BELIEF  
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 118

What if People Actually Treated Religion as Just a Metaphor (Like Trekkies and Secular Jews)?

It's possible to keep the good parts of religion -- like the music, rituals and pageantry -- and get rid of the sex-hating dogma, the belief in god and other troublesome aspects.
November 20, 2009  |  
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Belief headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 

If religion really were just a metaphor, just a comforting and inspiring story that gives shape and meaning to people's lives... what might it look like?

One of the most common tropes among progressive religious believers is Religion As Metaphor. "Religious beliefs don't have to be literally true," the trope says. "They're just useful metaphors: stories that give shape and meaning to our lives."

I'm not buying it. I'm not buying it for one simple reason: If religion is just a story, then why does it upset people so much when atheists say it isn't true? Any more than it would upset a fan of "Alice in Wonderland" if someone told them it wasn't true?

I'm seriously not buying it. I think the "metaphor" trope is just a disingenuous way for believers to slip away from hard questions about their beliefs. But it's got me thinking: If religion really were just a story -- a story that people found comforting and inspiring, a story that people sincerely knew wasn't true but still enjoyed telling and re-telling -- what would that look like?

And would atheists have a problem with it?

I was debating the other day with a believer who was getting bent out of shape about how religion was just a story people found comforting. People didn't have to believe religion was literally true for it to make a difference in their lives, he insisted. So why was I being so intolerant and mean and trying to take it away? And it suddenly struck me:

The version of religion he's talking about?

It's Trekkies.

Think about it. Trekkies are devoted to a story that they find entertaining and inspiring, even though they know it isn't factually real. And there's great diversity in their devotions, similar to those among religious beliefs. Some Trekkies are intensely dedicated to the story, to the point where it takes up a substantial part of their lives: going to conventions, making costumes, buying memorabilia, watching the shows again and again. Others are more casual followers: watching the shows when they happen to come on, maybe taking in a convention or two. And different Trekkies follow different variants of the story. Some are more interested in the original show with Spock and Kirk; others care more about The Next Generation. Some weirdo fringe cultists even follow Voyager.

But they all have one thing in common: They know that "Star Trek" isn't real. Unless they're certifiably mentally ill, they know that the story they're devoted to was made up by people. And they act accordingly. Avid convention-goers don't treat casual fans as apostates; Original Showians don't treat Next Generationists as sinners and blasphemers; and none of them write editorials lambasting people as immoral sociopaths if they prefer documentaries to any sort of science fiction. And they -- okay, fine, we -- don't insist that "Star Trek" is just a story... and then get bent out of shape when people point out that it is a story, and hence that it's not true. Trekkies have a good time trying to fit the inaccuracies and inconsistencies into some sort of continuity (that's half the fun); but we understand that the show is a fictional story, with all the flaws that fiction is heir to, and we don't treat it as a divinely-inspired guide to reality and life.

That's what "it's just a metaphor" religion would look like.

And if religion looked like that, I would have no problem with it at all.

Now, if you're a religious believer, maybe you think this analogy is trivializing your faith. Maybe you think it's insulting to compare centuries of serious religious practice and thought to nerds wearing Spock ears at convention centers. So let's take a different example.

Let's take historical re-creation societies. Not re-enactors of real historical events like the Civil War, but re-creators of historical fiction. Let's take communities who like to act out the characters and worlds of Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, F. Scott Fitzgerald, J.R.R. Tolkien, William Shakespeare. Let's take communities who find these stories beautiful and inspiring, and who devote a significant portion of their lives to reading them, studying them, discussing them, re-imagining them, dressing up like the characters in them, and attending ritual and celebratory events dedicated to them.

You don't like that analogy, either? But those are wonderful stories! Rich, complex, highly respected stories! Stories with decades and even centuries of tradition behind them! Are you saying that historical re-enactors are giant nerds and that you resent being compared to them? How dare you insult my faith! I declare jihad!


submit to reddit
Read more of Greta Christina at her blog.
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Belief headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: religion, atheism
 

Comments are closed-

S
Posted by: Constitution on Nov 20, 2009 12:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it's not that hard to see 10 or 20,000 years ago in your tribe. God or goddess protected you and your tribe. Because the people on the other side of the hill where godless and to be hated.and that's why we have religion or people can field better than others
and it gives them permission to hate someone or a group. meanwhile they say they love everyone. That's what it's about to be Godlike and to get to hate. I think there was a lot more of them at one time but now I think it's about 50-50 the other 50 being rational thinkers. So if we last long enough they will disappear.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

atheism is lazy and modern; a luxury
Posted by: jingles on Nov 20, 2009 2:03 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any time an article is posted about vegetarianism, there will be comments on how we are designed to be omnivores, as if this mattered. Similarly, we are wired to be religious; no culture but those that encourage alienation produces atheists because our brains are rigged to help produce religious experiences. A recent article in Miller-McCune discusses a study that implies perceiving more competition for a mate makes one more religious. Does this mean atheists are more sexually confident, or that they're not interested in reproduction? Perhaps atheists are just wired differently.
In giving up religion, atheists give up the group mind/safety net of society, making atheism a luxury of our modern times, and a disease of civilization. Atheists do not need to wonder, or to reform. Instead of aiming for unity, healing and peace, the lazy just let division, injury and killing persist, hoping an intellect alone will prevail. Being against certain dogmas and power structures, dossn't mean you can't be religious! People will use any excuse to advance their own bias, regardless of reality, and this includes atheists (unless they're just wired differently).
The author mentions love, but only insofar as she would like the world to exist. Instead of addressing the issues of misogyny, intentional ignorance, etc., from the side of progress, atheists fix themselves in desolate nothings of non-belief, and attack the thing in which most people experience love beyond narcissism (if they are so lucky).
Progressive religion does not say, "this is just a story," it says, "this is a story, now what are you going to do? How can you transform yourself and the world? How will you love?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

So who's going to police this utopia against actual belief in anything, might I ask...?
Posted by: Aureantes on Nov 20, 2009 2:16 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seriously -- what people believe personally is nowhere near as important as how they act in real life. A certain mega-religion's central figure is quoted as saying that people are ultimately (and should be) known by their actions above all other considerations, and yet you think that the biggest problem in the history of religion is that anyone still believes in anything at all beyond the proven material world? The problem is and always has been not what one believes but what one does with that belief, or thinks justified in its name. And that extends to any religion, philosophy or political stance.

The way I see it, militant atheism is as intolerant as any traditional-religious fundamentalism, and to posit that the world would just be so much better if everyone else would simply just not have any real convictions beneath their nominal affiliation is equivalent to any "concerned" fundamentalist or Catholic pressuring everyone to just get along and not have any objections to Christianity being assumed as the U.S.'s national and public religion. Actually, it's even more Inquisitorial than that, because what you really want...is for everyone to think the same way that you do underneath it all, and yet that is the one thing that you haven't any ethical right to demand or enforce. "Freedom of religion" goes both ways, and neither the extreme of literalist religion nor the extreme of literal atheism has yet made a convincing case for their position being the self-evident conclusion.

In which case, I should think that moderation in general is by far the most civil and prudent approach -- and that vehement preaching or proselytizing by anyone is in extremely bad taste.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Help control the screwball population
Posted by: pelican beak on Nov 20, 2009 2:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Have your religion spayed or neutered.
Goodbye, everybody!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Alice rules
Posted by: geometeer on Nov 20, 2009 2:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You cannot offend a fan of Alice in Wonderland by saying it isn't true, any more than you can offend a believer in daylight that way. It so obviously is true.

The reason that denial often upsets the religious is that they have their own doubts, which are labelled by the religion as sinful. You are tempting them to disbelieve, and disbelief is damnation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

ONLY THING THAT WILL SAVE ORGANIZED RELIGION
Posted by: drricklippin on Nov 20, 2009 4:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is where organized religion needs to go.I call it "Spiritual Optimism"

I published new "Ten Commandments for the 21st Century" based on spiritual optimism

Also see Joseph Campbell's "The Power of Myth"

Dr.Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Come on, Greta, this is getting old
Posted by: gilliani on Nov 20, 2009 4:43 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really wish you would qualify your use of the words 'religion' and 'religious.'

You continue to paint EVERYONE who has a spiritual life with this broad brush of stupidity.

I am a religious person. The stories ARE metaphor for me. I AM completely open to discussion and debate and criticism of it. I believe wholeheartedly in the scientific method. I believe in birth control, a woman's right to choose, same-sex marriages, I'm opposed to the teaching of creation.....all the things Greta says that EVERYONE who is religious is against.

The neointellectuals of the left make a sport of bashing religion. How about trying to really engage with someone like me? I'm not the only one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Change definition of smite or smote
Posted by: filhtymcnasty on Nov 20, 2009 5:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That would solve alot of the problems. The Old Testament is too vengeful and violent. But if smote became "wagged His finger" instead of "killing." Then sentences like, "And God smote the enemies of Abraham," would become much less vitriolioc. And many of the worlds problems lessened.
:)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Aesops Fables
Posted by: Purple Girl on Nov 20, 2009 5:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Interesting that the Holey Rollers miss the entire point of these stories because they are so caught up in dissecting the minute details instead.
FYI Revelations- Christ Defeats Satan, not with Guns, Soldiers or Armies, but with 'The Word'. It's only Satans who need the aid of the 'God and Guns' group.
Totally Missing the 'Moral of the Story'.
What my question is to these Zealot groups ..Are you a Christian (Muslim, Jew) or a Monotheist?
Do you not only understand the first three 10 commandments, but abide by them first and foremost?
Or is your worship and reverence shared with another? How about your fear - Is there another you fear as much, if not more than the 'One and Only One Lord God'? Is there a viable opponent which could challenge the Almighty, even exude influence and power over His Beloved Creations, to rival His? One that requires an apocalyptic battle to defeat?
These are not Monotheists. They are at best pagan, at worse Duelist who revere the 'Dark' as much as the 'light'.
To a true Monotheist 'Satan' either does not exist, is impotent, or an agent to God.
As for the "Prophets" mere mortal messengers, or the fleshy vessel used by god so as not to overtax our small minds. Not God, or at least not in Entirety.
Christ, Mohammad, David, Moses....All just Apollos and Mars with different names.

Deception is easiest when a basic premise is assumed. they are not Monotheists that is why they are willing to shed blood for their idol.
Otherwise they would be heeding those Big 10 more diligently.
Be careful what you wish for 'fundementalists' you just might get it and you'll be on the wrong side.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Thanks Greta
Posted by: nmeyer on Nov 20, 2009 6:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Greta, I think you understand that humans have to get past religion, and that you are looking for a way to help people do that. This article says it well. Keep the good parts, ditch the rest, understand that it's a story and get on about living in the here and now. I think what you said here can reach people, and here's why I say that:

Twenty-six years ago, I was a theology student, an earnest, sincere, devoted, Midwestern Christian. Being serious about my religion, I was all in. One day it just hit me out of the blue -- this is like believing in Pegasus (the flying horse). In that moment, my entire world view was replaced by...well, nothing. And that experience can be devastating. It can take years to build one's own story because as an adult, one really doesn't have a lot of time to play around and learn all over again.

We have to be available and around to catch, care and coach people who make the leap you are talking about. In your article, you are looking for ways to catch and care for people while also challenging them. While it may not look and feel like love to everyone, it is no different than a parent helping a child get past the Santa Claus trauma... Within the next few months, parents all over the world will be loving their children and helping them grow and expand. It's heartbreaking sometimes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Hardline Atheists
Posted by: InsertNameHere on Nov 20, 2009 6:37 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't believe in God, so I suppose I'm an Atheist. I don't really want to be in any kind of 'Atheist group' though. I've been over to the forums on the Richard Dawkins site and they seem an awfully angry, humorless lot. Just looking through the posts, they even attack their own sometimes. They don't believe in god, or good manners apparently.

They believe in attacking religion, showing it no respect, etc. I think a church / state separation makes sense, but I don't want to wipe them out. There are some religious groups who preach hate and ignorance, but there are many more who accept modern science. I guess I just believe in allowing others to follow their own path.

What these 'New Atheists' seem to have is a 'with us or against us' attitude. How does following that path make them any better? There is such a thing as taking the high road.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hardline Atheists Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» RE: Hardline Atheists Posted by: Balance40

Comments are closed-

Religion is Faith
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Nov 20, 2009 6:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Faith is the belief in something you know does not exist."--Mark Twain

At a fairly tender age I came to the conclusion that there was too much nonsense in the bible for it to be literally true; I couldn't believe any of the adults I knew really believed it as many claimed to. My conclusion was that they were all hypocrites, just not willing to say what they must really believe. Surely, I thought, all of these adults must be, in their heart of hearts, agnostic (I'm not sure I knew that word then, but I understood the concept). I realized quickly though that I too had to refrain from giving voice to my understanding; I too had to remain a hypocrite if I was to get along in this world.

With the passing of years, I've come to realize that not everyone thinks about things with the same care that I do and that not everyone means the same thing by the word, believe. This is not to say that I understand what they mean by that word, even now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The Dickens you say...
Posted by: C.Richardi on Nov 20, 2009 6:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are people who enjoy dressing up and acting out the stories of Charles Dickens? OOH! Where?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Dickens you say... Posted by: Haji54

Comments are closed-

What if all the religious and agnostic preachers shut TFU and stopped contributing to ...
Posted by: harryf200 on Nov 20, 2009 7:16 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... global warming with their pointless hot air and noise pollution? Or better still, do something useful instead of talk?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

We Don't Go Door-To-Door
Posted by: stellabloo on Nov 20, 2009 7:47 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is actually a "religious" "organization" where believer and atheist co-exist peacefully. You can worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster, be a secular catholic, or believe in nothing more abstract than the higher purpose of the group.

I'm talking about AA. Too bad that the whole industrial pharmaceutical/prison complex has perverted the original open-ended non-organization into the megascam programming tool of forced attendance that it has become - I was lucky enough to start in a small group that held strongly to Traditions 3, 5 and 10 (i.e. "A" stands for ALCOHOLIC) so it was no "sin" to get together, drink coffee, smoke pot and play music.

But because equality and freedom of belief are written into the 12 Traditions, I can still go to meetings anywhere without feeling like a hypocrite. "The only requirement for A.A. membership is a desire to stop drinking."

Belief in a Higher Power ("of our own understanding") is so open-ended that some religions like the Jehovah's Witnesses see us as tools of Satan and forbid their members to attend. How cool is that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: We Don't Go Door-To-Door Posted by: IntlDad
» RE: We Don't Go Door-To-Door Posted by: Ellie F.

Comments are closed-

This may sound good to atheists
Posted by: solrev on Nov 20, 2009 8:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a fatal flaw in this metaphor analysis because it happens to be true. There are two important teachings of Jesus usually ignored by fundamentalists. One, Jesus warned us not to let our rituals overcome our faith. Two, Jesus taught with stories and parables to teach us that the important thing is the meaning behind the words. Fundamentalists may want to rethink how they worship the Bible as if it were a golden calf. The stories and rituals serve only one purpose, to allow the little children to come unto God. Once here one has to exercise their free will as an adult and act accordingly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Joanie
Posted by: JoanM35 on Nov 20, 2009 8:23 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The reason that we progressive church folks object to the "new atheists" who are writing books recently is that they make the same mistake you do. The religion that they object to is the old fundamentalist, literalist religion to which we no longer subscribe. We dislike being lumped in with that. Plain and simple. Buy it, don't buy it, but please get it straight.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Joanie Posted by: daniel1982

Comments are closed-

Who's more pathetically insecure?
Posted by: doodahman on Nov 20, 2009 8:29 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religious fundamentalists or aggressive atheists? Neither can seem to just let people believe what they want without spiraling into a bottomless sea of drivel, as is this article.

Just because I happen to believe that a giant cosmic toad will someday come down and eat all you disbelievers like a suvlaki on pita is my business. Until that day, I'll shut the fuck up if you will. However, if you don't get out of my face about how, when or why I should believe or not believe this or that, don't be surprised if I start smearing tahini sauce on you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» hmmm... Posted by: buffeliscious
» RE: hmmm... Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: hmmm... Posted by: buffeliscious
» RE: hmmm... Posted by: QueenJaynie
» I think... Posted by: buffeliscious
» RE: hmmm... Posted by: daniel1982
» You prove my point... Posted by: buffeliscious
» Here's a point.... Posted by: bubbleburster04
» RE: Here's a point.... Posted by: buffeliscious
» RE: Here's a point.... Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: You prove my point... Posted by: daniel1982
» So, it's either/or for you... Posted by: buffeliscious
» RE: So, it's either/or for you... Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: So, it's either/or for you... Posted by: buffeliscious

Comments are closed-

not so open where I live
Posted by: Ellie F. on Nov 20, 2009 8:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yeah, so how come every AA meeting ends with the Lord's Prayer? I got criticized severely when I didn't say it. I didn't make an issue of not saying it --- I just didn't.

I live in the mid-west and AA meetings are full of "God-talk" - mainly of the fundamentalist Christian variety. Also, the program as a whole is INCREDIBLY sexist.

I quit AA after trying to overlook this stuff for 6 years. I now get support for my sobriety through SOS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Fine with me
Posted by: sayward2 on Nov 20, 2009 8:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I left religion a long time ago. I still like all the pomp and holidays. But the idea of a god is just too ludicrous now. However many people think like children and need some authority to rule their lives- they can not be a decent person because it is the right thing to do/for the sake of itself- they need that special promise of a reward for being good(however their religion defines it.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Fine with me Posted by: dac007

Comments are closed-

It won't work
Posted by: Bushmaster on Nov 20, 2009 9:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It won't work. Christians who are neurotically religious are so because of what their personalities make them desire. They choose a stern schizophrenic God because that is the one they need.

Once you have decided on this type of God as your God then you begin to validate this in the outside world. Everywhere you look you see your belief validated.

The lesbian couple next door

The teenage slut in the house on the other side who lives with her single mother.

The crime, drug abuse. STD's and abortion all validate the stern schizophrenic, (jealous, tender,loving, vengeful, wrathful) God they have decided on.

Anything that threatens these principles threatens not only their God, but their means of understanding the world. Through the means of the God they have decided on they have constructed an explanation for everything.

This explanations helps them get through the world. If they thought it was 'make believe' it would not function the way it does now.

I gave up that particular faith because I realized it was unbelievable. I couldn't be bothered 'believing' what was not making any sense to me anymore. Why would anyone do that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It won't work Posted by: dac007
» RE: It won't work Posted by: Dboy

Comments are closed-

evangelicals of both stripes
Posted by: Bertvan on Nov 20, 2009 9:36 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why does it bother religious people for Atheists to say it isn’t true? Probably for the same reason Atheists are bothered by religious beliefs. Whatever that might be. I’m an agnostic myself, but am content for both Atheists and religious people to believe whatever they believe. I am only bothered by attempts to restrict speculations about the unknown. I don’t happen to believe in a personal god. However I have no explanation for the obvious fact that a belief in right and wrong seems to be universal. Atheists have no more desire to be considered immoral than religious people do. I’m sceptical of RM&NS, the notion that a belief in right and wrong consists of a mechanistic device placed in our DNA by natural selection doing something to a series of genetic accidents. However I am comfortable living with my speculations. At the moment religious people appear cowed and rather timid about active recruitment. Evangelical Atheists, on the other hand, seem to have no qualms about trying to impose their beliefs upon others.
Bertvan
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Differences between religion and entertainment.
Posted by: Sojourner on Nov 20, 2009 9:40 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This piece does get around to rejecting the initial image that equates religion with Trekkies, but it seems unable to distinguish religion from entertainment.

We all know what entertainment is. Journalists may even know the difference between journalism and entertainment, but that is not always clear in their writing.

So what is religion? Religion is about worship. Yes, it makes a difference what you choose to worship but that issue cannot be discussed intelligently without trained leadership. So here are some rules of thumb.

We can live a worshipful life. It is one where we revere whatever it is we choose to worship. Such a life is concrete, authentic, and often joyful. It is not about other people except insofar as it has reverence for their lives as well as our own.

Reverence is not always approval because it also founds values that make a difference. Truth is spoken in love but the truth is as important as the love.

Contemporary philosophers write of faith as an attitude that involves perception of our world. Reverence is such an attitude, a way of seeing our world. Worshipful living is the expression of such an attitude.

One is not forced to be reverent or live a worshipful life. Those who do choose such are the blessed. Those who do not probably cannot tell the difference between religion and entertainment. That's not my problem. Like forgiveness, unless they ask for help with their beliefs, it will not be offered.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Space age, space prophits Posted by: eddie torres

Comments are closed-

Know-it-alls & Know-nothings
Posted by: willymack on Nov 20, 2009 9:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Greta, you pretty much answered your own questions, and I strongly suspect you already knew the answers, and have for some time.
Let's look at the first charlatan in human history, looking for a mark to parasitise.
Tha mark can't be too smart, or erudite, otherwise he/she would see through the scam. The mark should be delusional enough to incorporate the scammer's blathers into his own "reality" to the extent that he owns the scam as part of himself, and would take umbrage at anyone attempting to refute the scam, no matter how fact-based and convincing the refutation may be.
The mark ideally should have a small image of himself and his worth. This would make him all the more suseptible to the blandishments of the charlatan, and easy to CONTROL.
Think about all the people who listen to charlatans on the pulpit and the political soapbox, and take their every word on "faith", without subejecting the words to any rational analysis or logical criticism.
Then, there are nuts like Bugs Beck and Lush Limberger who are actually BELIEVED by so many marks.
A fool and his money are soon parted. So are his self-respect, dignity, and FREEDOM.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Yes, they sometimes call themselves "Jewnitarians"
Posted by: greatferm on Nov 20, 2009 9:50 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Surely you have heard the old definition "A Jew is just a pious Unitarian" .

I discovered I was a Unitarian a long time ago, just because all of the metaphorical religions, and all of the others too, were welcome. Our basic prayer, addressed to whom it may concern, but couched in metaphorical language, is "Lord, help me to find the truth, and protect me from those who have found it".

My favorite piece of music is the Faure Requiem, glorious music, soaring latin rhetoric, marvelously empathic sentiments, but surely I need not take it's theology seriously. Last week I was in a museum, looking at some Flemish Primitives, magnificent religious art, and you don't need to be religious to appreciate it.

Religion is a banquet. But you can't swallow all of it. If atheists don't want to join the feast, each to his/her own taste.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Essentially...
Posted by: buffeliscious on Nov 20, 2009 10:01 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the author pines, "Why can't all people just be as rational as I am?" And she's found a great readership on Alternet, as one can see from the rabid anti-religionist zealots posting. Really, in reading these comments, who are the angry repugnant ones?

The author's thesis suggesting that if only religious people could drop their beliefs, we'd all be a little better off is similar to asking an atheist to please just try and believe in God a little bit. We'd all be better off.

So many atheists tie all world violence to religious roots. But really, violence happens for other reasons and often uses religion as an excuse. Look at Nazi Germany. Look at Rwanda, where Europeans favored one tribe's physical traits over another and this led to years of growing enmity between them, bloodshed, and millions of deaths.

True, there are a small percentage of "believers" who find it necessary to defend their "faith" above all others and against all naysayers. But really they are the weak ones in faith. I find weak atheists as well to be intolerable of anyone around them who might be making choices based on some "irrational belief system."

Some of us embrace Mystery, the spaces and gaps in between the supposed scientific lines of reasoning. And others embrace the "facts" and choose to connect those dots into a line of rational thinking. While these two groups may never agree, we can certainly coexist and get along. The key is to quit trying to mould the other into their own way of thinking.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ssentially... Posted by: Dboy
» RE: ssentially... Posted by: Aquaria

Comments are closed-

metaphor
Posted by: paganpat on Nov 20, 2009 10:20 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Metaphors are not to be taken literally, everyone knows this except the idiots that try to convence us to join in their madness as literally true. The problem is the metaphoric "fundies" snag the young and drag them along unsuspecting. Child abuse? Hell yes! Want it stoped? Follow the money and tax them. By the way there is no such thing as religious music, take out the lyrics and listen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Too typically -- missing the best of religion and imitating the worst.
Posted by: Starjack on Nov 20, 2009 10:39 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course this entirely misses the subtler position held by many religious folks that while we believe in God and the core tenets of our religion we understand our sacred texts to be largely allegorical and poetic, not entirely literal. We have lots of room for interpretation and expansion. Granted this creates as many problems as it solves, but there's the great and intriguing field of theology to explore the deeper meanings in our religions.

But complexity and nuance were never much in favor with the thought police of any cult. Of course there's no reason why materialists should have to accept the validity of spritiual experience. Then again, it takes a lot of chutzpah to insist that because they refuse to accept something they have no interest in understanding, other people are wrong for accepting it as a part of their lives.

And if we neuter our religions to mere traditional practices with no real core belief, does that make for better people? In Palestine and Israel you have secular Jews fighting secular Muslims and Christians, and it's as bloody and vicious as any battle where people actually believe in their religions. And the Nazi regime was really pretty secular, much as it did exploit religion. Irreligious nominal Christians were sending secular and atheist Jews to the death camps. What they actually believed was never at issue. (Scream "Godwin's Law" in a health care debate, but here the Nazi example is indeed relevant.)

I think most people would agree that the worst, most oppressive thing about religion is the self-appointed thought police who insist on telling other people what they should think and believe.

So sad that a cadre of some atheists have decided to follow in those footsteps.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Let's start with the Garden of Eden, then...
Posted by: ericq on Nov 20, 2009 11:28 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have found that most people are just really not comfortable using their gift of thinking abstractly when embarking on an inward journey. This is why if you don't really experience the "metephor" of the Garden of Eden story, what's the point of moving forward. What I hear throughout your argument is a duality of thinking: us/them, true/false, like/dislike, metaphor/real, believe/don't-believe, black/white, good/evil. It's an endless loop leading nowhere. If you see the world in terms of opposites, that is, taken the bite of the apple from the tree of knowledge (of duality - good/evil, etc.), you will always be chasing your tail. Return to clarity, before the apple, where conflict doesn't reside. Get the first story right, then turn to Chapter 2 on your journey to finding at least peace if not true clarity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

We must tell Stories.
Posted by: kroenung58 on Nov 20, 2009 11:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stories are the way humans, and quite probably other higher-order mammals like dolphins, chimps, elephants, etc., organize experiences and make sense of their place in a less than survival-friendly environment. In the same way dreams function, stories and rituals are useful and pleasureable ways to learn and pass on vital information. They also provide important social connections with other members of the tribe.
According to Campbell, there are only a few archetypal themes and many, many variations. There may be an "Ultimate Reality" behind the stories but our brains need a buffer in order to cope and process information.
Unfortunately, another evolutionary hold-over is the tribal fear of the "other". A useful survival mechanism in the past, the fear and distrust of anything other than our clan or family and their particular story has caused our species alot of grief. So we humans have the need for story and the ability to play-act them out hard-wired in our brains alongside the fear of other stories which threaten our survival.
How do we evolve past this conundrum? By finally realizing that the stories are in some way metaphors for truth, and that all are useful for teaching and entertainment. (I include the stories that science tells, especially quantum physics, in the mix.) If we can embrace the entire planet as our tribe, we can enjoy the stories and pick and chose the ones we like best. This would be a true evolutionary leap, maybe even a Trekkie-like ideal. "To boldly go" and all that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

What you are describing...
Posted by: sbrasseux on Nov 20, 2009 11:47 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Inclusive, rational, uplifting, purposeful, non-dogmatic, spiritual, tradition-filled, community oriented, inspiring...What you are talking about in your article perfectly describes Unitarian Universalism. I found the UU church after years of participating, mostly contentedly, in other Protestant churches, yet I could not "turn off" the part of my brain that knew most of the dogma was all metaphorical to me. I especially hated the glorification of someone else's death for other's salvation and the hypocrisy of some who did not live as they professed to believe.
The Unitarian Universalists walk the walk. And we are passionate believers in the worth and dignity of every human being and the desire to embrace all the truths that we can find, whatever the source.

By the way, Gene Roddenbury was a UU.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

BUY WHY?
Posted by: marat on Nov 20, 2009 12:32 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author never says WHY people should stop believing in their religion.

Why should they? They should have the freedom to believe in their faith. What's wrong with that?

What is this story about? How great Jews are who take their religion with a grain of salt but their Jewishness as everything? What's the difference?

This story makes no sense. It is not cogent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: BUY WHY? Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: BUY WHY? TO DANIEL Posted by: marat

Comments are closed-

S
Posted by: Constitution on Nov 20, 2009 1:24 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
how about we say everyone can believe in anything they want. But no one can collect money to push their ideas on the street or government. That way the religious people will not have to worry about the atheist and vice versa.and no meeting halls for either of them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Glen Wayne
Posted by: ePie on Nov 20, 2009 1:51 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Blue Sky Whys ePie November 20th, 09

Sliding down the slippery slope of metaphor, I said: ‘Ah Ha
An apple falls from a tree ...Gravity how can that be?’
A missing Higgs?
‘A ‘here and now’ without the digs?’
A force as likely as a tree:
‘how can that be?’

No explanation for seed to see.
An eye of a seed

Ah Ha...

A savior without sin?
No need.
Is the spirit like a Wylie steed?

‘Give me culture without the metaphor.’
A belief that doesn’t trod on why,
so one can offer up up some blue,

some sky.

Hey: ‘Please don’t question why.’

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Recommended Reading
Posted by: jmmartin on Nov 20, 2009 2:28 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell. He deals with these issues from all perspectives, including the religulous.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

But... Greta Christina... you never answered the most intriguing question!
Posted by: eddie torres on Nov 20, 2009 2:38 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What would a Trekkie Jihad look like?

I mean, if a Trekkie politician were elected to Congress and joined a group of Trekkie Congressmen called "The Family... of Trekkers" living in a house remodelled to look like the bridge of a starship, would it be Enterprise NCC-1701 or NCC-1701-C? Would there be a violent spilt in the great Trekkie/Trekker Peace Accords of 1991?

And how would they bust up their marriages? Would they hook up with Klingons, freaky Deanna Trois, or that green space-babe named 'Marta' at Trekkie Conventions in Argentina?

Could the Jedis and the Trekkies launch true-believer Jihad on each other here in the US because, after all, isn't it an American's pathological nature and genocidal birthright to: (1) choose sides and (2) go to war?

Roddenberry, the old-school visionary. Lucas, the me-generation feisty upstart.

I say "game on."

Jedi Trekkie Jihad: "Let's get ready to rumble..."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

MANY ISSUES HERE
Posted by: lturner1116 on Nov 20, 2009 7:17 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm enjoying the comments as much as the article. I consider myself an atheist (which fortunately does not prevent me from being a loving, caring, engaged person, as some may imply I can't be without a spiritual anchor). I could also be called a secular Jew, although I don't cling to the rituals of Judaism (only the cooking). I also believe that as science increasingly answers our questions, less need exists to attribute life's questions/answers to a supreme being ("God's will.") I consider the religion that promotes the idea that a god actually intervenes in people's lives (hence the need for prayer to try to influence that intervention) is superstition. I believe that superstitious people will invent the god and rituals they need to have, either to thank or to blame for their life developments. I am content to let people "believe what they want to" as long as it does not interfere with my life or society. Separation of church and state is one of my favorite "issues." Thanks for listening.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Batshit
Posted by: barefeet on Nov 20, 2009 9:26 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pretty well describes not only this authors take on International Judaism but everything else I've read.

There are two main types of Jews: the Arab Jews or Semites, or people-of-the-book Jews who originated the religion, and the Oriental Mongol Jews in Western Asia who "converted" to Judaism at the behest of the Jew marketers who were out to make new converts to not Judaism but to Christianity.

Christianity was the Jew version of the Trojan Horse weapon that they designed to overcome their hated overclass, the Romans, and that had proved itself *again* so remarkable successful.

Amazingly simple and audacious, Christian religion was based solidly on Judaism and was a social contract requiring new Christians to recognize and perpetuate Judaism with the proviso that they were to publically and proudly worship Jews and indoctrinate their young and trusting children in the activity in return for "immortality and everlasting happiness." Such a deal!

The new Mongol/Jews were not in the slightest interested in Judaism nor in the immortality promise which they not only saw through but saw the success of over the West.

What they were interested in was breaking the stalemate they found themselves in having pursued their "culture and tradition" of rampage and hatred of all others that had been so successful in the East against people of more pacific views and lighter population density.

As they pursued their culture of pillage to the West they found themselves stalemated as the increasingly contacted the denser and more combative Western population that was ready to stop their every move to the West.

It was at that precise time that the Jew traveling salesmen who had been so successful in Europe came on the scene hoping to dominate new worlds. Instead, the Mongols ate their lunch.

Now the Mongol Jews completely dominate Judaism and Arab Jews are so rare that even Osama Bin Laden seems racially like what he is, an Arab, and not at all like an Oriental Mongol. Also, his guarded presence in Israel makes him impossible to find by blinded Christians.

So it is that Mongol Jews, the only type that most Westerners have ever seen, are not interested at all in Abrahamic "batshit" and are openly athiests now as they have always been.

This also is the reason that their rabbis preach that Jews must consider themselves members of a race, never mind that there is no such race as "Jew." What the rabbis have in mind is building a fence around Jews to keep those in who may be considering becoming "ex-Jews".

And this is important: the carrot in this reasoning for keeping the flock contained is that the central "true belief" of their mythology was and is the teaching that they are the world's *master race.*

Thus, unlike other religions that are behind swinging doors that "swing in and swing out," Judaism's doors do not "swing out." One cannot deny his race. Though Jews proudly proclaim that they are athiests they still claim to be Jews.

Now, with that picture on the puzzle box take another look at all of the pieces, i.e., all the pronouncements of Jews. You will find that they assemble quite easily and you will not be led into one of the many box canyons of reasoning, all littered with batshit and the bones of such as our article author.

Instead you will clearly see the reality that we have been conquered by the Mongols.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Has anyone else been unable to report these blasted salesmen?
Posted by: Ian MacLeod on Nov 21, 2009 1:26 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I keep getting a notice that the report wasn't sent from an authorized URL or something like that. Sales notices in the comments are getting to be ubiquitous and very annoying.

Ian

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Religion doesn't hate sex
Posted by: Astrochimp on Nov 21, 2009 8:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religion only appears to hate sex, but really they're just trying to control it: to make more gullible, suggestible followers of whatever cult we're talking about (e.g. catholicism), and to connect sex with religious dogma and practice. Sex is hugely important in people's lives, so it's a great tool for controlling people.

Religion doesn't hate sex. If it weren't for sex, there wouldn't be cult followers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Greta gets it right
Posted by: ralphellectual on Nov 21, 2009 10:27 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've rarely seen an article that defines the issue this clearly. The difference between liberal religionist duplicitous waffling and an unambiguous clear "trekkie"-ish approach to rituals and traditions is decisive. Ultimately, only the latter approach is consonant with reason and enables an uninhibited scientific-critical approach to culture, society, history, and the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Militant Atheism
Posted by: greenPuker on Nov 23, 2009 6:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What, pray tell, constitutes Militant Atheism?
If you strongly believe in atheism, there are no restraints on explaining your case or delivering the need for strong atheism. Any sucking up to wuss-like explanations of WHY atheism is the only way is disengenuos! There is no God. Any liquid-brown hallucinations about "God" are lies. Don't go there. Tell it like it is!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Militant Atheism Posted by: Dboy
» RE: Militant Atheism Posted by: buffeliscious
» RE: Militant Atheism Posted by: Aquaria

Comments are closed-

It's whether the story gives meaning to life
Posted by: grailsnail on Nov 23, 2009 9:27 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The difference between "just a story" and a resonant myth (which might apply to Star Trek) is that a good myth gives meaning to life, whereas a story is a diversion from life.

All myths matter. Religion is just a myth encrusted in groupthink and the power of the state or social code.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The problem with Atheists saying it is "not true" is applying their own definition of truth.
Posted by: SayBlade on Nov 24, 2009 4:15 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Factual truth is difficult to find in ancient writings. In our modern world we count things and want to be told exactly how things are when we make decisions. On the other hand, there are moral and life truths that are evident in Biblical and other religious writings.

In the same way my back gets up when a religious fundamentalist tells me what I ought to believe, my back gets up when an Athiest tells me what my religion is and then proceeds to debunk it.

I am perfectly content with the idea of an "atheist-baptist" because I know many of them. Being a non-credal people who constantly question and reshape their faith and their understanding of scripture, Baptists can get along very nicely with agnostics and atheists. But, these Baptists are interested in issues about life, social justice, the environment, including the marginalised. I am not sure that the Atheists whose comments I have seen posted are much interested in those things. I think Baptists are a little closer to Humanists, in that regard.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Let's face some facts.
Posted by: talkville on Nov 25, 2009 12:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's first stop trying to "define" what religion is or ought to be or can be or shall be.... For countless individuals in this country as well as across the planet, religious feelings of all varieties provide a source of comfort and certainty, a certainty never accessible to the human species, as we mortals, in case we've forgotten, are fallible. In itself, there is nothing particularly "wrong" or "misguided" or in any way negative; the problems always arise with the insistence that one or another of them be or become the absolute and unquestioned rule for all of us. And problems they are!!

The long standing battles, which follow in one or another way our whole human development in history "between Church and State" are once again at a critical point. But we have much neglected one aspect of these tensions: besides considerations of Church and State, there has been, since our modern age took off about 400 years ago, a definite continuing struggle between both institutions as to which will rule. Church over State? State over Church? Those who seek a resolution into One in questions of Authority have always been with us -- very much with us nowadays. Will our Civil society rule our Religious societies, in their great diversity? Or will Religion (one alone or many collected together) rule our Civil society? This question was put on the table way back in the '60's and is behind the degradation of our times since then.

That is the very important decision facing all of us today. Are we a Theocracy or a Republic of Republics? A Civil or Religious Federation?

Religions cannot be "done away with"; but neither can the forces of democratic struggle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

NatashaDelCardo
Posted by: NatashaDelCardo on Nov 26, 2009 2:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hi Greta,

I'm brand new here. I, as a "confirmed" non-theist, find much of what you say interesting and beneficial. But as a more-or-less "confirmed" follower of the Buddha -- who sidestepped the whole theism/atheism dichotomy that passes for, really, the *only* form of "religious' thought in much of the world -- I wonder what you have to say about that perspective. I didn't see any articles addressing such.

I would be most interested in hearing your views.

Warm wishes,

NDC

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: NatashaDelCardo Posted by: Dboy

Comments are closed-

we have pantheism
Posted by: maxsmart on Nov 27, 2009 10:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The religions are a part of nationalism and the gods are nationalist gods who reward those who serve and die for their country. The Japanese might have the most direct acknowlegement of this in Shinto. It does connect with the animist connection with the land and people in a certain way. And it is real in certain way.
But there is also an ecological view of a wholistic universe where all points are the center and there is no outide to be cast to. And it is greater than the sum of it's parts and we are not so sure what that is. Similarly we might have our Earth religion and Earth anismist god in a similar manner. As a system we are all interdependent and the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. The individuals also depend on the health and welfare of the whole and the whole depends on the health and welfare of the individuals and their freedom to be themselves within the demands of the entire system.

We need at this point in globalizing time to move from our nationalist Gods to our Earth God and Goddess both. Without the Goddess of wholistic perception we cannot have the God of individuality.

If we stay with the nationalist view we will continue to be at war with ourself. We need to balance body and mind in a similar manner.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

S
Posted by: Constitution on Nov 20, 2009 12:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it's not that hard to see 10 or 20,000 years ago in your tribe. God or goddess protected you and your tribe. Because the people on the other side of the hill where godless and to be hated.and that's why we have religion or people can field better than others
and it gives them permission to hate someone or a group. meanwhile they say they love everyone. That's what it's about to be Godlike and to get to hate. I think there was a lot more of them at one time but now I think it's about 50-50 the other 50 being rational thinkers. So if we last long enough they will disappear.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

atheism is lazy and modern; a luxury
Posted by: jingles on Nov 20, 2009 2:03 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any time an article is posted about vegetarianism, there will be comments on how we are designed to be omnivores, as if this mattered. Similarly, we are wired to be religious; no culture but those that encourage alienation produces atheists because our brains are rigged to help produce religious experiences. A recent article in Miller-McCune discusses a study that implies perceiving more competition for a mate makes one more religious. Does this mean atheists are more sexually confident, or that they're not interested in reproduction? Perhaps atheists are just wired differently.
In giving up religion, atheists give up the group mind/safety net of society, making atheism a luxury of our modern times, and a disease of civilization. Atheists do not need to wonder, or to reform. Instead of aiming for unity, healing and peace, the lazy just let division, injury and killing persist, hoping an intellect alone will prevail. Being against certain dogmas and power structures, dossn't mean you can't be religious! People will use any excuse to advance their own bias, regardless of reality, and this includes atheists (unless they're just wired differently).
The author mentions love, but only insofar as she would like the world to exist. Instead of addressing the issues of misogyny, intentional ignorance, etc., from the side of progress, atheists fix themselves in desolate nothings of non-belief, and attack the thing in which most people experience love beyond narcissism (if they are so lucky).
Progressive religion does not say, "this is just a story," it says, "this is a story, now what are you going to do? How can you transform yourself and the world? How will you love?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

So who's going to police this utopia against actual belief in anything, might I ask...?
Posted by: Aureantes on Nov 20, 2009 2:16 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seriously -- what people believe personally is nowhere near as important as how they act in real life. A certain mega-religion's central figure is quoted as saying that people are ultimately (and should be) known by their actions above all other considerations, and yet you think that the biggest problem in the history of religion is that anyone still believes in anything at all beyond the proven material world? The problem is and always has been not what one believes but what one does with that belief, or thinks justified in its name. And that extends to any religion, philosophy or political stance.

The way I see it, militant atheism is as intolerant as any traditional-religious fundamentalism, and to posit that the world would just be so much better if everyone else would simply just not have any real convictions beneath their nominal affiliation is equivalent to any "concerned" fundamentalist or Catholic pressuring everyone to just get along and not have any objections to Christianity being assumed as the U.S.'s national and public religion. Actually, it's even more Inquisitorial than that, because what you really want...is for everyone to think the same way that you do underneath it all, and yet that is the one thing that you haven't any ethical right to demand or enforce. "Freedom of religion" goes both ways, and neither the extreme of literalist religion nor the extreme of literal atheism has yet made a convincing case for their position being the self-evident conclusion.

In which case, I should think that moderation in general is by far the most civil and prudent approach -- and that vehement preaching or proselytizing by anyone is in extremely bad taste.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Help control the screwball population
Posted by: pelican beak on Nov 20, 2009 2:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Have your religion spayed or neutered.
Goodbye, everybody!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Alice rules
Posted by: geometeer on Nov 20, 2009 2:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You cannot offend a fan of Alice in Wonderland by saying it isn't true, any more than you can offend a believer in daylight that way. It so obviously is true.

The reason that denial often upsets the religious is that they have their own doubts, which are labelled by the religion as sinful. You are tempting them to disbelieve, and disbelief is damnation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

ONLY THING THAT WILL SAVE ORGANIZED RELIGION
Posted by: drricklippin on Nov 20, 2009 4:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is where organized religion needs to go.I call it "Spiritual Optimism"

I published new "Ten Commandments for the 21st Century" based on spiritual optimism

Also see Joseph Campbell's "The Power of Myth"

Dr.Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Come on, Greta, this is getting old
Posted by: gilliani on Nov 20, 2009 4:43 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really wish you would qualify your use of the words 'religion' and 'religious.'

You continue to paint EVERYONE who has a spiritual life with this broad brush of stupidity.

I am a religious person. The stories ARE metaphor for me. I AM completely open to discussion and debate and criticism of it. I believe wholeheartedly in the scientific method. I believe in birth control, a woman's right to choose, same-sex marriages, I'm opposed to the teaching of creation.....all the things Greta says that EVERYONE who is religious is against.

The neointellectuals of the left make a sport of bashing religion. How about trying to really engage with someone like me? I'm not the only one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Change definition of smite or smote
Posted by: filhtymcnasty on Nov 20, 2009 5:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That would solve alot of the problems. The Old Testament is too vengeful and violent. But if smote became "wagged His finger" instead of "killing." Then sentences like, "And God smote the enemies of Abraham," would become much less vitriolioc. And many of the worlds problems lessened.
:)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Aesops Fables
Posted by: Purple Girl on Nov 20, 2009 5:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Interesting that the Holey Rollers miss the entire point of these stories because they are so caught up in dissecting the minute details instead.
FYI Revelations- Christ Defeats Satan, not with Guns, Soldiers or Armies, but with 'The Word'. It's only Satans who need the aid of the 'God and Guns' group.
Totally Missing the 'Moral of the Story'.
What my question is to these Zealot groups ..Are you a Christian (Muslim, Jew) or a Monotheist?
Do you not only understand the first three 10 commandments, but abide by them first and foremost?
Or is your worship and reverence shared with another? How about your fear - Is there another you fear as much, if not more than the 'One and Only One Lord God'? Is there a viable opponent which could challenge the Almighty, even exude influence and power over His Beloved Creations, to rival His? One that requires an apocalyptic battle to defeat?
These are not Monotheists. They are at best pagan, at worse Duelist who revere the 'Dark' as much as the 'light'.
To a true Monotheist 'Satan' either does not exist, is impotent, or an agent to God.
As for the "Prophets" mere mortal messengers, or the fleshy vessel used by god so as not to overtax our small minds. Not God, or at least not in Entirety.
Christ, Mohammad, David, Moses....All just Apollos and Mars with different names.

Deception is easiest when a basic premise is assumed. they are not Monotheists that is why they are willing to shed blood for their idol.
Otherwise they would be heeding those Big 10 more diligently.
Be careful what you wish for 'fundementalists' you just might get it and you'll be on the wrong side.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Thanks Greta
Posted by: nmeyer on Nov 20, 2009 6:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Greta, I think you understand that humans have to get past religion, and that you are looking for a way to help people do that. This article says it well. Keep the good parts, ditch the rest, understand that it's a story and get on about living in the here and now. I think what you said here can reach people, and here's why I say that:

Twenty-six years ago, I was a theology student, an earnest, sincere, devoted, Midwestern Christian. Being serious about my religion, I was all in. One day it just hit me out of the blue -- this is like believing in Pegasus (the flying horse). In that moment, my entire world view was replaced by...well, nothing. And that experience can be devastating. It can take years to build one's own story because as an adult, one really doesn't have a lot of time to play around and learn all over again.

We have to be available and around to catch, care and coach people who make the leap you are talking about. In your article, you are looking for ways to catch and care for people while also challenging them. While it may not look and feel like love to everyone, it is no different than a parent helping a child get past the Santa Claus trauma... Within the next few months, parents all over the world will be loving their children and helping them grow and expand. It's heartbreaking sometimes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Hardline Atheists
Posted by: InsertNameHere on Nov 20, 2009 6:37 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't believe in God, so I suppose I'm an Atheist. I don't really want to be in any kind of 'Atheist group' though. I've been over to the forums on the Richard Dawkins site and they seem an awfully angry, humorless lot. Just looking through the posts, they even attack their own sometimes. They don't believe in god, or good manners apparently.

They believe in attacking religion, showing it no respect, etc. I think a church / state separation makes sense, but I don't want to wipe them out. There are some religious groups who preach hate and ignorance, but there are many more who accept modern science. I guess I just believe in allowing others to follow their own path.

What these 'New Atheists' seem to have is a 'with us or against us' attitude. How does following that path make them any better? There is such a thing as taking the high road.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hardline Atheists Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» RE: Hardline Atheists Posted by: Balance40

Comments are closed-

Religion is Faith
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Nov 20, 2009 6:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Faith is the belief in something you know does not exist."--Mark Twain

At a fairly tender age I came to the conclusion that there was too much nonsense in the bible for it to be literally true; I couldn't believe any of the adults I knew really believed it as many claimed to. My conclusion was that they were all hypocrites, just not willing to say what they must really believe. Surely, I thought, all of these adults must be, in their heart of hearts, agnostic (I'm not sure I knew that word then, but I understood the concept). I realized quickly though that I too had to refrain from giving voice to my understanding; I too had to remain a hypocrite if I was to get along in this world.

With the passing of years, I've come to realize that not everyone thinks about things with the same care that I do and that not everyone means the same thing by the word, believe. This is not to say that I understand what they mean by that word, even now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The Dickens you say...
Posted by: C.Richardi on Nov 20, 2009 6:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are people who enjoy dressing up and acting out the stories of Charles Dickens? OOH! Where?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Dickens you say... Posted by: Haji54

Comments are closed-

What if all the religious and agnostic preachers shut TFU and stopped contributing to ...
Posted by: harryf200 on Nov 20, 2009 7:16 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... global warming with their pointless hot air and noise pollution? Or better still, do something useful instead of talk?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

We Don't Go Door-To-Door
Posted by: stellabloo on Nov 20, 2009 7:47 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is actually a "religious" "organization" where believer and atheist co-exist peacefully. You can worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster, be a secular catholic, or believe in nothing more abstract than the higher purpose of the group.

I'm talking about AA. Too bad that the whole industrial pharmaceutical/prison complex has perverted the original open-ended non-organization into the megascam programming tool of forced attendance that it has become - I was lucky enough to start in a small group that held strongly to Traditions 3, 5 and 10 (i.e. "A" stands for ALCOHOLIC) so it was no "sin" to get together, drink coffee, smoke pot and play music.

But because equality and freedom of belief are written into the 12 Traditions, I can still go to meetings anywhere without feeling like a hypocrite. "The only requirement for A.A. membership is a desire to stop drinking."

Belief in a Higher Power ("of our own understanding") is so open-ended that some religions like the Jehovah's Witnesses see us as tools of Satan and forbid their members to attend. How cool is that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: We Don't Go Door-To-Door Posted by: IntlDad
» RE: We Don't Go Door-To-Door Posted by: Ellie F.

Comments are closed-

This may sound good to atheists
Posted by: solrev on Nov 20, 2009 8:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a fatal flaw in this metaphor analysis because it happens to be true. There are two important teachings of Jesus usually ignored by fundamentalists. One, Jesus warned us not to let our rituals overcome our faith. Two, Jesus taught with stories and parables to teach us that the important thing is the meaning behind the words. Fundamentalists may want to rethink how they worship the Bible as if it were a golden calf. The stories and rituals serve only one purpose, to allow the little children to come unto God. Once here one has to exercise their free will as an adult and act accordingly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Joanie
Posted by: JoanM35 on Nov 20, 2009 8:23 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The reason that we progressive church folks object to the "new atheists" who are writing books recently is that they make the same mistake you do. The religion that they object to is the old fundamentalist, literalist religion to which we no longer subscribe. We dislike being lumped in with that. Plain and simple. Buy it, don't buy it, but please get it straight.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Joanie Posted by: daniel1982

Comments are closed-

Who's more pathetically insecure?
Posted by: doodahman on Nov 20, 2009 8:29 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religious fundamentalists or aggressive atheists? Neither can seem to just let people believe what they want without spiraling into a bottomless sea of drivel, as is this article.

Just because I happen to believe that a giant cosmic toad will someday come down and eat all you disbelievers like a suvlaki on pita is my business. Until that day, I'll shut the fuck up if you will. However, if you don't get out of my face about how, when or why I should believe or not believe this or that, don't be surprised if I start smearing tahini sauce on you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» hmmm... Posted by: buffeliscious
» RE: hmmm... Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: hmmm... Posted by: buffeliscious
» RE: hmmm... Posted by: QueenJaynie
» I think... Posted by: buffeliscious
» RE: hmmm... Posted by: daniel1982
» You prove my point... Posted by: buffeliscious
» Here's a point.... Posted by: bubbleburster04
» RE: Here's a point.... Posted by: buffeliscious
» RE: Here's a point.... Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: You prove my point... Posted by: daniel1982
» So, it's either/or for you... Posted by: buffeliscious
» RE: So, it's either/or for you... Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: So, it's either/or for you... Posted by: buffeliscious

Comments are closed-

not so open where I live
Posted by: Ellie F. on Nov 20, 2009 8:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yeah, so how come every AA meeting ends with the Lord's Prayer? I got criticized severely when I didn't say it. I didn't make an issue of not saying it --- I just didn't.

I live in the mid-west and AA meetings are full of "God-talk" - mainly of the fundamentalist Christian variety. Also, the program as a whole is INCREDIBLY sexist.

I quit AA after trying to overlook this stuff for 6 years. I now get support for my sobriety through SOS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Fine with me
Posted by: sayward2 on Nov 20, 2009 8:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I left religion a long time ago. I still like all the pomp and holidays. But the idea of a god is just too ludicrous now. However many people think like children and need some authority to rule their lives- they can not be a decent person because it is the right thing to do/for the sake of itself- they need that special promise of a reward for being good(however their religion defines it.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Fine with me Posted by: dac007

Comments are closed-

It won't work
Posted by: Bushmaster on Nov 20, 2009 9:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It won't work. Christians who are neurotically religious are so because of what their personalities make them desire. They choose a stern schizophrenic God because that is the one they need.

Once you have decided on this type of God as your God then you begin to validate this in the outside world. Everywhere you look you see your belief validated.

The lesbian couple next door

The teenage slut in the house on the other side who lives with her single mother.

The crime, drug abuse. STD's and abortion all validate the stern schizophrenic, (jealous, tender,loving, vengeful, wrathful) God they have decided on.

Anything that threatens these principles threatens not only their God, but their means of understanding the world. Through the means of the God they have decided on they have constructed an explanation for everything.

This explanations helps them get through the world. If they thought it was 'make believe' it would not function the way it does now.

I gave up that particular faith because I realized it was unbelievable. I couldn't be bothered 'believing' what was not making any sense to me anymore. Why would anyone do that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It won't work Posted by: dac007
» RE: It won't work Posted by: Dboy

Comments are closed-

evangelicals of both stripes
Posted by: Bertvan on Nov 20, 2009 9:36 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why does it bother religious people for Atheists to say it isn’t true? Probably for the same reason Atheists are bothered by religious beliefs. Whatever that might be. I’m an agnostic myself, but am content for both Atheists and religious people to believe whatever they believe. I am only bothered by attempts to restrict speculations about the unknown. I don’t happen to believe in a personal god. However I have no explanation for the obvious fact that a belief in right and wrong seems to be universal. Atheists have no more desire to be considered immoral than religious people do. I’m sceptical of RM&NS, the notion that a belief in right and wrong consists of a mechanistic device placed in our DNA by natural selection doing something to a series of genetic accidents. However I am comfortable living with my speculations. At the moment religious people appear cowed and rather timid about active recruitment. Evangelical Atheists, on the other hand, seem to have no qualms about trying to impose their beliefs upon others.
Bertvan
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Differences between religion and entertainment.
Posted by: Sojourner on Nov 20, 2009 9:40 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This piece does get around to rejecting the initial image that equates religion with Trekkies, but it seems unable to distinguish religion from entertainment.

We all know what entertainment is. Journalists may even know the difference between journalism and entertainment, but that is not always clear in their writing.

So what is religion? Religion is about worship. Yes, it makes a difference what you choose to worship but that issue cannot be discussed intelligently without trained leadership. So here are some rules of thumb.

We can live a worshipful life. It is one where we revere whatever it is we choose to worship. Such a life is concrete, authentic, and often joyful. It is not about other people except insofar as it has reverence for their lives as well as our own.

Reverence is not always approval because it also founds values that make a difference. Truth is spoken in love but the truth is as important as the love.

Contemporary philosophers write of faith as an attitude that involves perception of our world. Reverence is such an attitude, a way of seeing our world. Worshipful living is the expression of such an attitude.

One is not forced to be reverent or live a worshipful life. Those who do choose such are the blessed. Those who do not probably cannot tell the difference between religion and entertainment. That's not my problem. Like forgiveness, unless they ask for help with their beliefs, it will not be offered.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Space age, space prophits Posted by: eddie torres

Comments are closed-

Know-it-alls & Know-nothings
Posted by: willymack on Nov 20, 2009 9:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Greta, you pretty much answered your own questions, and I strongly suspect you already knew the answers, and have for some time.
Let's look at the first charlatan in human history, looking for a mark to parasitise.
Tha mark can't be too smart, or erudite, otherwise he/she would see through the scam. The mark should be delusional enough to incorporate the scammer's blathers into his own "reality" to the extent that he owns the scam as part of himself, and would take umbrage at anyone attempting to refute the scam, no matter how fact-based and convincing the refutation may be.
The mark ideally should have a small image of himself and his worth. This would make him all the more suseptible to the blandishments of the charlatan, and easy to CONTROL.
Think about all the people who listen to charlatans on the pulpit and the political soapbox, and take their every word on "faith", without subejecting the words to any rational analysis or logical criticism.
Then, there are nuts like Bugs Beck and Lush Limberger who are actually BELIEVED by so many marks.
A fool and his money are soon parted. So are his self-respect, dignity, and FREEDOM.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Yes, they sometimes call themselves "Jewnitarians"
Posted by: greatferm on Nov 20, 2009 9:50 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Surely you have heard the old definition "A Jew is just a pious Unitarian" .

I discovered I was a Unitarian a long time ago, just because all of the metaphorical religions, and all of the others too, were welcome. Our basic prayer, addressed to whom it may concern, but couched in metaphorical language, is "Lord, help me to find the truth, and protect me from those who have found it".

My favorite piece of music is the Faure Requiem, glorious music, soaring latin rhetoric, marvelously empathic sentiments, but surely I need not take it's theology seriously. Last week I was in a museum, looking at some Flemish Primitives, magnificent religious art, and you don't need to be religious to appreciate it.

Religion is a banquet. But you can't swallow all of it. If atheists don't want to join the feast, each to his/her own taste.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Essentially...
Posted by: buffeliscious on Nov 20, 2009 10:01 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the author pines, "Why can't all people just be as rational as I am?" And she's found a great readership on Alternet, as one can see from the rabid anti-religionist zealots posting. Really, in reading these comments, who are the angry repugnant ones?

The author's thesis suggesting that if only religious people could drop their beliefs, we'd all be a little better off is similar to asking an atheist to please just try and believe in God a little bit. We'd all be better off.

So many atheists tie all world violence to religious roots. But really, violence happens for other reasons and often uses religion as an excuse. Look at Nazi Germany. Look at Rwanda, where Europeans favored one tribe's physical traits over another and this led to years of growing enmity between them, bloodshed, and millions of deaths.

True, there are a small percentage of "believers" who find it necessary to defend their "faith" above all others and against all naysayers. But really they are the weak ones in faith. I find weak atheists as well to be intolerable of anyone around them who might be making choices based on some "irrational belief system."

Some of us embrace Mystery, the spaces and gaps in between the supposed scientific lines of reasoning. And others embrace the "facts" and choose to connect those dots into a line of rational thinking. While these two groups may never agree, we can certainly coexist and get along. The key is to quit trying to mould the other into their own way of thinking.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ssentially... Posted by: Dboy
» RE: ssentially... Posted by: Aquaria

Comments are closed-

metaphor
Posted by: paganpat on Nov 20, 2009 10:20 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Metaphors are not to be taken literally, everyone knows this except the idiots that try to convence us to join in their madness as literally true. The problem is the metaphoric "fundies" snag the young and drag them along unsuspecting. Child abuse? Hell yes! Want it stoped? Follow the money and tax them. By the way there is no such thing as religious music, take out the lyrics and listen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Too typically -- missing the best of religion and imitating the worst.
Posted by: Starjack on Nov 20, 2009 10:39 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course this entirely misses the subtler position held by many religious folks that while we believe in God and the core tenets of our religion we understand our sacred texts to be largely allegorical and poetic, not entirely literal. We have lots of room for interpretation and expansion. Granted this creates as many problems as it solves, but there's the great and intriguing field of theology to explore the deeper meanings in our religions.

But complexity and nuance were never much in favor with the thought police of any cult. Of course there's no reason why materialists should have to accept the validity of spritiual experience. Then again, it takes a lot of chutzpah to insist that because they refuse to accept something they have no interest in understanding, other people are wrong for accepting it as a part of their lives.

And if we neuter our religions to mere traditional practices with no real core belief, does that make for better people? In Palestine and Israel you have secular Jews fighting secular Muslims and Christians, and it's as bloody and vicious as any battle where people actually believe in their religions. And the Nazi regime was really pretty secular, much as it did exploit religion. Irreligious nominal Christians were sending secular and atheist Jews to the death camps. What they actually believed was never at issue. (Scream "Godwin's Law" in a health care debate, but here the Nazi example is indeed relevant.)

I think most people would agree that the worst, most oppressive thing about religion is the self-appointed thought police who insist on telling other people what they should think and believe.

So sad that a cadre of some atheists have decided to follow in those footsteps.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Let's start with the Garden of Eden, then...
Posted by: ericq on Nov 20, 2009 11:28 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have found that most people are just really not comfortable using their gift of thinking abstractly when embarking on an inward journey. This is why if you don't really experience the "metephor" of the Garden of Eden story, what's the point of moving forward. What I hear throughout your argument is a duality of thinking: us/them, true/false, like/dislike, metaphor/real, believe/don't-believe, black/white, good/evil. It's an endless loop leading nowhere. If you see the world in terms of opposites, that is, taken the bite of the apple from the tree of knowledge (of duality - good/evil, etc.), you will always be chasing your tail. Return to clarity, before the apple, where conflict doesn't reside. Get the first story right, then turn to Chapter 2 on your journey to finding at least peace if not true clarity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

We must tell Stories.
Posted by: kroenung58 on Nov 20, 2009 11:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stories are the way humans, and quite probably other higher-order mammals like dolphins, chimps, elephants, etc., organize experiences and make sense of their place in a less than survival-friendly environment. In the same way dreams function, stories and rituals are useful and pleasureable ways to learn and pass on vital information. They also provide important social connections with other members of the tribe.
According to Campbell, there are only a few archetypal themes and many, many variations. There may be an "Ultimate Reality" behind the stories but our brains need a buffer in order to cope and process information.
Unfortunately, another evolutionary hold-over is the tribal fear of the "other". A useful survival mechanism in the past, the fear and distrust of anything other than our clan or family and their particular story has caused our species alot of grief. So we humans have the need for story and the ability to play-act them out hard-wired in our brains alongside the fear of other stories which threaten our survival.
How do we evolve past this conundrum? By finally realizing that the stories are in some way metaphors for truth, and that all are useful for teaching and entertainment. (I include the stories that science tells, especially quantum physics, in the mix.) If we can embrace the entire planet as our tribe, we can enjoy the stories and pick and chose the ones we like best. This would be a true evolutionary leap, maybe even a Trekkie-like ideal. "To boldly go" and all that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

What you are describing...
Posted by: sbrasseux on Nov 20, 2009 11:47 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Inclusive, rational, uplifting, purposeful, non-dogmatic, spiritual, tradition-filled, community oriented, inspiring...What you are talking about in your article perfectly describes Unitarian Universalism. I found the UU church after years of participating, mostly contentedly, in other Protestant churches, yet I could not "turn off" the part of my brain that knew most of the dogma was all metaphorical to me. I especially hated the glorification of someone else's death for other's salvation and the hypocrisy of some who did not live as they professed to believe.
The Unitarian Universalists walk the walk. And we are passionate believers in the worth and dignity of every human being and the desire to embrace all the truths that we can find, whatever the source.

By the way, Gene Roddenbury was a UU.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

BUY WHY?
Posted by: marat on Nov 20, 2009 12:32 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author never says WHY people should stop believing in their religion.

Why should they? They should have the freedom to believe in their faith. What's wrong with that?

What is this story about? How great Jews are who take their religion with a grain of salt but their Jewishness as everything? What's the difference?

This story makes no sense. It is not cogent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: BUY WHY? Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: BUY WHY? TO DANIEL Posted by: marat

Comments are closed-

S
Posted by: Constitution on Nov 20, 2009 1:24 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
how about we say everyone can believe in anything they want. But no one can collect money to push their ideas on the street or government. That way the religious people will not have to worry about the atheist and vice versa.and no meeting halls for either of them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Glen Wayne
Posted by: ePie on Nov 20, 2009 1:51 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Blue Sky Whys ePie November 20th, 09

Sliding down the slippery slope of metaphor, I said: ‘Ah Ha
An apple falls from a tree ...Gravity how can that be?’
A missing Higgs?
‘A ‘here and now’ without the digs?’
A force as likely as a tree:
‘how can that be?’

No explanation for seed to see.
An eye of a seed

Ah Ha...

A savior without sin?
No need.
Is the spirit like a Wylie steed?

‘Give me culture without the metaphor.’
A belief that doesn’t trod on why,
so one can offer up up some blue,

some sky.

Hey: ‘Please don’t question why.’

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Recommended Reading
Posted by: jmmartin on Nov 20, 2009 2:28 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell. He deals with these issues from all perspectives, including the religulous.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

But... Greta Christina... you never answered the most intriguing question!
Posted by: eddie torres on Nov 20, 2009 2:38 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What would a Trekkie Jihad look like?

I mean, if a Trekkie politician were elected to Congress and joined a group of Trekkie Congressmen called "The Family... of Trekkers" living in a house remodelled to look like the bridge of a starship, would it be Enterprise NCC-1701 or NCC-1701-C? Would there be a violent spilt in the great Trekkie/Trekker Peace Accords of 1991?

And how would they bust up their marriages? Would they hook up with Klingons, freaky Deanna Trois, or that green space-babe named 'Marta' at Trekkie Conventions in Argentina?

Could the Jedis and the Trekkies launch true-believer Jihad on each other here in the US because, after all, isn't it an American's pathological nature and genocidal birthright to: (1) choose sides and (2) go to war?

Roddenberry, the old-school visionary. Lucas, the me-generation feisty upstart.

I say "game on."

Jedi Trekkie Jihad: "Let's get ready to rumble..."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

MANY ISSUES HERE
Posted by: lturner1116 on Nov 20, 2009 7:17 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm enjoying the comments as much as the article. I consider myself an atheist (which fortunately does not prevent me from being a loving, caring, engaged person, as some may imply I can't be without a spiritual anchor). I could also be called a secular Jew, although I don't cling to the rituals of Judaism (only the cooking). I also believe that as science increasingly answers our questions, less need exists to attribute life's questions/answers to a supreme being ("God's will.") I consider the religion that promotes the idea that a god actually intervenes in people's lives (hence the need for prayer to try to influence that intervention) is superstition. I believe that superstitious people will invent the god and rituals they need to have, either to thank or to blame for their life developments. I am content to let people "believe what they want to" as long as it does not interfere with my life or society. Separation of church and state is one of my favorite "issues." Thanks for listening.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Batshit
Posted by: barefeet on Nov 20, 2009 9:26 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pretty well describes not only this authors take on International Judaism but everything else I've read.

There are two main types of Jews: the Arab Jews or Semites, or people-of-the-book Jews who originated the religion, and the Oriental Mongol Jews in Western Asia who "converted" to Judaism at the behest of the Jew marketers who were out to make new converts to not Judaism but to Christianity.

Christianity was the Jew version of the Trojan Horse weapon that they designed to overcome their hated overclass, the Romans, and that had proved itself *again* so remarkable successful.

Amazingly simple and audacious, Christian religion was based solidly on Judaism and was a social contract requiring new Christians to recognize and perpetuate Judaism with the proviso that they were to publically and proudly worship Jews and indoctrinate their young and trusting children in the activity in return for "immortality and everlasting happiness." Such a deal!

The new Mongol/Jews were not in the slightest interested in Judaism nor in the immortality promise which they not only saw through but saw the success of over the West.

What they were interested in was breaking the stalemate they found themselves in having pursued their "culture and tradition" of rampage and hatred of all others that had been so successful in the East against people of more pacific views and lighter population density.

As they pursued their culture of pillage to the West they found themselves stalemated as the increasingly contacted the denser and more combative Western population that was ready to stop their every move to the West.

It was at that precise time that the Jew traveling salesmen who had been so successful in Europe came on the scene hoping to dominate new worlds. Instead, the Mongols ate their lunch.

Now the Mongol Jews completely dominate Judaism and Arab Jews are so rare that even Osama Bin Laden seems racially like what he is, an Arab, and not at all like an Oriental Mongol. Also, his guarded presence in Israel makes him impossible to find by blinded Christians.

So it is that Mongol Jews, the only type that most Westerners have ever seen, are not interested at all in Abrahamic "batshit" and are openly athiests now as they have always been.

This also is the reason that their rabbis preach that Jews must consider themselves members of a race, never mind that there is no such race as "Jew." What the rabbis have in mind is building a fence around Jews to keep those in who may be considering becoming "ex-Jews".

And this is important: the carrot in this reasoning for keeping the flock contained is that the central "true belief" of their mythology was and is the teaching that they are the world's *master race.*

Thus, unlike other religions that are behind swinging doors that "swing in and swing out," Judaism's doors do not "swing out." One cannot deny his race. Though Jews proudly proclaim that they are athiests they still claim to be Jews.

Now, with that picture on the puzzle box take another look at all of the pieces, i.e., all the pronouncements of Jews. You will find that they assemble quite easily and you will not be led into one of the many box canyons of reasoning, all littered with batshit and the bones of such as our article author.

Instead you will clearly see the reality that we have been conquered by the Mongols.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Has anyone else been unable to report these blasted salesmen?
Posted by: Ian MacLeod on Nov 21, 2009 1:26 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I keep getting a notice that the report wasn't sent from an authorized URL or something like that. Sales notices in the comments are getting to be ubiquitous and very annoying.

Ian

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Religion doesn't hate sex
Posted by: Astrochimp on Nov 21, 2009 8:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religion only appears to hate sex, but really they're just trying to control it: to make more gullible, suggestible followers of whatever cult we're talking about (e.g. catholicism), and to connect sex with religious dogma and practice. Sex is hugely important in people's lives, so it's a great tool for controlling people.

Religion doesn't hate sex. If it weren't for sex, there wouldn't be cult followers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Greta gets it right
Posted by: ralphellectual on Nov 21, 2009 10:27 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've rarely seen an article that defines the issue this clearly. The difference between liberal religionist duplicitous waffling and an unambiguous clear "trekkie"-ish approach to rituals and traditions is decisive. Ultimately, only the latter approach is consonant with reason and enables an uninhibited scientific-critical approach to culture, society, history, and the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Militant Atheism
Posted by: greenPuker on Nov 23, 2009 6:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What, pray tell, constitutes Militant Atheism?
If you strongly believe in atheism, there are no restraints on explaining your case or delivering the need for strong atheism. Any sucking up to wuss-like explanations of WHY atheism is the only way is disengenuos! There is no God. Any liquid-brown hallucinations about "God" are lies. Don't go there. Tell it like it is!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Militant Atheism Posted by: Dboy
» RE: Militant Atheism Posted by: buffeliscious
» RE: Militant Atheism Posted by: Aquaria

Comments are closed-

It's whether the story gives meaning to life
Posted by: grailsnail on Nov 23, 2009 9:27 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The difference between "just a story" and a resonant myth (which might apply to Star Trek) is that a good myth gives meaning to life, whereas a story is a diversion from life.

All myths matter. Religion is just a myth encrusted in groupthink and the power of the state or social code.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The problem with Atheists saying it is "not true" is applying their own definition of truth.
Posted by: SayBlade on Nov 24, 2009 4:15 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Factual truth is difficult to find in ancient writings. In our modern world we count things and want to be told exactly how things are when we make decisions. On the other hand, there are moral and life truths that are evident in Biblical and other religious writings.

In the same way my back gets up when a religious fundamentalist tells me what I ought to believe, my back gets up when an Athiest tells me what my religion is and then proceeds to debunk it.

I am perfectly content with the idea of an "atheist-baptist" because I know many of them. Being a non-credal people who constantly question and reshape their faith and their understanding of scripture, Baptists can get along very nicely with agnostics and atheists. But, these Baptists are interested in issues about life, social justice, the environment, including the marginalised. I am not sure that the Atheists whose comments I have seen posted are much interested in those things. I think Baptists are a little closer to Humanists, in that regard.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Let's face some facts.
Posted by: talkville on Nov 25, 2009 12:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's first stop trying to "define" what religion is or ought to be or can be or shall be.... For countless individuals in this country as well as across the planet, religious feelings of all varieties provide a source of comfort and certainty, a certainty never accessible to the human species, as we mortals, in case we've forgotten, are fallible. In itself, there is nothing particularly "wrong" or "misguided" or in any way negative; the problems always arise with the insistence that one or another of them be or become the absolute and unquestioned rule for all of us. And problems they are!!

The long standing battles, which follow in one or another way our whole human development in history "between Church and State" are once again at a critical point. But we have much neglected one aspect of these tensions: besides considerations of Church and State, there has been, since our modern age took off about 400 years ago, a definite continuing struggle between both institutions as to which will rule. Church over State? State over Church? Those who seek a resolution into One in questions of Authority have always been with us -- very much with us nowadays. Will our Civil society rule our Religious societies, in their great diversity? Or will Religion (one alone or many collected together) rule our Civil society? This question was put on the table way back in the '60's and is behind the degradation of our times since then.

That is the very important decision facing all of us today. Are we a Theocracy or a Republic of Republics? A Civil or Religious Federation?

Religions cannot be "done away with"; but neither can the forces of democratic struggle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

NatashaDelCardo
Posted by: NatashaDelCardo on Nov 26, 2009 2:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hi Greta,

I'm brand new here. I, as a "confirmed" non-theist, find much of what you say interesting and beneficial. But as a more-or-less "confirmed" follower of the Buddha -- who sidestepped the whole theism/atheism dichotomy that passes for, really, the *only* form of "religious' thought in much of the world -- I wonder what you have to say about that perspective. I didn't see any articles addressing such.

I would be most interested in hearing your views.

Warm wishes,

NDC

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: NatashaDelCardo Posted by: Dboy

Comments are closed-

we have pantheism
Posted by: maxsmart on Nov 27, 2009 10:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The religions are a part of nationalism and the gods are nationalist gods who reward those who serve and die for their country. The Japanese might have the most direct acknowlegement of this in Shinto. It does connect with the animist connection with the land and people in a certain way. And it is real in certain way.
But there is also an ecological view of a wholistic universe where all points are the center and there is no outide to be cast to. And it is greater than the sum of it's parts and we are not so sure what that is. Similarly we might have our Earth religion and Earth anismist god in a similar manner. As a system we are all interdependent and the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. The individuals also depend on the health and welfare of the whole and the whole depends on the health and welfare of the individuals and their freedom to be themselves within the demands of the entire system.

We need at this point in globalizing time to move from our nationalist Gods to our Earth God and Goddess both. Without the Goddess of wholistic perception we cannot have the God of individuality.

If we stay with the nationalist view we will continue to be at war with ourself. We need to balance body and mind in a similar manner.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

 
 
 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS