Where are the Christians?

[youtooellen]

Most of us evangelize about stuff that's important to us whether people want to hear it or not. We just call it something else.

Excellent point.

I push my friends into listening to U2.

 

[Galeongirl]

Believers are the ones for coexistence.


We all know atheists don't believe in anything.

How do you know what someone else believes in.


I hope some day people would finally stop judging someone who doesn't believe the same as they do.
I may be an atheist, but I have plenty of things I believe in. And we don't murder people or start wars for what we believe in.

Atheists believe more in coexistance than you will ever understand.

 

[MadForIt]

I believe in Oasisism - its the only way forward

 

[maycocksean]

How do you know what someone else believes in.


I hope some day people would finally stop judging someone who doesn't believe the same as they do.
I may be an atheist, but I have plenty of things I believe in. And we don't murder people or start wars for what we believe in.

Atheists believe more in coexistance than you will ever understand.

Oh, that's just deep being deep.

He's not a religious person either.

 

[maycocksean]

Don't worry, I would.

But I think that may be because you are, in fact my brother, and this whole Aussie thing is just a cover


Just kidding. . .it's just that your particular approach to non-belief is so similar to my brother's sometimes, I swear I want to ask: "Vince . . .is that you?"

Seriously, though, I'd happily engage some of the questions you raised, but somehow I'm not sure I'd be listened to. It sounds like you've already made up your mind. . .which is fine too, but I don't really feel like I need to challenge atheists on their lack of faith. Sometimes I think unbelief is a better place to be than to be a certain kind of believer.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Oh, that's just deep being deep.

He's not a religious person either.

It was an explicit reference to my position that atheists are not defined by any particular beliefs, and I struggle to come up with any common features that atheists embrace in the same way that Christians do with Christ's divinity or Muslims do for Mohammed's claims of revelation.

Seriously, a nonbeliever could just as easily be a new ager, nihilist, positivist or dialectical materialist.

I may believe certain things to be likely true without any good cause, but I doubt that those are because I am an atheist. There are very few convictions that I hold with the same type of faith that people mean by religious, I honestly can't see any good reasons for the existence of any God; a personal God doesn't match what we know, a creative intelligence running the universe is beyond what we can possible know (at the moment). I can say that to assume a creative intelligence is as likely as a naturalistic mechanism of cosmogeny is problematic because it creates an infinite regress by creating the problem of where that initial complexity came from.

Agnosticism was not designed to be fence sitting, T.H. Huxley was adamant that theological claims fell into the domain of empiricism and should be treated sceptically, a rigorous approach to supernatural claims which pitches agnosticism in the same sort of domain as most atheists. He was also very polite about his own unbelief to the point of bending over backwards to the religious mainstream, a staunch victorian evangelical who couldn't believe in the supernatural, I suspect that being cautiously reserved has advantages in some social situations.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Haha, an excuse for your actions?

Some of the replies to this thread sound pretty ethnocentric. I'm South Korean and my ancestors were all Buddhists. Somehow, somewhere my family converted to Christianity.
I noticed that there aren't as many "religion wars" over there. My parents tell me that in comparison to America (the only other nation they've lived in, haha), Korea seems to be much more understanding towards each others faiths.
I'm not singling out other regions around the globe, but I just wanted to point out that maybe we're asking all the wrong questions here. It isn't the existence of God that we should be flustered over, but rather why we can't be accepting and understanding of each other and each others beliefs.



Oh, and yes. I guess your question has been answered, iron horse... there seem to be many Christians here.

I have no problem accepting other peoples right to believe, and respecting that, but I reserve the right to defend my position against the slanderous ideas that atheists are immoral, backstabbing, unprincipled, and hopeless.

When people start talking about what makes their particular religion so excellent there is a tendency to imply that without a belief in God the world is less interesting, less exiting, less wonderful; I feel that natural theology degrades the natural world, transforming the wonderfully bizarre and complicated into a conduit for the very human idea of an artificer.

I can hold a fossil in my hand, look at the information impressed into the rock, and envisage millions of years of persistent change, leading back to an animal living in a very different world. The satisfaction of being able to justify this vastness and our insignificance with accumulated fact adds a dimension which I just can't see in man made religion.

There is more than enough around us to provoke the spiritual experience, unbelievers shouldn't let themselves be mischaracterised by a wide range of supernaturalists; we have a perfectly reasonable position, and the fact that people are beginning to enunciate it (after a decent enough period of marginalisation) is a good thing.

 

[A_Wanderer]

But I think that may be because you are, in fact my brother, and this whole Aussie thing is just a cover


Just kidding. . .it's just that your particular approach to non-belief is so similar to my brother's sometimes, I swear I want to ask: "Vince . . .is that you?"

Seriously, though, I'd happily engage some of the questions you raised, but somehow I'm not sure I'd be listened to. It sounds like you've already made up your mind. . .which is fine too, but I don't really feel like I need to challenge atheists on their lack of faith. Sometimes I think unbelief is a better place to be than to be a certain kind of believer.

I wouldn't expect you to, although from a strategic standpoint appealing to peoples emotions is an area of rhetoric that atheists ought to employ more frequently; it definitely is not a position which requires the existence of bad theology for contrast.

 

[youtooellen]

Seriously, a nonbeliever could just as easily be a new ager, nihilist, positivist or dialectical materialist.

With atheism, and pretty much all religions, skepticism will always be there. That's partially the reason for an atheist's denial of a superior being aka God. I think you mentioned before that Christians pick and choose what parts they want to apply into their lives. I, too, think that's true. Haha, I rhymed.

I also agree with you saying that a nonbeliever can be any character even if they don't believe in God or religion, but this applies to Christians too.
Just because Christians believe in something greater, does not mean that they don't think about the other end of the spectrum (unfortunately, some do... and that is a critical part of this whole "pushing religion" dilemma). For some individuals, their strength in faith developed from their previous belief that religion is inconclusive.

(None of what I said should be taken personally. Just to reiterate: this is all my opinion! )

 

[coemgen]

I'm here. I'm a Christian, but I don't visit Interference, or I should say, FYM, as much as I used to. I enjoy the discussions I've had and can say I've grown in my faith a lot here. There's some cool people here — and yes, I'm including many who disagree with me.

 

[A stor]

I have nothing against atheist.

 

[A stor]

On my bookshelf, I have a copy each of the Holy Bible, The Torah, the Holy Qur'an and The Teachings Of The Compassionate Buddha. All have helped me with my spiritual journey. My choice of course. I respect everyone else choice.

And yes, many Christians do read other holy books.

You would be surprised at how much alike, these four belief systems are.

 

[coemgen]

You would be surprised at how much alike, these four belief systems are.

There are many similarities, which is great, but the differences are huge.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Most of us evangelize about stuff that's important to us whether people want to hear it or not. We just call it something else.

I think that's the best post in this thread

 

[A stor]

Same here!

 

[A stor]

There are many similarities, which is great, but the differences are huge.

True and Christ seems to be the focal point. For Jews, Christians and Muslims. What I embrace from the four religions is the message of love. I feel it helps me to be a better person.

 

[coemgen]

True and Christ seems to be the focal point. For Jews, Christians and Muslims. What I embrace from the four religions is the message of love. I feel it helps me to be a better person.

That is a great message. Definitely one to focus on. We'd be in better shape if we did.

Christ does seem to be the focal point. It's just interesting how each faith sees him very differently — one claiming him to be the Savior. God himself.

 

[Irvine511]

A_W,

do you think there are some people who's lives have been immeasurably improved by their belief in God? do you think there are addicts of all kinds who literally owe their lives to a belief in a higher power? do you think that a higher power is often the motivator behind many altruistic endeavors, including the Bush administration's single clear success increasing funding for AIDS in Africa? if you take a look at the collective charity amassed by all the believers in the world, does this perhaps negate, atone for, or even make up for all the violence and persecution perpetrated by all the believers in the world?

is the Declaration of Independence (or, even, the Enlightenment) impossible to imagine without a belief in a Higher Power wherein the eyes of said Higher Power there's a universal equality, the right to all be treated the same, the understanding that all life has value whether it's a king or a shepherd?

how do you think other highly intellectual individuals, including several on this board, are able to easily live with their faith and see none of the contradictions that you've elucidated, or they're simply not bothered by them?

 

[coemgen]

A_W,

do you think there are some people who's lives have been immeasurably improved by their belief in God? do you think there are addicts of all kinds who literally owe their lives to a belief in a higher power? do you think that a higher power is often the motivator behind many altruistic endeavors, including the Bush administration's single clear success increasing funding for AIDS in Africa? if you take a look at the collective charity amassed by all the believers in the world, does this perhaps negate, atone for, or even make up for all the violence and persecution perpetrated by all the believers in the world?

is the Declaration of Independence (or, even, the Enlightenment) impossible to imagine without a belief in a Higher Power wherein the eyes of said Higher Power there's a universal equality, the right to all be treated the same, the understanding that all life has value whether it's a king or a shepherd?

how do you think other highly intellectual individuals, including several on this board, are able to easily live with their faith and see none of the contradictions that you've elucidated, or they're simply not bothered by them?

Thanks for posting this.

 

[U2isthebest]

A_W,

do you think there are some people who's lives have been immeasurably improved by their belief in God? do you think there are addicts of all kinds who literally owe their lives to a belief in a higher power? do you think that a higher power is often the motivator behind many altruistic endeavors, including the Bush administration's single clear success increasing funding for AIDS in Africa? if you take a look at the collective charity amassed by all the believers in the world, does this perhaps negate, atone for, or even make up for all the violence and persecution perpetrated by all the believers in the world?

is the Declaration of Independence (or, even, the Enlightenment) impossible to imagine without a belief in a Higher Power wherein the eyes of said Higher Power there's a universal equality, the right to all be treated the same, the understanding that all life has value whether it's a king or a shepherd?

how do you think other highly intellectual individuals, including several on this board, are able to easily live with their faith and see none of the contradictions that you've elucidated, or they're simply not bothered by them?

Marry me?

 

[Irvine511]

i posted it because i think it's the flip side of A_W's posts.

i find his dissection of religion very persuasive, and i'm quite sympathetic to them, and they better match my experience better than any other posts in this thread.

i just want to know what he thinks about the upside. i'm sympathetic to the argument that all the good effects of religion have nothing to do with the religion itself, and that the religion is simply an excuse to action -- good action or bad action -- but even if it is, does that matter?

i really don't know the answer. if it matters or not.

 

[martha]

I have no problem accepting other peoples right to believe

Yes you do. Daily.

 

[financeguy]

Yes you do. Daily.

So critiquing beliefs is denying others right to believe??

 

[A_Wanderer]

A_W,

do you think there are some people who's lives have been immeasurably improved by their belief in God? do you think there are addicts of all kinds who literally owe their lives to a belief in a higher power? do you think that a higher power is often the motivator behind many altruistic endeavors, including the Bush administration's single clear success increasing funding for AIDS in Africa? if you take a look at the collective charity amassed by all the believers in the world, does this perhaps negate, atone for, or even make up for all the violence and persecution perpetrated by all the believers in the world?

is the Declaration of Independence (or, even, the Enlightenment) impossible to imagine without a belief in a Higher Power wherein the eyes of said Higher Power there's a universal equality, the right to all be treated the same, the understanding that all life has value whether it's a king or a shepherd?

how do you think other highly intellectual individuals, including several on this board, are able to easily live with their faith and see none of the contradictions that you've elucidated, or they're simply not bothered by them?

How enriching a belief system is to a person has nothing to do with the veracity of the claims, the evidence that in dominantly religious countries such as America where most community activity (which makes people lead happier lives) demands religious engagement does not make the claims at all true.

Facts matter to me, but beyond that the idea of religion being the driving force for humanitarianism is somewhat open. While there is a decent history of religious charity has there ever been a time when secular groups have had the capacity to deliver the same sort of help? I would argue that individual humanists come out very well on the score of helping other people without religious motivation, that we can get a personal reward from helping other people that is not coming from God, and speculate that at least some religious charity shares a common basis with secular humanitarianism.

I also doubt that nonbelievers as a social group have ever had the organisational capacity to deliver as much aid in as organised a fashion as religious groups. This is not to say it would be impossible, only that in most countries secular people are not as engaged with the community and are not getting involved in the same numbers as religious people.

On the plus side you will be hard pressed to find nonbelievers pushing abstinence only programs in the third world, sticking people in hospices when they could get medical treatment, and refusing to use painkillers for doctrinal reasons.

If we are to take religious belief as a great equalizer then it will be a selective vision. Most Christians emphasise the role that Wilberforce had for abolition (overlooking more humanistic abolitionists), without acknowledging the biblical justification for slavery at the time this retrospective view is terribly skewed. I would not be surprised if in 50 years time mainstream evangelical groups claim that they were at the forefront of the gay rights movement, and that they have a long history of tolerance.

Most competing religious beliefs offer a label for people which might do more harm than good, it is a human tendency to group that isn't restricted to religions, I don't think this grouping of people along religious lines is a consequence of religion, it is a consequence of human brains.

It takes a mature sort of faith to practice genuine religious toleration, but at the point somebody forfeits the exclusive claims of their belief system to accommodate others do they become less religious, in some respects? The OP asked where the FYM Christians are, perhaps the utter lack of proselytizing and the humble attitude towards the claims in the bible (beyond Jesus meek and mild, the golden rule, and social justice) does make them a different sort of Christian; less married to the Christian identity.

I know very few highly intellectual people who arrive at faith in adulthood, I do know of very smart people who abandoned belief early but return later in life, but those who were never raised in a religious environment don't seem to be a part of it. I am well placed to understand that position, I don't have to react against any religious abuses, I have no personal animosity against any churches, I have no nagging existential problems which I feel religion could answer for me. I can genuinely say that I never had any time for theology, I have faced the usual slew of personal challenges which people do and I have never found myself looking to a higher power. As somebody who can act in a moral way without God I do find attacks on secular societies by the faith based annoying, and I am more than willing to defend my position.

Everybody else is allowed to justify positions with faith and it gets a free pass (as a Muslim I believe that women benefit from modest, as a Christian I love and accept homosexuals as sinners, as a Scientologist I believe that psychology is bunk). When an atheist or agnostic asserts their position they are usually denying the religious premise, this is unacceptable and is instantly labelled militant or fundamentalist.

The OP can tag the "rebel from Jerusalem" and he's just a Christian, I can state that "there is no evidence for God" and I am a militant. Either atheists are quiet on how their philosophy treats social and moral issues, or they are hateful fundamentalists that are out to destroy other peoples faith. I am glad that people can get offended by my posts, if it means they stop and think about where an atheist is coming from, about their implicit biases and how weak religious arguments are in any secular context.

If I were to speculate about how smart people can believe, I think the answer sits in the universality of the spiritual / religious experience and the cultural norms which they are raised with or must adapt to. It would be worth looking at the types of beliefs which people get to when reconciling what they know with scripture, literalism is out the door and reading good moral precepts into religious texts is on the agenda for a lot of people.

Obviously their religion is alright, it is hands off for scientific questions and most of the ethical concerns have theological justification twinned by secular reasons. These are religious positions that are so good that I usually agree with most of the content

I am not in a position to justify why people believe, or tell somebody that the reason that they have certain positions is X, Y, and Z. I am in a position to say that I don't believe in God, that there is absolutely no dilemma between my science and my atheism, that I feel the atheistic position makes me a better scientist (that is not to say that it makes me better than other scientists, only that I am more open minded than my evil twin who believes in the doctrine of the trinity regardless of the facts).

 

[A_Wanderer]

Yes you do. Daily.

So critiquing beliefs is denying others right to believe??

Obviously some people have difficulty with honesty, it makes them uncomfortable.

 

[martha]

Obviously some people have difficulty with honesty, it makes them uncomfortable.

No, I have difficulty with hostility and self-righteousness masquerading as honesty.

If you're so very respectful of believers, then what the point of your Science/Religion incompatibility thread?

 

[yolland]

is the Declaration of Independence (or, even, the Enlightenment) impossible to imagine without a belief in a Higher Power wherein the eyes of said Higher Power there's a universal equality, the right to all be treated the same, the understanding that all life has value whether it's a king or a shepherd?

Personally I don't think so, but it is impossible to accept the notion that we possess 'inalienable human rights' without abandoning the thinking that every idea we accept must be empirically verifiable. Of course we can (retrospectively?) argue that thinking 'As If' it were true has benefits which can be appreciated rationally (which puts it in a different category from 'belief'), but that still doesn't make it empirically true; and furthermore, I would question whether anyone who claims to accept it only insofar as it's a rationally useful 'As If' is in truth representing their own thought process accurately. It may 'feel' or 'seem' "self-evident," but in reality there isn't any evidence for it.

True and Christ seems to be the focal point. For Jews, Christians and Muslims.

I wouldn't put it this way exactly. Comparing answers to the question "Was Jesus divine?" can objectively speaking be one convenient, if Christian-centric, means of distinguishing doctrinally between the three. But calling that a "focal point" makes it sound as if ideas about Jesus specifically are internally significant to each religion's theology, when at least in Judaism's case they aren't: it's not that Jesus is discussed and 'rejected' in classic rabbinic Jewish theology, rather he simply isn't discussed at all; he doesn't figure in the Talmud (nor do 'Christians'), and not until medieval times when Jews lived as a diaspora minority in Christian- or Muslim-controlled lands do we finally see explicit rejections of Jesus' status *as defined by Christianity or Islam* being formally articulated *with reference to Jewish doctrine*. Whereas, as late as the era when the Talmud underwent final redaction (late 4th cen. AD for the Jerusalem edition, late 5th-early 7th cen. AD for the Babylonian edition), this simply doesn't seem to have been considered a theologically significant matter by rabbinic authorities. The case of Islam is rather different, because the Koran and hadith taken together furnish quite a bit of theological doctrine proper concerning Jesus, who's clearly accorded considerable significance, albeit not considered divine, nor as important a prophet as Muhammad.

 

[A stor]

Hi Yolland,

I was simply making a blanket statement. Where as Muslims, Jews and Christians believe in a "Messiah" son of God, concept. I don't study theology, though I do enjoy reading history books on Ireland and the U.K. I thank you for the additional information. BTW, Your writing is excellent.

 

[youtooellen]

Each human being is born with natural rights. It's the society that one is born in that suppresses the rights. IMO, religion helps bring out the morals we forget that we have.
The energy we put into being angry or hateful can be flipped--- putting all of our energy to be forgiving, loving, and compassionate.
Instead of constantly thinking and questioning religion, why can't we be accepting and understanding of all the differences we have?

I'm also a hardcore believer than personal experiences make a HUGE impact on one's spiritual journey. I'm just tossing that out as a reminder to everyone who thinks religion is something manifested by society.

No, I have difficulty with hostility and self-righteousness masquerading as honesty.

If you're so very respectful of believers, then what the point of your Science/Religion incompatibility thread?

Everyone here has some awesome points from both points of view. The only thing that makes me weary is the possibility that we're "attacking" each other, whether we mean it or not.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Experiences generated in a physical organ, the human brain, should be treated cautiously.