Question for Atheists/Naturalist

[For_The_Kingdom]

It has happened often, within the past 100 years, that if you ask an atheist if he believes in God, he will often say something like "No, I don't believe in God, but I also don't believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy". So, the belief in God is compared to the belief in fairy tales and such. My question is, do atheists really believe that belief in God is the same as believing in Santa Claus, or is such a statement just an over-the-top, facetious quip?

When you ride past a Church on Sunday, and you see dozens of cars in the parking lot as members are gathered inside for Sunday services as they worship their God...is that equivalent to riding past a dentist and seeing cars parked in the parking lot as the members inside share stories about a geniune belief that they have of the Tooth Fairy?

Now, if I saw cars outside the dentist and the people gathered inside for such...I would probably think they are crazy, or at least, childish in their thinking. Why? Because I don't think a rational adult with common sense can believe in such a thing.

BUT, is that the same way that someone with an atheist perspective will look at us (Church members) who are gathered inside a Church to talk about/worship a geninue belief in God?

Like, if you are an atheist who doesn't believe in God whatsoever...what do you think about those that do? Do you look at them as lost, crazy, duped, all of the above?

Some of you on here are probably former believers? Do you sometimes think, "Man, thank goodness I don't have that "God" umbrella over me anymore. I can't believe that I actually BELIEVED that nonsense".

I don't want to fuss or fight...I just want to see your thoughts.

[For_The_Kingdom]

The only real difference between belief in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy and belief in God and Jesus is that children are expected to, nudge-nudge wink-wink, catch on that these things are not realistic. Not God though. God is real, and you are supposed to continue believing in God and Jesus. In all logic and reason however, there is very little obvious difference in believing that Santa has a team of flying reindeer, and believing that Jesus came back from the dead and then flew away.

1. Believing that Santa has a team of flying reindeer.
2. Believing that Jesus came back from the dead and then flew away.
3. Believing that inanimate matter suddenly/gradually "came to life" and began to talk.

Yeah, all three are equally absurd, apparently.

You could drive past a Muslim Mosque or a Hindu temple and see roughly the same thing. Statistically non belief is the fastest growing intellectual discipline in the US, growing at a rate of about 1% per year. Currently roughly 70% of the American population subscribes to some form of Christianity. Twenty years ago that figure was about 90%. What exactly do these figures prove?

It proves that less and less people will find themselves in Heaven.

What do you think of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist, Jainists, etc? In fact, what do you think of the devoted believers of past religions that have now gone extinct? "Do you look at them as lost, crazy, duped, all of the above?"

And to answer this question I will make a distinction between the concept of being "wrong", and being "mistaken".

Those Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc...I look at those people as being mistaken as to who/where they place their faith.

However..

I look at atheists/agnostics/naturalists as being WRONG in their belief system.

Necessary distinction.

Something like that. I was raised Christian but stopped believing it when I was 13 for no better reason than it became apparent to me that Christianity is too silly to be viable. I wasn't angry at anyone. It was like losing faith in the Easter bunny. Once you recognize that it is a silly notion you drop it and move on. I just considered it a part of growing up.

Well, if losing your faith was part of growing up...I guess there are over a billion people that are still immature.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Thanks For_The_Kingdom for your questions. As a former evangelical Christian, I cannot think badly about Christians. After all, there was something in their message that took me in and kept me for fifteen years.

Word.

I do get a little perturbed with dogmatic fundamentalists who will not even investigate alternative views.

Me too...but for different reasons.

To me, that's too much like a cult. It's a little scary to see so many good people buying into the mind control.

If Christianity is true, then their mind control is based on truth value, isn't it?

So, when I pass a church parking lot full of cars I miss my former friends in church but I neither disparage them nor envy them, I'm just happy that coming out has freed me to think for myself.

I didn't know that thinking for yourself was incompatible with Christianity.

Life has more meaning now. Life is good.

Subjective.

[For_The_Kingdom]

The topic could be moved if you like.

I believe every topic should be properly placed.

Well, empirical evidence is rather important to me, I don't know why you would shake your head at that.

It is important to me, too.

I want to know, on naturalism, there is no what? There is no rules that conflict with other people's rights? Sure. No Tooth Fairies? Maybe?

On naturalism, everything is subjective.

[marco]

It proves that less and less people will find themselves in Heaven.

Fewer people may find themselves in the Heaven imagined by people. But if there exists a just God who not only marks the fall of a sparrow, but follows the faltering steps of those who use reason to move from what seems old myths, then I'm sure his door will be open.

And to answer this question I will make a distinction between the concept of being "wrong", and being "mistaken".

Those Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc...I look at those people as being mistaken as to who/where they place their faith.

However..

I look at atheists/agnostics/naturalists as being WRONG in their belief system.

All that matters is whether people are wrong or mistaken in God's eyes, not in the viewpoint of a fallible human. When I read Bible or Koran I see the heavy fingerprints of ordinary men outlining their ordinary view of an ordinary God. Those who discard such portraits are perhaps moving from a jealous, spiteful, sadistic being towards the possibility of infinite goodness. If so, the wrong, the mistaken and the presumptuous may well enter the Kingdom, whatever it is.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 128 by For_The_Kingdom]

Those Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc...I look at those people as being mistaken as to who/where they place their faith.

However..

I look at atheists/agnostics/naturalists as being WRONG in their belief system.

Necessary distinction.

Care to divulge to us what the difference is? I'm thinking of this, pretending I'm a Christian (believer in the Christian God) and I don't see how one can say "That Hindu who worships Shiva is just mistaken, but that atheist over there who doesn't worship any gods at all...why he's not mistaken, he's WRONG!"
In your theology, both the Hindu who worships Shiva and the atheist who doesn't worship any gods are incorrect in their belief/non-belief. Both of them don't worship the 'correct' god.
Is one being an atheist/agnostic/naturalist worse than worshipping a god who is not 'in fact' real?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 128 by For_The_Kingdom]


[center]
For_The_Kingdom states that Jesus rising from the dead is absurd.
Part One[/center]

1. Believing that Santa has a team of flying reindeer.
2. Believing that Jesus came back from the dead and then flew away.
3. Believing that inanimate matter suddenly/gradually "came to life" and began to talk.

Yeah, all three are equally absurd, apparently.

Belief in Santa, you say, is absurd.
Belief in Jesus, you say, is absurd.
Belief in the theory of evolution which you don't seem to understand, is absurd.

Lots of things seem absurd to you.
Even your own belief.

[Bust Nak]

I believe every topic should be properly placed.

So why isn't this one properly placed?

It is important to me, too.

So why would you shake your head?

On naturalism, everything is subjective.

That's a rather odd claim, what makes say, "1+1=2" so subjective?

[For_The_Kingdom]

So why isn't this one properly placed?

It is to me. But since you are the only one griping about improper placement, I figured you could just wave your magic moderator wand and get it to its proper place, if my judgment wasn't good enough.

So why would you shake your head?

Becuz we are right back to empirical evidence, aren't we?

That's a rather odd claim, what makes say, "1+1=2" so subjective?

Are we talking about mathematical truths, or moral relativism? Still conflating nonequivalent concepts, are we?

[Blastcat]

I believe every topic should be properly placed.

So why isn't this one properly placed?

you can take his word for it. as far as he's concerned, it's not placed

So why would you shake your head?

think he's sayin no

That's a rather odd claim, what makes say, "1+1=2" so subjective?

1+1= 3 given big enough 1's.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Care to divulge to us what the difference is? I'm thinking of this, pretending I'm a Christian (believer in the Christian God) and I don't see how one can say "That Hindu who worships Shiva is just mistaken, but that atheist over there who doesn't worship any gods at all...why he's not mistaken, he's WRONG!"

This is pretty much semantics. I was just making the distinction between being wrong, and being "even more wrong".

It is like asking "Is the light in the room on or off?" and the answer is "off"...but you claim it is "on"...well, technically, you are wrong. But compare that to you claiming that there is no light in the ROOM AT ALL.

To me, that is more "wrong" than saying the light in the room is off...because at least there is a chance in you giving the correct answer...by claiming there is no light in the room, there is no truth value whatsoever in that claim.

And that is the difference between being mistaken about which God exists, and being completely/utterly wrong about whether a God exists at all.

Now, if you don't care about such a breakdown with the attitude of "dude, who cares, wrong is wrong"...I can understand...nevertheless, I am just giving you an explanation of why I made the distinction.

In your theology, both the Hindu who worships Shiva and the atheist who doesn't worship any gods are incorrect in their belief/non-belief. Both of them don't worship the 'correct' god.
Is one being an atheist/agnostic/naturalist worse than worshipping a god who is not 'in fact' real?

Worse? Ultimately, no. But all things equal, I think a theist (in general) is closer to the "real" God than someone who refuses to acknowledge the existence of a God whatsoever.

Just my opinion.