Marketing Atheism to Christians

[edwest2]

You are describing anarchy. Everyone runs off in their own direction and, when met by someone who disagrees, says: “Stay away. Mind your own business.”

As a Christian, I am obliged to tell people about Jesus Christ. If I offer a booklet about the Gospel to someone and they refuse, I don’t force it on them.

I’m certainly not interested in stopping you from doing what you want. At this moment, people around the world are doing whatever they want and I assure you, they don’t contact me first to get my permission.

However, as a follower of Jesus Christ, there are certain rules I must follow. As a Christian, I will vote, talk and act a certain way. I’m also interested in hearing what other people have to say.

So, you and I may never meet but I will continue to be me while you continue to be you. If you don’t want to listen to me, I won’t force you to.

God bless,
Ed

 

[perladow]

You are describing anarchy. Everyone runs off in their own direction and, when met by someone who disagrees, says: “Stay away. Mind your own business.”

As a Christian, I am obliged to tell people about Jesus Christ. If I offer a booklet about the Gospel to someone and they refuse, I don’t force it on them.

I’m certainly not interested in stopping you from doing what you want. At this moment, people around the world are doing whatever they want and I assure you, they don’t contact me first to get my permission.

However, as a follower of Jesus Christ, there are certain rules I must follow. As a Christian, I will vote, talk and act a certain way. I’m also interested in hearing what other people have to say.

So, you and I may never meet but I will continue to be me while you continue to be you. If you don’t want to listen to me, I won’t force you to.

God bless,
Ed

I don’t see how what I was describing could be considered anarchy. obviously we need rules or laws to live by or people would take advantage of one another. the thing I disagree with is one person telling someone else that it’s wrong to do with their body as they please when nobody else is being harmed by it.

also, some of you make it sound like atheists are crazy, immoral, self-centered jerks that just don’t care about anything or anyone because they don’t believe they’ll be punished by being sent to hell. it is possible to be a respectable, moral, kind person without believing in a higher being. just as it’s possible for a religious person to commit crimes and act greedily and stupidly. I really dislike that atheism is so frequently associated with that kind of negative behavior because neither I nor my many atheist friends and family members act like that.

 

[Hastrman]

Unfortunately many atheists can’t grasp, or won’t admit (because it scares them) that in a purely material universe, nobody has any rights. Obviously. Tell me, how much mass have your rights got? Your rights, are they composed of baryonic or nonbaryonic particles?

Obviously if there’s nothing but matter, there’s also nothing but power. If I can make you do something, then I can, if I feel like it. If you don’t like it, well, maybe your ancestors should have been tougher, so they could pass on better genes, and *you’d *be pushing *me *around. Don’t impose your imaginary concepts of “right” and “wrong”–unlike the religious people, you can’t believe in those, and also be an atheist.

I think the reason so many Christians are convinced atheists will be immoral, is they mistakenly think atheists are rational adults. They give atheists the credit of thinking they can see the obvious, namely that without an objective framework of right and wrong (neither of which is physical, of course), there’s no reason not to do anything, except that someone will step on your neck. But that’s hard to take, and only a few atheists are mature enough to handle it–Neitszche, for instance. Most of them just take refuge in our terms, the terms of morality, despite the fact they cannot logically accept anything like an absolute morality. And then they say we’re irrational, and engage in wish-fulfillment.

Ironic, ain’t it?

 

[Nepenthe]

Ah no Hastrman, that simply is not the case. Whether or not the universe is purely material, humans are social beings! This too can provide a strong base for morality without theism as necessary (in very short, Social Contract, Categorical Imperative, and Golden Rule - there’s more but those are basic, and most religious people here also subscribe to these, whether or not it’s explicit), as we have discussed in many other threads, ad nauseam. Are there evil amoral crazy nontheists? Sure! Are there evil amoral crazy theists? Lots!. Nobody holds a monopoly or patent on horribleness.

Hastrman, I really do like and agree with your tastes in art and culture (not entirely, but pretty well) and also agree with some of your views on morality (perhaps not how you derive some of those views, but in their practice) - but you wrong nontheists, and yourself by tarring us all with the same brush.

You see, I very much doubt that most nontheists want to ‘sell’ theists nontheism, in the sense that we don’t really CARE what you believe or what motivates you to behave in a kindly charitable fashion, so long as you do, in fact, behave like good neighbors - not perfect, since we none of us are that, but good neighbors. But we would like to not be vilified and demonized en masse for matters we possibly cannot change (ie, Believing in things we don’t see any reason to think are so) nor wish to, especially if we are not hurting you. Making broad generalizations helps no one, but gentle, calm consideration of individuals often does.

 

[Hastrman]

Ah no Hastrman, that simply is not the case. Whether or not the universe is purely material, humans are social beings! This too can provide a strong base for morality without theism as necessary (in very short, Social Contract, Categorical Imperative, and Golden Rule - there’s more but those are basic, and most religious people here also subscribe to these, whether or not it’s explicit), as we have discussed in many other threads, ad nauseam. Are there evil amoral crazy nontheists? Sure! Are there evil amoral crazy theists? Lots!. Nobody holds a monopoly or patent on horribleness.

Hastrman, I really do like and agree with your tastes in art and culture (not entirely, but pretty well) and also agree with some of your views on morality (perhaps not how you derive some of those views, but in their practice) - but you wrong nontheists, and yourself by tarring us all with the same brush.

Define nontheist. Do you include Buddhists? People who believe in the spirits? If so, you’re wrong. Buddhists have the Dharma, which is Natural Law, and besides, they’re not nontheists, they’re monists: nothing exists but the essence of Being, Mahavairocana Buddha (basically God). Taoists have the Jade Emperor (God again), the Celestial Bureaucracy, and the Tao. And any real polytheist religion (you know, the kind whose gods actually give you your money’s worth, like the Korean or Shinto gods or the Navajo Holy People) is basically Orthodox Judaism, except a different being gave the people the law. Trust me, you lack the background to dispute this. Unless you can explain the concept of Bujeong as it relates to a Shamanic Gut? I don’t care about the so-called religions white people made up to feel “spiritual” without having any duties; spiritual autoeroticism doesn’t interest me.

Atheists, specifically, can be good, or smart, but not both. Any atheist who is good is a philosophical illiterate–or a sentimental weakling. Any mature atheist with a decent intellect knows that, if materialism is true, morality is just a tool people use to dress up their preferences. Sure, humanity may be a social species…but evolutionarily speaking species is just a tool scientists use to talk about similar animals in lumps, with no real meaning. That’s what materialism means: the denial of any except what aristotelians call Material (and Efficient) causes. There are no forms, nothing has a nature, therefore there is no natural law and no objective morality. Don’t stick your neck out, but rip off anything you can get away with, unless it happens to make you feel bad. Then don’t. Nothing deeper than that.

The Categorical Imperative and the Golden Rule are dogmas you have to accept, not based on reason. If you accept something else on the basis of faith–say, the existence of God, or of the Dharma–you can reason from those first principles to morality. Otherwise you’re just deciding things a priori with no relation to logic. Like a child, as I said.

 

[Hastrman]

…If you accept something else on the basis of faith–say, the existence of God

Should have said, God’s having revealed Himself to any particular person–reason compels you to accept God’s existence, but not any particular teaching about His actions in our world. Those, you do have to take on faith.

 

[Nepenthe]

Hastrman:

The Categorical Imperative and the Golden Rule are dogmas you have to accept, not based on reason.

Mm, nope, they can be demonstrated to be beneficial to me, both short and longterm. They also happen to be beneficial to others. Win-win, hence their well-deserved popularity. Not inductive, but empirical reasoning here. And Jesus sure seemed to think the latter was a good idea (among quite a few other ancient moralists).

Hastrman:

Otherwise you’re just deciding things a priori with no relation to logic.

Uh huh, and how are YOU doing it?

Please, do not speak down to me simply because I am not of your Faith. I would not do that to you, if I had one, nor do I, even though I don’t. And it is quite possible to be a materialist yet a moral absolutist, you know?

And guess what, I don’t have to define nontheist, other than the obvious ‘not believing in the supernatural/deities/etc.’ You seem to have chosen something like a definition, however arbitrarily. Of course animists are theists. And certainly Jews are. Did a different being give Jews and Christians their laws? Really?

As to the rant about nontheists (very few of us ‘deny’ the supernatural, mostly we don’t find it very interesting as a possibility though) being either stupid or depraved…sigh. Well, the best I can likely do is try to demonstrate otherwise, since you clearly fear and hate us. For the record though, you’re wrong. Stick around, you might find us, as members of the loyal opposition, to be very good friends.

 

[Montalban]

I’d really rather atheists, agnostics, etc. didn’t leave the gloves on. If Christian thinkers can’t counter their best arguments, then we need to either do our homework, or concede that they might have a point. Me, I think that Christianity has excellent responses to the sorts of naive scientism that pass for recent critiques of religious belief, but some of us are underpracticed in articulating them. The intellect needs as much exercise as any muscle; let’s not disdain the chances that we’re offered. Keep it coming, my nontheistic friends.

Here’s two counter-punches

As British biologist J. B. S. Haldane wrote in 1927, “If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true . . . and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.”
orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/GilderEvolution.php
also at
[Evolution and Me | Discovery Institute(name removed by moderator)age](http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi...am=DI Main Page - Article&callingPage=discoMa(name removed by moderator)age)

"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too - for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know if it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning.

Lewis, C. S., (2002), “The Complete C S Lewis”, (Harper; San Francisco), p30.

 

[Nepenthe]

Aw, Haldane. I love him, and his quip about that God with that ‘inordinate fondness for beetles!’

And Lewis, well, he certainly wrote upon and within his presuppositions of the material world, and didn’t have much of an interest or sense about the physical things, good and kindly though he surely was in a moral and (as I suppose) metaphysical sense. He’s justly beloved, though I prefer Chesterton and Wolfe, and sure, Tolkien (all Catholic, not Anglican, not that it matters, since I also deeply respect MacDonald, Dunsany and Lang, whom I believe were Anglican - do correct me if I’m wrong though) in such a context, that being literary scholarship, criticism and fiction, and in some cases apologetics and philosophy.

 

[Nepenthe]

Egad, and I misspoke a couple posts back. I did mean ‘deductive’ not inductive…but I expect you realize that. Argle, Conan-Doyle, you know that error is largely his fault! Well, okay not really - Poe too, but still. I should and do know better.

 

[perladow]

“Atheists, specifically, can be good, or smart, but not both.”

…wow. I’m sorry to be politically incorrect, but that honestly is one of the most absolutely retarded things I’ve ever heard.

where do you get the idea that atheists believe only in physically solid things? there are things that we can’t SEE - thoughts, for one - but just because we can’t SEE it doesn’t mean we’re being hypocrites if we don’t disbelieve in it. if it can be tested, an atheist would believe it. it’s not disputed that people have thoughts, and if it was, well… there’s tests they can do to show that you’re thinking. furthermore, there is no possible way to test the existence of a God. but there is a way to test the theory of evolution. do you see my point? there also ARE natural laws. many things do occur in a predictable pattern. please read up before you go around pointing the finger at science and making up information in order to support your argument.

secondly, morality is NOT, I repeat, NOT NOT NOT NOT simply a religious thing!!! it’s usually associated with religion because you’ve got your Bible, but morality does not have to be associated with religion by any means. Wikipedia describes morality as:

“a code of conduct held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong. The proper source of this authority is controversial, but society, philosophy, religion, and individual conscience are widely held to be candidates.”

individual conscience - sure, atheists can have that. just because I’m not going to be punished by God if I mess up doesn’t mean I won’t feel bad for doing bad things.

philosophy - yes, folks, there are philosophers out there who don’t believe in God, and who want to treat other people nicely.

society - if there was a society strictly of atheists, do you think it would be chaos? why? we actually do understand, believe it or not, that there needs to be a set of rules in order to prevent people from mistreating each other and to help them live together peacefully, otherwise some idiots would wreak havoc freely. and that’s not to say that the threat of being punished by law is all that keeps atheists from destroying each other. again, there’s individual conscience in the equation. (we really do believe in and have feelings - isn’t that wild?)

you really need to look at what you’re saying and consider it. stereotypes and generalizations and exaggerations aren’t going to work in this situation. especially when you’re blatantly attacking either my intelligence or my values. I am a very kind and well-behaved person, and I’m certainly not stupid. you wouldn’t like to hear all the things I have to say about religious fanatics, and I won’t say them to you, because I personally feel that it’s immoral to attack someone who I don’t even know in a setting such as this, when it is uncalled for. perhaps you should keep your ignorant and irrelevant statements to yourself as well.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Atheists, specifically, can be good, or smart, but not both.

pure ignorance + judgemental attitude

 

[Nepenthe]

Well hey perladow, MOST of us nontheists do think there’s morality, both personal and social and in fact we get harshed on so hard in some parts of the world that we’re generally obligated to understand just WHY we think so. But of course, there are a few stupid amoral nontheists. However, they don’t have the luxury of defending their evil via their varieties of nontheism, anymore than theists may justify their evils by their brands of theism. Theists may claim their god/gods are ‘good’ but…I don’t see why they do so.

 

[perladow]

"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too - for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know if it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning.

Lewis, C. S., (2002), “The Complete C S Lewis”, (Harper; San Francisco), p30.

ugh.

atheism isn’t a disbelief in something. it’s the lack of a belief in something.

I’ve been atheist my entire life, even before I could comprehend the idea of a God. as I grew up, nobody tried to teach me about God, therefore I never knew about God for some time. was I an atheist then? absolutely. you don’t have to be aware of the fact that some people believe in God to be an atheist, because it is not a choice. you can’t ignore or deny something that you are unaware of. know what I mean?

 

[Nepenthe]

Hey, I have to say, it’s good to know I’m not the only lifelong nontheist here. It’s a lonely existence sometimes, when the love of our fellow humans discounts us, I know all too well. Don’t worry, the good ol’ burden of proof is on them, if they want to go that way with it. Silly, but some of them seem to think it’s important for those with Faith.

Personally, I really do prefer the term ‘nontheist’ though, since denial, especially as it is perceived, acknowledges the whole bunch of nonsense which divides us far too much, in my opinion.

Welcome then, and let’s all be friends.

 

[perladow]

aahh, gotcha. I kinda thought they meant the same thing. thanks!

 

[edwest2]

Ah no Hastrman, that simply is not the case. Whether or not the universe is purely material, humans are social beings! This too can provide a strong base for morality without theism as necessary (in very short, Social Contract, Categorical Imperative, and Golden Rule - there’s more but those are basic, and most religious people here also subscribe to these, whether or not it’s explicit), as we have discussed in many other threads, ad nauseam. Are there evil amoral crazy nontheists? Sure! Are there evil amoral crazy theists? Lots!. Nobody holds a monopoly or patent on horribleness.

Hastrman, I really do like and agree with your tastes in art and culture (not entirely, but pretty well) and also agree with some of your views on morality (perhaps not how you derive some of those views, but in their practice) - but you wrong nontheists, and yourself by tarring us all with the same brush.

You see, I very much doubt that most nontheists want to ‘sell’ theists nontheism, in the sense that we don’t really CARE what you believe or what motivates you to behave in a kindly charitable fashion, so long as you do, in fact, behave like good neighbors - not perfect, since we none of us are that, but good neighbors. But we would like to not be vilified and demonized en masse for matters we possibly cannot change (ie, Believing in things we don’t see any reason to think are so) nor wish to, especially if we are not hurting you. Making broad generalizations helps no one, but gentle, calm consideration of individuals often does.

If you don’t care, why bother posting? The other poster is right. Without a defined set of moral values, we, as a society, live in a grey, make it up as you go along culture. Atheists, by definition, have to avoid God-derived ideas. Only human constructs will do. I can’t run my life based on a new discovery by some social science experts who will be overturned by a new study by some other social science experts. I can’t raise my kids by reading the latest issue of Child Psychology. Example:

"Hi Hon. Listen, we have got to change our parenting style. I got the latest issue of Gender Neutral Child Development and Dr. So and So said we need to get the kids in touch with their inner animal.

“What? Tommy bit the cat? I told you Sweety, that’s just where Tommy is at this point in his development. Yeah, cat’s are devious creatures. The cat probably deserved it. What?”

Life Partner: "Listen. I just got the latest study from the Harvard School of Child Care and it clearly says that we need to keep our kids away from their inner animal.’

Other Life Partner: “Really? What’s the date on your study? No kidding. We will definitely have to rethink this. Bye.”

Christians live in a much more black and white world, which is far more stable than the much worshipped “the only constant is change” philosophy. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. I’m not saying new ideas shouldn’t be examined, but without a defined yardstick against which to measure, there is no real starting point.

I could pay another person money to beat the **** out of me as part of a social contract, but by my yardstick, that’s wrong. Right and wrong need to be defined in a bedrock form. If everything is permissable, how will anyone raise their children?

God bless,
Ed

 

[perladow]

If you don’t care, why bother posting? The other poster is right. Without a defined set of moral values, we, as a society, live in a grey, make it up as you go along culture. Atheists, by definition, have to avoid God-derived ideas. Only human constructs will do. I can’t run my life based on a new discovery by some social science experts who will be overturned by a new study by some other social science experts. I can’t raise my kids by reading the latest issue of Child Psychology. Example:

"Hi Hon. Listen, we have got to change our parenting style. I got the latest issue of Gender Neutral Child Development and Dr. So and So said we need to get the kids in touch with their inner animal.

“What? Tommy bit the cat? I told you Sweety, that’s just where Tommy is at this point in his development. Yeah, cat’s are devious creatures. The cat probably deserved it. What?”

Life Partner: "Listen. I just got the latest study from the Harvard School of Child Care and it clearly says that we need to keep our kids away from their inner animal.’

Other Life Partner: “Really? What’s the date on your study? No kidding. We will definitely have to rethink this. Bye.”

Christians live in a much more black and white world, which is far more stable than the much worshipped “the only constant is change” philosophy. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. I’m not saying new ideas shouldn’t be examined, but without a defined yardstick against which to measure, there is no real starting point.

I could pay another person money to beat the **** out of me as part of a social contract, but by my yardstick, that’s wrong. Right and wrong need to be defined in a bedrock form. If everything is permissable, how will anyone raise their children?

God bless,
Ed

go read my post in which I discussed how morals need not be religiously-based. it’s said in the Bible that there are things you shouldn’t do because God says so. “thou shalt not kill.” will an atheist disagree with this simply because it’s religious? no. we also know it’s wrong to kill, but not because God will punish us for it. we know it’s wrong because allowing people to go on killing sprees isn’t rational.

 

[Nepenthe]

Oh now hold on…even the Bible acknowledges the Good Samaritan. If someone picks you up, feeds, clothes and helps you back on your feet, asking nothing in return, then…what is there to hate? Love thy neighbor, even as you would have thy neighbor love thee.

Do Christians and other theists have to avoid ‘non-God-derived’ ideas (like, ahem, the internet)? Rather, what ideas do we and can we hold in common? Is your black-and-white world like a primitive cartoon, or a scratch in the dirt? I truly hope not.

As I said, some nontheists are stupid, amoral and evil, and so are some theists. But that does not have to mean we needs must agree on the existence of a certain (or even an uncertain) deity to be neighbors and friends (and gasp! even good parents, spouses and citizens).

 

[perladow]

Oh now hold on…even the Bible acknowledges the Good Samaritan. If someone picks you up, feeds, clothes and helps you back on your feet, asking nothing in return, then…what is there to hate? Love thy neighbor, even as you would have thy neighbor love thee.

Do Christians and other theists have to avoid ‘non-God-derived’ ideas (like, ahem, the internet)? Rather, what ideas do we and can we hold in common? Is your black-and-white world like a primitive cartoon, or a scratch in the dirt? I truly hope not.

As I said, some nontheists are stupid, amoral and evil, and so are some theists. But that does not have to mean we needs must agree on the existence of a certain (or even an uncertain) deity to be neighbors and friends (and gasp! even good parents, spouses and citizens).

very well put.