Ask an atheist

[MSNative]

"I am the Ted Bundy of String Theory." - Sam Harris. Love that. His talk was fascinating. I really enjoyed it and found myself nodding in agreement with much of it. Since two of y'all mentioned him, I'm thinking he gives voice to what many atheists think - particularly that there are good and bad choices, actions, societies, etc. I was under the impression that atheists believed that "whatever you think is good is good. Who are we to judge?" This has always been hard for me to get since I believe there are at a minimum universal "bad" choices even though there are some cultures that espouse and even enforce those choices.

 

His talk raised so many questions for me. I'll start with one and see if that answer helps with the other questions. He talks about certain opinions mattering. His example was physics. His opinion in matters of physics shouldn't count because he is not an expert. He argues that only expert opinions should count in matters of morality. Who are the experts in morality? Who decides this?

 

 

Thanks for introducing me to Sam Harris. I am teaching a debate class in the fall and plan on using him as a resource. However, you also owe me an apology since I think I will not get much done on my to do list b/c I'll be spending too much time watching more talks. :)

[5of5]

His talk raised so many questions for me. I'll start with one and see if that answer helps with the other questions. He talks about certain opinions mattering. His example was physics. His opinion in matters of physics shouldn't count because he is not an expert. He argues that only expert opinions should count in matters of morality. Who are the experts in morality? Who decides this?

 

In formal logic, that sounds like the ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy. I also think it may be a ‘scope error’ to conflate what works in objective science with subjective fields, such as morality. Are there clear and obvious experts in ethics such as you have in science?

[chiguirre]

 

 

In formal logic, that sounds like the ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy. I also think it may be a ‘scope error’ to conflate what works in objective science with subjective fields, such as morality. Are there clear and obvious experts in ethics such as you have in science?

 

There are moral philosophers who spend most of their time thinking and writing about ethics. I think their opinions carry more weight than someone who hasn't read widely in the field of ethics and hasn't spent a lot of time refining their thoughts on these subjects. On a more practical note, hospitals often have bio-ethicists on their review committees to address the ethical concerns in providing care.

 

For a good scholarly introduction to the field of ethics, I'd try the relevant chapter in this book:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Guide-through-Subject-Vol/dp/0198752431/ref=pd_sim_b_1

[kubiac]

I was under the impression that atheists believed that "whatever you think is good is good. Who are we to judge?" This has always been hard for me to get since I believe there are at a minimum universal "bad" choices even though there are some cultures that espouse and even enforce those choices.

 

I think that's more like libertarianism or nihilism, LOL. For me, religious belief and basic morals/ethics are two circles of a Venn diagram than can overlap but don't necessarily do so on all points. I feel you can be moral/religious, immoral/religious, moral/areligious or immoral/areligious.

 

My sense is that "good" and "bad" behaviors are somewhat self-evident and don't necessarily need to be codified, but as societies grow and become denser (in population and in cognitive complexity) it behooves the group to document what's OK and what's not.

[albeto]

I was under the impression that atheists believed that "whatever you think is good is good. Who are we to judge?"

 

I suspect this is the misunderstanding that holds most people back from learning more.

 

He talks about certain opinions mattering. His example was physics. His opinion in matters of physics shouldn't count because he is not an expert. He argues that only expert opinions should count in matters of morality. Who are the experts in morality? Who decides this?

 

Consider the idea that scientists operate to find an accurate representation of reality. The fact is, there are certain realities that exist regardless of whether we understand them. Physicists try to understand the physical explanation of these things. If someone wants to know the more complex explanations of these discoveries, they aren't going to ask Harris, instead they'll ask someone who has spent considerable time becoming familiar with this field in a way Harris is not. The reason is because the expert has a greater foundation of data from which to draw information. A credible moral code, Harris argues, also exists regardless of whether or not any individual understands it. The expert would be the one who has the greater foundation of data from which to draw information.

 

Take for example the idea that the well-being of an individual is greater when their pneumonia is cured, rather than when they die. That's a pretty huge spectrum, but we can work with it. Because we know life is better than death, and health is better than illness, when an illness is preventable or treatable, the moral thing to do is treat it. When someone suggests the moral thing to do is pray, we can challenge that with objective arguments. The moral authorities (pastors) of Faith Tabernacle Congregation in North Philadelphia, and First Century Gospel Church in Juniata Park, for example, have opinions that are not only not credible, they're deadly. Those opinions are not, objectively speaking, as valuable as the opinion of a general family doctor who has knowledge of how bacteria and antibiotics affect the human body. In that sense, sure everyone has an opinion, but not all opinions are equal in value.

 

It used to be (and still is, but this is slowly changing) that religion was treated like science - it operates to find an accurate representation of reality. The problem is, this representation of reality religion proposes is, by its very nature, required in some measure to be believed without evidence. That's how faith works, after all. Today, most people don't look to religion for medical advice (which is why these churches and the families that keep loosing children catch our attention today - it's not typical - any more). However, people still look to religion for moral advice. Harris is challenging that by suggesting these questions can be answered objectively, just like medical questions can be. Ultimately, religious answers are no more credible in answering moral questions than they are in answering medical questions.

 

In the United States, there is a heated issue surrounding equal marriage rights. Objectively speaking, a homosexual couple is no more "dangerous" to society than a heterosexual couple is. Objectively speaking, one's well-being is not diminished by providing the same legal privileges to same sex couples as to opposite sex couples. Those who argue otherwise are ignoring, dismissing, or misrepresenting objective data and interjecting religious beliefs as if they accurately represent reality. One of the problems with offering religious answers to moral questions, especially with regards to one of the Abrahamic religions, the "victim" being protected is a mythological character, and the human is to blame. This is the kind of thought process that inspires revenge, the likes of which inspired the Hate Crimes Prevention Acts.

 

Thanks for introducing me to Sam Harris. I am teaching a debate class in the fall and plan on using him as a resource. However, you also owe me an apology since I think I will not get much done on my to do list b/c I'll be spending too much time watching more talks. :)

 

I'll happily apologize, but I refuse to feel guilty!

[albeto]

Isn't the no particular reason just as problematic? It still leaves us feeling helpless and hopeless, which is why religion may have come along in the first place.

 

Help and hope aren't unique to religions. I doubt they're even unique to humans. Religion simply offers a formal explanation and expectation that revolves around particular mythological beliefs and subsequent socially acceptable behaviors.

 

Even with all that, death is still a major issue in the world today. Everybody dies, sooner or later, it is just our nature. Such finality is usually painful and unacceptable. Religion often provides a way of coping with the pain.

 

As an atheist, my reply would be to agree. Religion does often provide a way of coping with pain. When taking into consideration the well-being of the individual, reducing emotional pain is better than ignoring it, in my opinion. However... as an anti-theist, my reply is quite different. It is my opinion that in offering a religious coping mechanism, there is a greater contribution to emotional suffering over all. The Abrahamic religions are what I'm most familiar with, so my comments can really only apply to those, but the idea that coping is related to being loved and valued is misleading. The peace offered by being loved and valued only applies to those who are first taught to believe they are not intrinsically lovable and valuable. The problem with this is that even among the many stories and anecdotes provided to make someone feel good, others feel that doesn't apply to them and they are still stuck in the unlovable, worthless mode, the one they were born into, the one they will face eternal (!) consequences for.

 

Check out 5 minutes of this National Geographic documentary. Start at minute 23. This documentary follows a Nepalese eye surgeon into North Korea. He's offered his medical group to be a cover for the Nat Geo journalists in order to get an idea of what goes on in this otherwise very secretive country. At minute 23 they are introduced to a family whose mother/grandmother will be having cataract surgery. They've been invited into her family's home. The journalist asks them some questions and for about 5 min you can see the kind of "hope" they have in Great Leader. It brings them to tears. These are genuine tears. The very end of the documentary is more of the same as the patients give thanks to Great Leader for healing their blindness, or rather, allowing the eye surgeon to come and heal their blindness. Not healing their blindness would be perfectly acceptable to them as well because Great Leader is, well, Great. He can do no wrong.

 

http://youtu.be/mxLBywKrTf4

 

Religious coping, the feeling that a god loves you, brings people to tears, just like Great Leader does for the North Koreans. Gives people hope, just like the North Koreans. I challenge the idea that this is really in the best interest of an individual. I think it lessens one's emotional well-being than to be taught the skills to process death and grief without the fear/hope of eternal horror/heaven.

[Shahrazad]

I have a question regarding a previous post (the slideshow post) and the general attitude I seem to hear from many atheists that religion is to blame for most of the ills committed by humanity of the world. I don't think all of you have echoed it but I've seen things like this mentioned a lot within the atheist community. I was kind of debating whether to ask because I didn't want to accidentally lead into a debate or derail the topic. Do most atheists agree on this topic (that religion is to blame)? Don't you think that it is often the interpretation and misuse of a religion rather than the actual religion that causes these things and that the same people who perpetrate oppressive or violent acts against people would find a way to do it with or without using religion to back them up? I just can't see, personally, that things would be any different whether or not there was religion. There would still be culture and there would still be psychopathy and many of the acts that are often thought to be religious are practiced by multiple faiths in the same area because it is based on the desires of people backed up by cultural tradition. When I look at crimes committed that have nothing to do with faith...I mean, just looking at a news websites will show you horrible murders of children, rape, etc..., I don't really think that having religion or not would make a big difference in this area. It seems like humans have a large propensity to be destructive, regardless.

 

On another note, do you think that there is a use for religion in which case it might be beneficial for it to exist in some way? What I mean by that is, to take the example of someone who lost a child suddenly at a young age, one's faith might comfort that person that there was a reason for it and that this is part of God's plan and that they will be reunited with their child permanently...whereas not having that belief and having the view that the child is just dead and dust, that they're gone for good, and that there was no reason might drive someone to be suicidal or such extreme depression that they can never function normally again? KWIM?

 

 

ETA: This thread had additional posts since I wrote so I don't know if this was already covered now, I will have to go back and read. Also, please take my comments as meant respectfully and genuinely curious to know. I don't want to look as though I'm trying to bait someone into a debate!

 

And an updated question based on Albeto's post: Would most atheists consider themselves to also be anti-theist?

[NotSoObvious]

I have a question for those who were once Christian but are now atheist. How have your views/opinions of sin changed? I have always had a hard time with the concept of sin. I am asking as a former Christian, now agnostic leaning strongly towards atheism. I have no one IRL to discuss this with, without the you know what hitting the fan!

 

 

Well, we are more agnostic leaning, but we used to be Mormon, so I'll give this one a try.

 

For *me,* looking back, sin was about rules, guilt, and worth. Lots of baggage. Now, I look at behaviors in relation to what it means for my own growth and relationships with other people. Also, I have a firmer understanding of the relativism of "sin" and have realized that with more life experience, it becomes more difficult to stand in a place of judgment over someone else. We are all walking different paths. If yours works for you, great. Do good, be good, live and let live and all that. Sin just isn't a part of my vocabulary or world anymore.

 

We go to a UU church and one of the principles is to promote the inherent worth and dignity of every person. When you begin with that, it's difficult to end in judgment, especially from an eternal/worthiness perspective. (Though I'm far from perfect and judge a lot.)

[NotSoObvious]

 

 

On another note, do you think that there is a use for religion in which case it might be beneficial for it to exist in some way? What I mean by that is, to take the example of someone who lost a child suddenly at a young age, one's faith might comfort that person that there was a reason for it and that this is part of God's plan and that they will be reunited with their child permanently...whereas not having that belief and having the view that the child is just dead and dust, that they're gone for good, and that there was no reason might drive someone to be suicidal or such extreme depression that they can never function normally again? KWIM?

 

 

 

So, I actually have friends who lost a child. They are Christian. The attitude from other Christian's that this was somehow "the plan" or that "God had a reason" was incredibly hurtful to them. They didn't believe that at ALL. They are still very religious and believe in heaven and believe their baby is up there, and that gives them comfort.

 

I don't believe not having a belief in the afterlife is going to make someone suicidal. No.

 

Is there a beneficial use for religion? Sure. We attend the UU church. There is no doctrine, but church serves as a community and a venue to be uplifted, to volunteer, to fellowship, etc. It's good and beneficial, all without having to subscribe to a set of religious doctrines.

[Shahrazad]

Just to add, I wouldn't tell someone that if they lost a child, our attitude tends to be encouraging them to the idea that they will be reunited in heaven and be rewarded for their patience with dealing with such an affliction. Didn't want to be misunderstood.

 

I'm not trying to insinuate all people would be going out and killing themselves, I just mean whether belief in a deity and an afterlife gives some people the ability to keep going on if they are the type of person who would not be able to cope without it

[NotSoObvious]

Just to add, I wouldn't tell someone that if they lost a child, our attitude tends to be encouraging them to the idea that they will be reunited in heaven and be rewarded for their patience with dealing with such an affliction. Didn't want to be misunderstood.

 

I'm not trying to insinuate all people would be going out and killing themselves, I just mean whether belief in a deity and an afterlife gives some people the ability to keep going on if they are the type of person who would not be able to cope without it

 

But then, I suppose those are the types of people who might be drawn toward religion in the first place. ? I don't know. I'm sure it's a wonderful pillar of strength for many people, just like some people find the same kind of strength in their family, friends, etc. Or medication and therapy. :)

[NotSoObvious]

I have a question regarding a previous post (the slideshow post) and the general attitude I seem to hear from many atheists that religion is to blame for most of the ills committed by humanity of the world. I don't think all of you have echoed it but I've seen things like this mentioned a lot within the atheist community. I was kind of debating whether to ask because I didn't want to accidentally lead into a debate or derail the topic. Do most atheists agree on this topic (that religion is to blame)? Don't you think that it is often the interpretation and misuse of a religion rather than the actual religion that causes these things and that the same people who perpetrate oppressive or violent acts against people would find a way to do it with or without using religion to back them up? I just can't see, personally, that things would be any different whether or not there was religion. There would still be culture and there would still be psychopathy and many of the acts that are often thought to be religious are practiced by multiple faiths in the same area because it is based on the desires of people backed up by cultural tradition. When I look at crimes committed that have nothing to do with faith...I mean, just looking at a news websites will show you horrible murders of children, rape, etc..., I don't really think that having religion or not would make a big difference in this area. It seems like humans have a large propensity to be destructive, regardless.

 

 

 

That's a big question, so I'll just offer a few thoughts.

 

Religion has an element of "I'm right and you're wrong." That creates conflict. However, this same attitude can come from particular races, countries, and really any sort of "group." Religion just happens to play a very big part in the system of behaving for a cause, conformity, following a leader, etc.

I'm not sure if it's a "misuse" of religion because I think people interpret the purpose of religion in different ways. I'd like to think that the goal would be to use religion in only positive ways, but my definition of positive is obviously very different from others.

 

Again, I think it circles back to being right and wrong. When you add religious beliefs into a conflict, it becomes very difficult to have a dialog with anyone from a different faith (or none) because "that's what I believe" or "that's what my religion teaches" will never be a way to discuss and reach common ground. Does that make sense? You just remain in opposition and conflict. (Obviously not always, I'm just reflecting on religiously motivated conflicts and conversations I've had with others...just musing, I suppose.)

 

**I also want to add that I *don't* believe religion, in general, is a bad thing. Just thinking about the questions you asked. And no, I don't believe atheists agree on this anymore than Christians ALL agree on...well, anything! ;)

[albeto]

I have a question regarding a previous post (the slideshow post) and the general attitude I seem to hear from many atheists that religion is to blame for most of the ills committed by humanity of the world. I don't think all of you have echoed it but I've seen things like this mentioned a lot within the atheist community. I was kind of debating whether to ask because I didn't want to accidentally lead into a debate or derail the topic. Do most atheists agree on this topic (that religion is to blame)? Don't you think that it is often the interpretation and misuse of a religion rather than the actual religion that causes these things and that the same people who perpetrate oppressive or violent acts against people would find a way to do it with or without using religion to back them up? I just can't see, personally, that things would be any different whether or not there was religion. There would still be culture and there would still be psychopathy and many of the acts that are often thought to be religious are practiced by multiple faiths in the same area because it is based on the desires of people backed up by cultural tradition. When I look at crimes committed that have nothing to do with faith...I mean, just looking at a news websites will show you horrible murders of children, rape, etc..., I don't really think that having religion or not would make a big difference in this area. It seems like humans have a large propensity to be destructive, regardless.

 

In my experience, when the subject of atheism, or even anti-theism comes up, religion is really not identified as the source of evil, all evil, most evil, or should be blamed for most of the ills committed by humanity. The fact that you mention this idea, even recognizing it hasn't come up here, suggests to me this is a bit of an "urban myth" of atheism. It's expected, therefore it's assumed. Words may not include these ideas, but the perception is there nevertheless. I would encourage you to challenge that urban myth when you come across it.

 

To answer your question, in my opinion, no, religion is not to blame. Religion in and of itself is a neutral tool. It was developed as a means by which human societies could understand the natural world. People use this tool for good and for bad. There are problems with religion that are not good, in my opinion. One such problem is that it glorifies faith rather than glorifying knowledge. Another such problem is that it encourages willful suppression of people's well-being. These behaviors aren't limited to religion, but religion formalizes it and offers a mask of credibility to something that would be otherwise rejected for noble reasons.

 

On another note, do you think that there is a use for religion in which case it might be beneficial for it to exist in some way? What I mean by that is, to take the example of someone who lost a child suddenly at a young age, one's faith might comfort that person that there was a reason for it and that this is part of God's plan and that they will be reunited with their child permanently...whereas not having that belief and having the view that the child is just dead and dust, that they're gone for good, and that there was no reason might drive someone to be suicidal or such extreme depression that they can never function normally again? KWIM?

 

In the same way I wouldn't support worship of "Great Leader" in North Korea for having deigned to let an eye surgeon enter the country and operate on what could have been easily preventable blindness, worshiping a god for deigning to allow two people together eventually isn't the kind of hope I think is emotionally healthy. There's a measure of stagnation with regard to depending on religion to answer questions about the world and help one cope with unavoidable difficulties in life. It's like purposefully keeping one immature emotionally and intellectually. We no longer do that to women. We, as a society, no longer refuse to let them participate in the work force and political affairs because it's "too upsetting" for their "delicate constitutions," so why do we do that to people with regard to reality? Life is difficult, for some more so than others. Why not explore what we can, answer questions as we uncover knowledge, and help each other out with those discoveries? How many kinds of cancers could have been prevented or cured in the last 30 years if our approach to science was half what our dedication to growing churches has been? How many kids could have been inspired to become astronauts, brain surgeons, computer scientists, political leaders, etc, if our attention was spent on improving access and delivery of education rather than spending time and money to fight creationism in schools?

 

ETA: This thread had additional posts since I wrote so I don't know if this was already covered now, I will have to go back and read. Also, please take my comments as meant respectfully and genuinely curious to know. I don't want to look as though I'm trying to bait someone into a debate!

 

I enjoy these kinds of topics, so if you (or anyone) is interested, but they are interpreted as unnecessary derailment of this thread, please let me know if and where you start a new thread. I don't consider these questions and comments to be disrespectful at all, fwiw.

 

And an updated question based on Albeto's post: Would most atheists consider themselves to also be anti-theist?

 

I suspect not.

[Laura Corin]

I have a question regarding a previous post (the slideshow post) and the general attitude I seem to hear from many atheists that religion is to blame for most of the ills committed by humanity of the world. I don't think all of you have echoed it but I've seen things like this mentioned a lot within the atheist community. I was kind of debating whether to ask because I didn't want to accidentally lead into a debate or derail the topic. Do most atheists agree on this topic (that religion is to blame)?

 

I think that people are to blame, but people feel the need to self-justify, particularly in morally doubtful situations. That justification could come from religion, but it also could come, for example, from political belief. I have no idea what 'most atheists' believe.

 

On another note, do you think that there is a use for religion in which case it might be beneficial for it to exist in some way? What I mean by that is, to take the example of someone who lost a child suddenly at a young age, one's faith might comfort that person that there was a reason for it and that this is part of God's plan and that they will be reunited with their child permanently...whereas not having that belief and having the view that the child is just dead and dust, that they're gone for good, and that there was no reason might drive someone to be suicidal or such extreme depression that they can never function normally again? KWIM?

 

Yes, it is useful to some people. Some people take comfort from it and I would not deprive anyone of that. I think that the idea that it was God's plan might just add to the distress for others. Personally, I'd rather feel that such a terrible event was a horrible accident, rather than that someone I loved meant for it to happen.

 

And an updated question based on Albeto's post: Would most atheists consider themselves to also be anti-theist?

 

Again, I don't think any of us could speak for most atheists: as there isn't an overarching atheist organisation, there isn't any form of party line. Personally, I'm not anti-theist.

 

L

[Shahrazad]

Thank you guys! This has definitely been an informative thread :).

[Onceuponatime]

The Abrahamic religions are what I'm most familiar with, so my comments can really only apply to those, but the idea that coping is related to being loved and valued is misleading. The peace offered by being loved and valued only applies to those who are first taught to believe they are not intrinsically lovable and valuable. The problem with this is that even among the many stories and anecdotes provided to make someone feel good, others feel that doesn't apply to them and they are still stuck in the unlovable, worthless mode, the one they were born into, the one they will face eternal (!) consequences for.

 

 

Religious coping, the feeling that a god loves you, brings people to tears, just like Great Leader does for the North Koreans. Gives people hope, just like the North Koreans. I challenge the idea that this is really in the best interest of an individual. I think it lessens one's emotional well-being than to be taught the skills to process death and grief without the fear/hope of eternal horror/heaven.

 

Interesting thoughts. I can see where they might apply in some cases but not others. Also, historically, most ancient societies, if not all, were religious societies. A-theism was practically unheard of. There was no such thing as separation of church and state. Religion was a way of life, not necessarily a rational belief system, as it attempts to be today. Plus, not all ancient religions espoused some kind of eternal existence after death, yet people still believed the gods were responsible for their well being or their bad fortune in this life.

 

For example, there seems to be ample evidence that Judaism did not have a doctrine of resurrection until a couple hundred years before Christ. Even then, it was hotly debated. Some historians believe that the Jewish teaching of an eternal punishment or reward was rooted in a time of great persecution and upheaval in which the horror of events produced a necessity to believe that the innocent would have a reward and the evil doer would be punished.

 

I think it would take a great world wide revolution of thought, teaching, and action to bring about a change so that most people could believe they have intrinsic value. Are there communities teaching skills to process grief and death without religion?

[HRAAB]

 

To answer your question, in my opinion, no, religion is not to blame. Religion in and of itself is a neutral tool. It was developed as a means by which human societies could understand the natural world. People use this tool for good and for bad. There are problems with religion that are not good, in my opinion. One such problem is that it glorifies faith rather than glorifying knowledge. Another such problem is that it encourages willful suppression of people's well-being. These behaviors aren't limited to religion, but religion formalizes it and offers a mask of credibility to something that would be otherwise rejected for noble reasons.

 

I suspect not.

 

Can you explain your thoughts on the above? I use to say that religion was neutral; it was man who used it either for good or for bad. It was a convenient tool (not many mothers would willingly send their young sons out to fight for more treasure for the king, but they were willing to send their sons out to fight for god), but religion itself was neutral. I'm not sure that I feel that way anymore. Religious doctrine draws the line and separates people: this group is holy, saved, has the Truth, that group does not. That doesn't seem very neutral to me.

 

I do not blame religion for all the atrocities that have happened. These same divisions are made based on race, gender, economic status, etc. I do feel that religion has a great deal of emotional pull on humans though. I see the biggest culprit being human ego, and religion, race, etc. being tools, with religion being a loaded one.

[Guest inoubliable]

I have a question regarding a previous post (the slideshow post) and the general attitude I seem to hear from many atheists that religion is to blame for most of the ills committed by humanity of the world. I don't think all of you have echoed it but I've seen things like this mentioned a lot within the atheist community. I was kind of debating whether to ask because I didn't want to accidentally lead into a debate or derail the topic. Do most atheists agree on this topic (that religion is to blame)? Don't you think that it is often the interpretation and misuse of a religion rather than the actual religion that causes these things and that the same people who perpetrate oppressive or violent acts against people would find a way to do it with or without using religion to back them up? I just can't see, personally, that things would be any different whether or not there was religion. There would still be culture and there would still be psychopathy and many of the acts that are often thought to be religious are practiced by multiple faiths in the same area because it is based on the desires of people backed up by cultural tradition. When I look at crimes committed that have nothing to do with faith...I mean, just looking at a news websites will show you horrible murders of children, rape, etc..., I don't really think that having religion or not would make a big difference in this area. It seems like humans have a large propensity to be destructive, regardless.

 

On another note, do you think that there is a use for religion in which case it might be beneficial for it to exist in some way? What I mean by that is, to take the example of someone who lost a child suddenly at a young age, one's faith might comfort that person that there was a reason for it and that this is part of God's plan and that they will be reunited with their child permanently...whereas not having that belief and having the view that the child is just dead and dust, that they're gone for good, and that there was no reason might drive someone to be suicidal or such extreme depression that they can never function normally again? KWIM?

 

 

ETA: This thread had additional posts since I wrote so I don't know if this was already covered now, I will have to go back and read. Also, please take my comments as meant respectfully and genuinely curious to know. I don't want to look as though I'm trying to bait someone into a debate!

 

And an updated question based on Albeto's post: Would most atheists consider themselves to also be anti-theist?

 

Limited time here but I'll try to answer as best I can.

 

I don't think that "religion" is to blame for bad things. I think that "religion" has been used as a crutch to *do* these bad things, a way to mask it as "god's will" or "doing god's work". So, yes, I think some people pervert their religious teachings to justify horrible acts. And I think some people do horrible acts and then hide behind religion when they're caught.

 

I think it's been mentioned upthread, but yes, I think most atheists see that the comfort a religion brings to say, someone who has lost a young child, is beneficial to some people. As an atheist, it's just as comforting to me when someone dies, to think back on the life they had. What they got to experience, what they were a part of, what they achieved, the parts that made them who they were - their thoughts, their desires, their fears. It's comforting to take inspiration from that. The stardust thought is particularly comforting sometimes.

 

I don't think most atheists consider themselves anti-theist, no. Some are "angry atheists" at times, but not always. Those atheists in their angry times could be considered anti-theist, I suppose. Most atheists just... aren't. Understand that "atheism", for a large part, just says what someone *isn't*, what they *don't* believe in. It doesn't say what they *are*. ;)

[ktgrok]

This.

 

You have to be taught religion. No one is born with religion, ergo everyone is born a de facto atheist. You might later learn a religion, and then you might also turn away from religion later, but you were still born an atheist. There is no such thing as inherent religion/spirituality. It's purely a construct of nurture, not nature.

 

And of course, the religious would disagree and say that we are born longing for something, and that something is God.

[Laura Corin]

And of course, the religious would disagree and say that we are born longing for something, and that something is God.

 

I've heard that said, but I've always wondered where that leaves those of us who don't have a spiritual bone in our bodies. I can't say I yearn for the ineffable, or for anything really. There are things I would change in my life and in the world, but I don't feel a lack, an emptiness.

 

L

[albeto]

Are there communities teaching skills to process grief and death without religion?

 

I am unaware of communities that teach this.

[Rosie_0801]

Don't you think that it is often the interpretation and misuse of a religion rather than the actual religion that causes these things and that the same people who perpetrate oppressive or violent acts against people would find a way to do it with or without using religion to back them up?

 

Yep, I do.

 

On another note, do you think that there is a use for religion in which case it might be beneficial for it to exist in some way?

 

Yep, which is why I'm a religious atheist, I guess.

 

What I mean by that is, to take the example of someone who lost a child suddenly at a young age, one's faith might comfort that person that there was a reason for it and that this is part of God's plan and that they will be reunited with their child permanently...whereas not having that belief and having the view that the child is just dead and dust, that they're gone for good, and that there was no reason might drive someone to be suicidal or such extreme depression that they can never function normally again? KWIM?

 

If someone loses their child, I think they're entitled to any story they or anyone else can make up to make them feel better. I suppose those who want to survive will find an excuse, and those who don't will too.

 

Though, as someone said above, the mindset you describe could very well have been created by the religion in the first place so the religion would be needed to cure it. Since a person can't go back in time to before religion fixed that belief in their psyche, they're better off, in the described situation, to take what comfort they can get from it.

 

And an updated question based on Albeto's post: Would most atheists consider themselves to also be anti-theist?

 

No, I don't think so. I'm not. I certainly dislike some deities more than others and some religions more than others though.

[albeto]

Can you explain your thoughts on the above? I use to say that religion was neutral; it was man who used it either for good or for bad. It was a convenient tool (not many mothers would willingly send their young sons out to fight for more treasure for the king, but they were willing to send their sons out to fight for god), but religion itself was neutral. I'm not sure that I feel that way anymore. Religious doctrine draws the line and separates people: this group is holy, saved, has the Truth, that group does not. That doesn't seem very neutral to me.

 

This kind of tribalism ideology is well enough understood to explain it as a human condition, not a religious one. What religion does is formalize this natural impulse, and defines it along lines of superstitious beliefs. If religion were magically gone today, I imagine another belief system would take up the reigns and take this position of defining "us v. them." The "antidote" to such at thing is critical thinking skills, an antidote to which religion is formally in opposition. I don't blame religion for that, because, well, it's not a sentient being that made a decision to be oppressive. It's a belief system that functions to maintain existence. I don't blame the honey bee for stinging me for the same way - it's not a conscious decision to offend me, it's an instinct born of self-preservation. That it is oppressive by nature is no less worrisome, however, and in my opinion is a problem for society.

 

I do not blame religion for all the atrocities that have happened. These same divisions are made based on race, gender, economic status, etc. I do feel that religion has a great deal of emotional pull on humans though. I see the biggest culprit being human ego, and religion, race, etc. being tools, with religion being a loaded one.

 

Interesting, because I think of the concept of a "culprit being human ego," as a bit of a religious concept. If you think about it, it's a matter of confidence and self-assuredness that's being tagged as being "wrong" because it conflicts with an unknown and unknowable "truth." The answer to this "problem" is self-suppression. One is taught from childhood to police their own thoughts and suppress those those thoughts that go against the greater superstitious teaching. It lacks critical thinking and avoids looking at the details.

 

Personally, as I said upthread, I see social problems as the consequence of ineffective solutions to problems. Because we all come at life's problems differently, having a different experiential background from which to interpret the problem, it's only natural to expect some conflict when solving the problem. What will be a solution for one person will propose a new problem for someone else. I don't see that as a matter of "ego," as if it's a untamed beast, but as a matter of insufficient information from which to draw a solution that maintains mutual respect within conflict resolution.

[Mom-ninja.]

Actually, I don't think a belief deserves respect. It's not a living thing. Do I respect someone's right to hold a particular belief? Yes. That doesn't mean I have to respect the belief, or that I'm not supposed to ever give my opinion of it. As others have said, most of us atheists don't go around saying what we think of religious beliefs, but sometimes the occasion warrants giving an opinion. During those times, I don't think we should have to give religious beliefs any special treatment.

 

 

 

 

 

:iagree: Respecting a person is very different than respecting beliefs.

 

 

 

Why do you think humans evolved to have a conscience, the ability to love, the need for a higher power / deeper meaning to life? While you see glimpses of these things in other species, they seem to be *very* human characteristics. I can't imagine how they would give us an upper hand, i.e. be a factor in natural selection. This always seems (to me) to be one of the most powerful arguments for God.

 

Tracy, you might be interested in this book. This book as well.

[albeto]

Don't you think that it is often the interpretation and misuse of a religion rather than the actual religion that causes these things and that the same people who perpetrate oppressive or violent acts against people would find a way to do it with or without using religion to back them up?

 

Coming back to this because I find it quite interesting. The problem is, there is no objective or accurate measure by which someone can know their interpretation or use of religion is right. Without any objective, external source by which this information can be known, the only way to determine how religion is interpreted or used correctly is subjective. The thing is - everyone thinks their interpretation and use is correct.

[LucyStoner]

The nail in the coffin of my belief in a God is summed up by "God doesn't give you more than you can handle." Um, somewhere on this earth at any given moment, a person or 17 people ARE getting more than they can handle. I find it substantially more comfortable to think that bad things happen and sometimes it is crushingly awful than to think there is a being who can start or stop these things and yet is somehow randomly blessing or smiting different folks.

[butterflymommy]

Why are atheists so vocally critical of Christianity, but not of other religions, like Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism? Do they consider Christianity be particularly deserving of criticism over other religions, and if so, why? I have known many atheists and been on many atheist discussion boards and forums and this is a very common phenomena.

[butterflymommy]

The nail in the coffin of my belief in a God is summed up by "God doesn't give you more than you can handle." Um, somewhere on this earth at any given moment, a person or 17 people ARE getting more than they can handle. I find it substantially more comfortable to think that bad things happen and sometimes it is crushingly awful than to think there is a being who can start or stop these things and yet is somehow randomly blessing or smiting different folks.

 

If "the problem of evil" is a linchpin for atheists, do you think atheists would be more likely to believe in an evil, cruel god, over a supposedly loving, caring god?

[Rosie_0801]

Why are atheists so vocally critical of Christianity, but not of other religions, like Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism? Do they consider Christianity be particularly deserving of criticism over other religions, and if so, why? I have known many atheists and been on many atheist discussion boards and forums and this is a very common phenomena.

 

Most atheists you are going to come across were former Christians and you live in a culturally Christian country.

[Rosie_0801]

If "the problem of evil" is a linchpin for atheists, do you think atheists would be more likely to believe in an evil, cruel god, over a supposedly loving, caring god?

 

I don't understand. Atheists don't believe in any of the thousands of deities on offer, some of whom are better and worse tempered than others.

[albeto]

Why are atheists so vocally critical of Christianity, but not of other religions, like Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism? Do they consider Christianity be particularly deserving of criticism over other religions, and if so, why? I have known many atheists and been on many atheist discussion boards and forums and this is a very common phenomena.

 

I think you mean anti-theists and not atheists. Atheists have only one similarity between them - a lack of belief in god/s. Not all atheists are critical of religion, and of those who are, not all are vocal. Personally, I am critical of any belief system that encourages a person to embrace ignorance and obedience for the sake of the good of an unknowable, mythological character or a superstitious belief. Having said that, I just don't know that much about Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Paganism, or any other religious beliefs. I can only address that to which I am familiar. Also, it doesn't come up here so much because this community is visited by mostly Christians, so the context of religion is naturally going to reflect that.

[TracyP]

Tracy, you might be interested in this book. This book as well.

Thank you, I will add these to my reading list.

[albeto]

If "the problem of evil" is a linchpin for atheists, do you think atheists would be more likely to believe in an evil, cruel god, over a supposedly loving, caring god?

 

Maybe it is, I'm not aware of any statistics that suggest this. In any case, atheists simply don't find arguments for the existence of any god/s persuasive. The character and personality of said god would make no difference if the plausibility of that god's existence is non existent.

[unfrumpable.]

Most atheists you are going to come across were former Christians and you live in a culturally Christian country.

 

 

Yep, this is what I was going to say too. :) Here in the US, most people are over exposed to Christianity and the likelihood of an atheist or agnostic previously being Christian is great.

 

For me, I was raised Catholic, then joined a very literal fundamental church when I was about 19 or so. After being with them for several months, seeing how they acted and having read the bible and discovered many inconsistencies on my own, I switched to atheism for many years. At that time, I was definitely vocal against Christianity and harbored an animosity for many years, even after trying to come back into it and being more agnostic than atheist.

[Mekanamom]

This kind of tribalism ideology is well enough understood to explain it as a human condition, not a religious one. What religion does is formalize this natural impulse, and defines it along lines of superstitious beliefs.

 

I like the way you said that. :) That helps me put some things that have been bothering me lately into a better perspective, personally. Thanks!

[LucyStoner]

Why are atheists so vocally critical of Christianity, but not of other religions, like Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism? Do they consider Christianity be particularly deserving of criticism over other religions, and if so, why? I have known many atheists and been on many atheist discussion boards and forums and this is a very common phenomena.

 

What she said:

 

Most atheists you are going to come across were former Christians and you live in a culturally Christian country.

 

I am not actually especially critical of Christianity- it is my cultural heritage. I come from a long line of Irish Catholics and my parents were heavily involved in religious activities. I need more than two hands to count my friends who are now priests and deacons in either the Catholic or Episcopalian church. That said, it is the belief system that I have the most knowledge of and thus have more things I find objectionable which led me away from believing in a deity past metaphor.

 

If "the problem of evil" is a linchpin for atheists, do you think atheists would be more likely to believe in an evil, cruel god, over a supposedly loving, caring god?

 

No. I don't. It's kind of a nonsensical question from where I sitting. My issue with religion is not that "evil" exists but how inadequate I find religious explanations in the face of extreme hardship and loss.

[Laura Corin]

Why are atheists so vocally critical of Christianity, but not of other religions, like Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism? Do they consider Christianity be particularly deserving of criticism over other religions, and if so, why? I have known many atheists and been on many atheist discussion boards and forums and this is a very common phenomena.

 

I think that this is partly a function of where the atheists you have come across live and whom they bump into. There is also the extent to which some Christians feel duty bound to proselytise - which gets under many atheists' skins - which is not the case in all other religions.

 

But, as others have said, many atheists are not critical of religion. They just don't believe in a god.

 

To give you a flavour of how religion works in the UK and why I can't be enthusiastic about being anti-any-god: look at the way that politicians behave. From my observation - correct me if I'm wrong - being a person of faith is seen as important for US politicians. Speeches are often framed in terms of a god, and there is a bit of a fuss when suggestions are made that someone might not be churchgoing, or might not go to the 'right' church (please, let's not go into the specifics of this - I don't want to derail the thread).

 

In the UK (despite the official religion) religious practice is considered private, and religiosity is seen as possibly off-putting to the electorate. This is the most famous example.

 

Given that religion is largely in the background here, I really don't have much to fight against and no impulse to do so. I was a lot more grumpy when I lived in China and most of the other expatriates were missionaries.

 

L

[Hannah]

Why are atheists so vocally critical of Christianity, but not of other religions, like Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism? Do they consider Christianity be particularly deserving of criticism over other religions, and if so, why? I have known many atheists and been on many atheist discussion boards and forums and this is a very common phenomena.

 

Most atheists you are going to come across were former Christians and you live in a culturally Christian country.

 

Also because Christians proselytize, sometimes rudely and forecefully so. People push back against having been pushed. And given that it is the dominant religion in the West, we have all been pushed.

 

My sample size for people of other religions is admittedly small, but the Muslims I know have the stance that it is their duty to educate people on Islam but not to convert people (so, a subtle difference which in my experience comes across as more respectful). Hinduism and Buddhism are prulalistic, so no need to convert anyone there. I've been invited to share Shabbat dinner with Jewish friends, but we never really spoke of religion.

 

The atheists who are former Christians have often had some really bad experiences with the Church and have seen a lot of hypocricy from professing Christians, for which they still feel angry. An atheist forum would be a safe place to vent.

[Shahrazad]

To be fair, when you find people who are atheists but used to be Muslim or who live in the middle east, they are often more critical of Islam than Christianity....as the others said, background and familiarity play a huge role.

[Guest inoubliable]

To be fair, when you find people who are atheists but used to be Muslim or who live in the middle east, they are often more critical of Islam than Christianity....as the others said, background and familiarity play a huge role.

 

Yes, this.

 

Also, any atheist you find who is hugely critical (and very vocal) of all religions across the board are, in general, the anti-theists. I think this is a huge misconception about atheists.

 

Atheists are just that, literally without a god. Without a belief in ANY god. It's equal across the board. I don't have less belief in a Christian god than a Pagan god or an ancient Greek god. That's it. What anyone one else believes in is a non-issue for me, and most other atheists that I know. Criticism from atheists usually comes up when we see an injustice based on someone's faith - the gay marriage debate is a good example of that. Other than that or proselytizing (which makes most atheists twitchy, yes), atheists really are okay with having nothing to do with the things we don't believe in anyway. Even the "angry atheists". ;)

 

Anti-theists, as already discussed, are going to be the vocal, critical voices you hear most often.

[butterflymommy]

 

I don't understand. Atheists don't believe in any of the thousands of deities on offer, some of whom are better and worse tempered than others.

 

"The problem of evil" is one of the most frequently made arguments against god.

 

So I was curious if for some atheists, an evil god might be more plausible.

[Lady Florida.]

"The problem of evil" is one of the most frequently made arguments against god.

 

So I was curious if for some atheists, an evil god might be more plausible.

 

The problem of evil is a philosophical question asked by both atheists and theists. To an atheist, an evil god is no more likely than a good one.

[butterflymommy]

Anti-theists, as already discussed, are going to be the vocal, critical voices you hear most often.

 

Then why do anti-theists target Christianity with their ire, over other religions? Are you sure they don't find anything particularly toxic about Christianity VS Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Wicca?

 

Is it so simple that it's a matter of cultural background and a "right" to speak critically of ones own pedigree?

[Guest inoubliable]

"The problem of evil" is one of the most frequently made arguments against god.

 

So I was curious if for some atheists, an evil god might be more plausible.

 

I don't understand.

 

Where is this an argument made by atheists? I've never heard it. I don't know any atheists who argue against a god. I'm not being snarky, here. I'm really confused. Of course, I don't know the atheists you know. Not one atheist I know "argues against god", or any god. There's no proof, no reasonable evidence for any god. No one is arguing against something that doesn't exist for them anyway. KWIM? It'd be like making an argument against Cthulhu. Atheists argue against organized religions sometimes, often citing bad things done by religious people in the *name* of their religion. Is that what you meant?

[butterflymommy]

The problem of evil is a philosophical question asked by both atheists and theists. To an atheist, an evil god is no more likely than a good one.

 

If it is a general philosophical question not intrinsic to atheism, then why is the problem of evil so often cited by atheists as proof of god's non-existence, or, given as the linchpin for loss of faith? The problem of evil has been cited in this very thread for those purposes.

[Guest inoubliable]

Then why do anti-theists target Christianity with their ire, over other religions? Are you sure they don't find anything particularly toxic about Christianity VS Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Wicca?

 

Is it so simple that it's a matter of cultural background and a "right" to speak critically of ones own pedigree?

 

Which anti-theists are you hearing? Ones in the US? Because Christianity is the majority here. Most atheists who subscribed to a faith before they were atheist, were Christian. I don't know any anti-theists who target Christianity over any other religion. To be fair, I don't think most atheists consider Buddhism a religion, either. There are atheist Buddhists. Buddhism, as it doesn't require a belief in a god, embraces plenty of atheists who find that the Buddhist philosophy matches with the way they live their life.

[Guest inoubliable]

If it is a general philosophical question not intrinsic to atheism, then why is the problem of evil so often cited by atheists as proof of god's non-existence, or, given as the linchpin for loss of faith? The problem of evil has been cited in this very thread for those purposes.

 

I think you're misunderstanding still.

 

"Evil" isn't what makes atheists, atheists. "Evil" isn't cited by any atheist I know, or any atheist here, as proof that no god exists.

[Lady Florida.]

If it is a general philosophical question not intrinsic to atheism, then why is the problem of evil so often cited by atheists as proof of god's non-existence, or, given as the linchpin for loss of faith? The problem of evil has been cited in this very thread for those purposes.

 

I don't know atheists who make the problem of evil an argument against gods. I'm not sure which atheists you are talking about. As an atheist, I have made friends, online and IRL, with mostly like-minded people. None that I know consider your question an important reason for our lack of belief in mythology.

[Free]

If it is a general philosophical question not intrinsic to atheism, then why is the problem of evil so often cited by atheists as proof of god's non-existence, or, given as the linchpin for loss of faith? The problem of evil has been cited in this very thread for those purposes.

 

It is not cited as proof of God's non-existence, but rather as an example of theists' cognitive dissonance.

[amo_mea_filiis.]

 

 

Then why do anti-theists target Christianity with their ire, over other religions? Are you sure they don't find anything particularly toxic about Christianity VS Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Wicca?

 

Is it so simple that it's a matter of cultural background and a "right" to speak critically of ones own pedigree?

 

I have issue with Christianity because that's what is shoved down my throat.

 

The woman knocking on my door isn't pushing anything but the Christian god.

 

I'm "ruining" my kids because we don't celebrate the Christian holidays. No one comments about us not celebrating Jewish/Muslim/pagan/whatever holidays.

 

In places I've been, people get offended that I don't believe in the Christian god, but don't care about others.

 

I learned a bunch from a wonderful Muslim woman who gladly answered questions and left it at that.

 

I've never met a Jewish person pushing their beliefs on me. I was able to ask questions, thank them and move on. That can't be done with Christians; it's always a push and battle and they have to strongly prove their "right-ness." (Not intending to generalize, just personal experience)