NoGodBlog.com

I'd say it's less an "idea" than a "feeling."

What I find strangest is that for all time religion has sought to make us immortal, be it physically or "spiritually".

Now for the first time science is discovering how aging works and that it is just an engineering problem, like keeping a classic car running. Check out MPrize.org or SENS.org for more info.

But Christians are fighting it with all they have. Just look at the first head of Bush's bioethics council Leon Kass. He said the people should not live over 120 because that is what Bible says.

Didn't Methuselah live to be 900?

Noah lived a long time too. After some point in the Bible (don't ask me what) God said that people will not live that long any more. After that if you try to add up the ages of people in the Bible based on the events you get 120-130 years.

I don't have any links on hand. Maybe one of the Atheists here that know the bible better can help.

In the mean time check out Leon Kass on Wikipedia. He is a nutter if there ever was one.

The only thing I find truly stupid is bigotry.

Our objections to religion should not be that people believe unbelievable things, but that the people start religious organizations that become religious corporations. These non-profit religious corporations are now appealing for grants and other federal dollars while being tax exempt from real and personal property taxes. And now they also want to be allowed to remain totally tax exempt while being allowed to openly engage in electoral politics. Clearly, the people may or may not believe in a talking snake, but the religious corporations they all support are no longer religious in nature. They are paid lobbyists engaging in open commerce. It is even being argued in some circles that the religious rights objections to abortion is that it reduces the number of consumers that reduces their financial viability in commerce. Abortion is bad for the Christian Corporations' of America business.

@Peter

I agree. I read the separation of church and state to mean that the state can make NO laws about churches.

Making churches tax exempt is clearly making laws about how churches should operate.

If they want to do charity they need to form a secular not-for-profit like everyone else and pay taxes on the tithes the church gets.

it's time to be a little honest. What say ye?

I respect your beliefs Dave, and I completely agree!

i'm not sure "political correctness" is the guiding principle why people hold their tongues on religion. i think it's simply a kind of civility, the kind you adopt when you realize you are in a minority, however significant.

nevertheless, i think it is important to point out that maintaining a religious perspective does harm, not only to the bearer but to the community they live with or at least among.

• by being religious, they feel obligated to be more tolerant to nutcase coreligionists, people who would be socially rejected if they weren't one of the fold.
• by being religious, along with being accepting of things they can't control, they are also more accepting of things they can control, or of things they might, with collective help, be able to change.
• by being religious, at least if they are monotheists, they are less tolerant of other views, especially if the shape or color of their deity is different than that of other monothesists.
• by being religious, certain behaviors and practices which otherwise might be seen as a matter of taste are seen instead as violations of deity-given moral norms, and so proscribed, with such proscription often being the basis for political action, law, and amendment.
• by being religious, they invest intellectual effort and real estate in a particular view of the world, particularly if their religion is text-based. they are therefore reluctant to give up that investment in order to see things from other vastly different perspectives, or entertain possibilities which are thereby less interesting to them.
• by being religious, often they are either more fearful of the actual world of physicality and substance, or they are vastly indifferent to it. because it is not the World As It Really Is, it is either a battleground with Evil, or it is illusion and passing. thus, by being religious, they have less investment in the world of physicality and substance.

to the extent it does do significant harm, it ought to be called out as the agent of harm and confronted.

i'm not sure people are religious as "an effort to escape their own mortality". i think the urge for religion may involve that, but it also might involve an organic need to see patterns, even when they are constructed out of noise. witness, for instance, the power of place, the spontaneous construction of shrines about places where Bad Things Happened, or avoidance behaviors of things which actually carry relatively minor risk compared to average ones.

I NEVER respect another person's religion. But I DO RESPECT their RIGHT to their religion/beliefs. I think it is so incorrect for us (atheists/freethinkers) to say "I respect your beliefs (religion)" when what we mean is that we respect their RIGHT to BELIEVE their superstitions.

SunMostHigh took the words right out of my mouth.

I think we should stand on our rights to free speech, just as the religious do when they call us "fools', "immoral", "harmful to society", etc.

Anyone who thinks it's "uncivil" to express their own opinions could use some self-assertiveness training.

I frequently mock people's religious beliefs to their face. Anyways we should pick a day and riot in the streets, that would be pretty fun. XD

SunMostHigh [Member]
I NEVER respect another person's religion. But I DO RESPECT their RIGHT to their religion/beliefs. I think it is so incorrect for us (atheists/freethinkers) to say "I respect your beliefs (religion)" when what we mean is that we respect their RIGHT to BELIEVE their superstitions.

^ THIS

San Antonio = catholic = worst of the superstitions...

i'll find places for people to stay if you want to hold the riot here. :)

ekzept,

some heavy thoughts but i would mostly agree. in particular your first point where i think the religious are very good at protecting their members from the consequences of deviant, criminal, immoral, or socially unacceptable behaviour. that is one of their greatest weaknesses.

they don't like bad publicity for their congregations.


as far what to do about it. shouting from every tree top how stupid religion is will get us nowhere as a group. many of these people need a crutch of some kind to get through life. all we can offer is "intellectual freedom" if you will, from religion. i just don't see a majority of people becoming atheist in the foreseeable future. look at how long the "childish"(to quote Einstein) bible has survived and is still going strong.

I am not a new member, but I had to reregister because I didn't have a password originally, so I am using a new name. Nevertheless, I've been reading this blog assiduously. My feelings about religion are best expressed by what Jesse Ventura is reputed to have said. I don't have the exact quote, but it essentially is "Religion is a crutch for the weak of mind". My wife, unfortunately, has not been enlightened. Whenever I comment on some assinine religious happening or dogma, particularly the god du jour, or what have you, she gets upset. I've put up with this for 56 years. I guess that I can last the remaing years. Fortunately, she does not attend religious services and that's a plus.

The exact Jesse Ventura quote: Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. It tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people’s business. I live by the golden rule: Treat others as you’d want them to treat you. The religious right wants to tell people how to live. (November 1999 Playboy interview)

Don't you people know that God answers all prayers? Some times the answer is NO. I'm with Dawkins, Dennett, and Hitchens also Pat Condell who all think that religion deserves no respect and that religious moderates and liberals only enable the religious right-- a problem I sometimes have with my own Unitarian Universalism (even though UUs are about 30% Atheists and are all mostly secular humanist ungodly)

Political correctness is especially insidious in the way that it causes self censorship in discussing islam and above all, judaism.

Honesty is always best, but that's no reason to get insulting. Of course religion is stupid, but unless someone asks me if religion is stupid, I'm not generally inclined to put them on the defensive by volunteering it.

But yes -- you'll never hear me say "I respect your beliefs" with regard to any religon. I don't, and I won't pretend to. Respect the person, not their beliefs.

"Beliefs" are like flags.

In Cosmos Carl Sagan wrote of creation myths - such as that of P'an Ku's egg (3rd century China) that they were "worthy of our deep respect". In the context of the pre-scientific societies where these myths arose, I can agree with that. However, anyone living in today's globally connected scientifically literate world whose 'beliefs' deny what science has discovered gets no respect from me.

Cynic

"Beliefs" are like flags.

and flag lapel pins.

Rationalizations that you may see through, others may be held up by. It is rude to make the assumption that others know what you know without you explaining a logical fallacy or whatnot. If somebody has been ponzied into believing that the Earth is 6 thousand years old, as dumb as that may sound, you can't just make the assumption that they're dumb people for believing that. When I say they, I refer to all monotheists that have Genesis in their storybook (Islm, Xianity, Jdism), they could all be ponzied by the congregation into believing evolution didn't occur and that Adam and Eve was a true story.

Fundamentalism breeds terrorism.
Take that PC.

thx, "The only thing I find truly stupid is bigotry. "

Religion is nothing but bigotry.

It amazes me that these religious people actually believe in the idea of living forever in an afterlife. I guess they will just float around and talk for millions of years. The earth will be gone but they will still be floating. The whole idea is so childish like a fairytale. Muslims may get 72 virgins or white grapes who knows which , christians can hang out with god and jesus I would guess that would get boring after 100 or so years though. Grown people believing fairytales and then pushing them into laws. LOL its too funny but also too scarey.

I personally would say that religion is an ignorant idea (as in willfully stupid, not unknowing). But I am also in agreement that people have the right to be ignorant if they so choose - until their ignorance impacts others.

This is not original, but when I am confronted with questions on my spiritual beliefs I simply tell them in the nicest way that I dont have any invisable friends. They generally smile, the point is made.

Taking religion literally is stupid. That's where I draw the line. If you say help the poor or love thy neighbor I get the parable but the supernatural stuff in unfounded.

It's amazing to me that you can be forgiven for anything. If you rape a 5 year old girl and spend 3 years in prison, but "find god" and "repent your sins" you'll go to "heaven". It allows anyone with religious convictions to willingly do wrong believing they'll be ok in the end. It's disgusting.

Religions aren't just based on ignorance. They enshrine it.

I agree with Rusty. It's more of a "feeling." Smart people suspend all logic and reason, and let their emotions take over.

In regards to the post, I totally agree that we should stop being so politically correct, and we should start calling stupid what stupid is.

I stopped being politically correct about religion a couple of years ago. Ga4ry I'm with you, I too say that I don't have any imaginary friends. Religion is a con, probably the biggest con of all time and religious minded people have drunk the Coolaid.
I do respect their right to believe in what ever they want, just like my 8 year old niece believes in Santa and the Tooth Fairy.

Comment from: Peter

but that the people start religious organizations that become religious corporations. These non-profit religious corporations are now appealing for grants and other federal dollars while being tax exempt from real and personal property taxes.

Yeah...like Harvard. A 23 billion dollar endowment fund and they still have their hands out for taxpayer money...

Mmmmmm..... the theological part is stupid, granted. But religions do serve a sociological function -- providing people with inter-personal networks which can give moral support when needed.

However, religions do not have a monopoly on this. For me, our local science fiction club, and science fiction fandom in general serves the same function. I would like to see atheist groups do this as well.
Many times we have to depend on religious institutions for weddings, funerals, charity work, counseling etc. and it would be nice to see secular alternatives made as easily available to people.

Comment from: NotSoFast [Member]

I think we should stand on our rights to free speech, just as the religious do when they call us "fools', "immoral", "harmful to society", etc.

I agree. You'd probably like the letter I wrote to Pat Boone in response to this:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64505

However, it's unprintable.

Ive been to many non religious weddings and funerals. In fact my own wedding was non religious, had a judge marry me , my wife wrote the whole ceromony , and we did it outisde at a lake. Very nice. I just got back from a non religious funeral , it was at the funeral home not religious , the kids stood up and read some stuff they wrote about their dad who passed and it was very nice. No need to rely on any religious org.

"Yeah...like Harvard. A 23 billion dollar endowment fund and they still have their hands out for taxpayer money...'

Harvard does useful things. That's why people are inclined to pay them.

What has your religion given us other than a bogus paranoia about masturbatory induced blindness?

It has constantly amazed me my whole life (63) how reasonably educated and intelligent people can take any religion dogma seriously. All I can come up with is that they purport to answer the unanswerable. Some people just seem to need answers, ludicrous or illogical as they look to rational thought.

All organized religions are also another politic; mainly for ill although I suppose there have been cases where they provide the only alternative to a despotic regime. In this regard, they provide for some a community or social network of like “thinking” people.

But as already mentioned; organized religions are big business and tax-exempt too! They’re selling the most amazing products that will solve all your problems if you will only have faith, yet have no guarantee or warranty. I find it somewhat analogous to the nicotine business; the product addicts its customers. Even if they know or suspect the product is probably not good for them, they keep coming back.

So yes Dave, I agree all religions are stupid. And I never hesitate to tell people I’m a devout atheist when the issue comes up. But I’m afraid we’re going to suffer its ills for some time to come.

Mmmmmm..... the theological part is stupid, granted. But religions do serve a sociological function -- providing people with inter-personal networks which can give moral support when needed.

Our motorcycle club does the same things. It provides us with moral, financial, and humorous support (sometimes we have a pretty sick sense of humor). And most of us are atheists. Those who aren't, keep it to themselves. I'm probably the most "out" atheist among our group, and they give me tons of respect.

Comment from: phreedm

Comment from: Peter

but that the people start religious organizations that become religious corporations. These non-profit religious corporations are now appealing for grants and other federal dollars while being tax exempt from real and personal property taxes.

Yeah...like Harvard. A 23 billion dollar endowment fund and they still have their hands out for taxpayer money...

Funny how you don't mention the Catholic chuch, the Anglican church, the Mormon church, the Christian Broadcasting Network, the 700 club, other Christian denominatinos, and the plethora of televangelists who have tons and tons of taxpayer subsidies and continuous tax free tithing, and still have their hands out for more tax giveaways from the government. And I'm actually surprised that you have shown enough restraint, and avoided objecting to tax breaks for Muslim or Hindi groups.

Why, it's almost as though you are selectively ignorant of the tax giveaways that are given to religious organizations, and selectively ignorant about the tax giveaways you have a problem with. One could almost say you are religious in your outrage. Not that there's any problem with that - unless, for example, you are trying to brainwash impressionable students with your religious biases.

Oh, wait...

For a good number of years I have entertained Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses in my home discussing their religion and their evangelizing mission in a soft and gracious atmosphere pointing out biblical errancy to no avail. A waste of time. Now,I take the Richard Dawkins method and take the ridicule approach. It is so much quicker and so self satisfying. I treat their ideas as comedy relief.

Noel, you are a better person than me. At least you tried to discuss religion logically for a while. I gave up when I lived a couple years in my early twenties in central Idaho (serious 'born-again' and Mormon infestation area).

Comment from: bernarda [Member]
thx, "The only thing I find truly stupid is bigotry. "

Religion is nothing but bigotry.

Not so. But your statement is.

tom said:

Why, it's almost as though you are selectively ignorant...

No, Tom, Captain Asshat is selectively ignorant. He/she/it is blind to all facts and proof, no matter how well laid out, and backed up.

On topic-
I've gotten to the point where I'm not nice anymore when people bring up religious insanity. There's no reason why these ignoramuses should get any respect at all. They are polluting the democratic process and the public school system to name only a couple.
We, as a country, are actually going backwards, not forwards, and the majority of the blame goes directly to the religious fundies.

Thx, you are really clueless.

You said it Boise Jim....

Religion only deserves ridicule in the public forum....

it needs to be kicked back to the privacy of ones home...

Saying that religion is stupid because it has negative effects on human culture and progress is like saying bacteria are stupid because people get sick.

You don't hear Ford saying that people who drive Chevy's are dumb. That's because their marketing department is focused on obtaining results - in reality, not on expressing their own emotional reactions.

If we were more focused on results instead of emotional expression, we might have some success too. If you truly see science as our most reliable source of information, Daniel Dennett offers a good starting point for understanding what we're up against. If you just want to express your emotions, you've reduced yourself to just another identity-based ideologue.

Comment from: rahein [Member] ·
"What I find strangest is that for all time religion has sought to make us immortal, be it physically or "spiritually".

Now for the first time science is discovering how aging works and that it is just an engineering problem, like keeping a classic car running. Check out MPrize.org or SENS.org for more info."

I blame religion for my death (I am only 50 and not planning on dying soon!). I suspect that we would have reached much longer lifespans in my lifetime if it were not for religion holding us Science.

Chris-
Because Chevy's don't harm people. Religious fundamentalism hurts people- both directly and indirectly, even to the point of death.

Religioidiocy distorts the truth, is a major hindrance to scientific advancement, and closes the mind.
That is very harmful, and the world needs to wake up to its horrors.

yeah.....what jim said....

its time for the story to be a story...

Ive been on the planet for 48 years and have yet to meet the stupidnatural.....

hell....didnt they just burn some more witches somewhere....

wtf

Comment from: freethought1

It has constantly amazed me my whole life (63) how reasonably educated and intelligent people can take any religion dogma seriously

Maybe the problem isn't with the "reasonably educated and intelligent people"...

Chris B...

Very well said...

And you'll note, the desenters responded emotionally...

The following to phenomena appear to be at work in religious identity: Groupthink and Stockholm Syndrome. Wikipedia describes these phenomena as follows.

Groupthink

Irving Janis described groupthink as: A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.

Stockholm syndrome

A psychological response sometimes seen in an abducted hostage, in which the hostage shows signs of loyalty to the hostage-taker, regardless of the danger (or at least risk) in which the hostage has been placed.

What-
Interesting idea about the Stockholm Syndrome.
Where's the outrage (from his flock) over the comments that Rev. Hagee said recently about the Jews, and Catholicism?

Phreedm,
I think you're right. The problem isn't with the reasonably educated and intelligent people. It's with the zealots. The reasonable, educated and intelligent people just make it socially unacceptable to criticize the lunatics, suicide bombers, and Pat Robertson's on their ridiculous belief structures.

Our definitions of reasonable are probably different. Since in order to be reasonable you have to be capable of reason, and good solid reasoning will rule out almost all religions as, at best, silly, and at worst, dangerous.

Any who claims religions, like your jeebus cult, help more than harm hasn't really done the research needed to make that kind of claim.

The latest flap over the gross faux pas of a variety of religious pastors is reflection extraordinaire of the folly of religion. The good religion sometimes reflects is eclipsed over millennia by the discord is has sewn. Our own oft reactionary century does, indeed, seem to be going backwards. Although we deem ourselves technologically advanced and the heirs to the Age of Enlightenment, we are soaked in religiously futile unprovable argument the irrational tenets and truth of which no one can effectively argue. The Bible, a 5000 year old document, loaded with divergence of thought, historical and scientific error, is used by the three major monotheistic faiths as allegedly provable justification for nearly any philosophy one may want to adopt and any behavior, no matter how extreme, one may want to justify.

Pastor Hegee claims to know exactly what God had in mind for the Jews. He uses an ancient Jewish text to make the unmitigatedly insulting postulation that God used Hitler for the purpose of creating the contemporary Jewish state. The utter absurdity of a comment that suggests a God would slaughter 6 million innocents including 1 million children to create a nation state stands on its own.

Pastor Parsley suggests he knows just what our Founding Fathers had in mind and that was to destroy Islam. The absurdity of that, yet again, is not only self evident it is historically ridiculous and blatantly untrue. The pastoral indictments go on and on. Yet there are many in our country who believe preposterous things and question nothing. There are others, still, who care nothing about religion usurping a place in the halls of power. They stand silent. Our candidates for the highest office in the land feel, sadly, they need to court those who hold these inane beliefs and pay homage to those who want to translate those beliefs into public policy. This is chilling. Science in its quest to alleviate human suffering and its bedfellow critical thought are at risk.

To the contrary of what these utterly ridiculous pastors aver, our Founding Fathers knew religion could be dangerous because they witnessed its onslaught. They tried by constitutionally enshrining the wall of church state separation to prevent the barbarity religious argument can impose. Our country depends upon recapturing their sanity. Our very survival hangs in the balance.

Chris

Let me fix you analogy for you:

Saying that religion is stupid because it has negative effects on human culture and progress is like saying bacteria are stupid because people get sick.

Saying that religion is stupid because it has negative effects on human culture and progress is like saying that putting pathogenic bacteria in wounds is stupid because people will get sick. Both are indeed stupid.

"I blame religion for my death (I am only 50 and not planning on dying soon!). I suspect that we would have reached much longer lifespans in my lifetime if it were not for religion holding us Science."

Thats funny, I called Bush Hitler before because of his opposition to stem cell research.

IMNSHO he killed or will kill 100K people a day for each day that he slowed down this vital research.

It's worth noting that groupthink and Stockholm syndrome could just as easily apply here. Now come on, can't we all just agree for the good of Atheism? Rah! Rah! Rah!

Cynic

Groupthink no doubt applies to any group - but it is not common characteristic of atheists. Just read this blog.

Stockholm syndrome applied to atheits? Really? How? Most atheists are escapees from religious oppression and show any thing but loyalty after escaping. Except maybe Seeker.

Actually, a lot of comments sound very similar... religion is stupid. People who believe in a faith are stupid and dangerous. Everyone also seems to agree that there is no need to be nice when religion is brought up. I know I have heard that more than a few times.

I would agree, Stockholm probably does not apply.

Here is an interesting historical tidbit (which I am sure most of you probably already know *wink*) During the first centuries of its existence, Romans considered Christians to be "Atheists" because they had no visible idols or temples. And they were persecuted because atheism was seen as a threat to the public good (might make the gods mad). Ironic, isn't it.

Alathea

Agreeing is not groupthink. The key ingredient in the definition of groupthink is "strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action".

hey everyone,

i found this website by accident began to read some of the posts... all of which we very interesting. I was once an "Atheist", and am currently a follower of jesus. (just to give you an angle on my perspective)

now about this thread... one thing that has always bugged me about atheists and theists alike is the lack of validity in their said arguments. To say something as dull and uneducated as "It is TRUE that religion is stupid" is a poor reflection on your intellect as well as those of whom choose to extend any educated comment there after.

having said that, i know an realize that this IS and atheist blog and that you are amongst your own (which would entitle you to some sort of social collective comfort in anything you say) but i would encourage one to make more educated and less inflammatory statements as a whole.

Your use of Religion is also interesting. I have found that Atheism is just as a much a Religion as Christianity. A collective conscious of common thoughts, beliefs and ideals formed to provide... what? Philosophically speaking atheism and theism are nothing more than trains of thought individually, the only difference is that one group believes that theirs is divinely inspired and the other discounts divinity in itself.

now it is politically incorrect to say the RELIGION IS STUPID... as well as it should be. It a highly uneducated and really poorly though out statement. but, you arent running for politics... so say what you want! but what is the point? you know what you believe... something to ponder... will you be doing what is best for you by saying what is about to be said, and is being RIGHT really worth all of the strife.

dmwilson, I do not see atheism as a religion. It is a description for those that do no believe that there is a god. The core of religion is a belief in a deity. There are no system of beliefs that are common to atheism other than believing there is no god. Atheism does not conform to the standard definition of religion.

Political correctness is not, to me, the goal of discourse. The goal of discourse is to gain understanding of differing ideas and the reaction to those ideas. While I believe there is a god, I don't think it's time to stop being nice to atheists. Effective discourse starts with a respect for the person, even though you may not agree with their ideas. I object to Dave's premise in that I think it's not effective. It's not that you're being nice when discussing ideas, it's that you're engaging in debate. If one starts with the premise that all people that share an idea (theism) have one monolithic understanding that everyone accepts, then one would be broadstroking. If one wants others to listen to them, you must first listen to the person you are discussing with. Treat others as you want to be treated. I believe this is a more effective strategy. Otherwise, one turns into Bill O'Rielly. And that accomplishes nothing.

“Stop a minute to contrast your keen interest in your own affairs with your mild concern about anything else. Realize then, that everybody else in the world feels exactly the same way! Then, along with Lincoln and Roosevelt, you will have grasped the only solid foundation for interpersonal relationships; namely, that success in dealing people depends on a sympathetic grasp of the other person’s viewpoint.” -- Kenneth M. Goode

Spanders

Otherwise, one turns into Bill O'Rielly. And that accomplishes nothing.

Once again, I disagree. Ridicule is a very effective tool in shaping public opinion and public policy. It high time we started ridiculing stupidity. Stupidity of the religion kind has been used to manipulate public voting patterens and worse yet has become the basis of important public policy.

dmwilson,

Your use of Religion is also interesting. I have found that Atheism is just as a much a Religion as Christianity. A collective conscious of common thoughts, beliefs and ideals formed to provide... what?

What exactly is a 'collective conscious of common thoughts' and how does one apply that term to atheism?

Also, don't capitalize 'atheism,' it's not a proper noun.

dmwilson:

I was once an "Atheist", and am currently a follower of jesus.

So your synapses misfired, & you had an epiphany.
Why the hell did you put it in quotes, & as What puts it, not a proper noun.

To say something as dull and uneducated as "It is TRUE that religion is stupid" is a poor reflection on your intellect as well as those of whom choose to extend any educated comment there after.

"Maw once said, ya can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all."
Religion IS stupid. Unlike you, former "Atheist", the bulk of us came to that conclusion not because we were just drifting astray on the river of life, but that most of us sat down & really EXAMINED the entire POV w/a critical eye.
Something that's not encouraged by believers, I might add.
Lackadaisical effort @ dictating the dialogue.

Your use of Religion is also interesting. I have found that Atheism is just as a much a Religion as Christianity. A collective conscious of common thoughts, beliefs and ideals formed to provide... what? Philosophically speaking atheism and theism are nothing more than trains of thought individually, the only difference is that one group believes that theirs is divinely inspired and the other discounts divinity in itself.

Sheer cognitive dissonance. This is the logical fallacy of tu quoque.
Atheism isn't a worldview. It's really pretty much the subtraction of supernatural ballyhoo.
You can't prove any supernatural crapola. Not prayer, not prediction, nothing.
So fuck political correctness. You can't back up anything w/facts? Outta luck, amigo.
Not all opinions are equal. Otherwise, I'd have to cozy up w/the Bigfoot believers, the UFO crazies, & anyone else w/an overactive imagination, co-dependency problems, & an insecurity complex.
If you've something to share, have @ it.
Just don't expect a boatload of sympathy.

DMW (WMD backwards)

I was once an "Atheist", and am currently a follower of jesus.

You are a follower of a myth. Try reality. It always wins. It is after all, reality.

I am a Christian. I will not attempt to convert you or anything like that as I'm sure the majority of posters here have examined my stupid beliefs with a critical eye. With that said, what is the biggest barrier that atheists face concerning belief or faith in Christianity Is it intellectual? Moral?

Semovera

Ask a question that makes sense. Maybe you will get better responses.

O.K. What I'm trying to ask is:

On what grounds do you choose to reject religion? Is believing in Jesus Christ just plain nonsense (intellectual barrier) or does your disbelief of religion stem from the doctrine itself (moral barrier), ie..having to abide by a certain moral code, sin, helping others, dying to self

semovera

On what grounds do you choose to reject anything? Come on, ask a question worth answering.

I don't understand. What is so sorry about my question? Why is my question not worthy enough to be answered? Why do you believe what you believe? I want to understand your point of view, not to analyze or dissect it, but very simply to engage in dialogue. What holds you back from religious belief?

Semovera-
I'll take a stab, and these are just my words, and of no other.

Q: Why do I reject religion?
A: Throughout the history of time, it has caused more pain, suffering, and death than and other man-made creation. It shackles the mind, and hardens hearts.

Q: Is believing in Jesus Christ just plain nonsense?
A: To me, yes, and it is irrational. First, we have no solid proof that he even existed. If he was as great as they say, I guarantee you that there would have been mountains of literature written about him during the time he lived, not starting 40 years after he died.

Q: Ah, the 'moral code' question.
A: If you're asking how and where do we get our moral code, we live by the code of, 'do no harm, and treat others as you would like to be treated'. The bible is full of massive immorality, so if there is anyone out there that uses the bible for their moral compass, I would be truly terrified of that person. If you sit down and read the bible and really analyze it, you will see why so many people begin their road to atheism after they finish.

Not sure what you mean by 'dying to self'.

Hope that helps.

Boise Jim,
Thank you for an honest response to my question. You know, I am a Christian and I'm willing to be transparent with you all here. I think a lot of the arguments that have been presented for atheism are very persuasive and cannot easily be dismissed. I also think a great part of the problem is that a lot of what people deem to be Christian or Christianity is misrepresented. Thus, the biggest problem is not Christianity in itself, but Christians; False Christians anyway. Believe me, a great percentage of people who claim Christianity do not even read the Bible.

Boise Jim,
Thank you for an honest response to my question. You know, I am a Christian and I'm willing to be transparent with you all here. I think a lot of the arguments that have been presented for atheism are very persuasive and cannot easily be dismissed. I also think a great part of the problem is that a lot of what people deem to be Christian or Christianity is misrepresented. Thus, the biggest problem is not Christianity in itself, but Christians; False Christians anyway. Believe me, a great percentage of people who claim Christianity do not even read the Bible.

With that said, even a cursory reading of the Gospels reveals a very liberating and powerful message. Jesus says, "Who the son sets free, is free indeed." I guess one day we will discover the truth. If the atheist are correct and Jesus was just a fantasy, then all I have to say for myself is that I believed in a lie. Silly me. But if I'm right, the stakes are much higher for those who could have but didn't. All in all, choose your path, but choose wisely. Not everyone who says LORD LORD, will enter the kingdom of heaven. Examine the words of Jesus, and test them in your own life. If it is truth, He will prove Himself in your own life.

Ah, Pascal's Wager. We know it well.

The way I look at it, is if there is a Supreme Being, when I die, I will be judged on the great deeds I've done and how well I treat people, rather than if I believed or not.

I'm the most ethical and morally rich person I know, so I'm confident in the life I've lead if there is someone/something to answer to.

Last Sunday I was in a grocery store and a young woman walked up and said she would pray for me. She probably just got out of church and found my atheist shirt discomforting.

I could have told her she was stupid but instead said I appreciated her concern although I did not need prayer. I told her some archeologists have reached the conclusion the village of Nazareth did not exist when that guy Jesus was supposedly walking around. I started to tell her about paleontologists digging up transitional fossils when she just walked away. I don't think she was offended nor was the couple standing looking at the shelf while listening in. I really think those three people left wondering and not angry. I hope reason tasted OK in that grocery store.
To dmwilson, I am an atheist because I have read the Bible although never a Christian. I am responsible for my actions. No evil spirit makes me do evil and no guardian angel makes me do good. Over history different gods have existed in peoples minds and at some point Jesus will exist like Zeus and Thor as a fictional character.

Probably not long after our distant relatives crawled out of trees and into caves they heard the echo of their voice and thought the dead were trying to talk to them. They weren't stupid, just ignorant of the laws of nature.

The world is in the shape it is because too many people are ignoring reality while looking forward to their personal pie in the sky. They desperatly want to meet again with the folks who loved them at some point in their lives. They think this life is just a cruel test by a loving god. Like the song says though, everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody really wants to die.

Most Christians profess their belief although most Christians haven't even read the Bible. They only know the bits and pieces they were spoon fed as children before they could think abstractly. That's why there are so many denominations of Christianity. The creationism museum will create more young doubters in time than anything I could do.

semovera,

If the atheist are correct and Jesus was just a fantasy, then all I have to say for myself is that I believed in a lie. Silly me. But if I'm right, the stakes are much higher for those who could have but didn't. All in all, choose your path, but choose wisely.

On the other hand, if the Muslims are right, we're both screwed. If the Nordics were right, we're both screwed. If the Jehovah's Witnesses are right, we're both screwed. If the Mormons are right, we're both screwed. See a pattern here?

You can't judge a religion based on the reward you get at the end, you can only judge a religion based on the effect it has on your life while you're alive. My opinion is that all religions rely on a jump to conclusion. I consider a jump to conclusions to be a negative act, ergo I am stuck being an atheist.

Semovera,

With that said, what is the biggest barrier that atheists face concerning belief or faith in Christianity Is it intellectual? Moral?

The reason this question makes little sense is that it presupposes that atheists desire to be Christians. This is, in many cases, simply not true. But even beyond that, the answer to that question should be obvious to everyone.

The only barrier for me is that there is no good reason to believe. I'm not an atheist because I want to be one, I'm an atheist because there is no rational alternative.

I might as well ask you what the biggest barrier stopping you from believing in unicorns is. The answer should be patently obvious: There is no good reason to believe in unicorns. Why bother asking a question when there's only one possible answer?

If you want to criticize atheism (and, by all means, have at it), you should start by providing evidence for the existence of a deity.

Semovera,

I missed this quote from you earlier:

Why do you believe what you believe?

Based on the fact that you asked that question, I can see you have a fundamental misunderstanding of atheism that needs to be corrected before we can teach you anything about atheism.

Atheism is not a belief nor is it a set of beliefs. It is merely the disbelief in any deities.

You are probably under the impression that an atheist would say "I believe that no deity exists." But the generic atheist (aka a 'weak atheist') would not agree to that statement. The problem is that it's exceedingly difficult (if not impossible) to prove a negative. So it's absurd to believe that no deity exists (especially given that 'deity' is not a well-defined word).

The generic atheist simply doesn't believe that a deity exists. The generic atheist does not reject all deities out of hand. Ergo atheism is not a belief, it is just the default state of the human mind.

The only people who would agree that no deity exists are called Strong Atheists. Note the capitalization; 'Strong Atheist' is a proper noun, 'atheist' is not. Strong Atheism is absolutely a belief. However, they are only a very small subset of atheists. I have never personally met one, and I have met plenty of atheists.

It is very, very common for religious leaders to define atheism in the most strong sense of the word. It makes it much easier to rail against. They're perfectly aware that this is not true of the vast majority of atheists, but they seem perfectly happy to perpetuate that lie. I'm sorry you've been lied to and I hope that I've been able to correct your definition of 'atheist.'

Semovera

The number of assertions that I can not disprove are limitless. Will you "believe" them all because I can not disprove them? It is easy enough to construct mutually exclusive assertions for each of the limitless ones already mentioned. Will you "believe" mutually exclusive assertions as well?

Do you see why I think your questions have numerous built assumptions that make them unworthy of a response and much less so an "answer"?

How do define the word "believe" anyhow? This is very important to most atheists.

Lastly, some of us choose the atheist label simply because it is the best well known word that describes our perspective as relates to theism. Some of us here don't like the word because we think the question "Do gawds exist?" is so ill-defined that we would not want to identifying ourselves in any way with a label that implicitly assumes the question is well defined. But I will stick with the label and ally myself with those that do because we have a common objective. Do you understand this?

Alatham,
You definately clarified the term atheist as I was not aware of the distinction. As far as other posters are concerned, I do not have any preconceived notions whatsoever. As I see it, Christians and atheists are both people of faith. I have faith in Jesus and atheists have faith in their beliefs. After carefully analyzing my beliefs, I have come to the conclusion that it takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to believe in Christ. One thing that we both have to admit is that by virtue of being human, we are limited in how far we can take this debate. Let's take religion out of the equation, would you say that the supernatural does not exists at all? I do not mean ghosts or unicorns or anything like that, but more like events or circumstances that defy the laws of science ie..miracles and anomalies.

semovera

As far as other posters are concerned, I do not have any preconceived notions whatsoever. As I see it, Christians and atheists are both people of faith.

Atheists, as has already been explained to you, are not "people of faith" so you indeed have at least one preconceived notion.

Let's take religion out of the equation, would you say that the supernatural does not exists at all?

Give an operational definition of "supernatural" and "exist". If you don't you will not receive "answers" to your questions. You will instead receive responses only that will eventually lead to you defining the terms you use.

You appear to be hiding behind nebulous definitions as a shield to examining the validity of the questions you ask. If you are sincere in the asking of your questions, ill-defined or not, then you will define the words you use.

Semovera,

What (the user) posted a response very close to what I would have written, so I shan't repeat it.

One thing I should warn you ahead of time is that there is a distinct difference between a 'definition' and an 'operational definition.' Most people don't know what an operational definition is, so if you weren't already aware, then I suggest you read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_definition

Let's take religion out of the equation, would you say that the supernatural does not exists at all?

Keeping in mind that 'the supernatural' is very poorly defined, I can only tell you this: I cannot reject that which cannot be tested. But I am also under no obligation to believe in it or even take it seriously.

If you're under the impression that I would reject supernatural events out of hand, then go back and read my opinion of Strong Atheism. The concept of a deity certainly falls into the realm of the supernatural, ergo I treat the two subjects very similarly.

After carefully analyzing my beliefs, I have come to the conclusion that it takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to believe in Christ.

How is it that you have come to this conclusion? It's one thing to state that you've come to that conclusion, it's entirely another to provide a rationale for doing so that doesn't fall flat on it's face.

Be aware that your argument has been attempted countless times throughout the history of theism. Please note this: Unless you can succeed where thousands have failed before, you will not be able to convince any skeptic that atheism requires faith in any form.

Unless, of course, you simply redefine 'faith.' Sadly this is quite common, please don't disappoint. The most common reason the 'atheists have faith' argument fails to hold water is because it relies on the Equivocation Fallacy, so before you take the time to write out your argument, make sure it isn't making this mistake:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation_fallacy

errr, I made a typo:

Unless you can succeed where thousands have failed before, you will not be able to convince any skeptic that atheism requires faith in any form.

This should read: Unless you can succeed where thousands have failed before, you will not be able to convince any skeptic that atheism requires religious faith in any form.

O.K., what I'm trying to say is:

Can miracles happen? By miracles, I am referring to those sitations and/or circumstances in which the laws of science and nature are broken: For example, a terminally ill cancer patient whose cancer goes into remission, or a blind person suddenly having the ability to see. I am not trying to hide behind nebulous definitions, I'm just trying to understand the mind set (not belief, sorry) of an atheist. I do not have any hidden agenda, thus I have no reason to try and trick you by using semantics to justify some sort of epiphany. I fully recognize that I do not have the power to change your mind.

Here it goes:

1. Truth about reality is knowable.
2. The opposite of true is false.
3. It is true that the theistic Gd exists as evidenced by the cosmological argument,teleological argument/anthropic principle, and the moral argument
4. If God exists, miracles are possible
5. Miracles can be used to confirm a word from God
6.The New Testament is historically reliable as evidenced by early testimony, eyewitness testimony, uninvented testimony, and eyewtinesses who were not decieved.
7. The New Testament says Jesus claimed to be God.
8. Jesus' claim to be God was miraculously confirmed by his fulfillment of many prophecies about himself, his sinless life and miraculous deeds, and his prediction and accommplishemnt of his ressurection.
9. Therefore Jesus is God.
10. whatever Jesus teaches is true.
11. Jesus taught that the Bible is the Word of God.
12. Therefore,it is true that the Bible is the word of God and anything opposed to it is false.

O.K. guys, have at it. By the way, I did not create this argument, however, I think it is logical. It is from a book that I read.

semovera,

Can miracles happen? By miracles, I am referring to those sitations and/or circumstances in which the laws of science and nature are broken: For example, a terminally ill cancer patient whose cancer goes into remission, or a blind person suddenly having the ability to see. I am not trying to hide behind nebulous definitions

If cancer going into remission is an example of a miracle, then I would say you are indeed hiding behind nebulous definitions since cancer going into remission does not break any of the laws of nature. Your example of a blind person suddenly gaining sight would indeed be compelling, however (depending on the reason behind their blindness, of course).

You've defined 'miracle' to be no different from "something science can't currently explain." By that definition, miracles happen all the time. But that is not what we typically mean by 'miracle.'

If we define a miracle as it would normally be defined (from answers.com) "An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin," then the answer to that question is "maybe, what evidence do you have?"

I'm also not sure what you mean by "laws of science." Science attempts to explain and describe the laws of nature, it does not dictate the laws.

I fully recognize that I do not have the power to change your mind.

Actually, you do, but you can only do it on the strength of your arguments. If you're not here to make arguments, then that's perfectly acceptable. I, for one, truly appreciate a theist who shows up and asks honest questions. Thank you. I'll get to your other post in a few minutes.

My friend, I'm calling it a night, but will definately be back tommorrow. I'm going to go spend some time with the wife. Have a good one.

semovera,

The argument you are quoting breaks down in the third step:

3. It is true that the theistic Gd exists as evidenced by the cosmological argument,teleological argument/anthropic principle, and the moral argument

First, I've never heard of the moral argument for the existence of a deity. My guess is that it makes the claim that morality comes from theism, and therefore morality proves a deities existence. If that's the argument, then someone has to show that it's impossible that morality can exist without a deity. Given that Natural Selection provides a straightforward explanation for the existence of morality, this particular argument fails.

For an excellent reference, see this page:
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/index.html
In particular, the essay "The Ineffable Carrot and the Infinite Stick" (which is, unfortunately, very long) lays out a rationale for an absolute atheistic morality.

For a refutation of the Cosmological Argument, read the section titled "Scientific Positions" here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

For a refutation of the Teleological Argument, read "Complexity does not imply design" here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument

I'm sorry to simply link you to those refutations, but those two arguments have been beaten to death and I have no desire to debate them myself any more.

I would also disagree with step 6:

6.The New Testament is historically reliable as evidenced by early testimony, eyewitness testimony, uninvented testimony, and eyewtinesses who were not decieved.

I have yet to see a compelling argument that Jesus even existed in the first place, let alone one that he was a deity.

Because of those doubts, the rest of the argument means nothing to me.

semovera

1. Truth about reality is knowable.
2. The opposite of true is false.

What is your definition of truth? Is it your intention to use the words true and truth as synonyms? If so then you should be aware that you are implicitly contradicting yourself without knowing it.

semovera

Your "argument" above is just if¹² -> 0.

Those are good refutations of the arguments for God, but there are also a great deal of scientists and intellectuals that would disagree with those refutations. I could provide links and such if you are interested, but I imagine that you have seen these arguments and formed your own conclusions. Look, the bottom line is that it does in the end require a step (or a leap for some) of faith to put your trust in something that you can't see or even fully understand. I am more than willing to admit that. Belief for me comes down to trusting that my mind can only take me to certain limits being that I am a limited being. God states that His ways are higher than mine and I have faith that this is true. Not blind faith as many would believe, (even though at times I have had to take that leap too), but a faith rooted in the confirmation of His promises in my own life. It is akin to the concept of a child and an adult. In many fashions, the ways of an adult are higher than those of a child (at least in the intellectual sense). Using a simplistic example, if an adult tells a child that eating vegetables is good for them and will help them to grow strong, left to their own devices a great number of children will reject this wisdom from the "higher power" because it doesn't make sense and it can't be proven. After all, vegetables taste bad and they cause serious pain and suffering (to a child anyway). I know some will argue and say ah ha, but it can be proven that veggies are good. Yes, it can be proven if you want it to be proven. These days, one can find just about anything to support their point of view from very credible sources. If we dissect it enough, don't we have to have a certain level of faith to believe that scientists and astronomers know what they are talking about. That the scientific method is credible. Contrary to what has been said earlier, I respectfully disagree. I think that atheism is in fact a belief that requires faith, and not the default human mind set. I also believe that only one of us can be right. I believe in absolute truth. I know it is admittedly narrow. But that this is the nature of the beast. I also wanted to respond to a comment made earlier stating that religion shackles the mind and hardens the heart. My relationship with Christ has brought about the polar opposite.

It's not bigotry, if you are in polically correct about something that is false or does not exist. You cannot be a bigot to a mermaid or harry potter, GET OVER IT.

Contrary to what has been said earlier, I respectfully disagree. I think that atheism is in fact a belief that requires faith, and not the default human mind set.

A break-down of how you came to this conclusion would be nice: that way we can show you where you're wrong rather than merely telling you that you're wrong.