Christianity compatible with atheism

[downbeatplumb]

Most christians round here are C of E living their lives exactly as if they were atheists, most dont go to church but still self identify as christians.
This self identifying as christian and the odd, 'I'll pray for you' when something horrible happens and thats it so I haqve no problem wih them.

Its the very vocal and very actively in your face christians that meddle in others business and try and foist there superstitious ignorance on others I find offensive.

Laws on homosexuality, abortion and trying to teach ID in school

[coffeeveritas]

I have met one or two Christians who I admire. They don't take the bible literally, and they're not right-wing nut jobs. They are deeply compassionate, loving people. That having been said, I don't think that they are like that because they are Christians. I think they'd be like that regardless of what religion, if any, they choose to follow.

Yeah, I have definitely noticed there are good people from all different strands. Some really cool atheists, Muslims, agnostics, etc. that are just the kind of people I admire. There are several people on this board that seem like the kind of people I would hang out with (or if I'm feeling Lutheran, get a beer with). It's some kind of human factor that balances out that crazy capacity for irrationally hating people in different groups.

So you don't think that there are people who've become better people because they embraced faith? Do you think someone like MLK would have been the same kind of leader without his faith?

(I'm totally willing to concede that there are people who have become worse people for embracing some crazy religious ideas, just asking if you see how some religious beliefs could be positive.)

---

There's plenty in the narrative that I can admire in and of itself. Trouble only crops up when one is told that it is absolute, authoritative, and to be taken as a whole. Love the Song of Songs, there's quotable stuff throughout really. My wife's deeply christian, so, I suppose admiration is one word I could use, respect another. She almost makes up for all the ones that I don't admire or respect all by herself. But I have a bias..lol.

Wow, Rhythm, I didn't know you were married to a Christian! I guess there is some middle ground after all. I also enjoy Song of Songs, because seriously, erotic poetry right in the middle of the Bible, come on, that's awesome! Isaiah just has some cool quotes overall, even cooler when you think about how old it is, cooler still when you read it in ancient Hebrew. I also agree with you about trouble cropping up. The Bible was used to support sexism, slavery, bigotry, Richard Nixon, and trickle-down economics. I can see why it's hard for some people to admire a book that has been used to beat various groups of people up. I've got to say though, your wife must be truly impressive to win you over, I've seen what you post about religion and such. I really am happy for you two, it seems like a really interesting household.

---

---

I find some middle ground with some theists, albeit narrow. When I am with a theist friend and we aren't discussing religion, I find them to be nothing more than fellow humans and enjoy their company for the most part.

My grandparents have been married for 60 years in January. They're Roman Catholics, never missing mass, and have contributed millions of dollars to the church throughout their lifetimes. They are wonderful people, and despite their dogmatic nature, I love them dearly. They are also evolutionists, and stand in opposition to the church's stance on birth control. Their faith hasn't been able to consume the entirety of their logic, and though I secretly view them as hypocrites, I also view them as victims of lifelong indoctrination. They're very old, sweet, loving, compassionate, fairly reasonable people.

Here is a picture of my Maw n Paw, and I at my college graduation. I was EXTREMELY pregnant lol, unwed, an "out" atheist, and a black sheep in our family... but they still love me very much, and will no matter what.



I will say that my grandmother is beginning to suffer from dementia. She calls me about twice a week and cries her eyes out because "She's afraid she won't see me in heaven.". Do I try to talk her out of believing in heaven? Hell fucking NO! Besides what people think of atheists, I am an atheist with compassion. I tell her I love Jesus now. My grandfather asked me to do so for her sake, and so I do. I just remind her when she calls that I have faith again, and it really does calm her down.

---

I love the thing about fellow human beings. I live an area that's mostly non-Christian or non-religious, so I spend a lot of time with people who think my beliefs are crazy, and I love it. I just really enjoy people, and I can't help but think Jesus seemed the same way, so I just hang out with all kinds of people. I really enjoy hearing their viewpoints on the world, and I even enjoy it when they rail against the evils of the church, because I'm usually able to add some more evils and agree with them that they're bad.

I also loved the story about your grandparents. They sound like really great people. Thanks for sharing that.

---

He also said that no dogma should stand between a person and truth.

Um...except his, I bet.

Haha! That's certainly a possibility Min! From what he's said though, he seems to be against religion. Actually during the talk he said that religion and dogma should be destroyed, so I'm pretty sure he dislike religion a lot. Who knows though, maybe that in itself IS his dogma! MINDFREAK.

---

Respondents- We lift them up to the lord.

Priest- Let us give him thanks and praise.

Respondents- It is right to give him thanks and praise.

Drones!

Yeah, I've been going to church every week since I was born and that kind of liturgy is . . . yeah. I'm doing my best to appreciate it, but I'm usually thinking about lunch or imagining a robot battle on stage.

---

---

So my question is this: What middle ground do you find with Christianity?

"As an atheist"? NONE. I have no opinion and no position on Christianity or ANY OTHER MATTER apart from the existence of God(s).. "As an atheist" I have no interests in 'truth' (whatever that may be)

As a skeptic and secularist I have no middle ground with any religion.By definition,a religion is faith based and presuppositional. My world view is neither.

As a skeptic,neither do I seek 'truth', I merely question. I really don't know if there is any such thing as an objective transcendent truth,nor do I care. I'm quite comfy saying "I don't know" until such time as I do know.

I question the guy's clarity of thought. In an apparent attempt to put atheism into box he can understand,he ascribes a function and purpose it does not possess and tries to ascribe motivation to atheists as a group. His attitude comes across as ignorant and patronising, typical of Christain apologists. This one is perhaps a bit smarter than most we get here..

He said that atheism serves a vital function because it seeks to liberate people from superstition and destroy the oppression of religion

BULLSHIT. Atheism does not have a function. Its is simply the lack of belief. Period.

---

Ah, yes, I'm glad that you brought that out. I was quoting the speaker's viewpoints because they showed a much higher than average openness to atheists, but I definitely don't want to make it sound like he's the spokesperson for atheism. I believe he was trying to say something about how the skepticism and pursuit of factual data that many atheists value is a good thing. He did use the term "truth," but I can certainly see why some atheists might object to being called a "truth" club, since its a more philosophical term. Also as a rather disparate group, atheism certainly doesn't have a group goal or function, I believe that it was just a turn of phrase for pointing out an attitude in certain atheists that was enlightening and helpful.

So in your view, there is no middle ground. We are merely two sides, locked forever in a violent conflict, our blood fated to overflow the streets. That's certainly one way of seeing it.

I'm kidding of course, the two viewpoints seem totally incompatible by definition, as you rightly pointed out. That is however, somewhat of the novelty of this thread. So you don't see any middle ground at all? No persons like MLK or Jesus you admire? There are no teachings like loving your enemies or taking care of the poor and widowed you can appreciate? (apart from all the other things they have been mixed up with).

Of course it might just be oil and water in your opinion, but this thread was something that I have been thinking about lately since it seems like Christians and atheist (and deists, and agnostics) are going to be coexisting for quite some time. I have personally found the diversity to be a great deal of fun, but I wondered how you would see it. I hope to post some hypothetical futures based on the input in this thread.

---

Most christians round here are C of E living their lives exactly as if they were atheists, most dont go to church but still self identify as christians.
This self identifying as christian and the odd, 'I'll pray for you' when something horrible happens and thats it so I haqve no problem wih them.

Its the very vocal and very actively in your face christians that meddle in others business and try and foist there superstitious ignorance on others I find offensive.

Laws on homosexuality, abortion and trying to teach ID in school

Ah, so the not-as-vocal, laid-back Christians are rather compatible with you. That is certainly something I can appreciate. "You have your beliefs I have mine" and leave it alone. I find that a lot of people have that mindset, and I certainly respect it. It wasn't until I started interacting with atheists all the time that I understood how truly annoying and crazy street preachers and people "sharing the gospel" can be. Someone likened it to be approached on the street and asked, "I think you're stupid, would you like to agree with me that you are indeed stupid?"

[coffeeveritas]

---

So my question is this: What middle ground do you find with Christianity? (Or what specific form of Christianity do you appreciate?)

Are there any things in the faith you admire? Religious people you respect?

The only form of Christianity I appreciate is the form that renounces the notion of a Christ above man, and denounces the concept of man living for the purpose of any divinity.

There is nothing in the religious notion of faith that I admire.

There are religious people I admire greatly. But each of them I would admire much more greatly still if he was to add to his admirable attributes the additional virtue of skepticism towards his religion.

---

So you can appreciate Enlightenment-era, morals based Christianity? As in "Jesus was a great teacher of morals that we can live by, but there was nothing divine about him." That was, and to some extent is, a very popular belief among many Christians for a long time. It's not exactly popular now, but that would indeed be a fairly significant middle ground, Jesus as a teacher. (Of course you might not believe that Jesus was a great teacher yourself but still appreciate those who do.)

I also liked your statement about people of faith. Skepticism towards religion as one more admirable trait still leaves room for admirable people in all sorts of contexts.

So hypothetically, what if there were a form of Christianity that really believed that Jesus saved the world, but highly valued science, didn't feel the need to evangelize anyone, and spent all its time taking care of orphans, fighting economic injustice, and striving for world peace? Would you find that form of Christianity to be fairly admirable, if a bit deluded? Or would the belief in a deity still bother you too much?

(Of course the hypothetical is hugely favorable to my side, but this is just something I wonder about).

[Minimalist]

As in "Jesus was a great teacher of morals that we can live by, but there was nothing divine about him."

Really? What was so great about him?

Before you begin remember that the Golden Rule was a Greek thingy that was at least 6 centuries old by the time ole jesus came along....if he ever came along, that is.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

So in your view, there is no middle ground. We are merely two sides, locked forever in a violent conflict, our blood fated to overflow the streets. That's certainly one way of seeing it

Pardon?

That is not what I said or implied, any conflict I feel is ideological and philosophical, not violent


My view is that religion will eventually become irrelevant to all but a tint minority and fade away.That this process is well under way.That there is no need for violent conflict.

That there MUST always be conflict as the major agent of significant change is a major- minority view, called 'Conflict Theory'.

As for Christian moral teachings: I reject the notion of universal,absolute moral imperatives,and have no respect for dogmatism. In practice,Judeo-Christian morality is often the antithesis of its claimed values,being closed minded,dogmatic and arrogant,with a large dollop of schadenfreude..

PLUS Christianity contains no new or superior moral teachings. All can be found the Zoroastrianism, Greek philosophy, Judaism, ancient Egypt,Hinduism and Buddhism -I do admire the atheistic Buddhist moral code and find it superior to that of Christianity..

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Conflict theories are perspectives in social science which emphasize the social, political or material inequality of a social group, which critique the broad socio-political system, or which otherwise detract from structural functionalism and ideological conservativism. Conflict theories draw attention to power differentials, such as class conflict, and generally contrast historically dominant ideologies.
Certain conflict theories set out to highlight the ideological aspects inherent in traditional thought. Whilst many of these perspectives hold parallels, conflict theory does not refer to a unified school of thought, and should not be confused with, for instance, peace and conflict studies, or any other specific theory of social conflict

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_theory

[coffeeveritas]

As in "Jesus was a great teacher of morals that we can live by, but there was nothing divine about him."

Really? What was so great about him?

Before you begin remember that the Golden Rule was a Greek thingy that was at least 6 centuries old by the time ole jesus came along....if he ever came along, that is.

I was just summarizing the views of enlightenment Christianity in order to ask a question in that particular quote. As far as why Jesus is great, I have a whole lot of reasons you wouldn't agree with, but I think it's fair to say that Jesus said and did some really decent and compassionate things. (and I'm sure you would add, "in the fictional stories written about him" )

---

So in your view, there is no middle ground. We are merely two sides, locked forever in a violent conflict, our blood fated to overflow the streets. That's certainly one way of seeing it

Pardon?

That is not what I said or implied, any conflict I feel is ideological and philosophical, not violent


My view is that religion will eventually become irrelevant to all but a tint minority and fade away.That this process is well under way.That there is no need for violent conflict.

That there MUST always be conflict as the major agent of significant change is a major- minority view, called 'Conflict Theory'.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Conflict theories are perspectives in social science which emphasize the social, political or material inequality of a social group, which critique the broad socio-political system, or which otherwise detract from structural functionalism and ideological conservativism. Conflict theories draw attention to power differentials, such as class conflict, and generally contrast historically dominant ideologies.
Certain conflict theories set out to highlight the ideological aspects inherent in traditional thought. Whilst many of these perspectives hold parallels,
conflict theory does not refer to a unified school of thought, and should not be confused with, for instance, peace and conflict studies, or any other specific theory of social conflict

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_theory

I was totally joking about the conflict thing, as noted when I said, "I'm kidding of course," in the very next sentence after the one you quoted. I actually don't see any need for Christians and atheists to be in conflict at all, which is why I started this thread. (Humor is a bit hard to keep track of in a written medium, so I apologize if I was unclear.)

I was mostly interested in your reaction to the section immediately following the joke you quoted.

(I also don't see the religion disappearing anytime soon. The idea that the world would be secularized is a meta-narrative that most people discredit now-a-days.)

[The Grand Nudger]

If-by-whiskey......................

[Phaedra]

So you don't think that there are people who've become better people because they embraced faith? Do you think someone like MLK would have been the same kind of leader without his faith?

(I'm totally willing to concede that there are people who have become worse people for embracing some crazy religious ideas, just asking if you see how some religious beliefs could be positive.)

I don't know if some people have become "better" because they embraced faith. I can see how a sudden belief in a deity would correlate with better behavior, but not necessarily truly becoming a better person. I think that MLK would would have done what he did regardless of his faith, or lack thereof. Being an atheist doesn't make you an immoral jackass. I'm probably a better person now that I lack faith.

[Anomalocaris]

So you can appreciate Enlightenment-era, morals based Christianity? As in "Jesus was a great teacher of morals that we can live by, but there was nothing divine about him." That was, and to some extent is, a very popular belief among many Christians for a long time. It's not exactly popular now, but that would indeed be a fairly significant middle ground, Jesus as a teacher. (Of course you might not believe that Jesus was a great teacher yourself but still appreciate those who do.)

I can appreciate enlightenment era moral based Christians who, so soon after 15 century of mind numbingr, intellect crushing Christian moral totalitarian oppression, have already liberated their minds enough to demote jesus from god the sole and arbitrary fount of all morality to merely a guru with mortal but above average insight into morality, in the 18th century.

In the 21st century, to have not showed any progress beyond that, to have not taken full advantage of the accummulared worldliness and horizon expansion of another 3 centuries to see Jesus for the demented, overreaching, self-absorbed, mentally unhinged wacko that he was, can, far from being appreciated, only be deeply deplored.

I also liked your statement about people of faith. Skepticism towards religion as one more admirable trait still leaves room for admirable people in all sorts of contexts.

So hypothetically, what if there were a form of Christianity that really believed that Jesus saved the world, but highly valued science, didn't feel the need to evangelize anyone, and spent all its time taking care of orphans, fighting economic injustice, and striving for world peace? Would you find that form of Christianity to be fairly admirable, if a bit deluded? Or would the belief in a deity still bother you too much?

(Of course the hypothetical is hugely favorable to my side, but this is just something I wonder about).

Valuing science and think Jesus saved the world is in itself a very severe sign of deep intellectual dissonance and/or complacent ignorance. The inescapable and unredeemable vice of any religion, and the ultimate source of all evil they prepetrate, is promotion of intellectual dissonance and complacent ignorance. The virtue of science is it provides a frame work for systematically attack on the effects of intellectual dissonance and complacent ignorance. Therefore a man who thinks he values science and loves Jesus does not understand the nature of science, and whether he is conscious of it or not, lauds superficial fruits of science while denying the bases that allows it to work and progress.

A man can no more both understand science and value science, and also honestly think jesus saved the world, any more than a man could not genuinely understand and value diligence while honestly preach salvation through indolence. So long as Christianity think Christ is anyone special, it has no real redeeming value. Since Christianity is unlikely to exist otherwise, I would say there is no way to make Christianity acceptable.

[Minimalist]

but I think it's fair to say that Jesus said and did some really decent and compassionate things. (and I'm sure you would add, "in the fictional stories written about him" Big Grin)

Damn right.....because Hercules was a mensch, too!