All you believers out there humor me for a minute (or more, depending on how fast you read). Use your imagination and run with what I'm saying, I think it's worth the time.
The argument between atheists and those who believe in a God, Supreme Being or deity is well known to most of us: followers of religion see atheists as shortsighted, immoral and self-centered. Atheists see the religiously devout as shortsighted, na've, and blind to reason.
I am an atheist, and I feel that many of my friends don't understand what atheism truly means, because frankly, it's a lot more than believing there's no God.
...
To atheists, God is just an extension of the human mind. It's the way people express feelings they don't want immediately connected to them.
Think about it. "I don't hate gay people; it's just that God says it's wrong." Take God away and that says: "I don't like gay people." Is that logic flawed? I guarantee you 99 out of 100 devout Catholics who think homosexuality is wrong based on the Bible don't like homosexuals anyway. People join clubs and organizations that share similar interests and views, how is religion any different?
...
That's the ultimate problem, I think, that atheists have with religion.
Its rules are stifling, and set limitations on humanity that aren't real, and are ultimately damaging.
In reality, you can change anything you want to, the only limitations set on you is by you.
But if you believe that God has created a world with rules and unalterable realities, you translate that to believe that society has the same unchangeable facets.
Atheism doesn't ruin the world by removing a pivotal structure of social stability and order.
Atheists don't believe religion is what creates social stability; we believe it limits our potential as a limitless species.
Read more.
The argument between atheists and those who believe in a God, Supreme Being or deity is well known to most of us: followers of religion see atheists as shortsighted, immoral and self-centered. Atheists see the religiously devout as shortsighted, na've, and blind to reason.
I am an atheist, and I feel that many of my friends don't understand what atheism truly means, because frankly, it's a lot more than believing there's no God.
...
To atheists, God is just an extension of the human mind. It's the way people express feelings they don't want immediately connected to them.
Think about it. "I don't hate gay people; it's just that God says it's wrong." Take God away and that says: "I don't like gay people." Is that logic flawed? I guarantee you 99 out of 100 devout Catholics who think homosexuality is wrong based on the Bible don't like homosexuals anyway. People join clubs and organizations that share similar interests and views, how is religion any different?
...
That's the ultimate problem, I think, that atheists have with religion.
Its rules are stifling, and set limitations on humanity that aren't real, and are ultimately damaging.
In reality, you can change anything you want to, the only limitations set on you is by you.
But if you believe that God has created a world with rules and unalterable realities, you translate that to believe that society has the same unchangeable facets.
Atheism doesn't ruin the world by removing a pivotal structure of social stability and order.
Atheists don't believe religion is what creates social stability; we believe it limits our potential as a limitless species.
Read more.
1 comment:
This should be fun.... :)
"I am an atheist, and I feel that many of my friends don't understand what atheism truly means, because frankly, it's a lot more than believing there's no God."
This is a major issue I have with the recent "atheist movement". If I identified myself as a deist, a neutral observer could make no further assumptions regarding my beliefs. Mr. Shirano spends much of his time in this article supporting the idea of a human based "solution" to the world's problems, and this implies a socio-political solution. But it at this point that the relationship amongst atheists ends. Being an atheist is in fact not a lot more than believing there's no God; after that belief, all further beliefs are completely unassociated with atheism. So-called Secular Humanists love to envelop themselves in the blanket of atheism, but this blanket is far wider than this one limited perspective.
This is what my belief in atheism is based on, that throughout history Gods have stolen the credit for most great human achievement, while our faults have been the product of our ineptness and lack of devotion to him. Take away God, and all that is left is us, and I believe that to be much more comforting and inspiring.
I have problems with statements like this in general, and this applies to both deists and atheists... the "I believe this because it comforts me" approach to life. While I understand that there will always be a significant segment of the population that will take this approach, it always makes me cringe when it is offered as an argument supporting a particular belief. I would prefer an "it makes sense" argument any day, regardless of how convoluted, twisted and non-scientific the logic, over a strictly emotional plea to believe something because it brings comfort and inspiration.
"Realizing that this life is all we have is the ultimate empowerment. When you're not living for the after life you live for today, and you utilize the precious time you have doing what's important to you, not what's important in the eyes of some omniscient God."
And there's the rub, isn't it? More on this as we progress.
"This is an important point; God's power is actually your power. It means you have the ultimate control of your life. That might seem obvious to some, but many people assume the bad things that happen in their lives are a test of God
How can you improve yourself when you believe your problems are imperative to your eventual acceptance into heaven?"
How does this statement make sense? Let's draw a parallel, shall we?
I may be enrolled in a class, and throughout the semester I may be faced with certain tests. How can I expect to increase my knowledge when these tests are imperative to my eventual passing of the class?
While they may exist, I would be surprised to learn that a significant percentage of theists believed that it was the test, as opposed to the response, that was imperative to acceptance into heaven.
"I think there's also a misconception that atheists don't believe in anything.
It's not true, we just don't believe in a middleman. When you say, 'God did this,' we say, 'people did this.'
When you say, 'God loves you,' we say, 'people love you.'"
I disagree with Mr. Schirano here, as I don't believe that this misconception exists at all. I believe that this is recognized, but it is simply considered a flaw in the belief system. Here's an example: the belief that people love me.
People love me? Hardly.
My family loves me (most of the time). My friends love me (less frequently). But people? People don't give a damn about me. Why? Because I'm not counted in that list of "what's important" to "people", and therefore they will not waste their "precious time" even thinking about me.
"Think about it. 'I don't hate gay people; it's just that God says it's wrong.' Take God away and that says: 'I don't like gay people.' Is that logic flawed? I guarantee you 99 out of 100 devout Catholics who think homosexuality is wrong based on the Bible don't like homosexuals anyway. People join clubs and organizations that share similar interests and views, how is religion any different?"
I'm afraid that this logic is very flawed. Of course there is a large segment of the Catholic population that doesn't like homosexuals, but this discrimination is reflected in the general population. However, consider the number of Catholics that have homosexual children, relatives, and friends. Those who know people and love them based on who they are, and not based on their sexual identity. It is still possible to believe homosexual acts are wrong based on a religion yet not hate homosexuals; just as it is possible to believe divorce is wrong based on religion and yet feel love for those who have divorced.
When Mr. Schirano says, "People join clubs and organizations that share similar interests and views, how is religion any different?", he shows once again where his argument is most flawed: he chooses a belief system based on his bias and expects that everyone else does the same. The problem is that many of us form a core belief based on a different foundation and let subsequent beliefs develop as corallaries; that is, some of us seek truth and make a home where we feel it lies, not where we feel our presuppositions are coddled.
"That sort of logic breeds external problems as well. The blame shifting that 'God' utilizes in claiming that your problems are your own fault not his, is used by his followers when they say that problems in society are inherent and have nothing to do with them.
Just like you don't have the power to change decisions God has made, you don't have the power to change society because it's out of your control, it's too much of a meta-concept to alter.
I find the idea that religion stands in the way of societal changes to be laughable at best. Mr. Schirano would benefit greatly by reading Pope Benedict's latest encyclical, Spe Salve, where he emphasizes the need to address the ills of society, the role that religion must take in this reformation, and the how a strictly human socio-political solution will never fully suffice (i.e., the continual need for progress). While I'm sure that Mr. Schirano would disagree on various specifics, he'd be alleviated of this dillusion that religion impedes societal progress as part of its recipe for proper living.
"Its rules are stifling, and set limitations on humanity that aren't real, and are ultimately damaging."
I think much of the problem lies in the "its rules are stifling" sentiment. When a belief system is selected based on presupposition and convenience, of course rules will seem stifling. However, when a belief system is based on logical foundation (again, regardless of how convoluted that logic may be), and rules fall out as corralaries to that logical foundation, then rules aren't stifling, they are simply guides to proper behavior.
I can't help but think this forms a barrier for many. The notion that there may be a "proper behavior" is not appealing, as that instantly places contrary behaviors in the "improper" category, and this is seen as a limitation of freedom. This is especially unappealing for those in the "convenience belief system" camp, as this limitation on freedom is seen not only as restrictive, but unnecessary and arbitrary. Those who choose their belief systems based on a logical foundation find this a much easier pill to swallow, as those limitations on freedom are deemed as morally logical consequences. Of course these limits may be violated, but in doing so, one must accept the responsibilities and consequence of the sin (otherwise the fault will be compounded by an act of hypocrisy).
"So please don't think atheists are soulless people. If anything, we have more love for mankind than anyone else. We also probably have the most faith, except ours lies in each other directly, not through a made-up fantasy."
Unfortunately the dispute isn't the love that atheists have for mankind, it is the degree to which atheism itself leads to this love. This is where the delusion of secular humanism disguised as modern popular atheism is most transparent: atheism in and of itself is amoral.
Suppose that I, as a practicing Catholic, were to wake up tomorrow and decide that I had misevaluated the whole religion thing and that I was now an atheist. With the loss of religion came the loss of various beliefs based strictly on my religion (e.g., my opinions regarding divorce); with the gaining of atheism, the emptiness left by the abandoning of these beliefs is not suddenly filled with an "atheistic belief system"; the emptiness persists and I must return to square one. How do I define my new core beliefs? What corallaries are derived from these core beliefs that will allow me to face day to day situations?
Some theists like to paint atheists as having a corrupt set of core beliefs, upon which they build corrupt corallaries and thus form a threat to "normal society". Some atheists like to paint all theists as holding these beliefs (as reflected by the introductory statements of this article, "The argument between atheists and those who believe in a God, Supreme Being or deity is well known to most of us: followers of religion see atheists as shortsighted, immoral and self-centered.") The real argument is more subtle than that: without religion, what need is there to have, or to adhere to, any moral code whatsoever?
Let's suppose that a year ago I woke up and decided to become an atheist, and that my day to day life has thus far changed little because of it, save for a bit of luck I received by winning a small sum of cash in a football pool. Now suppose that I looked in the paper and found someone selling a very rare car on the cheap, and that my small sum would be enough to cover my costs. Let's say this guy agrees to drop the car off at my house, but on the way to do so, he gets in a wreck and is killed. What in atheism draws me to have more sympathy for the loss of the human life than for my personal loss of a cheap and rare car?
Of course, human nature will draw me to have sympathy for the friends and family of the deceased. But what leads me to the conclusion that the human loss is greater than my personal material loss? Why should I ever place human loss or misfortune above my own wants? Why should I resist the urge to get ahead every once in a while at the expense of others? Why should I "play by the rules" in those instances I know I can get away with breaking them?
Why does not believing in a God imply that I should be appauld when in response to people dying, I'm told that I should go shopping?
More to the point, what prevents me from accepting any degree of nihilism into my personal set of core values? I've yet to find a secular moral philosopher who can offer a satisfactory answer to this question. Even the beloved Nietzsche faulters in the face of nihilism, offering ineffectual pleas to the nobility of art and science; all of it illustrating a frail and vain humanity desperately searching for worth when confronted by the cold and logical conclusion that man is worthless.
Ok, this comment is getting out of hand. I was going to comment on the failings of the religious, the seperation of church and state, societies need to allow the individual to sin, and how the "purpose" of religion isn't to improve humanity but to worship God - but I fear that this will have to wait for another time and place :)
I'll end with a brief observation about one particular statement: "So please don't think atheists are soulless people". Why not? Isn't that, in the end, what Mr. Schirano truly wants me to believe?
:)
Post a Comment