Atheism. Outlived its usefulness?

[stuartj]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

The premise of this thread is that atheism=rationalism. I'm merely pointing out that isn't necessarily so. I'm sure to its avid practitioners it must appear so, but it sure doesn't to the rest of us.

No Jeff, thats not the premise. The premise is that atheism (rejection of religous superstition) is only a part of rationalism, not a means unto to itself. Ofcourse a rationalist will reject religion- any flavour of religion- just as he will reject fortune telling or shamonism.

What we rationalists need to do is set aside any element of "faith" and deal only with the rational. As you sit on that fence getting splinters in the sphincter, please consider. Do you sit under a pyramid, do have green crystals? Did Mohamad ride a winged steed to paradise? Did Jesus Christ rise from the dead?

[The Gaijin]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

and the world is worse off today for it.

Religion provides a Divine Right to kill.

Oh Shaun - it too early in the day for this....

But I must retort.

But Marx was the inspiration for Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. And Hitler and the Nazis were very much atheists that grew out of the same framework. (National Socialists...)

Religion provides a Divine right to get up a bit earlier on Sunday morning and have cake and coffee after services.

[stuartj]

Originally Posted by IROC

Atheism is really nothing more than a rejection of the belief in gods due to insufficient evidence. That's all it is. It's not a way to lead your life.

Yes, exactly. Atheism, in and of itself, is NOT a position of faith.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by The Gaijin

But Marx was the inspiration for Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. And Hitler and the Nazis were very much atheists that grew out of the same framework. (National Socialists...)

No.

[stuartj]

Originally Posted by The Gaijin

But Marx was the inspiration for Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. And Hitler and the Nazis were very much atheists that grew out of the same framework. (National Socialists...)

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

[The Gaijin]

We could go back and forth all day. From Wiki:

Hitler extended his rationalizations into a religious doctrine, underpinned by his criticism of traditional Catholicism. In particular, and closely related to Positive Christianity, Hitler objected to Catholicism’s ungrounded and international character — that is, it did not pertain to an exclusive race and national culture. At the same time, and somewhat contradictorily, the Nazis combined elements of Germany’s Lutheran community tradition with its northern European, organic pagan past. Elements of militarism found their way into Hitler’s own theology; he preached that his was a “true” or “master” religion, because it would “create mastery” and avoid comforting lies. Those who preached love and tolerance, “in contravention to the facts”, were said to be “slave” or “false” religions. The man who recognized these “truths”, Hitler continued, was said to be a “natural leader”, and those who denied it were said to be “natural slaves”. “Slaves” — especially intelligent ones, he claimed — were always attempting to hinder their masters by promoting false religious and political doctrines.

Anti-clericalism can also be interpreted as part of Nazi ideology, simply because the new Nazi hierarchy did not allow itself to be overridden by the power that the Church traditionally held. In Austria, clerics had a powerful role in politics and ultimately responded to the Vatican. Although a few exceptions exist, Christian persecution was primarily limited to those who refused to accommodate the new regime and yield to its power. A particularly poignant example is seen in the life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. However, the Nazis often used the church to justify their stance and included many Christian symbols in the Third Reich

[Jim Richards]

Gaijin, your post supports Stuart's position.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by stuartj

No Jeff, thats not the premise. The premise is that atheism (rejection of religous superstition) is only a part of rationalism, not a means unto to itself. Ofcourse a rationalist will reject religion- any flavour of religion- just as he will reject fortune telling or shamonism.

What we rationalists need to do is set aside any element of "faith" and deal only with the rational. As you sit on that fence getting splinters in the sphincter, please consider. Do you sit under a pyramid, do have green crystals? Did Mohamad ride a winged steed to paradise? Did Jesus Christ rise from the dead?

I would accept that, stuart, if not for one thing. The atheists' (or at least many atheits; I don't mean to lump all of you together) need to substitute something else for a belief in God. A truly rational person is comfortable in saying "we just don't know" in reference to the eternal questions raised on both sides.

So the atheist does not, in fact, reject all forms of "religion". Just the commonly identified forms of such. Most accept a great deal on faith, yet refuse to admit that to anyone, including themselves. It makes sense to them, and fits their preconceived world view, so they accept it. I have a lot more respect for atheists that can admit this, than I have for those who are adamant that their particular substitute for religion is "rational", much less "truthfull".

[Pazuzu]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

I'm sure to its avid practitioners it must appear so,

Ah...avid practitioner. If someone must "avidly practice" a belief system (on either side, theist or atheist)...are they REALLY being true? Shouldn't a person's personal belief structure come so naturally that there is no practice required, much less AVID practice? I posit that if someone is putting any effort at all, much less LOTS of effort, into maintaining a belief system, that they are therefore being false to themselves and those around them.


People on both sides of this fence are driven to pigeonhole other's thoughts, all while fighting for their own individual freedom of thought. It's always fascinated me how humans think sometimes.

[The Gaijin]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

Gaijin, your post supports Stuart's position.

The Nazis and Hitler did not have faith in God as presented in the Christian religion. Religion was just another tool to be used and manipulated by the state for their own ends.

[stuartj]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

I would accept that, stuart, if not for one thing. The atheists' (or at least many atheits; I don't mean to lump all of you together) need to substitute something else for a belief in God. A truly rational person is comfortable in saying "we just don't know" in reference to the eternal questions raised on both sides.

So the atheist does not, in fact, reject all forms of "religion". Just the commonly identified forms of such. Most accept a great deal on faith, yet refuse to admit that to anyone, including themselves. It makes sense to them, and fits their preconceived world view, so they accept it. I have a lot more respect for atheists that can admit this, than I have for those who are adamant that their particular substitute for religion is "rational", much less "truthfull".

What eternal questions are they Jeff, and why is religion equipped to answer them?

Rationalists are quite comfortable with the position you describe. For example, ask a rational whether he thinks there is life elsewhere in the universe. He might say, something like- "it is almost a statistical certainty- but we do not not know." Its OK not know.

Ask him about tarot cards or god. He might say well, I dont know for sure, but I have yet to see any evidence to support the proposition. Can you provide any?

By the way, this thread is for atheists and rationals. I'd appreciate it if you could be a little more positive. Thanks.

[70SWT]

For all the complexity of this thread...for me, my personal distaste for religion simply boils down to a refusal to believe in supernatural, mystical explanations for existence, life, love, death or whatever else people care to debate. Its probably a product of my science and medical training; I look at life with an analytical eye.

I also believe that it's a matter of being mature and realistic enough to accept that, like abandoning one's belief in Santa Claus, perhaps life really is what you see around you and nothing more. Which makes it all the more important to cherish those around you, and the process of living life well and fairly today, not with an eye on heaven or whatever.

I think we are at a point as a thinking species that we can abandon fairy tales and instead focus on practical, reality-based means of living with one another. Religion all too often serves as a means to divide people, not to unite them. It has outlived its usefulness. As a soldier stationed in Iraq right now, I can attest that religion is not serving this region or the world well in the information age.

[IROC]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

I would accept that, stuart, if not for one thing. The atheists' (or at least many atheits; I don't mean to lump all of you together) need to substitute something else for a belief in God. A truly rational person is comfortable in saying "we just don't know" in reference to the eternal questions raised on both sides.

So the atheist does not, in fact, reject all forms of "religion". Just the commonly identified forms of such. Most accept a great deal on faith, yet refuse to admit that to anyone, including themselves. It makes sense to them, and fits their preconceived world view, so they accept it. I have a lot more respect for atheists that can admit this, than I have for those who are adamant that their particular substitute for religion is "rational", much less "truthfull".

Jeff, I can't help but think as I read your posts that you really do not have a solid grasp on what atheism is or what an atheist actually "believes". I don't really fault you for it as I would struggle to really internalize what or how a theist believes.

It really seems that you try so hard to tell us what we do and don't think, etc. (e.g. " So the atheist does not, in fact, reject all forms of 'religion'. Just the commonly identified forms of such." or "Most accept a great deal on faith, yet refuse to admit that to anyone, including themselves.") Speaking for myself, this is such a bad interpretation of how I actually think or believe that it becomes immediately obvious that you don't know what you're talking about. At least as it pertains to me.

You seem to have created this image of what atheists are or how they think or believe and then set out in your posts to attack these positions. It just seems to fall apart.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by Pazuzu

Ah...avid practitioner. If someone must "avidly practice" a belief system (on either side, theist or atheist)...are they REALLY being true? Shouldn't a person's personal belief structure come so naturally that there is no practice required, much less AVID practice? I posit that if someone is putting any effort at all, much less LOTS of effort, into maintaining a belief system, that they are therefore being false to themselves and those around them.


People on both sides of this fence are driven to pigeonhole other's thoughts, all while fighting for their own individual freedom of thought. It's always fascinated me how humans think sometimes.

Exactly. We have examples of both right here in our Pelican community. We have religious zealots and we have atheist zealots. Stuart stands out as the poster child for the latter. He very clearly puts a great deal of thought and effort into his atheism, while blocking any rational discourse from the other side, whom he sees as "irrational".

Originally Posted by stuartj

What eternal questions are they Jeff, and why is religion equipped to answer them?

The same old "where did we come from; why are we here?" And no, religion is not equiped to answer them. Never implied, much less stated, that it was. Neither is atheism.

Originally Posted by stuartj

Rationalists are quite comfortable with the position you describe. For example, ask a rational whether he thinks there is life elsewhere in the universe. He might say, something like- "it is almost a statistical certainty- but we do not not know." Its OK not know.

I agree completely; that is a rational answer. It is not, however, an answer exclusive to atheists. Rationalists, yes, atheists, no. There are just as many rationalists on the religious end of the spectrum that say the same thing. Religion does not rule out life on other planets. Most folks I know would answer "sure, why not?" when asked if it is possible. Even religious zealots, as a matter of fact.

Originally Posted by stuartj

Ask him about tarot cards or god. He might say well, I dont know for sure, but I have yet to see any evidence to support the proposition. Can you provide any?

Again, we have to boil this down to what constitutes acceptable evidence. The religious end of the spectrum accepts the esoteric as "evidence"; the atheist end looks for "scientific facts and data". Each rejects the other's "evidence", all the while wondering why the other side cannot see what they see so plainly in their own "evidence". In the middle, we see folks who accept both, to a degree. There are components of both in "the answer", whatever that may be. They understand that neither side can definitively "prove" their position with the "evidence" they offer.

Originally Posted by stuartj

By the way, this thread is for atheists and rationals. I'd appreciate it if you could be a little more positive. Thanks.

I'm quite positive about all that I have posted. I think...

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

The atheists' (or at least many atheits; I don't mean to lump all of you together) need to substitute something else for a belief in God.

Jeff, what is your evidence to support this statement?

[70SWT]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

Jeff, what is your evidence to support this statement?

+1

I don't understand the need to establish a rigid belief system of any kind, mystically-based or otherwise, in order to deal with life. I think a lot of people feel this way.

[IROC]

Originally Posted by RSflared72E

+1

I don't understand the need to establish a rigid belief system of any kind, mystically-based or otherwise, in order to deal with life. I think a lot of people feel this way.

Precisely.

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by The Gaijin

The Nazis and Hitler did not have faith in God as presented in the Christian religion. Religion was just another tool to be used and manipulated by the state for their own ends.

Well, now you're on a slippery slope. Hitler said he was Christian. You say he wasn't a "real" Christian. That where we are here?

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by IROC

Jeff, I can't help but think as I read your posts that you really do not have a solid grasp on what atheism is or what an atheist actually "believes". I don't really fault you for it as I would struggle to really internalize what or how a theist believes.

It really seems that you try so hard to tell us what we do and don't think, etc. (e.g. " So the atheist does not, in fact, reject all forms of 'religion'. Just the commonly identified forms of such." or "Most accept a great deal on faith, yet refuse to admit that to anyone, including themselves.") Speaking for myself, this is such a bad interpretation of how I actually think or believe that it becomes immediately obvious that you don't know what you're talking about. At least as it pertains to me.

You seem to have created this image of what atheists are or how they think or believe and then set out in your posts to attack these positions. It just seems to fall apart.

Mike, I may very well be guilty of lumping all of you in with the strident atheists such as stuart. On the other hand, it strikes me you are just as guilty with regards to your image of believers. You have demonstrated (quite convincingly) that you simply cannot grasp how some one like me believes or thinks. It seems far more comfortable for you to lump me in with the Bible thumpin' zealots. So (excuse me from stealing your line), it becomes immediately obvious that you do not know what you are talking about.

You have very clearly set out as well, but on a different (but parallel) path. You cling to your well developed stereotype regarding what all believers think or believe, and use that as the base from which you launch your attacks on all believers.

But, we digress. That is not what we are discussing in this thread. The original statement that we should substitute "rationalism" for "atheism" has been pretty thoroughly examined and seen to be lacking. Even its originator now concedes that "atheism" is only a component of "rationalism"., and not equal to, as he originally maintained.

I would argue that atheism is not rational. It is not the natural position of a rational man. Atheism requires the suppression of the natural man, of his natural knowledge of a god. In its extreme, atheism causes one to seek out anything at all that "disproves" a god, and the most irrational of arguments are given free pass. Stuart is at that end of the spectrum. I think you are a bit closer to the middle, but not much. That is merely an observation, based upon the nature of (both of your) your past replies.

Originally Posted by RSflared72E

+1

I don't understand the need to establish a rigid belief system of any kind, mystically-based or otherwise, in order to deal with life. I think a lot of people feel this way.

Exactly. Middle-of-the-road folks feel this way. My comments are focused more on the strident believers on either end; the religious and ahteist zealots. Most of us in the middle see both as irrational.

[Jim Richards]

Jeff, after subjecting my Carl Sagan Baloney Detector to your posts about atheism, the detector is pegged.