My problem with Evangelical Atheism

[Peppergirl]

And this is the problem I personally have with the as they've been called, militant, new, or evangelical atheists. Having come from a Christian background, and even looking into ministry work before I went to my current position (so called soft atheism.) I know that half of what folks like Dawkins, the atheists on certain boards I used to frequent, and certain people here use is believed by the very loud, very crazy, not at all mainstream side of not only Christianity, but also theism in general.

Hell, I think I've been told I'm not a real atheist because I don't care if Timmy Christian worships a bearded man in the sky/great cosmic force/Jehovah, as long as it's not actually affecting me. I might even applaud them if they're doing some good in this world, and even do the completely heterodox action of helping them.

Seems I'm one of the silent minority who thinks religion isn't some great evil that needs to be abolished. Personally I see it as a hammer. It can build wonderful things, or cave a man's skull in, it's all in what it's being used for.

Er...HIGHLY inappropriate of me, but...I think I might love you. Are you okay with that?

[Sleepwalker]

right now I can understand why Dawkins and Hitchens lost all patience and went harsh on it.

Rapscallion

Same reason I don't discuss 9/11 conspiracy theories, ghosts, and homeopathy at work anymore. After a certain point, I just started saying 'No, that's idiotic' and singing Journey songs at high volume to drown out further babble.

[bunnyboy]

Er...HIGHLY inappropriate of me, but...I think I might love you. Are you okay with that?

I might be.

[Gravekeeper]

I have no idea what we're talking about anymore >.>

[Duelist925]

I have no idea what we're talking about anymore >.>

I lost track a while ago. Doctor Who fan theories perhaps?

[bunnyboy]

I lost track a while ago. Doctor Who fan theories perhaps?

My theory is Steve Jobs was a Time Lord.

[Duelist925]

My theory is Steve Jobs was a Time Lord.

Well thats obvious really.

Now, mine is "Every actor who has ever played the Doctor, is, in fact, a Timelord. Possible the same one, possibly not."

[Rapscallion]

Why is trying to make ones religion match with reality contemptable? Why shouldn't anyone who freaking thinks try to do this, rather than try to live as they did back when sandles were the leading edge in traveling accessories?

Pick and choose religion is not about "I dont fancy that bit". Its about "That bit does not work in todays world". Hence why I eat shrimp. Bible says not to--mostly because, back then, it could kill ya. Nowadays? Theres no reason not to eat shrimp.

I'll get back to the rest of this later, most likely. I've been fighting off an infection (and winning, I'm pleased to say, considering some of the potential bugs it could have been from googling) for the last few days.

The fundamental question here for me is why I should hold you to those standards that are preached in the books the theists take their cure from. There's a simple answer to that.

I don't. The theists in question do.

This might seem to be a strange statement. From what I can see, the religious groupings that sprung from the abrahamic faiths are the result of claims about how their god is better than other groups' gods. The one-updivinityship got to the nuclear age whereby it was no longer, "My god can lift a bigger rock than your god," but ended up with, "Mine is the only god and he's perfect, omniscient, and omnipotent."

If you take that as a fundamental part of the faith espoused, then you run into issues with changing what has been instructed by said god.

Ignore one bit, and you say that the god in question wasn't perfect in instructing it, or that you're not a proper follower of that faith.

Try and say that your faith needs updating to modern times, then either the god in question wasn't perfect and so forth, or that modern times need to change.

Try to say that man has changed the wording to suit himself, then you're denying the apparent omnipotence of god to correct these mistranslations, thus condemning those who follow the wrong bit of text to eternal torment (or whatever) - after all, said god is supposed to love said followers. Effectively, the followers claiming this are saying that they have to follow what their god wants them to do, but they can't really be sure what it is.

I could go on, but the abrahamic faiths have talked themselves into a corner from which they cannot escape with dignity.

Unless the claim that the divinity in question is perfect and so forth is dropped, then the faith cannot evolve. Unless, of course, the divinity comes down and tells us all that stuff has changed and that we should act differently. Talking to one person in their 'heart' isn't quite what I would expect of an omnipotent deity.

I'm not holding the abrahamists to their faith - they are. I'm just pointing out the obvious.

I actually quite appreciate (though not worship) the older gods. Greek, Roman, Norse etc. At least they were recognisably human. They had flaws and human characteristics, and above all they had limits.

Rapscallion

[Duelist925]

I'll get back to the rest of this later, most likely. I've been fighting off an infection (and winning, I'm pleased to say, considering some of the potential bugs it could have been from googling) for the last few days.

Hope you feel better. My allergies have been killing me lately. >.<

The fundamental question here for me is why I should hold you to those standards that are preached in the books the theists take their cure from. There's a simple answer to that.

I don't. The theists in question do.

....Except you were the one expressing the opinion that "pick and choose" religion as you put it is contemptible.

This might seem to be a strange statement. From what I can see, the religious groupings that sprung from the abrahamic faiths are the result of claims about how their god is better than other groups' gods. The one-updivinityship got to the nuclear age whereby it was no longer, "My god can lift a bigger rock than your god," but ended up with, "Mine is the only god and he's perfect, omniscient, and omnipotent."

I would say that thats a gross over-gernealization, but basically correct when dealing with the clashes between those religions.

If you take that as a fundamental part of the faith espoused, then you run into issues with changing what has been instructed by said god.

Thats a pretty big if, that isn't taken to heart by a large number of people from a variety of religious flavors.

Ignore one bit, and you say that the god in question wasn't perfect in instructing it, or that you're not a proper follower of that faith.

Or that it was added in by dicks to try and use a religions power to further their own agendas. Or it was necessary at one point in time, and not another. Or perhaps it was mistranslated one of the billion times it was translated.

Try and say that your faith needs updating to modern times, then either the god in question wasn't perfect and so forth, or that modern times need to change.

I fail to see the logic of this part--what part of a faith updating means the deity is imperfect? Times change, needs change, and thus faith changes. Why does that make a deity imperfect? Because it didn't stop the changes? Because it didn't set down rules for the times when fiath had changed...despite them being thousands and years, ands countless generations later?

And many people would think modern times do need to change, in a number of ways. Hell, look at the majority of posts in the political or social woes section of this forum.

Try to say that man has changed the wording to suit himself, then you're denying the apparent omnipotence of god to correct these mistranslations, thus condemning those who follow the wrong bit of text to eternal torment (or whatever) - after all, said god is supposed to love said followers.

Or that the deity isn't stepping in to make corrections so as to not abbrogate free will and cause more harm than it would solve. I mean, if god really did speak up and say "no,no, this bits wrong, some dude on mushrooms wrote it back in the stone age" how do you really think people would react? Mass hysteria, mass conversion to whatever religion it had spoken of, probably suicides, accusations flying of who faked it, etc. Possibly religious war. If god actually spoke up, shit would hit the fan so fast.

Or if he spoke to just a few people, so as to prevent that, theres nothing to prevent them simply ignoring it, and going on with what they've been doing--and if he smites them, we go right back to the previous issue, unless it's in such a way that we don't think god did it. Even that would be suspect though--if everyone high up in one particular religion got struck by lightning, that'd raise more than a few eyebrows. And anyone low down in the religion probably wouldn't be able to affect the change necessary.

Unless the claim that the divinity in question is perfect and so forth is dropped, then the faith cannot evolve. Unless, of course, the divinity comes down and tells us all that stuff has changed and that we should act differently. Talking to one person in their 'heart' isn't quite what I would expect of an omnipotent deity.

Again, I fail to see the logic in the first part. Why can't faith evolve with a perfect deity? Because the deity in question didn't set down rules for when times change...despite the fact that we really should be smart enough now to do so ourselves? Per the second, see my previous post re: Shit hitting the fan if any deity actually spoke up to point out what was wrong with it's religion

I'm not holding the abrahamists to their faith - they are. I'm just pointing out the obvious.

Again, I'd buy this, but you were the one expressiong contempt--and I'd like to know your reasons for it. Why do YOU consider pick and choose religions contempable? Not why the mainstream religions themselves should, why do YOU?

I actually quite appreciate (though not worship) the older gods. Greek, Roman, Norse etc. At least they were recognisably human. They had flaws and human characteristics, and above all they had limits.

Rapscallion

[Rapscallion]

....Except you were the one expressing the opinion that "pick and choose" religion as you put it is contemptible.

I don't understand your point. I think it's separate from what I'm talking about. See, the whole concept - certainly in the abrahamic faiths - of god is that he is the one who runs the show and sets the rules. What's happening is the equivalent of someone coming to CS.com and saying they're quite happy to obey the rules, apart from this one, and that one, and...

The difference between CS.com and experiences with the christian god is that we can be shown to have taken action over deliberate ignorance and non-acceptance of the rules. Also, if we decide to change the rules, we actually communicate this.

Or that it was added in by dicks to try and use a religions power to further their own agendas.

Then your god doesn't love you, because your god didn't tell you which of the sets of rules was the right one.

Or it was necessary at one point in time, and not another.

I don't think it beyond an omnipotent and omniscient being to build that into their texts. For example, "In 1967 it becomes acceptable to eat pork." That would have helped with clarity, don't you think? Didn't happen, though.

Or perhaps it was mistranslated one of the billion times it was translated.

Then your god doesn't love you, because your god didn't make sure that the real set of rules came out. Alternatively, you're saying that because we're not very good then we can choose which bits we want to follow.

I fail to see the logic of this part--what part of a faith updating means the deity is imperfect? Times change, needs change, and thus faith changes. Why does that make a deity imperfect? Because it didn't stop the changes? Because it didn't set down rules for the times when fiath had changed...despite them being thousands and years, ands countless generations later?

If something, such as god, is perfect, then it doesn't need to change. Evolution is no longer necessary.

The problem here is your relationship with what you think of as your god. Your god sets the rules, you don't. If your god hasn't told you the rules have changed, they haven't.

And many people would think modern times do need to change, in a number of ways. Hell, look at the majority of posts in the political or social woes section of this forum.

As long as they are for decent reasons, I have no problems with people debating these. However, 'because god said so' is not a good method of selecting policy.

Or that the deity isn't stepping in to make corrections so as to not abbrogate free will and cause more harm than it would solve. I mean, if god really did speak up and say "no,no, this bits wrong, some dude on mushrooms wrote it back in the stone age" how do you really think people would react? Mass hysteria, mass conversion to whatever religion it had spoken of, probably suicides, accusations flying of who faked it, etc. Possibly religious war. If god actually spoke up, shit would hit the fan so fast.

I'd like to think that if your god did love you, he'd make sure you got the right version. The alternative is that he's not bothered that you're going to hell.

Know what? If god did speak up - loud and clear - I'd believe. Maybe there would be mass hysteria, but at least we'd know what was what. The silence coming from your god is, from everything that can be shown, evidence that there's nothing there to speak to us.

Again, I fail to see the logic in the first part. Why can't faith evolve with a perfect deity? Because the deity in question didn't set down rules for when times change...despite the fact that we really should be smart enough now to do so ourselves? Per the second, see my previous post re: Shit hitting the fan if any deity actually spoke up to point out what was wrong with it's religion

That which is perfect does not need to evolve. Hey, I'd be happy if the perfect being said in a clear voice that it had changed its mind. Something that could be proven to have happened. Maybe the new abhorred food should be lemons or something. Fine - I'd be quite happy to accept that. The christian deity speaking up for himself to say that the rules have changed has never happened, unless you know differently.

Again, I'd buy this, but you were the one expressiong contempt--and I'd like to know your reasons for it. Why do YOU consider pick and choose religions contempable? Not why the mainstream religions themselves should, why do YOU?

Sorry, I thought I made that clear. In the abrahamic faiths, the god figure is the creator and the one who sets the rules. Going down the pick and mix route and claiming to that the other stuff isn't relevant, while retaining title to membership of that faith, is telling the 'boss' what is now deemed to be acceptable.

If you want to claim a philosophy based on being nice to people, I'd consider signing up. Maybe a decoder ring would be good as well? If that philosophy then changes due to new discoveries, for example it was once acceptable to fly halfway around the world to make a friend happy by visiting and then we realise the carbon emissons are helping to impact towards global warming, then fine - we can adapt and change. Maybe use Skype or something.

However, to ascribe the activities as being acceptable or unacceptable based on the claimed word of a perfect being and then changing those when it becomes inconvenient without said perfect being getting involved?

Cut out the middle man. Don't tell your god what to tell you to do. Just work it out for yourself and tell yourself what to do.

Rapscallion

[HYHYBT]

If you take that as a fundamental part of the faith espoused, then you run into issues with changing what has been instructed by said god.

Ignore one bit, and you say that the god in question wasn't perfect in instructing it, or that you're not a proper follower of that faith.

That relies on some assumptions that not all believers hold. I do not believe that God wrote the Bible. It is a collection of writings *about* God and how he has related to people, written by humans. Looked at that way, there is no reason either to suppose it's totally worthless *or* that it ought to be perfect.

[BlaqueKatt]

I'll just leave this here...

along with this image

[Rapscallion]

That relies on some assumptions that not all believers hold. I do not believe that God wrote the Bible. It is a collection of writings *about* God and how he has related to people, written by humans. Looked at that way, there is no reason either to suppose it's totally worthless *or* that it ought to be perfect.

Then your god does not love you - your god has not seen fit to make sure you get the right set of instructions. You're in the dark. You're hoping you can find the true course out of all the ones on offer and be that special person who gets into heaven at the end of it all.

The alternative is that you're just taking the bits you want to follow. Know what? When I look at what I think is right or wrong, I do the same - I just don't ascribe it to any sort of divine figure. Does it benefit more people than fewer? Does it harm anyone? What purpose does my course of action have?

There's no need to blame or praise any sort of deity. There's no evidence that there is one. It's a comforting thought, but quite frankly to remain part of that group you have to mentally contort yourself or ignore certain aspects of the main teachings.

It's cleaner over here. I know on my side of things I blame myself for what I do.

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

Know what? When I look at what I think is right or wrong, I do the same - I just don't ascribe it to any sort of divine figure. Does it benefit more people than fewer? Does it harm anyone? What purpose does my course of action have?

You still are trying to ignore the fact that you called me irresponsible. Are you going to back it up or admit you were wrong, or are you you just going to continue to act like it never happened?

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

Then your god does not love you

As one possibility among many, that works. Assuming it to be the only possibility is completely unfounded.

your god has not seen fit to make sure you get the right set of instructions. You're in the dark.

You say that as if it were necessarily a bad thing. I cannot be the only person who likes that people have different views, which would be impossible if God acted as you insist he would if he existed and were good.

You're hoping you can find the true course out of all the ones on offer...

Not quite. Naturally, I hope I'm right; who doesn't? But I suspect there is more than one "true course," or at least that there's consideration given for the different circumstances of different lives... including those which lead some to be convinced the whole thing is nonsense.

The alternative is that you're just taking the bits you want to follow.

Again, not *quite.* Close enough to sound right, yet with the wrong implications attached. You make it sound like going down a list of otherwise equally positioned bullet points and crossing off items at a whim. It's nothing like that.