A Question for Atheists

[Tez3]

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

Things are never as clear as some people think.

 

[fangjian]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Hey Bill,

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.

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.

 

[Makalakumu]

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]

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 parafascist 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]

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.

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]

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]

Jenna, quick question if i may?

Why are you a Christian?