Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Quote of the Day: The Atheist Who Pushed Me to Serious Christianity
Now if I’d really seen [God], really there, really alive, it’d be in me like a fever. If I thought there was some god who really did care two hoots about people, who watched ’em like a father and cared for ’em like a mother … well, you wouldn’t catch me sayin’ things like ‘there are two sides to ever question’ and ‘we must respect other people’s beliefs.’ You wouldn’t find me just being gen’rally nice in the hope that it’d all turn out right in the end, not if that flame was burning in me like an unforgivin’ sword. And I did say burnin’, Mister Oats, ‘cos that’s what it’d be. You say that you people don’t burn folk and sacrifice people anymore, but that’s what true faith would mean, y’see? Sacrificin’ your own life, one day at a time, to the flame, declarin’ the truth of it, workin’ for it, breathin’ the soul of it. That’s religion. Anything else is just … is just bein’ nice. And a way of keepin’ in touch with the neighbors. — Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum
When I first read this passage a decade ago, it struck me like the proverbial bolt out of the blue. Terry Pratchett’s Discworld novels are just funny stories set on a flat earth resting on the backs of four elephants standing on a giant turtle that swims through space, and yet here was a passage that so neatly encapsulated my frustrations with my church it could have been written for me. We were a church that seemed to exist for friends to spend time together while the world church leadership dragged us further and further into political correctness.
Sir Terry was a secular humanist, and throughout many of his books there are comments that suggest that he thought the whole notion of religion was silly and should be abandoned. And yet, his words had the opposite of the intended effect on me. Yes, I completely agreed with him that the watered-down, politically correct Christianity of modern times he was mocking is ridiculous, but my response was not to leave Christianity. Rather, I found a church that does believe in declaring the truth of the Resurrected Christ no matter how uncomfortable that makes the secular world.
So thank you, Sir Terry, for helping me become a better Christian, even though that wasn’t your goal.
Published in Religion & Philosophy
Atheism is a definitive statement about one’s belief in the existence of the divine (or lack thereof), what happens after death (or doesn’t), and the existence or non-existence of Hell. We aren’t telling you what you really believe by stating that; we are saying that your own assertions amount to a religious belief, of sorts.
Define “without proof.” Last I checked, there’s ample evidence for Christianity (historical, archaeological, literary, etc.). Whether or not you personally find it to be sufficient proof does not mean that other people who personally find it to be compelling proof have no proof.
Sheesh.
Last I checked, almost all Christians are well aware that Christianity came from Judaism. Citing its predecessor religion isn’t exactly a compelling argument as to why it’s not religious.
What traditions did Christianity take from the Greeks – the fornicating, lying, deceitful, and manipulative polytheistic Olympus deities? Missed that part of the New Testament, I guess.
No, the root is “without God.” That says nothing of religion or faith. There are different words for being without those things.
I don’t care if you’re an atheist. Good on you. You believe in something…based on your faith. That’s perfectly fine.
I don’t care what you believe; the point is that you do believe based on no proof, based only on your faith in your opinion.
Where is your proof that no God or gods exist? Some of those you denigrate as believing in magic have proof. It is not proof that you may countenance, but many have miracles in their lives that they see as proof. Still, it is more proof than you have to back up your assertion that there is no God. My point is not what you believe, but that what you believe rests on your faith in your belief, not in any possible proof.
It’s like the debate over ESP. There have been plenty of incidents that add up to there being something. Some folks will say, “If you can’t replicate it on demand and have no theory that explains how it works, then it doesn’t exist. And if you believe it exists, you’re either a dupe or a charlatan.” This is simply magical hand-waving. ESP still exists. We don’t know what exactly it is, but something does exist that gives people remote information in some circumstances.
How many centuries were people discussing atoms before anyone saw one? Were they correct about what atoms were?
I never said Christianity wasn’t a religion. It’s well known that Paul’s influence was often to bring Greek thoughts to Christianity. Those Greek ideas of religion came from a few thousand years of culture. Many less informed Christian often have the vague notion that their religion, in fact their entire world view, started in 30AD.
It’s not my intent to engage that tired, and ridiculous, argument. I respect people’s belief in magic and shamans and bearded men in clouds, without agreeing with them.
My point was simply to share that I had an opposite experience from the original post, where an atheist convinced him to believe, and where a priest convinced me I shouldn’t.
1.) Regarding the article itself, while a Christian might read this as a call to a more zealous faith, the literal reading is a bad combination of Christianity, Ancient Mediterranean, and Pagan religions. The religions which claim a god who cares two hoots about people are not the ones that call for extreme sacrifices. The gods of Carthage and Rome were basically indifferent, and so you had to offer them sacrifices in order to get their attention, and then make deals with them under very lopsided terms. The literal word the Romans used was “cultivate” and was either the same, or related, to the word that meant “raising crops.” Judaism and Christianity are distinguished by a God who approaches men in order to treat. God comes to Abraham and makes a very lopsided deal -in Abraham’s favor. While the sacrifices do exist, God claims that the sacrifices themselves are not important (and when given out of the desire to get something in return, He explicitly rejects them), but what matters is that they are a compensation for failures on the part of humans to live up to their end of the treaty. Christianity goes a step further and has God just pay both sides of the bargain -visiting all the righteous and just zeal of religion on Jesus, rather than on other people. It’s the reason why even as far back as Augustine, the idea of a state church with forced conversions met opposition within Christianity (even if those forces lost out to the Kings and Emperors). It’s also the reason that monasticism is not mandatory.
2.) Regarding the OP, here in the South, we talk about “Southern Christianity.” A similar effect existed when my parents were missionaries in Kenya. Everyone is a Christian. In Kenya, people would specify “I’m saved” or “I’m born again” to indicate that they were actually Christians, rather than just having the mark on their passports. Nothing quite like that in the South, but we know everyone goes to church -but not everyone actually listens or pays attention. It is, indeed, the difference between being nice (or socially acceptable) and actually believing it (also see, Yes, Prime Minister: “The Bishop’s Gambit” for similar comparison). More generally, I approve of all such statements that take a “either it is this way or that way” with the strong implication that it is the way the speaker desires; and answer “you’re right, I’ll do the other one.” But I’m not quite willing to say that a true religion requires some extreme showing of devotion.
Chesterton makes a similar argument when he says that the early church had heresies on both sides, and so the true faith had to find the proper balance that did not go too far one way or another. Christianity calls for zeal -but not zealotry -which Chesterton anchored in his discussion of how Matthew 16:25 could not be read to justify suicide, for example.
No. This assertion has no basis in reality.
3.) In regards the argument for the existence of God or not that seems to have broken out -it is a peculiar respect for the rights of others to hold beliefs that manages to simultaneously mis-state the beliefs in question, forward a poor syllogism (a priest was once mean, therefore God doesn’t exist), and still attempt to claim the intellectual superiority. That’s impressive.
It’s a fine line between zeal and zealotry, to be sure, but I think the relevant point is that a religious “profession” that happens a few hours a week isn’t really a religion. If one believes, that belief should infuse every aspect of one’s day and life. Martin Luther argued we have vocation to serve God and our fellow men even through our day-to-day transactions.
Not actually a him, thank you.
I agree and that is one of my favorite pratchett novels.
Nice!
Im so sorry.
I see this asserted pretty frequently by Atheists on the internet. When I looked for scholarship to back up this outrageous assertion, what I found was really very weak. There is no substance there. Christian thought is not derivative of Pagan thought; in fact it is a strong repudiation of Pagan thought. Christian thought is strongly derivative of Jewish thought.
Allegations of importation of Pagan notions into Christianity are easily dispelled. Propping up a “no G-d” religion on this sketchy basis is foolishness that imperils your eternal soul.
I learned it from some of the world’s best theologians at Notre Dame. It’s not very controversial.
Then the theological faculty of Notre Dame is still spreading discredited fables.
Atheists express certainty regarding things not knowable in this lifetime… just like the religious.
Atheists believe that this certainty is the result of their being more enlightened than the common man… just like the religious.
Atheists have an annoying need to save the benighted masses from their alleged delusions… just like the religious.
Not trying to convert anyone. Just like christians, I’m only expressing what I hold to be the truth. It’s funny how this thread is filled with people’s comments expressing their belief in magic and they expect no criticism, but if any disagrees, they feel a need to attack.
Whatever. It’s very true that Paul introduced new ideas into Christianity. That is unremarkable. That Paul was steeped in Greek ideology is as true then as it is about western civilization being steeped in Christianity today. That Paul’s teachings were partly influenced by Greek philosophy is also unremarkable. It’s hardly even interesting.
Not what happened. You just have refused to see the logic of some very simple statements and continue to denigrate those who believe in God by calling religion “magic” and referring to “shamans” and “bearded men in clouds.” I believe in bearded men in clouds. I have been a bearded man in clouds on several airplane flights. But God is not a bearded man in clouds. If that is your limited conception of God, it is no wonder you are an atheist.
Now, if you go back and read what has been said in the thread more carefully and without the attitude, you may see what was actually said, as opposed to some attack against your beliefs you have imagined.
It is also a disproven theory. Cite some Pagan idea that Paul imported into Christianity?
This is a false allegation also. Paul was a Jew and a Pharisee. Cite some evidence of Paul’s “Greek ideology”?
It would be interesting if there were any evidence for it.
Well, Skyler may be very wrong about G-d, but he was “attacked.” Only not attacked for his religion, but attacked for false statements he made about the Christian religion.
The pushback is not against your lack of belief,* but against the lie you tell yourself that your position is based solely on fact and reason when you know no more than we do.
*Personally I don’t agree with those who say that religion is the sole deciding factor in one’s salvation, so I don’t find your conversion to be as urgent as some in this thread.
Not to over simplify, but you know that it’s called Christianity and not Paulianity for a reason, right?
Exactly. But some don’t like to hear something different from their own beliefs.
Who here? Name names? @mjbubba and I are not even close to the same beliefs, even though we both call ourselves Christian. We go at it all the time. I have a lot of respect for him. As @umbrafractus said of himself above, I also do not think religion is the sole determiner of one’s salvation. @mjbubba is in a different camp on that matter, but he cares enough about people to share his own beliefs and admonish them where he believes they are wrong. If you want to call that “not liking hearing something different from his own beliefs,” I might be able to stretch that far. He doesn’t like to hear people say things he believes will damn their souls. I can’t fault him for that.
So far, you seem to be the one who is upset about having his beliefs challenged. It is probably a matter of semantics. Since you decided to believe God does not exist (for all definitions of God), you believe that also makes you areligious. The fact is that atheism is, and by definition has to be, a religion built on more faith and less evidence than even the most ridiculous of God-centered religions out there. Hearing people call you religious is upsetting because you rejected God and the trappings of your former faith. You may have some definition of “religious” that somehow precludes atheism. If so, I am not familiar with it. My dictionary has four (3, with an a and b entry for one) definitions of the word, and three apply to this discussion and you fit in with all three.
This reminds me of the time a physicist argued with me saying governments are not corporations. Only works for very small definitions of corporations.
Arahant, you are wrong in many ways but you are on the right track here.
As far as “not liking hearing something different from his own beliefs,” that is actually not an accurate description of my beef with Atheist Skyler. What got me stirred up was inaccurate statements about Christian thought and Christian history. These are not matters of belief but matters of fact, and are demonstrably false even though they continue to circulate on the internet and, according to Skyler, at Notre Dame.
I have questions for our Atheist.
Is there any such thing as a spiritual dimension to human life?
Do you have a soul? Is there any definition for “soul” that you would not consider to be fiction?
(Off subject, but I ran into a youtube video the other day that made me think of you for this reason. It was so full of bovine fecal matter that one could have fertilized all of China’s fields with it. It had just enough fact to pass off the big lie.)
I find it amazing and chuckle-worthy how much agitation atheists feel when the subject of Christianity is discussed. Logic would say that an atheist wouldn’t have much cause to even read the post, much less go “all in” throughout the comments section, but discussion on religion, and Christianity in particular, seems to get them into a tizzy every time.
Christians believe that God pulls on folks, that he’s always there, waiting for you. A Christian might say that God is pulling on Skyler big time, yet he won’t open his mind to the possibility.
He might, but then he’d be wrong! :)
I think if you really respected their beliefs, you wouldn’t be using slurs like “bearded men in clouds.”
If it really was okay with you, you wouldn’t be calling them hopelessly naive or charlatans.