Atheists: Do they have legitimate reasons for their doubt?

[Ukranianlys]

Hello all,

I see alot of cases for Atheisim, many of them saying that they are seekers of Knowledge and have the power to change things, that they relentlessly pursue the truth, and they jump the bundaries of fallacy that christianity has put in place by gapping Knowledge with God. More of less proclaiming to be the intellectualy superior. Normally I would dissmiss this, but for some reason I cling onto the question "If I have reasons for my belief, and I feel that they hold ground, Could it be that the atheistic claims hold ground too? That perhaps all this excitment over how they are truth seekers be partially true? I as a Christian cannot just blow off their claims, because they too are fellow humans, They think, they use reason, they are flesh and blood, and they are like me. I suppose what im getting as is, If I have legitimate reasons for my Faith, could they too have Legitimate reasons for their unbelief? If this is true should i take these claims seriously and find answers for them? or are they perhaps meerly lying, trying to gain the approval of the masses?

To add, A question that has bugged me to no end and really gets my goat (so to speak) Is the claim that Chrsitianity as a whole is a much more "Stupid" than the Whole of Atheism. That they are Freethinkers And we are blind
Im almost positive that you all have heard this before, I have as well, but i guess i would like to hear your opinions rather then just read a Article on it.

Thanks for your Time

[bippy123]

Hello all,

I see alot of cases for Atheisim, many of them saying that they are seekers of Knowledge and have the power to change things, that they relentlessly pursue the truth, and they jump the bundaries of fallacy that christianity has put in place by gapping Knowledge with God. More of less proclaiming to be the intellectualy superior. Normally I would dissmiss this, but for some reason I cling onto the question "If I have reasons for my belief, and I feel that they hold ground, Could it be that the atheistic claims hold ground too? That perhaps all this excitment over how they are truth seekers be partially true? I as a Christian cannot just blow off their claims, because they too are fellow humans, They think, they use reason, they are flesh and blood, and they are like me. I suppose what im getting as is, If I have legitimate reasons for my Faith, could they too have Legitimate reasons for their unbelief? If this is true should i take these claims seriously and find answers for them? or are they perhaps meerly lying, trying to gain the approval of the masses?

To add, A question that has bugged me to no end and really gets my goat (so to speak) Is the claim that Chrsitianity as a whole is a much more "Stupid" than the Whole of Atheism. That they are Freethinkers And we are blind
Im almost positive that you all have heard this before, I have as well, but i guess i would like to hear your opinions rather then just read a Article on it.

Thanks for your Time

Yes and they claim to be the purveyors of intellect and knowledge etc etc etc. They love science so much except when it goes against their atheistic worldviews, and I've seen them do it so many times. I've seen it in their argument to against the shroud of turin, against miracles, against veridical Nde's and so on. I've seen it to the point of them completely abandoning reason and the scientific method. To me atheism is more of an emotional worldview then an intellectual one.

If they were Truely rational free thinkers, they wouldn't need to keep repeating this to us. The would would have pointed this out. Most atheistic sites use the words reason, logic or rational , and if they use the words enough they will suddenly become what they describe themselves to be.

If you Truely are the smartest and the greatest you would be recognized as such, you wouldn't need to try to convince anyone of it.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

The Bible clearly states that atheists are fools. You may want to look up the definition of fool but most people will agree that a fool is a harmlessly deranged person unable to understand what is clearly before him. If you look at the discussions we've had with atheists on this forum, it will become evident that they are unable to understand what is said to them in answer to their questions. A good case in point would be the topic Facebook athiests are at it again! in Questions for Christians.

I used to be a fool and a member of an atheist organization which met once a week. Looking back, I would have to say that atheists have no legitimate reasons for their doubt in God. What motivates atheists is a hatred of, and a desire to be free of, God. In some atheists, this hatred is conscious; in most, I would have to say it is unconscious.

So, to answer your question, Do [atheists] have legitimate reasons for their doubt?...No! hatred, stubboness and willful blindness are not legitimate reasons for doubt. I can see this now, by the grace of God who saved me from this folly.

FL

[Philip]

If I have legitimate reasons for my Faith, could they too have Legitimate reasons for their unbelief?

Romans 1 says NO!

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by THEIR unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is PLAIN to them, because God has SHOWN it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been CLEARLY perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because THEY exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

And since THEY did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they KNOW God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. (Romans 1 ESV)

Not to mention that talking to God is as close as one's own breath - if someone truly and sincerely wants to know if God exists, they can do the simplest thing - ASK Him: "Are you there, are you real? - IF so, please reveal yourself to me." Now Romans indicates that people ALREADY know God exists but they "suppress" that knowledge in their own unrighteousness. Searching for all of these "reasons" to believe in God will never create 100% certainty. We know that God wants all to come to saving knowledge of Him, and thus He will honor those who sincerely desire to know Him or to initially even understand He exists. So not engage God with a simple test - why not ask Him, in the quiet by yourself - as an experiment that no one will ever know except you, God and the wall. As what does a person seeking the truth of God's existence have to lose - except perhaps his unbelief? And to gain? Eternal life! Seems that, as the payoff is so potentially enormous and as the risk so small and unknowable to anyone else - why not ask God to reveal Himself? Unless you truly don't want to know - meaning, what you have isn't a lack of evidence, but a self-imposed emotional block, designed to remain in determined unbelief, no matter the powerful evidences otherwise.

[bippy123]

If I have legitimate reasons for my Faith, could they too have Legitimate reasons for their unbelief?

Romans 1 says NO!

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by THEIR unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is PLAIN to them, because God has SHOWN it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been CLEARLY perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because THEY exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

And since THEY did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they KNOW God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. (Romans 1 ESV)

Not to mention that talking to God is as close as one's own breath - if someone truly and sincerely wants to know if God exists, they can do the simplest thing - ASK Him: "Are you there, are you real? - IF so, please reveal yourself to me." Now Romans indicates that people ALREADY know God exists but they "suppress" that knowledge in their own unrighteousness. Searching for all of these "reasons" to believe in God will never create 100% certainty. We know that God wants all to come to saving knowledge of Him, and thus He will honor those who sincerely desire to know Him or to initially even understand He exists. So there is a simple test - why not ask it in the quiet by yourself - an experiment that know one will ever know. What does a person seeking the truth of God's existence have to lose?

Absolutely beautiful.

[Silvertusk]

Hello all,

I see alot of cases for Atheisim, many of them saying that they are seekers of Knowledge and have the power to change things, that they relentlessly pursue the truth, and they jump the bundaries of fallacy that christianity has put in place by gapping Knowledge with God. More of less proclaiming to be the intellectualy superior. Normally I would dissmiss this, but for some reason I cling onto the question "If I have reasons for my belief, and I feel that they hold ground, Could it be that the atheistic claims hold ground too? That perhaps all this excitment over how they are truth seekers be partially true? I as a Christian cannot just blow off their claims, because they too are fellow humans, They think, they use reason, they are flesh and blood, and they are like me. I suppose what im getting as is, If I have legitimate reasons for my Faith, could they too have Legitimate reasons for their unbelief? If this is true should i take these claims seriously and find answers for them? or are they perhaps meerly lying, trying to gain the approval of the masses?

To add, A question that has bugged me to no end and really gets my goat (so to speak) Is the claim that Chrsitianity as a whole is a much more "Stupid" than the Whole of Atheism. That they are Freethinkers And we are blind
Im almost positive that you all have heard this before, I have as well, but i guess i would like to hear your opinions rather then just read a Article on it.

Thanks for your Time

It depends on their underlying reason for their claims. If they are genuine truth seekers then their doubts might be valid - as it is a journey most of us as gone through to become believers. I had many doubts before I became a Christian and each one slowy eroded after research and questioning. If this is what the Athiests are doing then maybe it can be said that they are just on part of their journey. The Holy Spirit may be slowly convicting them and growing the seeds planted by others to bring them back to God.

However some Athiests have other reasons for holding onto their "truth" claims and that is that they do not want to change their current lifestyle. I know some athiests that do not want to bow to an authority that they can't see or are enjoying their "sinful" life too much to want to change. Some athiests protest too much because they might fear the consequences of submitting to God.

[PaulSacramento]

I think that it depends on why an atheist is an atheist.
If they do not believe because they see no evidence an proof that God exists then yes, they have a legit reason to not believe in God.
Of course what this means is that they interpret the evidence that a believer thinks is evidence of God as evidence for something else.

[The Protector]

Ukrainianlys,

You asked if atheists have legitimate reasons for their unbelief, or if they are just lying or trying to gain approval from the masses. This makes me wonder what you mean by "legitimate." If you mean "correct" or "strong" arguments, I would have to say I generally don't think that they do (or at least most don't make very strong arguments). Even where the arguments are compelling, I don't think they are as strong as those for theism. But even if this is so it would not follow that atheists are lying. Regardless of the quality of their arguments, I think their beliefs are sincerely held; indeed, many Christians make poor arguments for theism (or none at all), but that does not mean they are insincere in their beliefs.

FL mentioned that adherence to their beliefs is, in many cases, unconsciously motivated. I think this is spot on. Many people think that Freud thought religious belief was delusional, but he did not-- he thought religious belief was an "illusion," not a delusion; the distinction he made was that a delusion is a belief that is obviously false but is held nonetheless due to unconscious dynamics, whereas an "illusion" is a belief that MAY OR MAY NOT be true, but it's being held was due to unconscious dynamics regardless of the actual veracity of the belief. This can be true of some religious believers (though not all, or not entirely-- I admit that I do WANT to belief in God, but I also think I have very good reason to think that God does exist regardless of this desire), but it can also be true of atheist belief as well. as preposterous as much of Freud's developmental theory was, he did get some things right.

As for the question of whether or not you should take atheists' arguments seriously, I must insist that the answer is YES! We must take their arguments seriously if for no other reason that becuase atheists take them seriously themselves, and we cannot engage with them effectively and try to win them to Christ unless we do likewise. That is not to say that we accept their arguments as true or valid, but that we try to honestly understand them. It is not Godly of us to merely dismiss others as fools--we must engage with them all the more for their foolishness! We do not hide a lamp under a basket, after all.

[Jac3510]

Protector makes a good point. I think "legitimate reason" needs to be clarified. Can you ever have a legitimate reason to be wrong? You can have reasons to be wrong, but those reasons, by their nature, will be flawed. Perhaps you misunderstand a term or have an unfounded assumption under the reason. Let's take a nice political example. Did Bush have legitimate reasons for thinking that Iraq had WMD? He was working off the final assessment of the intelligence community, which was corroborated by the intelligence communities in other countries. But in the end, everybody was wrong.

In that case, he thought he had sufficient warrant for his assessment. He was mistaken in that assessment. The real question here, and it seems to be close to the question you are asking, is, "Did he have sufficient reason to conclude that the intelligence was either flawed or insufficient to draw military-actionable conclusions?" In short, should he have known better?

I think that is what you are really getting at. Should atheists know better? Can they plead ignorance? And here, I think the answer is just "no." Atheists want to pretend that the default position is non-belief, but they're just wrong about that. That's just something they say to justify their own views. The default position is belief, so the question is, "Why should I challenge and drop the default belief? What warrant do I have?" Seen that way, the ignorance question answers itself. You can't plead ignorant when you are required to make the case for your position.

Obviously, atheists would disagree with my assessment. As noted, they think that non-belief is the default. Convenient. But it's just demonstrably false, and the amazing part is that they will go on to argue--that is, to give reasons--why non-belief ought to be the default. But that should tell you something. When, for instance, anthropologists point out that there has never been a naturally atheistic culture, that atheism is learned, they start arguing why atheism is the superior belief (precisely because of its learning, because of its move away from superstition). But that gives away the farm. They're showing why their view is NOT default after all. Instead, they're now making a positive case as to why the default view fails.

It just so happens that their arguments against the default view fail. Theism is not learned. Every atheist started out a theist, whether they admit it or not. Atheism is learned, and since it is leaned, it must be warranted. Since it must be warranted, it cannot, by nature, plead ignorance.

So on my view, while no one can ever in principle claim legitimate reasons for being wrong, the real question--whether atheists can plead ignorance, that is, that they should know better--equally proves the inanity of their position.

Just my thoughts.

[SonofAletheia]

I think people assume all atheists are just arrogant people who want to win arguments, put others down, and hate God. While certainly this is the case for many of them its not always the case.

Many people are just confused or overwhelmed by all the information. Or maybe they are struggling with an intellectual problem or an emotional problem. I sincerely hope each and every Christian has spent hours looking into the historical evidence for the Resurrection, the formation of the Biblical canon, and the doctrines within it.

We should never assume that just because a person is an atheist that they don't have legitimate reasons for their doubt. Sometimes these people are more rational than people of faith who simply believe because they want to or their parents told them to.

[jlay]

SOA,
But what you describe is not an atheist.

[Philip]

I think that is what you are really getting at. Should atheists know better? Can they plead ignorance? And here, I think the answer is just "no." Atheists want to pretend that the default position is non-belief, but they're just wrong about that. That's just something they say to justify their own views

An atheist has no excuse because it is not God who has obscured Himself from them, but THEY that have obscured God from themselves - as they typically don't sincerely see and listen to what God has already shown them. God wants to reveal Himself, but will not force Himself upon one determined to avoid and reject Him. If they WANT to know if God exists, then He is more than willing to reveal Himself to such people. But a man can't see if he puts on and keeps on a heavy duty blindfold (whether borrowed or of his own making). And to not see that God exists, one has to work very hard to miss Him - as His fingerprints are all over this world, in countless obvious ways.

[SonofAletheia]

SOA,
But what you describe is not an atheist.

I think terms like atheism and agnosticism can vary depending on the situation. For example, lets say a person is looking for the objective truth and is genuinely open to the evidence. But this person is not convinced by the arguments and evidence presented to him at that point. So it seems rational to say this person is an atheist (or perhaps a hybrid of an agnostic and atheist).

They would not say "there is no God" but they would say "at this point there is not enough evidence for God so it's not rational to believe in Him"

It's all semantics but I considered myself an atheist when I thought the arguments for God's existence were not compelling