10 Questions for Atheists and What do Atheists Believe:

Having been around these boards on and off for a couple of years now, I wanted to pose 10 question which I feel summarize the bulk of conversations on these boards. The following questions were taken from a list compiled on from tektonics.org, and I'm curious to hears the responses.

10 Questions for Atheists:​

1. Why do you consistently deny the existence of God because you personally have never seen Him, but reject out of hand personal testimony from theists who claim to have experienced God as a reality in their lives?
   
   
2. Why do you believe that if something cannot be touched, seen, heard, or measured in some way, then it must not exist… yet you fail to see the irony of your calling Christians "narrow-minded"?
   
   
3. Why do you say that there is no God and that those who believe in God do so in blind faith, when your claim that there is no God also rests on blind faith?
   
   
4. Why do you believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was "obviously a product of biological evolution"? It seems the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed.
   
   
5. Why do you insist that science is completely partial to all ideas, is not dogmatic and researches all possibilities… except creationism and/or intelligent design?
   
   
6. How can you think that religious wars have killed more people than any other kind of war, even though the largest wars of the last 200 years (World War I and II, Civil War, etc.) had no discernable religious causes at all?
   
   
7. Why do you think that 'mission statements' on Christian websites proves the authors are biased which automatically renders the material on those sites weak and unscholarly, yet you see no problem with 'mission statements' glorifying naturalism found on atheistic websites?
   
   
8. Why do you feel that Christians who go into atheist chat rooms are "shoving their beliefs down people's throats", and that atheists who go into Christian chat rooms are only trying to educate?
   
   
9. Why do you deny that someone can possibly know they know the truth ('It's just belief, not knowledge,") while at the same time claiming to know the truth yourself?
   
   
10. And why do you insist that the historical data is too sparse to know anything about the ancient world, but then proceed to tell us what 'actually happened' anyway?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

1. Their reality is not my reality. I deny God because I do not need God. I have the power of will to be my own God, I don't need to bow before others

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you were offered a great job and to get it all you had to do is bow. Then what would you do?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

if you were told things literally and materialistically explained down to physics of everything. Than what would you do?

if bowing once to gain advantage over the other later is inevitable, than such shall be done

 

Because I am by nature a skeptic, I never take anyones word for truth. If they think god has spoken to them, good for them. No god has ever spoken to me.

Such is the difference of those who believe based on faith and those who want proof.

The claim that there is no god is based on the fact that there is as of yet no scientific proof of god. That is the basis for my belief, its not blind its just cynnical.

Because..computers....planes...calculators etc where designed. Besides the theory that we were magically created by an omnipotent being, it just seems like the best logical choice, unless of course you have proof otherwise?

To the best of my knowledge there are those out their who try to blend creationism with science. More power to them.

They did however use a religious minority groupa as scapegoats and a reason to murder millions of people.

Who the hell ever said this? If your mission statement clearly states your bias then thats what it does. It works both ways.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yet again who said this? this is called an assumption.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What truth are we talking about? I have never claimed to know the "truth"

Its called discussing your views, are we shoving our historical views down your throat too by telling you that there are alternatives to what everyone was brought up to believe?


Anyways. have a nice day

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

These questions make suggestions about atheist’s beliefs but there is little here that reflects the atheist position.

These implications seem to be derived from what theists “think” atheists believe.

 

yes, assuming what someone believes without actually asking them is teh lame.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

[*]Why do you consistently deny the existence of God because you personally have never seen Him, but reject out of hand personal testimony from theists who claim to have experienced God as a reality in their lives? The same reason I do not believe in unicorns. As for experience, I could claim to have experienced seeing a unicorn, that does not make it true.


[*]Why do you believe that if something cannot be touched, seen, heard, or measured in some way, then it must not exist… yet you fail to see the irony of your calling Christians "narrow-minded"? Because if there's no evidence for something people can just make up any fantasy they like and call it fact. I could decide that the world is ruled by 2 huge pink scorpions, then go around calling people narrow minded for not believing in them.


[*]Why do you say that there is no God and that those who believe in God do so in blind faith, when your claim that there is no God also rests on blind faith? I believe in things when I see some kind of evidence. When there's evidence for unicorns, I'll start believing in them. When there's evidence for God, I'll do likewise. Until then I'm not going to just believe in things because someone says I should.


[*]Why do you believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were "all obviously designed," yet the human body, being intricately more complex was "obviously a product of biological evolution"? It seems the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the "fact" that it was not designed. When did I say that?


[*]Why do you insist that science is completely partial to all ideas, is not dogmatic and researches all possibilities… except creationism and/or intelligent design? Did I say that?


[*]How can you think that religious wars have killed more people than any other kind of war, even though the largest wars of the last 200 years (World War I and II, Civil War, etc.) had no discernable religious causes at all? Did I say that?

[*]Why do you think that 'mission statements' on Christian websites proves the authors are biased which automatically renders the material on those sites weak and unscholarly, yet you see no problem with 'mission statements' glorifying naturalism found on atheistic websites? I have never said I think that.

[*]Why do you feel that Christians who go into atheist chat rooms are "shoving their beliefs down people's throats", and that atheists who go into Christian chat rooms are only trying to educate? I have never said that. [flames deleted]

[*]Why do you deny that someone can possibly know they know the truth ('It's just belief, not knowledge,") while at the same time claiming to know the truth yourself? I have never said that either. Stop attacking all atheists because of a few pushy ones, [Insult deleted].


[*]And why do you insist that the historical data is too sparse to know anything about the ancient world, but then proceed to tell us what 'actually happened' anyway? I have never done that either. [flame deleted].

 

Ggazoo,

These questions make suggestions about atheist’s beliefs but there is little here that reflects the atheist position.

These implications seem to be derived from what theists “think” atheists believe.

Credibility. Where is there any reason to even consider that there could be a super being capable of creating universes? There is absolutely no precedent or even remote evidence that anything so fantastic might be possible.

They cannot show that what they claim is any different from the vastly more credible probability of self delusion.

Atheists don’t claim that.

Credibility. Why consider the God concept any different to total fantasy?

Why suggest that something even more complex like a creator of the universe would be exempt from being designed. If the argument is that anything complex needs a designer then the creationists need to explain who designed their creator. If they can’t then the argument that complexity must have a designer has no merit.

ID isn’t science, it’s theology. The question is also taken from the layman’s (or religionist’s) erroneous perspective of how science operates.

Not sure what this has to do with people believing fantasies are true.

Several subjective emotive statements there that needs to be corrected before a meaningful answer can be applied. Every case needs to be examined on its own merit.

I suspect this might happen in some cases, but here the implication is that it is general and I’m not sure that biased perspective is true.

Most informed atheists don’t claim to know the truth. But how can someone know the truth without independent verification? I.e. how do they know their belief is not simply self delusion, if there is no evidence to the contrary?

Most informed atheists don’t do that.

 

Because I cannot share a personal experience. I have no doubt these people are sincere in their reports of experiencing something, but until there is something other than their personal testimony to go on, there is no compelling reason to believe it myself. People experience all kinds of things in various states of consciousness. They also interpret their experience within the cultural context they are familiar with. Even if I acknowledge they experienced something, I am still just taking their word as to their interpretation of it. People are just as passionate sometimes about ghosts and seeing dead loved ones. The human mind is easily tricked, which is why science is valuable for sorting things out.

I would never say that the phenomenon doesn't exist, but if there can be no measurement, then what information besides personal testimony is there to go on. (see above for why personal testimony is unreliable).

It isn't based on "blind faith", it's based on knowledge of human nature, and the complete lack of evidence of a creator. I don't know there isn't a God, but I think there is an extremely low probability of there being one, so low as to be for all purposes identical to zero.

The human body shows signs that it wasn't designed, but rather grew from previous forms- vestigal organs, poor engineering solutions, and the fact that no living structure exists which shows irreducable complexity.

Intelligent design has been analyzed with science, and it falls short.

It's still true. And then there's Islamic terrorism.

I am not familiar with such statements, but if they are based on an ancient book, then they are mostly just superstition and biased in favor of a theology.

? I don't mind Christians doing so, but their talk is based on faith, not verifiable knowledge.

Scientific truth is based on more than faith.

There are scholarly interpretations of historical documents, and then there are religious ones, clouded by belief.

 

dang visceral! Why so angry?

 

I don't know what happened and would never presume to tell you what really happened. Scientists have found proof of some of the events in the bible and I have no problem believing parts of those events. But for the bible to be the only source of historical data is stupid.

And the questions you ask are valid. There are a lot of atheists out there who are no better than christians in there need to convert.

 

Which GOD?
Theist have personally claimed to experience Zeus, Buddha, various modern day Japanese Gods, Goddesses, etc… Which one are you talking about????

Do you deny the existence of the great flying spaghetti monster?

Also, how do you know It’s a “Him”. Does He have a penis? If so why? Does It f*ck? Who? If not then lets just call It an IT.

I never said it MUST NOT exist. Just that I lack a belief in It’s existence. Much like you probably lack a belief in Zeus.

(PS: I like your use of IT

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

Firstly – I never said there is NO GOD. I simply lack a belief in IT.

Do you say there are NO Goddesses? Why?
Do you say there are no other Gods? Why?
Do you lack a belief that Mohammad was the last Prophet? Why?

Yes, it also “seems” that the Earth is flat. But it’s not flat, it’s round and we evolved.

Science is a method. It can not measure ID so ID is outside of the realm that is Science.

I simply maintain that people can be motivated by religion to go to war and kill other people. I’m sure you agree.
Historically, most people went to war over trying to make more money or gain land (see feudal Japan and the Samurai for an example, Ancient Roma, the Mongolians conquests, the Arabs that happen to be Muslims conquests, etc.. )

If they are published in scientific reputable journals I am happy to read them. I will also not spend my time reading atheists dribble not published in peer reviewed scientific journals.

Hell, even when I do read peer reviewed articles, I take them with a BIG dose of salt!

I don’t’ feel like that. This is a debate so lets debate.

I never claimed to know the truth – I simply lack a belief in God much like you lack a beleif in Goddesses.

You AND I are atheistic for many many many many many Gods and Goddesses.



What about your belief ggazoo?

Does the possibility exist that there is NO GOD?

I never said that.


Hope that answered your questions

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Michael

 

I see that having a belief is necessary for many people. It doesn't matter to me if they want to believe in eggplants created all life, that's their right to think so. I just am upset when those who believe in something other that what I do, which is in myself, they tend to want to make whatever their belief is as a fact. Making others to believe in something other than what they want to isn't a way to be tolerant but only forces people into believing them or else.

 

'Personal testimony' does not ultimately amount to much. Your argument seems to imply that you believe in alien abduction because people claim to have been abducted by them, you believe in the Loch Ness monster because people claim to have seen it and so on and so forth.

You should be able to answer the question quite sufficiently yourself. To think it's somehow different for your claims would show you're a hypocrite.

The fact of the matter is that you wont find many atheists saying "it must not exist". Evidence however is important to support claims, be it that a god exists or that leprechauns exist. You would demand it in any other situation and to think its any different in this one would show you to be a hypocrite.

It is actually the theist that declares boldly with pride that his belief in god/s is a matter of faith. What is your complaint? As to the first part of your question, you'll find few atheists saying there is no god but that there is no evidence to suggest there is. Work out the difference.

This would lead to a long answer and discussion that is probably inapropriate here. We could examine ID, (incompetent design) - for instance the fact that the human eye has a blind spot.. It's idiotic to think the universes greatest intellect made such a blunder. From there we would get into adaptation and evolution, genetics etc etc and so on.

Creationism does not qualify as science. That's not sciences fault.

Religion kills.. constantly and has done since day 1. People, whether religious or not will fight battles - but very few of those battles are over something quite as stupid as which sky fairy we should bow down to.

An example in this instance would be helpful. I did indeed claim bias when Sandy pasted a link claiming that religious people are happier than atheists because it was on a christian website. Nobody can deny the bias there. Any other examples?

The question isn't applicable.

With all due respect but it is the theist that uses the word "belief". I've always found that quite amusing personally. Can you honestly piss and whine when you say "I believe" instead of "I know"?

What? There's plenty of data, theists tend to close their eyes to any data that conflicts with their faith.

 

You can't see wind, and yet, you see its affects on the world. You also cannot see God, but you can see his affects on the world. Also, if you were to hear a bang, and ask "who did that?" You would not accept the answer "Oh, it just happened." So how could the beginning of the world happen. There's a creator of everything, and everyone. Except for God Himself.

 

Why dont you answer the questions given before asking your own?

 

"Who did that?" is a leading question, like "when did you stop beating your wife?". It assumes a who, when anything that can be called a who only appeared on Earth around 2 million years ago.

 

Which 'God'?

Truth is the conformity of a concept or notion in the mind to actual reality.
Evidence, on the other hand, is a demonstration that a given reality is valid. Testimony is not a demonstration (i.e. not credible).

That is not a belief I hold.

Which 'God'?

It's not a belief. I know those products are designed because people can be observed to design those things and educate other people how to design them.

It's not a belief. I know life on earth is a product of biologial evolution because it can be demsontrated by observing reality.

It seems more like flawed thinking.

Can you show me where Atheists insist that?

Creationism and Intelligent Design are not science. They are Theology.

That is not my opinion.

I don't visit such sites very often and I suspect that religious sites use a 'God' as an authority while non-religious sites use 'Reality' as an authority. Seeing as the latter is the only one with credibility, the former becomes far less credible.

Because they issue a high degree of dishonesty.

Because they issue a high degree of honesty.

"The" truth?

That's not my opinion.