Atheists do Not Exist?

[HQ]

What is the faith base of an atheist?

The atheist has faith that his worldview is correct even though he can't prove it.

It's interestiing that you can replace the word athiest with Christian in the sentence above and it's equally true. Looks like we have something in common.

The basis of the athiest's faith varies, but it usually revolves around their desire that there be no God to tell them what they can or cannot do; in other cases it might be that they lost a loved one and actually blame the God they claim not to believe in. Most of the times there is no scientific basis for their lack of faith, as has been demonstrated in this thread.

 

[JackTheHatter]

The atheist has faith that his worldview is correct even though he can't prove it.

It's interestiing that you can replace the word athiest with Christian in the sentence above and it's equally true. Looks like we have something in common.

The basis of the athiest's faith varies, but it usually revolves around their desire that there be no God to tell them what they can or cannot do; in other cases it might be that they lost a loved one and actually blame the God they claim not to believe in. Most of the times there is no scientific basis for their lack of faith, as has been demonstrated in this thread.

That statement is true of anti-theists, those who take the negative assertion on the question "does god/do gods exist?". An anti-theist is someone who would say, "no gods exist" and of course there is no way to prove this absolutely, especially considering most gods are described as supra-natural and therefore can not be observed.

When faced with the question "does god/do gods exist?", the atheist will say I don't see enough evidence to say a god does exist, but will also say, I don't see enough evidence to declare no gods exist. (and no, that doesn't make you agnostic) It's realizing that gods of the supra-natural sense are really hard to accept when the only evidence people expect you to take it on is faith. If you have other evidence I'm down to discuss it.

So we can't parade around saying, "our view about god is true!" cause we don't have the evidence to agree with you or to declare you factually wrong. I try not to spend my time saying "there is no god" as such a statement would require evidence, and I haven't seen convincing evidence that says we can have knowledge of the supra-natural. That being said, I don't accept the idea of a supra-natural god as true because I haven't seen convincing evidence that says we can have knowledge of the supra-natural. I like to ask those who take the definite stances how they've reached their conclusions.

Maybe some people reject their god out of anger. I certainly don't. It is hard to be angry at a god you don't see evidence for. I have a feeling you wouldn't say Buddhism has it right and after you die you will be reincarnated. That's how I feel about your god, the claims are just as believable as hearing theirs. Do you believe Buddhism has it right, and Christians should adopt their concept of reincarnation?

There is no scientific basis for a lack of faith in your god? I think we'd have to establish the scientific basis for any god first.

 

[GuessWho]

The bible takes a lot of heat, especially from atheists who like to reference it (as I'm sure you know). One of the biggest issues people take with the bible are the rules and actions of god in the old testament. I've heard people in the past say that Jesus came to change the old ways but in Matthew 5:17-18 Jesus is quoted as saying
"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished"

Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah. He didn't came to make a new religion or to change something. Christianity is not a religion, but a Church. Among the Jews who accepted Jesus Christ there still were some who believed that the gentiles must obey the old regulations and laws in order to enter into the Covenant with God (the Jews considered themselves superior to other nations precisely because God made a Covenant with them alone). But Saint Paul was very clear when he said that in Christ there is no jew, no gentile, no man, no woman etc. So, in order to enter in this Renewed Covenant with God you must believe in Jesus Christ, confess one faith, one baptism for the remission of the sin, give up paganism (for gentiles) etc.
The conversion from judaism to christianity is not the conversion from a religion to another, but the ending of religion and beginning of the church.
Until today, there are people who don't understand this, who can't understand freedom in Holy Spirit which is characteristic for the Christian Church and they keep on blaming us for breaking the Sabbath, for example. In vain you explain to them that Jesus Christ resurrected Sunday morning thus bringing hope and joy to the world. They don't understand. They are afraid of joy and freedom.

How do you feel about the old testament? When you read it, do you ever take any issue with anything god does or says?

I haven't read the Old Testament d'a capo al fine. I think that you can't read the Old Testament if you don't have an additional book to explain the difficult parts. I plan to study the judaism in the Old Testament as well as judaism today. I have a protestant friend (I am eastern orthodox christian) who is very cultivated and intelligent and he helps me with answers and he recommends me books. That being said, I'm a lazy person and would like that everything fall into my mouth without me having to do any effort.

Do you think knowing and practicing the laws in the old testament is crucial to what it means to be Christian?

No. I explained above why. Because the New Covenant is for everybody, Jesus Christ came on earth for all the world; and asking people to get circumcised, eat kosher and keep the Sabbath would be like not trusting in the saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ and in His resurrection. What Jews had with God (the Sabbath, the Covenant, the circumcision) was between them alone and God. Or, Jesus Christ is the Savior of the entire world, not of a nation alone.

 

[HQ]

There is no scientific basis for a lack of faith in your god? I think we'd have to establish the scientific basis for any god first.

Well there's some fine atheist doublespeak if I ever heard it. People who don't want evidence don't seek it. If it is spoon-fed to them they will spit it out of their mouth.

 

[JackTheHatter]

Well there's some fine atheist doublespeak if I ever heard it. People who don't want evidence don't seek it. If it is spoon-fed to them they will spit it out of their mouth.

I'm just saying that there is no scientific evidence for a god, and people have been looking and trying. Also, I have one Christian tell me that you have to have a personal relationship with god and another tell me that god is completely unknowable and unfathomable by any human intellect. Not only do we not have any scientific evidence for your (or any) god. We can't even get Christian's on the same page about who/what we'd be looking for. Outside of just the existence of your god, there are many other questions I have about the god of the bible just based off the text alone and Christian view.

 

[JackTheHatter]

Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah. He didn't came to make a new religion or to change something. Christianity is not a religion, but a Church. Among the Jews who accepted Jesus Christ there still were some who believed that the gentiles must obey the old regulations and laws in order to enter into the Covenant with God (the Jews considered themselves superior to other nations precisely because God made a Covenant with them alone). But Saint Paul was very clear when he said that in Christ there is no jew, no gentile, no man, no woman etc. So, in order to enter in this Renewed Covenant with God you must believe in Jesus Christ, confess one faith, one baptism for the remission of the sin, give up paganism (for gentiles) etc.
The conversion from judaism to christianity is not the conversion from a religion to another, but the ending of religion and beginning of the church.
Until today, there are people who don't understand this, who can't understand freedom in Holy Spirit which is characteristic for the Christian Church and they keep on blaming us for breaking the Sabbath, for example. In vain you explain to them that Jesus Christ resurrected Sunday morning thus bringing hope and joy to the world. They don't understand. They are afraid of joy and freedom.



I haven't read the Old Testament d'a capo al fine. I think that you can't read the Old Testament if you don't have an additional book to explain the difficult parts. I plan to study the judaism in the Old Testament as well as judaism today. I have a protestant friend (I am eastern orthodox christian) who is very cultivated and intelligent and he helps me with answers and he recommends me books. That being said, I'm a lazy person and would like that everything fall into my mouth without me having to do any effort.



No. I explained above why. Because the New Covenant is for everybody, Jesus Christ came on earth for all the world; and asking people to get circumcised, eat kosher and keep the Sabbath would be like not trusting in the saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ and in His resurrection. What Jews had with God (the Sabbath, the Covenant, the circumcision) was between them alone and God. Or, Jesus Christ is the Savior of the entire world, not of a nation alone.

It is my understanding that Jesus came to the world and died to absolve man from the original sin which in the old testament started with Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. Is this a belief you hold? Separately, why do you feel we have so many different Christian denominations?

 

[seed_time_harvest]

IMO
an agnostic is someone that needs proof before they believe in GOD.
an atheist is someone who have gone from needing proof to not caring about proof.

So I think that when a person says they are an atheist they might really be agnostic.

 

[HQ]

I'm just saying that there is no scientific evidence for a god, and people have been looking and trying. Also, I have one Christian tell me that you have to have a personal relationship with god and another tell me that god is completely unknowable and unfathomable by any human intellect. Not only do we not have any scientific evidence for your (or any) god. We can't even get Christian's on the same page about who/what we'd be looking for. Outside of just the existence of your god, there are many other questions I have about the god of the bible just based off the text alone and Christian view.

There is no evidence that our ancestors living thousands of years ago were any less intelligent or superstitious than we are today. The modern marvels that we enjoy today were incrementally built upon the shoulders of those who came before us. Can we trust their accounts of what happened during the time of Christ? Yes. Why can we trust them? Because the accounts of Christ were told by eye witnesses and eventually written down in the late first century by people who personally knew the witnesses. Is it possible that all of Jesus' apostles (and thousands of other witnesses) lied? History has shown us that while people are willing to die for their religion they are not willing to die for what they know to be a lie. And eleven of the twelve apostles chose death over recanting what they knew to be true.

Is any of this going to change your position? Of course not. In your mind the apostles and all of the other witnesses are no different than those of the Applegate cult, despite the glaring differences.

But then Jack what are we to believe? That historical accounts are just the musings of a primitive people that can never be trusted? That we can't know truth unless it punches us in the face? Where do we draw the line between actual history and old wives tales and fables? Do we not know how to delineate one from the other? I think we do.

So who do you think the historic Jesus really was? A liar, a lunatic or something else?

 

[JackTheHatter]

IMO
an agnostic is someone that needs proof before they believe in GOD.
an atheist is someone who have gone from needing proof to not caring about proof.

So I think that when a person says they are an atheist they might really be agnostic.

Agnostic - a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

By this definition an agnostic person does not believe you can even get the proof you say they are waiting for. This is a claim about knowledge.

Atheist - a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

This means that a person lacks belief and would need proof. This is a claim about belief.
You may have gotten your terms mixed up.

 

[seed_time_harvest]

Agnostic - a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

By this definition an agnostic person does not believe you can even get the proof you say they are waiting for. This is a claim about knowledge.

Atheist - a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

This means that a person lacks belief and would need proof. This is a claim about belief.
You may have gotten your terms mixed up.

Maybe so.Where did you get the info?

 

[JackTheHatter]

Maybe so.Where did you get the info?

I just did a quick definition look up in google. I had heard the argument before, but I didn't want to take a whack at the exact definitions on my own. I'm pretty sure I'd butcher it lol

 

[dcontroversal]

I'm just saying that there is no scientific evidence for a god, and people have been looking and trying. Also, I have one Christian tell me that you have to have a personal relationship with god and another tell me that god is completely unknowable and unfathomable by any human intellect. Not only do we not have any scientific evidence for your (or any) god. We can't even get Christian's on the same page about who/what we'd be looking for. Outside of just the existence of your god, there are many other questions I have about the god of the bible just based off the text alone and Christian view.

Actually there is though unrecognized....Science tells us there is some mysterious force that is invisible yet holds all atoms together in cohesion.....That mysterious force is the word of God...for the word states that all things stands together by the word of God...the word stands together is translated consists........

 

[DasLicht]

There is no evidence that our ancestors living thousands of years ago were any less intelligent or superstitious than we are today. The modern marvels that we enjoy today were incrementally built upon the shoulders of those who came before us. Can we trust their accounts of what happened during the time of Christ? Yes. Why can we trust them? Because the accounts of Christ were told by eye witnesses and eventually written down in the late first century by people who personally knew the witnesses. Is it possible that all of Jesus' apostles (and thousands of other witnesses) lied? History has shown us that while people are willing to die for their religion they are not willing to die for what they know to be a lie. And eleven of the twelve apostles chose death over recanting what they knew to be true.

There is the possibility that they were deceived. Muslim suicide bombers die every day for what they believe to be true. That does not make the belief in Mohammed true.

And by the way, how did it happen, that only one of the gospels is written by an apostle who followed Jesus personally during his life ? Three others were written by people who were not there with Jesus. And the epistles - we have those from Peter and John who saw and heard Jesus personally, but even more from Paul who did not. Can we really trust all of them?

 

[HQ]

There is the possibility that they were deceived. Muslim suicide bombers die every day for what they believe to be true. That does not make the belief in Mohammed true.

Mohammed never performed miracles that were witnessed by thousands. Jesus did. I think if you witnessed them yourself it would probably catch your attention.

And by the way, Mohammed told his adherents to kill your enemy. Jesus told his adherents to love your enemy. If He is a deceiver he is certainly a loving one.

And by the way, how did it happen, that only one of the gospels is written by an apostle who followed Jesus personally during his life ? Three others were written by people who were not there with Jesus. And the epistles - we have those from Peter and John who saw and heard Jesus perssonally, but even more from Paul who did not. Can we really trust all of them?

How do you know your own family tree? Because people before you carefully passed it along verbally at first and later in written form. It's called oral and written tradition.

How do we know that Plato actually wrote the Iliad? How do we know if the existing copies are valid? I think you know the answers to those questions.

 

[HQ]

How do we know that Plato actually wrote the Iliad? How do we know if the existing copies are valid? I think you know the answers to those questions.

My bad. I meant Homer, not Plato.

 

[JackTheHatter]

Actually there is though unrecognized....Science tells us there is some mysterious force that is invisible yet holds all atoms together in cohesion.....That mysterious force is the word of God...for the word states that all things stands together by the word of God...the word stands together is translated consists........

In the past we've used god as the explanation for the unknown, we then discover what is really going on and god gets moved to the next mystery. This is called god of the gaps.

 

[dcontroversal]

In the past we've used god as the explanation for the unknown, we then discover what is really going on and god gets moved to the next mystery. This is called god of the gaps.

I am not in the (we) category....there is ample evidence that God is.......anyone being honest with all of the proof around us can easily see that someone designed all of this and brought it into existence....and only a fool has said in his heart (mind) that there is no God!

 

[JackTheHatter]

Mohammed never performed miracles that were witnessed by thousands. Jesus did. I think if you witnessed them yourself it would probably catch your attention.

And by the way, Mohammed told his adherents to kill your enemy. Jesus told his adherents to love your enemy. If He is a deceiver he is certainly a loving one.




How do you know your own family tree? Because people before you carefully passed it along verbally at first and later in written form. It's called oral and written tradition.

How do we know that Plato actually wrote the Iliad? How do we know if the existing copies are valid? I think you know the answers to those questions.

There is an excellent book called "Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed At All"
Don't worry, it's not as blunt as the title suggests. What this book does, however is explain some of the major issues with the accounts of Jesus. The book does a great job in citing it's sources to ensure it's claims are valid.
One point this book points out is that the earliest of the gospels from the apostles was written decades after Jesus' death. We also see that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John make mention of some similar events yet differ on some major details. Which wouldn't make sense if they were truly there at the event or if their eye witness testimony was really as solid as we like to think. I'll bring up some examples if you'd like as well.

 

[JackTheHatter]

I am not in the (we) category....there is ample evidence that God is.......anyone being honest with all of the proof around us can easily see that someone designed all of this and brought it into existence....and only a fool has said in his heart (mind) that there is no God!

You look all around you and attribute what you see to your god, people have done the same thing as you for many generations with many different gods. Attributing a god to the creation is really not a bad thing, it's just a claim without good evidence. Do you believe the earth was created 6,000 years ago as suggested by the bible?

 

[HQ]

There is an excellent book called "Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed At All"
Don't worry, it's not as blunt as the title suggests. What this book does, however is explain some of the major issues with the accounts of Jesus. The book does a great job in citing it's sources to ensure it's claims are valid.
One point this book points out is that the earliest of the gospels from the apostles was written decades after Jesus' death. We also see that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John make mention of some similar events yet differ on some major details. Which wouldn't make sense if they were truly there at the event or if their eye witness testimony was really as solid as we like to think. I'll bring up some examples if you'd like as well.

Yes there is about a 27 year gap between the time Jesus was crucified (33 AD) and the time the gospels were actually written down (60 AD). However the apostles and their apprentices were alive throughout that period and either the apostles (the ones still alive) or their direct apprentices wrote down their accounts for posterity. There were also thousands of witnesses of Jesus' sermons and miracles still alive during that period who helped to generate the explosion of Christianity that we saw in that region.