Atheists with an affinity for Christianity

Golden Steer

250+ Posts
I’m an atheist. Not some wimpy Meathead style agonistic (oh I can’t make my mind up so I’ll cover both bases). Out and out atheist.

Not only don’t I personally believe in God, I don’t think there is one. I think religion is something invited by man to bring a sense of order and comfort to what can be a dangerous, heartbreaking world. That’s me.

And yet, I find public atheists a whiny and pitiful lot. They’re obsessed with taking the word God out of the Pledge of Allegiance, or off the dollar. They wet themselves with terror at the sight of a manger setting in a public place, or with a prayer over the PA system at a football game.

In spite of my similar lack of belief in God, I find myself on the opposite side of those atheists who attempt to either belittle the beliefs of religious people, or even worse, harp about the role of government and religion.

The full concept of atheism is a difficult one, and in general, I’m glad there aren’t more of us. For all the bad things people do in the name of religion, how many of those things would have been done anyway, it’s just that religion offered a way to convince people to get on your side?

And you have to balance that with the bad things people don’t do, because they’re held in check by the thought of what going to happen to them after they die.

To be an atheist to know that there’s no great purpose or scheme to things. They just happen. Babies die in fires not to be called to God, but because something caught on fire. Because their idiot parents fell asleep smoking, or knocked over a space heater.

There aren’t miracles – that’s why for every story of someone saved in a tornado or airplane crash or who has cancer, 100 others didn’t make it.

You live. You die. You don’t live on forever in heaven, or hell, or get re-incarnated. Bad things happen to good people, good things happen to bad people. There’s no score being kept, and an accounting of things at the end.

This life is all you get – make it a good one, and leave the world a better place than you found it – because there’s nothing but blackness after you pass.

Those are difficult concepts, and I don’t relish the thought of a whole world believing that – too much temptation for people to try to get what they want without regards to what they would have to do to get it. Even more so that our current world.

Religion brings people together, to see that their place in this world is a small one, that there are things bigger and better and more important than them. It attempts to take the focus off oneself and our selfish desires. And so I think the world is better with most of its humans being religious.

Of the different religions, the one I’ve been most exposed to is of course Christianity, though I’ve learned a lot about Islam from living in the Middle East. The central concept of Christianity is a very difficult one. It’s a message of pacifism. Of following the teachings and actions of a man, who being the Son of God, could have ruled the world, and would have used his power to make it better.

Yet, he was chosen by God to suffer, cruelly at the hands of lesser men, and though he could have saved himself with a mere thought, and brought pain to those who had made him suffer, instead chose to obey God’s plan, and offer himself as a way of absorbing the sins of man, and offering those same people peace and love.

Christianity, by nature of its central story, is a message of winning by loss. Of absorbing the evil of your enemies, of forsaking the comforts and victories of this earth in favor of eternal life in heaven. Its core image is the cross – a horrible instrument of death and torture that was used against the religion’s leader on earth. In choosing this image, Christians said to the Romans that you have no power over us. You can kill and torture us, and we will continue to believe. We will win in the end, even if we lose everything we have on earth.

Unlike Islam, early Christianity did not spread by conquest (I know it did later), but by the power of its message. The Romans desperate tried to stamp out this religion, and yet the message absorbed the might of their empire, until the empire became Christian themselves.

It’s actually easier by far not believing in the Truth of this story. In admiring its message, without having to take it into heart, and following its logic. For Christianity demands sacrifice, and suffering, and loss in a way the other religions do not do, and in that atheism does not demand either.

So religions people, and especially Christians, you have the support and assistance of this atheist. I don’t believe, but I do admire the beliefts of your religion, and know the world is better because of it.
 
While I differ with you in our beliefs I find you to be very rationale in your observation and acceptance of Christianity. If you are interested in further inquiry and argument I highly recommend reading the book "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist". You can get it on Amazon. For Christians and Atheists alike it presents some excellent factual points worth pondering.
 
let me ask you a serious question. if you believe in the teachings of jesus and presumably the historicity of him, why would you not believe in his claim of being the savior? do you think he was not resurrected?
i'm just really interested in hearing your thoughts since you are a bit of a rarity amongst atheists, with that level of respect and all.
 
"For Christianity demands sacrifice, and suffering, and loss in a way the other religions do not do, and in that atheism does not demand either."

I would have to take issue with this, but don't want to sound whiny.

As far as the atheists (myself included) are concerned, I doubt many of us really give a rat's *** if we change someone's mind. Clearly, there are a couple of posters who demonstrate otherwise, but that's not even it's own point. It IS important to keep the mangers and stuff out of public buildings. When justice is supposed to be color, sex, gender, religious, former nationality, etc - blind, it IS important that a person know that, unless he/she be a felon or somesuch, that he is just as equal before the postmaster or judge or whatever. There are lots of places to display that stuff and the Christianity pageantry is pretty harmless. It's the people that want to put religion into secular law that are worrisome.

Christianity's coolest concepts are not really are that uniquely Christian. They're still cool..
 
Dionysus - I agree with much of your post, but I think I can clarify the first point.

There's a significant difference between not believing a claim about a god, and claiming that there is no god. In the first case, the burden of proof lies with the claim that a god exists. The second option shifts the burden of proof to the one claiming no god exists.

It may sound like semantics, but the stated position affects who has the burden of proof.
 
honestly, my first response was "you are about to be skewered by your own (atheists)". i deleted it and just went with a question about the post.
 
Fair point, Syracuse. The way I read the line is that either clause would necessarily imply the other.

Not only don’t I personally believe in God, I don’t think there is one.

To say ‘I don't believe in God’, wouldn't this be the same as ‘I don't think there is one’? How could one express disbelief while still allowing for the possibility of existence?
 
Fwiw, I think the OP meant that not only is he an atheist, but that he also believes that religion is a social construct designed to order the masses. He just didn't construct his sentence well.

I can't believe this is really an issue being discussed.
 
Good for its own sake, of course. Human solidarity. Kindness and decency with our fellow creatures. No other reason is needed.
 
Polling shows that religious people do more "good" for others than the nonreligious so maybe its not working out so much. I am sure you are raising the average though. Right?
 
Those polls sound really handy. Did they mention the Inquisition and Witch Hunts and the Crusades and Jihad and all of the other historical religious motivations for killing and torture and suffering? I'm sure they tucked that in there with the “good” you mention.
 
There not handy. They are statistical, dare I say it scientific studies people have performed. There results are what they are. The scope of the study is the US and about the amount of charitable giving from different categories of people.

The crusades, inquisition, witch burnings you reference do not falsify the results of the studies. I never said religious people don't do evil things. I said religious people according to some studies are more generous. You can choose to believe this observed fact or not. I don't care which.
 
Monahorns, you need to provide links for your claims. Anyone can claim something as fact, but scientifically minded people don't accept unsubstantiated claims. Your inability to distinguish the proper usage of their/there/they're homophones doesn't lend credibility to your assertion.

There have been systematic studies that show societal health is negatively correlated to religious belief. Also, atheists score higher than religious people on issues like basic human morality.

Cherry picking one unnamed study doesn't really help your case.
 
Polling shows that religious people do more "good" for others than the nonreligious so maybe its not working out so much. I am sure you are raising the average though. Right?

A poll shows this? Are you kidding? You're using a poll to "prove" this?

I can't remember but do you accept evolution? The reason I ask is to draw a comparison to your acceptance of polls as evidence yet ignoring the fossil record as evidence.
 
Sample size doesn't render a study incorrect as long as the samples are chosen randomly across the groups to be explored.

Here's another.
The Link

And anotherThe Link

Here's a link which links more studies which say the same thing. Not all of the linked studies about the subject we are discussing but enough to be helpful.
The Link
 
Sample size doesn't render a study incorrect as long as the samples are chosen randomly across the groups to be explored.

Not true. The sample size still must maintain some minimum number, iirc, around 1,100? Maybe 3,000?
 
But sample size is not the problem here, it's honesty in reporting. So I didn't really validate anything.
 
Yeah, because the religious are so much more dishonest than everybody else. Nice assumption.

There are other studies that say the same thing. Are you trying to deny science? Maybe you just want to call it motivated reasoning.
 
I tend to agree with you RR. Even as one who isn't an adherent to your side. This **** has gotten completely out of hand at the expense of more interesting topics, BUT your side is the one with an agenda to enact laws based upon religious ideals or even villify a president for being muslim when he isn't and when it isn't a bad thing anyway, The OTHER side has a constitutiion (crafted out of the fear of such a movement) that YOUR side wants to change so you are going to have to live with the inevitable criticism.

I think there was a Bugs Bunny cartoon where he got kidnapped by some swarthy gangsters and at one point one of them said "Shut up shuttin up". That's more provocative than I intend, but it conveys the concept. You first, in other words.

I'd much rather be an US than a your side or mine.
 
ND- I don't believe in God. I don't give believers my 2 cents, and respectfully ask them not to give me theirs. I find fewer things less productive to debate about.
 

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Back
Top