Atheist Desire to Disprove God

[Civil Shephard]

It seems to me that Atheism is mostly a reactionary position, at least when it targets organized religion, or faith, or whatever we want to call it.

If organized religion never interfered with scientific research and advancement, or if organized religion never singled-out people because of sexual preference or other benign lifestyle choices, or if organized religion never sought to influence politics and force its dogmatic will on others, or if organized religion never sought to incite violence in the name of this particular God or another, then I daresay there would be very few atheists taking potshots across its bow.

If theists kept mostly to themselves and never allowed their religious beliefs to press their weight on nonbelievers, I don't think atheists would view religion as a threat.

But as it stands right now, many organized religions are still trying to burn witches at the stake, metaphorically speaking. We have finally attained a particular platform of enlightenment--one in which many people realize a very important functional truth: it is best to place a wedge between religious thought and poli-social conventions.

Why? Because we have learned separating state and relgion is most conducive to religious freedom and individual liberties, not to mention to peaceful coexistence between differing faiths. If individual religions were satisfied with regulating only their own and leaving outsiders the personal liberties to make unconstrained choices for themselves, then I for one believe they would suffer far fewer attacks from certain atheists. Perhaps attacks would stop altogether.

Well said... It reminds me that Jesus was crucified by jealous religious people. And I know I know by political powers fearing a revolt. But in a way I think that if religions were the ideal then they would be quite a threat indeed. After all... I can see for miles and miles but they still shoot horses don't they?

 

[Civil Shephard]

It just occurred me that to some degree we feel pushed into finding ways of disproving God, since it happens fairly often of others pressuring us into believing in him.

Does that pressure come from without or within?

 

[McBell]

Does that pressure come from without or within?

It comes from theists in their attempt to "save" them.

 

[Luminous]

I agree there are many atheists out there who are not doing this. But it seems to me that the new atheists like Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens, are really going out of their way to negate the value, contribution, of religion -- positing a world without religion, in an almost militant and aggressive style.

They wear Scarlet A's on their jackets, and blame most of society's ills on religion.

My question is this: why do some atheists (mostly new atheists), feel a need to do this. Is it a general want to help mankind awaken from their foolish belief in deities? Do they really think that people will not be faithful after they read their works?

Also it seems to me from reading their books - which are all titled like God is not Great and the God Delusion, etc. -- that their attacks are not necesarrily on God, but on organized religion -- and a specific Judeo-Christian "white bearded man in the sky" version of God; they focus on the ill deeds of man and rather ignore the foundations of Christianity's messages. Doesn't this kind of look biased, because God is such a vague term -- that the titles of their books be more centered on organized religion and the wrongs done in the names of faith, rather than faith itself?

Thoughts?

Those atheists are just hating on the frat.

 

[Civil Shephard]

It comes from theists in their attempt to "save" them.

And that put "pressure" on people? Would you like some soup?

 

[blue8]

My question is this: why do some atheists (mostly new atheists), feel a need to do this. Is it a general want to help mankind awaken from their foolish belief in deities? Do they really think that people will not be faithful after they read their works?

My opinion is that those aggressive and extrem atheist dont understand religion properly. They see only one side of it, the bad side, like religious fundamentalism, fanatism, religious hatred and so on. One side of the story is not enough for understanding.

 

[asketikos]

My opinion is that those aggressive and extrem atheist dont understand religion properly. They see only one side of it, the bad side, like religious fundamentalism, fanatism, religious hatred and so on. One side of the story is not enough for understanding.

i agree - because in their books they only list the negative elements of religion/faith, including that it is a delusion - but they avoid talking about the positive elements.

 

[blue8]

i agree - because in their books they only list the negative elements of religion/faith, including that it is a delusion - but they avoid talking about the positive elements.

Exactly, and there are many positive elements in religion. Religion is a social phenomenon. Any one-sided reductionistic attitude is bound to fail, and has no future.
But I dont blame them for not knowing. Today, fundamentalism is very widespread in the world and in all religions, so it is easy to have aversion. More education and information would help.

 

[Civil Shephard]

i agree - because in their books they only list the negative elements of religion/faith, including that it is a delusion - but they avoid talking about the positive elements.

Yeah! Like free soup or fried chicken...

I mean... the function of a good religion in my mind is serving the least of us or even the best of us in the least of circumstances. Charity is that which does not asks... only see's a dire need and fills it. The Gospel of Jesus is more of deeds than words and the best unsung hero's are those who pray and give without blowing trumpets.

And their lives put pressure on people... because folks don't want to believe others can actually be as good as they think they are. It reminds me of a poster in my 7th grade English class... "Those of you who think you know everything are annoying those of us who really do..."

Of course I'm not perfect so... can I get an Amen?

 

[McBell]

And that put "pressure" on people? Would you like some soup?

No thanks.
And yes, there are several theist groups who pressure others into converting.
Your not knowing about it makes a person wonder.

 

[McBell]

Yeah! Like free soup or fried chicken...

I mean... the function of a good religion in my mind is serving the least of us or even the best of us in the least of circumstances. Charity is that which does not asks... only see's a dire need and fills it. The Gospel of Jesus is more of deeds than words and the best unsung hero's are those who pray and give without blowing trumpets.

And their lives put pressure on people... because folks don't want to believe others can actually be as good as they think they are. It reminds me of a poster in my 7th grade English class... "Those of you who think you know everything are annoying those of us who really do..."

Of course I'm not perfect so... can I get an Amen?

Wow.
way to let your ego show.

 

[LuisDantas]

I have just realized that I do indeed desire to disproved God out of religious motivation.

This other thread elaborates on why.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/111497-seeking-god-religion.html

 

[LuisDantas]

Does that pressure come from without or within?

Invariably from the outside. I am very much incompatible with belief in God, pal.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My opinion is that those aggressive and extrem atheist dont understand religion properly. They see only one side of it, the bad side, like religious fundamentalism, fanatism, religious hatred and so on. One side of the story is not enough for understanding.

It's not a matter of rejecting all religion.

There are two main possible approaches I see to religion:

- say that religion is a good thing, on average. Accept religious ideas simply because they're religious, and hope that you're accepting more good than bad, because you may very well be.

- say that religion is made up of both good and bad things. Accept or reject religious ideas not on the basis of whether they're religious, but whether they're demonstrably good in their own right. If you're a good judge, then you'll accept all the good and reject all the bad.

IMO, the second approach yields a much better result than the first. Maybe the first approach will yield a net benefit by bringing in more good than bad, but it still brings in some bad, while the second approach does not.

But here's the thing: it's a necessary part of the second approach to not give any regard to religion itself. You're evaluating each individual idea separately; the religion it came from is irrelevant. If an idea or precept can't stand on its own merits, then the fact that it comes from a religion that you think is generally good shouldn't matter.

So that's what I aim for: to hold no regard for religion itself, while still being open to the possibility that religions can come up with good ideas.

 

[Civil Shephard]

Wow.
way to let your ego show.

well... before ego was I AM. And I AM taught me to be honest about my pride so that humble people wouldn't take me seriously.

 

[Orias]

This is simply nonsensical. People looking to conform don't adopt unpopular views held by a tiny minority - they do what is considered normal by the majority. Additionally, the mere absence of belief in one thing doesn't really provide enough structure or substance for people to conform around.

Just as nonsensical as people who promote pop-occultism and media right?

Open your eyes, the world is full of frauds, even if you are not one of them.

The easiest things to conform to is that which has no clear structure, for the flock always follows blindly.

Conformity is something that seeks comfort, even if little knowledge of the issue is gained, if it is enough to make someone feel accepted they will adhere to it, even if they don't read the rest of the fine print.

If it were as so much as nonsensical maybe I could have a debate with a real atheist who doesn't try and sugar up their subsequent nothingness.

 

[Meow Mix]

I agree there are many atheists out there who are not doing this. But it seems to me that the new atheists like Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens, are really going out of their way to negate the value, contribution, of religion -- positing a world without religion, in an almost militant and aggressive style.

They wear Scarlet A's on their jackets, and blame most of society's ills on religion.

My question is this: why do some atheists (mostly new atheists), feel a need to do this. Is it a general want to help mankind awaken from their foolish belief in deities? Do they really think that people will not be faithful after they read their works?

Also it seems to me from reading their books - which are all titled like God is not Great and the God Delusion, etc. -- that their attacks are not necesarrily on God, but on organized religion -- and a specific Judeo-Christian "white bearded man in the sky" version of God; they focus on the ill deeds of man and rather ignore the foundations of Christianity's messages. Doesn't this kind of look biased, because God is such a vague term -- that the titles of their books be more centered on organized religion and the wrongs done in the names of faith, rather than faith itself?

Thoughts?

While I disagree with blaming "all of society's ills" on religion (though I'd say a fair number of them are justified by religion, I rather chalk this up to the fact that wicked people will use anything to "justify" their atrocities) I tend to look at it like this. We tend to try to get people psychological/mental health if they report seeing and hearing things that aren't there.

It seems to me a natural extension of the concern for the mental health of someone to point out how their beliefs are ostensibly irrational, even delusional. This seems to be especially important when their apparent delusions color their interpretation of morality, affect how much time they spend their lives on a delusion, and so forth.

Just as an evangelist might say that they're only trying to help your immortal soul by telling you about (insert deity here), sometimes skeptics are only trying to help your rationality by asking you to question (insert irrational belief here).

 

[outhouse]

answer a few questions please

#1 Now,, can you argue that man has not been creating man and women gods and spirits for the last 200,000 years???

#2 Can you show me a remote tribe who does not have made up spirits or gods in any part of the world???

#3 Can you show me any parallels in these remote tribes that would indicate that there god is also your god talking to them in the local language and thus the god figure is sharing the same information with all people????

#4 Can you show me that your hebrew god figure does not have any simularity's with previous pagan religions such as sumerians and egpytions???

#5 The ancient hebrews put more importance on male's then females, does this show in their early writings regarding the god figure as being male????

#6 Do you think all other gods and spirits are made up by the local people of that geographic region?

 

[Alceste]

ROFL at the idea of atheists as "conformists".

Hee hee hee. How jolly.

Carry on.

 

[Revoltingest]

ROFL at the idea of atheists as "conformists".
Hee hee hee. How jolly.
Carry on.

Admit it....you just say you're an atheist so you can join the "in crowd" for the social benefits.
We're the most respected 'religion', you know.