I recently entered into a conversation with an atheist that was to me an eye opener. The following is the conversation between us. It is rather long, but it is also very indicative of the reality of our current cultural climate. This conversation starts with the atheist’s original post on her blog. I then commented on the post and the conversation developed from there. My reason for reposting it here on The Faithful Observer is to be open and honest with both Christians and atheists.
Gone are the times of a comfy Christian religion. As I have pointed out previously in conversations about Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, atheists are on the attack, going so far as calling religion a mental disorder and child abuse. Read on.
Original Post
Those Bastards!
I’m sitting at the dinner table; things are wrapping up, and I feel like a rant. We’ve been talking about Bush & Co. again, and the possibilities, if not for impeachment, at least for some significant change, so that we don’t end up in another mess like this down the road. And we are in such a mess. I just got the issue of Newsweek with Obama and Clinton (Hillary) on the cover. Among many lovely tidbits in it we saw a photograph of a national forest that had been clear cut. You know, when I’d heard that those bastards had opened up some national forests for logging, I’d naively imagined that, though it was bad enough to do any logging there, they’d at least have the decency and sense to log selectively. No. The hill I saw was cut bare, nothing but bare soil and tree stumps, a few stripped logs still willy nilly, waiting to be dragged away. My daughter just about cried, thinking about all the animals that had nowhere to go. My son was outraged. And so am I.
What a horror. What a crime. And though it may not be a charge we can make stick, though most of them may not stick, thanks to Bush’s legalistic wartime-power voodoo, we ought to at least be able to ensure that it doesn’t keep happening.
Let’s face it. As someone said, democracy is the sneaking suspician that more than half the people can be wrong most of the time. I didn’t set out to impugn the intelligence of the average American, but let’s face it. Too many Americans get fooled too often. A handsome smile, the right name, a slick campaign, and some bozo ends up running things. And if he’s surrounded by enough evil people (ahem), then things can go very wrong indeed.
How to make things better? Hubby is an aristocrat, believes that the rule of a capable minority would be better than the rule of the easily fooled majority. Face it. Bush was elected because most Americans aren’t comfortable with smart people. (Unless you believe he was elected through voter fraud, a possibility I have considered.) And why don’t most Americans feel comfortable wth smart people? Because most Americans are stupid. I’m sorry, but it’s true. As Carlin says, think how stupid your average guy is: half the people are dumber than that! And this makes democracy a problem.
But the problem with an aristocracy is, who says who’s meritorious? Now that’s a sticky wicket, isn’t it? So I guess we’re going to have to keep democracy. But we ought to protect ourselves from having to endure this much damage when a bozo with evil buddies gets elected. How can we do that? Well, funny you ask, because I’ve thought about this, too.
We remove corporate influence from government by making corporate contributions illegal. That’s how it is in Canada, and it makes a lot of sense. And we need to terminate the 14th-Amendment personhood of corporations. There’s pretty good evidence that the Supreme Court that allowed that to happen was “unduly influenced,” shall we say (some might say “bribed”), and it’s also been made clear over the past century, culminating in the current catastrophe, that corporations abuse the privacy afforded by such personhood. They need to be transparent, so that the real citizens, the actual people, can be protected by the evil men will do in groups for the almighty dollar.
What’s perfectly ugly about this whole scenario, what I’d gloat about if it didn’t mean death and suffering for so many, for so long into the future, is that Bush&Co. used religion to fool people. Further proof that religous people are suckers. Suckers for a lie.
I bet those Islamic big-wigs live pretty well, too.
My First Comment:
FaithfulObserver Says:
January 25th, 2007 at 9:56 am
I am a little late in responding to this month-old rant, but you know I had to say something.You stated, “What’s perfectly ugly about this whole scenario, what I’d gloat about if it didn’t mean death and suffering for so many, for so long into the future, is that Bush&Co. used religion to fool people.” While this statement is risible in relation to my own voting record, you may well be correct about many religious folks – unlikely, but it is possible.
Still, even if we assume that you are not wrong about your assessment that religious people “were fooled,” the relevant question is where does that get you? You still have to prove why you are right and Bush is wrong. Your assertions (if true) really only prove that religious people vote using religion as there foundation. It seems relevant then to ask, “Okay, so what?” There is no correlation between that foundation and the ultimate conclusion that you have drawn about Bush.
I would recommend you stick to the facts about Bush. We will still disagree, but at least then we can focus on the real issues.
Atheist Response:
honestpoet Says:
January 25th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
You may not live in the Bible Belt, but around here, preachers essentially INSTRUCTED their flocks to vote for Bush & Cheney. What else can I infer from this except that religion was USED to attain victory in the election?I’m not sure what Bush really believes in his heart and don’t pretend to, but I do know for a fact that he took plenty of opportunities to grin on the steps of churches on the way in and out, because I saw the photos. They turned my stomach and made me think of that passage about the men who prayed so loudly in the synagogue, and Christ’s comments on this. In fact I believe there are more than one tale or parable in the Bible that instructs us not to wear our relationship with the Divine on our sleeves or our chests like some kind of badge of honor. Any reward is to be in the other world, no?
Religion, for most today, has become more about networking than anything else. You seem to be one of the rare few, like my mother and her husband, who take Christ’s message seriously. And I do concede, btw, that the overriding message (however whacked some of the words can be, taken out of context) is very positive (however unheeded). I just consider it myth and not history.
Thanks for your comments, in both threads.
My Response:
FaithfulObserver Says:
January 25th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
You’re right. I do not live in the Bible belt. I live in Florida and go to a church where people wear shorts, have piercings, tattoos, mohawks, and just about everything else that would make you believe you were at a rock concert instead of church. My pastor was also once a drug-addicted hippy. I say that simply to point out that Christians do not fit into a single mold, in much the same way that atheists do not.I also understand what you mean about blind religious voting, and I am not saying that politicians did not use religion. Politicians have always used religions. Even Democrats. I am merely trying to point out something that you weren’t clear on and I have hope that you would acknowledge. When you refer to stupid people, you act is if that attribute is exclusive to the religious. The truth is that there are stupid people on both sides of this debate.
Those stupid people on both sides have this same problem in common. They both follow their leaders and their ideals blindly without a full understanding of what they mean. What I am asking of you and those with opposing views of mine is to come to the debate with thoughtfulness and reasonableness. Don’t argue based on the fringe element, but on the issues. As I said in my comment, ultimately there are a number of things we will still disagree on. But, you might begin to see it is not as black and white as you think if you can cast aside the demonizing.
I will continue to read your postings so that I can better understand the opposing viewpoints. I also love to be challenged in my faith!
Atheist Response:
honestpoet Says:
January 25th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
FO, what you need to realize in this conversation is that YOU are the fringe element in Christianity, not the kind of folk I rail against. They’re the average, the ugly hump of the bell curve. That’s the missing piece in the puzzle of your perception.And politicians have NOT always used religion, not in this country, at least. And it’s time we got back to that, a politics of reason and ideas, not superstition and innuendo.
If you actually enjoy having your faith challenged, you should try reading Richard Dawkins. I’m reading an old book of his, Unweaving the Rainbow, right now. He’s one of the most entertaining science writers I’ve ever read, and, read with an open mind, would make even the most faithful observer abandon the god superstition in the blink of an eye. I haven’t read The God Delusion yet, but I’m looking forward to it.
My Response:
FaithfulObserver Says:
January 26th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
If you will oblige me a further dialogue…As for being on the fringe, I certainly hope that I am not in a minority of truly positive Christians, but will be open to observe that in the future. Truth be told, it would have to be one whopper of a statistical anomaly for that to be the case, but you never know. In the end, the overall point remains the same. We all have our own front porch to the world. From that viewpoint, some people have seen the world in a manner that was so skewed they’ve done more bad than good. Truly, some of these – both religious and non-religious – have been wretchedly terrible. Others have observed the world for mostly what it is and have managed to do more good than bad. And still others have been so utterly focused on doing good that they absolutely changed the world and left it better than when they came in.
In the model that I follow, I see people like the many missionaries I have come in contact with that, while focusing on spreading the gospel, did it by educating and feeding the poor, teaching them to be self-sufficient, teaching them about modern medicine, and leading them from a world of mere survival to one of hope. As I look over this world, there are few people that can compare to these people in terms of the sheer positive force that they have fostered and harvested in other people. Whatever that means in the grand scheme of things is a decision that each of us has to make, whether for or against the truthfulness of the Bible. While acknowledging that there is no “logical” correlation between the conclusion and the premise, I ultimately conclude by faith that there is something more to these people than an empty religion.
For me, I choose to live my life for positive change. I choose to have hope, faith, and a commitment to something that I believe is greater than myself. I do that in the same manner as Jesus when he gave the Sermon on the Mount, or when he said, “What you have done for the least of these, you have done for me.” The wisdom in both of those messages goes beyond the grave, whether simply by the traditions of a faith that produces the likes for which I identify above or truly by the spirit. I still value reason and logic, but only with a healthy dose of those other attributes that makes life absolutely priceless!
Atheist Response:
honestpoet Says:
January 27th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
FO, altruism among Christians proves absolutely nothing about the validity of the religion. For all we know, they could be altruistic despite the religion, not because of it. I know of plenty of altruistic folks who practice no religion.It’s actually been found in recent studies that altruism has a biological basis, though whether the signs of altruism in the brain signal a genetic predisposition to altruism or are the remnants of a reward mechanism is not yet clear.
And btw, I think missionaries who spread the gospel are awful people. If those people in other countries with other cultural traditions reject Jesus (which is as understandable as you rejecting Ganesha when told about him by a Hindu), then aren’t they damning them to Hell? If they’d never heard the message, then they can’t be responsible for rejecting it. Missionaries do what they do to score points in heaven. Yuck.
My Response:
FaithfulObserver Says:
January 27th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Clearly, there is not much left to say then. I cast my lot with the missionaries for all of history. Not only do you attack people who deserve to be respected, but you do it with fallacious reasoning – the irony is certainly thick.There is no God, but missionaries are awful for condemning others to hell for spreading the message of Christ? Wow, I am dumbfounded! It is obvious that there must not truly be a Christian bell curve with you. It seems that all Christians MUST have an ulterior motive. Only atheists can do good acts without any further motivation since they don’t believe there is something after this life – how sad.
Finally, if you reread what I wrote, you will find the complete acknowledgment that altruism does not prove anything about the validity of Christianity.
Atheist Response:
honestpoet Says:
January 27th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Whig, when you get metaphorical I can’t help but wonder if you aren’t already baked.And yes, I do believe that Christians do have an ulterior motive, however ego-dystonic (hidden from their consciousness).
We are not going to find common ground here. I essentially see all believers in the paranormal as suffering mental illness. That’s not said in any superior way. I have compassion, having suffered it myself in the past. But in this forum I am not mincing words.
The world is sick. You can’t look at current events and pretend otherwise. The expedient cure is secular humanism.
Human cultures, like all things, evolve or die. People can either help in that, or fight it. Personally, I’d rather help, even though emotionally it can be uncomfortable.
My Response:
FaithfulObserver Says:
January 28th, 2007 at 8:17 am
And the band plays on…Honestpoet,
I understand what you say your view is, but I am simply pointing out that you aren’t putting forth a very convincing argument. You rely on a regular trick of arguers who do not have much of their own logic invested on a subject. Namely, you quote studies or authors like, “It’s actually been found in recent studies that altruism has a biological basis.” Once you throw something like this out, you cannot stand pat and act like that has proven your point. Instead, to be logically coherent, you must further explain yourself.Now even if we take a vague reference such as this as fact, what does that prove? I have no doubt that much of our emotions and behavior have a biological basis, but that means nothing to our debate and only serves to in fact mince words. I am not opposed to you using science, as clearly it is your foundation, but it is silly to use it in such an esoteric manner.
Finally, my use of altruism was an explanation of the behavior I value and not an explanation of the reason I believe in the salvation of the cross. Having already believed in salvation for other reasons, I acknowledge the altruism of missionaries as evidence of something more. Of course, I fully acknowledged that there is no logical correlation between the two that can be proven on this earth. The observation is purely dependent on my faith. That is why I ended the observation with the marker that it was not used as a logical proof of Christianity. Instead, it was merely used to identify the group of Christians I feel I am represented the best by. Unfortuantely, although strangely in my book, that is not a good thing in your eys.
At any rate, lose the vague references and the strawmen and your arguments will be more effective.
Atheist Response:
honestpoet Says:
January 28th, 2007 at 10:49 am
Whig and FO, I’m bored with this and am not going to waste my time with you anymore.I don’t blog to get into debates. I blog to vent my frustration at the status quo and the rampant belief in fairy tales. I don’t expect to change the mind of anyone already infected with this virulent meme. I just hope to help inoculate those not yet infected. Don’t bother posting anymore in this thread. If you want to argue with each other, you can do that at one or both of your blogs.
Good luck.
And then…The final atheist response not in the comment dialogue, but a full post:
I recently disengaged myself from a discussion when it became clear that at least one of the participants viewed the interaction as a debate (I’ll leave a discussion of the other for later…suffice to say it’s rather pointless to continue, for different reasons). And I’d recently done the same thing over at bloggernista’s blog with this homophobic nut-job who’s like a plague there after it became clear that he was interested in the same thing.
The problem with debate is that the participants aren’t listening to their opponents’ points; they’re too busy trying to refute them.
As I said at the recently abandoned thread, I’m not blogging to get into debates. I’m blogging to vent my frustrations with the status quo, and in hopes of effecting some change on it by raising awareness of some things. The toxicity of religion is just one of them, but it’s certainly the one that gets the most opposition. I think we should look at why.
Religion is at the core of most people’s identity. When children ask each other about religion, they don’t say, “What religion do you observe?” or “What’s your spiritual practice?” They say, “What are you?” (What’s really horrible is that around here ADULTS will ask the same question of someone of mixed race.) And when people have the core of their identity challenged, they usually have a strong emotional response.
Having a conversation with someone in this condition usually doesn’t serve much point. They will make their arguments using all sorts of borrowed rhetoric, often citing bits of a book that I don’t consider any sort of authority, and then absolutely refuse to understand that they’re arguing with a diseased organ. Because religion IS a disease. It colors every aspect of one’s perception. And it’s pathological. It causes one to see oneself as incomplete without it. Preachers are no better than plastic surgeons who advertise in women’s magazines with air-brushed pictures of 18-year-old #####. It’s unethical to create your own market. People who actually offer something of value SEE a need and then fill it; they don’t create the need. Preachers convince you you need saving, just like those Egyptian priests with their stories of horrible monsters and demons in the afterlife that their costly Books of the Dead could save you from, then offer salvation with their hands outstretched for a donation.
And these preachers are crazy. Not only do a large number of them have substance-abuse issues, but sexual ones, as well. (Catholic priests aren’t the only ones, they just get more press cuz it’s a deeper pocket to sue.) And they spout their craziness to the sheeple in the pews. Right now there’s a big to-do about the seven-headed anti-Christ. Turns out Obama is the seventh head. (Hilary has been known to be one of the heads for a long time.) Sexist, racist, homophobes giving spiritual advice all across the nation. Egads. And the superstitious gullible fractured Christians lapping it up. Is it any wonder Bush was elected?
And that guy. Sheesh. A man clearly too stupid to hold the office he does who got there only on name recognition and because Americans fear intelligence. We really are on our way to hell in a hand-basket.
So here’s the deal. I don’t want to hear from anyone anymore who believes in an invisible being who created or runs the universe. In Buddhism they have an axiom, that there’s nothing to be gained from concourse with fools. Life’s too short, and I have a lot of work to do. If you make a post trying to argue the case for your imaginary friend, it will be deleted.
If you have braved this full post to get to this point, there are a handful of things I want to comment on, so I will try to keep each one brief.
First, it is not that she walked away from the debate that I find odd, but her reasoning. In a way, it reminded me of one of those fights you’ve had with a brother or sister, when one of you gets so mad that you storm off after saying something completely irrational. Now ultimately, it is her blog and she can run it how she chooses. However, atheists and liberals alike are the ones who constantly champion free speech and open-mindedness. Thus, it hardly seems consistent with those atheist/liberal ideals. Alas, that seems to not apply to Christians because in her mind we are diseased.
Second, the role of atheism now has to be palpably clear to everyone. For a short time, I had thought that Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins were mere entertainment, anomalous in their representation of atheism. However, in my most recent dealings with atheists, it is clear that most, if not all atheists, have bought their rhetoric hook line and sinker. The goal is not coexistence, but eradication of religion. Gone are the days when an atheist could call me a conspiracy theorist for suggesting this, as it is plain as day. A simple review of the writings of Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris, as well as atheists blogs the world over, makes that painfully clear.
Finally, I want to provide a caution to Christians not to minimize this new bolder atheism. Christians have slowly receded back from this cultural debate for some time, allowing a minority to take the reigns and drive the cultural direction of this country. Of course, I am not concerned about this politically, but culturally. If atheism were truly about coexistence that might not even be a problem. However, the objective of atheism (as mentioned above) is not about coexistence. One has no choice but to conclude it is about the eradication of religion.
Now, I will stop short of the doomsday scenario of Revelation and the end-times events. The world of Christianity has seen darker days, so it would not be right for us to wine and cry as if we have been persecuted. However, I will say this. Much of what is written in the Bible and what has been prophesied has already come true, except for the end-times prophecies. And for some time, we have relied on what seemed like vague references in Revelation that could not clearly relate to anything in our day. That, however, is no longer the case. Much of what is found in Revelation is easily translated into current day events and technology, and most importantly, thought processes. Add the new breed of atheism to the mix and we have some serious questions that have to be answered.
