There’s something many Christians don’t realize, and many atheists don’t talk about: it is very hard, scary, and time-consuming to leave your faith and become an atheist. Becoming an atheist (or agnostic, polytheist, etc.) tears at the fabric of your personal identity, rips out all the mental, emotional, and (il)logical safeguards you previously placed your faith in, and decimates your support networks and communities. As a former Christian, I know this firsthand. And it frustrates me that this isn’t talked about more, among Christians and among atheists. So here I am, talking about it on the internet.
Christianese and The “Lazy Atheist”
The Christian community has an extensive lexicon of terms and phrases, something I like to affectionately call “Christianese.” Christianese does some pretty silly things with the English language. It puts prepositions in strange places — only in youth group do you “love on” someone, a term that is both puzzling and slightly pornographic. Christianese also peppers sentences with unnecessary proper nouns and adverbs — “Lord, just…” is a common way to start every sentence in a group prayer.
Christianese also has a selection of phrases for people who leave the faith, including: “backslidden,” (primarily Old Testament) “fallen away” (primarily New Testament) or “lapsed” (primarily institutional). These words all suggest that to leave the faith is an act of laziness, weakness, or lack of trying. If you no longer climb up, you slide back. If you no longer hold on, you fall away. If you no longer adhere to a set of rules or responsibilities, you have lapsed. With this kind of language ingrained in the Christian community, it’s no wonder that they view people who walk away as being weak (either mentally, emotionally, or spiritually). This couldn’t be further from the truth, but the subtle negging of this particular mind game is admittedly brilliant.
Becoming An Atheist Is A Struggle
Listen, leaving a faith you grew up in is not an easy thing. It’s a painful, introspective, self-aware process wherein you strip yourself down to your elements and reassemble yourself piece by piece. It will inevitably include feelings of panic, loss, guilt, anger, frustration, and betrayal, none of which are pleasant and all of which need to be worked through sufficiently before finally coming to terms with your atheism. You will be forced to wade through conversation after frustrating conversation with other Christians — in small group, in church, over lunch with friends, in lecture halls — where the questions eating away at your mind are dismissed with the same Bible verses or institutional catchphrases. Even at my college, surrounded by some of the most intelligent minds in Christian academia, I walked away with either insubstantial fluff or mind-bending interpretive theories, both of which left me wanting to pull my hair out.
Becoming an atheist doesn’t happen overnight, either (although terms like “backsliding” and “falling away” make it sound like a quick, split-second kind of thing). The process of leaving the faith can take years. I started having those first deep, world-shaking questions about my faith four years ago. I’m still adjusting to this new life, weeding out old biases, teaching myself that cosmic guilt is unnecessary. I’ve listened to the many debates, read dozens of books, watched hundreds of videos, inspected multiple holy texts, exposed myself to innumerable worldviews, and exhausted most of my close friends (both religious and otherwise) with persistent conversations on the subject. It’s time-consuming and intentional. It’s not a slip-up, not a mistake, not a lack of attention or concentration, and certainly not weakness.
Choosing To Stay An Atheist Is A Struggle, Too
Once you become an atheist, choosing to stay one presents its own challenges, which require strength and mental clarity. If you come from a background of faith, you will find that the people who used to be your greatest support system either vanish, become hostile, or look at you differently. Sure, the lucky atheists among us might have family or friends that accept them and love them regardless of their lack of faith, but the point remains: you now embody everything they think is wrong with the world. You are now, more or less, the “enemy,” the thing their God said to watch out for. If you are not hated, you are pitied. And you are always, always to be disproved, by word, deed, or prayer.
There are also very personal reasons staying an atheist is hard. If you’re going through a difficult time in your life, it’s really hard to no longer be able to feel like a higher power is watching out for you. If something bad happens to someone you care about and you can’t be there, you feel at a loss to help because you no longer believe prayer works. If someone asks you “Why do I face this challenge?” or “What happens after death?” the answers get a lot more tricky. (On the other hand, questions like “Why do bad things happen to good people?” get a lot easier to answer.) These are trying experiences, especially when you used to feel connected, safe, like you had the answers.
Atheism Is Worth The Struggle
So, why become and stay an atheist? It’s different for different people, and I can only speak for myself. I went to a Christian college where we were encouraged to ask hard questions about faith and the Bible. (PERSONAL NOTE: We weren't) I asked the questions that didn’t have acceptable answers. Believe me, I looked for those answers. If you could have seen 20-year-old Vi staggering out of the library with a dozen thick tomes on the subject of God, you would have laughed. I decided I couldn’t logically come to the conclusion that God existed (at least in the form that Christians claimed He did). It wasn’t even a choice at that point. My brain literally wouldn’t allow me to reenter that warm, fuzzy world of faith, even if I’d wanted to. It was like waking up from a dream and not being able to fall back to sleep.
Once that happened and I came to terms with that loss, I realized that other things I had been living with — a pervasive sense of inherent dirtiness or unworthiness, fear of the corrupt outside world, the ghostly promise of societal persecution, the mental gymnastics required to morally justify Hell, the concept of sin itself — had been lifted from me. The freedom and lightness of being that I’ve felt since then is rivaled only by my newfound ease of mind and spirit. But the point is that this did not happen all at once, it did not happen without sacrifice, and certainly did not happen without years of critical thought and work that continues to this day.
A Call To All Christians With Atheists In Their Lives (AKA All Of Them)
Dear Christians, atheists know you will never agree with them about their lack of belief. Reasonable atheists don’t expect you to. We are grateful when we can have civil conversations about our differences without fear or anger. But the one thing you can do for the atheists in your life (and no matter how insulated in the community you are, I guarantee you have atheists in your life) is respect the intentionality of walking away. We are not weak. We’ve done a very difficult thing, something many people wouldn’t even dare to do. At least give us the courtesy of acknowledging that.
60 comments:
That's actually a very shallow article. It conflates the intellectual act of rejecting supernatural hokum with the social pressure not to act on your atheistic beliefs. In fact, contrary to the article's premise, it is quite easy to become an atheist, and even the ACOG ministry has its share of them. What's harder is to pick and choose aspects of your Christian life that you want to hold on to as an atheist, even if those aspects (ideas, jobs, friends) are incompatible with your atheism. Especially if you have been a minister in a church that places high value on ministry, you may not be used to people saying "No" to your requests, and you may have trouble processing the idea that you can't always get what you want. Especially if you want to transition from "ministering Christian" to "ministering atheist" you may need to let go of a lot more than just your belief. I know ACOG families that make room for family members who have left the ACOGs and embraced Catholicism, Buddhism, homosexuality, multi-level marketing schemes, etc. As long as the ex-ACOG person respects the beliefs and values and personal boundaries of the still-believing friends or relatives, things can go fine. Problems are inevitable and understandable, however, when the ex-ACOG-member retains his zealous desire to badger you with his beliefs, except that he is now pushing NoGod instead of BibleGod. Pretty much the whole article comes down to two words in the final paragraph: "reasonable atheists." Reasonable atheists won't have the problems mentioned in the article; the ones who'll have problems are the zealots who assume that because they are now atheists they are the arbiters of reason, and who as a result treat theists as proselytes or fools.
The best part of being atheist is that you don't have to pay someone every week to tell you who you are supposed to look down on or even hate. I don't mention my lack of faith unless religion is brought up repeatedly. People react with shock, wondering how I can't believe since I am the nicest person they know. When the conversation is over they realize that their distrust of atheists wasn't because of personal experience, but because of a lifetime of blatant and subtle slams against atheists from their religious leaders. Atheists are the last remaining demographic they can slam from the pulpit with impunity, but that is slowly changing.
When a person I just met asks... "What church do you go to?" I always tell them that I go to the Church of the Damned. They act shocked, and I explain that people who ask that are trying to categorize others by their religion and see whether they are in the true religion like them, or a false religion like all others. My answer just gets right to the point, that in their minds I would be damned, simply for not believing like they do. I am glad that almost every time that this has happened they could see my point.
"We’ve done a very difficult thing" which is to blind yourself to the evidence of a designer all around you that is mentioned in Romans 1. Spend an hour or two watching YouTube animations of the inner workings of a cell. Micro Biology shows the incredibly complex Mind of our Creator. Yes, Man made religion is almost all BS. God's plan seems to let Mankind be completely clueless as how the Salvation (Transformation) Process works until the intervention of the 2nd Coming. Who am I to debate that plan with the Creator of a Universe for the purpose of God adding to His Family by transforming clay models into "spirit".
The designation "atheist" is used in a very loose way and that is reflected in Dennis' article. If you are an atheist, you have convincing proof that god, in all forms, does not exist. If you have this proof, you should send it to Richard Dawkins because he doesn't have it. That's why he is an agnostic and not and atheist. He would be glad to receive this proof and no doubt would widely publish it.
If you claim to be an atheist but don't have incontrovertible proof that god does not exist you need to reclassify yourself as an agnostic or admit that your atheism is an article of faith and not demonstrable truth. Hence, many assert that this will to believe makes atheism a kind of "godless religion" and not a great truth.
On the other hand, I am a Christian Theist and I cannot prove to anyone that God exists. My conviction is personal and experiential. Yet within the pale of human systematic knowledge, it seems to me that the weight of evidence and of philosophy is on the side of Theism.
Some observations:
1. Denying Christianity alone does not justify atheism.
2. Finding what you believe to be an error in the Bible does not justify atheism.
3. Discovering that the "church" did some vile things in history does not justify atheism.
4. The list could go on - what justifies atheism is being able to demonstrate in a repeatable way that god does not exist.
There is another way of looking at this. One can be a atheist when it comes to a holy book, but be agnostic (can't prove for or against a higher power) on the subject of "God." One can also be a deistic without the bible God.
"The belief that God has created the universe but remains apart from it and permits his creation to administer itself through natural laws. Deism thus rejects the supernatural aspects of religion, such as belief in revelation in the Bible (see also Bible), and stresses the importance of ethical conduct."
Dennis:
Are you a Laodicean Atheist or a Philadephian Atheist?
Inquiring minds need to know!
Oh? We need to reclassify ourselves? You don't say.
Thankfully, NEO is not the arbiter and dictator of how words are used.
As ever, we have the ignorant NEO to set us all straight. Not to say that I don't understand NEO's ignorance on this topic. I do, because when I was a believer like he is, I was just as ignorant about these labels too.
I am 6/7 on the Dawkins Scale, similar to Dawkins himself. The way these labels are used reflects how probable we figure it is that there exists a god—any god.
We do not use the label "atheism" to indicate dogmatic certainty, because, on what subject do human beings possess dogmatic certainty? On what topic are humans in possession of "demonstrable truth"?
While I can appreciate that it might "seem" to NEO that the weight of "evidence" is on the side of something which he admits is not provable (because of an utter lack of evidence, btw), those of us who are not NEO do not take NEO's feelings on this matter as evidence of anything.
Thanks for your observations NEO. I guess you must think you're pretty original, huh.
Clearly we have a had one mans agenda force fed to us for, some of us, over 50 years. We all became arrogant and authoritarians to our non believing families and friends, trying to get them to come over to our side of thinking. Well, it was joyfully liberating for me to know it isn't my concern what anyone believes or doesn't believe. Whether it is "Christian" to follow the golden rule, or Jewish, or Muslim, be it gay or straight, it ain't my job to offer my opinion. If you don't believe in God, and live a decent, caring existence, what's that to me? And I certainly don't need to explain and excuse my beliefs to you either. We will or won't find out someday, it's that simple.
""We’ve done a very difficult thing" which is to blind yourself to the evidence of a designer all around you that is mentioned in Romans 1."
It's so cute, christians thinking cosmological arguments are evidence of a christian god, but not the gods of other religions or a deistic god.
Breaking with Worldwide had it's difficult aspects, but I soon built a new life based at first on agnosticism and finally on full blown humanistic atheism. I maintained morality by following humanist principles of ethics. They blended perfectly with my sense of fairness and human concern for others.
Basically, I was born to be a free thinker and it didn't take long for that propensity to lead me all the way out of the delusions of faith. It didn't happen overnight, and the process is ongoing. My Facebook page will show anyone that. It's under Allen C. Dexter if you're interested.
I heard a few guys in Auschwitz found convincing evidence that no god in any form exists.
I also heard many had their prayers answered and claim that only miracles attest to them being alive.
Others say Dunkirk was a miracle while Stan Rader translated a book that claimed it was the Belgian Army keeping the germans at arms length providing that miracle for the British. Churchill said belgian surrender was a betrayal, hwa befriended the king by recognizing that they surrendered late just before being grinded themselves.
What is true is in the eye of the beholder. I wont argue believers. You do or you don"t.
Nck
Dennis, thank you for posting this article concerning many difficult aspects of "becoming an atheist/agnostic". I agree with NEO's comments regarding the difference between an atheist and agnostic. Some may try to convince themselves there is no God, but no one has any absolute proof one way or the other. From my perspective there is no real evidence He is alive, or at all involved with our world or universe today, but, on the other hand, the universe and life do exist without any other genuine explanation. I agree, atheism is a belief of faith, hence a type of religion. Saying "I don't know" is not a religion or statement of faith. The agnostic simply says, "I don't know".
I was introduced to Armstongism at age 16, a junior in high school. My second year at Ambassador College I was baptized after a complete indoctrination (brainwashing). It took me another two years of college and seven years of employment to realize I had been completely duped by an ad-man. I had lots of company. Thirteen years down the drain.
Unfulfilled prophecy, lying co-worker letters, misuse of church funds, double standards, abuse of church members and employees, scandals in the ministry, revising doctrines, oppressive church government; these were the ingredients prevalent in Armstrongism I could no longer ignore. I remember telling the god I believed in at the time, "If this is your work, I want nothing to do with you. You can burn me up." Does anyone think this is not a difficult realization for a 29 year-old man with a wife and three small children?
Around twenty years later, I began attending church on Sundays with my new wife and her two children. This continued for several years, and to a degree, I "believed" in God, the Bible as His Word, and Jesus as my Savior. When I retired in 2005, my remaining beliefs began to face a challenge. I had time to investigate the origins of the Bible, and see that a book I had been taught was the inspired "Word of God" was no such thing.
I was consumed in trying to understand the basis for religion. The more I read, the more reality became obvious and I began to find freedom from this man-made belief system. It was difficult, sometimes frightening and often lonely.
Step one was out of Armstrongism, and step two was out of religion (Christianity).
I am non-confrontational, and I don't try to show other people what I have learned. They don't want to know. Christians tend to be closed-minded and uninterested in anything that may force them to question their cherished beliefs. Atheists are similar.
I am a bit of a closet agnostic, as I still go to church with my wife. I go only to be with her, not to deceive anyone. I cringe at some of the things I hear. She understands my lack of belief, and probably prays that I will return to the Christian religion some day. I can never not see what I have seen, so that cannot happen, unless Jesus returns and tells me to repent. I am waiting.
In summary, this transition was difficult, and can be lonely. I am thankful for my intellectual freedom, and hope for the day when humanity will be made free from dogma, stupid rules and the belief in books made Holy by some silly decree.
My intellectual and philosophical world is a bit lonely at times, but the freedom of thought and imagination is worth the uncertainty. I will admit that some Christians may be happier in their belief than I in my unbelief, but I would never go back.
As long as you are sure the Bible is God's Word, you will always try to make sense of it, and believe it was written for your edification. This activity wastes your time and keeps you trapped in an endless cycle. I'm sorry if this seems offensive, but it is simple reality. The Bible was written by and for people who lived thousands of years in the past.
If there is life after death, I will be happy and amazed. If not, that's okay too.
Sorry to go on. Just felt a need to share.
The article doesn’t apply to us. The classic HWA indoctrination program completely destroyed, in advance, everything else as possible alternatives. So upon leaving, there was nothing left. It was easy-peasy to become an atheist or at the very least an agnostic, especially in the aftermath of a spiritual gang rape.
During the ‘80s and ‘90s, I was a passive atheist who secretly believed that the world would be better off if all religion disappeared from the face of the earth, and if Jerusalem were actually nuked. It was a time of personal purification during which I was able to recover from the mind-fuck, and then re-examine everything from a fresh perspective. I had no idea that people actually studied principles of atheism, that there were websites dedicated to it (many peppered with frequent outrageous profanity), and that the apologetics of these sites actually rivalled Christian apologetics.
There is no direct parallel between Armstrongism and any other mind-scams. Armstrongism was a totally unique rip-off, a defective product which when practiced in accordance with its manufacturer’s directions always brought misery and failure into its followers lives. Ex-members going to the polar opposite of all of the thought processes was totally understandable.
BB
Anonymous 10:45 ….
Sorry, something I wrote must have struck home and put you on the defensive. Weeding through your palaver, I did not seem to find an argument of any value there.
Let's put it this way. If someone stands up, throws out their chest in a public forum, and proclaims themselves an unequivocal atheist, I think most people expect them to have something more than a collection of intuitive feelings to back that up. If not, their chestiness can shrink back to its normal size and they can be on their way.
Byker Bob on May 9, 2019 at 1:39 PM said...
“The classic HWA indoctrination program completely destroyed, in advance, everything else as possible alternatives. So upon leaving, there was nothing left....There is no direct parallel between Armstrongism and any other mind-scams. Armstrongism was a totally unique rip-off, a defective product which when practiced in accordance with its manufacturer’s directions always brought misery and failure into its followers lives.”
Oh, yes, life is hard.
Well, consider all the usual mind-scams and rip-offs and defective products of traditional professing “Christianity,” and the misery and failure that they have brought into the lives of their followers, and especially all the trouble they have caused for true Christians. Most of the problems that true Christians have in western societies are caused by professing “Christians.”
The really strange thing is that the Roman Catholic Church is full of abominations that go totally against the teachings of the Bible. From Sabbath breaking and Sunday-keeping, to idolatry, to eating every unclean creature, to unbiblical, pagan-based customs like X-mass, Easter, and Halloween, to weird ideas about heaven and hell, to supposedly celibate but actually sexually active homosexual pedophile priests, the RCC is full of evil.
The RCC's numerous Protestant daughter churches have as official beliefs and practices many of the same sins as their mother church. The popular televangelists are all about money.
I find it absolutely amazing that a couple billion professing “Christians” can be so ignorant of the Bible. When they do hear about God's laws, they actually hate them. No wonder evilutionists think that religious people lack sense. Professing “Christians” appear to be neither knowledgeable nor honest. In many cases, they also lack basic decency. Of course, the path of evilution also leads only to utter depravity of the worst sort. HWA would say that most people simply are not being called by God now in this age and are actually blinded to the truth.
A further problem is that when the Tkaches did their Great Apostasy in 1995, and the “falling away” happened in the WCG, former members did not know where to go. Vicious false prophets like Flurry and Pack were waiting to prey on them and tear them to pieces, and pretend that they were doing it in HWA's name. Rebels and scoundrels of all sorts tried to carve off pieces of the WCG for themselves to live off of. The largest splinter groups were relatively small and yet full of enough godless people to lead to further splintering. This would be what HWA would call the Laodicea era of the church, where every tiny little splinter group thinks that it is rich, increased with goods, and has need of nothing, but where they all really are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked.
So, yes, life is hard.
Try to endure unto the end.
May 9, 2019 at 4:15 PM
Writes "Try to endure unto the end."
You are someone who never figured out you were being scammed by the armstrongs.
"Endure to the end" is good advice, if you don't postpone or otherwise delay the end. If you get out now, you WILL have endured to the end!
May 9, 2019 at 5:45 PM said...“You are someone who never figured out you were being scammed by the armstrongs.”
The RCC scams too. So do the Protestants. The televangelists are infamous.
Do you have a favorite poison?
The definitions for atheist and agnostic are commonly misunderstood in the way the NEO does.
A "theist" is someone who believes in a god. The prefix "a-" in "atheist" does not mean "against", rather it means "not". So an "atheist" is someone who does _not_ believe in a god. The term "atheist" encompasses those who meet the commonly misunderstood definition of the word by firmly believing that god does not exist, but also includes those who haven't accepted claims that a god exists because they see no evidence for one but would change their mind given acceptable evidence.
The word "gnostic" refers to someone who thinks they have sufficient knowledge to determine what they do or don't believe. So there are gnostic atheists and agnostic atheists. And as well gnostic theists and agnostic theists. Self-recognized agnostic theists are probably pretty rare, although I think many theists are really agnostic because their theistic beliefs are held by inertia from their childhood indoctrination and they not thought through the issue well. There are also those indoctrinated in childhood who are gnostic theists having convinced themselves after reaching adulthood that there is enough evidence for a god.
Becoming an atheist can be easy or difficult. We are actually all born as atheists -- no one is born with a belief in any god, it is only later that someone acquires a belief, usually by parental indoctrination. People who were theists again become atheists once they lose that belief, but overcoming indoctrination can be difficult. People's thinking doesn't usually turn on a dime. Theism can lead to automatic thought patterns that have to be consciously overcome.
The other difficulty in becoming an atheist is in the strain on social relationships. A lot of that depends on how the new atheist behaves as the non-conformist in a larger group. Evangelism doesn't usually go over well.
There may be two steps to the transition, at least there was in my case. I first rejected Armstrongism and then over time rejected claims for the existence of a god and the validity of holy books. But many reject a particular religion but not the existence of a god and continue to believe that the Bible is true, continuing on to other religions in the hope that one of them has figured out the meaning of the Bible.
I mostly get along with my family still in various ACOGs. We can calmly discuss religion to a certain level without getting into an argument. Socially I run into quite a few theists in one of the mainstream Christian religions, but I don't evangelize there either. A bit of an awkward moment when a church lady friend lost her father. I was about to offer a few words of sympathy when she came out with "I know he's in heaven" which kind of set me back at a loss for what to say -- I ended up not saying anything. I also "bite my tongue" a lot with what they say, no point in getting into a wrangle.
4.15 PM
Reading your post, I get the impression that you are trying to whitewash HWA. I remind you that God holds HWA responsible for the tyrannical church culture. In the parable of the talents, members are told to trade. Trade means making ones best judgment. HWA said no, the ministers will make your judgments for you. Character built is worthless unless one can give expression to it. The faith without works thingy. So minister tyranny in effect robbed members of their character.
One cannot grow or utilize ones character, not according to HWA. All in the name of 'government (ie, tyranny) is everything,' or 'administering Gods government'.
HWA attacked Christianity at its core. He will not be in the kingdom! His name will be justly despised throughout eternity.
You only get persecuted for your belief or nonbelief if you are polarized and vocal about it.
Also, once Armstrongism has given you DSM IV Axis II personality disorders, so that you can no longer have close personal relationships, the opinions of others are irrelevant. I have never been able to understand how a person’s family can keep them in an ACOG, when Armstrongism through its false loyalty system negated the strength of influence which family normally has. If I am ever going to make a decision or do something, extended family is never an issue or consideration, even today. I’d never do anything deliberate to harm or spite them, but really don’t care about their opinions of me. They are just people I either know, or in most cases, people I’ve known in the past.
BB
Where is the one true church? The one thing in common with the COG splinters, JWs, many of the other Christian churches, and non-Christian groups, is only they have the true religion.
Most religions started many years ago.
Most have the principle of loving your fellow man (even if they go about killing them because of religion).
It seems that mankind needs religion, so when a suitable religion was invented, it became popular within the geographic area it started in and spread to nearby areas. Some religions were successful in promoting themselves by military conquest.
Now I do not believe that life as we know it started by accident and randomly mutated.
Religion attempts to answer this question.
Science attempts to dodge it.
The truth in my opinion is still unknown.
My guess is there is an energy based life form who started physical life as we know it.
Why did it take so long to go from one celled life forms? Maybe time as we know it is not the same for all forms of life.
We are far too complex to have evolved with no creator.
Anonymous,May 9, 2019 at 10:20 PM, said too Anon 4:15 PM the following:
"...Reading your post, I get the impression that you are trying to whitewash HWA. I remind you that God holds HWA responsible for the tyrannical church culture..."
HWA is dead. Wages of sin is death. Wages paid! So, why would God hold HWA "responsible" for anything? How about you? You have your sins too, with identical wages to pay as was for HWA. How will you get around that? Should you be help responsible for sins in your life?
Anon 10:20 PM went on to say: "...In the parable of the talents, members are told to trade..."
Everything Christ said was in parables. The parable of the talents isn't about "members" trading or, for that matter, human beings. It's about something else.
Anon 10:20 PM went on to say: "...HWA said no, the ministers will make your judgments for you..."
Where did HWA say that? Many of HWA's "little helpers," hirelings did do a lot of wacky things, but HWA didn't tell them to do those things.
Here's one example of what HWA did write to us [[Reference: The Good News, Vol VI Number 1 January 1957 article titled "Christ Did Put Authority and Rule in His Church"]] regarding the ministry:
"...Does God's RULE in His Church give ministers authority to intervene even in affairs of the personal life of members?
The answer is, YES, but of course rarely)', and only in extreme cases where this is necessary. Paul said, "this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should they eat. For we hear that there arc some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies." (II Thes. 3: 10-11).
That is a command that the Church is to command such to work, and if they do not, to take from them all aid given by the Church to help feed them.
God's ministers arc required to use wisdom and judgment, and they are never going to interfere in private lives unless there is a Bible reason..."
Anon 10:20 PM went on to say: "...HWA attacked Christianity at its core. He will not be in the kingdom! His name will be justly despised throughout eternity..."
And you, Anon 10:20, will be the one who will despise HWA throughout eternity? What a waste of time!
If you, Anon 10:20, were to be judged with the same judgment/standard/blame you put on HWA, why wouldn't you join him? You both will pay the wages for sin! Sin is sin! Is God a God of double jeopardy when it comes to imputing sins on you? How would you like to worship a god like that?
Thankfully, you will not despise HWA later like you do now, and one day you will appreciate these words of the Apostle Paul about what God was doing for us:
"To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them..." 2 Cor 5:19
Time will tell...
John
Personally my agnosticism/atheism (I don't actually need anyone else defining me thanks) is not based in "Armstrongism" and some unique experience with it. My background is more broad and inquisitive than that and always was. My religious background is both Dutch Reformed up until the time I wholeheartedly into WCG. I knew the Bible and had large parts of it memorized and I mean whole chapters from age 7 on, as well as the Westminster Confession of Faith as a child. Dutch Reformed Catechism makes any indoctrination by WCG look silly by comparison. The amount of time I spent in church, catechism and church affiliated school before WCG was every bit as equal if not more on every Sunday. I did get kicked out of catechism class a couple of times for asking too many questions if that helps :)
My love of science has ever been with me. In my youth, no one actually took the Adam and Eve tales as literally true. The Dutch, which I am, are not easily lulled into non-critical thinking. I have written as to what about WCG drew me so I spare you.
BB is the only person I know who went through the "Was a Christian (WCG) Now and Atheist and Back to Christian" cycle. With all due respect, BB's experience does seem based on his WCG experience and when discovering the other Christian alternative beliefs and environments, found them to cancel out a fleeting disillusionment with his own experience in WCG. While atheism might not apply to "us" as BB noted. It does for me because I had a much more broad exposure to religion and not limited to WCG. If I am mistaken BB, I am just noting your comments.
Personally I can't imagine going back to Christianity and what would be believing what I know ain't so as Mark Twain said. I am currently satisfied with my scientific outlook as to origins and my theological views as to the problems with the Biblical text, actual origins of the book as well as the politics of both the OT and NT. It took a long time to get back to my evidence based tendencies which I suppressed in favor of WCG. Trust me, I sat through many a class or comment on anti science/evolution/geology etc in full skeptic mode. I listened to HWA rant about how Dinosaurs could not reproduce just as Satan could not and were Satan's creation when that very day watering plants in his office I saw National Geographic revealing the first fossilized dino eggs! lol. The article must have set him off.
Anyway, my atheism is based on many life experienced both as a person and as a pastor seeing people play out their faith, often to no avail as well as my love of the "..ologies"
It is neither flippant nor shallow. It is not based in one religious experience.
Had I chosen Roberts Weslyan Seminary, where I was also accepted, over WCG, I suspect my life path would not have been much different, but just with different players and experiences.
I went to AC thinking it was a church seminary as well and had every intention of going into ministry. When GTA announced to get that idea out of my head, I recall thinking, "we'll see."
And too, as someone else in ministry noted, I never saw a genuine healing that could not be explained naturally either through normal healing or in many cases death to the one asking to be anointed and healed.
I buried a lot of children who died in terrible ways and I mean terrible with no interventions though they are said to have angels in heaven etc (Matt 18:10) I have been pounded on by grieving mothers as the symbol of what should not happen only to have them crumple in my arms apologizing and telling me they know they don't go to church, pray or study as they should. Grieving church members always look for a reason THEY failed and never for long wonder about why their God failed to deliver.
That's just how I filter my experiences and why "Pious conviction with marginal information" or perhaps faith as we know it does not inspire me. If you can't show it, you don't really know it, and all that.
I don't believe if there is a God, distant and uninvolved as it might be, it will be too upset with me if I endeavored to "prove me now hear with" and it failed terribly. "By their fruits you shall know them." That I believe.
Dennis
The Reformed Church actually employes ministers that openly declare themselves agnostic.
Atheist did pose a problem but hey the University education beats the crap out of any belief that an aspiring minister might harbor after the initial calling. :-) :-)
I also know of female former business HR and Psychology majors now ministering in said church, all extremely practical in their aproach and willing to go real deep if a person expresses interest in the more mysterious aspects of religion.
No wonder WCG and a Reformed Church of America minister competed for the no 1 position in tv arbitron ratings.
I do get the journey you are making and expect you to secretly listen or watch "Songs of Praise" at times, perhaps even during typing an atrocious attack on christianity, hearkening to the former days and harboring inconsistencies that can be reconciled in the background you are from. But I may be mistaken I'm just an amateur psycho-behavioralist.
Anyway, love you bro.
nck
Atheist or agnostic? I think for orderly discourse we should follow the traditional meanings of these words or we end up doing a lot of shadow boxing. Someone who asserts the proposition that "god does not exist" is an atheist. But in this declaration they immediately acquire, in a public forum, an obligation to explain how they know god does not exist. Further, they have an obligation to explain what they mean by the term "god." Without unpacking these ideas, there is a great expanse for presumption and miscommunication.
The issue of classification may be off topic for the writer - but it is disconcerting for all if someone claims atheism and then talks up agnosticism.
In most cases, a better term is "Non-believer", a simple term that has no implicit commitment to proofs, philosophy, logic or comprehensive research. And it is a viewpoint that is formed in reaction to Christianity. It also may not be preferred because it has no cachet of academics like "atheism" and "agnosticism." Most of the material I have read by purported "atheists" on this blog makes me think they are simply Non-believers.
One may contend that there is free speech and "I can call myself whatever I want" but one must then accept the consequence that they will be either misunderstood or adjudged to be naïve.
I don't believe if there is a God, distant and uninvolved as it might be, it will be too upset with me if I endeavored to "prove me now hear with" and it failed terribly. "By their fruits you shall know them." That I believe.
Agreed. I do not believe that we human beings, living in four dimensions in a 10-dimension universe, can possibly know whether or not there is a "God" that created or simply administrates that universe. What do the bacteria in your stomach know about the zodiac? As human beings, we are bacteria in the stomach of the universe. At some point, when we no longer see through a glass darkly, I will act on the information I then have. For now, my intuition tells me that there must be a higher intelligence at work in the universe, whether or not it is a Creator God. But I do not have any information proving that I should pray toward Mecca, or fast on the Day of Atonement, or chant Nam Myoho Renge Kyo, or whatever the various purported gods require of us. So, I must instead show my faith, such as it is, by my works.
Many "religious" people use their religion as an excuse for not being the best people they can be. "God understands," they say. Or "God forgives." Others live in dreadful fear that God will smite them for not being the best people they can be. Far better, as an agnostic, to simply do the best I can, being realistic about my faults and limitations while always striving to do better.
7:46 makes my 6:59 point that is it reconcilable, I thought it was but I was physically limited to express it in words but did express my faith in the reconcilability anyway, or perhaps it was a symbiosis between my brain and fingers for some higher purpose, I don't know.
nck
NCK. A well done How Great Thou Art and other classic hymns of my youth can puddle me up. Climbing Through the Windows Leap and Twas Not A Foe... Not so much! Lol
I'm probably more an agnostic unbeliever
"I don't believe if there is a God, distant and uninvolved as it might be, it will be too upset with me if I endeavored to "prove me now hear with" and it failed terribly..."
"For now, my intuition tells me that there must be a higher intelligence at work in the universe, whether or not it is a Creator God. But I do not have any information proving that I should pray..."
You may be in a bind with these viewpoints. The NT maintains that there is only one name under heaven by which you may be saved. Further, North American evangelicalism, among other accepted forms of Christianity, maintains that the decision to follow Christ must be made within the bounds of this lifetime. I am an evangelical universalist (e.g., Hart, Parry, Talbott) so I do not believe these ideas. I am just telling you what the typical line of reasoning is.
It'll all come out in the wash. Or maybe not.
Why does NEO conflate the existence of God with the existence of NewTestamentGod? Most people who believe in God reject NewTestamentGod, yet they are very happy with their belief in God.
There have been other posters over the years who went from non-belief back into mainstream Christianity, but they went on with their lives, and quit participating in the blogs. Presumably, they received healing from the ill effects of the cult.
Initially, I had difficulty understanding why former WCG members would become involved in Catholicism, but then I studied the unbroken chain of leaders from the original apostles, to the ones they hand-picked, and the individuals they hand-picked, eventually leading right up into the Catholic Church. Eventually, there was the Reformation. There is history and practical application of scripture in existence to support a wide variety of churches and beliefs, and it has always has been this way. Best course is to look to conscience and the good fruits which flow from peoples’ lives. Prophecy over the past 50 years has been a non-starter and didn’t get the job done.
BB
"Atheist or agnostic?...a better term is 'Non-believer...'"
"None," "nonbeliever," "unbeliever," "agnostic," "infidel," "apostate," "heretic," "heathen," ... or even worse, "atheist"! Heavens! Where are my clutching pearls?
I am willing to proudly wear any of these labels, as there's a good case to be made for each and every one of them.
"one must then accept the consequence that they will be either misunderstood...'"
So adorable how you assume we don't know this...
"...or adjudged to be naïve.'"
So adorable how you don't perceive your own display of abject naïveté as an outsider didactically handing down pronouncements about which labels the atheist community "should" and "should not" not use to describe themselves, while displaying complete ignorance about the reasons why they use already them in the ways they do.
#irony
"Why does NEO conflate the existence of God with the existence of NewTestamentGod?"
If you follow the thread of what I wrote, I am doing the opposite. I am saying that some people reject the Christian God and then believe they are atheists. That is not atheism. If someone rejects Shiva only does that make him/her an atheist?
"So adorable how you don't perceive your own display of abject naïveté as an outsider..."
There may be idiosyncratic, pet usages of terminology within the atheist camp for all I know. I am using the terminology that is current among modern philosophers. If you enter into the public forum, you need to drop the pet usages and communicate so that you can be understood.
Privately, you can call yourself an horse apple for all I care.
I am using the terminology that is current among modern philosophers. If you enter into the public forum, you need to drop the pet usages and communicate so that you can be understood.
Have you read Scot Yoder's work on agnosticism, or are you just making $h!t up as far as your supposedly using "terminology that is current among modern philosophers"? Anyone familiar with Yoder would not make the assumptions you're making, and anyone not familiar with Yoder is in no position to pretend to be "using the terminology that is current among modern philosophers." You may fancy yourself knowledgeable within your little bubble of less-knowledgeable folks, but the truth is that the "modern philosophers" don't use terms the way you use them.
Anonymous 6:43
Your attempts to complicate this needlessly is a weak defense. I am using these terms in a way that is compatible with Wikipedia, for instance. You might consider if some consensus might support that kind of publication. I have not and will not read Scott Yoder. Your assertion that one has to read Yoder to understand agnosticism is absurd.
Bye.
I think to be an atheist, you need to be benign about it. Just like I have no opinion about Pastafarians. (maybe it's funny) But if I say "Pastafarians are wrong/useless/deluded, etc..." anything against their beliefs, I step from an a-Pastafarian, to an anti-Pastafarian.
Almost everyone here, especially Dennis, is NOT an atheist, they are anti-theists. They spend time and effort arguing AGAINST the idea of God, religion or anything spiritual. Anti-theists spread their ideas and are actively against God.
Stop pretending to be neutral by claiming to be atheist. Claiming the correct title anti-theist is at least honest.
6.43 PM
Scot Yoder doesn't define the meaning of words or terms. Words are defined by popular usage, ie, they are democratically determined. Another example of present and former Herb members not comprehending freedom, and instead looking to some daddy figure.
Armstrongism is a powerful and long lasting modifier, a modifier which taints all thought processes, with or without the knowledge of the ex-member, especially when there have been 20, 30, or more years of exposure to it, and an individual has actually taught it. There are profound differences between the "science-based" atheist, and the former Armstrongite atheist. Membership in a toxic cult of believers, and the bad and ridiculous experiences suffered during that membership do not an impartial, objective atheist make. The collection of attitudes are similar in effect to bias-confirmation, especially when as earlier noted, all alternatives have been pre-destroyed in the cult's brainwashing processes.
From what I've observed, the good news is that WCG-atheists do retain the majority of the religious values which were part of the programming. Shedding the legalism and authoritarianism do not cause most former members to segue into nihilism. Oddly, we see more examples of nihilism amongst the current ministry and membership of the ACOG splinters.
BB
True 6:43
Besides that Lord Siva and Lord Rama are mentioned in genesis as Put's cousins.
In my opinion proof of how the "heroes of old" as first kings, transferred into Gods ib their respective localities.
Hinduism bears enormous similarity with traditional christianity. For example how all "gods" are mere manifestations of the "One" principle.
That is trinitarianism in the extreme.
Or perhaps a forebode of armstrongism where billions could become god as "sons".
Either way. There is more to be found than superficial framing.
Nck
Hilarious! NEO has backed down from originally saying his usages are "compatible with modern philosophers" to now saying that they are "compatible with Wikipedia." At the same time, he isn't even aware of a very significant modern philosopher writing in the area he thinks he's so knowledgeable about. NEO is a blowhard.
9.28 PM
Of course Dennis is a anti-theist. He is the Pastor General of the We-Steal-Your-Crown Church of God. His sermons appear regularly on this blog.
I am an ex-member of the WCG. I am also an atheist. It is hard to be an atheist when almost all of your family and many of the people you know are religious. I am the one who many times cuts off the conversation when it goes into the direction of religion. To me it is pointless to try to persuade others of my un- belief. What upsets me the most is the common belief among religious people that atheists are unable to show "godly" love toward others because they have no relationship to god. Or that we atheists are unable to be morally upright in our behavior because we don't have a relationship with god. This is nothing but b.s. I believe that atheists are just as able to make good moral and ethical decisions as religious people maybe we atheists are even able to make better moral and ethical decisions because we are not bogged down by harmful religious beliefs that stifle are ability to make good decisions.
I don't stand in judgment of religious people. I have been there and done that so I understand where they come from. I would hope that they would stop judging me as being a heathen wretch. Maybe that is too much to ask considering the nature of religion.
Near_Earth_Object,May 10, 2019 at 7:33 AM, said: "...Atheist or agnostic? I think for orderly discourse we should follow the traditional meanings of these words or we end up doing a lot of shadow boxing. Someone who asserts the proposition that "god does not exist" is an atheist. But in this declaration they immediately acquire, in a public forum, an obligation to explain how they know god does not exist. Further, they have an obligation to explain what they mean by the term "god." Without unpacking these ideas, there is a great expanse for presumption and miscommunication.
The issue of classification may be off topic for the writer - but it is disconcerting for all if someone claims atheism and then talks up agnosticism.
In most cases, a better term is "Non-believer", a simple term that has no implicit commitment to proofs, philosophy, logic or comprehensive research. And it is a viewpoint that is formed in reaction to Christianity. It also may not be preferred because it has no cachet of academics like "atheism" and "agnosticism." Most of the material I have read by purported "atheists" on this blog makes me think they are simply Non-believers.
One may contend that there is free speech and "I can call myself whatever I want" but one must then accept the consequence that they will be either misunderstood or adjudged to be naïve..."
NEO, it is interesting you mentioned the term "Non-believer!"
Did you have the following verse in mind?
"And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power," Ephesians 1:19 and/or Zech 4:6?
If that power isn't there, then how could one really expect to become a believer?
Of course, time will tell...
John
5.34 AM
Can atheists be moral? Technically yes, but if one looks closely, they are typically freeloading on the coattails of the culture created by Christians. This is what happens when a society forsakes God. For one or two generations, the old morals persist, followed by a falling off a moral cliff. Belief in God acts as an anchor which limits moral drift.
Anonymous, May 11, 2019 at 5:34 AM, said: "...I am an ex-member of the WCG. I am also an atheist. It is hard to be an atheist when almost all of your family and many of the people you know are religious. I am the one who many times cuts off the conversation when it goes into the direction of religion. To me it is pointless to try to persuade others of my un- belief. What upsets me the most is the common belief among religious people that atheists are unable to show "godly" love toward others because they have no relationship to god. Or that we atheists are unable to be morally upright in our behavior because we don't have a relationship with god. This is nothing but b.s. I believe that atheists are just as able to make good moral and ethical decisions as religious people maybe we atheists are even able to make better moral and ethical decisions because we are not bogged down by harmful religious beliefs that stifle are ability to make good decisions.
I don't stand in judgment of religious people. I have been there and done that so I understand where they come from. I would hope that they would stop judging me as being a heathen wretch. Maybe that is too much to ask considering the nature of religion..."
******
Anon 5:34 AM, what upsets you the most? Your answer was: "...What upsets me the most is the common belief among religious people that atheists are unable to show "godly" love toward others because they have no relationship to god..."
That is very unfortunate. It makes one wonder just what did Jesus mean when He told His disciples to "love one another." I have only met one individual who professed to be an atheist, a man by the name of Jim Baldwin. I hadn't seen him in 2 to 3 decades...back when he was an elder of the former WCG. I decided to visit him in August 2016, and although he had left the WCG and had "converted" to Atheism, I found him as he was decades earlier: still jovial, happy, still smiling, same voice (of course, less hair...happens to all of us), same sense of humor, but still friendly.
Anon, you continued with writing: "...Or that we atheists are unable to be morally upright in our behavior because we don't have a relationship with god..."
There is a verse in the Bible talking where Solomon was inspired to say God may have some input on being upright (like Job, I suppose):
"Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright..." Eccl 7:29
But, so what? If God makes that happen: fine. If God does not make that happen: fine.
You are correct: there is really no need for us to judge, blame, one another b/c we differ one from another.
Satan is a god of confusion, division, racism with a result seen on this world where brother hates brother, etc. This is not God's world, but God is probably about at meaningful to an atheist as is Satan, so we can "magically"leave that "on the shelf" where people place lots of thoughts.
God does not impute sin on this world, so why do people do that? I like the way the Apostle Paul states the following:
"To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them;..." 2 Corinthians 5:19
If those words are ultimately going to be fulfilled, then there would be no need to judge, blame, or condemn anybody. It makes it easier to fulfill that "love one another."
For the most part, most of us are daily striving to do the best we can with what we have.
But, time will tell...
John
John:
I did not have that particular scripture in mind but I see your point and the scripture fits. "Non-believer" is commonly used among Christians as an encompassing term to refer people who do not believe in Christian theism for a variety of reasons.
Many people I have encountered who profess atheism are better described as non-believers. (In my view, Diehl is a non-believer.) Their rejection of god does not have either the logic or comprehensiveness for the term atheism. Virtually none of them offer any kind of proof that god does not exist and they cannot give you a credible explanation for why they are atheists instead of simply non-believers. Many can give you a reason for why they are soured on Christianity but this rejection of Christianity does not mean that one defaults to atheism.
Some professing atheists seek to ally themselves with scientism. While science seeks to describe reality through use of the scientific method it, alas, is confined to materialism and makes no assessments regarding the existence of any supernatural realm. Hence, the rejection of the supernatural by professing atheists is not rooted in science as they often and erroneously assert. This "leap of faith" from legitimate science to a subjective disbelief in the supernatural has caused some critics to regard atheism as a religion without god.
It has always been puzzling to me why many professing atheists have such an energetic missionary spirit when they have so little to offer. They often speak about how one can be good and moral without god and yet cannot tell you, in their world of materialism, what the terms "good" and "moral" mean or why this path should be pursued.
This debate has gone on and on over the centuries and leads to no resolution to anybody's satisfaction. Some people profess atheism because they want to. For now, that is their prerogative.
Many professing atheists seek to ally themselves with scientism.
What is interesting to me is that in business, dealing with the large number of clients which I do, from all walks of life, I’ve found one thing to be true. I can get along with people of all different philosophies just as long as they are not assholes with it. Unfortunately, most flaming assholes have no clue that that is what they are. They just go around always feeling persecuted, never realizing that they have considerable control over that persecution. Minor tuneup of their approach, and those around them would be far more accepting. No sacrifice of values required. Just don’t be an asshole.
BB
Interesting that the Vikings called their gods, Ass (singular), Aesir (plural)
Nck
In spite of all these comments I still wonder if this planet isn't just kind of cosmic lab &
all of humanity a humongous collection of "lab rats" being tweaked for entertainment?
NEO said "It has always been puzzling to me why many professing atheists have such an energetic missionary spirit when they have so little to offer."
That's true. For some of the deep questions we atheists only have "I don't know as an answer", and we won't offer to do your thinking for you.
For those who require an answer religion offers answers without evidence. For those who don't want to do their own thinking, religion offers people who will do your thinking for you. Religion offers these things, but it doesn't come cheap.
Ex sheeple.
In the past I have commented that science, the universe and Darwin proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that any God must be an agile, scrum master, lean working God, through "(evolutionary) sprints", minimal viable products AND continuous improvements (of character) through continuous feedback loops.
Christianaty incorporated the reality of my theorizing and the facts on the ground, WHAT OTHER THEORY DOES THE MEDIATION EFFORT OF JESUS CHRIST PROVE BUT A FEEDBACKLOOP to the vengefull god of the OT????
Nck
NEO, you use the term "professing atheist" a lot. I looked up the word profess and the result is:
1) to lay claim to, often insincerely; pretend to: He professed extreme regret.
2) to declare openly; announce or affirm; avow or acknowledge: to profess one's satisfaction.
3) to affirm faith in or allegiance to (a religion, God, etc.).
4) to declare oneself skilled or expert in; claim to have knowledge of; make (a thing) one's profession or business.
Which definition do you have in mind when you say "professing atheist"? Why do you need to distinguish "professing atheists" from ..... "non-professing atheists"? If so, what is a "non-professing atheist"? Why not just say "atheist"?
Isn’t “professing” just another way of saying “self-identifying”? Both mean that whatever label is being discussed is what a person calls themselves. A non-professing atheist could simply be someone who doesn’t like marginalizing labels, and won’t allow himself to be put in someone else’s nice neat little box. Most likely, that is where the term agnostic (“without knowing”) came into polite usage. Most agnostics practice a lifestyle which is indistinguishable from the lifestyle of an atheist. It is not as if either type is actively out there looking for alternatives to their nonbelief.
I’ve always liked the Who’s song “The Seeker”. The conclusion is that the seeker won’t get the answers til the day he dies.
BB
I'd like for NEO to answer the question. And questions.
What is NEO's meaning of the adjective? Without clear answers I tend to think he means definition 1 in my prior comment.
To Byker Bob's 7:29 comment I give a rousing "Amen."
"Little to offer." Bwahaha That reminds me of Monthy Pythons "The Life of Brian". What did the Romans ever do for us.................besides, running water, order, peace, buildings......?
What about the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the ideals of the French revolution, the end of the belief that a King ruled by Gods authority......
But hey I like Savonarola and the french parish priest in Les Miserables.
Nck
Got it, Mike. If you get to define the terms and structure, you win. (At least in your own mind). Vintage HWA control methodology.
BB
Post a Comment