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

[JGG]

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.

Do you believe the Bible?

 

[JGG]

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.

Does this also apply to the tooth-fairy?

 

[seashale76]

Do you believe the Bible?

Which one (the Orthodox bible has more books than 66), which interpretation, Sola Scriptura or not, literal, allegorical, combination of the two, etcetera... Anyone who tells me what I believe is usually laboring under the delusion they've got it all figured out. Generally, they don't.

I do get amused with the Sola Scriptura atheists though.

 

[steve_bakr]

Does this also apply to the tooth-fairy?

No, I think that they are in different categories altogether. In fact, the holy mystery cannot be restricted to categories or by any system of coordinates. But why the need for sarcasm? I already get that you are an atheist. What I was suggesting is that even atheists have preconceptions about the God they don't believe in. It is very likely that I don't believe in the God that you don't believe in either.

 

[JGG]

Which one (the Orthodox bible has more books than 66), which interpretation, Sola Scriptura or not, literal, allegorical, combination of the two, etcetera... Anyone who tells me what I believe is usually laboring under the delusion they've got it all figured out. Generally, they don't.

I do get amused with the Sola Scriptura atheists though.

But is there a book that defines for you what you believe?

 

[JGG]

No, I think that they are in different categories altogether. In fact, the holy mystery cannot be restricted to categories or by any system of coordinates. But why the need for sarcasm? I already get that you are an atheist. What I was suggesting is that even atheists have preconceptions about the God they don't believe in. It is very likely that I don't believe in the God that you don't believe in either.

I agree. But that's a long walk from believing in it. I even have a pet god theory that I enjoy and would even say I want to believe in. But I don't.

and its not sarcasm, its argument by comparison.

 

[seashale76]

But is there a book that defines for you what you believe?

No. The books that make up the bible are only a part of what comprises Holy Tradition. The Church defines what I believe.

But this is interesting- do you think you have the right to tell me what I believe- yet you get upset when someone does it to you?

 

[NaughtyNinja]

For beginners I would recommend a Christian to note the attitude of anti-theism as found in attitudes of Friedrich Nietzsche and the attitude of atheism. Most people who go by the title atheist are actually anti-theist who hold strong opposition towards religion of all kind and especially Christianity as it is the most common faith found in America which is the cesspool most attributed to the breeding of atheistic ideology.

 

[steve_bakr]

For beginners I would recommend a Christian to note the attitude of anti-theism as found in attitudes of Friedrich Nietzsche and the attitude of atheism. Most people who go by the title atheist are actually anti-theist who hold strong opposition towards religion of all kind and especially Christianity as it is the most common faith found in America which is the cesspool most attributed to the breeding of atheistic ideology.

Even though there are some militant atheists (and I think that their efforts to descredit God largely backfire), I don't demonize atheists. Many are persons of good will who have simply come to a different conclusion about God. On some deeper level, their lives may well affirm many values of Christianity but without explicitly being "religious." The notion that all atheists are somehow morally degenerate simply doesn't match reality.

 

[steve_bakr]

I agree. But that's a long walk from believing in it. I even have a pet god theory that I enjoy and would even say I want to believe in. But I don't.

and its not sarcasm, its argument by comparison.

I think a "pet theory" about God is a good exercise. It may well objectify your own moral values and sense of right and wrong.

I'll admit that the comparison using the tooth fairy seemed rather flippant. Even atheists ask serious questions about God, although they come to different conclusions than Christians.

 

[aiki]

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

If you're claiming that God does not exist, you're making a knowledge claim that requires justification. If you're simply stating the condition of your mind - that you have no belief in God - then I'm obliged to respond with, "So what?" Dogs and cats have no belief in God, either.

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.

What difference does this make to the fact that negative assertions are often proved?

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.

"I have no belief in God," is not an argument. You're simply stating the condition of your thinking as it relates to the subject of God. It is of no greater value in a discussion about God than declaring that a hamster has no belief in God. Essentially, you are saying you have no opinion on the matter of God. Dr. Craig explains:

"Your atheist friends are right that there is an important logical difference between believing that there is no God and not believing that there is a God. Compare my saying , “I believe that there is no gold on Mars” with my saying “I do not believe that there is gold on Mars.” If I have no opinion on the matter, then I do not believe that there is gold on Mars, and I do not believe that there is no gold on Mars. There’s a difference between saying, “I do not believe (p)” and “I believe (not-p).” Logically where you place the negation makes a world of difference."

Read more: Definition of atheism | Reasonable Faith
​

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

How so?

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.

Actually, I was writing to Munising, not you.

Selah.

 

[JGG]

No. The books that make up the bible are only a part of what comprises Holy Tradition. The Church defines what I believe.

But this is interesting- do you think you have the right to tell me what I believe- yet you get upset when someone does it to you?

No. But clearly the church does. I merely have to inquire with them to know what you believe, even if you are not aware of it.

Atheists tend not to work the same way. Usually we create our own structure.

 

[JGG]

If you're claiming that God does not exist, you're making a knowledge claim that requires justification. If you're simply stating the condition of your mind - that you have no belief in God - then I'm obliged to respond with, "So what?" Dogs and cats have no belief in God, either.

Nor buddhists.

How so?

Buddhists technically are atheists but my beliefs don't match Buddhism. We are still in the same category as we are not theists.

Actually, I was writing to Munising, not you.

Selah.

So you weren't dictating what atheists must believe for all atheists, just one?

 

[Munising]

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

If A plus B is equal to C, could it also be true that C minus B is NOT equal to A?

Once you answer that question, you'll understand the validity of my logic.

 

[Munising]

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?

Nothing false about it. Do you believe Bigfoot exists? Probably not. Is the burden of proof upon you to show Bigfoot doesn't exist? Or is the burden of proof upon those who are positing that Bigfoot does exist?

If asked, I can provide justification for my position. I've evaluated all the claims I've heard Christians make, observed everything all my senses and intellect can detect and have determined there is no compelling evidence for the existence of a god. That's my justification.

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!

Is the agnostic a Christian or an Atheist?
The Atheist is under no obligation to justify his viewpoint, as failure to hold a belief is a null position and thus isn't really a viewpoint. Do you consider the fact you don't hold the belief that the flying spaghetti monster exists to be a viewpoint that must be justified?

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.

If I posit that there are a million purple unicorns roaming the plains of western Kansas, can you prove that's not true?

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
​

That is true, your cat Muff and all human babies - having no belief that a god exists - would be atheists. (unless 'atheist' applies only to humans).

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

Also see the definition at dictionary.com
atheist  
Use Atheist in a sentence
Ads
Public Religion
Resources for American Christianity | Information & Reflection on selected projects funded by
Explore Public Religion in Depth
One God Made One Humanity
www.if-you-believe.info/
Religion should unite us. Baha'i Faith.
a·the·ist [ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

I think this holds more weight than what WLC says.

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.

What do you think my viewpoint is? Do you think it is something other than "I don't hold the belief that a god exists"? If so, what do you think it is?

 

[Munising]

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.

And most atheists are "called" to be patient with Christians. Most of us are willing to accept that a god exists if you can provide evidence. But the evidence has not been forthcoming.

 

[Munising]

No, I think that they are in different categories altogether. In fact, the holy mystery cannot be restricted to categories or by any system of coordinates. But why the need for sarcasm? I already get that you are an atheist. What I was suggesting is that even atheists have preconceptions about the God they don't believe in. It is very likely that I don't believe in the God that you don't believe in either.

It's probably the case that you don't believe in all but one of the Gods which atheists don't believe in.

Our preconceptions of what God is come from the claims Christians have made. We don't come up with our own preconceptions.

With respect to being able to hold a belief that something exists, the tooth fairy and God are in the same category. One can either hold a belief that the tooth fairy exists or one can fail to hold a belief that the tooth fairy exists. The same goes for God.

 

[crimsonleaf]

I was an atheist for 11 years in my adulthood, raised by atheist parents. I understand atheists.

My change from unbelief to belief was instantaneous, and some on here will have read about my conversion. But it is my firm belief that atheism is our natural state, that man, by his very nature, will not turn to God. Although God, through evangelists and the like, asks for man to turn to Him, they will not until He makes a change in them.

I was indifferent to God until the point He granted me faith. If that seems odd to some readers then understand that I belong to the Reformed faith. Either Google it or read more in the Ask a Calvinist section.

To me, an atheist is a Christian-in-waiting, and I will treat him as such. Maybe he will never be called, I don't and can't know. All we can do is ask God to change a man's heart to enable his belief.

An atheist has the ability to turn to God, but will not. An atheist gets the same evidence we do, but presuppositions on each side cause us to view the evidence differently. I presuppose God, and therefore see evidence of Him in all I look at, from the smallest creature to the magnificent cosmos. Not so when I was an atheist. An ant was an ant. And we mustn't confuse evidence with proof. Proof is only valid as far as presuppositions will allow it to be.

As an atheist I didn't see Christians as unhinged. I envied them their certainty. I just couldn't understand where it came from. Now I know.

 

[crimsonleaf]

It's probably the case that you don't believe in all but one of the Gods which atheists don't believe in.

Our preconceptions of what God is come from the claims Christians have made. We don't come up with our own preconceptions.

With respect to being able to hold a belief that something exists, the tooth fairy and God are in the same category. One can either hold a belief that the tooth fairy exists or one can fail to hold a belief that the tooth fairy exists. The same goes for God.

Your first sentence is part of a claim often used to show that Christians aren't that far removed from atheists. In truth, you only need to believe in one God to be a theist, and if you believed in many gods you couldn't be a Christian.

The tooth fairy and God fall into vastly different categories; we all know WHO the tooth fairy is, as we know who Santa is. Not so with God, insofar that he isn't one of us pretending to be something else. I'm always surprised that people can't see the difference.

 

[seashale76]

No. But clearly the church does. I merely have to inquire with them to know what you believe, even if you are not aware of it.

Atheists tend not to work the same way. Usually we create our own structure.

The Church existed before the NT, you realize.