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.
Some here have recently wondered in print about why atheists bother to fight theist dogma. Isn't this a "live and let live" sort of world, they ask? Why do we have to go out of our way to discredit, debunk, rebuff and dis-prove many or all of the key elements fo their life's belief system?
Some here have also defensively claimed that it's not necessary to believe in all the obvious inerrancies and contradictions documented in the bible and displayed on "modern" Christian fundamentalist websites. That you can leave that stuff behind for those who desperately need it, and move into a higher plane of spiritualism.
Trouble is, Christianity per seis dependant on, and defined by, all or most of those literal interpretations, to a greater or lesser degree. I mean, if you denounce ALL of them, all the biblical stories that require miraculous and implausible events, you're pretty much left with an all-new religion. That of a Godless, supreme-being-free personal spirituality. There's probably a name for that approach, and it's not Christianity.
There are, IMHO, several good reasons to face down the devil of fundamentalist Organized Religion:
1. I personally hate to see the masses misguided by organized, strictured and blind obedience-type cult(ures).
2. While some particular biblical kiddie's story may be, in and of itself, harmless or at the most mildly ineffective, it combines with the entirety of it, of the totality of the package, to attempt to cajole the innocent and non-critical thinkers. Fear-mongering also plays a major role here.
3. Why would we want to perpetrate ancient mythologies that have been completely disproven on their literal points? If Christianity needs to be re-defined, so be it.
Let's not perpetrate the overall but unconvincing Christian myth. Rather, let's focus on critical thinking. I believe that the value in pointing out the lack of rational focus is precisely that: to perhaps slowly lead the way towards some improvements in the critical thinking processes of the general audience.
Of course, I do believe and maintain that in general the atheists here are open to any new information. Yes, predictably, they do tend to rebel against simplistic re-quotes of old stuff. The documented history of most of Christianity's "new evidence" against, for example, Evolution, has been consistent and unconvincing. Same dog, different bone.
They always prove out false, or mis-quoted, or mis-guided. I and others would love to see one good argument, where the other side also then answers our questions, just as we try, initially, to honestly answer theirs. The Internet's available for all.
Well, that's my thoughts on why we fight the good fight. Yours?
Let's not perpetrate the overall but unconvincing Christian myth. Rather, let's focus on critical thinking. I believe that the value in pointing out the lack of rational focus is precisely that: to perhaps slowly lead the way towards some improvements in the critical thinking processes of the general audience.
Fighting the good fight on this forum seems to more for entertainment value than anything else. I am sure there are people here(me) who benefit from the knowledge imparted, but none of the fundies seem capable of listening. They already have their minds made up, and do not seem to exercise any critical thinking skills.
I think our only hope lies in future generations being better educated.
If they would teach critical thinking in grade school, religious beliefs would just fade away.
I say let people believe what they want to, because honestly I don't think a person's choice of religion really matters to "god". But, what you learn in religion might... still people have the right to choose and dig through the religious dung heap as much as they want, or refrain from playing in the turds altogether.
The line is drawn when people (or religious groups) don't return the courtesy. When someone yells at me and tells me I'm going to hell because I haven't been "saved" I wanna puch them out. Who are they to judge me and who says their religious dogma even applies? Likewise with avowed athiests who tell me any and all experiences of a religious nature are null and void, meaningless and I am stupid to accept any of them. They didn't experience anything I have, who are they to marginalize me?
One of my main concerns like rifleman, is the perpetuation of creationism and trying to discredit evolution. I have always felt that teaching children that Adam and Eve were real people who populated the earth with human beings just a few thousand years ago does in fact undermine their education. That gives them the mindset of someone living over a hundred and fifty years ago and negates all of the advancements in human knowledge since that time.
There are actually quite a few believers on the forum who can accept evolution but believe that it was caused by God. I find that to be perfectly reasonable even though I don't believe in God myself.
I do think that people who are religious deserve to be treated with respect just as I would want to be treated and I think it's important not to let the debate get personal. But I also agree that science and rational thinking are extremely important in a modern society and facts that have become known such as the age of the universe and evolution need to be defended against those who try to undermine it.
YEC and the Discovery Institute's fraudulent ID are attempts to enter science curricula under false pretenses. Any such attempts should be thwarted. Religion has nothing to say with regard to established science . . . but established science has a lot to say about God . . . since that is who they are investigating. The science God is "Nature" and is very different from ALL those described by the myriad religions of the world. So what? We differ all the time on all sorts of things. Science has the ability to provide corroborating evidence for their descriptions . . . religions do not. So obviously they do not belong in the same classroom. BUT . . . for science to pretend and assume as a default that there is no God at all is absurd. They do NOT have any corroborating evidence for such a position, period!
My personal Experiences are that Findamentalist Christians are NOT "Live and Let Live" Sorts of people. They are "Us against anyone who does not totally accept support and agree with us " Aetheists, in my experience, did not start the "Us against the world" argument, the christians did.
I have not been to any gatherings of aetheists or agnostics who sit around and talk about how they hate Homosexuals, blacks, Muslims..etc etc and how God will punish these people etc etc and we ought to be doing God's will by rejecting and persecuting these people in God's name etc etc ....
But I can give you places, addresses if you want, where that sort of teaching goes on, and everyone one of those names has either "Church" or "fellowship" at the end ...
YEC and the Discovery Institute's fraudulent ID are attempts to enter science curricula under false pretenses. Any such attempts should be thwarted. Religion has nothing to say with regard to established science . . . but established science has a lot to say about God . . . since that is who they are investigating. The science God is "Nature" and is very different from ALL those described by the myriad religions of the world. So what? We differ all the time on all sorts of things. Science has the ability to provide corroborating evidence for their descriptions . . . religions do not. So obviously they do not belong in the same classroom. BUT . . . for science to pretend and assume as a default that there is no God at all is absurd. They do NOT have any corroborating evidence for such a position, period!
We can say there is no god with the same confidence that there is no FSM.
There is no god in science. Nature is nature science is an attempt to understand it.
You will have to define your "god" better, before I reject or accept it.
Trouble is, Christianity per seis dependant on, and defined by, all or most of those literal interpretations, to a greater or lesser degree. I mean, if you denounce ALL of them, all the biblical stories that require miraculous and implausible events, you're pretty much left with an all-new religion. That of a Godless, supreme-being-free personal spirituality. There's probably a name for that approach, and it's not Christianity.
Actually, that is Christianity, just a non-literalist brand of Christianity.
If you attack Christianity, all you do is play right into the fundies hands. They need only point at you and say "see! look at how intolerant they are!" BUT, if someone says "Christianity is beutiful, and I love it's general idea, but why do we have to take things literally? What is the history of the assembly of the Bible? How can it co-exist in a world with other religions? Does one have to impose that morality on non-Christians via laws? etc etc etc"
Do the latter, and the fundies will be forced to think and, eventually, concede.
Take these two statements:
A) "God does not exist and is just a fairy tale! You might as well believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster as believe in that book. There is no empirical evidence for God period!"
B) "Okay, you have a religion that serves you well, fine, I just ask, do you have that little faith in the power of your religion that you think it needs government to enforce it's power on the people? Why not just trust that Holy Spirit you believe in to work it's will without something as small as the government to help it? Isn't it almost insulting to think that God needs the help of the courts to make people believe in him?"
A or B, which one would be more effective at stopping a fundie agenda?
A) "God does not exist and is just a fairy tale! You might as well believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster as believe in that book. There is no empirical evidence for God period!"
B) "Okay, you have a religion that serves you well, fine, I just ask, do you have that little faith in the power of your religion that you think it needs government to enforce it's power on the people? Why not just trust that Holy Spirit you believe in to work it's will without something as small as the government to help it? Isn't it almost insulting to think that God needs the help of the courts to make people believe in him?"
A or B, which one would be more effective at stopping a fundie agenda?
Unfortunately . . . A is the "atheist fundy" approach and is equally intransigent . . . but more arrogant because of their perception that science supports their untenable position of "no God." It is the Dr Seuss . . . "North-going and South-going Zax" situation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
) who benefit from the knowledge imparted, but none of the fundies seem capable of listening. They already have their minds made up, and do not seem to exercise any critical thinking skills.
