Say Hello to the Bad Guy

Hi, everyone. I'm new here. My name is Jason, age 31, raging theist of the Christian variety. You can forgo the protective helmets, however, because I don't hit people over the head with my Bible. I'm here to converse with atheists, learn more about where they're coming from, share (with anyone who's interested) where I'm coming from. I guess we could take Hitchens' book as a starting point; I just finished it and have plenty of thoughts on it. Take care.

[nkb]

Welcome, Jason.

I hope you can bring more to the table than the recent influx of theists we've had.

Could you tell us how you found this forum?

Reinforcements!

[Choobus]

Lurker wrote

Reinforcements!

perhaps, but less cum to chug.....

Choobus wrote

perhaps, but less cum to chug.....

Always seeing the negative side of things...

[a different tim]

Hello, bad guy.

Not to be cynical or anything, but doesn't it seem like every new theist says something along the lines of "I don't want to proselytize or anything" but by the end of the week, they're spouting Jebus like it's going out of style?

Have to say, though, this Jason fellow can at least put together an English sentence. We don't see very many of those.

Welcome!

So which part of Hitchens's book made you join an internet forum to debate about?

[Rhinoqulous]

Hey Bad Guy, if you're up for it, you can take a swing at giving me a good argument for why I should believe in God over this way. So far it's been highly disappointing. Being that you actually read books other than the bible, you'll probably fare better than the challengers to this point.

[Professor Chaos]

Welcome! So fill us in. What are your "thoughts" on Hitchens' book?

Well, thanks to everyone who responded; I was glad to hear from so many.

To give just a bit of background in order to answer a few of your inquiries: I found this site while browsing another atheist site (one of those clearinghouse-type places). I had joined a discussion on one other atheist site (American Atheists, at atheists.org) but got few responses. But people here seem to be more willing to engage, which I like.

I'll try to avoid making any boasts about whatever level of intelligence I might (or might not) have, but I do admit to being a language person -- I love words (reading them, writing them, thinking with them), and I work with them for a living. As to the question of proselytizing: A true Christian tries to proselytize in everything he/she does -- as the saying goes, actions speak louder than words. That being said, I won't be handing out any tracts, and you probably won't hear much (if any) Scripture from me, because I'm sure it means little, if anything, to any of you. I'm here to discuss and debate on intellectual grounds, using only (please humor me here) the God-given faculties of reason and logic.

Up until about six months ago, atheism was at the fringe of my consciousness; I didn't give it much thought. I had heard of Dawkins (even saw his book once at the local Barnes&Noble) but didn't feel much inclined to read it, and I'd never heard of Harris or Dennett. When Hitchens' book came out, though, it caused a much bigger stir than any of its predecessors (must've been the title), and at last I felt a pull to investigate all the hubbub. To make a long story short, I recently finished "god is not Great" and will soon (hopefully) be diving into Dinesh D'Souza's counterpoint volume, "What's So Great About Christianity."

In addressing the various atheist manifestos, at this point I can speak most fully to what Hitchens has to say, as I haven't read Harris, Dawkins, Dennet, et al. (though I have read several quotes from Dawkins in various interviews). If the writings of those others are similar to Hitchens', however, please let me know, because there wouldn't be much point in reading the same arguments over and over.

Regarding Hitchens, his book comes across to me as mostly emotional -- specious, sophistical. It's basically a laundry list of violent acts committed in the name of religion; the problem with that is that many (if not most or all) of those perpetrators of "religious violence" weren't interested in knowing the truth, only in using the most readily-available means -- religion -- to acquire the power and influence they craved. Now, perhaps that was the point Hitchens was trying to make -- that organized religion is used only for evil -- and perhaps I was under the mistaken impression that his book was going to be an intellectual case against theism. In either case, his book is mostly emotional, and I'm not sure what he hoped to accomplish by writing it, since his fellow athiests, I'm sure, were already in basic agreement with him, and since all sane theists (which includes all those whom I know) are against such violence. That leaves only the insane religionists to speak to, and I doubt they're listening (or reading anything from popular culture).

Hitchens is a polemicist, and that might be precisely his undoing: He is clever, with a sharp mind and a sharper tongue, but even though many of his barbs do cause thinking people to think, it doesn't take long to see the speciousness of his logic. One could just as easily write a comparable rant on the evil side of money or power, for example, but these devices, along with religion, are just that -- tools, inherently neutral, that flawed humans often misuse. Enron and WorldCom were led by greedy, deceitful people, but that doesn't mean that money can't be put to good use, or that positions of power can't help lead to a peaceful society. Likewise, the manipulation of religion for evil purposes doesn't mean that God is evil, or that He doesn't exist, or that there is no truth beyond the material realm.

I look forward to your feedback. Take care.

[Professor Chaos]

Why are you perusing atheist sites? Just curious. Welcome, again!

[Choobus]

It's hard to take seriously anyone who takes D'Souza's book seriously. The guy is a fucking moron.

The idea that there is an "intellectual case" regarding belief in God is laughable, and entirely beside the point. One does not have to build and intellectual case regarding unicorns, so why should such a thing even begin to apply to God?

Hitchens, along with almost every such atheist, attacks the very popular notion among religious moderates that, despite the silliness of religious ideas, they nonetheless inspire people to be good. Indeed, this idea seems to be more of an established dogma than any other point of theology, and as such is defended extraordinarily rigorously by people of all faiths, and even some of no faith. It is a very powerful way of diverting attention from the absurd doctrines like the Trinity, and the immaculate conception (not to mention other things like the Church's insistence that condoms are evil).

You made a comparison between religion and money. I would argue that most people are at least somewhat aware of the dangers of money and greed. Surprisingly few will admit that religion, especially their own, can be evil - or if it is possible, it is only because of evil people, not any fault of the religion itself. Even you jumped immediately to making excuses. That is one of the many problems of dogmatically associating with an institution, especially one obsessed with (what they call) morality.

Religions are extremely good at giving people an easy out - only believe in Jebus, and you will be forgiven. This is not actual morality. It is really just inane, childish, and extraordinarily simple-minded. It is thus not surprising that we see so many atrocities carried out with religious motivation and support. Religion may be a tool, but it works because it is finely tuned for manipulation.

The ten commandments? Obvious to anyone. The rest? Some is a little nice. A lot of it is actually appallingly unethical. The mere fact that we (or some of us anyway) can distinguish it as such demonstrates very clearly that our actual morality is a function of the world we live in, not bronze-age myth. If you want to learn how to be more moral, take a class in philosophy and secular ethics, and throw out your damn Bible. Stop worrying about eternal salvation and concentrate on making good decisions in the world we actually live in. We "neo" or "militant" atheists would only like to suggest this, and not be pompously disregarded.

I guess the point is, for you who are reasonably intelligent, stop making excuses for those you happen to share an opinion with. If your religion is caught up in a scandal, or is generally behaving like a complete douchebag (read "Catholics") reprimand them. We want to hear reasonable people standing up for what is right, instead of behaving like fucking sheep.

"...actions speak louder than words..."

I used to subscribe to this truism, until I reali(s)ed it was a crock of shit.

Choobus wrote

It's hard to take seriously anyone who takes D'Souza's book seriously. The guy is a fucking moron.

May I suggest that you'd be most beneficial to atheism's cause, Mr. Choobus, if you simply didn't say anything.