Why is atheism seen as such a threat?

ToadBrother · February 4, 2009

More deflection. Too afraid of admitting the truth, must be more overgrown teenage angst you've got there.

I didn't become an atheist because I hate Christianity. I became an atheist because I stopped believing in God, which rather entailed not believing in Christianity. I have no problem with most Christians, merely with hateful morons like you.

Chris in KW · February 4, 2009

Chris... what sort of nuanced discussion are you proposing?
Where is the common ground to be found?

I think common ground *might* be found in something as simple as mutual respect for other peoples' opinions.

Are you interested in discussing with me the Darwinian/neurological implications of the universality of 'deity' in human cultures-- or, in accepting diety/divinity as something real, does your brain reject that conversation as specious nonsense from the getgo?

Ok, yes, those are great examples of issues that rational people can discuss.

You're the one using words like "specious nonsense", not me.

I don't even think that Darwinian notions are entirely wrong, or can't be part of a universe that was created by God. But if we did get into serious debate, I strongly suspect it would end with you reiterating that I'm infantile/specious/believe in fairies, etc.

ToadBrother · February 4, 2009

I don't even think that Darwinian notions are entirely wrong, or can't be part of a universe that was created by God. But if we did get into serious debate, I strongly suspect it would end with you reiterating that I'm infantile/specious/believe in fairies, etc.

The phrase "I don't even think that Darwinian notions are entirely wrong" that tickles me the wrong way. Why should Darwinian notions not be entirely correct? What would any of that have to do with whether God exists or not? This is like saying "I don't even think that that Einsteinian notions of gravity are entirely wrong" or "I don't even think that Maxwellian notions of electro-magnetism are entirely wrong". No theory is entirely right, of course, since all truth in science is of a tentative nature, but still...

Evolution is a scientific theory. It makes no attempt whatsoever to determine whether God exists or not. Science, being purely a rational discipline, cannot. Thus, Darwinian evolution cannot be incompatible with belief in God. What it can be incompatible with our certain interpretations of Scripture, but the major churches, in particular Catholicism, long ago abandoned the notion that Darwin's theory of natural selection somehow was some sort of empirical attempt to destroy religion.

It's perhaps the saddest by-product of debates over the existence of God that both sides eagerly co-opt science, either to proclaim it undermines their opponents' position, or to claim it false because it undermines their own. Having a bunch of post-modernist anti-intellectuals running around proclaiming "evolution is false", and pouring tons of money and rhetoric into creating a false dichotomy between Christianity (and Islam, there are plenty of Muslim Creationists out there) and science has done real harm. And I don't hold the other side entirely blameless. While I think Dawkins is one of the most important evolutionary experts and theorists in the business today, and while his science in particular makes no anti-theistic statements, I think his becoming the poster-child of militant atheism has allowed the haters of science one more avenue of attack.

Edited February 4, 2009 by ToadBrother

cybercoma · February 4, 2009

How can there be any rational debate, when both positions are based on fundamentally indemonstrable tenets. I like to believe that my atheism is rational, but I'm under no illusion that I could ever bring any kind of actual evidence to the table. At the end of the day, the only real rational position is agnosticism.

Agnosticism implies that there is an equal probability of the existence of God as there is of no existence. That's simply not the case. If you're going to assert the existence of something, it should be relatively simple to prove that something's existence. If you can't come up with any evidence, although it's impossible to prove it doesn't exist, it's highly unlikely that it does. Agnosticism is a fine a non-confrontational way of calling yourself an atheist. Most agnostics don't really believe there is an equal likeliness and unlikeliness of the existence of God.

ToadBrother · February 4, 2009

Agnosticism implies that there is an equal probability of the existence of God as there is of no existence.

No, it does not. Agnosticism, simply put, states that the existence of God is unknowable. It isn't a statistical statement.

Chuck U. Farlie · February 4, 2009

There are many many different levels of atheistic philosophies of those that call themselves atheist or agnostic... it is impossible to sum it up with a simple statement.

Some examples of beliefs include:

No god exists.

It is possible but unlikely that a god exists, but we cannot know.

It is possible but unlikely that a god exists, and we might be able to know, but we don't know.

It is likely that god exists, but we don't know...

etc etc etc

Here is just two definitions I found on a quick search on wikipedia:

Agnostic atheism, also called Atheistic agnosticism, encompasses atheism and agnosticism. An agnostic atheist is atheistic because he or she does not believe in the existence of any deity and is also agnostic because he or she does not claim to have definitive knowledge that a deity does not exist. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who does believe that one or more deities exist but does not claim to have definitive knowledge of this.

I consider myself an agnostic atheist, aka weak atheist.

I strongly doubt that there is any god. I suppose it is possible that a god could exist, but I have no way of knowing. I suppose if a god did exist, it could make itself known to us.

Personally I find strong atheists almost as arrogant and delusional as strong theists. I think, as mere humans (just another animal on earth), that we have no idea one way or another if a 'higher power' exists. Claiming to know that something exists or doesn't is beyond our scope of intelligence. Since we have no evidence to suggest a higher power exists, then it makes logical sense to presume that there is no higher power... but to claim so definitively is a claim of knowledge we don't have.

In this regard I agree with the atheist bus slogan: 'Stop worrying and go live your live'.

Chris in KW · February 4, 2009

The phrase "I don't even think that Darwinian notions are entirely wrong" that tickles me the wrong way. Why should Darwinian notions not be entirely correct? What would any of that have to do with whether God exists or not? This is like saying "I don't even think that that Einsteinian notions of gravity are entirely wrong" or "I don't even think that Maxwellian notions of electro-magnetism are entirely wrong". No theory is entirely right, of course, since all truth in science is of a tentative nature, but still...

I'm not an expert on Darwinism, and I'm sure you can blast me out of the water with science... But I'll try to rephrase to explain what I mean without using the word "Darwinism".

I don't think that evolution adequately explains the abundance of strange life on earth, and the odd things that living creatures have done here, up to and including the debates on mapleleafweb.

But that doesn't mean that I think evolution doesn't exist. I don't have a problem with a god-created universe that is evolving. I also don't think that Genesis chapter 1 is a science textbook, and I have no issue with the world being billions of years old. I don't see these views as contradictory to the things that are important in (my interpretation of) Christianity. To me, being Christian doesn't mean coming up with a warped pigmy view of science. And yes, I know, there are lots of Christians who jump through hoops rather than admit that some of what atheists say is true.

There are a lot of un-necessarily bipolar issues in the Christian/Atheist non-debate. Some of them are evolution, age of the earth, biblical literalism, etc etc.

Basically, what I'm trying to describe in this thread is the fact that there are a lot of (or at least some) Christians out there who don't hold the extreme polarizing views that tend to characterize the Christian side of the debate.

Edited February 4, 2009 by Chris in KW

WIP · February 4, 2009

But do they really use the Bible all that much? It seems to me that, as a civilization, we have, over the centuries, become quite adept at picking out which Biblical laws are to be enforced and which are not.

Exactly! When people think rationally, they come to a conclusion that ethics have to be directed at achieving the best consequences for the majority of people. The problem is that religious adherents dig in their heels around fixed rules, and its difficult to determine when, if ever, they will start moving again and reinterpret their dogma to fit with the needs of modern societies. Why do we need this drag effect? When we are faced with new ethical dilemmas coming at us right and left from new medical treatments and end of life issues, why should so many people have to live in misery while the religious viewpoints are being updated?

Of course, the writers of the Gospels gave a convenient out. Christ "fulfilled" the Law, which seems to translate into "Any Biblical law that seems tyrannical or barbaric doesn't apply to us anymore."

Hold the phone here? Most Christian theologies are based on some sort of concept of replacement theology (that the New Covenant replaced the old one), and all of these laws can be ignored, but there is a stealth campaign going on, especially in the U.S., that is being conducted by a loose association of what are collectively known as "Dominionists." They want to stop apocalyptic teachings and replace them with a Christian nationalism that will take hold of the power of governing the people. Most dominionists believe in Theonomy - the belief that all of the Mosaic Laws are in effect except for those specifically abrogated by Jesus and the disciples; so the hardest of the hardline dominionists will accept that adulterers can no longer be stoned to death, but all of the other offences from disrespecting parents to not observing the Sabbath are still punishable by stoning. Before you laugh it off, the theonomy movement works quietly and patiently, and one of their first steps was to rehabilitate the Ten Commandments; and the guy leading the campaign down South to put 10 Commandments monuments in front of court houses (Judge Roy Moore) is one of the leaders in the movement. Moore is looking at the long term, and considers re-emphasizing the Ten Commandments as the crucial first step to reinstituting Biblical Law.

Look at slavery in the US. Baptists, who have long been one of the major Christian groups, split between north and south over slavery. In the North, it was clear to God-fearing Baptists that slavery was wrong, and it was equally clear to God-fearing Baptists in the South that slavery was fine. The Southern Baptist Convention was formed by angry Southerners; a classical example of theology and religion as slaves to economics and prejudice.

I've read about some of the debates that went on before the U.S. Civil War between prominent churchmen over the morality of slavery, and the pro slavery advocates had the Bible on their side. The opposing ministers argued from humanistic virtues that were never considered before the Enlightenment, such as personal rights and freedoms. The Bible is silent on such concepts; even in the New Testament, it's taken as a given that some people can become the possessions of others.

Chuck U. Farlie · February 4, 2009

I like this video of us 'monkeys'...

http://www.wimp.com/ourlife/

Chris in KW · February 4, 2009

In this regard I agree with the atheist bus slogan: 'Stop worrying and go live your live'.

Well, even though I disagree with the first half of that slogan, I also like the 'Stop worrying and go live your life' part.

If (whether you're a Christian, Atheist, Buddhist, Muslim, or whatever) your fear of hell is keeping you up at night, I think you've got the wrong idea.

Chuck U. Farlie · February 4, 2009

Another good one:

My god can beat up your god.
Do you know his name? Sure you do. He talks to you every day. You could not live a normal life without him. You believe in him, whether you like it or not. Unless you abandon him completely, you cannot deny he exists.

My god is a more personal god than yours can ever be, for if you have enough sense to understand these words, my god lives within you. He lives within us all, to some degree. A heartbreaking few cannot understand him, but this is not their fault. The real tragedy is the multitudes who ignore much of his counsel, particularly when he questions your god too deeply.

My god has been around longer than your god. He was here before the many other gods that preceded your god. Though you will likely scoff at the notion, my god was the father of your god, as he was to all gods. But that was long ago when he was young and not yet sure of himself. Though many of your god's followers try to hold him down, my god grows stronger and more independent each day.

When your god expelled us from paradise for eating an apple, my god taught us to grow our own fruit.

When your god forbade knowledge, demanding we live in ignorance, my god created books.

When your god smote cities like a tantrum-prone child, my god helped to rebuild them.

When your god insisted the world was flat, my god showed his followers it was round, to their peril at the hands of your god's followers.

While your god watched in silence as children sickened and died, my god created medicines to make them well.

When your god winked and nodded at slavery, my god argued passionately against it.

While your god represses half the human race, my god considers woman to be the equal of man.

When your god only helps those who help themselves, my god rolls up his sleeves and actually does help until your god decides to join in, and then steals all the credit.

When your god inspired great buildings and great art, my god made them possible.

While your god says we are all born sinners, tainted before we even draw breath, my god says we are all born innocent; a clean slate with limitless potential.

While your god offers dubious allusions of an afterlife, my god provides for us here in this life.

While your god makes amazing promises, but offers not a shred of proof, my god performs amazing deeds, and the proof is there to be seen by all.

My god is reason. He does more in a day than your god will ever do.

-- Richard Bamford

Oleg Bach · February 4, 2009

Human beings especially the western new agers. There is an art exibit on my street and there is a peice with the inscription refering to God - " And SHE gave them a sign to see" - Total back ward man hating paganism...as IF this THING - generates eternity...all matter and anti-matter - all good and all evil ----has a sex...how damned base people can be! And this other buisness about God being some old man in the sky that punishes people - some cosmic patriarch full of vengence who runs some sort of bizarre reward system....God does not have a sex - nor some big booming voice - as if this thing needs to speak or get laid? Humaization of God is what leads to God hate and atheism.

cybercoma · February 4, 2009

No, it does not. Agnosticism, simply put, states that the existence of God is unknowable. It isn't a statistical statement.

Words have connotation. The connotation with agnosticism is that it is equally probable that God exists or doesn't exist. The burden of proof logically lies with the party making the claim of the existence. Proving that something does not exist is impossible; however, proving that something does exist is not only possible, but necessary for credibility.

cybercoma · February 4, 2009

I consider myself an agnostic atheist, aka weak atheist.
I strongly doubt that there is any god. I suppose it is possible that a god could exist, but I have no way of knowing. I suppose if a god did exist, it could make itself known to us.

Personally I find strong atheists almost as arrogant and delusional as strong theists. I think, as mere humans (just another animal on earth), that we have no idea one way or another if a 'higher power' exists. Claiming to know that something exists or doesn't is beyond our scope of intelligence. Since we have no evidence to suggest a higher power exists, then it makes logical sense to presume that there is no higher power... but to claim so definitively is a claim of knowledge we don't have.

In this regard I agree with the atheist bus slogan: 'Stop worrying and go live your live'.

This is a good way of putting it.

Oleg Bach · February 4, 2009

There are those that seek proof of the miracle of an intelligent universe (God). One writer states that if there was a God he could make himself known to us. Think of this, from the lowest mircorbe to the visions collected by the Hubble telescope and all the variety of life forms on earth - most still undiscovered after thousands of years of searching. The very concept that we on this speck of dust...who view the beauty of the blue sky and the smiling angelic eyes of the infant - WE ARE THE MIRACLE - CREATION IS ASTOUNDINGLY BEAUTIFUL - What more proof do you need? We are so arrogant and ungrateful for being deposited in this heaven.

ToadBrother · February 5, 2009

There are those that seek proof of the miracle of an intelligent universe (God). One writer states that if there was a God he could make himself known to us. Think of this, from the lowest mircorbe to the visions collected by the Hubble telescope and all the variety of life forms on earth - most still undiscovered after thousands of years of searching. The very concept that we on this speck of dust...who view the beauty of the blue sky and the smiling angelic eyes of the infant - WE ARE THE MIRACLE - CREATION IS ASTOUNDINGLY BEAUTIFUL - What more proof do you need? We are so arrogant and ungrateful for being deposited in this heaven.

Ah yes, the old argument from unbelievable beauty, blah blah blah. As Monty Python once put it:

All things dull and ugly,

All creatures short and squat,

All things rude and nasty,

The Lord God made the lot.

Each little snake that poisons,

Each little wasp that stings,

He made their brutish venom.

He made their horrid wings.

All things sick and cancerous,

All evil great and small,

All things foul and dangerous,

The Lord God made them all.

Each nasty little hornet,

Each beastly little squid--

Who made the spikey urchin?

Who made the sharks? He did!

All things scabbed and ulcerous,

All pox both great and small,

Putrid, foul and gangrenous,

The Lord God made them all.

ToadBrother · February 5, 2009

I'm not an expert on Darwinism, and I'm sure you can blast me out of the water with science... But I'll try to rephrase to explain what I mean without using the word "Darwinism".
I don't think that evolution adequately explains the abundance of strange life on earth, and the odd things that living creatures have done here, up to and including the debates on mapleleafweb.

So let me get this straight, you admit to knowing very little about evolution, but still feel qualified to declare it insufficient for some vague properties of life.

Oleg Bach · February 5, 2009

So let me get this straight, you admit to knowing very little about evolution, but still feel qualified to declare it insufficient for some vague properties of life.

Hey the great profit spewed some quantum mechanics 2000 years ago - " a thousand years is but a second and a second a thousand years" This timelessness and the idea of change though evolution existed long before Darwin. Evolution and creation are the same thing - we measure time - God does not..and Charely Darwin never once said that God does not exist - His work was a supplementary contribution to the mystery.

Mr.Canada · February 5, 2009

Atheists aren't going to turn believers into atheists nor will believers turn atheists to their side so what's the point of even discussing it. It's a complete waste of time.

ToadBrother · February 5, 2009

Hey the great profit spewed some quantum mechanics 2000 years ago - " a thousand years is but a second and a second a thousand years" This timelessness and the idea of change though evolution existed long before Darwin. Evolution and creation are the same thing - we measure time - God does not..and Charely Darwin never once said that God does not exist - His work was a supplementary contribution to the mystery.

Well, Darwin was an agnostic at the end of his life, though this seems to have more to do with the death of his daughter than with evolution.

But no scientific theory makes any statement on God. Science is an applied form of methodological naturalism, which means its sole domain is the natural world. You will not find a single peer-reviewed paper or piece of primary literature that broaches the topic of God's existence.

Melanie_ · February 5, 2009

Great original post, Melanie. If anyone's still reading this thread, I think it's pretty simple.
Atheists tend to be very reactionary (eg, reacting negatively to many real and perceived problems with religion in general and Christians specifically). For many atheists, the reasons they put forward to support their beliefs are all the worst abuses of Christianity (and there are a lot).

I'm a Christian, but I have a somewhat... ambiguous relationship with the church (ie organized Christianity). To me, Christianity is largely a personal thing, and I feel that Christianity as organization(s) has often missed the boat.

However, to paint all Christians as crusaders, corrupt popes, Jimmy Swaggart and the tyrant version of Jehova, all rolled up into one, just isn't fair. To talk about "Christianity" like it's one monlothic thing, also isn't fair. It's as bad as calling all muslims terrorists, or all government employees lazy.

I think Christians basically feel slandered by atheists...

Thanks for coming back to the original post, Chris, and welcome to the forum.

I’m not an atheist because of the bad things I see in Christianity, or any other religion. Religion is mythology, and mythology has a purpose – it can teach morals and values, or inspire great acts of kindness, or give comfort to people in need. Or, mythology can promote hatred, violence, misogyny, xenophobia, homophobia…. And on it goes. That isn’t what makes me an atheist, though.

I’m an atheist because of the illogic of religion. It just seems silly (or perhaps cruel) to me to think that somewhere in the vastness of the universe there is a being who created this world, pretty much on a whim, and is using it as some sort of social experiment. “I’m going to make a world and tell everyone on it they have to try their best to please me, but I’m not going to tell them how to do that. I’ll give contradictory and misleading information so that everyone thinks they know what I want, which will cause them all to hate each other and fight in my name every day – which will be really funny because it will be against all the teachings they actually do agree on! And, I will tell them that the few years they have on that planet, and how they spend them, will determine whether they are blessed with happiness or cursed with pain for the rest of eternity. Ok, that was fun… what’s next?”

Of course, that isn’t the only version of religion out there; each person defines their relationship with their personal god in their own way. You have stated you are a Christian; Canadien has stated he/she is a Christian; Mr. Canada has stated he is a Christian. Yet the beliefs you are declaring are so widely divergent, I have to ask… what is a Christian? Whose reality (see poem) would actually please the god you each claim to believe in? How do you know?

Now, having said all of that, I don’t really have a problem with people having religion in their lives. It can be a positive thing as long as it is a personal belief, sort of what you have said about your own Christianity. But when someone tries to impose their version of religion on me, or tell me that I need to run my life based on their belief system, I will stand up and say no. Maybe that gets interpreted as slander, I don’t know – I see it more as being true to my own version of reality.

ToadBrother · February 5, 2009

Atheists aren't going to turn believers into atheists nor will believers turn atheists to their side so what's the point of even discussing it. It's a complete waste of time.

And yet here you are.

Mr.Canada · February 5, 2009

Good, so Melanie is against Sharia Law in Canada. Finally a socialist with a brain. Thank you.

Melanie_ · February 5, 2009

Good, so Melanie is against Sharia Law in Canada. Finally a socialist with a brain. Thank you.

Canada has laws that we all must abide by, regardless of religion. Canada's laws must be based on reason, not religion of any type (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Aboriginal spirituality). Within the universal laws that Canada has passed, if a cultural or religious group wants to arbitrate their disputes using a form of restitution that makes sense to them, fine. Just don't expect to apply that form of restitution to people who are not part of that cultural group.

Oleg Bach · February 5, 2009

I was driving past a church today, and read the sign out front: "Atheism isn't merely a denial of the truth, but a suppression of it." As I continued to drive, I thought that there is no way a church would post such an attack about other belief systems - can you imagine what would happen if you substituted the word Islam, or Judaism, or Buddhism in that sign? Why is atheism seen as such a threat?

In our fragile realty - the bench mark for what is the truth - is geared by how many adhere to that turth. If there are a million believers and a thousand atheists - then the atheists are wrong..and are attempting to subjugate and oppress the majority. The bigger the collective the stronger the force and there are more of us than them - so we are right and they are wrong - and if they resist we will burn them at the stake.. :lol: Cos's we have so many people that we can carry them away to the fire - no problem --- the atheists had better watch it or they will all be cruxified...for their rebelious nature and attack against the state religion. :lol: