The Adult Atheist Thread

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that.

Joseph Campbell

Why cannot the religious admit that god is a metaphor for that mystery which is beyond the human intellect.

Boagie,
(I can't say all religious because some might include the term for those who are into Paganism, those who worship nature but not God) but those religious who believe in God, believe He is a Supreme Being. And a being can not be a metaphor. No more than Abraham Lincoln can be a metaphor for Emancipation of slave and not a president. God created the mysteries of the universe that are beyond human intellect, He is not the creation we consider mysterious. For those who believe it all comes down to logical thinking and philosphy, that God is not a metaphor, so it should well appricated, right?

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;48645 wrote:

I think an atheist call to arms would be outright hypocrisy -- it would effectively be a statement of theist-envy.

Good one.

At least one person in this discussion seems as sanctimonious as any fundamentalist religious person I've ever met. And Dawkins, he exactly reminds me of the holier-than-thou, narrow-minded hypocrites in the Baptist church that turned me atheist when I was 11 years old (I've since reconsidered, but still reject religion). Having pompous know-it-all physicalist priests like Dawkins disrespectfully and arrogantly pushing scientism religion is just as big a turn off as Falwell, Roberts, et al doing it.

1 Reply

@Dichanthelium,

Dichanthelium wrote:

boagie,

I don't see where you have responded to the last points I posted.

You're using a subset of "the religious" to characterize all of "the religious."

Surely you wouldn't argue that any given atheist is smarter and more mature than any given theist, merely by virtue of their respective outlooks on that one issue.

I know plenty of atheists who, though otherwise well-educated, are quite simply ignorant when it comes to religion and theology. Some of them hold to their atheism as naively as some theists hold to their theism.

You are approaching this in such a polemical fashion that you really don't seem to be interested in careful, deliberate debate (which is what I thought to be the point of a "forum." What you really seem to be saying is just that your mind is made up.

Dichanthelium; Smile

I agree it is not always about how intelligent one is, I personally think the reason people take their metaphors literally is emotional, but the emotion should not have the power to supress the reason of others. My mind is made up, that our entire reality is a mystery, call it the world, creation, the world as object, its origin is a mystery, if you say god did it, if god is not trasparent to that mystery, then he/she/it is in your way, is an idol, a false prophet. To be ignorant of theology is to be wise, what is there to argue about in theology but concrete terms, literalism kills, if it is not reference to that ultimate mystery of being it is meaningless, it is babble. I am not using a subset of anything, I simply state that all is metaphor, prove me wrong, tell me you know the origin of being.

1 Reply

@neapolitan,

neapolitan; Smile

All is metaphor, you have simply replaced the term god for the term metaphor. Metaphor is reference, the term god is in your sense concrete, non-referential, in itself, it is meaningless. I am going to take a break-------time out!

YouTube - The Message of Myth

0 Replies

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Dave Allen,

Some excellent points, but I think that bit about Hitler is off, I believe there is documentation demonstrating his stated belief in Christianity.

Hitler's Christianity

Certainly Germany was a throughly Christian country. Christianity was historically anti-semetic.

"He was not a member of any Church, and thought the christian religions were oudated, hypocritical institutions that lured people into them. The laws of nature were his religion. He could reconcile his dogma of violence better with nature than the christian doctrine of loving your neighbour and your enemy. 'Science isn't yet clear about the origins of humanity,' he once said. 'We are probably the highest stage of development from some mammal which developed from reptiles and moved on to human beings, perhaps by the way of apes ... in nature the law of the struggle for survival has reigned from the first. Everything incapable of live, everything weak is eliminated. Only mankind and above all the church have made it their aim to keep alive the weak.'"

From the memoires of Traudl Junge, Hitler's secretary.

Now it may be that Traudl and people like her have some sort of of pro-christian agenda that she seeks to reinforce by labelling Hitler a non-believer, but I personally find her a credible voice.

Whether Germany was largely Christian or whether Christian demonisation of the Jews influenced Hitler is irrelevant when discussing his beliefs about the existence or not of God. To say otherwise is to say that I CANNOT be an athiest because my background and culture is Anglican and I'm full of all sorts of influences and behaviours learned from a Christian culture, even though I don't believe in a supernatural organisation of the universe by some anthropomorphic deity worthy of worship, and I actually find the idea rather silly.

Hitler's public proclaimations about God and seeking support from the Pope also mean little in regard to his personal beliefs - he needed to spout such rhetoric in public to maintain popular support - just like atheist politicians in the US apparently have to pretend to believe in God if they even hope to run for office today.

But his personal friends and aides often stress Hitler's irreligion and his contempt for the church. I think the personal testimony of those that knew him carries more weight that his pronouncements in public to a largely Christian audience. He told them what he thought they wanted to hear.

So I do think Dawkins' avowal of Hitler's Roman Catholicism is ingenuine. He was able to use Christianity as a manipulative tool, but plenty of evidence exists to suggest that he was an athiest. He was brought up in a Roman Catholic family, in a largely Roman Catholic culture, but he had lapsed based on a vulgar comprehension of the theories of Nietzsch and Darwin.

This distinctly unpleasant individual was one of us, in other words. Along with Mao and Stalin and Pol Pot and a bunch of other nasty types who carried out atrocities that are arguably worse than any ordered by a religious leader.

That the church was so willing to support Hitler is another matter, of course, and one I feel is more damning than what particular camp Hitler privately belonged to (it was the institution that murdered 11,000,000 people and fought to conquer much of Europe and Russia, not the man). But that's not Dawkins' point in the God Delusion - he tries to get Einstein on his 'side' and Hitler on the believers' 'side' - even though plenty of evidence exists to suggest that making such distinctions is niave.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen, Smile

I have no wish to get into an on going debate about Hitler, it does seem evident he did use Christianty to his own end, manipulating a Christian popultation into a most horrendous mental state. As powerful as Christianity is in most western cultures it almost begs to be manipulated, and is seldom left to its own devises. Perhaps the hostility towards atheism might be softened if people thought of those people as believeing in the mystery. The atheist does not resort to the most simplistic of shell games, setting a concrete term in front of one's self in order to claim knowledge and/or authority and thus closing the door to wonder. As for Einstein, he did not believe in a personal god, we was very clear about that. He thought it a pitiful thing if humanity could only behave civilly under threat of punishment and/or reward of an imaginary father figure.

0 Replies

@boagie,

Well I try not to, and I'm sure you try not to as well, but as a self-elected spokesman for athiesm (in the context of this thread) can you be certain that all atheists never resort to such games?

I've met a few athiests who I would say were actually dogmatic and close-minded, more so than many lassez-faire believers. I know others who accept the word of athiest authorities/spokespeople without question - just as some accept the word of religious authorities without question. Just cause I happen to admire the thought behind athiest reasoning more than theological reasoning, I don't see how I can admire a lack of thought on an athiests behalf any more than thoughtless faith.

Can you be certain that this recent media phenomenon of "let's form an atheist club" or "we are the bright movement" isn't meeting the same sort of clannish social need that religions meet?

I don't mean to be difficult, I'm largely of your position and find many of the people in the clips you post impressive thinkers. But I'm not convinced by the latest fad for forming a gang of non-believers.

Creation science does get right up my nose, and I do hate the zealous attitude of a minority of believers, and I support anyone who feels unable to admit to their scepticism for fear of being labelled an infidel or apostate or someone with no moral code.

However, I also think the disparaging of those who do believe is just the same sort of intolerance bigoted believers indulge in dressed up in a respectable rationialist suit.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen, Smile

I am not really concerned with the personality traits of believers or non-believers, however when it is so obviously a mystery, I cannot help but think that this concrete understanding which is sold to so many people, it is because they are just busy consumers and this is the fast food version. There really is something wrong with the thinking of someone who cannot accept that the origin of the world, the origin of ones own being is a mystery, saying that the source is god, says nothing, what is god but mystery, or a metaphor for that mystery. Is there a fear that the atheist population will get as intolerant as believes, perhaps so.

Sociological Images GEORGE LAKOFF ON FRAMING AND METAPHOR

0 Replies

@boagie,

Presumably, you would be willing to examine these points one at a time. I'm sure you would agree that we often only seem to disagree, only because we misunderstand each other. A careful examination may very well show that we agree in essence.

boagie wrote:

I agree it is not always about how intelligent one is, I personally think the reason people take their metaphors literally is emotional ....

Literalists, in religious traditions, are a particularly troublesome category of people. They may have been stimulated to be literalists by emotion (e.g., fear of death), by indoctrination (e.g., systematic schooling of children), by the sociological/political/economic conditions in which they are immersed (e.g., at least some fundamentalist Muslims), or maybe by other means.

However, not all theists are literalists. Neither are all who follow some particular religion. Some are fully aware that their religious concepts are based on myths, models, and metaphors.

Agree on this?

0 Replies

@LWSleeth,

LWSleeth wrote:

Good one.

At least one person in this discussion seems as sanctimonious as any fundamentalist religious person I've ever met. And Dawkins, he exactly reminds me of the holier-than-thou, narrow-minded hypocrites in the Baptist church that turned me atheist when I was 11 years old (I've since reconsidered, but still reject religion). Having pompous know-it-all physicalist priests like Dawkins disrespectfully and arrogantly pushing scientism religion is just as big a turn off as Falwell, Roberts, et al doing it.

Seconded. It's bad enough being subject to Christian recruitment drives... now Dawkins and the Dawkinists are trying to get us to subscribe to something not much less tenuous. I guess, if you're an atheist, you're either inspired by him or embarrassed by him. I dig the need to limit the damage organised religion can inflict on the world, but these are problems of policy, not religion. As I've said before, it's fair game to argue the invalidity of religious doctrine on matters of politics (e.g. abortion, euthanasia), but the anti-religious cult is another matter entirely.

In the words of Jack Nicholson: "Why can't we all get aloooong?"

0 Replies

@boagie,

It is obvious to you and I that it is a mystery, but it is apparent to some believers that it is a creation. Other people are undecided, or try different tacks.

The practical end of this metaphysical curiousity doesn't seem to serve any real purpose as of yet, aside from being a source of debate. Science and Religion are two different ways of looking at the world. Schopenhauer called it a world of illusion - he may have had some sympathy with Dawkins' talk on the Middle World.

If it is mysterious then I would say we have to be wary of certainty - even if it's certainty about the mysteriousness.

1 Reply

@boagie,

Hitler's personal religious beliefs hardly matter. The relationship of the Nazi crimes with religion is far more complicated. The Holocaust and other Nazi crimes were NOT acts based on religion the way the Spanish Inquisition was. There is no question that this was a matter of social darwinism, which is further exemplified by all the Nazi pseudoscience to this end.

That said, there was a loooooooong history of antisemitism in central Europe that DID come out of the Christian majority. It's a bit odd that it surfaced like this in Germany, which had historically been one of the more tolerant countries, but it was what it was. There were underpinnings of antisemitism that the Nazis incorporated into their rhetoric of anger and betrayal and purgation during their rise to power.

Religious beliefs were very heterogeneous among the Nazi leadership, and included practicing catholics and protestants, atheists, and pagans who sort of elevated this nordic mystique. There was also a good bit of messianism. Heinrich Himmler, who more than anyone else was responsible for the crimes of Hitler's regime, was a lapsed Christian who was into this Nazi mysticism.

But when you look at the actual perpetrators, you have to acknowledge that the VAST majority of them were religious Christians. I mean the Nazis had a lot of help from Catholics in Poland, Orthodox Christians in occupied Russia, and I'd imagine that most of their soldiers who were serving on the Eastern Front did not swear off religion when facing the Red Army in the long winters.

In other words, the people who turned in Jews, who pulled the triggers at Babi Yar, and who guarded the camps and ghettos, were probably NOT atheists.

That doesn't say anything about religion, though, except that religion clearly did not stop many people from committing crimes against humanity -- but who's to say that lack of religion would have?? We don't know. It was what it was.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen wrote:

It is obvious to you and I that it is a mystery, but it is apparent to some believers that it is a creation. Other people are undecided, or try different tacks.

The practical end of this metaphysical curiousity doesn't seem to serve any real purpose as of yet, aside from being a source of debate. Science and Religion are two different ways of looking at the world. Schopenhauer called it a world of illusion - he may have had some sympathy with Dawkins' talk on the Middle World.

If it is mysterious then I would say we have to be wary of certainty - even if it's certainty about the mysteriousness.

Dave Allen, Smile

I understand I think what you mean, but for practical purposes, we have to chose what seems most reasonable between the stack of hay on the right and the stack of hay on the left or starve. It should seem obvious even to the believer that he cannot find an object for his concrete term/s. Suppose the self-righteous though lighened up, example in most states in the United States Of America it is illegal for a non-believer to hold office, it would be a step in the right direction to take that law off the books. Strange you can believe in the wrong god and still hold office. There too, if unbelievers were treated equally then this would not prove to be the distraction that it is, our environment is about to fail and we are worried about what colour the kitchen is, both sides of this conflict are as quilty as the other------fiddling while Rome burns!

WCU - Spring 2005 Myth and Metaphor

YouTube - Anne Frank [Presentation]

2 Replies

@boagie,

I've been watching this thread and thinking about it. Although I can pretty well accept everything we're talking about here, the question of furthering a cause, or take up the cause and so on has got me thinking. The video linked in this thread spoke to this; namely, how pervasive anti-atheist sentiments are in the United States.

The Cause: If we're talking about working proactively to dissolve the medieval laws - still in existence today - against non believers then yes, sign me up! Also, if we're talking about extolling (or being more vocal) about the positive good atheism can bring to our lives; again, sign me up! [INDENT]On the other hand, I'm not about to go on a campaign to try and change people's minds about their religion; my experiences have shown this rarely ends up with any positive result.

But in all honesty, I've been on a cause for some time now. My primary 'weapon' has been to show, by my words and respect, that atheism doesn't necessarily equate to rudeness; in other words, I'm trying to put forth a positive face to the atheist by repairing damage done by all the bitter "atheists" (whom I believe are railing against religion just to rail against something, ugh).
[/INDENT]If I, by my honest attempt to bring "the truth" to the believers, perpetuate more interpersonal strife, I am guilty of one of the very aspects of religious friction that I abhor the most - and I'll not do that. I'm guessing no considered atheist would want to. But precisely because such a cause could entail many different approaches, when we talk about "the cause of atheism", I think it prudent we need to carefully delineate what's being suggested. To me it makes a difference.

And yes, I'm fed up with being a "disease" as well. I've learned to keep it to myself and lie in order to not be the brunt of theist hate. At jobs, social gatherings, neighborhoods and more I've felt that sting and am sick of it.

Thanks

1 Reply

@Khethil,

It seems to me it does not matter the size of the injustice, a small injustice is a seed which will grow into greater injustice. He who would have peace, let him take the mote of hatred out of his own eye--I am afraid that just might be biblical.

YouTube - Sam Harris: "Letter to a Christian Nation" Interview

YouTube - Muslim Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Just had to share this one!------Praise be to Allah!!

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

It should seem obvious even to the believer that he cannot find an object for his concrete term/s. Suppose the self-righteous though lighened up, example in most states in the United States Of America it is illegal for a non-believer to hold office, it would be a step in the right direction to take that law off the books.

I must admit I didn't know things were quite that dogmatic. I just assumed it was impractical for athiests running for office in the US to admit to their irreligion because it would cost them the popular vote.

Is it literally true that one must be some sort of believer to legally hold office in the US?

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen wrote:

I must admit I didn't know things were quite that dogmatic. I just assumed it was impractical for athiests running for office in the US to admit to their irreligion because it would cost them the popular vote.

Is it literally true that one must be some sort of believer to legally hold office in the US?

Dave Allen, Smile

Yes that is my understanding, though not every state has this law on the books, and about a year ago a statesman in California came out of the closet and told the public that he indeed was an atheist. I did not here what the consequences to that were. The former president, Bush sr stated publically that he did not think that an atheist should be considered a citizen never mind a patriot, that this is one country under god--frightening state of intellect. Yes the religious have had it their own way in the states for a long time, this appears to be changing with the election of Obama. Two terms of Bush junior seems to have aroused people to undo what the religious right wing have done. It is funny that the religious should now complain about being attack in the states, when it was their assault upon science and reason that started this reactionary movement. Still, the creationists are trying to force their way into the science classrooms of the nation either as Creationism or repackaged as Intelligent Design. Now it is not unusual for supporters of the religious establishment to claim victumhood for their cause, being the majority, they can almost get away with it.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

...But when you look at the actual perpetrators, you have to acknowledge that the VAST majority of them were religious Christians. I mean the Nazis had a lot of help from Catholics in Poland, Orthodox Christians in occupied Russia, ...

Personally, I draw a distinction between Christians and people who practice a corrupt religion and call it Christianity. But this distinction is so rarely noticed or acknowledged, it may be futile to point it out. Hence, it will probably always be the case that folks will accuse Christians for crimes committed by "Christians."

Theism is similarly criticised. Minds, that have been manipulated by political and economic powers, to adopt a parody of theism, would seem to represent a majority. So I suppose it is only natural that the most typical critique of theism would be a critique of that parody.

2 Replies

@Dichanthelium,

Dichanthelium, Smile

Indeed, a purest is highly unlikely, the inconsistencies in the bible would make that purest if there was one a somewhat distrubed individual.

0 Replies

@Dichanthelium,

Dichanthelium;48819 wrote:

Personally, I draw a distinction between Christians and people who practice a corrupt religion and call it Christianity.

Some Catholics would put the orthodox and the protestants in that group. Some Protestants would put Catholics in that group. It doesn't matter -- there is never going to be a yardstick for true versus corrupt practice, and religion is always one of many influences on people's beliefs and behavior.

1 Reply

The Adult Atheist Thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know