I am an atheist

[Kitty_Chan]

God bless !

Let me only tell you that the Bible is a theological book and not for secular sientisitic Theories. What Bible wants to speak about God and his will …and not about Biology…

Hey just a clarification,you are correct about the main point of what Gods saying to us. But to say there is no science as it were isnt entirely accurate. If God did create the world then Id have to say He had a bit of a idea on how a atom is.

If you look at the procedures of the priests back then, all the sitting outside camp and cleaning yourself. Yes there was spiritual reasons but also very practical reasons that no one in that day would have known about. Germs and how long it takes a sickness to settle in. Thus why everyone had to sit outside camp so much.

 

[bogoljub]

I did not say that I believe it is not good to believe. Please let me choose my own words and I will extend you the same courtesy.

If you believe in Allah, why are you not a muslim? Currently you and I are infidels. What I was getting at is that there is no virtue in believing without evidence. Anyone can do that.

God bless !

I think we have a language problem - we are both believers you too- I believe there is God and u believe there is no - se we both believe !

To believe without evidence would be foolish and nonsense uu are right but we have evidence for !
But what evidence you have for your belief ?

I believe in Allah ( arabian God, arabian christians call God also allah ) but not in the mis-concept of Islam !

In CHRIST

 

[bogoljub]

Hey just a clarification,you are correct about the main point of what Gods saying to us. But to say there is no science as it were isnt entirely accurate. If God did create the world then Id have to say He had a bit of a idea on how a atom is.

If you look at the procedures of the priests back then, all the sitting outside camp and cleaning yourself. Yes there was spiritual reasons but also very practical reasons that no one in that day would have known about. Germs and how long it takes a sickness to settle in. Thus why everyone had to sit outside camp so much.

God bless !

I did not say there is no sience but the “main focus” of the Holy Bible is not secular sience !
The Genesis is not a naive biological sientistic document it is theological revelation and tells us the relationship of God and his creation. It tells us WHO is the reason of the creation …

IN CHRIST

 

[RedSoxFan]

How can I answer such a specific question about such a vague event?
If you can describe an event I can offer my reactions (and they will be as accurate as your descriptions).

Ok I will through a couple of different scenarios to you.

1. You find out that you are extraodrinarily lucky in avoiding death. You have been shot at, strangled, poisioned, and had your break line cut in your car, but are still alive. These events would have happened on different occasions over a two year period. You don’t percieve anything that screams divine intervention, but then again you’ve survived 4 murder attempts in a short time span.
2. While praying a rosary the statue in the corner of the room begins to cry. The tears come soley from they eyes of the statue and not from a leaky pipe above. You examine the statue and find it has no pipe works running through it. You taste the tears from the statue and they taste exactly like real human tears that you could have cried. The statue is actively crying on its own with no interference from an outside source.
3. Riding on a road to Damascus you are knocked off your donkey and see a vision of Christ. He asks you to stop persecuiting his people.

Please react to these 3 different scenarios. Thanks!

 

[theistgal]

Sorry if I didn’t make myself clear there. That was not an argument. I was trying to describe my experience with belief. I mean that, in the same way I must have once believed in Santa (though I can’t remember it) I must have at one point believed in Yahweh (because that is what I was taught).

I don’t remember either, and that is perhaps why I lack understanding of belief.

Sorry if I misunderstood your intent. It’s just that I personally have heard the “believing in God is the same as believing in Santa” argument so many times it’s kinda gotten under my skin.

I think the only answer I can give (other than reiterating that we still believe in Santa (St. Nicholas), as well as God - Catholics and Orthodox anyway ) is this, and I hope it makes sense. (FWIW I don’t want to get into an argument, or challenge you - I hate when people do that to me so please forgive me if I come off that way, I don’t mean to! )

But here goes - the vast majority of people who believe in Santa and then later disbelieve are children, who accept the idea of Santa as presented to them by their parents, but later find out either (a) there’s no Santa or (b) Santa is different than what they were told as kids. Not everyone decides there’s no Santa at all (see above!). But sooner or later, every child must make this decision, as part of growing up.

In the same way, yes, it’s true that a lot of people (such as yourself) start out in life believing in God because of what their parents have told them, and later find out for themselves either that (a) there’s no God or (b) God is different than what they were told as kids. Either way you do have to examine the evidence and decide for yourself - you shouldn’t just rely on what other people have told you - because it’s part of growing up.

However, I hope you’ll also acknowledge that (b) may be as valid an answer for some people as (a) - because we each see the evidence through different “filters”. I totally acknowledge your right and your freedom to decide the evidence doesn’t support the existence of God, and only ask that you also acknowledge my right and freedom to decide it does.

(Also, it’s only fair to acknowledge that some people grow up not believing in God, and later in life find evidence that causes them to change their minds. So in that sense it’s not comparable to the Santa Claus thing.)

 

[_A]

Ok I will through a couple of different scenarios to you.

1. You find out that you are extraodrinarily lucky in avoiding death. You have been shot at, strangled, poisioned, and had your break line cut in your car, but are still alive. These events would have happened on different occasions over a two year period. You don’t percieve anything that screams divine intervention, but then again you’ve survived 4 murder attempts in a short time span.

I would be much more careful. I would also likely investigate who was trying to harm me, and address that problem.

1. While praying a rosary the statue in the corner of the room begins to cry.

I don’t, and won’t pray, so this is not a realistic situation.

The tears come soley from they eyes of the statue and not from a leaky pipe above. You examine the statue and find it has no pipe works running through it. You taste the tears from the statue

I would not taste things to identify them.

and they taste exactly like real human tears that you could have cried. The statue is actively crying on its own with no interference from an outside source.

I would think it was unusual. To be honest, though, since it is a man-made statue, I would attribute the effect to the artist, even if I did not understand it. Perhaps especially when I don’t understand it.

1. Riding on a road to Damascus you are knocked off your donkey and see a vision of Christ. He asks you to stop persecuiting his people.

I would first like to know what makes me decide that I am seeing a person and not an hallucination. If I know that it is not a real person, I would rush to a diagnostic of my brain. Hallucinations or ‘visions’ are sometimes a sign of brain damage - I did just fall off my donkey…

Please react to these 3 different scenarios. Thanks!

In the bible, Yahweh indicates that Lot is righteous. Why would a righteous man, when tossing his daughters to a mob for the purpose of protecting strangers, bother to tell them that the girls were virgin? Why does Yahweh think what Lot and his daughters did later is the recipe for a righteous man?

 

[_A]

Sorry if I misunderstood your intent. It’s just that I personally have heard the “believing in God is the same as believing in Santa” argument so many times it’s kinda gotten under my skin.

I think the only answer I can give (other than reiterating that we still believe in Santa (St. Nicholas), as well as God - Catholics and Orthodox anyway ) is this, and I hope it makes sense. (FWIW I don’t want to get into an argument, or challenge you - I hate when people do that to me so please forgive me if I come off that way, I don’t mean to! )

But here goes - the vast majority of people who believe in Santa and then later disbelieve are children, who accept the idea of Santa as presented to them by their parents, but later find out either (a) there’s no Santa or (b) Santa is different than what they were told as kids. Not everyone decides there’s no Santa at all (see above!). But sooner or later, every child must make this decision, as part of growing up.

In the same way, yes, it’s true that a lot of people (such as yourself) start out in life believing in God because of what their parents have told them, and later find out for themselves either that (a) there’s no God or (b) God is different than what they were told as kids. Either way you do have to examine the evidence and decide for yourself - you shouldn’t just rely on what other people have told you - because it’s part of growing up.

However, I hope you’ll also acknowledge that (b) may be as valid an answer for some people as (a) - because we each see the evidence through different “filters”. I totally acknowledge your right and your freedom to decide the evidence doesn’t support the existence of God, and only ask that you also acknowledge my right and freedom to decide it does.

(Also, it’s only fair to acknowledge that some people grow up not believing in God, and later in life find evidence that causes them to change their minds. So in that sense it’s not comparable to the Santa Claus thing.)

Again, I have just been using that comparison to describe my experience with *my * belief - namely that I don’t remember the believing part.
I don’t see evidence, and would not believe if I did see evidence - it is the belief itself that I find inexplicable.

 

[ralphinal]

I really did not want to enter this phase of the conversation, but is it safe to say that if you decided to look into the possibility of God, you would follow a scientific methodology?

First: form hypothesis
Second: Test hypothesis
Third: Evalute Results
Forth: determine if hypothesis is refuted or proven
Fifth: Retest proven in another method or restate disproven (if desired)
Sixth: Continue until totally disproven or not disproven and accepted as possibility

 

[zerinus]

I don’t believe and I don’t understand why many consider it virtuous to believe. Do you believe in Allah?

The impression I get from reading your posts is that you consider it virtuous not to believe. Why do you think it is virtuous not to believe?

zerinus

 

[PaulDupre]

I see, so it is a prejudice against the handicapped. Very progressve.

I didn’t say that it pleases my modern sensibilities. I just said it makes sense. There is a difference.

Paul

 

[zerinus]

I don’t know that god exists. There has been no evidence that he does. As far as faith goes, atheism is a faith the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

That is not true. The comparison is not a good one. Atheism is a belief, just as theism is a belief. It is no more possible to prove the existence of a God than it is to disprove it. If anything, the evidence for the existence of a God tips the balance of evidence against it. That is because there are many people who have at least claimed (rightly or wrongly) to have had a personal experience of encounter with Him; whereas no one has ever claimed, or could claim to have had a personal encounter with the “non-existence of a God”. That would be a contradiction in terms. Your choice of atheism is as much a statement of belief as is the choice of a theist.

I don’t need to believe anything to be an atheist.

Not true! Atheism is a statement of preference. You choose not to believe, rather than having no other choice but unbelief.

You need to believe something to be a theist.

Likewise you have to believe something (in this case non-existence of God) to be an atheist.

The things you believe have no evidence in favour of them.

Two answers to that. Firstly, how do you know? Perhaps they have had a personal experience of God which to them is convincing enough, but one which they cannot communicate or explain to you. Secondly, there is no evidence for what you believe (i.e. atheism) either, for the reasons just described. In either case, it is a matter of belief.

I am unable to believe without evidence.

People have repeatedly asked you what “evidence” would convince you; but you have not replied. Atheism is ultimately a matter of choice, not a matter of evidence. You are an atheist because you choose to be, not because you have no other choice but to be.

zerinus

 

[_A]

I really did not want to enter this phase of the conversation, but is it safe to say that if you decided to look into the possibility of God, you would follow a scientific methodology?

First: form hypothesis
Second: Test hypothesis
Third: Evalute Results
Forth: determine if hypothesis is refuted or proven
Fifth: Retest proven in another method or restate disproven (if desired)
Sixth: Continue until totally disproven or not disproven and accepted as possibility

What I don’t understand is - why bother? I mean, most people follow the religion of their parents, or something close. If you had been born in Saudi Arabia, there is a good chance that you were raised to be a muslim, if you were born in North America, there is a good chance you were raised to be a christian.
I don’t follow any religion, and I don’t look for something to believe in. If someone wants me to believe in something, they would have to present real measurable evidence. That would get them as close to belief as I ever get.
I guess what I mean is that I don’t believe in gravity, but I believe that things will usually fall down in my world.

 

[_A]

The impression I get from reading your posts is that you consider it virtuous not to believe. Why do you think it is virtuous not to believe?

zerinus

I think it is better not to believe, because belief can get in the way of learning. If you believe that 3+3=7, you are going to have a hard time learning that (3+3)x3=18, as you will be stuck with 21 (based on the original belief or 3+3=7).
If you don’t believe that 3+3=7, you are free to learn something that counters it.

 

[_A]

That is not true. The comparison is not a good one. Atheism is a belief, just as theism is a belief. It is no more possible to prove the existence of a God than it is to disprove it. If anything, the evidence for the existence of a God tips the balance of evidence against it. That is because there are many people who have at least claimed (rightly or wrongly) to have had a personal experience of encounter with Him; whereas no one has ever claimed, or could claim to have had a personal encounter with the “non-existence of a God”. That would be a contradiction in terms. Your choice of atheism is as much a statement of belief as is the choice of a theist.

Not true! Atheism is a statement of preference. You choose not to believe, rather than having no other choice but unbelief.

Likewise you have to believe something (in this case non-existence of God) to be an atheist.

Two answers to that. Firstly, how do you know? Perhaps they have had a personal experience of God which to them is convincing enough, but one which they cannot communicate or explain to you. Secondly, there is no evidence for what you believe (i.e. atheism) either, for the reasons just described. In either case, it is a matter of belief.

People have repeatedly asked you what “evidence” would convince you; but you have not replied. Atheism is ultimately a matter of choice, not a matter of evidence. You are an atheist because you choose to be, not because you have no other choice but to be.

zerinus

You have said a few times that atheism is a belief. That is simply not true. I do not believe in things that way. I wish you would try to understand it instead of just accusing me of being another kind of faithful. If you could understand it, I think we could come to respect each other just a little more.

 

[water]

I think it is better not to believe, because belief can get in the way of learning. If you believe that 3+3=7, you are going to have a hard time learning that (3+3)x3=18, as you will be stuck with 21 (based on the original belief or 3+3=7).
If you don’t believe that 3+3=7, you are free to learn something that counters it.

Should I believe what you don’t believe?

 

[ralphinal]

What I don’t understand is - why bother? I mean, most people follow the religion of their parents, or something close. If you had been born in Saudi Arabia, there is a good chance that you were raised to be a muslim, if you were born in North America, there is a good chance you were raised to be a christian.
I don’t follow any religion, and I don’t look for something to believe in. If someone wants me to believe in something, they would have to present real measurable evidence. That would get them as close to belief as I ever get.
I guess what I mean is that I don’t believe in gravity, but I believe that things will usually fall down in my world.

I thought that you would say something like that. It is why I started my question with “if you decided to look into the possibilty.” I am not trying to convert you at all, I just wanted to pose the question. You actually answered it for me anyway.

And I like the gravity explination. You don’t have to believe in it for it to exist (had to beat someone else to the punch). Anyway, I’d love to talk fishing or that snow stuff you guys get way up there anytime, no theology involved.

 

[bogoljub]

You have said a few times that atheism is a belief. That is simply not true. I do not believe in things that way. I wish you would try to understand it instead of just accusing me of being another kind of faithful. If you could understand it, I think we could come to respect each other just a little more.

God bless!

Yes and he was absolute true in his excellent post !
Atheism is a believe like others - I think the most uncertain.
In his post there is no Disrespect he only trys to explain that u have a faith without evidence when we have evidence !

To believe in an uncertain fairy tale would be foolish and nonsense !

We know God, we have a method to discover him and he wants to be found by everyone . This method works -everyone can examine this !

We have many different evidences of the Existence of God !

In CHRIST

 

[Kitty_Chan]

I am hoping to be in Fort Providence or Whitehorse (or maybe both!?!) to see and hear the river break. I have never seen it, but have heard that it is very impressive.

yes something else I would like to do yet is see the winter storms on the Island at Long Beach. I guess the ice piles up and crashes down.

Hadnt thought of this til just now but, I guess you really do have to live in snow to appreciate it.

Actually been reading this thread and wondering if there was anything to add to the conversations. And at this point it just hit me. One has to get to know, understand, experience, hear, taste anything to truly appreciate anything or anybody for that matter

One can hear of the ice, but until one actually experiences at least a bit of it, one really doesnt know what they are missing. Then they realise theres more to know.

The same with God.

 

[Pax]

I do not believe.Where did the universe come from ? I don’t know, but I know that it is not important to me.

Such indifference to this question is hard for me to understand.

 

[Pax]

I don’t believe and I don’t understand why many consider it virtuous to believe. Do you believe in Allah?

The truth is worthy of belief. Seeking the truth is a worthy endeavor.