Question for Atheists

[dayman]

 

I figured at some point someone would take it there...this is partly why I find it almost impossible to have a meaningful discussion about the topic because everyone is so cynical.

 

"Take it there?" Take it where? What is your question? How does anyone who talks about religion being silly not think "what if I'm wrong." How do people who think religion is silly not avoid "purposefully saying something defiant?" Have you read what you are typing? I'm not trolling or flaming or working you up for a fight at all here...totally calm just talking...what I'm doing is saying...are you listening to yourself?

[ajzepp]

"Take it there?" Take it where? What is your question? How does anyone who talks about religion being silly not think "what if I'm wrong." How do people who think religion is silly not avoid "purposefully saying something defiant?" Have you read what you are typing? I'm not trolling or flaming or working you up for a fight at all here...totally calm just talking...what I'm doing is saying...are you listening to yourself?

 

Yep, I've read what I wrote a few times over...I don't know how to make it any more clear than I have. If I haven't articulated myself well enough for you to have any sort of response, I don't know why you feel the need to go on about how it's a stealth post of some sort. It's not.

[dayman]

What you have basically asked is "wtf is wrong with these people" ... "these people" being those who "openly do something that would be regarded by millions as heresy." The answer is "nothing."

Edited August 10, 2013 by SameOldBills

[boyst]

In short my opinion is that some people need the hope or belief of something to create a foundation or basis for their life or morals. Some people have to believe in ghosts because they cannot face that this life is their only chance at it. That after death there is only death.

 

People use religion to justify things they do not or cannot rationalize/process/comprehend/accept.

 

Some people use it as a crutch to set their moral compass.

[Tiberius]

In short my opinion is that some people need the hope or belief of something to create a foundation or basis for their life or morals. Some people have to believe in ghosts because they cannot face that this life is their only chance at it. That after death there is only death.

 

People use religion to justify things they do not or cannot rationalize/process/comprehend/accept.

 

Some people use it as a crutch to set their moral compass.

 

I think you give too many of them too much credit. The power of tradition and the fact so many other people believe goes into it. Many people just don't think for themselves and just take whatever religion they were born into for granted. A lot of atheist are the same way

[ajzepp]

What you have basically asked is "wtf is wrong with these people" ... "these people" being those who "openly do something that would be regarded by millions as heresy." The answer is "nothing."

 

What I'm getting at is the motivation behind the action. To actively organize some sort of video campaign where fellow atheists speak out about blaspheming the Holy Spirit, it's probably not because they just have nothing better to do. There is a motivation behind the action that stems from their position as an atheist, and that's why I'm seeking feedback from others who may share a similar viewpoint. Is it just that the attacks from the Christians have gotten so tiresome that they feel the need to act out in return? And if so, is it some form of retaliation where it's specifically meant to offend or at least "bother" those who believe in God? Or is it more that it's a visible affirmation to give other atheists the confidence to embrace their viewpoint?

 

I take it as "I'm so confident there's not that ill do this" as opposed to "even if there is, screw him" but likewise can't claim that as fact for everybody doing it (or anybody doing it, really)

 

That's pretty much what I was thinking, as well...It was just sort of weird seeing an "active" atheism, you know?

[dayman]

What I'm getting at is the motivation behind the action. To actively organize some sort of video campaign where fellow atheists speak out about blaspheming the Holy Spirit, it's probably not because they just have nothing better to do. There is a motivation behind the action that stems from their position as an atheist, and that's why I'm seeking feedback from others who may share a similar viewpoint. Is it just that the attacks from the Christians have gotten so tiresome that they feel the need to act out in return? And if so, is it some form of retaliation where it's specifically meant to offend or at least "bother" those who believe in God? Or is it more that it's a visible affirmation to give other atheists the confidence to embrace their viewpoint?

 

 

 

That's pretty much what I was thinking, as well...It was just sort of weird seeing an "active" atheism, you know?

 

Not sure how it is any more strange to see someone actively speaking that religion is is false, when people all over the world actively speak that particular religions are truth (the only truth in many cases).

 

As for the motivation it obviously depends on the person. But for the most part, I think many of "these people" just think religion is transparently bogus and say what is on their mind.

 

A lot of people on this board speak out against the "PC" culture. Particularly with race...there is the idea that whether or not you choose to see it there IS oppression and bigotry everywhere and as a result we all need to be super sensitive to racial issues, b/c racial equality and the struggle to finally get to some mythical promise land where we achieve it is basically sacred. So you dare not say something that may offend someone. A lot of people believe that there is a big problem currently with race. A lot of people don't see that at all. MOst people just ignore or don't speak on it. Some do. Blah Blah.

 

When it comes to religion these discussions often can turn into "I have faith but respect those who don't" and "I don't have faith but respect those who do." A giant circle jerk...b/c it's just fluff and leaves out the fact that a large portion of people (if speaking their mind) will say "it's pretty bogus and frankly I don't personally have 'respect' for people's belief in ancient stories about things that I absolute think are false."

 

I'm not, and nobody I know is, saying that anyone should abolish religion. But I certainly don't have to go around just acting like it is somehow entitled to my personal respect. I respect people, and I respect people's rights, but I don't see how it's somehow taboo to admit that if I'm honest I truly don't have any respect of belief in religion. It isn't nasty, it isn't targeted, and honestly it doesn't really affect my opinion of people since so many people are (or claim to religious). But religion itself, it isn't sacred to me. It's silly. I don't "respect" the actual belief of this stuff. I don't feel the need to walk on egg shells. And it is that simple.

 

So the answer to the motivation question is simple...it is how I feel.

 

PS: That is almost unreadable but I can't be bothered to edit it. You catch my meaning, I'm sure.

Edited August 10, 2013 by SameOldBills

[DC Tom]

He's satirizing those religious people who feel the need to profess their faith at every turn. (Which pretty much amounts to "being a dick," yeah). It's far less about being "anti-religion" than it is being anti-zealot or anti-hypocrite.

[Rob's House]

I'm really interested to learn more about his position since I consider myself a fan (lower case "f") of his. I listened to his podcast a few weeks ago and, much like Ricky Gervais, it's almost like a constant mocking/bashing of religion/God. Maybe I just got him on a bad day, but sometimes it just seems like it's something they either just can't let go, or they are going for "shock effect" by going at it so hard. It's gotten to the point where if you look at Ricky Gervais twitter account, quite literally every day it's multiple posts about the topic. It's to the point where it's frustrating for me as a fan because I find the guy incredibly funny, but it's getting so annoying that he just can't get off the God thing. I'm sure a big part of it is because he's getting antagonized by Christians and others for his beliefs...I get that. But then the next thing you know he can't even get through the golden globes or whatever show he hosted without getting all into it again.

 

I'm not familiar with Ricky Gervais other than knowing he's a British comic, but I think a lot of the more reasoned anti-religion types are responding to a very vocal minority of the religious community. In my younger days I was on that band wagon, but had to eventually jump off as it became clear that the people with the most power and influence who wanted to impose their will based on an illogical, unsound, or unsubstantiated basis (like faith) were coming not from the religious right, but from the secular left. However, when I was on an anti-religion kick it was because it infuriated me to have people tell me that I shouldn't (or more specifically couldn't) do something for no other reason than that some 2000 year old scripture said so.

Edited August 10, 2013 by Rob's House

[ajzepp]

He's satirizing those religious people who feel the need to profess their faith at every turn. (Which pretty much amounts to "being a dick," yeah). It's far less about being "anti-religion" than it is being anti-zealot or anti-hypocrite.

 

Brilliant...thank you. I was hoping you'd chime in.

 

I'm not familiar with Ricky Gervais other than knowing he's a British comic, but I think a lot of the more reasoned anti-religion types are responding to a very vocal minority of the religious community. In my younger days I was on that band wagon, but had to eventually jump off as it became clear that the people with the most power and influence who wanted to impose their will based on an illogical, unsound, or unsubstantiated basis (like faith) were coming not from the religious right, but from the secular left. However, when I was on an anti-religion kick it was because it infuriated me to have people tell me that I shouldn't (or more specifically couldn't) do something for no other reason than that some 2000 year old scripture said so.

 

It's funny cause I find that even as a person of faith I don't really fit in to many of the sub-segments of this population. I tend to be very ecumenical and more logical in my beliefs than many (most?) of the other Christians I come across, especially here in the south. One of the most enlightening experiences I ever had was reading "Mere Christianity" by CS Lewis. It had none of the "rah rah" nonsense that I find really bothersome and it focused on those who wish to think through their faith as opposed to just regurgitating Bible verses or repeating what others tell you to believe. My search is more for authenticity than anything else, which is why I think I am seeking to learn more about Penn's actions. I have much more in common with an atheist who has come about it honestly than I do a Christian who has adopted someone else's belief system blindly.

[ajzepp]

Not sure how it is any more strange to see someone actively speaking that religion is is false, when people all over the world actively speak that particular religions are truth (the only truth in many cases).

 

As for the motivation it obviously depends on the person. But for the most part, I think many of "these people" just think religion is transparently bogus and say what is on their mind.

 

A lot of people on this board speak out against the "PC" culture. Particularly with race...there is the idea that whether or not you choose to see it there IS oppression and bigotry everywhere and as a result we all need to be super sensitive to racial issues, b/c racial equality and the struggle to finally get to some mythical promise land where we achieve it is basically sacred. So you dare not say something that may offend someone. A lot of people believe that there is a big problem currently with race. A lot of people don't see that at all. MOst people just ignore or don't speak on it. Some do. Blah Blah.

 

When it comes to religion these discussions often can turn into "I have faith but respect those who don't" and "I don't have faith but respect those who do." A giant circle jerk...b/c it's just fluff and leaves out the fact that a large portion of people (if speaking their mind) will say "it's pretty bogus and frankly I don't personally have 'respect' for people's belief in ancient stories about things that I absolute think are false."

 

I'm not, and nobody I know is, saying that anyone should abolish religion. But I certainly don't have to go around just acting like it is somehow entitled to my personal respect. I respect people, and I respect people's rights, but I don't see how it's somehow taboo to admit that if I'm honest I truly don't have any respect of belief in religion. It isn't nasty, it isn't targeted, and honestly it doesn't really affect my opinion of people since so many people are (or claim to religious). But religion itself, it isn't sacred to me. It's silly. I don't "respect" the actual belief of this stuff. I don't feel the need to walk on egg shells. And it is that simple.

 

So the answer to the motivation question is simple...it is how I feel.

 

PS: That is almost unreadable but I can't be bothered to edit it. You catch my meaning, I'm sure.

 

Sounds like we just approach it very differently. I don't personally equate mutual respect for one's viewpoint to be a circle jerk...I think when you take the emotion, resentment, butt-hurted-ness, and all that stuff out of the conversation it becomes much more productive. Seems to me that way too many people get way too caught up in an identity first and then work to justify it after the fact. All too often I find it's hard to really have an open and honest conversation about the foundation of one's belief system. The only times it's really happened was with people who weren't really settled on how they identified yet. I love those conversations cause you don't get nearly as much "schtick". There's nothing for them to defend or justify, so they can talk openly and honestly about where they stand. Maybe I'm weird because I truly am interested in the experiences of others as it pertains to the topic of religion, God, atheism, etc. I have no desire to convince anyone of anything or defend my own position on the issue...I just enjoy the process of understanding.

[dayman]

Sounds like we just approach it very differently. I don't personally equate mutual respect for one's viewpoint to be a circle jerk...I think when you take the emotion, resentment, butt-hurted-ness, and all that stuff out of the conversation it becomes much more productive. Seems to me that way too many people get way too caught up in an identity first and then work to justify it after the fact. All too often I find it's hard to really have an open and honest conversation about the foundation of one's belief system. The only times it's really happened was with people who weren't really settled on how they identified yet. I love those conversations cause you don't get nearly as much "schtick". There's nothing for them to defend or justify, so they can talk openly and honestly about where they stand. Maybe I'm weird because I truly am interested in the experiences of others as it pertains to the topic of religion, God, atheism, etc. I have no desire to convince anyone of anything or defend my own position on the issue...I just enjoy the process of understanding.

 

Do you write speeches for Obama?

[ajzepp]

Do you write speeches for Obama?

 

Not intentionally, anyway.

[dayman]

Not intentionally, anyway.

 

lol. Anyway I'm just saying, unless it is in a historical or philosophical framework, discussion of religious beliefs is faux-intellectualism. A lot of people all over the world believe in a bunch of different--inconsistent--nonsense. A lot of people don't. A lot of people could care less. Each "group" has people who are vocal and who are not. That's about all there is to it.

Edited August 10, 2013 by SameOldBills

[John Adams]

I know better than to join this discussion because I am no authority on faith, but what I do know is few true Christians would ever make the comment you imply above. There are not other paths. There is one. You qualify the comment by suggesting this is what is said by "more reasonable religions," but this is mostly a judgement call on your behalf. Yes, we can all agree that, say, The People's Temple was not a "reasonable religion," but I have read enough of your postings to suspect you don't find Catholicism reasonable either because of it's position on homosexuality.

 

Again, I hesitate to wade in because I am no authority on the subject, but I do know that true Christians believe there is one path, and there is no 'hoping' they have the answer. As far as they are concerned, they know the answer and it's the only answer. Consequently I suspect you probably find true Christianity unreasonable simply because it is not open to the idea that other paths exist.

 

Do you think that Christians are in some way different in their conviction than people who believed in Zeus or Ra? I'm not asking you to compare the tenets, but the conviction.

 

And I agree with you: Few devote Christians would make a statement acknowledging other religions' validity. I grew up in a Catholic house, Catholic schools, altar boy, etc. The Catholic church has a lot of beliefs besides their moral code that I question. Their stance on homosexuality is just one thing I disagree with and hardly dispositive of my opinion about the church. I don't hate Catholics or the church. I enjoy going to Mass with friends for a wedding or special event because the rhythms are familiar (except WTF--they changed some of the Mass words recently...totally F-ed me up last time..."And also with you" now "And also with your spirit" or something). But I would never be Catholic or Christian clearly. I don't believe in the divinity of Jesus or the Holy Spirit or any of the magic in the Old Testament stories. I appreciate their teachings but don't think they happened.

 

If there's a god behind all this, that will be incredible and amazing. I will be happy to find out if I ever do. But I don't think that god came along after some 200,000 or 50,000 years into humanity's existence and said, "Hey, by the way, Christianity is the answer and anything else you believed before or will believe since is bunk." That sort of "we have the answer" thing sounds more like human narcissism than the act of a loving god.

 

It's like when there's a little rise about the end of the world. That's just human ego at play, thinking that our lives are so incredible that despite the earth's incredible age, our tiny speck of time on it will be when the end of times comes. Yet people keep falling for it. We are an egoistic species for sure!

Edited August 10, 2013 by John Adams

[Tiberius]

I'm not familiar with Ricky Gervais other than knowing he's a British comic, but I think a lot of the more reasoned anti-religion types are responding to a very vocal minority of the religious community. In my younger days I was on that band wagon, but had to eventually jump off as it became clear that the people with the most power and influence who wanted to impose their will based on an illogical, unsound, or unsubstantiated basis (like faith) were coming not from the religious right, but from the secular left. However, when I was on an anti-religion kick it was because it infuriated me to have people tell me that I shouldn't (or more specifically couldn't) do something for no other reason than that some 2000 year old scripture said so.

 

What does the left want to impose on you?

[Bigfatbillsfan]

First let me ask that anyone willing to respond not bring an agenda into the conversation and derail it. I'm really interested in SPECIFIC responses to my question below. I know this topic can trigger a lot of divergent views and long-held passion, but I'm really curious to hear sincere answers to the question I'm posing.

 

Okay, so here's the thing. I've always found those who consider themselves agnostic or atheists to have arrived at that position very honestly. Let's face it, even for those of us who do believe in God, it's not an easy thing to come by sometimes. I came across a new expression of atheism recently that honestly has me really wanting to bring it up as a discussion and to get the perspectives of those who share in this mindset.

 

I have always been drawn to intellectuals, mainly for selfish reasons. I feel a day without learning or exploration is a day wasted, and intellectual types offer an endless buffet of opportunities to do exactly that. One of my favorite celebrities has been Penn Jillette. He's clearly functioning on a very high level not just with his humor or magic, but also with his politics and other areas. I found it interesting recently to hear him say that he did not have a position on global warming because "there is not enough evidence". This was interesting to me because I've always known him to be an atheist, and it would seem that it would be far more difficult to gather proper evidence to come to a conclusion on God and the hereafter than it would global warming, yet he's certain on the former while being undecided on the latter. This led me to look a bit further and I found that he, along with other atheists, have started going on youtube and making a public declaration to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. They do this because they are so certain there is no Judeo-Christian God that they are focusing on the one "unforgivable sin", per the Christian Bible, and committing it for all to see.

 

So here is my question: There are things I do not believe in at all, say for example Voodoo and Mummy curses. But if I found myself among those who practice Voodoo or if I were on some excavation in Egypt attempting to recover mummified remains, there's absolutely no part of me that would purposely do something antagonistic or defiant. Even though I feel quite strongly that these things are not legit, there is still a part of me that respects the fact that I cannot know with certainty that my position is valid, no matter how unlikely or absurd the idea of it being real may be. If I were atheist, I cannot possibly imagine that I would ever be so bold in my assumptions that I would feel the need to commit an act that so many millions of people would view as heresy. It's not like we're talking about the Easter Bunny here...we're talking about GOD...something that people all over the world have dedicated their lives to, whether it be through the practice of faith, erudition, pastoral or clergical duties, whatever.

 

I can understand a lack of faith and/or belief. But a lack of faith or belief has no bearing whatsoever on whether something is true or not true. What could possibly be to gain from this sort of act? How can there be NO consideration given to, "what if I'm wrong?" It just doesn't strike me as something an intelligent person would do, and that's why I'm interested to hear some feedback from others who may have more insight as to why an atheist would even bother himself with something like this?

 

PS. If anyone woudl like to respond privately, please feel free to PM me. I will respect your privacy and not disclose your comments to anyone else.

 

I've seen quite a few of these and know exactly what you're talking about. I could write a dissertation on what this is about. But to sum it up in a quick sentence: It's because being an intellectual doesn't stop someone from being an !@#$. They do it for the same reason that my 5 year old will poke or hit my 3 year old in the back seat of the car while we're driving somewhere. She wants to get a rise out of her sister and see her get mad. My 10 year old has outgrown this particular behavior. However, these people making their "Blasphemy" videos have not.

 

Personally, the only kind of person I find more annoying than a militant christian is a youtube atheist.

[3rdnlng]

This has been attributed to many different people and I don't know the true author:

 

If a Conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.

If a Liberal doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a Conservative doesn’t like what he/she hears in a auditorium, he/she walks out.

If a Liberal doesn’t like what he/she hears in a auditorium, he/she will shout the speaker down so nobody can hear.

If a Conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat.

If a Liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a Conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.

A Liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a Conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.

Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

If a Conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.

A Liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.

If a Conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.

A Liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

[ajzepp]

I've seen quite a few of these and know exactly what you're talking about. I could write a dissertation on what this is about. But to sum it up in a quick sentence: It's because being an intellectual doesn't stop someone from being an !@#$. They do it for the same reason that my 5 year old will poke or hit my 3 year old in the back seat of the car while we're driving somewhere. She wants to get a rise out of her sister and see her get mad. My 10 year old has outgrown this particular behavior. However, these people making their "Blasphemy" videos have not.

 

Personally, the only kind of person I find more annoying than a militant christian is a youtube atheist.

 

lol, that's very close to what I twitted/tweeted to Gervais the other day...and again, I LOVE this guy's humor...he's extremely quick-witted, has perfect timing, and is very original in his material a lot of the time. If I didn't feel that way I wouldn't care that he's become obsessed with promoting atheism and/or, as you asserted, being an arse. I basically said to him almost verbatim what you just said above...his crusade is becoming almost as annoying as all these hard core Fundamentalist Christians who just want to beat you over the head with their propaganda. It's kinda the same with Penn, just not to the same degree. I really love his work on a professional level and he just seems like one hell of an interesting guy...but my primary interest with both of these gents is entertainment, and call me crazy, but I just don't find it entertaining when they mix in all the religious/political stuff on top of it.

 

lol. Anyway I'm just saying, unless it is in a historical or philosophical framework, discussion of religious beliefs is faux-intellectualism. A lot of people all over the world believe in a bunch of different--inconsistent--nonsense. A lot of people don't. A lot of people could care less. Each "group" has people who are vocal and who are not. That's about all there is to it.

 

Fair enough...I appreciate the feedback/discussion

[600cc]

Your question is not really a question to atheists, but one of moral foundation- yet simply, why do certain people act the way they do?

 

No, I personally do not believe it is fair or respectful to act in such a manner, but such is life.

 

If you want to bring in religion and faith into it... you can, or you can just leave it out. It is not a race issue, national issue or any other thing to blame. It is a human issue.