Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Nathan Wolf on September 26, 2010 at 10:00pm

I kinda get what you're saying....this is kinda one reason why I don't want to call myself completely atheist yet, because i don't want to bash either ppl religions either...then I'd just be in line with the religion that i left.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt Coulthurst on September 26, 2010 at 10:20pm

All you really need is a lack of belief in gods. Your ability to speak to the philosophical differences or expound upon the details of various religions is, I think, a by-product of rational thought and critical inquiry.

Critisism of religion is not a neccesary part of being an atheist - nor is speaking out on behalf of atheism. Having said that, there is definitely a great amount of personal growth to be had by learning about subjects such as religious history, philosophy and critical thought.

Ask questions and then question the answers you're given.

And do not be afraid of admitting when you're wrong, or that you don't know!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reggie on September 26, 2010 at 11:27pm

Nice reply, Matt!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kenneth Montville D.D. on September 27, 2010 at 1:55am

I think you are getting in a little over your head with this. Not all atheists enjoy philosophy, perhaps they just don't like being lied to. Perhaps they don't like the group-think mentality of church or perhaps they are just too involved in their own lives to think about something as silly as God. Or perhaps they do like some of those things but not all of them. You just gave a grab bag of varying philosophical standpoints. Not all atheists are also humanists or existentialists, or nihilists or (insert x materialist philosophy here). Ayn Rand was an atheist however as an objectivist/ethical egoist she was certainly not of the same philosophical ilk as the existentialists like Jean-Paul Sartre or Albert Camus or Simone de Beauvoir and all of their reasons for their disbelief in God was probably different than that of Bertrand Russell who was a positivist.

I, myself, am quite enamoured with the finer philosophical points having read much of what you have listed and more. I am in the middle of writing a book which applies redactional/historical/comparative criticisms to various texts in the New Testament (and the books of Daniel and 1-4 Maccabees because they set the stage for the apocalyptic traits in Christianity) to illuminate why Christianity is so ridiculous, but that is just me. Some of us are philosophers and some are not. Not every theist needs to be a classically educated apologist in order to remain within the ranks of their faith group and the same goes for those of no faith--no matter how honourable the endeavour may be.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ava Wilson on September 27, 2010 at 2:30am

Well, Esam, I have read Thus Spake Zarathustra. I've read much of Sartre's work. I've read The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail (if that's what you meant to say). But I don't sit and 'bash' religion all day. I intelligently break it down and dismiss it, but I don't ignorantly bash it with unfounded insults and claims with no basis. However, what you're identifying isn't really ignorant 'atheism', because atheism is a really passive term. It means 'without god'. What you're identifying instead is ignorant antitheism, which is not just disbelieving in God, but (ultimately) striving for the eradication of religion in its entirety--- 'against god', totally against the idea of having or worshiping one, or of religions beneath such a concept existing. In a lot of ways I would say I am antitheist. I would say Richard Dawkins is antitheist. But there's a difference between an ignorant antitheist or atheist, and an intelligent one. Atheism is just as suseptible to idiots as religion (well, that's debatable; generally people show at least a lick of intellect by using reason enough to surmise there's no god in the first place, we hope). I fight as many 'atheists' a day as I do Christians or other religious people, who don't read squat (including the Bible, or Dawkins' wonderful books, or even the opposing views such as Alister McGrath's works that attempt to offer a rebuttal to Dawkins' beliefs).

However, as previous posters have mentioned, just because they haven't read those books doesn't mean they're idiots automatically. The idiocy or ignorance comes in when they can't explain to you why they don't believe in a god, and seem to radiate that feeling of "I'm an Atheist because it's not common to be one and it's rebellious".

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ava Wilson on September 27, 2010 at 3:39pm

On the contrary to my point, I also agree with you. There's a third level in any subject that exceeds 'intellect' and moves into the realm of snobbery. I haven't read every book he listed and don't intend to. It's good to be educated about your Atheism and read something about it (again, I know people who say they're Atheist and don't understand why; they argue the Bible is a bunch of lies without having ever opened it to know why they're saying that, they are usually high schoolers who want to sound different but the only support to their atheism they can give is 'God sucks and there's no evidence for him', where the extent of their argument suddenly drops off). But you shouldn't strive to read every single book ever written about religion or lack thereof, either. There needs to be a happy medium between ignorant and snobby, and that's the casually educated area.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Esam Rivera on September 28, 2010 at 6:37pm

well just to make this clear , i am from a country that considers philosophy as heresy, I've studied in a public military school , all of my knowledge is self gained , all my books , Richard Dawkins documentary and other materials are actually smuggled(they are illegal here), and i study medicine , so i never had any access nor had any higher education in the matter of philosophy and theology.

so next time before casting your judgment please take the effort of looking at the persons page.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt Coulthurst on September 27, 2010 at 7:04am

I think I can understand some of where Esam is coming from - and I may also be wrong here but I'll go ahead anyway and see.

Coming to a position of atheism can be a hard fought battle for some, depending on a host of factors such as the prevailing culture where you live, familial or societal obligations and concerns, etcetera. Indoctrination can be a massive hurdle to overcome, especially when societal pressure is brought to bear against it at every turn.

So when someone has armed themselves with the weapons available, fought the battle and finally won it is, in some sense, justifiable to be proud of your accomplishment. You would probably feel slighted to find that not everyone had to struggle as hard as you did, that not everyone's hurdles were as high as yours.

So while I don't neccesarily support the intent of Esam's original post, I think I can empathise with what he might have been feeling at the time and some of what he might have been trying to convey.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page