Greetings from an atheist

[razeontherock]

H I have spent the last few years of my life really investigating religious claims, searching for the existence of a god. However, as far as I can tell, belief in a god is unjustified. I have never been presented with evidence to justify belief.

I'm going to challenge you with the possibility that perhaps you have never approached the Bible the way it's designed to be used? It would be both interesting and helpful for you to express your thoughts on that. (What you think it's for, that is)

If I told you that God shows up in ways we least expect it, and you went and read the Bible with that in mind, looking for examples, you could no doubt find many. I could keep giving you ideas like that, and you could keep finding them in Scripture, probably for the rest of our lives. Fortunately for both of us, I am not your Good Shepherd, and you are not dependent upon me for your Salvation

We are fellow mortals, both sharing our human condition, and you may or may not be open to the possibility that there is a Spiritual dimension to that. I will stress we should not make up what we don't know, and be honest about those things. Trying to point you "in the direction of" the Spirit, can be a bit like the childhood game of getting hotter or colder; we don't have a concrete frame of reference, but progress can still be made.

 

[lesliedellow]

If I was in the proselytising game, I suppose one of the things I would point to is a historical puzzle. There were half a dozen messianic sects that we know of in first century Judea. Most of them were crushed by the Romans, and disappeared from the pages of history following the death of their founder. The Romans tried the same thing with the sect led by Jesus of Nazareth, but, as we know, the results were very different. So the obvious question arises as to what was so different about that sect that it not only survived, but 2,000 years later, it has roughly 2 billion followers?

Also, the New Testament writers obviously believed what they wrote, and some of them went to their deaths for what they believed. Perhaps they were mistaken in their beliefs, but then, where did they get those mistaken beliefs from? - always remembering that, especially in the case of Paul, they were much closer in time than we are.

Then there is the cosmic fine tuning which astrophysicists unexpectedly stumbled across. To take just one example, in gravity had been one part in ten to the fifteenth stronger, the universe would have collapsed back in on itself shortly after the big bang. On the other hand, if it had been weaker by an equally miniscule amount, the stars and galaxies would never have formed - which would have meant no nuclear furnaces, and no chemical elements apart from hydrogen and helium.

There are many other examples of ways the universe appears to be balanced on a knife edge. That I can see, there are only two ways in which such huge improbabilities can be accounted for. One is to postulate the existence of trillions upon trillions of other universes, all of them, except this one, unobserved, and we live in the one which just happened to strike lucky in the cosmic lottery. The other possibility is to postulate the existence of just one God, who wasn't specially invented for the purpose, and who did the fine tuning.

 

[Publius]

I'm sorry that you personally don't believe in atheism, but the existence of a single person sincerely saying that they don't believe in a god demonstrates we exist, so I find it surprisingly, to say the least, that you choose to ignore such clear evidence.

In terms of the bible quote you bring up, I'd love if you could give us some reasons why we should take the bible as infallible or true.

I don't know of anyone who has gone about it by thinking "Well if so many people are wrong then there can't be a real God". Atheism is merely the rejection of the claim "a god or gods exists". That's it. So atheism can only exist if there are god claims being asserted. I would never say "there is no god" unless I had proper justification for that statement (which I don't think to be likely, at least not in my lifetime). What I do say is that, for all the claims of gods that have been asserted to me, I do not see proper justification for believing that any of them actually exist. Hopefully that clears that up a bit.

Again, your bible quote sounds great and all, but until you can demonstrate to me that it is the infallible word of a god, I have no reason to think it is meaningful to our conversation.

In terms of common ground to start from, unfortunately you have so divorced yourself from reality that I fear we may not have any at all, but I will throw out a few basic points to begin with, and we can see where we diverge:

1. I would prefer to believe as many true and as few false things as possible. Can you honestly say this is the same about yourself. I'm not so sure you can after your assertion about not believing in atheists.

2. All claims need to be backed up by proper evidence. Throwing in a bible quote in no way constitute evidence until it can be demonstrated that the bible is indeed divinely authored.

3. Logic, reason, science, skepticism, rational discourse, these are the tools of learning and discovering more about the world around us. Proposing any reasonable debate to start with "the reality of Jesus" demonstrates your lack of proper application of these. When faced with someone who clearly does not accept what you are calling the "reality" of something, logically it follows that a debate or discussion would have to go deeper than that.


Since I can disprove your believe that atheists don't exist (no need for capital A in atheists by the way) by simply saying I don't believe in god, lets take a look at your claims for a minute. So far you have used the quotes from the bible and asserted that a "reality of Jesus" exists. Why don't you demonstrate to me that this "reality" actually exists, or that the bible is the true word of a god.

So, in other words, you didn't come here to ask a question about our religion, which is the stated purpose of this forum, you came here to challenge our religion, in spite of the fact that the rules you agreed to follow very clearly say that debating is not allowed in this forum.

 

[stan1953]

So, in other words, you didn't come here to ask a question about our religion, which is the stated purpose of this forum, you came here to challenge our religion, in spite of the fact that the rules you agreed to follow very clearly say that debating is not allowed in this forum.

Publius, the moderator came on in post #15 and allowed this. Please check out what has already been discussed.
Thanks

 

[Brenda Morgan]

Hi ST,

I can't resist in saying I don't believe in Atheists. My reason is the following; Romans 1:20... For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

God Bless
Stan

his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made

So why didn't the Jews know about the Trinity?

 

[stan1953]

his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made

So why didn't the Jews know about the Trinity?

Actually they knew full well... the 4th word in Genesis 1:1 is ELOHIM which is the plural form of the word EL, which means God.

 

[fschmidt]

I wouldn't say always. If you could demonstrate that it was the infallible word of god, and evidence was presented to justify this, I would no longer reject it. That's how science and skepticism work, we don't start with prior beliefs and force the world to fit them, we examine the actual reality that we live in, and make conclusions that inform our beliefs from actual evidence.

If only your average atheist really was scientific and skeptical, I would respect them a lot more. But your average atheist has faith in all kinds of nonsense, at least as much faith as your average Christian does, but in things that are considerably easier to demonstrate as false. I am referring to modern liberal beliefs which virtually all atheists share and which have no basis in science and are contradicted by history. Atheism is basically faith in evil nonsense.

I am a true skeptic and I take nothing on faith. If you are genuinely interested in investigating other viewpoints, you might be interested in why I follow the Old Testamant:

Open Karaite - Karaite Skepticism

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Hi SecularThinker,

I thought I would leave you with my reasons for believing. I have had many experiences with God that lead me to believe in God. I have left a link here to my website which details these experiences Know God Personally I have also included one of the stories off the website so you get an idea of what I mean by experiences.

One morning I got up and walked into the hall and I heard a voice that I believed was God say "How would you like to be stabbed in the Valley". The Valley was known as the rough end of town, and the voice scared me a little, I wondered if I had done something to offend God. I had planned to go down to the Valley to ask people out to church as was my habit at the time. In the end I went anyway regardless of the fear. I walked up to the first person I met and asked him if he would like to go out to church. He said to me "I am an atheist, I don't believe in God". I just said "fine", but hoped to change his mind. He then proceeded to unbutton his shirt and showed me scar marks up and down his chest and stomach. He said to me, "I was attacked by a knife wielding man in the Valley some time ago and spent months recovering in hospital, How could God allow that to happen to me". Then I knew why God had said in the morning "How would I like to be stabbed?". God understood this man, but had a good plan for him. Some weeks latter this man came out to church and became a Christian.

I hope that these things draw you closer to the truth.

 

[lucaspa]

In terms of the bible quote you bring up, I'd love if you could give us some reasons why we should take the bible as infallible or true.

This has nothing to do with the Bible being infallible, but a claim by Paul in a letter to the Romans. Is that claim true?

At the time Paul wrote it, yes. If nothing else, the designs in living organisms was overwhelming evidence that God exists. Since that time the evidence is not as overwhelming as Paul claimed.

Atheism is merely the rejection of the claim "a god or gods exists". That's it. So atheism can only exist if there are god claims being asserted. I would never say "there is no god" unless I had proper justification for that statement (which I don't think to be likely, at least not in my lifetime). What I do say is that, for all the claims of gods that have been asserted to me, I do not see proper justification for believing that any of them actually exist. Hopefully that clears that up a bit.

It clears it up, but brings up atheist dogma that we know is wrong. Yes, you may be able to start out saying atheism is simply a "rejection" of the claim that deity exists. However, even that rejection is a belief. You believe no deities exist.

Let's take this out of the realm of religion to test how we use language. Let's take the claim "the earth is 4.55 billion years old." If I say "I reject that claim", isn't that the same as saying "I believe the earth is not 4.5 billion years old."? Or the claim "Human life begins at conception" and say "I reject that claim." Aren't you saying "I believe human life does not begin at conception."?

Even without theism, there would be the equivalent of atheism. The reason is that, once you make the intiial "I reject the claim that deity exists", you then have to make further statements of belief. See your "I do not see proper justification for believing"? That means you are going to have to believe "justification" (= evidence) is wrong. For starters, you are going to have to believe that the accounts of personal encounters with deity in the Bible did not happen. After all, if they did happen, that would constitute "proper justification", wouldn't it? There are other beliefs you must have to be an atheist.

Again, your bible quote sounds great and all, but until you can demonstrate to me that it is the infallible word of a god, I have no reason to think it is meaningful to our conversation.

That's a red herring. First, the quote doesn't even refer to things in the Bible, but to the broader world outside the Bible. Second, the Bible doesn't have to be "the infallible word of a god" to make accurate statements about the existence of a god. It can have errors in it, doesn't have to be written or even inspired by a deity, but can have accurate accounts of encounters of human beings with deity. For instance, if the story of Moses and the Burning Bush is accurate, that is evidence for the existence of Yaheh. Moses can write the account and Moses can make mistakes in other areas.

As a comparison, Vestiges of Creation isn't infallible, and the author wasn't stated, but it is meaningful in a discussion of the history of evolution.

In terms of common ground to start from, unfortunately you have so divorced yourself from reality that I fear we may not have any at all, but I will throw out a few basic points to begin with, and we can see where we diverge:

2. All claims need to be backed up by proper evidence. Throwing in a bible quote in no way constitute evidence until it can be demonstrated that the bible is indeed divinely authored.

Again, strawman. It's not necessary for the Bible to be divinely authored to be accurate. Now, define "proper evidence", please.

3. Logic, reason, science, skepticism, rational discourse, these are the tools of learning and discovering more about the world around us. Proposing any reasonable debate to start with "the reality of Jesus" demonstrates your lack of proper application of these.

No it doesn't. Instead, it simply means that we cut to the conclusion of reason, evidence, skepticism, and rational discourse. After all, if I say "the reality of evolution" as a starting point to discuss creation, I am not demonstrating a lack of proper application of the points you made, am I?

The issue is that you disagree with the conclusion. That's OK. However, that does not mean you have any evidence that the use of the "tools of learning and discovering" were omitted.

 

[lucaspa]

Actually they knew full well... the 4th word in Genesis 1:1 is ELOHIM which is the plural form of the word EL, which means God.

Ouch. If you really stick to that, then you are denying Trinty, not supporting it. elohim is the plural, so it is gods. But Trinity holds that there is only one God, not a plurality of them. As I recall, Mormonism uses "elohim" as rationale for their concept of 3 separate gods but all having a single goal.

What you really see here is the Hebrews avoiding having a "name" for God. "el" was used in the name of the supreme Canaanite deity before the Conquest. So Hebrew authors cannot use "el" to name their god. Father Gods: El, Abba, Yahweh, Elohim, Paraclete (Holy Spirit "Comforter")

So how to write about a singular god that has no name? "elohim" was the answer. It's obvious in Genesis 1 (and the rest of the P tradition) that only a single god is creating. By using the plural the authors get around the "name" problem. In Genesis 2 and the rest of the J tradition, the word Yahweh is used. But "Yahweh" isn't a name. It is simply "I am" in Hebrew, and refers to the answer the Burning Bush gave to Moses.

 

[stan1953]

Ouch. If you really stick to that, then you are denying Trinty, not supporting it. elohim is the plural, so it is gods. But Trinity holds that there is only one God, not a plurality of them. As I recall, Mormonism uses "elohim" as rationale for their concept of 3 separate gods but all having a single goal.

What you really see here is the Hebrews avoiding having a "name" for God. "el" was used in the name of the supreme Canaanite deity before the Conquest. So Hebrew authors cannot use "el" to name their god. Father Gods: El, Abba, Yahweh, Elohim, Paraclete (Holy Spirit "Comforter")

So how to write about a singular god that has no name? "elohim" was the answer. It's obvious in Genesis 1 (and the rest of the P tradition) that only a single god is creating. By using the plural the authors get around the "name" problem. In Genesis 2 and the rest of the J tradition, the word Yahweh is used. But "Yahweh" isn't a name. It is simply "I am" in Hebrew, and refers to the answer the Burning Bush gave to Moses.

Not at all...it is the Hebrew equivalent of Trinity. Hebrews KNOW what it means, just like we know what Trinity means. It is a plural intensive with a singular meaning. Just like Triune or Trinity.

 

[lucaspa]

Not at all...it is the Hebrew equivalent of Trinity. Hebrews KNOW what it means, just like we know what Trinity means. It is a plural intensive with a singular meaning. Just like Triune or Trinity.

Hebrews have no equivalent of "Trinity". After all, Jews reject that Jesus is the son of God! There is nothing else in the OT to even hint that the Hebrews had a concept of Trinity. This is modern day Christians trying to falsely retrodict our ideas back into the OT.

Yes, "elohim" in Genesis 1 has a "singular meaning". But the only way we know that is because elsewhere the OT insists God is singular. Not 3 personas in one ousia (formulation of Trinity), but just a single God. I also find it interesting that elohim is the plural of the feminine form of God. It's remarkable that such a patriarchal culture is using the feminine form. Now, do you think Jesus was female? Nope. So I submit that the use of the feminine plural was picked to get at the basic truth that God is neither male nor female.

 

[stan1953]

Hebrews have no equivalent of "Trinity". After all, Jews reject that Jesus is the son of God! There is nothing else in the OT to even hint that the Hebrews had a concept of Trinity. This is modern day Christians trying to falsely retrodict our ideas back into the OT.

Yes, "elohim" in Genesis 1 has a "singular meaning". But the only way we know that is because elsewhere the OT insists God is singular. Not 3 persona's in one ousia (formulation of Trinity), but just a single God. I also find it interesting that elohim is the plural of the feminine form of God. It's remarkable that such a patriarchal culture is using the feminine form. Now, do you think Jesus was female? Nope. So I submit that the use of the feminine plural was picked to get at the basic truth that God is neither male nor female.

Like I have already stated, this word is the equivalent. Both 'elohiym and it's root 'elowahh, and BOTH are MASCULINE nouns, NOT female nouns. The word 'elohiym connotes the One True God in Hebrew and the plural connotes the composition of His diety. The concept truly finds it reality in the NT where we can clearly see God as Father,Son and Holy Spirit. "Let us create man in OUR image", Who do you think OUR is?
The Bible makes it very clear how we are to look at God. John 4:24
Now I must ask you to please refrain from derailing this thread any further...the topic is Atheism.

 

[lucaspa]

Like I have already stated, this word is the equivalent. Both 'elohiym and it's root 'elowahh, and BOTH are MASCULINE nouns, NOT female nouns.

Not according to the sources I have (and have posted). So as far as I can see, you are making erroneous claims.

The word 'elohiym connotes the One True God in Hebrew and the plural connotes the composition of His diety.

That elohim is used to denote a singular God is correct. We disagree that it denotes Trinity. There is nothing in any of the OT or any of the rabbinical writings to suggest that the Hebrews had any thought of Trinity. The concept of Trinity does not appear until 2nd century AD Christian writings. Even then, Christians argued for a long time whether scripture supported Trinity and many (if not most) Chriistians were not Trinitarians.. Trinity did not triumph as an idea within Christianity until the 4th century AD. This entire argument between Christian Biblical scholars could not have taken place if the meaning of "elohim" is as clear as you are claiming.

What you are doing is retrodicting your ideas back into text and trying to make the text mean something it does not.

"Let us create man in OUR image", Who do you think OUR is?

The royal "we" that kings use. Genesis 1 is a monograph for monotheism. The authors have no idea at all of Trinity. Nor are they going to introduce possible confusion of the idea of monotheism.

I submit the reason the authors used the royal "we" there is because they are borrowing a phrase used by kings at the time. being "in the image" of the king had a specific meaning at that time. A meaning we no longer use (and thus causes great confusion today because we are trying to figure out how humans are in "the image" of God). The phrase was used when the king appointed an ambassador with the power of the king to make binding treaties or other policy. Remember, communication was VERY slow and it would take weeks or months to get a message from the ambassador back to the king and then from the king to the ambassador. "In the image was the phrased used to denote the ambassador was the king in this matter. So when the king appointed the ambassador, I submit the stock phrase (which would be recognized by the readers at the time) was: We appoint you our ambassador to .... You shall be in our image." Notice that the next part of the verse is "let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. " That is about power, which is also what "in our image" is about. The verse is saying the same thing in 2 different ways.

Also note the next verse, 27: "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

No "our" now, is there? A singular "his". Another indication verse 26 is the royal "we".

I refer you again to all the rabbinical scholars up to and including Jesus' time. IF "elohim" is so clearly supposed to be a Trinitarian concept, then explain why none of the Hebrew scholars tumbled upon it.

 

[Nilla]

Mod Hat On

Since the OP hasn't been back for a while I'm closing this thread. Start a new thread in General Theology if you wish to continue this discussion. You can always link to this thread


Mod Hat Off​