Questions Concerning Atheism As A Positive Worldview

[Shyone]

Stude wrote: "Most importantly, if you love God, you also love those He loves with a selfless love; you certainly don’t rape those whom you love, nor force yourself onto a child."

 

I must confess to being more than just a little taken aback by the wording of the above statement. Stude wrote: "you certainly don't rape those whom you love" . . . the implication being that it would be acceptable to rape a person that you do NOT love. Surely, though, this was not the intent of his statement and an explanation for the qualification of "those you love" in regard to the moral acceptability of rape [within the context of the Christian worldview] will be forthcoming.

 

Interestingly, there are Christians who believe that God doesn't love everyone. These Christians believe that God only loves his children, i.e. Christians.

 

If the rule is only that you don’t rape “those whom you love,” (and I'm really not even sure how a Christian would know that this was an absolute rule in the same way that Christians don't seem to know whether it is an absolute rule that you don't beat your children or you don't torture people) then perhaps a Christian could rightly conclude that it would be acceptable, in the Christian worldview, to rape, torture, and/or beat a non-Christian or someone that you don't love.

 

It seems to me that as soon as you start adding qualifications to your rules (for example, it's wrong to kill UNLESS...) the rules are no longer absolute but subjective. I think what often happens in these kinds of discussions is that the definition of "absolute moral standards" is in itself subjective, defined differently by different people. Unless we could all agree on exactly what an absolute moral standard is, then I'm not sure that meaningful dialogue about this subject is possible.

Excellent!

 

In point of fact, throughout history Christians have made such distinctions. With a little dose of "Absolute Power" they have burned heretics and witches. They felt comfortable slaughtering Muslims in Jerusalem.

 

I have previously pointed out the exclusivity of Christian love. I neglected to mention the disdain for those whom God doesn't love.

[Guest omnispace]

(To Belladona)

I am “pro-life,” but just to clarify, haven’t had much contact with their biblical apologetic. I don’t think any of the passages dealing with child murder and infanticide attribute such actions to God. That said, I’ll have to look each passage up; from my recollection, however, most of these passages simply relate ancient practices as they happened, much like a historian would record the atrocities of slavery. You might say that the very lack of condemnation speaks for itself, but most theologians would say in turn that even if such disapproval is not stated explicitly in those passages, they are explicated elsewhere. As for me, like I’ve stated before, the issue of OT ethics is really a thorny one – I simply don’t know enough to really answer you. As for your second point (I assume you’re speaking of the OT’s apparently low view of women), I’d have to say the same thing: under construction.

 

Haha...I think you need to read more of the OT. I'll warn you though, this may lead to doubt.

 

There are several passages where God specifically instructs the Israelites to kill everyone in a neighboring tribe, including women, children, even animals. This is far from simple lack of condemnation. And it was my belief in absolute morals that made it impossible to rationalize this.

[centauri]

...Christianity presents (and I think you’ll agree) the idea of absolute truth, giving us absolute purpose with an absolute worldview presented by the divine agent who can be unconditionally trusted to be both truthful and omniscient. If you accept this perspective, then you can confidently say, “I have the truth. Anything that contradicts this divine revelation is wrong.” Since the divine knowledge comes from one who is omniscient, even if, say, the Bible and science conflict, one could justifiably (within the Christian worldview) side with the Bible. Part and parcel with this comes the idea of hell, of sin, of salvation belonging exclusively to those believing in Christ.

The problem is that there is no consensus absolute Christian worldview.

There are simply shared elements of faith that serve as tools to lay claims to having absolute truth.

Salvation is not assured because it cannot be validated.

I've seen so many Christians, mostly Protestants, who claim that there are no real major differences between Christian sects, just minor doctrinal differences.

I think this (from the Catholic Encyclopedia) should be required reading for every non-Catholic Christian that holds to that position:

 

...In the preceding examination of the Scriptural doctrine regarding the Church, it has been seen how clearly it is laid down that only by entering the Church can we participate in the redemption wrought for us by Christ. Incorporation with the Church can alone unite us to the family of the second Adam, and alone can engraft us into the true Vine. Moreover, it is to the Church that Christ has committed those means of grace through which the gifts He earned for men are communicated to them. The Church alone dispenses the sacraments. It alone makes known the light of revealed truth. Outside the Church these gifts cannot be obtained.

From all this there is but one conclusion: Union with the Church is not merely one out of various means by which salvation may be obtained: it is the only means.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm

 

If you don't recognize the authority of the Catholic Church, you do not have salvation.

This is a HUGE schism that exists.

Christianity is an abstract, not an absolute.

[FiddlingAround]

Concerning rape and paedophilia, Paul states that sexual relations is to remain within a man and his wife. This by implication excludes these two (although this is not a condemnation per se). Jesus’ command, “love your neighbor” certainly would preclude such. Most importantly, if you love God, you also love those He loves with a selfless love; you certainly don’t rape those whom you love, nor force yourself onto a child. Also, the argument that the Bible does not explicitly condemn certain acts is not very compelling; the entire point of Jesus coming, of the new heart and new flesh, is because man in his sin finds ways to circumvent written law. You can legislate, say, the banning of alcohol; but if the people don’t agree, a law is nothing more than words. By being reborn, we are no longer subject to the “flesh.” (certainly not logic that would be accepted outside Christianity, but that is the position of the Bible).

As for slavery, the same type of argument applies: mere social revolution (and here you’d probably disagree) will not get rid of the underlying factors motivating slavery. There needs to be a grassroots movement in which the society itself finds slavery repugnant, and the gospel does nothing better (that is, spiritual renewal).

 

Hello Stude, and welcome.

 

I'm very tired tonight, and probably shouldn't be trying to post, as it's likely I won't make a whole lot of sense. But I'm going to give it a go anyway, because I was very struck by this, in relation to the questions you are asking. Forgive me if I mispeak, and I'll try to clarify anything I've made confusing in the morning.

 

If I may take the liberty of rephrasing, it sounds like you are saying that the points on which the Bible does not explicitly speak may be determined by acting towards others in recognition of our common humanity. Is this a fair way of stating something that at least parallels your main point? Because if so, I don't see how any belief in God is necessary as an ethical base. Those things which we would agree to be an advancement in morality are, to my mind, based on an expanded range of those individuals our society would consider to be fully human, and so deserving of the same consideration that we would give fellow human beings.

 

I would also like to address your statement that a non-theistic morality would only last so long as no dissenting groups arose. In some ways, there's some truth to that, but I also don't think that's neccesarily a bad thing. Clearly egregious moral innovations, such as child-rape, could be easily dismissed on the grounds described above. In other cases, though, it could be well worth re-examining society's moral code. I would again point to the abolition of slavery as an example; the progress began with a small, dissenting group who rejected that aspect of contemporary morality.

[Guest Stude]

Mm. Well, I'm posting just before going to sleep, so it'll be short (?) and sweet (??). Since this will probably be my last post for a while (RL issues), I won't really be interacting with the newer questions; mainly I'm writing this to give myself a sense of closure, I suppose. One thing regarding FA's post, however - as Christians, we believe that "common humanity" you speak of has been corrupted by sin and thus an entirely inadequate basis for ethics. That is, since Adam, the heart of man has always been geared towards evil. No amount of legislation by society can really touch on that primary issue. Being born again, however, not only frees one from the corruption of sin (being freed from the "flesh," used to speak of corrupt nature) but also causes one to adopt God's love for humanity upon themselves. This is not an automatic or easy process, because we also believe that during this life we are "saints-in-the-making," but as a Christian grows deeper in fellowship with God, in surrendering to Him as Lord and master, the more intimately he or she understands how God looks upon humanity (and also adopting that perspective for him or herself).

I realize a number of issues and definitions would need to be clarified, but well, I'm tired and I've got Things. Hope that was helpful, FA.

 

I really do appreciate the thought put into your responses. I'll be the first to admit I haven't given nearly as much thought to these issues as I should have, but better late than never, hey? Good night, and a very merry Christmas to y'all, or not if you prefer

[Guest Darcy Grant]

Excellent!

 

In point of fact, throughout history Christians have made such distinctions. With a little dose of "Absolute Power" they have burned heretics and witches. They felt comfortable slaughtering Muslims in Jerusalem.

 

I have previously pointed out the exclusivity of Christian love. I neglected to mention the disdain for those whom God doesn't love.

 

Thanks, Shyone. About feeling comfortable slaughtering Muslims in Jerusalem...yes--what does Absolute Christian Morality have to say about killing people? If such a system of absolute moral standards exists, shouldn't Christians be able to lay it out plainly for anyone to see, complete with all of the qualifications for every behavior? I would think that they would be able to provide an outline that would look something like this:

 

1. It is wrong to beat a child.

 

Exception A. It's acceptable to beat a child if God tells you to do so.

 

Exception B. It's acceptable to beat a child if you can find a way to justify it in your mind as being in the child's best interest.

 

2. It is wrong to kill a child.

 

Exception A. It is acceptable to kill a child if God tells you to do so.

 

Exception B. It's acceptable to kill a child if you can find a way to justify it in your mind as being in the child's best interest. (This is exactly the reasoning that Jim Jones used when encouraging parents to give their children the poisonous Kool-Aid.)

 

3. It's wrong to rape a woman.

 

Exception A. It's acceptable to rape a woman if God tells you to do so.

 

Exception B. It is acceptable to rape a woman if you can find a way to justify the rape in your own mind as an action that is "in the woman's best interest."

 

Exception C. It's acceptable to rape a woman if you do not love the woman or if you are confident that God does not love the woman.

 

4. It's wrong to torture people.

 

Exception A. It's acceptable to torture people if God tells you to do so.

 

Exception B. It's acceptable to torture people if you find a way to justify it in your mind that torturing the people is in those people's best interest.

 

Exception C. It's acceptable to torture people if you really REALLY dislike them (and you think God may dislike them, too.)

 

Exception D. It's acceptable to torture people if they torture you first or if they are guilty of torturing or harming people you care about.

 

5. It's wrong to fly an airplane filled with civilians into a tall building, also filled with civilians.

 

Exception A. It's acceptable to fly an airplane filled with civilians into a tall building, also filled with civilians, if God tells you to do so.

 

 

Obviously, this is intended to be somewhat tongue-in cheek, but hopefully, I have made a valid point.

 

If Christians have access to a set of absolute moral standards, why can't those absolute moral standards be articulated very specifically, in writing? I think the reason that Christians might be hesitant to attempt such an exercise would be that if they did so, it would become evident very quickly just how silly their claims regarding absolute moral standards really are. In the end, wouldn't it all just come down to: "There is not one thing in this world that would be 'wrong' for me to do as long as God told me to do it?"

 

It seems to me that some of these claims regarding absolute moral standards have to do with a desire, on the part of the claimant, to absolve himself from responsibility. Rather than having to use his or her own intellect and reasoning abilities to determine what is right and what is wrong in any given situation, he simply renders this responsibility to "God"---which is far easier than actually having to wrestle with the messy and difficult moral dilemmas that human beings face.

[Kuroikaze]

(To Belladona)

I am “pro-life,” but just to clarify, haven’t had much contact with their biblical apologetic. I don’t think any of the passages dealing with child murder and infanticide attribute such actions to God. That said, I’ll have to look each passage up; from my recollection, however, most of these passages simply relate ancient practices as they happened, much like a historian would record the atrocities of slavery. You might say that the very lack of condemnation speaks for itself, but most theologians would say in turn that even if such disapproval is not stated explicitly in those passages, they are explicated elsewhere. As for me, like I’ve stated before, the issue of OT ethics is really a thorny one – I simply don’t know enough to really answer you. As for your second point (I assume you’re speaking of the OT’s apparently low view of women), I’d have to say the same thing: under construction.

 

(To Shione)

Yes, if this is the only life, then you’re absolutely correct. I’m not saying you can’t enjoy life, rather that, assuming Christianity is true, that satisfaction would be very momentary. Again, the morality “shift” from the OT to the NT is clearly problematic and one I don’t have a clear answer for. Your assertion that dead people don’t resurrect because you haven’t seen it happen first assumes that your materialistic worldview is correct (in which resurrection really is impossible) and forgets also the Resurrection was a unique event; naturally there would be no other instances.

 

 

You are in a similar place to where I once was.

 

For a long time as a christian I knew I did not have answers to these and other questions but I assumed those answers existed and more educated/spiritual Christians knew the answers, and eventually I would find out as I learned and grew in knowledge.

 

I majored in Religious studies and found out that Christian theology was a mess and that while there were a lot of answers none were satisfactory answers.

 

I asked people I considered to be leaders or knowledgeable and found all they could do was regurgitate answers they read in a book from some modern apologist and tell me to go read his work, even though I could tell the modern apologist was merely regurgitating his stuff from Earlier theologians like Aquinas or Luther. I had already read them and found their answers vacuous.

[Ouroboros]

I really do appreciate the thought put into your responses. I'll be the first to admit I haven't given nearly as much thought to these issues as I should have, but better late than never, hey? Good night, and a very merry Christmas to y'all, or not if you prefer

Besides appreciating your writing skills, I really appreciate the candor you've displayed and willingness to admit the topic being far more difficult than we usually think it is.

 

If you perchance come back and read my response, I'd like you to leave with a few pointers more.

 

If you start analyzing a moral code like rape or child molestation, you would find that the definitions are a bit gray. They're not as black and white as you might think.

 

Try to define what rape is, or what a child is. When is it rape? When the victim just says "No" or is it ultimately their inner thoughts and intent? Is it just the intent of the perpetrator, or does the victims will play a role? What about a child? What is a child? When is a person a child and when do they become an adult? Is it 9? 13? 17? 17.5? 18? 19? 25? The definitions we use are based on arbitrary laws we have established in society over the ages. So how can the morals be absolute when the definitions are subjective?

 

Another conundrum:

 

Does absolute blue exist? You would probably answer "No, it doesn't" because you know there are different shades of blue.

 

But if I then show you a blue square and ask you "is this absolutely blue," then you probably have to answer "yes." Then I continue, "aha! You contradicted yourself. You say absolute blue doesn't exist, but now you said this square was absolutely blue!"

 

And the problem of the above example is obvious. It's the obscure and perhaps sloppy way of using the word "absolute." There is a difference between the usage of the word there. One is to use it as "absolute" in reference to the color blue in general, and the other is in reference to your understanding of what you at that moment can observe. The box is absolutely known by you to be blue, but the square doesn't represent some abstract concept of an "absolute blue."

 

This problem occurs when we discuss absoluteness of morality as well. Morality is unfortunately not a binary concept. It's not "on versus off." It has shades of gray. And as such, it can't be held to an absolute standard of the eternal, infinite, or non-temporal kind.

[Ouroboros]

If Christians have access to a set of absolute moral standards, why can't those absolute moral standards be articulated very specifically, in writing? I think the reason that Christians might be hesitant to attempt such an exercise would be that if they did so, it would become evident very quickly just how silly their claims regarding absolute moral standards really are. In the end, wouldn't it all just come down to: "There is not one thing in this world that would be 'wrong' for me to do as long as God told me to do it?"

Exactly.

 

And I have pushed some Christians in the past to provide just some simple example of an "absolute moral," but I never get one. They have a million excuses to why they won't give it to me. One excuse is that it's not part of the discussion. In other words, they want to discuss the potential idea of absolute morals, but not really discuss it with specific examples to support the discussion. That's a breach of ethos. If you want to write a good essay, then provide sufficient support.

 

 

 

For a long time as a christian I knew I did not have answers to these and other questions but I assumed those answers existed and more educated/spiritual Christians knew the answers, and eventually I would find out as I learned and grew in knowledge.

Same here.

 

One of my worst struggles and disappointments was how to answer non-Christians when I was out witnessing. They asked me questions I couldn't answer. I read books. Searched. Asked around. Tried to figure out using reason. To no avail. The questions stayed unanswered, so I decided it didn't matter. I stopped caring about the answers and just believed because it felt right. Reason was out of the picture. But later, when even the feeling was gone, bye-bye religion.

[Shyone]

 

One of my worst struggles and disappointments was how to answer non-Christians when I was out witnessing. They asked me questions I couldn't answer. I read books. Searched. Asked around. Tried to figure out using reason. To no avail. The questions stayed unanswered, so I decided it didn't matter. I stopped caring about the answers and just believed because it felt right. Reason was out of the picture. But later, when even the feeling was gone, bye-bye religion.

Were you evern tempted to give an answer that you weren't sure was true, but was instead an evasion, deflection or misdirection to get the questioner off your back?

 

Maybe one answer like "God's ways are mysterious"?

[belladonna]

(To Belladona)

I am “pro-life,” but just to clarify, haven’t had much contact with their biblical apologetic. I don’t think any of the passages dealing with child murder and infanticide attribute such actions to God. That said, I’ll have to look each passage up; from my recollection, however, most of these passages simply relate ancient practices as they happened, much like a historian would record the atrocities of slavery. You might say that the very lack of condemnation speaks for itself, but most theologians would say in turn that even if such disapproval is not stated explicitly in those passages, they are explicated elsewhere. As for me, like I’ve stated before, the issue of OT ethics is really a thorny one – I simply don’t know enough to really answer you. As for your second point (I assume you’re speaking of the OT’s apparently low view of women), I’d have to say the same thing: under construction.

 

*******

 

As for women, no; I wasn't talking simply of OT. The NT is just as hard on women, but just tends to gloss it over better. In the OT, women were shit, and in the NT, women were still shit, but if you loved them, you put them on a clay pedestal. Either way, it isn't something I'd subscribe to.

 

And no, these are not simply ancient practices; in more than one passage, the action is ordered by God, or brought down as a curse by God. Women were made barren for disobeying their husbands (Michal and David); two bears tore apart 42 kids for teasing a prophet after he asked God to curse them, and it goes on and on. I'd much rather base my life on real ethics than anything related to Biblical morality.

[belladonna]

Concerning rape and paedophilia, Paul states that sexual relations is to remain within a man and his wife. This by implication excludes these two (although this is not a condemnation per se). Jesus’ command, “love your neighbor” certainly would preclude such. Most importantly, if you love God, you also love those He loves with a selfless love; you certainly don’t rape those whom you love, nor force yourself onto a child. Also, the argument that the Bible does not explicitly condemn certain acts is not very compelling; the entire point of Jesus coming, of the new heart and new flesh, is because man in his sin finds ways to circumvent written law. You can legislate, say, the banning of alcohol; but if the people don’t agree, a law is nothing more than words. By being reborn, we are no longer subject to the “flesh.” (certainly not logic that would be accepted outside Christianity, but that is the position of the Bible).

 

******

 

There are innumerable stories of rape in the Bible, and a good number of those were between men and women who they had taken as their wives. There is nothing in the Bible against rape or pedophilia, and as for sex between a husband and wife - well, Paul was so anti-sex anyway that he preferred that it never happened, but if it must...well, then between a husband a wife at least was a distant second to no sex at all.

[Ouroboros]

Were you evern tempted to give an answer that you weren't sure was true, but was instead an evasion, deflection or misdirection to get the questioner off your back?

Guilty as charged. I was not only tempted but repeatedly did it. Somehow the idea of trying to persuade, without actual or solid truth behind it, was acceptable to me. The end justified the means. It was okay to lie a little since the goal was the "Real Big Absolute Truth." Religion instills dishonesty. But it always made me feel a bit guilty and sad since I couldn't give an answer that would satisfy them or me. Finally I decided that the only way I could convince anyone was if God did a miracle. I prayed. I wanted him to prove my "opponents" wrong. I wanted something to happen that would ultimately prove me right. And the purpose was good. It wasn't for me. It wasn't to convince me, it was to convince them! They would be saved, damn it! Wasn't that a good thing? Did God do anything? Not... one... single... thing... every. So obviously God wasn't interested in proving me right in front of all the people I wanted to convert.

 

You have to remember, I lived in Sweden, where I was the only evangelical Christian in my class, each semester, through elementary all the way to high school.

 

Well, I gave up. God has his own plan so I didn't ask for miracles anymore, and I stopped arguing logic or reason (since nothing made sense). I came to the conclusion that belief was a gift from God, not something you achieved through arguments or proof.

 

And believe me, I tried. I joined one of the most (in)famous miracle church in Europe at that time, and I was at hundreds (or more likely thousands) of meetings. Praying up front. Asking God for miracles. But of some reason, I always missed THAT meeting. The particular meeting where God miraculously healed the blind, sick, and crippled. No wait... I never heard about those meetings either. One exception though, the meetings in Africa and India always had the miracles, but never our church. We prayed hard. We believed beyond reason. I was willing to die for Jesus. I sacrificed my future, career, and the health and well-being of my family, and yet God looked the other way, for 30 years.

 

He got his chance. Perhaps it's not a religion, but the relationship is definitely over.

 

Maybe one answer like "God's ways are mysterious"?

I lost count.

 

I'm ashamed to say that at one or two occasions I went as far as lying about how God does miracles. I exaggerated and used hyperbole in my attempts to convince. Very sad.

 

---

 

Oh, on a side note, our guest said, "Concerning rape and paedophilia, Paul states that sexual relations is to remain within a man and his wife. This by implication excludes these two (although this is not a condemnation per se)." And I just realized, it was fairly common back then to get married to 12 year old girls. So if the Bible is correct here, sex with minors is condoned, as long as you're married to them. In other words, the Bible encourages pedophilia.

[par4dcourse]

Anatomy of a typical xian thread:

 

1-Xian posts to board to set right our silly misconceptions about and envy of gawd since we've obviously never thought about this stuff.

2-Group points out contradictions and errors in question, biblical origins of question, and xians position.

3-Xian stutters, then explains again, since we can't possibly deny his TRUTH^TM.

4-Group points out contradictions and errors again, beginning to show exasperation at xians penchant for dogma.

5-Repeat steps 3 and 4 ad nauseum until xian fires parting shot and disappears to seek the consolation of his/her xian buddies, where he is deemed a hero for attempting to save the heathens.

[NotBlinded]

(notblindedbythelight)

Hm. I’m afraid I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “projecting” my worldview onto others. Are you saying here that my Christian assumptions prevent me from seeing the absolutism of subjectivism?

Not at all. I'm saying your worldview is one of absolutism and you are projecting this absolutism on others. You did so again by your words of "absolutism of subjectivism".

 

Reality is not either objective or subjective. It is both. We can only understand it in a subjective manner, but that doesn't mean that there aren't objective truths. The way we try to understand reality by breaking it down into small parts (reductionism) only allows us to perceive patterns as they are understood in contrast to something else. By this process, we miss what can't be contrasted. This is the objective.

 

Your quotes concerning the exoteric/esoteric seems to imply that any absolutism is, by its very nature, created by limited human understanding of divine truth. The esoteric in contrast is said to see things “as they really are.” Does that mean the esoteric must by his nature accept the plurality of religions?

 

Yes.

 

I held this back on purpose yesterday. I'll post it now (from the same Eckhart link):

 

However much one can see the negative aspects of this, it must be noted that exoterism is absolutely natural and absolutely essential to any given religion; the law of contradictions makes this clear to us. When one religions proclaims a holy truth, and another makes a proclamation diametrically opposed to this, which one leads to the authentic right? Insofar as both truth lead to the essential foundation of that particular religion, they are both true. For example, in accordance with the transcendent unity of religions, if a Christian believes that the only way to God (the Christian foundation for transcendence) is through Jesus Christ, and a Moslem makes the claim that Allah is All, and that there is no begotten son, there is no inner contradiction due to the unified direction of their goals: the finality on primordial tradition, the fertility of the cosmos, call it what thou wilt.

 

Every religion has universal principles that point to the same truth when looked at beyond the symbols they use.

 

 

What if this divine truth is absolutist in nature? This question assumes that you assume human understanding can attain at least some degree of divine truth, which may not be the case.

Indeed I do understand that to be the case, but that truth isn't subjected to human understanding. Truth is paradoxical. It is felt, not "known". Once put through the filter of human thought, it becomes subjective and looses truth. It is never the symbol used to discuss it. It becomes absolute when the symbol becomes the object of worship. If divine truth is absolute, we can never understand it because we are it. We can never be the object of our own inquiry. Nothing to contrast.

[Jake]

this is completely a new question and i did not want to take the time to make a new forum and i would like to ask a few questions. How come if many of you call yourselves atheists than why do you feel the need to make an entire website on how christ is not real if you are so sure that god is nonsense and such? Why have most of you decided to become atheist. If you simply do not care about god or any religion then how come you want to "argue" against religion. are you just atiast becuse you can not understand gods word? I am not here to disprove anyone simply asking questions.

[FiddlingAround]

this is completely a new question and i did not want to take the time to make a new forum and i would like to ask a few questions. How come if many of you call yourselves atheists than why do you feel the need to make an entire website on how christ is not real if you are so sure that god is nonsense and such? Why have most of you decided to become atheist. If you simply do not care about god or any religion then how come you want to "argue" against religion. are you just atiast becuse you can not understand gods word? I am not here to disprove anyone simply asking questions.

 

Hi Jake. I'll give you a quick rundown, but these questions have all been dealt with in detail in the past. Many of them have had their own threads. Feel free to take a look around to learn more.

 

1. The people around us did not all deconvert when we did. It's nice to have some moral support and advice for navigating all the difficulties this creates. Plus, it helps sometimes to have someplace to vent.

 

2. The process of losing belief is different for everyone. One element of commonality is that few of us would describe unbelief as a choice. Can you, at this moment, choose to believe in the Easter Bunny? When we faced the insufficiency of the evidence, belief ended.

 

3. See #1

 

4. We understood it just fine. That was the problem.

 

Anyway, I hope you'll find this place interesting. Be forewarned, you'll likely find yourself in a debate pretty quickly. My one word of advice: listen to the answers people give you.

 

Enjoy!

[florduh]

this is completely a new question and i did not want to take the time to make a new forum and i would like to ask a few questions. How come if many of you call yourselves atheists than why do you feel the need to make an entire website on how christ is not real if you are so sure that god is nonsense and such? Why have most of you decided to become atheist. If you simply do not care about god or any religion then how come you want to "argue" against religion. are you just atiast becuse you can not understand gods word? I am not here to disprove anyone simply asking questions.

You haven't been paying attention.

 

Either you have ignored dozens of posts, or you are unable to grasp a crucial point - NOBODY DECIDES TO BE AN ATHEIST.

 

Many of us have been trying to clarify that (with little success) and apparently we shall have the same difficulty talking with you.

 

We are attempting to respond to the questions posed in the OP, but it has been a struggle overcoming a common misunderstanding. Until the Christian apologists understand the basics, little can be accomplished by these discussions.

 

are you just atiast becuse you can not understand gods word?

Just the opposite.

[Midnight-mindwanderings]

Not all ex-christians are atheists either. Sometimes I feel odd answering questions directed at atheists because I don't go quite that far but to answer your question about why we have this site (among other similar sites) is because many of us found Christianity to be traumatic and need emotional support, others enjoy the mental stimulation of philosophical and scientific discussion, and others are perhaps in between belief and unbelief and want to sort through their feelings and get feedback. Also quite a few members are "closeted" due to family or other social pressures to conform and need an outlet for their true feelings and advice on how to start living without the farce.

 

I suggest starting your own thread because though the 2 you have commented on seem to be drawn to a close, its still kind of rude to piggy back on someone else. The one who started this one for instance may come back to it (though I highly doubt it). And the other one is just way to long.

[ContraBardus]

this is completely a new question and i did not want to take the time to make a new forum and i would like to ask a few questions. How come if many of you call yourselves atheists than why do you feel the need to make an entire website on how christ is not real if you are so sure that god is nonsense and such? Why have most of you decided to become atheist. If you simply do not care about god or any religion then how come you want to "argue" against religion. are you just atiast becuse you can not understand gods word? I am not here to disprove anyone simply asking questions.

 

This is a support group for starters. Not a direct go to meetings kind of thing, but that's what it is. We didn't make a 'website devoted to arguing against Jesus or Christianity'. It is a place where former believers and those who left the faith can go and discuss their experiences and share their thoughts.

 

It is not intended as an argument against Christianity or to deconvert anyone. It is a place where those who have already left the faith can go and discuss various issues. There's a lot more than just 'Jesus is not real, and Christianity is bad' here. There are political discussions, entertainment discussions, News and current event discussions, Life in general, Science and Philosophy, and various other topics.

 

We're not Christians, and don't believe a word of the faith. So of course there is that sort of thing as well. It's not the purpose of this site.

 

Many of us are frustrated by Christians, having been one ourselves. It's kind of annoying to deal with Christians and their worldviews at times. It's really no different than you might be annoyed with listening to a Hinduist or Islamic person discuss their own world views and moral standards.

 

Venting is a part of it, but it's not really intended for Christian readers. Though, we do not hide it from them either. Most of us find Christian beliefs to be delusional and skewed. There are many instances where apologists use dishonest tactics and misinformation to spread their message.

 

I think you've missed the point of this site. It's just a collection of people who left the Christian faith for various reasons to gather and converse. Not a war room for plots against Christian faith and propaganda.

 

If you're looking for a site 'devoted to arguing against Christianity', go to Evilbible.com.

 

Besides, if you're going to bring that up, then why are there Christian sites against Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and other faiths that aren't their own? There are lots of such sites, how is creating a site against Christianity any different?

 

People make websites that support their own views and against others that do not share them. Go to a Conservative Republican website and you'll see lots of language and accusations against Democrats and Liberals, the same is true in reverse.

 

Religious sites are no different. You're the pot calling the kettle black here.

 

We care because we think it is wrong, and many of us thing it has negative effects on the world, both politically, and often on an individual level. Perhaps not a hundred percent of the time, but enough that we feel it should be opposed and it's fallacies, lies, deception, and false claims exposed for what they are.

 

I have no problem when others follow the morals of their own Church or faith. It's when they start trying to impose them on others, legislate them into law, and push them on others, and punish others for not conforming or following the doctrines of their personal faith, that it becomes a problem. Christianity and Christian groups are very active in doing such things, and it's wrong.

 

Christians have a history of forcibly imposing their own standards and subjective morality on other people. It's not just Christians, but many religious faiths. There are few that do not do such things.

 

Faith and belief are personal things, and should remain that way.

 

Atheism is not a religion. It's as much a religion as bald is a hair color. It's not a belief system, there is no dogma, no particular laws or rules. It's not a political or religious system, there is only one Atheist belief.

 

Atheism is just a conclusion. It's not intended to teach anything. It's just a position about the existence of a God.

 

No one is 'just an Atheist'. Atheist follow other belief systems, such as Humanism, or Buddhism, or some other system. It's not a moral compass, or intended to guide one through life.

 

It's absolutely nothing like joining another Church or being in a religion. It's not a similar organization in any way. It's not an organization at all. It's just a blanket label that covers anyone who does not believe in a God. There are many different kinds of such people, and they follow many different systems of belief.

 

Comparing Atheism to Christianity or any other religion is pointless. It's like comparing a hammer to a potato as tools. One is clearly not a tool to begin with and was never intended to be one.

 

I am an Atheist, but Atheism does nothing to help me or guide my morals or ethics. I have Humanism, the moral and ethical standards of the Society I live in, and empathy for that.

 

Atheism is not my system of beliefs, it is not my faith, it is not what guides me, it's just a word that describes my personal assessment of the idea of 'God'. If you want to ask about my beliefs, we'll talk Humanism and Secular Science. Atheism doesn't enter into the picture in that discussion. It's not really relevant.

 

The only real difference is I believe in one less God than you do. You probably don't put any stock into the existence of Allah, Krishna, Mithra, Horus, Xenu, Crom, Odin, or Zeus. They all have just as much evidence for their existence as the Christian God does.

[bdp]

I didn't 'decide to become' anything, I just saw that I no longer believed in Xtianity, and can't do so. I don't believe because I can't believe.

[Guest Darcy Grant]

Hi, Jake. And welcome to the forum. I’m new here, too, so I guess we can be new together.

 

Wow—you asked some spectacular questions that I’ve never heard before. Let me try to answer them as honestly as I possibly can.

 

1. Why have most of you decided to become atheist.

I can only speak for myself, but the reason I became an atheist is because I asked God for a red bicycle for my birthday. Instead, I received a box of chalk. I’m sure you can imagine how disappointed I was. After that, I no longer believed in God.

 

If you simply do not care about god or any religion then how come you want to "argue" against religion.

 

Good point. I actually do still care about God and about religion. I only want to “argue” against God because it is a way for me to vent all the pent up rage I feel as a result of the dirty trick he played on me by giving me a box of chalk (rather than a red bicycle) for my birthday.

 

are you just atiast becuse you can not understand gods word?

 

I don’t usually like to discuss this in public, but in the spirit of honesty…..I’m not terribly bright. I have a reading disability that makes it impossible for me to read (independently) any text written at a first grade level or higher. Ergo, not only am I unable to understand God’s Word, I am not even able to read it on my own.

 

How come if many of you call yourselves atheists than why do you feel the need to make an entire website on how christ is not real if you are so sure that god is nonsense and such?

 

I didn’t make this website, but if I did, I probably would have done it for three very good reasons:

 

(a) I think calling myself an atheist makes me sound cool and rebellious and attractive and free. I like the way the word "atheist" rolls off the tongue. I like the expression people have on their faces when I tell them that I am atheist. And having a website like this allows me to say that I'm an atheist, and to experience the pleasure that gives me, over and over and over again.

 

(b)I was still angry about the red bicycle, and a website like this seemed like the perfect forum for me to express the rage that consumes me on a daily basis.

 

Alright, so none of the above is true, but it still felt good to type it.

 

And in all seriousness, the satirical explanations provided above are, in reality, typical oversimplifications that Christians float out among themselves when attempting to understand how anyone could not believe what they do.

 

The truth is, as others have suggested here, that many if not most atheists lack a belief in the existence of God because they see no evidence that such a God exists. Try asking yourself why you don't believe in elves. When you answer that question for yourself, then you'll know why atheists do not believe in God.

 

As for discussing/debating/debunking Christian claims . . . I do it because I care about truth. I happen to live in a society which is largely Christian. If I lived in a society which was largely Muslim, I would probably spend time discussing/debating/debunking Muslim claims. Why? Because I believe that attachment to and reliance on primitive superstition is bad for us as a society. It prevents us from working together to engage in problem-solving and improving the society in which we live in a way that relies on rational thought, critical thinking, and genuine compassion and concern for one another.

 

Even more than that, as others have already pointed out, ex-Christians share common experiences. At one time, as a fundamentalist evangelical Christian, I was locked into cult-like thinking that was quite damaging for me at every level. The road to gaining freedom from that destructive mindset has been long and difficult and at times very lonely. Connecting with others who have already traveled this road, as I have, or who are still traveling this road, as I am, is helpful.

 

For the past 26 years, I have been married to a Christian man, a wonderful man, really, but one who is deeply steeped in Christian thinking. Together, we have three wonderful young adult children, all of whom are (liberal) Christians. In fact, our oldest daughter just graduated from college with a degree in theology.

 

When my husband and I were first married, we were both deeply committed Christians. We taught Bible study and Children's Church, we led an evangelism team at our church, we tithed regularly, we prayed together regularly, we were heavily involved in a wide variety of outreach programs, etc. When I began to question my faith, a few years into our marriage, it created a crisis for us. The questions I raised angered and frightened my husband. At first, we fought and argued about it quite vigorously. This was quite stressful for both of us. By this time, we had three children under the age of six. In spite of our difference, we still loved one another, and we wanted to remain married. As time went on, we learned not to discuss Christianity at all. We negotiated an agreement (which I later deeply regretted) that I would allow my husband to raise our children as Christians. In turn, my husband agreed not to try to pressure me into thinking as he did or to attend church. At the time, it seemed like a decent arrangement. As the years went by, though---and as I understood that the agreement meant that I was not welcome to express my views regarding Christianity or even about God or any other spiritual thing in our home, I began to feel alienated, and yes--angry.

 

For a long time, I was very bitter and angry about that. As time went on, however, I came to realize that my husband, who had been brought up as the son of a Lutheram minister, was, quite literally, afraid to hear what I had to say. Unlike me, he had been indoctrinated into the Christian faith since he was very young. He had been taught that to question Christianity was the worst thing a person could do, and if he even let himself think about what he really believed, he would be denied by Christ. Knowing that has helped me to forgive him. Even so, because this has been my experience, it has created a need in me to find an outlet in a forum such as this one where my voice is valued and where no one (well except maybe the forum moderators) can silence me.

 

Having a forum like this, however, allows me to feel that my voice has value. It allows me to connect with others who can say, "Yeah--I've had those same thoughts, and I feel the same way." Given that we live in a society in which any criticism of Christianity has for too long been looked upon as socially unacceptable, a website like this serves a very important function in that it allows people like myself to find out that we really are not alone.

 

Recent polls indicate that an increasing number of Americans identify themselves as having no religion. Personally, I think that's a good thing. Lots and lots of people have had the same doubts, the same criticisms, the same questions that we have. Talking about it publicly is a way of helping other people who might be struggling alone with their doubts, as I once was, to also realize that they are not alone and that their voice matters and that the world will not end if they give themselves the freedom to think critically about their religious faith or even to admit that they no longer believe the things that they once believed.

[Ouroboros]

this is completely a new question and i did not want to take the time to make a new forum and i would like to ask a few questions. How come if many of you call yourselves atheists than why do you feel the need to make an entire website on how christ is not real if you are so sure that god is nonsense and such? Why have most of you decided to become atheist. If you simply do not care about god or any religion then how come you want to "argue" against religion. are you just atiast becuse you can not understand gods word? I am not here to disprove anyone simply asking questions.

That's a very good question.

 

The answer is that people who just came out of religion (especially Christianity) needs a place where they can go and let it all out, heal, repair the damage, and then (hopefully) one day not need the support anymore. See it a little bit like a detox central where the drug addicts come and get cleaned from the toxins and then can eventually go back to the improved life.

 

So it's not like a holding place, or a final resting place, but more like the transitional place where people come and learn things.

 

But of course there are some exceptions like me, and a few others, who just love to stay around and mess with the occasional Christians who come here and think they have all the answers.

 

Ask you this, why are there coffee shops? Does a coffee shop mean that people are fixated with coffee? Or is it just that a coffee shop supply and fulfill one particular need and then the patrons perhaps go to other places for other things? Do you seriously think that the members here only live their whole life and the whole day here? (Excluding me of course)

 

Another example would be websites dedicated to debunk urban myths, like snope.com. Why does it exist? If the myths are false, then why have a website pointing that out? The answer is obvious, someone has to point it out, otherwise everyone would keep on believing those myths. That's kind of another side to this website, we love to point out the errors and flaws of Christianity, because Christians certainly do not.

[bdp]

http://www.justsomelyrics.com/1885287/Brian-Ritchie-Religion-Ruined-My-Life-Lyrics

[skepticalme]

this is completely a new question and i did not want to take the time to make a new forum and i would like to ask a few questions. How come if many of you call yourselves atheists than why do you feel the need to make an entire website on how christ is not real if you are so sure that god is nonsense and such?

 

Oh, but there are many, many, many more creationist websites attempting to debunk evolution and the Big Bang and promote creationist agenda through poor logic, psuedo-science and propaganda, like the Discovery Institute.

 

Why have most of you decided to become atheist.

 

Athieism is not a decision. It is a conclusion. When did you decide to be influenced by gravity? You didn't. It was a fact about the world that was true long before you were aware of it. After you became aware of it, you accepted it and went about your life.

 

If you simply do not care about god or any religion then how come you want to "argue" against religion.

 

Because creationist have tried to imposed there views and psuedo-science on me since I was born.

 

are you just atiast becuse you can not understand gods word? I am not here to disprove anyone simply asking questions.

 

Are you a thiest because you don't understand the science of how the world really works? Because you feel you can't define who you are in a naturalistic world?