Why are there so many atheists on a Christian site?

[GillDouglas]

Let me try to understand this: on the one hand there is OI, who claims that Jesus wants to save me / be my friend / whatever. On the other hand there is you, who states that Jesus / God alone can achive that... nothing I do will ever suffice. And on the third hand there is me, who still isn't saved / friend of Jesus.

So either God does not want to be my friend / save me / open the door... or else he would have... or God does want to do that, and it is me not opening.

Is the Jesus that you both claim to know the same? Do you both love the truth? With two positions this diametrelly opposed, how can you both have the truth?

My point was that OI is trying to make you believe that there is something you need to do in order be saved. If that's the case than any of the religions would do. That is what makes Christianity different. It's not about what we can do, but about what already was done by Jesus. That is the Truth of the Gospel we should both be adhering to. Something we learn as Christians after understanding our salvation is that God chooses those he will save, we did not chose Him. We discover that behind the work of God to atone for our sins and bring us to faith was the unconditional election of God. There is nothing you can do to save yourself beyond trusting in the sufficiency in what Jesus did, and that comes with having faith.

 

[bhsmte]

My point was that OI is trying to make you believe that there is something you need to do in order be saved. If that's the case than any religions would do. That is what makes Christianity different. It's not about what we can do, but about what already was done by Jesus. That is the Truth of the Gospel we should both be adhering to. Something we learn as Christians after understanding our salvation is that God chooses those he will save, we did not chose Him. We discover that behind the work of God to atone for our sins and bring us to faith was the unconditional election of God. There is nothing you can do to save yourself beyond trusting in the sufficiency in what Jesus did, and that comes with having faith.

Here is where this flies over certain peoples heads.

Everyone is not like OI and just because he says he has a test one should perform (which he can not demonstrate to us), does not give his statement any credibility. Like many Christians, OI needs to think his belief is the truth and I understand that completely. Now, when some Christians are presented with someone who used to be a Christian and they left the faith, this is baffling to them, because they just can't see how someone else could not feel as they do. It is also a defense mechanism, where they need to insinuate that the other person didn't do something right, or maybe they were never a true Christians, because it makes OI feel better about his own position.

So, if OI has a test for people who have left the faith and since he has stated it is obvious to tell when a person "loves the truth", let him demonstrate to us what these tests are and let objectivity determine, if these tests are valid for everyone, or maybe just those who have a strong desire to believe in a certain faith.

 

[GillDouglas]

Except we aren't talking about fiction. If you are correct, we are talking about the eternal fate of every soul ever created. Some souls have been created only to be damned to Hell forever. That isn't merely "bad," it's cruel. On this view we are nothing more than mere playthings.

All I can say is, and I'm quoting Bruce Hornsby "that's just the way it is". It's an issue of major debate even in the Christian community. You have one side that believes that all can be saved, and all will be saved. I can't argue with that, but I know that not all WILL be saved as is evident by those who do not believe in Him.

What is the good reason this is all for?

To give you the best answer, it is to play our parts in this grand story. To give you the right answer, to Glorify God.

 

[bhsmte]

All I can is, and I'm quoting Bruce Hornsby "that's just the way it is". It's an issue of major debate even in the Christian community. You have one side that believes that all can be saved, and all will be saved. I can't argue with that, but I know that not all WILL be saved as is evident by those who do not believe in Him.



To give you the best answer, it is to play our parts in this grand story. To give you the right answer, to Glorify God.

For those who agree that a God exists, that makes perfect sense.

 

[Colter]

Here is where this flies over certain peoples heads.

Everyone is not like OI and just because he says he has a test one should perform (which he can not demonstrate to us), does not give his statement any credibility. Like many Christians, OI needs to think his belief is the truth and I understand that completely. Now, when some Christians are presented with someone who used to be a Christian and they left the faith, this is baffling to them, because they just can't see how someone else could not feel as they do. It is also a defense mechanism, where they need to insinuate that the other person didn't do something right, or maybe they were never a true Christians, because it makes OI feel better about his own position.

So, if OI has a test for people who have left the faith and since he has stated it is obvious to tell when a person "loves the truth", let him demonstrate to us what these tests are and let objectivity determine, if these tests are valid for everyone, or maybe just those who have a strong desire to believe in a certain faith.

I understand their point though, when I asked you if you had ever dedicated your life to Christ, which is what the core of the Gospel is, you demonstrated that you never were "all in".

 

[bhsmte]

I understand their point though, when I asked you if you had ever dedicated your life to Christ, which is what the core of the Gospel is, you demonstrated that you never were "all in".

And you should be the judge of that, why exactly?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

All I can is, and I'm quoting Bruce Hornsby "that's just the way it is". It's an issue of major debate even in the Christian community. You have one side that believes that all can be saved, and all will be saved. I can't argue with that, but I know that not all WILL be saved as is evident by those who do not believe in Him.

Through no fault of their own, because they were never "chosen," according to you. The consequence of this is that people will be damned through no fault of their own; they were created to be damned.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I understand their point though, when I asked you if you had ever dedicated your life to Christ, which is what the core of the Gospel is, you demonstrated that you never were "all in".

What exactly does it take to be "all in"?

 

[Light of the East]

The harder questions are the better questions. I'm not talking about trick questions, I mean hard questions that required serious thought. So yes, they were better.

And my fundamental facts of reality is what I used when I paired it with the bible. When the "facts" weren't adding up with reality I tossed my religion away. I know reality just can't lie, but a book (and religion) certainly can.

I haven't gone deep into the thread, so maybe you have already answered this...what are some of the questions you have?

 

[In situ]

it just seems strange to me that so many atheists would choose to spend their time and eergy on a site that is antithetical to their worldview.

.
You come closer to the truth by question your beliefs, not trying to confirm them. It works according to the the principle of falsification:

The question is rather why you are here? Are you here to confirm your own beliefs or to challenge them?

The interesting thing to me is that they don't seem to be here to proselytize, which would make sense to me.

Would you care to explain what an atheist can proselytize, and why an atheist would like to spread the "happy words" of atheism, whatever that is?

Maybe atheist should proselytize the atheist belief that there exists dinosaurs on Venus? According to Carl Sagan it works like this: We cannot see the surface of Venus because Venus is covered with clouds. Clouds are made of water, therefore it rains on Venus. If it rains it means the surface must be wet. If the surface is wet then there must be a swamp on Venus. Dinosaurs lived in swamps, therefore there are dinosaurs on Venus. Each step is possible, so this proves that Dinosaurs exist on Venus, and if you don't believe me you are just stubborn and refuses to believe even though the truth stare you in the eyes.

Would any reasonable person believe in that? I don't think so. Yet theist treat atheist in this way and expect an atheist to believe in the very same kind of stories when they present their evidence that god exist and that the true god must be [insert your favorite deity]. For an atheist to believe such story, you would really need the power of god but you don't see atheist en mass convert to any religion.

Why is that? Maybe no such things as a god exists?

I assume that they, or many of them anyway, feel a sense of community here if they've been here for a while. So, if not to show the poor theist the freedom of atheism, what is the draw?

Your simplistic generalized and obfuscated view on what atheism is and what atheists believe in is incorrect on many levels. If you know what it meant you would not had ask any of the question you did. For instance, some atheist care to ask question about whether a god exists or not, other does not even care at all. Some atheist are religious (e.g. there exist a half billion Buddhist to start with), some atheist are spiritual (e.g believes in ghosts or in an afterlife or cosmic forces), some atheist lacks beliefs in all of that. It is impossible to talk about atheists as an uniform group, because no such uniform group exists.

Instead of just believing a stereotype you been breastfeed about atheism that only servers to confirm your own beliefs why not investigate what atheism really is about; a standpoint in one single question. Do you believe a deity exists? Yes or no. Independent how you answer that question, how does that make you more (or less) happy, or free, than you already are?

As for the rest of your sarcasm. I am pretty convinced the Biblical belief system is incorrect. Simply because it does not make any sense. It was made up by a bronze age people that tried to understand the world around them and as such it reflects their own beliefs and culture. It has no place or purpose in modern time and thinking more than being a historical document filled with myths and fables.

 

[Light of the East]

How does God make mistakes?

Does God make mistakes? Or could it be that if there is God, then there also exists that which is not God. That which is not God cannot have the attributes of God, therefore, it acts differently than God does. You look at the actions of that which is not God and you attribute mistake to God when it is not God that made a mistake, for in creating man, God had to create that which could love Him freely, hence, free will and the ability to abuse that gift.

If man has messed up the system by misusing his gift of free will, does that impute guilt or error to God? And what if God acted to correct the situation and return it to normality again? I speak, of course, of the Incarnation, where human nature was united to the divine nature, and through the actions of the God/man, human nature has been restored to its original glory and purpose. The invitation is for all mankind to enter into this union and thus return to the original purpose and the original purity of mankind's creation.

God does not make mistakes, but He corrects the mistake that mankind made a long time ago.

 

[Freodin]

My point was that OI is trying to make you believe that there is something you need to do in order be saved. If that's the case than any of the religions would do. That is what makes Christianity different. It's not about what we can do, but about what already was done by Jesus. That is the Truth of the Gospel we should both be adhering to. Something we learn as Christians after understanding our salvation is that God chooses those he will save, we did not chose Him. We discover that behind the work of God to atone for our sins and bring us to faith was the unconditional election of God. There is nothing you can do to save yourself beyond trusting in the sufficiency in what Jesus did, and that comes with having faith.

And "having faith" is a gift from God... or so some other Christians tell me.

But that is irrelevant for the point I wanted to make... something you seem to have missed.

oi_antz might have tried "to make [me] believe that there is something you need to do in order be saved." You tell me something else. Colter here portrays a completely different form of Christianity (if it might even be called that).

How would I know which of you to trust?

oi posted a verse about "testing the spirits"... but the way this "test" is set up is like reading a Procter&Gamble ad which tells you to "test the detergent"... and tells you that only the detergents that are by P&G are to be trusted.

You might leave it to God, to make his choice, and don't bother whether I am an atheist, an anti-theist, a non-Christian... whatever. God choses, and he knows what is right.

But then other Christians come in, and asking me - citing the Bible! - how I could excuse my unbelief... how I would justify myself when I met God. Well, shall I tell God: "GillDouglas said that it was your choice not to call me."


You might - for whatever reasons - be certain in your doctrine, and either disregard or ignore contradicting theologies.

But you have to understand that for an outsider like me, all of you are equally unbelievable. You have to offer something more than "faith" to someone who doesn't deal in faith.

 

[CurtisNeeley]

Atheist are as accepting of faith in the unseen or unknown by professing faith in evolution or other creation theories. The facts do not support evolution but appear to. In my opinion, a God who puts a forbidden fruit in Eden, is the same God who created fossils. The fossils either were created to appear to support evolution or are evidence of multiple creation pathways. The context of the whole Earth used in the days of Noah may not have been more than one continent? The first and second days of creation etc. could have been much, much longer than 48 hrs?. The "eternity" in the Bible could have been less than. infinity.

 

[Colter]

What exactly does it take to be "all in"?

To make the whole hearted decision to turn your life and your will over to the care of God. It's more than club membership, it requires a spiritual rebirth. If and when you ever do it you will know what I mean.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Seriously, what's with these drive-by posters? And only in this particular thread?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

To make the whole hearted decision to turn your life and your will over to the care of God. It's more than club membership, it requires a spiritual rebirth. If and when you ever do it you will know what I mean.

Cool. So looks like I was all in.

 

[bhsmte]

To make the whole hearted decision to turn your life and your will over to the care of God. It's more than club membership, it requires a spiritual rebirth. If and when you ever do it you will know what I mean.

Reminds me of the scenes in "Cool Hand Luke" when they were trying to break Paul Newman, to; "get his mind right".

 

[Chris B]

"Why are there so many atheists on a Christian site?"

I can't answer for any but myself, and I was invited.
Running through what has clearly been a lively thread I find quite a few of "the usual suspects".

"...what is the draw?"
Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer?

"I believe they are here because In their hearts they are seeking the truth. "
In one sense, believe away. In another, yes, but that is why I ceased to be a theist.
A large number of Christian psychics declare confidently that they know the contents of my mind.
Almost invariably they miss by a country mile, so their mind-reading is not all they think it is.
Straw man building, now that ability is often highly developed.

"Everyone who willingly got distanciated from Christ is deluded and fell on sin and on pride,"
If but only if your perspective and belief is correct. And it on this that we differ.
"...they seriously examined their beliefs and discovered that they were unfounded." offers an alternate perspective and possibility.

"Either way, sooner or later, a couple of them will come to Christ."
I went the other way, which is I know a theological issue in itself, which is covered later.

"Grimm, what makes you think [God] does[make mistakes]?"
Looking around I find the evidence for a cruel, capricious or non-existent deity far more convincing than for an omnipotent loving and benevolent one.

"Why do you think man and Satan are mistakes?"
I don't, for different reasons, but on the first from the bible perspective there is Genesis 6:6-7.

"A person who does not believe in God, or gods, also resents any power greater than them self."
Err. no. I call straw man on that. There are plenty of powers around greater than me. Wasn't that Canute's point (as popularly rendered)?
Resenting the tides, or gravity, or entropy seems pretty pointless.

"Pride is their motto.
Err, no. See above. I have several but "It's about putting smiles on other people's faces" covers most circumstances.


"Atheist belief in a Godless universe seems to be a rationalization for their fear of faith. "
I don't connect the two but on observing what faith is capable of (going off in *any* direction with no checks, balances or balancing reference to rationality) it meeds at the very least to be treated with extreme caution. Fear may often be appropriate.

"We have found God and he does exist."
No doubt? I've never found a way to eliminate epistemological uncertainty
"We have found [what we interpret and believe to be] God and [therefore say that] he does exist."
Surely this second applies (that does not rule out the *possibility* of it correct) unless human infallibility is being claimed?

"...the billions of people who have found God are just imagining things."
I'd consider that line less plausible if they could actually agree on the nature, purpose, edicts and desires of the God being believed in.

"Did you ever completely dedicate yourself to Jesus?"
Well, if I wasn't (not really) a Christian, then I don't see how anyone can be sure they are.
I can't think of anything they might cite in support that didn't apply to me, too, twenty-five years ago.
(Volunteering to be a Christian missionary in Kabul, at one point. No, I didn't pull out. The mission closed.)

"How do you know that I do not know the presence of the spirit of God."
I don't. It's that epistemological uncertainty again.
It's the absolute confidence of knowing that I am (almost) certain is misplaced.
I've been absolutely certain of things, and been absolutely mistaken about that.
Shocking incidents but good wake-up calls on the issue of "knowing."

" Believers not only see the worldly view, but also the spiritual view. "
I'd go for " Believers not only see the worldly view, but also [think or feel that they see] the spiritual view.

" I doubt an atheist would assert that the god I believe in, a pantheistic god, cannot exist."
This I take to be true. My debate with pantheists tends more to be on whether or not a pantheistic entity is appropriately titled in being called a god.
The term is heavily connotation-loaded.

"when we walk on the street and we see a beautiful painting, WE KNOW IT WAS PAINTED BY A PAINTER. but we cannot see the painter. So we know God exist because he gave us creation."
Is this line of thought still being employed and relied upon?
"The best arguments against religious belief are often the arguments used to support it."

"Nameless despair is man’s only reward for living and toiling under the temporal sun of mortal existence. Each day of life slowly and surely tightens the grasp of a pitiless doom which a hostile and relentless universe of matter has decreed shall be the crowning insult to everything in human desire which is beautiful, noble, lofty, and good."
ALMOST spot on. You can certainly see from there why people, rather than face this, would prefer some more comforting world-view, be it true or not.

But the despair is not necessary. You can get to this by a variety of routes, but I'd recommend "The Robot's Rebellion: finding meaning in the age of Darwin" by Keith Stanovich.

"...Their disdain of spiritual matters"...
Maybe that fits some. It doesn't sit well with the most sincere ex-theists. Studying the bible has produced many atheists.

"New Living Translation. 2 Corinthians 4:4
Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don't believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don't understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God.
Well, it would say that wouldn't it?

"Those who agree with us are wise, enlightened, good."
"Those who disagree with us are foolish, blind, evil"

It's a defensive meme found, in variations, in more than one religion, political philosophy, cause...
It produces a self-reinforcing divide: anyone thinking of leaving [whatever position is speaking] will be under a triple condemnation, and the "others" as so denigrated that anything they might say is pre-emptively devalued.

"What's interesting is that faith itself is a gift, it's some sort of spirit endowment."
So my faith in Invisible Pink Unicorns is a gift (Presumably from the Invisible Pink Unicorns? I mean, who else is going to do that?)


"There is a perfectly reliable test that anyone is invited to perform in order to obtain proof. You can test it yourself, if you are willing. Rev 3:20."
How would you know it was proof..? There remains an epistemology problem.
And I've been there, done that, believed it and tried to live it. And now I'm an atheist for what seem to me to be sound and adequate reasons.

"Here's where some might say that you were never a "real Christian." I've never been a Christian so I'm not sure what that's like but I imagine it doesn't feel too good to be told that."
Yes, I've met it regularly. It is a self-working trick with a logical weakness, but those employing it rarely spot these.

"My point is, we can really, really believe something be true and later on after we acquire knowledge, figure out, that it wasn't true.""Yes, I know. "Seeing is believing" - but what if our attachment to existing beliefs dictate what we will allow ourselves to see?"

That can happen, and can cut both ways or more, depending on the paradigms, traditions or beliefs in place.

-- Why are you painting white lines in the middle of the road?--
To keep the tigers away.
--But there aren't any tigers around here!--
Good stuff, isn't it?

Challenging beliefs in place, now that's tricky.


"I have asked why this person left Jesus without discussing it with Him first, because I have assumed that he did in fact have a relationship with Jesus as he has claimed. So I am not making the insinuation that you think I am, I am saying there is a reason for the fact that he does not nowadays have that relationship with Him..."
Have you entertained the possibility that the relationship, however firmly felt and believed, was/is illusory for both of you? Assuming the Christian position is correct does cast a marked bias on interpreting the action or choice of ceasing to believe.

"Atheism puffs up the self" I don't see how, except on some false notion than an atheist considers himself to be god.

" The creation itself speaks loudly and plainly of its Creator."
So the bible asserts. Does observation confirm this?
Personally I can look at nature and the night sky and *at the very least* see the clear possibility of an indifferent uncaring universe.
I can get there just by looking at the surface of the moon and applying a little thought.
If this planet, solar system, universe were created by design then there are some very very odd things going on.
And "mysterious ways" and "higher thoughts" don't even begin to cover it.

"Even your own body, Atheist, testifies of its creator, "
If I was designed and created than I'd like to have a world about a number of distinct design errors and flaws.
(Yes, I know the standard Christian "get out of jail free" card that often gets played at this point. It is remarkably conveniently convenient, and can never go wrong.

" I promise that He wants to and will demonstrate Himself to the honest seeker who has a sincere heart and real intent."
I would say I qualified there, did that. And believed for twenty years as an adult. Now I'm an atheist.

"Had you truly known Christ as your savior, you would still be such."
That is such an easy thing to say.
Odd thing is, I used to believe that too, when I was a Christian.
Now I can see the reason why it doesn't have the force I used to think it did.
It does assume leaving Christianity is the wrong thing to do, and fails to admit any other possibility.

"The truth that atheists seek to deny is incredibly painful, and won't be tolerated."
Hey, that's not on. I used to believe it, teach it, evangelise it.
I didn't set it aside because it was painful or difficult. I set it aside because given hard-tested new data I found it it weighed out as untrue.

"That is why when a faith child of God experiences the loving Father (who is within) they really cannot define that experience to the doubters."
But the faith element is non-directional. It will confirm *any* encounter/experience/transcendental moment.
If faith plus *experience* = valid, then many Hindu mystics are there, and Buddhists, and a range of New Age believers, too. And any number of fanatics of varied convictions.


OK, I surrender. When I got e-mail notification of this thread relevant to atheists, I thought I could play "catch up"
But it's expanding almost as fast as I can read through and find sections I wish to reply to.

This ex-Christian(yes, I'm prepared to defend that) atheist has done his best.

Read what I've written or don't.


"

 

[Colter]

.
You come closer to the truth by question your beliefs, not trying to confirm them. It works according to the the principle of falsification:

The question is rather why you are here? Are you here to confirm your own beliefs or to challenge them?



Would you care to explain what an atheist can proselytize, and why an atheist would like to spread the "happy words" of atheism, whatever that is?

Maybe atheist should proselytize the atheist belief that there exists dinosaurs on Venus? According to Carl Sagan it works like this: We cannot see the surface of Venus because Venus is covered with clouds. Clouds are made of water, therefore it rains on Venus. If it rains it means the surface must be wet. If the surface is wet then there must be a swamp on Venus. Dinosaurs lived in swamps, therefore there are dinosaurs on Venus. Each step is possible, so this proves that Dinosaurs exist on Venus, and if you don't believe me you are just stubborn and refuses to believe even though the truth stare you in the eyes.

Would any reasonable person believe in that? I don't think so. But theist threat atheist in this way and expect an atheist to believe in the very same kind of stories when they present their evidence that god exist and that the true god must be [insert your favorite deity]. For an atheist to believe such story, you would really need the power of god but you don't see atheist en mass convert to any religion.

Why is that? Maybe no such things as a god exists?



Your simplistic generalized and obfuscated view on what atheism is and what atheists believe in is incorrect on many levels. If you know what it meant you would not had ask any of the question you did. For instance, some atheist care to ask question about whether a god exists or not, other does not even care at all. Some atheist are religious (e.g. there exist a half billion Buddhist to start with), some atheist are spiritual (e.g believes in ghosts or in an afterlife or cosmic forces), some atheist lacks beliefs in all of that. It is impossible to talk about atheists as an uniform group, because no such uniform group exists.

Instead of just believing a stereotype you been breastfeed about atheism that only servers to confirm your own beliefs why not investigate what atheism really is about; a standpoint in one single question. Do you believe a deity exists? Yes or no. Independent how you answer that question, how does that make you more (or less) happy, or free, than you already are?

As for the rest of your sarcasm. I am pretty convinced the Biblical belief system is incorrect. Simply because it does not make any sense. It was made up by a bronze age people that tried to understand the world around them and as such it reflects their own beliefs and culture. It has no place or purpose in modern time and thinking more than being a historical document filled with myths and fables.

Yes, the Atheist find validation in the doctrines of doubt by communing with other nonbelievers in undermining faith. Atheist have Godless ideals that they promote in a setting such as this.

 

[Light of the East]

Errrm, I made no distinctions and indeed what Archyopteryx pointed out is the initiation of force. Not to mention that Jesus is supposed to be God come down to Earth and this same God killed every man woman and child except for the eight on the arc with a flood, according to the myth. Not to mention, also, the explicit threat that runs all through Christianity of eternal torture in Hell. When you can not persuade with evidence then you must resort to threats of physical violence as your imaginary God does.

What if....hell is not a threat of violence, but rather a simple justice given for our actions? Scotsman, don't you get upset when people who have done some evil to someone else go before a court and through trickery or deceit of a lawyer, get off without any form of punishment for what they did?

What if...hell is not a violence by an angry God, but instead is the horror of us facing the truth of what we have done to others? Most of us sail through life blissfully unware of how we have hurt other people, either by ignorance or justifying it in some manner ("Well, they deserved to be killed because they were _____________") What if the blinders are taken from our eyes and we for the first time face what we have done clearly? Do you realize how horrible it is to have such clear sight? I had a very small taste of this years ago when my eyes were opened to see just how badly I had ignored my wife and children. You have no idea how terrible it felt.

What if.....hell is not eternal? Oh, here's a good one, and the subject of some interesting debate on the Internet. Many of the earliest Christian writers spoke of the torment of justice for each soul being only as long as it took to fill the last measure of God's justice. For the justice of hell to be eternal, that is, to never end, the crime would have to be destroying another immortal soul. But since no man can do this, then how would God be just to destroy an immortal soul by relegating it to an never ending torment? Wouldn't that make God unjust? Or is it rather that in a proper system of justice, the punishment fits the crime? So a man who stole a loaf of bread would hardly be in the same hell for the same length of time as Adolph Hitler, right?

What if.....the "threats of violence" you believe to be in the Bible are not threats, but warnings that our ill behavior will meet an exact justice, and for all the people I have hurt in my life, there must be justice?

Just my .02, given without charge!