Why Did God Create Atheists?

[InChrist]

I am possibly the most "militant" atheist I know, but I only go on about it on religious debate forums. It plays literally zero part in the majority of my life.

It would be like seeing someone come into a cafe every lunchtime and then accusing them of being "obsessed with eating".

It not quite like that because eating is necessary to sustain physical life. If an atheist actually does not believe God exists why spend time debating about something that is non-existent or from the atheistic view unnecessary for life?

 

[InChrist]

Correct. They are born with no concept of religion or gods.

Not until they have been taught that there is one. Young children may have a tendency to ascribe the unknown to otherworldly forces, but that is not the same thing at all. Knowledge of the explanations for the unknown removes the need for those forces.

The Bible says that everyone has a basic knowledge there is a Creator; through seeing creation and the awareness being manifest within us...


...because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Romans 1:19-21

 

[rational experiences]

If I hadn't owned two positions of thinking....religious science or natural.

Today I would own no self conclusions. Determined by my free will which in society free speech had been evolving. Reason.

I was forced into religion and also at school religious instruction and forced to state my claim.

I however didn't want to. Aside from scary stories our priest kept asking for money and we were poor.

My mother struggled to keep us fed and pay bills.

Both my father and the priest liked drinking.

So I saw you're just like any father is. Except you think you're entitled. Religious leader.

Religious and science go hand in hand. Historic. Theism.

And teaching is about group inheritance as job types to follow. To inherit in life causes.

So the type of teaching is social and economic reasons only.

If you say to humans we believe as thinkers just humans that pre form had existed then changed for creation. To exist as burnt form then cooled burnt form.

Then what you see is what you look at. It doesn't own a theory.

So it involves a form of deism. By rational claim a pre form.

Not lying.

If we know our conscious behaviour determines if life on earth will be successful. As we don't need anymore losses......

Then spirituality mutual family on earth status is involved in teaching behaviour.

If a child says I question your authority it's because consciously one day they will live as your body life equal. Adult.

Then as the position teacher is reality...then allow it to be reality.

What we believe is first.

Then what we've human researched and found is second.

What we believe is moot.

As we already live owning. Telling the themes is correct or incorrect position. To teach correctly.

As study is only ever study. Belief isn't involved. As it's a physical activity only.

A lot of teaching to day displaces human family natural spirituality due to it not practicing family values as learnt extended family tribal conditions.

Which was the religious purpose originally. As science theism human is versus science theism human. Religious or not religious terms.

Beliefs.

If I say fact that I came from a higher place as a human. Then earths two bodies self mass would both exist first.

My theism would not envision my presence whatsoever as I know I'm not either body by creation terms and then quote where I came from by human memory.

Which was spirit the eternal not in created creation.

I would give as best an explanation of the reasons why. And I would enforce its why we are meant to be respectful and live honestly and without further chosen destruction. As we've inherited destruction already.

Because of the cause I identify spirituality as life existing and why it was owned.

And hence entitled teaching is to teach human information as correctly as possible. And it's not just about surviving in society civilisation or job types.

It's about family and humanity and reason to control behaviours by pre taught humans spiritual wisdom.

To relate the true meaning to be with our spiritual purposes.

 

[InChrist]

So Adam and Eve's children engaged in incest.
But god says incest is a sin.
Is that the "original sin" Christians go on about?

It was not incest or sin in the beginning when the human race and DMA was not as impacted by the damage of sin, nor the detrimental effects of intermarriage had time to build up.


“Adam and Eve were created genetically pure. They had no congenital defects to pass on to their offspring. DNA damage accumulates over time, but even 2000 years later, when Abraham was born, genes were healthy enough to allow for him to marry his half-sister. Genetic abnormalities did not influence marriage partners until the mutations were common enough to be a health risk.”
Why was incest allowed in the Bible?

Incest became a sin when God gave the Law to Moses- Leviticus 18:6.

 

[InChrist]

Actually, atheists rarely refer to gods except when answering theists claims about them such as occurs on this site, such as every comment I'm replying to in this thread. Gods never comes up in daily life for most of us. Most of my friends are atheists, and we never discuss gods. Why would we?

And even here, few atheist actually discuss gods, but rather, the incoherent depiction of them such as gods being moral authorities while depicted committing moral atrocities, or existing outside of time, or being able to affect the world yet not be detectable by it even in principle, or gods granting free will while being omniscient. These are the kinds of comments that elicit god discussions from unbelievers, but once again, their interest is not in gods, but in sound thinking and revealing these incoherencies as an exercise in reasoning.

Is it so hard to understand that the Christian god, the one Christians call "God," is no more interesting to unbelievers than any other gods?



As I said above, atheists have no interest in any gods, much less an obsession.

Their interest is in stemming religious incursion into their lives as is occurring in the US now with abortion rights and transgender studies. I assure you that when Christianity becomes as irrelevant in the lives of unbelievers as all of the other religions are, atheists won't give it a second thought. How often do you think about or discuss Wiccans or Sikhs? When Christianity has that status, it will also fall of the atheists' radar as those have already. Atheists have no other interest in religions



Atheists don't reject either love or purpose. I'd say that they help define it. What atheists reject is religion and god beliefs, as well as the Christian vision of love and purpose.

Thanks for sharing your perspective.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It not quite like that because eating is necessary to sustain physical life. If an atheist actually does not believe God exists why spend time debating about something that is non-existent or from the atheistic view unnecessary for life?

seriously? You have to ask?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It was not incest or sin in the beginning when the human race and DMA was not as impacted by the damage of sin, nor the detrimental effects of intermarriage had time to build up.


“Adam and Eve were created genetically pure. They had no congenital defects to pass on to their offspring. DNA damage accumulates over time, but even 2000 years later, when Abraham was born, genes were healthy enough to allow for him to marry his half-sister. Genetic abnormalities did not influence marriage partners until the mutations were common enough to be a health risk.”
Why was incest allowed in the Bible?

Incest became a sin when God gave the Law to Moses- Leviticus 18:6.

Actually they are mythical. Never existed. Why do you believe a myth?

 

[Viker]

Obviously not for everyone.

For most. There are psychopaths. I'm disturbed that it takes an outside influence to instill compassion and empathy in others. It's disconcerting.

But nothing is perfect, I suppose. Not even creation.

 

[YoursTrue]

Inaccurate, in my view. Left alone, without a single mention of "God" from the moment of birth until adulthood, I do not think anyone would hit upon the notion of the Abrahamic deity. Sure, some might form some notions of supernatural, but the god you know took many centuries of human construction to reach its many present characteristics.

Well, now, that's an interesting point, because I'd like to know how this might fit in with consciousness and the evolution of the belief about a god, gods, or superior powers as far as humans are concerned, since you say it took many centuries of human construction to reach to the present characteristics of god, whatever they may be.

 

[Quagmire]

"Why Did God Create Atheists"?

He had some spare parts left over.

 

[YoursTrue]

For most. There are psychopaths. I'm disturbed that it takes an outside influence to instill compassion and empathy in others. It's disconcerting.

But nothing is perfect, I suppose. Not even creation.

There are names scientists attribute to various forms of what they say is mental illness. Many books on psychology are also written and then there are freaks, (that's my term for such) such as the psychologist that attached himself to Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys.

 

[YoursTrue]

For most. There are psychopaths. I'm disturbed that it takes an outside influence to instill compassion and empathy in others. It's disconcerting.

But nothing is perfect, I suppose. Not even creation.

Then there's the law. And the law varies in the world.

 

[Viker]

"Why Did God Create Atheists"?

He had some spare parts left over.

God's a redneck? Oh, man. This explains a lot.

 

[Subduction Zone]

God's a redneck? Oh, man. This explains a lot.

You call that a plague? Hold mah beer.

 

[Viker]

You call that a plague? Hold mah beer.

God: I hereby create them atheists with whatever leftover parts, duct tape and spit! Bam! There they are! God, I love me!

(Drives off in a Chevy flatbed with a couple angels in the cab.)

(I couldn't resist. Just watched some Squidbillies a while back. )

 

[Quagmire]

God's a redneck? Oh, man. This explains a lot.

Heard He has Noah's Ark sitting on milk crates on his front lawn.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Does one mean that the "None"s have no confidence in their youth, please?

Regards

Who knows, but it just is reality that children are so easily influenced as to what they imbibe even if much just isn't true. I'm sure you have come across the old saying, attributed to Aristotle - “Give me a child until he[she] is seven and I will show you the man[woman].” This may refer to character but it might equally apply to the fundamental beliefs that are often driven into them whilst children.

Why would we have so many having different religions, and such often being in conflict with others, if they all could somehow see some 'essential truth'? Would you want all to be educated as to your particular religious beliefs or would you be fine with children learning as to all such and even as to what atheists or agnostics believe? At least I'm offering a more level and impartial teaching - as to schools, that is.

 

[Mock Turtle]

"Why Did God Create Atheists"?

He had some spare parts left over.

Nah, He saved the best til last.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Err. So you are fighting hard to indoctrinate children in schools? And of course in your homes? And try to force other's to do your bidding at home if you can as well?

This is tyranny.

You seem to have freedom and indoctrination mixed up. How is learning as to all the major faiths and the rest (no such) indoctrinating, when forcing children into one particular faith is essentially that? I'm rather more concerned for the children's rights rather than any parent, given the child has to stand on their own two feet eventually, and having something forced into them when they are vulnerable to such is hardly freedom.

As I mentioned, it is schooling with which I am more interested. What happens in the home is largely in the hands of the parents, and no doubt many would continue to ensure their child followed in their footsteps as to religion, but at least at school they might get the larger picture.

 

[firedragon]

You seem to have freedom and indoctrination mixed up. How is learning as to all the major faiths and the rest (no such) indoctrinating, when forcing children into one particular faith is essentially that? I'm rather more concerned for the children's rights rather than any parent, given the child has to stand on their own two feet eventually, and having something forced into them when they are vulnerable to such is hardly freedom.

As I mentioned, it is schooling with which I am more interested. What happens in the home is largely in the hands of the parents, and no doubt many would continue to ensure their child followed in their footsteps as to religion, but at least at school they might get the larger picture.

So why do you think atheists don't indoctrinate children with atheism and only religious people and religions at large do?