Atheist Meme of the Day: Religion As It's Commonly Practiced

Scarlet letter
Today’s Atheist Meme of the Day, from my Facebook page. Pass this on; or don’t; or edit it as you see fit; or make up your own. Enjoy!

“Your critique of religion doesn’t address modern theology, therefore it isn’t valid” is a terrible argument against atheism. Most atheists care about religion as it’s commonly practiced by most believers, not the religion of a few theologians. Besides, many of us have read modern theology — and we’re not impressed. Pass it on: if we say it enough times to enough people, it may get across.

Atheist Meme of the Day: Religion As It's Commonly Practiced
The Orbit is still fighting a SLAPP suit! Help defend freedom of speech, click here to find out more and donate!

4 thoughts on “Atheist Meme of the Day: Religion As It's Commonly Practiced

  1. 1

    The thought expressed here is what eventually led me to let go of my own “liberal” religious ideas many years ago. No matter what church I went to, I found myself constantly translating internally the religious rhetoric I would hear into a sort of Paul Tillich/Thomas Merton/Martin Buber sort of jargon in my head.
    Eventually I had to be honest with myself and let it all go– which I found very liberating! The “ground of being” may sound interesting, but it has no real connection with the actual tradition of Christianity as actually practised.
    Also, reading Walter Kaufmann’s Critique and Faith of a Heretic books also was an eye opener, because he argued not against merely fundmentalists (easy pickings) but theologians like Tillich, Bultmann, et al.

  2. 2

    “‘Your critique of religion doesn’t address modern theology, therefore it isn’t valid’ is a terrible argument against atheism.”
    That is because it is not an argument against atheism. It is an argument towards some of the atheistic criticisms of religion.

  3. 3

    The atelic or teleonomic argument argues that the weight of evidence shows teleonomy – no predetermined outcomes- rather than teleology- predetermined ones so that to posit God- intent, teleologic- then is to contradict evolution, and so, creation evolution is an oxymoron. To posit such is to make the new Omphalos argument that He hides Himself behind that very teleonomy [ Ernst Mayr]. That leads to Johm L. Schellenberg’s hiddennness problem as against John Hick’s epistemic distance one.
    So, as ever, theology rests on silly mysteries around the Grand One for the pseudo- question why is there something rather than nothing to which is the pesudo answer God.
    Then comes the naturalist argument the one from pareidolia, which adumbrates that people see intent- telos- and design as people see Yeshua in a tortilla as opposed to no intent- teleonomy- and patterns.
    These two positive arguments, Greta, defeat all teleological arguments. Now, our negative argument is that all teleological ones – from reason, fine-tuning, probability and from reason/ the self-refutation of naturalism beg the question of divine intent that He wanted us or a comparable species to evolve, but Jerry Coyne in ” Seeing and Believing” keel hauls that nonsense against Kenneth Miller, creation evolutionist.
    Please folks, use these two arguments and call theistic evolution creation evolution for the creationist nonsense it is.
    And the new argument from autonomy to answer the argument from God for our rights, in accordance with the UN statement, is that our level of consciousness gives rights. The God-one is that either He gives us non-revocable rights or the state gives us revocable ones.
    These three Lamberth arguments keel haul God.
    Greta, the first two go with your observation about how intelligent people have those three faults. And there is also Amiel Rossow’s take on creation evolution in his essay on Miller, along with Coyne’s,@ FRDB.
    Greta, thanks for your new atheistm!
    ignostic morgan; skeptic griggsy: Google to find how one new atheist takes on theism. Also naturalist griggsy, ratonalist griggsy.+

  4. 4

    Yes to Kufmann ” Critique of Philosophy and Religion” and ” Faith of a Heretic.” One would do well in reading both!
    Faith is the we just say so of credulity. Faith begs the question of its subject [ Articulett] And whilst science, as Sdney Hook notes, is acquired knowledge, faith begs the question of being knowledge.
    Reason can move mountains of ignorance whilst faith rests on the argument from ignorance. So I proclaim in my threads on rationalism.
    ” Reason saves, not that dead Galilean cult leader.”
    ‘ Religion is mythinformation.”
    ” Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning.”

Comments are closed.