Why would a Christian listen to an Atheist?

[BwhoUR]

This question has been directed at me twice (by the same poster.) Let me see if I can figure this out.

Aside from the fact that it is a weak debate position, is it a relevant point?

Christians sacrifice almost nothing, they don't get to kill, have affairs or steal, but some of them do and most don't want to. If they do, they can be forgiven. Atheists can kill, have affairs, and steal. Some do but most don't want to. Most Christians are Christians by choice, most Atheist are Atheists by circumstance, not choice. If Christians sacrifice nothing, and Atheists risk (from a Christian perspective) their immortal soul, why wouldn't a Christian listen to an Atheist? We have the most to lose in our pursuit of truth and the most to gain (this one finite life that is ours to live.)

If Christians have the chance to gain their one life back, wouldn't it be worth it to listen to Atheists?

[KenRU]

[Replying to KenRU]

Isn't it an interesting point? What we want to think and what may be true. For me, if circumstances hadn't put such inept holymen in my path, I may not have begun to choose what to believe. But after much consideration and agonizing, I realized I didn't believe and it doesn't feel like a choice.

In my circumstances, that may also be true, but who can really be sure?

Not sure when it came, but at some point in my teens, I started questioning the doctrine. And non one could give me a straight answer. In fact, some were annoyed that I even questioned it. I had Monsignors yelling at me as a teenager saying that I'm going to hell for sinning, priests lecturing their congregants about the evils of sex. But no one could adequately explain away my doubts.

After a couple of years in college, taking courses on evolution and religion courses, my disbelief set in. The science and logic far outweighed the dogma and childhood fables.

-all the best

[KenRU]

I would think the opposite is true. Most atheists (in my social circle) are non-believers by choice

It's not a simple matter of just choosing not to believe.

You are taking an all-too-simple meaning than I intended. When I say choose, I mean the process of asking questions and learning more about the natural world AND allowing one’s self to be open to the possibility that your childhood indoctrination (and the comforts it provided) were nothing more than wishful thinking by your parents. That is not an easy task.

It will be that they don't believe, it's due to conclusions they have come to.

One must choose to accept such a possibility first.

That disbelief has been forced upon them. If they have chosen to reject God, then that means they are still believers. They are not Atheists. They are just apostates who have decided to no longer follow God.

Which is not what I contend. I think we are saying the same thing, only a difference of semantics and timing of choice might exist.

(having been brought up religious, but choosing to leave that faith).

Then they still believe in God.

No, you misunderstand my point. When I say “leave the faith� I mean become an atheist. For the purposes of my conversation with Suckka, we were talking about the “choice� of being religious or to be an atheist (or non believer).

I fully understand the difference. Any reading in my response that hinted otherwise was unintended.

They have just chosen to reject him.

Which would not have been an example of what I was trying to say. Apologies if that was unclear.

They're not Atheists.

Which is why I didn’t mean that scenario.

If they really are atheists, it would seem to me that most likely they came to conclusions that made them realise their old beliefs were wrong, but I doubt they had any say in that matter.

Of course they do. Everyone has a say in the matter. You can choose to listen to new information, no matter how uncomfortable it makes you. And if you have ever had a conversation with a devout believer in person (as I have) about religion, you can sometimes visibly see them squirm when discussing possibilities that either they have never considered or are in direct contradiction to their belief systems.

One can choose to NOT see opposing evidence and arguments. Dismissing them outright before even considering them. For many, life is much simpler that way. It is very easy to remain (by choice of inaction) the religion you were brought up in,.

That’s why (imo) most people never leave the faith of their childhood.

I know for myself I never did. My disbelief was forced upon me. It was never a matter of choice. If I could have chosen, I would have gone back to believing again.

I do not know your circumstances, and won’t pretend to know them. Perhaps you can explain more of what you mean?

I had no choice but to be brought up Catholic. I had a choice to question its veracity. I did, and realized that another path made more sense to me.

How does your experience differ?

While most religious people (in my social circle) never thought twice about their faith, opting to trust what they were taught as a child.

OPTING to trust? A child doesn't choose to trust.

First off, yes they do. When I say “opt to trust� for a child, I am referring to the age when a child begins to question things and trusts that his mother and father are telling him the truth.

I’m not sure of what you object to here. Children sometimes trust their parents and other times don’t. That’s why some get into trouble or get hurt and others don’t.

They trust naturally. It's part of their human nature.

Um, you do realize this “trusting naturally� isn’t 100%, right? You do know kids sometimes think they know more than mom and dad, right? I unfortunately have first hand knowledge of this – my 13 year old son thinks he knows more than me all the time, and has so for about 3+ years.

That is the way the human brain is, it is inclined to believe what it's told. You trust by default and it's not until trust is betrayed or once you start to be educated, that you start to distrust.

I disagree. Children, imo, are naturally inquisitive.

You start to realise when people are lying to you. No choice is made in that though. It just comes naturally.

This, imo, enhances a child’s naturally inquisitive nature.

I hope I have cleared up any confusion regarding what I meant.

All the best

[BwhoUR]

[Replying to KenRU]

This is what I am hung up on. It's not really a choice to have to choose either to not question or to question. It always comes down to making a choice because of the nature of "gods" and religion. Everyone has to choose. The reason I think I am becoming cynical is because the choice believers have to make is to take a leap of faith, and then another, then another. They will always be confronted with disbelief and so, to me, they are choosing to have faith. At some point, even if they have been indoctrinated from youth, they have to be choosing not to see the truth, opting, instead, to have faith, then, trying to make arguments that it is not just faith. Indoctrination of youths will only get you so far.

Atheists, after realising there is no proof of a god or gods, don't have to visit the issue again unless they feel like it, or until different, very compelling information arises, for which we aren't holding our breath. Once the determination is made that faith isn't sufficient to trick your mind into believing in gods, nothing you can do will change your belief. There is no choice in the matter, unless faith is a fraud.

[KenRU]

[Replying to KenRU]

This is what I am hung up on. It's not really a choice to have to choose either to not question or to question. It always comes down to making a choice because of the nature of "gods" and religion. Everyone has to choose. The reason I think I am becoming cynical is because the choice believers have to make is to take a leap of faith, and then another, then another.

I'm with you, to a degree. For some people, it is very easy to simply deny, avoid and rationalize the importance of their faith being accurate.

Just look at the large movement to deny the age of the earth - just so the bible can be shown to be accurate. They even have a million dollar museum trying to show that a Young Earth is correct: http://creationmuseum.org/

They will always be confronted with disbelief and so, to me, they are choosing to have faith.

Perhaps, or perhaps they are choosing to avoid new data or information, so they don't have to come to terms with the overwhelming evidence that many of the holy book tales are nothing more than wishful thinking?

But, I'm beginning to think you are right, a choice of some kind needs to be made.

At some point, even if they have been indoctrinated from youth, they have to be choosing not to see the truth, opting, instead, to have faith, then, trying to make arguments that it is not just faith. Indoctrination of youths will only get you so far.

I agree. Perhaps it is more accurate to say both sides (atheist/theist) require choices? I'm thinking this line of reasoning seems more accurate.

Atheists, after realising there is no proof of a god or gods, don't have to visit the issue again unless they feel like it, or until different, very compelling information arises, for which we aren't holding our breath. Once the determination is made that faith isn't sufficient to trick your mind into believing in gods, nothing you can do will change your belief. There is no choice in the matter, unless faith is a fraud.

As you say in the above passage, a choice once made need not be revisited and I agree. The choice must be made first though.

You have me rethinking my position somewhat on the theist side of the equation. As you say: "Indoctrination of youths will only get you so far." And I wholeheartedly agree. After a point, a choice needs to be made.

Now, my position is: in order to be a theist or atheist (or non-believer), a choice (at some point as one gets older) needs to be made. I do not believe in a default position (if one is brought up in a religion).

all the best

[BwhoUR]

[Replying to KenRU]

This is what I am hung up on. It's not really a choice to have to choose either to not question or to question. It always comes down to making a choice because of the nature of "gods" and religion. Everyone has to choose. The reason I think I am becoming cynical is because the choice believers have to make is to take a leap of faith, and then another, then another.

I'm with you, to a degree. For some people, it is very easy to simply deny, avoid and rationalize the importance of their faith being accurate.

Just look at the large movement to deny the age of the earth - just so the bible can be shown to be accurate. They even have a million dollar museum trying to show that a Young Earth is correct: http://creationmuseum.org/

They will always be confronted with disbelief and so, to me, they are choosing to have faith.

Perhaps, or perhaps they are choosing to avoid new data or information, so they don't have to come to terms with the overwhelming evidence that many of the holy book tales are nothing more than wishful thinking?

But, I'm beginning to think you are right, a choice of some kind needs to be made.

At some point, even if they have been indoctrinated from youth, they have to be choosing not to see the truth, opting, instead, to have faith, then, trying to make arguments that it is not just faith. Indoctrination of youths will only get you so far.

I agree. Perhaps it is more accurate to say both sides (atheist/theist) require choices? I'm thinking this line of reasoning seems more accurate.

Atheists, after realising there is no proof of a god or gods, don't have to visit the issue again unless they feel like it, or until different, very compelling information arises, for which we aren't holding our breath. Once the determination is made that faith isn't sufficient to trick your mind into believing in gods, nothing you can do will change your belief. There is no choice in the matter, unless faith is a fraud.

As you say in the above passage, a choice once made need not be revisited and I agree. The choice must be made first though.

You have me rethinking my position somewhat on the theist side of the equation. As you say: "Indoctrination of youths will only get you so far." And I wholeheartedly agree. After a point, a choice needs to be made.

Now, my position is: in order to be a theist or atheist (or non-believer), a choice (at some point as one gets older) needs to be made. I do not believe in a default position (if one is brought up in a religion).

all the best

Yes, I think that's right. Atheists first have to make a choice, but the choice is to question and to accept the level of proof that is required for your mind to accept the conclusions, no matter what the truth is (and we know what it is.) The conclusion isn't a choice. Once you have accepted that faith isn't enough and all the other "evidence" is insufficient, the choice is made for you: There is no sufficient proof of a god or gods. The only thing you can do is accept it.

Because this is the only conclusion that can come from questioning, it makes total sense to me that, in the first real story of humans in the bible, the quest for knowledge is punishable by "death." The one who appears to die, however, is god.

Then you can understand their need for the Young Earth museum and other's like it. Christians need to find other ways to shore up their faith. Putting holy labels on their vehicles and wear crosses, start Christian clubs in schools and attend Christian activities, display religious decorations on their lawns during pagan Christmas celebrations, protesting against abortions in the street to try to establish that they have the moral high-ground, vocally announce their beliefs so everyone knows they must be "tolerated." They are trying to build physical sanctuaries to keep their mind distracted from their own doubts.

It's been nice chatting with you.

[ttruscott]

It makes both our arguments arguable. By the way, I didn't know I changed my mind about Christians until recently. I listen to Christians twisting and turning to stubbornly make their logic fit their religion and I am starting to believe it is deliberate. I certainly might be wrong and the truth is still that they are brainwashed (like I used to be.) Guess I am getting a little cynical in my old age.

On the other hand, I was an Atheist before I knew what one was, I didn't believe and didn't realize it was a thing until I started questioning why I was the way I was. The conclusion I came to was that I can't pretend or believe without proof. I couldn't be a Christian now if I wanted to. It's impossible so I have no choice in the matter. But maybe when I was transitioning was when I was making choices and those choices turned into solid Atheism. Just another way of looking at it, I guess.

While my motivation was very nearly the same as yours, I had an experience that drove me deeper into the theology because it "proved" GOD for me and lo and behold, I found a place where no twisting was necessary (unless you call a rejection of orthodoxy twisting).

You got out - I went deeper. I found a plausible explanation for Christian truth and it gave me hope/faith that the unproven parts would be taken care of also.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 26 by ttruscott]

While my motivation was very nearly the same as yours, I had an experience that drove me deeper into the theology because it "proved" GOD for me and lo and behold, I found a place where no twisting was necessary (unless you call a rejection of orthodoxy twisting).

Yes, you wanted to confirm a bias, and lo and behold, you found a way to confirm your bias. The rest is belief in something that apparently makes you happy to think about.

Well, cheers to believing in what we just want to believe in !

You got out - I went deeper. I found a plausible explanation for Christian truth and it gave me hope/faith that the unproven parts would be taken care of also.

He got out, you went back. It's nice coming back, isn't it? Faith is so COMFORTING. Why bother if it's true at all.. it's the feeling that counts, for some.

I'd rather know what is true, than just pretend something is true. Hey.. that's me. You might prefer a cozy fantasy. I guess that's a choice we all have to make. But when you say you went "deeper"... nah.

You just went "back".

[KenRU]

I guess that's a choice we all have to make. But when you say you went "deeper"... nah.

You just went "back".

I agree. Just because something may be logically consistent, doesn't make it true.

I don't see how getting deeper into a text makes it anymore true. I dug deeper into Shakespeare's Hamlet and Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales. Doesn't mean I believe the Midwife's Tale is true.

-all the best

[Blastcat]

oops... the old man is replying to himself... please disregard this

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 28 by KenRU]

I guess that's a choice we all have to make. But when you say you went "deeper"... nah.

You just went "back".

I agree. Just because something may be logically consistent, doesn't make it true.

I don't see how getting deeper into a text makes it anymore true. I dug deeper into Shakespeare's Hamlet and Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales. Doesn't mean I believe the Midwife's Tale is true.

-all the best[/quote]


Wall, son, it's like this: ya jest didn't dig deep enouf, did ya? Dig til you git there and then, dig some mo. Dig yourself a hole all the way to the other side of the world, and then keep digging til you get past them pearly gates. Say hi to Jesus on the other side for me, while youre at it.

The imagination is a wonderfully malleable thing... we can and do imagine all sorts of wonders.. wonders not seen in the real world, and that makes them so much more special and precious. To some people, it's best to sit back and enjoy what the imagination can conjure up. It's a trick. Practice makes perfect any trick of the mind.

You can do it too... sit there, relax, dream up something real nice.. now.. you're half way there... the REAL trick is pretending that you BELIEVE its true. Once you have faked authenticity, you've got it MADE !


If you try hard enough, and long enough, you can even pretend that a god talks to you and answers your prayers, too ! Now, wouldn't that be a nice dream? So, whaddaya waiting for?

But to others, reality counts. Truth matters. Science works. Knowledge increases. Societies improve.


See that sad face up there?

That's an ATHEIST face, son.