And What About The Atheists?

[R. S. Martin]

Anyone may post here but the poll is only for anyone who identifies as Christian.

 

What do Christians think?

 

1. Are atheists bad? If you think so, please explain. Biblical basis for your argument does not count. You need to provide evidence from real life that atheists commit more crimes, cause more social disturbances, etc., than Christians.

 

2. If you don't want forums like exChristian.net and Foundation for Fighting Fundamentalist Religion and Internet Infidels to exist, why don't you back off and let atheists and other religions co-exist peacefully with you?

 

3. Atheists donate considerable and volunteer time, energy, and finances to keep these projects alive. If atheists didn't have very strong convictions about their "cause," why would they give of themselves so freely in this way?

 

Please keep this civil and on topic as the Coleseum rules require.

[Jedah]

I think you might Get more Responses if you joined christian forums under a bogus account, and posed as a christian. That way you could start a thread asking "fellow christians" what they think of us, with the same exact poll.

 

The best part about that idea is that they would give more honest replies since they would think we are not around to notice the bull.

[Kratos]

Good and bad are strictly judgments of behavior based on how the standard that the one judging has set. I don't believe that anyone is totally good or totally bad. We all do good things sometimes and bad things other times. If this were not true, none of us would ever feel shame or regret and I don't think anyone can say that about their life.

 

Of course, the problem in a society comes when different people have different views of what is good and what is bad. An extreme example would be something like pedophilia. Most would agree that this is bad whether Christian or atheist, but a member of NAMBLA would disagree and different cultures would judge the age of consent differently. A less extreme example might be drunk driving. It seems the culture is somewhat split on this behavior. I think we have all had a few and driven home and would not consider ourselves to be "bad people". But, a person who lost a child or a parent in an accident when the one who caused the crash may have only been marginally impaired due to alcohol would disagree.

 

I think the place where good and bad really get muddled is when we are talking about "victimless" behavior which the Bible calls sin. For example, is adultary wrong in and of itself if no one finds out? Even without the Bible or a belief in sin many would say so on the basis of betrayal of a promise to another of fidelity even though the person who was cheated on never was hurt because they never knew.

 

Finally, what about what the Bible calls fornication or sex outside of marriage. Here there is no betrayal and no one gets hurt other than perhaps a broken heart though a Christian would still say it is sin. Again, bad is relative and varies on the circumstances and the one making the judgment. It still seems that good and bad are judgments of certain behaviors rather than certain people.

 

John

[Purple]

I think you might Get more Responses if you joined christian forums under a bogus account, and posed as a christian. That way you could start a thread asking "fellow christians" what they think of us, with the same exact poll.

 

The best part about that idea is that they would give more honest replies since they would think we are not around to notice the bull.

 

Unfortunatly I think this is true. YOu could join not on a bogus name a ask this on general debate, you'd probably get more responces than here, but if you asked this of xians as a xian you'd get more honest replies.

[Guest skeptic101]

Anyone may post here but the poll is only for anyone who identifies as Christian.

 

What do Christians think?

 

1. Are atheists bad? If you think so, please explain. Biblical basis for your argument does not count. You need to provide evidence from real life that atheists commit more crimes, cause more social disturbances, etc., than Christians.

 

2. If you don't want forums like exChristian.net and Foundation for Fighting Fundamentalist Religion and Internet Infidels to exist, why don't you back off and let atheists and other religions co-exist peacefully with you?

 

3. Atheists donate considerable and volunteer time, energy, and finances to keep these projects alive. If atheists didn't have very strong convictions about their "cause," why would they give of themselves so freely in this way?

 

Please keep this civil and on topic as the Coleseum rules require.

 

 

 

Most Christians don't judge you as being good or bad or assumne that because you're atheist you hate God. They think, in the simplest terms possible, you are misguided. I have never told someone they were evil, horrible, a sinner unlike myself or judged them more than anyone else does on an instinctive level. I think that tolerance is good and everyone, no matter what their beliefs or orientation, should be respected and treated equally. Obviously, not all Christians are this way, just like some atheist do hate christians. But not all of them do, most likely, not even the majority-this goes for christians and atheists. But hey, i'm only seventeen, maybe that's just me

[Amethyst]

Most Christians don't judge you as being good or bad or assumne that because you're atheist you hate God. They think, in the simplest terms possible, you are misguided. I have never told someone they were evil, horrible, a sinner unlike myself or judged them more than anyone else does on an instinctive level. I think that tolerance is good and everyone, no matter what their beliefs or orientation, should be respected and treated equally. Obviously, not all Christians are this way, just like some atheist do hate christians. But not all of them do, most likely, not even the majority-this goes for christians and atheists. But hey, i'm only seventeen, maybe that's just me

 

I don't think it's just you, I used to think that way about people of other beliefs when I was young as well. Nobody wants to think about good people being tortured forever simply for having different religious beliefs, so they do mental gymnastics instead. At least, for those who were raised in a literalistic belief system. I would think liberal Christians wouldn't have as much of a need for that kind of rationalization, since the ones I know IRL don't believe in hell.

[Coolhermit]

I care not what somebody claims to believe. If they are a father then how they father is important to me. If a mother then does she care for her family? Do they keep their word? Are they trustworthy? Do they use foul language? Violence?

 

Since **** cannot be described nor proved/disproved then someone's actions define them.

[Ouroboros]

Good and bad are strictly judgments of behavior based on how the standard that the one judging has set. I don't believe that anyone is totally good or totally bad. We all do good things sometimes and bad things other times. If this were not true, none of us would ever feel shame or regret and I don't think anyone can say that about their life.

You're starting to sound like a relativist, John! Are you sure you're not in the process of de-converting?

 

I wish there were more Christians that could understand that concept, but I'm glad there are a few out there that does.

[Kratos]

Good and bad are strictly judgments of behavior based on how the standard that the one judging has set. I don't believe that anyone is totally good or totally bad. We all do good things sometimes and bad things other times. If this were not true, none of us would ever feel shame or regret and I don't think anyone can say that about their life.

You're starting to sound like a relativist, John! Are you sure you're not in the process of de-converting?

 

I wish there were more Christians that could understand that concept, but I'm glad there are a few out there that does.

 

Han,

 

Not deconverting in the typical sense though I am always "evolving" in my understanding of God and His Kingdom. I think orthodox Christianity to still be eating of the wrong tree when they make it about good and evil. God's Kingdom is about life and death (spiritually) and has never been about good and evil. If nothing else, experience would prove that there are plenty of "good" non-believers and "evil" Christians.

 

I have certainly deconverted from the view of orthodox Christianity that teaches that they have a corner on goodness. I have lived long enough to have been humbled by the goodness of non-believers and embarassed by the evil of those who name the name of Christ.

 

John

[Guest debtor2grace]

I think the poll was flawed... never did like objective tests. There's always an "other" in my mind.

 

1. Are atheists bad? If you think so, please explain. Biblical basis for your argument does not count. You need to provide evidence from real life that atheists commit more crimes, cause more social disturbances, etc., than Christians.

 

For the purposes of my response, I'll define "bad" as a refusal to abide by accepted standards of inter- and intrapersonal behavior (includes other people as well as oneself). The social standard is much easier to form a working conception of - my list goes something like: do no harm, do good, tell the truth / keep contract with others, and respect humanity (the latter covers a great deal).

 

Someone intentionally flaunting a known behavioral standard for evil or selfish ends commits a bad deed. Someone whose consistent tendency is toward badness is bad. Their character has been corrupted through their decisions and their conscience has been silenced - the worst of the worst no longer feel wrong about what they do. True, you can go into life missing what some would consider an important, even intuitive, tenet - an ignorant person may do a wrong thing without scarring their moral makeup.

 

I think bad is a state of character, and an intentional one (ignores the possibility of people born amoral, as I've heard there are). There are bad people in this world, both religious and irreligious. One's self-identification does not tell you anything about their character; conversely, one's character does not always lead an observer to accurate assumptions about their belief system.

 

However, I do believe atheists as a whole (irrespective of their moral status) are lacking somewhat in their attitudinal response to realilty (i.e., toward God) because they do not believe in Him and consequently can do nothing appropriate concerning Him. That encompasses a great deal also, and I have a confused sort of idea - laughably borrowed from Boethius - about the good and God, all mixed up with Platonism.

 

2. If you don't want forums like exChristian.net and Foundation for Fighting Fundamentalist Religion and Internet Infidels to exist, why don't you back off and let atheists and other religions co-exist peacefully with you?

 

Actually, I'd be content enough to leave y'all be in this negatively-identified forum if there was the implication or directly stated signpost that believers ought to butt out and mind their own business in this context. As is, I think most people (especially exclusive groups defined by commonly-held beliefs) are pretty pugilistic - Christians too - we like to fight, argue, debate. [someone tell me if I'm wrong - I'm not that invested here and I don't mind "co-existing" in peace by stepping out. But then there's the real world...I'll meet y'all there. Why not have a place to vicariously meet online?] I'm not one for vigorous evangelism to atheists - or anyone that's strictly defined in a non-Christian sense (an uncertain individual with no preference is another story; not hostile, perhaps interested...) - I'd rather talk over a period of time, I think that's a better way to gain ground.

 

While Christians can and have been militant, *most" folks these days aren't anything but "peaceful," although some evangelicals can be pretty annoying, I know.

 

3. Atheists donate considerable and volunteer time, energy, and finances to keep these projects alive. If atheists didn't have very strong convictions about their "cause," why would they give of themselves so freely in this way?

 

*Shrugs* Obviously, they have strong convictions. I will say, though - it seems very strange that a large group of intelligent people should identify themselves by what they are not, what they are against. That would be like my identifying myself as an "ex-pagan" or "ex-atheist." Again, pugilism. It's natural. Why else fight for the right to keep your mouth closed throughout the Pledge of Allegiance? (That school-age ritual isn't long for the world, I tell you.)

 

Man is not going to completely eliminate religious sentiment, ever. You may beat down the classical religions, but even in a secular society like American you have every degree of low-quality paganism springing up all over the place. There's something in us that makes us desire an experience with the "other."

 

I'd say the undertaking is the act of deceived / mistaken people, their motive placed somewhere on a continuum that ranges from spite tp earnest goodwill.

[The-Captain]

I think the poll was flawed... never did like objective tests. There's always an "other" in my mind.

 

IMO polls the results of polls are more for the one giving the poll, and little else.

 

 

However, I do believe atheists as a whole (irrespective of their moral status) are lacking somewhat in their attitudinal response to realilty (i.e., toward God) because they do not believe in Him and consequently can do nothing appropriate concerning Him. That encompasses a great deal also, and I have a confused sort of idea - laughably borrowed from Boethius - about the good and God, all mixed up with Platonism.

 

I appreciate you phrasing that as your opinion, but I have to ask what is your basis for making such a ridiculous statement. I could just as easily turn that around and apply it to Christians, but it would be little more than a pointless insult.

 

 

As is, I think most people (especially exclusive groups defined by commonly-held beliefs) are pretty pugilistic - Christians too - we like to fight, argue, debate. [someone tell me if I'm wrong - I'm not that invested here and I don't mind "co-existing" in peace by stepping out. But then there's the real world...I'll meet y'all there. Why not have a place to vicariously meet online?]

 

Not as pugilistic as you would think, some like to debate, some to discuss, others just chat with friends about all kinds of things. It is hardly an exclusive group, and the only commonly held anything is former membership or belief in some sect of Christianity.

 

I'm not one for vigorous evangelism to atheists - or anyone that's strictly defined in a non-Christian sense (an uncertain individual with no preference is another story; not hostile, perhaps interested...) - I'd rather talk over a period of time, I think that's a better way to gain ground.

 

Gain ground?

 

No discussion for discussion's sake eh? I suppose that would be an exercise in futility since you seem to have more of the answers than any of us.

 

 

*Shrugs* Obviously, they have strong convictions. I will say, though - it seems very strange that a large group of intelligent people should identify themselves by what they are not, what they are against. That would be like my identifying myself as an "ex-pagan" or "ex-atheist." Again, pugilism. It's natural. Why else fight for the right to keep your mouth closed throughout the Pledge of Allegiance? (That school-age ritual isn't long for the world, I tell you.)

 

Its a functional term that often only applies to one aspect of a persons life. For lack of a better term I would consider myself a secular humanist if forced to label my general philosophy, but if asked if I believe in any gods I would reply atheist. It denotes little except their stance on deities. Again, its hardly pugilistic, remember its a-theist, not anti-theist or the like.

 

Man is not going to completely eliminate religious sentiment, ever. You may beat down the classical religions, but even in a secular society like American you have every degree of low-quality paganism springing up all over the place. There's something in us that makes us desire an experience with the "other."

Never say never

 

Beat down? Whats with all the pugilism?

 

Even so do you think thats a good thing?

 

I'd say the undertaking is the act of deceived / mistaken people, their motive placed somewhere on a continuum that ranges from spite tp earnest goodwill.

 

Who are you talking about here?

 

Edit: The gods of typing favor me not.

[R. S. Martin]

1. Are atheists bad? If you think so, please explain. Biblical basis for your argument does not count. You need to provide evidence from real life that atheists commit more crimes, cause more social disturbances, etc., than Christians.

 

For the purposes of my response, I'll define "bad" as a refusal to abide by accepted standards of inter- and intrapersonal behavior (includes other people as well as oneself). The social standard is much easier to form a working conception of - my list goes something like: do no harm, do good, tell the truth / keep contract with others, and respect humanity (the latter covers a great deal).

 

Someone intentionally flaunting a known behavioral standard for evil or selfish ends commits a bad deed. Someone whose consistent tendency is toward badness is bad.

 

You're not actually providing examples from real life as evidence that atheists are bad. You seem to be analyzing what constitutes bad. Fair enough. Your standard for "badness" seems to be: 1. level of adherence to social norms for interpersonal behaviour, and 2. the motivation of a person's behaviour. The latter is drawn from your statement: Someone intentionally flaunting a known behavioral standard for evil or selfish ends commits a bad deed. The bolded parts indicate to me that you think you can tell whether another person's behaviour is intentional, and whether it is motivated by evil or selfish reasons.

 

However, I do believe atheists as a whole (irrespective of their moral status) are lacking somewhat in their attitudinal response to realilty (i.e., toward God) because they do not believe in Him and consequently can do nothing appropriate concerning Him. That encompasses a great deal also, and I have a confused sort of idea - laughably borrowed from Boethius - about the good and God, all mixed up with Platonism.

 

From this I gather that you think God is the Ground of All Being, or Reality. And that a person who does not accept the existence of God is out of touch with reality. However, you provide no example from real life to back up your hypothesis. I see the word "laughable" in there. On Madame M's thread, when you were got into a corner you claimed not to have been serious. Are you playing mind games with me. This is the Colesseum and I expect serious debate; not mind games and jokes or light-hearted banter.

 

3. Atheists donate considerable and volunteer time, energy, and finances to keep these projects alive. If atheists didn't have very strong convictions about their "cause," why would they give of themselves so freely in this way?

 

*Shrugs* Obviously, they have strong convictions. I will say, though - it seems very strange that a large group of intelligent people should identify themselves by what they are not, what they are against. That would be like my identifying myself as an "ex-pagan" or "ex-atheist." Again, pugilism. It's natural. Why else fight for the right to keep your mouth closed throughout the Pledge of Allegiance? (That school-age ritual isn't long for the world, I tell you.)

 

You are evading the question.

[Guest debtor2grace]

However, I do believe atheists as a whole (irrespective of their moral status) are lacking somewhat in their attitudinal response to realilty (i.e., toward God) because they do not believe in Him and consequently can do nothing appropriate concerning Him. That encompasses a great deal also, and I have a confused sort of idea - laughably borrowed from Boethius - about the good and God, all mixed up with Platonism.

 

I appreciate you phrasing that as your opinion, but I have to ask what is your basis for making such a ridiculous statement. I could just as easily turn that around and apply it to Christians, but it would be little more than a pointless insult.

 

In my post, I merely affirmed the possibility of a moral atheist (or Buddhist, or Muslim, or anything), and continued by stating what I believe to be the flawed component of a non-Christian's worldview: it's not a matter of morality, so irrelevant to the topic. Sue me.

 

No discussion for discussion's sake eh? I suppose that would be an exercise in futility since you seem to have more of the answers than any of us.

 

Don't put words in my mouth, sir. This was a poll - I responded with what could only be opinion to begin with and was subsequently lambasted. And discussion for discussion's sake? That's one of the things that keeps me sane in an otherwise lonely life.

 

 

Its a functional term that often only applies to one aspect of a persons life. For lack of a better term I would consider myself a secular humanist if forced to label my general philosophy, but if asked if I believe in any gods I would reply atheist. It denotes little except their stance on deities. Again, its hardly pugilistic, remember its a-theist, not anti-theist or the like.

 

I just got through discussing "Christian pugilism" at length in a class. I'm taking a generality and applying it here - many times people like to be against something for the sake of self-identification and boundary issues. I meant the group name as "negatively defined" (i.e., 'ex-christian'), statement of fact - the commentary perhaps is opinion, but there's some validity there.

 

 

Who are you talking about here?

 

Sorry, unclear antecedent. It was a concluding response to #3 - i.e., those who devote great time and energy to the cause in question (atheistic organizations).

 

 

You're not actually providing examples from real life as evidence that atheists are bad. You seem to be analyzing what constitutes bad. Fair enough. Your standard for "badness" seems to be: 1. level of adherence to social norms for interpersonal behaviour, and 2. the motivation of a person's behaviour. The latter is drawn from your statement: Someone intentionally flaunting a known behavioral standard for evil or selfish ends commits a bad deed. The bolded parts indicate to me that you think you can tell whether another person's behaviour is intentional, and whether it is motivated by evil or selfish reasons.

 

However, I do believe atheists as a whole (irrespective of their moral status) are lacking somewhat in their attitudinal response to realilty (i.e., toward God) because they do not believe in Him and consequently can do nothing appropriate concerning Him. That encompasses a great deal also, and I have a confused sort of idea - laughably borrowed from Boethius - about the good and God, all mixed up with Platonism.

 

From this I gather that you think God is the Ground of All Being, or Reality. And that a person who does not accept the existence of God is out of touch with reality. However, you provide no example from real life to back up your hypothesis. I see the word "laughable" in there. On Madame M's thread, when you were got into a corner you claimed not to have been serious. Are you playing mind games with me. This is the Colesseum and I expect serious debate; not mind games and jokes or light-hearted banter.

 

Statement of fact: you and I have differing worldview. I believe that God figures into this universe, you do not. Alright so far? So, as far as reality is concerned, we have different perceptions and responses, as suits our reason regarding "the actual state of affairs." MY PERSONAL BELIEF is that you are mistaken in your worldview, in your response to reality. You may say exactly the same thing of me. I did not use the idiom "out of touch with reality" because that connotates haziness and stupidity - I used "lacking somewhat in their attitudinal response to reality." In plain terms, you don't worship or respect God (for obvious reasons, you don't believe in Him). Again, statement of fact - I meant it to be relevant, but apparently the connection is unclear. I meant no offense.

 

I never said that atheists are bad. Go back and read my post, read my response to the poll. So, you see the word "laughable." Read it in context. As a post-script to my statements on bald morality, I insert a note on "the good" in Neo-Platonist thought that makes perfect sense if you're fresh out of humanities course in which the quasi-pagan Boethius tries to find the "consolation in philosophy." No mind games here, just growing impatience.

 

You are evading the question.

 

 

 

I answered the question. There is no real question, no argument. Obviously there is passion there, in atheists' "freely giving of themselves" for the effort of whatever they set about doing. I'd say the same of people knitting sweaters for Chihuahuas or providing food for starving children - if there's enough human activity going on, there's passion involved. That in no way makes any evaluative statement about the worth or importance of said activity.

 

Put up another poll and ask better questions.

[The-Captain]

In my post, I merely affirmed the possibility of a moral atheist (or Buddhist, or Muslim, or anything), and continued by stating what I believe to be the flawed component of a non-Christian's worldview: it's not a matter of morality, so irrelevant to the topic. Sue me.

 

And I asked for the basis for your statement. You certainly don't owe me one, but what you said can easily be construed as insult so don't be surprised if it provokes a reaction.

 

No discussion for discussion's sake eh? I suppose that would be an exercise in futility since you seem to have more of the answers than any of us.

 

Don't put words in my mouth, sir. This was a poll - I responded with what could only be opinion to begin with and was subsequently lambasted. And discussion for discussion's sake? That's one of the things that keeps me sane in an otherwise lonely life.

 

Maybe I spoke too soon, I focused on the "better way to gain ground bit", a strange turn of phrase. I was getting a little outside the context of the poll, that and I get grumpy sometimes.

 

How about this, we keep things amiable and have a bit of good faith. Last thing I want is to get into a tit for tat thing, I hope you feel the same. Remember please that on this site we have no group creed, and no unified voice or stance, we are just a bunch of individuals.

 

And sorry Ruby if I'm derailing a bit, I won't get into this one if you don't want as I have little to do with the OP.

[Guest debtor2grace]

Amiable. Got it.

 

Sorry for being rude RubySera, Doctor. I'm a little on edge tonight. In the future, I will maintain a calm and respectful tone, particularly in the formal threads.

 

I think I misunderstood question #2 - "If you don't want forums like exChristian.net and Foundation for Fighting Fundamentalist Religion and Internet Infidels to exist, why don't you back off and let atheists and other religions co-exist peacefully with you?"

 

My revised answer would go something along the lines of concern and evangelistic mandate. But as I said before, I don't believe in the "aggressive evangelism" that some religious groups advocate - it doesn't work and it offends people. I'd rather engage in relational, coversational activity. I've been in some contexts where that's worked really well, to the mutal enjoyment of all...it's at least better than the proverbial "Bible-thumping."

 

The NT heavily emphasizes the "go evangelize" idea, so that's the root of it in Christian thought (as you all know), though it does get corrupted with self-righteousness a lot.

 

To clarify my position on "badness" (question 1) by no means do I link moral status with religious belief (I chose to regard badness in a moral sense because that was how the poll question was posed). And the point of all that I said on that issue was to qualify my answer to the question: No, not necessarily bad, that's not the problem we have. The problem is that we perceive atheism as being incorrect, and furthermore believe that incorrectness has long-lasting consequences.

 

------

 

Maybe someone can explain question 3 to me because it didn't seem like an open-ended question at all. You have strong convictions, I have strong convictions. Those convictions seem to lead to disagreement. Yes? What is the point? Is the point that one ought to respect "strong convictions"? Because that's a fairly valid point. But, it conflicts with the Christian conviction of evangelism...and we're back to question 2.

 

Given our worldview and all the assumptions that go with that, what would you have us do?

[Legion]

I know this is the Colosseum and I hope the mods will feel free to exercise their power over this post, but I kind of like this guy, Deptor2grace.

[Ouroboros]

I know this is the Colosseum and I hope the mods will feel free to exercise their power over this post, but I kind of like this guy, Deptor2grace.

He can stay, as long as he doesn't gets too annoying.

[Ouroboros]

But, it conflicts with the Christian conviction of evangelism...and we're back to question 2.

 

Given our worldview and all the assumptions that go with that, what would you have us do?

Yes. I just read that Benny Hinn made $800,000 following Jesus command to spread the Gospel! Glory to Jesus! Let us all pray that God will be with him and strengthen him to make even more money so he can buy another jet. Nothing glorifies God more than the preachers who wears a watch worth more than most people make in a year. Amen.

[R. S. Martin]

Sorry, somehow I forgot about this thread.

 

Amiable. Got it.

 

Sorry for being rude RubySera, Doctor. I'm a little on edge tonight. In the future, I will maintain a calm and respectful tone, particularly in the formal threads.

 

Debtor, thank you for this follow-up post. I didn't know how to deal with the previous one.

 

I think I misunderstood question #2 - "If you don't want forums like exChristian.net and Foundation for Fighting Fundamentalist Religion and Internet Infidels to exist, why don't you back off and let atheists and other religions co-exist peacefully with you?"

 

My revised answer would go something along the lines of concern and evangelistic mandate. But as I said before, I don't believe in the "aggressive evangelism" that some religious groups advocate - it doesn't work and it offends people. I'd rather engage in relational, coversational activity. I've been in some contexts where that's worked really well, to the mutal enjoyment of all...it's at least better than the proverbial "Bible-thumping."

 

The NT heavily emphasizes the "go evangelize" idea, so that's the root of it in Christian thought (as you all know), though it does get corrupted with self-righteousness a lot.

 

The NT also contains the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I see much reference to the Golden Rule on these forums, too. That tells me that the Golden Rule is common ground for Christian and exChristian dialogue. Debtor, let's start discussion of these questions with the Golden Rule.

 

1. Would you like for us to enter your Sunday School or Christian forums uninvited to promote secular humanism, which teaches against supersitious beliefs? (Humanism sees belief in God as a superstitious belief.)

 

2. Would you like for us to post humanist slogans on every public wall and building in the name of spreading the word of truth and liberating humanity, which we sincerely believe is our mandate and which would have so greatly improved my own life had others done it for me while I was yet ensnared deep in the throes of religion?

 

Because nobody did it for me, I suffered many more years deep in religious lies, only to find twenty years later that at one point I had lived two houses over from a person who could have helped me had he been allowed to post his literature in public places. In fact, I had been warned to keep my distance from him because he was seen as being dangerous. Thus, not only was he not allowed to post notices about his beliefs (unlike all the churches around town) but his influence was strictly limited when young people were warned not to talk to him because he was "dangerous." Just north of town there's a huge bill board about the coming judgment. But this man wasn't allowed to talk to his neighbours.

 

THAT IS NOT ABOUT EVANGELIZING THAT IS ABOUT CONTROLING PEOPLE.

 

To clarify my position on "badness" (question 1) by no means do I link moral status with religious belief (I chose to regard badness in a moral sense because that was how the poll question was posed). And the point of all that I said on that issue was to qualify my answer to the question: No, not necessarily bad, that's not the problem we have. The problem is that we perceive atheism as being incorrect, and furthermore believe that incorrectness has long-lasting consequences.

 

You have a right to your own beliefs so long as they do not hurt self or others. Let me refer to something in your other post:

 

Statement of fact: you and I have differing worldview. I believe that God figures into this universe, you do not. Alright so far? So, as far as reality is concerned, we have different perceptions and responses, as suits our reason regarding "the actual state of affairs." MY PERSONAL BELIEF is that you are mistaken in your worldview, in your response to reality. You may say exactly the same thing of me. I did not use the idiom "out of touch with reality" because that connotates haziness and stupidity - I used "lacking somewhat in their attitudinal response to reality." In plain terms, you don't worship or respect God (for obvious reasons, you don't believe in Him). Again, statement of fact - I meant it to be relevant, but apparently the connection is unclear. I meant no offense.

 

I think you underestimate my search for God and thereby you hurt me. Please read on. It seems you presuppose God and that you never test whether or not this presupposition holds. I cannot do that with integrity. If I say God created the universe, first I am obligated to determine that God exists. If God's existence cannot be established, I am obligated to adjust my statement to accommodate the fact that the presupposition upon which it rests cannot be verified. I have not yet seen Christians do that. By failing to do this, Christians lie by ommission. I cannot do this. I searched till I was almost fifty years old for evidence of God's existence and how to make sense of the Plan of Salvation. I searched earnestly like I have seen few Christians search. To have a Christian write off my intense seeking as a mistaken or incorrect view of reality is a gross injustice and I do not take it lightly.

 

I can do nothing about it but submit to the injustice. However, I will have you know that you are persecuting a lot of people by saying the things you are saying and that your evangelistic light goes out like a candle in a strong gale. You may have noted that Hans says you can stay so long as you don't cause too much annoyance. At this point we're having a decent intellectual discussion. This is also the point at which many and many a discussion with Christians tends to go sour because Christians cannot tolerate such strong opposition and disagreement; in other words, such strong critique of their beliefs is more than Christians can normally stomach on here.

 

Maybe someone can explain question 3 to me because it didn't seem like an open-ended question at all. You have strong convictions, I have strong convictions. Those convictions seem to lead to disagreement. Yes? What is the point? Is the point that one ought to respect "strong convictions"? Because that's a fairly valid point. But, it conflicts with the Christian conviction of evangelism...and we're back to question 2.

 

Given our worldview and all the assumptions that go with that, what would you have us do?

 

I will copy Question 3 below for discussion.

 

Question 3:

Atheists donate their money and volunteer their time to anti-religious endeavors because:

 

They hate God. They have reprobate minds. They want to live in sin. All of the above (Rom. 1:28). Other, please explain.

I'm trying to remember exactly what prompted me to post this poll to begin with. It has a lot to do with the attitudes Christians demonstrate toward us on exChristian. Not that all exChristians are atheist; that is just a term of convenience, esp. since Christians tend to slap that term on anyone who does not profess belief in their specific god. Christians act as though we are by definition evil or stupid or uninformed--as though we have never actually heard the "Good News" or Evangel of Jesus Christ--that he supposedly died for us while we were yet in our sins so that we might be saved.

 

Christians do this by coming onto these forums and evangelizing and preaching and telling us that we are sinners, etc.

 

All of this leaves us asking where we have failed. The name of our website is exChristian. "Ex" anything in the English language normally means that at one time you were that thing--husband, wife, doctor, teacher, etc.--and now you are not. The same applies to Christian. If a visitor is in doubt, all that person has to do is explore and read the site; it will become obvious the minute they set eyes on Testimonies of Former Christians.

 

Read the Testimonies and you will see that we actually believed and understood every bit as well as any Christian visiting us today. Most of us were more fervent and more earnest in our desire to understand than any visiting Christian. In fact, that is why we deconverted. In our search to understand we found that there really is nothing behind or underneath the cathedrals and architectures. It's all guilded belief systems and buildings meant to control society. I know there are individuals who believe otherwise but I don't know how they retain their beliefs throughout life. Perhaps they cut off thought and question and doubt at some point. Perhaps they lie to themselves and deceive themselves. I honestly don't know how they can pass their fortieth, fiftieth, and sixtieth birthdays and retain belief in God.

 

Anyway, these questions are designed to figure out why Christians behave towards exChristians the way they do. If you think we're bad, what evidence do you have to back up your view? However, I couldn't design a poll asking that question so I had to approach it from other angles. Thus, Question 1 asks you whether or not you think we are bad and why you think as you do.

 

Question 2. If you look at my sig you will see that I have a website and forums with a rather unpopular name from a Christian perspective. It had a really rough beginning and got deleted twice. I believe it was due to technical problems with the server but the idea did occur to me that someone may be out to get me. All this, not to mention that in general Christians tend to have major problems with atheist organizations. American Christians tend to say things like "unbelief is taking over the land" and "we are being persecuted for our faith."

 

Given that Christians make up the vast majority of the American population (about 80%; I live in Canada and things are somewhat different here), those two claims are simply ludicrous. I don't know about other nonreligious organizations but my own exists ONLY because of the overt threat to society from fundamentalist religion. My guess is atheism as an institution exists primarily because of the overtly religious emphasis of mainstream Western society. In fact, a casual look at the New Atheist movement confirms that their books are direct counteractions to this overt and dangerous religious emphasis. Thus, if you want us to "go away," go away yourselves and we will gladly co-exist in peace. But so long as you push your propaganda (making laws about public education and health care, among other things) and make our existence necessary, we will be here.

 

As to the third question. Now it's coming back. You don't get it because you think we just have a mistaken world view. Like I say, it's far far more than "just a world view" that happens to be wrong. Question 3 tests you to see whether you have any idea that exChristians are sincere about their beliefs, that we have put any study into our decisions or given any deep thought to them. It seems you haven't the slightest inkling on it. You think it's just another world view and a mistaken one at that.

 

Look at what the statement actually says, debtor. It says: Atheists donate their money and volunteer their time to anti-religious endeavors because....

 

Choose one of the options.

 

I understand you are in college. You should therefore know that in order to turn that into a question, you simply reorganize the words thus: Why do atheists donate their money and volunteer their time to anti-religious endeavors?

 

For example, why does Dave VanAllen the webmaster pay to keep up these forums? Why do his mods voluteer their time to keep it running smoothly and clean up messes?

 

You didn't know about these details?!?! Take a look around and you will see. There's a thread somewhere about the benefits of subscribing.

 

Anyway, does that help?

 

If not, perhaps you could clarify what it is that you don't understand.

[Guest eejay]

I find it interesting that x-tians still hope they can convert us. Actually, if the bible WERE literal truth, it impossible to save us as we have already commited the 'unpardonable' sin of blasephemy by denying the holy spirit. God is supposed to be firm and unchanging, so we're already doomed when we deny his existance, so why waste our time and yours. This is one of the other issues that I could never understand. It is good that I have overcome that fear, and I freely deny then holy spirit, so any attempt at a x-tian saving me is futile....so why do they try????

[R. S. Martin]

Not all exChristians are atheist. In fact, quite a large number of people here are not atheist. They may be agnostic or Pagan or some other religion. Some are seekers in the truest sense of the word. Even though my present identity is more or less atheist, I would not say that I have blasphemed the holy spirit. Call me superstitious but I just can't bring myself to burn every last bridge. Besides, I don't think I need to do it for my own well-being, like some people on here have had to.

 

Thus, from that perspective, there is hope. Add to that the evidence from debtor's post that Christians seemingly can't get it into their heads that we really are serious and have given this stuff really deep and serious thought. It seems they believe we're like them and haven't really thought about it all that much. It is becoming obvious to me that they accept their basic premises from authority rather than from reality.

 

Logic is abstract. But physics is not. If you place a 2x4 on a rock foundation, you've got a solid floor (that's not how floors are built but this is not a tutorial in floor-building). We've got that on the authority of reality--not what someone said a couple millennia ago. It's the way our world works regardless of what philosophical theories and theologies a person subscribes to, or when or where a person lives. You can be in the jungles of the Amazon with no knowledge of reading or writing or 'rithmatic, or you can be in the suburbs of New York with a PhD and the best tenure in the world. Two-by-fours laid on a rock foundation would still be a solid floor.

 

That's the level of reality I expect professions of faith to be talking about. But I find they're false. They don't carry the water they promise. That is why I deconverted.

 

THAT is the level of reality people like debtor are up against when they come in here trying to reconvert us. They simply have no idea...all because they don't bother doing their homework. Silly goofs.

[florduh]

....so why do they try????

 

It's all they know how to do. It's habit.

 

It was drilled onto me that nothing is as important as saving the sinner and keeping or returning the "saved" to the flock. Catholics and liberal Protestant denominations usually don't have that emphasis in their indoctrination, but wacky fundies (like I was) think of little else.

 

- Chris

[Guest Justathought]

I was going to take the quiz but I didn't like any of the answers. Who says anyone wants to get rid of anti-religious organizations? I would certainly rather people think about and discuss questions and ideas concerning religion in a meaningful way than ignore them altogether. And, as I am sure everyone on this forum now realizes, you ultimately cannot talk anyone into or out of believing something. I would assume that atheists support anti-religious organizations for two reasons. First, there is a natural human tendency to want to convince others of the "rightness" of a chosen way of thinking and commune with others who can help in the development of philosophical thought. Second, and perhaps more importantly, atheists espouse a view of life which engenders strong opinions and a lot of debate. One thing I've learned from browsing this forum is that it is incredibly frustrating to have someone attack THEIR interpretation of YOUR beliefs. I would assume that anti-religious organizations often serve much of the same purpose that I hope Christian posts on this forum do- you may not convince people to share your beliefs, but hopefully you increase opportunities to communicate exactly what you believe and why you believe it for purposes of fostering understanding and MEANINGFUL discussion.

[R. S. Martin]

I was going to take the quiz but I didn't like any of the answers. Who says anyone wants to get rid of anti-religious organizations?

 

Millions of fundamentalist Christians and Muslims for starters. If you're not one of them this poll probably wasn't meant for you.

 

I would certainly rather people think about and discuss questions and ideas concerning religion in a meaningful way than ignore them altogether.

 

What is there to talk or think about that I haven't thought or talked about already?

 

And, as I am sure everyone on this forum now realizes, you ultimately cannot talk anyone into or out of believing something.

 

Ummm, you might provide a reasoned argument for your point and allow the other person to arrive at his or her own conclusion. Talking people into or out of something is, indeed, a rather futile exercise.

 

I would assume that atheists support anti-religious organizations for two reasons. First, there is a natural human tendency to want to convince others of the "rightness" of a chosen way of thinking and commune with others who can help in the development of philosophical thought. Second, and perhaps more importantly, atheists espouse a view of life which engenders strong opinions and a lot of debate.

 

You can think that if you like. It kind of precludes the "talk and discuss ideas" concept you introduced earlier.

 

One thing I've learned from browsing this forum is that it is incredibly frustrating to have someone attack THEIR interpretation of YOUR beliefs.

 

It is unclear to me who is attacking who in this sentence.

 

I would assume that anti-religious organizations often serve much of the same purpose that I hope Christian posts on this forum do- you may not convince people to share your beliefs, but hopefully you increase opportunities to communicate exactly what you believe and why you believe it for purposes of fostering understanding and MEANINGFUL discussion.

 

Do you see what I see? You seem to think one or two measely little posts from Christians are the equivilent of entire institutions owned by atheists. One of the things I wanted to find out with this poll was the hatred of Christians for all things atheist, and the level of arrogance of Christians over against atheists. Two items are fairly obvious about your opinions. You think that:

 

1. Christian posts are equal to atheist institutions.

2. Christian ideas merit real talk and discussion whereas atheist ideas need merely to be tolerated until the atheists are open to further debate and real talk and discussion.

 

Re the poll:

 

Question 1.

 

It seems that you think that for some reason atheists don't quite measure up.

 

Question 2.

 

You think atheist institutions are extremely inferior to Christian institutions.

 

Question 3.

 

You seem to have no opinion.

 

I can see why you didn't vote. But there might be room for meaningful discussion if you are open to an honest discussion of the other side of the story than you get in church. Please don't assume that Christianity has any answers when you enter this discussion. Also, it would be folly to assume that atheism has any answers.

[Guest Justathought]

I am really not sure how you interpreted my post to mean what you seem to have taken from it, so allow me to clarify my answers:

1. I didn't even speak to this question in my previous post. From a socially moral standpoint, atheism has nothing to do with whether or not someone is a good person. The way they act toward other people determines that.

2. All ideas that deal with meaningful things (by meaningful I mean things like science, religion, morals, ethics, philosophy) deserve meaningful discussions. Institutions devoted to meaningful ideas deserve to exist.

3. If you read my response, I said that posts may be MOTIVATED by ONE of the factors that may motivate athiest institutions . . . a desire to clarify to those who may have different ideas than you what you believe. I was NOT equating my blog messages that probably three people will read to large atheist organizations with big budgets, thousands of members, and scholarly resources. That's like saying a kid's lemonade stand and McDonald's are the same thing because a motivation of both is to make money.