The ugly FAITH thread

...Any number of us don't give two shits about Jesus as a divine entity and I would suggest that you keep your PERSONAL relationship with him to yourself. We're free to call him a fraud and you a fool on the basis of OUR personal beliefs, not to mention scholarship.

Otherwise, it quite certainly IS a matter of ramming it down people's throats.

If you want a thread on faith, start one. Don't ambush people just because they live free and independent of your magic prophet. I consider that sort of "relationship" to be a behavioral disorder, akin to young children with imaginary playmates.

...You flail about in this arena because you can't reconcile your idiot Jesus who performs magic tricks raising the dead, etc. with the fact that many people on DU and elsewhere accept the rigors of adult life without the imaginary playmate.

My points have been pointed, but you haven't refuted any of them.

You've just come back to "faith." That's your construction. Examine my original response to your original post. You will find nothing in it that is hostile or "faith-based."

You encountered people here who disagree with you and you haven't been able to persuade them, except to wobble around in the bubblebath of your own private faith.

Alright, I'll bite. This is the place for everyone to freely "wobble around" in the "bubblebath of your own private faith". Maybe we can have some civil discussion as to the nature of faith and its connection (or lack thereof) to reason. The two excerpts above both came from this forum, which I remind everyone is called the RELIGION & THEOLOGY forum. If we can't have a civil discussion about faith in this forum then we're a pretty sad lot. Maybe we should change the forum name to ATHEISTS & THEISTS GONE WILD.

So have at it, let's talk about that stupid faith that I hide behind when I can't win an argument...maybe we can all learn something.

you attack, someone else attacks...

I would rather see atheists assert their beliefs or lack thereof as opposed to the alternative which is how it is in society in general (at least where I live) where such discussion is not acceptable.

I love discussion and I love the assertion of beliefs, my point was not to discuss the poster who inspired the thread, I was merely taking him up on his suggestion that we start a thread to talk about faith, maybe we can even talk about faith without being accused of hiding! All those of faith, come out of your closets!

What is the relationship of faith to reason? Are they mutually exclusive? Does faith negate intelligence, or does faith come from wisdom? What is the difference between knowledge, intelligence, and wisdom and where does faith interact with each? Let's talk about faith, which on this forum has become a bad word. It's what theists retreat to when they are defeated. Why do people get offended when I suggest that they have retreated to empiricism when confronted with the spiritual realm? I'm not offended by the comments in the original post, I just want to start a good discussion and clear the air around here.

Not making the distinction is what causes a lot of ill feelings.

I will readily make that distinction. I guess my frustration is that there are a lot of people who do not seem to be interested in learning anything around here. I have enjoyed all of my discussions with you, I have a lot of respect for you. I will gladly listen to what you have to say and offer my opinions. What is sad is that there are quite a few people who are content to lob bombs without any regard for the advancement of civil discourse. I at least think that we should be able to discuss religious faith on a religion & theology forum without undue interruption. Isn't it more helpful to listen to me explain my faith and why I believe the way I do? Why not ask me questions about my faith rather than blow it up at first sight? I listen to you becuase I respect your intelligence and I'm interested in the atheistic worldview. A little peace would go a long way in making this forum a bit more useful. Also, I realize this happens on both sides, I'm not going to make excuses for some of the comments coming fromn theists.

Atheist hostility towards theists - and here in the USA, Christians in particular - stems from the dominance of the religion and the stated (and demonstrated) desire to use the full force of government to enforce their religious dogma and morality on all the rest of us.

Most of us fully understand that there are liberal Christians who do not support the "Moral Majority"'s agenda. But you liberal Christians sure are having a tough time convincing the rest of your theological brothers and sisters of the error of their ways, aren't you?

Many atheists see that as an, perhaps THE, inherent weakness of theistic belief. There is no touchstone - no agreed-upon foundation by which to judge claims. Oh, wait, you've got the bible, right? A holy book that is so full of fables and folklore and written in such an obscure and contradictory way that you can literally justify just about anything based on a certain reading of it. And throughout history to the current day, just about anything HAS.

This atheist wishes that personal faith could just remain that - PERSONAL. I know that it's a key feature of your system to evangelize and spread the "good news." Chances are, most of us in the US have already heard it. Work on your wayward flock in the Republican party - your efforts are much better spent there than trying to understand us atheists.

First, for the sake of the discussion let's define some terms. What you are calling "Liberal Christianity" is actually "Orthodox Christianity" or, even better, just plain old "Christianity". I'm hesitant to add a qualifier to my faith because some heretics have hijacked it. The Church has survived numerous heresies in its history, it will survive this one too.

I disagree with your last paragraph, at least in terms of how it applies to this forum. If you want faith to be personal, why assert that claim on a forum devoted to the very open and public discussion of religion & theology? If you, as an atheist, wish to avoid talk about faith and evangelism and conversion, isn't it easier to just ignore the forum where people actually want to discuss these things? I think it is helpful for me to defend Christianity because I believe a lot of people have a warped and confused view of my faith because of the current heretical movements.

I'm not posting here to try and convert atheists, I'm posting about my faith in a forum created for such discourse in the hopes of generating some good conversation. The stereotyping of Christianity is counter-productive and tends to squash good topics. And if anyone doesn't want to hear about my faith in the religion forum, then why are they here in the first place? Do they just want to argue with me?

What you are calling "Liberal Christianity" is actually "Orthodox Christianity" or, even better, just plain old "Christianity".

Christianity is what its followers make of it. In the middle ages, it was the Spanish Inquisition and burning heretics.

I'm hesitant to add a qualifier to my faith because some heretics have hijacked it.

Well, they're more than willing to add qualifiers to your faith because they think YOU hijacked it. That's kind of my point.

The Church has survived numerous heresies in its history, it will survive this one too.

True, but each heresy has generally made "the Church" weaker and more fragmented. Because one group felt like calling the action "heresy" and one felt it was "orthodox."

If you want faith to be personal, why assert that claim on a forum devoted to the very open and public discussion of religion & theology? If you, as an atheist, wish to avoid talk about faith and evangelism and conversion, isn't it easier to just ignore the forum where people actually want to discuss these things?

You say you disagree with my last paragraph, but you failed to address the very last sentence. I stated that your efforts at explaining your faith would be much better spent trying to convince other Christians of the error of their ways than clarifying your faith to other liberal Christians or to atheists. I generally post to this forum when I see blatant religious bigotry or attacks on atheism, or when my opinion as an atheist is sought (not often).

And yes, I think many atheists are here just to pick a fight. I will freely admit I've done that from time to time - mainly because it's the only venue in which we can do so. Speaking out in our real lives will generally result in being shunned, looked down upon, or harassed because "faith" is given such a prominent role in the United States. While Christians are the ones who whine and moan about the secularization of "their" holidays, atheists are the ones who have to single themselves out in a courtroom by asking for a non-religious oath. Who have to spend currency with god graffiti on it. Who live with a national pledge to the flag and country being rewritten to enforce religious beliefs. And who have to deal with many Christians wringing their hands about atheists "scaring" people away from the Democratic party with their "hate speech" rather than analyzing their own religion to find out exactly why the right wing has so easily been able to co-opt it - and FIGHTING THEM.

Your post is understood and I appreciate it. I was hopeful that this forum would be a good place to write some ideas and get some good discussions going so that I would be more effective in doing just what you suggest. I hate the heresies in the church and I want them gone. However, it's hard to get into a discussion of authentic Christianity when the discussion is never allowed to progress past the atheism vs. theism rift.

This site is not exactly a haven for the Christian fundamentalists, is it? How exactly am I supposed to change the heretics from this position? This is where I come to discuss my faith and hone it, not where I come to fight heretical doctrine. I think my time here is better spent laying out a good picture of true Christianity because the people you want me to preach to aren't here. I know that atheists think I'm deluded and irrational, do I have to be reminded of it every time I post about faith?

Is it to have a "good discussion" with non-believers on the merits of faith, or is it to reclaim your religion from those you label heretics?

I wouldn't say those are diametrically opposed to each other, but clearly the information you would take from atheists is not going to help you with the latter goal. What works for non-believers is never going to convince a believer, so what exactly do you hope to take away from this thread?

I don't think a discussion on DU will do much of anything to help fundamentalists, they don't exactly flock here. I'll summarize my goal like this: I want to be able to get into a serious discussion about faith, Christian doctrine, and related subjects without constantly answering the question of why I believe a myth. We all know how atheists view religion and we all know how theists view atheism yet we blindly argue it back and forth ad nauseum. I want to aknowledge the rift, move on, and get into a deeper discussion on issues of faith. I didn't expect this forum to necessarily morph into a theism/atheism joint, I thought it would be more focused on religion and theology. Any clash of atheism/theism becomes a clash between rational/irrational, physical/metaphysical, worldly/divine. As I've said before, the argument doesn't move much past that. It's like we're sitting in different stadiums watching different games and each thinks the other is watching the same game. Maybe we should suspend our disbelief in the forest and focus on the trees for a little bit just as an educational exercise! :)

do you expect to take out of this discussion some tools that would assist you in correcting your right-wing Christian cohorts?

But anyway, I still fail to see what exactly you're trying to get at. It's kind of like you're saying, "OK, atheists, we know you don't believe, so let's put that aside and assume we all DO believe and let's discuss that."

As for the first part, no.

For the second, that's almost correct. Isn't anyone interested in Christian doctrine? Can we suspend the theism/atheism debate and learn about faith a bit? Do you think that because you are an atheist it does you no good to understand Christianity? If there's one thing I've discovered on this forum its that many people do not have a proper understanding of authentic Christianity. I would learn more by spending an hour listening to 20 atheists talk in a room than I would by walking in the room and immediately engaging them in argument.

Born & raised Lutheran (ELCA). The can of worms you just opened is implying that no one could have rejected "authentic Christianity". No, I'm sure you didn't mean that, but look back over that sentence and tell me how it could not be interpreted that way.

That was not what I meant at all. I said many people don't have an understanding of authentic Christianity. That does not mean that you don't understand and most importantly, it doesn't have anything at all to do with whether or not they accept or reject it. I know many people who have a very good understanding of Christianity and have rejected it. I opened no such can of worms. But when others routinely mis-characterize my faith I tend to assume that they don't accurately understand it. Now a thread on Lutheranism, that would be interesting. Luther was certainly an interesting guy, lots of unorthodox ideas however.

But of course that's beside the point. :)

I've already brought this up, so I don't know what restating it will do, but what the hey - the whole concept of "authentic Christianity" is bogus. What is authentic to you is false to another Christian. You can point to bible verses, articles of your own faith, etc. to justify your view, BUT the fundie can do exactly the same thing. With the same fervor and love.

All you can ever show is what constitutes Ando's Christianity. And so asking an atheist to accept YOUR version as the TRUE version is always going to be problematic. It's an inherent problem with defending a particular theistic worldview.

You're exactly right about Luther, there was a good whitewashing of him. As for the rest of your post, it's all old turf. I remarked to you way back on another thread that I can only offer you my experiences. If you lived here however, I could offer you a church that thinks like I do. If you're interested, I can offer up a whole Church movement that I identify myself with. It's called Every Nation Ministries (used to be called Morning Star International). Do your own research, but that is my spiritual family. and to me it is authentic.

Not everyone is a Christian. Not everyone considers Jesus to be a god. I'm UU and I consider Jesus to be a spiritual leader, just a guy. Saying "faith" means that one must accept something without evidence. My UU church has educated people so evidence is always sought to give meaning to life. By saying that someone must accept something on faith without evidence of anything and condemn a person that won't do so is insulting.

poster that wants those of faith to agree that his lack of faith is the "correct" personal belief, and wants to discuss his "scholarship" that proves that.

You can not argue with those that do not not know English or the limits of logic.

But just for fun, ask him what his creation myth is! :-)

If he says science - point out that such science ideas that exist require proven to be unprovable faith (or if you like assertions of assumptions).

If he says "to be learned in the future", just smile, congratulate him on his faith, and walk away.

both you and the quoted poster seem to be more concerned with the joy of sniping than the reason you are sniping.

Or is it just truth?

Is not demanding a "proof of god" discussion, or a "proof of no god" discussion, also sniping? (God forbid we discuse faith in no good requires no proof or faith because that would be asking someone to prove a negative - actually that would be a fun discussion as we turn to the latest string theory and note how similiar the "no god" position is as to the logic behind it and the "metaphysical" philosophy called string theory - or advance physics string theory if no proof will ever be possible ideas need a science name in front so as to not call them "metaphysical" :-) )

Does not sniping mean pointless attack usually lacking in logic?

pseudologic with bizarre posits, made up axioms, and highly subjective definitions is not logic.

It is sniping - you were giving someone ammunition were you not?

As for the rest, I go all Charlie Brown when someone starts comparing their articles of faith to the proofs of science. Wa waa wa waaa wa waaa.

Apples and oranges, you really shouldn't try to coopt scientific language and call it logic. Just stick to simple statements of faith - because pseudointellectualism hurts your cause.

word was the best swearword to use - kept them out of trouble all the way through high school! Now I teach the grandkids the same concept.

"made up axioms" - someone needs a dictionary so as to learn what an "axiom" is. Indeed if an Axiom is a "given" by higher authority, we have a faith in God discussion. If not, it is "made up".

"coopt scientific language and call it logic" in a discussion of faith is what most of the athiest versus the other faith discussions are all about.

I will wait and watch to see how this one is different.

Faith is a personal feeling, it's not something you "hide behind", it's part of what makes us who we are.

Everyone has faith in something, whether it be in God and his son Jesus, or the Power Ball.

But I don't feel the need to explain my faith to anyone else, they can either accept it or reject, either way what someone else feels
has no bearing on my faith or belief.


Remember that Jesus told the Apostles to shake off the dust of any place that did not want to hear his word.

Wrong. Religious faith and practical faith are two completely different beasts. Think of "faith in god" vs. "faith that when I sit on this chair it won't break". Same kind of faith or different?

trotsky:
"Wrong. Religious faith and practical faith are two completely different beasts. Think of "faith in god" vs. "faith that when I sit on this chair it won't break". Same kind of faith or different?"

The same to those with religious faith. Faith is faith.

Faith can be a relative matter, too, sometimes shaken. That chair might break if I sit on it. One never knows, do one?

People with religious faith like to equate the two.

But they are quite different. Faith that a chair will hold you up can be verified. Faith in a god cannot, and indeed for many religions, is not ALLOWED to be verified.

This is a great example of the divide between you and I. I will grant your post and I completely agree with it. The really wacky part is that my belief in God is more real to me than the belief that this chair will hold me up. I would sooner dismiss the idea that I can't walk through walls than dismiss God. That's the part that drives you nuts. And the fact that you won't aknowledge a spiritual realm drives me nuts. That's the crux of nearly every thread on this forum. the reason religious people equate these two beliefs is because to them there isn't a difference in the passion with which the beliefs are held. It's really very simple. How many ways can we flesh out the same dichotomy?

My position is that the observations of believers are valid. In as much as they are having experiences and sensations. However I contend with their conslusions regarding the relevance of their experiences. Instead of looking to external sources such as gods, souls, and spirits, I look to the place where these experiences actually occurr. In the mind.

Everything we experience is in the mind. Even reality is slightly delayed to our mind. It takes real time for our senses to report their experience to our mind. Thus we do not experience reality directly. It is recreated for us by our brains and played forth for us on our minds eye.

Thus the question becomes one of explaining what these spiritual experiences believers really are having.

Electrons do it all the time - if they didn't, we wouldn't have transistors. Technically the odds of it happening for a collection of particles as massive as a human being are astronomically low, but it *could* happen.

By the way, I would acknowledge a spiritual realm if I was provided evidence of one, or could even be convinced that one was necessary.

I can give you a few tidbits, but I'm not sure you would trust my info! I've seen cancer immediately healed as a result of prayer, no signs that it was ever there. The doctors had no explanation. I know many friends in the ministry who consistently receive anonymous donations of funds in the exact amount which is needed. I know a minister who prayed because he was poor and needed 2 suits. His father, who hadn't bought him anything in years, came to him and offered to buy him 2 suits out of the blue. These to me are evidence, to you they're probably just circumstance, random chance, or made up. But they might help you, who knows!

1) As humans, we have a tendency to remember the hits and forget the misses. So you've seen a case of cancer healed as a result of prayer. There have been millions of cases of cancer that weren't affected by prayer, and people suffered horribly. You will never consider those proof against your faith, but you will take the single case of a "healing" as proof for it. This is also called cherry-picking your evidence.

2) Everything you mention could easily have a mundane explanation. Perhaps the cancer patient was misdiagnosed in the first place. Maybe a church member overheard the pastor talking about an expense, and put the exact amount in the collection plate. And it could be the father had heard his son was about to get a job or look for one, and buying a man in that situation a suit is certainly not uncommon. Why assume a supernatural explanation when a profane one will do? This is sometimes referred to as Occam's Razor.

3) There are people being raped, murdered, abused, and starving at every moment of the day. And yet I'm supposed to be swayed because somebody's dad bought them a couple of suits out of the blue? Any god that would choose to grant such ridiculously minor wishes while doing nothing to alleviate real pain and suffering is NOT worthy of my worship.

Believe me, I've heard plenty of these "miracle" stories. Save 'em for the choir. Tell your god to grant me perfect 20/20 vision when I wake up tomorrow morning. I guarantee you I'd believe then!

Trotsky:
"But they are quite different. Faith that a chair will hold you up can be verified. Faith in a god cannot, and indeed for many religions, is not ALLOWED to be verified.'

I think you are mixing up faith and proof.

and what might constitute verification to me may not constitute verification to you. And that doesn't bother me.

I have presented my ideas on it elsewhere. But unless we all come to a conclusion about the differences we are going to be hopelessly trapped in semantic arguments ad infinitum.

That's the best definition I have found.

--IMM

I have no need to proselytize the merits of my atheistic views. I just expect treatment in kind.

The problem is that some sects of some faiths feel it is their calling to bring more people to the faith by whatever means necessary and the net result is that they inevitably get involved in government and the rest of our personal lives through legislation, through whacko judicial appointments and through voting in a bloc to support "moral values", a.k.a., legalize discrimination against a very sizable group of Americans.

If you are an atheist, particularly a secular humanist (a philosophy, not a faith), such subtle and not-so-subtle attacks can start to seem pervasive, personal, and relentless, and we find ourselves overly sensitive to any discussion of religion, even among ourselves.

I certainly wish we'd stop the circular firing squad thing, but the DU creationists and ID fashionistas aren't helping matters. Those views have no place in a discussion of science, any more than Darwinism has a place of discussion in the bible.

I hope everyone gets that, or just be prepared for the beatings to continue.

need to proselytize the merits of your beliefs - it is just that secular humanist philosophy seems attacked by those of faith (why do you believe that those of faith attack as a concept something called secular humanist philosophy - or indeed why atheistic views are more under attack than any other variation of faith? By the way, I agree atheistic questions certainly fit well in a Religion & Theology group, as it is most certainly a belief system).

Does string theory, or QM, or Dark energy, have a place in the discussion of science?

Where does faith end and science begin?

I always thought all the science that one could do was to produce a reproducible experiment - and if you are on to something, use an explanation from that experiment to create another reproducible experiment that indicated you were on to something.

And then we discuss what the "something" really is.

:-)

To expect kind treatment from scientists for the attempt to put a non-scientific line of thinking into a scientific text is as absurd as it would be for a scientist to expect no outcry for putting Darwinism into biblical teachings. In my science class we do not teach the bible or its derivatives. In your bible class feel free to not teach Darwinism.

Your own argument can be used against you. If there is a big fuzzy line between science and faith, then get ready for me to rewrite the bible, the King Sui version. How ya like them apples? :evilgrin:

is really 99% based on faith.

Feel free to rewrite the Bible.

There are many paths, and I sincerely hope you find yours - and if putting your thoughts down on paper helps - have at it!

And your science class should not use the bible - last I looked the were few math proofs or reproducible experiments in the Bible.

:-)

now I wish some theists would ask themselves why atheists are so angry all the time, and you will probably come up with some insight.

In my experience, if there is one thing people of every faith agree upon it is concordant disdain for the "lost" souls of atheists.

As an atheist myself I could care less what other people believe unless it crosses over into government or impacts my personal life. When "traditional" marriage becomes an issue that keeps me from managing my property or having a legal family, it's fucking war.

When "morality" is defined by a narrow minded group of people who want to impose their narrow minded views upon everyone around them using the full force of the law, the battle lines are drawn.

It is really difficult for us sometimes to distinguish the nuance of one religious belief system from all of them, and so the fighting becomes an attack taken personally by both sides, and with good cause.

Here on DU I think we would all do better to limit discussion of religion or lack of it to how it impacts politics in the context of how politics impacts our personal lives. It sets a dividing line that should keep "us liberals" from trying to kill each other and focus on the real issues.

Personally I don't think any soul is lost, in the end it's God that makes the final decision, but that's me.

I know people who are atheists, and the things that anger them also anger me. I don't believe in shoving my beliefs down someone else's throat either.

I fully support the entire concept of the seperation of church and state, in reality this so called "traditional" marriage should be called what it really is "Biblical" marriage. The word traditional
means different things to different people. In Hawaii the tradition
of marriage is different then it is in Pennsylvania, Islamic tradition allows for more then one wife, providing the husband can provide for each one, Christian and Jewish marriages are different, and let's not forget those who are married by judges. If two people wish to marry, then it should be allowed, with the only exception being placed on people with a family relationship with eahc other.

Morality, what a funny word, to those that support the war, it's okay to kill Iraqi children, but abortion is murder. And when you point this out to them, they refuse to see their own hypocrisy.

So while I am a theist and you an atheist, I would stand at your side and defend your beliefs just as strongly as I would defend mine.

:-)

Problem #1 is that most of the arguments on this forum result from stereotyping the opposition. You said: In my experience, if there is one thing people of every faith agree upon it is concordant disdain for the "lost" souls of atheists. When you think this its hard to start a discussion from a level playing field. I'm an Orthodox Christian (Orthodox in terms of doctrine, I'm neither Catholic nor Greek Orthodox) and I don't have a "disdain" for your "lost" soul. You are a human just like me, no different. Do I think you're wrong? Yes. Does that make you my enemy? No. Does my faith contain a call to evangelize? Yes. That doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to ram anything down your throat. I can only offer my own experiences and you can do with them what you like. I don't think all atheists hate or disdain Christians, don't think all Christians disdain your lost soul. The Christian goal of becoming more like Jesus every day certainly prohibits that line of thinking, Jesus disdained no man. The people who disdain you have no mandate or authority to identify themselves with my faith.

and fairly rare outside of the liberal community. My point is exactly that it is difficult to distinguish. My stereotype is indeed a stereotype of a very certain kind of person though, and unfortunately that certain kind of person usually sees no harm with religion in government and the bedroom.

Similarly, "evangelizing" has many connotations. I have always been gentle with the people who come to my door on a Saturday morning, bibles in hand, and they have graciously never pushed the issue after I told them I wasn't interested.

However there are some who see government as the ultimate way to enforce their beliefs on everyone around them, and their proselytizing isn't confined to the occasional polite conversation. They too think they are "pure" Christians and everyone else is a pretender. Those people are the ones that make some atheists (and some believers) see red. And then we all come here and growl at each other! Go figure.

:toast:

:-)

I agree with you completely. Both sides see red meat on this forum, the meat is soon ripped to shreds before anyone can even attempt to make a steak out of it or try to share it with others. I started this thread as a sort of quiet protest against the attack/defend threads that have dominated this forum. I can't even get one paragraph into what I believe without having to defend, defend, defend. I don't mind doing that but it's a bit annoying in a religion & theology forum. Doesn't anyone want to understand my faith in its entirety? We can argue the first point, namely theism/atheism, for ages (and we have!) but that does nothing to further an understanding of authentic Christianity. I'll admit that I've lurked in the atheist and agnostic group in an attempt to learn more about that worldview. Can't we move beyond the pink unicorns here and get to the meat of faith? It would make for good discussion!

The idea behind post modern society is that by not allowing one belief system to hold power over any other it enables a functioning society and opens to door for communication.

Unfortunately the fact of the matter is that while the society has been able to function for a time the communication between the sides never occurred. There were attempts initially but eventually each group fell back into their own little camps and began forming misinformed opinions about all the other camps.

We now have the stage set where the more aggressive camps are prepared to throw aside the social contract that has allowed our society to function.

The only path we have to salvage this society is to tear down the walls of silence and begin the dialog with various opposing sides. Yes its going to be messy. We don't have a lot of experience communicating with each other. We have been silent for too long. But the alternative is worse.

and came up against faiths for which the term "bizarre" is horribly inadequate.

I got to the point where I didn't care if they flicked their Bic and worshiped the flame. If they believed it was going to help them get better, it was fine with me. The body-mind connection is too important to ignore and for believers, faith can make all the difference.

Whatever it takes to be a believer is something I simply don't have. So don't push anything at me, don't try to ram your god(s) down my throat, don't bother testifying. It won't do any good.

I promise I'll return the favor by not preaching the benefits of atheism to you without your permission.

That's what freedom of religion is all about, isn't it?

And the why and what that gives it importance has to do with spirit(for lack of a better term). The realm of this very real thing "spirit" is the crux of the God problem. Connecting to this in meaningful and transformative ways cannot be understood until some of the transformation has occured. This is an important distinction in types of human understanding.

It reminds me of the day I learned how to ride a bicycle. How I suddenly 'got it', after a brutally stubborn and bloody struggle... leaving me forever changed. I sat on the curb marvelling at my monumental epiphany: I had become different, in a truly meaningful way, and was instantly superior to whom I had been an hour before.

I think it's fine for atheists to say what they think about religious belief. Is it also fine for theists to say what they think about the atheistic materialist worldview? Most of philosophy after all, at its core, is really about whether this worldview can possibly be true.

At any rate, suppose someone were to post the text below. Not that I would myself, but just suppose someone did. Would that be ok with atheists? Of course, they wouldn't agree with it---but they'd think there's nothing wrong with simply communicating such opinions? Just asking.


1) I think the atheistic materialist worldview has been shown repeatedly to be replete with logical fallacies, and to be a rationally unwarranted, multiply incoherent, and systematically self-refuting philosophical belief system. I think that it is clung to as a blind faith, rather than on the basis of reason. One certainly can't prove it true by scientific means, and even the idea that one might be able to one day reveals a fundamental error in reasoning. It's not proven or provable by science, yet it proposes empirical science as the only valid test of rational belief---a test the materialist worldview itself logically cannot pass. Even rational argument of a more general philosophical kind shows that it's without a rationally justified foundation, has huge problems of logical coherence and adequacy to the data, and that it generates the most bizarre ontological and epistemological consequences.

2) I think most atheists in fact hold their views dogmatically, are dreadfully ill-informed about science, philosophy and theology, and that their atheism typically has non-rational, and not infrequently profoundly irrational, motives.

3) The record of militantly atheist political regimes is horrific---the worst, in fact, in the whole of human history--worse even than that of the Nazis.

4) My personal experience of debating atheists is that they are usually angry cranks, dunces when it comes to logical thinking, ludicrously ignorant of relevant subject-matter, and incredibly childish and emotional rant-merchants. I have long since lost all intellectual respect for their views, and despise their moronic attempts to browbeat religious believers with their arrant nonsense.

But it is unreasonable not to expect a reaction to such statements. The freedom to express and exchange ideas carries with it an expectation of reaction. Do not presume that one's right to free speech precludes the right of another to be angered by it.

We are our minds. We are defined by what they are. Understanding the function and operation of the mind is clearly imperitive to understanding our natures.

Our brains collect experience. They associate these experiences with emotional values. Fire HOT. Little bug walking over there not so important. As this collection of experience and emotional weight accumulate we begin to inccur conflicts of ideas. To settle such internal conflicts our brain applies the emotional weight of one particular side against the other. Which ever side prevails becomes to accepted position on that subject. This is belief.

Belief defines how we see the world. It is the filter through which we pass all experience. As our belief builds up it becomes tighter tighter concerning what is acceptable to it and what is not.

As we learn from our parents and teachers they impart some information about how things are supposed to be believed. They create a sort of template in the mind. And because of who they are and the repitition of these lessons we associate a strong emotional weight to them. This particular belief becomes what we call faith.

Faith serves as a learned construct through which we apply additional pressure to our beliefs. Because of its increased import from our parents and teachers it carries more weight than most other beliefs. But the rest of our beliefs may not coincide with what our faith tells us we are supposed to believe.

When such a conflict between the learned dogmatic faith and our own internal belief come into play we feel stress and disorientation. We struggle to correct this. Some struggle to find ways to force their belief to fit their faith. Some come to the conclusion that their faith is uninformed and go on a search to reinforce it or alter it. Others find that their belief overwhelms their faith and they throw off its shackles.

Faith is a belief. But it is a belief about what we are supposed to believe. It is a social construct imparted to us. It is our social circle conveying what is expected of us to be part of that particular group.

First off, I like your posts a lot! You have done much to encourage good discourse on this forum, thanks!

Now to the post, it's very interesting. I want to clarify a few things. Many of the atheists on this forum have had a negative reaction when the word "faith" has been applied to their beliefs. Your post would seem not to agree with that reaction. Do you consider atheism to be a "faith"?

Example: I have known atheists who have converted to Christianity later in life. Is it not true that their Christian "beliefs" overcame their atheistic "faith", causing them to throw off its shackles?

There is an old joke in the atheist community that says "Atheism is to belief like baldness is to hair color." Atheism on its own is a lack of a particular belief. However as the mind operates it is an active belief. Specifically the mind has struggled with the question of god and has come to the conclusion that there does not appear to be a god. This creates a bit of a dilema. On the one hand it is a belief the mind currently holds. But it is not a dogmatic position. It is not an insistance that god does not exist. Merely a recognition that we do not believe that god does exist.

Faith is a slightly different question. A person's journey to atheism is not built on faith. In fact it is often the result of removing faith. But there can be communities of atheists that gather. And in this case a form of template of expecation can form. This could in theory lead to a new faith being brought into the mind. But atheists having already once tossed off a faith seem to be leary to embrace another.

As to atheists converting the a belief system. Our's is a god soaked society. It is impossible to escape the call of God and Jesus' name in our society. This has the effect of continued reinforcement of the faith structure in the mind. Its a simple matter of numbers. Not all atheists are the same. Some are going to be more suseptible to this pressure and may even miss the social aspects of tightly knit structures that come with belief. Religion has been doing its thing for millenia. Its quite good at bringing people into the fold. It is not to be taken lightly.

There are a number of inherant weaknesses to the atheist's life. We do not have well formed social structures. In times of need we do not have an organised emotional support group ready to come to our aid. Of course many pride themself on their lack of need for such things. But it is a benefit lost.

Perhaps if atheism were more the norm than the exception such structures could begin to form. But a population that feels oppressed tend to stay to the shadows and may not even recognise one another in a room. I would like to see a society develop over time that had a more critical mass of nontheists. But then so would anyone prefer to see their own particular social ideals exemplified.

Your earlier post on the nature of belief and faith was spot on in my opinion, I give you a lot of credit for that explanation. You lost me when you continued to put atheism in a category other than faith. All of my conversations with converted atheists have sounded exactly like conversations you would have with converted Christians. It's about leaving a lie in favor of the truth. In that sense I can agree with the letter of what you say, just not the spirit of what you say. If a Christian converts they are moving from faith to lack of faith, if an atheist converts they are moving from lack of faith to faith. That's fine with me and I'm not one who insists on calling atheism a "faith". However, the atheists I know who have converted to Christianity have been villified by those they leave behind, not exactly the reaction of a non-dogmatic mindset.

Any group that forms is going to create a shared understanding of some things. Otherwise there is little reason for the group to stay cohesive.

There are extremely rabid atheist groups. They do form faith of a fashion. And they scare away more atheists than are part of their group. Like fundamentalist Christians they also tend to be more vocal than their less aggressive fellows.

But atheism in and of itself is not a faith position. Just as theism in and of itself is not a faith position. It is groupings and social constucts that give rise to faith positions.

Your point is well made and granted. I guess it would be more helpful to begin to identify atheistic philosophies specifically rather than in general. Atheism vs. Theism only gets you so far, but Christianity vs. Nihilism or Hinduism vs. Secular Humanism opens up a better can of worms with a more equal starting point. Come to think of it, many of the problems I've seen on this board come from comparing atheism (an overall worldview) to Christianity (a doctrine resulting from an overall worldview).

I believe that some people are natural mystics, others are natural empiricists, and most are a mixture of the two. These tendencies appear to exist independently of the person's upbringing. (I base this belief on observation of people from religious families who have become atheists and people from atheist families who have become religious.)

In today's urban society, where there is no social advantage to being religious, I've found that most people who are adherents of a religion are that way for experiential, not logical reasons. That doesn't mean that their faith is invalid--faith has no logic, just as love has no logic, nor does art, in the sense of explaining why one work of art speaks to you on a deep level and another leaves you cold.

It's hard to describe a religious experience to one who hasn't had one. There's a overwhelming sense of peace, warmth, and quiet joy. I don't have such experiences on a frequent basis, just a few times in my life, but they have been profound. The closest non-religious experience I can think of is realizing that you're in love, but it's not exactly like that, either.

When I heard about the Celtic concept of "thin places," places where the supernatural and natural worlds are said to come into contact, I understood immediately what was meant, because I have been in two such places, one inside a church in the U.S. and once on the grounds of a shrine complex in Japan. I haven't talked to anyone else about the shrine complex, but I know that other people have had the same reaction to the U.S. church that I did. With theoretical physics talking about the existence of other dimensions beyond the four that we know and love, who knows what lies beyond our perceptions?

All the major religions exist on several levels of sophisitication. We're most familiar with Christianity and Judaism in this country, but if you go to Japan, you'll find Buddhists who are atheists or agnostics but who find the practice of meditation helpful. alongside people who pray to the bodhisattvas. Folk Hinduism has a whole panoply of gods, but the more sophisticated Hindus believe that they're all manifestations of the same god.

To me, any force that is powerful enough to command the universe is beyond human understanding (I guess I'm with Alexander Pope on this point), and all the world's religions are metaphors. The rituals and other practices are all metaphors as well, and at their best, they bring us into new awareness.

These days, people no longer have "brand loyalty" toward their ancestral religion, so you see a lot of fluidity, with Lutherans becoming Episcopalians (as I did), Baptists becoming Catholics, Methodists becoming Jews, Jews becoming Buddhists, and Episcopalians becoming Eastern Orthodox.

The attraction to one tradition over another is as much emotional as logical. There is no logical reason why my youngest niece, descended from klutzes on both sides, should be so passionate about ballet and so good at it. Similarly, there are so few differences in doctrine between the Lutherans and the Episcopalians that it would hardly seem worth switching, but I find the latter tradition profound and fulfilling and the tradition I grew up in to be somehow cold. It doesn't hurt that I'm in a liberal parish in a liberal denomination, and while people are willing to listen to one another's opinions in discussion groups, there's no required laundry list of beliefs.

I've been rambling, but at least I've stayed on the stated topic of this thread. O8)

Great post, Lydia, and I agree with most of what you say, though I really think that very few people are natural mystics, and the mystical experience is the key to belief, to me. I am also currently in an Episcopal church, but I don't find my outlook shared as few of my fellow church members have had the other experiences that I've had, what I would call the mystical experiences. Many are in the church out of habit, and in the role of a community center more than anything else. They are far more traditional in their beliefs and practices, as liberal as they are, and I don't think that many have really studied or analyzed their beliefs very closely.

you talk about "thin places" and I've experienced many, actually, particularly in beautiful natural environments, and also in spiritual centers of any faith that have a great presence too them. Sometimes the presence is overwhelming.

I wouldn't describe the spiritual experience as either emotional or logical, but something beyond either faculty, almost another sense in the way, and it really defies description. You can't understand it without having it, and if you have it, you believe in it. It is best described in the phrase "the peace that passeth human understanding".

From the beginning of chapter 9, ‘Supernaturalism’, of WORLD WITHOUT DESIGN: THE ONTOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF NATURALISM, by Michael C. Rea, (Oxford University Press, paperback edition, 2004):

I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It is not just that I do not believe in God, and, naturally, hope that I am right in that belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I do not want there to be a God; I do not want the universe to be like that… My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and naturalism of our time. (Thomas Nagel, THE LAST WORD, 1997)

It is no secret that religious belief—particularly belief in the omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God of traditional Judaeo-Christian theism---is frequently greeted with scorn and hostility in academic circles. One often gets the impression that it is philosophical naturalism and the roaring success thereof that motivates the scorn and hostility. The common view seems to be that, because the methods of science are so successful and other methods are not, the only sensible thing to do is to be a naturalist. But once naturalism has been adopted, there is no room for belief in the God of traditional theism since (as we have so far assumed) the methods of science do not legitimate belief in God. As Steven Weinberg intimated at a recent conference on naturalism, belief in God is, from the point of view of naturalism, on a par with belief in fairies.<1>
The idea that naturalism is the only sensible methodological choice for people of our day seems to be the primary motivation behind remarks such as the following:

We cannot use electric lights and the radio and, in the event of illness, avail ourselves of modern medical and clinical means and at the same time believe in the spirit and wonder world of the New Testament. (Bultmann, 1941)

It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet someone who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that. (Dawkins, 1989)

The view in both cases seems to that scientific evidence automatically trumps all other evidence (or at least evidence from all religious texts), and that anyone who thinks otherwise is irrational. However, we observed as early as the Introduction of this book that, in fact, there is absolutely no rational basis for claiming that naturalism is the only sensible methodological choice. Moreover, we have also observed that naturalism is saddled with a variety of consequences that many of us will find extremely unpalatable. This does not, of course, show that it is objectively irrational to accept naturalism; but it does provide some pragmatic reason (the only sort of reason that counts in choosing a research program) to reject it. In light of this, one is tempted to agree with Nagel in thinking that it is hostility toward religion that motivates naturalism rather than the other way round.
Be that as it may, the fact is that, if the arguments in the foregoing chapters are sound, one must embrace a research program that legitimates belief in some sort of supernatural being if one wishes to avoid the consequences of naturalism laid out in Part II. Admittedly, belief in the God of traditional theism is not required or at least not obviously so; but apparently something close will be required. (ibid., pp. 212-213)


<1> Baylor Naturalism Conference, Baylor University, Apr. 2000.

Stuff like this makes me sick to my stomach. :(

Two swigs of that and you'll be up and backbiting again in no time.

Instead you stir the pot in the back alley.

As the author of the above, I stand by every syllable.

A kind thanks to all of you for your heart-warming integrity.

Please be careful and exercise good judgment when quoting or citing the views of other members of this forum. And a general reminder to remember the DU policy on civility and respect when participating on topics of any specific nature
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html#civility