Saturday, March 31, 2007 Atheists are divided on path to nonbelief

By Jay Lindsay THE ASSOCIATED PRESS



BOSTON— Atheists are under attack these days for being too militant, for not just disbelieving in religious faith but for trying to eradicate it. 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, the humanist chaplain at Harvard University, and so-called New Atheists.

Epstein and other humanists feel their movement is on the verge of explosive growth, but they 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 partially endowed 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 dignity of the individual, equality and social justice. If there’s no God to help humanity, it holds, people had 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.”

The tone of the New Atheists will only alienate important faith groups whose help is needed to solve the world’s problems, Wilson said.

“I would suggest possibly that while there is use in the critiques by Dawkins and Harris, that they’ve overdone it,” he said.

Harris, author of “Letter to a Christian Nation,” sees the disagreement as overblown. He thinks there’s room for multiple arguments in the debate between scientific rationalism and religious dogmatism.

“I don’t think everyone needs to take as uncompromising a stance as I have against faith,” he said.

But, he added, an intellectual intolerance of people who strongly believe things on bad evidence is just “basic human sanity.”

“We do not jail people for being stupid, but we do stop listening to them after a while,” he said in e-mailed comments.

Harris also rejected the term “atheist fundamentalist,” calling it “a silly play upon words.” He noted that, when it comes to the ancient Greek gods, everyone is an atheist, and no one is asked to justify that to pagans who want to believe in Zeus.

“Likewise with the God of Abraham,” he said. “There is nothing ‘fundamentalist’ about finding the claims of religious demagogues implausible.”

Some of the participants in Harvard’s celebration of its humanist chaplaincy have no problem with the New Atheists’ tone.

Harvard psychologist and author Steven Pinker said the forcefulness of their criticism is standard in scientific and political debate, and “far milder than what we accept in book and movie reviews.”

“It’s only the sense that religion deserves special respect — the exact taboo that Dawkins and Harris are arguing against — that people feel that those guys are being meanies when applying ordinary standards of evaluation to religion,” Pinker said in e-mailed comments.

Dawkins did not respond to requests for comment. He has questioned whether teaching children they could go to hell is worse in the long term than sexually abusing them, and compares the evidence of God to evidence for unicorns, fairies and a “Flying Spaghetti Monster.”

His attempt to win converts is clear in “The God Delusion,” when he writes of his hope that “religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.”

A 2006 Baylor University survey estimates about 15 million atheists in the United States.

Of course it is it's religion that's causing all the trouble... not the fact that mankind is inherently hell bent on destruction. Good grief... talk about my way is the only way.



We're already doing the work. We're the ones who are making a pig's ear of things... no god is doing this.



Intellectual intolerance... now there's a harmless thing.



Well, when you know your way is the best way, the only way, well you've gotta do everything in your power to "save" mankind.

Not very surprising. Atheists have no one code or rule book so others can always disagree.

Though I'm leaning more towards the 'militant' way. Religion isn't worthy of respect.

Religion, in and of itself, isn't the problem. Anything that tries to point people in the right direction is a good thing.

However, many of the adherents believe that they have the 'right' path and insist that they have the right to dictate to others.

That cuts both ways though: believers AND atheists.

In the end any philosophy, as long as it causes no harm to others, is a good thing.

Perfect

Amen (pardon the pun), Kratos. However, I believe all atheists should take unexplained phenomena more seriously. That's the REAL scientific cure for religion, or it will be once enough people start participating, talking.

And religion that isnt "organized" isnt about embracing philosophy??

Feel the spiritual vibe in "following the path of non-belief" ,still following a path of atheism and science beliefs.

We tend to become like the worst in those we oppose.

Bene Gesserit Coda

Chapterhouse: Dune

Yo!
Dawkins sounds fairly typical....he is leading the NEW athiest movement??....
.....VERY typical....

Mr Epstiens movement seems much more progressive...as far as NOT believing in a supreme being ...I find the "Humanist" movement less militant as well....


sound more like Mr Harris is rejecting the concept of mono-theism as opposed th atheism here

.....they do seem to shoot each other in the foot much the same way differing Christain denominations do eh GW?........B

I agree with this. I joined a group in NYC called the Universists that stated basically that they were open to everything being examined and proven.

And yet the first thing this group wanted to do was call itself a religion. So most of us left. The next thing they wanted to do was attack God theory.

So they arranged a screening of "The God Who Wasn't There"

They were militant and attacking and felt that trampling across people in the name of getting the "truth" across was acceptable.

I say for ME I don't think God exists. I look out from my window of self and in my mind God theory is a coping mechanism.

However I am not arrogant enough to think that this is the same perspective the believe does or should have.

I am more interested in their perspective than who is "really" right or wrong because at the end of the day, we don't and can't know the answer to that.

I think if more people spent time figuring out their views completely before they start trying to tell others what their beliefs are, the world would be a better place.

I think the fact that even among atheists, people who by definition do not submit to any form of higher being, there are those who feel it is their right or even their purpose to force their view on the rest of the world even if it is by force proves that those activities are part of human nature.

I don't know if it would be better, but it definitely would be quieter.

Our views are constantly being tweaked as we gain more life experience. I don't think anyone ever figures them out completely.

I dont think Atheists can be considered militant until they start murdering people and blowing things up. All we have now are the people who feel the need to criticize religion and those who dont, and they are equally valid stances and theres no reason why they should be opposed.

So, does this mean you don't oppose Christians running around telling people they're going to hell, or Muslims running around telling people they need to convert or be considered dogs to be killed?

Thats a good one. I think Nietszche expresses it better though

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 146

I have to say I agree with the idea that some of the Aethiests are taking it a bit far. My disbelief in god is quite strong but I would certainly not try to influence anyone else away from the path they have chosen to travel.

If they want to spend all Sunday stuffed in a building listening to someone read an old book good for them. Personally I prefer Sunday as a day to recuperate from the Excesses of Saturday night

To create an effective movement, and to have a solid, longstanding base... you have to reach people with forward thinking ideas and positive dialog. Too often, types like Sam Harris are so busy bashing that they become polarizing figures. Negativity doesn't inspire people, all it does is bring about more negativity. It kind of reminds me of businesses or politicians that go on negative campaigns against their competitors, instead of relying on their forward thinking ideas or policies, they rely on bashing the opposition. It may be effective in the short term, but that type of rhetoric gets old and inevitably turns people away. To me, your ideas should win people over... not your opposition of ideas. Why be the intolerant fool you accuse your opposition of being?

Ya articulated much better I agree.

Very well written artmoon. I am quite impressed. Yes it seems ironic that atheists are getting organized to fight organized religion because they think there beliefs are superior..........Yet they say it is only word play to call atheism a religion.

Really now? Well when I start to slaugher millions, rape, take slaves and such... Then you can use your little quote.



Human nature is to question our purpose, religion is supposely an answer that isn't so much human nature but a social evolution. We no longer worship Odin or Zeus for the reason it's mythology... Those gods have been put onto the pyre and current religions shall do the same.

Though I do find it curious that you speak against the atheists so fighting for their way when you bear the christian fish from Roman times in your signature. Or perhaps you don't know what it means?

Because all of that starts with disrespect They are different in degree and not in kind.

Curious how you think I should respect a religion that wants to punish me solely for not following it.

BNW, if I hold a knife to your mother's throat and tell you to bow to me and worship me or I'll slit her throat... Would you think kindly of me?

Are you saying Christians do such things? By the way what Churches or Religions say does not matter to a true believer only what God himself says or how he judges. You are so stuck on the material side of religion that you do not see the wonder of the spiritual side which is what Brave usually quotes on.

In sense, yes. Though in this case more like their god that they believe in, then them actually. Though sometimes they hold people hostage on their own free will. Like the homosexuals, women, children and such.

The spiritual side of the christian religion is tainted by their own god. Maybe if he hadn't commited genocide, acts of terrorism, rape, slavery and other horrors... I might get into it.

This kind of pointing out and showing to people is what some other atheists are saying is wrong. I don't think it is and I think it's creating more good then bad. Atheists offer nothing, while religion offers everything.

One key point to show to you would be your personal statement of course quoted from a fictional movie but still read what you have put there. In your theory quoting such would consider that you condone those actions depicted in the quotes fictional or not which you say Christians do on a day to day basis since the religion was founded. So in a sence if there isnt a cross or Christ on or in the depiction its ok. Am I correct?

I agree with what rev posted earlier. Interesting that you said arrogant, I believe it's arrogant to expect that everyone else should have everything figured out before they tell other's what their beliefs are. Isn't that part of figuring it out? Figuring it out is a constant.

No but I'd still respect you. Because without respect there would be no way of coming to a compromise. Also if I hated you for holding a knife to my mothers throat I would be stooping to a lower moral stance and hence becoming like the one I was opposing. If I held a knife to your mother's throat becau you did it to mine would that make me morally superior? No it wouldnt it would make me just as bad as you.

Respect to all people whether they are just or unjust makes a true just person. Being unjust because someone else is unjust makes you unjust.

As Einstein said, you cannot solve a problem with the same level of consciousness that created it.

Too right. The more we learn the more we realize how much we dont know.

religion was never the problem. the problem is people who can be made to believe easily, but question rarely. people who never question reasons behind their own laws are useless.

Theisms are experiments by the pysche of the human race attempting to understand itself and to develop itself into a species capable of living together and acting together in large numbers thereby perpetuating itself and allowing itself to evolve in a more secure manner.


A rise in atheism merely signifies an end to that particular phase.


But dont quote me on that

agree with you all the way on the first sentence. But the second one wasn't very nice. You need to chill out and listen to the Beatles.

You're right though, I do condone the actions of those brave soldiers. They slaughtered and maimed many persians and their slaves for their country. They fought because they had to in the movie.

Though those Spartans are not an all mighty and all powerful god that could have solved the problems peacefully instead of mass slaughter, rape, terrorism and slavery. Only real reason for that would be, if he's real, is that god just loves to watch the suffering. Sadistic is what I think it is.



Well I'm talking about here about actual religions not your own little verison of belief.

I may not respect religion but it doesn't respect me... Fight fire with fire, I guess. Pointing out the horrors of religion though... Which are fact... Why is that wrong? What is religion so ashamed of that they don't want to acknowledge them? I mean surely if it was done for their religion and sometimes by their god, shouldn't they brag about it? They can be great believers and awful human beings then.

Genocide isn't something to respect. Rape isn't something to respect. Terrorism isn't something to respect. Sexism isn't something to respect. Slavery isn't something to respect. And more.

Though as of the point of solving problems... I haven't agreed with war against the christians as in actual war. I haven't forcefully made someone believe like I do. I speak my mind sure but that's really about it.

The 'militant' way seemly is calling out religion and pointing out how awful it is. I don't expect it to stop and with the once again growing atheist population, I don't expect it to stop. Atheists are now getting more air time and media for their views.

Religions are little versions of belief.



You are objectifying religion too much here. It is like blaming the gun and not the person using the gun.



I dont respect those things but becoming disrespectful towards those who do isnt going to put an end to it. When you fight fire with fire you only ever end up with more fire.



Hatred and disrespect via thought is subtle violence. However it is good that you havnt agreed on an actual war on christians. You shouldnt agree on war with anyone whether christian or not.



And I couldnt be happier that atheism is getting their fair share of media and air time.

Religion thrives on followers not thinkers so he is correct.

Hatred and disrespect via thought is subtle violence. Wow! Then we all better duck for cover from the far right fundamentalist christian agenda. I agree with Kratos in that religion isn't worthy of respect. It's a vehicle, an institution, that is only as enlivened as it's followers permit it to be. Religion can say, hate gays, but people do not have to hate gays. And if disrespect via thought is subtle violence, then violence being a hateful act, is manifest in the thoughts that laws should suppress equality for gay people. As it did at one time against women, children and blacks. All suppressed, made subservient, to secular laws that were a reflection of gods ordinance.

Religion, in itself, is impotent. It's an article that has no life unless it has believers in what it says is the life of one religious. So while people can say it's not religions fault, it is the responsibility of the people that wrap hatred and disrespect in an article of faith and then abdicate responsibility for following those articles, because their religion tells them to. So really, it's the responsibility of the people that enliven the religion that says this world isn't big enough for all people.

Set up belief.



If the gun was made with the words on it to kill, I would blame the gun. What's written in holy books, isn't all warm and fuzzy.



Makes the world a better place on those issues. Fire isn't all bad if your fire is still going.

Though since atheism was the first belief and was probably the first to question religion... What's happened over the thousands of years hasn't changed but the way atheists do it.

Atheists aren't copying religious people when they're disagreeing publically over it, religious people are copying atheists. Religion loves to steal stuff and claim it as their own... Morality, goodness and such.



Basic human emotions though.

Well war isn't really the topic but I do believe war is needed sometimes.



Hardly fair time compared to the christian media in this country but it's a step forward. I've noticed a lot of shows lately having atheistic themes. Most recently was last weeks Bones.

What do you mean?



You'd blame the gun? So you'd say that it is ok to let the person go "scott free" who used the gun and put the gun on trial?



What difference is there between the two fires? They are both fire so you make no logical sense here.



Be specific with what religion here. Also you are saying it is "stealing" if a religion is open to new ideas and assimilates them. First you say religion is bad for not changing then say they are bad for taking in new information and concepts. Religion loves to steal stuff? So did Joespeh Stalin's communism and his communist ideaology had nothing to do with a transcendental God or afterlife concepts.





Hence they still exist whether organized religion is present or not.




Well was only agreeing with what you wrote here "Atheists are now getting more air time and media for their views." I wouldnt know whether they were getting more air time or not.

I am religious and do not hate gays, I do not hate blacks. I think you are talking about certain organized religious sects. To say you agree that religion doesnt deserve respect is just as low as a religious person who says atheism doesnt deserve respect. I think you are getting fundamental on trying to squash fundamentalism.



Exactly. Like any belief system like communism, atheism, existentialism, Buddhism etc etc No ideaology or conceptual belief has life without people to embrace it.



Hence religion is not to blame. And if you think religion can only cause inspiration for hatred and disrespect then know it certainly can do the opposite. Mahatma Gandhi is one of the greatest non-violent and religiously tolerant person that the world has seen and he lived and breathed religion.

Again people are too blame for lacking discrimination skills and taking symbolic meanings literally or twisting meanings around to justify their own agendas whatever the ideaology may be.

How can you make such a sweeping statement? No one belief system is superior or right, it's all a matter of what is right for the individual. Christianity isn't right for all, atheism isn't right for all, Buddhism isn't right for all. What is right for all is the respect of peoples of other belief systems, because respect hinders hatred and intolerance.

You're right Shadow_Hill, and its a shame that this point has to be continuously reiterated.

Bashing in general, gives the individual a sense of power/control, a quick 'fix' for the moment. In the long run, this type of behavior is damaging IMO.

This is what Sam Harris is about. People have been respectful of religion for way too long for no good reason, that is the religion itself and not the religious. There is nothing in the world as protected from criticism as religion. Do you think its ok to not call out martyrdom in Islam as wrong because we have to respect religion? It's wrong because these martyrs are killing people because they have a belief, based on absolutely no evidence, that heaven awaits them.

Someone mentioned Gandhi, Gandhi was a strict Hindu yet he was critical of Hinduism and how it divides people into classes, namely the untouchables who no one wanted anything to do with.

Religion itself causes no problems but the people who adhere to it. Getting rid of religion will do nothing to mitigate the problem because people will simply create new philosophies and ideaologies to justify their greed.

People hide behind religions so it is the people who have to take responsibility for their actions and not play the blame game.

Also Gandhi said it was unethical to kill in the name of religion and anyone doing so isnt religious.

As soon as we lose the moral basis, we cease to be religious. There is no such thing as religion over-riding morality. Man, for instance, cannot be untruthful, cruel or incontinent and claim to have God on his side."
--- Mahatma Gandhi

Also calling out martyrdom isnt disrepect to the religion of Islam and most muslims actually reject martyrdom (suicide bombing)

Ya. Whether you a believer or atheist we all appreciate respect and kindness.

I agree with Kratos and GW on this. The religion is just a collection of concepts and thoughts and as such deserves no mind at all. What matters is how a person utilizes these concepts in their day to day lives (living the teaching if you will). Respect people, not their books.

Going back to the title of this thread, "Atheists are divided on path to nonbelief", everyone is ignoring that we Theists are very very divided on the path to belief" Good Grief, on this forum we have Deists, Christians (of very many stripes), Buddhists, Moslems, Taoists (Mai Ko Lao), Mithrans (Mythra), and many other belief systems!
Divided? We make the Atheists look like a united front! I do agree that the organized revealed religions have done much more damage (and are continuing to do so through the actions of their zealots and fundamentalists) than they have actually done good. This is not to disparage the average believer, that inidividual is merely following the path that seems right for him/her.

You're right, the people who adhere to religion do evil acts, but there is still alot of negative stuff in the bible that good people adhere to. I used martyrdom because it's a very obvious example, the next obvious example going down the list would be the way homosexuality is viewed in Christianity. There is little basis for hating homosexuals, yet there is a basis for laws against sodomy because at the time it would have been incredibly unclean. Yet there is this huge opposition against same sex marriages because the bible says its sin. When someone says they are campaigning against same sex mariages, usually they'd have to give alot of good reasons, but if they say it is my belief that homosexuality is immoral because it says so in my holy text, they dont need to give another reason for opposing it. It's this kind of shield of respect that it really doesn't deserve.

If you dont adhere to a certain part of the bible, and i'm sure there are plenty of christians who dont see anything wrong with homosexuality, why does it matter if someone criticises it? I know not all muslims are extremists, anyone who says so is probably brainwashed, but it IS there and there are bound to be people who believe it 100%

Most of these militant atheists are going for separation of church and state, but those who really want to destroy organised relgion, those Atheist Fundamentalists everyone talks about would most likely be fundamentalists whatever their beliefs are.

My point about Gandhi is that you can still be religious and critical of your own religion.



Well put.

*applause* Good to see you Mako.

Even within each "Theist" subheading people are divided. Where we go wrong is seeing them as enemies.

Love how you worded that lol...when you consider Atheists as believers as well..so you may as well say (this sounds silly but...)...Ya. Whether you are a beleiver or a 'beliver' we all appreciate and kindness YA!!

I 'believe I am now pulling your leg lol...whoopsie that makes me a part of a religion now..wow just like that

again just pulling on your leg

Religion - an institution to express belief in a divine power.

I can say such a thing because I mean to say the institution of religion isn't worthy of respect. You speak as if I just insulted people. I didn't. I made an observation of an institution that exists because people hold faith in institutionalized thinking. Institutionalized thinking perpetuates divisiveness, and separatism amid the masses of humanity. Causing the catastrophe of the human infrastructure to be at odds, based on allegiances to dictates, and tenets, ideologies, philosophies, rites and rituals, ascribed to some thing they've never seen but trusts is there, watching how they behave and judging whether or not all is approved, to it's will.

I can say such a thing because people have said the same about Atheism. Atheism doesn't deserve respect. I have no problem with that. Feel it, think it, it doesn't change a thing about the Atheist population existing despite the opinion, of it's worth. What's it harm to speak your mind when those in power , in the name of faith, have no problem speaking theirs!? Individual spirituality is not at issue here. Religion is. And there is a difference between uniqueness of spirit and a mob.

Organized religion.



Yeah, I would blame the gun if it said to kill. Though I'd blame it more if it was claiming to be an all knowing and all powerful being that rewards people for belief more so for their actions. It isn't the object so much as the belief it holds. So yes, if a gun made a religion around it and said to kill, there you go.



Heh, the point being to have only your fire going at the end.



It only changes when it wants to survive. All religions do that at one point or another. As for changing beliefs that make them bad human beings, that isn't going so far in this world. If people would simply rip pages out of the bible, torah, koran and such, then disown them from their religion... That'd be a statement.

You're right he did... Though Stalin's ideas weren't a religion he did steal stuff. Two wrongs don't make a right though.



Yep, but religion re-enforces them, makes them part of belief and right.

Organized religion is often at odds with proper spirituality.



So you dont believe people are smart enough to take responsibility for their own actions?



Why would "your" fire better than "there" fire?



Hinduism changes with the flow of things:

Hinduism is a living organism liable to growth and decay subject to the laws of Nature. One and indivisible at the root, it has grown into a vast tree with innumerable branches. The changes in the season affect it. It has its autumn and its summer, its winter and its spring. It is, and is not, based on scriptures. It does not derive its authority from one book. Non violence has found the highest expression and application in Hinduism.

----Mahatma Gandhi



What do you mean his ideas wernt a religion?

Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary:

"a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith."


Webster's New World Dictionary (Third College Edition):

"any specific system of belief and worship, often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy."

You saying Communism doesnt fit into these categories?



And also you have contradicted yourself here. You first say to have your own fire burning is the right thing then say two wrongs dont make a right.



But any philosophy can re-enforce belief whether it involves an afterlife and God or not.