Why do Atheists Bother?

[Cycel]

Since they disobeyed God's orders to not eat the fruit, then they in a sense rejected his authority, hence the expulsion from the garden.

Adam and Eve were not expelled from the garden as punishment though, they were driven out to prevent them from eating of the Tree of Life and living forever.

Also, I really don't think it looks as if they were rejecting God's authority. Aside from this one incident is there any evidence that they didn't listen to God or that they talked rebellion against God? Only one incident ever happened it is was the one were the snake talks Eve into eating the forbidden fruit.

Humans and the other creatures probably had more affinity before the fall...

Is there any evidence to back this claim up? I don't think there is. It rather looks as if you are looking for justification for a talking snake. Native Americans have stories of talking reptiles, birds, and mammals. Do you think these perhaps help corroborate the Genesis account and show us that in the past animals could talk?

... or maybe Satan wasn't actually disguised as snake, but as something more innocent. His persona as a snake could be mere symbolism in the bible.

Genesis makes no mention of the devil. The snake is not Satan. It is a clever, talking snake.

 

[john832]

Every time you see one of my posts with an edit it is because I've found a typo or two. It doesn't seem to matter how many times I've read the post over, I don't see these mistakes until I've posted.

Experience the same problem myself.

 

[john832]

I've never understood the rational of people who make this claim. I am sure you've seen a dictionary definition of religion.

The Oxford Dictionary of English (religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.)

When I think of religion this is immediately what comes to mind. Clearly you must mean something very different. Would you call astronomy or physics a religion? Astronomy explains how planets and stars originate without supernatural intervention and physics is beginning to account for how the universe formed without a god. Yet you want to centre out the field of evolution and call it a religion? I just don't get it.

Evolution says nothing about how life originated on Earth. The Bible of course speaks to that. So evolution and Christianity don't have that in common. There are no gods I pray to or that I think exist. Now there are people who accept evolution as truth and who have a personal God, but they call themselves Christians. The thing is people who accept evolution often belong to a number of different religions, but others -- namely atheists -- don't worship any gods at all.

I think that is used in describing a belief system. Atheistic evolution requires belief in a system that explains the existence of the universe and life in it without a higher power to create it.

 

[nl]

Aside from this one incident is there any evidence that they didn't listen to God or that they talked rebellion against God?

Excerpt from Ralph Venning...

Adam's sin was only one but it was a breeding and pregnant sin, and the mother of all abominations. One sin transgresses the whole law (James 2.10). When lust has conceived it hastens to bring forth, and when it has brought forth, it brings it up until it comes to its full stature (James 1.14,15). It is at first only a lust, an appetite, inclination, or motion; from there it proceeds to enticement; by that to draw us aside; and then to tempt and impregnate us. By this temptation it conceives, and there is an embryo; this grows in the womb and when it is brought forth it is a sin; and this being finished or perfected proves deadly. The tongue is a little member, but as a little spark of fire, but when kindled it becomes a world of iniquity and defiles the whole body and sets on fire the whole course of nature (James 3.5,6).

Just as a little leaven leavens the whole lump, so sometimes one sin begets many more sins, not only of the same kind, but others also. God had forbidden his people to take the accursed thing (Joshua 7.11), but when they had taken, they disassembled also and put it among their own stuff. You may see how one sin led to another when Achan confesses his sin (verses 19-21): he says 'When I saw, I coveted, and when I coveted, I took, and when I had taken, I hid them'; thus one sin begat another.


This thing grows into a greatness and multiplies itself.




Ralph Venning. (1669). Sin: The Plague of Plagues (Alternate Title is Sin: The Sinfulness of Sin)

 

[Leannaix]

I think that is used in describing a belief system. Atheistic evolution requires belief in a system that explains the existence of the universe and life in it without a higher power to create it.

I'm sure back when it was the popular opinion that gravity didn't exist and that the hand of God was all that was keeping the planets and sun in motion around the Earth, it might be said that acknowledging the reality of a heliocentric universe where gravity is responsible for orbit might be called a religion. They might have said, "It requires belief in a system that explains the motion of the planets without God to move them." In several more years when the majority of religious people accept evolution too, it probably won't be said that they now have two religions.

 

[Leannaix]

They knew right from wrong. God explained it to them.

If they already knew right from wrong, why would eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil suddenly open there eyes to sin. If they knew the difference all along, even though sin didn't exist yet, what would have changed about their mindset? Thats like saying an infant knew the difference between hot and cold because mom or dad explained it to them. If they have never experienced such a thing and have no fram of reference, they cannot understand it. And if they did understand it, they would not have had that revelation after eating from the tree and suddenly knew the difference when they didn't before.

 

[Dan_473]

Pragmatism doesn't mean jumping to hasty conclusons. If I were color blind, looking at it pragmatically, firstly, I wouldn't know this until someone told me there was anything different than what I saw. When hey did tell me, it would seem to me to be pretty easy to tell they were tellion the truth because most people would agree that there are 7 different colors in the rainbow, and not just the few that I can discern. Furthermore, instead of just assuming there are no ither colors because I see no other colors, I myslef acknowledge that there are probably even more colors than humans can see, given the fact that there are animals (like the mantis shrimp) who have more cones in their eyes than we have.

An important distintion between the way you portray pragmatism and how I see it is that you don't just asume everything is the way it seems to be. You don't exclude the possibility that there are other colors simpl because you cannot see them. But, you don't assume that there are other colors unless you have a reason to think so. I wouldn't say that I feel that other people have a spiritual sensor and mine doesn't work properly. I wouldn't say that I think there is a spirit at all, because I have no reason to thin kthere is. On the other hand, I don't assume that there is nothing "spiritual" just because I don't think there is. I think of pragmatism as entertaining possibilities and evaluating what is most likely true, instead of having "beliefs" without proper justification.

"Pragmatism doesn't mean jumping to hasty conclusions."

Well no, of course not... it would mean coming to practical conclusions, I think...




"When they did tell me, it would seem to me to be pretty easy to tell they were telling the truth because most people would agree that there are 7 different colors in the rainbow, and not just the few that I can discern. "

Right, and of course color blindness is just an example... we could use any number of things that people have different sensing abilities for...




"...I myself acknowledge that there are probably even more colors than humans can see, given the fact that there are animals (like the mantis shrimp) who have more cones in their eyes than we have."

A good conclusion if one adds science to one's interior senses.




"An important distinction between the way you portray pragmatism and how I see it is that you don't just assume everything is the way it seems to be."

Yes, and maybe I misunderstood... when we were talking about free will, you didn't present any evidence that you had it, and continued to say you had it in the face of strong evidence that you couldn't... I took away from that the idea that if one has a strong sensation that something is true, one should go with that interior experience, and not be too concerned with evidence. That was the impression I had.




"But, you don't assume that there are other colors unless you have a reason to think so."

Right, and as you noted above, if most people around you sense something, that's a reason to explore it.




"I wouldn't say that I think there is a spirit at all, because I have no reason to think there is."

Well, wouldn't the reason be what you talked about above, "pretty easy to tell they were telling the truth"?

Looking forward to your responses!

 

[Siberian_Khatru]

If they already knew right from wrong, why would eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil suddenly open there eyes to sin.

How do we know sin didn't exist yet? It is believed sin exists in the heart, not solely in actions.

But I digress: with the understanding of the age of the earth and there being no verifiable, scientific evidence of this story, it's kind of moot to argue over the specifics (especially the ones forever unbeknownst to us).

 

[Dan_473]

Do you accept the doctrine of predestination?

No.

[So, apparently one has to enter a minimum number of characters, or the server won't post the message.]

 

[Dan_473]

Every time you see one of my posts with an edit it is because I've found a typo or two. It doesn't seem to matter how many times I've read the post over, I don't see these mistakes until I've posted.

All too true!

 

[john832]

If they already knew right from wrong, why would eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil suddenly open there eyes to sin. If they knew the difference all along, even though sin didn't exist yet, what would have changed about their mindset? Thats like saying an infant knew the difference between hot and cold because mom or dad explained it to them. If they have never experienced such a thing and have no fram of reference, they cannot understand it. And if they did understand it, they would not have had that revelation after eating from the tree and suddenly knew the difference when they didn't before.

Knowing an act is wrong and experiencing an act that is wrong are very different.

Being angry with someone without a cause and killing them are two VERY DIFFERENT acts.

 

[penknight]

Many atheists expend a HUGE amount of energy fighting against someone they claim is imaginary.

I don't waste any time fighting imaginary people.
Do you?

Extraordinarily odd isn't it?

Maybe it's like a paradox to some atheists.

 

[Dan_473]

I'll have a look at this.


I don't understand what you think that a lack of free will implies. Do you believe our actions are predetermined? What role does God play in this absence of free will?

Do you think God has free will? If God does, but we don't, what does it mean to say we are made in the image of God?

I don't understand what you think that a lack of free will implies.

A lack of free will would mean that, under identical circumstances, you could not have acted otherwise.

Do you believe our actions are predetermined?

Given a deterministic universe, yes.

What role does God play in this absence of free will?

Do you think God has free will? If God does, but we don't, what does it mean to say we are made in the image of God?

An appeal to God doesn't have a place in a scientific inquiry, imo... did you want to leave off talking about science and talk about faith-based stuff? In the past, when I talked about the implications, my impression was that you rejected them, saying that I was using a 'God of the gaps' or making great leaps... So, I was taking it a step at a time... but, sure, if you're settled about the science part, let's move on...

 

[hannahbeth1124]

All of our questions on why atheists do what they do can be summed up in one sentence. "We stink."

[h=1]2 Corinthians 2:10-17Amplified Bible (AMP)[/h]10 If you forgive anyone anything, I too forgive that one; and what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sakes in the presence [and with the approval] of Christ (the Messiah),
11 To keep Satan from getting the advantage over us; for we are not ignorant of his wiles and intentions.
12 Now when I arrived at Troas [to preach] the good news (the Gospel) of Christ, a door of opportunity was opened for me in the Lord,
13 Yet my spirit could not rest (relax, get relief) because I did not find my brother Titus there. So I took leave from them and departed for Macedonia.
14 But thanks be to God, Who in Christ always leads us in triumph [as trophies of Christ’s victory] and through us spreads and makes evident the fragrance of the knowledge of God everywhere,
15 For we are the sweet fragrance of Christ [which exhales] unto God, [discernible alike] among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing:
16 To the latter it is an aroma [wafted] from death to death [a fatal odor, the smell of doom]; to the former it is an aroma from life to life [a vital fragrance, living and fresh]. And who is qualified (fit and sufficient) for these things? [Who is able for such a ministry? We?]
17 For we are not, like so many, [like hucksters making a trade of] peddling God’s Word [shortchanging and adulterating the divine message]; but like [men] of sincerity and the purest motive, as [commissioned and sent] by God, we speak [His message] in Christ (the Messiah), in the [very] sight andpresence of God.

I think, instead of focusing on what they do, we ought to do our very best to remember how we felt when our faith was not so strong. There isn't any fruit in accusation or judgement. I'm sure any atheist on this thread would have no trouble explaining to you in a very friendly manner where they're coming from. Most of us don't bother even to listen or have compassion for them. It isn't US vs THEM, guys. We are supposed to have MORE grace. MORE understanding. Because without it, we very quickly fall away from the most important thing Jesus told us to do. We need to stop and think about the way our words and actions come across. Not because we're ashamed to be Christians. Not because we're afraid of offending anyone, but because we understand that, unless they have what we have, to them, we stink. Have you ever walked by your trashcan and smelled something and thought... "Jeeze that's awful... I need to get that away from me. I need to take out the trash!" Well, in essence, without faith, that's what Christians who show no compassion or understanding for other beliefs (or lack of beliefs) are like to the average atheist.

Also, for the record, when I was a kid... I wanted to skip church too. Every Sunday. I think before we speak out and question the actions of others publicly, we need to first ask ourselves if we're acting in love when we do so. A great many conflicts and questions can be avoided and answered (respectively) in doing that. Some of the most enlightening discussions I've ever had have been because I thought outside the box, reached out to someone I disagreed with, and took the time to learn something new.

We should never be so fervent in our faith that we detour others from receiving what we have.

As a side note, if there are any atheists here, don't be discouraged. Some of us really do want to know where you're coming from, and reach an understanding. I'm one of em. Feel free to PM me.

 

[Siberian_Khatru]

There isn't any fruit in accusation or judgement.

Absolutely agree. And what you win people with is what you win people to, after all.

I'm sure any atheist on this thread would have no trouble explaining to you in a very friendly manner where they're coming from. Most of us don't bother even to listen or have compassion for them.

In my experience here, most of them have expressed their opinions peaceably. I agree with you on this also. We can peaceably disagree without being disagreeable!

Some of the most enlightening discussions I've ever had have been because I thought outside the box, reached out to someone I disagreed with, and took the time to learn something new.

Likewise!

"But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love." (1 Corinthians 13:13)

 

[Leannaix]

"An important distinction between the way you portray pragmatism and how I see it is that you don't just assume everything is the way it seems to be."

Yes, and maybe I misunderstood... when we were talking about free will, you didn't present any evidence that you had it, and continued to say you had it in the face of strong evidence that you couldn't... I took away from that the idea that if one has a strong sensation that something is true, one should go with that interior experience, and not be too concerned with evidence. That was the impression I had.

The evidence is every experience I have even had in which I knew I had more than one option, and I made a decision. Evidence is absolutely what you shoudl be concerned with. It is the ultimate thing you should be concerned with in regards to deciding what is most likely true or not. I disagree with you that there is strong evidence that you vcan't have free will. We disagree on our conclusion. That does not equate to me believing in a feeling instead of analyzing evidence.

"But, you don't assume that there are other colors unless you have a reason to think so."
Right, and as you noted above, if most people around you sense something, that's a reason to explore it.

Well, I think that it depends on the situation. If the situation is someone colorblind being told that there are more colors than what they see, it would likely have come up because they made a claim that the person who could see more colors disagreed with. For example, they said two things were the same color, but someone else said it was a different color. I would say this would lead to looking into it more, asking questions, etc. Now, if I looked into it, and found that most people did think they were different colors, but they all said it was a different color, and there were also those who were just as adamant that they were the same color, then you would have to start looking at scientific evidence to determine what the truth is.

"I wouldn't say that I think there is a spirit at all, because I have no reason to think there is."

Well, wouldn't the reason be what you talked about above, "pretty easy to tell they were telling the truth"?

Looking forward to your responses!

Not necessarily. Because in this case, I don't doubt that you feel something. What I doubt is the conclusion you come to about it. What you call a spirit is something that to me seems indistinguishable from normal human feelings. I just think some people call it different things. This is when I would have to start using the scientific method to determine what is most liekly true. And if I can't test it, I stay at my default position of "there's no reason for me to think this thing is true." Keep in mind that this isn't the same as me saying it is false. You may be right, I just have no reason to think that is the case.

 

[Human]

Knowing an act is wrong and experiencing an act that is wrong are very different.

Being angry with someone without a cause and killing them are two VERY DIFFERENT acts.

If you don't even understand the distinction between right and wrong itself, how can you possibly understand it? Only at the point of eating the fruit did Adam and Eve even have knowledge of good and evil - of right and wrong.

 

[hopesprings]

Adam and Eve didn't know the difference between right and wrong before they ate the fruit.
But they did know what an intimate relationship with God was like, and the knew how much He loved them and cared for them. They trusted Him. Their not knowing it was wrong to disobey Him( as someone said) doesn't matter because they knew how much He loved them and that alone could have compelled them to obey regardless of knowing what was right or wrong.
Seriously...I'm starting to think some of you have never dealt with small children.

 

[hopesprings]

If you don't even understand the distinction between right and wrong itself, how can you possibly understand it? Only at the point of eating the fruit did Adam and Eve even have knowledge of good and evil - of right and wrong.

But they knew this Being loved them and would only have their best interest in mind.
Knowing the difference between right and wrong has nothing to do with anything before the fall

 

[Human]

Adam and Eve didn't know the difference between right and wrong before they ate the fruit.
But they did know what an intimate relationship with God was like, and the knew how much He loved them and cared for them. They trusted Him. Their not knowing it was wrong to disobey Him( as someone said) doesn't matter because they knew how much He loved them and that alone could have compelled them to obey regardless of knowing what was right or wrong.
Seriously...I'm starting to think some of you have never dealt with small children.

I'm starting to think some of you are small children ...