« more discussions

• 

  The threat of theism

  In another thread, it was suggested that many "passionate atheists" are so passionate because they are trying to recoup some sort of validation for having been alienated as an atheist. I'll grant that is likely to be true in some cases, but I feel that it is our duty as atheists to be passionate about atheism. Why? Because theism is a threat to our lives, our culture, and the future of our society.
  
  Consider all the well-known advances in society: Copernicus saying the earth revolved around the sun; Columbus saying that the earth was not flat; Darwin proposing that all creatures share common ancestors; insert any other significant scientific advances here. These all come to the public as opposition, and the biggest opponent has always been theism.
  
  In more recent history, theists have violently opposed such ideas as teaching evolution in schools, researching the medical potential of stem cells, and so on. And when I say violently, I don't mean fierce arguments... I mean that theists feel justified (by their god) in burning clinics and killing doctors.
  
  How many of the world's major armed conflicts have had theist as a root cause? How long has the Middle East warred over whose god is right? How many Jews were killed because a sicko convinced his people that they were responsible for the death of a messiah? You just don't see atheists doing these things.
  
  The threat of theism comes from the high value it places on believing in things without any evidence. "Faith", they call it... but what it boils down to is nothing more than saying, "you must believe in this idea, for no better reason than because I told you to." The danger of making the ability to ignore evidence (or lack thereof) into a lifelong virtue has horrible, dire consequences.
  
  So when I say that I am a "radical atheist", or a "passionate atheist", or at time I even use the term "vehement atheist", it is not because I want to get back some dignity that I feel I've lost.... it is because the theist majority has rancor and zeal in their desire to stamp us out, and it is necessary that we have equivalent passion in our lack of "faith" if we have any hope for the future.

  randem started this discussion 7 months ago. ( reply )

• 

  Maria Pilar A 

  I concur. There needs to be a firm and passionate but rational opposition to the madness of religion. We can't let whatever numbers of people that believe in an imaginary friend that will protect them and sets them apart from the rest of us.
  Personally, I found very good reasons to be an atheist every day at work, Oncohaematology ward, I'd found every day a reason to be pissed at that all-benign and all-powerful guy in the sky for letting so many people suffer so much and die, and no semi-rationalization like the "God's will" or the even worse "Sin causes illness" could pay any sort of consolation to what I see everyday.
  I don't want a future ruled by bronze-age made-up rules, enforced by force and blindness to reason, I don't want a future dominated by religion for my children, I want a future of reason and humane principles for them to live in.

  posted 6 months ago. ( reply )

  show 2 replies

  • 

    randem (edited)

    It seems to me that being "pissed off at the all-powerful guy in the sky" would work against you. Three reasons come immediately to mind:
    
    First, anger is an inefficient use of your energy. Why not channel that passion into something constructive?
    
    Second, people are put off by anger. One of religion's best recruiting tools is the appearance of happiness. (It's always fake, but they sell the lie well.) Who wants to learn the truth -- even if they're willing to accept that it IS the truth -- if that knowledge is going to make you angry and unhappy? Faced with that dilemma, I'd rather believe the lie as well.
    
    Third, how can you be mad at a being that you don't even believe exists? It makes about as much sense as me getting pissed off at the tooth fairy for making people lose their teeth.

    posted 6 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    Gaurav S. (edited)

    @ randem
    
    Mate while I agree with the idea of what you are saying, and I understand how theists will just love what I'm about to say... Atheists, as per my understanding are going to be more angry than their theist counterparts. More disappointed even...
    
    Why?
    Because unlike the theists, we do not see the world through a filter of child-like imagination. We don't close our eyes to the horrors of the world pretending that God will make it all okay, or worse, think to ourselves that it's only a matter of time before we're in His Kingdom & having a jolly ol' time...
    
    Theists may claim to have that advantage, but it isn't one that I'd trade for the world.
    
    Taking a moment to reflect on all the sufferings that exist in our world, all the inequalities & injustices, is enough to make anyone sad. Empathy, is one of the greatest gifts of evolution... and it is one that is mocked by the theists because when they see someone else's pain, they can simply state that it is deserved. That it is just punishment for some past or future sin...
    
    We, as atheists cannot do the same.
    
    A theist that believes that rapture is imminent will not care for his actions on the Earth (even if the Pope has decided that polluting is a sin now). A theist that believes that illness is a consequence of sin will not care to have his money invested in finding a cure. A theist that sees people of different colors & races & beliefs as misguided fools will not care for their mass genocide thousands of miles away.
    
    We as atheists will not do the same.
    
    Any theist that will ask himself, "Why invest in astrological, scientific or medicinal breakthroughs when all they do is contradict the "true" word of my God..." will find the ideas of Carl Sagan or Stem-Cell research or a woman's right to abortion to be abhorrent...
    
    And the fact that these self-righteous theists are a majority & are therefore inevitably in the positions of our world leaders & policy makers... is enough to make anyone very, very angry indeed.

    posted 6 months ago. ( reply )

• 

  Gaurav S. (edited)

  I believe that the threat of theism will always be from the fundamentalists & that this threat finds shelter within the veil of the so-called moderates. That topic in itself has been very well covered by writers far better than myself, so I shall not dwell on it any longer.
  
  Instead I will compare the threat of theistic fundamentalism & compare it with the rather harmless enthusiasm of atheists.
  
  I may seem to be biased right from the start here, but my statement above is not based on personal feelings, but is a rather predictable outcome of a reasoned approach to the idea of the fundamentalist atheist.
  
  The key is in understanding that atheism is not a religion.
  
  Unlike the popular religions of our world, atheism does not ordain it's members to follow any particular set of rules. We do not all need to have read Voltaire or Darwin. We are not all required to be in awe of Dennett or Dawkins. We do not need to join a particular organization or identify ourselves as "brights".
  
  There is no elitist group within atheism that claims to be closer to the atheistic morals than the common atheist & no eternal reward for being a better atheist than another. There is no commonality at all in fact, beyond a shared lack of belief.
  
  So while theistic fundamentalists can see how they are working for a higher power when they torch abortion-clinics or fly planes into buildings or wage ethnic wars & then believe that they are heading to a martyr's heaven... The atheistic fundamentalist has no such delusions to cloak his evil with.
  
  If an atheist decides to burn down churches or assassinate religious leaders, he would do so entirely for convictions that are his own & it would be an individual act of violence by a deranged person, not a result of centuries of communal brain-washing by Atheists Inc.
  
  And it is for this reason that atheism's threat is always exaggerated by it's theistic counterparts which leads to the many misconceptions & ignoramus views on atheism that exist today.
  
  Or so I believe anyway...
  
  ____________
  
  [Examining the idea of the Fundamentalist Atheist - http://therosefoundation.blog.com/2224962/ ]
  

  posted 6 months ago. ( reply )

  show 3 replies

  • 

    randem 

    I appreciate and agree with your views. The lack of a higher power, whose bidding to perform, leaves the atheist with no one to blame for his actions but himself, and when left with no choice but to take responsibility for his own actions, the atheist makes choices that are far more "moral" and "ethical" and beneficial to himself and others.
    
    I do have to vocalize my disagreement, however, with your use of the term "fundamentalist atheist". Such a thing can not exist, by my estimation. Fundamentalism is a strict adherence to a core set of principles, but since atheists are only defined by their lack of belief in a deity, there can be no set of fundamental principles to adhere to. The closest approximation I could imagine would be a fundamentalist secular humanist... but this is the atheist group. Secular humanism is two doors down, and they meet on Mondays. ;-)
    

    posted 6 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    Gaurav S. 

    "l compare the threat of theistic fundamentalism & compare it with the rather harmless enthusiasm of atheists."
    
    I agree with you mate, & that's why I refer to it as the "idea" of the fundamentalist atheist, because in reality such an entity could not exist. That really was my message here... Pointing out the flaw in the very idea of the fundamentalist atheist.

    posted 6 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    randem 

    I must have misunderstood that part.

    posted 6 months ago. ( reply )

• ammar n removed this reply 6 months ago.

• 

  ammar n (edited)

  If the threat comes from fundamentalist theists(the type who were after blood of the likes of great scientists like Galileo etc.)then why reject all theists?I am not sure if the argument that moderate theists shouldnot be tolerated because they oft become haven for fundamentalist theists is a valid one.Indeed many moderate theists condemn fundamentalist theists.Moderate theists do include philanthropes like Mother Teressa(with all her flawed theistic faith she was i guess of much greater benefit to lots of poor and diseased than many atheists).I know so many others.Just as i know many philanthropic atheists too.So it is fundamentalist theists against whom our tirade should be directed.Let moderate theists stick to their beliefs.Many theists do advance 'evidence' that hints at possibility of a god.They cannot 'prove' that there is a god.But simlarly atheists cant 'prove' that there is none.As long as both dont harm each other,tolerate each other and are able to derive ethical values frm their respective isms we should have no qualms.If it is true that Capitalistic economic system has had a role in leading to uneven distribution of wealth across the globe and severe deprivation and strife in parts of the globe,it means we should reform the exploitative elements of the system rather than rejecting the whole economic system altogether.Just as we should not hold it against all entrepreneurs who are part of captialistic economic system that it is because of their participation in the system that exploitative aspects of capitalism get encouraged.

  posted 6 months ago. ( reply )

  show 15 replies

  • 

    randem 

    I appreciate your desire to not lump everyone together, but I can't help disagreeing with the opinion. Moderate theists do not simply "become haven for fundamentalist theists". The threat is much larger than that.
    
    Theism, by its very nature, raises the idea of blindly believing in what can never be proven as if it were the highest virtue. Theism, whether fundamentalist or moderate or whatever else, teaches people to disregard evidence, to ignore science, logic, and common sense.
    
    Even if it were only fundamentalists (and I doubt that's true) who bombed abortion clinics and beat up homosexuals and blew up the World Trade Center, there are still plenty of ills regarding "moderates".
    
    Moderate theists may not go "fag bashing", but they'll still vote for the laws against gay rights. Moderate theists may not go suicide bombing, but they still oppose equal rights for women.
    
    And worse, at his core the moderate theist still believes that there is an invisible puppet master in the sky, so he does not take responsibility for himself and his world. Instead of making the effort to improve himself and his world, the moderate theist is content to simply "pray about it".
    
    Seriously... let's take a rather modest estimate. There are over 7 billion people on this planet. Let's estimate that 1 billion are Christian and 1 billion are Muslim. (I know the real numbers are higher.) If those two billion people stopped praying about homelessness or hunger for one moment, and instead donated $10, there would instantly be a fund in possession of $20-billion dollars that could practically wipe out those problems. But that will never happen as long as the theists (even moderates) believe in the power of prayer.
    
    Sorry. The problem is ALL theists. Not just the radical fundamentalists.

    posted 6 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    Gaurav S. (edited)

    @ ammar
    
    (allow me to apologize in advance for the length of this post)
    
    When I said that the issue of the role of moderate theism in fundamentalist actions has already been stated, it was my error not to quote the arguments & presume everyone to have already read them. So allow me to argue my point on how moderate theists are a part of the problem, not of the solution, by quoting two of the most vocal advocates of atheism –
    ____________
    
    "... [Religion] teaches children that unquestioned faith is a virtue. You don’t have to make the case for what you believe. If somebody announces that it is part of their faith, the rest of society, weather of the same faith or another, or of none, is obliged by ingrained custom to "respect" it without question. Respect it until the day manifests itself in a horrible massacre like the destruction of the World Trade Center or the London & Madrid bombings.
    
    Then there is a great chorus of disownings as clerics & community leaders line up to explain that this extremism is a perversion of the "true faith". But how can there be a perversion of faith, if faith, lacking objective justification, doesn't have any demonstrable standard to pervert."
    
    That was Richard Dawkins from "The God Delusion". He then goes on to say,
    
    "Faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification & brooks no argument. Teaching children that unquestioned faith is a virtue primes them - given certain other ingredients that are not hard to come by - to grow up into potentially lethal weapons for future jihads & crusades.
    ... [fanatics] do what they do because they really believe what they were taught in their religious schools, that duty to God exceeds all other priorities & that martyrdom in His service will be rewarded in the gardens of paradise. And they were taught that lesson not necessarily by extremist fanatics but by decent, gentle, mainstream religious instructors, who lined them up in the Madrasas, sitting in rows, rhythmically nodding their innocent little heads up & down while they learn every word of the “holy book” like demented parrots."
    
    ____________
    
    This next quote is from Sam Harris extracted from an article he wrote for the Times -
    
    "The problem with religious moderation is that it offers us no bulwark against the spread of religious extremism and religious violence. Moderates do not want to kill anyone in the name of God, but they want us to keep using the word “God” as though we knew what we were talking about. And they don’t want anything too critical to be said about people who really believe in the God of their forefathers because tolerance, above all else, is sacred. To speak plainly and truthfully about the state of our world — to say, for instance, that the Bible & the Koran both contain mountains of life-destroying gibberish — is antithetical to tolerance as moderates conceive it."
    
    "But by failing to live by the letter of the texts — while tolerating the irrationality of those who do — religious moderates betray faith and reason equally. As moderates, we cannot say that religious fundamentalists are dangerous idiots, because they are merely practicing their freedom of belief. We can’t even say that they are mistaken in religious terms, because their knowledge of scripture is generally unrivalled. All we can say, as religious moderates, is that we don’t like the personal and social costs that a full embrace of scripture imposes on us."
    ____________
    
    You see "ammar" the fact is that most religious moderates do themselves an injustice because no religion allows you to pick & choose from the Holy Book. A Christian who doesn't think Homosexuality is a sin is not being moderate, but is literally rejecting the word of God. I mean, Homosexuality, if the Bible were to be used as the ultimate word in a Christian world, is punishable by Death! That is what the Bible says!
    For me to even suggest to you to consider the invalidation of the teachings of the Bible requires (if you are a Christian) that you stone me to Death.
    
    To conclude, in the words of Richard Dawkins, "The teachings of moderate religion though not extremist in themselves are an open invitation to extremism."
    
    And I don't mean to nitpick, but you should perhaps consider reading Christopher Hitchen's "The Missionary Position" to better understand the "benefit" that Mother Teressa represented to the poor.

    posted 6 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    ammar n 

    Randem n Gaurav, thanks for your elaborate replies.Theres lots of reason n logic to what you say.I am wiser on a few things .But, i know theist scholars of a liberal mould who stress that religions initially are revolutionary and aid in getting the downtrodden their rights but then being a potent force get hijacked by the powerful/or those seeking power.So the problem they d say is not with the instrument but with those misusing it.Ofcourse your view randem,is that the fault with theism is intrinsic owing to its promotion of blind faith in what can never be proven.I think that blind faith refers to faith in a god,but not to every thing else written in the 'holy' texts.As there are theist scholars who are against literalist interpretation of all that is written in those books.There are many who ,say, interpret miracles as figurative and allegorical and also that alot of other specifics in those books were time-specific and bound to cultural values of the times in which these books were launched.My point is that those amongst theists who reinterpret their texts in accordance with modern day liberal values are largely harmless individuals.They donot blindly follow the literalist texts but use their minds to evaluate consquences of various interpretations and then adopt those interpretations that are not too different from liberalist values.They advocate tolerance for divergent views.In that case both atheists and such theists can live together as peacful citizens,with the only difference being that the theist likes deriving same values that promote love for mankind from a being out there and the atheist practices similar values finding their root in the logic of evolution and believing that following them is good for himself and the mankind per se..Excepting,as you point out in certain cases.And a case in point ofcourse is homosexuality.There i agree with you both that no theist would vote for a law that 'encourages' homosexuality.But based on my interactions,i think there would be quite a few who would not vote for 'persecuting' homosexuals.But is that not similar to a communist/marxist not voting to encourage captalism?or vice versa?Ofcourse one may say that such theists are not representative of 'mainstream' christianity,islam,judaism etc. But regardless of the label one may give them they nevertheless exist and are theists.

    posted 6 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    Gaurav S. (edited)

    (once again, I apologize for the length of this post, but I have tried to address your every point so I hope you'll bear with me)
    
    “… i know theist scholars of a liberal mould who stress that religions initially are revolutionary and aid in getting the downtrodden their rights but then being a potent force get hijacked by the powerful/or those seeking power.”
    
    Ammar my argument to what you are saying is that while Jesus & Buddha (if they existed) may have been advocates of peace & equality & sincerity, they are not the final word in their own faith-systems.
    
    A religion such as Christianity did not emerge out of the preachings of Christ, but by the decision of the council of Nicea & subsequent ecumenical gatherings.
    
    Religions are indeed intrinsically designed to be used as tools by the power-elite. All religions advocate a power higher than the individual & a plane of consciousness greater than the Earth. Add the concept of “Blind Faith” to this, and you have a system of hierarchy that is all but inviting the allergy of sheep & shepherds.
    
    The common man, with his easily malleable views on the “higher power(s)” will need a clergyman to guide him in his actions & help determine the righteous path for him. And it will be all but inevitable for the clergyman to give in to the temptation that comes with considering oneself to be the mouthpiece of God.
    
    “… the fault with theism is intrinsic owing to its promotion of blind faith in what can never be proven. I think that blind faith refers to faith in a god, but not to every thing else written in the 'holy' texts.”
    
    As for your point against faith being based on the devotion to a God, not to everything written in the “holy” texts, you need to understand that a very large proportion of the devout never fully & objectively so much as read the text in question. And that most of them do infact consider the texts to be the word of God himself (inspired or otherwise). To be faithful to the Christianity & not vouch by the Bible, or to consider oneself a Jew without heeding the word of the Torah are simply not permissible as per the instruction of God (whom the devout would believe in blindly & totally).
    
    “… those amongst theists who reinterpret their texts in accordance with modern day liberal values are largely harmless individuals. They do not blindly follow the literalist texts but use their minds to evaluate consquences of various interpretations and then adopt those interpretations that are not too different from liberalist values.”
    
    And the same would be considered heretics or infidels by anyone of truly religious inclination.
    
    Having liberal views on the holy book(s) is quite simply a consequence of centuries of secular knowledge & social empathy. Moderation stems not from a better understanding of God’s divine plan, but by rejecting a fair bit of it as millennia old fiction designed to teach by moral, not by example. Moderation in religion not only permits the spread of the same, but actually glorifies the idea that somehow religions are now tolerant of each other, when every single one of them claims otherwise.
    
    To quote Sam Harris again, “All we can say, as religious moderates, is that we don’t like the personal and social costs that a full embrace of scripture imposes on us. It is time we recognised that religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance.”
    
    “… both atheists and such theists can live together as peacful citizens, with the only difference being that the theist likes deriving same values that promote love for mankind from a being out there and the atheist practices similar values finding their root in the logic of evolution…”
    
    Forgive me if I am wrong, but I think that you are missing the very notion of religious dogma-based theism & are confusing it with deism. If your “such theists” consider God to be a personal & benign deity who will reward or punish the faithful at the end of their lives… then the peace that you foresee will never happen.
    
    However liberal the views of a theist may be, he is required, by eternal consideration for his soul to heed God’s word. And as long as he does so, there will be clashes between him & his atheist neighbors & the other believers out there whose faiths are different from his own.
    
    “… is that not similar to a communist/marxist not voting to encourage captalism?or vice versa?”
    
    And finally we come to very core of the problem with God’s word, in that it has been written down over a millennia ago & is not updated. Economic theories, like those of any other field of modern understanding (be it physics or medicine or geology) are not a right comparison because when they are found to be flawed, they are quite simply either ignored or updated. The simplest example would be in the chemical works of Alchemy. A “science” that was considered viable for thousands of years, and is little more than a joke today.
    
    The trouble is that no matter how liberal one’s interpretations may become, you can really only see so much peace & tolerance & love in a passage like –
    
    “If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying. “Let us go and serve other gods,” … you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God.”
    - Deuteronomy 13:7-11
    

    posted 6 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    ammar n 

    Guaruv, a comprehensive reply.I mostly agree with you excepting one thing.I dont think it is fair to believe that all theist moderates are ones who are ignorant of their religious texts.I know atleast a few who have written commentaries on Koran and are moderate.

    posted 6 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    ammar n 

    Guaruv, I know that if values of theistic liberals are similar to those of secular liberals and if because of theistic liberals, literalist theists who are of harm to the world owing to their fundamentalism get support towards validity of holy texts we should be happy if liberal theists convert to atheism.What would be the result?A liberal voice from amongst theists,including scholars with some say , would be gone.Why not leave them there and let them convert fundamentalists into moderates?I know your premise is that even the moderates are actually 'fundamentalists' and therefore would be bad neighbours.It may or may not be true.As I would again quote from my experience that there are theists who believe in keeping their faith personal and rather endorse policy of live-n-let-live.I would need to look closer into these people.If these theists are not fake and if their values are same as liberal values,and if they rather find greater inspiration in being good in deference to a creator rather than in being good on the basis of struggle of survival ethics,and if there are indeed their faith in such a creator cannot be disproven or proven then i would let them be.But thanks again.

    posted 6 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    Gaurav S. (edited)

    Ammar I am not trying to "convert" anyone to atheism & frankly, I don't believe that one can be "converted" to atheism. I believe atheism is a sense of understanding of the world that one can only reach using common sense with conjunction to an open & inquisitive mind.
    
    Also, I myself know many people that would be classified as theists that lead perfectly peaceful & harmonious lives. Apart from me, no one from my own family would call them-self an atheist. And yet, I am advocating the threat of theism.
    
    Not just fanatical theism, but the theistic beliefs of anyone claiming to belong to any of the more popular organized faiths.
    
    You are right in saying that not all Muslims are suicidal psychopaths, far from it, I'm sure... and I do honestly believe you. I do not have a quarrel with any/all Muslims but I do believe that their sense of moderation & acceptance of modern social values & norms is a direct result of ignorance of Islam. This may either be from not having ever read the Qu'ran diligently & objectively or willingly ignoring certain parts of it.
    
    Ammar I truly wish you to understand that the Qu'ran (much like the Bible) directly claims to be of divine inspiration & is filled with acts & commands condoning cruelties & tortures against people of "alternate" beliefs, genders, races... even those of alternate sexual-orientation.
    
    Consider for the sake of an example passages such as these -
    
    "Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." [4:74]
    
    "Do not let the disbelievers think they can escape. They are your enemy and the enemy of Allah." [8:59-60]
    
    "Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you." [9:123]
    
    And then consider them being preceded by something such as this -
    
    "If you believe in only part of the Scripture, you will suffer in this life and go to hell in the next." [2:85]
    
    Infact, to pretty much sum it up against me, for instace, a disbeliever -
    
    "They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level. So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them..." [4:89]
    
    See from my understanding, this passage says that if any "disbeliever" so much as desires a Muslim to adopt his alternative outlooks... He must either repent & convert to Islam, or ought to be sought out & murdered by the faithful.
    
    Now explain to me how the moderate Muslims would respond to this? And mind, there are quite literally hundreds of such verses throughout the Qu'ran (and the Bible).
    I understand that my translation is far from perfect & that I am taking these statements out of context & that I am very poorly versed in the Hadith which is why I sincerely ask you to find someone better suited at this than me & ask said person to explain to you the aforementioned... or better yet, this list here -
    
    http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html
    
    ____________
    
    Finally Ammar, allow me to apologize if I seem rather harsh & to explain yet again why theism in it's current form is a threat from my point of view.
    
    If you believe in a higher power, a life-giver or God of any sort, be s/he agnostic of deistic in your own mind, I will have no complaints whatsoever. And I firmly believe that most (if not all) atheists would agree with me.
    
    When you call that higher-power Jehovah or Jesus or Allah or Krishna . . when you identify with that higher-power's "message" in the form of the holy-texts... That is when you become a threat, because some, if not many, of the believers will come to "believe" the texts and will simply do what is part of the "divine plan". And when believers start to obey God's word... is when the threat of theism turns into mindless violence & Holy Wars turn into the massacre of innocents.

    posted 6 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    ammar n (edited)

    Guaruv,thx for your thorough reply. i guess i used the term 'convert' rather loosely for which i do apologize.What i meant was: spreading the atheistic viewpoint.Else how can the threat of theism be checked?Now we are on the same plane i feel.Because as you have clarified threat is not from all those who believe in a god.But from those who believe in holy books of the major religions.But your premise that those who interpret holy texts in line with moderate liberal values are ignorant of their religion may be debated.All the verses you have quoted would be interpreted as pertaining to a particular time and culture and within context of certain events.Any text that seeks to reform people of its own times as well as to those of future times would perforce contain generalized principles conveyed through parables etc. as well as instructions pertaining to the particular people of the times in which the text was introduced.These specific instructions would have to be within the specific cultural context of that period else people may not understand and nor adopt.People frm a culture a millenuem later would not be able to relate to these instructions as these were meant for a more primitive culture.Either such instructions(like those in Koran that are related to slavery are not valid anymore,but were relevant then)would have to be ignored or generalized lessons would need to be drawn.Anyway,that was my take on things.But you point out rightly that if we look at the practical results then we do see alot of strife caused by believers of the major religions.But how do you suggest this threat of theism should be countered?

    posted 6 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    Gaurav S. 

    Ammar I deliberately delayed in writing a response to this as I was hoping for someone else to perhaps chip-in to our seemingly private discussion. As that is not the case, I shall do my best in answering your question.
    
    But first, I would like to point out to you certain things that you said which rather contradict your own stance against moderate theists & their understanding of the holy-text(s).
    
    Firstly, when you state that these holy-books were written for a separate time & a different people & that our culture as any to come in the future would not be able to relate to them, you are taking away the very basis for the omniscience of the author(s). Any text written by an all-knowing God, or inspired by him, would simply not have the trouble of requiring upgradation as social norms & cultural values evolve. And while this is a very commonly understood point by “my side”, theists simply cannot state that the holy-parables have lost their meaning in time.
    
    And secondly, when you say that certain instructions (there are many things apart from slavery that come to mind) will either need to be ignored or generalized, you are echoing my own point of literal-ignorance. The Koran, much like the Bible, state themselves to be direct instructions for leading our lives, & prohibit (to certain degrees) any attempts to be re-interpreted.
    
    There was this wonderful line (by Richard Dawkins, I believe, but I could be wrong) saying “The [Christian] Church shouldn’t apologize for the Inquisition because it wasn’t a perversion of the faith… simply a more open expression of it…”. And this is the same sentiment that we all should feel about Osama bin Laden & all fundamentalist’s who follow him or his principles. Because while the Koran does not say that you should fly planes into buildings, it does offer heaven to any martyr who sacrifices himself fighting infidels.
    
    Finally, you ask me to recommend a solution to the threat of theism & I say to you that recognizing the problem is the first step in resolving it.
    
    And while I would be lying in not wishing for an atheistic society for the future generations, I do understand that atheism cannot be forced onto people.
    
    Atheism cannot be imbibed by propaganda (a tool used superbly by the evangelical church in America) nor can it be an elitist fad (like Kabala had unwittingly become in the recent past). And totalitarian enforcement of godlessness leads to a state of megalomaniacal chaos & you end up with anti-theists who become as bad as their religious counterparts (if not worse).
    
    So remaining in the realm of reality, I have to say that the only way I foresee the threat of theism being countered is by an open discussion of the existence of this threat, rather than the unwarranted respect it presently receives.
    
    For you to have partaken in this discussion alone, is a step towards countering the threat of theism because although I haven’t “converted” you, I have (I hope) broadened your own understanding of religion & as long as you keep an open & inquisitive mind you will be an agent against this threat & if you discuss this topic openly with others… they may too.
    

    posted 6 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    ammar n 

    Guaruv,thx for the elaborate reply n i do agree mostly.The only thing that i further need to delve into is that just as moderate theists with liberal values are a minority amongst believers , is it also not true that atheists with humanist/liberal values would also be a minority in a world where there is no faith.i mean whether only wise,knowledeable atheists who feel inspired by a vision of world driven by evolutionary principles can be good citizens?just as only wise,moderate minority of theists can be good citizens?what about the likely majority of 'commonplace' mass of atheists (in an imagined global society where there is no religion)that are not constrained by a faith and yet not inspired by a value-system not born of faith?would they take belief in a system born of faith in struggle-for-survival in manner akin to that of atheists like Dawkins or would they too be,like theist majority,bad citizens in their own way?perhaps not intolerant;but maybe cynical,self-serving individuals whose key value is self survival?

    posted 6 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    randem 

    That's conjecture, Ammar. I see a number of apparent flaws in the argument.
    
    First, you appear to be drawing a comparison between theism and atheism, implying that the difference between fundamentalist theists versus liberal theists would correlate to a similar divide between fundamentalist and liberal atheists. However the atheist's lack of a belief negates the possibility of a fundamentalist/liberal division.
    
    Second, you appear to be implying that it is only a knowledge barrier ("only wise, knowledgeable atheists inspired by a vision...") that separates the "good" citizens from the "bad". But the problem is that these "bad" citizens are not "bad" because of their lack of knowledge. Rather, they are "bad" because of their adherence to archaic, discriminatory laws written presumptuously as if they were passed down by an almighty being. When "God" says you have to kill anyone who doesn't honor the sabbath, or kill the homosexuals, or kill anyone who doesn't believe in your religion, etc., you don't have to take personal responsibility for your actions. You can pick whichever group of people you hate and justify your actions as being in service to a "higher power". The atheist, however, has no such loophole by which to circumvent his humanist duties.
    
    Third, one need not understand evolution, nor have studied it, to be ruled by it. We are all evolved in the same way, with the same internal forced driving us to protect our lineage -- both current and future. You don't have to be aware of the mechanism for it to work.
    
    And lastly, to reiterate the point I've made a few times already... Theism encourages ignorance. It raises blind faith to the point of highest virtue. The theist believes things "because I said so", without any evidence. In your hypothetical world of atheists, however, evidence would take the place of blind faith, and while I won't be foolish enough to say it would be a Shangri-La, I can't help seeing that as a benefit to every decision made by all of humanity. To coin a phrase, "the world would be a better place."

    posted 6 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    ammar n 

    randem,you say that 'the atheist's lack of a belief negates the possibility of a fundamentalist/liberal division'. i agree with you that because of lack of faith atheist majority are likely to be more tolerant of 'beliefs' of others'.but are there not forms of intolerance,other than of 'beliefs'?what i meant was that there likelier may be not fundamentalist/liberal but some other division between the minority that practices the higher principles of humanism and morality and a majority that does not.Why do i think there would be such a divide?because thats what we have evidence of.that to be good demands strength of character and understanding/knowledge which is displayed by a minority.in a world of limited resources and where struggle for survival is on it is difficult to forego our immediate interests for others.with maldistribution of wealth/resources large sections of society are likelier to continue having greater reasons for dissatsfaction,and to my understanding,lesser reasons for and therefore greater difficulty in being good.especially so when exploitative forces are around.the linkage between religious fundamentalism witnessed today and the economic deprivation frm which it springs is manifest.so while accepting the weight in your arguments,it is yet not clear to me whether problem is with theism per se or whther the fundamental issue is with deprivation and disparity which makes it difficult for majority(who happen to be theists) to be good.and rather makes that majority release its frustrations born of deprivation through intolerance towards others in the form of intolerance based on faith systems.yes i agree that such intolerance coloured with religious passion is more destructive.in an atheist society there may be other forms of intolerance,but as long as deprivation pervades the system,there may be many in the majority who cause possibly only a little less destruction to their fellows based on some different logic of 'otherness' ,born out of atheism.i m being conjectural i know,but only to think out aloud whether we are not missing out the real cause of strife i.e possibly bad economics.If there is less deprivation,there may be more moderate theists than fundamentalist theists,which is perhaps better for global peace.But if there is atheism everywhere but more deprivation then some other way of expressing dissatisfaction than theist fundamentalism may be born.

    posted 5 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    Gaurav S. 

    “there likelier may be not fundamentalist/liberal but some other division between the minority that practices the higher principles of humanism and morality and a majority that does not.”
    
    I don’t think there is such a thing as a better-humanist or a better practitioner of the atheistic principles because there is no scale to gauge the humanism of an individual. None that is promoted by atheism anyway.
    
    You don’t have a division in heaven or hell for those who are better or worse than others, people don’t have the same sense of guilt or fear which would propel them into embracing a social façade of being better humanists or more charitable individuals.
    
    “Why do i think there would be such a divide?because thats what we have evidence of.that to be good demands strength of character and understanding/knowledge which is displayed by a minority.”
    
    See this is the point where we jot down all the proponents of understanding & knowledge that have been targeted by religion for the last 2,000 years or so…
    
    The objective of religion is to somehow make people believe in the unbelievable & then accept that questioning this is sinful, while blindly accepting it is virtuous.
    
    The idea of only the minority showing such traits very easily draws comparisons to the massive & utterly destructive subjugation of unbelievers that has existed in the world in some form or another. The Inquisition may have died out, even the jihads & fatwas may seem unimportant in the greater scheme of things… but to truly understand the reach of this subjugation, think for one second what would happen to America if McCain, Obama & Hillary all declared themselves atheists before November.
    
    “in a world of limited resources and where struggle for survival is on it is difficult to forego our immediate interests for others.”
    
    On the contrary, our world is a massive store of resources, having supported life for over a billion years already!
    
    What you should be considering is that the people who control & use these resources have a narrow minded field of vision because the horizon of their lives, as proposed by religion, is much nearer than they may otherwise consider.
    
    We have as a race known of the problems of peak-oil & global warming (for instance) for decades now & while you may think it naive of me to consider this the fault of religion… I do feel that in making people question the validity of these claims, in making people think they are countering this all by praying or donating to their favorite church or in demonizing science because it is so very often at odds with religion… the church does more damage than one may be led to believe.
    
    Then there is the problem of rapture… in that if polls are to be believed, as many as half of the population of America believes that Judgment Day is coming within their lifetime. Why bother investing the money & time required in researching better & more efficient ways to reap off the earth when you’re going to be spending eternity in heaven?
    
    “the linkage between religious fundamentalism witnessed today and the economic deprivation frm which it springs is manifest.”
    
    Religious fundamentalism is not a new phenomenon nor is it only the assault of the Islamic fanatics on everything the west stands for.
    
    There is the post 9/11 threat of Islamic fundamentalism which has been seen across the world & has resulted in thousands of deaths… and it does very largely stem from the economic depravation of the middle east & the un-warranted economic success of the sinful infidels in the west but the catalyst for this threat is nothing more than the religious difference. If you think it is only economic consider the threat faced by the immensely wealthy Saudi States (as opposed to the threat that seems to come from therein)
    
    There is also the threat faced in America (the opposite end of the religious polarization) which is a more subtle threat & in its own way, a more insidious one.
    
    The evangelical church is virtually in control of the US-Armed Forces & the political ruling elite. Their influence is felt in the judiciaries & the schools with equal fervor & their propaganda model is secondary to none. You don’t have to watch “Jesus Camp” to see its sinister grip over children & you don’t need to be a conspiracy theorist to see the apathy & trivialness it generates.
    
    Just consider the implications of having the world’s greatest nuclear arsenal in the hands of a nation where half the population thinks rapture is coming & the other half can’t help arguing over what celebrity sex-tape they think is more gossip-worthy!
    
    Even Orwell wouldn’t have found this irony funny.
    
    “in an atheist society there may be other forms of intolerance,but as long as deprivation pervades the system,there may be many in the majority who cause possibly only a little less destruction to their fellows based on some different logic of 'otherness'…”
    
    I will answer that by quoting the brilliant Nobel-Winning Physicist Prof. Steven Weinberg –
    
    “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
    
    “If there is less deprivation,there may be more moderate theists than fundamentalist theists,which is perhaps better for global peace.But if there is atheism everywhere but more deprivation then some other way of expressing dissatisfaction than theist fundamentalism may be born.”
    
    I feel you are mostly right here, but for analyzing the root cause of the depravation & finding its links to religion. The cause, as well as what a lot of people consider the effect is startling in a society where people can blame certain events on divine plans or think they are helping people by closing their eyes & wishing for their betterment.
    
    Economic, racial, ethnic & social divides will remain if religion were to vanish, yes… And they may well cause enough strife to allow for a new form of fundamentalism to come into being... but that still says nothing against the need for removing the most dangerous of these barriers.
    
    As long as the world is controlled by religion, it will be controlled by superstitions & myths which were designed millennia’s ago by lonely camel-walkers to justify their treatment of the world they inhabited… And the people they shared it with.
    
    In a world of free-inquiry, the great mystery would simply be in trying to understand how people managed to laugh at Zeus & make cartoons on Hercules while they prayed to Yahweh & hung dead-Jesus' around their necks…
    

    posted 5 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    randem 

    I would also like to add (or reiterate?) that unlike religion, atheism makes no claims or promises about making the world a better place. I only posit that one benefit of atheism is that accepting responsibility for oneself puts one in a better position to do more positive things. For instance, rather than praying for change, the atheist set out to MAKE change.
    
    And in specific regard to this point:
    "But if there is atheism everywhere but more deprivation then some other way of expressing dissatisfaction than theist fundamentalism may be born."
    
    More deprivation may lead to more desperation, and that, in turn, to more immoral acts. I can agree with that. However, it is still incorrect to refer to this as "fundamental atheism". As I've stated before, you can't have fundamentalism in atheism, because atheism is not a different belief... it is a LACK OF belief.
    
    Look, let's be realistic. There will always be givers and there will always be takers. There will always be greedy people. There will always be lazy people. There will always be positives and negatives in society. This will always be true *WITH OR WITHOUT* religion.
    
    Nobody is arguing that destroying religion will solve all the world's problems. But I think all atheists will agree with me that removing religion would benefit society as a whole by removing a huge obstacle from the way of progress in all the areas the can benefit society.
    
    The human interest in self-preservation will always work against "evil". But religion works against "good".
    

    posted 5 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    ammar n (edited)

    randem, i agree with you and Guaruv with respect to fundamentalist theists.But still not with regard to moderate theists.I m not sure there.If there were a country of atheists and it was an underdeveloped country,then as you agreed there would likelier be more 'bad' ppl(not bad frm a religious perspective, as Guaruv misunderstood me as saying,but bad in view of some common universally accepted ethical values).If someone in that country started saying that key reason for the 'badness' of these ppl and consequent strife in the country was their lack of faith and atheism, and that therefore atheism per se is a threat we should be wary of.We would reply that majority is bad for other reasons than their atheism because in itself atheism has the "benefit that accepting responsibility for oneself puts one in a better position to do more positive things".That person would reply that that benefit of atheism is not working in practice as majority is patently bad and not accepting that responsibility for their own actions in a positive mode as one would expect.And the athesitic minority while accepting personal responsibility for their actions in a positive mode and doing good,is also a threat beacuse by professing their lack of faith they are encouraging the majority to be faithless too.We might say that the atheist majority is 'misinterpreting' atheism or the freedom that comes frm lack of faith by doing what they feeel is of benefit to them(in short-term),rather than taking responsibility and doing what is good for community(and for themselves in long-term)(this may not be true in a developed country where economy is sound,institutions are strong and majority of ppl are educated,but in an underdeveloped or developing society where there is lack of education,weak institutions and deprivation ppl are likelier to look to short-term benefits more so).
    If this analogy is valid and as long as there are theists around who donot believe in literalist interpretation of their texts,and indeed interpret their texts in line with liberal values of the times;draw vailidity of such interpretations from those texts alone;believe in tolerance towards others;believe many of the exhortations that are unpalatable in current cultural and social context as being not valid for these times but specific to the cultures of the times when the texts were introduced;and draw frm the texts meanings which encourage free-thinking and application of mind to resolve problems of current times in line with basic principles laid down in the texts(those principles being same as universally accepted values of the times)rather than applying specific instructions meant for another culture and times literally and in totality to curent context: then if such individuals want to remain theists believing in a god and a life after death,then should i not be ok with them living side by side wih atheists.

    posted 5 months ago. ( reply )

• 

  uplandpoet (edited)

  "Atheists, as per my understanding are going to be more angry than their theist counterparts. More disappointed even...
  
  Why?
  Because unlike the theists, we do not see the world through a filter of child-like imagination. We don't close our eyes to the horrors of the world pretending that God will make it all okay, or worse, think to ourselves that it's only a matter of time before we're in His Kingdom & having a jolly ol' time..."
  
  Sorry, but my experience with true believers is that they are often angry at the "sin in the world" and how their rose colored vision of god's will on earth and the reality of humans being human do not concur. an aetheist can find peace in the acceptance of what is, instead of operating from a preconceived pattern that does not fit. again, i am an agnostic, and find many aethists to seem to have a displaced evangelical approach to their lack of faith. maybe some of these folks are simply trying too hard, giving up one religion for another. There is plenty of room for serenity in the path of agnostism and aetheism, but i do agree that the bias against non belief is very high and sometimes more than a little anoying. to think that even though america is predominately christian, it will likely elect a jew, a muslim, or a hindu before it elects an outright aetheist!
  
  "How many of the world's major armed conflicts have had theist as a root cause? How long has the Middle East warred over whose god is right? How many Jews were killed because a sicko convinced his people that they were responsible for the death of a messiah? You just don't see atheists doing these things."
  
  
  Whoops, I forgot i had clipped this to commnet on... actually, i dont think religion ever has much to do with war, it is almost always about property. religion is often used to whip up sentiment in support of the war that certain individuals want for the profit motive...

  posted 2 months ago. ( reply )

  show 2 replies

  • 

    Justin M 

    It saddens me to think that most Americans would not vote for an atheist. No one should vote someone to be the President of the United States of America because of their beliefs.
    Me, I think being an atheist would be better. The separation of church and state is an important thing and an atheist leader would more likely listen to what the people want rather than refer to her/his book on what she should do.

    posted 2 months ago. ( reply )

  • 

    Gaurav S. 

    i dont think religion ever has much to do with war, it is almost always about property. religion is often used to whip up sentiment in support of the war that certain individuals want for the profit motive..."
    
    It's weird, but I think you are both entirely correct as well as entirely incorrect in your opinion on the matter. The Generals on either side of a battlefield haven't really bothered about the religious implications of their actions since the Crusades... But if you observe any major conflict over the past . . well ever really, you'll find that a substantial majority of the people who actually go out & fight these holy wars, who find their homes & lives in jeopardy... the people who actually face the disastrous consequences of war, are deeply religious.
    
    And not only will they be deeply religious, they will have very strong convictions in the strength of their beliefs & in knowing that they are destined for victory because God's on their side...
    
    Religion is more than just another divider, it's a tool that can bring an entire nation together to fight not a political rival or to capture an economic stronghold... but to fight God's enemies.
    
    Take the simple case of the whole mess out in Ireland, it's not like the people there honestly want to kill each other because of differing views on transubstantiation... There is deep political & social unrest, and has been for centuries... but that cause in itself would have found itself dissolved if not for religion. The "tribes" would have intermarried a long time back & there wouldn't be a Protestant side or a Catholic side... it'd just be Irish people.

    posted 2 months ago. ( reply )

• To reply to this discussion, please sign in or join now.

Return to top