Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Richard Bergqvist on September 20, 2012 at 12:19pm

Hi V!

I'm a new member here and haven't really read through too many threads on the forum so I don't know what kind of response posts usually get. I was, however, surprised that your fairly long and earnest post hadn't garnered any kind of reply whatsoever. However, I think you may have focused so much on being polite and not offending anyone that what you actually wish to learn is slightly unclear to me. What I will do, though, is to share my own view on atheism and why I lean in that direction.

I was born in Sweden, which (as you might know) is among the most secular and irreligious countries in the world. I wasn't raised atheist per se, but rather as a skeptic and to seek truth as best I could. I was never TOLD what IS true, and for this I am grateful. I am grateful because it has allowed me to surpass my parents in some respects. For example, I was brought up to believe that people are different, not because of the color of their skin, or their gender or religion, but because we are all individuals and, as such, wildly different. As a child, I never noticed any bigotry, sexism or racism in my parents, but as an adult - thanks to the tools they gave me - I can see that they are more so than I am. If I one day have children, I want to do the same for them - I don't want them to be LIKE me, I want them to be better! I want them to stand on my shoulders and reach farther, as I have done on the shoulders of my parents. I want them to EVOLVE.

The problem I have intellectually with religious upbringing is that I perceive that parents don't want their children to seek truth and be greater than they - they want their children to be LIKE THEMSELVES. Now I realize that I'm generalizing, but I hope you see my point. Conservatism, in my mind can be very damaging, at least when it is unreflected. And I believe that unreflected conservatism is what keeps civil rights movements, gender equality movements, environmental movements or, for that matter, gay rights movements, back. Improvement is based on reflection and a will to change. I believe that everything can always be improved. And I believe that religion is an obstacle to improvent - at least when a society has advanced to a certain point.

In a primitive society, with illiteracy and lack of education or civic institutions like hospitals, courts and whatnot, religion can be a powerful tool to control people and force dicks to not behave like dicks. However, when there are laws, and cops and courthouses and jails, Hell becomes obsolete as a punishment. And if you learn love and empathy and reverence for life here and now, Heaven becomes obsolete as reward.

In Sweden, most people are atheists - and those who are religious are mostly closeted - and to most of us, it's both shocking and frightening that religion is such a huge thing in politics in other western countries, especially the US. I am personally just as afraid that religious fundamentalists will get control of America's nuclear warheads - or even more so - as I am of Iran getting nuclear capabilities or jihadist groups getting their hands on old soviet nukes. I strongly believe that making faith private and personal is key to enabling a society that tolerates diversity and individuality. The other path is totalitarian rule and complete intolerance, which is what religious extremists seem to want. I see ONE of these paths as a potentially peaceful one.

On a personal level I simply don't see any function for god in my life, no hole to fill. If there is any "higher power" I'm sure it's nothing like any of our religions postulate, and I very much doubt it would care more or less about us than any other clusters of atoms in the universe. In my mind, religious explanations only make people stop asking questions, not show them the truth. Only science can provide us with the tools to figure out how stuff works. As for morality, I think Good can hold its own, without dropping an O.

I hope this rant has been at all helpful!

/R

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Martha Anderson on September 24, 2012 at 5:42pm

I'm Agnostic, so maybe that means I'm a little more chill, but I don't see any problem whatsoever with asking serious, interesting questions that matter. You're fine.

First thing reading your post made me wonder was, "Were the Atheists you met teenagers?" I recall in adolescence that being shocking was developmentally appropriate, just something people have to do to define themselves and establish independence from their caregivers. I remember a lot of Atheists I knew back then being like that for that reason, but I don't really think that describes the cohort of Atheists I know now (I'm 26). 

Some Anti-Theists I have run across kind of seem that way, but they are usually really ready to tell you about all the reasons that religion is harmful. (For some hopefully helpful definitions, please see this article: http://www.alternet.org/story/155685/no_religion_7_types_of_non-bel....)

I also think it's good to keep in mind that a lot of the Atheism-based lawsuits you see are essentially designed to prevent the further entrenchment of a social environment in which non-believers are second-class citizens. If you are not an Atheist, this can be difficult to understand, but how does that saying go? "No one has to explain institutional racism to a black man."

Pointless dogma, "higher cognitive power," and institutional structure are all good reasons to reject religion, and many atheists do so for various combinations of these reasons. One you left out seems to be more popular, though - that there's no evidence to believe in a deity, so they don't. You're not going to find a real consensus, though, because being a freethinker is about arriving at your own conclusions.

Non-believers usually think Campbell's four functions should be provided for by something else - often reason or science or benevolence toward other humans. Of course, there are also the type of anarchists who don't believe in a deity or any sort of social order. They seem to be rare, though.

Saying, "God is a sadistic monster," implies that god exists. People who say that they are Atheists because god is sadistic are not atheists. However, that argument can be used defensively to refute the supposition that Atheists are "rejecting God's love". I haven't really seen this as being too prevalent or important, though.

I guess it depends on how you define ritual, but I respectfully disagree with the idea that communities exist to share rituals. Communities principally exist for social contact and support, in my opinion. Maybe having discussions could be considered a ritual? Or humanitarian work (see "Atheism+")? I don't know. But in any case, feeling like you belong is a strong need that communities in general tend to fulfill, and the non-believer community tries not to be an exception. Sometimes. (I'm referring to the TAM sexual harassment controversy over the summer).

Hope this helps.

Welcome.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark Dawson on September 24, 2012 at 7:38pm

I started becoming an atheist at age 14 when they following happened:

1) A church youth group leader told us how alcohol was evil as were the people who drank it.  My father would have a glass of wine with dinner or an occasional beer.  he was never drunk and was a loving, caring person.  This was when I realised that people will lie to promote their faith.

2) I saw the film Man of La Mancha.  After a little research on the inquistion I realised that people will kill to promote their faith.

3) I said "I believe in God" to my (way smarter than me) brother who replied "Which God?" "The catholic god, the anglican god, the muslim god, etc?"  This is when I began to understand that they all cannot be right but they can all be wrong.

Ultimately it is the fundimental illogic in all religions that led to my atheism.  It boils down to a discussion I had with a friend a few years ago.  They said "There has to be something more to life" to which I replied "Why?" 

@Martha Anderson, re: agnosticism, I like what George Hrab says about agnosticism and atheism - they are answers to two different questions.  Atheism is about belief (theism) while agnosticism is about knowledge (gnosticism).  I am an atheist because I don't believe in gods and I am also agnostic as I do not know whether gods exist.  By definition a believer in gods is also agnostic because they too cannot "know" that gods exist.

There is also a further question to this which is should we worship god/s?  Even if someone could prove to me beyond any doubt that god/s exist, does this mean I should immediately worship them?  For example if the all powerful, all knowing christian god exists (just like we should not love or respect an abusive parent) why would I want to worship someone that allows thousands of people to be killed in earthquakes and tsunamis? 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Don S. on September 30, 2012 at 11:29am

Martha,

Being agnostic is an epistemological position. You can't know either way. Atheists can believe there is no God but accept that they cannot be certain.

-Don

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Martha Anderson on September 30, 2012 at 12:19pm

It can be an epistemological position. It's not necessarily one, though. I find the pigeonholing to be obnoxious and condescending - please don't tell me what I think and feel. At a very shallow level, I'm Agnostic in the way you're talking about. But at a deeper level, I emotionally believe in a fundamentally benevolent consciousness that pervades every subatomic particle in the universe. I just intellectually know that it makes no sense. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Goudeau on September 30, 2012 at 11:50am

You've been taught about god.  Without the suggestion of god you wouldn't have any knowledge or interest in it.  Atheism is what you're born with.  There is no more evidence for any god than there is for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  People wrote stories to entertain their friends.  Atheism is the real, basic, human setting.  Agnostic means you've been tainted with stories and are unwilling to accept that so many people have been so badly fooled.  Religious means you've bought into the fiction.  

Goudeau

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Martha Anderson on September 30, 2012 at 2:42pm

Seriously, why are so many people who are not Agnostic so focused on defining Agnosticism in a demeaning way? And then plugging their ears to what actual Agnostics have to say? Come. On.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Don S. on September 30, 2012 at 2:54pm

Goudeau,

Hitch, Dawkins and I think even Penn agree you cannot prove God does not exist. Consequently, in terms of knowledge as justified true belief, you cannot know there is no God. So, the default setting is agnostic.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Goudeau on September 30, 2012 at 4:06pm

Do you get to define the meaning or does the standard meaning apply?  The standard means, "I don't know if there is a god."  It's meaningless.  It is the same as, "I don't know if my toaster doesn't fly."  Do you really not know if your toaster flies?  It's not epistemologically useful to have no objective reality.  There is no evidence for god or your toaster flying.  I'm okay with, "My toaster doesn't fly." 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Don S. on September 30, 2012 at 4:37pm

Goudeau,

Knowledge in the way I am using it "is justified true belief." You cannot justify metaphysical claims, so you cant have knowledge of them. However, you can still have belief. You can test whether your toaster flies. You can justify that by  throwing the toaster. Knowledge is not the same as belief.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Russ Woodward on October 25, 2012 at 3:59pm

 

V.C.M your message is 90% posturing and 10% substance.

If you have to ask why "atheists" don’t believe and if we have rituals and etc. etc. than you really are not getting the point.  Ask yourself, what do you believe?  Work your way out of your quandary of apologetic questions from there.  If you decide that you want to pin your hopes and your progression through life on the hope of a deity than go to your favorite believer and get the skinny on how they reconcile it.

 If you have a strong suspicion that religion and/or belief in a single higher power is a construct of our very human creative imaginations, than proceed along that line of questioning.  It won’t matter to atheists or theists either way.  It’s your choice, search YOUR soul because it’s personal and how you decide is all about you.

There are some very good answers to your posts here by others.  I hope you get nearer a resolution. 

Russ~ 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jeff Rosenbury on November 2, 2012 at 4:03am

I'm coming at this from a Christian perspective.

I understand and largely agree with Campbell's functional view of religion. Yet I don't understand how a mere intellectual understanding of these functions can actually accomplish the functions in a real society. Understanding why "Thou shalt not steal" is good for society as a whole doesn't help much when I get an opportunity to steal from my boss and blame it on a co-worker. I could likely rationalize why both my boss and co-worker deserved their fate. Whereas true belief would lead to the conclusion that God said don't steal, so I wouldn't. The point is that intellectual understanding doesn't serve as a substitute for faith on a functional level.

As you implied, someone might choose atheism out of rebellion against the social order (supporting the establishment was one of the functions Campbell listed). Yet how could any sane person prefer lawlessness leading to a hunter gatherer existence to modern medicine? A rebel making a stand to make the world a better place would seem to be better served in switching religions (or even inventing a new one) than in rejecting religion. 

Nor does the fact that religion is functional imply God does not exist. Oxygen in the air is functional. Life evolved to need oxygen. The fact we need oxygen is and indication (if not a proof) that oxygen exists. Similarly the functionality of faith implies something about God (perhaps not His existence, but certainly not His non-existence).  

Most atheists approach their belief from a Christian perspective (at least in the U.S.). Most value life, love, and the golden rule. Most don't even question these core values. But historically there were many (most?) cultures where these ideas where rejected (or never heard of).

The Aztecs built a functioning society on hatred and fear. Leaders can and did pick people for ritual murder on whim. If the high priest wanted your young son for a sex act ending with cutting your son's heart out, he took your son. Fear ruled and Cortez's calls for parley and fair treatment were met with aggression or fear. This was not unique. Many other such cultures existed. Love is not universally valued. 

In America, we Christians share many fundamental values with atheists. This is what most of us mean by declaring the U.S. to be a Christian nation. 

Well now there's a new religion in town. It declares atheists can be hunted down in the streets and beaten to death. Perhaps this is a better value (though I disagree, Darwin might not). The question is, do atheists have a strong enough sense of self preservation to realize where their attacks on Christianity will lead? 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page