An Atheist Defends Religion

It's nice to see the more rational atheists standing up and giving a voice to their like-minded peers. I mean seriously it would be nice to mention i have a belief in god without getting at least four things that read like

god didn't make you and he doesn't care about you....you are just a tiny any on just one blue dot on just one galaxy made up of 400 billion stars among hundreds of Billions of Galaxies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm open to a Deist god but a Theist god is absurd to me. All the evidence shows that jesus, allah, krishna, zeus, buddha, and on and on don't exist...never have....people made them up! Why else is there absolutely no evidence for any of their claims, any of their holy books! that's a huge red flag you can't get around unless you simply want to believe so bad and ignore the evidence.

As i always say, Though i may disagree with atheists i will proudly defend their right to not believe. After all we are all gods children, and for me to treat an atheist (or anyone for that matter) as anything less would be spitting in the face of god.

So 100% of the religious people who donate and do good things wouldnt do them without religion.....

Im afraid his only logical point is evidence of denial or stupidity,

reply to post by FortAnthem

What can I say, I like to poke the atheist hornet's nest from time to time but, it's mostly just for fun.

Have you ever been stung by a hornet? Let me tell ya something. No
atheist has ever dreamed of applying anything so painful.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


O you mean like the idea that god will soon come down to torture and murder all the unbelievers? Sounds like a great idea that must be spread throughout the land.

*takes a deep breath*
I love the smell of apocolypse in the morning!

Originally posted by FortAnthem
reply to post by hippomchippo

 

A quote from Dawkins' book "The God Delusion":

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, blood-thirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Under the title "Militant Atheism" in Wickipedia:

The terms militant atheism and militant atheist are designations applied to atheists who are, or are perceived to be, hostile towards religion. The term has been used going back to at least 1894 [1] and it has been applied to people from Thomas Hobbes onwards. It had a specific application within the materialism of Marxism–Leninism, and in the early years of the Soviet Union, and more recently the term has been used, frequently pejoratively, to describe atheists such as Richard Dawkins,[2] Christopher Hitchens,[3] Sam Harris[4] and Daniel Dennett.[5]

Wickipedia

He seems to spend all of his time attacking religion. That seems pretty militant to me.

[edit on 22-2-2010 by FortAnthem]

I don't see how a couple of sentences plainly putting out some of the things that god undoubtably did as being a militant atheist, especially when it's in a book that can be chosen to be read.

reply to post by Wertdagf


Speaking of acting like a twit...... Hello Werty. That was so far from what I was saying it's awe inspiring....

Which is the Greater Sin...To tell someone that is blind that they are about to fall into a pit die.(Knowing that you know better because you can see and think what they are doing is wrong)...Or to let them walk into the pit and die because they want to walk a certain direction? (after all, who are you to tell someone what is best for them)

Originally posted by FortAnthem
For those of you who responded positively to this thread, about the hard core militant atheists like Dawkins who spend most of their energies assaulting Christianity and religion in general, do you feel they are doing more harm than good to the atheist cause or do you feel they are on the right track?

From my perspective, there isn't an "atheist cause" so no, I don't feel they are doing harm. They are expressing their beliefs, just as the hard core militant Christians are expressing theirs. It's when either one of them PUSH their beliefs on others that I start to get a little... rowdy. I love discussing belief systems all across the board, but in my opinion, there's no place for insults and attacks. That's why I'm not very involved in many religious discussions here.

I know some atheists feel they are part of a cause, and that's fine, but I just don't have that motivation.

Originally posted by FortAnthem
Apparently you've missed a few of my previous threads:

Just to clear up the confusion, I think randyvs was talking to me when he said that. He quoted me and called me "Heretic".

Originally posted by Wertdagf
So 100% of the religious people who donate and do good things wouldnt do them without religion.....

I don't know who you're talking to, but the idea that religious people wouldn't help others without their religion is as silly as the idea that atheists have no morals or values because they have no religion. I have found that people are, for the most part, who they are, whether they have religion in their lives or not.

reply to post by trueperspective


What?


[edit on 2/23/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I don't see the picutre or whatever you posted. It is just an "x." I don't know what you don't understand about the question I asked. Could you answer one way or the other?

reply to post by Wertdagf


Do you know how to construct an argument against someone without using blatant ad-hominem? Here is what the author/article actually said.

Another aspect of religion is morality. It's clear that people can be moral without religion, Sheiman affirms, but it's also evident that religion makes people good.

Did you just conveniently ignore that the author stated that there was no need for religion to create morality? Because i think it is more obvious than a rising moon that he did.

Christ, it is amazing how militants react in such an emotional manner. Irrationality at its finest. The second one of their peers says something positive about religion they go in guns blazing with vitriolic disdain for the mere notion that a fellow atheist may not passionately hate religion as much as you or one of your man-made gods. It's sickening, it's like watching a church turn against a fellow member of the congregation because they let their kid listen to christian heavy metal (which i have seen first hand).



I don't get it? How do people get this polarized?

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Can you show me a example of Dawkins being militant about atheism?
I've only seen him debate rationally and logically, albeit a bit demeaning sometimes.

Speaking on my own behalf here i would say spending money on Bus ads, Writing op-ed articles that explain why "Religion = X" or "Why we don't need religion", publishing books related to aforementioned meanwhile insisting that they are not proselytizing while he goes on tours around the USA and Europe telling people why they shouldn't believe in god... That comes off as rather militant. I mean if a christian did that how would you describe them? I sure as hell wouldn't describe them as subtle or restrained.

reply to post by DeathShield


Well then religion also evidently has made some people bad.

Your mind is locked in a cage because you desire fairy tales. Whats pitifull is your addiction to fantasy.

Originally posted by trueperspective
Which is the Greater Sin...To tell someone that is blind that they are about to fall into a pit die.(Knowing that you know better because you can see and think what they are doing is wrong)...Or to let them walk into the pit and die because they want to walk a certain direction? (after all, who are you to tell someone what is best for them)

I just don't get your point here. On the surface, it would seem that you think it's a greater "sin" to let a blind person fall into a pit than to tell them that they are about to. And then in the end, you ask, "who are you to tell someone what is best for them", as if you disagree with what you just wrote....

I don't understand your position. I guess I'm confused. I'm sorry. If you say which you think is better, perhaps I would understand.

Originally posted by DeathShield

Originally posted by hippomchippo

Can you show me a example of Dawkins being militant about atheism?
I've only seen him debate rationally and logically, albeit a bit demeaning sometimes.

Speaking on my own behalf here i would say spending money on Bus ads, Writing op-ed articles that explain why "Religion = X" or "Why we don't need religion", publishing books related to aforementioned meanwhile insisting that they are not proselytizing while he goes on tours around the USA and Europe telling people why they shouldn't believe in god... That comes off as rather militant. I mean if a christian did that how would you describe them? I sure as hell wouldn't describe them as subtle or restrained.

So, someone writing opinion papers about why we don't need religion is militant? It's just an open expression of their opinions on the subject of religion, I don't understand why we can't have an open debate about the subject.

[edit on 23-2-2010 by hippomchippo]

I dont support any type of religion, but that doesnt mean I cant believe deep that a God could exist, but it just, scientifically, doesnt make any sense for a God like described in all religion books to exist

we as humans are not important to the universe like these books try to make, we are not the image of God, that doesnt make ANY SENSE, you just need to use your brain and research how the universe works

in the next 10 years at least we will discover life inside our solar system

You just need to understand how the universe works, and the history of our society and you will see that all religion have interests, and none of them are in the evolution of our knowledge

when we discovered that the earth wasnt the center of the universe, well, the church was trying to kill scientists, I mean, its pathetic and really is against life to follow groups like these

I'm an atheist, I think religion has surved many good purposes in society and i would always defend the right for religious expression within our societies. as long as everybody can respect each other and respect those who do not wish to believe. Pretty simple really. i would however always argue for a seperation of state and religion.

reply to post by FortAnthem


Allow me to put this in layman's terms;

"I don't need the comfort of a religion, but all those poor ignorant savages that are far below my intellectual capacity sure do!"

Typical stance of the wafflehouse atheist. They don't believe, but they don't want to offend anyone by pointing out that the mass delusion of religion has caused severed damage to human intellectual and social advancements over the last several thousand years.

Allow me then, to be the atheist that says religion needs no defense; it is in fact indefensible. People who happen to not be as smart as me are no more deserving to be shackled to psychologically damaging dogma than people who are smarter than myself do. if for some particular reason, religion needs to be defended, then let the gods and spirits and forces that it claims, come down to defend it.

reply to post by DeathShield


I would describe them as "an average christian". I can't go down the street without seeing eight or nine signs proclaiming god and jesus. if I turn my radio dial - AM or FM - I'm going to find about four or five "bible / christian" stations. Every now and then, mormons or jehova's witnesses or a methodist charity knocks on my door. Every christmas i see the salvation army dude ringing his bell. I can't turn on the TV or crack open a newspaper without a politician, a journalist, an editorialist, or a letter-writer telling me all about the religion they happen to follow. I can't even go to work without frequently hearing about people's beliefs.

I'm not grouching; I accept this as normal. if you think bus ads and op-eds are the product of "militant atheists" though, then you must by this logic think that christians are a bunch of wild-eyed, froth-flecked fanatics, right?

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Right. I find damaging delusion to be more a person blaming a concept instead of human nature for the crap humanity does than someone believing in a god. I also find it to be silly when an extremist looks down their noses at others for not being an extremist as well....

But, in a simular vein as the article:

The so-called “New Atheism” has spread through the media like wildfire. Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris, have major publications out that are debating theists all over the country, creating YouTube videos, creating marketing campaigns and discussion groups, and more or less working evangelists up into a defensive frenzy. 
Furthermore, to fortify this intellectual army against faith and superstition, ex- Christians, such Dan Barker (former evangelical preacher), John Loftus (former preacher with degrees in philosophy, theology, and philosophy of religion), William Lobdell (former Protestant evangelist), and Jeffrey Mark (former devout Christian), are adding different perspectives to the debate, in which they reject religion not from the perspective of the armchair philosopher, but from their past, deeply rooted and sincere devotion to religion and subsequent irreconcilable issues with theism, faith, and the supernatural. The faithful no doubt have their explanations for these ex-believers, yet these writers have added a new level of credibility to the ongoing debate. writers have added a new level of credibility to the ongoing debate.

Following the wake of these new atheists are the thousands of hobbyist atheists and freethinkers who promote their own websites, blogs, newsletters, Facebook and Myspace pages, and online articles (like the one you are reading).  And we can’t neglect to mention some of the more astute and hard- to-pin-down critical writers, such as Terry Eagleton, who has depicted Dawkins and Hitchens as atheist schoolyard bullies and has charged them with grossly over-simplifying and misrepresenting the multifarious human understandings of God or arguing from the standpoint of science with no authority (see “Tragic hero: Laurie Taylor interviews Terry Eagleton” for a drill down on this). over-simplifying and misrepresenting the multifarious human understandings of God or arguing from the standpoint of science with no authority (see“Tragic hero: Laurie Taylor interviews Terry Eagleton” for a drill down on this).

As with any new movement, the “New Atheism” is not without its blemishes. More to the point, atheists are not all equally as effective in positioning their viewpoints and generating credibility with their arguments. Some let their emotions, their anger or resentment toward religion, interfere with their reasoning. Some bight off more than they can chew (claim more than they can support or explain) or do not provide valid arguments for their ideas. Some present themselves as condescending and disrespectful with their attacks on theism, which lessens their credibility and reinforces the stereotype that atheists are bad people or lack good character. Some over-simplify, generalize, or misrepresent the theist worldview, so as to effortlessly refute it.  And some atheists fail to recognize the diversity and complexity in how human beings define and understand the concept of God, but rather choose to focus on the more simple-minded concepts that are also the most vulnerable. Interestingly, many atheists come across more as anti-theists. If they simply don’t believe in God, why devote so much effort in attempting to show that God does not exist? show that God does not exist?

In contrast, some atheists are brilliant, well read, and develop very concise arguments that pose legitimate and formidable challenges to theists and those of faith.  Some are polite, courteous, and respectful in their critiques of theism. Some define “God” before they deconstruct it, leaving other viewpoints open to debate or discussion. And some clearly understand the limits of human reason and the precarious intersection of objectivity and subjectivity in light of theological beliefs, or any beliefs for that matter.  We can suggest the same for theists. Their approaches and styles come in all forms and shapes, with varying degrees of credibility, validity, and understanding of the nuances of the debate. forms and shapes, with varying degrees of credibility, validity, and understanding of the nuances of the debate.

Moreover, it may come across as odd that some atheists and anti-theists spend an unusual amount of time and energy talking about God. There is that old saying that “The trouble with atheists is that all they talk about is God.” There is a kernel of truth in this humorous assertion. Why are so many atheists seemingly obsessed with formulating arguments against the existence of God? Why are they so infatuated with the non-existence of God? Is nothing sacred to them? Just Google “Does God exist” and you will find thousands of pages of old and tired debates, the same arguments re-hashed over and over again for and against the existence of God. These debates have been occurring for over 2000 years. Theologians, philosophers, and philosophers of religion have analyzed the issues down to the subtle details, complete with thorny semantics, hair splicing, and complex stipulations.  As evident by the lack of consensus, the case has not been settled, and it will probably never be settled given the nature of the question and its metaphysical and epistemological implications. settled given the nature of the question and its metaphysical and epistemological implications.

We may be able to provide a strong case that empirical evidence and scientific reasoning does not support believe in God, and scientists like Victor Stenger in his “God: The Failed Hypothesis” have provided some very compelling arguments for how we can reject one particular definition of “God” based on scientific reasoning. However, when push comes to shove, believers can ultimately profess reliance on faith and can posit that belief in God is not the type of thing that requires empirical data to support it.  And it is very difficult, if not inappropriate to tell a person that their feelings and emotions associated with the idea of a supreme being are invalid.  We can easily argue that faith is a poor and inconsistent way of grounding beliefs by pointing out its contradictory results, but in the end this does not stop believers from using it or coming back to the point that reasoning, empirical data, logic, etc, are not necessary to justify their personal belief in God. necessary to justify their personal belief in God.

Yet atheists continue to hammer away at the same method of using reason and empirical evidence in their arguments against belief in God, when these methods may be completely inapplicable.  Could they be using the right tool for the wrong job?  Einstein allegedly stated that “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”?  Why would atheists and anti-theists continue to use the same methods when debating with theists, without ever suspecting that belief in God is not the type of thing that requires any evidence?  Do we need to provide empirical evidence and a logical argument for why we like a particular flavor of ice-cream, or why we have a favorite color?  Conversely, this is not to say that there are good reasons to believe in God; rather, it is to say that there are no reasons to belief or disbelief in God, only the pure and basic will to do so based on psychological dispositions, feelings, moods, etc. That’s just one way of looking at it, of course. of looking at it, of course.

Perhaps it is time for atheists and anti-theists to take a break from the God arguments. In a way, by continuing the debates, they also continue to reinforce belief in God by theists, because the more they argue against it, the more their opponents lash back with their vehement responses for it. Why? Because they are using the right tool for the wrong job, like using cold reason to sympathize with a person in duress. It is like a self-fueling fire, where atheists (and theists) continue to reinforce each other’s beliefs and push an insolvable debate to absurdity.  Therefore, by continuing to debate about God, atheists and anti-theists reinforce an “either/or” scenario, rather than rejecting it with a “none of the above.” rejecting it with a “none of the above.”

In summary, perhaps a more productive approach for atheists is to reject the terms of the debate all together, reject the whole set of terminology related to God, and collapse it into a non-issue. In other words, stop talking about God, and start talking about what the evidence does suggest. Stop talking about negative facts (the non-existence of some thing - nothing), and start promoting the positive. Leave God out of the equation all together. Atheism and anti-theism move to non-theism, which then moves to a completely different and more interesting discussion and set of debates all together. different and more interesting discussion and set of debates all together.

www.reasonproject.org...