OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Atheist Dogma?

Entry 1203, on 2010-07-05 at 20:28:15 (Rating 3, Religion)

Supporters of religion seem to be getting a bit desperate. If you take religion seriously you must already be accustomed to using half truths, biased information, and invalid arguments to support your cause so I guess using the same tactics against the new atheists should not be a surprise to anyone.

It's difficult to say what's the cause and what's the effect in this phenomenon. Anyone who can't think logically is much more likely to follow a religion but anyone who wants to continue to follow a religion can't afford to think logically. So which comes first: the superstitious beliefs or the illogical way of reasoning? It's impossible to say but I guess each reinforces the other.

Anyway, getting back to the argument against atheists. Often it comes down to the obviously silly accusation that atheism is just another religion. The degree of validity of this claim obviously depends on the definition you use for the word "religion" but the definition which best fits into this argument is the one which defines religion as a belief system involving a supernatural entity.

It should be obvious that atheism isn't a religion by this definition because it specifically rejects the supernatural (or at least it rejects things which are unsupported by facts, the supernatural being the most prominent example).

But there are other definitions too. The other one I found in the Oxford English Dictionary is "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance". I'm not sure how this would fit in with the argument against atheism because refusing to believe in something which has no supporting evidence could hardly be classified as of supreme importance.

Actually, now that I consider the point again I think maybe there is a certain amount of truth there. Many of the new atheists do take their opposition to religion very seriously and to some of them it does attain supreme importance, at least it seems that way if you look at their public activities.

But if a religion is just something that is taken extremely seriously then few people would have serious objections to it. The reason people do object to it is because real religion is based on unthinking dogma, superstition and ignorance, yet is still taken extremely seriously. I don't think atheism can really be said to be based on dogma.

Or can it? At the recent Gods and Politics conference in Copenhagen the Atheist Alliance formulated an atheistic declaration on religion in public life which included statements such as "We assert the need for a society based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. History has shown that the most successful societies are the most secular" and "We submit that public policy should be informed by evidence and reason, not by dogma".

Is this atheist dogma? Atheism's critics will no doubt suggest it is but I think they will be again guilty of being mislead by superficial similarities and failing to see the deeper truth. This "dogma" was formulated as a way of summarising the ideals which are the result of careful philosophical and scientific consideration. Religion does things the opposite way around: it takes the dogma found in its holy texts and that becomes its ideal. So again, really, there is little similarity between the two approaches.

I would also hope that the atheist declaration would be used for guidance only and failing to follow it would not be considered "heretical" as long as a reasonable justification could be provided. But if that's the case I can see little point in having it at all.

Most atheists are "free thinkers". They tend to have few assumed premises and fewer restrictions than other groups. That means that it's harder for atheist to work as a group compared with the more tightly controlled organisations like most churches. For example, there is a split regarding whether overt criticism of religion is a better approach than the more traditional compromise which often resulted in a refusal to criticise religion at all. Organising atheists is often compared to herding cats!

Having a set of principles might remove one of atheism's great strengths (freedom from dogma) so I'm not convinced it's a good idea. Looking through the full list (which is here). I can't see anything much beyond common sense anyway, so what's really the point?

Comment 1 (2714) by SBFL on 2010-07-16 at 12:13:15: (view recent only)

What I don't understand is why there is a group of people so opposed to Christianity. Don't they have more important matters in their individual lives to deal with? Maybe they don't have real lives? There's a thought. Maybe they lack purpose? Maybe they lack a reason for existence?

A good Christian will live his life in Jesus's footsteps. We all know this is not easy. And we know this is the path of the putting the camel through the eye of the needle. It is difficult but who ever heard of receiving something genuine without earning it? Let the detractors be. Let them have their comfort zone. And let them look back and see what they failed to achieve. Their focus is their jealousy, which is a shame really, as there are probably more positive things we can achieve together.

Comment 2 (2718) by OJB on 2010-07-16 at 19:55:42:

There has been more evil done (and is still being done) in the name of Christ and Christianity than any other dogma in the history of humanity. There is also the aesthetic problem of the majority of the world believing in a load of fictitious crap.

It's all rationalists' duty to try to reject primitive superstition wherever possible.

I do think some of the new atheists (Dawkins and Hitchens for example) overstate the bad aspects of religion a bit, but that doesn't mean they don't have a point!

Comment 3 (2720) by SBFL on 2010-07-18 at 11:56:49:

People who cause harm in the name of religion are wrong. We agree on that. But people are humans and humans have flaws. We know that, and that is why we have issues to debate. But to be right, we must follow the teachings of Jesus. You call it "fictitious crap" but of course I disagree. Just today I read some of the New Testament: Matthew 5 "The Sermon on the Mount". It makes for beautiful reading. One cannot disagree, believer or unbeliever. Surely if people follow this then there cannot be any hate?

For rationalists to reject superstition is one thing, to follow love is a level higher again.

New atheists (even the nutters) criticising Christianity is probably a good thing if it contributes to positive change to the Church. But on the whole I defer them to the fringe.

Comment 4 (2723) by OJB on 2010-07-18 at 13:26:35:

I think it is possible to blame the church directly for many of the atrocities that have occurred. Sure, people have flaws but if they didn't have religion those wars, crusades, witch burnings, inquisitions, etc most likely would not have happened.

You say "To be right we must follow the teachings of Jesus" Really? Where would you get such a bizarre idea? Does that mean everyone who has never heard of him is wrong? Does that mean no one was right before 2000 years ago? What blatant nonsense!

You can find parts of the (alleged) teaching of Jesus which I agree with but all of that stuff is just rehashed form other writers anyway. There is absolutely nothing unique in Jesus' (alleged) message. And if you look hard enough there's plenty of bad stuff too.

The fact is that its dangerous believing in a dogma and saying that it's always good. People should think instead and use positive philosophy form many sources.

Following love is fine in its place. But believing in a dogma invented by some cynical and self centered committee of church leaders 2000 years ago has nothing to do with love.

Yes, the new atheists want change in the churches and change in society's attitude to religion. We both think that's good. I suspect we would disagree on the details of what those changes should be though!

Comment 5 (2725) by SBFL on 2010-07-18 at 14:09:08:

So for the wrongs you only point to the battles of centuries ago. We weren't around then to fully understand the context. But what about today?

Whether heard of Him or not, the teachings stand up.

It is unique in that be brought a new message. Others have copied him but there is only one Son of God.

Love is what he brought. Atheists don't understand this. They prefer petty negativity. Quite sad.

Actually the new atheists hate the Church. But hate is not the answer. Nonetheless, a little criticism can go a long way. I hope the Church can learn a few things from it.

Comment 6 (2726) by OJB on 2010-07-18 at 14:16:33:

The church has been strongly implicated in many recent and ongoing conflicts, including Rwanda.

Some of the teachings stand up. They aren't unique to Christ and they were around for centuries before he (allegedly) lived. You said "to be right, we must follow the teachings of Jesus" are you now saying that other teachings are also OK?

One son of God. What a joke! If you are going to start with the silly mysticism, dogma and superstition then sensible discussion must end, I guess.

He didn't bring love at all. The world is no more full of love now than it was before Christ (allegedly) lived. In many ways its more full of hate because of dogmatic and intolerant Christians.

I don't know if new atheists hate the church. They strongly dislike many aspects of various religions but they also recognise some good.

You've made an awful lot of claims above with zero proof for any of it. Fairly typical of most discussions I have with religious people though.

Comment 7 (2732) by SBFL on 2010-07-18 at 23:40:28:

Not aware of the Rwanda issue. A link?

Yes, if the message is the same, of course I agree. Not aware of anyone before Jesus though (other than Buddha).

He did bring Love but you have an argument to say that the world has no more love than before he arrived. I don't know. What I do know is that he brought Love. Some people choose not to listen - and this includes the deluded and intolerant Christians you speak of.

Hate is not the answer. Love is. Sorry I can't give you proof of this.

Comment 8 (2737) by OJB on 2010-07-19 at 09:26:52:

Here's an example of your Christian love...

"Many clergy did not protect civilians who sought their help, either out of fear for personal repercussions or out of desire to see them killed. A smaller number actively incited the genocide. These include most prominently Seventh-day Adventist Church pastor Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, who was convicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and the case of Theophister Mukakibibi and Maria Kisito, Rwandan Roman Catholic nuns sentenced for helping to kill hundreds of Tutsi during Rwandan genocide. Also involved were Roman Catholic priests Wenceslas Munyeshyaka, Athanase Seromba, and Emmanuel Rukundo, all of whom have been convicted of genocide."

Source: Religion in Rwanda.

Comment 9 (2740) by Anonymous on 2010-07-20 at 08:18:35:

That's a good link OJB. I only thought it was the priests doing all the bad stuff. Looks like the nuns are even worse! What do the Catholics say about this?

Comment 10 (2741) by OJB on 2010-07-20 at 09:23:36:

What do they say? They do the same thing all believers do when the facts don't support their dogma: they ignore it.

Comment 11 (2746) by SBFL on 2010-07-23 at 08:49:33:

So you choose your source to be a Wikipaedia page on an issue involving religion, and itself refers to the leftist HRW for support. Oh dear. I really thought you could have done better.

Comment 12 (2748) by OJB on 2010-07-23 at 12:01:21:

Here we go. A classic case of religious denial (just like I predicted in comment 10). I get that all the time. Did you bother to follow up on the sources? Didn't think so. Your church is evil and you are part of allowing that to happen by ignoring it. Christan love. Yeah right!

Comment 13 (2750) by OJB on 2010-07-23 at 13:04:45:

Just searched for the Rwanda - Catholic genocide link. Found many factual accounts in Washington Post, BBC, etc. How do you deny these facts about your evil church?

Comment 14 (2751) by SBFL on 2010-07-24 at 06:06:50:

Take it easy OJB. Seems the hatred is consuming you.

Comment 15 (2755) by OJB on 2010-07-24 at 09:58:14:

It's not really hatred, more contempt. But the fact is your church was involved in recent genocide and all you do is deny the facts and change the subject!

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.