes because they claimed it was contrary to their goals. Reasonable people in this neighborhood spoke clearly about the architectural standards and their plan, making sure that everyone understood this congregation was welcome but their design was flawed. No matter, the victim status one of them variances. Victims winning again, yay! Not.
I was involved in amother Muslim demand, where a young fervent disciple of Mohammed Just said that the public library must place the Caraun on the high shelf above all books in the library. Yeah pretty silly, but that is the where we are.
I'm not familiar with this text. Is it like the bybel? :)
Haha, I fixed all of my typos, and there were a lot of them.
-
Good morning all
I, like many who have posted here, live in the bible belt and grew up in the baptist church. After doing the research on my own, I have come to the conclusion that I'm an atheist. Personally, I cannot accept the stories in the bible as truth and require proof of the existence of an all-powerful being. As man has evolved, so has our ability to continually make leaps in understanding and advances in the abilities to prove things that were once not able to be proved. I think on the grand timeline, perhaps we will eventually find a way to prove or disprove the existence of a "creator", but until that day, I cannot accept this on faith alone.
I struggled with the conclusions of my own journey from devout christian to atheist, and even hesitated telling my wife for years even though she has some agnostic/atheist leanings. This is not something that I will ever discuss with my family, because nothing good would come from it. They are all also staunchly republican and support the current president...and I fall on the opposite side of that spectrum as well. We politely ignore political discussions at family gatherings and everyone is content with that arrangement. I will also not ever divulge this to my close friends and co-workers, as I'm almost 100% certain that all it would serve to do is to make me an outcast. Living where I do, religion (especially christianity) is as ingrained in the culture as breathing and being a republican. I can't see anything good that would come from speaking out, despite my general agreement with the OP.
I'll also comment here that I'm enjoying this discussion immensely and appreciate everyone who is offering thoughtful and respectful comments to the thread.
-
You are equating belief and non-belief as equally valid.
No one is doing this, but you keep repeating it. You might want to spend some time comprehending what people are saying. Respecting someone and her beliefs is not the same as holding those beliefs as equally valid.
So when is it okay to not "respect" someone's beliefs? If someone thinks LGBTQ people are abominations, is it okay to not "respect" their beliefs? I have more to follow up with, but I will stop there and let you answer that specific question.
And I can comprehend just fine, pal! I have 3 semesters of law school and a zombie novel under my belt!
(*I am switching to IC Nick Miller mode to make sure we keep some levity as we discuss these issues and all remain friends)
LGBTQ-type person, here. To answer your question: yes, it is correct for someone to think me an abomination, and to respect their belief. Allow me to elaborate.
Every adult has a deeply held theory of what they consider a good, prosperous, helpful, and overall moral society. Many adults fall into basic groups. Liberal. Conservative. Vegan. Christian. Such on, and so forth. What @Kris called a paradigm.
To the fundamentalist Christian, a good, prosperous, helpful, and overall moral society is predicated on the inerrant and infallible word of God, which is communicated through the bible. The bible has several critical passages that say homosexuality is a sin. Therefore, homosexuality is not part of a good, prosperous, helpful, and overall moral society, and must be suppressed. Suppressing homosexuality isn't done from a standpoint of hate; it's done from a standpoint of ensuring society remains moral. In my experience, many fundamentalist show a surprising amount of compassion, totally free of repugnance, towards an individual homosexual. They think my sexual desire an abomination, but believe I have a soul worth saving.
Such people are striving for a moral society, and I can fully respect that. We simply disagree on the definition of moral. Obviously I tend to believe that a good, prosperous, helpful, and overall moral society is based on acceptance of most things that fall under identity politics. I will, in fact, fight the fundamentalist idea of sexuality with every fiber of my being. But I can respect the consistency of thought and their desire for a moral society. It's the same desire I have.
My problem with Christianity is the hypocrisy. They show this level of ostracization toward homosexuals but are perfectly content to be surrounded by people who divorce and remarry (which is no less of a sin). Homosexuality doesn't even violate any of the Ten Commandments. That says to me that their treatment of the LGBT community has very little to do with religion, except that they use religion to justify their actions.
-
I'm an atheist. Sometimes I hold my tongue. Sometimes I make a joke, but I don't discuss it anymore because they are played out and a waste of time. Of more concern is when religious people manipulate our institutions to brainwash people. For example, we have a new church in our town called "The Warehouse Church." Their members who are faculty at elementary schools are currently running prayer groups at said schools. Obviously, it's illegal to run religious groups by public school faculty. The students have to be able to organize them themselves and elementary school kids are too young to do that. Since my kids will be going to one of those schools in a few years, I'm pissed off about it and thankfully, our county is being sued at the moment for it.
If we are going to exchange tales of undue religious influence, I watched a local Muslim Imam and his followers play victim in a building project where they refused to follow historic building codes because they claimed it was contrary to their goals. Reasonable people in this neighborhood spoke clearly about the architectural standards and their plan, making sure that everyone understood this congregation was welcome but their design was flawed. No matter, their victim status earned them variances. Also pissed off here, but due process has been exhausted and we will have an ugly one story building not oriented toward the street surrounded by Victorian buildings of a different nature. Victims winning again, yay! Not.
I was involved in another Muslim demand, where a young, fervent disciple of Mohammed demanded that the public library place the Koran on the highest shelf above all books in the library. Yeah pretty silly, but that is the where we are.
Anyone can demand anything, they should just ignore the fervent disciple of the false prophet Mohammed.
The 1st amendment gets involved when churches and building codes come together so this may be the reason why they had to permit them.
-
How does life form from a goo puddle? That is a leap of faith right there. Look at the complexity of a living plant or animal. That doesn't happen by accident. It is designed. The chances of some random chemical accidents creating life is simply astronomically impossible.
It does sound crazy until you consider the massive scope of our universe. "Astronomically impossible' is an interesting term. If life is a 1:1 Billion chance, then that would make for about 100 solar systems in our galaxy with life in them (since there are approximately 100 billion stars in the Milky Way. And there are well over 100 billion galaxies that we know of, and likely many more.
Astronomically small chances don't mean impossible.
-
How does life form from a goo puddle? That is a leap of faith right there. Look at the complexity of a living plant or animal. That doesn't happen by accident. It is designed. The chances of some random chemical accidents creating life is simply astronomically impossible.
Please form your own thread. This thread is not for people trying to push their beliefs. There are more than enough spaces for that.
How does life form from a goo puddle? That is a leap of faith right there. Look at the complexity of a living plant or animal. That doesn't happen by accident. It is designed. The chances of some random chemical accidents creating life is simply astronomically impossible.
A goo puddle is already life. You just can’t see it without the aid of a microscope.
'Life forming from a goo puddle' was a metaphor for abiogenesis. It is just another god-of-the-gaps argument we can ignore.
For those of us who don't fall prey to such fallacies, here is a recent development in the area that hasn't even made it onto the wikipedia list of hypotheses yet https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02742-3 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02742-3).
Y'all, too. Not the right thread.
-
I grew up in a nominally Christian household but since various branches of the family, going back say 4 generations, had ranged from Roman Catholic to Presbyterian, we were not exactly serious about it. It was more cultural than anything else. I suppose my biggest shock was when my Dad told me they served grape juice instead of wine at communion when he was a boy (the Presbyterian side). Now that goes against everything right and proper, Jesus definitely had wine in hand at the last supper (if the last supper ever happened, of course, but if it did it was Jewish Passover, so of course it would have been wine).
I think part of what got me to start really doubting that any part of the bible was literal was not only that there were so many English versions, but that translations from the originals were so unreliable. I read years ago that the original word (Aramaic? Greek?) describing Mary did not actually translate to "virgin" but to "young unmarried woman". Assuming a young unmarried woman was a virgin was a cultural assumption of the translators. She was betrothed, no reason to assume she was a virgin, in lots of cultures betrothal was the major part and things could happen after that. But has anything changed in general religious culture? No she is still a virgin. Why is it necessary that she has to be a virgin? Why can't anyone accept that the original translation was wrong? I mean, parthenogenesis is known in fish (some fish do sex changes too, fish are interesting) but not in mammals, and if it was parthenogenesis Jesus would have been a woman. Otherwise given what we now know about basic reproductive biology, where did the second set of chromosomes come from?
The story of the loaves and fishes - I can certainly see that if people were going on an outing to hear a preacher they would bring snacks, and if the preacher had everyone pool what they had brought there would be food for everyone. But to make it into a miracle?
Fortunately I don't live in a bible belt, I do get the odd people at my door. But religion (except for the massive commercialization of Christmas) doesn't really get pushed here. Small towns a bit more than cities, the first time I attended an organization's pot luck and someone stood at the front to say grace I was surprised.
On the political secular side, my biggest concern is that the more traditional churches are losing parishioners and the more radical (to me, ie.7th Day Adventists) are gaining members - so if people start mixing religion with politics, it will be the religion that is most radical that is the one pushing its agenda. Given the history of the Roman Catholic church and its involvement with secular life in Quebec, I don't want to see any church getting political clout.
-
I read years ago that the original word (Aramaic? Greek?) describing Mary did not actually translate to "virgin" but to "young unmarried woman". Assuming a young unmarried woman was a virgin was a cultural assumption of the translators. She was betrothed, no reason to assume she was a virgin, in lots of cultures betrothal was the major part and things could happen after that. But has anything changed in general religious culture? No she is still a virgin. Why is it necessary that she has to be a virgin? Why can't anyone accept that the original translation was wrong? I mean, parthenogenesis is known in fish (some fish do sex changes too, fish are interesting) but not in mammals, and if it was parthenogenesis Jesus would have been a woman. Otherwise given what we now know about basic reproductive biology, where did the second set of chromosomes come from?
The story of the loaves and fishes - I can certainly see that if people were going on an outing to hear a preacher they would bring snacks, and if the preacher had everyone pool what they had brought there would be food for everyone. But to make it into a miracle?
If it comes to that, I could never work out why the bible needed to lay out Joseph's ancestry in such detail in order to prove that Jesus was of appropriately high-born descent, having previously gone to such lengths to demonstrate that the babydaddy was God.
-
How does life form from a goo puddle? That is a leap of faith right there. Look at the complexity of a living plant or animal. That doesn't happen by accident. It is designed. The chances of some random chemical accidents creating life is simply astronomically impossible.
Please form your own thread. This thread is not for people trying to push their beliefs. There are more than enough spaces for that.
Atheists usually are spreading evolution as fact when it is a theory with no basis, it is a belief system. Instead of saying life exists and we can't explain how that can be, they concoct a theory out of whole cloth. The real reason why intelligent design is hated is it means there is an intelligent designer, and we can't have that can we. That might mean we might have to give an answer to the designer.
-
I'm genuinely curious: to atheists seeking proof, please could you give me some examples of proof that would lead you to believe that the Christian God exists? (Bad analogy warning) It seems to me like some people are trying to prove that 1+1=2 and some people are trying to prove that love exists. It's like there are two parallel conversations happening so of course you get frustrated because you're just not talking about the same thing.
-
How does life form from a goo puddle? That is a leap of faith right there. Look at the complexity of a living plant or animal. That doesn't happen by accident. It is designed. The chances of some random chemical accidents creating life is simply astronomically impossible.
Please form your own thread. This thread is not for people trying to push their beliefs. There are more than enough spaces for that.
Atheists usually are spreading evolution as fact when it is a theory with no basis, it is a belief system. Instead of saying life exists and we can't explain how that can be, they concoct a theory out of whole cloth. The real reason why intelligent design is hated is it means there is an intelligent designer, and we can't have that can we. That might mean we might have to give an answer to the designer.
Evolution is a belief system only to non-biologists. To biologists (including geneticists) it is a scientific theory backed up by 100 years of scientific discovery.
-
I'm an atheist. Sometimes I hold my tongue. Sometimes I make a joke, but I don't discuss it anymore because they are played out and a waste of time. Of more concern is when religious people manipulate our institutions to brainwash people. For example, we have a new church in our town called "The Warehouse Church." Their members who are faculty at elementary schools are currently running prayer groups at said schools. Obviously, it's illegal to run religious groups by public school faculty. The students have to be able to organize them themselves and elementary school kids are too young to do that. Since my kids will be going to one of those schools in a few years, I'm pissed off about it and thankfully, our county is being sued at the moment for it.
If we are going to exchange tales of undue religious influence, I watched a local Muslim Imam and his followers play victim in a building project where they refused to follow historic building codes because they claimed it was contrary to their goals. Reasonable people in this neighborhood spoke clearly about the architectural standards and their plan, making sure that everyone understood this congregation was welcome but their design was flawed. No matter, their victim status earned them variances. Also pissed off here, but due process has been exhausted and we will have an ugly one story building not oriented toward the street surrounded by Victorian buildings of a different nature. Victims winning again, yay! Not.
I was involved in another Muslim demand, where a young, fervent disciple of Mohammed demanded that the public library place the Koran on the highest shelf above all books in the library. Yeah pretty silly, but that is the where we are.
Anyone can demand anything, they should just ignore the fervent disciple of the false prophet Mohammed.
The 1st amendment gets involved when churches and building codes come together so this may be the reason why they had to permit them.
I attended all hearings and board reviews and not once did the Mosque proponents bring up the 1st amendment and besides, Mosques all over the world are requireed to follow codes. But
I can see where that might be put forth as an issue, just here, it was not.
They expected their front entrance to be oriented toward one direction. The historic code calls for their front door to face a different direction. Their religious need could have been accomodated, and an architect on the board who has actually designed a Mosque (!) made suggested changes, but noooope—their way or the highway.
-
How does life form from a goo puddle? That is a leap of faith right there. Look at the complexity of a living plant or animal. That doesn't happen by accident. It is designed. The chances of some random chemical accidents creating life is simply astronomically impossible.
Please form your own thread. This thread is not for people trying to push their beliefs. There are more than enough spaces for that.
Atheists usually are spreading evolution as fact when it is a theory with no basis, it is a belief system. Instead of saying life exists and we can't explain how that can be, they concoct a theory out of whole cloth. The real reason why intelligent design is hated is it means there is an intelligent designer, and we can't have that can we. That might mean we might have to give an answer to the designer.
Evolution is a belief system only to non-biologists. To biologists (including geneticists) it is a scientific theory backed up by 100 years of scientific discovery.
This. Evolution is a science backed up by testing and updates and validation, and open to change as new evidence comes to light. Plus I hope no-one says "just a theory" because theory is the highest level of scientific thought - like the theory of gravity.
-
I'm genuinely curious: to atheists seeking proof, please could you give me some examples of proof that would lead you to believe that the Christian God exists? (Bad analogy warning) It seems to me like some people are trying to prove that 1+1=2 and some people are trying to prove that love exists. It's like there are two parallel conversations happening so of course you get frustrated because you're just not talking about the same thing.
I can't answer for everyone, but I don't think the OP or those in agreement with him in this discussion are asking for proof of a god, but rather proof of other more specific events as written in the bible or other religious texts. The question "is there a god?" is more philosophical than scientific. However, the question of whether or not you believe dinosaurs existed is pitting significant physical evidence against words written by man thousands of years ago who had no access to the information and technology we have today.
That said I also think (don't have solid statistics on this) that OP is assuming that there are more fundamentalist Christians than there really are. I've had very few opportunities to discuss with Christians the literalness with which they read the bible but I've often felt that most are not fundamentalist. Then again, I don't live in the bible belt.
-
It seems to me like some people are trying to prove that 1+1=2 and some people are trying to prove that love exists. It's like there are two parallel conversations happening so of course you get frustrated because you're just not talking about the same thing.
Great description!
That's usually what happens when people using different paradigms try to discuss the points where their paradigms differ. What is proof, what should the standards be, what ought to be proven - in all of these areas, the points that seem important to one side seem irrelevant or senseless to the other. (Hence the "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" book suggestion above - it describes the phenomenon in detail, using scientist vs scientist conflicts just as vehement as the religion vs atheist ones discussed in this thread.)
I'm genuinely curious: to atheists seeking proof, please could you give me some examples of proof that would lead you to believe that the Christian God exists?
So as an atheist, I'm not out here saying "You give me proof X, I'll believe." The honest truth is that I just don't. So I don't argue with anyone who says "That's just a belief." Agreed, my personal view is just the belief that I have, in the sense of "that's how it looks to me and I feel no need to investigate more than the 30 times I've been over this ground already."
That said - intellectually, trying to honest and get at the matter of can God be proven, I found Godel's Incompleteness Theorem to be kind of suggestive. If I understand correctly, it proves that in any precisely defined logic system, such as a rigorous system of mathematics, the system can pose questions that cannot be proven within the system. From that I conclude that no system can prove everything. Presumably, then, God isn't going to be provable in any way complete enough to convince a nonbeliever.
Forgive me for taking the bait if this is off topic. I think it's interesting. Among friends, atheist or not, if they ponder thoughtfully.
-
To kind of "re-set" the thread...
1) NO religionists please. I am not looking to debate with religious folks. There is no point. This thread is only for atheists.
2) Yes, I think the "facts" mentioned in the bible (and other religious texts) are ridiculous, yes. And yes, I think the "lessons" taken from Biblical stories are equally ridiculous.
3) However, even with my position in 2), I save most of my animosity (and it IS animosity) for religionists who try to push their beliefs into the public square. And YES there are plenty of people who do this. Those of you who say, "I don't really encounter this" must not live in the midwestern or southern parts of the US.
4) I guess I'd like to move the discussion to the idea of "worship." Let me explain. As a thought exercise, let's say that we accept every story/event in the Bible, both old and new testament, as having actually occurred with 100% certainty. Given those facts...would you worship the God of the Bible? Why or why not? I guess on one hand, you'd have a God who was proven to have created everything. So you couldn't deny his power. But you'd also have a God who flooded the Earth and killed everyone on it (and all the animals) except for a few people and animals on a boat. And you'd have a God who authorized the Passover, who mind controlled the Pharoah into not letting his chosen people go, just so he could kill children. And so on and so on. So basically I guess although my objections to Christianity start with "its all made up," they also include, "The God of the Bible would not deserve worship even if he was proven to have existed." I mean, why would a deity need/demand worship from tiny specks like us anyway? Isn't that whole idea kind of silly? Wouldn't an all-knowing and all-powerful being actually be...mature? The God of the Bible acts like, well like Trump most of the time. How does that make any sense at all?
-
I save most of my animosity (and it IS animosity) for religionists who try to push their beliefs into the public square. And YES there are plenty of people who do this. Those of you who say, "I don't really encounter this" must not live in the midwestern or southern parts of the US.
The magician Penn Jillette, an outspoken atheist, made a good point against this. He said something along these lines:
If you believe the Bible 100%, then you believe that anyone who isn't a Christian is going to Hell. If you believe that, then you should be proselytizing to everyone you can. After all, you are commanded to love people, and you wouldn't let people you love go to a place as terrible as Hell, would you?
Thankfully, most Christians don't take the teachings of the Bible that far.
-
I save most of my animosity (and it IS animosity) for religionists who try to push their beliefs into the public square. And YES there are plenty of people who do this. Those of you who say, "I don't really encounter this" must not live in the midwestern or southern parts of the US.
The magician Penn Jillette, an outspoken atheist, made a good point against this. He said something along these lines:
If you believe the Bible 100%, then you believe that anyone who isn't a Christian is going to Hell. If you believe that, then you should be proselytizing to everyone you can. After all, you are commanded to love people, and you wouldn't let people you love go to a place as terrible as Hell, would you?
Thankfully, most Christians don't take the teachings of the Bible that far.
Oh I agree with the logic. If you REALLY thought many of your loved ones were going to a pit of eternal torment, you would spend EVERY waking hour trying to convert them! You would have NO life. You wouldn't worry about cars or houses or anything of a material nature. You would be in the conversion business 24/7.
IF you really believed all of it.
-
I'm genuinely curious: to atheists seeking proof, please could you give me some examples of proof that would lead you to believe that the Christian God exists? (Bad analogy warning) It seems to me like some people are trying to prove that 1+1=2 and some people are trying to prove that love exists. It's like there are two parallel conversations happening so of course you get frustrated because you're just not talking about the same thing.
Let's take the basic way Christians view God. He created everything, and occasionally even intervenes in every day life. So proof for me would be evidence that this actually happened. For example, we know from observation and experiment how mountains form and erode and how fossils are created. So we don't need God to explain that. And you can go on down the list. The natural world can be largely explained by physical processes. The parts that aren't well understood, like say quantum phenomenon or existence of the universe prior to the big bang don't require a supernatural explanation. You could inject one if you like, but there isn't a supernatural requirement.
-
4) I guess I'd like to move the discussion to the idea of "worship." Let me explain. As a thought exercise, let's say that we accept every story/event in the Bible, both old and new testament, as having actually occurred with 100% certainty. Given those facts...would you worship the God of the Bible? Why or why not? I guess on one hand, you'd have a God who was proven to have created everything. So you couldn't deny his power. But you'd also have a God who flooded the Earth and killed everyone on it (and all the animals) except for a few people and animals on a boat. And you'd have a God who authorized the Passover, who mind controlled the Pharoah into not letting his chosen people go, just so he could kill children. And so on and so on. So basically I guess although my objections to Christianity start with "its all made up," they also include, "The God of the Bible would not deserve worship even if he was proven to have existed." I mean, why would a deity need/demand worship from tiny specks like us anyway? Isn't that whole idea kind of silly? Wouldn't an all-knowing and all-powerful being actually be...mature? The God of the Bible acts like, well like Trump most of the time. How does that make any sense at all?
On a basic level, I have problems with the idea of God sacrificing his Son... for us(?) If anything it should be the other way around, where God steps in on Good Friday and says, "it's ok Son, I'll take it from here".
Of all the "mysterious" things God is purported to have done, having your child killed seems the most scandalous. Hard work finding a loving parent who would think to themselves "the needs of the world outweigh the needs of the my child".
-
4) I guess I'd like to move the discussion to the idea of "worship." Let me explain. As a thought exercise, let's say that we accept every story/event in the Bible, both old and new testament, as having actually occurred with 100% certainty. Given those facts...would you worship the God of the Bible? Why or why not? I guess on one hand, you'd have a God who was proven to have created everything. So you couldn't deny his power. But you'd also have a God who flooded the Earth and killed everyone on it (and all the animals) except for a few people and animals on a boat. And you'd have a God who authorized the Passover, who mind controlled the Pharoah into not letting his chosen people go, just so he could kill children. And so on and so on. So basically I guess although my objections to Christianity start with "its all made up," they also include, "The God of the Bible would not deserve worship even if he was proven to have existed." I mean, why would a deity need/demand worship from tiny specks like us anyway? Isn't that whole idea kind of silly? Wouldn't an all-knowing and all-powerful being actually be...mature? The God of the Bible acts like, well like Trump most of the time. How does that make any sense at all?
And what most Christians do is conclude something like this: Not all of the Bible is literally true. Some of it is just allegory. That way you don't have to dig too deep into the Noah's Ark story. Fair enough, but how do you know which parts are true and which parts are just allegory? There is no way to tell, except by using your own judgement.
-
To kind of "re-set" the thread...
1) NO religionists please. I am not looking to debate with religious folks. There is no point. This thread is only for atheists.
2) Yes, I think the "facts" mentioned in the bible (and other religious texts) are ridiculous, yes. And yes, I think the "lessons" taken from Biblical stories are equally ridiculous.
3) However, even with my position in 2), I save most of my animosity (and it IS animosity) for religionists who try to push their beliefs into the public square. And YES there are plenty of people who do this. Those of you who say, "I don't really encounter this" must not live in the midwestern or southern parts of the US.
4) I guess I'd like to move the discussion to the idea of "worship." Let me explain. As a thought exercise, let's say that we accept every story/event in the Bible, both old and new testament, as having actually occurred with 100% certainty. Given those facts...would you worship the God of the Bible? Why or why not? I guess on one hand, you'd have a God who was proven to have created everything. So you couldn't deny his power. But you'd also have a God who flooded the Earth and killed everyone on it (and all the animals) except for a few people and animals on a boat. And you'd have a God who authorized the Passover, who mind controlled the Pharoah into not letting his chosen people go, just so he could kill children. And so on and so on. So basically I guess although my objections to Christianity start with "its all made up," they also include, "The God of the Bible would not deserve worship even if he was proven to have existed." I mean, why would a deity need/demand worship from tiny specks like us anyway? Isn't that whole idea kind of silly? Wouldn't an all-knowing and all-powerful being actually be...mature? The God of the Bible acts like, well like Trump most of the time. How does that make any sense at all?
@Nick_Miller You have started an interesting conversation. What you ask, seems silly to me however. In summary, it comes across like this:
Hypothetically, would you worship the God of the Bible? But please, I don't want to hear anyone's opinion that may be contrary to my own ultimate logic and reason. Only people who agree with what I am saying, please respond. Do you see why others are questioning your approach?
-
I'm genuinely curious: to atheists seeking proof, please could you give me some examples of proof that would lead you to believe that the Christian God exists? (Bad analogy warning) It seems to me like some people are trying to prove that 1+1=2 and some people are trying to prove that love exists. It's like there are two parallel conversations happening so of course you get frustrated because you're just not talking about the same thing.
I consider myself a scientific atheist, in that I see no objective evidence for the existence of god that isn't just as readily (often more readily) explained by non-god-related natural processes and laws. Were objectively measurable evidence that supported the existence of deities to appear, I would then approach that question using the scientific method. The scientific method never 'proves' anything absolutely unquestionably 'true', nor is it meant to. It CAN lead to absolute disproof and therefore our ability to discard incorrect hypotheses, and move on to test the next hypothesis (thus advancing knowledge).
ETA: sorry, Nick_Miller, I see you are trying to move the conversation on, and I posted nearly simultaneously with your post.
Let's say that every single person on earth simultaneously experienced a vision, which they described more or less identically, of a giant tentacley, glowing deity figure that said, "I am Cthulu, kneel before me". Now, if I were to have such a vision, I would first assume that I had some sort of hallucination from a natural cause (inadvertent drugs, brain tumor, etc.) But if everyone around me, and indeed everyone on earth had this simultaneously, this would fall outside our current understanding of natural explanation. I would have to consider the real possibility of something outside our current experience (which could be, but isn't necessarily, a deity) causing this. Then scientists all over the world would presumably investigate formerly unthinkable, but still NOT supernatural, alternatives. Perhaps humans experienced a simultaneous biological response to some sort of extraterrestrial phenomenon? Etc. In the end, if there was no evidence of e.g., extraterrestrial or other natural phenomena causing the vision, I would likely settle on provisionally accepting the reality of a god calling itself Cthulu to be 'true'.
It's important to note, however, that while I might come to personally accept the existence of god(s) as provisionally true and act in the world with the understanding that Cthulu was out there (just as I do with robustly supported scientific theories), this acceptance would always remain slightly provisional and contingent on no further better explanation for my vision ever becoming available.
The real problem though, though, is that the way most of humanity views god(s), they are by definition supernatural and not subject to disproof (see Sagan's dragon-in-the-garage analogy for the simplest explanation of a non-disprovable idea). Therefore, any evidence that came to hand that didn't fit the Cthulu hypothesis (which would lead scientists to reject Cthulu as the actual explanation for the vision), would be accepted by most believers as Cthulu working in mysterious ways, or Cthulu operating outside of natural law, or what have you.
Alternatively, believers can (and do) offer me all sorts of 'evidence' of god(s) existence, but unless this evidence is disprovable, then it remains essentially meaningless to my view of the universe and how I live my life. I assume that the fact that Christians don't believe in, e.g., fairies and gnomes, or the ancient Greek gods, or Cthulu, doesn't worry them, right? Why would the lack of evidence of something cause them to ever even think about that thing? Likewise, lack of objective evidence of a Christian god means that it isn't a question of concern in my life, and the only reason it ever crosses my mind is that our culture privileges it above millions of other such ideas.
-
To kind of "re-set" the thread...
1) NO religionists please. I am not looking to debate with religious folks. There is no point. This thread is only for atheists.
2) Yes, I think the "facts" mentioned in the bible (and other religious texts) are ridiculous, yes. And yes, I think the "lessons" taken from Biblical stories are equally ridiculous.
3) However, even with my position in 2), I save most of my animosity (and it IS animosity) for religionists who try to push their beliefs into the public square. And YES there are plenty of people who do this. Those of you who say, "I don't really encounter this" must not live in the midwestern or southern parts of the US.
4) I guess I'd like to move the discussion to the idea of "worship." Let me explain. As a thought exercise, let's say that we accept every story/event in the Bible, both old and new testament, as having actually occurred with 100% certainty. Given those facts...would you worship the God of the Bible? Why or why not? I guess on one hand, you'd have a God who was proven to have created everything. So you couldn't deny his power. But you'd also have a God who flooded the Earth and killed everyone on it (and all the animals) except for a few people and animals on a boat. And you'd have a God who authorized the Passover, who mind controlled the Pharoah into not letting his chosen people go, just so he could kill children. And so on and so on. So basically I guess although my objections to Christianity start with "its all made up," they also include, "The God of the Bible would not deserve worship even if he was proven to have existed." I mean, why would a deity need/demand worship from tiny specks like us anyway? Isn't that whole idea kind of silly? Wouldn't an all-knowing and all-powerful being actually be...mature? The God of the Bible acts like, well like Trump most of the time. How does that make any sense at all?
@Nick_Miller You have started an interesting conversation. What you ask, seems silly to me however. In summary, it comes across like this:
Hypothetically, would you worship the God of the Bible? But please, I don't want to hear anyone's opinion that may be contrary to my own ultimate logic and reason. Only people who agree with what I am saying, please respond. Do you see why others are questioning your approach?
You are free to respond however you'd like. Disagree with my assessment if you'd like.
But remember, this is not a thread for religionists. I want this thread to stay open as a healthy spot for atheists to discuss stuff, and having religionists invade would destroy that. Even though most folks on this forum are pretty civil with one another, I think a religious debate would test that civility.
-
So this thread is now about atheists mocking Christians. I am out of here.
-
I wish we could make a Wiki post where we could all work together to list, on one post, all of the crimes God commits in the Bible.
Sorta like if you were prosecuting God for crimes against humanity, what would the list include?
-
To kind of "re-set" the thread...
1) NO religionists please. I am not looking to debate with religious folks. There is no point. This thread is only for atheists.
2) Yes, I think the "facts" mentioned in the bible (and other religious texts) are ridiculous, yes. And yes, I think the "lessons" taken from Biblical stories are equally ridiculous.
3) However, even with my position in 2), I save most of my animosity (and it IS animosity) for religionists who try to push their beliefs into the public square. And YES there are plenty of people who do this. Those of you who say, "I don't really encounter this" must not live in the midwestern or southern parts of the US.
4) I guess I'd like to move the discussion to the idea of "worship." Let me explain. As a thought exercise, let's say that we accept every story/event in the Bible, both old and new testament, as having actually occurred with 100% certainty. Given those facts...would you worship the God of the Bible? Why or why not? I guess on one hand, you'd have a God who was proven to have created everything. So you couldn't deny his power. But you'd also have a God who flooded the Earth and killed everyone on it (and all the animals) except for a few people and animals on a boat. And you'd have a God who authorized the Passover, who mind controlled the Pharoah into not letting his chosen people go, just so he could kill children. And so on and so on. So basically I guess although my objections to Christianity start with "its all made up," they also include, "The God of the Bible would not deserve worship even if he was proven to have existed." I mean, why would a deity need/demand worship from tiny specks like us anyway? Isn't that whole idea kind of silly? Wouldn't an all-knowing and all-powerful being actually be...mature? The God of the Bible acts like, well like Trump most of the time. How does that make any sense at all?
@Nick_Miller You have started an interesting conversation. What you ask, seems silly to me however. In summary, it comes across like this:
Hypothetically, would you worship the God of the Bible? But please, I don't want to hear anyone's opinion that may be contrary to my own ultimate logic and reason. Only people who agree with what I am saying, please respond. Do you see why others are questioning your approach?
You are free to respond however you'd like. Disagree with my assessment if you'd like.
But remember, this is not a thread for religionists. I want this thread to stay open as a healthy spot for atheists to discuss stuff, and having religionists invade would destroy that. Even though most folks on this forum are pretty civil with one another, I think a religious debate would test that civility.
Sure. Here is my assessment.
You've got an itch you want to scratch - I can't tell if its a problem you have with authority, or a problem you have with other people, or if its an internal conviction/dissonance. You seem like you want to assert your own authority on everyone that doesn't believe the same thing that you do. I appreciate your logic and questions. But I suspect that most civil people will not appreciate your condescending approach/heart/emotion that comes across. Given that you've shut down discussion unless it lines up with your logic and beliefs, I don't think you'll find consolation in what anyone says here. That said, I truly hope you find/get whatever your looking for.
-
I keep coming back to how crazy it is that the people requiring evidence are the minority.
That one's easy. Religious faith is not about knowing (ie having evidence), it's about believing (ie having faith). By requiring evidence you are demonstrating that you are operating outside the context of religious belief. Two completely different systems of thought and nary the twain shall meet.
This. As the saying goes: you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. I've yet to see a believer/non-believer debate that actually found a way to bridge this fundamental divide and make anything resembling progress. They're always frustrating experiences in talking past each other.
At this point my approach to the overtly religious is basically this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qifUYP234c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qifUYP234c).
If I'm persuading anyone it's going to be through example.
-
So this thread is now about atheists mocking Christians. I am out of here.
You are gone but I will say this anyway.
Atheists and agnostics are not mocking Christians - they are saying they think the idea of a God (or gods) is unfeasible. If they are mocking Christians they would also be mocking the other religions of the Book (Judaism and Islam) and any other religion that has a deity. They are not doing that, although they are saying (some of them) that they do not see how bits and pieces of the Bible can demand faith (it has to be faith, there is no solid evidence). And they are objecting to having someone else's ideas about religion, and acceptable behaviour based on that religion, shoved down their throats. As pointed out earlier, some religions are moral sets of behaviour without the necessity for a deity.
I'm finding this an interesting thread. Where I live religion is not discussed much, it is seen a something personal. Even though from the outside religion is somewhat present, since we have public schools and public Catholic schools. And yes, there is definite debate about public funds going to non-secular schools.
-
So this thread is now about atheists mocking Christians. I am out of here.
I'm finding this an interesting thread. Where I live religion is not discussed much, it is seen a something personal. Even though from the outside religion is somewhat present, since we have public schools and public Catholic schools. And yes, there is definite debate about public funds going to non-secular schools.
Oh, how I wish it was still this way in the US. If it were, this thread basically wouldn't even exist.
-
I wish we could make a Wiki post where we could all work together to list, on one post, all of the crimes God commits in the Bible.
Sorta like if you were prosecuting God for crimes against humanity, what would the list include?
I'm not going there myself. But James Morrow did a treatment of the topic you might find interesting. His character Martin Candle presented a summary of that sort in "Blameless in Abaddon." It's the second in a trilogy that started with "Towing Jehovah."
-
So this thread is now about atheists mocking Christians. I am out of here.
I'm finding this an interesting thread. Where I live religion is not discussed much, it is seen a something personal. Even though from the outside religion is somewhat present, since we have public schools and public Catholic schools. And yes, there is definite debate about public funds going to non-secular schools.
Oh, how I wish it was still this way in the US. If it were, this thread basically wouldn't even exist.
Well, you know Canada is a godless socialist pinko-liberal country, eh? /s
-
Maybe more of a rant, but I am very interested in how other atheists constantly hold their tongues...
I admit that one of the reasons I like this place so much is that I get a vibe that some other folks here aren't all that religious. Why does it matter you ask? Well, it's not that I can't have awesome relationships with some religious folks (I can, as long as they are the "live and let live" types that don't try to inject their religion into gov't), but honestly even with these "nice" religious folks, I still have to hold my tongue.
Things I can't say to my religious friends...
1) You realize that mythologies used to be religions, right? People used to worship Thor. Now he's an Avenger.
2) You realize there have been like thousands of religions? Doesn't that tell you something?
3) Do you think you'd become a heathen ax murderer if you deconverted today? If not, doesn't that tell you something?
4) When you say that you "talk with God," or that "God talked to me," WTF do you mean? Did you hear an actual voice, or did you think to yourself?
5) If God is all-knowing, meaning he knows every decision we will ever make before we make it, how do we still have free will? We would just be programmed puppets. For example, let's say God talks to me on Saturday. I ask, "God, what tie will I wear tomorrow?" God says, "You will wear a yellow tie." Flash forward to Sunday. I look in my closet and choose a tie out of the dozens I have in all sorts of colors. Can I pick a non-yellow tie? Why or why not?"
6) Have you read the whole Bible? Do you realize there are hundreds of editions and that the text is actually different and that different churches "interpret" the word differently? How can a perfect road map be so vague and nebulous, with so many internal inconsistencies? Doesn't it worry you that you are basing your worldview on this? How did you choose your particular denomination and interpretation?
7) Deep down, do you mostly go to church because "other good people do," and you like the socialization it provides?
8) Do you really think me and my wife, and my little kids are going to burn...forrrrr eternity...in Hell? Seriously? (note: if answer is "yes," friendship is obviously severed..this has actually happened).
9) Do you think there might be a sliiiight chance that religions have been used to keep people in place, explain things that couldn't be understood at the time, placate people from their sometimes miserable lots in life (slaves, second class citizens including women for most of history) by promising a "perfect afterlife," and to consolidate power?
10) Name ONE moral virtue taught in the Bible that is exclusive to the Bible. Surely this perfect map has some unique wisdom found nowhere else.
I could go on and on, but I've rambled too much. Do other atheists have similar feelings? Do you use any particular techniques to either bite your tongue, or to gently introduce any of these questions? Are some of you folks in the "I just don't think about religion at all" camp?
I wish I could get there, I really do, but with people constantly injecting religion (almost always Christianity) into school board decisions, and in legislatures, and pretty much trying to make rules based on their specific religious beliefs, I'm not sure how any atheist in America who values reason and science can mentally (or financially) bow out of this conflict.
Hey there! Christian here checking in. Sorry I'm late to the party. You had mentioned this thread wasn't really for Christians, but it sounds like you're genuinely interested and I really respect that. I'll try to answer your questions the best I can!
1) You realize that mythologies used to be religions, right? People used to worship Thor. Now he's an Avenger.
Yes, I understand that. I think the key here is that religions develop from stories. And these aren't just any old stories, they're powerful stories which explains why they last through time. I find the stories in the Bible are powerful, and they resonate with me. I.e. When Jesus, "king of the Earth", is born in a feeding trough in a shabby barn, there's a degree of humility involved that is incredibly powerful. And when he comes riding in to greet his followers, he's wearing sandals and a tattered robe, riding a donkey. He's not wearing garments lined with gold, and isn't riding a royal white stallion decorated in jewels. I see Jesus' humbleness as something pretty neat to live by. He seemed like a pretty cool guy.
I suppose it's not much different than popular secular stories. Rowling wrote the Harry Potter books and almost became richer than the queen of England! But why were they so popular? Because it's a damned powerful story that resonates with so many people! Harry sets out as a kind but ordinary boy, living under the stairs at his uncle's place in humility. He has no family and no friends when he sets off to confront the world. He goes on to face Voldemort, evil in its purest form (part of which lives within Harry in the form of a Horcrux), overcome death, and to stop the world from falling into darkness.
If you really think about it, the Harry Potter story isn't terribly different than Jesus' story. Same with Tolkien's The Hobbit. The Bible is filled with significant stories and I find them fascinating.
2) You realize there have been like thousands of religions? Doesn't that tell you something?
What is this supposed to tell me? I subscribe to many ideas in Christianity, they align with how I think I should live my life. It doesn't mean Christianity is "more right" than any other religion, it's just a preference. Again, Christianity isn't necessarily right. But I'm comfortable enough in what I believe, and I challenge my beliefs on a regular basis. Just like responding to this thread. It's good to challenge one's faith and beliefs.
3) Do you think you'd become a heathen ax murderer if you deconverted today? If not, doesn't that tell you something?
Uhh, I don't think so? What should this tell me though? I don't really see Christianity as the one and only moral compass in existence. But I guess that's a whole other discussion i.e. absolute vs. relative morality.
4) When you say that you "talk with God," or that "God talked to me," WTF do you mean? Did you hear an actual voice, or did you think to yourself?
Personally speaking I've never heard a voice. Some people claim that stuff goes on, I can't really attest to that. There have been a handful of dreams where I thought I was talking to a powerful being (which I interpreted to be God), that's pretty much it.
5) If God is all-knowing, meaning he knows every decision we will ever make before we make it, how do we still have free will? We would just be programmed puppets. For example, let's say God talks to me on Saturday. I ask, "God, what tie will I wear tomorrow?" God says, "You will wear a yellow tie." Flash forward to Sunday. I look in my closet and choose a tie out of the dozens I have in all sorts of colors. Can I pick a non-yellow tie? Why or why not?"
I think people do have free will, but I'm not really sure where you were going with your example about the ties. Could you maybe use another one? Are you saying that if people have free will yet God already knows the specific choices someone will make throughout life then, is there, in essence, free will?
6) Have you read the whole Bible? Do you realize there are hundreds of editions and that the text is actually different and that different churches "interpret" the word differently? How can a perfect road map be so vague and nebulous, with so many internal inconsistencies? Doesn't it worry you that you are basing your worldview on this? How did you choose your particular denomination and interpretation?
I've read the majority of it, mostly the Old Testament but I really need to finish up on the New Testament. I DON'T believe the Bible is a perfect roadmap, and I don't base my entire worldview on the Bible. I don't believe the Bible is meant to take literally. Jesus himself spoke in parables all the time. Even Jesus himself didn't make himself out to be taken literally.
One thing that really pisses me off is how certain denominations of organized Christianity interpret the Bible and make it seem like this is how ALL Christians think. I.e. gay marriage isn't allowed but the Bible also says having long hair was a sin. So how do you cherry pick gay marriage yet the other 500+ laws just happen to fly under the radar? God, that's infuriating.
GTFO of here with not allowing gay marriage, no women allowed in positions of power, and denying basic principles of science. That's not my interpretation at least. I don't believe God/Jesus would say you can believe in me but btw you can't be gay. I follow a denomination that openly allows gay marriage, allows women to be preachers or otherwise hold positions of power, and sings Happy Birthday to Darwin every year. I think evolution of species and geologic history are compatible with religious belief. Guess I'll never understand why a lot of Christians go around saying the world is 4,000-5,000 years old...
7) Deep down, do you mostly go to church because "other good people do," and you like the socialization it provides?
Of course! I like going to church for socialization! It's a great place for a community of people with like-minded views, and it's an especially nice outlet for charity work (albeit volunteer work without the ulterior motive of converting whoever you're helping to Christianity).
8) Do you really think me and my wife, and my little kids are going to burn...forrrrr eternity...in Hell? Seriously? (note: if answer is "yes," friendship is obviously severed..this has actually happened).
Hell no! I have no idea what's going to happen to you, but I do wish the best for you and all your loved ones!
9) Do you think there might be a sliiiight chance that religions have been used to keep people in place, explain things that couldn't be understood at the time, placate people from their sometimes miserable lots in life (slaves, second class citizens including women for most of history) by promising a "perfect afterlife," and to consolidate power?
Oh no, there's not even a slight chance. It's factual. People have used religion in terrible ways. It's disgusting and abhorrent. That's another thing that bothers me about certain Christians, especially those in positions of political power. I.e. Denying factual evidence of global climate change yet going on to say "God will take care of the Earth, it's HIS will. We have nothing to worry about!" Then enacting laws and regulations that actively promote the earth's destruction.
10) Name ONE moral virtue taught in the Bible that is exclusive to the Bible. Surely this perfect map has some unique wisdom found nowhere else.
I don't see the Bible as a perfect map by any means. It really shouldn't be taken literally. I'd say taking everything literally in there would be quite dangerous.
One question I had for you is what do you think about the idea of believing, "in case" there may be a God? I.e. making the better bargain by believing and reaping the rewards rather than not believing and potentially reaping a "worse" benefit such as burning in a fiery hell?
I'd be happy to answer more questions the best I can, just know that I've been pretty busy lately with starting a new full time job, so I might not answer right away. But I'll try! @Nick_Miller
-
So this thread is now about atheists mocking Christians. I am out of here.
I'm finding this an interesting thread. Where I live religion is not discussed much, it is seen a something personal. Even though from the outside religion is somewhat present, since we have public schools and public Catholic schools. And yes, there is definite debate about public funds going to non-secular schools.
Oh, how I wish it was still this way in the US. If it were, this thread basically wouldn't even exist.
Well, you know Canada is a godless socialist pinko-liberal country, eh? /s
Yeah, I know.
Wish I lived there.
-
what do you think about the idea of believing, "in case" there may be a God? I.e. making the better bargain by believing and reaping the rewards rather than not believing and potentially reaping a "worse" benefit such as burning in a fiery hell?
Well... beliefs aren't something we choose. Most atheists can't 'choose' to believe in a god anymore than believers can 'choose' to stop believing... or anymore than most of us could suddenly 'choose' that living above our means was a good idea.
But even if we could choose our beliefs... which god should we choose to believe in? There are thousands upon thousands of religions to choose from. Which hell are we trying to avoid? One of the thousands of christian denominations? Or one of the various muslim hells? Or some other variant?
Pascal's wager only makes sense if we could willfully choose what we believe and if there were only one belief system to choose from.
(nevermind that is also assumes that a god would somehow not see through our selfish motivations)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91DSNL1BEeY
-
Honestly, it’s disheartening but predictable to see Christians show up in this thread and either get offended or try to argue their case. Ironic, given the title of the post.
Funny how in the Childfree By Choice thread, you don’t see parents going in there arguing.
-
Honestly, it’s disheartening but predictable to see Christians show up in this thread and either get offended or try to argue their case. Ironic, given the title of the post.
Funny how in the Childfree By Choice thread, you don’t see parents going in there arguing.
Agreed. I feel like I am going above and beyond to avoid a thread meltdown, which is exactly what would happen if religionists keep showing up. Hell, we atheists disagree plenty as it is.
I have absolutely no desire to hurt feelings, but I also have no desire to censor what I say here for fear of hurting feelings, hence the "atheists only" request.
-
what do you think about the idea of believing, "in case" there may be a God? I.e. making the better bargain by believing and reaping the rewards rather than not believing and potentially reaping a "worse" benefit such as burning in a fiery hell?
Well... beliefs aren't something we choose. Most atheists can't 'choose' to believe in a god anymore than believers can 'choose' to stop believing... or anymore than most of us could suddenly 'choose' that living above our means was a good idea.
But even if we could choose our beliefs... which god should we choose to believe in? There are thousands upon thousands of religions to choose from. Which hell are we trying to avoid? One of the thousands of christian denominations? Or one of the various muslim hells? Or some other variant?
Pascal's wager only makes sense if we could willfully choose what we believe and if there were only one belief system to choose from.
(nevermind that is also assumes that a god would somehow not see through our selfish motivations)
Thank you. Pascal’s wager has always seemed nothing than a ridiculous and self-serving form of hedging one’s bets. I actually find it offensive to anyone with an adult-level intellect. Besides, wouldn’t a supposedly omnipotent god spot the scam immediately and find that even more offensive than honest disbelief?
-
I shouldn't have posted earlier without having read the whole thread, sorry about that.
But now that I have read the whole thread I feel the need to respond a one idea that kept coming up again and again in various ways (sorry if this pulls the current discussion off track).
Nick asked why we should be expected to respect anyone's belief system, and a few times it was suggested that he was asking the wrong question. Religious beliefs were then equated to any other belief, like political, veganism, consumerism, environmental habits, etc. It was even suggested that the belief itself may not matter, only the intention behind the belief, like making the world a more moral place (which is completely baffling to me, seeing as no one in the history of humanity delights in thinking they are making the world a worse place).
My point is - religious beliefs are entirely different than the other beliefs that have been floated out as equivalencies in that they are not singular beliefs. They are entire worldviews. It is from a religious worldview that other beliefs sprout. Religious beliefs are the bedrock of belief which other beliefs must adhere to. So what happens when the foundational belief upon which we rest our entire worldview is based on an unsupportable fiction?
Our beliefs inform our actions, and our actions affect other people and the world around us. Given that, I would much prefer that all the people around me believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.
I definitely don't see any argument to be made for respecting any unsupported belief, religious or otherwise. To be clear, this has nothing to do with the people themselves. People should obviously always be treated with respect. But the idea that anyone's belief system should be treated with respect or solemnity based solely on the fact that it is a religious system is absolutely laughable to me, not to mention dangerous.
-
You are equating belief and non-belief as equally valid.
No one is doing this, but you keep repeating it. You might want to spend some time comprehending what people are saying. Respecting someone and her beliefs is not the same as holding those beliefs as equally valid.
So when is it okay to not "respect" someone's beliefs? If someone thinks LGBTQ people are abominations, is it okay to not "respect" their beliefs? I have more to follow up with, but I will stop there and let you answer that specific question.
And I can comprehend just fine, pal! I have 3 semesters of law school and a zombie novel under my belt!
(*I am switching to IC Nick Miller mode to make sure we keep some levity as we discuss these issues and all remain friends)
LGBTQ-type person, here. To answer your question: yes, it is correct for someone to think me an abomination, and to respect their belief. Allow me to elaborate.
Every adult has a deeply held theory of what they consider a good, prosperous, helpful, and overall moral society. Many adults fall into basic groups. Liberal. Conservative. Vegan. Christian. Such on, and so forth. What @Kris called a paradigm.
To the fundamentalist Christian, a good, prosperous, helpful, and overall moral society is predicated on the inerrant and infallible word of God, which is communicated through the bible. The bible has several critical passages that say homosexuality is a sin. Therefore, homosexuality is not part of a good, prosperous, helpful, and overall moral society, and must be suppressed. Suppressing homosexuality isn't done from a standpoint of hate; it's done from a standpoint of ensuring society remains moral. In my experience, many fundamentalist show a surprising amount of compassion, totally free of repugnance, towards an individual homosexual. They think my sexual desire an abomination, but believe I have a soul worth saving.
Such people are striving for a moral society, and I can fully respect that. We simply disagree on the definition of moral. Obviously I tend to believe that a good, prosperous, helpful, and overall moral society is based on acceptance of most things that fall under identity politics. I will, in fact, fight the fundamentalist idea of sexuality with every fiber of my being. But I can respect the consistency of thought and their desire for a moral society. It's the same desire I have.
My problem with Christianity is the hypocrisy. They show this level of ostracization toward homosexuals but are perfectly content to be surrounded by people who divorce and remarry (which is no less of a sin). Homosexuality doesn't even violate any of the Ten Commandments. That says to me that their treatment of the LGBT community has very little to do with religion, except that they use religion to justify their actions.
@El Jacinto I fully agree with your arguments. In my experience the number of evangelicals with (for lack of a better term) 'pure' motivations to suppress homosexuality are very rare on the ground. I've only met a few, but I can say the few I have met have been pretty consistent in their thoughts on so called sexual sins. In their view divorce, adultery, masturbation, and homosexuality are all equal.
From what I've experienced, such 'purists' are maybe 1 in 99. The rest are reacting to what I've personally dubbed the ick factor. They simply don't like how homosexuals, particularly male, moosh their genitals together. It viscerally disgusts them, and they wrap their disgust in the nearest helpful justification they can find. So the people using a religious justification are indeed hypocrites. In fact, their hypocrisy has two elements; first the societal hypocrisy of being a douchenozzel, and second the theistic hypocrisy of adding more weight to certain sins, when in theory it should be the Big Man who judges all sin equally.
My conclusion; there's enough room in the discussion for both of us to be correct.
-
Atheists usually are spreading evolution as fact when it is a theory with no basis, it is a belief system. Instead of saying life exists and we can't explain how that can be, they concoct a theory out of whole cloth. The real reason why intelligent design is hated is it means there is an intelligent designer, and we can't have that can we. That might mean we might have to give an answer to the designer.
There's a good bit of misinformation about what you said.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution)
-
I shouldn't have posted earlier without having read the whole thread, sorry about that.
But now that I have read the whole thread I feel the need to respond a one idea that kept coming up again and again in various ways (sorry if this pulls the current discussion off track).
Nick asked why we should be expected to respect anyone's belief system, and a few times it was suggested that he was asking the wrong question. Religious beliefs were then equated to any other belief, like political, veganism, consumerism, environmental habits, etc. It was even suggested that the belief itself may not matter, only the intention behind the belief, like making the world a more moral place (which is completely baffling to me, seeing as no one in the history of humanity delights in thinking they are making the world a worse place).
My point is - religious beliefs are entirely different than the other beliefs that have been floated out as equivalencies in that they are not singular beliefs. They are entire worldviews. It is from a religious worldview that other beliefs sprout. Religious beliefs are the bedrock of belief which other beliefs must adhere to. So what happens when the foundational belief upon which we rest our entire worldview is based on an unsupportable fiction?
Our beliefs inform our actions, and our actions affect other people and the world around us. Given that, I would much prefer that all the people around me believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.
I definitely don't see any argument to be made for respecting any unsupported belief, religious or otherwise. To be clear, this has nothing to do with the people themselves. People should obviously always be treated with respect. But the idea that anyone's belief system should be treated with respect or solemnity based solely on the fact that it is a religious system is absolutely laughable to me, not to mention dangerous.
@MrDelane , you said this more eloquently than I could/did.
-
MrDelane , you said this more eloquently than I could/did.
Thanks, Nick!
One other point (not to beat this into the ground) is that often times when people express that we should respect other people's beliefs, they seem to be insinuating that one belief is as valid as the next (which is something you referenced earlier). The difference with religious beliefs is that they we're not talking about a subjective belief where there is no objective right or wrong. These are not just opinions, these are truth claims on the way the universe functions and there is an actual right answer.
If we're talking about whether or not 'The Last Jedi' was a good movie, sure, I would say that you should probably respect someone else's belief on that point. It may not be for everyone, some people loved it and others hated it, but in the end whether or not the film is considered 'good' will come down to each specific viewer's personal experience. Something can be 'good' for one person and 'bad' for another without either of them being wrong. But when we're talking about whether or not human beings have souls and will either suffer eternally or experience infinite paradise after death... that is a claim which is either objectively true or false. You can have an opinion about how the world functions, but it will either be correct or wrong. There is no gray area in this and no room for 'one belief is just as valid as another.'
As the saying goes - everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.
Alright, I should get back to work.
:)
-
My point is - religious beliefs are entirely different than the other beliefs that have been floated out as equivalencies in that they are not singular beliefs. They are entire worldviews. It is from a religious worldview that other beliefs sprout. Religious beliefs are the bedrock of belief which other beliefs must adhere to. So what happens when the foundational belief upon which we rest our entire worldview is based on an unsupportable fiction?
Excellent summary, @MrDelane! You eloquently and succinctly summed up a concept it would have take me far more far more circumlocution to convey.
Devils advocate, though - I've never seen scientific proof of a soul, but nor have I seen scientific proof people actually possess fundamental human rights. Yet, my insistence that humans DO possess fundamental rights is a world view from which other beliefs sprout. First example I can thing if is my stance on immigration.
Please note, I'm definitively not trying to justify theism, or implying that anyone who believes in human rights must also believe that people have souls. I'm not even arguing against your theory as a whole. It's more that I think all people believe things that cannot be proven, and incorporate those into their views on morality. Perhaps the application of your argument simply needs a second derivative, where the soul-ist is seeking to wreak damage with their unproven ideas, while the fundamental right-ist is seeking to wreak good?
Though, I freely admit my refinement of the theory also runs immediately into the idea that morality is relative. So, I dunno \0/. Anyone interested in discussing?
-
when we're talking about whether or not human beings have souls and will either suffer eternally or experience infinite paradise after death... that is a claim which is either objectively true or false.
So...which is it?
-
Honestly, it’s disheartening but predictable to see Christians show up in this thread and either get offended or try to argue their case. Ironic, given the title of the post.
Funny how in the Childfree By Choice thread, you don’t see parents going in there arguing.
To be fair, I'm neither arguing a case nor taking offense. But I will admit it feels quite nice to separate myself from the more mainstream Christian interpretations these days. Nick Miller sounds genuinely interested (based on the post I read about his interactions with clergy) so I'm happy to have a discussion.
At any rate, I'll see myself out. Take care. Also, @MrDelane nice post about Pascal's wager.
-
when we're talking about whether or not human beings have souls and will either suffer eternally or experience infinite paradise after death... that is a claim which is either objectively true or false.
So...which is it?
false
-
when we're talking about whether or not human beings have souls and will either suffer eternally or experience infinite paradise after death... that is a claim which is either objectively true or false.
So...which is it?
false
I kind of thought that's where @MrDelane was going. So now the fun part. What is the objective evidence for this claim?
-
My point is - religious beliefs are entirely different than the other beliefs that have been floated out as equivalencies in that they are not singular beliefs. They are entire worldviews. It is from a religious worldview that other beliefs sprout. Religious beliefs are the bedrock of belief which other beliefs must adhere to. So what happens when the foundational belief upon which we rest our entire worldview is based on an unsupportable fiction?
Excellent summary, @MrDelane! You eloquently and succinctly summed up a concept it would have take me far more far more circumlocution to convey.
Devils advocate, though - I've never seen scientific proof of a soul, but nor have I seen scientific proof people actually possess fundamental human rights. Yet, my insistence that humans DO possess fundamental rights is a world view from which other beliefs sprout. First example I can thing if is my stance on immigration.
Please note, I'm definitively not trying to justify theism, or implying that anyone who believes in human rights must also believe that people have souls. I'm not even arguing against your theory as a whole. It's more that I think all people believe things that cannot be proven, and incorporate those into their views on morality. Perhaps the application of your argument simply needs a second derivative, where the soul-ist is seeking to wreak damage with their unproven ideas, while the fundamental right-ist is seeking to wreak good?
Though, I freely admit my refinement of the theory also runs immediately into the idea that morality is relative. So, I dunno \0/. Anyone interested in discussing?
Humanism is a core part of my world view, with the human rights as a central belief. Science is not about having proof, but about seeking proof. Or rather, to try to disprove your ideas, and be willing to change if you are proven wrong. If someone could prove to me that one of the human rights caused more bad than good, and should be adjusted or changed, I would be willing to listen to their arguments. So in a way, my moral compass is relative. On the other hand: because I have actively tried to challenge my beliefs over many years, I feel confident with the choices I make.
@MrDelane 's post about worldviews was very interesting. I normally mentally disregard people's religious standpoints and look at their actions, since I have always considered believing in a god to be the same as believing in elves; a bit childish but not harmfull in itself. But you do make a compelling case that I will have to think more about.
-
when we're talking about whether or not human beings have souls and will either suffer eternally or experience infinite paradise after death... that is a claim which is either objectively true or false.
So...which is it?
false
I kind of thought that's where @MrDelane was going. So now the fun part. What is the objective evidence for this claim?
I wasn't going there, actually. I was only stating that it is either true or false.
The reality is, in my view, that there is not enough evidence in either direction to hold a belief one way or the other.
There is a bit of a misconception out there with many people that atheist is the claim that no gods exist, when it fact it is generally the rejection of the claim that some gods exist.
In the case of souls, heaven or hell I would say that I do not accept the belief that they exist.
This does not mean that I accept the separate claim that they don't exist.
But my original point was merely that we're talking about things which are objective truth claims which have right or wrong answers (whether we are able to prove those answers or not).
-
My point is - religious beliefs are entirely different than the other beliefs that have been floated out as equivalencies in that they are not singular beliefs. They are entire worldviews. It is from a religious worldview that other beliefs sprout. Religious beliefs are the bedrock of belief which other beliefs must adhere to. So what happens when the foundational belief upon which we rest our entire worldview is based on an unsupportable fiction?
Excellent summary, @MrDelane! You eloquently and succinctly summed up a concept it would have take me far more far more circumlocution to convey.
Devils advocate, though - I've never seen scientific proof of a soul, but nor have I seen scientific proof people actually possess fundamental human rights. Yet, my insistence that humans DO possess fundamental rights is a world view from which other beliefs sprout. First example I can thing if is my stance on immigration.
Please note, I'm definitively not trying to justify theism, or implying that anyone who believes in human rights must also believe that people have souls. I'm not even arguing against your theory as a whole. It's more that I think all people believe things that cannot be proven, and incorporate those into their views on morality. Perhaps the application of your argument simply needs a second derivative, where the soul-ist is seeking to wreak damage with their unproven ideas, while the fundamental right-ist is seeking to wreak good?
Though, I freely admit my refinement of the theory also runs immediately into the idea that morality is relative. So, I dunno \0/. Anyone interested in discussing?
Having given it a full 30 seconds of thought.... my first reaction would be to say that the existence of souls vs rights differ in a few ways.
The first is about something in the physical world, the second is a philosophical idea. I assume when you say that 'rights exist' you do not mean it in any corporeal sense.
So while we should be able to find some objective evidence for souls, I'm not sure that the same can ever be found for human rights.
Our view of human rights seem to be an outgrowth of our moral systems, which are based on our worldviews. Though I guess there is a case to be made that our moral systems may be an outgrowth of our view on human rights.
Regardless, I would lean towards thinking both are a result of our worldviews.
My point is - your view on human rights is most likely a result of your worldview.
Whereas whether or not a soul exists is a truth claim that is either true or false.
Human rights seems to be something we agree upon as a society (though the particulars are debated, obviously), not something that exists objectively in the universe.
For example, Try telling a hungry bear that you have an inalienable right to life.
On the other hand, if you truly do have a soul, nothing that bear can do will change the fact that you have a soul.
Keep in mind... this is all off the top of my head... not something I've given much deep thought to.
EDITED TO ADD:
In terms of believing things which cannot be proven:
There is a difference between believing something which is unfalsifiable, believing something which is unproven, and believing something which is self-evident.
While all three may have no proof, they are on different ground in terms of being justifiably rational beliefs.
I would agree that if you trace back far enough into our beliefs, at some point we all believe things which cannot be proven.
But that doesn't mean that all foundational beliefs are on equal footing epistemologically.
-
Humanism is a core part of my world view, with the human rights as a central belief. Science is not about having proof, but about seeking proof. Or rather, to try to disprove your ideas, and be willing to change if you are proven wrong. If someone could prove to me that one of the human rights caused more bad than good, and should be adjusted or changed, I would be willing to listen to their arguments. So in a way, my moral compass is relative. On the other hand: because I have actively tried to challenge my beliefs over many years, I feel confident with the choices I make.
I assume you're familiar with Sam Harris' writing on morality? If not, you might be interested in it.
I don't agree with everything he says, but he has some interesting thoughts on the topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww
-
@MrDelane, good posts above. I now realize I misunderstood what you meant. Thanks.
-
@MrDelane, good posts above. I now realize I misunderstood what you meant. Thanks.
No problem. That said, it would be disingenuous for me to pretend that I'm 100% on the fence between the two beliefs. Like with many things, beliefs aren't all or none, they are on a spectrum of levels of confidence. So I would say that my belief in a heaven/hell is somewhere on par with my belief in elves (which were brought up earlier in this thread). I cannot claim to know they do not exist, nor do I have evidence to prove they do not exist, but I definitely lean towards believing they do not exist by virtue of the lack of evidence to the contrary. But that isn't enough to really make a claim one way or the other... I know that (only mentioning it for the sake of intellectual honesty).
By the way, unless some other city has stolen our town's unofficial motto, I think you and I may live in the same spot.
-
@MrDelane, good posts above. I now realize I misunderstood what you meant. Thanks.
No problem. That said, it would be disingenuous for me to pretend that I'm 100% on the fence between the two beliefs. Like with many things, beliefs aren't all or none, they are on a spectrum of levels of confidence. So I would say that my belief in a heaven/hell is somewhere on par with my belief in elves (which were brought up earlier in this thread). I cannot claim to know they do not exist, nor do I have evidence to prove they do not exist, but I definitely lean towards believing they do not exist by virtue of the lack of evidence to the contrary. But that isn't enough to really make a claim one way or the other... I know that (only mentioning it for the sake of intellectual honesty).
By the way, unless some other city has stolen our town's unofficial motto, I think you and I may live in the same spot.
Russell's teapot.
-
Russell's teapot.
Given that heaven and hell are unfalsifiable ... then yeah, pretty much.
Here I was writing whole sentences.... I could have just said two words.
:)
Good call.
-
Honestly, it’s disheartening but predictable to see Christians show up in this thread and either get offended or try to argue their case. Ironic, given the title of the post.
Funny how in the Childfree By Choice thread, you don’t see parents going in there arguing.
I guess I'll bow out. Sorry for derailing! Its been a good discussion for me, though - thanks.
-
“So which is it? True or false?”......this is the basis of the misunderstanding that causes so much confusion. NO ONE can tell you that; they can only share their opinion. Religion is faith-based.....therefore someone chooses to have faith, or they do not have faith. I call myself agnostic just because of that. I can’t KNOW that religious beliefs aren’t true, nor can a person of faith KNOW they are true. To me this precludes an argument, and it’s to each their own.
Overall, I find religion and debates on it a waste of time. I avoid overly religious people as friends, and my overly religious family really doesn’t push it on me. I support my parent’s involvement in their church, because it’s so meaningful to them. I know a lot of smart people that have faith, and that keeps me from being condescending in my lack of believing what they do. And when a religious person blesses me or says they’ll pray for me, I don’t get upset, because I know that’s an ultimate expression of their caring.
One interesting wrinkle, I will say that this holiday season, I found myself thinking I need to have a Yule celebration rather than Christmas celebration. This year I did not have an angel or star at the top of my tree.....
-
“So which is it? True or false?”......this is the basis of the misunderstanding that causes so much confusion. NO ONE can tell you that; they can only share their opinion. Religion is faith-based.....therefore someone chooses to have faith, or they do not have faith. I call myself agnostic just because of that. I can’t KNOW that religious beliefs aren’t true, nor can a person of faith KNOW they are true. To me this precludes an argument, and it’s to each their own.
Somehow at some point people came to treat 'agnostic' as if it were on a spectrum between 'atheist' and 'theist.' But, as you pointed out yourself, agnostic speaks to knowledge. But theist and atheist speak to belief. Knowledge and belief, while related, are two different things.
There is often a misconception (or assumption) that atheists claim that no god exists, but that isn't necessarily the case. While some atheists may in fact claim that no gods exist, most seem to merely reject the claim that gods exist. This is a very significant difference.
Keep in mind that a theist is not necessarily someone who claims to know that gods exist. A theist is simply someone who believes that gods exist. An atheist is a non-theist, or simply someone who does not believe that gods exist (not necessarily believing that no gods exist). Neither of these says anything about what either claims to know.
My point is, there is really no middle ground between the two labels (unless we alter the definitions of the terms). Everyone is either a theist or atheist, because the terms refer to the acceptance or rejection of a single claim.
A common analogy is a gumball machine with an unknown number of gumballs. We know that the number of gumballs are either odd or even, there is no other option. If I were to ask you if you believe the number of gumballs is odd you would probably say you had no idea, so you cannot claim that you believe they are odd. But that doesn't mean that you automatically believe they are even. Not believing they are odd does not force you to accept the contrary claim (that they are even). But for each individual claim ("they are odd" or "they are even") you either accept or reject it.
And so everyone is either an 'oddist' or an 'a-oddist.'
Being an 'a-oddist' does not mean you are automatically an 'evenist.'
In the same way, you either believe gods exist or you do not believe gods exist.
Whether or not you believe that no gods exist is another issue.
But with each individual claim there is no middle ground, you either accept a claim or you do not. Whether or not we know a specific claim that we believe is a whole other thing.
-
I have absolutely no desire to hurt feelings, but I also have no desire to censor what I say here for fear of hurting feelings, hence the "atheists only" request.
That seems like an odd statement considering the thread is specifically about censoring oneself.
-
“So which is it? True or false?”......this is the basis of the misunderstanding that causes so much confusion. NO ONE can tell you that; they can only share their opinion. Religion is faith-based.....therefore someone chooses to have faith, or they do not have faith. I call myself agnostic just because of that. I can’t KNOW that religious beliefs aren’t true, nor can a person of faith KNOW they are true. To me this precludes an argument, and it’s to each their own.
Somehow at some point people came to treat 'agnostic' as if it were on a spectrum between 'atheist' and 'theist.' But, as you pointed out yourself, agnostic speaks to knowledge. But theist and atheist speak to belief. Knowledge and belief, while related, are two different things.
There is often a misconception (or assumption) that atheists claim that no god exists, but that isn't necessarily the case. While some atheists may in fact claim that no gods exist, most seem to merely reject the claim that gods exist. This is a very significant difference.
Keep in mind that a theist is not necessarily someone who claims to know that gods exist. A theist is simply someone who believes that gods exist. An atheist is a non-theist, or simply someone who does not believe that gods exist (not necessarily believing that no gods exist). Neither of these says anything about what either claims to know.
My point is, there is really no middle ground between the two labels (unless we alter the definitions of the terms). Everyone is either a theist or atheist, because the terms refer to the acceptance or rejection of a single claim.
A common analogy is a gumball machine with an unknown number of gumballs. We know that the number of gumballs are either odd or even, there is no other option. If I were to ask you if you believe the number of gumballs is odd you would probably say you had no idea, so you cannot claim that you believe they are odd. But that doesn't mean that you automatically believe they are even. Not believing they are odd does not force you to accept the contrary claim (that they are even). But for each individual claim ("they are odd" or "they are even") you either accept or reject it.
And so everyone is either an 'oddist' or an 'a-oddist.'
Being an 'a-oddist' does not mean you are automatically an 'evenist.'
In the same way, you either believe gods exist or you do not believe gods exist.
Whether or not you believe that no gods exist is another issue.
But with each individual claim there is no middle ground, you either accept a claim or you do not. Whether or not we know a specific claim that we believe is a whole other thing.
The first definition of "atheist" that google came up with for me this morning (call me lazy, can't be bothered to get out my OED) is "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods." So according to that definition your proposition doesn't work.
-
But with each individual claim there is no middle ground, you either accept a claim or you do not.
"You always own the option of having no opinion." - Marcus Aurelius
-
“So which is it? True or false?”......this is the basis of the misunderstanding that causes so much confusion. NO ONE can tell you that; they can only share their opinion. Religion is faith-based.....therefore someone chooses to have faith, or they do not have faith. I call myself agnostic just because of that. I can’t KNOW that religious beliefs aren’t true, nor can a person of faith KNOW they are true. To me this precludes an argument, and it’s to each their own.
Somehow at some point people came to treat 'agnostic' as if it were on a spectrum between 'atheist' and 'theist.' But, as you pointed out yourself, agnostic speaks to knowledge. But theist and atheist speak to belief. Knowledge and belief, while related, are two different things.
There is often a misconception (or assumption) that atheists claim that no god exists, but that isn't necessarily the case. While some atheists may in fact claim that no gods exist, most seem to merely reject the claim that gods exist. This is a very significant difference.
Keep in mind that a theist is not necessarily someone who claims to know that gods exist. A theist is simply someone who believes that gods exist. An atheist is a non-theist, or simply someone who does not believe that gods exist (not necessarily believing that no gods exist). Neither of these says anything about what either claims to know.
My point is, there is really no middle ground between the two labels (unless we alter the definitions of the terms). Everyone is either a theist or atheist, because the terms refer to the acceptance or rejection of a single claim.
A common analogy is a gumball machine with an unknown number of gumballs. We know that the number of gumballs are either odd or even, there is no other option. If I were to ask you if you believe the number of gumballs is odd you would probably say you had no idea, so you cannot claim that you believe they are odd. But that doesn't mean that you automatically believe they are even. Not believing they are odd does not force you to accept the contrary claim (that they are even). But for each individual claim ("they are odd" or "they are even") you either accept or reject it.
And so everyone is either an 'oddist' or an 'a-oddist.'
Being an 'a-oddist' does not mean you are automatically an 'evenist.'
In the same way, you either believe gods exist or you do not believe gods exist.
Whether or not you believe that no gods exist is another issue.
But with each individual claim there is no middle ground, you either accept a claim or you do not. Whether or not we know a specific claim that we believe is a whole other thing.
I’m not sure I quite agree. With gum balls you and I both agree they are there and odd/even are our two choices. With religion, I’m not sure there are ‘god is’ or ‘god isn’t’-only choices. Because once we start talking higher intelligent power that has created the universe (and we are but a tiny part- interesting how traditional religion puts US right at the heart of everything, most unique, most important, etc), anyway, it brings a ton of other unknowable questions to light. And I think that is a good expression of why I express I am agnostic - simply the comfort with myself that I find there are things that are unknowable.
Back to your original question, I don’t find the need to press people about their beliefs, but I do get tired of prayers before meetings of charitable organizations etc. I just work to find patience there.
-
“So which is it? True or false?”......this is the basis of the misunderstanding that causes so much confusion. NO ONE can tell you that; they can only share their opinion. Religion is faith-based.....therefore someone chooses to have faith, or they do not have faith. I call myself agnostic just because of that. I can’t KNOW that religious beliefs aren’t true, nor can a person of faith KNOW they are true. To me this precludes an argument, and it’s to each their own.
Somehow at some point people came to treat 'agnostic' as if it were on a spectrum between 'atheist' and 'theist.' But, as you pointed out yourself, agnostic speaks to knowledge. But theist and atheist speak to belief. Knowledge and belief, while related, are two different things.
There is often a misconception (or assumption) that atheists claim that no god exists, but that isn't necessarily the case. While some atheists may in fact claim that no gods exist, most seem to merely reject the claim that gods exist. This is a very significant difference.
Keep in mind that a theist is not necessarily someone who claims to know that gods exist. A theist is simply someone who believes that gods exist. An atheist is a non-theist, or simply someone who does not believe that gods exist (not necessarily believing that no gods exist). Neither of these says anything about what either claims to know.
My point is, there is really no middle ground between the two labels (unless we alter the definitions of the terms). Everyone is either a theist or atheist, because the terms refer to the acceptance or rejection of a single claim.
A common analogy is a gumball machine with an unknown number of gumballs. We know that the number of gumballs are either odd or even, there is no other option. If I were to ask you if you believe the number of gumballs is odd you would probably say you had no idea, so you cannot claim that you believe they are odd. But that doesn't mean that you automatically believe they are even. Not believing they are odd does not force you to accept the contrary claim (that they are even). But for each individual claim ("they are odd" or "they are even") you either accept or reject it.
And so everyone is either an 'oddist' or an 'a-oddist.'
Being an 'a-oddist' does not mean you are automatically an 'evenist.'
In the same way, you either believe gods exist or you do not believe gods exist.
Whether or not you believe that no gods exist is another issue.
But with each individual claim there is no middle ground, you either accept a claim or you do not. Whether or not we know a specific claim that we believe is a whole other thing.
The first definition of "atheist" that google came up with for me this morning (call me lazy, can't be bothered to get out my OED) is "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods." So according to that definition your proposition doesn't work.
Yeah, that's true. It doesn't work. Also, regarding agnostic:
Agnostic: broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
-
Agnostic: broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
Yes, that's me, an agnostic. I like the quote from earlier:
"You always own the option of having no opinion." - Marcus Aurelius
Do gods exist? I have no idea. Doesn't affect my life either way. Just keep a strong separation between church/temple/mosque and state and I will be fine.
-
I have absolutely no desire to hurt feelings, but I also have no desire to censor what I say here for fear of hurting feelings, hence the "atheists only" request.
That seems like an odd statement considering the thread is specifically about censoring oneself.
Perhaps I don't understand what you're saying?
Yes, the OP talks about how I censor myself on a daily basis in RL. The whole point of this thread is to allow myself and others of similar (not necessarily identical) mindsets to express our thoughts without worrying about hurting the feelings of genuinely nice people who happen to have beliefs we do not share. So I guess I don't understand what your comment above meant.
-
Perhaps I don't understand what you're saying?
Yes, the OP talks about how I censor myself on a daily basis in RL. The whole point of this thread is to allow myself and others of similar (not necessarily identical) mindsets to express our thoughts without worrying about hurting the feelings of genuinely nice people who happen to have beliefs we do not share. So I guess I don't understand what your comment above meant.
Apologies for my misunderstanding then as I must have missed the intent. I thought from the initial line of your OP it was about discussing ways to hold your tongue around religious people.
-
“So which is it? True or false?”......this is the basis of the misunderstanding that causes so much confusion. NO ONE can tell you that; they can only share their opinion. Religion is faith-based.....therefore someone chooses to have faith, or they do not have faith. I call myself agnostic just because of that. I can’t KNOW that religious beliefs aren’t true, nor can a person of faith KNOW they are true. To me this precludes an argument, and it’s to each their own.
Somehow at some point people came to treat 'agnostic' as if it were on a spectrum between 'atheist' and 'theist.' But, as you pointed out yourself, agnostic speaks to knowledge. But theist and atheist speak to belief. Knowledge and belief, while related, are two different things.
There is often a misconception (or assumption) that atheists claim that no god exists, but that isn't necessarily the case. While some atheists may in fact claim that no gods exist, most seem to merely reject the claim that gods exist. This is a very significant difference.
Keep in mind that a theist is not necessarily someone who claims to know that gods exist. A theist is simply someone who believes that gods exist. An atheist is a non-theist, or simply someone who does not believe that gods exist (not necessarily believing that no gods exist). Neither of these says anything about what either claims to know.
My point is, there is really no middle ground between the two labels (unless we alter the definitions of the terms). Everyone is either a theist or atheist, because the terms refer to the acceptance or rejection of a single claim.
A common analogy is a gumball machine with an unknown number of gumballs. We know that the number of gumballs are either odd or even, there is no other option. If I were to ask you if you believe the number of gumballs is odd you would probably say you had no idea, so you cannot claim that you believe they are odd. But that doesn't mean that you automatically believe they are even. Not believing they are odd does not force you to accept the contrary claim (that they are even). But for each individual claim ("they are odd" or "they are even") you either accept or reject it.
And so everyone is either an 'oddist' or an 'a-oddist.'
Being an 'a-oddist' does not mean you are automatically an 'evenist.'
In the same way, you either believe gods exist or you do not believe gods exist.
Whether or not you believe that no gods exist is another issue.
But with each individual claim there is no middle ground, you either accept a claim or you do not. Whether or not we know a specific claim that we believe is a whole other thing.
The first definition of "atheist" that google came up with for me this morning (call me lazy, can't be bothered to get out my OED) is "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods." So according to that definition your proposition doesn't work.
I guess I don't follow what you're saying - because that is exactly what I was proposing.
"A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of god or gods."
That is not the same as "a person who believes that no god or gods exist," (which is what many seem to assume 'atheist' means).
That was the main point I was making - disbelieving a claim is not the same as believing it's opposite claim.
-
But with each individual claim there is no middle ground, you either accept a claim or you do not.
"You always own the option of having no opinion." - Marcus Aurelius
That's great, I wasn't familiar with that quote.
I don't feel like it contradicts anything I was saying... but I like it.
But again, if the proposition is "A god exists" you can either believe that or not.
If you reject the proposition that a god exists it does not mean you accept the proposition that no god exists, those are two different propositions. As the quote above states, you always have the option of having no opinion. You would simply reject both propositions.
But each proposition is either accepted or rejected, there is no middle ground.
You either believe there are an odd number of gumballs or you do not believe there are an odd number of gumballs. Whether or not you believe there are an even number is a separate proposition.
EDITED TO ADD:
Another great Marcus Aurelius quote: “Alexander the Great and his mule driver both died and the same thing happened to both.”
-
But each proposition is either accepted or rejected, there is no middle ground.
You either believe there are an odd number of gumballs or you do not believe there are an odd number of gumballs. Whether or not you believe there are an even number is a separate proposition.river both died and the same thing happened to both.”[/i]
Upon closer reading, I see the confusion. You are using accepting/rejecting as synonymous with belief/non-belief. I don't think this is quite accurate and I was responding to your original statement that you either accept or reject (rather than believe or non-believe) each individual claim.
A proposition can be accepted for a variety of reasons without believing it to be true. A proposition can be believed to be true but rejected for a variety of reasons too. A classic example of the latter would be a jury rejecting the proposition that the defendant committed the crime, even if they believed it to be true, because the proposition had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Further, when it comes to accepting or rejecting a proposition there is a third option. That of neither accepting or rejecting it.
Eg: you propose there is an odd number of gumballs in the jar. That proposition simply is. I do not have to accept or reject it. I can simply hold no opinion on the proposition at all.
Belief on the other hand is different. You are correct that belief is a duality. There is either belief or absence of belief.
-
Does anyone belong to a local atheists/nonbelievers group? If so, what do you get from it?
I was a member of one for about a year. I think I mostly wanted a feeling of validation that comes from knowing others share similar beliefs, especially when nonbelievers are so outnumbered in the US. I probably went to about 7 or 8 meetings. Some of the folks were nice enough, but others were very odd. (The group lumped in atheists with "freethinkers" which apparently draws some rather...eccentric...folks.
We usually had a meal and then listened to a speaker. The problem for me was that I didn't feel the speakers did a lot to deepen my position. I kept thinking, "Okay, yes I have already thought about that, and I agree." They were 'preaching to the choir' pretty much. :) It was also VERY white and VERY male, which is okay I guess, but I prefer more diverse groups. If it weren't for a few ponytails, you might have confused us with a GOP group.
Maybe part of it is that people who are willing to declare themselves atheists are naturally less tribalistic to being with? Perhaps a 'herding cats' sort of thing? I don't know. I'd be interested in hearing others' experiences.
-
But each proposition is either accepted or rejected, there is no middle ground.
You either believe there are an odd number of gumballs or you do not believe there are an odd number of gumballs. Whether or not you believe there are an even number is a separate proposition.[/i]
Upon closer reading, I see the confusion. You are using accepting/rejecting as synonymous with belief/non-belief. I don't think this is quite accurate and I was responding to your original statement that you either accept or reject (rather than believe or non-believe) each individual claim.
I may have used sloppy language. Perhaps I should have said each proposition is either accepted or not accepted.
A proposition can be accepted for a variety of reasons without believing it to be true. A proposition can be believed to be true but rejected for a variety of reasons too. A classic example of the latter would be a jury rejecting the proposition that the defendant committed the crime, even if they believed it to be true, because the proposition had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
I'm going to have to give some thought to the idea of whether or not a proposition can be believed while not being accepted (or not believed while being accepted). Honestly, I don't see how that would be. I think you're right when you said that I was using acceptance or rejection of a proposition as synonymous with belief and non-belief. I honestly don't see what it would mean to accept or not accept a proposition outside of 'belief' as a frame of reference. It doesn't seem to make much sense.
In your courtroom analogy, those seem like two propositions with different standards to me. One can accept the proposition that the defendant is guilty while simultaneously not accepting the proposition that the defendant should be convicted. Each proposition brings with it a burden of proof, and if not met then they will not be accepted. The difference with the conviction of a defendant is that the burden of proof is not up to the individual but laid out by the court. Once the standard for acceptance is changed, you're talking about two different propositions.
I guess one gray area is that accepting a proposition in and off itself says nothing about how confident we may be in that claim (just like not accepting says nothing about how confident we are). We believe things once we reach a certain level of confidence in the claim and become convinced. Perhaps if we changed the language to "become convinced" or "not convinced" it would sound less problematic?
Further, when it comes to accepting or rejecting a proposition there is a third option. That of neither accepting or rejecting it.
Eg: you propose there is an odd number of gumballs in the jar. That proposition simply is. I do not have to accept or reject it. I can simply hold no opinion on the proposition at all.
I respectfully disagree, and I'm happy to let it go after this because I'm fairly certain I'm being way too pedantic and everyone else has lost interest in this (but just to be clear I find this deeply fascinating and appreciate that your thoughtful reply is making me reexamine what I wrote).
"There is an odd number of gumballs in the jar" is a truth claim. You either believe that or you do not. If you 'hold no opinion' on that proposition then you are not accepting it by default, because at that point 'PKFFW does not believe there are an odd number of gumballs' is a true statement (or, to my earlier point, "PKFFW is not convinced there are an odd number of gumballs").
Again, not believing that claim does not mean that you believe there is an even number of gumballs (or, not being convinced they are odd does not mean you are convinced they are even). It also does not mean you have ruled out the possibility of them being odd, it simply means you are currently not convinced that the number of gumballs is odd and therefore do not accept the claim "there is an odd number of gumballs in the jar."
But you either believe it is odd or you do not believe it is odd.
You are either convinced it is odd or you are not convinced it is odd.
I still don't see a middle ground, so long as we are dealing with only one proposition at a time.
EDITED TO ADD:
I think the illusion of a 'middle ground' comes up when someone does not accept (or rejects) two opposing propositions. For example, when someone does not accept both "there is an odd number of gumballs" and "there is an even number of gumballs." They are not convinced of (or do not believe) either proposition, and because they are polar opposite claims it creates the illusion that there is a third option between acceptance and non-acceptance. But when dealing with only one proposition at a time the possibility of a third option seems impossible.
-
Maybe part of it is that people who are willing to declare themselves atheists are naturally less tribalistic to being with? Perhaps a 'herding cats' sort of thing? I don't know. I'd be interested in hearing others' experiences.
Maybe. Or maybe many of us have simply gravitated toward other groups that don’t revolve around faith (or the lack thereof). When I was still trying to force myself to be a believer (after decades of cultural brainwashing), I sang in church choirs. In retrospect, I was at a parish with a lot of excellent musicians (and still remain in contact with many of them), and the opportunity to make music with them was the final tie holding me in the church for the last couple of years. Now I sing with secular choral groups, which meets my need for socialization and community.
-
Does anyone belong to a local atheists/nonbelievers group? If so, what do you get from it?
I was a member of one for about a year. I think I mostly wanted a feeling of validation that comes from knowing others share similar beliefs, especially when nonbelievers are so outnumbered in the US. I probably went to about 7 or 8 meetings. Some of the folks were nice enough, but others were very odd. (The group lumped in atheists with "freethinkers" which apparently draws some rather...eccentric...folks.
We usually had a meal and then listened to a speaker. The problem for me was that I didn't feel the speakers did a lot to deepen my position. I kept thinking, "Okay, yes I have already thought about that, and I agree." They were 'preaching to the choir' pretty much. :) It was also VERY white and VERY male, which is okay I guess, but I prefer more diverse groups. If it weren't for a few ponytails, you might have confused us with a GOP group.
Maybe part of it is that people who are willing to declare themselves atheists are naturally less tribalistic to being with? Perhaps a 'herding cats' sort of thing? I don't know. I'd be interested in hearing others' experiences.
Never been part of a group, but a lack of belief is a pretty weak tie. A meeting of Catholics, even outside of Mass, will be guaranteed to have shared experiences, ideas, etc. It's hard to form a coherent group when the only thing you have in common is something as small as a lack of belief in something, since that doesn't necessarily come with matching experiences or preferences.
-
Does anyone belong to a local atheists/nonbelievers group? If so, what do you get from it?
I was a member of one for about a year. I think I mostly wanted a feeling of validation that comes from knowing others share similar beliefs, especially when nonbelievers are so outnumbered in the US. I probably went to about 7 or 8 meetings. Some of the folks were nice enough, but others were very odd. (The group lumped in atheists with "freethinkers" which apparently draws some rather...eccentric...folks.
We usually had a meal and then listened to a speaker. The problem for me was that I didn't feel the speakers did a lot to deepen my position. I kept thinking, "Okay, yes I have already thought about that, and I agree." They were 'preaching to the choir' pretty much. :) It was also VERY white and VERY male, which is okay I guess, but I prefer more diverse groups. If it weren't for a few ponytails, you might have confused us with a GOP group.
Maybe part of it is that people who are willing to declare themselves atheists are naturally less tribalistic to being with? Perhaps a 'herding cats' sort of thing? I don't know. I'd be interested in hearing others' experiences.
There is a very large and active atheist community where i live. That said, I've tried to go to more than one meeting of a group here and gave up after the second time. The first time I literally sat there without anyone making any effort to introduce themselves to new people (I wound up talking to a woman and guy who were both there for the first time as well while the more established members spent time talking to eachother). The second time I made more of an effort to meet people but simply didn't hit it off with anyone.
I don't think it really has to do with whether or not we're as tribalistic as theists. The thing that seems to make it so tough is that there is nothing that we all share, aside for a lack of a belief. But you can't really build a community on that. It's like trying to build a community of people who are all not lawyers. What do they really have in common other than a single negative trait?
I wish there were a clearer solution for it... no idea what it might be though.
-
Does anyone belong to a local atheists/nonbelievers group? If so, what do you get from it?
I was a member of one for about a year. I think I mostly wanted a feeling of validation that comes from knowing others share similar beliefs, especially when nonbelievers are so outnumbered in the US. I probably went to about 7 or 8 meetings. Some of the folks were nice enough, but others were very odd. (The group lumped in atheists with "freethinkers" which apparently draws some rather...eccentric...folks.
We usually had a meal and then listened to a speaker. The problem for me was that I didn't feel the speakers did a lot to deepen my position. I kept thinking, "Okay, yes I have already thought about that, and I agree." They were 'preaching to the choir' pretty much. :) It was also VERY white and VERY male, which is okay I guess, but I prefer more diverse groups. If it weren't for a few ponytails, you might have confused us with a GOP group.
Maybe part of it is that people who are willing to declare themselves atheists are naturally less tribalistic to being with? Perhaps a 'herding cats' sort of thing? I don't know. I'd be interested in hearing others' experiences.
There is a very large and active atheist community where i live. That said, I've tried to go to more than one meeting of a group here and gave up after the second time. The first time I literally sat there without anyone making any effort to introduce themselves to new people (I wound up talking to a woman and guy who were both there for the first time as well while the more established members spent time talking to eachother). The second time I made more of an effort to meet people but simply didn't hit it off with anyone.
I don't think it really has to do with whether or not we're as tribalistic as theists. The thing that seems to make it so tough is that there is nothing that we all share, aside for a lack of a belief. But you can't really build a community on that. It's like trying to build a community of people who are all not lawyers. What do they really have in common other than a single negative trait?
I wish there were a clearer solution for it... no idea what it might be though.
I agree about the lack of common positive bonds. In my dream world, there are little intellectual salons that pop all over the place, places where people gather on Sundays to discuss scientific discoveries, discuss books and philosophy, etc., and where afterwards everyone has a meal and socializing time. Basically a secular replacement for all the socialization opportunities that churches offer. So it wouldn't be centered around "We aren't religious;" it would be centered around learning and sharing ideas. But I don't know how viable it would ever be unless it qualified as tax exempt or something, and I know nothing about that.
-
Does anyone belong to a local atheists/nonbelievers group? If so, what do you get from it?
I was a member of one for about a year. I think I mostly wanted a feeling of validation that comes from knowing others share similar beliefs, especially when nonbelievers are so outnumbered in the US. I probably went to about 7 or 8 meetings. Some of the folks were nice enough, but others were very odd. (The group lumped in atheists with "freethinkers" which apparently draws some rather...eccentric...folks.
We usually had a meal and then listened to a speaker. The problem for me was that I didn't feel the speakers did a lot to deepen my position. I kept thinking, "Okay, yes I have already thought about that, and I agree." They were 'preaching to the choir' pretty much. :) It was also VERY white and VERY male, which is okay I guess, but I prefer more diverse groups. If it weren't for a few ponytails, you might have confused us with a GOP group.
Maybe part of it is that people who are willing to declare themselves atheists are naturally less tribalistic to being with? Perhaps a 'herding cats' sort of thing? I don't know. I'd be interested in hearing others' experiences.
There is a very large and active atheist community where i live. That said, I've tried to go to more than one meeting of a group here and gave up after the second time. The first time I literally sat there without anyone making any effort to introduce themselves to new people (I wound up talking to a woman and guy who were both there for the first time as well while the more established members spent time talking to eachother). The second time I made more of an effort to meet people but simply didn't hit it off with anyone.
I don't think it really has to do with whether or not we're as tribalistic as theists. The thing that seems to make it so tough is that there is nothing that we all share, aside for a lack of a belief. But you can't really build a community on that. It's like trying to build a community of people who are all not lawyers. What do they really have in common other than a single negative trait?
I wish there were a clearer solution for it... no idea what it might be though.
I agree about the lack of common positive bonds. In my dream world, there are little intellectual salons that pop all over the place, places where people gather on Sundays to discuss scientific discoveries, discuss books and philosophy, etc., and where afterwards everyone has a meal and socializing time. Basically a secular replacement for all the socialization opportunities that churches offer. So it wouldn't be centered around "We aren't religious;" it would be centered around learning and sharing ideas. But I don't know how viable it would ever be unless it qualified as tax exempt or something, and I know nothing about that.
I love this idea. I guess the thing is these groups sort of exist now, just not in a specifically non-theist way. There are philosophy groups, specific science based groups (astronomy, biology, etc). Again, these are groups that are bound together by a positive trait.
I think this is why we see so many atheist groups try to lump in things like "free thinkers" or the like. The problem is that atheists are all over the place in terms of beliefs, worldviews, etc... we just all happen to not believe in one thing. It's one of the great frustrations with being an atheist... I know what I'm not, but that doesn't mean I know exactly what I am... or who 'my people' really are.
This got kind of heavy for a monday morning.
-
Does anyone belong to a local atheists/nonbelievers group? If so, what do you get from it?
I was a member of one for about a year. I think I mostly wanted a feeling of validation that comes from knowing others share similar beliefs, especially when nonbelievers are so outnumbered in the US. I probably went to about 7 or 8 meetings. Some of the folks were nice enough, but others were very odd. (The group lumped in atheists with "freethinkers" which apparently draws some rather...eccentric...folks.
We usually had a meal and then listened to a speaker. The problem for me was that I didn't feel the speakers did a lot to deepen my position. I kept thinking, "Okay, yes I have already thought about that, and I agree." They were 'preaching to the choir' pretty much. :) It was also VERY white and VERY male, which is okay I guess, but I prefer more diverse groups. If it weren't for a few ponytails, you might have confused us with a GOP group.
Maybe part of it is that people who are willing to declare themselves atheists are naturally less tribalistic to being with? Perhaps a 'herding cats' sort of thing? I don't know. I'd be interested in hearing others' experiences.
Never been part of a group, but a lack of belief is a pretty weak tie. A meeting of Catholics, even outside of Mass, will be guaranteed to have shared experiences, ideas, etc. It's hard to form a coherent group when the only thing you have in common is something as small as a lack of belief in something, since that doesn't necessarily come with matching experiences or preferences.
Exactly.
Also, why would I want to join a group devoted to discussing something that is of no practical interest or application in my life, and which I normally feel no need to even think about except when confronted with evangelizing individuals, or the direct consequences of religiously supported politics? Would Christians typically join groups devoted to their nonacceptance of the reality of unicorns?
However, I also wonder if there is a particular set of personality characteristics in the secular crowd that is more common. Perhaps introversion and some others? Certainly, I don't have a 'joiner' personality at all, and am often more comfortable on my own than in many groups. I think my brain interprets more people = more potential threats, rather than more potential safety. I assume this is hard-wired, though I'm not sure. I remember being incredibly uncomfortable as a kid during school pep rallies b/c the unified crowd behavior of chanting and cheering struck me as creepy. And there's some research indicating that peoples' general political alignment is more a function of inborn personality traits than argument or experience. It seems possible the same is true for belief in supernatural things.
-
Does anyone belong to a local atheists/nonbelievers group? If so, what do you get from it?
I was a member of one for about a year. I think I mostly wanted a feeling of validation that comes from knowing others share similar beliefs, especially when nonbelievers are so outnumbered in the US. I probably went to about 7 or 8 meetings. Some of the folks were nice enough, but others were very odd. (The group lumped in atheists with "freethinkers" which apparently draws some rather...eccentric...folks.
We usually had a meal and then listened to a speaker. The problem for me was that I didn't feel the speakers did a lot to deepen my position. I kept thinking, "Okay, yes I have already thought about that, and I agree." They were 'preaching to the choir' pretty much. :) It was also VERY white and VERY male, which is okay I guess, but I prefer more diverse groups. If it weren't for a few ponytails, you might have confused us with a GOP group.
Maybe part of it is that people who are willing to declare themselves atheists are naturally less tribalistic to being with? Perhaps a 'herding cats' sort of thing? I don't know. I'd be interested in hearing others' experiences.
There is a very large and active atheist community where i live. That said, I've tried to go to more than one meeting of a group here and gave up after the second time. The first time I literally sat there without anyone making any effort to introduce themselves to new people (I wound up talking to a woman and guy who were both there for the first time as well while the more established members spent time talking to eachother). The second time I made more of an effort to meet people but simply didn't hit it off with anyone.
I don't think it really has to do with whether or not we're as tribalistic as theists. The thing that seems to make it so tough is that there is nothing that we all share, aside for a lack of a belief. But you can't really build a community on that. It's like trying to build a community of people who are all not lawyers. What do they really have in common other than a single negative trait?
I wish there were a clearer solution for it... no idea what it might be though.
I agree about the lack of common positive bonds. In my dream world, there are little intellectual salons that pop all over the place, places where people gather on Sundays to discuss scientific discoveries, discuss books and philosophy, etc., and where afterwards everyone has a meal and socializing time. Basically a secular replacement for all the socialization opportunities that churches offer. So it wouldn't be centered around "We aren't religious;" it would be centered around learning and sharing ideas. But I don't know how viable it would ever be unless it qualified as tax exempt or something, and I know nothing about that.
I love this idea. I guess the thing is these groups sort of exist now, just not in a specifically non-theist way. There are philosophy groups, specific science based groups (astronomy, biology, etc). Again, these are groups that are bound together by a positive trait.
I think this is why we see so many atheist groups try to lump in things like "free thinkers" or the like. The problem is that atheists are all over the place in terms of beliefs, worldviews, etc... we just all happen to not believe in one thing. It's one of the great frustrations with being an atheist... I know what I'm not, but that doesn't mean I know exactly what I am... or who 'my people' really are.
This got kind of heavy for a monday morning.
I like the salon idea as well. But I think that b/c I mostly associate with biologists, I get an element of this in my own socializing; thus, I don't feel the lack that much. In fact, we all have to make an effort to try not to talk shop all the time and force ourselves to talk about books, music, movies, sports, etc. We almost never discuss religion (except tangentially related to politics) b/c the vast majority of my social circle doesn't believe or care about it at all. Occasionally there will be a group member that wants to rant about religion, usually associated with frustrating politics. But I find that this can be kind of tiresome, even though I find religion mostly ridiculous. Again, it's b/c being an atheist means that I just don't care about religion that much, and don't usually want to discuss it unless I'm considering its sociological/cultural influence as part of a broader conversation.
OP, I would suggest seeking out science-based groups if you want that type of social stimulation. Or just hobbies that are likely to attract a good mix of secular types. It's odd the kinds of things that attract a very secular mix. In our town, yoga studios do (yoga is looked down on by the evangelicals that make up the bulk of the population around here), as do groups centered around playing Irish and traditional music (a lot of hard core lefties and secular types there), and the home-brewers (a lot of free thinkers and chemists). And of course scientists (the majority of my social group). It greatly helps to have a university nearby, even a super-conservative university like the one in my town.
-
But with each individual claim there is no middle ground, you either accept a claim or you do not.
"You always own the option of having no opinion." - Marcus Aurelius
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." - Rush
-
I like the salon idea as well. But I think that b/c I mostly associate with biologists, I get an element of this in my own socializing; thus, I don't feel the lack that much. In fact, we all have to make an effort to try not to talk shop all the time and force ourselves to talk about books, music, movies, sports, etc. We almost never discuss religion (except tangentially related to politics) b/c the vast majority of my social circle doesn't believe or care about it at all. Occasionally there will be a group member that wants to rant about religion, usually associated with frustrating politics. But I find that this can be kind of tiresome, even though I find religion mostly ridiculous. Again, it's b/c being an atheist means that I just don't care about religion that much, and don't usually want to discuss it unless I'm considering its sociological/cultural influence as part of a broader conversation.
OP, I would suggest seeking out science-based groups if you want that type of social stimulation. Or just hobbies that are likely to attract a good mix of secular types. It's odd the kinds of things that attract a very secular mix. In our town, yoga studios do (yoga is looked down on by the evangelicals that make up the bulk of the population around here), as do groups centered around playing Irish and traditional music (a lot of hard core lefties and secular types there), and the home-brewers (a lot of free thinkers and chemists). And of course scientists (the majority of my social group). It greatly helps to have a university nearby, even a super-conservative university like the one in my town.
I get my social needs met with groups that are directly aligned with my interests (in retirement the professional stuff has dwindled). I would not be interested in a group meeting of agnostics/atheists, because why bother? Now, let me get together with a bunch of biologists, and life will be fun.
wenchsenior, interesting that Irish music shows up as secular in your area - here all the Irish Dance competitions get hosted in the Catholic High Schools, and of course many of the dress embroidery design elements are old Christian ( things like variations on the trinity knot). But no-one ever actually discusses religion, there are more important things to talk about at a Feis. ;-)
-
But with each individual claim there is no middle ground, you either accept a claim or you do not.
"You always own the option of having no opinion." - Marcus Aurelius
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." - Rush
LOL -- I was getting ready to gag at the idea that I agreed with Rush Limbaugh for once. :D
-
But with each individual claim there is no middle ground, you either accept a claim or you do not.
"You always own the option of having no opinion." - Marcus Aurelius
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." - Rush
LOL -- I was getting ready to gag at the idea that I agreed with Rush Limbaugh for once. :D
Glad I wasn't the only one. :)
-
We went to some Freethinkers meetups and some very odd people. Also spiritual people would show up and leave when told the group was not spiritual at all. Lots of confusion about what the group was by the name. We probably went about 6 times before deciding it wasn’t for us.
-
Further, when it comes to accepting or rejecting a proposition there is a third option. That of neither accepting or rejecting it.
Eg: you propose there is an odd number of gumballs in the jar. That proposition simply is. I do not have to accept or reject it. I can simply hold no opinion on the proposition at all.
I respectfully disagree, and I'm happy to let it go after this because I'm fairly certain I'm being way too pedantic and everyone else has lost interest in this (but just to be clear I find this deeply fascinating and appreciate that your thoughtful reply is making me reexamine what I wrote).
"There is an odd number of gumballs in the jar" is a truth claim. You either believe that or you do not. If you 'hold no opinion' on that proposition then you are not accepting it by default, because at that point 'PKFFW does not believe there are an odd number of gumballs' is a true statement (or, to my earlier point, "PKFFW is not convinced there are an odd number of gumballs").
Again, not believing that claim does not mean that you believe there is an even number of gumballs (or, not being convinced they are odd does not mean you are convinced they are even). It also does not mean you have ruled out the possibility of them being odd, it simply means you are currently not convinced that the number of gumballs is odd and therefore do not accept the claim "there is an odd number of gumballs in the jar."
But you either believe it is odd or you do not believe it is odd.
You are either convinced it is odd or you are not convinced it is odd.
I still don't see a middle ground, so long as we are dealing with only one proposition at a time.
EDITED TO ADD:
I think the illusion of a 'middle ground' comes up when someone does not accept (or rejects) two opposing propositions. For example, when someone does not accept both "there is an odd number of gumballs" and "there is an even number of gumballs." They are not convinced of (or do not believe) either proposition, and because they are polar opposite claims it creates the illusion that there is a third option between acceptance and non-acceptance. But when dealing with only one proposition at a time the possibility of a third option seems impossible.
I find that people generally have a hard time distinguishing between "does not believe there are an odd number of gumballs" and "believes there are not an odd number of gumballs", so I try to be extremely explicit any time I am dealing with this distinction. That's part of why I call myself agnostic and not atheist.
-
Does anyone belong to a local atheists/nonbelievers group? If so, what do you get from it?
I was a member of one for about a year. I think I mostly wanted a feeling of validation that comes from knowing others share similar beliefs, especially when nonbelievers are so outnumbered in the US. I probably went to about 7 or 8 meetings. Some of the folks were nice enough, but others were very odd. (The group lumped in atheists with "freethinkers" which apparently draws some rather...eccentric...folks.
We usually had a meal and then listened to a speaker. The problem for me was that I didn't feel the speakers did a lot to deepen my position. I kept thinking, "Okay, yes I have already thought about that, and I agree." They were 'preaching to the choir' pretty much. :) It was also VERY white and VERY male, which is okay I guess, but I prefer more diverse groups. If it weren't for a few ponytails, you might have confused us with a GOP group.
Maybe part of it is that people who are willing to declare themselves atheists are naturally less tribalistic to being with? Perhaps a 'herding cats' sort of thing? I don't know. I'd be interested in hearing others' experiences.
Never been part of a group, but a lack of belief is a pretty weak tie. A meeting of Catholics, even outside of Mass, will be guaranteed to have shared experiences, ideas, etc. It's hard to form a coherent group when the only thing you have in common is something as small as a lack of belief in something, since that doesn't necessarily come with matching experiences or preferences.
Exactly.
Also, why would I want to join a group devoted to discussing something that is of no practical interest or application in my life, and which I normally feel no need to even think about except when confronted with evangelizing individuals, or the direct consequences of religiously supported politics? Would Christians typically join groups devoted to their nonacceptance of the reality of unicorns?
However, I also wonder if there is a particular set of personality characteristics in the secular crowd that is more common. Perhaps introversion and some others? Certainly, I don't have a 'joiner' personality at all, and am often more comfortable on my own than in many groups. I think my brain interprets more people = more potential threats, rather than more potential safety. I assume this is hard-wired, though I'm not sure. I remember being incredibly uncomfortable as a kid during school pep rallies b/c the unified crowd behavior of chanting and cheering struck me as creepy. And there's some research indicating that peoples' general political alignment is more a function of inborn personality traits than argument or experience. It seems possible the same is true for belief in supernatural things.
I am very much an introvert and too don't have that 'joiner gene'. When I am looking for a group I don't focus on being an Atheist but more on the activities. Many of the groups I belong to are online (including this one) and with the exception of a couple most ban religious talk (the others are mostly full of Atheist/Agnostic folks so there's not much religion talk to begin with). I live in a very religious area (12 churches within one mile of my house) so actually going out and joining groups that don't have religion as a focus is quite hard.
-
In my dream world, there are little intellectual salons that pop all over the place, places where people gather on Sundays to discuss scientific discoveries, discuss books and philosophy, etc., and where afterwards everyone has a meal and socializing time. Basically a secular replacement for all the socialization opportunities that churches offer. So it wouldn't be centered around "We aren't religious;" it would be centered around learning and sharing ideas. But I don't know how viable it would ever be unless it qualified as tax exempt or something, and I know nothing about that.
No reason you couldn't form an educational non-profit group with a mission promote the discussion of - . The non-profit could have general meetings open to everyone and provide a meal and social space to attendees at the end of the meeting.
-
Does anyone belong to a local atheists/nonbelievers group? If so, what do you get from it?
I was a member of one for about a year. I think I mostly wanted a feeling of validation that comes from knowing others share similar beliefs, especially when nonbelievers are so outnumbered in the US. I probably went to about 7 or 8 meetings. Some of the folks were nice enough, but others were very odd. (The group lumped in atheists with "freethinkers" which apparently draws some rather...eccentric...folks.
We usually had a meal and then listened to a speaker. The problem for me was that I didn't feel the speakers did a lot to deepen my position. I kept thinking, "Okay, yes I have already thought about that, and I agree." They were 'preaching to the choir' pretty much. :) It was also VERY white and VERY male, which is okay I guess, but I prefer more diverse groups. If it weren't for a few ponytails, you might have confused us with a GOP group.
Maybe part of it is that people who are willing to declare themselves atheists are naturally less tribalistic to being with? Perhaps a 'herding cats' sort of thing? I don't know. I'd be interested in hearing others' experiences.
Never been part of a group, but a lack of belief is a pretty weak tie. A meeting of Catholics, even outside of Mass, will be guaranteed to have shared experiences, ideas, etc. It's hard to form a coherent group when the only thing you have in common is something as small as a lack of belief in something, since that doesn't necessarily come with matching experiences or preferences.
Exactly.
Also, why would I want to join a group devoted to discussing something that is of no practical interest or application in my life, and which I normally feel no need to even think about except when confronted with evangelizing individuals, or the direct consequences of religiously supported politics? Would Christians typically join groups devoted to their nonacceptance of the reality of unicorns?
However, I also wonder if there is a particular set of personality characteristics in the secular crowd that is more common. Perhaps introversion and some others? Certainly, I don't have a 'joiner' personality at all, and am often more comfortable on my own than in many groups. I think my brain interprets more people = more potential threats, rather than more potential safety. I assume this is hard-wired, though I'm not sure. I remember being incredibly uncomfortable as a kid during school pep rallies b/c the unified crowd behavior of chanting and cheering struck me as creepy. And there's some research indicating that peoples' general political alignment is more a function of inborn personality traits than argument or experience. It seems possible the same is true for belief in supernatural things.
Researchers also found that one's political alignment is related to which side of their brain dominates.
Left-brain dominant individuals tend to be conservative while those who are right-brain dominant tend to be liberal.
-
Me alone (and presented as a big run-on sentence with poor editing because I'm rushed):
I believe religion, mythology, and any other type of "worship" came about as a unique and honestly successful endeavor to continue the human species.
I think, at our level of intellect (and ability to use tools to kill each other and ourselves with), without some of the facets of religion in much much harder times than the present, we would have wiped ourselves out completely- either through murder, disease, or self destruction (mass suicide, whatever).
Religion gave us something to build successful morals upon. Many of the morals are misguided, but the formative ones that kept us from killing each other and cannibalizing during the depression era worked out to keep us feeling just guilty enough not to be barbaric and fully eliminate ourselves. Yeah, I know we ate each other on the settler trails though, but as religion 'firmed up' especially in the US, I think we killed each other less. Because we "aren't supposed to do that because god won't give us the prize if we do".
That being said, I guess I am thankful for the very basic structure of religion, although I don't believe in it at all.
I think we create the things that we NEED to believe in so that we have a reason to keep living. Sometimes that's on a large scale like religion, sometimes it's on a small scale like me needing to believe that my dog loves me. Ya know?
My pet peeve is how the language of religion is built into the government and paraded around while still advertising that we have a separation of church and state.
Take 'In god we trust' off of our currency, etc. It's absolutely ridiculous.
Take religion colored glasses off of school taught history and teach it as facts. The same with science.
-
Does anyone belong to a local atheists/nonbelievers group? If so, what do you get from it?
I was a member of one for about a year. I think I mostly wanted a feeling of validation that comes from knowing others share similar beliefs, especially when nonbelievers are so outnumbered in the US. I probably went to about 7 or 8 meetings. Some of the folks were nice enough, but others were very odd. (The group lumped in atheists with "freethinkers" which apparently draws some rather...eccentric...folks.
We usually had a meal and then listened to a speaker. The problem for me was that I didn't feel the speakers did a lot to deepen my position. I kept thinking, "Okay, yes I have already thought about that, and I agree." They were 'preaching to the choir' pretty much. :) It was also VERY white and VERY male, which is okay I guess, but I prefer more diverse groups. If it weren't for a few ponytails, you might have confused us with a GOP group.
Maybe part of it is that people who are willing to declare themselves atheists are naturally less tribalistic to being with? Perhaps a 'herding cats' sort of thing? I don't know. I'd be interested in hearing others' experiences.
Never been part of a group, but a lack of belief is a pretty weak tie. A meeting of Catholics, even outside of Mass, will be guaranteed to have shared experiences, ideas, etc. It's hard to form a coherent group when the only thing you have in common is something as small as a lack of belief in something, since that doesn't necessarily come with matching experiences or preferences.
Exactly.
Also, why would I want to join a group devoted to discussing something that is of no practical interest or application in my life, and which I normally feel no need to even think about except when confronted with evangelizing individuals, or the direct consequences of religiously supported politics? Would Christians typically join groups devoted to their nonacceptance of the reality of unicorns?
However, I also wonder if there is a particular set of personality characteristics in the secular crowd that is more common. Perhaps introversion and some others? Certainly, I don't have a 'joiner' personality at all, and am often more comfortable on my own than in many groups. I think my brain interprets more people = more potential threats, rather than more potential safety. I assume this is hard-wired, though I'm not sure. I remember being incredibly uncomfortable as a kid during school pep rallies b/c the unified crowd behavior of chanting and cheering struck me as creepy. And there's some research indicating that peoples' general political alignment is more a function of inborn personality traits than argument or experience. It seems possible the same is true for belief in supernatural things.
Researchers also found that one's political alignment is related to which side of their brain dominates.
Left-brain dominant individuals tend to be conservative while those who are right-brain dominant tend to be liberal.
I find it hard to reconcile left brain tendency towards analytical and methodical thinking with support of Donald Trump, climate change denial, and religion.
-
@MrDelane you make some good points. I'm not sure I agree with all of them but certainly find them worth thinking on. Perhaps it is simply a matter of terminology or perhaps not.
But with each individual claim there is no middle ground, you either accept a claim or you do not.
"You always own the option of having no opinion." - Marcus Aurelius
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." - Rush
Yes, it is a choice, absolutely. However, choosing to hold no opinion on a matter is as fundamentally different to choosing acceptance or rejection as choosing one to the other is.
-
@MrDelane you make some good points. I'm not sure I agree with all of them but certainly find them worth thinking on. Perhaps it is simply a matter of terminology or perhaps not.
But with each individual claim there is no middle ground, you either accept a claim or you do not.
"You always own the option of having no opinion." - Marcus Aurelius
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." - Rush
Yes, it is a choice, absolutely. However, choosing to hold no opinion on a matter is as fundamentally different to choosing acceptance or rejection as choosing one to the other is.
I wasn’t necessarily making an argument. The first quote just reminded me of that song by Rush.
But looking at it, those two quotes do kind of sum up the two different sides. Atheists may be waiting on evidence before forming an opinion, and Christians might say that it is the same as choosing not to believe, in that you would still theoretically be going to Hell.
-
Ran across this article this morning and it reminded me of this thread. I live in such a bubble (by which I mean most of my friends and coworkers are atheists) that it's sometimes easy to forget that we are still very much in the minority in terms of representation:
"In A Congress Full Of Firsts, Still No Open Atheists" (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/congress-atheists-representation_us_5c2f9b03e4b0bdd0de588425)
Hard to believe that it is 2019 and that vast majority of our elected officials still have to (at least pretend to) believe in gods.
-
Me alone (and presented as a big run-on sentence with poor editing because I'm rushed):
I believe religion, mythology, and any other type of "worship" came about as a unique and honestly successful endeavor to continue the human species.
I think, at our level of intellect (and ability to use tools to kill each other and ourselves with), without some of the facets of religion in much much harder times than the present, we would have wiped ourselves out completely- either through murder, disease, or self destruction (mass suicide, whatever).
Religion gave us something to build successful morals upon. Many of the morals are misguided, but the formative ones that kept us from killing each other and cannibalizing during the depression era worked out to keep us feeling just guilty enough not to be barbaric and fully eliminate ourselves. Yeah, I know we ate each other on the settler trails though, but as religion 'firmed up' especially in the US, I think we killed each other less. Because we "aren't supposed to do that because god won't give us the prize if we do".
That being said, I guess I am thankful for the very basic structure of religion, although I don't believe in it at all.
I think we create the things that we NEED to believe in so that we have a reason to keep living. Sometimes that's on a large scale like religion, sometimes it's on a small scale like me needing to believe that my dog loves me. Ya know?
My pet peeve is how the language of religion is built into the government and paraded around while still advertising that we have a separation of church and state.
Take 'In god we trust' off of our currency, etc. It's absolutely ridiculous.
Take religion colored glasses off of school taught history and teach it as facts. The same with science.
Re: the utility of religion in human survival, I agree. We're so incredibly tribal, and we naturally only can fit about 300-500 people, max into our "I know you personally and you're one of us" tribe. Religion allowed us to expand our definition of "one of us" to thousands and thousands of people. It's no coincident that more sophisticated (and inclusive) religions thrived right around the time that cities started forming.
But even before that, religion was useful because it was man's first attempt to explain the world around him. Of course, we have a much better method nowadays (science), but back in the day, religion was our attempt to understand and interact with a rather mysterious world.
-
Re: the utility of religion in human survival, I agree. We're so incredibly tribal, and we naturally only can fit about 300-500 people, max into our "I know you personally and you're one of us" tribe. Religion allowed us to expand our definition of "one of us" to thousands and thousands of people. It's no coincident that more sophisticated (and inclusive) religions thrived right around the time that cities started forming.
Sounds like you've also read the excellent book "Sapiens".
-
Re: the utility of religion in human survival, I agree. We're so incredibly tribal, and we naturally only can fit about 300-500 people, max into our "I know you personally and you're one of us" tribe. Religion allowed us to expand our definition of "one of us" to thousands and thousands of people. It's no coincident that more sophisticated (and inclusive) religions thrived right around the time that cities started forming.
Sounds like you've also read the excellent book "Sapiens".
Indeed I have. Great book. I also would reference a few other things that've influenced my thinking in this area, specifically a few "Great Courses": Religions of the Axial Age; Big History (The Big Bang, Life on Earth, the Rise of Humanity); Exploring the Roots of Religion and Biological Anthropology (An Evolutionary Perspective). All of them are well worth checking out. Nothing informs clarity of thought better than perspective. And these give great perspective on the origin and history of religion from a non-theistic viewpoint.
-
Hard to believe that it is 2019 and that vast majority of our elected officials still have to (at least pretend to) believe in gods.
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca (ca. 4 BC –AD 65)
Some things just don't change.
-
Hard to believe that it is 2019 and that vast majority of our elected officials still have to (at least pretend to) believe in gods.
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca (ca. 4 BC –AD 65)
Some things just don't change.
Oh man, this whole thread was worth reading, just for this one quote. That is AWESOME. Thank you!
-
Hard to believe that it is 2019 and that vast majority of our elected officials still have to (at least pretend to) believe in gods.
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca (ca. 4 BC –AD 65)
Some things just don't change.
Oh man, this whole thread was worth reading, just for this one quote. That is AWESOME. Thank you!
It explains a lot.
-
Hard to believe that it is 2019 and that vast majority of our elected officials still have to (at least pretend to) believe in gods.
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca (ca. 4 BC –AD 65)
Some things just don't change.
True. Good point.
-
I'm agnostic and find your list of questions condescending. I get that's your point, you find the whole thing silly and beneath you, but you could have actual conversations with religious people instead. Be genuinely interested in what drew them to this church or that temple, how it enhances their lives, and yes, what drawbacks they might see with the church structure or discrimination or whatever. Or even whether they have doubts. You'll never get to that point if you start with "YOU REALIZE YOU'RE AN IDIOT RIGHT???"
Thank you for writing this.
More people trying to understand other people honestly could only lead to a better world. The intellectual higher ground appears self-sabotaging, if you need it you've probably already lost it.
I would put Evangelical Atheists near the top of my annoyance list.
-
I'm agnostic and find your list of questions condescending. I get that's your point, you find the whole thing silly and beneath you, but you could have actual conversations with religious people instead. Be genuinely interested in what drew them to this church or that temple, how it enhances their lives, and yes, what drawbacks they might see with the church structure or discrimination or whatever. Or even whether they have doubts. You'll never get to that point if you start with "YOU REALIZE YOU'RE AN IDIOT RIGHT???"
Thank you for writing this.
More people trying to understand other people honestly could only lead to a better world. The intellectual higher ground appears self-sabotaging, if you need it you've probably already lost it.
I would put Evangelical Atheists near the top of my annoyance list.
Well, I think we all agree that it's possible to genuinely try to understand other people honestly while at the same time disagreeing with their beliefs.
And I don't think Nick would disagree with that. But the whole point of his original post was that the list of questions were things he couldn't say to his religious friend. I assume he couldn't say them out of the obvious conclusion that they would be offended by them (as MonkeyJenga rightfully pointed out, they are condescending).
I took this whole thread as a vent of things he'd love to say, but won't say out of patience, respect and civility.
I see nothing wrong with that. We've all had moments like that, whether it be about politics, religion, or something else entirely.
I fully expect that most of my religious friends have moments where they probably wish they could just ask me "How can you be so blind?? How can all this come from nothing? Just look at the trees!!"
I guess my point is, of course the original post is condescending... that is the entire reason it was posted as something that cannot be shared outside of certain circles (which is why the title says "atheists only").
Everyone vents every now and again. It doesn't mean we don't respect other people or that we are not genuinely interested in understanding each other.
I love my family, but it shouldn't come as a shock that I've probably said some hyperbolic (and even mean) things about them to my spouse every now and again.
I would never say those things to them because I love them and respect them. But yes, there are times that I vent about things that frustrate me. And there are other times that I am more patient and caring.
I assume we all go back and forth between our own extremes, depending on the day.
That said - seeking genuine understanding as to how we each came to our views does not in any way require that differing views be seen as equal.
I'm genuinely curious as to how 'flat-earthers' came to their belief, but I'm not about to view their position as equal to those who accept that we live on a spheroidal planet.
-
I'm agnostic and find your list of questions condescending. I get that's your point, you find the whole thing silly and beneath you, but you could have actual conversations with religious people instead. Be genuinely interested in what drew them to this church or that temple, how it enhances their lives, and yes, what drawbacks they might see with the church structure or discrimination or whatever. Or even whether they have doubts. You'll never get to that point if you start with "YOU REALIZE YOU'RE AN IDIOT RIGHT???"
Thank you for writing this.
More people trying to understand other people honestly could only lead to a better world. The intellectual higher ground appears self-sabotaging, if you need it you've probably already lost it.
I would put Evangelical Atheists near the top of my annoyance list.
I was raised as a Christian, trust me I have a FAR better understanding of a Christian's beliefs than they do of mine. Maybe the Christians could bend over backwards to understand my viewpoint instead of vice versa (which is what you people saying "respect others viewpoints" mean).
-
I'm agnostic and find your list of questions condescending. I get that's your point, you find the whole thing silly and beneath you, but you could have actual conversations with religious people instead. Be genuinely interested in what drew them to this church or that temple, how it enhances their lives, and yes, what drawbacks they might see with the church structure or discrimination or whatever. Or even whether they have doubts. You'll never get to that point if you start with "YOU REALIZE YOU'RE AN IDIOT RIGHT???"
Thank you for writing this.
More people trying to understand other people honestly could only lead to a better world. The intellectual higher ground appears self-sabotaging, if you need it you've probably already lost it.
I would put Evangelical Atheists near the top of my annoyance list.
I was raised as a Christian, trust me I have a FAR better understanding of a Christian's beliefs than they do of mine. Maybe the Christians could bend over backwards to understand my viewpoint instead of vice versa (which is what you people saying "respect others viewpoints" mean).
I'm sorry that this came off as a personal attack, it was not meant as such. I was raised Catholic and am now agnostic so was not hoping to take a side other than the acceptance and mutual respect I believe we all owe each other.
I don't think either side should be forcing their views on each other.
-
Thank you for writing this.
More people trying to understand other people honestly could only lead to a better world. The intellectual higher ground appears self-sabotaging, if you need it you've probably already lost it.
I would put Evangelical Atheists near the top of my annoyance list.
Well, I think we all agree that it's possible to genuinely try to understand other people honestly while at the same time disagreeing with their beliefs.
And I don't think Nick would disagree with that. But the whole point of his original post was that the list of questions were things he couldn't say to his religious friend. I assume he couldn't say them out of the obvious conclusion that they would be offended by them (as MonkeyJenga rightfully pointed out, they are condescending).
I took this whole thread as a vent of things he'd love to say, but won't say out of patience, respect and civility.
I see nothing wrong with that. We've all had moments like that, whether it be about politics, religion, or something else entirely.
I fully expect that most of my religious friends have moments where they probably wish they could just ask me "How can you be so blind?? How can all this come from nothing? Just look at the trees!!"
I guess my point is, of course the original post is condescending... that is the entire reason it was posted as something that cannot be shared outside of certain circles (which is why the title says "atheists only").
Everyone vents every now and again. It doesn't mean we don't respect other people or that we are not genuinely interested in understanding each other.
I love my family, but it shouldn't come as a shock that I've probably said some hyperbolic (and even mean) things about them to my spouse every now and again.
I would never say those things to them because I love them and respect them. But yes, there are times that I vent about things that frustrate me. And there are other times that I am more patient and caring.
I assume we all go back and forth between our own extremes, depending on the day.
That said - seeking genuine understanding as to how we each came to our views does not in any way require that differing views be seen as equal.
I'm genuinely curious as to how 'flat-earthers' came to their belief, but I'm not about to view their position as equal to those who accept that we live on a spheroidal planet.
Well put, I agree.
-
I'm agnostic and find your list of questions condescending. I get that's your point, you find the whole thing silly and beneath you, but you could have actual conversations with religious people instead. Be genuinely interested in what drew them to this church or that temple, how it enhances their lives, and yes, what drawbacks they might see with the church structure or discrimination or whatever. Or even whether they have doubts. You'll never get to that point if you start with "YOU REALIZE YOU'RE AN IDIOT RIGHT???"
Thank you for writing this.
More people trying to understand other people honestly could only lead to a better world. The intellectual higher ground appears self-sabotaging, if you need it you've probably already lost it.
I would put Evangelical Atheists near the top of my annoyance list.
I was raised as a Christian, trust me I have a FAR better understanding of a Christian's beliefs than they do of mine. Maybe the Christians could bend over backwards to understand my viewpoint instead of vice versa (which is what you people saying "respect others viewpoints" mean).
I'm sorry that this came off as a personal attack, it was not meant as such. I was raised Catholic and am now agnostic so was not hoping to take a side other than the acceptance and mutual respect I believe we all owe each other.
I don't think either side should be forcing their views on each other.
This exchange brings up an interesting point (to me anyhow).
One thing that makes these discussions so difficult is that, at least in the United States, when we're talking about believers and non-believers the default situation generally winds up being Christian and Atheist (or Agnostic, as many use the term). And the vast majority of atheists (that I have run across at least) are ex-Christians of some variety. This makes open and inquisitive discussion very difficult, because there is usually some amount of imbalance in the dynamic, because you have one person who (usually) has held a belief for the majority of their life and another who once held that same (or similar) belief and abandoned it for whatever reason.
In many ways I have an easier time discussing politics with friends of mine who hold diametrically opposing viewpoints to my own. Due to the fact that I never agreed with their beliefs previously I don't have a frame of reference for them, I don't understand them, and I don't hold any emotional personal bias against them. I may think they're wrong (and strongly so) but it's not quite the same.
I'm not sure if I'm making any sense... but I think tyort1 said it quite well above with, "I have a FAR better understanding of a Christian's beliefs than they do of mine." Regardless of whether or not that is actually true, the sentiment feels true to many atheists that I know (myself included). I know what it meant for me to be a Catholic, but most Catholics I know have no idea what it truly feels like to be an atheist (meaning how we see the world, experience it, etc).
Anyhow... I'm rambling.