Letters to the Editor
-
Hello from Koko
As a gorilla myself, I take great offense at being compared to you lowly human beings! We are so very different from your shameful plant-wearing species. You should all be called Homo stupidus!
And yes, that IS in fact a banana in my pocket, and I'm NOT happy to see you! >:o(
-
spirit, god, I want more fruit
It seems that in this article and a lot of responses to it some points are being missed.
1. Being empathetic, awed by beauty, able to relate positivly with other beings, using ones imagination are not bound to any kind of religious yearning or knowledge.
2. Having a self concept that includes a non material component does not mean one is a theist or has any religious belief. Pure Buddhism stripped of cultural overlays for example.
3. Religions by their very nature are proscriptive and thus a useful tool for social control. Whenever two or more are gathered in his name they will be busy excluding a third for not being up to scratch.
4.With the exception of spontaneous spiritual revelations all religions amount to an "as told to" experience. The question of belief is always firstly "Yes I believe what the Grand Poo Bar has told me/written in the sacred texts is the truth about God/s the world and everything."
Do people ever fall down talking in tongues at a high Catholic Mass at the elevation of the Eucharist. No, because they are programmed for the correct response in the context, whereas at some snake handling jamboree they'll burble on because they've been primed to see that as the appropriate responce. We join and we're taught how to pretend to experience the divine.
A mountain gorrilla staring at a waterfall may be thinking about the creator god but I doubt it, more likely it is wondering where the water is coming from, what a lot of noise it makes and how might it feel to stand underneath it.
5. The warm self satisfied glow of religious people may well be attributed to their warm acceptance and inclusion into a large supportive social group as much as any communion with the divine. Add in a message that says there is a purpose to life (that you don't have to come up with yourself)and that death and suffering have a meaning and hey presto you have a religion.
Mother Mary Amageddon to be a Habit With You
Big Sisters of Universal Joy
Mother House Sydney Australia
-
An Auspicious Start, No Name Given... (part one)
...that descends into the same old, same old. But thanks for at least trying to offer a civil response. I shall do likewise, to wit:
My initial response is to say “Welcome to our world.” Surely you’d agree that, for every minute of TV interview with a professed atheist, there must be many, many minutes devoted to Christianity and other religions. And at least you do actually have to go looking for these atheists, and you find them in the places where you might expect them. Not like Nativity Scenes on public property, Evangelicals shouting through loud-speakers on street corners (this happens regularly near my work), or Christians re-writing various State Constitutions so that they conform more closely to their personal (and, admittedly, in their location widely held) religious beliefs. Surely you have had no run-ins with atheists along these lines. No Christians invade one’s ear and eye space at every turn.
As far as the hostility goes, you must admit there is some justification for this. Not only the things I’ve listed above, but the daily tales of death and destruction caused by suicide bombers and terrorists in the Middle East – each one of whom is devoutly religious. Now, yes, you make the distinction between fanatics and moderates, but – moderates pave the way. WITHIN any religious sect, isn’t it fair to say “if to be sort-of religious is good, to be really religious is better”? My understanding is that, when a young member of a Muslim family becomes a successful suicide-bomber/martyr, that ‘martyr’s’ family is treated with great respect in their own community, like the family of a genuine hero. But the members of that community are surely much more “moderate” than the ‘martyr’ him/herself. Lots of positive reinforcement there. And – show me the moderate who is actually willing to take the fundamentalist to task for his fundamentalism and its inherent dangers. I wonder if such a thing exists. No – that job has fallen to us more aggressive atheists.
While it is true that there is much invective directed at "unbelievers", "heathens" and so forth, why pay any attention to it? When I wrote that the screeds of radical atheists seem to be everywhere, I meant it. Hence my title and its reference to too much NPR. But should I really have to listen to Top 40 Radio, watch "American Idol" and read the funny papers just to escape such vitriol? I can tune out 99% of the cultural noise that passes for religiosity in this country. Why can't you?
And for the record, no, I DON'T have to admit any justification for hostility. Simple good manners dictates that I don't call you a heathen and you refrain from calling me stupid. Live and let live. I was disappointed that you deployed Dawkins's outrageous canard that those who are moderately faithful and pious somehow "enable" the lunatic fundamentalists. Are you not aware that we're number one on their death lists?? Look at Muslim fundamentalists. Sunnis see Shi'ites as apostates worthy of death, and vice-versa. Excepting 9/11 and unfortunates like that nun in Somalia and Daniel Pearl, jihadis are killing each other, not blowing up Lutheran temples or conducting raids on Sunday afternoon Bingo at the local parish.
Well, we try, I can assure you, but in recent history we have been quite simply outnumbered on several occasions. The rational does not always win in a democracy.
This comment assumes every believer votes against you. You're wrong, and are furthermore reading the words of someone who passionately believes in the strict separation of church and state. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, render unto Him what is His.
which is precisely what allows fundamentalists to wreak their havok, and which is why some of us noisier atheists are less tolerant of moderates than seems, at first glance, necessary.
I meant between believers and non-believers. Let me assure you that I do not suffer fundie fools gladly, so your intolerance is misplaced. People such as ourselves can make common cause against fundamentalists for reasons that are both different but at times overlap.
No it most decidedly is NOT. Dawkins may have, and publicly discuss, extremely radical views if he wishes – it’s his right, and many are interested in what he has to say. But you still have to go searching for him – he is not “coming onto your property and knocking at your door.” He has (and I have) strong feelings on these topics, but we are definitely not putting them in your face.
Yes, Dawkins can discuss anything he wants. But he is beginning to sound like an advocate for such criminalisation, and that's where I draw the line. Neither he nor anyone else has any business telling people what beliefs or values they can teach their children. The family, except in cases of genuine child abuse, must remain sovereign. Can't you see how Orwellian this is getting? And sorry again but when you attempt to pass a law, based upon your beliefs, that tells me I can't pass along my values to my own children then you are DEFINITELY shoving your beliefs about as far into my face as is possible without also breaking my nose.
Dear Oh dear – you are utterly wrong here, and playing a bit of the pop-psychologist too. No, the admittedly hysterical tone of many of our writings and interviews comes from the sense that extremely-religious people (primarily in the Middle East, but we have significant pressing issues in this country too) are on the verge of destroying society, and for that matter the planet, as we know them. These are excellent causes for hysteria! And - it can be hard for the religious to understand this, but I TRULY do not fear Hell – I TRULY do not believe it exists. No one has ever given me a compelling – or even remotely interesting – reason TO believe in it.
You don't believe, so fair enough. But then...