When Atheists Tell The Truth...

[Johan]

Most often, I find that the atheist has trouble even addressing questions of Christianity without being unnecessarily hostile, insulting, and dismissive.  For example, your use of the world “mythology” instead of “theology”. 

First of all not every atheist is guilty of this. We are all individuals. Second of all plenty of christians are every bit as unnecessarily hostile, insulting, and dismissive when addressing atheists.

And keep in mind that you can walk into almost any job in this country wearing a cross around your neck and hang up a jesus picture on your office wall and no one will say jack shit to you about it. Try putting your atheism on display at work and you can get fired for it legally in many places. Live in that reality for a while and see where your threshold for being hostile, insulting or dismissive ends up.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Sure.....and you're the proof.  You can either accept God's offer of pardon through Jesus Christ, or you can choose to pay for your own crimes and be separated from your creator forever.  People choose Hell all of the time.  In fact, most people end up choosing Hell.  They don't want their to be a God to whom they are accountable.  They don't want to bend their knee to someone else or admit that they are owned by the one who gave them life.  Human beings are in a general state of rebellion against Him, but yeah, the choice is free.  I'm choosing to accept God's offer of pardon, which He's not obligated to even offer me.  And you're choosing to reject that offering in favor of paying for your own crimes in eternity.

No they don't want to be with a 'god' that's imaginary. There's a big difference.

The issue with you guys is that you start with the premise that 'god' (however defined, there's as many gods as there are believers) exists and work from there. Everything beyond that is simply begging the question, rendering your premise moot.

However, to play the game, is my request for evidence rhetorical or real? Truthfully, it doesn't make any difference. The god squad have failed to provide any regardless, so again, the point is moot (until such a time as if/when evidence is forwarded that meets my very basic requirements of being testable and verifiable).

You do of course realise that threatening us with eternal torture/punishment is sort of pointless right? I realise you're trying to make a grand point about this ultimatum which has been given to us by this god thing you keep referring to, but it's akin to threatening us by saying you'll throw us into a star, or freeze us is carbonite. Neither of those things will ever happen, just like the hell thing, so it has no effect on us. ^_^ I understand that you, directly, are not threatening us but rather relaying the message from your chosen deity (whatever one it is). Does make you wonder why it can't just do it itself.

[Termin]

Sure.....and you're the proof.  You can either accept God's offer of pardon through Jesus Christ, or you can choose to pay for your own crimes and be separated from your creator forever.  People choose Hell all of the time.  In fact, most people end up choosing Hell.  They don't want their to be a God to whom they are accountable.  They don't want to bend their knee to someone else or admit that they are owned by the one who gave them life.  Human beings are in a general state of rebellion against Him, but yeah, the choice is free.  I'm choosing to accept God's offer of pardon, which He's not obligated to even offer me.  And you're choosing to reject that offering in favor of paying for your own crimes in eternity.

For a long period of time I wanted to believe , that went on for years, and that's when I realized I was an atheist, you see I wanted there to be a god, and i realized wanting meant I didn't believe it existed.

  My atheism is not about avoiding accountability, in fact it's the exact opposite, If I do wrong I am accountable to those who I have hurt, not after my death, but in the here and now, and I have a duty to make things right in the here and now, otherwise I risk the harm I did to become worse and for that person to suffer longer than necessary.

  I am not rejecting god, what I am rejecting is other people's assertions the it exists without evidence.

"Human beings are in a general state of rebellion against Him"

   You are assuming they believe him to exist in the first place, and I am not talking about athiest's here, I am referring to the many good people in this world who have a faith in a different god or gods. Just not yours. I don't know if you see the , and ill give benefit of the doubt , the unintended arrogance of your statement.



   


 

 
 

[Savior2006]

First of all not every atheist is guilty of this. We are all individuals. Second of all plenty of christians are every bit as unnecessarily hostile, insulting, and dismissive when addressing atheists.

And he's whining for what reason? We call Christianity a myth? This guy almost certainly thinks that about every other religion on the planet. That their events aren't true. That their beliefs are wrong. And he comes across people who think of his religion EXACTLY the same way and has the gall to bitch?

[Savior2006]

For a long period of time I wanted to believe , that went on for years, and that's when I realized I was an atheist, you see I wanted there to be a god, and i realized wanting meant I didn't believe it existed.

  My atheism is not about avoiding accountability, in fact it's the exact opposite, If I do wrong I am accountable to those who I have hurt, not after my death, but in the here and now, and I have a duty to make things right in the here and now, otherwise I risk the harm I did to become worse and for that person to suffer longer than necessary.

  I am not rejecting god, what I am rejecting is other people's assertions the it exists without evidence.

"Human beings are in a general state of rebellion against Him"

   You are assuming they believe him to exist in the first place, and I am not talking about athiest's here, I am referring to the many good people in this world who have a faith in a different god or gods. Just not yours. I don't know if you see the , and ill give benefit of the doubt , the unintended arrogance of your statement.

Not to mention that idiocy of saying that it's okay for God to screw us over essentially because we are his property and he can do with us what he wants. To me, a black guy, that thought process is fucking horrifying.

[SGOS]

For a long period of time I wanted to believe , that went on for years, and that's when I realized I was an atheist, you see I wanted there to be a god, and i realized wanting meant I didn't believe it existed.

Wonderful.  To me, that's one of those insights that has the potential to hit me like a ton of bricks.

[Mike Cl]

  I am not rejecting god, what I am rejecting is other people's assertions the it exists without evidence.

I love how this was worded.  I read it and said, 'Yes!'.

[DeathandGrim]

For a long period of time I wanted to believe , that went on for years, and that's when I realized I was an atheist, you see I wanted there to be a god, and i realized wanting meant I didn't believe it existed.

I'm in that camp. Only I couldn't hold up my belief in God. I quite literally let my belief die. And it's weird, something that supposedly exists should require you to reconvince yourself it exists. Means I really didn't believe it in the first place.

[Odoital778412]

PART â€" ONE

These kinds of things might be true, but I have found that they are most often not true.  Most often, I find that the atheist has trouble even addressing questions of Christianity without being unnecessarily hostile, insulting, and dismissive.  For example, your use of the world “mythology” instead of “theology”.  It wasn’t necessary, but somehow the disdain you have for the beliefs I hold had to be included in your words.  I wonder if you think that helps to facilitate discussion or shut it down?

You're asking me to be a hypocrite if you ask me to use 'theology'.  While I am willing to accept that you believe it and that to you it is a 'theology', I do not, and for me to use that term would be wholly inaccurate and entirely dishonest.

In addition, it explicitly cedes ground that I will not cede, that there is a real god about whom one might discuss a real theology.  I continue to assert that there is none, and that for me to use a term other than 'mythology' would be intellectually and philosophically dishonest.  Or do you expect me to refer to Classical Greek 'theology' and Norse 'theology' -- to say nothing of Hindu, Islamic or Pagan 'theologies'?

And do you genuinely not think it disdainful, hostile or rude when you assert that all atheists are joyless nihilistic materialists, and that we "just don't understand"?  Is it not disdainful or hostile to demand a higher respect for your view of the very matter on which we disagree than we do?

I will not be a liar or a hypocrite for you, or for anyone else.  I would never complain that you call it 'theology', since it is 'theology' to you and is entirely appropriate for you to use that term.

But it is very much mythology to me, and I stand by the word and my use of it.

No, I am not.  I am not asking you to pretend to believe in or agree with Christian theology by pointing out how replacing the word ‘theology’ with the word ‘mythology’ is an example of an atheist being unnecessarily hostile, insulting, and dismissive.  I’m merely pointing out that you are conflating the definitions of two different words for the purpose of communicating your disrespect for me and what I believe.  If you’ll examine the rest of your speech, I suspect you’ll find that you don’t speak this way uniformly.  Do you really refuse to refer to everything else you disagree with by their appropriate name and instead, choose some other term?  Probably not.

We use all kinds of words in everyday speech without having to adopt an affirming belief in the veracity of whatever the word’s definition happens to be.  From my perspective, this is an essentially irrational position to take regarding speech, but then, as I said, I suspect that you don’t let this framework of understanding govern your speech entirely.  As I stated above, I suspect it was adopted for a very specific purpose.

No, you would only use the term ‘Greek theology’ if you were engaged in a rational and systematic study of the Greek concept of God(s), as found in ancient Greek mythology and culture.  In other words, the terms are not synonyms for one another.  They actually mean or refer to different things.  With regard to comparative religion and the like, they do have an overlapping aspect, in that they would each be studied and considered within a broader study of religion, but they are two different words with two different meanings.  So referring to (my) ‘theology’ as (my) ‘mythology’ is simply a conflation of two different words, likely for the purpose of being insulting and dismissive of me.  How sad for you.

I’m not aware of calling all atheists joyless nihilistic materialists, but I admit there could be some.  Having said that, such a description doesn’t describe all of the atheists that I’ve met over the years.  With regard to being described or told that you just don’t understand, all I can say is that whether it is disdainful or not would depend on whether it were true.  What if that person were simply reporting a factual matter?  It wouldn’t be disdainful if they were reporting a fact.  And no, it’s not disdainful for me to raise the bar in terms of respect and discourse, but that assumes that I’m actually doing so.  I’m not complaining so much as I am simply discussing my experience.  I expect less than hospitable treatment from atheists, though there are a few that I’ve met who prefer to act more decently toward everyone, regardless of how personally stupid or uninformed they may feel the other people to be.  For example, Mike Cl, has no love for the beliefs that I hold, but he’s made an effort to engage me in a more civil manner and lend me a modicum of respect in order to facilitate that engagement.  It’s not a requirement to have a conversation, but in his wisdom, I’m sure he realizes that it helps a great deal.

Well, depending upon what I’m talking about, it would be theology to anyone, if I’m actually referring to theology.  They are two different terms.  The use of the word theology says absolutely nothing about its truthfulness or veracity.  I realize that you’re a skeptic, but adopting a radical skepticism of the type you appear to be favoring won’t really help to support your position.  At least not so far as truthfulness and facts are concerned.  I cannot make you a liar, and would not ask you to be.  The only way you’ll be a liar is if you keep referring to one word with the use of another.  That is a category mistake, and if you know that you’re making that mistake and persist, you’d be a liar.  Unfortunately, it would be by your own choosing, not mine.

In one sense, this is a very easy question to answer.  The reason is because I actually know what orthodox Christianity teaches and purports to believe.

This is basically saying "I know because I believe" or even just "I know because I know", which is certainly the ultimate in circular reasoning.  While this may be an answer to your satisfaction, it isn't to mine -- it lacks any reference to the repeatable, the experiential and the demonstrable.

Granted, saying "I know" is philosophically problematic all around, at least if one wants to engage in the kind of deep, logic-chopping philosophy that makes my eyes cross.  I presuppose that when I say "I know" something, that it's meant in the sense that it has been demonstrated beyond all possible contradiction -- that is, it's thunderingly obvious and denying it is the mark of the clinically delusional, as in "I know 1+1=2"; or, it's meant with an assumed "pending further observations" tacked onto it.

So I can say "I know Mars has two moons" and stand on firm ground.  If a third moon is discovered tomorrow, continuing to assert that would be wrong, but based on the data and observations currently available, I am for the time being entitled to say that I know this.

I can not say that "I know" there are other intelligent species in the galaxy, or in the rest of the universe.  I consider their existence exceedingly likely, and given a chance I can make quite a compelling case for supposing they exist, but I don't have the tiniest shred of direct evidence to say so and therefore I am in no way, shape or form entitled to say that I know they're out there.

Statements about the existence of a god necessarily fall into this same category.  Until it can be demonstrated, it is a belief.  It is not knowledge.

No, that is explicitly not what I’m saying.  I am not claiming to “know because I believe” or “know because I know”.  The mere fact that you state that this kind of reasoning is not only the kind of thing I’m saying but is also somehow an answer to my satisfaction is simply more evidence that you possess a misapprehension of my point of view.  In other words, you possess an understanding of my views that bear no genuine resemblance to my views at all.  What you’ve stated is no basis for belief, mine or any other, so I join you in rejecting such nonsense.

I’m going to choose not to quibble with regard to your idea that claiming knowledge is problematic because I think it would distract from the point of the conversation.  I must say that I don’t entirely agree that you can’t say that you know something unless it’s “been demonstrated beyond all possible contradiction”.  I think your bar for the simple knowledge of facts is a bit too high, for obvious reasons.  It would put a great deal of our knowledge into a different category, if we adopted your definition.  However, I think I understand the point that you’re trying to make. But let me be clear, logical truths cannot be proven by science, as science must first presuppose the laws of logic in order for it to begin to function.  The truths of logic are therefore impervious to scientific proof and to argue otherwise is simply circular.

With regard to your other comments, I found them quite interesting.  You say the following.

“[You] don't have the tiniest shred of direct evidence to say…there are other intelligent species in the galaxy, or in the rest of the universe.” BUT [You] consider their existence exceedingly likely, and given a chance [you] can make quite a compelling case for supposing they exist.”

So you strongly believe in the existence of other intelligent species in the galaxy or universe, but you cannot make that claim with certainty?  To that, I would say, congratulations!  This is precisely why a lot of Christians believe.  But it’s just the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning.  I think you can get to the existence of a God deductively.  And I think you can get to the existence of the Christian God inductively, but it is a probabilistic case.  Having said all of that, I think that there are other ways as well.  I would point you to Alvin Plantinga’s Warranted Christian Belief.  And in any case, you can still make knowledge claims, as there are very few things in everyday life that we “know” in the sense of certitude or deductive reasoning.  This is an old argument, but I’m afraid it’s true that if you actually lived in this fashion, there would be very little in life that you could claim knowledge of.  Certainly all of human history would essentially be unknowable, by your definition.

Related to this, it’s possible that I might have a misapprehension of atheism, and the atheist is probably in a better position to know that than I would be.  Why?  Because the atheist is probably more familiar with the kinds of things atheists believe than I am, though I am experienced in the area.

I think it's extremely likely you have a misapprehension of atheism.  You've spent quite a bit of time declaring what (you think) atheism is and what (you think) atheists are, rather than asking for clarification.

Also, and I copy it down here because of its relevance, you said:

In addition, I have found that some experience in churches or groups that call themselves Christian is relatively common, but most of that even is fairly limited.  In addition, it’s almost never the case, regardless of the church one attends, that the kinds of questions and objections one my get from an atheist are actually well and fully addressed in any particular church.  It’s very rare.  So experience in going to church or being involved in church isn’t necessarily any measure of ones deeper understanding of Christianity, such that the kinds of objections and questions atheists might have are answered.

Why is your above-claimed experience in atheism applicable to this conversation, when you also claim that my experience of having once been a Christian is not?  We're back to you making assumptions and presuppositions and basing your arguments on those straw men rather than asking and engaging.

This could well be true.  I certainly wouldn’t deny the possibility of such a thing being true.  It would probably depend on the atheist, and exactly how well they match what I know of atheists and the various experiences I’ve had in talking with them.

The reason my experience is applicable is because in discussions with you about God, you persist in moving forward with an understanding of God that bears no resemblance to the Christian understanding of God.  So if you’re going to define what you see as a problem with your opponent’s point of view, you’d want to do so fairly, so that in taking exception with whatever your opponent is saying wouldn’t merely be a straw man.  By that I mean, an argument that creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition and then refuting or defeating that false argument instead of the original proposition.

So if you have an objection to a Christian’s view that God can take the life of or punish that which He owns and has created, you cannot legitimately employ your objection by redefining the Christian God into something that the Christian does not positively affirm, which is what you’ve done repeatedly in past discussions.

In short, you claim to have been a Christian, but when discussing Christianity, you appear to either have no significant understanding of the nature, authority and attending prerogatives of the Christian God that would substantially affect the way in which His actions are seen or judged.  So while atheists often make many claims about their Christian backgrounds and what should be their attending understanding, I often find that the claims are more overblown than real.  But as we’ve discussed before.  I think this has something to do with your tactic of essentially stipulating that you will not explore implications of ideas by way of “arguendo” or assuming for the sake of discussion.  So my comment appears to apply perfectly, as you seem to be doing the kinds of things I’ve seen before.

And your experience of having once been a Christian might be relevant, if it meant that you could or would engage on that basis.  I’ve asked and engaged a great deal of discussion, but to very little benefit.  You’ve essentially stipulated that you won’t explore the implications of Christian belief, unless you can fill that Christian belief with your own notions.  Now maybe you received those notions from some church you say you attended, but it wouldn’t change the fact that such notions do not match the historic teachings of Christianity regarding God.  We can talk about possible explanations for that, but it’s really beside the point.  The point is that the notions you propound don’t correspond with historic Christian teaching.  And who would be a better judge of that?  Someone who studies such things, or someone who’s had a background in a Christian church but now rejects Christianity and God; so much so that he cannot bring himself to use words of the English language that refer to their appropriate subject, ‘mythology’ vs. ‘theology’, for fear that he’s ceding some kind of ground and in anyway admitting or affirming something of Christianity, even if provisional or for the sake of an argument.

So if you think I’m creating straw men, I don’t know what to tell you.  I’m responding to what I see and experience, taken into account with the knowledge I possess.  I’m certainly not attempting to misrepresent anything.  If there are things I don’t know, please feel free to fill me in.  My knowledge is finite and my nature is fallible.

CONT’D

[Odoital778412]

PART â€" TWO

I agree with some of what you’ve said here, but there is one idea that is simply false.  An extraordinary claim requires ADEQUATE evidence, not EXTRAORDINARY evidence.  Really.  Think about that.  Think about all of the things that we might believe, even in the area of science, that we believe by way of adequate evidence rather than what would be considered extraordinary evidence.  It’s almost never the case that you have extraordinary evidence until many years later when you have so many different pieces of evidence that lead you to the same conclusion.  This is a rhetorical trick common to fans of Sagan and various other baloney detecting men of his type, but I think Sagan was the main popularizer of that particular and somewhat deceitful tactic.

Adequate evidence for an extraordinary claim would be pretty extraordinary.

This is just wordgames anyway -- the point is, adequate or extraordinary, the evidence is still necessary.

Yes, this may be true, but it doesn’t change the fact that the two words have different meanings.  It is a canard, propounded popularly by Carl Sagan and now a lot of other people who’ve not really reflected on the issue.  Typically, in my own experience, it’s been used as a way of raising the bar for the theist in a way that goes beyond the actual warrant.  And of course, you are free to try to bring the bar back down and pretend that we’re speaking of the same thing by way of the adequate seeming extraordinary, but I think you’ve essentially made my point for me.

The Bible can be evidence, but it depends on several factors.  One major factor is whether it’s been shown to have been reliably preserved over time.  And the other factor has to do with what is it evidence for?  Is it evidence for what or why Christians believe a certain thing, or is it evidence for God’s existence.  I would argue that it can be both, so long as other criteria have been met prior.  However, if you mean merely quoting the Bible as having some evidential merit with you or an atheist, then I’d agree that it is not and does not.  I think that’s a mistaken view of many well-meaning Christians.  It’s also a view that I do not hold.  Having said that, we disagree on the attestation of the Bible with regard to events like the Babylonian exile.  I would point you to several resources:

Well, the Bible is suspect as a historical source for the simple reason that the version(s) in common circulation today are so far removed from the source material -- which is itself missing.  The earliest copies are exactly that: copies of unknown generation.  If it were one of several books by the same author -- the works of Cicero, Ovid, Thucydides, Herodotus -- we would have bases upon which we could judge their reliability.

And despite your assertion, we really can't say the Bible -- certainly not the New Testament -- has been "reliably preserved".  It has been the subject of politically and/or philosophically biased translation from the very beginnings, whether those in power were trying to suppress Gnosticism, Manicheanism, all the way up to the King James Version, which was commissioned in part to combat Puritanism rather than to just provide a definitive English-language bible.

No they aren’t.  We have more textual attestation for the earliest documents than we’ve ever had in human history.  And the best translations like the NASB make use of that material from which to translate.  You might be able to say that about the KJV, which used the Latin Vulgate to bring about the English translation, but even if you look at that, you’d be amazed at how much it got correct with far less textual attestation.

Because the Bible’s early textual copies were grown geometrically and across cultures & continents, you can take copies from various places in Europe, Asia, and Africa and compare them to see if there has been differentiation, additions, or subtractions.  All good Bible translations will note things like the long-ending of Mark as not being part of the earliest manuscripts, as well as John 8.  Having said that, neither of those variants have anything to do with Christian doctrine and could be removed without changing anything significant regarding Christian doctrine and theology.  In addition, those variants are known to the Church, so it’s not as if changes have been made over the years, and we just don’t know it.  And are you aware that the translators today still use the full textual attestation of the Greek & Hebrew to do their translations, only now the attestation is even better than it was 50, 100, or 200 years ago?

I would urge you to take a look at the process of canonization and the reliability of the Biblical accounts, in terms of the transmission over time.

The Canon of Scripture by F. F. Bruce

The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament Debate by Michael J. Kruger

Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books by Michael J. Kruger

The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture's Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity by Andreas J. Köstenberger

Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence (Text and Canon of the New Testament) by Daniel B. Wallace

Can We Still Believe the Bible?: An Evangelical Engagement with Contemporary Questions by Craig L. Blomberg

Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels by Craig A. Evans

Reinventing Jesus Paperback: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss The Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture by J. Ed Komoszewski

The Missing Gospels: Unearthing the Truth Behind Alternative Christianities by Darrell L. Bock

Hidden Gospels: How the Search for Jesus Lost Its Way by Philip Jenkins

The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable & Relevant? by Walter C. Kaiser Jr.

Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity: A History of New Testament Times by Paul Barnett

It’s only going to be when you look into the actual state of affairs that you’ll be disabused of the current notion that you have, so I would really encourage you to at least, bare minimum, take a look at Blomberg’s book, which is a pretty easy read.  In terms of the rest, there is plenty of proof that the Bible has been amazingly preserved, far better than any other work from antiquity that we have.  And by far, I mean that there is essentially no comparison to be made, as the differences are just that vast.

Yes, thank you.  It’s been around for many years, and it’s been read many times.  The problem with the essay is that some people find it convincing.  Sagan is defending naturalism or materialism with his little essay, and as such, he ends up undercutting his own case, which has been pointed out ad infinitum.  Let me attempt to illustrate.

In the first place, Christianity is falsifiable on many fronts.  Prove that the universe is eternal.  Prove that life can come from non-life without reference to mind.  Prove that information can arise, drastically increase, substantially vary, and end in purposeful functionality without reference to mind.  There are others that are more specific to the Bible that could be listed as well, but it is falsifiable.  But the more important point is that the naturalism he’s trying to defend and the laws of logic themselves that allow him to construct meaningful sentences to make the argument, are themselves, immaterial and impervious to scientific testing.  And so if metaphysical, epistemological, and methodological naturalism are the only ways of knowing anything about reality, then we’re left with no reality at all.

That is probably the most incorrect reading I've seen of the scientific method and logic that I've ever seen.  Of course logic can be applied to logical systems to test their consistency and completeness.  That's among the reasons we know that logic and the scientific method are good tools -- they have been tested, and passed the fundamental tests of consistency and repeatability.

You're also suggesting here that if the Bible is falsifiable, then so is everything else, and that just doesn't hold.

Lastly, you also evade the central point: what is the difference between an entity that cannot be detected by any physical means whatsoever, and one that's just not there at all?  At some point after special case number n+1 has been pled in response to objection n, there is justification in saying it's not there.

I might refer you to Asimov's short story "The Obvious Factor", one of his Black Widowers mystery shorts, on the nature of adding special case after special case after special case when trying to deduce the facts of a matter.  There comes a point when, after the goal has been moved one more time, it's not worth kicking that football again.

So you believe in the laws of logic, and therefore believe in the existence of immaterial things?  That’s fantastic!

I’m not sure that I know what you mean by the idea “…that if the Bible is falsifiable, then so is everything else...”  Could you expound upon what you mean?

Your question is loaded, in that is assumes that the effects of God cannot be detected.  The evidence for a finite universe provides support for a necessary first cause.  Beyond that, arguments can be further made to support various aspects of this necessary first cause’s nature.  In addition, the existence of objective morality and objective moral facts can be recognized.  These find their grounding in a transcendent and personal creator, and their objectivity cannot be explained by any contingent process (i.e. evolutionary development).  In addition, information in the form of code providing meaningful instruction toward a purposeful end cannot be explained without reference to mind.  Each of these things can be discussed in their turn, but it’s simply untrue that there is no difference between the Christian conception of God and an entity that isn’t really there.  And before the objection is made, none of these have to do with circular reasoning or a God of the gaps play.  If you want to know why I would say that, you’re free to ask, but the response is getting rather long at this point.

I actually think that I do understand why I’m not getting anywhere, and one of the main reasons is that I’m not trying to get anywhere, at least not in the sense you mean.  I didn’t come in here with the goal of converting anyone or even with the expectation that anyone would be open to honestly and genuinely discussing our views.  That may or may not happen.  If it doesn’t, I won’t be surprised, and if it does, that’s great.  My goal is be available for conversation, to put myself in the hot seat on a part-time basis, and hopefully to provide a credible example of a well-meaning and somewhat thoughtful Christian that atheists may not be accustomed to dealing with.  If someone accepts Christ or moves a step closer to a belief that a God might exist, that’s great.  But I’m specifically not here for that purpose.  Anyway, I hope that helps.

Fair enough.  To that end, I might recommend making fewer declarations about what atheism "is" and what atheists "are", and asking instead.

Like you, I can only respond with what I know or have experienced in my considerable time interacting with atheists, which is closing in on two decades.  If I’m wrong about something, or you’d like to take exception with someone I’ve said regarding atheists or atheism, please do.  If I’m wrong about something, I’d love to be corrected because I’m desiring to deal with the truth here, not just unsupported views or feelings.  I hope that helps answer your questions.

THE END…

[Odoital778412]

I'd like to offer some comments about your comments--I numbered them 1 thru 5, and oddly enough, I'll tackle them in that order.

1. I've been on several boards and have suffered the same as you--you say, "the atheist has trouble even addressing questions of Christianity without being unnecessarily hostile, insulting, and dismissive."  Substitute christian for atheist and you have my experience, as well.  What I think the problem is that when discussing religion we are talking about a deeply held worldview.  And to change that view is very, very difficult.  Both atheist and christian often resort to name calling rather than listening and trying to figure out the 'why' of the other person.  As for using various words, sometimes it is simply that neither party has defined terms.  I would use mythology when discussing religion, especially christanity rather than theology.  Why?  Because I think christianity is simply another mystery religion--and I think Jesus is a myth and not an actual person.  So, mythology fits my personal definition better than theology.  It is not meant to be a put-down, but I can also see where you may think that it is. 

2.  You may know what orthodox christianity is, but there are so many different sects that profess to be 'the' way and only way to god, that it is almost impossible to make generic comments about the christian religion.  So, unless you explain what that is, there is no way for others to know what you mean. 

3.  No, a sermon is not meant to be a seminary class.  One of my concerns about god is why did he make the process to get to know what he wants and how he wants it so obscure?   So convoluted?  He very easily could have had his owners manual dropped on every contentment; put into the hands of all the peoples of the world in their language.  That did not even come close to happening.  Why does there need to be a seminary to learn about god???  That makes no sense to me.  Except that it does. Seminaries and all places like them are about teaching the hierarchy how to interpret their scripture and how to then speak to the laity.  It is all about power and control.  I see it as that simple.

4.  The problem with lumping all atheists under one banner is that it does not help to define them.  I am an atheist.  I don't believe in anything.  I think there is a lack of evidence of any kind of supernatural anything.  If it exists, it is natural.  There are no living beings that are invisible.  There are no spirits or ghosts or the like.  I have reasons for what I think is the way things are--not beliefs.  And I am different than any other atheist--so lumping us together does not help explain who I am, nor what I think.  And I think the same applies to you.  You claim Christianity.  That's fine--but it tells me absolutely nothing about what your beliefs are.  That's why I enjoy talking to people one-to-one.  Terms can be defined and progress can be make toward understanding what that person actually believes or thinks.

5. I actually stopped visiting the boards I used to frequent because it all to often became a name calling contest.  It became boring.  After about 5/6 years of staying away from the forums, I stumbled upon this place and found that I enjoy it here.  With your appearance, it has become more fun.

Yes, I agree with you regarding what is more typical of Christian behavior on boards like this.  The difference being, that most Christians wouldn’t or don’t spend a lot of time in places like this.  We’ve talked about some of the reasons for that in past posts, but I think another important reason is because most Christians don’t have the courage of their convictions, at least when it comes to an environment like this.  This in part because we’re talking about Christians that live in the cushy western world, but it is also related to the level of teaching that exists within the Church writ broadly.  Sermons on Sunday have been boiled down to the least common denominator, so more often than not, you receive a sort of milk toast type of fare.  In short, you could spend multiple decades in most churches and not be at all equipped to deal with the questions and issues you might be immediately confronted with in a forum like this and others.

We agree with regard to both holding deeply held beliefs and having its obvious impact.  However, with regard to mythology vs. theology, we do disagree.  It’s perfectly fine for you to personally think of Christian theology as a form of mythology, in that you believe it isn’t the rational systematized study of something real (i.e. God).  However, use of mythology amongst people who don’t see it the same way does have the effect of generating an insult and conveying disrespect throughout, whether intended or not.  In other words, for the purposes of avoiding unnecessarily insulting whoever you might be talking to, I would use the word ‘theology’, as using such a word doesn’t necessitate that you affirm the reality of theology’s content.  Now obviously, if you’re talking to someone that you know either holds the same or is sympathetic to the stance you’ve taken, then I think using the word mythology is fine.

With regard to Christian sects and the near impossibility of making generic or blanket statements with regard to Christianity, I’m sympathetic.  But that’s why I gave those 5 core truths of the Christian faith, to which several others could be added.

1)   The authority of scripture
2)   The deity of Jesus Christ
3)   The sinfulness of man
4)   The substitutionary atonement
5)   Salvation by grace through faith (i.e. trust)

Those 5 were meant as a bare minimum.  But something like the triune nature of God could be added to that list, as well as the bodily or physical resurrection of Jesus Christ.  If you’re talking to someone who doesn’t hold to those core doctrines of the Christian faith, then you’re probably not talking to someone who can rightly be called a Christian.  That is part of the difficulty these days.  Everyone uses the term Christian, whether they believe any of those things or not.  I know people and churches who either don’t believe in any of those, or they make those beliefs optional, in the sense of, “whatever works for you”.  If they’re optional, then they aren’t beliefs that are actually held to.  So right away, vast numbers of churches would be excluded, simply because they are no longer Christian but derive their existence from an extinct Christian tradition.  I mean the word extinct, as in extinct from their particular church sect or denomination.  And I would encourage interested parties to make these kinds of distinctions. 

What I found when people are either aware of this kind of distinction or are informed regarding its necessity, is that the tendency is to avoid or refuse to make this distinction.  As you might imagine, all kinds of objections follow.  “Who are you to define what Christianity is or isn’t?” and similar questions/accusations proceed from there.  My point is that Christianity has defined itself, in that a limited number of core or vitally important doctrines are taught in the Christian scriptures and held to by the early church and its historic descendants, thus allowing us to have an outline of what constitutes the difference between the orthodox and the unorthodox or heretical.  The tendency today (i.e. 20th & 21st centuries) to turn Christian churches into social justice programs and change teaching and doctrine to fit more easily into a vastly changing culture (i.e. the cultural acceptance of fornication, abortion, homosexuality, etc…) simply unmoors such churches from the teachings of its scriptures, its founder, and the history of the Church itself.  Why attempt to bind those two groups together simply because they’ve chosen to keep using the same, somewhat misleading moniker, Christianity?  Failure to make this distinction just makes it more difficult to discern the difference between people who have wildly divergent worldviews.

I think your third comment is more closely related to the premium God places on human freedom and all that such a thing entails, but I think you’re making more of the idea (i.e. difficulty, obscurity, convolution, etc…) than is there.  It’s not necessary that one has to attend seminary simply to know anything about God.  It’s that human beings generally don’t want to know God, and as such, they construct barriers for themselves to help rationalize their actions against Him, even if it’s mere indifference.  For the sake of the argument, let’s just say that a lot of what atheists or just thinking people in general might call ‘critical thinking’ with regard to the question of God simply didn’t exist.  Do you think it would be easier or harder to know about God?  Probably easier, because all of the questions and objections wouldn’t be there getting in the way.  On the other hand, while it might be easier to know God, it might be more difficult to know as much about God in that circumstance. 

But this isn’t just a matter of human beings rationalizing.  A great deal of it just has to do with the nature of human progress.  The more information and knowledge we possess, the more implications there are for everything that has been accepted before.  Some things get discarded, and others do not.  But for those that do not, questions and objections crop up specifically related to the increase in knowledge and information.  So while a Sunday sermon might have been enough 300 or 400 years ago, in most cases that kind of thing simply won’t do for the informed person of the modern world.  Or think about another area like medicine.  How specialized was medicine back in the year 1800?  Well, it was so primitive at that time, it’s almost as if it didn’t exist.  But then move forward to 1900.  What happened?  We became more advanced, had different tools, and different specialties began to slowly proliferate. Now move to the 21st century where we’ve advanced almost at an exponential pace and specialties are proliferating at an astonishing never-before-seen rate.  This same kind of process has happened with respect to Christianity and God.  The core teachings of Christianity were clear from very early on.  Reading the creeds, the patristic fathers, etc… it wasn’t hard to get a sense of what Christianity stood for.  But as theologians, philosophers, and things like science have grown and interacted, there has been so much more that has had to be reflected upon and developed in the way of reasons, theory and explanation that one now has to attend school to get a deeper and more specialized knowledge of God that simply wasn’t necessary or available to earlier generations.  Just as those who go to medical school are standing on the shoulders of all the great scientists and doctors that have come before them, so too does the seminarian stand on the shoulders of the various theologians, philosophers, and scientists that came before them.  This isn’t so much a function of power and control, but is just part of the nature of a vast increase in knowledge and understanding, coupled with the natural human desire to be free from accountability to a God whose standard they can never live up to on their own.  Also, I should point out that one needn’t necessarily attend seminary to know these things.  I’m a guy in my mid 30s who has a great deal of this information and have received no formal religious education at all.  Why is that?  I wanted to know if what I was placing my trust in was something real and actually true, so I began checking it out.  And I continue that process, as a layman, of learning and exposing my beliefs to the best this world has to offer, to see if it stands up to scrutiny.

I should also point out briefly that there is merit in reflecting on the idea of free creatures and God making His presence too obvious.  If He is trying to bring the maximum number of free creatures into an eternal relationship and knowledge of Himself, I can imagine an overly obvious presence being counter-productive to that aim.  If the presence were so obvious that you were, in some ways, rationally compelled by His reality in such a way that to do otherwise would have meant you were essentially mentally ill, I think freedom would have been greatly impacted.  I can also imagine the development of a resentment among human beings in that circumstance that might have meant far fewer people freely choosing to pursue the knowledge of God.

Well, I don’t know that I agree with your fourth point.  You have to be able to tell one thing from another.  I do agree that given the various ways in which people define their atheism, it can be difficult, but a generalized non-belief in a supernatural creator, whether one defines that as an affirmative no or lacking a belief almost doesn’t matter.  Of course, everyone is free to fine-tune that definition for themselves, but we have to have ways to make distinctions without having to know, in detail, each person that we’re speaking with.  In other words, it’s great to have one-on-one conversations that let me get to know the individual, but I shouldn’t have to have that level of knowledge merely to refer to a group that is typified by a particular stance, belief, or lack of belief.  Saying I’m a Christian should tell you a lot about my beliefs, assuming that you’re making the distinction I talked about earlier.  It won’t give you detail, but it will give you an idea that you’re probably talking to one kind of person vs. another.

Now regarding some of the other things you said, like the following:

… I think there is a lack of evidence of any kind of supernatural anything.  If it exists, it is natural. …

I think this is something of a contradiction.  If something supernatural did exist, it would be by definition, not natural…right?  And how is it that you would know that there are no living beings that are invisible?  By their nature, as immaterial, they wouldn’t necessarily even be susceptible to things like science.  And we know that immaterial things exist, in the form of the laws of logic, which have to be presupposed for anything to even make sense.  In addition, I think that things like the so-called near death experience does provide, at least an indication that something beyond this physical world exists.  I also thing things like the moral law are immaterial and objective.  It’s rather like that old question, “How would you know what a crooked looked like without reference to a straight one?”  I think that’s correct, and the objective nature of that law lends itself to their being an objective reference point that is personal in nature, given that morality is about our personal obligations to one another.

I put a great deal of time and effort into the last forum that I frequented often, but the moderator lost patience with me.  He was frustrated that I wasn’t changing my mind, though the reverse didn’t seem to bother him.  And after a few years of dialogue, as well as facilitating dialogue with others designed to disabuse me of my superstitions, he became bored.  I was sad to see that particular place go the way of the Dodo, but all good things must come to an end it seems.  I have a pretty busy life, so I don’t know exactly how prolific I’ll be able to be here, but I do relish the possibility of being able to engage others and be engaged in a climate of respect and intellectual curiosity.

[Mike Cl]

Now regarding some of the other things you said, like the following:I think this is something of a contradiction.  If something supernatural did exist, it would be by definition, not natural…right?  And how is it that you would know that there are no living beings that are invisible?  By their nature, as immaterial, they wouldn’t necessarily even be susceptible to things like science.  And we know that immaterial things exist, in the form of the laws of logic, which have to be presupposed for anything to even make sense.  In addition, I think that things like the so-called near death experience does provide, at least an indication that something beyond this physical world exists.  I also thing things like the moral law are immaterial and objective.  It’s rather like that old question, “How would you know what a crooked looked like without reference to a straight one?”  I think that’s correct, and the objective nature of that law lends itself to their being an objective reference point that is personal in nature, given that morality is about our personal obligations to one another.

Thanks for your reply--and I fully understand the pull of real life, so visit as you can.  And I need to chop up your reply--it's easier for me to keep track. 
Why is regarding supernatural as being impossible a contradiction?  I really don't see what you mean.  Of course if something were supernatural and existed it would not be natural--it would be other than natural.  How would I know there are no invisible beings?  There is no evidence.  Not a smidgen.  None.  If there were a supernatural being which was invisible, and that being wanted me to know that it was real, it would be incumbent upon that being to show me.  I could, otherwise, spend my entire life looking for or even acknowledging all sorts of invisible beings--the tooth fairy, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the easter bunny, trolls, orcs, Frodo, Harry Potter, Pecos Bill,--and on and on.  My world is actually littered with invisible beings inside my head.  But that does not mean I want to make a pilgrimage for find Harry Potter or Hogwarts.  Near death experiences.  Yes, they do seen real to those who profess to have experienced such things.  But science may yet provide us with an answer--our brain and its functions are just only now beginning to be understood.  My current hypothesis is that it is a brain function and not supernatural.  So, I don't consider that as being proof of an afterlife or some such. Understand that there really isn't anything in this universe that is invisible.  There are things in this universe that humans cannot see, but that is because our sensory organs are not all that good.  But we do have ways of demonstrating that they do exist even if we can't see them.  We know atoms exist, but I have yet to see them.  I am told my any number of scientists that study this that they do test for them all the time--and find them.  The term 'invisible' is mostly used as a convenience to indicate that we cannot see something, not that it does not exist.  However, all that does exist, the seen and the unseen (by humans) can be tested for--that's how theories are established.  If something is tested for and not found, then I'd say it does not exist.  God have not been found using any theories that I am aware of.  Nor any hypothesis, either. 

Moral laws are immaterial?  So, that makes them supernatural?  No, they came from somebodies thoughts and those thoughts were not supernatural.  Moral laws are regional and cultural.  And they evolve.  That makes them subjective.  There is not a single universal moral law--and if there were that would not change the fact they are subjective.  Why?  Because they are natural defense mechanisms designed for the survival of the group.  As the conditions of those groups evolve and change, so do the moral laws.  That is subjective.  Yes, each society develops personal obligations to each other and to that society or group.  That is what morality is--how we treat each other and ourselves.  But each society, culture, age has it's own set of obligations, which change with time.  Totally subjective.  Nothing divine is needed.

How would I know crooked if I did not know straight?  Easy.  I know blue because I was shown what it was.  It did not need to be contrasted with it's opposite.  What would that be, anyway?  We do use compare and contrast to make it easier to communicate--it's simply a convention. 

So, to wrap up--I see no evidence of anything supernatural.  No evidence of god--of any kind.  No evidence of invisible beings.  No objective moral laws (other than in a purely personal sense, I suppose)--all laws a subjective.  I see no evidence for any of that.  Whereas, you see the opposite.  And so, for you, what is proof of invisible beings? 
William Blake stated it well, I think:
Both read the Bible,
day and night,
but where I read black, you read white. 

[SGOS]

And how is it that you would know that there are no living beings that are invisible?  By their nature, as immaterial, they wouldn’t necessarily even be susceptible to things like science.

We don't know that there are no living beings that are invisible, but the important point is that we don't know that there are.  We can't point to them, test for them, or see their tracks in the sand.  Just as you can't do any of those things with these alleged supernatural beings, yourself.  Christians contest this, however.  They are convinced they have some gift of insight, unavailable to the rest of us, that allows them to know about the unseen and the unknowable.  Our reaction as atheists, or skeptics, or scientists (for those of us who are) is, "Well ain't that just fine and dandy.  Magic powers!  Ha Ha"

[Solitary]

And how is it that you would know that there are no living beings that are invisible?  By their nature, as immaterial, they wouldn’t necessarily even be susceptible to things like science.

This is absolutely true, but the question is how do you know then if it is true they exist with no material evidence? Can you see them? Then you are hallucinating or have epilepsy . Do you hear them? Then you are schizophrenic. If you can touch them, then you are delusional, and if you believe in them with no evidence, you are not thinking correctly. 

[trdsf]

I’m not aware of calling all atheists joyless nihilistic materialists, but I admit there could be some.  Having said that, such a description doesn’t describe all of the atheists that I’ve met over the years.

Reeeeeally.

Isn't Paganism a bit more hopeful and positive than atheism?  Atheists aren't monolithic of course, but if they are genuine materalists, then you're pretty much left with a deterministic and nihilistic world.  For people that know, perceive or just sense that, it can be pretty depressing.

Granting that you did not explicitly say "all", it is a canard that you have thrown out more than once, implying that atheism is a philosophy of nihilism and depression.  Along with your repeated statements that we "just don't understand".  There is little doubt left by your comments that yes, you mean 'all', yes, you mean 'depressing', yes, you mean 'nihilistic' even if you disclaim use of the actual words.  And if you're going to pull a bait-and-switch, it's probably better to pull it on someone who hasn't got your own reply to them in hand.

You know what?  I'm done playing your word games.  If you can't even recall for yourself the things you've said, and then act like the wronged party when you're called on it, and demand special respect for your position after throwing your scorn out upon mine and questioning my knowledge and reasoning ability because I refuse to automatically agree to your beliefs, fine.

I have better people to debate with, and better conversations to have with them.  You are not an honorable debating opponent.  I hope you become one, but it makes not a whit of difference to me whether or not you ever do, because I'm done with you and with your dishonest tactics.