What atheists fail to understand

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

My point is: even atheists may have this kind of experience.
The notorious nihilist philosopher Nietzsche of "God is dead"-fame, for example, has written diary passages that clearly indicate he went through typical mystic experiences (which you'll find in all religious traditions).

I'm not talking about "mystic" experiences here. I'm talking about a certain self reflection one has when they look back at their life and put the pieces together and see all they have been through and the unlikelihood of all of these circumstances being able to occur on chance alone.

 

[mindlight]

My point is: even atheists may have this kind of experience.
The notorious nihilist philosopher Nietzsche of "God is dead"-fame, for example, has written diary passages that clearly indicate he went through typical mystic experiences (which you'll find in all religious traditions).

As you say Nietzsche was a nihilist and his Apolline love of flowery words to describe "mystical" experiences must always be balanced with his Dionysian acceptance of the will to power as the fundamental reality of the universe. There is never any question in Nietzsche of accepting the god/God experienced as something real in itself. That is something that all genuine religious responses to God require as a prerequisite.

The difference is how we process it, and that's where upbringing and cultural factors come back into play.
A person going through an extraordinary event in an Islamic culture will most likely attribute it to the Islamic deity. A person experiencing the same in a predominantly Christian culture will perceive it in Christian terms and so on and so forth.

There was a time when I earnestly and eagerly tried to force my own experiences into the Christian template (the way Teresa of Avila or Meister Eckhart did), but it simply didn't work. The pattern was just too small to contain it.

Having met many Muslim converts to Christianity who were born in Islamic countries and considering the growth in number of indigenous faith movements in Islamic countries this is highly disputable.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Atheists fail to understand that believers don't become believers because they go to church a lot or listen to very charismatic preachers. They believe because of experiencing highly improbable events that common sense insists can not be attributed to blind coincidence alone.

If they did understand this they wouldn't say things like well adam and eve never existed or there was no flood etc..... Because they would understand that a persons faith doesn't come from a book. It comes from experiencing things that you can't possibly believe is merely coincidental. That life isn't just a mere coincidence of coincidences. For example imagine the most improbable things happening to you time after time again. After a long enough time period even the hardest atheist would have to question his atheism. While life is not as extreme as this I think you can at least see where a believer is coming from.

so, maybe Atheists' dis-belief comes from not experiencing those things?

The next step might be, for believers to acknowledge that, so they say, Atheists somehow really haven't experienced much of the supra-natural...

and, meanwhile, for Atheists to acknowledge, equally, that believers really have experienced something supra-natural...

Perhaps much mis-understanding comes from each person, individually, presuming themselves to be the sole single "measure of all things" -- to wit, "they know everything". If they've experienced it, it happened. If they haven't, it never has.

Maybe better to be more open minded, and less dismissive, of others?

 

[Erik Nelson]

A lot of us get that, the whole pointing out that personal evidence that was enough to convince one person isn't enough to convenience us is kind of our sthick.

Why are you so dismissive? St. Paul (say) alleged & claimed that he received meaningful, intelligible, audio + video messages, from a God-like Being in heaven. So he said.

But, what makes you yourself the "measure of all things". Heaven contacted Paul, has yet to contact you... that's perfectly possible, plausible, even probable (some might maintain)… and agrees with both of your testimonies, both of your witnesses.

Everybody's right, win win all around. Why not? Why not accept, at least the possibility, that Heaven has yet to "open hailing frequencies" to you yourself... but did in fact contact Paul, near Damascus Syria, Earth, circa 34 AD?

 

[dlamberth]

No, you don't. To be able to say that you have to ask my opinion and every other lover of God on the planet and you have not done this.

Yes, I do know for a fact that his words do not reflect all believers of God.

To tell the truth, all you can say is that I have no evidence for this but I reckon that lot of other lovers of God would not agree with you. Beyond that is a lie.

I stand by the words I used.

 

[jacknife]

There is no evidence for chemical evolution yet that is accepted by most atheists over the idea of special creation. You may exaggerate the role of evidence in an atheists rejection of God.

"Chemical evolution"? that's a new one on me is it different from the biological process of evolution?

 

[jacknife]

How would you rationalize such an experience then?

People really do survive all sorts of crazy things from sheer luck, their was even a man who survived both atomic bombs. I think the problem with viewing your good fortune on a deity who had your interest in mind is encountering people who REALLY didn't survive. Why would a deity who helped you survive say a drowning in a pool, not help another person die slowly from a muscle degenerative disorder by the time he was 19? for every person who miraculous survives something there's another who dosn't why the discrepancy?

 

[awitch]

If they did understand this they wouldn't say things like well adam and eve never existed or there was no flood etc..... Because they would understand that a persons faith doesn't come from a book. It comes from experiencing things that you can't possibly believe is merely coincidental.

Until they have equivalent experiences, then how can you expect them to believe?
There's also the problem that I, as a witch, have experiences, too. It would be pretty silly to expect you to become a witch based on my personal testimony. Or the testimony of the Hindu down the street or the Shinto who runs the Japanese restaurant in town.

Also people who reject a literal Genesis flood (and they aren't all atheists) do so because of a lack of evidence. Such an event would actually be impossible, not improbable.

That life isn't just a mere coincidence of coincidences. For example imagine the most improbable things happening to you time after time again.

Statistically, it may be low, but that doesn't necessitate the existence of a deity in any way, especially not the specifics of yours or mine.

 

[mindlight]

"Chemical evolution"? that's a new one on me is it different from the biological process of evolution?

Yes abiogenesis must precede biological evolution or biological evolution can never start and the common ancestry of the diversity of life that has "evolved" today is a myth. The formation of the first life form from chemicals ( the primeval soup) is the current theory via proto cells. There is no empirical proof for any of the current theories on how this might have occurred by naturalistic processes. Yet we require an explanation if a purely naturalistic model is to be taken seriously. Since there is no adequate explanation the theory most used by atheists to explain how life developed on earth collapses.

Basically biological evolution assumes that chemical evolution happened first. But it didn't and cannot and actually a supernatural explanation works better.

 

[jacknife]

Yes abiogenesis must precede biological evolution or biological evolution can never start and the common ancestry of the diversity of life that has "evolved" today is a myth. The formation of the first life form from chemicals ( the primeval soup) is the current theory via proto cells. There is no empirical proof for any of the current theories on how this might have occurred by naturalistic processes. Yet we require an explanation if a purely naturalistic model is to be taken seriously. Since there is no adequate explanation the theory most used by atheists to explain how life developed on earth collapses.

Basically biological evolution assumes that chemical evolution happened first. But it didn't and cannot and actually a supernatural explanation works better.

Evolution and how life emerged are two separate things, evolution works regardless of how the first population came into existence.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

It all boils down to spiritual regeneration, without it, the atheist/agnostic will continually spiral through systems compatible with their patterns of unbelief. In certain ways it is, but in other ways it's not so much of a mental or intellectual or rational problem, as it is a heart problem, there is a greater struggle of the will and desires, a struggle they cannot overcome in themselves, none of us can or could. The foolishness of preaching the Gospel of Christ is the power of God to salvation, it is foolishness to them who do not believe, but for those who believe, the power of God unto salvation. May the Lord give ears to hear and eyes to see.

"Amazing Grace! how sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me
I once was lost, but now am found
Was blind but now I see"

- John Newton​

"Newton wrote the words from personal experience. He grew up without any particular religious conviction, but his life's path was formed by a variety of twists and coincidences that were often put into motion by his recalcitrant insubordination. He was pressed (conscripted) into service in the Royal Navy, and after leaving the service, he became involved in the Atlantic slave trade. In 1748, a violent storm battered his vessel off the coast of County Donegal, Ireland, so severely that he called out to God for mercy, a moment that marked his spiritual conversion. He continued his slave trading career until 1754 or 1755, when he ended his seafaring altogether and began studying Christian theology." wikipedia

 

[mindlight]

People really do survive all sorts of crazy things from sheer luck, their was even a man who survived both atomic bombs. I think the problem with viewing your good fortune on a deity who had your interest in mind is encountering people who REALLY didn't survive. Why would a deity who helped you survive say a drowning in a pool, not help another person die slowly from a muscle degenerative disorder by the time he was 19? for every person who miraculous survives something there's another who dosn't why the discrepancy?

If one man is saved by miracles then that demonstrates the capability of the Divine and the inadequacy of purely natural explanations. Why one is spared and another not then becomes a theological discussion. You cannot call God unfair unless you believe in Him. But only He knows the full consequence of sparing one life but not another.

Hezekiah in the bible prayed for his life and got 15 years more life. But he fathered Manasseh perhaps the worst ever king of Israel who prepared the way for Judahs ultimate destruction. Christians trust God for the big plan and he does not need to explain Himself to us.

 

[jacknife]

If one man is saved by miracles then that demonstrates the capability of the Divine and the inadequacy of purely natural explanations. Why one is spared and another not then becomes a theological discussion. You cannot call God unfair unless you believe in Him. But only He knows the full consequence of sparing one life but not another.

Hezekiah in the bible prayed for his life and got 15 years more life. But he fathered Manasseh perhaps the worst ever king of Israel who prepared the way for Judahs ultimate destruction. Christians trust God for the big plan and he does not need to explain Himself to us.

I ment that word more of a "survived against odds" sort of way, but here's a question, whats the difference between a god that randomly selects people who lives, and a god that dosn't exist and these people survived by dumb luck?

 

[mindlight]

Evolution and how life emerged are two separate things, evolution works regardless of how the first population came into existence.

So you agree you lack an explanation for the first population. If a supernatural explanation is require here then why not for evolution also.

Actually there are also massive gaps in the evidence for evolution also. For example we lack actual fossil precursors for the Cambrian explosion.

 

[jacknife]

So you agree you lack an explanation for the first population. If a supernatural explanation is require here then why not for evolution also.

Actually there are also massive gaps in the evidence for evolution also. For example we lack actual fossil precursors for the Cambrian explosion.

Yes I do lack an explanation for first life, I've never met an atheist who claims to know how first life came here. Though I do feel jumping to supernatural claims is jumping the gun we don't have enough evidence to say one way or another.

 

[mindlight]

I ment that word more of a "survived against odds" sort of way, but here's a question, whats the difference between a god that randomly selects people who lives, and a god that dosn't exist and these people survived by dumb luck?

Providence v Chance.
Intelligence v Randomness
A plan for the best possible universe that preserves free will without letting evil get out of control.

From your perspective there may seem to be no difference but you are finite, flawed, mortal and do not have an intelligence that could create or run the universe. Your choice is to trust a Being that could do this or to reject his plan but still end up beholden to it.

 

[mindlight]

Yes I do lack an explanation for first life, I've never met an atheist who claims to know how first life came here. Though I do feel jumping to supernatural claims is jumping the gun we don't have enough evidence to say one way or another.

Then take it as a model which may or may not be credible. It is more incredible to believe that life in all its complexity spontaneously arose from chemicals than to believe that an infinite, all knowing , all powerful Eternal Being is capable of creating life.

 

[jacknife]

Then take it as a model which may or may not be credible. It is more incredible to believe that life in all its complexity spontaneously arose from chemicals than to believe that an infinite, all knowing , all powerful Eternal Being is capable of creating life.

People have used gods to explain natural phenomenon for ages, and as we have gained better understanding of the world around us we have learned more about our world these views have faded. I'm trying to say "beacuse god" has a horrible track record.

 

[dlamberth]

Then take it as a model which may or may not be credible. It is more incredible to believe that life in all its complexity spontaneously arose from chemicals than to believe that an infinite, all knowing , all powerful Eternal Being is capable of creating life.

I find it just the opposite. The Universe has within it a need for creativity. And Life springs from that creativity, even if the beginnings is of a chemical nature.

 

[mindlight]

I find it just the opposite. The Universe has within it a need for creativity. And Life springs from that creativity, even if the beginnings is of a chemical nature.

How can the universe have needs. When has life ever spontaneously sprung from nonlife. You are just demonstrating a belief in naturalism. In Christian terms it is simple idolatry. You worship a rock and say it has the capacity to bring forth life.