Atheists challenge the religious right

B

BlaznFattyz

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,589
Reaction score
0
Points
36
For some time, the religious right has decried "secular humanism," a philosophy that rejects the supernatural or spiritual as a basis for moral decisionmaking. But now, nonbelievers are vigorously fighting back...

..."I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented," declares Dr. Dawkins, the famed Oxford professor who wrote "The Selfish Gene."...

Cont'd
 
My favorite line in the above article:

Yet one critic, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, calls for a truce: "We've suffered enough from religious intolerance that the last thing the world needs is irreligious intolerance."

Even the best apologetics won't sway those whose mind is made up. What science must inherently lack, religion has always provided. We are born into this crazy debate, and it will continue long after we are gone, and the only thing a believer could ever do to sway anyone's opinion is to embody that which she/he believes in the spirit of compassion, love, and the actions that are spawned by those truths.

Peace
Mark
 
BlaznFattyz said:
For some time, the religious right has decried "secular humanism," a philosophy that rejects the supernatural or spiritual as a basis for moral decisionmaking. But now, nonbelievers are vigorously fighting back...

..."I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented," declares Dr. Dawkins, the famed Oxford professor who wrote "The Selfish Gene."...

Cont'd
Click to expand...

I wonder how the word "supernatural" came to mean more than what was naturally super? Does anyone know?

A speculative guess is that it was a journalist looking for a term to describe something they did not understand.
 
pattimax said:
I wonder how the word "supernatural" came to mean more than what was naturally super? Does anyone know?
Click to expand...
I think the same way as miracle...anytime folks can't explain or understand they have to sensationalize.

I think the atheists have a right to their belief, or non-belief, but just the same as theist thought should not be foist upon them, their non-theist thought need not be foisted on others not interested.
 
BlaznFattyz said:
For some time, the religious right has decried "secular humanism," a philosophy that rejects the supernatural or spiritual as a basis for moral decisionmaking. But now, nonbelievers are vigorously fighting back...

..."I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented," declares Dr. Dawkins, the famed Oxford professor who wrote "The Selfish Gene."...

Cont'd
Click to expand...

I've watched Dawkins. He does not attack people. He only attacks God. There's a major difference.
 
..."I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented," declares Dr. Dawkins, the famed Oxford professor who wrote "The Selfish Gene."...
Click to expand...
Words reveal. So attacking God with words should be the definition of words like futile or insane. Not for an implied retribution, but because the allegedly sane person thinks that words can attack someone he claims to believe does not exist.

For example: some people believe in Santa Claus, and some don't. I confess that I don't believe Santa exists. If the ones that don't believe in Santa say that they are attacking Santa Claus, then will Santa be unable to deliver presents on Christmas to those that believe? I submit that a tank, a bomber, a fighter, a rifle, a pissed of non-believer, and a word from a pissed off non-believer are not going to hurt Santa Claus. Welcome to try... North pole is that way.

It is my opinion that atheists have a better chance than many on the far religious right at learning who God is. That is only my personal conjecture though, and I don't pretend to know God's plan on that.
 
pattimax said:
hmmm...

How would you feel if someone attacked your father?

(Please keep this hypothetical, I don't know you.)
Click to expand...
I think this entirely begs the question of our relationship to and with God, or vice versa. And another thread has been exploring this recently.

But to answer your question ... I think God is probably quite capable of defending "Himself." *Darn sure* a lot more capable than I am! ;)

How *do* I feel? I think wil pretty much nailed it. If your left hand is securely grasping your "opponent" by the neck, while your right is lodged quite a ways down their throat holding either a religious tract - in one case - or a primer on materialistic, secular humanism in the other ... then you're both equally in the wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right. Another person's actions do not justify our own. Same is true of groups, ideologies, religions, etc.

Personally, I find atheism and materialism to be exceedingly bleak, mostly because they undermine the importance and value of the individual. Ironically, this notion of the celebration of humanity falls short, precisely because it fails to acknowledge our highest potential ... which is something thoroughly spiritual, in my experience and belief.

We are all entitled to our beliefs, thoughts, perceptions. Everyone sees things the way they see them for a reason. How do I know that this is not simply a part of their learning experience of the moment? Or to put it otherwise, How can I be certain that this is not God's Plan for them ... an important stage in their growth? Only if I am willing to stand up and say, *I know AS WELL AS (or better than) God* ... can I then condemn or judge.

~Zag
 
Zagreus said:
Only if I am willing to stand up and say, *I know AS WELL AS (or better than) God* ... can I then condemn or judge.
Click to expand...
If a student does NOT judge, then the teacher can not help him. A person judges and reveals it with every word and with every action.
 
cyberpi said:
If a student does NOT judge, then the teacher can not help him. A person judges and reveals it with every word and with every action.
Click to expand...
Yes, I realize that. I guess I should use the word judgmental, which I think is distinguishable from discernment.

Still, I think it is actually God who judges, not humanity, even when it comes to the value and importance of something like secular humanism. How do we know what purpose might be served by such an extreme view as Dawkins'? It doesn't even necessarily have to be right, to be of great value in the Divine scheme of things.

I don't like the rejection of God, the supernatural, etc. as valid spheres or types of influence ... but if nothing else it helps us to examine what we believe, and why. This alone, is worth having such challenges around. It keeps us on our toes!

~Zag
 
Zagreus said:
I think this entirely begs the question of our relationship to and with God, or vice versa. And another thread has been exploring this recently.

But to answer your question ... I think God is probably quite capable of defending "Himself." *Darn sure* a lot more capable than I am! ;)

How *do* I feel? I think wil pretty much nailed it. If your left hand is securely grasping your "opponent" by the neck, while your right is lodged quite a ways down their throat holding either a religious tract - in one case - or a primer on materialistic, secular humanism in the other ... then you're both equally in the wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right. Another person's actions do not justify our own. Same is true of groups, ideologies, religions, etc.

Personally, I find atheism and materialism to be exceedingly bleak, mostly because they undermine the importance and value of the individual. Ironically, this notion of the celebration of humanity falls short, precisely because it fails to acknowledge our highest potential ... which is something thoroughly spiritual, in my experience and belief.

We are all entitled to our beliefs, thoughts, perceptions. Everyone sees things the way they see them for a reason. How do I know that this is not simply a part of their learning experience of the moment? Or to put it otherwise, How can I be certain that this is not God's Plan for them ... an important stage in their growth? Only if I am willing to stand up and say, *I know AS WELL AS (or better than) God* ... can I then condemn or judge.

~Zag
Click to expand...

Let me say from the beginning that I am very well informed of the fact God does not need my defense. But that said, I exist to glorify God. As a Christian I am to be as much like Christ as possible. (I do not think Jesus crammed anything down anyone's throat.)
 
Zagreus said:
Yes, I realize that. I guess I should use the word judgmental, which I think is distinguishable from discernment.

Still, I think it is actually God who judges, not humanity, even when it comes to the value and importance of something like secular humanism. How do we know what purpose might be served by such an extreme view as Dawkins'? It doesn't even necessarily have to be right, to be of great value in the Divine scheme of things.
Click to expand...

I don't think God judges at all. I think that there is a natural Way that works best. Many possible paths within that way. We can choose to swim upstream or down. We can choose to manipulate the natural way for profit at the expense of other life. Whatever we choose sets up the circumstances of our life and determines the extent to which we connect with, walk with if you will, God. There are consequences to every choice we make- some are obvious and some aren't.

If we choose not to decide, or are oblivious to our ability to choose, the consequences are still the same. But if we consciously choose to align our intentions with, and actively participate with the Way we gain the ability to tap into the power source that creates and sustains the universe, and that's some kinda power!

Chris
 
This is beautiful, Chris. It's empowering and *affirming* the way you put it. I'm learning that we have a tremendous of leeway, of spiritual freedom. And that we can tap power untold, with almost no end in sight to the resultant creativity.

In this sense, we can have our cake and eat it too. But there is a Divine Order, a `Way things Work.' At most we can bend the rules, but we cannot break them ... not without the consequences you speak of. What goes up, must come down. If you push something hard enough, it will ... fall over. Or was that the Firesign Theatre? :p

Really though, there are moral laws, every bit as valid as those of physics. And I think that this is the most important dimension of *any* religion, or of religion per se: to help humanity to understand the spiritual laws that govern life, the universe and everything, and the Purpose for these laws.

Atheists may not believe that a single Deity is behind all of Creation, and may find the religious right an easy target ... but I wonder how they explain things like the laws of mathematics, the Divine Ratio (or Golden Mean, which is evidenced throughout nature), or just the simple beauty with which our planet abounds. If this is not God's handiwork, then whose? I don't see how anyone in their right mind can babble on about a "fortuitous, spontaneous concurrence of atoms." Balderdash! Poppycock!!! :rolleyes:

~Zag
 
China Cat Sunflower said:
I don't think God judges at all. I think that there is a natural Way that works best. Many possible paths within that way. We can choose to swim upstream or down. We can choose to manipulate the natural way for profit at the expense of other life. Whatever we choose sets up the circumstances of our life and determines the extent to which we connect with, walk with if you will, God. There are consequences to every choice we make- some are obvious and some aren't.

If we choose not to decide, or are oblivious to our ability to choose, the consequences are still the same. But if we consciously choose to align our intentions with, and actively participate with the Way we gain the ability to tap into the power source that creates and sustains the universe, and that's some kinda power!

Chris
Click to expand...

Chris,
Is this what you meant?... 1 Corinthians 15:42-44

So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

Or did you mean something else?

Sincerely, Karen
 
I'm going to have to think about that Karen. What you're suggesting has very deep ramifications.

"Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual."

Chris
 
Hello all:

This is all reminiscent of the ancient Egyptian beliefs in the "ka" and "ba", the ka being the material body's spiritual double that exists before birth and lives on past death, and the ba being the living body's shadow double that appears at birth and disappears upon death.
flow....:)
 
I don't believe ALL atheists, have this agenda, to challenge religions. I would say the majority just haven't been convinced by religion, so they get the atheist mark branded upon them... Something about the title atheist...

"Hi, yeah I'm 17th... I'm an atheist..." lol, I would never say that. I guess with some it could be a name to identify them, and because of this they want to live up to bringing as many from the religious side to the "atheist side" But I would suspect the majority of atheists couldn't give a rats butt, about challenging religion. But, I think how religious people hold on to their little titles oh so proudly. I'm a jew!! I'm a muslim! I'm a christian! It means something to them and they will hold on to it cause it apparently means something important to be able to call themselves by this name... I guess they expect everyone who doesn't believe to hang on to some title...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top