Disbelief in God or Sick of religion?
Offline Hi!
I cannot help but sympathise with the apparent majority of the atheists who post on these forums. The main "gripe", if you will forgive the term, seems to be against the concoctions and fabrications that are the pantheon of religions in the world today. Even as a theist, I find the same quite appalling and difficult to stomach. However, I'm not finding it easy to discern in the posts I read the distinction between a disbelief in God and this anathema for organised belief.
For me, we're talking about two completely distinct matters here. And yet, this is something that even the smartest of us have difficulty keeping apart. For example, Richard Dawkins, in his bestseller The God Delusion dedicated an alarmingly small percentage of his thought on the issue of the actual existence of God. The overwhelming majority of his focus in on trying to tear down religion, firstly in its fundamentalist form and then in its more moderate forms. He seems to be one very angry chappie, poor bloke. I need not dwell on the overall weakness of his reasoning for the non-existence of God (which has been addressed by many more qualified than I). My point is that pretty much from the get-go, he allows himself to get sidetracked into railing against organised belief systems.
I'm getting the impression that the same is true on this site. So, if I could ask the atheisst to put aside their disdain for theism (or at least its abusive manifestations), I would like to know exactly how they have come the notion that there is no God. I anticipate the most common response would be the perceived lack of evidence, but I would think that the evidence (or lack thereof) has been measured according to what the doctors of religion say, or at least how they have been understood. For example, espousing the ludicrous idea that there were no rainbows before the Flood. Such thinking has been tainted by religion, so the line gets blurred. Are there reasons which remain pure and unsullied from disdain for religious thinking?
I personally feel that Dawkin's reasons fall appallingly short, despite his air of fait accompli. I would like to think that you guys could be more critical and insightful in your thinking. 
Without phenomenology to back it up, the theistic position has only religion to carry it from one generation to the next. So you'd basically be shooting yourself in the foot, or at the least biting the hand that fed you the god-biscuit in the first place. But yeah, there's no phenomenology to back it up, so it persists as bad folk tales, apologetic word-play, and arguments from ignorance.
Oh, and stop trying to suck up. It's ugly.
I was an atheist long before I found reason to have a problem with organised religion. I really do need evidence before I'll put any stock in any idea - my father used to say I was "result oriented".
So, tell you what, present some evidence for god and we'll evaluate it.
We are afraid of the known and afraid of the unknown. That is our daily life and in that there is no hope, and therefore every form of philosophy, every form of theological concept, is merely an escape from the actual reality of what is. All outward forms of change brought about by wars, revolutions, reformations, laws and ideologies have failed completely to change the basic nature of man and therefore of society. - Thomas Jefferson
Be cool, man! Not everyone has an axe to grind.
But you do. Perhaps not having one is another delusion you entertain, but it's not very compelling to me. Look at yourself, trying to challenge atheism in the most cowardly, passive-aggressive way.
The way I see it, I'm both.
Being sick of organized religion got me to read my Bible. Reading my Bible got me to see that Yahweh is just as much of a myth as Zeus.
Is there a "god"? Who knows? Is Yahweh it? I don't think so.
I hope you can get to the point where you read your Bible as thoroughly, DadaMungo.
The journey is often worth more than the destination.
No, seriously, say what you think, its ok, we get it all the time... we like it rough
What is it YOU want? "The usual — hundreds of grandchildren, utter domination of the Known Worlds, and the pleasure of hearing that all my enemies have died in terrible, highly improbable accidents that cannot be connected to me."
If religions and believers kept their beliefs to themselves and out of the lives of others we have no problem. Unfortunately theists want to legislate morals and laws based on their mythical gods.
I was originally a fundie Lutheran with a Lutheran school teacher parent. As such I participated in everything and went to parochial schools. When I was 18 I married a Catholic and converted. In so doing I studied Christianity and even went to a Jesuit grad school. Over time this knowledge helped me to see the problems with Christianity especially and led me to further study. In my case it was the multiple choice accounts in the Gospels and the so obvious errors in Genesis that pushed me over. In my view, in order for Christian belief to have basis and subsequent concepts such as Islam, Judaism and Yahweh must be proved first. The problem I have is it seems Yahweh is really a volcano god that has been modified through the years. Research into the ancient Jews indicate many problems with the Hebrew Bible and history of other lands. The more I studied the more I learned how the Jewish stories were just that stories.
I have no clue if there is an entity that is a god, but I'm sure what I was taught isn't true. The Universe is explained sufficiently without the addition of another layer called God did it, so why add it.
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
The way traditional theists portray god, is to imply a beginning of some sort and a wise conscious designer, which I find completely preposterous .... then it gets harmful.
Perhaps I can help.
I have no real disdain for organised Religion. I live in a country (Denmark) where the problems that fundamentalism presents are "outside". I see crazy superstitions, and I don't like them, but they are always on TV, or on the internet. I have never been personally inconvenienced by religious believers, and when all's said and done, I really can't get truly riled by it, on a personal, emotional level.
So how did I arive at the notion that there is no God?
I didn't. I have never been told that he is real (nor have I been told that he is not), because in Denmark, it is a non-issue. The people that have helped shape my beliefs as I have grown up, have never adressed the issue of God with me.
So I didn't arive at anything. Which is why I don't believe in God. Because I have not moved anywhere on that issue since infancy. Does that answer your question?
And P.S: I would like to point out that I think the OP sounds passive aggresive too. I don't object to this, but at least admit that you know you aren't completely impartial. You are coming across as pasive aggresive, and you will have to present a very compelling case to me to convince me that you really didn't know that's what you were doing.
I can be both arrogant, condesending and agitated at times, but I don't try to pretend I'm not when I am.
My P.S here for example is slightly patronizing, I will readily admit. But I think it is called for, so I stand by it.
Stand by your slightly passive aggresive attitude, and you'll gain more respect from me, and if you persist in pretending you are completely impartial, you will loose my respect.
I'm pleased to get a variety of answers on the subject, and they all seem reasonable enough to me, not that my opinion on the topic really matters. But thanks for taking the time to respond!
As for the PA line, I assume you're referring to my empathising/disarming overtones. Well, you might be right (time for some introspection), but I can say that I've not misrepresented myself here. As I've said in other posts, not all theists are out to get you or rejoicing that you will all burn in hell. It does offend me that some are ostracised or even persecuted for their views, even if those views are in complete contrast to my own. Furthermore, there is much in organised religion that I find either offensive, ludicrous or just downright embarassing. For me, this only makes it harder for the real gems to be found and appreciated for what they are. However, neither am I on a crusade against the infidel here. My purpose for coming to this site is gain another perspective on life, the universe and everything, with the intent of purging the inane from my own.
I can freely admit that I abhor confrontation and seek to avoid it. Part of that works at an emotional level (which is where the PA might be playing a part) but also at a philosophical level: I can't see it being warranted under normal circumstances. My personal feeling is that the "honest" approach espoused on this site is really a euphemism for a "sod you, mate!" attitude, which I find entirely unconstructive, and somewhat immature. If the purpose of this site really is to enlighten the misguided, then it will not serve to ridicule, belittle or disparage to any degree. This is indeed shooting yourselves in the foot. Choose to ignore those who come looking for a fight, and rather focus on the earnest seeker of understanding and lead him along gently. But, if this is just a mosh-pit for contrasting ideas, then come clean about it and have done.
As for impartiality, no doubt in the context of these discussions it is impossible to be totally impartial, but I have attempted to leave all bias at the door, at least in terms of phrasing my questions and statements. I have refrained from "taking the bait" when goaded by more inflammatory statements. Of course, I assimilate the feedback into my own views, or rather against them.
You assume here that the only reasonable conclusion to arrive at from reading the Bible is that it is a load of hogwash. This leads to the patronising attitude you manifest here.
Should the Bible be taken at face value? Certainly not. So, is it completely without merit? Again, certainly not. I don't want to get into a discussion about this here and now, but my observation of criticisms of Judaism/Christianity are generally straw-men arguments or based upon false premises, or at the least missing the point.
Personally, I find the Bible to be extremely enlightening on levels which I think are missed or at least not appreciated by the skeptic. Naturally, I have read the Bible thoroughly, and I don't really have any serious issues with it. Quite the contrary. To me, it is a profound book.
DadaMungo, have you gotten a chance to peruse the Biblical Errancy forum?
"Preachers and prostitutes earn their money on bended knee using mouth and hands. I much prefer the company of the latter." - Me
I dont think any human, not even atheists should ever fool themselves into thinking their wants of what a utopia would look like, can be a reality.
Even if either Christians get what they want, there would still be problems. Even if atheists get what they want, there would still be problems.
Our gripe is not that humans are different, we always will be. Our gripe is that logic and reason and science always seems to fly out the window and gets replaced with personal superstition BY ANY LABEL. It wouldn't be any skin of my nose if my neighbor, or the guy I never met in Iran, would keep their pet whims out of government politics, but they wont.
And as long as theists and facsists insist on having power watchdogs must exist to keep them in there place. Without question humanity can never improve.
And when I say theists, I mean any religion. When I say facsist I mean any concept of government ruled by the superstious worship of the state(being the god) or the theocractic idea that a deity should rule a government.
With freedom comes personal responsibility, including the most important that if one wants to have the autonomy of the mind, then all must have the common intrest of understanding that we are all individuals. Theocracies and facsism happen when the government becomes the extention of projecting personal wishes on all other individuals.
Deities do not follow a "method" because imagination is a whim, not a method.
Where's the profound material again?
The stuff in the Bible that is useful (not murdering, not stealing, etc.) was taken from the laws of civilizations that were old when the Hebrews were young.
The rest of it is myth that was stolen from those civilizations and ones that came after (depending on whether you focus on the OT or the NT).
Asimov said, "Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." I hope you can do that someday. Read the thing without looking at it as the holy, divinely inspired Word of God (if you can) and see what happens.
The journey is often worth more than the destination.
Juxtipose any holy writing of any polythiestic religion or monotheistic religion next to a Marvel Comic and it should, if one is being objective, be clear that the only difference between the two is one is baught as fact when both are fiction.
Star Wars has issues of morality in it yet we don't believe in "The Force". Harry Potter as well conveys issues of morality, yet we rightfully dont believe that a boy can litteraly fly around on a broomstick.
What scares me is that even the brightest minds can fall for such tripe and turn around and try to retrofit lagit science and turn it into junk simply to protect their own ego.
Deities do not follow a "method" because imagination is a whim, not a method.
I fall into the both camp. If one cannot define god then one cannot know god. So going one step further if the bible does not answer the question of what god is how can anyone say that the bible is god's word? Organized religion has always been a threat to the individual freedoms we have and not the solution. If religion was the solution then the Constitution would not be a secular document as it clearly is.
As atheists, most here simply do not believe that a god exists as opposed to believing or knowing one does. I guess there was a time when I was a believer, but I, like Karl Rove said, was not born with the virtue of faith. The burden of proof if there is a god must be born on the believer and not the skeptic. The reasons I deny the popular concept of what god is or might be cannot be boiled down into sound bites. I guess you could say that I find the OT absolutely ridiculous, not that the NT is any better mind you. Whatever positive revelation comes from the NT is cancelled out by the reaffirmation of the OT. Basically, the OT is bull.... and the NT just reaffirms what I believe. Wow I guess you could make that a soundbite after all.
I appreciate the open mindedness that you show when you deny the literal interpretation of the bible. Most Americans do not share this point of view so it is refreshing. Unfortunately the ones that do buy into the literal view of the bible are the most vocal and are enabled by reasonable moderates.
The motive of The God Delusion was not to question the existence of god from my reading, but to question what one believes about god. It continues to amaze me that most believers that are not affiliated with a particuliar denomination understand the bible more than those that belong to organized religion.
"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS
Just for the record...
The purpose of "The God Delusion" was to argue that:
"...no matter how pernicious it is; the cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas." ~ Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
http://www.youtube.com/user/VETSAGAINSTMCCAIN
http://therealmccain.com/
Keep religion out of schools and politics/legislation, plain and simple. That's my main gripe with religion.
'Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.'
The profound stuff doesn't just fall into your lap. You have to hunt for it, because it is hidden (as is implied by the above parable). I have found some real gems, and you're simply going to have to take my word on that. I'd love to talk about them, but it would be a case of 'casting your pearls before swine', if you pardon the expression - no offense intended. I'm sure you'll not find that at all satisfying, but you know my assessment is right.
One freebie, though, which you might enjoy: Gen 1:20-21 'And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly'
Note what's being said here: the waters bring forth life, leading to (implicit) life forms which fly. One might reasonably imply (based upon the physics involved) that a transition phase of moving on land comes between the water and the skies. That seems to match very snugly with what evolution states happened. It's right there in the Bible! The real problem is that in so many case "we" arrive at assumed interpretations, based upon our limited understanding at the time, of what was meant and the fight hammer and nail to stick to those assumptions even when fact is demonstrated to be contrary. The source is and has been quite compatible with what is now taken as fact.
The real issues with the Bible stem primarily from misinterpretation. For example the Flood. Tradition has it that the whole planet was flooded at the same time, but that's an interpretation. If the origin of the account came from Noah, what would he have recounted? From the deck of his ship he would have seen nothing but water. From his perspective (and this is vitally important), the whole Earth was flooded. And did he really have two of every kind of animal berthed away? I doubt it. Rather, he would likely have had just enough to get started again when the waters receded. There is evidence, both archaeological and historical, of such a local event occurring. So the skeptics and critics are chasing windmills on this and many other issues. Sadly, their opponents are generally just as blinded in believing the same Quixotic delusion.
I wish to state that the above are just tidbits, and not really worth getting all het-up about. The real value of the scriptures is in helping the individual understand who he/she is and how to become more full, even complete. This message is hidden, as I stated earlier. The real value is not in the literal understanding, though there is much to enjoy on the journey to real discovery.
'He that hath ears to hear, let him hear'
PS. Some might want to throw up the "God of the gaps" banner, but this can only really be applied to interpreted religion. Yes, "we" were wrong. And we'll be wrong again. But this isn't a phenomenon restricted to religion. It's happened/ing in science just as much, as theories are shown to be false or only poor approximations, and better, more precise theories take their place, based on clearer understanding.
On the first one, I agree with you. But as we're talking about moral values and ethics, how can the latter be truly achieved? Everyone has a worldview, drawn from various sources, which encompasses issues of what is right and what is not right, what is good for the community and not so. Whose worldviews are valid?
I think keeping religion out of schools is easily done (if the will can be found), and correct. But politics and legislation? Don't these systems work by allowing people the liberty of choosing according to their 'pursuit of happiness', even if their ideals are "sold" by religious organisations?
Can you give examples of how you feel religionists are meddling with politics and/or legislation? I ask, because I don't follow US politics, and am ignorant of any such tender issues.
This parable is actually badly written and promotes an activity you may not at first consider. It suggests deception is a good thing as no mention is made that the owner of the land is informed he has a treasure on his property. It may be the person discovers gold nuggets on the property as he is walking through the field. He knows the land is worth far more than for farming. I know that was not the intent of the parable but never the less it is a hidden meaning that is there. If I were you I wouldn't use this example.
Perhaps your judgment is skewed by your enthusiasm as you have just demonstrated. You are not considering all aspects of what you promote.
That there are flood stories that date to the time of the Sumerians predating Noah by a thousand years or more has been shown. That it was likely to have been a large hurricane that went up the Persian Gulf is also likely. See the myths of the Sumerians and the Gilgamesh story. The descriptions match the effects of such a tropical disaster.
The real value of the scriptures is it gives a glimpse of a belief system of an ancient people it however has many issues you choose to ignore. One can say the Star Wars films and the Matrix films also have hidden meanings that can help one understand and become more full and complete. This is true of many fictional accounts throughout the history of man.
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Only to interpreted religion? Well, that's pretty much all of them.
Besides, how else besides interpretation can you determine whether a passage of scripture or another book is profound?
It sure makes the argument easier when you guys pwn yourselves.
The journey is often worth more than the destination.
I'm sure you have found some profound material as you can find something profound from just about anything written. Given the time involved in looking for usable material and the amount of material you can get back, the bible is not a very good sourc. If you're looking for something written that's going to make you think, how about Plato or Tolstoy? Even popular writers LeGuin, Lessing, or Palahniuk are better than the bible in terms of making you think about the nature of life and getting you somewhere if you try to think about the story. The cost/benefit analysis doesn't work out too well for the bible.
"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible got stoned.
Yes, anyone who thinks for more than a little while will come to wonder about what is also not said in this parable. At least I have. I had not missed the point you make, and I have wondered at it. To be honest, I was only borrowing the parable to make a point about the Bible. This parable is talking about life itself, and not the Bible. There is a sense of irony here, as what the field actually represents here is one's own life, which is to be gained. I would think that the implication here is that the field belongs to no-one in particular. We are not told why the man is in the field, nor why he is digging. However, I have my opinions based upon other passages.
Possibly. But, I never claimed to have seen to the heart of all matters. But the finding of one pearl does fuel my desire to find more. I choose to keep my mind open. Have you thought that the same could be said of you and your skepticism? How does that cloud your judgment? Will you deny it has an effect?
Well, yes. Jesus' parables are fiction, but He used them to teach people about themselves and their relationship to God. Truth and understanding only exist within our minds. Books, films, whatever are simply keys to unlock that truth to ourselves and lead us to greater awakening and fulfillment.
If you will step out of your "them and us" mentality for a moment you will see that I was making a point about humanity in general. That is the way we work. We express our experience in terms of o