Why I am not a Christian

[Elok]

Boris, I always thought:
Agnostic=No belief in God, i.e. no decisive opinion on spirituality, doesn't care.
Atheist=Positively believes there is no God.
If not, what is the difference between the two by your definition?

UR, I just spent several posts explaining to Whaleboy explaining why I "feel the pain." And, in the process, explaining that my position is in between "reason is useless," and "reason is everything." We often take our own prejudices and dress them up as "simple logic" to fight with, as in utilitarianism, which gives a high-minded aspect to morality without addressing the most basic aspect of its nature, namely why we need it. That phenomenon is an illustration of my point, in essence: we need, first and foremost, vigilance against the flaws of our own nature, because there is nobody else to watch them for us. And if you don't think human nature is flawed, there's hardly any point in continuing this discussion...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


It strikes me that atheism can go waaaaaaaay beyond mere absence of belief. After all, just look at some of the evangelical atheistic zealots on this very forum. It's a faith, a creed and a dogma.

It can manifest itself in some people as all of those, but as a semi-professional malcontent and cynic, I'm wary of any tail of the dogma which tries to wag me. I prefer to think of what I hold true as a 'positive' atheism- and as I said to bayraven earlier, there is no atheistic creed, or church which atheists belong to, only individual atheists.


Atheism (at least my kind) involves a great deal of questioning, (self) doubt and uncertainty- but I am singularly repelled by so many aspects of religion, both organised and dis- or un- organised, that atheism remains for me the only reasonable option, since I do not consider nihilism to be an attractive choice.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
It strikes me that atheism can go waaaaaaaay beyond mere absence of belief. After all, just look at some of the evangelical atheistic zealots on this very forum. It's a faith, a creed and a dogma.

Depends for whom. Atheists differ from each other.

For me, my atheism merely reflects my skepticism toward all human attempts to give an explanation (and even moreso when it gives a special meaning) to the universe. I deem all those explanation attempts to be unable to reach the Truth (if there is any such thing, which I'm skeptical about as well). I think science is less bad than religion in this regard, because science is evolutive, is supposedly non-dogmatic, and explores reality in a much more complex fashion than religion (a fashion unfathomable for the layman). Yet, I don't give much credit to science.

It is a personal position, and you won't agree with it if you don't agree with my premise (that the human mind is unable to reach The Truth, in that we cannot avoid simplifying reality, which is mindboggingly complex).

I express my point of view when prompted to, like in this thread. But I don't try to shove it down the others' throats. I'm glad for you that you found a spiritual / philosophical belief system that suits you. As long as you (or any other beholder of a spiritual/philosophical belief system, like a Christian for example) don't try to shove your beliefs down mine or anybody's throat, I have no problem with it.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
It strikes me that atheism can go waaaaaaaay beyond mere absence of belief. After all, just look at some of the evangelical atheistic zealots on this very forum. It's a faith, a creed and a dogma.

It can, but that's not the definition of atheism. It is, in fact, a very small fraction of atheists who are this way. I've seen some attempt to logically "disprove" god, but I've never been that impressed with the proofs.

Most atheists are of the negative variety (lacking belief in gods). I would say a far smaller percentage than are dogmatic Christians/Muslims/Hindus/etc., because skeptics aren't likely to be dogmatic about much of anything.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Elok
Boris, I always thought:
Agnostic=No belief in God, i.e. no decisive opinion on spirituality, doesn't care.
Atheist=Positively believes there is no God.
If not, what is the difference between the two by your definition?

That is not what Agnosticism really means. An agnostic is a person who feels that God's existence can neither be proved nor disproved, on the basis of current evidence. People have bastardized the word to mean the above, which is just a subset of atheists.

Atheist literally means "without belief in god." It covers all who either merely have no belief (negative atheists, what you say are agnostics) and those who actively disbelieve (positive atheists).

I would not be an agnostic in the sense that I believe we can absolutely prove (but not disprove) the existence of a god (although I believe it has been shown pretty convincingly that none of the gods as depicted by earthly religions exist). Were a god to manifest itself to us in an empirically undeniable way, there would be our proof. To say there is never any way of knowing for sure is making just as unreasoned a supposition as saying there is absolutely no way whatsoever a deity can exist.

I do not completely dismiss the possibility of god existing, so I wouldn't fit your atheist definition either. And I do believe that if there is a god, it's one about which we haven't the foggiest conception. Mankind's attempts to define it would be laughably insulting and petty to its true nature.

So I am an atheist, because I lack belief in any god. I don't think a god is utterly impossible, but at the moment I find it highly, highly unlikely.

[Whaleboy]

What I'm saying is that if all we need for salvation or to qualify as Christian is to "believe" in or say Jesus is Messiah, then he wasted his time lecturing people about morality. I mean, he could have just told people he was Messiah and be done with it.

An interesting view... conversely would you argue that if one did not believe in Christ but lead a life in accordance with his moral tautologies, that would be sufficient?

It strikes me that atheism can go waaaaaaaay beyond mere absence of belief. After all, just look at some of the evangelical atheistic zealots on this very forum. It's a faith, a creed and a dogma.

Again I have to disagree. Judge the position by virtue of its properties, not the actions and inclinations of those who basically concur with it. I see nothing in atheism that necessarily assigns it the properties of faith, though there are those who take it too far, but that in my view becomes absurd.

That's true. However millions of people have found it helps- and it demonstrates how religion can help the man on crutches.

Undoubtably it is true that religion has the potential and indeed the historical actions to prove that it can do a lot of good, help people, discourage them from crime and drugs and make people feel better in times of adversity, but conversely, no-one has said that religion is "evil", such that something that is on the face of it, bad, or in this case based in fear as religion is, has to have bad consequences. Of course, primarily, it is still based upon fear. I suppose the question is very similar to that of a mass-murderer who devotes his spare time to saving kittens.

Agnostic=No belief in God, i.e. no decisive opinion on spirituality, doesn't care.
Atheist=Positively believes there is no God.
If not, what is the difference between the two by your definition?

I cannot speak for Boris obviously, however...

Agnostic = Uncertain of God's existence, which obviously favours the atheistic view but leaves the door open for such as polytheism, trancendentalism as well as humanism and naturalism. Could also be a theist "in between" the organised religions, say, both Jews and Christians are monotheists, it follows that one could be undecided between the two and still have a belief in God, I would qualify that as agnostic.

Atheist to me is simply the position that there is no God, which is different to a belief that there is no God, which obviously runs contrary to the science and reason at the heart of atheism.

And, in the process, explaining that my position is in between "reason is useless," and "reason is everything." We often take our own prejudices and dress them up as "simple logic" to fight with, as in utilitarianism, which gives a high-minded aspect to morality without addressing the most basic aspect of its nature, namely why we need it.

Ah interesting way to put it. I hold that faith and reason, when considered together, are not in fact opposition, though take each and by virtue of itself relative to the other, it is dualistic. In this context they comprise the other. I would have thought however that saying one is between "reason is useless" and "reason is everything", one would have to assume that reason and faith are dualistically opposed?

That phenomenon is an illustration of my point, in essence: we need, first and foremost, vigilance against the flaws of our own nature, because there is nobody else to watch them for us. And if you don't think human nature is flawed, there's hardly any point in continuing this discussion...

To say something is flawed needs some frame of reference with which the object (us/human nature) can be said to be relative, or compared to. Since I lack that frame of reference as a relativist, I have to conclude that human nature is not "flawed", resulting in individual subjectivism. Think of it as a chaotic system, which we both possess, but you would have an objective attractor, I would have an individual attractor.

Returning back to the discussion of agnosticism as opposed to atheism, Russell can again provide an interesting take on it, or more specifically, Copleston in his famous 1948 debate on the existence of God against Russell:

C: As we are going to discuss the existence of God, it might perhaps be as well to come to some provisional agreement as to what we understand by the term "God." I presume that we mean a supreme personal being -- distinct from the world and creator of the world. Would you agree -- provisionally at least -- to accept this statement as the meaning of the term "God"?

R: Yes, I accept this definition.

C: Well, my position is the affirmative position that such a being actually exists, and that His existence can be proved philosophically. Perhaps you would tell me if your position is that of agnosticism or of atheism. I mean, would you say that the non-existence of God can be proved?

R: No, I should not say that: my position is agnostic.

C: Would you agree with me that the problem of God is a problem of great importance? For example, would you agree that if God does not exist, human beings and human history can have no other purpose than the purpose they choose to give themselves, which -- in practice -- is likely to mean the purpose which those impose who have the power to impose it?

R: Roughly speaking, yes, though I should have to place some limitation on your last clause.

C: Would you agree that if there is no God -- no absolute Being -- there can be no absolute values? I mean, would you agree that if there is no absolute good that the relativity of values results?

R: No, I think these questions are logically distinct. Take, for instance, G. E. Moore's Principia Ethica, where he maintains that there is a distinction of good and evil, that both of these are definite concepts. But he does not bring in the idea of God to support that contention.

This is interesting. For those that can't be bothered to analyse the rest of the debate, Russell accepts that God does not exist provisionally in the qualified sense as opposed to the definite scientific quantitative. I on the other hand go further and say God does not exist is the quantitatitative scientific sense for the reasons described earlier when we touched on thermodynamics (logical frameworks et al). Ultimately though I think he accepts the relativism of the argument, so by that definition, I would count as an agnostic, though since the definitions differ, I consider myself atheist. Still, that's just semantics, my position is the same regardless.

[bayraven]

Originally posted by Berzerker

What I'm saying is that if all we need for salvation or to qualify as Christian is to "believe" in or say Jesus is Messiah, then he wasted his time lecturing people about morality. I mean, he could have just told people he was Messiah and be done with it.

Whereas faith exists in the absence of proof, it doesn't require an absence of reason. Some, like myself, need a plausibility in the life of Christ beyond a mandate to believe. For me that is found in things like His pronouncements on morality, the parables, sermon on the mount, etc. In my experience, faith requires reason. Small steps onto my neighbors wooden suspension bridge increased my faith it would hold my weight all the way across.

I have now read Paschal's bet; if you're wrong in belief, no harm done, but if you're wrong in disbelief, terrible consequence. That is cute and catchy, but it is analogous to the argument above. Namely, fear of being wrong hasn't in itself caused belief, but finding substance in the life of Christ has.

[Berzerker]

WB

An interesting view... conversely would you argue that if one did not believe in Christ but lead a life in accordance with his moral tautologies, that would be sufficient?

Yes, it would be more than enough for me if I was God/Jesus. I'd smile on the atheist who lives a good life and frown on the "believer" who didn't. Many Christians argue that faith somehow leads them to live the good life but faith can only "do" that if this faith is in the validity of Jesus' teachings, an understanding of those teachings, and an adherence to those teachings. If you don't know what behavior Jesus expected of us, what good is faith? That's the dilemma I think Christians face when they argue faith is all they need: why did Jesus teach people about morality if he didn't expect moral behavior from his followers?

bayraven

Whereas faith exists in the absence of proof, it doesn't require an absence of reason.

True, but I cannot expect everyone to have faith nor can I condemn atheists for my failure to convince them.

Some, like myself, need a plausibility in the life of Christ beyond a mandate to believe. For me that is found in things like His pronouncements on morality, the parables, sermon on the mount, etc. In my experience, faith requires reason. Small steps onto my neighbors wooden suspension bridge increased my faith it would hold my weight all the way across.

I agree, but how do you deal with statements from Jesus that appear unsound, like loving one's enemies instead of killing them or turning the other cheek? Is this where "Render unto Caesar" enters the picture - the distinction Jesus made between the physical world and the spiritual realm? I've long been puzzled by Christian nations and peoples waging war even if in self-defense...

[bayraven]

Originally posted by Berzerker
I agree, but how do you deal with statements from Jesus that appear unsound, like loving one's enemies instead of killing them or turning the other cheek?

I wish I was qualified to answer. Since there doesn't seem to be here a wellspring of arguments for the validity of God through Christ, i will offer my opinion: Jesus said that I am to be perfect, even as He is perfect, knowing I couldn't get there, but setting that as a goal. Likewise I should look past what ever difference I might have with an enemy and love him as a wayward brother

Is this where "Render unto Caesar" enters the picture - the distinction Jesus made between the physical world and the spiritual realm? I've long been puzzled by Christian nations and peoples waging war even if in self-defense...

I don't know if that passage fits the 'turn the other cheek' scenario. Remember that His answer was in response to a subterfuge question intended to cause friction between Christ and the Roman Govt. He was being more clever by half. But your reference to some things being earthly, and some being spiritual was intended by this passage.
The Christians-going-to-war thing has been argued to my satisfaction, but I will have to do some digging to present it.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Berzerker
? I think its the other way around, Jesus' activities - lessons in morality - should affect the behavior of his followers.

It's entirely beyond my poor powers of reason to work out how how followers of someone should act could possibly be "the other way round" from a definition of a word.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
It's absurd that you assert that we cannot rely on human rationality. What else can we rely on - some sayings recorded in a book centuries in the past? How could we tell if those sayings are true if we can't rely on our own judgement? You can't. How do you call if your particular holy book has the truth while other ones don't? You can't. It's all very arbitrary, thus illogical.

How said there is something we can rely on?

[bayraven]

Originally posted by Berzerker
WB

Many Christians argue that faith somehow leads them to live the good life but faith can only "do" that if this faith is in the validity of Jesus' teachings, an understanding of those teachings, and an adherence to those teachings.

If you don't know what behavior Jesus expected of us, what good is faith?

I won't pepper you with multiple chap:verses, but the NT is replete with behaviors that Christ expects from me.

That's the dilemma I think Christians face when they argue faith is all they need: why did Jesus teach people about morality if he didn't expect moral behavior from his followers?

This is a valid point. Jesus does expect moral behavior as per my note above, but i take your point to be concerning entry to heaven, which lies wholly in believing that 'No one gets to the Father except through belief in the Son'.
I see a parallel to the OT where in battle after battle the armies of God were vastly out numbered, so that victory would belong to God, not to the army. To draw the parallel BWO a loose translation, 'It is by grace i've been saved through faith, not by my own actions. It is a gift from God and not by my efforts, lest i would brag about what i've done' That’s why salvation does not depend on works (moral behavior and good deeds, etc.)

[edit] many epistles go on to exhort good behavior as the mark of a disciple, one epistle going as far as to say that faith without works is dead. The distinction being between faith and salvation.

[Ned]

Whaleboy, thanks for posting that piece from B. Russell. I found myself agreeing with it until he went off the deep end and blamed all evil in the world on religion. I have also thought and believed that the impulse towards good, for helping the poor and the downtrodden in the West came from Christ, even if the same thought had existed elsewhere in the world before. Russell seemed to say that it was religion that opposed reforms to help these very people, etc., and it the source of cruelty, etc.

Russell appears in the end to be a hater.

[Berzerker]

LC

It's entirely beyond my poor powers of reason to work out how how followers of someone should act could possibly be "the other way round" from a definition of a word.

Before I ask what that means, can you rephrase your first post. The reason I started my response with a ? was to convey my poor powers of telepathy to decipher your post.

bayraven

I won't pepper you with multiple chap:verses, but the NT is replete with behaviors that Christ expects from me.

Yes, and yet many Christians deny that "deeds" matter, just faith.

Jesus does expect moral behavior as per my note above, but i take your point to be concerning entry to heaven, which lies wholly in believing that 'No one gets to the Father except through belief in the Son'.

And yet Jesus said the 2 commandments we have are to love God and our neighbors. Upon these 2 rest the entire law of the prophets. So what exactly constitutes a "belief" in Jesus if not an adherence to his moral teachings?

[bayraven]

Berzerker,
I read LC's post a couple of times and thought is was written in site jargon I hadn't learned yet

Belief in Jesus, as required for Christian salvation, has a specific meaning containing three parts: 1) Jesus was the promised Savior of the OT. 2) He was crucified as a blood sacrifice to redeem mankind, (and on a personal level, that He chose to do so for me) and 3) After three days in the tomb he was resurrected. These three things constitute ‘The Belief’ that leads to salvation. I think that is pretty much consistant throughout Christendom.
Again, I hope you catch the difference between following His precepts- which are required to be a disciple, and 'the belief' allowing for salvation.