Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to Atheist bashers resume their knucklehead ways
poteen - back at that age I remember having horrific nightmares as a direct
result of some of the things we were being taught.
A great deal of what has been acceptable to say to children pertaining to religious beliefs over the years, has been nothing more than planting unecessary seeds of psychosis. I cannot say however that I stopped believing the ancient religious superstitions at that young of an age but did ask a number of difficult questions over the following years.
I agree. The concepts of eternal bliss or eternal damnation not only render our lives irrelevent but also give us precisious little time to get it right. With the finality of it reducing the mythical big guy to the most merciless creature ever invented by man.
posted by
gomedome
on May 7, 2008 at 12:26 PM
| link to this | reply
I stopped believing when I was 7 and my teacher told me I was evil for questioning the Genesis myth. I knew, even then, that it was unlikely that I was evil, and that only an evil superstition would lead to the suggestion that a child would burn for eternity (whatever that is supposed to be...) for asking innocent questions.
The idea of eternal bliss or eternal damnation makes the pathetic spark that is life pretty irrelevant from where I'm standing.
posted by
poteen
on May 7, 2008 at 10:36 AM
| link to this | reply
Xeno-x - and as you know I've been called an atheist as well,
Which to me is not insulting in the least, I don't mind being placed amongst some of our society's best citizens. But it is mildly offensive on the level of an individual being so friggin obtuse that they are unable or unwilling to make the distinction, yet would not stand for the same belief misnomer faux pas themselves.
If I were to attempt to identify why I continue to write a blog such as this, what compels me is articulated in your comment. (which I might add, I completely agree with). Things such as: " . . . who favors them and defeats their enemies" This primitive model of a conscious all powerful entity, premised upon a paternal tribal chieftain and showing favor for one small segment of mankind, should not exist in the 21st century. It is as you say in other words; a contradiction to the philosophies of the great religious figures. Was all of mankind created in God's image or just the favored ones? Are we all equal in God's eyes or just the favored ones again? Where the specific imagery may have evolved over time, the concept of a favored people is alive and well in many forms. "Neutral and universally applicable" simply have to be the fundamental aspects of any life guiding force, if it in fact exists.
posted by
gomedome
on May 6, 2008 at 8:03 PM
| link to this | reply
I've been called an atheist.
But now you know, I am a pagan, as the survey shows. I like to be labeled a Druid, but that's not even connected to the real Druids. Just that I have a view that all things are gods and God. Odd.
It's just that the god on which so many religionists hang their belief is a man-made construct, a descendant of the tribal and national gods of the pre-Christian world, their god, who favors them and defeats their enemies. All those gods have passed away, as is this one.
That god I cannot come close to believing in because it is a construct. If they believe that such a god is indeed god, then, yes, I am an atheist.
However, I am certain that there is something. I have had experiences that lead me to believe that another realm of some sort does indeed exist.
The God -- or godness -- or whatever -- is neutral and just is. We cannot attach attributes of any sort to it, although religionists try. It does not favor one people over another, else whatever religion it supposed to favor would be predominant over all the others. The great figures of religion have figured this out -- Buddha, Jesus, etc. -- it's just those of the religion based on these prophetic figures that have created a god the originators never dreamed of.
posted by
Xeno-x
on May 6, 2008 at 2:59 PM
| link to this | reply
Dark_Moon -aside from ignoring the underlying values that some of these
people claim to be proponents of, their perspective is simply the inability to accept that not everyone sees things as they do.
Premised upon a juvenile notion that a divergent religious opinion is an affront to the validity of their own beliefs, they set out to discredit those who aren't buying into what they believe. When the negative assessments are as contrived and weakly founded as we have seen lately, it takes on the appearance (and earth shattering importance) of a schoolyard spat at recess. That is just how some people are. They truly believe that if the world is not simply one big extension of their little religious enclave, that it should be. And I agree, the teachings that their religions are based on (handed down from the "gurus" as you put it), did not include a clause that said "go out and make up negative shit about people". But they do anyways, illustrating for us all just how much of what they believe is failing them as a life guiding precept. . . . can I use the same disclaimer or do I have to get my own?
posted by
gomedome
on May 6, 2008 at 1:14 PM
| link to this | reply
I have loosely studied most of the world's major religions - and a lot of the minor ones as well. I'm not an expert on anything and I'm sure that more knowledgeable readers will offer "proof" that I am wrong but, I don't know of any "god men", "enlightened beings", those men and women upon whom "religions" were founded, who ever condemned or passed judgment on atheists. It is always the followers of these religions who make those judgments. I can't imagine any of the "god men" and "god women" condoning these actions. They talked about love, forgiveness, doing good to others, examining one's own faults and ignoring the faults of others. In fact, if you really talk to the gurus (which you can't do if they are dead), much of what they say sounds like there is no "God" in the conventional mode of understanding of that term. One of my favorites, Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, said in a discourse, "How can you call me an atheist when I sing bhajans (Indian devotional songs) twice a day?" The implication is that what he was telling his followers didn't jive with the traditional wisdom about God, religion, etc. Apparently some considered him to be an atheist because of his teachings about the "ultimate reality". I was an atheist for a few years a long time ago. Now I'm not. My essential nature was the same then as it is now. I love and care about others although I don't do such a good job of putting it into action. I was that way when I was an "atheist". I'm that way now that I am not an "atheist". All of this condemnation of someone because of his religious beliefs or, in this case, religious disbeliefs is just bullshit pure and simple. These people should worry about their own "salvation" and not try to correct everyone else. All in my humble opinion, of course, and I will stand by my perennial disclaimer: I don't know anything so don't listen to me. Write on Gomedome! Moon 
posted by
magic_moon
on May 6, 2008 at 12:38 PM
| link to this | reply