Questions for atheists / agnostics

[keith99]

Just want to mention I identify with the responses to question 4. There are so many misconceptions going around among people that mostly associate only with those who agree with them, especially in religious groups. Indeed I identify with many of the other answers. I'm a skeptical type too, and don't agree with all I was brought up with. I do, of course, find some theistic arguments convincing, in a probabilistic way, but find others quite unconvincing.

There is a world of difference between arguing that something just might be indicative of something and that it is proof. Some arguments theists make would likely be convincing or at least intriguing if made the first way, but fail miserably when made the second.

 

[WoundedDeep]

A lot of best selling authors will be rather distressed to learn from your great store of knowledge. Guess they should all stop trying to write entirely as only those who already know them can understand what they write anyway!

There's nothing distressing about that. People either agree with or disagree with an author, and sometimes they disagree because they fail to understand exactly what is written or the reasoning of the author. An author will rather have people who read and criticise his work (whether it was from mere disagreement or from misunderstanding) than to have no readers.

The Scriptures, if misunderstood, will have far greater consequences. It, being spiritually discerned, makes the possibility of misunderstanding much higher.

 

[keith99]

Unfortunately, it IS a fact that any book cannot be understood correctly unless you are closely acquainted with the author. If you wrote a book today, can you guarantee that people 2000 years later will understand exactly what you meant? No, because people will interpret your words differently. That's not garbage, that's reality.

The Scripture is even more special, because it has a spiritual meaning to its literal words. To take the Scriptures literally is already a path of error.

I think you misunderstood the reference I made.

"Scripture says what it says" is a reference to C.S. Lewis who was far from an uber literalist. He was quite aware of the allegorical and figurative messages in Scripture, but he also had total disdain for those who would force meanings into Scripture which were at total odds with the literal meaning of the text.

If the literal meaning of Scripture is to be ignored there needs to be a good reason. One would think the good reasons for the start and end would be obvious. The start being that if it was literal the writer was not there and could not have had access to anyone who was. For the end it is that the entire book of Revelation is a vision and Scripture has multiple examples of visions that are not literal (In fact I do not recall a single vision that was literal).

So if you are saying the comic book uber literalists are wrong I am in total agreement.

But if you are saying the story of Jephthah ends well we disagree.

 

[keith99]

There's nothing distressing about that. People either agree with or disagree with an author, and sometimes they disagree because they fail to understand exactly what is written or the reasoning of the author. An author will rather have people who read and criticise his work (whether it was from mere disagreement or from misunderstanding) than to have no readers.

The Scriptures, if misunderstood, will have far greater consequences. It, being spiritually discerned, makes the possibility of misunderstanding much higher.

If we are talking about fine points yes. If we are talking about the major points of a work no. Those should be reasonably clear.

Though there are those who disagree with any author and then intentionally or not misread the work so badly that it is truly amazing.

And with Scripture there seems to me top be a huge problem with how some Christians take it. They claim it at the least inspired by God, yet it is so unclear people cannot understand it, but they are perfectly capable of writing in clear and concise terms what it 'really means'. And much of the time in legalistic terms, prohibitions or commands to others.

Now if we are talking about someone having a real spiritual connection or what they think is such I can totally understand that they are unable to express that in terms that they feel even come close to being complete. There I'm totally Ok with them saying the best of their best is telling the story only through a glass seen darkly.

 

[Davian]

I'm not sure where is best to put this thread, but this seems as good a place as any. I don't intend this to be a debate thread. Instead, I would like to understand atheists and atheism better, because I think we Christians often believe we know all about atheism, when actually we don't. So I'd like to learn about it from people who actually hold this view.

For the purposes of this thread, an 'atheist' can be defined as anyone who lives their life without reference to God, regardless of whether this is because they believe there is no God, don't know whether there is a God, or don't care about God. If you are in that category, I'd really like to hear from you.

Questions:

1) Have you always been an atheist, or did you become one? If you became one, could you outline the journey that brought you to atheism. If you have always been an atheist, could you outline the influences that brought that about (eg. the attitudes of family, friends, teachers, etc towards theistic belief).

I have never thought of gods as more than charters in books, movies, etc.

2) Have you ever come close or given serious consideration to abandoning atheism? If so, what were the reasons / arguments that you found most convincing for theism / religion?

"Abandoning atheism" is an odd term - no, I have never felt the need for religion.

There were a few minutes, in my transition from apatheism to ignosticism, where I looked in the direction of deism, then thought, why bother?

3) What arguments for theism / religion do you hear a lot but find completely unconvincing? Can you briefly explain why?

They fail from the ground up. I may have only a laymen's level of understanding of cosmology, physics, neuroscience/consciousness, and biology, but every argument that has been presented to me to date either contradicts this knowledge, or just appears as a god-of-the-gaps argument.

4) Are there any misconceptions that you find that theists / religious people often have about atheism / atheists, which you often find yourself having to explain?

I have had many theists, just this month, tell me that I believe, but I just don't want to admit it, as if they can read my mind.

There is the erroneous use of 'atheism' as a truth statement (if atheism is true...)

5) Do you feel that being an atheist improves your life in some way? (eg. does it help you to be more moral, give you a sense of purpose, inspire you?) Or is it just an absence of God, with no significance for you, as not fishing is to a person who doesn't go fishing?

Being an atheist does not improve my life any more that not collecting stamps. It leaves time to do other things.

 

[WoundedDeep]

And with Scripture there seems to me top be a huge problem with how some Christians take it. They claim it at the least inspired by God, yet it is so unclear people cannot understand it, but they are perfectly capable of writing in clear and concise terms what it 'really means'. And much of the time in legalistic terms, prohibitions or commands to others.

If the literal meaning of Scripture is to be ignored there needs to be a good reason. One would think the good reasons for the start and end would be obvious. The start being that if it was literal the writer was not there and could not have had access to anyone who was. For the end it is that the entire book of Revelation is a vision and Scripture has multiple examples of visions that are not literal (In fact I do not recall a single vision that was literal).

Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 13 that there will be things embedded in Scriptures that even Christians will only know in part and they will not be able to write a prophecy of the entire picture God has determined to happen. There is nothing inherently wrong about it, because God knows that to understand things in the future is difficult because our minds may not always perceive futuristic events fully.

For instance, a man who lives B.C, if given a vision of the future about airplanes, will only be able to use whatever language he is accustomed to using to describe the airplane according to what is revealed. He will definitely not call an airplane an airplane, nor an engine an engine. His words, if taken literally, will make absolutely no sense. That is why literal interpretations fall short, because the Scriptures are full of prophecies that God Himself must help the reader to understand seeing that it is written by people centuries or ages before. Even so, God may choose not to reveal the actual meaning behind a prophecy if He knows that the prophecy is not for "their time". This is what we see in Daniel 12:4.

There is also another reason why literal interpretations are to be disregarded: mainly that there is a spiritual reason for God's moral commands. Though some of God's commands are literal and direct, others are not. A person who takes these commands entirely literal will find contradictions among bible verses. Say for instance, in Leviticus God commands Israelites not to eat specific unclean animals. Yet in the NT Romans 14:20, Paul writes that "all food is clean". To take it literally means a contradiction. Still, God had a spiritual meaning behind "eat" and He revealed it to Peter in NT Acts 10. Eat, in a spiritual sense, is to associate and agree with. Therefore God's commands of "not to eat unclean animals" is really a command "not to associate with the ungodly".

 

[keith99]

Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 13 that there will be things embedded in Scriptures that even Christians will only know in part and they will not be able to write a prophecy of the entire picture God has determined to happen. There is nothing inherently wrong about it, because God knows that to understand things in the future is difficult because our minds may not always perceive futuristic events fully.

For instance, a man who lives B.C, if given a vision of the future about airplanes, will only be able to use whatever language he is accustomed to using to describe the airplane according to what is revealed. He will definitely not call an airplane an airplane, nor an engine an engine. His words, if taken literally, will make absolutely no sense. That is why literal interpretations fall short, because the Scriptures are full of prophecies that God Himself must help the reader to understand seeing that it is written by people centuries or ages before. Even so, God may choose not to reveal the actual meaning behind a prophecy if He knows that the prophecy is not for "their time". This is what we see in Daniel 12:4.

There is also another reason why literal interpretations are to be disregarded: mainly that there is a spiritual reason for God's moral commands. Though some of God's commands are literal and direct, others are not. A person who takes these commands entirely literal will find contradictions among bible verses. Say for instance, in Leviticus God commands Israelites not to eat specific unclean animals. Yet in the NT Romans 14:20, Paul writes that "all food is clean". To take it literally means a contradiction. Still, God had a spiritual meaning behind "eat" and He revealed it to Peter in NT Acts 10. Eat, in a spiritual sense, is to associate and agree with. Therefore God's commands of "not to eat unclean animals" is really a command "not to associate with the ungodly".

Uh you mean like not eating and drinking with sinners and tax collectors?

I've seen where that kind of reasoning leads, to tehing like The Epistle of Barnabus.

 

[WoundedDeep]

Uh you mean like not eating and drinking with sinners and tax collectors?

I've seen where that kind of reasoning leads, to tehing like The Epistle of Barnabus.

Yes, not only Barnabas but also Acts 10. You said there needs to be good reasons why the Scriptures are not to be taken literally, I gave you two.

 

[Roonwit]

While Atheists are free to answer your questions, this IS a debate and discussion forum where Christians have as much right to discuss the issues as do Atheists.

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

 

[essentialsaltes]

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?

I would recommend that everyone should give up being jerks. If your religion is making you a jerk (or if your irreligion is making you a jerk) then maybe that's something you should look into modifying.

Theism vs atheism is about belief. And I don't see how any recommendations of mine would cause someone to lose a belief. Similarly theists could recommend religion saying that people with religions have tight social nets and tend to live longer. This 'recommendation' tells me nothing about the truth of the matter, and has no power to persuade me to change my belief.

This is also why I am obscurely annoyed at the (ex) pastor who decided to spend a Year Without God, declaring that he was going to spend a year living 'as though' god did not exist. I'm glad he found new friends among the secular communities, and has a better appreciation for what atheists are like, but I only get the sense that he is just pretending. I don't want people to pretend to be atheists (based on my recommendation).

Anyway, getting back on track... everyone should have well-considered beliefs. There are childish atheists and childish theists, and both would benefit from a broader understanding of all the issues, and a broader experience with people different from themselves.

 

[quatona]

6) Would you recommend religious people to become atheists (or give up their religion, if you prefer that way of putting it),

No, apparently it means something to them.

or do you think it really doesn't matter whether people are religious or not?

Matter in which way, matter for what?
His belief matters to the believer, obviously, and it´s not up to me to tell him what´s good for him.

Do you think, in general, people are better off being religious, better off being non-religious, or does it not matter either way?

Religious people are better off being religious, non-religious people are better off being non-religious.

 

[Albion]

I have never thought of gods as more than charters in books, movies, etc.

"Abandoning atheism" is an odd term - no, I have never felt the need for religion..

I see that you have chosen the "Seeker" icon to describe yourself. If you are not seeking a religious faith, what are you seeking???

 

[Eudaimonist]

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?

It certainly matters what someone believes, but I am cautious about recommending atheistic paths to Christians and don't seek to deconvert anyone. The reasons are a little complicated.

First, I see people developing in an organic way, not in a computer-like way where one can simply download and install files (as in the movie The Matrix). Our worldviews are massively intraconnected, and it is difficult to predict whether a shift to atheism would be a relatively healthy or an unhealthy change. It could be healthy, as it was for me, but there are no guarantees.

Second, atheism is not "good" as such, since atheism is not a complete worldview in itself. There are atheistic ethical philosophies, but atheism is not itself an ethical philosophy. Atheists therefore can span from very good to very bad (not unlike Christians). It depends on what ideas and values atheists accept in addition to dropping the god-belief.

That said, yes, it does matter what people believe, and the transition to atheism could be a healthy and needed one. It depends on the specific individual, though. I can't say this as a general rule that can apply to just anyone.

I will say that atheism seems to leave the door open for rationality more than theisms generally do. So, perhaps there is some advantage over all in some hypothetical future-culture sense. But my attitude is more "live and let live". I accept that religion exists in the world and will exist for hundreds or thousands of years to come.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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

Deconverting theists is not necessarily a primary goal for me. I would rather see people develop curiosity, openness to learning, and epistemic humility. For some people, in the process of developing these characteristics they will question and potentially lose their faith, becoming atheists, but there's no guarantee of that. There are many theists who exhibit these characteristics while still retaining their faith. Notably, however, none of them are fundamentalists (in my experience).

 

[Eudaimonist]

I would rather see people develop curiosity, openness to learning, and epistemic humility.

Yes, this.^

If I could turn up the light of reason a notch in someone else, that would make discussion all worth while. That's even if they become better Christians.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Consider it this way: people tend to question their faith and become atheists when the intellectual culture meets certain conditions (i.e., those qualities I described in my previous post). It's that culture that is valued, not atheism per se.

 

[Albion]

Consider it this way: people tend to question their faith and become atheists when the intellectual culture meets certain conditions (i.e., those qualities I described in my previous post). It's that culture that is valued, not atheism per se.

That's a point worth bringing up. History shows that belief rises and falls, in part, as the wellbeing of society rises and falls. When the leading religious institutions become corrupt or incompetent, people turn to Atheism or Satanism--but it's not expressly because they have suddenly become convinced that those alternatives are literally correct in what they believe and teach.

 

[Roonwit]

Notably, however, none of them are fundamentalists (in my experience).

That depends on how you define fundamentalism... I tend to define it in such a way that by definition a fundamentalist wouldn't be open to questioning their beliefs - though by and large I don't find the term very helpful so I tend to avoid it!

Roonwit

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That's a point worth bringing up. History shows that belief rises and falls, in part, as the wellbeing of society rises and falls. When the leading religious institutions become corrupt or incompetent, people turn to Atheism or Satanism--but it's not expressly because they have suddenly become convinced that those alternatives are literally correct in what they believe and teach.

I think certain conditions, culturally and personally, tend to encourage atheism more than others because they enable people to critically reflect on dogmas that religious authorities would rather not see questioned. It's those conditions, some of which I described earlier, that are valued, more so than atheism per se. I don't have in mind a single term to describe those valued conditions, but I think the term "Enlightenment values" comes the closest.

 

[Albion]

I think certain conditions, culturally and personally, tend to encourage atheism more than others because they enable people to critically reflect on dogmas that religious authorities would rather not see questioned. .

I referred us to history, and the reason for the rise of Atheism and Satanism in past periods when the established churches faltered was simpler than that. If those institutions that claimed to have the corner on goodness show themselves NOT to be that after all, it is natural that some members of society at least would move to the groups that those churches had always said were bad and warned people against.