Why do some people prefer to be atheists?

[zyzz]

That is only a distinction in the mind of an atheist.

Really? So, deep inside I “love” God, even though I don’t even believe that he exists? Am I THAT delusional? I always thought that I am aware of my motivations… and now, all of a sudden you declare me an idiot, who does not even know whom he loves and whom he despises.

God sustains our existence: “In Him we live, move and have our being.” Jesus also said “What you do to others you do to me”. Even by earthly standards we need one another and are not self-sufficient.

Empty words, without evidence.

I’m not judging but stating a fact.
Words without deeds are worthless. In both philosophy and science the best test of a hypothesis is whether it is fertile, leads to further discoveries and successful predictions.

And that is why your hypothesis is incorrect. You cannot make ANY predictions about someone’s behavior based upon their professed religion or lack of it. No one has first dibs on being kind or helpful.

 

[punisherthunder]

Not exactly. They want objective evidence, which is NOT hearsay.

Anything that we can verify for ourselves would do.

But of course there is nothing wrong with demanding physical proof. God is supposed to be able to take on a physical form and could convince anyone about his divine nature - if only he wanted to. There was nothing wrong with Doubting Thomas and the answer of “blessed are the ones who have not seen and yet believe” sounds like a major cop-out. Moreover there is the promise: “ask and you will be answered” and “knock and the door will be opened”… except that these “promises” are not kept. And yet, is always the atheists who are blamed for demanding that the promises MUST be fulfilled. What is a charitable word for those who make promises and do not keep them?

The funny thing is that the Christians are exactly as skeptical about the claims of other religions as the atheists. They just wish to use a more “lenient” evidential standard for their own claims. Sorry… there is only one standard, and unless you can live up to it, you will be shrugged off.

This world we live in, on Earth is the proof. Man is proof.

Atheists always are quick to blame God for anything bad. They never seem to hold him responsible for all the love, wonder, and beauty in the world.

 

[zyzz]

This world we live in, on Earth is the proof. Man is proof.

Oh, brother!

Atheists always are quick to blame God for anything bad. They never seem to hold him responsible for all the love, wonder, and beauty in the world.

That is simply not true. Atheists do not blame God for the bad things. They simply point out the logical contradiction between a “good” God and the “bad things”.

 

[Bradski]

This world we live in, on Earth is the proof. Man is proof.

Atheists always are quick to blame God for anything bad. They never seem to hold him responsible for all the love, wonder, and beauty in the world.

The world is a lot more cruel than you probably might imagine. Almost everything that has ever lived has spent almost all their time either looking for something to kill or avoiding being killed.

Not that many people would want to spend any time in an abbatoir where creatures are killed relatively painlessly and quickly. Imagine if someone started one where it was a slow, painful and terrifying death. We’d all be up in arms. Who could possibly design such a system?

Now multiply that by a planet load of creatures and hundreds of millions of years and ask yourself the same question.

 

[Ontheway]

Late in the game, but I have a question that I’d like to address to the atheists and non-believers. I am assuming that you are atheists because you have looked at some or all of the arguments for the existence of God put forth by believers and have refuted all of them.

Peter Kreeft, a philosopher and theologian lists 20 of those here.
peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

How many of these have you considered and rejected?

 

[Bradski]

All of them.

May I ask you if you would consider any of them to be valid if they related to, for example, the Hindu religion?

 

[adamhovey1988]

Even though they are not convinced atheism is true?

You have to ask them most atheists I’ve talked to don’t have a correct understanding of what or who God is. I love when they say it is the burden of the proof in the theist to prove God exists actually the opposite is true it is the burden of proof of the atheist to prove that God doesn’t exist since he is the one making the assertion

 

[Ontheway]

All of them.

May I ask you if you would consider any of them to be valid if they related to, for example, the Hindu religion?

Hypothetical question. No hypothetical answers.
Besides, the Hindus don’t have a God.

 

[adamhovey1988]

I also think the problem of evil as an excuse to be at an atheist is a lame excuse for one without some kind of supernatural explanation there can’t even be such a thing as evil because everything would be based on the social Darwinism idea of evolution where is do what you will to get ahead which is certain groups thought. Without faith in some kind of supernatural to even claim that evil exists is superfluous

 

[Bradski]

There is a problem with all of them in that they all start with the belief that God exists.

Kreeft isn’t saying: ‘Here’s a few interesting points. Let’s see where they take us’. He starts with God and then presents these points as an argument for Him. But let’s face it, you could insert any god into the initial premise and they would still all stand as they are.

So if everyone could use these twenty arguments for whatever god in which they believe, they are pretty much useless for arguing for any particular god. And that’s assuming that any of them have any worth in themselves. Which they don’t.

 

[Ontheway]

I also think the problem of evil as an excuse to be at an atheist is a lame excuse for one without some kind of supernatural explanation there can’t even be such a thing as evil because everything would be based on the social Darwinism idea of evolution where is do what you will to get ahead which is certain groups thought. Without faith in some kind of supernatural to even claim that evil exists is superfluous

Excellent point. The concept of evil can not exist for a true atheist.

 

[Ontheway]

There is a problem with all of them in that they all start with the belief that God exists.

Kreeft isn’t saying: ‘Here’s a few interesting points. Let’s see where they take us’. He starts with God and then presents these points as an argument for Him. But let’s face it, you could insert any god into the initial premise and they would still all stand as they are.

So if everyone could use these twenty arguments for whatever god in which they believe, they are pretty much useless for arguing for any particular god. And that’s assuming that any of them have any worth in themselves. Which they don’t.

The same could be said for all of knowledge. We all start with an assumption, a basic premise with can’t be proven, ie it is taken on faith.

 

[Bradski]

You have to ask them most atheists I’ve talked to don’t have a correct understanding of what or who God is. I love when they say it is the burden of the proof in the theist to prove God exists actually the opposite is true it is the burden of proof of the atheist to prove that God doesn’t exist since he is the one making the assertion

Here’s something that will clear up that problem. Tell me about your God and why you believe in Him and I will tell you if I think there is a chance that that God exists.

And no hypothetical answers? Well, lets say that someone asked you a hypothetical question. Would you answer it…?

 

[Bradski]

Excellent point. The concept of evil can not exist for a true atheist.

Are you saying that I cannot tell the difference between saving a child from a burning building and throwing one in? And please…please don’t tell me that for an atheist there cannot be a difference.

The same could be said for all of knowledge. We all start with an assumption, a basic premise with can’t be proven, ie it is taken on faith.

So you started life with an assumption that God existed and you use these 20 points as…what? Confirmation that you were right?

Maybe you miissed my point. You could start with the assumption of any god whatsoever and the points would still be valid. They only serve to confirm what you have already decided. Which makes them worthless.

Imagine evidence that confirmed the validity of a number of conflicting theories. Would you say that that evidence, as it stood, was worth anything?

 

[Ontheway]

Evil is not a materialist concept. There is no evil in nature. Nature is nature. Survival of the fittest, and all that. There is no room for compassion. Eat of be eaten. That is one problem a materialist has to face and explain away.

 

[Ontheway]

Are you saying that I cannot tell the difference between saving a child from a burning building and throwing one in? And please…please don’t tell me that for an atheist there cannot be a difference.

So you started life with an assumption that God existed and you use these 20 points as…what? Confirmation that you were right?

Maybe you miissed my point. You could start with the assumption of any god whatsoever and the points would still be valid. They only serve to confirm what you have already decided. Which makes them worthless.

Imagine evidence that confirmed the validity of a number of conflicting theories. Would you say that that evidence, as it stood, was worth anything?

I am not saying any of this.
If you want to argue against the theory of evolution, you need to know what it states and then try to refute it.
If you want to argue against the existence of God, you need to know that line of argumentation and then disprove it.

Otherwise, you are in a fog. And if you are, then perhaps looking at some of those arguments might help strengthen your convictions.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Evil is not a materialist concept. There is no evil in nature. Nature is nature. Survival of the fittest, and all that. There is no room for compassion. Eat of be eaten. That is one problem a materialist has to face and explain away.

I think there hasn’t been agreement on what is being talked about when one speaks of “evil.” There are those that use “evil” as a label for intentional harm done by a moral agent and don’t include unintentional harm (whether done by a moral agent by accident or by nature). There are some that use the label to refer to anything that is harmful as evil, such as the huricane or earthquake or an attack on a person by an animal.

I am going to guess from your statement “there is no evil in nature” that you only refer to intentional harm performed by a moral agent.

 

[Bradski]

Evil is not a materialist concept. There is no evil in nature. Nature is nature. Survival of the fittest, and all that. There is no room for compassion. Eat of be eaten. That is one problem a materialist has to face and explain away.

It isn’t a problem. Evolution is an entirely natural process. Designed, apparently, by God. Red in tooth and claw etc.

Lucky for us we’ve advanced far enough so that the evolutionary process is no longer applicable to us. And a warning that this is a banned topic, so don’t expect me to keep putting you straight about the subject. I don’t want to get slapped on the wrist by the mods.

If you want to argue against the existence of God, you need to know that line of argumentation and then disprove it.

I’m not arguing against God. You are using those 20 points to ague FOR God. I’m saying (again), that they are not specific to God. That they are generalisations that would apply to any god in which you believe.

If you can point to any one of them and show me that it cannot relate to any God other than the one in which you believe, then we can discuss whether it’s any good in itself. That might be interesting.

 

[Ontheway]

I think there hasn’t been agreement on what is being talked about when one speaks of “evil.” There are those that use “evil” as a label for intentional harm done by a moral agent and don’t include unintentional harm (whether done by a moral agent by accident or by nature). There are some that use the label to refer to anything that is harmful as evil, such as the huricane or earthquake or an attack on a person by an animal.

I am going to guess from your statement “there is no evil in nature” that you only refer to intentional harm performed by a moral agent.

It seems to me that an empiricist would have no criteria to judge what evil is. That concept itself comes from another realm that can not be analyzed by science. A computer programmer has no ability to judge the morality of the program. A rational human being, with a sense of right and wrong (a theist) will have the tools to judge the effect of that program and determine if it can be called "evil’. The program itself is neither good nor evil.

 

[Bradski]

A rational human being, with a sense of right and wrong (a theist) will have the tools to judge the effect of that program and determine if it can be called "evil’.

So if I showed you an animal in a cage (the type of animal and size of the cage are not relevant), you would be able to say whether it was acceptable or not and I wouldn’t. It would be possible for you, as you are rational with a sense of right and wrong, but it would be impossible for me, not knowing the difference between right and wrong and being irrational.

Am I right in saying that?