insulting religions

[IneedAgoldenNickname]

Hi, I've never posted on this topic before, I tend to hang out in aibu, but don't want to start a bun fight!

So, I am a liberal Christian. I firmly believe that everyone had to right to believe (or not) whatever they want, provided that belief doesn't hurt anyone else.

Earlier today I posted a lighthearted status on Facebook, which had led to me being called mindless, stupid, stuck up, thinking I'm better than everyone else. I've been told God is a c**t (sorry I hate that word so much I won't type it) and that the Bible is only God for loo roll!

I'm just really angry that people think its ok to insult me/my religion like that, when I haven't once preached or insulted others.

Obviously the easy solution would be to delete them off of Facebook, but they are people I get on with other wise.

Don't really know the point of my post, just hoping id feel better writing it down.

[EllieArroway]

I don't know how many times I have heard the canard that atheism is not a belief but the absence of one Yes, because it's true. A quick look in the dictionary would settle that one for you.

The problem with that is that people who are atheists do have plenty of beliefs Yes. So?

They believe that science is the sole arbiter of truth Not all. But there tends to be a general consensus that science is the best way to sort fact from fiction....because it is. How many mysteries have been solved by religion thus far? None. By science? Too countless to mention here.

They believe that morality can be determined by reference to non-transcendental principles. They believe in the sufficiency of human reason to solve the problems of human life What else is there? If you cannot even demonstrate that there's any such thing as "transcendental", then how can you claim that it can answer anything? Human morality is not that hard to figure out, really. It doesn't need reference to any supernatural woo in order to explain it, so why create more mystery where there is none?

All those things are beliefs, and it is disingenuous to claim that they are not, and that atheism has no beliefs associated with it Those things may be beliefs, yes. But they are not actually "atheism" which only means to lack belief in a deity. I know atheists who believe in ghosts & the afterlife, just not god - there aren't many but there are some.

In fact, the statement that 'I believe there is no god' is of course a statement of belief in itself, and all sorts of other beliefs flow from that You are sort of right. The statement "I believe there is no god" is, clearly a belief, and requires evidence to defend it. But that's not what atheism means. "I don't believe in god" is not the same as "I believe there is no god".

I don't believe in aliens - because I have no reason to. I would never say "I believe there are no aliens" because I have no reason for that either.

[DadOnIce]

I think perhaps often people are insulted if their religion is questioned. And I don't mean in a "please explain it to me way - I mean in the same way that one would question any theory for which one has no evidence.

What I don't understand is why the Judeo-Christian God and creation story can't be seen in context as just one of many which human imagination has come up with - given the thousands of other gods and supernatural entities which humanity has believed in throughout the millennia and which have all been shown to be mythical. The Ancient Egyptians believed that the Sun was pushed through the sky by a giant beetle, but we now have enough scientific knowledge to know why this isn't actually true. So why should the currently popular beliefs have any special status? (Obviously when i say "currently" I mean over the last couple of thousand years or so!)

(And when I say I "don't understand" it - just to clarify, as this has been misunderstood in the past - I don't mean "I feel a bit dim and would like it to be explained by someone more intelligent", as in the way I might say to Brian Cox "I don't understand quantum physics, Brian." I mean it as in the way people say "I don't understand why anybody finds Jim Davidson funny", or "I don't understand why anybody watches The Kardashians.")

[Avuncular]

Oops - forgive proof-reading glitch in point 4) please

[DadOnIce]

Avuncular, just to pick up on one point: "[Dawkins] is no doubt an eminent expert in his own field, but is he more than a layman in many of the fields he makes pronouncements / assumptions on?" The problem is that religion steps on "his" territory - evolutionary biology and science in general - so he is perfectly entitled to rebut its claims with fact. Also, one doesn't need to be a qualified theologian to point out that Zeus, Thor, Ra & co. don't actually exist as anything other than imaginative metaphors, so... Neither do you need any special qualifications to point out that tealeaf-reading, astrology, etc. have no basis in fact, and gods just fall into this category.

[EllieArroway]

As politely as I can, Avuncular:

1) RD is no doubt an eminent expert in his own field, but is he more than a layman in many of the fields he makes pronouncements / assumptions on? What fields? Do you mean theology? I don't accept that discussing religious ideas requires "expertise" of any kind. Theology isn't about facts, it's about what a bunch of people think about something. I'm not sure it can even be described as a "subject" in any meaningful sense of the word.

2) It seems to me that he 'rants' partly because he had a 'religiously damaged' childhood Trying to be nice here - but please don't be so ridiculous. What's a "religiously damaging childhood"? Do you mean when a child is brainwashed into believing what their parents do and told that they're off to hell if they don't? Dawkins had a normal childhood, as far as I know, he was just given the freedom to make up his own mind. Oh - and I keep hearing about these "rants" of Dawkins but have yet to see or hear one. He always strikes me as incredibly polite & calm. Can you link to a YT clip of him "ranting"? I'd be fascinated.

3) What is his current motivation - cynically one might question whether it isn't now just a lovely 'money-spinner' for him Some people actually care about what's true & are distressed by the harm religion is causing. A good enough motivation, I would think.

4) What is RD offering in place of faith in God? The satisfaction of destroying something which helps billions to make sense of life and motivates them to make something sensible a chaotic and sometimes very unpleasant situations? Why should he offer anything? Either god exists or it doesn't. It's hardly the problem of atheists if religious people can't cope with the idea of reality.

5) Does he really want the monotheistic religions to go away; they played, and play, a huge part in creating and maintaining the 'civilised' society which provides the freedom to proclaim, debate, question which he is enjoying? No. The enlightenment & rise of secularism created the civilised society we enjoy today. Prior to that, when religion was in charge, death, murder, disease & inequality were the order of the day. It's called the dark ages for a reason. If you think a theocracy is a grand idea, go and live in Iran.

I have to go to work now.

[demisemiquaver]

religous people who feel superior to those not sharing their beliefs/opinions =non-believers who sneer (and feel superior to) people who believe in a religion : both are probably smug types

[ethelb]

@demi yes. And it is sad as the OP doesn't appear to be either.

[niminypiminy]

Ellie, even if I wasn't a Christian, I'd see your contention that something that doesn't study 'facts' can't be a real subject as an example of the worst kind of philistinism. All sorts of subjects do not study 'facts': philosophy (including philosophy of science), theoretical physics, art, literature, music. I'm doubtful whether history would meet your criterion of fact-based study, based as it is on hearsay, testimony and inference (and showing, as it does, that there is no such thing as an unarguable, objectively true historical fact). Nor would large parts of anthropology, sociology, geography - and so on. Simply because you do not like the subject matter of theology does not mean it is not a subject with a long and rich intellectual tradition.

[amillionyears]

Havent got time to read all posts in detail yet. Will need to if I post again.

And cant say I agree with everything Ellie is saying.

But the bit where Ellie disagrees with Niminy
Niminy 09.51am

The bible says in one place
"If you are not for us, you are against us.

And in another it says
"If you are not against us, you are for us"

It took me a while to notice those two different parts of the bible, and even longer to reconcile them.

And they are why it is possible that atheists can still become Christians at some point in their lives.
Ellie imo is in the second category. She may not realise this herself, but perhaps she does, and that is sort of the point she is trying to make. [sorry Ellie if you are a man, I dont know if you are a man or a woman, it doesnt matter for this anyway].

[amillionyears]

Actually, just realised I should not have put that in "" , as I only tend to do that if they are exact quotes.
If anyone wants the exact quotes, I shall set about to find them.

[amillionyears]

Would also like to add that Christians all have different personalities, as does the whole world.
Yes, wouldnt it be lovely if all Christians were perfect, but unfortuneately none of us are, and will not have achieved that perfection before we die.

[ethelb]

@niminypiminy as a scientist (and Christian) I am also irritated that people are so defensive about spouting 'views' on something that they have very little actua theoretical groundign in. I studied genetics and evolution at uni and the bollocks that some people who claim to 'believe in evolution' come out with is shocking.

I think theological education and scientific education in this country are quite lacking, which is why theses debates get so heated.

[niminypiminy]

DadonIce: perhaps you'd like to try and define what a fact is?

RD is an able populariser of a certain brand of biology. But he is not, and has not been for some decades, a serious research scientist. His ideas about the role of genes have never been accepted by geneticists as a whole, and since the publication of The Selfish Gene, research has moved on.

If he knew anything about theology, which he patently doesn't, he would know that most Christian theologians (and indeed most Christians) don't see any contradiction between natural selection and a belief in God. He would also know that he is much more obsessed by the 'religion/science' conflict than nearly all Christians -- most of whom are more interested in living out the gospel, and trying to put into practice the great commandment - to love your God with all your mind, and heart and strength, and to love your neighbour as yourself.

[IneedAgoldenNickname]

Demi I agree that people who think they are better than others, be they religious or atheist, are smug. And as ethelb says I don't think I am better than anyone else, but their posts made it clear they think they are better then me.

I actually rarely like/share/post religious things on Facebook, I 'like' the odd post that pops up if it really 'speaks' to me and isn't judgemental (mind you, if it were judgemental I wouldn't agree with it anyway)

[EllieArroway]

Very quickly - comparing theoretical physics with theology is....well, words fail me, to be honest.

The study of what some being who no one can demonstrate even exists thinks about how we live etc is not a subject. It's unsupported waffle. I don't accept that it has a "long, intellectual tradition". Long and traditional, maybe....but "intellectual"?

Philosophy is different. It's the father of science. It's where honest enquiry begins.

Art, music & literature actually exist, so can be studied in various ways.

Some aspects of theology are interesting - the study of religions & how they have evolved etc. But given that the word literally means "the study of god" (a being that you have to presuppose even exists before you can demonstrate that it's a subject worth studying) then I don't accept that it's worthy of being compared to theoretical physics, or even philosophy.

And the issue of whether god exists or not is actually scientific, not theological - so the idea that only theologians should discuss it is nonsense.

Will check back later.

[ethelb]

But Ellie, if you lined up someone with a degree in theoretical physics and one with theology they would both be educated to the same level surely?

[AnnieLobeseder]

Many of my friends are American and South African, both countries where Christian belief if a big part of their culture, so I have to put up with a fair amount of religious posts. But I just ignore them, and certainly don't respond rudely or negatively. You can't expect people to just throw off what they were raised to believe and are surrounded by all the time.

So while I wince at their posts, and get a little grumpy about the ones about "lost lives with no purpose" when they refer to unbelievers, I just refrain from comment. My new year's resolution is not to let religious stuff on FB bother me!

Do you sent your FB status updates out to everyone? I have a small group I that get my regular updates. The rest of my friends are more acquaintances and I don't know how they would react to the endless feminist links and posts I make. So I only send them out to people who understand my feelings, or are at least good enough friends not to be rude about it . Perhaps you should set up a group to receive your religious posts, excluding the people who were so rude.

[amillionyears]

ouch, "lost lives with no purpose", what a rude thing for people to post.
I just think of practically all unbelievers, as potential believers.
I dont use facebook, so dont know how it all works.

Ellie, the study of anything somewhat relies on other peoples povs being correct.

As I have said on MN before, God cannot be proved in a scientific way.
People have to come to God by faith. The definition of faith is believing in something that cannot be proven.
So anyone that is trying to find God by science, will never be able to do it.

[amillionyears]

Annie, I think you are handling your friends posts very well.

[ethelb]

what was the status btw OP?

[HolofernesesHead]

unsupported waffle?

[HolofernesesHead]

more unsupported waffle?

[IneedAgoldenNickname]

I can't remember the exact wording, but something along the lines of 'really enjoying my debate with evangelical Americans' which was in relation to a discussion I was having elsewhere. So the status didn't mention the Bible, or God, or being better than anyone else.

[AnnieLobeseder]

Even weirder then! Perhaps they assumed you were arguing against the evangelists (because let's be honest, some of them are a 'little extreme') and would agree with their viewpoint.

[IneedAgoldenNickname]

I was definitely disagreeing with the evangelicals, they told me I'd burn in hell