BLACKS AND RELIGION?

Newbie First Class Joined: Oct 01, 2004 Posts: 26

"Master of Logic" in this forum sez: "Dawkins describes it [religion] as a misfire like a moth attracted to a light bulb instead of moonlight. " No one is going to learn the first thing about how religion has functioned sociologically, culturally, politically and historically from this drivel. The atheist subculture has done a terrible job of educating its own constituency about these matters, so how is it going to educate the general public?

20 years ago I naively hoped that an influx of black atheists would broaden the rather provincial knowledge base of the atheist subculture. Not only has this not happened, but the influx itself does not appear to have been a major one, though I do see the situation improving a bit of late where I am. The tight grip that religious institutions have on what remains of black communities cannot be explained by Dawkins or any other celebrity atheist. The only public atheist with a modicum of the needed intelligence is Christopher Hitchens, but his performance is highly uneven due to his preoccupation with warmongering.

Graduate Thinker Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 515

Ralphellectual, you read my mind. The majority of atheists are more preoccupied with oversimplifying belief as plain superstition. It is really more complicated.

Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 4:57 am

Ralphellectual wrote:

You are incorrect. Wright represents a tradition that did not come into being until AFTER King's assassination. "Black liberation theology" as a recognized category was a creation of the black power movement. In one way or another liberation and theology have interpenetrated since slavery days, but MLK had nothing to do with any category known as "black liberation theology".

Wright is dishonest in claiming that an attack on him is an attack on the black church. This tactic is a typically dishonest tactic that black demagogues use, first of all to manipulate their own people, secondly to snow white people with. Wright shows the all-too-characteristic lust for power of the black nationalist, no matter how many hungry people he feeds. His defenders among the black clergy, journalists, and pop intellectuals are even more dishonest in attempting to link him to MLK. It's disgusting!

MLK was an advance over the ascetic crackpot Gandhi, who was also no friend of black people in South Africa where he began organizing. In India Gandhi appealed to people who were more backward and ignorant than sharecroppers in the U.S. South. The secularist Nehru could not reach the Indian masses like Gandhi did, who appealed to superstitious ignorance inter alia to reform the barbaric practices of Hinduism.

I don't see where you do anything but agree with me. So I'm assuming we're generally in agreement. I generally agree with your further points here as well.

Posted: Sat May 03, 2008 5:02 am

Ralphellectual wrote:

"Master of Logic" in this forum sez: "Dawkins describes it [religion] as a misfire like a moth attracted to a light bulb instead of moonlight. " No one is going to learn the first thing about how religion has functioned sociologically, culturally, politically and historically from this drivel. The atheist subculture has done a terrible job of educating its own constituency about these matters, so how is it going to educate the general public?

20 years ago I naively hoped that an influx of black atheists would broaden the rather provincial knowledge base of the atheist subculture. Not only has this not happened, but the influx itself does not appear to have been a major one, though I do see the situation improving a bit of late where I am. The tight grip that religious institutions have on what remains of black communities cannot be explained by Dawkins or any other celebrity atheist. The only public atheist with a modicum of the needed intelligence is Christopher Hitchens, but his performance is highly uneven due to his preoccupation with warmongering.

This is a fancy diatribe. But it's all too easy to call something drivel and beg off. Religion is superstition. Understanding this does nto take away from the complications of the way superstitious people interact. It's 2 different things.

Graduate Thinker Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 515

Quote:

Religion is superstition. Understanding this does nto take away from the complications of the way superstitious people interact. It's 2 different things.

I agree with you, religion is superstition, but the various reasons why people choose to believe it are much more complicated and do not always have to do with superstition. People who believe in religion think some superstitious stuff, but have various reasons for perpetuating their superstition. These reasons include what has been taught to them at an early age, what people around them believe and how they exercise authority to force others to believe, and also what information/thought processes these people have been introduced to.

Newbie First Class Joined: Apr 26, 2008 Posts: 44

Ralph,

What do you mean by "worse than useless"? "Useless" seems neutral. "Useless" has no effect. But worse than no effect is something... negative. Does that mean the whole kaboodle is hurting us all? I ask in all seriousness.

P.s. This is my first post. It was good for me... was it good for you? One more thing. I get paid on Monday and am going to get my Infidel Guy Gold Card on that very same day. I am not useless.

Newbie First Class Joined: Oct 01, 2004 Posts: 26

Everbleed wrote:

What do you mean by "worse than useless"? "Useless" seems neutral. "Useless" has no effect. But worse than no effect is something... negative. Does that mean the whole kaboodle is hurting us all? I ask in all seriousness.

I most certainly do mean harmful. In the 30 years Dawkins has been pushing this memes crap, he has not take the trouble to learn anything new, about sociology, anthropology, history or philosophy. Michael Shermer, a leading "skeptic", is even worse, peddling pseudoscientific evolutionary ideas to justify the political and economic perspective of Ayn Rand. Harris only leapt into the fray because of 9-11 and is completely ignorant of the politics of the Middle East and the Muslim World. Ms Ali from Somalia by way of the Netherlands is now a rabid warmonger in the employ of the American Enterprise Institute. These celebrities are uncritically feted by atheist organizations, and they are helping to keep atheists on the level of children who think because they figured one thing out they are now competent to understand their world, which they most certainly are not.

Newbie First Class Joined: Apr 26, 2008 Posts: 44

Ralphster,

Interesting. Five posts. And the gloves are off.

Can I safely make the following assumptions?:
1. You have read books by each of the people you mention (and don't) including Ms. Ali.
2. You have attended atheist events where these same people were "uncritically feted".
3. You know atheists who are "uncritical".

If I am indeed safe in my assumptions and accept your judgment, then I give up. I'm gonna go to church on Sunday where I can find some "really" critical people.

P.s. Will all atheists in the room who have "uncritically feted" the aforementioned people... please raise their hands.

Newbie First Class Joined: Oct 01, 2004 Posts: 26

I've seen some of these folks in person, or read essays and/or all or part of books by them and others. I refuse to pay money to attend expensive conferences where these people are the featured speakers. I see a lot of fawning but little critical analysis. After all, they are our public advocates, and they are finally giving us voice in the news media. The problem is, they play a double role. They don't just confine their remarks to atheism, religion, and pseudoscience, they make a number of other pronouncements that are far less savory.

Similarly, when assholes from the religious left like Chris Hedges attack the "new atheists" they don't just criticize their politics, they slander their atheism.

The whole society is succumbing to an irrationalism the likes of which I have not seen. On the other hand, what is reason? Is it just knowledge of the natural sciences, which is all that interests our intellectuals? Does calling yourself a rationalist make you rational? Is religion the only source of irrationality? So that all irrational thinking has to be classified as religious?

I can't speak for other countries, but in the USA it seems we are almost as childish as our adversaries., when it comes to politics, sociology, and history.

Newbie First Class Joined: Oct 01, 2004 Posts: 26

This thread is about blacks and religion--I almost forgot. This started with my objection that talking about grasshoppers or moths is useless--no, worse than useless, criminal even--for understanding the relation between blacks and religion since slavery. I have yet to see black atheists with a public profile offer much more than tell some stories of black freethinkers in history or of themselves and people they've surveyed. I have yet to see any institutional or ideological analysis of what's going on in society. I think this is partially due to the pickle they are in, as well as the rather politically retarded consciousness of the atheist community as a whole, and of the rather constricted intellectual breadth of the allegedly more sophisticated "humanists".

The Learned Joined: Jun 13, 2005 Posts: 115

MrSmith wrote:

coeur wrote:

In situation of illiteracy, it is easy to teach,

religion and slavery .

The problem with blaming the problem on slavery is the fact that the same is even truer on the continent of Africa as well. Virtually all Africans including Arabs) are religious.

True except Arabs are semites not Africans...semantics I guess!

N.

Newbie First Class Joined: Apr 26, 2008 Posts: 44

Ralph.

Please direct me to anything you would recommend that would help me understand your viewpoint.

Though I find your tendency to hyperbole and overstatement (as well as gross generalizations) somewhat off-putting, I do agree wholeheartedly with your assertion that the atheist community is "politically retarded". Organizing "freethinkers" is akin to herding cats. Organizing people like yourself Ralph is virtually impossible. (It is in fact a "meme" thing, and you Ralph are the living embodiment of the theory.)

Please, if you have a moment, send me a link that will help me understand at least a small portion of the genesis of your assertions. (I thought I had "tasted" everything, but apparently I have missed something important.)

Regarding the subject of this thread. The black man is no different than any other man. Most people just can't tolerate living a life of questions. Having answers, no matter how outrageous or incoherent, is easier than not knowing. It makes life a little easier.

It is the fearless few who are comfortable living the questions. And even they are generally obsessed with looking for answers. We all want to know. God is the search for God.

The only problem for me personally is that there are more fearful ones than fearless ones, and they vote.

Duck and cover.

Just Arrived Joined: Apr 12, 2008 Posts: 2

Dear Folks:

I am new to posting to forums, so please bear with me.

I am a Black male and am an atheist. Liberal theology and politics go hand-in-hand in the Black community. If you criticize religion, you are essentially criticizing the other concept. This duality goes back further than the Civil Rights Era.

However, Blacks are just now getting into the modern era of philosophical thought. It took quite a while for me to get "out of the closet" as an atheist. One of the best methods that I use to critique the Bible is with its dealings with slavery. How can someone in the Black community love a document that does not explicitly comdemn slavery?

As we learn more and more about the world outside the "Black identity" philosophy, the religious ties that bind us will unravel.

Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 8:17 am

Ralphellectual wrote:

I think this is partially due to the pickle they are in, as well as the rather politically retarded consciousness of the atheist community as a whole, and of the rather constricted intellectual breadth of the allegedly more sophisticated "humanists".

So Ralph, what's your theological position?

Everbleed wrote:

Though I find your (speaking of Ralphellectual) tendency to hyperbole and overstatement (as well as gross generalizations) somewhat off-putting,

Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 8:22 am

Oncilla wrote:

As we learn more and more about the world outside the "Black identity" philosophy, the religious ties that bind us will unravel.

Knowledge and exposure to different points of view often have this affect. It seems to me (I could be wrong) that the “black identity” does seem rather cloistered.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore