How Can Atheists Remain Atheists?

[bridgeforsale]

An agnostic however would have more sense than to describe them selves as an “antithiest”. I’m sorry but this is another lame explanation, agnostics allow for the possibility of God. You describe your self as outright opposing the very idea, this is the contradiction.

And in all this conversation, you still refurse to really think through the issues. I find it interesting the lengths your going through, to avoid actually considering God.

You can’t pigeon hole all agnostics … I don’t think that’s fair. Conceding there might be an open door (as small as the probability might be) for the possibility of an intangible transcendent consciousness of some sort, is much different than saying we all allow for the possiblity of a god.

Dawkins uses a seven point scale (to define the degrees of atheism), and frankly I could probably fit into either category, agnostic or atheist (since there’s a lot of obfuscation of these definitions); as I suspect most agnostics can (simply depending on how you define it).

For example, if asked whether I think there’s any possibility the god of the bible (and therefore the bible) could be true, my answer is an emphatic NO. Did a man named Jesus really rise from the dead, NO. Did Moses split the red sea and did a god communicate with him through a burning bush, NO. Did god speak to an illiterate desert merchant named Muhammad, NO. Might we reincarnate as a cow, NO.

But is there no, none, absolutely zero possibility that something transcendent (call it a consciousness, human soul, god, or whatever) might exist? We simply cannot say that. I do think there’s evidence pointing to the possibility of this sort of thing that does lack an adequate explanation. I’m unwilling to accept far fetched explanations for things, regarless of its source (even if it’s dressed up as a “scientific” explanation). It’s not to say some “theories” (that are yet unproven) shouldn’t be viewed as more viable than others, but distinguishing between a far fetched explanation and a viable theory requires a case-by-case analysis (and having looked at the little tid bits of evidence out there, the credibility of the research, and the alternative explanations offered by skeptics, I think the door remains open).

There are agnostics who simply say we cannot know whether or not religious claims are true, but frankly if you ask me they’re people who decidely want to stay out of this whole thing. A pretty good indication of whether or not someone serious entertains the possibility of religious claims, is if they do they’ll probably adhere to a religion. If they’re not religious then (in all likelihood) they don’t seriously entertain the possibility of things like a god-man rising from the dead (or god having conversations with illiterate desert people, but interestingly ignoring those of use who live in cold climates)

 

[MrZetterlund]

I’m sure there’s a logical explanation (probably along the lines of her being a psycho lunatic killer who needs to be tucked away in a prison somewhere for a really long time).

I’ll take it you’ve never seen “Paranormal Activity.”

 

[bridgeforsale]

I’ll take it you’ve never seen “Paranormal Activity.”

You mean the TV show?

 

[MrZetterlund]

You mean the TV show?

NO! It’s been rated like… The scarriest movie! I don’t know how you’ve never heard of it.

 

[bridgeforsale]

NO! It’s been rated like… The scarriest movie! I don’t know how you’ve never heard of it.

Oh yeah I did hear of the movie, but there’s also a TV show on the subject (although the name of the show escapes me right now, but of course that’s probably because I’ve never watched it).

 

[AntiTheist]

Ultraviolet light wasn’t detected until 1801. That doesn’t mean it didn’t exist before 1801.

Obviously there are things that exist that we haven’t detected yet. There are still plenty of discoveries to be made. What I’m saying is that we’re not justified in believing that something exists until we’re able to detect it.

I might be skeptical of an invisible purple dragon but I wouldn’t refuse to investigate the room, look under the bed, or examine the singed sheets.

But my dragon is completely intangible and undetectable. And my question stands: how is such a dragon different from nothing? A thing that “exists” but is undetectable is indistinguishable from nothing.

agrange:

When I said atheists “know it all” I meant in the sense about what is real and what is not.

I don’t “know it all” in terms of what is real. I’m sure that there are a lot of things that we haven’t discovered. If you want me to believe in it, though, you’ll need to provide some kind of evidence.

crazzeto:

An agnostic however would have more sense than to describe them selves as an “antithiest”.

An agnostic is someone who claims not to know whether god exists. I don’t know. I don’t think that an answer to that question can be known, just like I don’t think we can know the answer to the question of whether or not there are leprechauns.

However, I don’t believe in leprechauns, and I don’t believe in gods either. I’m sorry that you can’t follow that.

wmscott:

It is an existence of total apathy that leads to disintegration and a gradual falling into an inferior existence

Hahaha. If you say so, chief.

How sad that a person cannot recognize that they have a soul and a spirit that God loves and wants to offer salvation and order to their existence.

Whenever you want to present evidence, I’m all ears.

 

[bridgeforsale]

Ultraviolet light wasn’t detected until 1801. That doesn’t mean it didn’t exist before 1801.

I might be skeptical of an invisible purple dragon but I wouldn’t refuse to investigate the room, look under the bed, or examine the singed sheets. Or, I could just say that flames shooting out from under a bed is weird stuff.

There are a great many Eucharistic miracles where Consecrated Hosts (the Holy Communion wafers) bleed or turn into human flesh. The blood type is the same for all of these miracles, AB.

jesustheanswer.org/jta/eucharistic_miracles/lanciano.asp

ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/ZLANCIAN.HTM

therealpresence.org/eucharst/a.html

Just my two cents.

There’s good reasons why I don’t believe these things & why I reject this sort of analogy. How many dead religions are there in history? Has there ever been a case where people either misinterpreted facts (and ascribed religious significance to them) or where outright fraud was used to induce and sustain religious faith? The answer of course is yes.

It’s not to say that a pattern in itself is decisive; but it is a probative fact. With regard to the alleged miracles you’ve presented, I haven’t heard of a single case of any of these (or similar) miracles having been generally accepted among the majority (or even a significant plurarity) of scientists. Therefore, with no “real” evidence supporting the veracity of these claims, and all relevant evidence (albeit circumstantial) suggesting these claims are either wrong or fabricated, the better view IMHO is to reject them.

Moreover, I simply don’t trust the Catholic Church as an independent source of information on anything (much less the veracity of claims it uses to bolster its own survival and authority).

 

[myhathaswords]

But my dragon is completely intangible and undetectable. And my question stands: how is such a dragon different from nothing? A thing that “exists” but is undetectable is indistinguishable from nothing.

Ultraviolet light was discovered by observing silver chloride’s reaction to it.

I agree that if a purple dragon is completely undetectable and intangible in any way possible, including by God (He would have created it. ), then it only exists in your imagination.

Your quote indicates that you seem to think that God is completely undetectable and completely intangible. While He may be beyond our detection capabilities at the moment, He is definitely not intangible. He has revealed Himself to us many times, through revelation and miracles. Not to mention the Word Incarnate, the Christ, Jesus.

Only you are aware of the evidence you are seeking. If you will not consider fulfilled prophecies and divine revelation or documented miracles, then I am wasting my time.

 

[bridgeforsale]

Ultraviolet light was discovered by observing silver chloride’s reaction to it.

I agree that if a purple dragon is completely undetectable and intangible in any way possible, including by God (He would have created it. ), then it only exists in your imagination.

Your quote indicates that you seem to think that God is completely undetectable and completely intangible. While He may be beyond our detection capabilities at the moment, He is definitely not intangible. He has revealed Himself to us many times, through revelation and miracles. Not to mention the Word Incarnate, the Christ, Jesus.

Only you are aware of the evidence you are seeking. If you will not consider fulfilled prophecies and divine revelation or documented miracles, then I am wasting my time.

Where outside your holy book are these miracles documented?

Lay out the evidentiary case making the claims of your bible any more compelling than Homer’s Odyssey?

 

[SHW]

Atheists believe that they are the only “sane people” because they do not believe in a so-called imaginary God like the majority of “insane people” do. Therefore, they are “special” since they belong to this “sane” minority of “superior” enlightened persons.

 

[bridgeforsale]

Atheists believe that they are the only “sane people” because they do not believe in a so-called imaginary God like the majority of “insane people” do. Therefore, they are “special” since they belong to this “sane” minority of “superior” enlightened persons.

I wouldn’t exactly put it like that; although the “special . . . superior enlightened” part is of course true

 

[agrange]

Sometimes when I see these type discussions continue, I often wonder how much of the Bible these detractors have even bothered to read as adults. Not much I’d wager, despite any protestations to the contrary.

One stated,
“Lay out the evidentiary case making the claims of your bible any more compelling than Homer’s Odyssey?”

This proposition is ridiculous on it’s face as The Odyssey is a work of Fiction. It is intentionally insulting because the proposer infers the entire Bible as fiction the same as The Odyssey. Revealing because it shows the woeful and sad lack of knowledge about the various books and events of the Bible and it’s variety of factually attributable authorship. In many ways it would be like a Book critic reviewing a Book he/she never read and just heard about, then trashing it.

It is impossible to convince those so haughty, dismissive and hard of heart in any forum like this. First, because any such writings would be too lengthy for the forum. Second, because they would not read it anyway. If the detractors “really” were intellectually curious, they would investigate the biblical writings (Old and New testament) and the variety of scholarly analysis available, but that is too hard and they are not really interested. It is easier to come in, make inflammatory statements and then knowing full well the limitations of forums like these, they congratulate themselves on their self conferred smug superiority. How ignorant and dishonest it is for detractors to come in and rant in this manner. I feel sorry for people like this who need to feel better about themselves and get their “Jolly’s” by being this way. So sad.

 

[AntiTheist]

One stated,
“Lay out the evidentiary case making the claims of your bible any more compelling than Homer’s Odyssey?”

This proposition is ridiculous on it’s face as The Odyssey is a work of Fiction.

The point he was making was that you need evidence outside of a book to confirm that a miracle happened. “It says so in a book” isn’t evidence that a miracle happened. There are Greek and Roman histories that contain accounts of magic…“history” and “fiction” were intertwined for a very long time…

Obviously, no one would accept The Iliad as evidence that the Greek gods and their miracles are real (even though we have archaeological evidence that the Trojan War happened), and equally so, no one should accept the Bible as evidence that a miracle happened (even though some of the events and locations mentioned in the book are real).

Similarly, a group of people claiming to have been abducted by aliens isn’t sufficient evidence to demonstrate that alien abductions are real – even though there are plenty of such people around today.

 

[bridgeforsale]

Sometimes when I see these type discussions continue, I often wonder how much of the Bible these detractors have even bothered to read as adults. Not much I’d wager, despite any protestations to the contrary.

One stated,
“Lay out the evidentiary case making the claims of your bible any more compelling than Homer’s Odyssey?”

This proposition is ridiculous on it’s face as The Odyssey is a work of Fiction. It is intentionally insulting because the proposer infers the entire Bible as fiction the same as The Odyssey. Revealing because it shows the woeful and sad lack of knowledge about the various books and events of the Bible and it’s variety of factually attributable authorship. In many ways it would be like a Book critic reviewing a Book he/she never read and just heard about, then trashing it.

Funny thing is some of the events depicted in Homer’s Odyssey did happen (probably) e.g. the Trojen War. Although, perhaps a better comparison would have been Osiris or Zeus. Moreover, you’re wrong, I’ve read the bible cover to cover numerous times. I wouldn’t make a statement like the bible reduces to the absurd without a proper basis.

It is impossible to convince those so haughty, dismissive and hard of heart in any forum like this. First, because any such writings would be too lengthy for the forum.

Anticipating obvious objections, which is what biblical authors did when making comments like “hard of heart” … is hardly very impressive (except of course to the religious, who don’t mind suspending critical thinking and making a special pleading for their religious faith).

Second, because they would not read it anyway. If the detractors “really” were intellectually curious, they would investigate the biblical writings (Old and New testament) and the variety of scholarly analysis available, but that is too hard and they are not really interested. It is easier to come in, make inflammatory statements and then knowing full well the limitations of forums like these, they congratulate themselves on their self conferred smug superiority. How ignorant and dishonest it is for detractors to come in and rant in this manner. I feel sorry for people like this who need to feel better about themselves and get their “Jolly’s” by being this way. So sad.

I’ll do you one better, want to have a “who knows the bible better” contest?

 

[Splinker]

How Can Atheists Remain Atheists?

I just…don’t…know…

That seems to be the answer to “How can Agnostics remain agnostic?”

 

[bridgeforsale]

That seems to be the answer to “How can Agnostics remain agnostic?”

So let me get this right … you believe in a god whose supposed to love you, be all powerful, yet couldn’t come up with a better way of freeing your people from Egypt other than murdering thousands of infants and young children (I also note god allegedly lured you guys into Egypt in the first place, apparenlty knowing your ancestors would be enslaved). What a guy (yet, you wonder, how could anyone be atheist or agnostic ). It seems to me, if you’re willing to believe that line, why not get in early and place a bid for the bridge I have for sale

 

[SHW]

That seems to be the answer to “How can Agnostics remain agnostic?”

 

[SHW]

So let me get this right … you believe in a god whose supposed to love you, be all powerful, yet couldn’t come up with a better way of freeing your people from Egypt other than murdering thousands of infants and young children (I also note god allegedly lured you guys into Egypt in the first place, apparenlty knowing your ancestors would be enslaved). What a guy (yet, you wonder, how could anyone be atheist or agnostic ). It seems to me, if you’re willing to believe that line, why not get in early and place a bid for the bridge I have for sale

The “Creator” does not have to answer the objections of the “created.” His thoughts and His ways are far above our own thoughts and ways. Isaiah 55:7-9 It is impossible for God to commit murder. Power over the life and death of all of His creation is His alone because creation belongs to Him alone. He is sovereign over all His creation.

Romans 9:17-25
For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.”[a] 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
25 As He says also in Hosea:
“ I will call them My people, who were not My people,
And her beloved, who was not beloved.”

So you think that this is not fair? He has His answer for you:

Ezekiel 33:17-20
17 “Yet the children of your people say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ But it is their way which is not fair! 18 When the righteous turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, he shall die because of it. 19 But when the wicked turns from his wickedness and does what is lawful and right, he shall live because of it. 20 Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ O house of Israel, I will judge every one of you according to his own ways.”

However, God is a just God and He does not force a person to be saved against this person’s free will and He does not force a person to be lost against this person’s free will.

All persons who work righteousness (and who do not work evil) are accepted by Him.

Acts 10:35
But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.

Job 8:20
Behold, God will not cast away the blameless, Nor will He uphold the evildoers.

Our Book and our Faith/religion are based on eyewitness accounts. We believe these eyewitnesses to be trustworthy and so we believe what they tell us.

Luke 1:1-4
Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.

I am Catholic because I believe these eyewitnesses who personally knew Christ. Before He ascended to His Father, He founded a Church in order make disciples of all the nations through Baptism and also to teach these disciples what they must do in order to inherit eternal life so that they could then remain with Him forever in heaven after their deaths on earth.

Matthew 28:18-20
And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

He promised that He would always be with His Church (the one with the keys of the kingdom of heaven headed by Peter and his successors Matthew 16:18-19) and He promised that the Holy Spirit would guide this Church into all truth John 16:13, and He promised that this Church would be protected from teaching error (the gates of Hades would not ever prevail against it). His Church cannot ever teach error, because if it did, then Hades would be victorious over His Church. He has promised that this cannot and will not ever happen. I believe Him.

I won’t be buying the “bridge” that you have “for sale.”

Jesus is the only “Bridge” that I need and want. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Author of Eternal Life Hebrews 5:9, John 14:5-6.

 

[anode]

The “Creator” does not have to answer the objections of the “created.” His thoughts and His ways are far above our own thoughts and ways. Isaiah 55:7-9 It is impossible for God to commit murder. And her beloved, who was not beloved.”

John 14:5-6.

…excerpt…

So cast away your reason and capacity for abstract thought, those qualities which distinguish us from other animals. “Who can comprehend…?!” Who, indeed.

It doesn’t help to believe in an all-knowing, all powerful, all-loving god who permits incomprehensible evils. It is pathetic to listen to believers say, “Why me?!”–Why not? Why should the god they believe in choose to favor* them,* when he favors no other believers–or anyone else, for that matter?

As an aside, why do you bother with all the quotes? Why do you think quotations from the Holy Scrolls (viz. Planet of the Apes) would be persuasive? How long did it take you to type all that, or do you have all of it carefully stored for all occasions?

People may think it’s worth it not to question, because* they’re* going to heaven–why so sure? Maybe they’ll commit some mortal sin at the last minute and go to hell instead! Parents judge their children on the* balance *of their actions, but apparently god doesn’t, so a last-minute slip may mean the everlasting bonfire!

 

[Bear_Claw]

Our Book and our Faith/religion are based on eyewitness accounts. We believe these eyewitnesses to be trustworthy and so we believe what they tell us.

I am Catholic because I believe these eyewitnesses who personally knew Christ.

Okay, so first, you use the words “we believe” meaning that it’s subjective. You are right there.
There is no proof that the bible was written by eye witness accounts. The authors are not known, they are assumed. It’s fine to assume, but you can’t use assumptions and derivatives of said assumptions to make points.
Also, with the estimated, researched dates that the bible books were dated, at best the writings are second-hand hearsay accounts from people that were well into their elderly years when they were supposed to have told their stories to the writers.

It’s fine to say “We believe” but without proof to back up that statement, it’s all that it is…assumptions.
[EDIT: That’s how Atheists can remain Atheists…by lack of proof of people’s claims]