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.
My Failed Attempt at Being an Atheist
At an emotionally flat part of my life, I had the idea of being an atheist. I’m a scientist of sorts, and so I really ought to take the scientific view of everything, I thought. I’d been raised as a protestant (Methodist) but hadn’t been observant for years, and I no longer thought of it as an important part of my life. Looking back on it now I’m not certain how sincere I was about this. It doesn’t seem like I ever really got into being an atheist like some of them do. Things kept getting in the way.
For one thing, many atheists are ignorant of the religion they criticize. They think about religion a lot, especially Christianity, but most of what they think they know about it is wrong. I realize that there are plenty of thoughtful atheists who harbor no ill will against believers and respect their beliefs. The trouble was I kept running into the other kind.
The big names in atheism these days, Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, have ideas about Christianity that are so obviously wrong that it’s hard to see why anyone takes them seriously. They think Christianity is bad for people. Billions of people who believe and participate of their own free will and live full lives in harmony with their society don’t agree. They will nearly all tell you that they benefit enormously from their beliefs. One does not even need to evoke the prospect of eternal life to see lots of worldly, objective benefits in terms of fellowship and friendship, support, and wellbeing. Some people have bad experiences with religion. I think here in particular about the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church, but those are rare exceptions. Pedophiles are no more common among Catholic priests than they are in the general population. Not being religious does not protect people from that sort of crime.
Other religions have their own problems, of course, but I believe that for the majority of believers their beliefs offer them many benefits. Being raised as a Christian, though, I’ll stick to that.
An ordinary conversation with an atheist inevitably would bring up erroneous ideas about Christianity, so I found myself defending it again and again.
“I would never believe in a God who is always demanding to be praised,” said one fellow. “What kind of egotistical deity is that?”
Mmmm, well… Believers think that God is complete unto Himself and needs nothing from us. He wants us to praise Him for our own benefit and the benefit of others. Everyone needs to know who to go to for salvation. God wants us back, but we have to choose to go to Him; He won’t revoke our free will.
This would be received with irritation, and the topic would shift to some other canard about Christianity.
There were, of course, those logical conundrums some non-believers come up with that supposedly prove that there can be no such thing as an omnipotent God. If God is all-powerful can He make something so heavy that even He can’t lift it?
Well, yeah. God made heavy stones, but I’ll bet Jesus could not physically lift one.
Some atheists celebrate the fact that Christianity is on the decline in Europe and think that this augers an age of rationality. But looking at the context of this decline shows that it’s part of a more general decline of European culture and society with falling birth rates, falling population of the relevant ethic groups, increasing suicide, economic stagnation, increasing deviance, and a loss of confidence in institutions of all types. The rising atheism might be one of these signs of degeneration, not rationality. Obviously, I didn’t say this out loud.
Some atheists are always congratulating themselves on being more educated and intelligent. Most of the scientists and university professors, they say, are atheists. Most of the intellectuals are atheists. It’s the hayseeds in flyover country that are religious, they say. But they are cherry-picking. There are plenty of non-believing poor and uneducated people. They are probably the majority of non-believers. A lot of them are in prison.
I was no better than any atheist at explaining why officially atheistic governments, those that were actually hostile to Christianity and other religions, were in the habit of killing millions of their own citizens. The dodges some atheists concoct for this are never convincing. Being conservative by nature, it seemed obvious to me that what happened in those nations was that the controls were taken off of human nature, and the result was inevitable.
Also, being conservative informs me that the new atheists are wrong when they say that getting rid of religion will usher in a Utopia of rationality and clear thinking. No, there is still human nature to deal with. Things would get worse, not better; less rational not more. Rousseau was wrong. The Marquis de Sade was right. Take away the restraints provided by culture, tradition, and religion and the result is depravity. To return to a state of nature is to die by starvation, disease, and violence. The more atheistic the chattering classes get in the US the more divided we seem, the worse the rhetoric gets, the more hostile and intolerant they are toward people who don’t agree with them to the point that they are seriously talking about getting rid of First Amendment protections. They are advocating a return to the type of democracy in which there are no minority rights, the kind that the people of Athens had when they voted to kill Socrates, the ultimate form of cancel culture. Those guys are getting worse, not better, as they leave religion behind.
So, I was a total failure as an atheist. I had to admit to myself that I’m a believer after all, and now I participate at my local Church on a regular basis.
Published in Religion & Philosophy
I figured that was the case. There are a lot of other Christians here who could answer that better than I.
Just because a religion has Christ in it somehow doesn’t make you a Christian. Muslims have Christ in their religion too and the are not Christians. Gnosticism, Arianism, and a whole bunch of heresies have Christ in their religion but it doesn’t make them Christians. I don’t really want to get into a back and forth on this but from the 4th century the Nicean Creed is what defines a Christian.
I’m a disciple of Jesus Christ. My goal in life is to follow His example and become more like Him. I believe that He is the literal Son of God and came to earth to show us how to love and serve one another. He atoned for our sins, for mine personally. I have a real relationship with God and Jesus Christ. I believe in repentance, baptism, forgiveness. It’s more than just knowing His teachings. It’s in trying to live the gospel as best I can that brings me closer to Him.
I don’t want to argue.
Also, church members are now called Latter Day Saints, not Mormons. The actual name of our church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Please use these instead. Mormon has always been a derogatory name for us. Thank you!
See?
No need for a back and forth. I understand your perspective.
I think we have a misunderstanding in what makes a Christian. A Christian, as I understand it, is a follower of Jesus Christ and His teachings.
Uh, sorry but from the 4th Century on, the Nicean Creed is what defines a Christian, in only the following manner: if you are willing to believe that Creed, and ignore the prior teachings that for political reasons were obliterated to make the PTB of that era happy, and that is the type of Christian you wish to be.
The word Christian comes from the word “Christ,” and many people follow His teachings without the express approval of the self congratulatory group that feels that their interpretation and only theirs is what counts.
Also, there is no one such set group of people. In Lake County Calif, there are many different Christian churches, with rivalries and hostilities between the various churches so inflamed that the Catholic vs Protestant wars of the 1500’s on seem almost tame by comparison. This church says their minister is the bees’ knees, while the church up the lane feels only their minister should be followed. So far no one has killed anyone else, and hopefully Christian teachings will keep things from becoming more agitated.
That’s not a misunderstanding, it’s a disagreement on definition. Manny has the agreement of the soi disant “Orthodox” on his definition. That definition was agreed to in the Fourth Century, as he said above. There were plenty of people who didn’t agree to it. Some of those traditions have either come down to today or been rediscovered. Then there are the whole new traditions, such as your own.
I see I have started a “brush fire” and I’m off-topic. I don’t feel like debating. It was never my intention. I’m going to sleep off whatever is going on and maybe try again later. @heavywater, I’m sorry I high jacked your thread.
No need to apologize. It wasn’t my thread in any case.
The whole “is you is or is you isn’t a Christian” discussion is fascinating. Who would have thought that God was such a bad communicator.
I suppose most who are participating in this thread already know this but here goes.
Christ is the Greek word for Messiah, which means the anointed one, the one anointed with oil, chosen by God.
1 Samuel 16:10-13
I am checking out of the library a classic book on the Church of Latter Day Saints titled, “No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith.”
Here is one review of the book I found online:
Many of those decisions were decided in religious councils, which are kind of like Congress: a lot of politics, not much God involved.
Not saying it ain’t so, but this does not sound like a book that is balanced in its approach to the Church of Latter Day Saints. It is sort of like reading the account of Christianity written by Atheists or some of the Jews maligned in some of the books.
Just to clarify, that quote I posted isn’t from the book, “No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith.” It is from a review of that book.
The book itself is considered to be a very good history of Joseph Smith, but then again, no one can claim to be free of bias. I think the author of “No Man Knows My History” is a former Mormon. But I am not 100 percent sure of that.
From the Preface of “No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith.”
This book was originally published in 1945.
The best book to read about Joseph Smith is the one written by his mother, Lucy Mack Smith. I worked at the church history sites and read it as a missionary.
The FLDS religion is distinctly different from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. They are related only in that they broke off and became their own church. I have read numerous books and articles. Our church has not practiced polygamy for 150 years. I wouldn’t trust that book. Like I said, you wouldn’t go to former Catholics to learn about Catholicism.
With Christianity, I try hard to find common ground instead of focusing on differences.
There is also a good book called Saints that I would recommend.
Which traditions from the 4th century that didn’t agree to it are here today?
I’m a bit confused by your reply. Which teachings were “obliterated “ before the Nicean Creed was established? And most Protestant denominations accept the Nicean Creed. Unitarians don’t accept Christ as divine and Mormons have a constellation of gods. Mormons are as I understand it pagans.
Mormons have a constellation of gods. Mormons are as I understand it pagans.
@manny- Please refer to my comments #25 and #32. Please don’t tell me what I believe.
Arianism, the belief that Jesus was at some point in time begotten by God the father was one of the religious beliefs that was discouraged by the First Council of Nicaea in 325.
There all kinds of beliefs that separate the thousands of denominations within Christianity.
Here is John Dehlin on his Mormon Stories YouTube channel interviewing Lindsay Hansen Park.
This episode is titled Lindsay Hansen Park’s Year of Polygamy.
It demonstrates how polygamy still has some influence in some cultures even though mainstream LDS is opposed to polygamy.
Basically you have 14 year old girls being told that they have to marry their 34 year old uncle or else God will destroy them. If they did not want to get married to their uncle, they would get beaten up. A very abusive situation.
This isn’t the mainstream church. It looks more like the FLDS church.
I’ve given everyone good, honest sources and tried to help you understand my religion. I’m going to quit this discussion because no one actually cares. When you want to learn the truth about something or someone, you go straight to the source. In this case, I have offered alternatives and tried to be courteous.
Also, Mormon Stories is blatantly anti. It’s not a reliable source. You don’t go to the Democrats to learn about Republicans.
I’m done.
Yes, I was asking Carol to explain her comment. Look there may have been all sorts of heresies circling in the early centuries, but a main line Christianity as we know it today was fully established. Actually, read the early church fathers. Read the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians dated 96 AD. Clement was the fourth Bishop of Rome (St. Peter being first). Here is the Wikipedia entry on the epistle. And you can read the entire epistle here. That epistle is dated before the book of Revelations. There is nothing in that text that disagrees with contemporary Christianity.
I find that ignorance of the early Church writings is what causes so many people to believe in all sorts of erroneous theories about the early Church.
You can believe whatever you like, but being made a god of a planet is not Christianity. Fundamental to Christianity is the Trinity, God as one in three. There are no other gods, and the Trinity is one. You can also call it whatever you like, but I’m sorry, hardly any Christian denominations look at CLDS as Christian. That’s not to say that Mormons are not good people. They are among the most ethical people I know.
Yay… I’m always so happy to see/hear statements like this!
But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found. – Luke 15:32
Actually I have to apologize. Pagan is a incorrect term to describe CLDS. It’s polytheists. I’m sorry about that. It was not intentional. But it is polytheists.
I thought that was Trinitarians. 😜
A belief in reincarnation, for one. Also a distinct lack of interest in the notions of heaven or else brimstone and fires’ hell.
What Paul Harvey, radio announcer read as “A Letter From God”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4ueqSbriu8