Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
But the religion itself has nothing to do with any of things atheists oppose and dislike about "religion". If they successfully removed religion the other problems would still be there. The problems are more political and economic.
But religion will never go away. As long as there are an elite group sitting around a table planning what to do with all the common people, there will always be religion.
|
Religion (organised religion) is very much to do with the things atheists oppose or perhaps what atheists are beginning to see where the 'agenda' is leading.
At first it was just arguing against god beliefs of all kinds, and as the debate has gone on, New (activist) atheists (originally going in blind) have had to revise their aims and objectives.
Convincing people there is no God is no longer the objective and - as you say - isn't practicable anyway. Even now people believe in astrology and (for crying out loud) flat earth, but the objective is to make these people unimportant and non -influential.
Religion, since I first graduated at the Online College of Positive Atheism (principal Cliff Walker), was far more important in the UK than it is now. But it's the US and a monumental grip on and exploitation of the populace that is the problem.
I won't go into the background, cause and methods of Fundymental (and usually YE Creationist) Christianity, but they are probably the most diabolical (if you will forgive the term) of all the sheeple -herding Churches in the US. The threat to Law, education and politics was very real and I hardly need point out, still is. The grip it has on the armed forces has only recently been loosened a little bit and the hold on community (spilling over into politics where an avowed atheist is effectively banned from holding public office) is still very significant and in Bible -belt states, monolithic.
There is still a lot of sorting out what our priorities are. Evolution was never really the issue and the Bible always was. The evolution debate was forced on us (and science) by the Young Earthists who denied evolution because it undermined Genesis. It never was the reason to disbelieve in a god, though it was a reason to not take the Bible literally (1). The huge and well funded push by YE Creationism and the very real incursion into education and politics (Genesis taught in the science class and evolution denial - and a complete mess of lies and misrepresentation, too - preached in the US Senate) had forced Evolution -theory to be the Debate even more than the Bible- and in fact the NT, which is (for me) the Only debate that really matters.
So where do the Non literalist and irreligious theists stand on this? Well, Troutdude is in fact a God -believing (that maybe should be "Lower case"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wogta8alHiU
I don't know what a
Nagila is, but, if it's free, I'll have one.)
Theist who is totally in our camp. If all the sortagoddists were like him our job would be done, and I could stop posting and struggling to write a Book (2) on it. But they all to often are not, and initial bewilderment at the Fundystyle hostility towards "New" atheism by those who ought to be joining with us in rolling back the influence (and persecution - it is not too strong a word - of atheists (3), has now Jelled in my mind as possible explanations. There are various reasons why:
(a) their belief is based on nothing, really, since they cannot refer to the Bible but only Gap for God arguments. Challenge to this eggshell fragile Faith -claim elicits a fierce reaction.
(b) because they believe in a god, when push comes to shove, they will side with others who believe in God, because almost always their "god" is culturally identical with Biblegod. Just suggest that it's Allah and see how they react.
(c) anti - liberalism, spawned by the 1950's Red Scare and which really set off the whole fundamentalist, Young Earth Creationist, Bible -literalists and science - skeptic social infection seems to be in some cases the basis for detestation of outspoken atheism and the avowed agenda to roll back religious influence in public (and political) life, which they see (with justification) as a left -wing liberal agenda (4).
So there was a LOT of debate about the right methods, and somehow the Zombie Jesus Marches and even targeting tea houses run by sweet little old grannies who gave reductions to people who prayed before sipping as Unconstitutional have been rethought because atheism stinks in the nostrils of the US and we cannot afford to roll in anything like more crap. We have to look Better than Christians.
Court cases do attract a lot of Flak, but these are (as I think also debates with creationists) necessary. And the result look encouraging.
Not only do atheists dominate R/S (Religion and Skepticism
) here but the rise of the 'nones' (which may include more atheists than it seems as most don't even know they ARE atheists) -IF it continues - could result in an irreligious voting majority while I am still infesting the world with my ungodly presence.
Which gets back to your point about power politics and Rulers. Right now lip service to God -belief is mandatory for anyone trying for a political career. But once the message gets around that even being a Believer that does NOT approve of Creationism, Church control, erosion of the church/state divide, and embraces freedom of all religion and none, taxation of churches and cracking down on criminals using religion as a cover is MORE likely to get elected than one who isn't, and you will find that the rulers and politician will be changing sides faster than a 14th c Florentine mercenary.
(1) this Atheists literalism is quite misunderstood by God believers who don't take the Bible literally; our debate with them is much more about the evidence in nature - natural forces v. the watchmaker argument.
The Bible as substantially true (if not literally factual cover -to cover as
per the Hovind mantra) is the basis of churches and organised religion, even if not Fundamentalist YE Creationist. So is it That belief that we argue with - is the Bible reliable?
Theists who do Not take the Bible as substantially factual are not part of this argument at all. Unless they want to be.
(2)just got past the Sermon on the mount, Folks. But I may need another Advance.
(3) And I have to mention yet again Professor Stavrakopolou here who Ought to be supporting New Atheism which is trying to right the problems she so eloquently described encountering, but rather opposes us - I guess because the Bible is her study and her work and she resents those whom she sees as trying to remove it as significant in society.
(4)
Don't often get as far as (4) since (there was a thread on it) a lack of God -belief does seem to result in a greater or lesser shift of social view towards the liberal. It is far from unusual to see Christian Fundies who end up losing Godfaith almost as part of the deconversion process, ship from Conservative views to Liberal. It apparently happens, so no point denying it.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
though I think speeded up and given an actual tune and a banjo it could work) and if it swipes at atheism iin using 'the blues' as a rhyme for 'Jews', it does us good by saying we get Sunday in bed.
