Why do religions treat atheism as worse than heresy?

[cosmosdan]

@tomndebb

I suppose that you can make a claim for three generations, (for revisions to one Gospel and the writing of a couple of Epistles), but that is clearly not what is conveyed by the phrase “generations later.” I did not dispute the possibility of changes. (For that matter, even the earliest writings are subject to charges of being “created” works.) However, the implication that the New Testament, in toto, was a loose collection of oral tales that were only written down by people who could not have had any contact with the participants in any events in which Jesus played a part is simply not true. I do not think that moonstarssun intended (or believed) any deliberate distortion of events; I just figured that in the interest of the Straight Dope® I ought to throw some perspective on the statement.

I see. I didn’t take generations to mean hundreds of years. Anything from 40 to something below 200, when centuries becomes the more accurate term. Changes aren’t just a possibility, it’s pretty much an undeniable fact given the manuscripts we have and the differences in them. There’s some dispute about which was the original, who changed it and why, but not much about changes actually being there.

Of course many of the books of the NT were letters to churches and not part of oral tradition. I took it that moonstarssun was referring to the Gospels. Maybe not. In their case oral tradition is fairly accurate, yes? They may or may not have been written by people who actually walked with Jesus right?

Clarification is a good thing. I thought “simply not true” was a bit much but no matter.

[moonstarssun]

@tomndebb

I suppose that you can make a claim for three generations, (for revisions to one Gospel and the writing of a couple of Epistles), but that is clearly not what is conveyed by the phrase “generations later.” I did not dispute the possibility of changes. (For that matter, even the earliest writings are subject to charges of being “created” works.) However, the implication that the New Testament, in toto, was a loose collection of oral tales that were only written down by people who could not have had any contact with the participants in any events in which Jesus played a part is simply not true. I do not think that moonstarssun intended (or believed) any deliberate distortion of events; I just figured that in the interest of the Straight Dope® I ought to throw some perspective on the statement.

Actually, by “generations later,” I did mean 60-90 years. And cosmodan is correct–I was referring specifically to the Gospels since that (again, as I understand) is supposed to the most complete account of Jesus’s life and teachings.

[cosmosdan]

@moonstarssun

Actually, by “generations later,” I did mean 60-90 years. And cosmodan is correct–I was referring specifically to the Gospels since that (again, as I understand) is supposed to the most complete account of Jesus’s life and teachings.

The most widely accepted account certainly. What’s interesting are the writings that were around in that era that weren’t mainstreamed by the church. The Gospel of Thomas is an interesting collection reported to be the sayings of Jesus. Several others as well might ad an interesting wrinkle to the traditional Jesus story.

[Kythereia]

Der Trihs, over here.

[Little_Plastic_Ninja]

@XaMcQ

Being an atheist is a lot like being homosexual, you know.

:dubious:

The majority of ‘normal’ people will claim they don’t have a thing against you, and of course you should be free to do ‘whatever you want to do in the privacy of your own home’.

You can be gay and/or an atheist on my front porch as far as I care, as long as you don’t make a mess.

[quotw]But bring it out in public and see what you get. Try to point to the religious that they are allowed to put up signs about their belief everywhere.
[/quote]

You’re allowed to put signs up about your belief everywhere, too. You might have trouble getting a “Instead of God, why not try rationality?” billboard up depending on the company, but that’s not legality, that’s just a company’s policy. A rather foolish one, IMO.

They are allowed to get in your face with it, constantly blessing you and trying to give you literature or invite you to church or sending you religious themed Christmas cards

1. If you have a problem with people saying ‘bless you’, that really is your problem. Is it not okay for other people to be religious? Still, if it bothers you that much, you could (kindly and politely) tell the bless-er that you would rather not be a bless-ee. It strikes me as being about as rational as a woman having a fit when someone is polite enough to open a door for her, but that’s just me.

2. You can politely refuse literature. If they are not jerks, they will get the message. Alternately, you can hand out your own literature, which should get some interesting responses.

3. You can decline an invitation to a person’s church if you have no interest in going. “No thanks, I’m really not interested” followed up with “I’d rather not discuss it” should work well. Unless the person is a jerk, in which case… well, again, they’d be a jerk no matter whether they had a religion or no.

4. I had an aunt once who sent me not even religious Christmas cards, just holy cards every year with a plastic Christian ornament – long after I’d left the faith. It was rather annoying, but I finally understood it for what it was – just a bit of paper and plastic, with no more meaning to me than a grocery bag.

or better yet, try to say something about them running amock and trying to get religion taught in school or carved in stone on the public building where you might someday go to seek justice of some kind.

Now see, here’s where I can agree with you halfway. Church and state are best left separated entirely, but I have the feeling from all you’re saying that you don’t just say things like “Please don’t say ‘bless you’, I don’t believe in blessings” or “I’d rather not attend your church, but thank you” or “Please, I really don’t need your literature, and I’d appreciate it if you gave it to someone who’d get use out of it.” Maybe you simmer quietly, maybe you rant loudly that all those idiot Christians are being ignorant morons when they try to paste their religion all over the place.

You say we only like you if you’re “quiet”. I think that “polite” might be closer to the truth. The difference can be hard to spot.

For the sake of tolerance, I would urge you to understand that (some of) these people truly believe that they are helping you. They see it as the same as telling a kid to come in from the rain – it’s cold out there and warm inside, and there’s a lot of people in there to be your friends. They see you as simply not understanding there’s another possibility, another place you can go, and they just don’t get why you’d stand out in the rain instead. It seems so very, very simple to them.

And it’s quite possible that you’re right and they – we – are wrong. We might all be ignorant and deluded. I’m not here to tell you they’re right, I’m just trying to promote a little understanding and tolerance.

And the stuff about treating other people right and making the world a better place? Those are supposed to be what Christianity’s all about. Everyone really is supposed to be your brothers and sisters. You’re supposed to treat them as you want to be treated. And all those Christian charities don’t just exist as tax shelters; it’s supposed to be a Good Thing to improve people’s lives.