Ask an Atheist.

[Justinatheist]

Hey guys, I hope you are all doing well.
I am new to this site and figured I would post an introductory thread to maybe deal with some misconceptions about atheists and their worldview.

I enjoy civil and honest conversation.

Hope to hear from you!

 

[salida]

Hahaha! Seaman.

I have nothing to ask because I have talked to a variety of athiest-and have a good understanding about their beliefs.

***Visit the website Reasonable Faith-Bill Craig is a great debater and started this site, in fact Richard Dawkins the famous athiest is afraid to debate him. You have to register but its worth it if your interested.

 

[Mr Dave]

Hey guys, I hope you are all doing well.
I am new to this site and figured I would post an introductory thread to maybe deal with some misconceptions about atheists and their worldview.

I enjoy civil and honest conversation.

Hope to hear from you!

Hi there welcome to the site. You've got me thinking what I could ask you, I do have atheist friends but religion rarely comes up.

Certain famous atheists *cough, Dawkins, cough...* say or at least imply that any religious faith is completely and utterly irrational and based upon no reason whatsoever. Would you agree, or would you say that faith can be both rational and based on reason, although certain Biblical (as an example) interpretations are irrational, such as young earth creationism, but the actual faith is not so irrational. Or would you suggest something else?

I hope for a civil and honest conversation too

 

[Mr Dave]

*snip* I figured this is where the Fox news forum members went when they got tired of thinking up new ways to blame Obama for anything and everything. I was wrong. You guys are nice and well reasoned.

Thanks, you seem the same

Anyway, I think faith is a personality trait. I consider myself a scientist (BA in Physics, BA not a BS?... don't ask), and I require proof for everything. That's my burden/gift and I don't think anything could shift my views unless there is proof to back it up. I don't comprehend how people can believe things that aren't proven. I would count homeopathic medicine and religion as the same in this regard. Why do you want to believe in something that either has been proven to be false or can never be proven using the scientific method? Faith and religion to me are possibly true, but so unlikely that I can't accept them and be true to my inner self. If I accept Christianity, why don't I accept flying saucers as well? There appears to be more proof that flying saucers exist than any religion is true, but I choose to believe in neither for the reasons I already stated.

Without this descending into a debate about reason (that wasn't my intention, there are plenty of other threads about that, I just wondered as the Dawkins crew are very vocal and not representatives of all atheists), why shouldn't you accept flying saucers as well?

The main thing with Christianity is the death and resurrection of Christ. I don't think anyone seriously denies the historicity of the crucifixion, at least no respected scholars that I know of, Christian agnostic or atheist. The issue then is the bodily resurrection of Christ, which although initially seems unlikely, has support for it. (Again not to debate this here, as this is an 'ask an atheist thread, not a debate Christian history thread).

Flying saucers tend to be talked about by people with tin-foil hats on They, although seemingly as unlikely as the bodily resurrection of Jesus, don't have the historical starting point that Jesus life does.

 

[Justinatheist]

Hi there welcome to the site. You've got me thinking what I could ask you, I do have atheist friends but religion rarely comes up.

Certain famous atheists *cough, Dawkins, cough...* say or at least imply that any religious faith is completely and utterly irrational and based upon no reason whatsoever. Would you agree, or would you say that faith can be both rational and based on reason, although certain Biblical (as an example) interpretations are irrational, such as young earth creationism, but the actual faith is not so irrational. Or would you suggest something else?

I hope for a civil and honest conversation too

Hi Dave. I would have to agree with Dawkins on this point. It seems to me that faith, by its definition, is inherently irrational. Buuuut, when talking about the resurrection you seem to not be talking of faith, You seem to think that there is good evidence. And while I would very much disagree, I would not call this approach faith, at least not in the typical sense.

And to the other feller, I think Dawkins known when to shut his mouth on certain things. I happen to think that Bill Craig would demolish Dawkins in a debate, not because Bill is right, but because Dawkins arguments and grasp of philosophy would really make hiim look terrible under Bill Craigs scrutiny.
So I think he is afraid to debate him, and he should be.

 

[puppetmaster]

hey & welcome

How long have you been an Atheist?
&What type of genre of movies do you favor?

puppetmaster

 

[Justinatheist]

hey & welcome

How long have you been an Atheist?
&What type of genre of movies do you favor?

puppetmaster

I have labeled myself an atheist for about 3 years now, I used to call myself an agnostic but I was technically an atheist, I just didn't know it.

Um, dramas I suppose. My faves are the "Godfather" and "There Will Be Blood."

 

[Mr Dave]

Have you grown up in a more 'atheist friendly' environment or not? I don't know how this would affect your actual 'beliefs' but I can imagine an atheist growing up in the US Bible Belt would turn out different to one growing up in France (just to pick two extremes). You don't need to say exactly where, I appreciate you've kept all info regarding your nationality and current location a secret, so don't want to seem to be prying unnecessarily.

 

[aiki]

Your "sign off" for lack of a better term, mentions that Dawkins won't debate Bill Craig. You have to realize that true scientists abhor creationists and that's why he won't debate him.

Dawkins may abhor Creationists, but this isn't, I think, why Dawkins truly wishes to avoid Dr. Craig. His objection was actually more along the lines of Dr. Craig being nothing but a "professional debater." Dawkins also explained he would only debate a bishop, or cardinal. Of course, this is silly. Dr. Craig holds a distinguished double doctorate in both Philosophy and Theology. He is a prolific writer of books and peer-reviewed philosophical essays and professor at Talbot Theological Seminary. He is not just a "professional debater" and likely better equipped to defend the Christian view than any cardinal or bishop.

Dr. Craig has also debated many of the most prominent atheists of the last forty years. He's had at it with Antony Flew (before his conversion to theism), Christopher Hitchens, Peter Atkins, and Lewis Wolpert, to name just a few of the more prominent atheists Dr. Craig has successfully challenged. In light of the fact that these atheists have already taken a drubbing at Craig's hands, it seems Dawkins is not willing to risk the same fate.

Creationism is to science what veal is to vegetarians.

Creationism isn't at odds with science but with the atheistic naturalism secular scientists use as a filter through which to interpret science.

Dawkins agreeing to debate this guy would elevate the creationist's beliefs whether or nor Dawkins tears him a new one.

LOL! You give Dawkins far too much credit. Creationism doesn't rise or fall on whether or not Dawkins acknowledges it. And Dawkins doesn't have the philosophical chops to even begin to challenge Dr. Craig's arguments.

Selah.

 

[Justinatheist]

Creationism is at odds with Methodological Naturalism, which is what science is based upon. Atheistic naturalism is irrelevant to the real point here.

Creationism by definition, cannot be science and never will be.

This is why you have so many creationists trying to redefine it.

 

[Justinatheist]

Creationism is at odds with Methodological Naturalism, which is what science is based upon. Atheistic naturalism is irrelevant to the real point here.

Creationism by definition, cannot be science and never will be.

This is why you have so many creationists trying to redefine it.

 

[Hentenza]

This thread is outside of the purpose of this forum. Thread Closed.