Theistic Non-Conservatives, What's Worse: Atheists or Conservatives?

[Marius27]

Easily Bible-thumping Conservatives. I've never had an atheist tell me I'm going to Hell and am a child molesting abomination. Militant atheists can be annoying, but they're less common than Conservatives and far less offensive.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

It is a question I struggle with every day to be honest. The internet, college culture and vast sectors of pop culture are full to the brim of unabashed atheists who have made it their mission to bash with a rock everything and anything that can remotely be tied to religion and/or spirituality, while at the same time playing the persecution card because someone out there put up a cross memorial in a park. It's like dealing with the zombie crowd from "Walking Dead." Tolerance is what they preach but it is the last word one can use to describe them.

I turn to Christians, thankful that they at least are open to spiritual questions and ideas...but then in the rest of the internet and most of the rest of society, in America at least, they are the "my way or eternal torture in hell way, case closed cause the Bible said it,unrepentant gays, Muslims, Catholics (sometimes) gonna join ya...Jesus was awesome except for all that vaguely anti capitalist stuff he said like helping the poor".... Love is what they preach but it is the last word one can use to describe them.

And then I think well forget this, at least the atheists aren't that impervious to logic and bam - back to the start.

It is a lonely world for the theistic non-conservative. Sometimes I feel that I'm talking to myself.

I would say that everybody you are describing is mired in an extremely Western-centric, modernist-centric worldview.

My experience has been that if one reads a lot of work by post-modern theorists, a lot of work in cultural anthropology and work that offers the viewpoint of non-Westerners, the oppressed, etc. then I do not feel so lonely. Seriously.

I Don't Believe in Atheists, by Chris Hedges, is a good place to start.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Unless you are Richard Dawkins and push the asinine notion that teaching children about religion is tantamount to child abuse.

Dawkins point dealt more about pushing fire and brimstone on kids, which can certainly cause nightmares and emotional trauma.

However, filling your child's head full of nonsense, denying them access to alternate views and teaching them to unquestioningly believe it cripples their critical thinking development. While abuse might not be the right word for this scenario in all cases, it certainly hinders your child.

Lastly, if you had read his work, Dawkins is in favour of teaching religion to children. However, he's in favour of teaching all religions, along with arguments for and against instead of sheltering children from opposing beliefs. It will not only educate them about other cultures, and other beliefs, it will help them develop critical thinking and let them know that their religion is not the only one out there.

I'm sure one of the main reasons he's also supports that idea is because it would break the cycle of indoctrination before it gets a hold on kids. One or two generations of kids under a system like that would see church attendance numbers, and the number of people who consider themselves religious plummet.

 

[Strathos]

I tend not to stereotype people, so it depends on the individual.

 

[katautumn]

Dawkins point dealt more about pushing fire and brimstone on kids, which can certainly cause nightmares and emotional trauma.

Who really teaches fire and brimstone any more? Telling a child their eternal fate if they don't accept Jesus as their Savior is realistic. No need for fire and brimstone tactics, though.

However, filling your child's head full of nonsense,

What qualifies as "nonsense" is subjective.

denying them access to alternate views

Most people know there are alternate views out there, even among the most sheltered home schooled kids. Most people know atheists, Muslims, Wiccans, etc. exist in the world.

and teaching them to unquestioningly believe it cripples their critical thinking development.

How so?

While abuse might not be the right word for this scenario in all cases, it certainly hinders your child.

But why would any parent of a religious persuasion teach their child to question their faith? I'm not saying that you should teach your children to never ask hard questions and examine their faith, but why would you set out to try and debunk your own religious ideology as a teaching tool?

Lastly, if you had read his work, Dawkins is in favour of teaching religion to children. However, he's in favour of teaching all religions, along with arguments for and against instead of sheltering children from opposing beliefs. It will not only educate them about other cultures, and other beliefs, it will help them develop critical thinking and let them know that their religion is not the only one out there.

Here again, everyone pretty much understands there are other religions out there. That doesn't mean you should teach your kids that all those other religions are right and yours may be wrong. I don't know why anyone would talk down their own religion for the sake of being educational.

I'm sure one of the main reasons he's also supports that idea is because it would break the cycle of indoctrination before it gets a hold on kids. One or two generations of kids under a system like that would see church attendance numbers, and the number of people who consider themselves religious plummet.

Which is something militant atheists love, I'm sure.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Who really teaches fire and brimstone any more? Telling a child their eternal fate if they don't accept Jesus as their Savior is realistic. No need for fire and brimstone tactics, though.

Plenty of people still teach fire and brimstone, especially fundamentalists. Hell houses are another example of this, and they're fairly widespread. They may no longer teach fire and brimstone in your particular church, however there's still plenty of it out there.

And telling a child their eternal fate (burning for eternity), without any real evidence in an attempt to scare/traumatize them into believing what you have to say, is clear abuse. If what you have to say is true, you don't need threats to scare them into line.

What qualifies as "nonsense" is subjective.

That's true, however the stories contained in the Bible are no less nonsensical than many other types of mythology.

Most people know there are alternate views out there, even among the most sheltered home schooled kids. Most people know atheists, Muslims, Wiccans, etc. exist in the world.

It's not a matter of knowing that there are alternate views out there, it's a matter of knowing and understanding what those views are.

For example, you're an adult. You know Islam exists, however have you ever read the koran? Do you even know what the difference between a Sunni and Shia Muslim is? Are you familiar with anything at all about the religion apart from the fact that it was founded by Mohammad?

Odds are, probably not. And even if you are, the vast majority of people in the states aren't. Same goes for knowledge about Wicca, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, and in many cases even other forms of Christianity (as many if not most Christians haven't ever read the Bible or been exposed to other denominations).

Knowing there are opposing views is useless unless you know what those opposing views are.

How so?

I'll get to that in the reply to the next paragraph, as it's a shining example of my point.

But why would any parent of a religious persuasion teach their child to question their faith? I'm not saying that you should teach your children to never ask hard questions and examine their faith, but why would you set out to try and debunk your own religious ideology as a teaching tool?

Because a responsible parent who wants to teach their children as best as possible should teach their children to question everything... including what the parent has to say. Teaching blind obedience (i.e. do this or believe this because I (or god) says so) does nothing to help the child, or teach them why they should accept or reject ideas.

It teaches the child to find the information they need in order to accept, reject or withhold judgment on claims, which is the very basis of critical thinking. Teaching blind obedience or teaching them not to question deprives them of this incredibly useful life skill.

Furthermore, you should set out in an attempt to debunk things you believe, may it be religious or otherwise. If despite your best efforts you can not debunk your own beliefs, then odds are your belief is correct or truthful. If you can debunk your own belief with solid evidence, odds are you were once mistaken about something, and you have corrected that mistake, improving your understanding of the world around you. Either way, it's a win/win.

Here again, everyone pretty much understands there are other religions out there. That doesn't mean you should teach your kids that all those other religions are right and yours may be wrong. I don't know why anyone would talk down their own religion for the sake of being educational.

Again, it's not a matter of knowing other religions exist, it's a matter of knowing what they believe.

Furthermore, it's not like you should be teaching them "other religions are right and yours may be wrong", as that's a biased perspective. If you want to teach critical thinking, all you do is present the beliefs with no personal judgment on them and allow the kid to examine and understand them. In short, you present it as "any of these religions has the potential to be correct, and they all have the potential to be wrong". Then teach the kid to follow the evidence where it leads to figure out which is which.

Which is something militant atheists love, I'm sure.

First off, Dawkins isn't a "militant" anything. Secondly, if you care about people within our society being as well informed as possible, you'd love that as well.

The fact religion typically relies on the indoctrination of children to survive in my eyes is immoral. If Christianity actually has solid evidence for it, then it's immune to what Dawkins has suggested. Christians shouldn't be worried, in fact, it should serve as a way to boost and strengthen their beliefs if they are indeed true.

But they aren't, the religion relies on people being ignorant of other ideas, and shutting down critical thinking by telling people to believe things that they know don't make any sense on "faith". In fact, they take it a step further and promote the idea that not questioning is a virtue. It's insidious.

I think deep down, most religious people get that too, which is why there's such a backlash against the idea of questioning beliefs.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Furthermore, it's not like you should be teaching them "other religions are right and yours may be wrong", as that's a biased perspective. If you want to teach critical thinking, all you do is present the beliefs with no personal judgment on them and allow the kid to examine and understand them. In short, you present it as "any of these religions has the potential to be correct, and they all have the potential to be wrong". Then teach the kid to follow the evidence where it leads to figure out which is which.

Kids will always take on the biases of their parents and internalize them either by following the parents or rejecting the parents. But its still based on an acceptance or rejection of a bias that's been implanted in their head.

If you present a kid the beliefs with "no personal judgment", that position in itself is likely form a bias in the kid. Kids from atheist families grow up to be athiests and kids from theist families grow up to be theist as a general rule. It's unlikely that a kid who was raised to look at religions from an intellectual and unbiased perspective will end up devoting himself emotionally and passionately to a religion because he was taught to be an impassionate observer of religion rather than an active participant.

You say that after giving your kid the "unbiased religion talk", then the kid is free to go research different religions and make his own choices. But you've already indoctrinated him to be an impassionate observer of religion and theism. After your kid collects all the evidence he'll probably end up an atheist or agnostic...just like his parents. In the exact same way, a Christian can be raised to question his beliefs but he has been indoctrinated to be a passionate participant in religion, rather than an impassionate observer. So he will go out and collect his evidence and he'll probably end up as a Christian....just like his parents.

Of course there are thousands of people that don't fit this mold. Theists becoming atheists and atheists becoming theists.

First off, Dawkins isn't a "militant" anything. Secondly, if you care about people within our society being as well informed as possible, you'd love that as well.

Dawkins is a self-professed militant atheist:

Richard Dawkins: Militant atheism | Video on TED.com

Militant atheism isn't about guns or bombs or anything, its a term used to describe atheists who actively want to stamp out religion. And Dawkins is a proponent of that. Based on a number of your posts I would classify you as a "militant atheist" even if you reject the term.

The fact religion typically relies on the indoctrination of children to survive in my eyes is immoral. If Christianity actually has solid evidence for it, then it's immune to what Dawkins has suggested. Christians shouldn't be worried, in fact, it should serve as a way to boost and strengthen their beliefs if they are indeed true.

Does it rely on indoctrination of children? Doesn't atheism also to some degree? Both present a worldview that is shown to children and children grow up under this worldview and then they are left to make their own decisions as adults.

religion relies on people being ignorant of other ideas, and shutting down critical thinking by telling people to believe things that they know don't make any sense on "faith". In fact, they take it a step further and promote the idea that not questioning is a virtue. It's insidious.

I've questioned my beliefs plenty. Do you assume that any Christian who says that they've questioned their beliefs hasn't really done it? Anyone who has "truly" questioned their beliefs will "obviously" be an atheist, right?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Kids will always take on the biases of their parents and internalize them either by following the parents or rejecting the parents. But its still based on an acceptance or rejection of a bias that's been implanted in their head.

If you present a kid the beliefs with "no personal judgment", that position in itself is likely form a bias in the kid. Kids from atheist families grow up to be athiests and kids from theist families grow up to be theist as a general rule. It's unlikely that a kid who was raised to look at religions from an intellectual and unbiased perspective will end up devoting himself emotionally and passionately to a religion because he was taught to be an impassionate observer of religion rather than an active participant.

You say that after giving your kid the "unbiased religion talk", then the kid is free to go research different religions and make his own choices. But you've already indoctrinated him to be an impassionate observer of religion and theism. After your kid collects all the evidence he'll probably end up an atheist or agnostic...just like his parents. In the exact same way, a Christian can be raised to question his beliefs but he has been indoctrinated to be a passionate participant in religion, rather than an impassionate observer. So he will go out and collect his evidence and he'll probably end up as a Christian....just like his parents.

Of course there are thousands of people that don't fit this mold. Theists becoming atheists and atheists becoming theists.

I don't agree, you can present the facts without commentary about what you happen to believe. Of course you have to be very careful to prevent biases from entering conversations like that, but it can be done.

Furthermore, you aren't teaching your kid to be an impassionate observer at all. If one religion has solid evidence to back it, the kid would be wise to accept that religion as true to a fundamentalist level.

Dawkins is a self-professed militant atheist:

Richard Dawkins: Militant atheism | Video on TED.com

Militant atheism isn't about guns or bombs or anything, its a term used to describe atheists who actively want to stamp out religion. And Dawkins is a proponent of that. Based on a number of your posts I would classify you as a "militant atheist" even if you reject the term.

Well, I wouldn't define militant atheism as that way, but if that's how you define it, then by your definition, sure, then I am. So what?

Keep in mind, I'm not in favour of stamping out anything by force or legislation, I'm in favour of stamping it out through honest open debate and education. Changing peoples minds by an open examination of their views, and mine. The simple reality is, if kids were not indoctrinated from an early age, people would largely look at the holy books of various religions and laugh about how people used to honestly believe that stuff. To quote Ralph Waldo Emerson, "the religion of one age is the literary entertainment of the next".

Does it rely on indoctrination of children? Doesn't atheism also to some degree? Both present a worldview that is shown to children and children grow up under this worldview and then they are left to make their own decisions as adults.

How can you possibly indoctrinate someone into a lack of belief? That's nonsensical.

I've questioned my beliefs plenty. Do you assume that any Christian who says that they've questioned their beliefs hasn't really done it? Anyone who has "truly" questioned their beliefs will "obviously" be an atheist, right?

You may have questioned your beliefs, and who knows, you may be privy to evidence that I am not and may have justifiable reasons for holding your beliefs. I have never met a Christian who actually falls into that category and has been able to share that evidence though.

 

[poolerboy0077]

It seems silly to attach such outrage over people attacking ideologies. While conservative Bible thumpers are certainly obnoxious and nutty, they at least are coherent and consistent in the conclusions they draw given their religious premises. The same cannot be said of moderates, however tolerant and p.c. they may be.

 

[Strathos]

Same goes for knowledge about Wicca

Wicca was invented by a man named Gerald Gardner in the 50s, based on what he imagined "witches" believed. It's about as legitimate of a religion as Scientology.

 

[Paradoxum]

It seems silly to attach such outrage over people attacking ideologies. While conservative Bible thumpers are certainly obnoxious and nutty, they at least are coherent and consistent in the conclusions they draw given their religious premises. The same cannot be said of moderates, however tolerant and p.c. they may be.

Why don't you think moderate and liberal Christians are just as consistent? Some would deny that the Bible is inerrant, or deny a simplistic interpretation of the Bible.

Also, it sounds like you think consistency is more important than morality. So it is better to be consistently wrong (and immoral), rather than a little inconsistent and moral?

 

[Marius27]

It seems silly to attach such outrage over people attacking ideologies. While conservative Bible thumpers are certainly obnoxious and nutty, they at least are coherent and consistent in the conclusions they draw given their religious premises. The same cannot be said of moderates, however tolerant and p.c. they may be.

I wouldn't agree. Conservatives cherry pick constantly. There is very little logic or consistency in their beliefs.

 

[Gadarene]

I wouldn't agree. Conservatives cherry pick constantly. There is very little logic or consistency in their beliefs.

This is partly why I don't rate the actual methodology of liberal vs conservative Christians either way.

Liberal Christians still cherry pick as much as conservatives do, it is just fortunate the end result is far less sociopathic.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Why don't you think moderate and liberal Christians are just as consistent? Some would deny that the Bible is inerrant, or deny a simplistic interpretation of the Bible.

Also, it sounds like you think consistency is more important than morality. So it is better to be consistently wrong (and immoral), rather than a little inconsistent and moral?

You can tell objectively that someone is being inconsistent but morality is subjective opinion. I find that many inconsistent people tailor their morality in order for it to conform to their inconsistency i.e. they rationalize that their behavior is moral because of circumstances even if the actions they take are contradictory from one circumstance to the next. Example: stealing from a rich person or corporation is moral or at least not immoral but stealing from a poor person is immoral. While many consistent people are consistent in order to conform to their morality i.e. they will act in the precisely same manner under all circumstances because they believe it is their actions alone that are either moral or immoral and the situation under which the action is taken is irrelevant. Example: stealing is always immoral.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Wicca was invented by a man named Gerald Gardner in the 50s, based on what he imagined "witches" believed. It's about as legitimate of a religion as Scientology.

Really... I didn't know that. Thanks! I've never really looked into Wicca much at all, I think I'll do some reading up on it's formation now

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I don't agree, you can present the facts without commentary about what you happen to believe. Of course you have to be very careful to prevent biases from entering conversations like that, but it can be done.

I disagree. Everything you say, do and think is coloured by your biases. Everything you read has been shaped by other people's biases.

Furthermore, you aren't teaching your kid to be an impassionate observer at all.

Yes you are! You are teaching your kid about religion as if its an academic lecture, not a spiritual experience.

If you really want to "teach" your kid about different religion, rather than just having conversations with them about it on an academic level regarding the history of the religion and the basic tenets, you need to fully immerse yourself in the culture associated with that religion and have them fully experience it by taking them to the Sikh temple and the Jewish synagogue and the Christian church and the Buddhist monastery; Enroll them in a TM Meditation class and spiritual yoga. I actually think that would be pretty cool for the child to experience except they would probably be bored and would rather play with their friends or something

I can just hear the kid complaining to his friends, "Ugh, my dad is dragging me out to this stupid church/temple/synagogue again. He's so lame, why can't I have a cool dad?"

If one religion has solid evidence to back it, the kid would be wise to accept that religion as true to a fundamentalist level.

I think if a kid was only ever shown religion and spirituality on an academic level, they would be far less inclined to become religious or spiritual because of the bias they inherited from their parents. Perhaps we can agree to disagree here.

"Evidence" relies on human interpretation...which is influenced by bias. People will naturally reject or be more skeptical towards "evidence" that is contrary to their preconceived biases versus "evidence" that confirms their preconceived biases.

The simple reality is, if kids were not indoctrinated from an early age, people would largely look at the holy books of various religions and laugh about how people used to honestly believe that stuff. To quote Ralph Waldo Emerson, "the religion of one age is the literary entertainment of the next".

I'm not sure I agree with Ralph's quote. Our interpretation of the myth can change, but the myth can still hold important lessons. I think literalism and inerrancy is a passing fad of modern evangelism and has not been the norm amongst academics or scholars. Allegorical interpretations of the Bible have been around since before the Bible existed. Philo of Alexandria interpreted much of the Jewish scriptures as allegory years before Jesus was born.

Hinduism is a great example of a religion where almost all adherents recognize the non-literalism and mythic nature of their spiritual texts but still garners important spiritual lessons from the words. And this is the oldest semi-organized religion in the world where the holy texts of that culture have never reverted to "literary entertainment". Its also a reason why "Hindu fundamentalism" turns up almost nothing in Google except for the teachings of Wendy Doniger who was ironically raised as a Jew in New York City and now pushes for literalism in Hindu teachings...

How can you possibly indoctrinate someone into a lack of belief? That's nonsensical.

As much as atheists try to deny it, atheism does come with its set of general and over-arching views about the universe and how it operates and I'm not sure why atheists so strongly oppose this claim. Some of them ironically oppose it with such strong religious fervour. Most atheists are materialists and naturalists. Those are philosophies and worldviews and lead to biases that you pass on to your children knowingly or unknowingly.

I'm not saying all atheists are the same, nor am I saying they are bound by some doctrine. I'm saying that there is a "norm" worldview which most atheists fall into. Its not a bad thing but I think its important to know that you are going to naturally give biases to your children.

You may have questioned your beliefs, and who knows, you may be privy to evidence that I am not and may have justifiable reasons for holding your beliefs. I have never met a Christian who actually falls into that category and has been able to share that evidence though.

I don't think I am privy to any evidence that both of us can't have. We just interpret the evidence differently.

You look up at the night sky and think, "Wow, this universe is so amazing, I can't believe it all came about by chance and how lucky I am to be here staring up at this sky! I am in such awe of this existence!"

I look up at the night sky and think, "Wow, this universe is so amazing, God is so insane to have created such a marvellous place. How lucky I am to be here staring up at this sky! I am in such awe of God!"

We're both looking at the same sky. And you can think I'm crazy and deluded if you want

 

[Paradoxum]

You can tell objectively that someone is being inconsistent but morality is subjective opinion. I find that many inconsistent people tailor their morality in order for it to conform to their inconsistency i.e. they rationalize that their behavior is moral because of circumstances even if the actions they take are contradictory from one circumstance to the next. Example: stealing from a rich person or corporation is moral or at least not immoral but stealing from a poor person is immoral.

Those actions aren't necessarily contrary though. To assume that all stealing is wrong is just as bad as assuming that cutting someone is always wrong. That would of course count surgery out.

Maybe both are same, but there is no reason to assume that there is no consistent moral system that would say that they are different. (ie: If you think the rich person didn't deserve that money in the first place.)

While many consistent people are consistent in order to conform to their morality i.e. they will act in the precisely same manner under all circumstances because they believe it is their actions alone that are either moral or immoral and the situation under which the action is taken is irrelevant. Example: stealing is always immoral.

Such moral thinking doesn't ask why something is wrong. If there is a reason why something is wrong, then those reasons might not apply in some circumstances. eg: police 'stealing' money back from criminals is justified. eg: stabbing someone isn't wrong if you have to do it to save their life.. such as in the case of doctors. eg: killing someone isn't wrong if they are begging for death as they face incomprehensible pain with no short term hope for a natural death. eg: assault is ok if it is consented to in a boxing ring. eg: 'murdering' someone is ok if it is necessary in self-defence, or the defence of others.

The circumstances change whether an action is right or wrong.

 

[super animator]

This is partly why I don't rate the actual methodology of liberal vs conservative Christians either way.

Liberal Christians still cherry pick as much as conservatives do, it is just fortunate the end result is far less sociopathic.

Who gets the role of determining cherry picking, I quite curious.

 

[HighwayMan]

Liberal Christians still cherry pick as much as conservatives do, it is just fortunate the end result is far less sociopathic.

If by "cherry pick" you mean trying to look at the Bible and the questions of life in an intelligent way by taking into account various factors and rejecting the dogma of conservatives while still being open to and accepting some main theological ideas based on reason, then sure. Atheists just don't get or don't want to accept that you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

It's the same type of thinking when atheists question or refuse to accept that a supposedly highly progressive and liberal figure like Obama is also a strong Christian. They believe that the only options are that you are either "cherry picking" or are not really using honest reasoning, for if you did, you'd throw all religion in the trash bin. Atheists try to create the idea that they are so aggressive toward religion because conservatives bring real harm to society, but the truth is they are just as spiteful toward anyone with any kind of spiritual leaning. It's a close-minded yes or no world for them.

not to self: at least I feel like responding to some atheist comments, the "liberals would have hated Jesus" I have no desire to touch.

 

[Gadarene]

If by "cherry pick" you mean trying to look at the Bible and the questions of life in an intelligent way by taking into account various factors and rejecting the dogma of conservatives while still being open to and accepting some main theological ideas based on reason, then sure. Atheists just don't get or don't want to accept that you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

It's the same type of thinking when atheists question or refuse to accept that a supposedly highly progressive and liberal figure like Obama is also a strong Christian. They believe that the only options are that you are either "cherry picking" or are not really using honest reasoning, for if you did, you'd throw all religion in the trash bin. Atheists try to create the idea that they are so aggressive toward religion because conservatives bring real harm to society, but the truth is they are just as spiteful toward anyone with any kind of spiritual leaning. It's a close-minded yes or no world for them.

not to self: at least I feel like responding to some atheist comments, the "liberals would have hated Jesus" I have no desire to touch.

And when one points out what I pointed out, note how a self-described liberal Christian responds in pretty much the the same way as a conservative Christian does, replete with daft generalisations about atheists.

I don't know where you're getting your generalisations from, but most atheists would love to have more liberal Christians around. It is certainly more preferable to conservative Christianity, but it is still nonetheless a baseless belief, so it would not exactly stop the debate on the validity of it. Debating the validity of an idea is not hostility, either.

I just think it's worth reminding ourselves every now and again that liberal Christians aren't so different in some respects from the conservative Christians they decry. You each think the other cherry-picks, for one.