Thread: Christians and Atheists - What's the Deal?

Atheists > Christians

Duh.

That might be your problem there lil buddy, I don't need an excuse. I have my truth and you have yours, only difference between us is you inability to accept I might be right. I have accepted that you might be - I want to add something about a double standard right now, but I feel I'm not clever enough to make good use of the word.

I would like to point out that a lack of evidence is the driving force behind my atheistic beliefs. There is just no evidence for the existence of a god. That being said, I accept that you might be right. Maybe there is some psychotic god out there who creates a universe that follows natural observable laws and then punishes people who don't accept wild statements without evidence. But, you see, there is no evidence to support this.

There is no double standard. There are claims, and then there is evidence. The burden of evidence is on the one making the claim. Making a claim and then saying you must accept this claim unconditionally on absolute faith or be punished with eternal hellfire is ridiculous. The kinds of things people do when brainwashed into fearing such authority is unbelievable. Girls are told that the menstrual cycle is a disease, condoms will send you to hell, homosexuals should be stoned, and sexuality is a sin.

I don't reject the possibility of god any more or less than I reject the possibility of invisible pink unicorns. You can't provide evidence for something that is unobservable, and you can't use the unexplained as evidence for a higher being.

I don't start getting mad until religious persons start trying to push their beliefs on others or start getting offended by true statements.

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

Second of all, I'm not a christian so this whole double standard you mentioned doesn't apply to me, slick.

Oh? Then, pray tell, how did you arrive at the conclusion that there is a god?

I'm not sure how many more times I need to say it, but here it is again, just for you.

• Yes

My, this god character of yours seems like a sad, powerless, sadistic bastard to me. I mean, here is this big, powerful thing that transcends the universe itself. And it can't dupe a few simple-minded humans without giving himself away. He lacks the basic power of a simple con-man. Tell me, if this god of yours is so weak, why should it even exist at all?

That might be your problem there lil buddy, I don't need an excuse. I have my truth and you have yours, only difference between us is you inability to accept I might be right. I have accepted that you might be - I want to add something about a double standard right now, but I feel I'm not clever enough to make good use of the word.

Oh, I never said you couldn't be right. In fact, I've stated it several times already that you very well could be. But the illogical way you dance around this issue is where I take issue. I've asked for evidence, and you have supplied none. Assuming you're rational in other issues, why is it this one you turn a blind eye to?

So, how do you separate the bad bible verses that tell you to kill people not working on the sabbath and that has mystical creatures killing children from the good verses? How does a Christian ignore some of the book, but then follows the rest? How do you justify Gods killing of folks in the old testament?

Originally Posted by Vertebrate

I would like to point out that a lack of evidence is the driving force behind my atheistic beliefs. There is just no evidence for the existence of a god.

Nor is there any that disproves its existence. You choose not believe, plain and simple.

The burden of evidence is on the one making the claim. Making a claim and then saying you must accept this claim unconditionally on absolute faith or be punished with eternal hellfire is ridiculous.

Even I understand how ridiculous that sounds, and I completely agree with you.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Oh? Then, pray tell, how did you arrive at the conclusion that there is a god?

Common sense.

My, this god character of yours seems like a sad, powerless, sadistic bastard to me.

Yeah, that's how it seemed to me at first too.

I mean, here is this big, powerful thing that transcends the universe itself. And it can't dupe a few simple-minded humans without giving himself away. He lacks the basic power of a simple con-man.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Tell me, if this god of yours is so weak, why should it even exist at all?

There's nothing weak at all about the God I've come to know and respect. As far as why it should even exist at all, well how the hell should I know? I've already told you I don't know the mind of God, pay attention Jack.

Oh, I never said you couldn't be right. In fact, I've stated it several times already that you very well could be. But the illogical way you dance around this issue is where I take issue. I've asked for evidence, and you have supplied none. Assuming you're rational in other issues, why is it this one you turn a blind eye to?

I'm not dancing around the issue at all, it aint my fault you don't want to hear it. I tell you what mario92, if you can prove to me or ANYONE else on this planet beyond a shadow of a doubt that God doesn't exist, I will march my ass right the fuck on out of here. Nobody likes me in here anyway, so give me your best shot. There's nothing I can say that will change your mind, I wouldn't even attempt it. Learn some respect and stop making this personal, hero. Yeah, you really are - here's some of that "proof" you're so fond of:

if this god of yours is so weak, why should it even exist at all?
My, this god character of yours seems like a sad, powerless, sadistic bastard to me.

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

Nor is there any that disproves its existence. You choose not believe, plain and simple.

He isn't saying "God does not exist." He is saying "there is no evidence, therefore I don't believe. Your statement concerning a lack of evidence disproving God is unnecessary.

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

Common sense.

How does common sense lead you to conclude that God exists?

I'm not dancing around the issue at all, it aint my fault you don't want to hear it. I tell you what mario92, if you can prove to me or ANYONE else on this planet beyond a shadow of a doubt that God doesn't exist, I will march my ass right the fuck on out of here. Nobody likes me in here anyway, so give me your best shot. There's nothing I can say that will change your mind, I wouldn't even attempt it. Learn some respect and stop making this personal, hero. Yeah, you really are - here's some of that "proof" you're so fond of:

And the victim card has been thrown. Expected/10.

As I said earlier: I don't think there are atheists here claiming with 100% certainty that there is no God. It seems most of us simply think its existence is unlikely, and to add to that, there's no scientific evidence to suggest one exists. So really, your "show me the proof disproving God!" statements aren't necessary.

I tell you what mario92, if you can prove to me or ANYONE else on this planet beyond a shadow of a doubt that God doesn't exist, I will march my ass right the fuck on out of here.

No, you prove to me that the evidence that disproves the existence of your god doesn't exist!

The argument always seems to come down to not being able to prove it either way. At least being an atheist, you don't have to postulate anything. There's simply no proof so we choose to believe that a God isn't there. Christians see the void in knowledge and try to fill it with something imaginary.

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

Nor is there any that disproves its existence. You choose not believe, plain and simple.

If only logic worked like that....

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

Common sense.

As vague as it is utterly unhelpful.

There's nothing weak at all about the God I've come to know and respect. As far as why it should even exist at all, well how the hell should I know? I've already told you I don't know the mind of God, pay attention Jack.

So let me get this straight. You believe in a god that has no discernible powers, is unobservable, and beyond comprehension. LOL WUT

I tell you what mario92, if you can prove to me or ANYONE else on this planet beyond a shadow of a doubt that God doesn't exist, I will march my ass right the fuck on out of here.

As others have stated, I'm not trying to show that god doesn't exist. I'm simply trying to show that believing in one without evidence is a load of bollocks. Not believing in a god doesn't mean you're saying there is no way it can exist, or that it doesn't exist. All you're saying is that you don't see any reason why one should exist. It may be there, but why should you think it's there? Until you can supply valid evidence for the existence of any such deity, not you nor I nor anyone else has a good reason to believe in it. It's a blind spot in common sense and a slap to reasoning.

Now since I hate repeating myself, I'll say this again:
Might you be right? Might there be a god of some power or compassion or whatever characteristics you want to give it? Certainly. I have never said at any point that there couldn't be. My platform is easy to defend. I don't believe in a god. I don't personally think one exists. But my goal is not to prove that one does not exist. I don't have to. Rather, it is YOU who must prove to ME that a god does exist. Until then, your claim is nothing more than a silly fantasy.

And here's how your reasoning works, in conversation form:
a: god exists
b: where's the evidence?
a: WHERE'S THE PROOF THAT THERE ISN'T A GOD?? HURRRRRRR

Which is a lot like the following:
a: At this very moment, there is a tea kettle exactly 5003 light years away from this very spot, approaching the earth at a speed of warp 2. Inside it is an army of tiny aliens that will destroy the planet.
b: Where's the evidence for this?
a: YOU CAN'T PROVE IT ISN'T HAPPENING! DURRRR

Now, see you not the problem? The first is exactly what you're doing, and the second is also what you're doing, but I've changed up the scenario a little bit. It is this sort of logical inconsistency that irritates me.

So let me get this straight. You believe in a god that has no discernible powers, is unobservable, and beyond comprehension.

Yes, I believe you call it reality.

How does common sense lead you to conclude that God exists?

The same way it leads others to believe in God's non existence.

If only logic worked like that....

You mean like the way you are using it to simplify your distaste in how simple I have made it out to be?

No, you prove to me that the evidence that disproves the existence of your god doesn't exist!

I can't.

He isn't saying "God does not exist." He is saying "there is no evidence, therefore I don't believe. Your statement concerning a lack of evidence disproving God is unnecessary.

Well then let me use his words to explain what I am saying -
There does not need to be any evidence, therefore I believe.

And the victim card has been thrown. Expected/10.

Doesn't make what I said any less true.

I don't think there are atheists here claiming with 100% certainty that there is no God.

Then they are not atheists.

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

I can't.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

Then they are not atheists.

An atheist is just someone who isn't religious. Doesn't accept religious teachings of any kind. It doesn't mean you necessarily assert the nonexistence of deities postulated by religions.

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

The same way it leads others to believe in God's non existence.

Which is?

Well then let me use his words to explain what I am saying -
There does not need to be any evidence, therefore I believe.

Except it doesn't work both ways. Well, it could if you want to go around believing in every concept about every topic that has ever existed and will ever exist. And if you do, don't be surprised if people call you irrational, illogical, utterly ridiculous, and never take you seriously.

Then they are not atheists.

An atheist is a person who lacks a belief in God. Whether they claim with 100% certainty that there is no God or not is merely secondary.

Well I just assumed wiki was correct, perhaps you should let em know they aren't.

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

Yes, I believe you call it reality.

God. noun.
1. the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions
2. deity: any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force

Reality. noun.
1. world: all of your experiences that determine how things appear to you; "his world was shattered"; "we live in different worlds"; "for them demons were as much a part of reality as trees were"
2. the state of being actual or real; "the reality of his situation slowly dawned on him"
3. the state of the world as it really is rather than as you might want it to be; "businessmen have to face harsh realities"
4. the quality possessed by something that is real

Bit of a disparity there, eh? But at least we're finally getting somewhere.

The same way it leads others to believe in God's non existence.

Yes, keep being vague. That will surely be to your benefit.

You mean like the way you are using it to simplify your distaste in how simple I have made it out to be?

For the umpteenth time, I don't have to disprove god. The burden of proof is on your shoulders. Going "I can't prove this, but you can't disprove it, so the two claims are equal and we're at a stalemate" demonstrates a fundamental deficiency of logic.

I can't.

So...you can't show any evidence for your god? Not even a personal experience or fun anecdote to throw out there? What a shame.

Well then let me use his words to explain what I am saying -
There does not need to be any evidence, therefore I believe.

I'm asking for evidence or some reason for why you believe what you do, because this far, your elusive and vague definitions of god are entirely unhelpful and don't appear to be based on any rational foundation.

So I'll ask nicely this time. Would you, pretty please, state clearly and concisely exactly what you believe and why you believe it? Details are appreciated.

Then they are not atheists.

See this chart:


The most common use of the term "atheist" is the one representing "agnostic atheist;" e.g. "I do not believe there's a god, but I do not know with certainty there is no god." It is the view I side with. You'd be hard-pressed to find a gnostic atheist.

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

Well I just assumed wiki was correct, perhaps you should let em know they aren't.

Well lets take a look at what the wiki says, shall we?

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4][5]

The second definition does indeed state that atheism is the position that there are no deities. But lets look at the citation, which states:

Rowe, William L. (1998). "Atheism". In Edward Craig. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9780415073103.

"As commonly understood, atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. So an atheist is someone who disbelieves in God, whereas a theist is someone who believes in God. Another meaning of "atheism" is simply nonbelief in the existence of God, rather than positive belief in the nonexistence of God. …an atheist, in the broader sense of the term, is someone who disbelieves in every form of deity, not just the God of traditional Western theology.".

We're given a few definitions of atheism from the same source. One asserts that it is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God, another is that it is simply a nonbelief in the existence of god (which seems to be reiterated in both the wiki writer's definition, and the source's definition). But we can look at the other sources used in defining atheism, and they all seem to say the same thing: it's the position of the rejection of God. Whether an atheist affirms that there is no God is secondary. Unfortunately, as William L. Rowe says, the "commonly understood" definition is that atheists affirm the nonexistence of God.

Maybe that's just from a general ignorance of the term, who knows. But it's certainly not how most of the atheists on this forum use it, and thus trying to pin a definition on us even though we don't accept it just doesn't work.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Which is?

Life continuing to create, and perfect itself using evolution as a tool does not, and never will explain how it originated. That is as simple as I can put it.

Except it doesn't work both ways. Well, it could if you want to go around believing in every concept about every topic that has ever existed and will ever exist. And if you do, don't be surprised if people call you irrational, illogical, utterly ridiculous, and never take you seriously.

Not when I assign it a specific, ie. God's need to prove to you its existence, or me it non existence.

I'm thinking about a red ball right now. Can you prove I am not? - So yes, it most certainly does work both ways.

An atheist is a person who lacks a belief in God. Whether they claim with 100% certainty that there is no God or not is merely secondary.

If you lack belief in God, then you do not believe in God. The very point of atheism is NON BELIEF, 100%. So if your secondary claim is to a maybe there is, then your first claim to a definitely there isn't will cancel each other out.

Maybe that's just from a general ignorance of the term, who knows. But it's certainly not how most of the atheists on this forum use it, and thus trying to pin a definition on us even though we don't accept it just doesn't work.

Then stop nit picking me about my "no proof" fairytale in the sky. I'm the only mother fucker in here trying to explain why and how my faith needs no explanation, and not one of you even has the common courtesy to say," Hey green, I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about, but I appreciate you standing your ground against so many of us, and also for giving us something to bitch about for a hot second. What a pal!" - whatever yo, I'm tired.

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

Life continuing to create, and perfect itself using evolution as a tool does not, and never will explain how it originated. That is as simple as I can put it.

...Because evolution doesn't claim to explain how life originated, it claims to explain how organisms change over time. We're not entirely sure how life started. But just because we don't know yet does not mean an unproven creator is the answer.

Not when I assign it a specific, ie. God's need to prove to you its existence, or me it non existence.

I'm thinking about a red ball right now. Can you prove I am not? - So yes, it most certainly does work both ways.

What?

If you lack belief in God, then you do not believe in God. The very point of atheism is NON BELIEF, 100%. So if your secondary claim is to a maybe there is, then your first claim to a definitely there isn't will cancel each other out.

Atheism is a non-belief in God. One can not believe in God while still maintain that one might exist. For example, I don't believe in aliens, but I think its possible they exist. I'm not claiming that aliens do in fact exist, because I have nothing with which to back up that claim. Of course, God and aliens are two entirely separate issues, but I think the analogy is sound.

The first claim of atheism: I [the atheist] do not believe in God. The second, and not-really-necessary claims: God does not in fact exist, OR, God probably does not exist, OR, God might exist.

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

Life continuing to create, and perfect itself using evolution as a tool does not, and never will explain how it originated. That is as simple as I can put it.

FINALLY!

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And ultimately, you're still filling the void of knowledge with a god of some sort

Originally Posted by greenhavoc

Then stop nit picking me about my "no proof" fairytale in the sky. I'm the only mother fucker in here trying to explain why and how my faith needs no explanation

It would help a lot more if you could tell us what exactly your faith is, instead of being unhelpfully vague and leaving us to our own guesses and assumptions.

Okay, the Christians here need some help, so let me take a crack at it. I will show how a person can reasonably believe in god.

First lets start with the bible. To understand the bible you need to do two things. First, understand the perspective that it is written from. Second, understand that it is written using allegory.

Most of the stories in the bible are likely true, and were passed down from person to person before being written down. Things like Moses and the flood, were probably a story of a region flooding, not the entire world. From the perspective of the person who witness the flood, their entire world was flooded. To them that was the world, so they wrote it as such. That does not mean the entire world flooded. Things like the creation of earth, and the Adam and Eve story and allegory. They are not meant to be taken literal. Instead they are written to explain things that were never witness by men.

The bible is filled with things that would have applied to society back when it was written, but not to today's living. When it says to do something silly, it may have been for real practical reasons, that simply do not apply anymore. That doesn't make the bible wrong, it makes it outdated. And of course the bible has some bad stuff in it, because the stuff was common in the thinking of people back then.

Parts of the bible has been shown to be true, or based on real stuff. The bible obviously isn't the direct word of god. However that does not mean it can't be a legitimate document of religion. A person can believe that its based on real stuff, and written from the perspective of a human living in that time, and helps teach people to be a better person. It is very likely that is exactly what it is. So there is a fair debate between the person having been inspired by god, or simply inspired by some goodness he felt inside due to being human. A reasonable person could debate it from either side.

Okay, now to Jesus. Most people agree Jesus was probably a real person. He did good things, and he preached his belief. He probably did exist, and believing in him is perfectly reasonable. Debate come from the opinion that he was the son of god, and not just an amazing man who taught great things. It was so long ago, it really is hard to know.

God vs science. If god does exist then he should exist within reality. Everything he does should be explainable by science. There is no conflict between believing in science and believing in god. The fundies are wrong, because they are taking things from the bible literally. You are not supposed to. When someone says god created earth in a week, that is an allegory, written by someone thousands of years ago, not a fact. It isn't supposed to be fact, and was never intended as a fact. Why seven days? Because that many days probably had some significant to the writer at the time.

Not lets get to the main point. As many people already pointed out, the main debate usually comes down to one thing. Why believe in god if you can't prove he exist? Why believe he doesn't exist if you can't prove it? Well lets look at this from a scientific perspective.

1. First a question. You wonder to yourself, does god exist?

2. Next you look around at the world. You can make many observations, the bible, Jesus, personal experiences are all valid things you can look at.

3. You take your many observations of the world and eventually you make a hypothesis. The two main ones are. "Oh you know all the stuff in my life really does point towards the possibility of god." Or "You know, most of this stuff can be explained in other ways, so I don't think there is a god." Though there is always the, "All this stuff makes sense, there had to be a real god, but I think he was likely an alien that visited humans far in the past. This explains why ancient people often had technology that doesn't fit in."

All three are entirely possible. They are valid hypothesis. Often in science if you look you will find hypothesis that are seen as weird or stupid, some times they are and some times they can actually be proven true. And things that everyone thinks is right, may eventually be wrong.

Step four would be to test and experiment on your hypothesis. However, you can't really develop a test to see if God exists or not, and that is the problem we face today. Believing in an unlikely hypothesis does not make you delusional or wrong. It is just an opinion, which you can't prove.

So really you are looking at peoples observations, and considering if they are reasonable. For example, if you say, I believe Jesus was special because he lived a life that would be impossible for a normal human to live through. This is reasonable, very few people could live that kind of life. Maybe he was special. If you believe it is because he is the son of god, that is a reasonable hypothesis.

People have conscious and they have morels. We are clearly different than all the other animals on earth. This is a legitimate observation. If you believe it is because we have a soul, that is fair belief. If you believe it is because of evolution, that is a fair belief as well. They don't even necessarily conflict, because one could also believe that the soul of a person is created by higher brain activity. Though you are getting more into philosophy.

However, if you say the earth was created in seven days, because the bible says so. Well that is just stupid. Any observation that is entirely proven untrue, shouldn't be used in building a hypothesis on weather god exists or not. This explains why as time goes on less people believe in god. There are less unexplained things, and so less reasons to look towards god as an answer for them. However many of the key philosophical reasons for believing in god will probably last a very long time. Because religion really is a philosophical practice.

What is the difference between a Christian who thinks there is a god but isn't sure, and an Atheist who doesn't think there is a god but isn't sure?

The Christian person sees that religion helps a persons spirituality and personal growth and helps them better form bonds within their community. Since you admit freely you might be wrong, you are obviously not delusional. So why take the stance that their might be a god, when you can just easily be wrong, because religion has other benefit and tries to provide answers to other philosophical questions you might be trying to understand. Your not stupid or crazy or delusional for looking to religion, while considering philosophical questions.

So it is possible for a reasonable person to be a Christian.

You mean like the way you are using it to simplify your distaste in how simple I have made it out to be?
For the umpteenth time, I don't have to disprove god. The burden of proof is on your shoulders. Going "I can't prove this, but you can't disprove it, so the two claims are equal and we're at a stalemate" demonstrates a fundamental deficiency of logic.

The burden of proof does not fall on my shoulders. I am not trying to convince you there is a God, nor do I speak for any other person who has found it. You asked why and I gave you an answer, but because you didn't think it had any merit now I'm supposed to provide you with further explanation?

The bible is filled with things that would have applied to society back when it was written, but not to today's living. When it says to do something silly, it may have been for real practical reasons, that simply do not apply anymore. That doesn't make the bible wrong, it makes it outdated. And of course the bible has some bad stuff in it, because the stuff was common in the thinking of people back then.

But the whole point in following a religion such as Christianity is that you're putting your belief into the book. I understand that you can look at the book from a non literal point of view, but if we're doing this what is the point of having a religion in the first place? You can believe in a God without Christianity. I always thought that the point of Christianity was that God did inspire the people who wrote the bible. If the bible is untrue and is just a symbol for God, then why not simply just have belief in God without all the religious shenanigans?

So really you are looking at peoples observations, and considering if they are reasonable. For example, if you say, I believe Jesus was special because he lived a life that would be impossible for a normal human to live through. This is reasonable, very few people could live that kind of life. Maybe he was special. If you believe it is because he is the son of god, that is a reasonable hypothesis.

It isn't that reasonable given the fact that there were many like him that lived an extreme life. Look at Socrates maybe? Even better yet, they didn't trick themselves into believing they were the son of God.

I mean, I see what you're trying to say. You can be a reasonable Christian and not take the bible as being literal. I just don't see much of a difference between doing this and just having a general belief in God.

Trying to imagine god is very difficult. It is a being by definition we can't entirely understand. That is why they put information of him into stories and stuff. Through reading the stories, it brings you a better understanding of what god is like. The book isn't untrue in that sense that it is wrong, it is about god, it is just put into a way that people can better understand. A non-fiction book isn't wrong, it is just a story.

Lets say you never experienced war before, you have no idea what is like at all. Well you pick up a book, say the The Red Badage of Courage. It is realistic book about war, that gives you an insight on how it may have been, from a perceptive of people living at that time. Does it gives insight? Yes. Does it incorporate real life things? Yes. Does it reflect on what happened during the war? Yes. Do you take it as a historical document? No, because its fiction.

The line is blurred slightly, because a lot of the stuff in it are based on real events. Stuff like the creation of the earth however are not. It is impossible for a human to write how the earth was like while being created, because he wasn't around at the time. Even if God told him what happened, it wouldn't be a literal interpretation of events. A scientist could explain how the earth was created but it is hard to imagine that in your mind. That is why we have stories to help explain this stuff, and give us insight into events of the past.

You can have a general belief in god and still be a Christian. People are not black and white, we all live in shades of gray. You can basically be an atheist but lean slightly towards the christian belief. Then what are you, an atheist or a christian? What if you lean a little more in one direction or the other? No one ever said you had to have 100% certainty to be a Christian.