You Christians scare me...

[LeoDV]

I knew I was going to get a lot of Christian readers with this one.

Seriously, you guys scare me.

Nietzsche once said if Christians looked more saved then maybe he'd take them seriously (couldn't find the exact quote).

Now, I am a Christian. Roman Catholic. And not a moderate one, if that's what you think - well, in that that I believe firmly in everything the Church says and has said, and most people take me as a Christian fanatic.

Yet, the Christian people - most of the time American Protestants - I've seen browsing through the web are Scary with a capital S!

Now I'm talking to you guys, you Christian fanatics!

Have we let ourselves sink down to the point where an atheist tells us, rightly so, how we misbehave!

Stop being so narrow-minded! Stop being so stuck! God's message is about love among all men, especially sinners, and ESPECIALLY atheists.

I don't know why I said that. I'm new here and now the christians well consider me as some kind of weirdo and the non-Christians will consider me as some kind of die-hard Christian fanatic.

But the people like that I see make me really sad, because they give the rest of Christians a bad name, but most of all because they walk the wrong path...

And I just couldn't help clicking the 'New Thread' button to try and send you guys a message. A message of love and open-mindedness.

</rant >

 

[LeoDV]

What shocks me, is that I am, and have always lived amongst hardcore, fanatic Christians, and yet they were always open-minded and respectful of other opinions - like the Pope.

And yet, the American Christians do horrible things.

The most likely explanation is that my faith is catholic, and theirs is Protestant. That's the only thing I see.

See below for account.

Originally posted by tiassa
I lived in Oregon from '91-'96, voting in the state in all those years. In 1990, Christians scored local victories against the First Amendment, proscribing the rights of homosexuals in accordance with their Biblical interpretations. The fight still goes on, despite a Colorado victory being gutted by the Supreme Court. Now, as much as we would like to look past such institutionally-founded idiocies, we cannot escape the fact that those idiocies of institution are impossible without people--that is, individuals--subscribing to the institution.

Thus the bigotry extends down to the personal level; I know a good many Christians whose definition of equality is Christian supremacy. Co-workers, smoke-break associates, and people in taverns, when issues of Christian authority arise, seem to feel that unless society adopts Christianity as its model, the rights of Christians are violated. Thus, I have attended book-banning hearings at which a Christian asserted that their right to free expression and free religion is violated by the presence of books which disagree with them. Quite personally, I'm tired of it. In my life, Christianity threatens to be the undoing of the liberty which has allowed what human progress we have achieved in our nation.

On the human level, I can't count the number of times this has been reinforced. One need not look to the press or the libraries to prove this. Personally, I can encapsulate the tale of my aunt quite conveniently here. Dissatisfied with life, she joined a church, seeking social grounding. Within months, she had nearly destroyed her marriage and family.

She attempted to forbid her 19 year-old daughter entry to the family home over the issue of the movie Last Temptation of Christ. Disgusted at the slatterny of a daughter, she once kicked the girl out of the house, leaving no place for her to go except to the boyfriend's, and we can guess what happened there. The books she acquired during that phase (Dr Dobson and others) were utterly distasteful; at the time I recoiled from their condescending tone; the more reflective summary of those family-guidance books is that my aunt chose a theory that reduced people to automatons with specific instructions and no real will. The reliance on arbitrary standards of right and wrong amazes me. We could say that, at one point, the home officially reached the point that children are to be seen and not heard. Communication and understanding were undermined in favor of obedience and dogma. Quite frankly, it was only after she ditched the Missouri Synod, took dancing lessons, and moved onto the boat with her estranged husband (who fled the insanity) that the family got healthy again. Coincidentally, of the daughters, three lived in the home when she started her holier-than-thou kick. One moved out, and is an RN. The youngest is close to her RN, and the daughter kicked out of the house and forbidden entry into the home--who was amid her rebellious phase when hostile religion invaded the house, caught the worst of it. By whatever standard of human results, that daughter is the only one adrift; soon to be married, on her way to her third child, and absolutely not a functional brain cell in her skull. Believe me: the differences 'twixt my regard for the Christian experience at, say, 10. 13, and 17 changed dramatically. Each phase has a certain impact. I watch the youngest daughter, close to her RN, and wonder about those differences. Why was she not so screwed as the other? Well, when she got to that point, the storm had passed. There's that, at least. In the end, my aunt has not dropped her religion, but has returned to the more tolerant, reasonable, and less-ridiculous flock of mainstream Lutheranism.

Of Lutherans, I can tell you a good deal. I'm a confirmed Lutheran, and at force of law. That may sound strange in the United States, but a condition of my scandalous adoption into the current family was that I be given a certain degree of Christian education.

So in my time among the Lutherans, I watched scandalous people chase out a pastor who might, had my experience been consistently positive under his tutelage, have kept me in the flock. The nicest guy in the world chased out on trumped-up (never proven nor prosecuted) charges of indecent liberties ... it was political. His replacement was as uber-conservative as you can get without being Missouri Synod. HIs method of educating young people in the ways of Christ included frequent excoriations, overturned furniture, and hurled Bibles. When a child asked him a question that he could not answer--e.g. confusion about Alpha/Omega, &c--his answer was that the child was either idiotic or insane.

I used to watch Robert Tilton's Success-n-Life ministry purely for the comedy factor. In addition to physically reminding me of Satan, good Bob used to heal via the airwaves; it was amazing. In fact, a little-known thrash band called Panic included a sample of his show on their album. I was thrilled that a local band making a national statement had chosen to ridicule the same Dallas, Texas-based ministry that kept me rolling on the floor. Nonetheless, to consider that televangelism is a multibillion-dollar entertainment industry, I personally resented this profiteer threatening me in order to make money. The condemnation of those not Christian, the constant harping on money and labels, these are hallmarks of Christianity in America in the late twentieth century.

In high school, among Catholics, the list is endless. In fact, this Christian sect undid my a priori regard for the sanctity of sexuality. Much like La Vey and the circus patrons, I watched my fellow students kneel for absolution on Friday mornings and kneel to give fellatio on Friday night. Falling in love was a dangerous affair of the heart; it was safest to never fall in love. And I hold this standard of conduct against Christianity for all time. How dare the needs and considerations of faith create a state where human sanctity is elastic and arbitrary. But, that's the Christians for you.

There were the publicly-touted anti-abortion missions to the state capital which the school liked to remind were an education in civic participation, in equality, in free expression.

Needless to say, the dissenters were kept under lock and key. Political cartoons disagreeing with the school's "free expression" policy--even those that weren't cruel lampoons like Ed the Horse's Ass or Lollipop Nazi--earned suspensions.

If your parents kicked you out of the house, they were to call the school. The student would be suspended and banned from campus until returning home. Yes, that's as backwards as it seems. One of our students ended up in prison after one of those; his dad threw him out for something--I think it was joyriding in the car--and the school suspended him. A couple of afternoons later, he was attacked on the street and, in a youthful burst of enthusiasm, beat the guy within an inch of his life. The result of the solution is so encouraging, right?

And I'm at the center of one of those scandals, too. As a junior in high school, I met a lovely freshman whose mother disliked the notion of her daughter going to prom with a 17 year-old. Well and fine, but after she was kicked out of the house over the issue, she went to a friend's house. Her friend took her to a party and ditched her there to be taken by several men. Bruised and cut, I still remember the last time I talked to her.

The school expelled her. Her mother trundled her off to somewhere, and I've never found her again.

Compassion?

You know, my grandmother, a Baptist first and then a Lutheran, was thrilled when I was accepted to a Catholic school, so much so that she made my inheritance (she was dying when we got word that I was in) a sum specifically to ensure that I could finish out there. And this is the woman who bombarded my brother and I with books and records when we were young; Evie, and the Gaithers were often our Christmas carols; children's tales reminded us of how small and useless we were, and how God--who created us as such--loved us anyway. From the start, my involvement with Christians has worked to reduce the human condition.

I can remember a specific conversation with one of the lay instructors who took me to task for "reading notes during Mass". I asked him why I shouldn't look to see what just hit me in the head. Hit you in the head? Yeah, _____ threw it at D____ and it bounced off his head and landed in my lap. Well, that's irrelevant. Why is that? Because I didn't see ____ throw it. Yes, but you'll notice it's a profane letter to D signed by _____. I know, and that's why I'm disappointed in you both for reading notes in Mass. Do you have no respect for Jesus Christ Your Lord And Savior? Wait, wait, wait. How is it my fault that someone wrote this down and threw it at me? I asked you a question. Do you have no respect for Jesus Christ Your Lord And Savior? It should be noted that the composing party was a Christian, and that neither D____ or I stayed close to the faith. It was a lesson in justice among Christians: We do no wrong, even when we do wrong.

There was the time the young, faithful Christian chap who had argued with me the day before in Theology class (an unsupportable thesis) accused me of arson. The sad thing was that yes, he was standing right there when the flame-spurting smoke bomb was dropped into the trash can near my locker, but telling the truth would have meant pointing the finger at one of his mates from CYO, or whatever that group was called (Catholic Youth Organization?)

Or how about the time horses were slaughtered in a mountain town about an hour from the school? Four girls went to the priests and told them that a friend and I listened to "Satanic" music. I had an interesting conversation with the priests about my whereabouts on the evening in question.

Or the girl I worked with who told me (around '94, while I was still in Oregon) that it "hurt her heart" to think of all the faggots sinning against God. Yeah, it hurts my cock to think that she doesn't give head, but you don't see me waving it on a political banner, do you?

Maybe the Mennonite boss, with whom I got along reasonably well except for one disagreement we agreed to never broach again. Simply, he tried to fire me once for being unable to perform the physically impossible. Rhetoric aside, I can say that other aspects of his personality taught me a couple of things about how he regarded his faith. He was, simply, right in all things.

And here's the thing: people are people, no matter what they choose to call themselves. Christians, however, put certain conditions on their humanity that ring false when given scrutiny.

One need not be a Christian in order to be deceptive, ruthless, hateful, or stupid. But, statistically, it does seem to help one along the way to duplicity. After all, this capsule is the short list of personal experiences. Should I tell you how many times I counseled girls abused by their fathers who never said anything because the Bible says you're not supposed to talk bad about your parents? Should I dredge up the protest vigil I attended in 1992 after a Christian firebombed a house to punish the two suspected gay people inside, and this in the middle of election season with a measure on the ballot to exscind the civil rights of people based on the genders of their sexual partners?

Should we, then, consider second grade, when a girl in my class spent a good period frightened out of her mind because her sister had fallen gravely ill and her parents told her that God did it because the girl had lied?

Or, perhaps, my neighbors when I was five, whose youngest daughter suffered brain damage after the parents refused medical treatment for fever and infection in accordance with their (pseudo) Christian faith.

How about the unusually high number of associates and friends (who, incidentally, are quite unusually high these days) who call themselves "escapees" of the Seventh-Day Adventist church? A quick perusal through an SDA bookstore is a frightening experience. The Pope is the Devil, the UN will put all Sabbatarians (Saturday-worshippers) to the electric chair, ad nauseam (I won't revisit the stupidity about bicycles.) What about the fact that none of them are "normal" in the commonly-regarded sense? All of them have sexual hangups or obsessions that have the power to derail relationships; all of them have an attention complex that compels them to interrupt any conversation in order to relate something mundane, irrelevant, and about themselves.

Understand, please, that it's not like one has to go out and dig up dirt on Christianity in practice. Rather, the adherents seem to sling that dirt and mud around as if it was the holy spirit itself.

Might we turn introspective, for a moment, then, and look at our fellow posters at Sciforums? Blonde Cupid and I had a disagreement, recently, about such issues. But certain Christian advocates come out swinging, with cruelty and condemnation on their tongues; we would like to be able to say, as an infidel community, that such occasions are deviations, apostasies, or machinations of provocateurs. But among those Christians are the occasional reminders that, despite the Bible, they have no obligation to be forgiving, understanding, or anything less than combative. Of course, we might also point out that the removal of forgiveness, empathy, and necessity of peace under given conditions is exactly what some of our Christian posters complain about in, say, Islam. So it's a bad thing when the holy book of Islam says to defend yourself, but a good thing when a Christian sacks the Bible and goes off on a personal rampage.

A lot of people of integrity have put down the Bible and walked away because it is impossible to abide. When Blonde Cupid and I were arguing the subject, we had a row going on where a number of people were irritated at one or two of our Christian posters for their incessant need to interrupt topics and prevent their progress. There are some incredible diversions in some of these topics. But as to those points, we might note that what we see in Sciforums rhetoric is, quite often, accurately microcosmic of reality. There is nothing about diversionary tactics, manipulative citation, or outright condemnation going on at this site that is unfamiliar to any infidel examining the Christian menagerie. One of my frequent notions here is that Christians should clean up their own damn house before bugging the rest of us. You'll note the number of disparaging comments at Sciforums about the "Christian intellect", and, yes, I'm one of the chief proponents of that phalanx. Of course, I get my phrase, that faith is a sacrifice of the intellect, from the Christians, so I have no difficulty bandying it with reckless disregard.

And it shows, too. Our creationist posters rely on two issues: they seem to expect that the scientific process should be as closed, fixed, and finished as the Biblical canon. Take the transitional fossil debate: yes there are transitional fossils, no there aren't, and then a bunch of nitpicking until we reach the incredibly exacting piece of evidence the Creationist seeks. And then we look at a simple point: have we found all the fossils that there are to find?

The second issue is a matter of a priori. As any scientist will point out, presently Creationism is not a valid scientific theory because it includes untestable demands. Furthermore, unlike other theoretic sciences, nobody has developed a working hypothesis that will enable us to address the untestable demands. Thus, to accept scientific proof that God created the world according to the Bible, one of the things we need on the table is the existence of God, currently the primary a priori. Yet the creationists will counter that we cannot disprove the existence of God, scientifically. Well, that's the thing: there is nothing to observe objectively. And again we see a failing of the creationist process. That we cannot presently observe God does not mean conclusively that He does not exist. However, the observable environment of scientific investigation shows that considerations of God would be arbitrary insertions of data with no foundation in the observed environment. The creationists demand that science observe what is not there and say that it is. Now, is this like bacteria and other microbes? A matter of observational technique and capability? Again, we see the creationist faction failing to put forth any theories to help us work toward observing God.

In this sense, then, I think we see a sacrifice of the intellect: the clinging to faith in lieu of observable reality. That the only support for creationism is that the scientific process doesn't finish is quite telling. I can resent Christianity for the dullardness it seems to breed, but that's a little harsh, eh? So the question becomes, then, why should Christians demand the rewriting of the scientific standard to accommodte them? It's almost as if, failing to prove their faith objectively true according to the scientific rules, they wish to rewrite the scientific process to establish God a priori. Faith is one thing; that Christians should deign themselves worthy to legislate my life anywhere in this world is a far different issue. Much like the Christian sexual psychosis, these poitics ask me to subscribe to somehting which is demonstrably not true. Communism has failed, and Captialism is undergoing a facelift that leaves it as theoretically utopiate as the Reds, and why is it that the conceptual failure of Christianity only compels the adherents to beat themselves and everyone else against the wall even more?

Among Communism's failures, most apparent is its idealism; the failure to execute is almost foretold by the nature of Marxism. Its fundamental flaw in this sense is its optimism in human nature--we see what the failure to recognize what certain corruptions brings to Communism. Similarly, where Christianity fails is its idealism; the failure to execute is indeed foretold by the nature of the Bible. Look around, surf the web, read the tracts you find in the phone booth or get from the Watchtower crusaders, Watch the televangelists, visit your local church and listen to the preacher; listen to your Christian friends, family, and neighbors expound on the nature of their faith in their very words and actions. Like snowflakes, no two people's faiths can be shown to be the same. To a degree, this is determined by the diversity of human experience. But the Bible leaves many places wide open to various and contradictory interpretations, as any Christian/political issue demonstrates. Unlike Communism, though, a fundamental flaw of Christianity is its gloomy perception of humanity; weak, corrupted, dependent.

And this gloomy perception has brought, frankly, hideous results. However, as you've noted, we're not here to harp on history.

The problem is that, even though we're not burning people at the stake, Christians are carrying out a certain amount of cultural extinction. I know that many Christians do not agree with the policies of other Christians. This is self-evident. Yet in this sense what are we, the infidels, the potential converts, the targets of wrath to think? In all my dealings with Christianity and Christians, I have not been compelled to willingly join the flock.

That many Christians, even those of my acquaintance and association, might advocate the ideas and notions I find so distasteful casts Christianity in a disturbing light. It should only be opposed when it attempts to govern or narrow a free society. (It should be noted here that I believe all societies should be free; I wholly support the notion of one world, save for the simple fact that my conditions for agreeing to it are, frankly, utopiate.) And of this notion of what I find tasteful: Quite simply, Christianity claims for itself what it will not extend to others. In terms of the larger institution, this is quite nakedly obvious. But how does it become that without the (silent, perhaps?) endorsement of the many individual Chrisians. Of those I've known, of course they're not uniform in their thought and conduct. But they do display frighteningly similar traits in matters of comparison--e.g. authority--in social relations.

In fact, were it not for the Society of Friends in general, and the specific fact that human beings tend to be themselves despite all else--thus maintaining a degree of diversity--I would long ago have undertaken an active opposition to Christian growth.

I do find the philosophy damaging to the human race. I find it a hideous scourge. But that doesn't make a Christian hideous, and that doesn't mean we're seeing the true face.

Unfortunately, though, Christianity often works to perpetuate a blissful degree of ignorance. By relying on faith, all manner of snakes slither from the woodwork of the cross. I'm not blaming Christianity for the diet-freaks or the anti-medicine crowd; we understand ... look what happened to Communism, to any paradigm entrusted to the human conscience. But I will damn well blame it for the institutional failures we're not going to harp on, and I will blame it for the effect it has on people, and I will blame it for the damage those people can cause, and I will blame it for the perpetuation of superstitious division in society. I hold it responsible for the crisis in my aunt's marriage, though not for the idiocy of her middle daughter. Things don't have to go the way they do. It's only out of unjustified fear that they do.

And people are free to believe what they want. And yes, to preach it as advantageous. But the spread of Christianity seems to me like the spread of disease, a malady across the land. Get rid of all the Falwells, Mabons, Tiltons, Wildmonds and others, and you still have to deal with that unruly mass of people who, in day to day life, just aren't very nice by virtue of their priorities. For instance, if it wasn't for the fact that my daily Christian experience seemed distasteful, I might never have noticed the frightening degree of social-developmental arrest among Christians and those weird American post-Christians.

A girlfriend once took me to a Carman concert; I was 18 at the time. It was scary. Terrifying, actually. I looked around at the sea of people, at least twenty-thousand of them, and thought, You're kidding me ....

When I was in college--and this is only slightly a gay-hating story--the campus ministry ran a Jesus Week complete with its gay-bashing session, sponsored by Exodus International. Okay ... they brought in high school students from a local parochial school. Some evangelical Protestant something-or-another ... by the time they were railing through the Old Testament, I just had to ask the unkind speaker about the handicapped, cf Leviticus 21.16-ff. One of the parochial students leapt to her feat and screamed Ephesians 6.11 at me, which apparently answered the question for that tribe.

I'm so impressed with the young lady's intellectual prowess, and the way she waved her finger in the air like Claire Huxtable and threw her hands in the air and danced around like an old-tymie revival. That is to say that she seemed about as bright as a stump.

If more Christians could consider actual answers in a Biblical context instead of rebuking ideas for even existing, many of Christianity's more active skeptics would be more inclined to let the offensive ones just pass on by like any other jabbering lunatic. But that's the problem: you'd be amazed at how many jabbering lunatics I come across. And for various reasons, the biggest problem is that they can't keep that distinctive brand of self-righteousness out of daily life. I've seen it happen before that a guy changed his afternoon break time to avoid a certain number of us. Not because we jumped down his throat, but because we didn't affirm and hurrah him. That is to say, it became obvious to him at some point that everybody was doing their best not to call him out. You know, that way subjects just seem to drop? I knew it, and I'm sure everybody knew it. Don't start or it becomes a feeding frenzy. I've also seen it where we made a conscious effort to let such things drop because we know the guy has kids and we're not about to send him packing for being just another idiot that doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut. We forgive other slips, why not these?

And to me it seems like it should be simple. There are healthy ways to spread Christianity. However, it requires that Christianity be healthy in the first place and I just don't find it to be so. Not to my observation, not to my judgment, not to my experience.

I, for one, refuse to look forward to the end of the world.

Don't get me started on the Devil. Just like the idiots at the computer store up the street--Apple specialists, my ass--make the idea of a Windows box less than unattractive, so, too, do Christians give me a Devil worth giving sympathy.

Only Christians could make the Devil the Redeemer. Think about it--Christ died once. The Devil suffers and dies daily. And you know what really sucks about it? There doesn't appear to be any reason for it. I'll leave it at that for now because I said I shouldn't get started. But such conceptual cruelties lend much toward understanding the dark spectre of Christianity I've come to know and loathe.

People keep telling me there's something better about it out there. Show me. Bring practice up to par with the prescribed rules. Did you know, for instance, that Jesus was gay? What I actually wish to point out from that is the author's focus on adultery. The gay-debate issue removed, the author still has a legitimate point. You'll notice that this Barna Research survey differs in two respects from the gay-Jesus author: seemingly lower divorce rates and (as an explanation for) a more exacting terminology. Cast a broad enough net--as Mr McKinley has--and I'm sure you can reach his numbers. But that specific is unimportant. (I provided the Barna survey for more ... reliable ... numbers.) He points out a certain degree of acceptability among Christians in the case of an adulterous--sinful--life, even to the point of endorsement by the churches.

And I shouldn't care if anyone chooses to live that way, but the ideas that they perpetuate in the name of a truth they do not abide do, occasionally, require open opposition.

To my personal experience, it has to do with the integrity of a force continually attempting to influence my life in some way, from the personal to the institutional. The only reason history is important is because it reminds us that this has been going on for a long time.

You'd think people would learn; of course, conservative Protestantism is at the core of the American experience, so that might go a long way toward explaining it.

thanx much,
Tiassa

 

[LeoDV]

*sigh*

Yes, third post, but I have many things to say on this matter, and many thoughts too long held back.

This post is adressed to the non-Christians who are going to see that.

The reason why those Christians pose problem is because they're Protestant puritans. Though I won't argue about Protestant dogma, I'd like to say that Protestant values seem quite irrational and, to say the least, frankly stupid to me, and I regret that they have stained the way of thinking of a people that is now the only true power on this planet.

Sad, huh?

I'd just like you guys to make the distinction between their morality and their religion, and between their religion and Christianity as a whole - please.

The more I spend time on it, the more I think this thread is useless and stupid, and did not express what I meant and this is all going to become a misunderstanding because what I wanted to mean is not in the things I typed.

But before it goes worse and I start talking to myself in this thread, I'll leave.

 

[Cris]

Leodv,

Why did you post the whole of tiassa’s post as a quote and then not really comment on it? That was confusing.

Most of us here don’t see any real distinction between Catholics and Protestants; they are simply 2 different sects of many hundreds of sects of the same religion, and equally irrational.

Stop being so narrow-minded! Stop being so stuck! God's message is about love among all men, especially sinners, and ESPECIALLY atheists.

I’m not sure of your syntax here but I think you are implying that atheists are narrow minded.

So just in case, I’ll emphasize why atheists are not narrow-minded? Most atheists simply maintain that you haven’t proved your claims and if you can show some credible evidence then they would be happy to believe.

Atheists are usually open to any and all possibilities providing what is proposed is credible. On the other hand Christians like you have locked themselves into one very narrow view that God is the answer. Once you limit your choices and refuse to accept the possibility that gods do not exist then those limits clearly show a narrower view than the typical atheist.

Not only are atheists not narrow minded but also it is you who qualify as narrow-minded by way of your limited view of the world and life.

But perhaps you were talking about especially loving atheists? Please don’t. That is a very condescending and offensive approach to take with other people. If you want to love others then do so because they want you to not because your religion tells you to. Otherwise leave people to enjoy their freedom without interference from evil religions such as yours.

Cris

 

[bubbl3]

Hi, I'm new to this forum too...

Originally posted by LeoDV

Stop being so narrow-minded! Stop being so stuck! God's message is about love among all men, especially sinners, and ESPECIALLY atheists.

The reason why those Christians pose problem is because they're Protestant puritans. Though I won't argue about Protestant dogma, I'd like to say that Protestant values seem quite irrational and, to say the least, frankly stupid to me, and I regret that they have stained the way of thinking of a people that is now the only true power on this planet.

I'd just like you guys to make the distinction between their morality and their religion, and between their religion and Christianity as a whole - please.

I agree with you that the most important thing is to love ourselves and others. But I don't think that Protestant religion is a problem. There are Catholics and Protetants who spread the message of love, while there are also so called Catholics and so called Protestants who worship their religions instead of doing what God wants them to. I think the problem lies within those people, but not the religion. It actually applies to other religions as well (such as Muslim, Tao).
I am not a Christian and don't know much about it, but I know that most religions' message is love.

 

[bubbl3]

Originally posted by Cris

Atheists are usually open to any and all possibilities providing what is proposed is credible. On the other hand Christians like you have locked themselves into one very narrow view that God is the answer. Once you limit your choices and refuse to accept the possibility that gods do not exist then those limits clearly show a narrower view than the typical atheist.

Cris [/B]

Then you are not an atheis but an agnostic. You think that God cannot be proven exist without material phenomena. You hold open the possiblity that God exists. An atheist is someone who believes that there is no God and there is no possiblity that God could exist. An atheist thinks God cannot exist.
But I guess this is not related to the topic...

 

[Cris]

Hi bubble3,

Welcome to sciforums.

Then you are not an atheist but an agnostic. You think that God cannot be proven exist without material phenomena. You hold open the possiblity that God exists. An atheist is someone who believes that there is no God and there is no possiblity that God could exist. An atheist thinks God cannot exist.

Well no not really.

I’m first a Transhumanist, then I guess you could call me a Secular Humanist, and then I guess a materialist, and also an atheist.

But there are two primary types of atheism, strong and weak. And agnostics are either atheist or theist, and I’ll get to that in a moment.

All atheists have one thing in common: They lack theistic belief, taken from [a][theist], where [a] means ‘no’ and [theist] means ‘belief in a god’. So put simply atheist means ‘no belief in a god’. The important thing to note is that ‘no belief’ is not the same thing as a ‘belief’ about something, should be obvious right?

So to say that an atheist BELIEVES that gods do not exist is a very different proposition than simply not believing in a theism claim.

Or IOW disbelieving a proposition is not the same as believing it is false.

For example, I might claim that I am a billionaire, and you might choose to disbelieve my claim because you really don’t know me, and that would be perfectly reasonable. However, if you said that you positively believe that I am not a billionaire then that implies that you know my claim is false and you might have evidence to prove it. But since we have never met and you know nothing about me then there is no way you can hold to such a positive belief, and your belief would be technically illogical and irrational.

Now if you chose to believe my claim, then again that implies that you have knowledge of me and can prove it. Do you see that BELIEVING something is TRUE or FALSE is a positive belief and is very different from a disbelief in the claim?

You should also be able to see that a belief in a god where there is no evidence is also illogical and irrational.

Weak atheism maintains a disbelief in the claims made by theists.

Strong atheism, on the other hand, does take the position of believing that a god does not exist. Usually the belief is directed at a particular god and is also usually supported by evidence and proofs.

You also say

An atheist thinks God cannot exist.

Cannot exist is different from saying does not exist. Proofs showing that a particular god cannot exist usually revolve around showing a paradox, an impossible condition. Once the paradox is shown then it follows that the god does not exist. The claims made for the Christian god, for example, form a paradox, e.g. omnipotence, omniscience, and human free will, cannot coexist, leaving the only conclusion that such a god cannot exist and therefore does not exist.

Agnosticsm:

Everyone is either a theist or an atheist. There is no middle ground. If you have a positive belief in a god then you are a theist, if you have doubts, disbelieve, or believe otherwise, then you are an atheist.

Agnosticism is usually concerned with knowledge of god rather than knowledge of his existence. An agnostic theist is content to believe that a god exists but it is impossible to know anything about such a being. An agnostic atheist says there is no way to have any knowledge of gods and therefore it is also not possible to know if they exist or not.

However, common misconceptions of the word combined with common usage have tended towards people thinking that agnosticism is about someone who has doubts about the existence of gods; this is often combined with many dictionaries that erroneously state that atheism is a belief that gods do not exist as the only meaning.

And hence we have widespread confusion about what the words agnostic and atheist really mean.

I hope that helps a little.

If you want to know more about the correct meaning of atheism then visit the growing number of atheist websites.

Cris

 

[Godless]

Hmmm....

So quick to judge: Quote bubb3 "quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Cris

Atheists are usually open to any and all possibilities providing what is proposed is credible. On the other hand Christians like you have locked themselves into one very narrow view that God is the answer. Once you limit your choices and refuse to accept the possibility that gods do not exist then those limits clearly show a narrower view than the typical atheist.

Cris [/B]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Then you are not an atheis but an agnostic. You think that God cannot be proven exist without material phenomena. You hold open the possiblity that God exists. An atheist is someone who believes that there is no God and there is no possiblity that God could exist. An atheist thinks God cannot exist.
But I guess this is not related to the topic...


Na!!! Man Chris is an athiest, he has proven this here many times.
BTW, Welcome to Sci-Forums!!

Thiests need to prove their assertions, it is not to the athiest to disprove thier god, we are not making claims of a supernatural existence. The claim made by thiest must have concrete evidence of such an existent. None has been made for the past 3 milleniums.

To claim that god does not exist is just as fruitless as claiming that there is one, one has to have emperical evidence of what god "is", in order to prove it's non existence. Since there exists no know knowledge of what god is, other than religious assertions, which their explanation, plainly estates "god is beyond man's comprehencion" than we can agree that we don't actually know what god is. Therefore one can't claim it's existence or lack of.

 

[Cris]

Godless,

I forgot those aspects, but I'd probably said too much anyway.

So, well said.

Cris

 

[Xev]

Bubbl

An atheist is someone who believes that there is no God and there is no possiblity that God could exist. An atheist thinks God cannot exist.

This has been well covered (thanks Cris!) but I should add:

This is a common straw man of athiesm. We athiests really do not agree on much.

I am an athiest, in that I think that believing in God is irrational, does not benefit, and that all religions are false.

But, how can you argue that there is no possibility that God could exist? Bloody stupid to try to prove a negative!

Welcome to Sciforums. If my welcome proves acerbic, so do I.

Cris:

But perhaps you were talking about especially loving atheists? Please don’t. That is a very condescending and offensive approach to take with other people. If you want to love others then do so because they want you to not because your religion tells you to. Otherwise leave people to enjoy their freedom without interference from evil religions such as yours.

While I hesitate to call Catholicism evil, I agree. It is rather annoying to have one's arguments ignored with a simple 'Jesus loves you' and, I must confess, I do not like being patronized.

It is what pushed me into the arms....or rather tentacles....of Great Cthulu. "Cthulu loves me more" proves an....amusing comeback. (As does "He loves me long time" <---- wish I'da thought of that one)

LeoDV:

I would not feel to superior to Protestantism. It is, after all, the Catholic church that was involved with the Inquisition, burned Giordano, persecuted the Hugenauts, helped start the witchunts, advocated the Crusades and is, at this moment, having a little *ahem* trouble involving alter boys and covering up crimes.

 

[Adam]

Bubbl3, welcome.

I'm an atheist. I believe in people, and in possibilities and probabilities. Whether from monotheistic, polytheistic, pantheistic, or any other kind of religion, deities seem very improbable to me. However, I can't discount them entirely because I have no proof. The flipside of that is that I don't see how people can still have these irrational beliefs in myths without any supporting evidence. Personally, I think the only rational path is to put the entire gods/spirits/dragons thing in the Undecided tray until you have some form of evidence one way or the other. Until that happens, get on with stuff that matters, like mowing your lawn or studying or travelling or whatever.

But... As I said, I can not discount the possibility of spirits/gods/dragons et cetera. In fact I would not be surprised at all if we eventually find that "spirits" of some kind exist, possibly just a change of energy form when people die, maybe we all join some great big universal subconscious "pool", maybe there's a Force like in Star Wars... I have no friggin idea. Again, it's in the Unidecided tray.

As for Christians... Well, my opinion of the nuttier christians I've met fits just as well for most religions. While many of my favourite people question the universe and wish to learn, many religious people I have encountered have answers and The Truth (tm) and refuse to see otherwise. I even know one christian who seriously wouldn't mind being allowed to run about shooting homosexuals because some part of his bible says homosexuality is wrong or something. He has his Truth, he doesn't need anything else (like morality).

I think it boils down to one thing for me. If someone has more answers than questions, they are probably dangerous.

 

[LeoDV]

Hmm, the debate has drifted.

Atheist, or Gottlos in German, means without God. Not one without God because he doesn't believe, but one who excludes God off his life because he doesn't believe in one.

An agnostic is what Cris believes to be an atheist - someone who doesn't have evidence and searches for one.

A|theist : one who excludes God.
A|gnostic : one without *belief* and who seeks for one.

Now you said I thought atheists are narrow minded.

It is my personal experience that most of them are, but also one of my best friends is openly atheist and is also one of the most open-minded people I know.

It is also my personal experience that atheist is the most in your face and misionary religion on earth.

However, that has nothing to do with what I meant.

I said that our love was to go to sinners, and especially atheists, not because they're narrow minded, but because they're poor.

To be atheist is to be devoid of spiritual life, and that's the worst thing that could happen to someone. Our love must go out to them because deep down, they're all terribly alone.

But that also wasn't my point.

My point was this :

To Protestants : stop being intolerant and start loving.

To non-Christians : Catholics and Protestants are NOT, repeat NOT "same sects of a same cult." Out of all the Christian religions, Catholicism and Protestantism are the two most far apart from each other.

I think I have an example of what I mean.

In one of the short stories of Ray Bradbury's Martian Chronicles, Protestant, american priests, described by a Protestant-influenced, american writer, go to Mars and, under the influence of what a minister should be (I especially loved the part about God having a sense of humour - someone who thinks that has a great understanding of faith as we believe it), start to go out for light spheres that have been sighted in mountains.

They eventually make contact with them, and the priests realize the spheres are incapable of sinning, and thus they have nothing to do there and they leave.

What a load of crap!

That example reveals a truly deep insight on the Protestant mindset. That means that Protestants have the firm belief that man is in essence a sinner (it isn't false in itself), and that the sole purpose of a minister is to keep him from sinning.

Once again, what a load of bullpoopy!

First of all, the point of a minister isn't to keep people from sinning, it's to teach the teachings of the Church to his people, and lead them spiritually, both things that could have been achieved with those 'light spheres.' A normal minister would have stayed anyway, and explained them how they are creatures of God, and how he sent his only Son on earth to redeem them with his blood, not say "Those can't sin. NEXT!"

Do you get my point?

An other example : it's because of Protestant morality that in some states teenagers can buy guns, but not violent video games. :bugeye:

 

[Xev]

Atheist, or Gottlos in German, means without God. Not one without God because he doesn't believe, but one who excludes God off his life because he doesn't believe in one.

Doi, how can we exclude God because we don't believe? I mean, if there was a reason to exclude God, that would mean there is a God, and then we wouldn't be athiests......

An agnostic is what Cris believes to be an atheist - someone who doesn't have evidence and searches for one.

No.

Athiesm: Disbelief in or denial of the existance of God

Agnosticism: Theology: A theory that does not deny God but denies the possibility of knowing him.

American Heritage Dictionary, I am sure there are dictionaries of philosophy that do better but......

It is also my personal experience that atheist is the most in your face and misionary religion on earth

How is that possible? Dosen't 'missionary' rather exclude the 'in your face' part.

*Ahem* I do not know what that means.

In any case, we are not a religion. And we don't prosteletize.

"Excuse me m'am, I know it is 5 am on a Saturday and you are nursing a hangover, but did you know that there is no God?"

I have never been handed a tract by an athiest, I've never been damned to hell by an athiest (I like the thought!), in fact, most athiests are rather quiet and sweet and nice and just want to have our Constitutional rights upheld.

That example reveals a truly deep insight on the Protestant mindset. That means that Protestants have the firm belief that man is in essence a sinner (it isn't false in itself), and that the sole purpose of a minister is to keep him from sinning.

Look sweetheart, you wanna diss Protestantism, explain this:

Bruno, John Calas, Galileo, Huss, Wycliffe, Ridley, Voltaire, and all those who died nameless at the hands of the Catholic Church, or, like Voltaire and Galileo, were merely harassed by it.

Your religion is special? You have commited no atrocities? Funny, I think Protestants have commited fewer atrocities...and I am hardly one to defend any religion.

 

[bubbl3]

atheism n. [MFr athéisme < Gr atheos, godless < a-, without + theos, god: see THEO-] 1 the belief that there is no God or denial that God or gods exist 2 godlessness
atheist n. a person who believes that there is no God
SYN.--an atheist rejects all religious belief and denies the existence of God; an agnostic questions the existence of Go, heaven, etc. in the absence of material proof and in unwillingness to accept supernatural revelation

- Websters's New World College Dictionary ©2001 -

Originally posted by Cris
Everyone is either a theist or an atheist. There is no middle ground. If you have a positive belief in a god then you are a theist, if you have doubts, disbelieve, or believe otherwise, then you are an atheist.

Critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or divine beings. Unlike agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial. It is rooted in an array of philosophical systems. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Democritus and Epicurus argued for it in the context of materialism. In the 18th cent. D. Hume and I. Kant, though not atheists, argued against traditional proofs for God's existence, making belief a matter of faith alone. Atheists such as L. Feuerbach held that God was a projection of human ideals and that recognizing this fiction made self-realization possible. Marxism exemplified modern materialism. Beginning with F. Nietzsche, existentialist atheism proclaimed the death of God and the human freedom to determine value and meaning. Logical positivism holds that propositions concerning the existence or nonexistence of God are nonsensical or meaningless.

- The Britannica Concise -

It seems that different people have different meanings for atheism/atheists. my "agnostic" = your "atheist". my "atheist" = your "strong atheist". I think both theist and atheist (your "strong atheist) need to explain why they have that belief.

 

[Cris]

buble3,

It seems that different people have different meanings for atheism/atheists. my "agnostic" = your "atheist". my "atheist" = your "strong atheist". I think both theist and atheist (your "strong atheist) need to explain why they have that belief.

I agree.

As for your dictionary and enc quotes: Try Encarta, that gives quite a different explanation, and my Collins English Dictionary, again shows the disbelief definition. Sadly your quoted sources are out of date and they should be updated at some time.

Also try this link to some definitions from an actual atheist site. This should be considered significantly more authoritative then either dictionaries or encyclopedias.

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

Also, if you are really interested, then read ‘Atheism – The Case Against God’ by George H Smith. This is seen by many as probably the most authoritative discussion and description of atheism available.

The key seems to be that when someone says they are an atheist or an agnostic then one should not assume a particular definition but should ask that person what they mean by their accepted label.

Notice both your quoted sources are USA publications.

Take care
Cris

 

[munim_786]

yeah, good ppoint, true christains are peace keeping but there are crazy guys oyt there everywhere mashing up the religion. its the same with Islam. Islamgrants women rights, promotes racial equality and is against violence but there are fanatics like the Talabin givng us a really bad name. i hope one day everyone ca see religion for what the truely are not just stupid fanatics!

 

[spidergoat]

To be atheist is to be devoid of spiritual life, and that's the worst thing that could happen to someone. Our love must go out to them because deep down, they're all terribly alone.

Buddhists are atheists. It is a mistake to equate spirituality with a belief in god.

Christianity is not the religion of Jesus, just the religion about Jesus. The church wrote the books of the new testament around the year 382 AD in the senate of Rome (the very belly of the beast), in order to consolidate its political power. Since then the church has demon-strated its degenerate nature at every opportunity. The most recent example I can think of is its refusal to acknowledge the holocaust during WWII while they knew it was happening.

 

[okinrus]

It's incorrect to consider Catholiticism a sect since a sect implies that the Catholic church broke away.

Webster
1 a : a dissenting or schismatic religious body; especially : one regarded as extreme or heretical b : a religious denomination

While definition b could apply, denomination is used to refer to other Protestant groups. I also never use sect to refer to Protestants, since I consider them Christian. Thus, I will only use sect to refer to "unchristians" such as Mormons or JW's.

As for who considers each man a sinner, you are referencing the Protesant's belief in the depravity of man's nature verses the Catholic's belief in the fall of grace. As you've probably notice this is small distinction. Both religions must believe that without God man is not good.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Both religions must believe that without God man is not good.
*************
M*W: Without man, God is nothing.

 

[rainbow__princess_4]

I really don't think that "American Christians" as mentioned doing "terrible things" exist. Sure there are americans who happen to be christian and christians who are american but what is the difference between "American Christianity" and other christians? Aren't they just all as awful as each other?