Why Are There Even Atheists?

[Anonymous]

To begin, I would like to say that I am not the type (anymore) to frequent Christian message board or websites in an effort to defend my position as an atheist. I think people of any religion, ethnicity, or sexual preference who feel the need to invade the space of others and push forward their own agendas are immature and have yet to become comfortable enough in their own belief/cultural structure to accept the differences of others.

I would like to ask this, before anything: why would a Christian message board so blatantly goad atheists into an argument, but then argue that any atheist who bites is not really an atheist? Why talk about atheism in this context at all and postulate on the beliefs of other people? In my opinion, one should stick to their own beliefs and only discuss the beliefs of others when it is appropriate (and so little time seems appropriate anymore in the harshly divided politcal and religious climate of not just America, but the world today).

I found this board only because I was looking for a specific quote about atheism that I had read at one point in time several years ago, but this came up in Google and the title alone piqued my interest enough for me to check in to see what was going on. I think the topic and the opinions expressed are narrow minded, bigoted and assume that anyone that does not follow your express train of though on the subject of religion and Christianity in particular is only in denial of the truth.

But the truth is an individuals perception, in this case. What I hold as the truths of my world you do not hold as the thruths of your world and vice versa. It is a the responsibility of a mature adult (or of any human being) to be open enough to understand that not everyone's belief systems line up, but that does not make them any less of a person.

I do not believe in a god Christian or otherwise. But, however, I do believe in the concept of a god or gods and understand how people can believe in those things. My particular belief is that there is no supreme being at all, and what you all are not understanding about atheism is that it is not just the disbelief in a Christian god but any god. You take it as a personal attack on your savior, but Atheists simply do not believe. We have faith in the belief that there is no god the same way you have faith in the Christian dogma.

The reason Atheists are so quick to attack Christians is because of the simple fact that, for the most part, few people actually live the teachings of Christ or the Bible (and few people can rarely agree on details within the dogma itself, hence the many denominations). America, at the moment, is being run by one of the most religious presidentail regimes in some time, and it scares those of us who are in any way alternative because there is the constant scare of having our civil rights revoked because we do not align with those in power.

You can argue that the framers of our constitution were Christian, but they were also Humanist. This means that they respect each individuals right to live and breath and that all men are, indeed, created equal (created, of course, could be argued as a creationist statement but the key word is not created but rather EQUAL).

So many Christians preach but do little to show that they are living by those exact dictates that they lay on the godless heathens that they see around them. Christians, and everyone, should live by example as opposed to clumsily spreading their beliefs around and damning anyone who refuses to align with them.

As for my beliefs in chemical reactions and such, I do not HAVE to believe anything that I do not want to. I let my mind take me where it will, and I allow for its ability to change beliefs over a period of years, because I'm young still and my perception of the world shifts ever so slightly each day because of new experiences.

As a whole, atheists make up a major proportion of the world's religions, but Christianity is still the plurality (not a majority, but a plurality). But of course with two billion Christians in the world that leaves four billion non-Christians. When you ask what is winning, religion or atheism, I assume that you mean more specifically Christianity or Atheism. The thing is, this is not a competition, it is religion. There is no winning or losing, but rather beliefs of groups and of indviduals. It is a shame that religion has killed so many billions of people over the course of history, because it shows us very clearly that tolerance is not accepted anywhere at anytime.

In regards to the being "mad at God" approach to Atheism, I am not in any way mad at God or any deity for that matter. I don't believe in them, and it is that simple. It is my belief, and just because you don't understand it does not make it any less valid. There are a lot of things in the world that the average person, or even the above average person, cannot understand. No one can truly grasp the concept of infinity, because infinity is beyond the grasp of our minds. It is never ending, but in our worlds there is a beginning and an end to everything.

This natural predilection toward having a beginning and end to everything is, I believe, one of the major reasons for the propagation of religion. We are unsure where we come from, so we use religion to answer these questions. We are unsure of where we are going so we use religion to answer these questions. I don't need these questions answered for me, because I understand that they are beyond the realm of truly understanding because my brain, just as yours, are not able to understand the significance of things like infinity or death.

I believe all the matter in this universe has existed and will continue to exist in some form or another. Matter, as far as we know, cannot be created nor destroyed. Matter has had many forms over the course of the infinite number of years that it has been around, but it is an absolute. It was never created, it just was and I don't feel the need to have this explain, I have faith in this fact. I also know that when I am dead I am dead, there is no afterlife because my brain will shut down and it will cease to matter. The brain cannot comprehend not being able to think, to communicate, to operate because even in doing that it is completing all of those tasks. Death is a scary, terrible thing because I love life, but at the same time I know that I will be gone and there will be nothing to worry about. Death is only a fear of the living.

Some atheists do read and analyze the Bible with the best of the Christian scholars, but I don't feel the need. What interest I have in the Bible is not as the word of God but as a reason for events that have happened and continue to happen. I rarely, if ever, argue the Bible with anyone because I find it pointless. Christians argue that it is the word of God and atheists argue that it is not, but the only way to make for a good debate is if you debate the larger subject: God. If I argue God with someone, the rules of civilized debate would say that they cannot use the Bible as evidence because we are arguing something above the Bible. If God does not exist than the Bible is no longer a work of faith but a work of ficiton, so you can't use the redundant debate that God exists because the Bible is the word of God. But I'm not trying to get into that debate here, and I have a feeling many of the people on this board have already tuned out my words and have begun an arguments based on things that I have said without reading the entire piece.

If this happens I will not respond.

My only suggestion is to not worry about why atheists exist or if they are real because we are. Just because you do not align with our beliefs does not mean that we are somehow in denial about something, or angry at God, or any number of other things that people have put forth. We are simply different in our thought processes than you are, and that has to be accepted. I accept the fact that I do not truly understand all of the motivations that many Christians, or people of any religion, have but I accept that people believe differently that I do. I do not try to force anything upon anyone and prefer civilized discourse over screaming fits of faith-based rage.

I do not want to be in a longstanding debate on this board, but since there was no representation of my own faith in this argument about it, I felt the need to step in. If anyone has any questions I will answer them as long as they are neutral and not pointed in order to goad me into argument or anger. I want neither, but I will answer any honest questions about my belief the best I can without forcing anything upon anyone. I don't like that. I respect you only as much as you respect me. You may ask about my beliefs specifically or my lifestyle, just so long as the questions are, as I have said, neutral, honest, and not pointed.

For all of your who have taken the time to read all of my post before formulating opinions about me, and for those of you who accept me as a person with different thoughts as your own but not less of a person than you I thank you. There are so many people out there giving Christians and other religious groups a bad name because they refuse to accept anything but their own belief, and anyone not following along with that is not equal.

I hope this doesn't cause too much of a stir. Ask what you will.

Sincerely yours,

Josh

[Believer]

Okay, I see it this way, I am not the smarter of the many people around here, but I wan't to make a point. First there is God, then along came Jesus, now there is secular evidence for Jesus meaning both parties agree. Jesus talked about God many times, so there is secondary evidence for a God, I do not believe Jesus was crazy when he said this. Personally, I find no problem with evolution, because I kinda agree with it, that doesn't make me an atheist. Yes, there is evidence for an old Earth, the word "yom" from the Hebrew text of the Bible has 3 meanings, I prefer to go with the 3rd, being an infinite number of years. You being an atheist, that is your concern. I would like to mention though, as being in a family spanning to my other familes, cousins, aunts, uncles, we have had a history of audibly hearing God, as dumb as it may sound to an atheist, it isn't. My family has alos noticed apparitions and glorious appearings of Jesus. You can decide to not believe me, that is your choice, just like the Bible says it is a CHOICE to accept it or not. None of my family has a history of medical problems that would cause hallucinations or anything of that sort for that matter. Science cannot prove God or disprove Him, it is built on faith. My proof is through all the divine things that has happened to us. Science, I believe will never discover how apparitions appear out of nowhere when the person doesn't even have a mental problem. Science will probably never discover how other things work. I believe churchanity has gone to far with pushing religion, but in the end, when he have discovered what we could, where did it all still come from. Matter doesn't just pop out of nowhere, just like a cat pops out of nowhere. Something started the universe, and my beliefs are that it was God or Gods. It's hard to fathom how a God or Gods came from nothing and then made everything, this in my opinion is why atheists cannot accept it, but like it says in the Bible, lean not on your own understanding. As science progresses, we discover more and more about the universe as a whole. We then look at the Bible and see that maybe some of those stories were just symbolic, not litteral, but done to make a point. Like the lamb of God, surely Jesus is not litterally a lamb of God, but it is symbolic, because it is a sacrifice. Throughout history, there have always been unbelievers, and we will continue to have unbelievers, that is their option. It's just sad that if you present a question to an atheist and ask "what if there really is a God" they wouldn't know really what to say but still not believe. What if you die and there really was a God the whole time, you would be ignorant for not believing. But as I mentioned earlier, my generation of family has seen proof of God in one form or another, weather it being audible voices, apparitions, visions, and so on. A few things about me, I was heavily involved in porn for years and last year, a VERY strong conviction came over me, nothing like it in my life, I was practically converted from atheist/agnostic to Christian over night. I repented of my sins and a heavy burden of sin lifted off me, you can say it was psycological, but it was not. I know myself too well. If the Bible and everything about religion and God were false, why hasn't the world stopped believing? We have many religions of people that wear what the people in Jesus' time wore, it is a tradition that has held on for centuries, if it weren't we wouldn't be seeing people dress in these redicoulous pieces of clothing. I think science cannot fully co-exist with religion. But I do think that it should all be taken up on faith. I know as a FACT that God exists through all the stuff I have been through. I mean in the end, how do you explain my atheist brother coming to me saying he just saw a deer talk to him, when he is perfectly normal? Again, it is faith, not through our own understanding.

[August]

Hi Josh, welcome to the board. I have to say though, that I find your statements curious to say the least. You come here and immediately launch an attack on Christians, and then proceed to say you won't respond to those who defend their faith, hiding behind not getting drawn into arguments.

You have every right to believe what you want, and I respect that right. This is a discussion board though, so your presence here would serve little purpose if not to have some discourse about the merits of atheism as a belief system. My questions are sincere, but also personal in nature.

I think people of any religion, ethnicity, or sexual preference who feel the need to invade the space of others and push forward their own agendas are immature and have yet to become comfortable enough in their own belief/cultural structure to accept the differences of others.

Who is invading your space? Who is forcing you into believe anything, other than what you believe now? How do you know those people are immature? How do you know if people are uncomfortable in their belief system? Who says that we have to unconditionally accept these differences?

I would like to ask this, before anything: why would a Christian message board so blatantly goad atheists into an argument, but then argue that any atheist who bites is not really an atheist?

Not every atheist is so articulate to express their beliefs as you are. Also, many are unwilling to admit that atheism is akin to a religion, or a belief system. Your approach is much more mature.

Why talk about atheism in this context at all and postulate on the beliefs of other people?

Is that not what you just did above? You postulated a theory about why religious people feel the need to spread their beliefs, so why can Christians not do the same?

In my opinion, one should stick to their own beliefs and only discuss the beliefs of others when it is appropriate (and so little time seems appropriate anymore in the harshly divided politcal and religious climate of not just America, but the world today).

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but your opinion does not determine what is appropriate or not. If you make public statements about your beliefs, they are open for discussion.

I think the topic and the opinions expressed are narrow minded, bigoted and assume that anyone that does not follow your express train of though on the subject of religion and Christianity in particular is only in denial of the truth.

Again you can opine as you want, but it does not determine anything. Please explain how you got to understand the meaning of bigoted. You are also making an assumption here, expressing your narrow-minded and bigoted belief about Christians, and postulating on the Christian belief system. Answers your own question above, does it not? Why do you feel it necessary to attack Christianity if you are so comfortable and at ease with your beliefs? Why do you attack Christianity if you are so mature that you don't have to do it?

But the truth is an individuals perception, in this case. What I hold as the truths of my world you do not hold as the thruths of your world and vice versa.

Please explain how truth can be a perception. Truth is absolute, it cannot be perception or anything relative. If it relates to a person's world, then it is opinion or conjecture, but not necessarily the truth.

It is a the responsibility of a mature adult (or of any human being) to be open enough to understand that not everyone's belief systems line up, but that does not make them any less of a person.

I agree, not all belief systems line up. How would you define 'not less of a person'? In general, Christians agree that all men are equal, and stand to be judged equally by the courts and by God.

I do not believe in a god Christian or otherwise.

Please explain how you can not believe in a God, if you did not understand first that there was belief? How do you know that you can or cannot believe something? How did you come to this conclusion?

But, however, I do believe in the concept of a god or gods and understand how people can believe in those things.

How is believing in a concept of God different from believing in God? Please explain how you understand how people can believe in 'those things'?

My particular belief is that there is no supreme being at all, and what you all are not understanding about atheism is that it is not just the disbelief in a Christian god but any god.

I think most of us here understands that. You, as most atheists do, however, seem to attack Christianity and the Christian God more than Allah and the Muslims, for example.

You take it as a personal attack on your savior, but Atheists simply do not believe. We have faith in the belief that there is no god the same way you have faith in the Christian dogma.

Your statements contradict each other. First you say atheists simply don't believe, and then proceed to explain that they do believe. Again the question arises on how you came to that conclusion? What enabled you to ask the question of belief vs non-belief?

The reason Atheists are so quick to attack Christians is because of the simple fact that, for the most part, few people actually live the teachings of Christ or the Bible (and few people can rarely agree on details within the dogma itself, hence the many denominations).

How do you know what the Bible or Christianity teaches? How do you know this simple fact of how most people live? How many of the 2 billion Christians across the world do you know? The principles of Christianity are the same for all churches, or it would not be called Christian churches. The traditions in the churches may differ to different environments and cultures, but the tenets are the same. Again you violate your own statement of being open-minded, comfortable and mature and find it necessary to justify attacking Christians.

America, at the moment, is being run by one of the most religious presidentail regimes in some time, and it scares those of us who are in any way alternative because there is the constant scare of having our civil rights revoked because we do not align with those in power.

Your right to religious freedom is protected by the constitution, and has nothing to do with the president. He can't change the constitution on his own. How do you know that this is one of the most religious presidents in some time? Clinton invoked God's name more than Bush did in his first terms as president, how do you explain that? Was Clinton merely a liar, was he not religious if he was so eager to call on God?
In State of the Union and other speeches, Bill Clinton frequently invoked God. In 2000:
And we will become at last what our founders pledged us to be so long ago -- one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
In 1993:
The Scripture says 'And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.' ...And now, each in our own way and with God's help, we must answer the call.
In 1995:
...And also to fulfill the eternal promise of this country, the enduring dream from that first and most-sacred covenant. I believe every person in this country still believes that we are created equal and given by our creator the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Please provide factual evidence that proves your statement that your right to believe in anything is under attack by the current president.

You can argue that the framers of our constitution were Christian, but they were also Humanist.

They could not have been both, humanism and Christianity are mutually exclusive. Humanism is a basic belief that man is God, and it is very clear from the writings of the founding fathers that this is not what they believed. I know this is a regular talking point for atheists, but it is not true. At the very least, the founding fathers were deists. The federal constitution was made by taking parts from the different state constitutions, all but one of which recognized God in their content and/or preamble.

This means that they respect each individuals right to live and breath and that all men are, indeed, created equal (created, of course, could be argued as a creationist statement but the key word is not created but rather EQUAL).

This is just your (rather weak) assumption, how do you know that they intended the emphasis to be on 'equal' as opposed to 'created'? Why did they include 'created' then at all, why not just say that all men are equal?

So many Christians preach but do little to show that they are living by those exact dictates that they lay on the godless heathens that they see around them.

How do you know this? How do you know what Christians should live like? How many Christians do you know intimately? Again a violation of your own argument above.

Christians, and everyone, should live by example as opposed to clumsily spreading their beliefs around and damning anyone who refuses to align with them.

Another ad hominem on Christians, getting to be a typical atheist now, despite your earlier comments about being mature. How do you know that Christians are damning everyone around them? How do you know what the Christian example should be?

As for my beliefs in chemical reactions and such, I do not HAVE to believe anything that I do not want to.

Please explain what you are talking about here. Of course you don't HAVE to believe anything.

I let my mind take me where it will, and I allow for its ability to change beliefs over a period of years, because I'm young still and my perception of the world shifts ever so slightly each day because of new experiences.

Please explain how your perceptions change into beliefs. How do you determine whether any of those are true or false?

As a whole, atheists make up a major proportion of the world's religions, but Christianity is still the plurality (not a majority, but a plurality).

Atheists (although not clear, also include some agnostics) make up ~8% of the world's population. Christianity is about 33%, one third of the world population, with Muslims at 21%, and Hinduism 14%.

But of course with two billion Christians in the world that leaves four billion non-Christians.

Again the emphasis is on Christianity. I don't understand what it matters. Seems to be argumentum ad numerum.

When you ask what is winning, religion or atheism, I assume that you mean more specifically Christianity or Atheism. The thing is, this is not a competition, it is religion.

Why bother to bring it up then? You seem to want to make a point that although one out 3 people in the world are Christians, it does not matter, they are all wrong.

There is no winning or losing, but rather beliefs of groups and of indviduals. It is a shame that religion has killed so many billions of people over the course of history, because it shows us very clearly that tolerance is not accepted anywhere at anytime.

Please provide proof that religions killed 'many billions of people'. If there was no tolerance anywhere, anytime, how are you able to express your thoughts here? Why are there 8% of the world atheist? Please provide proof of this absolute intolerance.

In regards to the being "mad at God" approach to Atheism, I am not in any way mad at God or any deity for that matter. I don't believe in them, and it is that simple.

So you spend your time with ad hominems against Christians for pleasure? You attack Christianity not out of anger, but out of being mature and comfortable? An attack on Christians is also an attack on God.

t is my belief, and just because you don't understand it does not make it any less valid.

Your belief means nothing to my belief. You claim to understand all there is to understand about Christianity and Christians, but somehow we are too stupid to understand your beliefs?

There are a lot of things in the world that the average person, or even the above average person, cannot understand. No one can truly grasp the concept of infinity, because infinity is beyond the grasp of our minds. It is never ending, but in our worlds there is a beginning and an end to everything.

Agreed. So why if you cannot understand infinity, do you think that maybe you are also not able to understand God? Does that mean you don't believe in infinity, since you cannot fully understand it?

This natural predilection toward having a beginning and end to everything is, I believe, one of the major reasons for the propagation of religion.

Please explain how you arrive at this conclusion. Christians do not believe that everything has a beginning and an end. We believe in an eternal God, eternal salvation and eternal life. So the exact opposite of your assumption is true.

We are unsure where we come from, so we use religion to answer these questions. We are unsure of where we are going so we use religion to answer these questions.

Please explain how you came by the ability to ask the question of where we came from, and where we are going. At what point in your life did you become aware of your humanity and why? How did this come into existence in the first human through natural causes?

I don't need these questions answered for me, because I understand that they are beyond the realm of truly understanding because my brain, just as yours, are not able to understand the significance of things like infinity or death.

Pretty big assumption there. How do you how I, or anyone, understand things like infinity or death? Don't assume that all of us have similar thinking processes. If you don't need these questions answered, why do you attempt to do so by explaining it as questions unable to be answered?

I believe all the matter in this universe has existed and will continue to exist in some form or another.

The best scientists in the world disagree with you. Please provide proof for your statement.

Matter, as far as we know, cannot be created nor destroyed.

So where did it come from? I thought infinity is beyond your understanding, yet now you appeal to matter having always existed. What caused matter to exist in the first place? It cannot just be, everything that exists has a cause.

Matter has had many forms over the course of the infinite number of years that it has been around, but it is an absolute.

Please provide proof to back up your statement. How do yuo know it has been around for infinity. I thought infinity cannot be understood. lease define absolute in this context.

It was never created, it just was and I don't feel the need to have this explain, I have faith in this fact.

Very convenient not having to explain this, since it weakens your argument considerably.

I also know that when I am dead I am dead, there is no afterlife because my brain will shut down and it will cease to matter.

Please provide proof. How do you know this? How do you know that your brain is all that determines who or what you are?

The brain cannot comprehend not being able to think, to communicate, to operate because even in doing that it is completing all of those tasks.

Please explain further, not sure what you mean. If you mean that all electrical activity in the brain shuts down, then I agree.

Death is a scary, terrible thing because I love life, but at the same time I know that I will be gone and there will be nothing to worry about.

How do you know that? Methinks you have plenty to worry about.

Death is only a fear of the living.

Of course it is a fear of the living. But what is life?

Some atheists do read and analyze the Bible with the best of the Christian scholars, but I don't feel the need.

So how do you know how Christians should behave and live? You claim that they don't, but since you don't study the Bible, how can you know?

What interest I have in the Bible is not as the word of God but as a reason for events that have happened and continue to happen.

Please explain what events you mean.

I rarely, if ever, argue the Bible with anyone because I find it pointless.

Makes sense for you not to, since you don't seem to know a thing about it.

Christians argue that it is the word of God and atheists argue that it is not, but the only way to make for a good debate is if you debate the larger subject: God.

Ok.

If I argue God with someone, the rules of civilized debate would say that they cannot use the Bible as evidence because we are arguing something above the Bible. If God does not exist than the Bible is no longer a work of faith but a work of ficiton, so you can't use the redundant debate that God exists because the Bible is the word of God

The same rules of debate apply both ways. How can you argue that God does or does not exist without using Biblical principles? If there was no Bible you would have no concept of God, and would therefore be unable to argue against his existence, characteristics and deeds. So you make up the rules to suit you, you can use Biblical principles to attack God, but Christians cannot use it to defend God. Very mature.

But I'm not trying to get into that debate here, and I have a feeling many of the people on this board have already tuned out my words and have begun an arguments based on things that I have said without reading the entire piece.

I don't think I have done so, reckon I have addressed almost every piece. Let me know if I missed something.

If this happens I will not respond.

Suit yourself.

My only suggestion is to not worry about why atheists exist or if they are real because we are. Just because you do not align with our beliefs does not mean that we are somehow in denial about something, or angry at God, or any number of other things that people have put forth. We are simply different in our thought processes than you are, and that has to be accepted.

Who are you to say that it HAS to be accepted? You seem to be in denial about a lot of things.

I accept the fact that I do not truly understand all of the motivations that many Christians, or people of any religion, have but I accept that people believe differently that I do. I do not try to force anything upon anyone and prefer civilized discourse over screaming fits of faith-based rage.

Civilized discourse huh? Your numerous ad hominems against Christians prove you wrong.

I also accept that others believe differently than I do, in fact I know that every human being on the planet believes in a different way than I do. No 2 people are the same, and that alone precludes us from ever believing exactly the same thing in the same way. We all have a different genetic makeup, grow up in unique circumstances, experience things differently, and therefore believe differently. It would therefore be impossible for me to force my belief on anyone, each person must arrive at his or her beliefs on their own. I do, however, believe in fundamental Christian principles, and share that belief system with other Christians.

I do not want to be in a longstanding debate on this board, but since there was no representation of my own faith in this argument about it, I felt the need to step in. If anyone has any questions I will answer them as long as they are neutral and not pointed in order to goad me into argument or anger.

I think it would be impossible to discuss this without debate. You have made several unsubstantiated claims, and if you perceive my questions and answers to be provoking you into anger, so be it.

I want neither, but I will answer any honest questions about my belief the best I can without forcing anything upon anyone. I don't like that. I respect you only as much as you respect me. You may ask about my beliefs specifically or my lifestyle, just so long as the questions are, as I have said, neutral, honest, and not pointed.

How can the questions not be pointed, you made several serious accusations against Christians here, and expect not be asked about it? Of course you choose what you answer or don't answer, but that will not prevent me from pointing out the shortcomings in your arguments.

For all of your who have taken the time to read all of my post before formulating opinions about me, and for those of you who accept me as a person with different thoughts as your own but not less of a person than you I thank you.

Took a long time

There are so many people out there giving Christians and other religious groups a bad name because they refuse to accept anything but their own belief, and anyone not following along with that is not equal.

So you accept other beliefs beyond atheism? But if you accept them, how can you deny them? Ultimately you are rejecting religion, and therefore religious people.

I hope this doesn't cause too much of a stir. Ask what you will.

Thanks, we will.

[Anonymous]

Hi Josh, welcome to the board. I have to say though, that I find your statements curious to say the least. You come here and immediately launch an attack on Christians, and then proceed to say you won't respond to those who defend their faith, hiding behind not getting drawn into arguments.

You have every right to believe what you want, and I respect that right. This is a discussion board though, so your presence here would serve little purpose if not to have some discourse about the merits of atheism as a belief system. My questions are sincere, but also personal in nature.

I hardly feel that I launched into an attack on Christians as a whole, but rather talked about those Christians who feel the need to deny anyone elses belief as not only different, but ultimately wrong and those who attempt to say (as has been said many times through the course of the discussion) that as an Atheist I do not really believe what I say I do, but rather am fearing or otherwise angry at God. I felt that I discussed a need for all people accept one another as equals, but altogether different. If anything else came across I am truly sorry.

I think people of any religion, ethnicity, or sexual preference who feel the need to invade the space of others and push forward their own agendas are immature and have yet to become comfortable enough in their own belief/cultural structure to accept the differences of others.

Who is invading your space? Who is forcing you into believe anything, other than what you believe now? How do you know those people are immature? How do you know if people are uncomfortable in their belief system? Who says that we have to unconditionally accept these differences?

I was no speaking of anyone here specifically, but of experiences in general of many people who have alternate belief systems or lifestyles. Being, originally, from an ultra-conservative, ultra-religious middle American city it is hard not to run across those kind of people. I didn't accuse anyone in particular of this, but made a generalization. I'll reference this more later in response to some of your other postings.

I would like to ask this, before anything: why would a Christian message board so blatantly goad atheists into an argument, but then argue that any atheist who bites is not really an atheist?

Not every atheist is so articulate to express their beliefs as you are. Also, many are unwilling to admit that atheism is akin to a religion, or a belief system. Your approach is much more mature.

Thank you on your compliment on my maturity. I saw that one person had, badly, stated his point and wanted to react with a general flavor to the rest of the posts after his.

But there was still no answer to my question. Just because someone is inarticulate does not meant that they do not believe what they want to believe I do not say that "HelpMeGod" does not believe in Christianity because his response was less than articulate. I don't argue with people what they believe, regardless of how well spoken/written they are. I think I maintained an air of acceptance throughout my post while dealing with issues that many non-Christians have to deal with and answering specifics (though I did not quote other posts) of people who had posted here.

Why talk about atheism in this context at all and postulate on the beliefs of other people?

Is that not what you just did above? You postulated a theory about why religious people feel the need to spread their beliefs, so why can Christians not do the same?

This question doesn't make sense to me. I stated that people feel the need to spread their beliefs and push forward their own agenda, imposing on others, is wrong. Of anyone, myself included. My post did not debate the existence of God, any god, one way or the other. It did not try to disprove anyone, and I did not spout off garbled and obscure scientific facts in order to prove anything. I simply state what I think in a reasonable manner and did not challenge anyone else's beliefs.

In my opinion, one should stick to their own beliefs and only discuss the beliefs of others when it is appropriate (and so little time seems appropriate anymore in the harshly divided politcal and religious climate of not just America, but the world today).

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but your opinion does not determine what is appropriate or not. If you make public statements about your beliefs, they are open for discussion.

I think it is inappropriate to say that people do not believe what they say they do. The post asks for atheists to try an explain their beliefs, but when someone (and not well, mind you) says they are an atheist, everyone becomes accusatory, saying they are not really. They are mad at God. They are afraid of God. They are this, they are that. That is inappropriate because there is no way to have discourse with that, because whatever you say becomes immediately wrong in the eyes of those you are talking to. It is impossible to have a discussion with someone who simply says everything you say, even about your own belief structure is a lie. I believe what I believe and it is not because I am angry with anyone, I'm quite calm and happy with my life (and no, I'm not just saying this, I am). For someone to tell me that this is not true, that I'm lying to myself is inappropriate.

It is also inappropriate, I think, to attack someone's religion on a message board, ask them to respond and then criticize them for even being there in the first place. I happened across this board by chance, as did others I'm sure. My response was, and I maintain this, not an attack at all but perceived at one by people who are being defensive. I was not here for a debate but simply to answer questions and dispell falsities put forth by others.

I think the topic and the opinions expressed are narrow minded, bigoted and assume that anyone that does not follow your express train of though on the subject of religion and Christianity in particular is only in denial of the truth.

Again you can opine as you want, but it does not determine anything. Please explain how you got to understand the meaning of bigoted. You are also making an assumption here, expressing your narrow-minded and bigoted belief about Christians, and postulating on the Christian belief system. Answers your own question above, does it not? Why do you feel it necessary to attack Christianity if you are so comfortable and at ease with your beliefs? Why do you attack Christianity if you are so mature that you don't have to do it?

bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices (Mirriam-Webster Dictionary).

I did not say anyones BELIEFS were narrow-minded and bigoted. Read again. I said the topics and opinions expressed her, in this singular topic, were bigoted and narrow-minded. Did you bother to read through what some people have said, that I have already referenced several times before? It is bigoted and narrow-minded to say that people don't relieve believe what they say they do, or they only do it because they are afraid, etc. etc. I've made reference to this several times before.

The further I get into your reply, the less I have confidence that anyone here is actually getting what I am saying because I'm actually NOT being critical of your beliefs, but of your opinions about my belief. It seems that my whole theme of acceptance has been lost.

If people would open themselves up and allow themselves to accept the fact that people ARE different that would make things a lot easier. But to say that everyone is in fact a Christian and atheists are simply afraid to admit it, or deny choose to not be for whatever reason I believe is bigoted and narrow-minded. I will get to truth later, but I just want you to know that I am not attacking anyone's belief. It is you who are on the defensive. I'm attacking people's opinions about MY belief.

But the truth is an individuals perception, in this case. What I hold as the truths of my world you do not hold as the thruths of your world and vice versa.

Please explain how truth can be a perception. Truth is absolute, it cannot be perception or anything relative. If it relates to a person's world, then it is opinion or conjecture, but not necessarily the truth.

Truth as a perception. This is a tricky one because if I word it incorrectly or use a bad example I inherently disprove myself. So I'll try to offer a couple of examples.

You show someone a color, and they say purple. That is the color they see. You show, say, a painter the same color. They say mauve because they are more intimately related to colors and color theory than a lay person. (According to Merriam-Webster mauve is both a moderate or a strong purple.) Neither person is wrong, but one is being more specific because he sees the world in a different way because of his experiences, his education, his upbringing, nuances in his genetics where the rods and cones of his eyes are slightly more sensitive to the color purple, whatever.

Language and socialization, as I learned in sociology, shape our perceptions of the world. Some languages do not have a word for blue, because in their world there is no blue. When shown blue they also, because of their socialization, do not see blue as we see blue, but as something else entirely. When getting into truths like these it is a sticky subject with lots of gray areas, because we cannot be inside each other's head.

However, we both wake up and look at the world. You perceive the world as having Intelligent Design, and you see God everywhere you look. I wake up and I do not see either of those things. It does not mean that either of us is WRONG per se, but only that we see the world in different ways. That our brains, and I'm certain they are, work are different because of where we grew up, our experiences, our genetics, and any unlimited number of possibilities. Truth for you and truth for me are two different things, but it would be silly for either of us to call the other wrong. There are people who would put forth the theory that as a Christian the power of your beliefs create God for you, and as an Atheist the power of my belief dispells God.

I don't call you wrong and don't feel the need to be called wrong, because for us the world holds different truths.

It is a the responsibility of a mature adult (or of any human being) to be open enough to understand that not everyone's belief systems line up, but that does not make them any less of a person.

I agree, not all belief systems line up. How would you define 'not less of a person'? In general, Christians agree that all men are equal, and stand to be judged equally by the courts and by God.

Not all Christians agree that all men are created equal. If they did there would not be people saying that God did this to punish gays, or God did that to punish Muslims. Some Christians believe that, but others believe entirely different things, and look down at the "heathen" population almost as savages.

In fact, the entire course of Christian history is plagued by intolerance toward others as savage and very much not equal (inquisition, witch hunts, crusades, America's current obsession with homosexuality).

I've had people attempt to get me fired from jobs because I'm not Christian. When things like this happens, it says to me that people do not see me as an equal, because somehow my religion will not allow me to do the job as well as a Christian.

I do not believe in a god Christian or otherwise.

Please explain how you can not believe in a God, if you did not understand first that there was belief? How do you know that you can or cannot believe something? How did you come to this conclusion?

I understand that there are beliefs, but I do not align with them. But you are asking questions that can be asked of you as well. But you also assume that I've always been an atheist, and I have not. I was once Christian, and I converted away from that because of my own personal reasons (which I will not go into here because this is not the specific topic at hand, and I do not feel comfortable having my beliefs and reasons torn apart systematically when I am not doing the same to the people here).

But, however, I do believe in the concept of a god or gods and understand how people can believe in those things.

How is believing in a concept of God different from believing in God? Please explain how you understand how people can believe in 'those things'?

I can understand how people believe in those things because, as I just stated, I was once Christian and I once, myself believed. To be able to understand something does not mean that you have to in any way believe in it, just as not understanding does not mean you have to disbelieve.

As for believing in the concept of a deity, I believe the concept is there. I cannot deny this, because I am talking to people, right this second, who believe in God. It would be foolish for me to not believe in the concept of a deity when it is around me everyday. The concept. Not the deity.

But just because I understand and believe in the concept, does not mean I believe in God. I can conceptualize things that are not indicative of my own personal belief structure, because that is how my brain works. But it does not mean that I have to agree with those concepts or believe in them, I just know those concepts are there.

My particular belief is that there is no supreme being at all, and what you all are not understanding about atheism is that it is not just the disbelief in a Christian god but any god.

I think most of us here understands that. You, as most atheists do, however, seem to attack Christianity and the Christian God more than Allah and the Muslims, for example.

But that's because most Atheists don't have Hindus or Muslims surrounding them at any period of time. I've never had my religion attacked by a Muslim or a Hindu (yes, I know some). We do live in a predominantly Christian world, and in this nation of America the majority of people are Christian. Christians are often attacked in this country because they wield the most power and do indeed control the lives of atheists like me, but also Hindus and Muslims and Raelians and Shintoists and Buddhists and others.

But again, I am not attacking anyone's beliefs. I think you simply came in as defensive. I never once say you are stupid for believing in God, and I don't believe that. I think everyone should believe whatever they want to believe and accept that other people are different. I don't know how many times I have to say this.

You take it as a personal attack on your savior, but Atheists simply do not believe. We have faith in the belief that there is no god the same way you have faith in the Christian dogma.

Your statements contradict each other. First you say atheists simply don't believe, and then proceed to explain that they do believe. Again the question arises on how you came to that conclusion? What enabled you to ask the question of belief vs non-belief?

This is where I don't understand you. I can disbelieve in one thing and believe in something else. I believe that there is no god, which is the same as saying that I do not believe in a god or gods. They in no way contradict one another. My faith is in the fact that gods do not exist. I do not believe in them. This is not a contradiction.

The reason Atheists are so quick to attack Christians is because of the simple fact that, for the most part, few people actually live the teachings of Christ or the Bible (and few people can rarely agree on details within the dogma itself, hence the many denominations).

How do you know what the Bible or Christianity teaches? How do you know this simple fact of how most people live? How many of the 2 billion Christians across the world do you know? The principles of Christianity are the same for all churches, or it would not be called Christian churches. The traditions in the churches may differ to different environments and cultures, but the tenets are the same. Again you violate your own statement of being open-minded, comfortable and mature and find it necessary to justify attacking Christians.

I can definitely say that no everyone believes the same thing. How well do I know the Bible? Doesn't matter. How well do I know, broadly, the beliefs of different denominations? Well enough to know that they do not all teach the exact end all word of God.

Are the tenets of the Catholic and Baptist faith the same? In some ways, they are, but in others they are completely different. Would you say that Christian Scientists embody your exact believe in Christ? What about Seventh Day Adventists? Davidians? Mormons? Snake handlers?

What about one of my local churches were the minster claims to be an apostle of God himself, sent directly to prophesy over the flock, and that anyone who is a member must give the church ten percent of their earnings?

Not every church teaches the exact same message. There are always variances, some large and some small. But to say that everyone believes the exact same thing is untrue.

America, at the moment, is being run by one of the most religious presidentail regimes in some time, and it scares those of us who are in any way alternative because there is the constant scare of having our civil rights revoked because we do not align with those in power.

Your right to religious freedom is protected by the constitution, and has nothing to do with the president. He can't change the constitution on his own. How do you know that this is one of the most religious presidents in some time? Clinton invoked God's name more than Bush did in his first terms as president, how do you explain that? Was Clinton merely a liar, was he not religious if he was so eager to call on God?
In State of the Union and other speeches, Bill Clinton frequently invoked God. In 2000:
And we will become at last what our founders pledged us to be so long ago -- one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
In 1993:
The Scripture says 'And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.' ...And now, each in our own way and with God's help, we must answer the call.
In 1995:
...And also to fulfill the eternal promise of this country, the enduring dream from that first and most-sacred covenant. I believe every person in this country still believes that we are created equal and given by our creator the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Please provide factual evidence that proves your statement that your right to believe in anything is under attack by the current president.

I don't want to discuss politics, because that only ends badly. I should not have brought this point up at all, if I was unwilling to discuss it. For that, I'm sorry.

You can argue that the framers of our constitution were Christian, but they were also Humanist.

They could not have been both, humanism and Christianity are mutually exclusive. Humanism is a basic belief that man is God, and it is very clear from the writings of the founding fathers that this is not what they believed. I know this is a regular talking point for atheists, but it is not true. At the very least, the founding fathers were deists. The federal constitution was made by taking parts from the different state constitutions, all but one of which recognized God in their content and/or preamble.

Humanism and Christianity are not mutually exclusive. Secular Humanism and Humanism are different in that way. The Enlightenment and the Renaissance are both humanist movements, but also Christian. The framers of the constitution are Humanist. They believe in the individual and the rights thereof, which is a very humanist outlook. It does not mean that they cannot believe in God and Christianity at the same time.

Humanism is not, also, a basic belief. There are many different forms of humanism just as there are many different denominations of Christianity. Some Humanists believe that man is god, some do not.

This means that they respect each individuals right to live and breath and that all men are, indeed, created equal (created, of course, could be argued as a creationist statement but the key word is not created but rather EQUAL).

This is just your (rather weak) assumption, how do you know that they intended the emphasis to be on 'equal' as opposed to 'created'? Why did they include 'created' then at all, why not just say that all men are equal?

I assume the emphasis on is on "equal" because the framers of this country established a Bill of Rights that gives each and every person certain unalienable rights. We are all given, by their document, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The document does not focus on a Christian people, but any people. It is in the entire context of the document and not in that singular line that I know this.

So many Christians preach but do little to show that they are living by those exact dictates that they lay on the godless heathens that they see around them.

How do you know this? How do you know what Christians should live like? How many Christians do you know intimately? Again a violation of your own argument above.

I know this because I grew up in an overwhelmingly Christian town. Before I moved there were three churches, all different denominations, within a quarter of a mile from my apartment. I'm very familiar, broadly, with many, many tenets of Christianity.

I know so many people, dozens if not more, who say they believe on thing but run of and do something else. I see the examples around me of bad Christians, unwilling to help anyone but themselves, afraid to love. But at the same time I do see the good Christians. Those who would help out any soul in need. Those who love unconditionally every man as their brother. I respect these people immensely, but those who are not like this sully their reputation in the process.

How many Christians do I know intimately? Hundreds, depending on what you consider intimate. Like I said, I lived in a religiously devoted city. Being an atheist I've been able to have hundreds of conversations with hundreds of different people whom I know, and learn in detail about their own personal beliefs.

Just because I am Atheist does not mean that I do not know Christians or know those basic tenets of Christianity that they are supposed to live by. I think Christianity has great things going for it, but I think the people who either misinterpret or refuse to live by those teachings spoil the image for those who are the good Christian.

Christians, and everyone, should live by example as opposed to clumsily spreading their beliefs around and damning anyone who refuses to align with them.

Another ad hominem on Christians, getting to be a typical atheist now, despite your earlier comments about being mature. How do you know that Christians are damning everyone around them? How do you know what the Christian example should be?

I also said everyone. I emphasize "Christian" because this is a Christian board. I am simply speaking to my audience. But as I have said before, in response to your question, I know the tenets of the religion well enough to know that the Christian example is one of love and compassion, and I think that is a good message.

As for my beliefs in chemical reactions and such, I do not HAVE to believe anything that I do not want to.

Please explain what you are talking about here. Of course you don't HAVE to believe anything.

It is in response to another poster. I didn't quote because I was simply going down the list of people's postings backward. I assume, since you didn't catch that, you haven't read the posts preceeding mine.

I let my mind take me where it will, and I allow for its ability to change beliefs over a period of years, because I'm young still and my perception of the world shifts ever so slightly each day because of new experiences.

Please explain how your perceptions change into beliefs. How do you determine whether any of those are true or false?

How do you determine that any of your beliefs are true or false? I am young yet and make the allowance for change over time. These are questions that are impossible to answer because it leads us into dangerous territory. Your perception of the world in some ways dictates your beliefs as does mine. I can't explain the step by step process, but there are those realizations about things, epiphanies, that I'm sure you and many of the people here have had that just make sense. To me, my beliefs make sense through that same kind of process.

As a whole, atheists make up a major proportion of the world's religions, but Christianity is still the plurality (not a majority, but a plurality).

Atheists (although not clear, also include some agnostics) make up ~8% of the world's population. Christianity is about 33%, one third of the world population, with Muslims at 21%, and Hinduism 14%.

8% is still a major proportion. But I don't know if that takes into consideration that China, as a Communist nation, is officially atheist. Probably it doesn't. But what you say does not in any way contradict what I said. Christianity is a plurality, not a majority.

But of course with two billion Christians in the world that leaves four billion non-Christians.

Again the emphasis is on Christianity. I don't understand what it matters. Seems to be argumentum ad numerum.

Once again because my audience is Christian and not Muslim or Hindu or Shintoist or Buddhist, etc. etc.

When you ask what is winning, religion or atheism, I assume that you mean more specifically Christianity or Atheism. The thing is, this is not a competition, it is religion.

Why bother to bring it up then? You seem to want to make a point that although one out 3 people in the world are Christians, it does not matter, they are all wrong.

I bring it, again, because of another poster's posting which I did not bother to quote. It was a question posed by someone previously. I suggest you reread all the previous posts.

Who are wrong, though? I'm not saying anyone is wrong. I've never said that anyone's belief was wrong. That is your projection. I say that I accept the belief, but it doesn't matter who is winning, still, because it is not a competition at all.

There is no winning or losing, but rather beliefs of groups and of indviduals. It is a shame that religion has killed so many billions of people over the course of history, because it shows us very clearly that tolerance is not accepted anywhere at anytime.

Please provide proof that religions killed 'many billions of people'. If there was no tolerance anywhere, anytime, how are you able to express your thoughts here? Why are there 8% of the world atheist? Please provide proof of this absolute intolerance.

I believe that a combination of the Crusades, the inquisition, the Christians murdering the "savages" of North American and the world, the Holocaust (killed beacause they were Jews), Muslim/Jewish tension, Egypts slavery of the Jews, the persecution of Jews for thousands of years, religious wars all over the world for thousands of years (all religions included), I think that would total at least a full billion people over the course of the history of human civilization.

The world is MORE tolerant, but not entirely so. There are still religous tensions that are killing hundreds of people a day.

In regards to the being "mad at God" approach to Atheism, I am not in any way mad at God or any deity for that matter. I don't believe in them, and it is that simple.

So you spend your time with ad hominems against Christians for pleasure? You attack Christianity not out of anger, but out of being mature and comfortable? An attack on Christians is also an attack on God.

Once again, I'm not attacking anyone. I said I don't believe in God or ANY deity for that matter. Not believing is not an attack. I'm simply stating this because it was part of the wholistic topic.

t is my belief, and just because you don't understand it does not make it any less valid.

Your belief means nothing to my belief. You claim to understand all there is to understand about Christianity and Christians, but somehow we are too stupid to understand your beliefs?

You are attacking me and calling me stupid. You are also putting words in my mouth. I never claimed to understand all there is to understand about anything, much less Christianity.

...

I'm sorry for not responding to the rest, perhaps I will later. You seem to miss much of the point of my post in relation to what other people have said and the questions they posed.

Never was I negating your belief as a Christian. Never was I negating anyone's belief, but simply attempting to help people understand my stance as an atheist.

This was never a debate about who was right or wrong and never an attack on anyone. It would be extremely hypocritical of me to attack someone and preach acceptance at the same time.

But because from this point, after being called stupid, I seem to take things in a very defensive light and do not feel that I should have to debate words that were put in my mouth to conclusions that will not be accepted in the first place. I in no way have any intention of getting into an endless debate about religion or who is right or wrong.

My offer to answer questions was simply an offer to help people understand better where I stand. I understand, contrary to what you seem to think about me, quite well the Christian stance and think that there are many good teachings that are going ignored by many people on a daily basis.

I am not attacking, once again. But I will not take the time to respond to anything that I feel demeans me as a human being, and the latter half of your response seems to do that. I do not take kindly to being called out and out stupid. I am not.

I do suggest you read the rest of the posts that I was responding to before you criticize me so heavily. And I also suggest that you not approach every word I say with an extremely defensive tune.

I'm sorry to not respond to every topic from here on out. But it was long, and as I have said, I do not feel like being called stupid or being demeaned in any way. We believe different things. I understand this and you claim to. I never attacked you, but yet you attack me visciously and attempt to point out the flaws in my own belief structure. I did not do this. You turned my words on their ear, took them out of the context of the thread, and twisted them into something, almost line by line, that I did not mean.

It was well written though, and you seem intelligent enough. But I would ask that instead of taking everything I say line by line, or anyone for that matter, you look for the overall theme, which I intended to be ACCEPTANCE. It is like a book, you do not take each paragraph individually and determine each meaning separately. You will lose the meaning of the overall work, unable to see the forest for the trees so to speak.

Hope everyone has a good night.

Josh

[Kurieuo]

It is also inappropriate, I think, to attack someone's religion on a message board, ask them to respond and then criticize them for even being there in the first place. I happened across this board by chance, as did others I'm sure. My response was, and I maintain this, not an attack at all but perceived at one by people who are being defensive. I was not here for a debate but simply to answer questions and dispell falsities put forth by others.

Just to comment as a moderator on an issue I feel you touch upon here. I think that consider what this board strives for, that it is inappropriate for Christians to try stir debate with non-Christians. I have removed a few posts that have put down Atheists, or attacked them for no real reason, since this board isn't intended to be the kind of board where both sides constantly attack each other, and quite frankly I'm (and I'm sure many others here) are not interested in such a board.

Josh, I think you have posted reasonably and without invoking any real attack, and your posts don't seem to contain the aggitation many Atheists have towards Christians. So while I may not agree with you on many things, I don't see any harm in having you as a non-Christian answer questions and dispell what you see as falsities about your beliefs, which may have been set forth by others here. Seeing as our beliefs are pretty diametrically opposed though, a few misplaced comments can often spill over into direct attacks against either side. This is just something to beware of.

Kurieuo.

[Forge]

It is like a book, you do not take each paragraph individually and determine each meaning separately. You will lose the meaning of the overall work, unable to see the forest for the trees so to speak.

Maybe. As a forest is a collection of trees, you have to pay attention to them to see the forest, right?

[Felgar]

Hi Josh, and welcome to our message board. I read your entire first post but not Augusts reply or your second post. Anyways, I have 2 thoughts that might help explain who we are and what we believe.

I would like to ask this, before anything: why would a Christian message board so blatantly goad atheists into an argument, but then argue that any atheist who bites is not really an atheist? Why talk about atheism in this context at all and postulate on the beliefs of other people? In my opinion, one should stick to their own beliefs and only discuss the beliefs of others when it is appropriate (and so little time seems appropriate anymore in the harshly divided politcal and religious climate of not just America, but the world today).

Taken in context, the intention of this site is certainly NOT to goat atheists into an argument. In fact, you may notice the stated purpose of this board is definately NOT to argue with atheists, but rather to discuss our own beliefs, as per your suggestion above. See http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =4#purpose . Now granted there are a few threads that have become heated and a few that could seen as an attack on atheism, but if you take a look around at the whole forum I think you'll see a much higher portion of discussions surrounding Christians issues, etc.

My only suggestion is to not worry about why atheists exist or if they are real because we are. Just because you do not align with our beliefs does not mean that we are somehow in denial about something, or angry at God, or any number of other things that people have put forth. We are simply different in our thought processes than you are, and that has to be accepted. I accept the fact that I do not truly understand all of the motivations that many Christians, or people of any religion, have but I accept that people believe differently that I do. I do not try to force anything upon anyone and prefer civilized discourse over screaming fits of faith-based rage.

You talk about acceptance, but your perception of what a Christian is doing when he tries to share his beliefs with you is completely wrong. Right here and now I can tell you the motivation of Christians: That is, to share with others the Gospel of Jesus Christ - to tell others how God sacrificed His only Son to atone for the sin of the world and how Jesus overcame death unto everlasting life, and therefore how you can too. You have to understand the fundamental truth that Christians love you, and desire to share the gift of eternal life with you. So really your notion of acceptance is entirely backwards: If we didn't accept or care about you, we would never share anything with you. It's only because we accept you as a precious human life which is capable of loving God that we even try to help.

Consider an analogy: Suppose you go out and buy a new car. This particular car is unbelievable, and has EVERYTHING you would ever want in a car. 100 MPG, 0-60 in 4 seconds, rust proof, amazing comfort, GPS, unprecedented safety, etc. etc and all for only $10,000. Now you would be excited about this and naturally would start telling your friends how you found this wonderful car. Would you tell people you hated? Probably not... So two things: 1) It's a fundamentally natural thing to share with others the things you're excited about, and 2) you try to help those you care about by relating your own experiences.

That is all Christians are doing...

[Anonymous]

It is also inappropriate, I think, to attack someone's religion on a message board, ask them to respond and then criticize them for even being there in the first place. I happened across this board by chance, as did others I'm sure. My response was, and I maintain this, not an attack at all but perceived at one by people who are being defensive. I was not here for a debate but simply to answer questions and dispell falsities put forth by others.

Just to comment as a moderator on an issue I feel you touch upon here. I think that consider what this board strives for, that it is inappropriate for Christians to try stir debate with non-Christians. I have removed a few posts that have put down Atheists, or attacked them for no real reason, since this board isn't intended to be the kind of board where both sides constantly attack each other, and quite frankly I'm (and I'm sure many others here) are not interested in such a board.

Josh, I think you have posted reasonably and without invoking any real attack, and your posts don't seem to contain the aggitation many Atheists have towards Christians. So while I may not agree with you on many things, I don't see any harm in having you as a non-Christian answer questions and dispell what you see as falsities about your beliefs, which may have been set forth by others here. Seeing as our beliefs are pretty diametrically opposed though, a few misplaced comments can often spill over into direct attacks against either side. This is just something to beware of.

Kurieuo.

Thank you so very much. I was afraid for a moment that what I had posted, after reading August's reply, that perhaps I had come off as attacking. But as I said I had no intention of attacking anyone and was attempting to stay on topic. I'm glad you noticed this. So thank you for that.

I think it is great that, as a moderator, you protect everyone's interests as well as your own. Good moderators on boards like this are hard to come by. I'm also not interested in stirring up debates that end in bad feelings, but have no problem (as I have said) answering questions about my own beliefs as long as they are posed in a reasonable matter. If I say anything, over the course of where this discussion leads (if anywhere) that seems to be a direct attack please let me know.

Just so you know, your post as a moderator has really taken a lot of pressure off my back. After replying to much of August's post I felt tense and defensive and you have alleviated much of that, so once again, I have to thank you.

Best,

Josh

[Anonymous]

Now granted there are a few threads that have become heated and a few that could seen as an attack on atheism, but if you take a look around at the whole forum I think you'll see a much higher portion of discussions surrounding Christians issues, etc.

I understand, but as I stated I came across this thread while searching for something else and felt the need to post. I've not looked around the rest of the site, but I'm sure that it is a much higher proportion of Christian issues. Perhaps I may take a look around further than this post, but I felt the need to share when I run across something like this.

You talk about acceptance, but your perception of what a Christian is doing when he tries to share his beliefs with you is completely wrong. Right here and now I can tell you the motivation of Christians: That is, to share with others the Gospel of Jesus Christ - to tell others how God sacrificed His only Son to atone for the sin of the world and how Jesus overcame death unto everlasting life, and therefore how you can too. You have to understand the fundamental truth that Christians love you, and desire to share the gift of eternal life with you. So really your notion of acceptance is entirely backwards: If we didn't accept or care about you, we would never share anything with you. It's only because we accept you as a precious human life which is capable of loving God that we even try to help.

Consider an analogy: Suppose you go out and buy a new car. This particular car is unbelievable, and has EVERYTHING you would ever want in a car. 100 MPG, 0-60 in 4 seconds, rust proof, amazing comfort, GPS, unprecedented safety, etc. etc and all for only $10,000. Now you would be excited about this and naturally would start telling your friends how you found this wonderful car. Would you tell people you hated? Probably not... So two things: 1) It's a fundamentally natural thing to share with others the things you're excited about, and 2) you try to help those you care about by relating your own experiences.

That is all Christians are doing...

I think your analogy can work sometimes, but I think it is a very different thing to be in the shoes of a non-Christian when something like this happens. I've often had really great experiences with people of all religions discussing idealogy and beliefs and have come out of those discussions, sometimes, with a different outlook on individuals as well as some different philosophical ways to look at life.

However, I've had experience that do not align with your car analogy. I've been in a situation when someone asked me what I believed in, and when I told them everyone stopped what they were doing and got quiet. I proceeded to continue with the conversation and I was told to be quiet, they were praying for my soul. While this may seem reasonable to some people, things like this have a tendency to make one uncomfortable. And it most certainly made me so. They were not interested in sharing but converting, because there was no conversation about it. Everything stopped suddenly.

I've also had experiences, as I have said in my second reply, where people have attempted to get me fired because of my atheism. Where people have told me that I was going to hell and that I need to repent and take God into my heart. I think this is not sharing, and this accounts for a lot of non-Christian's highly critical views of Christianity in general. Rarely have I had anyone, come to think of it, describe their belief in God as a really good car but more in the vein of I should be Christian because I'm unsaved and going to hell, which I think doesn't really encourage a lot of people to convert. I think showing the love and affection to one's neighbor is the best way to make people say: "Look, that guy has something going for him. I wonder what it is."

I think sharing your enthusiams for something is great, but it is always best to be aware of the feelings of others as you do so. The best conversations I have had with people who believe other than I do occasionally stop and ask one another if they are in any way being insulted or feel attacked.

Because we don't have the exact same beliefs doesn't meant that what we do think about the world cannot be similar and that we cannot learn from one another. I believe very strongly in kindness and charity, and that if I have the ability to make someone feel better about their life I should take that opportunity to do so. I think these are all fine Christian teachings.

The sad thing is a good proportion of the population of Christians (or people who claim to be Christians) do not tend to exude those teachings. But the ones who do are some of the greatest people I have ever met.

I have a feeling, from your post, that you may very well be on of those great people. I hope that you are.

Best,

Josh

[Believer]

Hey Josh, it's actually cool to have a cool atheist on the board, we have had some bad eggs before . Um, so anyways, in my post to you, not fully directly to you per say, but towards everyone, do you disagree with the fact that through my families generations we have had visions, apparitions, audible voices from above, and this being that we arn't a mentally messed up family?

[Anonymous]

Hey Josh, it's actually cool to have a cool atheist on the board, we have had some bad eggs before . Um, so anyways, in my post to you, not fully directly to you per say, but towards everyone, do you disagree with the fact that through my families generations we have had visions, apparitions, audible voices from above, and this being that we arn't a mentally messed up family?

I cannot disagree because I am not a member of your family and have not had these experiences. However, and this is no insult to you, mental disorders such as schizophrenia have a tendency to run in a family, so I would say if one side of your family (your mother's side, for instance) has these apparitions and the other side (your father's) does not, it might be worth it to get it checked out. Few people who are mentally "messed up" tend to know they are, and they tend to think the way they perceive the world is natural.

Like I said, no offense intended with this, but that is my opinion based on your question. Your experiences and perceptions are your own, and it would be foolish for me to tell you that I do not believe that what you are experiencing is real to you. They are your experiences, not mine, and are for you to judge.

[LittleShepherd]

I'm not going to go over the entirety of what you said, but you mentioned two things that are self-contradicting, one thing that makes no sense when viewed logically, and one thing that is simply false.

This question doesn't make sense to me. I stated that people feel the need to spread their beliefs and push forward their own agenda, imposing on others, is wrong.

Let me put it to you this way. It's common knowledge that the core of the Christian faith -- that Jesus is <B>the</B> way, <B>the</B> truth, and <B>the</B> life; and that <B>nobody</B> comes to the Father(God) except by Him -- is incompatible with any other viewpoint. If Jesus was telling the truth, and Christianity is correct, then nothing else can be correct. If <B>anything</B> that contradicts this is correct, then Christianity cannot be correct. Both cannot be correct. Jesus took away that possibility with one simple sentence.

Now let's assume for a moment that Christianity is, in fact, correct. Would you consider it wrong to spread belief of Christ in such a situation? Or would you consider it the loving, caring act that Christians believe it to be? I'll even go a step further -- if such were the case(as I believe it is), it would be wrong, uncaring, and <B>the utmost evil</B> for us <B>not</B> to do what we could to spread the news of Christ. We would be condemning countless billions with our silence.

Now let's assume that Christianity is wrong, and that atheism is right. In this case, would it be wrong for Christians to try to spread their beliefs? No. There would be no God. There would be nothing of any significance to compare our morality to, and nothing to give any standard of morality any importance. Sure, you may feel inconvenienced by people who try to proselytize to you, but there would be nothing to give any importance to your feelings and your standards. Ultimately, everything would be meaningless. You feel this behavior on part of the Christian is wrong; he feels his behavior is right. Neither of you would have a valid absolute morality to tell you otherwise.

Also, you forget one important thing. Christianity cannot be imposed on anyone. Sure, Christians can try, but since it is a religion that is founded on a single, <B>personal</B> decision that cannot be forced, they would fail miserably every time they tried to do so. At best, they could get a few people to pay lip service -- actual converts, however, would be nonexistent. Even when they do try in this day and age, you have many options. We're not that hard to avoid.

It is bigoted and narrow-minded to say that people don't relieve believe what they say they do

In many cases, yes. In the case of a self-proclaimed atheist, no. An athiest would be one who could say "I know there is no such thing as a god or higher power." When you look deeper, however, you find that almost every self-proclaimed atheist actually falls into a very different category. This category is "agnostic." Its statement of faith is similar, but the small differences make all the difference. An agnostic belief would go something like this -- "I cannot prove nor disprove the existence of god, so I choose to believe that one does not exist." That you would claim to think that any kind of deistic faith could potentially be valid betrays you as an agnostic.

Truth as a perception. This is a tricky one because if I word it incorrectly or use a bad example I inherently disprove myself.

You used bad examples. In the "color purple" example, all that changed was the person's perception of the color. At no point does the color presented actually take on different properties. It is what it is no matter how it is perceived. Ditto with the "color blue" example. Also, is it that they actually don't perceive the color the same way? Or does the fact that they lack a word for it just make it difficult for them to communicate what they perceive? Whether they have a word for it or not, their rods and cones still conform to basic biological principles.

I don't call you wrong and don't feel the need to be called wrong, because for us the world holds different truths.

As I already mentioned, the core beliefs of Christianity are both exclusive(Jesus is the only way) and intolerant(anything that says differently is wrong). Two buzz words in today's society. Whether you outright say "Christian beliefs are wrong," or you try to appear tolerant by saying "Both of our views are valid," you are in fact saying "Christian beliefs are wrong."

But you also assume that I've always been an atheist, and I have not. I was once Christian, and I converted away from that because of my own personal reasons.

You may not have always been an atheist, but your comment betrays that you were never a Christian -- not in the Biblical sense. You may have paid lip service to Christian doctrines for a time, but actually being a Christian is something else entirely. A quote from "God Doesn't Believe in Atheists:"

An atheist may think that it adds to his credibility to say that he was once a Christian, but that he realized Christianity was a myth and turned from the faith. His admission places him in a dilemma in which there are only two alternatives: 1) He "knew the Lord" (see Jeremiah 9:23,24; John 17:3), thereby admitting that God is real; or 2) He <I>thought</I> he knew the Lord, but he (in his words) "was deceived." He, then, is admitting that he didn't know the Lord, and was therefore never a Christian but merely a pretender.

Earlier in that same chapter, the word "hypocrite" was discussed, and its literal meaning is "pretender."

Okay, I think I went over everything I wanted to. I hate to break it to you, but many of your arguments simply don't hold up to basic rules of logic. You've also revealed yourself as both an agnostic(not an atheist), and as someone who was never a Christian, but rather a pretender(hypocrite). It's okay, though -- I was a hypocrite for over 14 years before finally turning my life around. There's always hope.

[Believer]

Hey Josh, it's actually cool to have a cool atheist on the board, we have had some bad eggs before . Um, so anyways, in my post to you, not fully directly to you per say, but towards everyone, do you disagree with the fact that through my families generations we have had visions, apparitions, audible voices from above, and this being that we arn't a mentally messed up family?

I cannot disagree because I am not a member of your family and have not had these experiences. However, and this is no insult to you, mental disorders such as schizophrenia have a tendency to run in a family, so I would say if one side of your family (your mother's side, for instance) has these apparitions and the other side (your father's) does not, it might be worth it to get it checked out. Few people who are mentally "messed up" tend to know they are, and they tend to think the way they perceive the world is natural.

Like I said, no offense intended with this, but that is my opinion based on your question. Your experiences and perceptions are your own, and it would be foolish for me to tell you that I do not believe that what you are experiencing is real to you. They are your experiences, not mine, and are for you to judge.

That's cool, I'm just saying that we don't have genetic problems such as schizophrenia or anything for that matter, we are an ordinary family of families, all religious. The thing though is that my brother is atheist and he knows there is something out there, kinda. Like I said in my post, he was out wandering when a deer came up to him and actually started talking to him, would an atheist say this to us as Christians to piss us off? I wouldn't think so, he told us because he acknowledged that something wasn't right, what he perceived the world to be all natural, it isn't as natural as it seems, the Bible talks about this. This was a supernatural event. Although this experience didn't convert him to Christianity, he still knows something significant went on. I have heard God speak audibly to me before twice. My uncle has seen apparitions of Jesus. He was not at all religious untill Jesus came to him in that form, I mean, he didn't know what Jesus looked like, so how does he come to tell us what he looks like is what we see in pictures when he has never seen a picture of Jesus. It wouldn't be stored somewhere in his brain, because he never knew. Not everyone goes through these experiences Josh, but as I say it once again, "Don't lean on your own understanding" of things in this world. I believe in evolution yet I am not atheist, I belive in an old earth, but again, I am not atheist. I hold what atheists hold to an extent but I am not an atheist. There have been signs and wonders presented to us. Stories probably wont convert, but what I say to you is true, it is just you have the option to believe what I say to be true or not, that's it. I fully beleive one cannot beleive from a story from another person until they go through an "experience", I fortunatley went through many, as well as others on this board. Yes, we have a very powerful mind/brain, but me being aware of myself all the time, I can percieve what is real and what is fake that tries to make itself real.

[Anonymous]

LittleShepherd,

As I stated, I did not come to disprove anything about Christianity but only to answer questions about my own faith (because I do have faith in my beliefs) in order to perhaps clear up some misconceptions.

I will say that for you to call me an agnostic is wrong. I am not an agnostic. I understand what an agnostic is and the meaning of the word. I do not, in any way shape or form, believe that there is any kind of higher power. Because I can grasp the concept of a higher power and its use in a society does not in any way make me agnostic. But, as I have said, I'm young and will allow for the expansion of my mind through the experience of life, but there is nothing agnostic about me. I believe there is no deity, which makes me atheist. To claim that I had no knowledge or could not comprehend or do not make a judgement one way or another would make me an agnostic.

Perhaps you have a point about me not being Christian entirely, and I will acknowledge that you print up a good argument against it. But I did believe in something other than my atheism, call it what you will, and then an epiphany struck me and I suddenly disbelieved. And since then my atheism has been fairly constant.

For now I have food to eat, and so I will eat. But perhaps I will post more based on your post. Perhaps not.

Be well,

Josh

[August]

Josh,

Let's clear the air first:

You are attacking me and calling me stupid. You are also putting words in my mouth. I never claimed to understand all there is to understand about anything, much less Christianity.

I'm not sure where you got this from. Your original point was that just because Christians don't understand you, does not make your point invalid. It implies that hristians do not possess the mental capability to see your point of view, which is akin to calling us stupid. Throughout your post, you claimed to see Christians not living like Christians, which implies that you know what Christians should live like, thereby alluding to the fact that you understand Christianity. Maybe you can clarify which it is, do you or don't you know Christianity?

Please let me know where I put words in your mouth, and called you stupid. I certainly did not mean to demean your intelligence in any way, so I apologise if that was your perception. I hope you understand that discussions about personal beliefs necessarily will touch your person.

As for attacks on Christians:

I think the topic and the opinions expressed are narrow minded, bigoted and assume that anyone that does not follow your express train of though on the subject of religion and Christianity in particular is only in denial of the truth.

Assumption that Christians are narrow-minded and bigoted.

The reason Atheists are so quick to attack Christians is because of the simple fact that, for the most part, few people actually live the teachings of Christ or the Bible (and few people can rarely agree on details within the dogma itself, hence the many denominations).

Justification for attacking Christians, few out of many live like Christians, plus an implied conclusion that there is no agreement on what Christianity is.

So many Christians preach but do little to show that they are living by those exact dictates that they lay on the godless heathens that they see around them. Christians, and everyone, should live by example as opposed to clumsily spreading their beliefs around and damning anyone who refuses to align with them.

Portraying Christians as hypocrites. Also call them clumsy, inflexible and judgmental.

I just want to show that even though you did not intend to come across as judgmental, it certainly invoked some of those responses in me. You also say that I am defensive, and that may be true, but it is against a perceived attack on me and Christianity in general.

In a few places you made statements that you wish to be absolute, but then get a bit annoyed with me when I call your opinions inconsequential. I'm sorry for that, but it was to make a point. It is an unfortunate consequence of your other belief that truth does not mean the same to all of us, and therefore it means that your opinion does not matter one iota to me or anyone else, since it is all relative.

bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices (Mirriam-Webster Dictionary).

Thanks, but I think you may have misunderstood my question. I know what a bigot is, I want to know how you know the meaning of bigot as a person, i.e. how do you know when you see one, and what enables you to interpret bigotry.

The further I get into your reply, the less I have confidence that anyone here is actually getting what I am saying because I'm actually NOT being critical of your beliefs, but of your opinions about my belief.

But our beliefs, unfortunately, are mutually exclusive. So your defense of your belief is by necessity an attack on my beliefs, and vice versa.

It seems that my whole theme of acceptance has been lost.

I think I know what you are trying to say, can't we all just get along and accept each other for what we are, so I don't think your theme of acceptance has been lost. My beliefs, however, dictate to me that I am obligated to tell you what Scripture says about atheists. My belief system precludes me from accepting atheism, and we can have a whole other debate about whether one's belief system and behavior can be seperate from the person.

Truth as a perception. This is a tricky one because if I word it incorrectly or use a bad example I inherently disprove myself. So I'll try to offer a couple of examples.

You show someone a color, and they say purple. That is the color they see. You show, say, a painter the same color. They say mauve because they are more intimately related to colors and color theory than a lay person. (According to Merriam-Webster mauve is both a moderate or a strong purple.) Neither person is wrong, but one is being more specific because he sees the world in a different way because of his experiences, his education, his upbringing, nuances in his genetics where the rods and cones of his eyes are slightly more sensitive to the color purple, whatever.

You are still equating truth to perception here, and it still remains 1 or 2 peoples opinions contrasted. Purple is an absolute, it means that it is purple to everyone, everywhere, and opinion from one person to the next does not matter. It is a mixture of red and blue in a certain ratio so as to produce a color. The fact that it is observed differently does not change that fact.

However, we both wake up and look at the world. You perceive the world as having Intelligent Design, and you see God everywhere you look. I wake up and I do not see either of those things. It does not mean that either of us is WRONG per se, but only that we see the world in different ways.

Again this is perception, and the truth is that one of us is wrong. Our opinion or perception has nothing to do with truth. Truth exists independently from all of us. The statement that all truths are relative is fallacious, because it disproves itself, how can that be true then?

Not all Christians agree that all men are created equal. If they did there would not be people saying that God did this to punish gays, or God did that to punish Muslims. Some Christians believe that, but others believe entirely different things, and look down at the "heathen" population almost as savages.

If there are peoples that don't believe that, they are not Christians. Punishment has nothing to do with equality though. Everyone stands equal, even a murderer or rapist, and they don't become less of a person due to their crimes, but they do have to carry the consequences of their actions. I'm going to go out on a limb here, and maybe you will feel insulted again, but your whole theme seems to get a bit lost every time you talk about Christianity. It is a rather common occurence for atheists to focus on what they perceive as the intolerance and judgement of Christians, while completely missing the whole point of love and grace that is the central theme of Christianity. You make very broad sweeping statements based on anecdotal information and experience.

I understand that there are beliefs, but I do not align with them.

You are not answering the question, merely restating your position.

But you are asking questions that can be asked of you as well.

Which I don't mind answering I believe that God has given every human being the ability to see and recognize Him through His general and special revelations.

But you also assume that I've always been an atheist, and I have not. I was once Christian, and I converted away from that because of my own personal reasons

I'm sorry to hear that.

I can understand how people believe in those things because, as I just stated, I was once Christian and I once, myself believed. To be able to understand something does not mean that you have to in any way believe in it, just as not understanding does not mean you have to disbelieve.

OK, I guess this disproves you statement about infinity in your previous post then.

As for believing in the concept of a deity, I believe the concept is there. I cannot deny this, because I am talking to people, right this second, who believe in God. It would be foolish for me to not believe in the concept of a deity when it is around me everyday. The concept. Not the deity.

But how can the concept and the result be seperated in this case? Sorry, I'm just struggling to follow the logic. Do you have a syllogy that can help me out?

But just because I understand and believe in the concept, does not mean I believe in God. I can conceptualize things that are not indicative of my own personal belief structure, because that is how my brain works. But it does not mean that I have to agree with those concepts or believe in them, I just know those concepts are there.

But how can you 'just know' anything? A concept is a mental picture of an abstract notion, and Christianity is fairly well defined, with boundaries and laws. So while God may be slightly abstract, the teachings and tents of Christianity are quite clear. Hopefully, I now understand this: You believe that there can be such a thing as religion, but you don't believe it's true, like the tooth fairy? If that is how you think, then my further question would be how do you explain away the evidence for the existence of God?

But that's because most Atheists don't have Hindus or Muslims surrounding them at any period of time. I've never had my religion attacked by a Muslim or a Hindu (yes, I know some).

I would venture that Christianity is a soft target. You would never get away with comments against Islam in an Islam country like you do here. Your evidence is purely anecdotal, while again launching a thinly veiled attack against Christianity. ( Intolerant Christians justifies attacks by atheists)

We do live in a predominantly Christian world, and in this nation of America the majority of people are Christian. Christians are often attacked in this country because they wield the most power and do indeed control the lives of atheists like me, but also Hindus and Muslims and Raelians and Shintoists and Buddhists and others.

So Christians are a majority and not a plurality any more?
Please tell me how Christians control your life? It seems to be a bit of a non-sequitor here. Just because someone in a position of authority is a Christian, doesn't mean that they expressly persecute atheists. I would argue that in this country the opposite is true, Christians cannot freely practice their religion on any federal land, due to a bogus interpretation of the constitution.

But again, I am not attacking anyone's beliefs. I think you simply came in as defensive. I never once say you are stupid for believing in God, and I don't believe that.

But Josh, your statements don't concur with each other. I pointed several places where I perceived you attacking Christianity. I will defend Christianity where I feel it is being attacked. You claim not to attack Christianity, but then provide justification for doing so.

This is where I don't understand you. I can disbelieve in one thing and believe in something else. I believe that there is no god, which is the same as saying that I do not believe in a god or gods. They in no way contradict one another. My faith is in the fact that gods do not exist. I do not believe in them. This is not a contradiction.

Understood, but you did not answer the question, you just restated your belief.

I can definitely say that no everyone believes the same thing. How well do I know the Bible? Doesn't matter. How well do I know, broadly, the beliefs of different denominations? Well enough to know that they do not all teach the exact end all word of God.

You seemingly don't know the Bible, but claim to broadly know where specific denominations are congruent with Scripture or not? Unless you can show this to me, I will stand by my point that you don't understand Christianity like you claim to.

Are the tenets of the Catholic and Baptist faith the same? In some ways, they are, but in others they are completely different.

Church traditions differ, but the essential message is the same. The way to eternal salvation is through Jesus Christ and the grace of God alone. Any church that does not fundamentally believe that is not a Christian church, and as such inconsequential to this discussion point.

What about one of my local churches were the minster claims to be an apostle of God himself, sent directly to prophesy over the flock, and that anyone who is a member must give the church ten percent of their earnings?

I want to be careful here, since you seem to have some anecdotal information that I cannot evaluate since I'm not there. I cannot say if that church is scripturally sound or not.

Not every church teaches the exact same message. There are always variances, some large and some small. But to say that everyone believes the exact same thing is untrue.

The essential principles of Christianity holds true for all Christian churches. Do som claim to be Christian churches while they are not? Sure, but then they are not Christian churches by definition. We can get into a long theological discussion here if you wish.

I just want to add that once again you are using the Bible to try and disprove Christianity, since the Bible is the basis for all church dogma, while you earlier claimed that the Bible should not be part of this dsicussion. How do you know whether a church is a Christian church or not without referring to Scripture?

I don't want to discuss politics, because that only ends badly. I should not have brought this point up at all, if I was unwilling to discuss it. For that, I'm sorry.

Fair enough.

Humanism and Christianity are not mutually exclusive. Secular Humanism and Humanism are different in that way. The Enlightenment and the Renaissance are both humanist movements, but also Christian. The framers of the constitution are Humanist. They believe in the individual and the rights thereof, which is a very humanist outlook. It does not mean that they cannot believe in God and Christianity at the same time.

Sorry, have to disagree:
Many forms of humanism take as their starting point the doctrine of Protagoras that "man is the measure of all things." In context, this asserted that people are the ultimate determiners of value and morality— not objective or absolutist codices. In its time, Protagoras' statement was a radical and objective view of the human condition, which has convincingly refuted absolutism for much of Western philosophical history since. Subsequent interpretations of this "principle" became split between relativism and universalism —the former views all ethics as derived from the individual (individualism), while the latter views ethics as meaningful only if they are applicable to all. While relativism gained prominence during the Industrial Era, global communication and transculturation have deprecated relativism in favor of a universalist view of humanism.

Renaissance

Renaissance humanism was a cultural movement in Europe beginning in central Italy in the 14th century that revived and refined the study of the language (in particular the Greek language), science, philosophy, art and poetry of classical antiquity. Their emphasis on art and the senses marked a great change from the medieval values of humility, introspection, and passivity. Beauty was held to represent a deeper inner virtue and value. The crisis of Renaissance humanism came with the trial of Galileo, for it forced the choice between basing the authority of one's beliefs on one's observations or upon religious teaching. The trial made the contradictions between humanism and religion visible to all and made humanism a dangerous doctrine.

Renaissance humanism was an aristocratic movement, not at all a democratic one, and it has always had opponents who saw it as a corrupting, luxurious doctrine. Nevertheless, the appeal of humanist accomplishment has always been strong, and its patronage of the arts assured that it would find a place in the artisan class. With the spread of printing and the appearance of the intellectual writer, a middle-class humanist also appeared, and the Enlightenment can be viewed as the spread of humanist values beyond the aristocracy. The Enlightenment tended to present science and reason, more than art, as the defining trait of human dignity. Enlightenment humanists, perhaps more than any other group, took their Protagoras straight and did not offer many qualifiers to his principle.

In any case, if the framers of the constitution were Christian, and they entrenched the rights of the individual, it does not necessarily follow that they did it for humanist purposes. It was rather an entrenchment of freedom in opposition to colonialism.

Some forms of humanism may contain elements of Christianity, but is it then still humanism in the strictest sense?

I assume the emphasis on is on "equal" because the framers of this country established a Bill of Rights that gives each and every person certain unalienable rights. We are all given, by their document, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The document does not focus on a Christian people, but any people. It is in the entire context of the document and not in that singular line that I know this.

But your answer still does not explain the necessity of the word created in there. Also, you did not address the source documents from the differen states, all of which are unashamedly Christian. I'm not too worried about this, since it is rather inconsequential to the argument.

I know this because I grew up in an overwhelmingly Christian town. Before I moved there were three churches, all different denominations, within a quarter of a mile from my apartment. I'm very familiar, broadly, with many, many tenets of Christianity.

Growing up in a town with many workshops does not make you a mechanic. I hope you will excuse me for saying this, but I seriously doubt that you are very familiar with real, living Christianity.

I know so many people, dozens if not more, who say they believe on thing but run of and do something else. I see the examples around me of bad Christians, unwilling to help anyone but themselves, afraid to love. But at the same time I do see the good Christians. Those who would help out any soul in need. Those who love unconditionally every man as their brother. I respect these people immensely, but those who are not like this sully their reputation in the process.

I don't want to pass judgement on anyone, but those who profess one thing with their mouth and do something different in deed are not Christians. And you are right, unfortunately there are many who do that.

How many Christians do I know intimately? Hundreds, depending on what you consider intimate. Like I said, I lived in a religiously devoted city. Being an atheist I've been able to have hundreds of conversations with hundreds of different people whom I know, and learn in detail about their own personal beliefs.

So my point here was that you made several general statements about Christians, as if it was true for all Christians everywhere. You knowing several hundred out of 2 billion does not mean that you are correct in your assumptions.

Just because I am Atheist does not mean that I do not know Christians or know those basic tenets of Christianity that they are supposed to live by. I think Christianity has great things going for it, but I think the people who either misinterpret or refuse to live by those teachings spoil the image for those who are the good Christian.

I agree. So if Christianity has many good things going for it, if you are a true Christian, why did you turn away from it? You surely cannot let the hypocrites decide for you?

I also said everyone. I emphasize "Christian" because this is a Christian board. I am simply speaking to my audience. But as I have said before, in response to your question, I know the tenets of the religion well enough to know that the Christian example is one of love and compassion, and I think that is a good message.

So is your statement right or wrong? You made the clumsy comment too, as well as damning. Thta does not tie up with your statement now of love and compassion being the central message.

How do you determine that any of your beliefs are true or false? I am young yet and make the allowance for change over time. These are questions that are impossible to answer because it leads us into dangerous territory. Your perception of the world in some ways dictates your beliefs as does mine. I can't explain the step by step process, but there are those realizations about things, epiphanies, that I'm sure you and many of the people here have had that just make sense. To me, my beliefs make sense through that same kind of process.

But if you cannot explain that in a step-by-step process, and it is based on realizations and epiphanies, does that not take you into a metaphysical realm? For me as a Christian, it makes sense since it is what I believe has been revealed to me by God. What is your realizations based on?

8% is still a major proportion. But I don't know if that takes into consideration that China, as a Communist nation, is officially atheist. Probably it doesn't. But what you say does not in any way contradict what I said. Christianity is a plurality, not a majority.

You are failing to distinguish between a simple majority, and a majority. Semantics nonetheless, and I was not making any point here. 8% included agnostics. Another source, which I could not corraborate, showed 2.3% atheist. Does not matter, if atheism is the truth, then it's inconsequential how many believe it.

I bring it, again, because of another poster's posting which I did not bother to quote. It was a question posed by someone previously. I suggest you reread all the previous posts.

Who are wrong, though? I'm not saying anyone is wrong. I've never said that anyone's belief was wrong. That is your projection. I say that I accept the belief, but it doesn't matter who is winning, still, because it is not a competition at all.

My projection, as you call it, is based on the exclusive nature of our world views. You cannot believe that theism and atheism is true, so you therefore by necessity reject one of those positions. You also cannot seperate the core belief from the person, so while you say you accept anyone's beliefs, your own beliefs preclude that.

I believe that a combination of the Crusades, the inquisition, the Christians murdering the "savages" of North American and the world, the Holocaust (killed beacause they were Jews), Muslim/Jewish tension, Egypts slavery of the Jews, the persecution of Jews for thousands of years, religious wars all over the world for thousands of years (all religions included), I think that would total at least a full billion people over the course of the history of human civilization.

Please provide proof for that, I think you are way overestimating it. And the killing of North American Indians had little to do with religion, as did the holocaust. It was ethnic cleansing, based on secualr beliefs.

Once again, I'm not attacking anyone. I said I don't believe in God or ANY deity for that matter. Not believing is not an attack. I'm simply stating this because it was part of the wholistic topic.

OK, I can accept for now that it is not your conscious intent to attack Christianity here. However, as I mentioned elsewhere, it is an unfortunate byproduct of discussions like these that at the very least perceptions are those of attacks. Just like you believe I called you stupid, I believe I did not, you believe that you did not attack Christiantity, while it's my observation that you did.

It was well written though, and you seem intelligent enough. But I would ask that instead of taking everything I say line by line, or anyone for that matter, you look for the overall theme, which I intended to be ACCEPTANCE. It is like a book, you do not take each paragraph individually and determine each meaning separately. You will lose the meaning of the overall work, unable to see the forest for the trees so to speak.

I see your overall theme, but it is made up of the different parts. So if one of the parts don't hold true, then the whole also does not hold true. This is the standard that you seem to be applying to Christianity, no?

Again, I aplogise if it came across as demeaning. Please, can you point out to me where I said this, since I try not to argue with ad hominems, it is pointless.