There are a few outspoken authors whom others characterize as “evangelical” in their views, but whether that is fair is a matter of debate. There are a few rude and crude jerks, such as the guy in the video at the top of the page, but every group has some of those.

If you have seen specific examples of an atheist aggressively trying to force, manipulate, browbeat or somehow without invitation to convert believers to non-belief, I would be very interested in hearing about it because I strongly oppose such tactics and behavior.

Stick around and I think you will see that the majority of people here are primarily interested in improving communication between believers and non-believers, and in improving the overall quality of life of atheists and society in general.

It is fair that we have our own beliefs, but what is with this need to make everyone else agree wwith them? I would not particually appreciate someone of the Catholic faith trying to convert me into catholisism, and I am sure that Catholics feel the same about Atheism.

What is the problem with allowing them to have their beliefs and us to have ours?

Avoiding facing human darkness and shadow through escape into religion or scripture is what I have a problem with.

Funny… usually it’s us Christians that are getting ragged on for dwelling too much on human sin & darkness…

And again, you’ve done an admirable job of illustrating the basic difference between our worldviews.

I could be completely naive to think that pursuing a way of love and justice and peace in this world could ever change anything;

MikeC, I don’t think that hoping for those things is bad. Avoiding facing human darkness and shadow through escape into religion or scripture is what I have a problem with.

Love is never unconditional. All relationships are transactional. Justice is relative depending upon who is in power. The most important form of justice is non-coercion and the trader principle. Peace only comes about when justice is ensured for all parties. These can flourish only in societies of strong individuals who do not look outside of themselves for moral guidance.

or to think that such virtues have any deeper connection to the underlying reality of the universe.

The underlying reality of the universe is towering indifference. It is only our lives and actions which create any meaning at all. And that meaning is subjective to us as humans.

One day our civilization and any trace of it will be gone. We only matter to ourselves, and those we love and who love us, and only while we and any descendants who may remember or be affected by our actions are alive.

That is the sum total of meaning for human life in this starkly vast expanse. It is also undeniably true that no one alive today will ever understand more than a fraction of what we think we know about said universe. Which places the burden for supporting claims of so-called ‘meaning’ squarely on the shoulders of those making such claims.

Mike C,
So why do you remain a xian? I’m not asking to mock but I can’t understand why a guy that realizes the bible is a book needs to hold it dearly. You admit that Jesus had some good ideas but the OT morals are absurd mostly.

It’s a good question TX. I’ll do my best to answer. (However, I’m not going to bother responding to the other comments here that purport to tell me what I believe rather than listen to what I’m actually saying.)

I value the Bible for the kind of book that I think it actually is rather than the kind of book the fundamentalists (and anti-fundamentalist critics) want it to be. That is, I don’t believe the Bible to be a divinely dictated handbook of God’s absolute commands, presented to us in the form of a history or science textbook. Rather I believe it to be a complex, multifaceted story of humanity’s interactions with the Divine over the course of history – given to us in poetry, myth, biography, historical narrative (as opposed to our Modern conceptions of history), proverb, letter, and more. It is full of contradictions and appalling stories because it reflects the reality and rawness of human existence with all of its violence and injustice, not some idealized, sanitized version.

And it reflects the understandings of people during the centuries in which it was written – how they thought of and interacted with the world and with the divine – and shows the progression of this understanding over time. So if it doesn’t match up with how we view the world (or God) today, so what? It’s not like the story stopped progressing the minute the words of the Bible were put to the page. The Bible shows us an upward trajectory of human understanding and moral development over the centuries, and I trust that this trajectory has continued (admittedly with some rather major setbacks) even beyond the closing of the canon.

Another way I might answer your question (especially regarding why I’m still a Christian) is to clarify that my faith does not rest on a book. No matter how highly I regard it, the Bible is not the foundation of my faith. I think I would continue to believe in God and even follow the Way of Jesus, even if I thought the Bible was completely worthless. Jesus could be a completely fictional character, and yet I would still think that the Way of Jesus is the best possible way to live.

I mean, BlackSun could be right. I could be completely naive to think that pursuing a way of love and justice and peace in this world could ever change anything; or to think that such virtues have any deeper connection to the underlying reality of the universe. But even if he’s right, I’m going to continue to live as if that other world is possible, because that’s the world that I think ought to exist, even if it doesn’t.

And who knows, maybe if enough of us decide to live that way regardless, perhaps we might just bring it into existence ourselves.

I was at the Washington Post website On Faith. This weeks topic is ..What does your faith lead you to believe about gay unions and gay clergy? Could you ever change your mind?

It only has 90 posts. If you look at the Sam Harris’ threads some go into the thousands. I think it shows that there is more acceptance of the gay community these days compared to atheism.

Certainly there is still those radical believers out there against homosexuality, but to me it obviously states that many more have grown in this area. Much of that has been due to awareness. When the first gay parades came about, I can recall how outspoken people were against such public displays. Over the years the shock value has depriciated, in my opinion. Has the acceptance come from the shock that many gays have decided to come out of the closet publicly in one way being the gay parades held year to year? I tend to think so. Just as time has brought the black americans more acceptance and civil rights. In my opinion, partly due to the Black Panthers of the 60’s radical behaviour, tempered by Martin Luther Kings soft spoken words of awareness to the black movement.

My point being…while the Mills clip was offensive to a degree to myself as an atheist as i felt it crude and crass. I think that we need both the shock value tempered by the nice atheists to further the cause of awareness and acceptance. Being nice does not always force people to think and dialogue. It certainly is easier to ignore a nice person rather than an in your face type. Although, we need the nice atheists to explain to those believers that are offended by such things, that not all of us accept that kind of behaviour which may possibly lead to conversations on a more mature and intellectual level.