Atheism: The Non-Prophet Way Of Life
Here we expose the religions of the world for the frauds they really are.
Preying on the gullible and lost, giving them all the answers they want to hear,
and in turn leading them into a world of ignorance and disinformation; religion has got to go.
Filed Under (Funny Stuff) by Ian on 28-10-2007
Leave a Reply
Looks about right to me.
I concur…
haha…very true…
nicely made.
So religion and stupidity are two different things? The can be religion without stupidity? It’s only when religion and stupidity meet that we have a problem = fundamentalism? Religion in itself is then completely “fine”, free of stupidity? I definitely do not concur.
@Nebol
What about Buddhists? They study themselves and others incessantly in order to improve their essence and the world as a whole. What of Tribal religions we’ve never encountered?
Perhaps it should read ‘Ignorance’ in place of ‘Stupidity’?
And where exactly does intolerance fit into this? Or is it to be assumed that the entire motive of this diagram rests in a stupor of intolerance and bias.
p.s.
The Republican party is dead, it died right after the Democratic party was overcome by socialist and mindless conspiracy theorists.
Buddhism *was* a philosophy, it was elevated to a religion to support the caste system that was in place in India at the time by the political elite, as a method of suppressing the ignorant and superstitious.
Hey Nebol…I think you’re confusing stupidity with ignorance. It does depend what you mean by these terms - you can’t just hurl them out and hope, simply by calling religious people stupid, that (a) you’re intrinsically correct, or (b) you’ll get all us atheists going ‘woo hoo’ etc.
What is stupid is unquestioning adherence to the dicta of any structure, whether it’s religious or - in some cases - atheistic. I’m against Dawkins on this one I’m afraid; when atheists become too contemptuous of the thoughts of anybody who might simply believe in something beyond life (despite the fact that I do not believe in any such mythoconstruct) then you’re simply becoming a religion, which requires unquestioning belief, personality cults, and pursuit and attack of anyone who questions the word of the Great One (Dawkins). Dawkins sadly, has clearly let this go to his head a bit. Which in itself is useful - you can see how easily rabid followers, a set text (The God Delusion), disciples (Hitchens et al) and a target can make a religion happen, without even noticing it.
There are now, and have been all through history, plenty of enlightened people who happened to believe in a god, or gods. Were they simply all stupid? Of course, it occurs to many of those people that God/gods might not be a good idea - hence the sub rosa atheism of many in the Renaissance and the clear paganism of supposedly Christian people such as Hawksmoor, etc. Many of the Renaissance Humanists at least examined the root of their faiths. But a roll call of all the brilliant people who believed in a god of some sort would run on for hundreds of pages - does their faith implicitly make them idiots? That seems…how should I put it…amazingly stupid and ignorant as a position to take.
Perhaps we don’t mean that. Perhaps it’s simply that in the age of accepted science, we’re saying that anyone who believes is stupid. Well, that’s fine - but firstly, what about all the (again) brilliant people in our current age who still believe. It’s ignorant, and stupid, simply to call them stupid. It reflects a fear, an exclusionary tendency, and a need to persecute those who do not share our enlightenment - and to conjoin others to mock and deride them - which is surely what we distrust and abhore in organised, persecuting and blinkered religious groups.
Religion is a perfectly reasonable explanation of the world in the absence of any clearer mode of analysis. It helps to form groups and concrete societies. It’s like any human grouping; it’s capable of terrible things. What we hate so much, what we fear as secular people, is the unquestioning nature of people’s belief, and their willingness to sacrifice their own judgement and responsibility as humans. But that’s about the structure, the organisation, and the application of religion - not belief itself. So attacking it merely because it’s stupid is…stupid.
The diagram, however, is fab.
Thanks, Quiet - a sane, balanced, sensible comment. Bet you get some stroppy posts from the Fundamentalist Dawkinistas, though.
Quiet: “There are now, and have been all through history, plenty of enlightened people who happened to believe in a god, or gods. Were they simply all stupid?”
Enlightened or Intelligent people are not immune from stupidity. We’re all human and in turn, all fallible.
Hey Quiet,
I think that you have misconstrued the position of people who agree with (not “follow”) Dawkins. My understanding is that his main argument is that less respect should be given given to religious *ideas* not that less respect be given to religious people. I don’t think that having religious beliefs disqualifies someone from being intelligent or thoughtful, especially in areas other than religion, but this does not mean I should respect religious beliefs, or refrain from debating them openly. Anyway, I love the graph, it seems pretty accurate the way it is.
I LOVE the guys who argue “what about all the people that believe?” or “80% of people believe, they can’t all be wrong.”
Apparently the Earth used to be flat, since most people believed it. And insanity was the result of possession. The god people don’t get it: reality isn’t something that you vote on.
As to Quiet’s contention that religion is acceptable because it creates groups and cements social relations: is he kidding us? Whether there is a god or not is irrelevant so long as good comes of it? WOW. Didn’t Nazism do the same thing for Germany? It created groups, and solidified social relationships. It is ridiculous to say that Nazism is acceptable because it achieves social goals. Ditto religion.
Let me take on a meta-argument. I just don’t see that discussing serious things with god people serves any purpose. They neither embrace knowledge, nor understand logic. They live in the information age, want all the benefits of a modern society, yet desire simple, bronze-age answers to their deepest questions. What’s the point of talking to them? I’m not even sure that they understand the words we use when we speak to them.
Just give them a lollipop, pat them on their heads, and send them on their way with a smile.
I do agree with Nebol. Wise enough. I suppose stupidity is a set where religion is a subset of it. And to Ian. You are right. There have been lots of intelligent, or maybe geniuses all over the world and throughout the history. Let me tell you something. I think stupidity is conditionally independent from being a genius. Galois such a genius that according to many if he lived for 20 years more, the science of mathematics would be far more improved. But he died at his 20s for dwelling sb over the honor of a girl. Every one is stupid. Me in wasting my time and not knowing what I want, Galois in loosing his life and almost everybody I know in believing in religion.
I can not deny that stupidity brings calmness and relaxation. The less you know, the less you suffer.
I am an atheist and have been one for the biggest part of my life, but i really find this atheism hype extremely immature and up noxious. I am tired of you people transforming atheism into a movement. This really contradicts the idea of atheism.
There’s an idea behind atheism?
That’s it, you are no longer permitted to be a member of the United Atheist Aliance, return your membership card.
Up noxious.
Sentence fragment.
This string constitutes further evidence of my hypothesis that Atheism is on it’s way to becoming a religion. It’s faith-based. Belief in the absense of proof is faith, regardless of what you believe. There is the same amount of hard proof for both the existence & non-existence of a god, none. So, Atheism is a faith.
Like any good faith-based movement, Atheism is acquiring iconic leaders who are attracting some number of followers who are superficially latching onto those aspects that support their own prejudices without a thorough examination of the belief system. (A la Mr./Ms. Garrison) That has given us any number of Atheists who sound every bit as foolish as any bible thumper.
Time to grow some and admit there is only one answer that can be given to the question “Is there a god?” that does not rely on faith. The problem with that answer is that it consists of the three most terrifying words in the English language: “I don’t know”.
I’m guessing you never bothered to read this entry I wrote a year ago:
http://www.irreligion.org/2007/01/04/guess-what-the-world-is-round/
I think Lamont’s comment misses the point. Many people identify as both atheists and agnostics; the boundary between the two concepts is more semantic than to do with the real world. I’ve never heard of any atheist who thinks they, or we collectively, know all there is to know about the nature of the universe. The only thing that really unites us is the sureness that the ancient texts don’t represent our best understanding of the world. Atheists can have faith … there’s nothing preventing them from having “a spiritual experience” if they want to; we just don’t base our idea of the laws of physics on these experiences.