Are Athiests evil?

CerebralCortex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It's not intolerance, so you can put the angry faces away. I actually think that you are looking for something to get angry over. It is quite simple. Not all religions can be correct. Not too dissimilar to your position as an atheist.

But you are implying that some maybe. How is that not a roundabout logically manipulative way of saying that not all religions can be correct but mine may be? I don't think thats simillar to the atheist position at all.

Hivemind187

I love the way that these arguements always seem to come around to personal interpretations of reality that are somehow sacred and unfair to treat critically. Terms like "personal truth" are bandied around without challenge (from most) as though it were some sort of provalactive for beliefs held out of sheer desire rather than out of reason. Or how people are quantified as being less intelligent due to a psychological state (belief or not belief).

Both of these are total rubbish.

If you believe something that flies in the face of reproducable experimentation, reason, logic and anything else that makes planes fly and chemo therapy work then you are believing something nonsensical and in this day and age, for an individual who is educated (to the point that they can read and comprehend big words) the only explanation for this is a) You actually WANT to believe such claptrap or b) Your brain is wired up to have religious experiences (something covered before).

If you believe that religious people (and theists take note be cause you accuse atheists of the same thing all the time) are less intelligent because of their beliefs you are essentially saying that their psychology is the driving force behind intellect. This is not so. It is their biology or more precisely their neurology. The more white matter that the brain has, the more convolutions etc then you will have a more intelligent person (in any measureable sense anyway). I have no doubt that there are many many people who are religious who have above average intelligence, perhaps even genius intellect ... it doesnt mean that their perspectives on angels or demons are supportable or correct in any sense of the word.

Considering what I have said above it is my opinion that the quantity of "evil" is prevalent throughout intelligent people based on the make up of their minds. there is no other way I can conceive of that persons professing love and harmony could be extatic in their murdering of abortion doctors, threatening of school science teachers and martyrdoms in synagogues unless they are capable of holding dualistic value systems .... like those exhibited by religious scientists.

(this is for the vague general standard of what qualifies as evil)

Are Atheists evil? Damn straight I am if the qualification for evil is set out by the standards of the so-called "good people" of the Bible and it's modern adherents. If not being bamboozled by fanciful stories is a side effect of my being able to reason then thanks but I'll keep my frontal lobes and you can have your gilded books.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It this 'exactly the same amount' phrase that I object to. I contend that there is not exactly the same amount or quality of evidence. However, if you really want to devalue the worth of a historical Jesus (again, we'll not argue over his divinity - we'll not agree there) by proving there is exactly the same amount of evidence as there is for fairies, I suggest that you find some credible sources that first argue their existence.

Well first you have to define "credible".

You clearly believe that their are credible sources for the existence of Jesus. I, as I'm sure you know, would not be so sure of that to proclaim that we can take what they said as a serious source. The only direct sources for the actual existence of Jesus (rather than the existence of his followers, of which there are many historical sources) are a small group of religious people who also believed they saw visions on roads and dead people walking on water. Based on that I wouldn't consider them particularly credible.

You of course do because of theological belief that they actually were seeing people walking on water and coming back from the dead. And as you say this argument has been back and forth as to how credible such claims are (the answer normally being they are credible if God exists, and not particularly credible if he doesn't).

So again I see a lot of parallels with something like fairies. You say there are little or no credible sources for the existence of fairies. I would agree 100% with you. I imagine that conclusion was reached in you the same way it was with me, that fairies are such an improbable thing to exist that anyone who claims to have seen one their own credibility instantly jumps down a few notches. It is not like claiming to sleep with the postman or meeting Bertie Ahern, both of which are entirely plausible even if the person may be making the story up. Fairies are such an unlikely thing to actually exist that I would instantly question the judgment of anyone claiming that they do exist. Extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims, and all that.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

However, by way of a brief response, I've never discussed with anybody their personal experience with fairies. So I don't know. If I'm being perfectly honest, I have probably give the notion for fairies about as much thought as most people who have rejected them - maybe yourself included.

That was my original point. You (I imagine) dismiss fairies as a concept entirely, which is quite a reasonable thing to do (how would they have evolved, how would they work, they are clearly a made up concept from mythology and children stories etc).

Therefore you probably reject out of hand any and all claims of people to have seen fairies. Fairies don't exist, they are a nonsense imagined concept, anyone claiming to have seen a fairy is mistaken and one would have to seriously question their judgment and ability to assess if they actually saw a fairy. It would take an extraordinary piece of evidence or collection of evidence to demonstrate otherwise. The claims of people would not fit that.

Again, I feel parallels can be drawn between that and something like the evidence for Jesus.

I would seriously question the reliability of Paul and the other authors of the New Testament who give us really the bulk of the evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus, because while doing so they make such ridiculous claims and believe such crazy things (yes I appreciate you don't think they are ridiculous or crazy).

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

It's a difficult one to answer. The first thing I would say is that I think the agnostic position is more honest or rational that the atheist one. Of course people are free to believe whatever they like but nobody can say with any certainty that God doesn't exist. Therefore atheism is really an unsupportable position.

Firstly I would agree with you, no one can prove God doesn't exist, though I don't think that is necessary for one to reject the idea (no one can prove fairies or the tooth fairy doesn't exist either etc etc).

Secondly it is a bit peculiar to talk about honest and rational positions while going on later in your post to discuss all the reasons atheists might be atheists without mentioning the most obvious one, they looked at the various religious arguments and found them seriously lacking.

Do you honestly believe that your religious belief is so ridiculously reasonable and rational that you can only imagine other external reasons why someone would reject it, rather than that they simply don't believe it makes any sense, or at least doesn't make as much sense as the alternative?

The argument often made on this forum is that just because the Christian god is an extraordinary thing doesn't mean it isn't real. Just because Jesus coming back to life is an extraordinary event doesn't mean it didn't happen. Which is true.

But can you really not understand how someone, faced with these extraordinary claims, could simply conclude that there isn't a good enough reason to believe that they are true. Most Christians does that about the ideas and claims of every other religion out there, that they are very out their concepts, with a lot of problems, and simply conclude they probably are just imaginary.

What is so special about Christianity?

Dades

DeVore wrote: »

I'm also particularly proud to be an agnostic because I believe we are the only group in the whole religious debate who arent black and white about it. We are the only group not professing to actually KNOW and that you should follow us.

Sorry, but it twists my kacks when people lump agnostics in with atheists or mis-represent the position held by agnostics.

Just as it twists atheist knacks when their position is misrepresented!

No self-respecting atheist claims to actually KNOW anything of the sort. You can't disprove the existence of an invisible, intangible being, so that path is simply not open. Atheism is a belief which, like agnosticism, has shades between black and white.

The important thing is you don't have to know there isn't a god to say you don't believe one exists.

Since we're wiki'ing (Atheism) I would propose that you are a practical atheist, Dev.

Biro

Macros42 wrote: »

But if I happen to be wrong whose to say who's God is the right one. Certainly not you or me.

I don't think it's correct to say "who's God is the right one". Everyone's God is the same one, but different people believe that He expects different things off them. That's not the same as saying those people have a different god.

Galvasean

Biro wrote: »

I don't think it's correct to say "who's God is the right one". Everyone's God is the same one, but different people believe that He expects different things off them. .

I'm not sure about that. What about polytheists?

Tim Robbins

kelly1 wrote: »

- Indifference of parents towards religion.
- Hypocrisy shown people who claim to be religious.
- Witness of suffering in the world
- Life's difficulties can make people cynical/hard.
- Attraction to worldly things.
- Suggestions of the devil.
- Peer pressure/ ridicule of believers.
- Lack of religious education/knowledge of saints lives.
- Rebellion against authority.

IMO there are three reasons why atheism / disbelief is more and more prevalent:
1. The rise of capitalism means people have individualistic freedom. They can release serotonin or achieve "retail therapy" by putting their hand in their wallets and making a selection from a wide range of consumer products.
2. All the scandals from the various Christian Churches meant they lost the credibility they once had. This is why many Irish people profess a belief in God but don't practise a religion.
3. The education of the masses. A religion is a lot easier to believe if you don't know that much about
- any other religion
- science
- philosophy

The question "Are atheists evil?" is the wrong question. The person isn't evil but disbelief is according to Scripture. It's the rejection of one's Creator and the ultimate good.

For me, it's about how comfortable you are ignoring logic. If you limit yourself to logic you could argue you limit your experiences but if you abandon logic you can misinterpret visceral thoughts.

Orion

Biro wrote: »

Everyone's God is the same one, but different people believe that He expects different things off them. That's not the same as saying those people have a different god.

That's a very simplistic view. There have been many many gods worshipped in history and even today. American Indians have many gods as do Hindus.
List of Deities

Bill-e

This has been an enlightening thread.
I think I will classify myself as an agnostic of some sort.

All I can say for sure is "I think therefore I am" -Descartes

rockbeer

Bill-e wrote: »

All I can say for sure is "I think therefore I am" -Descartes

Good luck Bill-e. I hope you enjoy your existential period

Orion

wait until you get on to Nietzsche - "God is dead"

kelly1

rockbeer wrote: »

By the same logic, since nobody can say for certain that god does exist, surely theism is an equally unsupportable position.

Yes you could say that if scientific method is the only "proof" someone will accept. I personally have no proof that God exists but I don't see my faith as unreasonable. I have lots of reasons for believing none of which are proof but to me are very strong evidence. Belief in God isn't without foundation whereas belief in the tooth fairy etc has no foundation.

rockbeer wrote: »

Believers, on the other hand, do claim to know for certain that god exists which really rather isolates them as the ones with the problem.

Very few believers can claim to know that God exists unless of course they've had a personal revelation from God. But these are few and far between. There are heaps of Catholic saints who would have claimed to know for sure that God exists.

rockbeer wrote: »

You're looking for something sinister where there is nothing. I, at least, strongly believe god doesn't exist in just the same way that you, I presume, strongly believe that Osiris and Zeus and Shiva don't exist.

It's honestly that simple.

Maybe. But logically speaking, isn't it more likely that there would be one God rather than multiple gods? I don't think there's room for more than 1 supreme, perfect, infinite being.

Biro

Macros42 wrote: »

That's a very simplistic view. There have been many many gods worshipped in history and even today. American Indians have many gods as do Hindus.
List of Deities

True, but I was more referring to the religions who have one God as the centre of their beliefs.

Goduznt Xzst

kelly1 wrote: »

Maybe. But logically speaking, isn't it more likely that there would be one God rather than multiple gods? I don't think there's room for more than 1 supreme, perfect, infinite being.

please elaborate kelly1, under your logic, why would there not be "room" for more than 1 God?

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes you could say that if scientific method is the only "proof" someone will accept. I personally have no proof that God exists but I don't see my faith as unreasonable. I have lots of reasons for believing none of which are proof but to me are very strong evidence. Belief in God isn't without foundation whereas belief in the tooth fairy etc has no foundation.

Without foundation? Someone who believes in the tooth-fairy might disagree. After all, the tooth has to go some where. Some people even claim to see the fairy.

kelly1 wrote: »

Very few believers can claim to know that God exists unless of course they've had a personal revelation from God.

To an atheist that strongly suggests something ...

kelly1 wrote: »

Maybe. But logically speaking, isn't it more likely that there would be one God rather than multiple gods?

What logic is there that it is more likely to only be one timeless super powerful entity existing outside of space and time, rather than 2 or 3 or a billion. To my mind if you can have one timeless being you can have an infinite number of them.

It isn't more logical to suppose one god, it is just neater. It simply avoids questions about what the other gods do, what purpose they serve. Cultures like the Greeks didn't have trouble with these questions, other monotheistic cultures did. It comes down to more what the culture wants to god(s) to do, what purpose they serve in the culture, than anything else. To me it is related to what human abstraction gods are modeled on. The Abramaic god is modeled on the idea of a single lord/leader/father figure. Where as the Greeks modeled their gods on the complex structure of family and society in general. I would imagine (don't know much about this) that this is a reflection of the society that was in place when these religions were being developed.

--amadeus--

kelly1 wrote: »

Belief in God isn't without foundation whereas belief in the tooth fairy etc has no foundation.

Back to your facts versus my opinions - I believe that god is as without foundation as the tooth fairy or dragons (or indeed the FSM, al hail his noodly appendages)

kelly1 wrote: »

Very few believers can claim to know that God exists unless of course they've had a personal revelation from God. But these are few and far between. There are heaps of Catholic saints who would have claimed to know for sure that God exists.

And teh assylums are full of people who claim to be Napolean. I can claim that I KNOW fairies exsist. Doesn't make it true!

kelly1 wrote: »

Maybe. But logically speaking, isn't it more likely that there would be one God rather than multiple gods? I don't think there's room for more than 1 supreme, perfect, infinite being.

IMO logically speaking it is more likely that there are no gods rather than one, a logical conclusion drawn from analysis of the facts and evidence. In particular the latest studies and calculations that imply that there was no "big bang", that the universe endlessly expands and contracts and that the "perfect" cosmological constants may not be so constant after all.

Waaaayy OT as to what believers makes an athiest an athiest but it's all ood

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes you could say that if scientific method is the only "proof" someone will accept. I personally have no proof that God exists but I don't see my faith as unreasonable. I have lots of reasons for believing none of which are proof but to me are very strong evidence. Belief in God isn't without foundation whereas belief in the tooth fairy etc has no foundation....

Thats a very large claim Noel. It goes back to my question of whether you think us atheists are just really closet theists? Belief in god afaik is completely unfounded the evidence seems to exist within the realm of good feeling.

kelly1 wrote: »

Maybe. But logically speaking, isn't it more likely that there would be one God rather than multiple gods? I don't think there's room for more than 1 supreme, perfect, infinite being.

Why? Would you concede there is certain amount of anthropomorphising going on there?

rockbeer

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes you could say that if scientific method is the only "proof" someone will accept.

It has nothing to do with scientific method, nor proof. It's just the same logic that you accept makes rigid atheism unsupportable - i.e. "we can't know" applied to atheism. Sure you can believe what you like, but to say god definitely exists is as unsupportable as to say he/she/it definitely doesn't.

kelly1 wrote: »

Very few believers can claim to know that God exists unless of course they've had a personal revelation from God. But these are few and far between. There are heaps of Catholic saints who would have claimed to know for sure that God exists.

And by the application of your logic, their position would be 'unsupportable' too. Wouldn't you agree? Since no one can know for certain.

Are you admitting to personal doubt here?

kelly1 wrote: »

logically speaking, isn't it more likely that there would be one God rather than multiple gods? I don't think there's room for more than 1 supreme, perfect, infinite being.

That's fascinating - please describe the logic that brings you to this conclusion.

Personally I don't see how you can deduce that logically. You might prefer to believe it but I'd love to hear the rigorous logic that gets you there.

kelly1

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I wonder Noel have you ever read into why people do hold beliefs detailed from those on my side of the argument.

No, I haven't read much about atheism. I understand the argument that there's no solid evidence that God exists so therefore I won't believe. To be honest I find that position a bit stubborn and narrow.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I get the impression Noel you think everyone is a closet theist would I be right?

I think there's some truth in that. I believe we all have an innate sense of a higher purpose/meaning to life. Lots of people have great difficulty accepting that when we die, we're gone. It's a frightening to think that one minute you're a living person with all the associated emotions/thoughts/hopes/fears and the next minute you're nothing but a grey corpse.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

By that definition is evangelising evil?

No. Good evangelism is about bringing hope and meaning to peoples lives, giving them a sense of purpose and worth. I don't see any evil in that.

Wicknight wrote: »

Secondly it is a bit peculiar to talk about honest and rational positions while going on later in your post to discuss all the reasons atheists might be atheists without mentioning the most obvious one, they looked at the various religious arguments and found them seriously lacking.

Fair point gov.

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you honestly believe that your religious belief is so ridiculously reasonable and rational that you can only imagine other external reasons why someone would reject it, rather than that they simply don't believe it makes any sense, or at least doesn't make as much sense as the alternative?

To someone who believes in nothing outside the physical world, of course it's going to seem like a fairy story.

As soon as you admit that there could be an all-powerful God, then it doesn't look so crazy.

Wicknight wrote: »

The argument often made on this forum is that just because the Christian god is an extraordinary thing doesn't mean it isn't real. Just because Jesus coming back to life is an extraordinary event doesn't mean it didn't happen. Which is true.

But can you really not understand how someone, faced with these extraordinary claims, could simply conclude that there isn't a good enough reason to believe that they are true. Most Christians does that about the ideas and claims of every other religion out there, that they are very out their concepts, with a lot of problems, and simply conclude they probably are just imaginary.

Yes I can understand this. Having said that, I wonder how much effort atheists make in trying to discover the answer to what has to be the biggest question we all face i.e. is there a God. I know no proof is possible but I think if someone really wanted to find strong evidence for God's existence, they could find it easily enough.

Wicknight wrote: »

What is so special about Christianity?

It has truth written all over it. The message of Jesus speaks to the heart in a profound way.

Fanny Cradock

CerebralCortex wrote: »

But you are implying that some maybe. How is that not a roundabout logically manipulative way of saying that not all religions can be correct but mine may be? I don't think thats simillar to the atheist position at all.

I'm not implying or manipulating anything, CC. I'm a Christian, right? The clue of who I believe on is in the name. From the Christian perspective, Jesus was and is part of the triune God, and all that is reported of him in the bible happened. OK?

Given this belief, I can't then easily believe in Allah, Buddha or that the messiah has yet to come. These religions make mutually exclusive claims. It's not a pick 'n' mix. Indeed, if I did decide to believe in the core claims of other religions, I wouldn't be a Christian. I'm not defending the Christian religion, I'm stating that I think the Christian faith is correct.

Wicknight wrote: »

... You clearly believe that their are credible sources for the existence of Jesus. I, as I'm sure you know, would not be so sure of that to proclaim that we can take what they said as a serious source. The only direct sources for the actual existence of Jesus (rather than the existence of his followers, of which there are many historical sources) are a small group of religious people who also believed they saw visions on roads and dead people walking on water. Based on that I wouldn't consider them particularly credible.

You of course do because of theological belief that they actually were seeing people walking on water and coming back from the dead. And as you say this argument has been back and forth as to how credible such claims are (the answer normally being they are credible if God exists, and not particularly credible if he doesn't) ...

There is probably not a whole lot I can say in response to your post. We are at opposite sides of the great divide. Where as you have assessed the evidence at hand and reject it. I have assessed the evidence at hand and accepted it. Both of us would be fools to go against our beliefs.

Dan133269

Cantab. wrote: »

It's atheists, not athiests...

Why don't you take your little discussion over to the atheism forum and leave us Christian folk alone?

Very christian like, love your neighbour and all that. I see you're a model christian

sparkysrovers wrote: »

I just find it very weird that atheists dont believe in anything.

That is a common misconception. Most atheists believe in science as opposed to religion. Perfect example is when someone gets sick, do they pray to God to make them better? Some do. What all do however is go to a doctor who uses scientific principles to heal you.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

However, you have failed to provide any evidence to back up your claim.

Sound familiar? :rolleyes:

kelly1 wrote: »

There are numerous cases in scripture where it says that God resists the proud and exalts the humble. We're the creature, not the Creator. Pride is a BIG no-no in God's book.

He sounds like a wonderful character. This is your God is it?

kelly1 wrote: »

I know no proof is possible but I think if someone really wanted to find strong evidence for God's existence, they could find it easily enough.

Really? have you found evidence? if so would you care to share it with us?

In answering the question are atheists evil, the most evil person I can think of is Adolf Hitler, he was a theist. I think the question should be asked, are religious people evil.

Fanny Cradock

Dan133269 wrote: »

Sound familiar? :rolleyes:

No. Christianity does provide evidence. People either accept or reject it.

Dan133269

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No. Christianity does provide evidence. People either accept or reject it.

again I ask, please give me an example. I'm honestly not being a smart fcker here, I'm genuinely asking you for an example

rockbeer

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No. Christianity does provide evidence. People either accept or reject it.

There is only hearsay evidence. Unless you have something you're not telling us??

Hearsay evidence is no more reliable than the witnesses. How can you vouch for the reliability of your witnesses?
Did they ensure the 'miracles' were carried out in controlled circumstances? No, they happened wherever and whenever it suited Jesus.

Did they approach the situation without prejudice? No, they wanted to believe. They were already predisposed to believe. Even the so-called 'doubter' 'wanted' to believe. And still you tell us that we have to want to believe. Well, duh. If you want to, you can believe in anything. Doesn't make it true.

Let me tell you a story. When I was growing up we, like most kids, had to pray in school. At the end of each day we would stand at our desks, hands together and eyes closed, and pray to the great christian god.

Let me tell you, I was young and uncynical and I prayed with the rest of them. And what did I get back? Nothing. Not an iota. This went on for years, and god never spoke to me. Not once.

So one day I asked the teacher about it: "Why doesn't god ever answer me?"

The best answer she could give me was that "god sort of puts the answers in your head."

I was no more stupid then than I am now, and I knew when I was being fobbed off. God didn't speak to me. Whatever was going in my head was going on in my head, it wasn't the big guy talking to me. So here's the point: I talked to 'god' and god didn't talk back to me. So as a Christian perhaps you can explain why god singled me out for neglect. Why didn't he talk to the impressionable young child? Draw me into the fold?

The answer's quite simple: because there is no interventionist god.

So don't talk to me about 'personal experience', not unless you're prepared to accept that - if you're right (which you're not) - your god is highly selective about who he can be bothered with, and quite happy to leave small children floundering in confusion by totally ignoring their earnest attempts to communicate with him.

You may have voices in your head that you ascribe to god. Good luck to you, but don't confuse it with the truth.

Oh, and if you were thinking of suggesting that I didn't try hard enough, can I remind you that there is a definition of madness that says it's doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. I did the sane thing and learned from my experience.

So where was I? Oh yes, leaving aside personal experience, where is your reliable evidence?

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

No, I haven't read much about atheism. I understand the argument that there's no solid evidence that God exists so therefore I won't believe. To be honest I find that position a bit stubborn and narrow.

Well get back to me when you have. What was said in bold I could take to be extremely inflammatory and arrogant fyi. Is there any reason why I shouldn't?

kelly1 wrote: »

I think there's some truth in that. I believe we all have an innate sense of a higher purpose/meaning to life. Lots of people have great difficulty accepting that when we die, we're gone. It's a frightening to think that one minute you're a living person with all the associated emotions/thoughts/hopes/fears and the next minute you're nothing but a grey corpse.

Good now we're getting somewhere, believe it or not there are convincing reasons and facts as to why that is the case for you. I could direct you to a publication if you'd like.

kelly1 wrote: »

No. Good evangelism is about bringing hope and meaning to peoples lives, giving them a sense of purpose and worth. I don't see any evil in that.

I recently found about this. Again its very arrogant for to believe you can bring hope and meaning to peoples lives because you believe in something which has no evidence of truth.

kelly1 wrote: »

To someone who believes in nothing outside the physical world, of course it's going to seem like a fairy story.

I'm glad you admitted that.

kelly1 wrote: »

As soon as you admit that there could be an all-powerful God, then it doesn't look so crazy.

The admission of something false never makes it true.

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes I can understand this. Having said that, I wonder how much effort atheists make in trying to discover the answer to what has to be the biggest question we all face i.e. is there a God. I know no proof is possible but I think if someone really wanted to find strong evidence for God's existence, they could find it easily enough.

Accept it or not you'd be asking us to pretend which the human mind is profoundly good at it means nothing to the truth of things.
FYI a definition of proof
-any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something; "if you have any proof for what you say, now is the time to produce it"

kelly1 wrote: »

It has truth written all over it. The message of Jesus speaks to the heart in a profound way.

Feelings have the power to deceive you do realise that, have a read of this. Funnily enough Richard Dawkins said the same thing about Jesus.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm not implying or manipulating anything, CC. I'm a Christian, right? The clue of who I believe on is in the name. From the Christian perspective, Jesus was and is part of the triune God, and all that is reported of him in the bible happened. OK?

Given this belief, I can't then easily believe in Allah, Buddha or that the messiah has yet to come. These religions make mutually exclusive claims. It's not a pick 'n' mix. Indeed, if I did decide to believe in the core claims of other religions, I wouldn't be a Christian. I'm not defending the Christian religion, I'm stating that I think the Christian faith is correct.

I understand your position Fanny still leaves with question which you're completely entitled not to answer.

Fanny Cradock

rockbeer wrote: »

There is only hearsay evidence. Unless you have something you're not telling us??

Hearsay evidence is no more reliable than the witnesses. How can you vouch for the reliability of your witnesses?
Did they ensure the 'miracles' were carried out in controlled circumstances? No, they happened wherever and whenever it suited Jesus.

Did they approach the situation without prejudice? No, they wanted to believe. They were already predisposed to believe. Even the so-called 'doubter' 'wanted' to believe. And still you tell us that we have to want to believe. Well, duh. If you want to, you can believe in anything. Doesn't make it true.

Let me tell you a story. When I was growing up we, like most kids, had to pray in school. At the end of each day we would stand at our desks, hands together and eyes closed, and pray to the great christian god.

Let me tell you, I was young and uncynical and I prayed with the rest of them. And what did I get back? Nothing. Not an iota. This went on for years, and god never spoke to me. Not once.

So one day I asked the teacher about it: "Why doesn't god ever answer me?"

The best answer she could give me was that "god sort of puts the answers in your head."

I was no more stupid then than I am now, and I knew when I was being fobbed off. God didn't speak to me. Whatever was going in my head was going on in my head, it wasn't the big guy talking to me. So here's the point: I talked to 'god' and god didn't talk back to me. So as a Christian perhaps you can explain why god singled me out for neglect. Why didn't he talk to the impressionable young child? Draw me into the fold?

The answer's quite simple: because there is no interventionist god.

So don't talk to me about 'personal experience', not unless you're prepared to accept that - if you're right (which you're not) - your god is highly selective about who he can be bothered with, and quite happy to leave small children floundering in confusion by totally ignoring their earnest attempts to communicate with him.

You may have voices in your head that you ascribe to god. Good luck to you, but don't confuse it with the truth.

Oh, and if you were thinking of suggesting that I didn't try hard enough, can I remind you that there is a definition of madness that says it's doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. I did the sane thing and learned from my experience.

So where was I? Oh yes, leaving aside personal experience, where is your reliable evidence?

That's quite the angry rant. If you or Dan are interested in understanding why Christians believe in Jesus beyond the hearsay evidence you keep mentioning, Lee Strobel makes a case for it here.

As for why God didn't answer your prayers, I'm afraid I'm not privy to such information. And I have the feeling that anything I suggest would likely be rejected by yourself.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I understand your position Fanny still leaves with question which you're completely entitled not to answer.

I'm sorry CC, but I don't really follow you here.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

No, I haven't read much about atheism. I understand the argument that there's no solid evidence that God exists so therefore I won't believe.

Interesting choice of words. "Won't" believe it.

Would say you "won't" believe the tooth fairy is real? Or do you simply not believe it because of all the reasons not to?

kelly1 wrote: »

To someone who believes in nothing outside the physical world, of course it's going to seem like a fairy story.

Depends on what you mean. If one defines the physical world as everything that exists, then God does not exist outside of the physical world, if in fact he exists. So it isn't a question of saying nothing outside the physical world exists. If you define the physical world as this universe, then I can honestly say hand on heart that I have no clue what exists outside of the universe, or even if such a concept as "exists" applies.

A more accurate representation of my core atheist belief (if you have to have one), is that human beings imagine pleasing things that don't necessarily exist.

This applies to gods, it applies to fairies. It applies to a whole host of things that humans believe exist but that actually don't. And I strongly believe it applies to your religion.

It isn't a question of dismissing your god because I think he can't exist. It is a question of dismissing your god because I believe you guys (or at least the early followers) simply made him up.

kelly1 wrote: »

As soon as you admit that there could be an all-powerful God, then it doesn't look so crazy.

Well yes, but you can apply that to anything. As soon as you admit that there could be a tooth-fairy that goes around taking teeth from under children's pillows, then the whole idea of the tooth-fairy, and people who believe in fairies, doesn't seem too crazy.

Except most people wouldn't admit that there could be a tooth-fairy. How stubborn of them. :pac:

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes I can understand this. Having said that, I wonder how much effort atheists make in trying to discover the answer to what has to be the biggest question we all face i.e. is there a God.

I think few atheists consider that the biggest question we face. In my experience most atheists realize rather early that God (yours and others) is imaginary. Once a person has realized that then the question of god becomes relegated to being rather insignificant, like arguing how Santa gets to every house in the world in one day (doesn't matter, Santa isn't real).

There are a huge number of other questions that then present themselves that are of far greater importance.

kelly1 wrote: »

I know no proof is possible but I think if someone really wanted to find strong evidence for God's existence, they could find it easily enough.

Well we are all still waiting. When you find it let us know ...

kelly1 wrote: »

It has truth written all over it. The message of Jesus speaks to the heart in a profound way.

Of which I have no doubt. But that doesn't make it real.

The authors of the religion wrote what they wanted to be true. It is hardly surprising that people find that it offers a pleasing, desirable version of reality.

Gambler

Sorry, I just want to ask a quick question, why does believing a man existed called Jesus who said a lot of really cool things mean that you also have to believe there is a god?

I am what could be considered a "fundamental" atheist, I believe that overall religion has had a net negative effect on humanity and that there is no evidence for a god and until I see firm evidence it is my opinion that there is no god.

I am however quiet willing to believe that a man called Jesus may have existed. Yes I believe that if there was such a man then a lot of other mythical stories became attached to him that never really happened (like the resurrection etc.) but that doesn't mean that there was no man who made a big difference to the history of mankind.

Fanny Cradock

Well, to answer your question, C.S. Lewis said this:


I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.