To support and amplify the already pervasive non-religious reputation of Seattle, the atheist bus ads are set to arrive. To refresh your memory, read my posts from recent months about these bus ads from the U.K.: There's Probably No God, and then of course the Christian response: The Atheist vs. Christian Bus Ads
Yeah--I understand--I used to frequent an atheist blog for awhile, so it was in those exchanges that I learned about what Christians get wrong about atheism. Which is why I encourage the exchange because it is something I want Christians to understand. I tend to cringe at the typical stereotypes, and I do think attempts to understand each other are far more productive than attempts to convert each other. Too many stereotypes being thrown back and forth at each other--not near enough dialogue.
I can understand why you would be tired of it, though. I do think on this site, you will probably find more open-minded dialogue than you might in most Christian sites. Many of the regulars here come from a very broad range of perspectives on Christianity and tend away from a black and white approach to the world. So hopefully you'll stick around a bit! We can be snarky, but we're overall a friendly bunch.
I took a couple of days to think about my response to your post. First, let me say, I'm all for your sentiments about ending poverty, curing malaria, and all that. Good for you, and if you set up a real charity with those goals, I'll certainly contribute. :)
But I really wanted to address the three reasons you think the atheist ad campaign is good.
1. I'm pretty pleased with this statement. So many Christians seem to think they own American culture, it's refreshing to see one who recognizes you have to work for what you get. Again, good for you.
2. Here, you really go wrong. Atheism is in no way "an opposition to belief in god". That would be Antitheism. To be an atheist is to say, "I've heard your story, and I don't believe it". No beliefs, or faith of any kind required.
Now, you asked about purpose, and I think in my answer you can see a clear illustration of the distinction I'm trying to make. I told my parents I was an atheist at about 13, and for 35 years, that was the end of discussion of religion for me. If someone around me got really annoying with god talk, I would just go away. God talk has been a reliable indicator of people to avoid for me. In about the past 2 years however, I learned that my ex-wife has taken my son out of school to home school him in creationism. That was when it became an interest of mine to see religion put in it's place, and I became an antitheist. Does that help? Now, to be clear, if there are folks that get something out of believing in an afterlife and all that, I'm not into denying them. And if you think that it would be a sin for you to be a homosexual for example, I'm all for you having the right to forbid yourself from being one. (good luck with that) But when I see people rioting in the streets over religious precepts stomping on their human rights, then religion has crossed the line. When public schools are having to fight to maintain the integrity of their science curriculum against an onslaught of creationist nonsense, religion has crossed the line. Don't even get me started on the Pope's recent comments on condoms! You guys wanting to impose what you think of as "God's Law" over everyone is just getting way out of hand. Until you knock it off, I, for one, will continue to get in your face.
3. Ahem, call it a conversation if you like. I think the recent ARIS polls have shown that we Atheists have succeeded in letting a lot of people know that it's okay to come out and say, "I don't really buy into all that religion stuff". Now if it turns into a real conversation that brings some real reform to the bronze age attitudes codified in todays religions, I'm all for it. Like I say, I don't really begrudge you whatever comfort believing in a god brings you, as long as you recognize that belief doesn't put you on any moral high ground.
I'll continue checking in with you guys from time to time, I find you refreshing.
I took a couple of days to think about my response to your post. First, let me say, I'm all for your sentiments about ending poverty, curing malaria, and all that. Good for you, and if you set up a real charity with those goals, I'll certainly contribute. :)
But I really wanted to address the three reasons you think the atheist ad campaign is good.
1. I'm pretty pleased with this statement. So many Christians seem to think they own American culture, it's refreshing to see one who recognizes you have to work for what you get. Again, good for you.
2. Here, you really go wrong. Atheism is in no way "an opposition to belief in god". That would be Antitheism. To be an atheist is to say, "I've heard your story, and I don't believe it". No beliefs, or faith of any kind required.
Now, you asked about purpose, and I think in my answer you can see a clear illustration of the distinction I'm trying to make. I told my parents I was an atheist at about 13, and for 35 years, that was the end of discussion of religion for me. If someone around me got really annoying with god talk, I would just go away. God talk has been a reliable indicator of people to avoid for me. In about the past 2 years however, I learned that my ex-wife has taken my son out of school to home school him in creationism. That was when it became an interest of mine to see religion put in it's place, and I became an antitheist. Does that help? Now, to be clear, if there are folks that get something out of believing in an afterlife and all that, I'm not into denying them. And if you think that it would be a sin for you to be a homosexual for example, I'm all for you having the right to forbid yourself from being one. (good luck with that) But when I see people rioting in the streets over religious precepts stomping on their human rights, then religion has crossed the line. When public schools are having to fight to maintain the integrity of their science curriculum against an onslaught of creationist nonsense, religion has crossed the line. Don't even get me started on the Pope's recent comments on condoms! You guys wanting to impose what you think of as "God's Law" over everyone is just getting way out of hand. Until you knock it off, I, for one, will continue to get in your face.
3. Ahem, call it a conversation if you like. I think the recent ARIS polls have shown that we Atheists have succeeded in letting a lot of people know that it's okay to come out and say, "I don't really buy into all that religion stuff". Now if it turns into a real conversation that brings some real reform to the bronze age attitudes codified in todays religions, I'm all for it. Like I say, I don't really begrudge you whatever comfort believing in a god brings you, as long as you recognize that belief doesn't put you on any moral high ground.
I'll continue checking in with you guys from time to time, I find you refreshing.
Here are a few thoughts for dialogue with Atheists: Apart from God nothing matters, all is vanity (empty, without permanent value, and leads to frustration). Gary Smalley, a Christian counselor, became to think about God as a college student when someone asked him a couple of questions: the first was "Out of all that can be known in the universe, all that is knowable, what percent of that do you think you know?" He realized that he knew only a tiny, tiny fraction of a percent of all that can be known. The second question was, "Do you think it is possible that out of all that is knowable that you admit you do not know, there could be a personal God?" Those questions led him to seek and come to a personal knowledge of God through Jesus Christ. An interesting quote from Blaise Pascal, one of the great minds of history, states that "Reasons last step is the recognition that there are an infinite number of things that are beyond it. It is merely feeble if it does not go as far as to realize that." When one thinks about it, a person really cannot know there is no God unless he is God, and he isn't, so he doesn't know. I guess my question to an Atheist would be "Since any human being knows virtually nothing of all that conceivably can be known, why, based on such finite knowledge, embrace Atheism when the result of such a life is vanity?" I would also point out that what we can see, points to a Creator. Simply draw a clear inference (Romans 1:20). The issue boils down to the heart, as Warren Wiersbe stated, "the heart of the matter is the matter of the heart." When one comes to know God via the heart, the intellect falls into place.
These have been running on city buses here in Calgary for about a month now. A Muslim group is now running counter ads - their website = www.godexists.ca
I wrote a column suggesting it had been a long time since the sight of a city bus brought God to mind for the average Joe so bring em on
Hi Eugene,
Thank you for this very positive post. As an atheist, I would like to answer your question in item number two. You said:
2. I find it funny that "atheists" are identified by an opposition to the belief of God. It's a reactive belief system. To atheists: What is your purpose?
I think this comment indicates a misconception that many very devoted Christians or followers of Christ seem to have about atheists in general: They seem to assume that atheists are a symmetrical counterpart to themselves, thinking that atheism is as important to atheists as Christianity or following Christ is to them. It is not. For you, Eugene, expressing your faith and living according to your religious beliefs is probably a large percentage of all that you are about. I think that for most atheists, our lack of belief is a relatively tiny part of all that we are about. Most atheists are many other things first: We are men, women, husbands, wives, parents, citizens, patriots, workers, professionals, students, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, friends, lovers, neighbors, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, club members, and a host of many other "identities," and waaaay down the list somewhere we are also atheists.
Most atheists only become active about atheism and bring that identity to the forefront when our rights or our friends' rights are being violated because of a religious belief being imposed inappropriately. Once that is resolved, for most of us our atheism returns into the background and we resume being all those other things.
So to answer your question, Eugene, our purpose is to love and support our families, be there for our friends, do our work well, help the less fortunate, learn all that we can, support our community and the social issues we favor, and enjoy the good things in life. These and more are purposes that I am confident you can understand and probably share.
The various atheist ad campaigns around the world are an expression of a newly found awareness that we are a much larger minority than we formerly thought, and that we can, by shrugging off our fear and asserting our presence, begin to free ourselves of the prejudice, mistrust and disdain which society has laid upon us for millennia, so that we can more freely fulfill those much more important purposes that I listed. At this stage, I think the ads and posters are much more about finding and encouraging each other, and are not so much about attempting to convince believers to stop believing.
Again, Eugene, thank you for this post and most of all, thank you for actually asking atheists a sincere question. So many theists come to atheists and atheist sites to tell us what we think, feel and do, rather than to ask us what we think, feel and do. It is only by taking that humble stance and asking each other that we can come to understand each other, and after discovering the many things we have in common, we can work together for a better society.
I wish you well in your life, your love, and your work.
Points 1 and 3 i agree with.
Point 2 i agree with Richard Wade but would add that atheism isn't, as you seem to believe, a belief system. We don't believe in anything from atheism. We have no rituals, no tenants of faith, no culture, no traditions. We simply don't believe what you do. Thats it. Period. I happen to be a transhumanist. Thats my belief system. I am also an atheist.
Secondly, of course atheism is reactive. We only express our atheism when religion intrudes unduly in our lives. This might be street preachers, religious rules or laws (such as Utahs blue laws), politicians waving the god stick when they are supposed to represent all the citizens in their areas, not just the christians (especially when they are vile cretins like Tom Delay or George Bush), etc.
And Hammerund. You need to think your arguement through, you don't believe in god the creator. You believe in the CHRISTIAN god, your arguement works just as well for all the other thousands of creator gods. And given the number of them that there are, odds are you've picked the wrong god.
While you are right to say that there is much we don't know about our universe, what we DO know shows no sign of any kind of god. In fact where religion makes a claim that touches on an area science can speak about, science is always right and religion invariably wrong. Evolution/intelligent design, age of the planet, the great flood, breeding stripes into cows, all that jazz.
I took a couple of days to think about my response to your post. First, let me say, I'm all for your sentiments about ending poverty, curing malaria, and all that. Good for you, and if you set up a real charity with those goals, I'll certainly contribute. :)
But I really wanted to address the three reasons you think the atheist ad campaign is good.
1. I'm pretty pleased with this statement. So many Christians seem to think they own American culture, it's refreshing to see one who recognizes you have to work for what you get. Again, good for you.
2. Here, you really go wrong. Atheism is in no way "an opposition to belief in god". That would be Antitheism. To be an atheist is to say, "I've heard your story, and I don't believe it". No beliefs, or faith of any kind required.
Now, you asked about purpose, and I think in my answer you can see a clear illustration of the distinction I'm trying to make. I told my parents I was an atheist at about 13, and for 35 years, that was the end of discussion of religion for me. If someone around me got really annoying with god talk, I would just go away. God talk has been a reliable indicator of people to avoid for me. In about the past 2 years however, I learned that my ex-wife has taken my son out of school to home school him in creationism. That was when it became an interest of mine to see religion put in it's place, and I became an antitheist. Does that help? Now, to be clear, if there are folks that get something out of believing in an afterlife and all that, I'm not into denying them. And if you think that it would be a sin for you to be a homosexual for example, I'm all for you having the right to forbid yourself from being one. (good luck with that) But when I see people rioting in the streets over religious precepts stomping on their human rights, then religion has crossed the line. When public schools are having to fight to maintain the integrity of their science curriculum against an onslaught of creationist nonsense, religion has crossed the line. Don't even get me started on the Pope's recent comments on condoms! You guys wanting to impose what you think of as "God's Law" over everyone is just getting way out of hand. Until you knock it off, I, for one, will continue to get in your face.
3. Ahem, call it a conversation if you like. I think the recent ARIS polls have shown that we Atheists have succeeded in letting a lot of people know that it's okay to come out and say, "I don't really buy into all that religion stuff". Now if it turns into a real conversation that brings some real reform to the bronze age attitudes codified in todays religions, I'm all for it. Like I say, I don't really begrudge you whatever comfort believing in a god brings you, as long as you recognize that belief doesn't put you on any moral high ground.
I'll continue checking in with you guys from time to time, I find you refreshing.
"In fact where religion makes a claim that touches on an area science can speak about, science is always right and religion invariably wrong. "
That's true of young earth creationism and a very narrow view of Biblical interpretation, but ultimately creation itself can neither prove nor disprove God's existence. Neither can science, as the question is outside the realm of scientific inquiry.
I took a couple of days to think about my response to your post. First, let me say, I'm all for your sentiments about ending poverty, curing malaria, and all that. Good for you, and if you set up a real charity with those goals, I'll certainly contribute. :)
But I really wanted to address the three reasons you think the atheist ad campaign is good.
1. I'm pretty pleased with this statement. So many Christians seem to think they own American culture, it's refreshing to see one who recognizes you have to work for what you get. Again, good for you.
2. Here, you really go wrong. Atheism is in no way "an opposition to belief in god". That would be Antitheism. To be an atheist is to say, "I've heard your story, and I don't believe it". No beliefs, or faith of any kind required.
Now, you asked about purpose, and I think in my answer you can see a clear illustration of the distinction I'm trying to make. I told my parents I was an atheist at about 13, and for 35 years, that was the end of discussion of religion for me. If someone around me got really annoying with god talk, I would just go away. God talk has been a reliable indicator of people to avoid for me. In about the past 2 years however, I learned that my ex-wife has taken my son out of school to home school him in creationism. That was when it became an interest of mine to see religion put in it's place, and I became an antitheist. Does that help? Now, to be clear, if there are folks that get something out of believing in an afterlife and all that, I'm not into denying them. And if you think that it would be a sin for you to be a homosexual for example, I'm all for you having the right to forbid yourself from being one. (good luck with that) But when I see people rioting in the streets over religious precepts stomping on their human rights, then religion has crossed the line. When public schools are having to fight to maintain the integrity of their science curriculum against an onslaught of creationist nonsense, religion has crossed the line. Don't even get me started on the Pope's recent comments on condoms! You guys wanting to impose what you think of as "God's Law" over everyone is just getting way out of hand. Until you knock it off, I, for one, will continue to get in your face.
3. Ahem, call it a conversation if you like. I think the recent ARIS polls have shown that we Atheists have succeeded in letting a lot of people know that it's okay to come out and say, "I don't really buy into all that religion stuff". Now if it turns into a real conversation that brings some real reform to the bronze age attitudes codified in todays religions, I'm all for it. Like I say, I don't really begrudge you whatever comfort believing in a god brings you, as long as you recognize that belief doesn't put you on any moral high ground.
I'll continue checking in with you guys from time to time, I find you refreshing.
Thanks for your very thoughtful post. My experience has been that both sides of this debate have a minority who are very vocal and in-your-face, but they don't speak for the majority. Of course, since they are the loudest voices, they are who we hear, and also are the ones who misrepresent the majority.
Commenting here as an atheist... there's one reason and one reason alone I use the word atheist to describe myself: To make this world a better place for people afraid to say what they believe. We live in a world where to go to public school my daughter has to pledge an oath to God every day. Now that may line up fine with your beliefs, but not mine. And I don't believe it's the job of a school or government to start the 5 year olds swearing oaths to God. But unless I want to make a federal case out of it, and raise a messed-up kid, I don't burden her with that stuff. Ultimately she will be old enough to understand that it's wrong to coerce children to swear oaths without asking their parents what they as a family believe first.
It was becoming a new parent that caused me to come out and be more public in a dialog with believers. I knew that if we didn't do something, America would become a land more and more hostile to people with a minority belief. She would have it harder than I did, if atheists remained closeted.
I didn't like what was happening in this country toward nonbelievers especially after 9/11, when the words "God and Country" started getting mooshed together as if they were the same thing, and the voices of the punditocracy were shouting how democrats needed to "get faith". I heard quite a few commentators talking very strongly about how, if democrats wanted to win elections, they had to distance themselves from secular values and push the Jesus talk. I even heard a number of people on tv and in the newspapers opining that atheist democrats needed to choose one and shut up about the other.
When you look at how Elizabeth Dole's campaign slandered Kay Hagan, and pushed the notion that atheists should be persona non grata to even MEET with our elected representatives... now we're talking anti-democratic ideas. The notion that we are or should be political poison, and we can't even attend fundraisers for democratic candidates? The campaign pushed ugly stuff like saying that most North Carolinians wouldn't even eat dinner with the kind of people that atheists are. After that, I gave a good amount of money to the Hagan campaign... But she very clearly did NOT do the right thing and make any statement about how it was wrong to tar atheists. No, she instead continued the impression that it was a grave insult to call someone an atheist instead of taking the high road that Candidate Obama did when people falsely accused him of being a Muslim. Obama clearly and strongly said that there was nothing to be ashamed of or wrong about being a Muslim, there are great Muslim Americans, the world Muslim is not and should never be an epithet, It's just merely that he is not a Muslim.
No such statement from Kay Hagan, even after she won the election. And that was throwing away a great chance for understanding and bridge-building. It was an ugly episode in an ugly campaign, and Hagan, IMO, threw us under the bus. I and others organized an online giving campaign for Hagan on the atheist blogosphere, and we raised thousands for her, only to see her take zero steps toward building understanding. I guess Dole was right, we are personae non grata. We're as popular as gay Republicans!
Anyway it was the fear that I was being told to shut up or leave my own political party that was the "last straw" in my silence. I would become a loud and proud atheist, and let my fellow democrats and fellow Americans know that I was just like them... a human being. I may have a different idea than you as to what happens in the next life... but I SHARE this world with you, and it's time you recognized that we need to get along better.
What is my "purpose"? I'm only an "atheist" when speaking to believers and attempting to build bridges of understanding. All the rest of my days and nights I'm merely "me." Just an American dad, and a democrat, and a taxpayer and a citizen. All that stuff that doesn't seem to mean much to people anymore, while everyone marches from war to poverty to church and back.
Hammerud, you wrote:
"Here are a few thoughts for dialogue with Atheists:"
And then you proceeded to *not* dialog, but to sermonize. A dialog includes listening, and any so-called dialog that begins with a list of how you're right and your dialog partner is wrong is a monologue.
If you want to know what I believe and why, ask me. Don't tell me.
Now, you've come at us with this idea that our beliefs are as a result of vanity, and empty, without permanent value? In that case, I would remind you of the code of conduct for posts on this site, and ask you to extend us the benefit of the doubt.
Squeaky, you wrote:
"ultimately creation itself can neither prove nor disprove God's existence."
That's a fairly absolute position to take. Based on what evidence do you make such a sweeping statement? You really know all of creation enough to know for absolute that creation cannot prove something? That is a statement that requires you not only to know all "known knowns" but also all "unknown unknowns".
I am an atheist, and also a skeptic... and that's why I try never to make such sweeping statements about a universe that's bigger than I am. (Before people say that by atheist I mean that I think I know for a fact that there is no God, let me clarify: I make no such claim about the existence or nonexistence of anything anyone might call a god. All I'm saying by using the word "atheist" is to mean that I don't know of any gods, nor do I worship any. Nor have I been shown any evidence by any believer sufficient to compel me to belief or worship. I make no claim about the existence of any personal gods, though I do suspect that the various religions of the world are entirely human creations.)
"Ultimately creation itself can neither prove nor disprove God's existence" seems to me a statement that only a god could make with such sweeping certainty.
It's possible that next you will tell me where indeed such a sentence springs from the Bible, but then you're only correcting Gribblemunchkin's assertion with a counter assertion that is a religious tenet of yours, and not something that would make an authoritative response to an atheist.
Here are a few thoughts for dialogue with Atheists: Apart from God nothing matters, all is vanity (empty, without permanent value, and leads to frustration). Gary Smalley, a Christian counselor, became to think about God as a college student when someone asked him a couple of questions: the first was "Out of all that can be known in the universe, all that is knowable, what percent of that do you think you know?" He realized that he knew only a tiny, tiny fraction of a percent of all that can be known. The second question was, "Do you think it is possible that out of all that is knowable that you admit you do not know, there could be a personal God?" Those questions led him to seek and come to a personal knowledge of God through Jesus Christ. An interesting quote from Blaise Pascal, one of the great minds of history, states that "Reasons last step is the recognition that there are an infinite number of things that are beyond it. It is merely feeble if it does not go as far as to realize that." When one thinks about it, a person really cannot know there is no God unless he is God, and he isn't, so he doesn't know. I guess my question to an Atheist would be "Since any human being knows virtually nothing of all that conceivably can be known, why, based on such finite knowledge, embrace Atheism when the result of such a life is vanity?" I would also point out that what we can see, points to a Creator. Simply draw a clear inference (Romans 1:20). The issue boils down to the heart, as Warren Wiersbe stated, "the heart of the matter is the matter of the heart." When one comes to know God via the heart, the intellect falls into place.
Hi Siamang--thanks for the response. I have to admit, your response surprised me a little, which I'll try to explain a bit further down in my post.
"That's a fairly absolute position to take. "
Good point, so I'll qualify it.
According to our current state of knowledge, creation itself can neither prove nor disprove God's existence.
" All I'm saying by using the word "atheist" is to mean that I don't know of any gods, nor do I worship any."
By your statements related to this comment, I'm curious why you don't refer to yourself as an agnostic? It seems a more accurate characterization of your position, and may clear up some of the confusion you are met with--there are certain assumptions behind the word "atheist", one of which being the absolutist stance that there is no god (A point you counter with your argument in your first paragraph). Just an observation--you can characterize yourself however you feel most appropriate.
This:
""Ultimately creation itself can neither prove nor disprove God's existence" seems to me a statement that only a god could make with such sweeping certainty."
and this:
"It's possible that next you will tell me where indeed such a sentence springs from the Bible"
were your statements that surprised me.
In fact, taking the stance that creation itself can neither prove nor disprove the existence of god, is not a (Creationist) Christian stance. Creationists would definitely bristle and argue with me about that one. There is in fact, no place in Scripture that says creation cannot prove God's existence. Quite the opposite is true of the Bible's testimony about creation. So, that statement was not at all a Biblical argument.
On the contrary, it is a scientific argument. As I said later in my original post, the question of the existence of god is not something that can be proven or disproven scientifically, and thus the question itself is outside the realm of scientific inquiry (that doesn't mean that Creationists don't try to use science to prove there is a god or that atheists who are scientists don't believe science disproves god--but I consider both stances both incorrect and extreme--absolutist, if you will).
And going back to your statement I was initially responding to:
""In fact where religion makes a claim that touches on an area science can speak about, science is always right and religion invariably wrong. "
I think that also is an absolutist statement. You are assuming that everyone interprets the Bible the same. Those of us who view the Creation story as more metaphorical than literal, or who don't view the Bible as a science book, see little if any contradiction between scientific discovery and the Bible. After years of struggling with the apparent contradictions, I no longer think science and the Bible contradict, and I am by no means the only Christian who understands the Bible in this way (by the way, I'm both a geologist and a Christian, and was at one time a young earth creationist, so I've wrestled with the issue a lot).
Sorry if I offended you, but "thoughts for dialogue" and "dialogue"
are two different things. Also, on "without God all of life is vanity
-- empty, without permanent value, and leading to frustration" -- that
realization is what caused me to seek God, and God revealed Himself to
me -- 42 years ago. Life made no sense to me at that time -- Get up,
work, buy food, eat, sleep, get up , work, buy food, eat, sleep, over
and over and then die. Bad people die, good people die, no judgment,
and nothing matters. Anyway, on the concept that life without God is
vanity, see the book of Ecclesiastes. The vanity of life apart from
God is the point of Ecclesiastes, and it is God's word. I may have
sermonized, but I think there are a couple of points there worthy of
consideration if you are an Atheist.
To be honest, I could see Siaming's initial response coming from a mile away. That said, I think I understand where you are coming from.
It's not so much what you said, I don't think, as it is how you said it. Perhaps a better approach would be to turn your statements into questions. You two seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot, but I hope you will be able to continue the dialogue.
These have been running on city buses here in Calgary for about a month now. A Muslim group is now running counter ads - their website = www.godexists.ca
I wrote a column suggesting it had been a long time since the sight of a city bus brought God to mind for the average Joe so bring em on
I didn't get the sense s/he was shutting off conversation--actually, just the opposite. hammerud made some statements that are actually not unusual for Christians to make concerning Atheists. You then responded concerning why you didn't appreciate the statements. s/he tried to then further clarify the statements.
You make good points, Siamang, and I wouldn't give up on the dialogue just yet. I'd look at it more as an opportunity to clarify some pretty common misconceptions among the Christian community. hammerud was mostly telling you about his/her life experiences.
I do think a dialogue could occur here--if you both stay open-minded, and I get the impression that you both are trying to still.
As a Christian, it is good to understand the arguments that don't fly amongst Atheists--particularly the ones that are considered offensive, and why--so your perspective is definitely welcome.
It's not that the statements are offensive to me... it's that they fall into the category of starting out like literally hundreds of conversations I've had so far with online believers. It's the "if they just heard *my* story, they'd come around to Jesus" conversation. Notice that I haven't posted "I've you'd just heard my story, you'd be a nonbeliever" post.
I think "yes, I have considered your thoughts" is the best way I can give a polite response to one of those type of posts unless I want to get into an argument or a debate, which I find non-helpful.
Understanding is what I am after, not argument and not conversion (of you OR me). To that end, I've developed a style of discussion (not that I always stick to it, but I do try), that attempts non-debate, and emphasizes questions and de-emphasizes statements that are non "I"-statements. (As in, 'I feel this', or 'I think that'."
I have come here on what I recognize is a primarily Christian blog, to comment on a story about atheism. I realize I am somewhat of an outsider here... so I come with some groundrules of my own that keep me on my best behavior. I don't come here to convert.
My main rules are that I will answer any question about me or my beliefs, but by the same token I ask to be asked, not told, what I believe, and I will gently parry away attempts to convert me, rather than respond in kind with an attempt to convert believers.
I don't have time to fight out my one-thousand-and-first failed conversion attempt.
I've got a black-belt in internet religion debating. It's not what I'm here for.
Hi Eugene,
Thank you for this very positive post. As an atheist, I would like to answer your question in item number two. You said:
2. I find it funny that "atheists" are identified by an opposition to the belief of God. It's a reactive belief system. To atheists: What is your purpose?
I think this comment indicates a misconception that many very devoted Christians or followers of Christ seem to have about atheists in general: They seem to assume that atheists are a symmetrical counterpart to themselves, thinking that atheism is as important to atheists as Christianity or following Christ is to them. It is not. For you, Eugene, expressing your faith and living according to your religious beliefs is probably a large percentage of all that you are about. I think that for most atheists, our lack of belief is a relatively tiny part of all that we are about. Most atheists are many other things first: We are men, women, husbands, wives, parents, citizens, patriots, workers, professionals, students, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, friends, lovers, neighbors, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, club members, and a host of many other "identities," and waaaay down the list somewhere we are also atheists.
Most atheists only become active about atheism and bring that identity to the forefront when our rights or our friends' rights are being violated because of a religious belief being imposed inappropriately. Once that is resolved, for most of us our atheism returns into the background and we resume being all those other things.
So to answer your question, Eugene, our purpose is to love and support our families, be there for our friends, do our work well, help the less fortunate, learn all that we can, support our community and the social issues we favor, and enjoy the good things in life. These and more are purposes that I am confident you can understand and probably share.
The various atheist ad campaigns around the world are an expression of a newly found awareness that we are a much larger minority than we formerly thought, and that we can, by shrugging off our fear and asserting our presence, begin to free ourselves of the prejudice, mistrust and disdain which society has laid upon us for millennia, so that we can more freely fulfill those much more important purposes that I listed. At this stage, I think the ads and posters are much more about finding and encouraging each other, and are not so much about attempting to convince believers to stop believing.
Again, Eugene, thank you for this post and most of all, thank you for actually asking atheists a sincere question. So many theists come to atheists and atheist sites to tell us what we think, feel and do, rather than to ask us what we think, feel and do. It is only by taking that humble stance and asking each other that we can come to understand each other, and after discovering the many things we have in common, we can work together for a better society.
I wish you well in your life, your love, and your work.
Yeah--I understand--I used to frequent an atheist blog for awhile, so it was in those exchanges that I learned about what Christians get wrong about atheism. Which is why I encourage the exchange because it is something I want Christians to understand. I tend to cringe at the typical stereotypes, and I do think attempts to understand each other are far more productive than attempts to convert each other. Too many stereotypes being thrown back and forth at each other--not near enough dialogue.
I can understand why you would be tired of it, though. I do think on this site, you will probably find more open-minded dialogue than you might in most Christian sites. Many of the regulars here come from a very broad range of perspectives on Christianity and tend away from a black and white approach to the world. So hopefully you'll stick around a bit! We can be snarky, but we're overall a friendly bunch.
Points 1 and 3 i agree with.
Point 2 i agree with Richard Wade but would add that atheism isn't, as you seem to believe, a belief system. We don't believe in anything from atheism. We have no rituals, no tenants of faith, no culture, no traditions. We simply don't believe what you do. Thats it. Period. I happen to be a transhumanist. Thats my belief system. I am also an atheist.
Secondly, of course atheism is reactive. We only express our atheism when religion intrudes unduly in our lives. This might be street preachers, religious rules or laws (such as Utahs blue laws), politicians waving the god stick when they are supposed to represent all the citizens in their areas, not just the christians (especially when they are vile cretins like Tom Delay or George Bush), etc.
And Hammerund. You need to think your arguement through, you don't believe in god the creator. You believe in the CHRISTIAN god, your arguement works just as well for all the other thousands of creator gods. And given the number of them that there are, odds are you've picked the wrong god.
While you are right to say that there is much we don't know about our universe, what we DO know shows no sign of any kind of god. In fact where religion makes a claim that touches on an area science can speak about, science is always right and religion invariably wrong. Evolution/intelligent design, age of the planet, the great flood, breeding stripes into cows, all that jazz.
"In fact where religion makes a claim that touches on an area science can speak about, science is always right and religion invariably wrong. "
That's true of young earth creationism and a very narrow view of Biblical interpretation, but ultimately creation itself can neither prove nor disprove God's existence. Neither can science, as the question is outside the realm of scientific inquiry.
Thanks for your very thoughtful post. My experience has been that both sides of this debate have a minority who are very vocal and in-your-face, but they don't speak for the majority. Of course, since they are the loudest voices, they are who we hear, and also are the ones who misrepresent the majority.
Commenting here as an atheist... there's one reason and one reason alone I use the word atheist to describe myself: To make this world a better place for people afraid to say what they believe. We live in a world where to go to public school my daughter has to pledge an oath to God every day. Now that may line up fine with your beliefs, but not mine. And I don't believe it's the job of a school or government to start the 5 year olds swearing oaths to God. But unless I want to make a federal case out of it, and raise a messed-up kid, I don't burden her with that stuff. Ultimately she will be old enough to understand that it's wrong to coerce children to swear oaths without asking their parents what they as a family believe first.
It was becoming a new parent that caused me to come out and be more public in a dialog with believers. I knew that if we didn't do something, America would become a land more and more hostile to people with a minority belief. She would have it harder than I did, if atheists remained closeted.
I didn't like what was happening in this country toward nonbelievers especially after 9/11, when the words "God and Country" started getting mooshed together as if they were the same thing, and the voices of the punditocracy were shouting how democrats needed to "get faith". I heard quite a few commentators talking very strongly about how, if democrats wanted to win elections, they had to distance themselves from secular values and push the Jesus talk. I even heard a number of people on tv and in the newspapers opining that atheist democrats needed to choose one and shut up about the other.
When you look at how Elizabeth Dole's campaign slandered Kay Hagan, and pushed the notion that atheists should be persona non grata to even MEET with our elected representatives... now we're talking anti-democratic ideas. The notion that we are or should be political poison, and we can't even attend fundraisers for democratic candidates? The campaign pushed ugly stuff like saying that most North Carolinians wouldn't even eat dinner with the kind of people that atheists are. After that, I gave a good amount of money to the Hagan campaign... But she very clearly did NOT do the right thing and make any statement about how it was wrong to tar atheists. No, she instead continued the impression that it was a grave insult to call someone an atheist instead of taking the high road that Candidate Obama did when people falsely accused him of being a Muslim. Obama clearly and strongly said that there was nothing to be ashamed of or wrong about being a Muslim, there are great Muslim Americans, the world Muslim is not and should never be an epithet, It's just merely that he is not a Muslim.
No such statement from Kay Hagan, even after she won the election. And that was throwing away a great chance for understanding and bridge-building. It was an ugly episode in an ugly campaign, and Hagan, IMO, threw us under the bus. I and others organized an online giving campaign for Hagan on the atheist blogosphere, and we raised thousands for her, only to see her take zero steps toward building understanding. I guess Dole was right, we are personae non grata. We're as popular as gay Republicans!
Anyway it was the fear that I was being told to shut up or leave my own political party that was the "last straw" in my silence. I would become a loud and proud atheist, and let my fellow democrats and fellow Americans know that I was just like them... a human being. I may have a different idea than you as to what happens in the next life... but I SHARE this world with you, and it's time you recognized that we need to get along better.
What is my "purpose"? I'm only an "atheist" when speaking to believers and attempting to build bridges of understanding. All the rest of my days and nights I'm merely "me." Just an American dad, and a democrat, and a taxpayer and a citizen. All that stuff that doesn't seem to mean much to people anymore, while everyone marches from war to poverty to church and back.
Hammerud, you wrote:
"Here are a few thoughts for dialogue with Atheists:"
And then you proceeded to *not* dialog, but to sermonize. A dialog includes listening, and any so-called dialog that begins with a list of how you're right and your dialog partner is wrong is a monologue.
If you want to know what I believe and why, ask me. Don't tell me.
Now, you've come at us with this idea that our beliefs are as a result of vanity, and empty, without permanent value? In that case, I would remind you of the code of conduct for posts on this site, and ask you to extend us the benefit of the doubt.
Squeaky, you wrote:
"ultimately creation itself can neither prove nor disprove God's existence."
That's a fairly absolute position to take. Based on what evidence do you make such a sweeping statement? You really know all of creation enough to know for absolute that creation cannot prove something? That is a statement that requires you not only to know all "known knowns" but also all "unknown unknowns".
I am an atheist, and also a skeptic... and that's why I try never to make such sweeping statements about a universe that's bigger than I am. (Before people say that by atheist I mean that I think I know for a fact that there is no God, let me clarify: I make no such claim about the existence or nonexistence of anything anyone might call a god. All I'm saying by using the word "atheist" is to mean that I don't know of any gods, nor do I worship any. Nor have I been shown any evidence by any believer sufficient to compel me to belief or worship. I make no claim about the existence of any personal gods, though I do suspect that the various religions of the world are entirely human creations.)
"Ultimately creation itself can neither prove nor disprove God's existence" seems to me a statement that only a god could make with such sweeping certainty.
It's possible that next you will tell me where indeed such a sentence springs from the Bible, but then you're only correcting Gribblemunchkin's assertion with a counter assertion that is a religious tenet of yours, and not something that would make an authoritative response to an atheist.
Hi Siamang--thanks for the response. I have to admit, your response surprised me a little, which I'll try to explain a bit further down in my post.
"That's a fairly absolute position to take. "
Good point, so I'll qualify it.
According to our current state of knowledge, creation itself can neither prove nor disprove God's existence.
" All I'm saying by using the word "atheist" is to mean that I don't know of any gods, nor do I worship any."
By your statements related to this comment, I'm curious why you don't refer to yourself as an agnostic? It seems a more accurate characterization of your position, and may clear up some of the confusion you are met with--there are certain assumptions behind the word "atheist", one of which being the absolutist stance that there is no god (A point you counter with your argument in your first paragraph). Just an observation--you can characterize yourself however you feel most appropriate.
This:
""Ultimately creation itself can neither prove nor disprove God's existence" seems to me a statement that only a god could make with such sweeping certainty."
and this:
"It's possible that next you will tell me where indeed such a sentence springs from the Bible"
were your statements that surprised me.
In fact, taking the stance that creation itself can neither prove nor disprove the existence of god, is not a (Creationist) Christian stance. Creationists would definitely bristle and argue with me about that one. There is in fact, no place in Scripture that says creation cannot prove God's existence. Quite the opposite is true of the Bible's testimony about creation. So, that statement was not at all a Biblical argument.
On the contrary, it is a scientific argument. As I said later in my original post, the question of the existence of god is not something that can be proven or disproven scientifically, and thus the question itself is outside the realm of scientific inquiry (that doesn't mean that Creationists don't try to use science to prove there is a god or that atheists who are scientists don't believe science disproves god--but I consider both stances both incorrect and extreme--absolutist, if you will).
And going back to your statement I was initially responding to:
""In fact where religion makes a claim that touches on an area science can speak about, science is always right and religion invariably wrong. "
I think that also is an absolutist statement. You are assuming that everyone interprets the Bible the same. Those of us who view the Creation story as more metaphorical than literal, or who don't view the Bible as a science book, see little if any contradiction between scientific discovery and the Bible. After years of struggling with the apparent contradictions, I no longer think science and the Bible contradict, and I am by no means the only Christian who understands the Bible in this way (by the way, I'm both a geologist and a Christian, and was at one time a young earth creationist, so I've wrestled with the issue a lot).
Sorry if I offended you, but "thoughts for dialogue" and "dialogue"
are two different things. Also, on "without God all of life is vanity
-- empty, without permanent value, and leading to frustration" -- that
realization is what caused me to seek God, and God revealed Himself to
me -- 42 years ago. Life made no sense to me at that time -- Get up,
work, buy food, eat, sleep, get up , work, buy food, eat, sleep, over
and over and then die. Bad people die, good people die, no judgment,
and nothing matters. Anyway, on the concept that life without God is
vanity, see the book of Ecclesiastes. The vanity of life apart from
God is the point of Ecclesiastes, and it is God's word. I may have
sermonized, but I think there are a couple of points there worthy of
consideration if you are an Atheist.
To be honest, I could see Siaming's initial response coming from a mile away. That said, I think I understand where you are coming from.
It's not so much what you said, I don't think, as it is how you said it. Perhaps a better approach would be to turn your statements into questions. You two seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot, but I hope you will be able to continue the dialogue.
Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.
Here are a few thoughts for dialogue with Atheists: Apart from God nothing matters, all is vanity (empty, without permanent value, and leads to frustration). Gary Smalley, a Christian counselor, became to think about God as a college student when someone asked him a couple of questions: the first was "Out of all that can be known in the universe, all that is knowable, what percent of that do you think you know?" He realized that he knew only a tiny, tiny fraction of a percent of all that can be known. The second question was, "Do you think it is possible that out of all that is knowable that you admit you do not know, there could be a personal God?" Those questions led him to seek and come to a personal knowledge of God through Jesus Christ. An interesting quote from Blaise Pascal, one of the great minds of history, states that "Reasons last step is the recognition that there are an infinite number of things that are beyond it. It is merely feeble if it does not go as far as to realize that." When one thinks about it, a person really cannot know there is no God unless he is God, and he isn't, so he doesn't know. I guess my question to an Atheist would be "Since any human being knows virtually nothing of all that conceivably can be known, why, based on such finite knowledge, embrace Atheism when the result of such a life is vanity?" I would also point out that what we can see, points to a Creator. Simply draw a clear inference (Romans 1:20). The issue boils down to the heart, as Warren Wiersbe stated, "the heart of the matter is the matter of the heart." When one comes to know God via the heart, the intellect falls into place.
Here are a few thoughts for dialogue with Atheists: Apart from God nothing matters, all is vanity (empty, without permanent value, and leads to frustration). Gary Smalley, a Christian counselor, became to think about God as a college student when someone asked him a couple of questions: the first was "Out of all that can be known in the universe, all that is knowable, what percent of that do you think you know?" He realized that he knew only a tiny, tiny fraction of a percent of all that can be known. The second question was, "Do you think it is possible that out of all that is knowable that you admit you do not know, there could be a personal God?" Those questions led him to seek and come to a personal knowledge of God through Jesus Christ. An interesting quote from Blaise Pascal, one of the great minds of history, states that "Reasons last step is the recognition that there are an infinite number of things that are beyond it. It is merely feeble if it does not go as far as to realize that." When one thinks about it, a person really cannot know there is no God unless he is God, and he isn't, so he doesn't know. I guess my question to an Atheist would be "Since any human being knows virtually nothing of all that conceivably can be known, why, based on such finite knowledge, embrace Atheism when the result of such a life is vanity?" I would also point out that what we can see, points to a Creator. Simply draw a clear inference (Romans 1:20). The issue boils down to the heart, as Warren Wiersbe stated, "the heart of the matter is the matter of the heart." When one comes to know God via the heart, the intellect falls into place.
These have been running on city buses here in Calgary for about a month now. A Muslim group is now running counter ads - their website = www.godexists.ca
I wrote a column suggesting it had been a long time since the sight of a city bus brought God to mind for the average Joe so bring em on
These have been running on city buses here in Calgary for about a month now. A Muslim group is now running counter ads - their website = www.godexists.ca
I wrote a column suggesting it had been a long time since the sight of a city bus brought God to mind for the average Joe so bring em on
Hi Eugene,
Thank you for this very positive post. As an atheist, I would like to answer your question in item number two. You said:
2. I find it funny that "atheists" are identified by an opposition to the belief of God. It's a reactive belief system. To atheists: What is your purpose?
I think this comment indicates a misconception that many very devoted Christians or followers of Christ seem to have about atheists in general: They seem to assume that atheists are a symmetrical counterpart to themselves, thinking that atheism is as important to atheists as Christianity or following Christ is to them. It is not. For you, Eugene, expressing your faith and living according to your religious beliefs is probably a large percentage of all that you are about. I think that for most atheists, our lack of belief is a relatively tiny part of all that we are about. Most atheists are many other things first: We are men, women, husbands, wives, parents, citizens, patriots, workers, professionals, students, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, friends, lovers, neighbors, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, club members, and a host of many other "identities," and waaaay down the list somewhere we are also atheists.
Most atheists only become active about atheism and bring that identity to the forefront when our rights or our friends' rights are being violated because of a religious belief being imposed inappropriately. Once that is resolved, for most of us our atheism returns into the background and we resume being all those other things.
So to answer your question, Eugene, our purpose is to love and support our families, be there for our friends, do our work well, help the less fortunate, learn all that we can, support our community and the social issues we favor, and enjoy the good things in life. These and more are purposes that I am confident you can understand and probably share.
The various atheist ad campaigns around the world are an expression of a newly found awareness that we are a much larger minority than we formerly thought, and that we can, by shrugging off our fear and asserting our presence, begin to free ourselves of the prejudice, mistrust and disdain which society has laid upon us for millennia, so that we can more freely fulfill those much more important purposes that I listed. At this stage, I think the ads and posters are much more about finding and encouraging each other, and are not so much about attempting to convince believers to stop believing.
Again, Eugene, thank you for this post and most of all, thank you for actually asking atheists a sincere question. So many theists come to atheists and atheist sites to tell us what we think, feel and do, rather than to ask us what we think, feel and do. It is only by taking that humble stance and asking each other that we can come to understand each other, and after discovering the many things we have in common, we can work together for a better society.
I wish you well in your life, your love, and your work.
Hi Eugene,
Thank you for this very positive post. As an atheist, I would like to answer your question in item number two. You said:
2. I find it funny that "atheists" are identified by an opposition to the belief of God. It's a reactive belief system. To atheists: What is your purpose?
I think this comment indicates a misconception that many very devoted Christians or followers of Christ seem to have about atheists in general: They seem to assume that atheists are a symmetrical counterpart to themselves, thinking that atheism is as important to atheists as Christianity or following Christ is to them. It is not. For you, Eugene, expressing your faith and living according to your religious beliefs is probably a large percentage of all that you are about. I think that for most atheists, our lack of belief is a relatively tiny part of all that we are about. Most atheists are many other things first: We are men, women, husbands, wives, parents, citizens, patriots, workers, professionals, students, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, friends, lovers, neighbors, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, club members, and a host of many other "identities," and waaaay down the list somewhere we are also atheists.
Most atheists only become active about atheism and bring that identity to the forefront when our rights or our friends' rights are being violated because of a religious belief being imposed inappropriately. Once that is resolved, for most of us our atheism returns into the background and we resume being all those other things.
So to answer your question, Eugene, our purpose is to love and support our families, be there for our friends, do our work well, help the less fortunate, learn all that we can, support our community and the social issues we favor, and enjoy the good things in life. These and more are purposes that I am confident you can understand and probably share.
The various atheist ad campaigns around the world are an expression of a newly found awareness that we are a much larger minority than we formerly thought, and that we can, by shrugging off our fear and asserting our presence, begin to free ourselves of the prejudice, mistrust and disdain which society has laid upon us for millennia, so that we can more freely fulfill those much more important purposes that I listed. At this stage, I think the ads and posters are much more about finding and encouraging each other, and are not so much about attempting to convince believers to stop believing.
Again, Eugene, thank you for this post and most of all, thank you for actually asking atheists a sincere question. So many theists come to atheists and atheist sites to tell us what we think, feel and do, rather than to ask us what we think, feel and do. It is only by taking that humble stance and asking each other that we can come to understand each other, and after discovering the many things we have in common, we can work together for a better society.
I wish you well in your life, your love, and your work.
Points 1 and 3 i agree with.
Point 2 i agree with Richard Wade but would add that atheism isn't, as you seem to believe, a belief system. We don't believe in anything from atheism. We have no rituals, no tenants of faith, no culture, no traditions. We simply don't believe what you do. Thats it. Period. I happen to be a transhumanist. Thats my belief system. I am also an atheist.
Secondly, of course atheism is reactive. We only express our atheism when religion intrudes unduly in our lives. This might be street preachers, religious rules or laws (such as Utahs blue laws), politicians waving the god stick when they are supposed to represent all the citizens in their areas, not just the christians (especially when they are vile cretins like Tom Delay or George Bush), etc.
And Hammerund. You need to think your arguement through, you don't believe in god the creator. You believe in the CHRISTIAN god, your arguement works just as well for all the other thousands of creator gods. And given the number of them that there are, odds are you've picked the wrong god.
While you are right to say that there is much we don't know about our universe, what we DO know shows no sign of any kind of god. In fact where religion makes a claim that touches on an area science can speak about, science is always right and religion invariably wrong. Evolution/intelligent design, age of the planet, the great flood, breeding stripes into cows, all that jazz.
Points 1 and 3 i agree with.
Point 2 i agree with Richard Wade but would add that atheism isn't, as you seem to believe, a belief system. We don't believe in anything from atheism. We have no rituals, no tenants of faith, no culture, no traditions. We simply don't believe what you do. Thats it. Period. I happen to be a transhumanist. Thats my belief system. I am also an atheist.
Secondly, of course atheism is reactive. We only express our atheism when religion intrudes unduly in our lives. This might be street preachers, religious rules or laws (such as Utahs blue laws), politicians waving the god stick when they are supposed to represent all the citizens in their areas, not just the christians (especially when they are vile cretins like Tom Delay or George Bush), etc.
And Hammerund. You need to think your arguement through, you don't believe in god the creator. You believe in the CHRISTIAN god, your arguement works just as well for all the other thousands of creator gods. And given the number of them that there are, odds are you've picked the wrong god.
While you are right to say that there is much we don't know about our universe, what we DO know shows no sign of any kind of god. In fact where religion makes a claim that touches on an area science can speak about, science is always right and religion invariably wrong. Evolution/intelligent design, age of the planet, the great flood, breeding stripes into cows, all that jazz.
"In fact where religion makes a claim that touches on an area science can speak about, science is always right and religion invariably wrong. "
That's true of young earth creationism and a very narrow view of Biblical interpretation, but ultimately creation itself can neither prove nor disprove God's existence. Neither can science, as the question is outside the realm of scientific inquiry.
"In fact where religion makes a claim that touches on an area science can speak about, science is always right and religion invariably wrong. "
That's true of young earth creationism and a very narrow view of Biblical interpretation, but ultimately creation itself can neither prove nor disprove God's existence. Neither can science, as the question is outside the realm of scientific inquiry.
Thanks for your very thoughtful post. My experience has been that both sides of this debate have a minority who are very vocal and in-your-face, but they don't speak for the majority. Of course, since they are the loudest voices, they are who we hear, and also are the ones who misrepresent the majority.
Thanks for your very thoughtful post. My experience has been that both sides of this debate have a minority who are very vocal and in-your-face, but they don't speak for the majority. Of course, since they are the loudest voices, they are who we hear, and also are the ones who misrepresent the majority.
Commenting here as an atheist... there's one reason and one reason alone I use the word atheist to describe myself: To make this world a better place for people afraid to say what they believe. We live in a world where to go to public school my daughter has to pledge an oath to God every day. Now that may line up fine with your beliefs, but not mine. And I don't believe it's the job of a school or government to start the 5 year olds swearing oaths to God. But unless I want to make a federal case out of it, and raise a messed-up kid, I don't burden her with that stuff. Ultimately she will be old enough to understand that it's wrong to coerce children to swear oaths without asking their parents what they as a family believe first.
It was becoming a new parent that caused me to come out and be more public in a dialog with believers. I knew that if we didn't do something, America would become a land more and more hostile to people with a minority belief. She would have it harder than I did, if atheists remained closeted.
I didn't like what was happening in this country toward nonbelievers especially after 9/11, when the words "God and Country" started getting mooshed together as if they were the same thing, and the voices of the punditocracy were shouting how democrats needed to "get faith". I heard quite a few commentators talking very strongly about how, if democrats wanted to win elections, they had to distance themselves from secular values and push the Jesus talk. I even heard a number of people on tv and in the newspapers opining that atheist democrats needed to choose one and shut up about the other.
When you look at how Elizabeth Dole's campaign slandered Kay Hagan, and pushed the notion that atheists should be persona non grata to even MEET with our elected representatives... now we're talking anti-democratic ideas. The notion that we are or should be political poison, and we can't even attend fundraisers for democratic candidates? The campaign pushed ugly stuff like saying that most North Carolinians wouldn't even eat dinner with the kind of people that atheists are. After that, I gave a good amount of money to the Hagan campaign... But she very clearly did NOT do the right thing and make any statement about how it was wrong to tar atheists. No, she instead continued the impression that it was a grave insult to call someone an atheist instead of taking the high road that Candidate Obama did when people falsely accused him of being a Muslim. Obama clearly and strongly said that there was nothing to be ashamed of or wrong about being a Muslim, there are great Muslim Americans, the world Muslim is not and should never be an epithet, It's just merely that he is not a Muslim.
No such statement from Kay Hagan, even after she won the election. And that was throwing away a great chance for understanding and bridge-building. It was an ugly episode in an ugly campaign, and Hagan, IMO, threw us under the bus. I and others organized an online giving campaign for Hagan on the atheist blogosphere, and we raised thousands for her, only to see her take zero steps toward building understanding. I guess Dole was right, we are personae non grata. We're as popular as gay Republicans!
Anyway it was the fear that I was being told to shut up or leave my own political party that was the "last straw" in my silence. I would become a loud and proud atheist, and let my fellow democrats and fellow Americans know that I was just like them... a human being. I may have a different idea than you as to what happens in the next life... but I SHARE this world with you, and it's time you recognized that we need to get along better.
What is my "purpose"? I'm only an "atheist" when speaking to believers and attempting to build bridges of understanding. All the rest of my days and nights I'm merely "me." Just an American dad, and a democrat, and a taxpayer and a citizen. All that stuff that doesn't seem to mean much to people anymore, while everyone marches from war to poverty to church and back.
Commenting here as an atheist... there's one reason and one reason alone I use the word atheist to describe myself: To make this world a better place for people afraid to say what they believe. We live in a world where to go to public school my daughter has to pledge an oath to God every day. Now that may line up fine with your beliefs, but not mine. And I don't believe it's the job of a school or government to start the 5 year olds swearing oaths to God. But unless I want to make a federal case out of it, and raise a messed-up kid, I don't burden her with that stuff. Ultimately she will be old enough to understand that it's wrong to coerce children to swear oaths without asking their parents what they as a family believe first.
It was becoming a new parent that caused me to come out and be more public in a dialog with believers. I knew that if we didn't do something, America would become a land more and more hostile to people with a minority belief. She would have it harder than I did, if atheists remained closeted.
I didn't like what was happening in this country toward nonbelievers especially after 9/11, when the words "God and Country" started getting mooshed together as if they were the same thing, and the voices of the punditocracy were shouting how democrats needed to "get faith". I heard quite a few commentators talking very strongly about how, if democrats wanted to win elections, they had to distance themselves from secular values and push the Jesus talk. I even heard a number of people on tv and in the newspapers opining that atheist democrats needed to choose one and shut up about the other.
When you look at how Elizabeth Dole's campaign slandered Kay Hagan, and pushed the notion that atheists should be persona non grata to even MEET with our elected representatives... now we're talking anti-democratic ideas. The notion that we are or should be political poison, and we can't even attend fundraisers for democratic candidates? The campaign pushed ugly stuff like saying that most North Carolinians wouldn't even eat dinner with the kind of people that atheists are. After that, I gave a good amount of money to the Hagan campaign... But she very clearly did NOT do the right thing and make any statement about how it was wrong to tar atheists. No, she instead continued the impression that it was a grave insult to call someone an atheist instead of taking the high road that Candidate Obama did when people falsely accused him of being a Muslim. Obama clearly and strongly said that there was nothing to be ashamed of or wrong about being a Muslim, there are great Muslim Americans, the world Muslim is not and should never be an epithet, It's just merely that he is not a Muslim.
No such statement from Kay Hagan, even after she won the election. And that was throwing away a great chance for understanding and bridge-building. It was an ugly episode in an ugly campaign, and Hagan, IMO, threw us under the bus. I and others organized an online giving campaign for Hagan on the atheist blogosphere, and we raised thousands for her, only to see her take zero steps toward building understanding. I guess Dole was right, we are personae non grata. We're as popular as gay Republicans!
Anyway it was the fear that I was being told to shut up or leave my own political party that was the "last straw" in my silence. I would become a loud and proud atheist, and let my fellow democrats and fellow Americans know that I was just like them... a human being. I may have a different idea than you as to what happens in the next life... but I SHARE this world with you, and it's time you recognized that we need to get along better.
What is my "purpose"? I'm only an "atheist" when speaking to believers and attempting to build bridges of understanding. All the rest of my days and nights I'm merely "me." Just an American dad, and a democrat, and a taxpayer and a citizen. All that stuff that doesn't seem to mean much to people anymore, while everyone marches from war to poverty to church and back.
Hammerud, you wrote:
"Here are a few thoughts for dialogue with Atheists:"
And then you proceeded to *not* dialog, but to sermonize. A dialog includes listening, and any so-called dialog that begins with a list of how you're right and your dialog partner is wrong is a monologue.
If you want to know what I believe and why, ask me. Don't tell me.
Now, you've come at us with this idea that our beliefs are as a result of vanity, and empty, without permanent value? In that case, I would remind you of the code of conduct for posts on this site, and ask you to extend us the benefit of the doubt.
Hammerud, you wrote:
"Here are a few thoughts for dialogue with Atheists:"
And then you proceeded to *not* dialog, but to sermonize. A dialog includes listening, and any so-called dialog that begins with a list of how you're right and your dialog partner is wrong is a monologue.
If you want to know what I believe and why, ask me. Don't tell me.
Now, you've come at us with this idea that our beliefs are as a result of vanity, and empty, without permanent value? In that case, I would remind you of the code of conduct for posts on this site, and ask you to extend us the benefit of the doubt.
Squeaky, you wrote:
"ultimately creation itself can neither prove nor disprove God's existence."
That's a fairly absolute position to take. Based on what evidence do you make such a sweeping statement? You really know all of creation enough to know for absolute that creation cannot prove something? That is a statement that requires you not only to know all "known knowns" but also all "unknown unknowns".
I am an atheist, and also a skeptic... and that's why I try never to make such sweeping statements about a universe that's bigger than I am. (Before people say that by atheist I mean that I think I know for a fact that there is no God, let me clarify: I make no such claim about the existence or nonexistence of anything anyone might call a god. All I'm saying by using the word "atheist" is to mean that I don't know of any gods, nor do I worship any. Nor have I been shown any evidence by any believer sufficient to compel me to belief or worship. I make no claim about the existence of any personal gods, though I do suspect that the various religions of the world are entirely human creations.)
"Ultimately creation itself can neither prove nor disprove God's existence" seems to me a statement that only a god could make with such sweeping certainty.
It's possible that next you will tell me where indeed such a sentence springs from the Bible, but then you're only correcting Gribblemunchkin's assertion with a counter assertion that is a religious tenet of yours, and not something that would make an authoritative response to an atheist.
Squeaky, you wrote:
"ultimately creation itself can neither prove nor disprove God's existence."
That's a fairly absolute position to take. Based on what evidence do you make such a sweeping statement? You really know all of creation enough to know for absolute that creation cannot prove something? That is a statement that requires you not only to know all "known knowns" but also all "unknown unknowns".
I am an atheist, and also a skeptic... and that's why I try never to make such sweeping statements about a universe that's bigger than I am. (Before people say that by atheist I mean that I think I know for a fact that there is no God, let me clarify: I make no such claim about the existence or nonexistence of anything anyone might call a god. All I'm saying by using the word "atheist" is to mean that I don't know of any gods, nor do I worship any. Nor have I been shown any evidence by any believer sufficient to compel me to belief or worship. I make no claim about the existence of any personal gods, though I do suspect that the various religions of the world are entirely human creations.)
"Ultimately creation itself can neither prove nor disprove God's existence" seems to me a statement that only a god could make with such sweeping certainty.
It's possible that next you will tell me where indeed such a sentence springs from the Bible, but then you're only correcting Gribblemunchkin's assertion with a counter assertion that is a religious tenet of yours, and not something that would make an authoritative response to an atheist.
Hi Siamang--thanks for the response. I have to admit, your response surprised me a little, which I'll try to explain a bit further down in my post.
"That's a fairly absolute position to take. "
Good point, so I'll qualify it.
According to our current state of knowledge, creation itself can neither prove nor disprove God's existence.
" All I'm saying by using the word "atheist" is to mean that I don't know of any gods, nor do I worship any."
By your statements related to this comment, I'm curious why you don't refer to yourself as an agnostic? It seems a more accurate characterization of your position, and may clear up some of the confusion you are met with--there are certain assumptions behind the word "atheist", one of which being the absolutist stance that there is no god (A point you counter with your argument in your first paragraph). Just an observation--you can characterize yourself however you feel most appropriate.
This:
""Ultimately creation itself can neither prove nor disprove God's existence" seems to me a statement that only a god could make with such sweeping certainty."
and this:
"It's possible that next you will tell me where indeed such a sentence springs from the Bible"
were your statements that surprised me.
In fact, taking the stance that creation itself can neither prove nor disprove the existence of god, is not a (Creationist) Christian stance. Creationists would definitely bristle and argue with me about that one. There is in fact, no place in Scripture that says creation cannot prove God's existence. Quite the opposite is true of the Bible's testimony about creation. So, that statement was not at all a Biblical argument.
On the contrary, it is a scientific argument. As I said later in my original post, the question of the existence of god is not something that can be proven or disproven scientifically, and thus the question itself is outside the realm of scientific inquiry (that doesn't mean that Creationists don't try to use science to prove there is a god or that atheists who are scientists don't believe science disproves god--but I consider both stances both incorrect and extreme--absolutist, if you will).
And going back to your statement I was initially responding to:
""In fact where religion makes a claim that touches on an area science can speak about, science is always right and religion invariably wrong. "
I think that also is an absolutist statement. You are assuming that everyone interprets the Bible the same. Those of us who view the Creation story as more metaphorical than literal, or who don't view the Bible as a science book, see little if any contradiction between scientific discovery and the Bible. After years of struggling with the apparent contradictions, I no longer think science and the Bible contradict, and I am by no means the only Christian who understands the Bible in this way (by the way, I'm both a geologist and a Christian, and was at one time a young earth creationist, so I've wrestled with the issue a lot).
Hi Siamang--thanks for the response. I have to admit, your response surprised me a little, which I'll try to explain a bit further down in my post.
"That's a fairly absolute position to take. "
Good point, so I'll qualify it.
According to our current state of knowledge, creation itself can neither prove nor disprove God's existence.
" All I'm saying by using the word "atheist" is to mean that I don't know of any gods, nor do I worship any."
By your statements related to this comment, I'm curious why you don't refer to yourself as an agnostic? It seems a more accurate characterization of your position, and may clear up some of the confusion you are met with--there are certain assumptions behind the word "atheist", one of which being the absolutist stance that there is no god (A point you counter with your argument in your first paragraph). Just an observation--you can characterize yourself however you feel most appropriate.
This:
""Ultimately creation itself can neither prove nor disprove God's existence" seems to me a statement that only a god could make with such sweeping certainty."
and this:
"It's possible that next you will tell me where indeed such a sentence springs from the Bible"
were your statements that surprised me.
In fact, taking the stance that creation itself can neither prove nor disprove the existence of god, is not a (Creationist) Christian stance. Creationists would definitely bristle and argue with me about that one. There is in fact, no place in Scripture that says creation cannot prove God's existence. Quite the opposite is true of the Bible's testimony about creation. So, that statement was not at all a Biblical argument.
On the contrary, it is a scientific argument. As I said later in my original post, the question of the existence of god is not something that can be proven or disproven scientifically, and thus the question itself is outside the realm of scientific inquiry (that doesn't mean that Creationists don't try to use science to prove there is a god or that atheists who are scientists don't believe science disproves god--but I consider both stances both incorrect and extreme--absolutist, if you will).
And going back to your statement I was initially responding to:
""In fact where religion makes a claim that touches on an area science can speak about, science is always right and religion invariably wrong. "
I think that also is an absolutist statement. You are assuming that everyone interprets the Bible the same. Those of us who view the Creation story as more metaphorical than literal, or who don't view the Bible as a science book, see little if any contradiction between scientific discovery and the Bible. After years of struggling with the apparent contradictions, I no longer think science and the Bible contradict, and I am by no means the only Christian who understands the Bible in this way (by the way, I'm both a geologist and a Christian, and was at one time a young earth creationist, so I've wrestled with the issue a lot).
Sorry if I offended you, but "thoughts for dialogue" and "dialogue"
are two different things. Also, on "without God all of life is vanity
-- empty, without permanent value, and leading to frustration" -- that
realization is what caused me to seek God, and God revealed Himself to
me -- 42 years ago. Life made no sense to me at that time -- Get up,
work, buy food, eat, sleep, get up , work, buy food, eat, sleep, over
and over and then die. Bad people die, good people die, no judgment,
and nothing matters. Anyway, on the concept that life without God is
vanity, see the book of Ecclesiastes. The vanity of life apart from
God is the point of Ecclesiastes, and it is God's word. I may have
sermonized, but I think there are a couple of points there worthy of
consideration if you are an Atheist.
Sorry if I offended you, but "thoughts for dialogue" and "dialogue"
are two different things. Also, on "without God all of life is vanity
-- empty, without permanent value, and leading to frustration" -- that
realization is what caused me to seek God, and God revealed Himself to
me -- 42 years ago. Life made no sense to me at that time -- Get up,
work, buy food, eat, sleep, get up , work, buy food, eat, sleep, over
and over and then die. Bad people die, good people die, no judgment,
and nothing matters. Anyway, on the concept that life without God is
vanity, see the book of Ecclesiastes. The vanity of life apart from
God is the point of Ecclesiastes, and it is God's word. I may have
sermonized, but I think there are a couple of points there worthy of
consideration if you are an Atheist.
I didn't get the sense s/he was shutting off conversation--actually, just the opposite. hammerud made some statements that are actually not unusual for Christians to make concerning Atheists. You then responded concerning why you didn't appreciate the statements. s/he tried to then further clarify the statements.
You make good points, Siamang, and I wouldn't give up on the dialogue just yet. I'd look at it more as an opportunity to clarify some pretty common misconceptions among the Christian community. hammerud was mostly telling you about his/her life experiences.
I do think a dialogue could occur here--if you both stay open-minded, and I get the impression that you both are trying to still.
As a Christian, it is good to understand the arguments that don't fly amongst Atheists--particularly the ones that are considered offensive, and why--so your perspective is definitely welcome.
I didn't get the sense s/he was shutting off conversation--actually, just the opposite. hammerud made some statements that are actually not unusual for Christians to make concerning Atheists. You then responded concerning why you didn't appreciate the statements. s/he tried to then further clarify the statements.
You make good points, Siamang, and I wouldn't give up on the dialogue just yet. I'd look at it more as an opportunity to clarify some pretty common misconceptions among the Christian community. hammerud was mostly telling you about his/her life experiences.
I do think a dialogue could occur here--if you both stay open-minded, and I get the impression that you both are trying to still.
As a Christian, it is good to understand the arguments that don't fly amongst Atheists--particularly the ones that are considered offensive, and why--so your perspective is definitely welcome.
To be honest, I could see Siaming's initial response coming from a mile away. That said, I think I understand where you are coming from.
It's not so much what you said, I don't think, as it is how you said it. Perhaps a better approach would be to turn your statements into questions. You two seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot, but I hope you will be able to continue the dialogue.
To be honest, I could see Siaming's initial response coming from a mile away. That said, I think I understand where you are coming from.
It's not so much what you said, I don't think, as it is how you said it. Perhaps a better approach would be to turn your statements into questions. You two seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot, but I hope you will be able to continue the dialogue.
It's not that the statements are offensive to me... it's that they fall into the category of starting out like literally hundreds of conversations I've had so far with online believers. It's the "if they just heard *my* story, they'd come around to Jesus" conversation. Notice that I haven't posted "I've you'd just heard my story, you'd be a nonbeliever" post.
I think "yes, I have considered your thoughts" is the best way I can give a polite response to one of those type of posts unless I want to get into an argument or a debate, which I find non-helpful.
Understanding is what I am after, not argument and not conversion (of you OR me). To that end, I've developed a style of discussion (not that I always stick to it, but I do try), that attempts non-debate, and emphasizes questions and de-emphasizes statements that are non "I"-statements. (As in, 'I feel this', or 'I think that'."
I have come here on what I recognize is a primarily Christian blog, to comment on a story about atheism. I realize I am somewhat of an outsider here... so I come with some groundrules of my own that keep me on my best behavior. I don't come here to convert.
My main rules are that I will answer any question about me or my beliefs, but by the same token I ask to be asked, not told, what I believe, and I will gently parry away attempts to convert me, rather than respond in kind with an attempt to convert believers.
I don't have time to fight out my one-thousand-and-first failed conversion attempt.
I've got a black-belt in internet religion debating. It's not what I'm here for.
It's not that the statements are offensive to me... it's that they fall into the category of starting out like literally hundreds of conversations I've had so far with online believers. It's the "if they just heard *my* story, they'd come around to Jesus" conversation. Notice that I haven't posted "I've you'd just heard my story, you'd be a nonbeliever" post.
I think "yes, I have considered your thoughts" is the best way I can give a polite response to one of those type of posts unless I want to get into an argument or a debate, which I find non-helpful.
Understanding is what I am after, not argument and not conversion (of you OR me). To that end, I've developed a style of discussion (not that I always stick to it, but I do try), that attempts non-debate, and emphasizes questions and de-emphasizes statements that are non "I"-statements. (As in, 'I feel this', or 'I think that'."
I have come here on what I recognize is a primarily Christian blog, to comment on a story about atheism. I realize I am somewhat of an outsider here... so I come with some groundrules of my own that keep me on my best behavior. I don't come here to convert.
My main rules are that I will answer any question about me or my beliefs, but by the same token I ask to be asked, not told, what I believe, and I will gently parry away attempts to convert me, rather than respond in kind with an attempt to convert believers.
I don't have time to fight out my one-thousand-and-first failed conversion attempt.
I've got a black-belt in internet religion debating. It's not what I'm here for.
Yeah--I understand--I used to frequent an atheist blog for awhile, so it was in those exchanges that I learned about what Christians get wrong about atheism. Which is why I encourage the exchange because it is something I want Christians to understand. I tend to cringe at the typical stereotypes, and I do think attempts to understand each other are far more productive than attempts to convert each other. Too many stereotypes being thrown back and forth at each other--not near enough dialogue.
I can understand why you would be tired of it, though. I do think on this site, you will probably find more open-minded dialogue than you might in most Christian sites. Many of the regulars here come from a very broad range of perspectives on Christianity and tend away from a black and white approach to the world. So hopefully you'll stick around a bit! We can be snarky, but we're overall a friendly bunch.
Yeah--I understand--I used to frequent an atheist blog for awhile, so it was in those exchanges that I learned about what Christians get wrong about atheism. Which is why I encourage the exchange because it is something I want Christians to understand. I tend to cringe at the typical stereotypes, and I do think attempts to understand each other are far more productive than attempts to convert each other. Too many stereotypes being thrown back and forth at each other--not near enough dialogue.
I can understand why you would be tired of it, though. I do think on this site, you will probably find more open-minded dialogue than you might in most Christian sites. Many of the regulars here come from a very broad range of perspectives on Christianity and tend away from a black and white approach to the world. So hopefully you'll stick around a bit! We can be snarky, but we're overall a friendly bunch.
I took a couple of days to think about my response to your post. First, let me say, I'm all for your sentiments about ending poverty, curing malaria, and all that. Good for you, and if you set up a real charity with those goals, I'll certainly contribute. :)
But I really wanted to address the three reasons you think the atheist ad campaign is good.
1. I'm pretty pleased with this statement. So many Christians seem to think they own American culture, it's refreshing to see one who recognizes you have to work for what you get. Again, good for you.
2. Here, you really go wrong. Atheism is in no way "an opposition to belief in god". That would be Antitheism. To be an atheist is to say, "I've heard your story, and I don't believe it". No beliefs, or faith of any kind required.
Now, you asked about purpose, and I think in my answer you can see a clear illustration of the distinction I'm trying to make. I told my parents I was an atheist at about 13, and for 35 years, that was the end of discussion of religion for me. If someone around me got really annoying with god talk, I would just go away. God talk has been a reliable indicator of people to avoid for me. In about the past 2 years however, I learned that my ex-wife has taken my son out of school to home school him in creationism. That was when it became an interest of mine to see religion put in it's place, and I became an antitheist. Does that help? Now, to be clear, if there are folks that get something out of believing in an afterlife and all that, I'm not into denying them. And if you think that it would be a sin for you to be a homosexual for example, I'm all for you having the right to forbid yourself from being one. (good luck with that) But when I see people rioting in the streets over religious precepts stomping on their human rights, then religion has crossed the line. When public schools are having to fight to maintain the integrity of their science curriculum against an onslaught of creationist nonsense, religion has crossed the line. Don't even get me started on the Pope's recent comments on condoms! You guys wanting to impose what you think of as "God's Law" over everyone is just getting way out of hand. Until you knock it off, I, for one, will continue to get in your face.
3. Ahem, call it a conversation if you like. I think the recent ARIS polls have shown that we Atheists have succeeded in letting a lot of people know that it's okay to come out and say, "I don't really buy into all that religion stuff". Now if it turns into a real conversation that brings some real reform to the bronze age attitudes codified in todays religions, I'm all for it. Like I say, I don't really begrudge you whatever comfort believing in a god brings you, as long as you recognize that belief doesn't put you on any moral high ground.
I'll continue checking in with you guys from time to time, I find you refreshing.
I took a couple of days to think about my response to your post. First, let me say, I'm all for your sentiments about ending poverty, curing malaria, and all that. Good for you, and if you set up a real charity with those goals, I'll certainly contribute. :)
But I really wanted to address the three reasons you think the atheist ad campaign is good.
1. I'm pretty pleased with this statement. So many Christians seem to think they own American culture, it's refreshing to see one who recognizes you have to work for what you get. Again, good for you.
2. Here, you really go wrong. Atheism is in no way "an opposition to belief in god". That would be Antitheism. To be an atheist is to say, "I've heard your story, and I don't believe it". No beliefs, or faith of any kind required.
Now, you asked about purpose, and I think in my answer you can see a clear illustration of the distinction I'm trying to make. I told my parents I was an atheist at about 13, and for 35 years, that was the end of discussion of religion for me. If someone around me got really annoying with god talk, I would just go away. God talk has been a reliable indicator of people to avoid for me. In about the past 2 years however, I learned that my ex-wife has taken my son out of school to home school him in creationism. That was when it became an interest of mine to see religion put in it's place, and I became an antitheist. Does that help? Now, to be clear, if there are folks that get something out of believing in an afterlife and all that, I'm not into denying them. And if you think that it would be a sin for you to be a homosexual for example, I'm all for you having the right to forbid yourself from being one. (good luck with that) But when I see people rioting in the streets over religious precepts stomping on their human rights, then religion has crossed the line. When public schools are having to fight to maintain the integrity of their science curriculum against an onslaught of creationist nonsense, religion has crossed the line. Don't even get me started on the Pope's recent comments on condoms! You guys wanting to impose what you think of as "God's Law" over everyone is just getting way out of hand. Until you knock it off, I, for one, will continue to get in your face.
3. Ahem, call it a conversation if you like. I think the recent ARIS polls have shown that we Atheists have succeeded in letting a lot of people know that it's okay to come out and say, "I don't really buy into all that religion stuff". Now if it turns into a real conversation that brings some real reform to the bronze age attitudes codified in todays religions, I'm all for it. Like I say, I don't really begrudge you whatever comfort believing in a god brings you, as long as you recognize that belief doesn't put you on any moral high ground.
I'll continue checking in with you guys from time to time, I find you refreshing.
