Showing posts with label dogma. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dogma. Show all posts

Friday, June 12, 2009

The Dogma Debate

faith, fail, christianity, christian, makarios, religion, dogma, atheism, atheist, stupid,
I'm not sure why, but a lot of fundys like to accuse atheists of adhering to atheist dogma. (Considering how dogmatic fundys themselves are, it's like the pot calling the rainbow black.) Why, I'm not sure. Even if atheists were dogmatic in our beliefs, what would that prove?



Keep in mind, I was involved in a discussion of atheist symbols, like the Out Campaign's scarlet "A" above. Out of 10 atheists participating in the discussion, I think 6 of us agreed a symbol was a good idea, and 3 agreed that the scarlet "A" was the best one. At one point, we ended up debating symbols v. nonsymbol symbols. (No, I cannot explain a nonsymbol symbol to you.) My point is, after the whole "no supernatural beings" thing, you can't get atheists to agree on anything as a group. You just can't push dogma on a group of people who can't agree if symbols or nonsymbol symbols are better.

Makarios is the latest to offer up this odd view of the atheist community, and he even provides the dogma for us.

1)“Better by far to embrace the hard truth . . .” Here Carl Sagan is instructing younger atheists what their attitude should be in the face of atheism’s hopelessness. (a) we don't view Sagan or Dawkins or Hitchens the way you view your prophets. Sure, we respect them, but in the same way you respect anyone of accomplishment, education and intelligence. (b) atheists don't find atheism hopeless. In fact, we find it to be the only true hope. (c) I'm not sure what Makarios' point is. People should embrace lies if they're more palatable than the truth?

2)“We must develop expressions of awe and wonder regarding the workings of the Universe.” Carolyn Porco, Richard Dawkins.This is now standard and expected fair when atheists are describing, to who ever will listen, what awesome individuals they are and how they will turn the next generation in to wonderful individuals as well. again, way to miss the point, buddy. of course we should regard the workings of the universe with awe and wonder. it is awesome and wonderful.

3) All atheists must get out there and begin doing good works.We’ve heard the now familiar call to all atheists to become good citizens. An example of this tenet can be found in the instruction for all atheists to donate blood during the World Day of Prayer. This demand that you become a good person is in contrast to the standard atheist attitude that was clearly sounded in a recent atheist blog when a young man, lamented, “Can’t I just fuck around and watch tv in the evening if I want to?” first of all, link? i can't find that quote anywhere, so (a) i have no idea if anyone actually said that, (b) i have no idea what the context is, he could have been snarking, and (c) so what if one guy did say that in all seriousness? should we assume all christians are like the man who shot Dr. Tiller in church? and why the assumption that atheists are uninterested in charity and good works? we don't give money to churches, but there are lots of other charities that receive our help.

4) No religion tells us what to do.Only slaves feel enslaved and no one reacts negatively to rules, guidelines and authority more strongly than the immature, self-centred atheist. Simply hearing the word “God” used in a non negative manner makes atheists like Michael Newdow react like cockroaches scurrying from a freshly lit light bulb. Atheists feel stifled and imprisoned by the mere existence of religion. Well, duh. How could a religion control a nonbeliever? Well, unless that religion becomes politicized and then, well you end up with Prop 8, and . . . yeah. "Only slaves feel enslaved". Only Makarios can tell you if you are a slave, apparently. And the cockroach comparison? Way to stay classy, Makarios.

5) Nothing positive regarding God can be mentioned in the presence of children. why yes, Makarios, I frequently proselytize to other people's children . . . oh, no, that would be the christians who do that. btw, wrong on every level to mess with other peoples' children like that.

6) Teaching Christianity is harmful, even abusive to children. meh. this isn't dogma, though i've certainly heard it said. i think it's silly in general. some people do use religion as an excuse to abuse their children, but i think they'd be abusing their kids anyway. and i don't see how you could possibly not communicate what you believe to your children.

7) Christian Children are not the property of their parents. that's just stupid, Makarios.

8) Atheists know best what children need to learn. I can't decide what he's referencing here. i've never heard an atheist say that. is he referencing 5-7, or is he talking about actual science being taught in schools. either way, no, that's not something atheists would agree on.

9) Christian parents have no right to teach their children about Jesus. isn't this really just a repeat of 6? see number 7 for my response.

10) Children must be taught a reverence for science.Well, respect - yes, but reverence? where'd you get that one from, Makarios? oh, right, your ass. children must be taught science.

11) The universe is the single exception to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. and this is why children need to learn science. the second law of thermodynamics states entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium Makarios fails by assuming that the universe is an isolated system not in equilibrium. but he does flog this decaying equine on a regular basis.

12) No Miracles! this isn't dogma, this is logic. if you don't believe in the supernatural, you don't believe in the supernatural. miracles are, by definition, supernatural.

13) It is a given that humans would eventually evolve in conditions present on primordial earth. it's a theory. it could change. again, why we need to teach people science.

14) Evolution is such a powerful force that life is now, even as we speak, coming into being on other planets and/or in other universes. wtf?! i mean, in the vastness of the universe, i would find it odd that ours was the only planet with life on it, but i'm not sure what Makarios is getting at here.

15) Material and natural reality is all that exists. see 12

16) Science has proven that God cannot exist. i'm not aware of anyone who has said this. now, i've certainly heard, and said myself, that god has never been proven using the scientific method, but that's different, now isn't it?

17) Because God cannot be discovered through scientific inquiry, God does not exist. again, you're twisting it, makarios. because god cannot be discovered through scientific inquiry, we cannot say that god exists.

18) Any knowledge that does not conform to materialism and naturalism will not be allowed into the discussion. no, makarios, i'm not taking your "feelings" as proof of anything.

19) Reason and scientific inquiry can tell us all that we need to know and all that we can know. and?

20) Atheists are smarter than anyone who believes in God. christians keep saying this. atheists don't.

21) There is no “I” to the human animal. We are a mass of cells and neurons that operate according to the Laws of Nature. i think he means "spirit" or "soul". i think we're pretty much meat, but that's hardly dogma.

22) Death is the end. well, yeah.

23) There is no cosmic purpose. yup.

24) There is no Divine justice or reward. mm-hmmm

25) Free will is an illusion. uh, wait, what? that's calvinism, dude.

26) Evil and suffering prove that God does not exist. or that god doesn't give a shit, or is a nasty little sadist we shouldn't worship.

27) Living by these Beliefs, Tenets and Dogma of the atheist faith is emancipating. THERE. IS. NO. ATHEIST. FAITH.

yeesh. talk about projection.

Monday, February 16, 2009

The Problem with Christian Apologetics

dogma, religion, christian, christianity, evangelical, evangelism, evangelist, witness, witnessing, bible, god, jesus, stupid, apologetics
You know what the problem is with Christian apologetics? (Well, other than "christian".) Christian apologetics require some thought and understanding on the part of the proselytizer, which causes two problems: (a) most people just aren't educated enough about their belief system to do more than parrot the apologetic, and (b) religion isn't really something most people can't examine that closely and remain comfortable with it.

(a) allows someone like me to mercilessly pound the proselytizer into submission. Not a good way to get converts.

(b) sows the seeds of your own doubt. I was raised christian. Five years ago, if you had asked me if I believed in God and Jesus and heaven and hell, I would have said yes. I really did believe in those things. Then I actually read the bible cover to cover. My faith was dead before the end of Genesis.

Apparently, there is a new movement afoot in the evangelical community: no apologetics, no explanations, no attempt at rational discourse at all. Since I can't think of any reason to assume that simply telling people you believe a thing might convert them, I can only assume this is to protect believers from the consequences of thinking.

From the Rapture Ready bulletin boards:

Kamatu: God said it, I believe it, that settles it

For the Christian believer, this is the core of their apologetic. Nothing more is needed, except some study if you find a passage hard for you to understand.
if you don't have trouble with large swathes of the bible, it doesn't mean what you think it does. seriously, stop and think about this. the most recent passages were written 2000 years ago, by a people whose culture was entirely unlike our own, in an entirely different language. It was then translated multiple times by many different people. Shakespeare is beyond most people, and he wrote in english, around 500 years ago. As a Christian, any defense of the faith (as required in 1 Peter 3:15* and Jude 3**) does not require some kind of fake "neutral" ground. explaining your religion now qualifies as fake neutral ground? One example I've seen repeatedly is a demand to "not use the Bible", but how can we as Christians give up what is to be the rule and guide of our faith? no, i don't want you to give up your "rule and guide", but trying to convince me of god's existence using a book i find no more special than the dictionary isn't terribly helpful. It is not our job to open the heart of the unbeliever, simply our duty to present the reason for the faith that is within us and contend earnestly. wait, are you presenting reasons or not? "god said it" is not a reason. It is God's prerogative to bring conviction on them that they might be saved.

nothing like a little dogma to start my week.

*But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

**Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

I have come to the conclusion that bible verses rarely have anything to do with what the believer says they do.
Creative Commons License
Forever in Hell by Personal Failure is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at foreverinhell.blogspot.com.