A "deeply religious non-believer"

[Liquid Robot]

Many people say that atheism is not a religion, and in principle, it isn't. Not at all. But it isn't atheism itself that makes some of the extremely militant and fanatic atheists we know, like Richard Dawkins. Some are just as fanatic about their atheism, devotion to it and just as unwilling to hear anything against it (banging-your-head-against-a-brick-wall galore) as some of the ultimate American evangelicals or Muslim extremists.

Something interesting my step-dad, a psychologist, told me was that often, when someone feels an extreme repulsion or downright hate towards something, it's because it is like a part of themselves they want to suppress. You can get annoyed, if you're a really good writer/painter/mathematician or whatever to see someone else's work praised more highly than your own - sometimes because you yourself would rather have the praise. Sometimes it's a talent you don't know you have (personally I don't believe in innate talents but this is just repeating my stepdad). Also, consider some of the more extreme cases of priests that hate e.g. gay people. They themselves could be gay, but unwilling to acknowledge it.

The same can be said about fanatic atheists: They stick to their non-belief religiously, militantly and swipe aside any argument against it. Their 'belief' might not be religion, but they're acting religiously... maybe suppressing a religious side of themselves?  

[WritelySo]

No, no, no...

So wrong that I wonder if you are an xian in disguise, trying to argue with us.

First of all, you characterize Richard Dawkins very inaccurately. The man is a brilliant scientist and humanitarian. Dawkins has heard every argument for the existence of gods, and he doesn't ignore the arguments, he responds eloquently and intelligently to each one, using sound logic to explain why their logic is flawed. The religious use circular logic and every manner of logical fallacy to justify their beliefs, they have no logical basis for belief or for faith. Dawkins is the opposite of evangelicals, but the unsophisticated viewer just sees arguing and is unable to differentiate solid debate from zealotry and ranting, so they lump Dawkins in with the religious fanatics.

I would suggest learning about logic and reason, then you will see why what Dawkins is doing is the polar opposite of what the zealots are doing, and why Dawkins is a great humanitarian in his willingness to do it as patiently as he is. Like any scientist, he is open to being proven wrong in some way, because that is how knowledge is advanced. Conversely, religious people twist reality into any preposterous form they can to maintain a rigid and unchanging belief. Their belief is uninformed by new information. Faith is defined as firm belief in something in the absence of logical proof or material evidence. By its very nature, religious belief is irrational, that is why it is not on the same page as Dawkins. The religious state their reasons for believing as things like: "I believe because the bible says so, and the bible is god's word" or "because it feels true."

There is no logical proof or material evidence that gods exist, and there is plenty of logical proof that particular gods do not exist. Dawkins patiently lays out that logical proof in front of people who are unwilling to, or incapable of, comprehending it - because he wants people to see the facts. That isn't even in the same ballpark as what religious fanatics are doing. They are trying to use fear, intimidation, empty promises and misinformation to get people to leave their rational minds behind and hand over control of their lives to the religion. You have to understand that belief in unicorns is not equivalent to belief in horses. Laying out the evidence against the existence of unicorns to someone who really thinks they do exist is not "religious." It's intelligent.  

[neverwisefool]

You are conflating ethical outrage with the kind of repulsion and projection that your stepfather was talking about. Are we "repulsed" by the people dying in Burma with no aid? Is that because we secretly want to withhold aid from them? Of course not - the very idea is preposterous. We are repulsed because we find it ethically objectionable that a government would stand in the way of its citizens getting help in a disaster.

In the same way, Dawkins and those like him feel that religious dogma is ethically objectionable. They believe that teaching children lies about the nature of reality, the universe, their bodies is tantamount to child abuse. They stand against the atrocities - personal, political and otherwise - committed in the name of religion.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.  

[Chris Cunningham]

That's partially true for me. As a kid I was as religious as I could've been, but nothing felt quite right. I'd pray to God to tell me the Bible was true, and afterwords I felt no difference. I thought I was doing something wrong. And as a result of a deeply religious household, I couldn't learn as much as I wanted to. Things were kept from me. I couldnt even read Harry Potter. If I had had the information available to me at 7, I wouldve been just as smart at 7 as I am now.

When I see another religious person, it just reminds me how much of my life I wasted believing in an imaginary God. How much time I wasted being kept from "devils theories" like the big bang. How much time I wasted denying my own sexuality. How much time I wasted trying to force a faith on others that I knew, deep down, wasn't really true.

However, I wouldn't say Dawkins is trying to supress anything. The reason he believes in no God(s) is because of the facts he has available to him currently. If there was real proof of a God, and it made real sense, he would believe.  

[Liquid Robot]

Quote:

First of all, you characterize Richard Dawkins very inaccurately. The man is a brilliant scientist and humanitarian. Dawkins has heard every argument for the existence of gods, and he doesn't ignore the arguments, he responds eloquently and intelligently to each one, using sound logic to explain why their logic is flawed. The religious use circular logic and every manner of logical fallacy to justify their beliefs, they have no logical basis for belief or for faith. Dawkins is the opposite of evangelicals, but the unsophisticated viewer just sees arguing and is unable to differentiate solid debate from zealotry and ranting, so they lump Dawkins in with the religious fanatics.

I read the God Delusion, and thought it a brilliant book, and agreed with pretty much every argument he put forth. I don't agree, though, that he explained every argument for religion; yes, for religion, maybe, but not spiritual beliefs. Needless to say, I'm not spiritual or I wouldn't be here, and, considering that Dawkins is open to proof of religion, should it arise, does make him different. He is. And

Quote:

sometimes a cigar is just a cigar

, I know, but occasionally, the hostility with which some atheist put forth their arguments does remind me of the same hostility some 'religionistas' do so. I completely agree that hostility is needed - hence the crimes, the extremists, the executions, in the name of religion - all I am saying is that it will occasionally resemble the religious zealots' arguments. It's not that I'm denouncing atheism - or Dawkins (only yesterday I was being harassed for the umpteenth time in class. A very easy way to get pretty much my whole school to hate you is to tell them you don't believe in God - and an extremely easy way of getting confronted with the same question fifty times daily).
But then again, you can't average out an entire belief or non-belief; there will always be zealots, intelligent people, and 'normals' of each.
But I'm

Quote:

So wrong that I wonder if you are an xian in disguise, trying to argue with us.

I'm not :] I'm just trying to have the journey to atheism I never got. A lot of people 'discover' their beliefs. Mine was handed to me on a silver spoon - at least, from one side of the family.  

[Xiporah]

I deeply believe that I want a bagel right now, so am I pushing aside the inner bagel hater that I don't want to admit that I am, or do I just want a bagel?

 

[Dirty Dirty Shisno]

I do not know this Darwin every atheist and their grandmother seems to know SOMETHING about but... I do know that I think people usually hate things that are different from them in every conceivable way. From what I've seen hate forms from not understanding why or how someone else is different. If someone REALLY hates gays I imagine it's because they REALLY don't understand gays. Fear of the unknown and all that you know? Lastly, I have never met nor am I one of these really angry or millitant atheists you speak of. I'm a pretty chilled spiritual atheist, all the atheists I know are just, people, who usually forget to mention their atheism which actually ends up pissing people off. So yeah, all my atheists are calm. *shrug* I'll run into them sooner or later if they exist.  

[Serendipity Splendor]

hellll no.

so are all religious fanatics secretly atheist? *pshaw*  

[Explosive Effects101]

Atheism is a belief and a way of life, and if someone wants persay a waffel, can they have a waffel withoujt wanting a waffel being put into extreme consideration? "Should I have the waffle or pancake?" "Waffle or no waffle, that is the question." really, in all actualization, its just a waffle, does not eating the waffle determine the course of your life? No. Will people think differently if you dont have the waffle? Only waffle lovers., they'll think your crazy. But thats beside the point! Really, its all up to you, and it shouldnt matter what others think.  

[Sanguvixen]

I am reminded of a thread back in the ED. In that thread someone was trying to say that Atheism is a religion. I know that isn't being contested here because I do believe we here all understand why Atheism is not a religion. I think we all understand why Scientific Knowledge isn't Faith. We don't have "Faith" that the world is round or spherical after all.

However, how many have thought about why people try to label Atheism as religion? I think it might come down to a degradation of the use of the word "Religion" or "religiously", along with the constant misuse and misunderstanding of the word "Faith."

People take what they see and mistake it as something that it is not, but since the use of the English language has become quite loose, people get away with it.

So when people take a look at the way some Atheists act it may be militant, and similar to how some very religious people act but that does not mean those people are suppressing a religious side of them. It just means that they feel very strongly in the certain things.  

[x__Death-Of-Glitter__x]

What you're saying about people supressing part of them is something that does happen, but it's not the case with a majority of people.

I really want to read that book by Dawkins, but it's not at the Library near where I live. sad

I don't bash out on religion, I argue against it, but I don't just yell random, pointless obscenities reguarding religion. I don't hate religion, I just hate the dominance of religion in society. I hate it when religion effects non-religious people, but I don't hate the actual religion.

The problem is, religious fanatics tend to use, say, the bible, as the basis of their arguments. And while they believe it, not everybody does. So when they're arguing the existance of God, and supporting it with things that only apply to Christians, the debate becomes quite pointless.  

[Edi Gammon]

Can I just say....

I love this guild.

heart  

[x__Death-Of-Glitter__x]

Edi Gammon

Can I just say....

I love this guild.

heart

Same here.