I used to work with a militant Athiest. The "all religion is evil and everyone who believes is an idiot sheep" type who was all logic all the time, science science science.
I pissed him off regularly by asking him to stop "evangelizing [your] religion to me" all the time. Because that's what it was.
I don't accept your definition of religion. Even within it, I don't think atheism has much to say about the "purpose" of the universe, so it wouldn't really qualify.
The majority of religions teach peace and goodwill. Not exclusively (this is one thing Christianity and Islam certainly agree on), but they all basically teach some form of (as William and Theodore might say) Be excellent to each other.
The trick is that most religions get organized and when they get organized they start to control people; usually it at least starts out for the good. Don't eat this or the other thing because in the places where we live, eating these things will jack you up. But organization brings with it secular influence. And the more secular influence an organization has, the more of it and the more overall control they tend to want. (See: The Catholic Church
( ... )
Yeah, I don't think a lot of religions innately teach the "be excellent to one another" thing as the major part of their broader message -- at least not the older ones. That's us attempting to impose our modern, progressive narrative on them so that we can feel comfortable integrating the religions in our society
( ... )
It doesn't bother me that we have to pretend that religions, a long time ago, was civilized and rational. What bothers me is that we have to pretend that a lot of religions, right now, aren't equally bloody and backwards. And it bothers me that fundamentalists use their more tolerant co-religionists as a shield to defend their blood and hate and it bothers me that . . . many of their co-religionists allow themselves to be used thus.
I've studied this for a long time... I agree with what you are saying, but with one correction to the specific nature of religion.
Religion, when it gathers to an organization, becomes a part of a community. When that happens, it is the community that twists religion to meet its ends, not the other way around.
Religion, on its own merit, is blameless. The problem is what happens when people get hold of it afterward. Once that happens, tenants of faith are used to prop up a community's bigotry and intolerance. Bigotry and intolerance are not based on reasoning, but the aspect of 'faith' allows it to become justifiable identity. Once that happens, a person who finds their bigotry and intolerance in question, can overreact as if their entire existence had been challenged.
Thus, faith becomes the ultimate in easily abused social tools.
Did he do that? Or did he challenge the tendency of atheists to see themselves as the enlightened few - to basically exchange their previous theistic exlusionary creed for an atheistic exclusionary creed? He's absolutely right that the attitudes are the same.
In the interest of full disclosure, I'm a former Christian and current atheist who is not particularly evangelical about the spirituality I find in my secular humanism. I occasionally slip up because I was raised to be an evangelical, and I'm fighting to acquire and maintain a worldview that frames religion as many paths to walk.
Yes, he did. Atheism was the only ideology that was specifically mentioned by name. Also, I believe it's fair to bring up the fact that atheists are the most hated group in America, and comments like this should be taken in that context.
It's interesting that you feel attacked by what he said about atheists, but I don't. If he was attacking all atheists, I would have felt attacked too - I have certainly felt that in the past when others over-generalized about atheism.
It seems to me that you're attempting to derail a valid point by pointing out that it might possibly be related to an ingrained hatred (which I have never seen from Athelind the entire 3+ years he's been on my much-used religious seeking filter.) There are fundamentalist atheists. They use turns of phrase and us vs. them mentality to just about the same extent that fundamentalist Christians or fundamentalist Muslims or fundamentalist patriots do. If you choose to try to deny this, I'll point you to a few dozen examples, but I don't really think that's a constructive path to take here.
Comments 50
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
I pissed him off regularly by asking him to stop "evangelizing [your] religion to me" all the time. Because that's what it was.
Reply
That said, the angry, zealous atheist types are certainly very annoying, and very... lacking in self-awareness.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
The majority of religions teach peace and goodwill. Not exclusively (this is one thing Christianity and Islam certainly agree on), but they all basically teach some form of (as William and Theodore might say) Be excellent to each other.
The trick is that most religions get organized and when they get organized they start to control people; usually it at least starts out for the good. Don't eat this or the other thing because in the places where we live, eating these things will jack you up. But organization brings with it secular influence. And the more secular influence an organization has, the more of it and the more overall control they tend to want. (See: The Catholic Church ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Religion, when it gathers to an organization, becomes a part of a community. When that happens, it is the community that twists religion to meet its ends, not the other way around.
Religion, on its own merit, is blameless. The problem is what happens when people get hold of it afterward. Once that happens, tenants of faith are used to prop up a community's bigotry and intolerance. Bigotry and intolerance are not based on reasoning, but the aspect of 'faith' allows it to become justifiable identity. Once that happens, a person who finds their bigotry and intolerance in question, can overreact as if their entire existence had been challenged.
Thus, faith becomes the ultimate in easily abused social tools.
Reply
Religious
Right.
Notice I don't specify which religion.
Reply
Reply
In the interest of full disclosure, I'm a former Christian and current atheist who is not particularly evangelical about the spirituality I find in my secular humanism. I occasionally slip up because I was raised to be an evangelical, and I'm fighting to acquire and maintain a worldview that frames religion as many paths to walk.
Reply
Reply
It seems to me that you're attempting to derail a valid point by pointing out that it might possibly be related to an ingrained hatred (which I have never seen from Athelind the entire 3+ years he's been on my much-used religious seeking filter.) There are fundamentalist atheists. They use turns of phrase and us vs. them mentality to just about the same extent that fundamentalist Christians or fundamentalist Muslims or fundamentalist patriots do. If you choose to try to deny this, I'll point you to a few dozen examples, but I don't really think that's a constructive path to take here.
Reply
Leave a comment