7 November 2009 at 9:23 am (Atheist)
@GospelToday left a comment on the blog the other day and on the Friendly Atheist site. Essentially the argument is that atheism is a kind of religion, that it has a central set of tenets and associated symbolism that is common to religion.
This is the response that I left on FA.
@GospelToday is Coca Cola a religious symbol? Is Intel a religion? Is Microsoft or Glaxo? What about the seal of the President of the United States or the Democratic donkey logo?
The Scarlet Letter A is an icon but not in a religious sense. It does remind atheists that there are other people who do not believe in gods, that we aren’t alone in the face of intrusive and ubiquitous religion. The entire OUT campaign is to encourage atheists to be more public about a lack of belief in gods. We can all benefit from dispelling silly rumours about us that only exist because of ignorance of what atheism is.
One such thing that needs dispelling is the assumption that atheists deny the Christian god in the sense of rebelling against God. This is not the case. I do not rebel against God anymore than I rebel against Thor or Ra. I simply don’t find the idea of ANY god compelling. I find the idea of gods logically inconsistent and I give greater credence to the rational explanations for god belief than for actual gods.
I appreciate that some people like the idea and that some even find it comforting. I’ve no interest in shattering that illusion for you. All I want is same consideration from theists. The OUT campaign and the public face of atheism only exists because many theists are not content to keep their “personal relationship with Jesus Christ” (or any other god) personal. They have to force it on others.
Stick around and read some of the articles here. Understand that we are all singing from the same hymn sheet (so to speak) so the concepts and language might be less accessible than a Christian site might be for you. You’ll see an underlying theme after a time and it isn’t a rebellion against your particular god.
If you like I could also point you to many other resources that explain the position of atheists in a largely theistic world.
I can understand how someone raised in an environment where faith took a central place would make this error. It is like trying to understand someone who wasn’t raised within a family. The concept of family is so central to most people that the idea of growing up without one just doesn’t register. Of course, once someone points out that they were raised differently we can adjust our preconceived notions accordingly. We might fall back on old ways of thinking because they work so well but, once informed, we have the new understanding to work with too.
I’ve never had a religion. I was raised with no mention of religion until I went to school. At school it was simply another form or process that we all went through and the lessons in RE dealt more with ethics and how people all over the world have rituals and ideas that we might not understand.
Understanding people who have a faith is difficult for me and I’ve taken great efforts to do so. At least when I haven’t had to defend why I don’t have a faith or why society should have to follow one. I simply cannot make the connection between the idea of gods and what I observe of reality. That isn’t religion, it is an opinion.
Just for the record: atheism is a lack of belief in gods. That’s it. The counter to this is theism (a belief in at least one god) rather than Christianity (a belief in Christ as God as described in the Bible) or Islam (a belief in God as described in the Koran) or any other subset of theism.
Leave a Comment
27 October 2009 at 12:52 pm (Atheist, Recipe for disaster)
A recipe for all members of the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and for all atheists. Who says we can’t cooperate with church people when we have to?
3 Comments
27 July 2009 at 6:00 am (Atheist, Debate)
Tags: Apologetics, C S Lewis, Christianity, Literature
I’m reading C S Lewis’ Mere Christianity at the moment and found myself ranting (in my head) before I’d even finished the first chapter. Most distracting, I had to kept shutting me up and going back to read what I’d missed. With that in mind I’d like to examine the points raised in each chapter to see if there is any merit to what he’s written. Fortunately he writes very well with some excellent examples so there are few distinct points in each chapter to confuse thing.
In chapter one Lewis argues that there are things he calls Laws of Nature that are universal for all people. This is essentially a default moral standard enjoyed by all of humanity that included compunctions against killing, stealing, rape, deceit, etc. He argues that these are not learned traits but inherent in the human condition.
There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Creeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to–whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put Yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.
I disagree. Although he does follow up with some neat examples that I do agree with I think he is too sweeping in his assumptions.
There are many different characteristics that human beings could be said to have. I can indeed think of a country where aggression in war is frowned upon and pacifism is considered a positive trait or even where cowardice is excused. I think that we live in societies where exploiting those weaker than us is permissible and even encouraged. Selfishness and self dependence are certainly considered to be traits of value although we do not think of self promotion in such terms.
Are there really universal human characteristics or is Lewis just making a huge assumption? Even if he’s right what does this prove?
5 Comments
20 July 2009 at 6:00 am (Atheist, Debate)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/12/2623435.htm
Knowledge of the Bible is in decline in Britain, with fewer than one in 20 people able to name all Ten Commandments and youngsters viewing the Christian holy book as “old-fashioned”, a survey said.
Atheists, however, were not unduly worried about the decline in the Bible’s popularity.
“It shows really that religion is becoming less important to people,” said Pepper Harow, campaigns officer at the British Humanist Association.
I got the article link from the BBC’s Big Question forum. Here was my own response at the time.
Whether you are a believer or not the Bible and the Church of England is part of our national culture and heritage. How can you hope to understand and appreciate the Reformation, The English Civil War or The Enlightenment without some idea of what the bible meant to people. Our language is resplendent with biblical references, our laws are often derived from biblical sources and overturned because we have no secular reason for keeping them.
We should have an awareness of the bible even if we believe that it is myth because people took it very seriously for a very long time. How can you argue against something if you don’t know where the idea came from. If you support stem cell research then you must know about the objections that are derived from Christian dogma as well as those that come from ethical considerations. If you support a woman’s right to choose to terminate a pregnancy then you need to understand how others object to it. If you support free education then you need to understand the basis for it and how Christianity was instrumental in creating the public school system.
Some responses lament the decline of knowledge in the general populace. “We are becoming dumber” they say. I disagree though that knowledge is in decline. In the 21st century we have unprecedented access to knowledge on almost any subject you can imagine. I can read Ulysses online, go to a library, order it from Amazon or even borrow a copy. I can discuss the references in a forum with people all over the world if I wish and can even search for one if I don’t know where to find one. I can join a correspondence course, arrange to meet up with Joyce or Tennyson enthusiasts or just write a blog about it. None of this was possible even 10 years ago on the scale we have today.
I think what is in decline is interest. We are becoming the Eloi and the Morlocks, neither is a fate I find particularly appealing. Do you disagree? Should we lament the loss of our history or allow that which has served it’s purpose to pass unremarked and unmourned? Is the decline of biblical knowledge, as I believe, a symptom of a society that has grown bored and indolent, that seeks only survival and entertainment. If we are losing the roots of our history then is this a step to replacing these old myths with something better for everyone?
4 Comments
1 July 2009 at 10:10 am (Atheist, Debate)
A round up of interesting news stories. What ho!
Britain’s libel laws threaten Free Speech. The article begins with some interesting background on chiropractors and how my nation’s laws are being used to silence science writers who criticise crackpot pseudoscience. Oh the shame.
Research reveals how super-sleeper frogs survive Oh I sometimes wish I could sleep for so long.
Outsourcing Faith Apparently the faithful want to be able to talk about faith rather than do their jobs. Fine, but it should be unpaid work right? Like the Jehovah’s Witnesses who always come round when I’m in the middle of a strenuous workout (ahem) on a Sunday morning. They don’t get paid.
Thanks.
18 Comments
29 May 2009 at 2:57 pm (Atheist)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8071865.stm
It’s true, you either love it or you hate it.
It seems that the face of Jesus has moved from normally appearing on toast to appearing on Marmite lids. Jesus has also been known to make an appearance on steamed up bathroom mirrors, moldy walls and camera flash reflections in glass.
Good news for the faithful and good news for Marmite who can expect a modest sales boost at no advertising cost to themselves. Also good news for atheists like me who find such things ridiculous in every sense of the word. It made me laugh but not in a charitable or self depreciating way.
Just for the sake of arguing, the “face” of Jesus isn’t actually Jesus and in no way provides any evidence of divine intervention. No miracle has occurred. What we have here is a person seeing a pattern in Marmite and associating it with a popular image. Humans are very good at recognising patterns. I’m almost sure that this can go unsaid but for news stories like this that indicate that some people just don’t get it.
Besides which I’m pretty sure that Marmite isn’t even in the bible.
Personally I think it looks like Ozzy Osbourne.
10 Comments
26 May 2009 at 12:34 pm (Atheist, Religion)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/may/26/reussite-france-muslim-school
I read the above story with interest this morning. It seems that the French are happy to fund faith schools for Christians but not for Muslims. Quite why they (or any other nation) fund faith schools is beyond me.
Shouldn’t the faith of people be a personal matter? Shouldn’t faith be separate from state interference and support? Can’t we leave religion alone and expect it to leave us alone? Why should we expect schools to indoctrinate children into a faith at all?
That said, if you have one rule for Christian or Catholic (I know they’re Christian too) schools then that rule should apply to Muslims, Buddhists, Baha’i, Hindus, whatever. Shouldn’t it?
10 Comments
6 April 2009 at 4:00 pm (Atheist, Bad things happen)
I’ve just read about NoGodTube on the Friendly Atheist. Apparently this is a response to the repeated complaints of theists and suspension of atheist’s YouTube accounts. The beauty of YouTube is that you can reach the whole world with your opinions. I understand the need to police these views and maintain certain standards but I would think that discussion would be something that YouTube would want to promote.
While it is a shame that some people seem to want to silence opposing views I find it more of a shame that the opposing views feel it necessary to retreat. I don’t feel that it aids the debate any more than idiotic flaming or attempts to ban contributors.
With NoGodTube, we can continue to debate, but on our terms. Theists will be able to present their arguments based on reason, but if they disagree with our responses, they won’t be able to get us banned or flame us.
I disagree that you can set the terms of a debate and have an open and honest discussion in a public forum. In a structured debate this is fine but YouTube offers a chance to have your say about anything and invites response from everyone. Removing yourself from that whether to GodTube (now Tangle) or NoGodTube is to cut yourself off from the marketplace of ideas.
The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there’s no place for it in the endeavor of science. We do not know beforehand where fundamental insights will arise from about our mysterious and lovely solar system. The history of our study of our solar system shows us clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources.
– Carl Sagan
4 Comments
16 December 2008 at 6:05 pm (Atheist, You decide)
Tags: Atheist, Friendly atheist, Hemant Mehta, Lazy Blogging
Stolen from Hemant.
- Participated in the Blasphemy Challenge.
- Met at least one of the “Four Horsemen” (Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris) in person.
- Created an atheist blog.
- Used the Flying Spaghetti Monster in a religious debate with someone.
- Gotten offended when someone called you an agnostic.
- Been unable to watch Growing Pains reruns because of Kirk Cameron.
- Own more Bibles than most Christians you know.
- Have at least one Bible with your personal annotations regarding contradictions, disturbing parts, etc.
- Have come out as an atheist to your family.
- Attended a campus or off-campus atheist gathering.
- Are a member of an organized atheist/Humanist/etc. organization.
- Had a Humanist wedding ceremony.
- Donated money to an atheist organization.
- Have a bookshelf dedicated solely to Richard Dawkins.
- Lost the friendship of someone you know because of your non-theism.
- Tried to argue or have a discussion with someone who stopped you on the street to proselytize.
- Hid your atheist beliefs on a first date because you didn’t want to scare him/her away.
- Own a stockpile of atheist paraphernalia (bumper stickers, buttons, shirts, etc).
- Attended a protest that involved religion.
- Attended an atheist conference.
- Subscribe to Pat Condell’s YouTube channel.
- Started an atheist group in your area or school.
- Successfully “de-converted” someone to atheism.
- Have already made plans to donate your body to science after you die.
- Told someone you’re an atheist only because you wanted to see the person’s reaction.
- Had to think twice before screaming “Oh God!” during sex. Or you said something else in its place.
- Lost a job because of your atheism.
- Formed a bond with someone specifically because of your mutual atheism (meeting this person at a local gathering or conference doesn’t count).
- Have crossed “In God We Trust” off of — or put a pro-church-state-separation stamp on — dollar bills.
- Refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
- Said “Gesundheit!” (or nothing at all) after someone sneezed because you didn’t want to say “Bless you!”
- Have ever chosen not to clasp your hands together out of fear someone might think you’re praying.
- Have turned on Christian TV because you need something entertaining to watch.
- Are a 2nd or 3rd (or more) generation atheist.
- Have “atheism” listed on your Facebook or dating profile — and not a euphemistic variant.
- Attended an atheist’s funeral (i.e. a non-religious service).
- Subscribe to an freethought magazine (e.g. Free Inquiry, Skeptic)
- Have been interviewed by a reporter because of your atheism.
- Written a letter-to-the-editor about an issue related to your non-belief in God.
- Gave a friend or acquaintance a New Atheist book as a gift.
- Wear pro-atheist clothing in public.
- Have invited Mormons/Jehovah’s Witnesses into your house specifically because you wanted to argue with them.
- Have been physically threatened (or beaten up) because you didn’t believe in God.
- Receive Google Alerts on “atheism” (or variants).
- Received fewer Christmas presents than expected because people assumed you didn’t celebrate it.
- Visited The Creation Museum or saw Ben Stein’s Expelled just so you could keep tabs on the “enemy.”
- Refuse to tell anyone what your “sign” is… because it doesn’t matter at all.
- Are on a mailing list for a Christian organization just so you can see what they’re up to…
- Have kept your eyes open while you watched others around you pray.
- Avoid even Unitarian churches because they’re too close to religion for you.
Only 21. Tsk, I’m barely atheist at all. Of course I blame the high number of USA specific questions for my low score. Dollars indeed. Flipping monopoly money, English ten pound notes have Charles Darwin on them, that’s hardcore.
10 Comments
10 November 2008 at 11:52 pm (Atheist, Reasons to be cheerful, Religion)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7718587.stm
Fighting erupted between Greek Orthodox and Armenian monks at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the traditional site of Christ’s crucifixion.
You seriously couldn’t make this stuff up.
Shocked pilgrims looked on as decorations and tapestries were toppled during Sunday’s clash.
Dressed in the vestments of the Greek Orthodox and Armenian denominations, rival monks threw punches and anything they could lay their hands on.
So much for the message of loving thy neighbour or turning the other cheek.
The Daily Mash has an amusing twist on the story.
2 Comments
/
