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)

Not a Religion

Entry 1578, on 2013-10-09 at 22:05:34 (Rating 3, Religion)

There are certain subjects which appear over and over again in atheism/science/rationality versus religion debates, and one of the most persistent (and therefore annoying) is the idea that atheism is just another religion. So I think I should cover the subject here and maybe refer those who disagree to this instead of just repeating the same thing over and over.

The usual problem with these discussions is defining what the words specifically mean, so I will do that and make my case based on that technical argument. But I will also make a second case based on a more tenuous argument which is more related to the usual meaning of the question.

So to the definition: religion noun (mass noun). Definition 1: "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods" and 2: "a particular system of faith and worship" and 3: "a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion: [for example] consumerism is the new religion." (Source: Oxford Dictionary of English 3rd edition)

Clearly atheism doesn't fit into definition 1 because atheism specifically rejects the idea of a supernatural controlling power, especially a personal god (from the same dictionary: "atheism: disbelief in the existence of God or gods."). Some people try to bypass this by saying "science is your god" or "evolution is your god" or something similar, but this is nonsense. A god must be a supernatural entity, not just some natural force or phenomenon. Twist the words enough and you can make anything mean anything else.

A similar argument applies to definition 2 which is really just a slightly different grammatical use of 1 which refers to the establishment or system supporting the pure religious phenomenon. Again the essential element is the supernatural which atheism rejects.

Definition 3 is a bit more problematic though. The problem is that this is really an imprecise use of the word and could almost be seen as a metaphor. Religions are followed with devotion so anything else which also involves great devotion is like a religion. But no one really thinks it is a religion. In the example consumerism is said to be a religion and maybe science or atheism could be used in that context as well. But there is no supernatural element here and that is the key difference.

So anyone who thinks atheism is a religion based on that definition would also have to accept that watching certain TV shows, or listening to a particular pop band, or drinking beer, or playing a computer game is also a religion and I think that shows how ridiculous that suggestion really is.

Looking at the dictionary definition then, atheism clearly isn't a religion unless you want to extend the definition of the word to a point where it loses its real intent. And if you want to start pushing into that sort of area you could say that a [put any noun here] is a type of [insert any noun here which can be used to categorise things] and that really doesn't prove a thing.

There are a couple of other points I want to make here beyond the dictionary definitions.

First, religion usually involves faith. I know some people might deny this but it does seem like a common statement and it is often the ultimate retreat for those who have been shown that there is really no other reason to take their belief system seriously.

Some apologists will claim that atheism and science also involve faith but I disagree. These involve confidence and practical philosophical insight. Think about it. Science has given us antibiotics, and computers, and a space program, and a million other things. What has religion given us? An amusing myth? A social construct which has been useful on occasions? The two aren't really equivalent and that's why atheists have confidence in science instead of faith in religion.

And second, atheists are rarely emotionally attached to their worldview. Unlike religious people who get comfort or closure or an easily understood explanation of the world from their belief, atheists tend to be atheists simply because there's no good reason to believe anything else (there is absolutely zero good empirical evidence of a god existing).

It must be so easy if you can convince yourself that there is a supernatural entity controlling the world and looking after you. There is no need to try to understand the real origin of the universe because you just have to believe a childishly simple myth instead. You don't have to spend time thinking about what is right and wrong because it's all spelled out in an old book instead. And you avoid having to be responsible for helping yourself because god will look after you.

So atheism is the more difficult approach because it involves a lot more moral strength and independent thought. In many ways religion is just the easy way out: it involves no original thought, no difficult examination of individual moral codes, and no understanding of difficult scientific concepts. It just involves remembering some childish myths from an old book. What could be easier?

In summary, it seems to be that by any reasonable definition atheism is not a religion. Anyone who makes the claim that it is will probably also try to say that god exists because the laws of physics are like a god, or that the Bible is just a metaphorical version of the real history of the universe, or that all religions are the same attempts at describing a true spiritual force present in the universe, or some other total nonsense. But that's all it is: nonsense. It's playing with words to the point that there is no meaning left. Atheism is most definitely not a religion.

Comment 1 (3635) by Richard on 2013-10-10 at 15:27:33: (view recent only)

As always, a thought provoking post Owen - Thanks. Once again, though, I am prompted to respond in an attempt to provide other interested readers with a few ideas for further thought. Firstly, I agree completely with the general point of your post, that Atheism is not a 'religion', based on your completely fair treatment of each of those 3 definitions of that word.

That said however, I think you have also chosen a straw man argument here, (i.e. it rarely exists in the real world) or at least have used alternate wording to somewhat mis-represent the meaning of the statement, so that it is easy to destroy it, without considering the probable real intention. As you stated, 'twist the words enough, and you can make anything mean anything else'.

To clarify, as a 'religious theist' I can't think of any people I know who would actually use the phrase 'atheism is just another religion' but even if some did, I suspect you are aware that they almost certainly are NOT intending to suggest for a moment that atheism fits into those strict definitions. Therefore they are intending to use that phrase (or something like it) to communicate something 'different'...

Given the difficulty you explain with definition 3 - where anything given serious devotion could be (wrongly) termed a religion, there is obviously a real distinction between actual 'religions' and those other things people are simply 'devoted' to. What is that difference?

I suggest this. Almost every human on earth will ultimately acknowledge that there is a real difference between 'fantasy' and 'reality', and that no matter what one personally 'believes' to be true, any two logically opposing views about reality simply CANNOT both true - only one fits with REALITY. The other view is FANTASY. All religions are distinct, in that they proposes to tackle the biggest questions about REALITY and they do this by claiming a supernatural cause, usually in fact a personal supernatural cause - i.e. a God (or multiple Gods - even though my mind has a logical difficulty with that concept, given a precise definition of 'God' is somewhat like Highlander - by simple definition 'There can be only one'! he he

Those big questions are in fact ones that ANY 'view of the REAL world' MUST provide adequate and rational (logically coherent) answers for - usually along the lines of 'How did we get here?, i.e. Origins' What is our reason/purpose for both my own personal existence and humanity as a whole OR is there no purpose for me and humanity after all?, etc etc

Every rational thinking human has to grapple with those same deep questions about REALITY, and come up with a model that in their opinion BEST matches the observable - and the clearly inferred and thus very real but non observable - world.

That model is often called a 'world view' and ALL religions ARE world views. As an aside, many are logically opposing 'world views', and so pluralism (the idea that all or many religions lead to 'God') is logically incoherent.

The kicker is that while Atheism is definitely NOT a religion as discussed in your post, it IS undoubtedly also a world view, and it is reasonable to believe that this is the usual intended meaning behind the (poor indeed) choice of words: 'Atheism is just another religion'.

Beyond the dictionary definitions, your logic starts to get a bit misleading...

Science has given us X,Y,Z - what has religion given us? These aren't simple comparisons. Religion (most commonly Christianity in particular) was THE PRIMARY driving force responsible for the creation of most of the worlds greatest universities, and the vast majority of the worlds greatest contributors to science in the past 300 years were theists. Both are the nurturing ground for the Science we are lucky enough to have today. In addition, Science is simply a methodology, used by religious and atheist scientists alike to improve our reality. They simply cannot be contrasted in the way you have attempted.

The statement 'There's no need to try to understand the real origin of the universe' is unfair, and incorrect. See world-views above. It also assumes a-priori that atheism IS the only exclusive holder of the 'real origin', which of course is one actually of those big questions in dispute. A somewhat similar tactic as smuggling the loaded phrase 'rationality vs religion' in your first line. LOL

Cheers, Rich.

Comment 2 (3636) by OJB on 2013-10-10 at 21:41:50:

Excellent! Whatever else I do I strive to be thought-provoking. Good to know I occasionally succeed!

So you agree that atheism is not a religion. That was the primary point of this post and I'm glad to hear you aren't tempted to take the rather dishonest path of saying it is. I appreciate that honesty.

You may not know anyone who claims atheism is a religion but I have come across many. To be fair when I Google the phrase I "only" get 39000 results and about half of those are refutations of the idea so maybe I have just been unlucky with the number of times I have encountered it.

I agree atheism is a world view (although again it depends on definitions). So you think saying "atheism is just another religion" is the same as saying it is just another worldview. I really don't think that's what the people I debate with have in mind when they say it. They are suggesting atheism suffers from all the deficiencies their religious views do which is not true. If the want to say it's just a worldview then they should say that.

You suggest that many of the progressive elements in modern society originated with religion. Do you really think so? Have you ever heard of Greek civilisation which had already made great progress in this direction until most of that progress was destroyed by Christianity which gave us the Dark Ages? Only the Enlightenment, where the power of the church was broken, brought us back to what we had almost 2000 years ago.

Here's an idea: look up the story of Hypatia of Alexandria then tell me how your religion has brought us so much progress. Actually, I'll save you the trouble. Here's what your fellow Christians did to a brilliant person who happened to disagree with their bigoted nonsensical beliefs: "Some of them, therefore, hurried away by a fierce and bigoted zeal, whose ringleader was a reader named Peter, waylaid her returning home and, dragging her from her carriage, they took her to the church called Caesareum, where they completely stripped her, and then murdered her with tiles. After tearing her body in pieces, they took her mangled limbs to a place called Cinaron, and there burnt them." Hallelujah!

Science is not used by religious people as you suggest or we would see serious scientific papers in respected journals which show your god is real. I don't see much of that. No, if you want to believe religion you must abandon reason. It's as simple as that.

Comment 3 (3649) by Richard on 2013-10-14 at 12:15:11:

Thanks for the somewhat expected - & dare I suggest there appears to be a bit of emotion in that reply. :-)

1 - You said about my argument: "So you think saying 'atheism is just another religion' is the same as saying it is just another worldview."

This isn't really what I suggested (or intended to). I don't think "it's the same" - because clearly they are not the same arguments at all. Rather I suggested that it's reasonable to infer (given your sound reasoning in the post as to why the claim 'Atheism is just another religion' isn't valid) that a DIFFERENT claim that 'Atheism is another worldview' is what people using that phrase might actually be intending to communicate. A subtle but important distinction. :-)

You responded to that by saying that you believe: "They are suggesting atheism suffers from all the deficiencies their religious views do which is not true."

OK fair enough for you to believe that (and even for you to believe it's not true) - However that's a different argument entirely to your post, and IF that is what you believed, then why post and try to refute it by simply stating the now somewhat meaningless claim that 'Atheism is not a religion'. That doesn't actually solve the queries, you believe are being raised! It's simply another clever but pointless distraction / diversion.

In actual fact, unless you are simply quibbling about the word ALL, there are quite obviously some vital similar deficiencies, in that some of the big questions are in areas that atheism (i.e. & science that allows only philosophical naturalism to guide it) is simply not equipped to answer, and an atheist should not be afraid to admit that. In the question of Origins of the Universe for example, the answer (by simple logic) MUST come from a source OUTSIDE the observable universe - Science by definition works based on observations within the 'observable universe', and any new observations due to new technology will simply BECOME more of the observable universe by definition, so there is simply no way that naturalistic Science (and therefore atheism) can ever answer that question completely. Just accept that and move on. Bear in mind that this in itself is no argument at all for theism/religion of any kind - (before you think I am trying to suggest that it is) - I am merely pointing out the similar deficiency of both Atheism and religion - as on topic. Both are simply attempting to make sense of the ENTIRE world we can 'experience'.

As for the History lesson re Hypatia, again this is indeed terribly shocking, but your argument is again flawed. As you often do, you fail to make the distinction between the clear doctrines of Christianity, and the actions of people who call themselves Christians, but act in total disregard for its quite obvious 'guidelines'. You may as well claim that the Justice system should be thrown out because there are a few lawbreakers.

You interestingly chose to include a mention of Peter, not because his name makes any difference to your point at all, but probably because of the fact that many people may make the false connection with the 'biblical Peter'. Clever try, but you are misleading your readers yet again. If this is an unjust assertion Owen, then I apologize, but otherwise why mention 'Peter' at all?

In the Wikipedia article, Socrates Scholasticus, one of those two historical sources mentioned (and I'll clarify by saying I am not aware of any link to the well known Socrates - it's just this guys name LOL) claims that the 'Peter' involved was a 'fanatic', and closes with a lament: "Surely nothing can be farther from the spirit of Christianity than the allowance of massacres, fights, and transactions of that sort".

Indeed a much more logical and 'scholarly' assessment - (pun intended).

You final response - "Science is not used by religious people as you suggest or we would see serious scientific papers in respected journals which show your god is real." - is again a distraction, as it's an refutation to a claim that I wasn't making. The question of whether religious people were using science to prove God wasn't on the table - the point was the invalid logic, when making a comparison you made between the apparent contributions to the world of science vs religion. I am sure most people can understand that.

Cheers,
Richard.

Comment 4 (3650) by OJB on 2013-10-14 at 16:21:24:

Emotion in the reply? Sure, why not. Most people believe in religions for emotional reasons so why not try to refute them the same way?

I don't think the people who say atheism is a religion really mean a worldview at all. because the context is that when I criticise religion for its reliance on faith, failure to change with the facts, tendency to lead to fanaticism, etc, they say science and atheism are like that too. If they just meant a worldview I don't think that claim would make sense.

I would like to know what these questions are which atheism is not equipped to answer. Maybe they are questions which have no meaning and therefore shouldn't be asked? Maybe they are questions best answered by philosophy which doesn't have a doctrine to uphold (at least not to the same extent).

Your example of the origin of the universe is pretty silly. It's entirely possible for a universe to create itself (read Lawrence Krauss' book, a Universe form Nothing) and even if there is a greater "metaverse" outside of that, it is definitely not beyond the ability of science to study it. What's the alternative? Believing some fairy stories from an old book?

The crowd attacked Hypatia because of how they interpreted their religious teaching. There are plenty of places in the Bible encouraging such attacks. The people who pretend the Bible is all love and peace clearly haven't read it.

I just copied the story from Wikipedia. I had no idea anyone would make that conenciton with the name.

Some Christians (such as Socrates Scholasticus) would condemn the attack while others would support it. Christianity is just a collection of contradictory old myths, loosely thrown together in a book, so there is no surprise that it can be interpreted pretty much any way you like.

Maybe I misinterpreted you when you said "Science is simply a methodology, used by religious and atheist scientists alike to improve our reality." I agree with this as long as we understand that the "reality" doesn't invovle unsupported claims of the supernatural.

Comment 5 (3651) by Richard on 2013-10-17 at 21:42:39:

Thanks Owen. I really do look forward to reading that book. In the meantime, does Krauss answer an honest question I am interested in - if a Universe can create itself from 'nothing', does he say it therefore follows that any sub component of the universe, can 'potentially' do the same? It's just that I am not aware of ANY experiments in the history of Science that have EVER created ANYTHING out of nothing - and of course by nothing we mean NOTHING (not even Space Time exists). Perhaps he says that is why we can't 'repeat' it, (because we are now within that space/time environment) but if so - then you have to admit that as you stated, this is NO LONGER the realm of Science at all, this is at kindest pure speculation by scientists without a shred of real evidence, more likely 'philosophy', and at worst blind... 'hope'. (I avoided using the 'f' word there, just for you, ok - now I didn't - humour). :)

Then you say Atheism doesn't have a 'doctrine to uphold' - at least to the same extent. Well done for that clarification offered at the end there. You are right - The 'extent' you refer to, is determined purely by the definition used for the word 'doctrine'. A perfectly reasonable (wider) definition would be 'ideas/rules/guidelines' of any kind, rather than the narrower view of ONLY 'religious' ones. So, of course Atheism has 'doctrines' to uphold - the clearest being philisophical naturalism - the last sentence in your previous post made that very clear. And there is no reason why atheists should have a problem with that notion - I certainly don't think that makes atheism 'weaker' in any way at all. Put simply, all world views have 'rules' that they apply - that's fine. Then you have to observe reality and see if it follows ALL the rules enforced by the world view.

Secondly, can you clarify for me, (and others - if in fact anyone else is really still reading) whether you actually believe in a meta-verse or multi-verses, and if so, on what scientific grounds. I am also intrigued what scientific definitions you would use to set the 'boundary' between a Meta-verse (outside of the observable universe), that you say would not be beyond the realm of Science to study. If so - why would this not simply extend the realm of the 'known' universe - simply by definition?

You are quite right that the Bible is not 'all peace and love' but there are no places in the Bible that 'encourage attacks of that nature for simply holding a different religious teaching', and it's abundantly clear that the teaching available to the Christianity of that period, cannot seriously be interpreted in such a way, in the same way that rational people today don't accept that notion either.

Happy to take you at your word regarding Peter and I apologize for the accusation of being clever. LOL - that's just supposed to be a bad joke Owen - The apology is however quite real. :-)

To finish - I am perfectly happy to clarify by agreeing with you that Science has been used by religious and atheist scientists alike to improve a reality that has nothing to do with unsupported claims of the supernatural. That is indeed the sense I was using - for that point. :)

Cheers Owen - as always a pleasant discussion.
Rich.

Comment 6 (3652) by OJB on 2013-10-19 at 11:24:13:

Yes, read the book. It is highly speculative in places but is based on real physics and observed facts rather than wishful thinking and old myths, so I think it has some credibility. I got it as an audio book and listened to it on my iPhone (I have very little time for conventional reading any more).

Your question gets back to the idea of what "nothing" is. It seems likely that space and time and matter and energy were created in the Big Bang but that doesn't mean nothing existed before that (such as a quantum field) which is responsible for mass/energy appearing from nothing now. It's entirely reasonable to suppose that field has always existed. I wrote a blog entry on this a while back, about the biggest question in philosophy: why is there something rather than nothing.

Whatever the case, this has nothing to do with faith, it is entirely a question of devising hypotheses and then finding a way to test them. Currently those tests aren't practical which is why most of these ideas are still at the speculation/hypothesis phase.

In my experience atheists (including myself) are entirely open to accepting a supernatural world, but only if there is some empirical evidence for it existing. Currently there isn't so until that changes we remain atheists. I now there are supposedly "hard atheists" who just totally reject any chance of the supernatural but I've never met one.

A small sample from your "holy" book inciting violence against your opponents...

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT.

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. Leviticus 20:27 NAB.

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. 2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB.

Plus many, many more. Have you actually read the Bible?

Comment 7 (3653) by Richard on 2013-10-23 at 18:35:23:

Yes - There may be unfortunately, some religious people who choose to rely soley on wishful thinking rather than what you term 'real physics' and 'observed facts' when considering questions of origins, but it is unfair to suggest that is the case for all theists. Indeed, there is no logical contradiction between real physics and observed facts with theism, and of course nor should there be. That's precisely why the debate still exists. Many in fact would suggest the difficulty lies with clinging to atheism, given those same real physics and observed facts. As you offered, the best guesses you could supply that atheism offers are quote 'highly speculative in places'.

Am I correct to understand that you intended to state that a) a Quantum field existed before the Universe, (how can you know)? and b) QF's are responsible for 'mass/energy appearing from nothing now'? Energy from nothing... now? Cool! As mentioned last time - that's good news. Can you provide real examples please - sounds really useful. BTW - Examples (or inferences) from sophisticated experiments in physics labs are not 'nothing' - they are examples of Intelligent Design. I mean real world examples of energy coming from nothing?

Can I also ask what reasonable principle you are invoking to claim that in situations like these when (as you stated) NO current scientific tests at all are practical, an 'naturalist idea' offered by an athiest is called a 'hypothesis', but an alternative idea offered by a theist, using all the same 'real physics' and observable evidence (i.e. no 'old book' is required to be involved - and it certainly isn't the basis for the argument offered as you try to suggest), well that is 'faith'? There is no justification for that distinction.

As for the biblical quotes, yep - I read the bible. They are indeed the sorts of verse typically used to make the argument you are making, and I also even agree that at first glance and even straight forward reading of course this is not unreasonable. I don't back away from that at all. However, as you also stated somewhere earlier, there is enough material in the Bible to make almost any truth claim you want to using that strategy. That is precisely part of the problem with the many and varied interpretations that exist.

That said - I also believe you are reasonable enough to understand full that with the Christian premise that:

1 - God does actually exist.
2 - He did really create everything (including us) and thus absolutely 'owns' and has authority over ALL that creation (including us).
3 - He 'inspired' the biblical authors to write all they did, in order to create an overall cohesive 'message', over thousands of years, that not only served it's purpose in the days it was written, but also serves a purpose thousands of years later...

Then that means those verses (and all verses) must be interpreted 'carefully', and be fairly and reasonably (i.e. with sound reasoning, as opposed to what sounds 'nice' to us) balanced with the principles found elsewhere that are 'claimed' to be God's guidelines to come up with an overall 'Christian ethic'. There are a number of principles that apply here, to enlighten this, and to go over these in detail would take far too long, but from memory a good resource for those really wondering about it, is the book 'Is God a Moral Monster' by Paul Copan. God in this case being the biblical 'Christian' God.

With specific reference to the incredibly sad example you stated earlier, I stand by the claim, that there is NO justification for people to invoke those verses you cited to 'justify' that awful event as 'Christian', when they are fully and fairly examined. They do not have any relevance - in that example.

Again this response is more for other readers, as I have no doubt you are more aware of this than you let on in your posts. :-)

Cheers,
Rich.

Comment 8 (3654) by OJB on 2013-10-23 at 22:44:45:

Well I have no idea what real physics and observed facts support theism. I have never seen a paper published in a reputable journal which concludes with a statement like "the evidence points to the existence of a supernatural entity". If you really think this then I would suggest this is an example of that "wishful thinking" I mentioned!

Energy comes from nothing all the time. Do some reading on virtual particles, then extend that reading to (admittedly speculative) ideas of how that could apply to the universe as a whole, then get back to me.

There is a distinction between scientific and theistic ideas. Scientific ideas on the origin of the universe (however speculative) involve extensions of well understood and observed phenomena. Supernatural explanations require invoking ideas which have either been discredited or had zero evidence supporting them.

So you don't seem to be denying the hideously evil behaviour condoned by your god. That is interesting. You also offer no reason at all why those verses shouldn't be taken seriously. I think you know the Bible is crap. Come on, be brave... admit it! :)

I am aware of one thing. There is no deeper meaning in the Bible. That is just an excuse used by believers when they are trapped, like you are now. The Old Testament is a pile of unconnected primitive myths invented by bronze age desert nomads with many hideously immoral beliefs. The New Testament is a lot better but still has some truly horrendous messages (the existence of Hell, blatant misogyny, support for slavery, plus the message that the OT stuff must still be followed).

There's nothing wrong with the Bible as long as you don't take it too seriously. When you start off with the absurd idea that it's the word of God you are sort of committed to accepting the bad parts along with the good and that's dangerous. As Voltaire said "those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities".

Comment 9 (3655) by OJB on 2013-10-23 at 23:14:59:

Want an example of the "those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities" phenomenon? Go to the web site of your fellow Christians, the Westboro Baptist Church, specifically "godhatesfags.com" where they answer the question "Why do you preach hate?" with the statement "Because the Bible preaches hate..." Damn straight it does!

Comment 10 (3656) by Richard on 2013-10-24 at 16:29:11:

Sigh - Not trapped at all Owen. Lets remember (yet again) that the context of this specific discussion isn't even concerned with whether any of those premises I mentioned, (like God is Real, and 'designed' the bible content) is even TRUE or not! Those things being objectively TRUE is actually irrelevant to the specific charge we are now discussing: That the Christianity (of the Bible) endorses the particular behaviour example you cited around Hypatia.

What is highly relevant though is what Christianity itself teaches that defines how to interpret what is written throughout the Bible to in turn determine the overall 'Christian Ethical landscape'. I did not offer 'no reason why those verses shouldn't be taken seriously', because they should be - I did however say that yes it is not a simple or easy matter, and thus offered a whole book full of information pertaining to why those verses need to be understood seriously IN THEIR FULL CONTEXT, and why it is generally understood by MOST biblical scholars (whether they are Christian or not - doesn't matter) that is is not sound analysis for those verses to be invoked in the way you (or those early radicals) have employed them - to justify that behaviour you cited.

In the same way, The Westboro site is clearly 'radical and provocative', (even shocking), in their approach to the topic of homosexuality. This again is a difficult area, especially in todays current culture. Some elements of their message are supportable (ONLY when you clarify all the definitions used), but the website also can be said to err with respect to other clear biblical principles around appropriate interaction with others who disagree.

A couple of key principles apply at this point though:

1 - As I have mentioned before - It is intellectually dishonest for an atheist to make any moral charges regarding any 'evil' in Christianity, or in fact anywhere. Atheism provides no sound basis for the true objective morality, required for such charges. Rather, atheism can do nothing but provide equally for anyones morality as a purely physical/chemical reaction to be as objectively valid as anyone elses, both that of the homosexual, and that of the Bible and Christianity. Be brave and admit that. :-)

2 - So todays current (what - 'evolved'?) culture does not appreciate the biblical claims about Gods opinion on homosexuality or the existence of Hell, but ALL you can SAY about that is - 'We don't like it'. You can't use your or societies (current) dislike of any claim to come to any sound reasoning about it's actual truth or untruth. So (according only to definitions you impose on it), you claim the bible is immoral, horrendous, supports slavery and preaches hate. I along with countless others (many with far more credentials in biblical scholarship that you or I) say all those are incorrect, and they offer books full of reasons for that claim. BUT OK - ignoring all that (and falsely allowing you an objective moral standard for now by which to judge what is 'immoral and horrendous') - let's pretend you are correct. So... your point as expressed above is therefore ONLY that you don't LIKE it. Don't pretend to suggest any actual resulting truth claims using that logic. Put simply, what's yer point - that Christianity can't be true because we don't like it? Not the sound way to assess it I'm afraid. I don't like some of it (like the existence of Hell) either BTW! Liking it also wouldn't make it any more true.

I totally agree with Voltaire, in as far as your quote goes. We could be here forever discussing each of those 'horrendous' claims in turn. Better to read the book (both books LOL)! I will finish by simply claiming that I think a thorough and 'fair' analysis of Biblical Christianity, as defined throughout it's entire claimed 'reference manual' shows that many of the (real or claimed) atrocities committed throughout history in the name of Christianity do not in fact align with it's real message at all - they were a result of an 'absurd' mis-understanding of Christian doctrine by those committing those crimes. That's all. Cheers. Rich

Comment 11 (3657) by OJB on 2013-10-25 at 10:15:42:

The discussion has moved on several times and was originally about whether atheism is a religion. I don't think the morality of a religion can be isolated from whether it is true or not. Many people would say that if a god exists he defines morality (I disagree) so all of these topics are related.

You speak of Christianity as if it is a single institution with a single message. While many Christians think there is one true message there is no great agreement amongst the tens of thousands of different branches on what that is. I know several fundamentalists who fully support the violent god of the OT and say he has the right to murder anyone he likes. Many more moderate Christians would disagree.

You see, the problem is that Christianity is just a bunch of made up stories (some in an historical context) so this is exactly what we should expect. There is no deeper meaning, there is no truth. These are just old myths and you can pick and choose whatever meaning you like because there is no underlying truth.

Your criticism of Westboro Baptist sounds somewhat less than enthusiastic. I suspect you might agree with them more than you are prepared to admit.

1. Atheists are far more moral that believers, in my opinion. Our morality is based on well considered rules of behaviour and thousands of years of civilisation. I agree it is not an objective morality in the sense that it is imposed by a higher power but that type of "morality" is only moral if the higher power exists and is good. Your god seemingly doesn't exist, but even if he did he would be an evil monster. Following rules imposed in an old book by a non-existent entity doesn't seem like a great path to morality to me.

2. Yes our culture has evolved. We don't like Christian bigotry because according to the best philosophical and logical thought it is not good for society. Trying to impose your baseless beliefs on someone else is clearly unfair. If you don't like homosexuality based on the bigoted nonsense in an old book, fine, but don't try to force others into following your sick worldview.

I really can't follow your twisted argument which arrives at the point that Christianity isn't true because I don't like it. To be clear: I think Christianity is untrue because there is no good evidence supporting it and piles against it. But even if it wasn't fake I still wouldn't like it and I would refuse to obey a god who is nothing but a hideous evil monster. Those two points are completely separate however.

So you agree that believing in absurdities can lead to atrocities. Excellent. All I need to show is that Christianity is absurd. That will be easy enough. Stand by for a future blog entry on the subject!

Comment 12 (3658) by Rich on 2013-10-25 at 21:30:31:

Hi Owen. You are quite right - it has moved far from original topic hasn't it. Reading back will show that I have perhaps made a mistake when actually trying to honestly and fairly respond to the numerous additional (mostly off-topic) comments and attacks on Christianity you have injected into your replies. And although you clearly love to take every opportunity to attack Christianity (and BTW you are of course at liberty to do so - this is your blog after all, and I am but a guest), it does get a little tiresome because you seem to have missed the point of my replies in this post. They have little to do with a defense of whether Christianity is true or not - they are responses to your 'moral claims' about it. So the constant injection of baseless truth assertions don't help this discussion at all. I already know that the atheists assertion is that 'there is no deeper meaning'.

For example, the assertion that there is 'no truth' because there are lots of different opinions out there is of course untrue. Would applying the same reasoning to differences in scientific opinion mean that there is 'no scientific truth'? Of course not. Similarly, I have already tried to explain that while people do indeed try to 'pick and choose any meaning they like' from the bible, that does NOT make every meaning equally valid, and not any & every interpretation is defensible as 'the authors original intention'. That's equally true of any ancient document, like the Treaty of Waitangi for example and a simple enough idea - surely that's not controversial?

The trouble is tho, you repeatedly make unfair charges against both Christianity, and me personally, and it's not easy to let those go unchallenged. Such as:

1 - "Atheists are more moral than believers imo because 'your morality' is based on well considered rules of behaviour, and thousands of years of civilisation". This is nonsense when you consider that theism has been a huge influence in almost every civilisation for all those years, and still is, and so you simply cannot remove it's impact and lay claim that it's 'our morality'. And theists don't 'Not Steal' (as you wrongly claim) simply because it's 'imposed in an old book'. It's written in an old book, because that 'not stealing' is 'moral' i.e an 'ought to do' is a true feature of reality. The question of WHY it's demonstrably a true feature of reality (as you rightly acknowledged) is in fact the biggest problem for atheism.

2 - Ooh - the Bigot word used multiple times here - Uncool. Usual accepted definition includes something like 'Intolerance of a different opinion etc'. Debating truth claims about a subject has nothing to do with bigotry or intolerance, and you know it. Similarly... "Trying to impose your baseless beliefs on someone else is clearly unfair" - Come on Owen - really?! I don't have a blog site, dedicated to trying to impose my beliefs on someone else. You don't really believe that statement for a second. We both know that you don't like the idea that people (like me) might have 'wrong beliefs about reality', and you have dedicated multiple websites to resolving the 'problem'. Unless you are prepared to shut your blog down, then don't unfairly pull that one out of the bag LOL. Of course there is nothing morally wrong with your site - in case there's any confusion.

BTW - WRT Homosexuality. A reasoned and 'tolerant' examination of the subject will show that the charge of bigotry and intolerance laid against Christianity and Churches to homosexuality is by in large a fallacy. Absolutely NOWHERE am I or the HUGE majority of people claiming to be 'Christian' trying to 'force ANYONE into following my worldview' in that regard, and I must object to that accusation Owen. WRT to Westboro - Ask a specific qn and I will try to be specific - it is too easy to make wrong assumptions Owen, when the topic is multi-faceted. Yes - you won't like some of my answers I suspect and I am totally fine with that, but I am in no way not prepared to be open and honest. Qn is - Are you prepared to be tolerant of a different view?

Twisted arguemtn? I wasn't actually making any argument about the truth of claims being related to whether they were liked or not - I was asking you why you appeared to be trying to suggest that. Otherwise why post as you did? Stop doing it and I won't ask the qn.

Your last sentence again distorts the truth. Of course we agree that believing in absurdities can/could lead to atrocities. History clearly shows though that believing in Christianity (in particular) has resulted in far less atrocities that believing in atheism, and it has produced far greater 'good' - (again irrespective of any truth claim on it). That is precisely because it's overall message is far more moral, than immoral.

But anyway - Athiesm is NOT a Religion. LOL
Cheers,
Rich.

Comment 13 (3659) by OJB on 2013-10-26 at 17:29:21:

I would say that the topic has drifted as a result of both of us pursuing slightly different areas of debate. That can be a problem but since we agreed on the original primary idea of the post (atheism isn't a religion) it might have got a bit boring otherwise!

As I said earlier, the truth of Christianity is a critical part of its moral relevance. If there really is a god and he created us and everything else some people would say he has the right to make the rules. If he doesn't exist at all then any moral rules attributed to him have no greater standing than any others.

I would say any belief system which has been around 2000 years and gets more split and in greater disagreement between its internal divisions rather than becoming more consolidated would cause a certain amount of suspicion, don't you think?

If you think I have made errors or unfair claims I would expect you to challenge them, just like I challenge your claims. That's what this discussion is about... well, that and scoring cheap points for my own amusement! :)

1. I believe I have said on many occasions that there is good morality in the Bible. I believe I have also said that treating the Bible as being fallible and being prepared to reject its bad rules is important. If you believe it's the word of God you can't really do that. I don't think that "not stealing" is a demonstrable objective moral truth. It (like everything) depends on the circumstances.

2. I have no problem with presenting and debating any view. It's when a group tries to impose is views through law, social pressure, and hate speech that I get concerned. Religion has a very bad history of this. Atheism hasn't.

Just an anecdotal view, not a statistical one, but when I see people objecting to same sex marriage and other similar issues they are almost always basing their views on a religious belief. They can't say why they object, just that "they are a Christian, so of course they object". I agree their are progressive Christians out there who are more tolerant but the moderate ones in some ways justify the extremists.

Christianity has resulted in far less atrocities than atheism? Really? What planet are you on? Do we have to start a list... really ... wow, I can't believe you said that.

Comment 14 (3661) by Richard on 2013-10-31 at 21:11:33:

Thanks Owen. Before I move on to comment on your 'Absurd' post, we need to finish this stream huh.

I understand (and agree in principle with) what you are saying in your 2nd paragraph regarding Christian truth and moral relevance, but with a few clarifications. IF 'God' exists, then by definition He (she/it?) absolutely has the right to make the rules - no question. That is the definition of a 'God' status. You might say that something other than God exists, that 'maybe' has some rights, but that's a far more tricky qn - could be hundreds of 'em! None are 'God' tho - they would all be something else. Hence the more obvious rejection of polytheistic religions.

You are absolutely right tho on the 2nd part - if NO god exists, then NO moral rules have any greater standing than any others (and that applies whether the rules are attributed to the non existent him/her/it or not). That was of course my point earlier - appreciate your honesty in agreeing.

Therefore quite clearly - under either your world view or mine there is no sound logical basis for any complaining about an 'Evil God'.

As mentioned earlier, this is your blog, so I quite understand and accept the desire and amusement from 'scoring cheap points'. As a theist of course, my morality won't allow me to do that sort of thing! - Ha ha! Please anyone don't take that seriously - and it's a bit of a shame I have to add that disclaimer. :-)

It is also a shame that I have to clarify every statement, i.e. you are not allowing for a bit of mutual trust and understanding in our discussion. Yes of course I get and agree that 'not stealing' is (of itself) objectively a moral absolute - like everything (including killing other human beings btw) is not always wrong. The commandment is 'Do not commit Murder', not 'Do not Kill', and the difference is obvious. The commandment regarding what we call 'stealing' actually uses the term 'coveting' - which leaves open those times when 'taking something from your neighbour', like a dangerous weapon when there is reasonable justification for believing they are about to use it for harm, IS perfectly moral. One good way to make the distinction is that all these 'negative' things are not moral to do 'just for fun or personal gain'. Applying that rule is very defendably the single overall message of the bible (purely wrt moral behaviour I mean).

This is also precisely what I mean when I claim that a thorough and careful reading of the Bible (with the inherent notion that it is intending to convey a single 'overall moral message'), helps to deal with verses that out of that context do cause you (and us all) legitimate concern. I do agree this is not always easy, but the concept here is not illogical, or unreasoned. In fact is it ONLY reasonable to apply this method of interpretation to any form of 'communication' from one intelligent mind to another (whatever the media). Whether the mind being referred to here is 'God' or that of the biblical writers, is not relevant to this particular point.

Given your acknowledgement of the truth regarding relative morality, I do not understand your claim to 'getting concerned' in Point 2. But read your statement carefully, and then examine the same sex marriage issue honestly (acknowledging that there are minority exceptions - on both sides) which group by and large is the one 'trying to impose it's own views thru law (you mean change the law), social pressure, and hate speech (against those of the opposing view)'.

As you correctly state, your next claim is not an argument born out by the stats - it is not fair to generalize and say just because (sadly) some religious people use only their religious belief as argument to oppose 'same sex marriage and other similar issues' that this is the basis used by all who oppose it. There are plenty of non religious people who oppose it too.

I (along with a huge number of others) do NOT oppose same sex marriage purely on the basis of religious belief - tho to deny that it plays a role would of course be dishonest. No, I oppose it because of an evidence based examination of the facts surrounding the idea of changing the law in this specific way. Of course, my religious beliefs line up with this evidence as would be expected if it were a sound view of reality. That evidence and reasoning is of course is a huge topic & not for this post, and as stated earlier I am happy to defend it, knowing already that this not not in line with popular (atheistic) thinking on the topic. Another blog item maybe?

What is interesting though, is that you seem to think that even IF it WAS true that ALL religious people DID object to this SOLEY on the basis of their religious belief - that this would invalidate their right to make a public declaration on the topic, and and deploy their 'democratic' vote on the topic! On what basis do you make a claim that religious people are somehow not eligible to participate in discussions and voting on issues of public law, yet atheists are somehow 'inherently eligible'?!

Don't think for a minute I am relying on that notion to give the 'conservative' viewpoint on this issue a 'leg to stand on' - as above I am happy to defend it without even invoking religion at all, but the point above still stands - whether you like it or not. As you said above, under your world view 'any moral rules have no greater standing than any others', and you have no basis to dismiss their right to participate in the 'public democracy'.

Yep I do stand by that last claim too, and again am happy to defend it - by all means make a list - another blog item? I think we have actually done that before too though? Surely you know this has been looked at by lots of independent researchers, who acknowledge that whether you are looking at wars, (some might call them atrocities, but imo not necessarily so) OR other types of atrocities, the percentage attributed directly to 'people influenced by theism' (yes they do exist in history) pale in comparison to those attributed to 'people influenced by the inherent conclusions of atheism'. Yes - it is a complex topic, and again there is room for lots of varied interpretations that alter the statistics a bit, but this still holds well in favour of theism. Funnily enough - it almost brings us back to the same point of this post - as it is likely you will claim, that because atheism is a 'non-belief' - it cannot be held responsible for any of the 'non-religious' atrocities. That line of thinking however is flawed.

Enjoyable discussion Owen - again this is your blog - I will leave you the last word, as this topic has indeed concluded. Cheers.

Comment 15 (3662) by Richard on 2013-10-31 at 21:13:57:

Sorry - one last thing - I had the words 'wink wink' directly after the 'Absurd' post line above - it was in angle brackets and got stripped out by the blog software. Was important to me that you know that this intended as humour. LOL

Comment 16 (3666) by OJB on 2013-11-02 at 09:55:35:

You think if god exists there is no question that he (I'll stick with the traditional pronoun) can make the moral rules. There is a problem with that. Saying that god has the right to make the moral rules is itself a moral rule. So you are saying the moral rules include the moral rule that the moral rules are true. Can you see the problem here? Even when you invent god as a source of rules you get back to the same old problem of there being no ultimate objective source, just like atheists.

The "scoring cheap points" thing was just me being smart (as you no doubt realise). I do enjoy debating, which includes winning points, but I would never want to win a point on a subject if I don't think that point is true (unless I was engaging in irony or sarcasm).

Regarding the exact meaning of the Commandments. Exodus 20:13 says "You shall not murder" in the NIV but "Thou shalt not kill" in the KJV. 15 is "You shall not steal" or "Thou shalt not steal". This doesn't seem to support your claims.

If you are reading the Bible with the thought that it contains a single underlying message then you are really just seeing what you want to see because no serious scholar thinks it has a single message (especially considering both Testaments).

Making a law which gives one group the privileges that other groups already have is not really imposing your views, it is undoing a previously held oppressive view.

It would be interesting to get some stats and history on the origin of general bias and laws against social issues of that type. Until we do it's just my anecdotes and general conclusions against yours. I would be interested to know what these "facts" which lead you to opposing the law actually are.

Religious people can get involved with any discussion they want but there opinions need to be treated with caution because they are based on fantasy, plus their religion tells them what they must believe. In many ways their opinions aren't worth much when this is taken into account - harsh, I know!

I have never said that all rules are equally moral, just that atheists say the source of morality is a social one (a source which actually exists) rather than supernatural (a pretend source).

I think I know the line of argument you are going to take regarding the atrocities attributed to religion versus atheism. Naturally, I think you are completely wrong, but there's no room here for that. As you said, maybe another blog post.

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.