Atheist!

[Liar]

the reason many people don't like atheists, in my opinion, is because there is a stereotype of the arrogant snobbish atheist who looks down on the savage masses as if they (the atheist) are superior to them (the believers).

And there's another reason. There are many who are Christians, but not confident enough in their beliefs, so they cling to Jesus like a raft. They feel threatened by the fact that people can live full, happy and meaningful lives without that.

 

[john-the-author]

although 'under God' was a recent addition to the slightly less recent Pledge, the connection of the US government and the Xtian church is historic,

witness this, on the first Chaplain to the US Senate:

answers.com

Provoost, Samuel (prō'vōst) , 1742–1815, first Episcopal bishop of New York, b. New York City, grad. King's College (now Columbia Univ.), 1758. He studied at Cambridge and in 1766 was ordained. He was appointed assistant minister of Trinity parish in New York City. Because of his sympathy with the colonial cause, Provoost was forced (1771) to resign from Trinity but returned as rector in 1784. Created bishop of New York (1786), he was consecrated (1787) in England. He served as chaplain to the Continental Congress (1785) and to the U.S. Senate (1789).


from famousamericans.net

On his return [from England, in 1787], Bishop Provoost resumed his duties as rector of Trinity [Church, NY], the two positions being then filled by the same person. He was one of the trustees of Columbia college, and under the present constitution was elected chaplain of the United States senate. After his inauguration as president, Washington, with many other distinguished men proceeded on foot to St. Paul's church (see illustration), where Bishop Provoost read prayers suited to the occasion.

Or perhaps not. As was stated so unambiguously in Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli from 1797, signed by John Adams (who ought to know) and approved by Congress (who also would've been around for everything), we're not a Christian nation:

"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; ...."

This was approved by unanimous vote of the Congress, only the third that had occurred at that time.

There are Christian revisionists who've been trying to drag in the idea that we were founded on Christian this or that, but it's more correct to suggest that we were founded on the freethinking of people like Voltaire.

 

[jomar]

...An atheist's thinking can not be logically correct because his ultimate premise for thinking does not exist.

To be a Christian by any definition I know is to believe in the Absolute, the Truth, Stable and Unchanging absolute. That is why you are a Christian and not an atheist.

An atheist can not by definition be correct ultimately in his logic...

You're going to have to clarify this for me - it does not seem logical.

Does not an atheist say show me the proof, logically and empirically? Whereas being religious requires faith, which goes beyond empirical evidence and therefore is not 'logical?'

Oh, and for Joe's OP, way back when....my minister said every church needs a good atheist or agnostic among its members.

 

[john-the-author]

See, there you go with the blame game. It is a matter of logic. not a contest to see who is doing the most good or evil in the world. You don't find truth that way.

The point is the difference between an atheist and a theist is that a theist believes in absolute truth or an Absolute, called God. The truth is the only premise that makes sense of reasoning or correct inferences. It is possible to have the truth and make the incorrect deductions from the truth. This explains different religions, Puritans, the Inquisition, horrors of war, the Crusades, modern day fanatics, etc.

The point being, the misuse of the truth does not qualify as an argument against God's existence. It does light the fires for debate of good versus evil. But, again you are debating absolutes-good and evil.

Do you not understand that when you point to evils in the world, you are saying there is a good by which you judge evil? What is your standard of good. Here is where an atheist admits that there is a God, a good, or else he could never point out an evil thing like the In question. Get it?

"Get it?" Jesus, you speak like you're the only person who's had a Philosophy 101 class.

Here's a standard of good: treating a person as if they're less than you. While this may not be a perfect standard, it's as workable as anything. There is no "God" involved in that. Or how about the Platonic worldview in The Republic, which is derived logically from how we ourselves might like to be treated. Despite the caste system in it, that's another way in which we can identify what good and evil are.

An atheist does not admit that there is a god running things or even lurking around in the shadows by saying that there is a greater good. An atheist recognizes an ethical construct that we are choosing to live by that is (usually) based on the greatest good for the greatest number, increasing the overall communitas and providing the maximum opportunities for everyone to win the game.

For that matter, an atheist can believe in an absolute truth just fine. S/he just doesn't call it "God" and doesn't make the subsequent, totally unsupported step of imbuing that view with superpowers and emotions. Here is an absolute truth one can believe in: "the universe is a big, cold place that we're nevertheless connected to... but our continued existence isn't going to make any real difference to things on a cosmic scale." That's an absolute truth. It's big, it's scary, it's even supportable by scientific observation... but there ain't no mention of God in that one, nor of superpowers, nor of anything except something big, scary, and really, really, really absolute.

I'm not even saying that good and evil are absolutes here. Plato's ideas suggested that there were different views of good vs. evil in the same society, for example, antithetical and yet simultaneous. So I'd say your attempt at the premise for an argument is a pretty soggy effort.

What else you got, kid?

("Get it?" Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahk. Fucking Philosophy students think they know everything....)

 

[sadangel]

"Get it?" Jesus, you speak like you're the only person who's had a Philosophy 101 class.

Here's a standard of good: treating a person as if they're less than you. While this may not be a perfect standard, it's as workable as anything. There is no "God" involved in that. Or how about the Platonic worldview in The Republic, which is derived logically from how we ourselves might like to be treated. Despite the caste system in it, that's another way in which we can identify what good and evil are.

An atheist does not admit that there is a god running things or even lurking around in the shadows by saying that there is a greater good. An atheist recognizes an ethical construct that we are choosing to live by that is (usually) based on the greatest good for the greatest number, increasing the overall communitas and providing the maximum opportunities for everyone to win the game.

For that matter, an atheist can believe in an absolute truth just fine. S/he just doesn't call it "God" and doesn't make the subsequent, totally unsupported step of imbuing that view with superpowers and emotions. Here is an absolute truth one can believe in: "the universe is a big, cold place that we're nevertheless connected to... but our continued existence isn't going to make any real difference to things on a cosmic scale." That's an absolute truth. It's big, it's scary, it's even supportable by scientific observation... but there ain't no mention of God in that one, nor of superpowers, nor of anything except something big, scary, and really, really, really absolute.

I'm not even saying that good and evil are absolutes here. Plato's ideas suggested that there were different views of good vs. evil in the same society, for example, antithetical and yet simultaneous. So I'd say your attempt at the premise for an argument is a pretty soggy effort.

What else you got, kid?

("Get it?" Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahk. Fucking Philosophy students think they know everything....)

I like you...and the way say things I won't.

 

[3113]

the reason many people don't like atheists, in my opinion, is because there is a stereotype of the arrogant snobbish atheist who looks down on the savage masses as if they (the atheist) are superior to them (the believers).

LOL! Oh, my. Talk about calling the kettle black. So, the people knocking on your door, telling you that they have the answer to all the world's questions and problems, and if don't accept their view of religion (like wmrs2 there) they will consider you not to be merely wrong, but inferior, sinful, lost, sadly mistaken and all the rest...are not arrogant snobbish folk looking down on anyone. BUT the Atheist who says, "I think that's all hogwash and unsupported superstition rather than facts--" in other words, who comes out and state a view contrary to the believers in the room...he's a snob?

My point is, I think all people are snobs when it comes to something they strongly believe in. Just look at wmrs2 there. So I don't think it's "snobbishness" that makes atheists so hated.

I think it goes much deeper than that, and my evidence of this is the fact that in Western civilization Atheism was "illegal" for hundreds of years. In England you could be executed for being an avowed Atheist. Why? Pretty much for the same reason any potentially attractive minority belief system might be reviled by the majority. it's competition, and it's scary competition. I mean here is a person who can say, "There are no facts, therefore it is not true." That sounds kinda reasonable. Kinda plausible. What if people *listen* to them? What if they *believe* them? What if YOU believe them?!

Ultimately, atheism is hated because it says, "Santa Claus doesn't exist." And people don't want to hear that. They either don't want to hear it because they are confident, absolutely confident Santa does exist and don't want someone telling their "children" otherwise (and this may or may not go hand-in-hand with a firm belief that questioning Santa will make Santa and his gifts go away, or make all the goodness of Christmas disappear and leave behind only evil), or they are not so confident that he exists and they don't want their belief in him shaken further. Atheism is a threat to something that people trust. Like saying, "You know that husband and father you were devoted to and thought was wonderful? Well, he was a pedophile. I've got evidence...."

That's going to have a lot people turning away with their hands over their ears. "La-la-la-la!" I'm not listening!

Human beings rarely want cherished beliefs questioned. And they will do a lot more than merely "hate" someone who questions them. Like torture, burn, vilify and massacre them. Or, if you're a kid who believes in Santa, beat up the neighbor child who says Santa doesn't exist. Luckily for Atheists (or not) they've never come out in big enough numbers to be massacred like protestants questioning catholicism or catholics questioning protestantism--an argument between two belief systems that had, ironically, the same basic belief in the same religious text that resulted in all kinds of European wars. But, really, I think the answer to why atheism is reviled is as simple as that.

 

[oggbashan]

Why was this thread dug out of the archives?

The original discussion was about why is "atheist" a term of abuse in the US.

The recent discussion seems to arise because the poster confuses atheist and agnostic.

An atheist can accept that other people believe in a God, or Gods, but he doesn't.

An agnostic isn't currently convinced that there is a God, or Gods, but there might be.

Both can have a moral code of conduct and contribute to their society.

Og

 

[rengadeirishman]

I think it is that simple, the majority of people are not atheists, and thus it does not matter if the atheist says the religious people are snobbish as you do, Because the Christians are the majority and view the atheists that way.

i'm not a christian, nor am I an atheist. Both sides typically seem to consider themselves superior to me. So i say fuck 'em both.


If someone thinks they're better than me, i take it as proof that they aren't.

slainte

 

[wmrs2]

You're going to have to clarify this for me - it does not seem logical.

Does not an atheist say show me the proof, logically and empirically? Whereas being religious requires faith, which goes beyond empirical evidence and therefore is not 'logical?'

Oh, and for Joe's OP, way back when....my minister said every church needs a good atheist or agnostic among its members.

Yes, atheist say,"show me the proof" all the time. Then Christians begin showing the proof and the atheist never accepts what the Christian says is evidence. But, I do not accept this circle of debate. To the atheist, the theist should say, show me your proof there is no God. Of course there is no such proof. The atheist assumes there is no God. Actually the burden of proof is on the atheist to prove there is no God, logically and empirically, which is more anti logical than the Christian point of view.

Do you think God is worried about the atheist that does not believe God is? No way. It's a take it or leave it deal. If you want to believe in nothing and have no proof of nothing, live that way but that is not the logical way to live nor is it intellectually acceptable.

Now, as for you minister, if he can not handle dialogue with his atheist and agnostic members any better than the logic he has imparted to your argument, he better find another profession. He does not sound too smart to me. We believers don't want him on our side. You keep him.

 

[Stella_Omega]

the reason many people don't like atheists, in my opinion, is because there is a stereotype of the arrogant snobbish atheist who looks down on the savage masses as if they (the atheist) are superior to them (the believers).

I wouldn't say all atheists are arrogant snobs, but most of the ones i've had some communication with definitely seem to be.

amicus for one.

I am an arrogant snob.

Amicus... not so much arrogant as overcompensating.

 

[oggbashan]

Yes, atheist say,"show me the proof" all the time. Then Christians begin showing the proof and the atheist never accepts what the Christian says is evidence. But, I do not accept this circle of debate. To the atheist, the theist should say, show me your proof there is no God. Of course there is no such proof. The atheist assumes there is no God. Actually the burden of proof is on the atheist to prove there is no God, logically and empirically, which is more anti logical than the Christian point of view.

Do you think God is worried about the atheist that does not believe God is? No way. It's a take it or leave it deal. If you want to believe in nothing and have no proof of nothing, live that way but that is not the logical way to live nor is it intellectually acceptable.

Now, as for you minister, if he can not handle dialogue with his atheist and agnostic members any better than the logic he has imparted to your argument, he better find another profession. He does not sound too smart to me. We believers don't want him on our side. You keep him.

You have too simplistic a view of atheism. Only some atheists demand proof.

You can be an atheist because you don't care whether there is/are a god/gods or not. You can be an atheist who believes that those who think there is/are a god/gods are wrong. There are fine shades of difference in between those extremes.

The essence of most belief is that the existence of a god or gods is ultimately beyond proof and rests on the adherent's belief.

What evidence does Christianity have? The Bible, particularly the New Testament? Religious scholars have thrown doubt on many of the things stated in the Gospels which were all written after Jesus' death. The Bible is a man-made book, written by men and amended many times. The earliest versions we have of the New Testament were set by Constantine, then a pagan Roman Emperor. Even the earliest copies were inconsistent and a selection of the possible books available at that time.

It is possible to be a believing Christian and yet not accept the Immaculate Conception; The Virgin Birth; that Jesus was anything other than an inspired man; or even deny the physical Resurrection. What then happens to your proof?

All religions require belief. Atheists can refuse to believe. Agnostics can fail to be convinced in their belief but can still be Christian (or Muslim, or whatever) while retaining doubt.

The ultimate example of your argument - To the atheist, the theist should say, show me your proof there is no God. - is the claim of Wallace Idaho that it is "The Center of The Universe" and has an engraved manhole cover in Main Street that marks the spot. As the Mayor of Wallace says "No one can prove that Wallace isn't the Center of the Universe, so it must be.".

Og

 

[wmrs2]

"Get it?" Jesus, you speak like you're the only person who's had a Philosophy 101 class.

Here's a standard of good: treating a person as if they're less than you. While this may not be a perfect standard, it's as workable as anything. There is no "God" involved in that. Or how about the Platonic worldview in The Republic, which is derived logically from how we ourselves might like to be treated. Despite the caste system in it, that's another way in which we can identify what good and evil are.

An atheist does not admit that there is a god running things or even lurking around in the shadows by saying that there is a greater good. An atheist recognizes an ethical construct that we are choosing to live by that is (usually) based on the greatest good for the greatest number, increasing the overall communitas and providing the maximum opportunities for everyone to win the game.

For that matter, an atheist can believe in an absolute truth just fine. S/he just doesn't call it "God" and doesn't make the subsequent, totally unsupported step of imbuing that view with superpowers and emotions. Here is an absolute truth one can believe in: "the universe is a big, cold place that we're nevertheless connected to... but our continued existence isn't going to make any real difference to things on a cosmic scale." That's an absolute truth. It's big, it's scary, it's even supportable by scientific observation... but there ain't no mention of God in that one, nor of superpowers, nor of anything except something big, scary, and really, really, really absolute.

I'm not even saying that good and evil are absolutes here. Plato's ideas suggested that there were different views of good vs. evil in the same society, for example, antithetical and yet simultaneous. So I'd say your attempt at the premise for an argument is a pretty soggy effort.

What else you got, kid?

("Get it?" Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahk. Fucking Philosophy students think they know everything....)

I am sorry that you are so angry. You have something against philosophy students, do you? I bet their requirement that you use well premised logic in debate makes you nervous. Is that why you don't like them?

If you had philosophy 101, you know scholars recognize that Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle laid the foundation for the theist religions of Christianity and Judaism and the logic of Western Civilization. These fellows would roll over in their graves if they knew you were using the absolute forms to make an argument against God. The two most noted gadflies in literature was Socrates and Jesus Christ. Their use of Aristotelian logic pissed off all the atheist too.

It is not my logic that you are angry with. I use the logic of the Western Civilization which atheist and communist hate. If the logic of Plato and Aristotle makes you feel less of a person. don't blame me. I don't think I shall drink your poison like Socrates did.

"Here's a standard of good: treating a person as if they're less than you." Your words. Real cute but false. "Treating a person (not) as if they're less than you" is a rule that Christ told the disciples to follow, more or less. The standard was "love" as in love your neighbor as yourself. Your mistake here is that you miss the point that love in the standard but treating is a result of the standard. Love could be found in Plato's forms as could beauty, mathematics, science and especially logic. All the self evident rights in the Constitution are Plato's forms. These are absolute things and their definitions do not change

Your retort to my argument is fool of adjectives but these do not describe Plato's absolute forms. When you refer to Plato's forms, you simply do not know what you are saying. You can not camouflage your lack of knowledge of Plato's philosophy by using big language and adjectives.

An atheist can not believe in absolute truth and it is not allowed you by the theist to do so. By using God-the Absolute- to say there is no absolute is not logical. Get it? You must stick to your own beliefs in this debate and not unlawfully take ours.

You give another example of your miss use of logic in the following. You say "An atheist recognizes an ethical construct" which qualifies an eternal form which the atheist denies exist. Atheist are creatures of relativity and only try to use Western logic when their hands are called.

Your reference to Plato's good and evil is simply dumb. There can be different goods and evils in society but good and evil represent self evident truth which is an argument for God's existence.

One last thing. You best not call names, like F****** philosophy students, etc. because you are not very good at this name calling. You get your subjects and adjectives mixed up and it detracts from a friendly discussion.

 

[wmrs2]

I like you...and the way say things I won't.

You should be happy that you can't! Your confused enough as is.

 

[wmrs2]

Human beings rarely want cherished beliefs questioned. And they will do a lot more than merely "hate" someone who questions them. Like torture, burn, vilify and massacre them. Or, if you're a kid who believes in Santa, beat up the neighbor child who says Santa doesn't exist. Luckily for Atheists (or not) they've never come out in big enough numbers to be massacred like protestants questioning catholicism or catholics questioning protestantism--an argument between two belief systems that had, ironically, the same basic belief in the same religious text that resulted in all kinds of European wars. But, really, I think the answer to why atheism is reviled is as simple as that.

As this thread goes on, I think you will see who do not want their cherished beliefs questions. I want to think you for joining the conversation. Your comments made a lot of sense.

My belief is that atheist should be regarded as inferior to theist fits Socrates' explanation when he informed the unbelievers in his logic whay he was the smartest man in Athens. It went something like this:

I am smarter than you because Atheist think they know but know not. Believers know not but know that they know not. That's why they keep searching for truth.

That may not be exact but I think I read that in the King James Version of the Bible. They did have the KJV back then, did they not.

 

[wmrs2]

Why was this thread dug out of the archives?

The original discussion was about why is "atheist" a term of abuse in the US.

The recent discussion seems to arise because the poster confuses atheist and agnostic.

An atheist can accept that other people believe in a God, or Gods, but he doesn't.

An agnostic isn't currently convinced that there is a God, or Gods, but there might be.

Both can have a moral code of conduct and contribute to their society.

Og

Yes, I agree but they can not logically have the same moral code of conduct as say a Christian has, which is based on self evident truths and have moral relativity as their code of conduct. Nevertheless, I agee, well said.

 

[sr71plt]

Isn't belief in God (or anything else) an either yes or no issue at the base? You can try to fool yourself and others (with at least some success in both) about what you "believe" or don't. But in its basic truth, it isn't something you can choose to do/have or that can be forced on you. So, at the base, if you truly believe in God (and, if there is a God, you wouldn't be fooling God in whatever claim you made, would you?) then you believe in God. If you don't, you're either an agnostic or an atheist, depending on your intentionality in disbelief.

So, all this inquisition in here--on both sides--doesn't affect the basic do you or don't you/should you or shouldn't you at all, does it?

I kind of thing it's a personal issue that doesn't need my intervention for anyone else.

Oh, and now seeing what Og just posted, I remember that I wanted to add that most religions and most nonreligious have the same basic moral code--which seems to make having to choose or declare not so important.

 

[wmrs2]

I think it is that simple, the majority of people are not atheists, and thus it does not matter if the atheist says the religious people are snobbish as you do, Because the Christians are the majority and view the atheists that way.

i'm not a christian, nor am I an atheist. Both sides typically seem to consider themselves superior to me. So i say fuck 'em both.


If someone thinks they're better than me, i take it as proof that they aren't.

slainte

There ye go! I like that attitude. Thanks for setting the record straight..

 

[sadangel]

You should be happy that you can't! Your confused enough as is.

Oh I'm not confused at all. I know what I believe in. I simply don't feel that everyone must conform to my belief system or risk being called stupid, confused or any of the other names you've used so far.

You're a pompous and arrogant, self-righteous jerk. Hope you enjoy your life like that.

 

[wmrs2]

And there's another reason. There are many who are Christians, but not confident enough in their beliefs, so they cling to Jesus like a raft. They feel threatened by the fact that people can live full, happy and meaningful lives without that.

There is much truth in what you say. But this truth also applies to atheist equally well. Did you notice how hot things became exciting when their premises of faith were challenged. You are correct that especially Christians need to be more informed and more confident in their beliefs.

 

[sr71plt]

There is much truth in what you say. But this truth also applies to atheist equally well. Did you notice how hot things became exciting when their premises of faith were challenged. You are correct that especially Christians need to be more informed and more confident in their beliefs.

In my connections with biblical studies, I've found that becoming more informed about Christian beliefs has undone more people than made their faith stronger. Possibly the classic example is one of the foremost New Testament scholors of today, Bart Ehrman, chair of religious studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and author of the best-seller Misquoting Jesus, whose studies have transformed him from an evangelical seminary student into an agnostic.

Just saying. Be careful what you wish for.

And, no, I don't believe that athiests turn into Christians in anything like equal numbers of the reverse.

 

[3113]

I am smarter than you because Atheist think they know but know not. Believers know not but know that they know not. That's why they keep searching for truth.

You're defining yourself to victory. Allow me to redefine myself to answer you by doing the same:

I am smarter than you because Believers like you, think they know but know not. Atheists know not--that is what a scientist is, by the way, someone who doesn't say they know anything till they've got evidence to know it--and, thus they know not. That's why ATHEISTS keep searching for the truth, rather than saying, as Believers do, that they've got a book or a feeling or a faith or a voice in their head or a mythology that tells them all they need to know...and don't need to search any farther for anything.

 

[wmrs2]

You have too simplistic a view of atheism. Only some atheists demand proof.

You can be an atheist because you don't care whether there is/are a god/gods or not. You can be an atheist who believes that those who think there is/are a god/gods are wrong. There are fine shades of difference in between those extremes.

The essence of most belief is that the existence of a god or gods is ultimately beyond proof and rests on the adherent's belief.

What evidence does Christianity have? The Bible, particularly the New Testament? Religious scholars have thrown doubt on many of the things stated in the Gospels which were all written after Jesus' death. The Bible is a man-made book, written by men and amended many times. The earliest versions we have of the New Testament were set by Constantine, then a pagan Roman Emperor. Even the earliest copies were inconsistent and a selection of the possible books available at that time.

It is possible to be a believing Christian and yet not accept the Immaculate Conception; The Virgin Birth; that Jesus was anything other than an inspired man; or even deny the physical Resurrection. What then happens to your proof?

All religions require belief. Atheists can refuse to believe. Agnostics can fail to be convinced in their belief but can still be Christian (or Muslim, or whatever) while retaining doubt.

The ultimate example of your argument - To the atheist, the theist should say, show me your proof there is no God. - is the claim of Wallace Idaho that it is "The Center of The Universe" and has an engraved manhole cover in Main Street that marks the spot. As the Mayor of Wallace says "No one can prove that Wallace isn't the Center of the Universe, so it must be.".

Og

I agree with much of what you say. Thanks for bringing this forward in a dignified manner. You can be an atheist void of any system of evidence whatever, as you say.

Your thought that God is ultimately beyond proof is somewhat weak in my opinion. It comes down to whether one is willing to accept certain things as proof. If one is willing to accept absolute things like love, freedom, good, evil, and the many forms of Plato (since his name has been mentioned) as evidence of an eternal being than God can be proven to exist. The same is true of science. If you do not accept the law of gravity as a given, one would never venture outside his door because the sky might fall on him. To believe in math you must also believe in numbers. Sometimes a set of beliefs are just there and are natural. Will you accept these as evidence of God? If you will, I have proven that God is.

My belief is that Christianity and the Bible are "not" proofs of God. From the concept of God, Christianity and the Bible are deductions of what the world is like. If ones deductions are incorrect, then he will have a less true religion. But my system of faith begins with God and then I decide what is real and what is not real. The Bible to me does not prove anything nor was that ever the purpose of the Bible. The Bible only confirms my believe in God. The Bible may do absolutely nothing for other people.

Now, you can be a believer in God and not believe in all the Christian claims as you point out but to be an orthodox Christian, you must believe in those concepts that are unique to Christianity. By definition that is what a Christian is, a believer in the Virgin Birth, etc.

Play safe, have fun
wmrs2

 

[jomar]

Yes, atheist say,"show me the proof" all the time. Then Christians begin showing the proof and the atheist never accepts what the Christian says is evidence. But, I do not accept this circle of debate. To the atheist, the theist should say, show me your proof there is no God. Of course there is no such proof. The atheist assumes there is no God. Actually the burden of proof is on the atheist to prove there is no God, logically and empirically, which is more anti logical than the Christian point of view.

The existence of God is based in faith. The proof God exists is derived from "signs" based in that faith. Just because you reject an atheist's need for empirical proof does not make such a request invalid or irrelevant. Moreover, it is the burden for one claiming something to exist to prove it does. Not the other way around.

Do you think God is worried about the atheist that does not believe God is? No way. It's a take it or leave it deal. If you want to believe in nothing and have no proof of nothing, live that way but that is not the logical way to live nor is it intellectually acceptable.

What? You might want to rephrase that.

Now, as for you minister, if he can not handle dialogue with his atheist and agnostic members any better than the logic he has imparted to your argument, he better find another profession. He does not sound too smart to me. We believers don't want him on our side. You keep him.

You misunderstand. He likes having such members to stir dialogue and keep people asking the important questions.

 

[sr71plt]

The existence of God is based in faith.

My views may be not do for others, but my view of this is that "belief in God" is all belief and no proof. When one goes into needing or demanding proof, one is moving into trying to displace God, control God, and therefore "be" God.

 

[jomar]

My views may be not do for others, but my view of this is that "belief in God" is all belief and no proof. When one goes into needing or demanding proof, one is moving into trying to displace God, control God, and therefore "be" God.

I wholeheartedly agree with your first sentence. And as for the second, I agree as well, but along a continuum from "I don't believe and simply need proof to do so" (which is a step or two away from agnostic) to the angry (my interp) displacement end.