How can Christians better understand what a non-theist believes?

[JGG]

How can you be sure that there is no God? Do you know the whole universe and are you all-knowing? If not, you cannot be sure that God doesn't exist. And if you can't be sure, well then you're in fact an agnostic.

Gnosticism and theism are different.

 

[cerette]

Gnosticism and theism are different.

Agnostic and gnosticism are different too.

 

[Harry3142]

In 1963 atheists who lived in the same rooming house as I did engaged me in debate over my Christian belief. We talked for over 8 hours, finally 'calling it quits' at 4:30 A.M.

They weren't atheists because they rejected morality as our society at that time perceived it. Instead, they were atheists because they accepted that science had all the answers. In order to solve the problems of both our society and the world at large either science already had the correct answers, or it would soon find the correct answers. For them the answer to life's problems did not reside in religious belief; it resided in higher education and further scientific discoveries.

Sigmund Freud also accepted this philosophy. He taught that those who were well-educated did not need the moral teachings which were built on the foundation of religion, but instead could live a highly civilized existence while being totally independent of any religious influence. He lived long enough to see the flag of the most highly educated nation in Europe flying in his beloved Vienna, Austria. It was the swastika of nazi Germany.

 

[Munising]

The problem we have here is that a Christian can understand what you believe, but you can't understand what a Christian believes, or at least that he believes it.

I don't hold a belief with respect to a supreme being. So what belief of mine can Christians understand?

I do understand what Christians believe. That is if they aren't lying or being willfully deceptive.

I comprehend the definition of many things without agreeing with them, as do you. Pedophelia, beastiality, you know what they are, but that does not mean you can even stomach the thought of those horrendous activities.

What does that have to do with atheism?

You want us to believe what you believe, and we want you to believe what we believe.

What is it you think I believe that you think I want Christians to believe?

I don't care what you believe.

You can't persuade me to not believe that God exists, and no matter how many documentations of miracles I show you, present or historical, you will always say it was some kind of a scietific phenomenon.

True. But you can't provide any evidence that a god exists. Without evidence, why do you claim a god exists?

So, why are you here? Not meant to be a deep question about life; why are you on a religious forum trying to persuade it to not be religious? Are you looking for answers? Do you want to know more about Christians to learn or to laugh?

This particular thread is for Christians to be able to get a better understanding of what atheism is.

 

[Munising]

As a child I was taught not to use the word atheist, or to call other children atheists, as it was a bad word. It was essentially a synonym for evil, heretic, cruel, etc. I didn't know what it really meant, but just taught that an atheist was something evil.

Unfortunately you were taught wrong. Atheism is not a bad word. Nor is being an atheist a bad thing. We are what we are. And if we pretend to believe a God exists when we don't really believe such a thing exists, then we are being deceptive to both ourselves and to others.

 

[Munising]

Munsing see this verse in the bible:

Matthew 7

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. <- it is written in the bible many choose to reject it.

Matthew 10
12As you enter the home, give it your greeting. 13If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. 14If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet.

Both of these verses say there are people around us that reject christ and Christians and in the case of Matthew 7 above it means they reject until death.

That means people are not going to believe no matter what you say to them so respecting their choice to reject christ is ok to do if that is their decision.

I have no problem with atheists if they show my faith respect. That is the key to it all showing respect for personal choices in others that do not match your own.

Atheists don't reject God or the "narrow gate". They simply don't hold a belief that God and what you call the "narrow gate" exist. Just as you don't reject Bigfoot or the tooth fairy, atheists don't reject God. That is unless you believe "reject" is equivalent to "doesn't believe to be real".

 

[Munising]

First off, this isn't an "Ask the Atheist" or "Understanding Atheism" forum.

Second, until recently the term "atheist" meant one who believed God did not exist. Atheism traditionally has asserted a very particular viewpoint on the matter of God's existence. When atheists were challenged to prove God did not exist they would respond that they weren't obliged to prove a negative, that they didn't have to prove God didn't exist. Of course, this isn't actually true. Professional philosophers quite regularly offer arguments to prove negatives. So, atheists in the last few years, realizing that they could not well defend the assertion that God does not exist, have retreated to redefining what the term "atheism" means. Again, the intent seems to be to avoid having to offer any defense of atheism.

This is not true. The burden of proof is not on the atheist to show there isn't a god. The burden of proof is on the believer to show a god exists. Atheists aren't the ones making a positive claim.

The problem with the new definition of atheism is that it gives the impression that nothing results from a non-belief in God, that such a belief is completely philosophically neutral. This is quite false. In fact, several things tumble out of an atheist's "failing to have a belief in God":

What results from not believing a god exists is a sense of being honest, rational and reasonable with ones self and with others (if they choose to share their atheism with others).

1. There are no transcendent moral values or duties.
2. There is no ultimate accountability.
3. There is no knowing what is really good and really evil.
4. There is no explanation for the real, ontological worth and dignity of human beings, so it's quite possible that human beings don't have any special worth or dignity.

Atheism isn't a position for or against any of those 4 items. It is simply a lack of belief that a god exists.

Do you believe the God Zeus exists? If not, then you are an atheist with respect to the God Zeus.

All of these beliefs have consequences and need therefore to be defended by the atheists who espouse them (whether unwittingly or not).

As I said, atheism isn't a position or stance with respect to any of those four items. It is merely the failure to hold a belief that a god exists.

 

[JGG]

Agnostic and gnosticism are different too.

They would have to be. But atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive.

 

[JGG]

Unfortunately you were taught wrong. Atheism is not a bad word. Nor is being an atheist a bad thing. We are what we are. And if we pretend to believe a God exists when we don't really believe such a thing exists, then we are being deceptive to both ourselves and to others.

Well, that would depend entirely on who you ask, wouldn't it?

 

[Munising]

How can you be sure that there is no God? Do you know the whole universe and are you all-knowing? If not, you cannot be sure that God doesn't exist. And if you can't be sure, well then you're in fact an agnostic.

I suggest you read up on the difference between agnostic and atheist. Atheist vs. agnostic - Iron Chariots Wiki

In most cases, Atheists can't know for sure there is no God (agnostic). So they are agnostic atheists. However, if you posit a god which possesses characteristics which would make it logically impossible to exist, then we do know for sure it doesn't exist - in which case one would be a gnostic atheist. Some Christians I know have posited a God which has such characteristics, and for that God, I know for sure it doesn't exist (gnostic).

Agnostic = doesn't know for sure
Gnostic = does know for sure

Theist = believes a god exists
Atheist = doesn't believe a god exists

 

[Munising]

In 1963 atheists who lived in the same rooming house as I did engaged me in debate over my Christian belief. We talked for over 8 hours, finally 'calling it quits' at 4:30 A.M.

They weren't atheists because they rejected morality as our society at that time perceived it. Instead, they were atheists because they accepted that science had all the answers. In order to solve the problems of both our society and the world at large either science already had the correct answers, or it would soon find the correct answers. For them the answer to life's problems did not reside in religious belief; it resided in higher education and further scientific discoveries.

Sigmund Freud also accepted this philosophy. He taught that those who were well-educated did not need the moral teachings which were built on the foundation of religion, but instead could live a highly civilized existence while being totally independent of any religious influence. He lived long enough to see the flag of the most highly educated nation in Europe flying in his beloved Vienna, Austria. It was the swastika of nazi Germany.

You haven't addressed whether or not these alleged atheists held a belief that a god exists.

 

[Munising]

Unfortunately you were taught wrong. Atheism is not a bad word. Nor is being an atheist a bad thing. We are what we are. And if we pretend to believe a God exists when we don't really believe such a thing exists, then we are being deceptive to both ourselves and to others.

Well, that would depend entirely on who you ask, wouldn't it?

I'm offering that from an objective point of view, not a subjective point of view. So it wouldn't depend on who is asked.

 

[Spiritlight]

Atheists don't reject God or the "narrow gate". They simply don't hold a belief that God and what you call the "narrow gate" exist. Just as you don't reject Bigfoot or the tooth fairy, atheists don't reject God. That is unless you believe "reject" is equivalent to "doesn't believe to be real".

The tooth fairy is very real and it has cost me heaps over the years. the tooth fairy was short of change and had to use a five buck note the third time she visited and set a standard.

 

[cerette]

I suggest you read up on the difference between agnostic and atheist. Atheist vs. agnostic - Iron Chariots Wiki

In most cases, Atheists can't know for sure there is no God (agnostic). So they are agnostic atheists. However, if you posit a god which possesses characteristics which would make it logically impossible to exist, then we do know for sure it doesn't exist - in which case one would be a gnostic atheist. Some Christians I know have posited a God which has such characteristics, and for that God, I know for sure it doesn't exist (gnostic).

Agnostic = doesn't know for sure
Gnostic = does know for sure

Theist = believes a god exists
Atheist = doesn't believe a god exists

How can you be sure that logic is the ultimate measure to tell what is true and real and what is not?

 

[aiki]

This is not true. The burden of proof is not on the atheist to show there isn't a god. The burden of proof is on the believer to show a god exists. Atheists aren't the ones making a positive claim.

This is exactly what I was talking about. This is a classic atheist response! And it is false. Essentially, the atheist who asserts that he doesn't have to prove a negative, that he doesn't have to prove God doesn't exist, is saying that he doesn't have to offer any justification for his position. But if the atheist has no justification for his position, or is unwilling to offer any, then why should anyone give it any heed?

If we have three people - a Christian, an atheist, and a seeking agnostic - and the Christian offers proof of God's existence to the agnostic but the atheist responds to the agnostic with "I don't have to offer justification of my view that God doesn't exist. One cannot prove a negative," who do you think has properly justified their viewpoint? Certainly not the atheist!

As well, negative, universally-quantified statements can often be proven (and are). For example, a negative statement such as, "There are no deaf piano tuners," can be made quite reasonably and, for obvious reasons, is clearly true. In many instances where I make "all" or "none" statements about a particular domain, I can prove a negative. "No circle has right angles," is another example. I can look at all the circles I have within the domain of my knowledge and see that none of them has a right angle. It is therefore reasonable to assert that all circles have the same geometry. And so on. Clearly, then, it is not true that one cannot prove a negative statement.

Finally, the atheist's declaration that atheism is simply the absence of any belief about God amounts to a kind of psychological report on the state of the atheist's mind that trivializes the atheist's position. Dr William Lane Craig writes,

"Such a re-definition of the word “atheist” trivializes the claim of the presumption of atheism, for on this definition, atheism ceases to be a view. It is merely a psychological state which is shared by people who hold various views or no view at all. On this re-definition, even babies, who hold no opinion at all on the matter, count as atheists! In fact, our cat Muff counts as an atheist on this definition, since she has (to my knowledge) no belief in God."

Read more: Definition of atheism | Reasonable Faith
​

1. There are no transcendent moral values or duties.

2. There is no ultimate accountability.
3. There is no knowing what is really good and really evil.
4. There is no explanation for the real, ontological worth and dignity of human beings, so it's quite possible that human beings don't have any special worth or dignity.
​

Atheism isn't a position for or against any of those 4 items. It is simply a lack of belief that a god exists.

If this is what you really believe, then I have to tell you that you don't understand your own viewpoint. In fact, atheism necessarily entails these four points. They arise unavoidably from (especially naturalistic) atheism. That you don't realize this suggests you have a very superficial grasp of what it means to be an atheist.

Selah.

 

[Savior2006]

"If I have one struggle as a non-struggle as a non-Christian, it is how can I help Christians better understand why I don't believe a god exists and what it is I do believe. I feel as if Christians don't completely understand what an atheist is. It's not a hatred or rejection of a god; It's simply to not hold the belief that a god exists - nothing more, nothing less."

Most of them don't understand. My mom for instance believes that atheists "believe in the trees and the sun." I didn't bother asking her for an elaboration. I think part of the issue is that many Christians in America simply don't understand...or even like atheists. A lot of the people here say they are "respectful towards atheists as long as atheists are respectable towards them." I'm not necessarily buying that, especially when polls show that a significant portion of the population doesn't like us.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

This is exactly what I was talking about. This is a classic atheist response! And it is false. Essentially, the atheist who asserts that he doesn't have to prove a negative, that he doesn't have to prove God doesn't exist, is saying that he doesn't have to offer any justification for his position. But if the atheist has no justification for his position, or is unwilling to offer any, then why should anyone give it any heed?

If we have three people - a Christian, an atheist, and a seeking agnostic - and the Christian offers proof of God's existence to the agnostic but the atheist responds to the agnostic with "I don't have to offer justification of my view that God doesn't exist. One cannot prove a negative," who do you think has properly justified their viewpoint? Certainly not the atheist!

As well, negative, universally-quantified statements can often be proven (and are). For example, a negative statement such as, "There are no deaf piano tuners," can be made quite reasonably and, for obvious reasons, is clearly true. In many instances where I make "all" or "none" statements about a particular domain, I can prove a negative. "No circle has right angles," is another example. I can look at all the circles I have within the domain of my knowledge and see that none of them has a right angle. It is therefore reasonable to assert that all circles have the same geometry. And so on. Clearly, then, it is not true that one cannot prove a negative statement.

Finally, the atheist's declaration that atheism is simply the absence of any belief about God amounts to a kind of psychological report on the state of the atheist's mind that trivializes the atheist's position. Dr William Lane Craig writes,

"Such a re-definition of the word “atheist” trivializes the claim of the presumption of atheism, for on this definition, atheism ceases to be a view. It is merely a psychological state which is shared by people who hold various views or no view at all. On this re-definition, even babies, who hold no opinion at all on the matter, count as atheists! In fact, our cat Muff counts as an atheist on this definition, since she has (to my knowledge) no belief in God."

Read more: Definition of atheism | Reasonable Faith
​

If this is what you really believe, then I have to tell you that you don't understand your own viewpoint. In fact, atheism necessarily entails these four points. They arise unavoidably from (especially naturalistic) atheism. That you don't realize this suggests you have a very superficial grasp of what it means to be an atheist.

Selah.

Do I need to prove to you that the tooth fairy doesn't exist? Because I can tell you, right off the bat, that I can't.

 

[steve_bakr]

My view is that even the militant atheist affirms the concept of God by talking about it.

But I think we are called to be patient with the atheist. Perhaps we can even say that we don't necessarily believe in the same God that he disbelieves in either.

 

[JGG]

How can you be sure that logic is the ultimate measure to tell what is true and real and what is not?

Do causes have effects and vice versa?

This is exactly what I was talking about. This is a classic atheist response! And it is false. Essentially, the atheist who asserts that he doesn't have to prove a negative, that he doesn't have to prove God doesn't exist, is saying that he doesn't have to offer any justification for his position. But if the atheist has no justification for his position, or is unwilling to offer any, then why should anyone give it any heed?

I do not need justification not to believe in God. I need justification to believe in it.

If we have three people - a Christian, an atheist, and a seeking agnostic - and the Christian offers proof of God's existence to the agnostic but the atheist responds to the agnostic with "I don't have to offer justification of my view that God doesn't exist. One cannot prove a negative," who do you think has properly justified their viewpoint? Certainly not the atheist!

That depends on whether the agnostic is an agnostic theist, or agnostic atheist doesn't it?

As well, negative, universally-quantified statements can often be proven (and are). For example, a negative statement such as, "There are no deaf piano tuners," can be made quite reasonably and, for obvious reasons, is clearly true. In many instances where I make "all" or "none" statements about a particular domain, I can prove a negative. "No circle has right angles," is another example. I can look at all the circles I have within the domain of my knowledge and see that none of them has a right angle. It is therefore reasonable to assert that all circles have the same geometry. And so on. Clearly, then, it is not true that one cannot prove a negative statement.

Yes, but these are negatives because of definitions. A circle by definition cannot have angles, or else it is not a circle. You don't prove that, you define it that way.

Finally, the atheist's declaration that atheism is simply the absence of any belief about God amounts to a kind of psychological report on the state of the atheist's mind that trivializes the atheist's position. Dr William Lane Craig writes,

Don't care, because that's all I intend on arguing. I am not arguing the state of God, but only the state of my own belief or lack thereof. You believe I have to hold a position because you need me to be your enemy to fight back against. I have no interest in arguing for the non-existence of God, only to explain why I don't believe.

"Such a re-definition of the word “atheist” trivializes the claim of the presumption of atheism, for on this definition, atheism ceases to be a view. It is merely a psychological state which is shared by people who hold various views or no view at all. On this re-definition, even babies, who hold no opinion at all on the matter, count as atheists! In fact, our cat Muff counts as an atheist on this definition, since she has (to my knowledge) no belief in God."

Read more: Definition of atheism | Reasonable Faith
​

It's not a view unto itself, it's a category.

If this is what you really believe, then I have to tell you that you don't understand your own viewpoint. In fact, atheism necessarily entails these four points. They arise unavoidably from (especially naturalistic) atheism. That you don't realize this suggests you have a very superficial grasp of what it means to be an atheist.

Oh please, wise and powerful Christian: Tell me more about my own views, and how I wrong I am about them. It must feel good to stand above me and tell me that you know me better than I do, without knowing anything at all. Why, almost God-like.

 

[seashale76]

Oh please, wise and powerful Christian: Tell me more about my own views, and how I wrong I am about them. It must feel good to stand above me and tell me that you know me better than I do, without knowing anything at all. Why, almost God-like.

Oh, you're in good company with me then. You wouldn't believe how many people have attempted to tell me what I believe. Quite a few atheists among that crowd.