Energy Debates| More...
 

Chris Stedman

Chris Stedman

Posted: October 8, 2010 08:08 PM

Interfaith Dialogue Must Include Atheists

What's Your Reaction:
Read More: Atheism , Religion News

In my work as an interfaith activist, I've fought to bring an end to religious division. Lately this has increasingly meant speaking out against the rise in anti-Muslim rhetoric and violence sweeping America. As a member of the Common Ground Campaign, I'm actively working to oppose those who wish to disenfranchise the American Muslim community.

Advocating for religious people has often put me at odds with my own community. As an atheist I hear a lot of anti-religious talk from other nonreligious people, and speaking out against it has made me somewhat of an unpopular figure among some atheists. Yet it is precisely because I am an atheist, and not in spite of it, that I am motivated to do interfaith work.

Why? For one, without religious tolerance and pluralism, I wouldn't be free to call myself an atheist without fear of retribution. Not that long ago, I could not have been a public, vocal atheist at all.

Still, this expanded freedom shouldn't suggest that everything is coming up roses for atheists in America. Earlier this year, Concordia College in Moorhead, MN forbade the formation of a secular student group, claiming that the group's mission was in direct opposition with the school's identity as an institution affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). Concordia, which currently recognizes a Catholic student group, has so far refused to reconsider their decision. As a graduate of Augsburg College, another Minnesota school affiliated with the ELCA, I was alarmed by this news. Concordia's decision received little attention and it seems that few came to the secular students' defense. Imagine if the school had declined to recognize a Muslim or Jewish student group: would others have spoken up? It seems likely that there would have been a larger response.

Atheists' identities are regularly belittled or dismissed; we often hear that there are "no atheists in the foxhole," that "atheists are parasites," and the reality remains that we still aren't eligible to hold public office in several parts of this country. Even in places where atheists can hold office, studies have shown that we are the least electable group in America. Nearly half of American parents don't want us marrying their kids. Glenn Beck constantly targets atheists, blaming us for America's problems and saying we have no substance. Yet few people outside of our community come to our defense in the face of such blatant prejudice.

That is changing, however. When Pope Benedict XVI condemned atheists and compared them to the Nazi regime during his recent trip to the United Kingdom, Universal Society of Hinduism President Rajan Zed issued a statement encouraging the Pope to be more inclusive and tolerant of the nonreligious. Though Benedict was likely responding to a forceful atheist-led campaign against his visit, his comments were disappointing, and Zed was right to critique him. His call for tolerance of atheists was encouraging, and one we should hear more often.

More and more, as I do interfaith work, I encounter religious people who are willing to speak up on our behalf. Wanting to include a nonreligious perspective, the organizers of Duquesne University's upcoming symposium on Muslim-Christian dialogue recently invited me to discuss my work for the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue (JIRD) and the Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions (CPWR). What I plan to say to them is what I'd like to say to you now:

Muslim-Christian dialogue is an extraordinary start, but it should be just that: a beginning. Interfaith proponents must build upon successful dialogues like the one Duquesne will soon host, and expand their efforts to include people of other faiths -- Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, etc. -- and those who fall outside traditional religious paradigms, including the nonreligious. Secular humanists, atheists, agnostics, and the like must be an integral part of such conversations.

Earlier this month I wrote a series of articles for The New Humanism on whether the nonreligious should join in interfaith efforts. My answer to this question was a resounding "yes," but as I acknowledged in my assessment of the issue, the atheist community is very divided on the subject. Much of this division stems from the fact that many atheists see themselves as "deconversion missionaries" opposed to any efforts that would promote religious identities. But I also wonder if there isn't at least a small bit of legitimate resentment over the lack of invitation atheists have sometimes received from interfaith communities.

Any discomfort religious people experience over engaging with the nonreligious must be set aside for the sake of truly inclusive interfaith collaboration. This isn't to say that such hesitancy is entirely unmerited; just as there are Christians who seem to have the sole mission of converting others to their religion, there are many atheists who only engage with people of faith in hopes of convincing them to abandon their tenets. But there are also atheists who are content to listen and to share, to dialogue instead of debate. They are part of a growing population of people who don't believe in God but still want the same things everyone else wants: meaning, community, and a better world.

Atheists interested in collaboration instead of confrontation deserve to be included. We bring a unique set of experiences and insights to conversations on religion and ethics. Don't leave us out.

A Christian man once asked me why I do interfaith work. We ended up discussing a whole range of topics, and at one point he posited the question: "Okay, but tell me this, Mr. Atheist: where did we come from? How did all of this get here?"

I answered: "I'm not a scientist, but I can perhaps best describe it as some incredible series of random events. But to be honest, that question doesn't really matter to me. I couldn't care less how we got here; what concerns me, given that we are here, is what will we do?"

He clutched his chest, hugged me and grinned, nodding his solid agreement.

What will we do? I hope we will defend tolerance for all and engage one another's deepest questions and convictions with respect and compassion, whether we are Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jew, Buddhist, Sikh -- or atheist.

 

Follow Chris Stedman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/NonProphetStat

In my work as an interfaith activist, I've fought to bring an end to religious division. Lately this has increasingly meant speaking out against the rise in anti-Muslim rhetoric and violence sweeping ...
In my work as an interfaith activist, I've fought to bring an end to religious division. Lately this has increasingly meant speaking out against the rise in anti-Muslim rhetoric and violence sweeping ...
 
Comments
3,495
Pending Comments
3
View FAQ
Login or connect with: 
More Login Options
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »   (29 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mij13   11 minutes ago (3:39 AM)
The dialogue should include atheists, but it never will. Why would it? Religion is like big business. Why would they include people who want to talk customers out of buying their products?
interlude   4 hours ago (11:25 PM)
For the millionth time, atheism is not a religion. It is to be free of religion and superstition.
gawd   4 hours ago (11:55 PM)
Atheist means that they don't believe in god. They could still believe in ghosts or other things. They could also adopt a religion like Buddhism. At the same time, you could be a Theist and not have a religion.

Although I agree that atheism in itself is not a religion.
photo
Weirdo   3 hours ago (12:34 AM)
I suppose there are some atheists who believe in ghosts, but I gotta tell ya, I've never met one. It's the entirety of the supernatural that atheists are skeptical of. In fact, skepticism is the dominant mindset of every atheist I've ever met. The willingness to question received wisdom and commonly held beliefs is the hallmark of atheism.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Daleri Rileda   3 hours ago (12:50 AM)
Atheists give glory to objects for their existence just like any other pagan.
photo
picostep   2 hours ago (1:54 AM)
Hi Daleri Rileda,

Your assertion is totally baseless.

- pico
conscioushope   37 minutes ago (3:13 AM)
Dal~

Not the atheists I know.

Give an example of your claim.
photo
Semprini   31 minutes ago (3:19 AM)
I have to ask, what do you think you are accomplishing with your cryptic/inaccurate flame-throwing?

Is this a real attempt to proselytize? Because, the way you've packaged what you seem to be selling, I can't imagine you achieve anything other than annoying people.

I know lots of Christians, including my mother, who would disavow any connection between what you spew and what they believe.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
W Santiago   3 hours ago (12:52 AM)
Well from a certain point of view it should be looked upon as such, especially in regards to the law. Technically you could be discriminated against because the argument could be made that you are not protected since you do not have a religion. Also, in a fundamental way, it is a belief system. In that the alternative is to put someone directly at odds with those of faith in an uncompromising way. And on a final note, there certainly is no shortage of fundamentalist atheists. As a Christian, I now feel how many Atheists felt not to long ago, in that I have been assaulted of late with both media and personal interactions with others about my faith. Almost as if now the abused has now become the abuser. I never faulted anyone for their beliefs, I just agree to disagree. I promise not to try to convert you, don't try and convert me. Simple. I will freely share my personal beliefs with those that ask, but I don't even wear a cross or other religious iconography as I don't want to appear as though I'm pushing my faith on those not of my faith or atheist.
llisa   2 hours ago (1:24 AM)
"I promise not to try to convert you, don't try and convert me." Nobody wants to.

As for your definition of atheist, please look it up. I'm tired of explaining.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dan Jighter   2 hours ago (1:59 AM)
"Assaulted"?! Oh, do tell.

The worse I have seen the media done is criticize religious fundamentalism like Evangelical Christianity. Oh, and South Park and other comedy shows poke fun at Jesus. You know, South Park, the show that makes fun of everyone. Really, unless you are some idiot who thinks the world is 6,000 years old, the media generally leaves your religious beliefs alone. And personal interactions, I hope that goes well beyond just someone challenging and disagreeing with your religious beliefs.

In the last week I've seen a TV show where a character said that "everyone needs to have faith in something". I'm an atheist, I don't have faith. I spent all of grade school having to figure out what to do with and ultimately omit the words "under God" when saying the Pledge. Since you are assaulted too, what words of the Pledge do you have to omit? It tolerant, liberal areas amongst friends and family, I still have to endure people suggesting I really have faith in God and just don't know it yet. How often are you told you don't believe and just don't know it yet?

When Christians can't watch TV without being told to become an atheist and can't say some words in the Pledge, maybe you are being assaulted. But as far as I can see, Christians have enjoyed a lot of privilege for a while and now they are losing it. Losing privilege and encountering disagreement is not being "assaulted".
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dr Juan   6 hours ago (10:16 PM)
.the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer. [...] Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists."

(Pope Saint Pius X, "Our Apostolic Mandate," 1910)

http://gerrymatatics.org/
photo
sdzulu   6 hours ago (10:14 PM)
I liked the article; seemed very reasonable to me. I would love to see a world where an atheist could be elected by religious people because of their political stances; and a religious person elected by atheists for the same reason. The person was the best for the job. Unfortunately, from what I have seen in these threads would be a tendency to disqualify a person for their belief or lack of belief in a divine being because the voter does not trust the politician because of the politicians belief.

I would have to admit that the atheist has the harder time because of how entrenched religion is in this country. The atheists only choice is a religious person (or at least one giving lip service to religion).

I do believe there is a place for atheists in religious forums depending what the forum was for. A forum trying to come to an understanding of the divine would probably not be a place for atheists. A forum on helping humanity would definitly be a place where atheist input would be appropriate.
llisa   2 hours ago (1:27 AM)
I would agree to attend a forum that is not just talk, but talk about ideas for how to help the community--that would then lead to DOING these things for the community.
llisa   2 hours ago (1:48 AM)
But then, there would be no reason to even call it an interfaith group--just a group of citizens concerned with helping the community; the "schoolbooks for the children" group, or the "build a playground" group, or the "feed the unemployed" group.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
syntax facit saltum   6 hours ago (9:46 PM)
In a way, we have such a conversation on all the religion page articles-- not always leading to better mutual respect, but sometimes.
photo
emmanuel goldstein   6 hours ago (10:12 PM)
Indeed. We have a rare thing here. A place where anyone, of any mind, can come and share their views. No one can punch anyone, fire anyone, or dominate the conversation by interrupting or yelling. A very unique an valuable thing.
photo
Weirdo   3 hours ago (12:36 AM)
Indeed it is. That's the magic of chat sites. It's all about the ideas. No physical intimidation need apply. Even the most timid have a place to speak. It's a very good thing.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Daleri Rileda   2 hours ago (1:38 AM)
I agree except when my posts don't go through. I cannot respond about what pagan really is because it gets censored. People don't really know how bad the world could have been to this day.
photo
hayness   8 hours ago (8:11 PM)
Our local paper has a "voice of faith" column and they include a variety of religious beliefs. I write the humanist point of view. Although the questions often seem silly (e.g. "does your 'house of worship' have a dress code?"), many non-theists have thank me for representing our point of view, as we continue to feel very isolated in conservative communities. Moreover, I believe that it is worthwhile for the theists to be exposed to another worldview.

The more atheists speak up, the more people will have the courage to abandon religion. Many people do not believe the teachings of their churches, but they do not know any non-theists (or don't know that they do). So they feel alone. Once they realize there are more of us out in the community, that their feelings are normal and rational, and that we non-theists are decent, moral people, they may feel empowered to be open about their own beliefs.

As for tolerance, people are free to believe whatever they want. But that doesn't mean I should not question, challenge and criticize their beliefs. Having been a theist 40-some years, I know firsthand that the reason most people continue to believe their religion is that they have never questioned their own beliefs. I do not think that it is healthy or honest to let that go. For their part, Christians certainly challenge MY beliefs so they should not feel threatened when I reciprocate. ;D
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Daleri Rileda   7 hours ago (8:42 PM)
You can't be moral without speaking the truth and you can't speak the truth without saying that our Creator has made a provision for us Himself because no one else can.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thinkingwomanmillstone   7 hours ago (8:46 PM)
You are an example of why I don't bother trying to discuss faith with believers.. You are incapable of looking at or hearing anything and are incapable of saying anything but the talking points you have been indoctrinated with. Thanks but no thanks...I don't waste my time on people who are incapable of insight or independent thought.
photo
SocBeat   6 hours ago (9:24 PM)
Isn't it lying that you would consider immoral? You can only speak what you believe to be the truth. So if you're sure there's no god, you would be acting morally if you said so, and immorally if you said you believed in a god (which would be a lie). I'm sure you would agree.
photo
Presto2112   6 hours ago (10:05 PM)
That's not truth. Truth is established fact.

These things are true: The square of the longest side of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the square of the other two sides. Tuesday follows Monday on the standardized Gregorian calendar. I am left handed when I write or eat, but right-handed in athletic activities.

What you just presented is a combination of myth and hearsay.
photo
jweider   6 hours ago (10:14 PM)
I tried running that through Google Translate and it came up with nothing.
photo
emmanuel goldstein   5 hours ago (10:30 PM)
How do you know "God" is a man?
photo
f0rTyLeGz   6 hours ago (9:52 PM)
Im an old man now, and I was a very early reader ... I once blurted out in Sunday School, when I read on down a dozen verses about the Battle of Jericho. I asked, "Why would God want to kill everyone, man, woman, child, animal?" Word traveled fast, and I got into a whole heap of trouble. This was in the early '50s. But I learned to never challenge the beliefs of others in society. Online is a different thing, but in the workplace, the market place, the neighborhood backyard party, there you will be treated very differently if you are known as an atheist. I think the same is true today... on the most part.
photo
tarlipps   5 hours ago (10:40 PM)
It ain't easy being green....................Kermit.
llisa   2 hours ago (1:35 AM)
This was me in the 60's. From an early age I got into trouble for asking questions about god. But, because of all my questions, our preacher took the junior high kids on visits to other churches and a synagogue. This helped me along on my road to escape religion, as did the fact that he would not marry me to my Jewish fiance' unless he converted.

People who are questioning now have so many more resources; books, Internet websites, chat rooms. . . I do envy them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Poncia   31 minutes ago (3:19 AM)
"Moreover, I believe that it is worthwhile for the theists to be exposed to another worldview."

I agree, but I don't think it's worthwhile to try to engage them directly. I ignore them as much as possible while engaging in conversation with reasonable thinkers. Hopefully, those who might abandon religion will at least see something else on the menu of choice. I'm exhausted from engaging directly with these people (it's the same conversation and it feels like beating my head against the wall).
conscioushope   26 minutes ago (3:23 AM)
Great post!

fanned!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
spatulaRS   8 hours ago (7:40 PM)
Thomas Jefferson, in his 1786 Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom:
"No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

Jefferson provides us with a reasoned and appropriate call for civil institutions to be completely neutral in matters of religion. It's astounding that civil dialogue has anything to do with religious opinion, because a common religion has never been historically necessary for civilizations to progress and accomplish great works. If we held to wisdom and treated religion as an individual matter, there would never be faith-based exclusions in civil debate.
photo
tarlipps   5 hours ago (10:49 PM)
That's the problem with organized religions they are after power unlike an individual seeking spirituality. Jesus: "When you pray…enter your closet and close the door" , nothing about mega churches, popes or pop star preachers.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
spatulaRS   4 hours ago (12:05 AM)
They have only grown so large because of civil welfare. By no means should those institutions get by without paying taxes.
photo
kwinter   8 hours ago (7:35 PM)
"Advocating for religious people has often put me at odds with my own community."

If, by "advocating for religious people", you mean advocating for religion, I can see how that would "put you at odds" with other atheists.

"For one, without religious tolerance and pluralism, I wouldn't be free to call myself an atheist without fear of retribution."

If it weren't for religion ... your non-belief wouldn't need to be "tolerated" ... and there would be no need for "vocal atheists" ... in fact, there would not even be a need for the label "atheist".

"Not that long ago, I could not have been a public, vocal atheist at all."

Robert Ingersoll was saying some of the same things that Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, and many others are saying today ... to large audiences ... 150 years ago.

I think you should be thanking our "free speech" for allowing you to be a "vocal atheist" ... not religious tolerance.
photo
Weirdo   3 hours ago (12:50 AM)
It is no credit to the orthodox that they do not now believe all the absurdities that were believed 150 years ago. The gradual emasculation of the Christian doctrine has been effected in spite of the most vigorous resistance, and solely as the result of the onslaughts of freethinkers.

-- Bertrand Russell, "Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?"
A-Superstitionist   8 hours ago (7:32 PM)
As a non-faithist, I have no interest in joining a faith club to discuss delusions called faith.

There are plenty of opportunities where believers and non-believers are working together to the benefit of believers and non-believers.

Public education is an example. Teachers are most likely a mix of believers and non-believers and so are students. This works because the constitution forbids teachers to impose their faith on their students.

I would think that if representatives of all faints would get together to resolve all their incompatible claims once and for all that they should end up with the golden rule because that is what you end up with if you remove all immorality and superstition from the holy books from all religions.

Religions should be able to do this without the help of non-believers.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Daleri Rileda   8 hours ago (8:07 PM)
The golden rule came from the Bible.
photo
kwinter   7 hours ago (8:33 PM)
"The golden rule" was around long before the Buybull.
A-Superstitionist   5 hours ago (10:43 PM)
While educating you seems a waste of time, it might help others understand reality.

Tens of thousands of years ago early humanoids lived in small groups (the fossil record shows this). Life is a struggle and food is hard to find. People hunt for food. Today, I may be lucky and catch something and have more than I can eat but food spoils quickly. Then for days I may not be lucky at all and risk starving to death. If I share my food with those who came back from hunting empty handed, they will let me have some of their food when I come back from hunting empty handed. People start to reciprocate. Then this slowly expand to not stealing from someone because I don't want others to steal what I have, etc...

No wonder than all religions co-opted this basic concept which we call the golden rule in their books of superstition.
photo
SocBeat   6 hours ago (9:43 PM)
Agreed wholeheartedly. And fanned.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dan Jighter   2 hours ago (2:13 AM)
I like the term "non-faithist". It describes us better than "atheist". The point is we don't have faith. We don't practice religion. And we don't acquire knowledge by faith but by evidence and reason. If there were evidence, we'd believe in god. But there isn't evidence, so we don't.

The fact that we are largely non-faithists highlights part of what is wrong about the notion of us doing interfaith dialogue.
henrydeluxe   11 hours ago (4:41 PM)
@bbriani3842

"OK. . .Dr. Krauss spends 47 minutes explaining Cosmology and how scientists have measured that, through Quantum Physics, something can be created from nothing"....

Something for nothing -talk about delusion...which begs the question- where does that unlimited arrogance Dawkins and his followers posses come from? from nothing, of course.
NielsH   11 hours ago (5:01 PM)
The only delusion is that there can be absolute nothingness. Quantum physics doesn't allow for such a state.
photo
emmanuel goldstein   11 hours ago (5:09 PM)
I think it's a translation problem. The math says the universe's total sum energy value is 0. The old translation that physics has given us is that zero = nothing. I think this is nihilistic though. It's not that zero = nothing, it's that zero = everything. Think of it like an apple. If you have 1 apple, and then subtract 1 apple from it, you have 0 apples. But it's not 'nothing'. You had to either eat the apple, or burn it to get rid of it. In essence, you have taken away it's separateness, and incorporated it back into the whole.

This is in line with Buddhist philosophy and Vedanta, BTW
olmossy   10 hours ago (6:13 PM)
Alan Watts use to say. ' Space is not what seperates us. It's what connects us.' There are not two things in this universe.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Daleri Rileda   11 hours ago (5:13 PM)
How about working machine parts created from nothing?
photo
emmanuel goldstein   10 hours ago (5:30 PM)
You never answered me, how about Self-Transforming Machine Elves from Hyperspace?
http://www.wellredbear.com/terence-mckenna-meets-the-machine-elves-of-hyperspace-struck-by-noetic-lightning
photo
Arbutus   10 hours ago (5:38 PM)
How about an ice cream sundae with a cherry on top?
photo
bbriani3842   10 hours ago (5:47 PM)
Did you actually take the time to watch the video?

I didn't think so either. . .

Knowledge and wisdom requires patience and effort.

Faith requires nothing.
henrydeluxe   10 hours ago (6:10 PM)
@bbriani3842,

Actually yes, I did watch it, and I'm quite familiar with the subject. Concluding I did not watch it is more indicative of someone who's either endowed with magic powers, or is incredibly adept at reading crystal balls OR is in contact with some divine force mere mortals have no access to....

No wonder you find it so appealing to have a universe emerge out of nothing, it saves you
from actually having to really learn science and not just parrot what others tell you.

Such a tack is much, much easier tho, you get to pontificate and put down those silly religionists that make you feel oh so superior and that allow you believe yours is the true faith. Freedom of religion I say.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dan Jighter   11 hours ago (4:27 PM)
One thing for the commentators to consider themselves is what conversation do we need to have. Is it a God/No God debate? Is it resolving church and state issues? Is it earning increased tolerance for atheists? Is it something else? Will it be a compromise or while it be we make our case and hold our ground until we win the theists over? There are a number of topics to address and various styles for addressing them, each a little different. I think there is a difference from the conversation Chris Stedman may want, the religious may want, and what many atheists here would want/be open to. So yea, what conversation do you guys want?
photo
emmanuel goldstein   11 hours ago (5:11 PM)
It's pretty clear, right from the first paragraph, I think:

"In my work as an interfaith activist, I've fought to bring an end to religious division. Lately this has increasingly meant speaking out against the rise in anti-Muslim rhetoric and violence sweeping America. As a member of the Common Ground Campaign, I'm actively working to oppose those who wish to disenfranchise the American Muslim community."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dan Jighter   10 hours ago (5:24 PM)
That's the sort of conversation and goals (ending religious division) that Chris Stedman has in mind. The sort of conversation and goals of other atheists may be very different. In fact, I think it is often very different.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
syntax facit saltum   11 hours ago (5:16 PM)
What do you mean "win theists over"?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dan Jighter   10 hours ago (5:48 PM)
Well, it should be obvious what I meant. Do we compromise or do we hold our ground until we win any opposition over? For example, if the issue is church-state separation and things like "under God" in the Pledge, do we come to some compromise or do we stand our ground until "under God" is removed from the Pledge?

Yes, I do allow for the God/No God debate, do we reach some sort of compromise to the debate that basically ends it or do we hold our grown and debate the issue passionate to persuade people of our position? I think the God/No God thing is an intellectual difference of opinion and thus is not open to a compromise.

What I am getting at is how much is open to compromise?
photo
Andres64   5 hours ago (10:37 PM)
Really. What are we supposed to talk about? We have no common ground. They believe in invisible friends and we don't. Like discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Pointless.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dan Jighter   4 hours ago (11:20 PM)
Well, I think I listed several things. God/No God is not the only thing to discuss. There are things like issues of separation of church and state.

Also, who said we need common ground to have the conversation? I'm entirely happy with the possibility that the conversation may largely be just a debate. Atheists could expose people to our views and raise awareness about issues like "under God" in the Pledge and childhood indoctrination. People needn't arrive to the conversation knowing about or agreeing with our point of view already. Clearly we should make some sort of public case for our views and interests.

I agree that this would be a discussion between very different views of religious matters and thus would be very different than conversations between believers in different "invisible friends". The author shows no sensitivity to that. However, the fact that this is a different sort of conversation does not mean we can't have a conversation.
photo
DannyJ   4 hours ago (12:02 AM)
I read your goodbye before it was deleted. I'd suggest you write to community-support @ huffingtonpost.com and express to them your frustration about being deleted arbitrarily. I did and the number of my posts being deleted have decreased dramatically.
I have also copied and posted the deleted ones and asked them to explain why they were deleted. Hope this helps and I hope you stay around. We atheists ( I mean me) would miss your voice if you opted to go
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dan Jighter   11 hours ago (4:21 PM)
I hope Chris Stedman reads these comments and respond to them. I have posted and seen many posted, including many on the current Page 1, about how we resent the notion of atheists participating in interfaith because atheism just isn't a faith (loosely speaking, there are a range of comments along these lines). Stedman supports interfaith dialogue through this article and otherwise and this notion of our non-faith doing interfaith dialogue is a serious hang-up for many atheists. Accordingly, Stedman needs to address this.

To sort of drive at some of what I think Stedman needs to address, the disagreement isn't over atheists and theists having a conversation. But what we call the conversation matters and, well, atheism isn't a faith so it can't do interfaith. Also, there seems to be a disagreement over what the conversation should be like. To some of this the conversation is very different than we be between say Christians and Muslims. It needn't be compromising on our differences and it might need to be a debate. I think the author is rather insensitive to such concerns.
photo
emmanuel goldstein   11 hours ago (4:46 PM)
I think that type of interjection is exactly why including atheists in 'interfaith' dialogue is important. If you could get over the terminology long enough to get involved in the conversation, you can suggest such things, as you just have, and improve the system. Establishing a basic set of definitions and terms for everyone to use is one of the most important things interfaith dialogues can produce, and once those are in place, there is no telling where it could lead, since we all have yet to agree on basic definitions such as "faith", "religion", and "atheist".

Most of the arguments in these types of threads are semantic in nature.
photo
papapj   12 hours ago (4:18 PM)
Theism in the traditional sense is the belief in the anthropomorphic manifestation of a deity. An all seeing all powerful force that can control lives.

Atheists don't believe in the existence of deities, period.

I don't believe either, and I'm not agnostic.

The fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of 'God' for me is that we humans always seem to think that we can anthropomorphize her/him.

We are soooo smart that we always pat ourselves on the back when we deduce the what, where, when, how and even the who but the irreducible concept always ends up being the 'Why'...Always in the cross-hairs of any objective scientific investigation, and always the last question that is asked...The unfathomable...the mystery and omnipotence of Mother Nature....God

Heaven and Hell are right here on this Earth....right now. Don't wait 'til it's too late to appreciate that. Smell the roses...enjoy the sunsets...make sweet love with your partner and savor it (heaven)....then ponder what life would be like if you didn't know where your next meal was coming from, or if it were even coming at all...or if that drunk guy making his way up the stairs was yet again preparing to treat you as the cause of all of his inadequacies..(hell)

Now...do I, and people who think like me get a seat at the table...?
Etruscate   11 hours ago (4:32 PM)
You should be careful when you say "anthropomorphic," since many people believe it means that God is literally "an old guy living in the sky" or something similar. I've had theists accuse me of attacking a straw man if I mention anything resembling an anthropomorphic God.

The fact is, to "anthropomorphize" something means to attribute human characteristics, not just human form. Even if God does not have a human form, many theists (even moderates) believe that he is sentient, or moral, or thinks in a manner similar to the way that people think. Without an anthropomorphic view of God, you are left with deism. The Christian God, even the "sophisticated" version, simply requires human-like qualities.
photo
porcinechic   6 hours ago (10:14 PM)
Or, without an anthropomorphized view of god, we have a much broader field of possibilities.

I would not for a moment presume that god thinks in a manner similar to the way that people think, or shares any other characteristics of our perception/conception. I would not care to say that god thinks at all, as I understand the term. To me, that paints a very limited view of god, and god is so much...... ummmmm I don't know..... so much bigger than that.
photo
emmanuel goldstein   11 hours ago (4:49 PM)
Yes, we should. Animism, pantheism, and atheism should all be in on the discussion. No one is forcing anything, just asking for a representative from all POVs. At least I hope so.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
syntax facit saltum   10 hours ago (5:26 PM)
me too.
photo
f0rTyLeGz   9 hours ago (6:21 PM)
If you had an atheist at this imaginary meaning, the atheist would not be representing my POV.
interlude   4 hours ago (11:28 PM)
If you're truly done with anthropomorphizing, you would refer to any deity as an it.
photo
emmanuel goldstein   12 hours ago (3:41 PM)
The idea is not to get atheists in to try and convert them, or to talk about theism, it is to try and build a community together. If people who believe in different gods, or even atheists that are also religious, i.e Buddhists and Taoists, can get together to try and civilly work towards a more compassionate future, why can't other atheists?
NielsH   12 hours ago (3:57 PM)
If you want to bring random people together, why use the faith angle?

If you want to do something good for the environment, then use that as an angle.

If you want to do something good for the poor, then use that as an angle.

If you want to do something good for a future generation, then use that as an angle.

I don't see what faith has to do with civility or compassion.
photo
emmanuel goldstein   12 hours ago (4:05 PM)
It's not about any of those things. It's about people who have beliefs in different religions, and people that have no beliefs, being able to coexist, to make policies and laws that are OK with everyone. Maybe you should read up on the types ofg things that have already been achieved through interfaith dialogue, then you might understand better why including atheists would be beneficial.

If there is going to be a multi-faith soup kitchen opened, and the faiths involved want equal representation for pamphlets handed out with the meals trying to explain their ideologies, wouldn't you like to have a pamphlet that explains the basic arguments atheists make handed it with it? I would think so. MAybe adding that the pamphlets should be simply left on tables where they are available, and not handed out, but basic fact sheets about personal health should be handed out instead could be an idea added to the pot.
photo
emmanuel goldstein   11 hours ago (4:24 PM)
What if you want to do all of that? Think of it like the TED talks. People from all ideologies coming together to find common purpose. If you don't see what religion has to do with civility and compassion, maybe attending such a gathering would enlighten you. Those religious people that do join in such discussions are the cream of the crop, very open minded, obviously, and so are people worth discussing things with.

Talk about how you think religion is fine, and that you have no problem with adults indulging in it of their own volition, as long as it's kept out of the laws and the science classes. Explain your angle on things, so that people who are deciding how they are going to try and shape the world don't leave you out. I would think you would not want your opinion left out.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dan Jighter   11 hours ago (5:02 PM)
NielsH, agreed. I feel the exact same way. Faved.

Emmanuel, when an atheist wants to participate in a soup kitchen, it is because they are there to feed the needy, not to promote their atheism. Getting out views on a pamphlet is just not why we would be there.

TED is where people come to share their research and cutting edge ideas. People can give a TED talk one day and debate god the next. Sam Harris for one has done this. TED and debates are two very different yet very important types of conversations.

You haven't quite addressed why an atheist would want to mix their caring for their fellow man and planet with their atheism. Atheism just has nothing to do with our caring for others.
photo
f0rTyLeGz   12 hours ago (4:04 PM)
Atheists are not self declaring. We are not a group... a faith... a community. We are not organized, we have no functions, buildings, clubs. We don't acknowledge one another... "You are an atheist!? Me too!" That never happens.
photo
Funkstronaut   12 hours ago (4:12 PM)
There are atheist organizations.
photo
emmanuel goldstein   12 hours ago (4:16 PM)
"We don't acknowledge one another... "You are an atheist!? Me too!" That never happens. "

What?!?!? That's the craziest thing I've heard all morning, though that's only because I'm used to Daleri by now.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Daleri Rileda   12 hours ago (4:18 PM)
There is no compassion without truth.
photo
emmanuel goldstein   11 hours ago (4:35 PM)
And there is no truth without compassion. If your "truth" lacks compassion for anyone, say gay people, atheists, or Hindus, then it's not that great of a truth.
photo
Arbutus   11 hours ago (5:04 PM)
I don't see the point in vague statements like this, when your terms are not defined (compassion, truth - whose truth?) and when you use absolute terms such as "no". It is like a pronouncement from on high, and why would you think you have the authority to make such a pronouncement?
ancientmarinader   11 hours ago (5:14 PM)
Human empathy predates the bible.
llisa   12 hours ago (3:26 PM)
"Not that long ago, I could not have been a public, vocal atheist at all."

Many of us still can't. We would lose our jobs (another reason would be given), our places in our communities, our kids would be bullied. . . We dare not speak up anywhere but anonymously online.
photo
Arbutus   12 hours ago (3:54 PM)
And it's because of comments like this that many are still in the closet:

""No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God." -- George H.W. Bush
llisa   12 hours ago (4:20 PM)
What a guy!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
syntax facit saltum   10 hours ago (5:33 PM)
Neither Bush speaks for me.
photo
emmanuel goldstein   12 hours ago (3:57 PM)
Things aren't that bad. I'm not saying what you say isn't true, but it's not as bad as you make it out to be. Kids will be bullied no matter what. You've just got to stand up for what you believe regardless. I was fired from a job for telling my boss I was Buddhist, and I just moved on with my life. I should have sued, and If I was at the place in my life I'm at now, and had it to do over, I would.

You have just as much chance of facing those same problems for admitting your a Hindu in this society. My wife's 11 year old brother told his Christian 'rents that he was converting to Hinduism, and his 'dad' (adoptive) told him "I can't trust you anymore".

You have to stand up for what you believe in, and face the consequences, that's the only way to effect change.
llisa   12 hours ago (4:03 PM)
Obviously you don't live in a small town dominated by Catholics and Nazarene's.
llisa   12 hours ago (4:18 PM)
Oh, and I was a teacher and my husband worked at the Catholic hospital. Seriously. We would have had NO future here had we spoken to any co-workers about our lack of belief in gods.

It really is only now that you are hearing more about atheists speaking up for themselves. I am no longer working, the kids are grown and live in cities where they can say whatever they want, and my husband is working for the other hospital now, so we could talk about it if we wanted. But one (I thought) friend I told dumped me in fear and loathing several years ago. She is a devout Catholic and it scared her silly to think she had been doing charity work with an atheist for over a decade, and even coming to my heathen home! I told her that I was the same person she had always known, and she said, "Not to me!" This is the sort of mentality we are dealing with here. I used to see her several times a week for work or chat. I have not seen her since.

My sisters already try to reconvert me every time I see them. Now that I am disabled, I think they see me as easier game. Surrounded is not a comfortable position to be in. I'd rather just avoid talking about religion at all with relatives or friends.
photo
f0rTyLeGz   12 hours ago (4:18 PM)
You really don't get it! Not believing is not the same as "believing in..." I don't have faith that there are no gods.

Many believers in the Jesus god or the god of Islam believe that atheists are evilness incarnate. They believe they have no morals, and so will do anything.
llisa   11 hours ago (4:36 PM)
Yeah, I had one tough daughter who could probably have handled anything that came at her, and one who was small, shy, and very smart who was bullied for all three reasons already. I never told either of them what to say about religion. I never told them what to believe, either. But the only time the subject seems to have come up with classmates was if someone would invite them to their church. They always declined. My quiet one's two best friends, both Catholic, knew she didn't go to church, but I don't know that they ever discussed it. They were very nice girls and all loved each other as they were. They remain great friends (long-distance mostly) all these years later.

How did your kids handle the fallout from your being outspoken?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Daleri Rileda   11 hours ago (4:20 PM)
What world do you live in? I have never even seen what you are describing.
photo
Arbutus   10 hours ago (6:15 PM)
Then you have been very sheltered.
ancientmarinader   10 hours ago (5:46 PM)
I know one guy who was fired for talking about atheism in the office. He was over-heard by a secretary who went to the boss. You should have seen her face as he left the building. Pure twisted joy.
llisa   10 hours ago (6:08 PM)
Sounds like my town, all right.
llisa   10 hours ago (6:10 PM)
I love your moniker.
photo
PaxtontheMeek   8 hours ago (7:42 PM)
Actually it's still perfectly legal to fire atheists in a number of states in the US. You could bring a high profile suit, but that wouldn't exactly give you back your dignity and certainly not your privacy.

And that's in America. There are still many places of the world where you could be killed simply for saying that you do not believe in a God.

We have to keep making strives forward until we reach the point where it is okay for us to all come out of the close simply because there are too many of us to ignore and the retribution would be too large.
KYZipster   2 hours ago (2:03 AM)
People have been imprisoned in China for practicing a religion. Human nature is the problem, not religion or atheism. All the more reason to have an interfaith dialog that includes atheists, or we can call it something more neutral.

Twitter Edition