And is telling people that we don't have the answers, yet remain unconvinced by the arguments put forward by religion, make us MORE arrogant than those who claim that they DO have the answers?
I mean really?
Thursday, July 05, 2012
Well gee, how dare we?
And is telling people that we don't have the answers, yet remain unconvinced by the arguments put forward by religion, make us MORE arrogant than those who claim that they DO have the answers?
I mean really?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If you had the balls to tell Ghandi and Buddha that you don't believe in SKY FAERIES...THEN you might have a leg to stand on.
ReplyDeleteBut the atheists HERE don't accept others' viewpoints, and instead, insult those who have chosen to believe without the concrete evidence you seek.
You have a problem with organized religion. Fine.
But you constantly insult the faith and spirituality of many, many people by claiming that our beliefs aren't valid because they haven't met your standards.
Why can't you allow us to have our beliefs?
There will be NO EVIDENCE of Gods existence revealed. The proof for us, is us. The proof is evolution. The proof is knowing love for another human.
These posts must make you feel better but you are not changing any minds, I don't think.
Look up the word FAITH.
All viewpoints are accepted here. Gryphen merely states his beliefs, with proof and much scientific support...you know, thsoe pesky facts? I am a Christian, by choice, but I belong to a peace church that follows the teachings of Jesus. No war, no death penalty, take care of the poor and sick. No hoarding of money for some future generation, but living frugally and giving much. Interesting that you beleive in evolution...I thought God created us from dirt?
DeleteI do not feel insulted by this blog. In fact, I have learned a lot and have learned to question some 'beliefs' that have been drilled into me from a young age. I submit that thinking is a good thing. Faith is great, but just having faith that God is loving and good, and letting the GOP turn hate into a goal, is not healthy for us or this nation.
"But you constantly insult the faith and spirituality of many, many people by claiming that our beliefs aren't valid because they haven't met your standards."
DeleteThe widespread persecution (and execution) of people who disbelieve the entrenched orthodoxy is a time-honored and despicable tradition whose damage FAR, far outweighs the mild pique Believers today experience when someone like Gryphen (or me) questions the folly of organized (or even disorganized) religion.
If your FAITH is strong it won't be perturbed by the lack of faith expressed by non-believers.
May The Force be with you....
Sally,
DeleteYou can't prove GOD doesn't exist, just as you can't prove GOD does exist.
There are no scientific "facts" regarding this, which is why it has been discussed for eons.
That said, "all viewpoints are NOT accepted here".
Many, many people pass right by these non-political posts because, INSTEAD of spurring intelligent discussion, it is simply two squatter's camps:
Those that believe in "something";
and those that REQUIRE EVIDENCE TO HAVE FAITH, and in turn, accuse others who do believe, of believing in "Sky Fairies", "Fairy Tales", your basic "mumbo jumbo".
That. is. insulting. and a conversation can not be sustained.
MultiversalFlyingSpaghettiMonsterBeldar:
DeleteKeep The Faith, Baby!
Keep Going!
Long Live Critical Thinking!
(even if it comes fromthediagonal)
LOL, 4:13. Buddha didn't believe in sky fairies either, and Gandhi wouldn't have minded a bit if Griffin said that to him. However, he did say he disliked Christians because they were so unlike the Christ they say they follow.
Delete6:31, you can't prove a negative (i.e. that something doesn't exist). If Christians insist that the Christian god exists, it's up to them to prove it. Maybe you should check your privilege at the door. I'm sure you deny the Noodly Righteousness of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
FAITH
Delete...is believing something that you know damn well isn't true.
Faith in love, Randall?
DeleteIt's hilarious how "people of faith" think they're so special. I fail to see how they are anything but ignorant at best and delusional at worst. CHOOSING to believe something for which zero proof exists is your business of course, but that doesn't mean I am under any obligation to respect your blind faith.
DeleteTry learning some FACTS about the origins of your belief system and you will learn you have been utterly bamboozled. Not that there is any danger of your losing your sense of believers' superiority by acquainting yourself with facts.
Anon 8:20 I love you! Thank you for your clear and succint post. :)
Delete4:13 I have only one word for your post: GAG!!
DeleteGhandi did say he disliked Christians because they were so unlike the Christ they say they follow.
Delete_______________________________
Right. So Ghandi ACKNOWLEDGED Jesus Christ, which is something some people still refuse to do.
Also, I highly doubt Gryphen would insult those men, and President Obama, by claiming that they were somehow NOT AS INTELLIGENT AS HE b/c they chose to believe in something greater than themselves, without "sufficient" evidence.
But then again, maybe Gryphen - and you- are Arrogant enough to say that to another person.
DeleteYou practically have already.
11:41: "Right. So Ghandi ACKNOWLEDGED Jesus Christ, which is something some people still refuse to do. "
DeleteNo, he ACKNOWLEDGED that there are people who claim they follow a man (he never opined on whether the historical Yeshua Bin Yusef existed), yet those who claim to follow this allegedly historical figure are nothing like the man himself was said to be.
Rather like you, actually.
11:41 (same as other 11:41?) Arrogant? I think you're looking in the mirror. You're certainly all butthurt that your assumed privilege is not being catered to here.
@Sally in MI
DeleteYou sound much like my dear devout Catholic mother : living your religion and thinking about your religion in a peaceful but not sleepy way, and letting others be, and being able to listen to them without feeling threatened.
Thanks.
So true! Good points.
ReplyDeleteYou are arrogant, but that doesn't mean it is a trait of atheism. Arrogance is everywhere, and most of us have it. BTW, many Christians do think the Bible gives all the answers, but this Christian calls "bullshit" on that. However, if it gives someone comfort to believe that and helps him/her to be a better person, then more power to him/her as long as it isn't being shoved down someone else's throat.
ReplyDeleteif it gives someone comfort to believe that and helps him/her to be a better person, then more power to him/her as long as it isn't being shoved down someone else's throat.
Delete______________________________
That's my theory/ personal philosophy as well.
LOL, how funny that the statement that the universe was not created for people is seen as arrogant, when it's exactly the opposite of arrogance.
DeleteI’ll never be an atheist… I’ve had too many Invisible Force incidents.
ReplyDeleteI’m happy atheism is an option for many Americans. You won’t go to hell for it. “Forgive me, Saint Peter, I was mistaken.” See how easy that is?
Zeus bless you, Gryphen! (if that's your real name, which I seriously doubt...)
ReplyDeleteBeldar, I bow down to your self-naming abilities. Always a pleasure to read your posts.
DeleteGryphen, why do you feel the need to defend atheism. If you are an atheist, that is you prerogative. There is no need to defend it. Be who you are. It seems like you are trying to convince yourself that you are right, in your believe that there is no God. You might shore support from your fellow atheists, but that's about it.
ReplyDeleteArrogance is the one trait that is always offensive, no matter who the person is; it gives him/her permission to discount, disregard and dismiss others.
ReplyDeleteNo matter what one's beliefs or lack of them, one's thoughts and opinions, as long as there is arrogance, there can be no honest discourse, no open exchange of ideas, no sincerity, decency or kindness.
In the matter of religion, there are those who find the spirit of their faith and are refined by it, there are atheists and agnostics who sincerely seek truth and they are refined by it. But fanatics and extremists of any persuasion infuse their dysfunction into whatever they do, using it as a shield and weapon against others, their arrogance the very obstacle to truth and reality.
The antidote to arrogance is humility. The paradox is the arrogant aren't interested in an antidote, being arrogant they don't think they need one.
Cue the Palins....
The paradox is the arrogant aren't interested in an antidote, being arrogant they don't think they need one.
Delete________________
Great reply! I like the above quote a lot.
Yes, the arrogance of the all-knowing atheists is leading me dangerously close to not feeling sorry for them any longer.
ReplyDelete:::Splort!::: that's hilarious. Oh, wait, you were serious? Have you listened to any of Christianity's shining stars lately?
DeleteCorrection, Anon @ 5:49:
DeleteThe arrogance you ascribe to Atheists belongs to faith based communities.
The whole scientific premise is one of questioning and reasoning precisely because we admit we do not know, but are willing and increasingly able (tip: evolutionary/scientific progress) to provide proof while accepting that future inquiries into empirical criteria may add expansion of the original query.
Thus the term THEORY!
The willingness to accept that we do not know all there IS to know, and the capability to use reasoning in order to know more, are the hallmarks of both Science and Atheism.
This does not prevent us from being awed and overwhelmed by the magnificence of it all. Quite the opposite!
So, to sum it up, please do not be offended by our discussions and brain stretches and feel free to join without feeling sorry for anyone.
fromthediagonal
Thank you, fromthe diagonal, very welll said.
Delete5:49am:
DeleteNow why would you feel the need to "feel sorry for us"? Atheists don't need your pity!
10:06: the phoney-baloney "I feel sorry for you" is Christianese for "you're not marching in lockstep with me and that TERRIFIES me so I'll pretend you're inferior".
DeleteI don't know why anyone thinks they must pity atheists or real Christians. They are living the lives they have chosen. Nothing wrong with that even if it is different from the life I have chosen.
DeleteI tend to agree with the above posts, although I consider myself an atheist, I do believe there is a supreme power. There are so many religions in the world....it is a personal choice, however any religion can be twisted and perverted into hate. The only logical faith for me is the golden rule, karma is a bitch if you live your life contrary to that. I feel nothing but wonder about the beauty around us, the human spirit is amazing.....the problem is we hear more about the bad than the good. The so called "Christian GOP" in this country are so ugly and shameful its no wonder so many young people are leaving the church.
ReplyDeleteWe are not separate from the Universe. It is not about it being created "for us". We are interconnected, it is all one, and religion acknowledges that. Sorry if that pisses you off.
ReplyDelete+1
DeleteActually, Christianity asserts that everything was created for man (not women, apparently). There's no interconnection in Christianity. Maybe you should read your own book; you might learn something about it.
DeleteYeah well that's someone's translation and interpretation, isn't it? I don't put much stock in it. I do believe that we are to be good stewards over it, and we're doing a pretty shitty job of that.
DeleteChrist @ 7:50
DeleteGood point.
Exactly--while I don't consider myself an atheist, neither do I believe that any of the various world religions have anything like a clear or comprehensive picture of whatever force or energy animates the universe, if one does. I take great comfort in the fact that we don't have all the answers--even those of us who think we do. If I had to define myself, I'd say that I'm a seeker.
ReplyDeleteGood way to put it.
DeleteWell said!
DeleteWe certainly have enough answers now to know that religion is a load of bullshit.
Delete@9:10
DeleteI totally agree that most organized religion is total bullshit with made-up rules that are often insensitive and unkind to others.
Sometimes people act "sure" even when their professed belief is "not sure", and what comes off as arrogant is often just a chronic case of 'butthurt'.
ReplyDeleteGryphen generates passionate comments with posts like this. That is a good thing. We all can learn from how others think. For me, it is almost like the universe is some type of quantum calculator. Over time it generates all the possibilities that can exist within its structure. A personal god is not required. The universe itself is the "intelligence."
ReplyDeleteJust-a-mote I adore your comments any of 'em all of 'em!.
DeleteMany or maybe even most atheists are actually agnostics; they don't believe in a god, but they can't absolutely provide evidence that a god doesn't exist. The reason we call ourselves atheists is because it's easier to define yourself as that then to explain to believers continuously that, like any rational person, you would be willing to change your view if evidence presented itself. I think the chance of such evidence is incredibly thin, but can I absolutely prove that a god or multiple gods don't exist? Of course not, but I refuse to live my life believing in something for which there is no concrete evidence.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate my existence for what it is - an incredibly unlikely occurrence. I appreciate nature and human bonds and all the wondrous things on earth, and I don't fear a death that sends my molecules back into the cosmos and back into nonexistence. It's really liberating and makes me appreciate my life and the lives of those around me so much more. If more people believed that death was truly the end, then maybe fewer people would be killed in the name of some god.
I take the exact different point of view.
DeleteI think that most agnostics are actually atheists, in that they are relatively convinced that none of the world's religions have the answer to life's mysteries, however they are too insecure of afraid to voice their opinion publicly.
As for charges that I should not discuss these issues here, because it makes certain people uncomfortable and takes away from my political posts, my response is that talking about these subjects is exactly WHY this blog exists in the first place.
The idea was to create a place where controversial topics could be discussed that people were uncomfortable talking about in the office, or dinner table, or at social gatherings. Here we get to talk about politics, sexuality, war, corruption, religion, entertainment, etc. at our hearts content, and I even afford the opportunity to do so anonymously so that you don't have to worry about your honest opinion having a detrimental impact on your "real" life.
We are not supposed to agree with each other, that would be boring. And here we can get passionate, rude, provocative, or whatever, so long as you stick to the topic and try to contribute something worthwhile to the conversation.
By the way, in case anybody forgets, this is MY house. So telling me what I can, or cannot, open for discussion is more than a little arrogant on your part. Remember you can come and go, but I live here.
G-
DeleteYou wrote that the blog is to hold political leaders accountable.
So, ya know, don't get up in OUR grills for reading along the anti-Sarah posts and then - BAM! Stooopid Xtian posts.
Yeah, it's your house. But we were invited to play here when you opened up your blog, so consider that, too.
Totally disagree, Gryphen. Agnosticism is not a matter of insecurity for me at all. It's a matter of my simply not knowing. How can I?
DeleteGryphen, why the hell do you need certainty so much? Is anything in life certain? Has science provided you all the answers, or is it still evolving in its understanding of the mysteries of the Universe?
DeleteYour problem is with Fundamentalism. They are the religious folks who claim to have an answer for everything. My religious community in no way, shape or form thinks it possesses all knowledge. It in no way, shape or form tries to impose its beliefs on anyone else, whether someone from a different religious tradition or on Atheists or Agnostics.
Your neck of the woods is a bastion of Fundamentalist Christianity, from what you have indicated. Please stop sounding ignorant by trying to put all of us in your prejudicial box.
Even Richard Dawkins describes himself as an agnostic. It's a sensible approach, but lots of people seem to think it means you don't have an opinion either way or you're not confident enough to take a firm stand. I think it just means that you don't pretend to have all answers, but when someone asks me about my belief system - I just say Atheist, and that usually shuts them up pretty quickly.
DeleteIt brightens my day to see a post here on atheism. I have a great deal of respect for anyone who isn't ashamed of being a rational human being in today's world. Thank you, Gryphen.
Gryphen said, "...they are relatively convinced that none of the world's religions have the answer to life's mysteries, ...
DeleteYou don't have to believe that any of the world's religions have the answers etc. to be a follower of Christ. You have some startling misconceptions about real Christians.
Thanks, Gryphen, for chiming in. I consider myself an Atheist and always find these posts interesting. It always evolves into a hatfield vs mc coys argument.
DeleteThe only thing I can't wrap my brain around, is why the hurt feelings? Does my non - belief in religion somehow take away from other's beliefs?
If anything, it was created for more worthy civilizations. There you go theists, choke on THAT one!
ReplyDelete@7:15
Delete"...There you go theists, choke on THAT one!
Love your open-mindedness. (eye roll)
Reminds me of a well known ex politician, self described "Christian"
Delete"Punch you in the throat"
Turn the other cheek, indeed!
Just-a-Mote:
ReplyDeleteBrief and to ther point!
Well said!
ftd
LOL no, it merely makes you EQUALLY arrogant.
ReplyDeleteAgnosticism man, it's the only rational point of view.
So, you're agnostic about the existence of Zeus? Of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Of the Invisible Pink Unicorn that rules over the Dark Side of the Moon? Yeah, didn't think so.
DeleteWhat a silly, worthless thing to say. Way to totally distort my point. What I'm saying is that people who believe in Christianity, or the Spaghetti Monster or whatever are equally closeminded as those who claim there is no such thing as god. If you have those answers, please share the facts with the rest of us.
DeleteI'm waiting...
Again, you Atheists are so focussed on Christianity that you can't see past it and understand that yes, I'm lumping you in with the Spaghetti Monster worshippers.
When I say I'm Agnostic, it means that I'm admitting I don't know if there's a god or not, or if there is, what form it might take. It has nothing whatsoever to do with handing out passive credibility to any stupid thing someone makes up. It is a simple blanket "I don't know". get it now?
What I'm saying is I don't have those answers and neither do you. And if you think you do, then congratulations, you're as much a zealot as a Zeus worshipper.
This favorite website of yours with its goofy graphics is getting kinda sad. Haven't you got any other material? You are tilting at windmills. If you are happy with your beliefs be happy with your beliefs. Go after those who would break down the sanctity (yes, I said sanctity) of Separation of Church and State, but keep the focus on that principle. Your universal disdain for religion and people who are "sky fairy believers"....(way to undercut Gryphen's contention that you all aren't arrogant) is just wasted energy.
ReplyDeleteOr, start sharing interesting Atheist writings and other stuff. These posters for your bedroom wall are just sophomoric at this point. And I am pretty sure the designer's profile would quite literally bear that out.
You can do better. You just like to start arguments and get attention, nothing more.
Two wisdoms for intelligent debate are:
Delete1. "Attack the issue, never the person."
2. "You can disagree without being disagreeable."
When the word "you" is the emphasis of your argument, the issue is merely being ignored, replaced by personal attack, and intelligent thoughtful exchanges are not possible.
Just something for your consideration, nothing more.
i like the articles on atheism. i think philosophy of god should be discussed vigorously and it should evolve with our understanding of the physical world.
ReplyDeletethe higgs boson may be close at hand - why do things have more mass than other things especially when they really shouldn't have any mass at all - only the higgs field knows.
we are either at the edge of a new dark age brought upon by unyielding religious fervor or we are at the last breaths of that method of answering the unanswerable questions.
i hope it is the latter.
Many good points on both sides. Let me see if I can add a thought or two here. My gut tells me that faith is not impossible for those who think critically, but neither is it usually offered freely without some form of personal validation.
ReplyDeleteFAITH is defined as belief not based on proof or evidence. If we accept the definition to be true, what happens to faith when we introduce evidence?
It seems that it would then become some form of knowledge or something we could consider to be a "known known" or "truth".
BUT, once we introduce complementary evidence and know something is true, it's not really faith anymore, is it? Because it's knowledge, which implies truth without reason for doubt.
So, if we assume doubt is eliminated, then it's really no longer faith, is it?
So, it seems that:
1. doubt must be present in order for faith to exist; or
2. if there is no doubt, there must be no complementary evidence; or
3. if there is evidence, there must be sufficient doubt present to fully nullify that evidence, in order for faith to exist.
I'm trying to approach this on the fly using a tiny bit of logic. Are my 3 conclusions, which appear to be mutually exclusive, valid? Are they collectively exhaustive--- that is, are there any other alternatives?
I welcome comments and criticism if I've introduced any flaws like logical fallacies, circular reasoning or another error of presumption.
Thank you for your post. It's always interesting to read a reasoned approach to religious issues.
DeleteYou might enjoy "The Ontological Argument" by philosopher Alvin Plantinga, available free online. It's one of many arguments supporting the existence of God advanced by eminent philosophers who are trained in the sophisticated application of logic.
Arrogance is characterized by a flat assertion that one has all the answers, and anyone who disagrees is wrong, ignorant, unenlightened, or worse.
ReplyDeleteAlong the continuum of belief/nonbelief, we find arrogant ones at either end. Whether fundamentalist or atheist, all those who claim they and they alone are correct can accurately be designated as arrogant if they try to impose their views on the rest of us.
I was raised Presbyterian, but was an atheist most of my adult life, with frequent forays into the Unitarian Universalist Church or other liberal places of worship. Now I'm a Catholic convert. To borrow Andrew Sullivan's metaphor, I have many times wandered in the wilderness, but the wilderness keeps leading me back to the church.
I will be seeking, questioning, and doubting until I die.
Gryphen,
ReplyDeleteAtheism is simply a non belief in deities. Period. This discussion goes WAY beyond atheism. You seem to harbor some rather curious need to insult and denigrate anybody involved in religion. You want to try and stamp out all religion? Fine. Good luck with that. You are pissing into the wind.
However, I find it laughable that you and others in the thread conflate adherents to any and all religions as being a homogeneous lot marching lockstep in ignorant unison. You would lump all Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Shinto, Sikhism, Jainism, Rastafaris, Native Americans, and any other people expressing any brand of faith together in their beliefs. This is the very pinnacle of intellectual sloth. NOTHING unites all of the above except some quest for spirituality. Such a position cannot be defended with reason and logic.
You routinely offer up Fred Rogers as possibly the only Christian in history whose faith journey you find acceptable. That indicates to me that you have precisely ZERO exposure to the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., because as someone who has been involved in that church for nearly 30 years, I can tell you from personal experience that people like Fred Rogers are far more common than you might imagine. The Presbyterian Church has been on the forefront of social justice issues and has led the fight against second class status for GLBT brothers and sisters, the persecution of immigrants, poverty, homelessness, hunger, and the rights of women and children worldwide.
Being religious does not ipso facto mean that you are ignorant. It is far too easy to disprove that notion. MANY religious folks are highly educated AND manage to be actively involved in religion without believing in talking snakes, a 6,000 year old world, and humans riding dinosaurs. Many of us also believe wholeheartedly in evolution, science, and independent critical thought which questions even matters of faith.
As way of illustration, Los Alamos, NM has the highest number of Ph.Ds per capita for towns/cities of any size. It is also a very religious town. It has a population of 17,950 and 32 religious institutions. That yields a population density of 560.94/church. The lower that score, the more churches per capita. Colorado Springs, CO, possibly the most overtly Christian city of any size that I can think of, has a population of 419,848, 497 religious institutions yielding a population density of 844.76/church. That number is significantly higher than Los Alamos despite the fact that Los Alamos is arguably one of the smartest places in the country.
Religion and the quest for knowledge are not necessarily antithetical. Your shotgun drive by conflation of ALL religions and religious people as being ignoramuses cannot be supported by either reason or the facts.
Gasman did you actually use the terms "reason" and facts" to argue FOR religious faith? Wow, that's pretty ballsy.
DeleteLook there are dozens of highly intelligent people who check their horoscopes every day to determine what kind of day they are going to have, or say Gesundheit when a person next to them sneezes, or who have a slight moment of panic when a black cat crosses their path.
Nobody need think less of them for their little comforting superstitions. But if a horoscope reader stood up in his Astronomy class to demand that Astrology be discussed with the same weight provided to the scientific study of space, he would, and should, be laughed out of class.
When these quaint beliefs are kept private and used to comfort us in our moments of fear or despair they do very little harm. But when they are taught as fact to us at our most vulnerable, as children (And as you know they are always taught as fact), that is something which I find quite troubling.
And the fact is that most Christians would agree with me, if I were ONLY talking about Islam, or Scientology, or Hinduism, of some other religion, but the moment I include their belief system they suddenly become very, very defensive.
So am I denigrating religion by wondering out loud WHY we still accept its influence in our lives, or look to it for answers that science has not yet been able to provide?
And is it denigrating religion to ask why so many believe that a person without ANY religious faith is somehow less trustworthy than a person who has a faith diametrically opposed to their own? (By the way THAT one really confuses me.)
If so than I guess that is a label which I will have to wear proudly.
In the words of Socrates, "The unexamined life is not worth living." I plan to thoroughly examine mine, even if it makes some people uncomfortable.
This is a really interesting post, and I did a tiny bit of fact checking, and your facts are correct regarding Los Alamos. I think you've given me a little research project for the evening, and for that, I thank you. I would like to understand why these facts are true. Because the facts don't necessarily demonstrate that the scientists are the people attending church, but that could certainly be the case. Without facts, we can't know the truth.
DeleteI am guilty of lumping all religious people together as believers in mythology. You mentioned over half a dozen religions that believe in different gods - but they can't all be right, can they? I am guilty of considering only one more religion incorrect than your average Christian. They don't believe in the other gods either, and I simply add Christ to my list.
But I must say, I find it hard to believe that anybody calls you an ignoramus. You certainly don't sound like one.
Gasman doesn't need me to defend him, but Gryphen, if the idea of reason being used to support religious faith is new to you, you need to do more reading. Thomas Aquinas, Pascal, St. Augustine, Thomas Merton, Alvin Plantinga, and Kierkegaard are a few to start with. They aren't easy to understand, and to really benefit from them an instructor is needed, or at least a well-educated reading group.
DeleteOr just ask a Jesuit.
Well said, Gryphen!
Delete@Jude
DeleteThe concept of "blind faith" has been invented and evolved post-Galilei to replace "reason" as the base of the religious experience. Also the metaphorical reading of the Bible has appeared as soon as science has begun to disprove its litteral reading. I don't think that's coincidences.
Jesuits are well known for their extreme skill to bend words and concepts around to make them suit their purpose. Not to mean they are liars ; on the contrary, they are very trustworthy people - who can be trusted to explain anything in terms of religion (their brand of religion, of course).
I recently read a Russian article that exposed how the increasingly public worshipping done by Russian Muslims was a blessing-in-disguise from God for Russian Orthodox Christians, because it was reminding them how superior their religion was to Islam, and turning them back to their Churches. Many Orthodox would describe this article as "plain reason". But most Muslims would find it utterly silly.
Your first paragraph reveals you haven't been keeping up with your reading, at least in the area of religion.
DeleteYou also missed the mark about Jesuits. Nor are you in a position to judge whether any of them are "liars" or not. Although their advanced educations and long formation period (8-14 years) has equipped them to be among the best debaters on the planet, your generalization about them shows how little you understand.
I've known Jesuits who are agnostic, as well as Jesuits who believe in Spinoza's God. I've known more than one Jesuit who believed in a personal God, yet did not believe that God intervenes in human affairs. There are Jesuits who are Buddhists. Now try to define what you call "their brand of religion."
The Society of Jesus as a whole has always been forward-thinking and strong-willed, to the point of angering Pope Clement so much that he dissolved the entire order in the 1700s. Thankfully, the order was later restored.
The Jesuits are nicknamed God's Marines for their determination and resiliency. I admire the Jesuits for many reasons, but as a former teacher, I stand in awe of the many top-notch universities they have founded.
"Jesuits who are Buddhists" ??
DeleteGosh, and poor stupid me who thought that Jesuits were a Catholic order, with a special extra vow of obeying the Pope... I'm sure the Pope is so very satisfied to have Buddhist and agnostic Jesuits under his personal command !
And also... you're telling me that Jesuits have been nicknamed "God's Marines" because they share qualities with the American Marines (created 1775 says wikipedia) ?
Wasn't it because their founder, St Ignatius de Loyola, was a military man, on ground, not on the sea, before a life-threatening wound landed him into religion (in 1521) ? And because then, many centuries afterwards, an American translator thought that "God's Soldiers", as Jesuits are known everywhere else, would not sound as well as "God's Marines" to proud American ears ?
Certainly reading you is a real education in religion and in history.
Hint : don't patronize atheists on their religious readings. Especially the ones that bother to engage with non-atheists. It looks conceited.
OMG! If everyone would simply get out of each other’s faces regarding this topic we would all be better off.
ReplyDeleteOT! This is a man who has a lot of sense when it comes to marriage:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-marriage-whatever-she-tells-200624645.html
I just love him!
Gryphen,
ReplyDeleteNope. Not defending faith by reason, merely pointing out that your position isn't defensible by reason and logic either. However, I would point out that only one of us is lumping huge swaths of humanity together, assigning them uniform beliefs, and making huge prejudicial judgements.
Your response still indicates that you still rely on the a priori assumption that all people of faith cling to superstitious beliefs. THAT is an overly broad sweeping generalization that cannot be support by facts. It once again assumes some sort of homogeneity in beliefs where none exists. Please, tell me what superstitions that I cling to, because if you contend that I do it is a clear indication that on this point you are full of shit. I am a man who has dedicated myself to the pursuit of knowledge and of higher learning. If you think that I believe in talking snakes, you are sadly mistaken.
Also, only one of us is being militantly evangelical in his beliefs and it ain’t the Christian. Not once have I ever criticized you for your atheist beliefs. Not once have I tried to proselytize or convert you. I support your beliefs wholeheartedly. I do object to your rather casual way of tarring and feathering all people of faith. That position cannot be supported by the facts; it is simply borne of a narrowness of mind that seems rather uncharacteristic for you. I am living proof that your “all religious people are morons” theory is full of holes. I think that I can rather easily demonstrate that I am not a moron, I believe in science, evolution, equality for EVERYBODY, and the absolute pursuit of higher learning unfettered by superstition. I am also not alone. If I don’t conform to your rather narrow preconceived narrative regarding people of faith, that’s too damn bad. Instead of assuming what I believe, why don’t you ask me?
Believe whatever the hell you want, but don’t pretend that your position is somehow buttressed by facts and reason, because it isn’t.
Please Gasman, we've understood that you're defining yourself as our token moderate Christian reader. Now go on and prove it.
DeleteUse your ample time to rant on sites managed by hateful Christian extremists. Tell them how narrow their minds are. Fight them. Make moderate Christianity happen in the US. And provide us with links on your posts as you do so ; we'll cheer you along in your fight.
Talking the talk is good, but we'd love to see you walk the walk as well.
Right now you look like an hetero complaining of being misrepresented on a it-gets-better thread.
European,
DeleteHow do you know that I don't already do those things which you demand of me to prove my "moderate" bona fides? I've got news for you: I'm no moderate. I am probably more liberal than any human you have ever encountered. You also CLEARLY have not read my posts for very long or you'd know that I have been doing exactly what you demand long before you demanded it.
Am I to be held personally responsible if the entire United States does not become more moderate? Hell, I DON'T WANT moderation, I want liberalism. Every major social change that has come about in our history was solved once we adopted the liberal solution. Every single on.
On March 27, I waded into a teabagger mob there to protest President Obama's healthcare reform and happily took on all comers. The event initially had been mostly pro-Obama, but by the time I got there, only about half a dozen diehard liberals were still there. I just went to see democracy in action, but I became so enraged at the utter bullshit that I heard that I could no longer bite my tongue. I recall using the word "buffoon" several times. I finally was literally reduced to slack jaw wonder at the profound obdurate stupidity of one bagger who was pushing some convoluted bullshit argument about why President Obama could not constitutionally serve as POTUS.
I have also been active for well over a decade in fighting for GLBT rights, protesting the U.S. policy of torture, and fighting for the rights of immigrants. I live in a state bordering Mexico and have met the very people that the conservatives have demonized. I'll be damned to stand by and watch the jackbooted GOP dehumanize immigrants as "the other."
Additionally, for well over two decades I have actively fought to limit the influence of the fundagelical Christians who have sought to insert themselves into our local, state, and national governments. NOBODY is more passionate about maintaing an absolute separation of church and state than I.
Guess what? I don't give a fat rat's ass whether or not I have risen to the standards you have set for me, but I'm willing to bet that I exceed them by more than half. You clearly don't know what I look like or actually do, so spare me your uninformed amateur analysis. I HAVE been walking the walk. Come to New Mexico and join me if you doubt it.
Better yet, I'm on my way to Europe in two weeks, so if you are in or near London, Paris, anywhere in Northern Italy, or Nice, you've got an opportunity to see a bloody knuckle, proud union member, überliberal socialist for your own self.
Well, I'm pleased that you reacted by writing this above post of yours, much more interesting and informative than all of the others combined.
DeleteBut despite being near Paris, I decline to see you. Religion is really not interesting to me. That's why I define myself as atheist. And I don't ever meet in person people passionate to the angry point, about any topic whatsoever.
On a side point, überliberal means Ayn Rand in my language - hardly anything close to social concerns. You've lost me there.
European,
DeleteIf you define Ayn Rand as a liberal, you are a fool. Ayn Rand is the patron saint for modern American conservatism. The only thing I am angry about is when you and others project some sort of evangelical agenda on me because I have said I attend church. THAT is sophistry of the basest sort. What have I written that indicates that I would even bring up the subject of religion? You have assumed a great many things about me that art 100% wrong, mon ami.
I don't care if you are atheist or not, but atheism is ONLY the non-belief in any deity. You seem to have extended your notion of atheism to the denigration and eradication of any who chose to take part in religion to any degree. THAT position is an evangelical one while mine is not. I am not threatened in the least by your atheism. Why are you threatened by my church attendance?
I would note that you really have absolutely no idea what I actually do or do not believe regarding religion, 1. because I have not revealed ANY belief, and 2. because you have NOT asked me. So, ALL of your supercilious condescension and contempt toward my beliefs is based ONLY upon your rather profound ignorance concerning who I am and your very inaccurate perception of what I believe.
Who is the enlightened one in this exchange?
You should note that I said "in my language". Which happens to be French. 'Cause I'm European, see ? Not a native English speaker. The British are not Europeans, any European will tell you that - they hate Europe.
DeleteSo in my language, "libéral" means an egotistical lover of one's own money without any care for anybody nor for any values. A greedyist. Bain Capital and Ayn Rand embody the French word "libéralisme".
My saying that the French meaning is probably very much at odds with the English meaning, so much so that I can't understand you - how come that upsets you, to the point of insulting me ?
As for being enlightened... Any fellow teacher will tell you that in any exchange, the enlightened one is the one who's not yelling. And yelling is all what you've ever done, everytime atheism has been mentionned on this blog.
Your very redundant posts are all trying to bully atheists into silence, by claiming that your beliefs are threatened by any mention of atheism.
If you don't like reading atheists, or if your beliefs are so week that anything not going exactly according to them upsets you into such an anger, please consider not reading those here posts.
Stop boring us readers, that are actually interested in what Gryphen has to say on atheism and against religions, with your screaming tantrums. They are taking up too much bandwith. It's getting old.
Nope. You are trotting out straw man fallacies. Not once have I EVER criticized ANYBODY for atheism. I support your views 100%. What I DO NOT support is the facile way you prejudge me base upon only your very flawed perception. You have assigned to me views and philosophies that I am willing to bet I do NOT hold, simply because of your narrow preconceived notions about any and all who happen to take part in religion in any way. THAT is not bullying.
DeleteI have no problem at all with atheists or atheism. I do have a problem with bigotry and you my friend are behaving as a bigot when you prejudge me based not on what I have said or done, but by what you imagine me to be.
Again, bigotry in the service of atheism is no more noble than bigotry in the service of religious fanaticism.
Only one of us is being prejudicial and it isn't me.
European,
DeleteI was thinking about your post and I think that you have a very errant opinion on my based on the word "liberal." In colloquial American English, the word "liberal' means the exact opposite of the word "libéral" en français. Your French word "libéralisme" would be closest to our "libertarian." The words are cognates, but have VERY different meanings.
American liberals are the ones who champion "liberty" for all including gays and lesbians, women, immigrants, and they were the ones pushing for a healthcare system more like most democracies in Europe have. American politicians who are/were generally considered to be liberal would be Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and Vice President Joe Biden.
Ayn Rand was a libertarian, NOT a liberal. Je déteste Ayn Rand et tous lesquels elle a représenté. American libertarians would be Ron Paul and his idiot son Rand. They are anarchist pirates.
I am most certainly a liberal and NOT a libertarian, if that helps to clarify matters. I apologize for not recognizing that French is your first language. Your written English is good enough that one would not suspect that. I would not have been so quick to criticize your assessment of Rand had I known.
Judge me for what I actually say and do, not for what you imagine that I might say or do, for those might be very different. Some of my best friends are atheists. ; )
Vive la différence!
Agreed with some of the posters above - it's frustrating when it's posited as 'fact' that it's impossible to be religious and believe in science/the scientific method. It shows a very shallow understanding of religion.
ReplyDeleteAnd when this is brought up, the responses are irrelevant: either posts about fundies in religion, or how atheists are persecuted, or how the world would be better off without religion. Completely separate discussions.
Basically, any IM-atheism good-religion bad post looks like the same. No new nuances, added complexity, or evidence of deeper understanding of the topic. That's why it's ironic to see some of the atheists on this blog claim to be more knowledgeable. A bit arrogant to claim to know all there is to know about other people's attitudes towards understanding the world/life simply because they believe in God.
You don't BELIEVE in science.
DeleteUnderstanding that might help you to recognize the conflict between faith and logic.
I am just amazed that anytime the subject of religion comes up, the same tired old prejudicial sweeping generalizations of ALL people who take part in religion to any degree get trotted out. It is not possible to claim that maybe 80-90% of the global population are ALL morons marching lockstep in philosophical union because it is an utterly, demonstrably false premise.
DeleteI firmly contend that narrowness of mind, prejudice, and bigotry in the service of atheism is no more noble than those traits in the service of fundagelical Christianity or extremist Islam.
"You don't BELIEVE in science.
DeleteUnderstanding that might help you to recognize the conflict between faith and logic."
Actually Gryph, you need to read what you just said and feel the burning irony of it.
You're right, you DON'T believe in science, yet apparently you DO believe that science somehow disproves the existence of God, despite the fact that it clearly hasn't.
And again, I'm not talking about the Christian god, or the Hindu god or the SPaghetti Monster, I'm talking about the concept of "god" which could take any of an infinite number of forms, or perhaps no form at all. We simply do not yet have that data.
Do you see it now? Are you truly "Atheist" (i.e. you believe you have some special insight into the existence of god as a concept) or are you merely "Anti-religious"?
It could well turn out one day that science is proven to be merely the vocabulary we developed to define the works of God. Or maybe not and it proves there is no god at all. But it hasn't proven anything one way or another yet, so guess what: your "god" is science and you are just as much a close-minded zealot as the most fervent religious follower.
That's the problem I have with Atheists, you guys all base your arguments on debunking existing theologies rather than having any true evidence to support your own point of view. Merely poo-pooing some obviously disprovable aspects of the Bible or the Spaghetti Monster website are not the same thing as actually proving your point of view. Even if you disprove Christianity, that has nothing to do with disproving "god", it would only mean that god could be something other than what they believe. Maybe a self aware energy field or something so complex and bizarre that our tiny limited faculties cannot contain it's aspect.
My point of view is that I don't know what the answer is, but I'd love to find out. And that, my friend, is the basis of science, is it not? SCIENCE IS AGNOSTIC.
Once again, you cannot prove a negative. Interesting that you admit huge swaths of the bible are clearly ridiculous. How sad you feel threatened by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which is certainly no less silly than many of the things in the bible. BTW, have you cut your hair? That's a grievous sin, you know You will not be saved if you don't carry around a paddle to bury your poop--got your paddle handy?
DeleteAnon @ 2:56,
DeleteWho is espousing biblical literalism in this thread? It certainly isn't me. THAT is my complaint. There are several people who reflexively assign beliefs to anyone involved in religion, whether we actually believe those things or not. THAT is a straw man fallacy that is the stuff of intellectual sloth. If you are going to argue with me, argue against a position that I have actually taken, not one that you project upon me.