At this site we have often debated the extent to which non-Believers are harmed by the beliefs of religious moderates. The main idea is that moderates are serving as human shields for whacked-out literalist fundamentalists. Society would be hammering fundamentalists with enough widespread ridicule to make them political untouchables, except that religious moderates continue clinging to “lite” versions of fundamentalist beliefs.
This concern has been well-articulated by Sam Harris:
Religious moderates are giving cover to fundamentalists because of the respect that moderates demand of faith-based talk. Religious moderation doesn’t allow us to say the really critical things we must say about the abject stupidity of religious fundamentalism.
This issue raises a serious question: Should non-Believers actively challenge the ubiquitous “mild,” religious pronouncements made by religious moderates? Until recently, I usually remained silent when my kind and decent relatives, acquaintances and neighbors, uttered things like this:
- At least I know that my dead aunt is now in heaven; or
- I prayed that my son would get that new job and God answered my prayer; or
- Jesus loves us.
Assertions like this don’t imminently threaten me. The religious moderates who utter such things are not power-mongerers who dream of taking the reins of government to impose literalist versions of their sacred literature on people like me. These assertions certainly don’t pack the poisonous wallop of the commonly uttered fundamentalist accusations that non-Believers like me are morally unfit to participate in society. Rather, statements of faith uttered by religious moderates are usually nothing more than harmless self-comforting poetry uttered by gentle, tax-paying, yard-pruning and otherwise admirable people.
In my experience, most religious moderates maintain warm and mutually beneficial relationships with non-believers and with people of other faiths. Sometimes, they even admit to having doubts about their own religious beliefs. Given these circumstances, why in the world would non-believers ever want to challenge the innocuous-seeming assertions of religious moderates?
Is there really a problem, then, when I fail to speak up when religious moderates publicly make their “mild” proclamations of faith in mixed company (believers and non-believers)?
I’m not advocating for dramatic or harsh confrontations with religious moderates. Such straightforward conflict would lead to hard feelings and a quick end to any dialogue. In fact, it risks tipping religious moderates (many of them fence-sitters) into fundamentalism.
Then again, the cumulative effect of failing to point out our differences when religious moderates make unsupportable religious claims might lead them to think, incorrectly, that my silence constitutes my agreement with their fantastic claims regarding Gods and spirits. I’m not alone in my general reluctance to cause a scene when religious moderates say such things. I would go so far as to conclude that the aggregate implied acquiescence by non-Believers over the years has encouraged ever-more public God talk (much of it by government officials), much of it in mixed company.
There are several serious problems with this public God-talk. It is hopelessly vague, it has been honed in the “factory” of thoughtless repetition and it is used (albeit unconsciously) to coerce non-believers into a polite silence that looks like (but isn’t) acquiescence or even encouragement. Here’s another serious problem: Isn’t honesty the best policy?
To address these commonly encountered situations where religious moderates publicly blurt out their mild proclamations of faith, I am hereby inviting non-believers to carry around printed Miranda-style warning cards. The Mirada warning is a method of succinctly boiling down a complex set of legal concerns into a few statements–police officers often carry around little cards listing the elements of the Miranda warning.
My proposed Religious Warning Card boils down a complex set of epistemological/religious concerns into a few gentle reminders. I’m attaching a word processing file here, in case you really want to print a set of your own. Miranda style warning for religious moderates – Cards.doc These cards are designed to be handed to friendly acquaintances whenever they lapse into making factually unsupportable religious claims:
–Gentle Reminder to a Theist Acquaintance–
You have publicly made a religious claim that is vague or has no trustworthy basis in fact. If I had remained silent, you might have erroneously assumed that I agreed with you. Because I value our relationship, though, I am hereby taking this moment to advise you of my disagreement. I am handing you this card to remind you of my beliefs:
- There are no invisible sentient beings such as Gods, spirits and ghosts.
- When people die, they are completely dead. They don’t “go” anywhere.
- The ancient religious scripture on which you rely is untrustworthy because it is vague, self-contradictory and historically unsupported.
- To best understand life one should employ a naturalistic worldview free of supernatural elements.
- There are many important things about life that humans simply don’t know and it is important to acknowledge our ignorance.
- I judge morality entirely on whether people demonstrate kindness to one another, not on religious beliefs.
This Warning Card shouldn’t be shoved in anyone’s face, of course. It should only be used as a gentle reminder that those who hand it out don’t believe in imaginary supernatural beings. There is no need to use this card unless a believer utters a religious claim to which your own silence suggests that you agree. This card needn’t be handed to people who make religious statements that don’t put non-believers on the spot. This card needn’t be used, for example, with those people who believe in an Einsteinian God, because they are actually closet agnostics. Of course, this card can also be handed out to fundamentalists, though it is unlikely to be effective because fundamentalists take pride in ignoring evidence that conflicts with their cherished beliefs—they are intellectual cowards.
Back to religious moderates, though. Some people would urge that we continue to remain silent when religious moderates say things that make no sense to us, because they aren’t consciously inflicting their own image and likeness on the rest of us (as are fundamentalists). To that concern, I respond that it’s just not good mental hygiene to believe in things that are baseless. It is not a foundation for a healthy world view or for efficient collaboration among humans. There’s also a more personal angle: friends don’t sit silently while their friends slide into unsupported or self-contradictory beliefs.
Certainly, religious moderates themselves don’t silently tolerate the obviously unsubstantiated views of others. Just listen to religious moderates speak up when they hear others publicly espousing beliefs in such things as Bigfoot, the existence of ESP or astrology. Imagine a public official talking about his use of astrology at a press conference. Can you imagine an audience of religious moderates staying politely silent, thereby broadcasting the false idea that there was nothing inappropriate about the official’s belief in astrology?
It encourages continued bad mental hygiene to fail to speak up when others make claims that aren’t based in fact. Failing to speak up harms society in yet another important way. Allowing each other to utter baseless things without protest degrades the quality of relationships. It erodes our trust in each other.
Consider this true-life example. Many years ago, an acquaintance I’ll call Karen had a tumultuous break-up with Joe, her boyfriend. She was deeply hurt by Joe’s refusal to see her anymore. For several years after that break-up, Karen repeatedly told me that Joe hadn’t really broken up with her. She held to this bizarre conclusion despite the fact that Joe completely stopped calling her and never tried to see Karen again. She held to her bizarre opinion despite the fact that when Karen took the initiative and called Joe, he repeatedly told her such things as “I don’t ever want to see you again” and “I’m dating someone else now” and “I’ll call the police if you don’t leave me alone.” She admitted all of this to me.
Despite the plain meaning of Joe’s words and actions, Karen continued to believe that Joe still loved her deeply. She claimed that Joe would call her and let her phone ring once then hang up (this is before caller ID), but she “knew” it was Joe. She claimed that Joe would sometimes sneak out to her house in the early morning to move Karen’s newspaper from her lawn up to her porch. She never saw him do that, but she “knew” Joe did it. He did these things, Karen said, because he was trying hard to subtlely communicate to her that he still loved her and he wanted to be with her. He just couldn’t get up the nerve to deal with this “difficult issue” face to face, she said. He was shy and introverted and confused, she said.
Karen was highly successful in her challenging profession, arguably brilliant. In our conversations, though, she periodically brought up Joe, and tried to get me to agree with her claim that Joe still loved her. I listened patiently at first, thinking that I was missing something, then I started expressing doubts, which caused Karen to become dramatically frustrated with me that I didn’t “get it.” She desperately clung to her belief that Joe still loved her and was still wooing her in these bizarre ways. No evidence would have convinced her otherwise. Outside of that single strange issue of Joe, Karen and I continued to have a fruitful (yet strained) friendship based upon intellectual ideas we shared.
It became apparent that I couldn’t easily convince Karen that Joe didn’t love her. Yet I continued to gently make my disagreement with Karen known to her. I owed that honesty to her. To push my viewpoint too hard would have driven her back ever more firmly to her totally unsupported belief (this happened several times). Therefore, whenever Karen raised the topic of Joe, I gently yet firmly told her that I disagreed with her and I took some heat for my honesty.
As a friend, it was my duty to let Karen know that her beliefs about Joe made no sense in light of the evidence. For several years, she intensely craved for me to agree with her or at least remain silent when she spoke of Joe’s continuing love for her. It annoyed her immensely whenever I refused to tell her the comforting things she wanted to hear.
It was my job, though, to help Karen identify her poor mental hygiene regarding Joe, even though her belief system caused her pain to bear that thought. Here’s why I had to speak up: as long as Karen made claims that Joe (long-gone Joe) still loved her, Karen was not fully able to be my friend, because I couldn’t fully trust her judgment.
Karen’s beliefs regarding Joe’s continuing and undying love for her eventually faded, but it took years. Eventually, she stopped discussing Joe, I was once again able to fully trust Karen’s judgment.
I hope that the parallels to religious belief are obvious. Moderate believers need to hear from freethinkers for the same reason that freethinkers need to hear from each other. Moderate religious believers need freethinkers to remind them to question outlandish propositions that they have been trained to say (through a lifetime of mostly thoughtless repetition) for the purpose of assuring each other and comforting themselves.
Moderate religious believers need to be reminded that claims of virgin birth and dead people coming alive are as absurd as claims that there are two suns in the sky or that giants live in huge castles on the top of clouds. They need to be reminded that it makes no sense to say that dead humans are sentient, because there is no evidence of this.
All suspicious claims deserve real scrutiny. That many Christian religious claims are based on the Bible should cause thinking moderate Christians to scurry to study the origin of the Epistles and Gospels. If they bothered to study what is known about these early Christian writings, they would be shocked. But the great majority of Christians, including most moderate Christians, don’t want to know about the gaps, errors and self-contradictions in the writings on which they base most of their religious beliefs. With very few exceptions, moderate (and fundamentalist) Christians consciously refuse to consider the extremely shaky basis of their extraordinary religious claims, yet they continue to proclaim their articles of faith as though they were supported by as much evidence the assertion that there is only one sun. Something is obviously wrong with this type of thought process. People who give a damn about their friends don’t sit in silence when their friends engage in such talk.
Why do Christians need freethinkers? For the same reason that each of us needs each other: To remind each other when we have strayed beyond the evidence. To hold each other to the facts. To make sure that when we say vague things, silly things or unsubstantiated things, we are reminded that at least someone cares enough to listen closely and to question those highly questionable assertions. People who really care about each other take the time to discuss occasions when one of them fails to distinguish between the things that are real versus the things that are merely hopes, dreams, fears or fantasies.
When we fail to speak up when our friends fail to make sense, we have ceased to fully trust each other. At that point, we only have a degraded friendship, a friendship in form rather than substance.
Genuine, real-world relationships are built on good mental hygiene. Good mental hygiene is anchored by such things as A=A, and 2+2=4, and virgins don’t get pregnant. Good mental hygiene unwaveringly recognizes that dead people remain dead, and that invisible creatures don’t tell us how to live our lives.
Gently reminding each other to jettison dysfunctional mental habits is the least we can do for those human beings about whom we care. Only by periodically nudging each other back onto the path of evidence-based reality can we really see eye-to-eye with our fellow humans. Only when we do this (sometimes awkward) work can we efficiently collaborate to build a functional society, one where people mean what they say and say what they mean.
You don’t really need to use the “Miranda” warning cards to get the job done—the card is just a crutch, a gimmick you might not want or need. Instead of using the card, try speaking up next time a friend blurts out something cryptic or unsubstantiated, for instance, when he or she claims that the Bible is “simply a book about God’s love” (see here and here and here and here). Based on my experience, you’ll be amazed at how friendships can actually flourish when fertilized with honest communication.
You have the right to remain faithful, anything you preach will be held against you…
I wouldn't try handing the cards out anywhere where alcohol is served. Actually, I don't think I would even want to hand them out in public, for fear of ridicule/retribution. That said, I wouldn't mind having a few to anonymously place. Not much different than handing out mini-psalm books though, in that it could be seen as distasteful/disrespectful. Unfortunately, I don't have a better solution, at this juncture.
Speaking of Moderates, Sullivan has responded to Harris again…
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/214/story_21446_1….
Erich has pointed out a tough one. I have a lot of trouble myself with this. I understand that sometimes people are just trying to tell me they care about me ("you are in my prayers") and I don't want them to think their care of me isn't important. I want them to care about me. I just don't believe the prayers are listened to by a supernatural being that takes action as a result of the prayer. I do know that it makes the "pray-er" feel like they are doing something positive, often when there is nothing they really can do to change the situation. Many times, particularly with family, I'm just not willing to make the scene it would require. I generally deal with it by withdrawing politely from the situation, either at the moment it happens or by simple avoidance of the entire situation, even if it means not talking with that person very much. My family considers me rather withdrawn from them as a result (the wonderful Baptists and Pentacostals that they are).
I look on it the same way as I do overt racism. If I am around someone who makes some ridiculous racist statement, sometimes I say, "I don't believe that." On rare occasion, I might even argue the point, if I think it will do any good. But generally I don't try to argue with them, their mind is made up, despite the facts. I have a friend or two that is racist. They are friends in spite of their racism. I've learned that I will never change their mind, no matter what I say, no matter what kind of example I am in their life. I have about 3 choices: (1) don't have them as friends, (2) leave their presence (3) argue. I often chose 2, sometimes by not seeing these friends as often as I might otherwise. If pressed, (and several shots of burboun under my belt), I'll choose 3, but it has never made any difference. I guess they care about me despite my belief that the amount of melanin in the skin is not indicative of worth.
Religion seems to be in the same category, only most people don't know it. I feel they are making blatantly stupid statements ("Jesus loves you"), but what is the chance they will ever believe otherwise? There is some, but not a lot. We generally believe what we've been taught to believe, even if it makes no sense. It takes an awful lot of soul searching to do otherwise.
Sometimes I feel guilty. Am I taking the easy way out by not bothering to point out the fallacy in their statements? Maybe so, but I think mostly I prove the fallacy by living a decent life without resort to platitudes. It's probably not good enough, but about all I can manage.
I very much enjoyed this piece. I've linked to it on my blog (http://dmiessler.com) and am going to submit it to Digg and Reddit. Well done, man. This is a tough one for all of us.
Hey, thanks! I never knew that my choice of "faith" versus "not faith" was a "dysfunctional mental habit[sic]."
I will not dwell overly long on the fallacy of composition in the "friend" story in the post.
But, I do feel so much more tolerated and respected by my "not faith" brothers and sisters!
If you or Harris don't have the courage of your convictions to say what you really believe about the fundementalists, don't blame the rest of us "moderates" or "theist-lites."
As for me, if my friends prefer me not to make remarks to them invoking my deity or beliefs, I'll trust them to let me know, or let it not matter as its just a "dysfunctional mental habit[sic]" or discuss faith, myth and belief as I have here on this blog. Being a "theist" is probably no different than being Republican, or some such other issue for which some atheits say they are tolerant of but, don't slander people.
Yours in my dysfunctional mental habit, Tim
Erich,
I hope that you will be just as thorough-going when people make wild claims such as "all people are endowed with inalienable rights" and other such nonsense. As you know, any such rights are completely imaginary and cannot be supported by the findings of science.
Are you with Grumpy in condemning any parent who considers the birth of a wanted child a miracle? "After all, childbirth is a merely a normal biological process: no more 'a miracle' than the bowel movement I had this morning," sez Mr. Grumps.
If so, you are entering serious curmudgeon territory and I recommend a thorough study of Mr. Gradgrind's
Literal Answers to Rhetorical Questions
"To best understand life one should employ a naturalistic worldview free of supernatural elements."
For some reason this seems like a stretch. Maybe it's the word "should" or "best" or "life".
I prefer the slightly more politically correct version: "To understand and appreciate life one may employ a naturalistic worldview free of supernatural elements free of faith."
Hello
Read my comment to Daniel's blog.
Plus, If I were to create a card that describes my beliefs, I would create a card that defines my beliefs in positive terms – "I believe that X is true" rather than "I believe that Y is not true". I like to define myself in terms of what I am and not what I am not.
I want people who read my hypothetical card to see my deep truth, and not a list of things I am not.
— Arik
Vicki writes: "I hope that you will be just as thorough-going when people make wild claims such as 'all people are endowed with inalienable rights' and other such nonsense. As you know, any such rights are completely imaginary and cannot be supported by the findings of science."
Why do some people, like Vicki, insist on seeing moral questions as either-or propositions: either rights are inalienable or they are completely imaginary. In fact, what works best in a given situation usually depends upon the particular details of that situation. Even behaviors we would usually consider abhorrent (e.g., infanticide, cannibalism, euthanasia, etc.) can all be rational behaviors in some situations.
Moreover, different human societies vary in the degree to which their human rights policies produce successful communities; hence, we cannot say that human rights are either inalienable or completely imaginary or unscientific. Over the long term, some human rights (e.g., life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc.) clearly work better than others (e.g., anarchy, torture, genocide, etc.).
As regards Vicki's views on the "miracle" of conception, exactly where is the dividing line between biological functions that are "miracles" and those that are not? If a pregnancy is a "miracle," then what about a miscarriage? What about a pregnancy that produces a deformed baby or conjoined twins? What about a pregnancy that results from fertility treatment? What about a litter of puppies — is that a miracle? What about a cloned sheep? What about a culture of bacteria? Moving away from conception, what about a kidney stone — is that a miracle? What about a sneeze? What about a malignant tumor? Sorry, Vicki, but I just don't see a bright line separating "miracles" from ordinary, everyday biological events.
For dignity's sake I think a safe place to draw the line on what constitutes a miracle would be at the bathroom door. Nobody (I speak for Grumpy here) meant to disrespect anyone's baby/child in this comparison. What we are saying is that a biological function such as digestion is a complex process, and while possibly not on the same staggering scale of complexity as conception and child-rearing, no rational person can deny that the similarity certainly does exist, at least on some biological levels. There are no such thing as miracles as the bible describes.
In my circles, a miracle is when you get an Ace on the River (texas hold-em poker), or if you get a perfect score in Mortal Kombat.
Dear me, it's a long time since anyone accused me of black-and-white either/or thinking, Grumpy. I think that you and I have different ideas about the words "imaginary" and "fictional." To you, they can only be perjorative.
I submit that the idea of "inalienable rights" is just that, an idea. It has no independent existence outside of our brains. Other successful cultures (if you measure success by longevity) have been organized around principles such as filial duty and social harmony. Ultimate values such as these are in some sense arbitrary, that is, culturally determined. Science can inform our choice between competing values and courses of action, but values are arrived at by implicit or explicit cultural consensus.
Finally, re: your comment "I just don’t see a bright line separating “miracles” from ordinary, everyday biological events."
Does it have to be either/or? 🙂
Vicki: you write:
I haven’t yet met anyone who falls to his knees and talks to “inalienable rights.” Such “rights” are widely recognized to be useful constructs, not real-life things. Do people talk about them as though “inalienable rights” really existed? Absolutely. But such rights are only "things" by virtue of ontological metaphor. We talk about inalienable rights, not to them. They don’t talk to us. They don’t tell us to bow down and worship them. Same thing for "love," "beauty," "inflation" and the “soul.”
Your comment raises the important issue that “God” means many things to many people. The term “God” encompasses a continuum of meaning, ranging from a poetic device to a real-life sentient Supreme Being who hurls people into physical torment after they die. The Einsteinian God, for example, is not an entity that anyone would talk to, by definition. To the extent that someone makes reference to “God” (the Einsteinian version), it does not suggest any detachment from the real world. The term “God” is there used as a poetic device, a recognition that somehow the universe is laden throughout with regularities that can often be elegantly expressed scientifically. Use of this term (the Einsteinian God) does not invite any form of intervention by curmudgeonly people like me. I understand the use of that term points to a complex aspect of the real world.
On the other hand, those who refer to “Jesus” are almost always invoking an historical claim based upon gap-strewn, apocryphal and self-contradictory evidence. In mixed company, they are almost always using such assertions as a challenge that everyone else should also buy into that same literal belief in a person who had magic qualities. They are almost always asserting (without any reliable evidence), that Jesus is a person who was dead, but is now alive, a person with whom they regularly communicate in English. Of course, there are some people (a minority, in my experience) who use the term “Jesus” only as an ideal for living a life-style characterized by kindness, generosity and forgiveness. For those people, “Jesus” is a social construct much like an “inalienable right.”
When people start talking about inalienable rights in such a way that they are reifying the ontological metaphor (making real what is not real), then it’s time to pull out one of my “Miranda style warning cards” (it functions as an existential life-preserver!) and bring them back to earth. Here’s a clue for when to use the card: if someone starts kissing plaques bearing the phrase “inalienable rights,” then they deserve it if I hand them one of my cards. The purpose of my card is to say “Sorry, our communication has suddenly become incoherent to me based on a religious/magic claim you’ve just made.”
I don’t believe in an objectivist theory of words. Words don’t simply “mean what they mean.” People use words in different ways, sometimes to invoke a variety of rich metaphorical networks. “Miracle” is a great example. When I use the term "miracle" without sarcasm, I'm referring to an extraordinary occurrence. Perhaps it was complex, beautiful or difficult to conceptualize, or it was just an extremely unlikely occurrence. But I never use it to refer to magic occurrences. I am not confused or offended, for example, when I read of the “Miracle at Dunkirk.”
On the other hand, other people use the term “miracle” to claim that an event is impossible to explain by reference to natural laws. Those people often claim that a Being who resides outside of the vast web of physical causality waved his hand and did magic; and then something that was entirely unhinged from physical reality changed physical reality.
To the extent that someone uses “miracle” in that latter sense, feel free to hand them one of my “Miranda-style cards.” To fail to raise this issue and, instead, to let someone else prattle on, would be patronizing and demeaning. As I argued in my post, friends don’t do this to their true friends.
Rather that be accused of "prattling on", I assert that "true friends" may consider it doesn't matter (as its "not true") and therefore doesn't matter, say something, discuss what's so non-judgmentally, or decline future contact if "faith" be so offenseive to those which choose "not faith."
I reject the comparison of the choice of "faith" to overt racism for the same reasons I reject the same for the choice "not faith." The overall tone of these writings smacks of some intellectual or moral superiority for those of the "not faith" belief system. Can't we just all get along?
Nice reply, Vicki. As regards black & white thinking, it seemed to me your previous comment made an extreme and unsupportable assertion based on binary thinking; viz., that inalienable rights are "completely imaginary and cannot be supported by the findings of science." That seemed to me to be incorrect, for the reasons I gave. While I agree with you that "inalienable rights" are "completely imaginary" in the sense that they are products of the human mind, they are clearly not "completely imaginary" in the same way that, say, unicorns or leprechauns are completely imaginary. To the extent that we attach the label "inalienable rights" to those rights which seem fundamental to human dignity, to a successfully functioning society, etc., they become "real" in some sense.
As regards finding a bright line between miracles and non-miracles, I was assuming that *your* use of the word "miracle" implied the intervention of a divine being, in which case, yes, I believe it would be either/or: either something happens because of divine intervention, or it does not. If you were declaring pregnancy to be a "miracle" in the sense of it being merely marvelous or wonderful (and not supernatural), then no dividing line need exist. Nevertheless, I would still argue that pregnancy is no more a "miracle" than is any other routine biological function that humans have been performing for millions of years; i.e., that such "miracles" are just as imaginary as are the things we call "inalienable rights." My viewpoint is likely colored by the fact that most of the times I have heard someone use the word "miracle," they were using it in the sense of "caused by a supernatural god." If something is merely marvelous or wonderful (or amazing, unlikely, unexplainable, etc.), I prefer those words over "miracle."
Hm. I understand the spirit of this post, but I suppose I don't agree with its concluding solution. I definitely see two clear problems that these Miranda Warnings attempt to solve: 1) Religious moderates get to slide by on fuzzy thinking without challenge, further promoting thoughless religiousity, and 2) Nonbelievers tend to downplay their atheism so as not to cause a ruckus or make anyone uncomfortable, thereby making nonbelief a strickly hush-hush position.
But the more straightforward solution seems like the more appropriate: if you want someone to know about your lack of supernatural belief, tell them! It will only make it easier for other people who feel the same way to do so in the future. It always amazes me how simply saying, "I don't believe in God/the supernatural/ I am an atheist" can give more timid acquaintances the courage to say so, too. At the same time, openly and proudly voicing one's position tends to get religious moderates thinking just a little bit more.
But handing out literature detailing your specific beliefs (or nonbeliefs) seems, well, a little passive aggressive or a little condescending. It certainly doesn't have that intent, but it feels like some kind of administrative memo, rather than a personal statement. The stubbornly religious love to hand out pamphlets and literature, too, so maybe the association just comes from that simularity. As for me, I'll stick to giving personal accounts of my nonbelief verbally.
You notice a person drowning in a river. What should you do? If you agree with Jefferson, you should consider yourself a "social animal" with an "instinct" to compassion, whether you believe in a god or not. If you are a humanist, you will empathize with the sufferings of another human being. If you are a Christian, you will believe that person's life has value because he or she was "created in the image of God."
"How Can an Atheist Be Moral? For Goodness Sake."
http://www.ffrf.org/about/bybarker/goodness.php
Ben: This Barker article is well thought out. Thanks. Isn't that what it comes down to? Whether people act decently rather than the things to which they attribute their actions. Or maybe that is giving believers too much credit for their actions that are motivated by fear of burning in hell.
Anthropologist Dr. Margaret Mead observed in February 1971: "It is an open question whether any behavior based on fear of eternal punishment can be regarded as ethical or should be regarded as merely cowardly."
Wow. How sad that you guys waste so much time and energy on this. It seems to be a freedom for anyone to say what they think or believe, except for Christians. I feel sad for you guys because you are scared. You can't believe in something you can't see or feel, so you think there has to be a scientific reason for everything. I have faith. I have some of the answers and I don't have some of the answers. But faith is knowing that having all the answers isn't important. I have no doubts at all. I know what happens when someone dies. I know what's going to happen to me. And I have great peace. I also know that a christian should be able to say whatever they want, just like you have the right to disagree, or swear, or be rude, etc. I don't believe any of what you are saying, yet you get to say it. Give me the same freedoms.
mir•a•cle (noun) – A surprising event not explicable by scientific or natural laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.
The thing on which Erich seems to like to place his emphasis, "mindless repetition" as a source of theistic beliefs, doesn't account for those of us who are "religious moderates" or somewhere on the sliding scale between them and "fundamentalists," who arrived at our beliefs after trying his.
Even Shakespeare said (in "Hamlet"), "There are more things in earth and heaven, Horatio, than are allowed for in your philosophy." [Possibly not verbatim, but I don't carry a pocket Shakespeare with me.][FYI, I often don't have a Bible or Gospel, either.]
C.S. Lewis was, and through his writings continues to be, one of the more articulate examples of someone who considered the facts and ended up becoming a Christian. Try "Surprised by Joy," why don't you?
This is the USA, and in this America it is simple. Those who believe can become RICH, and those who don't, they have one H*LL of a time becoming RICH. True, some of those who believe are not RICH; but they want it that way (why, who knows). So I'd rather be a RICH coward than a brave corpse.
Ken: Incredible man though he was, Shakespeare didn't say that line (as you almost admit). Shakespeare wrote that line to be uttered by Hamlet. Shakespeare also wrote THIS line to be uttered by Polonius: "This above all: to thine own self be true." Does this prove that Shakespeare put humans above "God"?
In the work you mention, C.S. Lewis concluded that "Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Sorry. I can't follow him. If, after I die, I discover that there is indeed an afterlife, I will present myself as one who carefully followed the evidence and that I was willing to say "I don't know" where I didn't know. I don't believe in the God of most Christians. I MIGHT believe in the God of Einstein. http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1203
"It seems to be a freedom for anyone to say what they think or believe, except for Christians."
I don't see anyone censoring Christians here. In fact, the atheists here actually seems to enjoy input from Christians! Shudder to think…
I too would like to know what makes "clocks" tick. I wish you hadn't scurried away so fast, pretty, pretty Bonita…
At the risk of causing you to repeat yourself, is it really necessary to contradict people just because they hold some belief that you don't share? I have friends who think the Red Sox are going to win the pennant this year, who believe their children are brilliant, and who assert that they are descended from an "indian princess". I see no objective evidence for any such things, but I also don't see that they are damaging me, so I tend to leave them alone.
I don't find it difficult to interpret "you are in my prayers" as "I wish you well", or "God bless you for that" as "I appreciate your effort", and it seems to me that it's best not to split hairs in such instances. There are many times when I DO feel the need to push back on christian moderates – when they speak of the U.S. as a "christian nation" for example, or assert that nativity scenes in public places or Christmas parties don't give preference to a specific religion, and I'd rather save my ammunition for such cases, where I do think their beliefs, no matter, how moderate, are directly dangerous.
Also, I have to admit that a couple of points on your card seem a tad dogmatic to me. Asserting that there is no such thing as x is contrary to the scientifc method, which I would have expected you to support. You could certainly say that there is no evidence for x, but that's a bit of a different statement. On the other hand, you did call these points out as your beliefs, and you have as much right ot be dogmatic and imprecise in your beliefs as does a christian.
If I were going to use a card, I think I'd be a bit more gently, maybe something like this: "In the course of our conversation, you made several religious assertions that you treated as fact. I appreciate the sentiments behind your works, but I want to remind you that I don't share your religious views….."
Again, that's just me, and I'm not sure I really have a dog in this fight. I'm buddhist. Definitely not a christian, but not an atheist either.
I do think this article brings up a very important point: Christian assumptions permeate American society today, and in many cases lead to subtle but pervasive discrimination. So, while I personally don't plan to call people out for using religious language to express kind sentiments, I am going to speak up every time I hear an assumption or assertion that gives christianity a priviledged position.
Wani
If people who study the bible really paid attention to what they were reading and do a little research they would find themselves caught up in eons and eons of re-played mythology. I think most religion would go away if it were not such profitable business, those television minutes are not cheep. When friends bless me, or pray for me I just let it go if it makes them feel good have at it. They all know where I stand on the subject, having been a minister many years ago . I finally took a long look at what I was instructing people in , and that it just was not for real. I did an about face and shocked a lot of people. So the friends that I have left are rally not to pushy . When I find my self confronted with the real zealots I am pretty well armed and they usually back off. However religion has been the at the front of most of the worlds conflicts and will one day destroy man kind. Which will probably be a good thing and let this old earth replenish its self, that is until the sun finally burns out.
Let's have some live and let live. You believe what you want to believe, just DON'T try to convert me to your beliefs. I'll do the same.