Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoosier
You have a belief in Christ. You believe He is the Son of God. You would die for that belief, the belief that Jesus is the Christ and you would not renounce him.
Montana and GCS, if you wouldn't die for the belief you hold in atheism, then why do you hold to the belief? Why would you renounce something you're basing your life on and pretend to believe in Allah or Jesus? Is that saying there are some doubts in your atheism?
I'm actually posing a serious question and not trying to create any problems. I'm genuinely interested.
|
I think this is one of the general things about me that most religious people don't understand but I can see how the misconception could be made.
Hoosier, I realize your question is a sincere one so please allow me to give you a serious answer in response.
I fully realize that for most Christians, their very central belief in the Christian God/Jesus is what they hope is at the core of their very humanity and persona. I realize that most try to conform their lives into a solid playing field where Christ is the central component to their very beings. It is largely how you try to define yourself, it is largely how you view yourself, and it's what you seek and strive for to find fulfillment in your life. In other words, being a Christian more or less
defines you. Or, at least, that is the impression that I get from most believers - that their religious belief is what defines them as individuals.
But, Hoosier, my non-belief is not what guides me or defines me. I don't sit in deep pondering to myself that because I don't believe in God I must therefore adhere to a certain strict set of standards or lines of thinking. While not believing in God is, I suppose, a component of my life when put in relative comparison to other human beings, I refuse to let that one word define who I am through a strict set of dichotomies. In the grand scheme of things, in my opinion, my
dis-belief is nothing more than that and that alone. It's not a guide to living, it's not a philosophy, it's not a practice. It's simply non-belief. I think that's why many Atheists, myself included, typically try to analogize their disbelief with something like Santa Claus. Because, to put it in perspective, I know of no other way to describe the non-importance of a belief in God in my life than to analogize it to something that just about everyone doesn't believe in.
The obvious question is essentially the 800-pound gorilla in the room. If I don't believe in God, if I don't believe in a rigid set of rules or structure to define me and if I don't adhere to any other religious doctrine, how exactly do I define myself and what is it that I believe in?
I define myself as a complex human being in the midst and breadth of millions and billions of other complex human beings. I cannot say there is one single frame of thought that I wish to adhere to. I despise the use of terminology that seeks to describe me as something in a narrow frame of reference. I'm a fan of Keynesian economics, to a certain extent, but I'm not a Keynesian as I don't agree with everything he said. I'm a fan of Freud but I'm not strictly a Freudian because I don't agree with everything he said. I'm a fan of Dawkins but I'm not a "Dawkinsian" because I don't agree with everything he says.
Pick a philosopher, pick a famous literary author, or pick a famous religion. I do my best to "cherry pick" the finest and best parts of the most brilliant minds, religions, and thoughts that I can to comprise who and what I am. I take it upon myself to read the works of Steinbeck, Orwell, Twain and Hemmingway for powerful analogous inputs and insights to the way the human race and governments can be. I love to read Hawking, Greene and Kaku for some of the most fantastic explanations of physics and how our universe operates. I like to read Darwin's theories for both the social and natural implications it presents. I enjoy reading Dawkins for his truly elaborate and eloquent explanations of evolutionary biology. I love to read Hitchens for his unparalleled wit, splendid vocabulary and his absolutely incredible investigative reporting (read his articles in
Slate magazine if you don't believe me - rarely do they have anything to do with religion). But, I wouldn't consider myself a Steinbeckian, or an Orwellian, or a Twain-ist, or a Hemmingway-ist. Nor would I be a Hawking-ist, Greene-ist, or Kaku-ist. Perhaps a Darwinist in terms of my scientific understanding of the natural world but not in social principle. To that, I will concede.
I relish and ravage books on history to learn lessons, pejoratives and precedents for modern day society and to often gawk and stare at how things repeat themselves so often. I read
SciAM,
Discover, and
National Geographic or
The Economist quite frequently to stay updated on the natural world and the latest and greatest discoveries in geo-politics. I examine the cultures of the world when I can by going there, and when I can't, I read and watch brilliant men like Anthony Bourdain who have a real and true sarcastic wit, brutal honesty and non-fanatical way of exploring culture and food. But, I'm not a Sciam-ist, Discoverist, or National Geographist. Nor would I be considered a Bourdain-ist.
I listen to podcasts of Dan Carlin's
Hardcore History for a rather amazing and fun insight to history. I stay updated when and where I can on poetry, on new literature (if you ever get the time, read
Shantaram it's absolutely splendid), and music (which all sucks now anyway). But, I'm not a Carlinian or a Shantaramian.
When I get the time, I'll listen to Beethoven or Mozart or Bach. Sometimes that'll be on the same MP3 player as Nine Inch Nails and Stevie Wonder. And, in the meanwhile, when things are kind of busy, I brush up on my Japanese with my wife and the "Rosetta Stone." But I'm not a Beethoven-ist, a Mozart-ist, a Bachian or a Reznor-ian. Nor am I Japanese.
And sometimes, when I'm bored or just hanging around the house, I'll brush up on the New Testament and the Old Testament but I'm not a Christian.
But, in all of that, like I said before - I'm not a Keynesian, Freudian, or a "Steinbeckian." I'm not a "Hitchensian," "Dawkinsian," or "Bourdainian." I'm not a "Locke-ist?" or a "Kaku-ist."
Most of all, Hoosier, I would take it with great pride if people called me a "True Intellectual" in the same capacity that you would undoubtedly take great pride if someone called you a "True Christian." However, I am extraordinarily hesitant to label myself as such because I feel it is haughty and cocky for me to do so. I would hope others would say that about me without me having to "remind" them of what I am or hope to be. That, to me, is when your actions truly speak louder than words - when your very actions remind people of a genuinely good descriptive label that you seek to define yourself by.
In all of that, I think that I am able to make concrete, decided, morally sound and decent decisions that allow me to be an acceptable part of society. You asked in the OP if someone would die for their beliefs?
In so much as my Atheism - I could care less. It's not that big a deal to me. Yes, I make no hesitation to let people know that I don't believe in God but I'm not going to lose my mind if I were forced under the threat of torture to profess belief. What would I be willing to fight and possibly die for? The right to free belief, free opinion, free knowledge and free decision making. The right to make decisions not based on dichotomy but on a plethora of different things. The right to learn as you wish, to read as you wish and to study as you wish. That is, in part, one of the reasons why I joined the military and one of the reasons why I think America offers so much to the world. And, might I add, something I don't think many religious people truly embrace or even promote.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
