Atheism vs. christianty

I have looked through the forums in faith, spirituality & Theology and mostly what I have seen is christians posting and getting attacked by atheist and atheist posting being lecured by christians.

So, I decided to make a thread purely for the arguement of christianity vs. Atheism. This is what most of the threads are turned into anyway.

Discovered some new evidence that convinces all but the most devote christians that god does not exist? Post it here.

Found something that only divine powers can explain? post away.

Oh my....
Well time to hide in the bunker.

Seriously, this thread will likely become very...heated shall we say.

I don't understand the Christianity vs. atheism duality emergent in our society today... it seems like a reflection of the horribly outdated two-party political system we cling to so feebly.

A lot of atheists don't take the time to look into lesser-known religions before denouncing the possiblity of a higher power entirely. I was an atheist myself, for some time, until I came to the (highly personal) conclusion that while there may be an extant higher power, it is probably nothing like anything a human could understand, relate to, or hope to speak for, and is therefore largely irrelevant to our lives.

Those that hold on to Christianity these days tend to do so because they were born into the faith, and were taught to view reality in the Christian paradigm since their early lives. I don't agree with or respect those that attack Christianity with any passion, but I don't see it as a viable belief system either.

So this whole debate doesn't make sense to me. Maybe a sharper mind than mine can explain to me why these two views on religious faith are the predominant ones today.

Originally posted by The Parallelogram
until I came to the (highly personal) conclusion that while there may be an extant higher power, it is probably nothing like anything a human could understand, relate to, or hope to speak for, and is therefore largely irrelevant to our lives.

You're probably more agnostic than atheist in that case then.

...that humans have an innate desire to be a part of a collective and to justify their membership in that collective, at least in part, by having a convenient opposing collective at which to hurl derision.

This seems to be particularly true for those who, for whatever reason, favor simple answers for complex questions.

Initially, it appears that people ascribe to one or another simplistic answer in order to avoid the messy business of actually thinking out an answer of their own, or, worse yet, discovering that there are no solid answers. They find kinship with all those who have chosen the same answer, and that lends them support, but they still can't be entirely sure of the validity of their answer. Since there's no objective evidence to support their chosen answer, they instead look around and find people who believe the opposite answer and begin to attack them and their answer. Every time that they can pick a hole in the opposition's answer, that at least gives the appearance of supporting their own answer.

I think that this duality manifests itself both in religion and in politics because both are fields in which simple answers are proposed for complex problems, and generally with little or no objective evidence to support them. With a lack of real evidence to support their simplistic answers, people decide that this or that party is the superior one, just as they decide that this or that religious viewpoint is the superior one, and, in the face of a continuing lack of evidence to support that decision, they're relegated to attempting to support their choice by finding fault with the opposition's choice.

The truth seems to be that the universe and our existence in it are both enormously complex and poorly understood, and all too many people can't or won't accept that. They need the universe to be simple and straightforward. They need to have absolute right and absolute wrong-- the guys in the white hats and the guys in the black hats. And when their simple and straightforward view turns out to be insufficient, they can avoid having to really question it by simply focusing on how insufficient the oppostion view is.

That's really why religion and politics are both notoriously contentious issues-- it's easier to demonstrate that the other side is wrong than it is to demonstrate that one's own side is right, so that becomes the focus.

So true Bob, but another issue in this forum as in many others is that people attacks other people's beliefs by taking individual examples and rubbing it in the other groups faces in a terrible fashion, and by doing that they are not making a point; they're only offending the other group, and this is one of the advantages you have on the internet: no matter what an ******* you are you'll always get away with it untouched.


Here's the format of this topic:

:bash: To me

:bash: To you

To you

To me

The truth seems to be that the universe and our existence in it are both enormously complex and poorly understood, and all too many people can't or won't accept that. They need the universe to be simple and straightforward. They need to have absolute right and absolute wrong-- the guys in the white hats and the guys in the black hats. And when their simple and straightforward view turns out to be insufficient, they can avoid having to really question it by simply focusing on how insufficient the oppostion view is.

So true.....


It goes both ways. People of Christian faith believe that there is a god, he is all powerfull and DOES exist, no quetions asked.

Athiests seem to believe that it's unscientific to believe in a higher power, so therefore God does NOT exist, no quetions asked.


They are both just based on theories.


[edit on 21-1-2006 by Spreadthetruth]

Lets say you have a friend who tells you they have a dad. Over the years they tell you about there dad and some of the things he says and does. But you have never seen their dad or heard his voice.

Then someone else gives you some conflicting evidence about this person's dad. This person says they have never met him either and they don't believe he's alive.

You have doubt in your mind because you only have second hand information about your friend's dad. You begin to question his existence and think they are lying.

You kinda mention this to your friend and they tell you that they want to take you to meet him so you can see him and he can talk and you can talk to him and then all doubt about the truth of his existence can be gone.

Once you hear their father's voice and see him you believe he's real.

It's the same way with God. Once you hear His voice(not audibly but in your spirit, although He could talk audibly to you if He wants too. I've never had that happen to this point in time) and you talk with Him and "see" (through creation and events taking place in your life and answered prayer) that He exists, you believe also.

Since I am speaking from the christian perspective, this is possible through Jesus Christ.

[edit on 21-1-2006 by dbrandt]

[edit on 21-1-2006 by dbrandt]

Originally posted by The Parallelogram
...I came to the (highly personal) conclusion that while there may be an extant higher power, it is probably nothing like anything a human could understand, relate to, or hope to speak for, and is therefore largely irrelevant to our lives.

If you don't even know whether there is a higher power, how can you determine it is unknowable or irrelevant?

That's pretty simple, actually, Spamandham; I believe this because I've never seen evidence of a God or its intervention, and therefore I think that if there is one, it doesn't really have much truck with humanity.

Originally posted by dbrandt
Lets say you have a friend who tells you they have a dad. Over the years they tell you about there dad and some of the things he says and does. But you have never seen their dad or heard his voice.

You know that your friend had a dad, because a father is required as part of the procreation process and your friend clearly exists. The claim of having a father is not only ordinary, but even necessary.

Further, since it has been established your friend has/had a father, if your friend has otherwise proven himself to be honest, it is perfectly reasonable to simply take him at his word. It's unreasonable not to trust him if he has proven themselves trustworthy and what he is telling you is not extraordinary because (1) you friend reasonably knows about his father firsthand, (2) having a father is ordinary, and (3) your friend is trustworthy.

Change the analogy to your friend telling you about his friend's father who neither of you have met. The friend recalls his friend telling him that the father invented the internet (and his friend's father is not Al Gore). You want to meet the friend of a friend's father, but excuses are always made why that isn't possible. Is it reasonable to simply accept that the friend's friend's father invented the internet even though your friend is trustworthy and you know the internet was in fact invented? This is the case where your friend, even though he is honest and the claim is ordinary (after all, someone had to have invented the internet) is not a reliable witness.

Change the analogy to an invisible dragon that your friend has told you he has living in his garage. Is it still reasonable to simply take him at his word? This is the case where the friend is trustworthy, but the claim is extraordinary.

Change it again. Suppose your friend is known to have a problem keeping fantasy and reality separate and is telling you about his dad. But when you want to meet his dad, he keeps coming up with excuses why it isn't possible. Is it reasonble to simply take him at his word?

Now combine these. Suppose your friend lived in a land where myths and legends were simply accepted uncritically. Suppose further your friend wrote a book about an invisible dragon based on what he had heard others tell him about the dragon, and insists it is true and even writes that the book itself was inspired by the dragon.

How reasonable would it be for you to accept the writings of this book knowing that the claim is extraordinary, the friend is not reliable because he has a problem distinguishing between myth/legend and reality, and his information is second hand?

Originally posted by spamandham
Change the analogy to your friend telling you about his friend's father who neither of you have met.

Or change the analogy to your friend telling you that he believes he has a father, but has never met him or talked to him and that his father is your father, too.

I don't have any problem with the friend believing he has a father, but leave me out of it. If I have a father, it's nobody else's business.

Honestly, I don't care what other people believe or if they think I'm right or wrong in my beliefs. Trying to find and prove the one real truth about God has gotten many people killed in this world.

Part of believing in God is entering another aspect to a person's life, the spiritual part. Some have trouble doing this. If they can't see it then they won't believe it. Right now faith is required to "see" God, but someday we are promised that that faith will be turned to sight(literal).

[edit on 21-1-2006 by dbrandt]

Originally posted by dbrandt
Part of believing in God is entering another aspect to a person's life, the spiritual part. Some have trouble doing this. If they can't see it then they won't believe it. Right now faith is required to "see" God, but someday we are promised that that faith will be turned to sight(literal).

[edit on 21-1-2006 by dbrandt]

but not all spirituality turns to a belief in god.

i'm quite the spiritual person, being a buddhist and all, so i'm going to be the neutral party here. i turned away from the typical theistic beliefs through my spirituality and moved to a philosophy. i only say i'm a buddhist because it's the easiest way to explain my personal spiritual belief in a philosophy with no specific doctrines or dogmas.

but i think christianity vs atheism comes out in society because of how prevalent christianity is in the world. 2 BILLION people are christian on this planet, so it's the easiest system of beliefs for atheists to go after.

could it be that unlike other religions christianity is shoved in our faces by christians constantly. could it be that early on it was spread thru the blade of a sword. that most christians have this im so high and mighty complex that just inst very christ like.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

but not all spirituality turns to a belief in god.

i'm quite the spiritual person, being a buddhist and all, so i'm going to be the neutral party here. i turned away from the typical theistic beliefs through my spirituality and moved to a philosophy. i only say i'm a buddhist because it's the easiest way to explain my personal spiritual belief in a philosophy with no specific doctrines or dogmas.

but i think christianity vs atheism comes out in society because of how prevalent christianity is in the world. 2 BILLION people are christian on this planet, so it's the easiest system of beliefs for atheists to go after.

I agree not all spirituality leads to the one and only God. But everyone is placing their faith in something. Example, The atheist, there is not God so I can live and answer to myself cause their is no higher power.

I have heard the 2 billion people are christians thing also. Alot of these 2 billion have never made the committment to Christ. It's in name only. 2 billion are not real christians. Only those who have accepted Christ and really meant it are christians.

Originally posted by plague
could it be that unlike other religions christianity is shoved in our faces by christians constantly. could it be that early on it was spread thru the blade of a sword. that most christians have this im so high and mighty complex that just inst very christ like.

You are looking at the wrong one as your role model. Jesus Christ is the role model for christianity, He is sinless.

Don't make any believer your role model, because you will be disappointed. Christians can still sin and still do sometimes. Billy Graham has said some things that I don't agree with, so I am not trusting in Him, I am trusting Jesus Christ.



[edit on 21-1-2006 by dbrandt]

Originally posted by dbrandt

Originally posted by plague
could it be that unlike other religions christianity is shoved in our faces by christians constantly. could it be that early on it was spread thru the blade of a sword. that most christians have this im so high and mighty complex that just inst very christ like.

You are looking at the wrong one as your role model. Jesus Christ is the role model for christianity, He is sinless.

Don't make any believer your role model, because you will be disappointed. Christians can still sin and still do sometimes. Billy Graham has said some things that I don't agree with, so I am not trusting in Him, I am trusting Jesus Christ.



[edit on 21-1-2006 by dbrandt]

im not looking for role models. i have them already....his swami prabhupada and ghandi. i was actual just answering as to why athiest attack christians and why christianity was so wide spread.

Originally posted by dbrandt
I agree not all spirituality leads to the one and only God. But everyone is placing their faith in something. Example, The atheist, there is not God so I can live and answer to myself cause their is no higher power.

Atheism does not necessarily imply belief in the nonexistence of gods, it only necessarily implies nonbelief in gods. Before we can discuss the existence of your god, it needs a definition.

Originally posted by dbrandt
Only those who have accepted Christ and really meant it are christians.

Yes, we all know you are the authority on what is a 'christain'. :shk:

Originally posted by plague
could it be that unlike other religions christianity is shoved in our faces by christians constantly. could it be that early on it was spread thru the blade of a sword. that most christians have this im so high and mighty complex that just inst very christ like.

Those posting on this site are predominantly from heavily Christian places. It seems natural that Christianity would thus be singled out by those who profess disbelief. I suppose if this was a hindi language site, Hindu would be the target.