Can you be a Christian Athiest?

[Allo Allo]

I've recently listened to a panel discussing "Faith in the Post Secular World".

One speaker defined himself as a Christian Athiest.....when asked an explanation he explained that he practised Christian Principles in his Atheism and he went to church because he enjoyed the ceremony.

It would seem to me you could be a Muslim Athiest too :-\

Could you?

[Mongrel]

I've recently listened to a panel discussing "Faith in the Post Secular World".

One speaker defined himself as a Christian Athiest.....when asked an explanation he explained that he practised Christian Principles in his Atheism and he went to church because he enjoyed the ceremony.

It would seem to me you could be a Muslim Athiest too :-\

Could you?

Did he elaborate on what the christian principles were? And whilst I find it odd that anyone would enjoy a ceremony like that there is a large social component to many faiths.

[Matt]

In as much as you can embrace culture without the associated faith I guess this makes sense. However I'm not sure how many christians would truly regard such a person as a christian. Of course there is the case of the anglican bishop who declared that he didn't believe in a supernatural god. I can't remember his name.

To a certian extent I'm a christian atheist myself. If I drop a hammer on my foot I don't cry our to natural selection. I celebrate xmas. I'm as familiar with the stories of the bible as most christians. In short I'm fully imersed in the culture of christianity.

[Cuddles]

No. A Christian is one who believes in the divinity of Christ. If you don't believe that then you are not a Christian, no matter how much of the culture you take part in. If you do believe that then technically you are a Christian no matter what else you believe that is not part of standard Christian belief.

It is possible to be a Jewish atheist because the term Jew refers to the culture and race as well as the religion. It is also possible to be an atheist and believe some things that are often classed as religions, such as Buddhism. However, many people argue that these are actually philosophies rather than relgions since they don't necessarily require any belief in the supernatural.

I think I understand what the person means. There are many people who go through the motions of Christianity, and other religions, simply because that is how they have been brought up. In Britain at least there seem to be relatively few practicing Christians. People celebrate Christmas and Easter and go to church occasionally, but they rarely actually think about the beliefs that should be involved. However, this does not make them Christian atheists. Either they believe in god or they don't. The very definition of atheist means that you can't be a Christian. While the phrase does sort of get the point across it is very much an oxymoron and really shouldn't be used. I've seen the term "Sunday morning Christian" used to mean something similar, and I think it's much more useful.

[Legaleagle]

I am not even sure that it is possible to live within Christian principles. To take just a few examples:

You would have to excuse yourself from Jury service, voting in elections, or even gossiping with friends in order not to fall foul of prohibition on judging other people. Judgement of other people is pretty fundamental to human society.

If you do not store up worldly goods and allow your father in heaven to provide for you, good luck on skid row.

If you can't swear an oath, how can you enter parliament or the armed forces, you can't apply for a passport or many other types of licence or permit, many legal documents are forbidden to you, you can't give evidence in Court.

No Christians of my acquiantance go even remotely this far in their observance, but it's all there in the teachings of Jesus.:cheesy:

[Mongrel]

To a certian extent I'm a christian atheist myself. If I drop a hammer on my foot I don't cry our to natural selection.

I've never seen that as a huge issue, it's a cultural shorthand for "Oh brief exclamation of surprise\pain\fear\wonder\happiness*" and far more polite than (in your example) hopping around cussing up a storm.

*Delete where not applicable

[Matt]

I've never seen that as a huge issue, it's a cultural shorthand for "Oh brief exclamation of surprise\pain\fear\wonder\happiness*" and far more polite than (in your example) hopping around cussing up a storm.

*Delete where not applicable

Although to be fair what I do cry out is less often of divine origin and more often something intimately related to the propagation of the species.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Perhaps the speaker had in mind Don Cupitt and the "Sea of Faith" movement

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/mybooks.html

which denies a supernatural god but still seems to be Christian, in a sense.

Please don't ask " What sense, exactly?"- it's got me beat!

[Jocky]

A Christian is one who believes in the divinity of Christ ... It is possible to be a Jewish atheist because the term Jew refers to the culture and race as well as the religion. It is also possible to be an atheist and believe some things that are often classed as religions, such as Buddhism. However, many people argue that these are actually philosophies rather than relgions since they don't necessarily require any belief in the supernatural ... I've seen the term "Sunday morning Christian" used to mean something similar, and I think it's much more useful.

While I agree that "Christian" when applied to an individual should technically connote belief in Jesus' divinity, there is certainly a sense in which the word can be used to refer to a cultural context rather than personal belief, simliar to the word "Jewish". The term "Christian Culture" can certainly be taken to embrace many people who do not personally accept Jesus as the Son of God - I was certainly brought up in such a culture and effectively I still inhabit it, in the same sense referred to by Matt above.

Also, I think that it is possible usefully to discuss moral issues in the context of the ethical content of the gospels, without necessarily having personal faith in the theology. You could call this "Christian Philosophy" I suppose, and I think this is the sort of thing which Don Cupitt is about (I have read one of his books, but it was many years ago and my recollection is a little dim).

The demands of creed and conformity which come with Christianity are mostly inventions of the Church in the millennia since Jesus' death: it is not necessary to believe in the whole edifice in order to find some points of value in its source material.

Perhaps the person who used the apparently contradictory term "Christian Atheist" was trying to find a label for an approach of this kind to moral issues? If so, I think this is rather different from a "Sunday morning Christian": I understand this to be someone who just goes through the motions purely for social reasons, without ever thinking about the content.

[Allo Allo]

Perhaps the speaker had in mind Don Cupitt and the "Sea of Faith" movement

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/mybooks.html (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/%7Eslocks/mybooks.html)

which denies a supernatural god but still seems to be Christian, in a sense.

Please don't ask " What sense, exactly?"- it's got me beat!

The speaker was David Bolton. And you are right! I found him here:- Sea of Faith (http://www.sofn.org.uk/).
Hes a wonderful speaker - a Quaker.......Are you Psychic? ;)

[Cuddles]

While I agree that "Christian" when applied to an individual should technically connote belief in Jesus' divinity, there is certainly a sense in which the word can be used to refer to a cultural context rather than personal belief, simliar to the word "Jewish". The term "Christian Culture" can certainly be taken to embrace many people who do not personally accept Jesus as the Son of God - I was certainly brought up in such a culture and effectively I still inhabit it, in the same sense referred to by Matt above.

The trouble with this is that the culture does not come from Christianity, it has been adopted by Christianity. The same is true for all religions - they are based on the culture of the time and place they were created. We don't outlaw murder because the bible says "Thou shalt not kill", the bible says that because we outlaw murder. All of our morals and ethics come from society's needs, not from religion. Since religion exists within society it also has to be bound by those morals, but the morals would still exist even without religion.

Christianity has become so ingrained in our culture that many seem to think the two are one and the same, but that is not true. I am very much not a Christian and yet I have pretty much the same morals and culture as everyone else in Britain. If you don't believe in Jesus then you are not a Christian, no matter how similar your morals are to those of Christians.

As I said, I understand what is meant by the term but I think it is wrong. I am not a Christian and I object to being referred to as such, and I know many atheists, pagans and people from other religions that feel the same way. It is similar to calling people from the UK "English". The English are by far the majority and have had a major effect on the culture of the whole country, but I am not English. "English culture" and "Christian culture" are both the same - they are understandable, but they are wrong.

[Jocky]

If you don't believe in Jesus then you are not a Christian, no matter how similar your morals are to those of Christians.

I agree.


The trouble with this is that the culture does not come from Christianity, it has been adopted by Christianity. The same is true for all religions - they are based on the culture of the time and place they were created ... Christianity has become so ingrained in our culture that many seem to think the two are one and the same, but that is not true.

OK, so Christianity does not hold unique copyright on "Thou Shalt Not Kill", but it does not follow that Christian culture does not exist independent of the communities in which it is practiced. I agree that British Secular Culture and Christian Culture share many values, of which this is one; I was not trying to argue that they are identical.


It is similar to calling people from the UK "English". The English are by far the majority and have had a major effect on the culture of the whole country, but I am not English. "English culture" and "Christian culture" are both the same - they are understandable, but they are wrong.

I'm personally familiar with this fallacy of course, as a Scot living in England. However, I would contend that there is such a thing as "English culture", which is similar although distinct from "Scottish culture". Neither of these is exactly congruent with "British culture", although they are both major components of it. The error to which you refer is not in supposing that "English culture" exists; it is in presuming it to be identical to "British culture", which it is not.

To extend the analogy, I think there is such a thing as "Christian culture" - by which I did not mean the same thing as "British culture", "Western European culture", "Developed world culture" or any other more general grouping. I refer to a large extended community of people who to varying degrees use Christian literature, liturgy and art as a significant point of reference. There is no imputation that you personally are a part of it you do not wish to be - but it is a component of "British culture", "Western European culture" and the rest, and you would probably admit yourself to be a part of those.

[666]

... I am not a Christian and I object to being referred to as such, and I know many atheists, pagans and people from other religions that feel the same way. ...
Nice post Cuddles.

In a similar vein, I get irritated if, when giving out personal details. I am asked for my "Christian" name.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

The speaker was David Bolton. And you are right! I found him here:- Sea of Faith (http://www.sofn.org.uk/).
Hes a wonderful speaker - a Quaker.......Are you Psychic? ;)


Well, perhaps I'm a little bit psycho...sorry, psychic. For instance, I quite often know what people are thinking if they start saying " The square on the hypoteneuse..." or " Eeny meeny miney..." Trouble is, the gift often deserts me for ages after one of these triumphs. So I am denied fame, riches and a TV career. :-(

Or perhaps I just read far too much. :-)

[Garth]

According to http://www.answers.com/topic/christian regarding the definition of a Christian:-

adj.
Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
Showing a loving concern for others; humane. n.
One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.The emboldened text could be interpreted as adhering to the principles and morals contained within the Bible whilst still not believing in 'him'.
So I'm still unsure how 'the speaker' would define Christian atheist. If I was Christian and dismissed Adam and Eve and later who begat whom as literal stories but more as symbolic, then I could accept evolution and be a Christian Evolutionist. ???

But it boils down to what individual people will pick and chose from the holy texts and how they want to interpret it.

I try to live my live by a decent set of moral ethic but I wouldn't describe myself as Christian Atheist, just a decent atheist.

[Zaira]

Alo Allo,

"One speaker defined himself as a Christian Atheist.....when asked an explanation he explained that he practised Christian Principles in his Atheism and he went to church because he enjoyed the ceremony."

I don't consider myself a Christian, met too many hypocrites who claim to be Christians. But I wonder if this is along the same lines... I'm not a Buddhist but I do enjoy practicing Zen an off-shoot of Buddhism, a more relaxed, philosophical aspect of it. I chose this after reading about the different aspects of Buddhism. Am I allowed to do this, choose the aspects that appeal to me. I don't know but I've done it anyway and haven't as yet had a visit from the Buddhist police so I guess it's okay.

My philosophy is... Live your life whatever way you want so long as you do not deliberately hurt yourself or anyone else in the process.

I think the whole point of religion was to keep the peasants in line by putting the fear of God in them.

[Zaira]

Matt,

"To a certain extent I'm a Christian atheist myself. If I drop a hammer on my foot I don't cry out to natural selection. I celebrate Xmas. I'm as familiar with the stories of the bible as most Christians. In short I'm fully immersed in the culture of Christianity."


If I drop a hammer on my foot I suddenly discover I have learned a new language! I celebrate Xmas as a way of celebrating the end of another year. And being Scottish I thoroughly enjoy celebrating New Years as a way of celebrating the start of a new year - nothing more nothing less.

I have heard people comment that it's a pity it can't be Christmas all year round because people seem nicer, more warm spirited. I have that all year round through the practise of Zen. So, as far as I am concerned, I have a win win situation here.

[Zaira]

Cuddles,

"It is possible to be a Jewish atheist because the term Jew refers to the culture and race as well as the religion. It is also possible to be an atheist and believe some things that are often classed as religions, such as Buddhism. However, many people argue that these are actually philosophies rather than religions since they don't necessarily require any belief in the supernatural."


I don't see myself as a Christian or an atheist or an agnostic. That could come down to the fact that I hate labels. But also to the fact that I believe in a Real Religion. A religion that comes from the inside and not the outside of each of us. A religion that doesn't need a God. A religion that may well dwell in the soul cultivating love and compassion for all living things in the Universe. Don't know for sure - just feel it!

[Cuddles]

I don't see myself as a Christian or an atheist or an agnostic. That could come down to the fact that I hate labels. But also to the fact that I believe in a Real Religion. A religion that comes from the inside and not the outside of each of us. A religion that doesn't need a God. A religion that may well dwell in the soul cultivating love and compassion for all living things in the Universe. Don't know for sure - just feel it!

That's a fairly common view nowadays. I believe it's called deist, although I'm never entirely sure what all the philosophical types mean by all their -ist labels, and I rather suspect they aren't either. However, I'm not sure I'd call it a religion. To me, that implies organised groups with the same beliefs, rather than the individual beliefs that you have.


I try to live my live by a decent set of moral ethic but I wouldn't describe myself as Christian Atheist, just a decent atheist.

This always reminds me of Asimov's robot laws, especially one story (annoyingly I can't remember what it's called) in which someone is accused of being a robot because he is too nice (as a nice twist you never actually find out if he is or not). The idea is that it's impossible to tell the difference between a robot following the three laws and a nice human.

The same is true for this sort of argument. Someone who follows Christian morality exactly is no different from someone who is just nice without needing any rules to follow. In fact, it's a common argument that Christians are necessarly less moral than atheists because they act as they do because of promises and threats, not because of any actual morality.

[Zaira]

"This always reminds me of Asimov's robot laws, especially one story (annoyingly I can't remember what it's called)"

I think it was called 'I Robot'. I love reading Isaac Asimov


http://www.iit.edu/~cs485/reports/asimovsi.htm


I loved The Foundation Series.


The Foundation Series is an epic science fiction series written over a span of forty-four years by Isaac Asimov. It consists of seven volumes that are closely linked to each other, although they can be read separately. The term 'Foundation Series' is often used more generally to include the Robot Series and Empire Series, which are set in the same fictional universe. In total there are fourteen novels and dozens of short stories written by Asimov, and six novels written by other authors after his death. The series is highly acclaimed, winning the one-time Hugo Award for "Best All-Time Series" in 1965.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia

The cover of I, Robot illustrates the story "Runaround", the first to list all Three Laws of Robotics. In science fiction, the Three Laws of Robotics are a set of three rules written by Isaac Asimov, which almost all positronic robots appearing in his fiction must obey. Introduced in his 1942 short story "Runaround", although foreshadowed in a few earlier stories, the Laws state the following:

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Later, Asimov added the Zeroth Law: "A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm"; the rest of the laws are modified sequentially to acknowledge this.

[Zaira]

"Deism is a religious philosophy and movement that became prominent in Great Britain, France, and the United States in the 17th and 18th centuries and continues to this day. Deism differs from theism in that according to Deism God does not interfere with human life and the laws of the universe.

Deists typically reject supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and divine revelation prominent in organized religion, along with holy books and revealed religions that assert the existence of such things. Instead, Deists hold that religious beliefs must be founded on human reason and observed features of the natural world, and that these sources reveal the existence of one God or supreme being."

Wow! So that's what I am! Who knew?

S*** more lables!


Cheers for that. I'm off to have a read and find out what else I am. O0

[Cuddles]

I think it was called 'I Robot'. I love reading Isaac Asimov

The collection of short stories is called "I, Robot", according to the site you linked the one I was thinking of is called "Evidence". Hmm, I must see if I can dig out some of his books again, haven't read any for a while.

[Zaira]

Cuddles,

"That's a fairly common view nowadays. I believe it's called deist, although I'm never entirely sure what all the philosophical types mean by all their -ist labels, and I rather suspect they aren't either. However, I'm not sure I'd call it a religion. To me, that implies organised groups with the same beliefs, rather than the individual beliefs that you have."

Thanks for the heads-up on that (deist thing), I haven't come across it before but after having a read I have to say that it might explain a lot of what I believe but have trouble explaining.

The Real Religion I speak of is not the organised or commercial type, it's more of a natural religion - a feeling, a knowing that we each have a hidden storehouse of knowledge within us. ........... Pushing it a little here but........ It seems to come down to the fact that we are our own God. It may turn out that when they said, "It's all in your head." It may well be.

[Zaira]

If that's what I am then I am in good company....

This is a partial list of people who have been categorized as deists, the belief in a God based on natural religion only, or belief in religious truths discovered by people through a process of reasoning, independent of any revelation through scripture or prophets. They have been selected for their influence on Deism, or for their fame in other areas.

Ethan Allen [3]
Aristotle [4]
Marlon Brando [1]
Henry St John, 1st Viscount Bolingbroke
Napoleon Bonaparte [5]
Cicero [6]
Benjamin Darrow
Paul Davies [7]
Democritus
Epicurus
Antony Flew [8]
Benjamin Franklin [9]
Frederick the Great [10]
Edward Herbert, 1st Baron Herbert of Cherbury [11]
William Hogarth [12]
Victor Hugo [13] [14]
David Hume [2]
James Hutton
Thomas Jefferson [15]
Immanuel Kant
Gotthold Ephraim Lessing [16]
Abraham Lincoln [17]
John Locke [18]
James Madison [19]
Moses Mendelssohn [20]
Gouverneur Morris
Thomas Paine [21]
Elihu Palmer [22]
Plato
Alexander Pope [23]
Maximilien Robespierre [24]
Adam Smith [3]
Lysander Spooner [25]
Alfred Lord Tennyson
Matthew Tindal [26]
John Toland [27]
Constantin-François de Chassebœuf, Comte de Volney
Voltaire [28]
George Washington [4]
Alan Watts
Keith R. Wright

[Garth]

Cheers for that. I'm off to have a read and find out what else I am.

I had a poor friend who scanned medical dictionaries for just that reason.

Of course, we could always be ourselves :) the good, the bad and the slightly unusual, in an individual sense of course ;)

[Zaira]

"I had a poor friend who scanned medical dictionaries for just that reason." - Garth

No probs, I've been down that road, not going there again. I am much more selective these days, and the 'Keeper At The Gate' has grown very strong over the years. I no longer believe everything I read - or everything I'm told.

My interests may be sparked by something someone said or something I read, like Cuddles mention of Deism, I go off and check it out. If I can use it or any part of it I will - I don't care for labels, and I believe only that which rings true to the deepest part of my being and simply disregard the rest. It is after all a personal journey. It's not like I'm trying to save the world or anything, so where is the harm. I'm not even trying to get others to understand any more.

In the end every seeker comes to the reality of it all and realises that the answer to all those big life questions is that there is no answer.

[Ardbeg]

In the end every seeker comes to the reality of it all and realises that the answer to all those big life questions is that there is no answer. [/quote]

Or there is....

The answer needs to appeal to what we consider the core of our being - with you, its Deism, with someone else that may Atheism and for a third, it may be organised religion of one sort or another. Who's to say which one is right...maybe all are wrong...or maybe all of them right...

;D I know this is bound to set people off!

[Zaira]

"The answer needs to appeal to what we consider the core of our being - with you, its Deism, with someone else that may Atheism and for a third, it may be organised religion of one sort or another. Who's to say which one is right...maybe all are wrong...or maybe all of them right..."

I guess that's why my motto is 'Live and let live'. All this discussion and theorising about who is right and who is wrong, and what religion is and what it is not. We are never going to want the same things, and we are never going to believe the same things. Everyone to their own, I say.

Still doesn't answer those big life questions other than that there is no answer. It is ALL speculation. At least until the scientist get there hands on it. But then they only deal with what they can explain. The stuff they can't is still there, and I guess this is the ball the rest of us are playing with.

Sometimes I just want to take my ball and go home, comfortable in my own beliefs - delusional or otherwise. All said and done........ Who cares?

All the great past and present minds struggled to explain the working of this clockwork orange we call our world. If they had found the answers..... We would have nothing to discuss. They speculated, made some discoveries, explained some things to our satisfaction. So what? What are we going to do with the information? I'll tell you what we do with it........... We bandy it back and forth like we alone made the discoveries. When, in reality, all we did is read a book!