For Anyold - Atheists Split Over Message

uscitizen

uscitizen

Villified User
Mar 30, 2:27 PM EDT

Atheists Split Over Message

By JAY LINDSAY
Associated Press Writer


BOSTON (AP) -- Atheists are under attack these days for being too militant, for not just disbelieving in religious faith but for trying to eradicate it. And who's leveling these accusations? Other atheists, it turns out.

Among the millions of Americans who don't believe God exists, there's a split between people such as Greg Epstein, who holds the partially endowed post of humanist chaplain at Harvard University, and so-called "New Atheists."

Epstein and other humanists feel their movement is on verge of explosive growth, but are concerned it will be dragged down by what they see as the militancy of New Atheism.

The most pre-eminent New Atheists include best-selling authors Richard Dawkins, who has called the God of the Old Testament "a psychotic delinquent," and Sam Harris, who foresees global catastrophe unless faith is renounced. They say religious belief is so harmful it must be defeated and replaced by science and reason.

Epstein calls them "atheist fundamentalists." He sees them as rigid in their dogma, and as intolerant as some of the faith leaders with whom atheists share the most obvious differences.

Next month, as Harvard celebrates the 30th anniversary of its humanist chaplaincy - part of the school's chaplaincy corps - Epstein will use the occasion to provide a counterpoint to the New Atheists.

"Humanism is not about erasing religion," he said. "It's an embracing philosophy."

In general, humanism rejects supernaturalism, while stressing principles such as dignity of the individual, equality and social justice. If there's no God to help humanity, it holds, people better do the work.

The celebration of a "New Humanism" will emphasize inclusion and diversity within the movement, and will include Pulitzer Prize-winning scientist E.O. Wilson, a humanist who has made well-chronicled efforts to team with evangelical Christians to fight global warming.

Part of the New Humanism, Wilson said, is "an invitation to a common search for morally based action in areas agreement can be reached in."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/ATHEISTS_VS_ATHEISTS?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US
 
"Humanism is not about erasing religion," he said. "It's an embracing philosophy."

In general, humanism rejects supernaturalism, while stressing principles such as dignity of the individual, equality and social justice. If there's no God to help humanity, it holds, people better do the work.
//

This is pretty much my stance.
 
Same here, usc and IHG. I currently live in the middle of the bible belt. Perhaps it seems more extreme to me because I'm from elsewhere; perhaps it is more extreme because of its geographic isolation. Religion here is very important to those who hold to it, and is pretty much the basis of their lives and their identities. To openly criticize someone here (and, really, elsewhere) for her/his beliefs would essentially constitute a personal attack because of the importance of religion to so many people's daily lives. I used to visit with my 86-year-old neighbor (well, half a mile away) who always had her bible open, and who, I knew, was edging closer toward quizzing me on what I'm sure she suspected, accurately, as my lack of religion. I did all I could to avoid that because I liked her so much and didn't want to insult her; at the same time I'd never have dreamed of lying to her. My sadness at her death was slightly eased by a relief that we'd never have to get into that discussion.

I do get tired of people assuming that everyone thinks just as they do. The first question you're asked here by new acquaintances is "where do you worship?" Or the standard praise of someone who's a nice person, "well, he's a good Christian", or self-congratulatory, "Well I'm a Christian". OK, fine, but I'm not and I don't want to make an issue of it. I declined to take part in a photography exhibit that supposedly celebrated the "spirit", and was essentially booted out of the club for it. Fine, that suits me under the circumstances. People here actually demolished a publicly funded highway overpass decoration, that depicted a version of an ancient "wind god" (very a propos for here!), because they felt it was "pagan"! I can't imagine such a response up north.

I guess what I'm saying is that extremism in any form is unpalatable at the least, divisive and even dangerous at most. What I'd like is to receive the respect for my lack of belief in the same measure that I respect those who do believe. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Yes very well said Thorn, pretty much the same here. I only dare to bare my "soul" on this subject within the boundaries of this board and a select few others. Amazing enough some of them have been reasonable preachers and theologians from the local seminary....
The average people here would consider me a satan worshiper though because with them you are either a Christian or satanic, no middle ground.

People say Christians are picked on , try being a non believer in a bible belt....
Heck once word got around it would keep me out of jobs and stuff.
 
uscitizen said:
People say Christians are picked on , try being a non believer in a bible belt....
Heck once word got around it would keep me out of jobs and stuff.
Click to expand...

No kidding!!! Really that "good Christian" description seems to be a benchmark of acceptability here (in West Texas, I mean, not the Board). I'm not always great at controlling my facial expressions in reaction to things that surprise me, and frequently find myself puzzled at various biblical references, etc. I grew up going to church (UCC) and we had to memorize catechism and all that, but as a friend says, I've slept since then, and as its meaning to me has diminished, so has the rote memory.

Many people who are devout simply can't understand that someone can have sound morals and do what's right just because it's right, and be considerate and fair to others because being fair is the right thing to do, without the implied threat of punishment by an omniscient being who monitors your every thought and deed. Best in this atmosphere just to keep quiet.
 
Yes Thorn to me being a good person just because I feel that is the way to be is much more meaningful that to be good out of fear of burning in hell.

gotta watch myself, don't want to get to self righteous though ;)

One main thing I live by is the golden rule, if a person truely does that they will be a good person.

Btw Dix said that is not even in the bible, not sure on that myself.
 
btw I believe the law allows religious organizations to refuse to hire non christians, but non religious orgs cannot refuse to hire Christians....
 
uscitizen said:
Yes Thorn to me being a good person just because I feel that is the way to be is much more meaningful that to be good out of fear of burning in hell.

gotta watch myself, don't want to get to self righteous though ;)

One main thing I live by is the golden rule, if a person truely does that they will be a good person.

Btw Dix said that is not even in the bible, not sure on that myself.
Click to expand...

I know. :p My parents seemed to feel that smugness was one of the worst possible "sins"; they might've been onto something.

I think if everyone in the world lived by that one simple principle (the Golden Rule), we'd never have any trouble. Dream on, though.

I'm cutting out early today; we're having one of our rare bouts of nasty (wet) weather (great for the farmers, though, and they need this!) and the dogs are inside and will need rescuing. Going to play "agility" on Sunday, weather permitting. Have a great weekend. :)
 
Thorn said:
Same here, usc and IHG. I currently live in the middle of the bible belt. Perhaps it seems more extreme to me because I'm from elsewhere; perhaps it is more extreme because of its geographic isolation. Religion here is very important to those who hold to it, and is pretty much the basis of their lives and their identities. To openly criticize someone here (and, really, elsewhere) for her/his beliefs would essentially constitute a personal attack because of the importance of religion to so many people's daily lives. I used to visit with my 86-year-old neighbor (well, half a mile away) who always had her bible open, and who, I knew, was edging closer toward quizzing me on what I'm sure she suspected, accurately, as my lack of religion. I did all I could to avoid that because I liked her so much and didn't want to insult her; at the same time I'd never have dreamed of lying to her. My sadness at her death was slightly eased by a relief that we'd never have to get into that discussion.

I do get tired of people assuming that everyone thinks just as they do. The first question you're asked here by new acquaintances is "where do you worship?" Or the standard praise of someone who's a nice person, "well, he's a good Christian", or self-congratulatory, "Well I'm a Christian". OK, fine, but I'm not and I don't want to make an issue of it. I declined to take part in a photography exhibit that supposedly celebrated the "spirit", and was essentially booted out of the club for it. Fine, that suits me under the circumstances. People here actually demolished a publicly funded highway overpass decoration, that depicted a version of an ancient "wind god" (very a propos for here!), because they felt it was "pagan"! I can't imagine such a response up north.

I guess what I'm saying is that extremism in any form is unpalatable at the least, divisive and even dangerous at most. What I'd like is to receive the respect for my lack of belief in the same measure that I respect those who do believe. Nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...
Well said, indeed.

I often wonder if there isn't some better word than "extremism" though. It's not the extremity of the belief but rather how it's held and practiced. One can be an extreme Christian -- or capitalist, or Marxist, or Buddhist -- without being offensive. It's rare, perhaps, but not impossible.

"Intolerance" is too overused and badly abused, so that's out. It would be something like that though. "Fanaticisim" perhaps?
 
Nowadays tolerance seems to mean never to never find objection with something. The actual meaning of tolerance is to suffer through an objection.
 
Its good that there are differences of opinion in the approach different atheists take to the religious problem.

As for the idea of atheism becoming militant, and as fundamentalist as the religious, certainly there are some that are, those that call for religion to be banned or legislated away.

I'd describe myself as a new atheist as descibed above, I think religion is a mental illness that needs to be eradicated, but I'd prefer the approach of attacking the notions that the religions are built on, challenging them relentlessly and finding an organic conversion rather than using legislation.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top