10.21.2005
|
Faith for those without religion
Atheists can be fun. They can be geniuses, morons, but are, just like believers, mostly in-between those two extremes. One species of atheist appears to be those who so firmly believe that God can't possibly exist that they become, how do we say this gently, hysterical about it. Screeming meemies about it.
One such has a blog titled Evangelical Atheist. Cute title, eh? I'm not going to repeat any of his rants here, just to note that if this site is representative of the state of atheistic thought and practice, woe unto them.
As an American (and I think it is safe to substitute Australian, Briton, or, God help me, even Canadian here), I believe that we must have freedom of conscience in matters of faith. My belief is that God is in control; yours may be that you are. You are wrong, but your having this belief doesn't unhinge me.
Not so with some atheists. They simply can't abide that we believers believe. Atheists of course, believe in something just as strongly: the lack of a God. At least that is the sense one gets by sampling the atheistic blogosphere, for which Evangelical Atheist's site is a decent jumping off point.
The key word is belief, and the next key word is tolerance. Christians and atheists both have religious beliefs. In the atheists' case, it is that fervent prayer to Whom It May Concern (we Christians call Him God), that the believers in God will simply wake up from their trauma-induced nightmare that there is a God.
One of the threads I've found among self-confessed atheists (do they have some version of the Westminster Confession?) is a terrible eagerness to disprove that God exists, or challenge one of us to prove that He does. Most Christians that I know, myself included, would, when posed with such a challenge, fail to fall into the left-brain mode that atheists seem to prefer. I think that we would tend to answer simply, "I know my Savior lives. This is what I believe." That's what I'd say, anyway.
At the end of the day, that's why it is called "faith."
| technorati tag | Christianity|
One such has a blog titled Evangelical Atheist. Cute title, eh? I'm not going to repeat any of his rants here, just to note that if this site is representative of the state of atheistic thought and practice, woe unto them.
As an American (and I think it is safe to substitute Australian, Briton, or, God help me, even Canadian here), I believe that we must have freedom of conscience in matters of faith. My belief is that God is in control; yours may be that you are. You are wrong, but your having this belief doesn't unhinge me.
Not so with some atheists. They simply can't abide that we believers believe. Atheists of course, believe in something just as strongly: the lack of a God. At least that is the sense one gets by sampling the atheistic blogosphere, for which Evangelical Atheist's site is a decent jumping off point.
The key word is belief, and the next key word is tolerance. Christians and atheists both have religious beliefs. In the atheists' case, it is that fervent prayer to Whom It May Concern (we Christians call Him God), that the believers in God will simply wake up from their trauma-induced nightmare that there is a God.
One of the threads I've found among self-confessed atheists (do they have some version of the Westminster Confession?) is a terrible eagerness to disprove that God exists, or challenge one of us to prove that He does. Most Christians that I know, myself included, would, when posed with such a challenge, fail to fall into the left-brain mode that atheists seem to prefer. I think that we would tend to answer simply, "I know my Savior lives. This is what I believe." That's what I'd say, anyway.
At the end of the day, that's why it is called "faith."
| technorati tag | Christianity|
posted by John Luke at 6:53 PM
Welcome. My name is John Luke Rich, (very) struggling Christian. The focus here is Christianity in its many varieties,
its fussing and feuding, how it impacts our lives and our society, with detours to consider it with other faiths (or lack thereof).
12 Comments:
You said: "I think that we would tend to answer simply, 'I know my Savior lives. This is what I believe.'"
As I read Acts 17 I have a hard time reconciling it with a statement like this. Paul's example is clearly one of "reasoning and persuading" through left-brain modes.
Tons of people who believe in cults and various other religions would answer the same way - that they "just believe". One thing that really distinguishes Christianity is the solid historical evidence and we should not shy away from making that case IMO. In the end, I agree with you that proofs per se are futile and faith is required, but it is important for all parties to realize it is not a blind faith.
"Christians and atheists both have religious beliefs. In the atheists' case, it is that fervent prayer to Whom It May Concern (we Christians call Him God)"
Atheists, by definition, do not have religious beliefs. We have beliefs concerning life, death, etc., but they are not religious in nature.
Atheists don't pray to "whom it may concern" either. This is a thinly veiled accusation that atheists believe in God deep down, but cannot bring themselves to admit it. I imagine you made that statement to justify your beliefs by making atheists look like religious cowards.
Chad said:
"One thing that really distinguishes Christianity is the solid historical evidence and we should not shy away from making that case IMO."
I make little distinction between competing neurosis'. Your religion has no physical or historical "evidence" to justify your savior. If there was such evidence, Christians would be touting it from here to Kingdom Come. You would convert many atheists with solid evidence. That is what most of us want. Unfortunately for Christianity, there is no Holy Grail, Noah's Ark, 10 Commandments (versions 1, 2 or 3), Ark of the Covenant, real Shroud of Turin, etc., etc.. All there is is strained accounts by biased Christians after the 'fact'. Apologists have been struggling with this for ages.
"I'm not going to repeat any of his rants here,..."
'Pay no attention to the mind behind the character assassination?'
Wattsamatta? Afraid the "rants" might make sense to one of your readers? For that matter, who asked you to post his material, and who in their right mind would expect you to? Oh, I forgot who I was talking to. Sorry.
Bah. If this is the state of Theist thinking, you aren't meaty enough to make a good snack.
About faith:
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. - Benjamin Franklin
Preacher,
I think that the last set of comments prove your point. I have also wondered why so many atheists have such an investment in noisily and obnoxiously proclaiming their non-belief and in intolerantly savaging those they consider inferior to them. The arguments one finds on many atheist blogs - and which is demonstrated in the prior comments - involves name-calling, a lack of the gentleness that might allow the use of irony or humor, and, frankly, a poor understanding of history. (For example, the idea that somehow religious belief is antithetical to science, progress and all of the good things of Western civilization simply is not part of the historical record where believers - Copernicus, Mendel, Galileo - were responsible for science because they had faith in a God who was accessible to human reason. Likewise, it might surprise your correspondents to find that Thomas Aquinas affirmed the idea that there is nothing in the mind which was not first in the senses, a key doctrine of empiricism.)
There are a lot of things that I don't believe, but I wouldn't go out of my way to crusade against believers in crop circles, astrology or romance novels. Toward such people, I show the same bemused tolerance that I show people who organize their life around the idea that life is without any transcendental meaning.
I have also wondered why so many atheists have such an investment in ...savaging those they consider inferior to them.
Mocking people is fun.
"Toward such people, I show the same bemused tolerance that I show people who organize their life around the idea that life is without any transcendental meaning."
http://glclk.about.com/?zi=18/qNo
"I think that the last set of comments prove your point. I have also wondered why so many atheists have such an investment in noisily and obnoxiously proclaiming their non-belief and in intolerantly savaging those they consider inferior to them."
Point proved only if you also think that the savaging is unidirectional and unprovoked. For my part, it is a response to the inarticulate arguments I receive on my blog like, "YOU WILL BURN IN HELL MINION OF SATAN!!!! JESUS IS THE ANSWER!" From there, we graduate to circular logic, ad hominem attacks, straw men, "close" interpretation of statements having all the ambiguity of a fortune cookie, and statements beginning with "Of course..." and other semantic advertising tricks geared toward prejudicing the judgment of the listener. And you wonder why there is a contemptuous edge to some of our responses? No one appreciates being smeared with epithets like, "hysterical". You are an intimate of a certain blogger and a psychologist besides, to make such an authoritative statement?
Unfortunately, much of your readership is used to lapping up any bald statement of fact like a kitten with a bowl of cream. This is what we are defending against.
In terms of belligerence and using the hard sell, as I see it, you Theists have at least a 5,000 year head start on us. We're relatively new at defending our position without getting screwed or murdered for our trouble.
The Roman game of feeding Christians to the lions is long over, so quit with the phony persecution complex already!
Breakerslion, you've half a point. So-called "Christians" have for many years burned heretics. Who they defined as anyone who didn't share their version of the faith. Note the scare quotes around Christian. Such burners and haters were most certainly Christian in name only.
I don't know if you will go to hell; I don't even really know if I will. For now, I'm content to think that many self-proclaimed atheists do protest too much, although I think I understand why they are applying the "two wrongs must make something right" principle -- some "Christians" today are intolerant; hence it's ok for some atheists to also be intolerant.
"Such burners and haters were most certainly Christian in name only."
Herein lies one of the biggest problems between Atheists and Christians. What are we to think when the biggest names amongst your faith and certainly the most prominent members of it display such vitriol and hate for their fellow man. From Pat Robertsons call for assassination (of Hugo Chavez), the corporate greed, war mongering and social amorality of the Neo-conservatives (who are to a man self declared christians), the Papacy and their battle against homosexuals and contraception (leaving millions to die of STD's in Africa when one sentence, JUST ONE from Ratzinger would cut Aids bya staggering amount) all the way across to the constant little reminders of God everywhere, on our money, or buildings, our presidential oaths.
Most atheists would be happy to let Theists go do their own thing and not harm anyone, thats why there are so few of us "savaging" the Buddhists, pagans , hindus and Taoists. Because they tend to leave us alone (mostly, exceptions always exist). Its the monotheistic faiths, and by that i mean Christianity and Islam that piss us off because they interfere in our daily life without our consent.
Having said all that, i can at least agree with your comment about not falling into left-brain thinking when talking to atheists. This is why there can never really be compromise or agreement on such matters between an atheist and a theist. You believe something without evidence. Thats what makes it faith. We don't believe without evidence. What you term faith, we term delusion. To us the idea of god makes about as much sense as the easter bunny, and most of us stopped believing in him ages ago.
To put it bluntly. We think you are insane. Often in a polite, friendly, nice guy crazy, but crazy none the less. You think we are weird for not seeing the obvious because to you it IS obvious.
I'm trying to think of something witty to say to bring this all together now but the two opposing sides in the arguement simply cannot reconcile their differences.
- Gribble
Anonymous wrote, "war mongering and social amorality of the Neo-conservatives (who are to a man self declared christians)." Interesting take on the usual lefty cant, which should have included "Bush Lied; People Died; No Blood for Oil; and, of course, "Halliburton!!!", with the by-now standard three exclamation marks.
Oh, would somebody please inform Bill Kristol, Norman and John Podhoretz, Paul Wolfowitz, and Charles Krauthammer that they've now become Christian...
Since atheists claim to be rational, perhaps a little fact-checking might be in order before spewing.
For un-apologetic, from Wentworth & Flexner, "Dictionary of American Slang," 1960:
"screaming meemie" 1. A specific type of small Army rocket launched from a multiple rocket projector on the back of a jeep or truck. Common Army use since late W.W.II. From the frightening noise and effect such rockets made, similar to the screaming meemies. 2. So intense or extreme as to cause one to scream or feel effects similar to the screaming meemies. 1953: "Rather than endure amother minute of screaming-meemie loneliness." William DuBois, N.Y. Times;
: "screaming meemies, the" The delirium tremens; the jitters, the heebie-jeebies. 1927: "To have the screaming meemies." New Republic
My usage was No. 2.
Post a Comment
<< Home