My Night at Moody Church

Sounds like a good deal. The lack of proselytizing before, during, or after the meeting is definitely appealing…and rather shocking, I should add.

BTW: What does love mean to other atheists? Just curious because I am a relatively recent de-convert and I would have to say it means the same to me now as it did before. I never identified love to be a result of my faith except when I was expected to “love” my enemies.

@Karen –

You are correct regarding Moody, they are pretty fundamentalist…I’m still on their mailing list from when I was a young Christian Minister…they have a Bible College that is pretty stiff.

@Fett101: my point exactly. Considering that the question was asked after the meeting (and then given as an example in Mehta’s commentary), I was just curious if there are actually atheists out there that view love differently since they deconverted? Or was that question just used as an example to show the ignorance of Christians regarding atheists.

a phone number was put on the screen behind us so that audience members could text their questions to the moderator. He then filtered through the incoming texts and spent most of the time asking the questions which were most popular.

I think this needs to become the new standard for Q&A sessions after a speaker.

As for the ‘how does an atheist love’ question, I think the question comes from dualism, the idea that love and emotions and thoughts and personality come from the Mind or the Soul, as separate from the Body. If we believe that these things arise from the biochemical workings of the Body and not some eternal Self, aren’t the feelings that atheists have (well, non-dualists) then completely alien from what normal people experience?

The answer is no, that your thoughts and feelings and emotions also arise from the chemical processes of the body, without divine inspiration or a mind independent of the flesh, and thus they’re exactly the same kinds of things that we experience, too. It’s the old “Scientists can’t measure love in a test tube!” argument.

A positive example of how it can be good to have a multi-pronged approach to making change in our society. “In your face” has its place, but this method has so much more potential given the right audience and venue.
I’m in awe of the participants from both sides of the issue.
Well done!

I am a Christian and a member of Moody Church (which, btw, is different from Moody Bible Institute…one is a church, one is a college, unrelated.)

I was there Saturday night and thought the night was amazing. I was challenged by many things Hemant said. I appreciated his openness and vulnerability to share his story and thoughts. He helped me break down some stereotypes I have had toward atheists…and I hope we did the same regarding stereotypes he may have had toward Christians. The biggest lesson I walked away with is that we are more alike then different. Relationships mean the world to both of us, we both want to serve and be kind people, and we are both open to learning about other people who are different then us.

Thanks Hemant, for coming, and I hope we can do it again!

I attend Moody Church and was very much looking forward to this discussion; “A Friendly Atheist and an Apologetic”. I do understand that there are so many barriers between these two segments of people and I wanted to know, as a Christian, how can I better serve my community? And by “better serve”, I need to know the needs of others in order to show them love. But, in order to know those needs, I need to know them. Yet, what is the first thing I think of when I meet an Atheist, “They don’t know God, how can I show them God?” Understandably, I know that an Atheist does not “know” God because they simply do not believe God exists! It is not that they do not know God, or choose to not know God, the thought of God is not in their realm if they do not believe in such a deity. Honestly, that all too often, becomes a barrier for Christians toward Atheists, we pigeon-hole atheists into a one-sided being, and then a goal to convert, if you will. However, As a Christian, it is not my goal to target Atheists for conversion, for that matter, it is not my goal nor my job to target anyone to convert them to Christianity. I am simply here to glorify God and in doing so that God be revealed through my words and deeds. Only God can convert. Unfortunately, I do know that there are many individuals, groups, with the sole purpose to “convert” Atheists. Sadly, Atheists then become a target for a sole purpose of conversion. And any attempt at building a relationship is now stifled, and separation continues.
And as Hemant stated in discussion that evening, “Atheists don’t want to be converted”. ? That is actually quite a simple, and very obvious statement but, it actually really stood out to me and allowed me to notice my fault of wanting to know “how can I convert them”. And then I am reminded, that is not my job. It is my job to glorify God and it is my job to share the gospel but I cannot share the gospel with an intent that someone will convert. And for that, I apologize.
How can I break down stereotypes that I hold against anyone that is different from my self, whether it be a male, a member of the GLBT community, a member of a different ethnicity, or an atheist? I remove my “self” from the equation.

@ Karen, I still wonder how you get past the idea that they still think you’re going to hell? No matter what you say to them, they will always have the superior idea as being “the select.”
I am sorry that you feel this way, or that maybe these words have been spoken to you! Although you do not believe in a hell, so I know this does not actually affect you. I can only speak of myself in regards to your statement of being superior, select—Karen, I am humbled, excited and delighted to be chosen by God, and I am in no way superior to any other person. I have faults, as I mentioned above, but I have a gracious God, who forgives my sins and allows me to have an eternal purpose. And I would want everyone to know the God I know and love.
Thanks Hemant for speaking at our church, I am encouraged by the discussion you provided and challenged by the stereotypes that need to be broken. We, Christians, Atheist, Buddhists, etc, share so many things in common and I wish to exchange more regularly in those commonalities!

I never identified love to be a result of my faith except when I was expected to “love” my enemies.

I actually find it much easier now to love my “enemies” (and everyone else) than I did before I realized I was an atheist. I’m defining “love” more broadly than general usage, but I think it’s valid and useful. I feel such empathy that I really don’t think I could truly hate anyone now, for any reason. Nobody chooses evil for evil’s sake, and I can’t help but feel pity for those whose lack of empathy and/or sanity allows them to hate or harm others.

By contrast, if people are taught from their early formative years to turn their love “upwards” first, they’ll naturally tend (big caveat alert: in general, all other things being equal) to judge the real humans around them, in part, according to how much they validate and share that “upwards” love. Then there are the supposedly divine (and unalterable) stories that demonstrate and promote real hatred: other-hatred (slaughter to make room for chosen people, for example, which can easily be applied to generate modern parallels at need) and self-hatred (guilt and self-abasement from one’s doubts and natural urges, and utter subjection of one’s will to “God”), not to mention the whole idea of infinite pain purportedly being imposed by a being of infinite love (double-think perfectly designed to reduce love to absurdity).

Obviously, there are plenty of religious people who are loving, empathetic, and more or less accepting of others outside their religion. They are that way in part because they absorbed the loving bits of the religious message they’ve absorbed, but in large part also because their own native humanity resisted the influence of the bad religious messages highlighted above.

I think events like the one in Hemant’s post are an excellent way forward. They help teach religious people to recognize the native goodness in atheists (and therefore, by extension, in themselves), as distinguished from the decidedly mixed messages of their religion. Teaching religious people that they are good without “God” may, in the long run, be at least as important as teaching them that we atheists are good without “God.”

Once I dropped the idea of absolute morality, it was much easier to love everyone. There was no possibility of judgement because there is no absolute right or wrong. Certainly I still have a conscience, but I can recognize it now as genetic programming that helped us survive when we were hunter gatherers, and is much less useful in closely packed in societies (especially the xenophobia and kin selection). I can grow beyond my conscience, instead of listening to it.

I think when Christians ask what you do you think Love is, they think love is some sort of “Force” or as someone pointed out a gift from god, even though this is not in the bible or theorized by any prominent theologians anywhere. But they think love can move people and affect others around you. We as scientists believe yes positive behavior can have an effect on ohers and may influence them, but that doens’t mean love is some unknown force propagated by “loveotrons” that have somehow eluded Fermilab.

I generally give them the same answer I gave when I was a christian: there are different kinds of love, but they are all inside us and either emotions or choices we make. I tend to think emotions and sentience are emergent behavior resulting from our complex brains, but who knows, even if that’s true it does not mean love is not “real” which I gather is what they want us to admit.

Also may I point out just a few miles south, Neil Gaiman was AWESOME! If he ever does a public reading of his work near you (he hasn’t done one in a decade) make sure to see it.

Just how pro-gay is the Marin Foundation mentioned in the post? What I have read here http://www.themarinfoundation.org/andrew.htm and here http://www.amazon.com/Love-Orientation-Elevating-Conversation-Community/product-reviews/0830836268/ref=cm_cr_dp_synop?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending#R1R7L811YK7ZGD
make me rather skeptical

Simone wrote:

I was there Saturday night and thought the night was amazing. I was challenged by many things Hemant said. I appreciated his openness and vulnerability to share his story and thoughts. He helped me break down some stereotypes I have had toward atheists…and I hope we did the same regarding stereotypes he may have had toward Christians. The biggest lesson I walked away with is that we are more alike then different. Relationships mean the world to both of us, we both want to serve and be kind people, and we are both open to learning about other people who are different then us.

You couldn’t have said it more beautifully, Simone 🙂

kudos

@Susan:

I took your comments differently than XPK did. Not meaning to criticize XPK, just to point out an alternate interpretation that may appeal to some here.

Although you do not believe in a hell, so I know this does not actually affect you.

I see what XPK is saying. Certainly, it affects us if people around us think we’re worthy of hell. But I suspect you merely meant that the worry of actually going to hell doesn’t affect us, which is definitely true.

I am humbled, excited and delighted to be chosen by God, and I am in no way superior to any other person

Again, I can see what XPK is saying. Being chosen by God (if he existed) sounds like something that would make someone superior. In fairness, a statement like yours (above) seems hard to reconcile logically without attributing some feeling of superiority to you. (If you’re “delighted” to be chosen, you think it’s better to be chosen than not.) Then again, some atheists are equally guilty of feeling superior. But still, based on your wording and similar Christian statements I’ve heard before, I suspect that you merely meant that there’s nothing special about you that caused God to choose you (consistent with Calvinist belief that there are no earthly virtues by which to distinguish the elect).

Overall, I thought your comments were admirably thoughtful and amicable. If the other folks in your church are anything like you, it’s no wonder that your church could put on an event like the one highlighted in this post.

FA visits fundie outpost in Chicago — clever Devil disguises himself

It is amusing to read that some fundie believes himself to be “challenged” by your discussion. “To challenge,” of course, is fundie code for using xian lies, “apologetics” to break down resistance of non-xians to conversion.

He felt threatened by you. Don’t worry he and his fellow fundies will talk to “God” about it. You’re wasting your time.

You have to tiptoe around their beliefs. Why don’t you quote (and show graphs) based on the Pew Trust studies which show how odd the US looks in its religious demographics compared with the rest of major countries in Europe?

How many in your audience held passports? How many of them have been outside the US, even to visit Canada? How many of them are Fox News regular viewers?

• Xians think that have a god-given right to impose their beliefs on others.

They get taught how to spread the “word” through lying and psychological pressure tactics. Their objections to current so-called new atheism are stunned reactions that anyone dare question or show how ridiculous their beliefs are. (Tell them that they are the oppressors now, the Romans.)

Perhaps you should quote to them their own saint of hatred and revenge, Saul of Tarsus:

27 God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things, and the things that are not, to nullify the things that are. . .1Cor1:27-28 NIV

Xianity is nihilism. Paul and his fellow revenge seekers created a god out of their anti-intellectual rants. He and the primitive church shared a perverse self-understanding characterized by inverted snobbery: We stink, but stinking is godly. Nothing has changed 2,000 years later.

Xianity cannot be refuted because its core beliefs are irrational. Xianity can only be dismantled. The de-deification of western culture (including science) is our task for next 100 years.

the anti_supernaturalist

Thanks for your responses! Hopefully we will have more oportunities such as these!

I had a similar experience last month, doing an “Ask an Atheist” session for a college Christian club. Also in attendance were an evangelical and a Catholic who together had given the program a week before (which I also attended). While the firebrands (PZ, Hitch, et alia) perform a great service by moving the Overton Window and while I am closer to their approach than, say, to Michel Ruse’s, it’s necessary to have the followup exemplified by these kinds of events. To repeat a mantra of (the late lamented) Internet Infidels Discussion Board, “It’s for the lurkers!”

With respect to the “love” question, I got the question “What’s it like living as an atheist without God?”

My response was “That’s like asking me what it’s like living as a non-collector of stamps. I don’t collect stamps, and unless I happen to be in a room full of stamp collectors I don’t even think about not collecting stamps. It’s irrelevant to my life.”

@Susan –

Thanks for your responses! Hopefully we will have more oportunities such as these!

Both Jeff and I have offered our interpretations of your comments. This is your opportunity to clarify what you meant by them.

@Jeff Dale –

I see where you are coming from, and she certainly could have meant things in the way you describe. Personally I would like to know from Susan exactly what she meant by her comments.

@Paul

And, if there is no God, if we are here literally by accident, and since some of Darwinism’s main tenants are natural rejection and natural regression, then I just can’t see how love can make any sense.

How can you not see love making any sense? Are you arguing that only humans love? Many species of animal are extremely protective of their offspring. Does that not count as “love”?

Also, you might want to educate yourself about the theory of evolution from a science book and not the Discovery institute.

@rtothedollar –

I think that loving people, girlfriends, boyfriends, and spouses is much more choice than raw emotion or feeling.

Feelings are real, feelings are natural, feelings come to you out of your control. What you do with those feelings is up to you.

100% agreement.

I was at the event held at Moody and also have to say that the atmosphere was very positive. It is a bit sad though to see posts that move in the exact opposite direction from the very tenure of the event. But I understand that is how it goes on blogs.

I would like to respond to @Karen as well as the response of XPK, who have “trouble getting past the idea of hell” and that those who believe in it have a superior idea as being “the select.”
The one thing I hate about email and blogging is that one cannot effectively express tone. So know that what I write is not written with any malice nor a desire to argue, but to simply state why a Christian may tell you that you are going to hell. (not the best way to speak to someone if someone actually said that to you in those words) First for a Christian to believe others are going to hell is not in any way an air of superiority, but they are simply relaying the message not just of the Bible, but of Jesus himself. As a matter of fact the majority of teaching we receive on the whole issue of hell as well as judgment, comes from Jesus, as he taught considerably more on hell and the coming judgment as he did on heaven. That is a reality one must deal with when looking at the life and teaching of Jesus. Too many, (many of whom have never read the Bible not to mention one of the Gospels) believe that Jesus was simply an itinerant preacher who taught people to love one another. Of course he did. And this was a very important and central part of his teaching. But his life and teaching cannot simply be reduced to mere sentimentalism where we only accept the things that make us feel good about ourselves. Jesus also taught that there will be a judgment to come. He claimed that He Himself will be the Judge and that all human beings will one day stand before him and give an account for their lives. So one must really accept what he said, and respond to him through the way in which Jesus says the judgment may be averted and that is through faith in him, and in the finished work of the cross and resurrection. This was the payment for our rebellion in our place, or one can reject him outright. But one cannot simply dismiss Him as irrelevant, not if you truly grasp what he taught, who he claimed to be and what he did.

Yes, great, no.