my coming out as an atheist

[kallipolis]

Well, you know what? The wooden, dogmatic fundamentalists are idiots. I don't have a lot of hope for them. But most atheists I've chatted with are pretty damn smart, though I think they are making some interesting and important mistakes. The chiefest of which is an exacting literalism reminiscent of fundamentalism. I think I've got better a better chance of fostering some understanding of the mythic amongst "aspiring Vulcans," or what have you, than I do amongst the stupider sort of literalist.

An accurate observation.

 

[TX-Beau]

TX Beau, there's something about your tone that doesn't make me want to respond to you. I don't want to converse flippantly, and the rest of us are showing reasonable grace as we disagree with one another. Perhaps you don't really want to have a conversation.

I asked you a simple question; you dodged it with some trite crap.

Then you want to accuse me of not wanting to have a conversation.

If you want to have a conversation, answer the question.

You don’t want to respond, because your premise was contradictory to reality.

 

[FirmaFan]

Yeah, FF, we *are* going in circles here. I don't agree with your premise that it's the nature of all religion to perpetuate beliefs. In the case of fundamentalism, yes. But that is only one (kind) of many religions practiced in the world and it's fallacious to say that all religions are fundamentalist in nature. If we take as an example "mary gave birth to jesus a virgin," the people who take it literally are fundamentalist, and simple. But the virgin birth can be, and is, contemplated otherwise, not as a claim. I don't think it makes sense to be skeptical of the metaphorical. Or, if perhaps someone thinks of metaphors chiefly as false, I would respond that they have an overly diminutive sense of imagination.

As with any claim, I will not accept the claim as credible without sufficient evidence, which leads me to doubt the teachings of religious doctrine. That being said, the literary, metaphorical significance of the religious texts is not lost on me either. I am not skeptical of the truthfulness of allegorical literature and am not arguing as such. To believe that I am arguing against or displaying skepticism towards something similar to a story such as "the boy who cried wolf" is to miss my point. It is those who believe such stories to be true events to which I reject. If any who believe the stories of religious doctrine to be true are to be labeled by you as "fundamentalists", fine, but to assert them as the minority of the religious is, at least in my personal experience, heavily flawed. So, lets take the example of the virgin birth and see if the majority of the followers of that religion contemplate it as a factual claim or not. If the belief in said claims as true is a characteristic only of a fundamentalist minority, while the moderate majority understands the allegorical and metaphorical intentions of the story, while understanding them not to be fact, then I truly would be surprised. Yet, I feel that investigation into it will only leave me disappointed.

 

[bankside]

As with any claim, I will not accept the claim as credible without sufficient evidence, which leads me to doubt the teachings of religious doctrine. That being said, the literary, metaphorical significance of the religious texts is not lost on me either. I am not skeptical of the truthfulness of allegorical literature and am not arguing as such. To believe that I am arguing against or displaying skepticism towards something similar to a story such as "the boy who cried wolf" is to miss my point. It is those who believe such stories to be true events to which I reject. If any who believe the stories of religious doctrine to be true are to be labeled by you as "fundamentalists", fine, but to assert them as the minority of the religious is, at least in my personal experience, heavily flawed. So, lets take the example of the virgin birth and see if the majority of the followers of that religion contemplate it as a factual claim or not. If the belief in said claims as true is a characteristic only of a fundamentalist minority, while the moderate majority understands the allegorical and metaphorical intentions of the story, while understanding them not to be fact, then I truly would be surprised. Yet, I feel that investigation into it will only leave me disappointed.

Hear hear!

At a generous stretch of the imagination, the people who might be said to understand religion in terms of metaphor are those who say "I'm not religious but I am spiritual." They will read different, contradictory religious texts or opinions and keep their minds open to the extent that they tend not to settle on one definitive text.

And even those people, when I've asked, say they "feel" as though "something is out there" (a fact-based claim (ill-defined, but still a fact based claim)). Or even a plaintive "There has to be something out there" only just managing to leave it as an open question without defaulting to the dogma of their ancestors. At least they are usually aware of their own subjectivity.

But what it boils down to is even they don't say "I'm not religious. That was a profoundly inspiring book. I'm glad someone thought it up with their faculties of imagination and deduction and observation of human behaviour."

Actually, I contend that the people who get the most insight out of religious texts are atheists! They are not sidetracked by the implausible notion of the texts having a divine publisher. And they don't need to twist the texts to support the foregone conclusion of a divine publisher. They can understand metaphor as well as anyone, were that intended by the author. And they are also free to consider the possibility of texts being written by humans for other less-noble motives: power, money, pride and thus keep them in perspective.

 

[TX-Beau]

It always amazes me that people who believe don't just admit it.

Time and again in this conversation we're all taken on these roundabout, poorly thought out, illogical, wild goose chases because the religious person in question is adamantly unwilling to just state that they believe in factual higher powers because they have faith.

Why do people who believe have any stake in justifying claims based on faith?

They don't want to admit that it comes down to blind belief?

They think that if they argue that way they'll convince the rest of us?

Why?

I may not agree but if someone says they believe because of faith - well, there it is. Honest, clear, real, and with no need to wander off into murky and obviously erroneous statements like:

"...And of course, the idea that the primary claim of something called religion is the existence of a supreme supernatural being is factually incorrect. Rather, I think most religions have to do with other parts of the human mind that fall outside the question of belief...."

I mean, come on, if there is no real god, what is the point of worshiping him?

 

[Telstra]

I now declare myself i am an atheist too.

What does it mean?
I don't believe any ideas that have NO proof/evidence.

 

[Telstra]

I believe in the One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church. I believe that it is God the Father who through his Son Jesus Christ, has Founded this Church.I believe that this God does in fact exist from all eternity, without beginning or an end, therefore, I do sincerely Worship this God whom I believe to exist. What more should I say?

And where are these stories come from ?
And how do they know?

Basic simple questions they can't answer but they want people believe and follow like sheep.

 

[bankside]

I believe in the One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church. I believe that it is God the Father who through his Son Jesus Christ, has Founded this Church.I believe that this God does in fact exist from all eternity, without beginning or an end, therefore, I do sincerely Worship this God whom I believe to exist. What more should I say?

What more should you say? You should say why you believe that!

 

[TX-Beau]

Actually, while we would all like for Mikey to gratify our curiosity on the subject, he's not required to justify his faith to anyone.

I'd like to know why too, but I suspect, having been having this conversation for years in various guises, that the answer isn't going to be a rational one I can wrap my mind around.

I suspect that the reasons people believe - and I'm talking actual believers here, not people who believe by default and tradition - aren't capable of explaining that to us, any more than we are capable of understanding why someone isn't interested in logically parsing religious doctrine.

People of logic on one side of that divide, people of faith on the other.

Now IF Mickey is interested in talking to us about his faith, then certainly he should try to explain, but a lack of explanation from Mickey, isn't a de-facto argument that he doesn't have one, and says nothing about the validity of his reasons for believing.

I suspect that in the end, he believes, like I suspect many people believe, because of some underling emotional gratification they get from religion, and if that's the case, it doesn't matter how many counter arguments we throw up about the fact and fiction of religion, because that's not what they're in it for in the first place.

Just a thought.

 

[Telstra]

Thank you! When a Person of Faith goes ever deeper in his Faith, and begins to experience the promised Spiritual reality, then there can be no HUMAN words that can explain what is going on. That Spiritual Reality is between me and God, and I am still considered a beginner in this Reality. I encourage all of you who have truly open minds, to read the works of Saints Teresa of Jesus of Avila, and John of the Cross, OCD. (Order of Discalced Carmelites), and then you will see were I am coming from.

between me and another me (called god) ?

 

[Telstra]

There isn't another me in the equation, just me and the Higher Power, as some like to call him.

"the higher power" is me thinking ...

 

[Telstra]

Why you?

no no no, me in terms of you LOL

All religious figures are nothing special.
They talk about "higher power" from their heads thinking ....

 

[Jacquemar]

I'm very impressed with the arguments and logic used by some of the atheists in this thread. I'd like to cite every point I liked but that would take too long.

Power to logic and reason! No more imaginary gods governing our lives!

 

[bankside]

I'm very impressed with the arguments and logic used by some of the atheists in this thread. I'd like to cite every point I liked but that would take too long.

Power to logic and reason! No more imaginary gods governing our lives!

Thank you. Thank you very much. Don't get me wrong; I can't take all the credit, but in the absence of any kind of god, someone has to....

Now we're just going to pass this plate around, and if you'd please empty the contents of your wallet into it and then return the plate my way. See you again next Sunday!
...
...
...
wait a minute, maybe atheism is a kind of religion after all!

 

[zoltanspawn]

Enjoy the backslaps, high-fives and bukakke, but I doubt any of us has been convinced of anything.

My hat is off to FirmaFan in this recent round for being engaging and genuninely reasonable. While we don't agree, I appreciate his dedication to the argument itself.