What do christians think of atheists?

[Jpark]

I think atheists are brilliant, intelligent, shrewd, smart, and evil (I say evil because of my neighbors).

 

[undoing]

I think atheists are brilliant, intelligent, shrewd, smart, and evil (I say evil because of my neighbors).

Sorry, do you say evil on behalf of your neighbours, or do you have neighbours which you regard as evil (and are atheist)??
I'm not very inspired from the part of your sig' that says autonomy is something which is of the devil. I seek some autonomy in my life to get some relief from meeting the needs of others.

 

[undoing]

I'd pretty much agree with what CelticFlower said.

However, in real life, I've only got to know one no, ifs and or buts atheist and he let me know it -- that religion and God were off topic as he was convinced there was no God. So we never talked about it again, and remained good and kind neighbors. Nothing unusual about that at all. But then he died very suddenly and young and I wonder about him sometimes. Where he is? What happened after he died? It makes me sad.

I'd like to think that life went on after he died. That everything which has happened in the world since that time of his passing is what happened since that time.

I don't like athiests, becuase they don't wear deoderant. No I'm only kidding, I think atheists are blind, headed for disaster, doomed, often nice, pleasent, moral, often immoral, unpleasent, all of them flawed, and none of them love God.

All people have flaws regardless of their beliefs. Atheist's are just less restricted about what they're able to decide on being moral and proper, and in some ways, not caught up on black and white, or good and evil.

I love those who are close to me in my life, I love my pets, I even love certain things, but I can't love something that I don't believe in, and I can't believe in something which I know can't be seen.

 

[Emmy]

Dear undoing. I think, and I believe many other Christians think so too, " there go I, but for the Love of God." My life became worth living, filled with Love, Joy and Peace, when Jesus accepted me as His disciple. Greetings from Emmy, sister in Christ.

 

[Neo2]

That perspective is very agreeable in theory, but when it comes to the world there can be too many arguments, especially over science, biology and history and that's before theology becomes the point of focus.

I'm not sure I agree
I think debates regarding science/biology/history should be won and lost on the merit of available evidence.
As I see it, religion and science present answers to different questions. To my mind because they don't overlap there is no contradiction.
I find dogmatic ideas frustrating in both science and religion. It is my opinion that all knowledge available to embodied beings like us is both subjective and provisional. I think one should be skeptical of all ideas in both spheres, indeed I think progress depends upon it.

I find I have more in common with the liberal believer/atheist/agnostic than I have with either the dogmatic or evangelical believer/atheist/agnostic.

 

[Jpark]

Sorry, do you say evil on behalf of your neighbours, or do you have neighbours which you regard as evil (and are atheist)??

I'm not very inspired from the part of your sig' that says autonomy is something which is of the devil. I seek some autonomy in my life to get some relief from meeting the needs of others.

I regard my neighbors as evil, regardless of their beliefs.

Don't get me wrong. I am aware that not all unbelievers are evil. It's just that I have a negative view of unbelievers from past experiences. Even Jesus admitted that unbelievers were shrewd.

Luke 16:8 For the sons of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the sons of light.

Then how do you interpret Genesis 3:5? Pride?

 

[Archivist]

How about those "There is no God" in your face trying to convert YOU Atheists? How do you reach them for Christ?

I have only rarely had to deal with this type of Atheist. The Atheists I know tend to be fairly quiet when it comes to their faith (or lack thereof) and only discuss the subject when it has been raised by others. I suspect that Atheists find themselves having to deal with Christians who try to convert them much more often than the other way around. I suspect that this is also the case for my friends who practice Wicca.

 

[Archivist]

I regard my neighbors as evil, regardless of their beliefs.

Maybe you should move.

 

[undoing]

Dear undoing. I think, and I believe many other Christians think so too, " there go I, but for the Love of God." My life became worth living, filled with Love, Joy and Peace, when Jesus accepted me as His disciple. Greetings from Emmy, sister in Christ.

Salutations, I love hearing from people, they're happy and that they have a passion.

I'm not sure I agree
I think debates regarding science/biology/history should be won and lost on the merit of available evidence.
As I see it, religion and science present answers to different questions. To my mind because they don't overlap there is no contradiction.
I find dogmatic ideas frustrating in both science and religion. It is my opinion that all knowledge available to embodied beings like us is both subjective and provisional. I think one should be skeptical of all ideas in both spheres, indeed I think progress depends upon it.

I find I have more in common with the liberal believer/atheist/agnostic than I have with either the dogmatic or evangelical believer/atheist/agnostic.

Hi Neo, I definately accept the non overlap between science and religion. I should have been more specific. I really meant that in some instances science has become a heated topic due to other's feeling their belief has been infringed upon. I don't mean to do this but I'm learning gradually that it isn't only evolution and historical accuracy that are source for abrasive contention but other areas of indepth technicality and lay level understanding. I say lay level because I can't be supportive of such arguments from people who aren't at least studying the subject at a graduate level. Sorry for not explaining that a little better, yeah, science is a contriversial issue for some, but I recognise completely that it has no power to find or disprove god's existence.

I regard my neighbors as evil, regardless of their beliefs.

Don't get me wrong. I am aware that not all unbelievers are evil. It's just that I have a negative view of unbelievers from past experiences. Even Jesus admitted that unbelievers were shrewd.

Luke 16:8 For the sons of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the sons of light.

Then how do you interpret Genesis 3:5? Pride?

The message is about a collective group.
I think atheist's must seem more shrewd, really though, I think we're just less predictable as religious people all follow the same rule book, we're more independent like that. Atheists can believe in anything, so there is probably some fear of the unknown for "meeker" christians.

I have only rarely had to deal with this type of Atheist. The Atheists I know tend to be fairly quiet when it comes to their faith (or lack thereof) and only discuss the subject when it has been raised by others. I suspect that Atheists find themselves having to deal with Christians who try to convert them much more often than the other way around. I suspect that this is also the case for my friends who practice Wicca.

What I've found as an atheist is that ordinary conversations generally revolve around anything outside of religion and so when I hear someone talking about religion I'm in a difficult situation because I don't want the other person to feel hurt and I don't want to spend too long talking about something I have no personal interest in.

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

I'm not sure I agree
As I see it, religion and science present answers to different questions. To my mind because they don't overlap there is no contradiction.

I totally concur. This is quite similar to the evolutionary scientist Stephen Gould, who attempted to separate religious and scientific thought in the terms of "non-overlapping magesteria" (or NOMA, for short [Link to consider]) - he basically suggests that science and religion occupy different areas of study - while science produce answers to "how" things happen", and "what" happens when it does, religion answers the question of "why" we are here, and "who" put us here to begin with.

I know that's a simplification, but for those who are even partly knowledgeable of High School English, the categories of who/what/where/when/why/how are probably known to most - thus Science asks the WHAT and the HOW of our existence, while religion asks the WHY and the WHO of that. They are different questions, with different answers, and the two never overlap.

While this may be an affront to creationists who believe that God created the world literally as per Genesis 1-2, I have never personally found this a difficult point of Faith.

~ Regards, PA

 

[Jnwaco]

Atheism is a lack of/no belief in god.

That definition is meaningless, sorry. Atheism necessarily denies the belief in God. Atheists found debating Christians on a Christian web site can most certainly not honestly claim they have a "lack of belief". That's dishonest.

Philosophy is a subject concerning all sorts of things to do with life, existence of everything, and their meanings.

Right, if you read what I said, I basically disagree with their philosophy.

If someone's take on life is different to yours it doesn't need to become a stereotype of all 'of them'.

I didn't say "all of them" anywhere in my post.

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

That definition is meaningless, sorry. Atheism necessarily denies the belief in God

Not necessarily. It depends how strongly one holds to atheism. Consider the following two statements:

1- God does not exist. God cannot exist.

2- I have found no evidence that God exists.

..... These two points are different. The first is a dogmatic reply, suggesting that God does not exist. It is an impossibility, and no matter what evidence is presented, this will not change.

The second view is not the same. It simply suggests that a person does not believe in God because they have not found evidence of God. It also implies that if such evidence were to surface, then their ideas are likely to change. The second view does not actively deny the existence of God. It simply suggests that by current understanding, they cannot conclusively prove God.

While in terms of "salvation" (in Christian terms) the distinction may be a moot point, since not believing in God is still akin to actively denying God, it is not healthy to simply lump all atheists into the first barrel (that is, to say that all atheists "deny God's existence"). First and foremost, it is not true. Secondly, it makes those who say that it is like this sound like they are uneducated about the different levels of belief/non-belief within atheist communities, and thus do not provide a good platform to engage in dialogue with atheists who have different beliefs than the dogmatic ones you suggest.

Hope this helps clarify matters,

~ Regards, PA

 

[Jnwaco]

Not necessarily. It depends how strongly one holds to atheism. Consider the following two statements:

1- God does not exist. God cannot exist.

Atheist.

2- I have found no evidence that God exists.

Agnostic.

..... These two points are different. The first is a dogmatic reply, suggesting that God does not exist. It is an impossibility, and no matter what evidence is presented, this will not change.

The second view is not the same. It simply suggests that a person does not believe in God because they have not found evidence of God. It also implies that if such evidence were to surface, then their ideas are likely to change. The second view does not actively deny the existence of God. It simply suggests that by current understanding, they cannot conclusively prove God.

That would be agnostic.

A "lack of belief" is a cop out statement. Obviously people who debate Christians on a web site have beliefs.

While in terms of "salvation" (in Christian terms) the distinction may be a moot point, since not believing in God is still akin to actively denying God, it is not healthy to simply lump all atheists into the first barrel (that is, to say that all atheists "deny God's existence"). First and foremost, it is not true. Secondly, it makes those who say that it is like this sound like they are uneducated about the different levels of belief/non-belief within atheist communities, and thus do not provide a good platform to engage in dialogue with atheists who have different beliefs than the dogmatic ones you suggest.

Hope this helps clarify matters,

~ Regards, PA

No, it doesn't clarify matters at all. I find the definitions dishonest.

 

[undoing]

Thankyou for giving Jnwaco a better definition of atheisms variety. I need to correct Jnwaco here about agnosticism and atheism.
gnostic=knowledge (about)
agnostic=lacking knowledge

theist=god (accepting/belief)
atheist=(disbelief of any) god

Therefore agnostics can be about a lack of knowledge on it's own is useless until you say what that agnosticism is about. ie. lets say I'm agnostic about UFO's/aliens (because I am); but! I'm nostic about the spaghetti monster. So I'd be a pastafarian, if someone asks, I'm agnostic about UFO's/aliens [just an example, hope this helps in defining agnostic atheism].

That definition is meaningless, sorry. Atheism necessarily denies the belief in God. Atheists found debating Christians on a Christian web site can most certainly not honestly claim they have a "lack of belief". That's dishonest.

I certainly do not have belief in any god(s), that is my opinion, my point of view. If you want to know of another possible reason for a non believing atheist (<-- not enjoying grammatical back flip) to post on a christian forum other than to (contradiction) 'have belief in god', then you only need to ask, or read some of my earlier posts.

Right, if you read what I said, I basically disagree with their philosophy.

I didn't say "all of them" anywhere in my post.

When you say that atheists share the same philosophy, you are making a generalisation. I believe you would accept there to be an exception to the norm, but what I'm arguing against is that atheism has no unified philosophy. Atheism, but definition is not believing in god, nothing more; An atheists philosophy thereafter is entirely personal choice, if you will.

 

[jpcedotal]

What do Christians think of atheists?

I can only speak for myself and I do consider myself a Christian. I believe there is no such thing as a atheist. It is just a made up word. Most atheist I have run across in here are really just naturalist. They argue for evolution and natural selection and other beliefs and use the word science as justification. Religion is a bad word, so they're use of the word "science" to legitimize their worship.

I also realize that though most atheist are very intelligent, they just can not wrap their minds around the fact that there might be an intelligent something behind it all. It is as if they close their eyes to the obvious most simple answer and over complicate life by getting bogged down in trying to get all the little things to tie together to disprove God.

Where the weak Christian argument is "God did it" or "Just gotta have faith", the weak atheist argument is that "Science has proved it" or "Where is your God now?".

 

[Jnwaco]

Thankyou for giving Jnwaco a better definition of atheisms variety. I need to correct Jnwaco here about agnosticism and atheism.
Therefore agnostics can be about a lack of knowledge on it's own is useless until you say what that agnosticism is about. ie. lets say I'm agnostic about UFO's/aliens (because I am); but! I'm nostic about the spaghetti monster. So I'd be a pastafarian, if someone asks, I'm agnostic about UFO's/aliens [just an example, hope this helps in defining agnostic atheism].

No, I'm still a bit confused. I can understand a lack of knowledge, but based on my interactions with self-proclaimed atheists, they are not short on beliefs at all. I have a hard time accepting that a "lack of belief" is somehow different from denying that there is a God. Either one believes or does not believe with respect to a certain proposition.

When you say that atheists share the same philosophy, you are making a generalisation.

No doubt. I'm sure they're as varied as some of the Christian philosophies.

I believe you would accept there to be an exception to the norm, but what I'm arguing against is that atheism has no unified philosophy. Atheism, but definition is not believing in god, nothing more; An atheists philosophy thereafter is entirely personal choice, if you will.

Sure, and they exploit that characteristic quite a bit and are often coy with their own beliefs, as the mushy definition so often put forth exemplifies.

 

[AlAyeti]

What do Christians think of atheists?

I can only speak for myself and I do consider myself a Christian. I believe there is no such thing as a atheist. It is just a made up word. Most atheist I have run across in here are really just naturalist. They argue for evolution and natural selection and other beliefs and use the word science as justification. Religion is a bad word, so they're use of the word "science" to legitimize their worship.

I also realize that though most atheist are very intelligent, they just can not wrap their minds around the fact that there might be an intelligent something behind it all. It is as if they close their eyes to the obvious most simple answer and over complicate life by getting bogged down in trying to get all the little things to tie together to disprove God.

Where the weak Christian argument is "God did it" or "Just gotta have faith", the weak atheist argument is that "Science has proved it" or "Where is your God now?".

Why do we need to care about atheism at all?

It was around long before Darwin got on his little boat.

A prophet wrote a description of it that seems to be of applicable usage even to this day. It does seem to be the easy way out of the thought process.

 

[Jnwaco]

Yeah, it didn't start with Darwin, or even people of Jesus' day.

 

[AlAyeti]

Yeah, it didn't start with Darwin, or even people of Jesus' day.

Darwin had good right to hate God. Losing a child is the greatest pain one can endure. But his views on evolution don't disprove the God he denied.

See here why: www.biologos,org

 

[Jnwaco]

Oh, I don't disagree with you. I think evolution is perfectly consistent with a belief in God.

You know, Dawkins said that because of Darwin, he could be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. I think he's reading too much out of Darwin's theory.