29 posts tagged “atheist”

So, I've been thinking about truth a lot lately. Namely, I've been wondering how important truth really is in our lives. Does truth really matter that much? Most of us make a big deal out of it, but is it really that big of a deal? Does it define us? Does it determine our lives?

In other words, does truth determine our character, our virtue, who we are? I've been thinking about this because I wonder how many of us judge people based on what they think is true and a particular situation I'm in.

I've been hanging out with this girl for a couple of months. We finally had the "relationship" talk, and she essentially told me that my nonbeliever status may be problematic for her (She's a devout Christian). So, we are still hanging out but there's no relationship there. I hope I'm not setting myself up to get crushed....It's kinda feels like it because she hasn't told me that my nonbeliever status won't be a problem...

Anyway, I told her that I understand her concern but disagree with it. After she left, I was pretty bummed about it. She can't potential have a relationship with me because I'm a nonbeliever....Why does what I believe to be untrue or true matter at all? Shouldn't my character, virtue, my life goals, who I am, etc, matter more than what I find to be true? I think so.

It makes me wonder if truth is separate from what really matters about us. At the end of the day, I don't think it determines who we are and how we act. For some reason, I think other things do that. For example, you can't really discuss the truth of character, virtue, or your existence. These things just are; they aren't a function of truth. I haven't decided what they are a function of, though.

When I look at a person, I see a person. I don't see a Christian, Muslim, or atheist. These labels deal with truth propositions, not the person's character or virtue. I am not defined by my truth. I am defined by who I am. At least that's what I currently think. 

President Obama said the following in his commencement speech at Notre Dame, which was amazing.

For if there is one law that we can be most certain of, it is the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together. It is no coincidence that it exists in Christianity and Judaism; in Islam and Hinduism; in Buddhism and humanism. It is, of course, the golden rule--the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated. The call to love. To serve. To do what we can to make a difference in the lives of those with whom we share the same brief moment on this earth.

I'm not one for labels: they almost always never accurately or meaningfully describe the individual. However, I'm fine with labels as long as they aren't used as pejoratives and represent me, to some extent. Sadly, I consider "atheist" to be a pejorative. What does the atheist label represent? Let's see: intelligence, skepticism, anger, bitterness, unfounded harshness, antitheism, immorality, selfishness, among others. While the last two may not be accurate representations of atheists, I'd say the first five are spot on.

New Atheists--led by the Four Horsemen--are, as defined by an interesting NY Times column,  "polemicists who set out to counter in-your-face religion with in-your-face atheism." Pretty much true. New Atheists are usually mocking, express their anger with the absurdity of religion in the form of silly arguments (Celestial Teapot), and antitheists. While I see the dangers of religion, I'm not sure I would/should spend my time complaining about religion's falsity. Religion isn't going any where for a while. This isn't to say that we shouldn't argue with the religious, but we should do it in an honorable fashion. Ultimately, there is more to life than arguing.

When I read the article linked above, I was surprised to find a new label--"New New Athiests." Turns out that a professor, Mr. Aronson, isn't a fan of the new atheists or their books and is more concerned with what happens when one's faith ends. Essentially, the "new new atheists" pick up where the new atheists left off. Aronson recently wrote a book called Living without God that attempts to pick up the pieces and attempts to develop "a coherent popular philosophy that answers vital questions about how to live one’s life.” As he puts it, this philosophy "must answer questions about living without God, face issues concerning forces beyond our control as well as our own responsibility, find a satisfying way of thinking about what we may know and what we cannot know, affirm a secular basis for morality, point to ways of coming to terms with death and explore what hope might mean today.”

If I had to label myself, I would be considered a "new new atheist." I'm not really concerned with disproving religious dogma and truth; I'm way past that. In fact, it's almost boring to argue about religious maxims. It's something I'm just over. Believing, when I first destroyed my faith, this is all I wanted to do: prove the religious wrong and show them the Truth. But what's the existential point in that? There isn't one. It just made me feel better and was somewhat of a coping mechanism, both of which are characteristics of religion. I was not the person that I am to become. Fortunately, I got past this stage, but I have a feeling most of us don't. For some of us, that animosity towards religion will remain perpetual.

But we do not all need religion, something I think the religious are even beginning to realize. For an increasing number of us, it has lost its meaning and its truth. For me, and I think for many of us, I am concerned with filling the emptiness that destroying my faith has created, but with something more true than religion and without forgetting the facticity of ultimate emptiness and cosmic meaninglessness.

But this doesn't mean that I can't identify with the religious. We have so much in common--despite our contradictory beliefs--and I can learn a ton from them. We all can. As humans, we can work together to save our planet, spread love, help others, live good lives, and have fun. That's what we should be doing: transcending our beliefs to work together and have fun while doing it.  

Lightandstorm showed me this today. I found it to be very interesting. Here are a few snippets to entice your interest.

I do not believe in God; I have an understanding of God.

But the lesson here is if you can explain it in Sunday School, it's probably wrong. You end up with the same unsubtle, un-nuanced, and yes, immature understanding of the Mystery, regardless of which you choose. Whether you accept or reject outright the theology that's handed to eight year olds, you're still thinking like an eight year old. Atheism, literalist monotheism, and literalist polytheism are all wrestling unsuccessfully with the same Sunday School class that likely has nothing to teach you anymore.

Summary: 1) The God you grew up with doesn't exist. 2) God exists. Duh. You just need to think bigger. 3) If you don't have stories with God in them, you go crazy.

The myth of the risen Christ matters. It's not just fodder for cheap zombie jokes. It matters and we know it matters because we've been telling this story to ourselves and each other for thousands of years; thousands longer than Christianity. The triumph of love over death. The renewal of life in Spring. Hope after despair – after the acknowledgement of and victory of and incorporation of grieving despair, defeat, annihilation. The big, ugly suck.

Good stuff!

I like to think that I have grown a lot over the past year or so: never have I read or thought as much as I have this past year or so. At this stage in my life, I am just beginning to embark on the continuous process of developing my personal philosophy, my perspective, the way in which I view the human condition and existence. Nevertheless, I think it is important to assess what philosophy I have developed thus far, even if it is only in its beginning stage.

Perhaps the most existential choice that I have made in my life thus far is the choice to not believe in a supreme being, the traditional monotheistic God. While this choice has been extremely important to me, I feel like what I hold to be valuable or existential is not a function of whether one agrees with this choice. I personally believe that believers and nonbelievers are living in the "here and now" trying to get the best out of the one life we all have. Some of us decide we need God, while others decide otherwise. Some of us find traditional religion to be a tragic lie, while others do not. There are always different means to the same end.

In line with existentialism, the concept of Nothingness is important to my philosophy. I believe that there is no intrinsic meaning to the universe, no innate, preset meaning to anything. In some sense, everything means nothing--originally. Existence precedes essence in that we existence and then we create meaning. In other words, meaning in one's life is not here to be discovered (essence precedes existence). Meaning in one's life must be created.

Truth is a matter of perspective, just like anything else. It is nonsensical to claim that one knows the way to live or the truth. While the natural tendency is to do so, we must overcome this dogmatic, insecure part of the self. Such a mindset breeds division (no matter how much you claim to cover it up with so-called "love". This type of "love" isn't true love), stupidity and dogma. While it is obvious that some truths are better than others, it should also be obvious that within each of our perspectives is some sort of seed of truth. We simply need to look for it through the barriers of language.

Objective morality is dead. Its death should be more apparent now, as we start to think of ourselves as global citizens rather than citizens of a specific country. In other words, morality that says "This is right and this is wrong" is foolish; we must move beyond such a false dichotomy. Build a system of virtues and act in accordance with it. Actions based on virtues exhibit who you really are, not actions based on a nonsensical concept of morality. Plus, look what morality has produced--immoral beings. That is, morality hasn't, and doesn't, work.  

Well, I definitely could write more. I probably will later. It's time to keep back to the family. Until then, I bid you all a good evening!  

There is a devout atheist that writes articles in the school newspaper about the absurdity and irrationality of religion. He has been writing these articles since last year. Given the Christian population at my school, he is constantly pissing people of, which is understandable. As I read his articles, I can't help but notice his tone of belittlement, and I find myself disagreeing with some of what he says. So, I wrote an article in response to one of his:

In Ken Ueda's most recent article, he is correct in saying that not all atheists would agree with his assertion, "Religion is destructive and backwards to human progress," or with his anti-theist position. I, being a nonbeliever myself, do not agree with his assertion or his position. The point of this column is to critique Ueda's most recent article, particularly the anti-theist position he upholds.

The basic premise of antitheism, as described by Ueda, is valid: "people's beliefs guide their actions." He goes on to give some examples that prove this premise to be true. But, his argument goes awry when he uses extreme examples in which a belief would be used to justify a believer's atrocious action to represent the dangerous capacities of religion as a whole: "It shouldn't be a surprise that a fundamentalist that believes that non-believers should be killed takes actions to kill those non-believers."

I'm sorry, but can such an extreme example prove that religion is destructive to human progress? No. Perhaps fundamentalists hold such a belief. Yet how many would actually go through with this belief? How many would actually kill a nonbeliever because their belief justifies his or her action? Not many, if any.

One cannot use extreme examples to show that religion is destructive as a whole, because such extreme examples do not accurately represent the majority of religious beliefs. Moreover, the irrationality of extremists and fundamentalists cannot be applied to all of the religious because the majority of the religious are far more rational than these people. In other words, there is a certain level of rationality that leads most religious people to be moderates, which, in my opinion, is a good thing.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I have more faith in the faithful than Ueda does. The religious are not irrational people. They may be irrational in that they subscribe to a belief that has no legitimate justification, but they are still rational human beings, just not when it comes to religion. With that being said, in our pluralistic society, I think the religious are recognizing that rationality must play a role in determining which beliefs one should hold. In a sense, traditional religious positions must be softened, I think they are being softened, with most people being moderates: religious people use their rationality to reject extreme views that might cause physical danger to others. Of course, pluralism could lead more religious folk to fundamentalism, but I would hope one's rationality would not lead one down such a path. Thus, I think any form of fundamentalism is dangerous, but religion isn't necessarily so.

I imagine that Ueda's response to the above would go something like this: Religious moderates and their religion provide breeding grounds for extremists and fundamentalists. Thus, we should do away with religion to prevent the destruction that could arise from harmful religious beliefs. The thing is, religion isn't destructive, it can be destructive. But what ideology can't be destructive? What ideology isn't a breeding ground for fundamentalism? Is there a difference between secular fundamentalism and religious fundamentalism? No. Both are irrational and intellectually, and potential physically, dangerous. None of this means that we should rid the world of ideologies because of their potentially harmful effects.

The last thing that I would like to address is the quote by Steven Weinberg that Ueda used in his latest article: "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." This is a popular quote amongst atheists, and I can see why. It vilifies religion. Yet Weinberg's assertion is patently fatuous. It implies that the non-religious are incapable of doing evil things and only capable of doing "good," which is flat out false. All humans whether religious or not, are capable of doing good and bad. This, I'm sure, is commonsense to most of us, but atheists copiously quote Weinberg as if his statement has validity. See? Even atheists are capable of being irrational.

I have always been a big fan of The Matrix Trilogy, mainly because of the amazing graphics, stunts, and action scenes. I always thought the storyline was pretty good, but I never really "got" it. Only until recently have I actually started to understand the foundation of the Matrix storyline; I had never really "thought" about it. After thinking about the storyline, and seeing the movie a couple of times on television over the past couple of weeks, I started to see something that is fundamental to my personal philosophy and worldview.

The Matrix, as defined by Morpheus, one of the main characters of the movie series, is "the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth." Neo, the character of the movie series, asks "What truth?" Great question. Morpheus goes on to say that Neo has actually been living in a computer world (the matrix) used by the machines to keep humanity in a blissful state, so that the machines can harvest human energy to continue to prosper. Later on in the first movie, Neo actually sees that the world is desolate and that humanity is on the brink of extinction. Essentially, he now realizes that the world he has been living in is actually a fantasy world that couldn't be farther from true reality. Now, obviously this is just a movie, but I think the fundamental theme of juxtaposing the matrix and true reality can be applied to our own individual lives.

Given my atheistic perspective,  I think that humans have actually created a world in which we can live in, a fantasy world of sorts, because reality is actually too depressing, although it need not be. In doing this, we have become so dependent on this fantasy world that we can no longer see the truth. Truth is now equated to this fantasy world. The truth is that God is a manifestation of our wishes, weaknesses, and fears, and that, intrinsically, our lives, humanity, and possibly the universe, are meaningless.

This fantasy world, our own matrix, is the world of religion. The majority of humanity believes in some sort of deity that is the foundation for everything. This deity and the concept of the afterlife are what keeps us functioning. We want there to be an ultimate purpose in our lives; we fear uncertainty and chaose; and we fear death. In my opinion, the human that lives in the matrix is essentially weak.

Now, going back to the movie, there is a famous scene in the first movie usually referred to as "The Pill" scene. In this scene Morpheus offers Neo the truth. If Neo chooses the red pill, he will exit the matrix and he will see the truth. On the other hand, if Neo chooses the blue pill, he will continue to live in the matrix and will not remember any of what Morpheus has told him. Neo chooses the red pill.