I'll cede to you on both points. I really mulled over how to respond to you all afternoon and I'd say my first 10 possible responses didn't pass the aforementioned filter. I really didn't realize I was getting into debate territory, because that's not where I want to go.
Well...I realize you started the thread out of frustration at a particular situation. I understand that, and don't blame you for being ticked off at your roommate. However....you honestly started a thread targeted at atheists.....WITH a thumbs down icon next to the title....and engage in discussions consisting of typical misconceptions about atheists.....but didn't realize it would spark a debate?
To say that being an atheist doesn't take faith is just wrong. Here's how. To claim that there is no God, you must also claim that you have been to every corner of the universe, every plane of existence, that you are aware of everything, and that there is nothing you don't know and therefore can say that you've checked and there is no God.
But, since you're not omniscient nor omnipresent, to say %100 there is no God takes a leap of faith as well. Just follow the chain of logic.
I'm sorry, but there is no logic to follow here because you're making an argument based on a biased premise that LACKS pure logic. Your argument is based on the false premise that "the belief in a god is the default position we're born into". As I mentioned in my previous post, that is a fallacy. The only reason we don't see this or think of it that way is because humans have believed in deities for so long that it is a part of the fabric of our existence. However, that doesn't make it any more true. Think about it. We are born NEUTRAL, not believers. A blank slate if you will. We have no preconceived notions on ANY subject, not just theological ones. The ideas, theories, perspectives, beliefs, etc that come to shape our existence/who we become are then formed in us in infinite varying ways and degrees throughout our lives. So when the concept of a deity is introduced to us, at whatever age, and which ever one(s) they may be, it is merely just another concept that can shape who we become (taking us away from our original clean slate state of neutrality). However, should I chose not to accept/believe in this concept, I am simply rejecting the claim. I do not need to CLAIM that YOUR claim is not true, much less PROVE it isn't true. Rather, those introducing the claim to me need to prove that the claim is true in order to move me from a state of neutrality on the matter to one where I side with that claim. When you say you must prove god doesn't exist, this is literally what's happening:
Person 1 makes Claim A (the Bible is the truth)
Person 2 says I can't see Claim A being true
Person 1 now says by not believing in my Claim A, you are making a Claim yourself; Claim B (not believing Claim A = claiming Claim A is false)
Person 1 now asks Person 2 to prove his Claim B
Person 2 cannot prove Claim B because it is not actually a claim
Person 1 feels since Person 2 cannot prove Claim B, Claim A must be true
Now just imagine if we threw in a Person 3 into the mix making Claim C; Islamic faith. Since Person 2 can't prove Claim B (a lack of believing Claim A & Claim C), Person 1 states Claim A must be true AND Person 2 states Claim C must be true, making both the Bible and the Koran true.
....do people really not see or understand this, or what's wrong with this "logic"? The person stating s/he does not believe in ANY deity since there is not enough evidence to sway the person one way or the other is merely returning to the natural born state of neutrality. You do not need to "prove" anything to return to a state of neutrality.
I had a friend who claimed to be an atheist. Carl Sagan was his hero. I never insulted his beliefs, just shared mine with him. He would insult my beliefs all the time however. Thats always the way it is. Atheists will eventually resort to "you're crazy" or "you're stupid" and think that the scientific method lets them get away with that. A true follower of Christ will eventually, what, share his beliefs maybe?
Perhaps you don't see how many Christians react to atheists because it's not exactly common to run into one. To theists, it is a sharing of beliefs to discuss the differences in your common theism. But when someone who lacks any belief at all comes along, it's a whole other conversation. For example, I remember finally telling a part-time coworker I was atheist. I can't remember why I finally broke down and told him this. I only remember I did due to a reaction he actually had a few days later. We were having a conversation about something, and while I was talking, I noticed he looked kind of zoned out for a second. Figured I was boring him. :th_laugh-lol2: Then out of no where while I was still talking, in a louder than usual voice, he says "HOW CAN YOU JUST STAND THERE AND NOT BELIEVE IN GOD?!" Initially, I was shocked and didn't know how to react. When I didn't say anything for a few seconds, he continued. "How can you see everything created around us, and not know god did it?!" After another few seconds, I calmly said I simply don't presume anything, including a creator created everything around us. "So all these saints and apostles died for nothing? They would have died for their belief if it wasn't true?!" I said people die for beliefs all the time, including the belief that they will be transported to the mother ship when they die, or that David Koresh is a prophet, etc. Someones level of devotion to their beliefs has nothing to do with how true or accurate those beliefs are. At this point, I didn't really want to continue the discussion because I could tell by his "logic" that the convo was going to turn ugly. Luckily, he dropped it there. However, he was weird with me for several weeks after that, until things slowly got back to how they were prior to that exchange. Unfortunately, he was laid off a few months later due to cutbacks.
Want some more logic? Lets take a run-of-the-mill atheist and myself for example. If there is no God and I die, nothing will happen I'll just rot. So will the atheist. Maybe I'll die without fear but thats it. Now, if there is a God and I die, I'll find out what Heaven is like. But for the atheist he'll end up in the "outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth". Now which, logically, would be the better choice? Rot or Afterlife?
Again, this is heavily flawed "logic". First of all, the above is what's known in theological circles as Pascal's Wager: The idea that it's better to believe and be wrong, rather than NOT believe and be wrong. The problem with this concept is that it relies on the arrogant assumption that god = YOUR god. Remember, there are a plethora of deities out there, past and present, and you are just as atheist as I am towards all of them save for one. I just happen to take it one deity further than you, so in essence, we have almost the same chance of suffering some kind of eternal punishment. Care to join me in Naraka?
Do you have empirical evidence that you'll wake up tomorrow? But you believe that you will.
That is a really, really poor example. For starters, no one makes the claim "I will wake up tomorrow", let alone "believes" in it. Most people just don't think about it. If you DO stop and think about it, you'd come to the natural realization that you have no control over whether you do or don't.
Secondly, what you're
actually talking about is probabilities. We know through empirical evidence that if you are in good health, you stand a very good chance of waking up tomorrow. It would take a freak medical problem, or accident, or foul play, etc. in order not to, which is highly unlikely (unless you live in a really bad neighborhood). This differs greatly from the probability that words written in a book claiming to be about a person's life that was put together 300 years after the fact are factual and accurate.
And about Christ. He healed the sick, forgave people, exposed hypocrites for what they are, fed and cared for the poor, stood for the truth and what did those who didn't believe in him do? Crucifiy Him!
Many (if not all) of the following applied to Osiris, Mithra, Dionysus, etc. long before Jesus' suppose existence:
Born on or near December 25th to a virgin mother.
Promised salvation through belief in him.
Walked on water.
Made food appear from thin air.
Turned water into wine at a wedding.
Gave blind men sight again.
Died for our sins and rose from his grave a few days later.
Promised to return one day.
The 4 books Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Four eye-witnesses who are each testifying to what they saw and heard.
Wouldn't the testimony of 4 witnesses be convincing in court? Why do you doubt?
Because in order not to have doubt, you have to presume a LOT of things to be true, which I will briefly outline. Remember, the Bible was canonized 300 years after Christ's death. That leaves a LOT of leeway in there for doubt and foul play. First of all, you have to presume that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John even existed (if you want, I can go into detail as to why this is doubted). Secondly, you have to presume that Christ existed. Third, you have to presume that each one of these 4 men met him. Fourth, you have to presume that these 4 men accurately recorded their encounters with Christ with no bias, exaggerations, forgetting or leaving out something and with correct recollection of the events and details they have written. Fifth, you have to presume that those exact original records are what the church included in the Bible as the Gospels we know today without ANY kind of alterations when they canonized the Bible. And so on, and so on.
In other words, for all you know, the entire Bible could be a collection of fictitious stories and accounts written by the church under the name of some fictitious authors, and thrown into the Bible as "gospel". Just because the church SAYS these people existed, and that they met a man named Christ, and that this Christ was the son of god, and that these are records of the accounts of interactions with him doesn't make it true. In essence, what you have isn't faith in god. It's faith in the word of men claiming to be speaking/delivering a message on behalf of god 2000 years ago. The problem is, they're in competition with a bunch of other men making a bunch of other similar claims for OTHER gods. They all share the same evidence; word of men, or worse, but more accurate, the word of organizations claiming to be distributing the words of these men that supposedly existed, who are claiming to be speaking for a god they supposedly met.
.....why doubt?
eek: )
