What Should Atheists Be Like?

[harvey1]

Let's assume that someone genuinely has a problem conceiving of God to exist, and they in all honesty cannot accept such a view without feeling that they are sacrificing a rational depiction of the world. (That is, they aren't in any kind of deep psychological battle with God.)

Then, in that case, what would the proper reaction be for how they deal with religious issues and religious people? For example, let me take an improper reaction. It is well-documented that a few scientists spent years trying to promote an oscillating universe despite the physical problems with this. In effect, certain atheists (and agnostics) were endorsing a bad model for no apparent reason other than to give the impression that this was a very viable model to theism without mentioning the problems with this model. I would take this as a bad reaction toward religion by atheists. It hints at pettiness on the part of the non-believer to sway people away from a belief they do not share even though the approach they propose is conceptually problematic at best.

Supposing that theists are not always pleased with how some atheists approach religion in public, outside of asking them to convert, what should an atheist be like--i.e., speaking in terms of an ideal atheist?

(Btw, atheists can and should respond, but you might phrase your answer in terms of what you think the ideal atheist should be like with respect to how they promote their views without embarrassment to other atheists. For example, astrophysicist Lawrence Krause recently wrote an article where he criticized non-theists for acting too aggressively against religion because of its potential negative impact on science--referring to Dawkins. That would be an example of Krause voicing his opinion of the ideal atheist in terms of their approach to religious issues.)

[Confused]

This will get my butt spanked for sure::mrgreen:

Cmas1 Verse1: I know more Christians than Atheists. One of my closest friends is a fundamentalist Christian (a very patient one!) My uncle is a fundamentalist pastor who performs healings. My brother is a fundamentalist. Until she joined the UCC my mother was a fundamentalist. I spent a great deal of my childhood in Church. I spent an incredible amount of time "behind the scenes" in various churches as a semi-professional church vocal soloist. {|= I am familiar with Christianity, Christians, the Church and religion in general. Quite familiar. I even chop down my own Christmas tree each year. (I don't confuse religious belief with religious traditions or fun traditions in general)

Cmas1 Verse2: My father was my undoing. He was raised in the church. His father was the town sheriff and part time preacher. But somewhere along the line my father became a die-hard skeptic. And that is how he raised me. I was unusually curious about everything around me as a child (my son exhibits very similar traits) and my father encouraged that. As I grew older my father constantly challenged my beliefs and knowledge - about everything. He would constantly egg me into debates just to examine my thinking process. He was adamant that I show original thinking. My father spent his entire career as a school principal but he always preferred original thought, creativity and broad-based education over good grades.
(A Christian metaphor might be: It is always far more important to talk about God than to quote scripture.)

Cmas1 Verse3: Over the years I have concluded through much observation, discussion, reading and personal reflection, that the voracity of a person's religious conviction is inversely proportional to how widely read they are, to how inclined they are to original thought, how skeptical they are, and to their curiosity about the world in general. All of those traits can lead to a very broad-based understanding of other cultures as well as human history and the role that religion did and did not play in it.

Cmas2 Verse1: The boy-becomes-atheist-due-to-dead-puppy analogy is ironic. I have never known an atheist become an atheist out of anger at God. That would be impossible. I have seen it happen very slowly over time as they mature and become less fearful of the concept of ceasing to exist when they die. I have seen people "convert" when it became unbearable to continue to participate in a dogmatic world where one is always desperately trying to bend reality in order to fit an old myth. But, most atheists I know are like me: Always have been - even while going on hikes with the church (Fun! Especially drinking red Gatorade as the blood of Christ) or sitting in Sunday school listening to Jesus stories (Fun stories! Now read us the one about the little engine that could!).

On the other hand, it is very, very common for Christians to arrive at their beliefs via a traumatic event. So common in fact, that it is the most widely used advertising subject. Christian groups love to parade around people who were healed from drug addiction, alcoholism, a bad marriage or depression (or even saved from "the gay lifestyle"!). I even started a thread that touched on the idea that since fundamentalist churches purposefully target people who are having troubles (which they readily acknowledge) that they are indeed a large group of troubled people.

I don't recall the last time I saw a group of atheists walking down the street looking for troubled people to convert. (I have, however, known atheists who walk the streets looking for people who need help as they work for homeless shelters (some of them Christian funded & some not)).

I think it would be great to be able to follow a some rules for a few tens of years in order to live forever in orgasmic spiritual bliss at the feet of a really nice creator. Better than non-existence by a long shot! But thinking that would be nice does not make it so.
I simply cannot live a lie! I have been to more churches and listened to a wider variety of sermons than any of my Christian friends have. I have studied religion at a University level. The more I listen and read highly religious people the more I am absolutely convinced I am on the right track - as scary as it might be. It simply requires too much suspension of reality.

I honestly believe many Christians are missing much of the beauty, splendor, wonder and awe of being alive! They cannot see the incredible, breath-taking universe very well through the crumpled pages of a very, very old book of fables. (And I really mean you no personal harm, but it is a very poorly written work. I most certainly hope your God can organize His thoughts and stabilize His mood before you die - I'd hate for there to be a mix-up as to your destination!)

Harvey, if I told you the great Spaghetti Monster created the world and that global warming was caused by pirates you would think I was silly. You might even go to the website that absolutely proves it: http://www.venganza.org/
But you still might think it is silly. (maybe not?) Now replace Spaghetti Monster with the God and Christianity. I really do - honest to Lord Jesus - see it in EXACTLY the same way.
So, perhaps you can, for a moment at least, see that while I may be a smarty pants, I have arrived at my beliefs honestly and that they make sense for me.
Kapeesh?

Now, procede to take this apart and please give me all the angry Old-Testament-God-Christian-rage you can muster! :2gun: And please don't bore me with a post that is as long and tedious as mine or with endless lines of indecipherable scripture.

No offense, but does any of this rambling actually address they question of this thread. Maybe I am not learned enough to discern it, so please for challenged people such as myself: how did anything you write theorize what an atheist should be like?

[Confused]

Cmas1 Verse3: Over the years I have concluded through much observation, discussion, reading and personal reflection, that the voracity of a person's religious conviction is inversely proportional to how widely read they are, to how inclined they are to original thought, how skeptical they are, and to their curiosity about the world in general. All of those traits can lead to a very broad-based understanding of other cultures as well as human history and the role that religion did and did not play in it.

I enjoyed reading your history. I wish more people would post their backgrounds. There is even a thread for it. It tells a lot about the person.

The reason I highlighted this portion is simply to point out a difference of opinion I have.

First, this section ignores all the biblical scholars that there are. The hundreds of men and women with multiple PH'd's in everything from history, to literature, to languages, to physics to biology. These individuals are very well read and so I question your statement on these grounds.

I do however acknowledge that with more reading and knowledge comes less junk. Since I have been on this site I have myself had to toss aside several "evidences" for the validity of Christianity. However, they were replaced with more sound arguements. Thanks to the atheists on this site, I am still cutting away the "Fat" of my arguements and being left with the meat.

So while I am becoming better read and more knowledgeable, I am becoming more sure of the validity of Jesus, not less. Yes I am giving up some of the outlying traditions, but honestly I thought a lot of those were retarded anyway and I am glad for an excuse to be rid of them.

This pertains to an atheist how????

[Confused]

So while I am becoming better read and more knowledgeable, I am becoming more sure of the validity of Jesus, not less. Yes I am giving up some of the outlying traditions, but honestly I thought a lot of those were retarded anyway and I am glad for an excuse to be rid of them.

Aha! So, atheists have helped clarify and strengthen your faith. (Perhaps we need some more convincing debaters in here) Then God made them for a purpose and you should get down on your knees profoundly thank Him for their existence! Perhaps the atheists are really just your guardian angels.... Do not assume the form(s) they may come to you in or how they may present themselves to you. Do not assume either that "they" are even multiple people......

The reason I highlighted this portion is simply to point out a difference of opinion I have.
First, this section ignores all the biblical scholars that there are. The hundreds of men and women with multiple PH'd's in everything from history, to literature, to languages, to physics to biology. These individuals are very well read and so I question your statement on these grounds.

No, it does not ignore scholars. (although most biblical scholars are rather liberal by fundie standards) I make it very clear that I am going by my own personal experience. In addition, my statement is, by it's very nature, a broad generalization. But it does not make it any less true - and yes, I do have data to back it up...but this post is far, far, too long already.
Next.

Should I repeat my previous 2 posts???? Relevance????

[Cmass]

Achilles,
Are you staying up all night playing on the jailhouse computer again? (Turn around....verrrry, verrrry slowly....one of the inmates is right behind you with a bible with a bible raised over your head....I think he is going to use it as a weapon and bonk you on the head...shhh)

Here is my original verse:
Cmas1 Verse3: Over the years I have concluded through much observation, discussion, reading and personal reflection, that the voracity of a person's religious conviction is inversely proportional to how widely read they are, to how inclined they are to original thought, how skeptical they are, and to their curiosity about the world in general. All of those traits can lead to a very broad-based understanding of other cultures as well as human history and the role that religion did and did not play in it.

Read it carefully. This is more of a mathematical/formula statement based upon my experience than a statement about any specific church or group.

Out of curiosity, how well read would you think me to be based on this method of determination? I am simply curious and won't take any offense to an honest answer.

Holy Moses, this is an excellent setup (if anyone is paying attention) that should come back to haunt me. (Don't disappoint me, this is an easy opening here.) I note in the sidebar that you are a "sage" while I am only an "apprentice". So I guess that settles it!

Seriously, I only "know" you through a relatively few sentences regarding your defense of your faith. Nonetheless, from what I have read, your depth of knowledge of science and cross-cultural perspective appear to be about average for a U.S. citizen. Your knowledge of scripture is hard to gauge because anyone with even the slightest ability to Google can quote scripture on any subject within 25 keystrokes. But, overall, about average.

However, your willingness to question, engage others, learn, change your viewpoint is above average - which may lead to a form of enlightenment........

Remember, in my statement I clearly indicate this is a sum of my lifetime of experience watching, listening, discussing. This includes up close and in person experience with many friends, acquaintances (including family members who are religious) and at lectures. It also includes reading Christian writings and listening to interviews. I know for a fact I am far above average in this.

I have a bible right here on my desk. (Actually autographed by Jesus - it only LOOKS like my handwriting!) I am currently reading a book my father gave me by Jack Miles (A world renowned biblical scholar) called GOD - A Biography. It discusses biblical history and asks "what is God's personality like? What is his "life" story?" It is a very unusual - and fascinating - approach to understanding God. Earlier today I listened to an interview on NPR with Gershom Gorenburg, Max Blumenthal and Pastor John Hagee concerning the pastor's view on armageddon (any minute now) and how it influences his war stance (Kill, KIll KILL!) and the fact that he has direct access the the Bush administration - who actually take him seriously. http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/r ... =18-Sep-06

My conclusion based on the interview with Pastor Hagee as well as reading some of his lectures, is that he is, by definition, quite literally insane and very dangerous. (You would not want this guy in your jailhouse unless he was in solitary confinement)
Thus I conclude that anyone who takes him seriously is either 1) Insane or; 2) Ignorant. I am an optimist about our country and will bet most are ignorant and not very widely read.

[Cmass]

No offense, but does any of this rambling actually address they question of this thread. Maybe I am not learned enough to discern it, so please for challenged people such as myself: how did anything you write theorize what an atheist should be like?

Dear confused: First off, the question was large and had many parts, Second, we can have fun with this topic can't we? Even if we stray from time to time?
Yes, thank you very much, it is rambling.
But yes, it does address the question as well as other posts in the thread - like the assertion that dead puppies could cause a tramatized child to hate God enough to stop believing him (which I say is impossible because you can't be angry at something that is not there)

[achilles12604]

Achilles,
Are you staying up all night playing on the jailhouse computer again? (Turn around....verrrry, verrrry slowly....one of the inmates is right behind you with a bible with a bible raised over your head....I think he is going to use it as a weapon and bonk you on the head...shhh)

Thanks for the heads up. I caught him just in time.

Here is my original verse:
Cmas1 Verse3: Over the years I have concluded through much observation, discussion, reading and personal reflection, that the voracity of a person's religious conviction is inversely proportional to how widely read they are, to how inclined they are to original thought, how skeptical they are, and to their curiosity about the world in general. All of those traits can lead to a very broad-based understanding of other cultures as well as human history and the role that religion did and did not play in it.

Read it carefully. This is more of a mathematical/formula statement based upon my experience than a statement about any specific church or group.

Ah. Re-reading is so helpful. But actually the part I skimmed over was

Over the years I have concluded through much observation, discussion, reading and personal reflection, that

I missed where this was based on only your personal experiences rather than (oops) my personal experiences. Sometime I forget that not everyone has read the same people or debated in the same places as I have. Silly me. What an oversight, but I would imagine it is quite common.

Out of curiosity, how well read would you think me to be based on this method of determination? I am simply curious and won't take any offense to an honest answer.

Holy Moses, this is an excellent setup (if anyone is paying attention) that should come back to haunt me. (Don't disappoint me, this is an easy opening here.) I note in the sidebar that you are a "sage" while I am only an "apprentice". So I guess that settles it!

Actually I have decided that the rating simply tells us how high we will fly when the world explodes. Kind of like a sergeant vs a captain. The only difference, (other than the fact the captian has no clue where his gun is much less anything else) is that the Captian gets to fly higher upon the ending of the world.

Thanks for the analysis. I am just starting College so I have a lot of learning ahead of me. Fortunatly I was able to get great job that I love dispite not having my degree. However, look out world because in 5 years I hope to have my masters. Im a gunna go get me sum edjumacation.

[QED]

I have a number of pet peeves with how most atheists interact with religion. However, I have one major ideal for an atheist:

If you wish there was a God, then act like it. Make people realize that you continually look for solutions such as this, and talk about what kinds of scenarios that you have considered. If you haven't done so, then you're not an ideal atheist in my view because you're not allowing hope to have any possibility in your thinking.

I think that Harvey is getting at something interesting here. I wonder if there are in fact many people who actively wish that there wasn't a God. The obvious candidate would be the person who is about to or has already committed some "sin" and who hopes for no divine retribution for the deed. But how is wishing going to make this terrible consequence go away? I think the notion of an individual having an atheistic world view for the sake of releasing them from the obligation to "be good" is unrealistic.

The realistic atheist then, in my opinion, is not someone in a psychological struggle against some hypothetical law enforcer, but someone exactly like Harvey's ideal. This person might even be described as a highly skeptical theist. Why not? For my own part I examine Evey potential piece of evidence for the signature of God -- since starting to debate these matters it's become quite a preoccupation for me. But if, as it has always turned out, the evidence presents me with reasonable, non-theological, explanations then I see no reason to join in with all the celebrations that characterize the active participation in one or more classical religions.

This is what religions typically look like to me - jumping the gun, counting chickens before they've hatched etc. The very eagerness of some to wholeheartedly "embrace the light" has all the hallmarks of a deeply psychological reaction to a rational question. But if I'm talking about premature conclusions then I'm not eliminating the possibility of God, and as Cmass has said, it's an honest exercise; one that people can expect to be respected in any hypothetical divine review (else the individual might sense that they have a just cause worthy of the ultimate in martyrdom!).

I can anticipate a number of problems that the theist might have with someone assuming this position though. First there seems to be no account for the spiritual side of things. For me the most basic smattering of human cognition tells me enough about the nonlinearities of the human perception mechanism to cast serious doubt on the nature of all things spiritual. Sure we sometimes feel the pull of enormous mental tidal forces but the source of many of these can be identified. I've personally found myself seduced by feelings of connection to strong external forces but a few simple thought-experiments have satisfied me that they have no external reality. But being honest means accepting that there might be some cases that are real -- even though I might be satisfied that the typical cases are self-induced.

I think the other, very broad, problem is the theistic notion that religion must be on the right tracks because common sense dictates the existence of a causer/creator. If the very existence of a lawful universe requires a causer/creator then this ought to be worshiped to some degree. Now I can see several issues here. I think worship is an arbitrary device introduced in this particular context to make it look like a psychological issue with the atheist. To demonstrate how arbitrary it is we can also imagine an atheist worshiping the laws of physics for what they are! Better then to talk in more neutral terms such as recognition. So we might be seeking recognition for the causer/creator. But this all hinges on that common sense notion that all things must have causes. If we are to accept that God exists without a cause then we are saying "Everything except god must have a cause". Common sense now breaks down before our very eyes and we might well then ask if God can exist without cause then why not something lesser than God -- such as a Universe! No argument has been put forward that I can follow to fix this problem for the theist. If a reasonable argument did exist then the stalemate could be broken. In the meantime I think we ought to accept that common sense has its limits -- and these impose other restraints on what is and what is not obvious.

[Cmass]

That is an excellent question. Do I WANT a God to not be there - assuming I had a choice....or would I prefer a God be there....hmmm

At first glance I think it would be nifty there were a God there. But it would have to be exactly what I wanted & expected and nothing like the Xtian God who is seriously psychotic monster. I would like nothing like that.

[achilles12604]

But this all hinges on that common sense notion that all things must have causes. If we are to accept that God exists without a cause then we are saying "Everything except god must have a cause". Common sense now breaks down before our very eyes and we might well then ask if God can exist without cause then why not something lesser than God -- such as a Universe! No argument has been put forward that I can follow to fix this problem for the theist. If a reasonable argument did exist then the stalemate could be broken. In the meantime I think we ought to accept that common sense has its limits -- and these impose other restraints on what is and what is not obvious.

Good points all the way down. I interject only slightly here to point out that there is good scientific reason to conclude that the universe had a start. Since nothing starts without a cause there must have been a cause. This leaves us with multiple options as to the cause.

1) It could have always been that there was a great deal of "stuff" that for reasons yet to be determined suddenly exploded.

2) It could be that the laws of physics were different before the big bang and so the big bang could have been "caused" by a non-cause.

3) It could be that the big bang was caused on purpose by an intelligent force outside of space time (God).

I'm sure you can think of more, but the point is that the Universe had a beginning and based on what we have learned about the laws of physics nothing begins without a good reason.

Therefore, so long as option 3 has not been disproven, it should be given a place among the other options to be considered. Hence I agree with what you were saying earlier that a very highly skeptical theist or perhaps a non-theist (according to Jim) would be a good description for anyone truthfully seeking answers from the perspective of no discernable God has been discovered yet.

[QED]

Since nothing starts without a cause there must have been a cause.

But how do we know that nothing starts without a cause? Have we done an exhaustive search?!? Later you say that physics teaches us that "nothing begins without a good reason". I'm wondering what physics this is... I have to say it sounds like the synthesis of philosophy and natural sciences that took us up to the turn of the 20th century.

This leaves us with multiple options as to the cause.

1) It could have always been that there was a great deal of "stuff" that for reasons yet to be determined suddenly exploded.

True we have not determined whether any particular cosmological hypothesis provides the explanation, but there are a number of very well thought out contenders. At any rate I see no good reason to abandon the Copernican Principle when we meet the boundaries of physical law any more than we should have when supposing other boundaries in the past.

2) It could be that the laws of physics were different before the big bang and so the big bang could have been "caused" by a non-cause.

I think this would be accepted as a certainty given that our laws are specific to the way the various symmetries broke in the cooling of the universe.

3) It could be that the big bang was caused on purpose by an intelligent force outside of space time (God).

How true, but how anthropocentric too! We have a habit of looking at watches and the like and thinking "this must have been made by an intelligence for a purpose" but people are learning more about the capacity for systems to be self-organizing and the impression that one gains from all this is that not everything has to be deliberately designed nor exists for some purpose. For example World economies tend to be self-organizing, lacking in overall planning or objective. This is an example of a highly complex system that shifts from one quasi-stable configuration to another in unpredictable ways. Some people will look at the ridiculously complex system we call nature and tell us that it all serves to prove the greatness of God. The limitless capacity for self-organization looks like something altogether different to me but if it is God's method, then he's being extraordinarily economical and not particularly fussy about the outcome with it.

I'm sure you can think of more, but the point is that the Universe had a beginning and based on what we have learned about the laws of physics nothing begins without a good reason.

This is the exact expression of common sense that I was calling into question. It almost hurts trying to imagine the transition from nothing to something -- an indication perhaps of the bluntness of our minds?