Why do Athiests challenge Thiests?

[Mycroft]

In that case, Talking and doing is a waste of time. My life is already predetermined, And everything I do is not me doing it, So I might aswell sit back and wait to kick the bucket.
But if I do that, It's still not me doing it.

So I guess I'll just believe in free will and find those things relevant instead.

Nice return.

The point is. That in all of this. The truth of the matter, the truth, is so much more wonderful, awesome, and inspiring than the very unoriginal and very unimaginative idea of god(s). That our elementary atoms come from the stars themselves. That we are part of the universe and the universe is part of us. That we have a connection to the universe - which is what you're after - you want to feel relevant, part of something, as though you're a participant in the events unfolding around you. And that's precisely what you are just by being alive. By this process, we are all united, we are all the same. You don't need god, nobody does. This being that lives outside of time and space and has only very, very petty concerns. You are above those petty concerns. All humans are above those petty concerns.

I don't know about you. But when I look up at the sky and see that very image (possible on some nights when the conditions are right), I feel a sense of wonder and awe that we all came from there, in one form or another. And that, in one form or another, we will return to it.

You're already immortal, in a way. Every atom in your body will be used again by nature. If you're buried your body will decompose and sustain the flowers that will, in turn, sustain the animals that feed off them who then give birth and repeat that cycle. On and on without ever ending.

Isn't that explanation so much better than 'godidit'?

 

[hexler]

In that case, Talking and doing is a waste of time. My life is already predetermined, And everything I do is not me doing it, So I might aswell sit back and wait to kick the bucket.
But if I do that, It's still not me doing it.

So I guess I'll just believe in free will and find those things relevant instead.

I think you will find your certitude; if you are earnestly searching for truth you will have success.

 

[Aquitaine]

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.)

Usually in response to Theists trying to shove their dogma down the throats of non-believers.

It gets tiring being told (by other regular Homo-Sapiens) that *they* know what Life is all about, and can save you etc.

 

[Valjean]

Why do Athiests challenge Thiests?

I sometimes question them, for the same reason you'd be curious about why someone believed we all landed in a flying saucer or that the Earth was hollow and we are all of subterranean origin.

Fervent beliefs with no empirical support and a great deal of contradictory evidence are just intrinsically interesting.

I try to be tactful, though. A world-view built on sand and held together with bubble gum is extremely fragile and, perhaps unconsciously, the faithful know it. They're easily threatened and can become very defensive and resentful.

 

[Thana]

Nice return.

The point is. That in all of this. The truth of the matter, the truth, is so much more wonderful, awesome, and inspiring than the very unoriginal and very unimaginative idea of god(s). That our elementary atoms come from the stars themselves. That we are part of the universe and the universe is part of us. That we have a connection to the universe - which is what you're after - you want to feel relevant, part of something, as though you're a participant in the events unfolding around you. And that's precisely what you are just by being alive. By this process, we are all united, we are all the same. You don't need god, nobody does. This being that lives outside of time and space and has only very, very petty concerns. You are above those petty concerns. All humans are above those petty concerns.

I don't know about you. But when I look up at the sky and see that very image (possible on some nights when the conditions are right), I feel a sense of wonder and awe that we all came from there, in one form or another. And that, in one form or another, we will return to it.

You're already immortal, in a way. Every atom in your body will be used again by nature. If you're buried your body will decompose and sustain the flowers that will, in turn, sustain the animals that feed off them who then give birth and repeat that cycle. On and on without ever ending.

Isn't that explanation so much better than 'godidit'?

To bring this back around to my initial question, Why are you telling me this?
Why do you want to convince me that you're life is better than mine, That you're world is better than mine? (This is a non-judgemental question)

I see that you see that beauty, Yet to me, I see so much more.
A love so deep and so beautiful, The only word that can come close to describing it is agape.

And of the visions that the prophets had, The beauty that they witnessed when they gazed upon Jesus. I want that, I ache for that.
More than anything, more than life itself, I want to be with Him.

 

[Riverwolf]

Nice return.

The point is. That in all of this. The truth of the matter, the truth, is so much more wonderful, awesome, and inspiring than the very unoriginal and very unimaginative idea of god(s). That our elementary atoms come from the stars themselves. That we are part of the universe and the universe is part of us. That we have a connection to the universe - which is what you're after - you want to feel relevant, part of something, as though you're a participant in the events unfolding around you. And that's precisely what you are just by being alive. By this process, we are all united, we are all the same. You don't need god, nobody does. This being that lives outside of time and space and has only very, very petty concerns. You are above those petty concerns. All humans are above those petty concerns.

I don't know about you. But when I look up at the sky and see that very image (possible on some nights when the conditions are right), I feel a sense of wonder and awe that we all came from there, in one form or another. And that, in one form or another, we will return to it.

You're already immortal, in a way. Every atom in your body will be used again by nature. If you're buried your body will decompose and sustain the flowers that will, in turn, sustain the animals that feed off them who then give birth and repeat that cycle. On and on without ever ending.

Isn't that explanation so much better than 'godidit'?

Cthulhu.

 

[Thana]

Why do Athiests challenge Thiests?

I sometimes question them, for the same reason you'd be curious about why someone believed we all landed in a flying saucer or that the Earth was hollow and we are all of subterranean origin.

Fervent beliefs with no empirical support and a great deal of contradictory evidence are just intrinsically interesting.

I try to be tactful, though. A world-view built on sand and held together with bubble gum is extremely fragile and, perhaps unconsciously, the faithful know it. They're easily threatened and can become very defensive and resentful.

I don't know it thats true, Personally I become more resentful and defensive when someone attacks my gender, moreso than someone attacking my religion.

So your answer is curiosity?

 

[Riverwolf]

If Einstein never challenged Newtonian physics, we wouldn't have special relativity, and thus probably no space program whatsoever.

I, personally, have no problem having my polytheism challenged by atheists or monotheists. It keeps my mind sharp.

 

[Mycroft]

To bring this back around to my initial question, Why are you telling me this?
Why do you want to convince me that you're life is better than mine, That you're world is better than mine? (This is a non-judgemental question)

I see that you see that beauty, Yet to me, I see so much more.
A love so deep and so beautiful, The only word that can come close to describing it is agape.

And of the visions that the prophets had, The beauty that they witnessed when they looked upon Jesus. I want that, I ache for that.
More than anything, more than life itself, I want to be with Him.

I tell you because I want you to be able to feel that awe and beauty without the vicarious promises of some being who created all of that and then took great pains to hide itself from those it created all of that for. It doesn't make sense.

I want you to see that the universe is big. And that we are big. And that your god is very, very, very small. Narrow-minded and very, very petty. You say it created all of that and yet it's main concerns seem to be who you sleep with, when you sleep with them, what you wear, what you eat, what you think, what you dream and whether you love it or not. It's infantile. A being that created that doesn't give a tuppeny-damn about what you do with your life. And it certainly doesn't hang a shambamdoobly on a guy and they 'don't use it 'til you get married'. It'd just make it pop out the day you got married.

There's much more to the universe than one, single, tiny, god.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't know it thats true, Personally I become more resentful and defensive when someone attacks my gender, moreso than someone attacking my religion.

So your answer is curiosity?

Hold up - you started with "challenge", and now you've switched to "attack". These aren't the same thing.

 

[Valjean]

I don't know it thats true, Personally I become more resentful and defensive when someone attacks my gender, moreso than someone attacking my religion.

So your answer is curiosity?

Yes, exactly.

 

[Thana]

I tell you because I want you to be able to feel that awe and beauty without the vicarious promises of some being who created all of that and then took great pains to hide itself from those it created all of that for. It doesn't make sense.

I want you to see that the universe is big. And that we are big. And that your god is very, very, very small. Narrow-minded and very, very petty. You say it created all of that and yet it's main concerns seem to be who you sleep with, when you sleep with them, what you wear, what you eat, what you think, what you dream and whether you love it or not. It's infantile. A being that created that doesn't give a tuppeny-damn about what you do with your life. And it certainly doesn't hang a shambamdoobly on a guy and they 'don't use it 'til you get married'. It'd just make it pop out the day you got married.

There's much more to the universe than one, single, tiny, god.

Those rules/laws were not for God, They were for us. A guide through life, if you will. If you don't have sex before marriage, You're not going to get pregnant/catch an STD.
If you don't steal, You won't get caught and punished.
If you love one another, You wont want to hurt one another.
And so on.

See my view is, I see everything you see, But with the addon of God and his beauty.
But you think I'm blind to everything except God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Those rules/laws were not for God, They were for us. A guide through life, if you will. If you don't have sex before marriage, You're not going to get pregnant/catch an STD.

Or... the real reason: if you don't have sex before marriage, your father will get a better bride-price for you when he sells you to your husband.

 

[Mycroft]

Those rules/laws were not for God, They were for us. A guide through life, if you will. If you don't have sex before marriage, You're not going to get pregnant/catch an STD.

Then we invented the condom. Problem solved. A law for man that was relevant for a certain time and certain conditions, maybe. But no longer.

If you don't steal, You won't get caught and punished.

A law that was in operation long before the idea of god or christianity crawled from the minds of men.

If you love one another, You wont want to hurt one another.

[

Not necessarily true. Hitler loved his family very much. But wanted to exterminate an entire race of people. And he was a Christian.

See my view is, I see everything you see, But with the addon of God and his beauty.
But you think I'm blind to everything except God.

I don't think that. I see your questions and some of them are quite interesting and some of your replies quite erudite. But in what I see I find no evidence for there being a god, or there ever have been. It's too random, too chaotic, too imperfect.

 

[Mycroft]

Or... the real reason: if you don't have sex before marriage, your father will get a better bride-price for you when he sells you to your husband.

And what this man has just said.

 

[Riverwolf]

Those rules/laws were not for God, They were for us. A guide through life, if you will. If you don't have sex before marriage, You're not going to get pregnant/catch an STD.
If you don't steal, You won't get caught and punished.
If you love one another, You wont want to hurt one another.
And so on.

However, I'd argue that those aren't good reasons for such guidelines, anymore.

For one thing, the "no sex before marriage" thing isn't relevant anymore, because unmarried partners are perfectly capable of taking great care to practice safe sex to avoid STDs and unwanted pregnancies, and married couples are just as prone to those things as everyone else if they don't practice safe sex (or if you get instances of people getting "married" for a few weeks for the sake of legitimate-in-God's-eyes sex, only to divorce and do it all over again.) Inheritance problems are also not as difficult to resolve as they used to be. The institute of marriage was likely more in place to make inheritance easier to resolve, help check the spread of diseases (condoms at the time were not anywhere near as guaranteed to help with that as modern ones are), and probably partially with some population control in mind to help keep the economy strong, since that's easier to do with a relatively small population.

The reason we don't steal isn't because of the risk of punishment, it's because we live in a "you scratch my back, I scratch yours" system, and always have done so since multiple tribes started interacting with each other during Neolithic times. For our hard work at making other lives better, we expect some payment that will make our own lives better. Stealing undermines that: taking something without giving something in return makes living harder for the victim, and thus harms society as a whole by hurting the economy.

If you love someone too much, to the point of obsession, you'll do much harm to yourself, and potentially to others. You might think you love them but do things which are ultimately harmful because you don't know any better. But, of course, if you don't make the attempt to at least try empathizing with other people, then extreme tribalism is likely to develop, which is extremely harmful. So simple, well-intended love might be noble, but without knowledge of how to express that love in non-harmful ways, it's no guarantee of peace on Earth.

So, safe sex is good to practice, stealing is wrong, and building compassion for others outside our perceived tribe (close friends + family) is a good thing. We're capable of understanding them, now, and I think we always have been. After all, most cultures had these rules long before the Torah was ever written. (Check out the Code of Hammurabi if you haven't.)

I'm not really trying to argue your point, so much as I'm trying to help support the fact that these guidelines were, at least, reasonable for the times and cultures that produced them, whether God gave them or not, and at least two of them are absolutely still relevant today.

 

[Riverwolf]

Then we invented the condom.

Actually, condoms are as old as civilization itself.

 

[The Bullfrog]

Those rules/laws were not for God, They were for us. A guide through life, if you will. If you don't have sex before marriage, You're not going to get pregnant/catch an STD.
If you don't steal, You won't get caught and punished.
If you love one another, You wont want to hurt one another.
And so on.

See my view is, I see everything you see, But with the addon of God and his beauty.
But you think I'm blind to everything except God.

"But with the addon of God and his beauty."

There is nothing you gain when you see fantasy as truth over one who sees both truth and fantasy. But when you falsely see fantasy as truth then you do not see the truth behind your fantasy.

 

[Mycroft]

Actually, condoms are as old as civilization itself.

I agree the remark was a little flippant.

 

[Thana]

"But with the addon of God and his beauty."

There is nothing you gain when you see fantasy as truth over one who sees both truth and fantasy. But when you falsely see fantasy as truth then you do not see the truth behind your fantasy.

But you don't see my 'fantasy', You only see that I see my 'fantasy' and you only know of what I tell you about my 'fantasy'.

But you're the one distinguising truth and fantasy, Whereas all I see is truth.

However, I'd argue that those aren't good reasons for such guidelines, anymore.

For one thing, the "no sex before marriage" thing isn't relevant anymore, because unmarried partners are perfectly capable of taking great care to practice safe sex to avoid STDs and unwanted pregnancies, and married couples are just as prone to those things as everyone else if they don't practice safe sex (or if you get instances of people getting "married" for a few weeks for the sake of legitimate-in-God's-eyes sex, only to divorce and do it all over again.) Inheritance problems are also not as difficult to resolve as they used to be. The institute of marriage was likely more in place to make inheritance easier to resolve, help check the spread of diseases (condoms at the time were not anywhere near as guaranteed to help with that as modern ones are), and probably partially with some population control in mind to help keep the economy strong, since that's easier to do with a relatively small population.

The reason we don't steal isn't because of the risk of punishment, it's because we live in a "you scratch my back, I scratch yours" system, and always have done so since multiple tribes started interacting with each other during Neolithic times. For our hard work at making other lives better, we expect some payment that will make our own lives better. Stealing undermines that: taking something without giving something in return makes living harder for the victim, and thus harms society as a whole by hurting the economy.

If you love someone too much, to the point of obsession, you'll do much harm to yourself, and potentially to others. You might think you love them but do things which are ultimately harmful because you don't know any better. But, of course, if you don't make the attempt to at least try empathizing with other people, then extreme tribalism is likely to develop, which is extremely harmful. So simple, well-intended love might be noble, but without knowledge of how to express that love in non-harmful ways, it's no guarantee of peace on Earth.

So, safe sex is good to practice, stealing is wrong, and building compassion for others outside our perceived tribe (close friends + family) is a good thing. We're capable of understanding them, now, and I think we always have been. After all, most cultures had these rules long before the Torah was ever written. (Check out the Code of Hammurabi if you haven't.)

I'm not really trying to argue your point, so much as I'm trying to help support the fact that these guidelines were, at least, reasonable for the times and cultures that produced them, whether God gave them or not, and at least two of them are absolutely still relevant today.

They were just examples, There is more to them than what I said.