Anyone willing to dialogue with a Christian about their atheism?
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
TO ALL WHO HAVE RESPONDED
Not sure who will read this post, but I will put it out there. I truly didn't expect so many people to respond, so I apologize for my lack of anticipation at the number of responses. In time I plan on responding to every post barring anything serious that would prevent me. But It may take several days to respond to everyone.
I do really appreciate those who have responded and look forward to further dialogue with each of you, I just ask for patience with me as I plug in time to respond to everyone.
Thanks again everyone!
Take your time christfollower
Glad u want to converse with heathens. Lol. Actually, We ain't that bad.
Questions for Christfollower.
1) How do you know that christ existed?
2) Can you prove your god?
3) What religion are you specifically?
4) Do you understand what "proof" is, and is not?
5) Where you born a christian?
6) Since you call yourself Christfollower, how exactly are you sure that you are actually following christ?
7) Do you follow the bible literally? If so, why?
8) How old do you think the earth is?
9) Do you think that earth is flat?
10) Where and how high is your education?
11) Can you accept logic and facts?
I could think of 22 questions but I think that the 11 I asked are enough.
How did I miss this! Sorry mykcob!
1. I believe that Christ existed. What I mean by believe is to say that there is evidence that supports Christ's existence that convinces me that it is more reasonable to accept his existence than to deny it.
2. I would first need to know what you mean by prove. But with that being said, I would say that I can't prove God's existence. However, I would say that the evidence supports His existence and that it is in my mind more reasonable to believe in His existence than not.
3. I am a Christian
4. Proof for me is a mathematical term. What does it mean for you?
5. I was not born a Christian. My belief in Christ was developed over time
6. I trust in the reliability of the Scriptures that have presented His teachings. After studying the timeframes that they were written, how they have been transmitted over the years, and the process of textual criticism that looks through all of the variants in order to reconstruct what the original autographs said.
7. I do, but I wouldn't say that I follow it woodenly. I follow it literally according the the genre of literature that was used to write it. For instance, Psalms are poetic so I do my best to interpret literally as poetry.
8. I don't think the earth is only 7 thousand years old like young earth creationists do. I don't find their arguments all that compelling both Scripturally or scientifically. Off the top of my head i can't remember what the current age is according to modern science, but I find it entirely acceptable.
9. No I don't think the earth is flat
10. I was educated here in America. I currently hold a Bachelor's of Science in Computer Science with a minor in Mathematics. I have a Master's in Divinity. Finally I am currently pursuing a Master's of Philosophy and hoping to eventually get a Doctorate's in Philosophy.
Excuse me for my mistakes, english isn`t my first language.
You ask why we are atheists. I will answer why I´m an atheist.
First, for you to know: I was raised as an evangelian. But at the age of 13 I refused to became a church member. They tried to buy me with money and gifts, but I react with only more hate and educated myself to see the lies of the christian church. That was the beginning.
How can I believe in a god, which needs to steal from other religions? Be in a church, which murders, steal and force people to join them? It´s not only history, it`s the same church!
All the "High days" are stolen! Christmas, Easter, and all the other days. All of them are stolen. Nothing was created by the christian religion. The story of Jesus was stolen from Mithras. Read about Mitras and you will understand.
Their god was stolen from the Jews. I don`t believe in the Jews god, but the christians have stolen the god. Nothing of their religion is real. All stolen.
If there is an allmighty creature, why need this creature humans to write a book full of mistakes? Read about that: The mistakes of the bible. The boys didn`t know their own story......
And then? A bunch of men deceide in the year 500 which text fit in their book and which not? Very trustworthy.....
No, nothing can make me believe this shit. I like the storys of the old norse gods. This doesn`t mean, that I believe in it. But these storys are full of fantasy. Without forcing people to crawl on their knees. They are full of pride.
Hello mr ChristFollower,
Not all Atheists hold the position that there is no god, in my case, I don't have enough evidence to believe that there is a god, but I can't positively assert that there isn't a god (to be fair, you would have to clarify what do you mean by god)
And what I can see from studying the different religions around the world is that all of the gods portrayed in them and all their rituals and books are man made, and it shows.
Then are are agnostic. Many atheist are formally agnostic.
Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
Hello Jamie, I disagree with the definition, since agnosticism refers to knowledge, and atheism refers to the rejection of a proposition (a god or gods exist).
I can be an agnostic atheist, but I am an atheist.
Interesting. Never heard of that. Maybe I'll google some more:)
I have nothing against agnostics by the way
Oh, I have no problem either, and I think labels don't help at all.
I don't believe in fairies either, and I don't call myself an A-faerieist, although I can't positively assert that there are no faeries either
I've skimmed over your messages here. I don't know that this discussion will prove worthwhile or not. But I thought we could delve into the differences in our viewpoints on historicity.
You say that both the historicity of Jesus and THE RESURRECTION of Jesus are supported by the historical evidence. I can accept an argument for Jesus being an actual person as being reasonable. However your statement about the resurrection of Jesus doesn't hold up as historically valid.
You say that you've read Earl Doherty, Richard Carrier, and Robert Price. That's good. I'll point you to Richard Carrier's review of Earl Doherty's book, The Jesus Puzzle.
What I'm trying to get at is how do academic historians arrive at consensus when establishing the truth of historical events? Some of what I say may be obvious, but we need to be clear on what we're agreeing and disagreeing on.
Establishing historical truths is about establishing a likelihood, a probability, that an event occurred using an accepted methodology. In the Carrier article link, Carrier applies a relatively standard set of criteria used by academics when trying to discern what is likely to be a historical event.
Note the difference in establishing historical truths vs establishing a truth of the physical sciences. With the physical sciences in many if not most cases, we have the ability to repeatedly test or to repeatedly observe the characteristics of a hypothesis. Science, in general, endeavors to apply 'objective methods' that minimize human error and human bias that taints the conclusion.
The goal with academic historical methodology is also to minimize human error and human bias, but 'history' is a much bigger challenge.
So, let's come back to the historicity of (1) Jesus and (2) the resurrection. Saying Jesus was a real person doesn't violate any known realities. The resurrection, on the other hand, does violate modern known realities. From modern observation, humans don't survive or revive after 36 hours of death. Statistically, the odds are as near zero as they can be based on modern experience and observation of the human death biology. I know of no resurrection that has been objectively verified. From the objectively verified evidence, resurrection does not occur, And we understand the biology of human death well enough. Cells break down due to a lack of oxygen, etc. Bayes Theorem provides a very minute possibility that we could be absolutely sure of something, but still, somehow, be wrong. But in all practical ways, the resurrection of Jesus fails the first test for a historical event, that the event be consistent with the known physical reality of death. The resurrection is extremely unlikely to the point of having an effective zero probability. OR there has to be a special explanation for the special event. And I believe the special explanation would be the Judeo-Christian 'God.' Which, there again, there's no objective evidence for the Judeo-Christian God.
The resurrection of Jesus Christ fails to be a historically valid event by any objective standard.
Here's a description of establishing probability on the resurrection from actual, real, events.
Oh bloody Christ on a cracker! What is it with people giving the, "oh well since science hasn't given us the answer yet on how the universe came to be, there must be an invisible fairy parading and spreading fairy dust to make things happen." So impatient, that they are willing to accept some half-assed story written by uneducated and morally underdeveloped sand men.
The Christian God is an atrocious egoistic beast of a character. It doesn't take much of actually reading the bible to start questioning the moral value of it all. I mean the whole Jesus being the sacrificial lamb is downright macabre, unless you find that appealing and condone such acts of scapegoating.
I fail to see how my conclusion isn't reasonable. The effect was 'nature', so the cause has to transcend nature, which basically by definition means supernatural. Nature couldn't exist before it existed. Can you explain to me how this conclusion isn't reasonable?
Since you clearly don't believe in a God, I will ask you, what is the foundation upon which you stand to make moral judgments about what the Bible teaches? Do you believe that morals are just opinions, or do you believe that morality is objective?
My morals come from treating people how I want to be treated. I don't believe or need my morals to come from a god or gods. If morals come from your god, why are there so many christians breaking your gods morals? Humans make laws to stop immoral behavior. Before you cite the ten commandments as gods laws, stop and think why do so many christians break gods laws and go to prison?
I'm willing to take things a step further and make the claim that 'all' Christians break God's laws. This is why Christians need a savior.
Do you believe that your system of morals is objective in nature which transcends human opinions, or do you believe that you think it is a good way to live because you like to live that way and believe others should too?
I agree that humans make laws to stop immoral behavior, but I would like to know how they came to the conclusion that what they are stopping is immoral behavior. Is it their opinion, or is there an objective standard the compels them to stop that behavior?
I think it is a good way to live, treating others as you want to be treated. If more people just did the same, life would be better for us all.
From ChristFollower: "the cause has to transcend nature, which basically by definition means supernatural"
Ok, so we're agreeing that in our modern experience, based on the objective evidence, that if we put aside "supernatural" causes, resurrection doesn't occur.
Your answer assumes the supernatural exists ("is nature") and therefore the resurrection of Jesus is reasonably possible. But without the supernatural, the resurrection is not reasonable.
Please provide the "objective" evidence for the supernatural to justify your assumption. I have no objective evidence to show me that a 'resurrection' is part of nature ("The effect was 'nature'"). The Bible is not objective evidence of the supernatural. Claims without objective evidence are not solid.
I put the core issue as these two options.
1. The Christian God, and Jesus as *Christ* (supernatural beings) do actually exist.
2. The Christian God, and Jesus as *Christ* (supernatural beings) are fictions collectively created by the minds of humans.
Looking at these two options, I line up all the evidence I have available to me to see which one holds as the best and most solid explanation.
It's plain and obvious that there isn't any OBJECTIVE evidence that the Christian God and Jesus as *Christ* (supernatural beings) are a reality. The best explanation for the evidence is that the Christian God and Jesus as *Christ* are fictions.
When I look at (1 - most importantly) the abundant evidence of how nature and reality do function, there's absolutely NO objective evidence to show, or detect the Christian God or Jesus as *Christ* and (2 - less importantly) when I look at the historical and archaeological evidence, the fingerprints of humans are all over the Bible. The Bible is not a God inspired work at all. There are conflicting statements and conflicting morality found in the Bible that is beneath an all loving and perfect God. The origins of the Bible are suspect. Authorship of the books of the Bible is suspect. Examination of the information we have available to us shows quite plainly that the Bible is derived by the minds and behavior of humans, not the product of a perfect Christian God.
I think we can agree that it is 'typical' of humans to create deities and religions. I can easily find a list of thousands of human created deities from many times, places, and cultures.
When I add this all up, 1-how reality functions and 2-Bible failing to be 'god like' and 3-human nature, then it's plain and obvious that the Christian God and Jesus as *Christ* (supernatural beings) are fictions created by men.
@Usagi: I'm sorry, but that's not true. I know that believers like to think that this is true, allows them to believe that god has a chance, but we are atheists, here we don't given a chance to the tooth fairy... https://youtu.be/VuyYGVDCdN0
@ SBMontero- What are you disagreeing with exactly? I'm confused mate.
@Usagi: Because "oh well since science hasn't given us the answer yet on how the universe came to be, there must be an invisible fairy parading and spreading fairy dust to make things happen" isn't true, that's what I mean.
@SBMontero- Dude that is exactly what I was saying.
@ Christflollower- Hello mate
By your way of thinking, everything needs a maker because it just can't simply exist. If that is so then your God also needs a maker and so on.
It doesn't take a genius to know that slavery, misogyny, and the slaughtering of children is immoral. Morality exists in the human mind, therefore, the ideas that we hold to as being right and wrong changes as we learn from our past mistakes and new knowledge. Holy piss bucket! I said this before in a different thread, I'm starting to sound like a broken record mate! I keep things simple, mental wanking isn't my thing.
So then you believe that morals are human opinions, correct?
So Christfollower, you are afraid to even answer my post. Typical. You can't prove your god. You don't want to dialogue. You want to proselytize.
Either answer MY question or admit that you just want to preach.
I responded to your earlier post in respect to your belief that you don't need to provide evidence for your atheism. I am skimming through the posts as I have time and trying to respond to the ones that I can respond to quickly as i don't have a tremendous amount of time at the moment.
Before I am able to fully respond, I want to make sure we are on the same page as to the term 'proof'. What is your definition of proof? Can you give me an example of something that is proven for you? Usually when I think of the term proof I think of it in terms of mathematics.
"He just happens to be the best explanation for reality."
I hope you do understand that any explanation for reality must be outside reality.
I do believe that God transcends our Human reality.
What is human reality vs. all of reality?
Does your god only explain this 'human reality', yet not all of reality?
And how is a god an explanation if the concept of god itself is not properly understood?
Simple. There is no proof and no good evidence that gods exists. What good evidence or proof to you have to support your belief in whatever gods or god you believe in? My bet is your answer is that I have faith, not proof and not good evidence that gods or god exists.
By the way, my favorite gods are Thor [its all about the hammer thing] and Aquaman [because he talks to fish].