Do you believe God participates in our daily lives?

[I.Dup.]

Are you saying that you know Christians who are always kind, gentle, tender, never angry, never judgmental?

 

No, I really hate the word "always," and there's nothing about slapping the title "Christian" on something that makes it suddenly perfect, not at all. But do I know Christians who far and away present the qualities mentioned above and try really hard to avoid the opposite qualities? Absolutely.

 

FWIW, when someone is kind to me, I don't grill them about their belief system. Nor do I inquire about theirs before offering help.

 

To be fair, I am basing this on online interactions because of exactly what you said- I never grill anyone IRL. :) Maybe if I had ever known a person IRL with absolutely zero relationship with God who really did possess the qualities mentioned above, I would feel differently.

 

And I get that Christians can be judgmental, esp. the farther you get into right-wing, evangelical Christianity. Yuck. But to say that atheists possess the same amounts of the qualities listed above? I've never seen it (online, anyway).

[I.Dup.]

In fact, if I knew even one atheist or had ever come across one online who displayed these qualities: (less anger, less fear, more tenderness, more trust, less judgment of others,)

 

I may have to rethink the structure of my entire religious belief system. It hasn't happened.

[unfrumpable.]

No, I really hate the word "always," and there's nothing about slapping the title "Christian" on something that makes it suddenly perfect, not at all. But do I know Christians who far and away present the qualities mentioned above and try really hard to avoid the opposite qualities? Absolutely.

 

 

To be fair, I am basing this on online interactions because of exactly what you said- I never grill anyone IRL. :) Maybe if I had ever known a person IRL with absolutely zero relationship with God who really did possess the qualities mentioned above, I would feel differently.

 

And I get that Christians can be judgmental, esp. the farther you get into right-wing, evangelical Christianity. Yuck. But to say that atheists possess the same amounts of the qualities listed above? I've never seen it (online, anyway).

 

Wow. I've seen plenty of non-christians online and offline that express all of those characteristics. Whether they have a belief in a god or not. Including many on this forum.

[Joanne]

No, I really hate the word "always," and there's nothing about slapping the title "Christian" on something that makes it suddenly perfect, not at all. But do I know Christians who far and away present the qualities mentioned above and try really hard to avoid the opposite qualities? Absolutely.

 

 

To be fair, I am basing this on online interactions because of exactly what you said- I never grill anyone IRL. :) Maybe if I had ever known a person IRL with absolutely zero relationship with God who really did possess the qualities mentioned above, I would feel differently.

 

And I get that Christians can be judgmental, esp. the farther you get into right-wing, evangelical Christianity. Yuck. But to say that atheists possess the same amounts of the qualities listed above? I've never seen it (online, anyway).

Odd because I see it often right here on this board of many of the atheists I now who are members.

 

Several of them exemplify the character virtues I admire most.

[nmoira]

And I get that Christians can be judgmental, esp. the farther you get into right-wing, evangelical Christianity. Yuck. But to say that atheists possess the same amounts of the qualities listed above? I've never seen it (online, anyway).

 

Some of the most virulently hateful things I've read online are from self-identified Christians commenting on LGBT related articles and threads. 

[I.Dup.]

Some of the most virulently hateful things I've read online are from self-identified Christians commenting on LGBT related articles and threads. 

 

I am not denying that. I am challenging the original claim that atheists possess the specific qualities mentioned to the same degree that Christians do, across the board. The foundation of behaving as a Christian is being loving, kind, gentle, slow to anger. So if someone is the opposite of those things, one would naturally question their relationship with Christ. Anyone can call themselves Christian. That means nothing.

[albeto.]

I have not seen this at all. The specific qualities mentioned were: (less anger, less fear, more tenderness, more trust, less judgment of others,)

 

I cannot think of 1 atheist I have ever interacted with or seen online who I would describe as having anything close to the qualities above. Maybe I would feel differently if I had, but if anything, this confirms for me that developing these qualities apart from God is almost impossible. Is it possible to have a basic sense of human decency apart from believing in God? Yes, for the reasons others mentioned. But to be kind, gentle, tender, not angry, not judgmental? I've never seen that.

 

I understand. I don't agree, and I don't think this statement can be supported in general. That's not to say your experience is not valid, but that your experience is but one experience. When that is weighed against the great number of experiences world wide, I suspect yours would be in the minority. I suspect confirmation bias plays a large part in your conclusions, and probably a lot of Christian beliefs. Atheists are one, if not the most distrusted class in the U.S, simply because people believe one cannot be good without God. Lots of Christians believe that those unpleasant qualities of nonchristians, and the pleasant qualities of Christians is evidence for the work of God in one's life, while unconsciously dismissing the unpleasant qualities of Christians and ignoring the pleasant qualities of nonchristians. Well, this double standard isn't unique to Christians, we all have biases somewhere, somehow. It's how our brains are wired. Some have more than others, some are able to accept them more readily than others, but we all have them and yours is tuned into this particular explanation. If your explanation were correct though, the OP wouldn't have had a reason to ask her question. As it is, she sees no functional difference between believers and non believers in all kinds of areas of life. Her experience is consistent with data collection regarding behavior of both groups of people.

 

Would it help if I explained how I became less fearful, more tender, more trusting, less judgmental of others when I finally rejected my faith? I can't say I got less angry because I'm just not sure. I don't suppress that anger to the same extent I once did, but I don't know that I feel more or less. I don't act out on it, but then, I never have.  I think maybe I feel more anger because I see more injustice and more exploitation of vulnerable, innocent people now that I don't think of people as sinners and not innocent in some respect, and now that I see cruel behavior but don't dismiss it or excuse it like I did as a Chrisitan. My judgment has changed focus, but I recall being more judgmental as a Christian, using a guide that today seems rather unfair and to some extent cruel. How could one not feel anger towards cruelty? I think perhaps you just don't know that may people who are not religious, or who have shared their thoughts with you. I'm kind of an open book about this topic, so you've got me. :)

[nmoira]

I.Dup., you didn't answer this:

 

I find this odd. Do you believe this is true for any god, or just the Christian one? Are only atheists the odd ones out in a world of calm and peace and tolerance?

[nmoira]

I am not denying that. I am challenging the original claim that atheists possess the specific qualities mentioned to the same degree that Christians do, across the board. The foundation of behaving as a Christian is being loving, kind, gentle, slow to anger. So if someone is the opposite of those things, one would naturally question their relationship with Christ. Anyone can call themselves Christian. That means nothing.

 

1. Christians aspire to possess a specific set of qualities and characteristics.

 

Fine. I'll accept the premise.

But it does not logically follow that:

 

2. Those with these qualities and characteristics must be Christian.

 

Or, 

 

3. Those without these qualities and characteristics must not be Christian.

[I.Dup.]

I understand. I don't agree, and I don't think this statement can be supported in general. That's not to say your experience is not valid, but that your experience is but one experience. When that is weighed against the great number of experiences world wide, I suspect yours would be in the minority. I suspect confirmation bias plays a large part in your conclusions, and probably a lot of Christian beliefs. Atheists are one, if not the most distrusted class in the U.S, simply because people believe one cannot be good without God. Lots of Christians believe that those unpleasant qualities of nonchristians, and the pleasant qualities of Christians is evidence for the work of God in one's life, while unconsciously dismissing the unpleasant qualities of Christians and ignoring the pleasant qualities of nonchristians. Well, this double standard isn't unique to Christians, we all have biases somewhere, somehow. It's how our brains are wired. Some have more than others, some are able to accept them more readily than others, but we all have them and yours is tuned into this particular explanation. If your explanation were correct though, the OP wouldn't have had a reason to ask her question. As it is, she sees no functional difference between believers and non believers in all kinds of areas of life. Her experience is consistent with data collection regarding behavior of both groups of people.

 

Would it help if I explained how I became less fearful, more tender, more trusting, less judgmental of others when I finally rejected my faith? I can't say I got less angry because I'm just not sure. I don't suppress that anger to the same extent I once did, but I don't know that I feel more or less. I don't act out on it, but then, I never have.  I think maybe I feel more anger because I see more injustice and more exploitation of vulnerable, innocent people now that I don't think of people as sinners and not innocent in some respect, and now that I see cruel behavior but don't dismiss it or excuse it like I did as a Chrisitan. My judgment has changed focus, but I recall being more judgmental as a Christian, using a guide that today seems rather unfair and to some extent cruel. How could one not feel anger towards cruelty? I think perhaps you just don't know that may people who are not religious, or who have shared their thoughts with you. I'm kind of an open book about this topic, so you've got me. :)

 

 

I didn't get that the OP's point was that atheists and Christians have these same qualities equally, I thought she was challenging the fairness/kindness of God? Of course the atheists responding have a confirmation bias as well. :) I would say, show me one atheist who has kept his/her calm for the most part against people who didn't agree (so, against Christians, right?) without bashing them or judging them in private (because that goes along with the qualities mentioned above- being gentle, kind, less angry, less judgmental). Those are basic qualities required of us as Christians. I have never seen that in any atheist, ever.

 

I.Dup., you didn't answer this: I find this odd. Do you believe this is true for any god, or just the Christian one? Are only atheists the odd ones out in a world of calm and peace and tolerance?

 

Sorry, I don't know where you came up with that. That's not anything close to what I said, or the original point I was challenging.

[nmoira]

Sorry, I don't know where you came up with that. That's not anything close to what I said, or the original point I was challenging.

 

It sounded like you were talking about the Christian God. I was asking for clarification.

[I.Dup.]

It sounded like you were talking about the Christian God. I was asking for clarification.

 

I wasn't even talking about a God/god. I was talking about the followers of a god/God (or not). Sorry, I don't know what you're asking.

[nmoira]

I would say, show me one atheist who has kept his/her calm for the most part against people who didn't agree (so, against Christians, right?) without bashing them or judging them in private (because that goes along with the qualities mentioned above- being gentle, kind, less angry, less judgmental). Those are basic qualities required of us as Christians. I have never seen that in any atheist, ever.

 

Well, I would say.

 

1. I find that some people of faith have thin skins when it comes to talk of religion, and equate the professed disbelief or skepticism of others with disrespect and persecution of their own religion. This is not to say that all members of any group always act with respect toward other individuals. 

 

2. How do you know or prove someone hasn't said something in a private venue or in their hearts, whether they are religious or not?

[nmoira]

I wasn't even talking about a God/god. I was talking about the followers of a god/God (or not). Sorry, I don't know what you're asking.

 

Sorry,

 

Do you believe this is true for followers of  any god, or just the Christian one? Are only atheists the odd ones out in a world of calm and peace and tolerance?

[I.Dup.]

Well, I would say.

 

1. I find that some people of faith have thin skins when it comes to talk of religion, and equate the professed disbelief or skepticism of others with disrespect and persecution of their own religion. This is not to say that all members of any group always act with respect toward other individuals. 

 

2. How do you know or prove someone hasn't said something in a private venue or in their hearts, whether they are religious or not?

 

 

#1 I agree.

#2 there is no way to prove that. I am thinking of the groups of atheists I have seen here, for example, when they have been public. ;) I assume the same kind of behavior happens when the group goes private. I have also been a part of TONS of Christian groups over the years. I also know that, like I said before, it is a basic tenet of Christianity to avoid judgment, anger, harshness, hatred, etc.

 

Sorry,

 

Do you believe this is true for followers of  any god, or just the Christian one? Are only atheists the odd ones out in a world of calm and peace and tolerance?

 

I do believe that believing in a higher power gives one more motivation to avoid "negative" emotions and keep from harming others with harsh words, judgments, etc. I know this is particularly true of Buddhism. I'm not familiar with Islam/Hinduism to say for sure there.

[Amy in NH]

Huh.  I've found that the more dogmatic religious-people are, the more fearful, angry, and judgmental they are.  I suppose that if you count atheism as a religion that may include atheists, but it certainly doesn't exclude Christians.

[Haiku]

 without bashing them or judging them in private

 

How could you possible know what atheists and Christians are doing in private and use that as a standard to deem atheists as less good people?

 

I find it ironic that in the same post you tell atheists that the best they can hope for is a basic sense of human decency, you then accuse them of being angry. Perhaps you could reflect on your comment being just one in a long string of comments atheists continually hear about them being less than Christians and about how that does, after a while, make people angry. Yes, I am angry about being labeled a bad person because I don't believe in god. And I know Christians who are angry that they are accused of being judgmental and sanctimonious. You have defined a set of behaviors or attitudes as specifically Christian and beyond the reach of atheists. I find that silly but not surprising considering how many times I have heard it over the years.

[I.Dup.]

Huh.  I've found that the more dogmatic religious-people are, the more fearful, angry, and judgmental they are.  I suppose that if you count atheism as a religion that may include atheists, but it certainly doesn't exclude Christians.

 

Agreed. To an extent, with the exception being many saints and holy people through the ages who have believed religious principles to be incontrovertibly true and acted with the utmost gentleness and love for all people.

 

How could you possible know what atheists and Christians are doing in private and use that as a standard to deem atheists as less good people?

 

I find it ironic that in the same post you tell atheists that the best they can hope for is a basic sense of human decency, you then accuse them of being angry. Perhaps you could reflect on your comment being just one in a long string of comments atheists continually hear about them being less than Christians and about how that does, after a while, make people angry. Yes, I am angry about being labeled a bad person because I don't believe in god. And I know Christians who are angry that they are accused of being judgmental and sanctimonious. You have defined a set of behaviors or attitudes as specifically Christian and beyond the reach of atheists. I find that silly but not surprising considering how many times I have heard it over the years.

 

That's not what I said. None of that is what I said. I'm challenging albeto's post that atheists possess the same levels of the qualities mentioned. I've never seen anything close. I never said atheists are "bad" or that "the best they can hope for" is XYZ. I said none of that, nor do I believe that.

[Haiku]

I do believe that believing in a higher power gives one more motivation to avoid "negative" emotions and keep from harming others with harsh words, judgments, etc. I know this is particularly true of Buddhism. I'm not familiar with Islam/Hinduism to say for sure there.

 

Buddhists do not believe in a higher power with the possible exception of some Tibetan Buddhists, who believe in a hybrid Buddhist-Bon (indigenous Tibetan religion) religion. The Buddha was a man, not a god, and he is not any sort of higher power. Neither is karma. Contrary to the popular belief that karma is a retributive power, it is merely cause and effect and not any sort of supernatural power.

[I.Dup.]

Buddhists do not believe in a higher power with the possible exception of some Tibetan Buddhists, who believe in a hybrid Buddhist-Bon (indigenous Tibetan religion) religion. The Buddha was a man, not a god, and he is not any sort of higher power. Neither is karma. Contrary to the popular belief that karma is a retributive power, it is merely cause and effect and not any sort of supernatural power.

 

I wasn't equating Buddha to the Christian God, but don't Buddhists learn from the Buddha as an example, seek refuge in him, etc? They obviously strive to follow a set of spiritual principles.

[albeto.]

I didn't get that the OP's point was that atheists and Christians have these same qualities equally, I thought she was challenging the fairness/kindness of God?

 

In her OP she mentioned, "Atheists and Christians have the same cancer rates." She goes on in subsequent posts to explain things like the Christian sister's prayer to spare the life of her child was "No," whereas the prayer of her atheist sister was "Yes." Explanations like "Everything happens for a reason" and "God has a plan for everything" are being questioned because the claims don't seem to be supported in reality. So the correlation is there. You both are talking about God participating in our daily lives. The general claim is yes he does, however the evidence does not support it, but contradicts it.

 

Of course the atheists responding have a confirmation bias as well. :)

 

Absolutely. That's the nice thing about objective data - extraneous variables like confirmation bias are weeded out. It's why people take large samples repeat research, explore the variables in detail, and discuss with the appropriate community constantly. When I'm wrong, I can modify my opinion based on new information. It's what Moxie is doing in this thread - gathering information for the purpose of modifying her opinion one way or another. She will either accept objective data as having value and credibility, or she will accept the claims of the faith as having value and credibility. They don't agree in this case, but only one has objective information to analyze, review, and explore.

 

I would say, show me one atheist who has kept his/her calm for the most part against people who didn't agree (so, against Christians, right?) without bashing them or judging them in private (because that goes along with the qualities mentioned above- being gentle, kind, less angry, less judgmental). Those are basic qualities required of us as Christians. I have never seen that in any atheist, ever.

 

Um, hello! Here I am! *raising hand* :)

 

I have a Born Again sister whose beliefs run closer to Puddles than Moxie's. When I speak with her I don't challenge her, I don't put her in a position to defend herself, I don't "correct" her, and I certainly don't bash her. She makes her comments, I say something neutral, and the conversation continues. Online conversations are different for me because they seek a different function. Questions like the OP's require critical analysis of the facts, and when analyzing facts, beliefs often take hits. It's the nature of belief. When I'm offline, I never contradict someone's beliefs. Not my sister's not my neighbor's (friend of mine whose son brought my son to summer youth group thing once). The social interaction serves a different function, and that doesn't include analyzing information and discussing the merits of evidence or support. We all judge in private (that's how we come up with our opinions and thoughts, we can't avoid it).

 

 That's not to say atheists cannot be jackasses, they can, but that's not because they don't believe in your god. It's because their behavior is experienced as adversarial to many people. Christians can and do behave in adversarial ways as well, even when they do believe in your god. That's simply a fact. If you're interested, you look into objective data about certain behavior and the differences between people who identify themselves as Christians and people who don't. There's lots of studies that explore these things.

 

[I.Dup.]

In her OP she mentioned, "Atheists and Christians have the same cancer rates." She goes on in subsequent posts to explain things like the Christian sister's prayer to spare the life of her child was "No," whereas the prayer of her atheist sister was "Yes." Explanations like "Everything happens for a reason" and "God has a plan for everything" are being questioned because the claims don't seem to be supported in reality. So the correlation is there. You both are talking about God participating in our daily lives. The general claim is yes he does, however the evidence does not support it, but contradicts it.

 

 

Absolutely. That's the nice thing about objective data - extraneous variables like confirmation bias are weeded out. It's why people take large samples repeat research, explore the variables in detail, and discuss with the appropriate community constantly. When I'm wrong, I can modify my opinion based on new information. It's what Moxie is doing in this thread - gathering information for the purpose of modifying her opinion one way or another. She will either accept objective data as having value and credibility, or she will accept the claims of the faith as having value and credibility. They don't agree in this case, but only one has objective information to analyze, review, and explore.

 

 

Um, hello! Here I am! *raising hand* :)

 

I have a Born Again sister whose beliefs run closer to Puddles than Moxie's. When I speak with her I don't challenge her, I don't put her in a position to defend herself, I don't "correct" her, and I certainly don't bash her. She makes her comments, I say something neutral, and the conversation continues. Online conversations are different for me because they seek a different function. Questions like the OP's require critical analysis of the facts, and when analyzing facts, beliefs often take hits. It's the nature of belief. When I'm offline, I never contradict someone's beliefs. Not my sister's not my neighbor's (friend of mine whose son brought my son to summer youth group thing once). The social interaction serves a different function, and that doesn't include analyzing information and discussing the merits of evidence or support. We all judge in private (that's how we come up with our opinions and thoughts, we can't avoid it).

 

 That's not to say atheists cannot be jackasses, they can, but that's not because they don't believe in your god. It's because their behavior is experienced as adversarial to many people. Christians can and do behave in adversarial ways as well, even when they do believe in your god. That's simply a fact. If you're interested, you look into objective data about certain behavior and the differences between people who identify themselves as Christians and people who don't. There's lots of studies that explore these things.

 

 

I do respect you, albeto, for keeping your calm in the midst of heavy discussions. :) You are good at that. I cannot say the same about any other atheists I have witnessed online, but they may be out there. I suspect you may be a part of the atheist group here, and that is known specifically for bashing and hating on other people, so that makes me hesitant to name you as showing the gentleness, kindness, lack of judgment and anger that were a part of the original qualities mentioned above.

 

I will say, again, that to be a "true" Christian, one must not display or harbor anger, hatred, vitriol, bitterness, unkindness, etc. It's a journey for sure that few reach, but that is *required* from Christians. In public and private.

 

And by "judgment" I didn't mean basic critical thinking, I meant hating on someone personally, expressing that hatred through harsh language and denial of kindness, and harboring those feelings of hatred. That is absolutely unacceptable in Christianity, whereas that is common behavior I have witnessed among the atheists I have witnessed online through the years.

 

[livetoread]

I hang with pretty awesome atheists, as well as some awesome believers, so my experience is different. But I have to say, looking over my life so far, overall I see little difference in the qualities I.dup mentioned between believers and non-believers.

 

Christians who belong to a social group that emphasizes kindness and gentleness are likely to slowly become more kind and gentle, if they aren't naturally that way to begin with. Just like non-believers who belong to a social group that emphasizes those things.

 

Many Christians make the claim that they have extra, supernatural help in becoming kinder and gentler, because they humbly and prayerfully ask, or they are "in Christ", or they are in the process of santification, or however it is phrased. If that were the case, then one would expect to see evidence of that. Personally, I don't. I know many beautiful believers; people whom I love and admire. But I can say the same for non-believers, and I don't see enough of a difference to conclude that the believing group has any extra help.

 

In fact, I've seen too many believers who humbly and honestly ask to know God's will on an issue and then behave quite cruelly (convinced they are acting lovingly) to accept the idea that there is some supernatural being helping people be kinder. I mean they asked for Pete's sake and probably would have listened if that deity had been clear! But instead, the believer is left to make assumptions, just like there wasn't a deity interacting with them and helping them be kinder.

 

Anyone who purposefully values gentleness and kindness and who surrounds herself with people who also value those things is likely to slowly become more gentle and kind. It's how people change, believers and non-believers alike.

[I.Dup.]

I hang with pretty awesome atheists, as well as some awesome believers, so my experience is different. But I have to say, looking over my life so far, overall I see little difference in the qualities I.dup mentioned between believers and non-believers.

 

Christians who belong to a social group that emphasizes kindness and gentleness are likely to slowly become more kind and gentle, if they aren't naturally that way to begin with. Just like non-believers who belong to a social group that emphasizes those things.

 

Many Christians make the claim that they have extra, supernatural help in becoming kinder and gentler, because they humbly and prayerfully ask, or they are "in Christ", or they are in the process of santification, or however it is phrased. If that were the case, then one would expect to see evidence of that. Personally, I don't. I know many beautiful believers; people whom I love and admire. But I can say the same for non-believers, and I don't see enough of a difference to conclude that the believing group has any extra help.

 

In fact, I've seen too many believers who humbly and honestly ask to know God's will on an issue and then behave quite cruelly (convinced they are acting lovingly) to accept the idea that there is some supernatural being helping people be kinder. I mean they asked for Pete's sake and probably would have listened if that deity had been clear! But instead, the believer is left to make assumptions, just like there wasn't a deity interacting with them and helping them be kinder.

 

Anyone who purposefully values gentleness and kindness and who surrounds herself with people who also value those things is likely to slowly become more gentle and kind. It's how people change, believers and non-believers alike.

 

I agree with your basic premise here, although I have not had the same experience, obviously, since I cannot think of one atheist who displays the qualities mentioned. My point was not to talk about how "awesome" versus not awesome atheists or Christians are, I was challenging albeto's point that atheists display the same amount of the qualities mentioned above. I haven't seen it.

 

And I agree with you that God is not a magical being who uses a wand to *swish* make us kind and gentle. It is something we MUST work at. It's a daily, sometimes minute-by-minute fight. That is a huge part of Christianity- dying to the flesh and living in Christ.

 

That is my point, and maybe why I don't see it among atheists- it is something that requires so much work and effort to value and display these qualities, and maybe these qualities just are not something that atheists value or see as important? Some Christians have to work much harder than others to show Christ-like qualities and cultivate those while denying the opposite. My husband has a personality that tends to more naturally show the qualities listed (gentleness, kindness, patience- the "fruits of the spirit" as they are known in Christianese :P ). I do not naturally possess those qualities. At all. :closedeyes:

[Haiku]

I wasn't equating Buddha to the Christian God, but don't Buddhists learn from the Buddha as an example, seek refuge in him, etc? They obviously strive to follow a set of spiritual principles.

 

Yes, but that is NOT the same as believing in a higher power, which is what you specifically stated. The Buddha is a teacher, not a higher power.

[I.Dup.]

Yes, but that is NOT the same as believing in a higher power, which is what you specifically stated. The Buddha is a teacher, not a higher power.

 

Ahh, okay. I apologize. I should have said "believe in a higher power or follow a set of spiritual principles that value these qualities."

[TracyP]

I didn't get that the OP's point was that atheists and Christians have these same qualities equally, I thought she was challenging the fairness/kindness of God? Of course the atheists responding have a confirmation bias as well. :) I would say, show me one atheist who has kept his/her calm for the most part against people who didn't agree (so, against Christians, right?) without bashing them or judging them in private (because that goes along with the qualities mentioned above- being gentle, kind, less angry, less judgmental). Those are basic qualities required of us as Christians. I have never seen that in any atheist, ever.

 

 

Sorry, I don't know where you came up with that. That's not anything close to what I said, or the original point I was challenging.

I hate to name names AND I don't claim to know what she does in private AND it isn't to the exclusion of many other wonderful atheist ladies, but....

 

*cough* LauraCorin *cough*

 

p.s. I am really torn about posting this. If anybody thinks it is rude to talk about her "behind her back", please let me know and I will delete.

[Heidi]

"The general claim is yes he does, however the evidence does not support it, but contradicts it."

 

I believe in God and see evidence everywhere that confirms His presence in our lives: the perfect motion of the planets, the majesty of nature, the witnesses recorded in the scriptures, the feelings of peace in my own heart, miracles I've witnessed, the infinitely beautiful baby I just birthed, are all evidences that there is a Supreme Being.

 

Yet my dh does not believe there is a God, and can look at my evidences and not make the same connection at all. His only evidence that there is no God is that bad things happen to good people.

He has no other evidence to back up his claim.

 

So who is being more scientific?

[albeto.]

I do believe that believing in a higher power gives one more motivation to avoid "negative" emotions and keep from harming others with harsh words, judgments, etc.

 

 When Christian leaders and communities identify certain things as being evil and destructive to an individual and all humanity, do they avoid negative emotions and harming others with harsh words, judgments, etc? LGBTQ, minority races and religions, women, and children have long been targets of public policy based on religious beliefs. These groups have been traditionally faced imprisonment, forced castration, forced sex/marriage, ostracization, and denial of civil and human rights as part of that "etc." The harsh words and judgments inspire, motivate, and rationalize the very behavior that harms these groups. Further, I'd support the argument that these things are worthy of inducing anger and inspiration for change, even if it offends the person beliefs of those doing the oppressing. 

[nmoira]

That is my point, and maybe why I don't see it among atheists- it is something that requires so much work and effort to value and display these qualities, and maybe these qualities just are not something that atheists value or see as important? 

 

You can't see why someone who believes our time on earth is our one shot at getting it right, the one chance to make the world a better place for our fellow creatures and our posterity? Someone who sees the wonder of the world and the universe, and sees beauty in reality rather than in a vague promise of something to come?

 

Humans are social creatures, and posterity is not limited to our genes. Our work (good, bad, indifferent) can outlive us in ways profound or as subtle ripples through time. But it's not magic.

[nmoira]

I hate to name names AND I don't claim to know what she does in private AND it isn't to the exclusion of many other wonderful atheist ladies, but....

 

*cough* LauraCorin *cough*

 

p.s. I am really torn about posting this. If anybody thinks it is rude to talk about her "behind her back", please let me know and I will delete.

 

Call her over. I'd love to hear Laura's input on this thread. :)

[OnTheBrink]

Huh.  I've found that the more dogmatic religious-people are, the more fearful, angry, and judgmental they are.  I suppose that if you count atheism as a religion that may include atheists, but it certainly doesn't exclude Christians.

 

I've found that to be true, generally speaking, as well. Well, I'll qualify that by saying I've seen it in extremely fundamental, right wing, my-Christianity-is-better-than-your-Christianity types. 

 

And, I may have been one of them at one time.  :unsure: 

 

I will say, though, that even though I'm not EO, I've learned SO MUCH from the EO ladies on this board. Their gentleness and humility got my attention and I started really looking into what the EO teaches. Something that smacked me up the side of the head was how focused they are on their own shortcomings and not on the shortcomings of everyone else. That was SO liberating to learn about. I don't have to focus on anyone else's shortcomings, that's God's job. I just have to worry about my own! Woo! 

 

I think I've deviated from the topic, but it's page 3, so it was bound to happen. LOL

[Mrs Mungo]

I know people who pray about everything from a good parking spot to a cure for cancer. If you found a spot, God gave it to you. If not, God wanted you to get fresh air.

 

I'm not so sure. It seems to me (no scientific study, I realize) that it really could just be luck. Atheists and Christians have the same cancer rates and I've never heard an athiest complain that they never get the good spots.

 

I'm not sure what I believe anymore.

I don't believe that God's hand *causes* everything that ever happens to anyone. Is that the question you are asking?

 

I do personally believe that God helps us emotionally through trying times, all of us, because He loves all of us. I understand that plenty of people of all stripes don't believe anything of the sort.

[I.Dup.]

 

 When Christian leaders and communities identify certain things as being evil and destructive to an individual and all humanity, do they avoid negative emotions and harming others with harsh words, judgments, etc? LGBTQ, minority races and religions, women, and children have long been targets of public policy based on religious beliefs. These groups have been traditionally faced imprisonment, forced castration, forced sex/marriage, ostracization, and denial of civil and human rights as part of that "etc." The harsh words and judgments inspire, motivate, and rationalize the very behavior that harms these groups. Further, I'd support the argument that these things are worthy of inducing anger and inspiration for change, even if it offends the person beliefs of those doing the oppressing. 

 

You mean like this?

 

http://www.sanctepater.com/2013/04/femen-feminists-attack-archbishop-andre.html

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/24/topless-femen-protest-andre-jozef-leonard_n_3146609.html

[LibraryLover]

I hate to name names

 

 

 

:) Don't forget Rosie.

[nmoira]

We read A Christmas Carol every year, and while I appreciate that Dickens, for all issues with the Church, was Christian, its major theme resonates:

 

Marley: "It is required of every man," the Ghost returned, "that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellowmen, and travel far and wide; and if that spirit goes not forth in life, it is condemned to do so after death. It is doomed to wander through the world — oh, woe is me! — and witness what it cannot share, but might have shared on earth, and turned to happiness!"

 

Scrooge's sin was not lack of faith or his miserly tendencies, but rather his refusal to engage with the world of men. And this is consistent with my post earlier: we have once chance to make a difference. One. While Scrooge is understandably frightened at the prospect of wandering the world as a ghost, this does not change him. It is not until confronts Ignorance and Want and then soon after views the immediate aftermath of his death at Old Joe's (which he cannot yet admit to himself is his) and Tiny Tim's crutch and Scrooge's grave that true terror is struck in his heart. His change is for the sake of his posterity, not the threat of eternal punishment.

[TracyP]

:) Don't forget Rosie.

 

Does she consider herself atheist? I thought of her but wasn't sure. Ack! That is why I didn't want to name names. But YES, absolutely.

[albeto.]

"The general claim is yes he does, however the evidence does not support it, but contradicts it."

 

I believe in God and see evidence everywhere that confirms His presence in our lives: the perfect motion of the planets, the majesty of nature, the witnesses recorded in the scriptures, the feelings of peace in my own heart, miracles I've witnessed, the infinitely beautiful baby I just birthed, are all evidences that there is a Supreme Being.

 

Yet my dh does not believe there is a God, and can look at my evidences and not make the same connection at all. His only evidence that there is no God is that bad things happen to good people.

He has no other evidence to back up his claim.

 

So who is being more scientific?

 

Your husband. Let me pick your comment apart for a moment to explain what I mean.

 

I believe in God and see evidence everywhere that confirms His presence in our lives:

 

Let's use the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of evidence to see.

 

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid

 

the perfect motion of the planets,

 

The motion of the planets can be observed to do the following things as explained by Kepler's three laws of planetary motion, as follows:

1. Planets move in elliptical orbits that have the sun as one of their foci.

 

2. A straight line running from a planet to the sun will pass over equal areas of the ellipse in equal periods of time. This means that the velocity of a planet is greatest at the point nearest the sun and is least at the point farthest from the sun.

 

3. This law expresses the relationship between the distances that the various planets are from the sun and the length of time it takes the planets to complete an orbit around the sun. A simplified statement of the law is: The cube of a planet's mean (average) distance from the sun divided by the square of the time that it takes to complete an orbit is the same for all planets.

source

 

Theories that explain these observations include gravity, but nothing supernatural has yet been discovered. Furthermore, supernatural explanations are not necessary. Natural explanations suffice.

 

the majesty of nature,

 

Identifying nature as "majestic" is a subjective opinion, not a fact.

 

the witnesses recorded in the scriptures,

 

Debunked, thoroughly.

 

the feelings of peace in my own heart,

 

Emotions identified as "peace" can be explained by chemical and physical activities in the brain. Identifing them as coming from a supernatural source is purely speculation, and again not necessary to explain emotions.

 

miracles I've witnessed,

 

I'm willing to bet each one can be explained without invoking the supernatural, but if you're willing to share, I will consider them with a genuinely open mind.

 

the infinitely beautiful baby I just birthed,

 

Ideas like "infinite beauty" are not fact, but subjective opinion.

 

are all evidences that there is a Supreme Being.

 

None of these fit the criteria for what evidence is. I do understand how you would interpret these events as support, but your interpretations are not based on evidentiary facts.

 

 

Later you say your husband's only evidence that there is no God is that bad things happen to good people. I suspect that's not quite true, as he is no doubt aware that things can be, and are explained without need of invoking a supernatural agency. He simply doesn't interpret his experiences as miraculous or inspired by any spirit, holy or otherwise. Because your husband is sticking to facts rather than applying beliefs when he is ignorant of information, he is being more scientific. By definition.

[bolt.]

 

What does this mean, "agency must exist in order for love to be real"?

 

ME: Simply that love is "real" only when it is freely chosen from among realistic options, by individuals who have the agency to make such a choice. "Love" that would (on the other hand) be mandatory, an unavoidable inescapable conclusion -- that's not actually love.

 

YOU: You lost me here. In what context is love the whole point?

 

In the context of the Bible (and therefore as a aspect if the Christian worldview I am discribing) love is the whole point of God becoming One who creates, and One who relates beyond God-self. That, in turn, is the reason that reality came into existence.

 

YOU: Not surprisingly, I disagree completely. I think it can be argued that faith itself denies freedom. Faith is the act of believing without reason, and if necessary, the active suppression of reason in order to maintain a belief. This is intellectual bondage.

 

ME: A God who chose to reveal Godself in such a way as to be verifiable, thus renders any "faith" in God unavoidable. This would be a much greater bondage than what you discribe. What you discribe is simply 1. The condition of needing to make up your own mind without proof provided, and 2. Cognitive dissonance with the personal option of choosing to avoid that dissonance by suppression of reason.

 

 

YOU: Up to a point, which of course depends upon the individual. When God is understood as the source of peace, comfort, a source of love, etc, skepticism is only welcomed so far. After all, who wants to leave this behind? Who wants to see someone they care about walk away from peace, comfort, and love? Some communities go so far as to effectively sequester themselves from the rest of society in order to avoid the potential threat of doubt through skepticism (are those children free if they are denied choices? do they grow up free?). The bible tells the faithful to take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ; we know the bible encourages obedience, it does not encourage critical thinking. Skepticism encourages critical analysis of information - it doesn't promote obedience, it promotes judging God. Read back through this thread again and you'll see comments about not being able to understand God's ways, but trusting them anyway. In other words, don't judge God by his actions, don't be too skeptical of the claims made, only believe. When it doesn't make sense, stop looking for an answer and just believe. Skepticism is not welcome it is fought.

 

ME: Certianly, individual experiences vary. I don't think the Bible discourages critical thinking, nor do I agree with the sequestration of children. God put up a "tree" in a "garden" so that the people would always know they had a choice, and that it was theirs to make. Raising children without a "tree" is unwise, in my opinion.

 

YOU: Upthread you said that you believe "all who are 'in Christ' participate in God, the Trinity, because Chist participates in that eternal relationship, and we have our being 'in Him'." Wouldn't an eternal relationship with God through an eternal relationship with Christ (eternal being) be the expected posthumous reward?

 

ME: Not the way I see it. It's a 'nice attribute' of a new kind of life-and-being, but it's not rewarding anyone for anything. Plus, that's not posthumous either. The change in one's spiritual life precedes death, it just also continues after death and into ressurection.

 

YOU: In any case, during the Catholic mass the faithful recite the Nicene Creed (Apostle's Creed at low mass) which states in part, " I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen." The OP comes from a Catholic tradition, and was likely raised to believe this. There's ample biblical references to such an idea, as well.

ME: Well, yes, I "look for" it and fully expect the ressurection of the dead and the world to come. I just don't categorize them as "rewards" in any sense of the term. Things happen. It's childish to make those things all about God going it to "reward" me for my (ever do slightly) wise action of grabbing on to relationship with God when it was offered.

 

That's like an adoptive parent saying, "What a good and smart kid you are. You decided to let us adopt you. Congratulations! You did the right thing! As your reward for being so smart, I've hit food, shelter, clothing, soccer lessons and a college fund for you!" It's not a game show, therefore ressurection is not a reward. It just that God has plans, and we expect God to do just that.

[LibraryLover]

Does she consider herself atheist? I thought of her but wasn't sure. Ack! That is why I didn't want to name names. But YES, absolutely.

 

I thought so, although I could be wrong.

[I.Dup.]

:) Don't forget Rosie.

 

Okay, you're right, I take it all back. I've never seen Rosie get angry or hateful. I like her a lot.

[albeto.]

I do respect you, albeto, for keeping your calm in the midst of heavy discussions. :) You are good at that.

Thanks. I appreciate that. I do try to maintain as objective and emotionally neutral position as I can when involving myself in these kinds of discussions. I know that my words can hit some raw nerves, and I know I don't always maintain an emotional neutrality, but your respect means at the very least, my effort has been noticed.

 

I cannot say the same about any other atheists I have witnessed online, but they may be out there.

 

There are quite a number of them on this forum even. Every once in a while someone will make a comment that reveals their lack of faith an my eyebrows go up because I can't recall ever reading their opinions on it before. I happen to be very outspoken about this, and I'm not the only one. However, the silence from others shouldn't be mistaken for them not existing. Not everyone enjoys this brand of mental sparring. It's one of my favorite sports, so I'm "out there." But just like you won't see me talking about the merits of the Chicago Bears coaching team, doesn't mean I don't enjoy watching football.

 

I suspect you may be a part of the atheist group here, and that is known specifically for bashing and hating on other people, so that makes me hesitant to name you as showing the gentleness, kindness, lack of judgment and anger that were a part of the original qualities mentioned above.

 

I dunno, I.Dup. If you pick apart a post like I did the last one I posted, idea for idea, and consider what is being said rather than what emotion one means to convey, I think you'll find there is not the "bashing and hating on other people" that you perceive.

 

I will say, again, that to be a "true" Christian, one must not display or harbor anger, hatred, vitriol, bitterness, unkindness, etc. It's a journey for sure that few reach, but that is *required* from Christians. In public and private.

 

Do me a favor. Look up "No True Scotsman fallacy" and why it's faulty logic and of no value in an intellectual argument. Then tell me who gets to define what a "Real Christian" is. :)

 

And by "judgment" I didn't mean basic critical thinking,

 

That's what judging is. That's what it takes. Perhaps the word you're thinking of is prejudice?

 

I meant hating on someone personally, expressing that hatred through harsh language and denial of kindness, and harboring those feelings of hatred. That is absolutely unacceptable in Christianity, whereas that is common behavior I have witnessed among the atheists I have witnessed online through the years.

 

How can you say who hates whom? I've been accused of hating people in conversations like this and never, ever has that accusation been true! Again, this is an assumption based on a belief you've been taught to accept as true! This is really unkind to say, and I know you don't mean anything "bad" by it, you're simply sharing your understanding, but it's a slanderous, hurtful accusation to make of people based on publicly disagreeing with a claim made from a religious belief. It's harsh. It's judgmental. There are truly beautiful people you're accusing of ugly things. That's hurtful.

 

Does that mean you're not a "Real Christian," or does it mean I experience a negative reaction to your behavior? If my experience wasn't negative, would that mean you are a "Real Christian"? What does it mean if my reaction is overall negative, but only just tipping the scales in that direction because I trust you to not harbor any meanness, you've just been conditioned to be prejudiced against atheists? Does that imply your Christianity is almost "Real"?

[albeto.]

You mean like this?

 

http://www.sanctepater.com/2013/04/femen-feminists-attack-archbishop-andre.html

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/24/topless-femen-protest-andre-jozef-leonard_n_3146609.html

 

That's one way of protesting injustice.

 

:laugh:

[nmoira]

Do me a favor. Look up "No True Scotsman fallacy" and why it's faulty logic and of no value in an intellectual argument. Then tell me who gets to define what a "Real Christian" is. :)

 

One is left wondering just how many "real" Christians there are. It's certainly a convenient distinction.

[I.Dup.]

This is when people start to get annoyed with you, albeto. You're picking apart my words to such an extent as you are injecting false meaning and twisting the meaning from where I meant it.

[AlmiraGulch]

I have not seen this at all. The specific qualities mentioned were: (less anger, less fear, more tenderness, more trust, less judgment of others,)

 

I cannot think of 1 atheist I have ever interacted with or seen online who I would describe as having anything close to the qualities above. Maybe I would feel differently if I had, but if anything, this confirms for me that developing these qualities apart from God is almost impossible. Is it possible to have a basic sense of human decency apart from believing in God? Yes, for the reasons others mentioned. But to be kind, gentle, tender, not angry, not judgmental? I've never seen that.

 

This may be the single most messed up post I have ever seen on these boards.  Ever.  You have just called several members of this community angry, judgmental, horrible people.  And for that, I'd turn the mirror directly back on you, in all of your hypocritical self-righteousness.   

 

Unbelievable.

[I.Dup.]

That's one way of protesting injustice.

 

:laugh:

 

So you don't find that an ugly or hateful way to protest? You find it funny or admirable? Interesting.

 

I would equate that to throwing bloody pork or dog at a Muslim as a form of protesting their beliefs. Ugly. Hateful.

[I.Dup.]

This may be the single most messed up post I have ever seen on these boards.  Ever.  You have just called several members of this community angry, judgmental, horrible people.  And for that, I'd turn the mirror directly back on you, in all of your hypocritical self-righteousness.   

 

Unbelievable.

 

:)

 

I never once said I possess any certain qualities. I will be the first to admit I am one of the most messed up, filthy, self-absorbed people to have ever lived. I am engaging in a debate with albeto that atheists display the Christ-like qualities listed to the same extent Christians (across the board) do. I stand by my comments.

[albeto.]

 My husband has a personality that tends to more naturally show the qualities listed (gentleness, kindness, patience- the "fruits of the spirit" as they are known in Christianese :p ). I do not naturally possess those qualities. At all. :closedeyes:

 

Is it your contention that people like you have to work harder, but all atheists have to work even harder than you?

 

If that's the case, why can't you just tap into what God has to offer like your husband does? If God is there and he effects the faithful, why doesn't he affect you?

 

Also, what does it mean that my patience has long been noticed by others, but my husband has all these qualities in abundance and hasn't believed in God since he stopped believing in Santa? Is God affecting him and me without us even trying?

 

I have two sisters who cannot stand each other. They've stopped trying to get along and simply avoid one another. Both are born again Christians, one is a minister. Why can't they tap into God? Why do I have an easier time when I not only don't believe God exists, but find this character to be morally reprehensible? If I could tap into your god, I wouldn't. Not for anything. And yet I have these qualities more so than my own sisters, both of whom consider themselves to be Real Christians, dedicating their lives to the service of this god.

 

This is Moxie's question - why is it that Christians and nonchristians are fundamentally identical when compared side by side, all things being equal? Is there really anything to show for being a Christian if the same qualities, characteristics, and even "luck" effect Christians and nonchristians relatively equally?

[albeto.]

So you don't find that an ugly or hateful way to protest? You find it funny or admirable? Interesting.

 

I'm torn on the group, to tell the truth. I find them abrasive, offensive, and clearly they break the law. However, their abrasiveness, offensiveness, and criminal activities don't hold a candle to the kinds of oppression they are drawing global attention to, and sometimes people have to rebel to reset the stage. It's how our nation was founded, so there's a cultural tolerance (respect?) in there for me. However, having read a tiny bit about their organization, I'm not sure it's what it appears to be.

 

I would equate that to throwing bloody pork or dog at a Muslim as a form of protesting their beliefs. Ugly. Hateful.

 

Really? Being exposed to a woman's bare breast is as offensive as throwing a bloody body part at a person? Yeah, I don't equate it that way at all.