# A Question for Atheists



## Jenna (Aug 13, 2011)

Do you believe there is a place for _theism _at all anywhere or under any conditions?

Thank you, Jenna


----------



## fangjian (Aug 13, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Do you believe there is a place for _theism _at all anywhere or under any conditions?
> 
> Thank you, Jenna


Like do I think "theism' is useful? 

If that is similar to what you asking, yes, it can be 'useful', I suppose. Kind of like, there are some people who have had addiction issues and AA pushes Monotheism on them along with other strategies in stopping the drug use behavior. So in that respect, it was 'useful', I suppose. But Monotheism was unnecessary in stopping their behavior, really. 
Also, many religious people do great things for others which is tied to their theism and what they think pleases the gods. But I also understand that the Drug Cartels in Mexico do 'good things' for some ( community service, helping the poor ), but their existence is still detrimental to society as a whole. So while theism of course has some positive effects, I think in the long run it is negative as a whole. Did I understand your question?


----------



## billc (Aug 13, 2011)

Negative as a whole would of course also apply to atheism wouldn't it.   Just look where it leads and tremble.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 13, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Negative as a whole would of course also apply to atheism wouldn't it.   Just look where it leads and tremble.



What negative effects on the world have been motivated by a lack of belief in gods and goddesses?


----------



## billc (Aug 13, 2011)

Well, those who have believed that there is no god/godess/creator myth, have killed over 100 million of their fellow men trying to improve society in the present, since their is apparently no mythical kingdom in the after life.   Did they do it in the name of atheism, no.  But they did it as atheists.   The perfectability of man drove the killing of 1/3 of the population cambodia, the atheists in China and the cultural revolution killed as many as 75 million people.  The atheists in the soviet union killed over 25 million people.  Not to mention all  the little atheists around the world, castro and Che guevara and others.   The ethics of an atheist can lead to very deadly places.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 13, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Negative as a whole would of course also apply to atheism wouldn't it. Just look where it leads and tremble.




You know, you keep saying this, but you're omitting the fact that the events of which you are speaking were driven by cult of personality, where the state and the head of state take the pace of "God," and the ideology of that state took the place of religion.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 13, 2011)

If people have a need for there to be a Creator Deity to either make them behave well or for them to cope better with the world, then of course it has a place.  I have repeatedly said that I do not have any trouble with a persons religious beliefs, just long as they stay their beliefs and their 'church' is not one that feels that killing/persecuting the unbeliever is a legitimate way of carrying out the business of their vision of the divine.

An excellent example, here at MT, of how a person can hold fast to a religious faith and put that across in a way that all can understand is BillM.  I don't agree with him but the way he frames his view of faith and the world is one that makes a good deal of sense {and not just to him I mean :lol:} and I wouldn't criticise him just for holding that faith.  It's what people do that matters, along with why they do it sometimes.

As a force in the world, however, religion is a terrible thing when it attains organisation and power. For whilst a government is quite likely to think "That country over there has some shiny things we want, let us go with our army and take them", such a decision when backed by a church is all too likely to read: 

"Those people over there have a different creation myth to us; let us go and kill them, in the name of {A.N. Other Divine Being} until they believe otherwise".  That is what I have a major problem with and I am very happy that, other than a vocal minority, the West is leaving such things behind ... until the oil runs out at any rate :lol:.


----------



## billc (Aug 13, 2011)

> So while theism of course has some positive effects, I think in the long run it is negative as a whole.



You can't overlook the fact that atheism was the official belief of the states that murdered all of those people either.


----------



## billc (Aug 13, 2011)

Can everyone agree that as long as everyone resists the urge to persecute or kill other people, they can believe what they want?


----------



## fangjian (Aug 13, 2011)

billcihak said:


> You can't overlook the fact that atheism was the official belief of the state that murdered all of those people either.



Right. But what I'm interested in, is "what beliefs motivate behavior". In your examples, Atheism is not the motivator. But there are countless examples of negativity *motivated* by what they think the gods want them to do. See the difference?


----------



## fangjian (Aug 13, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Can everyone agree that as long as everyone resists the urge to persecute or kill other people, they can believe what they want?


Of course. Atheists are *very* strong proponents of free speech. Unfortunately, books like the Quran and the bible say things like " Kill the unbelievers !"  It's hard to argue with someone that thinks this is true. Also, if a teacher believes that humans were created by a god as is or 'there was a world wide flood 'cause the bible said so', they will not be able to teach Biology/Earth Science properly. They will have silly biases.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 13, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Can everyone agree that as long as everyone resists the urge to persecute or kill other people, they can believe what they want?



Well that is an excellent starting point.  I would add not attempting to foist their 'beliefs' on others or repress ideas based upon provable reason rather than unsupportable fantasy.

By the way, taking an American slant on this (as it's not really a problem we have in Britain), I would still support a persons right to vote for a political candidate who, say, wanted to give Theology an equal airing in schools to teaching Evolution as part of Biology.  They're off their rockers to want such a thing but it is their right to vote for it.  After all, when I went to school, I had five years of Religious Studies alongside my Maths, Physics, Chemistry, Technical Drawing etc.


----------



## billc (Aug 13, 2011)

With no after life, the "now" becomes all we have, right.  If it is imperfect, we have one go at fixing it since once we die, that is all there is.  That seems to lead to some quick fix remedies that lead to a lack of concern for other people who might get in the way of fixing the problems, or seem resistant to the fixes of the problems.   There seems to be an increase in not seeing people as valuable as individuals under atheism as all those deaths point out.  I may not be able to express all there is to atheism and mass murder, but there seems to be a connection.  In a very short time, people who followed the belief that religion was the opiate of the masses killed a lot of the masses to get their way.  God figure or not, atheism was part of the equation.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 13, 2011)

billcihak said:


> With no after life, the "now" becomes all we have, right. If it is imperfect, we have one go at fixing it since once we die, that is all there is. That seems to lead to some quick fix remedies that lead to a lack of concern for other people who might get in the way of fixing the problems, or seem resistant to the fixes of the problems. There seems to be an increase in not seeing people as valuable as individuals under atheism as all those deaths point out. I may not be able to express all there is to atheism and mass murder, but there seems to be a connection. In a very short time, people who followed the belief that religion was the opiate of the masses killed a lot of the masses to get their way. God figure or not, atheism was part of the equation.


Good post and argument. I am actually not very knowledgable of the history of these events, so I'll let someone smarter than me respond if they have anything. But I would like to add that, the idea of the 'afterlife' can do just the opposite as well. Not valuing this life because we'll 'have another'. Not saying things you should have said. Not valuing human life because, who cares, there's an afterlife. I would also add, as said repeatedly by Richard Dawkins, none of us are suggesting that we should have a _Darwinian society_. It would be a blood thirsty and awful place to live. However, a Darwinian world is the world that we *do* live in. It *is* where we came from. Just watch the Discovery Channel. It's a painful world.  But we have evolved things like empathy, and because of that, our future doesn't have to be what most would call a_ Darwinian Society_.


----------



## billc (Aug 13, 2011)

I would say that the atheist countries I have mentioned saw the free speech of others as an impediment to  fixing the problems they wanted fixed.  So, free speech is was not  a priority in the atheist societies that have already existed.   I am going to stop on the atheist thing because I don't think that was the nature of the post that Jenna wanted to explore, but I would be glad to keep going on another thread Fangjian.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 13, 2011)

Good question.

A bit of a meandering rant

A belief or lack of belief in a deity or deities should be as personal as possible. Of course as individuals we interact with each other all the time, so it is impossible in many circumstances to not have faith or a lack of it effect ones interpersonal  life.

With the exception of MT I rarely bring up my atheist views. I attend weddings, funerals and baptisms in churches to support my friends and family, my personal view in those circumstances are irrelevant, the event is not about me, but I will be there to support those who find it important. 

I am very proud of my heritage, included in that is my familys religion. I love going to that little church in Northern Ireland and seeing the gravestones of hundreds of years of my family. 

When Im in downtown Toronto and guys are handing out literature on religion, I say no thank you and move on. I dont engage in debate.

I have an elderly lady who I consider a good friend, and at least once or twice a year she gives me a bible and tells me to read it. I thank her and put it in a box with the rest of them.

I do a lot of work in politics, people would be amazed at how many right wing atheists there are, we work to support our candidates, many of whom are very Christian, we put the party above our beliefs.  

I have never gone door to door trying to talk people into becoming atheists, its simply not my business.

What is my business is when: 
- Religious organizations are given breaks on their property taxes because they are religious, that means my tax dollars are subsidizing them. 
- When some criminals are given shorter sentences because they are devoutly religious, that creates two levels of citizens.
- When bibles are given out in public schools.
- When Creationism is treated as science.
- When a nurse friend of mine who is one of the most caring and kindest people I know is publicly chastised for having helped with abortions in her career.


While I disagree with theists, as a libertarian I would defend their right to their beliefs. Just do not keep trying to push your beliefs into the public domain.


----------



## Jenna (Aug 13, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> Good question.
> 
> A bit of a meandering rant&#8230;
> 
> ...


Thank you for this post, it expresses a very open and forthright opinion.  

Can I ask please Ken, at what point, or in what territory should theism not tread, so to speak, in order to ensure you, as an atheist, are not angered?  You mentioned the old chestnut, creationism, so education maybe?

And in which case, if theism _did _have some place, where would that place to you, as an atheist, actually be?

Thank you.


----------



## Jenna (Aug 13, 2011)

Also, whilst I appreciate that theism and religion (in the organised sense of the word) are inextricably tied, I think as far as possible I would like to distinguish theism from religion. I understand that is unfeasible in reality, nevertheless...  

Personally I believe what underpins organised religion is the restraint and control of the human psyche in our wilful natures.  I believe many sections of the world's religious orthodoxies unfortunately have horrendously abused these underpinnings and are disturbing institutions.

So I mean theism as opposed to organised religions.

If, as was once hypothesised by John Lennon, there were no religions, I wonder do you think would there be a place for theism in a more personal sense?  

I hope that is not too long or incoherent a list of questions, thank you.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 13, 2011)

Jenna said:


> And in which case, if theism _did _have some place, where would that place to you, as an atheist, actually be?


To clarify what this question means and how to answer it,  will you answer this one?  -....._And in which case, if 'hard polytheism did have some place, where would that place to you, as a monotheist, actually be?_   (i am assuming for the sake of argument that you are a monotheist)


----------



## Jenna (Aug 13, 2011)

fangjian said:


> To clarify what this question means and how to answer it,  will you answer this one?  -....._And in which case, if 'hard polytheism did have some place, where would that place to you, as a monotheist, actually be?_   (i am assuming for the sake of argument that you are a monotheist)


That is a cool question, thank you   Me, I would not seek to limit where that place of the polytheists would be provided my own personal liberties - as I currently perceive them - are maintained.  For example and to cite an example given above, should polytheism be deemed appropriate curriculum material in the school in which my son attended, I would not object - with the caveat that it were not taught to the _exclusion _of monotheism.  I would likewise in that example, be perfectly happy for him to learn in that same school about atheism as I have explained to him frankly myself.  Should the school decide that polytheism is to be taught as the "only" true, proper or correct way as part of the curriculum, I would petition the Headteacher.  At the very least I would feel it my duty to give all sides of the debate at home myself.

Does that answer your question?  If not, please ask


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 13, 2011)

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Was_Pol_Pot_an_atheist?

Things are never as clear as some people think.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 13, 2011)

Jenna said:


> That is a cool question, thank you   Me, I would not seek to limit where that place of the polytheists would be provided my own personal liberties - as I currently perceive them - are maintained.


  It would be an extremely rare occurrence if someone in the modern Atheist community (those who's viewpoints are in line with people like Dawkins, Harris ) pushed to make some religion illegal. The Atheist/Skeptic community is very pro free speech and highly value the concept of free inquiry. 


> For example and to cite an example given above, should polytheism be deemed appropriate curriculum material in the school in which my son attended, I would not object - with the caveat that it were not taught to the _exclusion _of monotheism.  I would likewise in that example, be perfectly happy for him to learn in that same school about atheism as I have explained to him frankly myself.


 What do you mean   'taught in schools'?  It is important that the existence of the phenomena of religion be studied in History class and Social Studies class. The same way Socialism and Republicanism are taught in those classes.   





> Should the school decide that polytheism is to be taught as the "only" true, proper or correct way as part of the curriculum, I would petition the Headteacher.  At the very least I would feel it my duty to give all sides of the debate at home myself.


 If polytheism was taught to be true, than that is teaching it as if it is a scientific theory in Cosmology.  And that would be ridiculous.


----------



## billc (Aug 13, 2011)

Two quick thoughts, churches I believe recieve tax free status in the states because of the first ammendment, and I don't want to launch into an abortion debate, but abortion can be opposed on non-religous, moral, ethical grounds.  If you want to go into this more we could start up somewhere else and leave these nice people to their chat about theism.  And then start yelling and shouting somewhere else.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Aug 13, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Do you believe there is a place for _theism _at all anywhere or under any conditions?
> 
> Thank you, Jenna



Jenna,

As in all things it is Yes and No, as it depends upon how it is implemented. 

If those who have a belief system are willing to accept that others have a system as well and it may differ and not use that difference to attack or insult or take rights away from people then thisis the first step. 

Once people can accept that there are differences and their own make up is based upon their own makeup not if someone else agrees with them or not, then you have achieved the second step. (* I know they seem close and almost the same but I think they are different. As one accepts that other do not agree with them and then they also accept it does not matter if they do or do not agree with their belief systems. *) 

If theists can act in public without insulting others and without assuming they are being insulted and go on the attack verbal or physical then they have a place in a modern and educated society. In my opinion that is. If not then either there are still parts of the old or ancient societies present (* not always a bad thing *), but without acceptance that other societies or belief systems have a valid point. 

Here is a joke and example I tell people. In Christianity, they say if you do not believe in JC then you are going to go to hell. So draw the circle of those going to hell and those who are not. But here is the rub, within the different sects also say if you do not believe this or do that then you are going to hell. So the Hell cirlce starts to intersect with those not going to hell. Then you realize to draw the picture properly, one has to have the superset of Hell around all those who believe they are not going to hell. (* Of course this has lots of wholes in the argument, and the logic is fuzzy at best, but the point is that so are the arguments for those goingn to hell and those not, and if you apply the same logic and or argument style everyone ends up going to hell as they have stated the only way to do something is by doing "X". *) So we are all going to go to hell, and I will see you there. 

Those who go door to door and talk to people rarely stop back by house. 
1) I ask them inside and they see the mantle and hearth full of swords and canes and knifes and want to leave immediately. They assume I am going to hurt or kill them. But if that is not the case would I not really be the person they would want to save? 
2) I tell them I will listen to what they have to say, if they can answer a question for me with Yes or No and no qualifications. "Do you believe?" 
Most say I believe in ... , and then begin, and I stop them and repeat the question. One person spent an hour with me until a college roommate came home and then they ran for the door. Most ust get angry that I will not let the TELL me how I am WRONG. 
3) I have nice long chats with those who have degrees in theology and I can discuss with them as their education usually allows for you to present a point and they understand that if you acknowledge an opponents point it does not mean you have lost or agree with them 100%. 


So as long as individuals tie their personal well being into how others perceive them and on if others agree with them because if they do not then it is an attack on them personally. When their faith is weak enough that they must scream the loudest and denounce others to show the strength of their faith. I cannot see a value added place for a theist in soceity. 


Now from a point of culture and not wanting to loose a contact with is I understand the reason for the study and the belief. 
I also understand looking for others to help you in times of need and to help you wiht your family in times of need. 

I also understand that in history if a man stated this is wrong, then he would be challenged or killed. But if the leader or his advisor stated this is wrong and it is so because *insert name here* said so. Now it is beyond man and mankind and no one need challenge it. (* except another religion or those who break away from within to form a new sect *) 

So yes it is possible, but as long as you have the human equation and the human weaknesses I see it being a very long struggle to obtain. I say no. It can be practiced privately. Not illegal. Privately. If you choose then you can go to place of worship. If you choose you and your friends can have parties and retreats. Nothing to stop you. Only do not expect me to fall into your line and to agree with you. Do not condemn me and or make attacks on my person because I am not with you.


The whole Us vs Them. If you are not with me then you are against me mentality applies not only for theism but also for religions and also for work and anything. But, if you are willing to accept that others have a point then you ahve made a step forward. 

i.e. I have a friend(actually two of them) who called me up a few years ago and asked what Mini Van should they buy. They were surprised that I did not say my companies. It was a good product, and if the discount I could get them was enough to offset the other perks the other vehicle had then I would help them, but I wanted them to have the data to make a good decision. Both were / are happy with their choice. (* Not my company *). 

If you do not believe as I do that is fine. 
If you drive a different car then the company I work for that is fine.
If you have a different phone company or a different computer company or operating system that is also fine. 

I accept the people as they are and how they treat me not on if they have meet the same sales pitches and or indoctrinations that I have been exposed too. 

People ask me what religion I am. If I say agnostic they all try to get me to admit something or to join them. If I say Zen Christian, as my parents were Christian raised and I believe that each person has their own path, and my path is not your path, so please do not dictate your path to me. They all hear Christian and make the Christian argument in their heads and accept me there and if not Christian they assume I am not going to change to their religion then. But an agnostic is a challenge to them. And an Atheist is an affront to them. 

On a side note a female Atheist contcted me and started asking about my point of view on that. I stated, "I had not made the leap of faith yet that hardcoare atheists require." She dropped me as a friend on FB and moved on. 

My point here is that acceptence has to be there from everyone.


----------



## cdunn (Aug 13, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Two quick thoughts, churches I believe recieve tax free status in the states because of the first ammendment, and I don't want to launch into an abortion debate, but abortion can be opposed on non-religous, moral, ethical grounds.  If you want to go into this more we could start up somewhere else and leave these nice people to their chat about theism.  And then start yelling and shouting somewhere else.



Churches and tax free status have absolutely nothing to do with the first amendment. They are given tax-free status because, strictly theoretically, they are non-profit organizations which have as a major goal the comfort of the poor and weary.


----------



## billc (Aug 13, 2011)

> If theists can act in public without insulting others and without assuming they are being insulted and go on the attack verbal or physical then they have a place in a modern and educated society. In my opinion that is. If not then either there are still parts of the old or ancient societies present (* not always a bad thing *), but without acceptance that other societies or belief systems have a valid point.



And once atheists get more "organized," it would be nice if they observed the same thing.  The gulag, and the anti-free speech thing of the past and the killing thing is so 20th century.  I do beleive that the atheist societies were quite "educated" as well and many of their theories of people were based in science.  I believe from the motorcycle diaries the murderer Che was training to be a doctor, Fidel a lawyer, Pol pot was a teacher...Mao was highly educated and a librarian...


----------



## fangjian (Aug 13, 2011)

Rich Parsons said:


> On a side note a female Atheist contcted me and started asking about my point of view on that. I stated, "I had not made the leap of faith yet that hardcoare atheists require." She dropped me as a friend on FB and moved on.



There is no leap of faith. It would only be a leap of faith if one claimed to be a 'Gnostic Atheist'. Which is an irrational position.


----------



## billc (Aug 13, 2011)

Let's put aside the 20th century for one second.  Let's say the atheists, in whatever form they take, get organized, and start to try to explain or teach their views to others.  Does anyone think that they won't behave the same as organized religions have?


----------



## fangjian (Aug 13, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Let's put aside the 20th century for one second.  Let's say the atheists, in whatever form they take, get organized, and start to try to explain or teach their views to others.  Does anyone think that they won't behave the same as organized religions have?



Maybe. What behavior?


----------



## billc (Aug 13, 2011)

Well, the quickest to come to mind, holy war.  Or non-holy war.  You can get a sense also of the contempt, and I don't mean people here, I am talking about out there in the wider world, of the contempt people who say they are atheists feel for people who are religous.  Think of a Bill Maher for example, a Christopher Hitchens, not as bad as Maher, and over time, do you think that contempt wouldn't eventually lead to anti-religion attacks? Now I will bring the 20th century back in with its gulags, thought control, and murder, of everyone thought to be an impediment to the state, including and pointedly, the religous.


----------



## billc (Aug 13, 2011)

From wikipedia on the persecution of religion by the communists:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union



> The history of Christianity in the Soviet Union was not limited to repression and secularization. Soviet policy toward religion was based on the ideology ofMarxism-Leninism, which made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and, ultimately, the elimination of religious beliefs.[SUP][1][/SUP]





> The state was committed to the destruction of religion[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP], and to this effect it destroyed churches, mosques and temples, ridiculed, harassed and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with atheistic propaganda, and generally promoted 'scientific atheism' as the truth that society should accept[SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP].





> The Soviet regime was ostensibly committed to the complete annihilation of religious institutions and ideas [SUP][7][/SUP]. Militant atheism was central to the ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union[SUP][8][/SUP] and a high priority of all Soviet leaders [SUP][3][/SUP]. Communism required the abolition of religion [SUP][3][/SUP]. Convinced atheists were considered to be more virtuous individuals than those of religious belief [SUP][3][/SUP].



This would be what I was mentioning before.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 13, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Well, the quickest to come to mind, holy war.  Or non-holy war.  You can get a sense also of the contempt, and I don't mean people here, I am talking about out there in the wider world, of the contempt people who say they are atheists feel for people who are religous.  Think of a Bill Maher for example, a Christopher Hitchens, not as bad as Maher, and over time, do you think that contempt wouldn't eventually lead to anti-religion attacks? Now I will bring the 20th century back in with its gulags, thought control, and murder, of everyone thought to be an impediment to the state, including and pointedly, the religous.


Yeah it definitely could. The atheist community doesn't have contempt for 'people'. Well, maybe for people like Bin Laden, Fred Phelps or anyone else who's message is similar. But not for the people in general. 
It could definitely happen since minds are feeble.  Right now though the Atheist/Rationalist/Skeptic community prides itself on not falling for BS. Skepticism and Rationality are pretty much in the 'name'._(  I actually hate the term 'atheist'. It doesn't really capture how we view the world. It's just one position. Rationalist, Skeptic or Pearlist would be more appropriate.)_     Atheists would never follow some a-hole preaching about 'attacking churches'. Right now, it would be impossible to recruit atheists to go 'blow up buildings'. There would have to be a radical change in the community. Some kind of crazy ideology that suppresses free speech etc. It could happen. 

I'm not a big fan of Maher. He's got kind of a snooty, arrogant demeanor about him. Yeah, he's a prick to religious people, and makes fun of them. It's part of his act though. I've seen this stuff in Christianity too. Comedians laughing about how stupid non-believers are and how they'll be laughing at us because we were sent to hell. Which seems kind of sick to me, but I'm not offended or anything.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Aug 14, 2011)

fangjian said:


> There is no leap of faith. It would only be a leap of faith if one claimed to be a 'Gnostic Atheist'. Which is an irrational position.



It was meant as humor and for more discourse. If she could not enjoy the laugh, then she was not the right person for me.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Aug 14, 2011)

billcihak said:


> And once atheists get more "organized," it would be nice if they observed the same thing. The gulag, and the anti-free speech thing of the past and the killing thing is so 20th century. I do beleive that the atheist societies were quite "educated" as well and many of their theories of people were based in science. I believe from the motorcycle diaries the murderer Che was training to be a doctor, Fidel a lawyer, Pol pot was a teacher...Mao was highly educated and a librarian...



Bill,

Your comments are insulting and lack organization and credit. 

1) Has communisism killed people? Yes it has. 
2) Has religion killed people for a lot longer and killed more people through history? Yes and Yes. 


3) Get off your highhanded horse and join a converation without being a jerk and you might find yourself learning about others as well as yourself.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Aug 14, 2011)

Hey Bill,


Rich Parsons said:


> My point here is that acceptence has to be there from everyone.



I did make comments about it having to be there on both sides. But once again you choose to make things confrontational and ignore parts and snipe out others. 


Here is my Original Post:
I know it is long and might be hard for you to read to the end so see above or skip to the bottom. 



Rich Parsons said:


> Jenna,
> 
> As in all things it is Yes and No, as it depends upon how it is implemented.
> 
> ...


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 14, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Do you believe there is a place for _theism _at all anywhere or under any conditions?
> 
> Thank you, Jenna



Sure.  It's a personal decision.  What right do I have to tell you what to believe?  I'm the kind of atheist that isn't into forcing beliefs on others.  Now, if we can only convince the theists to do the same...


----------



## Jenna (Aug 14, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> Sure.  It's a personal decision.  What right do I have to tell you what to believe?  I'm the kind of atheist that isn't into forcing beliefs on others.  Now, if we can only convince the theists to do the same...



Agreed.  It seems you hold the same view of theists as many of your atheist contemporaries.  While it is hardly fruitful for me to apologise on the behalf of these _para__fascist _theists as I would see them, I would say I am saddened that this is becoming a prevailing feeling. 

However, that aside, can I ask please, if as you say, you are indeed prepared to countenance it, what place would theism actually occupy in your worldview as an atheist?


----------



## Jenna (Aug 14, 2011)

fangjian said:


> It would be an extremely rare occurrence if someone in the modern Atheist community (those who's viewpoints are in line with people like Dawkins, Harris ) pushed to make some religion illegal.




Dawkins et al never pushed to make religion illegal, rather they have eroded the credibility of its adherents to the extent that few passengers on the Dawkins machine would feel the religious were much more than cretins.  So, illegal, no; holding me up as cretinous for my belief I would argue is possibly the greater slur on my character.  

However, I was asking quite a simple question in the OP.  If you had an answer, I would welcome your view, otherwise, it becomes a little divergent.  




Rich Parsons said:


> If theists can act in public without insulting others and without assuming they are being insulted and go on the attack verbal or physical then they have a place in a modern and educated society. In my opinion that is. If not then either there are still parts of the old or ancient societies present (* not always a bad thing *), but without acceptance that other societies or belief systems have a valid point.



I think that is key.  I find that the level of arrogance on both sides is quite bewildering at times.

I think those on either side that expect of their opposite number a sudden switch in viewpoint from one worldview to the other with little or no question, I think those people are naive in extreme.  

For me to tell you (as a vacillating atheist / agnostic) that Jesus Christ is real and you must be saved, and then expect you to abruptly overturn your previous view of existence and happily go along with it would highlight me as an idiot in terms of my utter lack of human communication and understanding. 

For me there is a place for opposing theistical views to co-exist.  There is also ample opportunity for cross-pollinations as it were and for conversions in either direction and but only if there is an appreciation that one must be persuaded gently to an opposiing view and not berated or derided or treated agressively for not holding that opposing view.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 14, 2011)

Jenna said:


> However, I was asking quite a simple question in the OP.  If you had an answer, I would welcome your view, otherwise, it becomes a little divergent.


My answer was on the same wavelength as your answer to my question. I don't know how else to answer. You asked 'What _place_ does Theism have to you?'
What does _place_ mean?  

So I tried to ask you what _place_ Hard Polytheism had in your life, so I would understand the nature of the question. But you just said that ' You wouldn't care as long as they don't try to take away your civil liberties'. And you wouldn't mind if it was taught in schools and stuff. 

My answer was:
"It would be an extremely rare occurrence if someone in the modern Atheist community (those who's viewpoints are in line with people like Dawkins, Harris ) pushed to make some religion illegal. The Atheist/Skeptic community is very pro free speech and highly value the concept of free inquiry." 

"The above just meant that, like you, no one is wanting peoples civil liberties to be taken away. 



> For example and to cite an example given above, should polytheism be deemed appropriate curriculum material in the school in which my son attended, I would not object - with the caveat that it were not taught to the _exclusion _of monotheism. I would likewise in that example, be perfectly happy for him to learn in that same school about atheism as I have explained to him frankly myself.




What do you mean 'taught in schools'? It is important that the existence of the phenomena of religion be studied in History class and Social Studies class. The same way Socialism and Republicanism are taught in those classes.


> Should the school decide that polytheism is to be taught as the "only" true, proper or correct way as part of the curriculum, I would petition the Headteacher. At the very least I would feel it my duty to give all sides of the debate at home myself.



If polytheism was taught to be true, than that is teaching it as if it is a scientific theory in Cosmology. And that would be ridiculous.​


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 14, 2011)

Jenna, quick question if i may?

Why are you a Christian?


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 14, 2011)

Jenna said:


> However, that aside, can I ask please, if as you say, you are indeed prepared to countenance it, what place would theism actually occupy in your worldview as an atheist?



My worldview starts by embracing my own inner power and accepting the things I cannot change.  Therefore, theism is not needed.  On a personal level, I don't need any religion or psuedoreligion to tell me how to behave.  In fact, I would say that having an arbitrary, outside of the self, ethical system retards one's understanding of what actually is good.  This is the source of relativism because there is no reasoned principle that anyone can look at, within theism, that defines goodness.  Therefore it is what you make of it, you can be good by discriminating against homosexuals and bombing children.  

The only time theism affects me is when people cross this with politics.  It's an affront on liberty to force one's scripture through the barrel of the government's legalized gun.  Many atheists make this same mistake.  They transfer their veneration of a God to the Group-Government-Democracy and fail to realize that they created the mirror image of what they protested.

The Truth is reasoned from First Principle and passed from mind to mind through voluntary interaction.  If a group needs a gun to force their beliefs, it's because they are pushing a pack of lies.


----------



## Jenna (Aug 15, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> Jenna, quick question if i may?
> 
> Why are you a Christian?


Thank you for your question Ken. Without wanting to bore you with personal unnecessaries, my christianity gives me a place to lay 1. my thanks for the positive things that happen in my life, 2. my supplication when I am caught in trouble and 3. my petitions for forgiveness when I am contorted by my own culpability for problems I cause to others and bring upon myself.


----------



## Jenna (Aug 15, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> My worldview starts by embracing my own inner power and accepting the things I cannot change.  Therefore, theism is not needed.  On a personal level, I don't need any religion or psuedoreligion to tell me how to behave.  In fact, I would say that having an arbitrary, outside of the self, ethical system retards one's understanding of what actually is good.  This is the source of relativism because there is no reasoned principle that anyone can look at, within theism, that defines goodness.  Therefore it is what you make of it, you can be good by discriminating against homosexuals and bombing children.
> 
> The only time theism affects me is when people cross this with politics.  It's an affront on liberty to force one's scripture through the barrel of the government's legalized gun.  Many atheists make this same mistake.  They transfer their veneration of a God to the Group-Government-Democracy and fail to realize that they created the mirror image of what they protested.
> 
> The Truth is reasoned from First Principle and passed from mind to mind through voluntary interaction.  If a group needs a gun to force their beliefs, it's because they are pushing a pack of lies.


Thank you for your reply.  I find very little to disagree with at all here.  I also believe that the interference by organised religion in politics (while deemed essential outreach by churches) is often heavy handed, dogmatic and inconsiderate of those it affects.

Regarding the point you made at the beginning, that you embrace your own inner power, I laud you for being self-reliant in the first instance where many do not apprehend their own abilities in that respect or simply are not willing to.  

Regarding the situations you accept as unchangeable, whilst the ability to take a philosophical approach is fine in theory, especially when the situation is a relatively trivial one, I do think, there are certain situations some of us face in life that have sufficient gravity or terror to mean our only recourse is to appeal to a theistic authority, though I am happy to accept that perhaps that is simply a weakness on our part or lack of equanimity in those situations.  Sincerely and honestly, I would say that I am glad you have not found any need for that.  Sorry to be divergent from the original question.

When it does not impact directly upon your politics, would you say you _tolerate _theism?  Assuming there were no religious involvement in politics, at what point would theism (doing what it generally does in evangelising) begin to infringe detrimentally upon your otherwise atheistic existence?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 15, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Do you believe there is a place for _theism _at all anywhere or under any conditions?
> 
> Thank you, Jenna



I believe so, yes.  Religious beliefs are a staple of pretty much any human culture, so one would be hard pressed to sincerely say that there's no place for them.  Religion, whether personal through ones beliefs in a god or communal through one's membership in a church, can provide stability, faith, conviction in the myriad situations of life that can seem hopeless.  I know a few single mothers who are very religious and have relied on their beliefs to essentially buoy themselves through very tough times, and I would not begrudge them that.  

However, I also believe that beliefs in a God are limiting, and can go from being sources of personal strength to becoming intellectual and spiritual crutches.  Trying to gloss over the many mysteries of the universe that we still don't know with "well God did it" is unsatisfactory to me.  So basically, I view religious beliefs as a type of stage of development that, while very beneficial in certain situations, become detrimental straightjackets at later times.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 15, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Thank you for your question Ken. Without wanting to bore you with personal unnecessaries, my christianity gives me a place to lay 1. my thanks for the positive things that happen in my life, 2. my supplication when I am caught in trouble and 3. my petitions for forgiveness when I am contorted by my own culpability for problems I cause to others and bring upon myself.



Jenna I understand your reasoning but if I may make some comments?

You are a Christian because of geography and circumstance, you were born in the UK in the latter half of the 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century, your parents had you baptised without your knowledge or consent and raised you according to the traditions they knew. There was probably a period where you rebelled a little but came back to your faith because you found it comforting. Had you been born in India, likely you would be a Hindu, in Japan Shinto, in Iran, A Muslim, 2200 years ago some form of pagan Druidism. 

You never had a choice, you were not a blank slate until you reached adulthood and then said looking at the buffet before you, hmmm, I think Ill be Christian, you didnt have a choice.

The positive things in your life Jenna, are because of you, your efforts, not an omnipotent god, you did the work, you put yourself out there, you are deserving of the recognition of doing a job well. The same holds true for the other things you mentioned, if anything goes wrong you are likely, in some way responsible, though sometimes there are others who affect us which we cannot control.

Why would you not take credit for you and your actions, good and bad Jenna? I think it diminishes an individual if they shrug it all off onto a god, instead of saying to themselves, Yes, I am responsible.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 15, 2011)

In reference to the above:  Great post, and I obviously share your sentiment. I would also like to add, many blame the ills of the world to demons and stuff. If someone does something that is considered 'evil' many times they are likely to 'blame it on the devil'. BS!  The credit is ours, good 'and' evil. The supernatural demons are scapegoats.


----------



## Nomad (Aug 15, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Do you believe there is a place for _theism _at all anywhere or under any conditions?
> 
> Thank you, Jenna



It depends on what you mean by useful.

If I were looking for a way to control and influence a large number of people, for instance, then a religion is a great way to do it with a phenomenal historic track record.

Personally, I think many of the parables in the bible can be useful teaching tools, but that they should be understood as such, not as historical fact.

As a personal belief system, it doesn't bother me what other people choose to believe in, though I do think that all people should be be critical of their own beliefs and challenge them occasionally, as the answers from such internal questioning can have great value.  I'm not a fan of anything that has blind followers who accept something because an authority figure (whether a news anchor, a political pundit, Jenny McCarthy, or the pope) says it's true.  

I believe that religion is a comfort for many people, and that they can use it to have a positive influence on themselves and those around them.  I'm also well aware that others use the same thing to back their petty prejudices, insecurities and hatred of people who are "different".  

Where I start getting offended, worried, and angry is when religious beliefs affect policy decisions that directly or indirectly cause great harm to others.  (gay marriage issue, people in AIDS-ridden African countries being told that condoms are evil and shouldn't be used, even though they're one of the best proven methods of reducing the spread of an absolutely devastating disease, and so on).  

Or when people use religion as a tool to push ignorance, because some of the truths that have been uncovered in the thousands of years since the founding document was written might contradict the beliefs at the time of publication, aka "what really happened" (see Creationism and/or Intelligent Design).

Personal faith in a god doesn't bother me, though I don't see the need for such a crutch in my own life.  Fanaticism is dangerous and scary, and often reinforces ignorance and hatred of those "outside the group", and should be avoided.


----------



## Jenna (Aug 15, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> Jenna I understand your reasoning but if I may make some comments?


Yes I welcome your input Ken thank you.




Ken Morgan said:


> You are a Christian because of geography and circumstance, you were born in the UK in the latter half of the 20th century, your parents had you baptised without your knowledge or consent and raised you according to the traditions they knew. There was probably a period where you rebelled a little but came back to your faith because you found it comforting. Had you been born in India, likely you would be a Hindu, in Japan Shinto, in Iran, A Muslim, 2200 years ago some form of pagan Druidism.


Agreed, yes.




Ken Morgan said:


> You never had a choice, you were not a blank slate until you reached adulthood and then said looking at the buffet before you, hmmm, I think Ill be Christian, you didnt have a choice.


With a few adjustments to this explanation yes this is also true.




Ken Morgan said:


> The positive things in your life Jenna, are because of you, your efforts, not an omnipotent god, you did the work, you put yourself out there, you are deserving of the recognition of doing a job well. The same holds true for the other things you mentioned, if anything goes wrong you are likely, in some way responsible, though sometimes there are others who affect us which we cannot control.


I hear what you are saying Ken and I can completely appreciate your logical and wholly valid point of view on this, though I think the difference is in attribution and I think it is sadly (I like harmony ) a fundamental difference in how we perceive our world. 

As a trivial example, in some fortunate (or unfortunate) circumstance you have suddenly found yourself in, what you might attribute to happenstance, luck or fate that has put you there, I would attribute to the will of God.  In some other situation that you have brought about through your own direct actions, you would praise your skill and logical decision-making were it a good situation, or deride yourself for your amateurishness etc. These again, I would attribute to the will of God in the same way.  The contortions of my own life thus far have made me attribute events to some other orchestration beyond the ripples of my own outbound decisions and those inbound affecting me.  



Ken Morgan said:


> Why would you not take credit for you and your actions, good and bad Jenna? I think it diminishes an individual if they shrug it all off onto a god, instead of saying to themselves, Yes, I am responsible.


I would shrug it off onto a god as you have phrased it Ken because I believe that nothing that occurs in my life is without the will of God.  Why would I do this?  I can only say that it is borne of the way my life has gone so far.  Again, I appreciate how potentially frivolous that sounds to your ears, and for not having a persuasive argument to back up my belief, I would apologise sincerely.  

I do not need persuaded to your worldview Ken, I can see it quite clearly and it makes perfect sense.  It is just not the view that I choose to believe.  You may deem me as lacking discernment in that case, and that is perfectly fine too and perhaps it is true.  

I want to thank you Ken for your courteousness to me.  It is appreciated greatly.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 15, 2011)

I've been in some life threatening situations where my first impulse is to seek some kind of succor from a power greater then myself.  The idea that there are "no atheists in foxholes" certainly has shown up in my life (I'm not claiming any military service, just borrowing the phrase).  Looking backward, I think humans are hardwired for this kind of anthropomorphizing of the universe.  We want to relate to it like we relate to other people in our tribes.  The human mind is a strange thing and we need to start thinking about the human experience as a product of evolution as well.  I believe another prominent atheist, Daniel Dennet, has argued this before.



Jenna said:


> When it does not impact directly upon your politics, would you say you _tolerate _theism?  Assuming there were no religious involvement in politics, at what point would theism (doing what it generally does in evangelising) begin to infringe detrimentally upon your otherwise atheistic existence?



I would say that "theism" has a harder time tolerating me then I have of "tolerating" them.  I love to discuss religion and listen to other people's points of view and I love explaining my point of view when I can.  A good example of this is when the "door knockers" come to my abode, I usually chat with them, invite them for coffee, and take as much literature as they can give me...and I do spend time reading it.  The conversation ends when I explain that I am an atheist and tell them why.  No one has ever been impolite to me, but I definitely feel like I am more open to learning about them then they are to learning about me.

As far as theism "infringing" upon my existence goes, that's easy, when I travel, I turn into a religious chameleon.  I want to pay respects to the culture of the places where I go and I want to make sure I obey the law and not get thrown in prison or worse.  I have no issue with performing the sign of the cross, bowing to mecca, lighting incense for Buddha, chanting a Hawaiian Oli, or puffing a peace pipe.  It's an opportunity for me to learn by surrender.  That said, I'm not going to go anywhere that requires me to do something I consider to be morally wrong.  I'm not going to be taking part in any genital mutilations or public stonings for example.  Those religious events have real consequences that go beyond metaphysical and are worthy of drawing a line in the sand.

The tooth fairy is all fun and games until it starts convincing humans to steal teeth by proxy.


----------



## Jenna (Aug 16, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> I've been in some life threatening situations where my first impulse is to seek some kind of succor from a power greater then myself. The idea that there are "no atheists in foxholes" certainly has shown up in my life (I'm not claiming any military service, just borrowing the phrase). Looking backward, I think humans are hardwired for this kind of anthropomorphizing of the universe. We want to relate to it like we relate to other people in our tribes. The human mind is a strange thing and we need to start thinking about the human experience as a product of evolution as well. I believe another prominent atheist, Daniel Dennet, has argued this before.


I think we as humans are necessarily prone to anthropomorphising the universe as it is in keeping with our corporeal existences.  I think though there is another factor that is often missed by atheists in disregarding God as a mere product of minds hardwired into anthropomorphising everything and that is our ability to emote.  I recall even Hitchens himself was very dispassionate about his own cancer in contemplating any potential deathbed "epiphany" he might have.  I think the ascription of emotion to God is key to making God real for any believer.  I think emotion is a facet that is necessarily overlooked by science-bound atheists because its subjective nature often falls outside the remit of hard fact.  I think this is why it can be difficult to find common ground in a discussion such as this simply because (in very general terms) believers are somewhat more emotive in their responses whereas atheists are somewhat more logical and dispassionate in theirs.  I do not know if I make any sense in that?





Makalakumu said:


> I would say that "theism" has a harder time tolerating me then I have of "tolerating" them. I love to discuss religion and listen to other people's points of view and I love explaining my point of view when I can. A good example of this is when the "door knockers" come to my abode, I usually chat with them, invite them for coffee, and take as much literature as they can give me...and I do spend time reading it. The conversation ends when I explain that I am an atheist and tell them why. No one has ever been impolite to me, but I definitely feel like I am more open to learning about them then they are to learning about me.


I think this is a failing among the proselytes.  It is a failing of theirs to see your view first before attempting to persuade you to theirs.  Personally I find door knocking to be quite an absurd crusade that reflects the utter naivety of the protagonists.  I believe there is no persuading someone to your faith except to trust God to softly breach any dogma and to allow their own freewill to follow after your own example.  That is not going to happen on a doorstep unless the householder is all but persuaded already.  For these people to regard you as "no sale" again indicates that they are amateur at best in their attempted vocations and at worst that they simply regard you as just that: a sale; another target locked and acquired. I think that is sad, especially when it is obvious that you have an open mind and a tolerant perspective and are prepared to give those people a hearing in return for them to hear you.




Makalakumu said:


> As far as theism "infringing" upon my existence goes, that's easy, when I travel, I turn into a religious chameleon. I want to pay respects to the culture of the places where I go and I want to make sure I obey the law and not get thrown in prison or worse. I have no issue with performing the sign of the cross, bowing to mecca, lighting incense for Buddha, chanting a Hawaiian Oli, or puffing a peace pipe. It's an opportunity for me to learn by surrender. That said, I'm not going to go anywhere that requires me to do something I consider to be morally wrong. I'm not going to be taking part in any genital mutilations or public stonings for example. Those religious events have real consequences that go beyond metaphysical and are worthy of drawing a line in the sand.
> 
> The tooth fairy is all fun and games until it starts convincing humans to steal teeth by proxy.


So you defer to the prevailing local religious requirements out of fear of being jailed or worse?  I think that is good self-preservation.  I think it is also a damning indictment of the operation of many religions.  I fear that for too long, holy texts have been decontextualised away from their historical settings and also misinterpreted away from their core meanings.  When this happens, the message of those religions is lost to the ego of humanity.  I find it difficult to envisage how that might ever change and until then, yes, you are absolutely right to protect yourself from zealots however you can.  Again, I am sorry you have to travel this way and defer your liberties simply to move about unaccosted.  I would only say that this is not a reflection of God, rather a reflection of the cruel and homogenising nature of cults, groups and sects (religions by any other name).

Thank you very kindly for taking the time to reply, I appreciate the discussion a lot.


----------



## Jenna (Aug 16, 2011)

Nomad said:


> It depends on what you mean by useful.
> 
> If I were looking for a way to control and influence a large number of people, for instance, then a religion is a great way to do it with a phenomenal historic track record.
> 
> ...


Thank you for your reply.  You make a lot of extremely pertinent and valid points here and I find little to disagree with.

If I could just pick up on one point and hope it does not veer in too much of a tangent.  You say that parables in the bible can be useful teaching tools though they should be regarded as metaphor and not as historical fact.  I think the crux of this issue of literal interpretation that raises its ugly head too often all around the world now is removing the Word of God from its historical context.  In interpreting our holy texts, it is us as interpreters who are bringing flawed translation to God's Word rather than the Word itself being fallacious or flawed.

To give an example, the story of Noah which is fairly similarly documented in the Bible and in the Quran.  Whilst the work of God is (and must be) nothing short of almighty, nevertheless it is a difficult stretch for modern day biologists, geologists, meteorologists and logistics experts to envisage how the idea of Noah's Ark and the Flood could be anything other than metaphor and therefore disregard it and thus disregard the holy texts as having any measure of literal truth. However, keeping the story of Noah in the pre-information age, historical context in which it was written in both of those books, it is possible to see through the eyes of those on the ground those centuries ago.  With that mindset, it is more easily seen that the Flood may have been an event of great magnitude to the "world" of those writers. If your family or friends were killed by flood, that would be of indescribable magnitude irrespective of who else was involved or how big the deluge really was.  And for fear of belittling that magnitude, in the context of worldwide information that we have now, it may in reality have been rather more localised.

Those that adopt holy texts as being literal to a letter are missing this context.  They are citing in isolation.  Those that would try to coerce others into following those misinterpretations are therefore far from adhering to the core values of their faiths.  These people, I would argue are themselves dangerously heretical.  Nevertheless, that is another argument I think 

And but the question from that is, these holy texts, being by God and of God, why did God not specify scale and scope, accurate timelines, realistic ages of protagonists etc. in that story of Noah? Is that not suggestive of God having NO ultimate knowledge and being thereby self-invalidating?  In my opinion, God needed to express the holy texts (and for me there only is one God by many faiths) in a language that would be understood by those living centuries ago through until us now and those who come after us.  We have a greater understanding of the world now and are theoretically at least, better equipped to interpret.  Unfortunately, I think this problem of decontextualising the holy texts is rife, with some of the horrors already mentioned in this thread resulting from it.  

I would still urge anyone that seeks a truth to distinguish the Word of God from the acts of Man.

Thank you again for taking time to reply, I am grateful to you.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 16, 2011)

What good posts on this page! thank you for an interesting and enjoyable read.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 16, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> What good posts on this page! thank you for an interesting and enjoyable read.



Nothing like some good religious discussion to get us all away from the nasty political discussions!


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 16, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> Nothing like some good religious discussion to get us all away from the nasty political discussions!




If it's without rancour and the 'I'm right, you're wrong' type of posts it's enjoyable reading what people believe, I wouldn't say anyone was wrong to be honest, my religion is right for me probably not for most others, we do understand that prayers, singing of psalms etc and rituals are for us, to make us feel better and cope with things like death than it is for G-d. We know he doesn't need all that but there is comfort in ritual, a way to express our grief or happiness for that matter. I believe we should all strive to behave well and try to do good things for all our sakes not for a diety. Blaming a deity for things that happen is a cop out, something else my religion understands, we know that we should be the ones taking action for example in a famine, we don't pray for help we are supposed to do the helping. My religion is about being practical, piety and too much spirituality is discouraged as not being good for you lol! I think worrying about whether the world was created or came about through the Big Bang is a luxury when so many are starving and dying in East Africa for example, it's fine sitting around debating this issues but it's secondary to doing something for the people who need help now.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 16, 2011)

Jenna said:


> So you defer to the prevailing local religious requirements out of fear of being jailed or worse?



Sometimes, but not often.  Most of the time I defer out of respect.  Even when there is no "danger" to my self or others, I will do my best to at least go through the motions.  The point I was making is one about learning through submission.  The religion is a big part of the culture and in order to understand the people, you've got to understand the religion.  And sometimes the metaphors are beautiful.  I love the Hawaiian religion for example.  The way this group describes the world around them and teaches through story and parable is interesting.

Which brings me to your point about emotion.  Most people consider atheists to be cool and dispassionate scientists who rationalize the world away.  I knew I was an atheist as a small child.  I never felt any connection, I never experienced any epiphany, I've never believed...and I tried, but it never worked.  The closest I've ever felt anything remotely like a religious experience is awe before nature...and maybe some interesting metaphysical feelings while practicing martial arts.  Nothing about those experiences ever intuitively linked to the various belief systems humans use.  Therefore, I would describe myself as an intuitive atheist.  It was only a coincidence that the logic happened to fit my feelings.


----------



## Nomad (Aug 16, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Thank you for your reply.  You make a lot of extremely pertinent and valid points here and I find little to disagree with.
> 
> If I could just pick up on one point and hope it does not veer in too much of a tangent.  You say that parables in the bible can be useful teaching tools though they should be regarded as metaphor and not as historical fact.  I think the crux of this issue of literal interpretation that raises its ugly head too often all around the world now is removing the Word of God from its historical context.  In interpreting our holy texts, it is us as interpreters who are bringing flawed translation to God's Word rather than the Word itself being fallacious or flawed.
> 
> ...



One area that I tend to differ from many of the faithful is the belief that the bible is the word of God, and this lies fairly near the heart of my personal disavowal of religion.  The bible was not written by God, it was written by men.  Many here will point out that these holy men were inspired or even dictated to directly by God, but to me, this is a very thin argument.  Even if I could believe that God was whispering the words he wanted into these disciples ears, they were still then interpreted and transcribed by men.

Over the centuries since the stories were first written down, they have been re-written and translated countless times by a variety of different men, some of whom invariably subtly changed the meanings in the original text (this happens today when people translate from one language to another, for instance).  I'm sure some of them attempted to expound on certain points, or make them more concise, like any good editor would.

Politics within the church has also played a huge role in what is now considered to be "the word of God"; there are many more holy books that have been written than those that made the "final cut" into the accepted modern version.  What was in the scriptures that literally ended up on the cutting room floor?

I absolutely agree that many of the stories like Noah may have had a historical context that was considerably less global or apocryphal than the final version turned out.  I also think the literalists have caused and continue to cause problems for themselves.  If I believe the world was literally created in 7 days 6000 or so years ago, it becomes odd to wonder why God hid all the dinosaur bones in rocks that have been dated 100 million to a billion years old.  You either have to completely discount the science that tells us this, or assume it was some sort of elaborate hoax on His part.  If you take the statement a little more metaphorically, then you can ask what constitutes a day for God, and this sort of dilemma goes away.  Pesky little things like evolution then no longer conflict with religion at all, which is why there are a good number of scientists that also have faith and practice religion.

People have a tendency to exaggerate, especially if they are trying to make a point, or if the event in question happened years ago and the story grew in the re-telling before it was written down.  I find myself doing this about my college days (which were epic, by the way); how much more tempting would it be while describing the words and works of someone I considered a great leader and/or teacher?

Nearly every day we see someone twisting the words in the bible to meet their own ends; whether preaching hatred against Muslims or homosexuals, or endorsing one political party over another.  Of course, I'm sure that none of the popes that led us into multiple crusades (among others) would sink so low as to change (by addition, subtle manipulation or omission of small parts of text, or deliberately less accurate translations for instance) such a holy text to meet their own needs or ambitions or political causes at the time.

So while I absolutely believe that the bible is a great source of inspiration and has some wonderful morality tales and lessons inside it, I simply don't make that leap (of faith?) to say that it's the word of god, much less the *literal* *Word of God*, as many ascribe it  (and yes, I've spent considerable time reading it and having it read to me in a religious setting when I was younger).  I feel the same way about Tolkien's Lord of the Rings (and it turned into a way better movie  )


----------



## Jenna (Aug 18, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> Sometimes, but not often.  Most of the time I defer out of respect.  Even when there is no "danger" to my self or others, I will do my best to at least go through the motions.  The point I was making is one about learning through submission.  The religion is a big part of the culture and in order to understand the people, you've got to understand the religion.  And sometimes the metaphors are beautiful.  I love the Hawaiian religion for example.  The way this group describes the world around them and teaches through story and parable is interesting.
> 
> Which brings me to your point about emotion.  Most people consider atheists to be cool and dispassionate scientists who rationalize the world away.  I knew I was an atheist as a small child.  I never felt any connection, I never experienced any epiphany, I've never believed...and I tried, but it never worked.  The closest I've ever felt anything remotely like a religious experience is awe before nature...and maybe some interesting metaphysical feelings while practicing martial arts.  Nothing about those experiences ever intuitively linked to the various belief systems humans use.  Therefore, I would describe myself as an intuitive atheist.  It was only a coincidence that the logic happened to fit my feelings.


No, of course I do not mean for a second that you yourself lack emotion or compassion, rather that atheism as a worldview relies upon the necessarily dispassionate world of science and fact for validation.  I would suggest that perhaps there is another way to perceive your youthful disconnect from God or faith.  I wonder could it be looked upon that at a young age, rather than not feeling an emotional connection and not feeling that spiritual conviction, did you have cause to close your mind a little to the idea of God.  If this becomes your worldview at a young age, then you have had ample time through adulthood to match your experiences to your prevailing ideas.  Naturally we all do this I think.  Perhaps the faithful are more "guilty" of it than atheists.  Nevertheless, in seeking validation for our views, we find evidence everywhere in teh most trivial things and ignore glaringly pertinent evidence in other places.  

Again, all I would do is encourage you to keep your mind and senses open.

All truth comes from honest enquiry.

Thank you kindly for your reply.


----------



## Jenna (Aug 18, 2011)

Nomad said:


> One area that I tend to differ from many of the faithful is the belief that the bible is the word of God, and this lies fairly near the heart of my personal disavowal of religion.  The bible was not written by God, it was written by men.  Many here will point out that these holy men were inspired or even dictated to directly by God, but to me, this is a very thin argument.  Even if I could believe that God was whispering the words he wanted into these disciples ears, they were still then interpreted and transcribed by men.
> 
> Over the centuries since the stories were first written down, they have been re-written and translated countless times by a variety of different men, some of whom invariably subtly changed the meanings in the original text (this happens today when people translate from one language to another, for instance).  I'm sure some of them attempted to expound on certain points, or make them more concise, like any good editor would.
> 
> ...


Once again, the points you make are clearly thought through and I appreciate your openness in questioning the truth of these things.  Naturally if I could prove it to you to your satisfaction I would.  And but plainly the realm of faith and the realm of objective fact do not often overlap.  And alas there is no such thing as subjective fact .  

I feel that the core issue with the manifold horrors that you have mentioned and alluded to here is perhaps not with the literal interpretation of an holy text.  I think the core issue is the need that we all have to feel vindicated in our worldviews.  I feel that it is incumbent upon a vast swathe of humanity to give a case for their worldview being right (and the corollary that all others are "wrong").  It is this need that gives space to those who, when their evidence fails to stand up to "cross-examination" resort to other means.  It is these other means that lead to the odiousness of the acts you have highlighted.  

Rather than going blow-for-blow over which side has perpetrated more of the world's horror and caused the more grief, I would say that our need as a species to feel vindicated in our view is the root cause.  A secondary cause is that desire (as a society-sized group) to homogenise every view into one easily-categorised view.  It is when attempts are made to coerce everyone into the one-view ideal that we have the kinds of religious parafascism as I see it happening. 

In your country, in common with many both in the Middle East and beyond, unfortunately these religious parafascists are in political office.  That, I feel is not a recipe for tolerance and but rather for forced homogenisation of views.  We, as a society adore this.  We, as individuals despise this.

Nevertheless, perhaps that is to digress.  I believe that all of the issues here whilst stemming perhaps from the jingoism of the various religions are actually manifestations of our human need to feel that vindication in our worldviews and to have others adopt the same worldview as ours.  I think in that respect, the distinction needs to be made between human action and the Word of God.

The actions that are seen too often now in the name of religion, are anything but.  Religion is a cloak to criminality and immorality.  This has absolutely nothing to do with the Word of God.

Again, in terms of the holy texts being transcribed by mere men with all their inherent flaws, well that is surely a mystery.  I think it was necessary to be written in the language of humanity to connect with humanity.  I think to have come somehow more directly from God would reduce the connection if that makes sense.  I believe that these texts must necessarily have been written by men in order to become assimilated into the populus in those areas at the time.  I would in a trivial way, liken it to today's viral videos.  When big corporates attempt to release a viral to a fanfare of glitz they never do so well as when some kid does a few tricks on his bike 



 and creates a worldwide following.  It is just my opinion that when things grow organically to use the marketing term, perhaps they have a more empathetic appeal.  That is just my opinion nothing else.

Apologies if this reply is ill-formed (and probably ill-informed too) it is just my opinion as I get it.  Thank you once again for taking time for your reply.


----------



## ETinCYQX (Aug 18, 2011)

Is it really that hard to believe one thing without slighting another? Or do people have to think that their belief is the only one with any merit?


----------



## seasoned (Aug 18, 2011)

This thread has given me much food for thought, from both sides, although I don't like the distinction of "*taking* sides". After spending much time reading the well thought out posts, I must admit, they are very compelling. Perhaps taking my faith for granted for many years, and passing off atheists, as people that will come around some day, before it is to late, I feel now, it has been childishness thinking on my part. As I read each post I was compelled to jump in, but there was a feeling within me to ponder and consider deeply, and try to see everyones view point. I don't believe there is some miraculous instant conversion that takes place, and God points a finger and all is complete, by no means, but on the same token, I don't discount it either. What I do feel is that there are two types of knowledge. (1) There is public knowledge which you get from using your head and your intellect. You listen with your head and learn with your head. There is nothing wrong with it. Modern civilization could not function without the fruits of public knowledge. But it is limited, and not everybody in the world can access public knowledge. Many don't know the three basics of reading, writing and arithmetic. It goes without saying that without public knowledge you can't begin to know the world around you, and it tells you about the material world. (2) There is universal knowledge, the personal, private knowledge that is within our inner self. It is a feeling knowledge, that transcends cultural backgrounds and foreign languish. Love, pain, anger, caring, understanding, all reside within peoples from all over the world. This universal knowledge comes from the heart and could be called feeling or heart knowledge, if you will. Trying to explain this inner knowledge is difficult because of it's nature. Through Christianity, it is my understanding, that this is where God resides, functions and deals with all people. It is the heart that God reads when considering ones motives, which in turn can be hidden from people to people and is, everyday. I do hope I have explained myself in a way that will not come off as being condescending because this is not my intent. I merely felt compelled to add my 2 cents and I do hope you realize it is coming from the heart.


----------



## Jenna (Aug 18, 2011)

ETinCYQX said:


> Is it really that hard to believe one thing without slighting another? Or do people have to think that their belief is the only one with any merit?


My point in a nutshell, thank you


----------



## Jenna (Aug 18, 2011)

seasoned said:


> This thread has given me much food for thought, from both sides, although I don't like the distinction of "*taking* sides". After spending much time reading the well thought out posts, I must admit, they are very compelling. Perhaps taking my faith for granted for many years, and passing off atheists, as people that will come around some day, before it is to late, I feel now, it has been childishness thinking on my part. As I read each post I was compelled to jump in, but there was a feeling within me to ponder and consider deeply, and try to see everyones view point. I don't believe there is some miraculous instant conversion that takes place, and God points a finger and all is complete, by no means, but on the same token, I don't discount it either. What I do feel is that there are two types of knowledge. (1) There is public knowledge which you get from using your head and your intellect. You listen with your head and learn with your head. There is nothing wrong with it. Modern civilization could not function without the fruits of public knowledge. But it is limited, and not everybody in the world can access public knowledge. Many don't know the three basics of reading, writing and arithmetic. It goes without saying that without public knowledge you can't begin to know the world around you, and it tells you about the material world. (2) There is universal knowledge, the personal, private knowledge that is within our inner self. It is a feeling knowledge, that transcends cultural backgrounds and foreign languish. Love, pain, anger, caring, understanding, all reside within peoples from all over the world. This universal knowledge comes from the heart and could be called feeling or heart knowledge, if you will. Trying to explain this inner knowledge is difficult because of it's nature. Through Christianity, it is my understanding, that this is where God resides, functions and deals with all people. It is the heart that God reads when considering ones motives, which in turn can be hidden from people to people and is, everyday. I do hope I have explained myself in a way that will not come off as being condescending because this is not my intent. I merely felt compelled to add my 2 cents and I do hope you realize it is coming from the heart.


As you indicate, I agree, I think it is prudent to keep the mind open my friend.  And by the same token I think it is equally prudent to keep the heart open also.

I think this thread is divergent, however I am more than happy for that as I have learned much and I asked the question in the form I did simply to try to discern those atheists who have the capacity to take in an opposing view to theirs.  Unfortunataly there are a number of atheists who - because they regard the idea of theism as having no credibility, also regard theists the same way.  Unfortunately the same mindset of admonition and forms of coercion exist among theists for whom it is "my way or the highway". 

Those who have put their points here have shown that there is room for useful discussion when that mindset is not adopted. 

Regarding your point in making a distinction between types of knowledge, I find that interesting too.  I would like to attempt to tag something onto your distinctions if I might?  I think between, personal, experiential knowledge and the knowledge of scientific fact, I think the key in all things is balance.  Were we to base our worldview completely (or even mostly) on knowledge of ONE TYPE ONLY then I think by closing our lives to the other type of knowledge we are deliberately making ourselves ignorant.  I think there are illustrations of this type of reliance on one kind of knowledge everywhere.  

One can live life neither in a realm of 100% subjectivity nor in the other of 100% objectivity.  I think openness to the types of knowledge you have categorised is essential to live in any kind of informed state.

That though is my opinion.  Again, I very much value yours.  Thank you kindly for your contribution.


----------



## Steve (Aug 18, 2011)

ETinCYQX said:


> Is it really that hard to believe one thing without slighting another? Or do people have to think that their belief is the only one with any merit?


If this is the question, then yes.  There is a place for theism.  

I just posted something similar over in the screwing with christians thread.  In my opinion, it's about insecurity.  People being unsure about their own beliefs, and seeing contrary beliefs as a challenge.  It doesn't have to be this way.   There's room for diverse opinions and beliefs, IMO.


----------



## ETinCYQX (Aug 18, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> If this is the question, then yes.  There is a place for theism.  I just posted something similar over in the screwing with christians thread.  In my opinion, it's about insecurity.  People being unsure about their own beliefs, and seeing contrary beliefs as a challenge.  It doesn't have to be this way.   There's room for diverse opinions and beliefs, IMO.


Exactly. It's pretty close to parallel to the people who get offended and angry over criticisms of their specific MA style.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 18, 2011)

Jenna said:


> No, of course I do not mean for a second that you yourself lack emotion or compassion, rather that atheism as a worldview relies upon the necessarily dispassionate world of science and fact for validation.  I would suggest that perhaps there is another way to perceive your youthful disconnect from God or faith.  I wonder could it be looked upon that at a young age, rather than not feeling an emotional connection and not feeling that spiritual conviction, did you have cause to close your mind a little to the idea of God.  If this becomes your worldview at a young age, then you have had ample time through adulthood to match your experiences to your prevailing ideas.  Naturally we all do this I think.  Perhaps the faithful are more "guilty" of it than atheists.  Nevertheless, in seeking validation for our views, we find evidence everywhere in teh most trivial things and ignore glaringly pertinent evidence in other places.
> 
> Again, all I would do is encourage you to keep your mind and senses open.
> 
> ...



If the gods appear to me in some form that can be explained no other way, I would instantly change my tune.  Until then, this is where I'm at...for now.

 I've learned to be very careful about pulling together disparate pieces of information and schlacking together an explanation based off of my intuitive feelings.  For me, perception has been a matter of identifying my own bias and then trying to see beyond that lens.  I've met very few theists who will even attempt this.  I feel that they take for granted that their beliefs are true and that there is nothing to question.  And when they do question, many do it privately, with a lot of shame and guilt.  I have a lot of empathy for this and I wish people would talk openly about it.  It's not a sign of weakness.  

The enormous horizontal pressure we exert on our fellow human beings is cruel to critical thought.


----------



## Jenna (Aug 18, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> If this is the question, then yes.  There is a place for theism.
> 
> I just posted something similar over in the screwing with christians thread.  In my opinion, it's about insecurity.  People being unsure about their own beliefs, and seeing contrary beliefs as a challenge.  It doesn't have to be this way.   There's room for diverse opinions and beliefs, IMO.


That is a good point Steve.  

I think the reason that opposing beliefs and worldviews are seen as challenging to many is that they have their whole entire lives bound up and invested into their own particular version of the world.  

I think it is understandable that folk get more than a little upset when their views on atheism or theism are questioned.  

It is plainly no simple thing to  hear someone outline with fervour that your whole way of life is actually absurd.  It is even more difficult to have them attempt (in the height of your chagrin over your wasted life) to coerce you into following their path.  This applies on either side of this discussion.


----------



## Jenna (Aug 18, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> If the gods appear to me in some form that can be explained no other way, I would instantly change my tune.  Until then, this is where I'm at...for now.
> 
> I've learned to be very careful about pulling together disparate pieces of information and schlacking together an explanation based off of my intuitive feelings.  For me, perception has been a matter of identifying my own bias and then trying to see beyond that lens.  I've met very few theists who will even attempt this.  I feel that they take for granted that their beliefs are true and that there is nothing to question.  And when they do question, many do it privately, with a lot of shame and guilt.  I have a lot of empathy for this and I wish people would talk openly about it.  It's not a sign of weakness.
> 
> The enormous horizontal pressure we exert on our fellow human beings is cruel to critical thought.



The influence of one's peers is often too compelling to resist.  I think when you mention shame and guilt, that is a horrible situation to be in.  I never understand why those in situations regard their situation as taboo where it affects their well-being.  That faith is a private thing is fair enough and but to me my faith is something that I endeavour to be open about.  I think this highlights for me the same issue again, that faith and religion are not the same thing.  I think to stifle crimes perpetrated under the cloak of religion for the sake of some holy empire is horrendous.  I think that religion is the vehicle of men for the aims of men.  I think, while there is an inextricable tie, faith in God is something altogether distinct from the religious means to express that faith.  

All religions could die tomorrow (and I am sorry to say, I would not be sad for it) and many minions and acolytes would lose a crutch and others would lose cash-making economic opportunities and others still would lose that cloak for their crimes and others would lose their weapons of cruelty to fellow citizens.  

I believe that the true faithful would still have their faith.

I think your point is as ever wholly pertinent yes and I value your input greatly thank you.


----------



## Nomad (Aug 18, 2011)

Jenna said:


> As you indicate, I agree, I think it is prudent to keep the mind open my friend.  And by the same token I think it is equally prudent to keep the heart open also.
> 
> I think this thread is divergent, however I am more than happy for that as I have learned much and I asked the question in the form I did simply to try to discern those atheists who have the capacity to take in an opposing view to theirs.  Unfortunataly there are a number of atheists who - because they regard the idea of theism as having no credibility, also regard theists the same way.  Unfortunately the same mindset of admonition and forms of coercion exist among theists for whom it is "my way or the highway".
> 
> Those who have put their points here have shown that there is room for useful discussion when that mindset is not adopted.



Although my children have obviously been influenced by my beliefs (for instance, we don't go to church on Sundays, which is definitely an influence... in either direction), I would not be upset at all if my girls were to find faith and belief in their journeys to adulthood and maturity, and have encouraged them to at least know what is taught by different religions.  

The same cannot be said of many people of strong religious conviction, since if their kids decided not to believe in God, that necessarily damns them to Hell.  I've had other children tell my kids that they can't play with them anymore if they don't believe in God, which I find a very sad statement on accepting and tolerating others, which was obviously passed on by these kids' parents.

I also think I'd be more open to them finding a _different_ faith than many believers since we don't have as much religious baggage; unlike those raised as devout Catholics for instance, I see no distinction between Catholicism & Protestantism (or Baptist, or Jewish, or Wiccan for that matter).  I would be concerned that they embrace faith for the right reasons (for instance, simple rebellion against their Dad because they think I'd be offended would not be a good reason, in my opinion )

For me, one of the benefits of not being religiously inclined is that I am free to make up my own mind about many topics in which religion frequently attempts to meddle, and I can do so on the simple basis of what I believe is right and wrong, regardless of what some ancient authority figure who claims to talk directly with God tells me.  

As someone with fairly strong opinions on many topics (in case you hadn't noticed), I tend to view such diverse topics as contraception, gay marriage, suicide, abortion, and so on without the religious lenses that often play across such debates.  Note that this doesn't necessarily equate to any claim of "seeing more clearly"; we all have our own perceptual distortions based on our experiences and personal beliefs.  I try to look at many of these issues in terms of the direct human cost and benefit by pain caused or evaded (not that this makes many of these issues black and white, but it may remove a layer of additional complexity). 

Of course, the entire lesson of the Bible: Part II (New Testament) is to love your neighbor, and not to judge him (Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, to paraphrase).  Unfortunately for all, that lesson is too often eclipsed or ignored in favor of pursuing petty differences in doctrine or pointing the finger to say why this group or that is so wrong (by both the religious and areligious types, but to give the latter some credit, that's not in *their*&#8203; book ).


----------



## Jenna (Aug 19, 2011)

Nomad said:


> Although my children have obviously been influenced by my beliefs (for instance, we don't go to church on Sundays, which is definitely an influence... in either direction), I would not be upset at all if my girls were to find faith and belief in their journeys to adulthood and maturity, and have encouraged them to at least know what is taught by different religions.
> 
> The same cannot be said of many people of strong religious conviction, since if their kids decided not to believe in God, that necessarily damns them to Hell.  I've had other children tell my kids that they can't play with them anymore if they don't believe in God, which I find a very sad statement on accepting and tolerating others, which was obviously passed on by these kids' parents.
> 
> ...


What can I say besides what a concise post that is.  I like your idea of "religious lenses".  I can do nothing but agree to the idea that too often the lens of religion does not encourage compassion and empathy for those looking through it and but rather seems to distort their perceptions and encourage bigotry, hatred, cruelty and thorough dogmatism.  

I find it disturbing that the thing that turns many who are open to the idea away from theism is primarily the abhorrent, immoral and often criminal acts of those purporting to represent compassionate and tolerant theism in all its variant forms.  That saddens me to my core.  I am sorry that you, like many are affected by the wrongs of religion.  I would laud your openness and fairness with your daughters I have had similar experiences with my boy too.  I think as parents we do what is best for our children as we see it.  I think, even if we are dogmatic in our views, it remains incumbent upon us to encourage inquisitive pragmatism in our children if we are in any way to regard ourselves as worthy parents at all.

Again, thank you for putting across your point of view so clearly.  It is very interesting and important for me to understand and appreciate.  Thank you.


----------

