David Bowden

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but I bet it'll be illuminating. Here's my two cents, though:

I do continue to hold certain convictions in common with the beliefs held by Christians (to cite a specific category of theists). These may not be stated in any creed, but I know of few Christians who don't hold to the following belief, for instance:

People shouldn't suffer tormented, cruel, painful deaths. This is a bad thing and if we can do anything to keep death from happening like that, then we should. If we make it so death doesn't happen at all, then that's a great thing (as long as the quality of life is good).

However, I don't believe any of the points of, say, the Apostle's Creed. In fact I strongly disbelieve almost all of the Creed's claims, and I'm agnostic with regard to the rest (Jesus' suffering under Pilate, crucifixion/death, and burial) because I am not persuaded that those things actually happened to Jesus, since I'm not utterly convinced that the gospel Jesus represents a distinct historical person.

I was an open-minded, critically-thinking, historically and theologically informed Christian. I hope I retain the same characteristics as an atheist.

I think you're on to something though. I think atheists often don't know the whole nature of the beast they're engaging, prior to debating believers here or lumping them together in their minds. Those atheists who only knew the most closed-minded forms of Christianity while they were believers probably can't begin to appreciate the subtle, liberal and basically tolerant apologetics of Hans Kung, and don't understand why someone as undeniably brilliant as Tolstoy or other modern thinkers would hold fast to this religion. The fundamentalistic Christianity that molded these atheists is a rather impoverished version, and they don't get the Christianity of Erasmus or the monk who wrote "The Cloud of Unknowing."

That said, an atheist who did get Christianity in its higher forms is well-equipped to point out its flaws.

When I was a child I swallowed that codswallop about my denomination (along with a very slim spectrum of others) being the True Christians, whilst Catholics, Baptists, Jews, Muslims and (worst of all!) Mormons were consigned to hell unless by accident they just trusted Jesus and forgot their denomination's garbage.

Then I matured a little bit and accepted all Christians from traditions other than the Latter-day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists. Non-Wesleyans/Nazarenes were okay, but even the best real Christians outside my own denomination were failing to live up to their real potential.

At that point, I felt like a real liberal, since important people I went to church with disagreed with me. I suppose it's because I used my own thinking-cap within the context of my religious worldview, and didn't just accept the party line. It was only a matter of time before I applied that thinking-cap to my religious worldview itself...

Later in my youth I figured anybody who just loved the truth and was essentially good and trusted in God was really a Christian at heart, so the good Muslims and Jews and Hindus, etc., became my brethren (and sistren).

Then it occurred to me that atheism doesn't espouse a hatred of truth nor a desire to be evil, and if atheists can for all practical purposes be Christian at heart, without acknowledging God, then belief in God is apparently superfluous - morally and socially speaking.

It only took a few minutes as a universalist for me to realize that since Christianity wasn't perfect, that it couldn't be "higher" or more true than the rest, and I was free to decide which picture of reality had the most integrity. I concluded (after a looong period of thought) that atheism (agnosticism, depending on the god in question, I suppose) was the only position I could honestly hold.

I suppose I still feel that Christians and the other religious are basically trying hard to be the best they can be but are hampered (in some cases, quite badly) by faulty beliefs. So I'm not all that different from my Christian self. But I don't think I've been a fundamentalist for years, and I hope I haven't ever been an atheist fundy.

Yes, certainly, whether by "latched onto" you mean "initially adopted" or "stubbornly retained despite being presented with reasonable alternatives."

Psychologists and sociologists have written about it, and I'm persuaded it's true that certain types of personalities, or certain aspects of one's personality, tend to lead one to become or remain a fundamentalist. Moreover, I think that people can be trained to accept rigid fundamentalism, and that at certain times in our lives or under certain conditions we're prone to adopt a fundamentalist mindset.

Karen Armstrong, James Barr and others have written on this topic, and my own opinion is that fundamentalism swallows up insecurity and immaturity and whatever else leads one to adopt fundamentalism, and plants a misleadingly certain worldview that is intellectually indefensible but is nontheless intensely felt. Some people are perhaps addicted to this feeling of security, this sense that, no matter how hellish things get, they've got something right and will make it through. However, just as people come to fundamentalism in different ways, I think they remain fundamentalists for a variety of reasons, and insecurity may be just one of many factors keeping a person from giving up such beliefs.

It depends on how they exhibit their "fundamentalism." An atheist who won't hear talk, however tentative, about religion or god without exploding with invective, is a bore and is probably somebody I wouldn't want to be around for very long.

If, on the other hand, they are like some Christian fundamentalists I know, in that they are patient and willing to explain their side of things to someone who disagrees, then I think they're probably going to be good people all around, patience being a virtue for people of all theistic persuasions. Rigidly fixed beliefs don't have to result in an asinine personality.

This is a gem:

Haha! or at least they sometimes argue as if they don't know that all Christians aren't.

-David

[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: David Bowden / wide-eyed wanderer ]</p>

Radcliffe Emerson

How does one become a fundy atheist?
All I know is I used to be Christian, but I don't believe in a god at all now.

sullster

My thoughts on the concept of a "fundy atheist
".
If a christian fundamentalist is defined as one who relies solely on the writings in the bible and does not follow ritual or theological interpretation, then the question is if there is an analagous type of atheist.

I say no. An atheist relies on writings but usually a vast array of them. He is like a christian fundy in not following ritual but he is unlike in being open to critical interpretations of his thinking.

A last point is that a "fundy atheist" would not be different than a regular atheist, aside from some personality traits. If there were two types of atheists, I don't think they would have any problem with eachother. Contrast this with a fundy and a catholic. If they were devout, they would be at eachother's throats.

sighhswolf

First lets clear up a common misconception.
If you happened to be raised in a religious home,
and from the time you could leave the home after birth and attend church with your parents, the chances are very strong that you had no idea exactly what christianity was.

All I was actually aware of as a child was that the church was the place to pray and learn about god and jebus and have loads of fun stuff to do with other kids.
I never once had any discussion with my parents about "christianity", nor was I really aware that there were many different schools of christian thought.
I had no idea what being a Catholic or a Jew or a muslim or a Mormon had to do with anything.
I only knew that my parents and the preacher said that there was a god that sent his son to die, to
make up for all the bad stuff people did.
And of course I really didn't care about any of that stuff........until much later in young adulthood.
Only the independence that is gradually gained (after aquiring the reading skills necessary) by
personal study can give you an understanding of what christianity actually is or what it is "supposed to be" and that is based on personal interpretation.

It is my opinion that there are many people
who believe in god but could care less what brand of worship you choose.
They attend a church simply because their parents
attended the same church.
They seldom examine the differences in the doctrines, unless something is brought to their attention as being unacceptable to their brand of worship.
(which most probably would be pointed out by the clergy of the church they attend)
There are very few who actually understand the doctrines of all the different faiths, because they follow in the footsteps of those who taught them as children.
If you grow up Catholic, that is your faith, the same is true with presbyterian, baptists, mormons, methodists etc.

Those who actually think and study the doctrines
of all the major faiths, and read the bible cover to cover, and actively seek understanding, are the people who often end up as agnostics and atheists.

It is easy to follow, it is comfortable to follow
and conformity is valued in religious circles.
As long as people do not attempt to legislate their faith upon those who do not desire it, or
discriminate between believer and non-believer in a bigoted narrowminded manner, I say live and let live.
When I comment about the irrationality of religious people, it is because I have been where they are and through many years of really intense
struggling between faith and reason I have chosen reason and rational thought over mythology and
mysticism.
I do not consider myself to be "better" "smarter"
"more educated" or better equiped to recognize and discern truth from myth.
I only comment that I do not at times understand how humanity can be so manipulated by those who are seeking power and control.
I also do not understand the unwillingness of those same people to see the reality of organized religion and it's historic effects on humankind.
Does that make me a "bigot"...naw.
Does it label me as militant...naw.

Does reading the 10 commandments on the menu at Arbys piss me off...yea pretty much.
Does morning devotionals and prayer in public schools piss me off....yea pretty much.
Is the actual act of prayer in school a bad thing?
Well here's the way I see it.
Our whole country has been bombarded with the concept that we are all christians...... this is a christian society, based on christian principles.
That may have been close to the truth at one point in our history, but it is no longer applicable to the ethnic makeup of our society today. (probably never was in actuality, but that
is another story).
Now we are faced with the reality that many of our kids are not christian, and do not want to pray to a christian god, or see the 10 commandments posted in the halls (as an historic document (sic) beside the US Constitution).

Those kids may find it very uncomfortable, and discriminatory to be forced into passive non-participatory christian activities.
What do we do for those Jewish kids, Muslim kids,
Buddhist kids, how about the catholic kids vs. the protestant kids?

Now when I question christians in my posts, what they believe or dont believe, how they view the world and the political climate, and I comment about being deceived by the religious power structure it is not a bigoted attack, nor a militant response, it is a valid question.
It is my thought process trying to understand how people can let themselves be taken advantage of,
lied to, deceived without giving it a second thought.
I dont even call myself an atheist, I simply say I am a non-believer, my reasoning tells me that labeling myself as an atheist automatically limits my view and disqualifies anything but the atheist position of the non-existence of god.
I cannot limit myself by that term as I fully expect that at some point in my life (whats left of it) I may change my mind...maybe not to a belief in a supernatural being, but to a more spiritual mindset.
And I do believe that a person can be "spiritual" without believing in the Judeo-Christian concept of god, and along with it the salvation by blood sacrifice.

Did I say anything worthwhile?
Wolf

WWSD

Originally posted by wildernesse:
I was wondering if you (atheists who were previously theists) still hold on to ideas from your previous beliefs. I believe that many of you do, but I am prepared to be convinced otherwise.

I hold on to some of the morals, but I often think that many of them are common sense anyway, like don't go about killing people. I think this is not exactly what you mean though.


Many of you define Christianity in a very limited way--which I think is maybe how you were a Christian before. For example, if you were a Christian who believed that only your denom was "True Christianity", do you still use those parameters when deciding what "True Christianity" is? If you do, why--is it because you believe that your denom really was the only True Christianity?

That's a good question, and my answer is no. Before, when I was a theist, I was always trying to understand what a true Xtian was. I was never satisfied with explanations becasue they seemed illogical to me. I saw how many interpretations there are of the bible and I could never understand why there were so many. I still cannot. I tried to interpret it for myself and that led, in part, to the end of my faith.

As I think I pointed out to you in another thread, the way I interpret xtianity is based upon my need to establish a common ground to work from when discussing somehting with someone.

If I were to be an xtian today, I would be liberal to the point of sending hardly anyone to hell, seeing god as a good being who forgives these damned atheists and lets them in anyway and thinking hell would be just non-existance, no torture at all. Also, theistic evolution and the OT being mostly allegorical morality tales.
I think I would not be a True Christian...


Also, if you were a fundy Christian, have you become a fundy atheist? You might not be able to answer this question yourself! Do you think that fundy-ism of any sort is latched onto by certain types of personalities, or is a measure of insecurity in beliefs, or immaturity, or???? Do you think that fundy atheists are ok, or better than fundy Christians? You could replace fundy with militant, if you wish.

I don't like militant people, I find them abrasive. I was never a fundy Xtian, I couldn't undergo the severe cognitive dissonance that must accompany it. I'm not sure what you think of me, or if indeed you have any opinion at all based on the one response I have given you on another thread.

I do think that certain personality types are associated with fundyism, but as for thier reasons, I cannot really know.


My little questions and opinions are based on simple observations--and as such, are distorted by my own self and thoughts.

-tibac


Isn't the whole of reality distorted by our thoughts and selves?

Isn't reality itself just a construct of our thoughts being modified by sensory inputs?

Seriously though, I respect your opinions because you've never given me reason to not do so.

Walter_Mitty

I define it in the broadest sense possible:

"Christian: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ."

This would include Mormons, Adventists, Oneness Pentecostals, etc. Just about any sect/denomination that adheres to some portion of the teachings of Christ.

Even when I was a Lutheran, I did not think that Lutheranism was the only correct version of Christianity. We were taught that Mormons, Oneness, etc., were not "true Christians," but we were also taught that several denominations were "true." Actually, looking at all the sects and how they place their own spin on the "revealed" truth is one of the reasons I decided that it's all a product of men.

As for being militant...

Intelligent criticism of someone’s belief is not a personal attack. The theist should be able to objectively scrutinize the secular viewpoint and the freethinker should be allowed the same courtesy in regards to the theist. The problem is, many times people have their identities closely linked to their belief systems. Also, many more have political or personal motivations that go hand in hand with their beliefs. This means that by applying rational criticism to these beliefs may be seen by some, as an attack on the person, their politics, or their agendas.

I have adopted what I call the "doctrine of passive aggression.” That is, when actively witnessed to by a theist, I return the favor by opening up their claims to critical and scientific review. If you tell me that you believe a donkey talked and the earth is a mere 6,000 years old, that’s fine by me, I’m not trying to regulate what you believe. Nonetheless, don’t expect me to passively agree with these notions out of respect for your feelings. If this makes me militant then so be it.

All atheists think the bible is a product of man.

Two Christian camps:

1) Literalists who think every word of the Bible is "literally" true. (smaller group)

2) Liberal group that hides behind faith, allegory, metaphorical meanings, deep study, and translator's mistakes.

Many atheists will attempt to debunk the Bible by presenting certain verses to the Christian in a literal light. Numbers 15:32:36 is a good example of what I mean. Taken literally, God commanded Moses to have a man stoned to death for working on the Sabbath. No wiggle room here for the literalist because this verse makes God out to be very cruel and immoral being. This does not mean that atheists are literalists in regards to the bible though. It just means we're using a literal example to show the "literalist" numerous problems relating to "literalism" and the Bible.

Of course, group #2 will apply faith, allegory, context, etc., to many biblical verses. Funny though, 'cause they seem to get selective memory loss when verses like Numbers 15:32:36 are brought up. Truth be told, I'm still waiting for some liberal Christian to satisfactorily explain to me the allegorical meaning behind this verse.

[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: Bibliophile ]</p>

NOGO2

In many cases people who do not like what the Bible says move away from its literal meaning in an effort to whitewash the issues.

I lost my faith reading the Bible. I simply had questions that nobody could answer to my satisfaction. One thing that lingered on for many years was my attachment to the person of Jesus. That too disapeared by reading the Bible.

I was raised a RC but today I would say that in many ways Protestants are closer to the original Christian faith than RC. I do not consider RCs to be truer Christians.

Jack the Bodiless

I was raised as an Anglican, though I didn't know that at the time. Denominations were not mentioned. I learned that there were two types of Christians, Catholics and Protestants, and that we were Protestants: that's all.

I was never taught Biblical inerrancy, but I was a "science geek" kid who knew from an early age that the Genesis creation story was incompatible with the claims made by science. I soon learned that most Christians didn't believe that the Bible was literally true, and therefore decided that the Bible was essentially worthless. Why continue to believe a book of stories, without supporting evidence, when you've already decided that at least some of those stories aren't true?

I already had experience with untrue stories (Santa Claus), so disbelieving in God seemed as natural to me as disbelieving in Santa. In fact, it was much less of a loss: I never missed God. Ever since I heard the Noah story, I had decided that God wasn't very nice.

So I don't think that I'm carrying baggage from when I was a Christian: in my case, the common fundie accusation that I was never a "true" Christian is probably justified. What I'm left with is puzzlement about those who believe half-truths, and contempt for the ignorant who have swallowed Biblical inerrancy.

southernhybrid

I was raised in a fundy home, conservative Baptist to be exact, but I left the fundy world and I became a liberal Xian for a year or two. I then moved on to the Eastern religions and hang out with some Bahais for several years during my agnostic phase. One day I realized I no longer believed it was possible that god existed. Until the last year or two, while sometimes very open about my atheism, I hardly ever gave it much thought. Interacting here at the II, makes me much more aware of my beliefs and the beliefs of others.

I don't put all Xians in one camp and as long as they use their religion for good and encourage frank discussion with other religious and/or secular groups, I have no distaste for Xians. I have many Xian friends.

I'm not sure about the personality and fundy thing. I have seen some former Xian fundies become evangelical atheists, perhaps substituting one form of zealotry for another. I think it's human nature to feel a bit smug about one's beliefs. When an individual thinks he/she has arrived at truth, it's natural to feel they have something to be shared. Those of us who tend to be tolerant try not to show that attitude when in diverse groups.

I'm still a bit confused about your question regarding do atheists hold onto some of their Xian beliefs. If you mean what I think you do then I would have to say that I don't think I personally have anything left over from my childhood religious beliefs, except maybe a little bit of emotional baggage. For example, my parents feared diversity while I embrace it. My parents believed that only their beliefs were right and all others were doomed while I believe people can have purposeful happy lives while holding a diversity of world views and/or beliefs. My parents believed in a very strict social moral code while I am extremely open minded in this area. While I share many values with them, I consider those things pretty common among all major moral systems, not just Xianity.

Of course no matter how hard we try, we will always have a few relics left over from our childhood indoctrination. What exactly were you thinking of specifically? It may help if you gave some examples.

[ September 06, 2002: Message edited by: southernhybrid ]</p>

Laera

My Lutheran Pastor mother likes to just say, "the Bible was written by human hands, so of course they snuck some of their own prejudices and culture in and among God's Words!" (obvious, right?)

Essentially, some are SO liberal as to explain away the bad stuff as the "human part" that God didn't *really* intend to be in there... 'cause we all know that that book is the "best" way he could let us know his mind, yet he even managed to f*ck that up!

See why I'm looking for arguements against liberalism? She's just so damned slippery it's sickening!!!