Agnostic.com

33 11

"Atheism deserves better than the new atheists whose methodology consists of criticizing religion without understanding it, quoting texts without contexts, taking exceptions as the rule, confusing folk belief with reflective theology, abusing, mocking, ridiculing, caricaturing, and demonizing religious faith and holding it responsible for the great crimes against humanity. Religion has done harm; I acknowledge that. But the cure for bad religion is good religion, not no religion, just as the cure for bad science is good science, not the abandonment of science"

(Jonathan Sacks)

Matias 8 Apr 27
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

33 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

9

So, you quote this, but I assume you agree.

Well, I don't. Writers like this always want to go back to the 20th century style of atheism -- polite, respectful, nice and tolerant, no matter how horrible religions are. That worked really well, didn't it. Growth of fanatical Abrahamic religious groups, the evangelical movement, the global insidious sins of churches, only exposed when people stood up to them and demanded accountability.

You can keep your nice polite atheism. The New Atheists, so called, have made a huge impact on this debate. If that ruffles some feathers, then good.

6

The solution to bad cancer is good cancer not no cancer. 🙄

Mother Teresa did not fight against poverty, she fought FOR it. Please review Christopher Hitchens's comments for what is a more objective take. As for the others, remember that they are doing it because they've been threatened with damnation; it's not out of the goodness of their heart.

@Matias I didn’t say that all religion is bad. My grandparents were the best people I have ever known and at least some of that was related to their deep religious beliefs. But if people are using their religion to justify evil, replacing it with some other “good” religion is not a solution.

@Matias I was really going for “here’s a stupid f—cking response to a stupid f—cking comment.”

3

Good religion is only good insofar as it isn't really religious.

Bad science is bad insofar as it isn't really science.

That's the difference.

I agree, the most christian Christians I've ever seen lack much structure to their belief.

3

Hmmmm...... nah don't buy it.

3

Atheist religious apologists, wtf.

Women, I've found your solution. The answer to bad domestic violence is just good domestic violence, bad murderers need to be met with good murderers, good guys with guns need to stop bad guys with guns.

Black and white thinking. It doesn't stand up to complex issues.

I would ask is it not black and white thinking believing as many Atheists do that religion is evil period? Ignoring the fact that any movement, creed or yes belief has a myriad of effects some good, some bad. Ignoring willfully all of the human achievements that without belief in something greater would not be? I see no apology for religion in this quote. I see a recognition that simple answers like all religion is bad does nothing to actually help humans move forward. It simply demonizes the people who through their personal faith find the will to do good works and emboldens the extremists within any religion by giving them another excuse to feel attacked. The best way to defeat bad religion is not to attack it rather it is too establish why people give it power through membership, through money and time and work to change that through education, firm resistance to its actions through political and social change and the will to not play there game. The game of all evil and petty forces, the game of attack, ridicule, hate, contempt, simple answers, assumptions.

@Quarm The entire theory is just promoting false ideas. I do not believe "all religion is bad" that's an ugly, religious strawman of atheists. There is no good or bad religion. There is religion. It is an idea, a concept. Those things are not inherently good or evil.

That is the black and white thinking. I want religion to go away, not because I view it as evil, but as an outdated concept. It needs no refreshing, it needs no renaissance of good intentions, it needs to die. We've lived under false pretenses of cosmic power and lies about heaven and hell for too damn long.

@Xuande Do you think humans can live and prosper without belief? Of which religion in any form is simply a construct to harness the power of said belief. I am curious as I cannot see humanity ever not needing something separate from pure reason to give a sense of meaning to their lives. What would you imagine could or would replace religion?

@Quarm Why do we need to replace religion? You can have belief in things without it. You can have faith in things without it. It is not mandatory, we can and have survived without it. It is a predisposition of superstition that we need to move on from.

If you cannot find beauty, meaning, etc, without religion, then you're not looking hard enough.

@Xuande I agree with the finding meaning in relation to the individual. I feel we need to replace religion as an institution as it cannot help but encourage ignorance and fear as it stands now in the world. You are right we can have belief without it. What groups need though is focus and purpose,. And to me that focus and purpose needs to be grounded in reason combined with a sense of ethics that are distilled from human values. Religions need the "other" to maintain there power. We need a religion were there is no other within humanity.

@Quarm your question is based on falsehood, we don't think religion is evil, evil is subjective, "evil" people really believe they are doing good, all because they adhere to a set of rules based on a fiction, a plan set forth by the earliest of oligarchs to subjugate the ignorant into supporting them for free, those in on the scam began to become accustomed to control and kept adding to the story, embellishing over the years, until the mythos became so widely accepted and broke in many subsets to adapt to the peoples and areas they wanted to maintain their hold over. You aren't even aware of your indoctrination by the cult, the evangelists make their millions off you, you think they believe a word of it? It's the oldest enterprise in existence. You hold onto it so dearly because you have been taught dependence upon it, that free will guides you to sin and that the things we want are sins. Complete ignorance, if it could be unequivocally disproved to you, would you lose the will to live? Would you commit crime after crime because it's not a sin anymore? I doubt it. You tell me why you need it? Why people should need it instead of just teaching consideration for others, law is law because it prevents the break down of a society, its a logical decision and will continue to be so. When your rules based in nothing tell other people whats wrong when in reality it causes no harm, its a divisive source of conflict, the attempt to coerce others to your way, the first conflict, and basis of all others, religion started violence. Ending religion will end almost all violence, because the only thing left to fight over is resources, when we learn not to divide ourselves with false beliefs there would be more focus on real problems, and they may be solvable at that point.

3

That's just silly. The solution to a bad lie isn't a good lie.

1of5 Level 8 Apr 27, 2019

@Matias the literal definition of fiction is "false", or if you prefer, "made up" in literary lingo. There is entertaining fiction, done with high quality that some people consider good, but it's still just made up shit.

3

Totally agree. Never understood why so called atheists want to get involved with religion and even worse become evangelical about their atheism. Makes no sense to me but then not much does!

It's a kind of psychotherapy that so many of us need. It's like lieing on the couch and talking to our therapist and trying to rationalise what happened and get past it. I must admit some people don't want to get past it and spend all their time venting instead.

It comes down to whether you believe in passively accepting religions, even though you don't follow them, or actively opposing and challenging religions, their bogus history, absurd theology, and appalling practices. I favour the latter.

@David1955 okay., that’s one way of looking at it.

3

Amen, Brother!

skado Level 9 Apr 27, 2019
2

I can literally read passages directly from the Bible to people that claim Christianity, and they will say that I'm lying, they will say I'm not allowed to use their own book to disprove them because I don't believe, somehow when I read the words they aren't true anymore but when they pick whatever bit, no matter the context, its the law because it's what they want to hear to justify the ridiculous. The fact that we acknowledge that we are an imperfect species, that we mostly choose to do good, statistically speaking, without a being in the sky watching, without the carrot of a heaven hanging in front of us is proof enough for me that I'm am not as much a heathen as those who claim they need religion as a reason to act properly. Religion maybe a necessity for many people, people who would otherwise not find reason and beauty in simply existing. Its not always easy to see it, sometimes you lose sight of it. But we atheists don't need your fiction to validate us. We don't prescribe to doing whats right in hopes of reward or lack of punishment we do right because it's right. Because others feel it, and that's real. Your reasons are not, your reasons are invented to control, to shame, to subjugate, and to narrow the mind into a weapon of division. What kind of things would you do without religion? Would you commit crimes? Or would you enjoy life and continue to consider those around you that they may consider you?

2

I hate to tell you this but it is more likely the religious who quote out of context.... Atheists tend to be far more knowledgeable about religion than the religious are this has been proven in numerous studies. If people don't want their beliefs to be ridiculed they shouldn't keep spewing their stupid beliefs. When a moron tells me I should believe the earth is flat or was "created by a magical man wearing rotting goatskins 6,000 years ago that person is going to be ridiculed and deservedly so... If they don't like it they are free to shut the fuck up because according to the bible in Matthew 6:5-9 it says they are hypocrites who "have already earned their reward"...

2

I agree fully with Jonathan Sacks. A good religion does not require belief, and it’s not about the so-called supernatural. Good religion is a way of life that fosters reverence love and awe for the miracle of every second of existence. Good religion is in no way opposed to science.

2

There is no such thing as good religion. By definition religion persuades people to believe things for which there is no evidence, or even contrary evidence, and for this reason is immoral

@Matias You are confusing fields of discourse. 'Human dignity' and 'human rights' are societal concepts that mean whatever we agree, as a society, they should mean. Having decided what we want to call 'human rights', of course we can provide evidence for whether or not someone's rihts have been violated . My personal philosophy of life is not 'fictitious'. That would mean that I am telling lies about it. My personal philosophy is a 'lifestyle choice', for which I may give reasons and supply evidence - for example if I were vegan, it may be based purely on emotion - I may be a socialist because seeing poor people upsets me. You say you are a nihilist but you give me no reasons why I should believe that. I think, in fact, it is unlikely.

Whose definition?

“there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion”

[en.wikipedia.org]

@Matias I think 'abstract concept' is perhaps a better way to describe justice or human dignity, and fictional character a better way to describe Hamlet. By lumping them all together as 'figments of our imagination' your argument becomes too simplistic. You say you don't like philosophy and prefer science, and I can see your point if you are thinking of the 'continental' approach to philosophy. But the English analytical approach to philosophy is much closer to scientific method.

@skado Wikipedia is not the only authority. The majority of dictionaries define religion as 'belief in and worship of a superhuman or supernatural power'.

@CeliaVL
Providing an adequate understanding of a subject as complex as religion isn’t something any dictionary is sufficient for. Even so, most dictionaries I’ve seen give more than one definition, some of which don’t include any mention of “supernatural”, or exclusively require “superhuman”. So to insist that only one definition is the “right” one is every bit as narrow and dogmatic as any religious fanaticism.

1   a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2   a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3   the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4   the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5   the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6   something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7   religions, Archaic.religious rites: painted priests performing religions deep into the night.
8   Archaic.strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

—Idioms
1 get religion, Informal.
a to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.
b to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.

Origin: 1150–1200; Middle English religioun (< Old French religion) < Latin religiōn- (stem of religiō) conscientiousness, piety, equivalent to relig(āre) to tie, fasten (re- re- + ligāre to bind, tie; cf. ligament) + -iōn- -ion; cf. rely

[dictionary.com]

Wikipedia is no “authority” at all, as far as I’m concerned, but it is one reference to some extant ideas. I'm happy to look at any reference you'd like to provide.

@skado I don't mind how you define it - I still don't think any good is likely to come if it. The point about atheism is that we simply don't don't need that stuff.

2

A good point. Although I want nothing to do with religion, I am not offended be people and/or a religious creed that tries to treat all with full dignity and respect. Unfortunately, those creeds area a minority among religious communities.

1

I think good and no religion are both fine.

1

The equivalency of that quote doesn't hold up -- science and religion aren't equal. Bad science leads to misinformation and wrong conclusions, good science leads to fact based knowledge while bad religion leads to ignorance and superstition but so does good religion. Since religion is based on faith at the expense of critical thinking, I'd argue there is no such thing as good religion. Religion is a cancer and there's no such thing as a good cancer.

@Matias regardless that science is purely descriptive. Meaning is forthcoming from those mere facts and many people find this enough. The fact that we live in an uncaring universe devoid of purpose means that we are free to build our own meanings.That is what science means.

1

Perhaps someone else has already said this (I didn't get around to reading all of the previous comments) but I believe the people you are describing are antitheists; not necessarily the same as atheists. I am an atheist, I simply do not believe in any sort of gods. I think all religions are a bunch of fictional nonsense, but if others choose to believe, that is their business. As long as they don't try to impact those who don't believe as they do with their religion, I'm good.

1

I don't believe a direct attack on someone's belief system is very productive. I would probably make an exception if the person were threatening harm of some sort because of his religion. I work around many people who are struggling with addiction issues, and they often get very religious in the process... I feel as long as it helps them with their recovery, who am I to rock their boat? Moreover, most are not receptive to arguments involving facts and history anyway... they are proudly ignorant and feel that the strength oo itf their belief makes them super religious... it is even scarier when considered in light of the bizarre conspiracy theories making the rounds... often involving religious extremism. Aggressive confrontation plays into the narrative of all atheists as assholes.... there have been some highly visible atheists, like Richard Dawkins, who really antagonize people, with the result that they just dig in with their closed mindedness. I do enjoy throwing their own scripture back at them in the context of extreme hypocrisy...

1

This is the usual apologetics line very carefully dressed to look moderate. But just try inserting the word "fascism" into the text where "religion" appears, and then see how it reads.

As to bad atheism. Atheism is growing, and when something grows it is bound to be more diverse and embrace more people, many of whom will not be deeply interested or hugely understanding. If they are so then perhaps that is because the issues are no longer important, and/or perhaps because those who really understand and have deep knowledge failed to teach. Yet the educated core will also grow along with the rest, just not as fast. Atheism is not a belief, just a lack of belief, and unlike belief it does not have a dogma that must be understood or enforced.

I am not sure what constitutes 'bad atheism'. I think Jonathan Sacks is a well meaning man (for a religious believer), but like many well-meaning believers - woolly-minded.

@Matias I don 't think it is condescending. I believe it to be true. I am well aware of who he is. I am from the UK and I have an MA in theology. I think there are a number of people at the head of the various religions followed in the UK who have similar views. They are sufficiently intelligent to find it hard to reconcile their rationality with 'standard' religion' and end up with a kind of 'humanist religion' where you don't have to believe anything very much but just perform the rites and cultural activities. This certainly applies to the C of E.

@Matias I do not equate religion with fascism, I merely suggested a thought experiment with the text. If that is a little difficult I am sorry.

1

What's your point? Are you parroting Jonathon Sacks, asking for opinions, or just presenting an unsupported argument?

JimG Level 8 Apr 28, 2019

@Matias Okay, but do you not have a perspective of your own to offer.

He's comparing apples to oranges, bad science tends to be corrected. It's we there's reproducibility and peer review. Science eventually gravitates to a hypothesis that fits the evidence.
Religion is not reproducible and does not welcome skepticism. It creates "evidence" that leads where it wants.

1

I feel the same way a lot of the times. The rise of non denominational individuals, especially amongst millennials represents a major paradigm shift in the way people think about and treat religion. People are starting to believe in whatever makes them feel right and that opens up doors to for all sorts of niche beliefs, some of which may have adverse effects. People need something larger than themselves to believe in, and that doesn't have to be religion. It could be your , science, politics, an ideology, social activism, your job, or your social group.

It may be better if someone intentionally filled the void by giving people a goal to work for. Most religions are based on the past, and in the past they should stay. The roll of religions should not be to fight science, but rather to work with it, interpreting the knowledge gained into something that allows people to understand and accept their place in the world. No dogma, no lies, all metaphysics.

Science tells us the universe is billions of years old, incomprehensibly large, and expanding. What does the bible say about that?

1

I see what your saying and you make a lot of good points with your post. One the reasons I joined this website was to learn about living life without religion and seeing the side of religion has on others.

1

There's definitely a spectrum of harmfulness in religion from profound to very minor as well as distinct threads of goodness (though I'd contend good religious people would be good areligious people; association is not cause). And in spaces like this we (especially Americans) tend to address what is before us (Christian fundamentalism) as if it's all (or even most) of Christianity or as if in and of itself it is a monolith. Also, many of us (myself included) are refugees from the evangelical world and have been harmed by it.

I think Americans especially can be forgiven for this. Our country is being ripped apart right now by factions largely enabled by Christian fundamentalist / dominionist ideology. We're experiencing first-hand what religion can do when taken to its "logical" conclusion.

Even for all that, most of us don't mindlessly think that there aren't good / well meaning religious people, as well as relatively harmless and even in ways helpful factions.

While I do point out where appropriate, things such as, unbelievers actually have a lot of practical common cause with liberal believers, I would be more kindly disposed toward Christianity generally if liberals made more of a practice of calling out their extremist brethren rather than distancing themselves from them. While liberal and fundamentalist wings of Christianity (and other religions) are very different takes on the same source material, I'm troubled by the lack of self-awareness by milder / liberal Christians around the very real problems caused by the failed epistemology of religious faith.

1

Religions need to be called out when they teach horrible concepts, like the permanence of hell, to vulnerable non critical children.To stand by and let religious fundamentalists get away with psychological child abuse is a sign of personal cowardice. I recently had a heated argument with a religious co worker who was telling her kids that they will go to hell if they don’t accept Jesus into their hearts, she said this to her kids after one of them was engaging in critical inquiry on the matter of Christianity, when she mentioned this to me I gave her my blunt reply saying how wrong of her she was for doing that given their really young ages. She told me to mind my own business and I preceded to mention that what she said to her kids is strikingly similar to a physical threat. After another 1 1/2 minute of bickering, we were stopped by our supervisor and we preceded to continue on with our work. I know who these kids are and the parents pretty much restrict these kids to a point that they no longer feel like doing anything that would stir the wrath of their insane religious nut parents.

P.S Theology can be obscured by opportunistic authoritarians who want to control the minds of their congregations by teaching them non sensical concepts with nice sounding words. Theology is more of a tool of control rather than the method of inquiry it claims to be.

1

"Bad religion" (Besides a great punk band) is a belief system overlaid on bad methodology. Bad science is just bad methodology, and that's fixable. But "Good religion" is still just a belief system overlaid on bad methodology. If you fix the methodology, it's not religion anymore.

1

So how would you define "good religion?" As for science: Science is pure, but ever evolving as new discoveries are made. The variable is "Technology," the applications of science that often are misdirected when science is used by lesser minds and for greedy purposes. That is when great harm is done. As for religion: for me, I believe that every individual has the responsibility to think for himself. Religion fosters group thought or non-thought - leaving it to the priests, pastors, rabbis, etc. Some religious writings are of great value for thinking persons to discover and factor into their philosophies. It is understandable that one's thinking can easily be shaped by special circumstances. There are as many paths to enlightenment as there are people. Hopefully enlightenment is the goal.

Possibly consider religion as a technology to misdirect. I am not aware of any radical leaders who espouse subversive actions getting their hands dirty!

@Geoffrey51 I have a FB friend who boasts that her pastor used the church bus to proudly escort his parishoners to the polls to vote for Trump. When Bush W was running, I had lunch with a pastor and his wife who actively got his parishoners to vote for W. The evangelistic movement is very powerful and it is a known fact that W embraced this religion for the first time to ensure his election. Recently Trump came out with: The reason they are persecuting me is because I am a Christian.

@think-beyond what I meant was that they won’t be blowing themselves up they’ll leave that to their ‘people’

Science is pure but human use of it is not. Eugenics, War, poorly researched and tested drugs.... One could argue that religion operates in a similar vein in that people use it for both good and bad results. For me it is all about the results. My greatest problem with religion is its encouragement of ignorance and its obsession with tradition over logic and new information. I have a similar issue with scientists who cling to chosen theory and ideas in the face of new information and theories.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:338068
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.