Dislike and distrust of atheists?

[shmogie]

There is value in having others challenge our own beliefs. We know that it is quite possible for a person to be absolutely certain about something which, however, is incorrect. And our inaccurate, incorrect beliefs lead to behavior that ultimately can be considered to be mistakes. Sometimes those mistakes can produce much pain, suffering, disability, and early death. It is so important for the members of our species to work toward ultimate agreement to that which is correct. We have a long way to go, but refusing to take any steps in that direction just holds us back.

Sure, no problem with a challenge. However, empty rhetoric accomplishes little

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

I think it is wrong because I do believe in God. Again, I respect an atheists right to believe what he wants but since his beliefs are different from mine, I think he is wrong.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

What I am doing is trying to distinguish between faith based systems of belief and reason and evidence based worldviews. They are different, and calling them both religions blurs that distinction. It's kind of like giving all your children the same name. Different people, places, ideas, objects, processes, attributes and relationships deserve distinct linguistic labels.

Yes, I understand, and your way of looking at things is much more usual than mine. I believe that it is important to recognize that within, for instance, Christianity there is a wide range of worldviews, such that within a specific Christian organization, or church, one can actually find some who are basically atheistic, but are valuing the ethics of Christianity. Sometimes this has to do with how the individual conceptualizes or defines "God". I believe this is a good development.

If indeed the primary function of any religion is the adult effort to work on a basic ethical philosophy, then it would seem to be a loss for people to abandon organizations designed for that purpose. So I believe that the better development is one in which such organizations increasingly accept nontheistic worldviews while maintaining and enhancing the ethical beliefs that are a part of that tradition. Of course, we know that, currently, such ethical philosophies are still rather disorganized and primitive, but especially as out of date worldviews are abandoned as ways of legitimizing such ethical views, then improvement of those ethical belief systems can proceed. This is an extremely important process, I believe, and it is not assisted by the abandonment of organizations designed specifically for that purpose. In other words, what is actually taking the place of those activities that people are, admittedly, tending to abandon?

That goal is facilitated by recognizing and acknowledging the differences between the factions that you hope to unify, not by conflating them.

Yes, if the goal is to get rid of the organizations, then contrasting a feature common within them with the opposite of that feature, such that there is a more acute awareness of conflict and of the possibility of winning or losing, doing so may be a way of driving them out of existence. But is that really the best goal? I believe there is a better goal. And that better goal includes what is indeed already happening. For instance, there are Christian churches that welcome atheists and agnostics.

Advocating stamping out religion is a poor position to take for more than one reason. Personally, my interest is limited to seeing Christianity and Islam, the two highly politicized religions, become disempowered as institutions. I don't have a plan for Islam, and don't need one for Christianity. Christianity is waning in numbers and political clout in the West - even in America - with no outside help.

But again, what are they being replaced by? And also, if the goal within political systems is to arrive at increasingly accurate ideas about the best way of doing things, and therefore about the ethics of those potential decisions, why shouldn't a person's religious efforts to arrive at a basic ethical philosophy be a part of his/her thinking as he/she participates in a political process? I do indeed recognize how some of the worst parts of current religious thinking can have what many of us would feel were detrimental effects on the decision-making process. I believe that this makes it even more apparent that a person's worldview can have a bad effect if it is inaccurate (not supported by, or even against, the preponderance of evidence). If anything, the more that this becomes a public awareness, the more I would expect a beneficial process to occur, namely, one in which people are taking a much closer look at the reasons for their beliefs in their specific worldviews. In this way, I would expect within religious organizations an increasing movement toward more up-to-date worldviews, just as I believe is indeed actually happening. So being within a Christian tradition does not mean that that tradition cannot mature.

Hopefully, it should become increasingly apparent that some religious traditions have a longer way to go. My impression is that the Islamic religion is significantly behind the Christian one with regard to the development of flexibility and the possibility of modernization. But as that awareness becomes increasingly apparent to everyone, I would expect it to have a beneficial effect within Islam also. So it is very important, I believe, that our religions can improve, just as we, who have created them, can improve (and should).

Thank you for a civil and constructive discussion.

I thank you in return, for the same.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think it is wrong because I do believe in God. Again, I respect an atheists right to believe what he wants but since his beliefs are different from mine, I think he is wrong.

Atheism is not a belief at all. Its an affirmation. There is an ideology associated with atheism on how to respond which is where the confusion lay with people.

Theism however is a belief by which there is no affirmations by which it's all based upon. All of it entails written or oral accounts reflecting a developed ideology that at times can be can interpreted as insulting and demeaning to one's said theistic beliefs and opinions and even Intellegence. No one likes to be put down, so there needs to be a distinction between personal and ideological criticism so wrong signals are not conveyed either way in a personal sense.

I think dislike and distrust primarily occur over mixed signals imv.

 

[Valjean]

I think it is wrong because I do believe in God. Again, I respect an atheists right to believe what he wants but since his beliefs are different from mine, I think he is wrong.

You think he is wrong because his beliefs differ from yours? That assumes yours are correct, and begs the question "why do you think yours are right?"
Don't confuse this with why you feel yours are right. If you use "think" it's assumed there's some rational analysis involved.

 

[Valjean]

Atheism is not a belief at all. Its an affirmation. There is an ideology associated with atheism on how to respond which is where the confusion lay with people.

This is just wrong, Man. Atheism, per se, believes nothing, so has nothing to affirm, nor does it have any ideology.

Theism however is a belief by which there is no affirmations by which it's all based upon. All of it entails written or oral accounts reflecting a developed ideology that at times can be can interpreted as insulting and demeaning to one's said theistic beliefs and opinions and even Intellegence. No one likes to be put down, so there needs to be a distinction between personal and ideological criticism so wrong signals are not conveyed either way in a personal sense.

I'm not following what you're saying here. How are you defining affirmation?

Theism affirms (states as fact, maintains as true) the existence of one or more Gods. It affirms specific beliefs and generally does have an ideology, so the burden is on the theist, not the atheist, to defend his position.
The atheist has no position to defend[/quote]

 

[Twilight Hue]

This is just wrong, Man. Atheism, per se, believes nothing, so has nothing to affirm, nor does it have any ideology.

I'm not following what you're saying here. How are you defining affirmation?

Theism affirms (states as fact, maintains as true) the existence of one or more Gods. It affirms specific beliefs and generally does have an ideology, so the burden is on the theist, not the atheist, to defend his position.

[/QUOTE]

Sure as rain it's affirmation. It affirms that belief is an introduced ideology at some point past birth. Its a statement based on the facts as it's presented and elaborated upon.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Did you know that the debt piled up from the birth of the secular revolution has grown so large at present that all the money in existence couldn't pay it off?

If you are referring to the American national debt, that debt was piled up by Christian presidents.

Incidentally, the secular revolution is over two centuries old, when the first modern secular government was contrived. It's been working pretty well until recently. Thank it for your freedoms.

Watch what the Christians in the present American president's cabinet do to it. They're already assaulting climate mitigation efforts, and will attempt to penetrate the church-state wall - a sacred tenet of secular government.

Theocracy is a disaster. If it ever re-establishes itself, you can expect to be persecuted for your religious beliefs if they don't happen to be those of the people who assume power.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Any actual evidence for this?

Gregory of Nyssa was using the Genesis account of creation as an argument that all slavery was inherently sinful in the 4th C.

God said, Let us make man in our own image and likeness. If he is in the likeness of God, and rules the whole earth, and has been granted authority over everything on earth from God, who is his buyer, tell me? Who is his seller?

To God alone belongs this power; or, rather, not even to God himself. For his gracious gifts, it says, are irrevocable. God would not therefore reduce the human race to slavery, since he himself, when we had been enslaved to sin, spontaneously recalled us to freedom.

But if God does not enslave what is free, who is he that sets his own power above God’s?

And how did the Christian community receive that? It ignored him.

Which represents Christianity better - a progressive theologian applying rational ethics and finding scriptures to support his idea among many that contradict it, or the church and its adherents that blew him off?

Why did abolition have to wait for the Enlightenment and the rise of humanist values?

This is analogous to the argument that our rights come from a creator, which also had to wait for the rise of the secular state.

Contrast Christianity and Islam, see how similar they are on paper, and then ask yourself why their rendering is so different. Why are the Muslims still throwing acid in one another's faces, stoning people, burning them alive, pushing homosexuals off of towers, and performing honor killings with a high degree of state support, but those kinds of practices are unusual in the West and would be prosecuted by the state?

This guy understands what his impediment to some good old fashioned Old Testament "justice" is:

"Why stoning? There are many reasons. First, the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost...executions are community projects - not with spectators who watch a professional executioner do `his' duty, but rather with actual participants...That modern Christians never consider the possibility of the reintroduction of stoning for capital crimes indicates how thoroughly humanistic concepts of punishment have influenced the thinking of Christian." - Christian Dominionist Gary North bemoaning the influence that humanism has had.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If indeed the primary function of any religion is the adult effort to work on a basic ethical philosophy, then ...

The religion I'm most familiar with is a business. That's why its church promotes it.

But again, what are they being replaced by? And also, if the goal within political systems is to arrive at increasingly accurate ideas about the best way of doing things, and therefore about the ethics of those potential decisions, why shouldn't a person's religious efforts to arrive at a basic ethical philosophy be a part of his/her thinking as he/she participates in a political process? I do indeed recognize how some of the worst parts of current religious thinking can have what many of us would feel were detrimental effects on the decision-making process. I believe that this makes it even more apparent that a person's worldview can have a bad effect if it is inaccurate (not supported by, or even against, the preponderance of evidence). If anything, the more that this becomes a public awareness, the more I would expect a beneficial process to occur, namely, one in which people are taking a much closer look at the reasons for their beliefs in their specific worldviews. In this way, I would expect within religious organizations an increasing movement toward more up-to-date worldviews, just as I believe is indeed actually happening. So being within a Christian tradition does not mean that that tradition cannot mature.

Hopefully, it should become increasingly apparent that some religious traditions have a longer way to go. My impression is that the Islamic religion is significantly behind the Christian one with regard to the development of flexibility and the possibility of modernization. But as that awareness becomes increasingly apparent to everyone, I would expect it to have a beneficial effect within Islam also. So it is very important, I believe, that our religions can improve, just as we, who have created them, can improve (and should).

We don't seem to be talking about the same thing any more. We began by discussing the definition of "religion." Yours was, in my opinion, overly inclusive, which fact I claimed blurred the distinction between supernaturalistic worldviews and skeptical ones, an important difference I thought.

Now you seem to want to talk about how to rehabilitate religion, and what will replace the church when its cultural hegemony evaporates sufficiently that it loses political influence.

You cannot rehabilitate the religion that dominates in the West and in America in particular. You can only neutralize its effect on government and the dominant societal mores. It is refractory to evidence and outside input. It is proud of its attitude of intolerance and lack of compromise. It consider that a sign of purity and virtue.

And what filled the void created by outlawing theocratic states such a colonial Massachusetts, where women were being legally killed for being witches? Secular society. Humanist values, which at last criminalized such unjust and barbaric practices.

Humanists are distrusted by Christians, which philosophy has made the greater contribution to Western life?

 

[Augustus]

And how did the Christian community receive that? It ignored him.

Which represents Christianity better - a progressive theologian applying rational ethics and finding scriptures to support his idea among many that contradict it, or the church and its adherents that blew him off?

I'm not so concerned about defending Christianity, more about the history of ideas and their philosophical foundations. Popularity is irrelevant.

You keep referring to "rational ethics", what do you mean by that? It's a bit ambiguous.

The Greeks were rational, but their ethics certainly didn't see slavery as inherently problematic. Far from it, it was seen as natural and they couldn't conceive of a world without it.

Rational arguments usually require certain axioms on which they are based. The way people think today is very different from 2000 years ago. What seems self-evident know, was inconceivable in many pre-modern cultures.

Why do you assume the start was "rational ethics" rather than the reasoning grounded in the implications of certain aspects of scripture? Why did those not hamstrung by scripture, but with the capacity for "rational ethics" not reach the same conclusions?

Also, why do you assume that later abolitionists were borrowing from Humanism? What would be the evidence in support of this?

 

[psychoslice]

Well, I don't care what you think, nor anyone else. No one who questions my beliefs is a threat, a threat of what ? I know EXACTLY what I believe and why I believe it. I'm not even sure why you post this kind of stuff. Are you trying to reinforce the fact that you don't believe ? Why do you need to do that ?

Ok, what I am against is those who believ in whatever are believe what they believe to be the only truth, and that everyone else is wrong, if you are not that, then this isn't for you.

 

[shmogie]

Ok, what I am against is those who believ in whatever are believe what they believe to be the only truth, and that everyone else is wrong, if you are not that, then this isn't for you.

Oh, I believe Christ when he said " I am the way the truth and the life" so I guess you are against me because I believe that belief is the correct one. What's wrong with that though ? If I don't treat people with other beliefs differently, if I don't condemn their beliefs, if I respect ( though disagree ) with their beliefs ? In a mutually agreed to discussion, differences and reasoning are explored, but otherwise ? I adhere to the philosophy that every person is a free moral agent to choose for themselves. I also believe that many choose very poorly, but that is their problem, not mine. I have enough trouble trying to stay right with God without taking the burden on for someone else.

 

[Cobol]

Oh, I believe Christ when he said " I am the way the truth and the life"

Simply take a moment to think about the following statement:

• 
  "Hello, my name is Jesus. I love you deeply. I have loved you since you were conceived in the womb and I will love you for all eternity. I died for you on the cross because I love you so much. I long to have a loving personal relationship with you. I will answer all of your prayers through my love. But if you do not get down on your knees and worship me, and if you do not EAT MY BODY and DRINK MY BLOOD, then I WILL INCINERATE YOU WITH UNIMAGINABLY TORTUOUS PAIN IN THE FIRES OF HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY.

Yes, this is the central message of Christianity. See John 6:53-54 and Mark 16:16.
Think about this message. We have a being who, according to the Standard Model of God, embodies love. Yet, if you do not get down on your knees and worship him, you will be physically tortured for all eternity. What sort of love is that?

 

[shmogie]

Simply take a moment to think about the following statement:

• 
  "Hello, my name is Jesus. I love you deeply. I have loved you since you were conceived in the womb and I will love you for all eternity. I died for you on the cross because I love you so much. I long to have a loving personal relationship with you. I will answer all of your prayers through my love. But if you do not get down on your knees and worship me, and if you do not EAT MY BODY and DRINK MY BLOOD, then I WILL INCINERATE YOU WITH UNIMAGINABLY TORTUOUS PAIN IN THE FIRES OF HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY.

Yes, this is the central message of Christianity. See John 6:53-54 and Mark 16:16.
Think about this message. We have a being who, according to the Standard Model of God, embodies love. Yet, if you do not get down on your knees and worship him, you will be physically tortured for all eternity. What sort of love is that?

Wrong on both counts. Choices lead to consequences, if someone decides to jump off a cliff, should on their way down should they ****'n moan about gravity ? You decide their should be love, without justice.Love without justice is simply permissiveness and ultimately making peace and accepting what is unacceptable, people operate that way, God doesn't torture anyone in hellfire forever., I know this lie has been around for a long time, but it is no less a lie. God would not be so cruel as to do this, or compel someone who has chosen one way, to live what they refused to choose ( universalism ). In the end, those who choose poorly are treated with justice and mercy, they cease to exist, they resp eternal oblivion

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You keep referring to "rational ethics", what do you mean by that? It's a bit ambiguous.

The process of rational ethics is founded on reason and empathy. The consensus among the democratic, egalitarian people that embrace this philosophy seems to be that the best ethical system is the one that facilitates the most good for the most people - utilitarianism.

We know what people want in general - freedom, dignity, opportunity, safety, good health, peace, peace of mind, leisure time etc.. So, we assemble a list of rules that we think will facilitate those goals. No universal values exist to be plucked out the air, so we need to determine them ourselves. We decide which values embody those goals - kindness, tolerance, freedom, peace, integrity, etc.- and we attempt to create rules that embody them. Some of these rules are laws, such as 'don't kill or steal' and some are customs and traditions, such as sharing and cheerfulness.

Those become our moral values. At times, they need tweaking. To the extent that we fail to achieve our goals, whether because of choosing the wrong goal or rule, we tweak our process and see if we have improved total happiness or not. This is the empirical aspect of the process. It provides the evidence that we are right here or wrong there.

Prohibition of alcohol is a good illustration. The intentions were good, but the goal of criminalizing alcohol turned out to be paradoxically counterproductive, and actually increased the misery in the world. So, using reason and compassion, prohibition was lifted.

This is a radically different approach than Christianity's, which relies on ancient dicta from a book that no longer represents the lives of the people reading it, and includes commands to obey kings, and for slaves to obey their masters.

Scripture is words ossified in that book. The only way they change is to apply the reason and empathy of rational ethics to them, and then reinterpret them. That's what became of stoning impudent children, killing witches, and keeping slaves.

Why do you assume the start was "rational ethics" rather than the reasoning grounded in the implications of certain aspects of scripture?

Scripture is ossified. If it could have been the source of any idea, it would have been before two thousand years. Something else entered into the ethical calculus from outside of scripture. That was rational ethics.

Why did those not hamstrung by scripture, but with the capacity for "rational ethics" not reach the same conclusions?

Did you mean why did the Christians not reach the conclusions that the rational ethicists did sooner than the Enlightenment? Because they had no way to until they started applying reason and empathy to the matter. That's rational ethics, even when Christians employ it.

Also, why do you assume that later abolitionists were borrowing from Humanism? What would be the evidence in support of this?

Where else could those ideas have come from? Islam?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Simply take a moment to think about the following statement:

• 
  "Hello, my name is Jesus. I love you deeply. I have loved you since you were conceived in the womb and I will love you for all eternity. I died for you on the cross because I love you so much. I long to have a loving personal relationship with you. I will answer all of your prayers through my love. But if you do not get down on your knees and worship me, and if you do not EAT MY BODY and DRINK MY BLOOD, then I WILL INCINERATE YOU WITH UNIMAGINABLY TORTUOUS PAIN IN THE FIRES OF HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY.

Yes, this is the central message of Christianity. See John 6:53-54 and Mark 16:16.
Think about this message. We have a being who, according to the Standard Model of God, embodies love. Yet, if you do not get down on your knees and worship him, you will be physically tortured for all eternity. What sort of love is that?

"I love you. Don't force me to hurt you!"

GOD: THE ABUSIVE BOYFRIEND
God: The Abusive Boyfriend | Conversational Atheist

Ways the Christian God is like the most extreme version of an abusive (and possibly psychotic) boyfriend:

[1] Needs constant praise.
[2] Makes you feel guilty for just being human.
[3] Has severe jealousy issues.
[4] He lets painful experiences happen to you that he could easily prevent, just to test your devotion to Him.
[5] Claims credit for everything good in your life; claims nothing bad in your life comes from Him.
[6] Threatens you with eternal torture if you ever leave Him.
[7] He is constantly swearing that He loves you and you need Him.

Ways to tell if you are in danger of being taken advantage of in a relationship with this abusive God:

[8] You are highly defensive of Him from even the slightest criticism of His flaws.
[9] You talk to Him every night, and He never responds yet still expects unwavering devotion.

==========

Another take on this subject:

GOD AS ABUSER: Similarities Between the Christian God and Abusive Spouses
Similarities Between the Christian God and Abusive Spouses

[1] "Part of the process of encouraging the victim to feel inadequate involves getting them to feel that they really do deserve the abuse ... God is described as being justified in punishing humanity.

[2] "Abusers instill fear in their spouses; believers are instructed to fear God.

[3] "Abusers are unpredictable and given to dramatic mood swings; God is depicted as alternating between love and violence.

[4] "Abused spouses avoid topics which set off the abuser; believers avoid thinking about certain things to avoid angering God.

[5] "Abusers make one feel like there is no way to escape a relationship; believers are told that there is no way to escape God’s wrath and eventual punishment.

[6] "God is usually described as jealous and unable to handle it when people turn away.

[7] "God is portrayed as using violence to force people to comply with certain rules and Hell is the ultimate threat of violence. God might even punish an entire nation for the transgressions of a few members.

[8] "By getting [people] to feel worthless, helpless, and unable to do anything right, they will lack the self-confidence necessary to stand up to the abuser and resist the abuse. Believers are taught that they are depraved sinners, unable to do anything right and unable to have good, decent, or moral lives independent of God. Everything good that a believer achieves is due to God, not their own efforts.

[9] "[V]ictims are told that it’s their fault when an abuser gets angry ... Humanity is also blamed for everything that goes wrong"

 

[psychoslice]

Oh, I believe Christ when he said " I am the way the truth and the life" so I guess you are against me because I believe that belief is the correct one. What's wrong with that though ? If I don't treat people with other beliefs differently, if I don't condemn their beliefs, if I respect ( though disagree ) with their beliefs ? In a mutually agreed to discussion, differences and reasoning are explored, but otherwise ? I adhere to the philosophy that every person is a free moral agent to choose for themselves. I also believe that many choose very poorly, but that is their problem, not mine. I have enough trouble trying to stay right with God without taking the burden on for someone else.

See you just said, what they chose is their problem, as if you are saved and they are not, can you see the arrogance ?.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Sure as rain it's affirmation. It affirms that belief is an introduced ideology at some point past birth. Its a statement based on the facts as it's presented and elaborated upon.

Oh, rubbish! Atheism affirms nothing, makes no claim to necessary truth. Atheism, in fact, looks at the facts and reacts accordingly. Atheism is not and never was any sort of "ideology." An ideology always begins with something that needs affirmation, and seeks to affirm it.

But in another sense, you are completely correct -- religious belief is just about always "an introduced ideology at some point past birth." That's the whole point -- you can't make your kids Christian or Muslim or Hindu before they're potty trained, but once you get there, well, you can convince them of anything. And once they're convinced (the necessity of believing your parents in order to survive being what it is), you'll probably always believe it.

That's the meaning of one of my favourite sayings: "You can't reason somebody out of faith believe who was never reasoned into it."

 

[Twilight Hue]

Oh, rubbish! Atheism affirms nothing, makes no claim to necessary truth. Atheism, in fact, looks at the facts and reacts accordingly. Atheism is not and never was any sort of "ideology." An ideology always begins with something that needs affirmation, and seeks to affirm it.

But in another sense, you are completely correct -- religious belief is just about always "an introduced ideology at some point past birth." That's the whole point -- you can't make your kids Christian or Muslim or Hindu before they're potty trained, but once you get there, well, you can convince them of anything. And once they're convinced (the necessity of believing your parents in order to survive being what it is), you'll probably always believe it.

That's the meaning of one of my favourite sayings: "You can't reason somebody out of faith believe who was never reasoned into it."

If course it's an affirmation. How else do you think the response towards theism is being structured?

It takes ideology to address what is being talked about and elaborated.

It's why it carries the label of atheism in the first place. Emphasis on "...ism".