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

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.

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Alric

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.

Hence why no one really argues with people about the bible if they just think its a book of symbolism.

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.

Why can't we develop a test? Can we not do it now due to technological limits, or can we not ever because God is just a dick and likes to play Epic Hide & Seek?

Believing in an unlikely hypothesis is sort of delusional and wrong because there's no rational basis for doing so. This is of course if we take "believing" to mean "absolutely accepting" or something.

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.

Except such supernatural hypotheses are shaky at best. Thinking that evolution is the basis of what we call morality is far more likely than an invisible creator simply decreeing what is right and wrong. We know that animals who work together and cooperate tend to succeed in passing their genes on. We don't know that an invisible creator exists, and have every reason to think that one doesn't.

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.

Originally I was going to say "Well there's nothing inherently wrong with this, although I disagree, obviously, because I don't think religion is very good for 'spirituality' and personal growth," except I saw "so why take the stance that there might be a god?"

The answer was because religion has other benefits and tries to provide answers to other philosophical questions. Is this really justification for believing in God? I really don't think saying "God did it" will get anyone far in their pursuit of truth.

Originally Posted by Alric

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."

The second on you list is not a hypothesis itself, but rather the rejection of the other two. The problem is that the "hypothesis" that "god somehow created life magically" is not provided a logical basis. There is no evidence to suggest that and that idea and it is not necessary to explain anything at all.

Originally Posted by Alric

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.

But where you diverge from science is when you turn your hypothesis "god may have done it" into an assertion "god did it" when that hypothesis is not supported by reality. An untestable hypothesis is essentially useless. If you can't know that it's true there is no reason to believe that it is. "Atheism" is the default option. Did god create the universe? Well I can't prove there's such a thing as god, but I'll believe it exists anyway. Did unicorns create the universe? Well I can't prove there's such a thing as unicorns... I would hope you'd take the "athiest" approach in regards to the unicorn.

Originally Posted by Alric

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.

Since when is explaining something totally mundane by needlessly adding on "and also he had god magic"? Hint: Jesus did not survive his life (duh). He didn't even die of natural causes. He was murdered. Are you not even familiar with the basics of the stories you're talking about?

Oh, but then again he magically came to life, didn't he?

Originally Posted by Alric

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.

They don't necessarily conflict because "a soul" is extremely vague and undefined. What is a soul? What does it do? If evolution can explain how we have developed morals and consciousness, what reason is there to believe there is a soul?

Originally Posted by Alric

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.

Which philosophical reasons?

Originally Posted by Alric

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?

One is making a baseless assertion.

Originally Posted by Alric

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.

It is possible for a reasonable person to be a Christian, but you have not provided any reasonable basis for believing in god.

Suppose a book falls off a shelf for no apparent reason. Someone says "Well clearly a spirit of the dead knocked it off." You might wonder, why would a spirit of the dead knock that book down? How does that person know it was a spirit of the dead? How can spirits manipulate physical objects? What are spirits made of? There are a ton of unanswered questions that would make it completely unreasonable to accept that explanation. It is an insane leap of faith on the order of jumping the grand canyon lengthwise. God is no different.

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.