Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why do Atheists care about religion?

page: 9
30
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charis

My husband is an atheist, and he doesn't care at all about religion. He simply doesn't believe in God, afterlife, etc. He doesn't offer any proof because he says it's not up to him to prove a negative. Whenever I discuss spiritual issues with others he tunes out because he says the subject bores him.


If your husband will not explain his beliefs, and is bored with the whole subject, perhaps he has no beliefs, or perhaps he is just jaded from experiencing religion? It's one thing to say you don't believe in the stuff the church says and quite another to say you don't believe God exists, or that Jesus ever walked this earth.

What you have said about your husband does not describe to me an atheist, but an agnostic. He would probably believe if he were not confronted with a lot of what passes for Christianity today. If he saw the real thing, he would probably perk up. Boredom is understandable. I feel the same way in church when I hear the awful teachings handed out in the name of Jesus, like the imminent rapture, the once saved always saved, all the Judaizing, hate-mongering and warmongering against the Muslims.

But I am a Christian.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[edit on 12-4-2009 by Salt of the Earth]




posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
"If your husband will not explain his beliefs, and is bored with the whole subject, perhaps he has no beliefs, or perhaps he is just jaded from experiencing religion? It's one thing to say you don't believe in the stuff the church says and quite another to say you don't believe God exists, or that Jesus ever walked this earth.

What you have said about your husband does not describe to me an atheist, but an agnostic. He would probably believe if he were not confronted with a lot of what passes for Christianity today. If he saw the real thing, he would probably perk up. Boredom is understandable. I feel the same way in church when I hear the awful teachings handed out in the name of Jesus, like the imminent rapture, the once saved always saved, all the Judaizing, hate-mongering and warmongering against the Muslims.

But I am a Christian."


No, my husband is definitely an atheist, not an agnostic. I did not say he would not explain his beliefs; I said the subject of religion bores him.

My husband grew up in the Christian church, belonged to a Christian youth group as a teenager, and had a personal relationship with Jesus. He honestly enjoyed attending church, singing the hymns, and socializing with other Christians. He still admires the teachings of Jesus, and says he misses going to church. So he is definitely not jaded. He did not reject the church. He rejected God because he realized there is no proof for God's existence. Zero. If someone had some proof to offer--not faith, but real verifiable proof--he would likely change his mind.

For you to make those assumptions about my husband would be akin to someone guessing that the only reason you are a Christian is because you were brainwashed to believe in God from birth. Do you feel that would be fair to characterize all Christians that way? I don't. There must be as many reasons for a person to turn to Christianity as for a person to turn to atheism, but it's easier for the lazy person to just slap labels on others than to get to know the individual.

My point is: it's not wise to stereotype others.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by dee132423
 


dee, I hope you will see the entire series, with your daughter!

Watch them repeadedly, if needed. She will likely excel in science classes!!!

Of course, remember to emphasize her need for learning math as well...because science and math go hand-in-hand.

Of course, I'm assuming she will embark on a career in the sciences...that was presumptive of me....but, having a well-rounded education will provide her the best possible tools to decide, as she moves along in life.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Toadmund
 


Toadmund, I am offended!!!

MY diety to worship is the DURT LORD!!!

I can show you a thousand reasons that your 'lord durt' is inferior to my DURT LORD!!!

Assemble your armies, we will now go to battle to determine that MY DURT is better than your 'durt'!!!!

Remember, it's better to fight over stupid ideologies than to come together as one species for the betterment of all....



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I listened to 5 of them last night they are quite good of course she was sleeping.
She currently wants to persue a career in veternarian science.
We currently live in illinois and I hope I don't fit in,in texas it is bushs' state and I usually don't conform we have to relocate for hubby's new job.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charis

No, my husband is definitely an atheist, not an agnostic. I did not say he would not explain his beliefs; I said the subject of religion bores him.

My husband grew up in the Christian church, belonged to a Christian youth group as a teenager, and had a personal relationship with Jesus. He honestly enjoyed attending church, singing the hymns, and socializing with other Christians. He still admires the teachings of Jesus, and says he misses going to church. So he is definitely not jaded. He did not reject the church. He rejected God because he realized there is no proof for God's existence. Zero. If someone had some proof to offer--not faith, but real verifiable proof--he would likely change his mind.

My point is: it's not wise to stereotype others.


I don't think your husband is an atheist. I'd say he's a Christian whose faith has shriveled and gone dry.

An atheist is something else entirely. An atheist is committed and outspoken and ready to defend his belief in self-existant matter, that evolution explains how life got here, and that life itself can come spontaneously from dead matter. An atheist has as much faith in the the nonexistance of God as any Christian does in God. An atheist is active in his belief, not passive.

To say one doesn't believe or have much interest or faith in religion does not make one an atheist. Very few true atheists exist and are usually very scientifically minded, kind of make science into an idol.

Your husband sounds more like an agnostic or even a dried up Christian. That's my opinion and we are supposed to be able to share opinions here, so don't get angry with me. You might be surprised some day to see your husband's faith grow strong again, and you might be shocked at what he would or would not do because of that faith.

Your own antagonism to Christianity would probably also have a lot to do with his attitude.

[edit on 12-4-2009 by Salt of the Earth]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Remember, it's better to fight over stupid ideologies than to come together as one species for the betterment of all....


Calling people's faith in their Creator a "stupid ideology" is no way to bring the human species together for the betterment of all. Furthermore, you are aligned with the culture, with the elite, with the destroyers of the planet, not with the common man. So how can you be advocating people "come together," when you considering yourself superior to most of humanity and align yourself with the elite?

Not trying to be mean here, just truthful, which is the good purpose of forums like these. Truth is always a good thing even when it disturbs.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
 


"An atheist is something else entirely. An atheist believes matter is self-existant, that evolution explains how life got here, and that life itself can come spontaneously from dead matter. An atheist has as much faith in the matter as any Christian does in God. An atheist is active in his belief, not passive."

Is that the Westboro Baptist Church take on atheism? Sorry, but you have a few points wrong.

First, "atheists" don't usually address the issue of abiogenesis, even if fundies can't distinguish it from evolution.

Second, show me an evolutionary scientist that says life can come spontaneously from dead matter? Again, abiogenesis is a matter of speculation at this point and there are no hard-and-fast claims being made about from competent scientists.

Finally, you have the faith thing stuck in your throat, don't you. You really, really NEED atheists to have some kind of faith. That's simply a fail.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla



Second, show me an evolutionary scientist that says life can come spontaneously from dead matter? Again, abiogenesis is a matter of speculation at this point and there are no hard-and-fast claims being made about from competent scientists.


The only evolutionary scientists who would say life comes spontaneously from dead matter are the atheists because, obviously if they reject life coming from God, then it has to come from dead matter. Where else? And the dead matter of course, having god-like qualities of being eternal and self-existant, should have no problem summoning life from within itself.

There are evolutionary scientists who are not atheists believe God created the matter and breathed the life into the first cells, then kind of guided the evolution along.

All evolutionary scientists are not strict atheists. But all strict atheists are evolutionists.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
 


It's not likely to be a "spontaneous" process. You're playing word games here, and that's a non-starter.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
I dont think its wrong to teach About God or Science. I think its positive to know the facts and visions of both sides.

I think its wrong to base facts on faith and believes alone. You cant prove your faith to others other than by words alone. I think you have to know how to pick your tools so you can use them to test both sides.

Science is such a tool. Its the only tool we have to test if facts go hand in hand with our believes. Faith and believes are no tools just feelings and ideas which has to be tested.

Faith and feelings are just a driving force to be explored.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


"I dont think its wrong to teach About God or Science. I think its positive to know the facts and visions of both sides. "

So, can we teach evolution in your churches? Can Richard Dawkins have equal time with the Pope?

Can the Buddhists have equal time with the Pastafararians and the witches when you teach your God in science class?

You guys are just wanting to ram your beliefs down other people's throats.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by spy66
 


"I dont think its wrong to teach About God or Science. I think its positive to know the facts and visions of both sides. "

So, can we teach evolution in your churches? Can Richard Dawkins have equal time with the Pope?

Can the Buddhists have equal time with the Pastafararians and the witches when you teach your God in science class?

You guys are just wanting to ram your beliefs down other people's throats.



I think science, evolution and religion should be thought to every one.

Because the fact is that we have all of them.

But we should also learn how to separate facts from faith.





[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Science, yes. Evolution is part of science, no matter how hard you try to exclude it.

Still insisting "we all" have religions? Because you're too limited to imagine NOT having an imaginary friend to back you up and keep you from doing those things you might do if a threat of punishment wasn't foisted on you?

Which religion(s) would you teach? And why teach them in a science classroom?



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by spy66
 


Science, yes. Evolution is part of science, no matter how hard you try to exclude it.

Still insisting "we all" have religions? Because you're too limited to imagine NOT having an imaginary friend to back you up and keep you from doing those things you might do if a threat of punishment wasn't foisted on you?

Which religion(s) would you teach? And why teach them in a science classroom?


I am saying that we have to learn about religion because its a fact that it exists.

I am not saying you have to become religious. Learning about it and believing in it are two different things.




[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Then keep your religion out of the classroom. It has no reason to be there.

ID is a conspiracy to sneak religion into science classes. And that's not right.

Religious teaching should be optional. That way the sane people could avoid it.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
 


Can't talk now...'The Simpsons' is on....

Oh, wait....a re-run.....worst couch gag ever!

'Oh, my Chi!!!!'

Some of the best work to refute 'religion' has been accomplished via ironic allegory....





posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
 


It's not likely to be a "spontaneous" process. You're playing word games here, and that's a non-starter.


"Spontaneous" meaning outside the normal route of life begetting life.

Putting the right mixture of soup and electricity or however else the atheist evolutionists claim life got started is spontaneous in that the life came about of its own, without a self-existant, eternal creator to put it there.

Either matter is self-existant and eternal and possessing power within itself to create life, to organize and form life forms, or God the Creator is self-existant and possessing power to create life forms and impart life to them.

Scientists cannot create the simplest cell, and even if they could they would not be able to make it come alive. They cannot even take a dead cell that's perfectly formed already and make it come alive.

Atheistic evolutionists would say that life came about as an accident when the right atoms clumped together and some outside force of heat or electricity or whatever caused it to spark into life.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by spy66
 


Then keep your religion out of the classroom. It has no reason to be there.

ID is a conspiracy to sneak religion into science classes. And that's not right.

Religious teaching should be optional. That way the sane people could avoid it.


Therefore keep atheistic evolution out of the classroom. It is a preposterous religious theory, defies all known laws of nature, and is a religion based upon a wish that matter, and not God, are self-existant and possessing of creative, life-imparting abilities. The Supreme Court even ruled the Humanist Manifesto to be a religious creed and ruled that atheism is a religion.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by spy66
 


"I dont think its wrong to teach About God or Science. I think its positive to know the facts and visions of both sides. "

So, can we teach evolution in your churches? Can Richard Dawkins have equal time with the Pope?

Can the Buddhists have equal time with the Pastafararians and the witches when you teach your God in science class?

You guys are just wanting to ram your beliefs down other people's throats.


No, it's the atheists and evolutionist ramming their religion down everybody else's throats. The First Amendment says that Congress shall establish no religion, and yet it takes the taxes from Christians at athe point of a gun and uses that money to hire teachers it requires to teach atheistic evolution and to forbid the teaching of a belief in God. Even the word "Christmas" and "Easter" are forbidden to be spoken in the public schools, and words like "winter vacation" and "spring vacation" are substituted. Christians cannot erect a cresche at Christmastime in the public square, yet we support a whole nation based entirely on its religion, an antichrist religion based upon hatred of Christ and Babylonian occult beliefs in black magic. We supply Israel with billions of dollars each year, the latest high tech weapons, all because of their religion, a religion which most of us in America do not agree with, a religion in direct opposition to Christianity.

Much of the agitation to teach evolution and atheism and to crush the free expression of religious belief by others is the result of the Zionists who cannot bear to hear the word spoken of Jesus or to see his name or to be reminded in any way of his existance or of the faith others have in Him.

No, the witches can't have equal time in people's churches. The churches are voluntary, private organizations. The government schools are paid for by everyone, and here we have Congress establishing a religion that dictates a belief that matter is self-existant and eternal and containing godlike properties of creation within itself.

This is pure evil, and one reason why our country is on the brink of extinction and the American people in danger of being wiped out totally by literal devil worshippers.





new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join