You are not being brainwashed. You are not being brainwashed.
http://www.armorofgodpjs.com/Oh, I’m not going to comment here. I’ll let you do it. Thanks Charlie
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, August 29th, 2006 at 9:20 pm and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
138 Responses to “You are not being brainwashed. You are not being brainwashed.”
So I’ll go out on a limb here and explore some thoughts and we’ll see what happens. My guess is that some of you think that spanders is okay for a christian. I keep to preaching to a minimum and admit to the following:
1. belief in god is based on faith. You cannot use faith to justify belief
2. I (and every other christian) cherry picks what we believe to adjust to our cultural context and I don’t think that’s a bad thing, it’s normal
3. I don’t believe in the inerrant bible. It was written by screwed up people in screwed up times and much of the dogma expressed today is a result of thousands of years of doctrines, canons and creeds borne out political battles
4. I do believe in a literal Jesus, a literal crucifixion and a literal raising from the dead, but understand that it is; a) an idea borrowed from many other mythologies b) not something that I should expect others to believe as it’s irrational c) not based on years of trial and error in controlled experiments and careful observation, so shouldn’t be compared to science or worse, replace science.
I don’t know why people get so fixated on thinking that atheists belief in longstanding methods of trial and error and basing ideas they have on what our best methods to date have presented is equal to believing that the son of god lived 2000 years ago and that was here as a final atonement. It’s not even in the same ballbark. One is faith the other is observation.
I am highly uncomfortable with reinforcing the following:
- strict father morality instead of nurturant morality
- the only way to conquer evil is strict discipline (or armor)
- the father is the only one strong enough to overcome evil because of strict discipline
- that evil is whatever the father figure tells us it is (an axis of evil, evildoers, abortion, homosexuality, muslims, atheists and so on)
- once something or someone is “evil”, it cannot be bargained with, negotiated with (until they have nukes, then they’re less evil) and must be destroyed
- the ends justify the means to destroy evil, but evil must be destroyed at all costs
Maranatha, these are some of things that I think you see people reacting to. If our religion wasn’t used as a political tool to centralize power to the most authoritarian government we’ve had to date who is completely careless with their language and use of resources, people might not get as freaked out by making little knights who will go fight “evil”. My take on it… yup, evil exists alright. Jesus didn’t tell us to bomb our “evil” enemies, he didn’t tell us to stone homosexuals, he didn’t say that personhood starts at conception (but a strict father who needs to reinforce gender roles about decisions about fertility needs to somehow define that as if they are the authority above Jesus) he didn’t tell us to shun those who are different than I am. It seems pretty clear to me: Jesus tells us over and over again to take care of the poor and love one another.
Evil is letting people die by neglect. Evil is not caring. Evil is bombing countries for no apparent reason. Evil is what we do or don’t do… evil is not groups of people. Evil is not “them”. I’m not suggesting that you fit some of my notions of what people react against. I’m suggesting that these issues have come the forefront of our culture and there is a real fear about where it is going. If the best prophet of the future is the past, I can understand the concern about religious bigotry and zealots. It’s up to us to figure out what we believe and also up to us to be very careful about what we teach our children. Will they be open to destroying evil? What do we tell them that evil is exactly?
I should say that this is the most authoritarian administration we’ve had in recent history, but with domestic spying, number of signing statements, and reclassification of unclassified documents, they are really pushing the limits. Pass sedition laws and they’re close to the top of authoritarian heap.
Again Spanders, you sir are a gentleman and a scholar.
I share the same basic defenition of “evil” as you do. “Evil” is not angerign a god, it is doing harm to another lifeform for no justifiable reason. (self defense is a reason. bombing a country back to the stone age for political reason is not)
Children ARE literal thinkers. The biblical notion of evil is quite ambigious to a child. I know this because I was a child once:) Anyway, I feel that time spent teaching children of the evils of the world should cover REAL evils such as pedophiles, kidnappers, murders, and thieves. Not that I think parents should go into too much detail when teaching children about relevant evils, but certainly their jammies are not going to protect them from the aformentioned threats.
If parents are soooo concerned about evil, for the sake of their children very lives, they should arm them against the evils of humanity, not the foolishness of scary shadows in the corners.
Oh here we go again! Now we have this nice Xian person who is taking strong issue with “us” because some of us found it ridiculous that a Xian woman has got her kids dressed in Crusader pajamas.
Of course we atheists find this very silly, because this poor addled woman believes so strongly in Xianity that she’s preaching from the bible to her kids at bedtime – and those kids are wearing such weirdo Crusader costume PJs!
Thus Maranatha leaps to the defense of this poor Xian idiot-woman. Tres cool! But I just hope all the atheist folks here won’t waste a whole lot MORE time in these pointless symantic arguments with a devout Xian.
Because these religious people refuse to rely of logic and reason – the ONLY result of such arguments would be for the athiest to be converted to Xianity!
The theist Maranatha will DAMN SURE NOT be convinced of *anything* as the result of “discussing” things with athests about religion. Bank on it!
She (or he?) is merely trying to “set us straight” and wants to moderate our feelings toward this goof-woman who produced those idiotic pajamas. So she proceeds to brandish a lot of complex rhetoric – perhaps more to waste our time & energy rather that to convince anyone that he/she is correct and that the atheist ‘offenders’ were wrong.
Just keep on arguing with this theist, and you will soon realize they will always REFUSE to comprehend what you’re trying to tell them. They always *imagine* they already Know-The-Answer-To-The Problem, thus they have NO intentions of actually doing the “arithmetic” which would lead to the *correct* conclusion.
Robguy,
I assure you that was my last response to Ms. Maranatha. Don’t know how I let myself be sucked in. It simply started as a defence for some venting. One cannot argue against faith.
remy,
You need not explain to *me*! I’ve also let my keyboad run-away with me constantly – by debating with the Unknowing about things these people are already completely POSITIVE they *know* all about.
But in this Maranatha case I was fresh from beating my brains out with a similar person who’d used very similar tactics against me. They tend to leave a ‘crevice’ or an opening in their arguments – which seems to suggest to the Unwary Ones they might be amenable to reason & persuasion. But this in really only a clever tactic they use to beguile us.
It’s quite like those videos we’ve all seen – in which the mother partridge fakes that she’s badly crippled in order to lead the fox away from her nest.
I’ve only been reading this blog about two weeks and find it fascinating that Xians read and respond to it!
Does anyone know if atheists read and respond to Xian blogs? My own guess (and that’s all it is) is NO because we know from experience that reason and faith cannot co-exist and thus don’t try to “convert” xians from their faith.
But xians, oh, boy, do they ever hate the idea that someone doesn’t agree with them!
Granted, I would love it if I could convince a xian (it’s particularly fun when they come door to door). But I don’t hate the idea they don’t agree with me–frankly, I’m just more flabbergasted that people embrace, yes, willingly embrace, superstition, muddled thinking, dogma and “unreason.”
For the record, someone was asking about our background, both of my parents are atheists, but they never made a big deal of it. We even celebrated Christmas, albeit a purely secular one (Xmas tree, presents, food, lights, carols). (I still love Christmas, actually–except all the talk about Jesus!) I never really thought about religion or lack thereof until a teen when most people start questioning things. One of my sisters is agnostic/atheist, one of my sisters is a sort of new agey, hippys, pseudo-Christian, I’m atheist. It’s an interesting mix…
Does anyone know if atheists read and respond to Xian blogs?
Er, ummm, I do. I know karen does too.
Mostly I knock on the doors of their mutual admiration societies to let ‘em know we exist, & we’re human, & silence don’t mean assent.
I’ve worked with a lot of blue collar folks. For most of that time I was an atheist. For many years I’d refused to “take out my memory” and examine what tidbits lay hidden in there. When I did – pertaining to religion -I saw in a month or 2 that religion is totallly illogical & is based only on old & quite ridiculous Bible tales ONLY.
Then we’ve had a few weirdos and flakes like Joan d’ Arc who was actually a crazy girl. And also there are the “witnesses” like the girl at Lourdes and the ones at Fatima who imagined they saw a vision of the Virgin Mary. A biography I was reading a long time ago stated that Isaac Newton (one of the smartest dudes who ever lived) was thought to have believed the “Imaculate Conception” by the “virgin mary” was false. Can’t say that I blame him!
The people who are CONVINCED that religion is true are silly. The smart ones who still belive in religion are the ones who are REFUSING to examine all the facts “critically”. They want to reap the rewards promised to the followers of Jesus – and so on. I believe they fail to see any “pay off” in being atheists – and for getting their asses kicked by all the stupid goddam theists who would like to burn us atheists at the stake.
Colin Wilson stated in “A Criminal History of Mankind” that 600 people had been burned at the stake on one day in a town in Germany. I believe that town was Wurzberg.
Hey, that’s cool (re: responding to xian blogs). I agree that a lot of Xians seem to think that atheists are nonexistent or psychos.
One time at work, one of my staff members was saying that she couldn’t vote for an atheist and couldn’t see how they could be moral (”nothing to base it on” as per the usual arguement). I just said, “Oh, really” but I didn’t feel that it would have been appropriate for me to go any further with the discussion since I’m her boss and it would have been extremely awkward for her for me to “get into it” with her (and not smart of me, either!) All my staff members are Xians and damn nice ladies. But, boy, did I WANT to argue. Luckily, I’ve matured.
Now on a blog, especially a Xian blog, I think I would go crazy and rip people new a-holes if they implied that atheists are less moral than Xians (or whatever).
I still think that Xians reply to this blog because they want to try to prove us wrong–very silly, but that’s Xians for you!
There’s a new movie out – “better than anything in Hollywood”. “Escape From Hell”. I just saw John Hagee pushing it on TV. The clips were hilarious. The acting is SUPERB:) Someone who knows more about computers should find a way to post some of it.
Ka, I’ve been to Intolerant One. What are some others?
In a sense it is quite TRUE that dressing one’s children in Crusader costumes may be seen as “abuse”. The
arch-Xtian folks like to imagine that
their Crusaders were a bunch of very fine fellows who were engaged in the laudible program of wresting control of the Holy Land away from the ‘awful’ Moslems.
But recently you see mention made that these Crusaders were actually heartless, remorseless and terribly cruel soldiers and ruthless killers. They had treated the Islamic people (not just the military either) as though they were bugs or “earthworms” to be stamped out.
The opinion of the Catholic Church (which was THE christian Church then) was that ANY opposing religious sect did not even qualified as ‘human’ – so they were BADLY treated. Even to this day the Moselems are still very *aware* of the nasty and quite brutal way in which their ancestors were treated by the Christian Crusaders.
Thus for any mother to sew clothing for her kids the portrays the Crusader soldiers & knights as “fine Christians guys” is indeed a weirdo behavior which can definitely be thought of as “abuse”.
The ROTTEN behavior of the Crusaders toward the Moslems may be compared to the “Rape Of Nanking” by the Japanese soldiers in China prior to WW-2. Those Japanese soldiers had heartlessly and very brutally exterminated about 400,000 Chinese civilians in and near Nanking. A large number of civilians, for example, including school kids would take refuge in a large building such as a big hotel. The Japanese soldiers then set the building on fire & they proceeded to shoot those who ran out to escape the flames.
Is THIS the kind of “military action” which a mother should be commemorating by sewing Crusader costumes for her children to wear? I think not. From what I’ve read, this woman most likely is dressing her kids in the costumes of guys who often were mass murderers of civilians and children.
I checked out your attempt on “he lives”. I feel your pain.
What is beginning to concern me is the attempt theists are making to redefine ALL the terms of their discourse. The convolutions are staggering. (as seen above)
Re your blog: I’m in! I read your lengthy post on this thread and thought it was quite reasonable (for a Xian (hee hee)).
I don’t think all Christians are idiots or most of my interactions with my fellow citizens would be unpleasant. Of course, I do think theistic belief is irrational or I wouldn’t be looking at the American Atheist page! Luckily for the rest of us, most Christians seem to generally be able to differentiate between their beliefs and the real world and also seem to spend most of their time in reality. It’s real easy for us atheists to remember that sometimes because of all the freaks out there (like the “Crusader wear” lady).
did you ever read “Lies my teacher told me”? You might find it interesting. It has a not so nice account of columbus. A lot of other interesting stuff too… helen keller was a soc-ialist! Ah, I don’t want to ruin the ending for you .
Spanders,
It’s time you underwent deprogamming.
And I do like you. You’re pretty smart. So here we go with some antiviral progams: 1. belief in god is based on faith. You cannot use faith to justify belief
Wrong. Faith cannot exist without a dogma and indoctrination, which is the definition of a belief system. A faulty one at that, which you freely admit.
2. I (and every other christian) cherry picks what we believe to adjust to our cultural context and I don’t think that’s a bad thing, it’s normal
And that is the evidence that, as time marches on, we know the bible is nothing more than propaganda to control society. The propaganda loses effect as we evolve mentally over time.
So, you believe Jesus was resurrected. Do you believe Frankenstein’s monster was real, too?
You believe in re-animation? In zombies?
Spanders,
More deprogramming. 3. I don’t believe in the inerrant bible. It was written by screwed up people in screwed up times and much of the dogma expressed today is a result of thousands of years of doctrines, canons and creeds borne out political battles
So, why don’t you think that the original intent of faith isn’t political control? You’ve heard of feudalism, have you not? Read up on Taoism, and you’ll see that a large part of the oppressive nature of feudalism was the use of religion, indoctirnation of dogma, and the fear of divine retribution on the great unwashed.
It’ the same reason plantation owners converted their slaves to xianity. They knew that the Jew used their religion a part of their justification to free themselves of oppresion, and they did not want african spirituality to be used by slaves as a rallying point to fight for their freedom.
Remember the Amistad?
4. I do believe in a literal Jesus, a literal crucifixion and a literal raising from the dead, but understand that it is; a) an idea borrowed from many other mythologies b) not something that I should expect others to believe as it’s irrational c) not based on years of trial and error in controlled experiments and careful observation, so shouldn’t be compared to science or worse, replace science.
And this is the paradox inside your brain right now. Face it; cience is replacing religion, just because it’s based on evidence. This is the reason the “Intelligent Design” bullshit exists. The politically savvy xians in the rightwingnut power structure know that the downfall of religion as a rational belief is inevitable, and they fear the loss of their power. They lose control over the minds of those they wish to recruit to their flock. And that means the tithe basket will not bring in a much revenue.
I won’t say a man named Jesus Chrit did not exist. But I will say the resurrection is total hocus-pocus, flim-flam, snake-oil, skullduggery.
If Jesus rose from the dead, then he would be considered a zombie. Now, do zombies exist? NO, and neither did the resurrection. Once a body loses the ability to convert fuel into energy, it stop functioning and dies. It doesn’t have the ability to restart without modern technology, and even then it’s really tough to accomplish.
So, you want me to believe a corpse in a cave, with no acces to modern science, just started breathing again and viited some friends?
In that case Frankenstein’s monster did exist, and re-animation is not just a theme in horror films.
Come join the forces of the enlightened and evolve with us.
The Atheists.
Read up on Taoism, and you’ll see that a large part of the oppressive nature of feudalism was the use of religion, indoctirnation of dogma, and the fear of divine retribution on the great unwashed.
Ummm…que? Taoism? Chuang Tzu, Lao Tzu, Mencius?
Taoism? Sure you’re not thinking of Confucianism?
Divine retribution? Que? The philosophy preaches effortlessness. Far as I know, the history’s been relatively benign.
I have the book of Tao (sp?). It’s been awhile since I cracked it out, but I distinctly remember it states in the first chapter that they used the religion to manipulate their indentured servant class to keep them in line.
That’s why they HAD indentured servants to begin with.
Serfdom? Hello?
The way I used divine retribution wasn’t neccessarily in line with the historical context of the phrase. It’s merely a methaphor for fear to me. The boogeyman under the the bed of an 8 year old.
I have the book of Tao (sp?). It’s been awhile since I cracked it out, but I distinctly remember it states in the first chapter that they used the religion to manipulate their indentured servant class to keep them in line.
Er…ummm, the Tao Te Ching? Chuang Tzu? Which book?
Besides which, Taoism was never a major player.
Taoism is most certainly not based on fear.
Eastern mindset is completely different from the Western.
That’s why they HAD indentured servants to begin with.
Serfdom? Hello?
Again, the equivalency isn’t correct: http://www.answers.com/topic/examples-of-feudalism
“The current prevailing consensus among Western historians is that using the term ‘feudal’ to describe Chinese history confuses more than it clarifies, as it assumes strong commonalities between Chinese and European history that may not exist.”
Da Rat Bastid,
sorry, haven’t checked this post in a couple of days. I’ve been asked this before; why do you engage in such paradox and yet maintain christian belief? I’ll try to go through it as clearly as possible, but it doesn’t mean it makes sense:
Paradox 1: inerrant belief (cherry picking) – If I don’t believe that the whole thing is 100% accurate, why bother and how do you decide what to believe? I think that there is an underlying spirituality in all of us. It forms a common motif through most mythology and is part of the way humanity has understood the world. While I think science does a good job of explaining the how, I think it struggles with the why. I do not believe that spirituality and science are in conflict with each other. They are very different endevours. I believe that christianity is the path I have chosen based on a number of factors (history, need, choice) and find that it feeds the more nebulous spiritual side of me.
Society changes, redefines itself and moves forward. To think that understanding of my belief should be stagnant (as I think inerrantists would like) would be a spiritual mistake. To think that a belief should be stagnant to make it viable is crazy to me. It’s much like when people say the constitution is a dead document and people who call themselves “originalists”. It think that is a mistaken interpretation of what these documents are meant to do (limit rights rather than expand them).
Paradox 2: Faith cannot exist without a dogma and indoctrination, which is the definition of a belief system. A faulty one at that, which you freely admit. I view dogma normally in the pejorative. I think this is where some people get into the argument about atheism having its own dogma, which is a point I think many of you would dispute as it’s based on scientific method. For me, the idea of christ coming to fulfill the law, is an idea of having been released from the strict dogma of the time. In its context what jesus was doing was allowing all people to become pure as opposed to the custom of the time, which made all the but the wealthy and those born to the levites impure on some level, with the abject poor being really impure (based on economics) and those with birth defects being the most impure. To those reading the accounts at the time (much of the new testament was written between 60 – 120 ad) they would understand what a release from dogma this actually was.
My point here is that religion, belief is what one makes it. You might say, well that’s nice and all, but without religion, we wouldn’t have to worry about that crap. This is why I like progressive christianity. Progressive christianity has a system of principles (dogma) that does the following:
- supports equality
- supports diversity and tolerance
- supports environmentalism
- supports spirituality
You can get the first three without religious belief. However, in some ways you are correct: it centralizes political power to do what I think it should do. It is a faulty system, but the best one I can work with at the moment.
belief in god is based on faith. You cannot use faith to justify belief
Wrong. Faith cannot exist without a dogma and indoctrination, which is the definition of a belief system. A faulty one at that, which you freely admit.
— It’s interesting to consider what faith is. I believe that faith can exist without dogma. I think it’s important to understand what each other means by dogma. I’m defining it as the rules set up by an organized church structure. If you use the example of some of my friends who believe in a form of spirituality, but not christianity or any organized church, I would say they have faith in the spiritual, but no real dogma. Make sense?
In the case of my example I was trying to say that christians shouldn’t come here and say believe there is a god because the bible says you should. I was really trying to convey that religious folk have made the choice to believe despite not being able to prove in any scientific way that zombies in caves exist (by the way, are you deadly doomham renamed?). MMMMMM….. BRAAAAAIIIIINSSSSS.
I enjoyed reading “whose freedom” by lackoff. As a cognative scientist he described shallow frames and deep frames. Frames are how we thing about things. In my case, believing in god is a very deep frame as it is for many people. It’s actually a very interesting book if you want to check it out. I think that many of our thoughts are in conflict with each other. I think as atheists, you want to see logic dictate the thought process, but it doesn’t seem to be the way the brain operates. Paradox, illogical thought and ideas about spirituality can all reside comfortably in my brain. A big paradox in my life is that symbolic gestures don’t mean that much (sybolic patriotism like flag waving), but I am a graphic designer creating symbols all day long.
Come join the forces of the enlightened and evolve with us.
I’m not sure that being an atheist is more enlightened than being a christian. I would say that the enlightened are well read, deep thinkers, active in their communities. I’m not sure that being enlightened is having come to a conclusion about god existing or not.
Also, think of the political pragmatics. What would you rather have? Another atheist that gets sidelined or a christian who is highly empathetic to atheists?
Sometimes I think that people confuse my empathy with being an atheist without wanting to admit it. Empathy is a great thing, but it really boils down to me having read much of what you list and more and still thinking that there is an underlying spirituality that was revealed to me in christianity.
Paradox 2: Faith cannot exist without a dogma and indoctrination, which is the definition of a belief system. A faulty one at that, which you freely admit. I view dogma normally in the pejorative. I think this is where some people get…
None of what you say is either verifiable or falsifiable. Your belief is arbitrary. If it “floats your boat,” then fine. As an atheist, I do not care.
It’s fairly arbitrary. As daratbastid says, it could be indoctrination at an early age creating a deep frame (as lakoff would use the term) or a simply arbitrary decision that I made based on personality, history and need. I don’t disagree about the arbitrary part. I usually try not get into preachy posts… I was just trying to respond to daratbastid. The part you might care about is how if affects political life here in the US. Understanding that christians are not all monolithic in thought and understanding what the christian may or may not believe may inform your conversation and perhaps allow you to convince people of any political ideas you might have (if you are talking to a progressive christian, chances are good that you could convince them that sep of church and state is a good thing).
Your religious beliefs are your “own business” and should not be a “litmus test” for political office, employment, etc. We can only hope for the day when politicians will keep their religious beliefs, if any, to themselves. As an atheist, I have no problem voting for a Christian as long as that individual is willing to uphold the Constitution and fulfill the duties of the office to which they are seeking to serve their constituents.
You are correct that belief is a personal matter. However, you can do more than hope for a day when politicians keep their beliefs to themselves. As a matter of realpolitik there is a battle for that day. I was simply suggesting that as a matter of pragmatism, you can potentially use some of what you may know about another person’s thought process to inform your discussion. I wasn’t suggesting that belief should be used as a litmus test and I am actually in agreement with you as I believe in a strong distinction between church and state as do many other progressive christians.
spanders:
“did you ever read “Lies my teacher told me”?”
Got it 4 xmas.
The Helen Keller thing is actually towards the beginning. I’m more teed off about being lied to about the warts than I am about the warts themselves.
DRB:
Got the Tao Te Ching in front of me (thanks for making me dig it out, ya rat bastid! Hehehehe). Been scanning. Not a word about servants.
Chapter 1 isn’t even a full page. 9 lines, tops.
Now I’ve seen everything. Do those come with matching underwear, and maybe socks, too ? How stupid.
Interesting how they resemble Knights Templar costumes, isn’t it ?
I see this as yet another of many violations of Matthew 6: 5-6, in that these people have to BE SEEN practicing their “faith” or whatever it is. In my eyes, it’s a fantasy.
Kids at one local church here have been buying AirSoft guns, and they have mock war games after the preaching services. I guess they too are preparing for some kind of apocalypse, like the Branch Davidians, perhaps ? It is to wonder. I draw the line when one has to go to “church” in order to learn how to shoot one another. And it’s a Baptist church, too.
WTH is up with all this war training anyways ? Are they that paranoid ?
So I’ll go out on a limb here and explore some thoughts and we’ll see what happens. My guess is that some of you think that spanders is okay for a christian. I keep to preaching to a minimum and admit to the following:
1. belief in god is based on faith. You cannot use faith to justify belief
2. I (and every other christian) cherry picks what we believe to adjust to our cultural context and I don’t think that’s a bad thing, it’s normal
3. I don’t believe in the inerrant bible. It was written by screwed up people in screwed up times and much of the dogma expressed today is a result of thousands of years of doctrines, canons and creeds borne out political battles
4. I do believe in a literal Jesus, a literal crucifixion and a literal raising from the dead, but understand that it is; a) an idea borrowed from many other mythologies b) not something that I should expect others to believe as it’s irrational c) not based on years of trial and error in controlled experiments and careful observation, so shouldn’t be compared to science or worse, replace science.
I don’t know why people get so fixated on thinking that atheists belief in longstanding methods of trial and error and basing ideas they have on what our best methods to date have presented is equal to believing that the son of god lived 2000 years ago and that was here as a final atonement. It’s not even in the same ballbark. One is faith the other is observation.
I am highly uncomfortable with reinforcing the following:
- strict father morality instead of nurturant morality
- the only way to conquer evil is strict discipline (or armor)
- the father is the only one strong enough to overcome evil because of strict discipline
- that evil is whatever the father figure tells us it is (an axis of evil, evildoers, abortion, homosexuality, muslims, atheists and so on)
- once something or someone is “evil”, it cannot be bargained with, negotiated with (until they have nukes, then they’re less evil) and must be destroyed
- the ends justify the means to destroy evil, but evil must be destroyed at all costs
Maranatha, these are some of things that I think you see people reacting to. If our religion wasn’t used as a political tool to centralize power to the most authoritarian government we’ve had to date who is completely careless with their language and use of resources, people might not get as freaked out by making little knights who will go fight “evil”. My take on it… yup, evil exists alright. Jesus didn’t tell us to bomb our “evil” enemies, he didn’t tell us to stone homosexuals, he didn’t say that personhood starts at conception (but a strict father who needs to reinforce gender roles about decisions about fertility needs to somehow define that as if they are the authority above Jesus) he didn’t tell us to shun those who are different than I am. It seems pretty clear to me: Jesus tells us over and over again to take care of the poor and love one another.
Evil is letting people die by neglect. Evil is not caring. Evil is bombing countries for no apparent reason. Evil is what we do or don’t do… evil is not groups of people. Evil is not “them”. I’m not suggesting that you fit some of my notions of what people react against. I’m suggesting that these issues have come the forefront of our culture and there is a real fear about where it is going. If the best prophet of the future is the past, I can understand the concern about religious bigotry and zealots. It’s up to us to figure out what we believe and also up to us to be very careful about what we teach our children. Will they be open to destroying evil? What do we tell them that evil is exactly?
I should say that this is the most authoritarian administration we’ve had in recent history, but with domestic spying, number of signing statements, and reclassification of unclassified documents, they are really pushing the limits. Pass sedition laws and they’re close to the top of authoritarian heap.
Again Spanders, you sir are a gentleman and a scholar.
I share the same basic defenition of “evil” as you do. “Evil” is not angerign a god, it is doing harm to another lifeform for no justifiable reason. (self defense is a reason. bombing a country back to the stone age for political reason is not)
“definition” and “angering”. Why do I always spell check AFTER sending…
Children ARE literal thinkers. The biblical notion of evil is quite ambigious to a child. I know this because I was a child once:) Anyway, I feel that time spent teaching children of the evils of the world should cover REAL evils such as pedophiles, kidnappers, murders, and thieves. Not that I think parents should go into too much detail when teaching children about relevant evils, but certainly their jammies are not going to protect them from the aformentioned threats.
If parents are soooo concerned about evil, for the sake of their children very lives, they should arm them against the evils of humanity, not the foolishness of scary shadows in the corners.
I have come in on the end of this blog,but I would like to see a pair
of pjs with this bible verse on them
2kings 18/27
I will let you look it up for yourselves.
Spanders,
Great post – inspiring as usual. Though, I must say, you certainly are a paradox. : )
Oh here we go again! Now we have this nice Xian person who is taking strong issue with “us” because some of us found it ridiculous that a Xian woman has got her kids dressed in Crusader pajamas.
Of course we atheists find this very silly, because this poor addled woman believes so strongly in Xianity that she’s preaching from the bible to her kids at bedtime – and those kids are wearing such weirdo Crusader costume PJs!
Thus Maranatha leaps to the defense of this poor Xian idiot-woman. Tres cool! But I just hope all the atheist folks here won’t waste a whole lot MORE time in these pointless symantic arguments with a devout Xian.
Because these religious people refuse to rely of logic and reason – the ONLY result of such arguments would be for the athiest to be converted to Xianity!
The theist Maranatha will DAMN SURE NOT be convinced of *anything* as the result of “discussing” things with athests about religion. Bank on it!
She (or he?) is merely trying to “set us straight” and wants to moderate our feelings toward this goof-woman who produced those idiotic pajamas. So she proceeds to brandish a lot of complex rhetoric – perhaps more to waste our time & energy rather that to convince anyone that he/she is correct and that the atheist ‘offenders’ were wrong.
Just keep on arguing with this theist, and you will soon realize they will always REFUSE to comprehend what you’re trying to tell them. They always *imagine* they already Know-The-Answer-To-The Problem, thus they have NO intentions of actually doing the “arithmetic” which would lead to the *correct* conclusion.
Robguy,
I assure you that was my last response to Ms. Maranatha. Don’t know how I let myself be sucked in. It simply started as a defence for some venting. One cannot argue against faith.
remy,
You need not explain to *me*! I’ve also let my keyboad run-away with me constantly – by debating with the Unknowing about things these people are already completely POSITIVE they *know* all about.
But in this Maranatha case I was fresh from beating my brains out with a similar person who’d used very similar tactics against me. They tend to leave a ‘crevice’ or an opening in their arguments – which seems to suggest to the Unwary Ones they might be amenable to reason & persuasion. But this in really only a clever tactic they use to beguile us.
It’s quite like those videos we’ve all seen – in which the mother partridge fakes that she’s badly crippled in order to lead the fox away from her nest.
I’ve only been reading this blog about two weeks and find it fascinating that Xians read and respond to it!
Does anyone know if atheists read and respond to Xian blogs? My own guess (and that’s all it is) is NO because we know from experience that reason and faith cannot co-exist and thus don’t try to “convert” xians from their faith.
But xians, oh, boy, do they ever hate the idea that someone doesn’t agree with them!
Granted, I would love it if I could convince a xian (it’s particularly fun when they come door to door). But I don’t hate the idea they don’t agree with me–frankly, I’m just more flabbergasted that people embrace, yes, willingly embrace, superstition, muddled thinking, dogma and “unreason.”
For the record, someone was asking about our background, both of my parents are atheists, but they never made a big deal of it. We even celebrated Christmas, albeit a purely secular one (Xmas tree, presents, food, lights, carols). (I still love Christmas, actually–except all the talk about Jesus!) I never really thought about religion or lack thereof until a teen when most people start questioning things. One of my sisters is agnostic/atheist, one of my sisters is a sort of new agey, hippys, pseudo-Christian, I’m atheist. It’s an interesting mix…
Betelnut:
Er, ummm, I do. I know karen does too.
Mostly I knock on the doors of their mutual admiration societies to let ‘em know we exist, & we’re human, & silence don’t mean assent.
Off Topic
(Were you alway an atheist, etc?)
I’ve worked with a lot of blue collar folks. For most of that time I was an atheist. For many years I’d refused to “take out my memory” and examine what tidbits lay hidden in there. When I did – pertaining to religion -I saw in a month or 2 that religion is totallly illogical & is based only on old & quite ridiculous Bible tales ONLY.
Then we’ve had a few weirdos and flakes like Joan d’ Arc who was actually a crazy girl. And also there are the “witnesses” like the girl at Lourdes and the ones at Fatima who imagined they saw a vision of the Virgin Mary. A biography I was reading a long time ago stated that Isaac Newton (one of the smartest dudes who ever lived) was thought to have believed the “Imaculate Conception” by the “virgin mary” was false. Can’t say that I blame him!
The people who are CONVINCED that religion is true are silly. The smart ones who still belive in religion are the ones who are REFUSING to examine all the facts “critically”. They want to reap the rewards promised to the followers of Jesus – and so on. I believe they fail to see any “pay off” in being atheists – and for getting their asses kicked by all the stupid goddam theists who would like to burn us atheists at the stake.
Colin Wilson stated in “A Criminal History of Mankind” that 600 people had been burned at the stake on one day in a town in Germany. I believe that town was Wurzberg.
Krystalline Apostate:
Hey, that’s cool (re: responding to xian blogs). I agree that a lot of Xians seem to think that atheists are nonexistent or psychos.
One time at work, one of my staff members was saying that she couldn’t vote for an atheist and couldn’t see how they could be moral (”nothing to base it on” as per the usual arguement). I just said, “Oh, really” but I didn’t feel that it would have been appropriate for me to go any further with the discussion since I’m her boss and it would have been extremely awkward for her for me to “get into it” with her (and not smart of me, either!) All my staff members are Xians and damn nice ladies. But, boy, did I WANT to argue. Luckily, I’ve matured.
Now on a blog, especially a Xian blog, I think I would go crazy and rip people new a-holes if they implied that atheists are less moral than Xians (or whatever).
I still think that Xians reply to this blog because they want to try to prove us wrong–very silly, but that’s Xians for you!
OFF TOPIC
There’s a new movie out – “better than anything in Hollywood”. “Escape From Hell”. I just saw John Hagee pushing it on TV. The clips were hilarious. The acting is SUPERB:) Someone who knows more about computers should find a way to post some of it.
Ka, I’ve been to Intolerant One. What are some others?
Betelnut,
I hope to start a blog in the next few months? perhaps three. You may enjoy posting on it.
remy:
I wrangle w/a feller at protheism.
Betelnut:
I’ve changed a mind or 3.
spanders:
Keep me posted (hehehe) on your blog.
Wouldn’t it be a kicker, getting an xtian & an atheist to do the bloggin’ thang?
Betelnut
I respond to xtian blogs,go to “He Lives” and see my debate on Xtian redemption.
I got to http://www.badchristian.com/ every now and then. You might like to check that out.
Stupid Crusader Jammies:
In a sense it is quite TRUE that dressing one’s children in Crusader costumes may be seen as “abuse”. The
arch-Xtian folks like to imagine that
their Crusaders were a bunch of very fine fellows who were engaged in the laudible program of wresting control of the Holy Land away from the ‘awful’ Moslems.
But recently you see mention made that these Crusaders were actually heartless, remorseless and terribly cruel soldiers and ruthless killers. They had treated the Islamic people (not just the military either) as though they were bugs or “earthworms” to be stamped out.
The opinion of the Catholic Church (which was THE christian Church then) was that ANY opposing religious sect did not even qualified as ‘human’ – so they were BADLY treated. Even to this day the Moselems are still very *aware* of the nasty and quite brutal way in which their ancestors were treated by the Christian Crusaders.
Thus for any mother to sew clothing for her kids the portrays the Crusader soldiers & knights as “fine Christians guys” is indeed a weirdo behavior which can definitely be thought of as “abuse”.
The ROTTEN behavior of the Crusaders toward the Moslems may be compared to the “Rape Of Nanking” by the Japanese soldiers in China prior to WW-2. Those Japanese soldiers had heartlessly and very brutally exterminated about 400,000 Chinese civilians in and near Nanking. A large number of civilians, for example, including school kids would take refuge in a large building such as a big hotel. The Japanese soldiers then set the building on fire & they proceeded to shoot those who ran out to escape the flames.
Is THIS the kind of “military action” which a mother should be commemorating by sewing Crusader costumes for her children to wear? I think not. From what I’ve read, this woman most likely is dressing her kids in the costumes of guys who often were mass murderers of civilians and children.
Hey JONBOY,
I checked out your attempt on “he lives”. I feel your pain.
What is beginning to concern me is the attempt theists are making to redefine ALL the terms of their discourse. The convolutions are staggering. (as seen above)
Spanders:
Re your blog: I’m in! I read your lengthy post on this thread and thought it was quite reasonable (for a Xian (hee hee)).
I don’t think all Christians are idiots or most of my interactions with my fellow citizens would be unpleasant. Of course, I do think theistic belief is irrational or I wouldn’t be looking at the American Atheist page! Luckily for the rest of us, most Christians seem to generally be able to differentiate between their beliefs and the real world and also seem to spend most of their time in reality. It’s real easy for us atheists to remember that sometimes because of all the freaks out there (like the “Crusader wear” lady).
“From what I’ve read, this woman most likely is dressing her kids in the costumes of guys who often were MASS MURDERS OF CIVILIANS AND CHILDREN.”
Kinda like Christopher Columbus.
When is Columbus Day?
did you ever read “Lies my teacher told me”? You might find it interesting. It has a not so nice account of columbus. A lot of other interesting stuff too… helen keller was a soc-ialist! Ah, I don’t want to ruin the ending for you
.
Spanders,
It’s time you underwent deprogamming.
And I do like you. You’re pretty smart. So here we go with some antiviral progams:
1. belief in god is based on faith. You cannot use faith to justify belief
Wrong. Faith cannot exist without a dogma and indoctrination, which is the definition of a belief system. A faulty one at that, which you freely admit.
2. I (and every other christian) cherry picks what we believe to adjust to our cultural context and I don’t think that’s a bad thing, it’s normal
And that is the evidence that, as time marches on, we know the bible is nothing more than propaganda to control society. The propaganda loses effect as we evolve mentally over time.
So, you believe Jesus was resurrected. Do you believe Frankenstein’s monster was real, too?
You believe in re-animation? In zombies?
Spanders,
More deprogramming.
3. I don’t believe in the inerrant bible. It was written by screwed up people in screwed up times and much of the dogma expressed today is a result of thousands of years of doctrines, canons and creeds borne out political battles
So, why don’t you think that the original intent of faith isn’t political control? You’ve heard of feudalism, have you not? Read up on Taoism, and you’ll see that a large part of the oppressive nature of feudalism was the use of religion, indoctirnation of dogma, and the fear of divine retribution on the great unwashed.
It’ the same reason plantation owners converted their slaves to xianity. They knew that the Jew used their religion a part of their justification to free themselves of oppresion, and they did not want african spirituality to be used by slaves as a rallying point to fight for their freedom.
Remember the Amistad?
4. I do believe in a literal Jesus, a literal crucifixion and a literal raising from the dead, but understand that it is; a) an idea borrowed from many other mythologies b) not something that I should expect others to believe as it’s irrational c) not based on years of trial and error in controlled experiments and careful observation, so shouldn’t be compared to science or worse, replace science.
And this is the paradox inside your brain right now. Face it; cience is replacing religion, just because it’s based on evidence. This is the reason the “Intelligent Design” bullshit exists. The politically savvy xians in the rightwingnut power structure know that the downfall of religion as a rational belief is inevitable, and they fear the loss of their power. They lose control over the minds of those they wish to recruit to their flock. And that means the tithe basket will not bring in a much revenue.
I won’t say a man named Jesus Chrit did not exist. But I will say the resurrection is total hocus-pocus, flim-flam, snake-oil, skullduggery.
If Jesus rose from the dead, then he would be considered a zombie. Now, do zombies exist? NO, and neither did the resurrection. Once a body loses the ability to convert fuel into energy, it stop functioning and dies. It doesn’t have the ability to restart without modern technology, and even then it’s really tough to accomplish.
So, you want me to believe a corpse in a cave, with no acces to modern science, just started breathing again and viited some friends?
In that case Frankenstein’s monster did exist, and re-animation is not just a theme in horror films.
Come join the forces of the enlightened and evolve with us.
The Atheists.
DRB:
Ummm…que? Taoism? Chuang Tzu, Lao Tzu, Mencius?
Taoism? Sure you’re not thinking of Confucianism?
Divine retribution? Que? The philosophy preaches effortlessness. Far as I know, the history’s been relatively benign.
I have the book of Tao (sp?). It’s been awhile since I cracked it out, but I distinctly remember it states in the first chapter that they used the religion to manipulate their indentured servant class to keep them in line.
That’s why they HAD indentured servants to begin with.
Serfdom? Hello?
The way I used divine retribution wasn’t neccessarily in line with the historical context of the phrase. It’s merely a methaphor for fear to me. The boogeyman under the the bed of an 8 year old.
DRB:
Er…ummm, the Tao Te Ching? Chuang Tzu? Which book?
Besides which, Taoism was never a major player.
Taoism is most certainly not based on fear.
Eastern mindset is completely different from the Western.
Again, the equivalency isn’t correct:
http://www.answers.com/topic/examples-of-feudalism
“The current prevailing consensus among Western historians is that using the term ‘feudal’ to describe Chinese history confuses more than it clarifies, as it assumes strong commonalities between Chinese and European history that may not exist.”
Da Rat Bastid,
sorry, haven’t checked this post in a couple of days. I’ve been asked this before; why do you engage in such paradox and yet maintain christian belief? I’ll try to go through it as clearly as possible, but it doesn’t mean it makes sense:
Paradox 1: inerrant belief (cherry picking) – If I don’t believe that the whole thing is 100% accurate, why bother and how do you decide what to believe? I think that there is an underlying spirituality in all of us. It forms a common motif through most mythology and is part of the way humanity has understood the world. While I think science does a good job of explaining the how, I think it struggles with the why. I do not believe that spirituality and science are in conflict with each other. They are very different endevours. I believe that christianity is the path I have chosen based on a number of factors (history, need, choice) and find that it feeds the more nebulous spiritual side of me.
Society changes, redefines itself and moves forward. To think that understanding of my belief should be stagnant (as I think inerrantists would like) would be a spiritual mistake. To think that a belief should be stagnant to make it viable is crazy to me. It’s much like when people say the constitution is a dead document and people who call themselves “originalists”. It think that is a mistaken interpretation of what these documents are meant to do (limit rights rather than expand them).
Paradox 2: Faith cannot exist without a dogma and indoctrination, which is the definition of a belief system. A faulty one at that, which you freely admit. I view dogma normally in the pejorative. I think this is where some people get into the argument about atheism having its own dogma, which is a point I think many of you would dispute as it’s based on scientific method. For me, the idea of christ coming to fulfill the law, is an idea of having been released from the strict dogma of the time. In its context what jesus was doing was allowing all people to become pure as opposed to the custom of the time, which made all the but the wealthy and those born to the levites impure on some level, with the abject poor being really impure (based on economics) and those with birth defects being the most impure. To those reading the accounts at the time (much of the new testament was written between 60 – 120 ad) they would understand what a release from dogma this actually was.
My point here is that religion, belief is what one makes it. You might say, well that’s nice and all, but without religion, we wouldn’t have to worry about that crap. This is why I like progressive christianity. Progressive christianity has a system of principles (dogma) that does the following:
- supports equality
- supports diversity and tolerance
- supports environmentalism
- supports spirituality
You can get the first three without religious belief. However, in some ways you are correct: it centralizes political power to do what I think it should do. It is a faulty system, but the best one I can work with at the moment.
belief in god is based on faith. You cannot use faith to justify belief
Wrong. Faith cannot exist without a dogma and indoctrination, which is the definition of a belief system. A faulty one at that, which you freely admit.
— It’s interesting to consider what faith is. I believe that faith can exist without dogma. I think it’s important to understand what each other means by dogma. I’m defining it as the rules set up by an organized church structure. If you use the example of some of my friends who believe in a form of spirituality, but not christianity or any organized church, I would say they have faith in the spiritual, but no real dogma. Make sense?
In the case of my example I was trying to say that christians shouldn’t come here and say believe there is a god because the bible says you should. I was really trying to convey that religious folk have made the choice to believe despite not being able to prove in any scientific way that zombies in caves exist (by the way, are you deadly doomham renamed?). MMMMMM….. BRAAAAAIIIIINSSSSS.
I enjoyed reading “whose freedom” by lackoff. As a cognative scientist he described shallow frames and deep frames. Frames are how we thing about things. In my case, believing in god is a very deep frame as it is for many people. It’s actually a very interesting book if you want to check it out. I think that many of our thoughts are in conflict with each other. I think as atheists, you want to see logic dictate the thought process, but it doesn’t seem to be the way the brain operates. Paradox, illogical thought and ideas about spirituality can all reside comfortably in my brain. A big paradox in my life is that symbolic gestures don’t mean that much (sybolic patriotism like flag waving), but I am a graphic designer creating symbols all day long.
I’m not sure that being an atheist is more enlightened than being a christian. I would say that the enlightened are well read, deep thinkers, active in their communities. I’m not sure that being enlightened is having come to a conclusion about god existing or not.
Also, think of the political pragmatics. What would you rather have? Another atheist that gets sidelined or a christian who is highly empathetic to atheists?
Sometimes I think that people confuse my empathy with being an atheist without wanting to admit it. Empathy is a great thing, but it really boils down to me having read much of what you list and more and still thinking that there is an underlying spirituality that was revealed to me in christianity.
Paradox 2: Faith cannot exist without a dogma and indoctrination, which is the definition of a belief system. A faulty one at that, which you freely admit. I view dogma normally in the pejorative. I think this is where some people get…
None of what you say is either verifiable or falsifiable. Your belief is arbitrary. If it “floats your boat,” then fine. As an atheist, I do not care.
It’s fairly arbitrary. As daratbastid says, it could be indoctrination at an early age creating a deep frame (as lakoff would use the term) or a simply arbitrary decision that I made based on personality, history and need. I don’t disagree about the arbitrary part. I usually try not get into preachy posts… I was just trying to respond to daratbastid. The part you might care about is how if affects political life here in the US. Understanding that christians are not all monolithic in thought and understanding what the christian may or may not believe may inform your conversation and perhaps allow you to convince people of any political ideas you might have (if you are talking to a progressive christian, chances are good that you could convince them that sep of church and state is a good thing).
Your religious beliefs are your “own business” and should not be a “litmus test” for political office, employment, etc. We can only hope for the day when politicians will keep their religious beliefs, if any, to themselves. As an atheist, I have no problem voting for a Christian as long as that individual is willing to uphold the Constitution and fulfill the duties of the office to which they are seeking to serve their constituents.
You are correct that belief is a personal matter. However, you can do more than hope for a day when politicians keep their beliefs to themselves. As a matter of realpolitik there is a battle for that day. I was simply suggesting that as a matter of pragmatism, you can potentially use some of what you may know about another person’s thought process to inform your discussion. I wasn’t suggesting that belief should be used as a litmus test and I am actually in agreement with you as I believe in a strong distinction between church and state as do many other progressive christians.
“did you ever read “Lies my teacher told me”?”
Yes
spanders:
“did you ever read “Lies my teacher told me”?”
Got it 4 xmas.
The Helen Keller thing is actually towards the beginning. I’m more teed off about being lied to about the warts than I am about the warts themselves.
DRB:
Got the Tao Te Ching in front of me (thanks for making me dig it out, ya rat bastid! Hehehehe). Been scanning. Not a word about servants.
Chapter 1 isn’t even a full page. 9 lines, tops.
Now I’ve seen everything. Do those come with matching underwear, and maybe socks, too ? How stupid.
Interesting how they resemble Knights Templar costumes, isn’t it ?
I see this as yet another of many violations of Matthew 6: 5-6, in that these people have to BE SEEN practicing their “faith” or whatever it is. In my eyes, it’s a fantasy.
Kids at one local church here have been buying AirSoft guns, and they have mock war games after the preaching services. I guess they too are preparing for some kind of apocalypse, like the Branch Davidians, perhaps ? It is to wonder. I draw the line when one has to go to “church” in order to learn how to shoot one another. And it’s a Baptist church, too.
WTH is up with all this war training anyways ? Are they that paranoid ?
BTW…great site, just joined.
Welcome Hause!
Check out this link. If you haven’t seen it already, I’m sure you’ll find it very interesting given your above post.
Enjoy.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/magnolia/jesuscamp/