Why Are You an Atheist or a Believer?

[BigRedBuster]

 

Ok my question to the atheists on this board (who were former believers) who have actually understand the Bible's message is this...

 

Knowing that the Bible teaches over and over again about the concept of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ and to trust and love the Lord God with all that we are...why would God go against what he says in His Word about faith? Have faith...have faith...those who have faith...

 

Knowing the message but yet still demanding hard physical proof? How do you not see it around you? Meaning the complexity of the earth and nature. Not the human actions that are awful like rape, murder, etc....I'm talking about the physical beauty of the earth. Think about what it looked like in its purest state before mankind completely screwed it up.

 

 

Would you be Christian if you were born in Saudi Arabia? Or Tibet? Or India? Most likely, no. You'd be Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu. You'd likely be as adamantly steadfast in your faith as you are today, you'd just have that same faith in a different god.

 

 

When I realized that my religion was largely an accident of where I was born, it became far easier to look beyond the "faith" question and start examining the whole of it critically.

 

Or, same God different name.

[TGHusker]

 

Ok my question to the atheists on this board (who were former believers) who have actually understand the Bible's message is this...

 

Knowing that the Bible teaches over and over again about the concept of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ and to trust and love the Lord God with all that we are...why would God go against what he says in His Word about faith? Have faith...have faith...those who have faith...

 

Knowing the message but yet still demanding hard physical proof? How do you not see it around you? Meaning the complexity of the earth and nature. Not the human actions that are awful like rape, murder, etc....I'm talking about the physical beauty of the earth. Think about what it looked like in its purest state before mankind completely screwed it up.

 

I watched this video today and just admire God's beauty when I see this.

 

I reject the concept of faith because we live in a world where there have been literally thousands––tens of thousands––of religions, all of which basically say the same thing for the same reasons. Repeating "I believe it, I believe it, have faith" to myself is not a pathway to true knowledge. Muslims and Mormons are just as adamant as you, again for the same reasons. I also don't think that the Bible is the word of a god––there's certainly nothing within the text or the historical record to suggest it. See the giant quote in the OP for more on that.

 

I do believe that the existence and complexity of the universe presents human beings with a genuine stumper, just as much today as two thousand years ago. You choose to 'solve' the mystery with faith––meaning your answer can't be confirmed and is therefore not much of an answer––but I'm personally more interested in following the science wherever it leads.The last hundred years or so has proven time and again that this old universe of ours is, to paraphrase a famous saying, stranger than we know and stranger than we can know.

 

X,- yes the universe is amazing and complex. I agree. That does not dismiss the 'God Factor". Many serious scientists, mathematicians, philosophers who also believe in God and the complexity of the universe would disagree wt your last paragraph. There are those who would argue for a designer based on the 'fine tuning of the universe' both from a macro and a micro perspective (astronomy to biology to mathematics) Anthony Flew, the great atheist philosopher of the last century changed his mind when he saw new science present the complexity of life and the universe and died believing there was a god (Diest) behind the universe. Yes let the science lead us but brushing off faith as 'not much of an answer' is closing the door on one possibility and insulting to real scientists who believe otherwise.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/arts/17flew.html?_r=0

In 2004, however, he (Flew) announced on a DVD titled “Has Science Discovered God?” that research on DNA and what he believed to be inconsistencies in the Darwinian account of evolution had forced him to reconsider his views. DNA research, he said, “has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved.”

In “There Is a God” he explained that he now believed in a supreme intelligence, removed from human affairs but responsible for the intricate workings of the universe. In other words, the divine watchmaker imagined by deists like Isaac Newton, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.

http://www.existence-of-god.com/flew-abandons-atheism.html

For years, Antony Flew has been a figurehead for atheists. Now, though, he has abandoned his atheism and accepted the existence of God. In a recent interview for Philosophia Christi with Gary Habermas, Flew explained his new beliefs. Though Flew has not embraced Christianity, he now accepts the existence of God, saying that he “had to go where the evidence leads”......

For Flew, it is the argument from design that shows that the existence of God is probable. He has been impressed by recent scientific developments that suggest that the universe is the product of intelligent design. “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design,” explains Flew.

Flew cites Gerald Schroeder’s work The Hidden Face of God and Roy Abraham Varghese’s The Wonder of the World: A Journey from Modern Science to the Mind of God as particularly impressive. In the foreword to the new (and final) edition of his God and Philosophy, which Flew now describes as “an historical relic”, he acknowledges that the argument from design “becomes progressively more powerful with every advance in humankind’s knowledge of the integrated complexity of what used to be called the ‘system of nature’.” As this progress continues, perhaps more will follow Flew’s lead in conceding ground to theism.

[ZRod]

Ok my question to the atheists on this board (who were former believers) who have actually understand the Bible's message is this...

 

Knowing that the Bible teaches over and over again about the concept of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ and to trust and love the Lord God with all that we are...why would God go against what he says in His Word about faith? Have faith...have faith...those who have faith...

 

Knowing the message but yet still demanding hard physical proof? How do you not see it around you? Meaning the complexity of the earth and nature. Not the human actions that are awful like rape, murder, etc....I'm talking about the physical beauty of the earth. Think about what it looked like in its purest state before mankind completely screwed it up.

 

I watched this video today and just admire God's beauty when I see this.

So... a version of pantheism, which doesn't necessarily involve religious views or can view the Universe itself as an impersonal god. Something I am peraonally more aligned with.

[knapplc]

Flew's reasoning is incredibly suspect, unfortunately. He looks at something as complicated as DNA and says, "Welp, I can't figure that out. There must be a god."

 

Flew stated in a letter to Richard Carrier:

My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [in fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms.

 

So, it's highly challenging for Christians to use Flew as legitimizing their god. Flew did no such thing. Flew specifically said, if there is a god, it is most likely the god described by Aristotle, perhaps not even a conscious god, more a "force of nature."

[sd'sker]

I watched this video today and just admire God's beauty when I see this.

that video is evidence of god? huh.

 

i see that and admire the beauty of nature and evolution. but if god gets credit for rivers coming back, i guess we can blame him for the drought in california? or whatever other catastrophe is going on in the world?

[TGHusker]

Flew's reasoning is incredibly suspect, unfortunately. He looks at something as complicated as DNA and says, "Welp, I can't figure that out. There must be a god."

 

Flew stated in a letter to Richard Carrier:

 

My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [in fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms.

 

 

So, it's highly challenging for Christians to use Flew as legitimizing their god. Flew did no such thing. Flew specifically said, if there is a god, it is most likely the god described by Aristotle, perhaps not even a conscious god, more a "force of nature."

Knapp, read my post - I'm not utilizing Flew to legitimizing 'my' god. Only saying the God factor is out there to be considered.

[Scratchtown]

 

Ok my question to the atheists on this board (who were former believers) who have actually understand the Bible's message is this...

 

Knowing that the Bible teaches over and over again about the concept of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ and to trust and love the Lord God with all that we are...why would God go against what he says in His Word about faith? Have faith...have faith...those who have faith...

 

Knowing the message but yet still demanding hard physical proof? How do you not see it around you? Meaning the complexity of the earth and nature. Not the human actions that are awful like rape, murder, etc....I'm talking about the physical beauty of the earth. Think about what it looked like in its purest state before mankind completely screwed it up.

 

 

Would you be Christian if you were born in Saudi Arabia? Or Tibet? Or India? Most likely, no. You'd be Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu. You'd likely be as adamantly steadfast in your faith as you are today, you'd just have that same faith in a different god.

 

 

When I realized that my religion was largely an accident of where I was born, it became far easier to look beyond the "faith" question and start examining the whole of it critically.

 

No I wasn't born there out of chance. I was born in the US because God designed me to be born in the US. I do scratch my head over the people who are never introduced to Christianity. However, I take the stance of God doing whatever he pleases. His plan is perfect. I also take the stance of God choosing and pursuing us, over the opposite. Thats a whole other topic. Predestined or Free Will of choosing God.

 

Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him. - Psalm 115:3

 

Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden - Romans 9:18

 

The LORD does whatever pleases him, in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and all their depths. - Psalm 135:6

 

If one religion were the ONE TRUE RELIGION shouldn't some higher power that is supposed to be all loving affirm that religion instead of watching the masses slaughter one another?

 

When firm faith is based solely off of geography and upbringing how does one accept it without question?

 

God will seek anyone out. Just got to let him. However when walls of pride are built so thick and so deep its not easy to let even a little bit of Him in.

 

The concept of Satan. We don't live in a world that is without evil. Satan is using every tool (including some christian "churches") as a way to keep people from the truth.

[Redux]

I get the whole "He who has faith need not question his existence" thing. It's comforting sure, but we are talking about proof of his existence based off ancient texts written by man as a supposed word of god.

 

Man wrote the bible as a history lesson and we are to accept that as fact yet ignore the time frame it was written. A time when races of people were trying desperately to persuade masses into believing what they "believed". Persuasion during a time of darkness and uncertainty is a powerful motivator.

[BigRedBuster]

I get the whole "He who has faith need not question his existence" thing. It's comforting sure, but we are talking about proof of his existence based off ancient texts written by man as a supposed word of god.

 

Man wrote the bible as a history lesson and we are to accept that as fact yet ignore the time frame it was written. A time when races of people were trying desperately to persuade masses into believing what they "believed". Persuasion during a time of darkness and uncertainty is a powerful motivator.

Serious question Redux.

 

You obviously believe in spirits and something within us that lives after our physical death since you believe in paranormal activity.

However, you absolutely believe there is no way there is a higher power that this spirit is tied to in some way that lives within us.

 

How do you reconcile those two things?

[Husker_x]

TGHusker,

 

What Ehrman means, and he's very clear on this point, is that as far as preserving ancient texts go, the New Testament has a treasure trove of manuscripts, which is nice. Now where the problem comes in is not a single one of them is an autograph. They're copies of copies of copies. The really early texts are fragments, some no bigger than a business card. No two of them are identical. God's great plan apparently involved losing the 'inerrant word' to the sands of time. Why?

 

The gospels are realistic? In what sense? The walking on water? The dying and coming back to life? The tombs of Jerusalem breaking open and zombies roaming free? Appealing to conventions of genre to make this particular case is really, really reaching. And a ~40 year gap in time between events and written record may beat Alexander, but Alexander was a conquerer of the known world who has his face stamped on a coin. History literally falls apart for that era if he did not exist. Plus I'm unaware of anyone trying to convince the general population he rose from the dead or can save their souls.

 

I would also add that assuming for sake of argument we had four Gospels written a week after the final events of the New Testament, four seamless accounts that agreed on every detail of these strange events, I would still consider them insufficient evidence for the claim of resurrection (or any miracle). As Thomas Paine said, "miracles are evidence to the witness only and hearsay to everyone else."

 

That's what the whole NT is to us: vague, questionable hearsay.

[Scratchtown]

Everyone will hate you because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. - Mark 13:13

 

and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. - Matthew 10:22

 

"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. - Matthew 24:9

 

"But you will be betrayed even by parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death, and you will be hated because of my name. - Luke 21:16-17

They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the one who sent me. - John 15:21

 

People hate Jesus, people hate Christianity and for what? Not because of suicide extremists like Islam has...but because Christianity teaches that people will have to have accountability toward God, and that scares the crap out of some of you. Thats why walls have been built up in your minds to reject any potential proof of faith. I can't change your minds, but I suggest reading about biblical prophecy. If you truly want evidence just look at prophecy in the Bible. I hope that you do research biblical prophecy, because if you don't...you have become very closed off to the idea of God.

For the record, the ending of the Bible in revelation perfectly correlates with the Islamic end of times but only as polar opposites. Christianity's Anti-Christ is the exact same person as the Islamic Imam Mahdi (Sp?)

[Scratchtown]

TGHusker,

 

What Ehrman means, and he's very clear on this point, is that as far as preserving ancient texts go, the New Testament has a treasure trove of manuscripts, which is nice. Now where the problem comes in is not a single one of them is an autograph. They're copies of copies of copies. The really early texts are fragments, some no bigger than a business card. No two of them are identical. God's great plan apparently involved losing the 'inerrant word' to the sands of time. Why?

 

 

 

The gospels are realistic? In what sense? The walking on water? The dying and coming back to life? The tombs of Jerusalem breaking open and zombies roaming free? Appealing to conventions of genre to make this particular case is really, really reaching. And a ~40 year gap in time between events and written record may beat Alexander, but Alexander was a conquerer of the known world who has his face stamped on a coin. History literally falls apart for that era if he did not exist. Plus I'm unaware of anyone trying to convince the general population he rose from the dead or can save their souls.

 

I would also add that assuming for sake of argument we had four Gospels written a week after the final events of the New Testament, four seamless accounts that agreed on every detail of these strange events, I would still consider them insufficient evidence for the claim of resurrection (or any miracle). As Thomas Paine said, "miracles are evidence to the witness only and hearsay to everyone else."

 

That's what the whole NT is to us: vague, questionable hearsay.

 

- The basis of Faith.

 

- So according to Thomas Paine we should never trust anything a person says because we weren't there. Right. That logic is wonderful.

[Husker_x]

Everyone will hate you because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. - Mark 13:13

 

and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. - Matthew 10:22

 

"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. - Matthew 24:9

 

"But you will be betrayed even by parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death, and you will be hated because of my name. - Luke 21:16-17They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the one who sent me. - John 15:21

 

People hate Jesus, people hate Christianity and for what? Not because of suicide extremists like Islam has...but because Christianity teaches that people will have to have accountability toward God, and that scares the crap out of some of you. Thats why walls have been built up in your minds to reject any potential proof of faith. I can't change your minds, but I suggest reading about biblical prophecy. If you truly want evidence just look at prophecy in the Bible. I hope that you do research biblical prophecy, because if you don't...you have become very closed off to the idea of God.

For the record, the ending of the Bible in revelation perfectly correlates with the Islamic end of times but only as polar opposites. Christianity's Anti-Christ is the exact same person as the Islamic Imam (Sp?)

Go ask a Jew what they think about the so-called prophecies concerning Jesus. And I'll point it out too: quoting the Bible to make your case about the Bible is sort of begging the question.

[sd'sker]

Everyone will hate you because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. - Mark Bo Pelini 13:13

 

[Husker_x]

 

 

TGHusker,

What Ehrman means, and he's very clear on this point, is that as far as preserving ancient texts go, the New Testament has a treasure trove of manuscripts, which is nice. Now where the problem comes in is not a single one of them is an autograph. They're copies of copies of copies. The really early texts are fragments, some no bigger than a business card. No two of them are identical. God's great plan apparently involved losing the 'inerrant word' to the sands of time. Why?

The gospels are realistic? In what sense? The walking on water? The dying and coming back to life? The tombs of Jerusalem breaking open and zombies roaming free? Appealing to conventions of genre to make this particular case is really, really reaching. And a ~40 year gap in time between events and written record may beat Alexander, but Alexander was a conquerer of the known world who has his face stamped on a coin. History literally falls apart for that era if he did not exist. Plus I'm unaware of anyone trying to convince the general population he rose from the dead or can save their souls.

I would also add that assuming for sake of argument we had four Gospels written a week after the final events of the New Testament, four seamless accounts that agreed on every detail of these strange events, I would still consider them insufficient evidence for the claim of resurrection (or any miracle). As Thomas Paine said, "miracles are evidence to the witness only and hearsay to everyone else."

That's what the whole NT is to us: vague, questionable hearsay.

 

- The basis of Faith.

 

- So according to Thomas Paine we should never trust anything a person says because we weren't there. Right. That logic is wonderful.

We're talking about dead people making an encore, not bringing in the mail.

 

Bias is the basis for faith. Knapplc has explained this in some detail already.