Letters to the Editor
-
Crusades et al
chutney...
Actually, no. Atheism is the disbelief in apocryphal tales. It says nothing about the need for Cultural Revolution, or the Holocaust or anything of the sort. So no, Atheists don't have to take the blame for the Cultural Revolution any more than those who don't believe in Santa Claus.
The Bible actually DOES exhort the faithful to conquer and slay non-believers. It also says not to. It's inconsistent. But yes, citing terrible acts carried out by Christians is a pretty weak argument against Christianity, though it's entirely valid to point out that the Bible does sanction some pretty awful behavior.
A better argument against the bible would be that it's self-contradictory mystical nonsense. One shouldn't live by the bible for the same reason one shouldn't live by the fevered scribblings of a lunatic. The same reason one shouldn't hold one's hand over a flame and not expect to be burned. When you ignore the real world, and decide things based on "magic", the real world doesn't care, and will eventually bite you in the ass.
One can be a decent, moral person whether Athiest or Christian. One can be a terrible, cruel person whether Atheist or Christian. But if one wishes to avoid irrationality, there is only 1 choice, and keep in mind: bad things often are the unforseen consequences of irrational thought rather than the deliberate actions of the wicked.
-
jg
I disagree with your sister entirely: the Bible is neither completely false (then Pontius Pilate wasn't a Roman governor?) nor completely true (then how did Judas die? By tripping in his field, per the book of Acts, or by hanging himself, as in Matthew?). As a history, it must be regarded as we would regard a medieval history. It is not a complete falsehood, but all facts must be checked. Religion's value, if it has value, comes in its mysticism, and in the Golden Rule.
I also agree that religion should be kept out of the public sphere. However, that is not what's happening.
You say:
1. As an atheist, I do not believe. It is not my job to disprove the existence of a god/gods. It is not my job to prove the non-existence of a god/gods.
Nonsense. It is absolutely the job, at least of the atheistic scientists, or of those who think of themselves as defenders of science against irrational attacks, to defend science against religion. Using science. Daily, scientists have their work interfered with, and funding for their work withheld, because of people's belief in God. People may well be hurt in the future, because of this failure. If it is an irrational attack against scientific work, then how, as a scientist, can one possibly say that one has no responsibility to defend science against it? Galileo would have wept.
The idea of God has been posited. To disprove this God, and the teachings of all the Abrahamic religions, with Gabriel's telepathic messages to Mohammed, the Annunciation to Mary, and Moses' burning bush, one needs but to disprove the idea that consciousness can exist without a human body to deliver it. Not that it'll be easy, but there is the task before the atheistic scientist, who wants to ensure that no President Bush can ever deny funding based on religion again. This isn't important to you? And asking religious people to disprove or prove these phenomena isn't only impractical, it's inappropriate: scientists have the equipment, the training, and the laboratories. Let them disprove telepathy, and the possibility of consciousness beyond the body, and they'll have disproved Islam, Christianity, and Judaism.
2. If you are a believer then it should be your job to prove why.
This is true, however.
-
Having said that
Having said that, to feel that not enough evidence for God has been presented is perfectly legitimate. What's not legitimate is for the Richard Dawkinses of the world to proclaim that God does not exist, and that agnosticism is not sufficient, only atheism, before he's bothered doing such laboratory work to disprove God. "God may not exist, and I have no evidence" is a tenable statement. "God does not exist" requires evidence. The agnostic seems to me to be the true scientist; the atheist has jumped to a conclusion without doing the research. There are better anti-religious advocates that Dawkins.
-
Is it pathological to lament the time wasted?
Whether it's an artifact of our long childhoods to cling to the idea of a celestial parent or part of the same faculty that brings us Santa Claus (and excessive faith in our leaders), religion wastes a tremendous amount of time better spent on real issues of actual importance.
Imagine if instead of going to church, we met for an hour or more each week to discuss world affairs and the environment. We could transcend ego and apply the Golden Rule and probably bring about some benefit to ourselves and the world around us. And if, instead of praying, we used the same time to meditate on the beauty and fragility of nature. What if we wore little rubber wristbands that asked what Gandhi or Johnny Appleseed would do?
But that would require us to face up to the issues of death and perfidy and complexity without exceptionality cloaks and swords of the chosen and magic, death-defying tokens of invincibility. No wonder we prefer to play the God game.
-
Reply to Anonymous 3
I am not a publicist for the book I detailed. But I thought the subject matter was of interest to this discussion. If anyone else who has an inquiring mind would like to see if it's of interest, I don't see any harm in that. In fact as I said, it is a counterpoint to this discussion and is a very thought provoking treatise.
Anonymous
-
Only two choices?
So, according to most of the posters here, one has two choices--be an atheist and know that no gods exist, or be a believer in religious dogma along with its superstitions and inconsistant religious texts. Last time I checked, however, many people do not fit into either category. What about we agnostics or those who believe in some sort of higher power but believe that all religion is man-made bunk? There are many people filling liberal mainline churches today whose belief systems simply consists of a belief in a god whose existance they know they cannot prove along with a desire to try to live up to the image of Jesus--even if they know that that image is partly myth. I take issue with a lot of what Armstrong says, however I do think she does a service by showing that the world of belief, like everything else, is not merely black and white.