Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Rock-Star

Honest Question for Atheists

956 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

The Silver Thong

Why do you seek an objective proof of God or the afterlife? You are most likely not going to find any. Isn't faith enough?

No and it shouldn't be. To alter one's life and there interaction with the world around them based on a faith is rather counter productive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

Why do you seek an objective proof of God or the afterlife? You are most likely not going to find any. Isn't faith enough?

Not really, not much is taken on faith, when you get down to it.

Even ephemeral things, like love, are not taken on faith. You believe someone loves you by how they act towards you.

Trust develops after proof of trustworthy behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Thong

Not really, not much is taken on faith, when you get down to it.

Even ephemeral things, like love, are not taken on faith. You believe someone loves you by how they act towards you.

Trust develops after proof of trustworthy behavior.

Well said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blood_Sacrifice

Just to clarify my stance, my post was directed to the believers, not to the skeptics. Skeptics will always look for evidences, so it makes sense why they would like to have objective proof of God. But why are the hard-core believers so keen on "proving" their faith to others? I mean, if you (speaking generally) believe in a God, then you believe in Him, and that's it. Why do many of these believers get so defensive and at times aggressive by attempting to "scientifically" prove ther belief (which is based on solely faith)?

Edited by Blood_Sacrifice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cybele

Hi everyone,

Just so you know my background and where I am coming from, I was raised as a Christian, but throughout my life have tended to drift a little more to the Agnostic side of things. My question is, what is your reason for wanting to believe that there is nothing more to this life? No creator, no afterlife, etc?

One theory that I have heard is that atheists choose to believe in nothing, because they are then not subject to any moral code and can do whatever they want without consequence. Personally this doesn't add up to me. I for one don't see atheists acting like a bunch of hedonistic jerks all the time, in fact it seems to be quite the opposite. Or is it simply that rational thought cannot allow you to believe in something that cannot be scientifically proven? I would love to hear all of your thoughts. Again, this is purely out of curiosity. I fully respect your beliefs whatever they may be. Thank you!

Well, I'm not an atheist, but I do consider myself agnostic.

For me, I don't think it's so much the lack of scientific proof as the complete lack of compelling evidence of any type on a personal or universal level. I mean, everything that was once described as acts of god can be more thorougly understood or more simply explained by science or basic logic that belief in his existence seems, to me, to be totally unecessary and the result of wishful thinking or tradition-driven brainwashing.

I do want to believe, but common sense and Occam's Razor prevent me from doing so.

Edited by Cybele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blood_Sacrifice

Not really, not much is taken on faith, when you get down to it.

Even ephemeral things, like love, are not taken on faith. You believe someone loves you by how they act towards you.

Trust develops after proof of trustworthy behavior.

I was talking about the believers in my first post, not skeptics. They say their worldview is based on faith and then goes on to twist (not all, but many) their scriptures, taking lines out of context etc to meet the demands of science and all. If it's based on faith, then shouldn't faith alone be sufficient for them? Skeptics do not take anything at face value so they are excluded from this category.

As for your example, I agree with it to an extent though I believe a certain degree of faith is necessary. Things like trust is based on faith (though some objective evidence must be there to back that up or else it becomes blind faith), but a degree of faith or belief is always present. Now blind faith - that is wrong and harmful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
----STAR----

Just to clarify my stance, my post was directed to the believers, not to the skeptics. Skeptics will always look for evidences, so it makes sense why they would like to have objective proof of God. But why are the hard-core believers so keen on "proving" their faith to others? I mean, if you (speaking generally) believe in a God, then you believe in Him, and that's it. Why do many of these believers get so defensive and at times aggressive by attempting to "scientifically" prove ther belief (which is based on solely faith)?

I think that there are defensive fundamentalists on both sides of the court.

Re: "skeptics will always look for evidence" - Mystics dedicate their lives to the search for evidence. Athiests look outside, Mystics search within.

I dont understand the people that fixate on proving the Bible to be literally true using flakey science either, after all, "the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life" Corinthians 2, 3:6

However, i do believe that God can be scientifically proven on a subjective personal level, which may not count within the science world, but when you have transcended this level of reality, are you gona care what the science community thinks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D

Prove it..:)

But look guys, you're missing the point, Jesus was TOO BIG to be a myth, the entire nation of Israel and the Roman garrison saw and heard him for 3 years, it's like saying Elvis was a myth, right Elv?

"Uh-huh"

elvis-lip.jpg

Jesus was TOO BIG only in the Bible. He does not exist in external writings. We have no idea who saw or heard him since much of early scripture was edited, inserted, deleted, forged to fit into the doctrine of the early church.

Concerning the building a church on the rock of Peter . . . .

The Peter as the rock upon which Jesus would build his church is a later forgery along with the alleged comment, "Go ye into all the world, and teach

all nations."

Jesus had no idea of forming a church. He made his mission very clear. "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel," and he warned the disciples not to teach to the Gentiles. His dedication to the principles of the synagogue would not have gone so far astray as to imagine the concept of a church.

The "On this Rock" forgery of Matt. xvi, says Reinach, "is obviously an interpolation, made at a period when a church, separated from the synagogue, already existed. In the parallel passages in Mark (vii, 27, 32) and in Luke(ix, 18-22), there is not a word of the primacy of Peter, a detail which

Mark, the disciple of Peter, could hardly have omitted if he had known of it. The interpolation is posterior to the compilation of Luke's gospel."(Orpheus, pp. 224-225.)

As aptly said by Dr. McCabe; "It [the word ecclesia] had no meaning whateveras a religious institution until decades after the death of Jesus Christ. In the year 30 A.D. no one on earth would have known what Jesus meant if he had said that he was going to 'found' an ecclesia or church, and that the powers of darkness would not prevail against it, and so on. It would sound like the talk of the Mad Hatter in Alice in Wonderland." (The Story of Religious Controversy, p. 294.)

Joseph Wheless tells us in Forgeries in Christianity, "Luke" was not present when this monumental pronouncement of the "Rock and Keys" was allegedly made; Peter may have forgotten to tell him of it, or"Luke" may have forgotten that Peter told him. And Peter may have forgotten to tell of it and of his peerless "primacy" to his own "companion" and "interpreter" Mark, or Mark may have forgotten that Peter told him, and thus have failed to record so momentous an event. But John, the "Beloved Disciple" was right there, with Matthew, himself, one of the speakers and hearers in the historic colloquy,—and John totally ignores it. The silence of all three discredits and repudiates it. Moreover, and most significantly, Peter himself, in his two alleged Epistles, has not a word of his tremendous dignity and importance conferred on him by his Master; never once does he describe himself in the pride of priestly humility, "Peter, Servant of the

servants of God," or "Prince of Apostles: or even "Bishop of the Church which sojourns at Rome," or any such to distinguish himself from the common herd of peasant apostles. Peter must have been very modest, even more so than his "Successors."

Furthermore, the official "Acts of the Apostles" never once notes this divinely commissioned "primacy" of Peter; and every other book of the New Testament utterly ignores it. Paul is said to have written a sententious "Epistle to the Romans," and to have written two or three Epistles from Rome, where Peter is supposed to have been, enthroned as divine Vicar of God and Head of the Church Universal; and yet never a word of this tremendous fact; Paul did not know it, or ignores it. The "Epistles of Paul," fourteen

of them, and the "Acts," are replete with defiances of Paul to Peter,—"I withstood him to his face"; and in all the disputes between them, over matters of the faith and the fortunes of the new "Church," not a single one of the Apostles rises in his place and suggests that Peter is Prince and Primate, and that Peter's view of the matters was ex-cathedra the voice of God, and he, having spoken, the matter was settled. Paul, in all his Epistles, never gives a suspicion that he had ever heard, even from Peter, of the latter's superior authority.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
----STAR----

No and it shouldn't be. To alter one's life and there interaction with the world around them based on a faith is rather counter productive.

I find this ironic, as most science today is based upon inductive reasoning.

"Consciousness exists within the body, therefore it can not exist outside of it"

Does the red make the blue true?

The red can be proven, sort of (but i question even that), but the blue has not been proven, so to support it would require an act of faith.

Disclaimer: Not say that the red and blue sentence is what you believe or anything, just an example of reasoning some people use to make my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bracket

The reason why i don't believe is simply that there's an extremely high chance that it's all wrong. I personally think that the mind can be easily fooled. Stories can (and have been) changed, and history has told us that previously believed to be true concepts are actually false after the scientific method is used. Occams Razor basically proves that religion is false. :hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bracket

Prove it..:)

It's a known fact that Josephus was not a Christian and did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah nor proclaim Him as such. Infact it's also known that that "quote" was re-edited by Christians. It is generally not considered to be evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Thong

I find this ironic, as most science today is based upon inductive reasoning.

"Consciousness exists within the body, therefore it can not exist outside of it"

Does the red make the blue true?

The red can be proven, sort of (but i question even that), but the blue has not been proven, so to support it would require an act of faith.

Disclaimer: Not say that the red and blue sentence is what you believe or anything, just an example of reasoning some people use to make my point.

Why? Science is based on quantifiable proofs as faith is based on nothing more than being told to believe.

Consciousness exists within the brain not the body and with out the brain consciousness does not exist. When one dies so does consciousness, it can not be transformed into something that no longer exists. Energy can not be destroyed or created just transformed is what I think you are going for. However our energy and our consciousness are two different things. We do release our energy when we die and it's called decomposition, the gift of life that comes after us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lion6969

Hmmm interesting thread.

Although it's questions for atheists, it seems the thread was almost going to be derailed by debating whether Jesus existed. Luckily it dint.

Anyway I have a few questions, I will start with this one.

Where do atheists derive their morals and values from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shadowhive

Hi everyone,

Just so you know my background and where I am coming from, I was raised as a Christian, but throughout my life have tended to drift a little more to the Agnostic side of things. My question is, what is your reason for wanting to believe that there is nothing more to this life? No creator, no afterlife, etc?

One theory that I have heard is that atheists choose to believe in nothing, because they are then not subject to any moral code and can do whatever they want without consequence. Personally this doesn't add up to me. I for one don't see atheists acting like a bunch of hedonistic jerks all the time, in fact it seems to be quite the opposite. Or is it simply that rational thought cannot allow you to believe in something that cannot be scientifically proven? I would love to hear all of your thoughts. Again, this is purely out of curiosity. I fully respect your beliefs whatever they may be. Thank you!

I think the main reason is that atheists want proof. To me that seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to want. Religious people will always, annoyingly, hold up their holy scriptures as proof but those are just books written by man. As such they ae subject to the same flaws as... well anything written by man. Also of course the holy scripture of x religion is going to support it, because that's what the relgion is based on.

Secondly there's this thing about morality. Most religions are old and, as such, they can't move with the times. Some 'morals' applied then but don't now. Issues such as sex, contraception, homosexuality, alcohol etc are issues that get stuck because certain religions believe they have the 'moral high ground' when they don't. So they stall and make things worse for the rest of us just because they can.

You don't need to believe in god or hell to be a good person.

Personally I'm agnostic. I don't know what god is or wants or even if such an entity exists. I don't really understand why religions want to dictate their stuff as 'god's word' when god is unknowable. I do believe in the afterlife, but it's more of a comfort kinda thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ambelamba

I am not really an atheist. (tried though. Didn't work out for me pretty well.) But I don't believe in afterlife because the whole mindset that made me believe in afterlife cost a lot from me, including my own life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bracket

Where do atheists derive their morals and values from?

Does it matter? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ambelamba

Hmmm interesting thread.

Although it's questions for atheists, it seems the thread was almost going to be derailed by debating whether Jesus existed. Luckily it dint.

Anyway I have a few questions, I will start with this one.

Where do atheists derive their morals and values from?

Everything I see & learn and every experience I have from everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cybele

Where do atheists derive their morals and values from?

From their parents, friends, community and from experience in general, just as most Christians do. It's bizarre how some people think that morals need to be learned from a 2,000 year old book which very often contradicts itself and sometimes exhorts practices and values which would be considered either reprehensible or illegal in most modern cultures.

Edited by Cybele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

Where do atheists derive their morals and values from?

The society they're raised in, like pretty much everyone else.

Remember, and I'm not stating it to be antagonistic, just to make the point, that slavery and lack of equal rites for women were backed by religious doctrine from the Bible, until later people decided it was not moral.

Again, using religious passages.

Ultimately, people don't derive their morals from religion, though it may be used to support them, they develop their morals from society.

Which, if anything, should make you think more about yourself and what you hold as morals.

Ultimately, though,I think that phrases like "Do unto others as you would have done to you." are good guides to live by. (And ultimately predates Jesus.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Godel

This is my virgin post.. So, please be gentle with me.. :blush:

I was raised atheist and have raised one atheist child to adulthood and two more little ones at home being taught the same... My children probably know more about religion that any "average religious person" since we live in a very religious Catholic community and they are constantly peppering me with questions. I simply lead them to the correct texts and then cross reference them to other established religions to show that there really aren't any true religions out there with original ideas, but more like a collection of each others ideas. While that's all fine and dandy, the various religious sects murder and maim each other because their god is better than the other..... So, to say religious people have morals is a stretch for me. (Haven't seen any atheists on a crusade or ethnic cleansing yet..)

The "where do atheists get their morals?" question is answered somewhat easily. It's all based on having respect for yourself and others. Thinking through the "causality" of your actions and then being prepared to suffer the outcome. That's it... Christians call it "Do unto others...", but the phrase can be found thousands of years and numerous religions before Christ supposedly existed.. Overall, it's all about being cognisant of how people perceive you and what legacy you want to leave behind. My goal is that 5 generations from now my family will see my name and remember how good of a person I was... At that point, I will have achieved everlasting life and will be in my "heavenly place" in the minds of those who remember me... I know it sounds weird or maybe somewhat ancient Egyptian, but I think how we are remembered is the only afterlife we have to look forward to... And I'm perfectly happy with that..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aubrienne_Ellyrias

hello just gna answer your question.

i was from a catholic background till the age 14 thats when i decided it was okay to consider myself an athiest. my family always taught me to fear those things that werent of god or just didnt seem normal to our beliefs so i did always grw up afraid. but not all athiest choose to become,some are just born that way, if ur fam never beleived in anythign then why would u? unless some religious person got to you or u decided to explore other religions to want to fit one

i chose to not beleive at a very young age, so i guess its harder when ur an adult and your really into it and to all the sudden stop. bein the way i am includes not worying about that called "religion" whatsoever, its never a an important topic to me. guess its kinda a belief, but i dont feel it either because simply god isnt even a topic important enough or does it even have that big a impact in my life, it just isnt a part of my life i guess, and that might be hard for u to even understand or to even imagine living a life with no god lol my dad makes it sound so terrible "a life with no god in your heart!" "o.m.g"..

i think since the opposite of god is satan and satan is alway stryin to make u turn against god, thats probly why religious ppl think we are evil or satan angels or w.e. u might wonder why did they stop beleivein? but like i said thats not even part of my thoughts.

i do like gettin on this section on the forum though sometimes to debate someone or to be a little evil witch and just mess around! but honestly id never take a thread as serious as most of these ppl do lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Irelandalucia

Sorry to disappoint you guys but the actuality of Jesus was recorded by an acknowledged Roman Historian called Josephus

This can be researched on the web. I Think the Tome is called Antiquities of the Jews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fullywired

Sorry to disappoint you guys but the actuality of Jesus was recorded by an acknowledged Roman Historian called Josephus

This can be researched on the web. I Think the Tome is called Antiquities of the Jews.

I think you need more research ,the Josephus piece was discredited by lots of historians and quite a few theologians as being a later "insertion" This subject has been thrashed out in this forum numerous times ,You brought nothing new to the table

fullywired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waymarker
...Josephus.... it's also known that that "quote" was re-edited by Christians..

Ha ha, true Christians don't re-edit anything because they're truth-junkies, that's why the Bible has come down to us through the centuries warts and all with its contradictions and inconsistencies unedited, uncensored and untouched, nobody's tried to pretty it up in any way..:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waymarker
..i think since the opposite of god is satan and satan is alway stryin to make u turn against god..

Yes and he uses atheists and nonchristians like ventriloquists dummies to spout anti-christian propaganda.

Notice how much hate and venom is hurled at Christianity and not at any other religion.

That's because Christianity is the ONLY religion that Satan fears and hates; he knows all the rest are absolutely no threat to him at all.

Remember, Satan is not that silly horns-and-forked-tail stereotype, rather he's sly and cunning like a snake, always watching, scheming, planning and operating in stealth mode to worm his way into peoples heads-

satan.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.