Questions for atheists

without reading thru the pages of this thread, so forgive me if the answers have been given many times over

1. Why are you an atheist? I am curious why you would close your mind to the possibility of something more then just us and that there is any existence after death.

lack of good evidence for anything more than this. Its not closing the mind to the possibility of something more than just us or life after deat, its the fact that this is an empty promise with no good evidence to show that it IS the case.

2. Why do some atheists put so much energy into something they don't believe in? By this I mean I know and have met some atheists that have their beliefs and don't care about my beliefs and are happy to do their thing and let me do my thing belief wise. Then there are atheists I have met that feel that it is their life mission to bash God and bash peoples belief in God and I just don't understand why you would put so much energy into something you don't believe in. I'm not talking about defending your beliefs as an atheist. I am talking about atheists that go out of there why to bash God or someone's belief in God. When no one is putting down their beliefs.

Youre asking me to talk about someone elses attitude towards their atheism, I could ask you why some christians stand on street corners and preach or why some protest abortion or why theres people like the Westboro baptists.
I will say that there is a religious bias in our day to day lives with many people in political power trying to enforce their religion onto others, which shouldnt be happening and is quite rightly protested in atheist circles.

3. I have herd a lot of atheists say that they don't believe in a universal creator or God because they believe in evolution. My question here is why can't you believe in a universal creator and evolution. I believe in both. How can I do that you ask well let me explain. We now that evolution is true because things change and evolve. What we have not been able to prove is the theory of evolution as to how everything was created. So with the theory of evolution and the theory of creation both being unproven I don't see any reason why we can't look for proof of both. I mean if there is a universal creator who's to say that they didn't create everything by evolution. I mean the father of the big bang theory was Georges Lemaître a catholic priest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre He discovered it before Edward Hubble. If some of our greatest scientists have been catholic or catholic priests and they believe in a universal creator why don't you? http://www.realclearscience.com/lists/priests_who_were_scientists/scie nce_and_religion.html

Now im sure youve been put to rights about what a theory is in the scientific sense vs common usage, if not reply after this and I`ll explain the difference.
The reason I believe in evolution is because the evidence points to it, the reason I dont believe in a god is because there is no good evidence for such an entity, its pretty simple really. Could a universal creator and evolution both be true ? sure, but I`ll withhold believing in the creator until the evidence points to this.
The fact that some catholics can believe in a god entity yet still come up with good scientific theories is their own right. No one says all religious people are idiots, but I dont think they are rationally justified in a god belief unless they claim personal revelation, which for me isnt convincing however for the individual concerned it would be.

4. Why don't atheists believe that a man named Jesus lived? I understand why an atheist would not believe that Jesus was the son of God but I am curious to know why many of you say that Jesus is a myth or never lived. First I would like to start with the bible. I know the bible is not 100% fact. What I am getting at is that the bible was all written as separate books before is was all put together as one book so why would four different people. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John write four separate books about their lives with Jesus if he never lived. And why would the apostles go out and spread the message of Jesus and start a church based on his teachings if he never lived. All of this can be found in the book of Acts another book written separately by Paul and other apostles. Also Jesus has been written about outside of the bible. http://carm.org/non-biblical-accounts-new-testament-events-andor-peopl e Why is it that people have no problem believing that historical figures like Plato, Aristotle, Alexander the Great, King George III, lived but when it comes to Jesus, suddenly a different standard is offered. Even though the historical evidence for Plato and Aristotle is in written form and people have no problem with that when it comes to the same standard for Jesus, many people won’t accept it. Why the double standard?

this is such a long answer im not even going to tackle it, but in brief, do you believe in aliens ? do you believe in other religions also written in books ? How do you come to evaluate such claims ?


5. Lastly I would like to address some terms I have heard atheists use that make no sense to me so please explain. 1. "They believe in a talking dead guy" God is a spiritual being who has never lived a physical life so therefore he has never died. And if they mean Jesus Yes, we do believe in a ‘guy’ that died. No, in the 3 days he was dead, his body did not produce any speech however after he rose from the dead, he spoke. So who is the talking dead guy that we believe in? 2. "Magical sky daddy" those of us who believe in a universal creator don't believe God has any magical powers or that God lives in the sky. We believe that the spiritual plane that God exists in is in a whole other dimension.

I think you perfectly understand the terms used as you have constructed a defense to both, they are clearly people taking a shot at your religion.

I'm an atheist, so here goes:

1: I've always had an extremely open mind. But this means considering all possibilities and avenues of thought. It doesn't mean never coming to any educated conclusions. I considered the possibility of a supernatural, and after weighing the evidence carefully, concluded that there was no logical credence to the notion of gods, ghosts, monsters etc. Consequently, I'm an open minded atheist. I often find the religious to be the most closed minded. Assuming you're a Christian, have you considered Islam, or Buddhism, or Hinduism at all? How much thought have you really given to the notion that God might not even exist at all? In my experience, most people that give that some proper thought become atheists.

2: Religion affects us all. Even those of us who don't believe in God care about terrorist murders, religious wars and African famines and pandemics which are often exacerbated by church policy. We care that scientific research is delayed or halted because of religious sensibilities, and that sometimes our rights are curtailed for religious reasons. We care that ISIS is sweeping across vast swathes of the world. Personally, I'm frustrated by what I see as the wasted time and effort that goes into worshipping and fighting over beings that simply aren't there. Therefore, we have the right to weigh in.

3: Religious people tend to adapt their beliefs to a level they can accept. Some people believe their religious texts literally. Others want to retain the comfort of belief, but can't reconcile aspects of their religious texts with what they know of reality (historical scientists etc), and so simply place God in the gaps of their knowledge. Many of the religious teachings that directly contradict the proven real world, consequently and conveniently become 'metaphorical'. Yes you can believe in God and evolution, but God is no longer necessary as an explanation.

4: I believe Jesus probably lived. There's enough fragmentary and mostly anecdotal evidence to suggest there was an influential preacher doing the rounds, and that he was probably a nice guy.

5: They are probably referring to Jesus yes, in a derogatory manner. The man's 2015 years old though, so it can be logically assumed he's dead. Terms like "Magic Sky Daddy" are used to try and illustrate how atheists perceive the religious. To us, you do believe in magic. God is regarded in the same manner as Santa in that regards, and they're trying to emphasis that point.

There's no empirical evidence supporting the idea of gods.

I choose to believe what I was programmed to believe

I'm much too lazy go essay style. My quick thoughts are:

1. Magic isn't real
2. I don't hope for things to happen through prayer, only action creates change
3. I don't care what anyone believes
4. I don't trust any book written by man, men are fallible
5. Religion breeds hate
6. I do not follow anything blindly. All actions must have reason, otherwise you are playing a fool's game
7. At 10 years old, I did die for 3 mins via drowning, then resuscitated. I wish there were something waiting for us, other than the end
8. Jesus may have lived and died as a man, but a god did not descend into him (if you buy the trinity)

As I've said, please believe what you will, but don't put it on me

Hi.

I hope I don't offend you with my answers but here we go:

1. I'm an atheist who don't believe in some form of afterlife because in the thousands of years of human existence there has never been any concrete proof to the contrary. It's not about having a closed mind - on the contrary. Personally I think the onus is on the believers to back up their statements of an omnipotent creator with actual facts.

2. Maybe because many atheists, like myself, are sick and tired of the proselytizing and religious propaganda being shoved down our throats by the, specifically American, entertainment industry and political sphere.

3. Agreed, believing in a creator (God) and evolution are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Personally, I don't believe in a creator because I think that idea is nonsense. If there indeed is a creator he must be a sadist or have a sick sense of humor in order to invent things like wars, famine, disease and hunger.

4. Some atheists, like myself, do indeed think there's a possibility that a Jewish terrorist named Jesus lived some 2 000 years ago. But him being the son of God is something completely different. Especially since many of the stories regarding that person, fictitious or not, are eerily similar to ones told in other religions and myths.

5. I've never heard of that saying.

I have studied quite a bit of religion, so I understand why some persons might be attracted to it. If it makes you feel better, then by all means go ahead. But once it's used as a means to control a population, a tool for oppression, a way of restricting the actions in those who those who choose not to believe or believe in something else, a mechanism to influence policy both domestic and foreign and even used as excuse for war. Then you can keep that religion for yourself.



Working in the movie business since -92

Your questions seem valid, intelligently proposed and you come across as not spoling for a fight.

So, with respect I will try to answer from my point of view. Clearly we will differ in opinions and I trust we will accept each other's opnions here.

1. Why am I am athiest? Simply because I was shoved doctrine down my throat as a kid and I didn't believe it them as it didn't make sense then and, to me, it still doesn't make sense.

If I were to follow a god; which god would it be? Yes, I know that the three main religions; Christianity, Islam and Judiasm all have the same god but three different mechanisms, for want of a better word. Who are the prophets? Is there a son of god and so on? Even in the Christian church and within the Catholic sect (I use the term correctly, 'sect' meaning a section of: from the Greek and not meant to be derogatory and not to be confused with 'cult') different methods of worship and belief were held to be heretical.

So, in my mind, if these chief theologians couldn't decide on what is god, what is right and what is wrong then they'd better get their acts sorted out before coming back to me asking me to subscribe to their beliefs.

Then outside of the Big Three there are other religions. The Hindi have up to one million gods for example and then there are the more exotic religions. Some of these could be compatible with one and another but overall which religion is 'right'?

If no-one can come forward with a definitive answer then I can't be expected to believe.

Then there's the very major sticking point is that the whole thing is absurd in my mind. If we're talking about the Christian faith then why did their god choose to adopt a collection of semi-literate tribes in the Middle East as his chosen people? What about the people who passed before or lived elsewhere, don't they count? None of it stands up to any form of solid thinking.

Is there the possibility of something more than us? Absolutely, with the billions of galaxies with the billions of stars in each the chances that we're not alone is going to be greater than zero. Will some of these, if they exist, be godlike to us? No doubt if their technology is far better than ours (see Arthur C Clarke's famous quote on this).

When I was about twelve I asked my RE teacher the following "If your god was interfering all the time in people's life on a near daily basis around the shores of the Mediterranean turning people wifes into salt, appearing here there and everywhere, smiting foes, burning bushes and encouraging people to slaughter their own sons; then why isn't he doing this today? Has he died, given up or just gone away?" The answer was two week's detention which didn't really help the thiest cause.



2. Some athiests are idiots. As are some thiests. I get thiests knocking on my door for example. Most athiests are happy to get along with thiests and that's that. But now in the Middle East it's more and more common to be held and charged as a terrorist for the crime of being an athiest. Even without the athiest militants like Dawkins, the attitudes of thiests towards athiests are driving more and more of us to be vocal and anti-thiesim.

But, fine. If you wish to attend church, the mosque, temple or chapel then do so. But don't expect me to be willing to join you and don't try to force me to accept your viewpoint. And then, I equally expect that you don't wish me to force my views on you.



3. Isaac Newton would put down the force of gravity to god's will in his notes. This translates to "I don't know what causes this to happen". In other words it's a bit of a cop-out like the 'Act of God' clause in an insurance policy.

In science there actually is room for a universal creator. It's not put forward as a credible theory as there is no evidence for this at all. Yes, the universe (or our universe at least) could have been build as a science project for the equivilent of a twelve year boy in a science fair experiment and now lies forgotten in a shoebox in the back of his wardrobe. That would fit all the requirements; a scientific beginning and a universal creator.

However, there is not going to be any support for this from the thiests because it doesn't fit into their doctrines and for the athiests it won't be accepted because there's no evidence.

There could be a single creator for our universe and, if so, does it deserve any form of worship? I find this hard to believe.

On top of that, look at the form of censorship the catholic church has had on science over the years. I seem to recall that Copernicus wasn't treated too well for coming out with science rather than dogma.

Dogma. This is one of the problems that athiests have with thiesm. In science little is proven and most of it is theory. You mention that evolution is fact; a scientist will tell you that it's a theory and not necessarily a fact but it's the best that we have at the moment.

Science looks at the world and runs along various theories and in the light of evidence to the contrary it will change the theory. Science is not afraid to say that it got that bit wrong and then it works on a better model to fit the evidence.

Science advances and learns more each day but extrapolating what it expects to find under certain cirumstances (for example the hunt for the Higgs bosun). If it doesn't find it then it holds its hands up and then looks to correct itself. If it finds what it is looking for then it doesn't prove anything it just makes the theory stronger.

Religion doesn't do that. It ignores the evidence against it or doesn't provide the evidence to support a certain theory or belief.

Here's an example of Science getting it wrong. Einstein famously said of quantum theory "God doesn't play dice with the universe". Well, along with a lot of his other theories this was disproved as quantum mechanics in some form or another does exist. If he were alive today he'd accept that but in the meantime Science has accpected that quantum mechanics is valid for the moment and that's one of the current theories we're running with.

Going back to basics. Pythagorus has the famous theorum; perhaps one of the oldest ones going. It's still a theory and not a Law. Science is not arrogant enough to say that it's more than a theory even though it's stood up for tens of centuries and will never perhaps be beaten down. Yes, it has changed over the years from the original to the current that it only works on an Euclian plane -- but that's the point. Science accepts that it can be wrong and why can't religion do the same thing?

I went to a talk a couple of years ago by a thiest who did believe that the world was just 6,000 years old and he set out to 'prove' that. One of his proofs he offered was that there were dinosaurs in the bible so they couldn't have existed. I pointed out that in the bible there are few references to icebergs so, as you say, why the double standards?



4. Jesus. A lot of athiests do believe he existed. In fact it would be hard to find an athiest who didn't believe that at all. I personally believed that he did and he was a earlier version of a mixture of a Ghandi and a Guavara.

I strongly believe he was a powerful leader of men; a little like Luther King and paid the price for his revolutionary thoughts and teachings.

So, no double standard. He lived and died and died horribly as far as I am concerned. But he was no prophet nor son of any diety as far as I am concerned.

Did he exist? Yes, almost certainly. There is enough evidence to show that a man of that name was around at the time causing civil unrest.



5. This is a tough one to answer because neither you or I can talk for every athiest but here goes '"They believe in a talking dead guy" God is a spiritual being who has never lived a physical life so therefore he has never died."'

Again, lack of proof of god being a spiritual being. This is where we are going to have a divide. You say that he has never lived; how do we know that this creator never lived at one time, assuming, of course, that he does exist at all?

Look at other religions; we had mortals gaining godhood in their tales. What makes this particular diety different? If we ran with my theory of the intergalactic schoolboy then he did live.

The thing is that there is no evidence for god as such.

Now the interesting thing is that you mentioned a spiritual plane. Now this is something getting away from the normal Christian doctrine, towads the likes of the Taoists believe in; the Universal Spirit.

Now if you believe then that there's this other dimension, well this is a route to follow. According to the latest theory there's ten of them and there's nothing to stop someone or something living in there (again the intergalactic schoolboy of mine could be one of them) and if this is true then, so what? If there is an universal creator 'out there' somewhere then that's something of a scientific curiousity and something to be explored as such. And then there's even less room, if any at all, for religion left.

What need are then for churches when we should be having laboratories and observatories? What need we of divisional beliefs and this is one thing that athiests can't understand: we athiests don't slaughter each other because we follow different flavours of quantum theory so why do thiests do the same to each other?



Yes, look up in the sky. Please do.

1. I'm atheistic because I'm without theism. It's a bit like nonsmokers being those without a brand of cigarettes.

2. My suspicion is that apostates want to overcorrect against having once believed in deities. Personally, I've never been theistic; so I can't speak from experience.

3. I don't believe in either. I acknowledge that things evolve, having seen that occur. Obvious examples include HIV and influenza.

4. I've seen no contemporary evidence that Y'shua bin Yosef actually existed; I might buy that the character was an amalgam of various selfproclaimed messiahs ranging across a few centuries, but that's mostly conjecture.

5.1. If Jehovah exhibits no physical properties, then I wouldn't accuse it of existing; as a noun, I'd see it as more of an occurrence or an effect—like thought, or Thursdays.

5.2. Prayer is the apotheosis of sympathetic magic; the ability to grant wishes can't really be defined in any other way.

As to the final paragraph: being without theism works pretty well for me; I'd guess that lacking a belief in Odin or Zeus works pretty well for you, too. As for not getting it: atheism isn't a belief; it's just a word denoting one of the sorts of things I don't believe in. Apart from deities, I don't believe in goblins or leprechauns or unicorns either. That may seem unfair, if you're convinced that deities exist [or, I suppose, if you're an atheist who's convinced that goblins exist]; but, to me, deities are just one more thing I don't suppose must be real.

1) Because I do not believe in the existence of (a) god(s), because no evidence is presented for it. There are thousands of gods and most of them nobody believes in anymore. You probably believe in only one of them and reject all others. Why?
There probably is ‘something more than just us’, as there are probably thousands of inhabited planets in the universe.
There is no prove for an afterlife and it is a terrible waste if you would spend your life preparing for an afterlife that does not exist.

2) I am an atheist and I couldn't care less what you believe in. Until it influences my life. Until you will try to tell me what to eat and what not, when I can't work, who I can't marry, who to hate and who to vote for. If you want to tell me what to do, you need to come up with some very good arguments and not ancient fairy tales.
And then there are those who use their faith as a justification to lie, steal and rape children.
An atheist has an opinion about god, just as he might have an opinion about Harry Potter. It is indeed the belief that we object to. When you write ‘no one is putting down their beliefs.’ I think you know that that is not true.

3) ‘a lot of atheists say that they don't believe in a universal creator or God because they believe in evolution’
No they don’t. I think you do not understand what evolution is. It has nothing to do with how the universe came to be. Please educate yourself. There is no such thing as a ‘theory of creation’. This question is so full of misconceptions that it's impossible to answer.

4) There is no proof that Jesus ever lived.
You write ‘Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John write four separate books about their lives with Jesus’, which is nonsense. First of all these boos were written long after Jesus died and none of them were written by one person with the actual name Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. It's shocking that I as an atheist have to correct you on this.
‘Why is it that people have no problem believing that historical figures like Plato, Aristotle, [...]?’
Because they have no church and nobody is limiting the freedom of other people in their name. It is completely unimportant if Plato or Aristotle actually lived. The only thing important is that we can study the ideas that are attributed to them. and their writing aren't holy books, they are open to discussion.
Many people do not question anything Jesus supposedly said, because they think he was the son of God and therefore everything he said was absolutely true. nobody thinks that about Plato or Aristotle.

5) I’ve never heard of the term ‘talking dead guy’. But both terms are just a shorthand to illustrated how absurd christianity is.


+++ Hey, I know what a restraining order is. I had girlfriends before, you know... +++