The New Atheists

[Good Old Neon]

I have no tolerance for intolerant people. The extremists on each side think people who disagree with their world view are wrong/stupid/evil/ignorant/etc. I'd rather talk to a fucking tree than be lectured to by someone who thinks they know all the answers.

 

Same here, but I’d be willing to wager that when asked questions related to, say, why are we here, Dawkins utters the phrase “I don’t know” many times more often than most devoutly religious folks, and that, I think, is a true sign of humility, rather than someone who pleads humility, but will then go on to claim they know for sure that there is a god, and not only that, they know what he or she, but usually a he, of course, thinks.

 

That, to me, is arrogance.

[Guest Speed Racer]

In most of my limited experience with devout people, they will say we are here to carry out god's will. Few will actually say what that will is, which they think is the application of humility, but many will say something is against god's will - a claim they will reinforce by quoting from ancient, sacred text.

 

I grew up, and was pretty active, in a small Presbyterian church. Pretty close-knit all around, but as I grew up there was a bit more infighting as the church population turned over a bit. Everyone I know there, from the most conservative to the most liberal, were extremely wonderful, gracious, mostly humble people. The assholes didn't need religion to make them that way, because god already had.

[Good Old Neon]

In most of my limited experience with devout people, they will say we are here to carry out god's will. Few will actually say what that will is, which they think is the application of humility, but many will say something is against god's will - a claim they will reinforce by quoting from ancient, sacred text.

 

But then how can anyone claim to know god’s will? Claiming to live by his will, in and of itself is claiming to know the mind of god, otherwise, why assume he even has a will – that alone seems presumptuous.

 

The assholes didn't need religion to make them that way, because god already had.

 

This is just awesome.

[Guest Speed Racer]

But then how can anyone claim to know god’s will? Claiming to live by his will, in and of itself is claiming to know the mind of god, otherwise, why assume he even

 

A paradox, to be sure, but assuming that the god is benevolent and mostly passive, then by acting that way you can ensure a close approximation.

 

That is, by not inserting your own will into a given situation, you are therefore ceding to the will of a greater authority - presumably a good authority. Consider Goofus and Gallant, and the tale of the last orange:

 

Goofus eats the last orange (inserting his will), and does not buy more oranges or let his parents know they're out of oranges (inserting his will by means of laziness).

 

Gallant saves the last orange for Cindy, who's seven and can't cross the street to get more, though he really wants an orange (ceding his will to the greater good). Gallant promptly buys more oranges without being asked (once more ceding his will, as surely the 9 year-old Gallant could find a better way to spend his free time).

 

This, of course, isn't what most people mean when they discuss God's Will (capital G/W), but I think it's possible to live according to the will of your moral authority without having it spelled out for you, and still be humble.

 

Someone who kills in the name of God's Will is of course blatantly inserting himself into a situation where he makes a concious decision that he is directly involved in God's plans. Likewise with someone who bombs an abortion clinic or even spits on a homosexual. There's a huge difference between those acts and spending time at a food shelf.

[Good Old Neon]

A paradox, to be sure, but assuming that the god is benevolent and mostly passive, then by acting that way you can ensure a close approximation.

 

That is, by not inserting your own will into a given situation, you are therefore ceding to the will of a greater authority - presumably a good authority. Consider Goofus and Gallant, and the tale of the last orange:

 

Goofus eats the last orange (inserting his will), and does not buy more oranges or let his parents know they're out of oranges (inserting his will by means of laziness).

 

Gallant saves the last orange for Cindy, who's seven and can't cross the street to get more, though he really wants an orange (ceding his will to the greater good). Gallant promptly buys more oranges without being asked (once more ceding his will, as surely the 9 year-old Gallant could find a better way to spend his free time).

 

This, of course, isn't what most people mean when they discuss God's Will (capital G/W), but I think it's possible to live according to the will of your moral authority without having it spelled out for you, and still be humble.

 

Someone who kills in the name of God's Will is of course blatantly inserting himself into a situation where he makes a concious decision that he is directly involved in God's plans. Likewise with someone who bombs an abortion clinic or even spits on a homosexual. There's a huge difference between those acts and spending time at a food shelf.

 

But much of that sort of behavior, both good and bad, can be observed in chimps (sans all the driving around to pick up more oranges and stuff), and insofar as we know, they neither have, nor need a god to direct their behavior, because much like us, they are a product of evolution, reciprocal altruism, etc.

 

The bible contains a good deal of wonderful, heartwarming advice, but it also advocates and excuses some indescribably horrible actions, if both the very good and the very bad represent god's will, which will are we to follow? Based on the some of the horrible actions advocated and sanctioned in the bible, stoning adulterers, etc, I think it wouldn't be to far a stretch to assume, that, if written today, abortion and abortion providers would also fall under the it's ok to stone them to death category. Ironically, it is our hardwiring that prevents us from wantonly killing each other, in much the same way violence among pack animals is the exception, and not the norm.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Obviously, if the Bible were to be interpreted literally, we would not have so many factions, sects, denominations, individual opinions and, like, wars and stuff.

 

Rarely do moderate Christian denominations and churches even mention the fire and brimstone portions of the Bible, but rather focus on the "love thy neighbor" business. Even in the face of conflict today, most churches do assess things in relation to the definition of "love" and "neighbor" - insofar as abortion providers and homosexuals are concerned, for instance. How are they our neighbors, and how do we love them best?

 

To dislike Christians, Muslims or Atheists simply because of the worst of the worst is kind of a funky outlook to have on life.

 

Most of the violent acts we see carried out in the name of religion are extremely small percentages of those practicing. As with most aspects of extremism, many of the people who claim to believe in these literal words never get any more active - and not least of all violent - than praying slightly above their indoor voice. Take Jesus Camp, for instance - even the adults never really get any worse than carrying a placard or two and asking people questions, though several of them confess to ascribing to more violent viewpoints.

[Good Old Neon]

Obviously, if the Bible were to be interpreted literally, we would not have so many factions, sects, denominations, individual opinions and, like, wars and stuff.

 

 

But until recently, the bible was interpreted literally. Christianity has evolved, in part, because much of what was once accepted as fact, the universe revolves around the earth, etc, was proven to be false. For most of our history, the bible, both the good and bad, was the absolute word of god, then, at some point, god must have got himself a really good PR person, cause he went from a crazy, petulant asshole, to the father of this really nice and mellow white California surfer dude – or, at least that’s how his role was rewritten, by man…again.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Again, I don't know that that's a good thing or a bad thing either way. People who wanted to be hateful power-mongers would have found a different way to develop a sphere of influence if they didn't adopt the Religious Right as their cause, no? And people who are likely to help an old lady across the street wouldn't stop after rejecting the shackles of Christianity or the Boy Scouts or whatever it is that they used, right? That is, without some other sphere of influence coming in and shaping their view. Right?

[M. (hristine]

Not sure if that's rhetorical or not, and I haven't read Dawkins..only heard him on the radio a few times. I've read Sam Harris, and in his first book The End Of Faith he seemed to have plenty of vitriol for all the major religions. (especially Christianity and Islam)

No, not rhetorical really.

 

Maybe the argument seems moot.

 

Atheists do not believe in a deity or power greater than themselves. Theists believe in a deity(ies) or power greater than themselves. The Buddha said the question itself is bogus.

 

All the rest; creationism, Biblical veracity, the Crusades, science, Communism, stem cell research, whether to save from a burning building a baby or a petri dish seething with embryos, the number of virgins that can fit atop the Twin Towers...none of it really has anything to do with spiritual pursuit. It's just humans being humans.

 

Pepe LePew might have painted over the stripe on his tail, but at the end of the day he was still a stinky ol' skunk.

[W(TF)]

I think the thread was originally about militant atheism. The other opinions being posted are all interesting, but this topic tends to go nowhere since we never all agree on black, white, or the shades of gray. (or whether it's all black and white with no shades.. lol)

 

Sam Harris does make an interesting case for 'zero tolerance' of all religious faith. The point being that mankind is on the precipice of world-ending conflict and that it'll be largely fueled by the ideologies of two supposedly opposing faiths. It's a very radical position, and I didn't think his thesis was fully fleshed out, it had some holes for sure. But he tried to make a compelling case for why we shouldn't 'enable' the extremists by pandering to the moderates and giving validity to the Book(s) they both read. Pretty much the opposite of what Lauren was saying.

 

The other problem being that a theory like that will never appeal to more than a handful of like-minded left wing intellectuals.

[Good Old Neon]

I posted this story in the “forces of evil” thread.

 

Church officials say that unless the city alters a proposed same-sex marriage law, the archdiocese will discontinue its social service programs.

 

It is the perfect distillation of what I find so offensive about religion. Hitchens had this to say in his book God is Not Great – it too perfectly sums up my attitude:

 

Religious faith is, precisely because we are still-evolving creatures, ineradicable. It will never die out, or at least not until we get over our fear of death, and of the dark, and of the unknown, and of each other. For this reason, I would not prohibit it even if I thought I could. Very generous of me, you may say. But will the religious grant me the same indulgence? I ask because there is a real and serious difference between me and my religious friends, and the real and serious friends are sufficiently honest to admit it. I would be quite content to go to their children's bar mitzvahs, to marvel at their Gothic cathedrals, to "respect" their belief that the Koran was dictated, though exclusively in Arabic, to an illiterate merchant, or to interest myself in Wicca and Hindu and Jain consolations. And as it happens, I will continue to do this without insisting on the polite reciprocal condition—which is that they in turn leave me alone. But this, religion is ultimately incapable of doing.

[ikol]

I posted this story in the “forces of evil” thread.

 

Church officials say that unless the city alters a proposed same-sex marriage law, the archdiocese will discontinue its social service programs.

 

It is the perfect distillation of what I find so offensive about religion. Hitchens had this to say in his book God is Not Great – it too perfectly sums up my attitude:

 

Religious faith is, precisely because we are still-evolving creatures, ineradicable. It will never die out, or at least not until we get over our fear of death, and of the dark, and of the unknown, and of each other. For this reason, I would not prohibit it even if I thought I could. Very generous of me, you may say. But will the religious grant me the same indulgence? I ask because there is a real and serious difference between me and my religious friends, and the real and serious friends are sufficiently honest to admit it. I would be quite content to go to their children's bar mitzvahs, to marvel at their Gothic cathedrals, to "respect" their belief that the Koran was dictated, though exclusively in Arabic, to an illiterate merchant, or to interest myself in Wicca and Hindu and Jain consolations. And as it happens, I will continue to do this without insisting on the polite reciprocal condition—which is that they in turn leave me alone. But this, religion is ultimately incapable of doing.

 

So basically, he wants his friends to leave him alone.

[Guest Speed Racer]

To say there would be no wars without religion is totally off the mark. We don't live in a world without religion, we will never live in a world without faith, and it's impossible to foresee what might have been if our world was different in such a fundamental way.

 

I love American Public Media's Speaking of Faith. As someone most certainly not religious anymore, I find it really enlightening. They definitely examine all faiths, including atheism, in a truly enjoyable way. I read their blog, SOF Observed, on a fairly regular basis, too.

[Good Old Neon]

To say there would be no wars without religion is totally off the mark.

 

I agree, to a point. However, the people who flew those planes into the Towers did not do so because they wanted access to our natural resources or because they were trying to acquire a particularly sweet piece of real estate, or for reasons having to do with treasure, they did so almost exclusively for reasons having to do with their religion. What they want, in essence, is a world in which we all conform to the strictest, most fundamental teachings of the Koran – that’s it. I can coexist peacefully with them, in spite of this, provided they refrain from killing people in the name of religion, however, they simply cannot afford me the same luxury.

 

And neither, where same sex marriage is concerned, can the Arch Diocese. They would allow homeless people dependent upon their charity to get sick and/or die, rather than “obey laws prohibiting discrimination against gays and lesbians.” I would hope Catholics would rise up and let their voices be heard, condemning the church, but in all likelihood, aside from a few protests, the majority will remain silent.

[W(TF)]

To say there would be no wars without religion is totally off the mark.We don't live in a world without religion, we will never live in aworld without faith, and it's impossible to foresee what might havebeen if our world was different in such a fundamental way.

 

I agree with that.

 

Obviously,if the Bible were to be interpreted literally, we would not have somany factions, sects, denominations, individual opinions and, like,wars and stuff.

 

But I have to disagree with your previous assertion. ^^ Have you read the Bible lately? Your Presbyterian church apparently sticks with the warm and fuzzy parts- which are all nice and good, and are in part a basis for our societal justice systems etc. However. The literal readings of sin, judgment and punishment in the Bible are bad enough in terms of ascribing feelings of personal guilt-- but the factionism and racism that was normalized by the scriptures all the way back to Genesis (Bible and Koran) are a major part of the ideological divides we face in the world today. This isn't just 'my opinion'...

[Guest Speed Racer]

I agree, to a point. However, the people who flew those planes into the Towers did not do so because they wanted access to our natural resources or because they were trying to acquire a particularly sweet piece of real estate, or for reasons having to do with treasure, they did so almost exclusively for reasons having to do with their religion.

 

Yes, we know that. What we don't know is how such clearly unhinged people would act out in a world without religion. Eradicating religion would not eradicate faith, nor would it eradicate nutcases. And we simply cannot imagine a world where religion and faith never existed.

 

The literal readings of sin, judgment and punishment in the Bible are bad enough in terms of ascribing feelings of personal guilt-- but the factionism and racism that was normalized by the scriptures all the way back to Genesis (Bible and Koran) are a major part of the ideological divides we face in the world today. This isn't just 'my opinion'...

 

No, I totally get that - never said that wasn't the case, I just said that with a single, unified reading of the text there would likely be a single, unified, hate mongering war machine. We would likely have a more unified band of Christians pitting themselves against the unclean, adulterers, shrimp and pig eaters, and Muslims, who were in turn pitting themselves against the unclean, etc...

[jakobnicholas]

Just a curious bystander here.

 

If it's true that Atheists don't believe in any God or a creator or a reason for our existence, I've always wondered what they think happens to people after death.

 

Do they simply not know and/or don't care?

Do they expect to it be total "lights out"...just nothingness?

Do they think there's a possibility of reincarnation?

If so, who's controlling that?

Are they open to the possibility that if they've led a good and caring life they might be given the chance to spend eternity somewhere?

If so, would they rather be able to exist in eternity in some sort of "heaven" and perhaps see dead friends and loved ones, or would they rather just die and that's it?

I know Atheists don't believe in Hell. But do Atheists ever wonder if they might spend eternity in a hell-ish place?

[MattZ]

Just a curious bystander here.

 

If it's true that Atheists don't believe in any God or a creator or a reason for our existence, I've always wondered what they think happens to people after death.

 

Do they simply not know and/or don't care?

Do they expect to it be total "lights out"...just nothingness?

Do they think there's a possibility of reincarnation?

If so, who's controlling that?

Are they open to the possibility that if they've led a good and caring life they might be given the chance to spend eternity somewhere?

If so, would they rather be able to exist in eternity in some sort of "heaven" and perhaps see dead friends and loved ones, or would they rather just die and that's it?

I know Atheists don't believe in Hell. But do Atheists ever wonder if they might spend eternity in a hell-ish place?

 

dust.

 

As for whether I wonder whether I might spend eternity in hell, sure I do. Reminds me of that bumper sticker I once saw that says "if you don't believe in God, you'd better be right." Then again, I am not Christian, so if they are right, I am going to hell anyway.

[Guest Speed Racer]

I don't really care, honestly. I don't believe in a religion-based notion of god or a creator, but rather that I'm a pretty minor actor in the global/universal scheme of things (something I find rather reassuring). When I die, I'll likely be dead; so long as that's true I don't really care about anything else.

 

I worry about people whose motivation for kindness stems from the hope of making deposits in the stock of their afterlife.

[Good Old Neon]

I think we return to the state we were prior to our births, nothingness. As Mark Twain said:

 

I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.

 

Would I prefer an afterlife, a cottony, harp serenaded place in which to spend eternity with loved ones, absofuckinglutely, but that’s just wishful thinking. While undergoing an emergency operation, I flat-lined for the better part of five or so minutes, although I did not achieve brain death, the point of no return, I was not treated to any sort of near death experience – no bright lights, no tunnels populated by long lost relatives, no George Burns, nothing.

 

I don’t fear death, well, at least not my own, but if it were to come sooner, rather than later, I would mourn lost time with friends and family, and all the wonderful experiences life affords.

[bjorn_skurj]

If Gandhi was sent to hell, I will go to hell too. Any entity who would torment the Great Soul is not an entity worth worship.

[jakobnicholas]

I think of toddlers that die, or kids in horrific murders, or parents of murdered kids, or people paralyzed for life, or people with mental problems, or the billions of kids born into poverty in 3rd world countries....

 

It's sad to me to think that these people have shitty existences, then just die. I imagine these people getting a chance to REALLY live after this life. I imagine it being a heavenly existence, but who knows....maybe they get to lead another life after this one. Obviously, I don't know for sure. This is just what I feel....and what I think many believers feel.

 

We all have our own soul and feelings and emotions. It's amazing and magical to me. I absolutely CANNOT and WILL NOT EVER believe that it's all just some happy accident. It's hard for me to believe that this existence is all there is.

[M. (hristine]

I agree, to a point. However, the people who flew those planes into the Towers did not do so because they wanted access to our natural resources or because they were trying to acquire a particularly sweet piece of real estate, or for reasons having to do with treasure, they did so almost exclusively for reasons having to do with their religion. What they want, in essence, is a world in which we all conform to the strictest, most fundamental teachings of the Koran – that’s it. I can coexist peacefully with them, in spite of this, provided they refrain from killing people in the name of religion, however, they simply cannot afford me the same luxury.

 

 

But this is absolutely false. Religion is the MASK that is worn to justify the action. Those planes were flown into the towers because of the United States' participation in the war in Afghanistan and the insertion of western culture into the middle east. To the mujahadin, WE are the aggressors.

 

How many masks can you place upon aggression? I can count at least a couple dozen. Until you see it as part of the nature of the monkey mind that every one of us has, there will be no end to it.

 

Argue the existence of God until you are blue in the face, but stop ascribing the ills of the world to Them, and begin to understand that it is in fact, Us.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Do you ever wonder if your desire that the people you describe have heavenly afterlives is simply your way of coping with such tragedy?

 

I don't think anything here is a "happy accident," rather our world has been created as it is and my making sense of anything won't change the shape or course of the world.

 

Why worry about whether this is all there is? Does it matter? A piano could drop on me tomorrow; I could be the victim of a heinous, random, violent act; I could be diagnosed with cancer; either way, I don't think I would do anything differently.

 

Would you? Would you live your life differently if you knew there was no afterlife? If you wouldn't live your life differently, then what difference does it make?

[bjorn_skurj]

But this is absolutely false. Religion is the MASK that is worn to justify the action. Those planes were flown into the towers because of the United States' participation in the war in Afghanistan and the insertion of western culture into the middle east. To the mujahadin, WE are the aggressors.

 

How many masks can you place upon aggression? I can count at least a couple dozen. Until you see it as part of the nature of the monkey mind that every one of us has, there will be no end to it.

 

Argue the existence of God until you are blue in the face, but stop ascribing the ills of the world to Them, and begin to understand that it is in fact, Us.

Yes. Religion doesn't cause the crazy, it is the conduit for the crazy. Any ideology will do.