Atheist here (Ask me anything)

[Dragons87]

Condition after condition after condition until you get right down to the only one that matters: acceptance without scrutiny.

Jumping to conclusions already?

Scrutiny is important in the Christian faith:

"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." -- Acts 17:11

This is just one example in the Bible.

 

[CoderHead]

My scrutiny led me away from the Bible. It was only OK during the period where I accepted what I was told without studying.

 

[Dragons87]

My scrutiny led me away from the Bible. It was only OK during the period where I accepted what I was told without studying.

Well, that statement begs many starter questions that may lead to a good discussion if you answer specifically enough. You may want to answer them, or not, of course:

1. How did you perceive your faith as a child? What was the relationship between your faith and the Bible?

2. What made you begin to doubt and when? (i.e. Why did you want to scrutinise it?)

3. How did you scrutinise the Bible?

4. What conclusion did you make of it?

 

[Skeptic90]

"Does it matter which football team is better? Yes, it does, to some. But my neighbour's emotions, and the harmony between us, matters more. So I forgo the truth in order to live the Truth.

Paul puts it pretty well in 1 Corinthians chapter 8: knowledge builds our egos, but love (the Truth) edifies other people's lives. In that sense, to a Christian, knowledge of facts are relatively unimportant to the living of love; the truth of the matter is nothing compared to the Truth of life."


This is exactly what I meant when I said what makes believers go over reason for faith. In other words what makes a believer avoid the more probable truth for a truth that 'emotionally' helps them, almost like a white lie. Although good, yet not so. This is what atheists see when they see heaven. If perceived as an idea, it is something to escape from reality, in our opinion. Or a false hope. Although benficial for your neighbor, it is not the closer truth. This is where faith kicks in, you need faith, 'faith solid as a rock', to just accept it as truth. If confronted with other possibilities, ignore then, or build them around your current truth.

I understand what you are saying. I had a similar situation. When I broke up with my girlfriend, a week after I had the chance to go back with her. So I had the choice, be happy and go back with her, or risk a bit of my unhappiness to do what is right, just get past it and move on, and gain happiness in the longrun, although more difficult. So there was a emotional and logical reason. We understand, is just how can you choose one over the other.

 

[CoderHead]

1. How did you perceive your faith as a child? What was the relationship between your faith and the Bible?

I truly believed God existed, that He created me, sent His son to die for me, and that He came into my heart when I asked Him to because He loved me. I believed the Bible was God's word and that it was true (understanding, of course, that I hadn't read the entire Bible at that time).

2. What made you begin to doubt and when? (i.e. Why did you want to scrutinise it?)

I participated in several Bible studies, "read the Bible through in a year" programs, and an Experiencing God course. This was during a time in High School where I had decided nothing in life was more important that God and was determined to completely devote myself to Bible study. Ultimately, it was my desire to study the Bible and experience God that led to my doubts.

3. How did you scrutinise the Bible?

I read the Bible, weighing what I read against what I knew of God. I also weighed it against what I had experienced in life. I studied the differences between the Old Testament God and the New Testament God and found them to be contradictory to God's statement that He never changes. I found it disheartening that He made promises of parental companionship that weren't fulfilled.

4. What conclusion did you make of it?

That the Biblical basis for God is illogical, unlovely, and highly improbable. That the promises Jesus Christ made as to what the Holy Spirit would provide were unfulfilled and therefore lies. That Jesus' promise to seek me as much as I sought Him was empty. And that if I could achieve the same moral fortitude and social responsibility as a non-Christian, then Christianity isn't worth the paper on which the Bible is printed. The Bible, when read in depth (not mined for the "Good News" verses), is not a good witnessing tool.

 

[Dragons87]

This is exactly what I meant when I said what makes believers go over reason for faith. In other words what makes a believer avoid the more probable truth for a truth that 'emotionally' helps them, almost like a white lie. Although good, yet not so. This is what atheists see when they see heaven. If perceived as an idea, it is something to escape from reality, in our opinion. Or a false hope. Although benficial for your neighbor, it is not the closer truth. This is where faith kicks in, you need faith, 'faith solid as a rock', to just accept it as truth. If confronted with other possibilities, ignore then, or build them around your current truth.

I apologise, but I don't understand where you got it from. The football analogy wasn't trying to point out the difference between faith and reason, but a difference in priorities, viewing the same thing from different angles.

In more substance, it's only one of us seeing that the fact-gathering is in itself a goal: "We just want facts", whereas the other is using facts as a tool to another goal: "I can have all the facts, but I need to know how to use them".

Just to throw things into even more confusion, the former is science and mathematics; the latter is religion, politics and philosophy. I am in the latter.

Sorry if that seems a bit confusing. I just really want to point out that the football analogy has nothing to do with faith. As I see it, there are two parallel conversations, one about faith, the other about what Christianity is about. The football analogy was to illuminate on the latter, not the former.

With regard to your view on heaven (I am assuming that you believe that "there is no heaven"), you point out rightly that it is an opinion--on both sides, it's just that, an opinion. But it's an opinion neither of us concluded based on any actual evidence or experience, but on a judgment call known as faith.

I'm really trying to state that there is no necessary conflict between faith and reason--all humans use both interchangeably on an every day basis.

I understand what you are saying. I had a similar situation. When I broke up with my girlfriend, a week after I had the chance to go back with her. So I had the choice, be happy and go back with her, or risk a bit of my unhappiness to do what is right, just get past it and move on, and gain happiness in the longrun, although more difficult. So there was a emotional and logical reason. We understand, is just how can you choose one over the other.

Yes. That's what humans do. How one chooses one over the other...I don't believe there's a blanket answer to this. Again, as I said, it depends on the current situation, the vision of the future, and the personality of the person.

 

[Dragons87]

I truly believed God existed, that He created me, sent His son to die for me, and that He came into my heart when I asked Him to because He loved me. I believed the Bible was God's word and that it was true (understanding, of course, that I hadn't read the entire Bible at that time).


I participated in several Bible studies, "read the Bible through in a year" programs, and an Experiencing God course. This was during a time in High School where I had decided nothing in life was more important that God and was determined to completely devote myself to Bible study. Ultimately, it was my desire to study the Bible and experience God that led to my doubts.


I read the Bible, weighing what I read against what I knew of God. I also weighed it against what I had experienced in life. I studied the differences between the Old Testament God and the New Testament God and found them to be contradictory to God's statement that He never changes. I found it disheartening that He made promises of parental companionship that weren't fulfilled.


That the Biblical basis for God is illogical, unlovely, and highly improbable. That the promises Jesus Christ made as to what the Holy Spirit would provide were unfulfilled and therefore lies. That Jesus' promise to seek me as much as I sought Him was empty. And that if I could achieve the same moral fortitude and social responsibility as a non-Christian, then Christianity isn't worth the paper on which the Bible is printed. The Bible, when read in depth (not mined for the "Good News" verses), is not a good witnessing tool.

Thanks for sharing. It'd be rude for me to respond in detail without first asking for your permission. I understand that this may be quite personal, and I don't want to cause any offence by launching into some sort of "oh, you're wrong! you should have done this!" kind of accusation.

How, generally, would you like me to respond?

 

[CoderHead]

How, generally, would you like me to respond?

You really don't need to. I've been through this discussion before and it invariably ends in, "you weren't a true Christian" or, "you didn't seek Him with your heart" or something equally nonsensical. I felt what I felt then and I feel what I feel now and while everyone appears to feel qualified to tell me what I did or didn't do, the fact is that my experience was/is as personal as yours and no blanket statement could possibly apply to both.

I'm happy with my direction in life. I engage in conversation over religion because it's something that fascinates me, especially given my background.

 

[nicknack28]

I realize that you've got three conversations to keep up with and must be strapped for time. I'll try to keep my questions short.

The supposition that people "grow up into the religion" is only valid where the religion has been established for a long time, and if you're a Muslim or a Jew (who, to some extent, believe that people are born Muslim or Jew).

If you look at the history of Christianity it simply is not the case. It began as a very small sect in Judaea, a Roman province. 2,000 years later it is a global religion. Surely not every Christian in history was born to a Christian and raised as a Christian! None of the 12 disciples were. Paul wasn't. St. Augustine wasn't. First generation Christians in Asia and Africa of years past weren't.

But since I myself was born to Christian parents, I cannot presume to be able to answer this in full, as a personal experience. But most Christians outside the western world are adult converts. If you find one, they'll tell you their story.

Even if a person was not indoctrinated from birth, I still cannot imagine a scenario where a person's personal and highly emotional experience would lead them to believe in specific god. A god, perhaps, but not a specific one like Yahweh. Emotional experiences don't come with nametags attached to them telling the experiencer who it was from. If it was, in fact, from a god, it could have been from any of the millions of gods that have been believed in since the dawn of mankind.

If a person has an experience that brings them to believe in the divine, what could possibly make them conclude that the influence was that of Zeus, Thor, Yahweh, Amaterasu, Ra, or whoever without prior steering toward that god? A person doesn't just have a grand experience and then jump to Yahweh because Yahweh specifically said his name to the person. They have to already have it in their head.

This can be seen as simply as Googling "religion map" and see how the geographic distribution of world religions breaks down. Such things should be very unsettling to anyone that believes that they found the right God through his moving influence alone rather than how you've been culturally trained to think. Just to throw out an example, if Yahweh were the one true God then he must really favor the western world.

If our convictions weren't the product of our culture but of honest personal revelations, religions would not have geographic correlations. I was going to post a map but I don't have a high enough post count yet (no biggie 'cause one is easy to find).

Our conversation is unfortunately tracing ground that I'm sure is familiar to both of us. I'm sorry that I have to come back to dead-horse territory but such areas of discussion are popular for a reason.

And once again I'm hopelessly long-winded. Bleh. Sorry to eat your time. My best regards all the same!

EDIT: I just wanted to add that I don't wish to sound like I aim to debate. I'm not interested in proving anyone wrong. I'm more interested in the why behind many things when talking of belief. Again, I must stress that I greatly appreciate the discussion. Sometimes it's hard to find others with the patience to continue at length about such things.

 

[Dragons87]

You really don't need to. I've been through this discussion before and it invariably ends in, "you weren't a true Christian" or, "you didn't seek Him with your heart" or something equally nonsensical. I felt what I felt then and I feel what I feel now and while everyone appears to feel qualified to tell me what I did or didn't do, the fact is that my experience was/is as personal as yours and no blanket statement could possibly apply to both.

Yes, sir. I understand that feeling. It would be extremely difficult, unfair and rude for me, as a stranger, to judge your personal experience over the internet, and I will not do that.

In fact, I was just interested in asking more questions.

But only if you feel comfortable.

I'm happy with my direction in life. I engage in conversation over religion because it's something that fascinates me, especially given my background.

Cool.

 

[Dragons87]

I realize that you've got three conversations to keep up with and must be strapped for time. I'll try to keep my questions short.

Thanks. You are kind.

Even if a person was not indoctrinated from birth, I still cannot imagine a scenario where a person's personal and highly emotional experience would lead them to believe in specific god. A god, perhaps, but not a specific one like Yahweh. Emotional experiences don't come with nametags attached to them telling the experiencer who it was from. If it was, in fact, from a god, it could have been from any of the millions of gods that have been believed in since the dawn of mankind.

If a person has an experience that brings them to believe in the divine, what could possibly make them conclude that the influence was that of Zeus, Thor, Yahweh, Amaterasu, Ra, or whoever without prior steering toward that god? A person doesn't just have a grand experience and then jump to Yahweh because Yahweh specifically said his name to the person. They have to already have it in their head.

I understand what you mean. This question would be best answered by a convert from another religion.

But I have two general points to make.

First, in the history of Christianity, most converts have been from other faiths or religions--the vast majority of people in world history were religious in some way; atheism is a new and minority way of thinking.

Therefore, there must be something unique about the message of Christianity that other religions do not provide that persuades people to abandon their own religion and convert to Christianity.

On an even more general scale, if I may take a bold step of generalisation, every religion in the world has its own unique message, meaning different things to the same mind. So each "experience" is different. A person doesn't just have "an experience"; they have an "experience" that is attached to a certain religion.

Mind you, this is just one general guesswork, extrapolated from a Christian perspective. I don't know whether Jews, Muslims or other people have any "experience" with God. There is a tangent here, about the influence of other spirits, but we won't go there for now.

Secondly, the "experience" doesn't just happen. There must be an existing ground on which to happen (i.e. a person's previous history and personality) and the "experience" for different people will be different based on from which religion the "experience" is coming.

Therefore, some people can have the same experience, but not the same conclusion, based on the status of themselves when they had the "experience".

This is perhaps illuminated indirectly, in the case of Christianity, by the parable of the sower, found, among elsewhere, in Luke 8.

"This is the meaning of the parable: The seed is the word of God.

Those along the path are the ones who hear, and then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved.

Those on the rock are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away.

The seed that fell among thorns stands for those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by life's worries, riches and pleasures, and they do not mature.

But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop." -- Luke 8:11-15

The message of the Gospel is the same, but it produces different results in the hearts and minds of different people.

In conclusion, yes, the "experiences" have name tags attached--in fact, it is the name tag that allows the "experience" happen. That means that people must express an interest to the religion first before they have the experience, rather than have an experience, then assign it to a religion.

Therefore, it is impossible for atheists to ask for a sign to prove Christianity. The nature of religion is such that you must first seek the religion, before you will be shown the experience, as this verse makes clear:

"without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists" -- Hebrews 11:6

Returning to the parable of the sower, the grounds don't just sprout out crops for no reason--seeds must be planted first!

That's why Christians have what we call the Great Commission of the Lord:

"go and make disciples of all nations" -- Matthew 28:19

and why we have Paul saying this:

"Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard?" -- Romans 10:13-14

Yes, it is Christians who spread the message of the Gospel, but the "experience" itself must come from God. And when people put message and experience together, they get to see God. But the experience comes from God.

As Paul said,

"I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow." -- 1 Corinthians 3:6

This can be seen as simply as Googling "religion map" and see how the geographic distribution of world religions breaks down. Such things should be very unsettling to anyone that believes that they found the right God through his moving influence alone rather than how you've been culturally trained to think. Just to throw out an example, if Yahweh were the one true God then he must really favor the western world.

If our convictions weren't the product of our culture but of honest personal revelations, religions would not have geographic correlations. I was going to post a map but I don't have a high enough post count yet (no biggie 'cause one is easy to find).

I would guard against relying on a search result on Google to map the world's religious distribution. I suggest that it's impossible to do so.

First, how can an accurate measurement be made in countries where there is no religious freedom or, simply, an accurate census system? I have just described the majority of the developing world, where most of the world's population live. Any figures coming out are probably highly skewed, or based on guesswork.

Plus, as you yourself prove, there are dissenters and non-believers within each culturo-religious group. If your culture didn't influence what you believe in as an adult, on what grounds do you judge that others must have been influenced by their culture in what they believe as an adult?

So, on those technicalities, I cannot agree with your assertion that "God favours the western world".

Our conversation is unfortunately tracing ground that I'm sure is familiar to both of us. I'm sorry that I have to come back to dead-horse territory but such areas of discussion are popular for a reason.

There are always gems to be discovered in familiar territory.

And once again I'm hopelessly long-winded. Bleh. Sorry to eat your time. My best regards all the same!

Thanks. That's very kind.

EDIT: I just wanted to add that I don't wish to sound like I aim to debate. I'm not interested in proving anyone wrong. I'm more interested in the why behind many things when talking of belief. Again, I must stress that I greatly appreciate the discussion. Sometimes it's hard to find others with the patience to continue at length about such things.

I agree. There is no debate, just polite discussion.

 

[CoderHead]

Yes, sir. I understand that feeling. It would be extremely difficult, unfair and rude for me, as a stranger, to judge your personal experience over the internet, and I will not do that.

In fact, I was just interested in asking more questions.

But only if you feel comfortable.

I'm certainly open to answering questions. I think sometimes it's interesting to talk through my past experiences, and even helpful to me in some measure. And I appreciate you realizing that analyzing and/or criticizing my personal situation over the Internet is not a simple or even fruitful task.

 

[Dragons87]

I'm certainly open to answering questions.

Thank you for your kindness. If I may I would like to ask more questions, based on what you posted previously. If they get too personal please feel free to tell me so.

I realise that this seems like a very "analytical" conversation, but I really just want to try to build an accurate picture. It will obviously be severely incomplete because I don't actually know you, but I hope the picture to be as accurate as possible. That is it. What I do with the picture later, if I do anything, will be subject to your further permission.

I will start by assuming, with a bit of boldness, the following. If any of those assumptions are incorrect, please correct me.

I assume that you were born to Christian parents, that as a child you went to church with them on a regular basis, that, almost, whatever you believed what because of whatever they believed.

You said that out of the zeal when you were a teenager you decided you wanted to study the Bible: in your own words, "devote myself to Bible study".

I would like to ask these questions to start off with.

Why did you enjoy Christianity at your young age? For example, was it because you enjoyed the friendly atmosphere at your church? Or what?

Secondly, when you decided you wanted to study the Bible (at the age of 16? You said high school), what made you want to do it?

Thank you.

 

[CoderHead]

Thank you for your kindness.

Thank you for your politeness.

I assume that you were born to Christian parents, that as a child you went to church with them on a regular basis, that, almost, whatever you believed what because of whatever they believed.

Your assumption is correct.

Why did you enjoy Christianity at your young age? For example, was it because you enjoyed the friendly atmosphere at your church? Or what?

Because when I was young, everything about Christianity was fun. The baby Jesus, talking donkeys, Noah's ark, Jesus' taking time for the children, diseases and deformities healed; it was all like magic and fairy tales! The church I remember the most had wonderful, nice people. I specifically remember one older gentleman at our church who always kept a pocket full of Jolly Ranchers for the kids. To this day I think of him when I eat Jolly Ranchers.

Secondly, when you decided you wanted to study the Bible (at the age of 16? You said high school), what made you want to do it?

It was more like 14. I was very active in the church and I wanted to start teaching Sunday School classes and VBS. I realized that I hadn't really dug into the Bible as much as I'd need to in order to teach, so I was bent on really reading and studying it in detail.

 

[nicknack28]

I would guard against relying on a search result on Google to map the world's religious distribution. I suggest that it's impossible to do so.

First, how can an accurate measurement be made in countries where there is no religious freedom or, simply, an accurate census system? I have just described the majority of the developing world, where most of the world's population live. Any figures coming out are probably highly skewed, or based on guesswork.

Even if we don't look at a map, no person can deny that religions are for the most part geographically oriented. You will find many Christians in the western world. You'll find many Muslims in the Middle East. You'll find many Hindus in India. You'll find many Buddhists in East Asia. It's just how it is.

Plus, as you yourself prove, there are dissenters and non-believers within each culturo-religious group. If your culture didn't influence what you believe in as an adult, on what grounds do you judge that others must have been influenced by their culture in what they believe as an adult?

So, on those technicalities, I cannot agree with your assertion that "God favours the western world".

How does culture not influence what someone believes as an adult? Whether a person eventually discards the beliefs of their culture is up to them, but if you're surrounded day and night for the first twenty odd years of your life with people worshiping So-And-So, odds are you'll be doing the same.

We can argue that Christianity breaks this "defined by geography" rule because it is all over the western world, but that's because it was deliberately and successfully spread. It is one of the core beliefs that a true believer must spread the word of God to others. Many religions don't have this attribute and so remain centered in a single area.

First, in the history of Christianity, most converts have been from other faiths or religions--the vast majority of people in world history were religious in some way; atheism is a new and minority way of thinking.

Therefore, there must be something unique about the message of Christianity that other religions do not provide that persuades people to abandon their own religion and convert to Christianity.

Christianity is also the only real religion in the game of converting so heavily. I can agree that Christianity has a message that other religions don't that persuades many people to convert. However, the message of Christianity is spread by people. This is vastly different then someone having a life-changing experience and then converting to Christianity because of it. This isn't a unique feeling of the Holy Spirit's influence in people's lives (the "nametag" thing), this is unique effort of proselytism.

On an even more general scale, if I may take a bold step of generalisation, every religion in the world has its own unique message, meaning different things to the same mind. So each "experience" is different. A person doesn't just have "an experience"; they have an "experience" that is attached to a certain religion.

Mind you, this is just one general guesswork, extrapolated from a Christian perspective. I don't know whether Jews, Muslims or other people have any "experience" with God. There is a tangent here, about the influence of other spirits, but we won't go there for now.

Secondly, the "experience" doesn't just happen. There must be an existing ground on which to happen (i.e. a person's previous history and personality) and the "experience" for different people will be different based on from which religion the "experience" is coming.

Therefore, some people can have the same experience, but not the same conclusion, based on the status of themselves when they had the "experience".

Something about your wording here is making it hard for me to understand what you're saying. If you're interested in wording it differently so that I don't misunderstand I'd be happy to hear out your points. It feels like we're drifting into fuzzy language here where just about anything goes.

I'd like to turn away from this direction though for this back and forth point and counterpoint pattern is exhausting and unproductive. It isn't convincing anyone of anything and isn't exploring the nuances of people's beliefs. I'd like to return to asking questions of either side to simply build one another's understanding.

 

[brinny]

does baking soda reeeeeeeally help with indigestion?

 

[nicknack28]

This is my attempt to direct conversation more toward understanding. These questions go for absolutely anyone at all. Forgive the somewhat philosophical nature of them.

Imagine for a moment something that is ultimately and eternally incomprehensible, unexplainable, irrational -- something that defies reason, that we need faith to believe in or accept as reality. It need not be anything religious, specifically.

Four questions:

1. Does such a thing exist?
2. Should such a thing exist?
3. Do you want such a thing to exist?
4. Would you be happier if such a thing existed?

Some of those may look redundant but I believe there are nuances about them that are important. I encourage expansions on anyone's answers to give a better understanding of their views, but this (of course) is left up to those who reply. I'll answer these too at some point but not immediately.

I'm hoping more people will jump into this thread to so we can hear some more voices around here.

 

[CoderHead]

Should such a thing exist?

What do you mean:

Do you think such a thing should exist?
Should such a thing be allowed (by natural or man-made laws, whatever) to exist?

 

[brinny]

This is my attempt to direct conversation more toward understanding. These questions go for absolutely anyone at all. Forgive the somewhat philosophical nature of them.

Imagine for a moment something that is ultimately and eternally incomprehensible, unexplainable, irrational -- something that defies reason, that we need faith to believe in or accept as reality. It need not be anything religious, specifically.

Four questions:

1. Does such a thing exist?
2. Should such a thing exist?
3. Do you want such a thing to exist?
4. Would you be happier if such a thing existed?

Some of those may look redundant but I believe there are nuances about them that are important. I encourage expansions on anyone's answers to give a better understanding of their views, but this (of course) is left up to those who reply. I'll answer these too at some point but not immediately.

I'm hoping more people will jump into this thread to so we can hear some more voices around here.

excellent questions. i'll wait for more responses also.

 

[TheBlueBlurr]

This is my attempt to direct conversation more toward understanding. These questions go for absolutely anyone at all. Forgive the somewhat philosophical nature of them.

Imagine for a moment something that is ultimately and eternally incomprehensible, unexplainable, irrational -- something that defies reason, that we need faith to believe in or accept as reality. It need not be anything religious, specifically.

Four questions:

1. Does such a thing exist?
2. Should such a thing exist?
3. Do you want such a thing to exist?
4. Would you be happier if such a thing existed?

Some of those may look redundant but I believe there are nuances about them that are important. I encourage expansions on anyone's answers to give a better understanding of their views, but this (of course) is left up to those who reply. I'll answer these too at some point but not immediately.

I'm hoping more people will jump into this thread to so we can hear some more voices around here.

Does such a thing exist?

The possibility is always there

Should such a thing exist?

Don't really understand what you mean.

Do you want such a thing to exist?

If that thing was an all loving all powerful being that could grant me with eternal life. Then yes.

Would you be happier if such a thing existed?

If the above mentioned did exist then I'd be happy though I can't say that I'd be happier than I am now.