I just read an article about the isolation of being an atheist. I personally haven’t experienced this isolation, because I’m still an admitted closet atheist. If I were to go public with my family and friends, it would certainly lead to isolation within my current social group. The funny thing is I’ve been accused by commenters on this blog for only becoming an atheist because it’s “the cool thing to do”. I guess I’m now super cool with my internet imaginary friends.
My question is why a person is assumed to be evil because they believe in one less god than you? If you can’t tell I’m an atheist by my words and actions, what makes me so scary?
This Christian fear became VERY evident to me in the past month. I was in a meeting with a man I was considering joining in a business partnership. He believed I was a Christian as he openly explained that he would only do business with fellow Christians. He said that anyone who didn’t believe in God couldn’t be trusted. There is nothing quite like being inadvertently insulted to your face. Since I don’t like partnering with openly bigoted people, I didn’t join with him in the business venture.
Now just a few days ago I was in another meeting with a group trying to convince me to join their business network. They sent me their business agreement form containing core values and legal information. What surprised me is their core values openly spoke about the God of the Bible as the foundation of their “Christ-like” values. By signing the document, I was being required to believe in their version of God or I wasn’t welcome as a business vendor. Only in America would this ever happen. I agree with their core values, I just don’t believe a Jewish man from 2,000 years ago was the son of Yahweh. Call me crazy and evil.
What do you think I should have done? Since it was a good business opportunity, I signed the agreement. Seriously, what difference does it make? I’m ethical in my business practices and I’m honest in my character. It is none of their business what religion I do or don’t practice. They are good meaning people, only ignorantly fearful and very deluded by their religious faith. I can ignore their ignorant fear of those different than themselves and they can blindly believe in my “Christ-likeness”. Now everyone is happy.
(I have to admit, it’s kind of fun to be the Judas of a group. Hopefully Jesus doesn’t tip them off to the evil among them.)
My piece of advice to Christians is save your fear for the real scary people. There are plenty of them in your own church. Just because someone doesn’t share your same delusion, it doesn’t make them evil. It only makes them rational.
Tags: Agnostic, Atheism, Atheist, Bible, Bigotry, Christian, Christianity, Demon, Devil, Evil, Fear, God, Hate, Jesus, Non Believer, Religion, Satan, Scary
September 21, 2009 at 1:23 pm |
It’s not you. It’s the straw man they invent that they are scared of.
Don’t put the ethical onus on yourself – it isn’t what you should have done. It’s what they shouldn’t have done that is the issue. I have my doubts as to the legality of such a requirement to begin with, and the unethical nature of it says volumes about their bigotry and prejudice. Remember that if it ever goes sour.
September 21, 2009 at 1:37 pm |
I wondered the same thing. Would it be legal if the agreement said “our values are White-Like,” and they only worked with Caucasian people? Selective and politically correct bigotry can be fun.
September 21, 2009 at 4:10 pm |
Exactly.
September 21, 2009 at 1:51 pm |
They’re never going to realize that Atheists are real, honest and good people until people like you stop being scared and tell them. You’re just fueling their bigotry by staying silent.
September 21, 2009 at 2:01 pm |
While I would generally agree with this statement, providing for one’s family should always come before instigating social change. If humoring people leads to putting food on the table, then so be it.
It takes a big person to swallow their pride for the sake of their family.
September 21, 2009 at 2:06 pm |
Point taken.
September 21, 2009 at 2:07 pm |
Easier said than done.
My entire social network is built around Christianity, as I’ve been a Christian my entire life. Telling a stranger you’re an atheist is a little easier than telling your best friend or a business partner you’ve been referred to by a Christian friend. I hope to be more open about it as time goes on.
September 21, 2009 at 2:13 pm |
I understand. My point is still valid though — people think it’s socially acceptable to be bigoted against atheists as long as they don’t know any personally.
That being said, my best friend (I was his best man in his first wedding) got married to this girl who absolutely hates (is actually terrified of) me because I believe in one less god than they do. I saw them once in the grocery store and she hid behind him and the cart while he talked to me. So fucking sad.
Anyway, a guy I used to hang out with all the time is now just someone I have an occasional IM conversation with, so I know (partially) what it is you fear.
September 21, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Your point is very valid.
And I look forward to the day I don’t have to continue to live a lie. I just don’t think I’m ready to deal with the look of pity from my friends and family. And I’m definitely not ready for the, “oh, no he’s going to hell unless I pray for him and help him find Jesus,” treatment I will get from everybody.
September 21, 2009 at 2:18 pm |
Sorry for the double post, but I also wanted to clarify: I’m talking about only in response to bigotry where you know it probably won’t hurt you. Like the guy who you said you wouldn’t do business with. I’m not suggesting you say “Hi, I don’t believe in your god!” with every handshake, although I’d love to see how that goes over at a business networking meeting.
September 22, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Usually this God thing never appears in a business deal. At least round here in Asia. It’s considered NOT PROFESSIONAL – as well as rude (What, you want to bother God for your secular crap? <_<).
September 21, 2009 at 2:26 pm |
I guess you can’t reply more deeply than this. In response to “oh, no he’s going to hell unless I pray for him and help him find Jesus.”
I got that from my mom at first. (This was years and years ago, at least, damn, 20 years, I feel old.) Anyway, now she’s an atheist too.
September 21, 2009 at 1:54 pm |
You mean deluded, not diluted.
September 21, 2009 at 2:05 pm |
Thanks Grammar Nazi.
September 21, 2009 at 1:57 pm |
You might want to substitute the word “deluded” for the word “diluted”.
September 21, 2009 at 2:45 pm |
I’m a Christian. Not afraid of Athiest. Not threatened nor afraid of the beliefs or non-beliefs of others. I’m extremely secure in my life experiences with the Jewish man of two thousand years ago…the Son of Yahweh. So sorry you’ve encountered so many false christians. You would like the ‘real’ ones who truly are ‘Christ-like.’ But they are a rare breed…and ‘few’…but they do exist. They follow the teachings of Christ concerning humility, love for neighbor, quietness, meekness, servitude, and peaceable-ness. If you knew them…you would love them. THEY are not the ones protesting against same sex marriage. THEY desire wholeness and the fullness of all God has to give…for every man. They would love you…even though you reject the thing most precious to their heart…their heavenly Father.
>>>>My question is why a person is assumed to be evil because they believe in one less god than you? If you can’t tell I’m an atheist by my words and actions, what makes me so scary?<<<<
The Truth (Word or Bible or Voice of God) teaches that man, by the divine purpose of God, experienced Good (which was God) while in Eden. Afterwards, man experienced Evil ( being separated from the Good) as he fell into spiritual death at the Tree of Knowledge). In order for man to truly be able to CHOOSE whom he would serve…man must first KNOW both Good(God) and Evil (Satan/Lucifer). God purposed, 'let us make man in our image.' After the 'fall' of man at the Tree of Knowledge, God said, 'Behold, man is become as one of us..to know both good and evil.' And…that was…after all…how God planned it. Now, man is fully equipped to CHOOSE whom he will 'serve'…God/Life or Satan/Death. The core of true Christianity is the Word of God and the very real experience and fellowship with the unseen…but very…Living God and His Son, Jesus.
You are right about the 'fear.' Many professing Christians..'fear' those who are different because God's Word teaches that sin is like yeast in bread….a 'little' amount quickly spreads throughout the whole. 'A rotten apple spoils the barrel'…and so forth. But they ignorantly fail to 'rightly divide the Word.' One reality about genuine relationship with God is that 'perfect Love casts out fear.' It is not possible to have a real relationship with the soveriegn God of all things…and be fearful. True belief…REAL belief and encounter with the person of God…results in FAITH.
I did a post this morning ….'Shush!' It pretty well expresses my opinion on all the christian TALK rather than Christia EXAMPLE. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit cannot be described with words. No words are sufficient. The shame of it all is that so-called Christians are guilty of what Christ said to the church at Ephesus (Book of Revelations)…'you've left your first love' (Christ). Most peoples of the world don't believe in Christ….simply because they've never met Him. How can you believe IN something you've never experienced or encountered? You can't. And concerning being an Athiest….know how you feel. I'm a registered Democrat. Much of my family and Christian friends have placed my in the box with you Athiests.
. But…that's okay. Christ wasn't liked by the crowd either. I love all them anyway….truly…truly…truly. They are very trusting and sweet people. They believe every word from the national Republicans. They honestly…honestly…have been shaped to believe that Democrat ='liberal' …and that 'liberal' = Vile. Most of them have no knowledge of the ideology of the Democrat Party. They believe it is about nothing other than abortion and gay rights. How said is that?
Interesting post. Sorry to be so lengthy. Feel free to read and 'delete.'
I am internetelias.wordpress.com
September 21, 2009 at 3:21 pm |
“So sorry you’ve encountered so many false christians.”
This irritates me. Who are you to decide what makes a “real Christian” and why does your definition differ from my reality the majority of the time?
Christians in the Antebellum south would argue that a “real, TRUE Christian” would support slavery and would point to Bible verses to prove their case. When your “proof” is a collection of dusty old books written by ignorant sheep herders and medicine men who didn’t know about, say, bacteria, then your proof leaves a little to be desired.
Are you forgetting that you’re speaking to rationalists who base decisions on evidence? When I see 99% of a group do a certain thing and 1% of that same group say “no, that’s not our thing,” what do you really think I’m going to believe? (The percentages are not scientific and are intentionally inflated for effect. There is no need to point this out..)
September 21, 2009 at 3:26 pm |
It’s called the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. You can pretty much ignore it, but what I like to say is this:
If there’s so much confusion as to what a Christian is, then why do you still maintain that the Bible is an inspired work? Certainly it would make it abundantly clear what God wants you to do.
September 21, 2009 at 3:36 pm |
A “true Christian” is defined differently by every Christian. Thus the hundreds of Christian denominations and sects. Not only do I disagree with them all, they all disagree with each other. And by biblical definition, liberal and rational does equate to evil. That is why we see all of the fundamental conservative crazies acting like they are justified in their actions. The Bible told them so.
It’s the beauty of how poorly written the Bible is. People can interpret it however they want to in order to justify their version of a true Christian. The only thing true about being a Christian is believing something that is not only irrational, it has no bases to build faith. People ignore obvious biblical flaws, contradictions, evil laws condoning the killing rape victims, homosexuals, rebellious children and those who worship other gods, and let’s not forget the stories of genocide and slaughter of children. Faith in this “Word of God”? No thank you.
People only believe these irrational teachings because they can’t accept the idea that when you die, that’s the end.
September 21, 2009 at 3:44 pm |
“People ignore obvious biblical flaws, contradictions, evil laws condoning the killing rape victims, homosexuals, rebellious children and those who worship other gods, and let’s not forget the stories of genocide and slaughter of children.”
Seems to me Stalin did the same or worse. And he was an atheist.
September 21, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Stalin wasn’t the creator of the universe.
Stalin doesn’t ask me to never use his name in vain.
Stalin doesn’t ask me to have faith in him without seeing.
Stalin doesn’t threaten me with the fires of hell.
Stalin didn’t have his son slaughtered as a human sacrifice to himself.
I think you get the point. Comparing Stalin to the god you worship is completely irrelevant.
Also, Christians have also done the same or worse as Stalin throughout history. Not to mention the debate over whether Hitler was a Christian.
September 21, 2009 at 8:15 pm
There’s a difference between an Atheist and people who believe they are Lord and God…
September 21, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Using Stalin and Hitler as arguments against atheism doesn’t work. It’s like using Osama Bin Laden and the crusaders against theism, which I’m sure our theist friends will be quick to say that they don’t represent the whole of theistic people. The same holds true for atheists. The only difference is that atheists are rational thinkers and don’t base their lives on the messages of stories that have no evidence to back them up.
Hitler worshipped his Aryan Jesus.
Stalin worshiped his own ego.
“Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.”
Adolf Hitler, in 26 April 1933
“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.”
Adolf Hitler, from John Toland
“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
If that kind of person (i.e. Hitler or Stalin) leaves that kind of mark upon history, then it matters little if they were atheist or theist for there is no “rational thinking” involved. I think we can all agree that not all theists are “good” and not all atheists are “bad” and vice versa. Those are generalizations that are not conducive to any “discovery process”.
Blaming atheism for how Stalin and Hitler conducted themselves is simply ridiculous. Stalin may have been an atheist, but he didn’t kill people in the name of atheism. It’s rather like this logic:
1. Hitler and Stalin were both ruthless dictators who committed genocide
2. Hitler and Stalin both had moustaches
3. Therefore I conclude that moustaches are an evil influence
September 22, 2009 at 10:50 am
George:
So if Stalin worshipped his own ego, and this results in millions of deaths, couldn’t the same thing be true of a Christian tyrant?
Does Christianity always lead to despotism but atheisism does not?
If an atheist like Stalin can worship his own ego, with all the horrible consequences, maybe Christianity puts a check on that sort of behavior where atheism does not?
Christianity is either helpful in deflecting self-absorbed behavior or it has nothing to do with it.
September 22, 2009 at 8:52 pm
So do other religions. All branches of Christianity, honestly do it no better than following any known philosophy or worship of other Gods.
September 23, 2009 at 4:24 am |
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
– Mahatma Gandhi
“The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.”
– G.K. Chesterton
Except I know too many exceptions to tar all Christians with the same brush.
My definition of “True Christian” is one who follows Matthew 22:34-40 and 1 Corinthians 13.
I’m no Christian of any variety, but I do try to follow both of those – omitting the God bit.
I wear an IPU religious sigil around my neck to deflect questions.
September 21, 2009 at 2:59 pm |
All Christians aren’t scared of Atheists they’re ignorant though.
September 21, 2009 at 3:36 pm |
I am Christian and I am not afraid of atheists.
Are atheists afraid of other atheists? Is there an agreed upon set of ethics among atheists? I agree (in advance, since you will point this out anyway) that ethics vary widely among Christians.
But since you have been a Christian and now an atheist, with whom do you feel more comfortable, say, lending money?
September 21, 2009 at 3:43 pm |
No, I don’t fear atheists as a group. I have fear of what people believe, not what they don’t believe. I fear people that prove to be untrustworthy. These people come from both sides, religious and non-religious.
Blanket fear of a group is bigotry, simple as that.
I feel comfortable lending money to someone I trust regardless of their religious beliefs. Although fear of God’s wrath has a way of keeping monkeys in line.
September 21, 2009 at 9:35 pm |
I fear the human race as a whole. Unlike animals humans don’t just kill for survival. Humans kill FOR SPORT and uses his reason to justify it.
What has God’s and Jesus’s advent brought humanity? Just another convenient excuse for them to use, nothing more. >_>
September 21, 2009 at 3:55 pm |
Just wanted to say, “Well said, BE.”
September 21, 2009 at 3:56 pm |
Uhm… That’s ‘TB’. Don’t know what made me type ‘BE’…. Maybe hmmmmmmmm SATAN!
September 21, 2009 at 4:23 pm |
You know what would be great? Carry the contract with them for 1 or 2 years. After that period of time call a meeting and ask them how they feel the business relationship is going. Do they think you’re fair and even handed? Do they think the business is prospering thanks to the relationship? Do they think it’s been mutually beneficial?
Then go “Well, this is going to come as a shock, but I’m an atheist, I’ve always been an atheist.”
September 21, 2009 at 5:49 pm |
I think some of the fear of atheist comes from not knowing what it means to be an atheist. How many times have you seen comments that say something like why are you so angry at god that you deny him? I doubt most christians really fear atheist but the more vocal ones do and that is why it seems so many fear atheist. How many TV preachers use lines such as the above to define atheist and then say that atheist are aiding satan in the destruction of the country or world?
September 21, 2009 at 6:47 pm |
This is especially true when you were once a believer like myself. I can’t tell you how many people have asked me why I’m angry at God and why I’ve decided to become an enemy of God.
It is impossible to be angry at or the enemy of imaginary beings. I’m no more mad at God than I am at Santa Claus when I don’t get what I ask for at Christmas. I simply don’t believe in Christian teaching anymore.
September 21, 2009 at 8:14 pm |
What? Atheists, scary?
Believers can sin in God’s name. Either that, or they can sin because they’ve already been forgiven. Wth the belief that God’s on their side, they’ll have no remorse, and no fear of human law!
Even an Atheist, who probably believes there is no divine retribution, still has to worry about human law. How can atheists possibly be scarier than anything else?
September 21, 2009 at 8:23 pm |
Surely most Christians recognize that Judas played a very important role in the story. Tori Amos said it best: “If the divine master plan is perfection, maybe next I’ll give Judas a try.”
September 21, 2009 at 9:14 pm |
Why are Christians afraid of atheists? I’d say it’s more of an anathema than a fear. Atheism is a disbelief in God, which is an affirmative statement and does not have any kind of agnostic connotation whatsoever. The word atheist was chosen because it provides the most shock-value to theists, not because you guys picked it out of a series of options and it sounded the best.
The least of the reasons people might not want to do business dealings with atheists is that 95% of atheists are dogmatic supremacists.
Take this for example:
“Just because someone doesn’t share your same delusion, it doesn’t make them evil. It only makes them rational.”
You’re obviously an arrogant douche who thinks he’s better than everyone else. I find it hilarious that you don’t have the balls to admit what your religion is in the real-world, yet are perfectly fine rambling over the anonymity of the internet like a real badass.
It’s fun to be the Judas of a group? Then feel free to say the aforementioned quote to your business partners’ faces, or just any other random Christian you meet on the street. You won’t because you have the ethical and moral constitution of a coward. It seems like you only have fun when insulting other peoples’ beliefs.
“What surprised me is their core values openly spoke about the God of the Bible as the foundation of their “Christ-like” values. I agree with their core values, I just don’t believe a Jewish man from 2,000 years ago was the son of Yahweh. Call me crazy and evil.”
Newsflash: you don’t have to believe in Jesus’ divinity to believe in “christ-like” values such as forgiveness, etc. Quit being so dense.
Anyway, 95% of the people I’ve met who have “atheist” as a large part of their identity turned out to be complete assholes. That right there is an excellent reason to stay away from you clowns.
September 21, 2009 at 9:26 pm |
Sometimes you have to read the message being passed to find out why atheists react this way.
If I said 95% of the people I’ve met who believe in God are wolf in sheep’s clothing – who cloak their disgust in you with concern – it has the same weight as your claim.
I’m not going to play down your experience – after all, my experience shaped my views as well.
Thanks for showing that courageous people are outright assholes, by the way. >_>
September 21, 2009 at 10:38 pm |
“If I said 95% of the people I’ve met who believe in God are wolf in sheep’s clothing – who cloak their disgust in you with concern – it has the same weight as your claim. ”
Indeed, and that it is in fact the viewpoint I’ve come to expect from atheists.
“Thanks for showing that courageous people are outright assholes, by the way. >_>”
Atheists are only “courageous” over the anonymity of the internet where there are legions of other atheists. This article is PROOF of that. The author acts like he and his family will be thrown out on the street into poverty if he doesn’t pretend to conform with Christian ideology. Puh-leaze, what a crock. <_<
September 21, 2009 at 11:01 pm
People who don’t believe in a God are like people who don’t drink bottled water. Statistically speaking, the group might have some noticeable characteristics, but you’re still lumping distinct subgroups together. People who refuse bottled water might be, statistically speaking, more likely to be environmentally conscious. But only some people refuse bottled water because it is environmentally a bad idea. There are also others who stay away from bottled water for entirely different reasons: because it’s a waste of money when tap water is just as good, because they can’t afford it, because they just haven’t developed the habit, etc. etc. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to generalize about non-drinkers of bottled water as if this was a coherent, natural grouping of people.
Similarly, people do not believe in God because of all sorts of reasons. Some are skeptical about popular religion, and it spills over into all kinds of God-talk. Some are at home in a scientific subculture where nonbelief is routine. Some think religion is a social evil. Etc., etc. There are differences between people who join local atheist clubs, and people who do not believe but are indifferent to religion. People who go without God in an academic environment are different from people who shed religion as part of a political movement. “Atheists” are not a natural, coherent group.
Aedus: Please do not generalize your statistical significance is very limited indeed !
September 22, 2009 at 4:21 am
Here are two examples of what can happen to non-christians and you can always find more if you look. http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/06/30/atheist-acquitted-on-assault-charges-after-being-harassed-by-local-christians.htm http://www.jewsonfirst.org/06b/public098.html Yeah it is never something that you good christians would do to people is it.
September 22, 2009 at 10:45 am
I’m not generalizing or calling anyone here an asshole, I’m just sharing my experiences.
George – No, people who don’t believe in God purely from an academic view are not “atheists.” This delusion is a result of atheists’ desire to add more people to their position, hence this “lack of belief” definition that atheists formulated. Unfortunately, you won’t find a lack of belief definition in any reputable dictionary or in any etymology of atheism because it’s too vague to be useful. Atheism is a disbelief or denial of God. Disbelief is different from lack of belief. If I told you I didn’t believe in the theory of gravity, then the burden of proof would be on me. Similarly, most scientists subscribe to an agnostic viewpoint concerning God. They are not atheists, and neither are babies, agnostics, or people who haven’t thought about the issue. This FACT is reflected in the fact that only 5% of non-religious people label themselves as atheists according to American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS 2008). Einstein certainly didn’t share atheism’s views, which he explicitly stated, so atheists need to quit making shit up and shoehorning more people into to their position in order to make up for poor debate tactics.
Baconsbud – is that a joke? You think I can’t find articles about atheists who have committed similar hate-crimes? Are you aware that the vast majority of the population is Christian? If so, does it honestly surprise you that a person from a vast majority of a population would commit a crime? If so, that’s pretty naive. But what you should be more concerned about is the amount of deaths attributed to atheists, despite how pathetically few of them there are (Stalin’s 20 million death toll for example makes the crusades, inquisition and french wars of religion combined look like a joke).
September 22, 2009 at 11:25 am
Make sure when you find them they committed the acts based on their ateism not some other reason.
September 22, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Yes, great, awesome.
We’re finally back to arguing the definitions of words now. I thought we’ve passed that already. Getting a little old.
It would not surprise me that a person from the vast majority of a population would commit a crime. It does surprise me when a person who is supposed to follow the peaceful teachings of a random guy with 23 chromosomes 2000 years commits a hate crime.
You Christians often turn to Stalin when it comes to the genocidal actions of those acting in the name of your faith. Problem is, Stalin didn’t kill in the name of atheism. Your people did.
Furthermore, your faith is supposed to be one of peace and love and all that good stuff. Are the Crusades full of cuddly-wuddlies? Isn’t the Inquisition so lovely and peaceful?
Here’s something for you: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/09/fear_the_atheist.php
September 22, 2009 at 2:28 am |
Excuse me, but I am not an asshole, thank you very much. I am open about my disbelief with everyone but my parents. My father knows but doesn’t discuss it and my mother is to hard up on her beliefs that it would be hard on her too hard for to deal with.
Based on just about every Christian I know I would have to say I am way more “christ-like” than they could ever be. I help the poor, I am kind to people, I have empathy, I am tolerant and I believe in equality for all (well that isn’t Christ-like, because slavery and abuse of women and minorities is bible sanctioned).
I have only met a handful of Christians that I would consider good people, Even when I was a believer. I can only think of 5 to 10 apart from my parents who I would even let baby sit my kids because of the hateful shit they spew forth.
You think my experience is narrow? That I have only come across a small subsection of Christians? Well again, Wrong. I have lived all over the USA, Australia, and South East Asia (Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia). I have worked for a time in the UK and New Zealand as well. And the “asshole” christians are everywhere!
What does that say? It says PEOPLE ARE ASSHOLES, doesn’t matter what god or lack there of that you believe in. People are capable of evil no matter what they believe.
September 22, 2009 at 2:30 am |
And so people are singled out or don’t fully understand what I mean about people being assholes? I have met muslim assholes, hindu assholes and buddhist assholes too. BUT, and this may be a shock, I have met way more nice muslims, hindu’s and buddhists than I have ever met nice christians.
September 22, 2009 at 8:08 am |
I do not believe I am better than everyone else. The only difference between you and I is you believe in the impossible and I don’t. That doesn’t make me better, it just makes me more rational.
The Bible does not teach Christians to be rational. It teaches to believe things that are impossible and illogical without question and absolute faith. That makes them irrational. You shouldn’t be insulted by the description, you should wear it as a badge of honor.
Just ask Jesus:
Matthew 17:20
Jesus replied, “Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”
Matthew 19:26
Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
I would gladly discuss these things in the “real-world”, but it wouldn’t exactly be a valuable discussion. As I said, everyone in my social network is a Christian. What possible reason would I have for attempting a religious discussion with a very large group of people that passionately disagree with me? Discussions on this blog are open from both sides and much more productive.
You can view me as a “douche” or an “asshole”, but I am the same man I have always been. I love my Christian wife, I love my Christian family and friends, and help those less fortunate than me whenever I can. I live very closely to your code of ethics, I just don’t do it to impress a guy in the clouds.
September 22, 2009 at 8:33 am |
Agreed. If you meet a person and they say, “Hi, my name is Bob and I’m an atheist,” they will likely be less than fun to talk to. Not everyone wears their lack of theism on their sleeve.
But I would say the same thing about extreme Christians. Many Christians that are obsessed with their faith tend to judge others and biblically justify hate for people (a.k.a. homosexuals). Not exactly the kind of person you want to chat with over a few beers.
Extremists are never fun to be around. I prefer to hang around people that keep theism out of the discussion.
September 22, 2009 at 10:30 am |
I think there is a definite element of fear, and the anathema is born out of that fear. Anything that people don’t understand they fear. Why believers don’t understand atheism is beyond me. It’s really very simple. The straw man atheist is created in order to place atheism maintain the apparent cohesion of their world view, in which an accurate portrayal of an atheist simply doesn’t fit.
September 22, 2009 at 10:34 am |
For a guy that wants to avoid atheists, you sure pick a funny way of doing it.
And what does your comment say about your character? I feel a sneeze coming on…. ah-Ah-AH-sshole-CHOO!
September 22, 2009 at 12:09 am |
Great post. This is something I also don’t get. What I find amusing is that with the Christian friends who know I am openly atheist, things can get really sticky in conversations precisely because I know what they think about non-believers, already.
In regards to your ‘imaginary internet friends’ – excuse me, I am VERY real, thank you very much!
September 22, 2009 at 8:15 am |
Virtual friends, not imaginary. My bad.
September 22, 2009 at 12:09 am |
The phenomenon is not exclusively American, although the motives may be. I live in the Netherlands, which is pretty secular by U.S. standards, and I’ve seen many exclusively Christian business networks. It wasn’t about being afraid of unbelievers or heretics, but about giving eachother a boost.
September 22, 2009 at 6:58 am |
I used to consider myself a Christian, though now I prefer not to identify with the group as a whole. I still believe in God, though I’m undecided on whether I believe Jesus was the son of God or simply one of many spiritual teachers. I’ve always viewed the Bible as a work of man, perhaps inspired, perhaps not, but certainly reflective of the time it was written and therefore not everything in it is relevant today. I say this only so you know where I’m coming from, and I may not be the kind of religious person you’re looking for an answer from.
But, I just wanted you to know that I support letting people believe as they wish, and there are others like me. Some have beliefs similar to mine, others are very devout Christians, some hold pagan or other polytheistic beliefs, and others are atheists. I imagine the same holds for people of other faiths as well, but I haven’t actually met people of other faiths (at least that I’m aware of), which is why I don’t include them since I’m trying to speak from experience.
The only people I take issue with are those who claim they must be right, and everyone else must be wrong. Those who can’t simply say this is what I believe, but I don’t know. Because really, until we die, we really don’t know.
September 22, 2009 at 5:45 pm |
No offense here floslib but your beliefs sound kinda Deistic. Wanna give that route a try?
September 22, 2009 at 7:36 pm |
Agreed. I’m polytheistic. Not that I’m completely happy with this, BUT fact is, I’ll be worse off kneeling to one religion alone.
September 22, 2009 at 8:30 pm |
No offense taken. From what I understand of Deism, my beliefs are pretty close. My beliefs do have some differences from Deism though. The thing is, I’m starting to think it may be better to just hold beliefs, change them as necessary as I learn new things, and not worry about the label.
If I were looking for some sort of loose knit group to affiliate with though, it would likely be Deism or Unitarian Universalism (this is not the same as Unitarianism or Universalism).
September 22, 2009 at 7:21 am |
This post touched my heart. I have the exact same problem though exclusively with my family and not with my friends – I chose them wisely
Not that I’m implying you didn’t… 
Anyway. I come from a VERY religious Christian family who believe interracial relationships go against “god” (and other things along those lines) and that the Bible serves as a literal guide to living your life. My parents already know I’m an atheist, but should I tell my more bigoted Grandparents, cousins, etc, etc, the backlash would most likely be severe and ugly, to say the least. From my point of view such a stance against atheism is idiotic, but when you consider how they get their policies, one shouldn’t be too surprised. So my “policy” is that I’ll grin and bear the closeted atheism within the family until my grandparents go (since, y’know, I like them a lot and they’re old and set in their ways) and then all hell *wink wink* will break loose.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that eventually you need to live your life the way YOU want to live it and not compromise being true to yourself for others’ sake. If your friends are truly your friends, they’ll compromise or at the very least accept you for who you are.
September 22, 2009 at 8:16 am |
I met most of my friends through my church. I was very devoted and involved Christian which lead to my friends being the same. So I chose them wisely for the time, but not so wisely for the present.
September 22, 2009 at 9:03 am |
People have a strange reaction when I tell them I’m an Atheist, they don’t believe me. My family says “you’re not really an Atheist”, like it’s the most absurd thing they have ever heard. Frankly, I don’t tell most people in my everyday life that I’m an Atheist because I know they either won’t understand or condemn me. I feel that is their issue and they will probably never understand. I don’t think it’s my business to teach them anything, I live life how I live it, no need to explain my life to anyone.
September 22, 2009 at 9:16 am |
Funny that – until a few years ago, the Christian people I know have told me I’m an atheist, NOT an agnostic, NOT a polytheist. Honest mistake, really – they thought Atheist means “no defined religion” rather than “doesn’t believe in any God.”, and would take to classifying “Free Thinkers” as Atheists as well.
September 22, 2009 at 9:50 am |
Sometimes I tell people I’m agnostic b/c it’s just easier than saying I don’t believe in god. There’s much less explanation involved with being agnostic. I do agree that people do mistake agnostic and atheist, but my point was, that the people who do understand the difference can’t believe I’m atheist. I went to a Catholic university and grade school..wft
I guess I just don’t fit the “counter-culture” idea of what people think atheist is.
I’m from Pittsburgh, and with G20 just around the corner, it will be interesting to see if any atheist groups come out to protest..does anyone know if there are plans to do so?
September 22, 2009 at 9:49 am |
I’ve observed that some people think that if you don’t worship their god, you must worship the devil, and saying you’re atheist is some sort of smoke screen. Seriously, they just can’t conceive of thought processes that are not infused with magic and superstition.
But why DO U.S. Christians go after their non-believing countrymen? About 33% of people in the world are Christians, the rest are something else. You never hear a preacher raging against Jains, traditional Hawaiian or Chukchi believers. We atheists are just a convenient local target. They may not even care what we do or don’t believe, they just get social brownie points for acting hardcore.
It looks to me like that’s 85% of all religion; being accepted by a certain group. I think a lot of people just want extended parenting, or don’t have the intellectual stamina to reason through important issues on their own.
September 22, 2009 at 10:46 am |
Because they can relate to groups that believe in a deity or deities. A group not believing in a god is something else. In their minds, the chasm between belief – no matter whether it is the same or even radically different – and nonbelief is wide indeed. One could call it a metagroup. Nothing stops a room full of believers of different faiths arguing amongst themselves like the appearance of an atheist.
I fully agree. The religious are like castratos, their beliefs preventing individuals and societies from reaching maturity. For those in whom belief gets switched off, it’s a scary thing to believe that something has been guiding your life and suddenly realize that it was never there to begin with. Those of us that have known this all along are at a distinct advantage and will never know that fear of uncertainty. My only advice to them is to remember that there never was a deity directing their lives and they did just fine without that realization. Just think of what they can do now that they understand!
September 22, 2009 at 11:09 am |
theBEattitude:
First off, I’m a deist, not a Christian, so spare me your Christianity ramblings.
“I do not believe I am better than everyone else.”
Just theists, which comprise the majority of the population. The fact that you can’t accept that people have had a different life experience than you is the source of your slanderous comments that theists are irrational. Calling someone irrational is equivalent to calling someone stupid. At least when I call someone stupid I’m honest about it.
“The only difference between you and I is you believe in the impossible and I don’t. That doesn’t make me better, it just makes me more rational.”
I’d be happy to demolish any delusions you have about atheism being rational, especially since I bet you’ve never actually taken the time to find out the motivation behind a belief in God but instead hopped onto the atheist bandwagon.
For starters, the universe is one of three things: created, eternal, or accidental. Why are the latter two options more likely than the first? The first cause of the universe, by definition, has no natural explanation, so it must have a supernatural explanation. So you either believe that the universe popped out of virtual nothingness, or you believe that the universe is eternal and that we crossed an infinite amount of time to get to “now,” which is logically impossible.
Which is it? Both are idiotic non-sequiturs. If there’s something I left out, feel free to mention it. I think most people realize at some level that the atheistic explanation of the origins of the universe is total bullshit.
September 22, 2009 at 2:00 pm |
Just so I’m straight, I’m a arrogant douche, an asshole, a coward, a clown, dense, slanderous, irrational, delusional, illogical and idiotic. Did I miss anything? You are welcome to disagree with me, but the insults are unnecessary.
I never said Christians were stupid. Believing in a god described in primitive texts does not require the person to be stupid, only that they believe something irrational. Faith in an illogical god is a choice many intelligent people make every day.
I’m a bit of a soft atheist, many would define me as agnostic. I do not believe a god exists. But we certainly haven’t discovered with absolute certainty why we are here.
Basically I think religion is it is a huge waste of time. The religions of the earth are man-made traditions to keep people in line and help them cope with the fear of death. If you need hope of an afterlife to be happy, religion is for you. Personally I like to live in reality and not worship gods invented by primitive men.
Just because there is no explanation for something, does not prove your “deist” version of reality. The unexplained is something waiting to be discovered. People also used to believe the world was flat because there was no other natural explanation. Just because you don’t understand something it doesn’t prove a supernatural explanation.
September 22, 2009 at 5:19 pm |
Basically it sounds like you are like most other people, we all have our good and bad points.
September 22, 2009 at 3:32 pm |
Yeah, ummm, “singularity” ring any bells? Please check your “facts” before dismissing widely accepted scientific theories (more like laws) as “illogical”. The universe did expand out of “virtual nothingness”.
September 22, 2009 at 5:56 pm |
For starters, the universe is one of three things: created, eternal, or accidental. Why are the latter two options more likely than the first? The first cause of the universe, by definition, has no natural explanation, so it must have a supernatural explanation. So you either believe that the universe popped out of virtual nothingness, or you believe that the universe is eternal and that we crossed an infinite amount of time to get to “now,” which is logically impossible.
Get off Youtube and get on a proper physics course. Or even a book.
Would a “supernatural” explanation of the universe be something like this? — ” God dunnit. I believe it. That settles it.”
September 22, 2009 at 11:22 am |
No, he’s not calling theists irrational. Just their beliefs. The difference seems to be lost on you.
Go for it. We’ve seen every argument, demolished every argument. I doubt very much that you understand the reasons behind belief yourself. Oh, sure. You’ve rationalized your belief, assigned what you think are reasons, but truly understanding the underlying causes of belief isn’t as easy as you think.
Neither. Learn something about cosmology before making such a statement. This is also a god-of-the-gaps argument – don’t know how the universe came to be, must be god. Nonsense! First explain how said deity did it. If the explanation does not stand on its own, it is not an explanation!
September 22, 2009 at 1:23 pm |
“No, he’s not calling theists irrational. Just their beliefs. The difference seems to be lost on you.”
And critical thinking seems to be lost on you:
“Just because someone doesn’t share your same delusion, it doesn’t make them evil. It only makes them rational.”
^–Here he is basically presenting rationality and theist beliefs as mutually exclusive.
“Neither. Learn something about cosmology before making such a statement.”
So we agree that both options are ridiculous bullshit. That’s good, since I’ve defined the only possible ones. And since you’re not educated enough to come up with a better counterargument than “learn something about cosmology,” I’ll assume you concede the point.
“This is also a god-of-the-gaps argument – don’t know how the universe came to be, must be god. Nonsense!”
Here we have typical knee-jerk atheist rhetoric that is basically “theist making an argument from cosmology? must be god-of-the-gaps,” irregardless of whether it’s actually relevant to the argument at hand. We should always seek a naturalistic explanation for all phenomena. God of the gaps is where you shoehorn in God as an explanation of an area of reality that can be explained by scientific knowledge. But the first cause, whatever it is, does NOT have a naturalistic or scientific explanation, by definition. Therefore I’m not making a god-of-the-gaps argument. Notice how I’ve never identified what I think the first cause is and I don’t think it CAN be 100% known. Beyond the first cause is where things get into the realm of philosophy instead of science. If you disagree, you’re an idiot.
“First explain how said deity did it. If the explanation does not stand on its own, it is not an explanation!”
Correction: it is not a scientific explanation, but that becomes moot once you go beyond the first cause, therefore your argument is invalid. I simply have a list of philosophical reasons for why I think God exists, such as the fact that the default state of a purely naturalistic universe should be “nothing” instead of “something,” because “something” is the ridiculously-small exception rather than the rule.
Newsflash: burden of proof is not static. I’ve shown you why I think God exists. You don’t believe that God exists, so now it’s your job to show me why. But of course I’ll expect you to hide behind “I don’t know” or the “I’m an agnostic atheist” contradiction to make up for the fact that your position is a total crock. It must be disappointing for you to know that you’re not better than any bible thumper or any other people who believe in an invisible man in the sky.
September 22, 2009 at 8:19 pm |
I hestitate to use the bible against a Christian like this, but I think I can rightfully use Mark 7:1 against you. <_<
"For starters, the universe is one of three things: created, eternal, or accidental. Why are the latter two options more likely than the first? The first cause of the universe, by definition, has no natural explanation, so it must have a supernatural explanation. So you either believe that the universe popped out of virtual nothingness, or you believe that the universe is eternal and that we crossed an infinite amount of time to get to “now,” which is logically impossible."
That doesn't mean we STOP AT GOD or the first supernatural explanation we come across, because he gave us brains and the ability to think for a reason. We're not doing his gift any honor by STOPPING THERE.
The weather once had a supernatural explanation. OUR BODIES once had a supernatural explanation. Our brain, the way we think, the way we remember and psychology STILL has a supernatural explanation – but you don't see anyone stopping there, do you?
Some of the greatest brains of the time respect God to a degree Christianity can't even come close to. If Einstien and Tesla were alive, you could ask them yourself. They never stopped at God, whereas most Christians would be glad to, for anything they didn't understand.
(But then again, you'd probably call them irrationa-um, stupid for trying to pursue an answer to the unanswerable. The smart thing to do is to Stop At God! <_<)
"Correction: it is not a scientific explanation, but that becomes moot once you go beyond the first cause, therefore your argument is invalid. I simply have a list of philosophical reasons for why I think God exists, such as the fact that the default state of a purely naturalistic universe should be “nothing” instead of “something,” because “something” is the ridiculously-small exception rather than the rule."
So… why God in particular? Why not, say, Zeus? Why not any of the Hindu Gods? Why not… nothing? What makes you more right than any other religion, philosophy or belief?
Because YOU feel it? Because someone else said so, and YOU feel that it's right? Because The Book said so, and YOU feel that it's right?
That, in itself, is illogical, because *I* can feel a different answer. However, I'm not so filled with pride as to insist my POV as the one and only answer, or to accept that my answer cannot be wrong.
September 23, 2009 at 7:37 am
“I hestitate to use the bible against a Christian like this, but I think I can rightfully use Mark 7:1 against you. <_<"
Newsflash: I'm not a Christian. <_< Why does everyone assume that I am? This must be because Christians are the easy targets.
"That doesn't mean we STOP AT GOD or the first supernatural explanation we come across"
I'll say this slowly. I. NEVER. IDENTIFIED. WHAT. I. THINK. THE. FIRST. CAUSE. IS. Therefore it makes no fucking sense to claim I'm stopping anywhere or using god of the gaps. It's difficult enough to hammer this concept into your guys' skulls but I said it like 9 times…
"So… why God in particular? Why not, say, Zeus? Why not any of the Hindu Gods? Why not… nothing? What makes you more right than any other religion, philosophy or belief?"
Because the deist god is based on rationality and reason instead of superstition.
"That, in itself, is illogical, because *I* can feel a different answer. However, I'm not so filled with pride as to insist my POV as the one and only answer, or to accept that my answer cannot be wrong."
Spare me. You've only proven that you know how to only argue with Christians, and not anyone else.
September 23, 2009 at 9:25 am
“Newsflash: I’m not a Christian. <_< Why does everyone assume that I am? This must be because Christians are the easy targets."
My apologies for thinking you're a Christian. I've had Christians approach me in a hostile manner before – so I automatically assumed you were one.
After all, when I pointed out that you were using a logical fallacy, you dismissed it as an atheistic argument, and then decided to turn your hostility on me.
PS: I'm not atheist. I'm assuming you're hostile only because you think I am.
September 23, 2009 at 10:00 am
Still:
“Because the deist god is based on rationality and reason instead of superstition.”
Thing is, the reasoning is all inferential in this case.
The Universe, for example. By the way the universe is in such and such an order* and follows a certain set of rules** I can infer that the Universe is designed by an intelligent being***.
This doesn’t particularly point to or credit the Christian God, the Muslim Allah, or any particular Hindu or Chinese mytical figure, or any Greek Partheon God.
Heck, there’s also a slight possibility that, in a stroke of chaotic probability, the universe met that one-in-a-million condition that throws it in the right order (Yes, that nonsensically small percentage that should rightfully be excluded, according to you…)
Even if I did argue under the impression that you’re a Christian, my point there still stands. Knowing more than one deity I can’t positively credit any one of them as the creator of the universe as it is, or know for sure they have no part in it at all.
*the universe is actually pretty chaotic. Remember once we thought the Solar System had 9 planets, with nothing outside Pluto. Now we’ve discovered so many Pluto-sized planetoids at the very edge of the SS and further, that we’ve considered Pluto to not even be a planet anymore. Pick up a modern astronomy book, even a casual one. Or, wiki it. There’s so much stuff in the chaos
**the rules aren’t fully discovered yet; scientists have put a big, fat, honest I Don’t Know, But It Could Be Like This… at many points. What we don’t know is what creates the chaos.
***Plenty of arguments here as well. You can argue that even in all the chaos, the Earth has Jupiter, the Moon and an Atmosphere, and is just the right distance away to support Life, so someone or something must have put it in the correct position. Others can argue that an intelligent, supreme being can’t possibly make such a chaotic universe. Yet others can say, perhaps the deity is just like a human, and whatever he programmed here has a few glitches in the system from time to time…
That’s rationality. It’s overcomplicated rationality, but. Rationality is not about excluding exceptions and keeping it simple. Not to a complicated system, like Nature and the Universe.
September 23, 2009 at 11:29 am |
No, they are the only ones you could think of. How arrogant. This is exactly why I suggested you read up on cosmology. You have completely ignored the multiverse model, which is likely to be shown to be how this universe began. So, yes, it is a god-of-the-gaps argument- can’t think of a naturalistic explanation, must be supernatural one. It is not a true dichotomy, since you have not demonstrated that there can be no naturalistic explanation, just that you don’t think there is one. Doesn’t wash with me. You have given us nothing in support of your own position, only perceived failings of other ones. This is not evidence in support.
I concede nothing. And unless you have more than two postgraduate degrees, which I gravely doubt, I am by far the more educated of the two of us. Ad hominems – the last refuge of the scoundrel. For a guy who thinks atheists are assholes, you sure do a good imitation of the latter.
Ah, the First Cause Argument. Too bad not all events have causes. Radioactive decay, for instance, has no cause. It is impossible to predict when an unstable nucleus will eject a particle via quantum tunnelling. And tunnelling isn’t the cause, only the mechanism by which it can occur. Even if it were true that all events within the universe have causes (they don’t, but lets just pretend they do), this does not translate to a requirement that the universe itself had a cause. As for the premise that the first cause, if there was one, must be supernatural, why? Because you say so? Because that’s all I see you’ve given us. If the multiverse model is correct, and there was a first cause, it is a completely natural.
No, I need only show that your arguments are flawed. And I’ve done this.
I feel another sneeze coming on….
September 23, 2009 at 11:33 am
Oh, and no, the supernatural is not an explanation, scientific or otherwise. I was deliberate in my choice of words. We agree it is insufficient to be considered a scientific explanation. But it is not even a lay explanation, since it simply begs the question.
September 22, 2009 at 12:50 pm |
As a UK atheist, I have no fear of being a vociferous atheist. As a well educated (in 21st century terms) scientist and teacher I actually consider it my duty to confront irrational beliefs. I don’t need to be aggressive about this and I only challenge where I am being presented with religious information as facts. I do not believe that in a 21st century society we should be giving religion it’s apparently unique status in society of being held above any criticism (or its own personal belief that it holds this point to be an unchallengeable truth). I don’t personally believe that individuals actually should have the right to their own beliefs where they are so wrapped up in society and have expectations of total acceptance back. Irrationality of thought, be it in history, society or any other sphere of human knowledge should always be challenged or we risk being consigned to the Dark Ages of irrationality once more.
Unfortunately (or fortunately for the rest of us), the USA amongst all of the developed western nations is totally anomalous in its anachronous religious orthodoxy, which is fortunately being increasingly challenged by its own people. The religious right in America and fundamentalism is actually becoming increasingly a worry worldwide, especially as they try to spread their net of ignorance to other more enlightened and better educated nations. The fundamentalist and creationist views are being presented vociferously worldwide and should be challenged equally vociferously for the ignorance and unfounded myths that they are.
September 22, 2009 at 1:28 pm |
I really enjoy reading your website. I struggle with this article’s very same issue. I feel courageous around other business members but secretly am an atheist. (we own two businesses)
However living in the south where bible thumping reside most, my family and I have elected to remain in the closet for the time being. We hope one day it will change and there will be nothing to fear. For either side. We know however that right now, our businesses would suffer, our son will suffer, and our family connections could suffer all because we have escaped the delusion.
My only comment about your article and last question would be that I personally would have request that information be pulled out by request of my lawyer. It would have taken the request off your back, and prevented them from hauling you to court in the event that your atheism escapes.
September 22, 2009 at 2:12 pm |
Paul M & Aedus
For the most part, I couldn’t care less whether Stalin and Hitler were religious or not. It makes absolutely no difference to the truth value of my position. The same is true of all the other genocidal lunatics on both sides of the fence.
My issue is with people that skew historical facts to pursue their own agendas. And both sides are guilty of this in several instances.
People need to be willing to fight and reject megalomaniacs or fanatical dictators, no matter if they’re religious or not, but it seems that many aren’t willing to do that, especially when the people in power will kill you if you reject their authority…
Having said that, the same logic that gets you from “Stalin,Hitler=atheist” to “atheism=holocaust,genocide” gets you from “Nazi soldiers=christian” to “christianity=facilitating genocide”. I don’t consider either to be true, but some christians consider the first to be true but not the second, despite the logic being the same.
September 22, 2009 at 2:53 pm |
We probably agree on this more than not.
There are/have been Christian tyrants that have done horrible things.
There are/have been atheist tyrants who have done the same or worse.
Seems to me that when you decide to undertake genocide, for example, you leave behind both rationalism and Christianity.
My point would be that, in theory, Christianity provides an absolute moral standard that puts a brake on extreme behavior. What does atheism provide? It might be that atheism does provide some sort of moral or ethical system, but I wouldn’t know where to find such a thing.
September 22, 2009 at 7:30 pm |
Chinese philosophers should count – that’s where you find morals from, um, non-believers. Course, like the Bible, you’d find that there’s nobody who follows the book at all these days.
(Most Chinese philosophers are Taoist or profess following “The Tao”. This doesn’t involve or invoke any God – it simply refers to the natural state of things.)
September 22, 2009 at 2:37 pm |
“For the most part, I couldn’t care less whether Stalin and Hitler were religious or not. It makes absolutely no difference to the truth value of my position.”
The truth value of your claim is destroyed by cosmology and the question of ultimate origins, not random peoples’ morals. I never said it was the latter; in fact I was responding to someone else’s attack against Christianity who was bringing up these irrelevant morality examples, so you have in effect singled me out for no reason instead of the atheist using this same faulty logic you disapprove of.
I don’t expect anybody to apologize for the mistakes of atheist regimes. But if you’re going to bring up morality & discriminate against religion, then you should at least be aware of how many deaths atheists are responsible for in comparison to how pathetically few of them there are. It’s food for thought to say the least. <_<
September 22, 2009 at 4:39 pm |
Evil people justify what they do with whatever means necessary. Atheists and religious people both included.
But historically genocide, slavery and mistreatment of other people has almost always happened to honor some sort of god. Without belief in a god, these people would still have committed evil acts to appease their greed and power. They just wouldn’t have justified their acts by pretending a god told them to do it.
September 22, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
[...] Why are Christians afraid of Atheists? I just read an article about the isolation of being an atheist. I personally haven’t experienced this isolation, [...] [...]
September 22, 2009 at 6:32 pm |
Almost everyone I know is Christain. The few who know I’m an Atheisdt aren’t afraid of me, though.
September 22, 2009 at 6:54 pm |
KodaK>>>This irritates me. Who are you to decide what makes a “real Christian” and why does your definition differ from my reality the majority of the time? >>>
Sorry to mislead. I didn’t clarify the source of my statement..’false christian’. The standard for ‘true’ christianity is explained from the first verse at the beginning of the Bible and continues through the last verse at the ending of the Bible. You have to read the WHOLE book…then ‘rightly divide’ its meaning. In order to KNOW its meaning…one has to be taught ’supernaturally’…by the Holy Spirit (that, too, is clearly explained in the christian’s Bible. Wisdom and knowledge about things of God comes only over time….and ONLY if the believer’s heart honestly seeks that wisdom and knowledge concerning Biblical meanings…called Truth. I NEVER meant to leave the impression that the judgement as to whether a Christian is ‘true’ or ‘false’ was by some personal standard of mine. The Bible makes it clear that only the Word (Bible) is the judge. It also clearly states what characteristics or behaviors are present in the True Christian. The major characteristics for the ‘true’ Christian is love for all people, kindness…always, meekness…always, truthful…always, wanting good things for others rather than for oneself, merciful…always, forgiving…always, does good for those who do ‘bad’ to you, and…well…you get it. According to the standard set forth in the Bible…if one is truly Christian…these ‘fruits’ will be visible. That’s all I meant. Sorry…the way I worded my initial comment did sound unkind. I truly didn’t intend that at all.
Remember that I’m speaking from MY EXPERIENCE, MY KNOWLEDGE, MY BELIEF….as a Christian. CHRISTIANITY is my REALITY. Each of us very deliberately choose our own REALITY. One of the CLEAREST teachings of Christ in the Bible is that Christianity can only be chosen. It can never be forced.
September 22, 2009 at 9:05 pm |
Personally, I think you have the right idea in that blog post of yours. The last thing anyone needs is for to go about spouting a mistaken idea of Him in His name – retroactively sparking hostilities and adding fuel for non-believers.
This is one of the instances where a question to thin air is better than some representative of God with a mistaken, presupposed idea attempting an answer.
September 22, 2009 at 7:12 pm |
The morals-without-God question itself has several major flaws. First, it makes the totally unwarranted assumption that without gods we humans just can’t think or act rationally. On the face of it, that’s preposterous. Do we need an invisible spirit, threatening us with hellfire, to understand that life is more pleasant when we are not ripping each other to shreds? Evolution sees to it that human groups who are uncontrollably vicious among themselves will die out (this may possibly have contributed to the downfall of the Aztec civilization), while peaceful groups will thrive. The only enemies of peaceful, cooperating groups are Mother Nature or Other Clans, meaning warfare for territory and so on. But within your own clan, cooperation is essential, not an option, if you are to survive.
If you slap someone in the face he will more than likely slap you right back. You learn this when you’re about two. Learning to “get along,” which is all morality is when you think about it, is the natural extension of this slap/slap back realization. Life is better when we get along. Think about it this way. Why do lions get along with each other? Or wolf packs? Or any other animal group? Why are they so gentle and loving to their young? Is it because they have some god telling them what to do? No. It’s because if they did not behave that way they would go extinct in no time. Humans are no different in that respect, especially since our children require such a long period of nurturing before they can fend for themselves.
Second, anyone asking the morality question must first define morality. Which code of ethics qualifies? The Bible does not condemn polygamy, slavery, rape or child abuse, so they must be, according to that Bible, moral practices; but the eating of pork chops is absolutely forbidden. Now what kind of moral code is that? Every different religion has different moral standards, making them precisely as arbitrary as any nontheistic code of ethics. And if you study the Old Testament carefully, there are literally hundreds of commandments, most of them frivolous, referring to just how to worship and pray; how much money to give to the priests (!); what you can and cannot eat; and why you shouldn’t ever wear wool and linen at the same time. (True story! Deut 22:11—Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together. KJV) Now what does all that have to do with morality?
Third, such questions imply that religions are always good and moral. If you know your history, you know that religion has been the cause of most large scale human violence: the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Thirty Years War, the Arab/Israeli wars, the Muslim “holy” wars with other Muslims, the Protestants and Catholics still killing each other, the Aztecs, the witch trials, the Nazis slaughtering the Jews and on and on and on. Religion is by no means a guarantee of peace. Both the Bible and the Koran actively encourage killing.
Fourth, the much praised so-called Ten Commandments is one of the worst possible moral codes I’ve ever read. Concerned mainly with humans prostrating themselves correctly in front of this egomaniacal God, there is not one word forbidding rape, slavery, child beating, child sexual abuse, abortion, torture, cannibalism or kidnapping. But lying and envying made the list. How can you explain to a rape victim why rape is not forbidden, but envying your neighbor’s Corvette is? No one has ever, nor can they, explain that. Any atheist could come up with a better list of rules.
Further, have you ever met a well-behaved 7-year-old? I’ve known scores of them. They are polite, often very kind, especially to smaller children, and do not try to kill everyone who pisses them off. How can this be? If you insist that the fear of God is all that can encourage morality, how can you explain these sweet 7-year-olds? They are certainly displaying moral behavior. But the God argument can’t be the answer. Children that age have no concept, none whatsoever, of blood-atonement and hell and damnation. They still believe in flying reindeer. So while they may be mimicking their parents’ religious rituals (such as prayer) they don’t know what the heck it’s all about. To them it’s like asking Santa Claus for a present; and, indeed, many young children (mine definitely included!) confused Santa Claus with God at that age.
Children have acquired around 90% of their moral foundation by the age of seven. How? They learn from their elders, just as their elders learned from theirs. Only much later, around ten or eleven, do children begin to understand the supposed supernatural, God-directed reasons for their kindness and compassionate behavior. But that behavior is already in place. Morality precedes religious understandings. Naturally everything is filtered through our various genetic makeups. But if parents behave compassionately toward others, the children will imitate this behavior. Just like table manners. Or saying thank-you and please. And everything else. And aside from a few psychopaths here and there, this is how we all learn morality. By example. Not from religious doctrine that young minds can’t begin to comprehend. The so-called Golden Rule is the basis for all moral behavior in all cultures. And Jesus did not originate it. In fact, I think Confucius’ version was better: Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you.
No one expects much in the way of “moral” behavior from an 18-month-old baby, although hitting and screaming have already been addressed at that point. But we do indeed expect “moral” behavior from five, six and seven year old children. And by this time generosity, helping others, apologizing, stealing, lying, name-calling, fighting and so on, in other words “morality,” has been dealt with in varying degrees, depending on the parents’ own moral codes. But by the time children begin to understand the intricacies of heaven/reward and hell/punishment theology, they have already learned how they are expected to treat their fellow humans. No God required.
So, in an evolutionary way, morality is selfish. It serves us in our quest for survival, but it also makes life more pleasant. It is its own reward in most cases.
September 22, 2009 at 7:42 pm |
[...] Why are Christians afraid of Atheists? This Christian fear became VERY evident to me in the past month. I was in a meeting with a man I was considering joining in a business partnership. He believed I was a Christian as he openly explained that he would only do business with fellow Christians. He said that anyone who didn’t believe in God couldn’t be trusted. There is nothing quite like being inadvertently insulted to your face. Since I don’t like partnering with openly bigoted people, I didn’t join with him in the business venture. [...]
September 22, 2009 at 7:46 pm |
Yeah, I have lost a lot of friends when I became an atheist. And then the ‘tolerant Christian’ friends who could handle my being an atheist started dropping like flies when I started transsexual transition. I think that they are more afraid of transsexual atheists, which are more evil than cissexual atheists. Supposedly.
September 22, 2009 at 9:20 pm |
Intolerance is a bitter beast. There are many groups in America that are subject to discrimination and prejudice, but none are more hated than atheists. Research conducted a couple years ago at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis found that atheists are more distrusted than muslims or homosexuals in the US.
Austin Cline from about.com writes, “Every single study that has ever looked at the issue has revealed massive amounts of bigotry and prejudice against atheists in America. The most recent data shows that atheists are more distrusted and despised than any other minority and that an atheist is the least likely person that Americans would vote for in a presidential election. It’s not just that atheists are hated, though, but also that atheists seem to represent everything about modernity which Americans dislike or fear.
The most recent study was conducted by the University of Minnesota, which found that atheists ranked lower than “Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in ’sharing their vision of American society.’ Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.” The results from two of the most important questions”
This group does not at all agree with my vision of American society…
Atheist: 39.6%
Muslims: 26.3%
Homosexuals: 22.6%
Hispanics: 20%
Conservative Christians: 13.5%
Recent Immigrants: 12.5%
Jews: 7.6%
I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group….
Atheist: 47.6%
Muslim: 33.5%
African-American 27.2%
Asian-Americans: 18.5%
Hispanics: 18.5%
Jews: 11.8%
Conservative Christians: 6.9%
Whites: 2.3%
The degree of this intolerance is a bit surprising. My experience has taught me that atheists tend to be very intelligent, thoughtful people with a high standard of ethics that they carry through to their everyday lives.
So why the fear, why the hatred? This situation is not the norm for most of the planet. Most East and South Asian countries don’t exhibit this fear of atheists or agnostics. In fact, many of these countries have a significant portion of their population that does not believe in any deity.
European countries have large portions of the population that are atheist. There is not the mass discrimination there based on one’s freedom to believe or not to believe. About the only places in the world that tend to have intolerant attitudes are nations with strong monotheistic cultures, such as both latin and anglo America, and the Islamic countries (particularly Turkey).
Considering that atheist nations are more peaceful, it seems particularly odd that there would be a predilection towards animosity towards atheists. When one group is being discriminated against, it detracts from the freedoms of every group. A society based on tolerance must support the rights of minority groups, including atheists.
September 22, 2009 at 10:57 pm |
Is there an “atheistic explanation of the origins of the universe”? Where can I read about it?
I always thought that atheists do not pretend to know how the universe originated because there is no information on which such knowledge could be based. No information, no conclusion.
The universe is everything that exists and that concept comes with paradoxes. If it is finite, then it cannot be the universe because something (maybe emptyness, but still something) is outside it. If it came into existence at some finite time, then it cannot be the universe because something (again, maybe emptyness, but still something) was there before and perhaps is there still. But at the same time, infinite extent in time or space is counterintuitive. It cannot be either finite or infinite. These matters must remain unknown until some real information becomes available.
It has been proposed that the environment we experience as the universe (call it Ue) was created by some hypothetical external “first cause”. That would change it from a universe in fact (everything that exists) to an artifact. If such a “first cause” created Ue, Ue cannot be the universe because it does not include everything that exists. Attention must shift to that larger object, U1 (perhaps the actual universe), that also contains the first cause; and all the same paradoxes apply to U1.
There has been a lot of serious speculation about our experienced environment having been created and about a hypothetical first cause alleged to have done so. In addition people all over the world have created exciting science fiction on this topic for thousands of years. Some of the stories have some value as literature; nobody should think that they are fact, although many do. And others acknowledge that they choose to believe the speculations or stories, or part of them, without regard to physical truth (on faith). But none of these speculations or stories adds anything to our understanding of the universe and there is no reason to entertain them as statements of reality.
When information about a phenomenon is not available, it is a position of strength to be comfortable with not knowing the details of that phenomenon. Then there is no temptation to treat unsupported opinions as truth in order to avoid uncertainty; and there is a better chance of recognizing relevant information when it appears, as a result of knowing that the question has not already been answered.
This is not a proof of anything. Alternate views are based on radically different premises. Partisans of one are not likely to recognize the validity of the other.
September 23, 2009 at 8:58 am |
The “atheistic explanation of the origins of the universe” is any one of the eternal universe theories, which have no evidence btw. Sure most atheists will tell you they don’t know – but I consider this an excuse out of having to defend their position. Atheists don’t believe that God exists, so it’s their job to defend their position. Refusing to do so is childish. It’s like me saying that I don’t believe the theory of gravity of exists, and when asked for a reason replying with “I’m not under any obligation to tell you but the burden of proof is still on you.”
The only thing we have evidence so far is the big bang. If we were to stop right there and go purely off of our evidence we would have to conclude that God exists because it makes no sense for the big bang to spontaneously create itself, therefore a higher power outside of space & time is responsible. This is how far a position based on “lack of evidence” will get you *cough, atheism.
If I were to not believe in God, I’d be agnostic, or any other host of better options.
September 23, 2009 at 9:56 am |
Proving gravity is easy … proving god is impossible. Bad analogy.
You believe a god created the universe because it is beyond our current understanding. You don’t understand it, so a god must have done it. As I commented earlier, this is the same reason people believed the earth was flat. It was beyond their possible understanding, so they made a false assumption.
Your position is completely based on lack of evidence, which gives you *cough*, religion (or in your case, Deism). You don’t understand how the earth could have spontaneously created itself, so you think that proves a god did it. That only proves that you narrow-mindedly believe supernatural things can explain everything you don’t understand.
September 23, 2009 at 11:31 am
Exactly. It is equivalent to saying “I don’t know, therefor I know.”
September 23, 2009 at 10:32 am |
“It’s like me saying that I don’t believe the theory of gravity of exists, and when asked for a reason replying with “I’m not under any obligation to tell you but the burden of proof is still on you.””
Funny that, for this is exactly the way you’ve been approaching anything.
You claim proof of X, and then decide we can only disprove X…
In the process, _refusing to let anyone tell you why your proof of X is flawed_.
You claim that when anyone tries to do this, we’re “trying to shift the burden of proof”.
Or, it doesn’t count simply because the only argument we can come up with is “I Don’t Know”, which means we automatically lose. <_<
September 23, 2009 at 11:36 am |
It’s only a bad analogy if you’re a scientific layman. I said theory of gravity, not gravity. You must not understand what a scientific theory is. The theory of gravity is alot more complicated than “things falling to the ground”. But it is all conjecture which fits with known facts. It’s unreasonable & childish to shift burden of proof to the theory while not providing any reasoning yourself.
Actually, I don’t. I think our universe was likely created via a collision of branes by string theory. Nobody here seems to understand the concept that I haven’t identified what I think the first cause is. It could be the multiverse or the universe – I have no idea. So quit putting words in my mouth please.
The only thing this proves is that you made several erroneous assumptions about my position. You’re so used to arguing with brain-dead Christians that you lapse into regurgitating the same tired tripe irregardless of whether it applies to the conversation or not.
It’s not a proof. It’s a rebuttal of the idea that atheism is more rational. If you want a decent “proof”, or at least argument, look up the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
September 23, 2009 at 11:43 am
The Kalam Cosmological Argument?!?!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I suggest you read Vic Stenger’s The God Hypothesis on why this argument is an abject failure.
September 23, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Unfortunately all the rebuttals I’ve seen so far assume that the thing is a PROOF, which it’s not. Half the counterarguments are anti-science bullshit anyway i.e. the assertion that “the premiss that the universe began to exist is very difficult to achieve.” This is WRONG. We know that something outside our universe had to start inflation, since the cyclic universe theory has already been proven wrong.
Also, if you don’t mind, I’ll use this spot to address the scientifically inept ramblings you made earlier.
That fits in the “eternal” category. Great work genius! It replaces the need for an eternal creator with an eternal multiverse, unless you believe the multiverse isn’t the first cause.
There is no natural cause for a FIRST cause, BY DEFINITION. Again, if you disagree, you’re an idiot.
Ad hominem? Spare me. You’ll get no sympathy from me after telling me to “learn cosmology”. Your opinion of my personality means little to me. Why should I respect a group that will always, according to my experience, end up getting condescending or insulting me within one or two posts? Preemptive strikes ftw. Also, what are your degrees in?
Unfortunately, scientific models do not equate to how something is exactly like in reality. Sometimes stochastic models make allowances for uncertainty because the results are virtually impossible to predict. Things like quantum fluctuations are merely a property of this universe/multiverse, and even if they seem to contradict known laws of physics on the small-scale, that doesn’t mean the universe’s processes are non-deterministic.
Until we learn more about the quantum realm your conclusions that not everything has a cause is a hypothesis at best.
Also, I can infer then that you would have no problem subscribing to the idea that the universe popped out of virtual nothingness (excluding quantum fluctuations). How unfortunate that seemingly smart people are forced to take up idiotic positions because they chose the title of “atheist”.
The first cause doesn’t have to be supernatural. You can either stick with the first cause & keep the philosophical problems associated with it, or if you decide to go with an explanation beyond it, it has to be supernatural, BY DEFINITION.
Uhm, no. Begging the question is circular. I simply think that God is responsible for the first cause. It’s a one way street pal.
September 23, 2009 at 12:39 pm
I didn’t put words in your mouth. You do believe supernatual things can explain everything you don’t understand.
In your rebuttal you say that you THINK the universe was LIKELY created in a certain way. And it COULD be this or that, but you have NO IDEA. Exactly … you have no idea. And I am to believe your compelling argument proves a god had something to do with the creation of the universe? Excuse me if I’m not compelled by your “rational” argument.
September 23, 2009 at 4:47 pm
A distinction without significance:
Aedus: Actually, I don’t [believe a god created the universe]. I think our universe was likely created via a collision of branes by string theory. Nobody here seems to understand the concept that I haven’t identified what I think the first cause is. It could be the multiverse or the universe – I have no idea.
And later:
Aedus: I simply think that God is responsible for the first cause.
Thus according to Aedus: The universe was created by a first cause consisting of some natural phenomenon, such as the multiverse or whatever. But that something which was the first cause – that was created by god.
Whether the issue is the existence of a god or the logic of such a belief, it is an irrelevant detail whether the god is alleged to have created the universe or the multiverse.
September 23, 2009 at 6:17 pm
….
“Aedus: I simply think that God is responsible for the first cause.”
And, in response to me:
“I’ll say this slowly. I. NEVER. IDENTIFIED. WHAT. I. THINK. THE. FIRST. CAUSE. IS. Therefore it makes no fucking sense to claim I’m stopping anywhere or using god of the gaps. It’s difficult enough to hammer this concept into your guys’ skulls but I said it like 9 times…”
The main reason why I don’t get it is that you’re not consistent about it. Already you’ve nullified your own claim from back when.
September 24, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Ok. If you want to play semantics change “first cause” to “first natural cause”. Your counterargument still gets you nowhere.
September 24, 2009 at 1:59 pm
It’s not semantics when “first cause” and “first natural cause” mean things that could be completely different.
You’re weaseling your way out of justifying an unknown with a supernatural explanation. It’s clear to anyone who is even halfway literate.
By continually denying that you could be wrong about anything you’ve ever said, even to the point that you will literally deny that you’ve actually contradicted yourself on a key point, you’ve written yourself off to anyone who might possibly be on your side.
Nobody wants to side with a pathological liar and a sore loser.
September 24, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Yes, no shit. I assumed that anyone with half a brain would see that my argument is that they ARE different. I’ll be sure to spell out these terms in the future for you pathetic nitpickers.
I’ve given plenty of reasons and have clarified my stance. You guys have put forward nothing apart from useless semantics which do nothing to rebut my argument, the tactic of the loser. I am disappointed.
You think I care? rofl. This blog is 99% dogmatic atheists who wouldn’t “side with me” if their lives depended on it.
Anyway, this little meta-debate here holds no interest for me. Reply to my actual arguments instead of debating like a pussy.
September 24, 2009 at 10:30 pm |
Aedus started with:
“… the universe is one of three things: created, eternal, or accidental. [The first option is most likely.] The first cause of the universe, by definition, has no natural explanation, so it must have a supernatural explanation.”
So we took this to be an argument that the ultimate creative agent of the universe is something supernatural (presumably a god), and took it as a statement that that god created the universe directly.
After a while there was some clarification: the “first cause” “could be the multiverse or the universe – I have no idea” and later “I simply think that God is responsible for the first cause“. From this it was possible to deduce that, in this argument, the first cause and the explanation of the first cause are two separate items: the first cause itself might be natural but the explanation of it must be supernatural. So it is clarified that the argument is not:
God — Universe
but:
God — First Cause — Universe
This is still an argument that God is the ultimate creative agent of the universe. The extra step does not make the argument any more or less valid (although maybe a little harder to explain).
The rationale given for a supernatural creative agent is that those natural hypotheses which come readily to mind are absurd and impossible:
‘… either … the universe popped out of virtual nothingness, or … the universe is eternal and … we crossed an infinite amount of time to get to “now,” …‘
Therefore it is necessary to hypothesize a supernatural creator (if not for the universe directly, then for the “first cause”).
Expressing these hypotheses in this way trivializes their very real problems. Both finite and infinite universes are conceptually unsatisfactory: a paradox (as I said in another comment on this page). The inadequacy of simple natural hypotheses tells us that we do not yet know enough. Scientific activity has discovered many things but it has not yet found out anything about the origin of the universe. The above rationale is based on the premise that no adequate information or natural explanation will ever be found; in fact, the premise asserts that any such explanation is a priori impossible. That assertion is more than anyone can know.
The hypothesis of a supernatural creative agent is not based on any data and does not give any additional knowledge. It does not represent any kind of truth. I do not accept it even as an avenue to be explored. I suppose that others here may agree with some or all of this.
September 23, 2009 at 12:23 pm |
You know what? We’ve allowed Aedus to hijack this blog post. We’ve allowed this nut to get us completely off the topic at hand. No more. Aedus is exactly the kind of person the this blog entry was written about. He has preconceived notions of who atheists are and calls us ‘assholes’ when he should look in the mirror to see what an asshole looks like. He is in serious need of heavy-duty self-examination, though I doubt he will ever have the guts to perform such.
September 23, 2009 at 12:38 pm |
Maybe you should learn to take what you dish out? I find it amusing that people who devote their time to reaffirming their general superiority at the expense of others get so touchy when their own beliefs come under question instead.
The fact remains that I haven’t actually called anybody here an asshole, I’m just sharing my experiences. In fact, everyone here makes sweeping generalizations about Christians, such as the idea that rationality and their beliefs are mutually exclusive, but of course that’s conveniently ignored. Feel free to “ban me” if you want, but I’ll take that as validation that my generalizations hit the nail on the head here. <_<
September 23, 2009 at 12:41 pm |
Your generalizations are only effective in making you look like an ass. Consider yourself validated.
September 23, 2009 at 12:56 pm |
And neither does anybody else. Do you have something against people thinking that a certain scientific theory is likely? Seriously, what is the point of your post?
PS: Good luck with logic & critical thinking. rofl.
September 23, 2009 at 1:20 pm |
No, just 95% of us.
September 23, 2009 at 1:35 pm |
Well excuse me for assuming that everyone on this blog is in the 5%. <_<
Seriously, I have no problem with acting civil. In fact, that's my standard attitude. But sometimes you have to make generalization or stereotypes in order to not make stupid mistakes.
Tell you what. If I get into a civil discussion with a random self-proclaimed atheist I bet he will get condescending within one or two posts. Are you interested in taking this bet?
September 23, 2009 at 6:34 pm
“But sometimes you have to make generalization or stereotypes in order to not make stupid mistakes.”
Very dangerous assumption. I apologized for stereotyping you. These just as well can allow you to make silly mistakes as they can, um, protect you. <_<
September 23, 2009 at 8:32 pm
But sometimes you have to make generalization or stereotypes in order to not make stupid mistakes.
How often is it a stupid mistake to be polite?
September 23, 2009 at 1:41 pm |
The purpose of my post was to discuss why Christians fear atheists. Thanks for derailing the discussion with your Deist rhetoric.
September 23, 2009 at 1:44 pm |
Yeah, since I’ve been the only one talking.
September 23, 2009 at 3:14 pm |
Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon – it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.
September 23, 2009 at 4:57 pm
George – you’re either an idiot or don’t feel compelled to read the things you reply to. I am a deist not a creationist as I’ve stated like 9 times in this thread. Plz go shoot yourself in the face if you can’t understand this concept.
September 23, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Despite that, I think you should know that your POV shares some aspects of Creationist.
Not completely, tho. It’s closer to the concept of Intelligent Design, it’s offshoot. Different in the way that it doesn’t try to convince people that the universe is a lot younger than accepted.
Before you shoot your keyboard off, this post does NOT specifically accuse you of being Creationist or a believer of Intelligent Design. If the Deiist view is different I’ll be happy to hear how different it is, and how your God is different from other religions.
September 23, 2009 at 8:18 pm
My POV has as much in common with creationism/ID as atheism does. Creationism & ID are about evolution. The deist argument for a God comes from cosmology & ultimate origins, not evolution. Deists have the same opinion on evolution as any other secular belief.
September 23, 2009 at 9:05 pm
“Creationism & ID are about evolution. ”
I can’t speak for creationists, but I can speak for ID. ID isn’t about evolution, and I think proper ID proponents don’t argue about/against evolution.
The entire point of ID is to prove that there’s an Intelligent Designer – That’s how the theory has the name.
It proves an Intelligent Designer through things like – why/how animals evolve in a way that adapts them to the environment (note that, for the most part, it doesn’t go against the very concept of evolution)
- why the Earth can come to support life, since chances of a life supporting planet are rather small
- why the universe can be defined by simple equations and math, as per Einstien, Newton, etc.
It does sound a lot like your POV, in that “A God” is responsible for it all.
ID proponents can’t/won’t fight science (the very thing which cased their breakaway from Creationism) – they regard it (and math, and geology, etc) as rules that God made; the workings of the universe are “discovered” rather than “invented”.
A Creationist and an ID’er probably can’t be in the same room. Creationists have been putting forth their theories under the guise of ID… which is why the two are often (wrongfully) confused with each other.
PS: I once subscribed to Intelligent Design; only reason why I started doubting was that there’s the additional claim that the Intelligent Designer is infallible. Knowing full well the world isn’t perfect and people are created imperfect does this to you.
I could be wrong, but that’s the way I was thought it.
September 24, 2009 at 8:59 am
You’re right about ID – the only experience I really had with it was a debate I watched. The proponent claimed that the flagellum was unevolvable, so I kind of stopped right there.
Personally, I think the strong anthropic principle & irreducible complexity are BS. Deists accept nature as the only true revelation, therefore believe that God left the universe after he created it, or just doesn’t watch over it. That’s why I think there are so many imperfect things in the world: God isn’t here orchestrating every single thing. He’s like a watchmaker, letting the universe run on its own. But even watches aren’t perfect & break down if you neglect them.
September 23, 2009 at 1:45 pm |
I as well, but I think most people here would suggest that you have failed in this regard. You came on to this blog and were immediately antagonistic and performed a bait-and-switch.
On the net? I would hardly call that a random sampling. Almost all bloggers are self-selected to be passionate about their beliefs, theists and non-theists alike. They wouldn’t blog otherwise. I could do the same with any ‘random’ theist blogger. What’s your point? No one here is claiming that atheists are any different than theists in that regard. Thus, it is a poor experimental design.
And who is to decide what is or is not condescending? You have some serious issues to clarify in the experimental design before I take that bet.
But, yet again you are trying to steer the course in your direction when it is not the subject of the blog, nor your blog. The issue at hand is the prejudicial treatment of atheists because of preconceived notions of what they believe and how they act.
September 23, 2009 at 2:07 pm |
The atheists don’t know the origin of the universe because the various theories lack conclusive proof.
The Christians say God created the universe and everything in it, and don’t require any proof.
Why is there is the conflict?
September 23, 2009 at 2:09 pm |
Sorry. Last sentance should be: Why is there conflict?
September 23, 2009 at 3:41 pm |
It all goes back to what you accept as truth. Atheists accept only rationally-derived conclusions as truth. Christians accept revealed truth – truth obtained outside of rational means.
I claim there is no conflict about the origin of the universe because the two sides are operating from different assumptions.
The conflict is about the nature of truth.
September 23, 2009 at 6:11 pm |
Actually, from my POV, I’m having trouble justifying how an unknown can be used to prove another unknown.
The only plausible way to do so is by pure assumption (i.e, Faith).
September 23, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
There is no conflict. The conflict is only when Christians stop at a certain point, like the big bang, and say “this is it. this is as far as science takes us – anything beyond must be god”. Solution? Simple: don’t stop questioning.
September 23, 2009 at 2:20 pm |
There is a conflict.
These various theories are just that, theories. Scientists (and atheists) are in search of proof to confirm or debunk these theories.
Christians do not require proof and aren’t searching for proof. Christianity isn’t viewed as a theory, but as “Truth”. Most Christians love to capitalize that word. The Bible is their proof. When a person’s version of “Truth” is absolute, it ignores even obvious proof that contradicts it.
September 24, 2009 at 1:51 pm |
In this isolated example: no, there isn’t a conflict. I don’t care what you believe, it’s none of my business.
Personally, and I’m pretty sure I can speak for a lot of people when I say this, the conflict is when those personal beliefs find their way into legislation.
I have a conflict with the idea that these myths, which are no more plausible than the Norse or Greek creation stories, are being taught as fact to children in public schools. Further, I have a conflict with the fact that school districts are fighting for the right to do so, tooth and nail.
I have a conflict with the fact that the only reason why homosexuals can’t marry is because of something primitive, hateful bigots wrote thousands of years ago. As if the disgusting musings of cavemen who also thought it was fine to sell their daughters into slavery have any place in modern society.
I have a conflict with the law in my state that says I have to acknowledge the existence of a higher power in order to be elected to public office. No, I don’t see the universe as a higher power. That’s a ridiculous cop out. There is no power that is “higher” than any other. Everything in the universe is based on the same fundamental principles. To say one is more important than the other is ludicrous. For one interaction to be “higher” than another, then it makes the assumption that there is some grand purpose for which one is better suited than the other. I don’t believe that’s the case. I would refuse to say something so banal just to appease a law that was clearly designed to keep me from taking a public office in the first place. If that’s all it took then why does that law exist in the first place?
Once these myths extricate themselves from our government, which was created to be entirely secular to begin with, then I won’t have a conflict. You can believe the entire Bible is literal, cover to cover, and I won’t raise an eyebrow. It’s none of my business.
The conflict is that these beliefs have very much invaded everyone else’s business and, frankly, we’re sick of it.
September 23, 2009 at 8:05 pm |
On the original topic, theBEattitude, since this is no place for the real details of your business, about the only advice anyone can give is very general.
You should pay close attention to what a contract actually requires.
In the case of your first example, who would only do business with fellow Christians, it was right not to join him because if he ever did find out that you are not one, he would probably be a real hassle; and if you were doing a lot of business with him, not wanting to lose that business would be another pressure not to leave the closet.
The other example is not so clear. Obviously, I have to rely on your casual description of the business agreement here, but it sounds like its terms do not actually require you to be Christian to work with them. The phrase ‘the God of the Bible as the foundation of their “Christ-like” values’ sounds like a description of the values and perhaps a hint as to how they expect to interpret them, but not a requirement that you actually be Christian. You are only bound to operate according to the terms of the agreement and the core values as written, which you say agree with anyway. If there is more in the agreement than you said in the description, then it may be more troublesome.
With any luck, this will be a short-term problem. Once you have established your reputation for good service and honesty and people see the quality of your work, customers will come who are more interested in getting what they need for their own business than in poking into yours. You will have enough business that you will not worry about turning down customers who want to exceed the normal limits of a business relationship.
September 24, 2009 at 1:05 am |
Wow, quite an amazing array of comments!
I am an atheist, always have been. I was born of a “Jewish” home – using quotations because my parents also do not believe but we were raised culturally Jewish, meaning I have a big nose and love bagels with lox. I’m not kidding, sue me.
I have always been quite negative in my view of religion and faith, as many people here are. Obviously a lot of Dawkins readers. I’m also enjoy his books.
But recently I had a very interesting and, for me, a unique experience. For about 9 months I have been with a Christian girl. Very very Christian. She is the daughter of an Evangelical pastor. The family thinks the world is a few thousand years old. They are mostly ignorant of evolutionary science and choose to remain so, despite having very strong opinions about creationism and the literal translation of the bible. It has been a big challenge for me not to be an ass and blatantly point out that there’s mountains of evidence supporting the evolutionary/scientific/atheist point-of-view and absolutely no solid evidence for even the existence of Jesus, let alone the man in the sky with the beard pointing his finger angrily toward me. Everything she believes I find pointless, mindless, and idiotic.
But we happen to have a fantastic relationship. She knows I’m not a believer and I occasionally go to church with her. I like when they have an interesting or, rarely, an intelligent speaker. I like knowing as much as I can. And our relationship is great because we have very similar personalities, love the same activities, etc., etc.
So what I wonder is: are there other staunch atheists out there that have or are seriously dating Evangelicals or other right-wing religious persons? If so, what’s it like for you?
September 24, 2009 at 7:57 am |
My wife is an Evangelical Christian. Of course I was a practicing Evangelical Christian up until a year ago. So it was never a problem for our relationship until recently.
My wife thinks I am in a “spiritual dry spell”. So for now, that keeps things from getting weird because she believes I’ll turn back to Jesus one day. But this wasn’t something I decided on a whim, or because I was “mad at God” like so many on this blog have told me. I’ve studied the Bible, prayed to God, worshipped God and lived as a devoted Christian for my entire life. I simply don’t believe it anymore.
Short of Jesus appearing to me as he did for so many in the fabled Bible stories, I don’t see any reason to have faith in a belief system based in such flawed and conflicting teaching and unsubstantiated ancient texts.
I can only hope this will not damage my marriage. I respect her choice to believe, so I can only hope she accepts my choice to not believe it.
September 24, 2009 at 1:53 pm |
I had the good fortune of not being quite as close to the people who just assumed that I have been going through a phase.
Here’s hoping everything works out for the best. There’s no reason why it shouldn’t, after all. A good man is a good man, religious or not.
September 24, 2009 at 4:35 pm |
Aedus ; I devoutly convey my apologies that comment was not intended for you. Anyway shit happens !( wrong blog wrong person )Must be the drugs ! Of course you are a Deist.Do you believe that the deist God had evolved by some sort of Darwinian mechanism, but then if God is an ethereal entity what would he have come from? ghost bacteria? soulabiogenesis? How do you to explain how exactly the deist God came into existence. Also, the probability of the deist God is very low, possibly less than what I have heard people say is so unlikely it will never happen: a chance of 1 in 10 to the 50.
Furthermore what in your opinion makes deistic gods more probable than theistic gods? As far as I can tell the only difference is a matter of desire, which is hardly a practical difference for determining probability. I dispute the entire notion that deistic gods are more plausible than theistic gods as ill-conceived and unsupported guesswork. Deists and Theists are equally deluded.
September 24, 2009 at 6:40 pm |
George ; I’d be happy to clear up your horrendous misconceptions & generalizations. First, Deist God is eternal, therefore “where did he come from” questions are stupid. Disagree? Then address my previous posts instead of restarting the argument (but of course this is where I get blamed for taking the discussion off track, even though it’s actually all your fault).
The deist God is based on rationality instead of superstition, therefore it’s infinitely more probable as far as I’m concerned. Also, it’s atheists who have no real reasoning for their beliefs apart from desire & of course the brand new “groundbreaking” revelation that there is actually no 100% proof for God. Your “dispute” is ignored.
September 24, 2009 at 8:27 pm |
“The deist God is based on rationality instead of superstition, ”
I’m sorry to say that for all religions and philosophies, God is never based on rationality. One can only reason God into existence by pure assumption – the same way one reasons the “monster in the closet” into existence to keep children in line.
I think I have claimed before that I have trouble using an unknown to prove another unknown. One also cannot use an unknown as evidence for a known. With unknowns, their reasoning can easily be taken over by another point of view.
An “unknown” has no physical grounds to stand on. An “unknown”, on its own, requires and relies on a “known” to give it weight.
God is an unknown that only has weight due to belief and faith. Every other thing that proves God exists is also an unknown – or at the most, a changeable. While this doesn’t say for sure that God exists or not, it does cast doubt into his existence.
Currently, “God doesn’t exist” has as much weight as “God exists, created the universe, and left.”
September 24, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Nicely said A Chicken passeth by. In other words, Deism is to theism what methadone is to heroin.
September 24, 2009 at 7:28 pm |
Aedus : Thank you for clearing up my horrendous misconceptions and generalizations.
I reckon that the prime mover argument has serious loopholes. The first is the question of how “God” (the prime mover) create a universe ? And why does he need to do this when this costs energy ?
The second question is, what is the basis on which the universe is situated ? For example, if we are living in a simulated universe, what is the super-computer on which this is being run ?
The third question is, what is the reason for the non-interest of “God” in the functioning of the universe ?
Deism has been a historical compromise from religion in the light of modern science. It is similar to how a lizard cuts off its tail in order to ward off a predator. Deism has not developed from an independent philosophical basis. In fact, there is no reason to assume the “prime mover” hypothesis of Deism, as it would violate the Occam’s Razor with regards to the existential questions of the universe. Moreover, it creates additional philosophical problems on its wake.
The “cosmological argument” that is invoked by Deists to bring in the “prime mover” as the very first cause which has no cause is unnecessary. Because the problem as we know it now is defined in terms of information and entropy and not in terms of causal relationships. This is due to the relativistic nature of time with space. If the notion of “time” is not well-defined, then the notion of “causality” cannot be well-defined either. The “cosmological argument” is a useless invocation to bring in an unnecessary hypothesis.
September 24, 2009 at 9:24 pm |
“Deism has been a historical compromise from religion in the light of modern science. It is similar to how a lizard cuts off its tail in order to ward off a predator. Deism has not developed from an independent philosophical basis.”
I think I can back this one up. In particular, there are some religions in the world which do have a Deiistic point of view, in that they believe in non-interventional Gods.
The only difference is the prayer. Religions like the Hindu belief (and, by extension, some aspects of Secular Buddhism) follow a code of morality and regular prayer in the hopes that the Gods will randomly decide to intervene on their behalf.
Pure Deiists don’t try to ask the Gods for anything.
September 25, 2009 at 9:45 am |
No offense but I think you guys have made it pretty clear that you know dick about deism. I’ve had to explain basic concepts that anyone could have found themselves through a cursory google search
Your guys’ ramblings about the relativity of time only prove that you’re scientific laymen who misrepresent science to bolster your position. Relativity of time does not disprove causality, and we’ve never encountered anything that wasn’t caused by anything else (virtual particles for example are caused by the universe, just because we don’t understand everything about quantum physics doesn’t mean it’s non-deterministic you clowns).
I’ve noticed that nobody can explain why it’s an unnecessary explanation, as if repeating it many times simply makes it true. But then again, I shouldn’t expect too much from people who believe the universe randomly popped into existence out of virtual nothingness for no apparent reason, should I?
Do you even know what Occam’s Razor is? Occam’s Razor isn’t used to compare explanations vs. nonexplanations (atheism). It’s used to narrow down competing theories. So how does that even make any sense?
Again, quit misrepresenting science to fit your position, it’s sad to watch you guys act like you know what you’re talking about.
September 25, 2009 at 10:13 am |
“But then again, I shouldn’t expect too much from people who believe the universe randomly popped into existence out of virtual nothingness for no apparent reason, should I?”
The universe is a known. God is an unknown.
As I have said, you cannot use an unknown to prove or give evidence to a known. The result would only be, at best, a “God In The Gaps” answer – purely philosophical.
Occam’s Razor, by the way, would prefer an explanation of “No God” vs “God”. Why?
Given that Occam’s Razor tends to slice off complication, let’s just say that God is the answer: now we have to consider What Is God, in addition to How He Created The Universe, or the precursor to it.
With “No God”, all we have to ask is “How Is The Universe Created”, and “What Came Before It.”
In comparison, that’s 2 questions we need to answer with “No God”, vs 3.
(Conversely, it’s one of the reasons why I don’t like Occam’s Razor. It tends to exclude more difficult explanations for the sole reason that they’re difficult. In other words, Occam’s Razor is for the lazy philosopher/researcher/scientist.)
PS: I dunno, it doesn’t even sound you’re arguing from any scientific standpoint. Your argument is purely philosophical, and the point is to prove your common sense over everyone else’s.
September 25, 2009 at 1:43 pm |
Occam’s Razor is for the lazy?
Occam’s Razor favors the simplest hypothesis which explains all the known facts. After that hypothesis has been chosen, in time new facts may be discovered which do not fit the simpler hypothesis. Then it is time for something more complex (or, at least, different), but also there are then new specific known facts which a new hypothesis must cover. It avoids adding complexity willy-nilly.
September 25, 2009 at 11:20 am |
Oh, and by the way, there’s currently 2 explanations for what the Universe is, what came before, and what’s going to happen to it. Both are currently accepted by science in that NONE of them have been specifically disproven.
One does indeed go “At First, There Was Nothing (but a cosmic egg)”.
The other, however, goes “A universe came before it”, and the entire thing was a cycle of “expansion and contraction”, a big crunch that destroyed the previous universe, leaving a compressed cosmic egg that then explodes. This approach suggests an eternal universe that’s always been there; pointing back to nothing is a moot point because there was never nothing.
(And yet, there exists evidence that both of these theories are wrong, or that we’re not thinking big or laterally enough. IIRC String Theory is starting to suggest the existence of a multiverse as opposed to a universe. You would be interested to keep up with String Theory, since while it’s still full of unknowns, at one point it DID indeed suggest the existence of God.)
September 25, 2009 at 2:06 pm |
just because we don’t understand everything about quantum physics doesn’t mean it’s non-deterministic
Just because we don’t understand everything about the origin of the universe doesn’t mean it’s supernatural.
A supernatural explanation is not necessary because a natural explanation has not been ruled out by data. You characterize two natural explanations in a simplistic manner and then dismiss them all with disdain a priori as if no others are possible, but your opinion does not make it so.
It has been explained why a god is an unnecessary explanation. But you do not accept the explanation or its premises; nor even acknowledge it while continuing to hold your own view. We cannot do anything about that.
November 2, 2009 at 7:19 pm |
I’m not afraid of “Atheists”, they just annoy me. Everytime I meet one, they try to shove their Science down my throat. Therfore, naming them “Science Thumpers” and “butt hurt”. As you can see. >.>
Second of all, atheists say that were ignorant, because we don’t want to accept the so called, “proof”. Well guess what honey, we can say the same thing. Needless to say, atheists tend to act “all that”. I am a Christian because I believe there IS A God. I don’t care if the president disagrees, either.
I dont know where atheists get that they are all about “logic”. Because for me, it’s LOGICAL that God created this world. therfore, “logic” can mean differently, to different people. I appreciate Science, because it has helped find medicanes, etc. BUT I will not give Science the credit, for the creation of the world. Evolution is very ridiclious.
Atheists always main argument is WERE RATIONAL DAMIT. It makes them dillusional, not us christians. I’m gonna sum this up and say, Christians (as atheists try to make them) are not evil. We will stand up for whatever we believe, just like anyone else. Yeah sadly, they may call atheists EVIL, but atheists call christians BIBLE THUMPERS, And pathetic excuses for humans….yeah atheists aren’t all righteous, like they try to make themselves seem. Leading up to them being Butt hurt. Flat out butt hurt.
Question for Ass-theists, I mean atheists: why do you feel the need to put our beliefs down? Hmm?
I will continue to be a Christian. I don’t care what people think, they can rant all they want. Kthxbai.
November 2, 2009 at 10:48 pm |
Butt hurt??? Not sure how to respond to that.
Claiming evolution is very “ridiclious” and following it up with a rambling rant of insults and incoherent thoughts does not give your opinion much credibility.
You are free to believe there is a god. But I have to ask why the Judea-Christian version of this god is the right one? There are so many gods to choose from, and 70% of the earth disagrees with you. That’s a lot of people destined to become flat out eternally butt hurt. Don’t you think?
November 3, 2009 at 1:03 pm |
Lizzie:
Do you have any idea what it does to your credibility at any level when you write so poorly? Spelling, punctuation, grammar, and so forth all exist to make communication clear, and to some extent to make your own thought processes clear. When you write so poorly, you indicate that a) you don’t care to communicate with others clearly and b) you don’t think clearly.
If you are actually dyslexic, or if English is not your native language, then you at least have some excuse.
November 3, 2009 at 8:33 pm |
[...] A bit of wisdom for “Ass-theists”: Evolution is very “ridiclious”. By theBEattitude I don’t usually call out people’s comments, but this one was posted today to an older post that most people would miss. It was in response to my post, “Why are Christians afraid of atheists?“ [...]
November 9, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
It’s more like compassion.