sort by best latest
Keith Abt says
Very right answer. If they are Atheist, it itself means they do not believe.
So from your answer Keith I can infer you are in agreement with my answer.That is they don't believe in God,not because of anything except that they want to deny his existence so they can be atheists,in other words to live a Godless life.
I'm curious. What in UR opinion is a "Godless life?" It may require U write a complete hub to explain this. Have U done an in-depth study into the lives of non-believers 2 describe a godless life? Can U realistically compare godless vs. godly lives?
I can only imagine the comments U will get from both the godless & the godly. Especially if U boldly & erroneously try to claim godless lives are useless, immoral, non-productive. Both believers & Non have both neg & pos aspects to t
It's clear the godly spend half their lives judging, preaching, shaming, damning, & playing the high & mighty game. UR no better, no more positive, no more successful, no more loved nor loving than any other human being who can be all of thes
What do I mean by Godless life? Really, that is a question you can' answer yourself in this context? Well I'll spell it out for you, it is quite simple, a life without God. Any God, or being or entity greater than themselves. Get it?
I get it in terms of my opinion, which I stated. I asked 4 ur opinion. U gave it. I get ur opinion too. Thanks. Asked & answered.
You tried to project onto me when I made no such comparisons but my point(godless)fits exactly with my Q&Aanswer,most atheists simply don't want to answer to a higher power for anything&so they make up,look for,any excuse that there is no God
TSAD, I don’t try to make up excuses or reasons for not believing, I just don’t believe. I am who I am. I have respect for other people’s beliefs; so I get on well with people of all religions and faiths who are tolerant of other people's beliefs.
If you just don't believe for no reason but you don't "want" to believe you still fit the bill of my answer to this Q&A.Having respect for other people’s beliefs has nothing to do with why you don't believe but your "want" does. Case closed.
Who says I ‘want ‘, or ‘don want’ to believe, certainly not me. Any thoughts, feelings or desires to believe in some mythical being are as remote to me as me wanting to believe in fairies. And does it really matter what you or I believe.
OK,u cannot be reasoned with.You say"I just don’t believe"which means you don't want to believe also-no difference then you say"does it really matter what u or I believe?"U r hopeless if it doesn't matter to u if u believe truth or lies.
TSAD, in my mind atheism is the truth; but that is my personal opinion. Everybody is entitled to their own views on religion, which I respect. So I don’t try to shove my opinions down their throats or preach to them.
In your mind something is the truth?What about reality my friend.Would you tell a schizophrenic to only trust what is in his mind?Sounds like you would.You are playing a dangerous game of denial,just an excuse to be accountable to no one.
Why are you so insistent that everyone believes what you believe?
Are other people not entitled to their own views, if those views are different to what you believe?
First thing that came to my mind as well. Oh and "why do some people believe in god?" Was the next thing that came to mind.
- See all 18 commentsHide extra comments
Susan Hambidge says
See five reasons why atheists hold their stance here: http://inspiresavvy.blogspot.com.ng/2015/12/Atheis...
- See all 2 commentsHide extra comments
Venkatachari M says
Sorry, but not everyone has a cowardly heart.
Several misconceptions: they don't 'stive' to disprove the existence of God - responses are usually to pushy Christian know-it-alls. Atheists don't need a higher a higher power to save them. Yeah, pretty big discrepancies & judgements - what a sh
So you say atheists don't believe in God because they don't need a higher power to save them?They tell me they doesn't exist, not because even if he does they don;t need him. That's new, never heard an atheist say that.
Not all Atheists seek to disprove the existence of a God. And when some disaster takes place they use other methods to deal with the issue and feel they can find resolution without reaching out to an omnipotent being.
- See all 5 commentsHide extra comments
Mae Hanson says
Penelope Arrow says
Prashanthi Menon says
Atheists tend to have a negative view of reality.
I and most atheists I know have a very positive view of reality; it’s just that we don’t believe in a creator. You can’t generalise (stereotype) peoples views and attitudes as everyone is different; regardless to whether they are religious or not.
Ok. Tell us how if there is a God how great reality is and thank Him for your life and freewill, the juxtaposition of a couple of atheist "god should be ashamed" etc
As an atheist I see suffering and joy in nature e.g. prey in the food chain and birth of new life; and I see good and bad in humanity. I choose to appreciate the positives in nature and people, and help others when I can, because it makes me happy.
The most commendable attributes or virtues that can be attained by mankind are only possible because they are achieved by overcoming adversity. Why should a hypothetical God be ashamed at the pure genius of this?
I don’t disagree with you e.g. I’m not one of the atheists who made that statement about being ashamed; that question should be aimed at them. As far as I am concerned there is a lot of good in the world (it’s not all doom and gloom).
- See all 6 commentsHide extra comments
Michael Tu says
I like this answer. Feels open and honest! I also think these internet discussion put most of us on the defensive.
John Welford says
Many people say variations of this: "it is amazing the lengths to which atheists will go to assert..." The flip side is same for Christians; and Atheists are responding to religious dogmatic people who insist that the lies to enslave them are true.
SO atheists are responding not to what they believe to be fact, God does not exist, but you are agreeing that they are responding in a desire to reject the message of redemption (christianity), exactly what is said in the 1st link above link
So because people are systembuilders to feel comfortable and secure in the world proves your belief is the right one? Because people are pattern seekers doesn't make every pattern as valid as the next. We are talking to ourselves here.
- See all 3 commentsHide extra comments
Arthur Russ says
So it doesn't bother you that science is known for fitting scientific evidence into preconceived notions, many "scientific theories" have eventually been proven wrong, & it takes more faith to be an atheist than to believe the Bible?
I can’t believe in something that I don’t believe in; so atheism is my only choice, and my personal right.
Science has nothing to do with religion; if you were scientifically minded you would know your statements dissing science are misconceived.
If you knew anything about science,a scientist you are not,obviously,you would not be dissing me and my statements.
Science obviously has nothing to do with religion,I never said it did,but Christianity has everything to do with science.
I do have science qualifications, and quantum physics is my forte. Being a scientist doesn’t exclude you from being religious, and being religious doesn’t exclude you from being a scientist; unless you feel insecure about your faith or beliefs.
Really?What degree do you have?Then you must be familiar with FRANK J TIPLER & the Physics of Christianity? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6APhNSBrRA or how about Astrophysicist, SARAH SALVIANDER and her journey to Christianity?
Well actually I have academic qualifications in Astronomy and Human Biology, and I’ve also studied Newtonian Physics, but my main interest is in Quantum physics. And no I haven’t read those books because I’m not interested in religion.
So what degrees do you hold? Academic qualifications? What does that mean you went to college for a year and dropped out? Really. You don;t fool anyone, you are making this all up.
I did 3 years at college to get specific ‘A’ level qualifications I needed for my job (which I passed), and while there I took the opportunity to also study Quantum physics as a hobby, borrowing the books from a friend who was doing it as a degree.
So you have no degrees in any field of science,a hobby you call quantum physics&you consider that to be"science qualifications"?Sorry, what you offer qualifies u for nothing in the fields of science which is obvious by your every word.
I never said I had a degree. Besides you obviously don’t know what ‘A’ (Advanced Subject) levels are in the UK; they are a 90 minute pre-degree exam taken after two years of study in what you call ‘Higher Education’ and qualifies you for university
TSAD, you just expressed your belief several posts ago, that scientists distort data. So of what merit is it to you whether or not someone has qualifications in science, since if you believe that scientists distort data anyway?
Put words in my mouth to raise a straw man and argue against it, nice try.I never said scientists distort data although even that has occurred making my point was that there are good reasons for Arthur not to put all his faith in science.
Your quote: "So it doesn't bother you that science is known for fitting scientific evidence into preconceived notions , many "scientific theories" have eventually been proven wrong, & it takes more faith to be an atheist than to believe the Bible
Where in that quote do I say they distort data?Qualified scientists who respect science don't do that nor do what I said,all the more reason to point out Arthur has no basis to claim scientific credentials and his statements prove it.
"Fitting scientific evidence into preconceived notions" is not a distortion?The problem is that at it's core, ALL science is "technically" theory, so I understand your faith comment. However most do their best to be as open to accuracy as possible.
No,if you understood science you'd know that distorting data refers to changing or providing false data.What I said"Fitting scientific evidence into preconceived notions"has nothing to do with distorting data but the conclusions from data.
TSAD, I recognised myself as an atheist 5 years before I became interested in science, so science did not influence my atheism. I never said I put ALL my faith in science, your ignorance of Scientific Methodology suggests you have no science degree
Wrong again.I got my degrees before you were born,4.0 average in both my majors,worked as a specialist in biotech stocks for16 years&taught Science.So what else do u put ur faith in if not all in science?You said"morefaith",more than what?
Well you don’t talk like a scientist; you show ignorance in the significance of double blind tests for example. FYI I put more faith in science because I have NO FAITH in Religion. And why are you so insistent that others have to agree with you?
TSAD, what kind of preconceived notions do you think exist in science?
AR u putting words in my mouth?Because you have already lost this debate.I said nothing about double blind studies& everything I have said is facts scientists know.Ashton,you r kidding right?Stress theory of ulcers,Static universe,google it!
TSAD. I’m just stating what I believe, you are the one insisting you’re right and everyone else is wrong - WHY. If you're a scientist then you will understand the significance of ‘falsifiable predictions’; which I doubt from the statements you make
What you call preconceived notion is part of the process of scientific theory. Science is by nature, theory, and scientists recognize that fact and recognize that they are subject to change should further experimentation and info require it.
AF, so you think you understand science and the scientific method?Tell me is it scientific to theorize that life arose spontaneously on earth? Simple answer, yes or no, is it that a scientific conclusion, theory or fact? Which is it?
Simple answer ‘No’, you need the right conditions, and time. It’s a ‘Theory’ (in fact several valid Theories). If you understood how science works a ‘Theory’ is always a ‘Theory’, even when it becomes generally accepted as correct.
I asked Ashton the question,when she answers I'll be glad to demonstrate how your answer totally shows you do not even know what science is or what scientific method is.Maybe after try to say something without misstating everything I say
SCREW SCIENCE, TSAD - lets talk about the social injustices, lets talk about fanatics, lets talk about cruelty, lets talk about historical evidences, and what about plain 'ol reason? Believe or not - this question is only a big deal to Christians.
How about U get your facts straight.Nothing in history has caused more social injustices, fanatics, and cruelty than the atrocities committed by atheists&atheist regimes.Sorry misfit, you can't delete comments showing u wrong here.
TSAD, your reply above proves you’re no scientist (as you falsely claimed further up) e.g. a scientist would know that a Scientific Theory is always classified as a Theory, even when it’s passes the ‘falsifiable predictions’ and becomes well proven.
TSAD, that is what science has going for it best theory until proven false. Something can only be scientific if it is falsifiable. That is how you improve instead of stating non-sensical dogma.
Arthur again u put words in my mouth,I said NOTHING like what you just said I said,u have cognitive problems or like to lie.My point was since many scientific theories have been proven wrong(a fact)why would u put such faith in science.
Of course that is a theory, as I've been saying. Scientific "facts" are recognized as theories and are subject to correction of course. No scientific theory is ever presented as an unchanging, absolute truth.
Thanks Ashton for your answer.I hope u are willing to listen & learn(obviously Arthur is incapable of honest discourse).To start with a"scientific theory"can not be called a fact. Fact's are irrefutable and as "Arthur" & u have already
said theory's can be proven wrong, in which case they could never have been FACT.Make sense? It is true a theory may actually be a fact but that does not make all scientific theories facts.I put my faith in facts,not "theories" even if they
are called"scientific theories".For example many think evolution is a scientific fact when the theory of evolution doesn't even qualify as a scientific theory.1st there’s no direct,observable experiment that can ever be performed.They can
never test evolutionary events in the past.Evolution misses the mark as a theory because all the supposed“tests”to confirm Darwinism don't necessarily&distinctively correspond to the idea,each has an alternate&equally viable explanation
A theory requires that the confirming experiments correspond to one specific hypothesis.Otherwise,the experiment cannot establish legitimacy.Evolution has no such legitimacy.Now as to abiogenesis.Scientific investigation of origin of life
presents us with at least two problems.First,since life began before people were around,we hardly can observe the process. 2nd,since the origin of life appears to have been a unique event,we hardly can repeat it &NO ONE has.Scientificmethod
is defined as probing only things that we can detect with our five senses and Science also must be repeatable,abiogenesis has never been observed.To the contrary,it has been shown numerous times that biogenesis is true,that only livingthings
give rise to living things.That is,abiogenesis has been scientifically disproved.To persist in belief in abiogenesis,one must believe in something that clearly is unscientific.Aston& Arthur,ur ideas of what is science are far from accurate
TSAD, ref. to your comment 10 replies above; in an earlier reply you stated “I got my degrees before you were born, 4.0 average in both my majors”, yet your ignorance on how science progresses it understanding suggests you are telly porky pies.
Yes. As I've been saying, scientific theory never claims to be indisputable fact and should not be accepted as such.Asto whether or not scientific theories such as evolution and abiogenesis are TRUE theories, I'd need more space than this tiny box :(
- See all 42 commentsHide extra comments
Virginia Allain says
Rola Maher Abboud says
Dr Pran Rangan says
I think this is an interesting point that is very prevalent today. Seeking God, and finding a religious path that speaks to you and is right for you brings many social implications with regards to the religion you turn to. This can create a barrier.
The Examiner-1 says
Edge Valmond says
John James says
Are you a scientist John?Another thing atheists do,they lie about science&the Bible as you have done.Just search youtube for"Scientists become christian"(63,400results).Watch &then explain how Christianity doesn’t work in scientific model.
I like your detailed analysis of the question John, its well thought out and expressed very methodically.
You would like that answer, but seems john has no answers for my question because it refutes everything he believes.
Thank you, Arthur. It was definitely written for the more analytically minded. If I ever learn to write something convincing for both analytical and intuitive people at the same time I'll switch to being a lawyer.
"how Christianity doesn’t work in scientific model" - really, TSAD? Try Googling all the many ways Christiantiy has FAILED the masses since the inception of it. How many people is it responsible for harming? It is not a religion that 'God' created.
People are sinners. What they do in the name of a "religion" they may call Christianity is not reflective of the Gospel of Jesus Christ(God reaching down to man),or his Word.Christianity is a relationship with Jesus Christ not a religion.
- See all 6 commentsHide extra comments
You can help the HubPages community highlight top quality content by ranking this answer up or down.
Did God "just happen" all by Himself? How is that possible?
Tarun Chhauda says
How do you carry out his work if you don't believe in him, if you believe he doesn't exist? Really Tarun, your words make NO sense.
I think so
I think Tarun makes perfect sense. As an atheist I believe in myself, and I’ve known Christians who hold similar views to Tarun in the belief that you should have ‘Free Will’ to choose what you believe rather than be influenced by ‘proof positive’.
OK..Today's lesson in jibberish? I'll bite. Tarun, "God would never want us 2 believe in Him?"A.R, "choose what we believe rather than be influenced by PROOF POSITIVE??" Scuse me. Time 4 heavy dose of meds & a long, long nap. I've hallucinated?
God can exist WITHOUT a religion - and thrives in non-religious attmospheres. Dogma makes it a question. People who believe in themselves are putting ALL of their trust in 'whatever is'. There is no greater compliment to a creator than that.
The one thing you have said that is right,God does exist without religion.Christianity is not a religion https://philippians1v21.wordpress.com/why-believe-... Read and learn.
- See all 7 commentsHide extra comments
Rachael Lefler says
Rand Zacharias says
5 answers hidden due to negative feedback. Show
5 answers hidden due to negative feedback. Hide