Religion
Related: About this forumA good, godless life
Alom Shaha wants to give atheism some much-needed humanity.
Andrew Stephens
March 10, 2012
WHEN the so-called New Atheists started to heap particularly virulent scorn on the world's believers a few years ago, Alom Shaha - a London-based Bangladeshi-born former Muslim - was unimpressed. An atheist since adolescence, he had been contemplating a far gentler approach: the nature of love. Living a good life, he thought, simply could not be the sole province of those with faith in a supernatural deity.
Shaha found no evidence atheists commit more crime, violence or acts of ''evil'' than religious people, musings that have informed The Young Atheist's Handbook, his moving memoir of enlightenment. In it he relates his journey towards atheism after the death of his mother when he was 13, and his discovery of how love provides meaning in the world - regardless of a god.
The problem for Shaha, though, was not how to confront the dogma of god-botherers, but how to avoid aligning himself with that outspoken coterie of fervent atheists who delightedly mock religions.
Shaha is among a new breed of non-believers far more congenial than Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion) or Christopher Hitchens (God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything), among others. Rather than being combative, Shaha et al look for what religions might have to offer us. As philosopher Alain de Botton says, the wisdom and richness of world religions - their art, culture, sense of community, architecture and far-reaching organisational skills - are to be valued for what they tell us about living a good life, and the ways they illuminate our experiences and deep inner selves.
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/books/a-good-godless-life-20120309-1up7l.html
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Rob H.
(5,352 posts)A-a-a-a-and FAIL.
Because this person differs from Dawkins? If you do not want Atheism to have the same limits as religion, do not treat dawkins and Hitchens like they were Popes; they are not the only ones who get to define what atheism is.
Rob H.
(5,352 posts)Because de Botton is a self-promoting accommodationist nitwit who thinks that in order for nonbelievers to gain more acceptance from believers they should embrace the trappings of religion. (See his idea about constructing a temple dedicated to atheism.) I think he's barking up the wrong tree.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)a long conversation with.
Actually, sounds a lot like my better half.
longship
(40,416 posts)Many theists heap virulent scorn on all non-believers.
Like the fundamentalists in Africa who murder girls for witchcraft. The gangs of noodleheads in Baghdad who murdered young people because they didn't like the way they dressed. The Taliban who blew up the beautiful Bayiman Buddhas, and put women to death for getting raped. The kooks in the USA who claim that this is a Christian country only because that's precisely what they want it to be. I shudder what this country would become if they actually had their way.
So, kind person, I reserve my love for those who are deserving of something beyond my utter revulsion and condemnation.
saras
(6,670 posts)Personally I consider Stalin's, Hitler's, Mao's, and Pol Pot's killings, among others to be "religious" in nature. Whatever that "true belief' thing is that causes mass slaughter, it DOES NOT REQUIRE A GOD. What it requires is an authoritarian hierarchy, and they work just as well with a human, a deity, or an abstraction on top.
longship
(40,416 posts)I'm calling Godwin's law on you.
Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot. Pshaw!
I'm done here.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)It's this: with a big sigh.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)The focus is primarily on moral, ethical, and cultural values. Admittedly, it does continue to profess a belief in God and an afterlife, but not at all militantly. Many in the pews probably don't believe the stricter points of dogma, and the theologians are very unlikely to. Many would not believe in God as officially defined, nor would they believe in Heaven and Hell and Judgement as officially defined.
A lot of nominal Catholics take a similar view.
Most religious people are far more sensible about religion that the more fundamentalist types.