this post was submitted on
45 points (71% like it)
76 up votes 31 down votes

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own!

top 200 commentsshow all 342

[–]Olsettres 15 points16 points ago

First of all, identifying as a Christian, I very much seem to have the same issues with points 1-4 you listed. I'm in a bit of a grey area on point 5.

I also have a good friend who calls himself an antitheist, is quite into Hitchens and Harris, but yet we still manage to carry on some sort of a friendship outside the realm of religion. At the same time, I have a bunch of fundamentalist Christian friends from my years growing up in a private Christian school. While I disagree with both ends of the spectrum, they're all my friends. I think it might be a little extreme to completely separate yourself from someone who has a different ideology than you. This is hardest for me when dealing with my very conservative friends, but in the end I had to realise that we're all on our own individual journeys and I must not judge too harshly (unless of course they're perpetuating hateful ideology. Then I let my perspective be heard).

To answer your questions:

1) I do find Atheism appealing in that sometimes the concept of existing in some form (soul, whatever) for eternity freaks me out. Sometimes it's better to think that I'll simply fade out. Also, the way in which it would free my life from socio-religious baggage would be so refreshing. I could do whatever I wanted to do without feeling guilty about it.

2) In contrast, sometimes I find Christianity appealing in that the concept of existing forever is very comforting. Even more than that though, I cannot seem to logically conclude for certain that no god exists. I see more evidence for the existence of a God all around me in nature, in the big bang, in our universe, in science. So while I would love to dismiss religion as bullshit, I cannot seem to distance myself from the belief in a god of some sort.

So right now, I'm working out the details of that belief. I'm tending to settle toward Christian Universalism, which has provided me much more compassion, empathy, and hope in my perspective of the world than the strict, fundamentalism background I grew up in.

I just want you to know that while there are very sheltered Christians who can only see through what you call 'the Christian lense' and are unable to see suffering apart from attachment with Christian dogma, there are also those of us who very much identify with the struggles of the oppressed (whether they're minorities, the LGBT community, under-developed countries etc) and wish to help everyone without throwing in messages of certain hellfire and doom. (This is coming from an ex-missionary kid, who has seen first hand many destructive witnessing tactics in 'third world' culture)

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 6 points7 points ago

I can already tell you will be an important person to talk to, if you're willing. Your dispositions and inclinations leave a lot of room for back and forth and thats really where I'll be discovering any talking points.

If we do chat, how careful should we be about avoiding progression to a debate? I'll probably be asking everyone this.

[–]The_Meek 3 points4 points ago

Also, the way in which it would free my life from socio-religious baggage would be so refreshing. I could do whatever I wanted to do without feeling guilty about it.

I would like to disagree with this point. Though it is true that atheists do not fear the wrath of God, that does not mean that they won't feel guilty about bad actions committed. In fact, as an interesting thought experiment: who feels more guilty, a Christian who commits an atrocity and repents, or an atheist who commits an atrocity and lives unforgiven for the rest of his life?

[–]Olsettres 3 points4 points ago

I'm not talking morally black and white areas which would cause guilt in most any human society (such as rape, or murder).

I'm mostly talking the little issues that form perspectives or prejudices. For instance, the way in which I have been raised has made me very cautious and restrained toward premartial sex. I would love to simply act like a normal college student that I am, but the sense that God strong disapproves of such actions stops me, as well as the 18+ years of indoctrination stating that I will lose my value to men and that I will regret 'giving in' once I've 'found the man God wants for me'. In addition, though I don't want to view it this way, often I can't help thinking of a date through the lens of 'is this a potential partner who loves God and will guide my future home in a way that pleases the Lord?' rather than 'oh this guy seems cool, lets hang out and see where it goes' ... Psychologically it's been hard for me to try and get over.

Also its forced me to always think within a 'Christian' grid or worldview instead of being able to view things as objectively as possible. Neither of these examples stem from 'Christianity' per se, just heavily indoctrinated Christian culture- a Christian culture I would have a much easier time parsing through and dismissing if I were to adopt the ideology that God does not exist at all. As a college student, I've found it to really hamper my ability to view everything from multiple perspectives without thinking ' this ideology' is sinful or against Christian values. Furthermore, since I do believe God exists, it's been an equally difficult journey learning to where to draw the line in my own moral 'grey' areas.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]ekatya 6 points7 points ago

I don't have an issue with atheism. I'm married to an Atheist, but he isn't an anti-theist. He doesn't believe in anything metaphysical, but sees that some people find goodness and hope through faith. He does not approve of hateful or "brainwashing" Christianity, and neither do I. I consider "brainwashing" to mean that it is very exclusive and actively teaches to disregard or work against science and other normal areas of everyday life.

Why am I not an Atheist? I enjoy church, theology, and the Christian philosophy. I cannot say with 100% provable certainty that God exists, that Jesus is the son of God, and that Jesus existed as portrayed in the Gospels, etc. However, I choose to believe this despite the uncertainty and I don't let the uncertainty bother me. I find peace through the church and it offers me a spiritual home that I couldn't find other places.

Part of this is also because of the denomination I am part of. Episcopalians are progressive in their theology, accepting of everyone, and are very laid-back when it comes to faith and belief. We strive to help each other, and those outside the church, to be the best they can be and find our strength through the Bible, the liturgy, and the Book of Common Prayer. Other denominations do not necessarily have this church culture, and it definitely isn't the assumed norm when someone starts talking about Christianity in the USA.

[–]Erasmus92 4 points5 points ago

I'm sorry to somewhat change the subject from your post, but I'm somewhat interested in the Episcopal/Anglican Church. Do you feel that you can be "laid-back when it comes to faith and belief" and still remain strong in your faith, or does your church culture in effect take an intermediate position between Christianity and agnosticism?

[–]ekatya 1 point2 points ago

I think it encourages a stronger faith. When I say that it is laid-back, I mean that we are not highly demanding of each other; we understand that we will have times of strong, iron-clad faith and sometimes we will have doubts and questions. We don't demand that everyone be 100% rock solid all the time, we don't act like doubts never happen or that they are "dangerous". Everyone comes to God in their own way, in their own time. We accept people as they are. It is not our place to judge their worthiness at the altar, but we encourage the growth of faith.

I think this accepting attitude allows for a strong and stable faith to develop. You don't have to have a sudden "come to Jesus" moment. You can say "I'm not sure I want to do that right now" and it's ok. You can come with any concern or question and several of us will sit down, talk and listen with you, and share our stories (and have coffee. We always have coffee.)

There is a lot of variance between individual beliefs in the Episcopal Church. The foundation is the same, but at any time you can find people who come to church who are agnostic but follow Christ, those who are moderate in faith, and those who are evangelistic. But, as one of our "official" sayings paraphrases," we are here for you, wherever you are on your spiritual journey".

ps. This may be a double post, I'm having some funky comment-posting-ness.

[–]Erasmus92 0 points1 point ago

Thank you, that is a very enlightening answer. It's kind of funny to me that your church on the outside is marked by its ecclesiastical hierarchy, after all, it is the Episcopal Church, and would presumably be rigid. In fact, however, it seems to be unusually flexible.

you can find people who come to church who are agnostic but follow Christ, those who are moderate in faith, and those who are evangelistic.

So do I understand correctly that there would be room for someone who is more theologically traditional/orthodox, as long as she were accepting of other peoples' spiritual journeys?

[–]ekatya 1 point2 points ago

Absolutely. As long as a person is polite and accepting of others, than it's all cool. We really don't like drama caused by someone demanding beliefs of others. The most common problem Episcopalians run into with this is that we accept and have women, gays, and lesbians in our clergy and all through the clerical hierarchy, and we that we are not Biblical literalists. Though we would accept someone with these beliefs into the church, if it was going to cause the person major spiritual strife and they didn't want to reconsider their position, it may be better for them, as an individual, to be part of another church.

Faith is both a very public and very private thing. We have the structured, common liturgy that unites us, but we are all individuals as well. Think of it like a big family gathering every Sunday where Uncle Bob has some more conservative ideas, Cousin Gina is finding her way through some things right now, Aunt Laura just came back from an equal rights protest, and all the other family members have their own stories, personalities,and beliefs, but they all come together in one place, connected. An Episcopal parish is like that, though with more variation, but we are all connected and choose to come together and work together in Christ.

That being said, as with any large group, parishes do have internal conflict and some people just aren't as accepting as others. There are aggressive personalities and passive personalities in all parishes, but overall, when it comes to the "important" stuff, everyone is civil and works past their differences.

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 1 point2 points ago

I'd like to you hear some of the questions I'm working on, are you willing?

[–]ekatya 1 point2 points ago

Sure. I'll answer anything you want.

[–]johntheChristian 6 points7 points ago

I do not find atheism appalling. It is perfectly understandable position, and any Christian who tells you he has always been 100% sure about the existence of God is probably lying.

Regarding your second question, I don't find atheism appalling because I get it. I have doubted the existence of God and when I doubt I am not being irrational, so I know rational people can disagree with me.

The Reason I cannot embrace atheism is because I know God. I know that is entirely subjective and unprovable, but to a person of faith it is very difficult to ignore. I have seen him and felt him in my life, I have trusted him through situations in which I saw no way through and found myself coming through them time and time again. I know the word confirmation bias is flying through your head right now, but faith is sometimes something that can't be helped, it is in some ways not something we hold to but holds to us. Every time i doubt, I return. Everytime I question i still hold on. It just doesn't quit.

Regarding your points

*I don't know if i consider homosexual sex is God's intention or not. Contrary to common perception, there are many christians and christian groups out there that do not believe homosexuality is sinful. I do not believe sexual orientation is sinful as there is no control over it. Lastly Homsosexuals are people made in the image of God, deserving of compassion, dignity, love, respect and all things pertaining to human beings.I do not know if homosexuality is a sin, but I know homophobia is.

*barking up the wrong tree here, I and many other Christians are theistic Evolutionists. Evolution presents no threat to the christian faith, only overly literal interpretations of the liturgical/poetic piece that is the first chapter of genesis. Even long before the Theory of Evolution many prominent Christians were questioning a literal reading of the work.

  • Can you clarify what you mean by request based intercessory prayer?

*Some passages of Scripture are intended to be interpreted literally, others such as prophesy and poetry not so much. I am certainly for textual criticism and the reading of scripture in proper context.

*I am against elective abortion for the purposes of birth control. But my views are hardly simplistic. If you have any specific questions I'm open to answering them.

Thank you for your honesty and attempt to avoid bigotry. If more theists and atheists were willing to do this I honestly believe the world would be a better place.

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 4 points5 points ago

Can you clarify what you mean by request based intercessory prayer?

Any time you ask God to "do" in prayer. There is a categorical difference between praying to the lord to give you the strength, the will, the wisdom, the clarity etc... to act as compared to asking God to heal, to solve, to resolve, to achieve.

More in the vein of Harris than Hitchens, I find these request-prayers satiate the mind, regardless of any accomplishment. Such satisfaction would be looked down upon in nearly any other context, yet we indulge in it through faith. Not just the US either, though I don't have a good example on hand. Bonhoeffer speaks of several, but I fear those are grossly out of date. I am convinced this act of putting attackable problems in God's hands is indefensible even theologically (thinking of The Brothers Karamazov here). It's one area which I cannot empathize with and I am thoroughly convinced of it's future danger and past harm.

It seems you are someone whom could contribute greatly to the questions I intend to design, are you willing to hear them?

[–]BranchDavidian 2 points3 points ago

I'm paraphrasing something I've heard but it goes something like "often times when you feel like God isn't answering your prayers it's because He wants you to be the answer. If you're able to be the answer then you should probably take that as a sign that you're supposed to be the answer." This was said by someone who very strongly believes in intercessory prayer and the gifts of the Spirit and teaches on both. I can't personally heal cancer but I can pray for those with cancer. I can help the poor and needy so I do both. I would also just like to give you this as food for thought that most NGO charitable aid organizations are religion based. I've been to Haiti several times and it seems like 90% of the aid I see being issued over there comes from Christian missions so I wouldn't make the mistake of thinking that Christians only pray so as not to take personal responsibility for their neighbors when many, many Christians are taking personal responsibility though it doesn't get talked about much in atheist circles, because why would it?

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 1 point2 points ago

These statistics are well expected based on the distribution of wealth, the distribution of Religion and the distribution of community.

While I agree, it means Christians are obviously not just praying the worlds problems away but actually acknowledge responsibility, the total number of peace workers and providers vs the numbers of idle hands in religion is unlikely to be a happy metric.

[–]jaxcooo 0 points1 point ago

That is certainly true but could you not say pretty much the same thing about any other religion/worldview/etc?

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 2 points3 points ago

You absolutely can, thats exactly why you cannot indulge the heart warming take away the the vast majority of active peace workers claim to be motivated by their Christianity.

[–]BranchDavidian 0 points1 point ago

The way I see it is that God is still moving in people in such a way that more people are being inspired to pursue the most amount of good. So much still needs to be done, but God's calling on people is raising some to the challenge. The apathetic are everywhere, but the calling of God for people is, I believe, where it starts to happen. I see all good as flowing from God regardless of titles. The apathetic will be the apathetic whatever they choose to call themselves, but by nature their apathy reveals their unwillingness to attain a more deeply understood belief system outside of what is easiest to be labeled as for their social climate geographically.

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 0 points1 point ago

Can you comment a little on the idea of God calling people? That has been an area that I find varies greatly from account to account and I find myself always looking for more examples and explanations when I attempt to empathize with that idea.

[–]BranchDavidian 0 points1 point ago

The idea of God calling people is both simple and a little vague as it actually does vary some from person to person in how exactly they hear from God. It is basically the "still, small voice" that is informing you of what route would be best to pursue and what kind of vocation/ministry you are meant/best equipped to fulfill. It's also the idea that you have a divine purpose since before you were born. obviously not everyone fulfills their calling, but I believe the calling is always to helping the lives of others, while simultaneously granting the one who's walking out their calling with joy and peace beyond understanding.

[–]inyouraeroplane 0 points1 point ago

Such satisfaction would be looked down upon in nearly any other context, yet we indulge in it through faith. Not just the US either, though I don't have a good example on hand. Bonhoeffer speaks of several, but I fear those are grossly out of date. I am convinced this act of putting attackable problems in God's hands is indefensible even theologically (thinking of The Brothers Karamazov here).

Could you summarize what you mean? Is prayer looked down upon in modern Europe? What in The Brothers Karamazov makes such prayers indefensible?

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 1 point2 points ago

In the very same way a great many of us feel compelled to tell the world when we've done something so trivial as give away out money for free, so too are we gratified by praying for others. Praying for God to heal our sick or praying for God solve a problem. This is a gross misuse of prayer.

If prayer serves any purpose to man kind, it is not put our desires out to the God of the universe so that those desires can be solved, but for him to bring his wisdom to us so that we may solve the problems ourselves.

In the Brothers Karamazov the monks are heavily criticized as being lofty and their mysticism frequently makes waves that the less faithful scoff at. The juxtaposition in the book demonstrates that starting any analysis of any event from the presumption of it being God's will is a dangerous game. Such as when the elder's corpse starts to stink.

The same logic applies to praying for god to intercede, to act on our behalf, one must first make the assumption that the willful act of God is desirable and that he should acknowledge our desire for a specific outcome. This is the extreme arrogance and danger of intercessory prayer.

[–]bezjones 42 points43 points ago

Sorry that this is gonna be short because I'm on my way out the door right now, but reply to me if you're interested and I'll get back to you.

Just looking at your bullet points, none of those are really "Christian" viewpoints, they're all cultural. I take it you're in America? As a Christian who lives in Europe I can assure you that this is not the majority view of Christians.

I don't consider atheism appalling, I consider all of mankind to be depraved and I thank God for his grace.

[–]jeezfrk 16 points17 points ago

I don't consider atheism appalling, I consider all of mankind to be depraved and I thank God for his grace.

This is the good point. The rather consistent tone of "those Christians hate us so we must remember they are our enemies" is just a phenomenon of late on the Internet in r/atheism and its an adolescent one at best. There may be many "Christians" who form simple bigotry or have a view of atheists as "outsiders" or self-declared "libertines" but ... well they are not in the real cosmopolitan world. As our European brethren note, many Christians do very well to note they are a minority. Some atheists have attempted to convince me there is no open support for drinking or sex or drugs anywhere within the confines of the United States and I'm afraid I have to disagree in the extreme.


The only statement I would make as a Christian is that an atheist is a bit more likely to be hard to pin down morally. It is often an evasive statement to be an atheist, these days, as it is only a "protest vote". It is an endless question to ask about and the only reply is just offense that it is asked. For many (unless they define themselves as Humanist, which is a more clear statement) there is no discussing their model of ethics and they feel common sense is obvious [which history shows it is not]. Its very very likely, in fact, they share a very Judeo-Christian sense of morality and that's what they've adopted to carry out.

There are completely a-moral people who state they are such and atheism is a natural attraction for them to throw off any false impressions, and there are those who are attracted to the unencumbered new start they feel they have in a moral standard.

The only extreme similar problem in our country, stated once by a fellow Christian from Brazil, is that those (esp. politicians) who declare loudly that they are Christian can at times be seen to be the least predictable because their morality may very well include lying to cover whatever activities they like. Openly declare you're in the majority and then from there you can re-moralize everything.

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 3 points4 points ago

Its very very likely, in fact, they share a very Judeo-Christian sense of morality and that's what they've adopted to carry out.

This is a dangerous statement. The motivation behind the morality matters because it plays a huge roll in the context of the morality. In that way, even educated Christian morality fundamentally differs from educated secular humanist and/or scientific morality.

This distinction only gets more and more important as it gets to the individuals who are actually partaking in the works -- the ways in which these moral assessments are acted upon.

[–]jeezfrk 1 point2 points ago

even educated Christian morality fundamentally differs from educated secular humanist and/or scientific morality.

I heartily disagree. Humanism is utterly impoverished and speechless in the face of base foundations of morality. It comes often down to "equality is good to notice, but not to extremes" and "suffering of anyone is pretty much a bad thing". After that the lambasting of other groups seems to commence because there's so little to say.

Many have the fascinating little euphemism of Judeo-Christian long-term and pan-social mores ... saying "poor choices were made" or "good choices were made" but that means nothing. Others value a "benefit to society" over short term benefits, but that has huge holes and exceptions as well because what is a "benefit"? Confucianism devotes itself fiercely to "social order" and yet repels many secularists. Still others imply that politeness and pleasantries are the nature of Humanist Righteousness.. but that gives no barrier to hiding problems deep down in horrible ways. Others give the non-answer that "balance is the answer to everything" and end the discussion there without questions.

Post-Modern / Deconstruction thought has even come up with an entire fairy-tale system of morality, one that they impose but never question because it follows the fairy-tale they generate every time. Their great crusade is to bringing down all too-precise moral discourses because they assuredly violate either (A) their own slightly related bases of morality, usually by hearsay or association or (B) violate an undefined sense of "fairness" and promote a need for "retribution that leads to equality" somehow. Thereby we found in the 90s that white males were at the bottom of the barrel but couldn't confront the white males actually listening with a single real crime they could halt or pay compensation for.

Utterly impoverished.

If we DO start with more self-consistent types of morality.. the field does not look much better. Other branches of philosophy about ethics, ones assuredly that have no need of Judeo-Christian culture, often come down to might-is-right and selfish-victory-defines-the-righteous.

So in almost all cases I've EVER seen.. its a Judeo-Christian basics. These usually come down to (A) fairness is due everyone by their being "created equal", a sense of (B) sin does exist in life and temptation in all people and it must then be rejected with forgiveness offered someday for the sinner, (C) an allowance that anyone can discover a universal truth at any time (even if via an unattractive messenger) and lastly (D) possessions and positions prove no real moral quality of anyone but only show some effort may have been repaid well in previous times. Many of these are directly contrary to other social systems... yet most in the West will adhere tightly to them without knowing why.

[–]zspade 13 points14 points ago*

Just a minor quibble, since you're claiming Christianity as the source of humanist values. This is a terribly silly argument, as these values existed long before christianity did. Let's just pick one other religion/philosophy, buddhism, which was around 500 years before Christ was born.

(A) fairness is due everyone by their being "created equal", a sense of

(Bu) "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights"

(B) sin does exist in life and temptation in all people and it must then be rejected with forgiveness offered someday for the sinner,

(Bu) Self control and avoidance of temptation is the central theme of Buddhism. You cannot reach nirvana if you are tempted by mara (demons).

(C) an allowance that anyone can discover a universal truth at any time (even if via an unattractive messenger)

(Bu) "Buddhahood(Universal truth/nirvana) itself is within the reach of all human beings ... and if all could attain Buddhahood what greater equality in dignity and rights can there be?"

(D) possessions and positions prove no real moral quality of anyone but only show some effort may have been repaid well in previous times. Many of these are directly contrary to other social systems... yet most in the West will adhere tightly to them without knowing why.

(Bu) This is a central tenant of Buddhism, a them running through most of what buddha taught. I could offers one quote, but buddha said much on this particular subject.

There are many other christian doctrines that existed before christianity (golden rule for example), so how can you even begin to claim Christianity as the original/only source?

Edit: formatting

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 4 points5 points ago

You've built a strawman out of humanism while puffing up judeo-christian values. I would absolutely love to respond, but I'm concerned my authority on the matter will be first to be shot down.

Please direct me to your source for these and I will investigate it directly.

[–]jeezfrk -1 points0 points ago

(Oh please don't degenerate this when you could reply to my points without rancor.)

You've stated some real positions rather politely and I've replied from my own broad experience of four decades. This, therefore, need not be too formal. Given I cannot recount all of their origins (but could come up with many of recent times) .. I will accept your OWN sources by simply seeing the details mentioned within them. Sometimes just hearing the story is enough to consider the anecdotes important.

The details are what count. I say there aren't popular foundations of ethics that don't rely on those last four points (points derived from many Biblical stories, even if not often obeyed in Christian culture)... and I stated what they are.

You can, as it were, go ahead and say "Yes there are secular and independent foundations", accepted ones that are just as fundamental as those I listed. That simply engages all readers and ourselves in a higher discussion from our confidence in facts in our own persons.

If it were formal.. we could dig down deeper... but I'm disappointed that I cannot find any failure of my thesis about Secular ethics.


I will try and help... you could point out how genuine genetics/origins science has at LEAST removed a good degree the West's obsession with race and ancestry. Marriage is free-er now, so ancestry means little in normal life. Race makes little to no difference across almost all civilized ideals. Many roles are being reduced to "equality" simply because there is no reason to avoid it as we use utilitarian "work ethic" and "creativity" and "benefit to society" as a sort of general cover for defining a social good.

My question, then, is why use those critieria. We deliberately defy considering "productivity" for the poor and disabled. We do not believe might defines right. We don't consider "social good" to be that important at ALL in the face of independent thought and free speech. Where do we found these principles, then?

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 4 points5 points ago

This will take time. I'll get back to you as soon as I can.

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 3 points4 points ago

Oh yes, I'm aware they are not core Christian values.

I don't consider atheism appalling, I consider all of mankind to be depraved and I thank God for his grace.

A question customized for you then. What makes you certain that atheism is not right for you? Obviously the overwhelming truth of God, please try to allow yourself some time and thought energy beyond that.

[–]bezjones 10 points11 points ago

What makes you certain that atheism is not right for you?

Personal experience. This is subjective and you have no reason to believe me. I don't blame you, so that is why I don't argue from that standpoint.

Now that those bullet points are out of the way, what makes you certain that Christianity is not right for you?

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 9 points10 points ago

Personal experience. This is subjective and you have no reason to believe me. I don't blame you, so that is why I don't argue from that standpoint.

It's important to me that I get a picture. It's important for how I approach my friend. It's important because I know I won't be able to catch myself getting bitter when that loss sets in. And it's important that if she comes back and decides seminary I can still be a friend to her.


I know Christianity is not for me because in the depths of my empathy, no part of the Christian model is personally gratifying. Faith in God registers as hope, but it's unreliably good. As I spend more and more time wearing that hope I gradually (with many steps, not just slow) become acutely aware of how that same faith was invoked and is still being invoked to commit atrocities. That tells me the model prone to failure and while I may succeed, I am merely perfecting that which is error prone while doing little or nothing to discover where the holes are or how to fix them.

We make it worse with each successive generation that we raise on these values. We, the followers, make it possible to self-identify Christian without any knowledge of what considerations one takes in order to expound scripture. I can very easily relate to how a young person might have all the requisite motivation to be certain he wants to do good in the world, but not actually be well equipped (mentally and emotional, let alone theologically) to do so with just a his Bible in hand. Maybe he does some good, but the quality of faith he passes on may not. That meme lives on; fractured and cancerous in what-ever small group he impregnated.

Moving through these issues, I am met time and time again with the idea that the super natural is a reliable framework through which one may exploit other people. Those who are willing to be exploited and those who are clever and cruel enough to exploit are both responsible. The responsibility is not on the society to punish these people, it's on the individual to recognize fraud and resit. Most do, but how can they not when the reduction is to a matter of faith. Even our sciences are subject to this failure when the assumption is made that science is sound and given blind faith. Prayer beads and the panacea.

And the text. When I indulge the part of me that knows the scriptures are her to provide me guidance, I catch myself in the act of exposition, making decisions on what this means to me. How this message from God, to me applies. I catch myself in the masturbatory act of cold-reading my own decisions. I immediately see both sides. It works, it does provide me guidance, but the guidance comes from within and passes through the scriptures as a tool. And I can see how that is God working through me. I can see how that gives the message power but I also see that were I not ready to receive it, there's plenty of rough shit in the bible for me to expound into vitriol. And I know that doubt can manifest as a crisis of faith. And I know it's normal. I know it might be healthy. That it's best to treat it as a test and have faith. To treat it as a test and be resolute. To give myself up to God's intentions so that I know I am acting in the best interests.

... but I know that's all me too. I know it because I inferred a great deal from what the brain is doing when I pray. I tried to learn a lot about what the brain might be doing. When you're in love. When you remember an old friend. When you kiss someone. When you orgasm. Those inferences are real too, and relevant. And I know in that moment of God, that chemistry is working and doing and in the same way as the Muslim praying to Alah, the buddhist meditating, and the heathen reading.

This is the moment where my ruminations fail to pick God every time. Those transcendtal moments where you race through what you know faster than is comfortable and much faster than you can say. I have moments where I feel as though I'm soaking it all in. The good with the bad. And at those moments I think about how when I ruminate on the natural world. I build bridges in my mind, run amazing lines of logic and implication and that it's moments like this that account for the greatest thoughts that have ever been thought and I am so fucking lucky I even got to spent one single second indulging such an experience.

<begin, what I like to call, brain vomit> I travel from deep inside myself, my neuro-chemistry where neuro-transmitters are maintaining levels that support a framework for my love, happiness and trust to coalesce on different targets. And I recognize that it's easier, it's easier for it to coalesce on a human target, but why? It's because that's been our progression. Our society is so adaptable. We've evolved adaption skills that create statistical need for perceiving causality and with that perception, the gift of all culture, the human condition and emotional mechanics. So from that little brain child of evolution, I can surmise that it's easier for all these feelings to coalesce on a human, not because of the spark of God, but because the framework targets humans. That can explain so much. It explains the uncanny valley and it explains why the logic that if men can marry men, whats to stop them from marrying animals argument. It's got logical and philosophical implications and it started from one idea. And I can keep going or I can stop. And I can always keep going or I can stop. I can cash out and go check those ideas. See if they make sense, see if the science is there. I can fret over if it's correct or not and in my life time have some hope to be know. I can fret over if it's moral or not and have some context for what that means and why it might mean that. </brain vomit>

And it occurs to me rather plainly. Religion does not offer me this. It offers others. But not me. Education, on the other hand. Education gives this gift and asks nothing in return. Science demands to be known in the same way that someone might assume the universe demands to be noticed [The Fault in our Stars]. Science demands education. So science is for me.

TL;DR: It all comes down to gratification. For me, I got it into my head that the righteous path can be more than walked, more than lived -- it can be understood. I might be able to find this Buddhism but I do not believe the emphasis on the spiritual is quite as reliable as the emphasis on the empirical. I am convinced that I can never find this in Christianity, for I will not have a chance to understand until I relieved of this world. The best I can do until then is strive for faith and it's clear to me that such a mentality concedes a great risk to the human world.

[–]bezjones 3 points4 points ago

Thanks for taking the time to reply with an honest, thoughtful response. For many years I had been an agnostic-atheist until taking the "leap of faith" to use a cliché, and become a Christian.

Believe it or not, I can totally relate to everything you've put. In fact, at times I was wondering if I was reading my own writing! I've spent countless hours thinking about these issues as I'm sure you have and I can only tell you this: whether you decide on Atheism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, or anything else, these thoughts will always linger.

So to answer your TL;DR: You're not going to find total gratification whilst you still walk the earth. Sorry. Atheists love to talk about empirical knowledge, I did to when I was an unbeliever. Empirical evidence does not dispel the idea of a creator God, nor does it even make it any less likely... but I digress.

It's clear to me that such a mentality concedes a great risk to the human world.

I think you should ask yourself honestly if you really believe that. I dare you to spend some time with some Bible believing Christians, to go to Church, to read about Jesus and study the early church in Acts (using non-biblical texts as well of course), study about the effects of the Christian church in the world today, especially in the area of global poverty and social justice, and ask yourself again if you really believe that sentence.

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 3 points4 points ago*

"The joy I experienced when I put your God in a bubble is second in absolute magnitude only to my own ignorance of the universe. I remind myself every day just how small the earth is. Mark my words, your God is even smaller than that. Even smaller than us (You and I)."

I foolishly once said this to that friend I spoke so fondly of in my opening post. Sometimes I wish I was still bitter enough to just say that to you directly, but hating theism just doesn't make me happy any more. Maybe because I see through my own hatred, or maybe just because I love her enough to recognize that if she liked me as much as I like her now, those words would have absolutely sucked to hear.

The one thing I do know, since made myself think about it until I was done. Those words didn't stop being something I believed because I thought I was wrong about religion.

Thank you for your thoughtful post and your measured words. I will be studying all religions for at least a couple years yet, so your advice is noted and happily redundant.

[–]Raptor-Llama 3 points4 points ago

So science is for me.

What?

Science is not a philosophy or religion. Science isn't even comparable. Science is the objective study of the physical world. We cannot use science to test the meta physical. We cannot objectively test whether killing a man is moral or not, or to see right and wrong. It can help explain the unexplained, which will lead to a greater understanding which allows us to make superior moral choices (such as: we shouldn't burn these trees because they provide oxygen to these people and they would die because of it), but it does not allow us to examine morality. Science is a neutral, unrelated force, a power. Education (meaning general education, not moral education, which, for the argument's sake, falls under the philosophical/religious category) and science are both powers that, in the immoral hands, can result in great evil, like the Nazi experiments on Jews. In the right, moral hands, it can result in much good, like modern medicine. They are two different entities that must be used together, not one or the other. We believe that Christian morality is the greatest morality because, to put it in an extremely simplified manner, it teaches why to love all human beings and how to do it. You can argue that humanism is a superior philosophy, but you cannot argue that science is superior, because the two are separate. It's like saying trans-humanism is superior to democracy.

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 4 points5 points ago

These observations assume a lower objective of the human condition than we currently have. It also assumes a much lower ability to model human behavior than we currently have.

Science is the objective study of the physical world. We cannot use science to test the meta physical. We cannot objectively test whether killing a man is moral or not, or to see right and wrong.

We are compelled not to kill a man not by any metaphysical mandate, but because we have the tools to understand at least one of many reasons why this might not be in our best self-interest, the best self interests of one or more groups to which we belong. Should these incentives fail to engender wrongness, empathy can address this directly. Should we have reasons not to identify with this individual, social structure creates external reasons to avoid such an act. And if all else fails our default disposition would require a motivator incentivize the attack. The virtue of this model is that it can echo true for every snapshot of human community going as far back to the plainswalkers.

Most acts of violence exist in spite of this model because of overriding circumstance, but our outsourced moral codes would have us believe it's the other way around. Where is the evidence that our default dispositions default to violence?

It can help explain the unexplained, which will lead to a greater understanding which allows us to make superior moral choices (such as: we shouldn't burn these trees because they provide oxygen to these people and they would die because of it), but it does not allow us to examine morality.

The inclusion of that causality demonstrates that no metaphysics need to be invoked to make an assessment of morality here. It follows the same model I just mentioned, but with a added transitive step. It is not by luck we have the ability to resolve the discontinuities.

I encourage you to watch the Nova program "becoming human" very entertaining for what is too often a dry PBS science program.

Education (meaning general education, not moral education, which, for the argument's sake, falls under the philosophical/religious category) and science are both powers that, in the immoral hands, can result in great evil, like the Nazi experiments on Jews.

Hitler recognized that his power required the access that churches provide. The third Reich implemented a war-crazed form of Christianity to achieve it's goals. Commenting on the corruptible nature of science is not compelling, if you are going to invoke a group which was devicive enough to use Religion as well.

you cannot argue that science is superior

We can agree here. Moral superiority is a trait of a people, not of a worldview.

[–]Raptor-Llama 2 points3 points ago

Sorry for what's going to be a lot of jumping around and may not address all your points, though I'll try, I only have so much time.

Where is the evidence that our default dispositions default to violence?

The Stanford Prison experiment demonstrates man's inherit propensity towards evil. Violence is a part of it, but general evil is the main point. Sometimes, the only thing restriction men from exercising evil is a lack of power. Consider most of the modern world lives in democracy now. Why is that? It seems that throughout history, there have always been Tyrant dictators. It's easy to say Hitler is evil, but what if Hitler was only as evil as any other angry, racist, misguided man? The only difference between the two is one is in a position of power and the other is not. Power doesn't corrupt, but it rather it allows the execution of the desire of evil that is already there.

Hitler recognized that his power required the access that churches provide. The third Reich implemented a war-crazed form of Christianity to achieve it's goals. Commenting on the corruptible nature of science is not compelling, if you are going to invoke a group which was devicive enough to use Religion as well.

Yes, Hitler corrupted religion. The main difference is that it was corrupted. He believed, as you said, in a crazed Christianity. He believed in an Aryan Jesus that hated Jews, or something to that extent. If anyone read the scriptures they would quickly see that what he preached was heresy, unfortunately Germany was so desperate at that time they didn't really care, and those who did were usually sent to the camps. Essentially he piled religion onto his cause to gain more support, even if the religion contradicted his cause. But this religion was perverse and a lie; the science Mengele did was legitimate science (or at least I believe so). Regardless, my point is not to say that science is evil, but rather it is neutral, capable of both bad and good, while still being legitimate science. Christianity is only negative when it's perverted by men like Hitler or Fred Phelps, who are not "doing legitimate Christianity", as their actions are contrary to the fundamental teachings. You can still adhere to the scientific process and do any number of unspeakable acts, because science is not a moral compass, nor does it attempt to be. It's, simply put, a way to understand the world we live in.

The inclusion of that causality demonstrates that no metaphysics need to be invoked to make an assessment of morality here. It follows the same model I just mentioned, but with a added transitive step. It is not by luck we have the ability to resolve the discontinuities.

But suppose the discoverers said "let us burn these trees because these people don't deserve to live." With the same scientific knowledge, they came to a radically different conclusion. We see this as an atrocity, but if we hated those people, or believed they were guilty, we would not see fault in this. Perpetrators of crime always believed they are justified before committing the act, and sometimes after. An "evil" man does not see himself as evil, he always does good in his own eyes. He believes that his actions are in his own interest, and often these men only care for their own interest because they have lost all concern for others because of pride. Pride in oneself, or thinking of oneself highly or superior, can have some of the worst consequences imaginable. If one only looks after their own interests, once they gain enough power and others don't become as important, then abuse of power is almost inevitable.

I'm not sure if that was all reasonable, especially the last paragraph, so apologies if I failed to present my point coherently.

[–]jimjonj 5 points6 points ago

This is an extremely honest answer I do not see much from Christians. I think it's because Christians have to believe their view is objective. Viewing religion as a subjective view (which I do) makes them all (or lack thereof) objectively equal in validity.

I'll answer your question from my point of view. Christianity is not right for me because I tend to require empirical evidence before I hold something as true. Sure there are certain things I have a subjective view on, but i would not ever express them as objective truth. There is where religion makes it's mistake.

[–]Nattfrosten 14 points15 points ago

I do not have any problems with atheists, since it's a fully respectable view of the world in my eyes, and I think that God will eventually save everyone, regardless of faith.

The reason I'm not atheist, is because I do not have an atheistic worldview, since I'm a theist.

I see the labels of atheists and theists as a way to show what they believe (or don't), and even though I can see why some chose atheism (MANY here in Sweden) I do believe in a God.

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 4 points5 points ago

Will you indulge a different question?

Why would atheism not work for you? What makes you certain that it lacks something fundamental that your religion abounds in? I know the temptation is to answer God. But beyond that. What about God, and can you phrase that with respect to yourself?

[–]lollerkeet 2 points3 points ago

Why would atheism not work for you?

I think this is a strange question. We don't intentionally decide what we believe.

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 1 point2 points ago

I think this is a strange question. We don't intentionally decide what we believe.

I think this is a strange observation.

If you don't decide what you believe, from where did the belief come?

[–]lollerkeet 1 point2 points ago

We believe what appears to be true. I for one cannot force myself to believe things (if I could, I would still be Christian). The ability to believe what you want despite appearances would be potentially disastrous.

"There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things." "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 1 point2 points ago

By saying that we believe in what appears to be true, we are grounding what ever that idea is in the self, our experiences. We know that humans are capable of hypothetical that indulge aspects far beyond the self through the versatility of human empathy.

One may ultimately build their self out of apparent truths, but they can no doubt choose to override the significance of one over another. Beliefs are still subject to conscious review.

[–]Nattfrosten 3 points4 points ago

I do believe in God based on personal reasons, that's not possible to prove true or false.

I find that having Jesus/God as something perfect establishes a fundamental thing to strife to try to be like.

If there's no God, everything is just complex, empty house of cards, without real cards. Nothing can be proven to be better than anything else, it's entirely subjective, and has no inherent meaning if you start to dig a bit into what you think and do.

I do respect people who can live like this, but I can't.

I also respect people that think that there's nothing to reality but ones own mind (impossible to prove wrong, the inherent burden of proof should be to establish that there exist anything at all), but I can't live like that either, and think they are wrong, based on personal premises.

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 2 points3 points ago

If there's no God, everything is just complex, empty house of cards, without real cards. Nothing can be proven to be better than anything else, it's entirely subjective, and has no inherent meaning if you start to dig a bit into what you think and do.

If I present arguments, can you judge the merits of those arguments contrasted against this initial assessment. The possibility is of descending into debate is very high, how important is it to you that we avoid this possibility?

[–]Nattfrosten 3 points4 points ago

I am currently fully debating my Christian brethren a few posts up in this thread, I guess I can take a few points from an atheist as well.

Please try to make the arguments clear though, and before we start, what exactly do you want to show me? That things have inherent worth?

I am fully aware that you can give certain things worth, and I am fully aware that many can live like this (such as most of my friends, who're atheists)

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 2 points3 points ago

I'd like to start by understanding a little bit more about what you mean by the empty house of cards.

I also need a better idea of what you mean by worth. While I easily fit into a discrete school of thought on objective worth and I can empathize with many more, I have never been lead to believe that such worth is useful to atheistic philosophy or Religion. I guess it comes as a huge surprise to me that it even ended up in your reply.

[–]Nattfrosten 1 point2 points ago

By empty house of cards, I mean that when doing the "why-game" (ask why? why? why? as little kids tend to do) on why we do things, we can't give a good answer.

It often comes down to self-preservation, genes, or society, all of which I can't see a singly inherent meaning in, as they all have none.

By worth I mean that they have an inherent meaning to them, not based on individual thoughts. I have problems to find an object like this, except for God.

Please ask me questions to clarify if you need to.

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 1 point2 points ago

This saddens me greatly.

Why is the grand reduction pointing to society, (the other two are not strictly accurate so lets call them) self interest and/or biology (etc.) implicitly worse than explanation by the supernatural?

The meaning ought to be self evident, can you think of any reason why it is not?

[–]Nattfrosten 2 points3 points ago

I am sorry I made you sad.

I am also sorry that I'm not using the right terms, I have no formal education on this subject, this is just my thoughts.

I do not mean that being created by a god gives any inherent value.

The thing I mean is that God sent Jesus as a way to show how to be perfect. Jesus said that every law can be summed up by this; Luke 10:27

27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.

What does this give us? A direction.

By being a Christian, we have an example set before us, a thing that is perfect.

Life now suddenly gets a value, since we have something that shows what we should strife for, since we now have something that is inherently perfect.

If you still have anything to ask, please do :)

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 2 points3 points ago

If I propose to you, nontheist based direction can you attempt to out yourself in an atheist context and answer the question "Can I accept this or is it still wrong?"

[–]thelogster 7 points8 points ago

God will eventually save everyone, regardless of faith

And where does He say that !?

[–]Nattfrosten 4 points5 points ago

Romans 5:18 comes to mind. Please note the this is not directly through god.

Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.

This viewpoint is called universalism/universal reconciliation, that may help you googling it out :)

[–]TurretOpera 20 points21 points ago

Its funny how Paul, who is fairly unreliable for sexual ethics, household codes, church order, etc. suddenly becomes more reliable than Jesus when salvation is at issue.

[–]Nattfrosten 5 points6 points ago

Yes, quite funny. Did Jesus require faith in him then?

Matthew 9:1-7

1 Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. 2 Some men brought to him a paralyzed man, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the man, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.”

3 At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, “This fellow is blaspheming!”

4 Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? 5 Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? 6 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the paralyzed man, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” 7 Then the man got up and went home. 8 When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to man.

Also ask yourself this; What is more in line with a loving God, to save everyone, or to condemn some people to an eternity of suffering?

I hope you aren't implying that he can't.

[–]TheHumpadump 2 points3 points ago

Well if passing judgement on sinners is an inherent aspect of God's being then no, He can't. Absolute omnipotency is impossible as a paradox is created: if God is omnipotent, can God create a stone so heavy He cannot lift it? If yes then He can't lift it and is therefore not fully omnipotent; if no then He's not completely omnipotent. Therefore the most logical position to adopt is for God to be omnipotent to the point in which His being and omnipotency isn't being contradicted.

If condemning unbelievers is part of God's being then He cannot go against Himself to change this fact about Him.

[–]Nattfrosten 2 points3 points ago

This is a reasonable thought, thank you.

The problem with the thinking here is that we assume that God is constricted by the laws of logic. If he's omnipotent, he surely isn't.

On what basis should we use logic on anything God does then?

We are created in his image (I assume this is about our minds, since I doubt God has a body), and humans tend to use logic, as logic is a way to express the way humans should naturally think.

We can therefore assume that God has chosen to use logic, and therefore chose to not create paradoxes. Assuming that he therefore can't is however a fallacy, since he's omnipotent.

Whether it's in God's nature to condemn people to hell is harder to know though, I guess we have prayer and the bible for that. The former is discussed elsewhere in this thread, you are welcome to participate.

[–]corley989 1 point2 points ago

You sure like theology and philosophical debate don't you, Dick Wash?!

[–]TurretOpera 4 points5 points ago

Also ask yourself this; What is more in line with a loving God, to save everyone, or to condemn some people to an eternity of suffering?

I don't know that I care. What I care about is that we have a view of God that is in line with the complete picture we get of Jesus in all of the gospels, but with prejudice towards those accounts which are more likely to be older, or historically accurate, or original (so, for example, the sermon on the mount would be heavily favored, the story of the woman caught in adultery treated as highly suspect). Jesus is clear-he is the embodiment of God's character. Four short biographical documents is a paired-down enough way to represent an infinite being, without getting lazy and attempting to make the whole person of God roughly equivalent to a bumper-sticker phrase like "loving." God is who he is; and Jesus is the best representation of what God is, if what Jesus is looks different than what you're calling love (and it does), then whether God does or does not accord with our 21st century English word "love" is irrelevant.

[–]PokerPirate 1 point2 points ago

the story of the woman caught in adultery treated as highly suspect

why?

[–]Celik8 1 point2 points ago

It's generally agreed upon by scholars that John 8 (the story about the woman caught in adultery) was not in the original text. You can read about it here.

[–]TurretOpera 2 points3 points ago

Does not appear in the earliest gospels, or in the earliest versions of John's Gospel.

[–]Nattfrosten 1 point2 points ago

Do not be mistaken, I do not believe in a lack of judgement. Everyone will be judged, and cleansed by fire.

Mark 9:49

Everyone will be salted with fire.

Just because I think that all humans are as unworthy of salvation, that everyone stands equal to god, not through our own merit, but through grace, and that everyone will be reconciliated (a process that will be harsher for some, that's not even up to debate), does not mean I try to push God into some kind of weak-ass form.

I simply disagree with a doctrine that sounds way too much like an attempt by the Church to scare non-believers into submission.

[–]TurretOpera 1 point2 points ago

I simply disagree with a doctrine that sounds way too much like an attempt by the Church to scare non-believers into submission.

This would require believing that "the church" as a monolithic entity shaped the teachings of Jesus, which pre-dated the church. That doesn't make sense.

[–]Nattfrosten 3 points4 points ago

I do not believe that. I simply believe that men who existed after Jesus choose to interpret and translate the teachings of Jesus with their own lens, not Jesus' own.

Luke 10:27

27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.

I try to use this as a way to keep myself on the right path when I try to understand the teachings of Jesus.

[–]BranchDavidian 0 points1 point ago

"church order" -- from whom do you think most churches get their biblical commentary on church order?

[–]aflamp 0 points1 point ago

I would suggest The First Paul by Marcus Borg to give a pretty scholarly picture as to why the Pauline Epistles seem to contradict themselves.

[–]TurretOpera 2 points3 points ago*

I know why they seem to contradict themselves; I'm a New Testament scholar. The point was meant to be ironic-most Christian universalists wouldn't touch Paul's comments on homosexuality, for example, with a 10-foot-pole (or if they do, they whack them with it repeatedly until the broken pieces fit into the mold of their 21st century worldview), preferring to say, "What does Jesus say about it?" Yet when it comes to salvation and hell, about which Jesus says a tremendous amount, the same 3-4 verses in Paul that were inadequate to establish a lasting mandate concerning sexual ethics or household behavior or the status of women are now absolute proof that Jesus will save everyone, no mater what. But don't take Jesus' word for it-just ask Paul!

[–]thelogster 6 points7 points ago

Indeed, John 3:16 says that Jesus died so that all of mankind may chose God.

Jesus himself even said that not everyone gets in to heaven, so universalism/universal reconciliation is not in scripture, and is not the gospel. (remember red words always win)

[–]Nattfrosten 0 points1 point ago

And what is written after that? John 3:17-18

17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

3:17 He will save the world (everyone who lives in our universe)

3:18 He will condemn the ones who do not believe.

How can he both condemn and save? Not through an eternal punishment, at last.

Will the ones who not believe perish? Certainly, in fact, they already have (as in verse 18.) Whoever does not believe has perished. We will be salted with Gods refining fire though. (Mark 9:49 Everyone will be salted with fire.)

[–]thelogster 2 points3 points ago

Seriously - what did Jesus say about Hell ??

[–]Nattfrosten 1 point2 points ago*

He talked about Gehenna, which is a place where all the sin will burn away through the presence of an eternal fire, and he gave the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, which some think is talking about a literal event.

If you know of more, please tell.

[–]thelogster 2 points3 points ago

13% of what Jesus spoke about was Hell.

  • He talked about rejecting people before God, people who rejected Him.
  • He describes a place of eternal torment and suffering, and how people whose name is not in the book of life being sent there.
  • He talks about casting people away who he never knew.
  • He talked about how few people will find the way to the kingdom.
  • He talked about "spitting people out", who were lukewarm.

And yes, he talked about two men separated by a chasm, were neither could cross, after they had died.

[–]Nattfrosten 2 points3 points ago

One question before I start, what, according to you, determines whether you go to hell or not?

[–]thelogster 0 points1 point ago

determines whether you go to hell or not

If I accepted the sacrifice of Jesus and made him Lord of my life. As the scripture says, who so ever calls upon the name of the Lord, will be saved.

[–]Nattfrosten 1 point2 points ago

Thank you for this information, I will look into it (might take some time) after I've had some sleep.

[–]Nattfrosten 0 points1 point ago

Okay, now for these points. Let's start with the rich man and lazarus, since that's what I was studying anyway, and because it's the most quoted passage when speaking about hell.

Firstly, let's assume this is literal. I do this to help you realize how stupid this is.

"There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

Okay, our rich man. Is there any mention of sin? Nope.

'And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,

A Beggar, who seems to be utterly miserable. Is there any mention of faith/Good deeds? No.

"And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

A pretty uninteresting verse, if we take this literally, unless if it is to demonstrate how miserable this beggar is.

'And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

The beggar lifted up into Abraham bosom, a place close to Abraham. The Rich man also dies, and is buried. Isn't the beggar buried? What is the significance of this? Anyway, let's move on.

Also, when and were does this happen? I thought we both agreed that Heaven/Hell is physical?

"And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and sees Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

This one is really interesting, since it uses the word hell. What is the Greek word for this? Hades, which also can be translated into grave, death etc. Also, he sees Lazarus, in Abrahams bosom.

Is this another Hell? I see no mention of Lazarus believing in Jesus, and Abraham certainly didn't, since he lived way earlier.

(your comment: Reject Jesus/Not put Faith in Jesus = Name not in book of Life = Not going to Heaven.)

We therefore have to assume that this is some other kind of hell.

"And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

Here we can read about the rich man shouting coherent words, asking for a drop of water, while being lit aflame. This is quite good of him, I would have shouted my fucking lungs out. Maybe he's a bit irrational, though, in what way would a drop of water help?

"But Abraham said, Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and you are tormented.

This seems fairly straight-forward, we should all try to be as miserable as possible, in order to get a better afterlife.

"And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from there to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from there.

Okay, this seems good. We wouldn't want to be able to help the people who are lit aflame, begging us for drops of water. Sounds peaceful.

"Then he said, I pray therefore, father, that you would send him to my father's house:

"For I have five brothers; that he may testify unto them, unless they also come into this place of torment.

'Abraham said unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

'And he said, No, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

"And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead"

So this guy have five brothers, who would have been helped by the prophets. This is odd, wasn't belief in Jesus required? And why the specific amount of brothers? Is five significant somehow?

And who could not be persuaded, though one rose from the dead? I guess this is about the Resurrection, but this tale is told by Jesus, before he was crucified, which implies that it hasn't happened fully yet.

We go on. Is there any reason this is supposed to be understood figuratively, as a parable?(besides from all the stupidity I unveiled just now)

Yes. This story is part of a larger speech, which contains a lot of other parables, such as the lost coin, the lost sheep, the prodigal son, the dishonest manager.

What does it mean then?

I am no expert in these areas, but I found a really good study here.

tl;dr: It's about the Jews losing their old status as the sole people of God.

I will continue with the rest of your dots later on.

[–]thelogster 0 points1 point ago

I think this is one of the better comments that have been made on the Hell issue (or lack of):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6ZUhRQgbzk

[–]klenow 1 point2 points ago

I googled around a bit, but there's a lot of tares in there with the wheat.

This is a very interesting topic to me, and you seem well-versed compared to my ignorance. Could you point me to some useful information? Preferably scripture-based information.

The Matthew passage you quote below is very interesting; I've always read v2 in one light, but now I see what it can mean in a different light.

I love examining things like this; whatever conclusion I come to at the end I know I'll learn something along the way.

[–]Nattfrosten 2 points3 points ago

I'd advice you to read this article, which is where I fist encountered the concept.

The site has a pretty solid amount of lectures on the subject, and was the thing that sent me on my way.

If you encounter any specific questions during your search, please tell me, so that I might further my understanding/answer them as best as I can.

[–]FraterEAO 1 point2 points ago*

/r/ChristianUniversalism , if you weren't already aware that this existed.

Also, check out Tentmaker Ministries if you haven't already. It was one of the first sources of Christian Universalism for me.

edit: fixed the link

[–]Nattfrosten 1 point2 points ago

I had no idea, I'll check them out later.

[–]klenow 0 points1 point ago

Thanks...I'm going to spend the next few days (weeks/months/years) looking over this stuff. Lots of questions to chase down on that page. I really like the way it lists out "We believe ____ (list of Bible references)".

The only problem I have with it is that it's something I'd really like to be true, so I'm going to have to watch out for confirmation bias.

thanks for the link.

[–]Nattfrosten 0 points1 point ago

No problem, and it's vitally important to avoid bias.

Please come to me if you have any questions, I love to further my understanding.

[–]ncastleJC 6 points7 points ago

I think one of the first things I would say is that as much as people make it out to be a belief, there's a difference between a belief and a worldview. Atheism is technically the logical disposition on the stance on God. Ravi Zacharias once interacted with an atheist at Lenin Military Academy by responding to his question by "If there is no God, and you're an atheist, do you care to explain what it is you're denying?" Truth is that we have to respect atheists due to the fact that they don't really have a worldview, they merely point out the flaws of religions. It is a naturalistic/relativistic/pragmatic/hedonistic/materialistic worldview that a Christian does not condone. Much like the atheist, Christians point at the flaw of the atheist claiming certain aspects of a naturalistic worldview all the while still calling themselves "atheist". Unfortunately, the current American Christian demographic doesn't understand this. Once Christians can understand it's naturalism that we condemn, not atheism, we may be able to make progress as to distinguish why we believe what we believe and how to convey these ideals to others.

[–]Supermoves3000 6 points7 points ago

"If there is no God, and you're an atheist, do you care to explain what it is you're denying?"

WTF? Seriously?? Isn't Ravi Zacharias supposed to be an intellectual?

[–]ncastleJC 1 point2 points ago

If, logically speaking, we could affirm that no such being exists, then the word "God" has no substance, due to the fact that there is no context for the word to be attached to. As such, there's no point to be a theist because you can't believe in a non-entity. What Ravi illustrated is that if there truly is no God, and hence the word "theist" has no meaning or context, then there is no reason to be atheist, because there is no God to deny and it would be irrational to deny the existence of the non-existent. I think you're surprised by his statement due to the fact it seems atheists commonly reject the doctrine and teachings of God. But the meaning of words and the philosophy thereof go much deeper than that, and that's what he was attempting to illustrate.

[–]Supermoves3000 7 points8 points ago

Substitute the word "Leprechaun" into the statement and read it again. It's revealing, but not for the reasons that you or Ravi think. "If you don't believe in leprechauns, then explain what it is that you're denying" is a question that says more about the person asking the question than the person it is being asked of.

[–]BlunderLikeARicochet 0 points1 point ago

"Far into the extremes of not compelling" is how the OP put it. "Vapid clown" would be my label. Just read some of his stuff. It's hilariously nauseating.

[–]BlunderLikeARicochet 0 points1 point ago

Some of Ravi's "logic":

A university student arrives home and informs his parents that, after reading a popular atheist’s book, he has renounced his family’s faith. His mother, particularly, is shattered by the news. The father struggles to engage his son in dialogue, but to no avail. The deepening grief causes them to distance themselves from their son. When the game of silence does not work, the mother is plunged further into depression and despair. The grandparents become involved, watching in anguish as beliefs that have been held dear in the family for generations crumble. Before long, this family that was once close and peaceable is now broken and hostile. Abusive words between mother and son are exchanged with increasing frequency and intensity, and the siblings blame their brother’s new strident atheism for the rift in the family. After a long night of arguing with her son, pleading unsuccessfully with him to reconsider his position, the mother takes an overdose of prescription medication and ends her life, unable to accept what she interprets to be the destruction of her family.

Although this particular scenario is imaginary, I suspect that in some measure similar scenes have played out more than a few times since the publication of Sam Harris’s bestselling Letter to a Christian Nation. It is quite possible that many a young man or woman, stirred by the passion and intent of Harris’s book, has repudiated the values intrinsically bound up in the belief in God held dear by parents and ancestors long before them.

  • Ravi Zacharias, from the opening of his book, "The End of Reason" (rebuttal to Harris' End of Faith), in which he expresses perhaps the most transparently emotional appeal against atheism I've ever seen.

More gems from the same book:

[following a story about a tragic accident in which parents saved their disabled child before they themselves died] Where does this kind of sacrificial love come from? ... May I suggest to you that the [parents] risked their lives as the stronger to protect the weaker, which completely goes against natural selection. God forbid that such a "weak" one would be left at the mercy of Sam Harris's worldview, the ethical imperatives of which are espoused unblushingly by the Peter Singers of this world (professor of philosophy at Princeton), who believe that a pig is of more value than a child who has disability!

From abortion to child pornography, atheistic philosophy is having its way with our children.

[–]Supermoves3000 1 point2 points ago

Ha ha, ouch! I can't decide which of those is worse.

I only knew the name Ravi Zacharias because it keeps popping up on lists of modern Christian thinkers that people really need to check out.

But if those examples are representative of his work, ... well, "must-read" doesn't exactly come to mind.

[–]BlunderLikeARicochet 0 points1 point ago

You know how atheists joke about eating babies? I wouldn't be surprised if Ravi actually believes that. I mean, he already linked atheism to child porn. WTF?

And those two quotes were from just the first 2 chapters. I admit I couldn't get through the whole book.

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 3 points4 points ago

The statements of Zacharias are a very touchy subject for me and I can't deny it had an effect on how I perceived your post.

Please let it suffice to say that his logic is far into the extremes of not compelling, and I urge people to take a more critical look at his ideas.

Much like the atheist, Christians point at the flaw of the atheist claiming certain aspects of a naturalistic worldview all the while still calling themselves "atheist".

This is by far the part of your reply I am most interested in. Can you please elaborate on this.

[–]ncastleJC 3 points4 points ago

I can see some people would disagree. It would be nice to see what it is about statements as such that you don't find compelling. And for example, you could probably find that some atheists claim "you can define your own morality and purpose". This is not entirely naturalistic, however it does lean in the right direction of denying absolute authority, which is something Christians in general believe in. And the root of which I was getting at is that Christians demonize the atheist for stating such things as the quote I mentioned, without realizing it is not the atheist they should be condemning, but the origin of influence such quotes come from. Essentially, atheism isn't a holistic worldview in the strictest sense like naturalism or any major religion is, and Christians and atheists alike tend to forget that atheism within itself is not sufficient to define one's perspective on life. It is a motivator, but it takes other philosophies in order to truly define a worldview that is absent of a transcendent being or anti-God.

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 1 point2 points ago

"you can define your own morality and purpose"

I am eager to find out where this traces back to. I seldom ever hear it so isolated. I am very skeptical that we are even capable of defining morality arbitrarily. Are morality has known linchpins in our biology, society and circumstance.

The long timeline of theism has even shown that absolute authority are subject to these pressures, and while it may sound like semantics, must augment with qualifiers that state the absolute authority is final word on judgement. (Not in the heaven and hell kind of way, but in the just becase you decide A, B or C is ok, doesn't mean it is. Thats still up to god.)

Christians demonize the atheist for stating such things as the quote I mentioned, without realizing it is not the atheist they should be condemning, but the origin of influence such quotes come from. Essentially, atheism isn't a holistic worldview in the strictest sense like naturalism or any major religion is, and Christians and atheists alike tend to forget that atheism within itself is not sufficient to define one's perspective on life. It is a motivator, but it takes other philosophies in order to truly define a worldview that is absent of a transcendent being or anti-God.

Which begs the question, what does the stereotypical Christian think he cannot find in any worldview that presupposes atheism? What about the theologically professed Christian?

[–]ncastleJC 0 points1 point ago

I never professed that we can, I was merely trying to draw the point of a relatively dependent morality that certain atheists draw up.

but in the just becase you decide A, B or C is ok, doesn't mean it is. Thats still up to god.

Exactly.

what does the stereotypical Christian think he cannot find in any worldview that presupposes atheism?

Well, stereotypical Christians aren't necessarily investigators of worldviews (sarcasm). But I would want to point out again that a worldview does not presuppose atheism. It can presuppose a naturalistic way of looking at things, which can result in an atheistic approach to any religious sect (This is how I've learned it. Your question seems more subjective matter so take this answer with a grain of salt). I don't want to be the only one answering that kind of question, as you can tell I try to flesh it out extensively. But I guess the average Christian would think he can't find absolute authority in truth or morality, and a skewed sense of meaning and purpose outside of theism. That's my two cents.

[–]Diazigy 2 points3 points ago

Hey I was skimming this conversation, and I had something to add regarding what the definition of atheist is.

For your quote >"If there is no God, and you're an atheist, do you care to explain what it is you're denying?"

I think this sets up a false dichotomy of either Yahweh exists or he does not exist. The question is not that simple, you have to ask yourself this question about every other God that humanity has proposed. Does Zeus, or Poseidon, or Yahweh, or Athena, etc. exist? There are thousands of possible Gods to believe in, Atheists don't believe in yaweh, but we also don't believe in every other God. However, Christians don't either, so in that regard, I think Christians and atheists actually share a massive amount of unbelief for the thousands of other Gods.

Atheist is just the word we made up to describe rejection of one kind of dogma - religious dogma. Christians and atheists share the same rejection of 99% of all religious dogma in the world, the difference is that atheists reject 100% of all religious dogma, whereas Christians believe in that final 1%.

[–]ncastleJC 0 points1 point ago

This is true. And Ravi encourages this. He encourages the realization that all deities are representatives of different worldviews, and that they must be put against each other in order to find the most consistent one. However I think you made a slight mistake (or two, no biggie). Zeus, Poseidon, and others alike are deities. When one refers to theism, it is commonly referential to Christianity/Judaism/Islam. So although it is true that we must consider other options (which again Ravi encourages), the context of the story is that Ravi, as a Christian apologist, was speaking to atheists (at the Lenin Military Academy in Russia, if I haven't added backstory). And it's not a false dichotomy. If truth be truth, or in other words absolute, then there must be lines drawn. However, because we are individuals, we do make personal decisions on where to draw those lines.

[–]inyouraeroplane 0 points1 point ago

I think this sets up a false dichotomy of either Yahweh exists or he does not exist.

How is that a false dichotomy? A thing can only exist or not exist.

The "You're atheist about all gods but one" argument is ridiculous. There are large differences in philosophy and epistemology between theism and atheism.

[–]misterbeaver 1 point2 points ago

Is Secular Humanism the same thing as Atheism?

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 9 points10 points ago

No. But atheism isn't much of a worldview on it's own.

[–]SirMeowMeow 0 points1 point ago*

Wouldn't the ancient city of Madrid, which was once hospitable to three major world religions, be considered a city with a secular policy? If the then-Islamic government was dogmatic in its faith, insistent that its sister faiths were flawed in their approach, I doubt it could have thrived as it did. Today, the Baltic region that the Islamic Turks once presided over is a hotbed of religious and ethnic unease.

Secularism in this case does not mean an absence of religion. But it does mean that government policy is dictated by the welfare of the people and by empirical reasoning. Such a policy allowed a Muslim government to create a sincerely peaceful coexistence with large populations of Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

And, atheism is a hearty worldview in and of itself, and it is distinct from but compatible in spirit with secularism. To me, atheism is a faith, a metaphysical statement which cannot be discussed through empirical reasoning, and nor can it be shown as logically essential. On the other hand, secularism is a government policy that is compatible with Islam, Christianity, and other faiths; in the context of an atheist minority within a religious America, it is certain that an atheist would enjoy secularist policy against religious dogma. This is the same as when the Jews and Christians under Muslim rule in Madrid would enjoy a secularist policy, since they did not possess as much political power, and could be exploited, harassed, or pressured under Islamic dogma -- had they so wished.

There is no reason why secularism is intrinsically connected to atheism. Any pluralistic nation or empire has great interest in secularism, even if the status quo powers are Islamic (like ancient Madrid) or Christian (like America). Any weaker constituent of a nation, any minority group would enjoy a secularist government free from religious dogma. The Jews of Nazi Germany would have enjoyed a secularist policy free from the dogma of Aryanism.

Secularism is the statecraft of pluralistic, multinational empires or governments. It is a tool which has been wisely exercised by Christians and Muslims, and it is an illogic to associate it with atheism (who, if possessing power, may be dogmatic as well). Many Christians have been saved by secularism, and many conflicts have been averted as a result of such fair policy.

Both secularism and dogma are ultimately about power over others -- and what to do with it when you have it. With great power over others, you can be graceful and tolerant, or forceful and intolerant.

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 3 points4 points ago

Secularism in this case does not mean an absence of religion.

Yes but humanism does. The most important parts of Secular Humanist philosophy is acknowledging human suffering as a context of it's own, not as a reality subject to parsing my religious morality.

Atheism is a hearty worldview in and of itself.

I urge you to reconsider this stance. What is this idea of your based on?

Secularism is policy, but it is not strictly political. When used as a qualifier it is saying that what ever institution follows, bare minimum, maintains the default stance to not put Religion anywhere in that institutions personal implications.

This example of Madrid does not even hold consistent with your observation. Simply allowing many religions does not imply secular policy. The causation is duplex.

[–]partofaplan2 0 points1 point ago

So do you think the term "Christian humanist" is a misnomer? Because some people on here consider themselves such.

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 0 points1 point ago

No. I do think that it is a difficult case to make theologically. Humanism is, for the most part, pretty thin, but it's gotten muddled as of late. The thing that I like to focus on the understanding humanism, is understanding that we are the source and the destination for our perceptions. Human beings are the only anthropocentric being in the universe. Humanism can do this through only one supposition and that is that we recognize human suffering.

I suppose the theological case would enter at this point and change that supposition from a interpersonal context and grant that definition of human suffering to God.

[–]deuteros 3 points4 points ago

Wouldn't the ancient city of Madrid, which was once hospitable to three major world religions, be considered a city with a secular policy?

Religious tolerance isn't an inherently secular policy. The thoroughly Christian Byzantine Empire and the Islamic Middle East in the Medieval Period were generally tolerant of the non-dominant faith within their respective domains.

And, atheism is a hearty worldview in and of itself.

Atheism can be a foundation of a worldview but it is not a worldview in and of itself. People usually aren't bare atheists any more than they are bare theists. They are secular humanists, Christians, etc.

[–]SirMeowMeow 0 points1 point ago*

Why is atheism, or theism, not a world view in and of itself, simply because people have additional compatible beliefs, such as secularism -- a belief about how government policy ought be?

I don't believe that religious tolerance is inherently secular. But I do see secularism as inherently tolerant of other religions and groups. And, I don't believe that secularism is necessarily exercised as a discrete thing, on or off, but rather as a continuum.

Thus, the more secular your policy, the less it has to do with the specific religious perspective of the dominant powers, and the more it attempts to build consensus with the various groups within a varied nation on any policy by means of empirical reasoning, even if that policy has moral elements or religious motivations to it. A government policy may be considered secular even if it is religiously motivated, so as long as it can demonstrate empirical reasoning that is sound to people of other religions -- that it has a secular component.

Whether or not Proposition 8 of California (a proposition to bar same-sex marriages) was correct in its moral or empirical assertions, it can be fairly said that the legislation was religiously motivated. However, in the legal and political sphere, it was argued through secular lenses; that is, consensus-building was attempted along lines of empirical reasoning that may be observed by members of other faiths, or even atheists.

Thus, legislative bodies may still see and act based on their religious worldview, but when a dominant power seeks to enact policy, it attempts to build consensus through empirical reasoning that can appeal to varied groups. This is an element of secularism.

[–]deuteros 3 points4 points ago

Why is atheism, or theism, not a world view in and of itself

Because atheism/theism is nothing more than a position one the existence or non-existence of God. It says nothing about how the person understands the world beyond that simple fact.

For example if you told me you were an atheist that wouldn't really tell me much of anything about your worldview. I could probably infer a few things that you don't believe -- like you probably wouldn't hold to a position that, say, human morality is given to us by God.

Virtually nobody is "just an atheist." For example most reddit atheists are extremely strident evidentialists, philosophical materialists, scientific rationalists, etc. These positions actually attempt to explain the world around them. Bare atheism doesn't really do any of that.

[–]The_Meek 1 point2 points ago

Well "secular" means not pertaining to or connected with religion. For example secular music is not religious in nature. Secular policy is not influenced by religion. For an entire society to be secular, religion would need to be totally out of the public space, if not totally out. This, to my knowledge has never before been achieved in the civilized world(as in established empires, cities, etc.(I hate using "civilized world" but couldn't think of an alternative)).

[–]ncastleJC 2 points3 points ago

To an extent yes. Denial of a need of absolute moral authority in the form of a higher being, or the plain lack thereof, would leave one to believe that the best moral discernment comes from themselves. To an extent this is what certain atheists want/believe.

[–]jimjonj 1 point2 points ago

Not necessarily, but most likely a secular humanist is an atheist. The secular label suggests an absence of religion only. I would guess there are plenty of deists that would describe themselves as secular humanists.

[–]reddell 1 point2 points ago

It does not take much foresight to see that as their numbers increase, the profundity of their posts descends into near-hate speech or worse.

The IQ of any unorganized group is inversely proportionate to its size. That's just the way groups work.

[–]_ropes 1 point2 points ago

Why would it be appalling? I love reading and listening to atheist/agnostic worldviews, even if they're usually considered offensive (I like controversy, it's fun). It gives me a broader view of opinions held by those who don't agree with me and it helps me to have more respect in discussions and debates.

As for the list of 5 points you made about things you don't allow,

  • Homosexuality isn't a sin and contraception is a good thing
  • I welcome evolution as fact
  • Request-based prayer doesn't work
  • Literalism leads to fallacy, inconsistency and contradictions
  • Abortion can be justified (sometimes. if it's just "i dun wanna baby i cba" then it's just plain wrong)

These attributes are associated with fundamentalists. It saddens me that WBC are very stereotypical Christians while being the most famous Christian extremists.

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 1 point2 points ago

Look. I'm not saying those are core values of Christianity. Those are concessions that I don't allow my empathy. Just want to make sure we're clear on that.

[–]guy-enigmatico 1 point2 points ago

I don't find Atheism appalling, although I do have problems with anti-theism that this probably isn't the best place to discuss. I don't find it appalling because I know I don't have all the answers & I'm sure that no Christian has all the answers; We're all just doing our best & getting appalled at another person's beliefs when they're not harming anyone isn't justifiable.

Why can't I embrace Atheism? 1- I find the idea that it's all ultimately meaningless to be horrifying. That we are merely an accident, that all our suffering and struggles go unwitnesses and unmourned terrifies me. 2- I can't get my head around order being emergent from chaos.

I know both these arguments say more about me than God or science but like I said I don't have all the answers.

I'm trying to keep this breif so if you'd like me to expand on any of this please let me know

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 2 points3 points ago

Why can't I embrace Atheism? 1- I find the idea that it's all ultimately meaningless to be horrifying. That we are merely an accident, that all our suffering and struggles go unwitnesses and unmourned terrifies me. 2- I can't get my head around order being emergent from chaos.

If I could give you perspective on these would you experiment with answering question 2 again, in an effort to find more irreconcilable issues?

[–]guy-enigmatico 0 points1 point ago

Absolutely!

I've perhaps oversimplified for the sake of brevity so I may have misrepresented myself somewhat in my first comment.

I know many people will not view these as major problems but I have endured a not insignificant amount of suffering in my life that has lead me to question "why?"

The reasons I've given are why I began my "spiritual journey" (gag) but not why I came to believe in God in general or Christianity in particular.

[–]we_are_sex_bobomb 1 point2 points ago*

I do not find atheism appalling, but I do find secular humanism profoundly disappointing. The reason being that I do not equate understanding with experiencing. I do not desire to limit all meaning in life to that which is objectively verifiable, reproducible, intellectually comprehensible, and verbally transmittable. To neuter the human experience in such a way fills me with horror, and I find that the path of secular humanism demands too much of me insofar as it demands I explain or rationalize my delight in the unfathomable to the satisfaction of peer reviewed journalism. I do not like being told that a thing is only what it is commonly and most conservatively agreed to be made of, and nothing more. I find this existentially hollow. I would rather experience a phenomenon that no one would ever believe, than to explain a mystery such that no one could argue. I guess that boils down to personal preference but there it is..

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 1 point2 points ago

Thank you for response.

understanding with experiencing

Are you fond of Math?

[–]we_are_sex_bobomb 0 points1 point ago

It has it's uses; the equal rationing of cookies for example.

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 1 point2 points ago

Understanding and experiencing have some overlap. There is a phenomena that I've mainly experienced after a concept in mathematics or logic finally clicks. It's more than just understanding, it's a complete retroactive understanding and a forward understanding of many of the implications.

A holistic experience of connecting conceptual dots. Pretty awesome.


Your user name keeps making me look at my level complete mug

[–]we_are_sex_bobomb 0 points1 point ago

Yeah they definitely do overlap. I would just hate to invalidate instances where they don't. I don't want to deny the potentially profound content of something just because I find it mysterious. But that's not meant to knock objective empirical understanding. I just consider science a useful tool, not the key to humanity.

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 1 point2 points ago

knock objective empirical understanding.

It's not this. Based on everything I've read about transcendental moments and meditation and prayer and extasy...

It's the same. If it were the same, would have have any significance to you?

[–]alexteate 3 points4 points ago

1st The word "Christian" no longer means Christ-like because of our epic failure to embrace the same things Jesus did. 2nd "Christians" forget that Jesus was crucified because he was friends with Prostitutes, Tax Collectors (thieves), Murders etc.. so why is Christianity all of a sudden too good for Homosexuals? (personally I don't believe that people should be labeled by their sexual orientation but that is a different argument all together)

BUT to your points ... I am not threatened or appalled by your beliefs neither should you be appalled by my beliefs.

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 2 points3 points ago

I'm grateful I'm hearing so much of this. On to the next questions.

With what conviction do you gain certainty that you should dismiss atheism as right for you? Premise here is, sure you may not find it appalling but on some level do you know it just wouldn't work for you? What wouldn't work?

[–]alexteate 0 points1 point ago

In my life I have experienced God and his love but it was not always that way. I grew up in Atlanta where we went to Church every Sunday, prayed over every meal, and did all the things that "Christians" do. It was not until college that I realized that I could no longer live my parent’s faith and that I need to develop my own set of beliefs. It was a long struggle of finding myself and who God (which i didn't know at the time) wanted me to be. It took a car accident that should have taken my life (60mph into a brick wall with no seat belt on) to help point me in the right direction. The doctor stood over me in the ER wondering how I was not dead and then proceeding to tell my parents that he had never seen someone so lucky. Don't get me wrong my beliefs are not just the warm fuzzy feeling I have when pray, it’s an intelligent belief developed by studying historical texts and literature. Being a Christian does not mean that I have it all together and I can sit here and speak for God and his plan, it just means that I realize that I am unworthy to walk this earth and without Jesus I am nothing. Other points: When I look around at the anatomy and design of the human body it is hard for me to believe that this magnificent creature was made without a creator. Sorry if that doesn’t answer your questions. I promise I am not trying to beat around the bush it’s just hard trying to describe my beliefs and who I am in a little text box.

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 2 points3 points ago

The thing is, and let me preface this by saying that it doesn't bother me at all, that if I went through that list of compelling reasons why everything you experienced needs no unjustifiable beliefs, at the end of it you'd still self-identify as Christian.

If I sat with you and worked through all of the defenses that I would have triggered along that list, you would likely still self identify as Christian.

If we found common ground, I could give you a person, a place and a time for you to empathize with someone with similar experiences and he was functioning without supernatural belief, your same experiences would still support you from a Christian context.

And if you implored you to consider that those same experiences in a non-christian country would elicit the same constructs that you are experiencing as Christian constructs through non-Christian ideology, you would still self-identify as Christian.

To me this implies that in addition to choosing Christianity, you must have to choose against an imposing ideology. Again, I am very much OK with that, but when you try to empathize with a secular humanist worldview, what causes you irreconcilable conflict?

[–]alexteate 1 point2 points ago

Me choosing to follow Christ means I reject the Idea that there is no God. I reject this idea because of the ways I have experienced God and what I have come to learn of God from my studies. I cannot wrap my mind around existence of all of space, humans, earth, and every little creature without an intelligent creator.

One of the views that Christians have receive is that of not actually caring about the individual and his/her story but only caring about "saving" them. Before throwing my beliefs at a person that has occurred the same set of experiences as me I would have to listen first and foremost...

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 2 points3 points ago

Me choosing to follow Christ means I reject the Idea that there is no God. I reject this idea because of the ways I have experienced God and what I have come to learn of God from my studies. I cannot wrap my mind around existence of all of space, humans, earth, and every little creature without an intelligent creator.

If I proposed ideas that challenge these experiences, can you shroud them in the context of atheist empathy and ask yourself "could this work for me?"

If so, I'd like to ask you some more questions as I develop them?

I'm really nervous this could turn into a debate, and that's not conducive to my goals. Is there anything you would need from me to avoid that.

[–]alexteate 1 point2 points ago

~If I proposed ideas that challenge these experiences, can you shroud them in the context of atheist empathy and ask yourself "could this work for me?"~ I am trying to fully understand you question. Are you asking if there was a scientific was to prove that my experiences were not supernatural would that change my initial belief?

I would love to try to answer your questions. I too and not looking for a debate but just a civil discussion.

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 2 points3 points ago

Sort of. See my goal isn't really to change your beliefs, but see if, given an alternate set of explanations, those beliefs remain preferable for any reason other than the choice you made to be Christian. It is a fine line to walk and I don't want it to turn into a debate.

[–]notjawn 2 points3 points ago

I don't find it appalling, but lets get real here and say the majority of atheism is nothing but an attack or attempt of mockery at religion and faith. I mean I know the same argument applies to fundamentalists and zealots when it comes to attacking non-believers but at least they're fringe and not representative of the entire faith.

Whereas the most vocal atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens actively support mockery and attacking people of faith. I like the Unitarian Church, but really atheism as a whole needs some new PR.

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 2 points3 points ago

Just to clarify, that argument applies to any group who has a boisterous subset. Your stereotype is backwards. The truth here is not that the majority of atheism is theism-bashing, it's that the entirety of zealotry is a complete lack of empathy.

I don't find Dawkins nearly as offensive as he is made out to be, with my empathy working over time. He's offensive. Lots of people are offensive. But he and Harris make un-fucking-believable efforts to qualify terms unlike Hitchens.

I agree that Dawkins spends a remarkable amount of time in the fray for someone who's clearly a capable and well versed writer and speaker. The Greatest Show on Earth, and his assessments of beauty through secular lenses are much better than his pedantic bitchiness about Religion, but his ideas do not taste of hate-speech the way Hitchens' does.

[–]DocTomoe 1 point2 points ago

say the majority of atheism is nothing but an attack or attempt of mockery at religion and faith

While there are that kind of atheists, I think it's a little far-fetched to say it's the majority. That's a lot like saying the majority of Christians are Westboro-Baptist-Church style fundamentalists.

Most of us just don't care, but those also don't talk.

[–]klenow 1 point2 points ago

I don't find atheism "appalling" because at its core it does not aim to hurt anyone.

I only object to actions or attitudes that cause suffering outside of the person that engages in those actions or holds those attitudes. Atheism, in and of itself, does not make an atheist cause suffering in others. Therefore, I can't find it appalling.

However, as I understand your post, I do find your definition of anti-theism offensive:

At it's simplest and most broad, it is accurate to say that I am for the long-term goal of our world shedding the vestiges of the major monotheisms as quickly as possible, so long as it does not require a significant contribution to the aggregate human suffering.

I guess as some sort of hypothetical it's ok, but how do you reconcile the two components?

It seems to me that removing "the vestiges of the major monotheisms" would remove people's right to follow their own belief systems. The right to maintain your own belief system is a fundamental right (IMO). That is, it should not be impinged upon except in the case that its exercise impinges on the fundamental rights of someone else.

And removing fundamental rights is pretty much the definition of imposing suffering.

Or do you think that the adherence to religion is merely the result of ignorance? (I don't mean that to be inflammatory, it's just that it's a common misconception that is, ironically, based on ignorance)

[–]wombatmacncheese 1 point2 points ago

If you find Atheism personally appalling, can you take a few moments to describe why?

We are all still sinful humans, i don't find Atheists particularly appalling, i find arrogance and close-minded stubbornness appalling, which can be found in many people on all sides of the fence. I am sometimes moreso appalled by Christians that misrepresent the gospel message. I have nothing at all against people that are seeking the truth with all their hearts that haven't found the gospel yet, or have been feeding a false impression of God and the gospel because of the way they were mistreated by the church at some point. I take it as my own personal failing that the gospel is being reflected poorly, and that i haven't done more to share what i have received.

If you don't find it personally appalling, can you take a few moments to explain why not and why you cannot picture yourself embracing Atheism?

I would consider Atheism incomplete, as a belief system. I am no expert, but there is no account of the creation of the universe, our purpose for being here, and the fulfilled prophesies and staggering unity in the gospel, despite it being written by many different authors, in many different time periods and places in the world. None of the answers Atheists can give are as good as the measure of assurance in the Holy Bible.

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 2 points3 points ago

Thank you for your input. I have reason to believe that we will not establish a good connection of empathy between us.

That said, I think we might have a wonderful debate. PM me if you ever take an academic interest an practical disbelief. I daresay, I hope to be a little more interactive than Dawkins (and a lot more interactive than Hitchens! Too soon?)

[–]wombatmacncheese 1 point2 points ago

Oh I'm much too hot-headed to be a constructive debater, i may do more harm to the gospel than any secular contradiction. It would in essence, be the very same poor reflection that i endeavor to overcome.

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 1 point2 points ago

A standing offer. Thank you again.

[–]Id_Tap_Dat 0 points1 point ago

As bezjones said, your bulletpoints are not really Christian points of view, they're really just republican points of view. Fundies are not real Christians. I mean that not to invoke the no true scotsman, but only to say that when they say that they are the real Christians and everyone else is simply failing to live up to their standards, they are not the ones who get to define Christianity, so do not take them at their word.

Anyway, to address your question, I find atheism appalling, if you can call it that, because it is a rejection of everything. If it were really just so simple as rejecting the idea of a big bearded man in the sky, that would be one thing, but it's so much more than that. To me, the rejection of the idea that there even is a God represents a fundamental shift of thinking to self-centeredness that is totally unacceptable in the Christian mindset. Let me try to illustrate:

As an atheist, what does one have to live for? That is to say, what greater cause can one devote themselves to? For a Christian, I can devote myself to God. For an atheist, what is left? The nation? Well, you're not going to become a Libyan nationalist as an American citizen, are you? You're going to support your own nation. That's self serving. The tribe? Again, it's not someone else's tribe, so it's still self-serving on a very material and economic level. The immediate community? Same problem. The family? Even worse. The only possible out would be that you could devote yourself to curing some disease, or discovering some new technology or something, but even that excludes some group of people from the ones Christians are supposed to love. For atheists, it all comes back to self-serving causes, and that's of course assuming that you choose to devote yourself to something higher or greater than you at all, which there is suddenly no incentive for in the atheist mindset. We are left with the individual being the center of their own world. That is something I cannot abide. That is almost the definition of hell, to my ears: life as an atheist. But what's really troubling is that there are enough people out there who think, "so what? Why would I not want to be the most important thing in my life?" That, my friend, is appalling, from a Christian perspective.

By contrast, as a Christian devoting myself to God, I am no longer allowed to give a crap about national, tribal family, gender, etc. identities, because as part of my love for God, and of God's love for humanity, "there is no longer gentile or Jew, servant or free, woman or man, etc." It is my sacred duty to set all people's needs before my own because "whoever wishes to be first must make themselves last, whoever wishes to be served must serve the rest," etc. It compels me to be a selfless person, often times against my will. There are people I can't stand. I will still cater to them. There are people who I know will fail and test my patience. I will still serve them unconditionally. I am not allowed to give up on people precisely because God does not give up on me. In an atheistic mindset, none of this really applies.

To me, another problem of atheism is that it sets the standard of what people should be, by and large, to what they naturally are when they're too rich and comfortable to really be bad. One popular slogan, if you can call it that, is "_____ was good without God." Well that's bullshit. Even if you could be good without God, you could be GREAT with God. Christianity, on the other hand, sets wealth and comfort as a moot point, and teaches everyone that they can and must strive for perfection and sainthood, not just being normal, or doing more good than bad.

Now, I will be the first to agree with you that Christianity does not universally work to achieve the goal of dethroning oneself from the center of one's world, and putting God there instead. There are swindlers who will corrupt anything to their own ends, but I believe that they are relatively rare, and that the knuckle-dragging mouth breathers who tend to follow them can be enlightened through actual study of the Bible, contemplation, and prayer.

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 0 points1 point ago

I appreciate your long, measured response.

It seems to me that you have no avenue towards atheist humanism which offers any insight into life, society and as you put it everything.

You are talking about the tendency for people to give themselves up their group. God, nation, gang, family etc... all you've done is place God at the top. Now, I can understand how this would be logical since he is beyond the concerns of this world, but what are the implications of that for a worldview. Your concerns are curbed toward that which is in the scope of your concern as determined by God, scripture, church or any other mortal linchpin for the metaphysical. The model is only remotely apt for things within the scope of that concern and even if it's obvious to you that human suffering makes that list, it might not make someone else's.

Atheism starts from a perception of the world whose depth and breadth is exactly as big as the scope of all it contains. As a result, Atheism is conducive to knowledge and education, it is also more apt to receive and acknowledge the importance of anthropocentric concerns. We are humans. We have a stake in the aggregate human cause. And we have a stake in the aggregate human suffering.

Morality is not beyond us, it's present. Within it's confines, to seek clarity on any matter is to attack the aggregate human suffering directly without first consulting with the God mediator.

The concerns of our fellow man as defined by the metaphysical are, by definition, finite. An atheist world view starts by setting up those concerns, and is therefore not finite.

You used examples of Religion failing to provide people an out from their group in the opening of your post. When you said "they're really just republican points of view."

It seems to me that the best way to allow people to act outside of their group-biases is to make them aware of it through education. We can reduce intolerance along these posturized lines of society by teaching practical empathy to help to tear down the walls around our groups. The walls built by religion would be included. This can only be guaranteed without hypocrisy if we start from the aggregate human concerns and work outward. If this ever works through Religious avenues, it seems to me that it is coincidental and likely along religious group lines or as part of an effort to spread that religion.

[–]Id_Tap_Dat 0 points1 point ago

The model is only remotely apt for things within the scope of that concern and even if it's obvious to you that human suffering makes that list, it might not make someone else's.

Well obviously I can't speak for the actions of everyone, as any system of thought can be misused, but what I'm getting at is while in Christianity that's a possible fringe interpretation, atheism leads us inexorably to that conclusion of habitual self-centeredness.

As a result, Atheism is conducive to knowledge and education,

So is Christianity. Let us not forget that it is from the Christians that we have modern university systems, public schools, and even hospitals and research labs. All of these originated from within the Catholic church. (With a few notable things borrowed from Muslims)

it is also more apt to receive and acknowledge the importance of anthropocentric concerns. We are humans. We have a stake in the aggregate human cause. And we have a stake in the aggregate human suffering.

I'm not sure that that is what atheism compels people to think, let alone act on. If atheists are truly convinced that evolution (and I mean Dawkins' "nature is indifferent" style evolution, not the Christian interpretation of evolution as God's plan being enacted on a grand scale) is the state of the world, that implies competition: cutthroat competition. If someone else suffers, it is not a reflection on you. I have a second objection that applies here, but it's better expressed below.

This can only be guaranteed without hypocrisy if we start from the aggregate human concerns and work outward.

by which I mean right here. This requires a certain level of foresight and long-term thinking that is counterproductive to an evolutionary process. Simply stated: often times, one must survive the short term in order to enjoy the long term benefits. This often leads to making decisions in such a way as to maximize immediate profits (or alleviate the most short term suffering) while subsequently inflating long term drawbacks and consequences. Take global warming, for instance. True, global warming is a relatively new idea, but how long have people known that too much carbon dioxide (read: smoke in the lungs) is bad for you? Almost as long as there have been combustion engines. And yet here we are, a fully industrialized society, that got there by fucking over other people in an indifferent, cutthroat competition society. I don't think that's a good way to live, but without a strong religious ethos in the hearts and minds of people, I do not think it is possible to put others' needs before one's own at the level we need to in order to make the world a truly better place.

The concerns of our fellow man as defined by the metaphysical are, by definition, finite. An atheist world view starts by setting up those concerns, and is therefore not finite.

I think you've got that backwards. A Christian is concerned with his fellow man's mind, body, and soul. an atheist is only concerned with the first two. that's one more part of the human experience that Christians take care of that atheists neglect.

[–]TurretOpera 2 points3 points ago

If you don't find it personally appalling, can you take a few moments to explain why not and why you cannot picture yourself embracing Atheism?

I find it to be ontologically disordered. Living as an atheist is like having a tool box which you insist on employing in the wrong way-wrenches to pound in nails, pliers to remove screws, etc. You could do a lot worse in life, but I think you can do better too.

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 5 points6 points ago

I'd like you to hear some of the questions I'm working on, are you willing?

[–]TurretOpera 5 points6 points ago

Sure:)

[–]Paraptorkeet 0 points1 point ago

I take issue with people who wear there viewpoints and beliefs like a cod piece, parading it around and strutting down the street like Mic Jagger, daring passersby to take issue, questioning and harassing anyone with different viewpoints, so that when one of those people gets fed up and resorts to insults they turn around and say "See this is what I'm talking about! Those people! That's whats wrong with them right there! Did you hear what he said to me?" and so on. These people can be Atheists, Christians, republicans, democrats, vegetarians, and any other label people put on themselves. I call these people assholes! Even if I agree with what they're saying I still tell them to stuff it, because I don't want assholes to speak for me.

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 1 point2 points ago

Yeah, I can agree with most of that. Would you be willing to tie it to the discussion?

If not, no biggie. Thank you for your input.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 1 point2 points ago

Mr. Swift was on to something, I tell you here and now.

[–]studenthous 0 points1 point ago

As a Christian there's nothing wrong with you being an atheist. Jesus taught that we do our best to get you to consider Christianity, but that it's of your own volition as to whether or not you choose to believe. That said, I'd hope you'd reconsider Jesus. He loves you and died for your sons, but if you don't then that's okay too. God loves you, I love you, but mostly the Lord wants your happiness.

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 1 point2 points ago

I have, at times, made myself acutely aware of Jesus with moderate theological success.

I like to start with a thought experiment.

I imagine a pristine being. One who knows (, that which from our mortal perspective,) must be unlimited capacity for wisdom and a unique perception of events both worldly and heavenly. A being who's only concept of filth is academic from the context in which He encounters such worldly notions. But, He, so precise in the defining of concepts such as filth knows exactly what it means to be filthy and by the very same logic cannot know what it means for a Mortal to covered filth. This entire existence is apart from, but with complete working knowledge of, the human condition it is a bit like the paradox of being the knower of the blueprint, and the machine to which the blueprint is for.

Then I like to imagine that the time has come for this being, this God who, belittled by the vanity of this very description, is already sullied in compared to what it really must be to be God. That which I can conjure up is only, at best, a cheap analog for what ever the past 6000 years of history believed they were calling a god. I like to imagine that this God decides that the time has come for him to walk among his creation. Part of his knowing is to from the perspective of the moral and the perspective of the immortal and Jesus is his vessel to do so.

Not just to take human form and shoot the shit with the misguided, but to experience the miracle of birth juxtaposed by the utter filth of the event. The innocence of childhood juxtaposed by the unbearable embarrassment of those fragmented memories of the tragic simplicity of ideas we took 2 clenched fists to grasp at and still failed at embracing. An entire lifetime of human perceptions with at best a human certainty, in all that fallibility, that he was in fact God and he must be aware. He must demonstrate this truth in life so that when he reveals himself in death his creation can finally start making it's slow trek towards the construction of heaven on earth.

He chooses the path to demonstrate a perfect love. The love God has for his creation. A love that does properly fit in our mortal contexts. The love demonstrated by the toils, triumphs, climactic death and eternal revelation immortalized in that pinnacle figure of Christianity. He chooses to demonstrate a willingness to come down, to die and to exemplify a path of righteousness that may be echoed so that all who hear the call have at least one reference point from which they can know how to answer, and for everyone else who is not called, Jesus to them is a reason to live their life knowing that fallen as they are, they were and will always be in the heart of the Lord Jesus Christ, if only they testify as such, in life.


I do believe these are my own words. There are theological problems but I have reason to believe many of the concepts are walking me towards a purer idea of God's love. And in such ideas my guidance should lie so that I may walk a righteous path to his graces, lest I walk any other path away from.

I have reason to believe that the consideration of Jesus Christ, fact or fiction, is not the force keeping me from belief. She has lead me to this conclusion as well. And that is why this set of questions, with the overarching goal to understand what holds the theists from a wholesome empathy towards atheism, is my object. The reason for my post.

I try to empathize with a Christian perspective with moderate success. It serves me well and I know it could serve me better. Now I've slowly grown a strong desire to understand what it is like for a theist to try to empathize with the atheist (or the secular humanist to be exact.)

TL; DR: Can you tell me a little bit about what you find irreconcilable with a worldview that minimally presumes atheism?

[–]One_Catholic 0 points1 point ago

I was an atheist for twenty something years, so:

If you find Atheism personally appalling, can you take a few moments to describe why?

It's not appalling to me. In fact, it's perfectly reasonable and most likely accurate. However, it's not enough to sustain me.

If you don't find it personally appalling, can you take a few moments to explain why not and why you cannot picture yourself embracing Atheism?

I think the hardest thing to embrace when it comes to atheism is the entire "meh" aspect of it. There's very little community or support, and much of it is presented in negative terms: we're against this, we're angry about that, we don't like...etc. I find very little love and a whole lot of anger.

However...being one myself at one time I understand where a lot of this is coming from. And, being on the other side of the line now (as a Catholic) I can tell you that anger/division/lack of community is nothing special to atheists! There's plenty of it to go around.

At the end of the day, though, I feel torn. I see atheist and Christians as just being people trying to figure out what the heck it means to live this life and doing their best to live it. It sound trite, I know.

[–]ebz 0 points1 point ago

The reason I would find atheism disagreeable is because I have found LIFE in Jesus. Don't think I'm talking about finding life in religion or logical arguments - I have found true life in Jesus. And it just keeps getting better! I know Jesus to be Truth from a deeper place than just logic (yes, I know this is cliche, but it really is true). I have this overwhelming deep desire that has only been filled by knowing Jesus. I really do love him - he's real and wants to be with us.

PS I was an atheist for quite a while - so I know both sides. A relationship with Jesus has been the best thing that's ever happened to me.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago*

First, I do not view points 1-4 as necessarily Christian, but rather, simply part of a particular culture and a result of flawed theology held by (mainly) American evangelicals. The abortion issue gets a tad bit murkier, but we'll save that for another time.

On atheism:

In my mind, the most concerning cultural/philosophical development is the rise of nihilism and moral relativism among young atheists.

Sam Harris and most atheists truly acknowledge absolute truth but simply reject the notion that a god is the source of such truth. I can live with this viewpoint.

However, we - as a society - run into significant problems when we no longer recognize things such as right and wrong or good and evil. When we no longer recognize truth, then we no longer recognize human rights, statements of individual value, etc.

Some atheists read such comments as mine and say "Hey! You're suggesting that atheists are incapable of being moral". No. Some atheists are more moral than some Christians.

My argument, rather, is that there is such a thing as objective truth (as Sam Harris and most philosophers recognize) and that it is dangerous to suggest and live otherwise. Interestingly enough, you'll find that most self-described nihilists and moral relativists actually do believe in objective truth and practice it on a daily basis in their everyday lives.

Beyond this recognition of an objective truth, I take it one step further and argue that the source of this universal, objective truth is an immaterial, disembodied, timeless, and all-knowledgeable being; and whether one recognizes God's existence or not, we derive our universal standard of decent behavior from this being.

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 1 point2 points ago

Let me try to reflect this back.

The idea this is moving at is that morality needs checks and balances. You can't embody morality in objectivity because if, for any reason, some subset of rights was on the outside of that moral bubble it should be cleansed away.

Is this close?

[–]Scenro 0 points1 point ago*

If you find Atheism personally appalling, can you take a few moments to describe why?

I don't find atheism appalling. I find the reactions of anger between just people in general the worst. Christians shouldn’t forcibly try to convert people from their beliefs to Christianity just as atheist shouldn’t forcibly try and convert Christians, Muslim, Buddhist and the like to atheism. Much of the argument is 'how can you believe in something that’s imaginary?’ Really how can we believe in anything in theory? Even science all starts out as a hypothesis. Some Hypothesis and theory just can't be explained or take a lot longer to be explained. How can we believe in anything before photographs? Sure there’s written word and textbook, but history is iffy anytime before methods of proof have been made. All in all Christians should never, ever think ill will on a person; claim them as going to hell, and more so. Because by doing that you:

  1. Push someone further, never even wanting to dabble in seeking God.
  2. You’re not doing God’s will by loving others and all, no matter how terrible some people can be to you. (and people can be effing terrible! We just have to hold in the pain and bear it through, because causing revenge and pain will only beget more pain.)

    If you don't find it personally appalling, can you take a few moments to explain why not and why you cannot picture yourself embracing Atheism?

I don’t find it appalling because I feel there is a reason for everything in every way. I am saddened and disappointed that some don’t want a thing to do with any religious belief, but that’s my feeling preference. I would not judge or find it revolting because at one point I fell off the boat from religion. I won’t go back to agnotism/atheism though. One, when I first climbed back up the boat, my life was such hell at the time, I felt my exposure to religion again was a “why the hell not? I have nothing to lose anymore, not even my dignity or pride.” I was what I felt like the living dead for a few years. I even had a few cases where I desired not to be alive…. At all. There was no point. Going back into it was so unimaginably painful though. My moral conflict skewed, I became angry, I wanted to run from it all again, but something kept me going and I stuck with it, got passed my moral conflict and moved on. At first I was freaking out thinking those around me were brain washed, and to this day I still do in some cases ( because the church I went to was… odd… pushed prayer, monetary giving, and took pride in aspects like none other), but I’ve moved on to other churches and have seen differences. You can’t blame a church for your atheism, because every church is different. Some are terrible, mean, almost like brainless political figures with no compassion or grace, others are textbook and teach the bible and explain the bible as well as acknowledge humans as being sinners, but it’s not the end of the world. After the conversion something in me changed and life became brighter, more patterned and predictable and definitely more ironic. When everything clicks into place as it feels it should it, tweaks me the heck out even still, but I know there's something going on there that's greater than me and the world. And I love it.

Now back to why I won’t go back to atheism. Two, would be that I don’t think it would give me the joy I have now. Sure I could run amok and do what I did back then and generally not give an eff, but just the daily reminder of feeling loved by God ( a greater being than the world) makes me want to continue to be a better cleaner person. Not in the eyes of the world. The world doesn’t mean a thing to me, but the eyes of something greater does. I don’t like the way the world judges’ people. Why would you seek that narrowness that can create jealousy, terror, anger, pride, sometimes joy and wonder but it’s usually not a key factor, and so on. The world won’t remember us after we die anyway. It would be like a colony of ants where only the queens would matter and we will just turn to dust. I don’t like that feeling of being dust. So I don’t want to attach myself to it.

(( Sorry if I got off on a tangent at some point, its late, im listening to super chill music, and about to fall asleep on the computer. Any questions to clear things up, by all means ask. Hopefully ill either be able to respond less tired, or do my best to clear some things I said up ))

Edit: This is a thought I had and its a bit off from everything but, Ive realized I don't like the word religion. The way I view Christianity is not a religion, but as a philosophy to live by and to hold dear to you and love.This is where God comes in, as God is love. Because many people have died and have been slaughtered for believing in this. Love has done some wonderful things to us, and can still cause pain when there is a loss of love. Out in the Conga, you would be slaughtered today for Christianity and in cold blood. Yes I believe God exists. I believe that faith, hope, and love is our foundations to live by, and that Jesus Christ, the son of God, died for our sins and our most unsavory of actions. But I don't like how bitter the word religion is when referring to Christianity, and that I feel this word 'religion' limits it potential and power of impact. Its debatable with some Christian's and I will agree on the flaws it may have, but we tend to have flaws in all beliefs.

[–]cardinalwolsey 0 points1 point ago

I'm sorry I don't see how viewing suffering through a naturalist lense is in any way comforting? Christianity explains it and offers a solution. Atheism uses Christian morals and lenses, pretends the world envisioned by both didn't originate from religion, and then throws away the religion. That will work fine, but eventually Hitlers and Stalins who are unchecked by a 'universal moral code' for lack of better world will make up their own and that will be a bad day.

  1. Moral condemnation of contraceptives is not biblical and though the catholic church offers a view on it most chrstians use their own. Homexuality is a biblical sin and if you think Catholics or anyone else 'hates fags' you are simply making it up to enjoy the contraversy you can create.

  2. The catholic church accepts evolution

  3. I take comfort in knowing that the 300 people in my congregation care for each other. How is this a bad thing?

  4. Even if they use literalism what damage would that do? Last time I checked knowledge of evolution isn't useful to 99% of the human population. (I'm aware that you can argue this but it is beside the point).

  5. You aren't going to convince any person with respect for human life that abortion isn't killing a human. If atheist show this little amount of respect it's only a matter of time before humans start building a master race sequencing fetus dna and aborting undesirables. Oh wait. It's not genocide if we kill them early enough.

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 0 points1 point ago

Thanks for your input.

I think you misunderstood those bullets.

You definitely misunderstand worldviews with atheistic presuppositions.

That will work fine, but eventually Hitlers and Stalins who are unchecked by a 'universal moral code' for lack of better world will make up their own and that will be a bad day.

Please draw a pattern of reasoning that supports this claim.

[–]cardinalwolsey 0 points1 point ago

Both came to power and were well aware of eugenics, both believed the state should have importance over religion. Hitler even wrote that he wished germany had an eastern religion similar to the japanese isntead of christianity because it caused people to be weak idiots. Hitler clearly did not value christian ideas even if he claimed to be christian to maintain popularity. Anyway, the point being athiests don't have a moral authority they make up their own. What's stopping soomeone from starting a eugenics program? I'm not saying athiests are all hitler. I'm saying christian morals have done alot to make that behavior appear evil. Without a religious context it isn't necessarily so.

and in what ways did I misunderstand yoru points? You did say that your friend would see suffering and religion would not help her deal with it did you not?

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 0 points1 point ago

Hitler even wrote that he wished germany had an eastern religion similar to the japanese isntead of christianity because it caused people to be weak idiots. Hitler clearly did not value christian ideas even if he claimed to be christian to maintain popularity.

And yet Hitler managed to paint Christ as a warrior in the Christian Church of the Third Reich. Were it not for individuals of great conviction (such as Bonhoeffer and Niemöller) I would be the one extrapolating the risks of faith. But I do know of them. And I know their their faith served as a check. Bonhoeffer and Niemöller were the exception, not the rule. Stalin and Hitler were also exceptions. It takes exceptional people with great ambition to do great good and great evil.

The reality of the matter is that acceptance of any eugenic concept can only be precipitated by a complex social situation in which the walls along in-groups and out-groups gets so distorted that the individuals outside of the power-group are less than Human and those within become the protectors of Humanity. This is the same pattern we see with every genocide and gendercide throughout history.

It is worth noting that moral codes, as opposed to moral systems are more conducive to large-scale violence. Nothing is a testament to this more than the history of Religion.

Anyway, the point being athiests don't have a moral authority they make up their own. What's stopping soomeone from starting a eugenics program? I'm not saying athiests are all hitler. I'm saying christian morals have done alot to make that behavior appear evil. Without a religious context it isn't necessarily so.

Please tell me a little bit about what you think moral authority is.

and in what ways did I misunderstand yoru points?

My bulleted list are the parts of my Christian perspective that I have never been able to indulge. In this way I am permanently disconnected from the kind of boisterous Christianity that is dominating U.S. politics and media.

You did say that your friend would see suffering and religion would not help her deal with it did you not?

No, I did not. I assume "I am worried that her Christian lenses are not the best way of viewing the suffering she may be exposed to." is what you are referring to.

This is not about her ability to cope. I have faith that she will cope just fine. This is not about her ability to help. She can and will do only her best.

This is essentially my selfishness. Contextualizing human suffering in faith is no easy task and it stresses the faith (for many people to the breaking but for more to the point of blindness). To see human suffering in the context of God, runs the extreme risk of failed and/or incomplete empathy.

The situation is that a country with a horribly corrupt but stable government has let it's people descend so far into poverty and ignorance that it is not even possible for the people to use what little farmland they have as a local food source. The costs this mistake has formed across the board regressive circumstances.

If it is greed that has caused this mess, I would have her see through to eyes the malnourished and see that greed and understand why. Anything less belittles her experience.

If it is power that has caused this mess, I would have her struggle with teaching new farmers cause her to see through those trials to the kind of mentality would make those in charge make the decisions they made. Anything less belittles their suffering.

I would have her follow everything she witnesses to the the absolute limits of it's transitivity, so that she might recognize suffering doesn't even deserve a theological context. It can be understood in it's entirety. Placed on the spectrum of human importance and traced to it's causes. I fear that for her to invoke God before any such observation is to indulge a thought terminating cliche and for this reason, I fear a Christian perspective will be less.

[–]jimjonj 0 points1 point ago*

I'm no longer a Christian, but I recently posted this which I think is somewhat relevant.

From my experience many Christian leaders much of the time outright lie when facing something they do not agree with. I've been in a pew where the pastor spoke of how evil atheists are etc. Demonstrably false with just a look at religion demographics of many countries. Especially the Scandinavian as far as western countries go.

I've also had to sit there and listen to how evil women and doctors are for abortions, and how those women tend to be suicidal. How they will never recover from what they did. Again, willfully, demonstrably false.

The way differing views like these are handled in the Christian community is completely dishonest, ignorance enforcing, scare tactics. It's understandable how that translates to the above comment.

Albeit this is going to be anecdotal, I feel like I can give some insight spending my life surround by the Christian view and possibly something to reflect on for Christians here.

It is human nature to fear the unknown and misunderstood. My family especially is completely unable to objectively look at a view. It is essentially blaspheming to take religion out of the equation when having a discussion. This immovable barrier between mutual understanding is almost forbidden in general with the Christian view.

For my mother, it is offensive to her to believe someone can be happy without Christianity. For my old pastor, to discuss any opposing view is to be treated as the work of the devil. His focus was keeping people on "the path", and he liked to use scare tactics to accomplish this.

I believe there are 2 major problems when it comes to removing religious bigotry. Many of religions fundamental ideas present the biggest problem. When the fundamental idea of your religion is all people are born evil and must be saved in order to be whole/cure from their sickness, it is almost impossible to accept those who do not share your view are actually happy/complete as they say.

Second, much of the bigotry is mandated by their religion's deity. In order to live in that religion, you must be a bigot. This problem is just as hard to overcome as the first.

Again, I feel it's human nature to fear the unknown and then hate what you fear. What I mentioned earlier makes it inherently difficult to understand a different view so it will always be an unknown.

Sidenote as I tend to do... I will admit much of this does not reflect on the Christians here. I do have to say I agree with the majority of the Christians that many of the liberal Christians are not "true Christians." It almost seems dishonest to me. For example, those who claim homosexuality isn't a sin according to the bible. I don't understand how that can be an idea in a Christian setting. It almost shows even Christians are having trouble keeping the morals of modern society from creeping into their ancient ideals.

[–]Mansyn -1 points0 points ago

I think you'll find that there are a lot more atheists that frequent this board than Christians, you can draw your own conclusions as to why.

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 5 points6 points ago

I have my doubts about any conclusions based on so little information.

[–]JoePants 0 points1 point ago

Excuse me for jumping in at the middle here, and at the same time more-or-less echoing what's otherwise stated. I felt the need because I felt myself for many years an atheist (really a humanist, but no need to put too fine a point on this).

Long story short: I am not appalled at all.

I do feel a bit saddened, only because by your own definition you're not able to enjoy the personal relationship with God I'm able to enjoy -- and it is a relationship which brings a great deal of joy to my life, in all regards. (A great deal, all regards.)

That is, however, not the same as being appalled.

[–]mikechong 4 points5 points ago

I'll enter into the discussion here because I align myself somewhat to JoePants response.

To answer your question: I usually don't find atheism appalling, but there are moments when I do. To explain, in my everyday life atheists or whoever has different worldviews than me don't cause too much emotional response. I actively do cold contact evangelizing in a university and engage with atheist quite often.

However, there are times when I do hate atheism (not atheists). Its when I see that lack of God in people's lives somehow contribute to suffering, loneliness, or aimlessness. Of course, the feeling is mutual perhaps between some Christians and some atheists, so I'm not self-justifying myself or my side.

As for your Christian friend, I speculate that one of the reasons you want to challenge her is that unlike heady issues of theology and apologetics, her service in the peace corps is real and more is at stake. You care for your friend and are convinced that her worldview is not enough to tackle the issues of brokenness and suffering she might encounter. You perhaps care a little for the people as well, because you think religion has a great potential for harm or at least cause people to not live to their full potential.

But in the end, she'll probably go to the foreign country and her faith will probably still remain true. In fact, she might admit some aspects of her naivete when she started, but she might come back with a greater capacity and depth for love. Who knows?

My advice: lose some of your worry for her. She's doing what lots of people here on reddit don't do: live out their faith more than talking about it. There she will be tested whether her faith is true or not. I encourage the same for you. Maybe not go to peace corp, but engage yourself with the people truly in need and test how your faith (or nonfaith) holds up.

[–]JoePants 2 points3 points ago

I really like this (and wanted you and the entire Internets to know).

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 2 points3 points ago

Thanks for your response.

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 2 points3 points ago

I do feel a bit saddened, only because by your own definition you're not able to enjoy the personal relationship with God I'm able to enjoy -- and it is a relationship which brings a great deal of joy to my life, in all regards. (A great deal, all regards.)

I have a great deal to say on this. I am, to my knowledge, the only atheist who believes that some part of the relationship with God is (albeit checmically) quite real.

So I am lucky enough to have taken the time to listen to that friend I spoke so much of as she tried to relate to me a wholeness that I am unlikely to ever experience. Her relationship with God. Her accounts of listening prayer. What it means to feel God in an action.

[–]orp2000 2 points3 points ago*

the only atheist who believes that some part of the relationship with God is (albeit checmically) quite real.

Nice that you are open-minded on some issues. Please note that your predilection to think of this relationship as something merely chemical is not substantiated by objective evidence (which, it seems, you prefer). And if it were, that still would not necessarily diminish it, any more than saying that thoughts, philosophies, music, poems and anything we can imagine are all simply the result of chemical and electrical reactions and interactions. We are made of these things, so it would be natural that these things would be reflective of, and either stimulate or be stimulated by, our experiences. Of course you're going to then go to a refutation because of exclusion of the supernatural, but that's where many make their mistake. Putting too strong of a connotation on the word "supernatural" makes you think it is something to rebel against, when it may well be nothing more than the "natural" extended into areas beyond where our science currently takes us, much in the way that disease was once thought to be caused by unhealthy spirits.

Peace to you.

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 1 point2 points ago

If I were to claim God is a fiction and then tell you all the ways he's been engaged in a personal relationship with you, that does us both a serious disservice. If I can tell you why I am convinced of that, now we can talk about it academically. Better yet, you can now empathize with an aspect your relationship that was previously unavailable, and I have a new avenue towards empathy with you.

I'm sorry if that [ugh, sorry again.] calling it chemistry belittled you your perspective. It wasn't meant to and I hope we can agree that invoking neurochemistry as relevant is not isn't insulting on it's own.

Edit. I was a dick. Sorry.

[–]orp2000 1 point2 points ago

I too am sorry, because I didn't mean to come across as feeling belittled and I didn't think that you were sounding like a dick. At this moment I would like to introduce you to a quote that I read many years ago that stuck with me. It wasn't attributed to anyone, and it doesn't really apply universally, but I think it comes darn close. "You bring as much pain to the world when you take offense as when you give it." There is so much ego and self-importance and posturing involved with a great deal of the whole taking offense game that I just prefer not to play. Of course, having said that, someone will now say something to me to which I will take great umbrage and I will look like a hypocrite. Seriously though, I try to live by that as much as I can. You and I are both humans, both imperfect and heavily flawed. Our imperfections just manifest differently. How can I hope that you'll forgive mine if I don't forgive yours?

My previous post was just an invitation for you to entertain some additional perspectives.

You can claim that God is a fiction and I will tell you that no, God is not a fiction, but one may be able to make the case that some of the things said about Him are fictional, or figurative, or metaphorical, or whatever you like. Incidentally there are some perspectives that one can find in some Eastern traditions that say that this entire existence is a metaphor (sort of a spin-off of the Buddhist concept of this world being illusory) so, in that context the whole fictional or factual debate takes on some brand new dimensions, don't you think?

Peace

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 2 points3 points ago

I appreciate what you are saying about eastern ideologies. I will more than happily make the concession/assertion that fictions don't have implicitly mitigated value. Establishing God as a fiction between a theist and non-theist would implicitly and arrogantly devalue God. But between two atheists, this is simply not the case, and I'd ask you to consider the far-reaching implications of that, even if it remains a little frustrating.

That said, it is very important for my purpose that you empathize without God to my questions, so I fear we are rapidly approaching debate territory. As I've told others, I'm very open to this, so just PM me if you ever want to have a discussion that isn't so grounded in my personal goals.

[–]orp2000 0 points1 point ago

Certainly I understand that treating God as fiction wouldn't be a problem between two atheists. That is, in fact, the most common treatment that God gets from atheists.

[–]MojoGaga 0 points1 point ago

I don't know if you've researched it, but there have been some studies where they've scanned the (altered) brainwave patterns of people while they are speaking in tongues. This is a learned behavior that people can be trained repeat.

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 1 point2 points ago

Hard to tell your motivation for this post. If you can find me a study I'll review it and background check it.

I have read some commentary that heavily criticizes the significance of altered state, since the baseline is bell curve with little to know modeled causation. (Major exceptions in sleep science)

[–]therationalparent 1 point2 points ago

I have a great deal to say on this. I am, to my knowledge, the only atheist who believes that some part of the relationship with God is (albeit chemically) quite real.

You're not the only one to think that - in fact I would be surprised if this wasn't a commonly held view amongst (more seasoned) atheists. Of course the fact that the love that Christians feel for their god is real does not mean that the god is real.

You may be interested in the worldview of Alan Moore. He views religious people as having made their own reality - if they believe it to be true, then it is true for them. So he worships his own, self-invented god. His views are a bit eccentric but they are logically consistent and he is a fascinating individual. As an atheist the thing I like about it is how he manages to combine a rational worldview with a completely nuts and creative personal philosophy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MF89iv50Skw

(If you don't want to watch all of it, watch from about 26:30. Stick with it - it may seen crazy at first but it becomes more interesting as he explains his odd worldview).

[–]JoePants 1 point2 points ago

If I may: I'm having lunch at my desk upon receiving your response. It's a good lunch, Sunday dinner leftovers of a hamburger steak, sweat potato and green beans. Really, an excellent lunch. The meat used was of high quality, and all was prepared just right, not too firm or soggy. It brings me a great deal of joy to be able to have a lunch like this.

You will not be tasting my lunch. That's a shame. I could go on to describe it in excruciating detail, but still, the experience of my lunch is a thing removed from the experience of my lunch. Worse, and despite my having some skill with the written word, I can never quite relay the internalized experience of my lunch.

Nor, alas, my relationship with God.

I suppose it's no accident that writings on the relationship are as many and varied as writing on love, that is something overwhelming in being as all-encompassing as it is, yet no description quite meets its measure.

Hence my sadness. I wish I could find the words and modes to express just how wonderful this all is (talking about God now, not my lunch) but being, what, human, I can not. But I will pray for you to be able to experience this relationship, this internalizing, this, this, sweeping majesty which transcends expression.

Yes, I can feel God, much like your friend, I'd imagine. But words fail me in describing the depth and breadth of what this is like.

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 3 points4 points ago

If my assessment of this relationship is correct, I've had opportunities to do it myself. Don't feel bad for me. It is immensely gratifying. Or more accurately. Love is immensely gratifying and it seems to insist we acknowledge it.

[–]JoePants 2 points3 points ago

Ah friend, therein my point: Love is gratifying, immensely so. Your point stands.

Love of the Creator experienced, being my point, is the most gratifying of all.

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 2 points3 points ago*

And if love is love, is love? What would be irreconcilable about atheism?

[–]JoePants 2 points3 points ago

I'm not sure I follow, but I'll try.

Your last point first: Far be it from me to determine the warp and woof of one's atheism. I'll have to leave that on your plate.

But yes, love is love. I love a number of things, my guitar and bicycle for example. I love things which love me in return, my wife and son as an example here. And I love God, and God loves me. And this last point seems to be the one where we keep bouncing off each other.

I could now go on and tell you how super-fantastic-awesome this relationship is. But all I'm doing is approximating the experience.

And at this point, all I'm doing is creating another circular Christian/Atheist argument/discussion. So, despite this being teh Internets, I'll stop here.

[–]hagerty9009 0 points1 point ago

I don't find atheism personally appalling simply because it isn't, in and of itself, harmful. However, the more I look at the world, the underlying beauty of it, and most importantly the underlying order of it all, it points to a Creator.

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 2 points3 points ago

If I gave you secular considerations to explain this, could you attempt to assess whether it makes a secular philosophy more or less palatable to you?

[–]hagerty9009 0 points1 point ago

Possibly. I am, however, quite convinced of the existence of a Creator God. There are many great, awesome things that have been borne of secular philosophy, and I'm kind of curious as to what secular considerations you'd give me.

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 1 point2 points ago

Tell me a little bit about what you think you know. About nature, about what it means to be human, about evolution etc...

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 1 point2 points ago

That sounds like you've never tried to empathize with a non-theist perspective in your life.

Have you?

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]AndAnAlbatross[S] 1 point2 points ago

I'm afraid I don't understand.