Posted by Hemant Mehta in Per user suggestion, consider this an open thread for Christians (or anyone) to pose questions to atheists.
Anyone is welcome to respond. (Keep it clean, please.)
If you’re an atheist who would like to ask questions to Christians, go to this thread.
[tags]atheist, atheism[/tags]
[...] you’re a Christian who would like to ask questions to atheists, go to this thread. Technorati Tags: atheist, atheism Share This Popularity: 1% [...]
Your favourite Standard Question (or statement) from a Believer?
The “Atheists have killed more than Christians / Hitler was a Christian” option will not be accepted here.
Where can I find an atheist book, website, magazine, etc. that doesn’t mock or attack or deride religious people or beliefs, but only puts forth a positive vision of what it is to be an atheist?
Nothing: Something to Believe In by Nica Lali
As an Atheist, what is the one thing you would like Christians to understand about you?
To Macht:
Hemant’s book of course! (link on the upper right, I get no kick backs
To Richard:
My favorite question because it is such a non sequitur is, “So you don’t believe in anything?” (My standard reply is, “I believe in the truth, and I also believe that science, evidence and rational thought are the best ways to get as close to the truth as possible. We might never get there, and we might be wrong about a lot of things we think are true now, but I’m OK with that!”)
To Devin:
That atheists can’t hate something they don’t believe exists. I always say (unlike Hitchens) that I would love it if a god existed. It would be cool if there was an afterlife and some kind of justice for the wicked who died rich and comfortable, and rewards for the innocent who suffered and died young. But wishing something were true doesn’t make me believe it. I’m just not wired that way.
to Devin: I’m an atheist because the evidence of the universe led to atheism. It was a traumatic discovery after 40+ years of believing in a loving, benevolent god.
I didn’t turn to atheism because I wanted to “sin” or because I had a bad experience in church, or because I “rebelled” against god’s authority. I loved my church and my religion. My view of god was comforting and wonderful.
The evidence just doesn’t support the theory.
To Devin
that atheists (or anyone for that matter) don’t need a god to have good morals.
I don’t have a God concept, so I can’t be angry with something that doesn’t exist or something I have no concept of. The closest thing I’ve ever conceived of a god is an extremely strong emotion that caused me to feel as one with everything, but that is only a chemical reation in the brain- totally lobe. So, it has nothing to do with anything, except finding the answers to my questions via studying the human condition- psychology and myth/religious exploration.
To Devin: It took quite some time and a lot of struggle to get free from religion. Like the Apostle Paul, before my conversion (out of faith) “I was zealous more than you all.” I had dedicated my life to religion. I had a lot at stake there. But, my loyalty to myself, to be truthful with myself, took precedence over everything else. I went seeking the truth in religion, and found it, to the detriment of religion.
While not an athiest book, Carl Sagan’s Cosmos has deepened my appreciation of life and the universe.
Being an atheist only means a lack of belief in a deity, so I’m not sure that I can really answer your question. I don’t think I’ve ever read something that espouses a positive vision for an atheist in particular.
My vision is to be a better human being. Towards that goal, I do things such as read philosophy, volunteer in educational settings, maintain positive relationships, remain active in my community, continually learn, be a productive member of society, maintain a fit mind and body, and so forth.
I find many universal truths in Buddhist philosophies and wonder in the universe as revealed by science. I enjoy simple pleasures, such as hiking and stargazing. I begin each day by asking myself, “What is my purpose today?” And at the end of the day, I reflect on what I’ve done.
Ok, so I’ve just seen the Golden Compass and was wondering if Atheists believe that we have souls?
For the most part, I think not, although I could be wrong. I personally don’t think so.
That actually bothered me when I read the book when it first came out, that it had too much of a sappy sort of spirituality. It was only the second book that won me over.
If Pullman has ever explained why he stuck souls in those books, I would appreciate a link to the explanation.
I’d say that in the US, no. Technically, atheist means lacking belief in god, so you could beleive in all sorts of supernatural flapdoodle and not in a god an dthus be an atheist, but it is unlikely that a person like that would not move on to god-belief, given how ubiquitous it is.
That’s the US. Here in Spain, where god-belief is not considered compulsory, I have seen atheists who beleive all sorts of weird stuff.
Whenever they throw Bible verses at you. The people that do that seems to find it so hard to understand that we don’t grant the bible any special credibility. It seems the authority of the Bible is such a deep axiom for them that they cannot even bring themselves to think about it.
I sometimes find that funny.
That religion is not interesting. Not to me, certainly.
For theists, obviously, religion is very important, given that it informs their morality and sense of purpose (or so it is said). However, religion does none of those things for me, so to me it is just a morass of incoherence and banality (this may sound cruel, but bear with me).
Therefore, if you meet atheisst that are at all like me, they will likely not want to talk about religion all the time, and may very likely ignore or dismiss your penetrating theological inquiries for the simple reason that there are a million other things they would rather do with their time.
Philosophically and theologically, Atheists do good things because doing good things is good. Theists do good things to please God.
Practically speaking, Theists also sometimes do good things just because doing good things is good. Therefore, sometimes theists operate like Atheists. Atheists just don’t operate with the “pleasing god” motivation. Atheists give higher value to the intrinsic goodness of an activity. Theists split their motivation (of doing good things) between “intrinsic goodness” and the “pleasing God” motivation.
It should also be noted that both groups can also do good things for less noble reasons
1. pleasing other people
2. self-serving reasons
Both groups occasionally also do bad things.
“Explain how humans evolved [morals/traditions/religions/etc].”
It doesn’t take much to explain in general how a non-physical human attribute can evolve, so I like the questions because my thinking skills go towards making it understandable towards the asker, which in turn improves my oratory and persuasive skills.
Besides what the others have said… why I don’t say “bless you” when someone sneezes. I’ve been reprimanded by teachers, strangers, and Christian classmates for not saying it; even when I believed in a god (used to call myself Muslim because my parents were).
I don’t believe in anything to bless someone who sneezes, and I don’t think a sneeze warrants something as important as a divine blessing would be if it were real.
So the answer in short is: I’m not rude because I refuse to take part in your traditions.
While I can’t say I believe in a soul in the religious sense, I do believe that consciousness will come again to me in some other form of life.
The universe (as we know it) is 15 billion years old, with the possibility of multiple universes and infinite time before and after us. I’m experiencing all the senses of a human now, so it seems likely that some time after I die I’ll be experiencing consciousness as another form of a thinking entity. Whether that’s in some sophisticated computer or a form of life in some other galaxy billions of years from now, the fact that I can experience consciousness means it’s certainly possible again given the infinite amount of time that is to come.
To Macht: There’s a Yahoo Group called atheism2008 that is very positive. The moderator is an author collecting opinions for a book he’s writing. He’s asks questions to atheists about various things each week and we do our best to answer. He welcomes non-atheists who want to read our responses in order to learn more about us.
You might want to skip over the first couple of posts until you get to his first question. A couple of people didn’t quite grasp his concept in the beginning.
I’m on the other side of the fence on this topic. I find religion extremely interesting, in fact I find it much more interesting now than I ever did as a Christian. As a Christian I accepted that God was working in my life and didn’t question it much. As a non-believer I find it fascinating to sit back and watch what believers do and say in the name of something I don’t think is real. But that might be the sociologist in me.
Your question seems to be founded on two misconceptions: one, that atheists have an overarching belief system. Naturally, most atheists don’t believe in souls, but belief or non-belief in souls isn’t inherent to atheism. This has already been explained better above, so I’ll move on. Second, you seem to be implying that there need be some connection between the supernatural elements that are real in a fantasy story, and the supernatural elements that the author believes to be real in the real world. Did Tolkien believe in elves?
I’m with HappyNat in that I find religions to be fascinating. I also enjoy the art that comes out of religious belief like the music, paintings and architecture. (But I sometimes hope I am not admiring the carvings on the outside of an iron maiden. Would that be OK?)
Anyway regarding:
I think Stephen already answered this question very well. I would also reply by asking, “what do you mean exactly by a ’soul’?” All of these words used in religion (”god”, “soul”, “grace”, “spirit”..) are so foggy and obscure to me. I have the feeling that people who believe in a soul imagine it to be some kind of luminous vapour inside their bodies. I know physicists can’t even define exactly what an electron really IS for example, and they can actually measure these things! A “soul” seems completely out of the realm of comprehensible definition.
I get into similar discussion with new agers who always use the word “energy”. I studied physics so I have some idea what the word “energy” actually means, and new age supernaturalists are not using the word correctly. I think people have been somewhat brainwashed by art (from paintings to modern Hollywood SFX) so they can easily picture in their mind’s eye things like “spirit” or “energy”. They imagine glowing fluids flowing around like magic. Maybe all these imaginative images come from cavemen staring at the flames of their campfire.
That last idea reminds me of a conversation I had with someone where I asked them what exactly the flame was of a candle. They replied “pure energy”. In some indirect sense they are right, but the better answer would have been “electromagnetic radiation given off by excited electrons in the hot products of combustion”
[...] Christians, post your questions for Atheists here. [...]
Happynat: When you put it that way, it is interesting. However, what I actually mean is that I do not find things like discussing the Blood of Christ or Jesus’ Love with a missionary in a street corner interesting, or explaining for the tenth time that I don’t know where the universe came from or what if anything happens after death, you don’t either, and I am not worried about it in the slightest.
The fact that I am commenting here shows that I do occasionally take an passing interest in religion (and other topics), but if you come up to me at a random time of the day and introduce religion to the conversation there will be a greater than 90% probability that I really won’t feel like it right now.
While our personal relationships with the faithful can be friendly and respectful, I hope we can be excused for taking no prisoners and making no exceptions in public discourse. The goal, quite honestly, is to make the religious ashamed of their bedfellows. To use the Papists as an example, no matter how reasonable and moral a Catholic is, his or her money is still going to the Catholic church, which is a disgusting organization. And the fact that there are kind, moral, otherwise reasonable religious people doesn’t make us think better of religion itself.
Just because some people can enjoy a hamburger or a candy bar and still keep healthy doesn’t mean it’s out of line to write about an epidemic of junk food consumption and obesity, you know? If you consume a few Newman-Os and popcorn buckets every now and then, you shouldn’t be bothered by that book. But you can’t ignore the overwhelming evidence that junk food is bad for you.
As for playing nice, showing respect for the faithful and helping them to understand that atheism isn’t satanism is an entirely different public relations campaign.
Since I believe this is it- that we make earth heaven or hell or both then a soul is only metaphor- ie I feel it in the very depths of my soul. This is not the same supernatural concept of a soul, but only metaphor for an indescribably strong feeling. It is a talent that many humanistic writers develop and in my own writing I confuse both religious and non-religious alike- unless they know me. A really good writer will cause you to wonder what they believe, if they are speaking metaphorically or if they really mean what they said.
Prime example is when I described, in a paper, childhood feelings of awe and wonder as god. No, that was not the god of the religious, but a child confusing what is purely emotional- an intense emotion at that- as god. If one reads further, I end up passing these off as emotions at least once if not twice.
It can be confusing, the author of the Golden Compass does indeed label himself as a Humanist, he just doesn’t advertise it. He also admits to using words metaphorically too, which can be very confusing to some.
Stephen, it was just a question. No implications, just curiosity. From my viewpoint over here in New Zealand, listening to what American Christians were ranting about, one could believe that The Golden Compass was the most evil movie imaginable. Now I do know not to take my American brothers too seriously from time to time, but imagine my surprise on seeing a media screening of the movie and finding plenty of Christian beliefs in the movie (it all comes down to how you interpret stuff really).
Personally I thought the movie was rubbish, it lacked any real passion, but I’m guessing that comes down more to New Line sitting on the fence rather than the source material. It’s a pity really, as The Golden Compass, from what I’ve heard could have been the start of a really interesting trilogy of movies.
And no, I’m not sure that Tolkien did believe in elves ;O)
If you’re interested, my brief review can be found on filmguide
Honestly, the book meant for theists that best addresses the concerns of non-believers, I think, would have to be Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris. It is short, to the point, and while not containing a positive argument for theism, it is overtly polite and is not mocking, or condescending to its intended audience. Sure, most of the people who bought the book were probably atheists who passed it on to religious fence-sitters or family members, but the point of the book is a call to action for believers to critically examine with logic and reason WHY they believe what they believe.
If a chemist wrote a 70 page essay called Letter to the Pharmaceutical Industry it would be silly and equally irrational to conclude that the author was mocking or attacking any individual taking prescription drugs.
Critical Discourse and skepticism exist in almost every facet of Western Civilization, (you don’t buy a car without kicking the tires, you don’t make a major purchase without checking out Consumer Reports, you don’t send your kid off to college without looking into it at least a little, etc)
and if believers are offended because some now feel that religion is not special in its exemption from examination, that a critique of what they believe about the nature of reality is taboo, then they need to re-examine their worldview.
As far as Atheists’ Positive Worldview, there’s no set dogma. We come together because of our lack of belief, and the steady encroachment or stigma on our right to live without belief.
Sometimes, when colleagues or relatives ask me how I know so much about a certain topic, I remind them that I READ. I take all the ideas in, I read everything I can get my hands on. Good ideas, bad ideas, and I judge ideas based on the merits of their own reason and arguments. I don’t know about other atheists, but there are no subjects that are off limits to me, or immune to criticism to me (except maybe the 1st amendment).
As an atheist, or a freethinker, I will never boycott a movie, or burn a book, or protest a play or work of art because it contradicts my worldview in a public forum. So yes, while Harris and Dawkins address religious claims without being conciliatory, they do not go out of their way to offend.
/rant
Nick
How different do you believe atheists and theists are, really?
Just a follow-up to my question. Not really another question, just a clarification in response to the “rant” above. First, notice I said “a” positive vision, not “the” positive vision. Second, I am not “offended” by atheists who mock or attack or argue against religious people or beliefs, I am just looking for those who don’t since they are much, much more difficult to find than those who do. Third, surely there has to be a better example than Harris’ book. (God help the atheists if there isn’t.)
realname asked:
It depends on the person. I can’t say if we have souls or not: Define “soul”. I have no evidence that would compel me to believe that our consciousness suvives the death of our bodies. If that fits disbelief in your opinion and your definition of soul, then so be it.
Macht:
First off, I’m about to give a light, flippant answer to your considered statement here… hopefully to make a point. Apologies in advance.
Hey, Macht, where can I find in the Christian Bible, a prophet, sage or indeed Savior who doesn’t mock or attack or deride Jewish or other religious people’s beliefs or practices, but only puts forth a positive vision of what it is to be a Christian?
Good question, eh?
To answer your question directly, yes Hemant’s book, absolutely. As far as other inspirational literature, maybe atheists need to write some more. I find “Letting Go of God” by Julia Sweeney to be uplifting, positive and inspirational, but it does include some loving humor directed at her own Catholic upbringing.
Devin: That atheists are the same as them. We work, live, love, laugh, and have the same sort of personal triumphs and defeats. We’re not a faceless scary group of others. We’re all just… people.
I Could Use My Real Name But I’m Too Chicken: I have seen no evidence suggesting that a thing such as souls exist. But if I was given good proof, I’d be open to the possibility. Until such time, it’s just not something I worry about, because it doesn’t impact my life.
richard: Definitely when they quote Bible versus in that sort of, “Oh yeah, well, refute THIS, atheist girl” tone, like there can be no defense against that book.
Arlen: I don’t think we’re different at all, other than the superficial veneer of belief or non-belief. If you looked at our lives, they’d be almost the same. Atheists just spend their Sundays differently.
“Atheists who do not mock or attack religious people” - that’s probably doable.
“Atheists who do not mock or attack or argue against religious beliefs” - Let us know if you find such a site, it would be interesting to see what it looks like. I can’t image what they would be discussing that makes it an atheist site, if they aren’t rejecting religious beliefs. What you are looking for seems pretty much a contradiction in terms.
Are you sure you aren’t really looking for secularists instead? They could fit that description.
As an illustration, my first response to your question was “it’s not about belief, has any research been done on the differences?”. So, yes, I do think they are quite different types of people.
Or, to be more clear, I think there are lots of different kinds of people, and some kinds mostly end up as theists, and other kinds mostly end up as atheists. So, not homogenous groups, but I suspect there would be some quantifiable differences, if someone did the research.
That’s a really vague question. In part, because as Claire stated, there are differences in types of people. However, even within both groups there are differences. First off, are you asking between Humanists and Progressive Xians? Even then you’d have to break down Humanists, because they all think differently. An atheist that does not ascribe to any other label v. a Baptist? or an agnostic v. a Jehovah Witness? It’s really difficult to say.
I can get along quite well with some Progressive Christians and sometimes very well with Liberal Christians. The only difference is they believe in a supernatural being and I don’t, but the humanistic values are pretty much the same.
On the other hand, I have to work really hard to get along with a fundie or avoid them. Either way, I have to bite my tongue sometimes and it can be quite difficult at times. There is a big difference- in values and beliefs.
That’s not exactly true, Claire. I know Humanists of different varieties- Secular, Religious, Cultural, etc who poke fun at religious ideas. Not all do, but some do. They are after all human- no pun intended.
Sure, Mriana, I know they can if they want, and do sometimes, I just thought Macht’s odds of finding what he was looking for would be better with secularists. He was looking for a site full of positive and not-anti-religion atheists. Then again, he may well believe in miracles….
I guess I just think of secularists and humanists as more tactful, but that might be a misconception on my part.
I certainly don’t believe we have “souls” in the supernatural sense. I believe all we are is contained in our brain and when that stops so do we. I have caused all sorts of discomfort with religious friends when I start asking simple questions about what happens to people suffering from Alzheimer’s like my father in law. You get it and your brain starts slowly dying over a period of years. Memories slip away to the point you don’t know anyone around you. You eventually become a comatose vegetable with minimal brain activity. Then you die. Since the essence of who we are is memories most religions people I know believe you get these memories back somehow years after they slipped away. Where have they been stored while your brain was dying? Is there some sort of giant heavenly mainframe repository for them? I just don’t believe in any sort of life beyond the grave because I cant come up with any logical explanation as to how it would work and I can think of a lot of reasons why it makes no sense. The last time I discussed this with a good friend they just got mad at me and said “I don’t care how it works it just does…..”. My mind does not function like that.
I’ll talk about this more in detail on the friendly christian website in a few days.
http://www.friendlychristian.com
Disclaimer: I come in peace with this/these topic(s). If you are part of the Rational Response Squad, I mean no harm but I do have my thoughts.
But I wonder about certain outlets that some atheists use to response to Christian fundamentalism. Like the Rational Response Squad and their Blasphemy Challenge. I mean does one really need to insult an entire group of people and their beliefs because of bad experiences with some in order to embrace their atheism? Why can’t these people simply accept their beliefs and not “sink” to certain people’s level with assumptions and accusations? I just seems as if these people are judging the very people that they say judge everyone else.
Claire, there has been some research done that supports your hypothesis about quantifiable differences. I can’t find it right now, but a sociologist did a study of kibbutzes in Israel and he got some interesting findings on personality traits.
Also, studies have been done on religiosity and intelligence, finding an inverse relation between the two in the United States:
Rob, that fits with what I have seen and read. There is nothing about who a person is, nothing at all, that can’t be changed by brain injury or disease. I don’t see any way that fits in with a soul, or at least not with a soul that has memory, personality, and/or identity.
[...] the Friendly Atheist has posted an open thread where anyone may ask questions of us atheists. I thought answering the questions that have come up [...]
[...] http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/12/16/open-thread-questions-for-atheists/ [...]
I’m not UnRRS, but what gave you the idea that everyone here sunk to some level? I try to avoid such things. I personally don’t embrace anything in particular about my beliefs/non-beliefs and I try to avoid judging anyone.
I had no respect for their Blasphemy Challenge. It just seemed a bit rude.
However, it is a misconception to think, if I understand you correctly, that people are atheists solely due to bad experiences. That’s not entirely true. Some of us did educate ourselves and came to the conclusion on our own. Some of us are very learned concerning religion/religious texts and mythology, and can even out do our own families- sometimes long before we took courses on the subject. So, it is not always bad experiences alone and sometimes there is no bad experiences. Yes, there are atheists who have not had a bad experience with the religious, but they are atheists.
I second all of that.
I didn’t agree with the Blasphemy Challenge and spoke up against it at the time. I didn’t take part. I spoke against it. I’ve spoken against a number of the RRS’s stunts.
But as often we have to remind ourselves when talking about Christians, they’re only human, and some of them aren’t always polite. That’s no reason to beat up on the polite ones.
You ask a similar question as Macht did above, and so I’ll similarly turn it around on you:
Did Jesus really need to insult an entire group of Pharisees and their beliefs because of bad experiences with some in order to promote Christianity?
Anyone looking for a person who “only ever sets a positive example and never says anything bad about the other guy, ever, ever, ever…”
Well, even Jesus didn’t live up to that one!
That would be me. I occasionally attend my wife’s church and find her Methodist buddies to be warm caring people. I have not had a bad church experience at all. I think they are a little nutty and I’m not happy about my kids being taught supernatural theism, but it does not cause me any serious grief because as they get older I will use logic to “subvert the dominant paradigm”.
I’m no religious scholar but I find the subject fascinating and spend a lot more time than most of the religious people I know reading a wide variety of information on the subject. I created a stir with my Methodist wife the other day when I pointed out that December 25th was not Jesus Christ’s birthday at all, that it was picked by a 4th century Pope so it would coincide with a pagan winter festival. (The stir was my eldest daughter repeating this loudly to a friend during my youngest daughters Christmas pageant). I think many religious people really don’t want to know the truth about the history of their religion and go out of their way to remain ignorant.
Of course not. Ranting disrespectful atheists are just as bad as Baptist presidential candidates who say that Mormons believe Jesus Christ and the Devil are brothers. I think mean disrespectful people exist in the ranks of the religious just as much as in the ranks of atheists.
I spend more than my far share of time studying religious texts and mythology too.
Nope, they don’t. If they knew some would either deny it to themselves or go nuts. It is just rewritten myths- Egyptian, Mesopotamian, etc etc They won’t believe you if you try to tell them either.
To Mriana,
I didn’t mean to imply that bad experiences with Christians are the main reason for atheism and I also did not mean to imply that everyone on this site has sunken to a judgmental level. I am aware of atheists who do become atheists by choice and research. I just notice that certain atheists have played the judgmental card by labeling Christianity as a whole as nothing by hypocrisy, judgment, and hatred. This seems hypocritical to me. For those who have made such statements, I want to know why.
To Siamang,
As I think about my previous comment, I realize that criticisms against Christians are not what bothers me the most. I can see where people would get the idea that Christians are not all they say they are when looking at the media or personal experiences. However, it is the whole concept of insulting Jesus and the religion of Christianity that really gets to me. It would be like me blaming Islam as a whole for 9/11. With the Blasphemy Challenge, it seems as if a person mocks Christianity as a whole instead of criticizing individuals who have a particular interpretation of Scripture. This is different from Jesus and the Pharisees because Jesus called out people on their interpretation of the law but he did not hate on the law itself. He only talks about the people not their belief system and he brought a different perspective but never hated it.
Oh and to Rob, why do you believe that many religious people really don’t want to know the truth about their religion?
That reminds me of Hot fuzz. It’s a good movie.
Anyway, my questions for the ATHEISTS:
1. Do you have any intention of trying to understand the opposing views and why they believe what they believe, or do you only wish to discredit them?
2. What exactly is the difference between pure atheism and Humanism? Is there a difference?
3. Why is it necessary to label the absence of belief? If you believe in nothing, does nothing need to be labeled?
4. There are a broad spectrum of atheists and theists alike. I’ve noticed there are some grey areas where the opposite sides overlap. Do you think it’s possible to gradually increase this area and eventually do away with the labels? Or is that too idealistic?
5. Going off of #4, do you think us moderate/liberal Christians would be more effective in the fundie circle than here? Maybe we should become members of a fundie church? It’s a very scary thought…
Many of us have grown up religious and know those answers. Some wish to discredit those beliefs because they did so themselves and feel it is beneficial for others to do so.
Atheism is just the one belief that there are no deities. Humanism is a system of beliefs that people can base their lives off of (making it a religion).
The association that Humanism has with atheism is that humanistic beliefs (with or without knowledge of the belief system) are often naturally adopted once a person becomes an atheist.
Also, you don’t have to be an atheist to be a Humanist.
The atheists that choose to identify themselves as such do believe in something, that we must band together to overcome oppression against us. Identifying ourselves as a group makes it possible:
1) For the religious to recognize we exist.
2) For the religious to recognize that there are a substantial number of us.
3) For the religious to understand that being non-religious should not be grounds for poorer treatment (see the rules regarding Conscientious Objection as an example)
4) Meet other atheists and share our stories/philosophies/etc.
5) All sorts of other benefits that result from banding together.
People will always have such a variance in philosophies and beliefs that what you said may never happen. It isn’t a good thing either, because I think it’s healthy for a society to hold such a variety of views (as long as they don’t harm people in the name of those views)
In what way?
If you mean politically, you would be more effective of you collaborated with atheists than fundies. The fundies already have legions of other similarly obsessed people to get power from.
Liberal/Moderate Christians siding with, at the very least, the secularist movement, would have a huge impact on policy because there are so many Christians in that area of the political spectrum.
I wish you moderates would join our cause, because fundamentalism would be a lot worse for you (and all other non-fundamentalists) than secularism in government.
And please, for your health and ours, don’t join a fundamentalist church. I know you weren’t being serious, but most attacks on secularism and atheists come from fundies. We can’t take our chances.
Normally, I only have to hear their views and a dozen rebuttals come to mind, but yes, there are times when I am genuinely puzzled. Not by what they believe, and not so much by what one person believes, but when lots of people find validity in something that makes no sense, I do want to understand.
It isn’t always, but this might be an exceptional case. Tolga listed a lot of good reasons to do it publicly and as a group. I rarely have to label myself as such in person, somehow they just always seem to know. Funny, that….
And I’m pretty sure from your other postings that you didn’t mean to imply atheists believe in nothing, but that second sentence might be subject to misinterpretation, so you might want to clarify it.
Personal experience kwright5. Lots of conversations with friends that stop in anger the minute I ask a difficult question that points out a discrepancy in their belief. Conversations with my wife who is a devoted Methodist (for the record I love her dearly and we have a great marriage despite our deep religious differences). She freely admits that she does not want to think hard and critically about her religion- to her it just feels good and that is what is important. My wife knows for example that there never were three wise men following a guiding star but at last count I see 6 little nativity scenes proudly displayed in our home. My wife really avoids any situation that would force her to logically question her faith. It is something we just cant talk about.
Another example is the Mormon faith I was raised in. The Pearl of Great Price written by J.Smith states that God’s throne is on the planet Kolob (!). The Mormons I know really get uncomfortable and change the subject quickly when you bring this and some of the other truly bizarre Mormon factoids up. They just don’t want to know the real factual history behind Joseph Smith and will come up with all kinds of conspiracy theories to debunk the facts.
Probably the best example is a long conversation I had with my wife’s pastor over a sandwich in a local park last year. I would consider him to be an good hearted and intelligent person (Ivy league educated), at least in his ability to articulate himself. We were meeting so that I could express some of my concerns about my child’s involvement in my wife’s church and I had a really enjoyable conversation. What hit me though is an admission he made that my wife seconded - he said he was “Very simple minded”. He didn’t mean stupid, he just meant that he didn’t think about things in too much detail or too critically. He just accepted the doctrine of the church and had no burning desire to challenge it. To me that is an unthinkable way to live.
Maybe they forget that the Religious Reich is not the whole and sum total of Xianity, so they lump them all as Xians. I try to clarify which group I am talking about, but then as I commented above, I realize there are different groups on both sides.
Linda asked:
I think you have an idea concerning myself. For those who don’t, I’m not anti-religious or anti-god. I am anti-dogma though. I have very good friends who are liberal and progressive Xians. They also know that I have nothing against their beliefs- I just don’t necessarily agree. We can agree to disagree about the god of religion, yet I have found we agree very much about other things- such as the dogmatic ideology of religion. Most agree with my statements concerning dogma.
Well, there is a difference, but there isn’t. I think Tolga pretty much summed it up fairly well. Except I would refer you to the American Humanist Association: http://www.americanhumanist.org/index.html and Council for Secular Humanism: http://www.secularhumanism.org I also pointed out else where that there are Christian Humanists too, so you may want to check out the Sea of Faith website: http://www.sofn.org.uk I would also check out Positive Atheism (I can’t find the link off hand) and Strong Atheism website: http://www.strongatheism.net
Linda, that’s just it, I don’t believe in nothing. I believe in the ability of human beings to better themselves and society. I believe people have a lot more power than they think they do. I believe in many of the things that the Humanist Manifesto states (found on virtually every humanist site). I go by the Humanist Manifesto II and III, but CSH has the Manifesto 2000 (long story). This is not a belief in nothing. For me, Humanism is very spiritual, very liberating, and life affirming. Humanism is reason, compassion, and freedom.
Ooo! That’s a hard one, Linda. I’m with Joyce Carol Oates who said in the most recent The Humanist mag, “It has always been something of a mystery to me that intelligent, educated men and women-as well as the uneducated-can “have faith” in an invisible and nonexistent God. Why is humanism not the preeminent belief of humankind? Why don’t humans place their faith in reason and in the strategies of skepticism and doubt, and refuse to conced to “traditional” customs, religious convictions, and superstitions?”
As much as you believe Christianity is so great, I feel strongly that Humanism is the best stance to hold in life. Now, this does not mean I do not believe in the wide umbrella I spoke of, but the main focus should be the human, the human condition, without reliance on the supernatural. I do believe that Spong and Cupitt (see the Sea of Faith link) are Christian Humanists as much as I am a Religious Humanist, but none of use rely on any supernatural deity.
I don’t think anyone should be involved with the Fundies and/or Religious Reich. To get involved could cause more people to become delusional. No, they need to be dragged out of their little world and into reality. They need to know just how much damage they are doing to people- including themselves. Religious extremism is what cause problems in society and that needs to be fought and avoided.
As Tolga mentioned about joining our cause, this goes back to my statement about not knowing why Humanism is not the preeminent belief of everyone. I do not know everything about Humanism, but I know the basics and a little about individual subsections of Humanism. If I don’t know the answer, I know where I might be able to find it, yet at the same time, Humanism is also individual too. One can find the basics virtually on any Humanist site, but it is also as individual as the person.
I participated in the Blasphemy Challenge, and I honestly don’t feel bad about it at all. The reason behind it is frustration. We’re not saints, we’re just people. And sometimes we get really, really frustrated and just can’t take it any more. Is that a good thing? Who knows. But I can tell you that making the video felt good. It was like standing on my roof and screaming at the top of my lungs that I was sick and tired of people trying to save a thing (a soul) that I don’t even believe in, and I wanted them to stop it and get out of my life, because it’s my life and none of their business.
I really couldn’t say how a Christian would feel about me declaring that I don’t believe in any gods, and that I deny the holy spirit. But I know how I feel every time I hear a politician talking about using their religion in their decisions, every time I’m exposed to one more person wanting to curtail my rights and shame me as a woman because of a religious dogma. And I get really, really upset and really frustrated about it, and scared. I guess it’s a way to take a stand - an immature way, perhaps, but a way nonetheless - that not everyone believes in the same thing that Christians do, and not everyone wants to, and we have a voice and a face.
So I guess the question is one I’d turn back on the Christians (and I know, not all of you are like this - I have a great many Christian friends who are just lovely and wonderful and accepting, but it doesn’t make me feel much better when a man that doesn’t even know me looks me in the eye and tells me I deserve to suffer eternally) and say why can’t you just accept that we don’t believe this, that we’ll never believe this, and we don’t want to?
Atheists get insulted and belittled as a group all the time. After a while, some of us just run out of other cheeks to turn.
Yes, Claire. Thank you for pointing that out. I did not mean nothing. I meant absense of belief in a higher/bigger being. The word “atheist” implies the absense theology. So I just meant why not have a name that is the presence of something instead of the absence of something. “Humanism” is a word. “Secularism” is a word. “Christianity” is a word. But “Atheism” is a non-word. It’s a word that indicates that something is missing. I don’t know… It was just a fleeting thought. Just a fleeting question… I just wished you all had a name that meant the presence of something, to fit the respect I have for you. And then I can really try to convert you… (just kidding!)
It doesn’t matter to me, really. It was a dumb question.
Tolga and Mriana,
By question #4, I meant should the liberal Christains be talking to the fundamentalists to get them to have a more open mind rather than continuing to defend ourselves to atheists about their preconceptions about Christians? It seems to me that most atheists already have open minds about most things. It’s the religious who are close-minded. But they are not bad people. They are not (at least not the ones that I know) dangerous people. I was wondering if we, the open-minded Christians, should be wreaking havoc in their churches to help them think out of the religious box. Do you think they would kick us out?
Katsu, thank you for such an honest comment.
Believe me, I get insulted and belittled for being a Christian as well. Sometimes by my own family. But please allow me to apologize as a member of the group that has insulted and belittled you. It’s wrong for anyone to judge anyone else. We are all humans who are doing our best to survive and make sense of things… We are all trying to live the best way we know how.
Linda said;
I have to disagree on this, Linda. It’s a good word, and part of what it means for me is “no”. It means, stop assuming I believe what you believe. It means, stop trying to force a religion on me. It means, I know where I stand, so back off and leave me be.
Sometimes “no” can be a very positive word.
Linda, I think you have fallen victim to a way of thinking that society has imposed on everyone and that is a stigmatizing of the the word atheism. I am even guilty of that somewhat and prefer the word non-theist. The words atheist and atheism have been made to sound distasteful and shameful to the human mind by society- esp in the Bible Belt. It is far worse in the Bible Belt, but it is definitely a societal problem that needs to be change. The words non-theist and non-theism can sometimes get one into just as much of a headache sometimes too.
The difficulty is changing that. I don’t know how, esp when hardline Evangelical Bible Thumpers throw stones. Figuratively of course and if you live in the Bible Belt too, then you may understand the difficulty as well as the stigma I am talking about. Using the word and refusing stigmatism is the only way to overcome it though.
Given what has happened in the Episcopal Church, they might kick you out or you may find others who are thinking as you are and form a team. Then you may get kicked out together. The thing is, there are progressive Christians speaking out against these Religious Reichers, Fundies, whatever other label you can think of and sadly they have received death threats for speaking out against them. Death threats they had to take seriously.
Supposed Christians threatening the lives of other Christians. Nothings changed. It’s still the same historical story.
I can say, at best, they will just call you names. If that is all you have to deal with for speaking out against them to them, then be greatful that is all. You also have to ask yourself if you are willing to deal with the flap you may receive.
Since I don’t know what you should do, I can only tell you what I’d want you to do.
I think that if you feel you want to open people’s minds a bit, then you should try it. I see already that you at least are trying to understand our point of view. If you are willing to talk to the fundamentalists about us, at least help them understand our positions. I’d rather them see us as lost then as baby killers.
Religious people aren’t bad or dangerous on their own. The problem is their susceptibility to religious authority and the voting power they grant them. The fundies do what they think is right according to their churches, and the moderates don’t want to be caught on the other side. I know a guy that will only vote Republican because his church leaders tell him to.
Religion is government is dangerous, and as long as the moderates still sway in the direction of the fundamentalists in their political views, they will keep helping the fundies get power. The people aren’t dangerous, but their beliefs have much potential to be.
Like I said, understanding and tolerance are the goals. Their religious convictions may be too tough to get them to think anything more regarding the issue. I think that if they understand what secularism is, why it’s important, and why all humans must have the same humanistic rights, their actual understanding of atheism will also increase.
As for being kicked out:
If a system that’s supposed to be accepting of believers and that claims to be the link to the all-lovingness of the deity you believe in kicks you out of their church for extending love and understanding to outsiders… why would you want to stay?
Ellen
“to Devin: I’m an atheist because the evidence of the universe led to atheism. It was a traumatic discovery after 40+ years of believing in a loving, benevolent god.”
My interpretation of the info about big bang and stuff, gives me, at least arguments to believe that believing in a God can be as sane as being an atheist.
I think of the Necessary being as the prime cause of all existence (particles, quantum, energy)
Some atheists say, that instead, it is the universe itself, which has necessary existence (and therefore; has been around forever)
Friendly atheist
By the way, i like your name, it makes me smile to the ears (a sense of humour?)
Here’s my attempt to answer Linda’s questions:
To discredit something I have to understand it first. I think religion is an interesting topic and I do want to understand it.
I keep harping on capitalization but you got it right in your question. Atheism is just disagreement. I can capitalize Humanism because it’s a positive philosophy on how to live life. Some self-described “Atheists” might disagree with me, but what can I do? I’m not their pope.
To me capitalizing “atheism” and calling it a world view is almost as silly as capitalizing “theism” and calling it a world view. I’ll have to disagree here with Tolga, since I think the more useful definition of atheism is “lack of belief in any deity”. Actually this broader definition does include those strong atheists who truly have a positive belief in no gods because they still lack a belief that any exist.
It’s only necessary in our current social context. We wouldn’t need to describe the donut hole if there was no donut. I always say if the naturalistic world view was dominant then the minority of theists would be called “anaturalists”. Maybe someday the need for atheists will disappear, just like we don’t see many abolitionists in this country anymore.
It’s possible. I wouldn’t bet on that outcome though.
Everyone on the Internet would be more effective if they were out doing something instead of ranting on various blogs. I often feel guilty about that. There are many areas of the world that need improvement, but it seems that most of us can’t get beyond complaining about it to each other. Everyone is so caught up in the machine of daily life that the idea of going out and becoming an activist of some kind seems impossible and overwhelming. I guess knowing and being concerned about the problems of the world is better than complete ignorance, but the lack of action is something I worry about. Is the Internet really helping people communicate and organize, or is it just another distraction?
To Katsu,
I appreciate your honesty as well. I understand that frustration
However, I still do not understand why a person could have simply stated as high as the sky “I’m an atheist and I want to stay that way.” To me, this is just as effective because you are completely honest but it does not go into the core of the religion of Christianity. I mean I am curious. What did your Christian friends say about you taking the Blasphemy Challenge?
Maybe not, but I thought the Blasphemy Challenge was hilarious. Popping the unthinking mass of the religious in the nose was one of the best ways to wake them up, to make them take notice that hey, there are a bunch of people who aren’t in agreement with the march of Christianity over all other beliefs. Controversy works.
Besides, your silly beliefs are not off-limits to criticism. Not any more. There’s nothing special about Jebus or Yahweh that we can’t speak up against them. I know you people got in to some kind of power and started thinking you were above reproach, but it comes to this: Your god is a fiction, made up whole-cloth to make Bronze-Age goatherds less afrai