I am Christian. Should I be atheist?
Offline Hello everyone, I found this site through luck I imagine, after witnessing the Youtube video. First of all as this is my first post I thought it prudent to introduce myself, I’m Tom, I’m from England and yes I am a Christian. First of all I’m interested in people’s comments on my perception of belief and of Christianity itself, I should be revising for my university entry examinations but I can never let a good discussion go! I'm 18 and while my experience of the world is finite, I have the intelligence and the will to be opinionated, and to be able to express my opinions and choose them freely. God is a private matter for me; I don’t speak of it to people except rare occasions such as now, my point being that how can you possibly deny the emotions and the feelings I get from my beliefs? The freedoms and values enjoyed in your countries and my country today are largely based upon those early Christian principles. It is not God who kills people, it is not love, anger or hatred that kills and destroys, but it is man. The will of a man surmounts all religion and thus he uses it to his own ends, men do not do the will of God, they did the will of man in God’s name.
You may have gathered that I’m no fan of organised religion, I belong to no church, and, I give the allegiance of my soul to God and that of my body to my country. Furthermore I believe in evolution, though I am not pretentious enough to stipulate that god doesn’t exist through theories such as these. It simply deepens the mystery, creates layers of knowledge and design that we are only just starting to understand. I have met many physicists who believe in God, they have seen to the ends of the universe and what they found is belief, belief in themselves, in mankind, and in god. Superstition kept people in line, yes fear of God, abused by the powers of the church, but this is again not god, not Christ this is mankind. You may preach humanity, its ideals and principles, and say that they are Bourne out of physiological necessity; you may say that God was used to explain thing science couldn’t and still is. But I put this to you. Would a scientific explanation of Love, and perhaps the response to the loss of Love lessen its impact upon you? Could you understand love and thus deny its significance, what would we become if we understood everything? Mankind isn’t a great species; it’s evolved to be a self-obsessed and morally and intellectually inept in the majority of cases, what gives us the right, what gives you the right to denounce the work of a man who has touched so many people’s lives? Deny the impact of Christ on the world nay on the individual and you deny your own self. Here’s a quote:
Matt. 6:5
And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
This reiterates my point of belief being private and not an organised affair to me. I believe because it makes me a better person, it makes me as an individual at peace with myself. Are you all perfect? Do you feel you can reach perfection in your lifetime? No none of us are, the thought of a power, a force that is drives me forward to better myself, to never think too highly of myself, to put myself forward in helping others. Jesus Christ is God within me, deny him to me and you take my humanity, and leave me but an animal.
Cheers guys i'd love some feedback!
Take care
Tom
- Printer-friendly version
- Login to post comments
Although I agree with evolution (simply becuase of overwhelming evidence)... I find Darwin (on his views of society and people) to be a twit.
I'm simply wanting him to give an example of someone committing an atrocity screaching "For the unbeliever", or "to show god is false"... much the same way many a Christian leader has done so in their belief's name.
I think there is about a nanoth of a percent change that he'll be able to. The only atheists tha ti can think of who commited any kind of genocide or murder did it in the name of a politcal philosphy and state worship or just shear craziness.
I presume the plain and simple reality of it is that you cannot do something in the name of a lack of belief. To say that we should avoid atheism because of people like stalin is as unwittingly rediculous as saying we should avoid some other evil shithead because he doesn't believe in faries.
Sure... there might just be one person or another whose life is improved by the delusion that faries exist... however... to pretend that man should take hostility against fairy skeptics because there have been evil people in the past whom didn't believe in fairies is absurd.
On the contrary - if someone does some atrocity IN THE NAME OF THEIR MAGICAL FAIRY - it only makes sense to encourage removal of this harmful idea and delusion.
The same is true of atheism and theism. History is riddeled contiguously with examples of theists comitting atrocities in the name of their imaginary deity - while I know of not a single example of an atrocity done in the name of a lack of belief in a deity.
Results in the humanities are based upon a quorum or preponderance of opinion. The preponderance of opinion amongst NT scholars and 1st AD Middle-Eastern history scholars is that Jesus was a historical figure. Even the ultra liberal Jesus Seminar scholars maintain this position. It is a very small minority of genuine scholars and mainly a bunch of quacks that propose that Jesus was a mythical or symbolic figure. This may come as a shock but Rook Hawkins isn't a scholar (in any field).
Regarding the non-existence of God I eagerly await your naturalistic explanation for the following:
(1) the existence of the universe;
(2) the emergence of life from non-living matter;
(3) the apparent fine-tuning of the universe;
(4) the hospitality of the universe to life;
(5) the emergence of consciousness; and
(6) the comprehensibility of the universe to humans and its amenability to precise mathematical description;
Fusing rationality with sexiness using the arc welder of charisma -What I do.
Therefore, proposition P can't be true - A conclusion I once deduced that made me pwn.
You're so smart. - Me talking
Axarei, the problem i find with your concept of your belief as well as your concept of respecting everyone elses beliefs, is that it is really utterly bullshit (and i don't mean this in a disrespectful manner) either you believe in your bible and god, or you don't, either you believe your god and your experiences to be true or you don't. If you do, and follow your bible (the word of god) then all the other religions and views are wrong, heretical and are all damned. There is no place for respect there at all. If you wish to sit on the fence fine, but don't lie to yourself.
Now if you say that you do not deny the power of god in others, are you saying that god is the same for islam as it is for christianity? then the bible lies, as it states that it is the word of god and it shall stand unchanged forever. This is an issue with religion, all faiths are incompatible with each other. Either jesus was the messiah or wasn't, either jesus was a prophet or wasn't. Either god choose mohammad as the last prophet or he didn't. Either god wrote the torah, changed it to the bible, or decided they were all wrong and inspired the Koran. Then there are Hindu's, zen, taoists, buddhists, and a few other thousands of other religious beliefs, are we to deny them as well? I say YES, until they can prove their beliefs as being true, not to themselves only and not based on feelings (i can gurantee almost all them, their beliefs make them feel GOOD, should we follow their beliefs because of it?). As for hardcore facts, if you wish to deny it, fine deny it, however it doesn't change the facts. Again either we were created from dirt and life was breathed into us or it wasn't, as such, why shouldn't we follow and or believe other religious beliefs on how man came to be, i mean we could be all a dream of brahma right?
As well we have history to show us the dangers of a dogmatic belief, be it, religious, communists, facist, nationalist etc etc etc. While private belief is one thing, the fact is christianity, islam, judiasim beliefs aren't exactly held in private. The danger also lies with how fundamentalists can hide in plain view with moderates and we have also seen the dangers of this as well. Atheism itself does not lead to the extermination, slavery, or abuse of others because of any dogmatic view, those that wish to state Hitler and stalin and Mao as atheists, that's fine, but remember they followed different dogmas, communism, fascism/nazi, atheism is just atheism, it holds no dogmatic belief.
However your view if you should be an atheist? that's up to you, if you believe then you believe in god, but don't be a fence sitter, either believe in the word and bible of god, or don't, but don't pick and choose what parts of the bible you wish to follow and which you wish to discard, you lie to yourself that way. Personally i feel this way about it.
As for the other comments that atheism would have never ended slavery, i doubt that to be true, the right hand men of Martin Luther King where atheists, as such a belief that atheists believe in slavery is as wrong as saying all christians are catholics. It maybe true that there are atheists that believe in slavery, just like there are christians that are catholic, we are wide and varies in our personal beliefs, outside of atheism.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
I don't know, and you don't know either. Neither of us was there at the time. You are merely content to use 'God' as a universal solution, because you can't find another explanation. This is effectively saying that 'God must have done it because nobody really knows'. Pathetic.
Nobody knows, but the answer is being sought. Conditions were vastly different on the planet when life is believed to have come about. I think a lot of people have trouble remembering that.
Again, there are many diverse theories. One of them is 'God'. It doesn't take presidence over any of the others.
I enjoyed reading this one. Consider that in terms of the volume of this solar system alone, that an infintesimal percentage of it is habitable. Finding yourself in any of the rest would kill you instantly. They are finding new planets regularly, being on any of them at all would kill you instantly. The universe is ***NOT*** hospitable to life.
Evolution deals with this one nicely enough.
The universe runs like clockwork so it is indeed amenable to measurement. If it was chaotic in nature then life would not have formed, hence no-one there to measure it.
Religion is the ultimate con-job. It cons the conned, and it cons the conner.
Mr.T : "I ain't gettin' on no damn plane [sic]" - environmentalism at it's best
It is merely what there is. It does not revolve around me or my kind however.
If somebody was to be so foolish as to chop off your head and stamp on it and maybe poke out an eye your living matter would in time turn back to non-living matter. Life emerging from non-living matter is but a reflection of the symmetry in the universe.
How does the needless vast sparseness of space and the complexity of the very small make our universe analogous to Goldilocks chosen porridge? Only the parts that are right for us are where you find us and we still have to worry about the bears.
I like the notion that life is an agreeable guest to the universe, yet the host turns out to be more like the whore house that is hotel california - "you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave".
I just asked my cat, she walked off when she reliased I was not going to feed her. I think she has the right mindfulness.
The fundamentals of the universe are not at all fully comprehensible to humans. We will never see what it is made up of as the tiny quarks are far smaller than the wavelength of light. To know of them we have to bombard particles with super high energy particles. The universe is hardly forthcoming to those few who are capable of conceptualising the peculiar nature of the dimensions and the forces with an unconfined eye.
If the universe on our scale did not have the rigorous relationships between stuff your lack of common sense would be a far more formidable asset.
Try and dig a bit deeper there you will find the world to be far less clear-cut.
I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.
youre rigth, belief in god its a need, people need to thing theres something beyond death, people need to think theyre special and not only intelligent animals. But a need or because it makes you happy it doesnt mean its true.
Its not supernatural, its fear to dead
Hello Tom. Welcome to the forums. Sorry If I jump in late in the conversation, but I wanted to add a couple of cents to this discussion (they aren't mine, but I'll add 'em anyways).
First and foremost, regarding your opening question, should you become an atheist, well, that's for you to decide. I became an atheist for quite a number of reasons, but the more important were: 1) I never really believed in catholicism (the religion I was born into), 2) the more I questioned it and critically analyzed it, the less sense it made, and 3) it really didn't do squat for me. To me to cast off the label of "catholic" or "theist" meant only that I wouldn't passively validate them nor what their entailed anymore.
We all have an obligation -to ourselves- to come to a decision as to who we are and what we'll be, be it theists, atheists, business men or sadomasochists. The point here is to make a good and sound decision that is both consistent with ourselves and with the reality we live in. This requires from us to base that decision -at the very least, in part- upon a rational contemplation on the "thing" we choose to be, and how it is that "thing" relates to the world. You say you're a Christian, and you seem to be my kind of christian, the private one, not a member of organized religion. And yet, for the most part, you seem to base this decision on an appeal to emotions rather than anything else, and so I ask you, is this rational?
Note that I am not trying to attack you personally in any way by asking this, but this is a point I think you should consider. How is an appeal to emotion rational? Or more importantly, why should this appeal be taken as the reason to decide who or what you want to be?
The argument of the appeal to emotion, taken to it's logical conclusion, could and would be used to justify anyone to take any kind of position or stand on anything:
-I feel the world is harsh, cold and lonely, therefore I believe in god to fill in that emotional void, which would give me meaning and something to hope for, which is good.
-I feel the world is chaotic and disordered, therefore I believe in enforcing order and control through totalitarian power, which would give back a sense or order and structure and would avoid anarchy, which is good.
-I feel life is misery and suffering, therefore I will kill everyone I encounter so as to save them all the suffering in the world; this has two possible finales:
a)...and since they're not to blame for my actions, they will still go to [insert afterlife belief here], which is good.
b)...and since there's nothing but this life, then I'm saving them from suffering, which is good.
Take my meaning? The appeal to emotions ultimately is not the best way to determine what you're gonna be. Of course you have to take your personal emotions into account while deciding, but you shouldn't consider them the most important factor to be taken in as you make your choice. Many atheists I've meet choose to abandon their former theistic belief because they saw they didn't had any application in our reality. It was merely myth and mysticism and they would not base neither their lives nor their own selfs on -at best- doubtful dogmas or supernatural claims.
On your particular case, if I may be so bold as to infer, things may seem different since, unlike many other theists, you don't adhere to dogmatic laws, nor to canonical commandments and so forth. But in the end, you rely upon god for things that can be achieved completely without the intervention/existence of a supernatural being:
You can better yourself without the need to rely upon some supranatural being inspiring you. Every single atheist here is living proof of that. There is a good ol' chap in this forums, he/she goes by the name I AM GOD AS YOU, and, while difficult to read sometimes, makes the perfect example of what you mean by saying "god is within me", note, no capital G, since it's not an external, supernatural force that we partake of, but a conceptualization -a mental construct- of what could be considered good in us, our humanity.
You spoke of our emotions being just chemical reactions, as if this fact belittles them. It doesn't. And our emotions, at a neuro-chemical level, are nothing but that. Knowing this hasn't changed how happiness or sadness or love feels for me, nor, I doubt, for anyone else. In fact it has given me fascinating new understandings of them, which only enhances my sense of awe towards the universe and towards my own body and self. This awe, by the way, is our fair due to the universe, and to settle and being content with half-answers like goddidit or some such is, to my understanding, the only and true way to belittle the universe. A caveman grabbing a flashlight and attributing it's creation to divine intervention makes poor of the science, knowledge and the work behind it. I myself believe that through this process of self knowledge and ever deeper understanding of our universe we come to advance both as individuals and as a species. I also believe that settling for a god non-answer will ultimately become a burden for people to join in this progress.
I cannot answer your question, that's for you to decide. Be what you will, just beware of the process you undertake to reach your conclusion.
But whatever the outcome, stay true to yourself.
Lenore, The Cute Little Dead Girl. Twice as good as Jesus.
Logic is "cold, hard and rigid", I suppose. Like numbers. Do you object to the use of numbers, too?
How about rocks? Do you feel they should be avoided when used properly?
Steel? When used properly, is steel evil or to be avoided?
The question is, when do you feel logic is inappropriate? In matters of the heart, like love or if determining if God exists?
If you trust your emotion, as a Xian, what do you have to say about other people who use emotions to justify their beliefs?.. say, hindus or muslim extremists?
You would say that emotions are important because they have brought you a peace and goodness. You may say that steel is bad because it has made the sword to kill women and children.
I would say that while steel may have been the direct result of death of the women and children, logic has been the direct result of the death of God. The result is the same, but the intent and motivation are different.
On is much colder than the other. That is, emotion and the passion of some people is much, much colder than steel or logic. Stalin was a cold bastard, as was Moses, Hitler, Samson, Hussein, Pol Pot, Bin Laden, Dahmer, etc.
I would caution you against trusting your emotions. You may wake up to feel sinners deserve to die. And without logic you wouldn't be able to determine the difference.
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov
This is an intriguing website and a particularly lively discussion... so I just couldn't resist adding my two cents in response to something "Iconoclast" said
Iconoclast wrote:
"Christianity and Islam are mutually exclusive faiths. At maximum, only one can be correct. The fact that you believe in the Christian deity necessarily implies that you deny theirs."
Someone said to me once "who is Allah, we don't know any Allah"
Which actually struck me as kind of funny
Since "Allah" is the God of Abraham... Ishmael, his eldest, is believed to be the founder of Islam as Isack (his younger son) is believed to be the founder of Judaism...which of course is the root of Christianity ...all three religions are actually different pieces of the same story...and agree on many things...
In fact, in Islamic belief Jesus is coming back... just as Christians believe...of course not as the Son of God... but still...there are many paralels
Nowadays, most (of course not all) Christian sects, that once viewed each other as "mutually exclusive" (and killed each other over that concept), have come to understand that they all have the same basic beliefs and many include Judaism in that sphere of acceptance...and it follows that with fuller understanding of the beliefs and roots of belief, on both sides, that Islam will be seen in a similar light.
In Religion, As in Science, Lack of knowledge limits full understanding
which leads those within and outside these groups, to see them as mutually exclusive...that, and of course, the political agendas of people willing to harness the very potent force of true belief for their own (nefarious, more often than not) purposes (not always very humanitarian to say the least)
You may say (as a good atheist)..this is all a bunch of nonsense anyway, why should I need or want to understand this stuff...
I'd answer, because belief is a part of human experience...and understanding the "culture", if you will, of other human beings is a good thing...and understanding does not require belief...
What do I believe? ...you might ask ...or not
It's a good question and honestly, I'm uncertain of the answer...
Non, seriously, you are the bottom of the Xian food chain. You probably even think Malcolm McDowell and Strobbel are good thinkers. BTW, whats you name at Debating Christ-inanity, I often go there.
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov
To truly accept god , and that Jesus Buddha Einstein saving message of ONE, would in fact make you a total Atheist ....
If you don't get that message , then hell is definitely designed for you ..... sinner, you idol worshiper ! <<< 
Atheism Books.
It's like reading a Dr Bronner's soap label.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
.... The "ONE" = No Master. God is simply everything our senses can perceive, and all the rest.
Dr. Bronner was a fun Google, thanks. He said, "All One or None"
Seems he was a religious liberal. I AM not religious, I AM Gawed (as you are too) !!! 
Atheism Books.
Do you believe that George Washington existed? Have you ever met anyone who has talked with him, have you seen evidence of his body that you know is his or do you rely on the recordings of people from that time period. The only difference between a disciples record and any secular person is the mention of God.
Do you really think we haven't heard this idiocy before? We have his own writings, his signature, portraits painted of him by contemporaries, people who wrote of him that were his enemies at the time, etc. Nobody claims he walked on water or was raised from the dead, either. And the story of the cherry tree and him throwing the dollar across the potomac are almost certainly false. You get an "F" for debating atheists.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
No I don't, I know he existed. This is supported by numerous -and satisfactory- evidence, nor only his own writings, but accounts from many other sources. The only difference between this secular person's records and the disciples' records is that the first are corroborated by other independent sources, while there's no such thing for the disciples accounts. Also, it is highly questionable that the disciples themselves wrote anything at all. Comparing this two sources would be like comparing Anton Schindler with other, more reputable Beethoven biographers.
BTW, did axarei lavan ever came back?
Lenore, The Cute Little Dead Girl. Twice as good as Jesus.
People going to hell is not a reflection of God, but of themselves. If someone breaks the law we send them to prison. Yet people ignore what God says and then get mad at the punishment or think it's unfair. The means to salvation is clearly laid out, how is a rejection of that not deserved punishment? I don't know if you're a parent, but if you aren't imagine that you are. If your child is disobedient, you send them to their room or put them on timeout. Does that punishment mean you stopped loving them? Absolutely not. Justice and love are not opposites.
You actually proved my point. "Nobody claims he walked on water or was raised from the dead, either." You don't reject those sources because they don't clash with your beliefs. Because they don't mention God or anything supernatural, they must be accurate. Your basis for proof is existence of artifacts and writings. Well the Bible is full of writings. I watched an atheist video on youtube and one piece of "evidence" they used to support that Jesus doesn't exist is other writings of people who had similar attributes of Jesus. How does it make sense that to disprove a writing from Jesus' time period, they use another writing from Jesus' time period?
Imagine two people walking through the Middle East:
Person A: "Hey, here's a manuscript that says Jesus is the Son of God."
Person B: "Hey, here's a manuscript that has no mention of any such Jesus or that He was the Son of God."
Person A: "Well, obviously yours is more credible because it doesn't mention God."
Obviously this is an exaggeration, but the point is that one is regarded as more credible because it isn't God-related. It's not a matter of the source. No one can say that the writer of the secular evidence is more credible than the writer of the non-secular evidence when people place the degree of credibility strictly on content.
It would be like if I was a cop and I hated Michael Jackson. Person A runs up to me and says "Michael Jackson just touched me inappropriately" and Person B runs up to me and says "no such thing happened." It would be foolish to act out of personal bias. There's "evidence" that Michael Jackson has done this before, and Person A does not lack credibility, so maybe I should arrest him. Ignoring the credibility of Person B because Person A lines up with me would be foolish. To discredit the writings of people who claim Jesus to be the Son of God because there are other secular writings that don't make the same claim is just as foolish.
Andrea Yates heard the exact same thing from God as the Xian heroes Samson, Moses and Abraham.
Andrea Yates practiced the greatest love Christianity can offer: she sent her soul to Hell so that her children were guaranteed a place in Heaven. Had she not killed her children, according to Xianity, they would have been sinners and would have had to beg for God's love and forgiveness every day of their lives in hope of reaching Heaven.
This is what Xianity teaches: it encourages the killing of children. Had your parents killed you when you were young, you would be in Heaven now - where you long to be.
But today you beg and plead like a dog to be accepted by an imaginary figure that is suspiciously silent.
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov
Again, let's compare:
1) Dozens of independent sources for the existence of Washington. One or two independent sources for Jesus.
2) We have Washington's own writings that can, again, be verified to be his. We have none for Jesus.
3) We understand that some of the tales regarding Washington are merely legends. Jesus tall tales are supposed to have been true.
4) No one claimed that Washington ever did anything that defies the natural laws. Jesus healed people miraculously, died and came back to life, etc.
5) Some of history books and biographies are known to have errors about Washington. The Bible is supposed to be flawless.
So let's recap:
For Washington, we have mountains of credible, independently verifiable evidence that can be contradicted, if necessary, for acts perfectly within natural laws.
For Jesus, we have an allegedly flawless, millenia-old collection of contradicting stories, paraphrased, redacted, and edited for the last couple thousand years from completely biased, non-verifiable sources about acts that defy logic and natural laws.
Hmmm...
actually their is proof that Jesus existed. Their are verses in the Koran, holy book of Islam that confirm his existance,
HOLY QURAN 2:87