It bothers me when atheists...

[paulo75]

I've had a few atheist friends, and I've also been to a few messages boards. There are a number of things that atheists say which always make me laugh, so I thought that I'd share a few. Feel free to add more.

"You're delusional."

"Your belief in an invisible God is a sign of mental illness"

"Where's your evidence?"

"..pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters are more likely..."

"...Richard Dawkins PROVED that..."

Those are just a few. Who's got more?

 

[Hugo]

If you are familiar with the doltish ways of atheism on the web, this list will surely amuse:

http://www.tektonics.org/parody/fundyath.html

It can also be observed that atheists have an uncanny obsession with accusing others of dishonesty.

To add a few more that I frequently run into:

"James Dobson is immoral."

"'Supernatural' should be removed from the dictionary."

"Romney and Huckabee are fascists."

"Sigh"

"There are fewer atheists in prison than..."

 

[Dunamite]

Atheists do not bother me. I used to be one.

Christians and atheists do have a point to begin dialog. The atheist has considered the idea of God and rejected him. This gives a starting point. It is the person who refuses to think about the idea of God that is hard to witness to.

Once you know the basis for their rejection then you can begin discussions. Patience, prayer and being calm are all essential. You can not let yourself be carried away by emotion or to get dragged into heated debates. Being calm and poised is very disarming in itself.

They expect you to be argumentative and to become emotional. This plays into their hands. They can call you delusional but it does not make you delusional unless you play into their hands. Nobody can deny personal experience. They also cannot discount easily the independent experience of others that confirms your own experience.

If someone is coming from a scientific, rationalist or empiricist background then you had better not go into the discussion without preparing well. Never try to bluff or pretend that you can beat them on their home ground. It serves no purpose than to undermine your authority.

There are many scientists who are men and women of faith. There are several good books on this subject, but prepare for heavy slogging because they talk at a very high level. Basically, science corroborates the existence of God. He is a mathematical entity, if nothing else, equal to 1, called the Singularity. This is based on quantum physics and what happens in space and time as we approach infinity. It is a surprising find and nobody knows quite what to do with it. What it means is that something exists beyond the universe outside of the space-time continuum. If nothing else it will get them talking.

Evolution is another area of discussion. The problem is that few Christians truly understand evolution and make no effort to understand it. It goes against their sensibilities (unnecessarily) and so they reject it without knowing what it is about.

No matter which direction they are coming from there are some good avenues of discussion. C. S. Lewis' Mere Christianity is good for a philosophical approach. The idea is to keep asking questions until they cannot answer. They have built themselves an elaborate house of cards which you know is false, because you believe that there is a God. You have to get them to the point that they can see for themselves that they too have built up a belief system based on faith. Then their argument has no more merit than yours. In fact yours has more merit because you can answer the fundamental questions. Why are we here? How did the universe get formed? What is human suffering? etc.

It isn't easy to witness to an atheist, but don't be brow beaten by taunts and accusations. You can stand on your own two feet and hold your head up high in any discussion, if you are adequately prepared. At some point be prepared to break off the discussion. It is not your job to bring anyone to salvation. It is the job of the Holy Spirit. He will pick up where you left off using someone else.
Blessings,
Dunamite

 

[paulo75]

Good post.

Atheists do not bother me. I used to be one.

They don't bother me either... it's some of the things that many atheists say which bothers me.

Evolution is another area of discussion. The problem is that few Christians truly understand evolution and make no effort to understand it. It goes against their sensibilities (unnecessarily) and so they reject it without knowing what it is about.

The jury is still out for me in terms of evolution. I've read many papers which dicusss evolution as a theory and nothing more. I don't think it's any more scientific fact than it's not, but you're right, that's a whole other discussion. :

 

[ChristineES]

Atheists don't really bother me either but they do say things like(some of them, anyway) :

All wars are caused by religion

Religion causes people to have warped morals

All Christians are bigots

Christians and other religious people are not as smart as atheists.

And things similar.
:

 

[handy]

I guess the one thing I've seen of athiests (not the one's I know personally, but many of the one's who like net forums, is the attitude that all folks that have faith in God are biased, and that they are always unbiased in their opinions.

 

[Dunamite]

Atheists don't really bother me either but they do say things like(some of them, anyway) :

All wars are caused by religion

Religion causes people to have warped morals

All Christians are bigots

Christians and other religious people are not as smart as atheists.

And things similar.
:

Most wars are caused by pursuit of money and greed. Maybe they should blame governments or capitalism. We are always looking to blame someone. Ultimately the person that you finger is telling. It shows what ax you have to grind. This person chose religion, but he could have chosen others.

Religion does not cause warped morals. Warped morals are due to immorality, not religion. Immorality is due to sin. Sin is living outside the will of God. God is good and righteous and cannot sin or be immoral. Therefore, problem is not one of religion, but one of people. People are weak and prone to sin. Immorality results from living by one's own standards and ignoring God's.

All Christians are not bigots. Many Christians are doing good, caring for the poor and the sick in the third world for entirely altruistic reasons. They are not being paid to do it. Some Christians are bigots, but so are many non-Christians. Bigotry comes from a lack of understanding and fear. These are not Christian traits. We are taught not to fear. However, we are not immune to these things. Christians are not any better than anyone else. We are just forgiven.

Some Christians are as smart as atheists. Some are smarter. Einstein believed in God and he wasn't dumb. Newton believed in God and he wasn't dumb. Galileo believed in God and he wasn't dumb. So who are the dumb ones? Sure, there are dumb Christians. They come from all classes, races and walks of life. You could say the same for atheists.

For any argument there is a counter argument. Many of these are sweeping generalities intended to throw up a smoke screen. They have no substance or merit. It sounds like this person does not know any actual Christians. They are loving, gentle and kind. They live quiet lives. The kind that he is referring to are the squeaky wheels who are usually pushing a cause and not proclaiming the gospel.

Blessings,
Dunamite

 

[Dunamite]

I guess the one thing I've seen of athiests (not the one's I know personally, but many of the one's who like net forums, is the attitude that all folks that have faith in God are biased, and that they are always unbiased in their opinions.

Everybody is biased. We all have a worldview. Atheists just embrace a different one. But paradigm shifts do happen. Anyone can shift into a new paradigm. It just takes patience and calmness. You cannot convince someone to reject a paradigm and adopt a new one. They need to come the realization that their model is flawed. Then they will modify their belief system accordingly.

Blessings,
Dunamite

 

[Voyageur]

Some Christians are as smart as atheists. Some are smarter. Einstein believed in God and he wasn't dumb. Newton believed in God and he wasn't dumb. Galileo believed in God and he wasn't dumb. So who are the dumb ones? Sure, there are dumb Christians. They come from all classes, races and walks of life. You could say the same for atheists.

1) Einstein's concept of God differs very much from the typical Judeo-Christian conception. He did not believe in a God who was active, so to speak, in Earthly affairs. He seemed to have believed in a creator God; that is, an entity that was the cause of the universe. Here are a few quotes:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

"To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that is there."

"You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a peculiar religious feeling of his own . . . .His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."

2) Isaac Newton did believe in God, but he seems to have conceived of the trinity in a very different manner than the Christian conception of the trinity.

3) Galileo was religious, but he was no advocate of the church when it came to matters of reason and science:

"It vexes me when they would constrain science by the authority of the Scriptures, and yet do not consider themselves bound to answer reason and experiment."

"I do not feel obliged to believe that same God who endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use."

 

[Vic C.]

2) Isaac Newton did believe in God, but he seems to have conceived of the trinity in a very different manner than the Christian conception of the trinity.

Actually, he rejected the notion of a trinity, but I don't hold it against him. 8-) He was between binatarian and unitarian in his beliefs on the godhead. Many of the early church fathers were binatarian.

 

[Voyageur]

Most wars are caused by pursuit of money and greed. Maybe they should blame governments or capitalism. We are always looking to blame someone. Ultimately the person that you finger is telling. It shows what ax you have to grind. This person chose religion, but he could have chosen others.

This isn't necessarily true. There are various reasons for going to war. It is hardly ever the case that one specific cause can be ascribed to military conflict between peoples, states, etc.

- There has been a conflict raging in Burma for the better part of 60 years, and it has ethnic, religious, political and social aspects.
- The conflict in Colombia is almost purely political, and not merely the byproduct of money and greed..
- The Nigerian conflict is very much an ethnic conflict. Granted, it is over oil; but, the various ethnic groups are at war.
- Darfur, Sudan: this is a complicated conflict, in which religion, ethnicity and tribal associations can all be seen as causes (or reasons for its continuation). Other factors such as population increases and desertification (which means decreasing agricultural productivity and thus lack of food) have exacerbated the conflict.
- Hamas and Fatah have been fighting ever since Arafat's death. The conflict is religious and political.
- Look at the 6-Day War and its aftermath. If that's not almost purely religious in nature, I don't know what is.
- World War II wasn't so much about money/greed as it was a war over a worldview (in the case of the Nazi's and Mussolini's Italy) and anger over Germany's humiliation following their defeat in World War I. It even had religious underpinnings with the Nazi's (who were Christians) victimizing the Jews, not just of Germany but of all occupied Europe. If we look at Japan's reasoning, yes, they were coming from an economic angle. But, that just illustrates the complexities of war.
- Was Kashmir about money and greed? No. It was about territories and it was (and still is) fought between secular and religious factions.
- The Somali Civil War was/is tribal, with many different factions vying for power.
- In the Phillipines, there are Islamic insurgents who have been waging war for almost 4 decades against the government which governs a population that is a Christian majority.
- Certainly the War in Chechnya was religious in nature, a conflict between Christians and Muslims over who would govern Chechnya.
- What about the current war in Afghanistan? Surely the war in Afghanistan isn't about money and greed.
- The War in Iraq? We are told we are in Iraq for national security purposes, but it also has religious and economic dimensions.
- Was World War I about money and greed? Gavrilo Princip assassinated Archduke Ferdinand in order to hasten the destruction of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Any student of history knows that what followed (the war) resulted from various convoluted defense alliances.
- The Spanish-American War was fought with Spain over the independence of Cuba.

These are just a few wars and conflicts that were not fought for purely economic reasons.

 

[Voyageur]

2) Isaac Newton did believe in God, but he seems to have conceived of the trinity in a very different manner than the Christian conception of the trinity.

Actually, he rejected the notion of a trinity, but I don't hold it against him. 8-) He was between binatarian and unitarian in his beliefs on the godhead. Many of the early church fathers were binatarian.

Yeah, didn't he essentially reject the idea of the Holy Ghost? Or, he thought it was another entity--perhaps an angel?

 

[Vic C.]

2) Isaac Newton did believe in God, but he seems to have conceived of the trinity in a very different manner than the Christian conception of the trinity.

Actually, he rejected the notion of a trinity, but I don't hold it against him. 8-) He was between binatarian and unitarian in his beliefs on the godhead. Many of the early church fathers were binatarian.

Yeah, didn't he essentially reject the idea of the Holy Ghost? Or, he thought it was another entity--perhaps an angel?

I have to look into this once again. My first recollection was he didn't view the spirit as a "person". He understood it as many verses project; the spirit of God, but not God, the Spirit, as trinitarian doctrine labels the spirit.

Good question though.

 

[Vic C.]

Ok, quickly, for the record:

The Arian features of Newton's Christology continued to be evident. Although we are to worship Christ as Lord, "yet we are to do it without breaking the first commandment." The true manhood of Christ was important to Newton, who believed that trinitarianism effectively denied his manhood and with it the reality of his suffering on the cross. However, "he was not an ordinary man but incarnate by the almighty power of God and born of a Virgin without any other father than God himself." [Keynes MS 3, p. 45. Yahuda MS 15.3, f. 46.] That is, Newton had reached back to the primitive church to resurrect a concept of Christ as a human body animated by a divine or semi-divine spirit. He rejected any notion of a unity of substance between God the Father and Christ the Son, and asserted instead what he called a monarchical unity --

an unity of Dominion,the Son receiving all things from the father, being subject to him, executing his will, sitting in his throne and calling him his God, and so is but one God with the Father as a king and his viceroy are but one king. for the word God relates not to the metaphysical nature of God but to his dominion.

http://www.ldolphin.org/newton.html

Christology wasn't his strong, Biblical suit, most of the above would have labeled him a heretic. Eschatology was more his field of interest and knowledge. Goes well with his math skills ;-) and his ability to read Hebrew and Greek fluently.

 

[wavy]

sounds like the original poster is doubting their faith and needs to salvage it by atheist-bashing. there was one post i would like to reply to however.

It is the person who refuses to think about the idea of God that is hard to witness to.

or perhaps it's the other way around.

Once you know the basis for their rejection then you can begin discussions.

and what, pray tell, is the 'basis for their rejection'?

They expect you to be argumentative and to become emotional.

generalizations.

Nobody can deny personal experience. They also cannot discount easily the independent experience of others that confirms your own experience.

what?

It serves no purpose than to undermine your authority.

what 'authority'?

Basically, science corroborates the existence of God. He is a mathematical entity, if nothing else, equal to 1, called the Singularity. This is based on quantum physics and what happens in space and time as we approach infinity. It is a surprising find and nobody knows quite what to do with it. What it means is that something exists beyond the universe outside of the space-time continuum. If nothing else it will get them talking.

i don't mean to be offensive, and i'm no scientist, but this is just ridiculous. science does not corroborate the existence of god. looks like you're just manipulating math and science and steering it in one direction.

They have built themselves an elaborate house of cards which you know is false, because you believe that there is a God. You have to get them to the point that they can see for themselves that they too have built up a belief system based on faith.

i find your reasoning is degrading as i move down this post. how can something else be false simply because you believe something different? and what 'faith' do atheists have? it would actually help if you gave some proof or evidence for your claims.

Then their argument has no more merit than yours. In fact yours has more merit because you can answer the fundamental questions. Why are we here? How did the universe get formed? What is human suffering? etc.

'fundamental' is what you read into it. anyway, a few things:

1) just because something doesn't have a current explanation doesn't mean some religious alternative is true.

2) you can answer many questions by making up something, logically coherent or not.

2) if christians answer 'how did the universe get formed', then i hope they don't use the creation myth/s of genesis i & ii, since from an external scientific perspective they are completely discredited and internally they are inconsistent.


you've made some pretty bold claims here. i'd like to see some substance.


~eric

 

[paisley]

""James Dobson is immoral."

"'Supernatural' should be removed from the dictionary."

"Romney and Huckabee are fascists."

"Sigh""

Hugo, these are actually very funny due to being so ridiculous. I laughed when I read them. When I was 20 years old and told a muslim man I did not want to marry, he told me I was a "devil" and going to hell if I did not marry. He even offered to marry me there on the spot to save me. He was serious. This, like your quotes above did/do not bother me. I did not laugh in the muslim man`s face out of respect for his sincerity, but I found his belief to be very funny and still do. Some things are so ridiculous, they are beyond causing annoyance. They just become flat out funny. I am still scratching my head at the James Dobson comment.

 

[Hugo]

I am still scratching my head at the James Dobson comment.

They seek to redefine morality so they may call evil good and good evil. But we know what is written on the hearts of everyone.



"So why does it seem strange for Satan's servants to pretend to do what is right? Someday they will get exactly what they deserve." (2 Corinthians 11:15 CEV)