Olly Winkles

I am anti-religious on many counts. Historically, philosophically, politically, religion shows itself to be so much hot air and nonsense. I am able to accept the many good things that have arisen from organised religion but I hold that the results of alternative, humanist, systems of belief would have been greatly more beneficial. The very idea of using religious texts which fit only with the moral assumptions of the time in which they were commited to paper seems so absurd as to be pitiable. The evils perpetrated by organised religion - throughout history and prehistory and across every continent - do not even need to be listed.

However, I would not call myself "Atheist". My beef isn't with God, who might well exist in some form (completely unimaginable to humans). Indeed I think that Atheists who blindly refuse to acknowledge the possibility of God's existence are as foolish as theists who declare it as fact. The milli-seconds leading up to the creation of matter in the universe; the milli-seconds leading up to the creation of the first naturally reproducing life on earth; these are things which science can only make the most wild and baseless assumptions about. It's something that will almost certainly not be explained in my life time. I often think that these are the essence of what others believe to be "God"... the divine spark, the blind watchmaker, not a form or being that we can explain on our own terms.

I wouldn't call myself "Agnostic" either, because rightly or wrongly, that implies to me an ongoing search for the proof of God's existence. I believe that to be futile.

Ultimately I don't care whether God exists enough to call myself a theist, an atheist or an agnostic. What I do care about is the evils committed in the name of a God that religion has essentially defined, if not created.

I'm sure I can't be the only person with similar thoughts, so what word would you use to categorise my ideas? (careful )

Family Man

I think you operate under a couple of misperceptions:

Atheists don't have beef with gods either. Since we don't believe that gods exist, it is difficult to have a beef with them.

While there are a few that deny the possibility, most recognize that we don't know everything and that we could be wrong. (In fact, the notion that we don't know everything so how could we possibly deny god is one of the more inane theistic arguments we get 'round these parts.) Atheism, for me at least, if the belief that there are no gods, not a statement of fact that there are no gods. That doesn't mean I couldn't be mistaken. I think you'll find most atheists agree with me.

Perhaps you're not so far from atheism as you thought.

Olly Winkles

But doesn't that still leave you in the same boat (2 by 2 ) as theists? After all theists only believe in the existence of God in the same you you believe he does not. That was my point.

doodad

Olly it's sad that such autrocities have occurred in the cause of religion, but is religion wholly to blame? If religion and God are truly creations of man then doesn't the blame lie with people?
My point is this. It's not the basic principles of religion, namely Chrisitanity, that are to blame for the untold and unnecessary loss of life and property, but it's the zealots who misuse those premises for their own gain.

Communism, in its ideal or ultimate state, is supposedly a marvelous economic and social order that is superior to other such institutions, but has communism ever progressed to or reached the ideal state? There are some basic fallacies in the philosophy, but the real fly in the ointment is unscrupulous and uncaring people who are self centered. The same can be said of religion. Look at the Koresh crowd, the Jonestown massacre, and the WTC bombing. In each case I see the basic premises of religion as the scapegoat rather than as the villian. People used their religious beliefs to justify ther errant behavior. To me religion is practiced in order to promote civil behavior, but things
don't alway work out that way. It's no different that the secular system of law standing for justice but seeing countless offenders defying it in hopes they might get one up on the next guy.


With the benefit of hindsight we can look back and see how wrong people were when they abused, maimed, and killed others in the name of religion. I'll agree, it wasn't right. However is it constructive to make a general condemnation of organized religion because of such tragedies? Try to look at the positive things that religion does for society. You personally may have no need of such benefits, or maybe can get your bennies from some other source, but let's not forget the millions upon millions of folks who seem to get some benefit from the practice of religion.

I cannot categorize your views precisely, but I think that you, like me, do not approve of bigotry and extremism in religious practices. To me religion is like a laxative in that it's best to take it in small doses.

Psycho Economist

You are an agnostic extra-liberal monotheist.... sounds like. Sorry if you don't want to be labled an agnostic, but one of its shades of its meaning is the belief that the question of the existance of deities is fundamentally unsolvable. I hope you can come to appreciate that while you're here. Of course, what you really are is whatever you chose to call yourself.

Welcome to IIDB, by the way. Hope you have fun. Also, please don't get offended if the moderators move this particular post to something like General Religious Discussions.

Family Man

Good grief, I hope not. You're presuming that all beliefs are equally well founded. The reason I'm an atheist is that I don't think theism is well-founded at all, in particular that there is a strong lack of evidence for the theistic position.

Let me put it this way. If I believed in leprechauns and you didn't would that put you in the same boat as me? Theoretically, it's the same type of situation: it is possible that leprechauns exists. But who would believe it without more evidence than we have today?

Olly Winkles

Family Man - I take your point but again, you can't disprove the existence of God any more than you can disprove the existence of leprichauns.

Doodad - I do not think i blamed religion wholly for the evils committed in its name. The link is clear enough though, is it not? Personal faith, based on personal analysis of your fairytale book of choice is fine, and I understand it is a wonderful thing to have. Organised religion has inherent flaws which outweight its potential benefits.

Psycho Economist - thanks for the welcome. I thought this thread fitted here because of the forum description but I'll admit I didn't spot General when I posted this thread.

Olly Winkles

Sorry, another point to Doodad.

You mention WTC attacks. I'm sorry but that attack was EXPLICITLY motivated by religious fervour. It's utterly irrelevant that the attackers horrifically misinterpreted the Koran. Unless of course you are suggesting they would have committed the atrocity if they had been brought up in a secular republic rather than a fundamentalist islamic monarchy. If that's the case then my argument remains the same - remove organised religion and you reveal people's true motives and we can then set about solving the political problems that are truly important today.

Family Man

True. But if it is legitimate not to believe in leprechauns why is it so gosh-darned awful not to believe in God?

MollyMac

Wrongly, I think, Olly. Agnosticism is more widely understood to mean that it isn't possible to know whether there is a god or not. I don't think that implies an "ongoing search for the proof etc." Rather the opposite in fact.

I would categorise you - rightly or wrongly - as agnostic.