What do christians think of atheists?

[jpcedotal]

Why do we need to care about atheism at all?

That's not what I am saying. The word "atheist" is relatively new, but it still describes a religion that has been around since the "apple" incident. It falls back to "Man can be as smart as God. After a time when God stopped walking with man, a new idea formed that "maybe there never was a God".

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

I agree. I used evolution as a reference point not as the beginning point.

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.

Could you expand on the prophet reference please just to make sure I don't misinterpret your point?

 

[AlAyeti]

Could you expand on the prophet reference please just to make sure I don't misinterpret your point?

A prophecy partially realized when looking back in time: Psalm 14

 

[undoing]

I would like to readdress the point raised earlier about being 'on Jesus' side' or against and therefore 'on satan's side'. I'd like to hear some responses to the following, if you're willing:
1. Are there any exceptions to this 'rule' which would allow a person to be 'on' neither side, to be neutral?
2. Is this a completely black and white issue?
3. What does being with satan mean to you?
4. What are your concerns when dealing with such individuals?

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 don't worship science and atheism is only a word used to describe a state of being. That I don't believe in god.

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.

This is a widely held misconception, that atheism is about disproving god or basing disbelief on science. I fully accept that god's existence is a possibility and have no interest in disproving that, in fact I would be overwhelmed to learn it were true (with joy).

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.

My explanation on my non belief is that when I can find something which is physically suggestive of god's presence then I will consider god as more than a remote possibility. I don't believe because I haven't aquired such evidence, and I know the likelyhood of finding such in this life time is practically zero; considering the separation of science and religion; I recognise the self defeating attitude I have here and maintain that faith should be a personal choice.

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



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.

I'm not trying to be coy, but I've outlined my honest perspective on a touchy subject, so I'll wait for your reply before elaborating further.

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.

Actually Dawin lost several children after publishing several works including 'Origin'. He even defered from publishing the latter title for 15 years because another publication, similar in nature, received harsh criticism from religious organisations. And you are correct to say that his theories, along with the hoards of other scientific theories, do not have anything to suggest anything about god, science cannot and will never be able, to disprove god's existence.

 

[Jnwaco]

My explanation on my non belief is that when I can find something which is physically suggestive of god's presence then I will consider god as more than a remote possibility. I don't believe because I haven't aquired such evidence, and I know the likelyhood of finding such in this life time is practically zero; considering the separation of science and religion; I recognise the self defeating attitude I have here and maintain that faith should be a personal choice.

I think you're overlooking a good deal of evidence, in my opinion, but that's another topic.

I'm not trying to be coy, but I've outlined my honest perspective on a touchy subject, so I'll wait for your reply before elaborating further.
Actually Dawin lost several children after publishing several works including 'Origin'. He even defered from publishing the latter title for 15 years because another publication, similar in nature, received harsh criticism from religious organisations. And you are correct to say that his theories, along with the hoards of other scientific theories, do not have anything to suggest anything about god, science cannot and will never be able, to disprove god's existence.

Let me get this straight, and I've seen both of these statements before together - you're waiting on proof, but you don't believe that the proof you are waiting on is possible. Isn't that just a tad bit intenerally inconsistent?

Oh, and I'd like to add that I appreciate your posts and the decency in your posts.

 

[undoing]

I think you're overlooking a good deal of evidence, in my opinion, but that's another topic.



Let me get this straight, and I've seen both of these statements before together - you're waiting on proof, but you don't believe that the proof you are waiting on is possible. Isn't that just a tad bit intenerally inconsistent?

Oh, and I'd like to add that I appreciate your posts and the decency in your posts.

Thanks Jnwaco, I think human decency is important in human relationships.
The reasoning I've given is completely irrational, there's no logic to it: it basically says "I'll believe in this when the impossible happens", which to me means nothing. When I say that I need something which supports god in order to believe it is because I know I can trust everything which I know to exist. My basis for trusting what's really there, if you will prevents me from believing in something I have no basis for. In other words my doubt is so great as to prevent me from accepting that possibility as having any likelihood.

 

[Jpark]

Maybe you should move.

Yes, I should, but I can't afford a new home right now. I have no money and my mother is not interested in moving. My father and I are both eager to get out of this neighborhood.

 

[Jnwaco]

Thanks Jnwaco, I think human decency is important in human relationships.

Very true.

The reasoning I've given is completely irrational, there's no logic to it: it basically says "I'll believe in this when the impossible happens", which to me means nothing. When I say that I need something which supports god in order to believe it is because I know I can trust everything which I know to exist. My basis for trusting what's really there, if you will prevents me from believing in something I have no basis for. In other words my doubt is so great as to prevent me from accepting that possibility as having any likelihood.

I, and most others here can relate to doubt. People who believe in a particular religion inevitably experience doubt, even profound doubt. Anyone who says otherwise is probably not being extremely forthcoming.

To me, though, and I'm in a bit of a minority because I do have a fairly high level of trust in science, is that they mesh fairly well together, one taking over where the other leaves off. And because science is rational, and can be understood by rationality, leads me to believe that the whole "creation" was put together by some similar but superior rational being. If I'm walking down a beach, and I find a letter written in the sand, I don't immediately assume that random wave patterns and tide created the letter. Since the universe is filled with this sort of information, it at least should suggest the possibility that there's an order to it all that's not accidental.

Anyways, my two cents.

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

Atheist.


Agnostic.




That would be agnostic.

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



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

I'm sorry you feel I am being dishonest here, but I assure you I am not. Indeed, your definitions here of agnostic and atheist are slightly off the mark.

An agnostic states, "I don't know whether God exists or not".

A weak atheist says, "I have found no proof that God exists, and therefore have no reason to believe one exists".

They are different. An agnostic would never state the position of the weak atheist, and the weak atheist would never state the agnostic position. These are different terms that relate to differing views along the spectrum of belief and non-belief.

Atheists all hold a general denial of God, whether in a dogmatic "God cannot possibly exist" (strong atheism), or the more moderate "I have found no evidence God exists, and therefore have no reason to believe he exists" (weak atheism).

Theists also fall into this same spectrum of beliefs (not all theists believe God MUST exist exactly as they view God, nor do they all assign the same personalities and traits to the God or gods they believe in).

Agnostics fall in neither category - they neither believe nor disbelieve in a creator, they simply claim they don't know. At best, they accept the possibility that a god might exist, but they also acknowledge God might not exist.

This is just the way things are, my friend. I hope this time I have clarified the point.

~ Regards, PA

 

[undoing]

Actually agnostic atheism is a type of weak atheism in that there is no assertion that god does not exist. I don't claim this. Agnosticism means pertaining to knowledge which is unavailable/lacking; so that I'm agnostic due to not seeing evidence for god but because I'm willing to admit the possibility of one existing, I'm in the weak atheism catagory, so to speak.
Another interesting term comes in, and I sometimes adopt this concerning other 'magical' things is noncognitivism. It means that I can't sensibly consider something which is nonsensical. It occurs when something which has no solid definition, or is too ambiguous in nature and so is nonsensical.

 

[meh]

moved from CP&E

 

[Jnwaco]

I'm sorry you feel I am being dishonest here, but I assure you I am not. Indeed, your definitions here of agnostic and atheist are slightly off the mark.

An agnostic states, "I don't know whether God exists or not".

A weak atheist says, "I have found no proof that God exists, and therefore have no reason to believe one exists".

They are different. An agnostic would never state the position of the weak atheist, and the weak atheist would never state the agnostic position. These are different terms that relate to differing views along the spectrum of belief and non-belief.

Atheists all hold a general denial of God, whether in a dogmatic "God cannot possibly exist" (strong atheism), or the more moderate "I have found no evidence God exists, and therefore have no reason to believe he exists" (weak atheism).

Theists also fall into this same spectrum of beliefs (not all theists believe God MUST exist exactly as they view God, nor do they all assign the same personalities and traits to the God or gods they believe in).

Agnostics fall in neither category - they neither believe nor disbelieve in a creator, they simply claim they don't know. At best, they accept the possibility that a god might exist, but they also acknowledge God might not exist.

This is just the way things are, my friend. I hope this time I have clarified the point.

~ Regards, PA

Actually, I'm fine with the agnostic definition. I'm just not buying the atheist definition, sorry.

 

[undoing]

Actually, I'm fine with the agnostic definition. I'm just not buying the atheist definition, sorry.

If by atheist defintion, you mean the defintition being used in the dictionary, then which definition are you?

 

[one11]

To interject something different here, I was wondering what atheists think of unexplained phenomenons?

If you need an example of what I mean, I can give you one at a later time. But if you do understand what I mean, could you answer that question for me. I'd appreciate it, as I'm curious.

 

[JCFantasy23]

I'm an agnostic atheist and as such I find that there is a significant amount of negative feelings and thoughts toward me which seems to be connected to my being an atheist.
Is this purely a matter of general ignorance of what being an atheist means; or, is this purely a matter concerning the beliefs which are held??

Interesting

That's not the case with me. I'm not "negative" toward atheists/agnostics. On these forums it's different for me at times, I think because some of the anti-christianity posts seem to come out the blue when I'm not expecting them. Outside of these forums and in general I have no issues with them.

 

[Jnwaco]

If by atheist defintion, you mean the defintition being used in the dictionary, then which definition are you?

I just have a problem with the whole "I lack a belief in God" definition that I commonly see, especially on forums where that definition is given in one post and in the next post they're debating whether God exists (I'm a member of more than this forum). Obviously they have a belief or they wouldn't be debating. It's self contradictory.

 

[drich0150]

However, make sure you do not confuse this with 'faith', as in most cases this belief is grounded in the interpretation of evidence.

As with any and all interpretation of evidence, "Belief" translate into faith when the person who believes in the interpretation of his evidence, takes the next step and actively involves himself by taking what he believes, and acts according to His personal system of belief. apparently in all other circles except active atheism this is known as faith.

Belief= acknowledgment

Faith= Action taken in behalf of one's beliefs.

Belief is the understanding that a chair will hold your weight, belief translates into faith when you sit in that chair.

Your actions here (every time you log in and battle it out with the Jedi/christian order) requires faith, not just empty belief.
[The faith is strong with this one i can sense it!]

Don't make claims about the beliefs of other people you don't know. You don't know what I do or do not believe, you don't know every reason I have for doing things such as debating with Christians, you don't know how strong or weak my belief is. I'd appreciate it if you stopped deluding yourselves that you do. Just because you wouldn't do something for that reason doesn't mean I wouldn't.

Any and all claims made by me, have been in observation of your direct actions, and or your personal claims/interpretations. I have never claim to know you nor do i claim to know what you think. that said i am well aware of what i believe, and I believe that My Belief to be the best possible position to take on the existence of faith as evidenced by your actions and words, and like you, have taken (a recent) interest in sharing my "belief"

 

[undoing]

That's not the case with me. I'm not "negative" toward atheists/agnostics. On these forums it's different for me at times, I think because some of the anti-christianity posts seem to come out the blue when I'm not expecting them. Outside of these forums and in general I have no issues with them.

That's a great way to be JCFantasy, if only everyone were willing to put their differences aside for the benefit of getting along and understanding others views.

I just have a problem with the whole "I lack a belief in God" definition that I commonly see, especially on forums where that definition is given in one post and in the next post they're debating whether God exists (I'm a member of more than this forum). Obviously they have a belief or they wouldn't be debating. It's self contradictory.

I don't believe in "God", I can't and knowing that I wont find evidence, I know I wont (believe in "God"). I'm here, as I've explained, to learn how Christian belief, etc gets in the way of normal interaction and relationships. It's a way of learning another culture for me, but on the point of religious views, I make my views clear enough and if someone asks me a question about my views then I have the decency to answer as honestly as I can. Keep in mind that I'm not here to debate the existence of "God" and we'll be fine.

Then why the need to debate at all?
I have found than when i truly have a lack of belief in anything I don't see a need to debate with those who believe what i do not.

I can see alot of merit in a debate from the non believer's perspective, as I once was into such debate. I think for a long time I was emotionally invested in my hatred for what religious belief had "accomplished" in my life and I was very hurt, so felt some need to go after this phantom enemy. I've come to terms with such argument and I'm happy for others to believe what they like, however (and I think this reasoning is widely applicable), if a theist pushes their views too hard even a weak atheist can retaliate with their own views, ironically (not) about "God".

Like those who believe that the origins of life on this planet are more closely related to the events of the star wars or the BSG universe than what is in scripture. Even though i may find it interesting to watch, I haven't found it in me to subscribe to a forum dedicated to this system of belief to straighten them out just because "My position is the best one to take."

I find all the theories equally plausible in comparison, to some extent. I favour the view that a cause is something similar in nature to what we can already observe.

Whether you can admit it or not there is much more to your faith than any "active" atheist cares to admit.

Not faith. This is a common misinterpretation made by theists, that faith is the same as accepting probablity and most likely causes. Untrue, I for one make my decision based on likelihood instead of hope.

If you really had a lack of belief in God, why join a Christian web site to fuss about it? It's not a very honest definition, IMHO.

Been answered, hopefully . . .

I have a lack of belief in unicorns. This lack of belief doesn't cause me to join unicorn forums and make fun of people who believe in unicorns?

Once again, fairly well pointed out. I suppose the difference between a non unicorn believer and non christian is one of predominance. The Christian faith is much more wide spread than unicorns. It draws attention from non believers, some of whom wonder how such belief can continue in todays world, with what we know, others maybe, look to learning what values and what good there is in such beliefs.

I do believe in Christ, though, and I join Christian forums to discuss the Bible. Why are you here if you lack a belief? If you make a statement, you're sharing a belief.

In reality I don't even describe what I think about "God", etc. My life revolves everything else. I should be saying that my belief is in science alone, or that I believe in reality. I only need to really say 'I don't believe in "God" when in the company of theists, and I do so to help theists understand.

There is a belief. I just pointed it out to you. I personally come here for the fun of debate but atheism (for most people) is the lack of a belief in God. The belief is there, you are correct, you're just not identifying it correctly.

Strong atheism is more about belief, or opinion, but agnosticism, theological noncognitivism, etc holds to valid theoretical principles.

The belief bit comes in when we believe it is the best position to take on God's existence. Agnostic/Weak atheists (which is by far the majority) do not have an active belief in God's non-existance, as that would imply that we are not open to the possibility that a God might exist. However, make sure you do not confuse this with 'faith', as in most cases this belief is grounded in the interpretation of evidence.

It isn't about assuming the strongest line against theism. I was a strong atheist until after making some logical mistakes had to challenge my views personally and come to the understanding that the unknown and unknowable can't be disproved. Conversely, society doesn't give the benefit of the doubt to people who claim they're hearing voices of "God" and/or "Satan" because we can't prove they aren't . . . we simply put them in a hospital and treat them the best way we know how.

There's the belief you are looking for. If you don't think it's a good enough reason to come on a Christian forum and debate it then that's fine, because it's my reason so it doesn't really matter if you mind or not.

Of course, strong atheists (of whom I've seen nothing really on this forum so far) are all about the blind faith, but they are a minority. You can't know that God doesn't exist after all. They're the ones with the belief in no God that you mention.

I think the conclusion we can come to is: Don't make claims about the beliefs of other people you don't know. You don't know what I do or do not believe, you don't know every reason I have for doing things such as debating with Christians, you don't know how strong or weak my belief is. I'd appreciate it if you stopped deluding yourselves that you do. Just because you wouldn't do something for that reason doesn't mean I wouldn't.

Fairly well said, I'd just like to understand how trusting history, science, etc (alone) should be considered belief, where does this open minded line pull up? It's ridiculous to suggest that scientific knowledge is based on faith. I don't need to go into personal subjective bs to know that my computer works now because of scientific discoveries made in the past, so why should I give leeway to something which is unknowable?
ps. not directed at you but from my perspective on the argument of "non belief", just look at nonexistence of nothing, it's a paradox just as is the disproving of a negative (IMHO).

 

[Jnwaco]

I'm here, as I've explained, to learn how Christian belief, etc gets in the way of normal interaction and relationships. It's a way of learning another culture for me, but on the point of religious views, I make my views clear enough and if someone asks me a question about my views then I have the decency to answer as honestly as I can.

I do get the impression that's true for you, and I can certainly respect that.

 

[undoing]

Thankyou.

 

[Bribarian]

I don't ever get angry with atheists, as I was once an atheist as well.

I find it to be the opposite usually, atheists seem somewhat bitter to me, especially when it has to do with religion.

I have atheist friends, no issues. I'll tell them what I believe to be the truth, if they reject it, so be it.