In that "other" DU forum...

[NeoGreen]

... the is a nice review of the recent movie "Noah" from an atheist's perspective:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218120438

And within the review, it brought up the theme/meme of "god is not good".

The DU review and subsequent discussion, reminded me of a very powerful BBC production I have watched on DVD, "god on trial"; which is apparently based on a play originally presented in Boston, MA and is derivative of an event described by Elie Wiesel in his book The Trial of God, (an event described as "apocryphal", by the author of the play).
(on a side note: if you ever get a chance, I would highly recommend taking time to watch the BBC production.)

Whether the story of a Trial at Auschwitz is based on true events, or not, I have found the ideas conveyed within the story to be as powerful as the performance(s):

"Rabbi: Seven days! Seven days that child spent dying in pain while David wrapped himself in sack and ashes and fasted and sought to show his sorrow to God (2 Samuel 12: 15-18). Did God listen?

Scholar: The child died.

Rabbi: Did that child find that God was just? Did the Amalekites think that Adonai was just? Did the mothers of Egypt -- the mothers -- did they think that Adonai was just?

Scholar: But Adonai is our God, surely...

Rabbi: Oh, what? Did God not make the Egyptians? Did He not make their rivers and make their crops grow? If not Him, then who? What? Some other God? But what did He make them for? To punish them? To starve, to frighten, to slaughter them? The people of Amalek, the people of Egypt, what was it like for them when Adonai turned against them? It was like this. Today there was a selection, yes? When David defeated the Moabites, what did he do?

Judge: He made them lie on the ground in lines and he chose one to live and two to die (2 Samuel 8: 2).

Rabbi: We have become the Moabites. We are learning how it was for the Amalekites. They faced extinction at the hand of Adonai. They died for His purpose. They fell as we are falling. They were afraid as we are afraid. And what did they learn? They learned that Adonai, the Lord our God, our God, is not good. He is not good. He was not ever good. He was only on our side. God is not good. At the beginning when He repented that He had made human beings and flooded the earth (Genesis 6: 6) - why? What had they done to deserve annihilation? What could they have done to deserve such wholesale slaughter? What could they have done that was so bad? God is not good. When He asked Abraham to sacrifice his son (Genesis 22: 1-2), Abraham should have said no. We should have taught our God the justice that was in our hearts. We should have stood up to Him. He is not good. He has simply been strong. He has simply been on our side. When we were brought here, we were brought by train. A guard slapped my face. On their belts they had written "Got mit uns" -- God is with us. Who is to say that He is not? Perhaps He is. Is there any other explanation? What we see here: His power, His majesty, His might, all these things that turned against us. He is still God, but not our God. He has become our enemy. That is what's happened to our covenant. He has made a new covenant with someone else.


What does this meme do for us (if anything) as atheists, or what can it do to further the general atheist meme (i.e. the promotion of general rationality)?

Is it helpful, i.e. furthering the "god is not good" meme, or does it lend itself to making us look mean, pinched and spiteful (by acknowledging the "dirty laundry", yet again) and would it detract from our positive and rational philosophy?

Or so I would ask at a "friendly cocktail party", at the risk of airing my naivety in full...

[bravenak]

1. I think it needs to be pointed out that the bible is not moral. And if god wrote it, he is evil.

Why? Because theists use the bible to try to make laws that affect the rest of us and they get their moral code from the bible.
The bible condones many evil things, slavery, forced abortion, genocide, infanticide, spousal abuse, orders the murder of gays, unruly children need to be taken to edge of town and stoned, non virgin women can be killed if their husband noticed that they dont bleed on the wedding night, rape of captive virgins, forcing women to marry their rapists, wife poisoning if you think the baby isnt yours, killing witches, infinite punishment for finite crimes, plural marriage, i could go on all day. And they are spreading a violent form of these practices to the undeveloped world. They still kill witches in Africa. It says in the bible ' thou shalt not suffer a witch to live', so they kill people they think are witches. People need to know what is in the bible and think about it. And decide if the morals in the bible are appropriate.

[deucemagnet]

2. "God on Trial" is available on YouTube.

I liked it a lot. For those interested:

[Lordquinton]

3. They are denying the tie between Religion

and Nazis. That's a whole new level of delusion out there, believing in whatever unprovable things you want is one thing, but denying historical facts that you can prove with a couple minutes of googling? That's a whole nother ballpark.

[Curmudgeoness]

4. I don't think that it helps our argument

when we take shots at their god, no matter how right we are. Most people who know me know that I am an atheist, I do not hide it. But I also do not discuss it with people or try to dissuade them unless they bring it up. (And I am always surprised at how many people do broach the subject though.)

When I am asked how I can be an atheist or why I am an atheist, I do point out all the "god is not good" issues that I have. It is not something that I put in their face, I just answer curious questions. I would not get in their face about it.

I believe that when we attack their beliefs and their god, we just put them on the defensive and they will refuse to listen and will think we are hateful. I prefer to argue for the Constitution and the separation of church and state when confronted with anything that tries to push religion on everyone. Or I argue what religion we should have in our schools/courthouses/whatever.

That is how I see it.

[trotsky]

5. While I certainly understand that perspective,

I would say that that's exactly what we've been doing (trying to argue for the Constitution and separation of church and state) for a very, very long time. Has it been successful? Or are the fundies still trying to push their religion into law with the same fervor they've always been? (And having success in many areas.)

Maybe we should try something different.

[Curmudgeoness]

6. Try something different.....but what?

I really do not think that challenging their beliefs will work. It will make them dig in further. In fact, I think that this newest fervor on their part, with their persecution complex, is due to atheists getting in their face.

I agree that we have been standing with the Constitution for a long time, but it has been working. Slowly, and too slowly, but there are a lot less instances of religious icons in public places....and we have to keep up on that. There is probably more that can be done, although I don't know what it is, but the attacks will not work. I know too many religious people to believe that it will work on them.

[trotsky]

7. You have to look at other groups for lessons.

Civil rights didn't happen with people meekly suggesting they deserved the same rights as others. They were loud, and in the face of southern racists.

LGBT has made great strides in recent years by being loud and in the face of bigots.

Bad ideas should be challenged, and mocked if necessary. Mocking is a powerful weapon.

[Curmudgeoness]

9. You do make a good point.

History does seem to tell us that the groups that have won or are winning approval/acceptance/equal rights have had to fight hard. So maybe that is the answer. I am not ready to do it yet, but it might be what is working right now to upset the believers. They may be getting upset because of a desperation they feel when confronted by atheists.

I admit that civil rights and LGBT rights are in the same ballpark. The ways of life before they got any inroads were being attacked, and the changes affected everything. I will have to think about this.

[NeoGreen]

8. I think there is a time...

... and place for this approach (i.e. pointing out the dirty laundry, so to speak) but will also admit that there are limits.

I have been thinking about why i posted my original question, and I think it is that I am curious to develop/discuss a framework of categorizing various atheistic memes and modes of approach/argument for when we engage in a discussion with the typical non-rational adherent.

I keep thinking back about the old military Triad conceptual framework of discussion.

Each part of the defense triangle had strengths and weaknesses, and the "Triad" was a way to express those conditions efficiently.

Can we develop a conceptual framework for our counter arguments and memes to theism, so we may to better apply them in our conversations with the "faithers" and even within our own community (albeit, a decidedly "cat herded" community).

Anyone grasp my meaning, am I expressing myself clearly?

Oh, and to the Mod(s): have I broken the rule of not referring posts in the "other" forum to threads in this forum?
If so, my apologies.

[Curmudgeoness]

10. LOL, you tickled my funny bone with that last comment.

I do not know anything about the "Triad", so you will have to be the one working on ideas in that direction. I assume that it has three separate parts. Are you talking about a three pronged argument or tactic? Would it be something like 1) call them on bullshit, 2) get more atheists to come out so that people realize that we are just ordinary people, like the neighbors, friends, and relatives, and 3) push the argument about rights of freedom of religion and freedom from religion. I am just guessing here how this works.

I do think that if you are looking to discuss anything like this with the typical "non-rational" adherent, you will not be able to get through to them. We really have to aim the discussion at the ambivalent believers and non-believers. I believe that the non-rational believers are a minority, although they are the noisy ones. And it is like the unrepentant racists or sexists. They still exist, but they are now muted because of public pressure.....and that public pressure comes from the masses as well as the ones who fought it. We will not make headway with the "true believers". Maybe I am wrong though.

[NeoGreen]

13. The "Triad" is just an analogy...

... for what is the glimmer of an idea.

Maybe, "12-step program" would have been better.

At Atheist Meme Base:
http://www.atheistmemebase.com/

there are a slew of wonderful ideas and memes all mixed together, and some work better than other in any given context.

I'd like to see if we can't organize the ideas/memes in a way that allows for a more efficient presentation/delivery.

The "god is not good" meme above is weak, on one level, because it seems to accept the premise that god does exist. However, as presented in the movie God On Trial, it can be a very powerful argument.

So, how do we identify these strengths/weaknesses and use that understanding/classification to better utilize the tools at our disposal?

[Curmudgeoness]

15. Something came to me today.

I turned on the TV and Ellen was on. I realized that Ellen is personable and well liked. And I think that people come to accept people who are different in some way when they see more and more of them in ordinary situations. I hate to admit that celebrities and the media can help a cause, but people seem to come to accept various ideas and life styles by being exposed to them.

So I think people like Ellen have made it easier for people to accept the LGTB community. And we probably need some likeable atheists in the media. So far, most atheists are still portrayed as hostile and nasty.

Just a thought.

[NeoGreen]

18. Yes it is not only the message...

... but the quality of the messenger that can be important.

[LostOne4Ever]

12. I can respect that

But I think if we are specifically asked about why we don't believe, then they have no right to get upset when we tell them their god is an evil dick. If they can't handle the answer they should not ask in the first place.

[Curmudgeoness]

14. And I stated that I do that,

but not in quite those words. I would only provoke them by calling their god an evil dick, but I do tell them that their god is not very nice and point out why I feel that way. I find that a lot of people ask me about it, but I also know that they could not handle it if I got nasty about it. I just speak logically about it. Keep in mind that most people who ask are not the true believers, because those are the ones who will accuse you and condemn you, not have a discussion.

[LostOne4Ever]

11. I think its one of the more powerful arguments

To be honest, theodicy and the very morality of their god is a large part of what drove me away from religion. I would even go so far to say I find that Lucifer to be more moral than their god. I guess that is why I get such a kick out of the good guy lucifer meme:

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/good-guy-lucifer

Arguing from science never worked on me as it was easy to reconcile the two. The "god started the big bang" or "god controls evolution" arguments if you will. However, pointing out that god massacred innocent people during sodam and gomorrah, noah's flood, massacre of the Midianites, the egyptian plague, etc., etc. pushed me further and further from Christianity.

If we push that argument too far too fast, yeah I imagine that kind of meme would backfire. But done right, I think that is a much better way of arguing our position.

[trotsky]

16. Lucifer = "light-bringer"

There's a strong case to be made that almost everyone has read the creation story completely ass-backwards.

The first two humans are created as captive non-thinking pets in an artificial environment. Along comes an entity who teaches them how to think for themselves. Creator is pissed that his mindless minions (the ones it created without the ability to discern right from wrong!) disobeyed him.

Humankind ends up having to suffer and toil for everything it gets, but becomes a much more deep and interesting animal than they ever would have been, being pets.

And Lucifer's the bad guy??

[NeoGreen]

17. Lucifer = Prometheus?...

...I'll have to google that one