What you (Christians) think of Atheists

[oi_antz]

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.



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.



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.




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.





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.

It appears you haven't witnessed a miracle, can you provide a rational explanation for what I witnessed when I was 17 years old:

We went to Wellington to listen to a pastor preach. It was a small assembly, maybe 10 of us there. Afterwards, this old lady came hobbling up to the front, she had a left leg 4 inches shorter than her right. She sat on the chair and put her legs up on a chair in front of here, we could see her leg was much shorter. We all prayed, the pastor laid his hands on her leg, and I personally witnessed it grow to the same length as the other leg in just a few seconds. No pain at all. Now this sort of miracle doesn't happen in the presence of the non-believer, since the lack of faith inhibits God's willingness to work. It sure was a tremendous thing to witness, I wonder if you've ever seen something like this before, or whether there's a "logical explanation" for it?

 

[mulimulix]

It appears you haven't witnessed a miracle, can you provide a rational explanation for what I witnessed when I was 17 years old:

We went to Wellington to listen to a pastor preach. It was a small assembly, maybe 10 of us there. Afterwards, this old lady came hobbling up to the front, she had a left leg 4 inches shorter than her right. She sat on the chair and put her legs up on a chair in front of here, we could see her leg was much shorter. We all prayed, the pastor laid his hands on her leg, and I personally witnessed it grow to the same length as the other leg in just a few seconds. No pain at all. Now this sort of miracle doesn't happen in the presence of the non-believer, since the lack of faith inhibits God's willingness to work. It sure was a tremendous thing to witness, I wonder if you've ever seen something like this before, or whether there's a "logical explanation" for it?

Well, obviously, since I wasn't there, it is impossible for me to say whether it happened or not, but assuming you are telling the truth and you did see this leg appear to grow, there are a couple of things I have to say:

1. It's taken enough time for god to deliver this miracle. This disability would obviously disable her from doing many ordinary things, yet it has taken basically her whole life to be healed. Interesting..
2. Did you know this woman? How can you be sure it wasn't staged? Do you know how much money these travelling preachers get? They are enteratiners, they need to earn money just like a singer does. I've woken up at 5 in the morning and watched these preachers who bring these blind people up on stage and in a matter of seconds allow these people to see, with absolutely no proof they were blind in the first place. I don't mean to offend you, but there are magic tricks which are a lot more complex than making it appear that a leg is growing.

I'm sorry if these seems a little harsh, but this is what I believe is the explanation of your 'miracle.' The fact still remains that there are thousands of Christians dying every day from natural causes for no apparent reason, but once a week, a Christian is miraculously healed from something which may or may not be life threatening. This defies logic, and to someone like me, that is a crucial turn off from religion.

 

[oi_antz]

Well, obviously, since I wasn't there, it is impossible for me to say whether it happened or not, but assuming you are telling the truth and you did see this leg appear to grow, there are a couple of things I have to say:

1. It's taken enough time for god to deliver this miracle. This disability would obviously disable her from doing many ordinary things, yet it has taken basically her whole life to be healed. Interesting..
2. Did you know this woman? How can you be sure it wasn't staged? Do you know how much money these travelling preachers get? They are enteratiners, they need to earn money just like a singer does. I've woken up at 5 in the morning and watched these preachers who bring these blind people up on stage and in a matter of seconds allow these people to see, with absolutely no proof they were blind in the first place. I don't mean to offend you, but there are magic tricks which are a lot more complex than making it appear that a leg is growing.

I'm sorry if these seems a little harsh, but this is what I believe is the explanation of your 'miracle.' The fact still remains that there are thousands of Christians dying every day from natural causes for no apparent reason, but once a week, a Christian is miraculously healed from something which may or may not be life threatening. This defies logic, and to someone like me, that is a crucial turn off from religion.

That's cute

I don't think the woman held any grudge toward God for her particular degradation, just as I don't hold a grudge to God for having silver hair at my young age. However, she sure was rapt with the blessing of the healing.

I doubt it was staged, we didn't actually make any offerings to this guy, and any genuine Christian will be happy to help even if it means to give money to a complete stranger so they can at least have a meal. I think you need to make that distinction and perhaps acknowledge that there are sinners and saints among the brethren and wolves in sheep's clothing, because there are many who get choked by the cares and riches and never come to fruition:

Matthew 13:1-23 - Passage Lookup - New International Version - BibleGateway.com

 

[mulimulix]

That's cute

I don't think the woman held any grudge toward God for her particular degradation, just as I don't hold a grudge to God for having silver hair at my young age. However, she sure was rapt with the blessing of the healing.

I doubt it was staged, we didn't actually make any offerings to this guy, and any genuine Christian will be happy to help even if it means to give money to a complete stranger so they can at least have a meal. I think you need to make that distinction and perhaps acknowledge that there are sinners and saints among the brethren and wolves in sheep's clothing, because there are many who get choked by the cares and riches and never come to fruition:

Matthew 13:1-23 - Passage Lookup - New International Version - BibleGateway.com

Isn't that what they would want you to think? Listen. The point here is that there is no way for me to say it isn't a miracle, just like there is no way for you to disprove that I cured my fathers' inoperable cancer. This is why the discussion about miracle healings doesn't work; it is too easy to fake, and apparently, I wouldn't be able to see it because I am an atheist

 

[razeontherock]

I'm sorry if these seems a little harsh, but this is what I believe is the explanation of your 'miracle.' The fact still remains that there are thousands of Christians dying every day from natural causes for no apparent reason, but once a week, a Christian is miraculously healed from something which may or may not be life threatening. This defies logic, and to someone like me, that is a crucial turn off from religion.

There's a very relevant Scripture describing this phenomenon:

"a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense." It keeps you from turning to G-d, so that you could be healed of the one disease we all suffer from, and will ultimately die from: sin.

And I know the reason He makes things work this way:

He hides it from the wise of this world, and reveals to 'babes.' Consistent w/ resisting the proud, and giving Grace to the humble. It is His Way. Was it you that posted the cliche "G-d works in mysterious ways" is a cop-out?

We can know His ways. We can know Him. We can even have a special gift where we can tell phonies from true blue. Just in case you're interested in understanding any of this.

 

[oi_antz]

Isn't that what they would want you to think? Listen. The point here is that there is no way for me to say it isn't a miracle, just like there is no way for you to disprove that I cured my fathers' inoperable cancer. This is why the discussion about miracle healings doesn't work; it is too easy to fake, and apparently, I wouldn't be able to see it because I am an atheist

"and apparently, I wouldn't be able to see it because I am an atheist" - That's right! - Because you have closed your eyes, you wouldn't be able to see it!

 

[razeontherock]

C'mon, this Preacher really fleeced your flock .. of 10 Obviously he was in it for the big riches

 

[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?

You know, it would be helpful if you defined "Atheist." What is an atheist (or at least the kind of atheist you are)? We all think we know the definition of things but sometimes words are used with assumed meanings. Thanks. God bless.

 

[Mcygee]

Just throwing in my two cents without reading the responses.

I have few preconceived notions about atheists. I've seen hateful atheists and well mannered atheists. My desk at work is right next to an atheist and we have many discussions about politics, religions, and other things with no animosity toward each other.

Generally I just feel sorry for atheists as I feel that are blind to the truth I see all around me and in my life. Most of them I feel have good intentions but fail to see the truth, or don't allow themselves to think about the possibility of God out of a fear of becoming what they see as ignorant. But there are all types just like any group of people.

 

[Key]

One has to admittedly start with an umbrella term as a tentative description of the varied systems, but it doesn't always work out, since agnosticism can be distinguished from atheism as a separate category of unbelief/disbelief, since agnosticism isn't concerned necessarily with metaphysics, but epistemology. Not to mention the existence of agnostic theists comes to mind as well as admittedly rarer Christian atheists and humanists in the atheistic sense. Atheism can be at least noted in relation to active assertion against God, albeit the term contratheism works better as opposed to atheism or nontheism which could cover apatheism and pantheism, though not everyone considers pantheism atheism. What about yourself? Where does a classification of atheism stop? Pantheism? Deism?

You make it sound like a label means something. Become a "Christian" that'll fix that problem.

Honestly, I would challenge you to bring up how Paul has supposedly confronted these issues in history. By all means.

Where do you think I get my rebuttals from? You think I make this stuff up?

So you seem to admit here that you have a use for atheism in relation to your theism, since atheists are supposedly "uninvented" (uninventive, you mean?)

If you want to call that a use, I'll go with that.

God Bless

 

[Key]

You need atheism in the sense of a contrasting perspective to show how ignorant some people can be and how enlightened you have become.

I don't need to anyone's antics, nor do I need to feel superior to anyone else to know my belief is right. That comes from faith and security of having found what I have been seeking. I have heard that this feeling of peace is magnified a million times over in Heaven, I can not fathom that, but when I am done with this world, I look forward to it.

So, while I have changed for the better since accepting Christ, I would rather the world join me and find their rest then rage against me and provide any of the "uses" they might seem to have.

God Bless

 

[Sir Wilshire]

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.

I hope everyone in this thread notes this. By his own admission, because of his arbitrary standards of evidence (which he never backed up by showing historians or those in the legal profession use the same sort of method, nevermind the subjectivity of the words "ordinary" and "extraordinary"), he can't come to believe in a miracle even if it actually occurred. With this, I'm done with this conversation because who wants to waste time trying to convince a closed mind?

 

[mulimulix]

I hope everyone in this thread notes this. By his own admission, because of his arbitrary standards of evidence (which he never backed up by showing historians or those in the legal profession use the same sort of method, nevermind the subjectivity of the words "ordinary" and "extraordinary"), he can't come to believe in a miracle even if it actually occurred. With this, I'm done with this conversation because who wants to waste time trying to convince a closed mind?

I am actually confused. I don't understand your position. You are telling me that if 12 people came up you and told you they saw someone walk on water, you would believe it?! I don't see any well-used method ever backing this position up. The only way it can work is if there is evidence (most likely) at the scene of the miracle, almost like a crime scene today. Eyewitness accounts of a murder can be used as evidence IF there is evidence of the murder itself, such as a dead body, blood, bullets etc.

So I am going to ask everyone here:

If 12 people came up to you and told you they saw someone walk on water, would you believe them, keeping in mind there is no other evidence for the claim?

 

[razeontherock]

Who are you to say that everyone will find contentment and peace in your worldview and perspective as opposed to others? Your discovery of peace is indeed valid within your subjective existential experience, but it doesn't extend by necessity to everyone else's existential state.

It's important what you're missing: the Cross accepts all, from every perspective, from every "existential state." And the varied POV's that result are all equally significant, and become an important part of the picture.

So your accusation of "who are you to say ..." should consider that it is not he, nor I, saying such a thing. And that the statement is MUCH larger than you would like to pigeon hole it to be.

 

[razeontherock]

If 12 people came up to you and told you they saw someone walk on water, would you believe them, keeping in mind there is no other evidence for the claim?

Strawman. That is NOT what's presented!

That is the filter through which you're trying to view the Gospel, and why it is completely out of sight. To you.

 

[oi_antz]

Then I'd qualify that you take subjectivism to the extreme that only your experience matters, even if you accept that there are others with minds. That hardly makes your position more tenable; in fact, it still presents the problem of alienation

Fair enough comment, I don't think there is anyone bar Jesus who I feel I can trust, mainly due to the matters of communication that only the Holy Spirit can overcome, and it is consistently stated that people don't believe my experiences because they haven't seen it through my own eyes. So what do you expect me to do if people can't actually see my own point of view? Should I trust them or myself?

You need atheism in the sense of a contrasting perspective to show how ignorant some people can be and how enlightened you have become.

You're not listening to what I'm saying. I don't need someone else to compare myself to, I have my own memory of how ignorant I was and how enlightened I have become (to date). What someone else thinks has very little importance to me unless it is proven to be right. In terms of atheism it is not proven, and it is in direct competition to what God says. If I have to choose to listen to God or man, guess who I choose?

It contributes to Christianity the same thing the "devil" contributes: a scapegoat for the notion of willfully sinful people in their supposed unbelief as a rebellion against God, which doesn't follow by necessity unless you already assume a multitude of axioms that only follow if you believe any revelation you've received is unquestionably genuine.

You are mistaken, it's not a scapegoat for willfully sinful people, it is a fact that it is one option that opposes Jesus Christ. That's all, it's your problem and not mine. We each have our own set of problems to overcome if we want to discover the truth about God, atheism never was my problem, however antichrist was at one stage. The "multitude of axioms" you refer to should be applied to non-Christian beliefs in the sense of this topic, since there is only one testimony of truth from Jesus and His apostles, yet there is a number of contesting ideas far greater than I can fathom, which are the multitude of axioms of disbelief.

 

[oi_antz]

Communication errors don't necessitate that we reserve communication to one single absolute personal entity, since that honestly seems to reduce our conversation to a vacuous empty waste of time. There's such a thing as a dialogue. Maybe you could admit that your perspective is flawed and the same could be admitted of myself, but then we could start with similar conclusions we'd reach about various things. Things that are unfalsifiable are different than things we can discuss. If you admit your beliefs were based on faith instead of saying they are rational in the sense of having evidence people can objectively verify.

Well if you're attempting to persuade me that God doesn't exist, then certainly, our conversation is "a vacuous empty waste of time"! What right do you have to tell me what I should believe? None. Nor do I have a right to tell you what you should believe. If you're curious about Christianity, that is your own call to make, but it seems you're only here to make argument for the sake of proving yourself right. This as I have said is futile, I already have the faith to know that only God is right. Furthermore, what makes you think that faith and rationality are opposed? I think your logic there is lacking some certain understanding that only comes from having faith.

One could say that theism isn't proven more than atheism, which Antony Flew noted was the basic presumption we all start with. Theism is a conclusion we reach by particular observation of data as reflecting a certain pattern. Ignorance is not the same as stupidity. Saying that one gets out of ignorance is not unique to a Christian, since anyone believing anything different than what they originally believed means they became less ignorant.

Right. That is your decision to make as much as it is mine. What exactly is the problem that makes you want to argue about it?

Most theologians would say you technically listen to God and man, but God is primary in a sense, whereas man is secondary. Or better way to put it, God is private and man is public in many senses, except when God might override the public commands of humanity.

Well, any theologian that doesn't personally know the Holy Spirit will be incapable of knowing that I truly listen to the Holy Spirit which is inspired by what I see, hear and read.

Then Christianity is technically dependent on every non Christian belief system in the sense of comparing it as inferior. Who says our primary object of truth seeking has to be God though? It seems like a difficult presumption to justify in a world where God is not always the first thing people thing is important in the world. Only in contexts where a more Western missionary mindset has prevailed do people tend to make God such an existential nightmare of anxiety and anguish.

It's not dependent on anything that lies about it! It's intent is to conquer the lies and bring forth the truth about God! Lies have been around since the beginning of time, well before the Bible was written or before Jesus established Christianity. You're looking at the matter as though Christianity needs something from non-Christians, which you still haven't managed to prove and I don't think your personal inexperience with the religion will profit your argument whatever you might devise. Furthermore your claims about anxiety and anguish are completely founded on your own experience as an outsider. Talk to insiders and we will tell you it is about hope peace and love.

 

[Chris81]

Atheist are children of God who have yet to be acquainted with their Heavenly Father.

 

[oi_antz]

I wasn't trying to persuade you to anything but a mitigated faith that admits you could be mistaken. I recall humility as a virtue in your faith as much as it is a general virtue. I'm not telling you what you should believe overall, but only in relation to your beliefs as tentative by your limited nature as much as any person's is.

And I never said faith and rationality are opposed with moderate forms of both. Excessive faith and excessive rationality both have problems when combined with deficient faith or deficient rationality.

If you can provide any scripture to show me what I'm mistaken about then certainly you will witness humility, but if you expect me to agree with something that is contradictory to what God says I'm sorry we will be head-to-head on that.

That you think my only sufficient or adequate choice is to believe in God, which is absurd. I'd ask you to argue it, but you seem to fall on presuppositional apologetics to begin with

I didn't say that, you quoted a passage that compared atheism to theism, and I said that is your decision to make as it is mine. There are many variations about what you may believe, by all means knock yourself out if that is what you so desire!

I didn't say Christianity was dependent necessarily, but as theism, one could say it has a necessary relationship to atheism, as atheism in general has a necessary relationship to theism.

Well this is the reason I challenged you, because I find it particularly offensive that you are presuming Christianity has a necessary relationship to atheism, which isn't true at all. Atheists have discovered their very own reason to deny Jesus Christ, it has nothing at all to contribute to Christianity and frankly as a Christian I am appalled at the prospect that someone would preach to another that they ought not respect the creator!

Not believing in a religion doesn't mean I don't know things about the religion itself.

Yes, but you choose to see it from your own point of view, which is not to see it from the point of view from the founder otherwise if you could see eye-to-eye with Jesus and agree with Him, you would be Christian and would have nothing negative to say about it.

 

[razeontherock]

Even if one could accept the possibility that there are a variety of Christians, the difficulty remains that not everyone feels any genuine emotional compulsion to find their redemption and such from outside themselves primarily, or if they find it necessary to get forgiveness for their past faults, then they would find it much simpler to gain the forgiveness from a fellow human. And then there's the obvious notion of a person forgiving themselves over time and contrition in a nontheistic sense. But that idea is probably going to be so foreign to you that the conversation would just stop cold, right?

Actually these are among the most sensible things I've ever seen you post - BRAVO!! And not only do you accurately point out many valid difficulties, you also touch upon some "varieties of Christians." Those that "find it easier" to gain their forgiveness from a fellow human such as RC and EO, those to whom "being confessional" is a big deal like Lutherans, those that make a big stink of getting their forgiveness straight from G-d alone, and those of us that recognize that "confession" = agreeing with G-d.

Now what could be interesting to explore is if "nontheistic contrition" is any different than a Christian with a "broken heart and a contrite Spirit." I may have some opinion on that, but first I'll wait to see how the OP responds to this tangent ...