How do atheists rationalize their nonbelief yet claim to know things about the bible

[Freodin]

That would be up to you.

I know. Isn't personal choice great?

That too is your prerogative, I am not (be mindful of relevance on whats ridiculous). And because I am not, that doesn't make you or my self more or less as you suggested. IOW the differences in the two of us is that you were all that because of your choice to bother with the ridiculous, and I'm something less, when at the very best, that means little more that what we chose.

To quote someone who you might know: "You'll need to quote where you got that idea from, along with some explanation on how you drew the conclusion..."

I never said nor implied that you were "less" for what you chose. My whole point is that that you somehow think you can analyse the motivations of others, based on your own motivations. You are simply wrong here, and now that you have been shown to be wrong, you try to smear me.

Seriously... are you here to disrupt?

Some might actually think that to not bother with what is ridiculous to us is a good thing, even natural and normal...that being one reason I think you are just making twists and turns in order to make yourself seem right here, and are not being honest now about my original statement just as you weren't when you first answered.

IOW, you seem to be "wording" yourself into being more justified in things, but in reality, that's as far as it goes.

Yes, some might think that. And some don't.

Do you think you are "special" or "better", or even "more honest", because of that?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Here's where you argue that the reasons why he's here don't align with his actions

And one of the "reasons" in question was learning.

Tell you what, now that I know the claim of being here to learn, I'll keep an eye open to see if the actions really show that or intent to kill faith. Pretty sure I've already seen the truth there, and fact is, one can always "say" they are here to learn or whatever, in spite of there actions showing otherwise. It's a tendency to some to try to show themselves in a better light, true or not. That in mind, this is something I will likely settle with myself, as I pretty much already have, but again, I'll keep an eye open to be sure I am not wrong..

 

[Kenny'sID]

I never said nor implied that you were "less" for what you chose.

I say you did and you say no...debatable, but since we already know just where that debate will go, why bother?

To quote someone you may know.."Isn't personal choice great?"

 

[Freodin]

I say you did and you say no...debatable, but since we already know just where that debate will go, why bother?

It would be "debatable" if we were talking about some personal feelings. But we are not. We are talking about demonstrable facts here.

You say I did say something. That is quite easy to show. Our conversation hasn't been too long yet... half a dozen posts?
Just as you made your claim, I went back over them and looked if I could find something even marginally interpretable as "You are less than me". I didn't find anything.

And here you are, personally asking another poster to justify their interpretation of one of your statements.

Somehow you think you are entitled to get such an explanation... but giving out a justification for a false claim? No way... you won't "bother".

So in the interest of "honesty" that seems to be so important to you... please go back and find the statement that you base your claim on, or retract the accusation.

To quote someone you may know.."Isn't personal choice great?"

I cannot compel you to be honest. I can only ask you. But I would think that, especially as a Christian, it would be in your own interest to be honest.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It's amazing how this thread devolved into one side trying to tell the other side what it is that they believe and what their motivations are, even after the other side literally stated that that is not what they believe nore what their motivations are, only to then try to argue against those strawmen.

Perhaps you people should start listening to the other side and then address what the other side says, instead of responding to what the other side should say in your opinion

 

[JustHereToTalk]

The issue of "rationalizing non-belief" has already been addressed in this thread, and commendably well even by people who aren't atheists, so I won't reinvent the wheel. Suffice to say, I don't believe in God because I don't believe that a sufficient, honest reason has presented itself. But I do have a thing or two to say about knowing the Bible.

My lack of confidence in the validity of all of the Bible's claims does not in any way indicate that I have no love for the texts. To the contrary, one of the reasons that I study the Bible and discuss with Christians and others is, quite frankly, I don't think Christians respect the texts they claim to believe well enough. The Bible is butchered by religion today in favor of traditions and politics, and I think the work deserves better.

If I "know" a thing or two about the Bible, it's because I've read it. I've investigated it, studied the language and the context, compared the meaning of a phrase as used by one writer as opposed to another. I don't stare at the page expecting a spirit to belch knowledge into me from the great beyond - if I want to know what it says, I read it. But I don't claim to be right out of knowledge. I don't claim to be right or knowledgeable at all - if I want to discuss a thing, first of all I'll ask questions. If I want to declare a thing or answer a question, I simply present the evidence, and the listener can judge for himself.

I mean really, why is believing the Bible a requirement for understanding the Bible? How can you say that you believe it, if you don't understand it first? Circular. Reasoning. That attitude only goes to show the haphazard, slothful way of going about truth that brings people into irrational beliefs in the first place. You've already chosen what your answer is going to be, before you even know what the question is. Why would you be so sloppy with the truth, if it was important to you?

 

[rstrats]

JustHereToTalk,
re: "Faith: Agnostic"


Since you say in your post #138 that you "...don't believe in God..." then you are also atheist, i.e., without theism.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I value the exchange of ideas with people who hold different beliefs, especially if they clash with my own.
I'm also interested in mankind's cultural history, and religious texts are a huge part of that. Seeing how our ancestors made sense of reality is quite fascinating, and may very well teach us a lot about our psyche, as well as show us why our culture looks the way it does today.

When I talk with Christians about the Bible or their conception of God, I usually bring up supposed internal contradictions and flaws I detect in their world view - not to spite them, but to give them a chance to a) examine their own beliefs for inconsistencies, growing in the process, or b) show me that I'm wrong in my assessment, allowing *me* to grow.

All of that is unlikely if I only talk to people who think and believe just as I do. It might be comforting to surround yourself with people who support your views, but that encourages hubris and a lack of self-reflection. I like to put my world view to the test, honing and expanding it as I learn new things.

 

[Inkfingers]

Atheists are to gods what I am to unicorns.

Okay, that's not entirely true (as I would love for unicorns to exist whilst atheists tend not to feel the same about gods), but you get the point. Atheists do not believe in the existence of gods in the same way that I do not believe in the existence of unicorns - we both say that there is no evidence of them existing.

Now, the problem arises because more than a few of us will say that there is a great deal of evidence for the existence of a god; specifically the one we refer to as God. Note the capitalisation in all of this; all gods are gods but only one god is God. Is that terminology clear? I hope so.

Anyway, back to my point, the difference between unicorns and God is that there is substantial evidence of God existing but very little if any (beyond some rather pretty tapestries) of unicorns doing so. Now the atheists will (quite understandably) say 'produce the evidence', to which we might point to a universe we can understand and which functions in a predictable manner (showing an organisation in its methods that implies in all other situations an intelligence at work), but many times (lets face it, pretty much always) atheists will say this is not evidence at all (usually citing some arcane statement from a scientist that nobody actually understands, or even citing randomness as if the universe happened "as if by magic"). Which, lets face it, is why many of us theists then come to the conclusion that atheists do not simply disbelieve in the existence of God but actually oppose the very belief in God with a stiffnecked stubborness. How can they, we ask, deny the infinite order of the heavens being a sign of an infinite intelligence at work?

They also tend to raise the issue of why, assuming that God does exist, Christianity is the right religion (to which many of us answer that its the only religion in which salvation comes from a gift rather than works, and so it is the only religion which does not make an idol of human vanity, but that's possibly secondardy in a discussion with someone who does not even believe in God in the first place ).

Anyway, my point is that this situation has been discussed for hundreds of years, and so is unlikely to be concluded on an internet forum any more than in the pub.

 

[Uber Genius]

how do you rationalize that there is no God yet you interpret scripture or you own a bible and read it and still claim theres no god?

Simple they think the scriptures were man-made.

They hold the belief that there is no God, based on other evidence such as the problem of evil and suffering.

Natural evil such as tornados that miss shelters and destroy trailerparks also serve as evidence.

Some may be appealing to the consequences of theism as undesirable Julian Huxley did this. Others say even if there was a God they would never bow the knee to him. Which is a tacit appeal to consequences.

Given that they hold the belief that there is no God, they then think it will be an easy exercise to demonstrate that the Scriptures are man made. Then they run into prophecy and its provides a strong knock down defeater for atheism.

But don't doubt their sincerity. Many of my atheist friends have experienced horrific childhoods. Pain and suffering is real and not intuitive on Theism.

People intuit that if God existed the Earth is would be like heaven.

 

[Uber Genius]

I value the exchange of ideas with people who hold different beliefs, especially if they clash with my own.
I'm also interested in mankind's cultural history, and religious texts are a huge part of that. Seeing how our ancestors made sense of reality is quite fascinating, and may very well teach us a lot about our psyche, as well as show us why our culture looks the way it does today.

When I talk with Christians about the Bible or their conception of God, I usually bring up supposed internal contradictions and flaws I detect in their world view - not to spite them, but to give them a chance to a) examine their own beliefs for inconsistencies, growing in the process, or b) show me that I'm wrong in my assessment, allowing *me* to grow.

All of that is unlikely if I only talk to people who think and believe just as I do. It might be comforting to surround yourself with people who support your views, but that encourages hubris and a lack of self-reflection. I like to put my world view to the test, honing and expanding it as I learn new things.

Love the Ayn Rand meme.

Your approach is admirable and leads to maximal true beliefs and minimal false ones. Bravo!

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Now, the problem arises because more than a few of us will say that there is a great deal of evidence for the existence of a god; specifically the one we refer to as God. Note the capitalisation in all of this; all gods are gods but only one god is God. Is that terminology clear? I hope so.

Allow me to weigh in here.
Here's how I see it: randomness is just unrecognized order. Everything operates by very specific principles, and the universe/reality is an extremely complex structure. But here's the catch: order arises *without* the presence of sapience, all the time. Crystals grow with mathematical precision, galaxies form neat spirals corresponding to the golden ratio. In terms of how order comes about, what we'd call "creation", i.e. thinking entities purposefully re-arranging matter, is not the rule, but the astronomically small exception.
To me, the idea of personal deities is not a logical step, but the kind of anthropomorphism that makes people believe that a flood is caused by angry river spirits. We project, a LOT, attributing purpose and agency to all kinds of non-sentient phenomena or objects.
I'm not averse to the notion of transcendent being(s) per se, but the deities mankind worships are all but homo sapiens writ large, even in cases where transcendence is claimed.

Reading the Bible, I see virtually nothing that sets it apart from other mythologies, especially in terms of how deity is depicted. YHVH is portrayed as an angry, self-obsessed, jealous ruler: greatly resembling the Middle Eastern tyrant-kings of antiquity. Any sign of insubordination is requited with death and terror, while fawning followers may hope for some small reward or other.

As for salvation: there are plenty of religions where being saved from the wrath of angry deities isn't even an issue, so it's basically "apples and oranges".

 

[Inkfingers]

Allow me to weigh in here.
Here's how I see it: randomness is just unrecognized order. Everything operates by very specific principles, and the universe/reality is an extremely complex structure.

I think we agree there; that which people call random is not actually random but is just highly complex order. But when they say random and actually mean it really is random...that was what I was referring to.

But here's the catch: order arises *without* the presence of sapience, all the time. Crystals grow with mathematical precision, galaxies form neat spirals corresponding to the golden ratio.

You seem to presume no intelligence behind those things when organisation is intrinsically about information being handled.

Order by its nature implies intelligence because organisation means information being handled.

Without intelligence, without information being handled, there is no order.

As for salvation: there are plenty of religions where being saved from the wrath of angry deities isn't even an issue, so it's basically "apples and oranges".

Every religion involves a notion of seeking salvation from 'evil'.

Christianity is the only one that makes this process out of our control - a gift, rather than works.

 

[JustHereToTalk]

Atheists are to gods what I am to unicorns.

I appreciate the unicorn analogy. I often use it myself, as a sterile means of separating "ordinary" claims from the "extraordinary."

Now, the problem arises because more than a few of us will say that there is a great deal of evidence for the existence of a god; specifically the one we refer to as God. Note the capitalisation in all of this; all gods are gods but only one god is God. Is that terminology clear? I hope so.

Separation of polytheism from monotheism is fine, but I would indeed like you to define "God." I don't like to assume that our terms are the same, even if we were to say that "God" equals "YHWH in the Bible." I often see Christians assign attributes to YHWH that I can't find in the Bible.

Anyway, back to my point, the difference between unicorns and God is that there is substantial evidence of God existing but very little if any (beyond some rather pretty tapestries) of unicorns doing so. Now the atheists will (quite understandably) say 'produce the evidence', to which we might point to a universe we can understand and which functions in a predictable manner (showing an organisation in its methods that implies in all other situations an intelligence at work)...

- How does predictability in the universe imply intelligence?
- If the universe was not "predictable," would that imply a lack thereof?
- Where does the Bible site predictability in the universe as evidence?
- Is God predictable?
- Why could we not assert "The universe is predictable, therefore unicorns created it?"

They also tend to raise the issue of why, assuming that God does exist, Christianity is the right religion (to which many of us answer that its the only religion in which salvation comes from a gift rather than works, and so it is the only religion which does not make an idol of human vanity, but that's possibly secondardy in a discussion with someone who does not even believe in God in the first place ).

Atheists have the ability to assume hypotheticals just like anybody else. Perhaps you should start a separate thread on this, since I can't

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If all atheists and agnostics on here are seeking God then this thread probably is going no where.

Perhaps this was or is answered in other sections of the forum,
but where is the idea they all are seeking God from ?
I didn't or don't expect most of them to be seeking God...
Who is seeking YHWH(GOD) ? Any atheists? Any agnostics? Any one else ?

 

[JustHereToTalk]

Perhaps this was or is answered in other sections of the forum,
but where is the idea they all are seeking God from ?
I didn't or don't expect most of them to be seeking God...
Who is seeking YHWH(GOD) ? Any atheists? Any agnostics? Any one else ?

I have a place set for him at my table for supper, in case he ever does knock.

 

[Cute Tink]

Perhaps this was or is answered in other sections of the forum,
but where is the idea they all are seeking God from ?
I didn't or don't expect most of them to be seeking God...
Who is seeking YHWH(GOD) ? Any atheists? Any agnostics? Any one else ?

I'm not seeking, but if a god decided to make his presence known to me I'm not against the concept.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I am seeking an accurate understanding of reality. I'd say that is as open-minded a process as it gets: if there were personal deities, they'd be part of reality, and thus part of an accurate understanding of the same.

That said, basically everything I've experienced and learned so far points in a different direction, and reading the Bible and studying its historical roots contributed greatly to my impression that there is no invisible creator-person in charge of the universe.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

...

 

[Mister Bubbles]

How does one rationalize on one hand they don't believe in God

This bit of prestidigitation is getting old.
You don't mean any old God. You mean Yahweh; that old terrific desert deity who commands us not to suffer a witch to live and who tells us to stone non-virginal bethrotheds (only women, of course) to death.
It is, however, crystal clear why you have decided not to opt for clarity.
The sentence, "How does one rationalize on the one hand that they don't believe in Yahweh " (or Allah, or Thor, or Huitzilopochtli ) just doesn't have the same ring to it.

The point is (in case it hasn't dawned on you yet) that the onus is on you to explain to the rest of us why your invisible friend is actually, truly existent while all the other thousands of deities (from Ares to Xenu), worshiped over the centuries by billions of benighted people, were mere figments of their imagination.

If you're in a contemplative mood, here's a quote that may prove illuminating:

"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike"

Mr. B