Anti-Theist Atheists Invading Liberal Christian Space

EDP FB LC I apologize for any offense ahead of time. Christians are coming to this group because they are runnung from the craziness and pain involved with the right wing conservative christians. It doesn't help them at all to run into members who aren't christian, don't believe, & are just here to argue or assert their own atheist views. We need a place where liberal christians can gather and feel safe because we are running out of places like that. Please ..why make this just another "debate my religion" group? There are billions of those. Can't we have a safe place?

D R The problem with the internet interaction of liberal Christians and atheists (agnostics tend to be very open minded) is that the most common kind of atheist in the net doesn’t just want to tell everyone they are an atheist and why, they want to tell you why all religion is evil and should be disposed of. I have received “objective” posts from atheists with site names attached like “Faith is Mental Illness” and “Religion Must Die.” I’ve even had atheists who claim to be scientific rationalists tell me religion has NEVER created one good thing (pointing out the music of Bach, an end to gladiatorial games in the ancient world, promotion of philanthropy when it was never anything but a minor goddess in pagan Roman religion, the great cathedrals of Europe, none of it penetrated) EVER and that they can use science to prove God does not exist, when science was never designed or intended or is capable of answering metaphysical or theological questions. These people are not interested in coexisting and sharing ideas; they simply want to convert you to their religion, which is a religion of “no God“ in a misinterpretation of science. And they will become extremely hostile if you object or if you point out the their manner of thinking is no different from religious fundamentalists: intolerant, us versus them, complete with their own “sacred” cows. Frankly if that is the kind of atheist who wants in and wants to “argue”, By which what they really mean is convert to their way of thinking, then I don’t want them here and I came here to get away from them. I have no trouble with atheism as a personal choice but when it becomes an evangelical religion it is just as obnoxious as conservative evangelical Christianity.

R C-S I totally agree. BTW, I was raised Catholic ( eww, eww), became an atheist, then gradually grew into agnosticism. I evolved into my beliefs. What I don’t understand is why religion and science can’t get along. As far as I’m concerned, God did the work in 7 days. But those 7days represent billions of years. I just don’t get it. Many scientists are also religious, but not in a rigid way. One I read about said that the more he learned, the closer he felt to God. Now, I consider that to be the best of both worlds.

D R @ R C-S the neo-atheists as I think of them, for atheism has not always been so intolerant, can’t accept that science has limitations on what it can prove. It’s a system of observation and experimentation to understand the natural world, and it has no means available to prove or disprove God’s existence. But I’ve had neoatheists tell me, after teaching at the college level the history of the birth of science by the works of men like Francis Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, Newton and many, others all of whom were men of profound faith, that “obviously I know nothing about science” 🙂. They are some of the most arrogant and intolerant people I’ve ever met, and the ones I know i still communicate with only on non-religious or scientific matters.

Me @ D R I´ve been researching and reflecting deeply on the matter, and find identifying the extremist ideology a helpful first step, and it is "Scientism," an extension of rationalism among other historical forms. Nuclear physicist I Hutchinson has done interesting talks based on his book. There´s another angle that I´ve identified that has a lot to do with Kuhn´s historical and sociological "paradigm" insight as a philosopher and the original terms used for Newton´s field, "Natural Philosophy." "Science" has become popularized as a cultural icon, distorting Science´s actual nature as a form of Philosophy, Scientific Empirical Philosophy. Stanley Jaki has done interesting work on Christianity´s cognitive component assumptions, you may have heard. There other implications, no less. It´s a little more nuanced than "idolatry," and that´s necessary.

M A I think you're describing a tiny subset of aggressively anti-religion atheists, whose volume may make them seem more common than they are. Most atheists are not Richard Dawkins or Ricky Gervais (who is stridently atheist, though his set about Noah's ark is utterly hilarious). I suspect most atheists are just people who haven't been inspired by the Word but have also not been inspired to attack it or its followers.

Me @ M A As a UU Christian, I´ve had my fair share of conflict with anti-theists online, and now online with some UU humanists and all because of identifiable factors. My analysis is like my faith, not traditional theologico-doctrinal, but has developed from a multidisciplinary angle that tells me that materialistic Scientism, whatever its demographic/visibility ratio, has become a mighty characteristic cultural phenomenon wielded by the same forces propping up Fundamentalism as smoke and mirror, profiteering corporatism. Jesus´ spiritual teachings, much forgotten, not only become key references, but an anchor for spiritual modernization concepts. Secularism began as a denomination conflict management strategy, and contributed strongly to fragmentation. That needs to be addressed, ultimately linking Jesus to his legacy in modern University-based, pluralistic, and eclectic society.

Me @ R C-S My dad left Catholicism, but as a post-non-Christian interfaith spiritual seeker plus, I have found some Catholics worthy of more than the selected festering problems in that mammoth. Stanley Jaki is good for Science´ngs Christian roots, for one. I owe a lot to Unitarian Universalism as a framework, although I did later discover that philosopher C Harteshorne, a UU, advanced Process Theology. That comes from Whitehead, another cool brilliant soul. I also recommend Fritjof Capra´s work, although he mostly left Comparative Religion and Science after Tao of Physics. His Systems Theory work is key to filling in gaps. William L Craig´s work, especially his philosophical expertise applied to Physics and the Kalam Cosmological argument is sharp and satisfying to me as an empirically oriented theist. He also makes an interesting point about abstraction and objective reality. You mention the "7 days in God´s terms" thing, which gets at some philosophical stuff if and when you need or want it.