MovieChat Forums > Left Behind (2014) Discussion > Questions for atheists

Questions for atheists

posted 10 years ago by NumberoneSupermanfan
255 replies | jump to latest

The purpose of this is not to offend anyone or put anyone down. I just want to understand why you are an atheist. First I will start with a little bit about myself. I do believe that there is a universal creator and an after life. I do not follow any religion but I do believe that there is more then just us in the universe and that everything was created by a universal creator. So now for some questions.

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.

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.

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

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?

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 hope to have some good conversations about the questions I have asked. Again I do not want to offend anyone or put down anyone's beliefs. If being an atheist works for you that's great. I just want to know why. If you are going to reply to my post with something like you just don't get it please explain what it is you feel that I don't get.

Look up in the sky....

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cryconscry 10 years ago

Not an atheist because I think that they are no better than theists: each believes in something that is unprovable. What I am is Agnostic, and we simply believe that there isn't enough evidence either way, which is the most rational and least egotistical response. Now, to answer your questions:
1) Kind of already answered this, but to add to what I've said, I simply can say that there isn't enough evidence from any religion I've come across (there are thousands) to suggest that any God exists.
2) I certainly can't speak for all, but I can guess and say that there are two main reasons believers get bashed: 1 - that the bashers feel that believers are judging them and telling them what they're doing wrong. They are telling them how to live their lives; 2 - that they don't like how your belief affects your political choices, which in turn impacts their lives.
This 2nd reason is a concern for me. If we're talking about the US's majority religion, Christianity, I know that their are some liberal Christians (who really understand Christ's teachings best IMO) but the majority seem to be uneducated and blind lemmings that live in the middle states and south. They are subject to the manipulation of sociopaths, which basically allows sociopaths to meld their agendas.
3) Evolution and a Universal Creator could co-occur, but not with Christianity (the US's dominant religion) due to the stories in the Bible that have been scientifically disproved due to repeated scientific testings, carbon-dating, other historical sources, etc. I am an Agnostic because I recognize that Creator possibilities extend well beyond Christianity and other major religions.
4) This question is discouraging for me because I was holding out hope that you weren't a Christian and were entertaining the possibility of a Creator based on a different belief system. This merely demonstrates that your mind is still firmly stuck within the confines of the familiarity and comfort of Christianity. Jesus may or may not have existed, but if he did he was just a humanist (perhaps a deluded one) and not the son of a god. What I don't understand is how someone can belief in a document (er, the Bible) that has numerous falsities in it? I get how you may still want to believe in A Creator, but not how you can believe in the Christian God.
5) Can't really help you there, but it sounds like you're splitting hairs. I do have to ask about "God not having magical powers" comment. I thought He was Omnipotent? Also, didn't He create our world and the the heavens in 7 days - if that ain't magic I don't know what is. I'd be booked in Vegas for eternity. Your comments also reveal any doubt that you are a Christian, which you have my condolences for - sorry. I just consider it all a colossal waste of time and life.

I hope that you find a different and far more plausible truth in your journey through life. It may cost you some friends and family but you only have one life and being true to yourself is what matters most.

[–] TheSolarSailor 10 years ago

Not an atheist because I think that they are no better than theists: each believes in something that is unprovable. What I am is Agnostic, and we simply believe that there isn't enough evidence either way, which is the most rational and least egotistical response.

You make vast assumptions about atheists based on the more vocal ones who love to argue it as much as some religious people do. Not every atheist is like that, you know. We aren't all Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins wannabes. Really, it is all about the attitude behind the belief or lack thereof. Are you desperate to force your world view on everyone around you, or are you content to have found what works for you and also content to allow others to have their beliefs? I went through my arguing stage and found it to be an utter waste of time. If people ask my views in the real world, I'll share them. I always stress that this is what I believe and that I am not attempting to make them share my point of view when I do bother to answer their inquiries. The only thing "egotistical" is the attitude that a person has in relation to their belief, not the belief itself. Don't paint atheists with such broad brushstrokes. Like any other group (religious or not), there are many different types of people and many different attitudes that accompany each one, good and bad. That goes for agnostics as much as any of us.

- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word LISP to have an S in it?

[–] cryconscry 10 years ago

You are qualifying the definition of atheists to such a degree that you are bending them into the camp of the agnostics. If their is doubt of a god than you are an agnostic, plain and simple. If you believe than you are a theist, if not, an atheist, and if somewhere in between, an agnostic. It's basic word definitions at play - it sounds to me like you need to honor them or get a greater understanding of them.

[–] TheSolarSailor 10 years ago

No, you are generalizing, plain and simple. I am not going to argue the point further, as I have had my say about your comment.

- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word LISP to have an S in it?

[–] cryconscry 10 years ago

On the contrary - I'm specifying the meaning of words, which in turn exposes that your assertions won't hold up because they are based on an improper understanding of the definitions of the words in question.

[–] monstermaniac 10 years ago

Gnosticism and agnosticism only deal with knowledge, while atheism and theism deal with beliefs.

Atheism is only answering no to the question, do you believe in a god. Theism is saying yes.

I'm an agnostic atheist, I lack a belief in God, but I make no knowledge claim as to whether or not one can exist.

So, 1. Do you believe in a god?

2. Is that belief or lack thereof based on absolute knowledge?

My answer to both is no, so agnostic atheist.

[–] HumanTheONLyRace 10 years ago

Not an atheist because I think that they are no better than theists: each believes in something that is unprovable

Gosh , youre first sentence is incorrect.

Atheist, logical ones, dont believe.

Also, its always fristrating to see people try and discredit what theyve heard as the big bang theory, which is just a falso description mistakenly blurted out. The universe is expanding, according to our know information.

On tablet will edit.

[–] cryconscry 10 years ago

My statement isn't "incorrect". Your interpretation of it is incorrect.

[–] HumanTheONLyRace 10 years ago

It's incorrect because atheist don't believe in logic, we choose logic. I don't believe in science or theories, I examine what evidence is before me, there is no belief, definitely not faith.

[–] cryconscry 10 years ago

You "choose" logic because you "believe" in it. The two cannot be separated. Faith is a completely different matter that I have not said anything about. "Belief" does not equal "faith". This is your mistake.

[–] HumanTheONLyRace 10 years ago

No! I choose logic because it's logical, its visual, my senses can interact with it. If an apples falls from a tree, it hits the surface below it, I don't have to believe that, because it simply is, its what happens, I can see it.

It's not that hard to grasp. Also, I never said you mentioned faith, I did, and said definitely not faith, I shouldn't have to elaborate on why I said it either. Neither should I have about belief, but we cannot expect all humans who don't value knowledge to understand everything.

[–] cryconscry 10 years ago

You're clearly beyond help and another one of those sad IMDB users that manufactures conflict because you have nothing better to do - my deepest condolences. You will officially be sent to the land of "Ignoratori" after this post. I recommend medication for you in the mean time, or a change in it if you're already on them.

[–] HumanTheONLyRace 10 years ago

A logical choice. Good for you. There is nothing wrong with retreat, when failure is undeniably imminent.

[–] junk-monkey 8 years ago

LOL!
----------
"Look! - it's the Invisible Man!"

[–] Kitsa0 10 years ago

1. I'm not an atheist as that very word implies doubt in my certainty that there is no god…BUT…
You passive aggressively take the immediate stance on someone who is at peace with the FACTS of chaos theorem has a closed mind. Compared to someone who reads ONE book and decides everything else is WRONG…That is the very definition of a closed mind.

2. The same is said for anyone who comes onto a film review site and talks about their delusion of god.
I have lived quietly / politely knowing that life is meaningless, we are here because of chaos theorem. When we die our bodies die and our consciousness ceases to exist and we simply become nothing. Yes, it is scary, but once you are at peace with that you can live your life NOW. not hold on to a delusion that after death will be better.

3. Because how do you explain dinosaurs if life started about 5000 years ago.
If the human race started with Adam and Eve (2 genetic codes) how weren't all their grandchildren down syndrome. You've said you "Believe" in evolution, but evolution is the very explanation of in breeding dangers and therefore proves god is lies.
How do you explain other galaxies and worlds / stars when the bible clearly stated only heaven and earth.
When god speaks to people in the bible, Jesus took 12 disciples and / or miracles are performed why was it only perpetrated by men. As god is meant to be neither and wanted to teach us a better way in life. Surely god would have spoken to an equal number of both sexes. Unless Men at that time thought of woman as second class and incapable of such things and therefore there are no entries in the bible from women, they're not good enough to speak with god, they are incapables of performing miracles only receiving them.
This would then prove through man's insecurity that god was invented by men as they couldn't see past their own society and insecurities to include women as equals.

Welcome Lazerbeak, unlike some of my other warriors, you never fail me.

[–] mojorecords 10 years ago

Because the evidence for god's non-existence far outweighs the evidence for god's existence.

This is a really bad argument, because it implies that disbelief in deities requires some kind of evidence. I don't need any "evidence for non-existence" to not believe in unicorns, and I sure don't need any "evidence for non-existence" to say that belief in a "god" (whatever the hell that even means) is silly.

[–] gadsden 10 years ago

I am just going to pick one. Christians do not just do their thing. If they did kind of like Buddists then you would probably never hear from an atheist.

[–] ClumsySpirit 10 years ago

Why are you an atheist?

I am an atheist because I consider it the logical default position and haven't seen any compelling reason to change it.

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.

I haven't closed my mind to any possibilities. I simply haven't found any religious claims that are convincing. I'll believe in "something more than just us" when I find reason to do so.

Why do some atheists put so much energy into something they don't believe in?

Because right at this moment, people I know are being discriminated against due to religious beliefs in this country. Furthermore, in some cases valuable research is being stalled or prevented altogether due to religious objections. Your religion affects everyone around you, whether you intend for it to or not.

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.

There is nothing preventing that. In fact, I believe that describes the majority of people. I happen to be someone who doesn't believe in a universal creator, but it's entirely unconnected to my belief in evolution.

If some of our greatest scientists have been catholic or catholic priests and they believe in a universal creator why don't you?

I don't see any reason to believe that they were great scientists because they were religious, so I see no relevance to this. Further, in many times throughout history, there were severe penalties up to and including death for not following the state religion. Considering that environment, I don't see it as surprising or meaningful that the leading scientists of a given time period were often followers of the state religion.

Why don't atheists believe that a man named Jesus lived?

Some do, some don't. Personally I lean towards it being more likely that he was entirely fiction, but I also haven't done a great amount of research into this, largely because I consider it fairly unimportant.

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.

It's not a different standard. We don't automatically believe any written accounts, regardless of who they involve. It comes down to how many written accounts there are, who they were written by, and the reliability of those authors. One of the big problems with the bible is that we don't know who wrote any of it, and that (from my understanding) there aren't many corresponding records to validate it. For example, there is no Roman record of someone named Jesus who was such a well-known trouble-maker that he deserved special punishment above and beyond normal crucifixion.

"They believe in a talking dead guy"

You're right, "talking undead guy" would be a more accurate description.

"Magical sky daddy"

Magical is a fair description in my opinion, as God is claimed to have powers beyond natural means, which is as good a definition of magic as any other. However, I agree with you that the word "sky" is incorrect. "Magical extra-dimensional daddy" would be a more accurate description.

[–] not_richjenkins 10 years ago

Re: #4 that Josephus stuff has been widely debunked. Even religious scholars don't believe that anymore.
You'd consider this a biased source but this was the first site I found that goes into detail about it:
http://thechurchoftruth.wordpress.com/no-evidence-for-jesus-outside-bible/

[–] Delumara 10 years ago

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0815241/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Bill Maher's Religulous should answer most of your questions. ;)