Now that just warms my atheist heart

[aprilstarchild]

Story Here!

There was a campaign on buses in England, paid for by a Humanist group, that just says: "There's probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

Christian groups predictably threw a hissy fit.

Comments

[jenhowell.livejournal.com]

Honestly I'm as annoyed by aspects of the atheist movement (Dawkins and Harris particularly) as I ever have been by fundamentalists.

It's mainly because both sides spend a lot of time telling the other side that they're stupid in some way. They might use different words and techniques, but the sentiment is there - I know better than you.

Regardless of which side is "more right" I find that the approach itself is destructive.

So I would say I tend to identify more with anyone who is in the middle - people who go to church but don't spend their time worrying about whether others do and people who don't believe in god but don't worry about whether others do.

I think that there are legitimate gripes to be made about organized religion interfering in the government and schools, but as long as the separation of church and state is provided for, I have no problem with people expressing their religion.

I almost feel like the more "militant", shall we say, atheist movement fuels religious fundamentalism and vice versa.

I think it ended for me in particular when Sam Harris told The Sun he would rather see all religions end forever than end rape forever.

So while I know that it's unwise to paint all those who share a belief with one brush (all vegans are like PETA, i.e.), Harris and Dawkins piss me off and turn me off of many of these type things.

I just don't see the point. Most of this stuff provokes without achieving any end I can see other than making other people who share the same ideas smile. If you think there is another useful purpose to such t-shirts, bus ads, I am willing to listen, however.

[aprilstarchild.livejournal.com]

I think this comes down to a fundamental disagreement you and I have:

I think that things are scientifically provable, and that there can be such a thing as scientific fact.

Most religious people are happy enough with science until it disagrees with them. Which is silly, because when/if science agrees with them, then of course science would be right, and they'd quote said science all day long.

For instance: if prayer worked, we'd get strong scientific proof of it. We don't. Therefore religious people say we're doing it wrong, or figure out some reason it didn't work that doesn't challenge their beliefs. But if science proved that prayer worked, they would want everyone to know it.

Religious people cannot prove that god exists.

I truly think that many religious people are being intentionally ignorant or stupid. Creationists are stupid, I'm sorry. Science is 100% on the side of evolution. Biology as a subject only makes sense in terms of evolution.

So in that case, I *do* know better than religious people.

You may not like their approach, but whether or not Harris or Dawkins is abrasive to you--either atheism is right, or it's wrong.

And there's definitely a place in the public discourse for people like Dawkins and Harris. There needs to be someone out there who's willing to say the impolite: "You can't prove your religion to be true, and I respect you less for believing in things you can't prove." If a guy tells me Elvis talks to him through his TV he's crazy, but people who say that Jesus talks to them are generally respected, and I do believe there's something wrong with that.

[jenhowell.livejournal.com]

The part I am bothered by is "I respect you less..."

I was raised to think I was better than people who weren't as intelligent as I was. For years I thought that there was nothing wrong with that and it was only natural.

But now I see that that was one of the most toxic aspects of my upbringing. As much as I value my family's focus on education, the attitude that people who have come to different conclusions than me are not to be respected has led me to hurt others and causes me to hurt myself through self-judgment and criticism. After all, if stupid people don't deserve respect if I do something stupid I must not deserve it either.

Judgment based on perceived intellect is now something that I find offensive to a certain extent. I think it's a waste of time and I think it's hurtful rather than helpful.

I think it is important to point out the hypocrisies in our culture - Elvis guy versus Jesus guy (although I'm not sure if I'd say Jesus guy is "generally" respected as being trustworthy) - one can do that without saying the equivalent of "I respect you less..." for it. And I think one can also do it more successfully, building bridges along the way rather than blowing them up.

I also think they fail the subtlety of thought test. Both of them tend to rail against "religion" in general as if the institution were monolithic rather than composed of millions of individuals many of whom do a great deal of good and most of whom do no harm. It's also unsubtle in that religion is viewed as bad in and of itself rather than as one social instrument that may be used for ill. It's like saying that all government is bad because of the evils committed by governments throughout the ages. Now anarchists do argue this to a certain extent and some points can be made in favor of that argument, but it's far from a subtle argument, and it confuses the tool with the people wielding it.

Many atrocities have been and are committed in the name of or as a result of science as well (human medical experiments on unwitting/captive subjects, animal experimentation, the atomic bomb) but that doesn't mean science is bad.

Anyway... We do have disagreements April, but they are far less than you think they are. The main disagreement I have with all of this is whether it's worthwhile to scorn or think less of religion or religious people.

I didn't think it was right when they told me I was going to hell in the 6th grade locker room, but I also don't think it's right to tell them they are idiots for telling me that. What good does that do? How does that convince one person that science is their friend or that we all have something in common and should love each other?

I could see that Dawkins and Harris might cause people to think about these issues who haven't before, and that is a good thing, though I wonder how much the good is lessened by the superior attitude expressed in their works.

And I am glad that atheists feel they have a voice in places where they have been discriminated against. But I question whether Dawkins and Harris provide a voice which will reach across the divide to engage new people or whether they are primarily alienating and will create further negative energy.

I don't have a problem with atheists or people being atheists. I do have a problem with arrogance and negativity.

[aprilstarchild.livejournal.com]

I don't have to be okay with people who believe unprovable things.

Also: Other than that interview in The Sun, have you read Harris? Did you read The End of Faith or Letter to a Christian Nation? And in terms of Dawkins, have you read The God Delusion? Or are you going with things you've heard them say in the media?

Because the way their words can be twisted (not saying The Sun did that) is not a good representation of them. I can loan you The God Delusion if you want.

But if not, I mean, I didn't post that picture/article to have a discussion about whether you like the way atheists present themselves.

To a certain extent, I don't think Dawkins or Harris care whether they're "reaching across the divide" or not. They're saying, Here are the logical arguments against the existence of god, take it or leave it.

And again, how they present the information, or how you and I feel about it, has *nothing* to do with whether or not god exists or science is the best way to find things out, and I think it's important to separate those two things.

[jenhowell.livejournal.com]

You don't have to be okay with it, but how does not being okay with it help you or them?

I have read parts of each of the books. Admittedly, I should read them in full to fully debate anything about them. But I found their tone off-putting enough that I didn't finish it.

As to The Sun they print interviews in full - as in the full question followed by the full answer. Not little snippet quotes, but the person's full thought. So it was not out of context, it was the transcript.

Of course how they present themselves doesn't have to do with the argument itself, but like I said, I have no problem with the argument. I was an atheist for a long time and I respect the atheist position. I also respect people who feel they have a connection with a god(s) and have no problem with it whatsoever as long as they don't attempt to infringe on my rights to not have a religion or to obtain birth control, etc.

If you'd rather not talk about this, that is okay, but I do wonder why things like this bus give people pleasure. To me it seems more intended to provoke people than to cause happiness or help people. There is a place for provocation, of course, but I'm wondering what end the provocation is meant to achieve here.

With provocation like PETA's I can at least usually see a larger end goal - to make people aware that animals are suffering and hopefully cause them to look into it and perhaps change their opinions and lifestyles. But here I'm not certain that I see an end goal worth the provocation.

It's free speech, for sure. And I'm for free speech. And the atheist viewpoint is certainly underrepresented in our culture, so maybe that's reason enough. But it doesn't delight me and it actually seems about as presumptuous to me as someone telling me that I need to be saved. It's like "thank you, bus, but I can think for myself."

[aprilstarchild.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure if I care how it helps me or them.

I didn't find either author's tone off-putting at all. The End of Faith was a hard read because of his writing style (tooooo many footnotes), but honestly, I couldn't put down The God Delusion, I loved it so much. I didn't read the newspaper or any magazines at work (something I usually did) until I finished it. It was just so awesome.

I know The Sun prints things exactly as stated--I was trying to make them the exception and point that out, I'm sorry if that didn't come across.

I think part of the reason for the ad, is not letting the other side have all the say. We get bombarded with religious stuff, so it's a breath of fresh air to have someone reconsider religion. I'm not saying that atheists are necessarily this abused minority, but there's plenty of people who think I'm "un-American" because I'm atheist, and there was that Gallup poll that showed that people were more likely to vote a gay person president than an atheist!

There are lots of ads for all kinds of things on the bus, and you can always think for yourself, you always do!

I think that the bus ad gets people talking (just like it's getting us talking), and that in itself is worth the provocation.

[aprilstarchild.livejournal.com]

The main disagreement I have with all of this is whether it's worthwhile to scorn or think less of religion or religious people.

The sign didn't necessarily scorn religious people. It stated an idea, which you may or may not agree with.