Does anyone else pity/feel sorry for atheists

[Albion]

A "true atheist" is someone who is just an atheist, which is someone who lacks a belief in some sort of deity. Indeed, there is spirituality within atheism; some forms of Buddhism for example.

No, an atheist is one who is convinced that there is no god. He is not someone who simply lacks a belief in some sort of deity.

But that aside, I don't mind atheists. They are often kind and thoughtful people who just don't believe in a supreme being. As for what to do about it, we do best to let our own lifestyles speak for our faith.

I do find it interesting, though, to read people here saying that they were non-believers at one time and then chose what is arguably the most ceremonial, self-satisfied, and mysterious variety of Christianity that there is--Eastern Orthodoxy. Does this movement all the way from the far end of the religious spectrum to the other end, a 180 degree turnabout, have less to do with theology than with the emotional needs of the convert?

 

[E.C.]

I do find it interesting, though, to read people here saying that they were non-believers at one time and then chose what is arguably the most ceremonial, self-satisfied, and mysterious variety of Christianity that there is--Eastern Orthodoxy. Does this movement all the way from the far end of the religious spectrum to the other end, a 180 degree turnabout, have less to do with theology than with the emotional needs of the convert?

Are you saying that we're all lead by feelings of emotionalism when it comes to faith?

 

[cobweb]

I do find it interesting, though, to read people here saying that they were non-believers at one time and then chose what is arguably the most ceremonial, self-satisfied, and mysterious variety of Christianity that there is--Eastern Orthodoxy. Does this movement all the way from the far end of the religious spectrum to the other end, a 180 degree turnabout, have less to do with theology than with the emotional needs of the convert?

In my case it has less to do with emotionalism and more to do with reading the writings of the Early Fathers.

Once I was willing to take belief in God as a matter of Faith (a huge hurdle), and once I had determined that I believed in the Christian God.... I had to begin the daunting task of figuring out which version of Christianity most closely represented the beliefs of the early Church. After spending my youth Church-hopping through protestant denominations, I didn't want to repeat the same mistakes that lead me to 5 years of atheism.

After much reading I believed that I only had 3 options (Catholic, EO, or OO). After a year or so of study I was firmly convinced that I should be EO. The conversion process from the time I decided that I wanted to be EO took 2 1/2 years. I wanted to make sure it wasn't purely emotionalism.

 

[squint]

One certainly can't 'blame the atheists' for their views. I mean really.

Picture 38,000 denominational 'assets' coming to your door, non-stop.

...all claiming either overtly or covertly that you must believe 'like our group/me' OR you will be burned alive forever (OR insert your favorite form of eternal intimidation of others tactic) and top it off at the end, by saying that GOD REALLY LOVES YOU...

Can you really blame them for saying baloney to the entirety of that effort?

What an utter farce of the ripest variety of hypocrisy.

 

[cobweb]

Honestly, I wasn't an atheist because of the behavior of Christians. I was an atheist because I truely believed metaphysical naturalism was logical. I still believe it is a logical assumption. The difference is that now I don't assume that logical=true. Faith isn't logical by definition. That is the whole point.

I started doubting Christianity in particular because I found out that a lot of the stuff that I had been taught from the pulpit contradicted Church history. There were too many lies taught as truth.

The only thing the behaviour of Christians encouraged was my hostility towards Christianity.

 

[Dark_Lite]

No, an atheist is one who is convinced that there is no god. He is not someone who simply lacks a belief in some sort of deity.

That is one possible definition and is generally termed "strong atheism." There is a difference, though, between atheists who are decidedly against the possibility of there being a god and atheists who do not believe in a god because they see no evidence, but would if they found evidence.

Wiktionary offers the following definitions of atheism:

1. A person who does not believe that deities exist; one who lacks belief in gods.
2. A person who believes that no deities exist; one who denies the existence of all gods.

Dictionary.com has the following:

[A] person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Both acknowledge the affirmative (strong) and agnostic (weak) versions of atheism. The strong atheist outright denies the possibility of there being deities (and generally anything supernatural), while the weak atheist lacks belief at the current moment because they see no evidence for it. A weak atheist is closer to agnosticism, but is separate from it. The agnostic has the decided position of "I don't know," whereas the weak atheist has the decided position of "I don't believe in gods because there's no evidence for any." It's a small distinction (agnosticism vs weak atheism, that is), but it is a distinction.

But that aside, I don't mind atheists. They are often kind and thoughtful people who just don't believe in a supreme being. As for what to do about it, we do best to let our own lifestyles speak for our faith.

This is true. There are some people who say that anyone who is not religious, or indeed not Christian, are incapable of having morals or are always moral relativists. Such a thing is not true.

I do find it interesting, though, to read people here saying that they were non-believers at one time and then chose what is arguably the most ceremonial, self-satisfied, and mysterious variety of Christianity that there is--Eastern Orthodoxy. Does this movement all the way from the far end of the religious spectrum to the other end, a 180 degree turnabout, have less to do with theology than with the emotional needs of the convert?

So would a conversion to something like a Protestant denomination be less "emotional?" From my own personal experience, I would have to disagree with this statement. Besides there being plenty of areligious people who have converted to things other than Orthdoxy, it was my personal experience that my conversion to a variety of Christianity with apostolic succession had more answers and deeper theology than most Protestant denominations. I cannot say, then, that my conversion (though it wasn't to Orthodoxy) is due to emotionalism. It was due to my perception of Catholicism being the best expression of Christian theology and doctrine.

 

[Albion]

That is one possible definition and is generally termed "strong atheism." There is a difference, though, between atheists who are decidedly against the possibility of there being a god and atheists who do not believe in a god because they see no evidence, but would if they found evidence.

Very well, I agree with that explanation. What I was cautioning against was the idea that a person is an atheist if he merely "lacks a belief in some sort of deity." IOW, for one to be an atheist, he has to have made a decision about it.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Very well, I agree with that explanation. What I was cautioning against was the idea that a person is an atheist if he merely "lacks a belief in some sort of deity." IOW, for one to be an atheist, he has to have made a decision about it.

Let's say there is a person who was raised with no religion, and it never came into their life where they questioned whether or not there was a supernatural. It would be almost impossible in our day and age, especially with the amount of globalization going on. But, what would you say that kind of person was?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Very well, I agree with that explanation. What I was cautioning against was the idea that a person is an atheist if he merely "lacks a belief in some sort of deity." IOW, for one to be an atheist, he has to have made a decision about it.

There are about 50 threads on the non-Christian religions board concerning "atheists".
This appears to be the most interesting one

http://www.christianforums.com/f76/

http://www.christianforums.com/t7308489/
Ask The Atheist

Go ahead and ask me, the atheist anything that comes to your mind. I don't have to give you any examples. You probably already know the questions you want to ask. You probably already have a preconceived idea as to what an atheist is or how we think, believe/don't believe or whatever, so with that, just ask away and I'll do my best to answer in the most logical and rational way possible.

Go for it.

 

[Albion]

Let's say there is a person who was raised with no religion, and it never came into their life where they questioned whether or not there was a supernatural. It would be almost impossible in our day and age, especially with the amount of globalization going on. But, what would you say that kind of person was?

Not an atheist. To be an atheist, one has to reject the idea of a god. If you never take a stand, you are not, strictly speaking, an atheist. Here's the dictionary definition of atheism:

"the disbelief in the existence of a God or Supreme Being."

and the definition of atheist:

"one who professes atheism or disbelief in God."

 

[Albion]

Continuing the thought...

The hypothetical person described would not be an agnostic, either, for to be that one also has to make a decision.

Perhaps the right term would be "non-theist."