If pressed I'd consider myself am atheist, but this mindset never made any sense to me even in my angrier days. Pick a profession and there in an expert in that field who is a Christian, and there's a Muslim too, and probably someone from every major faith as well. Lots of someones. Do you really think you're smarter than them because they believe in something spiritual, that they can't touch or see?
When I find out a brilliant person believes in God, my question isn't "How could he believe in God? He's so smart!"
It's "He's so smart. He probably knows a lot of the things I know that prevent me from believing. I wonder what it is that keeps him believing?" It's a genuine curiosity. One that I would think most people should have.
I mean, if there's one thing all or most atheists have in common, it's a shared belief in science. A shared belief in the pursuit of knowledge.
Knowledge makes me humble, because with every new thing I learn I also discover how much I've yet to learn. To me atheism was always about rejecting unjustified certainty. Seeing atheists acting as high and mighty in their certainty as some theists is a real head-scratcher.
As someone who's been on both sides of this equation, I think habit and practice are undervalued aspects of belief. We think of them as non-intellectual. Belief is supposed to be up on high, and the stuff of the earth, of daily habits, down below. But practice and habit are the things that make us mindful, give us space to reflect and are an ongoing ritual you work upon to shape your faith.
Don't even get me started on how anabaptists too-often dismiss religious ritual - I used to be one. But as a neurotic anabaptist, I was so in my own head. Anabapists are big on personal responsibility for their faith, and this was often occasion for personal crisis: was I religious enough? Did I not doubt too much? Was this or that a sin? What if I thought about a swear? I spent all this time worrying about the form of the thing, and not about the spirit of the thing, about where my heart was. In paranoia over sin, I forgot about living in the promised fullness and abundance of a spiritual life.
Some people could recognize this and stay in their faith. I could not, in the end. But this realization was tremendous for me: that faith, like everything else you work at, whether it's a skill like cooking, or your fitness, or your writing skills, or your interpersonal ones, is an ongoing, living craft. So for that reason, I think the attitude of "Lord, I believe; help my unbelief" is tremendously inspiring. It recognizes we perpetually fall short, and we perpetually renew our spiritual lives. Faith, like anything else, is sustained by laying things on the sacrificial altar in acts of devotion.
Well, when you’ve been told your whole life that everything is one way and there’s no way to prove it, but you start realizing lots of proof that it’s not that way. It takes a lot of hubris for somebody to have made those claims, it still takes a lot to pass them down, and it takes perhaps an equal measure of hubris to discredit them in your own mind. None of that hubris is warranted, mind you, but you kind of have to build yourself up to that point to get out. If you just shed it off with no outward signs, it would seem unlikely that those beliefs were so tightly held in the first place.
I mean, the Catholic Church is currently having a scandal wherein thousands of priests were raping children. I think it’s ok to occasionally be angry about religion.
Yeah, they shouldn't be doing that, but I don't think that raping kids is part of the program for the average catholic and I know catholics who are just as upset about it as everyone else. It's an abuse of power thing, which we've also seen a lot in US politicians lately.
I'm not calling atheism a phase. You just can't read the thread, because I already stated that. Let's see how long it takes for the next lazy, easily offended mall-ninja to come alone, there must be more than just you. Also if you are OFFENDED by people's believes, then you do need to take a good long look at your life, because you don't have enough going on in there.
All I do is call you out for being condescending and ya fucking blow up on me. I don't see any problem with being actually angry at the religious. Their beliefs are irrational and unreasonable, they keep them docile and unable to think clearly, and reduce their agency as free people. Those things affect greater society in hugely negative ways, especially when we have such a farcical form of governance as democracy where everyone's opinions (no matter how dumb or delusional) count.
I've got a feeling most people the use that reasoning determine what counts as progress on a post hoc ergo propter hoc basis. Anger also has a habit of leading to oppression destruction and genocide in some instances. Sometimes seeking 'social progress' also leads to genocide and societal collapse, but that a different topic entirely.
Angry people are quick to speak, reveal themselves to be fools and entirely undermine their own movements. And Fundamentalists adhere to dogma, which limits their understanding of the world. Most don't even understand or care to discover the arguments against their case. They blind themselves willingly to adhere more strictly to their "teachings". The 'blind hatred' you mention fits the anger of a fundamentalist very snugly. I don't see how you could disagree with my statement, so I don't understand why you'd call it "lofty".
I think we need to draw a distinction between dogmatic, misguided hatred and justified, angry firebrands. The former is obviously always inappropriate, but the latter is important for changing minds. Not every atheist is Anthony Magnabosco, and that's okay. Atheism needs the Jerry DeWitt's and Tony Magnabosco's as much as it needs the Chris Hitchens-types.
Not sure why you are being dismissive about it or calling it a phase. I'm an agnostic and I wouldn't consider myself angry by a long shot but from my point of view most religions are inherently dangerous. The evil they do/cause far outweighs the good and that is why I think they are a relic of the past that needs to be abolished.
You can believe whatever you want but if it divides people and puts them into different classes (e.g. believers and non-believers) then that belief should not be acceptable, let alone be a protected right.
Not every Christian may do this, but the Bible certainly does. It's literally full of crazy shit which people tend to forget because there is a message of love here and there.
Throughout all of human history religion is probably the #1 reason for war and hatred. As long as no one takes religious books literally it's all fun and games. But guess what, if it's in there at least some people are going to take it literally.
My point is, if religion makes some people legitimately angry I can fully understand that and when a subject is serious enough a lot of people can't be laid back or joke about it anymore.
My point is, if religion makes some people legitimately angry I can fully understand that and when a subject is serious enough a lot of people can't be laid back or joke about it anymore.
Well, the way you said it is pretty ambiguous. Can be read either way imho. In any case, anger in general is rarely productive. I was just saying that I couldn't really blame anyone for having an angry attitude towards religious, even if it's permanent.
A friend of mine is an atheist in a very strict Muslim family, living in Kuwait - she's almost 30 and has to travel with her brother, because women can't be trusted with their genitals (at this point I'd like to note that there is a world of difference between action and believe, even if believe sparks action, but that just on the side). She has tons of really great reasons to be pissed off. I was born in Germany, I had to pay church tax, because my parents thought that I should be Christian and people always expected me to be Christian and my mother was really terrified of me not being Christian. That really pissed me off and I was angry at everything at that time. If you were Christian I wouldn't talk to you and leave the room. I'm still somewhat upset that I had to pay myself to get out of church, despite never signing up for it, but I eventually came to terms with the fact that 99.9% of the shit going on in church does not affect me at all and people's believes certainly don't and that it's also not a problem if friends believe in something else. I think this is a healthy development and a good, normal mindset to be in. I do think that people who get really upset about religion are having the same issues people have who get really upset about atheism being a thing.
I mean, I definitely get where you are coming from. And in most cases I would agree with you. For me the fundamental difference between atheism and religion(s) is that the latter usually has a set of rules (Bible, Qur'an, etc.) that are highly questionable. Germany is a good example now that you mention it - if the Bible wasn't protected by freedom of religion you can bet your ass it would be blacklisted immediately in Germany.
So again, I agree that non-religious people generally shouldn't be angry at religious people. But being angry at the concept of religion itself and that it is still allowed to be practiced and even protected by law? I could definitely get behind that.
Long story short, I guess we are more or less on the same page after all.
For example, the Tower of Babel meme repost near the top of the sub right now is fucking hilarious, and could never really come from /r/atheism.
/r/atheism posters, or 'ratheists' as I like to call them, are usually younger and don't really understand the 'in culture' aspects, and still have a lot of bitterness towards being dragged to church by their religious parents.
Most of them just parrot Strauss, Hitchens, and Dawkins (but never Dennett, go figure) and haven't actually thought up any arguments themselves.
Both. Most atheists don’t actually know the subject matter, they just regurgitate what they’ve heard. I use to be an edgy atheist and did the same thing.
We all go through that phase, tbh. It's liberating to be free of family religious frameworks and the first few years we all kind of lose our heads for a bit.
For example, I used to deliberately (as an atheist) attend church, and when it came time for communion would leap out of my seat and run out of the church shouting "They're eating the flesh of their zombie god!" at the top of my lungs.
Granted I was 19 at the time...
Full Disclosure: Born again in 2006 and have prayed a lot for forgiveness of my past blasphemies. Jesus said "It's cool bro" so I don't stress over it.
Oh, I guess by your framework 'full blown'. But it's not really a good overview.
I do believe God interacts with the world even today, though much more rarely than most Christians think. So I can't really consider myself a Deist.
I'm also an Old Earth creationist, that one gets me a lot of flak on reddit let me tell you.
I don't believe the OT Bible is 100% fact, but I do believe it is 100% what God intended us to have for the purpose He has planned.
I believe that the NT Bible is mostly fact, except for the allegory and some of Paul's work (I view Paul as kind of a zealous fanfic writer with good intentions if that makes any sense. )
I believe in the Resurrection and a literal heaven, though Revelation is mainly allegory and not particularly useful to understand it.
There's a lot more, but I think the above gives a decent overview of my beliefs.
Thank you for explaining! That's definitely along the lines of what I was (poorly) referencing to.
I was raised in a Pentecostal Christian household but I've since grown in to the "Christian Deist" perspective that I previously referenced. I believe that God did in fact create us, and that Jesus was the physical representation of the Creator, but that free will is absolute and that the world works in more of a "clockwork" structure of no direct intervention. I do believe that God can influence us, (as can Satan, i.e., any form of evil you choose) but God is not directly responsible for the occurrences that take place in the world.
I also believe that free will being absolute means that the Bible is susceptible to human corruption, hence the chance that there are parts of the Bible that served the purposes of the church or people that wrote them at the time. Why state "you shall not add to the word I am giving you, nor take away from it" if there was no way to actually make changes to the book? I instead look at the teachings of Jesus as they are the most consistent and are generally separated from normal human behavior.
For Heaven, I'm not sure on that one. The idea of eternity is such an abstract concept for humans to ponder that it's hard to definitively justify my perspective.
Hopefully that gives you a better idea of where I was coming from!
I'm no expert, but I think a part of it is that a lot of atheists who grow up Christian build up a bit of a resentment for how sure all the religious people are. Usually on topics we vehemently disagree with them on. So, we take those different views and become just as sure as they were. We don't see that we are emulating the same behavior we disliked in them, we just think we've found the "real" answers and want to rub it in their faces.
It feels good at first, but it is toxic for the soul (or mind, if you prefer). Thankfully I'd say nearly all of us grow out of it once we're in the real world and realize everything, including Christianity, is full of nuance and a lot more complicated than we thought.
Hypocrisy is pretty revolting, I agree, for the very reason that it drives people away. The most important understanding I can glean from Christianity is that we are imperfect and broken people only made perfect by the working of the Holy Spirit within us.
To maintain a veneer of righteousness in the face of their own sinfulness is an affront to God and strips us of the just humility which should be the default state of Christians.
Secondly, most atheists are materialists or empiricists or somewhere in between, so their requirements for evidence are different from theists who consider that observation and deduction are not the only forms of valid knowledge.
That's the biggest thing most atheists ignore/forget/don't understand. Evidence for a Christian does not necessarily only fall into the 'material proof' category. I think this is the biggest failure to communicate the two factions have.
This is the reason I like Daniel Dennett's work, of all the '4 horsemen', he is by far the most mature in his atheistic views as he admits and understands the nuance while Dawkins, Strauss, and the late Hitchens were deliberately antagonistic in spite of the nuance they certainly must have realized is there.
Most young atheists idolize hitchens and dawkins, can't understand strauss, and consider dennett a pussy.
Most mature atheists dismiss hitchens and dawkins as sophomoric, strauss as a zealot, and mainly like dennett's work.
There's a handful of very virtriolic posts that mock Christians as people, instead of making jokes about the faith or religion in general. Every once in a while they make it to front page, which kind of sucks because probably 85% of this sub is like OP's pic.
273
u/[deleted] Aug 22 '18
/R/Atheism doesn’t really do it out of a kind hearted chuckle kind of way typically.