I thought this was an interesting article by a former atheist: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/august/28.40.html?start=1 My reason for posting this was to continue open lines of dialog and communication between the atheists and believers on these boards, and to get honest feedback. My initial question for atheists is: are you an atheist primarily because of you scientific-rationalist skepticism in the supernatural, or your dislike of the God as portrayed in Christianity, Islam, etc, or a mixture of both?
I don't believe the religious because I have more faith in human potential. Bible, Koran, Torah...all works that aren't even unique. Other god entities of society had their traits decades before. Science explains more, and leaves a far greater sense of awe than make believe myths. The religious text protrayal is easily debunked. However, the actions of the followers make me realize how dumb religion really is.
I think your phrasing of the question this way betrays a subtle slant toward "belief in God" as the baseline state of being with atheism something that has to be justified. I'm not currently atheist but was for the first 20 years of my life, and was raised in a basically atheist (or, more accurately, modern scientific rationalist and religiously apathetic) family, in which the evidence of our physical senses was the root of our experience. Belief in any type of god always seemed like an addition to that experience that didn't necessarily fit in with our everyday lives as actually lived, and seemed more like a relic of bygone times and a mysterious habit of others that we needed to contend with. So, considering the two alternatives you list, it was both, but ultimately the former was more important.
I don't believe in god because its existence is not plausible. I arrived at atheism mainly through studying history, but my knowledge was informed by studying theology and the classical proofs for god. In many ways, my experience was exactly the opposite of the author--once I really allowed myself to say the word atheist out loud, the world made much more sense, ethics had foundation, and purpose grasped me.
Was struck by the opening to the article: That sounds a lot like the kind of thing I experienced on my way to NOT being an atheist (although not a Christian). It sounds like the author experienced a period of mystical union, which some psychologists have referred to as a "peak experience" (and others, more commonly, as a manic episode or even a schizophrenic break), and interpreted it according to his own religious foundation, that of Christianity. What led me to more of a perennialist mindset is the fact that people throughout history have reported experiences like the one above, which is then (usually) expressed through the lens of the tradition that individual feels most comfortable with. Which, in some cases, is an atheist one, and the experience, while profound and potentially life-changing, doesn't result in belief in a particular deity but more of a deep and abiding love for life or existence itself (I've known people of atheistic bent who have described similar experiences triggered by appreciation of the natural world).
Like most people growing up in a 'traditionally' christian country, I believed in the christian god when I was a child because adults told me that god existed. Not my parents, both are atheists but didn't talk to me about it and didn't contradict anything I might have picked up from anywhere else (mostly school). I stopped believing in it when I reached adolescence and realised that not everything told to me by an adult was automatically true and that I could make my own mind up about things. I suppose the first thing that got me thinking it wasn't true was that there were lots of religions that people seriously believed in so why would I automatically believe the one that was most prominent in the place I was born and grew up in. That fact alone didn't make it any truer. And if different people across the world at different times had sincerely believed in countless myths and religions then I realised that all but one of them simply had to be made up and that was evidence enough that it's very easy for these kind of ideas and stories to sprout up and take a very strong hold. So the number of people who might believe in a certain one didn't make it any more true either. I have to admit that the god of christianity doesn't sound like any god I'd feel comfortable with but that comes back to the logic of it too. God's supposed to be this great, loving, father figure but the Bible portrays him as petty and, basically, a murderer. It's not just that he doesn't sound like a nice guy, that just doesn't make sense.
I can pretty much echo this sentiment. I didn't go off in search of atheism or feel wounded or offended by god and then decide to abandon my previous faith (what little I had). Atheism, for me, just happened. One day I just couldn't bring myself to believe in a god. Not because I wanted to (or not to), but rather because I just could no longer do it. For me the idea of the existence of a god was as plausible as my taking flight just like Superman at that very moment. I found that belief in a god violated rationality and reason and I could not deny that conflict and continue to believe. After that day the world was no less bright and amazing than it had been before. In fact, my appreciation of the little things like a starry night or a century old tree or the very movement of my own body increased significantly. My thirst for knowledge skyrocketed after that. I had an overwhelming desire to find answers to questions I didn't bother to ask before, to questions I had never even considered before. To know that no matter how much I learned I would always have more questions was an exciting prospect to me. The fact is that almost anything could happen to change my existence and the existence of all of us on this tiny spec of a rock 5 minutes from now. That is a scary prospect, and honestly, it would be comforting to think that there is a god up there and that my belief in him would provide some kind of cosmic safety net, but as long as I am honest to myself I will never be able to believe that no matter how nice it would be.
It is my opinion that people who declare themselves atheists [though the author of this piece never does] for the above reasoning are likely to return to the fold of religion at some point in their life. They are living their life not without god, but without faith.
I think many people are more comfortable in a universe with God, it makes a lot more sense when God is in their life, and it helps their spiritual life. It's easy for such people to believe in God. Obviously that has been true since antiquity. Whether or not there is a God or many gods, there is no doubt that human beings have been seeking and believing in deity since pre-historic times. I think within the category of people who believe in God we have two major groups. There are people who seem to be better able to seek God by following a major religion. Often they are born into a religion that engages their self (or their spirit, to use a spiritual term), and so they remain faithful to it and accept its tenets, follow its rituals and so on. Then there are those who have a more personal path. They believe in God, gods, or simply the Spiritual realm, and they see value in religious wisdom and tradition, and yet they don't believe or follow any particular religion, or accept any particular dogma as fact. This is a path of spiritual solitude, a road less travelled, so to speak. It is the path I find myself more comfortable in, because I feel like I can seek God without all the baggage that religion adds to it. Also because I can see different truths in different religions, so I don't want to limit myself to any one in particular. Plus, I see many falsehoods in different religions as well, so I am more comfortable not belonging to them. I've met others who, like me, are also most comfortable following their own individual spiritual path than a particular religious tradition. It can be a liberating path, which allows me to be able to learn from the wisdom of different traditions, like Buddhism, Islam, from other ancient and modern belief systems, even though I obviously do have a strong base in Christianity because I grew up with it and because it is the religion of my parents and the primary religion of the country and culture in which I became a man. I do think that there are people who reject God because they find valid reasons to reject their religion, and they confuse God with religion. But I think it is very important to recognize that there are also many people who don't get God at all, who simply think the universe makes more sense without a god or gods in it. These people will not seek God, and most of them will never understand why others seek God, or what others see in religion. It makes sense for them to be atheists, (or maybe agnostic, if they are a bit more open minded to other possibilities.) It's a very legitimate way to look at our universe and our human condition, based primarily on what can be seen and proven with our senses. We have to respect that point of view. Trying to argue with such people about issues like the value of seeking God or the power that prayer has in our lives is fruitless, because those are concepts that cannot be conveyed logically to somebody who doesn't experience them. There is no rational, logical way of explaining these spiritual events in a way that can be acceptable to somebody who does not believe in God. But I think we can believe in God, we can pray, and learn about God's nature, and still consider ourselves agnostic in a way. That is how I honestly see myself. If somebody presses me, I will admit that I am an agnostic, because I don't have the clear answer, I cannot know if there is a God, if I'm really tapping into God or speaking to God when I pray. I realize that when I seek God, when I find God, I could very well be simply tapping into myself, into a human instinct within my own nature that appears to exhibit God-like characteristics. I don't negate that possibility, but having said that, it makes a lot more sense for me to recognize the entity I tap into as God than to see it as part of myself. Not just that, but to seek this God, to pray to him, helps me understand myself better. So, if he turns out to be just an instinct within myself, what does it matter? He is still guiding me. I try not to judge the paths of others, and not to sell my own path to anybody. But for those who are open to a discussion about these issues, I can honestly say that I found a path that, at least for for me, is a good path.
I think I've told my history/reasoning before in this forum. I was raised Jewish, and I think it's just a whole other world from Christian, especially protestant, notions of faith and spirituality. By the time I was in kindergarten, I distinctly remember doubting whether God was real. A big question for me was similar to the one Gordon mentioned; I realized at a young age that if I hadn't been born into a Jewish family, I would believe something completely different. Jewish ritual and tradition were very important to me, though, so I rationalized that different religions were just different ways of approaching a universal spiritual truth, and Judaism happened to be the one I was practicing. So by the time I was in high school, it's fair to say that I didn't believe in any god, in the most literal sense, but I still was open to the idea of a higher power of some kind. Eventually I admitted to myself that although I like the idea of a higher power, I don't really believe in it. And that's what it comes down to for me. I can maintain an open mind, but I can't make myself believe in something that I don't really believe is real.
There are two fundamental views of "religion", one from the inside and one from the outside. What complicates is that many inside and outside have very erroneous notions about what this or that "religion" truly espouses as doctrine, dogma, discipleship ( however you wish to describe/define the major elements to being part of that "religious" movement ). Some of the disconnect between fact and fiction regarding "religions" stems from the way these "paths" are described by people who have become disaffected by the "religion" and have turned to a different "path". Some of the misunderstandings are the result of selective learning on the part of followers. For example, within the Christian church world, there are denominations that believe that certain practices ( like dancing ) are wrong/evil/sinful even though there are no specific teachings in the Old or New Testament that proscribe dancing ( or playing cards ). One of the ironies is that anti-dancing Christians sometimes smoke cigarettes, which, while not proscribed in Scripture, seems to fall among the kinds of activities that would damage ones body, which is described as a temple. It would be useful if each of the varying spiritual paths could have a simple primer that explained its teachings without creating a lot of tedious haranguing about fine points. Unfortunately, that would put tons of theologians out of work. E.G., Christianity in practice is following Jesus and doing what he said, starting with loving God and loving others. Idea-wise, Christianity teaches that Jesus' life, death and resurrection are part of God's plan to redeem the Universe from the disobedience of Adam and Eve. Following Jesus now is also part of that same plan.
maybe. my intent was to try to clarify -- to the extent of my actual experience and my intuitive sense -- what goes on in the real world that influences some people regarding pursuit of "religion". some people start out in families with very orthodox God perspectives ( whether bible god or something else ) but they are influenced by their experiences to question the validity of their childhood training. sometimes these people decide that there is no god. sometimes they decide that the question cannot be answered one way or the other. most of the time, these perspective changes don't occur in a vacuum. they are the result of more than introspection. there are disappointments or betrayals that have less to do with whatever "god" they think they know about and more to do with people who may or may not be acting within the simple doctrines of the spiritual path being followed. so it's not always an intellectual process that leads toward or away from god. that was my point.
Sometimes we hear about "loving God" and it sounds like a religious cliche. So, this is a serious question, not an attempt to argue. What exactly does it mean to you, when you say "starting with loving God..." Can you expound on how you see the concept of "loving God" and give some practical examples from daily life?
so we can start with a basic tenet, anything purporting to be "love" cannot flow from self-interest. there must be an abrogation of self-interest which Jesus describes as taking up one's cross. taking up one's cross means making the appropriate sacrifice for the furtherance of God's glory/honor/name. first of all, loving God means agreeing that i must obey him. anything other than that is a form of rebellion. second, i must agree with God when i do not obey that what i have done is an offense against him, regardless of whether i think i have harmed anyone else. third, i must place what i know to be his priorities above all other priorities in my life. this will involve learning to make sacrifices. fourth, i must regard others as more worthy of honor than myself. i must treat others as well or better than i expect to be treated. fifth, i must credit God with every blessing i receive. it is by his hand that i receive anything, even if i worked hard to earn it. he gave me the capacity to work hard, the persistence, the skills. sixth, i must seek to be a channel where God can provide for the needs of others. this will require wisdom, because i may often wish to do things i am not called upon to do because i desire the public acclaim which may accrue to me for having done those things. this wisdom will come from prayer and meditation. God will speak to me ( not in an audible voice that others could hear ). i could go on...
I understand what you are saying, and I think it's important as well. But I think it's also important to add that we should also strive to love ourselves. And I think that is where it all starts. I believe that loving God, and loving others, has to start with loving ourselves. Sometimes the Church's teachings ignores that aspect of it. I've been to churches that sound like masochist clubs. You hear that we are sinners, we are garbage, we are worms, we are nothing, and so on. They forget the part that says that we were made by God in his image. Jesus said "love your neighbor as yourself. It implies that you first love yourself. If you don't love yourself, what are you really sacrificing when you give of yourself for others? I am sure Jesus, being God -I am talking based on Christian doctrine now- must have truly loved himself. And because of his love for himself, it followed that his humility and his ultimate sacrifice was the great gift that it was. I believe we should strive to learn to truly love ourselves. I believe that when we take the time to learn about our true self, and we learn to love our true self, then that is how we learn about God, and we learn to love God. After all, are we not made in God's image? And by learning to love ourselves, we also learn to love others. How can we love others as we love ourselves, if we don't know how to love ourselves?
no offence, but that sounds like a Victorian boarding school. most people would call that total submissiveness, which, I grant you, can be a form of love. whether it's a healthy form of love is very much debatable though.
everyone has self-love. it may not be the healthiest kind of self-love, but it's there. the problem comes when people have been abused, which is most of the time. then, self-love is tainted/mixed with the abusive "love" from ( usually) parent or spouse/partner. the best way to counteract that is to help people to learn that God loves them, just as they are at the moment. the complication is that (usually) the abuser is the father and he is the model for God/Father, and you can see where that goes. but loving yourself has to progress from the kind of self-absorption that babies have to healthy self-regard, and we can see that most people don't have a balanced form of healthy self-regard, even if they haven't been the victims of abuse. the last sentence is spot on. it echoes my point that God loves us just as we are. Romans 5:8 says that God shows his love for us in that Jesus died for us while we were still sinners. the obvious implication is that Jesus believes that people love themselves. if someone doesn't have healthy self-regard, that has to be developed, but it can't develop outside of the standard that we are who the Supreme Being of the Universe created as his children. Jesus and the Father were One. Jesus' self-regard stemmed from his fully realized awareness that he and The Father would always be One. he could depend on The Father for everything he needed. his sacrifice is described as "obedience unto death, even death on a cross". "he made himself nothing". I believe we should strive to learn to truly love ourselves. I believe that when we take the time to learn about our true self, and we learn to love our true self, then that is how we learn about God, and we learn to love God. After all, are we not made in God's image? And by learning to love ourselves, we also learn to love others. How can we love others as we love ourselves, if we don't know how to love ourselves?[/QUOTE]again, healthy self-regard will allow us to see our place in the cosmos as part of God's Plan to make the world a better place. question: do you think it is natural for people to make sacrifices on the behalf of others?
i think it's very much the case that total submissiveness to another human would be unhealthy, unless the other human ALWAYS did what would be best, from the broadest possible perspective. but God is Love, and submitting entirely to God will always produce the best results.
well, if you are submitting to Gozer the Gozerian, i think you're taking unnecessary risks, and i think Dana and Peter would ultimately agree, but Dana was definitely hot-looking.
it's, like, cosmic, man. best results, period. our perspective is finite, personal, terrestrial ( mostly ). that perspective can be amplified, broadened, clarified, corrected, but we start out with a very narrow view. when you are an infant, you don't know what is completely external to you. your world is virtually solipsistic. that tends to diminish as you gain a different perspective. you learn that the voices you hear aren't part of you. you learn your mother's voice and your father's voice and you can make distinctions. but you don't have the capacity to make those distinctions when you're 5 days old. it's all about perspective. we can learn to hear God's voice, not as an audible perception, but as a "nudge". one must believe that is not only possible but probable for that to happen. it's not exactly like being in a room with a radio and TV on, and a conversation taking place between two other people. you can listen to whichever information source you choose. you may experience distractions from the radio if you are trying to listen to Ken and Barb's conversation, but you can "tune in". listening for God's "nudge" requires effort to "tune in". people have been reporting this phenomenon for centuries.