David, I’m Trying to Figure You Out…

Let’s be perfectly honest, we never had Leah Libresco.

“you can be a christian and an atheist at the same time”

Sure, let’s take that whole Law of Noncontradiction and throw it out the window.

 That is not an explanation! That is an “I’m fine without labels” which is fine – until you want to communicate anything at all ever. 

You can have Christian values such as ‘do unto others’ while not believing in the white beard big daddy – but that would make you an Atheist living truer christian values than most Christians.

You can re-define god as the sun or the energy that all life comes from –

but if we establish a premise that belief and acceptance of white bearded daddy is Christian and denial of him is atheist you cannot be both.

Unless you want to be.

Shouldn’t that be called Jesusian atheism? In calling Jesus “the Christ”, you are giving him the title of “messiah.”

What exactly are “Christian values”? Most of the ones that people readily admit to are simply ordinary human values, shared across nearly all cultures and all religions (and no religion at all).

When I think of “Christian values” I think of really ugly concepts: original sin, absolution, undeserved forgiveness, turning the other cheek. Seriously, what positive Christian values are there, that a truly moral person would admit to having?

I can understand the concept of a Christian atheist, but not what values that person would claim from Christianity.

There should be something like the Pauli exclusion principle, where you can’t assume two faith states at the same time

This is a case of semantic shenanigans. I call “semantigans!”

But you totally can! You just glue them together with indifference and/or ignorance, or blur your vision until you can’t really make out what distinguishes them from each other.

Have you seen people who combine folk religions with Catholicism?

I saw my great-aunt’s home altar; a statue of Jesus next to a bunch of traditional Chinese deities, offered the same incense in a Buddhist style stick form. I was Christian at the time, and felt a bit…bewildered that you could literally stick idols next to Jesus and see no contradiction, but yeah, apparently, it happens.

I think a lot of people consider being loving, forgiving, doing to others as you’d have them do to you, generosity, caring about family, and so on as “Christian values.”

Not that they’re actually unique or even first discovered by Christianity, but that the sum total of that WASP-y stereotype is what “Christian values” signals to them.I mean, some are actually ignorant enough to think they’re unique to Christianity, or could only come from Christianity, but otherwise, yeah, it’s more a set of values that are, as you say,  incredibly basic and general when you get down to it.I made that mistake when I first deconverted, thinking of my morals as basically still Christian. I later realized it was really just natural humanism to do good to others, and shaved off the crappy parts of Christianity like “pro-life” stances on  abortion and homophobic voting patterns.

The Naked Pastor has been a Christian all his life. He now rejects the Christian form of “God,” and the church in it’s present form. It’s the same as if I were to move to Australia and assume citizenship. I would be Australian, but deep down, I would always identify as being an American.

I think its perfectly reasonable to identify as two seemingly opposing identities. Dig?

LOL

I have a liberal Christian friend who is similar to NP. Whenever pressed on what he believes in, my buddy will rattle on about not being into labels and all the other blah, blah, blah, that uber-liberal Christians like to say. I’ve talked to other atheists, and there is a minority opinion out there that while conservative Christians are dangerous, liberal Christians are more irritating to talk to.

 Christian just means like Christ. I don’t know that it’s saying a person labels Jesus a messiah more than using the common terms people will recognize, and I know people could get used to Jesusian if they saw or heard it more, but…. look at it. It’s not making any friends. And besides, these people look to Jesus for a role model. He wasn’t all bad, nor was he original, but I wouldn’t limit myself to one philosophy or apply either embarrassing modification to my atheism.

He’s most definitely not a Catholic. But there are so many weird denominations he might fit in one.

People say a lot of terrible things about Christians, so the solution obviously is to no longer identify as one. What shall we call it? I don’t know. I think about this when there are, like, five other words for “Atheist” so people can choose to be an atheist without attaching themselves to the stigma of the word “atheist” or some other bullshit reason they don’t like it.

That would make him a boson.

Well… if you define Christian as “one who is Christ-like”, one who lives out the non-violence, feed-the-poor, love-thy-neighbor tenets, one does not need to believe in Christ to be Christ-like.

I, for one, would rather people walk the walk, get out there and do what Christ did, feed, heal, clothe, shelter, ‘cuz talking the talk isn’t getting anything done.

Shrodingers Pastor!  He simultaneously does and does not believe in a god, and can remain that way until he actually tries to take a look at what his belief really is.  Then he’ll wind up having to collapse his waveform into one or the other.  As long as he does not open his box, he can stay both.

 While he doesn’t want to be saddled with labels, what I’m really hearing is that he doesn’t want to give up the label “Christian”. People can use words however they want, but when one removes virtually every aspect of a label’s common definition, then the term is no longer descriptive in any pragmatic sense. If he doesn’t believe that Jesus was the messiah, the son of god who died and was resurrected, whom we must have faith in in order to be saved, then he isn’t a Christian in the typical way that word is used; he has his own personal definition for it. Which is fine, but it seems clear to me that he doesn’t use the word “Christian” to mean that he is an actual Christian…rather, it indicates that he likes the *idea* of being a Christian but doesn’t want to commit to the actual requirements of Christianity.

Amusing historical factoid: “Christian” was originally a term of derision which was adopted by the group as a badge of honour, much like “queer”.

A couple months ago, David proposed a label for himself: “atheish”.

It is quite scary to think there are people who needed Christianity in order to be persuaded to adopt some sort of humanist values. These seem like fundamentally disordered and dangerous people given that most people are essentially humanists by nature (until religion corrupts that).

I made that mistake when I first deconverted, thinking of my morals as basically still Christian. I later realized it was really just natural humanism to do good to others

Perfectly said 🙂

So two thousand years ago, after a span of a quarter million years or more, some Johnny-come-lately of a religious moral philosophy thinks it can stamp its name on and take ownership of these values is insulting and ridiculous

*standing ovation*

I’m sooooo tired of religions ‘claiming’ virtues that can be/have been arrived at purely through purely humanistic means.

Thanks for making this point, Matt.  It’s something that drives me nuts.

Call him human? 

I don’t think he needs the clergy project because he is ‘out’ in his beliefs (he is ‘naked’) even if he refuses to put his beliefs into one category and even as they change. 

 “you can be a christian and an atheist at the same”

Actually, you cannot. You can be an atheist and a “follower of the teachings of Jesus” but as soon as you use the work christ (the anointed one) – you are accepting the messiah doctrine – which implicitly advocates for a god.
No god = no messiah = no christ.

But by all means, be a follower of Jesus – or Matthew (7,12), – but one cannot be a “follower of christ” without a christ! 

I see your point.

I’ll admit to being a huge fan of liberal-hippie-Jesus. But I’m sure as hell NOT a Christian! I just think he had some good ideas, some good teachings about being kind to our fellow travelers and treating others decently, you know? And in America, Jesus is kind of… well, everyone knows who Jesus (allegedly) was, so he’s kind of a common cultural symbol of kindness and sacrifice, we all understand what “be like Jesus” means.

 *depends..

I am a former conservative Evangelical Christian turned ambiguous, I don’t want a label, agnostic, atheist. I’ve joined the dark side.  Here’s my best shot at it:

The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.  Against such things there is no law. Galatians 5:22-23. 

I used to believe you had to be a Christian to have this “fruit”.  Then I met someone who had all of this and displayed it in greater amounts than anyone I’d ever met.  Turns out he wasn’t, still isn’t, and has no intentions of becoming a Christian.  I was confused by this because I could have sworn he was.  My fiance does this better than anyone I know.

 I think he would be more than happy to be called “special snowflake”.

 I grew up around fundamentalist evangelicals and they seemed to share this view that you had to be a Christian to have this “fruit.” I wonder sometimes how much of it is rooted in the Puritan view that you will know the elect by their “fruit.” I know they don’t believe the same things now, but I suspect some of that kernel remains. Thus every time they see someone who has that “fruit” they automatically assume that person must be favored by god, which he wouldn’t do if they weren’t Christian.

Neither Christian, nor atheist but agnostic?

“*sniff*  Well, obviously that misfit wasn’t a real Christian anyway.  Good riddance!”

Calling all True Scotsmen.  There is a gathering in irreligious auditorium No. 3.

” I wonder sometimes how much of it is rooted in the Puritan view that you will know the elect by their “fruit.””

I don’t know about Puritan views, all I knew was that the Bible said so.  If the fruit of the Spirit is that, and a person doesn’t have the Spirit, how can they be all of that?  It was just one more proof to me, when I finally pried my fingers from my eyes, that there was no Spirit.  Only people.  Doing what people do.  Good or bad.

I was taught like D-Ma.  Humans are naturally sinful and selfish.  Only with God’s (Jesus’s) help can we overcome our natural desires and be more loving, patient, sharing — “Christ-like.”  This turns out not to be true, since (a) plenty of professed Christians are not loving, etc., and (b) plenty of non-Christians are loving, etc.

I tend to think that there is importance in those details; the subtlety is not for subtlety’s sake. There is some natural inclination towards some precepts of secular humanism inherent to being human, but much of it is not.

For some examples, I don’t see much historical evidence of most people being interested in any sort of rigorous empiricism in interrogating the world, nor a particular valuation of knowledge and education, nor a deep desire for finding hidden truths. Humans are primed to accept intuitive explanations, and if not those than provided explanations. Inquiry and skepticism are learned inclinations. 

There isn’t much desire to focus on this life, as often the conditions of the world are wholly depressing (especially in the past, but definitely also sometimes these days in many places), nor a particular desire for universally functional ethics. In point of fact, I’d argue that people (due to instinct and being as we are pack/tribe animals) tend towards naturally embracing ethical systems that reinforce kin advantage, in-group/out-group selection, and objective precedence of friend over foe. Peace, throughout most of human history, has been a functional tool of politics rather than an end in itself. 

I do think that people have natural *potential* in a humanistic sense, that humanistic inclinations are not directly opposed by human instinct but rather simply mostly orthogonal to them. Humanism is, thus, not simply an absence of religion and a flowering of natural instincts, but a positive nurturing of those instincts (and occasionally an overriding of them) in a different direction.

I think we’re all just chasing a red herring and he’s just trolling at this point.

 Seeing as he’s made some severe and very real financial and emotional sacrifices to reach the point where he’s at right now, I have a difficult time believing that David is just putting on a show. After subscribing to his blog for a long time and interacting with him off the blog, I find it safe to say that David is a genuine and sincere person.
As an aside, I’d much rather have him as a friend and neighbor than 90% or more of the atheists I’ve encountered online.

Er, I didn’t say everyone believed it, or that it was the main claim, just that I do know people who would claim that morality is from Christianity. I think I made that clear by saying “some”…?

Yes…? I didn’t think you did say everyone believed it. My only point was that Christians tend to view them as Christian values not because they believe they only come from Christianity, but merely because Christianity exposed them to those values first, or more pervasively, or more persuasively than other sources, and so they relate those values they hold to their Christianity.

as a pastor and a Christian, I am with David on this.  It is not the atheists who scare me in this world, it is those who don’t know enough to care or care enough to know and those who think they are absolutely right whatever their belief system may be and therefore all others Must believe the way they do.  I am simply on a journey as are we all, I think I know who to thank along the way but I am not totally sure and I am fine with that.  

Lot of good comments here. I think the whole argument is born out of the rigid idea that God, or even the Christian God, is inherently theist. I personally define God in a atheistic way. God is not a personality, God is an idea to me.

Of course, Christianity did not create compassion or redemption. However, that doesn’t mean someone cant identify with Christianity. If Christianity speaks to you, then you are a Christian to a certain degree. So when someone says they have “Christian values” it might just mean that they have values like compassion and redemption and they learned those values through the Christian faith.

It’s amazing how many people have joined the “I won’t be labeled” group. Think about it!!!
Not trying to be overly critical but you sound like a child yelling at his parents  “you’re not my parents”.

Is that a fact based upon verifiable, measurable, quantifiable data?  Or is that your belief?  If so, upon what is is based?  It is not the notion of ethical behavior that Judaism claims to have discovered or created but rather a specific codification of moral/ethical behaviors necessary for people to live in community. Nowhere in the foundational literature of Christianity do the founders claim to have come up with anything new, but rather a new expression of the old principles established in ancient Judaism.  Now, if that is what you wish to condemn, please have at it.  I would be interested in hearing your argument.

why do we need labels to live by? i like the post, but I agree with David. exclusive and dogmatic comments make me wonder if humanity is all mad. maybe I get David’s tweets, because I’m somewhere the same exploration that he is on.

Then they are mistaken. Christianity of course did not create compassion or redemption, otherwise chimpanzees would be Christians.

If someone is attributing these values to Christianity then they are mistaken and ignorant of social evolution. As long as people continue to give credit where credit is NOT due then no progress can be attained. Christianity was merely a rickety explanation for inherently beneficial human values and a penalty log for inherently questionable behavior. We don’t need it anymore! We’ve got better ideas here in the 21st-century, for Christ’s sake. So let’s forsake Christ.

The fruit of the Spirit is not the fruit of the church! I’m fond of telling people that Jesus wasn’t a Christian.

 What does that have to do with my comment?