Atheist rights v. debunking Christianity

[toddaa]

It occurs to me that the point I was making in my Sam Harris rant thread was being misinterpreted. Definitely my fault. I didn't really clarify my position. So here it goes.

When issues like prayer in schools or the Pledge of Allegiance pop up, the first reaction of many atheists is to drag out their "Christianity is bunk" rhetoric and go guns a blazing. I've done it myself. However, it occurs to me that that tactic has never worked before, so why do we keep doing it? From a PR standpoint, we atheists have an abyssmal track record. The reason we cannot get traction, even among the most liberal members of DUers on this issue, is because we don't always come across as the most amiable group of people worth defending. That doesn't mean that debunking Christianity and religion in general should be abandoned. Instead, I think that it time we began to distinguish between political rhetoric and philosophical rhetoric and the appropriate times to use each.

As an anarchist, I believe that removing authoritarian barriers to human rights necessitates the elimination of religion. Yes, I realize that most of you are not anarchists (yet, I hope), but bear with me on this. Anarchism isn't an ideology, it's a methodology. It means to actively resist authoritarian control over people's lives, whether that control be the state, capitalists, or the church. People have to be taught to recognize when their liberties are being infringed upon. Yelling, "you suckers are wage slaves," doesn't help anyone. Teaching people that trading the freedoms for a paycheck is a form of chattel requires more than just being angry.

The same can be said of issues important to atheists. We have to teach Christians why prayer in schools is not only bad for us, but why it infringes on their liberties as well.

[Az]

1. Atheists have emotions too

We like reason and rational thought. But our brains work the same was as believers do. We have emotional reactions to various words and ideas.

Some have been hurt by religion. Some see religion as evil. Some see it as merely deluded and wasting any further time giving it credit is seen as regressive.

So yes, we sometimes go in guns blazing. We believe that people see things is similar ways to us. Some have become discouraged by repeated attempts to do away with these ancient beliefs and have come to the conclusion that those that believe cannot be reasoned with. Thus they meet belief with the same fervor they feel it is delivered with. And that definately means no reasoning can take place.

[funflower]

2. Not all religions are authoritarian. Quakerism and Buddhism, for example

do not adhere to a centralized authority or scripture.

[progressoid]

3. Ummmm...

I don't know much about Quakerism, but Buddhism is chock-full of scriptures. And it seems to me that while the Dali Lama is not as domineering as, say, the Pope or James Dobsen, he certainly wields a fair amount of influence.

[funflower]

4. Some Quakers are atheists. Certainly many do not believe in a corporeal

deity or feel the need to submit to the purported teachings of any scripture. The core of Quakerism is that there is no pre-determined catechism; each adherent is encouraged to honor is own inner "light." What could be more democratic?

And the Dalai Lama "influences" only Tibetan Buddhists, a very small percentage of all Buddhists. I don't believe there is any kind of similar leader for Zen Buddhists.

[BiggJawn]

6. 3/4 of Hollywood are Tibetan Buddhists?

"And the Dalai Lama "influences" only Tibetan Buddhists..."
;)

[funflower]

7. Many Hollywood Buddhists are Zen Buddhists. I don't believe Zen

Buddhism holds to such "magical" ideas as reincarnation. And the last time I checked, "influencing" someone was not an authoritarian act.

[BiggJawn]

8. I was referring to......

How it seems that the Hollywood "Beautiful People" have the collective response of wetting themselves everytime the Dalai's name gets mentioned.

But, that's just me, looking through the cynical filter of almost a 1/2 century of observing where religion has gotten us.

[toddaa]

9. Buddhism is no different from any other dogmatic religion

There seems to be this romantic notion in the West of the lone Zen practitioner meditating quietly alone. Hate to break it to the romantics, but most Buddhists, including Zen, belong to one sect or another that believes that their particular variation on the Buddha's teaching is most appropriate for reaching enlightenment. Meanwhile, Buddhist priests have been found guilty of the same improprieties as Catholic priests, wars have been fought over proper methods of meditation, and heretics cast out of "mainstream" Buddhist sects. Buddhism is certainly more tolerant than most religions, but it's got plenty of very ugly warts that no amount of romanticizing can cover up.

[NAO]

5. Depends on Your Objectives. Political Pluralism vs. What Is True

Well, if your objective is to promote pluralism, including tolerance for atheism, then the "Christianity is crap" routine is not the most effective method. If you are working to achieve pluralism in the political sphere, a respectful and tolerant plea would be more appropriate.

However, if your objective is to state the truth about things, by all means go forth with all guns blazing. Present evidence. At one time, almost everyone on the earth believed that the world was flat. Now hardly anybody does. This change in viewpoint did not occur because of timid pleading for plurality and tolerance for all "geometric orientations". It came about because the EARTH IS NOT FLAT, IT IS ROUND. People were FORCED BY THE FACTS to give up their ancient notions about the shape of the earth.

The entire world view of the Church has been turned upside down by modern science, and they have aggressively fought tooth-and-nail all the way, brutally murdering those with dissenting viewpoints for over 1600 years, until they lost the power to do so.

I think that we need to keep up the momentum of the Enlightenment, and continue to shine the Light of Reason into the darkness of religious superstition, and continue to keep the Church in retreat until it is 'small enough to be drowned in a baptistery' (apologies to Grover Norquist).