Questions for Atheists

[Knowledge3]

1)What are some primary reasons for your lack of belief?

Short answer: Christianity.
Long answer: I was brought up with Christianity. I went to church, and to catechism classes. I was confirmed. But I guess I never really completely believed in it all. I knew I was supposed to believe, and I went along with it, but... it never really made sense. Eventually I realized I was an atheist.

Why would you want to be an atheist as compared to a Christian? I am a Christian and uphold Christian values, but the journey is not always easy. There are bumps and turns in the road, but I am going somewhere.

I have to make conscious descisions to believe on Jesus. There is an profound truth in Jesus that I could not find anywhere else. Part of why I am Christian is because of grace, God convinced me of a fundamental truth that could never be explained by science or philosophy.

I become perplexed as to why some atheist justify their reasons for being so by pointing to negative things. The enigma in itself is not yet understood by me.

2)Does the academic nature of science & evolution play a role?

Not really, no. Even when I considered myself a Christian, I never found science in general or evolution in particular to be irreconcilable with what I was taught about religion. I wasn't raised to believe that Genesis was meant to be taken literally. In fact, in high school, before I realized my atheism, I remember being utterly floored to discover that there were kids in my class who didn't accept evolution, and honestly believed in "Adam and Eve." I was completely astonished.

Everyone is an individual, so I couldn't actually determine what you believe.

For example, I could view and look at a beautiful woman on the magazine cover and admire her attractive qualities for a moment, but I begin to question whether there is any inherent truths to what I see and view as the world. The only truth that convinces me is the truth found in God.

I don't really care for evolution, but why is it so popular and why do some uphold as it if were a personal creed or life motto? What does evolution do and how does it benefit people?

3)What are some other factors that lead to your conclusions?
Mostly stuff that would belong more in the General Apologetics forum. As I said, I was never taught to see Genesis as a literal account. Also, the realization that I didn't need to believe in any gods to make my life work.

I believe in the Genesis account, but only by unique understanding of God's word and grace. I had a profound experience with interpreting Genesis.

4)And what is your favorite god in the system of gods/mythology to use as an example?
As a Classics geek, I enjoy referencing the Greek pantheon. I'll also splash a little Norse, Egyptian, or whatever I happen to think of at the time. Quetzalcoatl is cool. I'm also a fan of deliberately-invented beings like the IPU. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is starting to gain popularity as well. I've also picked up the habit of swearing by Cthulhu.

Not to mention Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and all of that fictional junk. I find it amusing when some other atheist or infidel perspectives are based on being intellectuals.

Why do people appeal to fictional fantasy works and embrace them, but not embrace the reality of Jesus and the Church? The Bible is becoming more and more authentic as culture produces a virtual imagination and it's own reality.

 

[Valkhorn]

I am a Christian and uphold Christian values

Morality and Christianity are not mutually exclusive ideas. A few hours research into Taoism, Hinduism, and most Eastern religions will probably show you that it doesn't take Christianity or any religion to be a good person.

I have to make conscious descisions to believe on Jesus. There is an profound truth in Jesus that I could not find anywhere else. Part of why I am Christian is because of grace, God convinced me of a fundamental truth that could never be explained by science or philosophy.

You won't want to hear this, but chances are it's all in your mind. You probably believe things based on faith - things that cannot be explained anyways.

But that's awfully convenient isn't it, believing in things that cannot be explained or rationalized. It is awfully convenient for dismissing personal accountability, now isn't it?

I become perplexed as to why some atheist justify their reasons for being so by pointing to negative things. The enigma in itself is not yet understood by me.

I'm an Atheist, and a musician. Atheists aren't always 'negative' and demeaning. Most that I meet are realists and enjoy life and are happy.

This whole crotchety atheist stereotype has got to go. I've known more christians who were demeaning, rude, and arrogant than any Atheists I've ever met. I don't blame it on Christianity, I blame it on the person.

For example, I could view and look at a beautiful woman on the magazine cover and admire her attractive qualities for a moment, but I begin to question whether there is any inherent truths to what I see and view as the world. The only truth that convinces me is the truth found in God.

That's the trouble. You see it's very dangerous when someone thinks they know the mind of god. They think they have authority over others, and that they should control people because they are more godly than others. Not saying you're like that, but I know some of many religions who are like that.

It's very easy to rationalize ANYTHING by just saying "well I just feel like this god over here wants me to think this way". And a few very rotten people have been this way.

I don't really care for evolution, but why is it so popular and why do some uphold as it if were a personal creed or life motto? What does evolution do and how does it benefit people?

First of all, its a valid scientific theory. It explains a lot, and it's pretty much as well supported if not more so than gravitational theory and even heliocentric theory. And yes both are theories, too.

And the reason I think why people defend it so much is it's the constant battle of knowledge and wisdom over the oppression of fear, ignorance, and superstition.

It is not good to suppress knowledge and facts in order to hold up a particular faith. And, I cannot see how that could ever be considered a good thing.

Not to mention Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and all of that fictional junk. I find it amusing when some other atheist or infidel perspectives are based on being intellectuals.

Far be it from me but I find better stories and moral lessons in Star Wars and Lord of the Rings than the Bible. (Yes, I've read the Bible cover to cover). In fact, I think the stories and episodes of Star Trek are just about as uplifting as you can be. I mean, who wouldn't want such a bright future where there is no hunger, no poverty, everyone lives together on this planet, and there is no fear, ignorance, superstition, or opression. It is kind of interesting too that religion is often never mentioned. All the Enterprises never had a church

Why do people appeal to fictional fantasy works and embrace them, but not embrace the reality of Jesus and the Church? The Bible is becoming more and more authentic as culture produces a virtual imagination and it's own reality.

Your point? The bible is a man made book, too. The only authority from it that it is possibly the work of some diety comes from man. Man wrote it, and even if he was 'inspired' by a god it was still through his fallible hand and his own interpretation of how the world was thousands of years ago.

We need to look forward, not back. Why do some people just love the idea of ignorance and fear and opression? It may give them some warm fuzzy feeling but it leaves me with a sour taste in my mouth.

 

[VicR28]

1)What are some primary reasons for your lack of belief?

A perfect, omniscient, infinite being creating inferior, fallible, finite beings makes absolutely no sense once you really think about it. And if some god did happen to create us, I'd find our lives to be pretty meaningless.


2)Does the academic nature of science & evolution play a role?

Actually, the History courses I've taken (European History especially) made it pretty clear the church is a farce.


3)What are some other factors that lead to your conclusions?

I was raised a Lutheran, and I used to pray often. To a specific prayer, I looked for an answer in everything, but the joke was on me; the praying thing doesn't work.


4)And what is your favorite god in the system of gods/mythology to use as an example?

Ares and The Force come to mind. I'll be celebrating my second FSM holiday tomorrow (Friday). I like the Christian God too, though. The New Testament has a powerful story in it; it'd make a good movie (I guess it has already).

 

[FSTDT]

Knowledge,

Hello

Thank you for your reply.

I see that you made an effort to define your position through reason and logic as well as philosophy. Most of what I see in common atheist positions to infer the vast system of gods and mythological concepts that are ingrained in recorded history.

When you define value, do you define value in terms of principles, feelings, or objective goals? Is your goal to reach a positive conclusion in your search for belief or truth?

I think you missed my point somewhat. When I say defining the attributes of God according to what I value, I generally mean on what basis can we decide what attributes God has and for what reason. For instance, on what basis can we say that God is truly omnipotent rather than puny, or that he actually cares about human beings rather than being totally indifferent, or that he is immortal rather than destructable, or whether God cares about humankind more than say feline kind, or whether God has to possess any wisdom, or whether God has to be rational, or even whether the death of God is responsible for the creation of the universe?

As of right now, I know of no way to justify any of these conceptions about God, or any reason to prefer one conception over another. When you strip away the attributes of God that you cannot justify, you end up with a very empty and utterly impersonal God - if you try to justify God's attributes because God "must" have them, it appears to be a reflection of all the ideals that humans hold dear to themselves. So, you end up with a God with no definable attributes (which makes him equivalent to a non-existent God), or you have a man-made God (which makes him a superstition).

I tried to start from scratch in trying to define my god, I juggled with ideas that God is omnipotent, that he cares about humans, that he benevolent, that he virtuous, etc. But each time I put together a God, I would come across people who ascribed different attributes to God - I had to ask myself "what made me right and them wrong", eventually I would start over again until the God I defined could be justified without saying "because I want my God to be this way". I kept starting from the beginning with a God devoid of attributes, and then I'd end right back up with a God devoid of attributes again.

Hmm, the nature of academic philosophy would be hard to define in what I believe. For example, I am heavily indundated in theology and doctrine and have solid belief. But I did not obtain this by seeking vast and abstract head knowledge or secular contemplation. The trends and fads of popular secular notions do not uphold a the real and foundational truth of Christianity.

I could only guess what you mean by "trends and fads of secular notions"

But the universe is work of wonder is it not? The atheist even upon encountering difficulty in the belief of religion, does not have to succumb to religion, but still view the universe and world through science.

Upon contemplating the vast space and multitude of stars, wouldn't you not conclude that something feels missing? Or something similar to an anchor that grounds you in a fundamental truth?

Your comment reminds me of a quote:

Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?

Douglas Adams​

Yes, the universe is beautiful, and some people may feel that in all of it there is something missing. But, to say that there must be something to fill that void, especially something like a God, is unjustifiable.

You bring up good points. So you have studied the Bible? What version of the Bible do you prefer to read?

On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is total novice and 10 is distinguished Biblical scholar, I'm probably right around a 5. I've studied Bible a lot.

My preferred version is the NIV for its readability and because its based on better manuscripts than the KJV and other versions.

That is understandable, but to attain a fundamental truth and to gain a valuable resource of faith, one has to undergo certain requirements and testing of faith & belief to achieve truth in ourselves and how we relate to the world.

In previous threads I've mentioned that faith means preciously little, it cannot tell you the truth about any claim. This is really easy to prove: when you have just as much faith in your gods as I have in my own gods, which one of us is correct? Is there any way to resolve the conflict by reference to faith alone? No, there is not, because in the end faith-based conclusions only say what you believe and not what is true about the universe. The only justifiable way to make statements about the universe that are resolvable is by appeal to science or philosophy, therefore I could only say that whatever requirements anyone goes through to truly understand faith are gratuitous.

I dont say this to be cynical, but only because one of the first things that got me into science and philosophy was the rejection of faith as being the genuine "evidence for things not seen" that I had always believed it to be.

One of the things I can vouch and ascertain, is that the Church and Scripture have a foundation of truth and heritage that cannot be found anywhere else. The doctrine and authentic belief of Church is meant to withstand the tests of opposition and time. When truth is acquired, it remains stable and is does not change to suit popular trends.

You are more positive than I am. I generally complain that creation science is stagnate rather than stable, and that it is stubborn rather than heritage, and in light of the number of times I've seen "second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution" I think that it is less indicative that creation science repeats itself ad nauseum without regard to improvement rather than standing the tests of time.

Certainly, claims like "if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys" is not a statement that stands the tests of time because it is actually compelling, but rather because it is repeated uncritically. When I say that creationist literature today is identical to the creationist literature 100 years ago, this is not a statement of intellectual fortitude, but rather intellectual ineptitude. (There is no way I could possibly say that not sound cynical about it.)

Intuition is intellect that builds common sense. In this scenario, no one is either right or wrong but exchanging convictions or reasons for why we think the way we do.

Common sense is one thing, but science contradicts common sense at almost every new discovery. People make intuitive statements like "something cant come from nothing", but there is no reason to suspect that such an intuitive statement has anymore to do with the actual properties of the universe than "the relative speed of light decreases as your speed increases".

Have you ever been a Christian previously? If you were to become a Christian, what would you expect to learn and gain from true and authentic Christianity?

Yes, I was Southern Baptist and went to church for many years. I dont believe its possible for me to become a Christian again, because although I'd set the standards of proofs to something really low like "perform an experiment that confirms the existence of God or the supernatural", it is possible reach those standards in principle but absolutely impossible to achieve them in practice.

 

[Eudaimonist]

1)What are some primary reasons for your lack of belief?

If you mean, "why don't I believe in Christian doctrine?", it's because I don't find it persuasive enough to believe. The evidence and argument are lacking. For me, at least, reason and an honest interpretation of my life experiences have led me to the view that the reality is wholely natural.

2)Does the academic nature of science & evolution play a role?

Only in the sense that these helped show me that there are alternative explanations for how the world became as it is, and so I couldn't simply take the first speculation to come along as unquestionable dogma. I learned that I needed to question, to examine arguments and evidence, to discern what the truths of reality may be -- in short, to reason.

3)What are some other factors that lead to your conclusions?

I don't think that I would call the mere lack of belief a "conclusion". But I found Christian philosophical arguments insufficiently persuasive, e.g. those of Aquinas.

And I have read the Bible a few times, and didn't find much there to persuade me either. In fact, it struck me as human inspired.

4)And what is your favorite god in the system of gods/mythology to use as an example?

Hmmm... Prometheus, as representing the spirit of inventiveness and technological development.

 

[Knowledge3]

Morality and Christianity are not mutually exclusive ideas. A few hours research into Taoism, Hinduism, and most Eastern religions will probably show you that it doesn't take Christianity or any religion to be a good person.

True, but the commandment Jesus taught is love and love for your neighbor. And is the most practical teaching,

Eastern taoism or buddhism is closest to the atheist format of belief, it's focus is on achieving personal nirvana bliss by disavowing a material relationship with the world, and become one with the inward/outward appearance. But I respect the principles of Tibetan Buddhism, but do not practice or profess the belief.,

You won't want to hear this, but chances are it's all in your mind. You probably believe things based on faith - things that cannot be explained anyways.

But that's awfully convenient isn't it, believing in things that cannot be explained or rationalized. It is awfully convenient for dismissing personal accountability, now isn't it?

I have sort of overcome the inherent obstacle of strict naturalism and seeing things in natural explanations. But you are somewhat correct, it is in my mind but it is also very real, I'm tired of everything being explained away in cynicism and criticism.
.
Personal accountability for what? I take responsibility for what I say and teach. Only because I have enough courage and fortitude to venture into this territory is when so many external forces are drawn and issues abound.

Remember what God says in Revelation about he who overcomes.

I'm an Atheist, and a musician. Atheists aren't always 'negative' and demeaning. Most that I meet are realists and enjoy life and are happy.

This whole crotchety atheist stereotype has got to go. I've known more christians who were demeaning, rude, and arrogant than any Atheists I've ever met. I don't blame it on Christianity, I blame it on the person.

On the same token, you are lumping me in with your cynical worldview. How can we change that? For example, I have never met you and have never met me, why would you include in your general portfolio of how you think Christians believe and act?

What musical instrument do you play?

That's the trouble. You see it's very dangerous when someone thinks they know the mind of god. They think they have authority over others, and that they should control people because they are more godly than others. Not saying you're like that, but I know some of many religions who are like that.

That is not my position or how I want to come across. The way you say it is not what I mean or want to echo to you, keep in mind that I am only a single individual, and I can't be responsible for all of the baggage and external issues.

I do not control anyone, or anything. Nor wish to have authority over anyone. At this point, your idea of an Utopian worldview is at best unrealistic.

First of all, its a valid scientific theory. It explains a lot, and it's pretty much as well supported if not more so than gravitational theory and even heliocentric theory. And yes both are theories, too.

And the reason I think why people defend it so much is it's the constant battle of knowledge and wisdom over the oppression of fear, ignorance, and superstition.

It is not good to suppress knowledge and facts in order to hold up a particular faith. And, I cannot see how that could ever be considered a good thing.

What would I be suppressing? I didn't say I want to shut evolution down, but I simply do not care much for it. This doesn't necessarily mean I am foisting an agenda or motive.And when I draw lines at bringing biblical theology into the equation, I have good reasons to refrain and avoid those possible traps. Especially involving those specific things,

Far be it from me but I find better stories and moral lessons in Star Wars and Lord of the Rings than the Bible. (Yes, I've read the Bible cover to cover). In fact, I think the stories and episodes of Star Trek are just about as uplifting as you can be. I mean, who wouldn't want such a bright future where there is no hunger, no poverty, everyone lives together on this planet, and there is no fear, ignorance, superstition, or opression. It is kind of interesting too that religion is often never mentioned. All the Enterprises never had a church

Then you are describing an Utopia. You feel a justification by presenting an ideal but unrealistic worldview then reasoning from there.

You remind me of George Carlin, funny guy.

Your point? The bible is a man made book, too. The only authority from it that it is possibly the work of some diety comes from man. Man wrote it, and even if he was 'inspired' by a god it was still through his fallible hand and his own interpretation of how the world was thousands of years ago.

We need to look forward, not back. Why do some people just love the idea of ignorance and fear and opression? It may give them some warm fuzzy feeling but it leaves me with a sour taste in my mouth.

I'm not so sure about the Future.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

1)What are some primary reasons for your lack of belief?

Lack of evidence that any particular religion is true.

2)Does the academic nature of science & evolution play a role?

A small role. Many Big Questions in life can now be answered by science whereas our ignorance of the answers once provided a basis for god belief.

3)What are some other factors that lead to your conclusions?

The fact that Florida State lost to Florida in 1997.

 

[Valkhorn]

True, but the commandment Jesus taught is love and love for your neighbor. And is the most practical teaching,

Confucious said that too, and I believe he predates Jesus by 500 years.

And I won't comment on what most of you said, but I will comment on the main gist of it. You accuse me of being cynical and negative, and yet you say a utopia isn't going to happen and that we can't look forward to the future?

I'm a skeptic, not a cynic - big difference.

 

[schatenjager]

It appears that your line of questioning stems from the assumption that Christianity (I realize that your original post does not specifically mention Christianity but the remainder of this thread focuses on it) is the Default position, or in other words, if not Christian, then why? The question is leading me to think that you are taking the view that there are two basic categories: Christian and Not.

In answer to your first question, and this was stated once before, non-belief should be the default. If a child were raised in isolation, without religious context, what would that child's belief system be? Would he assume a belief in the Christian (or any, for that matter) God or would he assume a belief in nothing? Would he invent a new (or at least unknown) religion? The question seems intentionally loaded to point to Belief as a "better" position than non-belief (i.e., Lack of belief). The term seems to indicate that belief is something we all originally started with and then somehow lost, as opposed to gained for a definitive reason.

As to the Second question, Does the Academic Nature of Science and Evolution play a role, that also assumes that we were once Believers and then, through a process of study, lost that belief in favor of a naturalistic viewpoint. In answer to that, Science and Evolution (itself merely a more specialized area of Science) are not within the scope of religion and can play no part in the decision to form a religious belief.

Question 3, What are some other factors that led to your conclusions, ceases to contain meaning if you assume a non-belief as a Default position. In effect, it asks why one would be at the starting line, a position that requires no further explanation.

Question 4, What is your favorite God...that's an interesting one. The answer depends on what you mean in the asking. Were I to use a reference to god (or gods) in any sort of explanation, I would most likely use the simply generic term "god or gods" rather than attempt to utilize any specific mythologies named deity. If you are intending to draw a conclusion that any certain named deity is more prevalently utilized than another, that you would rightly draw the conclusion that the Christian/Jewish/Muslim God is likely the most used though that is arguably directly caused by those religion's prevelance in Western Society.

I would still maintain that the entire line of questioning is invalid as it assumes a starting position that may not necessarily be a correct assumption.

 

[Knowledge3]

I think you missed my point somewhat. When I say defining the attributes of God according to what I value, I generally mean on what basis can we decide what attributes God has and for what reason. For instance, on what basis can we say that God is truly omnipotent rather than puny, or that he actually cares about human beings rather than being totally indifferent, or that he is immortal rather than destructable, or whether God cares about humankind more than say feline kind, or whether God has to possess any wisdom, or whether God has to be rational, or even whether the death of God is responsible for the creation of the universe?

God is the invisible element of the Godhead.We are not able to define God according to our personal notions of why we believe and how we want to understand the nature of God apart from Scripture. The clay does not determine the attributes of the Creator.

God is the Maker of all things, and through Him all things were made.

As of right now, I know of no way to justify any of these conceptions about God, or any reason to prefer one conception over another. When you strip away the attributes of God that you cannot justify, you end up with a very empty and utterly impersonal God - if you try to justify God's attributes because God "must" have them, it appears to be a reflection of all the ideals that humans hold dear to themselves. So, you end up with a God with no definable attributes (which makes him equivalent to a non-existent God), or you have a man-made God (which makes him a superstition).

We understand the visible elements of the invisible God by His Word. The premise of justifying your reasons for being unable to determine your introspective reasons for being so, do not neccessarily equal a correct judgement. God has visible attributes that are defined in Jesus, and Jesus is God's exact representation of His invisible being.

I tried to start from scratch in trying to define my god, I juggled with ideas that God is omnipotent, that he cares about humans, that he benevolent, that he virtuous, etc. But each time I put together a God, I would come across people who ascribed different attributes to God - I had to ask myself "what made me right and them wrong", eventually I would start over again until the God I defined could be justified without saying "because I want my God to be this way". I kept starting from the beginning with a God devoid of attributes, and then I'd end right back up with a God devoid of attributes again.

The classic Thinking Man syndrome.

On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is total novice and 10 is distinguished Biblical scholar, I'm probably right around a 5. I've studied Bible a lot.

My preferred version is the NIV for its readability and because its based on better manuscripts than the KJV and other versions.

Most distinguished Bible scholars are not yet past John 1.1.

In previous threads I've mentioned that faith means preciously little, it cannot tell you the truth about any claim. This is really easy to prove: when you have just as much faith in your gods as I have in my own gods, which one of us is correct? Is there any way to resolve the conflict by reference to faith alone? No, there is not, because in the end faith-based conclusions only say what you believe and not what is true about the universe. The only justifiable way to make statements about the universe that are resolvable is by appeal to science or philosophy, therefore I could only say that whatever requirements anyone goes through to truly understand faith are gratuitous.

I dont say this to be cynical, but only because one of the first things that got me into science and philosophy was the rejection of faith as being the genuine "evidence for things not seen" that I had always believed it to be.

God defines how we are to walk by faith in His Word. We have clear instructions in understanding how invisible elements define faith in the visible. Scripture clearly defines the goal of the Christian and how he relates to God. Philosophy and Secular notions are not sufficient in leading a worldview that has reasoned itself out of common sense.

 

[Loudmouth]

Don't mind at all.

Im curious as to define the position of the agnostic, you are neither hot nor cold, but inbetween and unsure about the definitive existence of God?

I am open to the idea of the supernatural but have not seen any evidence of it's existence. I also hold the idea that God may be unknowable with religion only approximating the true nature of God/s.

That is a very good way to define your belief. There are many reasons to believe in genuine and authentic Christianity. If I posed as a very influential and wealthy businessman, with a good track record, would that give me a better chance of doing business with you?

You are not claiming to be the Son of God. Not really on the same level. If I presented myself as a business man would you believe in Santa Claus? Of course not.

True, many Christians are gullible but there are many who are critical and many who are sincere. That is part of reality and the way the world works. Christians also need mercy,love,and forgiveness. Not condemation and blame-shifting.

I really didn't mean it as an insult. We are all gullible, me included. My experience with religion (the first 20 years of my life) is that it is primarily a societal phenomena, not a fundamentally religious phenomena. People go to church to be with their friends with whom they share a common goal and common belief. Whether or not that belief is true seems to be secondary, at least in my experience.

What are some examples of biases?

The Bible is spiritually inspired. All other religions are devoid of any logic. Archaeological evidence of cities named in the Bible confirms the myths that occurred in those cities. Christian morality is superior to any other code of morality. Morality does not exist unless it is God given. To name a few.

You are going to be a fun interview.I agree Hinduism has strange and electic figures of foreign gods.

The Epic of Gilgamesh is pretty good too.

The difference with Christian outlook is that is more authentic and real.

Another bias to add to my list. The christian outlook is more authentic and real TO YOU because you have been around it for so long. Christianity is as foreign to Hindus as Hinduism is to Christians.

I have been tempted with many foreign gods in my vision, I never actually studied them but actual learned about them as result of my belief.

How can it be temptation if they don't exist? Food for thought.

What impresses you about Hinduism?

I dislike the caste system, but I do like some of their philosophy. One of which is that the body is celebrated. Sexuality is mixed with religion in a round about way, something I have always been intrigued with. I only have a passing knowledge of Hinduism, but it has always interested me. A close second is Buddhism due to the fact that Buddhism can be studied outside of any reference to a deity.

 

[cerad]

I want to interview the atheist/infidel crowd and discover the fundamental basics in your belief or lack of belief(s).

God defines how we are to walk by faith in His Word. We have clear instructions in understanding how invisible elements define faith in the visible. Scripture clearly defines the goal of the Christian and how he relates to God. Philosophy and Secular notions are not sufficient in leading a worldview that has reasoned itself out of common sense.

Looks like the discovery portion of your thread is over. Now comes the preaching.

 

[Misguided]

Your response to my questions are genuine? My goal was to give you the opportunity to express your mind. Why do you lack faith?

I lack faith because, to me faith seems foolish. I don't see the reasoning behind accepting something with no supporting evidence.

If there are no logical fallacies, a perfect holy book, and demonstrated evidence would you change your mind?

If there was a perfect holy book, no logical fallacies, and actual evidence, Christianity would probably be to only religion there is.

Why does the demonstrated evidence in science portray itself as an opposite to what the Holy Bible states? If I can give analogy to your viewpoint. Let's say I walk into a ice cream store, but I am critical and have a serious toothache, would that give me ample reasons to declare the ice cream unsuitable for my tastes?

No. Your conditions wern't normal, therefore you can conclude that any data extracted from the "test" would be false.

 

[rjw]

I want to interview the atheist/infidel crowd and discover the fundamental basics in your belief or lack of belief(s).



1)What are some primary reasons for your lack of belief?



2)Does the academic nature of science & evolution play a role?



3)What are some other factors that lead to your conclusions?



4)And what is your favorite god in the system of gods/mythology to use as an example?

Hello Knowledge3

Answers to your questions:-



1)What are some primary reasons for your lack of belief?

No reason to believe.

If:-

a) solid evidence could be provided for the existence of the supernatural or

b) the supernatural communicated with me (that is, I had a “Road to Damascus” type experience,

then I would believe.



2)Does the academic nature of science & evolution play a role?

Not really.



3)What are some other factors that lead to your conclusions?

Meeting a group of biblical literalists from another church at about the age of 20. They held beliefs contrary to mine – also based on the notion that the Bible was the inspired word of God. Admittedly my beliefs (Virgin birth, Jesus’ resurrection, the Great Flood) were all coming under strain at that stage of my life, but meeting people who believed things contrary to my beliefs yet we both argued from “God’s inspired and inerrant word” – convinced me that it was “all bunk”.

An unkind thing to say perhaps. But that is how I felt about it then.

So that is how I see it now. Religious belief seems arbitrary. That is two people can believe somewhat different things and argue to each other that their beliefs are the truth from the notion that only they have the correct revelation from their sacred scripture. Evidence appears to count for little. Revelation appears to count for everything. It is too subjective.



4)And what is your favorite god in the system of gods/mythology to use as an example?

Culture plays a part here. The Christian/Jewish/ Islamic – i.e. the notion of one God. It cannot be a personal god though. It has to me more something which is intimately tied into the universe and not apart from it.



Regards, Roland

 

[Loudmouth]

Looks like the discovery portion of your thread is over. Now comes the preaching.

Don't be too harsh. I think it is only fair that K3 gets a chance to outline his worldviews along side us atheists/agnostics. From my reading K3 is talking about what applies to K3 and other christians, not what everyone should bow down to. I have seen more preaching from the atheists/agnostics than I have from K3.

 

[theory]

1)What are some primary reasons for your lack of belief?

I don't think "lack of belief" is a good way to put it.


2)Does the academic nature of science & evolution play a role?

Not at all. Science is not a belief or a fore - just a process of discovery. It isn't something that makes me "change my mind" about anything spiritual or political. I have to say that Science is an important and fundamental thing in human survival and our ability to improve the world through knowledge and undersanding.
Knowledge and understanding only go so far though - for the rest, there's spirituality. I never understood why the religous feel that they need to compete.


3)What are some other factors that lead to your conclusions?

Learning more of the history be hind Christianity and other religions.




4)And what is your favorite god in the system of gods/mythology to use as an example?

As an example for what? If this is an assumtion that one belief must obviously be replaced be another, I think this question is fundamentaly wrong. Sorry, I don't mean to put it so bluntly, but that's the best wording I can think of at the moment.
Maybe I don't understand the question.

 

[Dr.GH]

I can't imagine any relevance of these questions to the issue of science v.s. magical thinking. According to about one billion people, the fact that I don't not belive in the existance of the god Rama, Vishnu and dozens of others menas I am an athiest. It probably means your are an athiest too.

What does this have to do with science?

Nothing

 

[Knowledge3]

1)What are some primary reasons for your lack of belief?

I don't think "lack of belief" is a good way to put it.

Then how would you put it? Would you mean defining belief in other reasons that lead to lack of reason for this particular belief?

2)Does the academic nature of science & evolution play a role?

Not at all. Science is not a belief or a fore - just a process of discovery. It isn't something that makes me "change my mind" about anything spiritual or political. I have to say that Science is an important and fundamental thing in human survival and our ability to improve the world through knowledge and undersanding.
Knowledge and understanding only go so far though - for the rest, there's spirituality. I never understood why the religous feel that they need to compete.

You seem to be a very reasonable. There are two different kinds of wisdom in Christianity, wisdom that is whole and spiritual that comes from above, and there is wisdom that is of the world and unspiritual which comes from below.

In other particular religions, such as Islam Jihadist Movements, are based around hate & anger toward other faiths as well as the competition for religious land.These two motivating factors are the primary reasons for the confusion & wars going on in our world today.

3)What are some other factors that lead to your conclusions?

Learning more of the history be hind Christianity and other religions.

There are many unique things to learn, and the best place to begin is the Bible. As well as going to church, and the scholar study & philosophy comes later.

What would you like to learn about Christianity?

4)And what is your favorite god in the system of gods/mythology to use as an example?

As an example for what? If this is an assumtion that one belief must obviously be replaced be another, I think this question is fundamentaly wrong. Sorry, I don't mean to put it so bluntly, but that's the best wording I can think of at the moment.
Maybe I don't understand the question.

No sweat,
The question in general is meant to spark your curiousity or investigate your belief..Alot of particular atheists like to bring up the argument and refer to false gods in mythology in order to follow up on one's testimony or reasons for believing.

 

[Jan87676]

I have a question for atheists

Am i intelligant ?

 

[Knowledge3]

I am open to the idea of the supernatural but have not seen any evidence of it's existence. I also hold the idea that God may be unknowable with religion only approximating the true nature of God/s.

That is a very reasonable position. God says let not the wise man boast of his wisdom, or the strong man his strength but let him who delights in the Lord. It seems you are waiting for a miracle or something to convince you. I can appreciate common sense and rational explanations, what would be an example of something extraordinary?

You are not claiming to be the Son of God. Not really on the same level. If I presented myself as a business man would you believe in Santa Claus? Of course not.

Follow my story;If I were an ordinary fellow, and I didn't have pockets full of money and wanted a chance to do business with distinguished businessmen, do I stand a better chance having no experience or social skills?

I really didn't mean it as an insult. We are all gullible, me included. My experience with religion (the first 20 years of my life) is that it is primarily a societal phenomena, not a fundamentally religious phenomena. People go to church to be with their friends with whom they share a common goal and common belief. Whether or not that belief is true seems to be secondary, at least in my experience.

Well sure, people of all backgrounds and different walks of life go to church to fellowship with one another and to fellowship with God. No explanations are needed, that is part of the Christian life.

The Bible is spiritually inspired. All other religions are devoid of any logic. Archaeological evidence of cities named in the Bible confirms the myths that occurred in those cities. Christian morality is superior to any other code of morality. Morality does not exist unless it is God given. To name a few.

The Bible contains a profound truth, few understand it in the fullness. Many profess a religious orientation, many avoid it completely and live unto themselves.

How can it be temptation if they don't exist? Food for thought.

You are the best candidate for the interview of the thread. When an atheist imposes the false god scenario by resorting to other religions, thus justifying the reasons for his being so..He does alot more damage to anothers new Christian belief. And especially dangerous is the Ex-Christian who professes the opposite.The Christian belief is precious.

I dislike the caste system, but I do like some of their philosophy. One of which is that the body is celebrated. Sexuality is mixed with religion in a round about way, something I have always been intrigued with. I only have a passing knowledge of Hinduism, but it has always interested me. A close second is Buddhism due to the fact that Buddhism can be studied outside of any reference to a deity.

And to give an example with a little humor; the impression I get of the whole ordeal is when I loved the concept of Godzilla VS Mothra as a kid.

versus

From this specific example, we can form conclusions and draw reasons to how man forms gods. Whether they be money,sex,fame,mythology or fictional characters. In the movies themselves, Godzilla is displayed as stomping on buildings and such. Isn't that the most ironic thing? .....

Some food for thought...