What to say to the athiest?

[Thing]

In general it seems atheists view a belief in God unreasonable … mostly because it lacks pure scientific proof.

Physical reality lacks 90ish % of its mass and its energy. Its called dark matter and dark energy because whilst it should be there it is not. Lets face it, most of our reality is missing but the universe acts as if it were still there. To take a scientific view you must believe in unreasonable things, you must believe that something which is not there, is there - somehow.
Unreasonable beliefs, faith… or is it reasonable?..

 

[Newbie2]

A different tack, perhaps, to the OP’s post:

Rather than trying to convince or demonstrate to a “young” athiest (how young, BTW?), methinks a “here’s what I believe and why” would be better.

If you put it on yourself, “I believe that God exists because…”, that removes any defensiveness to the other’s position. “I believe this because…and am very comfortable in that belief” says more, methinks, than any convincing “proofs”.

As well, an appeal to eternity seems appropriate: “What do you think happens after you die?”. Of course, the answer is nothing, that’s the end. “That’s too bad, because I believe that there is a life beyond this one, one that lasts for eternity…and it’s very cool to me to know that when this life ends, that’s not the ***real ***end.”

 

[milde]

A different tack, perhaps, to the OP’s post:

Rather than trying to convince or demonstrate to a “young” athiest (how young, BTW?), methinks a “here’s what I believe and why” would be better.

If you put it on yourself, “I believe that God exists because…”, that removes any defensiveness to the other’s position. “I believe this because…and am very comfortable in that belief” says more, methinks, than any convincing “proofs”.

As well, an appeal to eternity seems appropriate: “What do you think happens after you die?”. Of course, the answer is nothing, that’s the end. “That’s too bad, because I believe that there is a life beyond this one, one that lasts for eternity…and it’s very cool to me to know that when this life ends, that’s not the ***real ***end.”

How does your argument change if the person is of another religion?

 

[Newbie2]

How does your argument change if the person is of another religion?

Not much, really…difference being with the athiest there is no belief and with those that are of a different religion, there is a belief.

 

[milde]

Not much, really…difference being with the athiest there is no belief and with those that are of a different religion, there is a belief.

My point is that his arguments are just as good as yours if it’s a Muslim. I don’t think you would get anywhere trying to convince a muslim that there is a God. The muslim would agree with you but tell you that you are misguided about Jesus. Are you sure you would have this conversation with a muslim the same way that you would with an atheist?

 

[loscampos]

My question to an atheist would be, How do you determine the value of life?

My personal opinion is without God, life has no value really. I was talking about he value of life with someone the other day and they gave me all of the typical stuff, survival etc. My point is that if there is no God then who is to say my life is more valuable than an animal, as an example lets say an ant. If my life is equal to that of an ant, then just as easily as i can kill one of them for inconviencing me, another human can do the same and there would be nothing wrong with it, because we would both be correct. I havent really seen an objective argument for the value of life without God. Pretty much any moral value comes from God no matter how we try and say it doesnt. I would be interested to any comments about an objective value of life without the existance of God.

 

[milde]

My question to an atheist would be, How do you determine the value of life?

My personal opinion is without God, life has no value really. I was talking about he value of life with someone the other day and they gave me all of the typical stuff, survival etc. My point is that if there is no God then who is to say my life is more valuable than an animal, as an example lets say an ant. If my life is equal to that of an ant, then just as easily as i can kill one of them for inconviencing me, another human can do the same and there would be nothing wrong with it, because we would both be correct. I havent really seen an objective argument for the value of life without God. Pretty much any moral value comes from God no matter how we try and say it doesnt. I would be interested to any comments about an objective value of life without the existance of God.

The problem with this argument is that across all cultures we find that people value life even when they have not been introduced to religion, God, or even believe in God. There is something innate in humans that values life.

 

[loscampos]

The problem with this argument is that across all cultures we find that people value life even when they have not been introduced to religion, God, or even believe in God. There is something innate in humans that values life.

My point is that without God you can put whatever value on life that you wish. And going along with your example slavery in general would fit that mould. If you devalue someone then it is ok because might equals right. The same principle goes along with what hitler did. Just from a value of life perspective, hitler gave a lesser value to Jews then his own people. And the most interesting part is that he did it legally. In a nutshell he said that the Jews value was less then his own and he had the right to do so. Now if there is no God, with morals and values, then who is to say that he was wrong. Now I do not agree with what he did, let me just make that clear. But from a value of life perspective, without God, who is to say he was wrong, objectively.

 

[milde]

My point is that without God you can put whatever value on life that you wish. And going along with your example slavery in general would fit that mould. If you devalue someone then it is ok because might equals right. The same principle goes along with what hitler did. Just from a value of life perspective, hitler gave a lesser value to Jews then his own people. And the most interesting part is that he did it legally. In a nutshell he said that the Jews value was less then his own and he had the right to do so. Now if there is no God, with morals and values, then who is to say that he was wrong. Now I do not agree with what he did, let me just make that clear. But from a value of life perspective, without God, who is to say he was wrong, objectively.

I’m really confused now. You started off saying that human life has no value without God, then you talked about the degree to which an individual may value human life. Obviously there are examples of individuals across the entire spectrum. My argument was with your earlier point, not the new one you have made.

In general, many people innately place a value on life without knowledge of God. That is a true statement regardless of what Hitler or anyone else may have done.

 

[loscampos]

I’m really confused now. You started off saying that human life has no value without God, then you talked about the degree to which an individual may value human life. Obviously there are examples of individuals across the entire spectrum. My argument was with your earlier point, not the new one you have made.

In general, many people innately place a value on life without knowledge of God. That is a true statement regardless of what Hitler or anyone else may have done.

You are correct about what i said about the value of life. I guess the point i am trying to get across is that without God there is no wrong value placed on life, whether it is abortion, slavery or just how you feel about someone. without God if I really wanted to go and kill or rape someone, then there would be nothing wrong with it because the value of someone else is dependent on how I or anybody else feels about them. To me without God the value of life is subjective to each individual.

My idea for asking this question to an atheist, is because all of the ones I have talked have or believe in morality. All of them believe things such as rape and child abudction are wrong, as well as killing innocent people and so forth, they just dont believe there is a God that exists. Like i have stated earlier without God, there really is nothing that is immoral, because our each individual values that we place on ourselves and others only applies to us, not everyone equally. I hope that i cleared up my point from earlier.

 

[milde]

You are correct about what i said about the value of life. I guess the point i am trying to get across is that without God there is no wrong value placed on life, whether it is abortion, slavery or just how you feel about someone. without God if I really wanted to go and kill or rape someone, then there would be nothing wrong with it because the value of someone else is dependent on how I or anybody else feels about them. To me without God the value of life is subjective to each individual.

Unless you are a very rare individual who is cold and has no emotion, that is not true. People across all cultures who do not know God usually understand that murder is wrong and do not murder other people. Are you describing only yourself or mankind in general?

 

[milde]

I really find it amazing how Christians can think non-Christians place no value on human life. The arrogance that could lead someone to think that way of others in such a general sense is just astounding. I simply do not want to belong to a group of people who have such cruel and warped ideas about other people.

 

[loscampos]

Unless you are a very rare individual who is cold and has no emotion, that is not true. People across all cultures who do not know God usually understand that murder is wrong and do not murder other people. Are you describing only yourself or mankind in general?

I didnt say you dont have morals or values, if you read my previous remark i clearly stated that many of my atheist friends do have morals and values on life.

The whole point of the thread was questions to ask an atheist. And the arguement i made was that morality comes from God and an atheist is contradicting themselves when they say they have morals but dont believe in God. And that is why i would ask how without God you could make an OBJECTIVE argument for valuing life. All arguments without God become subjective, which you are clearly demonstrating.

I am not here to say what is right and wrong, and to say atheist dont have morals. I was trying to ask a question that i know would place the burden of proving there point on an atheist. Many times they call us hypocrits and so forth, yet i was hoping to expose atheist for the same type of thinking as our own.

 

[Newbie2]

My point is that his arguments are just as good as yours if it’s a Muslim. I don’t think you would get anywhere trying to convince a muslim that there is a God. The muslim would agree with you but tell you that you are misguided about Jesus. Are you sure you would have this conversation with a muslim the same way that you would with an atheist?

Are you saying that Muslims don’t believe that there is a God?

 

[loscampos]

Are you saying that Muslims don’t believe that there is a God?

I never said that muslims dont believe in God, this question was pointed at atheists and not muslims. I would approach muslims with a similiar yet different set of criteria. We would be discussing the value of life based on the morals and values set by God. And yes i know it would come down to interpretation of God and his values, but at the same time we are both under the assumption that we get our moral values from God. Me and an atheist would not start under the same assumption

 

[Newbie2]

I never said that muslims dont believe in God, this question was pointed at atheists and not muslims. I would approach muslims with a similiar yet different set of criteria. We would be discussing the value of life based on the morals and values set by God. And yes i know it would come down to interpretation of God and his values, but at the same time we are both under the assumption that we get our moral values from God. Me and an atheist would not start under the same assumption

OK. I was a little confused when you wrote:

“I don’t think you would get anywhere trying to convince a muslim that there is a God.”

I assumed that you meant that Muslims don’t believe in God.

 

[milde]

OK. I was a little confused when you wrote:

“I don’t think you would get anywhere trying to convince a muslim that there is a God.”

I assumed that you meant that Muslims don’t believe in God.

The muslim god is not the same as the Christian God. If you don’t believe that just read the Koran. There are characteristics of the muslim god that are simply mutually exclusive of the Christian God.

Oprah (and most Americans) believe that the muslim god and the Christian God are one in the same and that different religions are just different means to the same end.

That’s not true, of course. Atleast if you believe your Catholic teachings.

 

[Abbadon]

Please give a reasonable explanation to this dilemma. The big bang is simple cause and effect. Take any theory about the beginning of the universe … it is cause and effect. The effect being the beginning but for any effect there is a cause … what caused that cause.

So 1 universe or a zillion universes … they all had a beginning … reason tells us that. What could be the prime mover … the beginning cause. You don’t need to be a scientist … just a thinker.

When was the last time anything was created out of nothing?

Why do the people who state this argument never apply this logic to the creator?

everything has to come from something… errrrrr… except god… of course…

There are always reasons given that define the nature of god, he is outside of time etc… I have no idea how one would know such facts about gods nature… but obviously people have conducted double blind tests to figure this out…

Hume was not a scientist i believe he was a philosopher and he concluded the illogical nature of this argument along time ago…

 

[Thing]

Why do the people who state this argument never apply this logic to the creator?

everything has to come from something… errrrrr… except god… of course…

Exactly… . For a beginning there needs to be a first cause. In the case of the universe which at some point did not exist, it needed something outside of the physical universe to initiate its beginning.
The cause being outside of time, because time is a function of matter and energy, is a timeless cause - in other words the cause is eternal, being outside of time it always exists.

 

[mangy_dog]

The muslim god is not the same as the Christian God. If you don’t believe that just read the Koran. There are characteristics of the muslim god that are simply mutually exclusive of the Christian God.

Oprah (and most Americans) believe that the muslim god and the Christian God are one in the same and that different religions are just different means to the same end.

That’s not true, of course. Atleast if you believe your Catholic teachings.

The God of Abraham, the God of Jacob, the God of Isaac…the same God of the Jews, Muslims and Christians.

Unfortunately that’s where the similarities end. Jews are still waiting for the Messiah and Elijah is the important prophet and Muslims believe that Mohammad is the “numero uno” prophet but relegate Jesus to a great man, second to Mohammad if that.

In the Transfiguration, the law and the prophets are represented by Moses and Elijah - respectively the Muslims and the Jews - with Jesus Christ being the central figure and recieving the “endorsement” of the Father.
In the not so distant future Christianity will be transfigured or transformed and Jesus Christ will be recognized as the One, True Lord and God of all. The Transfiguration is a prophecy of our future. And so it confirms that Muslims, Jews and Christians adore the One and same God.

Forget Oprah and her followers - she’s wrapped up in new age and dianetics and scientology.

Gospa Mir.