Hello there, I'm an atheist

User avatar
ApostateltsopA
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2015 12:16 am

Hello there, I'm an atheist

Post by ApostateltsopA » Wed Sep 30, 2015 12:28 am

Hello Theos forums,

I was referred to this board by someone I was talking to on YouTube with the G+ handle of Brendon Biggs. If you are here, "Hi Brendon they let me in." We had been talking, loosely, about the debate between PZ Meyers and Dr. Fuz Rana. here if anyone is interested.

At any rate I applied here with the same user name I use for YouTube and Atheism + and any other website where I talk about philosophy, theology and such. I'm not sure if this board actually welcomes non-christians though so I'm going to limit myself to this introductory post until the admins have had a chance to send me packing if I'm not wanted.

Should I not get banned I'll stick to this sub forum. The remainder of the board would not likely be a good fit for me and I have no desire to upset or inflame. I am looking for good discussions and so I'll use the rest of this post to introduce myself a bit.

I'm a father of 2, husband to 1 and live within the Mountain Time Zone of the US. I was once a Lutheran, and was raised within the ELCA traditions, I actually had to lie to pass my confirmation as I have never believed in transubstantiation. From talking to others at the church, and my family, it seems many of us felt the wine and bread were symbols, and not actually flesh and blood. When I got to college I met many more people from many other worldviews. I had long questioned the core tenants of Christianity, it seemed to me that god would do better. College split me off entirely, as I still recall my last prayer. Since then I tried paganism, Islam, Deism and found no peace in any of them. Atheism, though, has been a place where I feel comfortable, and honest, and intellectually fulfilled.

I'm a humanist, a skeptic, a progressive liberal (on most social issues) but also hold with conservatives on some things (almost no social issues but I believe in the right to bear arms and favor a strong military and foreign policy).

Being a skeptic I am open to the idea that my reasoning is bad. So while it is unlikely I'm not against rediscovering some form of faith, should evidence, or argument sway me. I hope there is some kind of afterlife, I just don't believe there will be one. It would be neat though.

If you folks are up on talking to someone who is respectful, but will likely disagree with you, I'm happy to entertain questions here, and should I get kicked it has been nice of whoever got to, to read all of this.

Cheers,
-Apos <--- That's the best way to address anything to me, the whole handle is a bit cumbersome but it does let folks track back to a consistent online presence.

p.s. If you look at comments I've made elsewhere you'll probably spot one or two where I was not particularly nice. This is your space and I respect that so I'll remain on my best behavior here, no need to fear personal attacks, or excessive hyperbole. I'm looking for a conversation, not a fight.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Hello there, I'm an atheist

Post by steve » Wed Sep 30, 2015 12:57 am

Hello Apos,

We have no objection to atheists, or other faiths, joining here. We have other atheists who have come and gone on their own volition. I don't think any were banned, to my recollection. I am the principal host here, though I don't post as often as some others do. We are accustomed to lively debate, but we do try to keep it civil and respectful.

I don't have any particular subject to initiate with you right now, and I am about to go to bed. However, I and others would be glad to hear your reasons for atheism, what it is you find unsavory about Christianity, and whatever indications you might feel undermine the authority of Christ or scripture. That's a pretty wide field.

Thanks for joining us here.

User avatar
ApostateltsopA
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2015 12:16 am

Re: Hello there, I'm an atheist

Post by ApostateltsopA » Wed Sep 30, 2015 1:55 am

Hi there Steve,

I'd be happy to talk about what led me to atheism, but it is a long road. I don't know anyone who came to it quickly. I'm about to head to bed myself so I'll have to wait until tomorrow to post a detailed deconstruction. My initial steps were taken from a place of faith, trying to reason what a god actually would be like if it were what I thought it was. That and a deep feeling of hubris whenever I prayed. I'll swing back tomorrow and try to lay out my ideas coherently.

User avatar
ApostateltsopA
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2015 12:16 am

Re: Hello there, I'm an atheist

Post by ApostateltsopA » Wed Sep 30, 2015 11:58 pm

How did I get where I am?

As I said, as far back as I can recall I was skeptical about the teachings of the Lutheran pastors I attended the sermons of. I remember being confused at a very young age about how Jesus could have gotten onto the cross way up on the roof of our church. As I got older and learned the geography it still struck me that it could all be wrong. I don't know what may have happened to that line of reasoning as in the late 80's I was transferred from public school to a private evangelical christian grade school. It was quite a culture shock but I left it believing I had a personal relationship with god.

I didn't really question that there was a god, but I did think a lot about what the word god meant. It seemed to me that three words summed up the idea, omnipotence, omnipresence and perfection. If a god didn't have those three things I didn't think it merited the big G and would not be distinct from the ideas of the ancient Greeks, or Egyptians. If it did have those three things, though, then what I knew about organized religion didn't make much sense. This was the time when I decided that the bible should not be taken literally in any portion. After all, if Jesus was God, and he always spoke in parables, why would one assume any part of the rest of the book would be anything but parables. Even the common misunderstanding of the word prodigal seemed to reinforce this idea. It also allowed me to brush aside contradictions between scripture and science, and scripture and itself. For a time.

As my faith waned I began to notice many of my friends believed in nothing, or more commonly, believed in something other than monotheism. I was exposed, and even practiced, multiple types of paganism. For a time I believed in magic, and thought I could exercise control over the world around me. Looking back, it amazes me how I interpreted the information I was getting. Confirmation bias is incredibly powerful and though I can still remember experiences I can't explain, easily, I also know that my interpretation of them was highly subjective.

The most important thing for me though was that in this time of questioning I lost the feeling of closeness I had previously felt. I was unable to find it in Christianity, I was unable to find it in any of the pagan gods. What always seemed like a source of limitless strength was lost to me as long as I looked outside myself for it. Until one night, in frustration, I gave myself permission to look inside, instead of outside, for the sense of peace and strength I had lost. I found it immediately. This fit well with many of the ideas I had picked up with non-christian friends and so I set about creating my own religion. Rather, I set about to learn more about religion, and religious thought, while practicing energy control and living life.

The energy control was, of course, woo. I don't believe in magic any more than ghosts but I did feel I could tap into energy at the time. These days I can get the same feeling from taking a deep breath and renewing a positive outlook on things. Through all this time I believed in a soul, and I was sure that believers in religion would find themselves in an afterlife, possibly even in the presence of a god.

When I met my wife I was exposed to Islam. I bought a Koran, and red it from cover to cover. It's a smaller book and I checked with her to be sure the English translation I had matched the Arabic it was along side of. I found the words of the Koran to be compelling. It blended many of the ideas of the New and Old Testaments, into a more coherent, less contradictory, picture. God never underwent a personality change. It also labeled as absurd some of the parts of Christianity that bothered me. One is not sent to heaven in Islam through submission to Allah, though that is required. One is judged on the basis of their works. Islam also rejects the notion of sins of thought, and focuses only on deeds. It recognizes and allows for the animal nature of humanity. It has lots, and lots, of rules, but it also lists exceptions where you would expect to see them.

So for a time I became a Muslim. Though my skeptical nature didn't let me hold onto that very long either. You see if I was right about what a God was, then I reasoned that one idea of Islam was more correct than even modern Muslims would agree with. Islam teaches that until Mohamed each people, and it suggests a much longer human history than 6,000 years, would be given a prophet. Now it also claims that Mohamed was such a great prophet that there won't be a need for another. I reasoned that must be wrong, as clearly we are so distant from the culture of Mohamed that we need a new one already. I even suspected, before learning more about them, that the Mormons John Smith may have been a prophet for America.

In any case, I knew that the Earth should last several billion more years, and the idea that humanity of even a few thousand years from now would be able to connect their cultural understanding to the books from our ancient past seemed absurd. Clearly if there were a God(big G), then it would need to update the message. This was reinforced by Islam's recognition of what it calls "people of the book". They hold several ideas of both Judaism and Christianity as inaccurate, but also hold them as functional paths to god. (Though individual Muslims disagree on this point). The Immam who married my wife and I actually identified himself as both a Jew and Christian in addition to his Muslim faith.

It was about this time I got access to reliable high speed internet, and had enough free time to play with it. I found a lively discussion on YouTube about philosophy and theology. I also found a book by Augustine addressing the acadamians, and the five dialogs of Plato. I read them, and then read The Republic, and books by other philosophers and got involved in the discussion on YouTube using this handle, and even created videos. They are still up, here if anyone is interested. I have a few subscribers, but stopped creating videos when going back to school took up my evenings. I suppose I may get back to them now that I am almost graduated, though I will need to do some housecleaning.

At the time I made my videos I identified as a Deist. The universe, consciousness, and my own experiences only made sense if there was something more. It was my own argument from incredulity. I still hope there is something more, but honesty compels me to believe in only what I can reasonably assure myself actually exists. At this time, I reasoned that if there were a God, such a being would not need any book or religion to be known to its creation. I reasoned that no such being would be capable of creating anything other than exactly what it wanted, so the idea of a fall, was absurd. God can't fail if it has all the power, all the knowledge and is also perfect. Another way to describe perfection is being incapable of error. Thus if there were a God, and it was these things, and it created the universe, then the universe can only be exactly as it was designed to be. No such being's plans can ever be thwarted. Incidentally, Islam also holds to all of those ideas.

I found more and more discussions on YouTube, made videos, met other Deists, and believers, and atheists. It was at this time I realized that the definition of Atheist I was using was not accurate to the people I was meeting. Atheism was not a person who believes there are no gods, but a person who does not believe in any gods. A lack of affirmation, as opposed to a specific negation.

For myself, I'm of the belief that certain god ideas are almost certainly false. This includes the ideas of any god purported to have written a book. There may well be some kind of universe creating god out there, in the Deistic sense there would be no evidence for such a being as it would not be distinguishable from a universe with no gods at all. My belief is that if such a being exists, and placed us in bodies with limited lives we are meant to live the best lives we are able to. As a fun corollary, if there is no god, then this life is all there is and living the best life possible should still be the goal we seek.

Which dovetails neatly into why would I believe that kindness, generosity and love are things which we should strive for. I don't believe in gods anymore, but I do love humanity. It strikes me that we are amazing, absolutely the most wonderful living beings we know about, and yes I am biased, and yes we are capable of horrors. However as a species, we rise above our worst elements. I learned about the Carnegie Hero Fund, for people who go above and beyond any expectation to save the life of someone else, and that the board of this fund has a problem with there being so many examples of this behavior every year that it is hard to pick the winners. I see this as the very best age ever for humanity. With greater wealth, better food, better health, more money, and so on, for all of humanity. We certainly have a lot to still do, but there is so much to marvel at in what we have achieved.

I also learned about a divide in moment atheists, or online atheists, or third wave atheists (however you want to call it) where those of us who believe that being skeptical means looking at accepted ideas of gender identity, ability and race to name a few. Versus what seems like an all white guys club on the other side. I am a member of Atheism +, though the name never took off, there are many groups of Atheists dedicated to secular humanism, in addition to debunking woo and advocating science. Videos on this topic are still my most viewed, and the most likely to draw additional comments on my channel.

And that's basically a book there. Thanks for reading this far. I've only identified as an atheist for a few years. I've identified as a feminist and a secular humanist for longer, and as a skeptic a little longer still. I won't claim that the supernatural does not exist. I'm not even sure that supernatural is a coherent word. I do believe that it is irrelevant until such time as it can be reliably demonstrated. Also, that once it can be reliably demonstrated, it will likely be rolled into the definition of natural. (Assuming we can derive some set of laws for how it manifests and operates).

I really enjoy open, honest discussion and will be happy to entertain any questions anyone would like to ask.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Hello there, I'm an atheist

Post by mattrose » Thu Oct 01, 2015 2:17 pm

Hello :)

I have a few questions based on your journey described above

1. You noted that as a younger person you concluded that the Bible shouldn't be taken literally "in any portion" because Jesus "always" spoke in parables. Assuming you know, now, that Jesus did not "Always" speak in parables, would you now admit that certain genres of Scripture are meant to be taken "literally" (in the sense that you seem to mean it)? For example, the Bible is full of historical narrative and discourse genres. As an aside, I think it makes far more sense to take the Bible "literally" in the sense that it is literature. So, just like reading other pieces of literature, we interpret it according to genre.

2. You suggested that it seems silly to you that ancient books/religions could be relevant to modern times. Later, you passionately declare that we're living in a golden age of sorts. Do you think it is possible that you are guilty of being what we might call an Era-ist. If racists favor their own race and nationalists favor their own nations, maybe there is such a thing as an Era-ist that favors his/her own Era. I think this would be just as ridiculous an ISM as those other ISM's. One could just as well (perhaps better) argue that this is the WORST humanity has ever offered to the world!

3. You say there might be a god, but that, if so, it must certainly be of the deistic variety (un-involved, undetectable). Why is that? You gave no actual reason for this certainty... and I can't imagine how such an insistence could be imposed upon a hypothetical god. It seems to me that if a god bothered to make a world that god might be interested in interaction.

4. You argue that whether there is a god or not, we should still try to be good people. Why? What right do you have to tell me to be good? How do you even define "Good"? Are others allowed to make up their own definitions? What is the source of this good? Sometimes it seems to me that secular humanists like to live off the fumes of the theistic worldview while rejecting its foundation.

User avatar
ApostateltsopA
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2015 12:16 am

Re: Hello there, I'm an atheist

Post by ApostateltsopA » Fri Oct 02, 2015 1:39 am

Hello mattrose,

I'll try to address your questions in order.

1. I don't concern myself too much with how to take the bible. I've rejected it as a source of authority for me. There are good things within, and terrible things within. If I'm talking to a believer it is more important to me how they see it and interact with it. So if you wanted to talk to me about evolution, or history I'd want to know what you felt about the days of creation, or if you had examined the evidence that the Egyptians never had the Hebrew people as slaves. (At least not to the extent described in Exodus). I suspect that the intent of the authors varies by section, and my research has suggested that some sections bear multiple authors and intents. I'm not even sure it's fair to say, "The Bible" as there is significant difference in various translations, and some versions have books other versions lack.

2.
mattrose wrote: You suggested that it seems silly to you that ancient books/religions could be relevant to modern times.
It was not my intent to suggest that ancient books are not relevant to modern humans. I enjoy reading what they wrote, especially the examples of philosophy and mythology I have been fortunate enough to encounter. They go a long way to telling us who we are and where we came from. What I meant to convey was that religious ideals from one society don't translate well as we move forward in time. That the Islamic idea of a new teacher for each age and each people was a sensible one. As an example I find all the preference for the Isralites in the Old Testament to be distasteful. It reads as racism.

I suspect I am biased in my appreciation of the modern era, though I believe things will continue to get better. The world of our grandchildren should be better than the one we inhabit. I would be curious to see how someone would advance the argument that this is the worst time in human history. It is one of the most secular times, and I'll expect that you and I will disagree on how good or bad that particular point of reference is. However I agree with Steven Pinker here. We have more and better food, more and better education, better health, more wealth, more freedom, less racism, less war, less murder, less harm than at any previous point in human history. It is the increase of well being and the reduction of harm that I point to when I say that while we certainly have work to do we are getting better.

3. I went into some detail on this idea in my early YouTube videos and an even older blog. I'll try to summarize rather than throw a novel at you. If god is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Perfect, and such a being sets a universe into motion, then every facet of that universe would be exactly as it was planned to be. The creator would be incapable of error, and would have all the power and knowledge to get it exactly right. If we believe this universe is created by such a being then we can infer some things from observation. There would be no need for micromanagement, for instance. No need to get directly involved anywhere. Such a beings plans can not be stymied or foiled by intent or accident, it has the knowledge and power to avoid any pitfalls. If there were apparent pitfalls it would have to be conceded they were there by design. When you say the god might want to interact, it sounds like a description of a really powerful person, not the being I envision. The being I envision is more of an engine of necessity, the prime mover. I don't know that such a being would even have choices, as you and I do. Presumably every choice would lead to known outcomes and the being would know which of them would be best at which point it doesn't really have a choice does it? Can you choose a suboptimal choice and still be perfect? I don't think so anyway. If you are curious I put it all down some years ago here. Sadly the fish don't seem to work anymore. That blog was also written when I still believed in a deistic god. So while I hold to the general line of reasoning I've moved on in some opinions.

4. Why should we be good people. Awesome question. It is arguably the whole crux of Plato's Republic and many, many other books of philosophy since. At the most basic I define Good as that which maximizes well being and minimizes harm. Now I accept axiomatically that Well Being is preferable to Harm. I think that case can be made easily, and I suspect that anyone arguing seriously against it can be dismissed as dangerous to society. Failure to seek well being over harm leads to extinction. When you ask if others are allowed to make up their own definitions, I think you are alluding to moral relativism. That was a position I held, but I no longer do. If we hold up our ideas against the benchmark of how much harm and how much well being will come from them we can effect a objective standard for morality which can be enforced ethically, provided enforcement is designed to also maximize well being and minimize harm. I have to thank Matt Dillahunty for articulating this idea for me, but also feminism for showing that when humans are involved the objective is a subset of the subjective, since we all have to interpret things with our minds. If you want to hear Matt talk about it he has a good video here. He has also had several debates with theists about morality.

I don't think that secular humanists are living off the fumes of theism. I suspect a more accurate notion is that we are looking at a more fundamental human experience, our shared empathy and desire to be free of harm, and thanks to mirror neurons and empathy, or general desire to see others not come to harm.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Hello there, I'm an atheist

Post by mattrose » Fri Oct 02, 2015 8:03 am

ApostateltsopA wrote:Hello mattrose,

I'll try to address your questions in order.
Thanks :)
1. I don't concern myself too much with how to take the bible. I've rejected it as a source of authority for me. There are good things within, and terrible things within. If I'm talking to a believer it is more important to me how they see it and interact with it. So if you wanted to talk to me about evolution, or history I'd want to know what you felt about the days of creation, or if you had examined the evidence that the Egyptians never had the Hebrew people as slaves. (At least not to the extent described in Exodus). I suspect that the intent of the authors varies by section, and my research has suggested that some sections bear multiple authors and intents. I'm not even sure it's fair to say, "The Bible" as there is significant difference in various translations, and some versions have books other versions lack.
I asked if you'd admit that certain Scripture are meant (on a literary level) to be taken literally (as true history or directly applicable teaching, for example). Your answer seems to be that you don't concern yourself with Bible interpretation, so it's not in your interest to admit anything one way or the other. In response, I'd say that your posts are actually filled with Bible interpretation. You interpret lots of the Bible in typical atheistic ways. So, in the interest of fairness, you should either concern yourself with biblical hermeneutics a bit more than you have... or avoid making claims about what the Bible says one way or the other.

There are a number of claims made in the rest of your paragraph that I'd like to respond to (perhaps in time if you stick around), but I feel like it's not wise to focus on more than a few issues at once. It has been my experience that a common tactic of a person without much evidence behind their claims is to raise a ton of issues so nothing ever gets genuinely discussed. So I'm sure we'd both like to avoid that.
It was not my intent to suggest that ancient books are not relevant to modern humans. I enjoy reading what they wrote, especially the examples of philosophy and mythology I have been fortunate enough to encounter. They go a long way to telling us who we are and where we came from. What I meant to convey was that religious ideals from one society don't translate well as we move forward in time. That the Islamic idea of a new teacher for each age and each people was a sensible one. As an example I find all the preference for the Isralites in the Old Testament to be distasteful. It reads as racism.

I suspect I am biased in my appreciation of the modern era, though I believe things will continue to get better. The world of our grandchildren should be better than the one we inhabit. I would be curious to see how someone would advance the argument that this is the worst time in human history. It is one of the most secular times, and I'll expect that you and I will disagree on how good or bad that particular point of reference is. However I agree with Steven Pinker here. We have more and better food, more and better education, better health, more wealth, more freedom, less racism, less war, less murder, less harm than at any previous point in human history. It is the increase of well being and the reduction of harm that I point to when I say that while we certainly have work to do we are getting better.
I think you are guilty of what is commonly called the myth of progress. It was a popular sentiment in the early 20th century, but that sentiment was deflated by the World Wars. It's been a while since the World Wars now so, I guess, the sentiment is emerging again. Certainly there have been many improvements in technology, but that has been coupled with a much greater potential for devastation. And you and I both know that the last decades have seen plenty of devastation. You listed a bunch of areas where we've supposedly improved immensely. I question just about every one of those areas. I think the myth of progress is based on a false-view of the past and a rose-colored (Western?) view of the present. But it's even beginning to be difficult to defend in the west. Would another World War change your mind on progress? I don't think it is outside the realm of possibility, unfortunately.
3. I went into some detail on this idea in my early YouTube videos and an even older blog. I'll try to summarize rather than throw a novel at you. If god is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Perfect, and such a being sets a universe into motion, then every facet of that universe would be exactly as it was planned to be. The creator would be incapable of error, and would have all the power and knowledge to get it exactly right. If we believe this universe is created by such a being then we can infer some things from observation. There would be no need for micromanagement, for instance. No need to get directly involved anywhere. Such a beings plans can not be stymied or foiled by intent or accident, it has the knowledge and power to avoid any pitfalls. If there were apparent pitfalls it would have to be conceded they were there by design. When you say the god might want to interact, it sounds like a description of a really powerful person, not the being I envision. The being I envision is more of an engine of necessity, the prime mover. I don't know that such a being would even have choices, as you and I do. Presumably every choice would lead to known outcomes and the being would know which of them would be best at which point it doesn't really have a choice does it? Can you choose a suboptimal choice and still be perfect? I don't think so anyway. If you are curious I put it all down some years ago here. Sadly the fish don't seem to work anymore. That blog was also written when I still believed in a deistic god. So while I hold to the general line of reasoning I've moved on in some opinions.
If this is your definition of god, then I am an atheist in regards to that god just like you are! I believe that God is a relational being (God is love). Interaction with the world is not a flaw in God (a failure to design things right in the first place), but God's preference to partner with creation. God purposefully designed creation to be interactive because that's the kind of God God is. Can I get a membership card for your kind of atheism?
4. Why should we be good people. Awesome question. It is arguably the whole crux of Plato's Republic and many, many other books of philosophy since. At the most basic I define Good as that which maximizes well being and minimizes harm. Now I accept axiomatically that Well Being is preferable to Harm. I think that case can be made easily, and I suspect that anyone arguing seriously against it can be dismissed as dangerous to society. Failure to seek well being over harm leads to extinction. When you ask if others are allowed to make up their own definitions, I think you are alluding to moral relativism. That was a position I held, but I no longer do. If we hold up our ideas against the benchmark of how much harm and how much well being will come from them we can effect a objective standard for morality which can be enforced ethically, provided enforcement is designed to also maximize well being and minimize harm. I have to thank Matt Dillahunty for articulating this idea for me, but also feminism for showing that when humans are involved the objective is a subset of the subjective, since we all have to interpret things with our minds. If you want to hear Matt talk about it he has a good video here. He has also had several debates with theists about morality.

I don't think that secular humanists are living off the fumes of theism. I suspect a more accurate notion is that we are looking at a more fundamental human experience, our shared empathy and desire to be free of harm, and thanks to mirror neurons and empathy, or general desire to see others not come to harm.
I think the problem for atheistic morality quests is the jump from individual to social ethics. It is clear that an individual human being can decide to live altruistically, but there's really no way, in my opinion, for the atheistic worldview to enforce that altruism on others. Any individual may choose to live for their OWN well-being and ignore the well-being of others. Why should an individual atheist care about the eventual extinction of the human race? They are only going to live their own life and then become worm food. The common sense ethic of absolute atheism is to personally find as much pleasure as is possible during our brief existence. If an individual atheist thinks the best road to that sort of life is one of altruism, so be it. But they have no right or basis to force another atheist from just taking whatever he/she wants.

User avatar
ApostateltsopA
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2015 12:16 am

Re: Hello there, I'm an atheist

Post by ApostateltsopA » Sat Oct 03, 2015 12:50 am

mattrose wrote: I asked if you'd admit that certain Scripture are meant (on a literary level) to be taken literally (as true history or directly applicable teaching, for example). Your answer seems to be that you don't concern yourself with Bible interpretation, so it's not in your interest to admit anything one way or the other. In response, I'd say that your posts are actually filled with Bible interpretation. You interpret lots of the Bible in typical atheistic ways. So, in the interest of fairness, you should either concern yourself with biblical hermeneutics a bit more than you have... or avoid making claims about what the Bible says one way or the other.
Depending on the translation, I think some verses read more poetically than others. What I know of hermanutics actually puts me off deeper study. What I have uncovered so far lends me to believe the original Hebrew and Greek texts were deliberately left vague to preserve their true meaning for initiates into the secrets. I'm not a linguist, and of the smattering of languages I have picked up Greek and Hebrew are not represented. So if someone learned in those disciplines would like to talk about meanings I generally listen more than speak. The same as I would for a physicist explaining nothing or relativity. At that level I can only ask what I hope are intelligent questions. However, I think we both know that most discussions of the bible, religion and atheism don't get to the level of hermeneutics. It has been my experience that there is a different version of Christianity for every single practicing christian. So if I'm having one of those I try to listen to what that person has to say. If they say something like the bible has perfect morality, or is an ideal book, then I'll ask them about some of the more unsavory bits.

mattrose wrote: There are a number of claims made in the rest of your paragraph that I'd like to respond to (perhaps in time if you stick around), but I feel like it's not wise to focus on more than a few issues at once. It has been my experience that a common tactic of a person without much evidence behind their claims is to raise a ton of issues so nothing ever gets genuinely discussed. So I'm sure we'd both like to avoid that.
I appreciate that attitude. It gets really easy to try and engage on too many things at once and those conversations lead to burnout and frustration in my experience. I plan to check in once a day or so.
mattrose wrote: I think you are guilty of what is commonly called the myth of progress. It was a popular sentiment in the early 20th century, but that sentiment was deflated by the World War's. It's been a while since the World Wars now so, I guess, the sentiment is emerging again. Certainly there have been many improvements in technology, but that has been coupled with a much greater potential for devastation. And you and I both know that the last decades have seen plenty of devastation. You listed a bunch of areas where we've supposedly improved immensely. I question just about every one of those areas. I think the myth of progress is based on a false-view of the past and a rose-colored (Western?) view of the present. But it's even beginning to be difficult to defend in the west. Would another World War change your mind on progress? I don't think it is outside the realm of possibility, unfortunately.
In reverse, another world war would be quite a damper on my mood. Though I have a much harder time than you imagining one as likely. I think that the world economies are so interlinked that policy makers would fight, hard, not to have a world war. I'm not saying it is impossible, but look at how the US and Rissia are both, for different reasons, fighting the enemies of Syria. Add to that the certain knowledge of what a WWIII would do to all of us, I just don't see it happening. I'm curious, you don't see the things I'm talking about as true. Have you looked into them? I didn't just state my opinion I offered a well researched text by an expert in his field supporting my view. I can't buy the book for you but you can get at quite a lot of the data through google.
mattrose wrote: If this is your definition of god, then I am an atheist in regards to that god just like you are! I believe that God is a relational being (God is love). Interaction with the world is not a flaw in God (a failure to design things right in the first place), but God's preference to partner with creation. God purposefully designed creation to be interactive because that's the kind of God God is. Can I get a membership card for your kind of atheism?
I'd have to work one up, maybe when I get around to reinstalling photoshop. The god you describe seems to me to be just a big person with magical powers. Not markedly different from the Greek pantheon. I would not find such a being worthy of worship.
mattrose wrote: I think the problem for atheistic morality quests is the jump from individual to social ethics. It is clear that an individual human being can decide to live altruistically, but there's really no way, in my opinion, for the atheistic worldview to enforce that altruism on others. Any individual may choose to live for their OWN well-being and ignore the well-being of others. Why should an individual atheist care about the eventual extinction of the human race? They are only going to live their own life and then become worm food. The common sense ethic of absolute atheism is to personally find as much pleasure as is possible during our brief existence. If an individual atheist thinks the best road to that sort of life is one of altruism, so be it. But they have no right or basis to force another atheist from just taking whatever he/she wants.
I disagree with you. Your opinion flies directly into the face of the available evidence. Evolution is not concerned with individual survival it is a mechanism for species perpetuation. Moreover your version of "atheist ethics" completely denies the existence of empathy. I said earlier that the Carnage foundation has a glut of cases of individuals risking their lives to help strangers. Atheism does not have an ethic. Atheism is just not believing in any gods. Secular Humanism does have an ethic, and that ethic is based on a love for and kinship with humanity. The very standard I listed the minimizing of harm, and maximizing of well being allows for enforcement. We can demonstrate some actions cause more harm than well being and can police them. We as a society have been doing exactly this for centuries.

I'm trying to be charitable and not read your pronouncement of atheist ethics as an insult. I recognize it as a common apologist talking point and I think it stems from a misunderstanding of natural selection coupled with the belief that ethics come from some outside source. Your questions read to me like the more crass atheist opinions about how Christians should be killing children in job lots while they are still innocent and can go straight to heaven. It's not a serious talking point, just a disgusting caricature.

User avatar
morbo3000
Posts: 537
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 9:05 pm
Location: Washington State
Contact:

Re: Hello there, I'm an atheist

Post by morbo3000 » Sat Oct 03, 2015 2:51 am

Chiming in re: humanism and ethics. I have two close friends who are irreligious, and yet are wonderful human beings. Watching them has taught me that faith is no indicator of morality. This is disorienting to the faithful who think you must follow their deity to be good. It's simply not true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.
JeffreyLong.net
Jesusna.me
@30thirteen

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Hello there, I'm an atheist

Post by mattrose » Sat Oct 03, 2015 8:15 am

Point of clarity...

I would never argue that non-Christians can't have strong morals (often they have better morals than professing Christians).

There is a big difference b/w someone's morality and the basis for their morality. And the reason is that most people (Christians and non-Christians alike) don't always consistently live out their worldview or take it to its logical conclusion. To make matters even more complicated, people disagree about what those logical conclusions are!

It doesn't trouble me that many non-Christians are relatively good people. I actually have multiple reasons to be happy about that!

Post Reply

Return to “Agnosticism & Atheism”