Hi, I'm a cultural Christian

[Feral Atheist]

Hello,

I've seen how a Roman Catholic was excoriated and lynched even before he could begin and so it's not without some fear and trembling that I admit to being a cultural Christian. I have always been a Christian and I've served the church since I was a toddler as an altar boy. The animosity that an atheist has for Christians is, I believe, reserved only for fundamentalist Christians and not cultural or extremely liberal ones.

Cheers,

scroyle

Your post says a good bit about why you are where you are, and some incorrect observations, along with some correct ones.

You have not been a christian all your life, as like everyone else you were born an atheist, but by your own admission your training began early in your life, at the time when you are the most impressionable.  I did not have the misfortune of having parents that trained/programmed/brainwashed me with the nonsense of gods through religions created by man, thus my moniker.

The animosity that I do have toward religious people (christians don't have a monopoly) is toward those that are best described a fundie's, for they are the ones that make serious efforts to force their willful ignorance* onto society, regardless of what one believes.  I really don't care what anyone believes, though it does cause some concern on election days, but when they want to impose their willful ignorance on anyone else, they I do get my back up.

Religion should be treated like your penis, it's alright to be proud of it, but it should not be brought out in public, and sure as hell should not be forced on anyone, especially children.

*willful ignorance - the belief in the impossible in light of a huge amount of fact and science to the contrary.  God(s) definitely fall into that category, and the really extremely willful ignorance, specifically creationists and young earth believers set a stunning high level of ignorance.

[scroyle]

Then you believe your god is a fiction. you are not a Christian. "god" implies certain traits and abilities. If you don't believe your god has those abilities then you don't believe in a god. Christianity is a religion that believes in a specific god. If you don't believe in that specific god then you are not a Christian.

I really don't understand what you are saying. Belief in a non specific god is called deism. I think you have given yourself a label but really aren't what you claim.

It's not a label I've created for myself. My priest is very amused every time I tell him about how in forums, atheists declare that I'm not a Christian and that I'm an atheist. He says if atheists and not the Bishop has the right to excommunicate, a lot of us Christians would be excommunicated and declared to be not a part of Holy Church. But thankfully, atheists are not even communicants of the Church and they have no standing or right to decide who is or is not a Christian.

The position I hold is known to all the hierarchy of my church right up to the Archbishop. I am a part of the flock of our Lord and the Church declares that to be so. I maintain Communion with the Church. Mind you, the Church will refuse atheists the Sacrament. It's considered sacrilegious to administer the Sacrament to atheists and those who are not within the Church, the Bride of our Lord.

So, who has jurisdiction to decide if someone is a Christian or not? An atheist who can't even take the Holy Sacrament without defiling it or the Bishop who holds immense episcopal authority?

But this is a free world and you are very welcome to decide who is a Christian and who is a Muslim and who an atheist might be. That's your prerogative but how important is your decision on who is or is not a Christian? Compare that with the power of the Church and I'm sure you will agree that as far as who is or is not a Christian, it makes more sense to leave that question to Christ's holy church led by the clergy.

[Jason78]

Charity work is extremely important. It shows very clearly what's important to the person. As I have always declared, the one thing atheists have is truth. We have to give it to them. They are truthful about reality more so than religion can possibly be. No doubt about that. But they haven't got the heart to go with the truth.

Please tell me more about what I've not got the heart to do.

[PickelledEggs]

I'm pretty sure that just because someone doesn't believe in god, doesn't mean that they aren't a christian. If they follow the teachings of christianity, I thought that is part of what makes them a christian. It's like following the teachings of The Doctor in Doctor Who if you're a Whovian, except the lessons in christianity aren't relevant to reality.

[Hydra009]

I maintain Communion with the Church. Mind you, the Church will refuse atheists the Sacrament. It's considered sacrilegious to administer the Sacrament to atheists and those who are not within the Church, the Bride of our Lord.

So, who has jurisdiction to decide if someone is a Christian or not? An atheist who can't even take the Holy Sacrament without defiling it or the Bishop who holds immense episcopal authority?

Ha!  Jokes on you!  I have skillfully infiltrated many a Bride of God Lord of his most Holy Lord Redeemer and Vapid Jargon congregation and defiled many a meager cracker and grape juice meal with my unholy stomach acids and gut bacteria.  None may stop my gastrointestinal rampage!  Juice for the juice god, crackers for the cracker throne!  Let the galaxy bake!  Bite, chew, swallow!  Bite, chew, swallow!  Do you hear the voices too?!!

[PickelledEggs]

Ha!  Jokes on you!  I have skillfully infiltrated many a Bride of God Lord of his most Holy Lord Redeemer and Vapid Jargon congregation and defiled many a meager cracker and grape juice meal with my unholy stomach acids and gut bacteria.  None may stop my gastrointestinal rampage!  Juice for the juice god, crackers for the cracker throne!  Let the galaxy bake!  Bite, chew, swallow!  Bite, chew, swallow!  Do you hear the voices too?!!

Let us pray.  Ohhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmm

Sent via Internet Explorer

[scroyle]

Please tell me more about what I've not got the heart to do.

You are absolutely right to point that out. I'm sorry it came out that way and it's clearly wrong and I didn't mean to make it sound like that.  Let me rephrase that sentence which is apparent from the rest of what I've said.

Atheists and Christians are good people. No real difference. Atheism has truth on its side. Christianity, because of its ancient origin and the accretion of centuries of dogma based on ancient beliefs and superstitions (like all cultures) has a lot of fables and legends. So, on the point of truth and factual accuracy, of course atheism trumps Christianity.

But when it comes to good works, atheism loses out in a big way. It's wrong to say they have no heart. I must confess that when I read that short excerpt you quoted from what I wrote, I'm a little shocked I put it that way. But I have made it clear elsewhere that atheists are as good as Christians and there is no difference. The only difference lies in the OPPORTUNITY and ENCOURAGEMENT.  Atheists have neither the opportunity nor the encouragement or incentive to do good deeds as much as a Christian who is exhorted EVERY week to do something.  Plus the social arm of the church is bigger and stronger than that of any other organisation. 

[scroyle]

Ha!  Jokes on you!  I have skillfully infiltrated many a Bride of God Lord of his most Holy Lord Redeemer and Vapid Jargon congregation and defiled many a meager cracker and grape juice meal with my unholy stomach acids and gut bacteria.  None may stop my gastrointestinal rampage!  Juice for the juice god, crackers for the cracker throne!  Let the galaxy bake!  Bite, chew, swallow!  Bite, chew, swallow!  Do you hear the voices too?!!

It doesn't require much skill. Of course it's easy to get the Eucharist from any church. Anyone can pretend to be a communicant. And of course it's no big deal because it's just a bit of flour and a bit of bad quality wine. If it makes you happy, why not. When I say sacrilege, I don't mean it in a cosmic sense which is what you are implying. Nothing happens of course. What I wanted to show is that an atheist is not a part of the church and so his opinion on what makes a person a Christian is of no importance whatsoever. I've read PZ Myers' Eucharist Challenge and I was supportive of him actually. I was dead opposed to the RC church for threatening the student. As a cultural Christian, I revere human culture but up to a point. If someone goes against the culture, it's all right to sacrifice the culture but it's not all right to threaten that person. So, the student who stole the Eucharist may have done a discourteous thing but it's too small a matter to have any reprisal. What the RC church did was disgusting. They tried to get PZ Myers sacked. They threatened the student and insisted that he returned the wafer. To go through all that is really taking the culture too far.At that point, I supported PZ Myers' call to desecrate the sacrament in principle. But I wouldn't do it myself because it's a silly thing to do and American RCs who are also a pretty belligerent bunch, would only have more excuse to be nastier than they already are.

But if you enjoy taking a bit of tasteless wafer and poor quality wine, go ahead. Just don't disrupt the service or I'm sure the police would be called. Disruptive behaviour would be wrong anyway. Superstitious people won't be hurt because they don't know you're not a communicant. Of course I don't like hurting people in any event and I'm sure atheists are decent people who don't go round looking for people to hurt.

[Mr.Obvious]

You are absolutely right to point that out. I'm sorry it came out that way and it's clearly wrong and I didn't mean to make it sound like that.  Let me rephrase that sentence which is apparent from the rest of what I've said.

Atheists and Christians are good people. No real difference. Atheism has truth on its side. Christianity, because of its ancient origin and the accretion of centuries of dogma based on ancient beliefs and superstitions (like all cultures) has a lot of fables and legends. So, on the point of truth and factual accuracy, of course atheism trumps Christianity.

But when it comes to good works, atheism loses out in a big way. It's wrong to say they have no heart. I must confess that when I read that short excerpt you quoted from what I wrote, I'm a little shocked I put it that way. But I have made it clear elsewhere that atheists are as good as Christians and there is no difference. The only difference lies in the OPPORTUNITY and ENCOURAGEMENT.  Atheists have neither the opportunity nor the encouragement or incentive to do good deeds as much as a Christian who is exhorted EVERY week to do something.  Plus the social arm of the church is bigger and stronger than that of any other organisation.

Exactly what I was getting at earlier. In most parts of the world atheist and secularists are minorities. Religious organizations just have more funds and a wider netwerk of followers to create charity organizations. But that does not mean that if secular or non-religious charity organizations had the same oppertunities, they would get less done.

But it is and interesting point of study, and I hope that if I ever am allowed to do it as a future sociologist to perform a study after which organizations get the most out of it in respect to what they put into it. I mean, which are most 'profitable' for the charity, relative to their size etc. That's an interesting study right there and I haven't heard of one like it before.

But it is true that we do not have as much charity systems as the religious do. But just because we are fewer, more dispersed and less-funded does not make us relatively less effective. And if more people become atheist or agnostic or whatever, more charities in those names will most likely be created and further develloped and better funded.

The fact that there are so few non-religious relative to religious  charity workers has to be looked at skeptically for another reason too. It's not just that non-religious don't yet have as much funds to go international, waste all their money on missionaries (even those that do not try to convert someone are generally a waste of resources, you'd be better of sending tools and crops) nor the people to send. But there's a different aspect. In your defense for cultural religion, you brush the church or Christianity as if it is that for al people. (I don't think you're trying to do this, but it comes across as such.) But some christians or other religious people are some of the most selfish in the world. Another addition to this study that you've inspired thus would take a look at how many percentage of the grander 'christian', 'muslim', 'atheist' ... populations actually were actively involved in charity work. My point is that say you have a thousand religious people and a hundred atheists living in one area. And news-crew drives by, sees a charity, thinks 'hey this is a story' and starts interviewing peopl. Now say that this charity-bunch is a 25 people. And 22 of them are Christians and only 3 are atheists. What will most of the interviews give you the impression? Christians saying God lead them to this? Or atheists saying 'There is no God compelling me to do this, but I thought it was the right thing?' As a viewer you'll get the impression that relatively more Christians are doing good work, yet of their respective populations atheists, in this hypothetical example, have sent a relatively greater share of workers.

Also earlier, you said something about that it's a fact that people who are good but not prodded by religion tend to do nothing. And as a proof you forth your own experiences. Personal experiences don't go far. Now let me give you mine, I've done more charity work, given more to poor people and donated more blood and plasma after I became atheïst. Personal experiences don't go far. My sister went to Ninos de la luna in peru for half a year, not a religious organization. (She's also an atheist.) Personal experiences don't go far.
Show it's a fact and I'll grant your hypothesis. I won't agree that that means only religion can build up such a system, but at least you'll part way).

Also, as far as your denomination as 'cultural christian' goes, well sure if you think you are one,  then call yourself that by any means. But if I understand you correctly, you are not a theist nor a deist. If you don't believe in any Gods, you're also an atheist, on top of being a cultural christian. I don't mind you calling yourself a cultural christian, but the interpretation you stated earlier about what an 'atheist' means in your experience just does not correspond with the true definition of the word.

[scroyle]

Hi Mr Obvious,

I think you missed that part where I said that I now live in a country where there are only about 10% Christians and almost half consider themselves "free-thinkers" in the last census. But charitable homes are almost all run by churches and Christian groups. Forget the other religions. From what I see in a few non-Christian countries, only the Church is serious about social work.

But I don't want to belittle the work of atheists. I have said it many times that atheists are wonderful people. I talked about myself because I'm the more common kind - lazy and more self-centred. So when I became an atheist and stopped going to church, the charity I did became zilch and the donation I made to society dwindled significantly. But it's easier to do good deeds when you're in church. There is infra structure all over for that. If you want to work with autistic children and help out, there are ministries for that. If you want to help in palliative care, you could go to the many hospices run by the church. It's all there for you to choose the areas you want to help in. It's a lot more difficult if you're outside the church.  For us Christians, it's almost the done thing because we attend Church every Sunday and we keep hearing the exhortation from the pulpit, etc.

Good atheists would do a lot more than what I do if they are half exposed to the kind of encouragement the church gives and have access to the wonderful charity network that the Church has.

You must not confuse the social arm of the church with giving to missionaries and church buildings. Social work is in addition to religious work. The fact that we run the most charities in a country where we are a small minority speaks a lot about how our religious work does not take away the funding for our social work.

[Mr.Obvious]

I didn't miss it, but it doesn't stop christianity from operating on an international level. There is a lot of charity work in Uganda, for example. Uganda's branch of christians did not raise that kind of money. Look beyond the borders. And if you earlier wanted to dismiss the RC (the largest group of christians), and now dismiss other religions beyond 'the Church', you're not left with much. And I would say you are too dismissive of the work, labour and intent of other groups. But that's normal, we all live in a world biased by information relative to our personal lives. I won't hear much about Hindu-fundamentalist, for instance, so I'll see Muslims or Christians as 'worse' options, but true research shows many poisonous fundamentalists in Hinduïsm. Same goes for the best in religion, namely charity work.

And I could agree with you on the positive influence of a working structure. But I don't follow you in saying that is a good reason to keep the church with it's large number of people who don't take it 'culturaly' rather than investing in systems which would give the poor a bowl of soup without a lecture first, sort of speak. It is more difficult, I agree. But that in no way lends credit to the churches.

You've said don't throw the child away along with the bathwater. Well, agreed. Keep the structure, build something positive if you must. But throw away the misgiven authority, the belief in these myths being true and other unessecary and ultimately poisonous ideas. The charity work in this case, would be the child. But it doesn't need religious mumbo-jumbo to opperate. It might well be better off without it.

[scroyle]

The people who own, run, contribute to and serve in the church all want to have the same creeds said, the same prayers recited, the same rituals conducted. And that includes cultural Christians. We honour our past and the foundation of the church. To suggest that we only work on the social arm of the church and get rid of the myth part of it is to suggest that you get OUTSIDERS who never had a part to play in any contribution to the church to take over the church. But why should we give what's ours to outsiders? Why can't these outsiders start their own social work on their own without taking what doesn't belong to them?

I hope you see my point here.  The good that the church does is inextricably woven into the entire church culture and tradition. To all of us in the church, the religious culture is important. We are opposed to division and schism and so we won't do anything to offend the superstitious part of the church and I admit there are quite a lot of people in church who truly believe in the superstitious side of faith.

If you break Christians from our religious culture, social work will just fizzle out. And for the same reason, I don't think atheists can come up with a comparable structure that can rival the church. They won't have enough funding or voluntary work, etc. In this country where Christians are a small minority and free thinkers almost half the population, the Humanist Association is a small little group that can barely do anything. Why is that so? Because it's as hard to herd atheists as it is to herd cats. That's what Dawkins said with pride of atheists. But it becomes a huge problem when you want to organise good works.  You can't have it both ways. It's the religious culture and charity or no religious culture and no charity.

Again, just in case people misunderstand me, this is not a criticism of atheists. Atheists are good people but atheism is too disorganised and atheists too individualistic for there to be any effective charity organisation that's as extensive and far-reaching as the social arm of the Church and other Christian groups.

I know people here won't like what I say but it's true if you think about it and atheists are rational people - you know I'm speaking the truth even if you don't like it or don't want to admit it.

[La Dolce Vita]

Your quotations from the Bible don't mean a thing. Of course the writers of the Bible believed in a supernatural being that's capable of independent thought and speech. They're ancient folks and all ancient folks believed in that.

I've read atheistic books and I find it amusing that some atheists take objection to the immoral parts of the Bible. Richard Dawkins, for example, went to town about how Isaac was a victim of extreme child abuse and what horrid psychological trauma he would have suffered. But if you look at legends and fables, they are all quite violent and by our modern enlightened understanding of morality, quite immoral. That's because our human cultures are ancient and ancient men thought differently and were more unjust and violent. Naturally, their stories are violent and unjust too. Just look at the entire story of Christ's Redemption of mankind. Without any intention of being disrespectful to people's feelings, the entire blood process is barbaric. It's the kind of story that Genghiz Khan or Attila the Hun might have come up with on a cold winter's night after having slaughtered a whole village.

Yes. Most if not all ancient morality tales are vile and immoral, that does not excuse yours. You seem to think it does, why? So you are a christian but dismiss:

1. Everything that defines a christian: Accepting Jesus Christ as your personal lord and savior
2. Reject the content of the bible as immoral

What the hell is left?

I know many atheists have thought of me as an atheist but my definition of an atheist is slightly different. An atheist is one who will not follow a religion. He probably finds the stupidity, ignorance and barbarism of a religion unbearable for him. I understand that ancient folks could not help believing in things that aren't true. But religion helped them organise their society.

You can't just randomly redefine atheism. Atheism is lack of belief in a god/rejection of the god claim. What you referring to would be a non-religious atheist or more likely an apistevist.

Religion gave them some sense of right and wrong, warped though some of these may be to us today. But the church became a galvanising force for good and it still is.

The church is a force for evil. Always has, always will be. It spreads prejudice and hatred and is to blame for the oppression to this day - and that's only in the western world. In Africa the church still burns children as witches. The catholic church still helps to spread AIDS through the abhorrent and evil politics.

Ok, you might have removed everything it means to be a christian, but as long as you label yourself a christian you are giving credibility to what the rest your evil religion does.

If you look at charitable institutions all over the world, you will find that the majority of them belong to the Church. I now live in a country where Christians only form a very small percentage of the population but just about every orphanage, old folks' home, hospice for the destitute, etc is owned by the Church. However much you may want to laugh at a culture that is based on a book that is terribly flawed (atheists usually attack the Bible which is silly because of course when you pick a book that's this ancient, it's bound to be flawed), you can't deny that the good that it does to the world is immeasurable. Atheists will point out the paedophile crimes of the RC church. I agree that is unpardonable but let's not throw away the baby with the bath water. There's is a whole lot of good that the Church has done all over the world.

And these institutions tend to want to brainwash and convert the people they are helping. It's immoral. Why not help people for the sake of helping them instead? Is that so hard? And as christians, generally speaking, actually believe in the bilble, as they actually believe in an actual god, and your an extreme minority within the church, of course we have to attack the bible. The bible is the entire basis of your religion. Take away the bible and it's not a religion anymore.

[La Dolce Vita]

But when it comes to good works, atheism loses out in a big way. It's wrong to say they have no heart. I must confess that when I read that short excerpt you quoted from what I wrote, I'm a little shocked I put it that way. But I have made it clear elsewhere that atheists are as good as Christians and there is no difference. The only difference lies in the OPPORTUNITY and ENCOURAGEMENT.  Atheists have neither the opportunity nor the encouragement or incentive to do good deeds as much as a Christian who is exhorted EVERY week to do something.  Plus the social arm of the church is bigger and stronger than that of any other organisation. 

Well, socialist Scandinavia is primarily atheist and both in regard to redistribution of wealth and care within our own countries and in regard to donation to the 3rd world we are doing quite great. If you need an institution and higher authority to create better living condition what better than a secular state, which will actually use the money for good in the sake of goodness rather than for the sake of dogma, which is what the extreme majority of people who label themselves christian embrace.

You are also very confused about your anti-atheist charity claims. Atheist organizations exist to protect atheists and protect the hugely important separation between church and state. They should not to charity, that is not their function. Atheists do charity through humanist/secular organizations, and sometimes even religious ones.

I am ok with you calling yourself a christian, but you are an atheist. You cannot laugh that off. You are "without belief in a god". That is the definition of atheism. I see you have made an incorrect definition not based on any rules of grammar, but that is not a definition an atheist is likely to use. It's something else entirely. Plenty of atheists who identifies as such beliefs in a huge portion of supernatural nonsense, and they are atheists all the same.

[La Dolce Vita]

It's not a label I've created for myself. My priest is very amused every time I tell him about how in forums, atheists declare that I'm not a Christian and that I'm an atheist. He says if atheists and not the Bishop has the right to excommunicate, a lot of us Christians would be excommunicated and declared to be not a part of Holy Church. But thankfully, atheists are not even communicants of the Church and they have no standing or right to decide who is or is not a Christian.

The position I hold is known to all the hierarchy of my church right up to the Archbishop. I am a part of the flock of our Lord and the Church declares that to be so. I maintain Communion with the Church. Mind you, the Church will refuse atheists the Sacrament. It's considered sacrilegious to administer the Sacrament to atheists and those who are not within the Church, the Bride of our Lord.

So, who has jurisdiction to decide if someone is a Christian or not? An atheist who can't even take the Holy Sacrament without defiling it or the Bishop who holds immense episcopal authority?

But this is a free world and you are very welcome to decide who is a Christian and who is a Muslim and who an atheist might be. That's your prerogative but how important is your decision on who is or is not a Christian? Compare that with the power of the Church and I'm sure you will agree that as far as who is or is not a Christian, it makes more sense to leave that question to Christ's holy church led by the clergy.

This post makes me wonder if you are nothing but a poe. That means a fake, or a troll if you will. You state not to believe in superstition but now you are calling things "holy" and believe that an "atheist"(though I guess by your definition, i.e. non-christian/non-religious) would defile eating a cracker ... You earlier stated that you thought nothing of this ceremony at all and that you did it out of cultural duty. Now you are speaking of it being defiled ... That's a huge contradiction. Too huge for me to be sure I can take you seriously.