Loftus: Are We Angry Atheists?

by leavingwt 237 Replies latest jw friends

Berengaria

This guy responds.
Curiosis 03/26/2007 02:45 PM
"It creates quite a conundrum to admit that there are thoughtful, honest, decent, intelligent people who find no validity in their Bible God."

This reminds me of something my wife (who's a Christian) said to me when I told her I was an atheist. She said that highly intelligent people often have trouble believing in god.

I immediately thought of a corollary to her statement. Doctors often have trouble believing in the healing power of blood-letting. There's a reason for this.
Curiosis 03/26/2007 03:08 PM
Anonymous,

I, for one, don't wish to be treated as a god. I would feel guilty if I were knowing that I am not a god.

I would guess that all ex-theists feel duped to a certain extent. Yes, it wasn't really our fault. We were most likely indoctrinated as children. However, we feel duped because we continued to believe something without really considering it. We fooled ourselves into thinking something was true when it was obviously false.

As an atheist, I am much happier now than I ever was as a christian. It is a huge relief no longer to be forced to make all the inconsistencies and absurdities of christianity fit together like a 1,000 piece puzzle with only 500 of the pieces. It is a relief knowing that my life is mine. To succeed or fail on my own. To know that there isn't some invisible being out there just itching to roast me for all eternity for something I might do wrong.DC actually isn't about god. It is about god-believers. If everyone just followed their religion and never tried to impose it on others or use the power of government to endorse their beliefs, this website probably wouldn't exist.I really don't care if you believe there's an invisible pink unicorn in your garage. This belief may be sad, but it doesn't have any effect on me. I might try to talk you out of it, only because I hate to see someone waste their life on foolish beliefs.

You say that you "dont routinely post caricatures of Islam or attack Allah."

True. But I bet your attitude would change if suddenly every piece of money in your pocket had "In Allah We Trust" on it. If passages from the Koran were on courthouse walls where you hoped to get justice.

You say, "The truth is, I would suspect alot of you guys hate the kernel of truth left inside you that's telling you that all's not well.."

What's not well? For me, any remaining kernal of truth about god popped a long time ago.

"...because youve already learned the basic truth that God makes so simple a child can understand it."

Much like Santa Claus. Things that children believe are not good models for adult beliefs. Children are gullible and do not typically see the big picture.

"...but based on soem of the factually incorrect premises which answered a previous post of mine, it seems some of you are grasping to find reasons to disbelieve..."

I would have trouble not finding reasons to disbelieve. Besides, I don't need any reason to disbelieve. I only need a reason to believe, and I don't have one.

"...something I used to do when I wanted to go off and live my way, knowing it wouldnt fly with God."

I'm very sorry that you require an imaginary being in order to behave. I want to live freely, but not if it means harming my fellow human beings. I don't need a sky daddy to tell me right from wrong. I can see that clearly for myself.

ziddina

Once a person researches the history of religion, one almost automatically becomes an atheist...

"Interesting. I haven't found this to be the case, personally. I think it is foolish to assume that the one automatically follows the other. If anything, history affirms the universality of the religious/spiritual experience in humans, going all the way back to the Stone Age. ..."

And as I suspected would happen, Burn missed the rest of my comment...

"Unless one blindly focuses only upon the short-term history of this Johnny-Come-Lately Middle-Eastern 'god', exclusively..."

As for worship during the "Stone Age"... It depends on which parts of the "Stone Age" that one refers to...

Going back to the most ancient forms of worship - around 200,000 years or so - the OLDEST DEITES WORSHIPPED WERE FEMALE....

Which again leaves the Johnny-come-lately Middle-Eastern male "god" - "gods" - of the bible in the dust, literally...

Humans have SOUGHT OUT a 'deity' or 'deities' throughout most of their history... One can state that humans seek out spirituality...

But that certainly DOES NOT PROVE that there is a "god"... Merely that MOST humans have a burning NEED for something to worship, even if it is the product of their own imaginations....

AK - Jeff

My atheism had its beginning when I was 8 - 9 years old, sitting in the Jehovah's Witnesses Kingdom Hall, and the brother read Exodus 19: 16-19 from the bible...

I envy you Ziddina in that. I ate the Christian nonsense hook, line and sinker for 40 years more. In fact, until 2 years ago, I could not stand the idea of 'atheism' applied to myself. By then I was over 50. Now, the sight of a Bible or religious piety, makes me literally get sick to my stomach. How I wish I had the youthful insight into reality you held at such a young age. Bravo!

Still, I maintain I am not an angry atheist. I hate religion/all the holy books - but I am not angry about it. Hate is not the same. In the same manner in which I 'hate' the smallpox virus, I 'hate' religion. I see it's damage everywhere - it is now crystal-clear to me how many lives are being completely ruined by it. I want to see our society of homo-sapiens move past this insane superstition, for I believe it holds us back as a species. But I don't hate those people who practice religion personally. I pity them. I seek to shake them to their senses at times. But I am not angry at all.

I know that seems contradictory - it is not.

Jeff

Berengaria

Those last couple of posts didn't add anything to the IQ in the thread. Sorry. I'm just getting excited because I'm approaching the 400 posts milestone. Only two more to go ...

It's ok, your previous posts added whopping loads of IQ. You are currently at a surplus.

Nickolas

Gee, thanks. (one more to go).

SweetBabyCheezits

Me: That the Catholic Church condemned heliocentrism as "false and contrary to Scripture" is one example in history.

BTS: Actually, this is not accurate.

Me: So how is my statement inaccurate?

BTS: Your statement is inaccurate in that it creates the impression that official Catholic doctrine condemned the idea of heliocentrism.

BTS: It did happen, but painting the Catholic church of the time as monolithic is not accurate.

The point is that faith in scripture was a major influence and, at that time, the Catholic church had prominence. I never said it was official doctrine but to deny the Church's fat finger of supremacy poking around in the issue is just that: denial.

Finocchiaro's translation of the Inquisition's judgement against Galileo can be read here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070930013053/http://astro.wcupa.edu/mgagne/ess362/resources/finocchiaro.html#sentence

What can we conclude from all this? Galileo was right about heliocentrism, but we know that only in retrospect because of evidence that emerged after Galileo’s death. The Church should not have tried him at all, although Galileo’s reckless conduct contributed to his fate. Even so, his fate was not so terrible. Historian Gary Ferngren concludes that “the traditional picture of Galileo as a martyr to intellectual freedom and as a victim of the church’s opposition to science has been demonstrated to be little more than a caricature.” Remember this the next time you hear some half-educated atheist rambling on about “the war between religion and science.”

We can conclude (as Nick noted) that the WT is certainly not the first revisionist organization and Souza is hardly unbiased in his assessment.

SweetBabyCheezits

I especially enjoyed this part of the Inquisition's judgment against GG....

"And whereas this Holy Tribunal wanted remedy the disorder and the harm which derived from it and which was growing to the detriment of the Holy Faith, by order of His Holiness and the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lord Cardinals of this Supreme and Univesal Inquisition, the Assessor Theologians assessed the two propositions of the sun's stability and the earth's motions as follows:

That the sun is the center of the world and motionless is a proposition which is philosophically absurd and false, and formally heretical, for being explicitly contrary to Holy Scripture;

That the earth is neither the center of the world nor motionless but moves even with diurnal motion is philosophically equally absurd and false, and theologically at least erroneous in the Faith."

BurnTheShips

Here is what I think is a relatively unbiased account of the matter. Everybody got egg on their faces, IMHO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

And as I suspected would happen, Burn missed the rest of my comment...

No I did not. Whether Venus of Willendorf, Yahweh of Israel, or the Trimurti, sex has no bearing on the issue. These are all anthropomorphizations created with respect to the Source.

Merely that MOST humans have a burning NEED for something to worship

Yes. Humans have burning needs for food, water, shelter, companionship and sex, too. For each of these needs, there is an object that satisfies them.

Fascinating, isn't it.

BTS

ziddina

Geez, Burns, you can't see the forest for the trees....

If you wish to continue being deliberately obtuse and avoiding the crux of the issue, then I sincerely wish you well in your self-delusional behavior...

Burns: "Whether Venus of Willendorf, Yahweh of Israel, or the Trimurti, sex has no bearing on the issue. These are all anthropomorphizations created with respect to the Source. .."

So, first you claim to be a follower of the 'god[s]' of the bible, and now suddenly you worship some nebulous, hermaphroditic "Source"????

Make up your mind...

Merely that MOST humans have a burning NEED for something to worship ... [Zid]

Burns: "Yes. Humans have burning needs for food, water, shelter, companionship and sex, too. For each of these needs, there is an object that satisfies them. ..."

Food, water, shelter, companionship and reproduction have to do with SURVIVAL. Worship is not a matter of SURVIVAL - unless one is facing a group of religious fanatics - it's a deep fear-based need to have a more powerful "sky-mommy" or "sky-daddy" to allay the FEAR that most humans feel - fear of disease, fear of aging, fear of death...

It's a vestigial remnant of our primitive ancestors, that most humans have not yet moved beyond. HARDLY as vital as air or water, though - unless you happen to need that ancient 'crutch'...

Zid

SixofNine

Haha... we shoudl go ahead and make that a stereotype: if all christians who deconvert become Angry Atheists then all atheists who convert become Smarmy Christians.

Agreed; new (hu)man-rule. (although, I do know at least one Angry Atheist who has just gone back to being an angry christian)

That was no woman.

heh, good catch - but yes she was! Hottentot's get no respect. (google it, it's actually quite fascinating)

Loftus: Are We Angry Atheists?

Share this