The way atheists think?

[spblat]

Ok, suppose God had just produced an entire Scriptural work in its entirety, instantaneously, all by His direct writing, no "inspiring of humans" method, and just handed it to us 2,000 years ago.

Do you honestly think atheists/unbelievers STILL wouldn't be trying to discount it?

When you get down to it, it's not the method that unbelievers have issue with, it's the message.

That's exactly right.

They don't try to disprove it because they believe it's not true, but because they're afraid it is true.

Is this a widely held view among Christians about atheists? If so, what is the appropriate forum for us to discuss this erroneous claim?

 

[GodSoLovedTheWorld]

I guess this is as good a place as any.
Now then. Prove to me that the claim is erroneous.

 

[Lehr]

Everyone has there own opinions on what athiests believe. I think athiests don't believe in a higher power at all, and just want to live there lives the best and fullest that they can..

For some reason tho, can anyone really imagin nothingness? Also athiests need to ask themselves this question, What if your wrong?

 

[MelissaShae]

Which claim is erroneous? Both of them? I don't view athesits as anything but misguided. I think that if everyone, atheists included would open their heart to God and not listen to doubts from Satan that indeed they would see that his word is truth. I am not even going to pretend like I know a lot about atheists because I don't, I do know about my faith in the Lord and the word of God and that is all I need.

I am interested in hearing other point of views about this from Christians and atheists.

I do love the question that brought up about what if atheists are wrong? I have thought about this a few times and am glad that I am not the only one!! What if Christians are wrong and you are right.......nothing happens, but if Christians are right and atheists are wrong, then this is really something to think about by atheists, then we talk about purgatory and eternal damnation........wow, good question!!

 

[spblat]

I guess this is as good a place as any.
Now then. Prove to me that the claim is erroneous.

I'm sure that's quite impossible. I can ask you to trust that I'm telling you what I believe, in the same way I trust that you are truthful in expressing your beliefs.

Let me take the claims separately:

it's not the method that unbelievers have issue with, it's the message.

In fact, the way I approach this is to first examine the method. How do Christians receive the message that defines their way of life? I have learned from another thread that this comes unequivocally from the Bible, from absolute faith in God, and through study and prayer. All three of these components are required; without one, the system would fail. (This is no condemnation, only an observation.) I have deep concerns about this method because of my view that important decisions should be based on reason, on logical analysis of verifiable, empirical evidence. And I find (as I believe most atheists do) that absolute faith in God, and acceptance of the Bible as His word, are not compatible with the system for defining truth that I value.

They don't try to disprove it because they believe it's not true, but because they're afraid it is true.

I admit this makes no sense to me. If it were true that a loving God is watching over us, concerned with our everyday lives, wanting us to succeed and be good, that would be perfectly lovely. Fear is not a part of this. I am not here to prove to you that your beliefs are wrong, though if you were interested in a debate on this, we might have a reasonably interesting and lively debate. But if you were to invite me to take a crack at it, my strategy would be to try to convince you that logic and reason and evidence are important. Then I would try to reach agreement with you on what those words mean. Then I would try to show you that belief in the supernatural requires suspension of those values.

And it wouldn't work, any more than it would work for you to try to convince me to abandon logic, reason and evidence (and what those words mean to me). But I wouldn't be working from fear, I'd be working from a standpoint that my method for striving at truth is more likely to produce a result consistent with the universe we live in.

 

[spblat]

Everyone has there own opinions on what athiests believe. I think athiests don't believe in a higher power at all, and just want to live there lives the best and fullest that they can..

For some reason tho, can anyone really imagin nothingness? Also athiests need to ask themselves this question, What if your wrong?

You are correct, at least in my case. No higher power drives my actions. I love my wife and my children; I would die for them as readily as you would die for Jesus. In life, I strive to make theirs better. In death, I hope to be remembered as someone who left the earth better than he found it.

As for nothingness and oblivion, this used to give me a lot of trouble (because of the paragraph above, this is no longer true). My intellectual response was to tell myself that while it would be "better" if there were a loving God who would give eternal life to my immortal soul were I only to believe, wishing does not make it so. It's either true or it's not, and my system for defining truth is incompatible with the existence of God. Many atheists point out that we were dead for thousands of millions of years before we were alive, and we never knew it or suffered, so death and the infinity after it won't be any different. I do not find this comforting, but I believe it to be accurate.

What if I am wrong? This question has been asked and answered in countless debates, and it is formally known as Pascal's Wager. I believe the seven criticisms of the wager presented at Wikipedia are sufficient to dispense with this argument, which I do not accept.

Cheers!

 

[GodSoLovedTheWorld]

I'm sure that's quite impossible. I can ask you to trust that I'm telling you what I believe, in the same way I trust that you are truthful in expressing your beliefs.

Well I think any atheist should at least offer some kind of logical/philosohical defense of their position.

The problem you have with (most of) us Christians is that we don't express our beliefs, we express The Truth.
Any belief can, possibly, be proved false. People once believed in a geocentric universe (or solar system). That is now known to be false (yes, even in Rome ).

But can you trust yourself about what you believe?
You know, there is this sly fellow who roams around the world. He likes to trick people into thinking that they are something, or someone, that they are not. He tricked me for most of my life. But then I learned how to defeat him and the beliefs he had tricked me with.
I think you should learn too. Let us know if you need some help with this.

 

[MelissaShae]

Until you give your heart to the Lord you will never understand or truly believe.

And God does inflict fear, Satan does this. This is where a lot of un-believers get confused. They want to know why God lets people suffer and why he won't help them, the real question is what have they done for God?

 

[spblat]

I am interested in hearing other point of views about this from Christians and atheists.

I am grateful for your interest. While adding a "questions for atheists" forum would be really cool, and I would be SO delighted to hang out there and provide respectful answers, I'm afraid such a forum will never be added here at CF. So feel free to PM me if you have a question about what it's like to go through life without believing in anything except the beauty of the natural world around us, the wonderful people in our lives, and the glory of finding things out.

You might also take a peek at The Sacred Depths of Nature by Ursula Goodenough. It's a lovely little book that might help you understand the awe and humility one can get from sources other than the explicitly divine.

 

[spblat]

What if the Jews are right and Christians are wrong?
What if the Muslims are right and Christians are wrong?
What if the Hindus are right and Christians are wrong?

etc, etc, etc...
Pascal's Wager just doesn't work.

That's one of the seven common criticisms of Pascal's Wager, and I agree with you, but let's not get into that here. The question was about how atheists are viewed by Christians.

 

[MelissaShae]

What if the Jews are right and Christians are wrong?
What if the Muslims are right and Christians are wrong?
What if the Hindus are right and Christians are wrong?

etc, etc, etc...
Pascal's Wager just doesn't work.

I never mentioned any thing about Pascal's wager nor do I care anything about it. I was responding to a question that I myself have wondered as a Christian as to why people don't believe in God.

 

[MelissaShae]

I am grateful for your interest. While adding a "questions for atheists" forum would be really cool, and I would be SO delighted to hang out there and provide respectful answers, I'm afraid such a forum will never be added here at CF. So feel free to PM me if you have a question about what it's like to go through life without believing in anything except the beauty of the natural world around us, the wonderful people in our lives, and the glory of finding things out.

You might also take a peek at The Sacred Depths of Nature by Ursula Goodenough. It's a lovely little book that might help you understand the awe and humility one can get from sources other than the explicitly divine.

I am glad that we can have a civil discussion on major differences between Christians and atheists. And if you would like to know more about why I am Christian or have questions for me, please pm me.

 

[Lehr]

Spblat, you didn't answer my question. ill post the question again.

What if your wrong?

 

[spblat]

Now we're getting somewhere.

Well I think any atheist should at least offer some kind of logical/philosohical defense of their position.

And I have. And I have done so in the most brief, respectful and logical manner possible. The rest of the post you quoted has it all right there.

The problem you have with (most of) us Christians is that we don't express our beliefs, we express The Truth.

We differ widely on this. Your use of capital letters is insufficient to demonstrate (to me) the truth of your views; if your goal is to show me the error I have made in choosing logic, evidence and reason (and I am not asking you to do this) you'll need to do so in terms that are consistent with the way my brain works.

Any belief can, possibly, be proved false. People once believed in a geocentric universe (or solar system). That is now known to be false (yes, even in Rome ).

My point exactly. “A grinding of heels can be heard across the last five centuries as scientists have revealed the noncentrality of our position and as many others have fought to resist that insight to the bitter end.” That's Carl Sagan, one of my heroes. It's not just "people" who believed that. Five hundred years ago, it was The Truth (note capitals) that the earth was the center of everything, and one risked death at the hands of the church claiming otherwise. Now we know there is no center, and if there was, we'd be nowhere near it. Even The Truth can be wrong.

But can you trust yourself about what you believe?

Most definitely. But that's for a different discussion; I think we've already bitten off more than we can chew with the points raised so far.

I think you should learn too. Let us know if you need some help with this.

I'm sure you don't mean to sound condescending. I am enjoying our discussion, but I require no assistance.

Cheers!

 

[spblat]

Spblat, you didn't answer my question. ill post the question again.

What if your wrong?

I did answer the question. Your question is a familiar expression of Pascal's Wager, an argument which says one should believe in God, because if you choose to disbelieve, you take a terrible risk; whereas if you choose to believe, you have an opportunity for infinite reward.

I reject Pascal's Wager, and if you would like additional detail on why I find it unconvincing, I wholeheartedly recommend the wikipedia article titled "Pascal's Wager". (I'd link to it, but I'm still a newbie.) My favorite among the seven criticisms of the wager is the "Atheist's Wager", and it goes like this:

You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in God. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him.

Now I will answer the question in literal terms. If I am wrong, then I will of course suffer the consequences of my belief, be they infinite or nonexistent. I realize this may seem shocking, but I am perfectly at peace with this.

Cheers!

 

[GodSoLovedTheWorld]

Now we're getting somewhere.

And I have. And I have done so in the most brief, respectful and logical manner possible. The rest of the post you quoted has it all right there.


We differ widely on this. Your use of capital letters is insufficient to demonstrate (to me) the truth of your views; if your goal is to show me the error I have made in choosing logic, evidence and reason (and I am not asking you to do this) you'll need to do so in terms that are consistent with the way my brain works.

Firstly, I use capital letters as a mark of respect, just as anyone would for such things. Either that or I was thinking of a certain videogame.
Secondly, I cannot in any way know how your brain works. But then neither can you.

My point exactly. “A grinding of heels can be heard across the last five centuries as scientists have revealed the noncentrality of our position and as many others have fought to resist that insight to the bitter end.” That's Carl Sagan, one of my heroes. It's not just "people" who believed that. Five hundred years ago, it was The Truth (note capitals) that the earth was the center of everything, and one risked death at the hands of the church claiming otherwise. Now we know there is no center, and if there was, we'd be nowhere near it. Even The Truth can be wrong.

That 'truth' was indeed due to lack of scientific knowledge. Not all science is wrong, but neither is it all right. Even before right or wrong, it is important to define what sience is.

I'm sure you don't mean to sound condescending. I am enjoying our discussion, but I require no assistance.

Cheers!

Well pardon me all over the place.

 

[GodSoLovedTheWorld]

I never mentioned any thing about Pascal's wager nor do I care anything about it. I was responding to a question that I myself have wondered as a Christian as to why people don't believe in God.

People don't believe in God because they choose not to.
They think that high philosophy and technological progress makes them above what they see as ancient mysticism, or something similar.
Lets see how wonderful people are should the whole internet stop working for some time. And how would people cope without their mobile phones and other gadgets. No wonder people are more stressed today than ever before. Does all this 'progress' really make people happy?
So atheists are making progress. They have taken God out of education and are trying to ban religion in society and look at the results. More murders, rapes, thefts, drugs, alcohol problems, suicides, abortions, divorces, etc, etc than ever before.
How many of these problems has atheism or secular humanism solved?
Atheism is the ultimate display of human arrogance and willful disobedience.

Addition:
On the other hand, maybe I'm a bit unhinged myself. In which case I may suddenly swap sides in the argument. It all depends on which me you get.
Ain't life fun people

 

[Lehr]

Spblat, its hard to believe you would take such a gamble. I do think that if your wrong, you will suffer and regret it for the rest of your existence. If you are right, then you have nothing to lose, but its hard to think of such a gamble. If i die tomorrow and i am wrong, atleast i will have died believing in something. I think i have more peace then you.

Even tho you have convinced yourself that there is no god, i will pray that some day you will be changed and come into believing. God bless you

 

[spblat]

Forgive me GodSoLovedTheWorld. I'm having a little trouble following you, but I did want to touch on one thing.

Not all science is wrong, but neither is it all right. Even before right or wrong, it is important to define what sience is.

Yes indeed. That's what I love about science. It's a process. Formulate a hypothesis, design an experiment to test the hypothesis. Run the experiment, gather and analyze the data produced by the experiment, see whether the hypothesis was supported by the evidence. Hypotheses which are consistent with experiments and evidence become theories, and theories get stronger and stronger as more and more scientists examine the evidence, and run additional experiments producing more evidence.

Some scientific theories are so firmly supported by the evidence that no reasonable person (let alone scientist) would dispute that they are not theories, but facts. The earth is round. The sun, like other stars, is a giant ball of gas undergoing nuclear fusion. It is unusual for scientific investigation of a phenomenon to reach this stage.

Some theories are backed by a mountain of evidence and nearly universal agreement among scientists. The theory of evolution through the process of Darwinian natural selection is in this category, as are Newton's laws of motion and gravitation (at least when we're talking about large objects which are not moving at speeds close to the speed of light).

Some theories are widely accepted, but the evidence supporting them is not exactly mountainous. Einstein's theories of relativity might be in this category. I'd put the Big Bang theory here too.

Some theories are plausible, but there is a general feeling among scientists that we're "missing something" and we need to keep working on them. Quantum Mechanics probably falls into this category.

You asked earlier whether I trust my beliefs, and I gave you an overly brief answer. My slightly less brief answer is above.

Cheers!

 

[spblat]

Lets see how wonderful people are should the whole internet stop working for some time. And how would people cope without their mobile phones and other gadgets. No wonder people are more stressed today than ever before. Does all this 'progress' really make people happy?

With you all the way on this one. If I lived on a ranch keeping cattle and communing with the outdoors instead of in an office surrounded by computers and blackberries, that might be an ok way to live.

So atheists are making progress. They have taken God out of education and are trying to ban religion in society and look at the results. More murders, rapes, thefts, drugs, alcohol problems, suicides, abortions, divorces, etc, etc than ever before.
How many of these problems has atheism or secular humanism solved?
Atheism is the ultimate display of human arrogance and willful disobedience.

You are not being fair. This is a huge can of worms, and a rotten and inaccurate stereotype to apply. We are communicating as individuals here, and I am loathe to start fighting about the harms caused by extremists on any side of these issue. It's these wars we can avoid by connecting with each other respectfully, right here, right now.

On the other hand, maybe I'm a bit unhinged myself. In which case I may suddenly swap sides in the argument. It all depends on which me you get.

Thank goodness. Can I talk to the other you now?