“I Hate This Blog!”
I’m never at a loss for words when it comes to revealing the hypocrisy of religion and the people who rely on it. But, every now and then I’m a bit taken aback by the believers who insist that they hate my blog, yet continue to visit. Time and again I’m told that my posts are vitriol, full of “dogma” and are divisive. Most of these visitors declare that they will never read what’s written here again. Yet, they come back! Why? That’s an easy question to answer.
The old saying “Curiosity killed the cat” is one explanation. But, there’s more to it than that. Believer’s come back because they already question their belief. They must quench their natural doubt. But, in the process, one of two things happens, and sometimes simultaneously. First, they’ll read the first paragraph or two, then either scoff, rage and stop reading, OR they’ll scoff, rage, and continue reading. The process’ their mind goes through is most likely the following:
(Internal dialog)
“What’s this crap?”
(insert the word ‘shit’ in place of ‘crap’ for the fundamentalist believer)
“Hmmm…”
(a moment of ponder or brief reflection)
“No damned way! ”
(insert the word ‘god’ in front of the word ‘damned’ for the moderate, ‘fucking’ for the fundamentalist)
“This is bull crap!”
(insert the word ‘shit’ in front of the word ‘crap’ for the fundamentalist, or for a redneck from Dallas)
(the internal dialog continues)
“This guy’s gonna burn in hell!”
(for the moderate/liberal this sentence would read ‘I feel sorry…’ or ‘I’ll pray for him’ OR ‘This guy needs to the shut the fuck up’ if they’re a redneck from Dallas)
-At this point some readers will leave. Eventually they come back and repeat the process, but for those that stay…-
“Hmmm…”
“I don’t know about this”
(personal doubt)
“I really don’t want to believe this. I’ve gotta have faith. Jesus said that we would be persecuted. And he was right as he always is!”
(the last part about jesus is a direct quote from someone I know)
“This isn’t right! This is crap!”
(insert the word ‘shit’ for ‘crap’ depending upon the level of irritation, OR ‘fucked up’ if they’re a redneck from Dallas)
“I don’t know why I come to this god damn blog!”
(insert the word ‘fucking’ for ‘god damn’ depending on whether or not the person making the statement feels like obeying the 3rd commandment, and whether or not they are reading the blog from work or home on Sunday.. If the person is a redneck from Dallas, insert ALL OF THE ABOVE) BTW… Scripture for taking the lords name in vain and breaking the sabbath says:
- For Blasphemy
- He that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. — Leviticus 24:16
- For Breaking the Sabbath
- Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death. — Exodus 31:14
- Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. — Exodus 31:15
- Six days shall work bedone, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. — Exodus 35:2
“GOLLLLY! We’s gonna have ourselves a sinner barbecue this Sunday! I’s guess’ that we’s needs to round up all those fuckin’ sinners and roast’em! Not, ta mention dem dar atheists!”
I’m sure there are many variations of the above internal dialog. But, one has to wonder how many times the believer must reject their own doubt in favor of ignorance before their belief collapses under the weight of fact. I’m gonna take a shot in the dark and guess 1,234,623.567 times. The sad part is that all it really takes is ONE healthy dose of skepticism and a little knowledge.
May 22, 2009 at 10:28 am
A bit of Christian ammunition I particularly enjoy — and I’m sad a little that you didn’t touch on it here — is the mentioning that disbelief in any God is a “leap of faith” made by atheists or nonbelievers. That nonbelief, in itself, is a kind of belief system and also requires faith: the faith that things could exist the way they do without God.
…On second thought, this blog cited internal dialogue and not spoken arguments. I’m wondering if, “Atheism takes just as much faith!!” really is believed by Christians.
Anyways. I’m really glad that I found this site.
May 22, 2009 at 3:12 pm
There are at least three different options: Theists (I believe there is a God), Atheists (I believe there is no God), and my version of agnosticism (Evidence to prove the existence OR non-existence of a God beyond any reasonable doubt is not available). Other definitions can be offered for an agnostic, of course.
It’s very easy for a scientist to question most of the content of existing major faiths (I have a Web essay explaining my skepticism about the God I was exposed to as a boy.). It’s much more challenging to prove that God doesn’t exist in an absolute way. If I say “I believe there is no God.” then that is indeed an act of faith. It takes no faith whatsoever to conclude, however, that the existing evidence is strongly in favor of rejecting the God hypothesis. If the rationalizations of theists are any indication, God has been working very hard to make it as difficult as possible for a rational person to believe in her.
Like Carl Sagan, I conclude from the conflicting claims of all religious denominations to be the ONE, TRUE faith that a very plausible possibility is that NONE of them are correct.
May 22, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Chuck, I’ve actually just posted a piece on this subject…I think it gives my thoughts better than a comment here would be able to: http://eatingcannibal.com/index.php/2009/05/atheist-faith/
May 22, 2009 at 11:27 pm
Note there’s a big difference between “I believe XXX” and “I know XXX”. The origin of the word “science” is from the Latin word for knowledge. If you KNOW something to be true, then that presumes knowledge sufficient for accepting the hypothesis beyond reasonable doubt. That would require compelling evidence Theists may claim to KNOW there’s a God and some atheists may lay claim to KNOW there’s no God, but what they really mean is that they BELIEVE in their claims. That’s faith, in either case.
My essay’s at:
http://www.flame.org/~cdoswell/Spiritual.html
I like to consider it my contribution to the body of arguments making acceptance of the God hypothesis so difficult. Given recent events, I might want to update it sometime soon.
June 6, 2009 at 9:05 am
How can one be so arrogant as to claim science OR religion as the only answer? I see all beliefs to be valid to the person holding them, none superior to any other. That includes atheism. We all are human beings who must share Mother Earth together with fellow womyn and men. If I may ask, what is more vital to peace and servanthood to humankind- getting along, or being “right”? Please consider that as you write some of your more unpleasant and negative diatribes. I submit that getting along is far more noble and supportive of humankind than being right.
God, if she exists, would surely frown upon the combativeness displayed by her fundamentalist followers who seem to be so closed minded to other possibilities and belief systems. Not to mention chauvinist! If as an atheist your “god” substitute is your personal conscience, I should hope that someday it would compel enough maturity so you would see that your own combativeness and absolutism would perform no service to spreading your ideals either. If you will please forgive my candor, I find the dogma and anger on both sides to be repellent and unproductive to peaceful and constructive dialogue. After all, shouldn’t consideration for others trump some fleeting sense of satisfaction gained from confrontational self-expression?
Peace and kindness, Susan.
http://www.codepink4peace.org
June 6, 2009 at 9:46 am
Susan,
What is science? What is religion? Science requires evidence, test, falsifiability. Religion requires none of those. ANY claim requires PROOF. Religious beliefs are NOT valid and are NOT a basis for peace. To espouse a Utopian ideal that by accepting everyone’s beliefs, somehow we’ll all just magically get along is naive at best, at worst it’s just plain ignorant. In order to “get along” there must be truth. Facts must bare the brunt for civility. If there are no facts, then there is no foundation for commonality. Period.
You wrote:
“If as an atheist your “god” substitute is your personal conscience, I should hope that someday it would compel enough maturity so you would see that your own combativeness and absolutism would perform no service to spreading your ideals either. If you will please forgive my candor, I find the dogma and anger on both sides to be repellent and unproductive to peaceful and constructive dialogue.”
Atheism is not an ideal, nor a dogma. It is a default position. Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy? No, of course not. And if someone tried to convince you of such a thing, you would require evidence. Your default position is atheistic. Now, would you call that “dogma”? Check the dictionary. The words “dogma”, “belief” and “religion” are inextricably linked. How can anyone have a constructive dialogue when one of the two positions is devoid of responsibility to facts and evidence? One is a default position, demanding evidence, the other is “belief” and “dogma’. The two cannot co-exist.
You went on to write:
“After all, shouldn’t consideration for others trump some fleeting sense of satisfaction gained from confrontational self-expression?”
I get no joy from being right. Indeed, I find it quite boring and unenlightening. BUT, I demand no more of the religious than I do of myself. If a closed mind is beneficial to peace, then why do we not have it? Once again, the Utopian ideal of “can’t we all just get along” is a fantastic fantasy. It is impossible. The fact is that as long as religion exists, as long as human beings accept nothing more than supposition, myth and hearsay, peace will never be at hand. How many Atheists do you see killing one another? None that I’m aware of. How many religious folks kill each other? Hundreds of thousands. So, whose discourse is truly civil? And how can anything be gained under these circumstances?
And really, human nature as it is a part of nature, is incapable of total peace. Utopia is just as fictional as religion. Indeed, the Utopian ideal feeds delusion, not just of religion, but politics as well.
June 7, 2009 at 12:17 am
Thank you for your comments. I suppose we may choose to agree to disgree, but wouldn’t that be antithetical to the ideal of constructive discourse? So let’s consider something you mentioned, which seems to me to be a rationalization for the use of overly mean words and characterizations about deists. [My partner engages in Zen meditation; does this make her an ignoramus for believing in Buddhadaddy?] That issue is “human nature.”
Human nature surely is fraught with conflict, I grant you that. Might you perhaps consider that true strength, not weakness, lies in self restraint, specifically from the carnal urge of conflict and combat? In that strength is where you may find a wonderful level of peace and enlightenment you may someday seek, even if you are not quite ready for it yet at this moment.
May you perhaps consider that civility, caring, and empathy will draw more positive attention and good regard from your fellow humans than being direct and confrontational? I believe that expressions rich with subtlety and nuance change minds more effectively than bluntness and combative polemics.
Please remember, the soft touch changes hearts and enlightens minds far more than the blunt hammer. I should suggest that you would carefully study the writings and words of Schopenhauer, Tolstoy, Martin Luther King, Mohandas Ghandi, and yes Jesus (not “jebus”). I have, not for any religious overtone but for their common and abiding message of hope, love, kindness, and empathy across cultures. Ultimately, religious or not, it is your love for others, even those who are belligerent to you, by which your life will be judged on Earth, with or without any hereafter.
Peace and kindness, Susan.
http://www.codepink4peace.org
p.s., I am so curious, how would you assess Gora’s Positive Atheism approach?
June 7, 2009 at 6:58 am
Susan,
A good discussion is never a bad thing. And, yes we could simply agree to disagree. However, I will happily address your questions.
You asked if I would consider your partner, who engages in Zen meditation, an “ignoramus” for believing in “Buddhadaddy”. The answer is simply yes. Just because something is “human nature” does not automatically disqualify it from scrutiny and criticism. If I decided to talk with Santa Claus, on a daily basis, and knowing this, could you have a civil discourse with me about important issues without having doubt as to my competency for logical, reasoned thought and opinions? I would hope not. Having “beliefs” that defy natural law introduces potential biases that could easily corrupt logical and reasoned discourse. Facts and fallacy do not go hand in hand. Constructive human discourse requires logical, reasoned thought, not some useless byproduct of evolutionary cognitive processes.
You wrote:
“Human nature surely is fraught with conflict, I grant you that. Might you perhaps consider that true strength, not weakness, lies in self restraint, specifically from the carnal urge of conflict and combat? In that strength is where you may find a wonderful level of peace and enlightenment you may someday seek, even if you are not quite ready for it yet at this moment.”
I’m very much at peace. In fact, more so than I have ever been up to this stage of my life. I have a wonderful wife, a strong marriage, a wonderful home, a small but diverse group of friends… I’m also an optimist. But,conflict and combat are a part of life, no matter how one chooses to slice, dice, or origami it. Whether good or bad, however one wants to label it, these features are part of the human experience. My words are meant to stir emotions, not incite violence. Capitulation of those words to a Utopian ideal, a static fantasy of wishful thinking, is tantamount to surrendering the human species to illogical and irrational thought, in my opinion. Consider that out of conflict and struggle, the written word stands the test of time. Death and destruction out of conflict does not. If my criticism using benign words, non-actionable words, causes pause of illogical thought, and forces useful cognitive processes to override useless cognitive byproducts, then I have accomplished something toward the betterment of humankind. Don’t you think that if Utopian discourse were possible, we, as a species, would have abandoned conflict and combat by this time period in human history? Sometimes the world needs a verbal slap in the face to get its attention.
You went on to write:
“Please remember, the soft touch changes hearts and enlightens minds far more than the blunt hammer. I should suggest that you would carefully study the writings and words of Schopenhauer, Tolstoy, Martin Luther King, Mohandas Ghandi, and yes Jesus (not “jebus”). I have, not for any religious overtone but for their common and abiding message of hope, love, kindness, and empathy across cultures. Ultimately, religious or not, it is your love for others, even those who are belligerent to you, by which your life will be judged on Earth, with or without any hereafter.”
I would agree with you only if the world were a piece of paper. But, it is not. It is forged from the metal of the human condition, fraught with the contaminants of mysticism, skydaddy’s, and tales of the supernatural. Humanity deserves to know facts, truths that are testable and falsifiable. In order to do that, the hammer is sometimes used. But first, the metal must be heated, made malleable so the hammer can shape it.
Martin Luther King, a leader in the fight for civil rights through peaceful means wasn’t the only one to cause change. The Black Panthers, Black Power Movement, NAACP SNCC, CORE and SCLC, and a whole host of other cast members (those who rioted and those you did not) also contributed to change. It would be foolish to attribute the entire dynamic to King’s non-violence creed. The same applies to all that you mention. They were a “part of” their respective ideas. As for Jebus, words attributed to this fiction pre-date his alleged existence, authored by many different ancient philosophers. This fiction’s words were nothing more than extremely creative plagiarism.
As for “hope, love, kindness and empathy”… Do you doubt that I own these qualities? I would be surprised if you did. If you do, I would suggest you read all of the articles on this blog. If I have no hope, then what is the purpose of this blog? If I have no empathy, then how can I possibly discuss this issue with you?
I will be judged regardless of what I say or do. When I am dead, my legacy is what it is. I care about the here and now, not some legacy that I will not experience. In the end analysis, the only thing that truly matters is what we experience in the moment. History does not teach what we refuse to learn, and the future holds no lesson until it’s lived.
You asked about Gora’s Positive Atheism as an addendum to your comment…
It is one method of thousands, even millions of ways to approach civil discourse. It really is that simple.
Thanks for writing!