Why atheism is wrong (from a Christian perspective) [ATHEISTS ONLY]

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

Basically I think agnosticism is the more honest and realistic stance. No atheist can say for certain that God doesn't exist so it more honest to admit the possibility of the Creator. Atheism at the end of the day is only a belief, not based on any evidence. So I say agnosticism is the more logical/scientific view.

But I find it hard to come up with arguments why it should be the Christian Creator except for the fact that its the most popular religion/faith system.

Galvasean

How about let the points stand in this thread? If someone posts something you strongly disagree with start a new thread to counter it.
Is that workable for everybody?

philologos

Galvasean wrote: »

How about let the points stand in this thread? If someone posts something you strongly disagree with start a new thread to counter it.
Is that workable for everybody?

Sounds like a reasonable way to work it out.

Interesting thread, and kudos to Wicknight for thinking about it.

Standman

Why does it matter who's wrong or right? Can't people just believe whatever they want as long as they keep it to themselves? With society in Ireland getting more and more secular does it really matter who is correct?

bogwalrus

My tiffs with atheism;

It bases averything on proofs and experiment with no exception for the fact that maybe you cant prove it because there is no experiment for it.

This i suppose could be the whole leap of faith idea, as in you believe cause you feel something is right, a kind of irrational feeling or even thought. Atheism always seems to subscribe to the idea that "its not right and you cant believe in something that cant be proven or has no evidence of it"

Another thing is (as a thought experiment) when i abandon all knowledge of religion and atheism i find myself looking at the world with the facts of evolution and science (and everything else) and feel that there is something else inside me or some kind of spiritual level of things that is seperate to all the logical scientific stuff. It could be described as a subconscious awareness of being conscious/alive/special.....

It is these kind of feelings that never get associated with atheism but more so theistic things. Like spirituality and stuff.

Though i am in no doubt an atheist, i feel these spiritual feelings and wait for a scientific explanation for them. And dont forget that scientific explanation could even be the proof of god;) Not a theistic god but maybe a creator or superior being of some sorts.

and a nice ending quote;

"Humans only exist because the universe wants to learn what it is"

mathius

Talliesin

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't think it's logically possible to have multiple gods because you have to ask how did they get there in the first place? Isn't it absurd to think that multiple equal gods exist eternally? How would there be any harmony? Too many cooks etc. Not a very thorough argument I know, but something to chew on.

Point of information (apart from which I will not offer arguments, in respect to the atheists-only request in the title). Polytheistic views generally don't define their gods as all-powerful. There is hence no claim of equality, eternity nor harmony.

Those polytheists with a view on the origins of the gods tend to either suggest that there is a creator/creatrix beyond the gods, that the gods evolved (obviously not generally involving DNA, but in the more general sense of adapting and change), that the gods are actually aspects of a monotheistic deity (so-called "soft polytheism") or simply that they don't hold any beliefs on the matter (a position in many ways analogous to agnosticism).

The Mad Hatter

Great idea for a thread WK - shame about all the flak you`re taking.

How about this?

Atheists often use the idea of science and evidence to support their claims. Nearly every religion in the world, despite claiming knowledge of the origin of the universe, etc., etc., comes down to one important point, and that`s to treat other people well, and with respect (though how this is accomplished varies from religion to religion). This idea of altruism is not a naturally human concept, and developed and spread largely because of religion, yet altruism is now considered to be one of the most important virtues in mankind. Also, it has been demonstrated in various psychological studies that altruistic behaviour makes us happy. Surely the pleasure we feel in achieving others` happiness, with no real benefit to ourselves, is evidence of some innate goodness in the universe itself.

Agonist

Despite myself, I've come up with a little anti-atheist mindset idea.
Comparing atheism to clinical depression: Studies have shown that depressed people's assessments of situations are more accurate (I don't have links to the studies). When asked how likely an event was to happen, non-depressed people were over-positive about the outcome, seeing the situation in a way that was skewed by feelings of luck or hope. Depressed poeple were shown the same situation and could more accurately recognise the reality of the chances of the event recurring.
As regards atheism, maybe we, by default, live life in an inaccurately optimistic way, buoyed on by feelings of immortality and of being held individually in the palm of our creator's hand.
If we choose to use our reasoning abiities to discard these lovely but unlikely notions we are forcing ourselves into the position of people with depression, seeing life as it is in a way we were never intended to.
I see this isn't an argument against atheism, more an argument about the healthiness/naturalness of it.
Ok, I've done my best.

Posted via Mobile Device

ressem

Atheism requires that theists produce their own testable model of the universe, which inherits aspects of the current scientific theories for the universe but with the Creating and Guiding God placed within it and following it's rules.

In contrast, mathematicians have free scope to imagine a universe where information is all, energy and matter are incidental, all we know is a 5D hologram generated projected from a 4D surface, but we could never tell the difference. (Scientific American Aug '03 paraphrased btw).
Or one in which every planck of energy is a tip of a multidimensional (and possibly manipulable) pin.

Yet with all these possibilities theists are challenged to point out the physical finger of god, as though a supreme being would need to use a particle accelerator to ignite a spark in a dentrite to turn a man left or right.

After all it was recently shown that in a mature field like electronics, where observations of memristance were written off or ignored for decades until recently, even observing an effect at an atomic scale does not guarantee that it will be heeded. How much more so would this apply to an inconsistent but intelligent bias applied to the minds of men.

OK-Cancel-Apply

Ok, I'll give this a try:

Since we ARE here, it MUST be for a reason. Look at the complexity of humanity. There has to be a purpose to it all - a test. For everything, including our vast intelligence, our ability to think and even to speak of this subject, to be nothing more than random chance, doesn't make sense. Science can only take us so far. Narrow is the path, and I choose to have faith in Jesus Christ. I cannot prove that He is real, and that's why I call it 'faith'. Since Christianity gives us moral guidelines, it would serve as the perfect balance to our chaotic universe. It's the biggest test we go through, and it makes sense to me.

---

Ok, back to being an atheist now. :P

gramlab

The only thing I can think of is that most (if not all) of us atheists/agnostics happily use belief or superstitions in things we cant provide evidence for in our regular daily lives e.g. hope, luck etc, yet we dismiss theists with a " there is no evidence" argument at almost every opportunity.

I think we would be much more open to the idea of a deity if if were just put out there like other information for us to digest and consider.