Complaints about atheists.

a reply to: Ladybug201

What did you learn?
(oh. And, you're welcome)

a reply to: Ladybug201

First of all, I don't believe there are people who don't believe in the existence of god

Really? Well, I don't believe there are people who don't believe in unicorns, fairies, elves, and Cthulhu.

I believe they lie when they say they don't believe god exists. The thing here is they just might not worship him. Big difference.

I think the more or less standard position taken by atheism is that there is no good evidence to support the claim that "God exists." This isn't the same as saying "God does not exist." In fact, since atheism is about using logic and reason, the position would best be "God could exist, but there is no current evidence that shows it to be true." Also, which "god" are you talking about?

Second. They use the bible to mock believers. I've seen it before. They claim the bible is full or error yet use it to claim our faith is wrong.

If they Bible can be used to mock believers, then don't you think there's something wrong with the Bible? We can defend the OT all we want, but the fact remains that under God's watchful eye, the Jews committed genocide, rape, and enslaved whole populations. This book, inspired from on high, also labels bats as being birds. Pointing facts like these out is not mocking believers, it is pointing out a very valid contradiction to the argument that God loves everyone and yada yada yada. If your faith rests on what is contained in the Bible and the Bible is full of error, then your faith is grounded in error. Ergo, your faith in ipso is erroneous. Now, this doesn't mean there's no God...it just means if what you believe is based on a text full of mistakes - then your particular system of belief will also be full of mistakes.

Since a disbeliever has no faith, how would he/she know anything about it? The bible maybe, if what's written in the bible is true ofcourse.

As to the first question - even atheists have access to dictionaries. Faith is believing something to be true without relying on empirical evidence. The Bible teaches morality, not faith.

They strongly defend what science comes up with to the teeth sometimes without even knowing what they are fed is actually true. How many times hasn't science changed it views on things, yet they continue clinging to every new thing science comes up with as it being the truth.

Does the fact that science improves over time and some theories get chucked out the window do anything to strengthen the theistic stance? If science were based on a bunch of unprovable theories, I'm sure it would remain as steadfast as religion...which, wait...is ALSO constantly changing. Let's take Christianity. Think of how many denominations Christianity has split into over the centuries. Now, pick one of those and go study it. Then let me know how many changes have been made in that ONE denomination. What you've said here is basically a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

These atheists also claim religious people/people of faith are stupid. My conviction is mockers are stupid.

Yeah, not every atheist is exactly nice. However, mocking other people doesn't make you stupid. It just makes you an a_hole.

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: Ladybug201
Thanks all for the discussion. It's truly been meaningful for me. Much was learned. I hope you guys can proceed interacting now with religious people without mocking them.

Thank you!

Not until they stop making silly comments like the one above....

Still hating ey..

a reply to: Ladybug201 you still trolling eh? Great advert for your faith

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Ladybug201

What did you learn?

Arming up myself.

a reply to: ManFromEurope


It comes down to how we interpret the Bible. There are several things that need to be considered - and opinions about any one or all of the following are varied among theologians:

-time in which it was written
-language used
-target audience
-purpose of the text

Other things theologians need to consider are :
-colloquial speech
-metaphors
-author's writing style
-what the author's intention is

The problem with reading the Bible is that most of us read it in our native language, I'd venture to say. However, even those with roots before Vatican II who read it in Latin are in error. To give you a quick example of what I'm talking about here, when you read in the English version about an "angel"...the Greek text talks about a "messenger" with the Greek word for "messenger" being "angelos." Biblical Greek that is. So, yes...there is an evolving understanding of the texts.

Now, does it contribute to our knowledge? That would depend on what is meant by "contributing to knowledge."

a reply to: DISRAELI

Actually, this would be more analogous:

Atheist: Do you believe unicorns are solid beings or spirits?

Unicornist: Solid beings, of course!

Atheist: Do you think that solid beings can walk on rainbows?

Unicornist: Duh, of course not!

Atheist: So, then unicorns can't walk on rainbows, right?

Unicornist: Yes, they can! It says so in my Unicornia book!

There's nothing wrong with arguing for faith - but if you are arguing with an atheist, use a bit of logic.

originally posted by: Ladybug201
If you like it or not, as I see it religion is what makes atheists atheists.

Well, duh. If the concept of "god" had never been invented, then no one could be against this concept. Do you believe in Xanthiasteriupithyxius? Coming up with a name..Yahweh, for example, is not that difficult. How many people do you think believed in Yahweh before that name was invented?

originally posted by: scorpio84
Actually, this would be more analogous:...

There's nothing wrong with arguing for faith - but if you are arguing with an atheist, use a bit of logic.

You don't make it clear which part of my post you think you're answering.
Was it this bit?

"Christians are evil, because they want adulterers to be stoned."
"But we don't want adulterers to be stoned".
"But you must. It is your duty, as a Christian, to want adulterers to be stoned, so that I can criticise you for it".
I've had a version of this conversation on another thread.

If so, there are two points I need to clarify.
Firstly, this was not an analogy for anything. It was a slightly condensed, but otherwise almost literal, paraphrase of an exchange betwen myself and another user on a thread a few years back.
Secondly, I was the "middle" speaker in that exchange. My contribution to the words quoted was "Christians are not asking for adulterers to be stoned". This was a simple statement of fact, and I don't see that it can be charged with illogicality.
If you think the logic is flawed in "I don't like stoning adulterers, but I am very annoyed that you don't like stoning adulterers either", then I agree with you, and that's exactly what I was trying to explain to him.

a reply to: DISRAELI

This is what I was replying to...

Yes, there is a certain irony in the fact that antitheists often take the Bible even more literally than any fundamentalist, for the sake of finding flaws there.
"Christians are evil, because they want adulterers to be stoned."
"But we don't want adulterers to be stoned".
"But you must. It is your duty, as a Christian, to want adulterers to be stoned, so that I can criticise you for it".

In your example, it is the atheist telling the believer how to follow faith (or something like that) whereas in my example it is the believer staunchly refusing to disregard his/her faith even when faced with evidence as to how ridiculous that faith is.

If you think the logic is flawed in "I don't like stoning adulterers, but I am very annoyed that you don't like stoning adulterers either", then I agree with you, and that's exactly what I was trying to explain to him.

Well, perhaps the person saying Christians should want to stone adulterers missed the part where this semi-important character from the NT called "Christ" gave this whole speech about throwing the first stone.

The theist/atheist debate is difficult to have. It's been my unfortunate experience that on the one hand, theists are unwilling to even admit that their is a possibility that there is no god, yet on the other hand, atheists, while willing to admit god may exist, are not willing to correctly read texts about him. By that I mean, most atheists seem to sound off about different parts of the Bible without actually knowing any of the languages in which it was written.

I'd like to see a debate between a religious scientist and an atheist theologian.

originally posted by: scorpio84

In your example, it is the atheist telling the believer how to follow faith (or something like that) whereas in my example it is the believer staunchly refusing to disregard his/her faith even when faced with evidence as to how ridiculous that faith is.

Faith is never ridiculous.

originally posted by: scorpio84
Well, perhaps the person saying Christians should want to stone adulterers missed the part where this semi-important character from the NT called "Christ" gave this whole speech about throwing the first stone.

Yes, exactly. That was my point, the irony of the fact that this disbeliever in the Bible wanted to take it more literally than the believers themselves.

The theist/atheist debate is difficult to have.

I've been an atheist in the past, so up to a point I understand both sides of the fence.
That's how I can understand that "I can prove that you're not really an atheist" doesn't work as an argument.
I also understand that not all atheists are aggressive antitheists- I know I wasn't.

The real issue is the question of trust, so it's not properly subject to proof one way or another.
One tries the experiment of trusting, or one refuses to try.

a reply to: Ladybug201

OH! Okay, cool. Well done you.

See you round the boards.

a reply to: Ladybug201

I beg to differ. Then again, "ridiculous" comes from "ridere" which means "to laugh"...so yes, perhaps faith is no laughing matter. It's just more often than not very, very sad.

a reply to: DISRAELI

The real issue is the question of trust, so it's not properly subject to proof one way or another.

Could you explain what you mean a bit more? Trusting what?

a reply to: scorpio84
Ultimately, it's all about trusting God (or not trusting him).
That's what "faith" means.

a reply to: DISRAELI

But couldn't someone not trust god but also have faith that he exists?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yup me.
God is a cheeky monkey and I wouldn't trust her as far as I could throw her.
Its all a laugh to her .

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
But couldn't someone not trust god but also have faith that he exists?

That's exactly what James says about the demons. They know that God exists, but it doesn't do them any good.
But that isn't "faith" in the sense that the New Testament is talking about.
I was explaining the difference at an earlier point in this thread, so I'll just repeat myself;

This is the distinction which we find in Johns's gospel between believing IN (putting trust in someone or something) and believing THAT (accepting that something exists).
I believe that the Pope exists (believing THAT), but I don't put my trust in him (believing IN).
Similarly the demons know from direct experience that God exists (believing THAT), but they are not putting their trust in him (believing IN).
Since they put no trust in him, they have no faith.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Yes, exactly. That was my point, the irony of the fact that this disbeliever in the Bible wanted to take it more literally than the believers themselves.

Not really, it's the believers that take the tales in the bible as literal truth, they believe the god exists, the sandle wearing demigod, the entire supernatural side. Whereas the unbeliever may be pointing out the fact that most believers cherry pick what they want to be the truth and discard anything that might be inconvenient or just abhorrent in 2015.