Ask an Atheist (no flamaing or trolling please)

Why does it seem that Atheists are offended by public displays (monuments, printings of 10 commandments, voluntary prayer in schools) of religion in a chirstian country?
I am not offended by religious artifacts in other countries nor do I find it offensive for those of other religions to stop and pray or observe certain traidtions (clothing, appearances, etc). Do Atheists object to the US being considered a christian country?

razeontherock said:

Have you ever lost sleep over all the flamaing?

Click to expand...

It was a serious question for him. Not to be taken lightly.

Hi Timelord 2408,

Ironically I just posted my own similar thing on an atheist board on facebook and it wasn't as friendly as this one lol. I'm curious have you ever read quantum engima and the basis of the collapse of the wave function? I used to be an agnostic and I'd like to hear what really 'convinces' you that their is no god (support that proves their is no supreme being)? I have a blog where it's being somewhat debated also if your interested. Thanks

Peter

healingfromgod.com

Timelord2408 said:

I find Jesus's existence (that is if he actually existed) rarther confusing... Especially the whole crucifixion thing. I mean the way Christians explain it, Jesus IS God... But not god at the same time.

Click to expand...

Ok, well that's the first thing to sort out. Was or was not Jesus God?

Christianity says He was, and IS, and is to come. Where does this "not God at the same time" confusion come from?

Timelord2408 said:

Kind of like a kinder side of him or something.

Click to expand...

Is that what you've been taught? We need to air this out. Again, Jesus is God in flesh. Literally translating it, it becomes "enhumaned." This is central, and any confusion left will distort any attempt at understanding any other aspect of the Faith.

Timelord2408 said:

But anyways Jesus was sent down to earth and in order to get rid of the sins of mankind he absorbs them all in his crucifixion... Now THAT I don't understand.

Click to expand...

Well I'm glad you don't understand that because that's not what happened! I do happen to have a great deal of insight into this, granted me by the Father, through much seeking Him about this. That doesn't mean I can somehow impart any of that to you, but it might be worth a try?

Timelord2408 said:

If God is so powerful why didn't he just snap his fingers and magic the sin away? (Over-simplified, I know, but you see my point.)

Click to expand...

You do need to understand this. God gave man dominion. (Genesis 1:26) You really need to read that, and understand the concept. Taking that way is called death. "Magicing the sin away" is called repentance. This is squarely on OUR shoulders!

Timelord2408 said:

But no that's apparently too easy/simple... He has to send his "only son" down to earth (even though he is his own son) and had him tortured and crucified instead... Yeah I never got that part... He basically sacrifices himself... To himself in order to get rid of the sin that he created in the first place..

Click to expand...

Ok first of all, you admit you don't understand this. That's a good start! Don't mess that all up by building strawman arguments. And all this "sacrificing Himself to Himself" nonsense, is any of that original with you or did you just hear that and repeat it?

This can all be sorted out. And God did NOT create sin.

Timelord2408 said:

We're made in God's image, yet we sin. Did he 'get it wrong' so-to-speak and accidentally make Sin in our creation, or is God, too, a sinner from time-to-time?

Click to expand...

The image of God in us is marred by sin. God didn't get anything wrong. This really can be understood ...

Timelord2408 said:

Yes and I've tried to do my part in helping to ease the suffering caused by evil by donating to charities and what-not.

Click to expand...

It's more than just suffering or at least the kind that can be eased by normal human efforts (like in most charities). Suffering can sometimes make a person stronger and improve character. Likewise, lack of suffering can make a person selfish, uncaring, and amoral. There are worse things than suffering. There are also factions in the world that destroy people at a deeper level. For example, the political/religious regimes that turn youths into psychos or the parents who abuse and murder their children. The little ones die in agony, without love, and with no dignity. They are thrown away and rot in the ground like pieces of leftover meat.

Sometimes as an atheist I would try to comfort myself by saying that some day humanity will advance technologically to the point where they could travel through universes and undo the damage. Looking at the current state of affairs, I don't see that ever happening. The current state of affairs is not a reason to believe in God. Not in the slightest. However, for me it was a reason to be miserable when I was as an atheist.

Have you experienced this sort of thing?

Timelord2408 said:

Edit:

Basically just put yourself in the shoes of anybody who's NOT a Christian who is living in the US... Your religion is plastered on your money, in your legal system, your schools etc... How would you feel if for example the "official religon" of the US was changed to Islam? "in Allah we trust" being on the money etc...

Click to expand...

Might be good to consider how Christianity got ... "plastered" all over everything. And why anyone is going along with the suggestion that it's a good idea to change that, or that we have any reason to. It seems odd to have you contrast this to a different religion, if you maintain that atheism is neither a religion nor a worldview.

Timelord2408 said:

So Jesus IS god then? that's what I said...

Click to expand...

You also said He is (somehow) not God at the same time. Let's remove that part, ok? He is fully human, which poses some ... difficulty in understanding. This is complex enough to have it's own terminology, called hypostatic union, and I think I'm correct in saying we can enter into this same thing via a process some know as theosis. Lots of reading can be done on those terms, that would probably be more direct than posts here.

Timelord2408 said:

Sin is on "our shoulders" you say? Why should I or any other human being alive have to answer for something that two other humans apparently did thousands of years ago?

Click to expand...

Since you asked, let's compare this to what I actually said.

You coined a phrase, about God "magicing sin away." I said the only way that happens is by something we do, and it's called repentance. That does not equate to sin being on our shoulders, as you state. Paraphrasing is a good technique, as long as you're willing to listen when your attempt comes back as a negative. Repentance is a decision we make, a mindset we maintain, with actions that correspond to that. This is how people stop sinning, which is a topic you brought up. Since you were complaining of confusion, it would be good to have clarity on this.

Adam and Eve's sin is not on our shoulders, and if our own sin were, we would be powerless to do anything about it. Only via Jesus being our burden-bearer, does any of that change. I'm not sure that you're interested in learning how this works, but it can be learned. (At least to some extent. Whether it might also take some teaching by the Spirit to understand or not I can't vouch, not having tried it both ways.)

Timelord2408 said:

Leaving Adam and Eve alone next to a tree they weren't supposed to eat without telling them WHY they shouldn't eat it

Click to expand...

This is nothing but a strawman argument. Surely you realize that? I mean, you couldn't come away from reading the Bible with this idea. Did you read it on Ihategod.com and just swallow it hook, line and sinker, or what?

Timelord2408 said:

You say that he didn't get anything wrong yet you also believe that we're "marred by sin" well if God is apparently all knowing and all powerful the why didn't he see this coming and correct his "Human blueprint" if you like and make it physically impossible for us to be "marred with sin?"

Click to expand...

You say that like you think it would be a good thing. Almost as if you think your idea would somehow be better?

Got news for ya; it isn't. It'll be interesting to see how you process that info ...

My question is kind of an extension of Lucaspa's. Do you feel people become atheists because ...

a) There is no evidence for the existance of God - "Hard atheism"
b) There is no evidence for or against the existance of God but they choose not to believe - "Agnostic atheism"

I've had a few discussions with others on the topic and I've had rather mixed replies. People sometimes refer to atheism as a religion because agnostic atheists do not base their (lack of) beliefs on evidence, but opinion.

I like that definition of atheist, but a lot of professing atheists on CF don't, and would say that what you defined is "hard atheism." They prefer to think of atheism as lack of belief in god(s). It all gets confusing!

Timelord2408 said:

It wasn't Dawkins that introduced me to Atheism, I came about this way myself after sitting and reading the bible back to back and not really liking what I read.

Click to expand...

So you didn't really evaluate theism. Instead, you have a personal revulsion to the Bible. I am glad you didn't go into science. Do you seriously think the Bible is the sole basis of theism? Do you even realize there are many more versions of monotheism than Judeo-Christianity?

BTW, I was poking fun at Dawkins and atheists. I amuses me greatly that atheism -- which Dawkins and many atheists claim is not a religion -- is using one of the major hallmarks of religion: the testimonial of how they came to religion.

As for what you've said about his scientific persuits I haven't heard such things but i'll look into it

Click to expand...

I did a PubMed search. There is an RL Dawkins who has done a lot of work, but that is not Richard. PubMed indexes most of the biological journals, and Richard has not had a paper since 1979! In contrast, SJ Gould was still authoring primary papers up until his death. It appears that Dawkins is no longer a scientist but instead is an apostle for atheism. It reminds me of Duane Gish, Michael Behe, and Kurt Wise: very few scientific papers but a lot of talking about creationism and theism.

Timelord2408 said:

Atheism is by definition not faith of any kind but Lack thereof

Click to expand...

LOL! And where did you get that definition? Not from dictionaries or even your fellow atheists! I see you have swallowed that particular dogma whole.

>"Atheism -- the belief that there are no gods." Douglas A. Krueger, What Is Atheism? A Short Introductory Course, pg 19

I could do more, but let's look at that "lack of faith" statement and test it.

If I were to say "I lack faith that evolution happened" would you seriously think I was stating a "lack"? How about if I say "I lack belief that the earth is 4.5 billion years old"?

Right now I am near NYC and have the Superbowl on. Were I to say to the Giants' fans around me "I lack faith that the Giants are going to win the Superbowl", do you seriously think those fans are going to say I did not state as faith?

Atheists use the position you do to try to con us and themselves that atheism is not a faith. You may be able to con yourself, but it doesn't work on us.

Timelord2408 said:

I belive that The Theory of Evolution has a lot more evidence on it's side than "God did it"

Click to expand...

Actually, evolution is "God did it"

When you say "God did it" you have only made a theological statement. What you then need to go on and say is how God did it. Creationism is one "God did it". Evolution and the other processes of science are another way that "God did it".

Darwin made this very clear in Origin of Species

"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species,pg. 449.

See that "secondary causes"? That is a religious term. Specifically, it is a Christian term. You should look it up, but here is one explanation for it:
"This third view that science and theology are two complementary partial descriptions of the world is very popular today, and for good reason. It does accurately capture part of the way science and theology relate. To understand this, it is important to grasp the distinction between primary and secondary causal actions by God. Roughly, what God did in parting the Red Sea was a primary causal act; what God did in guiding and sustaining that sea before and after its parting involved secondary causal acts by God. Secondary causes are God's usual way of operating by which He sustains natural processes in existence and employs them as intermediate agents to accomplish some purpose. Primary causes are God's unusual way of operating and involve direct, discontinuous, miraculous actions by God.
Is Science a Threat or Help to Faith?

www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/CIS/lucas/lecture.html

Timelord2408 said:

I find Jesus's existence (that is if he actually existed) rarther confusing

Click to expand...

That there was a person Yeshu ben Joseph that lived, preached, and was executed in 1st century Palestine is not in doubt. There are too many non-Christian sources to doubt that. There are only Christian sources that Yeshu ben Joseph was Christ.

. Especially the whole crucifixion thing. I mean the way Christians explain it, Jesus IS God... But not god at the same time.

Click to expand...

So, do you have the same type of confusion with the wave and particle nature of light and matter? You are using the Argument from Personal Incredulity.

But anyways Jesus was sent down to earth and in order to get rid of the sins of mankind he absorbs them all in his crucifixion... Now THAT I don't understand. If God is so powerful why didn't he just snap his fingers and magic the sin away? (Over-simplified, I know, but you see my point.)

Click to expand...

Remember God is not only doing things but also trying to communicate with humans in symbology and words that the humans will understand.

God can't eliminate sin. Sin is ultimately disobedience of God. God can't stop disobedience without turning us into robots or puppets. That would not be loving.

What God can do is forgive. However, when we hurt our loved ones, don't we have to "make it up" to them are part of the process to be forgiven? We apologize, yes. But we also have to "make it right". Jesus is a way to "make it right" in a way that humans will understand. This works particularly to the humans at the time who are used to propitiating God with animal sacrifices. This is something they think they are supposed to do as part of forgiveness for breaking the Law. So it was natural for the apostle Paul to see Jesus as the ultimate sacrifice.

. To himself in order to get rid of the sin that he created in the first place..

Click to expand...

God didn't create sin. God created people. People choose to sin.

We're made in God's image, yet we sin.

Click to expand...

That is a bad translation. We have lost the context of the language used at the time Genesis 1 was written.
I once had a Biblical scholar explain to me that "in his image" had a definite meaning in that time.　 Because communication was so poor, an ambassador or representative of a merchant would be given power to negotiate binding treaties or contracts without referring back to the king or merchant.　 Such an ambassador would be said to be "in the image" or "in his image" of the king or merchant.　 So the phrase "in his image" in Genesis 1 doesn't really refer to either physical or spiritual appearance, but empowerment.　 God is telling humans that they are free to act on the environment.　 That what they do they do "in the image" of God, or with God's full backing.　 This is seen　in the juxtaposition in Genesis 1:26 "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea ..."　 We tend to separate the image from the dominion, but it appears that those were two ways of saying the same thing.　 To be "in his image" was also to be given plenipoteniary powers and have dominion.

There has been a lot of confusion about that "in his image" because we aren't using the language as it was used in the time. We keep trying to impose our 21st century meaning, and that leads to the "problems" you have.

Timelord2408 said:

Why should I or any other human being alive have to answer for something that two other humans apparently did thousands of years ago?

Click to expand...

We don't. We answer for our sins. The ones we commit. Ironically, we put ourselves before God because of natural selection.

He being apparently omnipotent and all, allowed the circumstances of it's creation to happen, whilst knowing they would happen (Leaving Adam and Eve alone next to a tree they weren't supposed to eat without telling them WHY they shouldn't eat it, that's like telling a 3 year old not to touch those freshly baked cookies and then leaving the room for half an hour)

Click to expand...

What you are arguing with here is not theism, but against a literal reading of Genesis 2-3. And a literal reading is not valid. You can argue this on logical grounds like you are doing, on the grounds of God's Creation that we arose as a population by evolution rather then a man formed from the dust, or you can argue it textually in that there are 2 creation stories in Genesis 1-3. When each is read literally, they contradict on every major point and several minor ones. This is a clear indication that they are not meant to be read literally.

So, if you are arguing against theism based on a literal reading of Genesis 2-3, you are committing the Strawman Fallacy.

if God is apparently all knowing and all powerful the why didn't he see this coming and correct his "Human blueprint" if you like and make it physically impossible for us to be "marred with sin?"

Click to expand...

This would not be loving. Love means having the ones you love have a life that has meaning. That means that their actions have real consequences. If you constrain their actions, either by stopping them from acting, or by manipulating their minds so that some actions and thoughts are not possible, you deprive their lives of meaning. You don't have people created for their own sakes, as it says in Genesis 1, but you have puppets or toys.

Timelord2408 said:

This being said it's not the fact that these public displays are there in the firsts place that "offends" Atheists it's the fact that public money (which has also got religious influences in it, "in god we trust" being the obvious example) is used in the creation of said displays but not displays of other faiths which blatantly shows a preference for a certain religion from your government which makes people of other faiths (or lack of faiths it's not just atheists that this concerns) feel discriminated against.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but if atheism isn't a faith, then you can have no objection to the preference for a particular faith! No, the only way you can object as an atheist is if atheism is a faith. After all, if only theism is a faith and religion, then saying "in God we trust" is not promoting one form of theism over another, since all versions of theism have God.

The only way you as an atheist can object is if the state is promoting the faith of theism over the faith of atheism.

"in Allah we trust" being on the money etc...

Click to expand...

"Allah" is Arabic for "God". So we do have "in Allah we trust" on the money. We just state it in English and not Arabic.