Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I referred us to history, and the reason for the rise of Atheism and Satanism in past periods when the established churches faltered was for a simpler reason. If those institutions that claimed to have the corner on goodness show themselves to NOT be that, it is natural that some members of society at least would move to the groups that those churches had always said were bad.
Or that they move to churches/religions they perceive as less corrupt. I'm not convinced that people act like grown-up rebellious teenagers when they inevitably find out that their guiding religious figures are not perfect. Some might. Others may yet take a hard-line and apologise for corruption.
Well, it's "some" we're talking about. Atheism and Satanism have never been the dominant views in Western society, but they tend to do better when the churches falter. That's pretty much what you said here and it's something that's human nature.
If X has always said that you should avoid Y because it's bad, bad, bad...and then X is found to be bad itself, there's a natural tendency on the part of some people to think "Then perhaps X was lying about which one is good or bad!"
Yes, Christians are of course free to comment; but they are also free not to - and I'm just asking that they exercise their freedom in that latter direction on this thread, so that understanding can be generated rather than heated argument. Especially at the Christmas season - peace and goodwill and all that
Many thanks to those who have contributed thus far. It's been really interesting and helpful.
Following the responses to Q5 in particular, can I add one more supplementary question to perhaps clarify my intent in asking?
6) Would you recommend religious people to become atheists (or give up their religion, if you prefer that way of putting it), or do you think it really doesn't matter whether people are religious or not? Do you think, in general, people are better off being religious, better off being non-religious, or does it not matter either way?
Thanks,
Roonwit
6) Would you recommend religious people to become atheists (or give up their religion, if you prefer that way of putting it), or do you think it really doesn't matter whether people are religious or not?
Do you think, in general, people are better off being religious, better off being non-religious, or does it not matter either way?
Thank you all for sharing your thoughts and experiences. That has been useful to learn from and I will try to bear those things in mind in the future.
It is interesting that so many of the respondents previously professed Christian faith before turning form it. I'd be interested to know how widely that trend is reflected in society, or whether it is a feature of the demographic make-up of this forum. I have a long-standing interest in atheism, and several times have come close to going that way myself. I thought that it might be appropriate to explain here why I haven't done so. It's not particularly a response to the things written above, though some of my thoughts do touch on issues raised above.
I grew up in a fairly conservative Christian background. As a person who likes to think a lot and ask a lot of questions, I have sometimes struggled with the uncritical acceptance of some things by many Christians, and occasionally arguments put forward that seem if not blatantly dishonest then at the very least intellectually incompetent. Fortunately for me I have always had some wise mentors with whom I can actually have the serious discussions, get proper answers, and raise my questions without fear of being branded a heretic or an apostate, but I have had to learn to keep my mouth shut a lot of the time around most Christians, either because their reaction to my thoughts and questions would be hostile or because it would unsettle them so much it would be unkind to share them.
Moreover, as I have grown and thought more, I have come to reject a number of the things that many Christians seem to rely on. The inerrancy of scripture seems to be something that you can only conclude by presupposing it from the start, making it an unfalsifiable and therefore essentially meaningless claim. Some of the key doctrines I was always taught (like substitutionary atonement, and the existence of a soul that lives on when we die), I found I struggled to justify from scripture, and definitely couldn't reach a conclusion that Christians had to believe them, yet questioning them seemed heretical to most in my church. Many Christians seem to be driven by someone else's theology rather than by what the Bible actually says. Moreover, one by one I dismantled the classic arguments for the existence of God - cosmological, teleological, moral - as I found that they just didn't prove what they were claimed to prove.
So I found myself, a few years ago, being very close to being ready to ditch it all and becoming an atheist. I said to God, "There isn't enough evidence that you even exist, so I'm just not sure I can believe in you any more." But I felt him responding to me saying, "Oh, that's nice."
It seemed an odd response. Shouldn't God be more bothered about letting his faithful children be sure he is there? But as I thought more, I realised that this had to be God's response. I was trying to put God in a box, to make him my pet, to control him, by deciding for myself what he has to do in order for me to believe in him. That's a phenomenally arrogant thing to do. If God is God, then I need to let him be God and not seek to usurp his position.
Secondly, I realised that although I really couldn't prove my faith, to ditch it all and become an atheist would imply that I had enough evidence to prove the atheist position. But I really don't.
Acknowledging that the teleological argument is insufficient to prove God's existence is a very long way from considering that the evidence supports all things having come about by natural processes, for example. In fact, I still find that pretty implausible; the evidence for evolution is very much lacking, for example. Conceding that I don't know for certain that natural explanations are impossible is only a tiny step towards concluding that they are probable.
Thirdly, I realised that, in my search for truth, the truth is that if atheism is true then truth doesn't matter. If atheism is true then all that matters is whatever matters to me.
And truth matters to me if God exists because ultimately I believe that I will be happier by believing the truth and following God's way. But if there is no God, I'm not at all sure that being right will make my life any better or happier or more successful. In general, I see that the people in the world who are really committed to truth tend to suffer for it. Worth it if there's a world to come; probably not if this is all there is.
Fourthly, I realised that there is no particular reason why the default position for an agnostic (which is what I had now become) should be atheism rather than Christianity. To assume that it is is to assume that it's basically better to be an atheist in this life, but since God exists then we have to live as Christians for the sake of the next life (a Pascal's Wager kind of position). But I realised I don't believe that at all. Even if I could know for certain that God didn't exist, I think the teachings of Jesus are a better guide for life than anything any atheist has ever come up with. And I think that if we all followed Jesus then the world would be a much better place than by following modern secular philosophies and moralities.
Fifthly, while (as has been pointed out above) there is nothing stopping an atheist from living morally, and I have to concede that many of them seem to do a better job of it than many Christians, nevertheless Christianity gives a far more logical basis for morality than does atheism. The Christian who acts immorally is being inconsistent with what they say they believe; the atheist who acts immorally isn't -
in fact, there is no logical basis for 'morality' in atheism. At best, 'morality' is a set of rules by which I live in society because if I treat other people well then I'll probably have a better life. But if I were to get into a position of absolute power, where I could kill the groups I don't like with impunity, and enable the people I like to prosper, not only would there be nothing 'wrong' with that (because there is no right or wrong) but it would actually make a lot more sense than tying myself back with moral strictures.
So I had to conclude that the morality that atheists may follow is actually a morality whose philosophical basis lies in religion (usually Christianity).
Sixthly, I also realised that there are many other good things that I would be giving up if I left Christianity, with no obvious replacement. The community aspect of the church is one very big one. As a person who is not naturally good at making friends, in the church I am immediately able to become part of a social group with generally kind and friendly people who will genuinely care for and look out for each other, something that I have rarely seen and never really experienced in the secular world. And there are many other social and educational gains that I have received through having grown up in the church, that I see people outside the church either lacking or struggling to get, and that I would want my children to have and other people's children to have. So that's another good reason to stay.
So, all in all, the reasons to leave are really bad reasons. They depend on an arrogance of me pretending that I can know enough to solve the universe's big questions;
they depend on a selfishness that values my own rights above the need to help others;
they depend on a commitment to truth that really doesn't matter if there is no God,
I don't want to go as far as saying that every atheist must be arrogant and selfish and deluded in their belief that they are being truthful and moral; but I am pretty sure that I would be if I became an atheist, and I do see those traits in a lot of atheists. I see them in many Christians as well, because we are all sinners in need of a saviour, but the difference with Christianity is that it recognises these things as faults and seeks to deal with them, while atheism has a tendency to prize them as virtues.
Secondly, I realised that although I really couldn't prove my faith, to ditch it all and become an atheist would imply that I had enough evidence to prove the atheist position.
the evidence for evolution is very much lacking, for example.
Fourthly, I realised that there is no particular reason why the default position for an agnostic (which is what I had now become) should be atheism rather than Christianity.
Such is my story, anyway. I hope some people may find it helpful.
6) Would you recommend religious people to become atheists (or give up their religion, if you prefer that way of putting it), or do you think it really doesn't matter whether people are religious or not? Do you think, in general, people are better off being religious, better off being non-religious, or does it not matter either way?
6) Would you recommend religious people to become atheists (or give up their religion, if you prefer that way of putting it), or do you think it really doesn't matter whether people are religious or not? Do you think, in general, people are better off being religious, better off being non-religious, or does it not matter either way?
Fifthly, while (as has been pointed out above) there is nothing stopping an atheist from living morally, and I have to concede that many of them seem to do a better job of it than many Christians, nevertheless Christianity gives a far more logical basis for morality than does atheism. The Christian who acts immorally is being inconsistent with what they say they believe; the atheist who acts immorally isn't - in fact, there is no logical basis for 'morality' in atheism. At best, 'morality' is a set of rules by which I live in society because if I treat other people well then I'll probably have a better life. But if I were to get into a position of absolute power, where I could kill the groups I don't like with impunity, and enable the people I like to prosper, not only would there be nothing 'wrong' with that (because there is no right or wrong) but it would actually make a lot more sense than tying myself back with moral strictures. So I had to conclude that the morality that atheists may follow is actually a morality whose philosophical basis lies in religion (usually Christianity).
Quatonaquatona said:Thanks for sharing.
I must confess, though, that I find it a bit frustrating to see you post your justifications to yourself as the result of a thread that seemed to start with a completely different purpose.
I am also a little disappointed that I find quite a few of the misconceptions about atheism that were posted in response to your questions appearing in your post.
I think you are mistaken if you think there is no logical basis for morality "in atheism". Even though my morality comes from the society in which I live, much of which may stem from Christianity, I can easily make a logical argument for many of the things our society considers "immoral".
I don't know that Christianity necessarily provides a great example of "logical" morality anyway. There is plenty in the Bible that I don't personally think qualifies as "moral", much as many people would disagree with me. I also don't remember much of a "logical argument" on the morality you are presented with. It seemed largely a list of what was good and what was bad according to God, which is not a logical position, but an authoritative one.
I'm not sure I would use that form of words. What I would say is that the relationship between man and God is not a relationship of equals, and for us to make demands of what God should do is for us to usurp the position that belongs to him.That's an interesting position to take. Forgive me if I've misunderstood, but are you suggesting that it is God, rather than human beings, who takes the lead in this relationship; that human beings cannot force him to form a relationship with anyone by means of indoctrination or contrived arguments?
But in practice you have to decide how to live. Most agnostics seem to assume that practical atheism is the default position. I realised that I don't see any reason why it should be, if one is genuinely uncertain. Perhaps if I had been an atheist my whole life, staying an atheist might be the default, but having been a Christian then why should the default position when not knowing be to live as an atheist?Generally, the atheist position is simply a lack of belief. Generally, it's the theist who shoulders the burden of proof, having claimed that there is a God with certain qualities. As such, you don't have to "prove" atheism to be an atheist; you merely need to be lacking in theism.
I've been doing that for over 20 years. I'm not convinced.I recommend examining the evidence for evolution closely; it's more than abundant.
If by "atheism does not necessarily imply moral nihilism" you mean that not all atheists are moral nihilists (in fact, probably most are not), then that is clearly true. What I was struggling with is whether there was any kind of basis for this thing called 'morality', as distinct from following social norms as the best way to propagate my genes to future generations.Atheism does not necessarily imply moral nihilism and theism doesn't necessarily provide a basis for morality.
I don't just say "That is wrong because God says so" either. I seek to understand why he says so, and what other things might be entailed by what he has said. But I haven't found anything in God's moral claims that simply doesn't make sense.The basis for morality in religion is God's say so. I don't say "That is wrong because God said so." I most frequently say something to the effect of "That is wrong because it needlessly causes harm to someone else."
Well, in my experience, atheists seem to be rather too certain of their ability to determine truth, and I felt uneasy about making such bold claims.On the contrary! It requires humility to admit that you don't know enough to answer the universe's big questions, not arrogance.
Not explicitly, perhaps, but I look at the way that atheistic belief plays out in society and I see different things from what is claimed for it.Did you see my response to your questions? I listed curiosity, openness to learning, and epistemic humility as virtues, not arrogance, selfishness, and delusion. I know of no atheist who prizes the later as virtues.
I have been very careful not to say that. What I said was that I cannot find a consistent rational basis for their doing so.bhsmte said:It certainly would appear, many Christians struggle to admit a non believer can have a high level of motivation to live a moral life, without believing in a God.
Thanks for explaining!Quatona
The thread was started in order to promote understanding. I want to learn from others; I hope they also want to learn. It hadn't been my intention to post in this way when I started the thread, but new responses to my original question seemed to have stopped coming, and telling my story seemed the best way to reflect. I recognised that many of the stories being told were far closer to my own than I had expected, and therefore what I hadn't anticipated doing when I started seemed more appropriate, since there are many stories here of people whose questionings and doubts about Christianity led them to reject it; my story takes me to the edge of rejection, but then I didn't take that leap, even though I had many the reasons to do so that others have said led them to do so. I thought sharing that story my be of interest and of help to some people.
Well, ok - and, as you surely have noted, I didn´t discuss or debated them, either.I was conscious as I wrote that I was cutting across some of the misconceptions already posted. However, I left it as it was for two reasons. Firstly it was my story thus far, and the misconceptions, if they are misconceptions, are part of that story. Secondly, I recognise that you think of them as misconceptions, but I am not persuaded that all of them are misconceptions. There are threads to debate those other issues, though, so I don't think I'm going to debate them here.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?