My problem with Evangelical Atheism

[Kelmon]

I read, watch and engage in discussions between atheists and theists, and while of course i did notice athiests mocking theists here and there (Yes, "Sky fairy" is quite prominent), this is in no way comparable to the hatred, bile, bigotry and threats very, very often coming from the theist side.

Obviously my view on this could be skewed. If so, I don't know, and probably can't know. But as far as i can tell, "our" side is doing reasonably well for a large group of people only connected by a "non-hobby".


One thing i'd like to say regarding your first point: Personally, i feel that religion is very harmful to human society, even today being the cause of so much evil in the world, while all the good it does could easily be done by any secular organization taking it's place.

[Gravekeeper]

IObviously my view on this could be skewed. If so, I don't know, and probably can't know. But as far as i can tell, "our" side is doing reasonably well for a large group of people only connected by a "non-hobby".

There are dickheads in every group. Just in this case, one group is much larger ( and thus has a higher total dick count ) and is more organized than you. -.-

One thing i'd like to say regarding your first point: Personally, i feel that religion is very harmful to human society, even today being the cause of so much evil in the world, while all the good it does could easily be done by any secular organization taking it's place.

My problem with this argument, is that said evil could likewise be perpetrated by any secular organization for political, racial or social reasons. The issue is not a matter of religion so much as a matter of power and dickery. The Roman Catholic Church has done untold damage to human history and culture, but it generally did so for and because of power. God tends to be the excuse, not the reason. Other issues such as race and politics have been just as successful at causing harm and chaos throughout history. Anything our stupid little monkey brains can form a tribe around, we can and have ruined or ended lives over.

That said, I think the recent problems with religion are due to a shift in cultural and scientific understanding. You can't grasp at myth any longer in the face of scientific progress and its no longer acceptable to discriminate because you think that's what your particular deity would want. Nor can you hide your shitty actions from the world in your own little country anymore. But there are those within these major organized religions, typically older generations or those with established power or control they don't want to give up, that are flipping their shit at the world changing around them.

Its not just religious in nature either. You can see it in American politics and culture at the moment, the old guard is freaking the fuck out trying to impose their ideal version of American on the entire country before that ideal is completely forgotten in the face of advancing culture and social norms. Religion is just a component of it. They see their own backwards beliefs slowly dissappearing under the march of more accepting younger generations, and its driving them fucking insane ( and I personally enjoy every minute of watching them flail ).

[protege]

I read, watch and engage in discussions between atheists and theists, and while of course i did notice athiests mocking theists here and there (Yes, "Sky fairy" is quite prominent), this is in no way comparable to the hatred, bile, bigotry and threats very, very often coming from the theist side.

I'm sure there are some atheists that are assholes. However, I too have noticed that the amount of bile being thrown around...is largely from the religious crowd. I don't remember ever reading about atheists torturing or burning people at the stake--Salem Witch Trials, anyone? Instead, most of the threats, violence, and other shit...seems to be from the crowd who believes that their "invisible best friend" is the only one someone should follow.

One thing i'd like to say regarding your first point: Personally, i feel that religion is very harmful to human society, even today being the cause of so much evil in the world, while all the good it does could easily be done by any secular organization taking it's place.

The same could be said of motorized vehicles. Think about it, they're responsible for untold deaths on our highways. But, like religion, you can only blame them so much. Both are only tools, and their capabilities are only as good as the person 'behind the wheel.' In other words, they do exactly what they're told to do.

[KabeRinnaul]

I'm sure there are some atheists that are assholes. However, I too have noticed that the amount of bile being thrown around...is largely from the religious crowd. I don't remember ever reading about atheists torturing or burning people at the stake--Salem Witch Trials, anyone? Instead, most of the threats, violence, and other shit...seems to be from the crowd who believes that their "invisible best friend" is the only one someone should follow.

Setting aside the fact that the witch trials were the product of a small, isolated region and had more to do with public hysteria than religion, and the fact that language like "invisible best friend" is a bit of what I was talking about, this is an argument I try to avoid having, for two reasons. First, it's not even what I'm concerned with - I'm talking about how modern people from both sides argue, and how it seems many atheists at this point aren't bothering to try to be any better than their opposition.

Second, playing the "add up the Atrocity Score" game always feels like something of a straw man argument to me. Of course religion will come out worse every time - the deck is absurdly stacked against it. How much political power was wielded by organized religions or religious people throughout the past, what, 1500 years? Nearly all of it? Even ignoring the fact that power leads to abuses, regardless of who has it, any group would have black marks against it, given a history on that scale.

I'm sure if there were major atheist or antitheist groups holding great political power for over a millennium, we'd be able to point out just as many flaws. That's basic human nature.

[Hyena Dandy]

Another thing that upsets me is the "The bad religion does is religion's fault, the good it does could be done any other way."

I mean, it seems like you're stacking the deck. Religion can NEVER get any good points for it because all of the good points are because of people, and all bad points are because of religion itself.

The good it does CAN be accomplished by a secular group. But so could the bad. Either religion has done both good and bad, or religion has done nothing. Personally, I think religion has done nothing. Just people, using it as an excuse to back up their biases.

[Rapscallion]

I think I've often fallen into that camp, HD, but while as an atheist I'm happy to say that the good could have been done without it, as an atheist I'm not claiming I've done good because of my opinion on the supernatural.

I think you're comparing two different positions.

My position on this is that religion is doing the exact same thing - if something 'good' happens it's attributed to the theology of the religious group in question and if something 'bad' happens it's down to the theological enemy of what is usually the divinity in the theology in question.

I think that made sense. I'm not convinced.

Rapscallion

[KabeRinnaul]

Another thing that upsets me is the "The bad religion does is religion's fault, the good it does could be done any other way."

To be fair, this is rampant on both sides.

[Rapscallion]

Actually, it wouldn't be on the atheist side if it wasn't claimed by the religious side.

Rapscallion

[Hyena Dandy]

To be fair, this is rampant on both sides.

Yeah, and it's equally bullshit on both sides. The claim I'm objecting to is that if someone has done good, and they DID do it because they believe in God, or the teachings of the Bible or what have you, then it's dismissed in an argument by "Oh, that could have been done without religion."

But when talking about the evil of religion, it's never "Yeah, but that could have happened without religion." It's always the fault of religion.

My position on this is that religion is doing the exact same thing - if something 'good' happens it's attributed to the theology of the religious group in question and if something 'bad' happens it's down to the theological enemy of what is usually the divinity in the theology in question.

While that does make it unnecessarily broad, since you're largely talking about the Christian/Muslim/Jewish god.

[Kelmon]

Another thing that upsets me is the "The bad religion does is religion's fault, the good it does could be done any other way."

I mean, it seems like you're stacking the deck. Religion can NEVER get any good points for it because all of the good points are because of people, and all bad points are because of religion itself.

Well, let me give you an example.

You don't need to be religuous to start a charitable organization.
You absolutely need religion if you want to get some people to fly a plane into some skyscrapers. Or bomb abortion clinics.

Show me any evil deed done by a person because "secular humanism" or "atheism" or possibly "the wise teacher Dawkins" told him to. (Yes, that is different from someone committing a crime and just happening to be atheist. or theist. Or a stamp collector. I'm talking about motivation for that particular deed).

Of course you can argue that the religion is an innocent tool that can be used for good and for bad by the right (wrong) people. True. But the problem ist that it is used for evil, all the time, all over the place. So what's the point in having this tool around?

Kind of interesting how you can say essentially the same about guns. I come from a country with very strict gun laws. And - yes - hardly anyone ever gets shot. (0.2% of apprehended criminals have a gun on them, vs. ~33% in the US). But that's totally beside the point - no interest in starting a side discussion on gun control.

[Rapscallion]

While that does make it unnecessarily broad, since you're largely talking about the Christian/Muslim/Jewish god.

I don't really see the issue with that. While I did try to address all religions, or as many as possible, in one go, the Abrahamic ones are the ones I'm affected by most and know most about. The same is true for the vast majority of the western world, and other religions aren't really going to get a look in in these regions unless they gain far more numbers.

Do you happen to know which religions don't have a trade off of benefits for obeisance or sacrifice or anything else?

Rapscallion

[Duelist925]

Well, let me give you an example.

You don't need to be religuous to start a charitable organization.
You absolutely need religion if you want to get some people to fly a plane into some skyscrapers. Or bomb abortion clinics.

Show me any evil deed done by a person because "secular humanism" or "atheism" or possibly "the wise teacher Dawkins" told him to. (Yes, that is different from someone committing a crime and just happening to be atheist. or theist. Or a stamp collector. I'm talking about motivation for that particular deed).

I admit, I can't think of any crimes commited simply for atheism, or for Dawkins, or Darwin, or even just FOR SCIENCE! at least not without crossing the godwin line, and I don't want to bring mengele into anything anyway.

I can name a few dozen based off race tho. Or perhaps simply to secure power for onesself. Or simple greed, or lust. None of which had a religious bent.

You don't need religion to bomb an abortion clinic. Or to fly a plane into a skyscraper. All you need is to be FUCKING. NUTS. OR a sociopathic piece of shit.

Furthermore, I HIGHLY object to using those arguements, since the people who performed those acts, while relgiously/idealogically motivated, went DEEPLY against some of the freaking core tenents of said religions.

Of course you can argue that the religion is an innocent tool that can be used for good and for bad by the right (wrong) people. True. But the problem ist that it is used for evil, all the time, all over the place. So what's the point in having this tool around?

Kind of interesting how you can say essentially the same about guns. I come from a country with very strict gun laws. And - yes - hardly anyone ever gets shot. (0.2% of apprehended criminals have a gun on them, vs. ~33% in the US). But that's totally beside the point - no interest in starting a side discussion on gun control.

I think a knife is a better analogy. A knife can be very very useful, as a simple tool, both around the home or in the wilderness. It can be used, in a pinch, to replace a dozen other tools, as well as acting on its own--stripping wires, chopping veggies, an impromptu screwdriver, or even just whittling a bit of wood into a little bauble as a gift.

Or you can stab someone with it.

Religion could be used to motive people to be better, to live up to an ideal standard, or at least try, and to promote some basic tenets of humanity. Dont kill, dont steal, be kind, rewind, basicly, Dont be a dick.

Indeed, some people use it as such.

And other people use it to belittle and actively attack others.

When someone misuses a tool, you don't blame the tool. You blame the guy who stabbed someone, not the knife.

[Andara Bledin]

You absolutely need religion if you want to get some people to fly a plane into some skyscrapers. Or bomb abortion clinics.

Bullshit.

All you need to get someone to commit an atrocity is a strongly-held belief.

McVeigh didn't do his thing because of religion, and he was undisputedly a monster.

In fact, there's a nice list on Wikipedia of various assasinations and terrorist acts committed against Americans and most of the reasons have nothing to do with religion and a whole hell of a lot to do with money and power and an awful lot of tribalist bigotry.

I admit, I can't think of any crimes commited simply for atheism, or for Dawkins, or Darwin, or even just FOR SCIENCE! at least not without crossing the godwin line, and I don't want to bring mengele into anything anyway.

Actually, there are quite a number of anarchist actions that have been committed against the religious simply for their being religious. Anarchists, by their nature, tend to be either atheist or actively anti-theist and have committed any number of atrocities against the religious for no other reason that affiliation.

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

Furthermore, I HIGHLY object to using those arguements, since the people who performed those acts, while relgiously/idealogically motivated, went DEEPLY against some of the freaking core tenents of said religions.

"I don't agree with their interpretation therefore they're not true followers of my or that religion therefore religion gets off the hook."

I've heard that often and variants on it. I don't accept it.

Rapscallion

[Duelist925]

"I don't agree with their interpretation therefore they're not true followers of my or that religion therefore religion gets off the hook."

I've heard that often and variants on it. I don't accept it.

Rapscallion

"Thou shalt not kill"

One of the ten commandments. A pretty basic damn tenent of christianiy. This is not an interpretation--it simply says "Thou Shalt Not Kill."

Perhaps it was mistranslated. But thats what it says--anyone who would bomb an abortion clinic is denying that one, fundamental rule of their own rulebook.

So, yes I object to using those examples of why religion is inherently bad, or the cause of evil, because the people who performed them violated one of the most basic rules of their religion. Regardless of motivation, they were not following that religions teachings, not even something that is said to be a "Direct from god" rule.