News-Record.com

Why would a church encourage this?
It goes against the grain of the church belief.

Nancy didn't mention what sort of church is involved, you know. There are other sorts than Christian. And there are some that aren't upset over folks who aren't believers. S'true!

I think it's savvy for a church to invite non-believers in to discuss their reasons for not believing in God, religion.

And some atheists, agnostics, nontheists, etc. are:

economic conservatives,

social conservatives,

Republicans,

union members,

moral traditionalists,

pro-life/anti-abortion advocates,

military veterans,

Second Amendment supporters,

and so forth.

-- Matt Wallace, AKA The Compleat Heretic; that is, an economic and social conservative, Republican, Teamsters union member, moral traditionalist, pro-life, U.S. Army veteran, NRA Benefactor Life Member, Secular Humanist atheist

Actually, govtwriter, we pay rent to the church, and we simply use a room of theirs for our meetings. We rarely have visits from church members, and they are atheists as we are.

Now... can you tell me what sort of church we're talking about? {;-)

>
> The Atheist:
> In Florida, an atheist became incensed over the preparation for Easter
> and
> Passover holidays and decided to contact his lawyer about the
> discrimination
> inflicted on atheists by the constant celebrations afforded to
> Christians
> and Jews with all their holidays while the atheists had no holiday to
> celebrate.
>
> The case was brought before a wise judge who after listening to the
> long,
> passionate presentation of his lawyer, promptly banged his gavel and
> declared, "Case dismissed!"
>
> The lawyer immediately stood and objected to the ruling and said, "Your
>
> honor, how can you possibly dismiss this case? Surely the Christians
> have
> Christmas, Easter and many other observances. And the Jews--why in
> addition to Passover they have Yom Kippur and Hanukkah, and yet my
> client and all other atheists have no such holiday!"
> The judge leaned forward in his chair and simply said "Obviously your
> client
> is too confused to know about or to celebrate the atheists' holiday!"
>
> The lawyer pompously said "We are aware of no such holiday for
> atheists,
> just when might that be, your honor?"
>
> The judge said "Well it comes every year on exactly the same
> date--April
> 1st!"
>
> "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'"
> Psalm 14:1, Psalm 53
> PRAY THAT someday OUR COURTS WILL BE FULL OF THIS
> KIND OF JUDGE. MAYBE THEN, WE CAN PUT GOD BACK
> WHERE HE BELONGS -- IN EVERYTHING WE DO.
> Way to go, Judge!

Believe me, F Reid, we hear that sort of stuff a lot. I often wonder why folks like to quote Ps 14 so much, and ignore the far superior Ps 53? {;-)

Out of curiousity, F Reid, do you accept the judgement of Ps 14, that I am "corrupt," that I "do abominable deeds" and that none of us do good? Just wondering.

Mr. Reid, according to Matthew 5:22, the judge in the story above, and the Psalmist, and Jesus and Paul are in danger of hell-fire just for calling someone a fool. Mr. Reid, would you like to share some words of your own to describe how you feel about non-believers?

Many Christians seems really offended by my lack of belief. Why? The same person would not be offended if I were a Hindu or Moslem. Surely they wouldn't call me a fool then. Why the difference?

Tony
Don't assume things. Where does the judge call anyone a fool?
That is part of the problem. reading into something what one want to be said.
As they say "look before you leap"

Mr. Reid,
If one is guilty of a sin merely for thinking it, then surely the judge would be guilty of that which I've accused him. I will concede though that the judge did not verbally state that atheists are fools. Still, the other three persons I mentioned are in danger of hellfire. No response to that?
This is really beside the point. I only wanted your ideas about atheists. Do you personally feel atheists are fools? Are you, as many are, offended or angered that I don't believe in your God? And if so, why are you angered or offended?

F Reid... I think it's equivocating to say that the "judge" in your copy/pasted piece didn't call atheists fools. That was the point of the whole post. Why not be honest and stand up for what you mean to say? If you want to call me and other atheists fools, evildoers, and horrible people of the worst sort, as the Bible does, come on out and say it. It's a free country, you know.

But if you do... I think you'd be making quite a bad mistake, nonetheless.

Tony & Eric
I stand by what the Bible says.
I believe non-believers are doomed for hell.

I'll bet you're just a joy for your atheist friends and co-workers to be around. Oh well. Your loss.

What are the rest of you thinking? If you want to post anonymous, just put a question mark under name or make something up.

Isn't it odd how "atheist" conjures up such evil ideas? After all, if you're a member of a missionary religion, I'd think that "turning" an atheist would be a real coup. However, if you're going to expend energy prosletyzing, I'd vote for spending that energy on an atheist! Could it be, perhaps, that missionaries are just a bit afraid of hearing what atheists have to say? Knowing how to answer the difficult questions is important -- more important to the illegitimate practice of pointing to something in one holy book to "prove" something in another. My 2-cents.

There are an awful lot of misconceptions and prejudice about atheists contained in the Bible. It's hardly surprising that devout folks have such strong reactions to us when we "come out of the closet."

I also think that part of the problem comes when people realize that out of every 10 people you meet outside of church, usually one (at least) will be the very sort of person that has such invective heaped upon them. I wonder if some are bothered to discover that we don't act as badly as the Bible says...

Live and let live. Believe - or in this case, disbelive - what you want, all of you.

If someone will hear you and you can "convert" them to your side (if that's your agenda), so be it. If not, live with 'em peacefully and move on.

It is not a question of ones character, it is a question of there salvation.
Good deeds will not get one into heaven.

Come on down. Forecast. Warm and toasty during the day. Hot as hell during the 72 hour day .
We got vacancies. I'll keep the light on for you

As Nancy said, we aren't interested in conversion of others. All we care about is forming a community of folks we can relate to and getting along with the rest of the communiity. "Salvation" is not anything that interests us. Making the world we live in a little better for everyone is.

Eric: A Buddhist Temple? A Mosque? I like riddles. (smile)

As a person who considers herself spiritual and not religious, I think if you don't want to believe in God, that's your business. I have the relationship I want with my God, he blesses me and my spiritual walk is my concern.

You know, a Buddhist Wat might be a welcoming place for us. I'll have to ask... there's one just down the street from where I live.

Oh well. Think Unitarian. {;-)

Unlike Mr. Reid, Eric, I think your salvation or lack thereof is entirely up to you. My spiritual journey is not dependent upon anyone else and is not compromised by the way anyone else thinks. I consider myself Christian but think atheists are entitled to get together and do what it is they do when they congregate. It does not diminish me or my faith for you (all) to have your own belief. As Sue said, that's my 2 cents worth.

Yvonne,

Your spirtual journey shuda been with them other Hale Boppers wearing du Nikes' and purple PJ's sluging down some wodka and othe chems. Adios space traveler.

Ah Maramlard, you must be Christian. An atheist usually wouldn't single out just one person's beliefs as being bizarre. They all seem like fairy tales to us. The Christians have talking donkeys, Numbers 22:28, a man who walks on water and levitates (Jesus of course) and a ceremony which to an outsider seems to celebrate cannibalism (communion), yet a philosophy such as Yvonne's disturbs many Christians.

To me it's funny that atheists usually arrive at their disbelief without the help of family, friends or an organization, yet most of us disbelieve the same things. Christians, on the other hand, have been taught the Bible is true since birth yet cannot agree on what that truth is.

I don't mind atheists, as long as they are discreet about it and don't kill babies or worship Satan. It's a free country, right? But the moral preening is sometimes a bit heavy. I've never known an overt atheist--as opposed to persons who simply don't believe in God--who wasn't an inverted Church Lady: always wanking on about the illogic of religion, this or that empirically dubious Bible story, the superiority of skepticism, yadda, yadda. Whatever. Atheists should borrow a page from their own distaste for evangelism and keep it to themselves. And avoid animal sacrifices and baby killing.

One empirical note: contrary to the consensus arrived at by the atheists here, morality never evolves (as an anthropological matter) outside of religion. Some love of science and logic!! The account of primitives getting morality before they get religion is laughably anti-scientific. Whether morality can survive outside of religion is arguable.

"Atheists should borrow a page from their own distaste for evangelism and keep it to themselves. And avoid animal sacrifices and baby killing."

Presumably, this is facetious. So far as I know, the only ones who have ever sacrificed animals are religious folks. I won't touch the concept of "baby killing." I know where too many people want to take that discussion.

"One empirical note: contrary to the consensus arrived at by the atheists here, morality never evolves (as an anthropological matter) outside of religion."

Care to expand on that idea? Or support it, since you say it's empirical? Actually, I thought that most folks who see morality as a religious matter were rather keen on it being "absolute" and "unchanging." Seems to be a conflict there, if you ask me.

As I said, Maramlard, "My spititual journey is not dependent upon anyone else and is not compromised by the way anyone else thinks". That "anyone" includes you.

Regarding human morality before religion (meaning, in the context of this discussion the big 3 monotheistic religions and, in particular, Christianity)... Humans lived on earth for around 3 million years before getting "civilized" about 10,000 years ago and beginning to consume the earth like it was all here just for us. The need for morality emerged with our culture, meaning those who treat the world like an enemy, conquering and claiming "dominion" (as it's put in one of the conflicting creation stories in Genesis). These pre-"civilized" cultures did not feel the need to moralize or dictate the One Right Way to Live, and the few handfuls of these people (in corners South America, Africa and Australia, etc.) still don't believe in Single Correct Good (as opposed to evil) ways to live. They don't need (and don't produce) prophets, because they have ways of living that Work and are sustainable. It wasn't until our culture starting taking over the world that life was ever unsustainable, miserable, and despairing enough for people to need that sort of guidance. Religion, psychology, drugs, television, even atheism are all responses to this course that our distant ancestors set us on.

And a note about atheism... Atheists historically have been those in transition from old ways of thinking about infinite mysteries (for lack of a better term- "god" carries a lot of baggage for some) to new ones. Some of the greatest religious leaders of the past 2,000 years were considered atheists by those who came before them. I don't think our current wave of atheists lack spirituality, they simply don't find it in a the same vision of God as more "traditional" religious people- and who can blame them. The big patriarch in the sky who demands sacrifice and dangles carrots for rewards is, from some points of view, hardly worth our worship. That's not to say that there is no value in relgion as it's commonly practiced; there are certainly lessons to be learned on all fronts.

Re: "Regarding human morality before religion (meaning, in the context of this discussion the big 3 monotheistic religions and, in particular, Christianity)... Humans lived on earth for around 3 million years before getting "civilized" about 10,000 years ago and beginning to consume the earth like it was all here just for us. The need for morality emerged with our culture"

Religion means religion and has nothing to do with the big 3, which are relative latecomers to religious practice. The point here (and I'm sorry to have been so subtle) is that the idea of a deity or deities is coextensive with the emergence of morality. The "need" for morality didn't emerge with "our" culture, but with culture itself. Read Durkheim. There are no atheistic archaic cultures, and so the idea (cited in the original post) that the "earliest people on earth" came to morality as proto-atheists--i.e. irrespective of the supernatural, of the concept of a deity--is just flat wrong. The idea of hippy-like primitive people who welcome all faiths is likewise a modern hippy-like invention.

Atheism itself is a historical latecomer distinctive to the West. The term is in use by the Renaissance, but usually in the sense of those who oppose God (i.e. as synonymous with "heretic"). Thus, the English call the Italians "atheists" because they're Catholics. The modern notion of God's nonexistence really doesn't come into play until the Enlightenment and the ascendancy of scientific rationalism. And so to say that "our current wave of atheists [doesn't] lack spirituality" is to miss precisely the point of atheism, which is the categorical denial of the "spiritual" (as nonscientific bunk). If they're practicing a new religion, then they aren't atheists.

"Modern atheism" not coming into play until very recently is a misconception. Try ancient Greece, for example:

"Everything has a natural explanation. The moon is not a god but a great rock and the sun a hot rock."
[Anaxagorus, ca. 475 BC]

I believe that Epicurus would also find a comfortable home with us were he alive today, as might Epictetus and a few of the people responsible for Buddhism and Taoism.

But Scott, are you saying that religion is what causes morality? Or are you saying that the two things are causally linked in some other mannner? You stated that you doubt morality could exist outside of religion. Where is the sociological underpinning for that idea? Just wondering.

Maybe I incorrectly assumed that defense of religion in this discussion was defense of the big 3 (or the big 1)... a thousand pardons to any shamans, druids, animists or assorted holy folk of yore in the crowd (they'd been quiet, so I assumed they weren't there). I wasn't trying to belittle or exclude pre-"us" religion, or claim that the world was riddled with atheists before the big 3 showed up (because, as I'm sure you know, the Old Testament is riddled with gods that predate "our" god); rather, I was trying to point out that "prophet-based" religions that demand universals and often seek to implant them in other folks are relatively new to the religious scheme of things. And I didn't say "the need for morality" I said the "need to moralize"- a subtle difference maybe, but let's face it, people blog just to show how much they like to split hairs. I don't mind moral people. People who moralize on the other hand... bleh... and, let's face it, that's who WE are.
And while I did overstate the history of the term atheism in my zeal (apologies), you in fact helped prove a point I was trying (and apparently failing) to make about innovators and their forebearers accusing each other of atheism. If "Catholic atheists" had religion (just not that of their accusers), how is it categorically impossible that "our" atheists have none? Not only did the idea of God's nonexistence emerge during the ascendency of scientific rationalism, but so did, to some extent, the idea of his literal existence. Modern fundamentalism attempts to render religion antihistorical and make the leap that the past worshipped the same way as the present, and that the future will carry their beliefs forward as well. God has not always been as literal, non-symbolic and concrete as he is today. He had to become so to compete with the "rational world", but the divine has always been somewhat irrational and impossible to understand, just by definition. But now we've got competing literal realities, and that's where the whole argument begins.

Oh... and I am not a hippy. I don't know where the heck that came from. Nor do I believe early people welcomed all faiths, most were brutally or subversively assimilated against their will. But they didn't wander the earth telling everyone they were Right and you'd better get on board or you're dead.
And I know a ton of atheists and agnostics who claim to have some sense of the spiritual, of something greater than themselves, but they seek their infinite mysteries elsewhere, often in science, which claims to be objective, but, come on, NOTHING's objective. We're subjective creatures with subjective realities and science is as much a spiritual or religious pursuit as anything. Sure it claims (and to some extent is) based in objective reasoning, deduction, hypothesizing, testing, etc.... but considering that approach to be the Ultimate approach to knowledge, choosing "reason" as your Truth, is as much a matter of faith as any other search for truth. Calling a subjective reality objective seeks to make that knowledge undeniable and ultimate... gives it the credibility that has previously been attributed to God. In both cases, we are granting ultimate credibility and authority to what we observe in response to the questions we ask.
Last point... most of what we call "atheism" is more like "antitheism"- a reaction to a a distasteful sense of the divine (the big bully in the sky I mentioned). Because you can't really purposefully not recognize something. In their protests, atheist don't hold up signs with nothing on them, they hold up signs with "Nothing" printed on them.
And that's something.

From scott: "I don't mind atheists, as long as they are discreet about it and don't kill babies or worship Satan. ... Atheists should borrow a page from their own distaste for evangelism and keep it to themselves."

Why should atheists be discreet? Christians certainly aren't as a whole, nor are most other belief-based groups. Nor are they expected to be. Take, for instance, the News & Record. All of the major holidays are marked by at least an article or two in the paper. And it's accepted. Religion is in my face all the time, everywhere; therefore, I really see no need to stay discreet about my views. As a matter of fact, while I don't proselytize, it's a well-known fact among my friends and co-workers that I am an atheist. I have never pressed my views on them, but it makes them more thoughtful and considerate when talking of things that concern religion when I am around. The few times I have been preached to, I have felt freed to return the favor.

And as for a system of morals without religion? I daresay I am a more moral person and that I live more by Christian beliefs than many of my church-going friends do. You do not need religion to be a good person. And don't bother replying that I'm going to hell, F Reid; frankly, I don't believe in that either.

A thought occurred to me yesterday regarding something Scott said:

"Whether morality can survive outside of religion is arguable."

I have to wonder... if morality can be codified in a rational manner, without reference to religion, why should it require religion to continue to exist?

Henry writes: "Because you can't really purposefully not recognize something. In their protests, atheist don't hold up signs with nothing on them, they hold up signs with "Nothing" printed on them."

True enough. I would certainly agree that atheists deify Not-God as a kind of God--in fact, with your entire line of reasoning here. But I would argue that this collapses the distinction atheism purports to found itself on. I would see this, moreover, as a basic incoherence or, to put the matter more confrontationally, a neo-fundamentalism, since that-which-replaces-God is often viewed in absolutist terms quite as stark as the old, ridiculous God in which stupid Christians believe.

Hence the inverted Church-Ladyism of "nondiscreet atheist," who announces his superior morality for all to admire. Congratulations, NA!!

As for Anaxagorus, his first cause is Mind, not quarks--if anything, he's a proto-deist. And besides, anybody knows the moon and the sun aren't gods. And Buddhism isn't a religion, but a covert form of atheism? Oy!!

Michael Buckley's Origins of Modern Atheism (Yale UP)is the standard source here, and he traces it to French theologians of the 17th century.

Finally, to elaborate a bit on the question of morality and religion: essentially, the argument is that morals, in order to have moral force, must derive from some source outside of the merely human, since if I can decide what's moral, then I can change my decision and I am therefore bound by no moral obligations. God, obviously, can provide such moral obligations, if you believe in Him. Reason possibly can, but it cuts both ways--I can rationalize myself out of a moral obligation pretty easily--and besides, if I'm the ultimate adjudicator of Right and Wrong, then what, precisely, is obligating me to do Right? In addition, reason, upon closer inspection, proves just as elusive and slippery as God. Do we vote on what's moral, from the perspective of Reason, or it is a "top-down" proposition just like God (with its special priests, institutions, interpreters, etc.). (This revisits Henry's point.)

As for the question of whether nonreligious people can be moral, the answer is NO!, they are very very bad people who talk behind your back, fail to organize philanthropic efforts (who ever heard of an Atheist Shelter for the Homeless?), and slander Christians who selflessly try to save everyone from the DEVIL. Except for Nondiscreet Atheist; he's the best!

Okay, Scott, I have a few items from your latest post to discuss. I find this odd, coming from someone associated with UNC-G, and I sure hope you're not a prof in the philosophy department:

"essentially, the argument is that morals, in order to have moral force, must derive from some source outside of the merely human, since if I can decide what's moral, then I can change my decision and I am therefore bound by no moral obligations. God, obviously, can provide such moral obligations, if you believe in Him."

That's an interesting statement. First off, what makes you think that you are unable to decide what is "moral"? Is your brain unable to figure out such elementary things as "a social group can't tolerate murder"?

Second, if "god" can only communicate these moral precepts to humans if they believe in him (revelation being a pretty sorry method for communication, historically), how did all those societies that don't believe in the right god develop any moral ideas at all?

"Reason possibly can, but it cuts both ways--I can rationalize myself out of a moral obligation pretty easily--and besides, if I'm the ultimate adjudicator of Right and Wrong, then what, precisely, is obligating me to do Right?"

Try the continued existence of a stable, cooperative social group. That's a pretty serious motivator for those of us who are unable to survive without help from others.

"In addition, reason, upon closer inspection, proves just as elusive and slippery as God. Do we vote on what's moral, from the perspective of Reason, or it is a "top-down" proposition just like God (with its special priests, institutions, interpreters, etc.). (This revisits Henry's point.)"

That's a very good question. If you'll study history, you'll see that moral ideas evolve over time, in spite of what religious authorities would have folks think. Take slavery as a prime example. There's not a single word in the Bible that says slavery is wrong, yet nearly all Christians today believe it is wrong. Why? Because society finally evolved away from that model and religion was forced to follow after.

"As for the question of whether nonreligious people can be moral, the answer is NO!, they are very very bad people who talk behind your back, fail to organize philanthropic efforts (who ever heard of an Atheist Shelter for the Homeless?)"

http://www.atheistcharity.org/

You probably missed the fact that several members of the Piedmont Freethought Association only a couple of weeks ago volunteered our time to help raise money for PBS. Oh well... it was a pretty weak strawman anyway.

"and slander Christians who selflessly try to save everyone from the DEVIL."

Uh huh. Scott, I had thought that you were at least a little serious about conversing on matters philosophical. It sounds more and more like you are only parroting things you've heard in church and not really paying much attention to what others are saying. I don't "slander Christians." And any attempts to "save everyone from the DEVIL" are, shall we say, philosophically suspect.

Eric, I think Scott actually agrees with you and is arguing for argument's sake. I believe he was being facetious with his last statement....right Scott?

Hi, govtwriter!

Too often, it's hard to tell when people stop being serious and start just responding for fun. When talking about religion, it's also very difficult to detect really well-crafted irony... there are always going to be people who actually believe some weird stuff.

Eric writes: 'Is your brain unable to figure out such elementary things as "a social group can't tolerate murder"'

Heck, if my brain was in charge, I'd probably kill 2-3 people every day! But seriously, my brain can figure this out, and also that it is unkind to hit people with sticks. But I didn't learn not to hit people with sticks because my brain figured it out. I learned because that behavior was prohibited me as a young child by an authority figure. Just so with morality generally, which emerges as a set of prohibitions and obligations deriving from a deity, not from a bunch of cavemen sitting around rationalizing about whether this or that is right or wrong. The question is whether morality can successfully transition--and we are witnessing this transition as a historical matter--to a matter adjudicated purely by Reason. I have my doubts.

Eric writes: "how did all those societies that don't believe in the right god develop any moral ideas at all?"

Who said anything about the right God? Not me. The illogic here points, however, to a salient figure of American atheism: it is, in simplest terms, non-belief in the Christian God. Sure, atheists might not believe in any God, but the God they really, Really don't believe in is the one in the Bible.

Eric again: "You probably missed the fact that several members of the Piedmont Freethought Association only a couple of weeks ago volunteered our time to help raise money for PBS."

As a matter of fact, I did miss it, although I can't imagine how. But really, do you think that charity for overeducated white people will get you into heaven? I always knew that PBS was the media of choice for Godless Communists, but I didn't know it was the choice of Godless Atheists, too! (Disclaimer: I listen to PBS, except the Godless Communist Atheist parts.)

Obviously, Scott isn't interested in serious discussion. I've encountered far too many people of his type in other on-line venues. Sad.

From scott: "Hence the inverted Church-Ladyism of "nondiscreet atheist," who announces his superior morality for all to admire. Congratulations, NA!!"

1. Please point out the inverted Church-Ladyism. I was merely pointing out that atheists can be moral as well, and that just because you are Christian, doesn't mean you are moral.

2. And it's HER superior morality. I'm a chick.

If I thought you were anything but a troll, however, I might bother to give you a real reply. I'm not wasting my time, however, with a longer reply for you to pick apart and reply to things out of context.

BTW, check out http://www.earthward.org/ if you ever get a chance.