The only thing is all the Christians I know would say "Why do we need to worry about that! I'll be in Heaven. I can forget earthly things!" If I was one of them I would say the same thing.
If you can pick and choose, then what's the point in believing any of it?
Because picking and choosing is the only way it's useful.
Individual beliefs are just that: individual. I say, with any work of philosophy or theology, or any work that does not have evidence to back up its assertions, you can believe as little or as much of it as you want. The problem is with large organizations that want to dictate which specific iteration everybody should believe.
The point that Andrew and Jason are trying to make is that if you are a religious picker and chooser, you are hypocritical. The fundamentalists might be crazy nutjobs, but at least they are not hypocritical, and do not have a cognitive dissonance.
Believing in the bible, koran, torah, etc. to the letter is crazy. However, it is consistent. You truly believe that your text of choice is the word of god. Because you truly believe that book has power, you do not dare disobey even a single letter in it.
Picking and choosing from texts is no different from atheism. You are deciding your own morality and philosophy. However, you still claim that the text has some supernatural power. This is cognitive dissonance. If the book really has power, and there really is some god, how can you even think to dare go against any of it? Who are you to decide which of the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god's words are true and which are false? Think about it, really. Really think about it. There's an all powerful god. He can turn the world inside out without effort. He wrote a book of directions to follow. The book is the real deal. If you mess up, you will suffer for eternity. If you don't, you will have paradise for eternity. Do you even dare to pick and choose what parts to pay attention to? Do you dare gamble such high stakes by picking and choosing parts from the magic book? Not if you really and truly believe. This is how I know that all non-fundamentalists are actually atheists who will not admit it to themselves.
This is why it is so frustrating for us atheists. On the one hand, all these non-fundamentalists are living their lives as atheists. They are deciding their own morality and philosophy. This is what gives me hope that these people can be un-religioned, they just have to realize they are un-religioned already. On the other hand, these people compare their irrational beliefs and compare them to the crazy fundamentalists, and they can justify their lack of craziness by comparison.
This dilemma is exactly why atheism is the way to go. If you are religious you are either following your religion to the letter, or you are not. If you follow it to the letter, you are a crazy fundamentalist. If you don't, you're a huge hypocrite. If you are going to pick and choose your own morality and philosophy, at least have the balls to say that you are the one doing the picking. Take responsibility for the ideas you have chosen for yourself, and don't pass the buck to a nonexistent deity.
Deuteronomy 12:13 - What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
Of course, you can choose to ignore that part... but doesn't that pretty much negate your faith?
No man! You're interpretation of that scripture is totally wrong! See, in the original language the phrase that was translated to "observe to do it" actually means something a little different. It doesn't mean "observe to do it" or "see it gets done". It means, "do it, if you see fit".
I grew up in a Christian culture where people interpreted the bible as a way to justify their actions and attitudes, rather than letting the bible influence their actions and attitudes. Your parody, Scott, is exactly how things happened -- and people lived and died on whether they could convince others of their ideas. It was a religion of winning by interpretation, not love.
I agree with what's being said; picking and choosing your religion is no different than being an atheist. However, that doesn't mean you still can't pick and choose to form whatever moral philosophy you want; if someone wants to believe that there's some kind of supreme being, and is otherwise rational, I don't see the issue. You can say you believe in a giant sky turtle, and pray to it because it makes you feel better; as long as you don't directly contradict established scientific fact, it doesn't matter what you believe. If there is no answer to a question, you can fill it in with whatever answer you want, so long as you abandon it once the answer comes along.
If someone's moral philosophy is an amalgamation of various secular and religious philosophies, they're effectively an atheist, but they're also free to define that philosophy however they want.
It gets complicated when someone identifies with a religion, but isn't a full believer in said religion. There's something to be said for that sense of community, but you can get that without being religious. Picking and choosing your religious beliefs pretty much precludes you from claiming allegiance to any one particular religion; after all, how can you decide what to omit and what not?
Essentially, use religious texts for their philosophical and spiritual guidance aspects. Accept that you're not a part of a particular religion, and that you're just putting together a moral code for yourself. If someone does that, what's the issue?
Essentially, use religious texts for their philosophical and spiritual guidance aspects. Accept that you're not a part of a particular religion, and that you're just putting together a moral code for yourself. If someone does that, what's the issue?
The issue is that during the course of their picking and choosing, these people pick contradictory things. They never rectify these contradictions due to cognitive dissonance. Another problem is that people in their conscious mind will tell you they believe in an omnipotent god and a book that tells you what that god wants. Then they will act and live as if they do not truly believe. You have people who believe they believe something, but they actually believe something else. These are people who do not know themselves.
Most people do not know themselves. They don't know what they believe, and they don't know what they want. The fact that this is most people in our society is a serious problem.
Essentially, use religious texts for their philosophical and spiritual guidance aspects. Accept that you're not a part of a particular religion, and that you're just putting together a moral code for yourself. If someone does that, what's the issue?
The issue is that during the course of their picking and choosing, these people pick contradictory things. They never rectify these contradictions due to cognitive dissonance. Another problem is that people in their conscious mind will tell you they believe in an omnipotent god and a book that tells you what that god wants. Then they will act and live as if they do not truly believe. You have people who believe they believe something, but they actually believe something else. These are people who do not know themselves.
Most people do not know themselves. They don't know what they believe, and they don't know what they want. The fact that this is most people in our society is a serious problem.
Right. But those people would be that with or without religion. I've met plenty of atheists who are inconsistent. Part of life is figuring yourself out.
If someone knows that they don't know themselves, but is trying to figure it out, why can't they read some books, interpret them, and apply that to their life? Unless you ponder and consider various philosophical and spiritual points, how do you figure out who you are?
The problem with religion is that most people don't use it as a guide for anything, they use it as a stopping point. A finality. The ONLY way a religious text is useful in your life is if you ponder its meaning. Many people will just take its contradictions wholesale and never look back, but this tendency is found outside of religious people as well. It just so happens that religions offer a nice "package deal" of no longer needing to think for yourself.
I suppose my real point is that if you're still thinking for yourself, why can't you reasonably pick up some bits of religious philosophy? Seems to me that someone who is introspective, reflective, and self-critical will be keen enough to not just stop at some religious book, but they may pick up bits of it along the way.
I think Douglas Adams said it best when he said something like "We are all atheists, I just believe in one less god then you do."
I'm pretty sure it was Richard Dawkins. He likes to make the point that everyone in the modern world is an atheist to Norse and Egyptian gods, some just take it one god further.
I suppose my real point is that if you're still thinking for yourself, why can't you reasonably pick up some bits of religious philosophy? Seems to me that someone who is introspective, reflective, and self-critical will be keen enough to not just stop at some religious book, but they may pick up bits of it along the way.
There's nothing inherently wrong with picking some of your philosophy that may have had religious origins. That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about people who say they believe in god and the bible, but simultaneously say that only part of the bible is true. This is a flagrant contradiction that is difficult to tolerate when it is used so frequently as an argument in favor of religion and against atheism.
I think Douglas Adams said it best when he said something like "We are all atheists, I just believe in one less god then you do."
I'm pretty sure it was Richard Dawkins. He likes to make the point that everyone in the modern world is an atheist to Norse and Egyptian gods, some just take it one god further.
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." ...Stephen F Roberts (cite)
I think Douglas Adams said it best when he said something like "We are all atheists, I just believe in one less god then you do."
I'm pretty sure it was Richard Dawkins. He likes to make the point that everyone in the modern world is an atheist to Norse and Egyptian gods, some just take it one god further.
I must have read Douglas Adams quoting Richard Dawkins.
I suppose my real point is that if you're still thinking for yourself, why can't you reasonably pick up some bits of religious philosophy? Seems to me that someone who is introspective, reflective, and self-critical will be keen enough to not just stop at some religious book, but they may pick up bits of it along the way.
There's nothing inherently wrong with picking some of your philosophy that may have had religious origins. That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about people who say they believe in god and the bible, but simultaneously say that only part of the bible is true. This is a flagrant contradiction that is difficult to tolerate when it is used so frequently as an argument in favor of religion and against atheism.
Ah.
Seemed that it was verging on a sort of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" kind of line.
I agree: if you're not a hardline fundamentalist, then by what criteria do you pick and choose what to believe and what not to believe? I find it particularly irritating when mostly radical Christians ignore the parts of the Bible that talk about selling your daughter into slavery, but don't ignore the part that says homosexuality is a sin.
If you're interpreting, you're interpreting, and no interpretation is more or less valid than any other interpretation.
The Bible has a number of passages saying things like:
"Do not add or remove anything from the scriptures." or "Those who add to or change the word of God shall be punished by eternal damnation."
These lines were put there precisely BECAUSE people had already been adding to, changing or removing bits of the scripture to suit their views and aims. That these lines are there is just an early copyright:
"This version is the right one; if you find another copy that has differences, this one is the standard."
These lines were put there precisely BECAUSE people had already been adding to, changing or removing bits of the scripture to suit their views and aims. That these lines are there is just an early copyright:
Precisely, these people were not true believers either. If you really believed god was real, if you really believe the book was magical, you wouldn't dare change it or second guess it because the stakes would be so ludicrously high. Let me tell you, if there really were a god, and it really had a book, I would follow that book to the letter. That is unless I could find some way to do battle with the god.
if there really were a god, and it really had a book, I would follow that book to the letter. That is unless I could find some way to do battle with the god.
Thus the crux of the issue. Every version of christianity I've ever encountered includes a god I would despise. In any such world, I would lay siege to the walls of heaven with the host of Lucifer/Satan/whomever.
So... If changing the bible gets you sent to hell why would anyone be willing join one of those "What books should we include in the bible" councils that have occurred in the past?
So... If changing the bible gets you sent to hell why would anyone be willing join one of those "What books should we include in the bible" councils that have occurred in the past?
Because they're all making it up, and they know it.
No, atheism relates only to god(s). You could believe in life after death in a few different ways while being an atheist. However, you would still be irrational if you did so.
All this is outstanding, but please allow me to ask: Does being an atheist necessarily mean that one does not believe in life after death?
No, not unless you are believing in the christian heaven. Unless it has to do with god I don't see any contradiction. I just think that most atheists just don't believe in the afterlife. For those that do I guess it's like ketchup. I don't like tomatoes but I like ketchup. They don't believe in a god, but they do believe in an afterlife. Edit-written before the post above
Accepting life after death means accepting the existence of a spirit/soul/life force/etc., which are religious concepts, so you cannot be an atheist and believe in life after death.
Well, it's tricky here. as lackofcheese pointed out, atheism is just dealing with beliefs in deities. You can be atheist, but also be irrational and non-skeptical. There are plenty of completely secular non-religious people that believe in other supernatural things like ghosts. There are even people who believe in bullshit like homeopathy, acupuncture, or even perpetual motion machines, but have no supernatural beliefs.
So yes, you can be atheist and believe in an afterlife or reincarnation or whatever. You don't believe in gods, but you believe in a supernatural afterlife of some non-god related sort. Doing so is not much different than believing in ghosts.
If you don't believe in anything supernatural, an afterlife is much more difficult, but not impossible, to justify. You might be able to come up with some justification about how the quantum matrix of your mind will still have a lasting entanglement on the universe even after your physical body ceases to function. However, this wouldn't be much different than believing in perpetual motion machines or homeopathy.
Strictly speaking an atheist can believe in a non-god related afterlife without being hypocritical. A truly rational human being who demands evidence to support all of their beliefs can not believe in any afterlife whatsoever.
So yes, you can be atheist and believe in an afterlife or reincarnation or whatever. You don't believe in gods, but you believe in a supernatural afterlife of some non-god related sort. Doing so is not much different than believing in ghosts. . . . Strictly speaking an atheist can believe in a non-god related afterlife without being hypocritical. A truly rational human being who demands evidence to support all of their beliefs can not believe in any afterlife whatsoever.
I wish to goodness that reincarnation was real. I would love, love, love to think that I might have some better luck next time around. However, as you say, without evidence the belief would just be wishful thinking.
Obviously, part of the appeal of religion is the idea that all the unjust crap we endure in life will somehow be put right. It's very sad to think that such will not occur.
Comments
The only thing is all the Christians I know would say "Why do we need to worry about that! I'll be in Heaven. I can forget earthly things!" If I was one of them I would say the same thing.
Individual beliefs are just that: individual. I say, with any work of philosophy or theology, or any work that does not have evidence to back up its assertions, you can believe as little or as much of it as you want. The problem is with large organizations that want to dictate which specific iteration everybody should believe.
Believing in the bible, koran, torah, etc. to the letter is crazy. However, it is consistent. You truly believe that your text of choice is the word of god. Because you truly believe that book has power, you do not dare disobey even a single letter in it.
Picking and choosing from texts is no different from atheism. You are deciding your own morality and philosophy. However, you still claim that the text has some supernatural power. This is cognitive dissonance. If the book really has power, and there really is some god, how can you even think to dare go against any of it? Who are you to decide which of the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god's words are true and which are false? Think about it, really. Really think about it. There's an all powerful god. He can turn the world inside out without effort. He wrote a book of directions to follow. The book is the real deal. If you mess up, you will suffer for eternity. If you don't, you will have paradise for eternity. Do you even dare to pick and choose what parts to pay attention to? Do you dare gamble such high stakes by picking and choosing parts from the magic book? Not if you really and truly believe. This is how I know that all non-fundamentalists are actually atheists who will not admit it to themselves.
This is why it is so frustrating for us atheists. On the one hand, all these non-fundamentalists are living their lives as atheists. They are deciding their own morality and philosophy. This is what gives me hope that these people can be un-religioned, they just have to realize they are un-religioned already. On the other hand, these people compare their irrational beliefs and compare them to the crazy fundamentalists, and they can justify their lack of craziness by comparison.
This dilemma is exactly why atheism is the way to go. If you are religious you are either following your religion to the letter, or you are not. If you follow it to the letter, you are a crazy fundamentalist. If you don't, you're a huge hypocrite. If you are going to pick and choose your own morality and philosophy, at least have the balls to say that you are the one doing the picking. Take responsibility for the ideas you have chosen for yourself, and don't pass the buck to a nonexistent deity.
Of course, you can choose to ignore that part... but doesn't that pretty much negate your faith?
If someone's moral philosophy is an amalgamation of various secular and religious philosophies, they're effectively an atheist, but they're also free to define that philosophy however they want.
It gets complicated when someone identifies with a religion, but isn't a full believer in said religion. There's something to be said for that sense of community, but you can get that without being religious. Picking and choosing your religious beliefs pretty much precludes you from claiming allegiance to any one particular religion; after all, how can you decide what to omit and what not?
Essentially, use religious texts for their philosophical and spiritual guidance aspects. Accept that you're not a part of a particular religion, and that you're just putting together a moral code for yourself. If someone does that, what's the issue?
Most people do not know themselves. They don't know what they believe, and they don't know what they want. The fact that this is most people in our society is a serious problem.
If someone knows that they don't know themselves, but is trying to figure it out, why can't they read some books, interpret them, and apply that to their life? Unless you ponder and consider various philosophical and spiritual points, how do you figure out who you are?
The problem with religion is that most people don't use it as a guide for anything, they use it as a stopping point. A finality. The ONLY way a religious text is useful in your life is if you ponder its meaning. Many people will just take its contradictions wholesale and never look back, but this tendency is found outside of religious people as well. It just so happens that religions offer a nice "package deal" of no longer needing to think for yourself.
I suppose my real point is that if you're still thinking for yourself, why can't you reasonably pick up some bits of religious philosophy? Seems to me that someone who is introspective, reflective, and self-critical will be keen enough to not just stop at some religious book, but they may pick up bits of it along the way.
...Stephen F Roberts (cite)
Seemed that it was verging on a sort of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" kind of line.
I agree: if you're not a hardline fundamentalist, then by what criteria do you pick and choose what to believe and what not to believe? I find it particularly irritating when mostly radical Christians ignore the parts of the Bible that talk about selling your daughter into slavery, but don't ignore the part that says homosexuality is a sin.
If you're interpreting, you're interpreting, and no interpretation is more or less valid than any other interpretation.
"Do not add or remove anything from the scriptures." or "Those who add to or change the word of God shall be punished by eternal damnation."
These lines were put there precisely BECAUSE people had already been adding to, changing or removing bits of the scripture to suit their views and aims. That these lines are there is just an early copyright:
"This version is the right one; if you find another copy that has differences, this one is the standard."
You could believe in life after death in a few different ways while being an atheist. However, you would still be irrational if you did so.
Edit-written before the post above
So yes, you can be atheist and believe in an afterlife or reincarnation or whatever. You don't believe in gods, but you believe in a supernatural afterlife of some non-god related sort. Doing so is not much different than believing in ghosts.
If you don't believe in anything supernatural, an afterlife is much more difficult, but not impossible, to justify. You might be able to come up with some justification about how the quantum matrix of your mind will still have a lasting entanglement on the universe even after your physical body ceases to function. However, this wouldn't be much different than believing in perpetual motion machines or homeopathy.
Strictly speaking an atheist can believe in a non-god related afterlife without being hypocritical. A truly rational human being who demands evidence to support all of their beliefs can not believe in any afterlife whatsoever.
Obviously, part of the appeal of religion is the idea that all the unjust crap we endure in life will somehow be put right. It's very sad to think that such will not occur.