Why do Athiests challenge Thiests?

[NobodyYouKnow]

Any form of personal deity is only a stepping stone to the ultimate Reality.

We use this created image as a tool to focus our awareness and concentration to that which exists beyond what our limited mind and senses can comprehend.

It makes no difference what Deity one worships if they worship it with the fullest love, devotion and concentration...heck, if a person loved a chair they could worship it and attain the 'God-state' given enough time and application.

The form of God is totally incomprehensible to us, so we need to find the best attributes of what we see in the world...what we see in ourselves before we choose to worship a certain God or Deity. Something we can 'relate to' thus facilitating concentration, meditation and love.

For example, I worship the Hindu God, Shiva (see avatar)...now, Shiva can look like that, or in dancing form (Nataraja) or in terrible form (Bhairava) or even as an impersonal form - Shiva Lingam.

Shiva Lingam is just a rock shaped like an egg, meant to symbolise the Shiva that is 'unknown', but I don't worship Shiva Lingam (and I should). Also, the Shiva that appears to me...that I believe in doesn't look anything like my avatar, or the pictures of Shiva you see...some things are the same...some things are different, but that's just me and my 'add-ons'. lol

As for being offended when people insult my religion, or trying to convert others?

I guess that realising Shiva has also made me a bit more 'thick skinned' in that everything people say gotta go through Him first! I am so in love with Shiva, that words and harm cannot touch me. I don't seek to defend my beliefs or express them to others because I am totally secure and happy.

In a way, it's also made me a bit 'self-centred' too.

Yeah, I'd like to share this feeling, but I am also quite content to just experience it myself and not care about anything or anyone else.

 

[Willamena]

You'll need to grow thicker skin to survive here. All gods in this place get ravaged and ridiculed daily.

But when they're ravaged and ridiculed for the sake of rhetoric (as was the case here), it gets a bit silly.

 

[ruffen]

A lot of my Athiest friends challenge my beliefs, And it got me wondering, Why?

I challenge an Athiests beliefs because I want to show them the love of God, To help save their immortal soul, And because I believe one can live a better life with Religion
(I base this on the fact that most morals conincide with the teachings of the Bible)

So my question is: Why do some non-religious people challenge the beliefs of those who are religious?

What do you gain from it?
What is there to gain from 'taking' someone's faith from them?
Is that not immoral to you?

I'm genuinley curious.

(Also, I'd rather not have the fact that it's because religious people killed others who weren't of the same faith, Wars that were caused by religion because
Most religion teaches you not to kill, So if you go against that, Then you'd kill for greed, lust, politics etc regardless of your faith.)

It is an interesting and important question. Many people can easily relate to theists who feel the nead to spread the meassage and love of their deity, but cannot understand why atheists would do the same as they don't have a deity.

For me personally it is about knowledge and truth. In my opinion there are universal truths out there (as most theists would agree to as well, in their case that God exists for everyone whether one believs or not).

So when I see what I (somewhat harshly and arrogant, maybe) interpret as enormous amounts of people subscribing to ignorance and easy but false answers to the big questions, I feel an urge to spread what is really actually true.

And I'm not expecting people to believe me and my non-belief on pure faith and respect and authority, as that is exactly the kind of system I find worth fighting against. Therefore, I try to be as rational as possible, and show the logical flaws and fallacies of their religions or beliefs, and argue that an evidence-based peer-reviewed system of gaining incremental knowledge is objectively of a higher quality than a revelation-based system with no basis in reality at all.


Some will say that science and religion are two completely different arenas that don't have anything to do with each other - religion doesn't try to do science so science shouldn't try to say anything about religion. This is of course a false assumption. Religions that claim to know anything about the origin and/or age of the Universe, of the Earth, of life and of human kind, are indeed stepping on science's toes.

And the purpose of science is to learn about how nature works. This means that if miracles can happen or if the world came into being through non-natural means (ie. were created by an intelligent being instead of just forming due to natural processes), there should be some sort of evidence for this. So if God or God's work or powers have any influence on the real Universe, in the past or in the present, these effects should be detectable. Therefore, science can indeed contribute valuable knowledge to the big debate of God's existence or non-existence.


So why is it so important to spread this? I believe that truth itself has a value for us humans. Someone once said that "I'll rather be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie", and I wholeheartedly agree to this. I actually understand preachers who feel that they have important knowledge about how the world works, and feel an intense urge to spread it so that more people can be enlightened. The only problem is that they have got it wrong - as their methods of finding out such truths are of a lower quality than science's methods of skepticism and doubt and peer-review.

But the same principle still applies - I can logically and empirically refute the idea of God that millions if not billions of people have, and I have an urge to do that so that more people can think rationally and be skeptical of claims about the nature of the Universe. I also believe that religions are either the root cause, or a convenient excuse, of most of the wars, terrorism, brain-washing, and unhealthy power hierarchies we see in the world today. That also makes it totally worth fighting against.

Of course, on a forum like this, one will never get in touch with the people who really need the most to rid themselves of religion, as the good people here on RF are willing to at least hear arguments and have a civilized discussion on these matters. But it is a very nice place for learning the typical religious fallacies - logical fallacies, typical strawmen, common misconseptions about science and what humans know and how certain those different bits of knowledge are and the methods for acquiring that knowledge, and typical arguments for religion in general.

Learning about these things can be very valuable when one gets into a discussion with religious people in "the real world", to be ready for the typical arguments and have thought them through so that one is not caught off guard by religious nonsense.

 

[steeltoes]

A lot of my Athiest friends challenge my beliefs, And it got me wondering, Why?

I challenge an Athiests beliefs because I want to show them the love of God, To help save their immortal soul, And because I believe one can live a better life with Religion
(I base this on the fact that most morals conincide with the teachings of the Bible)

So my question is: Why do some non-religious people challenge the beliefs of those who are religious?

What do you gain from it?
What is there to gain from 'taking' someone's faith from them?
Is that not immoral to you?

I'm genuinley curious.

(Also, I'd rather not have the fact that it's because religious people killed others who weren't of the same faith, Wars that were caused by religion because
Most religion teaches you not to kill, So if you go against that, Then you'd kill for greed, lust, politics etc regardless of your faith.)

It's already been pointed out that your atheist friends challenge you because you challenge them, that much is kind of a given as to why. The thing is, is that atheists come to differing conclusions than the religious because of differing world views. Gods are invisible and difficult to distinguish from nothing at all, kind of a stickler for those that aren't so willing to accept the notion that invisible gods exist out there. Atheists simply don't believe you and have come to different conclusions about your book.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

First off, Thats a bit presumptive don't you think? Whoever said I was or wanted to be a Champion for my God?

I think you did. Haven't you said that your ambition is to share your God with the others here? To help them feel your God?

Well, and i can say that I'm here for the same thing. I like to think of each of us as ambassadors for our gods. Sometimes I want to ask people whether their God would be happy with their behavior here. If i see an ill-behaved or confused person, I am seeing their God as ill-behaved and confused.

If I was complaining, Then I really need to work on my technique.

I would characterize it as complaining, but I don't fault you for it. I think you're doing a great job for someone who has just found the forum.

Yes we create them, But to an Athiest my beliefs are Delusional or Fantasy that I believe is reality, And yes I could create a vampire, But I don't mistake it for reality.

But other people do. Have you ever seen the Ann Rice groupies? I'm sure some of them believe in the reality of vampires just as you believe in the reality of God.

From my own perspective, I see you both in the same way. You believe in invisible beings as if they were somehow 'real'.

But I could be as wrong about all that. Who knows.

But my God has Hell. I don't really agree with it, I somewhat oppose the idea, But I accept it nonetheless. How is that a better God for me? If I created Him, Would I not change that?

I suspect that you will change it as you go along. I've seen many young or new Christians change their views of hell radically as they age.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

First off, Thats a bit presumptive don't you think? Whoever said I was or wanted to be a Champion for my God?

If I was complaining, Then I really need to work on my technique.

Yes we create them, But to an Athiest my beliefs are Delusional or Fantasy that I believe is reality, And yes I could create a vampire, But I don't mistake it for reality.

But my God has Hell. I don't really agree with it, I somewhat oppose the idea, But I accept it nonetheless. How is that a better God for me? If I created Him, Would I not change that?








Yes, But they had the idea, the notion, Of the existance of a Black Hole.

I don't understand a lot concerning God, So how did I create things I don't understand?

You do not actually know if your God has hell though do you, have you seen Hell? All you know is that there needs to be a sense of Justice in the World, one where the wicked are punished for what they do. Would it seem fair that a person who has caused death and destruction would simply die and not have to answer for their crimes? It certainly doesn't and so you create hell.

Do you believe God is Love? You certainly believe in Hell meaning that those who do not do what is right before God are punished. These did not simply come to exist, you were told about them. They were not discoveries you did for yourself, but what people told you God did. Concepts, that they were taught and passed down as societies evolved and developed.

 

[ruffen]

Also, it is not immoral to take away someone's faith.

If someone takes comfort in knowing that the Earth is flat, would it be immoral to show them a picture of it from space showing it to be spherical?

If someone takes comfort in knowing that climate change isn't real, would it be immoral to show them that it is infact real and encourage them to pollute less?

If someone takes comfort in knowing that the tyrant running their country is a super-human that is divine and that their country is therefore perfect, would it be immoral to show them other countries that have better systems where people are actually free?


I think that truth has a value that is of greater importance than the discomfort someone might feel for having their religion torn apart. People also mistakenly think that a godless worldview renders life meaningless, and I find it important to show that this is not true at all.

 

[Thana]

I think you did. Haven't you said that your ambition is to share your God with the others here? To help them feel your God?

Well, and i can say that I'm here for the same thing. I like to think of each of us as ambassadors for our gods. Sometimes I want to ask people whether their God would be happy with their behavior here. If i see an ill-behaved or confused person, I am seeing their God as ill-behaved and confused.



I would characterize it as complaining, but I don't fault you for it. I think you're doing a great job for someone who has just found the forum.



But other people do. Have you ever seen the Ann Rice groupies? I'm sure some of them believe in the reality of vampires just as you believe in the reality of God.

From my own perspective, I see you both in the same way. You believe in invisible beings as if they were somehow 'real'.

But I could be as wrong about all that. Who knows.



I suspect that you will change it as you go along. I've seen many young or new Christians change their views of hell radically as they age.

Yes, But that does not make me a 'Champion For God'.. I'd never see myself in that way. My primary reason for joining was to learn.

Yes I know other people do, I'm talking about the people who don't, But you keep avoiding the question.


That's really quite unfair, To assume I would change my beliefs just because I do not like a concept. I know others have done so, But that does not mean I will.
I do not change God, Or his word, To suit my own desires. Though I sometimes would like to.
But I understand why you would think that.

And also, I've been A Christian most of my life, So no I may not be old, But I wouldn't say I was a young Christian.

You do not actually know if your God has hell though do you, have you seen Hell? All you know is that there needs to be a sense of Justice in the World, one where the wicked are punished for what they do. Would it seem fair that a person who has caused death and destruction would simply die and not have to answer for their crimes? It certainly doesn't and so you create hell.

Do you believe God is Love? You certainly believe in Hell meaning that those who do not do what is right before God are punished. These did not simply come to exist, you were told about them. They were not discoveries you did for yourself, but what people told you God did. Concepts, that they were taught and passed down as societies evolved and developed.

If I know there is a God, And God tells me there is Hell, Then yes I know there is a Hell.

The wicked are not punished by God, But punish themselves. They do answer for their crimes, Everyone gets their moment in front of God, Non-believers and Believers.

God told me about them, not people. I would never trust people with my faith of God, Because people are fallible.
And they were discoveries I made for myself.

 

[Thana]

It is an interesting and important question. Many people can easily relate to theists who feel the nead to spread the meassage and love of their deity, but cannot understand why atheists would do the same as they don't have a deity.

For me personally it is about knowledge and truth. In my opinion there are universal truths out there (as most theists would agree to as well, in their case that God exists for everyone whether one believs or not).

So when I see what I (somewhat harshly and arrogant, maybe) interpret as enormous amounts of people subscribing to ignorance and easy but false answers to the big questions, I feel an urge to spread what is really actually true.

And I'm not expecting people to believe me and my non-belief on pure faith and respect and authority, as that is exactly the kind of system I find worth fighting against. Therefore, I try to be as rational as possible, and show the logical flaws and fallacies of their religions or beliefs, and argue that an evidence-based peer-reviewed system of gaining incremental knowledge is objectively of a higher quality than a revelation-based system with no basis in reality at all.


Some will say that science and religion are two completely different arenas that don't have anything to do with each other - religion doesn't try to do science so science shouldn't try to say anything about religion. This is of course a false assumption. Religions that claim to know anything about the origin and/or age of the Universe, of the Earth, of life and of human kind, are indeed stepping on science's toes.

And the purpose of science is to learn about how nature works. This means that if miracles can happen or if the world came into being through non-natural means (ie. were created by an intelligent being instead of just forming due to natural processes), there should be some sort of evidence for this. So if God or God's work or powers have any influence on the real Universe, in the past or in the present, these effects should be detectable. Therefore, science can indeed contribute valuable knowledge to the big debate of God's existence or non-existence.


So why is it so important to spread this? I believe that truth itself has a value for us humans. Someone once said that "I'll rather be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie", and I wholeheartedly agree to this. I actually understand preachers who feel that they have important knowledge about how the world works, and feel an intense urge to spread it so that more people can be enlightened. The only problem is that they have got it wrong - as their methods of finding out such truths are of a lower quality than science's methods of skepticism and doubt and peer-review.

But the same principle still applies - I can logically and empirically refute the idea of God that millions if not billions of people have, and I have an urge to do that so that more people can think rationally and be skeptical of claims about the nature of the Universe. I also believe that religions are either the root cause, or a convenient excuse, of most of the wars, terrorism, brain-washing, and unhealthy power hierarchies we see in the world today. That also makes it totally worth fighting against.

Of course, on a forum like this, one will never get in touch with the people who really need the most to rid themselves of religion, as the good people here on RF are willing to at least hear arguments and have a civilized discussion on these matters. But it is a very nice place for learning the typical religious fallacies - logical fallacies, typical strawmen, common misconseptions about science and what humans know and how certain those different bits of knowledge are and the methods for acquiring that knowledge, and typical arguments for religion in general.

Learning about these things can be very valuable when one gets into a discussion with religious people in "the real world", to be ready for the typical arguments and have thought them through so that one is not caught off guard by religious nonsense.

You are very informed, And I respect that.
I appreciate you sharing your view with me, As it helps me gain an understanding whereas otherwise I would be ignorant, And I hate to be ignorant.

It's already been pointed out that your atheist friends challenge you because you challenge them, that much is kind of a given as to why. The thing is, is that atheists come to differing conclusions than the religious because of differing world views. Gods are invisible and difficult to distinguish from nothing at all, kind of a stickler for those that aren't so willing to accept the notion that invisible gods exist out there. Atheists simply don't believe you and have come to different conclusions about your book.

Which is fair enough, I suppose.
But can you blame me for wanting to point out that If you truly seek God, You will find Him?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Yes, But that does not make me a 'Champion For God'.. I'd never see myself in that way. My primary reason for joining was to learn.

Yes I know other people do, I'm talking about the people who don't, But you keep avoiding the question.


That's really quite unfair, To assume I would change my beliefs just because I do not like a concept. I know others have done so, But that does not mean I will.
I do not change God, Or his word, To suit my own desires. Though I sometimes would like to.
But I understand why you would think that.

And also, I've been A Christian most of my life, So no I may not be old, But I wouldn't say I was a young Christian.






If I know there is a God, And God tells me there is Hell, Then yes I know there is a Hell.

The wicked are not punished by God, But punish themselves. They do answer for their crimes, Everyone gets their moment in front of God, Non-believers and Believers.

God told me about them, not people. I would never trust people with my faith of God, Because people are fallible.
And they were discoveries I made for myself.

Ah okay, I didn't know that God spoke directly through you. I thought it was from reading the bible. But I don't think you understand what I'm talking about when I say concepts...but ok.

 

[Thana]

Ah okay, I didn't know that God spoke directly through you. I thought it was from reading the bible. But I don't think you understand what I'm talking about when I say concepts...but ok.

Of course he does?
I don't understand why you didn't know that?
Is it not true of every Thiest?

 

[ruffen]

You are very informed, And I respect that.
I appreciate you sharing your view with me, As it helps me gain an understanding whereas otherwise I would be ignorant, And I hate to be ignorant.

Thanks for that, Thana. I've already learned stuff from you as well. I don't agree with most things you say, but it's very valuable to have discussions.

 

[Sunstone]

Also, it is not immoral to take away someone's faith.

If someone takes comfort in knowing that the Earth is flat, would it be immoral to show them a picture of it from space showing it to be spherical?

If someone takes comfort in knowing that climate change isn't real, would it be immoral to show them that it is infact real and encourage them to pollute less?

If someone takes comfort in knowing that the tyrant running their country is a super-human that is divine and that their country is therefore perfect, would it be immoral to show them other countries that have better systems where people are actually free?


I think that truth has a value that is of greater importance than the discomfort someone might feel for having their religion torn apart. People also mistakenly think that a godless worldview renders life meaningless, and I find it important to show that this is not true at all.

I generally agree with you. But what if I hold a harmless belief that happens to be false. For instance, suppose I believe I'm a very good singer when I am not. If the consequences of that belief are harmless to myself and to others, is anyone obligated to disabuse me of it? That is, does anyone have a legitimate moral reason to point out that my singing sucks? Genuine question. I don't have a firm opinion one way or the other.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Of course he does?
I don't understand why you didn't know that?
Is it not true of every Thiest?

Of course it's "true" for every theist.

The thing is you said that you cannot comprehend God but you are attributing comprehendable traits to God.

I.e. that God talks to you, if God is incomprehensible how would you be able to comprehend God talking to you? So God has sat down with you and had a conversation with you as you have had with your parents?

If so then do you accept that for instance the Zoroaster's are also correct? Or how about the Atheist? Maybe God decided to tell them not to believe in God and erased their memory.

 

[fantome profane]

I generally agree with you. But what if I hold a harmless belief that happens to be false. For instance, suppose I believe I'm a very good singer when I am not. If the consequences of that belief are harmless to myself and to others, is anyone obligated to disabuse me of it? That is, does anyone have a legitimate moral reason to point out that my singing sucks? Genuine question. I don't have a firm opinion one way or the other.

If you sing in public, how is that harmless to others?

 

[Thana]

I generally agree with you. But what if I hold a harmless belief that happens to be false. For instance, suppose I believe I'm a very good singer when I am not. If the consequences of that belief are harmless to myself and to others, is anyone obligated to disabuse me of it? That is, does anyone have a legitimate moral reason to point out that my singing sucks? Genuine question. I don't have a firm opinion one way or the other.

I suppose their reasoning would be because they don't want to listen to your terrible singing or they feel telling the truth is beneficial, Regardless of it is or not.

Or because they're well, Jerks

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I generally agree with you. But what if I hold a harmless belief that happens to be false. For instance, suppose I believe I'm a very good singer when I am not. If the consequences of that belief are harmless to myself and to others, is anyone obligated to disabuse me of it? That is, does anyone have a legitimate moral reason to point out that my singing sucks? Genuine question. I don't have a firm opinion one way or the other.

Lol well if you show up on American Idol and potentially embarass yourself

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Yes, But that does not make me a 'Champion For God'.. I'd never see myself in that way. My primary reason for joining was to learn.

OK. It's just a label. It doesn't mean much.

Yes I know other people do, I'm talking about the people who don't, But you keep avoiding the question.

I have no idea what question you think I'm avoiding. In your reply, mark it as Question #1 and present it to me. I'll answer.

That's really quite unfair, To assume I would change my beliefs just because I do not like a concept. I know others have done so, But that does not mean I will.

I'm sorry to hear that. It means you will be worshipping the same god in twenty years as you worship now.

I do not change God, Or his word, To suit my own desires. Though I sometimes would like to. But I understand why you would think that.

Once upon a time you had a desire to know and experience God... yes?

And what did you do to satisfy that desire? Well, I'm guessing that you decided to embrace some 'scripture', probably the Christian Bible, and convince yourself that the words in that book came directly from God and that by reading and thinking about those words, you could come to know God.

Yes?

To suit my desires for God, I determined that no such thing as scripture actually exists. A sensible God just wouldn't send a text of words down to humanity, most especially to some small tribe in a backwater region thousands of years ago.

People suit their own desires when finding their God, I think.

God told me about them, not people. I would never trust people with my faith of God, Because people are fallible.

See what I mean? It is your desire for infallibility, for certainty, which drives you to embrace the Bible and indeed the concept of scripture itself.

May I ask if you also believe in prophecy -- in the sense of magical prognostication?

It's not really relevant. I'm just curious.

 

[Thana]

Of course it's "true" for every theist.

The thing is you said that you cannot comprehend God but you are attributing comprehendable traits to God.

I.e. that God talks to you, if God is incomprehensible how would you be able to comprehend God talking to you? So God has sat down with you and had a conversation with you as you have had with your parents?

If so then do you accept that for instance the Zoroaster's are also correct? Or how about the Atheist? Maybe God decided to tell them not to believe in God and erased their memory.

No I said I cannot comprehend everything there is of God,
Not that there are no things that I can comprehend.

I suppose, for some, It is like having a conversation with anyone else, But for me it's different.

It's knowledge. No words, Just is.

 

[Sunstone]

If you sing in public, how is that harmless to others?

Obviously, it wouldn't be typical of me to sing in public, for -- as I said -- my singing must be harmless to myself and others. But even if it were, would the level of harm done to others justify someone's disabusing me of my notion that I'm a good singer? What level of harm is required for it to be worth anyone's effort to disabuse someone of a false belief?