Introduction

[freeway986]

Hi everyone,

I've been reading this board for a little while now, and wanted to get more actively involved in the discussions, so I decided to join up. I thought I'd first tell a little bit about myself, and then give a little information about some goals I have.

I grew up in a small town that was home to a conservative Bible school. My father was a teacher at the school, and I was raised from (probably) inception with scripture verses and Christian teaching. I was a committed Christian for most of my life. I went on missions trips, I went to Bible school (the same one I was raised at) for 3 years, I've read the Bible cover-to-cover at least 4 times. I've prayed and fasted and waited upon the Lord. I was a Christian.

I always had questions about things that didn't make sense (why did Jesus curse the fig tree when it wasn't in season? Why don't we see any miracles now?) and I refused to turn my mind off. I've spent countless evenings wrestling with my friends about what it means to be a Christian and what God is like. I never, however, for one second considered the possibility it wasn't true.

After a particularly frustrating experience wherein I made an ill-advised move across country to start a business, I was really hitting rock-bottom in my faith. I came across a book called "A New Kind of Christian" written by Brian McLaren. This book said that we should be post-modern Christians, that we didn't need to believe that everyone went to hell for eternity. It allowed me breathe again, allowed me to reconcile in my mind my experience (which showed nothing of God or how a Christian world would look) and my faith. Unbeknown to me, this was the beginning of the end of my faith.

From that point on, I was quick to embrace a humanist Christianity, rationalizing all kinds of extravagances in the name of "post-modern Christianity", but finally feeling free and happy. I was a changed man.

The next step in my de-conversion was a healthy dose of science. As a frequent reader of Slashdot, I had noticed a lot of anti-Christian posts advocating the evidence for Evolution. I knew nothing about it beyond what I leaned at Bible school. Following a Slashdot link, I ended up at talkorigins.org, reading a post that, point-by-point, tore to shreds the very text book we had used at Bible school. I was stunned. The logic and evidence presented made the depth of my ignorance plain. And it was painful to see. From that point on, I threw myself into reading about evolutionary theory, Dawkin's The Selfish Gene made quite an impression on me. I read Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth (pocm.info, a fantastic site, if you can ignore the horrid lay-out) from start to finish, devoured whywontgodhealamputees.com, and finally bought a copy of Dawkin's The God Delusion. By the end of the book I knew I was probably an atheist and my whole world perspective had changed. I still thought I might be wrong, and that worried me a little. But that changed soon as well.

The next step was reading Hitchen's God Is Not Great, and I realized that not only was I an atheist, even if I was wrong and God existed, he was evil and I was against him. This was a huge step for me, and one that actually brought a lot of peace to my life.

That was about 3 years ago. From that point on I've been reading and learning and thinking and talking to my friends and family, and it's been a wonderful experience.

Okay, we're getting perilously close to TL:DR here, so I'll try to focus.

My personality type is "Idealist Dreamer". I like to think about the best thing that could possibly happen, and then try to make it happen. Here are my plans.

1. I think atheists need to move past the "we're against Christians (or whatever religion)" and into the "we're for humans". This is why I try to remember to call myself a humanist. I want to be for humans, not against gods. "Against gods" has its purposes, but it's nothing to found a movement on. "For humans" is something positive and constructive. As all atheists know, debating with Christians can be utterly maddening, so let's stop doing it. Let's instead develop and advocate ways of living that are superior to Christian ways of living. This is why I think we should be for humans, not against gods.

2. I think we have an obligation, as humanists, to assist our fellow humans in their survival. This means rational inquiry, sustainability, education, and the advancement of sciences. Probably in that order too.

3. In light of point 2 above, I think humanists should organize and out-church the church. The church is massively successful, but at its heart lies fallacy. How much more successful could an organization be if at its heart it held truth? And the church has been honing its techniques for 2000 years. Let's learn from them and use their hard-won techniques to a higher purpose.

Basically, I only have a limited amount of time wherein I am a conscious actor on this planet. I intend to use it to enrich life as much as I can.

Other than that, hello! I'm looking forward to getting to know you all better.

[Tank]

Hi freeway986

Brilliant introduction and I concur with your 3 points at the end of the post. I think you're a perfect fit for Happy Atheists and look forward to your further contributions.

Regards
Chris

[Jumala]

1. I think atheists need to move past the "we're against Christians (or whatever religion)" and into the "we're for humans". This is why I try to remember to call myself a humanist. I want to be for humans, not against gods. "Against gods" has its purposes, but it's nothing to found a movement on. "For humans" is something positive and constructive. As all atheists know, debating with Christians can be utterly maddening, so let's stop doing it. Let's instead develop and advocate ways of living that are superior to Christian ways of living. This is why I think we should be for humans, not against gods.

But isn't this just replacing one fixed idea with another? It reminds me of Bruno Bauer, the Hegelian humanist, who concluded that we must bring God down to Earth to be Man. Ayn Rand is the same in some ways. Perhaps exactly what we don't need is to deify some disembodied abstraction and focus on our own, personal existence and its relationship with the Universe. I really don't see the point in leaving the church and retaining all the old sentimentality of the Universal Church or worse yet some low-church Humanism.

2. I think we have an obligation, as humanists, to assist our fellow humans in their survival. This means rational inquiry, sustainability, education, and the advancement of sciences. Probably in that order too.

Well, here might be where we differ. I don't consider myself a 'humanist'. I do happen to be a human, among other things, and while this may entail many things one thing it does not entail is a duty (giving what is 'owed') or an obligation (a binding). To do so would simply be religion (to bind fast) all over again.

3. In light of point 2 above, I think humanists should organize and out-church the church. The church is massively successful, but at its heart lies fallacy. How much more successful could an organization be if at its heart it held truth? And the church has been honing its techniques for 2000 years. Let's learn from them and use their hard-won techniques to a higher purpose.

Can we really 'organize' on the basis of not believing in some ill-defined folk monster? We might oppose them on some of their crazy ideas, but is religion really the source or the symptom of cultural insanity? Are the Dawkinsian liberals and New Right Nietzscheans going to make friends on the trivial point that neither believes in a literal supernatural entity from some old book?

In any case, welcome to the forum, I just got here myself

[terranus]

Bonvenon al la Forumo!
[spoiler:txwc4po9]Welcome to the Forum! Oh and don't mind the cranky Scandinavians.  [/spoiler:txwc4po9]

[Cecilie]

Oh and don't mind the cranky Scandinavians.  

[terranus]

Oh and don't mind the cranky Scandinavians.  

Hmmm...perhaps...but maybe not.

Got a question for you: What is the largest (in terms of population) Scandinavian country in the world?  

[Cecilie]

Got a question for you: What is the largest (in terms of population) Scandinavian country in the world?  

What a weird way to phrase a question. Anyway, that would be Sweden.

[terranus]

Nope! Correct answer: The United States of America

LINK

[Cecilie]

I see what you did there.

[freeway986]

Thanks for your response, Jumala. Allow me to try and address your concerns:

But isn't this just replacing one fixed idea with another? It reminds me of Bruno Bauer, the Hegelian humanist, who concluded that we must bring God down to Earth to be Man. Ayn Rand is the same in some ways. Perhaps exactly what we don't need is to deify some disembodied abstraction and focus on our own, personal existence and its relationship with the Universe. I really don't see the point in leaving the church and retaining all the old sentimentality of the Universal Church or worse yet some low-church Humanism.

I agree that mindless following of some ideal is not what we need. What I'm proposing is much more about like-minded people coming together for support, community, and fellowship. I think that organized religion is always going to have an advantage over unorganized humanism. I never ever want to "deify some disembodied abstraction".

Well, here might be where we differ. I don't consider myself a 'humanist'. I do happen to be a human, among other things, and while this may entail many things one thing it does not entail is a duty (giving what is 'owed') or an obligation (a binding). To do so would simply be religion (to bind fast) all over again.

Maybe "duty" is too strong of a word. I would never try to tell you or anyone else that they "must" do something. On the other hand, I have limited time, and I would like to use it to the best effect. As far as I can tell, that best effect would be assuring the long-term survival and happiness of other humans. If you have other ideas about what the "best effect" would be, I think that would be a fascinating discussion, and I'd love to hear any arguments you may have.

Can we really 'organize' on the basis of not believing in some ill-defined folk monster? We might oppose them on some of their crazy ideas, but is religion really the source or the symptom of cultural insanity? Are the Dawkinsian liberals and New Right Nietzscheans going to make friends on the trivial point that neither believes in a literal supernatural entity from some old book?

Perhaps not. And I don't think all atheists will rally under the same flag, in the same way that there are all kinds of churches who care about all kinds of different things. But it doesn't matter. What matters is that there is a place I can take my children to on a Sunday morning where they will learn about ethics and morality without the other nuttiness that would go with it at a Christian church.

In any case, welcome to the forum, I just got here myself

Thank you! I really value your opinion.

[xSilverPhinx]

Welcome!