NationStates Jolt Archive

Someone posted a thread about "why do people have a problem with christians?". I want to know what Christians think about Atheists.

I don't know if I can consider myself a general christian or not. But personally I have nothing against atheist, except those that try and push their anti-religionism and hate on us.

Plus, I despise Christians who do the same to atheist by pushing religion on them as well.

I respect Atheist, although I don't believe in what you believe. I respect atheist that they have made their own decision concerning matters of faith.

As have I, I have searched and made my own decision to be a christian with my own believes.

Although I pray and hope that you would one day see the views I see. But if not, live the life you want to live. I would live mine.

Now get off my property or I'll get the shotgun. :D J/k

I don't have a problem with atheists in general. I do have problems with some individual atheists, but that's usually a matter of personality, not beliefs.

I don't know if I can consider myself a general christian or not. But personally I have nothing against atheist, except those that try and push their anti-religionism and hate on us.

A good attitude to adopt, but I'm curious about one thing: As a Christian aren't you duty-bound to try and save atheists' souls from hell?

I'm married to an atheist, and I'm a Christian. We disagree and argue sometimes, same as we do about everything else. I think he's foolish and he thinks I'm silly.

Of course, I'm concerned about him, because I do believe in heaven and hell and the Judgment. Whether or not *he* does, I do. My beliefs will, of course, affect my behavior. Nagging and preaching at him wouldn't do any good, so I pray. I also try to make my actions speak for me.

In general, I'm met and known atheists/pagans/Muslims or whatever, who are decent, kind people. And I'm met many who are jerks. I have met many people who called themselves Christian but with whom I would not wish to associate.

A good attitude to adopt, but I'm curious about one thing: As a Christian aren't you duty-bound to try and save atheists' souls from hell?

Yes...but not duty-bound to go about it like an unreasonable asshole. Living a good life is probably a sufficient act of evangelizing for anyone, let alone a Christian.

A good attitude to adopt, but I'm curious about one thing: As a Christian aren't you duty-bound to try and save atheists' souls from hell?

Not really. We are commissioned to share the Gospel, baptize those who accept Christ as Lord, and teach them the ways of God.

Only Christ can save souls.

A great preacher I once knew told me "God called us to be fishers of men. Leave the cleaning to Him."

At the time in history in which we live, forthright preaching is NOT going to win any souls to Christ. Most people tune that right out. There have been times, though, when it was very effective.

I'm not a Christian (also not Athiest and definatley not an Agnostic) but one thing that annoys me about athiests is the 'If God exists then why did he allow X or Y happen?' argument. Bad things happening does not proove that something cannot exist - maybe X and Y happend because god doesn't like you :p

A good attitude to adopt, but I'm curious about one thing: As a Christian aren't you duty-bound to try and save atheists' souls from hell?

No, thats one of the myths people fornicate because they want everybody to be christian.

I'm not a Christian (also not Athiest and definatley not an Agnostic) but one thing that annoys me about athiests is the 'If God exists then why did he allow X or Y happen?' argument. Bad things happening does not proove that something cannot exist - maybe X and Y happend because god doesn't like you :p
I have heard fellow atheists use this argument too. IMHO it may be an argument that if a god exists he's either not omnibenevolent, not omniscient, or not omnipotent. It's probably not a good argument that god doesn't exist.

I'm married to an atheist, and I'm a Christian. We disagree and argue sometimes, same as we do about everything else. I think he's foolish and he thinks I'm silly.

Of course, I'm concerned about him, because I do believe in heaven and hell and the Judgment. Whether or not *he* does, I do. My beliefs will, of course, affect my behavior. Nagging and preaching at him wouldn't do any good, so I pray. I also try to make my actions speak for me.

In general, I'm met and known atheists/pagans/Muslims or whatever, who are decent, kind people. And I'm met many who are jerks. I have met many people who called themselves Christian but with whom I would not wish to associate.

I hope this isn't too personal a question, but I'm wondering in general, in an "interreligious" marraige, what religion should the kids be annointed in?

I don't have a problem with most Athiests just like I don't have a problem with most Baptists, Mormons, Muslims, and everyone else that is out there. There's exceptions for people like Cartese (if anyone remembers him from a long time ago) but he's judging a whole group based on a few people is silly.

No, thats one of the myths people fornicate because they want everybody to be christian.

I don't usally like to be a grammar Nazi but I just couldn't pass it up this time...

It's FORMULATE not FORNICATE ;)

I don't usally like to be a grammar Nazi but I just couldn't pass it up this time...

It's FORMULATE not FORNICATE ;)
Unless you are fucking a unicorn.

Most atheists I know are not atheists because they don't believe in God, but because something happened that they cannot except so they get angry at God and call themselves an Atheist.

The 11th article of faith (part of a document outlining the basic beliefs of my religion) reads:
"We claim the privilege of worshiping all mighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience. Well also allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where or what they may."

This would also infer the right to worship nothing at all. Therefore I do not believe that I am right in abusing a follower of another faith, or none at all.

I do not believe proselyting to be abuse, however one must recognize the right of another to refuse to accept their views, and one must also be careful not to cross the line into harassment.

most athiests I know are not athiests because they don't believe in God, but because something happened that they cannot except so they get angry at God and call themselves an Atheist.

The 11th article of faith (part of a document oulining the basic beliefs of my religion) reads:
"We claim the privalige of worshiping all mighty God acording to the dictates of our own concience. Well also alow all men the same privalige, let them worship how, where or what they may."

this would also infer the right to worship nothing at all. Therefore I do not believe that I am right in abusing a follower of another faith, or none at all.
I haven't met or corresponded on the internet with any atheists who fit your description. I guess there are some out there, but I think they are a small minority.

Most of them that I've encountered seem to believe that Christians are small minded idiots, with no chance of ever enjoying life.

I've had many more atheists try to donvert me from my faith than Jehovas witnesses try to make join theirs.

A lot of times think that all christians are racist, capitalistic and homophobic.

Generally seem narrow minded in their absolute belief that there is no God. I have no respect for the narrow minded, so you can guess what I think of unthinking fundamentalists.

most athiests I know are not athiests because they don't believe in God, but because something happened that they cannot except so they get angry at God and call themselves an Atheist.

There we go, I was wondering when someone would say something like this.

I just wanted to let you know that this is the single most insulting thing you can say to anyone who takes religion seriously. I would guarantee that most of the athiests in here have done a great deal of thinking concerning christianity, and when you say that they are atheists because they are simply angry at God it really strikes a nerve.

How about I say that you are only Christian (you may or may not be, just an example) because Judaism won't let you eat pork? Pretty insulting isn't it?

Someone posted a thread about "why do people have a problem with christians?". I want to know what Christians think about Atheists.

I'm dating one. =)

I don't usally like to be a grammar Nazi but I just couldn't pass it up this time...

It's FORMULATE not FORNICATE ;)

[Dictionary.com] fornicate

\For"ni*cate\, v. i. [L. fornicatus, p. p. of fornicari to fornicate, fr. fornix, -icis, a vault, a brothel in an underground vault.] To commit fornication; to have unlawful sexual intercourse.
[/Dictionary.com]

Nope, I meant fornicate :p

I suppose you could consider me a Christian, though not in the typical sense. Although I don't read the bible a lot. I think this is a good explanation of what I think Christians should do: 1 Peter 3:15, which says, "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect."

Basically it doesn't say, "Force your beliefs on everyone else," but, be ready to explain why you are the way you are, and why you have the hope you do.
I dunno, that's my 2 cents

Most of them that I've encountered seem to believe that Christians are small minded idiots, with no chance of ever enjoying life.

I've had many more atheists try to donvert me from my faith than Jehovas witnesses try to make join theirs.

A lot of times think that all christians are racist, capitalistic and homophobic.

Generally seem narrow minded in their absolute belief that there is no God. I have no respect for the narrow minded, so you can guess what I think of unthinking fundamentalists.

I agree with you about athiests being as bad as christians. I think both can be narrow-minded and imposing however, I have friends that are christian, pagan, athiest etc. and all of them except one are very open minded and don't push anything onto you. I think it depends on how someone is brought up, what experiences they have had. Some athiests are close-minded enough to let there hate of christians (not all athiests hate christians, but usually the butt-headded ones do) get in the way of there intellegence, and some chistians, depending upon their denomonation can be just the same.

I'm a christian and go to church, but I don't necessarily hug the bible though. A lot of hardline christians devote their life to the bible and my opinion is just to have fun and live life. God didn't intend to just worship him and thats the point of life. Seems selfish eh?

Anyway, my view towards Atheism is toward any religion or belief (however you characterize it). Believe what you want. Doesn't matter to me, as long as it doesn't involve in harming me or being a utter asshole. Just respect my views and i'll respect yours. I've got 3 athiest friends, one is converted from being jewish. Doesn't matter to me. As long a he doesn't force it on me. I know a lot of Christians try to force religion on you, and thats the ones I really look down on.

I'm a very liberal Christian. I believe that Atheists are doing what they view to be right in their conscience. I have many friends who are atheists, and I have always viewed them as equals. We just have different opinions about religion.

I don't think that it is fair that you lump capitalism in with racism and homophobia. Capitalism is not a bad thing. It can be abused, but so can everything else.

Also, as a Christian, I think you should try to tell Athiests about God and convince them to believe, but you should be nice about it.
I get really offended when I am talking to someone who will refer to the Bible as crap, or say religion is evil or stuff like that. Of, course most athiests aren't like that.

I don't get why athiests try to "convert" others to athiesm.
Say that they were right, which I don't think they are, what harm does it do if I believe in God anyway?

christians and other religions should not force their beliefs on atheists, and atheists should force their views on religious people....also (now i've only had experience of this with christians) it's so annoying when i'm told that they are correct because its in the bible...grrr

I don't think that it is fair that you lump capitalism in with racism and homophobia. Capitalism is not a bad thing. It can be abused, but so can everything else.

Also, as a Christian, I think you should try to tell Athiests about God and convince them to believe, but you should be nice about it.
I get really offended when I am talking to someone who will refer to the Bible as crap, or say religion is evil or stuff like that. Of, course most athiests aren't like that.

I don't get why athiests try to "convert" others to athiesm.
Say that they were right, which I don't think they are, what harm does it do if I believe in God anyway?
Speaking for myself, when I first came to the realization that there was no real evidence for god I tried to convince others. I acted like a dick, but soon grew up and accepted everyone's right to beleive as he/she wishes. I think the militant atheists are usually the newest ones. Probably the same with christians. Nothing like the zeal of the converted.

The Atheists I've encountered generally fall into 2 groups.

The first group tend to be people who for one reason or another have a lot of angst and adopt the perspective of Atheist more as a protest against God then for any real belief that He doesn't exist. These tend to be the people who try their hardest to get you to believe as they do, because in so doing they validate themselves.

The second group are the ones who insist that absolutely everything they believe must be provable and so they dismiss God, looking at those of us who do believe with a certain quiet tolerance that borders on arrogance.

In both cases I don't attack them and I don't dismiss them. I show them the respect they're do as fellow human beings, and I expect the same in return even though I don't always get it.

I do feel badly for them, because the more they talk and the longer this goes on, the harder on their pride it will be if they ever decide to convert. If they never do, then they'll find out when they reach the other side, and by then it's too late.

Alma 34:33 And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that you do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given to us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherin there can be no labor performed.

I'm not a Christian (also not Athiest and definatley not an Agnostic) but one thing that annoys me about athiests is the 'If God exists then why did he allow X or Y happen?' argument. Bad things happening does not proove that something cannot exist - maybe X and Y happend because god doesn't like you :p

Well atheists have a problem with you chocking something up to god, such as,
"thank god the lord was looking out for my house when the hurricane hit" "well then why would god send a hurricane here in the first place?" "....he works in mysterious ways..." "bullshit"
And of course the devout elder that lives across the street house got blown down, was god not looking out for him?
btw i am not being hostile, i am just elaborating and asking

I don't think that it is fair that you lump capitalism in with racism and homophobia. Capitalism is not a bad thing. It can be abused, but so can everything else.


I think that capitalism was lumped in with racism and homophobia because a lot of Christians are being told that socialism/communism cheapens everything it touches. That communism has failed because there was no religion, no God to watch over it.
One of the reasons that some Christians voted Bush is because they were being informed that Kerry is bringing "socialist" style reforms,
and they skip considering what socialism really is, and assume that it is irreligious, therefore BAD.
(but really this approach is unfair... Chrisitianity is about helping those who are poor and respecting them, not exploiting them for our own gains... after all... their's is the kingdom of heaven).
When capitalists refuse to take care of the poorer citizens based on "religious" reasons, I think it is fair to say that capitalism is bad in this respect.
Taking on a more socialist approach is different than becoming a socialist and Godless country.

[QUOTE=Ahimsa - nation]Chrisitianity is about helping those who are poor and respecting them... [QUOTE]

Right, and titheing and giving ot the poor are christian values which are practiced regularly by all churches and practicing christians.

What christians do NOT practice is taking money from other people to subsidize the poor or for any other reason.

I don't really have a problem with athiests. As long as they don't push the whole "God doesn't exist" thing on me I don't care. But sometimes it makes me a little sad. My friend has become sort of an athiest (she is slowly becoming one) and has pretty much given up on God completely. I wish she would give Christianity anther chance (because I don't want her to go to hell or anything), but I can't force anything on her. And I don't want to be one of those interferring Christians, so I just kind of ignore comments she makes about religion.

As a whole, athiests aren't so bad. I just get annoyed by the haters that are on your case all the time about religion and how stupid it is.

[QUOTE=Ahimsa - nation]Chrisitianity is about helping those who are poor and respecting them... [QUOTE]

Right, and titheing and giving ot the poor are christian values which are practiced regularly by all churches and practicing christians.

What christians do NOT practice is taking money from other people to subsidize the poor or for any other reason.

What about creating a sense of social responsibility,
that is much more important than assuming that this is some horrible form of coercion in this great and fair country (which it isn't).

I have always been an Athiest, despite being brought up in a Christian household, as far back as I remember I have questioned religion.
My Father is a church elder and way back when I was a lad I dutifully would go to church and bible class because that was his wish, I never questioned it even though I knew in my heart I didn't believe a word of it.
One night, at a special service, the minister (Dr Mclelland ex moderator of Church of Scotland, now head of prison reform in Scotland) asked us each in turn why we came to church. When it was my turn I answered truthfully and said because my father made me come, he asked me if I had faith in the Lord, I said I didn't believe in a Lord God. I could feel the shock reverberate around the room and the glaring eyes of the whole congregation but the Minister was a very kind man (and still is) and told me that if I ever did find faith the church would always be there for me, he didn't condemn me like everyone else did.

I could cite various bad things that may have had an effect on why I am an Athiest but really it's just that I have always known, within myself, that religion has no more to do with a God than Bill Gates has to do with good business practices. That is just *my* belief, I have no desire to force it upon others, though I admit I may come across that way on various threads of a religious nature (I am just arguing my point of view though, usually pretty badly ;) )
My whole family is still deeply religious and I guess they despair of me at times but they have their faith and I have my lack of faith, it's swings and roundabouts really and that's what makes the world an interesting place.

I respect people's beliefs. The only atheists I dislike are the ones who say christianity is for morons who can't accept reality. I generally have no problem with Atheists. In fact I have more problems with other christians than atheists.Really I think what truly matters is how good you are that decideds to where you go.(Ignore possible typos)

I understand what you mean by just knowing. I think that with any religion it is like that. Everybody is different so it makes sense that not everybody follows one religion. Some people suit christianity, others suit being athiests, and so it goes on with all the religions. I believe that it doesn't matter what beliefs you have, what matters is that they are your beliefs and not someone elses. Like when you went to church - it was because of your fathers beliefs not your own - christianity wasn't for you.
I am not an athiest as i believe in a higher entity, although not as the christian God.
I was brought up with christian ideals although I didn't go to church. I wanted, needed a faith, much like you felt you didn't beleive in God. Christianity did nothing for me and eventually i slipped into depression. One of the things that helped me out of that downward spiral was my now religion. I had my own personal beliefs, and i always stuck by them, Christianity did not have any of them, however when i found this new religion, it mirrored my own, so it became my own. My religion is my beliefs - not someone elses.
I don't know if this makes sense at all, this is just my way of seeing things and i realise not everyone will agree with me - which is fine. :D

What about creating a sense of social responsibility,
that is much more important than assuming that this is some horrible form of coercion in this great and fair country (which it isn't).
Practicing Christians have a profound sense of social responsibility, the financial part is most expressed by tithe, though they also give regularly outright as well as volunteer work.

The difference is that christians cannot and will not compel anyone to tithe under threat of arrest. Unlike tax collectors.

If your 'sense of social responsibility' is all it takes then there is no need for government sponsored charity, is there.

Hmmm Athiests eh? An interesting belief I must say. Well anyway I don't have any problems with athiests. The people who I have problems with are the hypocritical christians. Being a Christian myself I feel sad when Christians give Christianity a bad name. Anyway on a whole other note and subject here are some neat "quotes"
"It's not my religion, it's my life."
"I don't have a religion, I'm Christian" - now this one can be misinterpreted hehe anyway have fun guys I'm off

Most atheists I know are not atheists because they don't believe in God, but because something happened that they cannot except so they get angry at God and call themselves an Atheist.



That is pretty much EXACTLY why my friend isn't really believing in God anymore. One day we were talking and she said, "What has God ever done for me?" And the first thing that I thought (as a Christian, don't get offended) was, "What? since when does God have to do something FOR you?"

And recently she was going on and on about how she doesn't think that the cross symbolizes anything. But, that's her opinion, and I won't try to change it.

That is pretty much EXACTLY why my friend isn't really believing in God anymore. One day we were talking and she said, "What has God ever done for me?" And the first thing that I thought (as a Christian, don't get offended) was, "What? since when does God have to do something FOR you?"

And recently she was going on and on about how she doesn't think that the cross symbolizes anything. But, that's her opinion, and I won't try to change it.

As an atheist, I can say that's a pretty stupid reason to become "an atheist".

I don't get why athiests try to "convert" others to athiesm.
Say that they were right, which I don't think they are, what harm does it do if I believe in God anyway?
I don't "preach" conversion as an atheist. I treat it, in many ways, like some do a mental illness. I try to encourage them to see reason IF it becomes a topic of discussion. I dont look for the topic, because it annoys me. The problem I've had with most "believers", devout if you prefer that term (its all the same to me) is that anything good seems to invariably be "God's will", and bad things are very rarely, in any way, "God's fault". An omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent entity that is solely responsible for the creation of all that is, was, or will be.. must therefore be solely responsible for things beyond the mortal control, good and bad alike.

If I tune up my car, that was me, not God. If I get a flat tire because some jackass left broken glass in the road- that was the fault of said jackass, though one may be inclined to utter a name in vain when it happens.

"He" is either a hands-on deity, or a hands-off one, it cannot be both. It's not a Mix & Match, that would interfere with Free Will. We have it, or we do not. I cant control a hurricane, but I can choose if I'm going to live in an area prone to suffer them, which has no bearing from faith at all.

Now.. if you believe that God created and controls all.. you are a puppet, you are where He wanted you, and your misfortunate is His fault.



Thus is my problem with most I know that claim to be believers, they want a "best of both" combination. God doesn't do bad things. Its always either "those damn -insert other race- causing problems", or "godless people" or "the work of the devil". I have come to the belief over many years that there is a VERY good reason why the term "sheep/shepherd" are used in conjunction with religion. It's because all it takes is one semi-attentive, intelligent (benevolent isn't required) person to direct a flock of incredibly stupid others who do not think for themselves. The non-thinking flock is as a group of (content)fat people when told they are going to go running. They dont want to do that(think for themselves), that's too much work, everything is fine the way it is, regardless of how unhealthy the situation may actually be.

I couple that gripe with the families I have observed with children- the children are not usually encouraged to think and decide for themselves, they are taught straight out that God is real, and to question it is a mortal sin. This is brainwashing. It is exactly the same as the children in the middle east who are raised & educated to kill americans and any other group who does not share their belief. It is a very dangerous thing.

In general, I'm met and known atheists/pagans/Muslims or whatever, who are decent, kind people. And I'm met many who are jerks. I have met many people who called themselves Christian but with whom I would not wish to associate.

Yeah im the same... i have heaps of friends who arent christian n theyr really great people but other "christians" i jus don like or trust... u can only pray 4 the atheists

Well I'm agnostic. I know a lot of christians dont like atheists/agnostics because:
a)we supposably arent "moral"-while in actuality we are, as a whole, extremely moral. the fact that we have to be moral without some kind of set of rules or "diving influence".
b)we are jerks-while i agree that many of us can be jerks, so can be christians. i think that many atheists can indeed be narrowminded, but so can christians. i personally dont have anything against christians, though. just when they try to shove their religion down my throat.

oh and just a side note, i really hate it when christians say that a certain thing WILL happen (you WILL go to hell or something). i really look down upon that--it doesnt say much about them. what they should really say is that they BELIEVE that certain things will happen. i at least can admire their dedication then.

Practicing Christians have a profound sense of social responsibility, the financial part is most expressed by tithe, though they also give regularly outright as well as volunteer work.

The difference is that christians cannot and will not compel anyone to tithe under threat of arrest. Unlike tax collectors.

If your 'sense of social responsibility' is all it takes then there is no need for government sponsored charity, is there.

So maybe people should be educated about the good of social responsibility first. Then they won't be giving money because they are "under threat of arrest" but will be doing it out of their free will.

Anyway, people should give what is not theirs on earth (nothing really belongs to us). There's a line in the bible, that one should not be so attached to the things on earth. Giving money to make sure that everyone is getting the basics, that education is being put as a priority, that governments are creating programs that will help those who cannot help themselves should be endorsed as a good thing, much more valuable than buying a nice car or etc.

I am Christian and I know a LOT of people (Christians) who don't spend anything on the poor, nor tithes. People aren't being educated, feeling the compassion for these people because they think there aren't any options. I'm not saying all Christians are greedy, money-hoarding. There are some really good Christians giving up so much to help others. But I'm saying a large portion of Christians would rather vote to keep their money, and even get a tax cut that Bush offers the rich.

Most atheists I know are not atheists because they don't believe in God, but because something happened that they cannot except so they get angry at God and call themselves an Atheist.

The 11th article of faith (part of a document outlining the basic beliefs of my religion) reads:
"We claim the privilege of worshiping all mighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience. Well also allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where or what they may."

This would also infer the right to worship nothing at all. Therefore I do not believe that I am right in abusing a follower of another faith, or none at all.

I do not believe proselyting to be abuse, however one must recognize the right of another to refuse to accept their views, and one must also be careful not to cross the line into harassment.


Thats really quite bizzare, I've known a great many atheists in my life and am indeed one myself, and in not a single instance has it ever had anything to do with a bad experience leading to doubting of faith.

Perhaps its just my circles, but the rationale usually comes along as: there is no evidence or compelling reasonable argument for god, much less for a religion.

So maybe people should be educated about the good of social responsibility first. Then they won't be giving money because they are "under threat of arrest" but will be doing it out of their free will.
.

And if they don't come thorugh your re-education successfully THEN you can arrest them... get it yet?


Anyway, people should give what is not theirs on earth (nothing really belongs to us). There's a line in the bible, that one should not be so attached to the things on earth. Giving money to make sure that everyone is getting the basics, that education is being put as a priority, that governments are creating programs that will help those who cannot help themselves should be endorsed as a good thing, much more valuable than buying a nice car or etc. .

Don't confuse the government with Charity.


I am Christian and I know a LOT of people (Christians) who don't spend anything on the poor, nor tithes...... -- I'm not saying all Christians are greedy, money-hoarding. There are some really good Christians giving up so much to help others..
Don't confuse people who SAY they are Christians with people who ARE christians. The difference is often obvious - you can see someone a mile away who is just going throough the motions...


But I'm saying a large portion of Christians would rather vote to keep their money, and even get a tax cut that Bush offers the rich...

You seem to be very hung up on the difference between government and charity. I have doubts you are capable of defining the difference.

I have no problem with atheists. I'm saddened for them, as I believe they're going to hell, but you can't force someone to believe.

I hope this isn't too personal a question, but I'm wondering in general, in an "interreligious" marraige, what religion should the kids be annointed in?

Annointed ? My sons go to Sunday School and church with me. We never even discussed it - I started going, and the kids came with me. Daddy sleeps in.

Most of them that I've encountered seem to believe that Christians are small minded idiots, with no chance of ever enjoying life.

I've had many more atheists try to donvert me from my faith than Jehovas witnesses try to make join theirs.

A lot of times think that all christians are racist, capitalistic and homophobic.

Generally seem narrow minded in their absolute belief that there is no God. I have no respect for the narrow minded, so you can guess what I think of unthinking fundamentalists.

This is because of a lot of non-Christians equate the word "Christian" with the unthinking fundamentalists.

Although most of us probably come into contact with Christians many times a day, we don't register them as Christian because the topic rarely comes up. We may have a few friends who we know are Christian, but they are labelled as "different" because they don't try to force stuff on us. Most people never stop and think that about half of the people we interact with could very well be the type of Christian who doesn't go around telling the rest of the world how to behave.

You respectful type Christians are more aware of your actual numbers because through church, if nowhere else, you interact with a larger amount of like-minded people. Unless a non-Christian has done work with or had to recieve charity from one of the organizations where Christians handed out food or clothes and may have mentioned Jesus and asked people to pray/if they could pray for them but gladly taken either yes or no for an answer (as opposed to other types of Christian charities where they demand that a person attend bible study or work toward become saved as a condition of recieving any aid-and they aren't likey to accept non-Christian volunteers since they seem to be more intent on spreading the word than helping people) then non-Christians tend not to see non-pushy Christians en masse, so it becomes to easy to think of them as isolated events.

What non-Christians do see on a daily basis are the type of Christians who harass us (very different from just saying "God Bless You" or "Jesus love you"), tell us that we are going to hell, say we are destroying the country because we don't believe in God, and tell us that we must accept their morals. Furthermore, these Christians are the type to insist that they are THE ONE TRUE type of Christian. What makes up the majority of perception becomes the stero-type. When most atheists bash "Christians" it is these people that they have in mind.

I hope this isn't too personal a question, but I'm wondering in general, in an "interreligious" marraige, what religion should the kids be annointed in?

Personally I don't think kids should be taught any kind of faith, religion, or belief system. They should choose for themselves when they're old enough to understand.

[QUOTE=Ahimsa - nation]Chrisitianity is about helping those who are poor and respecting them... [QUOTE]

Right, and titheing and giving ot the poor are christian values which are practiced regularly by all churches and practicing christians.

What christians do NOT practice is taking money from other people to subsidize the poor or for any other reason.

When did paying taxes becom un-Christian? How do you reconcile this with Jesus saying "give unto Ceasar's what is Ceasar's?" Yes, the Pharisees were trying to setting a trap for Jesus, but it is unlikely that Jesus would lie to escape a trap. Was Jesus saying that the only government that had the moral authority to levy taxes was the Roman Empire?

Did not Jesus say, "Give to everyone who asks of you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back." Does this not count for governments, or for those who ask help from the government which represents all citizens?

Two more questions: Are you against taxes in general, or just taxes going to pay for things like social services and health care? Do you think certain Church's are justified in demanding that the people to whom they give charity attend services or some such as a stipulation of receiving said charity?

If an Atheist were to show curiousity in the Christian religion (or any number of others I know about) I would be happy to share with them, until then they can go about their buisness, no problem.
The only Athiests I dont like are the ones who are absolutly determined to 'prove' that all Christians are evil and plan to take over the world by forcing their views on everybody.
The same applies to Christains who try to force their views on everybody else, I generaly hold them in the same light as MKULTRA.

Something that should probably be understood:

If someone CALLS themselves an atheist because they're "Mad at god", they're not atheists. Atheists -don't believe deities of any form exist-. You can't be mad at (what you feel are) non-existant entities, unless truly insane. Who here is mad at Betty Boop? Bugs Bunny? Oscar the Grouch? Carmen San Diego?

No, what you have is a ---maltheist--- calling themselves an atheist: These also seem to be where many of the stories of converting an "atheist" in to a Christian come from, usually with drug use in between (My Hyper-Christian Roommate, the local psychotic egomaniacal preacher, and some christian rock singer on campus are all Born-Agains who had drug problems prior...).

Please, don't get atheists confused with angry theists. There's a world of difference, despite the assenine view often taken that "Everyone in the world believes in God, some are just in denial!" It's like me saying you're in denial about the Invisible Pink Unicorn's existance. You know you want to comb her mane. You were born with the desire. Denying it is just lying to yourself. :mp5:

(Also, for the record, though I don't believe in anything supernatural, and in fact consider the Christian god impossible compared to the near-impossiblity of most other supernatural beings -- after all, THEY have limits --, and in fact consider the bible a work of human evil, I'm dating a Catholic, and the only difficulty we have is I have to remind her that I'm not offended by the cross on her neck or when she says "Jesus" anymore than if she had a Sasquatch Toe Print necklace and called out Big Foot.)

I hope this isn't too personal a question, but I'm wondering in general, in an "interreligious" marraige, what religion should the kids be annointed in?

I was born into that kind of family. My father an atheist and my mother Catholic. They left it up to me to decide, and I became an atheist myself.

Someone posted a thread about "why do people have a problem with christians?". I want to know what Christians think about Atheists.

I think some Atheists are quite fine, moral people, some are absolutely insane, and most fall somewhere in between... much the way I view my fellow Christians... and Hindus... and Muslims....

Maybe this is just where I live (deep South, Bible belt...) but there are a lot more intolerant, close-minded Christians than most people think. Again, this might just be my particular environment, but the tolerant Christian around here (wherever "here" may be ;) ) is truly the exception. Quite a few around here fit the evolution-hating, anti-gay, anti-liberal stereotype. I am neither a Christian nor an atheist, despite being raised in a Baptist church and believing in such things for numerous years.

What bothers me most is when a Christian claims that he/she is being persecuted, when he/she obviously lives in a mostly-Christian environment...

And if they don't come thorugh your re-education successfully THEN you can arrest them... get it yet?

Don't confuse the government with Charity.

Don't confuse people who SAY they are Christians with people who ARE christians. The difference is often obvious - you can see someone a mile away who is just going throough the motions...

You seem to be very hung up on the difference between government and charity. I have doubts you are capable of defining the difference.


what is this charity that you are talking about?

i just happen to think that a capitalist government's system is designed SO that there will be rich and poor. Unbrideled (laissez-faire) economy will increase the divide between rich and poor. the government is there to make sure that everyone has a more or less equal footing (i am not demanding PURE equality, that is a fantasy utopia)
when i say it should go into social services, i am saying that in poorer parts of the country increase funds in education/day care/community centres/programs to help them better their position
though you will get the occasional person who doesn't want to help themselves, most people don't because they don't know how. the poor aren't always poor because they are lazy. a lot of times, they don't have access to the same resources, the quality of teacher, etc.
that's why people should pay, in gratitude for everything that they have received. because they respect human life and have compassion.

maybe i came off wrong. i do believe that right now the ideal society is a capitalist with socialist leanings, rather than a pure socialist country.

buddy, a christian is a christian is a christian. as long as you believe in God and accept Jesus christ you are a christian. doesn't matter how you ACT. it's what you believe. so you can't SPOT them a mile away.

oh ya, doubting my intellectual ability ALMOST made you sound smart there. simply because we hold different opinions doesn't mean that you have to get all hateful and bitter.

Speaking for myself, when I first came to the realization that there was no real evidence for god I tried to convince others. I acted like a dick, but soon grew up and accepted everyone's right to beleive as he/she wishes. I think the militant atheists are usually the newest ones. Probably the same with christians. Nothing like the zeal of the converted.
Same here man. Absolutely. Sort of like coming to the conclusion through a lot of deep personal thought, and wanting to share it with everyone?

It's like me saying you're in denial about the Invisible Pink Unicorn's existance.
Oh man, I don't believe it. I had exactly the same thing with a Purple Dog.. I thought about starting a cult :)

No, thats one of the myths people fornicate because they want everybody to be christian.

I REALLY think that you meant formulate here...

Some people have already noticed a problem with this topic title. What defines a Christian and an Athiest? You have many different extremes of views in the entire spiritual spectrum. If two extreme opinioned people disagree about fundemantal issues then it's unlikely there can be any reconcilation between them. If on the other hand you have a moderate Christian and a moderate Athiest and the main thing they're interested in is having food and shelter, then there won't be much problem, because at the end of the day this is, like less advanced animals, what we care about. Personally I think organised religion is a throwback that we'd do well to get rid of. This doesn't mean people can't be spirtual, but humans(not all humans) have the capacity to be introspective enough to find that spiritualism within themselves. What I'm saying its, the potential in our genes is there to abandon organized religion, it's served it's purpose 10's of thousands of years ago.

This doesn't mean people can't be spirtual, but humans(not all humans) have the capacity to be introspective enough to find that spiritualism within themselves.
I'm an atheist, and I'm about as introspective as they get. Not to say I don't ever have those "spiritual moments" where I'm given doubt, but they can all be explained and, when you're out of the moment and have lent enough thought to it, it's crystal f*kking clear.

I am an active christian, and I have a very good relationship with God, and I talk to him (pray obviosly) every day. I have no aggression against atheists, I just feel bad for them that they are making the wrong choices and are blinded by sin. I hope that all people non-christian will come to love God.

Looking at the previous quote from myself, the last two posts prove the point, it seems? Be introspective, the results of your introspection will be defined by your genes and your upbringing. Nature and nuture. Only fundamentalists (have you noticed this contains the word Mentalists? ;-)) and extremists will have any problem with this approach to religion. That's where the problem lies.

British Jimmy... you obviously agree that a Christian can Sin.. but do you agree it's possible for an athiest to live their whole life without Sinning? Think about it, imagine a person that doesn't believe in God, never went to church, yet never hurt anyone or committed anything that is described as a Sin in the Bible. Don't forget that a majority of humans have the basic knowledge of right and wrong built into their genes.

Oh I know, everyone sins, it is in our nature, but see the thing is, you need to accept Jesus Christ as your savior and you will be saved, you are essientially "locked in" But that dosnt mean to go around and doing bad things either. Everyone sins, there is no escapeing it. But God will forgive you because he will always love you.

and also, You sin in thought, word, and deed. Meaning that even if you covet a man's wife, it is as bad as rapeing her.

Are bad thoughts as bad as bad acts? It's hard to imagine someone who is constantly having bad thoughts that never does a bad act. I think I see whag you're saying, but how can we judge people on what they're thinking?

1) Technically, not bowing down to the Christian deity IS a sin.

2) If an atheist, or any other non-Christian, followed every secularly-possible moral notion in the Bible, 100%, and never had an ill thought in their head, EVER, but didn't regard Jesus as anything special, that person is going to burn in hell as much as Hitler will. This is one of those grounds by which maltheism occurs.

2) If an atheist, or any other non-Christian, followed every secularly-possible moral notion in the Bible, 100%, and never had an ill thought in their head, EVER, but didn't regard Jesus as anything special, that person is going to burn in hell as much as Hitler will. This is one of those grounds by which maltheism occurs.
That's what really upset me when I was an agnostic ten year-old. Surely you'd find no joy in heaven knowing better people were burning in hell just for not sharing an irrational, arbitrary belief?

1) Technically, not bowing down to the Christian deity IS a sin.

2) If an atheist, or any other non-Christian, followed every secularly-possible moral notion in the Bible, 100%, and never had an ill thought in their head, EVER, but didn't regard Jesus as anything special, that person is going to burn in hell as much as Hitler will. This is one of those grounds by which maltheism occurs.

I don't think a majority of Christians really think that, and if that's the case maybe they're not 'real' Christians anyway? I don't mind defending ordinary people who consider themselves Christians BTW, but knowing that your point 2 is the official Christian policy is pretty disgusting.

I only know one atheist...the only reason i don't like him is because he is this punk that skips class and breaks the law...As for the general catagory nothing wrong except i feel sad for them. and hate those that push non-religion on use.

buddy, a christian is a christian is a christian. as long as you believe in God and accept Jesus christ you are a christian. doesn't matter how you ACT. it's what you believe. so you can't SPOT them a mile away..

So if I am a member of Gold's Gym and accept their lifestyle then I am a health nut regardless that I smoke 3 packs a day, eat only at McDonalds and the most excerize I get is 12 oz. curls with my Miller Genuine Draft.....


oh ya, doubting my intellectual ability ALMOST made you sound smart there. simply because we hold different opinions doesn't mean that you have to get all hateful and bitter.
Don't recall that part, sorry if it seemed h+b.

When did paying taxes becom un-Christian? How do you reconcile this with Jesus saying "give unto Ceasar's what is Ceasar's?" Yes, the Pharisees were trying to setting a trap for Jesus, but it is unlikely that Jesus would lie to escape a trap. Was Jesus saying that the only government that had the moral authority to levy taxes was the Roman Empire??


DING DING DING DING! You just scored points with me! Few people really know the context of that story. I am impressed.

I don't think Jesus was speaking of Roman morality at the time however... :), He was simply seperating the spiritual from the worldly. There is no base to the argument that paying taxes is un-christian. There is no relationship.


Did not Jesus say, "Give to everyone who asks of you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back." Does this not count for governments, or for those who ask help from the government which represents all citizens? ?

The important thing to note is that though he said something along those lines, he never once FORCED anyone to practice it. He also never spoke of government spirituality for governments do not go to heaven or hell, people do.


Two more questions: Are you against taxes in general, or just taxes going to pay for things like social services and health care? Do you think certain Church's are justified in demanding that the people to whom they give charity attend services or some such as a stipulation of receiving said charity?

Taxes are needed. Social Services (insluding healthcare for the poor) should be covered by local governments instead of national beurocracies. The closer to the source funding is the more control and feedback the funders (taxpayors) get and the more tailored it becomes to local need. It would also be held more acountable.
I am not against taxes, I am against government waste, pork, corruption and inefficiency. Giving more money to a corrupted system is not the solution to making it more efficient.

As far as churches demanding service for charity - that is really not the case for most churches, for those who do that is their perogative, tough not one I would support as a parishoner. There is a tendancy to give preferential selection to their own membership for help. I have no issue with that.

So if I am a member of Gold's Gym and accept their lifestyle then I am a health nut regardless that I smoke 3 packs a day, eat only at McDonalds and the most excerize I get is 12 oz. curls with my Miller Genuine Draft.....

Thats dosnt have anything to do with God.
I don't have a problem with athesits in general, just the ones that think thee so hardcore and make fun of christains/God.

Thats dosnt have anything to do with God.
I don't have a problem with athesits in general, just the ones that think thee so hardcore and make fun of christains/God.


It is what is called an illustration and it was in regards to Ahimsa - nation false presumption. It illustrates it quite efficiently.

So if I am a member of Gold's Gym and accept their lifestyle then I am a health nut regardless that I smoke 3 packs a day, eat only at McDonalds and the most excerize I get is 12 oz. curls with my Miller Genuine Draft.....


Don't recall that part, sorry if it seemed h+b.
Accepting their lifestyle means you can't smoke 3 packs a day, eat only at McDonalds, and only do the old 12oz curl. Being a christian only means accepting that Jesus was the son of god, and somehow also is god himself, and is the only key to salvation. Beyond that all the sects disagree. Someone who beleives in Jesus and also thinks we should bomb the hell out of all those heathen countries is in fact a christian. He may not be a good one, but who am I to say. I'm an atheist.

Who here is mad at Betty Boop? Bugs Bunny? Oscar the Grouch? Carmen San Diego?


Carmen San Diego, check. You know I looked all around the world for that ho. She was NEVER THERE. So yeah, I'm mad at her. I hope she dies.


That's what really upset me when I was an agnostic ten year-old. Surely you'd find no joy in heaven knowing better people were burning in hell just for not sharing an irrational, arbitrary belief?

Actually, this is exactly what the belief in heaven and hell has entailed for many people throughout history (and of course to this day). It was called "abominable fancy" at some point. Many Christians were explicitly happy about going to heaven and actually getting to sit there, eating popcorn, and watching the sinners get tormented down in hell, and enjoy it righteously.

As a general rule I have no problem with Atheists. I do get annoyed though when they begin spouting their point as an interlectual debate, little realising that whether or not there is a god is a non-certianly-proveable-statement. Atheists have to realise that their beliefs require as much faith as christians as they have no certian proof.

As a general rule I have no problem with Atheists. I do get annoyed though when they begin spouting their point as an interlectual debate, little realising that whether or not there is a god is a non-certianly-proveable-statement. Atheists have to realise that their beliefs require as much faith as christians as they have no certian proof.
Untrue. It takes no faith at all to not beleive in something without evidence. It takes some degree of faith to beleive without evidence.

Untrue. It takes no faith at all to not beleive in something without evidence. It takes some degree of faith to beleive without evidence.

Untrue. If its impossible to prove certianly eitherway then both sides have faith.

Untrue. If its impossible to prove certianly eitherway then both sides have faith.
The atheists have nothing to prove. You make the statement that god is there. We say we don't beleive you. Since nobody can prove a negative the burden of proof is on you.

Heres what Christians believe

God created you with the ability to decide what you want to believe and behavie in the world and in your life - however if you chose to believe a lie, or behaive in ways that degrade and destroy humanity - God will eventually judge and destroy you as he has the right to do as your maker.

We Christians however do not have the right or responsibility to judge and destroy - we trust in the Lord and the time that he will choose for judgement to be best - you wouldnt expect anything less from the intellegence that created the universe. Patience, Hope, Love & Peace of reason until then.

Neo, If I claim that there are a dozen gods, who has to prove that statement one way or the other? Do you now automatically believe in a dozen gods?

Neo, how come when I ask you about how you can trust a self-contradictory bible you go away and don't answer. Everytime I ask if you beleive in multiple gods, because there's no proof there aren't multiple gods, you ignore me? Have I won this debate? If not, answer me. I think I have honestly tried to answer all of your points, even when the answer was I don't know. Can you show the same honesty?

The atheists have nothing to prove. You make the statement that god is there. We say we don't beleive you. Since nobody can prove a negative the burden of proof is on you.

Thats not my point. No Christian claims that the existance of God is beyond reasonable doubt. If it was then eveyone would be a Christian. It requires fait. But simmilarly, the non existance of God cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt. And since we are not talking about a physical object or being that we can see then both sides need faith, it cannot be proven certianly.

Neo, If I claim that there are a dozen gods, who has to prove that statement one way or the other? Do you now automatically believe in a dozen gods?

I can disprove you by refrance to the Bible but that doesnt mean you will listen.

Thats not my point. No Christian claims that the existance of God is beyond reasonable doubt. If it was then eveyone would be a Christian. It requires fait. But simmilarly, the non existance of God cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt. And since we are not talking about a physical object or being that we can see then both sides need faith, it cannot be proven certianly.
Atheism is the default position. Before you read a bible, or speak to the faithfull, you are an atheist. Theism is the positive beleif in the existance of a god. It takes no faith to stay with the default position. It takes evidence or faith to move from default atheism to beleif.

I can disprove you by refrance to the Bible but that doesnt mean you will listen.
The book that makes reference to Elohim? Elohim is plural. Plus, the bible is unreliable because it contradicts itself.

Atheism is the default position. Before you read a bible, or speak to the faithfull, you are an atheist. Theism is the positive beleif in the existance of a god. It takes no faith to stay with the default position. It takes evidence or faith to move from default atheism to beleif.

No Athiesim is active belief in the non existiance of God. Before you have any concept of any religon at all if someone asked you if you believed in God and you were unceritan that would make you agnostic. My point is those with an active belief in the non existance of God need faith because they cannot prove their beliefs certianly.

The book that makes reference to Elohim? Elohim is plural. Plus, the bible is unreliable because it contradicts itself.

Elohim is in refence to the God-head (Father, Son, Holy Spirit)

No Athiesim is active belief in the non existiance of God. Before you have any concept of any religon at all if someone asked you if you believed in God and you were unceritan that would make you agnostic. My point is those with an active belief in the non existance of God need faith because they cannot prove their beliefs certianly.
Weak atheist position = I don't beleive in god unless evidence can be provided for it's existance.

Strong atheist position = There is no possibility of god existing.

I am a weak atheist. That's the default position.

Elohim is in refence to the God-head (Father, Son, Holy Spirit)
How does one refer to the son before the son is conceived?

How does one refer to the son before the son is conceived?

The angel of the lord. See the old testement.

The angel of the lord. See the old testement.
Ok, got a chapter and verse?

Weak atheist position = I don't beleive in god unless evidence can be provided for it's existance.

Strong atheist position = There is no possibility of god existing.

I am a weak atheist. That's the default position.

No the default position is uncertianty as there is no certain proof either way.

No the default position is uncertianty as there is no certain proof either way.
Why are you not uncertain then about the greek gods? or the norse?

Ok, got a chapter and verse?

Several, see here

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?search=The+Angel+of+the+Lord&version=&SearchType=AND&language=english&restrict=&StartRestrict=&EndRestrict=

Several, see here

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?search=The+Angel+of+the+Lord&version=&SearchType=AND&language=english&restrict=&StartRestrict=&EndRestrict=
I don't get it. Are you saying the angel of the lord is part of god and that makes it ok to say gods (elohim) instead of god?

The important thing to note is that though he said something along those lines, he never once FORCED anyone to practice it. He also never spoke of government spirituality for governments do not go to heaven or hell, people do.

Taxes are needed. Social Services (insluding healthcare for the poor) should be covered by local governments instead of national beurocracies. The closer to the source funding is the more control and feedback the funders (taxpayors) get and the more tailored it becomes to local need. It would also be held more acountable.
I am not against taxes, I am against government waste, pork, corruption and inefficiency. Giving more money to a corrupted system is not the solution to making it more efficient.

As far as churches demanding service for charity - that is really not the case for most churches, for those who do that is their perogative, tough not one I would support as a parishoner. There is a tendancy to give preferential selection to their own membership for help. I have no issue with that.

I had to ask. I have seen some Christians advocating a charity-only system with the clearly stated goal that it would bring more people to the churches. Seems rather Machiavellian to me.

I don't have any problem with the idea of a church taking care of its pre-existing members first. That's just natural.

************************************************

Untrue. If its impossible to prove certianly eitherway then both sides have faith.

You do not need faith to be an atheist, rather you need an absence of faith. This is a fact that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not God's existance can be proven with certainty. It has everything to do with the proper usuage of the word "faith." The syntax of the word "faith" requires that it be followed by a positve grammatical construction. Consider the sentence: 'I have faith in God.' It is declarative and non-emphatic. Now consider the sentence: 'I have faith in no God.' For that statement to sound natural in English the word 'no' must be prounouced with emphasis. That makes it a declarative emphatic statement. The declarative, non-emphatic way to state a lack of faith in God would be 'I do not have faith in God.'

What you may mean to say is that believing in God is just as logical as not believing in God. When you say that it takes faith to be an atheist, however, what you are implying is that atheism is a religion. For most atheist, this is not true (although certain factions of Christians have promoted this idea in an effort to make all atheists seem more militant). I assume that for most Christians, God is a central role in their lives and they think about Him several times a day every day. For most atheist the lack of God is a non-issue. Most atheists do not even think about their lack-of-God unless someone is attempting to force God on them or they have entered a debate that touches upon religion.

******************************************************

Maybe this is just where I live (deep South, Bible belt...) but there are a lot more intolerant, close-minded Christians than most people think. Again, this might just be my particular environment, but the tolerant Christian around here (wherever "here" may be ;) ) is truly the exception. Quite a few around here fit the evolution-hating, anti-gay, anti-liberal stereotype. I am neither a Christian nor an atheist, despite being raised in a Baptist church and believing in such things for numerous years.

What bothers me most is when a Christian claims that he/she is being persecuted, when he/she obviously lives in a mostly-Christian environment...

If someone refers to Christians as "dumb" or such simply because they hold their beliefs, then that is persecution even if the Chrisitans are in the majority.

Some Christians, however, claim that either being asked or governmentally regulated not to force their religious views on others is either "persecution" or "having non-religion forced on them." For example, they will claim that disallowing a display of the Ten Commandments in a court house is persecution. This is no more a persecution of Christians than not allowing a display of the Wiccan Reede in a court house is persecution of a Wiccans. Now not allowing the Ten Commandments to be displayed in a church would be persecution.

I don't get it. Are you saying the angel of the lord is part of god and that makes it ok to say gods (elohim) instead of god?

No, I am saying the plural in the word Elohim is in refernce to the Trinity.

No, I am saying the plural in the word Elohim is in refernce to the Trinity.
So why the link to all those "angel of the lord" verses, and how did the ancient israelites know about the trinity looooooong before jesus was born. Before even the prophets.

You do not need faith to be an atheist, rather you need an absence of faith. This is a fact that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not God's existance can be proven with certainty. It has everything to do with the proper usuage of the word "faith." The syntax of the word "faith" requires that it be followed by a positve grammatical construction. Consider the sentence: 'I have faith in God.' It is declarative and non-emphatic. Now consider the sentence: 'I have faith in no God.' For that statement to sound natural in English the word 'no' must be prounouced with emphasis. That makes it a declarative emphatic statement. The declarative, non-emphatic way to state a lack of faith in God would be 'I do not have faith in God.'


Many athiests say "There is no possibility that God exists" and that requires FAITH becuase there is no certian evidence for that. Hebrews 11: 1 defines faith as "The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". Since you cannot "See" God or touch, taste, smell him etc in the usealy manner, the idea of certiatin belief that he does or does not exist requires a mesure of faith as it is uncertian. Faith acording to Hebrews can also be said to be "Belief in what is not certian" so you can see that Athiests who positively say there is no chance of Gods existance whatsoever need faith as it is belief in the uncertian. They cannot be certian and so it is faith.

Many athiests say "There is no possibility that God exists" and that requires FAITH becuase there is no certian evidence for that. Hebrews 11: 1 defines faith as "The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". Since you cannot "See" God or touch, taste, smell him etc in the usealy manner, the idea of certiatin belief that he does or does not exist requires a mesure of faith as it is uncertian. Faith acording to Hebrews can also be said to be "Belief in what is not certian" so you can see that Athiests who positively say there is no chance of Gods existance whatsoever need faith as it is belief in the uncertian. They cannot be certian and so it is faith.
That's the strong atheist position. It's not rational IMO, so I don't subscribe to it. I subscribe to the weak atheist position.

So why the link to all those "angel of the lord" verses, and how did the ancient israelites know about the trinity looooooong before jesus was born. Before even the prophets.

The angel of the lord is Jesus appering in his non physical form. Here is an explination of the trinity in the old testement, hope it helps

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin02.html

That's the strong atheist position. It's not rational IMO, so I don't subscribe to it. I subscribe to the weak atheist position.

But the weak athiest postion is not default. Agnosticim is default (being uncertian)

But the weak athiest postion is not default. Agnosticim is default (being uncertian)
I disagree. Are you agnostic about leprechauns? The Roman war god Mars? According to your logic you should be. I beleive it's normal to not beleive in a thing unless you have a reason to.

The angel of the lord is Jesus appering in his non physical form. Here is an explination of the trinity in the old testement, hope it helps

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin02.html
Angels are not christ. Angels occupy a specific place in the Judeo-Christian pantheon. They are helpers and servants of the one true god.

Neo, it's been real, but I'm a little too drunk to sit around and debate a theology I don't beleive in. Peace out until tues. at the earliest.

Many athiests say "There is no possibility that God exists" and that requires FAITH becuase there is no certian evidence for that. Hebrews 11: 1 defines faith as "The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". Since you cannot "See" God or touch, taste, smell him etc in the usealy manner, the idea of certiatin belief that he does or does not exist requires a mesure of faith as it is uncertian. Faith acording to Hebrews can also be said to be "Belief in what is not certian" so you can see that Athiests who positively say there is no chance of Gods existance whatsoever need faith as it is belief in the uncertian. They cannot be certian and so it is faith.

I'm not critiquing your meaning. I just think you are using the wrong word.

Athiests do not have faith. That would be violating the rules of the English language. Athiests have skepticism. In theological terms the dictionary defition would be "A doubting of the truth of revelation, or a denial of the divine origin of the Christian religion, or of the being, perfections, or truth of God."

Skepticism implies the same certitude of an unprovable fact that faith does, only in the opposite direction. It's the flip side of the same coin.

Actually, atheism is not always the assertion that God and/or Gods do not exist. Just thatno God claim seems valid to that person.

Furthermore, when considering atheists it is important to consider whether they hate Christians or Christianity since the latter has a long history of exploitation.

I'm married to an atheist, and I'm a Christian. We disagree and argue sometimes, same as we do about everything else. I think he's foolish and he thinks I'm silly.

Of course, I'm concerned about him, because I do believe in heaven and hell and the Judgment. Whether or not *he* does, I do. My beliefs will, of course, affect my behavior. Nagging and preaching at him wouldn't do any good, so I pray. I also try to make my actions speak for me.

In general, I'm met and known atheists/pagans/Muslims or whatever, who are decent, kind people. And I'm met many who are jerks. I have met many people who called themselves Christian but with whom I would not wish to associate.

I'm a bit surprised that you said you're married to an atheist...I was a Christian for awhile a few years ago, and my denomination strictly discouraged even DATING non-Christians (I did anyway, and we eventually broke up, partly due to arguments about the subject). Obviously your beliefs are far less ignorant...for that, I applaud you.

Most aspects of Christianity defy themselves. For example, how can heaven be entirely all that great when it is comprised of a non-thinking zone--everyone must act according to God's commandments, and whatever else he deems proper. In effect, it would be a room of robots.

And then the idea that if a person does not believe in Christ, but follows the morals and standards he has set, will go to hell--that is pretty ignorant. It would assume that God is centering entrance into heaven on a person's ability merely to follow Christ. This cannot be the will of a just God.

However, atheism is a poor alternative. Believers have the weapons of faith, and atheists have the weapons of skepticism, but both are on a see-saw of an improvable idea. Believers MAY never be able to prove without a doubt that God exist, unless God exists everyday physically among us. (God might do that) Athiests, likewise can NEVER prove God does not exist, because then it would presume that they know everything about the universe, and then they would be God.

The greatest thing an alleged atheist can do is say that God cannot exist as a purely omniscient, purely omnipresent, or purely omnibenevolent individual. The idea of free will and sin is an attack on God himself. God must be against free will, because then he cannot be omniscient. This DOES NOT mean that God doesn't exist, but rather that he doesn't exist in an omniscient manner.

HOWEVER, for people of religion, they have something that athiests may not. A structure to hold themselves against. Assuming that there is no god, the only thing gotten out of human life should be a person's own achievement or satisfaction. A good Christian knows that he held himself to what he deemed the greatest standards, and although he was inevitably not perfect at them, at least he had them. He tested himself with faith against overwhelming odds, and now he is victorious, even if only in his mind.

An atheist (and I'm getting into touchy subject matter) CAN hold himself to the same standards as a Christian, but he doesn't have that incentive of Paradise or Heaven or Enlightenment as the Christian would. In reality, this means nothing, but in existentialism, this means everything.

Accepting their lifestyle means you can't smoke 3 packs a day, eat only at McDonalds, and only do the old 12oz curl. Being a christian only means accepting that Jesus was the son of god, and somehow also is god himself, and is the only key to salvation. Beyond that all the sects disagree. Someone who beleives in Jesus and also thinks we should bomb the hell out of all those heathen countries is in fact a christian. He may not be a good one, but who am I to say. I'm an atheist.


You are very close to the right answer. You have changed your presumption in order to support your hypothesis. The fact is that you cannot truly accept a belief that is not reflected in your lifestyle. If you claim to you are a liar and a hypocrite and your actions in no way reflect on the actual believers.

Attempting to distract me with a red herring about war won't work. I've not yet seen the 'Bomb the Hell outta Heathens' Church. (though Muslims come close) In fact, most christian churches support missionaries who go to nations (many of which are hostile to christians) and build schools, wells, community centers, etc.

Do a search on google or yahoo for 'foreign missionaries' to learn more.

I'm not critiquing your meaning. I just think you are using the wrong word.

Athiests do not have faith. That would be violating the rules of the English language. Athiests have skepticism. In theological terms the dictionary defition would be "A doubting of the truth of revelation, or a denial of the divine origin of the Christian religion, or of the being, perfections, or truth of God."

Skepticism implies the same certitude of an unprovable fact that faith does, only in the opposite direction. It's the flip side of the same coin.

What I get cross about with this skepticism is that many athiests treat Christians as idiots when their position is no more sound than Christians. Athiests have no certian proof, Christians have no ceritan proof. So why is one some much more seemingly reasonable than the other. Answer, many athiests are too arrogent to see the failing of their position.

What I get cross about with this skepticism is that many athiests treat Christians as idiots when their position is no more sound than Christians. Athiests have no certian proof, Christians have no ceritan proof. So why is one some much more seemingly reasonable than the other. Answer, many athiests are too arrogent to see the failing of their position.

That kinda goes both ways, Neo.

Very often when a Christian finds out that someone is an atheist their respons is

:eek: "How you can you NOT believe in God???!!!!???"

which is a polite way of saying that someone is an idiot for not believing in God.

What I get cross about with this skepticism is that many athiests treat Christians as idiots when their position is no more sound than Christians. Athiests have no certian proof, Christians have no ceritan proof. So why is one some much more seemingly reasonable than the other. Answer, many athiests are too arrogent to see the failing of their position.
i agree that the positive assertion "THERE IS NO GOD" is just as unprovable as "THERE IS A GOD."

however, there is also no evidence for or against the invisible magical tigers that surround us at all times and control our every action with mind-control rays shot out of their stripes. i would love to see you try to convince people than belief in the invisible magical mind-controlling tigers is just as rational and sane as the belief that there probably are no magical invisible mind-controlling tigers.

Bottle again I agree with you wholeheartedly. I hate to define my religious beliefs (because I have none) but that is pretty much my exact arguement when people say "How do you know there isn't a God?" only I use Gnomes with magic powers rather than mind controlling tigers.

The way I see things is...

If I live a good life any "God" will accept that. Everyone knows what is good and bad, you don't need a religion to tell you that. "God" will not say "You did not flog yourself in public in my name, burn in hell!" It just doesn't make sense, and even if "God" was that much of a bastard screw it, I'll just go chill in hell where there's probably a huge party all day long.

I mean really did you see "All Dogs Go TO Heaven?" It's just a bunch of singing dogs with harps in heaven, who wants that for all eternity? j/k

Ugh, good thing atheists have Neo here to tell them exactly what they do and do believe. Whew!

People, you dont' need evidence or proof for the nonexistence of God. Certainly not to be an atheist. Do you need evidence that the universe is not controlled by a large, dyslexic purple unicorn? How about this, Christians: I place the burden of proof about the dyslexic purple unicorn on you. I don't have to prove it exists. You have to disprove it. Have fun. ;)

Atheism is the default position. Atheism means, very simply, a lack of belief in God. That means, if you do NOT possess "belief in God," for whatever reason, you are an atheist by definition. So if you've never heard of God before, at all, and someone were to ask if you if you believed in God, if you were honest you would answer no, I have nor have had no such belief.

It's the same way if you had never seen or heard of China. Then I asked you if you believed China existed. You would not have had that belief, would you? Therefore by definition you would have been a person who lacks belief in the existence of China. You didn't have FAITH that China "nonexisted," you didn't need to. You don't need faith to have a lack of belief in something.

Atheism is the default position. Atheism means, very simply, a lack of belief in God. That means, if you do NOT possess "belief in God," for whatever reason, you are an atheist by definition. So if you've never heard of God before, at all, and someone were to ask if you if you believed in God, if you were honest you would answer no, I have nor have had no such belief.


Athiesim is not the default position. Uncertianity is the default position. You don't know either way from the begining. If it were a case of "I wont believe in God untill it can be proven" then no one would believe in God because it cannot be proven. Athiesim is active beilief that there is no God, not static "I dont know" thats agnositcism.

People, you dont' need evidence or proof for the nonexistence of God. Certainly not to be an atheist. Do you need evidence that the universe is not controlled by a large, dyslexic purple unicorn? How about this, Christians: I place the burden of proof about the dyslexic purple unicorn on you. I don't have to prove it exists. You have to disprove it. Have fun. ;)


In the same way we cannot disprove it, you cannot prove it. I am not saying "Christians do not need to prove God's existance but Athiests need to prove God's non existance" I am saying that "Neither Christianity nor Athiesim can prove/disprove God's existance" and therefore one is no better than the other. It seems hypocritical that Atheists demand proof when they themselves have no proof. What they should be saying is "We are uncertian as we have no proof either way, what do you believe" instead of "We are right, without proof. Christians have to prove themselves to us despite the fact we dont have to prove ourselves to them" Thats a double standard.

That kinda goes both ways, Neo.

Very often when a Christian finds out that someone is an atheist their respons is

:eek: "How you can you NOT believe in God???!!!!???"

which is a polite way of saying that someone is an idiot for not believing in God.

True but it seems far more universal that the intelectual community is condecending towards Chrsitans.

A good attitude to adopt, but I'm curious about one thing: As a Christian aren't you duty-bound to try and save atheists' souls from hell? Charistians are told to love everyone. If you love someone very much, you want to keep them from pain. Living a life without God leaves a lot of people in pain and because true Christians love everyone, they will tell you about God because of their great love for YOU.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ProMonkians
A good attitude to adopt, but I'm curious about one thing: As a Christian aren't you duty-bound to try and save atheists' souls from hell?


No, thats one of the myths people fornicate because they want everybody to be christian.

No. The reason christians come off as self serving is because 99% of the time, they are. Many want their relatives saved SOOO bad that they will go against God's will and God's timing to get them saved *now*. When the holy spirit leads you, that is the right time.

Think of the body.

When the brain wants the body to stay still and the body moves, it is called a spasm and is uncontrolable and useless.

When the brain wants the body to move, and the body does not respond it is called paralysis and is futile.

Many over-zealous christians want to go and save as many people as possible. This, without the backing of the holy spirit is useless, and most times works to drive the person away.

There is also an abundance of dead christians here. Those who, when God tells them do move ignores his spirit because it's not convenient, because it's too hard or because it may offend people. God is then futile because his body is paralysed and dead.

True but it seems far more universal that the intelectual community is condecending towards Chrsitans.

Intellectuals? Not all atheists are intellectuals. Some atheists like WWF wrestling, soapoperas and NASCAR :p (Or in other words, intellectuals tend to be condescending towards anyone who isn't an intellectual).

Are you talking about the attitudes of people who are educated in science towards creationists? Because that's a different thing.

Besides, have you ever stopped to think how patronizing it seems to an atheist when a Christian attempts to convert someone who has expressed no interest in Christianity?

No. The reason christians come off as self serving is because 99% of the time, they are. Many want their relatives saved SOOO bad that they will go against God's will and God's timing to get them saved *now*. When the holy spirit leads you, that is the right time.

Think of the body.

When the brain wants the body to stay still and the body moves, it is called a spasm and is uncontrolable and useless.

When the brain wants the body to move, and the body does not respond it is called paralysis and is futile.

Many over-zealous christians want to go and save as many people as possible. This, without the backing of the holy spirit is useless, and most times works to drive the person away.

There is also an abundance of dead christians here. Those who, when God tells them do move ignores his spirit because it's not convenient, because it's too hard or because it may offend people. God is then futile because his body is paralysed and dead.

Well what I meant in my response is that it is not part of true christian doctrine, like bible teachings, and jesus preachings. What you say is true.

Besides, have you ever stopped to think how patronizing it seems to an atheist when a Christian attempts to convert someone who has expressed no interest in Christianity?

have YOU ever stopped to think how patronizing it seems to a Christian when an atheist attempts to convert him when he has expressed no interest in atheism? Like banning religous texts from public schools, most of which saying "Thou shalt not kill" and other good morals, and replacing it by dispensing condoms to kids so they can go have sex without thinking of the consequences? Do you know how offensive that is to people like me?

have YOU ever stopped to think how patronizing it seems to a Christian when an atheist attempts to convert him when he has expressed no interest in atheism? Like banning religous texts from public schools, most of which saying "Thou shalt not kill" and other good morals, and replacing it by dispensing condoms to kids so they can go have sex without thinking of the consequences? Do you know how offensive that is to people like me?

Absence of unconstitutional religious messages in public schools does not constitute an endorsement of atheism.

If you'd rather that the kids get pregnant and end up having an abortion or wrecking their lives, then perhaps you should go and try and stop the distribution of contraceptives.

If not, perhaps you should thank God that somone has had the presence of mind to distribute contracteptives to people likely to have sex but not likely to do so with the possible consequences aforethought.

have YOU ever stopped to think how patronizing it seems to a Christian when an atheist attempts to convert him when he has expressed no interest in atheism? Like banning religous texts from public schools, most of which saying "Thou shalt not kill" and other good morals, and replacing it by dispensing condoms to kids so they can go have sex without thinking of the consequences? Do you know how offensive that is to people like me?

Most religions and most secular humanists have rules like "Thou shalt not kill" (although sometimes phrased in more modern English). Not all rules conducive to a working, functional society are based on God.

If by "good morals" you mean _specifically_ Christian morals, they are neither good or bad. They are Christian.

Using condoms IS thinking about the consequences when having sex and far preferable to having sex without them. Not having condoms does not stop teens from having sex. The presence of condoms does not force teens to have sex, or relieve them from any of the other consequences. It just makes it safer. If the Catholic teens find condoms offensive then they can choose not to use them and accept in addition to other consequences they may spread diseases and get each other pregnant if and when they decide to have sex. I see no reason why the danger for everyone should be increased for all by banning condoms when those who object to condoms to not have to use them.

There is no way that a _lack_ of Christianity can force someone to act in compliance with godless athiests views. Impossing Christian "values" onto secular society means that Christians and non-Christians alike have to deal with the Christian order. For example not saying any prayers does not force any religious view point onto those who hear the silence. Saying prayers forces one particular religious view point onto everyone who hears it.

I'm tired of Christians defining opression as "not being allowed to opress others." Feh.

Most aspects of Christianity defy themselves. For example, how can heaven be entirely all that great when it is comprised of a non-thinking zone--everyone must act according to God's commandments, and whatever else he deems proper. In effect, it would be a room of robots.

And then the idea that if a person does not believe in Christ, but follows the morals and standards he has set, will go to hell--that is pretty ignorant. It would assume that God is centering entrance into heaven on a person's ability merely to follow Christ. This cannot be the will of a just God.

However, atheism is a poor alternative. Believers have the weapons of faith, and atheists have the weapons of skepticism, but both are on a see-saw of an improvable idea. Believers MAY never be able to prove without a doubt that God exist, unless God exists everyday physically among us. (God might do that) Athiests, likewise can NEVER prove God does not exist, because then it would presume that they know everything about the universe, and then they would be God.

The greatest thing an alleged atheist can do is say that God cannot exist as a purely omniscient, purely omnipresent, or purely omnibenevolent individual. The idea of free will and sin is an attack on God himself. God must be against free will, because then he cannot be omniscient. This DOES NOT mean that God doesn't exist, but rather that he doesn't exist in an omniscient manner.

HOWEVER, for people of religion, they have something that athiests may not. A structure to hold themselves against. Assuming that there is no god, the only thing gotten out of human life should be a person's own achievement or satisfaction. A good Christian knows that he held himself to what he deemed the greatest standards, and although he was inevitably not perfect at them, at least he had them. He tested himself with faith against overwhelming odds, and now he is victorious, even if only in his mind.

An atheist (and I'm getting into touchy subject matter) CAN hold himself to the same standards as a Christian, but he doesn't have that incentive of Paradise or Heaven or Enlightenment as the Christian would. In reality, this means nothing, but in existentialism, this means everything.

Actually, it means the atheist is capable of forming morals based on MORALS, rather than reward and punishment, and actually act based on CARING, not on a secondary response.

When an atheist (or at least one lacking a doctrine they choose to live by) loves their neighbor, its not because they're told to, its because they DO. They have no other reason to do so.

Besides that, there's secular humanism, which is a higher standard than Christianity, as its based on being kind, rather than on being rewarded. Selfishness does not a moral person make.