Your Opinion On Christianity?

[Ashley Huddleston]

I am a HUGE Jesus freak. I live for the Lord, and I know I'll die for him too. He is my savior, and as I've suffered from Bipolar Disorder my whole life, I'll willingly admit if it weren't for him I probably wouldn't be here right now.

I don't mean to offend anyone, and I want your honest opinion, please. I love debates, and I believe it's a good way to make friends. So let's see if we can make some new friends through this. :]

[HazelHowl]

I myself am a Christian, but I think that bits and pieces from each religion some bit of truth in them. I'm a very big believer in coexisting and just accepting everyone for who they are and what they choose. I believe it's very important that we keep open minds to everyones' beliefs and not judge others. Afterall, I don't think it's our job to judge but God's job.

[Lori S.]

This conversation makes me sad.  I hate pissing contests between Christian fundamentalists and New Atheists.  It's always hard for me to figure out which side bothers me more.  Probably a tie.

Most Christians?  Good, loving, decent people.  Most atheists?  Good, loving, decent people.  Most people of other faith/religious opinions?  Good, loving decent people.  Why do so many good, loving, decent people come to such wildly different beliefs?  I don't know.  But I don't doubt the goodness or love or decency of any of them, even if their opinions are very different than mine.

It's only when people start trying to shove their beliefs (or non-belief) down people's throats and prove how much smarter they are than everybody else that I get annoyed.

The thing is, there is no conclusive proof that God exists.  Sorry.  None.  But, there's also no conclusive proof that God doesn't exist.  Again, sorry.  If there was conclusive proof on either side, this would be a relatively easy thing to clear up.  So, we're all doing our best to make sense of our experience and understanding of the world.  I think that if both Christian fundamentalists and New Atheists took the time to really step outside of themselves for a minute and consider what the world might look like to somebody else--in a generous, understanding way--they might both stop being so overbearing and obnoxious.

I'm a Christian.  But I'm not a pushy fundamentalist type.  I love Jesus.  I have had what I interpret as very powerful experiences of the presence of God.  I read the Bible.  I do my best to follow Jesus (although I think mostly he kind of drags me along).  I go to church.  And I think following Jesus is a good way, and I'd like for more people to do it.  But, God knows their heart, and God knows where they need to be, and I trust that God has them on the path they need to be on.  I'm not going to try to argue them onto my path.

My husband is an atheist, but not the arrogant New Atheist type.  He doesn't believe in God, in general.  (I guess it's more accurate to say that he's an agnostic with very, very strong atheist leanings.)  He doesn't go to church.  He really doesn't care much about Jesus, although he thinks he was probably a cool guy.  He doesn't read the Bible.  He has no desire to stop other people from believing, though.

And the funny thing is that I'm often reluctant to identify as a Christian, because people don't think, when they hear that, "Oh, she's a follower of Jesus!"  They think, "Uh oh, she's a hateful, angry, right-wing conservative."  And, as none of that is true about me--I'm most certainly not right-wing or conservative, and I do try not to be hateful or angry, at least not as a general rule--I would prefer people don't assume that.  And my husband is reluctant to identify as an atheist, because more and more atheism is conflated with New Atheism, and with a kind of belligerent, aggressive anti-theism, where he's just kind of a live-and-let-live apathetic atheist.  

Anyway, it's just always kind of disappointing when the extremists on both sides take over a conversation.

[HazelHowl]

I would have to agree with you on that, I'm not a fan of anything extreme; except love. People shouldn't try to pressure others into believing what others believe. It's just not right.

[CD]

I'd have to say I agree with you, too.  I probably come across as the pushy, new atheist type though.  In all honesty this is partially a defense, due to a "war" between the pushy extremists on any side of the [no]god coin. 

There is a difference between expressing ourselves and being an ass about it, though.  People who say they love Jesus and go to church aren't being an ass. People who say that religion is ridiculous and Jesus didn't exist are also not being an ass.  However, there are people who take that extra step and are being an ass. For example, pushing governments to not allow gay marriage, just because their interpretation of something says that is against their religion.  And just as pushy, people who look to ban religion from political discourse entirely.   The middle ground clearly always was, just because we believe something, it doesn't mean other people have to believe it too,  and the state (if it ought to exist) ought to be secular, with equal rights for all people, including having beliefs but not the right to prevent other people from living equally based on those beliefs (in general).  So basically, the extremists can shut up!

I also think it's really cool how open minded you are.  You say you've had some kind of spiritual god-related experience which leads you to theism, but you're also willing to say there is no proof either way.  That's an honest position to put out there.  Fact is, we're just ants from the perspective of a tall building, let alone the universe.  Who the hell knows, right?  I take it that this explanation for your experience works for you, whereas some of the trippier (for lack of a better word) experiences I have had, I put down to other explanations. And no one really knows, and no one is getting hurt, and it makes us both happy, so who cares.

[HazelHowl]

This is true, no one really knows if there is a God or not so why push the fact that any God is the right God? Christians could have it all wrong; anyone could have it all wrong. We won't find out until we find out. But I believe religion can do some good, it can give some people comfort, which is what it gives me personally. But for others, no so much. Religion just doesn't speak to some as it does for others. And there is no crime against that.

As for politics, I think that pushing a specifis religion is kind of toeing the line. So many countries have diverse cultures and religions, a politician can't just shut the rest down just so they can support his preference. Politics and religion I always felt should be seperate, but that's my opinion.

[Hutch Hogan]

To be entirely fair to the topic, this is in the debates section to be put to debate, intellect and arguments are going to be thrown around in the pursuit of truth. 

I will agree that most Christians and atheists are good, loving people.  But that does not justify either ideology.  I am absolutely sure that there were good, loving Nazis and soviets who got caught up in something bigger than themselves.  But it does not justify their system of belief and it does not justify contented ignorance. 

It's fair for you to get annoyed with pushy people, but to what extent does that reach?  If someone votes for a politician because they believe they're a true follower of Jesus, they have successfully attempted to force their belief onto all of the constituents of the politician.  This isn't hyperbolic either, consider that people in North Carolina managed to vote to bar people from marrying each other based on an ancient text not even written on the same continent.  

I'm glad that you noted that there is no conclusive proof for the existence of god, and no empirical (I say empirical because since god has a very specific definition, it can be shown to be false through definition) proof for the non-existence.   But that doesn't mean that there's a stalemate.  There is no conclusive proof for the existence of unicorns, there is also no empirical evidence against unicorns either.  But when two sides argue, it is the camp that has argued for the existence of unicorns that have drawn a loss.  

That said, I respect you for the fact that you claim to have had religious experiences and realize that subjective experiences are not a means of evangelizing others.  So hopefully I don't come across as being entirely contrary to what you're talking about.  

As for the term New Atheists, it's really a misnomer.  The central atheist complaint, Epicurus' dilemma is older than Christ.  There really is not anything new under the sun. 

That said, the atheists you're thinking of are largely responding to extremist religion, criticizing the 9/11 attacks as acts of true fundamentalism, causing massive amounts of death in our modern era. 

Please don't think people are extremists for debating in the debates section of the forum. 

-Hutch

[CD]

As for the term New Atheists, it's really a misnomer.  The central atheist complaint, Epicurus' dilemma is older than Christ.  There really is not anything new under the sun.

Dat's a little bit presumptuous.  I actually heard of Epicurus' dilemma from the internetz, and this was ages after becoming an atheist (admittedly, it resonated with me alot).  I am also reasonably sure that Spinoza had reasons for his more apostate but kind of sort of atheism that had nothing to do with Epicurus.   As for the unbolded parts though, yep.

That said, the atheists you're thinking of are largely responding to extremist religion, criticizing the 9/11 attacks as acts of true fundamentalism, causing massive amounts of death in our modern era.

Yeah these, I think motivated Spinoza, too. Wat?  But that was centuries ago?  Unfortunately the bad apples just keep jumping back in the barrel.  And unfortunately, being a religious apologist just doesn't seem to work long term.   Within the religion, there might be a schism.  From another religion, it's just more persecution.  So us atheists, I think, admittedly, get to the point of 'oh will you lot pipe down! you're all crazy!'  and kind of got sick of being persecuted ourselves on top of all that.  But the problem is that bad apples can come from anywhere.....and round and round the merry go round we go.  Good thing is we live in the era where personal choice is good and burning people at the stake is bad, so once we get past the BS,  non-extremists from all philosophies can just call the extremists crazy and then go on with the business of not killing each other.

[Hutch Hogan]

Sorry I meant a central not the central, was a typo not a statement.  Though that kind of undermined that I was trying to say that contemporary atheism isn't new.  

(On the side, I haven't read much of Spinoza, but I've heard good things, any recommendations what to start with?)

As for the second quote, there was no error here, just misinterpretation.  When people talk about the New Atheists (which we both know aren't that new), they generally refer to Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett, these four coming to fame in the wake of 9/11, obviously not Spinoza haha. 

non-extremists from all philosophies can just call the extremists crazy and then go on with the business of not killing each other.

Someday.  Hopefully soon. 

[CD]

Oh....rightio...!  Typos happen.

I haven't read much Spinoza either.  Actually, ironically what I have read is from a book called The Portable Atheist compiled by none other than the departed Mr. Hitchens. It was a gift from friends.  Once you get past the 'new atheist' thing, it's actually a fantastic collection of philosophical works and it's very diverse.  Spinoza is only a small element in the book.  I did hear a bit about Spinoza tenth-hand in other philosophical pursuits though....it's in a textbook around here somewhere....

When people talk about the New Atheists (which we both know aren't that new), they generally refer to Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett, these four coming to fame in the wake of 9/11, obviously not Spinoza haha.

Daniel Dennett has more interesting things to say on neuroscience/consciousness than he does religion, well, as far as I can tell, I haven't really seen his religious stuff.  Probably in the same textbook lying around my home somewhere....

As for 9/11.  That is such a shit thing.  Obviously. But it's what's happened afterwards that's worse.  Governments, even outside of the US, going burko over it; several awful wars, and the collapse of human rights generally, plus the hate crimes against Muslims going up in response.  Maybe for these blokes it was a doorway into opening up the idea that "hello religious wars happen"  i.e. the "will you lot pipe down, you're all crazy" reaction?    I don't know where this is all going, frankly.  Maybe because we can have these conversations now, it will go somewhere more peaceful.  Kind of like the darkness before the dawn.

But I don't think that Dawkins really started all this after 9/11.  He wrote some of this stuff in the 1970s.  Maybe it was just time for it to jump from the dusty bookshelf of the niche, out into the rest of the world?

[Hutch Hogan]

But I don't think that Dawkins really started all this after 9/11.  He wrote some of this stuff in the 1970s.  Maybe it was just time for it to jump from the dusty bookshelf of the niche, out into the rest of the world?

Yeah, I was careful in my wording here:

When people talk about the New Atheists (which we both know aren't that new), they generally refer to Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett, these four coming to fame in the wake of 9/11

The God Delusion was post 9/11 though the Selfish Gene and the Blind Watchmaker were both pre-9/11.  Harris himself says his kick into the public forum was 9/11 in a bigthink interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vMaQrzXGEQ

The thing with Harris is that I find him to be more of a soft atheist through Buddhism. But that's a complaint for later. 

[CD]

I totally missed that!

[Hutch Hogan]

Haha, it's alright.  I think we're on the same page now.