What do Christians think of Atheists?

[quatona]

Yes, I read the sentence 4 or 5 times. It was difficult sifting through all the negatives.

I see how that could make it difficult to understand. Thanks for brining this to my attention and for asking!
So it basically said that imo no religious reasons are required for denying your kids medical treatment.

 

[Chesterton]

I see how that could make it difficult to understand. Thanks for brining this to my attention and for asking!
So it basically said that imo no religious reasons are required for denying your kids medical treatment.

Well I got it wrong. I thought maybe you were saying that, but it didn't seem like something you'd say.

 

[quatona]

Well I got it wrong. I thought maybe you were saying that, but it didn't seem like something you'd say.

Yeah, it happens easily that we respond to our prejudices rather than what´s being said.
OTOH, if you look at e.g. posts 671, 673, 675 you will find that this was a point I had been trying to make all the time (without many double negatives).

 

[quatona]

In the case of good things, I think it is clear that non-believers could do and do do as much good as believers.

Agreed. Now, why would that be any different in case of "bad" actions?

Not-believing something has never caused an action -- though it may allow action.

Yes, and this goes for "good" and "bad" ones.
(Then again, not believing in X might mean that you believe something else, e.g. that the belief in X is dangerous or harmful - which may impel your actions. So I am not quite sure I agree fully.)

OTOH, adherence to an ideology (religious or not; thoughtful or not) often impels action.

Agreed - both "good" and "bad" ones.

This, of course, can indict both believers and non-believers. However, in terms of religion, only believers can be indicted.

Well, the quote seemed to single out religion as the only ideology that can indict actions. Plus, it seemed to reduce this to "bad" actions.

 

[Chesterton]

Yeah, it happens easily that we respond to our prejudices rather than what´s being said.
OTOH, if you look at e.g. posts 671, 673, 675 you will find that this was a point I had been trying to make all the time (without many double negatives).

Prejudice? There's a difference between judgment and pre-judgment. You've been around here a long time, and I thought it was a pretty good judgment.

Yes, I didn't read those posts. I should have before I responded. If you were a normal human I'd apologize, but I'm sure the concept of apologizing doesn't exist in your unique "thought system".

 

[quatona]

Prejudice? There's a difference between judgment and pre-judgment. You've been around here a long time, and I thought it was a pretty good judgment.

Yeah, you thought so, and your thought and your pre-judgement (we have never discussed that topic, and whenever it came up elsewhere I took this position) were incorrect.

Yes, I didn't read those posts. I should have before I responded. If you were a normal human I'd apologize, but I'm sure the concept of apologizing doesn't exist in your unique "thought system".

That´s half-right, but let´s not open an off-topic can of worms.
I suspect, however, that you aren´t planning to adapt your behaviour to my paradigms, so feel free to do whatever makes sense within your own "unique 'thought-system'".

 

[Chesterton]

Yeah, you thought so, and your thought and your pre-judgement (we have never discussed that topic, and whenever it came up elsewhere I took this position) were incorrect.

So what?

That´s half-right, but let´s not open an off-topic can of worms.
I suspect, however, that you aren´t planning to adapt your behaviour to my paradigms, so feel free to do whatever makes sense within your own "unique 'thought-system'".

I still have no idea what your mysterious paradigms are.

 

[quatona]

So what?

So it was indeed a "pre-judgement".

I still have no idea what your mysterious paradigms are.

So there is no point in telling me you don´t do X because you think X has no place in my paradigms.

 

[gudz23]

Well, the quote seemed to single out religion as the only ideology that can indict actions. Plus, it seemed to reduce this to "bad" actions.

I'd like to share my thoughts on this.

Of course non-religious ideologies can promote harmful ideas, and that blind commitment to such ideologies can result in harmful actions. Blind commitment to any ideology is always dangerous, religious or otherwise.

The added problem with religion, is the extra level of assumed certainty that the source material is one hundred percent correct. That it is beyond fault, and above petty human objection.

Secular ideologues can be over-zealous too, but it is really rare these days to find someone who won't listen to an argument that goes something like this: "Your promotion of behavior X is inflicting harm A, B and C onto others. Here is exhibit 1, 2 and 3. Please reconsider your position"

A religious fanatic would believe that behavior X is good no matter what, and that the "others" have only themselves to blame for turning their backs on God.

 

[Chesterton]

So it was indeed a "pre-judgement".

Who cares?

So there is no point in telling me you don´t do X because you think X has no place in my paradigms.

Yes there is because although you haven't shared your paradigms, you have told me some of what they exclude.

 

[quatona]

Who cares?

You made the distinction between judgement and pre-judgement, so I felt safe in assuming that you cared.
Personally, I feel that responding to our own guesses and pre-judgements rather than the statements made doesn´t help a fruitful discussion but rather adds noise, so that´s why I care.

Yes there is because although you haven't shared your paradigms, you have told me some of what they exclude.

Thank you for trying to adapt your behaviour to what you think my paradigms are. As far as I can tell, you have never done that before, so this is remarkable.

 

[quatona]

I'd like to share my thoughts on this.

Of course non-religious ideologies can promote harmful ideas, and that blind commitment to such ideologies can result in harmful actions. Blind commitment to any ideology is always dangerous, religious or otherwise.

Agreed.

The added problem with religion, is the extra level of assumed certainty that the source material is one hundred percent correct.

I think that this is neither exclusive to religious ideologies, nor is it true for all believers.

That it is beyond fault, and above petty human objection.

Yeah, I´ll give you that: Projecting your opinion on a supposedly superhuman entity is pretty much exclusive to religion.

Secular ideologues can be over-zealous too, but it is really rare these days to find someone who won't listen to an argument that goes something like this: "Your promotion of behavior X is inflicting harm A, B and C onto others. Here is exhibit 1, 2 and 3. Please reconsider your position"

Actually, that´s the way I discuss solutions with most religious believers in real life, too.

A religious fanatic would believe that behavior X is good no matter what, and that the "others" have only themselves to blame for turning their backs on God.

Yeah, but my point is that fanatism isn´t exclusively a religious phenomenon, and such fanatics are a rare species in religions, as well.

 

[Chesterton]

You made the distinction between judgement and pre-judgement, so I felt safe in assuming that you cared.
Personally, I feel that responding to our own guesses and pre-judgements rather than the statements made doesn´t help a fruitful discussion but rather adds noise, so that´s why I care.

In an earlier post in this thread I mentioned how atheists "paint themselves into a corner". I could keep asking "so what" and "who cares" in regard to fruitful discussion, and noise, to the point of disrupting the thread, and you have no where to go in avoiding saying I've done wrong. You're stuck in a corner wiggling around with nothing to respond with but evasion.

And the important upshot of that is, you guys are supposed to be rational. If you can't give me a rational reason not to bother you or disrupt a thread, why should I care whether I do it or not?

Thank you for trying to adapt your behaviour to what you think my paradigms are. As far as I can tell, you have never done that before, so this is remarkable.

"Remarkable"? That could be good, or bad, or something else...

 

[quatona]

In an earlier post in this thread I mentioned how atheists "paint themselves into a corner". I could keep asking "so what" and "who cares" in regard to fruitful discussion, and noise, to the point of disrupting the thread,

Yeah, you can - if you don´t agree with the wish for a discussion to be fruitful and without noise.

and you have no where to go in avoiding saying I've done wrong.

Sure I have - I can just say that I don´t like it, and on top of that I have various options to avoid discussions of the sort I don´t want to have.

You're stuck in a corner wiggling around with nothing to respond with but evasion.

Only if you don´t listen to what I do say. That it doesn´t satisfy your begging for a negative judgement doesn´t render it evasion.
If you are so eager to be judged "wrong" why don´t you simply go and do it yourself, or ask your God to do it?

And the important upshot of that is, you guys are supposed to be rational. If you can't give me a rational reason not to bother you or disrupt a thread, why should I care whether I do it or not?

I gave you a rational reason: It prevents the discussion from being fruitful. If that´s not a sufficiently rational reason in your "thought system", and if you prefer discussions to not be fruitful, I will just conclude that we don´t have the most basic common ground for a discussion. It´s as easy as that.

"Remarkable"? That could be good, or bad, or something else...

I meant to say it´s remarkable - if you want a value judgement, you will have to do that yourself.
If however you want my personal feelings about it: I am not happy when people violate their own ideas of conduct in favour of humouring someone else. (But truth to be told, I am not expecting that you´ll make that a habit - it looked more like you were taking just another opportunity to take a quick jab at me. )

 

[gudz23]

I think that this is neither exclusive to religious ideologies, nor is it true for all believers.

I didn't mean to imply all religious people, but I guess it doesn't hurt to establish that I usually never mean everyone. Exceptions always exist, but since we are addressing general differences, if any, I will continue speaking in general terms. I accept that we are addressing a problem that for the time being affects a minority of people, regardless of side, at least in societies where free associations and beliefs are permitted. Which group nurture the most exceptions, and why, is sort of what we're looking for.

The fact that there are countless examples of states running amok with state sanctioned ideologies, secular ones included, makes it very tempting to immediately go there for comparison. But, I don't think it is very illuminating. There are always much more than genuine convictions at play in those cases, and the people concerned are not free to choose.

It is much more interesting to observe the differences in places where people can choose, and does not have to fear temporal repercussions for expressing the "wrong" sets of ideas.

It may not be exclusive to religious ideologies, but as far as I can deduce, it is by far a more common trait among religious people, to uncompromisingly cling to the "truth" of what's written. Diverging from the "program" (path) has perceived greater consequences for you, with the whole afterlife and whatnot.

Yeah, I´ll give you that: Projecting your opinion on a supposedly superhuman entity is pretty much exclusive to religion.

The added ingredient... All I'm saying.

Yeah, but my point is that fanatism isn´t exclusively a religious phenomenon, and such fanatics are a rare species in religions, as well.

Yes, but fanaticism is at the end of a spectrum. Does it have to succumb all the way to fanaticism, before this potentially becomes a problem for some? (Suppose we would have to address something specific in order to explore that)

 

[Chesterton]

Sure I have - I can just say that I don´t like it, and on top of that I have various options to avoid discussions of the sort I don´t want to have.

I meant you have nowhere to go intellectually, in your reasoning. Not literally here on these forums.

Only if you don´t listen to what I do say. That it doesn´t satisfy your begging for a negative judgement doesn´t render it evasion.
If you are so eager to be judged "wrong" why don´t you simply go and do it yourself, or ask your God to do it?

But you go out of your way to not say anything. I would listen if you did say something.

I gave you a rational reason: It prevents the discussion from being fruitful. If that´s not a sufficiently rational reason in your "thought system", and if you prefer discussions to not be fruitful, I will just conclude that we don´t have the most basic common ground for a discussion. It´s as easy as that.

No you didn't give me a reason. Preventing fruitfulness is the effect of the behavior, not a reason not to engage in it.

I meant to say it´s remarkable - if you want a value judgement, you will have to do that yourself.
If however you want my personal feelings about it: I am not happy when people violate their own ideas of conduct in favour of humouring someone else. (But truth to be told, I am not expecting that you´ll make that a habit - it looked more like you were taking just another opportunity to take a quick jab at me. )

I was actually trying to pay you a compliment there. I knew you said "remarkable" on purpose, and I admire your conscientiousness and attention to detail. It makes you a worthy adversary, and it's very important in life to have good adversaries.

 

[quatona]

I meant you have nowhere to go intellectually, in your reasoning.

I suspect that you are just misunderstanding what I am reasoning for and what I am not reasoning for or against, on what basis and with which intentions.

But you go out of your way to not say anything. I would listen if you did say something.

I understand that what I say isn´t of any value within your paradigms - that does not, however, make it nothing.

No you didn't give me a reason. Preventing fruitfulness is the effect of the behavior, not a reason not to engage in it.

For someone who prefers fruitful discussions over fruitless discussions it is an excellent reason.
Just like the fact that touching a hotplate will have the effect of burning your fingers is an excellent reason not to touch it for someone who prefers their fingers not get burnt.
This is as good a reasoning as it gets when it comes to picking our choices, in my understanding: You don´t want something, you prevent it from happening. You want something, you pursue it.

Now that we have agreed that certain behaviours prevent a fruitful discussion, there are basically two options when you engage in said behaviours:
- Either you prefer fruitless discussions - in which case I conclude we don´t have sufficient common ground for a discussion.
- Or you prefer fruitful discussions - in which case I think it is a good idea and a service to remind you that you are working against your own best interests as well as against our common interests.

Which is it? Do you prefer a fruitful discussion or a fruitless discussion?

I was actually trying to pay you a compliment there. I knew you said "remarkable" on purpose, and I admire your conscientiousness and attention to detail.

When you look at the world a certain way, it doesn´t take much effort to talk in a way that´s consistent with this view. So this "compliment" appears to be made based on an unfavourable assumption about me. That takes away a little from my willingness to appreciate it as a "compliment". But maybe you are just projecting?

It makes you a worthy adversary, and it's very important in life to have good adversaries.

Ah, you are thinking of me as an adversary. That explains a lot.
For me, it´s not always easy to figure out if you are (as you sometimes claim) still in the state of trying to understand my positions, or in the state of considering them, or already in the state of trying to tackle them.
What do you think - would I be well advised to generally assume you are in the latter state?

 

[Chesterton]

For someone who prefers fruitful discussions over fruitless discussions it is an excellent reason.
Just like the fact that touching a hotplate will have the effect of burning your fingers is an excellent reason not to touch it for someone who prefers their fingers not get burnt.
This is as good a reasoning as it gets when it comes to picking our choices, in my understanding: You don´t want something, you prevent it from happening. You want something, you pursue it.

Do you not differentiate between reasoning and physical sensation, and between reasoning and emotion?

Now that we have agreed that certain behaviours prevent a fruitful discussion, there are basically two options when you engage in said behaviours:
- Either you prefer fruitless discussions - in which case I conclude we don´t have sufficient common ground for a discussion.
- Or you prefer fruitful discussions - in which case I think it is a good idea and a service to remind you that you are working against your own best interests as well as against our common interests.

Which is it? Do you prefer a fruitful discussion or a fruitless discussion?

I think this may be a trick question. Whichever I say, I may be conceding it's just a "preference". I respectfully decline to answer.

When you look at the world a certain way, it doesn´t take much effort to talk in a way that´s consistent with this view. So this "compliment" appears to be made based on an unfavourable assumption about me. That takes away a little from my willingness to appreciate it as a "compliment". But maybe you are just projecting?

What unfavorable assumption do you think I have about you? I'm really not sure what you mean.

Plus, the word "unfavorable" lol - that's close, but I guess I have to let it slide. Again, my compliments.

I suspect that you are just misunderstanding what I am reasoning for and what I am not reasoning for or against, on what basis and with which intentions.

I understand that what I say isn´t of any value within your paradigms - that does not, however, make it nothing.

Ah, you are thinking of me as an adversary. That explains a lot.
For me, it´s not always easy to figure out if you are (as you sometimes claim) still in the state of trying to understand my positions, or in the state of considering them, or already in the state of trying to tackle them.
What do you think - would I be well advised to generally assume you are in the latter state?

Yes, we are taking adverse positions, are we not? I only know two positions of yours, both negative - you reject value judgment, but you haven't shared the reason why you do this. You also seem to reject labels (words). I say "seem to" because I suspect you might only reject them in certain cases. I assume you don't take issue with calling a chair a chair, or calling food food, but you reject using words to describe your positions. So those two things, standing alone, yes, I would like to tackle those. But if I had more information about why you take those positions, I might find I'm wrong and shouldn't want to tackle them. I don't know.

 

[quatona]

I respectfully decline to answer.

Ok, I´m done disccussing with you, then. Thanks for your time and efforts. .

 

[Thee David III]

As a Christian who has tons of knowledge both philosophically, logically, biblical and with personal experience, ect. I can understand why certain people have become claimers of "atheism". However there are two groups of atheist based on my personal experience, by the way God does not believe in atheist That is a joke for anyone who doesn't get it

There is the atheist who simply hates God and "claims" the label out of hatred for God, they hate the things that have happened in their life and blame God for lets say the suicide of their loved one, they blame God for their children who got hit by a car, they simply hate God and want nothing to do with God and claim "atheist" out of hatred. There are a lot of people who "claim the title" for this reason. There are people who are former atheist who have stated themselves the reason they took the title is to hate God, so as a Christian I understand there are atheist who simply hate God because of what has gone on in their life, they blame God in ignorance or non ignorance for things that happen in their life and thus want nothing to do with God. There are many youtubers who openly stated when they were atheist they made it their main goal to mock Christians and Mock God and show their hatred for God for the things that happened in their life.

So that is one group of people. For those people there is nothing a Christian can do for them other than give explain their best why the things have happened in their life, why the world is how it is and why God created it this way and why there is a judgement day, ect. If they still choose to hate God that is their own personal choice.

There is no such thing as a true atheist meaning, someone who 100% thinks there is no God, yes, many people claim the title as to say no God exist but 100% of all people who claim that actually do believe in God existing. I could give many arguments to prove this but if we just for the sake of the argument assumed the bible to be true, it even states that non-believers suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because of their sin. There are youtubers I have watched that stated this themselves which were former atheist who even stated other atheist who claim to be atheist would talk about their hatred for God and the atheist would call them out and say "Wait, I thought you were not suppose to think God exist?" The point is, there is no human who does not believe in God exist when they come to their knowledge, they suppress it.

Also when I say they know there is a God, that does not mean they know the details or which God is true or false, they simply know by seeing the creation, and by using logic and common sense that a creator being exist, without having to know in detail what this God is like or who this God is.

The second group are the ones I can understand why they are how they are.

The second group or people who "claim" the title and are so because of the following.

#1 - Hypocrites who "claim" to be Christians. This is probably one of the most logical reasons some atheist are atheist and become so. It is because of "deception" by false hypocrite Christians. There are times where atheist before they were so or when they wanted to learn about God, tried their best to learn and was deceived by hypocrites who broke their faith/trust.

For example: Atheist may walk into a church and see "these people claim to believe in Jesus" yet, the atheist may observe these so called followers, living like a hypocrite, getting drunk, having sex outside of marriage, cursing, lying, ect.

This is why some people reject God and have doubts and then lose faith and trust in the one true God, because of hypocrites. This is why I have a holy righteous anger towards hypocrites because I know there are people who will become lost and reject Christ because of these hypocrites.

I am on the atheist side in terms of "Seeing the hypocrites" the only problem is most of these atheist see the hypocrisy in claimers of Christ and they reject God saying to themselves "see, what a bunch of hypocrites, Christ cannot be real, his own followers do not even obey him"

I understand why the atheist thinks this way, I myself am angry hypocrites. What needs to be addressed to the atheist is showing them in the bible where Jesus talked about these hypocrites, and just because hypocrites exist doesn't mean you should reject Jesus, Jesus himself was angry at hypocrites and warns about hypocrites who will "claim" to be his followers but will be cast into hell on the end.

Most but not all, atheist, have never been shown this, they just see the hypocrites in churches and reject God.

#2 - Not taking the time to understand the bible without being fed lies about it. Most atheist have been taught lies and false teachers have taught them lies about themselves they know are not true, and thus they believe they bible must be false as well because how could the bible say something they know is untrue about themselves.

The problem is, Jesus warned of these false teachers, a huge mistake for an atheist is to come to the bible with the thinking of "If a priest says it it must be true" and he must know more than me so I will believe him over my own thinking. The problem is that we trust too easy, we trust as kids that people who read from the bible are teaching us the right things about it. Another reason why atheist become atheist is because they are taught illogical things by preachers and thus they reject the bible based on this.

Not knowing that if they only met a Christian who could explain it better they would see the verses they are reading are probably not illogical and that they were naive to believe in someone who was wrong about what the bible was saying or teaching.

For example many atheist are told they are born sinners and have to keep sinning. This is one reason they reject Christ because they have been taught this lie about themselves and they tell themselves "wait, so you mean when I was a baby I was a sinner?"

Atheist who have kids will think logically and say "wait a minute, when my child was born he could not even sin, my baby was innocent yet you are saying my baby is born a sinner?"

These false teachings are just one of many reasons why atheist become atheist and reject the bible. However, if they would have read the bible themselves they would see that there are no verses which state their babies are born sinners, they would see that God does not create anyone a sinner otherwise that would make God unjust for sending someone to hell for sin he created in them.

I know I am about to get massively attacked for saying we are not born sinners but it is true, this is one reason why people turn atheist because they know it is not logically true, and when someone lies and misquotes the bible to say something it never said it turns people away because they believe in that lie and are never corrected.

#3 - Not having lies corrected that they have been taught about the bible and God
We are humans, we can lie, we can make mistakes, some people and churches mean well but at times they can make illogical claims and lie to people who were not atheist before they became one. These lies they believe cause them to reject Christ as illogical, unjust and stupid. If only these atheist would have been taught the truth instead of lies maybe they would be Christians today and not reject Christ.

#4 - Morality - I am a Christian and I will admit most Christians although they mean well, the average one is not very good at defending the bible in a logical way for atheist to come to believe in Christ. I am ashamed at times how little knowledge other Christians have when it comes to giving a defense to atheist. Atheist need logical arguments on things like morality and sin and why things are right and wrong other than just what the bible says. I found that most Christians are unable to defend their belief outside of showing a bible verse. This is a problem that needs addressed, many atheist will reject Christ because they have seen most people are believing "blindly" and are seeming to be illogical.

However, there are Christians out there who can defend the faith very well and will destroy atheist arguments and you will see the difference. It is night and day. If only some of those atheist herd these arguments they would see belief in God is not illogical, it is very logical and the only way to use logic and assume it in the first place.

#5 - Not preaching the entire gospel, both hell and grace. Now and days, people only tell atheist what they like to hear, because they do not want to upset anyone or hurt their feelings, so people give atheist a one sided message and atheist never fully understand the justice of God, the wrath of God, the goodness of God, and the entity of God. When people only talk about the goodness of God it makes God seem illogical when other subjects like evil and sin come into the picture, us as Christians need to teach atheist all about God and what he is like, not just one side of God.

#6 - Understanding that God is just, most atheist do not understand how or why God could be just to send people to hell for something he knew ahead of time, ect. Christians on the average do a very bad job of explaining this to them. If they understood why God was just they would be more likely to accept Christ and less likely to reject him.

#7 - Understanding why God needs no creator - When most atheist ask why or how God needs no creator they get dumb answers like "well because he has no creator". This is not good enough for a non believer, this is why they reject God, they cannot logically see how it is possible for God to not have needed to be created. What these atheist need to learn is that God is the creator of Time, Space and Matter. That means time was a creation of God. God is outside of time and is the creator of time, God is not the one stuck in time. Only things that begin in time need a beginning, because God is the very creator of time he was never stuck in it. God is outside of it and therefor is timeless, does not need to begin or end. Matter and space was created by God, God is spaceless and immaterial.

An example I like to use is, the person who created the laptop is not stuck inside of the laptop, he created the laptop, he is outside of it. Like wise God is outside of time, space and matter because he is the creator of it.

#8 - Answering things like evolution and showing the facts and lies of it. There are facts of micro evolution, and there are lies of macro evolution. Christians in general never show these atheist how things they claim to be logical make no sense. They never show them how certain things are "non observable, not reproducible and not testable" Atheist need answers on evolution because in the bible there was no death before sin therefor macro evolution could not have taken place, they are being taught they are related to fish and ect, and they need ANSWERS which some Christians do not give them. Christians need to point out clearly to show the belief that life can come from non life, the belief that the unaware can become aware and something coming from nothing is illogical without a creator being "God"

I always point out the obvious, macro evolution is unobservable, not reproducible, not testable, it is based on assumptions. Micro evolution and variations are observable and facts. I show them how the bible agrees with that and how macro evolution is not factual but assumed.

To prove the point all you have to ask for is "observable, testable or reproducible" evidence of macro evolution. You will never get one, instead you will get an example of micro evolution which the bible agrees with "animals can produce a variety off offspring" however that does not support unlimited changes and that is a big leap and assumption to assume.

They will reply with "because it takes millions of years" which again will prove you correct that they "assume" without the proof. This is one example of how you can show an atheist what they believe is simply a BELIEF in itself that cannot be proven, yet they have FAITH in their assumption even though they have never observed, tested or reproduced it. Nobody has ever seen macro evolution take place because once again you need to "assume a long time period". Yet these same atheist complain over God not being observably how they want it, that is hypocrisy.

God is NOT a scientific question

#9 - Dinosaurs - Atheist like Bill Murr are completely ignorant on this topic, I see them mock the bible all of the time about why it does not talk about dinosaurs, BUT IT DOES!!! This is a prime example of someone who was never shown or told why dinosaurs are talked about but the word dinosaur was not mentioned.

The word dinosaur was not even a word back then, the word dinosaur was made in the 1800's a fact most atheist are unaware of and never told. They could not have used the word if they wanted too. Also there are dinosaurs like the BEHEMOTH story in the bible which has a tail like a Cedar tree and is describing what seems to be like a Bronto.

Using logic we can see that if the flood story is true we can see why there would be extinct dinosaurs, it is VERY LOGICAL and adds up if the bible is true. It is also VERY LOGICAL and adds up why cultures talk about a flood legend and why they have drawings of dinosaurs on stones and talk about legends of dragons which are basically identical to dinosaurs in most cases but not all.

These things add up and make sense if the bible is true, they make no sense if God does not exist why cultures are creating all of these legends and drawings of what looks like stego's.

#10 - Just a very confusing illogical story they see and do not understand

It is all of these things mixed together that makes atheist doubt God and reject God, they start to see it as illogical and not true, they always believe in God but they start rejecting God and doubting and suppressing it based on all of these illogical claims they hear and see, all of the lies they have been taught and told by other false teachers who mislead them.

#Lastly SIN

The biggest reason atheist do not want to obey God is simply because they love sin and do not want to give it up. It has nothing to do with if God exist, it has everything to do with if God exist they would have to give up their sins they love so much.

Do you think any atheist wants to give up, having sex outside of marriage, watching inappropriate contentography, getting drunk, getting high, cursing how they want to curse, doing what they want to do? Of course not, no atheist thinks it is enjoyable to GIVE UP sins they LOVE doing.

That is why they suppress the truth of God. They know what is wrong but love it to much to give it up.

How Do I know this and how can you test this out on most atheist to see their hearts?

It is very simple - Next time you talk to an atheist ask them one important question

Question to the atheist - If Christianity were true, would you obey God and do as he says?

This is the most important question to ask an atheist before even debating or talking to one. I found that a lot of atheist will answer with "No, I still would not obey God even if it were true"

It shows and proves the bibles point, that people reject God because of their sin, not because of a logical problem they have or because they think the bible is illogical, its because of sin.

It shows the intent of the atheist's heart if they reject God because of sin or because of a logical problem.

There are some atheist who say yes, which in those cases, those are the ones who you can save, who can be saved, and who may be actually seeking God to know the truth.

The atheist who tell you they still would not obey prove they have no desire to seek God and obey God even if you proved it true.

That being said, God does not believe in atheism

Neither do I, everyone is agnostic at worst logically, but according to God and the bible they already know God exist, they might not know the details but they know. That is why atheist school shooters commit suicide after shooting up schools, because they know it was wrong and want to avoid punishment for it.

Atheist ASSUME God but claim God does not exist, it is hypocrisy.

Atheist all ASSUME god just to function and believe in anything.

Atheist ASSUME their 5 senses are truth worthy to even use them in the first place, just like I ASSUME them to be the same way.

The only problem is, belief in GOD is the PROPER ASSUMPTIONS to trust in 5 senses.

Belief in random evolution with no intelligence behind it is not a proper foundation for BELIEF in your 5 senses are trust worthy and telling you the truth about reality. They have no right to trust anything their 5 senses are telling them if there was no intelligence behind it, they ASSUME it without a logical proper foundation that lets you assume trust worthy 5 senses.

Message to you atheist

You were made in the image of God, you have probably been told lies about the bible, you have probably been told illogical things about God, and you have probably seen hypocrites. But do not let those things make you reject the Jesus who was never a hypocrite, who was never illogical and never did the things you see hypocrites and liars tell you and do daily.

If you are truly seeking God, God will reveal more knowledge to you, you do not need someone else to read the bible to you, you are a logical human being made in the image of God and can understand it yourself.

Just do not come to it with a idea of trying to disprove it and reject it, you must come to the bible humble and to God humble, you must actually be sorry for your wrong doings and seek God and TRY. Most of you atheist are not even trying to seek God yet you blame him for why you don't believe even though you know you know God exist.

John 9:31
31 Now we know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, He hears him.

God will NOT even hear you atheist who come to the bible with a evil heart wanting to reject God and wanting to not try at all or be ready to be wrong or humble yourself.

God reveals himself to those who seek him, to those who come with a humble heart and want the truth.

Just because you cannot understand something is not a reason to reject it, dig deeper, ask different people, go online and look for answers. The bible is not a book to tell us all things.

The bible is a book telling us how to live, why were were created, why were are here, how we should treat each other, what God wants from us, what God expects from us and what is to come.

There is no reason to be an atheist other than wanting to hold on to your sin and keep it and justify it.

There is no logical reason to stay an atheist.

I know there are some of you atheist who will see the truth and you will remember the days when you thought God was illogical and you will look back and see God has been with you the entire time and lead you to the truth.

But there will be some of you who are wanting to reject, wanting to deny and wanting to hold on to your sin and too prideful to give God the glory he deserves for creating this universe.

The kingdom is going to be the BEST thing ever!!!

There is no reason to be an atheist and get what you and we all deserve for our sins. You didn't make the universe, you don't own it, and God owns it.

If you want to be with God and have all the wonderful things in his kingdom and see how it was meant to be from the beginning then you would be wise to look into true Christianity further and open the bible up for yourself and read Matthew, Mark, Luke and John for yourself.

If you want to live your life separate from God then on judgement day you will get your wish and live separate from God, just remember that God made everything, and if you want to be separate from God he will separate EVERYTHING GOOD he has made from you.

He owns it, not you.

There is only two reasons why an atheist is on this forum.

Either God is working to lead you to him and you are seeking God

or

You are coming hear with the purpose to stay atheist and to hold onto your sin and never give it up, to come here to try to make Christians look bad.

The one which you are will prove to yourself why you haven't found God or will.