Saturday, June 11, 2011

Beyond Atheism

fight-clubYou're not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your fucking khakis. You're the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world. – Tyler Durden

You are not your belief system. You are not even your lack of a belief system. In the same way theists gain a sense of identity through their display of a belief system, atheists gain a sense of identity through their opposition to belief systems. Doesn’t this sound absurd?

I understand the word ‘atheist’ has served well in mobilizing an opposition to the harmful side of religion, but I say lets evolve.

Fuck off with your sofa units and string green stripe patterns, I say never be complete, I say stop being perfect, I say let... lets evolve, let the chips fall where they may. – Tyler Durden

Only when we can stop messing with the tasteless decor of outdated belief-systems, can we design a masterpiece. Lets focus on what we stand for, rather than what we don’t find fashionable. By fixating on the belief systems of others, we’re being drawn into their reality of identification. With identification comes boundaries, opposition, and a world full of resentment.

It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything. – Tyler Durden

It is not enough to lose rigid belief systems. Oppositional identities maintain the same belief as the failing “war on drugs”, “war on terror”, “war on crime” mentality; the belief that “we” have the truth, “they” are wrong and now we must stomp them out.

The days of “militant atheism” must come to an end before atheists spark the next ‘religious war’.

Imagine there's no countries,
It isn't hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace... – John Lennon

When John Lennon talks about no countries and no religion, he is talking about no boundaries. Having “no religion” can not mean a world of atheists since atheists can only maintain their identity so long as theists still exist; an ‘us vs. them’ mentality is vital to defining yourself in opposition to an ‘other’.

Evolve. When boundaries are dissolved, the identity you hold will stop holding onto you.

13 comments:

  1. Militant atheism is not an ideological concept. There are actually very few people who would say that they're atheist as a worldview. You'll hear, instead, humanist, free thinker, naturalist, secular-humanist, realist, skeptic, rationalist and others. Just ask some instead of speaking in speculative claims.

    If you actually think that atheism is an ideology, you've pretty much bought into the propaganda of religion apologists.

    I understand the word has served well in mobilizing an opposition to the harmful side of religion, but I say lets evolve.

    If you want a world without religion, you have to understand that there actually has to be an action in that sense. You could say that one day, religion might die out, but that's just wild speculation, especially because humans are naturally good at being superstitious. In the meantime, we have to deal with the consequences of widespread ignorance and a phobia of progress, of evolution and of science.

    Once there is no more religion, there will be no more militant atheism and "atheism" will become a meaningless term, like "nonstampcollector" or "azeusist", because it is a reaction, just like a punching bag swinging back after a punch.

    If you want a world with no boundaries, you also have to learn how to unmake them. The French revolution was a great episode of unmaking boundaries imposed by blood-line rule and priest rule (just search for some Voltaire quotes). But it was not enough. And because religion continues to be a great tool for cheap control of large numbers of people, there is still a need for militancy.

    Oh, and I am an anarchist and a fan of Chuck Palahniuk.


    Here's my favorite quote:

    This was freedom. Losing all hope was freedom. ~Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club, Chapter 2

    If you don't fight religious institutions, you're ignoring one of the largest generators of hope, especially false hope. Think about it.

    P.S. I assume you read "Survivor", by Chuck, and understand the problem of religious indoctrination, yes?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks a lot for your well thought out comment, I agree religion needs to be opposed. My concern is the style of opposition and building an identity based on it. This is speaking to the level of the individual. I am drawing on Eckhart Tolle's ideas on the 'ego' in "A New Earth" which were taken up really well in Owen Cook's "Blueprint Decoded".
    Also, I am not familiar with "survivor".

    ReplyDelete
  3. Let me state that I agree with you. I'm basically against group identification, though some is useful in speech, as a convention (so relative to the context).

    Personally, I have never met an atheist with an atheistic identity - outside of teenagers (like satanists) who actually are understandably looking for an identity for their rebellious and developing "person-hood". This is real-life people I'm referring to.

    On the web, it's a bit different... because it's very easy to experiment with identities. It's cheap and easy to mask (which is great, IMHO), but these are also simplified identities, like scale models of real ones.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You are right on, but my experience has led me to notice a more subtle level of identification which has shown to be ineffective as an oppositional world-view.

    I had never identified as an atheist and have always opposed its militant version.. this is not to say I don't enjoy a good laugh or two at some of the comics on r/atheism at reddit.com

    My problem is not an intense explicit level identification (as the rebellious teenagers you mentioned), but rather, at a subtle level. That 'rebellious teenager' seems to be easily sparked up when encountering fundamentalists.

    I feel that this is as ineffective as a guy who has excellent 'game' when approaching most women, but has terribly ineffective game and approach-anxiety when approaching the most attractive women. I think the only difference is a stronger need to cling to a 'pimp' identity (and stronger threat to it) when approaching the latter.

    What we oppose often makes it stronger in the same way that what we cling to often limits us. Although I don't go around with a big "A" on my forehead, I still feel the inner atheist messing up the most important of interactions.

    No one will change their minds by being told off or insulted. I think the vast majority of atheists know this, in the same way I think the vast majority of religious people oppose the same fundamentalism that atheists oppose. The problem is gaining that deep level of understanding that allows these ideas to flow through in practice.

    If harmful fundamentalism is the thing that must be opposed, I think most atheists and religious people can unite on this point. This unity in difference is the goal. When boundaries are dissolved, not only can different groups unite, but the 'problem' can be confronted in a more effective manor.

    ReplyDelete
  5. So you have issues, personal ones, and yet you generalize from your subjective experience. That's not very rational of you :)

    It's the reactionary attitude of damaged people. You know that when you grow up being terrorized with supernatural punishments and paranoid about being watch all the time -- that affects your mind, in the sense of trauma. It takes many years of introspection, self-analysis and learning about objective matters which relate to your situation and even non-pharmaceutical psychotherapy to get to grips with the drama and trauma hiding in your mind. And if you don't do that, than those defensive reflexes keep manifesting, which can be awkward.


    "Although I don't go around with a big "A" on my forehead, I still feel the inner atheist messing up the most important of interactions."


    Not the inner atheist, but the inner anti-christian or anti-theist, who exists due to the raw and complete rejection of the religious institutions. This just needs to be refined and cleand up, not repressed, because it is a legitimate revolt in the current culture.



    "No one will change their minds by being told off or insulted."

    I disagree. Humiliation is a way of fighting the sentimental basis of religiousness. If rational debate would work on the faithful, there would be no religion. So you actually need the emotional tools to knock out zeal. Such a tactic might not make people into atheists, but it might push them in that direction, starting them on a course to non-belief.

    If you accept that religious belief is childish, than you should remember that, as a children, humiliation was a pretty good tool for learning or changing behavior. It's not honorable, but it does work. When you wear out the fanatic, that person will actually become more vulnerable to opposing ideas, to doubt, "the seed of doubt".


    "I think the vast majority of atheists know this, in the same way I think the vast majority of religious people oppose the same fundamentalism that atheists oppose."

    That's not exactly true. While many agree that religious fundamentalism is horrible, an honest atheist should also be critical of the enablers of religious fundamentalism: the moderates. The failure of mediocre and moderate believers to speak out against the extremists, and to NOT FUND their churches, is not only the main thing which keeps the lunacy going, but it's also a compromise which destroys, even more, the integrity of the moderates. Just more compromise added to the large layers of hypocrisy. This eventually stimulates passivity and apathy.

    "The problem is gaining that deep level of understanding that allows these ideas to flow through in practice."

    Yeah, the moderates need to leave their religion and stop being so damn hypocritical :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. If harmful fundamentalism is the thing that must be opposed, I think most atheists and religious people can unite on this point. This unity in difference is the goal. When boundaries are dissolved, not only can different groups unite, but the 'problem' can be confronted in a more effective manor.

    Listen. It's the fundamentals. Fundamentalism is relative to the fundamentals. The fundamentals of current large religions are atrocious, so the rise of loony fundamentalists is inevitable. That's the root of the problem. If moderate religious people actually totally ignore the bibles and the priest-class (which is schooled in bible-study and interpretation), that religion would actually vanish. But they don't do that because they're indoctrinated to revere and worship the Book and the Church and "saintly people" and can get attacked if they reject it.

    So, again, how do you get rid of the atrocious fundamentals without making the entire religious institution go away? We're talking about an institution with professional propagandists, with many centuries of experience in manipulating people and many fine-tuned tools to fool people into their circle. Religions, with all the inhuman features, have not survived this long without being good at spreading and maintaining their status-quo.

    You CAN'T get rid of the fundamentals without losing the religion, and that's why Europe is getting more and more secular and churches are losing more and more power. Which is GREAT and should be pushed along even more. Sure, it's a stranger world without the clear guide of tradition, but people will create better ideas if there aren't any around.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks a lot for your long response. This time I have to say I disagree with just about everything you've said. What do you think of this video? http://vimeo.com/13704095

    ReplyDelete
  8. I saw the video when it appeared and I agree with him to a certain extent. From my experience, his method does not clearly work, but it is good in public, for large events or schools. In person, when you try to rationalize with very irrational people, it's like you're from a different planet.

    He also makes a non-sequitur in the form of a question:

    "How many of you lost your faith after being called to your faith, your belief, because someone called you an idiot?"

    Of course the answer is NONE. But that doesn't mean the opposite is true either. The whole idea of having a single encounter which can totally change a person's worldview is ridiculous and very improbable.

    He also makes a strawman argument by suggesting that new atheists or very offensive skeptics insult people directly, by calling them, to their face, a moron, idiot, imbecile etc. I've seen this very rarely and usually in cases where the "believer" is actually a complete moron (confirmed after very long conversations).

    New atheists or the more antitheist ones do NOT use insults, but rather a more powerful tone and more metaphors in their speech (because it's a very good communication tool when talking to ignorant or uneducated people). Less courtesy does not mean being insulting. And being offensive is inevitable. The mere existence of atheists is offensive to most believers (because it's a reminder of their bullshit ideas).


    ... Which is why I say that there's need for both: offensive critics and diplomatic critics.

    The offensive ones are good for dealing with the very religious, while the diplomatic ones are good for pushing the already moderate or mediocre out of their ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thank you for your dialogue here. I agree that being offensive is inevitable. You made a split between being offensive and diplomatic; I would go even further to say they can be the same thing in most cases. If I am being savoy with my diplomacy and someone is offended because they are THAT rigid in their beliefs, the offence is their problem. In that case, I would tell them what I said in my original post here. Offence is taken because they have built up strong walls and their identity is closed off to perceived threats. If person 1 is being reasonable, person 2's offence is person 2's problem.

    PS: What do you think of the new site appearance?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I just lost the comment, oops.

    I wanted to say that "reasonable" is a loaded word. We think of it as meaning open to debate and new ideas, civil in reactions, non-violent and with some empathy.

    Religious people view "reasonable" from their own values and taboos, which means a lot of self-censorship, a lot of respect for authority and traditional values.


    And the site looks nice. It seems easier to read. That's as much as I can say because I don't visit often and I'm looking forward to get myself a new site (I'm a webdesigner and programmer) for my own blog... because I'm pretty sick of Blogger.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm of course referring to the first conception of being reasonable which can be rooted in the idea of 'reason' and the project of enlightenment (as described by Kant and Habermas).

    I wouldn't generalize "religion" since I don't see this use of reason as necessarily opposed to its historical use after the protestant reformation and the rise of, what Weber calls, "the protestant ethic" and its influence on the rationalization of production.

    But I do see how many religious groups are opposed to reason in this sense.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm just saying that most of them are unreasonable, literally.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I agree. This comes down to a fundamental question I often pose.. How can religion take on all of the ideals of the enlightenment, yet provide a satisfying spirituality.

    Religion is not going away any time soon, so I would hope that it can transform into something that provides value rather than takes it away.

    My vision of an 'ideal' religion resembles a lot of Buddhism. Ethics over moral codes, mystical but not dogmatic, open to difference rather than closed off, promotes happiness here and now rather than working toward salvation in an afterlife. Works alongside science rather than against it.

    ReplyDelete