Atheists Least Trusted

[Seagoon]

Hello Crow,

Originally posted by crowMAW
Here's the question for Fundys...why?  What are you being told about atheists that would lead to that level of distrust?  Seagoon...what are you teaching your "flock" about us?  I understand that by Christian dogma, I'm not going to Heaven...that is my problem, but why does that effect you and why should you care about a choice that only effects me?  Is the mere existence of a person who rejects your teachings that threatening to your own beliefs (in which case I have to question the strength of your convictions)?

Looking at the thread so far, it looks like I have several questions to answer. I'll try to get to all of them, but I'll confess to being dog-tired and this is going to be an awful week for me. So please forgive me in advance if I don't get to them all.

Let me answer this question of yours in a two-parter. First, let me tell you who "my flock" are, if only that I might eliminate some of the crasser stereotypes in advance.

Our congregation is a church plant that has only been around since 2002, we are not an old and established church. We have grown from a "core" of about eleven people to a little under a hundred since then. The majority of the members of our church are first generation Christians, that is converts from various forms of nominal [i.e. "in name only"] Christianity, Agnosticism, or Atheism, very few of them were raised in Christian families or were regular churchgoers prior to converting. Many of them were "bad boys/girls" hard cases and so on, some had run-ins with the law, served time, got busted ranks and so on. As is to be expected for this town, 95% of them have either a current or former affiliation with the military. The median age is about 33 with the majority of members being in their 20s and 30s. We tend to have more families than singles, although the single population is the most rapidly growing portion.

Educationally speaking, most of our members have a college degree, and several have post-graduate degrees. Both of my elders, for instance, are post-grads.

Almost all of the members of our church are in occupations where the vast majority of people they meet with and work with on a day by day basis are not fundamentalist Christians. In fact, for many of them, they are they only evangelicals in their unit/workplace.

As for me, I'm 36, I have 2 masters degrees, and I was a pagan/agnostic for 23 years.  All of this is to say that as I answer your question (next post) please keep in mind:

1) We are not the stereotypical "blue-haired old lady" Fundamentalist Church, filled with Christians "of old" who live and work in an evangelical ghetto, and are "poor [except hopefully in spirit], uneducated, and easily led" to quote the famous Washington Post article. Being evangleical and not being part of that stereotype is more common than you'd think.

2) The majority of members have more than a passing acquaintance with atheism, they either were atheists themselves or they work closely with them every day. Therefore, I am not in a position were I am free to teach things about atheists that do not comport with their own life experience.

Also, let me make clear that unlike Joel Osteen, I don't teach things merely because I think they will make people happy, positive and well adjusted where they are. I have no desire to tickle itching ears, my desire is to preach only the truth that it might result in redeemed lives. I know that different approaches to preaching would be more popular in a worldy sense and draw a larger crowd, but I'm striving as a pastor to be true to the great commission of Matt. 28:18-20 and as an ambassador of Christ to teach only the things that he has given in His word. I try to teach and preach directly from the Bible and as a result, it has a tendency to "comfort the downcast and cast down the comfortable." My experience has been that those who think they are a pretty great people without Christ either end up having their opinion changed or leaving. So while I know that what I'm about to say is going to be mightily unpopular, that experience is neither unexpected nor unusual for me.

- SEAGOON

[Seagoon]

Hello again Crow,

Originally posted by crowMAW
Here's the question for Fundys...why?  What are you being told about atheists that would lead to that level of distrust?  Seagoon...what are you teaching your "flock" about us?

Regarding what I teach "my flock" regarding Atheism... Unfortunately, in order to teach what I teach about Atheism, I'm going to have to touch on what I teach about Christian Theism in order to do that, because I necessarily believe that Atheism is derivative and Theism original.

First please understand that I believe the worldview taught in the Bible, not some other supposedly "neutral" worldview.

Therefore, a few underlying but very important features of that worldview include the idea that the Universe and everything in it is not self-created, eternal, or illusory, rather everything was created by God who alone has essential being. While he freely interacts with His creation, and not only created but preserves it, He is infinitely greater than all of it.

I teach that man was created in the image of God, that man was created upright in knowledge and righteousness, yet mutable, that is capable of change. Man was also created in communion with his Creator and with a knowledge of God's laws in His heart, however by disobeying that law Man fell from that estate in which he was created, and became subject to physical death and spiritually deadened and inclined towards sin Eph. 2:1-3, Eccles. 7:29, etc.. In other words after the Fall of man, the natural "in-born" inclination of man was towards rebellion against his Creator.
Part of that inclination is manifested in idolatry, in the setting up of many false gods and ways of worshipping them. Men's hearts are, as Calvin put it, idol factories.

Now those gods can either be actual alternate deities or simply parts of the creation. Man can make an idol out of money, leisure, sex, power, and so on. An idol, properly understood, is simply that which has a capitivating control over his heart, and which occupies the place that only the true God should have. Therefore an idol can even be something "good" like work or family or nation. One of the most popular and abiding idols, of course, is self, the belief that one is the highest and greatest part of the creation and that nothing and no one rules over you or has a right to one's obedience and worship. In fact, it is more common to find that worshippers of self either consciously or sub-consciously believe that everyone else exists to please and worship them.

The bible tells us that there is ultimately no such thing as an Atheist, rather that men actively deny the God they know exists (see Romans 1:18-32 for perhaps the best and most concise summary of this situation)

To remain in this position is ultimately to reap a bitter harvest. The temporal results of idolatry are sin and misery, and the eternal result is death. If we continue in our fallen condition, all we can look forward to is final judgment, and based on our having been and remained enemies and rebels against our creator, punishment.

God did not, however, desire that man should remain in this sorry estate, but sent His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ to redeem men, this redemption involved making atonement for their sins (i.e. suffering the just judgment of God in their place) and establishing their righteousness by keeping the commandments of God in their place. Only the true God could provide the sacrifice of infinite value necessary to atone for sin and live a sinless life, and only a true man could suffer in their place and keep the law on their behalf. Therefore salvation required that God become incarnate. That is why God the Son,  the Second Person of the Godhead, was born in Bethlehem so many years ago.

All of this work of redemption was revealed in God's revelation to man, both before and after the birth of Christ (see Isaiah 53 for instance for just one of many Old Testament prophecies of the person and work of Christ)

If we have been redeemed, our eternal state is certain, because Christ has paid for our sins and established our righteousness, we will become inheritors of heaven instead of hell.

What fallen men need, therefore is union with Christ and this comes through faith in Him. In order to believe though, we must first have a new heart, a living heart given to us via the work of the Holy Spirit. This is called regeneration. People in their original and fallen state are described as "unregenerate."

Therefore, whatever mode of idolatry we prefer, in our unregenerate state, we will tend towards evil. Admittedly we won't be as evil as we can be, as God in His common grace restrains our sinfulness.

So do I expect unregenerate men to lie, to cheat, to steal, to break all of God's commandments? Yes, because that is the inclination of his heart. Do I expect regenerate men to be sinless this side of glory? No, I expect that believers in Christ will struggle with sin, but that they will struggle rather than constantly capitulating or being tempted as the worldling is "to call evil good" to overturn God's commandments and erect laws (either in the society or in his own heart) that nullify what God says is good.

Finally, Christians do not obey God's commandments out of fear of punishment, in fact if that is the only reason we obey it indicates that we surely don't have a new heart in the first place. We obey out of love of God, and a desire to keep his commandments, not out of fear of his punishments. We know that Christ has suffered in our place, and for those who who are united to Him: "There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1)

- SEAGOON

[Excel1]

Originally posted by Chairboy
Mav, so you're saying that nobody christian can do evil, because anyone who does evil is automatically not a christian?  Sounds pretty convenient.

 
If Hitler was a Christian then I'm a Martian.

Try reading his post again, this time with your blinkers off.

Just saying your something doesn't make it so.

Excel

[deSelys]

Originally posted by Seagoon

....
To remain in this position is ultimately to reap a bitter harvest. The temporal results of idolatry are sin and misery, and the eternal result is death. If we continue in our fallen condition, all we can look forward to is final judgment, and based on our having been and remained enemies and rebels against our creator, punishment.
....
Finally, Christians do not obey God's commandments out of fear of punishment
....
- SEAGOON

Of course, christians don't obey out of fear. Is this the free will we're supposed to be granted? Talk about a choice

Originally posted by Seagoon

....
Therefore, whatever mode of idolatry we prefer, in our unregenerate state, we will tend towards evil. Admittedly we won't be as evil as we can be, as God in His common grace restrains our sinfulness.
....
So do I expect unregenerate men to lie, to cheat, to steal, to break all of God's commandments? Yes, because that is the inclination of his heart.
- SEAGOON

As you don't put gloves to judge other men solely about their beliefs (or lack thereof), here is, put bluntly, what I think of you:

According to you, you had issues in life. Since you have found religion, you claim to be a much better man. If the path that you're following now comforts you about the value of your actions and words, you're intolerant and quick to judge others. Despite all the false modesty dripping from your posts, it's also obvious that you feel superior to anyone not agreeing with you and that you're generally pretty proud about yourself. I'm no shrink but I have the feeling that the issues that you had before are not resolved but, probably unaware to you (by discussing your own motives, you would feel like losing your faith), transformed to better suit your new way of life. I'm curious to know from which mental disorders you're suffering.
I was wondering how you could afford to spend hours a day on this BBS trying to convince other people that all moslems are utterly evil while, AFAIK, any other pastor claims that he could do with 2 extra hours a day to help all the people in need around him. However, by describing your community, you made me understand that it is much closer to a sect where aggressive recuiting and mental restraint matter more than being a support to the people.
You sir, are not the good man that you think you are.

[Sparks]

The temporal results of idolatry are sin and misery, and the eternal result is death. If we continue in our fallen condition, all we can look forward to is final judgment, and based on our having been and remained enemies and rebels against our creator, punishment.

What fallen men need, therefore is union with Christ and this comes through faith in Him. In order to believe though, we must first have a new heart, a living heart given to us via the work of the Holy Spirit.

Finally, Christians do not obey God's commandments out of fear of punishment, in fact if that is the only reason we obey it indicates that we surely don't have a new heart in the first place. We obey out of love of God, and a desire to keep his commandments, not out of fear of his punishments.

Where have I heard this before .......
The closed door threat - "If you don't get this job done you'll be looking for a new one"
The meeting room  - "You all need to work as a team to get this job done"
The public presentation - "My staff do what they do through love of their job and teamwork"



Now to Laz's reasoning and Moot's interpretation ...

Chairboy seems to use the definition of atheism as only the absence of belief in god, while Lazs seems to see it as belief in the absence of god.

Lazs might want you to just admit you're either religious if you conform to the latter, or dishonest if you do so without admitting to it being a leap of faith or conforming to the former while arguing for Atheism as defined in a dictionary.

It seems to me that all depends on your definition of "God".
I consider myself an atheist in the respect of an organised or taught religion - i.e. I do not believe there is a God as defined in the text of any human religion practicing today - a single entity with paranormal and unseen powers overseeing our personal destiny.
Do I accept that there have been, and continue to be forces and processes,  so far unknown and currently totally beyond our comprehension - absolutely. But then are you going to simply label anything we don't understand as "GOD". And that because I believe in the unknown I therefore believe in a God and am therefore agnostic - that is an absurd chain of thought.

Laz sems to consider that any personal belief in forces which cannot be comprehended by todays knowedge is born of a GOD of some type, and that faith in that is personal, and that the unwillingness to label these unknowns as being attributable to a God is stupid.
To me it is more stupid to only accept these forces as those of a God and not leave your mind open to any possibilities.  To simply then label others who chose to think differently as "stupid" is plain bigotry.

To then extend the arguement to say "you have a belief in the non-existance of a God and therefore that is a religion and therefore to not accept that you hold a religious belief is dishonest" is equally absurd.  The non-belief in a God does not drive my decision making in my life.  In fact it has no day to day bearing on my life - it is not a consideration. I do not base my moral descisions on things not being in the Bible or Quran.  I have rejected the presented options and definitions - surely that open rejection is more honest than the Sunday church going professional classes who screw their employees on Monday. It's interesting that Seagoon highlights that his biggest increase in congregation is professional singles when it is a well known fact that Sunday church is one of the best place to meet people ..... I would be interested to know how many of those people pair up and are gone in a few years time.

To move on then to the core point - that atheists can't be trusted - are inherently dishonest .  This seems to be based on the assertion that because we haven't the guidance of religious dogma we are incapable of thinking in anything other than a self serving way. "I think, therefore I think only about myself" ...... this has no logic. Compassion, love, social belonging are all feelings natural to normal human beings.  They are not things belonging solely to the domain of Christian religion.

As a last point, I though it was interesting that someone in this thread defended the reaction of a poster's work-mates to his using God and Christ in explitive phrases - demanding respect for his work-mates religious senstivities - and yet I would imagine that same someone had a different view to the Muslim reaction to the Prophet cartoons.

The assertion in Seagoon's text is plain - you fall outside the truth and you are not to be considered an equal person - you are untrustworthy and worthless - or to repeat the church's answer to the letter ...
Psalm 14:1-4
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt,
they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. 2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. 3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 4 Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge?

Intolerance and division ............ religion

[Chairboy]

Originally posted by Excel1
If Hitler was a Christian then I'm a Martian.

Try reading his post again, this time with your blinkers off.
 

Excel, YOU read his words:

"I believe actions count far more than words."

After saying that, is there ANY possible way that someone who did what Hitler did could EVER meet his criteria of a christian?  He just said that anyone who does bad stuff is no christian, by sheer virtue of their actions.

[parker00]

Originally posted by lazs2
ok...so zorch has it...

athiests are athiests because they hate the evil boooosh and republicans.... chair feels athiests are christian haters and crow feels that we better all get on the athiest bandwagon before all our magnetic placards are gone.

I think that my IQ is not the one to worry about here... I think that zorch may be on to something tho.... if he is in danger of losing 30 points it would put him in the drooling stage of things.   Best to not take a chance.

lazs

You need to think again.

[Excel1]

Chairboy,

I have no problem understanding what Maverick said.

"I believe actions count far more than words."

 ^ Talk is cheap. Professing faith in Christianity while trashing Christian/human values does not make a man a Christian. Hitler would not be the only sicko to use religion for his own ends.

"After saying that, is there ANY possible way that someone who did what Hitler did could EVER meet his criteria of a christian? "

I can't answer for Maverick, but by the tone of his post I would think not.

" He just said that anyone who does bad stuff is no christian, by sheer virtue of their actions"

He didn't say that. And if it were true there would be very few Christians in the world, normal human frailties and all. No one is perfect.

Excel

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by midnight Target
LOL.. did you even read your link?

Why, yes I did. Did you? Or just skim it?  

Quote:

Historian Paul Johnson wrote that Hitler hated Christianity \with a passion, adding that shortly after assuming power in 1933, Hitler told Hermann Rauschnig that he intended "to stamp out Christianity root and branch."

As Hitler grew in power, he made other anti-Christian statements. For example, he was quoted in Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, by Allan Bullock, as saying: "I'll make these damned parsons feel the power of the state in a way they would have never believed possible. For the moment, I am just keeping my eye upon them: if I ever have the slightest suspicion that they are getting dangerous, I will shoot the lot of them. This filthy reptile raises its head whenever there is a sign of weakness in the State, and therefore it must be stamped on. We have no sort of use for a fairy story invented by the Jews

As you continue to read the article, it is VERY CLEAR that he then went on to USE Christianity as a tool when he figured out that powerful people in Germany were religious.

Thus my comment, "When in Rome..."

[Shuckins]

The evill in Hitler's character did not sprout from seeds sown in Sunday school.

The sources for all the ghastly things that he did can be found in ethnic biases and racial dogmas reinforced by junk anthropological publications and radical political theories so prevalent in Germany during the early part of the 20th century.

The fact remains that the greatest mass-murderers in history all had an utter disdain for religion of all types.

American atheists did not coin the phrase "Religion is the opiate of the masses."  One of those mass murderers was the first to use it.  Yet I've seen atheists on these boards repeat it in one of their periodic rants against Christianity.

[lazs2]

vulcan....

"While Buddhism does not deny the existence of supernatural beings (e.g., the devas; indeed, many are discussed in Buddhist scripture), it does not ascribe power for creation, salvation or judgment to them. Like humans, they are regarded as having the power to affect worldly events, and so some Buddhist schools associate with them via ritual. All supernatural beings, as living entities, are a part of the six-part reincarnation cycle."

Is that your defenition of athiest?   Did you know that many buddhists were also christians and muslims?     I am failing to see how they would fall into the dishonest category as I have laid out.

Also... one can be dishonest in one thing and be a generaly honest person.  I think crow and chair fall into that category.  I believe that their fear or hate is so strong that it overrides their normal honesty in this case.   Religion is a powerfull subject for some... I think anyone reading these pages would agree that it is much more powerful for chair and crow than for me say.... as a subject.

crow is apopleptic because.... not only was his frinds friends uncles boyfriends car vandalized by removing the walking fish magnetic sign and (gasp) placed on the GROUND by torch bearing christians who mangaged to not get caught (or just the "this is old humor police) but....

now.... christians are putting signs in front of their church.....(wait for it) ...

WELCOMING ATHIESTS!  probly a plot to get them in their and eat their babies (well... if they hadn't aborted their babies but... yu get the point) or worse..... talk to em!

lazs

[Rolex]

It's interesting that this group of guys never had much need for religion either. They didn't feel the need to protect the nation against atheists, but rather from religion in general and Christianity in particular.

George Washington
George Madison
Alexander Hamilton
Thomas Jefferson
John Adams
Tom Paine
Benjamin Franklin

The fact that the word "God" does not appear in the Constitution is not an accident. Even when mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, it is as "...the Laws of Nature and Nature's God," not God of men in specific. And the use of the word "Creator" is used in the famous passage to keep the 'God' people out of it.

Washington, Franklin, Madison and Jefferson were not Christian. They considered the divinity of Jesus Christ to be foolish, supernatural nonsense. They had little interest in religion, but had great interest in preventing religion from gaining influence in the new nation.
Paine was pretty much an atheist. Washington never used the word "God" in any speech, but used phrases like "Great Author" to sideline the organized "God" people.

Here are a few samples:

George Madison - "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."

On Christianity: "What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."

Thomas Jefferson - "...the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time."

Benjamin Franklin - "A man compounded of law and gospel is able to cheat a whole country with his religion and then destroy them under color of law"

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Rolex
It's interesting that this group of guys never had much need for religion either. They didn't feel the need to protect the nation against atheists, but rather from religion in general and Christianity in particular.
 

The desire of America’s forefathers was to establish a country in which the separation of church and state, and the freedom to practice one’s faith without fear of persecution, was guaranteed. That guarantee was written in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”

Regardless of what their personal beliefs were, they garanteed that we can practice what we choose.

[Hangtime]

Make no doubt, Religion has done great good in this world.

... and the wars fostered by religious intolerance have done great evil.

I would keep the good works done by man in His name... and I praise them as a boon to humanitarian goals. But I detest the pious hate speach and violence that religious frevor foists upon man as 'Gods Will'.

[crowMAW]

Seagoon...thanks for taking the time to respond.  I can certainly relate to busy weeks.  But this week I'm enjoying a nice quiet vacation.

Originally posted by Seagoon
So do I expect unregenerate men to lie, to cheat, to steal, to break all of God's commandments? Yes, because that is the inclination of his heart. Do I expect regenerate men to be sinless this side of glory? No, I expect that believers in Christ will struggle with sin,

I would take your meaning of "untrustworthy" to be someone who may lie, cheat, steal or break all of God's commandments...is that about right?

If that is the case, I really don't see how Christians are anymore trustworthy than non-theists since you clearly state that Christians will sin. They are just as likely to lie, cheat, steal or break God's commandmants as the non-theist.

Originally posted by Seagoon
but that they will struggle rather than constantly capitulating or being tempted as the worldling is "to call evil good"

The symantic difference is lost on me.  Perhaps you can explain further.  If a Christian sins while in his struggle, it is OK...forgiven by the party who was wronged by the Christian.  But a non-Christian violates a commandment, then they are evil-doers.  I'm sorry, I don't see where the wrong is any less, and therefore don't understand how one would be considered more trustworthy than the other.

If your car is stolen, are you more or less wronged if the thief were Christian or non-Christian?  Is the thief anymore trustworthy because he is a Christian?  Abeit, a Christian struggling with sin, but still a Christian.

You say that it is the inclination of the non-theist's heart to break God's commandments...but does that mean he will (save but one)?  Can a non-theist choose not to lie, cheat, and steal?  Do you believe that a non-Christian can be righteous in every way other than a lack of faith in God?  According to Psalm 14:1-4 maybe not.  And that is one point where I reject Christianity as an acceptable worldview.  I determine trustworthiness based on one's actions regardless of their religion.

Originally posted by Seagoon
 to overturn God's commandments and erect laws (either in the society or in his own heart) that nullify what God says is good.

And what should happen to a society that does not accept all of what God says is good?  Our society values the freedom to worship any god or gods, or no gods at all. So much so that it is codified in our founding documents.  However, #1 among God's commandments is to believe in only Him.  In order not to nullify what God says is good are you suggesting a shift to a theocracy for our nation?