(no subject)

[which_chick]

In the email today:

I was just perusing your very entertaining website and came across your article about the "religion of tomatoes." Being very interested on the subject of religion, and if it is not too much trouble on your part, could you express your reasons for being an atheist?



First off, is there something on my website that attracts the fruitbat minority? Seriously. I am not making this email up. I never make up any of the emails that get posted here. People just write me the darnedest things.

Y'know, I suspect that for the majority of, say, Lutherans and Jews and Catholics, they don't have reasons for being that, other than that's what their parents raised 'em up to be. I shouldn't have to justify my belief system any more than they do. Hell, nobody should *have* to justify. We have freedom of religion here and if I wanted to worship Offler, I could do so. (I don't, though. Too many teeth.)

Okay. I don't worship a deity *and* I don't think one exists. I'm pretty sure that you die when you die. I'm pretty sure there is no post-game analysis wherein folks pay for their mistakes and get cheered for their noble and selfless choices. I don't think you get a do-over where your starting point is based on how well you did in this iteration of the game. I don't think people are somehow special or different from animals in that their spirit or soul or other invisible part drifts off to become one with space aliens or whatever. We're all made of meat. Humans are not fundamentally different from animals and they don't have magical invisible immortal souls even though quite a lot of people would like to think that they do.

What we have here is what there is. Right here, right now, you are alive. This is your life. Do a good job with it, because you will not be getting another one. It isn't fair. There's no warranty of fun. It's entirely likely that you will not win. Heck, bad people win and good people lose every day in the Game of Life. There is pain. There is suffering. There are shitty choices. What's worse, the pain and suffering and shitty choices are doled out entirely without regard for who is a GOOD person and who is a BAD person. It's like that stuff is totally fucking random. Some people have lives where it seems that they can do no wrong, even if they're right royal bastards. Other people have Kobayashi Maru lives even if they're kind and considerate of others. This is not fair. It isn't fair at all... and you only get one try at it, with a stacked deck and uneven starting conditions and you think to yourself, "What the hell way is that to run a fucking railroad?"

Well, it isn't.

Near as I can tell, things can either be this hideously not-fair because of blind chance or they can be this hideously not-fair because God Wants It That Way. Mmm-hmm. If there is a God and He wants the world to be like this, I am all about denying Him to His face because there's absolutely no need to be such a shit about things, is there? (I am not buying "ineffable" because that's not really an explanation. I also don't think that the God-people feel He grades on a curve. Everybody is supposed to bear up under the load, even though some folks get way more load than others. The whole thing is very not-fair.) So, y'know, Fie! But honestly, I'd rather there be no God at all than one who really thinks this is the way things should be because that sort of God would have to be one sick puppy. Are we in a world designed and operated by one sick puppy, or is this all random and uncaring chance?

I know which way I want to bet. :)

Most of the time, the churched people assume that I do the atheism thing so that I get a Get Out of Being a Decent Human Being Free! card on the behavioral front. I don't know where they get this. Perhaps they have met other, different atheists who go around being complete and total shits just because the fear of God isn't there to MAKE them behave. I don't really believe that the lack of God is a mandate to go around being a shit to others. I believe that we should try to be decent, honorable, fair human beings because the world is hideously unfair and because we only get one shot at life and because we are our own judges, in this, our only (quite mortal) life. We cannot really level the playing field and we can't see to it that disease and misfortune target the bastards while avoiding the honorable sorts. The only thing we can really control in this world is our own behavior... and that is reason enough for us to do so.

Things I believe.

1. Religion is all pretend. (For this, I offer exactly as much proof as the folks who assert that "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." is true. If they're allowed to claim "true" by way of saying a thing, then so the hell am I. Just because they have more people saying their thing than I have saying mine does not make their thing *more* true than mine. Truth is what it is, no matter how many people repeat it or not.)

2. Not only is it all pretend, it's silly. (Pointy hats. Censers. Ritual cannibalism. Full-immersion baptism. Grape juice instead of wine? Spats over what version of the hymnal to use? Circumcision. Virginity balls where little girls wear white and dance with their fathers to promise to remain virgin until their wedding day?!? Like, y'know, Daddy owns the hymen. YICK, I say.)

3. The doctrine of original sin sucks ass and I don't hold with it. I'm not buying that. I am only responsible for what I have done. I refuse to be responsible for what some dead prophet claims a naked chick in an orchard did several thousand years ago. I only own my personal sins and I reject the idea that there is a vast, racial sin which I have to shoulder. Fuck that. To my way of thinking, the doctrine of original sin is for people with low self-esteem. Yes, God, I'm evil and bad and helpless in my evil baditude. Please help me to be better than this filthy, worthless flesh! Bugger that for a lark, say I. I don't hate myself that much, thanks, and I don't think I'm inherently evil, wrong, bad, or flawed. I make mistakes, yes, and then I realize that (sometimes way after the fact) and I try to do better next time. Unlike some of the churched-people, I don't have any way to atone for my mistakes. I don't get the luxury of confession and absolution. I have to live with my mistakes and their consequences bearing down upon whatever it is that I use for a conscience.

4. We die when we die. This is all you get. Pretending that it isn't, well, that's just to make people having shitty lives feel better about being stuck with a losing hand. Thinking that there's judgment after death is something folks do so that they can feel better about the bastards cheating the system and living well while grinding others under the heels of their boots because, yo, that's entirely NOT FAIR. Judgment-after-death as a concept exists to make oppression more readily borne by the oppressed. Life isn't fair and there isn't a great reckoning after you're dead. You're dead after you die. Game over. (I know that this is true the same way that people who believe they are going to the theme park JesusLand after they die know that that's true. Honestly, which is more plausible: food for worms, or JesusLand?)

5. I'm opposed to being expected to answer to some bearded guy in the sky for my actions. I answer to me for my actions and that is quite enough. I had parents to whom I had to answer and I'm done with that now, thanks. I don't need or want a heavenly father to answer to. One mortal father was plenty. 'Sides which, if my mortal parents did their damn jobs, I have a functioning moral compass to help me navigate the sticky wickets of modern life and I don't need a bearded vengeance demon in the sky to help me out with that stuff.

6. I have not, by and large, been notably impressed by the behavior of people who believe in various religions. It pains me to say it, but they seem to be just as fallible and as petty as ordinary unchurched humans. I'm not at all sure what is supposed to be improving about having a religion if the people who *have* one act about the same as the people who *don't* have one. It doesn't appear to make much difference, honestly. Actually, and this might just be sampling error on my part, the unchurched people that I know lead fairly well-examined, ethical lives. There's a lot less, y'know, bad behavior going on there than you might expect. Freed from the dictates of a God, most people appear to honor contracts and work hard and pay their bills and raise responsible children and recycle and tell the truth and try not to hurt others...

7. On the mixing of believers and nonbelievers of all sorts: Other people are allowed to do religion up to and until it starts to interfere with my not-doing-religion, even if I think they're fruitbat insane. If my tax dollars are involved, there should not be a whiff of religion involved but what people do with their own, private dollars is their own business. I do not generally bother with protesting religion or going about telling those people that they are wasting their time because it doesn't convince anyone and only upsets them. However, if I *wanted* to peacefully hand out anti-Chick tracts on a public sidewalk NEAR a place of worship or if I wanted to go door-to-door explaining how God was make-believe like King Friday on Mr. Rogers, I could do that and (this is important) the religious people would not be allowed to stop me. The people doing religion are not allowed to get shirty with me and my unGodliness. I am allowed to be a Heathen Unbeliever in relative peace, subject to such proseletyzing as I choose to listen to. However, if I slam my door in the face of the Jehovah's Witnesses, that's my perogative. They're allowed to knock and I'm allowed to slam the door in their faces. I do not have to be *nice* to them if I'm feeling particularly surly that day. People are allowed to hand me Chick Tracts in public places and I am free to take them or not. If I take them, I am allowed to make with the mockery on my LJ. Other people can ask me if I am saved and I can pretend not to understand what they mean or I can answer in the negative or I can laugh in the person's face. I am under absolutely no requirement to answer OR to take their question seriously. Pretty much all efforts at conversion have to stay civilized and at the level of Visit the Infidel With Explanatory Pamphlets. No kill-or-convert wars, anyway, because the hearts and minds you allegedly win that way are pretty fucking hollow. If you can't sell your belief system by smiting the unbeliever with cunning arguments, it ain't much of a belief system. :)

Comments

[staceman.livejournal.com]

*best_post_EVAR*

hehheh, seriously, I love your posts about religion/atheism. They've really opened my eyes. Thank you.

[which-chick.livejournal.com]

That would be because I'm smiting with cunning arguments. :)

[staceman.livejournal.com]

Exactly. For years, I was in a sort of spiritual limbo. It always seemed as though common sense was tugging me toward a more atheist-like view, but there was much conflict. A lot of it came from a radio broadcast I used to listen to from a guy named Roy Masters, head of the Foundation for Human Understanding. It was really good stuff, talking about objectivity, as opposed to reactivity. However, at the core of it all, was the God Thing™. But his presentation of it was completely different than any church. And thus I tended to have the mindset of "well, this guy's teachings are great, maybe he has a clue, so maybe he's right about it all". And it didn't help that any atheists I'd ever talked to at that point, were pretty much only that way for the sake of the cool factor, going against common thought, and more or less being allowed to do whatever they want with seemingly no repercussions, so to speak. They really didn't understand a damn thing about true atheism.

While I'm still pretty much agnostic, your posts make things much more clear, and make sense. And your take on it all, actually fits in with my agnostic theories. Well, actually, I'm not even real sure if my beliefs/theories could be considered agnostic, it's really more of just a philosophical theory. Maybe we can hook up sometime and I could attempt explain it, it's sometimes difficult to fathom typing it out, even though it's really not all that complicated. No preaching, converting, arguing, debating, or even smiting with cunning arguments required! ;) And we could even indulge in some 80's arcade games and get all nostalgic! :)

[which-chick.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure that there is such a thing as a unified true atheism dogma. If there's a handbook, membership packet, or set of talking points, I don't know about it. At the most basic level, atheism is denying the existence of a God or Gods. As a corollary, atheism claims that the world runs along on cause-and-effect with a heaping spoonful of blind and random chance -- there's no omnipotent will behind things. Beyond that fairly basic set of underpinnings, atheism is very much a Choose Your Own Adventure affair.

Atheism doesn't offer a whole lot of guidance on much of anything, really, besides the issue of whether or not there is a God or Gods, and on that issue, it's pretty clear: No. There is not a God or Gods. (And since that is so, whyfor am I capitalizing? Because it's tradition.)

As a side note, agnosticism, which frequently gets short shrift in these discussions, is the position that it is impossible to know whether or not there is a God or Gods. Agnostics do not make any claims other than It is impossible to know and then they get on with the rest of their lives as they see fit -- the as they see fit part is very much like how the atheists go forward. The seminal difference between the two schools of thought is that atheists feel there are sufficient grounds to argue that there is no God while agnostics feel that it is impossible to say one way or the other. While this might make agnosticism sound like it's the waffle position, the didn't inhale school of thought, I don't think that's the case for most agnostics. (I used to, but I've decided I was wrong. The people who are trying to impress others with their thoughts on the God question generally claim to be atheists -- it's more impressive to the churched and contains less explaining than agnosticism.) The agnostics I know have always impressed me as otherwise decisive people who have settled on agnosticism because they do not feel that it is possible to call the question one way or the other.

And yeah, invite me over some day and we'll discuss matters of faith. (It's an entirely valid argument, one frequently made by agnostics, that atheism is as much a position of faith as theism is.) If apples are still in season, I'll bring an apple pie. (I make excellent pie.) This weekend and next weekend are already booked but the one after that (first weekend in November), I have one of the two days free. I'm not sure *which* day, but one of them.

[psychacat.livejournal.com]

Sorry to randomly butt in, but just thought I'd share Buddhists are an excellent example on agnostics. The core values, that is, those taught by the historical Buddha, are that they don't really concern themselves much with whether or not God or gods exist, just how to deal with human suffering.

I wish more religions these days would focus on such an issue instead of bickering over trivial matters such as whether they should teach their sacred text as historical truth. *coughstupidChristianscough*

[brni.livejournal.com]

i would have to disagree on this. buddhists are religious (i.e. they have a theology, i.e. they are theist, i.e. they are not atheists). they are not deists, in that they don't tend to believe in deities. but its really a western fallacy based in monotheism that equates theology/spirituality with deism. (please note that despite my habitual ee cummings use of capitalization, i am using a small "d," "deism" vs "Deism," just as there are "democrats" and "Democrats.") however, not concerning themselves with the existence of deities does not mean that they do not have a complex and relatively coherent theology which they believe.

the agnostic has determined that, without compelling (scientific/empirical) evidence proving or disproving anything, it's unreasonable to believe in any of it.

[psychacat.livejournal.com]

I was referring to the teachings of the historical Buddha (aka Siddhartha Gautama) who very explicitly states in his most famous example of the "arrow" that he is not concerned with determining whether or not deities exist. In that story he compares human suffering to an arrow lodged in a warrior's flesh. He is concerned with removing the arrow, the symbol of human suffering, not where it came from or who created it.

Most forms of Buddhism today also don't focus on the existence of deities, and those that do have anything that the West may dub as a pantheon are largely cultural formations, rather than anything the historical Buddha taught. Among the academic community, and at the college I am studying, it is still debated whether or not Buddhism can be labeled a "religion" in the same way Christianity, Hinduism, or Islam is labeled as a religion. No one is debating over whether "buddhists are religious (i.e. they have a theology, i.e. they are theist, i.e. they are not atheists"

Therefore the common way to refer to Buddhists among academics is to group them under the general label of agnostics, whether or not there is a cultural context for the existence of deities. In fact, it wasn't until a few centures after the death of the historical Buddha that mythologies of his divinity started springing up. Only a few forms of Buddhism even today regard the Buddha as some sort of deity in the Western sense of the term. Same thing happened with the prophet Mohammed and Jesus of Nazareth, historically speaking.

As for this quote, "the agnostic has determined that, without compelling (scientific/empirical) evidence proving or disproving anything, it's unreasonable to believe in any of it." My impression of agnosticism is that they simply don't know, so don't really worry that much about it. Kind of a "lukewarm" decision in my opinion, religiously speaking, but I do acknowledge that it is a valid position.

[brni.livejournal.com]

i was sitting in on a class that my father was teaching (world religion) because i was curious about what his classes were like, and how it would compare to the world religion class i took as an undergrad. one day, discussing buddhism, he brought up the "is it a religion if they don't believe in any gods?" question. there was much debate over it, until a quiet indian woman who sat at the back of the class spoke up.

"i'm buddhist," she said. "and i'm not an atheist or an agnostic, and i don't believe in god. but i am religious."

i myself was an agnostic for a while - a half-dozen years or so. wasn't lukewarm at all. it was actually a very difficult decision - give up certainty of eternal life, give up certainty of being forgiven for bad shit you may have done, because none of it made logical sense. not an easy decision at all.

later, i came to the realization that the world was so fundamentally fucked up (not just the human part of it - an all-powerful, benevolent god could have created a world in which volcanos don't erupt with no warning, killing 20,000 people) that i couldn't bear the idea that there might be something behind it. "i'm not going to believe that god exists," i told people, "unless he shows up and tells me himself. and if he does, i'm going to spit in his face."

[psychacat.livejournal.com]

Can I ask in what sense you and this lady are using the term "religious"? It seems to me you are both referring to faith, not necessarily belief and practice. Because I've met a great many people who consider themselves "religious," but they don't practice their religion in the sense that they go to church, etc. And believe me, it IS possible to be spiritual without actually expressing any set of beliefs, because the definition of belief here is the concrete factual information people throw around. Concrete stuff is more subject to change than the intangible concepts, therefore faith, a very difficult idea to define, is stronger than belief.

And since this discussion is getting way out of hand, I'm gonna call it quits, as these ideas are way too complex to articulate in real life, much less converse about in LJ.

[which-chick.livejournal.com]

Dang, calling me a lady really makes me feel old. Hell of a thing to run into over my morning coffee, y'know.

Worst part of getting old(er)? You don't actually feel tardy any older inside.

Anyway.

I am using the term "religious" for persons who profess a belief in some god somewhere and/or feel that there is something (besides ourselves), some agent or power, in charge of life, the universe, and everything.

People can be religious without going to church and nonreligious people exist who go to church and make with the worship -- so you're right, there. The practice part doesn't matter a whole lot for what we're discussing.

I don't know what on earth people are doing being spiritual without any set of beliefs. Is this the business with healing energy and rose quartz crystals? 'Cause that's pure-D high grade bunko, too, not that anyone asked. With incense.

I don't have a lot of truck with faith. People act like faith is the missing (Kool-Aid) ingredient that will make all matters religious both palatable and sensible for me -- I just have to have faith in God. Well, I don't. I *do* have faith in assorted people, but that's about as far as it goes.

I also don't think you've got much to work with, there, splitting hairs between faith and belief, but you can do what you want with that.

And since this discussion is getting way out of hand ?! I resent that. Besides, no one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle! Do you understand?! Even, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they do say 'Jehovah'.

[brni.livejournal.com]

"jehovah!"

[psychacat.livejournal.com]

Do you know the history behind that name?

[brni.livejournal.com]

yeah. it started with this guy named bwian...

[psychacat.livejournal.com]

I could bore you with the history, as it's one of the many "blunders" medieval Christianity imposed on the Hebrew text of the Bible.

[brni.livejournal.com]

my family is from (the former) yugoslavia. i know all about the uselessness of vowels. (my username is a reflextion of this :)

[psychacat.livejournal.com]

I just think its so funny one of the names people call God came about because a monk couldn't read "Adonai" XD

[psychacat.livejournal.com]

I was refering to brni's example of the hindu lady, not you. Sorry for the confusion! And I'm also trying to distinguish faith and belief since I'm so used to having to do that for my religion classes. My professor is a real Peter Tillich fan, who was the first theologian in 20th century thought (I think) to really articulate the differences between the two concepts, and there actually is quite a bit different between the terms in an academic sense.

The difference between faith and belief becomes crucial when studying the historical progression of religions. What often happens is that some crisis of national importance will happen and everyone's beliefs will be shaken, i.e. those concrete facts they took for granted to always be true no longer prove true, but the faith, the intangible concepts, still hold true because they are harder to pin down and define. The people have to reorder their beliefs to fit the new situation they find themselves in, but they still have faith in the institution itself. Does this make sense?

Some historical examples: Babylonian exile, The Crusades from the Muslim's point of view, 9/11/2001

In all these situations, the victim's beliefs about their reality were shaken and had to be revamped, but the faith they had in their respective institutions was still there.

[which-chick.livejournal.com]

Ah, now I see. I wasn't at all getting what you were talking about before because in everyday use, faith and belief are pretty much on a par. With the distinction that you've drawn, though, treating them as different things makes more sense.

[brni.livejournal.com]

heh. well. you don't practice xtianity by going to church, im(vh)o. you practice xtianity by [insert list of things "jesus would do" here, starting with the story of the good samaritan]. :) (sidebar: i remember seeing a book back in the late 70s/early 80s (when i was struggling with all this stuff) titled the christian agnostic, in which the author was arguing that people who had lost faith in god but were doing the right things because they were the right things to do were actually better xtians (and would go to heaven) than those who proclaimed faith but were, for lack of a better term, "less good." i think i was in 9th grade at the time, so i didn't really have all the analytic tools under my belt necessary to really properly digest the argument, but i sorta got the gist...)

i agree w/ which_chick regarding the concepts of faith and belief. and i'd say that buddhists have both belief and practice. considering that there there are buddhist beliefs, and there are buddhist rituals and such...

i think that being vaguely spiritual w/o expressing any set of beliefs means that they have not examined things/themselves thoroughly enough, and therefore become vulnerable to any new age quack who comes along selling crystals. i think if people are going to be spiritual, they should have a relatively clear idea of what they are doing and thinking. even acknowledging that the beliefs could change or grow or become richer in some way does not mean one shouldn't spend time to really think out what one believes NOW.

this bit here: because the definition of belief here is the concrete factual information people throw around. Concrete stuff is more subject to change than the intangible concepts, therefore faith, a very difficult idea to define, is stronger than belief. - i'm not following the logic here.

concrete factual stuff is stuff like "the book is on the table." unless you are descartes, that is very simply provable - either the sentence is true or it is false. stuff like "in the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god" - now, that's not so easily verifiable. that is something that you take on faith (i.e. believe), or you don't, and if you do take it on faith, there's many, many ways of interpreting it (some of which are actually interesting). and whether you go to church and eat wafers every weekend or not doesn't really have much to do with what you believe.

personally, i find it more interesting to discuss this stuff via text than via spoken word, because you can really go back and examine things, formulate your thoughts, etc. unless, of course, there's tequila involved. talking religion face to face while sharing a bottle of tequila is almost always a rewarding experience.

[psychacat.livejournal.com]

I'm trying to distinguish faith and belief since I'm so used to having to do that for my religion classes. My professor is a real Peter Tillich fan, who was the first theologian in 20th century thought (I think) to really articulate the differences between the two concepts, and there actually is quite a bit different between the terms in an academic sense.

The difference between faith and belief becomes crucial when studying the historical progression of religions. What often happens is that some crisis of national importance will happen and everyone's beliefs will be shaken, i.e. those concrete facts they took for granted to always be true no longer prove true, but the faith, the intangible concepts, still hold true because they are harder to pin down and define. The people have to reorder their beliefs to fit the new situation they find themselves in, but they still have faith in the institution itself. Does this make sense?

Some historical examples: Babylonian exile, The Crusades from the Muslim's point of view, 9/11/2001

In all these situations, the victim's beliefs about their reality were shaken and had to be revamped, but the faith they had in their respective institutions was still there.

I never did like texting for discussions. So much is lost, like body language, tonality, word-stress, facial expressions, etc. Its really hard to communicate those kind of things electronically. And the only way I'd drink tequila is in margaritas, which makes it such a shame I live on the other side of the country, as alcohol and religion are a very rewarding combination indeed. XD

[which-chick.livejournal.com]

Margaritas can make almost anything worth discussing... :) I'm a fan.

However, the better tequilas are worth investigating as South of the Border sippin' whiskey equivalents. Seriously, they're smooth and tasty, just plain. (This I know because my dad's wife brings back the good stuff from their twice-yearly excursions to Mexico.)

[psychacat.livejournal.com]

I'm not a strong alcohol fan, the only way I ever drink is with mixed beverages or light wines. I do like Bailey's, but that hardly counts as "just plain" =P

[staceman.livejournal.com]

I tend to forget how you can take things so literally at times. ;) I use the term "true atheist" very loosely. (I use a *lot* of terms loosely.) While what you explained, would pretty much still make the people I referred to atheists at the core, I meant that they really weren't the types to really be able to go into a detailed explanation of things, as you have. They just look at it as a trendy way to think. In a time of crisis, chances are, they'd do a complete 180 and beg the Christian God for help.

But, regardless, the thorough explanation is still appreciated. And your explanation of agnosticism, really sums up how I feel. I have a theory of "the way things work", but it's nothing that I'd really care to argue or debate over, because I see it as pointless, since there's no way to know for sure.

I'll check and see if we already have anything going on that weekend. Chances are we don't, but I'll let you know for sure, via email or something.

[brni.livejournal.com]

the doctrine of original sin sucks, but the parable of original sin is actually interesting. it tells us that as we grow up, all the bad things in our family, in our society, are all things that inform us as we go through our alleged formative years, and that we should be aware of this so that we can overcome it.