Atheism

[Peter Murray]

Originally posted by Moeen:
When another religion arises, the former establishment, instead of trying to properly judge and understand the new idea, sees it as a threat, and conflict ensues.

Apparently Shintoism and Buddhism co-exist happily in Japan, even within families.
So, if I read the Bible, the Qu'ran and the Bhagavad Gita 20-30 years ago (all in English versions, as I don't know any of the original languages), is it ok for me to dismiss their religions as artificial?

What makes atheists and agnostics different from followers of other religions...

*sigh* Atheism is not a religion, it is the absence of religion. Calling it a religion just annoys people.

[Moeen]

Originally posted by Peter Murray:
Apparently Shintoism and Buddhism co-exist happily in Japan, even within families.

I'm not saying it's not possible for two different religions to coexist, even within families, just that when a different one arrives on the scene and seems like it could overturn the dominant one, then the established religion will at first react against it as a threat. This is typically what happens and I'm pretty sure it happened in Japan between Shintoism and Buddhism. Of course, over time things change, and China and Japan are examples where to some extent Buddhism has adapted itself to the local religions. Also, Buddhism is one of those religions that has the ability to adapt to local cultures well (at least it has in the past). This is not to say there aren't tensions between them. For example, one of the themes of the Japanese No plays developed during the Middle Ages was about the tensions between some of the values of the indigenous culture, and those that Buddhism brought with it. (For examples, see Anthology of Japanese Literature from the Earliest Era to the Mid-Nineteenth Century, which is also a very good anthology on its own.)

Originally posted by Peter Murray:
So, if I read the Bible, the Qu'ran and the Bhagavad Gita 20-30 years ago (all in English versions, as I don't know any of the original languages), is it ok for me to dismiss their religions as artificial?

Not quite. Unfortunately, having read sripture doesn't mean one understands it. This is not to say one can't get anything from reading it, but I do know of plenty of cases where people who think they understand a religion simply because they've read scripture, but in fact they are often off the mark when it comes to understanding or interpreting them. If you really want ot understand a religion, you need to know where it comes from and why it was successful. So, if possible, you want to read a biography of the founder (or founders) of the religion (of course this can involve checking to see if the writer of a biography in question isn't biased, but this shouldn't be too hard to determine). Strangely enough, plenty of people who consider themselves devout believers of a religion often know little about its origins, but believe nonetheless, but I suppose it is this sort of thing that often leads to misinterpretation. In any case, my main point is, if you do know about the origins of a religion, namely, where it comes from and why it was successful, then yes you should be qualified to judge it properly.

Originally posted by Peter Murray:
*sigh* Atheism is not a religion, it is the absence of religion. Calling it a religion just annoys people.

Hmm, I can see why that would be the case with agnostics as their view is more of a "don't know" or "don't care" kind of philosophy, but atheism is believing that there is no such thing as the divine, which perhaps could be understood to be a religious perspective, but I can understand why atheists would not want to be seen that way. So, I'll try and be more careful with my wording in the future.

Correction: Just a typo in the last post; I said the quotes were from the 13th Dalai Lama, they are in fact from the current and 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso.

[Sean L.]

So...don't diss what you aint tried. Okay, fine. How do you "try a religion"? How far do you go until you know it isn't right?

[bluesalamanders]

Moeen said:
atheism is believing that there is no such thing as the divine

That's a matter of some slight contention, actually. Personally, it's not that "I believe that there is no god(s)", but "I don't believe there is a god(s)". A lack of belief for, rather than an active belief against.

It may seem like an unimportant distinction, even difficult for some people to understand the difference (which I can relate to - it took me a while to understand it, and I still have trouble explaining it to someone who doesn't get it) but it is important to some atheists, myself included. If you want to read more about it, there is an interesting website called Positive Atheism, which is where I first read aboout it.

Blue~

[Onua Wingstar]

Oh, dear. Christianity may have/have had its problems, but I think we really get slammed a lot more than we deserve. This whole thing about "thinking that our religion is the best/only one" seems to be one of the biggest sources of misunderstanding and resentment.

You have to realize something about what Christians believe: that Jesus Christ was (is) God, and that His words were (are) God's words. Christ told us to share the word with others and bring them into God's family. So, Christ = God; we listen to God and do what he says; we spread the word because God told us to.

That being said, I am not one of the "shout it from the mountains" evangelical Christians who goes around trying to convert everyone, although technically I should be. I have studied other religions and I do believe that all of them have aspects of truth to them. I even have a drawer full of New Age-type ritual supplies that I use now and then to enhance prayer. However, part of Christian belief is that Christ is "the way, the truth, and the life." That doesn't mean I can't respect other religions, and perhaps unlike some more radical Christians, I fully believe in people's right to follow religions besides Christianity.

Heck, I even get discriminated against by other Christians for being Roman Catholic.

And as a last word, I'm curious: how do those of you who are atheists handle the ramifications of that? Isn't it depressing to believe that you're just going to die one day and vanish forever?

[Miko]

I think I would be more worried by the thought of continuing on in some other state. I'm a "What floats your boat just don't ask me to sale it" type of person. I don't care what type of religion you got (or not) just don't ask me to participate in it.If I was forced to chose a religion (not something desireable) I'd want to participate in the Shinto faith. So I don't have to choose, I prefer to remain happily and blissfully unattached.

Miko
-- I'm a batchalor and I'll raise my kids to be the same.

[Birdhead]

And as a last word, I'm curious: how do those of you who are atheists handle the ramifications of that? Isn't it depressing to believe that you're just going to die one day and vanish forever?

Not really, no; it's just the natural way of things. I do find the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient being judging my worth after death according to the Christian scriptures pretty damn terrifying, though! For me, it would be depressing to believe that there was a benevolent deity somewhere "up there" refusing to involve itself in human suffering; it would be depressing to believe that said benevolent deity's message to humanity was contained literally in the Bible; it would be depressing for me to believe in original sin; it would be depressing for me to believe in Leviticus. I sometimes ask my Christian friends how they cope with the ramifications of Biblical contradictions. A theistic belief system presents to me many more things to be afraid of or depressed by than the absence of an afterlife.

At the end of the day: for one thing, being atheist does not necessarily negate a belief in some kind of afterlife. And although I don't believe in an afterlife, I don't find that depressing (although I can certainly understand why people find the idea of life after death attractive and comforting.) I believe it leads me to live my life more fully and with more energy, because I know it's the only chance I have, and that's okay. *shrug* The association of atheists with people who are unhappy, or bitter, or frustrated, or disillusioned, really bothers me. If anything, atheists are the ones with the motivation to love life as it is.

[Moeen]

Originally posted by Sean L.:
So...don't diss what you aint tried. Okay, fine. How do you "try a religion"? How far do you go until you know it isn't right?

You misunderstand me, it's not "don't diss what you aint tried" but more like "don't diss what you don't understand"; there is a difference, a major one in fact. I'm not saying you should believe in anything to see it's point of view, but you should try to understand it and where it's coming from before passing judgement on it.

Ideally, I suppose religion, faith, or belief is something personal that one shouldn't have to talk about, but realistically that's not really possible because of the nature of it. After all, religions were proclaimed when they came about, and by their nature they affect people and society deeply, so that many aspects of a person's life, the laws of a society, and the politics of government are affected by them. In a world full of believers and faiths, it would be a good idea to try and understand them. At the very least, it would help avoid misunderstandings, which are often the source of human conflict. (Sorry for the digression. )

Blue (or Pont, or Anna), that's a pretty subtle distinction, and at first glance both statements look they're saying the same thing. Where does that leave Buddhists who also "don't believe there is a god(s)" (or at least according to the Dalai Lama "Buddhism does not accept a theory of God, or a creator")? Buddhism is still a religion, does that mean Atheism qualifies as well? The problem here is the definition of religion, as atheists do not think so. Thanks for the link, I'll look into it.

[Onua Wingstar]

Originally posted by Birdhead:
For me, it would be depressing to believe that there was a benevolent deity somewhere "up there" refusing to involve itself in human suffering; it would be depressing to believe that said benevolent deity's message to humanity was contained literally in the Bible; it would be depressing for me to believe in original sin; it would be depressing for me to believe in Leviticus.

But you see, he did involve himself in human suffering - by becoming flesh and offering himself up to die (in an extremely painful manner, I might add) as a sacrifice to atone for *our* sins. The point is that we don't have to be depressed about original sin anymore because God redeemed us by making this perfect sacrifice. And for the record, most Christians do not take the Bible literally. I certainly do not; nor does the majority of Catholics.

As I said, most of the things that turn people off Christianity come from misunderstandings.

(I do, however, admire you for being so brave about the whole "ending in oblivion" thing. Personally, I think that if I were to simply die, I would miss too much of the story! I want to know how this crazy world will turn out.)

[Birdhead]

But you see, he did involve himself in human suffering - by becoming flesh and offering himself up to die (in an extremely painful manner, I might add) as a sacrifice to atone for *our* sins.

Ah... at this point my ability to communicate really breaks down, because on one level I don't believe in original sin at all and so dying to relieve it seems, well, pointless to me; and on another level, it's very good of him to atone for our sins, but IMO that does nothing to help people who are victims of "sin" or wrongdoing or unhappy circumstance. When I say human suffering I am not referring to life after death but to the only life I know: I can't sustain belief in a benevolent deity with the number of people suffering because of illness or poverty or natural disaster (or... the list goes on). Christ dying on the cross does nothing to alleviate the suffering of Children Starving In Ethiopia (TM) to give a classic example.

ETA: I'm referring in the above paragraph to the Problem of evil (link goes to my favourite logical representation of the argument). Obviously most Christians quibble with point 6.

I appreciate that most Christians do not take the Bible literally (particularly Leviticus, as it's part of the OT.) and as a rule I object no more strenuously to Christianity than I do to any other religion; I try not to object at all. However, living as I do in Western society, I am constantly confronted by frankly distasteful representatives of Christianity (I don't, of course, mean yourself, or anyone here) and Christians taking some parts of the Bible very literally indeed. I don't want to name specific policy here because I don't want to turn this into an unpleasant flamewar but some of my objections to organised religion come quite directly from the positions of the Catholic Church on certain matters. And, yes, I understand that the majority of Catholics are not completely bound up in the words of the Pope... and yet. While I think Christianity, like any other religion, is frequently misunderstood, I also think it is the best-understood religion in Western society and the one most often represented, and there's some stuff about it that I understand very well and admire (the Golden Rule) and there's some other stuff that I understand very well - I spent seven years in a Presbytarian school, so I'm not completely au fait on Catholicism but I'm pretty good with Christianity in general - that I really dislike.

Although really I think most of the problems with any religion come from its organisation and administration; Christianity is so fragmented that it's possible to find two, er, flavours with almost nothing in common, so of course there are some with which I have no problem whatsoever and some that bother me intensely.

Blue (or Pont, or Anna), that's a pretty subtle distinction, and at first glance both statements look they're saying the same thing. Where does that leave Buddhists who also "don't believe there is a god(s)" (or at least according to the Dalai Lama "Buddhism does not accept a theory of God, or a creator")? Buddhism is still a religion, does that mean Atheism qualifies as well? The problem here is the definition of religion, as atheists do not think so.

Something you haven't brought up: religions are structured, organised and socially managed, whereas atheism is not. There are no, er, intercedents (priest-equivalents) between atheists and their absence of deity, there's no-one who claims to speak for atheists (Pope/Lama), there are no atheist texts or "holy" writs (Bible/Qu'ran etc etc; and no, the writings of Dawkins do not count!) there are no rituals associated with atheism, atheism is not intended to be a guide (moral or otherwise) as to how one lives one's life, there is absolutely nothing that all atheists do except be atheist. Buddhism has all these things.

And when you consider that many (but not all) atheists also reject the principles of an organised religion and of being religious, you will understand why atheists often find religious people calling atheism a religion either frustrating or downright rude. And also displaying a misunderstanding of the nature of atheism, may I add.

Buddhism is an atheistic religion, a religion without gods. Atheism is not a religion.

[Sean L.]

The defining point of a religion isn't its structure or lack thereof - and one could picture oneself as being the intercedents. The science textbook seems to be a pretty good 'holy' writ, by the way, as most people believe it without caring to verify or think about the actual results of the experiments - much like the Bible, if you will.

Oh, dear. Christianity may have/have had its problems, but I think we really get slammed a lot more than we deserve. This whole thing about "thinking that our religion is the best/only one" seems to be one of the biggest sources of misunderstanding and resentment.

You have to realize something about what Christians believe: that Jesus Christ was (is) God, and that His words were (are) God's words. Christ told us to share the word with others and bring them into God's family. So, Christ = God; we listen to God and do what he says; we spread the word because God told us to.

Well golly wiz, you delivered it right into my hands. You get slammed because you do this. Doesn't matter if you're 'following' your religion when you're breaking some nice social and moral codes to butt out of your neighbor's business - especially the ones that come back time after time and threaten you that if you don't follow god, you'll burn in all manner of ways. You wouldn't get "slammed", as you say, if you believed a bit more in loving thy neighbor for who they were instead of repeating coming back to drive us into the fold like so many more sheep after we've repeatedly said no.

Actually, that's an amusing point. I would think that in the years when these religions were founded (by men, of course), they would have been great tools for people to use to subvert the masses to listen to them. Sorry of an opium of the masses, as Marx said and you quoted, Moeen, that allows for a leader to say "I represent the link between you and Heaven!" and have all the people bow to his wishes.

You misunderstand me, it's not "don't diss what you aint tried" but more like "don't diss what you don't understand"; there is a difference, a major one in fact. I'm not saying you should believe in anything to see it's point of view, but you should try to understand it and where it's coming from before passing judgement on it.

Okay, no problem. How do you gain understanding of a religion? Going to church, making all the motions as if you were actually religious, trying as hard as you can to see their point of view. But does that actually give you an understanding of the people that live and die by religion? Does going to church or the synagogue or whatnot allow you to experience what suicide bombers and hermits feel? Do you start preaching the Ten Commandments at people you see? Do you start praying for half an hour before you go to bed each night? How exactly do you 'understand' a religion without belonging to it? You say that knowing the origins of a religion are enough to judge it - but what if those selfsame origins do not account for the religion's actions today?

Atheism doesn't come about by completely ignoring every single church out there - usually, it's not a case of "I've never gone within two hundred feet of a Bible or a church" or some such, but rather that they have gone to church once or twice, and observed with a critical eye the actions of religious people, and _then_ rejected it.

Oh, and, if you could direct me to the biography of the founder of Christianity, one that isn't biased, please do so. If we're talking about Jesus, I would like a scientific exposé about his life, please, without the miracles and prosthetizing that he died for our sins and whatnot.

And as a last word, I'm curious: how do those of you who are atheists handle the ramifications of that? Isn't it depressing to believe that you're just going to die one day and vanish forever?

Uh...No, I can't really say that it is. People die, animals die, everything dies. Sometimes I wonder if the reason people cling to religion is that they're so irrationally afraid of death that they'll snatch at anything that ensures that they _will_ go on, whereas the perfectly logical thing to do is accept that you won't.

Perhaps if some of us weren't so afraid of dying, religion would have passed away a long time ago.

Oh, and, dying is nothing next to being judged by a sadistic and cruel being that likes to have his followers "dash babes upon rocks"(Psalm 135, 137:9, 1 Samuel 15:3), rip apart children for making fun of baldness(2 Kings 2:24), murder rape victims(Judges 19:24-29), take virgins as war loot (Numbers 31:18), and offer two virgin daughters to a crowd instead of two strangers that have come to his house (Genesis 19:8)...I could quote some more, but I'd rather you find them for yourself.

Nah, I'd say I've studied the Bible fairly thoroughly. It has some good stuff - loving thy neighbor and all that - but you don't need religion to love thy neighbor. You just need a conscience.

[Birdhead]

The science textbook seems to be a pretty good 'holy' writ, by the way, as most people believe it without caring to verify or think about the actual results of the experiments - much like the Bible, if you will.

But atheists aren't required to accept or "believe in" the science textbooks. Most atheists do, but you don't have to to be an atheist. Whereas you pretty much have to believe in at least some part of the Bible to be a Christian, right?

Doesn't matter if you're 'following' your religion when you're breaking some nice social and moral codes to butt out of your neighbor's business - especially the ones that come back time after time and threaten you that if you don't follow god, you'll burn in all manner of ways.

Careful with the "yous" there, let's keep this reasonably friendly, shall we? Especially since Onua already wrote that zhe was not evangelical. Getting personal is a bad idea.

[Peter Murray]

Onua Wingstar:
how do those of you who are atheists handle the ramifications of that? Isn't it depressing to believe that you're just going to die one day and vanish forever?

Well, it certainly makes the idea of being a suicide bomber less attractive. They're relying on there being an afterlife where they will be honoured for breaking their religion's rules about not killing people. Atheists don't have a reason to do that. (And I'm not picking on one religion here.)

And I think I should clarify my earlier comment. I've only read the Qu'ran and the Bhagavad Gita, but I was brought up Catholic, went to a Catholic primary school run by nuns, quoted what Jesus did at people and was probably a generally annoying little kid. I went to confession, and started preparing for Communion, but then my parents stopped going to church. (I only learnt years later that was because my father lost his faith when the IRA started using religion as an excuse for terrorist bombings.)

So I'm an atheist now because I escaped from Christianity, not because I never tried it.

[Birdhead]

So I'm an atheist now because I escaped from Christianity, not because I never tried it.

Universally the most militant kinds of atheists are those who have the most experience with religion, in my experience. I'm not sure what that says about the necessity of understanding religions before you diss them. Me, I was raised atheist, I've had a lot of exposure to Christianity, and I'm fairly diehard... but nowhere near as diehard as my friend the ex-bornagain, for example, who is frankly vitriolic towards Christianity.

[Onua Wingstar]

Ah... at this point my ability to communicate really breaks down, because on one level I don't believe in original sin at all and so dying to relieve it seems, well, pointless to me; and on another level, it's very good of him to atone for our sins, but IMO that does nothing to help people who are victims of "sin" or wrongdoing or unhappy circumstance. When I say human suffering I am not referring to life after death but to the only life I know: I can't sustain belief in a benevolent deity with the number of people suffering because of illness or poverty or natural disaster (or... the list goes on). Christ dying on the cross does nothing to alleviate the suffering of Children Starving In Ethiopia (TM) to give a classic example.

Well, that's it, isn't it? Possibly the #1 argument against God. I suppose if this life is all you believe in, then suffering really is meaningless: we suffer, we die, and that's it. I think one thing most people can agree on is that most suffering is our fault - humans have the means to solve most of the world's problems. We just don't. If God did it for us, it would be sort of like doing your 40-year-old child's laundry and cooking his meals for him.
On a more profound level, Christians believe that suffering *does* have meaning. What that meaning is, we don't know. In at least as many cases as not, suffering actually tends to bring people closer to God. We can only know that even evil itself has a place in the Plan (yes, I used a capital P.) It may not seem fair, but that's the world we live in.
Christians believe that the purpose of suffering will be revealed to us one day...although, if you *don't* believe that, I suppose you do have a bit of a dilemma!

Living as I do in Western society, I am constantly confronted by frankly distasteful representatives of Christianity (I don't, of course, mean yourself, or anyone here) and Christians taking some parts of the Bible very literally indeed.

Boy do I hear you.

And may I add, Birdhead, that you seem like a very cool person. I just needed to say that.