Atheistic Evangelism: What Atheists share with the Religious

[blü 2]

To me the opposite is true.

Perhaps one day we should compare notes.

 

[Vaderecta]

From everyone's perspective, are Atheists just as thirsty to get people on their side as Christians are?

If you are an Atheist, do you think everyone should be an Atheist?

Religious people, do you think everyone should be religious?

If you are an Atheist, why do people need to deny God's existence?

If you are religious, why do people need religion? Or, why do people need to adopt your way of life?

If you are an Atheist, how much peer pressure went into you becoming an Atheist?

If you're religious, how much peer pressure went into you becoming a member of your religion? (This includes major influences in your life. Friends & family.)

I can maybe understand what is prompting these questions. And people will use various methods to persuade other people. Much of our current lives is thankfully centered around persuasion and societal acceptance. If we weren't here we wouldn't need societies or the need to employ abilities to persuade one another. If this was like five billion years ago we have how many organisms on this planet trying to persuade others to their religion?

You seem to be asking if you believe something how likely are you as a human who has a belief want to persuade others that you are right? Then you ask similar questions to different people who you may assume fall in category A or category B and in reality there are maybe 100s of each category but in the lifetime of this thread enough charismatic souls show up to convince you that one belief over the other is clearly true or maybe your mind wasn't open so you came with a predilection and are just seeking confirmation.

Isn't it a silly question to begin with what humans think if their explanations are human centered and not based on where we ultimately came from? Are we just trying to believe a tale which is about us and challenges us as a means to not face where we ultimately might have come from? Could those reasons be the same as dinosaurs or bacteria but in our vanity we want to say all other life only existed as a means to create and tell a story about us?

Is this just vanity?

 

[Altfish]

I'm pretty sure people have before and you've just dismissed it with evolution. With me, I adopt evolution into my worldview.

Evolution was one small factor, i.e. it explained the world better than any religious text. BUT there is much, much more that is better explained by science.
If god exists, then why can't he turn up on TV, even Fox TV?

So, just wondering, were your parents at all religious?

Not really, but they didn't stop me going to Sunday School, they let me make my own decisions

 

[siti]

If god exists, then why can't he turn up on TV, even Fox TV?

Try TBN - I think He's contracted to that Channel.

 

[HonestJoe]

First of all, there is plenty of evidence for the existence of God. The problem is that the methods atheists apply to investigate the existence of God they do not apply to other areas of existence. Most atheists have no problem with accepting that a papyrus writing of a historian from ancient Greece actually portrays real events that happened in ancient Greece at that time, but doubt that four long Gospels written by 4 different people and several letters written less than three decades after Jesus can be considered proof of His life. That's called being inconsistent with one's skepticism.

The mortal life of Jesus isn’t proof of the existence of God. I recognise the existence of Mohammed, Abraham and L.Ron Hubbard too but that doesn’t mean I accept the religious beliefs based upon their lives. Similarly, the ancient Greek histories will have references to divine beings and their influences yet I expect we both take the same position of accepting the general history without believing in their gods.

You seem to be rather oblivious of the vast amount of evidence for God's existence. I'm curious as to find out to what degree did you get involved in investigating the accuracy of every single miraculous event that has happened and science cannot explain. I'd also love to know if you've actually given the time to experiment God's existence like you would experiment anything else (in a laboratory, for example), according to certain rules?

Personally, my blocker on any scientific study of “God” is the lack of any kind of single, internally consistent and detailed hypothesis for exactly what God is and by what mechanisms he operates. There are countless different proposed gods and often countless different interpretations, images or concepts for each one, many of which are mutually exclusive. If you wish to move God in to the scientific field, it needs to be defined in a scientific manner.

Are you going to dismiss any piece of evidence of supernatural manifestations I bring as coincidences, trickery or placebo? If so, I should ask you what evidence you have that you exist.

Coincidence, trickery and placebo are all proven phenomena. They can’t be dismissed out of hand in scenarios where they’re perfectly possible explanations. Again, to establish that a phenomena has a “supernatural” cause, you first need to establish exactly what that cause would be and how it works.

 

[Valjean]

First of all, there is plenty of evidence for the existence of God. The problem is that the methods atheists apply to investigate the existence of God they do not apply to other areas of existence. Most atheists have no problem with accepting that a papyrus writing of a historian from ancient Greece actually portrays real events that happened in ancient Greece at that time, but doubt that four long Gospels written by 4 different people and several letters written less than three decades after Jesus can be considered proof of His life. That's called being inconsistent with one's skepticism.

I'd expect an atheist seriously interested in a subject to be seriously rigorous in his investigation. There are writings about miracles and supernatural beings from all over the world. There are people who swear they've spoken with elves, slept with Bigfoot or been abducted by little grey men. As for Jesus, I'm not a biblical scholar, but I understand that the Gospels are second-hand accounts, and they're clearly inconsistent.

I'm not calling atheism irrational because of the atheists' disbelief in God's existence. I'm calling atheism irrational because the atheists are alive. A rational being who is aware that it is trapped in a short existence between two infinite periods of nonexistence and his life has no objective purpose would rationally conclude that suicide is the only thing that made sense. "I want to live and experience" does not make rational sense because that experience is meaningless in the grand scheme of eternal nothingness.

Not everyone considers life not worth living without some grand purpose and meaning. Such a person would generally be considered mentally ill.
People are happy just enjoying the lives they have. They create their own meaning and purpose.

You seem to be rather oblivious of the vast amount of evidence for God's existence. I'm curious as to find out to what degree did you get involved in investigating the accuracy of every single miraculous event that has happened and science cannot explain. I'd also love to know if you've actually given the time to experiment God's existence like you would experiment anything else (in a laboratory, for example), according to certain rules?

If there were a vast amount of evidence there would be little controversy.

Science doesn't believe in the miraculous. Science believes there is a natural explanation for everything. An event science can't explain is simply an unexplained event. Almost everything we know was once unexplained.

How would you investigate the existence of God? If you have any suggestions I'm sure scientists would be eager to hear of them.

In order for me to provide evidence, I need to know what you would accept as evidence and to what level is your skeptometre set? Are you going to dismiss any piece of evidence of supernatural manifestations I bring as coincidences, trickery or placebo? If so, I should ask you what evidence you have that you exist.

History's full of all sorts of supernatural claims, What supernatural manifestations do you have, that could only be attributed to God?

Then why interact on this site if you have no belief or anti-belief to promote?

This isn't a preaching forum. We come hear because we like ideas, and discussing various topics.

I guess if that's what you think. To me the opposite is true.

"To me?"
I thought we were discussing objective truth, not personal convictions.

 

[blü 2]

First of all, there is plenty of evidence for the existence of God.

All that airy fairy armchair stuff, Anselm, Cosmo argument, design, alleged inferences, blah blah. It's been refuted since forever.

If God is real then [he] has objective existence. So you can start with a sufficient description, a definition, of a real god such that if we find one, anyone will be able to tell it's a god.

Then it's show time: a satisfactory demonstration of this God in reality.

Of course, if God is imaginary, [he] doesn't have a satisfactory description and [he] doesn't have objective existence and you can't do that.

The problem is that the methods atheists apply to investigate the existence of God they do not apply to other areas of existence.

At least in my case, on the exact contrary ─ see above. Why do you think the Higgs boson was merely an hypothesis until its reality was satisfactorily demonstrated? That's exactly how we need to proceed with real things.

Most atheists have no problem with accepting that a papyrus writing of a historian from ancient Greece actually portrays real events that happened in ancient Greece at that time

No, that's far too simplistic. Historians don't assume that a document's true until shown otherwise. It's assessed in many ways, and those assessments reviewed.

I'm curious as to find out to what degree did you get involved in investigating the accuracy of every single miraculous event that has happened and science cannot explain.

Why can't God heal amputees?

In order for me to provide evidence,

As above.

 

[Milton Platt]

From everyone's perspective, are Atheists just as thirsty to get people on their side as Christians are?

If you are an Atheist, do you think everyone should be an Atheist?
Yes, but I don't demand it. It's up to them.
Religious people, do you think everyone should be religious?

If you are an Atheist, why do people need to deny God's existence?
Atheism isn't about denying a god's existence. Denying the existence of something presupposes that it actually does exist.It is the rejection of the claim that it exists. Maybe it does...but you have to supply plausible evidence.
If you are religious, why do people need religion? Or, why do people need to adopt your way of life?

If you are an Atheist, how much peer pressure went into you becoming an Atheist?
Absolutely none. I have never been anything else.
If you're religious, how much peer pressure went into you becoming a member of your religion? (This includes major influences in your life. Friends & family.)

 

[Milton Platt]

The mind of the "evangelist" (atheist, theist, or otherwise):

"I am so absolutly and unassailably right that I am the embodiment of righteousness, itself. And as such I have both the right and the obligation to condemn, and if possible, correct, all these ignorant, wrong-headed fools around me."

But evangelism isn't really so much about changing the minds of others as it is about living in the delusion of one's own absolute and unassailable righteousness. The evangelist is actually feeding his own ego on the presumed ignorance and unrighteousness of everyone else.

It's basically a kind of psychological addiction. An addiction to the illusion of self-righteousness.

All theists are not evangelical. All atheists are not evangelical. Your bucket is to big.

 

[PureX]

All theists are not evangelical. All atheists are not evangelical. Your bucket is to big.

I did not mean to imply that all, are.

 

[robocop (actually)]

I am atheist and religious (including the Bible as far as it is translated correctly). I'm just fine with you believing what you want.

 

[RedDragon94]

Generally, Christians do, while atheists don't really.

How come there's so many Atheists trying to win me over on this issue?

 

[RedDragon94]

Is this just vanity?

So why are you here?

 

[LuisDantas]

How come there's so many Atheists trying to win me over on this issue?

We are legion, and our voice has been repressed for a very long time.

 

[joelr]

I don't think people need to deny a gods existence but I think people should know the truth.

For example in my extended family the teachings of the catholic church are thought of as actual history of the Middle East 2-4000 years ago.
They have no idea that actual scholarship considers Jesus to have been just a man and historicity PHDs like Elaine Pagels and Richard Carrier are showing a completely different history.

Once people understand that Yahwey is in the same category as Zues and Jesus is Inanna or whatever redeemer demigod you choose, then you can make an informed decision.

Another concept that's often missed is that you can realize religion is mythology and still believe in God. There is no book telling you ridiculous facts about him making him look like a comic book god or calling you a sinner and there is no scientific proof either but it could still be a possibility.

 

[RedDragon94]

We are legion, and our voice has been repressed for a very long time.

Except in the Indian subcontinent.

 

[Mister Silver]

If you are an Atheist, do you think everyone should be an Atheist?
Give up magical woo thinking for reality, yes.

If you are an Atheist, why do people need to deny God's existence?
For the same reason that people need to deny anything that has no evidence to support its existence.

If you are an Atheist, how much peer pressure went into you becoming an Atheist?
None. I came to terms with reality on my own as I stumbled across the oratory works of Robert Green Ingersoll.

 

[Milton Platt]

I did not mean to imply that all, are.

Perhaps you did not....It just seemed that way to me.

 

[McBell]

From everyone's perspective, are Atheists just as thirsty to get people on their side as Christians are?

Some are.
Some aren't

If you are an Atheist, do you think everyone should be an Atheist?

No, I do not.

If you are an Atheist, why do people need to deny God's existence?

I do not know that they do

If you are an Atheist, how much peer pressure went into you becoming an Atheist?

None