Why do atheists talk to believers so much?

[LuisDantas]

Back in post #14 you claimed to have been oblivious to theism for years, didn't you? Presumably while also being a member of the Bahai Faith?

I don't know how that would be possible. Even if you had never met the Bahai.

 

[Trailblazer]

Back in post #14 you claimed to have been oblivious to theism for years, didn't you? Presumably while also being a member of the Bahai Faith?

I don't know how that would be possible. Even if you had never met the Bahai.

I do not know what you mean by oblivious to theism. If you mean able to put it out of my mind all those years, yes I did. I was not around theists so why would I be thinking about it?

I was a member of the Baha'i Faith but in name only.

 

[Jumi]

We can try to guess people's motives and not believe they mean what they say, but it's no very useful, is it?

There's another question: why do believers talk to (or about) atheists so much? Or, why does it matter if they're atheists, believers or anything else if they want to talk?

 

[Jumi]

During my life, on the street or on my door, I've had dozens of people want to tell me about their religion. I've yet to have a single case where an atheist or non-religious would do that. Yet people wonder why they are so active. Online I guess it's a different deal. I don't know, just my honest observation. I no longer have a horse in the race, so it feels nice to just sit back and say what I've seen.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I started this dialogue with @ wandering peacefully on another thread but it was brought to my attention that we were getting off topic for that thread so I am starting a new thread.

@Trailblazer said:
"Mostly what I was wondering about is why “some atheists” spend as much time as they do talking about god and religion, if they have no interest in it. I am sure there are as many reasons as there are atheists. From talking to as many atheists as I have as long as I have I know that some atheists would like to believe in God if they had “what they consider” to be sufficient evidence that God exists, but most atheists are not really that concerned about whether god exists or not, or so it seems. Maybe they have given up that there will ever be sufficient evidence and maybe some do not care."

That is probably true. There are only a limited amount of reasons atheists talk about religion and gods compared to the number of reasons religious people talk about religions.

I can understand why atheists would not want these things as I would not want these things either, but I do not understand how talking to people with religious beliefs would change these things if they were imminent. It would seem as if political involvement would be more likely to change these things.

Maybe you meant to say that theirs is not the only "truth" because other religions also have truth? I can agree with that because I believe that all religions have “some truth” to offer. However, it is logically impossible that everything that all religions teach is “the truth” because religions contradict each another.

If you mean more beneficial uses than just talking about beliefs I can agree with that. I believe that faith without works is dead. What would these actions be that would benefit the believer and the rest of humanity?

That is rather vague. What part of reality do you think that believers are not seeing? Admittedly, one reason I talk to atheists is that I want them to see more of reality than the material world reality they see now because I do not believe this is the most important reality. I believe the spiritual reality is our true reality but that is a big subject, and it is based upon the premise that God exists and there is an afterlife (spiritual world).

Yes, I know this is the motive for some atheists because they have told me so. I think these stories you refer to are from the Bible. Why is it that atheists cannot understand that there are “other religions” that are not Bible-based? Why is it that atheists cannot understand that perhaps the Bible has some truth in it and that the Bible has been misinterpreted by those who believe in it, namely Christians? It is unjust to blame God for the doctrines of the Church that arose out of councils who decided what the Bible means. What about all the other religions? I suppose that atheists have to say they are all stories made up by man if there is no god.

For over five years now, I have been posting to atheists 24/7 on several forums and asking them what they would expect for evidence of God, but so far I have received no answer that makes any sense. God is not a material being so what kind of “hard evidence” could we ever have that proves that God exists? This expectation of objective evidence of God is completely illogical, and atheists don’t even realize how illogical it is.

If an omnipotent God exists, that God is the one who decides what kind of evidence it will provide to prove its existence to humans. This is logic 101 stuff. To expect any evidence other than what God provides is unreasonable. The only evidence that God has ever provided is the Messengers (Prophets) God sends who establish religions.

I do understand that some people cannot believe in God based upon the claims of a Messenger but I really do not understand why not, because there really is no other way that God could communicate messages to humanity, if that was what God wanted to do. I have asked atheists repeatedly how God could communicate messages to humanity in any way other than using Messengers. The only answer I have received is that God could communicate directly to everyone. But how is that any different from God communicating to a Messenger? Why should God communicate the same message to everyone, when God can instead communicate to one man who can write that message down and make it available to everyone?

I can understand why this would be problematic if the Messenger was just an ordinary man but the premise upon which my religion is based is that the Messengers of God are more than human. They have a divine mind and that is why they can receive and convey messages from God to man.

You can only speak for yourself and other atheists you know personally. I know for a fact that many atheists are interested in knowing if there is a god because they told me so. Some are also interested in my religion and they researched it for themselves. I am not saying that they are going to believe it, but at least they are giving it a fair shot.

I can tell you for a fact that the reason they do not believe in it is because they do not like the “idea” of Messengers of God, but not one atheist has ever given me a good reason why God cannot and would not use a Messenger to represent Him and reveal a message to humanity. That is what I am still waiting for, a logical reason. To say that they cannot trust that a Messenger is from God is not a logical reason. That is just an emotional reason born out of fear of being wrong about the Messenger. But what if they are wrong and God does use Messengers to communicate?

Yes, as matter of fact, many atheists I have spoken with said that they are looking for God and asked me to show them the way. What do you think we discuss 24/7, the weather? Most of the atheists I talk to are not concerned about social or political issues, only about god.

You were kinda find when you got down to the generalizations. Do atheists in person talk about god? I can care less about god in a personal sense; but, RF tends to not share my ethusiasm for much other topics than does god exist.

Also, we have given you proof and explanaton of having no messengers. There is a whole thread on it. You gotta step back a bit because just because you do not agree doesnt mean we havent answered your question.

With the guy you speak with are you defending atheists who are online? When I hear just atheist, I think of people offline since I am around mostly christians and no self-evangalized atheists. I hear god daily but, probably because of being uncomfortable, I only hear things that are not of god (meaning, atheists dont talk about god) rarely when I asked that atheist directly.

But the post is too long to snatch specifics. What are you trying to say as a whole?

edited.

 

[LuisDantas]

I do not know what you mean by oblivious to theism.

Well, it was your choice of word, so I can only guess what you meant.

When I use that word, I mean completely unaware.

If you mean able to put it out of my mind all those years, yes I did. I was not around theists so why would I be thinking about it?

I was a member of the Baha'i Faith but in name only.

I envy that situation.

 

[Erebus]

Ultimately, what people believe about God/s and religion will impact their actions, including exercising whatever political power they might have. For better or worse, this also has a ripple effect on others. Not all theists believe that everybody should follow their deity or deities of choice but there are more than enough who do. In that sense, it's probably wise for atheists to take an interest in theism just as they'd take an interest in politics. For that matter, it would be wise for theists to take an interest in what other theists believe too.

Putting that aside, another reason could be simply that theism can be fascinating. There's a wealth of history and folklore surrounding just about every god, not to mention the broader questions of what makes some people believe and others not. It's a wide enough subject to touch on a range of interests so it's not surprising there are a lot of people who want to discuss it.

 

[shunyadragon]

Why do atheists talk to believers so much?

I do not think that atheists, as well as agnostics, talk to believers so much. In fact over the years most of my non-believer friends could care less for talking to believers.

The problem I see is fundamentalist and other extreme theists persistently and aggressively attacking atheist believers with all kinds of bizzaro emotional arguments. In fact often accusing a variety of beliefs of being atheist, because they do not believe in the one true God of their belief.

On web sites like this some atheists and agnostics do defend there view, but I do not know how 'so much' comes into this.

I am a theist, but do acknowledge the philosophical and evidence based basis belief of atheists and strong agnostics. It is true that the existence of God(s) cannot be proven to not exist, nor conclusively to exist, but most atheists just simply propose that there is no reason to believe, The atheist and agnostic beliefs are more rational and logical than the beliefs in ancient religions.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

It depends on the atheist I guess. Some are quite obnoxious, I agree. A lot of it is ego-driven I think. Some atheists have an obsessive need to "win" debates and arguments. I used to be that way, but have gotten over it for the most part.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I can understand why atheists would not want these things as I would not want these things either, but I do not understand how talking to people with religious beliefs would change these things if they were imminent. It would seem as if political involvement would be more likely to change these things.

I believe wholeheartedly that it very much changes things to talk to theists, argue with theists, attempt to show theists that they are not "correct" by any definition of that word with the specifics of their stories/beliefs/etc. This is for reasons you mentioned - keeping religion "in its place", so to speak, and making sure that no one fervent adherent or fanatic believes that they are unchallenged and can take hold of power to use it to lord their religion over the masses. The more show of dissent from any particular religious opinion THE BETTER. I WANT Muslims challenging Christians. Hindus challenging Muslims. Jews Challenging Heathens. Atheists challenging everyone. These are all decidedly good things - because it means that everyone must come to understand the REAL truth - and that is that saying you've got any part of it figured out is pipe dream. You don't. End of story. And so you do not get to dictate what anyone else believes, or practices - or doesn't believe or practice. The more it is known that religious beliefs are going to be challenged, the less incentive there is to try and use that as a platform to obtain power. It is as simple as that. And it very much starts at a "grass roots" level.

Maybe you meant to say that theirs is not the only "truth" because other religions also have truth? I can agree with that because I believe that all religions have “some truth” to offer. However, it is logically impossible that everything that all religions teach is “the truth” because religions contradict each another.

I feel it is actually a complete misconstruing of the issue to say that "all religions have some truth." That simply isn't the true characterization of the situation whatsoever. All religions have "some good or helpful ideas" is a better way to put it. They don't have "truth." It's not as if any of them have things "right" or know the absolute truth behind any of the things they speak on. How many things do you think you can list from your religion that are absolutely true and you know for a fact cannot be challenged in any way? I'd be surprised if you can think of many, or any. For example, we can't say that "the golden rule" is "truth". That makes absolutely no sense. It is a good idea. It is a great way to live. It is helpful in myriad ways. In no way is it "truth." There may be certain historical facts that are "true," but with our access to the past and ways of proofing those types of claims, we can't effectively weed our truth from stories for any of the religions. I don't feel that religions contain any "truth" as I understand truth. Maybe you can dissuade me from that opinion, I don't know.

That is rather vague. What part of reality do you think that believers are not seeing? Admittedly, one reason I talk to atheists is that I want them to see more of reality than the material world reality they see now because I do not believe this is the most important reality. I believe the spiritual reality is our true reality but that is a big subject, and it is based upon the premise that God exists and there is an afterlife (spiritual world).

That's just it though - there is absolutely nothing to be seen of the "spiritual world." There is nothing you can demonstrate or show us. And certainly none of it seems to qualify as "truth" as mentioned in my previous paragraph. You can "not believe this is the most important reality" all you want, but that WILL NOT CHANGE that, for some of us, THIS is the ONLY reality. I don't accept that there is a spiritual anything that I only can't perceive because I am not willing. That just sounds like lies to me. I dare say it always will.

Yes, I know this is the motive for some atheists because they have told me so. I think these stories you refer to are from the Bible. Why is it that atheists cannot understand that there are “other religions” that are not Bible-based? Why is it that atheists cannot understand that perhaps the Bible has some truth in it and that the Bible has been misinterpreted by those who believe in it, namely Christians? It is unjust to blame God for the doctrines of the Church that arose out of councils who decided what the Bible means. What about all the other religions? I suppose that atheists have to say they are all stories made up by man if there is no god.

I definitely subscribe to the "all stories made up by man" idea. Wholeheartedly. It is literally the only explanation that fits all the facts, in my opinion. The only one.

God is not a material being so what kind of “hard evidence” could we ever have that proves that God exists? This expectation of objective evidence of God is completely illogical, and atheists don’t even realize how illogical it is.

Does God wish for us to know of His existence in your opinion? And does He have the ability to make Himself known to any of us in your opinion? If your answer is yes to both of those, then the illogical belief is that He abstains from doing so for any reason. Do you believe God's "hands are tied" in any way? That He is bound to behave by very specific rules as to His conduct and behavior? Who imposes such rules on God? Wouldn't it have to be Himself? Therefore, if He decides not to do something, it has to be because HE DOESN'T WANT TO for whatever reason that may be. Not because He "can't", right? Therefore, I conclude with absolute certainty that God DOES NOT WANT all of us to be aware of Him. He does not want to make Himself known to all of us. It is also illogical to claim otherwise (again, IF you answered "yes" to my two questions).

If an omnipotent God exists, that God is the one who decides what kind of evidence it will provide to prove its existence to humans.

This is exactly right! And PROVES, without doubt, that God (provided He exists) simply does not want to prove His existence to humans. How can you not understand that?

I do understand that some people cannot believe in God based upon the claims of a Messenger but I really do not understand why not, because there really is no other way that God could communicate messages to humanity, if that was what God wanted to do.

Why is that? Some limitation on His power? And why in the world should a messenger be TRUSTED? how many people claim to be messengers that YOU don't trust? PLENTY!!! And yet you say "but I really do not understand why not" - THAT'S HYPOCRISY! You're basically saying YOU know when to trust a messenger and when not to. That's what you're saying - and it's a load of crap. You wouldn't trust ANYONE in this day and age claiming to be God's messenger. I guarantee it.

I have asked atheists repeatedly how God could communicate messages to humanity in any way other than using Messengers. The only answer I have received is that God could communicate directly to everyone. But how is that any different from God communicating to a Messenger? Why should God communicate the same message to everyone, when God can instead communicate to one man who can write that message down and make it available to everyone?

Oh, I don't know... because it might actually show that God values every human life individually and equally? Maybe that might be a good start. Right now that is NOT AT ALL what God seems to be portraying. Not even close. If anything, ever since we became more reliably able to deliver news and transfer our information to one another, God appears to have evaporated. A little too coincidental for my tastes.

I can understand why this would be problematic if the Messenger was just an ordinary man but the premise upon which my religion is based is that the Messengers of God are more than human. They have a divine mind and that is why they can receive and convey messages from God to man.

And have you ever met or borne witness to one of these messengers? Can you tell me specifically what makes them better candidates to receive communication from God than any of the rest of us? Can you tell me what made you trust them more than you do the guy who tries to stand up in church and pretend that Jesus is speaking through him? I have been witness to a situation exactly like that, by the way, and the congregation basically bore that guy out BY FORCE. How do we KNOW for sure it wasn't him? This will always be one of the biggest problems you will face trying to convince others. And in my opinion IT IS INSURMOUNTABLE.

You can only speak for yourself and other atheists you know personally. I know for a fact that many atheists are interested in knowing if there is a god because they told me so. Some are also interested in my religion and they researched it for themselves. I am not saying that they are going to believe it, but at least they are giving it a fair shot.

I too would be completely interested in knowing God, or knowing more about God - IF HE EXISTS. Until the time comes that such is proven (beyond a shadow of any doubt) to me, I have no choice but to treat God as falsehood. Just the same as I would feel if someone were to approach me with any story of a mythical creature that I had never come in contact, nor heard sincere tell of throughout my life. The universe is innocent of the existence of God until it is proven guilty.

I can tell you for a fact that the reason they do not believe in it is because they do not like the “idea” of Messengers of God, but not one atheist has ever given me a good reason why God cannot and would not use a Messenger to represent Him and reveal a message to humanity.

It is so easy... and I have already made mention of the reason. TRUST. There is NO GOOD REASON to trust someone who says they speak for God. None. If you believe there is such reason, name it, and we'll see how well it holds up.

That is what I am still waiting for, a logical reason. To say that they cannot trust that a Messenger is from God is not a logical reason. That is just an emotional reason born out of fear of being wrong about the Messenger. But what if they are wrong and God does use Messengers to communicate?

So, when someone asks if you want to buy the Golden Gate bridge for $5... is it ILLOGICAL to mistrust that person? That's what you are saying here. That not trusting someone who is telling you an outlandish piece of information is illogical. I have to say - this is one of the worst things I have ever heard. And that's just it - claims of God ARE OUTLANDISH. No matter what they are, and no matter who is doing the telling. They are incredible and are descriptions of something so profound that it should be obvious, shouldn't it? AND YET IT ISN'T OBVIOUS. Not at all. And you trying to convince me that it IS obvious is something I, personally, equate to you trying to sell me the Golden Gate bridge for $5. I don't trust you, and I have absolutely no reason to. Logic or not. Emotion or not. I DO NOT TRUST YOU.

 

[ChristineM]

That is one reason I talk to so many atheists.
Sheesh... I learn something new every day.

Ditto but without the "a"

Its so interesting to try to understand why a theist will claim proof, evidence, reality, truth when what they have is faithand circular reasoning.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I started this dialogue with @ wandering peacefully on another thread but it was brought to my attention that we were getting off topic for that thread so I am starting a new thread.

@Trailblazer said:
"Mostly what I was wondering about is why “some atheists” spend as much time as they do talking about god and religion, if they have no interest in it. I am sure there are as many reasons as there are atheists. From talking to as many atheists as I have as long as I have I know that some atheists would like to believe in God if they had “what they consider” to be sufficient evidence that God exists, but most atheists are not really that concerned about whether god exists or not, or so it seems. Maybe they have given up that there will ever be sufficient evidence and maybe some do not care."

That is probably true. There are only a limited amount of reasons atheists talk about religion and gods compared to the number of reasons religious people talk about religions.

I can understand why atheists would not want these things as I would not want these things either, but I do not understand how talking to people with religious beliefs would change these things if they were imminent. It would seem as if political involvement would be more likely to change these things.

Maybe you meant to say that theirs is not the only "truth" because other religions also have truth? I can agree with that because I believe that all religions have “some truth” to offer. However, it is logically impossible that everything that all religions teach is “the truth” because religions contradict each another.

If you mean more beneficial uses than just talking about beliefs I can agree with that. I believe that faith without works is dead. What would these actions be that would benefit the believer and the rest of humanity?

That is rather vague. What part of reality do you think that believers are not seeing? Admittedly, one reason I talk to atheists is that I want them to see more of reality than the material world reality they see now because I do not believe this is the most important reality. I believe the spiritual reality is our true reality but that is a big subject, and it is based upon the premise that God exists and there is an afterlife (spiritual world).

Yes, I know this is the motive for some atheists because they have told me so. I think these stories you refer to are from the Bible. Why is it that atheists cannot understand that there are “other religions” that are not Bible-based? Why is it that atheists cannot understand that perhaps the Bible has some truth in it and that the Bible has been misinterpreted by those who believe in it, namely Christians? It is unjust to blame God for the doctrines of the Church that arose out of councils who decided what the Bible means. What about all the other religions? I suppose that atheists have to say they are all stories made up by man if there is no god.

For over five years now, I have been posting to atheists 24/7 on several forums and asking them what they would expect for evidence of God, but so far I have received no answer that makes any sense. God is not a material being so what kind of “hard evidence” could we ever have that proves that God exists? This expectation of objective evidence of God is completely illogical, and atheists don’t even realize how illogical it is.

If an omnipotent God exists, that God is the one who decides what kind of evidence it will provide to prove its existence to humans. This is logic 101 stuff. To expect any evidence other than what God provides is unreasonable. The only evidence that God has ever provided is the Messengers (Prophets) God sends who establish religions.

I do understand that some people cannot believe in God based upon the claims of a Messenger but I really do not understand why not, because there really is no other way that God could communicate messages to humanity, if that was what God wanted to do. I have asked atheists repeatedly how God could communicate messages to humanity in any way other than using Messengers. The only answer I have received is that God could communicate directly to everyone. But how is that any different from God communicating to a Messenger? Why should God communicate the same message to everyone, when God can instead communicate to one man who can write that message down and make it available to everyone?

I can understand why this would be problematic if the Messenger was just an ordinary man but the premise upon which my religion is based is that the Messengers of God are more than human. They have a divine mind and that is why they can receive and convey messages from God to man.

You can only speak for yourself and other atheists you know personally. I know for a fact that many atheists are interested in knowing if there is a god because they told me so. Some are also interested in my religion and they researched it for themselves. I am not saying that they are going to believe it, but at least they are giving it a fair shot.

I can tell you for a fact that the reason they do not believe in it is because they do not like the “idea” of Messengers of God, but not one atheist has ever given me a good reason why God cannot and would not use a Messenger to represent Him and reveal a message to humanity. That is what I am still waiting for, a logical reason. To say that they cannot trust that a Messenger is from God is not a logical reason. That is just an emotional reason born out of fear of being wrong about the Messenger. But what if they are wrong and God does use Messengers to communicate?

Yes, as matter of fact, many atheists I have spoken with said that they are looking for God and asked me to show them the way. What do you think we discuss 24/7, the weather? Most of the atheists I talk to are not concerned about social or political issues, only about god.

Keep in mind that forums like this one can give a false picture. Even if someone talks about religion the whole time they're here, most of the time, they're not here.

 

[sealchan]

I started this dialogue with @ wandering peacefully on another thread but it was brought to my attention that we were getting off topic for that thread so I am starting a new thread.

@Trailblazer said:
"Mostly what I was wondering about is why “some atheists” spend as much time as they do talking about god and religion, if they have no interest in it. I am sure there are as many reasons as there are atheists. From talking to as many atheists as I have as long as I have I know that some atheists would like to believe in God if they had “what they consider” to be sufficient evidence that God exists, but most atheists are not really that concerned about whether god exists or not, or so it seems. Maybe they have given up that there will ever be sufficient evidence and maybe some do not care."

That is probably true. There are only a limited amount of reasons atheists talk about religion and gods compared to the number of reasons religious people talk about religions.

I can understand why atheists would not want these things as I would not want these things either, but I do not understand how talking to people with religious beliefs would change these things if they were imminent. It would seem as if political involvement would be more likely to change these things.

Maybe you meant to say that theirs is not the only "truth" because other religions also have truth? I can agree with that because I believe that all religions have “some truth” to offer. However, it is logically impossible that everything that all religions teach is “the truth” because religions contradict each another.

If you mean more beneficial uses than just talking about beliefs I can agree with that. I believe that faith without works is dead. What would these actions be that would benefit the believer and the rest of humanity?

That is rather vague. What part of reality do you think that believers are not seeing? Admittedly, one reason I talk to atheists is that I want them to see more of reality than the material world reality they see now because I do not believe this is the most important reality. I believe the spiritual reality is our true reality but that is a big subject, and it is based upon the premise that God exists and there is an afterlife (spiritual world).

Yes, I know this is the motive for some atheists because they have told me so. I think these stories you refer to are from the Bible. Why is it that atheists cannot understand that there are “other religions” that are not Bible-based? Why is it that atheists cannot understand that perhaps the Bible has some truth in it and that the Bible has been misinterpreted by those who believe in it, namely Christians? It is unjust to blame God for the doctrines of the Church that arose out of councils who decided what the Bible means. What about all the other religions? I suppose that atheists have to say they are all stories made up by man if there is no god.

For over five years now, I have been posting to atheists 24/7 on several forums and asking them what they would expect for evidence of God, but so far I have received no answer that makes any sense. God is not a material being so what kind of “hard evidence” could we ever have that proves that God exists? This expectation of objective evidence of God is completely illogical, and atheists don’t even realize how illogical it is.

If an omnipotent God exists, that God is the one who decides what kind of evidence it will provide to prove its existence to humans. This is logic 101 stuff. To expect any evidence other than what God provides is unreasonable. The only evidence that God has ever provided is the Messengers (Prophets) God sends who establish religions.

I do understand that some people cannot believe in God based upon the claims of a Messenger but I really do not understand why not, because there really is no other way that God could communicate messages to humanity, if that was what God wanted to do. I have asked atheists repeatedly how God could communicate messages to humanity in any way other than using Messengers. The only answer I have received is that God could communicate directly to everyone. But how is that any different from God communicating to a Messenger? Why should God communicate the same message to everyone, when God can instead communicate to one man who can write that message down and make it available to everyone?

I can understand why this would be problematic if the Messenger was just an ordinary man but the premise upon which my religion is based is that the Messengers of God are more than human. They have a divine mind and that is why they can receive and convey messages from God to man.

You can only speak for yourself and other atheists you know personally. I know for a fact that many atheists are interested in knowing if there is a god because they told me so. Some are also interested in my religion and they researched it for themselves. I am not saying that they are going to believe it, but at least they are giving it a fair shot.

I can tell you for a fact that the reason they do not believe in it is because they do not like the “idea” of Messengers of God, but not one atheist has ever given me a good reason why God cannot and would not use a Messenger to represent Him and reveal a message to humanity. That is what I am still waiting for, a logical reason. To say that they cannot trust that a Messenger is from God is not a logical reason. That is just an emotional reason born out of fear of being wrong about the Messenger. But what if they are wrong and God does use Messengers to communicate?

Yes, as matter of fact, many atheists I have spoken with said that they are looking for God and asked me to show them the way. What do you think we discuss 24/7, the weather? Most of the atheists I talk to are not concerned about social or political issues, only about god.

The best argument for something is an adequate response to a great argument against something. This drives all sincere, reasoned, respectful debate.

For me I have a believer on one shoulder and an atheist on the other always counseling me (so to speak). I channel one or the other more depending on the context.

Each perspective sharpens my insight, teaches me humility, helps me listen.

As a result I have a strong belief in belief, but not in literalism. It is a sort of deep respect and appreciation for a life-long immersion in imagination and the impact that can have for personal meaning.

What is hard for Christianity, my religion, is to accept non-literalism and diversity of belief. These qualities are so strong in Christianity these days that I think many atheists are almost triggered at a deep psychological level to heal believers of their fevered attitudes.

The human mind is an organ provides its species with access to an alternative (virtual) reality. The power that each of us experiences in our minds tempts us to believe that that reality is the higher reality even as the non-mind reality proves us wrong on a daily basis.

When you go to worship you enter a place of a special nature which is meant to help you focus on that other reality. It strengthens your inner resolve against the outer facts of our more mundane reality.

Atheists see science as the voice of the non-mind reality. Against that there are those who insist on the reality accessible to faith. Where the two overlap there is endless debate. It is as if there are two types of cognitive bias going on and the debate is being fueled by this naturally occurring divide.

 

[David T]

I started this dialogue with @ wandering peacefully on another thread but it was brought to my attention that we were getting off topic for that thread so I am starting a new thread.

@Trailblazer said:
"Mostly what I was wondering about is why “some atheists” spend as much time as they do talking about god and religion, if they have no interest in it. I am sure there are as many reasons as there are atheists. From talking to as many atheists as I have as long as I have I know that some atheists would like to believe in God if they had “what they consider” to be sufficient evidence that God exists, but most atheists are not really that concerned about whether god exists or not, or so it seems. Maybe they have given up that there will ever be sufficient evidence and maybe some do not care."

That is probably true. There are only a limited amount of reasons atheists talk about religion and gods compared to the number of reasons religious people talk about religions.

I can understand why atheists would not want these things as I would not want these things either, but I do not understand how talking to people with religious beliefs would change these things if they were imminent. It would seem as if political involvement would be more likely to change these things.

Maybe you meant to say that theirs is not the only "truth" because other religions also have truth? I can agree with that because I believe that all religions have “some truth” to offer. However, it is logically impossible that everything that all religions teach is “the truth” because religions contradict each another.

If you mean more beneficial uses than just talking about beliefs I can agree with that. I believe that faith without works is dead. What would these actions be that would benefit the believer and the rest of humanity?

That is rather vague. What part of reality do you think that believers are not seeing? Admittedly, one reason I talk to atheists is that I want them to see more of reality than the material world reality they see now because I do not believe this is the most important reality. I believe the spiritual reality is our true reality but that is a big subject, and it is based upon the premise that God exists and there is an afterlife (spiritual world).

Yes, I know this is the motive for some atheists because they have told me so. I think these stories you refer to are from the Bible. Why is it that atheists cannot understand that there are “other religions” that are not Bible-based? Why is it that atheists cannot understand that perhaps the Bible has some truth in it and that the Bible has been misinterpreted by those who believe in it, namely Christians? It is unjust to blame God for the doctrines of the Church that arose out of councils who decided what the Bible means. What about all the other religions? I suppose that atheists have to say they are all stories made up by man if there is no god.

For over five years now, I have been posting to atheists 24/7 on several forums and asking them what they would expect for evidence of God, but so far I have received no answer that makes any sense. God is not a material being so what kind of “hard evidence” could we ever have that proves that God exists? This expectation of objective evidence of God is completely illogical, and atheists don’t even realize how illogical it is.

If an omnipotent God exists, that God is the one who decides what kind of evidence it will provide to prove its existence to humans. This is logic 101 stuff. To expect any evidence other than what God provides is unreasonable. The only evidence that God has ever provided is the Messengers (Prophets) God sends who establish religions.

I do understand that some people cannot believe in God based upon the claims of a Messenger but I really do not understand why not, because there really is no other way that God could communicate messages to humanity, if that was what God wanted to do. I have asked atheists repeatedly how God could communicate messages to humanity in any way other than using Messengers. The only answer I have received is that God could communicate directly to everyone. But how is that any different from God communicating to a Messenger? Why should God communicate the same message to everyone, when God can instead communicate to one man who can write that message down and make it available to everyone?

I can understand why this would be problematic if the Messenger was just an ordinary man but the premise upon which my religion is based is that the Messengers of God are more than human. They have a divine mind and that is why they can receive and convey messages from God to man.

You can only speak for yourself and other atheists you know personally. I know for a fact that many atheists are interested in knowing if there is a god because they told me so. Some are also interested in my religion and they researched it for themselves. I am not saying that they are going to believe it, but at least they are giving it a fair shot.

I can tell you for a fact that the reason they do not believe in it is because they do not like the “idea” of Messengers of God, but not one atheist has ever given me a good reason why God cannot and would not use a Messenger to represent Him and reveal a message to humanity. That is what I am still waiting for, a logical reason. To say that they cannot trust that a Messenger is from God is not a logical reason. That is just an emotional reason born out of fear of being wrong about the Messenger. But what if they are wrong and God does use Messengers to communicate?

Yes, as matter of fact, many atheists I have spoken with said that they are looking for God and asked me to show them the way. What do you think we discuss 24/7, the weather? Most of the atheists I talk to are not concerned about social or political issues, only about god.

kimdred spirits.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

A lot of people on this forum are fundamentalists. They have two things in common. Firstly, they want other people to believe in the same things as they do. Secondly, they have no evidence for their beliefs. But they differ in that some are Christians, some are Muslims, and some are atheists. Simple!

 

[Trailblazer]

Also, we have given you proof and explanaton of having no messengers. There is a whole thread on it.

No, there is no proof that God does not have Messengers, but there is plenty of proof that God does have Messengers.

But the post is too long to snatch specifics. What are you trying to say as a whole?

I was not trying to "say" anything. I was just responding to @ wandering peacefully.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, it was your choice of word, so I can only guess what you meant.

When I use that word, I mean completely unaware.

I was not completely unaware, I just did not think about theism because I had no reason to do so.
One way to avoid thinking about it is to avoid people who talk about it all the time and do something different with your time. That is what I did.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No, there is no proof that God does not have Messengers, but there is plenty of proof that God does have Messengers.

I was not trying to "say" anything. I was just responding to @ wandering peacefully.

You don't need to agree for something to be proof. It's not like science where proof is tested and measured. God is an experience. If you can't experience god, you're just experiencing reflection of him through someone else.

Messengers are not god. There is no trinity. Bahaullah only existed very very recently. The default is he Is human just as the Pope. Can you explain the divinity in which bahaullah has in order to make him not human one hundred percent?

What traits does he have that you KNOW first hand to make him anything more than human? What is god that you trust what he says is true?

What is your object of comparision?

Until you find that, he's just human. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, how can we prove a human isn't a human when that's how he was born, from humans and by humans. The default is on us.

 

[Trailblazer]

Ditto but without the "a"

Its so interesting to try to understand why a theist will claim proof, evidence, reality, truth when what they have is faith and circular reasoning.

Ditto but with the "a"

Its so interesting to try to understand why atheists deny the evidence when the evidence is staring them in the face.

 

[Trailblazer]

Keep in mind that forums like this one can give a false picture. Even if someone talks about religion the whole time they're here, most of the time, they're not here.

Good point. I do not talk about religion when I am not here, although most of the time I am here.