I'm an atheist, but....

[O'nus]

Before believing this is about philosophy, please consider the following content: http://richarddawkins.net/article,31...ichard-Dawkins Of all the questions I fielded during the course of my recent book tour, the only ones that really depressed me were those that began "I'm an atheist, BUT . . ." What follows such an opening is nearly always unhelpful, nihilistic or – worse – suffused with a sort of exultant negativity. Notice, by the way, the distinction from another favourite genre: "I used to be an atheist, but . . ." That is one of the oldest tricks in the book, practised by, among many others, C S Lewis, Alister McGrath and Francis Collins. It is designed to gain street cred before the writer starts on about Jesus, and it is amazing how often it works. Look out for it, and be forewarned. I've noticed five variants of I'm-an-atheist-buttery, and I'll list them in turn, in the hope that others will recognize them, be armed against them, and perhaps extend the list by contributing examples from their own experience. 1. I'm an atheist, but religion is here to stay. You think you can get rid of religion? Good luck to you! You want to get rid of religion? What planet are you living on? Religion is a fixture. Get over it! I could bear any of these downers, if they were uttered in something approaching a tone of regret or concern. On the contrary. The tone of voice is almost always gleeful, and accompanied by a self-satisfied smirk. Anybody who opens with "I'm an atheist, BUT . . ." can be more or less guaranteed to be one of those religious fellow-travellers who, in Dan Dennett's wickedly perceptive phrase, believes in belief. They may not be religious themselves, but they love the idea that other people are religious. This brings me to my second category of naysayers. 2. I'm an atheist, but people need religion. What are you going to put in its place? How are you going to comfort the bereaved? How are you going to fill the need? I dealt with this in the last chapter of The God Delusion, 'A Much Needed Gap' and also, at more length, in Unweaving the Rainbow. Here I'll make one additional point. Did you notice the patronizing condescension in the quotations I just listed? You and I, of course, are much too intelligent and well educated to need religion. But ordinary people, hoi polloi, the Orwellian proles, the Huxleian Deltas and Epsilon semi-morons, need religion. Well, I want to cultivate more respect for people than that. I suspect that the only reason many cling to religion is that they have been let down by our educational system and don't understand the options on offer. This is certainly true of most people who think they are creationists. They have simply not been taught the alternative. Probably the same is true of the belittling myth that people 'need' religion. On the contrary, I am tempted to say "I believe in people . . ." And this leads me to the next example. 3. I'm an atheist, but religion is one of the glories of human culture. At a conference in San Diego which I attended at the end of my book tour, Sam Harris and I were attacked by two "I'm an atheist, but . . ." merchants. One of these quoted Golda Meir when she was asked whether she believed in God: "I believe in the Jewish people, and the Jewish people believe in God." Our smirking critic substituted his own version: "I believe in people, and people believe in God." Religion, he presumably thought, is like a great work of art. Many works of art, rather, because different religions are so varied. I was reminded of Nicholas Humphrey's devastating indictment of an extreme version of this kind of thing, quoted in Chapter 9 of The God Delusion. Humphrey was discussing the discovery in the mountains of Peru of the frozen remains of a young Inca girl who was, according to the archaeologist who found her, the victim of a religious sacrifice. Humphrey described a television documentary in which viewers were invited . . . " . . . to marvel at the spiritual commitment of the Inca priests and to share with the girl on her last journey her pride and excitement at having been selected for the signal honour of being sacrificed. The message of the television programme was in effect that the practice of human sacrifice was in its own way a glorious cultural invention – another jewel in the crown of multiculturalism . . ." I share the outrage that Humphrey eloquently expressed: - "Yet, how dare anyone even suggest this? How dare they invite us – in our sitting rooms, watching television – to feel uplifted by contemplating an act of ritual murder: the murder of a dependent child by a group of stupid, puffed up, superstitious, ignorant old men? How dare they invite us to find good for ourselves in contemplating an immoral action against someone else?" It would be unfair to accuse our critic in San Diego of complicity in such an odious attitude towards the Inca 'ice maiden'. But I hope at least he will think twice before repeating that bon mot (as he obviously thought of it): "I believe in people, and people believe in God." I could have overlooked the patronizing condescension of his remark, if only he hadn't sounded so smugly satisfied by this lamentable state of affairs. 4. I'm an atheist, but you are only preaching to the choir. What's the point? There are various points. One is that the choir is a lot bigger than many people think it is, especially in America. But, again especially in America, it is largely a closet choir, and it desperately needs encouragement to come out. Judging by the thanks I received all over North America, the encouragement that people like Sam Harris, Dan Dennett and I are able to give is greatly appreciated. So is this website, as I heard again and again. My thanks, yet again, to Josh. A more subtle reason for preaching to the choir is the need to raise consciousness. When the feminists raised our consciousness about sexist pronouns, they would have been preaching to the choir where the more substantive issues of the rights of women and the evils of discrimination against them were concerned. But that decent, liberal choir still needed its consciousness raising with respect to everyday language. However right-on we may have been on the political issues of rights and discrimination, we nevertheless still unconsciously bought into linguistic conventions that made half the human race feel excluded. There are other linguistic conventions that still need to go the same way as sexist pronouns, and the atheist choir is not exempt. We all need our consciousness raised. Atheists as well as theists unconsciously buy into our society's convention that religion has uniquely privileged status. I've already mentioned the convention that we must be especially polite and respectful to a person's faith. And I never tire of drawing attention to society's tacit acceptance that it is right to label small children with the religious opinions of their parents. That's consciousness-raising, and atheists need it just as much as anybody else because atheists, too, have been lulled into overlooking the anomaly: religious opinion is the one kind of parental opinion that – by almost universal consent – can be battened upon children who are, in truth, too young to know what their opinion really is. 5. I'm an atheist, but I wish to dissociate myself from your intemperately strong language. Sam Harris and I have both received criticism of this kind, and Nick Humphrey probably has too, for the quotation given above. Yet if you look at the language we employ, it is no more strong or intemperate than anybody would use if criticizing a political or economic point of view: no stronger or more intemperate than any theatre critic, art critic or book critic when writing a negative review. Our language sounds strong and intemperate only because of the same weird convention I have already mentioned, that religious faith is uniquely privileged: above and beyond criticism. On pages 20-21 of The God Delusion I gave a wonderful quote from Douglas Adams on the subject. Book critics or theatre critics can be derisively negative and earn delighted praise for the trenchant wit of their review. A politician may attack an opponent scathingly across the floor of the House and earn plaudits for his robust pugnacity. But let a critic of religion employ a fraction of the same direct forthrightness, and polite society will purse its lips and shake its head: even secular polite society, and especially that part of secular society that loves to announce, "I'm an atheist, BUT . . ." What do you think...? ~

[Idolfan]

I can't help my atheist beleifs and I know we need relegion. The only problem is most relegions are over 1000 years old that propose dumbass rules. We need new ones, but that's practically impossible. It's the same thing with pensioners; they're a big burden financially on the rest of us but NOBODY would go round exterminating them all. We are trapped in a downward spiral in this world because of all these things...

[Carôusoul]

I know we need relegion. I don't need it. Richard Dawkins doesn't need it. O'nus doesn't need it. Why should anyone else?

[pj]

I don't need money. I don't need sex or power or education. I don't need tolerance or empathy or morals or ethics. Why should anyone else?

[Carôusoul]

I don't need money. I don't need sex or power or education. I don't need tolerance or empathy or morals or ethics. Why should anyone else? What Spartiate said.

[Spartiate]

I don't need money. I don't need sex or power or education. I don't need tolerance or empathy or morals or ethics. Why should anyone else? Actually, you do, society collapses without all those things, but not without religion...

[ExoByte]

Its actually quite possible it wound. Society has been based on religion for the longest time, governments everywhere still have got the Church's hand in them. Only a few are beginning to truly severe these ties. Considering society was largely based on religion, removing it entirely could cause society to collapse. Just like society has been based on money and economic power. Its the same deal. But you're missing PJs point Spart, you basically just stated what he was trying to. You don't need these things, but they're basically essentials to society. Religion is quite different from the need for money, power or sex, but the point hes making still stands. The problem is religion has been an ideal held for too long to just remove. It would leave too many people confused and lost. It doesn't matter if they're right or wrong, but for a lot of people, while they may not even act religious, they feel as if theres something to their religious beliefs guiding them. To steal that would be chaotic. But, realistically, no one wants to just get rid of religion up and out of the blue and getting rid of it out of the blue would never happen. If its a gradual, slow process where people become convinced that religion is wrong, then no one would care, and that is happening more and more.

[Spartiate]

Its actually quite possible it wound. Society has been based on religion for the longest time, governments everywhere still have got the Church's hand in them. Only a few are beginning to truly severe these ties. Considering society was largely based on religion, removing it entirely could cause society to collapse. Just like society has been based on money and economic power. Its the same deal. But you're missing PJs point Spart, you basically just stated what he was trying to. You don't need these things, but they're basically essentials to society. Religion is quite different from the need for money, power or sex, but the point hes making still stands. The problem is religion has been an ideal held for too long to just remove. It would leave too many people confused and lost. It doesn't matter if they're right or wrong, but for a lot of people, while they may not even act religious, they feel as if theres something to their religious beliefs guiding them. To steal that would be chaotic. But, realistically, no one wants to just get rid of religion up and out of the blue and getting rid of it out of the blue would never happen. If its a gradual, slow process where people become convinced that religion is wrong, then no one would care, and that is happening more and more. I disagree, society may have been founded on religious terms, but religion no longer plays an important part in most western governments. To put it into contrast, someone who doesn't need religion can live without it, but no one can live without money. I can see why someone would be religious, I just didn't think the comparison was valid.

[ExoByte]

Bush himself has said he doesn't think Atheists should be considered citizens. Religion still plays a prominent role, even though it may not be as out stretched. Religions still receive tax exempt status and other benefits. It may not be where we're killing each other in the name of the lord or we may not be a fully religiously ran government, but religion still has its hand deep in the government.

[pj]

You're all missing my point. What business of yours is it what somebody else 'needs' or wants or chooses to believe? You ask why anybody would need religion if you don't. I ask why you would need life itself if I don't. Is that more clear? What I need or want or choose is not within yours or anybody else's purvue to decide or judge, just as your belief that there is no spiritual reality isn't any of my business. Your MAKING it your business makes it my business, and that only to the point where you concede the boundary between your volition and mine.

[Spartiate]

Bush himself has said he doesn't think Atheists should be considered citizens. Religion still plays a prominent role, even though it may not be as out stretched. Religions still receive tax exempt status and other benefits. It may not be where we're killing each other in the name of the lord or we may not be a fully religiously ran government, but religion still has its hand deep in the government. Quoting Bush ? Anyways, all I'm saying is that public functions won't suddenly grind to a halt if all bibles disappear one day. What influences people these days is the morals that religion conveys, but not the actual practises. You're all missing my point. What business of yours is it what somebody else 'needs' or wants or chooses to believe? You ask why anybody would need religion if you don't. I ask why you would need life itself if I don't. Is that more clear? What I need or want or choose is not within yours or anybody else's purvue to decide or judge, just as your belief that there is no spiritual reality isn't any of my business. Your MAKING it your business makes it my business, and that only to the point where you concede the boundary between your volition and mine. I always understood that.

[Daeva]

I disagree, society may have been founded on religious terms, but religion no longer plays an important part in most western governments. To put it into contrast, someone who doesn't need religion can live without it, but no one can live without money. I can see why someone would be religious, I just didn't think the comparison was valid. Religion no longer plays an important part in most western governments? How many presidents have we had that were atheist? People have, do, and will continue to vote for candidates that have similar beliefs to them; that includes religious beliefs at times.

[Mystic7]

Atheism is the religion of little faith. Which is really easy. However this is why atheist never achieve much greatness. Generally a person with a dull imagination.

[Spartiate]

Atheism is the religion of little faith. Which is really easy. However this is why atheist never achieve much greatness. Generally a person with a dull imagination. Yet more insight from the wise one...

[Mystic7]

yet more sarcasm from the not so wise one.

[wasup]

Atheism is the religion of little faith. Which is really easy. However this is why atheist never achieve much greatness. Generally a person with a dull imagination. What a misconception it is to think atheists are all passionless robots "without imaginations." I could argue the opposite, in fact. Atheists see this life as a one time thing, and thus it is to be enjoyed so much more and cherised. We do not waste time - or "devote our life" - preparing for "another life." It seems to me that all the atheists I know are just as imaginative, creative, passionate, inspiring people as anyone else. If anything, moreso than thiests, who life in such a way to "please their god" or whatever you call it. I am sorry, I just really despise it when people see athiests as cold, scientific people who have no interests, passions, aspirations in life. Atheism isn't like that. It is just not believing in "something more," that's all. That doesn't mean we consider life any less valuable (as said, it is in fact considered more valuable in the fact that we only have one), or are as you or others describe us often. Just don't get pulled into that misconception.

[Mystic7]

It depends how you define Atheism. My definition of Atheism is one who is foolish period. But for you it might be different.

[Kromoh]

Atheism is the religion of little faith. Which is really easy. However this is why atheist never achieve much greatness. Generally a person with a dull imagination. Little faith heh. Actually I think that is quite beneficial. I mean, look at what (mostly blind) faith does to people. But you can't say atheism is "easy" - actually it is quite the opposite. People don't choose to deny the existance of god just because it's "easier" that way, or because it's "cool". Actually atheists research religions and see that most of them (if not all) make the silliest mistakes, that they believe blindly on things (including god), and that they preach the most dumb things (stoning infidel women to death is actually encouraged on the bible, but people turn a blind eye to it). We (atheists) often find we have to explain to people why we don't believe in any religion, actually to people like you who challenge our beliefs. It takes a lot of wisdom to be atheist. And what's with the imagination thing? I can imagine many many things, but I know they're not more than imagination. Why should I regard the imaginary (herein read as "god") as true? I'd much rather try my efforts at learning different religions and choosing the one that suits me (which may actually be none), than wasting my efforts praying or worshipping something so falsiable. Anyway, there's so much prejudice in your statements that I don't even know what made me reply to them. So anyone with a different opinion than yours is foolish? Anyone who chooses to be skeptical is foolish? You make me sick. ---back to original topic--- I think the "I'm an atheist, but" thing is used to give credibility to what you say. It is just like saying like "I've done it and I don't like it" - it's more credible than saying you don't like it but have never tried it. People love to use false statements to give credibility to what they say. It's almost like more evidence human beings came from apes -.-

[wasup]

It depends how you define Atheism. My definition of Atheism is one who is foolish period. But for you it might be different. Don't be ridiculous. Definitions are an objective thing. See http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheism . I mean, I can say "theism" means silly, but that hardly makes it true, does it? So, you are wrong. Atheism isn't this arbitrary thing that each individual defines as he or she sees fit. It is the belief that there is no god. Furthermore, are you really suggesting all atheists are foolish? Want to try to defend that?

[Universal Mind]

Atheism is the religion of little faith. Which is really easy. However this is why atheist never achieve much greatness. Generally a person with a dull imagination. Really now? So atheists don't believe in God because they can't imagine him? That's absurd. Please tell me how your imagination is superior to those of Mark Twain, Isaac Asimov, Aldous Huxley, Albert Einstein, Arthur C. Clarke, Frank Zappa, Ernest Hemingway, and John Lennon. A lot of atheists have superincredible imaginations. They just know the difference between their imaginations and reality. Here is a longer list of some people who have dull imaginations. http://www.wonderfulatheistsofcfl.org/Quotes.htm

[Original Poster]

But I DID used to be an atheist. Though I'm still far from a participant in organized religion. I just followed the true definition of the skeptic as one "that knows he does not know truth, but continues the search anyway." The grounded beliefs in atheism are in logic. God's mnipotence is ipossible based on the world. The set up of going to heaven or hell for all eternity if absolutely retarded. The fact is, though, just because aspects of the beyond presents to you cannot be true, that doesn't mean the beyond does not exist at all. This planet and the living souls on it are a very small part of a very large universal learning experience.

[Kromoh]

But I DID used to be an atheist. Though I'm still far from a participant in organized religion. I just followed the true definition of the skeptic as one "that knows he does not know truth, but continues the search anyway." The grounded beliefs in atheism are in logic. God's mnipotence is ipossible based on the world. The set up of going to heaven or hell for all eternity if absolutely retarded. The fact is, though, just because aspects of the beyond presents to you cannot be true, that doesn't mean the beyond does not exist at all. This planet and the living souls on it are a very small part of a very large universal learning experience. Well, Omnius, if you take the real definition of "skepticism", it doesn't mean "staying on the fence'. It means "not believing it until it is proven true". There is no slightly logical evidence god/beyond exist. So, a skeptical person would not believe them (as of now). Believe in what you want, I have nothing to do with it, but just don't call yourself skeptical.

[cuddleyperson]

I think religion was very helpful when we were a developing race, first constructing complex villages and cultures etc, way to strong a more wild and less intelligent man. But China is communist and they are doing very well in advances in science and technology, they and Japan are doing much more stem cell and cloning research then us and we will probably end yup using what they discover. You may argue parts of China are in poverty, there may be some corruption, etc. But it is a very large, very over populated country. Parts of England are very poor, not to that extent I'll admit, but my point is hardly any country is perfect everywhere.

[Taosaur]

I think religion was very helpful when we were a developing race, first constructing complex villages and cultures etc, way to strong a more wild and less intelligent man. But China is communist and they are doing very well in advances in science and technology, they and Japan are doing much more stem cell and cloning research then us and we will probably end yup using what they discover. You may argue parts of China are in poverty, there may be some corruption, etc. But it is a very large, very over populated country. Parts of England are very poor, not to that extent I'll admit, but my point is hardly any country is perfect everywhere. Present-day China's "Communism" is pretty debatable, despite the ruling oligarchy calling themselves "The Communist Party." Religious institutions have been stripped of much power, but Buddhists and Catholics still abound. A couple of unexamined assumptions in the OP: 1. Religion is fixed and unchanging. False. All large religions that exist today were founded by reformers in times much like our own, when the dominant paradigm was dissatisfactory, and revised again and again. In the West, the Roman pantheon gave way to early Christianity, which gave way to Medieval Catholicism which gave way to Protestantism which gave way to Scientific Positivism which is now struggling with some as-yet-unnamed future. 2. Religion is distinct and separable from human culture as a whole. False. Religious ideas have been used to both terrible and beautiful ends, because they were used by humans. The ethics, cosmologies, social constructs, and other ideas of world religions are part of humanity's toolbox, and discarding them because they are equally entangled with our flaws would be both foolish and impossible. We can't eliminate human foolishness by discarding everything fools have misused.

[Mystic7]

Really now? So atheists don't believe in God because they can't imagine him? That's absurd. I take it back. Atheists have to have the biggest imagination of all to avoid their own foolishness. Albert Einstein was not an athiest. He was more a mathematician. He didn't have time to preach atheism he was too busy seeking and making practical use of his knowledge. this quote shows where his dedication is and it's not atheism "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religion than it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." Now to that absure website you linked too. Abraham Lincoln is not an athiest either, just because he doesn't like christian dogma of the bible doesn't mean he was atheist. "Faith is the commitment of one's consciousness to beliefs for which one has no sensory evidence or rational proof. A mystic is a man who treats his feelings as tools of cognition. Faith is the equation of feeling with knowledge. " Benjamin Franklin was not atheist either. Marilyn Manson is not athiest. Neither is he a decent person anyway. The rest of your list is rather redundant. Sorry but no-one is more useless than an athiest. Just looking back on history you can see that.