How to be a non-believer in a believing world

[Chanakya]

I use to be a Christian.

But I don't think I was ever a believer. Even as a 6 year old I just couldn't believe a woman was made out of Adam's rib. Or that a snake spoke to Eve. Or a donkey spoke to Absalom. Or that a 500 year old drunkard built a huge boat and gathered two of every animal. These are just the tip of the iceberg of the unbelievable events in the Bible.

Still, I believed in the teachings of Jesus. Love your neighbor. Be charitable and compassionate. Don't lie, don't steal, don't judge, and be quick to forgive.

That use to be enough at the church I attended. But then it wasn't. My beliefs became unacceptable and my views became blasphemous. It is so weird when you become persona non grata where you once were welcome. I never changed. The church did.

My question is how do you get along with Christians without being a phony? I've resorted to saying to Christians that I believe in Christ's teachings but not in anything else.

How do you handle it?

You don't.

That is, you can be upfront about your atheism, or it might be your agnostocism, in short about the fact that you don't believe their half-witted teachings; and on that basis certainly you can get on well with them, be gentle with how you express your non-faith to them, even actually love them (if your wife or girlfriend is a theist, or your parents, or your friends, or just generally). At least you can do that if these aren't a rabid breed of theist, and many are not.

But there's no way you can hide your non-faith from them while interacting regularly with them in in the context of that faith, e.g. attending church regularly, without being a phony.


eta: I'd guess that the more tolerant churches and denominations may be more accommodative of children's non-faith, because they're children and figuring things out. They may be less so with adults, who should know better. ...Of course, the more rabid churches and denominations will be the opposite I guess, wanting to stamp out doubt right at the get-go.

Some religions do let in doubt, even non-faith. For instance, some let in priests who are atheists. That's kind of cool, but still, definitely the priest or the rabbi that teaches the bible to those that swallow that nonsense whole, is certainly a phony, not unless he makes it clear that he sees the Bible as no more than literature and/or tradition, and not a font of truth and morality. I don't think a priest would last long if he were not discreet to the point of being a phony.

On the other hand, being a phony may not be the worst thing in the world, even if it is never good. You might do that to stay alive if you live in an Arab/Islamic hellhole. You might do that to get close to that hot girl you fancy (that noble purpose excuses any amount of phoniness, at least to begin with). You might do that to do good in your community, like a priest or rabbi using his office to focus on the doing-good aspect.

But you can never be so discreet about your non-faith as to hide it even where that subject is relevant, without being a phony.


eta: Okay, scratch the Arab/Islamic hellhole thing, since you're talking about getting on with Christians specifically, not theists in general.

 

[acbytesla]

This way:


I will sometimes talk about it on the internet, like here, with people who I only know online. But not to proselytize atheism or non-religion (my preferred label these days is just "not religious" or even "not a member of any organized religion." I do think that the universe we find ourselves in is a mystery. It's still quite far from being "solved" by scientists. Thus, I would be more inclined to call myself agnostic than an atheist. But I am quite certain in my own mind that people who claim to know the mind of god or to be privy to divine revelation are full of ****. But I keep that part to myself.

I have some family members who are active participants in organized religion and I try to respect that. I went to a Christmas concert at my brother's church and he and his family were all part of the performance, and I enjoyed it for the music and the spectacle and just tried to be quiet and respectful about it instead of being a sneering skeptic. I went through the physical motions to the best of my ability. Decades ago I did sort of argue with my brother about it, but I've realized that this does nothing but put unnecessary stress on our relationship, so neither of us tries to argue with the other about it anymore and our relationship is much better.

I get it. And I have usually behaved similarly.

But not believing has cost me so much over the years. Friends, family, a girlfriend. I just can't fake it. And now I won't give quarter to anyone pushing that crap anywhere near me. And the combination of recent Supreme Court decisions and the rise of Christian Nationalism now threatens us all.

 

[stanfr]

I don't struggle with it at all. Our morality isn't any less objective than their morality. They cannot prove there is a God much less prove that that their morality is what that God says is moral. That is subjective too depending on what each individual believes what God wants.

Well, I am saying as a hypothetical, *if* their god exists, *then* one could argue that this being determines what is right and what is wrong. It doesn't matter if the being is provable or not--given the assumption it does exist, then it follows that this being (since it is all powerful and the creator of everything) determines morality. What form it takes is irrelevant to the philosophical question of what constitutes morality--they just say "God determines morality"
Atheists don't have an analogous 'out' from a philosophical perspective. Many theists claim that moral code is spelled out explicitly in the Bible or Quran or whatever, which of course is insane but again it is irrelevant to what the *source* of objective morality is. I personally think it can be found in nature, but I'm in the minority there, as lengthy threads elsewhere in this forum have demonstrated

 

[acbytesla]

Well, I am saying as a hypothetical, *if* their god exists, *then* one could argue that this being determines what is right and what is wrong. It doesn't matter if the being is provable or not--given the assumption it does exist, then it follows that this being (since it is all powerful and the creator of everything) determines morality. What form it takes is irrelevant to the philosophical question of what constitutes morality--they just say "God determines morality"
Atheists don't have an analogous 'out' from a philosophical perspective. Many theists claim that moral code is spelled out explicitly in the Bible or Quran or whatever, which of course is insane but again it is irrelevant to what the *source* of objective morality is. I personally think it can be found in nature, but I'm in the minority there, as lengthy threads elsewhere in this forum have demonstrated

I know they say that. But it's just not true. Morality evolves even for those who says God is responsible for it. Slavery, divorce, how we treat wives and children have changed even for those that attribute it to the Bible. Sorry, I know very little about Quran.

Morality like gods is man made. The rules and values are always subjective.

 

[Minoosh]

My first reaction was, which Christians? The Congregationalists and Disciples of Christ (who call themselves "The Christian Church") are as liberal as all get-out. The Society of Friends, well, they're Quakers. And pretty liberal. Catholics, who are liberal on some issues and conservatives on others, aren't even considered "Christian" by many evangelicals, and Mormons? Forget it. They don't believe in original sin, and thus obviate the need for Jesus to die on the cross.

It sounds like you are talking about the "evangelicals," many who go to nondenominational churches with vaguely redemptive-sounding names that frequently include the words Faith, Calvary, Cross, Light and so on. But some denominations are also in that mix.

These lean heavily on the central tenet, Jesus died for you on the cross; accept him in your heart as your lord and personal savior and you're good to go. Some of them aren't nice people, but they're saved.

Sorry for the lecture but it does bother me when people use "Christians" as a synonym for so-called "evangelical Christians."

And I have pretty much the opposite view of others here, in that my natural instinct would be to engage with them, but not to try to change them in any way and definitely not to argue with their beliefs, although the occasional Socratic-style question is fair enough. If you don't know what to say, "Hmm" is a useful syllable. Ask him about himself, his story, what it means to be "saved" and, if you dare, "Do you think the world is going to end soon?"

Either that or avoid talking about religion.

As religion editor at a newspaper for a few years I was perfectly placed to get nosy about people's beliefs, under the guise of journalism. In all cases I tried to listen without judging or hitting them with "gotcha" questions. It wasn't hard.

Have you ever seen "Young Sheldon"? I think you'd get a kick out of it. The very first episode had themes about how atheists and believers live together and love each other. Sheldon is fond of peppering Pastor Jeff with theological questions. Google YouTube Octopus Jesus, I can't seem to make links.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Studies have shown that Religiosity is highly Location/Event specific.
Usurpingly, people are very religious (and will say so) when in Church, a Church function etc.
They are not in non-religious contexts - no one thinks of Jesus when doing their taxes, except to consider creating a Church just to evade taxes. Sport is mostly religion-free (unless some douchebags demand that God supports My Team over the other one).

I guess I would focus on socializing in non-religious contexts, picking acquaintances who are not overtly too religious, and try to build a core group of people who can separate secular from religious.
Others seeking the same will coalesce around that.

 

[Puppycow]

I get it. And I have usually behaved similarly.

But not believing has cost me so much over the years. Friends, family, a girlfriend. I just can't fake it. And now I won't give quarter to anyone pushing that crap anywhere near me. And the combination of recent Supreme Court decisions and the rise of Christian Nationalism now threatens us all.

I'm sorry to hear that. It's going to be more of a problem for some non-religious people than others depending on how zealous most people are among family, friends, your neighbors, your local community, your potential dating partners, and so on.

Do you live in a very socially conservative community?

Moving away might be an extreme solution to your problem, if it's possible for you. There are places where like-minded people will be easier to find.

 

[psionl0]

Isn't "believing world" a bit of a stretch?

You may well be in a community that shares a common belief but I am skeptical of the notion that the whole world is full of believers. Many have a sort of belief in a higher entity but nothing specific and nothing that they are interested in sharing.

 

[acbytesla]

My first reaction was, which Christians? The Congregationalists and Disciples of Christ (who call themselves "The Christian Church") are as liberal as all get-out. The Society of Friends, well, they're Quakers. And pretty liberal. Catholics, who are liberal on some issues and conservatives on others, aren't even considered "Christian" by many evangelicals, and Mormons? Forget it. They don't believe in original sin, and thus obviate the need for Jesus to die on the cross.

It sounds like you are talking about the "evangelicals," many who go to nondenominational churches with vaguely redemptive-sounding names that frequently include the words Faith, Calvary, Cross, Light and so on. But some denominations are also in that mix.

These lean heavily on the central tenet, Jesus died for you on the cross; accept him in your heart as your lord and personal savior and you're good to go. Some of them aren't nice people, but they're saved.

Sorry for the lecture but it does bother me when people use "Christians" as a synonym for so-called "evangelical Christians."

And I have pretty much the opposite view of others here, in that my natural instinct would be to engage with them, but not to try to change them in any way and definitely not to argue with their beliefs, although the occasional Socratic-style question is fair enough. If you don't know what to say, "Hmm" is a useful syllable. Ask him about himself, his story, what it means to be "saved" and, if you dare, "Do you think the world is going to end soon?"

Either that or avoid talking about religion.

As religion editor at a newspaper for a few years I was perfectly placed to get nosy about people's beliefs, under the guise of journalism. In all cases I tried to listen without judging or hitting them with "gotcha" questions. It wasn't hard.

Have you ever seen "Young Sheldon"? I think you'd get a kick out of it. The very first episode had themes about how atheists and believers live together and love each other. Sheldon is fond of peppering Pastor Jeff with theological questions. Google YouTube Octopus Jesus, I can't seem to make links.

IMV, this is the no true Scotsman fallacy. It's not up to me, a non-Christian, to say who is or isn't a Christian. So why would I differentiate between different eschatology and the dogma?

I personally have roots in Catholic, evangelical, and non-evangelical churches.

The small town I live in now has 9 different churches. Pentecostal, Baptist, Catholic, 7th Day Adventist, Jehovah Witness and a few non-denominational churches.

 

[acbytesla]

Isn't "believing world" a bit of a stretch?
You may well be in a community that shares a common belief but I am skeptical of the notion that the whole world is full of believers. Many have a sort of belief in a higher entity but nothing specific and nothing that they are interested in sharing.

Maybe.

And that is what makes this all the more ridiculous. We have made the central division between us all how we approach our belief in a phantom.

 

[psionl0]

We have made the central division between us all how we approach our belief in a phantom.

That's not necessarily true either. It may be among the devoutly religious but not in the world as a whole.

Of course, that doesn't stop hypocrites from exploiting religion for their own ends.

 

[acbytesla]

That's not necessarily true either. It may be among the devoutly religious but not in the world as a whole.

Of course, that doesn't stop hypocrites from exploiting religion for their own ends.

You're right. I perhaps overstated things. Not with us all.

I guess it just drives me crazy. It seems to me this is piss poor reason not to get along with somebody.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

IMV, this is the no true Scotsman fallacy. It's not up to me, a non-Christian, to say who is or isn't a Christian. So why would I differentiate between different eschatology and the dogma?

Because, although the person you're interacting with might have drawn his theological beliefs at random from the grab bag of all of Christendom, those beliefs aren't random at all to him. It would be unfair of you to consider his beliefs to be unimportant to him just because there are wildly divergent viewpoints also available which are equally valid to your outsider's perspective.

 

[acbytesla]

Because, although the person you're interacting with might have drawn his theological beliefs at random from the grab bag of all of Christendom, those beliefs aren't random at all to him. It would be unfair of you to consider his beliefs to be unimportant to him just because there are wildly divergent viewpoints also available which are equally valid to your outsider's perspective.

I have never said anyone's beliefs aren't important to the individual that holds them. I said it is not up to me to say someone who consider themselves as a Christian not to be a Christian.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Well, you haven't given us much information about how your interactions go, we need to fill in the blanks somehow.

Personally, I find calling myself a godless heathen and not bringing up religion myself works to put most Christians at their ease. If someone starts preaching, counter with a little light Satanism, that'll typically shut them up.

But I know there's plenty of Christians who'd feel corrupted just by knowing I'm there leering at them, and plenty of atheists who go around picking fights (ah to be young and pissy again), and in those situations in my experience it's almost always someone addressing the theological category instead of the person, which never works well. You're asking for advice for general Christians, but general Christians aren't who you're talking to.

 

[Steve]

Well, you haven't given us much information about how your interactions go, we need to fill in the blanks somehow.

Personally, I find calling myself a godless heathen and not bringing up religion myself works to put most Christians at their ease. If someone starts preaching, counter with a little light Satanism, that'll typically shut them up.

But I know there's plenty of Christians who'd feel corrupted just by knowing I'm there leering at them, and plenty of atheists who go around picking fights (ah to be young and pissy again), and in those situations in my experience it's almost always someone addressing the theological category instead of the person, which never works well. You're asking for advice for general Christians, but general Christians aren't who you're talking to.

Or talking about, it seems. Rather, a group of rather pushy Christians peculiar to his part of the world.

 

[acbytesla]

Well, you haven't given us much information about how your interactions go, we need to fill in the blanks somehow.

Personally, I find calling myself a godless heathen and not bringing up religion myself works to put most Christians at their ease. If someone starts preaching, counter with a little light Satanism, that'll typically shut them up.

But I know there's plenty of Christians who'd feel corrupted just by knowing I'm there leering at them, and plenty of atheists who go around picking fights (ah to be young and pissy again), and in those situations in my experience it's almost always someone addressing the theological category instead of the person, which never works well. You're asking for advice for general Christians, but general Christians aren't who you're talking to.

I don't think there is such a thing as "general Christians."

But I guess I'm referring more to evangelicals. As they are really the problem. Those that think only their values are traditional or family values. Those that are compelled to share their "good news."

But in some ways, I've had similar problems with Mormons when I lived in Utah.

 

[acbytesla]

Because, although the person you're interacting with might have drawn his theological beliefs at random from the grab bag of all of Christendom, those beliefs aren't random at all to him. It would be unfair of you to consider his beliefs to be unimportant to him just because there are wildly divergent viewpoints also available which are equally valid to your outsider's perspective.

Everyone IMV is an individual regardless of any religious beliefs they might hold. And to be truthful I think there are as many different types of Christians as there are individual Christians. I can assure you that there are Christians in every pew that don't share every view their Pastor might hold.

Hell, that is why Jimmy Carter and his Plains church is no longer a Southern Baptist. The Southern Baptists use to hold the view that the Bible was the inerrant word of God, each individual Baptist decided for themselves how to interpret its meaning. Recently the Church organization of Southern Baptists changed this giving that authority to the preachers.

 

[8enotto]

I have only had problems with fervent JW and related fundamentalists who really felt a need to convert someone that day. There are groups here that put great pride in looping in more people.
Regular lazy cherry picking Christian types aren't putting effort into anymore else, they barely bother for themselves.
But don't tell them that's how they are or you're getting an earful.

My wife is a lazy version, my FIL even moreso but some of his brothers are deep into fundy and actually follow some very strict rules for living. They won't hang with even family outside of thier sect.

 

[theprestige]

I don't think there is such a thing as "general Christians."

But I guess I'm referring more to evangelicals. As they are really the problem. Those that think only their values are traditional or family values. Those that are compelled to share their "good news."

But in some ways, I've had similar problems with Mormons when I lived in Utah.

If you meet an obnoxious proselytizer, you've met an obnoxious proselytizer. If you meet obnoxious proselytizers everywhere you go...

... Is your neighbor, whose friendship you cherish and wish to preserve, one of these "evangelicals" who are "really the problem", and thinks "only their values are traditional or family values" and feels "compelled to to share their good news"?

I mean, look man. If this friendship is burdening you too much with pressure to pretend, you have to be direct. If they can't gracefully accept your directness, then it's not really a friendship worth preserving anyway.

It sounds like maybe you're concerned that your "direct approach" has historically been good at burning bridges, and you're wondering if there are other ways to broach the subject without coming across as hatefully anti-theist?

Maybe it will help if you look at this as less a question of how to tell a theist you think they're misguided and wrong without offending them, and more a question of how to have a principled disagreement with a friend, without souring the friendship. The basic problem is not unique to atheists in a theistic community.