I have a question for the Christians out there: If you could pick one living person to be the face of the entire Christian faith, who would that person be? Even if you could pick three, or even five people, it would still be a challenge. I imagine it would be hard to figure out whether you wanted to pick those Christians who think most like you, or if you would pick people who could better represent the many colors of Christianity, the subtle differences and big-picture similarities.
I am an atheist, a humanist, a secularist, a person of no religion. I am nothing. And I ask the question above because in recent months, the word "atheist" has become synonymous with one kind of non-believer: the kind that writes books about atheism and is not very nice about religion.
Many of these books have been written by atheists who are tired of being silent, who are sick of being reviled and who are no longer willing to play the religion games according to the rules of the devout. That means that they no longer consider religion off limits to criticism.
The authors of these books have chosen titles that re-set the stage, with new scenery, new production and new lyrics. God is Not Great, The God Delusion, The End of Faith. These titles tell the reader right away that religion is being looked at from a different, far less reverential, view.
But there is more than one kind of atheist. And even in the pool of (mostly male) writers who are called "atheist fundamentalists," there are many differences. Don't confuse your Sam Harris with your Daniel Dennett, and although Victor Stenger or Richard Dawkins may mostly agree with Christopher Hitchens, there are many disparities as well.
I take a different approach altogether. Although I do not believe in God, I have no interest in telling anyone else what he should or should not believe. I am more interested in dialogue, and I hope that conversation will get us to respect and understanding. I cannot see dialogue happening with someone who tells you that your core beliefs are wrong, so I refrain from telling anyone what to believe.
It isn't that I am not angry at some believers. These days, many atheists are angry. And we should be.
We are not liked by most people in our own country, and we couldn't win an election unless the other guy was a child molester. We are regarded as threatening, unethical and downright evil. We are rarely even invited to the table when discussions among different religions (or beliefs) are held. We have no representation, and we get very little respect.
Yet the believers want us to be nice; they want us to respect them and leave them to their religions, to their worship, and to their hope that we will see the light and become like them.
The road to understanding between those who follow a religion and those who do not is fraught with difficulty. The difficulty is compounded when the sides involved in the journey resort to name-calling, finger-pointing and the blame game.
It is true that we all need to learn to get along. It is true that the atheists need to be included and respected. But how to start? Where to begin?
It would help if everyone could stop fearing the differences. If people admitted that they don't know the answers to all the big questions and stop being frightened by the possibility that there is more than one answer (or no answer at all), then we might be able to start a discussion that would be worth having.
In the meanwhile, when people think about the atheists out there, it would be helpful if they at least acknowledge that there are numerous approaches to non-belief just as there are a wide variety of ways to believe. Because if you really want to understand Judaism, you have to talk to more than one Jew; you can't ask a Protestant what a Baptist does or doesn't do; and even one kind of Presbyterian is not the same as another kind. And so it follows that no single atheist, or one approach to atheism, represents all the atheists out there.
With that in mind, let's invite more of everyone to participate in the discussion. In fact, the discussion should not be held in some far off conference room with only those invited seated at the table. We should all be having the discussion, within our communities and neighborhoods. At the park, in the coffee shop, at the community center, even at each other's dinner tables.
Once we start, we might see that we have more in common than we all think. Once we all agree to disagree, once we set the rules that no side is trying to convince the other of its rightness or wrongness, once we clarify that we are simply trying to understand each other -- and then move on to other topics of common interest -- then the conversation about religion and its place in our society can really begin.
This post first appeared in USA Today.
Get on with your life if people or employers want to discuss religion just tell them you do not discuss your religion outside of church and home.
They can't force you to talk about it. So let let it be.
As an atheist, I find it extremely difficult to be respectful regarding anyone's religious beliefs. The belief in a supernatural deity is ridiculous and irrational. Why should we just give people who think irrationally a pass? Especially those who make public policy based on what an imaginary, undetectable god in the sky ALLEGEDLY says. If someone running for office said they believed in little green men, and that those little green men spoke to them and advised them of what decisions to make, the world would correctly find the candidate to be INSANE. However, you change "little green men" with "Yahweh", and somehow the irrational belief is acceptable and should be given a pass. Sorry...it DOES matter what people believe. Those who believe this stuff are sadly brainwashed from a young age by the masters of manipulation. As a rationalist, it is very difficult to just sit back and watch the insanity.
Then there are the deceivers.
I think the fraudulent piety, the profanely self-aware hypocrisy of the fake Christian has to be the most offensive to the values of Christianity.
Now if I meet an atheist, not many in Haiti, I try and give a little perspective if possible, but it's definitely not worth the energy of an argument or heated debate.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5015557
Believers are required to behave in a prescribed manner. When one questions a prescript, it's usually not effective to say something like, "...because I told you to..." Ascribing behavioral rules to a supernatural source is much simpler and, as long as there is a shared belief, or faith, in the supernatural, more effective.
All this runs counter to the rise in a belief in the primacy and power of the individual to govern his or her own life, a belief that in terms of human development occurred only recently and is still a radical belief in many societies.
Hence, the conflicts.
Ms. Lalli's post warns against stereotyping people in this fashion. People on either side.
And you respond by, um, stereotyping people in the very fashion she warned against.
Why?
I’m not so sure about this. Maybe this is true, but it hasn’t been in my experiences.
I’m an atheist surrounded by christians. At work, both my boss and my assistant are fundamentalists. In my immediate family, only myself and my sister are not fundies. One of the biggest problems is that the fam cannot cope with the fact that my sister is gay. For years I’ve been doing the whole “let’s agree to disagree” thing but all that really results is that they just expect me to keep quiet while they continue to extort all things bible-y.
They refuse to look at a situation in a different way. Not only do they believe that the bible is literally true, they will only read the king james version of the bible. (They believe that someone who reads the new international version of the bible has attained a lesser understanding of the truth.)
Last week the whole family had a wedding to go to. In advance, my Mom asked my sister not to show any physical affection to her girlfriend at the wedding so as not to embarrass her. She didn’t want her to hold hands or put her arm around her for fear someone would see! This has caused a big divide between them and between me and my Mom too.
As I type this I wonder why I am commenting at all. It seems hopeless. I love my family but I don’t really see any solutions to this.
I am a HuffPo loving, Chomsky/Michael Moore/Al Gore reading, Bill Maher watching, stem-cell supporting, pro-choice, Daily show Dem trying to interact with people who think Rush Limbaugh is worth listening to and that the world was created by g.o.d. 6,000 years ago. Help!
Seriously, help!
with the True Believers, as long as they
abstain from 3 things: Prosyletization, firearms, and my wallet....
The only thing that really matters is what the facts really are with regard to God/Gods.
The only real mystery about God/Gods is: Where's He at? Once you can answer that question, you'll know the answer to God/Gods existance. It's quite simple really.
Imagine... that.
So true. The religiously correct demand so much respect, and yet accord so little.
The "let's talk about this rationally" approach has been tried (over and over and over...). While I don't agree with with all of what Dawkins, Hutchins or Harris have to say, I whole-heartedly agree with how they are saying it. True Christians are allowing themselves and their faith to be generalized by the likes of Pat Robertson, Sean Hannity and 99% of the Bush administration, all of whom do not respond to "reasoned discourse". And having conditioned the public to their abusive and derogatory forms of discourse (AKA the Ann Coulter fan club), these folks have pretty much destroyed any hope of the type of civilized discourse that you are trying to promote.
In addition, if the subject of the disagreement were no more than philosophical political differences (with no harmful repercussions), I would allow those who succumb to wiles of faith their space... but alas such is not the case. The faithful are impinging on the rights of the rest rather than the other way around--and violently in some instances (Iraq). The attacker needs to be brought down--especially when their basis for attack is idiocy and ignorance.
The only religious person for whom I would hold any emotion other than contempt are those who are actively and vociferously calling out the hypocrites in their midst. Until they do this, they are all support the arrogant, ignorant few who use religion to hurt others. And this I cannot abide. I applaud those who continue to aptly and appropriately call these folks out on their narrow-mindedness and bigotry.
We have tried reasoning with them. Reasoning time is over. They are actively dismantling our democracy and their attacks need to be met head on.
Yes, when I came upon your post, I was taking a break from doing just that. I'm the coordinator for the local chapter of the Dismantle Democracy Project.
Soon, YOUR democracy will be totally dismantled. Muwa-ha-haaaaa!!!! HO HO!! HEE HEEEE!!! (Shrieking violins, fade.)
We're coming to get you, Barbara!!!
http://www.wadenelson.com/love.html
Often I find most believers are no more generous, kind, giving, virtuous, etc than non-believers.
When I talk to friends who say someone has an issue with them not believing in God, I always suggest they talk to the person and ask said believer how exactly their *behaviors* are any different (again, aside from punching in timecard at church, etc).
A lot of people have no good response to this, because they likely (again) cheat (on tests and lovers), lie and sin just as much as anyone else, belief or no belief.
And I'd like to think that's exactly how people *should* be judged, not on their professed beliefs, but rather, how they actually behave on an everyday basis.