Where do Atheists and Agnostics get the basis of humans rights from?

[selfinflikted]

I can completely understand what you're trying to say. However, thinking this through, Christianity and atheism have something in common - both are characterized by certainty.

I think that's not necessarily a correct assumption. There are, I'm sure, some atheists who say with "certainty" that "There is no god." I think, however, you will find that most atheists (at least here) are "weak atheists" or "agnostic atheists" who simply state their position as "There is no evidence that god(s) exist, so I simply do no believe in them." That is to say that most atheists simply lack belief in gods, rather than stating positively that none exist.

For Christians, it's the certainty that drives the faith.

Indeed.

It's the past experience, what we call the 'personal encounters with God' that make us certain that God will 'show up again' today. These perceived encounters are what validate specific scripture passages that speak of His faithfulness. When looking at those statements made by Christians in this thread, there is a consistent proclamation of His faithfulness and His goodness. This is what the believers experience for themselves. Hence they keep claiming that God is good, in response to the questions posed by your fellow atheist friends. These personal encounters become like 'evidence' to us, that God must be real, and that life's pain can be worth it because something good would come out of it somehow. We aren't exactly completely oppositional. The necessity for evidence in the believer's life of God's presence, perhaps experienced in the form of 'blessings', is there, for the believer to be able to conclude that nothing is ever truly in vain. So there is the belief that: Something will be salvaged from a painful experience, and God is moulding me. That, perhaps, in hindsight, God makes it well again, and lives that are wasted, or children that are murdered, might be compensated somehow, because God redeems. Only that perhaps, the atheist would argue from a scientific point of view, that manifestations are purely psychological. This type of view is empirical and fixed in its certainty that truth is and must be measurable, that it must be observable. Religious experiences are therefore purely subjective.So even here, there is a particular certainty that drives the belief in empiricism. I think both camps need some faith to sustain what both sides believe in.

I agree with most everything you say here, except that atheism requires faith akin to that of Christians. This is simply not the case. It takes no faith to lack belief in something. Lacking belief is the antithesis of faith, imo.

For me personally, I can only say I don't have all the answers.

Then you will be one of the few to admit this. Kudos!

I, too, find my faith puzzling at times. I might even be seen as backslidden by some for being so 'dull' or 'lukewarm', as opposed to being fired up for God and all defensive about Him. But I really don't have the answers. I can't say for sure that I can reconcile a loving Jesus who preached for the cause of the downtrodden with the God of the OT. I think that, however, it is very possible to dialogue with humility and hunger for a greater awareness and appreciation of others' perspectives. It is refreshing to be constantly challenged to think and interrogate my own faith!

Indeed.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I can completely understand what you're trying to say. However, thinking this through, Christianity and atheism have something in common - both are characterized by certainty. For Christians, it's the certainty that drives the faith. It's the past experience, what we call the 'personal encounters with God' that make us certain that God will 'show up again' today. These perceived encounters are what validate specific scripture passages that speak of His faithfulness. When looking at those statements made by Christians in this thread, there is a consistent proclamation of His faithfulness and His goodness. This is what the believers experience for themselves. Hence they keep claiming that God is good, in response to the questions posed by your fellow atheist friends. These personal encounters become like 'evidence' to us, that God must be real, and that life's pain can be worth it because something good would come out of it somehow. We aren't exactly completely oppositional. The necessity for evidence in the believer's life of God's presence, perhaps experienced in the form of 'blessings', is there, for the believer to be able to conclude that nothing is ever truly in vain. So there is the belief that: Something will be salvaged from a painful experience, and God is moulding me. That, perhaps, in hindsight, God makes it well again, and lives that are wasted, or children that are murdered, might be compensated somehow, because God redeems. Only that perhaps, the atheist would argue from a scientific point of view, that manifestations are purely psychological. This type of view is empirical and fixed in its certainty that truth is and must be measurable, that it must be observable. Religious experiences are therefore purely subjective.So even here, there is a particular certainty that drives the belief in empiricism. I think both camps need some faith to sustain what both sides believe in.

For me personally, I can only say I don't have all the answers. I, too, find my faith puzzling at times. I might even be seen as backslidden by some for being so 'dull' or 'lukewarm', as opposed to being fired up for God and all defensive about Him. But I really don't have the answers. I can't say for sure that I can reconcile a loving Jesus who preached for the cause of the downtrodden with the God of the OT. I think that, however, it is very possible to dialogue with humility and hunger for a greater awareness and appreciation of others' perspectives. It is refreshing to be constantly challenged to think and interrogate my own faith!

Concomitantly, one should be willing to change their beliefs based on new understandings. Otherwise, this is a wasted endeavor. If you already have the answer, then the question becomes irrelevant.

 

[someguy14]

God is the "evidence". God is the "proof".

Then you will be one of the few to admit this. Kudos!

God is the answer.

 

[Dave Ellis]

It illustrates that God went into detail about rather mundane issues like the cutting of hair, but didn't bother to do so on more significant issues such as slavery.

Actually, God did condone Slavery and goes into great deal in the bible about the rules, and prices of buying a slave.

 

[someguy14]

For me personally, I can only say I don't have all the answers.

God is the answer friend.

John 8:28
"Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things."

 

[blankgirl]

The question is not whether one camp is completely right and the other completely wrong, or a matter of 'crossing over' to the 'other' camp. Or, like someone else has said, there may not even be two completely opposite camps, but more of a spectrum in terms of the intensity of faith in God, so that on one 'extreme' is the complete certainty and then the intensity somewhat wanes down the line. We cannot be so certain of what we think is right. We are located where we are, in different countries, different backgrounds, different cultures, different childhood upbringings. What we go through as human beings will ultimately shape the way we view life. For example, if one has just experienced the loss of a child/friend/relative, it becomes a whole lot harder to believe that God is good. Sometimes that is how people lose their faith as well. And we can't stop such events that can potentially damage our faith from happening to us. If we can at least, come to the agreement, that perhaps, we can gain insight from each other, as opposed to claiming that one is right, the other wrong, it would help society as well. Dogmatism, or the complete certainty that one is right in his/her opinions, can be quite dangerous and has fuelled a lot of war. Atheist or Christian, we are all human in the end. Who is perfect? Can the atheist deny that there is pain in life? Even though pain is not measurable and quite subjective? There is pain. Christians know pain well too, because they are human. I think there definitely are certain things we agree on. And thanks to my blabbering, I have sharply deviated from the OP. Lol.

 

[freezerman2000]

Actually, God did condone Slavery and goes into great deal in the bible about the rules, and prices of buying a slave.

The humane treatment of slaves.

 

[blankgirl]

God is the answer friend.

John 8:28
"Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things."

Thank you for your concern I do believe in God. I just have things that I struggle with in terms of understanding Him, my friend. Don't worry. I'm not a heathen.

 

[someguy14]

Thank you for your concern I do believe in God. I just have things that I struggle with in terms of understanding Him, my friend. Don't worry. I'm not a heathen.

God is judge.
The world perishes, God is eternal.

 

[BondiHarry]

As LifeToTheFullest replied to another of your posts: Take a run at it, then.

Provide that "great deal" of evidence.

I have in numerous threads at this site and I am done with the mockers who are not here to learn but only to deny and ridicule. You obviously have a computer so try this, Google 'evidence of Bible truths' or something similar and demonstrate you actually want to learn

I also find it ironic that some of us are being accused of denying evidence because it refutes our world view by someone who rejects evolutionary theory.

I have no problem with evolutionary FACT but when a theory proposes things but has no factual, verifiable substance to it, the scientific mind dismisses it unless and until it can prove its validity. Just because micro-evolution (adaptation within a species due to changes in its environment or other factors) is proven it does not follow that macro-evolution is also true. Indeed the evidence we have to date suggests macro-evolution is false and it is an utter cop out to say 'it is true but it takes millions of years to be seen'. It also clearly conflicts with what God teaches about the origins of life and I have a great deal more confidence in His account than the ramblings of those who do not know God and war against His word.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Christians have a great deal of evidence for the truth of God's word and it is because of this evidence that we can have faith in the things that God tells us about those things we cannot see or comprehend. On the flip side, those you claim believe in 'evidence' are actually busy denying a great deal of evidence because it refutes the world view they embrace.

If you had evidence, you wouldn't require faith. That's where your argument falls apart.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I can completely understand what you're trying to say. However, thinking this through, Christianity and atheism have something in common - both are characterized by certainty. For Christians, it's the certainty that drives the faith. It's the past experience, what we call the 'personal encounters with God' that make us certain that God will 'show up again' today. These perceived encounters are what validate specific scripture passages that speak of His faithfulness. When looking at those statements made by Christians in this thread, there is a consistent proclamation of His faithfulness and His goodness. This is what the believers experience for themselves. Hence they keep claiming that God is good, in response to the questions posed by your fellow atheist friends. These personal encounters become like 'evidence' to us, that God must be real, and that life's pain can be worth it because something good would come out of it somehow. We aren't exactly completely oppositional. The necessity for evidence in the believer's life of God's presence, perhaps experienced in the form of 'blessings', is there, for the believer to be able to conclude that nothing is ever truly in vain. So there is the belief that: Something will be salvaged from a painful experience, and God is moulding me. That, perhaps, in hindsight, God makes it well again, and lives that are wasted, or children that are murdered, might be compensated somehow, because God redeems. Only that perhaps, the atheist would argue from a scientific point of view, that manifestations are purely psychological. This type of view is empirical and fixed in its certainty that truth is and must be measurable, that it must be observable. Religious experiences are therefore purely subjective.So even here, there is a particular certainty that drives the belief in empiricism. I think both camps need some faith to sustain what both sides believe in.

For me personally, I can only say I don't have all the answers. I, too, find my faith puzzling at times. I might even be seen as backslidden by some for being so 'dull' or 'lukewarm', as opposed to being fired up for God and all defensive about Him. But I really don't have the answers. I can't say for sure that I can reconcile a loving Jesus who preached for the cause of the downtrodden with the God of the OT. I think that, however, it is very possible to dialogue with humility and hunger for a greater awareness and appreciation of others' perspectives. It is refreshing to be constantly challenged to think and interrogate my own faith!

The only major dispute I have here is that you're classifying Atheism as certainty. It's actually nothing of the sort.

Atheism is simply defined as the lack of belief in a God. Babies are all technically Atheists because they don't have a belief (or knowledge of the concept) of God. It doesn't mean babies reject God, it just means they don't have a belief in him at that stage of their lives.

The vast majority of Atheists likewise would not assert a God could not possibly exist, however with a lack of evidence to support the existence of a God, we see no reason to hold a belief there is one.

If that evidence is presented that confirms God is there... we'd be happy to accept it.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The humane treatment of slaves.

So now owning another human being is humane? really?

Well, lets see some of his rules.... For example, You're allowed to beat your slave as severely as you want to, as long as the slave doesn't die within two days.

Hmm... Sounds humane to me! Lets put this stuff back into law!

 

[BondiHarry]

If you had evidence, you wouldn't require faith. That's where your argument falls apart.

Okay, what do we know about the spirit world? Next to nothing but there is evidence that it exists just like not so long ago we could not prove the existence of bacteria or viruses but there was evidence that something we could not see caused disease. We now know there are sounds we cannot hear unaided and smells our noses miss completely so tell me Dave, what else is going on around us that we are clueless about or do we just declare reality is limited to what we can sense and deny all that we cannot sense? That is where YOUR argument falls apart.

 

[Elioenai26]

So now owning another human being is humane? really?

Well, lets see some of his rules.... For example, You're allowed to beat your slave as severely as you want to, as long as the slave doesn't die within two days.

Hmm... Sounds humane to me! Lets put this stuff back into law!

You know very little about indentured servitude then; which by the way was the most common form of slavery in the ancient world. It is still common in many countries today as well.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I have in numerous threads at this site and I am done with the mockers who are not here to learn but only to deny and ridicule. You obviously have a computer so try this, Google 'evidence of Bible truths' or something similar and demonstrate you actually want to learn



I have no problem with evolutionary FACT but when a theory proposes things but has no factual, verifiable substance to it, the scientific mind dismisses it unless and until it can prove its validity. Just because micro-evolution (adaptation within a species due to changes in its environment or other factors) is proven it does not follow that macro-evolution is also true. Indeed the evidence we have to date suggests macro-evolution is false and it is an utter cop out to say 'it is true but it takes millions of years to be seen'. It also clearly conflicts with what God teaches about the origins of life and I have a great deal more confidence in His account than the ramblings of those who do not know God and war against His word.

Do me a favour... Google "The Theory of Evolution", find a reputable scientific site and read up on it.

If you knew anything about the theory, you wouldn't even be using terms as "Micro" and Macro"... that's nonsense written up by creationists and isn't part of any science. Evolution is evolution.

However, what you refer to as "macro" evolution has been confirmed. Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project and an Evangelical Christian has stated that the genetic evidence alone confirms that, without even taking the other mutually supporting evidence into account.

Tests have been performed that confirms speciaton, which is the defining characteristic of "macro" evolution. When two populations can no longer inter-breed, they are said to be two separate species. This has been demonstrated both in laboratories, and in nature.

Simply denying observable evidence, or remaining willfully ignorant of it is not acceptable. It has met it's burden of proof.

 

[Elioenai26]

If you had evidence, you wouldn't require faith. That's where your argument falls apart.

You do not understand what faith is then.

 

[selfinflikted]

God is the "evidence". God is the "proof".

Then, can you show us this proof? Can you show us god?

I have in numerous threads at this site and I am done with the mockers who are not here to learn but only to deny and ridicule. You obviously have a computer so try this, Google 'evidence of Bible truths' or something similar and demonstrate you actually want to learn

When pressed for evidence, you point us to Google? Really?

I have no problem with evolutionary FACT but when a theory proposes things but has no factual, verifiable substance to it, the scientific mind dismisses it unless and until it can prove its validity. Just because micro-evolution (adaptation within a species due to changes in its environment or other factors) is proven it does not follow that macro-evolution is also true. Indeed the evidence we have to date suggests macro-evolution is false and it is an utter cop out to say 'it is true but it takes millions of years to be seen'. It also clearly conflicts with what God teaches about the origins of life and I have a great deal more confidence in His account than the ramblings of those who do not know God and war against His word.

There is no evidence to date that suggests macro-evolution is false. Quite the contrary, in fact. All of the evidence we have to date suggests that the ToE is the theory that best describes what we see.

Please, give us one piece of evidence that falsifies the ToE.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

The humane treatment of slaves.

Including how much you can beat your slave?

"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." (Exodus 21:20-21)

 

[Dave Ellis]

Okay, what do we know about the spirit world? Next to nothing but there is evidence that it exists just like not so long ago we could not prove the existence of bacteria or viruses but there was evidence that something we could not see caused disease. We now know there are sounds we cannot hear unaided and smells our noses miss completely so tell me Dave, what else is going on around us that we are clueless about or do we just declare reality is limited to what we can sense and deny all that we cannot sense? That is where YOUR argument falls apart.

We know nothing of the spirit world at all. There's no evidence I'm aware of that would point to it either.

Your argument is senseless.... We discovered Bacteria, Viruses and whatnot through research. Prior to making those discoveries we had no reason to positively believe there was light outside of the visible spectrum, or sounds outside of the audible range.

I'm sure there's a lot of things about the universe we are still unaware of... but until we discover them, we have no justification to simply make stuff up and take it on faith that it exists. Perhaps we'll be lucky and guess right in a few cases, but odds are we'll be laughably wrong in the majority of our claims.

Once we discover empirical evidence for the "spirit world", we will be justified in believing in it's existence. Until then, we have no rational reason to believe it's anything more than make-believe.