Another question for atheists

[Skavau]

Do you or do you not,as an atheist, say over and over that faith is nonsense?
Seriously, it's the whole point behind the atheistic belief ( for lack of a better word) to not accept things on faith,correct??

I say that faith is irrational. I don't say it as an atheist though, I say it as me. My opinion on faith describes my an opinion of mine and does not derive from my atheism.

 

[Beanieboy]

Because, from the get go, Christianity claims to know certain things and atheism, from the get go, does not claim to know these things.

If it's mandatory to start from a god, then get everything else, you are making (and starting with) a knowledge claim.

If you start from "Who knows, but let's try and figure it out", you have not started with a knowledge claim.

Why would you expect someone who holds a certain "title" to know about things outside that "title"?

I totally agree with this.

There are a number of Christians that insist that the world is 4000 years old, despite science clearly showing otherwise.

When I was questioning my Christianity, and not calling myself one, while still praying to God and searching for a deeper understanding than the dogma I was required to believe without question, a Christian approached me to "witness." He asked me the street witness question: If you were to die tonight, do you know where you would go?" I said, "No, I don't." He said, "I do. I will go to heaven." I said, "you don't KNOW that. You believe it. You have faith. But you REALLY don't know what happens after we die. No one "knows." We just have our faith, our belief of what happens."


He asked me if I knew Jesus. I said yes. He asked me if I was a Christian. I said, "I don't know." We talked for a while, and he was surprised that I actually knew the bible pretty well. He got frustrated that he wasn't succeeding in converting me. He actually got angry. I said, "why are you so angry? My faith is between me and God. You have nothing to do with it. If anything, you are simply God's messenger, and nothing more."

I reminded him of Woody Allen's profound joke: If Jesus were alive today, and walking around, and seeing all the things done in his name, he would never stop throwing up.

His witness partner said, "come on, let's go." But the guy talking to me wanted the last word. And what was that word? "Well, if you die tonight, and go to hell, that's all on you."

And I thought, "is THAT Christianity? Not having a close relationship with God, not the knowledge that God loves us now, without needing to do anything to earn it, and we only need to accept it. And once we accept it, once we realize that God has always loved us, and always will, and there is really nothing we have to do to earn it, and that we can never lose it, we are then left with one question: Knowing this, accepting this, what are we going to do now?

Christianity is about redemption. It's about love, mercy and forgiveness. It isn't about condemnation. It is humbling oneself to realize that we, even Christians, are sinners, not "other people." And in that humility, we should be thankful for God's mercy, and show thankfulness by granting mercy, granting forgiveness before it is asked, by loving first.

I have had long correspondence with atheist, and quite honestly, I find them as ethical, if not more so, than some of the Christians that I have met. Some Christians seem to live as "well I'm saved. Too bad about you." Some claim to live morally only because they are commanded to be. And I came to the conclusion that if you are a total jerk, the best way to channel it in a socially accepted, if not applauded way, is to claim to be Christian, and then tell other people how terrible they are, and how you can't wait until they burn in hell, suffering for eternity, and say it with glee and haughtiness.

It's not all, but there are many.

The atheist, by contrast, is moral because of their heart. They are kind to people for it's own sake, rather than some eternal paycheck later.

It's a purer form of living and loving.

I believe that is what Christ referred to with the parable of the Sheep and the Goats when the person says, "When?? When did I feed you when you were hungry, or clothe you when you were naked, or visit you when you were in prison, or care for you when you were sick?"

Those people are actually surprised when they had acted in love to others, and were acting in love to Christ. Equally, the people that claimed to love Christ were equally surprised when Christ said that they had denied him repeatedly, and didn't know them.

What should happen is the atheist and the Christian should be able to have a discussion, be able to have their views considered, respected and even agree to disagree, rather than insisting that one is right, and the other should give in. I especially think that is the way Christians should behave, but sadly, it rarely is, and often, the logic of the atheist is either ignored, met with illogic or trumped with "well, the bible says...", which is a very irresponsible way to be a witness for Christ, and often an abuse of the bible, or a very superficial way of interpreting it.

I understand that, as a Christian, you may feel unjustly attacked without any provoking. You may feel that the atheist is being unfair.

However, you have to "love your neighbor as yourself." You have to imagine what the atheist goes through, how they may have experienced a lot of attack from Christians, or demanded that they believe in things like Creationism and Intelligence Design with nothing scientific to back it up. Sometimes the Christian demands that someone who is atheist follow the Bible when the atheist doesn't believe in a God, much less the Bible.

In my experience, once I allow the atheist to speak, to explain why they think Christianity doesn't make sense, why sending people to hell for eternity doesn't seem fair or loving, and allow them to realize that I am not their enemy, but their neighbor, we can actually have a deep conversation .

However, it often takes dealing with some of difficult beginnings, mostly reactionary to Christians who have been so attacking of them, to get to the place where they realize that some Christians actually act like Christ, in a place of humility, acceptance, patience, and understanding.

 

[IAmCatwoman]

Why do I sometimes see ( it's real common on YouTube ) a Christian and an atheist in a back and forth and the atheist will be asking a question that the Christian can't answer. When Christians ask atheists about orgins of the universe and what not most will respond with something like the following:
"I don't know and neither do you"

I have never heard any atheist say this ever. Not all of them are experts, but they at least had a rudimentary understanding. I have a feeling the response was more along the lines of "How is it relevant" or "How is your explanation better than mine".

Christians are expected to accept an "I don't know" answer from the presumably smarter and more logical atheist.
This is fine but then why can't the Christian say "I don't know"?

Well unlike atheists, you have a pre-written book and god to turn to for all your answers, whereas atheists only have the tools, analytical thinking and evidence they've managed to gather on their own.

This really isn't a double standard. Atheists are in a state where they can function not knowing things, because one of the aspects of atheism is you're always investigating and finding out. They aren't going to try to give an explanation on something they don't know about, because from a scientific perspective it's unethical.

Christianity is different. You have a written code and history, and supposedly a "faith". There is very little reason you should not be able to supply an answer, and in that case it shouldn't be "I don't know" but rather "The Bible doesn't say".

[quotes]I was reading the comments on a reason ralley post and the bulk of the comments were ridiculing Christians for not knowing the answer to a question that AronRa was asking. Why are Christians held to a different standard than atheists on questions that don't really have definative answers?[/quote]

They aren't really. But again, it's because Christians claim to know "The Truth". Usually you would expect a population that constantly ridicules atheists for so stupidly not believing their "Truth" to not start spouting "I don't knows".

Why the ridicule of Christians ( who don't posit themselves as being logically superior ) and yet the atheist is free to say "I dunno" to any question and nobody is calling them a "joke" for not knowing all the answers. Contrary to popular belief most Christians don't claim to know ALL the answers even though our chosen spiritual beliefs may lay claim to knowledge of things. It must be remembered that just because our spiritual books may claim to have answers it certainly can't account for EVERY question asked nor can the followers be expected to know everything asked of them,especially when the questions don't have black and white answers.Any thoughts on why this happens??

Well since you aren't providing any link or direct quotes, I'm expected to take your word for it.

First of all, it's the Internet. There's a good likelihood half those "atheists" were trolls.

Second of all, what I said above. You as a Christian have absolutely no excuse for not knowing, whereas an atheist does. And if you DO believe you have an excuse, then you have to admit that Christianity isn't the complete "Truth". You can't have one or the other. Atheism and science doesn't know all the answers - that's the beauty of it. Christians want to insist their book has all the answers, but then claim "They don't know"?

You know what the real double standard is? That you seem to think Atheism is identical to Christianity and therefore should be treated exactly the same, yet at the same time think Christianity is somehow better.

 

[1000Flames]

I totally agree with this.

There are a number of Christians that insist that the world is 4000 years old, despite science clearly showing otherwise.

When I was questioning my Christianity, and not calling myself one, while still praying to God and searching for a deeper understanding than the dogma I was required to believe without question, a Christian approached me to "witness." He asked me the street witness question: If you were to die tonight, do you know where you would go?" I said, "No, I don't." He said, "I do. I will go to heaven." I said, "you don't KNOW that. You believe it. You have faith. But you REALLY don't know what happens after we die. No one "knows." We just have our faith, our belief of what happens."


He asked me if I knew Jesus. I said yes. He asked me if I was a Christian. I said, "I don't know." We talked for a while, and he was surprised that I actually knew the bible pretty well. He got frustrated that he wasn't succeeding in converting me. He actually got angry. I said, "why are you so angry? My faith is between me and God. You have nothing to do with it. If anything, you are simply God's messenger, and nothing more."

I reminded him of Woody Allen's profound joke: If Jesus were alive today, and walking around, and seeing all the things done in his name, he would never stop throwing up.

His witness partner said, "come on, let's go." But the guy talking to me wanted the last word. And what was that word? "Well, if you die tonight, and go to hell, that's all on you."

And I thought, "is THAT Christianity? Not having a close relationship with God, not the knowledge that God loves us now, without needing to do anything to earn it, and we only need to accept it. And once we accept it, once we realize that God has always loved us, and always will, and there is really nothing we have to do to earn it, and that we can never lose it, we are then left with one question: Knowing this, accepting this, what are we going to do now?

Christianity is about redemption. It's about love, mercy and forgiveness. It isn't about condemnation. It is humbling oneself to realize that we, even Christians, are sinners, not "other people." And in that humility, we should be thankful for God's mercy, and show thankfulness by granting mercy, granting forgiveness before it is asked, by loving first.

I have had long correspondence with atheist, and quite honestly, I find them as ethical, if not more so, than some of the Christians that I have met. Some Christians seem to live as "well I'm saved. Too bad about you." Some claim to live morally only because they are commanded to be. And I came to the conclusion that if you are a total jerk, the best way to channel it in a socially accepted, if not applauded way, is to claim to be Christian, and then tell other people how terrible they are, and how you can't wait until they burn in hell, suffering for eternity, and say it with glee and haughtiness.

It's not all, but there are many.

The atheist, by contrast, is moral because of their heart. They are kind to people for it's own sake, rather than some eternal paycheck later.

It's a purer form of living and loving.

I believe that is what Christ referred to with the parable of the Sheep and the Goats when the person says, "When?? When did I feed you when you were hungry, or clothe you when you were naked, or visit you when you were in prison, or care for you when you were sick?"

Those people are actually surprised when they had acted in love to others, and were acting in love to Christ. Equally, the people that claimed to love Christ were equally surprised when Christ said that they had denied him repeatedly, and didn't know them.

What should happen is the atheist and the Christian should be able to have a discussion, be able to have their views considered, respected and even agree to disagree, rather than insisting that one is right, and the other should give in. I especially think that is the way Christians should behave, but sadly, it rarely is, and often, the logic of the atheist is either ignored, met with illogic or trumped with "well, the bible says...", which is a very irresponsible way to be a witness for Christ, and often an abuse of the bible, or a very superficial way of interpreting it.

I understand that, as a Christian, you may feel unjustly attacked without any provoking. You may feel that the atheist is being unfair.

However, you have to "love your neighbor as yourself." You have to imagine what the atheist goes through, how they may have experienced a lot of attack from Christians, or demanded that they believe in things like Creationism and Intelligence Design with nothing scientific to back it up. Sometimes the Christian demands that someone who is atheist follow the Bible when the atheist doesn't believe in a God, much less the Bible.

In my experience, once I allow the atheist to speak, to explain why they think Christianity doesn't make sense, why sending people to hell for eternity doesn't seem fair or loving, and allow them to realize that I am not their enemy, but their neighbor, we can actually have a deep conversation .

However, it often takes dealing with some of difficult beginnings, mostly reactionary to Christians who have been so attacking of them, to get to the place where they realize that some Christians actually act like Christ, in a place of humility, acceptance, patience, and understanding.

Hey, I think I actually found a Christian on this site. Refreshing.

 

[NailsII]

His witness partner said, "come on, let's go." But the guy talking to me wanted the last word. And what was that word? "Well, if you die tonight, and go to hell, that's all on you."

And I thought, "is THAT Christianity?

Unfortunately, I think it is a face of Christianity - although it shouldn't be.

Big thing about your post that rings so true is that he described you as the angry one.

 

[KCfromNC]

Its not misleading,for petes sake. As a Christian you have personal experiance as well,not just the Bible.
You shouldnt have faith from JUST reading it in a book.

OK, so assume my character also had some personal revelation that he was right. Is his belief now justified knowledge?

Im not implying its bad im saying that most atheists say that faith is bull**** so if thats the case you wouldnt use it as an example in a point you are trying to make.

Who says my character is atheist?

 

[madaz]

So, what things would atheists have faith in?

I have faith my kids will do well at school, my employer will pay me next month, and my wife will be monogamous.

 

[selfinflikted]

I have faith my kids will do well at school, my employer will pay me next month, and my wife will be monogamous.

I think this is a different kind of faith than biblical "faith."

 

[madaz]

I think this is a different kind of faith than biblical "faith."

Absolutely, but it was the only thing I could think of where I have faith.

 

[selfinflikted]

Absolutely, but it was the only thing I could think of where I have faith.

Indeed. I would characterize the kind of "faith" you described as more of a reasonable expectation than faith, in the Biblical sense. I often times hear Christians point to an atheist and say, "No! You clearly have faith, just like Christians do! When you sit down in that chair, do you not have faith that it will hold you up?!" To which I would say, no, I have a reasonable expectation that I won't fall when I sit in a chair. I would also put forth that those Christians who accuse atheists of having "faith" really don't know what Biblical faith is.

 

[madaz]

So, what things would atheists have faith in?

When you mean "faith" do you mean the following definition?

belief without evidence

As a secular humanist which falls under the category of Atheist I cant think of any thing I have this kind of faith in. It would be irrational to do so.

 

[Dave Ellis]

When you mean "faith" do you mean the following definition?

belief without evidence

As a secular humanist which falls under the category of Atheist I cant think of any thing I have this kind of faith in. It would be irrational to do so.

Well, as an atheist I do have a certain amount of faith, but usually about fairly trivial matters.

For example, say I meet someone new that I know nothing about, and they tell me they paint houses for a living. I will take it on faith that what they're telling me is truthful. Likewise if someone tells me they own a dog, I will take that kind of thing on faith too.

The main thing is, is that claims like those are fairly irrelevant to my life and don't matter all that much even if they are lying.

When it comes to a major claim about a God, or new discovery that affects me directly, I would absolutely want to see the evidence before I accept that kind of claim.

 

[plindboe]

I have never heard any atheist say this ever. Not all of them are experts, but they at least had a rudimentary understanding.

I've heard atheists say "I don't know and neither do you", and I often say something similar myself. The thing is that physicists can't see past a certain point in time shortly after the expansion of the Universe is thought to have begun. There are hypotheses about what happened before that time, to explain why there's something rather than nothing, but this doesn't change the fact that no one currently knows. Another fact is that anyone who claims to know is being ridiculously arrogant.

Peter

 

[plindboe]

Well, as an atheist I do have a certain amount of faith, but usually about fairly trivial matters.

For example, say I meet someone new that I know nothing about, and they tell me they paint houses for a living. I will take it on faith that what they're telling me is truthful. Likewise if someone tells me they own a dog, I will take that kind of thing on faith too.

The main thing is, is that claims like those are fairly irrelevant to my life and don't matter all that much even if they are lying.

When it comes to a major claim about a God, or new discovery that affects me directly, I would absolutely want to see the evidence before I accept that kind of claim.

If extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, then surely trivial claims require trivial evidence. We know people paint houses for a living and that people own dogs, so when a person makes such a claim, that should be sufficient evidence in itself to form a tentative belief about it, i.e. not faith.

If the person says he owns a bigfoot though, then his claim alone will not be enough, and that's where you'd have to apply faith to believe it.

Peter

 

[keith99]

I think this is a different kind of faith than biblical "faith."

By 'Biblical faith' do you mean the faith displayed by those in the Bible or the faith that todays Bible thumpers tout.

Very different things.

 

[keith99]

If extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, then surely trivial claims require trivial evidence. We know people paint houses for a living and that people own dogs, so when a person makes such a claim, that should be sufficient evidence in itself to form a tentative belief about it, i.e. not faith.

If the person says he owns a bigfoot though, then his claim alone will not be enough, and that's where you'd have to apply faith to believe it.

Peter

What kind of faith would you call it if you had a friend who had always been truthful who claimed he owned a bigfoot?

To me something like that is far closer to the classical Christian faith. Not direct evidence, but a far better reason to believe (or at least consider the possibility) than what people seem to be pushing today.

 

[Dave Ellis]

What kind of faith would you call it if you had a friend who had always been truthful who claimed he owned a bigfoot?

To me something like that is far closer to the classical Christian faith. Not direct evidence, but a far better reason to believe (or at least consider the possibility) than what people seem to be pushing today.

I'd think my friend had gone insane or was pulling a prank.

And that's nothing like classical Christian faith. There is no "far better reason to believe" apart from the believers own biases.

There is no evidence whatsoever. There is no scrap of justification to believe.

 

[plindboe]

What kind of faith would you call it if you had a friend who had always been truthful who claimed he owned a bigfoot?

The evidence of a trusted friend making the claim would be stronger than if a random stranger had made the same claim, but considering how extraordinary the claim is, I think it would still require close to the same amount of faith.

To me something like that is far closer to the classical Christian faith. Not direct evidence, but a far better reason to believe (or at least consider the possibility) than what people seem to be pushing today.

I think Christian faith is more like trusting the random stranger, or actually worse than that. Considering that the books were written in highly superstitious cultures, have plenty of doubtful claims, have been passed on by word of mouth for decades before being written down, with known examples of biased translations and suspected additions and edits by scribes and were originally written by mostly unknown authors such a long time ago, I think some skepticism would be well adviced.

Peter

 

[Non sequitur]

What kind of faith would you call it if you had a friend who had always been truthful who claimed he owned a bigfoot?

This sentence does not make sense to me. Should there have been an "and you believed him?" at the end of this?

I was actually asked a similar question to my Christian (about leprechauns, or something like that) and he said he would believe me. When I asked him, did he mean that he believed that I believed it or that he literally believed in the leprechaun.

He said both :/

 

[Dave Ellis]

This sentence does not make sense to me. Should there have been an "and you believed him?" at the end of this?

I was actually asked a similar question to my Christian (about leprechauns, or something like that) and he said he would believe me. When I asked him, did he mean that he believed that I believed it or that he literally believed in the leprechaun.

He said both :/

Wow.... That's pretty telling what "faith" can do.