A Question for Atheists

[Makalakumu]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Yes I welcome your input Ken thank you.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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?

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.

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]

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.

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]

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

 

[Ken Morgan]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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 )

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]

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]

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.