When I Say, “I Am An Atheist”

First time commenter, been reading for a few months now.
I really liked this one.
You have a great blog,keep it up. 😉

When I say, “I’m an Atheist,” I like what can be proven
My feelings do not dictate me — Emotions aren’t that movin’

This line kinda ruins it for me. I always try to point out to religious people that I’m not some cold, hard, fact-obsessed person. I care about what’s true, but I’m pretty damn EMOTIONAL about it! I’m also emotional about a whole lot of other things, such as my boyfriend, my family and how my education is going. I’m an animal, like everyone else, and I think people who think that it’s possible to be completely rational about everything are deluding themselves (or suffer from some odd kind of autism enabling complete emotional detachment).

And I think this is something we need to point out rather than play down, to make religious people realise that we’re just like them.

I get what the author is trying to say by that line – feelings aren’t evidence – but I’ll agree it does make him seem like a robot. Personally, I think robots are cool, but it’s not exactly a nice, friendly thing to imply about atheists in general.

When I say, “I’m an atheist,” I don’t mean I’m some robot;
I have emotions too, y’know — poor logic gets ’em real hot.

That’s my proposed addendum 🙂

Okay…yeah, ditto on the part of emotions. Other than that I liked it and will pass it on.

My advice to the atheist writer – keep the iambic heptameter of the original version and ditch the rhymed couplets which add nothing but extra cheeze.

I think the responses regarding the “heartless” line were hilarious. I, too, dig robots! 😀

I didn’t even notice anything special about the line, except that I agree that emotions are not what move me…to a conclusion about reality.

I saw nothing irritating about the original poem, so that alone wouldn’t frustrate me. But, if it came as part of a barrage of conversion attempts, I suppose I might be tempted to take pen in hand (or keyboard).

Actually, the poem wasn’t what specifically irritated me (although I do find myself repulsed by smarmy religious “art”). It was the fact that a coworker forwarded this to me knowing full well I don’t believe in god or the divinity of Jesus (assuming he actually existed at all) thinking… oh, hmmm… well that’s just it, isn’t it? What *was* she thinking?

How was she expecting me to react? Did she really think I had some kind of misunderstanding about what Christians should be, and that I’d suddenly become enlightened? Would a light bulb suddenly go on, I’d fall to my knees and thank god that this poem had shown me the light, and that it was OK for me to convert to Christianity?

If anything, it’s the religious folks that don’t understand what the non-religious are all about, not the other way around.

That’s what prompted this “cheezy” poem.

😀

Hey, I agree with the sentiment that the emotions line is harsh, but I’d like to point out that people with more suppressed emotions aren’t any less human.

‘Arrorgant and judgemental Christians that we all dislike so much’

I know one Christian who was portrayed as extremely judgemental.

And he was arrogant enough to demand to be worshipped.

His name begins with a J.

Dave Mason was annoyed about being sent the poem.

He should remember that many Christians try to reflect the character of Jesus.

Happily, there are many, many Christians where I cannot see Jesus in them.

Pastor Mike Clawson is one Christian in whom I cannot recognise Jesus.

For example. Mike would sooner cut off his right arm than greet somebody who came to him for help with the words ‘O wicked and unbelieving generation. How long must I put up with you?’

How long must I put up with you?’

I can think of at least one person Mike (and others) might be sorely tempted to greet that way.

MONKEYMIND
I can think of at least one person Mike (and others) might be sorely tempted to greet that way.

CARR
Well, perhaps there’s a bit of Jesus in all of us.

Mike C said,

October 11, 2007 at 1:35 am

I thought that guy was Jewish.

Yeah, I’m pretty sure Jesus, by definition, cannot be a Christian.

OK we agree that Jesus was not a Christian. So why do so many Christians get bent when someone isn’t a Christian? Esp if it’s THEIR definition of a Christian. I’ve seen second one so many times too. It makes no sense if Jesus was not a Christian.

Dave Mason was annoyed about being sent the poem.

He should remember that many Christians try to reflect the character of Jesus.

Happily, there are many, many Christians where I cannot see Jesus in them.

Pastor Mike Clawson is one Christian in whom I cannot recognise Jesus.

For example. Mike would sooner cut off his right arm than greet somebody who came to him for help with the words ‘O wicked and unbelieving generation. How long must I put up with you?’

Steven Carr,

Your accusation toward Mike C. refers to somebody “who came to him for help.” In this instance, your accusation only holds if your motivation for coming to him was to receive help, as opposed to engaging in a fight of some type. If your motivation honestly was to receive help, I would try asking him again in a different way, in a different setting, in a fashion that evokes trust. I bet he responds differently to someone who clearly comes for help rather who seems to be coming for another fight.

When I say, “I am a Christian,” I’m not claiming to be perfect

JESUS in Matthew 5:48
‘Be perfect’

Why do Christians boast about not trying to obey their Lord and Saviour?

Carr, there is a difference between a boast and an admission. Boasting that I’m not perfect though I should be is different from admitting I’m not perfect when I’m obviously not. Also, you specifically stated that she was boasting about “not trying to obey.” There is a difference between not trying to obey and not obeying. She is not saying that she does not try to be perfect, rather that she recognizes that she is not perfect yet.

I have trouble understanding even basic French, because I don’t speak the language. Are you having trouble understanding even basic statements of common humilty?

P.S. I’m not interested in filling in the pauses in a monologue, so if your response to this indicates that we are having a dialogue (IMO) I will continue in response. If it does not (IMO), I will not continue. I look forward to a productive dialogue, Carr.

I merely meant that Mike C. was not as judgemental and hypocritical as the Jesus of the Bible, and would not term calling his friends ‘Satan’ as ‘love’ (in the way that Peter was allegedly called Satan by Jesus)

‘She is not saying that she does not try to be perfect, rather that she recognizes that she is not perfect yet. ‘

Yes, Jesus came to give us rules we could not live by.

OK we agree that Jesus was not a Christian. So why do so many Christians get bent when someone isn’t a Christian? Esp if it’s THEIR definition of a Christian. I’ve seen second one so many times too. It makes no sense if Jesus was not a Christian.

Mriana, I just meant that if the term “Christian” means “follower of Christ” or “imitator of Christ” (more literally “little Christ”), then Christ could not be a follower or imitator of himself.

Mriana, Keith, I think you’re missing the point of Steven Carr’s little monologues. He does not think Jesus is a nice person. He thinks that anyone who thinks Jesus is a nice person is sadly misled. So when he says that Mike C. is not like Jesus, he is actually trying to say that he is a nice person, while simultaneously slamming him for being a deluded fool. Neat trick, huh?

The Bible verse he quotes, “O wicked and unbelieving generation. How long must I put up with you” is meant to show that Jesus was very mean to a family that came to him for help.
This is the entire passage from Mathew from some Bible site that I already closed the window so sorry no URL:

14 When they came to the crowd, a man came up to Jesus, falling on his knees before Him and saying, 15 “Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is a lunatic and is very ill; for he often falls into the fire and often into the water. 16 “I brought him to Your disciples, and they could not cure him.” 17 And Jesus answered and said, “You unbelieving and perverted generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring him here to Me.” 18 And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him, and the boy was cured at once.
19 Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, “Why could we not drive it out?” 20 And He said to them, “Because of the littleness of your faith; for truly I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.

So, whatever you think of supernatural cures and faith healing, it’s pretty clear that Jesus was rebuking his disciples for not doing enough to help the boy. The story doesn’t say what the family’s reaction was, but I’m guessing they didn’t spend too much time analyzing the interaction after Jesus said “Bring him here to me.”

Maybe Jesus could be faulted here for not using best management practices for team leadership. But hey, we already know that he never reached his full earning potential.

Mike C said,

October 11, 2007 at 1:35 am

I thought that guy was Jewish.

Yeah, I’m pretty sure Jesus, by definition, cannot be a Christian.

This reminds me of a fun little exercise. Mike C, or anyone, go around and ask if King David or Solomon or Moses was a Christian. You’re bound to get some funny replies. 🙂 Or, bonus Q, was Noah or Job Jewish?

I didn’t interpret anyting negative in what Carr said about Mike C, it sounded like a compliment, albeit a convoluted one. I don’t know where some are getting the idea that he was calling MC “deluded.”

I can see what Steve Carr is saying:
I think back to John the Baptist calling the Pharisees vipers and to JC calling that Syro-Phoenician woman who came beggin JC to heal her daughter a DOG and I think most xians today are way better than their leader.

JC also told a guy who wanted to “bury his father” (I know it’s figurative) to let the dead bury their own dead, and that unless you HATE your mother father, etc. you are unworthy of him. It pains me to say it but I think he was a bit of a mental case, assuming these weren’t all different people saying these things.

Hence the often-experienced feeling of people talking past each other.

Yeah, I don’t find it hard to believe that you often experience this feeling. I would be surprised if you only experience it with Christians however. I have seen it happen with you and other non-believers on this site.

It is sad when someone you want to be your friend won’t play the game you want to play. 🙁 Sometimes though, you just have to let it go.

All the more reason to suspect that not everything that is attributed to Jesus is what he said, Richard. We don’t really know at this point what he said.

Maybe as God in the flesh he might sometimes have a headache or gas or something.

“Was that something I ate or is it just the holy spirit rumbling around again?”

Mike is right.
Sometimes you have to stop being ‘nice’ and call people ‘unbelievers’, and tell your friends that you love that they are ‘Satans’.

Mike does that all the time 🙂

Mike C said,

October 12, 2007 at 1:27 am

Thanks for coming to my defense y’all, but really, none of you should assume what I would or wouldn’t say to others. I’m not always a “nice” guy, and frankly Jesus wasn’t always “nice” either. Sometimes there are more important things to be than “nice”. In fact, sometimes being loving actually requires being the opposite of “nice”. (And if you can’t think of any instances where that might be true, try imagining just a little harder. I’m sure something will come to you.)

I didn’t say anything about being nice. Who said Jesus was nice? I said helping and love (one not always nice even though they love someone). 😆

I’m sure Mike can take care of himself and he probably can be Rev Dirty Harry when he wants to be. 😆 I like that. I can see some liberal ministers actually saying that, even Spong, esp if they were debating someone- be they atheists or right-wing theists.

We live in a universe that is entirely too complex and entirely too precise to not believe in a Divine Creator. Until science comes up with a better theory, the report of Genesis is by far the best one that we have to go by.

I do not believe that true atheism should result in “I must treasure every day” thinking. I believe that true atheism should result in acute paranoia. If the earth has the precise gravity it has by chance – little enough that we move freely, yet strong enough that we do not float away – then tomorrow it could just as easily change one way or the other.
And if the precision of the earth’s orbit around the sun is by chance – close enough not to freeze, yet far enough not to burn – then tomorrow we could either be an icycle or roast.

Human beings are so infinitely complex and precise that evolution cannot explain one millionth of the story.

And then there is the evidence for Jesus. That so many were willing to die for Him because they witnessed Him raised from the dead. That there were such drastic changes in the lives of the apostle Paul and James the brother of Jesus. That Christianity spread like wild fire in the face of multitudes of martyrs. That every heart today hears the voice of Jesus and the presence of the all-powerful God.

There are questions that I cannot answer about God. I do not know why He allows the great amount of suffering in this world. I do not know a lot of things about Him and will not know until this body is done with and this life is over. But I would rather live with those unanswered questions than to live ignoring the others I mentioned as I did when I was an atheist and when I was agnostic.

Once I realized that I was using God-given wisdom to explain away God and wallow in wickedness. Once I realized that there were greater pleasures available both in this life and the next. And once I gave God and His Son Jesus Christ the slightest chance to be true, I was overwhelmed by the evidence everywhere I look in this world that they do rule the universe.

I do not believe that true atheism should result in “I must treasure every day” thinking. I believe that true atheism should result in acute paranoia.

As with your theism, just because you believe it should be so, doesn’t mean that’s the way things are. The atheists I know are no more paranoid than anyone else.

The only other thing I’ll add is that people have always been willing to die in horrific ways for causes, whether that cause be Jesus, their nation, or something else. Remember that at least as many have been killed–also in horrific ways–in the name of Christ as have willingly died for him.

By ‘systematic’ I mean persecution that people could not escape by moving from one part of the Empire to another.

David,
Please explain what “true atheism” is. I haven’t encountered false atheism, second-rate atheism or insincere atheism, so I don’t know what you mean. Why this would result in “acute paranoia” is not at all clear. Please explain what you mean by that term as well.

You should avoid arguments about the Earth being just right in its conditions for life, such as your remarks about gravity and temperature. You’re mixing up cause and effect. To marvel at how the Earth is just right for Earth life forms is like marveling at how neatly the Mississippi River has found its course under all those bridges. You’ve got it backwards. Life was not a pre-existing product on a shelf waiting for a planet with just the right conditions. Life developed on Earth according to the conditions that existed first, and as conditions changed, life adapted through lots and lots of death. If the gravity were greater or less, if the temperature were higher or lower, life might still have developed but it would be very different from what we have today.

Richard, thank you for your interest in what I have to say.
I used “true atheism” because I do not believe that atheists truly live as though they believe there is no God. I wrote a blog on this:

http://bigham.wordpress.com/2007/08/25/a-world-without-god/

Also, we have planets that are at both greater and lesser distances from the sun, which consequently have different temperatures and conditions, on which no life develops. Therefore I do not see the need to avoid the argument that the Earth is just right in its conditions for life.

Perhaps it is not safe to say that slight variations would result in temperatures too hot or too cold to support life, when all we know for sure is that Venus is too close and Mars too far to support life. We cannot know for sure that slight variations would terminate life, but I feel that assumption is safer than yours that life adapts to the environment. Life has not adapted to other environments. There are no effects for the causes present on other planets. So it is at least possible that I did not confuse cause and effect.

Mrianna, I humbly accept that I could be wrong and will be open to any information that you say that you have. Enlighten me with how and why the Bible is fiction. I will give what you have to say as much of an honest chance to be true as I am capable.
Can you do the same? Can you humbly accept that you could be wrong? And can you open your eyes, ears, heart, and mind to the possibility that there is a God and that Jesus really did conquer death?

David, I don’t have time to go through it all right now, but 1. I have the feeling you don’t know where the first three quotes come from, that I quoted. I will tell you they are religious text quotes. 2. There are many midrashes concerning dying and rising gods (oh yes, I heard all the religious excuses from “the devil did that to confuse us” to “Oh no they aren’t the same.” They don’t have to be word for word to be the same.), but the truth is, they were brought from one culture and adapted to another.

But if you like, I can debate you tonight on this, but mind you, I have been studying mythology and religious texts for years. I think the more appropriate question is, “Can you handle it?”

Can you humbly accept that you could be wrong? And can you open your eyes, ears, heart, and mind to the possibility that there is a God and that Jesus really did conquer death?

You make it sound you already believe you are right and that I should accept your beliefs, no matter what. That what I know and believe is supurfalous. Things is, I’m afraid if you don’t know where the first three quotes came from without trying to hunt them down via a search engine, then you might not be able to handle what I have to say that includes many different sources. Shoot, I can show how the Gospel of Luke and Matthew are literature without even showing they are midrashes from other cultures for that matter, but if you enjoy trying to debunk previous myths from other cultures I can throw that in just for fun.

Like I said, are you really sure you want to go down that road? Can you handle it?

And personally, I don’t think you can change my mind about it being literature, but in the immortal words of Clint Eastwood… go ahead, make my day.

All hail the King of the universe, Jesus Christ!

quite a few responses… some I will handle, others I will respectfully agree with Richard and leave alone because I feel they will waste all of our time… and whether you believe that there is indeed an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-everything deity who created our universe or not, we would all agree that we should be good stewards of our time on this big round rock.

I read some of the comments yesterday and a few today, and it is 1:30 am… so I am just going to ramble as things come to me, without any editing or re-reading, and I’m not going to put a lot of time into organizing my thoughts…. not that I did much of any of those things before, I am just leaving them out on purpose this time.

First, on the question of whether my beliefs are weak because I am willing to humbly accept that I could be wrong. I might not have communicated what I was thinking perfectly, so I will try to be a little more clear this time around.
I believe that Jesus Christ really was raised from the dead three days after His perfect life ended on the Cross at Calvary. I cannot prove that- it was almost 2000 years ago, for Christ’s sake (you like that?). But the “evidence” that I have seen has convinced me that He really did conquer death.

I believe that that issue is central to this life, this universe, and the way that you and I live. If he really was raised from the dead, then He really was and is God (along with the Father and the Holy Spirit), and He really is the King of this universe.

The issue about humbly accepting that I could be wrong arose out of a couple of things. First and foremost that came from my own personal experience.
My beliefs were very weak when I was an unbeliever. But I clung to them very strongly and believed that they were solid. When I read something that supported my unbelief I delved into it and couldn’t get enough of it. When I read something in opposition of my unbelief, I refused it from the start and never gave it a chance. I clung strongly to weak beliefs, but I would not call that strength.
I think that a lot of Christians are the same way, and before I made the transformation from believer to atheist about 6 years ago I was one of them. I had doubts, as I believe all Christians – and possibly all atheists – do. But in my devotion to Christianity, and foolishly thinking that I wasn’t supposed to have those doubts, I pushed those doubts to the side and kept pushing forward. Eventually I had a mountain of doubts that I had pushed to the side, and I struggled with temptations and beating myself up everytime I lost a battle. And so that mountain of doubts fell on me like a closet full of toys on a cartoon character.
And I isolated the mess that I was in from everybody around me, just as I had isolated my doubts and struggles.

So where is the weakness and where is the strength in those examples, and where do I stand now?
My “Christian” beliefs when I was young were weak- based mostly on things that I had seen and heard from my parents and siblings and in years of church. But I clung to them with as much strength as I could muster and did the best I could.
Similarly, my beliefs when I considered myself atheist for a few years, and later when I found out what agnosticism was and considered myself one of those, my beliefs were weak.

In both- or all three, depending on how you count- my beliefs were based on my personal thoughts and personal experiences, with practically no outside research.

So I made the assumption that some/most/all atheists probably read things the way that I did when I was on the other side of the debate- eagerly devouring what supports their beliefs and refusing any opposing beliefs from the start.

And so the question: Are my beliefs weak because I humbly admit that I could be wrong and am willing to allow for that possibility.
I think not. Why? Because, my beliefs are strong enough that I am willing to doubt them. And I am strong enough in my beliefs to admit that I occasionally do have doubts. And I am willing to read any responses, and give them as much of a chance as I can.

One more tidbit from my personal experience.
When I realized these things:

That I was refusing any opposing beliefs from the outset without giving them any chance to be true, that it was possible that I was using God-given wisdom to explain away God so that I could live in a way that the God of Christianity would not approve, and that if I was wrong and Christianity and the Bible were right I would face God on the day of judgement and be sentenced to an eternity in hell.

…I stumbled across a book that changed my life. “The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel.

I have an amazing brother. He has a masters in Theology and a PhD, teaches seminary, and is a pastor. In conversations about our beliefs, he had shown me that my unbelief was not as strong as I had thought it was.
The only defense that I had left after our conversations was that the Bible was not the word of God, and that it was not credible- I could always fall back on the “that didn’t really happen” defense. So, “The Case for Christ” convinced me that the Bible is the credible Word of God and that Jesus really did conquer death and consequently is the King of the universe!

So if you find yourself in a similar position with where I was- realizing that the serious possibility of an eternity in hell if Jesus really did conquer death and really is the king of the world, and that because of that you should not refuse anything that is in opposition to your atheist or agnostic beliefs without giving them a chance, I really think that you should read Strobel’s “The Case for Christ.” I believe that if you simply do not refuse it before you read it and give it any kind of chance to be true, then it will change your life as it has changed mine.

Once I was convinced, I was totally reluctant. I was ashamed at the way that I had lived for roughly 5 years of unbelief, and I was very much aware of a lot of things that I would have to give up if I was to submit to Jesus as the King of the universe.
Now I see that it is the best thing that has ever happened to me. It turns out that the things that I have given up (even though I still occasionally stumble) are only distortions of gifts from God. And giving up those sinful distortions is necessary to enjoy the gifts the way God intended for us to use them. Acknowledging God as the Creator of all things and the Giver of all good and perfect gifts is the only road to true happiness.

I delight in the law of the Lord, and in His law I long to meditate day and night. I come before my God a sinner in need of His help. I know that I am guilty of adultery against God. For I know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God. And I pray that God will continue to forgive me and continue to show me the grace that He has shown me all along. The Bible says that the effective prayer of the righteous man can accomplish much. I know that there is no righteousness in me, but I pray that God will credit me with the righteousness of Jesus once again, and through the filter of the blood of Jesus that washes my sins away He will consider me righteous, that my prayers may be effective.
And I pray that God will move and open eyes and ears that they may see and hear. And I pray that God will soften hearts, and that all who read these words will understand that they are sick, and they will come to Him and be healed.
I know that without the movement of the Holy Spirit these are just empty words, and I pray that the Holy Spirit will move through these words and save souls.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end,
amen, amen.

But the “evidence” that I have seen has convinced me that He really did conquer death.

And what might that evidence be? I don’t see anything by way of evidence in what you just said. So your brother showed you something in the Bible and you delighted in the law of God, that’s not evidence.

Do you agree that […] you do not acknowledge Him as the King of this universe and put your faith in Him and treasure Him, you will sentance yourself to an eternity in hell?

No, I don’t. Also, people who threaten me with bodily harm scare me.

David, let me preface this by saying that I will not get into a big long discussion of whether God exists or whether Jesus was God. These discussions bore me because they seem so sterile.

But I would like to point out that when you say “I don’t think it unreasonable for the fear of hell to warrant giving Christianity a realistic chance to be true,” you’re using one thing you assume to be true to support another thing you assume to be true. That’s called circular reasoning.

My approach is pretty much the one presented in the Budhhist Kalama Sutra:

Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing, nor upon tradition, nor upon rumor, nor upon scripture, nor upon surmise, nor upon axiom, nor upon specious reasoning, nor upon bias towards a notion pondered over, nor upon another’s seeming ability, nor upon the consideration ‘The monk is our teacher.’ When you yourselves know: ‘These things are bad, blamable, censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,’ abandon them. When you yourselves know: ‘These things are good, blameless, praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,’ enter on and abide in them.”

David,
Thank you for your response, in part, to my remarks, and for your willingness to make a couple of acknowledgments. You acknowledged that during the period of your atheism and agnosticism you were isolated and did not get to know any other atheists or agnostics. You also acknowledged that your characterization of atheists as being devoid of morality and debased in your blog entry “A World Without God” was extreme and intentional.

Since intentionally publishing false and extremely negative remarks about a group of people about whom you know nothing could at least on a moral level be called slander are you, after an appropriate period of time of actually getting to know atheists and agnostics on a close and intimate basis, willing to publish a retraction? As I said before, I don’t think you have to relinquish the beliefs that are important to you by repudiating a hateful and hurtful stereotype of us.

The reason this issue is important to me is because your characterizations were not new. We’ve heard them and even worse things oh so many times before from religious people who don’t seem to mind bearing false witness in order to further their own agenda or merely bolster their own self-righteous egos. Challenging them on their bigotry usually proves to be futile, but once in a while we meet someone who has the courage to see that they were incorrect and to begin positive dialogues with us, actually getting to know us.

I had to face my own blanket negative attitudes and assumptions about believers and now that I respond to them as individuals, I enjoy enriching dialogues with several. I also get in the faces of atheists who demonstrate the same kind of bigotry. This mutual prejudice hurts all of us. I hope you can experience the same benefit of moving beyond your assumptions.

Richard,
I will even blanket that blog in my statement that everything I said before here I will consider false. But, a couple of things:
I believe that I used the word “should” early and often in that blog, which I don’t think necessitates slander.
I could just as easily post a blog about a plethora of things that I think Christians “should” do but don’t.

But I do, as you say, acknowledge that those things are untrue and extreme. And if you mean that you would like for me post a blog retracting the things that I said in that blog, I will do so on two conditions:

If you will answer the questions that I posed as central to the issue of the Christianity versus Atheism debate, and agree to read the book “The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel with as much of an open mind as your beliefs allow (no offense, just acknowledging that your beliefs are going to prevent you from wholehartedly agreeing with what you read there… I only ask that you do not outright reject what is there before reading it) and with those questions in mind. I realize that I am making a 2 for 1 proposition, and I am willing to read a book that you would suggest, with as much of an open mind as my beliefs will allow, if you wish.

David appears to think we don’t know what is in Strobel’s book. Such naivety….

We are perfectly familiar with Sttobel. It has all been busted.

I pay Christians to try to defend their beliefs.

But even when you offer to pay them, they don’t do very well.

see my debates on http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/mirc1.htm

Does David really think the Earth has been at a constant distance from the Sun for thousands of years?

Why does he think that sheer ignorance is a defense against unbelief?

David, I read the Bible in less than a year at least twice and studied it with other theologians more than once as well as the Gnostic gospels and a few other religious texts and mythologies. There are so many midrashes in the Bible, that I would not know where to begin unless you asked me.

1. Do you agree that the center of the issue is whether Jesus conquered death three days after dying on the cross? 2. Do you agree that if you were convinced that Jesus conquered death three days after dying on the cross, your beliefs and your life would have to change? 3. Do you agree that the ramifications of this are huge? 4. Do you agree that if Jesus conquered death three days after dying on the cross, and you do not acknowledge Him as the King of this universe and put your faith in Him and treasure Him, you will sentance yourself to an eternity in hell?

I added numbers for convience: 1. No, because while some say, like Bishop John Shelby Spong in Resurrection: Myth or Reality, it was a spiritual resurrection and not at all literal. Some of them will add that it is also similar to other dying and rising god stories and no more real than they are. 2. Again, no, because I could point out to you other dying and rising god stories that are taken as myth now (see Acharya S and Robert Price for starters). 3. Again, no because the story comes in many versions, not just Christianity. 4. Finally, no again, because hell is a human concept. The feiry hell most people refer to came from a garbage dumped that burned constantly- it’s in the Bible, see Gehennah- but hell itself is not a real place. It was basically an incenerator for garbage and dead bodies. Also Sheol in Hebrew means the grave, not hell, and quite often in translating from Hebrew to English hell replaced the words “the grave” or “the place of the dead”.

The story of Christ death is part of the Hebrew Litergical calendar- in this case Passover (this Spong also mentions) in either Why Christianity Must Change or Die or A New Christianity for a New World. It is a midrash of previous myths- Horus, Osiris and more, including stories in the OT (pick any of the previous sources plus Tom Harpur, Victor H. Matthews (who I studied directly under, even more closely than Spong), plus other scholars). Even Krishna is an incarnation of God (Vishnu) and he is the beginning, middle, and end.

The crucifixion story is a pagan tradition, not just Jewish, but it was also a punishment for many criminals at the time. In the pagan tradition as well as other religious traditions, a sacrifice could be animal or human (preferably unblemished) which they offered to the god(s). After the sacrifice, in order to be part of that which was sacrifice, the people actually did drink the blood and ate the body. Now we call it communion and use either wine or grape juice and wafer/bread. This practice is called theophagy and is a purely paganistic ritual.

Now if you want me to continue or even start at the beginning with the Gospels say, I can explain further how it is nothing but literature.

It is a little trick I learned from Jesus (Son of Man) Christ, who often referred to himself in the third person. Who said he had no good ideas?

It also helps with context and search engines.

Searching for ‘you’ and ‘he’ on Google gets more hits than searching for Monkeymind.

1. Do you agree that the center of the issue is whether Jesus conquered death three days after dying on the cross? 2. Do you agree that if you were convinced that Jesus conquered death three days after dying on the cross, your beliefs and your life would have to change? 3. Do you agree that the ramifications of this are huge? 4. Do you agree that if Jesus conquered death three days after dying on the cross, and you do not acknowledge Him as the King of this universe and put your faith in Him and treasure Him, you will sentance yourself to an eternity in hell?

1. No.
2. No.
3. No.
4. No.

Ok, why not, I will explain myself a bit here.

1. No, because I don’t care if Jesus (assuming he existed) came back to life- it has no effect on my life. If your belief has an effect on your life- good for you! Don’t become a lawmaker, and try to stay out of the voter’s box if you are in a swing state (assuming you are American).
2. Mostly no. If I suddenly believed in Jesus, my beliefs would change insofar as I would have to check off “Christian” instead of “Baby-eating atheist”, But would my day-to-day life change much? I might pray or go to church, but I can’t imagine I would change my morals, cause my atheist morals are awesome.
3. No, unless I start voting for Republicans.
4. No. Zombies have very little to do with Hell. If Jesus came back from the dead, and there is somehow proof that happened, it still doesn’t prove why. Maybe he was bitten by a vampire. It doesn’t neceassily have to do with a God.

I also agree with Mriana’s answers, but I don’t like to crib notes off of others.

Also, the Case for Christ is a shit premise. I thought it was terribly convincing when I was in tenth grade, but now? No.

And today is my day off and I am bored and also drinking, so here goes:

We live in a universe that is entirely too complex and entirely too precise to not believe in a Divine Creator. Until science comes up with a better theory, the report of Genesis is by far the best one that we have to go by.

What? “Science” cannot do anything. And you really think that the idea that “God did it” is somehow more presise than the Big Bang Theory?

I do not believe that true atheism should result in “I must treasure every day” thinking.

Good for you. It works for me. I am not going to say I treasure every day- I get stressed too. But I try. Your method of “true atheism” is stupid and not based on actual atheist behavior.

believe that true atheism should result in acute paranoia.

I am only paranoid of Christians, really. Some of them are batshit crazy.

Human beings are so infinitely complex and precise that evolution cannot explain one millionth of the story.

“God did it” is not exactly complex. And can you ask god to make things a little less complex? I hate wearing glasses.

And then there is the evidence for Jesus. That so many were willing to die for Him because they witnessed Him raised from the dead. That there were such drastic changes in the lives of the apostle Paul and James the brother of Jesus. That Christianity spread like wild fire in the face of multitudes of martyrs. That every heart today hears the voice of Jesus and the presence of the all-powerful God.

None of that is exidence. You have written about martyrs, who are willing to die for many causes that turned out to be false. You are writting abotu two men who may or may not be real. You have written about the rate of converts, which proves nothing- look at how many people wear Crocs, and those things are ugly as Hell. And then you write about your personal belief about singing in your heart, which is not my experience and probably isn’t in the hearts of all Christians either.

look at how many people wear Crocs, and those things are ugly as Hell.

ROTFLMBO! They are comfy though! If you do not convert to Croc-ianity, you will sentence yourself to a hell of bunions and hammertoes!

Well, what does David have to say to all of this?
David says, first of all, that he really doesn’t think that anything he has to say matters. I started off writing in the third person just to have some fun, as you guys were, but I learned something rather quickly.
Who am I to tell you people anything. You people are obviously extremely inteligent and, although we would disagree about right and wrong, you all have obviously put a lot of thought into defending your beliefs.
I made the assumption that I had something to say on this topic because I made the journey from semi-Christian (long story), to atheist/agnostic, to Christian. Who do I think I am, that something I have to say will change anybody’s beliefs or they way they look at the world?

Its funny that it took the obsurdity of my speaking in the third person to make me realize that.

At the same time, I really believe that I am right. And I am really happy with what I have. And I am genuinely concerned. I don’t believe that I deserve anything better than any of you deserve. I am more than likely taller than most if not all of you, but who cares about that? And, I believe that I am obviously dwarfed here when it comes to inteligence.
All of you seem, to me at least, to be smarter, better writers (except maybe the drunk person), and better wordsmiths than I.

So what do I do with that tension? Its actually kind of a two-fold tension. First, that I believe that you are smarter than I am, but I also believe you are wrong about God and Christianity. And secondly, I do not believe that my words alone can convince you of anything, but I desperately want you to be convinced and avoid an eternity in hell, especially since I also believe that I deserve hell just as much, if not more, than anybody else does.
I believe that it is only by God’s grace, through faith alone, in Christ alone that I can be reconciled with God.
If God was only a God of justice, I would be undoubtedly heading to hell. Praise God that He is also a God of love.

I’m open to any suggestions…

Monkeymind lies about me referring to myself in the third person.

Labelling my comments so that people know what are my words and what are other words is ‘not referring to myself in the third person’.

Still, I get used to people reading my posts, being unable to handle the arguments and resorting to abuse.

It kind of makes you think you are right.

David thinks we all deserve to go to Hell.

Well, he knows himself better than I do.

As for me, I don’t deserve to burn in Hell for all eternity.

That is just a plain fact, and all David’s lies about me being a wicked person remain lies.

I mean, it is not even as though I had struck somebody dead for not handing over all their money , as God did to people in Acts.

Hey David,
Now you’re speaking from the heart in an open-hearted and genuine way. It’s refreshing and very likable. When you talk about your own feelings it’s nice to hear. When you revert into parroting stuff you heard in church it’s like you disappear and a poster drops down in front of you. I think you’re obviously a good, decent person, and while these discussions can be frustrating, I wouldn’t want you to get discouraged. Coming to one of these websites takes quite a lot of courage. You’re going to be outnumbered and if you’re new to such discussions you can’t know ahead of time that your arguments are not new to us. Some of the people here have black belts in argument. They’re fierce. I generally agree with them but I have the scars to prove how fierce they can be.

I personally wouldn’t want you to lose your faith in the essential parts of Christianity, because it obviously has benefitted you. The main change I’d like to see is for you to lighten up on that awfully low opinion you have about your own worth and that of people in general.

I have gotten to know, without exaggeration, several thousand people on an intimate basis and they have been every type you could imagine. Some are kind, some are stern, some are virtuous and some are nasty. But consider this: I have never met a person so stern nor a person so nasty that the stern one would condemn the nasty one to an eternity of suffering. The toughest ones are still far more compassionate and forgiving than your concept of God. How can that be? There are other concepts of God that don’t compare so poorly to human virtues.

Take Mriana’s recommendations for study and look into the authors she listed. Seek out Christians who concern themselves with practicing a daily life of compassion, tolerance and charity, and who don’t really concern themselves with whether someone is condemned or saved. There are a few who visit this website and I admire them very much because they live their faith in simple, loving and very human ways. Make no mistake, they’re not vapid or silly or child-like; they’re very adult and very focused. Though I don’t share their religious beliefs, I am often inspired to imitate their behaviors.

Imagine that, a dyed-in-the-wool atheist learning from the virtues of some Christians, without converting. Could the reverse happen as well?

David, what Richard said. Sorry if you felt like comments were piling on.

Steven Carr – you are absolutely right, I was incorrect in stating that you refer to yourself in the third person. What I was thinking of was the labelling thing, which is not the same as using the 3rd person, but it comes off as stilted. When you explained that it was to help your search engine rankings, I’m sorry but that was fair game for mockery in my book. Talk to the Googlebot, Steven!

You do however refer to others in the 3rd person instead of addressing them directly, which is really off-putting, even if it is a disinterested attempt to help out their Google results. If that is the case, you can dispense with it in talking to me, since I have no investment in the Monkeymind keyword.

I’m beginning to think you could benefit from some work with a speech or cogntive-behavioral therapist, to work on your pragmatics (the aspects of language that have to do with social interaction.)

Also, I am not “unable to handle your arguments.” I am not a Christian. When I have an issue with the content of your comments, I address it. Most of the time however, I just find your style off-putting.

you all have obviously put a lot of thought into defending your beliefs.

Thank you for that acknowledgment, David. You may think it’s a small thing on your part, but I have to tell you that it’s exceedingly rare for atheists to hear and it’s very refreshing. Best of luck on your journey!

all of that sounds great, but what if there is a God who disagrees with your measures, as well as those of the non-evangelical fundamentalists?

I admit wholeheartedly that there are a lot of things that I could learn from you all.

and Richard, I have decided that, although I don’t necessarily like the way you suggested that I should humbly ask forgiveness for transgressions towards atheists the way that I do for those towards my God, I will post a retraction for “A World Without God.”

also, I had a thought today. somebody made a joke about me praying…
however, I do believe in the power of prayer, and I would love to pray for any or all of you.

so how can I pray for you?

I don’t know how to answer you about prayer. That is up to you, but consider these things:

It’s those “what if”s that keep us from living life to it’s fullest. I truly believe that if you were to study the subject throroughly, some of those “what if”s will deminish. I won’t say you will rid yourself of a god concept, but you maybe less anxious about it all.

Something to think about, esp if you consider all the different religions and previous god myths- God is a human concept.

http://bigham.wordpress.com/2007/08/25/james-the-just/

It’s okay Mriana. Remember I’m the one who was born in the Natural History Museum and I’m very ignorant about the Bible. I think David understands that you and others here have remarkable knowledge about the Bible and other important Christian works. You deeply understand things I never even heard of. You guys have had the much harder, longer journey, passing through, out of and away from your Christian upbringing, and your encyclopedic command of scripture was hard won with bitter tears I’m sure. That’s why I admire you so much. I was just sitting here on my lazy butt when you arrived only because it’s where I was in the first place. I was raised on art and science, but biblically I’m a bumpkin.

It’s okay Mriana. Remember I’m the one who was born in the Natural History Museum and I’m very ignorant about the Bible. I think David understands that you and others here have remarkable knowledge about the Bible and other important Christian works. You deeply understand things I never even heard of. You guys have had the much harder, longer journey, passing through, out of and away from your Christian upbringing, and your encyclopedic command of scripture was hard won with bitter tears I’m sure. That’s why I admire you so much. I was just sitting here on my lazy butt when you arrived only because it’s where I was in the first place. I was raised on art and science, but biblically I’m a bumpkin.

You’re joking, right Richard? If you’re not, I’ll refrain from laughing. 🙁 If you are joking, thank you so very much for the laugh. 🙂

I wouldn’t say I have an encyclopedic command of scripture, but I can out do many who are Bible Thumpers. Bitter tears is right, because what you’re told you discover is a lie or more precise a misconception of what is really there. 🙁

I meant should I laugh about your lack of knowledge concerning the Bible, Richard. However, I do think comparing my knowledge to an encyclopedia is a bit of an overstatement. I do make mistakes sometimes because I’m only human, so I wouldn’t take everything I say as gospel. (cue laughter) Such praise is rather shocking when most of the time one is called a heretic and have you. Even, I do thank you for the compliment. No one has given me such high praise in that area of knowledge before. That makes three people today who have complimented me on my religious texts knowledge. 🙂

but what is so laughable about my lack of biblical knowledge?

Nothing, but it was how you said it that was funny, yet I tried to refrain from laughing because it’s not really funny. I’m just wondering how you manage when attacked by Evangelical Fundamentalists. I find having the knowledge I have is a means of fighting fire with fire.

I think I may have said this before but while my non-religious background is kind of rare among us here, isn’t that what we would expect will be more the norm in a couple of generations?

Sadly, given that I live in the Belt Buckle of the Bible Belt, I think it will take more than a couple generations. I don’t expect to see it in my lifetime unless I manage to move out of dodge.

You must live somewhere in the U.S. 😆 I have even heard people who visit here say, “They are rude, rude, rude.” That would be putting it mildly of course.

Of course, I’m with you, roughly 50% in this area who profess to be a Christian maybe using it as a mask because they are afraid of those who are the Religious Reich.

However, I didn’t learn what I’ve learned about the Bible to change their beliefs about God- part of it was no choice, the other part was to be able to show them a non-theist isn’t totally ignorant and could probably out do them concerning it all. Of course, learning Hinduism is out of curiousity. 😆

And Richard, about the Bible…

One of the great things about the Bible is its honesty, especially with things that you really wouldn’t expect it to be honest about.

I think you should dust that old Bible off and read 1st and 2nd Samuel.
You will see one of the greatest figures in the Bible, King David, commit adultery that leads to murder. You will see his firstborn son rape one of his daugters, and another of David’s sons murder David’s firstborn out of revenge. You will see the son that murdered David’s firstborn attempt to usurp David’s throne. You will see several lies from all parties.

Does that sound like your expectations of the Bible?

My brother is preaching through 2nd Samuel right now, and it is amazing! They have several of the sermons online at http://www.bcredeemer.org that you can listen to or download for free. Today’s was awesome, and I definitely would recommend that as soon as they have it on the site.

Have you thought about what a “non-Evangelical Fundamentalist” is saying to you by being “non-Evangelical”?…

a) they don’t care about what they have, and
b) they don’t care about you.

i know a few christians, and can describe their stance thus –
a) they may believe in their choice of religion so strongly that they think people will come round to it by themselves (which suggests a stronger faith than that of evangelicals). they may believe it is up to god to convert, not them (a position which smacks strongly of arrogance). they may believe in my intelligence, ability to reason and right to disagree with them, whilst also valueing our relationship enough to not have it based on continuous conversion attempts by either/both sides. which leads nicely onto…

b) they care about me far more than some arsehole who will spend the entire time they know me blatantly disrespecting my opinions by calling me damned/ignorant/stupid until such point where i feel compelled to walk away. please tell me again how one can regard the evangelical as the more compassionate?!

i would also add that you seem to have confused ‘evangelical’ with ‘fundamentalist’, the two do not necessarily have any bearing on each other. as such, a non-fundie may not even hold a hell concept as you understand it*, which reduces the need for evangelicism even further.

*i’ve heard hell being described as ‘seperation from god’, which, as another commentator rightly pointed out, i would fully expect as an atheist, and would therefore find it no more disturbing than discovering the chicken i ordered for dinner actually turned out to be turkey. obviously, if said turkey had been roasted to charcoal by eternal hellfire, i would be slightly peeved.