Is atheism a religion?

Remove all ads!

Yeah right nataraja, scientist don't have beliefs, rriigghhtt! & i have a really nice bridge to sell you. Cheap too.

Poor coin, you have the left, right & center saying you are wrong, give it up already.

You & nataraja are as zealous as any minister that i have ever seen on tv harping for money.

 

Richard Dawkins sums it up nicely...

 

What annoys me a bit is that religious people label Dawkin as the atheist version of a fundamental fanatical religious suicide bomber, not quite true. I find him to be the best and most eloquent spokesperson for atheism I have encountered.

 

I know I haven’t posted here for some days but when I came back before I came to find more reflection than I anticipated and I didn’t want to disrupt it. Also I figured I have other things I can do especially as they very much exist and I haven’t always done them when I’m discussing on this thread-both in the rest of the world and other threads.

That all said, a technically correct answer to my earlier question relating to the 2 most important Commandments would have been in 1 of the Gospels-such as Mark, chapter 12. Multiple parts of the Bible could have been directly referred to (both to show they are said more than once and to show both of them) but this didn’t happen. If I was a teacher some credit could be argued for since some knowledge was displayed-but a full answer to the question wasn’t given and thus shouldn’t be (certainly not in the technical sense). Also I just figured it/they is/are a very important part(s) of the Bible as the heading “core rules” or something like that could have been used.

Since I came by I watched the latest few videos (still can eat up more time than I prefer) and here are some criticisms.


1st

He refers to religion as “hostility provoking”. I’ve already mentioned that some people have criticized him for overstating the contribution religion has to conflicts. As he only refers to religion by the negative things related to it isn’t hard to argue he is being biased/one-sided.

Also I noticed he included things like fairies and ghosts when talking about religion. You can be religious or non-religious and still believe in either. I wonder if, especially when the possibility bigfoot exists was mentioned earlier in this thread, that is a subtle way to diminish the possibility religions’ have some basis to exist by putting them in the same category as things with less believers/arguers for/and likely evidence for.

Video 2:

He mentioned that people are upset with others’ “imaginary friends being shoved down their throat” yet isn’t mandated atheism (something that has actually been tried in various nations during the 20th century) shoving an ideology down someone’s throat? Also, in many nations (including the one he lives in) there is a great degree of religious freedom-including the right to believe or not believe. So he is complaining about places (for the most part the US) where choice is a very real part of the situation and he fails to mention it-even implies something arguably inaccurate by saying people are getting fed up with “God ruling the roost” when it appears the previously mentioned religious freedom (including to not believe) is very very real.

Also by saying God is imaginary (and doesn’t exist-which he has stated in other videos) isn’t he engaging in doublespeak? He tries to say he scientifically cannot be certain (which gives him a leg in the real scientific realm of what you can really prove or disprove and is thus reasonable) and then makes statements that very much seem like he is certain. Either he overstated in what he said before and is trying to back off into what seems most reasonable (in which case he shouldn’t exaggerate so often) or he realized that atheism can seem to have preachers as fanatical as any religion and they doesn’t serve its publicity beyond a certain point-to which he himself doesn’t want to be limited. So is he doing double-speak for better PR?


Video 3

I don’t think the 10 Commandments are a source of great contention here in the USA. Occasionally there is a court fight here or there that makes the news, but generally doesn’t do much of anything that changes someone’s life. There are things that can and have been sources of bitterness and these can and do effect peoples’ lives, but these court cases aren’t one of them. I think he is both overstating both the general public concern and who/how the source of contention is/arises. People looking for a political fight put up the 10 Commandments in places they know someone will challenge or others look for a way to have them taken down from someplace. The Commandments themselves aren’t the problem but rather those who seek their placement/displacement in an unreasonable fashion.

Note he referred to the story of Abraham and Isaac as the first Biblically recorded defense of “I was just following orders” related to Nazis. This isn’t the first time that people have done historically questionable/bad things because they were following orders. Also an irony is that while many Nazis were (or perhaps started nominally as) Christians Nazi ideology itself didn’t promote Abrahamic faith of any of the 3 major branches. And the Nazis became infamous in history for being particularly hard on members of one those branches. About the story itself, wasn’t one of its points that God’s followers were not supposed to sacrifice humans for/in religious rituals?

Also, even if people just are limiting themselves to the “nice bits” of religious writings that may be mean that they are getting something from them.

I actually got out a Bible and read the chapter of Judges he referred to (would he be happy to know he got me to read the Bible?....) Nowhere in that chapter did I see God demanding the man kill his daughter. I see a man making a promise that ended with him doing so, but I don’t see God asking for such a promise and Dawkins point that God was “looking forward” to it is based on his assumptions rather than the details of what was written. He complained that God didn’t intervene to stop the sacrifice but it can be argued that God didn’t ask for it. And I’m certain that many theologians would bring that point up if asked.... and Dawkins neglects to mention that fact. If human sacrifice is something Abrahamic faiths embrace so much why is it that he only refers to 2 examples in the Bible that are done in a religious context and neither of which end up as a tradition where these rituals are to be repeated. Why is it that no other Jewish military leaders (even of that time alone) started promising to kill their daughters if that is what Dawkins is arguing God wants? Dawkins isn’t mentioning evidence implying doing this isn’t what God wants and then condemning God for what happened. In legal terms isn’t that along the lines of suppressing evidence?

At the time where much was based on ethnicity (yes Jews in the past weren’t just a religious group but an ethnic/tribal one as well) I suspect that genocide wasn’t as likely to be viewed as the horror we see it as today. Moreover the lessons Christians draw from Jesus tend to imply genocide isn’t a good thing.... the story of the Good Samaritan implied that others different from your own may actually be better people than expected/given credit for (most pointedly they may be better than those from your own ethnic group). And tribal/ethnic warfare has occurred, at many times, in spite of religion rather than because of it. Ethnicity doesn’t require religion to exist and ethic prejudice has continued, even flourished (historically look at Russia), after atheism was enforced in an area.

Dawkins is smart and can be a good arguer. But it points to something other than validity when he biases evidence for his arguments.

And the last video you started out with seems badly informed (religion-wise) as Christ didn’t demand people sacrifice their animals for him. My understanding of the justice system is that it actually tended to limit the harshness of punishments of earlier times (rather than increase them as the video states), and considering the number of missionaries (including many fundamentalists ones) that have been complained about but don’t seem intent on killing people for not believing them I’ve got to hold the video to some doubt that heretics must be killed. And where in the Bible does Jesus Christ say there shall be no telepathy?! The video should stop trying to mess up my sci-fi when not invited to. And if this isn’t Jesus Christ in the video then why does the figure mention having to go be put up on a cross?


Maybe I’ve just done this for too long in one stretch when I watched the last one.


Joacqin, I wouldn’t say Dawkins is a suicide bomber (and maybe I’ve missed it but I don’t recall seeing those 2 words used in reference to him by others who find his faults), but I can argue (looking at what I have seen of these videos) that he biases evidence and leaves unmentioned that which doesn’t agree with his point. Spokespeople can be eloquent. But they can also be sources of propaganda.

 

You sure about that? Did you just ignore the entirety of the Old Testament where the gods are angry all the time and demand burnt offerings of ox and sheep and doves and goats because the smell is pleasing to their noses? Or did you forget the very start of John where it says that Christ = The Word and The Word was with God since forever, thereby making Christ = God? The gods of the Old Testament (and yes there is more than one god, 'let US make man in OUR image etc), were angry vengeful manipulative egotistical maniacs. Did you not read the story where Saul was told 'by God' to go to the Amalekites and kill the men...the women...the children...the sheep...the livestock...etc. And Saul takes an army down to them and kills them all in a glorious bloodbath for the gods, and thinks to himself 'It would be a shame to kill all these non-human animals, so Im going to take them back and sacrifice them to appease my bloodthirsty god', and so he does. Well, bad luck to him because 'god', aka Samuel, says its a baaaaaad thing, and Saul gets in trouble. Seems that 'god' would rather have the animals killed in a non-sacrificial way. So yes, Christ does demand the sacrifice of animals...and also the wholesale slaughter of men, women, children and even animals of people who supposedly were always going to be sinful. No chance for redemption

Just found a video that illustrates the point marvelously.

 

Nataraja - Christains have the NEW Testament. The word "new" has a specific meaning. You go back to the Old Testament as much as evangelicals do to make your point.

About as much as you are ignoring the New Testament.

 

Reason why I go back to the Old Testament is because the New Testament is a continuation of what started in the Old. Its like chapter 1 and chapter 2 of the story. Also, Jesus is supposedly not only one with god, he is god, and since god is unchanging from age to age, the 'god' of the Old Testament = the 'god' of the New Testament. If Jesus IS the same god as the Old Testament God then why the huge contrast between the personalities and behaviours? If something is said concerning the behaviour of the Old Testament god it should be consistent with the behaviour of the god in the New Testament. This is clearly not the case when you look at the evidence. Picking and choosing from the passages you like and ignoring those you dont simply emphasizes the logical inconsistencies of the bible. If any scientist used this approach, ignoring some facts and only sticking with what 'feels good', when forming hypotheses, conducting experiments, doing research and making conclusions deduced from their experimentations, they would not last a week in the harsh world of peer-reviewing. Facts dont change, and they are especially obvious if they are written down in black ink on white paper. The god of the bible - Jesus/Yahweh/whatever - claims to never change, and yet the god of the Old Testament is almost not the same god as the one portrayed in the New Testament. I say your god is a liar, that is unless he is a completely fictional character invented by humans, in which case it is perfectly acceptable for fictional character to change over time.

 

Sorry, Nataraja, but generally I don't read links that have no member commentary.

 

Nat, you can't keep posting videos to make a point! It really just invalidates what you're trying to get across

Currently, the trend in schools here that are Catholic or C of E is to not allow any form of Christian worship (although they will allow people of other religions to worship) which is political correctness gone wrong.
Anyway, despite this, my 6 year old step daughter said to me on Sunday 'Rachel, I would never bomb somebody you know because I'm a Christian and we just don't do that'.

I thought that, not only was it cute, but it proves that your beliefs can shine through no matter what. I added this because I think that when it comes to religion and things, kids generally have the best way of putting things. Plus I was so proud of her I wanted to share!

 

How so? I do it because mostly I dont have time to do the research I need to do, and I figure that I shouldnt bother when people who make videos have done it and will do a better job than me anyway, as my memory is like a sieve. I admit that religion is not my forte, and that despite my highest grade ever at university being in philosophy of religion, it really bores me to death. Also I cant get my head around moderate Christianity. Theres just something about it that strikes me as odd, and I cant quite put my finger on it. And, also, I am not as anti-religion in real life as I come across on here, offline I am more of the type whose eyes glaze over as soon as anything regarding Christianity, Islam or any other monotheistic religion is mentioned, Im just simply not interested in listening or talking about it.

So, why then do I post here about things? Well, honestly, I just like arguing with people. Apparently when I went to get my wisdom teeth extracted and was under the influence of the iv anesthesia I was arguing like mad with the nurses and the dental surgeon, only I dont remember this obviously, last thing I remember was motioning to them to increase the anesthesia. Not only that, but after I came to and was in the recovery room with my ex-girlfriend she told me about what the nurse said, that I really like to argue, and she said she agreed with the nurse that I love to argue...which then turned into an argument between me and my ex over whether or not I like to argue. I am self-admittedly bull-headed and stubborn, and once my mind is set on something I just charge in.

This being said and all, however, I am also a laid back peaceful guy who is quiet and reserved and who shows a remarkable level of tolerance towards others and their beliefs, who is nice to everyone and who always has a smile on my face. Nothing Ive said on these boards has been of malicious intent, I smile most of the time as I write what I do here. But all of my queries regarding moderate Christianity and Christianity in general have been genuine, I really cant understand it all. Im surprised I managed to be one for about 4 years.

But yeah...enough of my ramblings, just thought Id clear some things up.

 

Silvery, when you talk about fairy tales illustrations help get the point across.

Ah, moderate christianity/islam/whatever if that is not an oxymoron I do not know what is. Do you follow the teachings of the bible? Well, umm, some of them the ones I like. Either the book is divine or it isn't. If it is divine shouldn't you follow all of it and if it isn't why believe at all? Give me an honest fundamentalist anyday, at least they are intellectually honest and consistent. When you pick who to vote for you can decide what you like and dislike but religion? I mean, either it is the word of god or it isn't and if you believe it to be the word of god who are you to disagree? Or who are you to decide what is the word of god and what is the sour musings of some cranky old man?

Are you a prophet? Do you hear the word of god and if you do how come you do not share it with the rest of us? Do not we deserve to know the truth? To me you either take the package deal or you are not a Christian, you can be a Chandoist or A NOGist or whatever but how can you identify with a religion when you yourself pick and choose what of it to believe?

 

Thank you joacqin, thank you...

This is what Ive been saying for a long time. You cannot pick and choose what parts of your divinely inspired holy book you choose to follow or accept or that you like or dislike. All of it is the word of your gods, is it not? Jesus = God, Yahweh = God, therefore Jesus = Yahweh, right? What Yahweh says and does is what Jesus says and does, since they are the same, but different, yet the same, yet also different, but also the same...but different. If I recall correctly the Greek word used to describe Jesus being begotten is monogenes, which is like asexual division. So they SHOULD have the same characteristics, a bloody vengeful destroyer who loves everyone and cares for people.

Nothing about moderate Christianity makes any sense. People who profess Christianity and also claim that they 'believe in' evolution are deluding themselves. Jesus dying for an animal species 'sins' just makes no sense. We are either a divinely made life form in the image of the gods, or, we are an animal species. Theres no mix and match going on here. And since all evidence points to us being just another species of animals on this planet, then the Christian gods did a good job at making it look 'as if' we arent made in the image of gods. And besides, the whole 'man shaped out of clay in the image of the gods' is straight out of Sumerian mythology, which btw predates Christianity, Judaism and any other desert religion.

 

I thought I'd go into this bit, since I've made similar claims as Dawkins about being impartial in science.
A lot of what language is based on, involves being emotionally partial to a certain view, and it is hard to refrain from appearing biased. When Dawkins makes the case of God being imaginary, he has moved on from the discussion of whether science is biased, and trying to point out the available evidence that suggests the imaginary nature of God. It appears that he contradicts himself, as he stated earlier, like me, that God probably doesn't exist. Now he appears to take a leap of faith (in science), and assumes God is not real. Let me just point out here, that he is now attacking the christian view of God, as detailed in the Bible. Many specifics in the Bible have been proven to be false, the chaotic, planless nature of existence being an excellent example. Dawkins is still allowing for the possibility of some kind of explanation of God to be real, just not that of most christians.
Like LKD pointed out: Christianity being "1", and atheism being "0", Dawkins has merely determined that 1 is impossible, but hasn't put absolute faith in 0.

Nataraja, the YouTube links are great. They're relevant and entertaining, so keep it up!

 

I guess being lazy paid off in this situation. The videos I post are not things Ive 'just discovered'. They are things Ive known for a while but am too lazy to dig through both my notes and my brain to get the info out. Other people can say things better than I can, especially if its a funny video. I particularly like those cartoon ones. But yeah, like I said, Im mostly here because, damnit, I like to argue, especially when I know Im right

And yes, Christians, that last part was a joke. Please dont quote mine what I said.

Since you like the vids coineineagh...









Hilarious!

 

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Maybe you can explain the "package deal" to me. If you feel that I'm not being a good Christian, at least for clarity, you can explain to me how I'm not being a good follower of Christ.

 

As to the Old Testament vs the New Testatment, let me give you an analogy. It isn't perfect, so don't stretch it too far, but here goes:

When I was a child, my parents were strict dictators. They told me where to go, what to eat, and, more often than not, what to wear. They punished me when I stepped out of line and did things they said were wrong, or simply did things differently from the specific instructions I had been given (provided it was intentional and not a mistake). They commanded me to do things I thought were stupid, like wearing a helmet and eating vegitables. They also taught me many things, like how to draw, how to fish, how to shoot, how to build a campfire, etc. They read me stories, they took me to movies and the zoo and aquarium. They made me go out and make friends (seriously, made me, I'm not good at that naturally). The gave me food, and water, and clothes, and baths, and taught me how to do all these things myself. In short, they were, as you put it, "bloody vengeful destroyer(s) who loves everyone and cares for people."

Inconsistent? Only on face value. You seem to think that God should be something that no actual being is: a two-dimentional character.

And why can't there be a mix? Why can't we be divinely created animals with souls? After all, if God made everything, then everything is divinely created, even if the process of creation was rather complex. Again, you are limiting things without reason. It's the equivalent of saying:
'There are only two kinds of icecream, chocolate and vanilla.'
'Well, what about chocolate with vanilla mixed in?'
'No, it can't exist!'
'What about mixing in some strawberries?'
'No, it can't exist, it's either one or the other, nothing else!'

Coin:

Ah, I think you may be mistaken here. I don't remember anywhere the Bible saying that creation was planless, and science certainly hasn't proven it to be (can't really prove either way). Chaos, however, is entirely a matter of perspective. Was the Big Bang chaotic? Yes and no. Everything that happened followed the strict rules, to the point that we can piece things together almost to the moment of the Big Bang itself (with some guesswork, I'll admit). Even science, however, defines that initial condition as a chaotic tumolt of energy and sub-atomic particles. It's chaotic like the air is chaotic; every particle is where it is because it was hit by another, but it's so complex that we can't really understand it in anything more than general principle.

Aside from that, what other part of the Bible has been disproven? Was it the cities of Soddom and Gomorrah? We think we've found them, you know. How about the first creation of bronze? History doesn't give us a name like the Bible does, but the dates match up. The early existence of Israel? Archeology and Biblical history are lining up better and better every day.

 

Seeing as you are extremely evasive in explaining what you believe that would be hard. I am quite sure that you on several occasions have refered to yourself as a moderate christian which give me the impression that there are several things in the bible you disagree with. I have also gotten that impression from various threads here on this forum. To me you seem to have "morphic christianity" the kind of christian belief that morphs and change shapes as soon as something in the modern world comes up to point out something that does not appear as positive to society at large. This is the kind of christianity that the old Swedish state church espouses that wants to be both a general spirituality and christianity at the same time. Basically it morphs and evades any attack levelled against it until it in my opinion is very little left. By trying to adapt and join the christian faith with modern society they have create a kind of generic spirituality where everything and nothing goes and which more or less agrees with everyone. Basically it adapts itself to whatever company it happens to be in at the time. No offence but this is the impression I have of your faith Chandos and if it is wrong I must lay the blame at you because I have tried to get an understandable explanation of it on several occasions with no success. I am interested in your faith as to me you seem like a person who should not have any.

 

Joac - The Bible was written by men, not by God. The men who wrote it were inspired by God, but yes, in the end the book is just that - a book. The Old Testament is an historical account of the Jewish nation, and it has been through a lot of editing and revisions. In fact, both halves of the Bible have. This, of course, is plain and obvious.

Christianiy is a radical departure from this. Chiristians are followers of Jesus Christ. Hence, the word "Christian." I hope that next you will not be telling me that Jewish people are really Christians who don't know they are. That is the typical response from evangelical Christians when pressed on the subject that is before us (how to reconcile the history of Old Testament with the events of the New Testament). Jewish people have a separate faith and they are not followers of Jesus. For thousands of years they have kept their nation and faith intact despite the worst obstacles and undergone the worst persecutions for what they believe.

Most evangelicals have invented a term, Judeo-Christian, to try and explain these things. They invented a hybrid religion out of a history. But do you ever hear a Jewish person say, "I'm a Judeo Christian?" Well, have you? No. Because it would be stupid (in that it would not make any sense). Most of the violence that atheists do is to the Old Testament, which is a history. But that's not the Jewish faith; it is a history. If I took our pagan history, you could do the same violence to it. Greeks, Romans had slaves, sacrificed all kinds of animals, children, goats, dogs, cats, roosters, their mistresses, slaves, whatever you wish to throw into the mix.

Nevertheless, it's probably very comfortable for you to believe that my notions about the archetypes and the collective unconscious are all "moderate Chirstiantian beliefs," like you have in Sweden. And maybe they are in your country. Nevertheless, you say that you wish to understand what I believe. For me to say, "Read the Gospel of Jesus," would be pointless. So I would suggest that first you read something of Jung (make it easy and read something online). We can open a dialogue with him as a starting point.

 

I think you are calling for simple answers when they aren't or perhaps shouldn't be had.

You seem to appreciate Fundamentalists not just for simple yes/no answers but a lack of thought or analysis when related to them. Why is it you want members of a faith to have no personal analysis of a long list of things that may or may not relate to that faith.... or act like if there is that something is wrong with it?

I mentioned the 2 Greatest Commandments before because I think they are an important part of Christianity. I would even argue it is reasonable to think over all religious (Christian) understanding as it relates to them. This isn't hard to do in individual cases or rules even but can take a great amount of time once the complexity of human (including but not limited to modern society) culture is taken into account.

The "morphic" Christianity you seem to be having trouble with changes because the people who are members of it continually think and rethink stuff as time passes. Calling on them to stop doing that (and be more simple) is calling on people not to use the brains they figure God gave them.

I didn't even both to watch the most recent of videos this time because I know it will take time and even after I'm done picking them apart I may not have responded to our question about "morphic" Christianity . I'm not sure it think helps but think of it as people trying to find their way from one place to another. They use guide posts that are generally agreed to mark if they are going in the right direct or not but beyond that they can walk in a variety of directions (sometimes even end up in circles) before they reach where they are headed to. And about the videos, if they are being put forward simply because it is easier to do that then to state one's own points of view then I don't feel quite so bad about passing them by for at least a little while.

It also helps alot (if you are trying to understand Christianity in its variety/complexity) if you recognize that people can interpret the same thing multiple ways. Don't believe me on that regard just talk to a few lawyers about the ways society as a whole and the legal system itself views the law.

But, as I said before, Christians have the ability to use their own minds. So it shouldn't be surprising/disturbing when they do.

----------------------------------------------------------

Good Morning Chandos, you gave a more detailed historical explanation than I did. Though I'd guess you wouldn't say most of the things I said are off the mark (and if so then perhaps not by too much).