Comments I was raised in a very strict religious household and went to church constantly growing up. I would say that most of that education left me scarred and unable to think for myself in many ways. It took a long time for me to break free of the indoctrination that I underwent as a youth. I am now a proud Atheist with a strong distrust of any type of organized religion. The more I learned to think for myself, and going to a liberal college definitely helped with that, the more I saw how out there most religions are. I am of the opinion that many of the worlds problems stem directly from organized religion, and have for thousands of years. Anytime people are taught that they have a direct line to God, and all other people are wandering in darkness, waiting to be saved, you are going to have a problem. Excellent example of this is the disaster of a President that we have now. G.W. Bush thinks he has a direct line to God, and doesn't give a hoot what anyone else thinks. He answers to a "higher power", and I would say this delusion has directly caused to deaths of close to a million people, while maiming perhaps a million more and displacing another couple million. Whatever God he worships is a strange and foreign one that I want nothing to do with. This is not to say that all religions are inherently bad, or that believers are all fools, but the danger is there none the less. It is a strange time that we live in when people can teach "Creative Design" as an "alternative" to evolution, our Supreme Court is being taken over by ideologues with a radically conservative tilt, and people are on the nightly news saying gay marriage will destroy America. If religion had a more "live and let live" mentality I may not be so squeamish about the whole thing, but it seems that for the most part they are in the business of control. If you think for yourself and dare to speak out against their doctrine they you are an apostate, sinner or worse. Why is it that usually rational people, when faith and religion come into play, can suspend all critical thought and believe such far our crazy stuff? So, is religion dead on the Coastside? Definitely not, but it surely is for this Atheist.
Coastside Atheist, I felt the same way you did, up until I had my first son baptized. I joined a church at that time just so that I could get him baptized. I figured I owed it to him to introduce him to Jesus, as I was when I was a child. Since then, I've renewed my faith in God. The church I go to has a different philosophy from what you and I were brought up with. The ministers at this church encourage wrestling with questions and doubts about God. In fact, they are mid-way through a series of sermons called "Faith and Doubt", which has been very helpful to me with respect to helping me come to terms with my doubts. You might want to check out the sermons online at Web Link. Check out the one called The Strange Silence of God, which addresses how religious extremists have done terrible things in God's name. People tend to blame God for the extremists' behavior when really the extremists' are not acting on his behalf and are not following his teachings. Anyway, I'm not trying to convert you or anything like that. I just recognized myself in your experience and thought I'd share this with you and whoever else might be reading this post. Cheers and have a good weekend.
I suspect most moderate religionists are good and caring people. They probably don't even think about their beliefs often. The rituals and the traditons are somewhat automatically accepted. Most atheists have been similarily disposed. We go about our daily business. You probably couldn't have been able to pick us out in a crowd. We are neighbors. We are doctors, electricians, wives, computer wizzards, husbands, nurses, babysitters, waitresses, lawyers, landscapers and well you know all of us. We atheists would have been content to go about our business. To us, the existence or non existence of god or gods is simply irrelevant. So what's all the fuss about? Some religionists have declared war on reason. They have threatened our civil liberties. They have insisted that creationism be taught as science in our schools, thus dumming down our children. They have used our tax monies to teach "abstinince only" sex education in our schools thus putting our children in unnecessary jepordy for STD's and premature pregnancies. They have insisted that we go against our conscience to say things we do not believe: "One nation under god" used to be "one nation indivisible" until government began to legiglate religion against our constitution during the cold war between the United States and Russia. So, I say to you, as an atheist, believe what you want. I will support your right to do so. However do not impose your religion on my children, on my civil liberties, on my tax dollars. The new atheism is not "new". It's just that nobody was listening or talking about it until those books hit the front tables at the local book stores. Marilyn LaCourt
I just think it would be so sad to be a non-believer in God. How alone you must feel if you didn't believe in an after life. What prevents you from doing bad things in life? How do you determine right from wrong? I see quite a few people, especially in the Bay Area, that "feel" like they have the right to do whatever "they feel" like doing without examining the consequences on their family, their neighbors, their community. It is a very selfish attitude and it seems to run amuck especially out here in the Bay Area. The more I see, read and hear out here, the more I see a return to Sodom and Gomorrah. History does tend to repeat itself.
For Arlene Rick: Have you actually read Dawkins, Harris, or Hitchens? Your post is really uninformed and needlessly insulting. Please educate yourself on the subject of ethics and don't simply regurgitate mindless Christian right propaganda. Atheists are some of the most ethical people you will ever meet. Or don't you know any atheists?
Arlene: "I just think it would be so sad to be a non-believer in God. How alone you must feel if you didn't believe in an after life." I appreciate your sympathy, but I can assure you it isn't necessary. As an atheist, I find more than sufficient reason for happiness and contentment in this lifetime. There's enough wonder and beauty in this world that I see no need for any other. On the other hand, I feel concern for you, if you're so unhappy with this life that you've staked all your happiness on the existence of another. Rather than putting all your effort into wishing there's an afterlife where your troubles will be magically resolved, I think you'd do better to strive toward making *this* life what you wish it to be. "What prevents you from doing bad things in life? How do you determine right from wrong?" The same way as anyone else: we use reason to evaluate the consequences of our actions, coupled with the sense of compassion that lets us imagine what it would be like to be in the position of other people whom our actions affect. It's not difficult. Frankly, I'd be concerned by someone who prefers to be told what to do, rather than letting their own conscience guide them. That sort of morality is far too easily turned to evil and wrongdoing. "I see quite a few people, especially in the Bay Area, that "feel" like they have the right to do whatever "they feel" like doing without examining the consequences on their family, their neighbors, their community." That is a sorry attitude, I agree. But it has nothing to do with atheism.
The fact that in the U.S. prison population atheists with their about 1% are significantly underrepresented as compared to more than over 10% in the overall populace should give Arlene some pause. I submit that non-believers' above average good behavior must be based on more noble motivations than the threat of an uncomfortable afterlife. Maybe good character? What does it say about the character of people who only behave well because they fear punishment?
Compliments to David Smydra for introducing this forum with his own self disclosures, a good way to get others of us to open up on this ordinarily private topic. Asking about what the religious atmosphere is on the Coastside is to court some generalizations, which we all know break down upon closer scrutiny, but there may still be discernible trend lines as David notes with the atheist book display at Moon News. There are four general trend lines that I see. Expanding atheism, expanding Catholicism and born again religion, a leveling off of other traditional Christian religions, and a more eclectic orientation to spirituality, as opposed to religions per se, as reflected by all of the dynamic 12 step programs and interest in Eastern religions we see. Speaking to atheism first, the number is impossible to estimate because we atheists are independent and tend to keep our heads down, where the religions keep tabs on their membership. Wikipedia estimates 10-15% for the US, but 32% in France, with another 32% for French agnostics. Web Link There is likely a higher percentage of atheists locally than in the US at large because of the educational achievement level in the Bay Area, but it would be surprising if the number exceeded 20%. Agnostics are not the same and many hedge their bet with occasional concessions to religious practice. The books at Moon News reflect the fact that ordinary atheists think it is important to begin to assert ourselves in order to ensure that the US Constitution and our way of life survives the aggressive onslaught taking place by religious fundamentalists. In other words, we've started to see it as patriotic to speak up and not appear to "snap to" whenever the deity is invoked as a justification for our national behavior. I was charmed to see the articulate people who have already contributed and will just add that the diversity you constitute lends a strength to our community and the US as a whole. We value reason and open mindedness as virtues that are not only well worth cultivating, but have grown to expect these as a minimal standard from others. The Latino population is growing more rapidly than any other demographic locally, which is reflected at Our Lady of the Pillar. Mariner's Church, a relatively new conservative church is also expanding impressively. I cannot comment about the other churches in town, but I think they'd be doing well if they're holding steady attendance these days. Most of us know people who attend AA, Al-Anon, OA, etc., and many will tell you they get their spiritual needs met within those programs. And because of the anonymous nature of these programs, there are a lot more folks around than may seem apparent. I'll end it here by saying that, as David professes to being "a generally pensive religious person," probably 40 percent or more of locals fall into categories outside traditional religion, but that could constitute some spiritual description, with some of those folks being atheists like myself. (Note: Buddhism is an atheistic religion, which surprises a lot of people who otherwise tend to have a friendly disposition toward it.)
I've seen one instance in the comments so far of a fallacy that I'm hoping we can avoid going forward. Namely, that atheists or agnostics are de facto more intelligent or have achieved a higher level of education than religious believers. I have no hard numbers to back this up -- and I'd question anyone who claims to -- but in my anecdotal experience I've never found any correlation between education and religious beliefs. The Jesuit priests of my high school days were among the most brilliant and most educated individuals I've ever met; and I've met some atheists who possessed the intellectual sophistication of a doorknob. (The self-avowed atheists I've seen post on this topic, I should note, certainly don't follow that example.) For every Nietzsche there's a Kierkegaard, for every Ayn Rand a Thomas Merton.
If you're referring to my observation about educational achievement in the Bay Area, I'd say two things about your point, David. First, you seem to confound educational achievement and intelligence, but they are different: I would not claim that more intelligent people believe one way or the other. Second, I linked the Wikipedia article that cites studies showing correlation of increased education with decreased belief in god. Below is the relevant paragraph, which also errs in confounding increased education with intelligence--I would not defend that view: "Nature in 1998 reported a survey suggesting that belief in a personal God or afterlife was at an all-time low among the members of the U.S. National Academy of Science, only 7.0% of whom believed in a personal God as compared to more than 85% of the general U.S. population.[95] In the same year Frank Sulloway of MIT and Michael Shermer of California State University conducted a study which found in their polling sample of "credentialed" U.S. adults (12% had Ph.Ds and 62% were college graduates) 64% believed in God, and there was a correlation indicating that religious conviction diminished with education level.[96] Such an inverse correlation between religiosity and intelligence has been found by 39 studies carried out between 1927 and 2002, according to an article in Mensa Magazine.[97] These findings broadly concur with a 1958 statistical meta-analysis from Professor Michael Argyle of Oxford University. He analyzed seven research studies that had investigated correlation between attitude to religion and measured intelligence among school and college students from the U.S. Although a clear negative correlation was found, the analysis did not identify causality but noted that factors such as authoritarian family background and social class may also have played a part.[98]"
On first glance religiosity and intelligence seem to exclude each other. But actually it takes quite some intelligence to convince people of something that just ain't so. Remember O.J. Simpson. The trick is to overcome one's own objections. That's not a trivial task. It takes brilliance.
My 8 siblings and I were all raised in strict Catholicism. Today, not a one of us is Catholic (or religious). In my 55 years in this life, I have gone round & 'round the subject of religion, metaphysics, and Atheism. My conclusion at this point is that perhaps we aren't MEANT to know the secrets of the universe....until we are out of this (physical) life, anyway. There are too many unanswered questions that I don't ever see us answering while here. I think that it is the height of presumptuousness to state unequivocally theat there IS OR ISN'T a God/gods, afterlife, heaven, Hell, etc. We can all only guess...which is called "faith". Often, wed chose what it is that we WANT to believe. I have done that, in that I have had far too many unexplained, often extraordinary experiences to deny that we are essentially eternal beings cloaked in skin. What I have done is take the pieces of the puzzle of these experiences and put together my own (private) theory. But I don't do well with ANY type of organization - religious or otherwise. I find that when some of the rules are o.k., but others make no sense at all, I can't give full conviction to that organization. And I don't believe much of what I read anymore, so Holy Books are out. However, I have many loved ones who are Atheists, and many who are part of organized religions who are quite happy with their choices. The ones with religion that I know are part of a built-in community. That is a large part of their social life. They have support when needed. If believing in God, Buddah, the Bible, the Talmud, etc., etc. helps a person get through this life, makes them happier & more secure, then why not stick with that? What's to lose if you die happy, rather than to fear that extinguishing light? If one wants to only believe only what is proven (as Carl Sagan did), then they will be very limited in their beliefs, since what man can prove is next to nothing, using tools that are based in the physical world. AS LONG AS OUR BELIEFS ARE NOT PUSHED UPON OTHERS, anything goes, as far as I am concerned. But that is where we get into trouble. Our nation is actually built on freedom of religion, which includes freedom FROM religion. If I had my way, we would all keep our religious beliefs to ourselves. But then, I'm not God, so I don't often get my way in that regard.
Deb Wong, Your post raises so many questions that is is hard to know where to start. From what you write I would say your position agrees with the stance agnostics take. There are strong logical arguments against the agnostic position which I cannot possible elaborate in this short post. If you actually take the time to read and absorb "The God Delusion", you may find your attitude changing. For me, I compare our present predicament with militant religions to what I call the "crazy neighbor" problem. For years we had a guy (or gal) roaming around aimlessly in their back yard waving their arms and muttering unintelligent gibberish. Ok, like Jefferson said "no skin off my back" (or words to that effect). Then one day we noticed our crazy neighbor was waving a shotgun. Times have changed. Forget all the erudite arguments against or for God, we have a gigantic problem with believers. If nothing else, their mindless beliefs are fouling the intellectual climate and that is the least objection I might state. At worst, they stand to create unimaginably horrible tragedies. So we need to disarm our crazy neighbors, and we need to do that now. Your post, in which you seem balanced and reasonable advocates a position that is about six years out of date.
For Arlene Flick: Your post is a perfect example of the judgmental nature that many religious people have. I posted this on another topic on this forum regarding Jesus and why some people don't feel they need God , and I will repost it because I think it speaks to your self-righteous nature. It just comes down to what you feel in your heart of hearts. I was raised in a religion that uses guilt, in my opinion, as a tool of control. Everybody seems to think the same in many religions, and if you dare to think outside of the prescribed doctrine you are told you are an apostate, sinner or worse. I struggled for many years with this guilt and uncertainty that if I did not live the way I was raised I would destroy my family, go to hell, etc, etc. It took many years to deal with this, but once I realized that all the stories I was told growing up were just that, stories, I was freed from my guilt. I hold many of the same morals and values that I always did, it is just that the motivation is now different. I do what is right because it is kind, just, and humane, not because it will get me into heaven. The further I get from my upbringing, the more ridiculous all of the doctrine of my particular church becomes. Similarly, the more you surround yourself with a particular faith, the more you indoctrinate yourself with all of the teachings of a church, the easier it becomes to believe almost anything. It just comes down to what you feel most comfortable with. Do you need a faith, support system, a belief in something bigger than yourself to get through life. For many, believing in God, in heaven, gives them peace. For me, I get peace from knowing that I am living a good life, raising a family, thinking for myself, and loving the earth and people on it just for the sake of being alive. I am very uncomfortable around organized religion now, and am happier than I have ever been, so for me the answer is very clear.
Hi Richard, Your post just reiterates what I stated before: I don't believe much of what I read anymore.
To Coastside Aethiest: Your diatribe makes me sad. I will say a prayer for you.
Two things Arlene: One, what Coastside Atheist posted could in no way be construed as a diatribe. Two, possibly the most vile and insulting thing a believer can say to an atheist is that they will pray for them. It's right up there with "you are going to hell". Believers ponder why atheists are beginning to strike back at them. Please take some time to really understand what you are saying and how insensitive and supercilious it strikes the ears of an atheist. Richard Dawkins wrote "The God Delusion" for you. Do you dare read it?
To answer David's initial question about the religious atmosphere on the coastside, our business is located next to a very popular church. Though we have been asked to join (not interested), the parishoners we have met are great people, and very cool neighbors. Their faith, as I understand it, has a lot of new-age elements in it, sort of a Christian version of what Dr Wayne W Dyer & others are advocating. In another part of town, we have photographed some communions and baptisms at Our Lady of the Pillar Catholioc Church, which brought me back to my old Catholic days. I went through the whole thing, catechism, all church days, communion, confession, confirmation. Yes, I was a "Soldier of God" when I turned 13. O.k., that leads into a more personal comment about my beliefs. When I was 16, I told my mother that I was leaving the church, and wanted nothing more to do with religion. Though I was slapped in the face, and still made to go to church (even after running away from home, after tiring of my father's multiple, extreme abuses), I finally had my way, and never stepped into church after I was 18, not until many, many years later, as a guest. I saw how the church tried to dictate every move of our lives. My mother had 9 children (I was the oldest), and she wanted to use birth control. Her doctor said that if she had another child, she might die, but our priest told her that she would be cast out of the Catholic religion if she used any other method than the rhythm method....which hadn't worked so far. So, she finally left, feeling abandoned by her church, and lost faith in all except the bottle. My father blamed the church for his raping, beating and torturing me and my sisters (I was hospitalized after one of the rapes when I was 10 - spent 11 days in St. Mary's hospital in S.F., the same place where I was born). I didn't see the logic in his reasoning, but as a child, didn't know how to respond. If I responded in any way, I got thrown against a wall, beated to a pulp, etc. In that way, however, I could see what rage against the church could do to a person. When my sister was killed in a car accident at 16 (I was 17) that found the whole family back into church, clinging to it for just a short while, and then we all denounced the faith entirely. My prayers for my sister's surviving the accident went unanswered(she lived for 24 hours), so I understood the rage at being told a lie all of those years. How dare anyone foist that destructive fantasy on us! Al those years that I thought my non-Catholic friends were going to Hell, all of the years that I feared Hell myself, while I was surely living in it already. All of those years, the Legion of Decency told us what movies to watch, and still feeling "sinful" when going against that to watch "Midnight Cowboy" and other great films that were on the list. As a young adult, I wss filled with rage. I had plenty to be angry about. I was an Atheist, believed in nothing beyond this life. I explained away my numerous out-of-body experiences as a child as biochemical reactions in my brain to trauma & stress. Very real experiences, what my fellow hippie friends told me were "astral projection". Whatever it was could be explained as a process of the body. Well, everything was neat, cut-and-dried. If something happened that couldn't be explained, I just told myself that we are not meant to know - and I still believe that to be true. I found that unlike the Atheists on this panel, I was miserable as an Atheist. Even after having therapy to treat my panic attacks when I was 38(residual effects from my traumatic childhood), I realized that a part of me is a very spiritual being that could not be denied. I did a LOT of reading on the subject opf religion, Atheism, Agnosticism, etc., through the decades. No, I haven't read Richard Dawkin's "God Delusion", and won't now, simply because the pushing of it on this forum reminds me too much of religious people pushing the bible on me. My mother-in-law occassionally hands me the Watchtower with the same hope, I guess, but she is nice enough when I decline. That's low-pressure "sales". She and my in-laws derive a great deal of comfort from their faith. None of it makes sense to me, but I am sure I don't make sense to them, either. I still love them. My book of choise right now is "The Four Agreements" by Don Miguel Ruiz. It makes more sense to me than anything else. And my own beliefs have little to do with religion, but a lot to do with faith. That faith helped me emmensely when my dear brother passed away from cancer at age 48. Somewhere deep down, when I was with him for the last time, I told him that we would see each other again, just as I will see all of my loved ones again.
I thnk the thing that comes through most here is how EMOTIONAL people eare on the subject. Ricahrd's crazy religious, dangerous neighbor reminds me of all of the non-religious imbalanced persons out there - I don't think that religion or lack of faith has much to do with mental instability. In the place where one of my brothers lives for the mentally disabled, very many don't believe in anything at all. When my brother was released from the mental hospital (due to Reagan's budget cuts) he injured a little girl. He has no beliefs in God or anything. Neither did John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy. My father was an Atheist, only joined the church to marry my mom, and hated the church ever since, blamed it for all of his wrong-doings. He finally found a way out of this life for good several years ago by burning to death a small airplane crash. So, he finally found Hell. I choose to believe that I am eternal; it is what I feel is true. I will not put a name to my beliefs. None of my beliefs will make me popular with the Atheists or God & Jesus crowd, but that's o.k. by me. I don't push my beliefs on anyone, as some others have tried to push theirs on me. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong - as Richard said, my beliefs are "about six years out of date." That's o.k., Richard, I've never been a trendy person, anyway.
Arlene, please don't pray for me. Please save your prayers for yourself.
I was too subtle with my crazy neighbor metaphor. What keeps this atheist up at night is the depressing knowledge that a great many well meaning people refuse to recognize just what a precarious situation our little blue marble faces -- solely because of religious beliefs. True, with the end of the cold war, the danger of atomic weapons has subsided from the public consciousness. Nonetheless, we can not be sanguine: many of these horrible devices are still sitting in their silent submarine launch tubes and blast protected silos. Meanwhile, our good friends in Iran are steadfastly determined to build a tidy supply of them and Israel is widely known to already possess nukes. On our side of the world, our president is the sole person in our country that can give the order to launch an attack. If you liked the shock and awe of the Iraq attack you're going to love going "nuclar" You see, our president believes in the absolute truth of the Bible. Our religion besotted president and his counterparts in Israel and Iran all believe in Armageddon. Do you like the idea of the president of Iran knowing he could fulfill a bizzarr religious prophesy with atomic weapons? Are you really comfortable with G W Bush having the power to blow our one and only home to bits? Please study the literature on nuclear winter. As Sam Harris writes in letter to a Christian nation: “The president of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. If he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ridiculous or offensive.” Richard
Richard, I completely agree with you about the incumbent; I think that he is pure evil, thought so from the very beginning. But I don't attribute that to religion, so much as the push that special interest groups can give him. Oh, he SAYS that he is Christian, but I truly don't believe that he follows the bible. Bush offers a lot of lip service to "God and Country", but I think that he just gives lip service when it comes to both. He used and uses misinformation and fear tactics to convince the country that what he is doing is the right thing to do. The Religious Right is a powerful lobby, and George W. knows how to "talk the talk". So, in that way, yes, religion plays a part in politics. I agree that should be eliminated, as I do the oil lobbyists and others who influence power in this country. So, we are in complete agreement about how politics and "religon" are enmeshed in destroying our country (and others). But that is not what I was talking about. I was answering David's question about the religious atmosphere on the coast. I included a lot of personal information about myself, to explain where my views come from. I am also involved with artists who are sueing religious organizations for having a part in censoring our art. There is no way that I would ever advocate the religious right. Anyone who knows me would laugh at that. But religion itself - in its myriad forms - has its place, and gives great comfort to millions of people. There are some wonderful warm traditions and sense of community that religions can give their people. In that way, I wouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. It doesn't have to be "either/or". I am not religious, but am spiritual, and won't denounce that just because a group of cynical crackpots who call themselves "Christian" are controlling our government right now. I don't even know that Christ existed - it is possible, but I'm not entirely sure. I do think that if he did, and if what was written is accurate about what he preached, then he would NOT advocate what is going in His name right now. My ultimate message is that the only way that Atheists, Agnostics and the Religious can live within the same world is for a great measure of tolerance on ALL of our parts. Since the Religious Right does not know tolerance, I do not include that entity - which is far more political than truely religious - in my message. I know too well the evils that have been perpetrated in the name of God, as far back as history has been written. But now we're getting into politics, and that was not what I was writing about. I believe in the separation of church & state - no matter what it says on our money.
Dear Deb, I appreciated your very thoughtful message. But I can't agree with you that little Bush is just using religion for political ends. If that was so, he would be in the best historical company. But in his Texas days, around the time when he got away from drinking too much, he was a regular with a fundi bible study group, I can't think of its name right now, which still exists and whose beliefs are pretty well known. And those beliefs are not exactly very appetizing. So, I'm afraid that our president actually believes that end-of-the-world, helping-along-rapture and armageddon, dominion and reconstructionism stuff along with a scary portion of his GOP supporters in congress. Bush's regular but on his part low profile contact with this extreme right wing Colorado preacher, who was campaigned against gays but then recently was discovered to frequent a homosexual prostitute, supports this view of Bush to be an actual religious nut case. What we are experiencing now is a frontal assault by Bush and the majority of the GOP on the secular state supported and guided by the religious lunatic fringe, which in turn is implicitely protected by moderate but apparently somewhat naive Christendumb. It is this assault that makes it appropriate to take off our kids gloves in confronting religion. Like you I'm all for tolerance. But should we actually be tolerant toward people who are themselves blatantly intolerant? These guys exploit our tolerance to advance their intolerant views. With me tolerance stops with people who do not deserve tolerance due to their own lack of tolerating other views, lifestyles etc. In many ways what we perceive as the religious lunatic fringe is actually closer to the book than the kind of cafeteria buffet style religiousness of the majority of god believers. Closer to the basis, so to speak. And therefore they are, by the moderates, widely perceived as the more dedicated "better Christians". That shields the extremists, just as the average muslims implicitely shield their Al Qaida (engl. the basis, the fundament). That's why, if we don't want to become collateral damage in some more serious religious war, the time seems to be over for limiting ourselves to polite intercourse with those people.
Hi Gang- I am a follower of Jesus. Not the nutty kind. I hope the authentic kind. Lots of people call themselves Christians, but I think very few actually have a relationship with Jesus. Which is all he wants. The peace and joy I get from that relationship truly trancends all understanding. And so of course I want to share this with people. Not in a "hit you over the head with a Bible" kind of way. Hopefully it is communicated through my actions. It is late and I am tired, and not quite sure why I am writing. But I would encourage all of you (if you have not already) to pick up a Bible and start reading in the New Testament. Jesus is there. The truth is there. The Bible is a historically reliable document. But more than that it is God's love letter to us. And it talks a lot about phony Christians, hypocrisy, etc. There is no doubt that so much of the Christian "religion" that is seen today makes people want to run and hide. Jesus denounced religion. He hated what it stood for. Sincere blessings to all of you.
I am a spiritual person who has just recently gone back to attending regularly the church of my youth. I work with some atheists. We have some very interesting conversations, but we respect each others beliefs. They ask me some interesting questions and my answers help me in reinforcing my thoughts about my religion. If we respect each other and don't try to actively convert other people we can learn a lot from each other and become even more understanding friends.
Hi Notmy, I think you stated what I tried to say, in a much more comprehensible way. Basically, it is not realistic to ever think that everyone will hold the same religious (or non-religious) beliefs one day. For those of us who have have spiritual faith - if that part of our lives were taken away, it would have to be replaced with something, and I see no acceptable alternatives. To say that "life is enough" discounts the millions on this planet who live in poverty or pain, etc. Life often ISN'T enough. I worked in a pediatric hospital where babies were born into pain and disability, and often passed away without even experiencing the good things that life has to offer. Your comment (and what I was trying to put across so clumsily) is that we should ALL respect each other's beliefs - and that includes the religious right. That they or some others don't respect other's way of thinking or beliefs does not discount what we should do. People shouldn't kill or steal, but they do. I think that endeavoring to set an example of tolerance and love for all - without trying to convince that our point of view is the only correct way of thinking - is the best way that we can all get along on this big blue marble.
Respect others beliefs? Doesn't that depend on the belief? If someone tells you they speak to God through their hair dryer are you duty bound to respect that? I think not and I thing most people would agree. We have a duty to respect people's RIGHT to hold any belief they want. We absolutely must not show respect for a belief if it is irrational and very possibly destructive. There is nothing that says you have to tolerate intolerant people. As Harris and Dawkins and Hitchens all point out, the time for automatic deference to religion and the religious is passe, dead, gone, dangerous. If ever the world needed some clear eyed critics of religion, the time is now. We have them. Now we must really understand what they are saying. How many people here have posted a comment, but never actually read any of the books? I suspect quite a few.
Richard, thank you for clarifying my thought when you say that: "We have a duty to respect people's RIGHT to hold any belief they want." I agree with you completely there. As far as your comment "How many people here have posted a comment, but never actually read any of the books? I suspect quite a few.", first off - this forum started with David's question: "What’s the religious atmosphere on the Coastside? What traditions, major or minor, comprise the Coastside’s religious heritage?" I saw nowhere in David's question as to whether anyone here had read some of the books discusssed, or that it was a requirement to read them. I have a pile of books yet to read, and right now am reading an insightful book on the history of the Middle East, Jordan, Israel & displaced Palestinians. Almost everyone I know has recommended books to me, and if I find their content interesting, will eventually get around to reading them, when I have the time. But I have already read the Bible - several versions of it, in fact - in my lifetime. I might have been interested in "The God Delusion" and other bookss suggested here, if I did not feel that they were so heavily pushed upon me in thsi forum, as the Bible had been pushed upon me for many years. Proselytizing is proselytizing, no matter what side of the fence you are on.
Deb, you mentioned billions of poor people on this planet and how this life often isn't enough and I wanted to speak to that. When it comes to the billions of poor and destitute in the world today, one should act as if this is the only life they are going to have. In my experience, often believing in an afterlife where everyone will live in paradise gives people a pass to not vigorously act in this life to make things better. While many churches have active social welfare programs and charities, their followers many times think more about what they need to get their own hides into heaven, and take a passive approach to social activism which addresses poverty, the environment, war and the multitude of other worldly issues that in their view God will fix during the second coming. Meanwhile those billions of people still live horribly destitute lives. So while activism, which is the only way to change the world in this live, and religion are not mutually exclusive; they are rarely practiced together my any MAINSTREAM religion that I am aware of.
David led his article by commenting on a local book store that had a table piled high with books by atheist authors. He was prompted to ask if this indicated some kind of major shift in attitudes. One of the books he writes about is "The God Delusion", which has sold over 500,000 copies worldwide and remains on best seller lists around the world. Since I became an atheist on September 12, 2001, I do say that there is a major shift, and that is why many of my comments here reflect the views of prominent atheist authors. I am not arguing that everyone must become an atheist (although in my heart of hearts I would not be disappointed if this happened). What I am arguing is that we have passed into a very critical time. Believers and the strife they cause could end up instigating all kinds of horrible consequences that we can barely sense. You do not have to be an atheist to follow the logic of the arguments Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens are making. Just don't be bigoted and shrug these new books off as though they offer nothing new in the world that would make you change your views. September 11, 2001 was a seminal moment in the history of humans on this planet. Everything is different now, everything. People must sweep the cobwebs from their minds and take in this new information. Yes, religion offers consolation. What is better? Being alive and unconsoled about the existential abyss you must face if you reject religion? Or going to your death at the hands of fanatics consoled by fantasies that you accepted uncritically? I cannot state this in more stark terms. Richard
Sigh). Alright, I'll head down to the library, and check out "The God Delusion". But c'mon guys - I donate my time & money to many worthy causes which help the poor and disadvantaged (not that I have much income or time to donate - but I do - much to my husband's distress sometimes). I don't think that you have to be an Atheist to help humanity, the planet, etc. I am sure that there are many religious persons who give of their time and finances from the goodness of their hearts and the sense of their minds, rather than for just some ultimate (perceived) reward. The "fanatics" that you refer to are in the minority - why do you lump everyone who is spiritual or religious in the same category? NOW who is being "bigoted'? The point is, when it's always "Us or Them", it can never be resolved. Meanwhile, I will check out "The God Delusion", and see what that offers. But remember - I don't always believe everything that I read. It's going to have to offer a VERY good argument, one without rhetoric, to get my attention. You see, if you were paying attention to these posts - the way that I was "raised" - that for sure, trust is not my long suit. We'll see.
Deb, Good for you, I was hoping you would say that. I glean from reading your posts that you are a reasonable person. Rich
Richard- In reference to your quote "Believers and the strife they cause could end up instigating all kinds of horrible consequences that we can barely sense." Can we please agree to refer to these people as "So called Believers?" Because the true believers that I know are doing the opposite of causing strife resulting in horrible consequences. They are out there in Africa helping to provide clean drinking water, educating about AIDS, caring for orphans and widows all over the world, feeding the hungry, housing the homeless. All things Jesus called us to do. In the same way that you are encouraging us to read the above mentioned books. I will once again encourage you to consider picking up and reading a modern translation (personally the thees and thous are not for me) Bible and see what Jesus had/has to say. We twist so much of what he "supposedly" said without going to the source, which is the Bible. As Christians we don't have to "earn" our way to heaven. Jesus did that for us. People often view Christianity as this restrictive faith when in reality it is so totally freeing. Are there boundaries? Yes! But that is only for our good and protection. Again, most of those are twisted or misconstrued as well. And for the record, Christians can be jerks (myself included). But hopefully if we are walking the walk and not just talking the talk we are trying to make this world a better place. Jesus told us many things. But at the top of the list (aside from loving Him, which is not hard to do), we are to love others and care for others in practical ways. We complicate things that are not complicated.
Amy, If you have not read "the unholy trinity" try the following google search: atheist books dawkins, harris, hitchens and then just sort through some of the 59,000 replies with an open mind and see what you think. You don't admit to reading what you criticize, so at least read what others have taken from these books. It's sort of a Cliff notes approach. Yes, Christians do good works, but are those Christians you speak about in Africa promoting ineffective abstinence programs to combat aids and unwanted children? You don't tell us. Millions of dollars in US aid are going down the rat hole of abstinence only programs here and abroad directly because of dogmatic belief. It is a crying shame. When believers are criticized for their violence the first response is always about their charity and how "fanatics" do not represent them. In the case of Islam after 9/11 we got a lot of PR about how Islam is a religion of peace, when page after page of the Koran and Suras flatly contradict this lie. Need I add the old testament is drenched in blood and gore. The only bible or Koran I read are the ones annotated by a thoughtful skeptic. For example Thomas Jefferson's bible. Have you gone through that one? Richard
Hi Richard- I would prefer not to go round and round. Neither of us is going to "convert" the other most likely. But just to clarify, exactly whom and where did I criticize? Looking back at my two brief posts I am not seeing any critcism. But I guess that is a matter of perpective. I can't answer your questions about the promoting of abstinence programs in Africa. Politics can make anything ugly can't it? I personally know people who are in Africa to love and help people. Nothing more, nothing less. Not everyone has an agenda. I have Christian friends who are in Nicaragua right now building homes. Do they have an agenda? If loving people is having an agenda, then yes they do! They go every year and the Nicaraguan people can't get enough of them. Jesus hated politics as much as he hated religion.
While I fully support the religious freedom that we have in this country, there is always a danger posed when people believe ANYTHING so fervently as to suspend rational thought. Couple that with a belief that that there is only one truth, and you have it, and all sorts of hideous things can then happen in the name of whatever. If all religious people were as sweet and unassuming as Amy, the world would be a much nicer place, but unfortunately that is not the case, as evidenced by the state of American Politics.
Coastside Atheist- I am laughing because I wouldn't describe myself as sweet or unassuming! :)
I've been following this topic with interest and appreciate the thoughtful comments on all fronts. Just a quick comment to address an aggrievous error. Amy, I can relate to much of what you are saying, but your statement that "Jesus hated politics as much as he hated religion" is way off base. In fact, Jesus' life and ministry was all about politics. Jesus' life was not lived in a vacuum. Thus, by including the original social context of Jesus' life and teachings, one can see how he encouraged his followers to resist the evil of the Roman empire through militant nonviolence. He didn't teach the oppressed (as he and his followers were) to be docile doormats. Rather, in the imperial occupation of the land where he lived, he taught folks to reclaim their personal dignity and refuse to be demeaned.
O.k., so I finished reading Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion". Dawson made MANY pertinent points - for instance, about religion being "child abuse" (that one struck me the most, for personal reasons), arguments against the existence of God, religion's negative, often horrific effect on the world (evidence is all around, and can't be denied), religious hypocrisy, biological arguments against "natural selection", etc. Yes, I could agree with those assessments, for the most part. I also firmly agree that we do not have to be religious or believe in a higher power to be good people, that we are a species which feels empathy.....well, I would say that MOST of us have that quality - but not all - from personal experience! However, I thought that (for a scientist especially) there was no lack of emotion, rhetoric, or subjective judgement about religion, including the statement that "religion generally is "nonsense." Says who? Well, there are MANY who say something like this in their books - the bookstores are filled with them now. I was able to look around, and now see that there are a slew of new books on Atheism, and that right now "The God Delusion" is at the top, so Dawkins is currently a Superstar among Atheists . I guess this is what was meant when I was told that I was '"....about 6 years out of date'. It is very trendy right now to be Atheist. I get that. My daughter has always followed the trends (unlike me), and I recall her shifting her views and tastes frequently. I do agree that it is good, that if you are an Atheist, that you should be 'proud and not apologetic' (I am paraphrasing can't find the quote exactly, as I lent the book to a friend). But the rage and the rhetoric really put me off, and the book left me depressed, even though I agreed with about 1/2 of it. But the anger reminds me a lot of the rage felt by women who fought for equality, Black Panther's rage about oppressed African-Americans. I guess this is a necessary part of the progression of a society. It is good to have many views. The worst thing is to be closed-off from ANY viewpoint, no matter which side of the fence you are on. I imagine that when Richard Dawkins and his fellow non-believers die, and suddenly find themselves in another, unexpected existence, it will be like a "Suprise Party" for them. In effect, though, "The God Delusion" did not convince me to return to Atheism - for me, that would be regressing to an earlier time in my life, going backwards. But it did give enough food for thought (though I have to say that I really, truly didn't learn anything NEW), so that I don't have to read any more of these types of books.....thank God!
Deb: I'm glad you chose to read the book so that you could discuss it. I have one comment about your last post. You comment that you think it is trendy to be an Atheist. I think that is not the case. I think it has become safer to acknowledge that one is an Atheist, so more Atheists are speaking up and defending their point of view. One might think that there are more gay people now than there used to be, but there are not. Gays and Lesbians are now more visible because, in many communities, folks have relaxed their prejudices and become more tolerant and accepting. My (late) mother was an Atheist most of her life. Most people who met her probably did not know it, though, because she was discreet about her feelings. I think Atheists are becoming more visible as the need to counteract the political power the Bush/Cheney neoconservative movement has given to the religious right. My 2 cents, anyway.
Amy, Did you try to change the subject from the danger of religion to the danger of politics? It seems to me that in all the back and forth I read between believers and non-believers a lot of subject switching is attempted by believers. If you are saying that mixing religion and public policy is ugly I will agree. There is a very good reason our bill of rights insists there be no mixing of religion and politics. You say you don't know whether your friends in Africa are lying about condoms and pushing abstinence. If they are your friends, why don't you know such a basic fact about them? Specifically, what sect do your friends belong to? It is hard for me to accept that they don't have an agenda, at the very least promoting Christianity. Perhaps you can write to them and ask. I think you are being disingenuous. Why not just admit that your particular brand of religion has a lot to answer for and tell us you will examine the charges Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens put forth and work to correct the bad things about your religion.
Deb, So I have to applaud your decision to wade back into the atheist waters. Are you now going to complete the "unholy" trinity and read Harris and Hitchens? I'm surprised your library had a copy of "The God Delusion". Were you on a waiting list?
Nope, when I couldn't find one at the library, I actually paid for a used copy - hardcover, yet! - on Amazon.com for $14.00 (I could have gotten a new one for $2.00 more, I found out later). No matter - I can lend it (or re-sell on Amazon or eBay) with impunity. And no, I won't be reading any more books on Atheism or religion, as neither of those subjects is on my preferred reading list. I have a pile of books yet to read....when I have the time. Check out Amazon.com (I sell there under the name of Wongway10), and eBay (my eBay name is not_new_but_cool).
Oh Deb, as a local business owner I would have expected you to patronize one of our local book stores. That's alright, I prefer to buy my photography off the internet as well, since I can save a couple of bucks.
EXACTLY! We sell a lot of our photos (& artwork) on the internet - it reaches a larger audience.....way more than in our gallery, which is why we offer a multitude of services. Though we have sold many of our photos recently to tourists coming through, of late. But now, that's off-topic.
|
