What you (Christians) think of Atheists

[Sir Wilshire]

I am content with this notion about "God". I have no qualms saying that it doesn't matter whether God exists or doesn't exist. Denis Diderot said it pretty concisely. "It is important to distinguish hemlock from parsley, but not whether God exists or doesn't exist"

Why?

 

[mulimulix]

It's not necessarily 'wanting' to live forever without God... it's having it in your heart that you are living without God or without knowing God, and that it doesn't make a difference to you who your God is, and that you are content with this stance regarding God. If you woke up tomorrow and did something and forgot all about the fact that you don't know who God is (Jesus Christ) and went about your business, you would be just as content.

This sums my position up perfectly (if I understand it correctly). It's not that I am avoiding god purposely, it is that I can't find a reason to believe in him (or any other god, for that matter).

I thinking raising a man from the dead with an immortal body to vindicate his claims made before death that he would die and rise, and that he is God counts as "telling" people.

Why do you think Jesus didn't rise from the dead?

Ok, where to start...?

In ancient times, or even medieval or early modern, events require more evidence than they do today to be verified, because it is a hell of a lot easier to gather evidence today. The resurrection of Jesus only has one source; The Bible, which was written well after the event.

The facts of the matter is that there is no extra-biblical evidence of Jesus himself, let alone his resurrection. Literature was booming in the 1st century and an event as big as a resurrection surely would have produced more people writing about it, rather than someone many years later.

 

[Sir Wilshire]

Because if you don't know the difference between hemlock and parsley, you'll die. Hemlock is toxic if you don't properly distinguish the kind that is poisonous from what are allegedly edible ones. And parsley and hemlock look relatively similar to a layperson, so it's dangerous if you don't know the difference.

And I can say someone choosing or not choosing to follow Christ affects their eternities and others (and I don't mean just going to heaven or hell). If that's the reality, then it's really short-sighted to ignore the issue of Jesus' Lordship.

But with God there appears to be no verifiable or falsifiable standard for effects of disbelief or belief having any general effect upon people that would have a direct causation from an actual God existing as opposed to simply people's perspectives changing and thus attesting to the immense powers of the mind.

This is a really long sentence so I'm having trouble following your train of thought. Could you break it up into points?

Ethical behavior is not determined primarily by whether you believe or disbelieve in God and the status of your ethical behavior's foundation seems less important than your choice to behave ethically for whatever reason it may be.

Christianity isn't primarily about becoming moral. It's about discipleship. I always find it funny when people think the real Christian position is to say that nonbelievers need Jesus to behave morally.

Another argument that works relatively well is that even if there are gods or a God, it does not appear that they genuinely care or even if they do care, are unable by the extent of their power, to interact with the universe. Or they very well may take a non interventionist position purposefully. In any of these cases, it doesn't matter whether one believes or disbelieves in God, because it wouldn't affect your well being for better or worse in either case.

If Jesus rose from the dead, did all his miracles, and said the things he did, I find this argument to be failing.

 

[Sir Wilshire]

Ok, where to start...?

In ancient times, or even medieval or early modern, events require more evidence than they do today to be verified, because it is a hell of a lot easier to gather evidence today.

False. Got support for this proposition from experts in ancient history?

The resurrection of Jesus only has one source;

False. The NT contains several different books/letters attesting to it written by different people at different times for different purposes. You can't collate them and say they're one source. Not that the NT books are the only line of evidence. There social science case can be made for it just based on the social values of the Roman empire and what Christians claimed (the argument doesn't presume their claims are historically true).

The Bible, which was written well after the event.

Got expert opinion that a record of a historical event is only reliable if it's written down right when it happens? The events were written about or recorded in "oral history" 3 to 35 years after they happened. That's really quick for ancient history. Know how quickly reports of Alexandria the Great's conquests were written down?

The facts of the matter is that there is no extra-biblical evidence of Jesus himself,

False. Tacticus and Josephus wrote about him. The Christ Myth theory is also a very fringe theory.

Literature was booming in the 1st century and an event as big as a resurrection surely would have produced more people writing about it, rather than someone many years later.

And a lot of people did write about it. Although it shouldn't be anything close to what is expected today considering 10% at most were literate and people valued oral communication over written.

 

[mulimulix]

False. Got support for this proposition from experts in ancient history?

So, what? You're telling me that having one book written 2000 years ago making extraordinary claims about someone who may or may not have existed doing stuff like turning water into wine, walking on water and rising from the dead (something which many people before Jesus claimed to do) is enough evidence? If you believe a single book written by people who primarily weren't at the events is sufficient evidence for these claims, I cannot imagine what you should be believing in. There have been countless of old and contemporary claims of sightings of the Loch Ness Monster; there have been writings, drawings, photographs and even videos of a mysterious creature lurching in Loch Ness, yet that STILL isn't a scientific fact. The phrase "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is completely true, and if you don't believe it, then are you believing in the Loch Ness Monster? Are you believing in Bigfoot? Are you believing that there are people out there who can bend spoons just by looking at it? If you aren't, I suggest you take a look and weigh up the evidence for those claims, and the evidence for Jesus' miracles and decide which are more likely to be correct.

I won't respond to your other points because mainly cap up everything here, unless you specifically want me to address a certain point.

Btw, Josephus was born probably seven years after Jesus' crucifiction. I hardly see his writings as a reliable source. This is simply someone born today to write accounts of September 11 in 20 years time.

 

[solarwave]

This sums my position up perfectly (if I understand it correctly). It's not that I am avoiding god purposely, it is that I can't find a reason to believe in him (or any other god, for that matter).

For me the most convincing reason currently are those of unexplainable supernatural events.

For example I know people who have been healed and know of a great number of people who have been healed quickly as they were prayed for of illnesses that placebo couldn't heal. I would like to point out that though I consider myself Christian I try to be skeptical of these kinds of things, but some healings which are fast/instant and are not just the relief of pain or speeding up of recovery in the case of placebo, seem to be quite convincing.

Also recently I have been doubt the existance of demons and I see why agnostics would seem them as a primitive understanding of mental problems as I thought this for a while. Recently though I was talking to an Anglican chaplin and I asked him about this and he said that he has seen a few instances of release from demon oppression and told me about the physically impossible things happened during it. This of course depends on how well I trust this person as to hold strong I think this evidence is.

I also think a decent argument can be made for Jesus resurrection and perhaps an argument from morality too depending how stongly you hold to certain actions being actually (not culturally) wrong.

 

[Sir Wilshire]

If a mod thinks this is debate, I am cool with it being moved to a debate forum.

So, what? You're telling me that having one book written 2000 years ago making extraordinary claims about someone who may or may not have existed

I already pointed out how it wasn't one source. You are ignoring facts. Once again he did exist.

Greco-Roman historian Michael Grant, who certainly has no theological axe to grind, indicates that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for a large number of famous pagan personages - yet no one would dare to argue their non-existence.
Meier [Meie.MarJ, 23] notes that what we know about Alexander the Great could fit on only a few sheets of paper; yet no one doubts that Alexander existed.
Charlesworth has written that "Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E." [Chars.JesJud, 168-9]
Sanders [Sand.HistF, xiv] echoes Grant, saying that "We know a lot about Jesus, vastly more than about John the Baptist, Theudas, Judas the Galilean, or any of the other figures whose names we have from approximately the same date and place."
On the Crucifixion, Harvey writes: "It would be no exaggeration to say that this event is better attested, and supported by a more impressive array of evidence, than any other event of comparable importance of which we have knowledge from the ancient world." [Harv.JesC, 11]
Dunn [Dunn.EvJ, 29] provides an anecdote similar to the one above regarding Shakespeare. Referring to Wells' thesis, he writes:
The alternative thesis is that within thirty years there had evolved such a coherent and consistent complex of traditions about a non-existent figure such as we have in the sources of the Gospels is just too implausible. It involves too many complex and speculative hypotheses, in contrast to the much simpler explanation that there was a Jesus who said and did more or less what the first three Gospels attribute to him. The fact of Christianity's beginnings and the character of its earliest tradition is such that we could only deny the existence of Jesus by hypothesizing the existence of some other figure who was a sufficient cause of Christianity's beginnings - another figure who on careful reflection would probably come out very like Jesus!
Finally, here are these words from a hardened skeptic and an Emeritus Professor of History, the late Morton Smith [Hoff.JesH, 47-8] . Of Wells' work, this historian and skeptic of orthodox Christianity wrote:
"I don't think the arguments in (Wells') book deserve detailed refutation."

"...he argues mainly from silence."

"...many (of his arguments) are incorrect, far too many to discuss in this space."

"(Wells) presents us with a piece of private mythology that I find incredible beyond anything in the Gospels."

-Source

doing stuff like turning water into wine, walking on water and rising from the dead (something which many people before Jesus claimed to do) is enough evidence?

To prove this, you'll have to show me documents that were meant be taken as historical their authors. Not that I necessarily have a problem with others doing miracles. They have to follow it up with a relevant religious message too.

If you believe a single book written by people who primarily weren't at the events is sufficient evidence for these claims, I cannot imagine what you should be believing in.

The gospels and other reports of the resurrection came from people who around Jesus for his whole 3 years of ministry.

There have been countless of old and contemporary claims of sightings of the Loch Ness Monster; there have been writings, drawings, photographs and even videos of a mysterious creature lurching in Loch Ness, yet that STILL isn't a scientific fact.

For this to be a point in your favor, you will have to show that those things and reports on Jesus can be discounted using the historical method consistently.

The phrase "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is completely true,

Asserting a pithy saying by Carl Sagan does nothing to show that as legitimate means of evaluation. To quote James Patrick Holding

For some critics, it is considered a sufficient argument against the Resurrection to say, “No amount of evidence for it could ever be enough, because a resurrection would be an extraordinary event requiring extraordinary evidence, and we don’t have that.” It should be noted that this argument alludes to the dictum of astronomer and spokesman for humanism Carl Sagan; it does not come from any handbook or rule of evidence (as might be found in the legal profession), and is in essence little more than a restatement of arguments originally formulated by the 18th –century philosopher David Hume, who made experience – his own experience, in the main – the baseline by which whether an event was “extraordinary” was to be judged.

-Source

Have you interacted any with critiques of Hume? I don't find him convincing.

and if you don't believe it, then are you believing in the Loch Ness Monster? Are you believing in Bigfoot? Are you believing that there are people out there who can bend spoons just by looking at it? If you aren't, I suggest you take a look and weigh up the evidence for those claims, and the evidence for Jesus' miracles and decide which are more likely to be correct.

The fact that you think these are "similar" claims to Christian claims shows you don't know how to use the historical method.

I won't respond to your other points because mainly cap up everything here, unless you specifically want me to address a certain point.

You need to do some responding with your criteria for something being historical. And answer the question about Alexander the Great.

Btw, Josephus was born probably seven years after Jesus' crucifiction. I hardly see his writings as a reliable source. This is simply someone born today to write accounts of September 11 in 20 years time.

Once again, why is your criteria is the one to go with? How many historical scholars use it? You also didn't address Tacitus.

ToHoldNothing, I will respond to you later.

 

[Deleteriousnonsense]

I can live or die with hope for my children or my immediate family (even though I'm not married yet and don't have kids) and even if I die without either of these, I can still hope for humanity's future and that I have left something of significance for people to remember me, just as anyone else probably would.


Anyone characterizing doubt as a bad thing seems to forget that it's doubt that usually brings many people to God, but just as many away from God and closer to humanity anyway. The only difference is a state of mind in particular relation to "God" as a concept. But people can treat each other decently whether they believe in one God, multiple gods, or no God or gods at all.

Well said. Interesting that you bring up children. for many years I considered myself an atheist, or rather someone who had little faith in anything other than his own devices. When I became a father my perspective changed radically. I realized that I didn't have all the answers, or any answers for that matter. I was overwhelmed by the beauty and the challenge of parenthood, as questions I had once considered moot, such as why we are here and what is our purpose, became foremost in my mind. I sought help from family and friends and while they had plenty of good practical advice there was really very little they had to offer that addressed the fundamental questions of being and responsibility that troubled me. I found solace in my long abandoned Christian faith, which gave me a sense of belonging and, strangely, location. Once I rediscovered exactly where I belonged, answers to why and who I was became easier to reconcile. I don't claim now to know the precise truth of it, but I am now at least happy in my ignorance.

 

[razeontherock]

What a great summary!

 

[Key]

While I have nothing against the Atheist Worldview or Belief as it is.

It has been my personal experience on this forum that as a whole, they are abrasive, rude, egotistical, argumentative people that feel an urge not only to be right, but to prove everyone else wrong.

They come across as if their belief offers them no solstice, no contentment, and thus they quest to try and validate their little view of things, mainly in a very ignoble avenues and become increasingly hostile to any that disagree with them.

So, in general I hold them in pity and contempt: I pity them, because obviously they have chosen to believe something that offers them no tranquility, and I hold them in contempt because they have the audacity to come and try and take away my tranquility and then ask me to entertain a belief that obviously makes them bitter and resentful.

I am sure there are decent ones, I suppose there might be a few on this forum, but, as a whole, I have been less then flatted with them, and more then not, have little to no patience with them.

God Bless

 

[Deleteriousnonsense]

While I have nothing against the Atheist Worldview or Belief as it is.

It has been my personal experience on this forum that as a whole, they are abrasive, rude, egotistical, argumentative people that feel an urge not only to be right, but to prove everyone else wrong.

They come across as if their belief offers them no solstice, no contentment, and thus they quest to try and validate their little view of things, mainly in a very ignoble avenues and become increasingly hostile to any that disagree with them.

So, in general I hold them in pity and contempt: I pity them, because obviously they have chosen to believe something that offers them no tranquility, and I hold them in contempt because they have the audacity to come and try and take away my tranquility and then ask me to entertain a belief that obviously makes them bitter and resentful.

I am sure there are decent ones, I suppose there might be a few on this forum, but, as a whole, I have been less then flatted with them, and more then not, have little to no patience with them.

God Bless

Not fair. An atheist, if anything, is honest. He doubts, so he chooses what he thinks is the best alternative, which is unbelief. Personal characteristics have very little to do with it. Love, as St. Paul stated, is always patient. God is love. Be patient. Don't let your personal characteristics come between you and one of the Lord's lost sheep.

 

[A_maize]

While I have nothing against the Atheist Worldview or Belief as it is.

It has been my personal experience on this forum that as a whole, they are abrasive, rude, egotistical, argumentative people that feel an urge not only to be right, but to prove everyone else wrong.

They come across as if their belief offers them no solstice, no contentment, and thus they quest to try and validate their little view of things, mainly in a very ignoble avenues and become increasingly hostile to any that disagree with them.

So, in general I hold them in pity and contempt: I pity them, because obviously they have chosen to believe something that offers them no tranquility, and I hold them in contempt because they have the audacity to come and try and take away my tranquility and then ask me to entertain a belief that obviously makes them bitter and resentful.

I am sure there are decent ones, I suppose there might be a few on this forum, but, as a whole, I have been less then flatted with them, and more then not, have little to no patience with them.

God Bless

Many atheists think, understandably, that looking at this world, God is unfair. And when you are being treated unfair is when you become angry and irritated, like I was. We also have only ourselves to blame, as the acts of certain Christians have no doubt driven many away.

But still, words and thoughts are far, far short of what Jesus went through. Love and compassion are the only true tools that will bring anyone closer to Christ.

 

[Deleteriousnonsense]

To suggest or even potentially conflate being an atheist with being a selfish or egotistical person is hardly fair and honestly is only reflective of a bit of unjustified discrimination against people that you generalize by the behavior of some people that identify as that same group. Atheism is atheism, egotism and egocentrism are their own areas, basically separate from atheism, related only by accident.


That existential anxiety is common to everyone, so honestly, it doesn't seem exactly a criticism of my position to say that my perspective might change in some sense, without focusing so much on my atheism and humanism which you seem to view as not presenting any sufficient answers to our existence and purpose.



Again, this is an existential and necessarily subjective inquiry and problem. This is not to advance relativism necessarily, but only to reflect that even if there is a God, perhaps it doesn't have everyone believe exactly the same, but in behaving similarly, they still are able to genuinely confront their existential difficulties in a way that is not likened to the sickness unto death, to reference Kierkegaard. I could contend that I find a sense of belonging and location even in BUddhism, which I imagine you would find befuddling. But this reflects my point that people approach this difficulty of our existential anxiety in varied ways, and just because I find contentment in a Dharmic faith and you in an Abrahamic one is no reason for us to focus on our differences so much as concentrating on what we share in common, even if we disagree on the method of that conclusion.



Being happy in our natural state of ignorance is all well and fine, but persisting in self willed ignorance, not willing to challenge your own deeply held beliefs, seems a problematic thing to find happiness in.

I'm not arguing with you. In fact, I believe your logic to be flawless and your argument superbly rational. But there are feelings involved, intuitions that cannot be expressed logically, that must be experienced to be believed. Until you experience them, you cannot imagine them. when you do you will understand.

 

[Deleteriousnonsense]

Experience is only part of defending the rationality and reasonableness of one's worldview. Just because we may never see eye to eye about this experience of what you call God and understand in one sense and I see no generally well defined understanding of, doesn't mean we cannot agree in principle about other things, based either on logic or experience.

Agreed. I think you and I would be allies on any issue known to us. I would be against war and murder, and I think so would you. I would be for helping the disadvantaged and handicapped, and I think so would you. Does any of that matter with regard to faith? No. There are those who deny Christ yet live their lives as if an angel were constantly watching, and those who profess Christ who live thier lives in a spiritual vacuum. All I can say is blessed are you, if you can live a life worthy of Christ without his help. I cannot.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Your God appears quite feckless and impotent if it only gives people one chance, especially considering there are examples in the bible of people getting a second chance, including Paul of Tarsus, the prodigal son, and Saul in the OT for a few examples.

The 'one chance' is an infinite number of chances, every infinitesimally small moment. Isn't it great, it's like looking at an atom, and deeper, and deeper some more, and it never ends, yet you can just look at the atom itself. The same is the case with this lifetime.

The notion that God only gives me one chance seems counter to God apparently valuing the free will I possess as its creation and only saying I have one chance and then all the freewill I have will be to no avail, because God's power is that limited by your perspective.

There is a different between 'God can't' and 'God won't'. I don't really see how God giving his creations an ultimatum is limiting his power.

In my perspective, I'm already devoid of absolute and perfect love, and I am content with that.

I'm sorry you feel that way. It really is all over the place.

Any love that will be sufficient or adequate is something I am fine with, since it only reflects what the world is, transient and unsatisfactory as we continue to be attached to it. The progression happens with practice to excellent love, but never absolutely perfect and complete.

The Spirit of Love is itself perfect and we experience it in some form every day. Do you believe in spirits?

 

[seashale76]

What I think of atheists- an internet post by seachelle76

I think that atheists don't believe in God. I obviously don't agree with their conclusions and encourage them to keep searching and researching. If you prick them, do they not bleed? Etcetera, etcetera. Some atheists troll the internet for lols, and get huge lols from being juvenile on Christian boards. Most atheists don't do this. I think that is a really swell thing, that most atheists don't do such things. I personally know atheists and they don't do such things, and if they do, well, they're not talking. The end.

 

[Key]

Just because there are bad apples in an orchard is no reason to throw out the whole harvest, to coin a possibly new expression.

My opinion was asked, and I provided it, I do not recall implying that it was up for debate or discussion.

Patience is a practice, it's not something you just automatically have. In order to develop patience with me and other atheists, you have to engage us, right?

You will notice that I have been on these forums for years, this is not some recent deduction on my part, or based on some new blood. In fact, you guys have gotten a lot better since we applied some heavy "rules to play by".

However, that might be a product of the rules, not the atheist that show up, But hang around, maybe you will get a good solid glimpse of where us Theist get our ideas about Atheist.

God Bless

 

[mulimulix]

For example I know people who have been healed and know of a great number of people who have been healed quickly as they were prayed for of illnesses that placebo couldn't heal. I would like to point out that though I consider myself Christian I try to be skeptical of these kinds of things, but some healings which are fast/instant and are not just the relief of pain or speeding up of recovery in the case of placebo, seem to be quite convincing.

You seem rather rational about life, something I respect. The issue I have with these miracle healings is that, first of all, for every 100 Christians that pray to get miraculously healed, maybe 98 or 99 of them will die. But do we hear about them?

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.

I already pointed out how it wasn't one source. You are ignoring facts. Once again he did exist.

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.

To prove this, you'll have to show me documents that were meant be taken as historical their authors. Not that I necessarily have a problem with others doing miracles. They have to follow it up with a relevant religious message too.

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.

The gospels and other reports of the resurrection came from people who around Jesus for his whole 3 years of ministry.

Source?

For this to be a point in your favor, you will have to show that those things and reports on Jesus can be discounted using the historical method consistently.

We'll come back to this after you find the sources for Jesus

Asserting a pithy saying by Carl Sagan does nothing to show that as legitimate means of evaluation. To quote James Patrick Holding

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. And if you don't believe it, then you are saying supernatural events don't require much evidence at all. You're telling me that something like me going out, buying a paper and going back home requires the same amount of evidence than going out, buying a paper and going back home in 2 seconds flat?

The fact that you think these are "similar" claims to Christian claims shows you don't know how to use the historical method.

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!

You need to do some responding with your criteria for something being historical. And answer the question about Alexander the Great.

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

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

 

[Key]

Asserting a pithy saying by Carl Sagan does nothing to show that as legitimate means of evaluation. To quote James Patrick Holding

James Patric Holding is awesome! Funny as all sin too!

God Bless

 

[Key]

If you believe a single book written by people who primarily weren't at the events is sufficient evidence for these claims

Just to clear this up, It is not a single book, anymore then putting a collection of the New York Times between covers makes it a single book.

God Bless