My atheism does not make me superior to believers. It's a leap of faith too

There are many different ways in which people come to atheism. Many come to it in their early adult years, after a childhood in the church. Some are raised in atheism by atheist parents. Some come to atheism after years of religious study. I came to atheism the way that many Christians come to Christianity – through faith.

I was six years old, sitting in my frilly yellow Easter dress, throwing black jelly beans out into the yard, when my mom explained the story of Easter to me. She explained Jesus’s crucifixion and resurrection as the son of God, going into great detail. And when she was finished telling me the story that had been a foundation of her faith for the majority of her life, I looked at her and said: “I don’t think that really happened.”

I didn’t come to this conclusion because the story of a man waking from the dead made no sense – I wasn’t an overly analytical child. I still enthusiastically believed in Santa Claus and the Easter bunny. But when I searched myself for any sense of belief in a higher power, it just wasn’t there. I wanted it to be there – how comforting to have a God. But it wasn’t there, and it isn’t to this day.

The same confidence that many of my friends have in the belief that Jesus walks with them is the confidence that I have that nobody walks with me. The cold truth that when I die I will cease to exist in anything but the memory of those I leave behind, that those I love who leave are lost forever, is always with me.

These are my truths. I don’t like these truths. As a mother, I’d give anything to believe that if anything were to happen to my children they would live forever in the kingdom of a loving God. But I don’t believe that.

But my conviction that there is no God is nonetheless a leap of faith. Just as we have been unable to prove there is a God, we have also been unable to prove that there isn’t one. The feeling that I have in my being that there is no God is what I go by, but I’m not deluded into thinking that feeling is in any way more factual than the deep conviction by theists that God exists.

I keep this fact in mind – that my atheism is a leap of faith – because otherwise it’s easy to get cocky. It’s easy to look at acts of terror committed in the names of different gods, debates about the role of women in various churches, unfamiliar and elaborate religious rules and rituals and think, look at these foolish religious folk. It’s easy to view religion as the root of society’s ills.

But atheism as a faith is quickly catching up in its embrace of divisive and oppressive attitudes. We have websites dedicated to insulting Islam and Christianity. We have famous atheist thought-leaders spouting misogyny and calling for the profiling of Muslims. As a black atheist, I encounter just as much racism amongst other atheists as anywhere else. We have hundreds of thousands of atheists blindly following atheist leaders like Richard Dawkins, hurling insults and even threats at those who dare question them.

Look through new atheist websites and twitter feeds. You’ll see the same hatred and bigotry that theists have been spouting against other theists for millennia. But when confronted about this bigotry, we say “But I feel this way about all religion,” as if that somehow makes it better. But our belief that we are right while everyone else is wrong; our belief that our atheism is more moral; our belief that others are lost: none of it is original.

Perhaps this is not religion, but human nature. Perhaps when left to our own devices, we jockey for power by creating an “other” and rallying against it. Perhaps we’re all part of a system that creates hierarchies based on class, gender, race and ethnicity because it’s the easiest way for the few to overpower the many. Perhaps we all fall in line because we look for any social system – be it Christianity, Islam, socialism, atheism – to make sense of it all and to feel like we matter in a world that shows time and time again that we don’t.

If we truly want to free ourselves from the racist, sexist, classist, homophobic tendencies of society, we need to go beyond religion. Yes, religion does need to be examined and debated regularly and fervently. But we also need to examine our school systems, our medical systems, our economic systems, our environmental policies.

Faith is not the enemy, and words in a book are not responsible for the atrocities we commit as human beings. We need to constantly examine and expose our nature as pack animals who are constantly trying to define the other in order to feel safe through all of the systems we build in society. Only then will we be as free from dogma as we atheists claim to be.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/24/atheism-does-not-make-me-superior-to-believers-its-a-leap-of-faith-too

I've thought for a long time that unbelievers were getting just as bolshie as believers, the article struck a cord.

---

Some atheists are just as frothed-at-the-mouth as fanatical worshippers.

There are no differences between the two.

Quite a poor article, with yet again trying to shift away responsibility wfrom reliigions, where many prejudices are divenly endorsed through a belief of taking commands written in very old books.
The religious believers are and have faced a struggle with an ever changing and adpating society, because progression challenges some of the core fundemental beliefs.

Atheis,m has no book to follow, or any one set of ideals. The beauty of Athiesm, is that athiests are free to decide their own morality and reasons. They are not swayed by any religious text.
Now I have no doubt there is prejudiced Athiests out there, but there is nothing within Athiesm that states they should do so.
Again any belief shoul be rightly challenged, when it conflicts with the well being and equality of others. By challenging beliefs, does not mean denying any religious person their equal rights within the law. Like any belief, whether political, religious, Sport etc are open also to ridcule. We see it daily within the media, where as long as they do not discriminate or deny them equality within the law, there is no harm to this. No matter how daft the belief, all should have equality within the law, free from prejuidice.

So I think a very fundemental part of religion which has helped justify a prejudiced view onto non-believers. Is at the very core problem and has been with discrmination for the last few thousand years. When you have a belief system, that places those believers superior to Non-Believers. You have a sanctified and justfied belief system, which to the believer supercedes any law made by a nation or Non-Believer.
So yes there is many fundemental challenges with prejudice, but religion at its very core provides the means to justify such discrmination and has done so for thousands of years.

BY not challenging this, then this belief, allows the continuation to believe others are inferior, because they do not believe. In the Abrahamic faiths, this goes one further, with the most unimaginable pain suffered eternally to those who do not believe. It also then justfies any suffering and misery onto non-believers of that faith.

Now non-belief again does not  have a superior or inferior methodology. People simply choose not to believe. Full stop. Thus having nothing cannot be inferior or superior to anything.

Promoting any hate against any believers is wrong. Where that faith holds dogmatic prejudiced beliefs, which are counter to the well beinga nd equality of others, then they should be rightly challenged. Which because many people have challenged such beliefs over the last few centuries in the West, religions have no control over our laws and daily lives. as religious beliefs should ne individual personal beliefs. Not where you think you can impose this on others.

So there is much wrong within the article, it deflects and is ignoring the main core problem within religion, where the belief system and its laws are treated superior to everything else.

while true about some,
the article fails to address the fact there is 'Possible faiths' that don't require science to be wrong in order to be plausible.
There is Faith and then there is just being wrong.
Faith in something unknown is all good, but holding faith OVER known provable fact is just being silly.

I do think a lot of modern atheism's issues extend from not really being atheist but being anti-theist specifically Anti-Abrahamist and a lot of that no doubt comes from interaction with the Abrahamic religions. A group cant publish books calling for peoples deaths for over a thousand years and have killed millions of people because of those books in that time and not expect some resentment from people those books call for the death of.
So to that end yes it is also because humans are animals, when someone promotes ideology that calls for your death then humans tend get defensive as any animal does when under a perceived threat.

I would also add I think feeling that way about 'all religions' is worse than examining and making an informed decision about the validity of each theology individually... it is like saying I hate all races equally... it doesn't really make it better. 

i dont understand 'non belief' , I understand non belief in abrahamsim or any specific theology.. fair enough... but how can you say i don't have belief? in anything?

So how do you think the world/life/stuff exists? not being an arsehole I mean i really don't understand the logic.. do you just not consider it?
 
people can live a life without thinking about these things.. although I don't know that i could, and you seem like you do think about them.
I am curious in to the 'how' of how you reached your position

Its very basic and simple Veya.
Athiesm has no belief system. It may have a following, but it has no doctrine, commands, laws, moraility etc. Athiests individually choose the ideals they believe in, which a non belief, ie nothing, has then no major influence on how then the individual athiest would choose to back for an example, a set of Political ideals. Nothing, has then had no influence over how athiests come to their understandings and reasoning. There is no outside influence. Then if through no belief, nothing can neither be deemed inferior or superior. The same measures I would apply to a group of people, would be the same to all other groups, even religious groups. As nothing has ihad no impact in any of this decision making, then athiesm can never be used to argue superiority over religious belief., as nothing would have to then be superior to a belief. Now many athiests have many no-religious beliefs, which nothing would  never be applied to any of the reasons for these non-religious beliefs. Nothing means no religious influence and does not form a prejudice view of a religious group or belief system, because you do not believe. Things found within that belief would form any prejudice view, but the athiesm itself could not form that prejudice, as its non-religious belief. Like I say, it will be other reasons if and why some athiests are prejudiced and hateful to religious people. Athiesm has no set standard other than no-religious belief.

if you believe a set of ideals then that is belief?  at least to my logic, I believe in 'a fair go' because that is my personal ideal but it is still formed around things i have been exposed to.. to a degree we are all a product of our environment.
you might have that belief for better reasons than a sky giant told you but it is still a belief/opinion.

but what of the non-morality portion of religion? in the parts where science is still in debate.. do you just wait for the answer to be provided or do you form your own opinion based on the information available.

I see what your saying around the dogma of organized religion but that is not universally applicable to all 'faith'.
I still think the long running dominance of Abrahamism in the west means many western atheists end up being 'stuck in opposition' and that runs the danger of becoming the same sort of 'fundamentalist' belief system, like abrahamism, western atheism tends to apply a 'there can be only one' mindset when there doesn't have to be only one, philosophies can exist in harmony and balance, understanding and acceptance of science and it's principles is not exclusive to atheism, as argued many times agnosticism is quite fairly even more inline with scientific principles as at it's heart it is saying lets consider all possible options
(given there is 'Abrahamist agnostics' that i call often general monotheists trying to reconcile old fairytales and facts )

What is there to be in opposition with, unless within those religious beliefs, are commands that effect the well being and equality of others? Again Athiests challenging such religious beliefs which effect the well being and equality of others is formed from a position of equality. Not athiesm, with no beliefs, the standard measure is equality to all, which non-religious beliefs have no influence or bearing on. Religious beliefs do have an influence and justification for the believer to uphold prejudice beliefs onto others. Religious beliefs allow for denying equal rights. So non-beliefs have no influence over apllying equality to all people within a nation.

So no matter whether West or East, the problem is far less in the West today, as religions have little influence and power over how western societies are structured. Eventually the East will end up the same, as more people learn to enjoy such freedoms.

I am all for humanity to get along, no matter what their beliefs are. Even more so religious beliefs, should be individual personal beliefs, that do not effect the well being and equality of others. Sadly many religions allow a get out claus, allowing for discrimination and prejudice to thrive.

But religious belief can equally make prejudice a sin.
it is a sin to 'Victaoians' ... yes i just made that up 

If we could have some good Christians like Groomsy post some again you'd see that even among Christians there is good cause there is some that simplify Christs message to it's purest form 

Atheists don't not believe in anything.

And atheist fundamentalists are not dangerous.

Religious extremists- Tamil tigers, ISIS, WBC, the Inauisition, al Qaeda.

Atheust fundamentalists: Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.

I know which of those I'd invite for tea

Exactly what my daughter preaches Veya and works for with her church and her congregation. 

She knows I don't believe in a 'god' but we share exactly the same values.

Notice I said I don't 'believe' in a god, that's all it is, the belief inside you, for or against, there is no proof.

I do however know that the energy of the Universe is constant and I believe the energy or 'spirit' inside us goes on.

Eilzel wrote:Atheists don't not believe in anything.

And atheist fundamentalists are not dangerous.

Religious extremists- Tamil tigers, ISIS, WBC, the Inauisition, al Qaeda.

Atheust fundamentalists: Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.

I know which of those I'd invite for tea

"Atheists don't not believe in anything."
But how? like how can you not believe anything? I struggle to understand how this is possible.
Like surely you believe in some sort of personal code of conduct    or have some opinion on why existence exists?

And if you are saying as a group they believe nothing then that makes even less sense, so you have group 'united only by lack of belief'?
they many not have or require consistent beliefs but if you listen to most religious groups they dont really either..

so that raises the question is 'atheist' just an 'individual religion' (like my 'Victaoian' with personally decided morals) or are they defined by 'the complete opposition to all religion' in which case that in it's self is Dogma (sure it is a short list but it still is)

The structure of the sentence is not helpful.

It was said above 'atheist don't believe in anything'.

By saying atheists don't not believe in anything, I am disagreeing with that statement.

We believe in our loved ones, we believe science will eventually find answers to things we do not know, we may believe certain as yet unproven hypotheses (like multiple dimensions etc), we may believe in the innate goodness of humanity. The only thing, the only thing we don't believe in is god, and specifically a theological god.

Eilzel wrote:The structure of the sentence is not helpful.

It was said above 'atheist don't believe in anything'.

By saying atheists don't not believe in anything, I am disagreeing with that statement.

We believe in our loved ones, we believe science will eventually find answers to things we do not know, we may believe certain as yet unproven hypotheses (like multiple dimensions etc), we may believe in the innate goodness of humanity. The only thing, the only thing we don't believe in is god, and specifically a theological god.

But you just said it.  You don't believe in a god, you believe there isn't one, therefore you have a belief.  I don't believe in a god either, but that's a belief in itself.

That's a single belief. And as valid as saying I don't believe in Unicorns or fire breathing dragons.

Religious people have a tonne of unsubstantiated beliefs.

Eating porks will send you to hell.
Sex is bad when not making babies.
If you sin you will be reborn as a toad.
You can talk to trees.
A man walked on water.
And so on.

The similarities are miniscule, the differences are huge.

Though tbf sassy, I was address the ludicrous opinion that there is nothing different between an atheist and religious fundamentalist. There blatantly is, you wouldn't trust your kids in the hands of a religious fundamentalist.

Eilzel wrote:That's a single belief. And as valid as saying I don't believe in Unicorns or fire breathing dragons.

Religious people have a tonne of unsubstantiated beliefs.

Eating porks will send you to hell.
Sex is bad when not making babies.
If you sin you will be reborn as a toad.
You can talk to trees.
A man walked on water.
And so on.

The similarities are miniscule, the differences are huge.

Though tbf sassy, I was address the ludicrous opinion that there is nothing different between an atheist and religious fundamentalist. There blatantly is, you wouldn't trust your kids in the hands of a religious fundamentalist.

Of course there's a difference, I never said there wasn't did I?   You have me worried now, surely I didn't.  No, I'm just contesting that atheists have no belief.  We have beliefs, just different ones.

Ah, looked back, I said some atheists are getting as bolshie, didn't say violent, I do believe many of them are.

And there has been one case of violence to my knowledge, the Chapel Hill murders, he was an antitheist who hated religion.

A one off sassy as you know.

And I just looked back, it was Eds who said no difference, which I was responding to in my first post.

On beliefs. Atheists do believe things, many things we share with religious people.

But believing there is no god is the same as believing on no god but your own to an extent. Every religious person alive is an atheist in regards to every god or religion but their own. The only reason they don't come to view Yaweh or Allah the same way they view Zeus and Thor is because there is no 'Father Christmas' conversation for Yaweh and Allah ;-)

But that's just one aspect- god.

Religionists then have a set of other totally irrational beliefs on top of that!

Pig is dirty.
God CARES who you sleep with.
Working weekends is BAD.
I can talk to trees!
God will love me more if I blow up this train.
If I'm good now I will be a millionaire in my next life!

Irrational lunacy. Atheism has no counter part to that lot

they are not the same, but there is 'similarity in mindset of some atheists'. The problem is more attaching ones 'personal morals' to some 'tribe'. The OP is actually quite right that a lot of what we do is because we are social animals. Western atheism largely exists in 'Opposition to Abrahamism' so they frame their ideals and world view around that. this is why they seem to always be 'in opposition' because they are not saying 'something' they are not projecting a new idea, they are just opposing existing ideas.

I think many atheist are also 'humanist' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism
and there by do have a 'religion' of sorts just a non-theistic religion like 'Zen Buddhism' that focuses on the capacity of humans rather than gods. But due to the tribal nature of humans and their opposition to Abrahamist theology, don't want to admit it even to themselves as that primal part of the brain needs to 'defend the tribe'... this is not unique to atheism at all.



Also Reducing Reincarnation to "sin and you are reborn as a lesser being" is theologically simplistic to the point of inaccuracy.
Most reincarnation theology doesn't have reward or punishment, you get reborn as a toad because you need to learn the lessons from a toads existence. the goal is to acquire all lessons so you have to be reincarnated as everything to achieve nirvana/enlightenment. indeed the spiritualists would say, it is failure in 'yourself' to make the presumption that humans are spiritually beyond the toad...


AND
you can talk to trees.
they might not talk back but you can still project sound at them via your mouth orifice..

I had to go to a meeting while writing that and delayed post means les has responded and already answered the question

But believing there is no god is the same as believing on no god but your own to an extent. Every religious person alive is an atheist in regards to every god or religion but their own. The only reason they don't come to view Yaweh or Allah the same way they view Zeus and Thor is because there is no 'Father Christmas' conversation for Yaweh and Allah ;-)

Yes I think that makes Sense. although there is Omnism that are not athiest to any god..
Bit of a weird concept as it is full of contradiction, but then reduces regions to a product of social structure as opposed to true theology .

There are various ideas of reincarnation. In Thailand believe me they are closer to what I said. There's even many who believe ladyboys were born that way due to sin in a previous life, and that if the rest of us 'non ladyboys' are good to them by allowing them to be who they are (since they are technically living that way to atone for their previous lives) then we will be lucky in our next life too.

I believe that is nonsense. Of course. Though with a positive outcomw overall. But that is just my belief ;-)

Omnists eh? I guess that applies to many people here too. Buddhists by default but most put there eggs in many baskets so to speak. The Erawan Museum (picture in photo section) I went to last week is openly dedicated to Hindu, Buddhist and Christian religions. Though primarily Buddhist and solely Buddhist in the main shrine. A lot of Thais pray is temples to Buddha and Bhrana and churches.

Eilzel wrote:There are various ideas of reincarnation. In Thailand believe me they are closer to what I said. There's even many who believe ladyboys were born that way due to sin in a previous life, and that if the rest of us 'non ladyboys' are good to them by allowing them to be who they are (since they are technically living that way to atone for their previous lives) then we will be lucky in our next life too.

I believe that is nonsense. Of course. Though with a positive outcomw overall. But that is just my belief ;-)

but most modern Buddhist follow Buddha's teaching about as much as Christians follow Christs.
there is definitely a lot of dogma attached to it too.
I do prefer 'Zen' to pure Buddhism since it more complete and philosophical and less dogmatic..

just an aside, I actually think one of the worst religions is Confucianism as it is literally just a book of dogmatic assertions.. 'do this, cause Confucius said and he was really smart so just do it without needing to think why'.
Also if you follow some of it (particularity the part related to horticulture) you fail miserable in Australia since all direction are reversed being on the other side of the equator


LOL
and i was looking for a picture of that church (i think it is that one) where it has like every religious symbol

Erawan isn't really a church, its a giant three headed elephant statue with a temple/museum inside. And it is filled with images from 3 religions. Islam is notably absent to be honest but thats probably down to the views of the mega rich owner.

Can I just say, how nice to see a proper discussion.

Couldn't agree more

veya_victaous wrote:But religious belief can equally make prejudice a sin.
it is a sin to 'Victaoians' ... yes i just made that up 

If we could have some good Christians like Groomsy post some again you'd see that even among Christians there is good cause there is some that simplify Christs message to it's purest form 

Do not get me wrong there is also elements of good within religion, that are taught. I have said before that for example the Abrahamic faiths are likie any ideology steeped in Economic and Political policies. The Economic Policies found within these faiths are generally a positive one and are very much left wing leaning. The political side though is very much a problem. As it is grounded on a belief system, where the claimed creator of the rules, is infallible. You have thus a major problem with the religious aspect here with these 3 faiths, as it hinders and denies any challenge to any of the rules. Obviously to challenge any such command, would mean the believer then questioning their own faith. It also means many of the acts done by religious people are based on selfish ulterior motives. All to help themselves in a claim to an after life. The use of the worst fear is also induced within these faiths. Where this has a claim to a multitude of consequences, for what is deemed as wrong by that faith. The faiths claim, that after death its so severe the punishment, one of eternal agony. Even as humans we are in general appalled at any kind of torture and thus seeing the effects of torture on people. This though, clearly has the desiered effect, as those of this faith are then driven by such a fear as to believe. So you then have to question whether there is much good to religion at all other than the help and comfort it provides with losing thosae closet to us. If people are acting and doing good for example, the rewarding lures found within the faith, are the ultimate driving factor for religious people doing good. There is no denying this. So sadly such religious beliefs which are based off an infallible deity that it is claimed has provided rules how people should live their lives, denies belivers of that faith, free will. Everything within that faith has an ulterior motive. The biggest problem with these faiths, is that it denies critical thinking, where the religious laws can never be viewed as wrong by the believer, as to do so would fundementally challenge the very faith of the individual.


Now as a non-beliver, an athiest, any of my non-religious beliefs are based on critical thinking, not as religious people do, by blindly following a claim to divine laws. I mean on many aspects of life, the rules have been set for right and wrong with these religious faiths. This from the start denies the rules to be challenged. Which when you think about. It basically controls many views of reigious believers, renmdering them sheep to the rules and thus not think for themselves. Hence why i think its of upmost importance to continually challenge such bad belief systems, that deny freedom of thought and criticism. Though most fundemntally of all, athiests have the capacity and ability to admit they can or could be wrong on a particular issue. The dogmatic rights and wrongs found within religion, can never be challenged. As again to do so would directly challenge the belief of the individual at its core.

So Atheism itself has no influence on my non-religious beliefs.
Religious dogma, drives how religious p[eople believe both religious and non-religious beliefs.

What makes one 'superior' is how others accept one's ideology.  If others accept a given ideology as superior, then they will regard holders of that ideology as superior.

Many claim to be Christians.  Yet they witness the benefits of science everyday, and come to believe the ideology of science as the superior ideology...superior even to the Christian ideology.

That's where the divergence comes about.  The ideology of science is based upon the scientific methodology--experience and observation.  The ideological clash comes when one's Christian belief tells one there is an old man who lives in the sky, when in fact your experience tells you that if one tried walking in the sky one would fall down.  Science teaches there there are tangible causes for material effects, and absent those causes, there are no effects.

Now you are at the fulcrum of choice.  Do you believe in Christianity, which tells you there are effects without causes, or do you believe in science, which gives you that toaster oven?  If you chose the toaster oven because it is proven that it works, you tend to gravitate toward the ideology of science.  You believe it is superior.

Science also gives you atheism...remember?  You can't have an old man walking in the sky without a cause?  If you make that choice, you are selecting atheism as superior...and all who hold that ideology as superior.  The choice is internal for each person.

  

veya_victaous wrote:

  

VEYA!!!!