BellaOnline Forums Religion and Spirituality Atheist Random Thoughts

Born to Ride, Woohoo! I have one of those. My other t-shirt says Born to Rock! (ha ha ha). I know you totally get that on so many levels.

The article below can be found on BellaOnline's A/A site as an external link.

What do you think of the many points being made?

By Sam Harris

The Los Angeles Times

10 Myths and 10 Truths about Atheism

SEVERAL POLLS indicate that the term �atheism� has acquired such an extraordinary stigma in the United States that being an atheist is now a perfect impediment to a career in politics (in a way that being black, Muslim or homosexual is not). According to a recent Newsweek poll, only 37% of Americans would vote for an otherwise qualified atheist for president.

Atheists are often imagined to be intolerant, immoral, depressed, blind to the beauty of nature and dogmatically closed to evidence of the supernatural.

Even John Locke, one of the great patriarchs of the Enlightenment, believed that atheism was �not at all to be tolerated� because, he said, �promises, covenants and oaths, which are the bonds of human societies, can have no hold upon an atheist.�

That was more than 300 years ago. But in the United States today, little seems to have changed. A remarkable 87% of the population claims �never to doubt� the existence of God; fewer than 10% identify themselves as atheists � and their reputation appears to be deteriorating.

Given that we know that atheists are often among the most intelligent and scientifically literate people in any society, it seems important to deflate the myths that prevent them from playing a larger role in our national discourse.

1) Atheists believe that life is meaningless.

On the contrary, religious people often worry that life is meaningless and imagine that it can only be redeemed by the promise of eternal happiness beyond the grave. Atheists tend to be quite sure that life is precious. Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived. Our relationships with those we love are meaningful now; they need not last forever to be made so. Atheists tend to find this fear of meaninglessness � well � meaningless.

2) Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history.

People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

3) Atheism is dogmatic.

Jews, Christians and Muslims claim that their scriptures are so prescient of humanity�s needs that they could only have been written under the direction of an omniscient deity. An atheist is simply a person who has considered this claim, read the books and found the claim to be ridiculous. One doesn�t have to take anything on faith, or be otherwise dogmatic, to reject unjustified religious beliefs. As the historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: �I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.�

4) Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance.

No one knows why the universe came into being. In fact, it is not entirely clear that we can coherently speak about the �beginning� or �creation� of the universe at all, as these ideas invoke the concept of time, and here we are talking about the origin of space-time itself.

The notion that atheists believe that everything was created by chance is also regularly thrown up as a criticism of Darwinian evolution. As Richard Dawkins explains in his marvelous book, �The God Delusion,� this represents an utter misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Although we don�t know precisely how the Earth�s early chemistry begat biology, we know that the diversity and complexity we see in the living world is not a product of mere chance. Evolution is a combination of chance mutation and natural selection. Darwin arrived at the phrase �natural selection� by analogy to the �artificial selection� performed by breeders of livestock. In both cases, selection exerts a highly non-random effect on the development of any species.

5) Atheism has no connection to science.

Although it is possible to be a scientist and still believe in God � as some scientists seem to manage it � there is no question that an engagement with scientific thinking tends to erode, rather than support, religious faith. Taking the U.S. population as an example: Most polls show that about 90% of the general public believes in a personal God; yet 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not. This suggests that there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is.

6) Atheists are arrogant.

When scientists don�t know something � like why the universe came into being or how the first self-replicating molecules formed � they admit it. Pretending to know things one doesn�t know is a profound liability in science. And yet it is the life-blood of faith-based religion. One of the monumental ironies of religious discourse can be found in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while claiming to know facts about cosmology, chemistry and biology that no scientist knows. When considering questions about the nature of the cosmos and our place within it, atheists tend to draw their opinions from science. This isn�t arrogance; it is intellectual honesty.

7) Atheists are closed to spiritual experience.

There is nothing that prevents an atheist from experiencing love, ecstasy, rapture and awe; atheists can value these experiences and seek them regularly. What atheists don�t tend to do is make unjustified (and unjustifiable) claims about the nature of reality on the basis of such experiences. There is no question that some Christians have transformed their lives for the better by reading the Bible and praying to Jesus. What does this prove? It proves that certain disciplines of attention and codes of conduct can have a profound effect upon the human mind. Do the positive experiences of Christians suggest that Jesus is the sole savior of humanity? Not even remotely � because Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and even atheists regularly have similar experiences.

There is, in fact, not a Christian on this Earth who can be certain that Jesus even wore a beard, much less that he was born of a virgin or rose from the dead. These are just not the sort of claims that spiritual experience can authenticate.

8) Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding.

Atheists are free to admit the limits of human understanding in a way that religious people are not. It is obvious that we do not fully understand the universe; but it is even more obvious that neither the Bible nor the Koran reflects our best understanding of it. We do not know whether there is complex life elsewhere in the cosmos, but there might be. If there is, such beings could have developed an understanding of nature�s laws that vastly exceeds our own. Atheists can freely entertain such possibilities. They also can admit that if brilliant extraterrestrials exist, the contents of the Bible and the Koran will be even less impressive to them than they are to human atheists.

From the atheist point of view, the world�s religions utterly trivialize the real beauty and immensity of the universe. One doesn�t have to accept anything on insufficient evidence to make such an observation.

9) Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society.

Those who emphasize the good effects of religion never seem to realize that such effects fail to demonstrate the truth of any religious doctrine. This is why we have terms such as �wishful thinking� and �self-deception.� There is a profound distinction between a consoling delusion and the truth.

In any case, the good effects of religion can surely be disputed. In most cases, it seems that religion gives people bad reasons to behave well, when good reasons are actually available. Ask yourself, which is more moral, helping the poor out of concern for their suffering, or doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it or will punish you for not doing it?

10) Atheism provides no basis for morality.

If a person doesn�t already understand that cruelty is wrong, he won�t discover this by reading the Bible or the Koran � as these books are bursting with celebrations of cruelty, both human and divine. We do not get our morality from religion. We decide what is good in our good books by recourse to moral intuitions that are (at some level) hard-wired in us and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes and possibilities of human happiness.

We have made considerable moral progress over the years, and we didn�t make this progress by reading the Bible or the Koran more closely. Both books condone the practice of slavery � and yet every civilized human being now recognizes that slavery is an abomination. Whatever is good in scripture � like the golden rule � can be valued for its ethical wisdom without our believing that it was handed down to us by the creator of the universe.

Hi there Les and all and all...

Why do you suppose there is this ongoing argument between those who follow religion and those who don't? Or those who believe in God and those who don't?

Which side is defending itself?

Is one of the 'sides' defending itself?

If there is a side defending itself why the need?

Why not just get on with believing in 'your' God or your 'non-God'?

Is one of the 'sides' trying to convert the other side to their way of thinking? If so Who? Why?

Two movies come to mind: Have you seen them (and I am sure there are many other along the same lines or as thought provoking)

CONTACT with Jodie Foster and Matthew McConaughey and

LEAP OF FAITH with Steve Martin and Debra Winger.

Would really like your inputs on both/either or others in connection with the continuous religious 'arguments'

The questions above are mainly rhetorical because there can only be personal opinions and circular arguments based in life stories and experiences and orientations etc.

Still, who can say that there is not still a God of Thunder?

I think we still burn witches.

Alvin Toffler had a lot of interesting stuff to say in that 1970's (about) book ... if I remember rightly the basic premise was that we are in the 21st century and beyond as far as science is concerned but we are still way behind the Victorians when it comes to emotional maturity. Now if iI remember wrongly - doesn't matter as I see it, the gap between science and intellect and emotion and belief will never close and we are lost somewhere in the middle unless 'you' take a definite stand for 'yourself'.


Cheers

Lestie sagely asked: Why do you suppose there is this ongoing argument between those who follow religion and those who don't? Or those who believe in God and those who don't?

Which side is defending itself?

Is one of the 'sides' defending itself?

If there is a side defending itself why the need?

Why not just get on with believing in 'your' God or your 'non-God'?

Is one of the 'sides' trying to convert the other side to their way of thinking? If so Who? Why?

Hi Lestie and all,

The following might give a partial answer to some of Lestie's first 7 or so questions

From:www.xkaw.com
Question for atheists to try and defend themselves.?

Think about this.
God is Eternal, not created. Firstly, you have 2 choices; either everything came from nothing (which is impossible), or something always existed and created us. You have no other choice. Take a moment to think about that.
This thing that always existed would be considered Eternal, having transcended time, space, and matter, being everlasting, having always existed. If you argue this is impossible, I would argue the contrary; it is impossible for this Eternal 'thing' to not exist, because the alternative is that nothing existed, which could only produce nothing. So, something always existed, and is therefore Eternal.
Now, for something to be Eternal, it can not consist of time, because time must have had a beginning. We exist in a universe of causality, so an infinite regress is impossible; there could not have been an infinite amount of time before right now, because we never would have reached this moment in time. That means time had a beginning, and whatever created time exists without time, beyond time, in timelessness; Eternity.
So, this Eternal Creator, created time, and the universe. This Eternal Creator clearly is extremely powerful, because the energy of the trillions of stars in the known universe were created by this Creator. And obviously, the Creator is extremely intelligent, having created an intelligent being such as mankind and a world in which to populate with it.
If something exists without time, it necessarily exists without matter, and is therefor without space as well. Something that exists without time is Eternal, something without matter is immaterial (invisible, untouchable), and something without space is omnipresent (not bound by spacial restriction). So, an Eternal immaterial omnipresent 'something' created matter, time, and space.
Now, without using your imagination, we know something that always existed (eternal) that is immaterial (invisible and untouchable) and omnipresent (everywhere) created matter, time, and space.
Please do tell me what that sounds like, and don't use your imagination. Just be perfectly honest with yourself.

Answer
Excellent demonstration on your part of splitting hairs and false dichotomy. Kudos.

Les this is confusing - are these your thoughts or are they those of someone from ww.xkaw.com?

Thanks

If it's confusing it must normally be me, Lestie.

But, it is from an external source and not my original content.

Hope that this is not confusing.

Lestie sagely asked: "If there is a side defending itself why the need?"

From my naturalistic atheistic agnostic perspective, as I had written in the past, the best answer to Lestie's question was answered by Clarence Darrow who remarked, "I do not consider it an insult, but rather a compliment to be called an agnostic. I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure - that is all that agnosticism means."

My interpretation of what he was saying is that both atheists and theists have beliefs that are not proven (could ever be proven?)and that are not based on any scientific evidence. Those adherents of those "belief systems" should not pass judgement on agnostics until they have such evidence. So, if anybody is to be on the defensive, it is not freethinking agnostics who do not make any claims that cannot be proven.

Speaking just for myself, both atheists and theists have no verifiable "defense" for their beliefs, so there is absolutely no need for them to defend themselves as they lack credibility.

Hello there Les:

See this is what I wanted to answer ... but in the short time between posts the info seems to have changed. Oh dear?! Is my head in such a sieve-like state? So, to start...

*God is Eternal - who says?

* not created who says?.

* Firstly, you have 2 choices ... who says? Why only two and which two? God and non-God?

*either everything came from nothing ... who says?

* (which is impossible) ... why? I think nothing can produce something (ever read about spontaneous combustion of bodies? Cot deaths?) Might they fit here?

* or something always existed and created us ... Christians say?

* You have no other choice ... don't agree and anyway who says?

See I have trouble with these opening statements. I know one has to start somewhere with some givens to get any discussion going or argued but one has also to question those givens and have a good enough base for them to be used as such a start. Otherwise the premises upon whch the arguments are based are fallacious

BTW I am just stirring because I feel like thinking, but on more mature thought am going to get myself tangled up in this one and run around like a headless chicken. What is worse is that I am going to run out of steam like the cited chicken which will not be good at all. So I shall stay away and think bout the 'who says' for a bit them come back and play.

P S I am one of those pesky people who believes in most things at the same time. What confusion reigns as I continue to search for fitting definitions.

Cheers

Lestie not headless chicken-like asked, "Firstly, you have 2 choices ... who says? Why only two and which two? God and non-God?"

There are many other choices other than those two. Dogmatically adhered to Western established religions and atheists perpetuate and dwell on false dichotomies.

That's why I liked the Answer
Excellent demonstration on your part of splitting hairs and false dichotomy. Kudos.

Hey Les,

Maybe Clarence Darrow meant the more you know the less you know?

See then it allows room to move and to straddle states of thought and belief and acceptance. One is not bound only by strict rules of adherence to any one way of living or system of thinking or interpretation of fact, or for that matter religion?

Nah, that doesn't work, you can't be a little bit pregnant - you either are or you are not.

Oh dear.

So I say we are individually the sum of our parts and more, but at least the sum which means that our 'God' belongs anywhere we place him/her. And for the word GOD use any substitute.

It's the language again. Words have to be used to communicate and describe (grunting just doesn't swing it for me) and half the time or much of the time that is a problem. The meaning and interpretation of words. Who remembers that definition of Baldrick's in Black Adder of "Cat - 'not a dog, M'Lord."

If I say ROSE what immediatley comes to mind?

Smile now. Cheers