Atheists who don't hate religion

[Frozenwolf150]

As I've stated in the past, my personal stance as an atheist diverges from that of most other atheists, including some on these forums, in that I believe religion overall does more good than evil in the world. I'm bringing this disagreement out, up front, in the open so that you know where I'm coming from. I'm aware that there will be atheists who strongly object to what I'm saying, or am about to say. This is my opinion, and it's entirely subjective, based on my own personal experiences. However, I will still try to explain it in a way that makes sense.

Hate is a strong word. I realize that. I hope those who use it are also aware of that fact. I've heard from atheists who say, they may hate a given religion, but they hate all religions equally. To them I would ask, why? Why is it necessary to hate something you disagree with? Hate is just repackaged fear, so are you afraid of religious people or what they might do? I don't hate religion; I'm skeptical of its claims. I don't blame an entire religion when some of its adherents commit an abuse or atrocity, I blame the specific individuals who are guilty of the crime. I don't default to animosity towards religion or religious institutions, I have to judge each one individually based on its own merits or faults. Most of all, I don't prejudge or hate people just because they are religious.

I'm not a skeptic because I'm an atheist, I'm an atheist because I'm a skeptic. I am not wedded to the label of atheist. If some evidence comes along capable of changing my mind, that's exactly what I'll do. I approach religion the same way I approach any other skeptical topic, by asking questions in order to sort out the good from the bad, the true from the false. Every religion has done bad things in history, there's no denying that. However, one must not overlook the fact that these are the exceptions rather than the rule, and extremists do not represent the majority of people of faith.

Religion does in fact contribute a lot to modern society. It does good charity work. I've even donated goods to some of these charities myself, like the Salvation Army. It has been a source of much art and literature throughout history. It offers community and social cohesion to people who need it. It provides education to children. It helps people live happy, fulfilling lives, and I'm perfectly fine with that.

I once blamed religion for all our wars, and all the worst atrocities in history. However, this was a shortsighted worldview and a false cause fallacy. Psychologically speaking, religion is an ad hoc justification and reinforcing factor for one's existing morals and values. You cannot teach a child morals simply by giving him or her a Bible or Quran. Religion is often the facade and secondary motivating factor. Politics, territory, and socio-economic factors are at the root of what most would consider religious wars. Over time, I realized that even if these people had converted to atheism, they would still have killed each other for the same basic reasons. It's no surprise that humans have always done terrible things to each other. Our closest relatives in the animal kingdom will kill each other, no religion required.

I do believe religion has a proper place, and that's at one's house of worship or in the privacy of one's home. I have no problem with people who practice their religion peacefully. I'm not going to go out of my way to tell these people that they're wrong, or deluded, or that their beliefs are stupid and dangerous. However, when religion is brought into the public and people try to force it into our laws, then I have a problem. One's right to believe and worship as one chooses is limited by when it begins to infringe on the rights of others. If I want to know about your religion, I'll ask you. I don't need you to pull down your pants and wave it in my face.

I see no need for atheists to go out and try and convince religious people to see things their way. Proselytizing is what organized religion does, and one of the things I object to about it. So why should atheists imitate their methods? If someone has questions about atheism, or secularism, or humanism, by all means answer those questions. If someone challenges you with an alleged proof for God or other similarly BS claim, by all means counter them. However, it should not be a goal to deconvert the religious. Atheists should instead figure a way to tolerate the religious, because isn't tolerance what atheists want from them?

I will say this. Religion isn't inherently good or evil. It all depends on people and how they use it.

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with me, what are your thoughts? I look forward to hearing from you.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The issue is with religion disagreeing with it pretty much makes you hate it in the eyes of the religious.

Just being an atheist makes you hateful to a lot of people.

 

[fromdownunder]

Extremism in any form is not good. Be it religious, anti religious, politically left or right, hating Robert Downey Jr, or liking Fosters Lager.

I certainly have no problem with religion, but maybe being Australian has something to do with this - most of us are pretty laid back and there are very few "Bible Belt" type institutions here, and those that exist have little or no influence.

I used to be a Christian of sorts. Church Organist, Lay Preacher and Sunday School teacher. But it is what we did in the '50's and early '60's. Australia basically closed at weekends and the Church, and Church based functions were THE social outlet. There was nothing else to do. I never took it all that seriously, and although 2 of my three kids are card carrying Christians (my son actually married the Preachers daughter, one of my daughters married an atheist) we all get along just fine.

I doubt that Christians (or any other religious people) per se are any more moral than anybody else, or do "good deeds" more than anybody else, it is, to me, more about how people were raised as part of a society, and taught to respect and treat their fellow humans.

I do volunteer work for Uniting Care, an arm of the Uniting Church, providing food and material relief to people in need. God is never mentioned, even though it is a Church based organisation, we do it because it is the right thing to do, not because God!.

Norm

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As long as you keep religion and state separate, to each his own. Unfortunately that isn't happening in the US.

 

[Loss Leader]

My father generally says that if it weren't religion, it'd be something else. People don't really need a good reason to fear and murder each other, they just need a reason.

 

[arthwollipot]

I'm with Frozenwolf. I work in a sector (international aid & development) that is absolutely dominated by religious charities, so I can see firsthand the work that they do. I see religious people every day who are kind, goodhearted and generous. I can't say, of course, whether they are that way because of religion, or whether they would be that way anyway, but I don't think it really matters.

I'm not down with the outright hostility towards all religion. Sure, there are always some aspects that are pretty terrible, but that's not what defines a religion, except in the eyes of someone who is deliberately seeking to paint religion in a poor light.

In the end, though religion might be bad overall, religious people generally aren't. And it's the people and their actions that I care most about.

 

[Aridas]

As for me, I don't hate religion. At worst, I firmly oppose employing bad arguments to defend or push a position and am annoyed by certain religious groups as they do such proliferously. "If you believe this, you will probably feel better" can be a valid point, regardless.

What I don't do, however, is give religions a free pass when things are done in their name and even more so when their theology or texts support such things, whether good or bad. Yes, religion tends to be just one of the factors in play, but it's generally playing a significant role among the factors in play.

 

[HansMustermann]

Bla, bla, bla, repackaged fear, bla, bla, bla.

Actually you'll find that most anti-theist arguments are just that religion is a bad thing. But I suppose it's easier to do BS about how they fear theists than address the actual arguments.

 

[Dubious Dick]

By and large it is not a matter of hating religion, but, as in the OP a fear of what religion, at its worst, tends to promote. In addition, the fact that religion runs entirely counter to rationality based on the faith without evidence issue.

This is a big subject but just to pick up on a couple of the issues raised.

1. Faith, even meek and mild, effectively defends all faith. It can not but do so. It runs counter to all that skeptics, rationalists, secularists and humanists hold dear. I see it as incumbent upon all of those who have seen the light to challenge the basis of all religion in order to strive for a better, more rational World. This need not involve proselytising as such.

2. Acts of charity are claimed by the religious as a major reason for defence of the faith. See Hitchens et al as to why this is a red herring. Just because some people of faith are lovely people does make the faith true, and if it is truth we are after, then faith needs opposing.

3. There are alternatives to religion for all the so called good things that come from it, and others that are yet to be discovered, but while religions hold so much sway over so many, progress towards better ways of living are inhibited.

4. Nice religion is largely incompatible with the foundational books and beliefs. Further reason to point out the inconsistencies and the fact that if one does not believe in the bible or quran or other as the inerrant word of god, then one is not really a christian, muslim or other anyway. See 3. It is better that people do good for right reasons, than for false ones.

5. I think most of us would be happy if people of faith kept their faith private and out of the public and political spheres, but religions cannot do this if they are to survive and grow. Further, even if kept private, this still means that they are indoctrinating children, and until children are not indoctrinated they will survive.

So, in conclusion, hatred of religion and the religious is a useless approach, but opposition to religion is entirely worthy. Mind you, it is certainly difficult not to hate those who take religion to the extremes.

 

[HansMustermann]

I would add that charity is deceptive for another reason too. It's the same religion that supports the right wing in keeping the inequality there in the first place, and was even more so historically. The more secular countries don't need them so much in the first place, because there's a more organized way of taking care of the poor and infirm in the first place. So effectively it's a case of, 'be a good boy and keep still while these robber barons rob you blind, but rest assured we'll then guilt trip some people to give you back some of that'.

Plus the pretense of needing religion for that is not all that supportable anyway. You know what the biggest charity organization in the world is? UNICEF, with about 3 BILLION dollars worth of money pushed around per year. According to their 2008 annual report for example, they "led or joined emergency responses in 78 countries during the year, reaching 15.2 million children with health care, 5.6 million with water, sanitation and hygiene interventions, 4.3 million with nutrition supplementation and half a million through protection initiative."

And it's a secular organization. Which actually helps with both getting money from the non-Christians too and helping non-Christian countries too. Turns out it helps if your help isn't tied to peddling a religion.

 

[arthwollipot]

Turns out it helps if your help isn't tied to peddling a religion.

Well here's a massive fallacy that I knew for sure would arise in this discussion as it always does - the idea that all religious charity is inextricably tied to religious proselytisation. Reputable charities practice separation of religious work and charity work - in fact this is one of the defining characteristics of a reputable religious charity, along with financial transparency and accountability. If a particular charity you encounter doesn't practice this, then that's a bad organisation and you shouldn't support it. Look at their Annual Report. If they don't have one published on their website, look for an organisation that does.

That said, I recommend supporting interfaith charities in those rare circumstances when you can't find a secular charity. When multiple different religions are all working together, the last thing they're going to do is start talking about religion.

 

[Donn]

My own fear response is when a person I'm talking to (online, or irl) closes-down an avenue of inquiry because <x> where x is something dogmatic. When x is "because the bible" or "because god says" then I become afraid and this, helplessly, stimulates other negative emotions.

X can also be something woo, "because natural medicine is healthy," for example.

Can a strongly faithful person afford to follow a trail of evidence away from that faith? I'd say not. If they work hard to remain where they are, they are scary people.

Is there any person who calls themselves "religious" who has no point at which they will stop asking questions, advancing to the next notch in a rope-ladder of reason and evidence?

How high do they have to climb the rope-ladder of reason before they become acceptable to those of us who eschew dogma?

Indeed, how perfect am I in this same scheme? I'm really not sure. The only thing I am sure about is that I will try to identify and dispel my own dogmas.

Another issue is when you are taken advantage of. If you don't constantly patrol the borders of your rights, they will get stolen by those who don't care about or agree with you.
If you don't oppose <bad things> then you will be swamped. Fighting generates the emotions of fear and hate. I'm not sure how to avoid that.

(This counts both ways - to the faithful, your rights are the <bad things>. In that fight, they experience their own fear and hatred.)

Summary: hate is a valid emotion, so is fear, in a battle against darkness. One needs to control the extents of these emotions and fight against inner bias.

 

[HansMustermann]

That said, I recommend supporting interfaith charities in those rare circumstances when you can't find a secular charity. When multiple different religions are all working together, the last thing they're going to do is start talking about religion.

Except I can't imagine not finding one, since UNICEF is always available.

 

[JoeMorgue]

- Alright I've been on conversations like this before and I know what I'm supposed to say. Someone goes "Ah man don't you see, being staunchly atheistic is just the same as being dogmatically theist. Atheism has its extremist too!" and I'm supposed to node and agree but... that would make me a lair. The person who says 2+2=4 and the person who says 2+2=5 are not equally dogmatic. I get there is this feel good wishy-washy rule these days where it is somehow bad form to point out that not every disagreement is some noble battle of equals but I'm sorry that's not the way reality works.

- I'll never understand why it is when nominally religious people do good things it is somehow a point of favor for religion. There's no metric by which religious people have any monopoly on good deeds. Name good deed that religious people do and you'll find secular versions of that same good deed and the secular version doesn't come with the baggage of the anti-intellectual horse piddle religions bring with it.

 

[marplots]

I love religion. It made me an atheist.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Bla, bla, bla, repackaged fear, bla, bla, bla.

Actually you'll find that most anti-theist arguments are just that religion is a bad thing. But I suppose it's easier to do BS about how they fear theists than address the actual arguments.

I have no problem with religion, just with people who think I should have THEIR religion. Until "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" came out I would say "I'm not religious enough to call myself an atheist", and that worked fine, religion barely touched my life. Then I found out that was because I wasn't paying attention.

 

[truethat]

I am an aggressive atheist but I am not an angry atheist.

The other day I was talking to a spiritual believer who was mesmerized at the idea that I was perfectly happy just existing without coming up with some "we had to come from somewhere" idea. He was also floored at my absolute comfort at just dying and that's that.

I think when I see an angry atheist it's because they were (usually) raised in a home full of zealot Christians with fanatical beliefs. Their childhood was filled with everyone insisting that people who didn't accept Jesus as their savior were wrong and flawed and needed to be saved through conversion.

It busts the mind to be raised in such an environment. So when these types flip over to atheism they take that mindset with them and continue to "attack everyone who doesn't believe the same thing I do."

It's twisted. They just switched from being a Christian fanatic to an Atheist fanatic.

 

[HansMustermann]

I have no problem with religion, just with people who think I should have THEIR religion. Until "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" came out I would say "I'm not religious enough to call myself an atheist", and that worked fine, religion barely touched my life. Then I found out that was because I wasn't paying attention.

I have no problem with many things, including religion, as long as people keep it to themselves. I do however have a problem with strawmen and armchair-shrink acts about what's the problem with anti-theists.

If someone wants to address the anti-theist points, they're free to do just that. It's not like it's a secret what those arguments are. There is no reason to sit there navel-gazing and pull out of the ass what they imagine the anti-theists' problem is. 'Oh noes, see, it's just a projection of their fear of theists'. WTH? Since when does that kind of ad hominem circumstantial even address any of the actual objections?

And frankly, I had enough of the various such mis-representations from the actual theists. I don't need that crap from the faith-in-faith gang too.

 

[quadraginta]

I have no problem with religion, just with people who think I should have THEIR religion. Until "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" came out I would say "I'm not religious enough to call myself an atheist", and that worked fine, religion barely touched my life. Then I found out that was because I wasn't paying attention.

This is the crux of the matter.

Taken in isolation religions are just collections of myths, folk tales, and oral histories, mostly used as morality plays, which have become popular enough to gain some cache of respectability with some group or another.

This is fine, until their beliefs encroach on my life.

By way of example,if you live in a state where you can't buy liquor on Sunday then religion is encroaching on your life. Someone always comes back with "Well, can't you get by for one day?", but that misses the point. (And I don't even drink anymore.) Religious sensibilities are being forced on people who do not share them.The examples are so common that there's a name just for them. "Blue Laws". I'm old enough to remember when only a handful of certain businesses were allowed to open on Sunday in some places. It isn't as bad as it used to be, but any at all is too much.

The even darker side of religion is its ability to justify the most heinous behavior by invoking "faith".

I used to think that I could distinguish between the effects of religion and the effects of churches, which typify the use of religion to control peoples' behavior. But more and more I am convinced that the distinction is one without a difference, as it seems that any (maybe even every) religion gets misused when it gains enough supporters.

 

[truethat]

This is the crux of the matter.

Taken in isolation religions are just collections of myths, folk tales, and oral histories, mostly used as morality plays, which have become popular enough to gain some cache of respectability with some group or another.

This is fine, until their beliefs encroach on my life.

By way of example,if you live in a state where you can't buy liquor on Sunday then religion is encroaching on your life. Someone always comes back with "Well, can't you get by for one day?", but that misses the point. (And I don't even drink anymore.) Religious sensibilities are being forced on people who do not share them.The examples are so common that there's a name just for them. "Blue Laws". I'm old enough to remember when only a handful of certain businesses were allowed to open on Sunday in some places. It isn't as bad as it used to be, but any at all is too much.

The even darker side of religion is its ability to justify the most heinous behavior by invoking "faith".

I used to think that I could distinguish between the effects of religion and the effects of churches, which typify the use of religion to control peoples' behavior. But more and more I am convinced that the distinction is one without a difference, as it seems that any (maybe even every) religion gets misused when it gains enough supporters.

Liquor sales are related more to Prohibition laws than religious reasons.


http://www.prohibitionrepeal.com/legacy/hall.asp