I have to say that it's one thing to not have a belief in God, but to attack organized religion, or religious people is another. IMO some organized religions do invite and deserve criticism, but I don't usually see the sense or need in pulling the veracity of religious belief into it. That's one thing that really disappointed me about Dawkins The God Delusion. In my mind it was two books. One book explained why one shouldn't believe in God, and the other explained why organized religion was bad. I think Dawkins was wrong to present the two issues as one. I can sit and debate with someone about whether or not we have or need evidence of God, and whether or not that should direct belief; however, if someone wants to act as Jesus instructed, I am more than happy that they choose to.
There's a less obvious problem with that idea though, and it's this idea that secular unbelievers attest that they somehow know what Jesus said and meant better than believers do. Why, I've even seen you do it here on Hubski, Mk (not now, but a couple of weeks and threads ago - I believe regarding Jesus' stance on wealth and wealth distribution where, IIRC, you likened him to a Socialist - something the church would not say, especially considering that socialism grew up around the Orthodox Church). And I didn't say anything because, honestly, I didn't want to have to untangle the host of issues that would have inevitably arisen in the discussion. But the premise is kind of absurd: that people who don't spend any time in church (let alone regularly attending), any time studying or reading in-depth texts, and don't have any personal commitment to the church, doctrine, etc. would somehow understand the things better than believer, and are thus be in a position to criticize them and their behavior. Now, I'm not saying the Church or Christians should be immune from outside criticism. I'm questioning the presumption inherent in many of the criticisms I see and hear. If we were to put it in naturalistic terms, it would be like a bunch if high school biology teachers (generalists) criticizing the scholarly works of a world-renowned ornithologist (specialist), only when the ornithologist tries to correct them, the teachers form a mob and ridicule him. I could go on, but I think that's enough to chew on at the moment.
I agree that it can be a problem, and I have seen plenty of online debate which is little more than ridicule disguised as persuasion. I definitely don't think that any organization should be above criticism, however I do agree that it should be informed. For my part, I was baptised, raised, and confirmed Catholic, which meant that until the age of 14, I went to church every Sunday, and went to catechism every week where we studied the scripture. I'm not an expert, but I am pretty familiar with the King James Bible, and the Catholic interpretation of it. I'm more familiar with the New Testament than the Old, since that is what mass and catechism focus upon the most. So, when I speak about my views on the popular interpretation of Jesus' example and teaching, that's where I am coming from. I actually had Communion on Friday at a wedding mass. I do make an effort not to opine too much on things I know little about. Of course, I'm human, and this is the internet. I'll try to find the comment you refer to.
Just because someone is an agnostic or even an atheist doesn't mean that they haven't spent time studying the bible or even in church regularly. I would consider myself an agnostic and I grew up going to catholic school and as an adult I even took a year long bible study course, just so I could know more about the bible and Christ's teaching. I've gone to evangelical churches, methodist churches and even unitarian. Point is, I know a good deal about the bible and Christ's teachings, likely more than most professed christians. I would never claim to know what Jesus said better than anyone (believer or not), but I as an agnostic know enough about christianity to have a meaningful discussion with any believer, and I have done this many times. I think there is a HUGE difference in 1. having a discussion for the sake of learning more about the topic at hand and the person you are having the discussion with and 2. trying to sway someone to your side. The first can be enjoyable, the second is a fools errand.
I think it's important to remember that "atheist" and "agnostic" are not exclusive terms : Gnostic theist : I know god exists.
Agnostic theist : I believe god exists, but I don't know for sure.
Gnostic atheist : I know god does not exist.
Agnostic atheist : I don't believe god exists, but I don't know for sure.
I think I should do a podcast on religion. If I did, would you be willing to participate? Could be fun.
Really? It doesn't sound like fun ;-) Sorry to say, I haven't listened to any of your podcasts. I guess I should do that one day soon. Put me down as a definiite 'maybe'.
What?! Just when I thought we were becoming pals. Honestly, it's hard enough to get my own flesh and blood to listen to the things I create, so don't sweat it. They really are actually fun though. I think if I do one on religion it would have to be done in a way that approached the topic in a fun manner and not in an us vs. them way. We shall see. 'maybe'.... I can live with that.
You and bgood79 would both love that, I'm sure. Thinking about doing a Beatles podcast per sounds_sound's request.