I'll explain who I am. If people disagree, I often get it.
0 Replies
Thomas
3
Mon 8 Feb, 2010 07:30 pm
Another resource I found thought-provoking is A Rough History of Disbelief, a three-episode miniseries by BBC's Channel 4. Part of why I like it is that its producer, Jonathan Miller, is arguably my favorite public intellectual on the planet. Miller is a medical doctor (The Body in Question, a standup comedian (Beyond the Fringe), and an opera producer, and, of course, a journalist. (I don't know what his reputation as a doctor is, but he's considered world class in all his three other professions.) If you're into those things, you might check out his interviews on the Dick Cavett show in the 1980s. But I digress.
In this series, he traces the history of skepticism and disbelief from its Ancient Greek roots all the way to the 21st century. Being an intellectual, you'll have to be patient throughout the first 15-20 minutes, during which he basically clears his throat and narrows down what the issues are. But then he starts telling the actual history, and things get interesting. Here is the entry point.
Numbers like this might be a bit misleading exactly because Atheists represent such a small portion of the population.
If every other religion is likely to look down on Atheists because they are different, but each religion is also likely to look favorably on itself, then the statistics simply represent the fact that atheists are universally outside of other religions and also don't have a large enough component of individuals to offset the other groups.
Perhaps, but I think that when one is religious in the modern world, one is constantly at war with one's "inner atheist". One attributes all one's "impure thoughts" and doubts to that demon constantly being suppressed. So an atheist is someone who's faith has failed and they've given in to all the temptations and vices. Atheism is a far greater threat than someone who's faith is also strong, but just a little different to one's own understanding.
Perhaps, but I think that when one is religious in the modern world, one is constantly at war with one's "inner atheist". One attributes all one's "impure thoughts" and doubts to that demon constantly being suppressed. So an atheist is someone who's faith has failed and they've given in to all the temptations and vices. Atheism is a far greater threat than someone who's faith is also strong, but just a little different to one's own understanding.
You do not appear, by that statement, to have an inkling what it's like for an atheist. We have no failed faith. We have zero faith. And we have not given in to temptations and vices any more, statistically, I will wager, than have the religious ones. There is no threat from atheists. If you truly have faith, how could we threaten you?
edgar, you haven't mistaken me for a theist, surely ?? We've both been here a long time now.
This is just a theory I have about theists, this is what I think happens (consciously or otherwise) in a theist mind. For a theist to even allow for the validity of an atheist perspective is to submit to doubt and corruption. Hence the least trusted group.
Perhaps, but I think that when one is religious in the modern world, one is constantly at war with one's "inner atheist". One attributes all one's "impure thoughts" and doubts to that demon constantly being suppressed. So an atheist is someone who's faith has failed and they've given in to all the temptations and vices. Atheism is a far greater threat than someone who's faith is also strong, but just a little different to one's own understanding.
As a believer I have to disagree with that. Doubt is a motivator. For both sides. Sure the end game goal for either side I would think would be numbers. Planting the seed of knowledge is a great thing. You are lead to do a series of things. Forget that it is there and let the seed die without stimulation, information and growth, or water that seed, let it grow, nourish it and watch it bloom. Then take all that information you gained in your doubt and do one of two things: Become stronger in your faith then you ever where, or come to the conclusion that all was for naught, and realize that what you were told was the truth.
Either way it makes you a better person. I do not believe a pious man, a religious man, is a greater man then one without. I believe a man who is secure in any decision he makes is by far a better off man then one that sits in doubt and does nothing to solve it.
0 Replies
edgarblythe
2
Tue 9 Feb, 2010 05:34 am
Speaking just for myself, once I understood the fact that my atheism was firmly in place, I no longer felt the slightest doubt that I am right. To entertain doubt is to be an agnostic or deist, even, in my book. I don't have a problem with people who see it differently, but just accept that we have differing concepts what constitutes reality.
0 Replies
Setanta
1
Tue 9 Feb, 2010 05:45 am
I have to disagree with Seed. I don't doubt his honesty, and i don't deny his thesis about a search for the truth. But i consider him to be very wrong, from the religionist point of view. The entire idea of a religious creed is that there can be no doubt about the rectitude of the belief, no doubt that the creed is the truth. I consider that faith is undermined by doubt, that doubt is the very antithesis of adherence to the creed. To that extent, for the devout, there can be no doubt, and doubt is evidence of the weakness, the falsity of faith.
How can one search for something if there was not doubt? A man must first doubt that there is more before he can find that there is. At least that is my outlook. To be more clear, I do not think that the first person to come about thinking of religion was only sure that there was an all purposeful creator. There had to be doubt just being sprung from earth was the only way to go. If that is not clear, I am sorry, it is early and my thoughts may still be a bit muddled with only one cup of coffee.
I'm not arguing that there is any flaw in your thesis, as you apply it to your own experience. I am just pointing out that it is at odds with religious devotion. All religions require that you adhere to the belief set, and do not doubt. If you doubt, than you have not faith.
Ah I see. Though I have a hard time believing that you can have faith without first having doubt. I understand that religious devotion requires you to not doubt and to have total faith. I just find it hard to believe that even the Pope, that most religious man of the time period has not doubted at one time, or even today. Doubt does not make you believe less, nor does it not make you religious. I also do not thing that if you have doubt that you don't have faith. Every day faith is tested, and it is that doubt that will drive you to either be more faithful, or less.
Well, certainly it is a recurrent theme in christianity that one's faith may be tested. However, the doubt resides in the meaning of an event, not in the creed. You are permitted to have doubts about the meaning of the event, but you are not permitted to doubt the tenets of the faith. If you doubt the creed, the religious leader would say you have not faith, and then give you some babble about god working in mysterious ways.
