All Comments (24)

TO HARRY:

You wrote, " Evangelicals is the only Christian denomination that CONSISTENTLY preaches salvation by FAITH as a GIFT from God. A gift implies that you just have to accept it, you do not have to do anything to get it though, other than to accept."

I would like to ask you where you come up with this statement?

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

I just love how atheist and others toss out that one liner as if it actually constituted some sort of disproof of a perfectly logical statement as though one might logically assume despite all evidence to the contrary that one could get away with some major crime. Hence the 'get away with'. The chief problem with humanity is that we are self oriented even the good things we do, we do not do out of love and compassion but out of self interest.

Just glancing at some of the posts, I find it interesting that some atheists are more "Christian" in the true sense than are some of the christians or at least some that label themselves christian.

Take care, be ready, see you in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

"salvation by FAITH as a GIFT from God."

Here is an interesting question: the "by FAITH" is a precondition. It is like saying, 'here, you can have this GIFT if you will be my friend'. The implication is that if you are not my friend you cannot have this Gift. Ergo, it is not really a gift. Why can't you just say "salvation as a GIFT from God" without the precondition of FAITH?

And a follow-up: What is your definition of FAITH?

People, my intentions were not to degrade atheists and their efforts to further growth in society. All I was simply saying is that religious folk have more of an incentive, thats all, and that a fact. They have every incentive that an atheist would have, plus whatever incentive laid on them by their religion.

Athena: ""do this, don't do that, and you'll go to Heaven""

You clearly have a misunderstanding of evangelicals, and I think you have blindly and ignorantly accept what everyone tells you about us (evangelicals). The individuals whom you are describing are Catholics. Evangelicals is the only Christian denomination that CONSISTENTLY preaches salvation by FAITH as a GIFT from God. A gift implies that you just have to accept it, you do not have to do anything to get it though, other than to accept. You, and most people here, would benefit if you got a clearer understanding of evangelicals and what they teach.

**I can express the wish that they'd drop back in, "switching or not," so they can bring their gifts to causes that need help and receive the yield of promises that will never be fully kept.**

Why? Do you really think that individuals cannot cointribute to their communities unless they associate themsleves with an officially recognized religious organization?
I contribute large blocks of my time, and as much of my money as my budget will allow to various causes that I wish to help (HRC, animal shelters, conservation groups, disaster relief, to name a few) and none of that is done under the aegis of any of the religious/spiritual organizations wiht which I associate.

JWS:
“So is it possible to say that you can be atheist and also be 'spiritual'? In the sense that you are aware of the greater community around you?”

Respectfully, no.
Spirituality at it’s core recognizes a spiritual realm.

I am aware of the greater community around me. It serves my interests and my family’s interest that the community functions well. There is no need whatsoever to apply to it any more than simple earthly, primative and mortal characteristics. We are social animals, we have thrived as a species by communal interaction, by promoting health and prosperity amongst each other. As individuals we made lousy hunters, no claws, slow movers, we break easily… but using communication and cooperation we overcame these ‘design flaws’. Any one-man tribe, the most egocentric possible, died out very quickly. Any tribe where community anarchy dominated, also died out very quickly, either by killing each other off or being toppled by the more organized bunch of naked apes down the trail.
You saying that community awareness = spirituality is similar to anthropomorphism. Applying uniquely human characteristics to animals. (Look honey, the dog is too embarrassed to pee in front of his friends!)You are applying religious, spirit based words, terms and concepts to secular traits. It can be misleading. Kind of like many of the contributors on these pages calling atheism a religion, Darwin or Dawkins our ‘prophets’ and constantly insisting on furnishing us with ‘replacement crutches’ like : “Materialism is the religion of the atheist”

GaryD-

"Frankly, were I an atheist, from a strictly logical perspective the only limit on my behavior is what I believe I can get away with today."

So if I were to prove to you, beyond any doubt, that there was no God, would you then beat your neighbor, rape his wife, and shoot his dog? Is your religion the only thing that makes you act like a decent human being?

GaryD-

"Frankly, were I an atheist, from a strictly logical perspective the only limit on my behavior is what I believe I can get away with today."

So if I were to prove to you, beyond any doubt, that there was no God, would you then beat your neighbor, rape his wife, and shoot his dog? Is your religion the only thing that makes you act like a decent human being?

DZ thanks for your comment. In my mind it has always been a fine line between recognizing that we don't know everything about the universe around us and believing that maybe there is something more than what we see/feel/experience.

For those who do believe in 'God', whatever the definition may be, the concept of community that prof. Marty mentions is a primary window through which they view 'God'. (I'm talking about people interacting/helping/loving other people here.)

So maybe the increased religion-switching that Americans do today is a reflection of increased mobility and variability that we experience in our community.

GaryD: I'm not interested in the promotion of atheism. I am interested in true religious freedom, something we do not have today. I belong to a variety of groups, but none of them are atheist in orientation. In fact, any organization designed to promote atheism wouldn't, IMHO, be a charity.

JWS: There are many atheists who consider themselves spiritual even within the context of unbelief. I do not, however, think of myself as spiritual at all - I simply live in a larger community, and I do my small part in trying to make it a healthier and happier community. If you wish to call that 'spirituality', I won't argue, but it isn't a way I think of myself.

When one assumes that organized, or institutional, expression of religion is the only form that is legitimate then one comes to the conclusion that Dr. Marty has arrived at in his comments here.

In Christianity, the first century church was not organized/institutionalized yet it was the ekklesia. It appears there is a transition occurring in North America away from organized/institutionalized Christianity to simpler forms that are not individual loners just smaller, less institutional groupings. These by definition are much lower profile than institutions with their staff, buildings and other trappings.

Just because it does not take on an institutional form does not mean it is just a large number of loners. Many would argue that being in a smaller grouping of people actually results in a person being more quickly and deeply formed spiritually.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I am fascinated by the many atheists (whom I generally respect) who spend time reading and responding to this site. I considered myself atheist/agnostic for many many years myself (though not now), and during that time I would not have been interested in a discussion such as this.

As Prof Marty points out religious affiliation is often about being part of a larger community. Yes there is often also that religious dogma that turns many people off. But the community is what he is pointing to in his essay. I get the sense from the 'atheist' responses that they also feel or look for that sense of community in that helping others is 'the right thing to do'. So is it possible to say that you can be atheist and also be 'spiritual'? In the sense that you are aware of the greater community around you?

Having grown up in a mainline denomination, I became quite discouraged with what I perceived to be the imbalance within an organized religion, eventually classifying myself among Dr. Marty's "the unchurched". As Marty points out, the prominent religions in this country are communal ones - but for the most part, they are gated communities with very specific by-laws that require critical thought and spiritual questioning be checked at the gate. I think I was pretty lucky because my family provided me with a very solid faith foundation that is not dependent on the credo of one particular denomination. I feel that I left the church of my childhood in order to find the faith of my adulthood - and as I grow and learn and interact with life, so my faith grows - I've never felt the need to graze at the great spiritual let-me-feel-good buffets - indeed, I want a faith that challenges me to reach out, to reach in, to question, to listen, to seek understanding that through faith, all things are possible - even change. So is this sickness or health? Perhaps, more appropriately - at least for me - it is life.

Martin, excellent point "am not their judge, "some of my best friends are drop-outs;" but as someone who cares about so many aspects of spiritual life that are unattainable in isolation, I can express the wish that they'd drop back in, "switching or not," so they can bring their gifts to causes that need help and receive the yield of promises that will never be fully kept."

My mother always used to tell me never to be ashamed for loving someone because people need to know that you/someone cares about them.

My mother was right.

And yet more than 80% of the country claims to adhere to one faith or the other.

As a Christian I should not expect a religion, where in its God constantly references the saved as a remnant, to be in the majority.

By the way DZ you'd be far more believable if you'd actually produce atheist charities in which the promotion of atheism is the primary if not the only goal.

Frankly, were I an atheist, from a strictly logical perspective the only limit on my behavior is what I believe I can get away with today.

Why are many of us dropping our orthodox affiliation and becoming persons with religious reservations, secularists or atheists??

The answer is simple, the "pew sitters" and "bowers" are becoming more aware of the flaws in the founders and foundations of religion and no longer accept the myths, embellishments and lies associated with these religions.

Yep, " It can be a sign of sickness if religion is nothing more than a lightly-purchased commodity, one not backed by faith-commitment so much as by convenience, fad, or fashion and an unwillingness to deal with the demands of a faith.." Surveys about "faith" are warped by the fad/fashion thing no doubt. In these times that try man's soul...fads and fashions tend to take a back seat to the fundamentals, paying the mortgage to mention one fad/fashion that has become unfaddy.

I know more than one Mormon convert that did it seeking economic relief -only Mormons are qualified for 'that' job -pit person at the casino for example.

Divorces are caused by economics and not faith mismatches -unless it's Baptists where divorce is a requirement -prove one can go without sex until the divorce is final -a lot in common with snake dancing.

I'm not trying to make light of faith failure, however.
Devil cares, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul
Putting the money on the plate instead of paying the mortgage...

Martin Marty said:
"so they can bring their gifts to causes that need help and receive the yield of promises that will never be fully kept"
translated:
Join/Start going to church again, because churches donate time and or money to good causes.

No, there is no reason to go back to church to do that, people can donate all the time and money they like just fine without the meddling middleman, I've been doing it for decades.

Mr. Marty:

"With all due respect to millions of imaginative, adventurous, creative, searching "loners" in the spiritual life, I'd have to say that if we look at America and American religion as a whole, dropping out is less promising. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, for instance, by definition are communal: ipeople are called and gathered, saved and "sent" into mission in community."

So, I should belong to a religion that I don't believe in, because it brings me closer to my neighbor? Wouldn't it be better to not be a hypocrite, and take steps that involve me with my neighbors without needing a religion to do so?

And I also find fault with the poster above who thinks that atheists only do things to please themselves. I often help others, donate blood, money, and time, and perform charitable acts not just to please myself, but because I know that other people could use that kind of help. Not all atheists are egotistical bastards just looking out for themselves. Few, if any, are actually that way.

Harry:

Actually, when someone makes an inflammatory statement that is inconsistent with my experience, I want to see the evidence for the statement. Had he said 'in my opinion' or 'in my experience', I would have let it go. That isn't what he did - he presented it as some kind of fact.

Also, Harry, you don't know much about nor do you appear to have much experience with atheists. We reject categorically the idea that morality stems from religion. We do things for others, for our communities because it is the right thing based on our opbservation and experience of the world. I have enjoyed significant privileges and opportunities not available to others, and my commitment to other humans requires that I do my best to improve the condition of those who have not experienced those privileges and opportunities. I am a lifelong atheist, but I give 10% of my gross income to charity and I volunteer 15 hours per week. I have been doing this for more than 40 years, and I do it because it is the right thing. Not incented by religion, not because some book says I should and not because it makes me feel good or whatever. In fact, the whole thing is quite sad, because the need is as great or greater than it was 40 years ago.

I hope you understand what I'm trying to say here.

Harry: "Atheists, however, only do good to please themselves"
and
"in the Atheism sect, right and wrong are relative based on themselves "

1. There is no atheism 'sect'. Atheism essentially implies no-sect. We do not congregate or vote on issues or elect leaders, nor do we rally around a book or common code.

We do good not only to please ourselves but our families, our communities, our nation and our planet.. If we donate time or money a charitable cause it is because we think that cause needs or deserves our donation to improve a situation, not because we fear that if we don't that we will suffer at some mythical judgement (which is more egotistical?)

We judge right and wrong based not just on ourselves but for the common good as well. I don't run around my yard naked just because I don't believe god will punish me if I do, I don't run around my yard naked because I have respect for my neighbors.

DZ:

He's right. He isn't saying that ALL religious folk do good and ALL non-religious folk do bad...but he is right though. Religiously oriented people tend to do more good for society because they are either commanded to by their god, or because if they don't, they will suffer in the next life. Atheists, however, only do good to please themselves, or to make themselves feel good about themselves. This is a very bad place to be, because one can do something wrong to please oneself. I think he is making a good point. Basically, religious individuals have more of an incentive to, lets say, give to the poor than does an Atheist, just because an Atheist has no one telling him what he must do, other than himself and his own conscience. Humans are sinful, wicked individuals, and what is wrong to one person, another might not believe that is wrong. Therefore, in the Atheism sect, right and wrong are relative based on themselves (their emotions, feeling, likes and dislikes, opinions). So who is to tell an Atheist what to do or not do? Only himself. Like I said, there is more incentive for religious individuals to give to the poor than does an Atheist. But that does not mean Atheists can't and will not do good. Please don't misunderstand what I am trying to say.

As for the facts you want Marty to present..honestly, what fact can you possibly have? Does he need to find some poll or survey somewhere that analyzes good deeds of certain groups? Is there such a survey? I doubt it. If there is, I would LOVE to see it.

This forum, might I remind you, is under the OPINION section, and this claim he made is a mere opinion and observation. Most of what people say, both commenters and panelists, are claims based on their observations. There is no need to get hostile towards him.

You said: "For all their gross flaws, "formal religious groups" tend to be productive of acts of mercy and justice; they are more likely to support voluntary charitable activity than are loners."

This is pathetic fact-free drivel. Show evidence if you want to make absurd claims. Your personal opinion on such a matter is worthless carp without evidence. Moreover, in my experience (I'm an atheist), the reverse is true.