World Religions - Atheism Discussion Thread

[If_I_Loved_you]

Mormonism Confronts Atheism

Although both Mormons and atheists reject the concept of the Christian God as posited by "orthodox" denominations, Mormons, like other Christian sects, still place themselves in opposition to atheists. This is likely because atheists generally have little understanding of Mormon theology, and even if they did, would still reject it. While accepting the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would not require an atheist to modify basic philosophical views about reality, they obviously find the claims made by the church to be lacking in credibility.

Almost every aspect of Mormon origins, history and doctrines is filled with controversy. The story of Joseph Smith is one of the most fascinating episodes in American history which gave rise to the most successful of American-born religions. The opposition which he generated and which led to his murder has continued to the present day. Fundamentalist Christian denominations in particular, are unceasingly hostile to Mormon claims that Joseph Smith restored a corrupted Christianity, often making the charge that Mormons are not real Christians and worship a false god. Of course, if the Mormon concept of deity is true, then it would be Christians of "orthodox" denominations who worship a god that does not exist.


Read more at Suite101: Mormonism and Atheism | Suite101.com http://suite101.com/article/mormonism-and-atheism-a297338#ixzz1yY6B1gGG

[Adam W]

^huh?

[PeeJayEss]

Leaning only on mankind's finite understanding of the universe seems foolish to me, when science can't even prove how we got here. For some of you that's all you need, but as a historian, there is a thread of spirituality that runs through mankind from the beginning. Why? Why would a evolving being come down out of the trees and wake up one day and say, 'hey, you know what? There is this being called God and he left us with a set of rules to follow... Did this happen to Neanderthal? Cro-Magnon? Neandertalensis? Homo sapiens?  Homo erectus?  Homo habilis? Australopithecus? or perhaps Ardipithicus radius, who according to science shared 98% of our genes. 

You are ignoring religious history. Religions evolved over time as well. First out of superstition: I walked around this tree and it started raining. If I want it to continue raining, I must regularly walk around this tree. We killed a young girl or a lamb or a cow on the steps of the pyramid last year and we had a great harvest, so that works. If we look at how people respond to religion, it is fairly clear how it could have developed in the absence of an actual divine being. Anyone with young children should realize this. You tell your kids to be good and you will get them ice cream, you tell them to be very good and keep their room clean all December and Santa will bring them a bunch of gifts. You tell people that if they are very good their whole life and follow the rules you have laid out and they will be rewarded with <nirvana, eternity, virgins, etc etc>. Whether you believe or not, you should at least be able to acknowledge that religion is a wonderfully convenient means of control. What's to say our species is unique in believing in the divine. How do we know dogs don't think thunder is when the sky god is angry, or that bone they found was a gift from the god of ground bones. The fact that we thought it up is not a proof of its truth. Unless, Bigfoot and the Nessie are real as well.

The problem atheists, agnostics, and deists have is the idea of faith (blind faith), the biggest cop-out and most severe red flag of any religion. Faith does not allow for rational, thoughtful dialogue on the subject. Faith says you can't know, so you have to take our word for it, because we are in a special position of privilege to receive information from on high. Faith is a tool that demands obedience without critical thought. Most people that call themselves atheists or agnostics (and a lot of people that call themselves religious) are, in fact, just skeptical of the dogmas they have available to them. They don't claim to be 100% sure that there is no God, they just admit that they don't know and are not comfortable proclaiming the existence of a god of which they have no proof. I think more dangerous is the religious person that is 100% sure of something they have literally no proof of, and they are willing to die or do all many of ill-conceived things because of it. An advanced species can do without that.

The Tibetan account of the first bardo after death shows striking parallels with the near-death experiences of people who have died, experienced themselves floating out of their bodies, having what appears to be real afterlife events, and then being revived.

Humans have wonderful imaginations. Near-death means not dead.

People have these same types of sensations on drugs. Strange things happen when the brain is not behaving properly. To attribute these feelings to experiences of the afterlife is to cheapen the phenomenon of an afterlife, if it exists, or to be guilty of an extremely egotistical form of hubris (namely, the idea that you are so important that you must live forever).

[Adam W]

Most people I know who call themselves agnostics are actually atheists as well, but afraid to label themselves as such (or are uncomfortable with it, or don't understand what "atheist" means).

[If_I_Loved_you]

Most people I know who call themselves agnostics are actually atheists as well, but afraid to label themselves as such (or are uncomfortable with it, or don't understand what "atheist" means).

^huh?

[strider]

Most people I know who call themselves agnostics are actually atheists as well, but afraid to label themselves as such (or are uncomfortable with it, or don't understand what "atheist" means).

Thankfully, this is the 21st century and all they really have to do is Google it. Read the many definitions and realize what they actually are.  However, I agree that there is some cross over between agnostic and atheist. Depending on who's definition you wish to use.

In any case, I often think that George Lucas had the answer in Star Wars.  Basic good and evil.  Dark and Light. When enough believe in the Light, the good wins.  When they don't, well .... Hell on Earth?

The beauty of person freedom.  We can believe in the Force, God and everything in between.

[officerk]

many believe what they were told to believe (were raised to believe). I have found few that question what they have been told to believe. many that have questioned have come out believing differently.  Though, some that questioned and maintained what they were raised to believe came out with a stronger faith than they went in with as they had a better understanding than they went in with. Faith is the core of religion. But too many don't really know what they are saying they believe in when they say they believe and when asked cannnot tell me. 

I do not hold with the traditional religious idolgy.  Man is a very conceited race.  We are extremely involved with our own self importance.  When we look at religions through history we can see that they were born from questions and man's self importance: Why does something happen (i.e. how the sun crosses the sky during the day?) and how important are we in the greater scheme of things.  I have not found that the current religions differ.  Religions even now answer questions that we do not have answers to (i.e. how did the world come to be?) and make man be of some greater importance (i.e. God created us in his own image) than just existing in this universe as all other things that excist.  We as people like the comforts of knowledge and dislike the unknown.  We also like feeling important.  This has not changed through the ages and likely will never change. 

Is an Atheist or a Pagan who goes about life doing "right" for the simple reason that it is right any better or worse then the believer that does it because it is decreed by a monotheistic religion? In my opinion, no. although I am biast as I fit into that group.

To say that ALL Atheists attack Christianity is as unfair as to say that all Christians attack non-believers, or that all Muslims are terrorists.  ALL of any group is not any one negitive thing.  I have Christian  friends who respect my beliefs and me as a person without trying to convert me or condemn me.  Wars have been fought through the ages over nothing more than religious differences.  Respect for other people's belief systems, so long as they are positive systems, would do wonders.  An Ahteist that lives a positive lifestyle deserves the same respect as any other.  Not understanding someone's beliefs is not reason for condeming it.

[Ocklawaha]

So how/why did you pick Christianity? 99.99% sure because you were born into it.

You would be pretty correct in that I was raised in a Christian 'BaptisMethoNazerIndependent' family, but we were NEVER told what to think. My dad, a former big band musician, took a hobby job directing choirs. At an early age I was hiking jungle trails on a ranch my dad partnered with in Brasil. I was exposed to many beliefs, from pagan, native and even old world Catholic. When I left home with my older sister for California at age 14, Long hair blowing back in the breezy windows of the micro-bus, I ended up in a commune in Dunlap, CA.. There I followed Wicca for some time, then got involved with a Mormon Girl and attended church with her, finally landing in Long Beach with an actress girl friend who was also Christian. Still a die hard hippie, I went to work for Dan Curtis Productions (think Dark Shadows) then Universal (I'd like to kill Benji)... till I got sick of it and headed back to Jacksonville with my new Spanish wife who was once a Franciscan Nun. I have read much of the Wicca material, Bhagavad Gita, Bible, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants, Mary Baker Eddy, Edgar Casey, as well as doctrinal books from many religions. This is why you might see me quote Buddha, Mohammad, Gandhi, Krishna and of course Jesus. I think you'd have a hard time putting my beliefs in a tidy little box. While I am solidly Christian today, I have no problem learning bit's of wisdom from all corners, including my Atheist friends. When we open our minds, the world becomes a better place.

Hope this answers your question. 

[Ocklawaha]

Humans have wonderful imaginations. Near-death means not dead.

People have these same types of sensations on drugs. Strange things happen when the brain is not behaving properly. To attribute these feelings to experiences of the afterlife is to cheapen the phenomenon of an afterlife, if it exists, or to be guilty of an extremely egotistical form of hubris (namely, the idea that you are so important that you must live forever).

Yeah, I understand the drug part, my sister will take an oath that I was at the Jethro Tull concert in Fresno, and I remember ........................

BTW, 'near death' doesn't mean not dead, it is a rather loose term that describes people that are pronounced clinically dead, have no detectable brain/heart activity and are revived. In almost all of these cases the come back describing watching doctors or friends hover about their body... That sort of goes back to Plato when he asked 'Are you a body, or do you posses a body?

[officerk]

It is easy to sling insults when faced with idology different than our own. 
I do not understand how someone can so easily accept many of the religious tenets out there as fact but it is not my place to insult their beliefs simply because it is different from what I hold to be "true."  Now, when he/she starts insulting me... the gloves come off... until then, I do find the intricasies of religions to be facinating...

[Adam W]

Most people I know who call themselves agnostics are actually atheists as well, but afraid to label themselves as such (or are uncomfortable with it, or don't understand what "atheist" means).

Thankfully, this is the 21st century and all they really have to do is Google it. Read the many definitions and realize what they actually are.  However, I agree that there is some cross over between agnostic and atheist. Depending on who's definition you wish to use.

In any case, I often think that George Lucas had the answer in Star Wars.  Basic good and evil.  Dark and Light. When enough believe in the Light, the good wins.  When they don't, well .... Hell on Earth?

The beauty of person freedom.  We can believe in the Force, God and everything in between.

I don't claim to know 100% that god doesn't exist. I don't know if science will ever be able to prove the answer one way or another. I suppose it's possible, but I doubt it will happen in my lifetime.

What I do know, however, is that I don't believe in god. I don't think I ever really did and I certainly can remember as far back as 8 years old (in CCD class in 1980), trying to convince myself that god must exist and knowing I didn't believe it.

So I'm an athiest, as I don't believe in god. I suppose I'm also 'agnostic' as I can't claim to know there is no god. But I'm pretty sure there isn't. And I certainly don't think there is.

[Ralph W]

Prominent atheist blogger converts to Catholicism
Leah Libresco wrote column for website Patheos
Author: By Dan Merica
Published On: Jun 22 2012 11:49:59 AM EDT  Updated On: Jun 22 2012 06:03:01 PM EDT
Religion generic

Juan Medina / Reuters
(CNN) -

She went from atheist to Catholic in just over 1,000 words.

Leah Libresco, who'd been a prominent atheist blogger for the religion website Patheos, announced on her blog this week that after years of debating many "smart Christians," she has decided to become one herself, and that she has begun the process of converting to Catholicism.

Libresco, who had long blogged under the banner "Unequally Yoked: A geeky atheist picks fights with her Catholic boyfriend," said that at the heart of her decision were questions of morality and how one finds a moral compass.

"I had one thing that I was most certain of, which is that morality is something we have a duty to," Libresco told CNN in an interview this week, a small cross dangling from her neck. "And it is external from us. And when push came to shove, that is the belief I wouldn't let go of. And that is something I can't prove."

According to a Patheos post she wrote on Monday, entitled "This is my last post for the Patheos Atheist Portal," she began to see parts of Christianity and Catholicism that fit her moral system. Though she now identifies as a Catholic, Libresco questions certain aspects of Catholicism, including the church's positions on homosexuality, contraception and some aspects of religious liberty.

"There was one religion that seemed like the most promising way to reach back to that living Truth," Libresco wrote about Catholicism in her conversion announcement post, which has been shared over 18,000 times on Facebook. "I asked my friend what he suggests we do now, and we prayed the night office of the Liturgy of the Hours together."

At the end of the post, Libresco announces that she is in a Rights of Christian Initiation of Adults class and is preparing for baptism. She will continue to blog for Patheos, but under the banner, "A geeky convert picks fights in good faith."

According to Dan Welch, director of marketing for Patheos, Libresco's post has received around 150,000 page views so far.

"Leah's blog has gotten steadily more popular since she arrived at Patheos, but a typical post on her blog is probably closer to the range of 5,000 page views," Welch wrote in an email. "Even now, a few days later, her blog is probably getting 20-30 times its normal traffic."

Libresco's announcement has left some atheists scratching their heads.

"I think atheists were surprised that she went with Catholicism, which seems like a very specific choice," Hemant Mehta, an atheist blogger at Patheos, told CNN. "I have a hard time believing how someone could jump from I don't believe in God to a very specific church and a very specific God."

Mehta says that Libresco's conversion is a "one-off thing" and not something that signals any trend in atheism. "The trends are very clear, the conversions from Catholicism to atheism are much more likely to happen than the other way around," he said.

But while atheists were puzzled by the conversion, others commended Libresco.

"I know I've prayed for her conversion several times, always thinking she would make a great Catholic," wrote Brandon Vogt, a Catholic blogger. "And with this news, it looks like that will happen. Today heaven is roaring with joy."

Thomas L. McDonald, a Catholic Patheos blogger, welcomed Libresco to the fold: "Welcome. I know this was hard, and will continue to be so. Don't worry if the Catholics make it as for difficult for you as the atheists. We only do it to people we love."

Libresco says one of the most common questions she has received is how she'll deal with atheists now.

"The great thing about a lot of the atheist and skeptic community is that people talk more critically about ideas and want to see proof provided," Libresco said. "That kind of analytical thinking is completely useful and the Catholic Church doesn't need to and should not be afraid of because if you've got the facts on your side, you hope they win."

Libresco is just switching the side she thinks the facts are on.

[ronchamblin]

This morning I read the Bauerline article about the dinosaurs being taken into the First Baptist Church for a week of display and perhaps instruction to about 1,500 children.  The objective, as I recall, is to convey to the children that dinosaurs and humans existed on earth at the same time, and that the great biblical flood was the cause of the demise of the dinosaur.

I wonder if the intention of the church officials is to convey this information as being a highly probable truth of history or if they are conveying it to children as myth, much as one would do with many of the stories and folktales created over the past few thousand years, so that children's imagination can journey to far away lands and times.  I wonder what good or harm is conveyed to children if the entire display is to suggest that it is true that the dinosaur did exist simultaneously with humans, and that the flood was the cause of the demise of the dinosaur. 

If one purpose of adults is to teach truth to children, and not lies or distortions projected as truth by some religion, so that the children might have enhanced abilities to create within their minds an honest and truthful picture of the world in which they live, so that they might engage it successfully without the delay of decades of attempts to recover from the distortions of the religions, one might wonder about the ultimate consequences of such teachings.

But perhaps the displays and instructions are only to convey stories and  myths for enjoyment, for the exercise of the imagination.  I hope so.     

[Tamara-B]

I have a question for an atheist

If God does not exist, explain the term "Adam's Apple"

All I'm doing is asking a question, not criticizing, so if you're planning on biting my head off, save your fangs and keep your panties on.

[vince]

Tamara-B: Forgive me for sounding ignorant, but how does a culture naming a part of the body after the first human in a mythical story need more explanation?