I don't get Atheism

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Meanwhile, you have decided what the right way to "study and believe" is. Many sincere Christians "have studied and believe" that the resurrection is a metaphor for rebirth. They believe in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus in a different way than you and the fundamentalists think they should believe, but they still believe.

Some educated religious liberal Christians are aware of the numerous ancient resurrection myths and see them (and Jesus) as reflecting a basic human desire to remake themselves and get a fresh start. I respect the liberals more because they are more thoughtful and less dogmatic and more aware of and in sync with modern science and philosophy.

Okay, so Jesus was not real. He was just a metaphor for rebirth, doing good, redeeming ourselves individually and collectively for the sins of the past by living a good righteous life from now on. Okay, I'll grant you that.

Lets take one more step, how can you then be sure that God is real. I propose that God is really just a metaphor that the authors of the bible created, to represent the great sense of unknown, our submission to the unknowable limits of our existence, to accept that we can not know in our own lifetime and in the lifetime of all of man, all that there is to know, because it is bigger and greater than us, our solar system, our galaxy, and perhaps even our own universe.

I simply cannot respect the logic that discounts everything in Christianity, including Christ himself, yet stops short of discounting God. It's weakness hiding under the idea of pragmatism.

McLeanAtheist

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Well, the fundamentalists have chosen their side, their religion over everything else. This is what religion teaches and they have followed it. They are honest about it with themselves and others. Now you say that much of the bible was not meant to be taken literally. But with that, you've revealed religion to be hollow and completely artificial, because now you have no foundation on which to base your practice. For example if the religion you believe in claims that Christ died and was resurrected, which conflicts with modern science in a very real sense, do you discount this as a "not meant to be taken literally?" If that's the case then what really happened? if Jesus wasn't resurrected, then what proof is there that he is the son of God? If he never died in the first place, then how are the sinners of this world redeemed? Was there even a person named Jesus? And if there wasn't....

Where do we draw the line between facts/reality, and teachings/parables?

If no one knows for sure, how can you practice that as a religion, which requires a specific system of belief at its very foundation.

So given the above, while I don't find any religion to be valid or convincing, at least I can appreciate the mindset of the fundamentalist believers.

McLeanAthiest

I think you're way off track here. The most common belief is that salvation through Christ is the solution to many of the rules of the Old Testament. Belief and salvation are the post-Christ replacement for the sacrifice and ceremony aspects. The fundamentalists still selectively follow parts of the Old Testament. There are very few denominations that encourage women to cover their hair. Christians eat pork. They don't strictly observe the Sabbath. They don't sacrifice animals. They don't follow what it says about slavery, war or marriage. Those are just a few things.

Not only was I raised as a hardcore fundamentalist, I have spent years studying religions. I can see you've given it all some thought, but your understanding of Christianity is very limited. If I had the choice, I'd prefer not to have the level of knowledge that comes from total immersion in fundamentalism.

-another atheist

I am not sure what you think we are disagreeing on. The narrative describing the life and death of Christ, and the reasons why all of that happened, is a fundamental aspect of Christianity. There are now moderate Christian denominations, or individual Christians who make the claim that the Christian system of belief is flexible, and that Bible is not meant to be taken literally - it's filled with some facts/truths, but also stories and parables. See the post I was replying to for an example of this mentality.

Now you can say that the rules about the Sabbath, eating pork, and even the instructions given about how to keep slaves and how much you can beat them, that these are all parables meant to illustrate some greater truth. We can go in circles arguing these things for days without a satisfactory answer because religion is man made and once you allow for flexible interpretation away from face value of the words written, well then it's like two guys standing in front of a painting arguing about the true artistic intent of the now deceased artist - the experiences are then almost purely subjective.

But the fact is that there is a line somewhere and a believer have to decide where it is. Was the story of Jesus all true? If you believe it is all true, how do you square the death and resurrection of Jesus with modern science. You have to choose whether you believe that Jesus died and was resurrected, or the science that indicates resurrection after death is not possible; these two claims are incompatible and you can't believe both at the same time. This goes to the heart of the argument. I don't really care how Christians square their lack of adherence to their faith in other comparatively minor aspects of their religious practice, but this fundamental core belief in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, is central and fundamental to their belief. You cannot be a Christian if you don't believe the bible's claims about Jesus.

Now bringing the argument back to the point about fundamentalism. I want to point out that "Christ is a fundamental aspect of Christianity" doesn't mean I think anyone who believes in this story as the truth is a fundamentalist, this is just an unfortunate coincidence in word usage. In drawing the aforementioned line separating facts/truth and stories/parables, the moderate Christians have made a squiggly one through the pages of the bible, picking and choosing as they go along with their study. The fundamentalists have drawn a straight line. What I am saying is that I have more respect for the mindset of the fundamentalists in this matter, rather than the fuzzy mindset of the moderates. If you claim you believe in something, you should actually study it and believe it, instead of choosing which part to believe in based on whether you feel it violates your worldly sensibilities.

McLeanAthiest

NP. Speaking to this point. Jesus is God so it's possible. No contradictions. But we are coming at this from opposing viewpoints and never, ever, ever will meet even close to each other. It seems you are very focused on believers conceding that faith doesn't align with hard proof that you can turn over in your hands. You're right. Now what? Now you want us to say we are believing it anyway because it feels good and we have been taught as much from birth. Well the truth does feel good and I have been exposed to religion form birth, but I went my own way for a time and came back. Now what makes it "truth", right? Again, we're getting into that space between where you dwell and where I live.

You sound like someone who will not accept something that doesn't make sense to you, maybe I'm wrong. But if that is the case, you conduct your life as it works for you, and I'll do the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Meanwhile, you have decided what the right way to "study and believe" is. Many sincere Christians "have studied and believe" that the resurrection is a metaphor for rebirth. They believe in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus in a different way than you and the fundamentalists think they should believe, but they still believe.

Some educated religious liberal Christians are aware of the numerous ancient resurrection myths and see them (and Jesus) as reflecting a basic human desire to remake themselves and get a fresh start. I respect the liberals more because they are more thoughtful and less dogmatic and more aware of and in sync with modern science and philosophy.

Not Mclean atheist guy.

Let me ask you a question: why? Why do sincere Christians believe this despite evidence to the contrary? Can you point me to some specific argument(s) that strongly makes the case? I would love to read some because, to me, it seems like they start out wanting to believe this stuff in the first place, filter all evidence through that framework, and then magically make the conclusion they started with in the first place.

But let me back up a second. Isn't a big part of Christianity the idea that this Jesus guy literally died for your sins and then rose again? I don't know how you can not literally accept that and still identify with the faith. It's all part of the deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
NP. Speaking to this point. Jesus is God so it's possible. No contradictions. But we are coming at this from opposing viewpoints and never, ever, ever will meet even close to each other. It seems you are very focused on believers conceding that faith doesn't align with hard proof that you can turn over in your hands. You're right. Now what? Now you want us to say we are believing it anyway because it feels good and we have been taught as much from birth. Well the truth does feel good and I have been exposed to religion form birth, but I went my own way for a time and came back. Now what makes it "truth", right? Again, we're getting into that space between where you dwell and where I live.

You sound like someone who will not accept something that doesn't make sense to you, maybe I'm wrong. But if that is the case, you conduct your life as it works for you, and I'll do the same.

Well, a far better answer was just offered, which is that Jesus was just a metaphor. This makes far more sense to me than "Jesus is God". Non-metaphorical claims of God and Jesus are supernatural by nature, and supernatural by definition conflicts with current scientific understanding. I am not asking you to meet me half way or become an atheist, but you have to be intellectually honest and admit that there is a contradiction between resurrection of Christ and science.

The specific reason of your religious belief is your prerogative, as it is my prerogative to say that I find the beliefs of fundamentalists more reasonable. We can then trade arguments supporting our own position and hopefully broaden our understanding of each other in the process.

There may be things I don't understand which I accept. For example there are smart minds working on Quantum Theory or String Theory, and I grant that I will unlikely be able to understand these theories in my lifetime because I haven't made any appreciable effort to understand them. But I do accept these theories because they are the product of the scientific method and are peer reviewed. However, there are things that I have looked into, things that I have the capacity to understand and make sense of, yet they do not make sense after repeated examinations to me and to the scientific community. These are the things that I cannot accept.

McLeanAthiest

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
NP. Speaking to this point. Jesus is God so it's possible. No contradictions. But we are coming at this from opposing viewpoints and never, ever, ever will meet even close to each other. It seems you are very focused on believers conceding that faith doesn't align with hard proof that you can turn over in your hands. You're right. Now what? Now you want us to say we are believing it anyway because it feels good and we have been taught as much from birth. Well the truth does feel good and I have been exposed to religion form birth, but I went my own way for a time and came back. Now what makes it "truth", right? Again, we're getting into that space between where you dwell and where I live.

You sound like someone who will not accept something that doesn't make sense to you, maybe I'm wrong. But if that is the case, you conduct your life as it works for you, and I'll do the same.

Well, a far better answer was just offered, which is that Jesus was just a metaphor. This makes far more sense to me than "Jesus is God". Non-metaphorical claims of God and Jesus are supernatural by nature, and supernatural by definition conflicts with current scientific understanding. I am not asking you to meet me half way or become an atheist, but you have to be intellectually honest and admit that there is a contradiction between resurrection of Christ and science.

The specific reason of your religious belief is your prerogative, as it is my prerogative to say that I find the beliefs of fundamentalists more reasonable. We can then trade arguments supporting our own position and hopefully broaden our understanding of each other in the process.

There may be things I don't understand which I accept. For example there are smart minds working on Quantum Theory or String Theory, and I grant that I will unlikely be able to understand these theories in my lifetime because I haven't made any appreciable effort to understand them. But I do accept these theories because they are the product of the scientific method and are peer reviewed. However, there are things that I have looked into, things that I have the capacity to understand and make sense of, yet they do not make sense after repeated examinations to me and to the scientific community. These are the things that I cannot accept.

McLeanAthiest

And we're back to you live as you will and I will do the same. There are many issues in this world that will find little to no reconciliation, faith is just one of them.

[Anonymous]

McLean atheist, your understanding of fundamentalist beliefs isn't accurate. Your view of it seems to be no more than what you think they should believe.

Without knowing the reality of practicing a religion or the beliefs they follow, how do you expect your arguments to make sense or be persuasive?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:McLean atheist, your understanding of fundamentalist beliefs isn't accurate. Your view of it seems to be no more than what you think they should believe.

Without knowing the reality of practicing a religion or the beliefs they follow, how do you expect your arguments to make sense or be persuasive?

It's not accurate in what way, can you give me an example?

McLeanAtheist

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
NP. Speaking to this point. Jesus is God so it's possible. No contradictions. But we are coming at this from opposing viewpoints and never, ever, ever will meet even close to each other. It seems you are very focused on believers conceding that faith doesn't align with hard proof that you can turn over in your hands. You're right. Now what? Now you want us to say we are believing it anyway because it feels good and we have been taught as much from birth. Well the truth does feel good and I have been exposed to religion form birth, but I went my own way for a time and came back. Now what makes it "truth", right? Again, we're getting into that space between where you dwell and where I live.

You sound like someone who will not accept something that doesn't make sense to you, maybe I'm wrong. But if that is the case, you conduct your life as it works for you, and I'll do the same.

Well, a far better answer was just offered, which is that Jesus was just a metaphor. This makes far more sense to me than "Jesus is God". Non-metaphorical claims of God and Jesus are supernatural by nature, and supernatural by definition conflicts with current scientific understanding. I am not asking you to meet me half way or become an atheist, but you have to be intellectually honest and admit that there is a contradiction between resurrection of Christ and science.

The specific reason of your religious belief is your prerogative, as it is my prerogative to say that I find the beliefs of fundamentalists more reasonable. We can then trade arguments supporting our own position and hopefully broaden our understanding of each other in the process.

There may be things I don't understand which I accept. For example there are smart minds working on Quantum Theory or String Theory, and I grant that I will unlikely be able to understand these theories in my lifetime because I haven't made any appreciable effort to understand them. But I do accept these theories because they are the product of the scientific method and are peer reviewed. However, there are things that I have looked into, things that I have the capacity to understand and make sense of, yet they do not make sense after repeated examinations to me and to the scientific community. These are the things that I cannot accept.

McLeanAthiest

And we're back to you live as you will and I will do the same. There are many issues in this world that will find little to no reconciliation, faith is just one of them.

A different atheist -

Most reasonable questions do have reasonable answers - or people looking for reasonable answers -- that's how humans have made so much progress. I view the acceptance of "faith" in ancient stores as being outside this reasonableness as unreasonable. I think and hope that this way of thinking -- which I know is very acceptable now-- is changing and will eventually be as unacceptable as believing in Santa after the age of 8.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Meanwhile, you have decided what the right way to "study and believe" is. Many sincere Christians "have studied and believe" that the resurrection is a metaphor for rebirth. They believe in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus in a different way than you and the fundamentalists think they should believe, but they still believe.

Some educated religious liberal Christians are aware of the numerous ancient resurrection myths and see them (and Jesus) as reflecting a basic human desire to remake themselves and get a fresh start. I respect the liberals more because they are more thoughtful and less dogmatic and more aware of and in sync with modern science and philosophy.

Okay, so Jesus was not real. He was just a metaphor for rebirth, doing good, redeeming ourselves individually and collectively for the sins of the past by living a good righteous life from now on. Okay, I'll grant you that.

Lets take one more step, how can you then be sure that God is real. I propose that God is really just a metaphor that the authors of the bible created, to represent the great sense of unknown, our submission to the unknowable limits of our existence, to accept that we can not know in our own lifetime and in the lifetime of all of man, all that there is to know, because it is bigger and greater than us, our solar system, our galaxy, and perhaps even our own universe.

I simply cannot respect the logic that discounts everything in Christianity, including Christ himself, yet stops short of discounting God. It's weakness hiding under the idea of pragmatism.

McLeanAtheist

A lot of liberal Christians see "god" as a metaphor too. Others are not so sure and/or don't want to think about it much

[Anonymous]

I think for a lot of people, "faith" brings comfort. They may be totally on board with science and logic, but our society right now is such that "faith" is viewed as a virtue, so they keep it because it feels good.

I doubt these people are dangerous to scientific progress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McLean atheist, your understanding of fundamentalist beliefs isn't accurate. Your view of it seems to be no more than what you think they should believe.

Without knowing the reality of practicing a religion or the beliefs they follow, how do you expect your arguments to make sense or be persuasive?

It's not accurate in what way, can you give me an example?

McLeanAtheist

Pretty much all of it. You're rationalizing from a point of absolutism, and that point does not exist. Every Christian denomination has slightly different interpretations. There's logic based on different interpretations of the exact same bible verses. It's not as clear as you seem to believe. There is no one who follows a 100% literal interpretation. Fundamentalists believe in a higher percentage of following the Old Testament laws, but it's nowhere near all.

The simple explanation for this is that our morality has evolved. We no longer stone rape victims, or force them to marry or be purchased by their rapist. We don't kill our children who disrespect us. We don't sacrifice people or animals. There are about a million shades of gray of biblical adherence. It's not simply that some laws are disregarded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Meanwhile, you have decided what the right way to "study and believe" is. Many sincere Christians "have studied and believe" that the resurrection is a metaphor for rebirth. They believe in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus in a different way than you and the fundamentalists think they should believe, but they still believe.

Some educated religious liberal Christians are aware of the numerous ancient resurrection myths and see them (and Jesus) as reflecting a basic human desire to remake themselves and get a fresh start. I respect the liberals more because they are more thoughtful and less dogmatic and more aware of and in sync with modern science and philosophy.

Okay, so Jesus was not real. He was just a metaphor for rebirth, doing good, redeeming ourselves individually and collectively for the sins of the past by living a good righteous life from now on. Okay, I'll grant you that.

Lets take one more step, how can you then be sure that God is real. I propose that God is really just a metaphor that the authors of the bible created, to represent the great sense of unknown, our submission to the unknowable limits of our existence, to accept that we can not know in our own lifetime and in the lifetime of all of man, all that there is to know, because it is bigger and greater than us, our solar system, our galaxy, and perhaps even our own universe.

I simply cannot respect the logic that discounts everything in Christianity, including Christ himself, yet stops short of discounting God. It's weakness hiding under the idea of pragmatism.

McLeanAtheist

A lot of liberal Christians see "god" as a metaphor too. Others are not so sure and/or don't want to think about it much

Okay, at what point are you then simply agnostic and no longer a Christian? If you don't even get in the water, are you still swimming?

McLeanAtheist

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

A different atheist -

Most reasonable questions do have reasonable answers - or people looking for reasonable answers -- that's how humans have made so much progress. I view the acceptance of "faith" in ancient stores as being outside this reasonableness as unreasonable. I think and hope that this way of thinking -- which I know is very acceptable now-- is changing and will eventually be as unacceptable as believing in Santa after the age of 8.

I believe in Santa. People who don't believe in Santa might as well be Data on Star Trek the Next Generation; they have no understanding of human creativity, intuition, and beauty. Some things are true because we see them as true. Life is art, not just numbers on a screen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McLean atheist, your understanding of fundamentalist beliefs isn't accurate. Your view of it seems to be no more than what you think they should believe.

Without knowing the reality of practicing a religion or the beliefs they follow, how do you expect your arguments to make sense or be persuasive?

It's not accurate in what way, can you give me an example?

McLeanAtheist

Pretty much all of it. You're rationalizing from a point of absolutism, and that point does not exist. Every Christian denomination has slightly different interpretations. There's logic based on different interpretations of the exact same bible verses. It's not as clear as you seem to believe. There is no one who follows a 100% literal interpretation. Fundamentalists believe in a higher percentage of following the Old Testament laws, but it's nowhere near all.

The simple explanation for this is that our morality has evolved. We no longer stone rape victims, or force them to marry or be purchased by their rapist. We don't kill our children who disrespect us. We don't sacrifice people or animals. There are about a million shades of gray of biblical adherence. It's not simply that some laws are disregarded.

I didn't say there is only one denomination, or even only one version of fundamentalism. The point here isn't about the little differences. It's said that there are more Christian denominations than verses in the Bible. So I can appreciate how finely divided Christianity is. My point is about the mentality of the moderate Christians versus the fundamentalists. Given that there are differences and a gradient within each of these two camps, the two camps have a notable difference in their high level view towards the Bible, as I described previously.

As an atheist, I can appreciate that morality has evolved this man-made thing called religion has evolved with it. What I am saying is that for religious people, those who believe in not just God but a particular specific definition of God, a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible is more reasonable and congruent with the concept of religious belief.

McLeanAtheist

[takoma]

To those who quote the dictionary definition of "religion" or explain that one cannot be a Christian without accepting this or that doctrine: Language is malleable. We do not all use words in the same way. A person can consider herself or himself to be devoutly religious while believing in a metaphorical God, while another person with extremely similar views of politics, charity, and most other aspects of life, might self-designate as an atheist.

If this thread were in a language forum, it would make sense to debate whether either of the above people is using correct terminology. But in this Religion Forum, I think we should accept that words like "Christian" and "atheist" are used broadly, and only give a general approximation of the user's outlook. Joe Biden and Rick Santorum, for example, are both Catholics, but that gives very little information about what to expect from them.