Looking for some help from my atheist friends...

[EPH2:8]

Hey all,
I was wondering if some people could help me through this. I’m a Christian. I often hear from atheists “there is no evidence for Christianity�. Christians sometimes present what they believe is evidence and it’s rejected by the atheist as evidence. Everyone ends where they began.

The Christian continues to try and respond to the atheist, presumably because the Christian believes they are correct and if they are correct the atheists soul is at stake. The atheist continues to state there is not enough evidence to believe, presumably because they think they are correct.

I often hear from the atheist “I am not saying God does not exist, I am saying I lack belief in God�. I often then see the atheist mock the Christian for “belief without evidence�. My question is...

If there really is a lack of evidence for Christianity being true and people still believe it, from an atheistic perspective ...so what? The Christian is making a truth claim about reality, and while I’d like to argue the atheist is as well, I’m often told atheism makes no claims. The atheist then often continues to attempt to poke holes in Christianity all while hiding behind the guise of "I'm not making any claims".

Now I believe a worldview should be supported by evidence because I believe truth about our reality / universe / God does exist. From any atheistic perspective, which makes no truth claims about reality and the existence of God, why do you challenge a worldview an individual holds all while not making claims of your own?

It comes off to me as
Theist:Im Correct
Atheist: No you're not
Theist: Oh, you must hold the truth than, show me what is correct
Atheist: Im not making any truth claims, I don't have to, you're just wrong.

I appreciate you working through this thread with me, and apologize if there is confusion..maybe I'll chalk it up there with the category of the God compared to a robot alligator thread

[marco]

[Replying to post 8 by rikuoamero]


As usual I share your views, riku. I would add only this: the God we expose as false is the one we've been subjected to as kids, the frightening giant who eavesdropped on our every word to check for fibs. It is very easy to dismiss this ogre. The God we don't know, architect extraordinaire who is not interested in his Earth project or who has become ill and died from his labours, that is a possibility, even though this God does not affect anything we do. In the pure interests of truth and reason, I feel it is best to leave that possibility open; it doesn't make atheism into anything different, but it stops us from declaring things with certainty when in fact there is no certainty. Best wishes

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to marco]

Christianity can be declared wrong from illogical arguments. Contradictions. A implies ~A cannot be true. So we can prove Christianity wrong. We cannot, however, prove no God exists, but without sufficient evidence, why believe? I won't ridicule anyone who believes a God exists any more than I'd ridicule someone for believing we're in a simulation, but when those beliefs cause the pain and suffering of others, those ideas need refuted.

[wiploc]

Well, let's get the semantics out of the way first;

However,I suspect there's more to strong atheism than that, so I would be interested in how one dismisses: "There is a God" with certainty.

A gnostic strong atheist would have certainty. I met one of those in Texas in the seventies. That's one.

It's entirely possible to believe something without being certain. Most strong atheists (nearly all?) are agnostic rather than gnostic.

I'm an agnostic strong atheist myself. I can prove that the standard Christian god doesn't exist, but I can't prove that Thor doesn't exist. Nonetheless, I believe that Thor doesn't exist, and also that no other gods exist.

My mother said she struggled with her faith every day. She believed on faith, but she didn't know for sure. She was an agnostic theist, not a gnostic.

[Replying to post 7 by wiploc]

Attractive arguments. Of course if someone declares that 1234567 x 3456789 is 123543643841 the answer can be declared wrong from simple mathematical considerations. There's no need to know the correct answer to make this statement. I think you want to compare this with: "There is a God." "No, you are wrong." I know of no logical reason why we can declare this wrong with the same certainty that the above product is wrong.

Theism doesn't require that kind of certainty; neither does strong atheism. If you believe that there are no gods, then you are, by definition, a strong atheist.

I'm curious about you personally. I understand that you lack certainty, but do you have an opinion?

I don't really know where Dawkins gets the fuel for his strong atheism.

He's got his own fruitcake system of labels. I don't know what he calls himself. But I'm willing to assume he believes that gods don't exist, which is to say I believe he is a strong atheist according to what most people mean by that.

I think it's reasonable to believe gods don't exist. I'll deal more with that below.

Dismissing Yahweh and Allah and the rest is reasonable; they are poor candidates for almightiness.

They are poor candidates for existence too, right? They can be seen, but they can't be seen; they are omnipotent but unable to defeat iron chariots; They are loving but torture those they love eternally; and so on. They are shot thru with contradictions: They don't exist.

How about Thor? Implausible, right? He's not logically impossible, but he is presumptively nonexistent. And superman? Faster than a speeding bullet, able to leap over tall buildings with a single bound? Implausible, absurd, presumptively nonexistent.

So that's two categories, impossible and implausible. If we continued, we might get something like this:

7. Impossible
6. Implausible
5. Unlikely
4. Eh
3. Likely
2. Almost a sure thing
1. Known fact

Animists worship little piles of rocks. (My apologies to animists if what I've heard is wrong. The point I'm making about epistemology is right even if my representation of animism is wrong.) Little piles of rocks exist. I'm sure of it. I'm happy to put them in category 7. But they aren't what I mean by "gods."

What about King Tut? He existed almost surely; let's put him in category 1 or 2. And he was a god in the sense that people thought he was a god so that's what they meant by "god." But he's not what I mean by "god." I think he was just a regular person, not a real god.

Back to category 5: There was a time when it was unlikely that anyone would break the four minute mile, but then somebody did. Does that make Roger Bannister a god? Not really.

The lower something is on the list of categories, the more likely it is to be true. The more godlike something is, the less likely it is to be true. And just being unlikely isn't enough to make you a god.

What if you can't jump over a whole building in a single bound, but only a fireplug? Are you a god? No. What if your power is supersizing french fries? What if you can remember pi to a thousand digits? Those aren't gods; those are just regular people.

Gods have to be inherently implausible or we wouldn't call them gods.

Godlike things are presumptively nonexistent. Existent things are presumptively not gods.

This is presumption, not proof, but it is how rational minds work. Absurdly unlikely things are presumed not to be true. Sometimes we're wrong about that, but we couldn't make it thru a day without thinking that way. Should you avoid going to the bathroom for fear that a hungry lion is in there that will eat you if you open the door? No, that not a rational fear; it is so unlikely as to be presumptively false. You get to discount that possibility entirely.

It would be important if true, but it is so unlikely that reasonable people discount it anyway.

But the unnamed candidate, too obscure for human reason, cannot so easily be dismissed, though I agree we can live a life in the belief he's not there with no adverse consequences. If that's the summit of strong atheism, amen.

You speak of "the belief he's not there." That's strong atheism. That's what strong atheism is.

"Unnamed candidates" (too obscure for human reason or not) exist numberlessly. But, of those unsuspected things that turn out to actually exist, is there any reason to believe that some of them will be gods? No, no reason at all.

We can admit the possibility that something exist that we would think of as a god if we found out about it, but that doesn't mean it is likely (or even likely enough to be in category 5).

It is fair and reasonable to believe that no gods exist. Strong atheism is reasonable.

[Divine Insight]

Hi EPH2:8,

I would like to thank you for these questions. I think these are very good questions and I would very much like to give my perspective on these issues.

Part 1: Perspectives

To being with I think it's already misguided to think in terms of "Atheists versus Christians" or vice-versa. This already creates a false illusion that there are only two-sides to the issue and one side must be wrong and the other side must be right. This give the fallacious apparent that, at the very best (or worst) the odds must be at least 50/50. This isn't the case since Christianity is not the only possibility for the existence of a God. Also, as others have pointed out, Atheism isn't a position that claims that no God exists, it's simply a position that says that there is no evidence that any so-called "God" might exist.

In some sense, Atheism is actually Agnosticism in the most general sense of these concepts. In other words an atheist doesn't say that no God can exist. But, just like Christians (who believe in a specific God), atheists have ruled out many other specific Gods. For example, a Christian isn't likely to believe in the existence of Zeus.

There truly is much to be said for the idea that a "pure atheist" (someone who doesn't believe in any God at all) has indeed simply gone "One more God" beyond any theist who is still clinging to a belief in some particular God.

I would much rather converse with you as simply one human to another. Let's drop the labels of "atheist" and "Christian" and realize that we are simply two humans who have been exposed to the same stories about Gods and who have simply drawn different conclusions concerning these stories.

You say:

Hey all,
I was wondering if some people could help me through this. I’m a Christian. I often hear from atheists “there is no evidence for Christianity�. Christians sometimes present what they believe is evidence and it’s rejected by the atheist as evidence. Everyone ends where they began.

For me, it's not at all about a "lack of evidence". For me the evidence against the Biblical narrative of the Hebrew God is overwhelming. So it's not about a lack of evidence. It's about a mountain of evidence that shows that these ancient stories simply cannot have come from any God. Especially not in the form of the commandments, directives, and behaviors attributed to the God of the Bible.

So for me, it's nowhere near a "lack of evidence". The evidence against these stories being true and accurate is simply overwhelming as far as I am concerned. Moreover, there is nothing you could ever do to change this fact save for going back in a time machine and re-writing these stories to be something different from what they currently say.

The idea that you could "apologize" for the grave self-contradictions in the Biblical narrative by trying to push alternative "interpretations" onto these stories, simply doesn't hold water. I've heard endless apologetic arguments along those lines and they all have serious problems. Some of them even inadvertently created even more problems by trying to cover for the problems in the original narrative.

So POINT #1: It's not that there is no evidence for the God of the Bible, but that there is actually overwhelming evidence against those stories as they are written.

Part 2: The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling!

You say:

The Christian continues to try and respond to the atheist, presumably because the Christian believes they are correct and if they are correct the atheists soul is at stake.

As far as I'm concerned this is the most ridiculous perspective of all.

Consider the following:

I was born and raised into Christianity. I actually had no problem with our personal church. It was a church that preached love and forgiveness and taught everything "through the eyes of Jesus". No fire and brimstone. No preaching of condemnation should a person not believe in Jesus. They even tried to view the Old Testament "through the eyes of Jesus", and OPENLY CONFESSED that the Old Testament troubled even the most devout believers and clergy among them.

I actually believed in this ridiculous religion back then. And so I wanted to better understand it, including the Old Testament, and precisely why it was necessary for God to eventually need to sacrifice his only begotten Son to save mankind from sin and damnation.

I studied the Bible, not as a skeptic, but as a believer who expected to find intelligent answers so that I could help others understand "God's Word". Apparently even the clergy at my very own Church were somewhat confused as they clearly held differing views on many topics. Some of my close relatives were Pastors, so I got to see Pastors "discussing" these issues among themselves. Clearly even they had different ideas of what God expects from people, etc.

But now think about the following:

I was not convinced by living Clergy.
I was not convinced by the writings of popular philosophers and apologists.
But even more important, I was not convinced by Yahweh in the Old Testament.
And finally, I was not convinced by "Christ" in the New Testament either.

So just think of how utterly silly a Christian Evangelists appears to me today. Neither Yahweh, nor Christ could convince me of their reality, yet some mere mortal evangelist thinks that they could convince me. In order to do that they would need to surpass the teaching abilities and skills of both Yahweh and Jesus.

So, as you can see, Evangelism is truly a joke. If Jesus can't convince people through the New Testament, how in the world could a mere mortal evangelist expect to beat Jesus at Jesus' own game? Jesus was supposed to be "The Word Made Flesh", and if he couldn't convince me, then the religion hasn't a prayer in hell to use a religious metaphor.

So no, there is absolutely nothing any mortal human could hope to say that could change my mind about how utterly absurd and ridiculous the Bible is.

Also, think about this:

You say:

,.,.. the atheists soul is at stake.

How ridiculous is this? Truly?

I'm certainly not an evil person. I didn't reject the religion because I wanted to rebel against decency or righteousness. My rejection of this religion is based purely on the fact that the religion itself simply doesn't have any merit.

I'm not rejecting any "God".

And if there is an omniscient God,t hat God would certainly be able to understand this. Something that mere mortal evangelists seem to be totally incapable of comprehending.

Finally: Your "fear" that some God might condemn an atheist to hell (or just plain death) if you don't convince them that God is real truly amounts to nothing more than an extreme distrust in your own God.

Why in the world would you think that you could potentially change the fate of a human soul in anyway?

If you truly believe in a just and loving God you shouldn't be the slightest bit worried about who that God might damn or not damn. There is simply NO WAY that a decent just and righteous God could damn anyone who doesn't deserve to be damned. Moreover, if you, as an evangelist, actually succeeded in changing the fate of anyone, all this would mean is that you would have save a human soul that your God would have just as soon damned. Your God would have damned that poor soul if you hadn't intervened via "evangelism".

How utterly silly is that?

So POINT #2: The very idea that you could play a role in the fate of any human soul only reveals that you have absolutely no faith at all in your God to do what's right and proper on his own.

Since this is your screen name I'll post the verse here:

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

I suggest that this is a fear-based religion that has you running around like "Chicken Little" screaming, "If you have no faith in God you will be damned! If you have no faith in God you will be damned! Please! Have faith in God!"

From my perspective this truly is as silly as Chicken Little running around telling everyone that the Sky is Falling.

Apparently you believe these claims made by the authors of the Bible. I believe this was actually Paul right? This wasn't even attributed to Jesus.

It's just unnecessary fear and panic. There is no God who is going to condemn people for merely not believing in Hebrew folklore. Let's get serious. Especially not the Christian off-shoot of it written by Paul.

Part 3: My Confidence in the Bible is Complete.

You say:

The atheist continues to state there is not enough evidence to believe, presumably because they think they are correct.

I am absolutely certain that the Bible cannot be true as it is written.

Moreover, think about this just a little tiny bit.

This religion was originally supposed to be about morality, and obeying the most outrageous and ridiculous rules laid down by a self-confessed jealous God.

But when it eventually evolved to give rise to Christianity, all of a sudden it's not about morality at all. Now it's all about believing that Jesus is the "Christ" lest we be damned.

Not only this, but even the story of Christ is not that we need to become moral, but rather that we need to accept undeserved amnesty and forgiveness for not even being able to become moral. So morality get's tossed out the window entirely. Being a moral person won't even help. See Ephesians 2:8

It's all about a FREE GIFT of undeserved amnesty for being a sinner now. This religion is basically a "Train-wreck". It's completely derailed from it's original thesis.

There is no credibility to this religion. That's just the fact of the matter.

No need to bring tribal labels into imaginary wars (i.e. Christians versus Atheists)

The religion is simply nonsense no matter what label you chose to wear.

Part 4: To Kill a Mocking Bird.

I often hear from the atheist “I am not saying God does not exist, I am saying I lack belief in God�. I often then see the atheist mock the Christian for “belief without evidence�. My question is...

I for one do not "mock" anyone for believing that their "might" be a God. I'm open to that possibility myself. I don't claim that there is no God.

However, even if there is a God that doesn't loan any credibility to Hebrew folklore about their jealous God character.

Also, how utterly silly is it truly to think that some omnipotent omniscient Creator God would need to set up a scenario where he sends his only begotten "demigod Son" (i.e. born though a mortal woman) to earth to have his very own corrupt priests call for the brutal beating and crucifixion of God's Son? Just so he can offer undeserving sinning humans free undeserved amnesty.

I'll tell you right now that it's utterly silly, period.

Moreover, this would be the same God that had previously just drown sinning humans in a Great Flood in the OT. And now he's going to offer them eternal life for having beaten and crucified his only begotten demigod Son (or some kind of weird incarnation of himself)?

I can't even imagine a sillier story.

Is this "mocking" Christians for their belief?

It's just my opinion of these ancient stories. IMHO the stories are obviously absurd and quite frankly "insane". IMHO, any God who would actually go to the trouble to orchestrate such a horrible drama show would lose my respect instantly in any case.

I don't mock anyone for "believing" in a God. But I do question the intellectual abilities of those who actually believe in the Biblical God. I can't help but question that.

And I have absolutely no respect at all for anyone who claims to "Know" that the Biblical God is true. That goes far beyond more "belief" to making a claim that no human can possibly know to be true. In short, it's nothing more than living a lie.

They aren't lying to me. They are apparently just deluding themselves. All I can do is wish them well, and hope they find a way to get out from under their delusion.

If that's "mocking" then so be it.

So POINT #3: I just see no reason to believe that anyone "knows" that the Biblical God, or Jesus actually exist as supernatural living entities today. But I do understand how some humans can convince themselves of outrageous superstitious things like this.
.
All I can say is that this is unfortunate.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

It comes off to me as 
Theist:Im Correct 
Atheist: No you're not 
Theist: Oh, you must hold the truth than, show me what is correct 
Atheist: Im not making any truth claims, I don't have to, you're just wrong.

Prove theistic claims and the theist'll hush the atheist up quicker'n a honey biscuit.

Continuing to be upset one's claims ain't accepted on the mere utterance of 'em is just further evidence of the gooficity of unsupported claims.

 

[Bust Nak]

From any atheistic perspective, which makes no truth claims about reality and the existence of God, why do you challenge a worldview an individual holds all while not making claims of your own?

I make lots of claims, just not as an atheist. I claim we are product of evolution, as a evolutionist; I claim I am the source of morality, as a moral subjectivist; I claim no supernatural entities or event exist, as a naturalist. It's no guise: I make no stand alone claims as an atheist, (i.e. other than claims about the claims of theists) because I don't hold any such stand alone beliefs.

[OnceConvinced]

The Christian continues to try and respond to the atheist, presumably because the Christian believes they are correct and if they are correct the atheists soul is at stake. The atheist continues to state there is not enough evidence to believe, presumably because they think they are correct.

Not at all, it's just that the Christian has not adequately met their burden of proof. What they have presented is not convincing enough. It's not a matter of believing oneself to be correct or not.

I often hear from the atheist “I am not saying God does not exist, I am saying I lack belief in God�. I often then see the atheist mock the Christian for “belief without evidence�.

Do you not think of it as gullible to believe without evidence? Especially if looks like a con job, smells like a con job and sounds like a con job? Faith is seen by many atheists as gullibility and therefore not something that should be respected. Faith can lead you to believe in all sorts of crazy nonsense.

If there really is a lack of evidence for Christianity being true and people still believe it, from an atheistic perspective ...so what? The Christian is making a truth claim about reality, and while I’d like to argue the atheist is as well, I’m often told atheism makes no claims. The atheist then often continues to attempt to poke holes in Christianity all while hiding behind the guise of "I'm not making any claims".

Atheism is simply the lack of believe in God or gods. It make no claims about anything unless you are the type of atheist who says "There is no god.".

You may not like it, but it's a fact. Atheists have other beliefs and may make claims about things, but that is separate to them being an atheist. The term Atheist applies only to a belief in Gods, nothing else.

And just because one is atheist does not mean that they should not point out flaws in the beliefs of others.

Now I believe a worldview should be supported by evidence because I believe truth about our reality / universe / God does exist. From any atheistic perspective, which makes no truth claims about reality and the existence of God, why do you challenge a worldview an individual holds all while not making claims of your own?

Because people are trying to force their views on us and others. They are attempting to manipulate the lives of others and in many cases Christianity has a negative impact on people. It's not a harmless thing. It's potentially very dangerous.

If we are caring people, then we need to speak up. If we care about truth, the lives of others, etc etc, we need to speak up and challenge false world views.

Imagine the state of the world if people did not stand up to horrible worldviews held by people like communists, Nazi's, fascists, terrorists, etc etc?

Christians are terrible at persecuting others and they target atheists. Should Atheists just stand by and be targeted by Christians? Just stand by and be put down, shunned, hated etc due to archaic religious beliefs?

It comes off to me as
Theist:Im Correct
Atheist: No you're not
Theist: Oh, you must hold the truth than, show me what is correct
Atheist: Im not making any truth claims, I don't have to, you're just wrong.

Remember the burden of proof. Whoever makes the claim has the burden to back up that claim with evidence. That's the way it is. If you don't like it, then stop making claims you can't back up with evidence.

Also your little dialogue there is not logical. Just because one claims another is wrong does not mean that they know the answers.

Another thing is simply because they may not have any other answers does not make your claims truthful.

I appreciate you working through this thread with me, and apologize if there is confusion..maybe I'll chalk it up there with the category of the God compared to a robot alligator thread

Your confusion is there because you are holding the false views many Christians have about atheists. You are another of the many Christians who seems to wish to shift the burden of proof onto those you have not managed to convince with your own arguments/ evidence.