I Don't Understand Atheism

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

I found the answer I was looking for in an earlier post of yours, hatsoff:

In my case, the answer is quite simple: I just happen to enjoy it [discussing religion]. I was raised in an intensely religious home, and although I lost my faith many years ago, I never lost my enthusiasm. But now of course I'm on the other side of the fence, philosophically.

So, you enjoy discussing religion and have an interest in history. I'll take that at face value.

When you say «I lost my faith many years ago» two things popped into my mind:

1. Many years ago? you're only 29!
2. What you probably lost was faith in your religion, the institutionalized expression of rituals.

In other words, you never had a saving faith in God, only in the mumbo-jumbo of your religion.

I'm speculating. Your turn.

FL

[hatsoff]

When you say «I lost my faith many years ago» two things popped into my mind:

1. Many years ago? you're only 29!

I lost my faith at age 22. It has been more than seven years for me, now.

2. What you probably lost was faith in your religion, the institutionalized expression of rituals.

In other words, you never had a saving faith in God, only in the mumbo-jumbo of your religion.

I'm speculating. Your turn.

I don't think anyone has a "saving faith." A corollary to the non-existence of God is that Jesus was never sent by God to atone for man's sin. What I lost is a sincere and openly-professed belief that the Trinitarian God exists.

The only Christian ritual in which I took part was Holy Communion, and yes, I stopped doing that once I lost my faith. Christians would view an unbeliever's presence at the Lord's table an act of disrespect, and understandably so.

[SweetMonkeyLove]

So you would throw away a relationship with the creator of the universe over a hobby or an assumption? Playing Russian roulette with your own soul?

That is an argument that doesn't work for athiests. It is the 'what if' argument. What if the atheist is wrong. Wouldn't it be better to beleive than not? If a person is wrong about their belief and there is no God- no consequence. If they are right eternal life. Seems simple. The problem is which God should be believed? There are so many. Which one wins preference? If I talk to a Muslim they will say that they have the one true God. Same goes for the Christians. What makes one better than the other. We used to believe in polytheism. A God for everything. A God so my corn grows, a God so it rains. By that logic I should join every religion. Just in case. The other thing is that if you ask an atheist to believe 'just in case' will he really believe? They will not have the faith required. Faith is what allows people to believe and defend anything. Faith is what allows us to ignore arguments that challenge us. Faith is what helps people who adhere to religous beliefs survive times when they feel their God has forsaken them. It is very powerful but it is not tangible. Conversly, I see no issue with a persons personal faith. I could care less what motivates people to do good works. What I take issue with is the fatalistic view of the world that organised religion instills in people - that the life we live today has no consequence, that all who do not adhere to a particular belief system shall perish or burn eternally, that we can continue our war against the planet and non-beleiveing cultures and it matters not because God will come and save the believers in a great apocalyptic event. If I was God I would be upset that we squander our time here in potential paradise waiting to be saved when we have the intelligence and resources at our disposal to ease the suffering in the world but rather than make steps towards that we spend our time focused on the next life.

[SweetMonkeyLove]

rather than face down atheists we should ignore people who bring nothing other than hate to the table. Atheists and theists alike. It is the radicals on both sides that ruin the debate for everyone and make living with one another difficult. These spin doctors on either side of the fence make conversation emotional and irrational.

+1

+2

+3
Qoute FL
I would agree with this at face value. Unfortunately, atheism by its very nature is hatred towards God. The Bible itself makes this clear. This hatred may be low-level contempt covered up as fake «questionning,» (which I suspect is the case of some of our atheists here,) or fullblown animosity as in an atheist forum. Quote FL

Atheism, defined most narrowly, is the position that there are no deities.[1] More broadly defined, it is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities exist.[clarification needed (complicated jargon)][2] The broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist. -wiki

Again, FL I do not hate God. It is not hatred. It is 'the absence of belief that any dietys exist. The reason (I believe) you think all athiests hate God is because the more militant athiests as a general rule are either ex Christians or people who have grown up around fanatical Christians. Thus they tend to be angry. Lets not forget how athiests can be treated by some of the more extreme religous people. With hate and animosity. It is only obvious that some athiests would play the same game, but to say that 'atheism by its very nature is hatred towards God' is innapropriate. Satanism by its nature is hatred towards God. To pigeonhole athiests like that is no different than saying every Christian hates gay people and loves guns. That sounds ridiculous because it is.

[DannyM]

Atheism, defined most narrowly, is the position that there are no deities.[1] More broadly defined, it is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities exist.[clarification needed (complicated jargon)][2] The broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist. -wiki .

Hey Sweet Monkey, wiki has a mind all of its own, cut adrift from the functioning world where language operates. Atheism indeed involves the lack of belief in any deity/deities. But atheism does not stay rooted here; atheism moves out from this position of a lack of belief and into the position of a belief that no deity/deities exist. That is what atheism is.

It is 'the absence of belief that any dietys exist.

If you simply hold to a "lack of" belief in any deity/deities then you are an agnostic. If you do not stop still at this lack of belief, and actually believe that no deity/deities exist, then you are an atheist.

[Dazed and Confused]

What you probably lost was faith in your religion, the institutionalized expression of rituals.
In other words, you never had a saving faith in God, only in the mumbo-jumbo of your religion.

It seems that most who had a genuine relationship with the Lord and walked away are not atheists, but rather are tormented until they return to Him. This is my own personal experience anyhow. A Christian can't be demonically infiltrated, but it appears that a backsliden Christian can, "When the unclean spirit goes out of a man, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, and not finding any, it says, 'I will return to my house from which I came.' "And when it comes, it finds it swept and put in order. "Then it goes and takes along seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they go in and live there; and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first." Religion is something even Atheists practice, they just give up one religion for another.

[Dazed and Confused]

I don't think anyone has a "saving faith." A corollary to the non-existence of God is that Jesus was never sent by God to atone for man's sin.

I find this statement strange since we know that Jesus was a historical figure, that the Old Testament is packed with references of a coming Messiah that all point to Christ, examples of the crucifixion and the cross can be found throughout the Torah thousands of years before crucifixion was instituted, that Jesus fulfills the exact timing of the Messiah's first coming and if you know your Judaism then you know their supposed messiah can never arrive for several reasons. Jesus is the only one that can fulfill all of the requirements.
A corollary to the existence of God is that Jesus was sent by God to atone for our sins.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

I don't think anyone has a "saving faith." A corollary to the non-existence of God is that Jesus was never sent by God to atone for man's sin.

Of course, you're an atheist, so «saving faith» is meaningless to you as Jesus was just a man (assuming he existed) and wasn't sent by anybody to do anything. Here are some questions for you:

-Is Jesus an historical figure?
-Do you understand the concept of a «saving faith»? of unregenerate man/sin nature? of regenerate man/justification? (the question is closed, but an open answer would allow me to gauge just how much you understand...)

What I lost is a sincere and openly-professed belief that the Trinitarian God exists.

How did that happen? Is your wife involved in this somehow?

I'm not trying to trap you. I'm just curious.

FL

Now to SWL:

Again, FL I do not hate God. It is not hatred. It is 'the absence of belief that any dietys exist. The reason (I believe) you think all athiests hate God is because the more militant athiests as a general rule are either ex Christians or people who have grown up around fanatical Christians. Thus they tend to be angry.

No! I know that all atheists hate God because the Bible says so. Go to Atheisms moral deficiency and apologetics in the Christian Theology
Forum to see how I answered this to another atheist. (On the last page, the last post by me.)

FL

[Gman]

So you would throw away a relationship with the creator of the universe over a hobby or an assumption? Playing Russian roulette with your own soul?

That is an argument that doesn't work for athiests. It is the 'what if' argument. What if the atheist is wrong. Wouldn't it be better to beleive than not? If a person is wrong about their belief and there is no God- no consequence. If they are right eternal life. Seems simple.

Meaning that there isn't an ultimate authority.. Who decides who has ultimate truth? You?

Not just if they are right... If they have believed with Him and in Him. Anyone can believe in God or not, but having a relationship with God is different altogether..

The problem is which God should be believed? There are so many. Which one wins preference? If I talk to a Muslim they will say that they have the one true God. Same goes for the Christians. What makes one better than the other.

Which one best conveys love? Isn't love the ultimate goal for most people? Or is it works, wealth, pride and ego?

We used to believe in polytheism.

You mean our ancestry? Perhaps.. But some were monotheists too. There is no paper trail from going from polytheism to monotheism.

A God for everything. A God so my corn grows, a God so it rains. By that logic I should join every religion.

So you would worship a god so that it would rain or grow corn for you? In other words turn God into a cosmic vending machine?? Why?

Just in case. The other thing is that if you ask an atheist to believe 'just in case' will he really believe? They will not have the faith required. Faith is what allows people to believe and defend anything. Faith is what allows us to ignore arguments that challenge us.

You mean blind faith? Is that what you think Christianity is? Never question anything? Please explain..

Faith is what helps people who adhere to religous beliefs survive times when they feel their God has forsaken them. It is very powerful but it is not tangible. Conversly, I see no issue with a persons personal faith. I could care less what motivates people to do good works.

Which religious faith are you talking about? The atheists religious faith or the Christian one?

What I take issue with is the fatalistic view of the world that organised religion instills in people - that the life we live today has no consequence, that all who do not adhere to a particular belief system shall perish or burn eternally, that we can continue our war against the planet and non-beleiveing cultures and it matters not because God will come and save the believers in a great apocalyptic event.

Oh there are consequences for living in this world whether you believe or not.. So you think that if someone believes in God that they are somehow exempt from God's judgments? Is living a life of love and friendship a bad belief system? How so?

If I was God I would be upset that we squander our time here in potential paradise waiting to be saved when we have the intelligence and resources at our disposal to ease the suffering in the world but rather than make steps towards that we spend our time focused on the next life.

Yes we have the power now to ease suffering in the world... Right now.. But man has chosen not too.

And your point is??

[hatsoff]

Here are some questions for you:

-Is Jesus an historical figure?

Of course. Near as I can figure, he was a Jewish apocalypticist who came out of the movement of John the Baptist with his own following.

-Do you understand the concept of a «saving faith»? of unregenerate man/sin nature? of regenerate man/justification? (the question is closed, but an open answer would allow me to gauge just how much you understand...)

Sure. Regeneration is the Calvinistic analog to being "born again" in charismatic theologies. We can't resist God's will, nor can we come to God on our own, because of our wretchedness. Rather, we must be drawn to Jesus by the Father (Jn 6), who saves perfectly (i.e. limited atonement).

Of course, this all assumes you're a Calvinist, which you may not be. But whenever I hear talk of "regeneration," there's usually a five-pointer in the room.

How did that happen?

I simply came to face the fact that there is woefully insufficient evidence for the central claims of Christianity (e.g. the Resurrection). This happened very gradually, over several years, and privately.

Is your wife involved in this somehow?

Nope.

[Gman]

I don't know if atheism is "hatred" towards God, but it is foolishness..

Psalm 14:1

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

[SweetMonkeyLove]

So you would throw away a relationship with the creator of the universe over a hobby or an assumption? Playing Russian roulette with your own soul?

That is an argument that doesn't work for athiests. It is the 'what if' argument. What if the atheist is wrong. Wouldn't it be better to beleive than not? If a person is wrong about their belief and there is no God- no consequence. If they are right eternal life. Seems simple.

Meaning that there isn't an ultimate authority.. Who decides who has ultimate truth? You?

When did I refer to an ultimate authority? -SML When you ask If I consider myself an ultimate authority You insinuate your dislike for me/atheists. -SML

Not just if they are right... If they have believed with Him and in Him. Anyone can believe in God or not, but having a relationship with God is different altogether..

The problem is which God should be believed? There are so many. Which one wins preference? If I talk to a Muslim they will say that they have the one true God. Same goes for the Christians. What makes one better than the other.

Which one best conveys love? Isn't love the ultimate goal for most people? Or is it works, wealth, pride and ego?

Depends who you talk to - SML

We used to believe in polytheism.

You mean our ancestry? Perhaps.. But some were monotheists too. There is no paper trail from going from polytheism to monotheism.

Irrelevant when take out of context. -SML

A God for everything. A God so my corn grows, a God so it rains. By that logic I should join every religion.

So you would worship a god so that it would rain or grow corn for you? In other words turn God into a cosmic vending machine?? Why?

Again taken out of context. This was used as an example of the various beleif systems people can chose from. -SML

Just in case. The other thing is that if you ask an atheist to believe 'just in case' will he really believe? They will not have the faith required. Faith is what allows people to believe and defend anything. Faith is what allows us to ignore arguments that challenge us.

You mean blind faith? Is that what you think Christianity is? Never question anything? Please explain..

I think all faith is blind. That is the point of faith. - SML

Faith is what helps people who adhere to religous beliefs survive times when they feel their God has forsaken them. It is very powerful but it is not tangible. Conversly, I see no issue with a persons personal faith. I could care less what motivates people to do good works.

Which religious faith are you talking about? The atheists religious faith or the Christian one?

Athiesm is not a religion. You know that.-SML

What I take issue with is the fatalistic view of the world that organised religion instills in people - that the life we live today has no consequence, that all who do not adhere to a particular belief system shall perish or burn eternally, that we can continue our war against the planet and non-beleiveing cultures and it matters not because God will come and save the believers in a great apocalyptic event.

Oh there are consequences for living in this world whether you believe or not.. So you think that if someone believes in God that they are somehow exempt from God's judgments? Is living a life of love and friendship a bad belief system? How so?

A life of love and friendship is an ideal scenario. This can be acheived without religion. I think that if someone believes in God then they believe in God. Thats about it.

If I was God I would be upset that we squander our time here in potential paradise waiting to be saved when we have the intelligence and resources at our disposal to ease the suffering in the world but rather than make steps towards that we spend our time focused on the next life.

Yes we have the power now to ease suffering in the world... Right now.. But man has chosen not too.

You are correct.

And your point is??

Read my post in context and the point is obvious.

[SweetMonkeyLove]

I don't know if atheism is "hatred" towards God, but it is foolishness..

Psalm 14:1

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

I don't recall any abominable works. I do not consider myself a fool. I do not feel I am corrupt. I do a lot of service to my community as all good people should.

[DannyM]

Just in case. The other thing is that if you ask an atheist to believe 'just in case' will he really believe? They will not have the faith required. Faith is what allows people to believe and defend anything. Faith is what allows us to ignore arguments that challenge us.

You mean blind faith? Is that what you think Christianity is? Never question anything? Please explain..

"Faith affects the whole of man's nature. It commences with the coviction of the mind based on adequate evidence; it continues in the confidence of the heart or emotions based on conviction, and it is crowned in the consent of the will, by means of which the conviction and confidence are expressed in conduct."

W.H. Griffith-Thomas, The Principles of Theology- 1930.

Gman, this is, in a nutshell, a good definition of the Christian understanding of faith. The Christian certainly does not adhere to a "blind faith" and, since SML is implicit here, I'll join you and state that, for the Christian, faith is the "certainty of evidence" and the "certainty of adherence"; it is not "blind" faith- on the contrary, it is intelligent faith.

[SweetMonkeyLove]

Atheism, defined most narrowly, is the position that there are no deities.[1] More broadly defined, it is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities exist.[clarification needed (complicated jargon)][2] The broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist. -wiki .

Hey Sweet Monkey, wiki has a mind all of its own, cut adrift from the functioning world where language operates. Atheism indeed involves the lack of belief in any deity/deities. But atheism does not stay rooted here; atheism moves out from this position of a lack of belief and into the position of a belief that no deity/deities exist. That is what atheism is.

It is 'the absence of belief that any dietys exist.

If you simply hold to a "lack of" belief in any deity/deities then you are an agnostic. If you do not stop still at this lack of belief, and actually believe that no deity/deities exist, then you are an atheist.

Heya DannyM If I were an agnostic I would beleive in God I would simply feel I am incapable of understanding it so why bother. My roomate borrowed my dictionary so I am stuck with only internet versions and oxford doesn't give away definitions fore free. LOL I do see where you are going however. For me to say absolutely that there is no creator would be assuming much. As you and I have discussed before I see no reason to believe in a creator as I see no evidence for it. That is what I came here for but I have yet to find evidence, only the limit of human knowledge with God filling the blank places. To me they are still just blank places. I would love to be wrong. It's not like I wouldn't want to live forever happily. I just don't see it being that way so I would hate to sit on my rear through this life and have nothing to show for this life and nothing in the next. Not to say all Christians do this but they are out there, completely transfixed on an afterlife and missing this one.