What you (Christians) think of Atheists

[oi_antz]

This is a whole issue in and of itself. Theists are in a sense dependent on so called atheists that are supposedly denying the God that theists believe in. And atheists can be said to be just as dependent on theists in that in order to disbelieve in God by any stretch of understanding, they have to have people that formulate that God concept. One has to wonder what theists do in regard to more strict agnostics, apatheists, and ignostics, among others that aren't taking the automatic theist position as authentic from the start?

I don't think you're quite right there, I have found that my perception of God depends solely on what I thought before coming to know Him, and what thoughts I still get that challenge what He says. What someone else thinks has absolutely no bearing on what I think unless it is proven by a quote from the Bible. In other words, if I don't listen to God, I would listen to myself, and I don't think it is possible to surrender that to listen to someone else.

Perhaps from your perspective you get some sense of fulfillment by seeing how more balanced your ideas are than those who believe in God, well I can say that I don't get such fulfillment from seeing others who don't believe in God, in fact every time I hear from God I learn more about how little I knew before He spoke to me. I think it's comparing apples to oranges, there really is no need in a Christian's life for atheism, we derive our context from measuring ourselves to God.

One question I have about this, do you think atheism somehow contributes to Christianity?

 

[Key]

This is a whole issue in and of itself. Theists are in a sense dependent on so called atheists that are supposedly denying the God that theists believe in.

Actually a Theist has no need for an Atheist.

There is no need on the part of a Theist to have someone around to deny their belief, as the presence of Atheist or not, has no bearing on someone believing in a God.

On the other hand, it is moot to say Atheist unless there are theist around.

One has to wonder what theists do in regard to more strict agnostics, apatheists, and ignostics, among others that aren't taking the automatic theist position as authentic from the start?

We deal with them in kind. All depends on the song and dance number they decide to play, and you don't have to trust when I say, there aren't any new ones.

God Bless

 

[AlexBP]

Second, these 'miracles' happen to atheists and agnostics, too! Not to mention, Hindus, Muslims and Jews. If Christians miraculously getting healed if proof of Christianity, then why isnt a Muslim getting healed proof of Islam? The fact is that diseases which should be fatal have been known to 'miraculously' disappear without an apparent reason for as long as humans have been around, in all kinds of people.

Hi, mulimulix. I don't have enough time to respond to every issue in this thread right now, but I'd like to pop in and offer a thought on this one. As it happens, this was exactly the sort of claim that I used to make all the time when I was an atheist. At the time, I had never investigated the question of miraculous healings, but simply assumed that all the reported ones had to be either made up or exaggerated claims about ordinary medical occurences. So my question to you would be: in how much depth have you investigated the issue?

The thing is, I now have read books and articles on the subject. The best is Remarkable Recovery, written by two doctors who have personally investigated thousands of cases in which amazing and unexplained recoveries occurred. Their conclusion is that, in many cases, these recoveries defy the best attempts at ordinary medical explanation. As for the claim that similar recoveries occur all the time to Muslims and members of other religions, is it actually true? Can you name any Muslims who have had multiple large cancers disappear overnight, or who have been healed from multiple sclerosis in a matter of minutes, or who have had missing bones reappear and cut ligaments restored?

 

[ivebeenshown]

One chance does not equal infinite chances unless you stretch the meaning beyond any reasonable understanding. If you just said I had an infinite amount of chances in this lifetime, you would've made this whole conversation that much less confusing.

Isn't that great? We as humans are made in the image of God in that we can perceive what one minute is, and while it is finite, we can delve deeper into the minute itself into sixty seconds, and further to milliseconds and nanoseconds, and it never ends. In one sense it is finite, and in one sense it is infinite. It seems contradictory, yet it just is. We are limited in terms of what depth we can reach in perception of that second, but we can grasp its overall identity and quality.

It seems a bit tyrannical in that God is basically giving a command that cannot be ultimately disobeyed. Like if God says, "Obey me" it's not as if I can avoid the inevitable reality if God exists that I will apparently suffer in Hell, whatever that state happens to be.

It can be disobeyed; also, the reality of hell is very avoidable. Have you read about compatibilism? It's very interesting, and like the second, infinite and finite somehow at the same time, it's the concept that free will and determinism are intertwined into one reality.

That's a matter of perspective to begin with. If you want to persist in believing it without considering you could be wrong, you have a bigger problem than myself, who is skeptical, but not beyond changing beliefs when they appear to be mistaken.

I don't see how it's a problem. I have no problem whatsoever with my belief in God. I am constantly learning and refining doctrine within my own mind, so I'm not beyond changing at all. I just see in no way how my belief in a supreme being is mistaken.

You'd have to define the term, since in a sense I would believe in spirits in the older sense of the term, albeit not with the vitalist or mind body separation notions; but that we are beings with mental capacities that are in essence immaterial as they exist in themselves and not in relation to the brain functions which they are indeed still contingent upon in some sense.

Cool, that is what I would call a 'soul', do you believe there are non-human souls or spirits?

 

[Sir Wilshire]

Jesus' teachings are impressive enough. You don't have to add on his lordship or sovereignty to find appealing ethics and even deeper spiritual considerations about things like the sacred or secular. And you can claim my choosing or not choosing affects my eternities, but you can't demonstrate eternity itself, you only have recourse to analogy.

I didn't claim to. I think the resurrection leads to a chain of reasoning that makes it reasonable to suppose eternity will happen. That isn't recourse to analogy.

Basically you can't verify or note in any way whether my disbelief in God affects my life for better or worse and the same can be applied to determining whether your belief in God affects your life for better or worse.

Actually there are scientific studies that show that religious people reap health benefits that the non-religious do not. And this would make since anyway since natural selection obviously likes religion.

Well, then perhaps Christian apologists need to stop going with that angle that I am not behaving morally just because I don't happen to believe in God.

Not aware of any reputable ones that do.

Any effects of Christian belief are honestly irrelevant with regards to a betterment of humanity, since ethical considerations are more important than one feeling they have some ultimate purpose they can communicate to others that share that purpose, which reminds me of the Borg.

Honestly, if it's true that eternity will happen, I think we should be much more concerned with truth than what will make humanity better in the short-term (not that I think being concerned about eternity will not lead to a better situation in the short-term, though).

Jesus doing the things he did doesn't have any demonstrable effect one way or another. People misuse his teachings, abuse the authority he gave them and otherwise make a mockery of the genuine wisdom he taught as a person of faith and genuine ethics, regardless of disagreements about where the ethics are derived.

People doing bad things is logically relevant how to the whether or not eternity exists and our need for atonement?

How can you demonstrate or verify that Jesus coming back from the dead has any effect on the world as we know it beyond people changing their ways incidentally because of how the teaching about his death and resurrection affects their own psychological dispositions: e.g. feelings of guilt and need for redemption? I can argue they are found internally and not externally from some outside source like Jesus or God?

The resurrection would be a vindication of Jesus and thus his claims. He made claims about eternity and about the necessity of reconciliation with God. So I think that's pretty good evidence that eternity (new heavens and new earth) will happen, which will obviously change things in the universe. I'm also curious what other effects you think it should have had beside that and people changing their ways. Furthermore people living in the Roman empire of the first century and most people that have ever lived didn't experience feelings of guilt. Cultural anthropology tells us this.

And you are the one failing to give me these sources! You list these quotes from contemporary authors below about how there is more evidence for Jesus than many other historical figures, but these aren't sources for evidence of Jesus. Show me where a primary source talks about Jesus.

LOL. I already told you the NT books are sources. Especially the 4 gospels since they're in the genre of ancient biography. Furthermore, pertaining to the authors I quoted, if a consensus of scholars with expertise in the relevant field holds to a certain position, you cannot readily dismiss the consensus. It requires a lot of work. Nevertheless, the sources they use are listed here.

I can't find the exact page I found it at, but I have also saw it in a documentary a while ago which lists Jesus' miracles and compares them to miracles of previous gods/messiahs and i think it was like 80% of them had been done before, many of the other gods/messiahs did more than one of his miracles. You're gonna think I'm making this up because I can't find where I got it from, but at the moment, this is the best I can do.

If it was Zeitgeist then you should know that thinking Christians find it to be a load of crap and are utterly unconvinced by its claims. I'm already familiar with the arguments anyway. I'm just waiting to see which ones you think are worthwhile.

Source?

One external source would be the tags found on the ancient manuscripts saying Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote them. Furthermore, Mark and Luke had access to the eyewitnesses and used their testimony for their gospels. Also, later writers attribute the gospels to these 4 people. Secondly, internal evidence of the gospels themselves point to these 4 authors. A list of books that list the relevant external source information can be found here. These books are by scholars in the relevant field.

Are you actually serious? Who cares who said the quote?! It wouldn't make a difference if I came up with the quote off the top of my head, it still makes sense.

Not to me. You proposed a standard. Back that up with methods from historians.

And if you don't believe it, then you are saying supernatural events don't require much evidence at all.

I haven't actually said how much evidence they require.

I don't understand? Surely, you have seen images or videos of the Loch Ness Monster, bigfoot or people bending spoons? It's not that people have disproved these things, it's that it requires AN EXTRAORDINARY AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE TO PROVE!

And I don't find them to be reliable. I do for the resurrection, however.

Sure. Simple Wiki search: Historical Alexander the Great - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia is not a valid source.

The difference here is that conquering vast amounts of land was not uncommon in ancient times and is a plausible story.

The uncommonality or plausibility do not immediately set the bar much higher. By your criteria, those watching the moon landing in 1969 would be irrational for believing what they were seeing.

Walking on water and turning water into wine doesn't happen every day, century, decade or millenia. This is why more evidence than Alexander the great is needed.

So say 12 and only 12 people saw someone walk on water. Are you telling me that their eyewitness testimony (considering they are known to be reliable) would not be enough evidence? Because if not, then by your criteria it is "rational" to reject their testimony even though it actually did happen.

 

[Harry3142]

I first knowingly encountered atheists in 1963 when those of us living in a rooming house started talking about religion. Two of the young men were atheists, and since I was even then a Christian we sat at the common dining table and talked about our reasons for either believing or not believing in God. But 8.5 hours later, when we finally called it a night, we were still friends, and remained so.

Personally, my attitude toward an atheist depends on why he is an atheist. Is he simply 'caught up' in the attitude that science explains all, as my friends thought? Is he 'pushing' his own agenda or philosophy which runs completely contrary to Christianity, and for this reason needs to get it out of the way? Did he grow up in a church or denomination which had the outer trappings of Christianity, but their attitude was that orthodox Christianity is a 'dinosaur' that sophisticated people have progressed beyond (you'd be surprised as to how many ahteists there are inside certain church denominations)?

Or has God himself planned something specific for that atheist to do sometime in the future, and in the interim is keeping him away from well-meaning people who would 'screw things up'? That particular person's education necessary for his successfully completing whatever God has planned for him to do might require him to go into areas of expertise where Christians normally would not enter. His attitude toward Christianity at this point in his life could very well be what enables him to learn, and comprehend, something more easily that will be essential later in his life for him to know.

Those who are obviously using atheism as a tool to promote their agendas I distrust (as I also distrust those who use Christianity merely as a tool for their agendas). Those who think that science will eventually explain everything, or who see religion as only for the unsophisticated, are more-or-less 'going with the flow'. But those who are atheists because they simply haven't felt the need to embrace any religion, or even 'feel' that there's a wall between themselves and organized Christianity, pique my curiosity. What does God have planned for them? Maybe it's better that I not know; I might be one of those people that would 'screw things up'.

 

[Chaplain David]

I'm back after a long hiatus. I kinda like asking one or two questions every couple of months and here is my question today:

What do you think of atheists? (Assuming you are a Christian)

Living in Australia, I do not come into contact with a whole lot of very religious people. Most of my friends are atheists and the ones that aren't are deists and they respect my views as I do to theirs.

What I am interested in knowing is what a religious person (in this case, Christians) think of non-believers. I don't mean to place stereotypes or offend, but my perception of what Christians think of atheists is a pretty negative one.

Before I ramble on, let me know your answer

Edit: I find it kind of ironic that the avatar for an atheist on the forums is a person with a brain...Why is that?

I think of atheists as preChristians. We were all non Christians before we began to follow Christ. I noticed that Australia wasn't a very God believing country when I visited. Of course that is a generalization but I live in North Carolina where churches are abundant.

 

[ivebeenshown]

You're basically calling a relative time argument in terms of your claim of a supposed one chance, so honestly this particular point has become tiresome.

It's just talk. Talk is small. But it's also huge. It's like a logical contradiction, without being contradictory. Odd!

If you don't see the possibility you could be wrong, then, like I said, you're already in deeper pig crap than a genuine believer who admits God might not exist.

Well, like Jesus said, 'with God all things are possible'. I can't see there not being a God. All I can see is that God is true. Does that mean I'm in trouble? Not at all. Being able to believe in Jesus at all, when I grew up in awe of space and dinosaurs and science is confirmation enough for me that it is very true. Sure, there's the possibility that God does not exist, but it is something I cannot 'fathom'.

You stretched the definition of soul there and actually could be said to reduce the significance of the soul in a Christian context to simply the epiphenomenal status of our mentality and psychic consciousness, whereas the soul in Christianity is a bit more than just our minds, but honestly, it's already a bit of a lost cause, like trying to define God in even a general sense. I can't say I believe in soul or spirit in the modern understanding of those terms, but moreso in the physicalist or materialist understanding of those terms as describing immaterial yet materially contingent manifestations of our brains.

'Stretched the definition'? I dunno. Who gets to say that have 'the definition'? I don't read books on this or anything. Well, just one book, and then what I see in action daily. I view the soul as the immaterial 'self' which cannot be annihilated or carnally sensed, and the brain as the material 'self' which, through conception, is enjoined with the soul so the soul can perceive and take effect from the material senses, and the carnal brain and body can exhibit the will of the soul.

So rather than the soul being a manifestation of the brain, I view it the other way around.

 

[Ayersy]

Well, like Jesus said, 'with God all things are possible'. I can't see there not being a God. All I can see is that God is true. Does that mean I'm in trouble? Not at all. Being able to believe in Jesus at all, when I grew up in awe of space and dinosaurs and science is confirmation enough for me that it is very true. Sure, there's the possibility that God does not exist, but it is something I cannot 'fathom'.

I'm the exact opposite of this. I cannot logically see any way in which God (Well, any deities we have previously written about in holy texts) can possibly exist.

 

[ivebeenshown]

I'm the exact opposite of this. I cannot logically see any way in which God (Well, any deities we have previously written about in holy texts) can possibly exist.

Well, it is what it is, is it not?

'God' is the great I AM, the eternal One, the greatest of the great, which surpasses all. How you view the way this being expresses itself is one thing, but to deny its existence is... ignorant.

Always was, always is, always will be.

What does the atom tell you? And the quasar? We cannot grasp the innermost and outermost boundaries of reality, which are the Alpha and the Omega of space and time. I believe all religions from ancient times are varied expressions of this one supernatural truth, seeing as they all share many expressions in common. I just happen to believe the Alpha and the Omega was manifest in the flesh as Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[pastorkevin73]

I view athiests like I do any other non-believer: They too need Jesus. They say that they don't believe in a God, but that doesn't change the reality of their need for a Savior. We must share to gospel with them. Sometimes we think about arguing with them, but that is so not the point. Our job as Christians is to pray for them and present the gospel to them, and then again to pray that they will come to the understanding for their need for God and His salvation and then receive salvation.
We sometimes forget that God asks us to share the gospel, convicting them is His job.

 

[Key]

Define new ones.

In this case, and only for this case, I'll define it as: "a stroy I have not heard a dozen or few thousand times before".

Just because someone might put a new wrapper on it, or try to mesh ideas, or throw in a "twist", does not mean it is new, and this, has been dealt with before, in one fashion or another.

I never made a claim about supposed uniqueness of apatheism or the like. But ignosticism is probably the most recent if we're talking chronology in terms of the word being coined by Rabbi Sherwin Wine.

I could coin Mylifestinks-ism, it does not make it a new thing, and I am sure if I looked at the basic idea, I would wager Paul himself dealt with people spouting like ideas.

To be honest, humans have shown to be surprisingly uninvented (or lacking any real creativity) in this field, which only seeks to reinforce my belief in God, and why Christianity is right.

Just saying.

God Bless

 

[mulimulix]

The thing is, I now have read books and articles on the subject. The best is Remarkable Recovery, written by two doctors who have personally investigated thousands of cases in which amazing and unexplained recoveries occurred. Their conclusion is that, in many cases, these recoveries defy the best attempts at ordinary medical explanation.

Yes. That does not prove that it was a miracle, let alone that the Christian god did it. It simply proves that we have much to learn about the behaviour of diseases and the human body.

As for the claim that similar recoveries occur all the time to Muslims and members of other religions, is it actually true? Can you name any Muslims who have had multiple large cancers disappear overnight, or who have been healed from multiple sclerosis in a matter of minutes, or who have had missing bones reappear and cut ligaments restored?

I have seen videos of Muslims and Jews claiming to be healed by Allah or Adonai. I believe they are not as prevalent in Islam because Muslims mainly live in third world countries, where health care is poor and there is no chance for a 'miracle' to occur. Not as many in Judaism simply because their population is smaller, less likely for 'miracles' to happen. Christians primarily live in first world countries (Europe, North America) where if someone is sick, they go to the hospital and are treated by the best doctors in the world. They are given every chance for a miracle to happen. If a 'miracle' doesn't happen to you under the best doctors in the world, they won't happen anywhere else.

Wikipedia is not a valid source.

Oh, no; not this. Wikipedia is as valid as the next source IF you check the references. I speak to my history teacher about it, and he says he always starts his work by looking at wikipedia to check good references for the topic. If you believe Wiki is an invalid source, you are wasting a lot of time on your research.

The uncommonality or plausibility do not immediately set the bar much higher. By your criteria, those watching the moon landing in 1969 would be irrational for believing what they were seeing.

Of course they do! I actually can't believe this. If you witness something like me walking down the street, you don't think twice about it and continue on your way. However, if you witness me levitating down the street, you keep looking and want to find an explanation, BECAUSE IT IS OUT OF THE ORDINARY. If you cannot explain something, you want to know how it happened. Empires were conquering other empires on a regular basis even up until recently. Performing miracles doesn't happen quite as often. You see someone performing a miracle, you need an explanation. You see someone not performing a miracle, you don't need an explanation.

So say 12 and only 12 people saw someone walk on water. Are you telling me that their eyewitness testimony (considering they are known to be reliable) would not be enough evidence? Because if not, then by your criteria it is "rational" to reject their testimony even though it actually did happen.

Of course it is evidence, the question is whether the claim can be verified. I assume this is what you mean. It is irrelevant if the event actually happened in this situation. The scenario is that 12 trustworthy people come up to you and say they saw someone walk on water. If I had this happen to me, I simply wouldn't believe them; not for a second. I don't care how sure the 12 are, unless there was evidence rather than "But I saw it happen", I wouldn't believe it. However, if 12 trustworthy people came up to me and said "I just saw a guy light a fire", then I'd believe them, because lighting a fire DOES NOT REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE.

 

[razeontherock]

Yes. That does not prove that it was a miracle

By any possible definition of the word, that IS a miracle! By definition

Christians primarily live in first world countries

Say that again Now think about the implication.

If a 'miracle' doesn't happen to you under the best doctors in the world, they won't happen anywhere else.

This is exactly backwards. The previous Church i was active in, a leader preached from the pulpit that the people had too much money to have Faith. And he was right.

 

[mulimulix]

previous Church i was active in, a leader preached from the pulpit that the people had too much money to have Faith. And he was right.

But the point I'm making is that these miracles happen under world-class supervision, not in a tent in the middle of nowhere. It is a combination of technology from medical science, luck from the disappearance of the disease and demographics from where Christians primarily live. There are millions of Christians in Africa, but I've never heard of these miracles happening there. I may be wrong.

 

[razeontherock]

If you want to behave like a solipsist in relation to your God belief, be my guest. You'll just alienate yourself that much more from other Christians

WAY out of bounds! Does not apply. Shoe does not fit. Non-sequitur.

Mostly just plain wrong, too.

 

[razeontherock]

Christians can be said to derive part of their meaning in life from comparing themselves to atheists

Nope. Remember how much time we've spent pointing out you really have no idea what Christianity IS? Well, it's not this idea you espouse here.

 

[razeontherock]

a genuine believer who admits God might not exist.

Whoa whoa whoa

Did you even read that? Do so again. I'll let you revise.

 

[razeontherock]

There are millions of Christians in Africa, but I've never heard of these miracles happening there. I may be wrong.

That's the ticket! G-d has chosen the poor of this world, rich in Faith. they just don't have TV programs to broadcast to you what happens. Neither are conmen interested in operating there, since they have no resources to steal.

 

[oi_antz]

If you want to behave like a solipsist in relation to your God belief, be my guest. You'll just alienate yourself that much more from other Christians that may share your belief in Jesus' resurrection and the need for salvation through belief in his resurrection but differ on what they believe God is.

Christians can be said to derive part of their meaning in life from comparing themselves to atheists and how they perceive atheists as leading less than fulfilled lives. That's partly what I meant by a dependence of theists on atheists, simply by comparison to demonstrate their superiority. Or in a more basic sense, comparing the "failures" to the "successes"

Atheism contributes to Christianity in the same way the devil does, but in different ways with the system. The devil is a more explicit scapegoat for atheism, but atheism's existence is just another way for Christians to justify their claim of the fallen state of the world and people becoming more depraved and the like, which is just an absurd claim; that people becoming atheists makes them more immoral.

And I must mention that there is such a thing as a Christian atheist, albeit it's trickier to justify as opposed to being a Jewish atheist, but we have examples of something likened to a Christian atheist with Thomas Jefferson, albeit he was technically a deist by his own admittance.

I don't think you understand what I meant. I'm not proposing solipsist by definition "Solipsism is the philosophical idea that one's own mind is all that exists. Solipsism is an epistemological or ontological position that knowledge of anything outside one's own specific mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist", how absurd! Do you really think I believe I'm the only one on this planet with a mind??

What I meant to say, and I hope you might possibly grasp what I'm saying, is I don't measure myself compared to others, I measure myself compared to God. And I don't need atheism to show me how real God is, I know it for myself for having undergone the miraculous changes that come with being born of the Holy Spirit.

You didn't answer my question, since you are suggesting that atheism is necessary to contextualize theism (based solely on your observation that theism is necessary to contextualize atheism), I would like to know, what do you suppose atheism can possibly contribute to Christianity?