Militant Atheism

[Interbane]

Perhaps I missed the sublety but I doubt he was that clever.

Right, he is clearly not that clever.

[stahrwe]

My own view is that Christianity and atheism can be reconciled, so I think it is good to keep Christian traditions, even while seeking to transform their intellectual content onto a natural basis.

I am having trouble taking this comment seriously. Christianity and atheism are totally unreconcilable you must know that. Keeping tranditions, be they Christian or otherwise are meaningless unless you embrace to underlying reasons for them.

I treated this as a serious post but frankly I think it is a joke.

[johnson1010]

RT:

You seem to equate American atheism, which is a highly compassionate and evidence-based religion, with traditional communist atheism which sets its faith within the context of class warfare. Harris does not seek to "get rid" of anyone.

I have to take issue with this, RT.

atheism isn't a religion of any kind. Religions assert some paranormal thing will occur after death. Atheism is a disbelief in god. That in itself doesn't make atheism non-religious. Pantheists, druids, shamen, chinese ancestor worship and some budhists are all technically atheist in that they don't believe in a diety, but they are in fact religious.

Atheist is one answer to the following question, and only this question.

Do you believe in a god. YES ( ) NO (X) (Atheist)
Do you believe in a god. YES (X) NO ( ) (Theist)

Being an atheist has nothing to say about how to treat other people, what to say on sunday, where you go to be with other people, or any moral framework at all.

It is as useful as a grouping label as "things that are blue" which can include things as diverse as cars, birds, clothes, and the sky.

atheism has no set of morals to follow, no ceramonies, no garb to wear, no intonations to recite, no observances, no invocations, no prayer, no recommended behavior, nor punishments or rewards.

It is a digital answer. Belief in gods Yes or No. That is all atheism says about a person.

It is possible for there to be ruthless evil atheists and beneficent kind atheists, just as it is possible for people to wear blue while they teach children or take drugs. It is not a determining factor.

And i do have to comment that it seems Dawn has been eating her crazies in the morning. Sam Harris is a monster in the making according to her.

[Robert Tulip]

My own view is that Christianity and atheism can be reconciled, so I think it is good to keep Christian traditions, even while seeking to transform their intellectual content onto a natural basis.

I am having trouble taking this comment seriously. Christianity and atheism are totally unreconcilable you must know that. Keeping tranditions, be they Christian or otherwise are meaningless unless you embrace to underlying reasons for them.

I treated this as a serious post but frankly I think it is a joke.

No, it is not a joke. Correctly understood, Christianity is atheist. All supernatural ideas are allegory for natural truth. Orthodox Christians ignore the underlying reasons for Christian traditions. The assumption that supernatural ideas are literally true is the greatest stumbling block for correct understanding of the Bible.

Putting the essence of Christianity as a logical syllogism

The truth will set you free (John 8:32).
Atheism is the truth.
Atheism will set you free.

The contemporary evolution of God is towards a synthesis of traditional mythology and scientific knowledge. When we look at myth through an empirical lens, the deep meaning is always an effort to explain reality in symbols. The corruption of faith has been to take symbols literally, when the original intent of the enlightened authors was to use the symbols to point to a higher truth, namely how human life can be transformed to attune to the cosmos. This high wisdom has been inconvenient for the church which has tried to bury it beneath the rubble of supernatural delusion.

[Robert Tulip]

Atheist is one answer to the following question, and only this question.

Do you believe in a god. YES ( ) NO (X) (Atheist)
Do you believe in a god. YES (X) NO ( ) (Theist)

Being an atheist has nothing to say about how to treat other people, what to say on sunday, where you go to be with other people, or any moral framework at all.

That is your personal view, but in fact atheism is a social movement and a wholistic moral worldview. Atheism has broad historical antecedents in the effort of the modern enlightenment to understand the social implications of science and reason, and the political struggle against delusion. There are massive moral implications in the atheist idea that we should base our beliefs on evidence, because it suggests that we should base our values on facts rather than on fantasy.

Atheism seeks to answer the big questions of the meaning of life by saying that truth is compatible with observation. Theism, in its conventional claim that God exists as a supernatural entity, is incompatible with observation. Therefore, any effort to find truth in theistic writings has to treat supernatural content as allegory for natural observation. This is in fact a highly productive method to interpret the real meaning of religious texts.

Religion is originally defined as 're-binding', the effort to understand how life relates to ultimate reality. By this definition, atheism is a religion. Atheism says the ultimate reality is the natural universe, and that humans should relate to reality using logic and evidence.

As to 'what to say on Sunday', atheism does impact on people's conscience because it suggests they should not say things they know to be false.

[Dexter]

No, it is not a joke. Correctly understood, Christianity is atheist. All supernatural ideas are allegory for natural truth. Orthodox Christians ignore the underlying reasons for Christian traditions. The assumption that supernatural ideas are literally true is the greatest stumbling block for correct understanding of the Bible.

I have to say, this does sound a bit wacky and is kind of abusing commonly accepted words -- no offense RT. I don't get the desire to "save" Christianity and the Bible, other than to understand their historical significance.

[Robert Tulip]

Fair enough Dexter, my views are very unusual. The basis for my claim that Christianity is originally atheist goes back to the complex problem of astrotheology, the argument that ancient religions encoded messages about the stars. This is an extremely widespread esoteric view, for example in the writings of Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell, but it is so shocking for orthodox faith that it has been heavily suppressed and ignored. We are now seeing debate emerge about it with the growing body of scholarship arguing that Jesus Christ was a myth and not a historical individual. As well, Finkelstein's work on The Bible Unearthed shows how theism originated in political manipulation.

My desire to save Christianity is based on a view that there are big truths within it, notably around a natural cosmology of fall and redemption. I find Jesus Christ extremely admirable as the model of human life, even if he is invented. By standing up to the evil empire with a message of truth Jesus offered a hope that still remains valid today. The gospel arguments around social ethics are highly profound and transformative, but their real meaning only emerges when they are taken out of the cocoon of faith. When the supernatural shell is removed, the ugly caterpillar of faith can become the beautiful butterfly of reason.

[johnson1010]

What you are talking about is rationalism, or empiricism, or an adherence to scientific methods, or standards applied to supernatural claims.

These things can make a person become an atheist, but it is not through the use of atheistic principles that you arrive at a belief in no gods.

atheist is the label which comes with the understanding. not how you achieve that understanding, or what you do after.

[johnson1010]

again, that is probably the most noble interpretation of christianity i have heard, but there are plenty of stories that do the same thing.

Without the a-priori valuing of christian myth as somehow inherently BETTER in some way than all previous or following mythology, there is no reason to try to reform it, or eek out the value while explaining away all the dross.

We've had this conversation before, and i'll let that stand where it is.

[Robert Tulip]

What you are talking about is rationalism, or empiricism, or an adherence to scientific methods, or standards applied to supernatural claims.

These things can make a person become an atheist, but it is not through the use of atheistic principles that you arrive at a belief in no gods.

I don't agree with your comment "it is not through the use of atheistic principles that you arrive at a belief in no gods". An atheistic principle is any method of thought that does not assume the existence of a supernatural entity but assumes that observation and evidence and logic are reliable sources of truth. Scientific method and logic are atheist principles. Application of these principles validates the hypothesis that supernaturalism is a crock of shit.

atheist is the label which comes with the understanding. not how you achieve that understanding, or what you do after.

But this means that atheism is like a pure mathematical theory with no practical implications. That is a very timid sort of atheism. In practice, we see that atheists use their understanding to debate with people who support supernatural theism. This is a first step of 'what you do after', and is part and parcel of a coherent atheist worldview based on logic and reason.