Non-believers

Maximilian

Jakkass wrote: »

Are you claiming that this is a special case for atheism?

Were ex-Christians who had lost their faith not really Christian at all?
Include any other religion in the place of Christian and you'll see what I mean.

If I understand you correctly, I suppose I am, although I wouldn't call it 'special'. In the same way I would make a similar 'special case' for facts over fiction.

philologos

There is nothing to suggest that Christianity is fiction or that atheism represents fact. The only really rational position that one can hold without believing, is that it is far from certain that Christianity is true.

iUseVi

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What? An atheist is simply somebody who rejects the existence of the divine. Nothing more.

That's exactly why it's so broad. If the definition was somebody who rejects the existence of the divine, collects stamps and only eats fish fingers it would be less broad.

Fanny Cradock

iUseVi wrote: »

That's exactly why it's so broad. If the definition was somebody who rejects the existence of the divine, collects stamps and only eats fish fingers it would be less broad.

Right... If you guys want to go down the denominational route be my guest.

cypharius

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What? An atheist is simply somebody who rejects the existence of the divine. Nothing more.

Actualy, I think you will find that an Atheist is somebody who doesn't accept the existance of the "divine".

It's not that I believe god doesn't exist, it's that I don't believe he does.

What you described would be Anti-Theism or Non-theism.

Fanny Cradock

cypharius wrote: »

Actualy, I think you will find that an Atheist is somebody who doesn't accept the existance of the "divine".

It's not that I believe god doesn't exist, it's that I don't believe he does.

What you described would be Anti-Theism or Non-theism.

Yes, way to miss the point of my post. Perhaps you need to update the Wiki article on atheism (small "a" yeah?) to reflect your position.

iUseVi

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Right... If you guys want to go down the denominational route be my guest.

Har har.

Maximilian

Jakkass wrote: »

There is nothing to suggest that Christianity is fiction

Of course there is. The total lack of any evidence. Something recognized by atheists. If there were evidence, you wouldn't need to bother with faith.

ChocolateSauce

antiskeptic wrote: »

Apparently Martin Luther was converted by a line in Romans 3






http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/mlconversion.htm

Martin Luther also said that logic and reason was the enemy of the Christian,

philologos

Maximilian wrote: »

Of course there is. The total lack of any evidence. Something recognized by atheists. If there were evidence, you wouldn't need to bother with faith.

This is something I've contested on numerous occasions on the A&A forum over previous years. There is evidence to support Christianity, I've pointed people to numerous sources before.

You're obfuscating evidence with proof by the way. Evidence doesn't necessarily make something proven. It merely indicates that something is true.

Even if there were a lack of evidence, fiction is a stretch.

Stephentlig

Maximilian wrote: »

Of course there is. The total lack of any evidence. Something recognized by atheists. If there were evidence, you wouldn't need to bother with faith.

But the total lack of evidence that there isnt a God suggests that atheism is as fictional as alice in wonderland.

You put your faith in man and his words and puported works, and we put our faith in the tens of thousands of witnesses down through the centuries and today who have experienced God in many ways.

If God ( who has to power to convert but does not force himself) were to show himself to everyone and lets suppose he did attempt to do so, he would compel us against our own free will and we'd all have to belief in him, but God respects our free will to choose him or not. But as I suggested before that when Christ showed himself to St.Thomas in the Gospel, St.Thomas still had the free will to refuse what he saw and claim it to be an hallucination or a trick of the mind, etc etc and the list goes on. Such is the power of the free will you have been given. but simply rejecting God doesnt get rid of him, he will always be in your heart and see all that you do, and will be waiting until you accept the evidence he has provided and to turn to faith in him, from faith in science and the whimsical rhetorical nonsense of philosophical mischief makers such as dawkins to name one.

Pax Christi
Stephen

PDN

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Martin Luther also said that logic and reason was the enemy of the Christian,

Luther also said, "So it is with human reason, which strives not against faith, when enlightened, but rather furthers and advances it." (Table Talk 1569)

His actual position, if you're really interested in understanding him rather than quoting him out of context (as frequently happens on atheist propaganda websites), was that reason alone will lead us down a wrong path, because our sinful natures makes us hopelessly subjective. So we need to combine reason and logic with faith in the Scriptures.

Maximilian

Jakkass wrote: »

This is something I've contested on numerous occasions on the A&A forum over previous years. There is evidence to support Christianity, I've pointed people to numerous sources before.

Your obfuscating evidence with proof by the way. Evidence doesn't necessarily make something proven. It merely indicates that something is true.

Even if there were a lack of evidence, fiction is a stretch.

I can't imagine any such supposed evidence being credible, I'm sorry. Again, if there were, there would be no need for faith and I'm pretty sure Creationists and their ilk would be shouting to the high heavens (sorry about the pun) about it.

And as for your other point, there's no more evidence for the existence of god than there is proof, if you choose to make that semantic distinction. If evidence indicates truth, then what does a lack of evidence indicate?

Rented Mule

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You are making a habit of making snide comments. I suggest you stop or take it where it will be appreciated.

It wasn't a snide comment at all. It was a truthful comment.

Where do you see most 'converts' coming from ? AA, NA,hospitals, hospices prison. It seems as though these are the places that most religions will 'troll' to try and recruit new members. People who are down on their luck and vulnerable.

PDN

Maximilian wrote: »

I can't imagine any such supposed evidence being credible, I'm sorry. Again, if there were, there would be no need for faith and I'm pretty sure Creationists and their ilk would be shouting to the high heavens (sorry about the pun) about it.

And as for your other point, there's no more evidence for the existence of god than there is proof, if you choose to make that semantic distinction. If evidence indicates truth, then what does a lack of evidence indicate?

We've had the evidence debate many times before in this Forum before folks, so let's not drag this thread off-topic as well.

And, I might say, its depressing to see that people still keep parrotting this uninformed misconception that faith is something blind rather than a decision made on the available evidence.

Maximilian

Stephentlig wrote: »

But the total lack of evidence that there isnt a God suggests that atheism is as fictional as alice in wonderland.
Stephen

Proving a negative etc. Nonsensical argument. You can't prove the non-existence of fairies, sentient flying carpets, dragons, genies or any other diety for that matter. That does not mean any are real or a refusal to believe in them is equally fictional, false or irrational.

I didn't read the rest.

TheColl

Thanks for staying on-topic people :rolleyes:

Was actually hoping to get a few interesting responses. Instead it seems to have descended into the typical Christianity v atheism sh!t3.

Stephentlig

Maximilian wrote: »

Proving a negative etc. Nonsensical argument. You can't prove the non-existence of fairies, sentient flying carpets, dragons, genies or any other diety for that matter. That does not mean any are real or a refusal to believe in them is equally fictional, false or irrational.

I didn't read the rest.

''That you cannot prove Gods non-existence is accepted and trivial'' dawkins informs his readers, ''if only in the sense that we can never absolutely prove the non-existence of anything.'' To use an example dawkins borrows from bertrand Russell, we cannot disprove the existence of a microscopically small china teapot revolving around the sun between earth and mars because, in this hypothetical example, the existence of the thing in question is undetectable by any known means, and so the non existence is impossible to prove. That shouldnt bother us, however. ''None of us feels an obligation to disprove any of the millions of far fetched things that a fertile or facetious imagination might dream up.'' such as the orbiting china teapot, or just as fantastically, an ''invisible, intangible, inaudible unicorn,'' or the ''flying spagetti monster.'' Yet, one ''undisprovable thing is worthy of the effort of our attention, God. ''What matters is not whether God is disprovable ( he isnt ) but whether or his existence is probable.''

Why does it matter? Why is it any more neccesary to go after the undisprovable God, rather than after undetectable teapots or unicorns? One obvious answer would be that the number of people who beleive in undetectable teapots or invisible intangible, inaudible unicorns is negligible, but the number of people that believe in God is nearly uncountable.

Stephentlig

PDN wrote: »

We've had the evidence debate many times before in this Forum before folks, so let's not drag this thread off-topic as well.

And, I might say, its depressing to see that people still keep parrotting this uninformed misconception that faith is something blind rather than a decision made on the available evidence.

Sorry PDN in the middle of writing I seemed to have missed this post. *puts his obedience to the mod cap on*

summer2010

Do what kabbalah did and get celebrities involved. Madonna and Britney wore the red thread bracelets associated with kabbalah and more "believers" seemed to come... Just saying...

Maximilian

Stephentlig wrote: »

Why does it matter? Why is it any more neccesary to go after the undisprovable God, rather than after undetectable teapots or unicorns? One obvious answer would be that the number of people who beleive in undetectable teapots or invisible intangible, inaudible unicorns is negligible, but the number of people that believe in God is nearly uncountable.

It matters because the truth matters. There is simply no reason to 'go after' outer space teapot worshipers because they patently don't exist. Actually if they did, I wonder would they be blowing themselves up on airplanes full of heathen subterranean espresso machine worshipers?

Once, an uncountable number of people believed the world was flat. Even now, a bunch of nutters want to teach children the world is 6000 years old. A vast number of people believe in homeopathy, that breaking mirrors gives you bad luck, curses, horoscopes and what not. Mere belief in such or the numbers of people that do does not render it true in the absence of proof or evidence.

Look this is pointless. Let's just agree to disagree or just plain disagree anyway.

PDN, I'm sorry I dragged thread off topic. I doubt I'll be posting here anytime soon, if it makes you feel better

philologos

Indeed, the truth does matter. This is why Christians argue for their position, and share their faith with others, because the truth matters, and it is hugely important.

I still think it's a huge leap on your part to imply that God patently doesn't exist. There are numerous reasons why one would believe in God. One of them being accounting for what exists, and indeed, why there is something rather than nothing.

For however long this possibility is open, so is the possibility that this world was caused by a being higher than ourselves. The argument is as open as it ever was, and there is no reason to dismiss the possibility as fiction. That's why people still believe, and find it reasonable to do so.

Indeed, this thread has become a rather different one from what it was originally intended to be

Stephentlig

Maximilian wrote: »

It matters because the truth matters. There is simply no reason to 'go after' outer space teapot worshipers because they patently don't exist. Actually if they did, I wonder would they be blowing themselves up on airplanes full of heathen subterranean espresso machine worshipers?

Once, an uncountable number of people believed the world was flat. Even now, a bunch of nutters want to teach children the world is 6000 years old. A vast number of people believe in homeopathy, that breaking mirrors gives you bad luck, curses, horoscopes and what not. Mere belief in such or the numbers of people that do does not render it true in the absence of proof or evidence.

Look this is pointless. Let's just agree to disagree or just plain disagree anyway.

PDN, I'm sorry I dragged thread off topic. I doubt I'll be posting here anytime soon, if it makes you feel better

But heres the catch, if the truth matters to you then why dont you reject the idea that there isnt a God, since you cant prove he doesnt exist? you either believe and see him in the evidence of what he has created and listen to the thousands of witnesses down through the centuries including witnesses who have been cured through faith of their illnesses such as cancer etc etc... or you can put your blind faith into the powers of chance and the whimsical rhetorical intelligently stupid sayings of people such as dawkins.

I'm gonna have to abandon this as well, lets agree to disagree, I've planted the seed and I shall pray for it to grow.

its not easy speaking to people who have already made their mind up and are convinced and put their faith into someone elses argument that God doesnt exist.

God bless and take care
Stephen

strobe

I don't think there is any one Bible passage or quote that would convert me. I've read it straight through twice but chances are there is a passage I skipped over too quickly, so you never know. But my favourite is probably the most famous, the golden rule, "Do to no one what you yourself dislike."

I was slightly thrown when someone told me it doesn't say "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" in the bible. But the biblical equivalent amounts to the same thing. So yeah, that's my favourite and the one I try to live my life by. There are many many others I love, but none of them alone would make me believe in the Christian version of God.

Cool thread though.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What? An atheist is simply somebody who rejects the existence of the divine. Nothing more.

Well yes, that is my point. Atheism covers a huge range of people who can have very different views on a whole host of stuff, because it is simply someone who rejects the existence of the divine.

Saying PDN was an atheist and Wicknight is an atheist is some what pointless if someone is trying to compare the two.

Which is why people come out with the rather inaccurate "true" atheist idea. I agree that is nonsense, but I also recognize the underlying point that the person is trying to get to, the idea of atheist as naturalistic/skeptic/rationalists.

Zombrex

Stephentlig wrote: »

But heres the catch, if the truth matters to you then why dont you reject the idea that there isnt a God, since you cant prove he doesnt exist?

Most of the regulars on the A&A, which I think represents a good cross section of the wider atheist community (if there is such a thing) don't hold to the idea that there isn't a creator intelligence. We couldn't tell if there was.

What they hold to is the idea that theism is the product of the human mind. And there is tons of evidence for that (which we don't need to hash over again cause it is in a number of other threads)

People imagine things, people imagine religions. We know this happens. No one has put forward a reason, to any sort of proper standard, why Christianity is a special case in this regard, why the most likely explanation is in fact the wrong one.

It is really that simply.

PDN

TheColl wrote: »

Thanks for staying on-topic people :rolleyes:

Was actually hoping to get a few interesting responses. Instead it seems to have descended into the typical Christianity v atheism sh!t3.

Next time it might be better to put a "Christian Response Only" tag on the OP - it acts as a cyber air marshall to keep the hijackers from boarding.

Zombrex

TheColl wrote: »

Thanks for staying on-topic people :rolleyes:

Was actually hoping to get a few interesting responses. Instead it seems to have descended into the typical Christianity v atheism sh!t3.

You asked what would a Christians say to convert a non-believer and you are surprised it become a discussion between Christians and atheism. Really?

How in your head did you see this thread going

You could see the way this thread was going to go from the start, the Christians were either going to say that they wouldn't say anything, being a Christian is about inner knowledge of God, or they were going to say something like quote a Bible and the atheists were going to point out that this wouldn't convert them in a million years.

Sometimes I think these threads are only started so people can complain about "trolls"/"hi-jackers"/"rabbit holes" :rolleyes:

Kirby

No one line would ever convince anybody. Thats obvious. One line won't make a person "think" either. A long conversation or experience might for some people.

The thing thats the main detractor for me is us. Everything you know about God and religion has been taught to you. By people. And they were taught. By other people. And the Bible was written. By people. It is flawed and has hundreds of contradictions as evidenced by this. It didn't appear from the sky in a ray of light. It was written with ink. On paper. Now you might argue that God worked through them to write it. But if he does exist, why should we have to write about it? Shouldn't we just know?

We are born with the Knowledge of how to swim for example. It's instinct. Its in our genes. You weren't born with knowledge of god and the bible. You were told about it. And you just assume its correct because thats what people are telling you.

You are also told the earth is a sphere and isn't flat. Now you don't know that when you are born. You are told. So in some ways it's the exact same. But you can see the earth is round from space....see it with your own eyes. You don't need faith.

People are visual creatures. If a bonafied miracle occurred, 95% of people would instantly agree on the matter. But it's never happened. Good things have happened and people can choose to believe they are the work of God. But its conjecture. Mountains haven't been moved, sea's havent been parted. Cities haven't been saved from earthquakes and Volcanoes. People argue that we exist. Therefore a supreme godlike being must exist. Why would a being like that need to "work through us" or hide from us?

And thats why one line would never cause me to question my take on God and Religion. That line was written by a man just as flawed as I am.

TheColl

PDN wrote: »

Next time it might be better to put a "Christian Response Only" tag on the OP - it acts as a cyber air marshall to keep the hijackers from boarding.

Plenty of those hijacking the thread seem to have been people with Christian perspectives.

Wicknight wrote: »

You asked what would a Christians say to convert a non-believer and you are surprised it become a discussion between Christians and atheism. Really?

How in your head did you see this thread going

You could see the way this thread was going to go from the start, the Christians were either going to say that they wouldn't say anything, being a Christian is about inner knowledge of God, or they were going to say something like quote a Bible and the atheists were going to point out that this wouldn't convert them in a million years.

Sometimes I think these threads are only started so people can complain about "trolls"/"hi-jackers"/"rabbit holes" :rolleyes:

Yes I started a thread to complain about trolls. Well done.

I started the thread to hear what passages/quotes etc Christians would see as having some sort of chance of making a non-believer question themselves somewhat. I didn't ask for non-believers to come on and say "nope that didnt work for me". Perhaps the "Christian response only" tag would have been a good idea after all.

EDIT: By the way, thanks to those who actually made posts that addressed my question.