Support NeoGAF

[Blader]

So the rationalization of the exaltation has gone from "as long as the spirits dont give commandments" to "well they are rather primitive."

So much for them being the hope of the future.

 

[Aselith]

"as long as the spirits dont give commandments they are still atheists"

That's what the conversation was.

 

[Panda Bear]

May I just point out to atheistGAF that what some of the people in this thread are trying to say is that it seems hypocritical that you excuse a culture like this for having beliefs that are not based on evidence yet become rather vicious when the same topic is brought up about Christians or Muslims. Whether they believe that supernatural beings are gods or not is irrelevant. The fact remains that belief without evidence is "awesome" in this circumstance but "ridiculous" "retarded" and "laughable" when talking about major religions.

 

[Evlar]

May I just point out to atheistGAF that what some of the people in this thread are trying to say is that it seems hypocritical that you excuse a culture like this for having beliefs that are not based on evidence yet become rather vicious when the same topic is brought up about Christians or Muslims. Whether they believe that supernatural beings are gods or not is irrelevant. The fact remains that belief without evidence is "awesome" in this circumstance but "ridiculous" "retarded" and "laughable" when talking about major religions.

I think people can decide whether or not that's relevant on their own. As Stooge has said, the wellspring of Atheist argument in the modern world is post-enlightenment rationalism. This is historic, not a necessary feature of Atheism. IF you want to make this argument attack the right target- the rational empiricism that supports Western atheism, not atheism itself.

It is, after all, quite possible to have more than one reason to be atheist. Beyond rational empiricism there's the ethical and cultural arguments: that believing in a ontology topped by a ruler-God is harmful to individual people and society as a whole. This argument has nothing whatsoever to do with the possibility of the supernatural.

 

[Cyan]

I'd just like to add that I've always liked the term, "Noble Savage."

 

[Panda Bear]

I think people can decide whether or not that's relevant on their own.

In regards to the points that number2 was making no, people really can't. What number2 was saying had nothing to do with whether or not the tribe was atheist. He brought up the fact that they believe in supernatural entities and take advice from said entities.

 

[Aselith]

May I just point out to atheistGAF that what some of the people in this thread are trying to say is that it seems hypocritical that you excuse a culture like this for having beliefs that are not based on evidence yet become rather vicious when the same topic is brought up about Christians or Muslims. Whether they believe that supernatural beings are gods or not is irrelevant. The fact remains that belief without evidence is "awesome" in this circumstance but "ridiculous" "retarded" and "laughable" when talking about major religions.

But, they see the spirits so they have some semblence of evidence. The evidence presented by religious folk is happenstance miracles that could be coincidence or not. They don't see God or if they do it's one guy (possibly crazy.) And people are happy to let these people go on believing what they want because they aren't trying to "prove" it to everyone else and make their beliefs part of everyone else's education. You see the difference?

They don't give a fuck if you don't believe what they believe and they're not out to show you. I would have no problem if organized religion stuck to their own.

 

[Panda Bear]

But, they see the spirits so they have some semblence of evidence. The evidence presented by religious folk is happenstance miracles that could be coincidence or not. They don't see God or if they do it's one guy (possibly crazy.)

This is exactly my point. We can trust this tribe when they claim to see spirits, but if a Christian claims to see or hear God they are "possibly crazy."

 

[Aselith]

This is exactly my point. We can trust this tribe when they claim to see spirits, but if a Christian claims to see or hear God they are "possibly crazy."

The more people that see it; the more validity the claim gains. Call it mass hypnosis if you want but the whole tribe believes it. I don't but it's ok if they want to.

 

[water_wendi]

But, they see the spirits so they have some semblence of evidence. The evidence presented by religious folk is happenstance miracles that could be coincidence or not. They don't see God or if they do it's one guy (possibly crazy.) And people are happy to let these people go on believing what they want because they aren't trying to "prove" it to everyone else and make their beliefs part of everyone else's education. You see the difference?

They don't give a fuck if you don't believe what they believe and they're not out to show you. I would have no problem if organized religion stuck to their own.

And we know they see and talk with the spirits how exactly? Not because we can photograph them or record the dialogue between human and spirit.. but because the tribesman say so.

 

[Evlar]

This is exactly my point. We can trust this tribe when they claim to see spirits, but if a Christian claims to see or hear God they are "possibly crazy."

Don't know where exactly you're driving with this. I already said the tribesmen were possibly crazy back in post #63.

 

[Panda Bear]

The more people that see it; the more validity the claim gains. Call it mass hypnosis if you want but the whole tribe believes it. I don't but it's ok if they want to.

I can guarantee you there have been more Christians, Jews and Muslims that have claimed to have seen God than there are people in that tribe. If you're going to criticize religion then fine, but you should criticize this tribe too. If you're going to be okay with this tribe's beliefs then fine, but be okay with major religions too.

Don't know where exactly you're driving with this. I already said the tribesmen were possibly crazy back in post #63.

Then I'm not arguing with you so you don't need to respond to me.

 

[FiRez]

awesome and at the same time un-usual that a tribe doesn't have a theist belief

 

[Aselith]

I can guarantee you there have been more Christians, Jews and Muslims that have claimed to have seen God than there are people in that tribe.

Right more total. Not percentage-wise. I'm not ciritcizing religion, I'm saying these people have their beliefs, that's ok. They have organized their society in such a way where they treat with outsiders but maintain their beliefs. If all societies were as tolerant as they are we would be a lot better off. When you go about trying to prove to other people your beliefs, you set yourself up for the full scrutiny. Religion can't stand up to that. Never has, never will.

I'm less inclined to scrutinize their belief system because they don't care if I fall in line with them.

 

[soul creator]

Ah, if there's a steady paycheck in it, I'll believe anything you say.

 

[Evlar]

I can guarantee you there have been more Christians, Jews and Muslims that have claimed to have seen God than there are people in that tribe. If you're going to criticize religion then fine, but you should criticize this tribe too. If you're going to be okay with this tribe's beliefs then fine, but be okay with major religions too.


Then I'm not arguing with you so you don't need to respond to me.

I'd appreciate it if you would clarify who you ARE arguing with. You've claimed "that you excuse a culture like this for having beliefs that are not based on evidence yet become rather vicious when the same topic is brought up about Christians or Muslims." Who is the "you", precisely?

 

[Panda Bear]

I'd appreciate it if you would clarify who you ARE arguing with. You've claimed "that you excuse a culture like this for having beliefs that are not based on evidence yet become rather vicious when the same topic is brought up about Christians or Muslims." Who is the "you", precisely?

Those who are "excusing a culture like this for having beliefs that are not based on evidence yet become rather vicious when the same topic is brought up about Christians or Muslims." I figured that would be clear. If you don't fall into this category then I'm not talking to you.

 

[StoOgE]

May I just point out to atheistGAF that what some of the people in this thread are trying to say is that it seems hypocritical that you excuse a culture like this for having beliefs that are not based on evidence yet become rather vicious when the same topic is brought up about Christians or Muslims. Whether they believe that supernatural beings are gods or not is irrelevant. The fact remains that belief without evidence is "awesome" in this circumstance but "ridiculous" "retarded" and "laughable" when talking about major religions.

Well, my major problem with religion is the amount of damage I think it has done to the world. I don't really care about the invisble man in the sky thing so much (though I do think it defies logic, but it doesn't bother me).

My problem with religion is that instead of being able to progress as a society based on rational arguements many of our most critical issues of the day are largely decided on based on a very old book of dubious origin. It serves as an ultimate fiat card for the powerful to rile up the masses to do whatever stupid thing they want done (we must take back Jeruselum! Devine providence has made me king, do what I say! Manifest Destiny makes it ok to kill off savages!, etc).

So I appreciate that these guys don't believe in a higher power and their life isn't directed by getting into some happy land when they die.

Also: We don't know the extent of these peoples belief in these spirits. we all saw the same 2 sentence blurb in the article. So everything that is being said here is for arguments sake. These spirits could be some sort of cultural thing that they don't believe in, maybe they lick toads and see them. Who knows.

 

[Evlar]

May I just point out to atheistGAF that what some of the people in this thread are trying to say is that it seems hypocritical that you excuse a culture like this for having beliefs that are not based on evidence yet become rather vicious when the same topic is brought up about Christians or Muslims. Whether they believe that supernatural beings are gods or not is irrelevant. The fact remains that belief without evidence is "awesome" in this circumstance but "ridiculous" "retarded" and "laughable" when talking about major religions.

So pardon me for thinking it plain you were addressing yourself to all the atheists on GAF.

 

[DevelopmentArrested]

So pardon me for thinking it plain you were addressing yourself to all the atheists on GAF.

plus he didnt take note of the name change
thats inexcusable.

 

[Panda Bear]

Well, my major problem with religion is the amount of damage I think it has done to the world. I don't really care about the invisble man in the sky thing so much (though I do think it defies logic, but it doesn't bother me).

My problem with religion is that instead of being able to progress as a society based on rational arguements many of our most critical issues of the day are largely decided on based on a very old book of dubious origin. It serves as an ultimate fiat card for the powerful to rile up the masses to do whatever stupid thing they want done (we must take back Jeruselum! Devine providence has made me king, do what I say! Manifest Destiny makes it ok to kill off savages!, etc).

So I appreciate that these guys don't believe in a higher power and their life isn't directed by getting into some happy land when they die.

Also: We don't know the extent of these peoples belief in these spirits. we all saw the same 2 sentence blurb in the article. So everything that is being said here is for arguments sake. These spirits could be some sort of cultural thing that they don't believe in, maybe they lick toads and see them. Who knows.

And I can agree with you on all that. The only thing that interested me is that the tribe believes that "Spirits live everywhere and may even caution or lecture them at times."

I suppose I see similarities to people believing that God has talked to them or given them advice on how to live their lives. That's something that you have pointed out as one of your problems with religion.

 

[Panda Bear]

So pardon me for thinking it plain you were addressing yourself to all the atheists on GAF.

I'm sorry. You are right. I simply meant to refer to the atheists that fit the criteria I laid out. I'm sure you have never done anything like that and that you didn't understand what I meant.

 

[soul creator]

vague spirits that you talk to sometimes but doesn't require strict worship>>>>>> polytheism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> monotheism

Not when it comes to actual "believability" because they're all pretty far out there imo, but it's mostly about the type of thinking that general goes along with those different types of belief. Monotheistic gods, by their very definition almost, tend to promote authoritarian, fear-based worship and active hostility to dissenting viewpoints, so they'll tend to be criticized more in democratic societies such as ours. The dude who believes if he steps on a sidewalk crack, he'll break his momma's back is just as irrational, but doesn't really register on the radar so much.

So when "atheistGAF" criticizes Christian and Muslim beliefs, but leaves these guys alone, keep that in mind. It's not necessarily because all of us take "amazon spirits" more seriously than Christian or Muslim stories, but simply because the spiritual beliefs of one small tribe in the Amazon, one which isn't focused on authoritarian worship, strictly following rules, and etc. is relatively tolerable when compared to Christian and Muslim beliefs.

Now, the obvious response to my statements would be, "BUT NOT ALL CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS ARE LIKE THAT!" Which is true. There's plenty of open-minded, progressive religious folks out there. The problem is that being open-minded and progressive is largely in spite of monotheistic god beliefs, not because of them. You can technically reconcile the two, but that then involves redefining god from "authoritarian ruler" (the one actually described in holy books, and believed in for most of its history) to "vague spirit that you talk to sometimes" (the one that a few quotes by Jesus supports, but is a relatively small percentage of actual holy texts). There's a reason why the whole "I have a personal relationship with Jesus, dude, it's totally cool if you don't, we're all the same in the end, peace and love" viewpoint is a relatively new thing in monotheistic religious history. It's because the whole traditional authoritarian god thing, which made up the vast majority of monotheistic religious history and believers, is completely at odds with an open, democratic society.

So yeah, I welcome all my progressive Christian/Muslim/etc. brethren, and there's a bunch of them out there. And from a practical standpoint, we'll get along just fine. Just keep in mind that if we happen to have a discussion online, your progressivism and "nicer" view of god is largely a result of living in a secular society, and is not reflected by the actual character of "god" described in the book your religion is supposedly based on

Unfortunately, there's still a significant portion of people (and elected representatives) who believe the authoritarian stuff, which a lot of times directly restricts scientific progress and things that we (theoretically) all want in our society, so they'll continue to receive more criticism, heh. And if the Amazon dudes came to America trying to actively push their "spirits" and restrict our society in some way...then we'll have words I suppose. Many words, not just 3 or 4.

 

[riskVSreward]

I love how people are using this one example, of a primitive tribe with a primitive language to try and spin atheism into some ridiculous void. Who cares about what these people are doing honestly? They don't have words for colors and numbers for fucks sake. You're ability to find flaws in their logic is not going to sway me into believing in any deities so why are you being so rambunctious?

 

[StoOgE]

And I can agree with you on all that. The only thing that interested me is that the tribe believes that "Spirits live everywhere and may even caution or lecture them at times."

I suppose I see similarities to people believing that God has talked to them or given them advice on how to live their lives. That's something that you have pointed out as one of your problems with religion.

It could be. Like I said, none of really knows the extent of their belief in the spirit things and what they are. My earlier argument was simply that it is possible to believe in spiritual stuff and be an atheist. Based on this article I don't know if these guys fall into this category. They could be some sort of polytheists or they could just be atheist that believe in spirits of some sort.

I was making my judgement based on the fact that the missionary got the vibe from these people that you should live your life as a good person not because of heaven and hell but because it's the right thing to do. If this tribe subscribes to that belief than I am down with them.

 

[Panda Bear]

vague spirits that you talk to sometimes but doesn't require strict worship>>>>>> polytheism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> monotheism

Not when it comes to actual "believability" because they're all pretty far out there imo, but it's mostly about the type of thinking that general goes along with those different types of belief. Monotheistic gods, by their very definition almost, tend to promote authoritarian, fear-based worship and active hostility to dissenting viewpoints, so they'll tend to be criticized more in democratic societies such as ours. The dude who believes if he steps on a sidewalk crack, he'll break his momma's back is just as irrational, but doesn't really register on the radar so much.

So when "atheistGAF" criticizes Christian and Muslim beliefs, but leaves these guys alone, keep that in mind. It's not necessarily because all of us take "amazon spirits" more seriously than Christian or Muslim stories, but simply because the spiritual beliefs of one small tribe in the Amazon, one which isn't focused on authoritarian worship, strictly following rules, and etc. is relatively tolerable when compared to Christian and Muslim beliefs.

Now, the obvious response to my statements would be, "BUT NOT ALL CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS ARE LIKE THAT!" Which is true. There's plenty of open-minded, progressive religious folks out there. The problem is that being open-minded and progressive is largely in spite of monotheistic god beliefs, not because of them. You can technically reconcile the two, but that then involves redefining god from "authoritarian ruler" (the one actually described in holy books, and believed in for most of its history) to "vague spirit that you talk to sometimes" (the one that a few quotes by Jesus supports, but is a relatively small percentage of actual holy texts). There's a reason why the whole "I have a personal relationship with Jesus, dude, it's totally cool if you don't, we're all the same in the end, peace and love" viewpoint is a relatively new thing in monotheistic religious history. It's because the whole traditional authoritarian god thing, which made up the vast majority of monotheistic religious history and believers, is completely at odds with an open, democratic society.

So yeah, I welcome all my progressive Christian/Muslim/etc. brethren, and there's a bunch of them out there. And from a practical standpoint, we'll get along just fine. Just keep in mind that if we happen to have a discussion online, your progressivism and "nicer" view of god is largely a result of living in a secular society, and is not reflected by the actual character of "god" described in the book your religion is supposedly based on

Unfortunately, there's still a significant portion of people (and elected representatives) who believe the authoritarian stuff, which a lot of times directly restricts scientific progress and things that we (theoretically) all want in our society, so they'll continue to receive more criticism, heh. And if the Amazon dudes came to America trying to actively push their "spirits" and restrict our society in some way...then we'll have words I suppose. Many words, not just 3 or 4.

This is the response I was looking for. Thank you.

I would like to say in response to the second to last paragraph you have that I think many of the progressive people you describe are not Christians or Muslims at all. Philosophically they may buy into the aspects of some of those religions but in practice they are deists and in my mind shouldn't be associated with Christians or Muslims or Jews at all when discussing their religious beliefs.

I love how people are using this one example, of a primitive tribe with a primitive language to try and spin atheism into some ridiculous void. Who cares about what these people are doing honestly? They don't have words for colors and numbers for fucks sake. You're ability to find flaws in their logic is not going to sway me into believing in any deities so why are you being so rambunctious?

I haven't seen one person in this thread do what you just described.

It could be. Like I said, none of really knows the extent of their belief in the spirit things and what they are. My earlier argument was simply that it is possible to believe in spiritual stuff and be an atheist. Based on this article I don't know if these guys fall into this category. They could be some sort of polytheists or they could just be atheist that believe in spirits of some sort.

I was making my judgement based on the fact that the missionary got the vibe from these people that you should live your life as a good person not because of heaven and hell but because it's the right thing to do. If this tribe subscribes to that belief than I am down with them.

I think we've come to an agreement then.

 

[soul creator]

This is the response I was looking for. Thank you.

I would like to say in response to the second to last paragraph you have that I think many of the progressive people you describe are not Christians or Muslims at all. Philosophically they may buy into the aspects of some of those religions but in practice they are deists and in my mind shouldn't be associated with Christians or Muslims or Jews at all when discussing their religious beliefs.

Well that's the interesting thing. Those individual people will then turn around and tell you that of course they're a member of that religion, and they are practicing the "real Christianity" or whatever. To use the most popular religion as an example, even though their "real Christianity" (gay rights, women's rights, sexual freedom, non-violence, democratic ideals) seems to be at odds with its actual history and its holy text. They'll say that the few nice things that Jesus said represents the entirety of "true" Christianity, but then chalk up the entire Old Testament (where god doesn't take any shit, later for that open-minded and non-violent BS) as "metaphor" that "doesn't apply anymore".

Now of course, I'm glad they support all that wonderful liberal stuff, so from a practical standpoint I don't really have a problem with them. But to some extent, one could argue this gives cover to "actual" believers (the ones who take the "bad-ass god that'll fuck you up if you mess around" stuff seriously). Essentially, it muddles the entire debate and makes it more difficult to root out the "real" extremists. If I have to "respect" the stories that beliefs of progressive Christians are based on, even though they're just as illogical as the beliefs of authoritarian Christians, it makes it much more difficult to differentiate between the two. So some might say, if all that progressive stuff can actually be followed through on, without inviting the baggage that comes along with Christianity...why encourage Christianity? If Christian stories and beliefs can be used to equally justify both women's rights and women's oppression, slaveholders and abolitionists, with biblical support for both sides (and I'm sure both sides trotted out their bible-based arguments when the Civil War was going on), then what exactly is the point of even taking the Christian label seriously? You say we should call them "deists", but the majority of folks will probably stare at you blankly if you actually described them that way, lol.

It's sort of like an operating system or something. Sure, it's nice and all to constantly try to upgrade and build upon current technology, rather than starting from scratch, but at some point, the performance benefits from making a clean break from the past outweigh the "convenience" of trying to constantly upgrade the same old thing. As a practical matter, I know this is difficult though, especially since religions tend to get their hooks in you from a very young age, and there's a strong social incentive to "belong to the club". So even someone who 99.9% of time acts exactly as if gods don't exist will identify themselves as "Christian" or "I believe in a higher force" when push comes to shove.

(note: I view respecting/disrespecting religious beliefs as separate from respecting/disrespecting religious people)

 

[Freshmaker]

That sounds very arbitrary.

Belief in a higher power vs belief in an equivalent power?

 

[Panda Bear]

Well that's the interesting thing. Those individual people will then turn around and tell you that of course they're a member of that religion, and they are practicing the "real Christianity" or whatever. To use the most popular religion as an example, even though their "real Christianity" (gay rights, women's rights, sexual freedom, non-violence, democratic ideals) seems to be at odds with its actual history and its holy text. They'll say that the few nice things that Jesus said represents the entirety of "true" Christianity, but then chalk up the entire Old Testament (where god doesn't take any shit, later for that open-minded and non-violent BS) as "metaphor" that "doesn't apply anymore".

Now of course, I'm glad they support all that wonderful liberal stuff, so from a practical standpoint I don't really have a problem with them. But to some extent, one could argue this gives cover to "actual" believers (the ones who take the "bad-ass god that'll fuck you up if you mess around" stuff seriously). Essentially, it muddles the entire debate and makes it more difficult to root out the "real" extremists. If I have to "respect" the stories that beliefs of progressive Christians are based on, even though they're just as illogical as the beliefs of authoritarian Christians, it makes it much more difficult to differentiate between the two. So some might say, if all that progressive stuff can actually be followed through on, without inviting the baggage that comes along with Christianity...why encourage Christianity? If Christian stories and beliefs can be used to equally justify both women's rights and women's oppression, slaveholders and abolitionists, with biblical support for both sides (and I'm sure both sides trotted out their bible-based arguments when the Civil War was going on), then what exactly is the point of even taking the Christian label seriously? You say we should call them "deists", but the majority of folks will probably stare at you blankly if you actually described them that way, lol.

It's sort of like an operating system or something. Sure, it's nice and all to constantly try to upgrade and build upon current technology, rather than starting from scratch, but at some point, the performance benefits from making a clean break from the past outweigh the "convenience" of trying to constantly upgrade the same old thing. As a practical matter, I know this is difficult though, especially since religions tend to get their hooks in you from a very young age, and there's a strong social incentive to "belong to the club". So even someone who 99.9% of time acts exactly as if gods don't exist will identify themselves as "Christian" or "I believe in a higher force" when push comes to shove.

(note: I view respecting/disrespecting religious beliefs as separate from respecting/disrespecting religious people)

You make good points and I know there are certainly people out there like that. Going from my own personal experience, and yes I live in the United States, most religious people I know of place absolutely no importance on the Bible whether it be literal or metaphorical. They see holy texts and organized religions in the same negative light that many atheists on GAF seem to. They just happen to believe in God.

My own personal hope is that as time goes on people will move away from organized religion and the horrible practices that may come with it in light of a more private, reasonable and tolerant religious view. Of course I think we all can see that that won't be happening within our lifetimes in the United States.

Also I'm just curious as to what you mean by starting from scratch. Do you mean having people adopt atheism, or simply adopt a different view of religion similar to what I described? Or both. I know that is certainly what I would like to see. I want people to think about the issue and come up with what they personally see as the answer, whether it be theistic or atheistic. One of the major problems with organized religion I think is that so many people may not buy into it but as you say are pressured into supporting it by the social and political power that religion can wield. Organized religion does not have to stifle free thought but it unfortunately so often does.

 

[karasu]

But, they see the spirits so they have some semblence of evidence.

They don't see shit.

The disciples saw Jesus resurrected from the dead too, buddy. And the Hebrews saw Moses part the red sea. etc etc

 

[soul creator]

You make good points and I know there are certainly people out there like that. Going from my own personal experience, and yes I live in the United States, most religious people I know of place absolutely no importance on the Bible whether it be literal or metaphorical. They see holy texts and organized religions in the same negative light that many atheists on GAF seem to. They just happen to believe in God.

My own personal hope is that as time goes on people will move away from organized religion and the horrible practices that may come with it in light of a more private, reasonable and tolerant religious view. Of course I think we all can see that that won't be happening within our lifetimes in the United States.

Also I'm just curious as to what you mean by starting from scratch. Do you mean having people adopt atheism, or simply adopt a different view of religion similar to what I described? Or both. I know that is certainly what I would like to see. I want people to think about the issue and come up with what they personally see as the answer, whether it be theistic or atheistic. One of the major problems with organized religion I think is that so many people may not buy into it but as you say are pressured into supporting it by the social and political power that religion can wield. Organized religion does not have to stifle free thought but it unfortunately so often does.

I tend to think that "starting from scratch" would naturally lead to something that may not necessarily be "atheism", but would be pretty far from the current "monotheistic god that sets specific rules humans should follow" type of religions that are still dominant. I would personally prefer to avoid the whole "god" language in the first place, because I tend to think it's an ill-defined word that confuses more than it helps. People may still have the same hopes/dreams/questions about life, but won't feel the need to express it through ill-defined nonsensical concepts that have thousands of years of authoritarian baggage behind them. I don't expect that to change any time soon though.

We're in this weird middle ground right now where a lot of people may practically operate as if they are "atheist" citizens in a democratic society, yet still feel pressued to identify themselves as "believers" in a 2000+ year old "organization" that came about during a completely different time period, in a completely different part of the world, in a completely different political system. This sometimes makes progress more difficult than it would normally be under other circumstances.

Of course, the ideal is that there won't be a need to "adopt atheism", because "atheism" would at some point be a meaningless concept. The only reason "atheism" exists is precisely because a bunch of people believe in some all powerful invisible being called god, and they like to talk about it as if it were this obviously real thing that affects our lives. We don't have A-whateverism with 99.9% of all other fictional beings. All I'm asking is that we add one more character to the list .

This doesn't mean that the world will instantly becomes perfect and wonderful or anything. But at least it brings the terms of debate back to even ground. If two people disagree on something, but agree on the basic idea of "there's this real world, it's just us humans in it, we have to work this out or nothing will get done", then it at least has some decent chance of being solved. If two people disagree on something, because one side has a philosophy that assumes their god wants it to be that way, then it's pretty tough to get any sort of dialogue going.

And I know some people like to jump to conclusions and think this is some sort of "omg why do you want to ban religion?" type of plan or something. What I tend to think is that authoritarian religions are likely to die out their own when it happens to compete with an open, stable societies where people generally aren't hurting too badly.

 

[Aselith]

They don't see shit.

The disciples saw Jesus resurrected from the dead too, buddy. And the Hebrews saw Moses part the red sea. etc etc

So nobody saw shit?

 

[Panda Bear]

I tend to think that "starting from scratch" would naturally lead to something that may not necessarily be "atheism", but would be pretty far from the current "monotheistic god that sets specific rules humans should follow" type of religions that are still dominant. I would personally prefer to avoid the whole "god" language in the first place, because I tend to think it's an ill-defined word that confuses more than it helps. People may still have the same hopes/dreams/questions about life, but won't feel the need to express it through ill-defined nonsensical concepts that have thousands of years of authoritarian baggage behind them. I don't expect that to change any time soon though.

We're in this weird middle ground right now where a lot of people may practically operate as if they are "atheist" citizens in a democratic society, yet still feel pressued to identify themselves as "believers" in a 2000+ year old "organization" that came about during a completely different time period, in a completely different part of the world, in a completely different political system. This sometimes makes progress more difficult than it would normally be under other circumstances.

Of course, the ideal is that there won't be a need to "adopt atheism", because "atheism" would at some point be a meaningless concept. The only reason "atheism" exists is precisely because a bunch of people believe in some all powerful invisible being called god, and they like to talk about it as if it were this obviously real thing that affects our lives. We don't have A-whateverism with 99.9% of all other fictional beings. All I'm asking is that we add one more character to the list .

This doesn't mean that the world will instantly becomes perfect and wonderful or anything. But at least it brings the terms of debate back to even ground. If two people disagree on something, but agree on the basic idea of "there's this real world, it's just us humans in it, we have to work this out or nothing will get done", then it at least has some decent chance of being solved. If two people disagree on something, because one side has a philosophy that assumes their god wants it to be that way, then it's pretty tough to get any sort of dialogue going.

And I know some people like to jump to conclusions and think this is some sort of "omg why do you want to ban religion?" type of plan or something. What I tend to think is that authoritarian religions are likely to die out their own when it happens to compete with an open, stable societies where people generally aren't hurting too badly.

Right but I think that type of debate can take place even if one side is theistic. The will of God thing is central to the major religions of today but it is not a central part of theism in general. Agnostic theism is something I personally welcome to take the place of today's religions because I don't think you have to reject the idea of God to approach the issues and problems of the world in a rational and logical way.