Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

[Harbal]

This thread is causing me much internal conflict. On the one hand, I don't believe in God, I can't believe in God, it's not a choice. To me, the Bible is just a book, it's just text on paper, I am simply not capable of convincing myself that the words carry more weight than any other book. People can write whatever they like, how can you be sure of their reliability? On the other hand, I think killing people is wrong, I even think killing spiders is wrong, for God's sake. I think and feel that lying and stealing and cheating are wrong, yet these thoughts and feelings have nothing to do with God. Neither is it to do with the absence of God, so it can't be a result of atheism. It's almost as if human beings have a capacity for originating these values quite independently of God. Maybe God instilled morality in Man when he first created him, but then why is the content of Man's moral portfolio not constant and unchanging. It's almost as if morality is subject to social evolution, rather than being set in stone from the outset by God. Oh dear, this is so confusing, how can some people have a sense of morality without believing in God? It's impossible, yet it happens. Only God can make impossible things happen so I suppose God must really exist, unless it isn't actually impossible, in which case there is no need for God to exist. If God does exist, perhaps he doesn't mind whether or not we believe in him as long as we behave properly, perhaps that's what is most important to him.

[Dubious]

If God does exist, perhaps he doesn't mind whether or not we believe in him as long as we behave properly, perhaps that's what is most important to him.

That may be good enough for god but not for Immanuel for whom being good is not good enough as far as his god is concerned. It demands our belief or else not unlike every tin-horn dictator who ever ruled.

[Dubious]

Dubious wrote:

The ONLY thing interesting about god(s) is how humans have created them in their countless variations...a subject of persistent study being one of history's specialties. As for Dawkins, I think he takes theism, especially the biblical kind, far too seriously. The best way to erode an active absurdity is ignore it by giving it all the credibility due to it, i.e., ZERO.

But Dawkins has to explicitly contend with Immanuel's God because Dawkins's day job is to foster the public's understanding of science.

Can't see why Dawkins should so strive to contend with an absurdity, one which only makes sense in a historical context. There are many scientists, non-scientists, philosophers, etc., who attempt to foster the public's understanding of science. In doing so, god is barely mentioned because it explains nothing. But god is a concept measured in millenniums; it cannot be bombed out of existence, à la Dawkins, but eroded from the psyche until it defaults to an inactive entity thoroughly divested of any function that may once have given it validity. Gods also age though much slower than humans and their civilizations but eventually it becomes clear that TIME is the real god.

[Harbal]

But god is a concept measured in millenniums; it cannot be bombed out of existence, à la Dawkins, but eroded from the psyche until it defaults to an inactive entity thoroughly divested of any function that may once have given it validity.

The concept still seems to be awfully prevalent and remarkably resistant to erosion. I think the process you describe may take a while yet to reach completion.

[Greta]

Only if God is like a judgemental Republican. The chances of that are zero.

I didn't think you were American...what's your preoccupation with Republicans?

You made a claim that Dawkins was in bother if God exists.

In other words, if you were God, then Dawkins would be in big trouble.

So you assume that God thinks as you and other conservative religious Republicans do.

IF there is a God, and IF that God does something we equate to thinking, then that entity will still not think like you.

What I felt in my main peak experience was neither a Republican or Santa-like God, just unconditional love. Brain hormones, a deity or both? How would I know? It doesn't seem to me like something worthy of demonisation.

What does the indefinite pronoun "it" refer to in your last sentence? I can't figure out what you're saying is being "demonized," in this case. Do you mean Atheism, like in the OP?

Clearly I am referring to the thread subject matter - the unfair and irrational demonisation of non-believers by some theists, such as yourself.

Do you believe me to be demonic, worthy of demonisation? If so, why?

[Dubious]

But god is a concept measured in millenniums; it cannot be bombed out of existence, à la Dawkins, but eroded from the psyche until it defaults to an inactive entity thoroughly divested of any function that may once have given it validity.

The concept still seems to be awfully prevalent and remarkably resistant to erosion. I think the process you describe may take a while yet to reach completion.

It may seem so but compared to what it was up to the end of the 16th century and especially before that when the Gothic cathedrals were built, it's positively anemic in its current state. Deism already erased most of God's importance from the human domain starting in the 17th century. But you're right, there's still a long way to go, indifference, to my mind, being more potent than a seeming crusade against it which only causes reactions that may possibly impede its deserved demise. Nothing is as levelling or acidic as indifference.

[Immanuel Can]

...conservative religious Republicans...

You think that's me? Wrong country, I'm afraid.

Clearly I am referring to the thread subject matter - the unfair and irrational demonisation of non-believers by some theists, such as yourself.

I protest. I have never had to distort a thing in speaking about Atheism. All I've ever had to do is point out its own logic -- if that's demonic, then it's the doing of the Atheists themselves. What can I say about that?

Do you believe me to be demonic, worthy of demonisation? If so, why?

No, of course not. I don't know you, and I would not have any assume you were any worse than me, or any other human being. But if you're an Atheist, then you would be following down a dark path. Would you rather I told you, or just let you go there?

[Immanuel Can]

...how can some people have a sense of morality without believing in God?

Maybe because man was made, as the Bible puts it, "in the image of God," meaning as a creative, freewill being, with a conscience installed to make him aware of right and wrong. Maybe it wasn't just some product of ideology but an essential feature of human nature to know morality exists.

If God does exist, perhaps he doesn't mind whether or not we believe in him as long as we behave properly, perhaps that's what is most important to him.

May I suggest that that's not it? After all, our behaviour is only sometimes an indicator of who we are; but not always. And we would have to wonder what use it would be to God whether you and I were "good" or not.

Maybe the story is not about a stern "schoolmaster-in -the-sky," nor even about a distant diety with an inexplicable interest in our behaviour, but rather about a just and loving God, who wants genuine relationship with his creatures -- and about creatures who, having free will, have the choice to accept or reject that relationship.

[Greta]

Clearly I am referring to the thread subject matter - the unfair and irrational demonisation of non-believers by some theists, such as yourself.

I protest. I have never had to distort a thing in speaking about Atheism. All I've ever had to do is point out its own logic -- if that's demonic, then it's the doing of the Atheists themselves. What can I say about that?

In all the months I've known you, you have never given the slightest hint that you understand the logic of atheism.

Not that you need to know a thing about it as the demonisation is simply competitive. Misrepresenting ideological opponents is a time honoured strategy down the ages.

[Harbal]

And we would have to wonder what use it would be to God whether you and I were "good" or not.

Well since you bring it up, I can't help but wonder what use it is to God that we are even here.

[Belinda]

Dubious wrote:

Can't see why Dawkins should so strive to contend with an absurdity, one which only makes sense in a historical context. There are many scientists, non-scientists, philosophers, etc., who attempt to foster the public's understanding of science. In doing so, god is barely mentioned because it explains nothing. But god is a concept measured in millenniums; it cannot be bombed out of existence, à la Dawkins, but eroded from the psyche until it defaults to an inactive entity thoroughly divested of any function that may once have given it validity. Gods also age though much slower than humans and their civilizations but eventually it becomes clear that TIME is the real god.

I think it's because of the teleological fallacy. Many have the vague notion that natural selection works according to some Plan or plan for what living creatures ought to be like, at least so they can survive. Dawkins is one of many who try to erode from psyches the notion that God (i.e. the Plan) does not exist.

Science, which includes the theory of natural selection, is of immediate importance to individuals, societies, nations, etc. and there isn't time to wait for some sort of osmosis through time to get rid of false beliefs.

Error correction: Dawkins is one of many who try to erode from psyches the notion that God (i.e. the Plan) does exist.

[Dubious]

Science, which includes the theory of natural selection, is of immediate importance to individuals, societies, nations, etc. and there isn't time to wait for some sort of osmosis through time to get rid of false beliefs.

Yes, it would be best to dispense with the whole god caboodle asap, especially the Biblical and Koranic kind which make no sense from first to last impervious to both logic and history. But science is still in control and what remains of religion is hardly a threat to it. What is far more critical than any gradual erosion of religion as compared to a quick demise and for which there is indeed no time to wait is our collective effect on the environment and its geopolitical consequences. No matter how great god is or how much he supposedly loves us and suchlike loads of crap we better figure out quickly what can cause massive depopulation scenarios and not depend on a teleological fallacy to save us

[Immanuel Can]

In all the months I've known you, you have never given the slightest hint that you understand the logic of atheism.

Then show me the contrary logic.

Show me, for example, that Atheism is a moral position. Or that it's based in knowledge. Or that it can ground a society...or do any of the things I have said it cannot. If my logic is faulty, it should be a simple matter for your to show that. For it's easy to say "I don't believe you": but it's quite another to show you have reasons for your disbelief.

[Immanuel Can]

And we would have to wonder what use it would be to God whether you and I were "good" or not.

Well since you bring it up, I can't help but wonder what use it is to God that we are even here.

The Bible says that God is love. When it speaks of God "creating people in His own image," it's speaking of what we would call "friends" or "loved ones." The purpose God had is to create those capable of entering into a relationship with Him and experiencing and enjoying the love that He intrinsically has.

But love cannot be forced, so with that, He must grant us free will. We must have the choice to accept or reject the proposed relationship. Still, if He's a loving God, He must do everything He can to make us make the right choice -- short of actually depriving us of will, of course.

The Christian view is that God has indeed done all He could, within the confines of what human freedom entails, to produce in us the right decision. He has revealed to us what His plan is, spoken of what is gained and lost if one does not have the relationship in question, and then has even gone so far as to pay off the injustice of our freewill misdeeds by dying for us Himself, on our behalf, so at to make our forgiveness fair and just. Now he makes the offer of relationship with Him, and wait for us to take it...or not, as we, in our freedom, shall decide.

We may choose to believe that, or not. But God is not a tyrant, and will not "force us to Heaven" (to borrow an actual phrase from John Locke). We must choose, and we can.

But don't take my word for it. Here's the Bible's version of my explanation above, in plain language.

• "For God so loved the world, that He gave His unique Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
  
  For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
  
  He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the unique Son of God.
  
  This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.” (John 3:16-21)

At the end there, the question of "deeds" comes back again, doesn't it? It seems God does have an interest in what we do; it's just not as great as His interest in Whom we believe. It's the relationship that counts, not just what we do. But those who are in a good relationship with God will also do the deeds of God, it says.

The short answer, then, is that we're here because God is love, and because He wants to bring us into a relationship with Him. We're not cosmic accidents or the detritus of an indifferent universe; we are here by God's deliberate intention, and are precious and valuable, and loved.

[Lacewing]

In all the months I've known you, you have never given the slightest hint that you understand the logic of atheism.

Then show me the contrary logic.

Show me, for example, that Atheism is a moral position. Or that it's based in knowledge. Or that it can ground a society...or do any of the things I have said it cannot. If my logic is faulty, it should be a simple matter for your to show that. For it's easy to say "I don't believe you": but it's quite another to show you have reasons for your disbelief.

You say "Show me", yet you have already received generous responses that show the faults in what you say, from people who, themselves, know the positions first-hand. How can you be shown anything from your rigidly fixated perspective that is bound and tied to your ego and all that you identify and glorify yourself with? And, more importantly, who the hell do you think you are? You spew your grandiose and absurd assessments, and then tell people they must show you otherwise. Your challenge is pointless because of you, not because of anyone else.

If you want to be honest, explore all of your questions focused on a broader spectrum than Atheism. Narrowing down your focus on Atheism clearly shows the weakness of your argument, because of its transparently skewed and limited intent. It can only live in the shadows -- it withers in broader light.