Atheists....

[watkinsguy]

ok....how does this have anything to do with this thread? just wondering.....

[Redzeppelin]

And if I did meet god after I died, and he asked why my faith was weak, I'd say "not enough evidence, God, just not enough evidance".

His reponse would more than likely be that you didn't understand the definition of the word "faith" - hence your confusion. If evidence exists, faith is unnecessary.

[Bookworm4Him]

If evidence exists, faith is unnecessary.

I see what your point is, but must clarify for others who might mistake what you're trying to say. Evidence does exist, but faith is also nessecary. You can't be like Spock (sp?) and say that you are doing it simply b/c it's the "logical choice" It Is the logical choice, but you also need to want it, to believe in it.

[cuppajoe_9]

His reponse would more than likely be that you didn't understand the definition of the word "faith" - hence your confusion.

That's an interesting choice of words. She doesn't sound very confused to me.

If evidence exists, faith is unnecessary.

This has always confused me. There are plenty of things for which no evidence exists. Why should one have faith in the Judeo-Christian God particualrly?

[The Atheist]

Athiest and for once, very proud of it. For such a long time, every time I told people I was athiest I would automatically apologize, which seemed so normal to me then. Athiest to me, is the 95-100% of non-belief. Chances are, it's hard to meet an athiest is is absolutely, all research done and checked, entirely sure there is no god for him or herself. Most athiests would fall into the "I'm almost positive there is no god, and I'm going to live my life assuming there isn't" type of deal. And if I did meet god after I died, and he asked why my faith was weak, I'd say "not enough evidence, God, just not enough evidance".

And fortunately, that's a biblically acceptable stance.

Luke 23:34.

As they hammered the nails into his wrists, Jesus himself asked his dad to forgive the blokes doing it, "because they know what they do"

Not to mention Saulus and the Damascus Road.

[Redzeppelin]

That's an interesting choice of words. She doesn't sound very confused to me.

The confusion exists in the logic of saying that one's faith is "weak" because of a lack of evidence. Faith is what one relies upon in the absence of evidence.

This has always confused me. There are plenty of things for which no evidence exists. Why should one have faith in the Judeo-Christian God particualrly?

Because He is different from all other variations of "God" presented by other belief systems. Other systems either deny the transcendancy of God, His personal nature and/or intelligence, His moral will or they make Him a blind "force" or worse, contingent upon something else. Only the God of Christianity exists, is necessary, is powerful, is transcendant, is non-contingent upon anything else, is intelligent, is personal, is moral, is engaged, is unique. No other "god" fits all that criteria.

[cuppajoe_9]

I believe you are wide of my point, Red. Why should one have faith in deities at all? I believe we are in agreement that no evidence exists for them (because if there was any evidence faith would be unnecesary, according to you). Out of all the things that there are is no evidence for, why should deities in particular be the subject of faith? Why not extraterrestrial intelligence, or perfect circles, or government conspiracies, or strange women in ponds selecting English monarchs?

[Redzeppelin]

I believe you are wide of my point, Red. Why should one have faith in deities at all? I believe we are in agreement that no evidence exists for them (because if there was any evidence faith would be unnecesary, according to you). Out of all the things that there are is no evidence for, why should deities in particular be the subject of faith? Why not extraterrestrial intelligence, or perfect circles, or government conspiracies, or strange women in ponds selecting English monarchs?

"Evidence" is an interesting term; when I say "evidence" negates faith, I speak of "evidence" in terms of what a non-believer would accept - scientifically verifiable evidence based on the observable world. Christians believe we have "evidence" as well - but since our "evidence" cannot stand up to scientific inquiry, non-believers tend to brush it off as insubstantial - as if reality can only be comprehended by what our senses can perceive. That's what I meant by my use of "evidence." I think I've got plenty of evidence for my beliefs - but my evidence is of such a personal nature that it would be all but meaningless to you - just as if you tried to convince me that you have the best girl in the world for a girlfriend/wife - how could you convince me that I don't already have a woman with that title?

Second - none of the other options you listed for belief left a record of its existence and interaction with us here on earth like the Bible. The Bible states that all men (meaning humanity) were created with an internal knowledge of God inside their hearts (all creations bear the hallmark of their creator) - knowledge which is partly present in our awareness of wrongdoing (called "guilt"), partly present in the attempts of artists to continually reach for the sublime, in our restless desire to be more, do more, to "suck the marrow out of life." Your other listed options do not change/heal lives, break addictions and inspire acts of sacrifice, compassion and love.

[cuppajoe_9]

...just as if you tried to convince me that you have the best girl in the world for a girlfriend/wife - how could you convince me that I don't already have a woman with that title?

Not analogous. The title of 'best girl in the world for a girlfriend' is entirely subjective. We, more than likely, have different opinions of what qualities determine which girl in particular holds that title. A divine and beneavolent creator of the universe, on the other hand, is simply there or not there. He exists or he doesn't. The argument isn't over whether my god is better than yours, it is over whether any such thing exists at all.

Second - none of the other options you listed for belief left a record of its existence and interaction with us here on earth like the Bible.

The Lady of the Lake sure did. If I collected all the Arthurian legends in one volume, I'm quite sure I would have something a lot larger than the Bible, and some of it, such as Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain, would purport to be fact. In addition, you seem to be using the Bible as evidence of the existence of God which, by your above statement, eliminates the need for faith in him.

[Redzeppelin]

Not analogous. The title of 'best girl in the world for a girlfriend' is entirely subjective. We, more than likely, have different opinions of what qualities determine which girl in particular holds that title. A divine and beneavolent creator of the universe, on the other hand, is simply there or not there. He exists or he doesn't. The argument isn't over whether my god is better than yours, it is over whether any such thing exists at all.

Your criticism is just; nonetheless, the point I was trying to make is still present (in a vague form, I guess): it is near impossible to prove something as personal as the existence of God - as possible as it is to convince you my wife is the best woman in the world. The analogy isn't apt because of the distinction you noted, but the subjectivity of religious experience makes it very very difficult to comminicate to others - and the primary reason for this is the nature of the presuppositional bases that you and I operate off of. I generally have found few atheists who will concede that their world view is predicated on the acceptance of a Naturalistic philosophic view of reality - many tend to insist that they are "clear thinkers" who have no biases and arrived at their conclusions by reason and consideration of the evidence alone; I'm sorry - I dispute that: I think humans are incapable of transcending the "filters" through which we see the world. I suggest that evolution makes logical, rational sense to you because the "evidence" you've examined makes sense inside the frame of Naturalism; as such, the same evidence which seems so persuasive to you is less effective on me because I operate off of the presuppositional base that God is real, and as such, being the all-powerful, all-knowing being that He is, that He is the sole gauge of what is reality - that nature in all its revelation, attests to His reality as well. Other believers will thus listen to my reasons for the belief in God and go "yes - of course, isn't that obvious?" while non-believers shake their heads and call us "deluded" or "blind" or ignorant. Don't you see that we go through the same motions when evolutionists give us their "irrefutable" evidence? Our foundation is predicated on the reality that the world exists at two levels - the physical world being the lower (and as such, less significant) of the two worlds (the spiritual realm being the second). As such, when handed "facts" about the physical world that don't gel with what a spiritual entity has told us, means that the spiritual takes priority. I know that to a scientist, such thinking appears to be intellectual suicide, but faith is not predicated upon verifiable evidence. God asks us to trust Him - because a provable God is not a God whom people would serve out of love - they would serve out of other, less noble motivations.

The Lady of the Lake sure did. If I collected all the Arthurian legends in one volume, I'm quite sure I would have something a lot larger than the Bible, and some of it, such as Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain, would purport to be fact. In addition, you seem to be using the Bible as evidence of the existence of God which, by your above statement, eliminates the need for faith in him.

But the Lady of the Lake did not claim Divine Authority and did not leave us a coherent narrative of her divine purpose in this world. As well, her minor role in the Arthurian romances (pretty much the beginning and the end) relagates her to a supporting role.

I am not using the Bible to argue the existence of God - that would result in circular reasoning. The Bible is the testimony of God's character and His relationship to us - it cannot testify to the veracity of God's existence other than in whatever ways the Bible is confirmed by history, or by the truth of its moral statements. Belief in the Bible requires the prerequisite that God exist.

[cuppajoe_9]

t is near impossible to prove something as personal as the existence of God

God's existence or non-existence is not at all personal, it is a fact that exists objectively, outside of any personal experience. Whether or not your reasons for believing in him are personal is an entirely different question.

I suggest that evolution makes logical, rational sense to you because the "evidence" you've examined makes sense inside the frame of Naturalism;

The Vatican, an organization not widely noted for its Naturalistic worldview, recently endorsed Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Acceptance of the theory of evolution is in no way synonymous with atheism.

Don't you see that we go through the same motions when evolutionists give us their "irrefutable" evidence?

The difference being, of course, that one does not need to start with the assumption that there is no such thing as a deity in order to arrive at the conclusion that biological evolution occurs.

But the Lady of the Lake did not claim Divine Authority and did not leave us a coherent narrative of her divine purpose in this world. As well, her minor role in the Arthurian romances (pretty much the beginning and the end) relagates her to a supporting role.

Both statements are true, and both are irrelivant. Why should I not have faith that the unprovable Lady of the Lake has been guiding the English monarchy for millenia, despite the lack of any supporting evidence?

Belief in the Bible requires the prerequisite that God exist.

And therefore your reference to it in post #728 is circular.

[Redzeppelin]

God's existence or non-existence is not at all personal, it is a fact that exists objectively, outside of any personal experience. Whether or not your reasons for believing in him are personal is an entirely different question.

God's existence is objective - but our experience of it is largely subjective in nature.

The Vatican, an organization not widely noted for its Naturalistic worldview, recently endorsed Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Acceptance of the theory of evolution is in no way synonymous with atheism.

True - though I disagree with the Catholic church on a number of theological points; either way, the generalization that evolution appeals to atheists still holds. That some Christians have embraced it is entirely up to them - but the Bible doesn't support its veracity.

The difference being, of course, that one does not need to start with the assumption that there is no such thing as a deity in order to arrive at the conclusion that biological evolution occurs.

You must reject the supposition of divine creation for any other theory to even seem to be sensible.

Both statements are true, and both are irrelivant. Why should I not have faith that the unprovable Lady of the Lake has been guiding the English monarchy for millenia, despite the lack of any supporting evidence?

Your "levelling" of the Bible with Arthurian mythology diminishes the clear moral value of the scriptures and makes it comparable to mere legends - legends that do not present a cohesive world view, that do not predict the future and cannot be historically verified (as many things in the Bible can). You cannot form a world-changing theology out of Arthurian legends, sorry. A lack of verifiable evidence for the Bible and Arthurian legend does not make them equal - the content of the books makes that distinction more than absurd to anybody who's read them both (I have).

And therefore your reference to it in post #728 is circular.

I disagree. My reference to the Bible in post #728 does not assert that the Bible proves God's existence; it states that - given that God is real - we can assume the veracity of scriptures which tells us that He implanted "eternity in our hearts" (from Eccesiastes); I said that to state that according to the Bible, all men have an internal knowledge of God - I did not imply it proved His existence.

[cuppajoe_9]

True - though I disagree with the Catholic church on a number of theological points; either way, the generalization that evolution appeals to atheists still holds.

This is the first time in this conversation that you have made that particular generalization. What you said was that it appeals solely to atheists. In fact, you say it again, in your very next sentence. We'll come to that in a minute.

Whether or not you agree with the Catholic church is irrelivant. They believe in a divine creator. They accept the theory of evolution. They aren't the only ones.

You must reject the supposition of divine creation for any other theory to even seem to be sensible.

I am truly flabbergasted by this sentence. The existence of gods (any gods, not just your particular conception of them) and the fact of biological evolution are not in any way mutually exclusive. There is no inherent contradiction in theistically-guided evolution or deism. In any case, the fact that they are not mutually exclusive was shown in the very last topic you were talking about. The last time I checked, the Catholic church had not rejected the idea of a divine creator. Neither have the Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Unitarians, Congregationalists or Baptists, unless I missed something really big in the news.

I can only conclude that you are confusing biological evolution with abiogenesis.

Your "levelling" of the Bible with Arthurian mythology diminishes the clear moral value of the scriptures and makes it comparable to mere legends

Which makes sense, given that that is exactly what I think they are. I am an atheist, remember?

A lack of verifiable evidence for the Bible and Arthurian legend does not make them equal - the content of the books makes that distinction more than absurd to anybody who's read them both (I have).

I know that they're different, I'm asking why I should have faith in one and not the other.

My reference to the Bible in post #728 does not assert that the Bible proves God's existence; it states that - given that God is real - we can assume the veracity of scriptures which tells us that He implanted "eternity in our hearts" (from Eccesiastes); I said that to state that according to the Bible, all men have an internal knowledge of God - I did not imply it proved His existence.

And again, the question was 'Why should one have faith in gods and not something else?' This does not answer it.

[Redzeppelin]

This is the first time in this conversation that you have made that particular generalization. What you said was that it appeals solely to atheists. In fact, you say it again, in your very next sentence. We'll come to that in a minute.

Are you telling me my generalization is inaccurate? Because you've listed some denominations that have IMO compromised the Bible that makes my gereralization flat-out false?

Whether or not you agree with the Catholic church is irrelivant. They believe in a divine creator. They accept the theory of evolution. They aren't the only ones.

So? Denominations exist because a unified interpretation of scriptures is unrealistic given humanity's tendency to interpret things inaccurately (due to bias or whatever).

I am truly flabbergasted by this sentence. The existence of gods (any gods, not just your particular conception of them) and the fact of biological evolution are not in any way mutually exclusive. There is no inherent contradiction in theistically-guided evolution or deism. In any case, the fact that they are not mutually exclusive was shown in the very last topic you were talking about. The last time I checked, the Catholic church had not rejected the idea of a divine creator. Neither have the Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Unitarians, Congregationalists or Baptists, unless I missed something really big in the news.

I'm allowed to have my opinion - even if you and the above listed denominations disagree. They do not speak for all of Christianity. They speak for themselves - just as I assume you speak for yourself and not all atheists.

I can only conclude that you are confusing biological evolution with abiogenesis.

That may be true.

Which makes sense, given that that is exactly what I think they are. I am an atheist, remember?

I haven't forgotten that - but my comment was based on the belief that you are a highly intelligent and well-read young man, and that even if one is an atheist, surely one would see from comparing the two that they are radically different in scope, intent, audience and social value. Or do I assume too much? I guess I hoped you would be willing to acknowledge that - whether God exists or not - the Bible has offered many people a hope, a guide, and a better way to live their lives. Perhaps not.

I know that they're different, I'm asking why I should have faith in one and not the other.

Because a belief in the Lady of the Lake cannot change your life, free you from an addiction, guide your choices and decisions and provide a framework from within which to assess the value of the world around you. That's why.

And again, the question was 'Why should one have faith in gods and not something else?' This does not answer it.

Because other things cannot give you a new life and the promise of eternity in the presence of God. I know you've dismissed Pascal's Wager elsewhere here, but my belief costs me nothing in this life except the approval of society and occasional discomfort when God asks me to grow as a person. Your view, IMO, costs too much to hold - because if I'm wrong, I've just spent a good chunk of my life believing foolish things; if you're wrong, you've lost everything.

[The Atheist]

The Lady of the Lake sure did. If I collected all the Arthurian legends in one volume, I'm quite sure I would have something a lot larger than the Bible, and some of it, such as Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain, would purport to be fact. In addition, you seem to be using the Bible as evidence of the existence of God which, by your above statement, eliminates the need for faith in him.

That's a very good analogy. I'm a longtime atheist and thought I'd seen all the good analogies, plus I'm a huge Arthurian legend fan, yet it had never clicked until I read that.

You could make an outstanding case for it to be factual. If the bible is factual, despite having no factual basis outside of it and the church, then Arthur is a shoo-in. As you note, it ties in with fact, and it contains sufficient biblical references to be almost made for the job.

You have, however, now caused me to set aside time to further delve into the idea. Have you dome any cross-referencing yourself?