« OK, but who's the smirking f*****g moron next to the two dead white guys? | Main | It's been a long December and there's reason to believe... »
What if you don’t believe in anything?
by blank at 01:41 AM on December 20, 2004
There’s this thing called a “game night” where married couples or just regular couples go to get together and hang out. I guess it replaces the going to bars and hanging out that younger kids do. It makes me feel old. I’d rather be kicking someone’s ass at Halo than trying to guess what word someone’s trying to draw.
This group’s the clique that my girlfriend hangs out with and they are about as far left as you can get in Missouri. Half of them are college professors. I don’t lean too far to the right, but the gap is still too big. My tongue usually has a dent in it by the end of the evening from biting down on it. As a consequence after the fact, I get grief about how I seem antisocial and my girlfriend thinks I don’t like her friends. What am I supposed to do? I’m not that outgoing to begin with. If you can’t say anything nice …
In between games, a group turns their conversation to their atheists’ “Meetup” they are a part of. This struck me as odd. What do atheists need to meet up for? It’s not like they’re going to worship anything. What are they going to do? Talk politics? Why not make a political meet up? I’m not exactly one of the “faithful” but I can’t see myself needing to reaffirm my belief in nothing with other people. I’d rather actually do something than sit around and say, “Yup, there’s still no God.” Maybe I miss the point.
comments (14)
Dude. School's cancelled vuz it is "cold." Who says there is no God? But seriously my son is here due to the "cold" and we're both busting out laughing at this. As he put it the best kind of funny is true funny. Heh-heh.
by anna at December 20, 2004 7:56 AM
Liberals eventually come full circle... political correctness bites itself on its ass... yada yada, yids... anyways... heating oil futures ripped up... yeah, hace frio...
by LOCKHEED at December 20, 2004 10:18 AM
Something else I found funny was after their Meetup talk, they went in the other room and sang Christmas carols around the Christmas tree.
by MrBlank at December 20, 2004 10:46 AM
I'm driving home and that moron Billo Reilly is on the radio. Every caller says, "Merry Christmas" and "God bless you." It seemed like some kind of code among the chorus he preaches to. They probably smoke in restaurants too.
by anna at December 20, 2004 1:23 PM
This post breaks my heart. Rather than bite your tongue, I would suggest you use it to say something informative, intelligent, or interesting. No one has a monopoly on the truth. If you don't agree with your girlfriends friends then challenge their statements. Maybe you can say something to enlighten them, and then your differences will be diminished. Or maybe you can cause them to say something to enlighten you. When people don't talk, and no one challenges each other, no progress is made. I moved here (Missouri) from the people's republic of Berkeley, and found myself at parties surrounded by people with strong conservative views who had pets named after Bush cabinet members. Though it was a bit overwhelming arguing against religion in public or government, arguing for women's rights, arguing that homosexuality is not an abomination or a mental illness, I never found myself biting my tongue. Rather I found that those who surrounded me were not used to being challenged - and I gave them every chance to enlighten me. I didn't make any enemies.
As to the point of an atheist meet up, how about meeting to console each other on what it's like to live in a society in which the majority of people appear to be suffereing from a mass delusion? Some of them to the point that they are driven to kill each other? Many of them simply want to kill each other because of differing versions of the delusion. Some of them worship texts and leaders which command that you should be hunted down and killed because you don't believe in their delusion. How about getting together to try to understand why gonvernment leaders equate "intelligent design" and evolution when it comes to teaching the origins of life ina science class? Aside from all that, I can see atheists wanting to get together simply to talk about how incredibly complex and fascinating the universe is, and about how much meaning it has, and how much morailty is implied, in the complete absence of any God. One can worship the universe without God, and to be an atheist is not to believe in nothing.
by chris at December 20, 2004 4:55 PM
It's the age-old question: On balance are we better or worse off due to the existence of organized religion? Up until 9/11 I thought better. People need a delusion to help them get through their miserable lives. Now I'm not so sure. Look at the Shi-ites and Sunnis at each other's throats in Iraq. (69 killed just yesterday, because of religion.)
by anna at December 20, 2004 7:14 PM
It is quite upsetting how intelligent and otherwise open-minded people can be so close-minded about religion. Judging from your comment, Chris, I'd say we are similar in our humastic leanings on an "implied morality" (even if we sometimes disagree on execution of those morals). But of all the theological/philosphical world-views out there I think that the humanistic view would be the most ammenable to the notion that religion is not the cause of or reason for 'evil' anymore than it is the cause of ''goodness.'
Josh, FYI - It's clique, not click.
by mg at December 20, 2004 10:59 PM
Ah, yes, clique. Got it.
I bite my tongue not because I am afraid of making enemies. I do it because I am afraid of alienating my girlfriend from her friends. There is a time and place for political debate, but that was not the right time.
As far as religion being the cause of the world’s violence – I tend to think poverty and a lack of education are the root of the problem. Religion is simply an adaptive tool that makes it easy to demonize someone else. It’s not religion that is violent, but the person who is interpreting it that way.
I also find it unfair to label religion as a mass delusion. Even Einstein believed in some sort of creator: “God does not play dice with the universe.” The only reason I can think of that an atheist group needs to meet is to put down other beliefs. If they want to talk about morality or philosophy, why not make a morality or philosophy meetup group? Atheists talking about the meaning of the universe is an oxymoron. If the universe has meaning, it has to be given it by something, either by a creator or a creative force. Meaning is not inherent. If an atheist sees meaning in the universe, it was put there by himself. That is delusional to me.
by MrBlank at December 21, 2004 1:15 AM
If you ask me, Shi-ite and Sunni Muslims need to bury their conturies-old hatchet and unite to forcibly oust the Wahhibi sect from Islam. They are not only the ones directly responsible for 9/11 but true atheists without even a smidgen of belief in anything except random violence and blind hatred of all mankind. Other than that they are fine.
by anna at December 21, 2004 10:27 AM
So much to say, so much to say, so much to say....
************************************************
Mr. Blank, I initially read your post as a sort of tongue-in-cheek over-simplification of atheism, but now you are defending it literally, which I don't understand. Atheism is a belief system like any other, and people who ascribe to it are humans like any others, with curiosity and a need for support.
Atheism is not so simple as thinking that nothing means anything. Atheism, to my knowledge, is to believe that there is not a god. I think Chris presented a lot of much more meaningful suggested reasons for atheists meeting than to put down other beliefs. Atheists have as much right to suspect that religion is mass delusion as you have to suspect that they are delusional. Atheism is not a decision to call people delusional because atheists want to feel superior. They are curious why so many people believe in a god or gods. I suggest you read up more on atheism before you dismiss it as pretentiousness and nothing else.
I agree with you about poverty & ignorance being roots of violence. But I would add other things to that list, like child abuse, and chemical imbalance, and arrogance. What is the root of the violence in Iraq? It’s not as simple as blaming the uneducated. We are part of this cycle too, and interestingly we claim that our (good) violence is supposed to stop the (bad) violence.
************************************************
Mg, if I understand you correctly, people act of their own free will, and they decide how things affect them. You can’t blame religion, or advertising, or life events. But don’t you think mass trends affect individuals? Trends are composed of individuals, and religion is a trend of people believing the same thing. It's like saying culture has nothing to do with people.
As a simple example of an individual affecting another individual, if Chris hadn’t phrased himself as he did, you wouldn’t be upset. Chris’s words on a computer screen caused a reaction in you that made you think that an otherwise intelligent person was close-minded. See how he had an impact on you? Not that it was the only, ultimate or correct impact, but it was an impact. Do you deny that?
People’s continual practice & passing on of religion has an impact on the way people within its framework decide to view the world. People use religion for good, evil, etc. Why does it upset you that Chris, after explicitly stating that no one has a monopoly on truth, suggested that atheists might meet to discuss the evil done in the name of religion? Why does that make him close-minded? You and Mr. Blank both jump to the conclusion that Chris said “I, Chris, think that religion is the root of evil.” All he did was suggest some things that atheists might contemplate.
************************************************
Chris, I suspect you have a special gift of communication that allows you to be non-confrontational and compelling when you engage in debate with someone of different philosophical leanings, but I also empathize with Mr. Blank: some people are not very open to that kind of debate, and some of us aren’t as comfortable about wearing our philosophies on our sleeves. It is not easy to find the right way to be expressive of your beliefs without being any number of negatives: offensive, patronizing, angry emotional. I do agree in theory that it would be great if we could all talk freely about these things, but…
Sometimes you are in a touchy situation and would prefer to maintain civility rather than to speak your mind and possibly arouse dislike by potentially close-minded people that are friends with or related to your significant other. I am specifically thinking of my boyfriend’s uncle, my philosophical opposite. We had a few debates via email, but I learned that they were making Sean uncomfortable. I learned that his uncle had attacked other family members in person at family functions, and so I asked his uncle if we could drop it for Sean’s sake. As much as I want to share my views, and try to weasel my way into this uncle’s psyche, it’s not worth it. In other contexts I can feel a lot more open about these things, like with someone I meet when I host open mics. I am not going to create consequences for anyone but myself in that situation.
Maybe as Mr. B gets to know these folks better he will be able to open up more, and they can exchange views more freely. But I understand that hesitation, especially with a tight-knit group of self-congratulatory types. I wish I knew a formula about how we could always be vocal but never offend.
by Linz at December 21, 2004 12:23 PM
What drives me nuts is when people make assumptions about my personal views on things. There's a guy I know who is Mormon, but he seems to harbor some prejudice against certain groups. He does this wink and a nod thing with me, that makes me feel complicit in his bigotry.
by anna at December 21, 2004 2:02 PM
I wrote this reply before being called off to lunch and returning to find that Linz had so eloquently spelled everything out. I agree with everything she said, but here's what I wrote:
There's only a time and a place for political debate if you can't figure out how to make any time the place for political debate. Whenever anyone says something you disagree with, or that might cause tongue biting activity (TBA), THAT is an opportunity to respond. If you feel your response might alienate those around you - then you're not doing it right (which is not a reason to give up and not do it!). The communication toolkit involves humor, satire, wit, logic, gumption, compassion, and the ability to disarm anyone with a few wisely chosen words. I've always been fascinated to watch those people who have a magic ability to say things which I could never figure out how to say. Even in a friendly social situation, just the right quip can easily point out that someone just stuck their foot in their mouth without realizing it, and no one has to be offended or alienated. Skill in articulation is where it's at. Very importantly: one must become adept at separating issues from people. If people feel personally threatened or attacked over an issues, something is going wrong. And of course, some battles are left un-answered, to be taken up at a better time, but if you communicate an unwillingness to communicate, I think something is lost. I find that more alienating than anything else.
Please don't get the impression that I was labeling religion, in general, as a mass delusion. And let me also say, MG, that I revealed nothing about my own feelings about religion. I was giving an example (perhaps dramatic) of why some atheists might meet. I think religion serves a very useful purpose. I'm sure MrBlank means well, but I am certain he has no idea how offensive and condescending a statement such as, "Atheists talking about the meaning of the universe is an oxymoron" is. Meaning and religion are not the same thing. Someone can live a full, rich, loving, moral, meaningful life, and if on their death bed they draw you close and whisper into your ear, "don't tell anyone...but I'm an atheist..." would their eulogy have to be re-written to reflect that they lived an empty life devoid of meaning? Maybe if they were being eulogized by Newt Gingrich, but not by me. Atheists are not popular in our society, and there is evidence that they are discriminated against. It strikes me as very pessimistic that you would think they want to meet only to put down the beliefs of others. I've been to religious meetings that could be described this way, though I know it's not generally their focus. Rather, there is plenty to talk about when you live in a society that prides itself on freedom of belief, but has a leader which invokes a deity as the reason for your rights and dignity, and has people all over the place invoking religion, a subjective faith based belief system, to explain how and why the world works.
by chris at December 21, 2004 3:27 PM
Anna, I rode a ski lift with a guy like that who said, "My town used to be great until the coloreds moved in."
I had a bus driver say, "Kill em all & let god sort em out."
I had a cab driver say, "Savannah's great except for all the blacks. It's nice to have some white passengers for a change."
Good god! What gave you the impression I want to hear that??! It's like being in the song, "this is where the party ends! I can't sit here listening to you and your racist friend!" Unbelievable.
Chris, thanks for the compliment; I am honored you found that to be eloquent. The communication skills you mention are very coveted. The skill I need to hone most is to not view people's attacks on my philosophies as personal attacks. I'm far too sensitive.
by Linz at December 21, 2004 4:19 PM
I don’t think my comments were necessarily directed at Chris, but at the type of person he was describing in his hypothetical. I don’t think you can argue that people haven’t been pretty down on religion recently (whether you believe it to be justified is another matter). I do find it hard to believe that otherwise intelligent people, the same people who’ll go apeshit over a racist comment, will turn around and say equally generalized, untrue, and ignorant things about religion without batting an eye.
As an aside, I find it equally hard to believe that otherwise intelligent people believe in the sort of goofy, cartoonish Old Testament God. You are an all-powerful being, creator of the universe, and yet you care whether two guys diddle each other? Puh-leeze. How can such a god exist? These people might as well believe in Zeus, Odin, or Zoroaster.
Anyway, it isn’t religion itself that cause the evil of the world anymore than it is religion that is the cause of the good. People are people, and will be evil to each other based on getting cut off in traffic, spilling a glass of milk, or nothing at all, forget disparate world-views. And yet, people seem so willing to run down religion (or at least Christianity) without looking at any sort of underlying reason for the behavior of the religious (or non religious). I just don’t get it.
by mg at December 21, 2004 4:35 PM