"The difficulty of course is that loyalty is not necessarily a virtue: it is only as good as the object of the loyalty is. Many putative human virtues are equivocal in that way: good if the project they serve is good, but not if it isn't"
Ophelia Benson
"Political vs. Scientific Truth"
Free Inquiry, June/July 2007
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Why ask, "Why are you here?"
I have to admit that Eliot Daley seems like a nice enough guy. He seems to genuinely want to understand what motivates atheists, at least in regard to reading religious based articles and commentaries. He may be nice but his article on Huffington Post, "Welcome, Atheists. But, Really, Why Are You Here?", reveals him to be, like so many others, ignorant and bigoted.
The question itself, though understandable, implies a number of ignorant assumptions. Why would someone have to believe something to be true in order to find it interesting? I like stories about all sorts of fantastical creatures. Just because I know they are fictional does not mean I can't enjoy them. Religion plays an important role in many peoples lives. I don't understand why but that only increases rather than decreases my interest in reading about it. Daley also admits to be shocked at the "knowledgeable references to elements of faith" made by atheists commenting on his posts. Even worse, he then jumps to the conclusion that these atheists must have been religious at some point. It never seems to occur to him that an atheist just might be as knowledgeable or even more so than a theist without ever having been a believer. I have never believed but have always been fascinated by religion. By the time I graduated high school I had already read cover to cover the sacred texts of a handful of Religions.
Daley also seems to think that atheists are not aware of there being more than one version of the God concept. It is ironic since in his expounding on this view he mixes the versions without realizing he is doing so. His grasp of science and natural history comes across as being as flimsy as his understanding of atheists which he then projects onto the atheists who comment on his posts. This confusion and misunderstanding apparently is partially why Daley gives in to the stereotype that atheists are arrogant.
I also find it interesting that in a few places Daley talks about avoiding judging atheists who comment on his posts. He passes judgement throughout. The question is also somewhat hypocritical since he, and many others, prefer to believe that atheists have come to non-belief through ignorance and lack of understanding. Wouldn't such people want atheists to read religious materials? Why question us when we choose to do so?
Perhaps, it has occurred to him that we are well informed and our understanding surpasses his own. It may be easier for theists to stomach the idea of ignorant atheists rather than well informed ones.
The question itself, though understandable, implies a number of ignorant assumptions. Why would someone have to believe something to be true in order to find it interesting? I like stories about all sorts of fantastical creatures. Just because I know they are fictional does not mean I can't enjoy them. Religion plays an important role in many peoples lives. I don't understand why but that only increases rather than decreases my interest in reading about it. Daley also admits to be shocked at the "knowledgeable references to elements of faith" made by atheists commenting on his posts. Even worse, he then jumps to the conclusion that these atheists must have been religious at some point. It never seems to occur to him that an atheist just might be as knowledgeable or even more so than a theist without ever having been a believer. I have never believed but have always been fascinated by religion. By the time I graduated high school I had already read cover to cover the sacred texts of a handful of Religions.
Daley also seems to think that atheists are not aware of there being more than one version of the God concept. It is ironic since in his expounding on this view he mixes the versions without realizing he is doing so. His grasp of science and natural history comes across as being as flimsy as his understanding of atheists which he then projects onto the atheists who comment on his posts. This confusion and misunderstanding apparently is partially why Daley gives in to the stereotype that atheists are arrogant.
I also find it interesting that in a few places Daley talks about avoiding judging atheists who comment on his posts. He passes judgement throughout. The question is also somewhat hypocritical since he, and many others, prefer to believe that atheists have come to non-belief through ignorance and lack of understanding. Wouldn't such people want atheists to read religious materials? Why question us when we choose to do so?
Perhaps, it has occurred to him that we are well informed and our understanding surpasses his own. It may be easier for theists to stomach the idea of ignorant atheists rather than well informed ones.
Wayward Christians?
Will Christians ever outgrow their delusions? Perhaps if they actually paid attention to what the Gospels really say while they are "reading" them they might figure out a few things. Yet another article, "Explaining Wayward Christianity," drones on about how the faith has been distorted. Rev. Bess whines that people have once again failed to live up to the teachings of Jesus. Bullshit! The Gospels are pretty clear that the figure of Jesus was not all about love and forgiveness. He definitely had a mean and vindictive streak. There are plenty of passages that easily loan themselves to violent and intolerant purposes. There are also a few passages where Jesus comes across as being selfish and dismissive of the poor. Don't like that? Too bad. It's your "Good Book."
So Christians, read and pay attention to what you read in the New Testament. Enough with the "wayward" dodge. Christianity has always had a violent streak. It is not just a matter of bad people using religion to justify themselves. The religion itself has a rather dark side. The sooner the average Christians stops denying it the better off we'll all be.
Note: In a numbers of prior posts I have cited numerous passages that support everything I have repeated above. I see no need to cite them again. If interested in exact passages you can read my prior posts or comment and I will dredge them up yet again.
So Christians, read and pay attention to what you read in the New Testament. Enough with the "wayward" dodge. Christianity has always had a violent streak. It is not just a matter of bad people using religion to justify themselves. The religion itself has a rather dark side. The sooner the average Christians stops denying it the better off we'll all be.
Note: In a numbers of prior posts I have cited numerous passages that support everything I have repeated above. I see no need to cite them again. If interested in exact passages you can read my prior posts or comment and I will dredge them up yet again.
Blame the Translation
Over many years the average Christian has gradually moved away from the idea that the Bible is literally true. For the most part Christians view the text in a more symbolic way. They still can't quite admit to themselves that the "Good Book" is really not good at all. There are, of course, those who cling to the ignorant delusional notion that it is the literal word of God. As pathetic as that is there will probably always be a fraction of believers who cling to this blatant falsehood.
There does seem to be a new way to reconcile the overwhelming despicable passages of the Bible with the idealized version people tend to prefer. You simply blame the translations. A piece on the Huffington Post a few weeks ago is a good example of this relatively new attempt at apologetics. Hoffman's "Five Ways Your Bible Translation Distorts the Original Meaning of the Text" has quite a few problems, to say the least. He fails to note that the difference in content from one translation to another is rather tiny. He also does not get into exactly how we are suppose to find the "original meaning." Considering we do not have a complete text from centuries during which the Bible emerged it is virtually impossible to find any such meaning. Then there's the problem of what would constitute a "good" translation. I get the distinct impression that what Hoffman really wants is a translation that suits his own preferences.
The only possible way to make the Bible palatable to anyone who actually pays attention to what they read is to completely rewrite it. Of course, it would cease to be the Bible at that point. Throw in the towel already! The Bible is a work of fiction and not a particularly good one.
There does seem to be a new way to reconcile the overwhelming despicable passages of the Bible with the idealized version people tend to prefer. You simply blame the translations. A piece on the Huffington Post a few weeks ago is a good example of this relatively new attempt at apologetics. Hoffman's "Five Ways Your Bible Translation Distorts the Original Meaning of the Text" has quite a few problems, to say the least. He fails to note that the difference in content from one translation to another is rather tiny. He also does not get into exactly how we are suppose to find the "original meaning." Considering we do not have a complete text from centuries during which the Bible emerged it is virtually impossible to find any such meaning. Then there's the problem of what would constitute a "good" translation. I get the distinct impression that what Hoffman really wants is a translation that suits his own preferences.
The only possible way to make the Bible palatable to anyone who actually pays attention to what they read is to completely rewrite it. Of course, it would cease to be the Bible at that point. Throw in the towel already! The Bible is a work of fiction and not a particularly good one.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)