Ask an Atheist
- Thread starter SkepticJosh
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
No, this is not false at all. After I stopped believing in ghosts the so-called evidence that I had previously accepted, lost its shine.
Let me ask you if you believe the evidence for Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Islam, ghosts, or alien abductions? Probably you don’t, yet the supporters of these views find the evidence most compelling. Would you agree with me that a person who is predisposed to believe any of these things is far more likely to accept the “evidence” for those views than someone who doesn’t believe?
Let me ask you if you believe the evidence for Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Islam, ghosts, or alien abductions? Probably you don’t, yet the supporters of these views find the evidence most compelling. Would you agree with me that a person who is predisposed to believe any of these things is far more likely to accept the “evidence” for those views than someone who doesn’t believe?
A
Most of what I listed in post #294 cannot be explained by natural processes in ways that are far more logical and make far less assumptions than the Christian worldview which also incorporates natural processes making any actual overlap a non sequester. Your entire statement is a false assertion.
Please explain each and every item I listed in post #294 by natural processes and prove that they are far more logical and make far less assumptions. Since nobody in the world can do this, it will be interesting to watch you try.
And, I assure you that there was nothing coincidental or easily dismissible with respect to the supernatural miracles I have both witnessed and experienced.
Of course God has revealed himself physically, literally, and blatantly right before us in the person of Jesus Christ.
Misinterpretation and disagreement doesn't invalidate truth.
Please explain each and every item I listed in post #294 by natural processes and prove that they are far more logical and make far less assumptions. Since nobody in the world can do this, it will be interesting to watch you try.
And, I assure you that there was nothing coincidental or easily dismissible with respect to the supernatural miracles I have both witnessed and experienced.
Of course God has revealed himself physically, literally, and blatantly right before us in the person of Jesus Christ.
Misinterpretation and disagreement doesn't invalidate truth.
Now you're moving the goal posts. You argue morality comes from God, I argue morality comes from human kind. You claim the cause of morality is irrelevant. This debate is about whether God dictates morality, or if man dictates morality. I've remained perfectly relevant.
Morality is a concept. It's an abstract idea. It can't be objective.
The problem with this sentence is the choice of words.
If morality is subjective, then it sounds as if morality is merely "an opinion", in which a subjective view that it's wrong to kill people is "just opinion". But subjective isn't necessarily "just opinion". In the way we have been discussing the word subjective, we've been referring to it as something that exists outside of human dictation.
Let's do away with subjective and objective and look at the reality - not the words.
In a reality where mankind dictates right and wrong, murder is considered wrong. Murder is a punishable offense.
In a reality where God dictates right and wrong, murder is considered wrong. Murder is a punishable offense.
There is no absolute rule in which we have to be good when morality comes from man. Yet, that's where we navigate towards. With subjective morality, we're good because we choose to be good.
If you believe morality stems from an absolute rule created by God, then you have objective morality. With objective morality, we're good because we are supposed to be good.
When you look up to the skies and you see beauty in the stars, the moment you come to believe there is no God is the moment you say, "oh, no God? This isn't impressive at all then!"
The fact you believe we need God to appreciate anything is bewildering.
But you just agreed that everything in this universe would be bland if it weren't created...
Philosophy doesn't attain knowledge, it attains reason to hold or discard abstract ideas. This doesn't mean philosophy is useless. It's not. It's very important in dictating the way in which we value the world and people around us. It's very important for helping us dictate what is right and wrong. But philosophy does not provide us with non-abstract answers.
It depends on what you mean when you say, "figure out morality". There's no reason science can't be used to prove the process in which we obtain morality, or the psychology behind our morals. However, it is true that science can not be used to dictate morality. But this doesn't mean philosophy can prove where morality comes from. You can't use philosophy to prove whether morality comes from God or man. That takes science.
Unfortunately, this happens quite often.
I would like to point out that the chart you posted is incorrect.
If you don't believe in God, you're an atheist. You don't have to actively believe God doesn't exist.
More importantly, comparing God to fictional characters is often done as a means of forming analogies. And, if you believe God doesn't exist, then it's merely a statement.
I explained that I can not just "choose" to believe in God in the same way I can't just "choose" to believe in Voltron. Someone got on my case for comparing God to Voltron. I wasn't arguing that God is like Voltron. I was creating a situation in which those who do believe in God can relate with. I'm pretty sure nobody believes Voltron is real, everyone can relate to this. However, it's hard for Christians to relate to the idea of viewing God as non-existent. So when I say I can't just "choose" to believe in God, then that comes off as saying I can't just "choose" not to believe in trees. This confuses Christians. Hence, the analogy.
Anyway, addressing something Pie said:
Pie, you are an incredibly intelligent and well read person. I would love to hear how you went from being a nonbeliever to a believer. I would love for you to specify which proofs for God's existence changed your mind, which sources you looked through, etc. It would be incredibly fascinating.
And this is where you are sorely wrong.
When you had questioned, you turned to answers that made sense to you. The answers that made the most sense were those that came from Christian apologists. Atheists, on the other hand, do not find these answers compelling by any means. It's not that atheists never question their own lack of belief - it's that they are looking for compelling evidence to believe.
Christian apologetic rely heavily on philosophy. As I mentioned earlier, philosophy can't help one obtain empirical or objective answers. Christian apologetic that rely on evidence are either constantly debunked, or the evidence isn't compelling.
If you wouldn't mind, could you PM me how you went from being atheist to Christian?
Morality is a concept. It's an abstract idea. It can't be objective.
The problem with this sentence is the choice of words.
If morality is subjective, then it sounds as if morality is merely "an opinion", in which a subjective view that it's wrong to kill people is "just opinion". But subjective isn't necessarily "just opinion". In the way we have been discussing the word subjective, we've been referring to it as something that exists outside of human dictation.
Let's do away with subjective and objective and look at the reality - not the words.
In a reality where mankind dictates right and wrong, murder is considered wrong. Murder is a punishable offense.
In a reality where God dictates right and wrong, murder is considered wrong. Murder is a punishable offense.
There is no absolute rule in which we have to be good when morality comes from man. Yet, that's where we navigate towards. With subjective morality, we're good because we choose to be good.
If you believe morality stems from an absolute rule created by God, then you have objective morality. With objective morality, we're good because we are supposed to be good.
When you look up to the skies and you see beauty in the stars, the moment you come to believe there is no God is the moment you say, "oh, no God? This isn't impressive at all then!"
The fact you believe we need God to appreciate anything is bewildering.
But you just agreed that everything in this universe would be bland if it weren't created...
Philosophy doesn't attain knowledge, it attains reason to hold or discard abstract ideas. This doesn't mean philosophy is useless. It's not. It's very important in dictating the way in which we value the world and people around us. It's very important for helping us dictate what is right and wrong. But philosophy does not provide us with non-abstract answers.
It depends on what you mean when you say, "figure out morality". There's no reason science can't be used to prove the process in which we obtain morality, or the psychology behind our morals. However, it is true that science can not be used to dictate morality. But this doesn't mean philosophy can prove where morality comes from. You can't use philosophy to prove whether morality comes from God or man. That takes science.
This is news to me. I don't know if I've ever heard a Christian say that about atheists and I've heard some say a lot of things about atheists. 
... but who knows. Doesn't matter I suppose.
... but who knows. Doesn't matter I suppose.
I would like to point out that the chart you posted is incorrect.
If you don't believe in God, you're an atheist. You don't have to actively believe God doesn't exist.
More importantly, comparing God to fictional characters is often done as a means of forming analogies. And, if you believe God doesn't exist, then it's merely a statement.
I explained that I can not just "choose" to believe in God in the same way I can't just "choose" to believe in Voltron. Someone got on my case for comparing God to Voltron. I wasn't arguing that God is like Voltron. I was creating a situation in which those who do believe in God can relate with. I'm pretty sure nobody believes Voltron is real, everyone can relate to this. However, it's hard for Christians to relate to the idea of viewing God as non-existent. So when I say I can't just "choose" to believe in God, then that comes off as saying I can't just "choose" not to believe in trees. This confuses Christians. Hence, the analogy.
Anyway, addressing something Pie said:
Pie, you are an incredibly intelligent and well read person. I would love to hear how you went from being a nonbeliever to a believer. I would love for you to specify which proofs for God's existence changed your mind, which sources you looked through, etc. It would be incredibly fascinating.
And this is where you are sorely wrong.
When you had questioned, you turned to answers that made sense to you. The answers that made the most sense were those that came from Christian apologists. Atheists, on the other hand, do not find these answers compelling by any means. It's not that atheists never question their own lack of belief - it's that they are looking for compelling evidence to believe.
Christian apologetic rely heavily on philosophy. As I mentioned earlier, philosophy can't help one obtain empirical or objective answers. Christian apologetic that rely on evidence are either constantly debunked, or the evidence isn't compelling.
If you wouldn't mind, could you PM me how you went from being atheist to Christian?
"If you don't believe in God, you're an atheist. You don't have to actively believe God doesn't exist." - Percepi
agnostic
agnostic
- 1.
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.
Definition of ATHEISM
1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
I personally like B: "The DOCTRINE that there is no deity."
This thread is the same as that other friendly discussion on atheism. You either believe or you do not and no amount of debate will ever change or sway your opinion. God draws those towards him that hear his voice and invite him to reside in their hearts. You cannot find God on your own and neither can anyone else persuade you. Nor will you ever persuade a true believer to forsake their faith. This conversation is futile. Friends, let's talk about more serious matters now.
First off i want to apologize for not getting to this sooner i honestly missed it. I also want to apologize if i came off as a jerk a second ago but its tough being bogged down by so many responses. Let me now address this.
Love is, as all emotions are, a chemical reaction in the brain. However the feeling of being in love and being loved means more to me than just that as it does to all people. its just a wonderful feeling and very difficult to explain. Sadness is basically the same. Life is described be many different factors such as thermoregulation and such but thats not what youre really talking about. Life is just what it is. Life. living, feeling, experiencing, laughing, crying, and making the most of every second on this earth. As far as any divine master purpose for any one life or life in general, no i dont think one exists. The only "purpose" of life is to live and reproduce but i take into account the human experience to summarize a human life. And i think any answer to this question is right. Its a tricky subject with no right or wrong answer. interperet it how you do.
i addressed purpose above sorry.
As for the rest i hear this alot. The basic question for atheists that if all that happens when we die is we decompose then whats the point of doing anything? Thats a strange way to look at it because to me that translates to that we should try to make the most of every damn second because you only get this one life. I think that the knowledge and experiences you gain in life are what they are at the moments of experiencing them, and they live on through the people you interact with in life. When Abraham Lincoln died do i think he went to heaven? no. do i think his life was meaningless? absolutely not! His words, experiences, and actions live on through history and have impacted the world today. The same goes for everyone whos ever lived. Your live on through your friends, family, and others. Youve only wasted your life if you havent shared it with others. Thats my idea of an afterlife. Being remembered and living on through future peoples memories.
Love is, as all emotions are, a chemical reaction in the brain. However the feeling of being in love and being loved means more to me than just that as it does to all people. its just a wonderful feeling and very difficult to explain. Sadness is basically the same. Life is described be many different factors such as thermoregulation and such but thats not what youre really talking about. Life is just what it is. Life. living, feeling, experiencing, laughing, crying, and making the most of every second on this earth. As far as any divine master purpose for any one life or life in general, no i dont think one exists. The only "purpose" of life is to live and reproduce but i take into account the human experience to summarize a human life. And i think any answer to this question is right. Its a tricky subject with no right or wrong answer. interperet it how you do.
i addressed purpose above sorry.
As for the rest i hear this alot. The basic question for atheists that if all that happens when we die is we decompose then whats the point of doing anything? Thats a strange way to look at it because to me that translates to that we should try to make the most of every damn second because you only get this one life. I think that the knowledge and experiences you gain in life are what they are at the moments of experiencing them, and they live on through the people you interact with in life. When Abraham Lincoln died do i think he went to heaven? no. do i think his life was meaningless? absolutely not! His words, experiences, and actions live on through history and have impacted the world today. The same goes for everyone whos ever lived. Your live on through your friends, family, and others. Youve only wasted your life if you havent shared it with others. Thats my idea of an afterlife. Being remembered and living on through future peoples memories.
I strongly disagree. in fact youre flat out wrong per example of every single theist whos turned atheist or vice versa. That doesnt just happen, there must be things to persuade them. Maybe they saw a video or read something or talked to someone or experienced something. I know many who talked to people and debated and were persuaded and their views changed. Im not directly trying to convert anyone im just defending my case. if i dont convert anyone i dont really care. The truth is too that some people just enjoy debating this stuff reguardless if it gets anyone anywhere. that seems reason enough to do it. By your logic nobody should ride roller coasters because you dont get anywhere you end in the same spot you started. Its the enjoyment of the ride that matters
"my friend is actually reading an interesting book that makes the case that free will doesnt actually exist because of some time delay in our brains processing or something"-SkepticJosh
wow, I'm surprised we have athletes at all judging by the "delay" in processing. To think all those objects I've caught with my hands. Lucky now looking back. lol
wow, I'm surprised we have athletes at all judging by the "delay" in processing. To think all those objects I've caught with my hands. Lucky now looking back. lol
But B isnt accurate and i dont know why they would include it. An atheist CAN believe that god doesnt exist but atheism at the most basic level is just lacking belief in the god. to take that a step farther is called gnostic atheism and is a belief that literally less than 5% of atheists would hold, probably less, because its absurd and indefensible. I suggest to clear up any confusion that you ask someone specifically if B applies to them because you should be assuming A before B.
Let me ask you if you believe the evidence for Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Islam, ghosts, or alien abductions? Probably you don’t, yet the supporters of these views find the evidence most compelling. Would you agree with me that a person who is predisposed to believe any of these things is far more likely to accept the “evidence” for those views than someone who doesn’t believe?
I said nothing about Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny.
You didn’t answer the question. Don’t you think followers of “Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Islam, ghosts, or alien abductions” are far more likely to accept the “so-called” evidence for those beliefs than people who don’t believe those things?
I said nothing about Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny.
You didn’t answer the question. Don’t you think followers of “Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Islam, ghosts, or alien abductions” are far more likely to accept the “so-called” evidence for those beliefs than people who don’t believe those things?
- Status