A Letter From An Atheist

[AV1611VET]

I don't get the reference to Hallmark cards. (And yeah, I did look it up on Wikipedia, but that didn't help.)

The world's version of a cherub:

A real [good portrayal of a] cherub:

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by mathclub
Dear Theists,

I don't care.

I believe in evolution, the big bang theory and germ theory. I believe that the earth is somewhere around 4.5 billion years old and that the universe is close to 14 billion years old. I believe that we evolved from some type of primate type mammal, and that the other primates are our closest relatives. I believe that the earth is round, and spins through space on an orbit around the sun. I believe that gravity holds us to this planet, but that our model of it is far from perfect. I believe that life started on this planet of it's own accord, with no outside help.

But at the end of the day, I don't care.

I don't care if evolution is rejected by the scientific community one day. I don't care if the big bang theory is flushed down the toilet. I don't care if germ theory is thrown out with yesterdays trash. None of my beliefs about any of your gods have anything to do with any of this. None of my rejection of the myriad of god tales has anything to do with anything I have listed above, or any other scientific fact.

I don't believe in any version of god(s) that I have ever heard, because all of it sounds ridiculous and stupid to me, and there is not the slightest bit of evidence to support any of it. Your god has never spoken to me, revealed himself to me or had anything to do with my life. So why would I believe?

But I get it.

I get that if evolution is true that your bible is shown to be a pack of lies. I get that if scientists show beyond all doubt that the big bang created the universe that your koran is shown to be factually incorrect. I get that these scientific theories attack the very foundation of your belief, and show it to be the patchwork of myths, lies, tales and stories that it actually is. I get that this science is threatening to you, and compels you to attack it in defence of your religion.

I get that you don't understand what a false dichotomy is, that you somehow think if you can prove evolution or the big bang is not true that you misguidely think that it somehow makes your particular religions creation myth more correct than another religions creation myth.

You could disprove any of the theories mentioned here, or any other scientific theory you care to name, but at the end of the day exactly NONE of my belief system is based upon any of these facts the way your religion is based on your creation myth. So guess what?

I don't care.

Originally Posted by brinny
Then why did you bother to post all this?

so that people would read it and think about what I had written and what I was trying to say.

you should try doing that.

You stated:

Your god has never spoken to me, revealed himself to me or had anything to do with my life. So why would I believe?

Would you like Him to?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

The world's version of a cherub:

A real [good portrayal of a] cherub:

That is your problem, not mine. (I would probably file both of those under "Silly. Not literally true", just as I would with God as a bearded fellow sitting in the clouds, or some such. An act of kindness, make no mistake.)

 

[Jazer]

I don't have an explanation. I just know your one isn't true.

You have the burden of proof. It is up to you to prove that it is not true.

Imagine you and I are standing in front of a door

This is a strawman. You make up a story and then you falsify your own story. So this amounts to nothing. Science demands evidence and you have to produce a way to verify what you say is true. Others have to be able to verify your results.

Did you know that for 3500 years the scribes have used math to verify that they have been accurate and true to copy the Bible. They actually count every letter in a passage to make sure that they have written the correct number of letters.

The Bible was then read outloud at a assembly. They have to get 10 people together to read the scriptures to them. If they find a letter that does not fit the word, then they send it back to the scribe to correct.

It is amazing how math can be used to verify our Bible is accurate and true to God's purpose and intention. Jeremiah says God actually watches over His own Word to perform it! So we know that the Bible has all the authority of God behind what we read. The very same God that created the Universe that we live in, stands behind our Bible to verify and to perform. What He says He will do you can be sure He will do. This is what you learn if you were to take a covenant theology class. If you do your part of the Covenant, then you can be sure that God is faithfull and true, He will do His part.

Want to know for sure if there is a God or not? Simple, do your part and then want to see if God will follow though to do what He says He will do. Of course this will require you to read the Bible to learn about God, to find out what He has for you and what He wants to do in your life. I will give you a clue, He wants us to prosper so we have hope and a good future. He does give us a choice.

Deuteronomy 30:19 (NKJV)
I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live;

 

[Jazer]

God as a bearded fellow sitting in the clouds, or some such.

That is what you know about God? That would not even qualify you to graduate from pre school to enter elementary school. You will need to know more then that to qualify for an education.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

That is what you know about God? That would not even qualify you to graduate from pre school to enter elementary school. You will need to know more then that to qualify for an education.

Have you read the full sentence? Here it is again:

"I would probably file both of those under "Silly. Not literally true", just as I would with God as a bearded fellow sitting in the clouds, or some such. An act of kindness, make no mistake."
​

Do. You. Understand?
"God as a bearded fellow sitting on a cloud" = "Silly. Not literally true"



ETA: And now that I see it:
"You will need to know more then that to qualify for an education."
Us can haz edjucashion, moar then haz youz.

(Oh, make no mistake. I could normally care less about trifles such as typos. But if it happens while your are waffling about education, it is quite funny.)

 

[Lord Emsworth]

A real [good portrayal of a] cherub:

"That is what you know about Cherubs? That would not even qualify you to graduate from pre school to enter elementary school. You will need to know more then that to qualify for an education." (Freely adapted from Jazer)

See how kind I am AV? I merely said "silly." You however did not get any attacks about your education from me.

(And the "silliness" is an open secret. Compare with "a bearded fellow in the sky". Jazer seems to essentially agree that it is, well, silly.)

 

[AV1611VET]

"That is what you know about Cherubs? That would not even qualify you to graduate from pre school to enter elementary school. You will need to know more then that to qualify for an education." (Freely adapted from Jazer)

See how kind I am AV? I merely said "silly." You however did not get any attacks about your education from me.

(And the "silliness" is an open secret. Compare with "a bearded fellow in the sky". Jazer seems to essentially agree that it is, well, silly.)

Jazer said "God", not "Cherubs", and the plural of 'cherub' is 'cherubim', anyway; so Jazer is right, you have a lot to learn.

 

[Naraoia]

When you replied to several people in one post, it suppressed my interest to reply to you.

That, my friend, is entirely your problem. I'm not going to spam the thread with three or four posts in a row just so you can feel special.

Most atheists don't honestly contemplate the point of their existence because without a self-determined purpose there is no point.

I find it highly probable that most people don't honestly contemplate the point of their existence, or indeed "big questions" in general. The only difference is that theists have a ready-made answer should they want one but be too lazy to "contemplate".

yep, way to write the exact same thing I did but make it 10 times as long and 100 times more boring

Way to be constructive.

Actually, my subjective experience is an internal experience of an external, invisible entity.

“The King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God” (1 Tim 1:17).

You know the next question, don't you? Where is your evidence? How can an observer that isn't you verify this external, invisible entity that you are experiencing?

As I said, I ask that as a person with first-hand experience with feelings that have nothing to do with any external reality. A pretty line of old poetry ain't going to convince me that your feelings are any different.

Would you like Him to?

Unfortunately, a positive answer to that question doesn't guarantee success...

 

[Orogeny]

What I do understand is that Davian is wrong.

I am not Omphalos, I am Embedded Age.

If 'embedded age' relies on maturity sans history, then it is invalid, as the earth shows a long, complex history. Your idea is invalidated by that which it attempts to explain. You are free to continue to be wrong, so long as you understand that you are, in fact, wrong.

 

[plindboe]

I can also speak as an ex-atheist and point out that if you don't have a nihilistic view of existence then you don't get being an atheist.

It's funny how nearly everyone claiming to be an ex-atheist doesn't seem to have the faintest clue about what atheism is.

Peter

 

[Davian]

It wouldn't.

God gave us Genesis 1 to clarify the issue, not cloud it.

Here's a scenario you can butcher until you don't understand:

Suppose, in 1/10 of a second, God created the earth and one single star 30 billion light years from the earth.

That's all that's in the universe: the earth and one star.

Now, suppose for reasons known only to Him, He also created light from the star to the earth.

Now He documents what He did, what order He did it in, how long it took Him (1/10 second), why it took Him that long, and who the eyewitness were.

Question: Would it be right for someone to come along and conclude God was being deceptive?

But say this document was an owner's manual for a car. I'm having some issue with the car, so I get out the manual from the glove box, and start reading. Strangely, the manual does not appear to match up with what I see on the car, even as the label on the front cover says it is for this car.

Would it be right for me to conclude that the manufacturer was trying to be deceptive? Could there be other, far more parsimonious explanations?

It's not -- care to answer it as I wrote it? or was I right about you butchering it until you wouldn't understand?

I have to say, "created light from the star to the earth" makes no sense to me, other than a reference to Last Thursdayism (light created in transit), which you said you didn't like.

So, no, I can't answer it, as it is a loaded question.

Reality does not appear to match your 'documentation'. You acknowledge that, hence this discussion.

You need to believe that your particular version of the 'document' is entirely accurate (infallible?), since the alternative is... less than desirable.

You don't want a deceptive God, as that wouldn't be cricket.

Reality is demonstrable and persistant.

And you are strangely silent on how your 'embedded age' idea addresses the observed behaviour of galaxies.

Your question of God being deceptive just backs you tighter into the corner.

And are you sure they never discussed galaxies in the bible? Such an oversight.

 

[Belk]

The world's version of a cherub:

A real [good portrayal of a] cherub:

(Ezekiel 1:5) Each of them had four faces and four wings, with straight feet with a sole like the sole of a calf's foot, and "hands of a man" under their wings. Each had four faces: The face of a man, the face of a lion on the right side, the face of an ox on the left side, and the face of an eagle.

 

[Belk]

This was difficult to ignore.

The reason I talk about nihilism is because as an atheist you probably believe that you are the result of an incredibly long chain of random (in the sense "purposeless") events, starting with a single uncaused event, working through accidental chemical fusion and followed by a series of purposeless, undriven evolutionary mutations. You will hopefully live between 70 and 100 years (maybe longer) until you die, and eventually decay, just as the whole universe will. Then perhaps this process will repeat.

But any meaning you have in your life, any desire to leave a mark, or be remembered is ultimately pointless because it is part of a chain of random, unscheduled events. In fact, and meaning you give your life, just like an earlier poster, is made up.

Yet atheists continually accuse Christians of making their God up, while totally missing the irony.

As an atheist I at least recognised that any value I assigned to my own existence I did for my own pleasure/sanity. The reality is that I was no more important in the scheme of things than a single ant, largely because there was no scheme of things. Any value attributed to me by others was a reflection of how I affected their own ultimately pointless lives.

In the atheist worldview "we" must continually invent reasons to do the smallest things. We spend most of our lives doing what we don't want to do - going to school when we'd rather not, going to work when we'd rather not, sleeping for a third of our existence. Atheists have to assign some value to this because the truth is hard to swallow. I'm sure you assign value to your own existence, hence your reluctance to accept the truth of your situation.

You see our belief in God as a construct to get us through the pointlessless of life. We honestly see God as the logical reason for our existence. We see things in two different ways, and unless or until God allows you to see things differently it will remain that way. But believe me when I say that our belief is at least as real as your self-attributed meaning for existence, and more so because we believe everything you do and more. We don't have a deficiency, we have an added dimension.

Most atheists don't honestly contemplate the point of their existence because without a self-determined purpose there is no point. Just Google Atheistic Existentialism to see what I mean.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

Apparently my experience differs from yours.

 

[Davian]

...
I can also speak as an ex-atheist and point out that if you don't have a nihilistic view of existence then you don't get being an atheist.

It's funny how nearly everyone claiming to be an ex-atheist doesn't seem to have the faintest clue about what atheism is.

Peter

+1

I am eagerly awaiting to hear more about my outlook on life.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Jazer said "God", not "Cherubs",

Some Jazer would have said 'Cherubs' if it had not been you who posted those silly images, but me instead.

and the plural of 'cherub' is 'cherubim', anyway;

cherub - Wiktionary

cherub (plural cherubs or cherubim)​

Seems like both are possible. Cherubs is listed first, though.

so Jazer is right, you have a lot to learn.

Surely not from you, AV. Lest any Jazer come and chastise me for the stuff that I learned from you. j/k And surely not from Jazer either.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

(Ezekiel 1:5) Each of them had four faces and four wings, with straight feet with a sole like the sole of a calf's foot, and "hands of a man" under their wings. Each had four faces: The face of a man, the face of a lion on the right side, the face of an ox on the left side, and the face of an eagle.

Pssst, this is a vision. And with that kind of thing all bets are off.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have to say, "created light from the star to the earth" makes no sense to me...

Why would it? you're an atheistic evolutionist.

But consider this, if you can, suppose it is God's will that we observe that star that He placed 30 billion light years out?

Now does it make sense to you?

 

[AV1611VET]

It's funny how nearly everyone claiming to be an ex-atheist doesn't seem to have the faintest clue about what atheism is.

Oh! I do! I think!

Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist, but only insofar as the person knows that God doesn't exist.

And since one can't prove a negative, then let's just say he strongly suspects there is no God, which means he goes by faith.

But only insofar as he can ascertain same; if he can't ascertain same, then he can claim he doesn't know God exists, but until he can, he will claim 'weak atheism'.

In other words, he will be a 'weak atheist', until a 'strong atheist' shows otherwise by proving a negative that one can't prove in the first place.

OR, until someone comes along and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt -- not "suspects", like he's allowed to do with his beliefs, but proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists, then he will drop his weak atheism in favor of theism, until such time as someone falsifies this proof, then he will join the ranks of weak atheism again, until, of course a strong atheist comes along and...

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Oh! I do! I think!

Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist, but only insofar as the person knows that God doesn't exist.

And since one can't prove a negative, then let's just say he strongly suspects there is no God, which means he goes by faith.

But only insofar as he can ascertain same; if he can't ascertain same, then he can claim he doesn't know God exists, but until he can, he will claim 'weak atheism'.

In other words, he will be a 'weak atheist', until a 'strong atheist' shows otherwise by proving a negative that one can't prove in the first place.

OR, until someone comes along and proves beyond a shadow of a doubt -- not "suspects", like he's allowed to do with his beliefs, but proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists, then he will drop his weak atheism in favor of theism, until such time as someone falsifies this proof, then he will join the ranks of weak atheism again, until, of course a strong atheist comes along and...

"I'll take accepting unreasonable conclulsions based on unsupportable statements and lack of evidence for a hundred, Alex."