A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

[spidergoat]

...My religion goes beyond basic human rights and extends into basic human respect and the betterment of the whole, not just "those that think like us". If you could take your blinders off for a moment, you might be able to see that.

Religion can be almost anything, so it's easy to misunderstand certain flavors of it. Do you get your notions of Jesus from the Bible? If so, that can be problematic, since Biblical Jesus also tells people how to, for instance, beat their slaves properly.

 

[Kittamaru]

”It's rare to walk anywhere in public and not see some religious advertisement every few moments. Imagine if the cause of non-belief were promoted to even one hundredth this degree? Theists would be totally outraged. Yet if an atheist decides to react to the overwhelming pro-religion propaganda that's in his face on a daily basis, he's labeled as "militant", "intolerant" and "extremist."

—Morgan Matthew, Why atheists care about religion

Indeed, it is much the same as how there are such things as BET (Black Entertainment Television), yet if there were a WET (White Entertainment Television) or an AET (Asian Entertainment Television) there would be mass riots and people would be up in arms over how they are 'racist'... it's a disturbing double-standard that permeates the human culture as a whole and MUST be eradicated if humanity is to ever grow beyond this pathetic prattling group of self-destructive primates and into something more capable.

 

[Kittamaru]

Religion can be almost anything, so it's easy to misunderstand certain flavors of it. Do you get your notions of Jesus from the Bible? If so, that can be problematic, since Biblical Jesus also tells people how to, for instance, beat their slaves properly.

There is a lot of talk of this in the old testament, yet in the new there is only ever one real mention of it:

In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn't know they were doing anything wrong.

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)​

Now... the thing is, this does not mention slavery NOR physical beating... but a servant being punished for doing something wrong; the one who was not aware they were in the wrong was to be punished only lightly - one could interpret that to be even a verbal warning or, possibly, a simple "hey, that wasn't what we were looking for, let me show you what we meant" kind of deal. Granted, we have no proof of this to either side of the argument.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Like I said, don’t tell people that you know there is a God or an afterlife. You know no such thing.

Jung teaches us that religion is a collection of archetypes: instinctive beliefs passed down in our DNA and installed in our neurons--although Jung didn't use such language since genetics was not yet a mature science. Archetypal beliefs (rituals, legends and visual images that recur in nearly every culture and nearly every era) feel more true than any beliefs we acquire subsequently by learning and reasoning--because they came first!

So when a person says that he "knows" some preposterous pseudo-fact regarding an invisible, illogical supernatural universe and fantastic creatures who live there, whose existence is supported by exactly zero evidence, you can regard it as a programming error. Unfortunately it's damnably difficult to correct.

Of course the origin of most instinctive beliefs is obvious. For example, any animal who doesn't instinctively run away from a larger animal with both eyes in front of its face (i.e., a predator) won't live long enough to reproduce so his genes will be lost. Obviously religion doesn't fall into that category. Nonetheless, our chromosomes are full of "junk DNA" and there's no better way to describe the DNA that causes (most of) us to believe in the supernatural. Our species has passed through at least two genetic bottlenecks, Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam, giving a free ride to DNA that serves no purpose--or in this case is actually detrimental, since many of the wars between human tribes have been fought over religion.

 

[quinnsong]

There is a lot of talk of this in the old testament, yet in the new there is only ever one real mention of it:

In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn't know they were doing anything wrong.

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)​

Now... the thing is, this does not mention slavery NOR physical beating... but a servant being punished for doing something wrong; the one who was not aware they were in the wrong was to be punished only lightly - one could interpret that to be even a verbal warning or, possibly, a simple "hey, that wasn't what we were looking for, let me show you what we meant" kind of deal. Granted, we have no proof of this to either side of the argument.

For me much of the Bible and Koran is obsolete and in the future more of it will be made obsolete, hopefully. Jesus, message was to his time dealing with the structure and laws in his society. What would his message be today though is the question?

 

[Kittamaru]

For me much of the Bible and Koran is obsolete and in the future more of it will be made obsolete, hopefully. Jesus, message was to his time dealing with the structure and laws in his society. What would his message be today though is the question?

That is part of what our church looks at... and we have come to the conclusion that his message, as it would stand today, is simple. Love one another, do your best to be an amiable and responsible person, and help those less fortunate than yourselves when you can. It isn't a difficult ideal to live by in the end; yes, a little self-sacrifice is necessary... but do people REALLY need to have second and third homes when there are others out there without a safe place to sleep? Do people really need to have enough money to purchase a small continent when there are those out there working 40, 60, and even 80 hour work weeks who are barely able to support themselves and their child?

That is a large part of what I take from it... that we have a responsibility, as Christians, to reach out and help those around us who need it most. Sometimes, in the case of the less fortunate, it means giving them a helping hand up. Sometimes, in the case of the overly affluent, it means showing them how to give charitably and make a difference. Sometimes, in the case of those who do not have religion of any kind, it means reaching out with the offer of teaching them... and as a result, respecting whatever decision they make.

 

[Magical Realist]

For me much of the Bible and Koran is obsolete and in the future more of it will be made obsolete, hopefully. Jesus, message was to his time dealing with the structure and laws in his society. What would his message be today though is the question?

Same as it was back then I imagine: follow me or suffer in hellfire when I return as the Son of Man. Bertrand Russell keyed in on this ethical problem with Jesus long before there was a neo-atheist movement.

"There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment. Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching -- an attitude which is not uncommon with preachers, but which does somewhat detract from superlative excellence. You do not, for instance find that attitude in Socrates. You find him quite bland and urbane toward the people who would not listen to him; and it is, to my mind, far more worthy of a sage to take that line than to take the line of indignation. You probably all remember the sorts of things that Socrates was saying when he was dying, and the sort of things that he generally did say to people who did not agree with him.

You will find that in the Gospels Christ said, "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of Hell." That was said to people who did not like His preaching. It is not really to my mind quite the best tone, and there are a great many of these things about Hell. There is, of course, the familiar text about the sin against the Holy Ghost: "Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this World nor in the world to come." That text has caused an unspeakable amount of misery in the world, for all sorts of people have imagined that they have committed the sin against the Holy Ghost, and thought that it would not be forgiven them either in this world or in the world to come. I really do not think that a person with a proper degree of kindliness in his nature would have put fears and terrors of that sort into the world.

Then Christ says, "The Son of Man shall send forth his His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth"; and He goes on about the wailing and gnashing of teeth. It comes in one verse after another, and it is quite manifest to the reader that there is a certain pleasure in contemplating wailing and gnashing of teeth, or else it would not occur so often. Then you all, of course, remember about the sheep and the goats; how at the second coming He is going to divide the sheep from the goats, and He is going to say to the goats, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire." He continues, "And these shall go away into everlasting fire." Then He says again, "If thy hand offend thee, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into Hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched; where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched." He repeats that again and again also. I must say that I think all this doctrine, that hell-fire is a punishment for sin, is a doctrine of cruelty. It is a doctrine that put cruelty into the world and gave the world generations of cruel torture; and the Christ of the Gospels, if you could take Him as His chroniclers represent Him, would certainly have to be considered partly responsible for that."---Bertrand Russell,"Why I Am Not A Christian"

 

[Bells]

Yes, but it is not my business or anyone else, which is why it should always be kept behind closed doors where it belongs. Unfortunately, because of the fact that you and other believers wish to bring it out in public where it offends others, then that religions deserves every bit of criticism it dishes out.

So his saying he believes in God offends your delicate sensibilities?

Really? LOL. That's fucking hilarious considering your religion despises me, would have me killed for not being a follower and have me roast for an eternity while you sit laughing. Seriously, the bigotry comes from your religion.

Paranoid much?

If theists wanted you dead, you'd be dead long ago.

Your paranoia aside, what religion does he belong to? And can you site in his religion's doctrines where it has decreed that those of your ilk must be killed and have you roasted for eternity while he and others of his religious persuasion sit laughing?

You do realize that your religion does not offer basic human rights? There are no laws for wanting religions to go away, and if there were, that would also be an affront to everything reasonable and rational.

Ah yes, human rights...

From the secular and much vaunted Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

---

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
​

Perhaps you can explain to everyone why you feel an obsessive obligation to infringe on his basic and fundamental human rights to a religious belief? You know, since you have decided to complain about human rights and all.. Why do you directly infringe on his human rights and deny him his based solely on his religion?

 

[quinnsong]

That is part of what our church looks at... and we have come to the conclusion that his message, as it would stand today, is simple. Love one another, do your best to be an amiable and responsible person, and help those less fortunate than yourselves when you can. It isn't a difficult ideal to live by in the end; yes, a little self-sacrifice is necessary... but do people REALLY need to have second and third homes when there are others out there without a safe place to sleep? Do people really need to have enough money to purchase a small continent when there are those out there working 40, 60, and even 80 hour work weeks who are barely able to support themselves and their child?

That is a large part of what I take from it... that we have a responsibility, as Christians, to reach out and help those around us who need it most. Sometimes, in the case of the less fortunate, it means giving them a helping hand up. Sometimes, in the case of the overly affluent, it means showing them how to give charitably and make a difference. Sometimes, in the case of those who do not have religion of any kind, it means reaching out with the offer of teaching them... and as a result, respecting whatever decision they make.

Speaking for myself, I cannot find any fault in your social views and how you perceive Christianity. Would you believe the same way if you were not a Christian?

 

[Kittamaru]

Speaking for myself, I cannot find any fault in your social views and how you perceive Christianity. Would you believe the same way if you were not a Christian?

For the most part, I believe I would. What my faith has done, more than anything, is given me something to lean on when my own reserves are depleted... as well as a... a goal I guess?... to shoot for.

My reasons for coming back to my faith (as at one time I had departed Christianity and looked through several religions to find my spiritual home, including for a dark period of my life not believing in anything at all) are many, not the least of which includes the situations surrounding my, essentially scott-free survival of my attempts at suicide several years ago. The fact that I have not been scarred, disfigured, irreparably damaged, or outright killed amazes me. While there are all sorts of potential answers for each situation (I attempted over half a dozen times in the span of three months) the one that ended my attempts at suicide and ultimately convinced me that something or someone was watching out for me has no rational explanation beyond what can only be described as a far-fetched coincidence (I attempted to shoot myself with my fathers .357 revolver - loaded 6 hollowpoint rounds into the cylinder, cocked the hammer, put it to my temple, pulled the trigger and nothing happened. Pulled the trigger six times, as it is a double-action revolver, and six times the hammer slammed down and nothing happened. I ended up throwing the thing against the ground in dispair, and it went off, blowing a small hole in the cabinet. I picked it up and fired the other five rounds down range)

I have never gotten an acceptable reason for why that gun wouldn't go off while pressed against my head... it had never, not once in the time our family has owned it, misfired or refused to fire. It was meticulously cleaned and maintained and, as I said, as soon as I pointed it down range it fired fine.

*shrugs* Make of it what you will... but yeah, I have my reasons for believing someone was watching over me. It wasn't long after that that I started to pull myself out of that depression... and less than 3 years later I was reintroduced to the woman who would eventually become my wife. It's been almost five years now, and come hell or high water she has stuck by me and put up with me... something I truly never thought anyone would willingly do.

 

[elte]

That's very impressive Kittamaru!

 

[Yazata]

Militant atheism is a derogatory neologism associated primarily with the New Atheism movement, used to describe atheists and secularists who actively campaign against religion or religious influence in public life or government ruling. Countering religion, criticising it and exposing it to rational argument is somehow seen as wrong.

I use the phrase 'militant atheism' and think that it expresses something important.

On one hand, there's 'atheism' as the philosophy of religion understands it, the view that religious deities don't literally exist. I typically use the words 'atheist' and 'atheism' in that way.

And on the other hand, there are those who use 'atheism' as the name for some proposed cause and program. Pretty clearly that's not the same thing as the philosophical (simple disbelief in deities) variety of atheism and it presupposes a whole set of additional assumptions. I often use the phrase 'militant atheism' to refer to this phenomenon.

Admittedly 'militant' might not be the best word to express that. But it's an important distinction and there needs to be some way to refer to it. 'Political atheist' might be another choice, I guess. Maybe I'll start using that one.

 

[spidergoat]

There is a lot of talk of this in the old testament, yet in the new there is only ever one real mention of it:

In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn't know they were doing anything wrong.

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)​

Now... the thing is, this does not mention slavery NOR physical beating... but a servant being punished for doing something wrong; the one who was not aware they were in the wrong was to be punished only lightly - one could interpret that to be even a verbal warning or, possibly, a simple "hey, that wasn't what we were looking for, let me show you what we meant" kind of deal. Granted, we have no proof of this to either side of the argument.

The NLT version is the least offensive, probably because reading about Jesus advocating whipping a slave was too embarrassing.

King James Bible
And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

International Standard Version
That servant who knew what his master wanted but didn't prepare himself or do what was wanted will receive a severe beating.


I could point to other problematic passages. Why not just create a new book of Jesus?

 

[quinnsong]

I use the phrase 'militant atheism' and think that it's an apt way to refer to something important.

On one hand, there's 'atheism' as the philosophy of religion understands it, the view that religious deities don't literally exist. I typically use the words 'atheist' and 'atheism' in that way.

And on the other hand, there are those who use 'atheism' as the name for some proposed social cause and political program. Pretty clearly that's not the same thing as the philosophical (simple disbelief in deities) variety of atheism and it presupposes a whole set of additional assumptions. I often use the phrase 'militant atheism' to refer to this phenomenon.

Admittedly 'militant' might not be the best word to express that. But it's an important distinction and there needs to be some way to refer to it. 'Evangelical atheist' might be another choice, I guess. Or 'political atheist' perhaps. Maybe I'll start using that one.

How many atheists do you know that beat people over the head with their atheism? As Bells noted earlier, admitting non belief in Jesus is a death sentence for any political career in the States. Do you see 'political atheism' as a leftist phenomena?

 

[spidergoat]

I use the phrase 'militant atheism' and think that it expresses something important.

On one hand, there's 'atheism' as the philosophy of religion understands it, the view that religious deities don't literally exist. I typically use the words 'atheist' and 'atheism' in that way.

And on the other hand, there are those who use 'atheism' as the name for some proposed cause and program. Pretty clearly that's not the same thing as the philosophical (simple disbelief in deities) variety of atheism and it presupposes a whole set of additional assumptions. I often use the phrase 'militant atheism' to refer to this phenomenon.

Admittedly 'militant' might not be the best word to express that. But it's an important distinction and there needs to be some way to refer to it. 'Political atheist' might be another choice, I guess. Maybe I'll start using that one.

Maybe use a term we use, "movement atheism".

 

[Magical Realist]

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Religious people DO have the right to practice their religion and worship and teach each other their doctrines. But I don't think that includes any right to proselytize or push one's beliefs on those who don't share then. Let's face it though. Proselytizing and witnessing to the "unsaved" is a core goal of the evangelical movement. Jesus mandated the preaching of the gospel to every creature. Don't WE have the right not be pressured into accepting these beliefs? I can't count the number of times I have been solicited by some Christian group at my doorstep. And every Sunday morning guess what programs are being aired on my TV? That's right--gospel preachers pushing their beliefs on me. How often do atheists do this? We don't. We don't go door to door trying to talk people into giving up their religious delusions. We merely reserve the right to speak out again the religion that is everywhere and in many ways being shoved down our throats.

 

[Kittamaru]

The NLT version is the least offensive, probably because reading about Jesus advocating whipping a slave was too embarrassing.

King James Bible
And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

International Standard Version
That servant who knew what his master wanted but didn't prepare himself or do what was wanted will receive a severe beating.


I could point to other problematic passages. Why not just create a new book of Jesus?

Fair enough, though admittedly taking the entire passage adds some much needed context:

35 “Be dressed for service and keep your lamps burning, 36 as though you were waiting for your master to return from the wedding feast. Then you will be ready to open the door and let him in the moment he arrives and knocks. 37 The servants who are ready and waiting for his return will be rewarded. I tell you the truth, he himself will seat them, put on an apron, and serve them as they sit and eat! 38 He may come in the middle of the night or just before dawn.[a] But whenever he comes, he will reward the servants who are ready.

39 “Understand this: If a homeowner knew exactly when a burglar was coming, he would not permit his house to be broken into. 40 You also must be ready all the time, for the Son of Man will come when least expected.”

41 Peter asked, “Lord, is that illustration just for us or for everyone?”

42 And the Lord replied, “A faithful, sensible servant is one to whom the master can give the responsibility of managing his other household servants and feeding them. 43 If the master returns and finds that the servant has done a good job, there will be a reward. 44 I tell you the truth, the master will put that servant in charge of all he owns. 45 But what if the servant thinks, ‘My master won’t be back for a while,’ and he begins beating the other servants, partying, and getting drunk? 46 The master will return unannounced and unexpected, and he will cut the servant in pieces and banish him with the unfaithful.

47 “And a servant who knows what the master wants, but isn’t prepared and doesn’t carry out those instructions, will be severely punished. 48 But someone who does not know, and then does something wrong, will be punished only lightly. When someone has been given much, much will be required in return; and when someone has been entrusted with much, even more will be required.​

To me, what that is saying is less about the punishment for not doing what you are told and more about being punished for being given a position of power and abusing it.

Even if you take the King James Version, which is arguably one of the "cruelest" translations of the bible:

35 Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning;
36 And ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately.
37 Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching: verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them.
38 And if he shall come in the second watch, or come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those servants.
39 And this know, that if the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through.
40 Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not.
41 Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all?
42 And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?
43 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
44 Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.
45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;
46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.
47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.​

Again, that's just my take on it.

 

[Kittamaru]

Religious people DO have the right to practice their religion and worship and teach each other their doctrines. But I don't think that includes any right to proselytize or push one's beliefs on those who don't share then. Let's face it though. Proselytizing and witnessing to the "unsaved" is a core goal of the evangelical movement. Jesus mandated the preaching of the gospel to every creature. Don't WE have the right not be pressured into accepting these beliefs? I can't count the number of times I have been solicited by some Christian group at my doorstep. And every Sunday morning guess what programs are being aired on my TV? That's right--gospel preachers pushing their beliefs on me. How often do atheists do this? We don't. We don't go door to door trying to talk people into giving up their religious delusions. We merely reserve the right to speak out again the religion that is everywhere and in many ways being shoved down our throats.

And that's fine and I agree with you - there is no reason, nor does anyone have any right, to push ones religion upon another. As I said, our church view on this is simple; if you wish to learn, come and ask. If you wish to join, we will welcome you no matter where you are on life's journey or what may be going on. If you do not feel that our religion fits you, that is fine as well. We have helped many who came to our door asking for shelter or food, even if they were not of our faith... why? because it was simply the right thing to do.

We are not so blinded as to think EVERYONE will see the world the way we do... but the offer always stands for those that WANT to accept it. We will not, however, force anyone to do so.

 

[quinnsong]

Religious people DO have the right to practice their religion and worship and teach each other their doctrines. But I don't think that includes any right to proselytize or push one's beliefs on those who don't share then. Let's face it though. Proselytizing and witnessing to the "unsaved" is a core goal of the evangelical movement. Jesus mandated the preaching of the gospel to every creature. Don't WE have the right not be pressured into accepting these beliefs? I can't count the number of times I have been solicited by some Christian group at my doorstep. And every Sunday morning guess what programs are being aired on my TV? That's right--gospel preachers pushing their beliefs on me. How often do atheists do this? We don't. We don't go door to door trying to talk people into giving up their religious delusions. We merely reserve the right to speak out again the religion that is everywhere and in many ways being shoved down our throats.

You must live in the Southeast or in a rural community, where witnessing door to door and a plethora of various flavors of Christian TV shows are not unusual. Have not had to deal with that for several years now or maybe I am just immune to it.:shrug:

 

[GeoffP]

Fair enough, though admittedly taking the entire passage adds some much needed context:

...Again, that's just my take on it.

It's essentially just allegory.