It may well come down to how you define christianity. Being raised as a catholic, I was taught that christians are literally "followers of Christ". Because of this, my opinion is yes. My yes answer is based on my belief that Christ was not the son of god but a man with great ideas.
I'd like to hear other people's opinions on this.
Karen Lyn
It all depends on how you define Christian. The doctrine that I learned was that you were a Christian when you took upon yourself his name and accepted him as your saviour. That would pretty much preempt an atheist.
There are people who do not believe in god I often use as examples for my mother. "He's one of the finest Christian's I've ever met," is what I'll tell her. I'm just playing with her logic. It frustrates her some but she will usually get my point. You don't have to be religioius to be a decent human being.
Cindi
My answer would be no. It would be contradictory to claim you followed him but then reject a major tenet of his teaching.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi
Most athiests have a very strong sense of morality. Studies have shown that morality is not a function of religion but actually inherent to humanity as a whole, although our history has shown many examples of failed morality. I think you may be confusing "Christian" with "moral".
Love always,
Elizabeth
At Unitarian churches you can find significant numbers of people who identify themselves as both Christian and Atheist or 'non-Theist.' It's not all that weird to find someone of similar opinion at a Quaker meeting.
It's possible. I believe Jesus Christ was the son of God, but even if it could be proven to me that he wasn't, I would still love Him and follow his teachings. He was a great man with great philosophies on life. I don't see how anyone can dislike Him, no matter what they believe.
Sorry to burst your bubbles everyone, but the idea of "true" atheism is NOT to believe in any God or deities. If you are not surea that God exists and are somewhat skeptical of his existence, then perhaps the correct term would be Agnostic.
Atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism)
Agnosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic)
so there... :P
tink :icon_chick:
I agree Zombies. Even for those who don't believe in His divinity, His words of peace and love are applicable for all men of all beliefs.
Since the whole purpose being atheism is to not have a organized religious belief, I would have to say this would be like oil and water. Believing that Christ existed is not the key tenant to the Cristian belief. The resurrection is the key belief that holds Christianity together. To denounce it as being improbable, defies Christianity. Taking some examples of the good things Christ talked about and applying them to your own life does not make one a Christian by any stretch of the imagination. I am a devout atheist and will say that there are a few things in the bible that are good lessons in morality. I do not have the blind faith that it takes to believe the majority of what is written in the bible though.
My $.02
<sarcasm> the last time they tried that the leader was crucified. </sarcasm>
let me enlighten you with my story. i was born into a christian family, did the whole "received the spirit" routine, and everything else.
i'm an atheist now because the more i read the bible and studied other religions, the more i realized that they had all evolved from earlier forms and that there was no religion that was truly unique in the world. the more i studied science, the more i realized that the deific hypothesis was untenable and untestable, and even if testable, it provided no predictive capability.
As far as spiritual [belief], i have none. people may say, "well, you believe that when you sit in that chair, you believe it will hold you." that's not belief in the sense of holding something as true without evidence, all the past times i sat in the chair it held, and i tend to sit carefully in case whatever chair it is, does happen to collapse.
there are three things i hold as valid, but i do not consider them 'true'. in fact, because they are axiomatic, that means they cannot be proven. they are simply the rules of the game, as it were:
1. mathematics and logic are valid. truth is an inherently logical proposition. without logic, the truth-value of any fact could never be known, there would be no way to distinguish between a true fact and a false fact. Without logic, knowledge would be unattainable.
2. observations, unaided and aided, are valid. however, aided observations must be supported by prior observations and mathematics. for example, before the theory of optics was discovered, a microscope would have been invalid; but through study of unaided observations of lenses and beams of light, the theory of optics was mathematically formulated, so the microscope is valid. a crystal gazing ball is still invalid, but if a way to define the effect mathematically and in a way that could be verified with unaided observations was found, it would become valid as well. without being able to trust our observations, we could acquire no data on which to operate, and thus knowledge would be unattainable.
3. the supernatural, if it exists [no statement is made of its existence or non-existence, just a conditional], does not in any way interact with the natural world. if a supernatural involvement can be had, then nothing can be assured as true. if the deity that oversees gravity decides to change the universal gravitational constant, for example, all things we know will suddenly be invalid, and thus knowledge could not be attained.
you have to understand though that it is important to recognize that none of these things is considered true; they are axioms. An axiom is a statement that must be accepted or not accepted on its own merits. however, as each of them can be shown to be necessary for knowledge, one must either accept these three things, or, one must accept that nothing at all can be known, let alone known to be true or false. so these axioms must be [accepted] or [held] to attain knowledge, even though their axiomatic nature means they themselves cannot be proven. now let me enlighten you even more with some questions which made me realize that there was no god.
1.) is the bible from god?
2.) how can you be sure of that? because it says so?
3.) does a catch-22 provide a logical foundation of beliefs?
4.) can you distinguish this faith in jesus from my childhood faith in santa claus?
5.) were the authors of the bible guided by the holy spirit?
6.) can those claims be legitimately verified?
7.) i could write my own bible and say i was guided by the holy spirit...does that make me a liar or a saint?
8.) does the perfect harmony of the bible's collected works prove it is from god, or have these collected works been edited and polished over the last two-thousand years by a variety of religious committees?
9.) is archaeological proof valid, or has it been manipulated to prove bogus claims?
10.) do the fulfilled prophecies from the bible prove that it is from god, or are they so vague that they would've had to come true eventually?
11.) should i just trust my father and his father before him and his father before him, or should i take a forward step?
12.) is it not our right as human beings to question the world around us, to rationalize with our "god-given" talent, to have faith in reality and preach against disillusionment, to reject a false sense of security used to comfort and control the masses?
if you can answer my questions then you can call me a christian, until then i'm an atheist, so don't mix me up with your labels.
Awesome answer! :)
Katia, that's one of the best posts you've had. VERY insightful. I think we had similar backgrounds to a point, but of course, I've come to a different conclusion.
I love what you said, even though I disagree.
Thank you!
Quote from: Renae Lupini on May 28, 2007, 09:50:25 PM
<sarcasm> the last time they tried that the leader was crucified. </sarcasm>
ooooooooooooooh... tsk tsk tsk... ooooooooooh...
Naughty, but true. ;D
Quote from: Katia on May 28, 2007, 10:12:29 PM
As far as spiritual [belief], i have none.
Now let me
enlighten you with my views. As far as I'm concerned Atheism, basically, is
not the belief that God does not exists. It is the belief that
THERE IS NO GOD.The statement that God does not exist is illogical from the very beginning and therefore cannot be proven per se. Since to make it logical and philosophically correct one (theists or atheists) must assume and presume from the premise
THAT THERE IS A GOD.Likewise, if you say
THAT THERE IS NO MONEY you must presume and assume
THAT THERE IS MONEY.To assume therefore that "A NO GOD" is an entity is entirely more than fallacious than ridiculous. For only when you assume in the affirmative that "A NO GOD' is an entity, one is only begging the question on and on until one loses steam and is forced to accept the affirmative: RESOLVE THEREFORE THAT THERE IS A GOD
One cannot start arguing from a nothingness. One must start arguing from anything that already exists. To deny therefore the existence of God is to assume that THERE IS A GOD, and therefore, indeed ONLY A FOOL WILL SAY IN HIS HEART THAT THERE IS NO GOD.
Quote from: Katia on May 28, 2007, 10:12:29 PM
1.) is the bible from god?
2.) how can you be sure of that? because it says so?
3.) does a catch-22 provide a logical foundation of beliefs?
4.) can you distinguish this faith in jesus from my childhood faith in santa claus?
5.) were the authors of the bible guided by the holy spirit?
6.) can those claims be legitimately verified?
7.) i could write my own bible and say i was guided by the holy spirit...does that make me a liar or a saint?
8.) does the perfect harmony of the bible's collected works prove it is from god, or have these collected works been edited and polished over the last two-thousand years by a variety of religious committees?
9.) is archaeological proof valid, or has it been manipulated to prove bogus claims?
10.) do the fulfilled prophecies from the bible prove that it is from god, or are they so vague that they would've had to come true eventually?
11.) should i just trust my father and his father before him and his father before him, or should i take a forward step?
12.) is it not our right as human beings to question the world around us, to rationalize with our "god-given" talent, to have faith in reality and preach against disillusionment, to reject a false sense of security used to comfort and control the masses?
if you can answer my questions then you can call me a christian, until then i'm an atheist, so don't mix me up with your labels.
1, 2.) {is the bible from god?}
Probably not, in my view. Why is that germane to *whither God*? Seems an exceedingly narrow consideration; are we limiting our view of something wise persons have called unknowable to this one book? If so, Why?
3.) {does a catch-22 provide a logical foundation of beliefs?}
If what you mean is 'is a circular argument considered sound logic?', Yes and No. Long story. You are referring to *The Bible*, which is the key problematic here, yes?
4.) {can you distinguish this faith in jesus from my childhood faith in santa claus?}
First, as you have asked the question: why would those of us who do not know you have any view as to the quality of your faith (or lack thereof, as the case may be)?
Do you have other manifestations of this "faith" concept?
As #s 5 & 6 culminate in #7:
7.) {i could write my own bible and say i was guided by the holy spirit...does that make me a liar or a saint?}
Depends on whom you ask, I guess. Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't? Seriously, why is there this insistence on The Authoritative Text?
Do you feel that all of those who have this now-elusive "faith" that you say you lack are probably lying? Why?
[the next 3 repeat your doubt as to some objectively verifiable *proof* of "The Bible" as "Word O God", sometimes it might be, sometimes it might not. So?]
11.) {should i just trust my father and his father before him and his father before him, or should i take a forward step?}
Why is 'trust' and a 'forward step' a necessary dichotomy?
12.) {is it not our right as human beings to question the world around us, to rationalize with our "god-given" talent, to have faith in reality and preach against disillusionment, to reject a false sense of security used to comfort and control the masses?}
Good Point!
Why these dichotomies? Do you feel that your only choice is Christianity and Atheism? Is this/are these the right question(s)?
Well, #12 is a
good question; and a good start, yes? No?
Good Luck!
tmw
Quote from: Jeannette on May 29, 2007, 05:41:50 PM
Now let me enlighten you with my views. As far as I'm concerned Atheism, basically, is not the belief that God does not exists. It is the belief that THERE IS NO GOD.
The statement that God does not exist is illogical from the very beginning and therefore cannot be proven per se. Since to make it logical and philosophically correct one (theists or atheists) must assume and presume from the premise THAT THERE IS A GOD.
This is very illogical. First of all, Atheism is not a belief that God does not exist or a belief that there is no God but NO belief in the first place. I have no beliefs in a God or God/s. Secondly, even if we were to define atheism as a belief that there is no God (this is what "hard atheism" is) then it does not follow that God exists. That is like saying that since I believe there is no Santa Claus then Santa Claus must exist. When you study logic, you learn that the default state is "does not exist." This is because you can not prove a negative. I can not prove that there are no invisible pink unicorns tap dancing on your head right now but I don't have to. If you make the claims, you must provide the proof.
Quote from: Altair on May 29, 2007, 08:10:16 PM
Quote from: Jeannette on May 29, 2007, 05:41:50 PM
Now let me enlighten you with my views. As far as I'm concerned Atheism, basically, is not the belief that God does not exists. It is the belief that THERE IS NO GOD.
The statement that God does not exist is illogical from the very beginning and therefore cannot be proven per se. Since to make it logical and philosophically correct one (theists or atheists) must assume and presume from the premise THAT THERE IS A GOD.
This is very illogical. First of all, Atheism is not a belief that God does not exist or a belief that there is no God but NO belief in the first place. I have no beliefs in a God or God/s. Secondly, even if we were to define atheism as a belief that there is no God (this is what "hard atheism" is) then it does not follow that God exists. That is like saying that since I believe there is no Santa Claus then Santa Claus must exist. When you study logic, you learn that the default state is "does not exist." This is because you can not prove a negative. I can not prove that there are no invisible pink unicorns tap dancing on your head right now but I don't have to. If you make the claims, you must provide the proof.
Well that is assuredly the default postion, rationally, you betchaa!
Only linguistically, splitting hairs - yes, I've Time To Kill right now - *Atheist* tends to indicate something more specific (and interestingly enough, may lead to a broader perspective) than "NO belief ('whatsoever' is implicit) in the first place", IE: that one doesn't belief in the One God, the accept-no-substitutes, totally omnipotent Big Ol God In The Sky.
tmw
Right Altair, Atheism is a lack of belief. So a deist and an atheist do not have opposing views. They don't have anything in common to disagree on!
I don't consider myself an atheist because "I believe" I have a "lack of belief" in a deity. See... there's a belief of sorts. I still am deeply spiritual and I am touched by the prayers offered by my friends in my behalf and for those that I love.
I'll just do my best to make this life full and worth while. I am not threatened by the concept of sin and reward. I think that doing the right thing in the first place is actually the easiest way to find happiness. Being kind to other people is easy. I honestly don't believe that a religion makes anyone a better person on its own. Each individual has this responsibility for themself.
So, does anyone think I'm an atheist? Sheesh... maybe it's just another label where my life is concerned.
Cindi
Quote from: Cindi Jones on May 29, 2007, 08:22:41 PM
Right Altair, Atheism is a lack of belief.
So, does anyone think I'm an atheist? Sheesh... maybe it's just another label where my life is concerned.
Well, two things, Cind. One, I am not buying your or the other person's definition of Atheist, you know, On Faith. Needing a More Authoritative Dictionary onnit, I think.
Atheism, I am sticking by my story here, is the lack of Belief in The God. Now you could be an A-Theist and NOT an A-Deist, mind you...
That leads to #2. By my definition, you are one. Or, probably, in that you aren't totally buying the Big Kahuna Knows All story either.
I Am Atheist! (insert cheesy substandard movie fanfare) Hear Me Bore!
Or:
I'm a Abeliever. doot doot doot doot.
Your Corporate Logo *here*.tmw
Quote from: Tink on May 28, 2007, 06:57:24 PM
If you are not surea that God exists and are somewhat skeptical of his existence, then perhaps the correct term would be Agnostic.
Not all agnostics are skeptical. Agnostic simply means you don't believe there is enough proof to prove one way or the other. There are several different kinds of agnostics:
Agnostic theists: believe that a deity probably exists
Agnostic atheists: believe that it is improbable that a deity exists.
Empirical Agnostics: believe that God may exist, but that little or nothing can be known about him/her/it/them/
Agnostic Humanists: undecided about the existence of God, do not really consider the question to be particularly important.
I think you refer to the agnostic humanists. Personally I label myself as agnostic-theist/humanist because I don't believe its likely that one exhists, but at the same time I don't really think it's importants and I know that there are always possibilities, but that doesn't change the fact that I still "choose" not the believe in it.
And as to why? Its not that I can't make up my mind. I chose to believe the way I do because it seemed more logical. It leaves leaway for me to listen to the other side instead of being a bigot on either one side. :) Most people would label this kind of logic as "Convenient" lol oh well.
Oh Yvonne, you aren't being convenient, you are just a peacemaker. Yeah... that's the ticket. I'll be a peacemaker too. Let's go make some peace.
TMW, yea... I don't buy into "the big kahuna". I used to be a cultist. I've bound back the other way I'm afraid. I see no need to invent deities to explain what I can't understand. So, just call me a peacemaker. I like it. Hubby will still call me the druish princess I'm afraid. ;)
Cindi
Well, like agnostics, there are different types of atheists. There are those with no belief and those who believe no. Originally, most of the fellow atheists I encountered were like me in that they have no belief but I am seeing more and more people who believe no. I also don't view myself in opposition to religion. I am a member of a religion & spirituality club and I try to keep an open mind. I am not atheistic because of logic but because of lack of faith.
Altair,
That's really cool that you have such an open mind. Might I suggest that since you do, Agnostic might be a more appropriate label for you? That's what an agnostic does, simply doesn't know.
Peace!
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi
Quote from: Cindi Jones on May 30, 2007, 12:06:30 AM
I see no need to invent deities to explain what I can't understand.
Why not inventing deities for the heck of it, then? For funsies, like.
tmw
Quote from: Jeannette on May 29, 2007, 05:41:50 PM
Quote from: Katia on May 28, 2007, 10:12:29 PM
As far as spiritual [belief], i have none.
Now let me enlighten you with my views. As far as I'm concerned Atheism, basically, is not the belief that God does not exists. It is the belief that THERE IS NO GOD.
The statement that God does not exist is illogical from the very beginning and therefore cannot be proven per se. Since to make it logical and philosophically correct one (theists or atheists) must assume and presume from the premise THAT THERE IS A GOD.
Likewise, if you say THAT THERE IS NO MONEY you must presume and assume THAT THERE IS MONEY.
To assume therefore that "A NO GOD" is an entity is entirely more than fallacious than ridiculous. For only when you assume in the affirmative that "A NO GOD' is an entity, one is only begging the question on and on until one loses steam and is forced to accept the affirmative: RESOLVE THEREFORE THAT THERE IS A GOD
One cannot start arguing from a nothingness. One must start arguing from anything that already exists. To deny therefore the existence of God is to assume that THERE IS A GOD, and therefore, indeed ONLY A FOOL WILL SAY IN HIS HEART THAT THERE IS NO GOD.
huh? ??? you're WRONG, jeannette. first of all atheism attempts to describe a lack of belief in a deity, multiple deities, gods, a supreme beings, etc. we don't have words for people who do not believe in unicorns (an-unicornism?), do we? but because most of the world is religious, we have to apply a name to ourselves [who just don't believe]. saying, "i believe there is no god" is a positive atheistic belief. however, saying, "i don't believe in a god" is atheism, although it is not a belief, per se. not believing is not the same as believing there is not something. atheism is not a belief system. by definition, infants, people who have severe mental retardation, and people not aware of a god are all atheists. it's not surprising, though, that irrational, exclusive connotations would come from theists about this. ::)
but going back to the question of the thread. no, an atheist can't be a christian. period. i, for instance, love reality. i want to know what is real. i know god seems to be real to a lot of people. they feel it deep within themselves. to me that isn't enough to just feel it as feelings can be very deceptive. i just don't trust myself. i know how ego-centric i can be.
i don't believe in a god that created the whole universe and is also concerned with this tiny speck we call earth, and the blink in time human beings have been on this planet. i see that as hugely ego-centric. a way of feeling important and special. it is a perfectly understandable need considering how vast time and space are, and how tiny we humans are in the grand scheme of things. understandable, but hardly the basis of understanding the truth.
i don't have as much of a problem with those who view god as the totality of reality. those who just substitute [universe] with [god]. reality rules. it doesn't much matter what we think about it, it rules. in the same way if i step off my roof, i will hit the ground regardless of what i think and believe about it. in that way i see reality as god. it simply rules. nothing spiritual or supernatural needed, just a healthy respect for reality.
the term [god] just carries with it so much baggage that i view as superstitious non-sense. humanity just keeps these myths going because i think it gives people comfort. in that respect i can see the use of religion. like Kierkegaard who basically said that he was christian, not because of any logical arguments or factual evidence, but that he lived a more fulfilling life because of it. i'm ok with that. we all have our illusions we hold dear to us.
i personally believe in unconditional truth and unconditional love. i happen to believe they are the same thing. nothing supernatural or spiritual about that, but it is a way of living my life that works for me. i want to know what is, even if it is totally different than how I think it is today. life seems to work much better when we live in alignment with the truth.
the [god] of many religious people i see as similar to Santa Claus. it is this cosmic being that will grant you happiness and bliss if you are good, and in the case of christianity, will send you to a very bad place indeed if you are bad. to me that seems like such a cop-out for morality. "i didn't shoot you and steal all your money because if i did i know i would go to hell." as opposed to "i didn't shoot you and steal all your money because it is just wrong." it seems to me i'd be much more inclined to trust the second guy, especially considering that all the christian has to do is repent and he is back into heaven again. that builds morality on some slippery sand. the atheists morality is simply based on doing good things is just a better and happier way of living life. it's just the natural consequences of that behavior. no need to add superstition or threats of burning and pitchforks.
i don't believe i have all the answers. i'm open to examining evidence and being proven wrong. in fact, i'm really not all that attached to being right in the first place [surprise, surprise]. best idea wins for me, regardless of who or where it comes from. i don't believe science has all the answers and i do believe there are a great many things we simply don't understand at all. i accept the possibility of energies we can't detect with our instruments and dimensions of reality that i simply can't comprehend. i accept that and i'm open to that. perhaps there is something [spiritual] for lack of a better word out there. i'm just someone who requires evidence and proof before i base my life on it. so far, after 34 years, i believe i've got some basics down about how reality works. it works for me. understanding the ground rules, it is much easier to navigate life. believing fantasy tends to just cause more confusion and tends to self-destruct down the line.
Quote from: Katia on May 30, 2007, 06:34:50 PM
atheism is not a belief system.
I think it is since a negative cannot be absolutely proven logically. Therefore, to assert an opinion that God doesn't exist implies a leap of faith, a BELIEF that something doesn't exist. If a person operated only by logical, rational precepts, then that person could not assert with certainty that there is no God and still be in keeping with those same rational principles.
Quote from: Jeannette on May 31, 2007, 03:01:19 PM
Quote from: Katia on May 30, 2007, 06:34:50 PM
atheism is not a belief system.
I think it is since a negative cannot be absolutely proven logically. Therefore, to assert an opinion that God doesn't exist implies a leap of faith, a BELIEF that something doesn't exist. If a person operated only by logical, rational precepts, then that person could not assert with certainty that there is no God and still be in keeping with those same rational principles.
I think what Katia was trying to say is that Atheism is not a belief system based up organized religion.
Quote from: Jeannette on May 31, 2007, 03:01:19 PM
Quote from: Katia on May 30, 2007, 06:34:50 PM
atheism is not a belief system.
I think it is since a negative cannot be absolutely proven logically. Therefore, to assert an opinion that God doesn't exist implies a leap of faith, a BELIEF that something doesn't exist. If a person operated only by logical, rational precepts, then that person could not assert with certainty that there is no God and still be in keeping with those same rational principles.
wow, how many times must i answer the self-same question before the denser amongst us will get it. atheism, very simply means the disbelief in the god concept. it is neither a religion nor a belief system of any kind.. it is not directly allied to science but science plays an important part in our decision-making process as it should with everyone who has a brain cell that actually works.
the proof of the existence of your god is not our concern. personally, i don't give a rat's posterior whether people believe in this nonsense or not. if proof is required, it is proof, of any valid sort, that your claim is valid in the first place. there never has been any evidence that your god exists and, by the same reasoning, that hell, heaven, angels, satan and the soul also are non-existent, and plainly bare-faced lies to boot. in reality, if you think about it, everyone is an atheist toward other gods, do you believe in allah?, i just take it one god further.