jump to last post 1-50 of 83 discussions (2100 posts)

Why Do Christians Have Such A Problem With Atheism?

  1. Brittany Alexis W profile image60
    Brittany Alexis Wposted 2 years ago

    Atheism only means the lack of a belief in God. Why is it so hard for Christians to realize that we dismiss their religion for the same reasons that they dismiss all other religions? It doesn't make us horrible people, immoral, or mean that we are going to hell. It just means that we think the bible sounds like a fairy tale gone too far, and choose to live our lives as if there isn't a man in the sky watching us. I'm just curious as to what the true problems with Atheism are, and I am interested in hearing opinions.

    1. Jomine Jose profile image80
      Jomine Joseposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Saftey in numbers, the more the people who believe,  the more sure the belief.

      1. Robert Ransley profile image60
        Robert Ransleyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        And the more people who submit to the control of whatever church they belong to.

    2. 0
      Lybrahposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I don't have a problem with atheists per se, I'm  just sick and tired of reading all the comments filled with mockery and sarcasm towards my religion.   It seems that some people can't respect what I believe, and some others are just as ruthless as they claim us believers to be.

      1. Justin Biser profile image60
        Justin Biserposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Think about it this way, people mock (insert religion) because it is all without evidence supporting its outlandish claims. Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence. Lest you have a problem where nations argue on whose god is bigger...oh wait...I think this is exactly what is happening now, and for the past centuries.

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Really? Which nations are claiming their god is bigger? I missed that segment on CNN.

          1. Justin Biser profile image60
            Justin Biserposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Such a small minded person. Look at the big picture.

            1. Chris Neal profile image82
              Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Wow. That was uncalled for. I've been reading and interacting with Emile for a while and I don't think she's small minded at all. That response on the other hand...

              1. Justin Biser profile image60
                Justin Biserposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                You are right, I hastened my reply. I apologize.

            2. 0
              Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              That's interesting. By my perception, your statement was small minded, incredibly naive and void of any understanding of current events.

              1. Weis on the rocks profile image61
                Weis on the rocksposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Does the term "holy war" mean anything to you? Current and past events throughout the globe? Christian v Muslim? Catholic v Protestant (and just about anyone else for quite some time)? Quite a few others? Might not meet your standards of tact but there are millions upon millions of dead people who became so needlessly as a result of 'my god's bigger than your god' who quite frankly don't care whether my pinky's up or down as I reiterate Justin's extraordinarily valid point. Millions - I'm sure your feelings and your false reality are more important than they ever were. Carry on.

                1. 0
                  Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Justin's point may have been valid in past centuries....to a point. If we ignore everything that motivates nation states to war. I don't tend to ignore things that are blatantly obvious.

                  Yes, religion does motivate some to violence. However, if we look at the number of deaths in the last century, those caused by war or government policy; we clearly see that religion accounts for a minute percentage of those deaths. So, I ask  you...why are we not focusing on the major problems in current society? Why would someone persist in attempting to paint religion as the primary instigator in this day and age? It is clearly an inability to view the larger picture. Is this inability due to an entrenched bias which causes anything and everything to be the fault of religion, or is it simply a lack of understanding of the dynamics which lead to large scale violence such as war, and government policies which result in the deaths of millions?

                  If it is simply bias which causes one to want to blame religion for the woes of the world then clearly no amount of fact would be able to sway the adherent from what they want to believe. If it is simply a lack of understanding then I would think even a modicum of time spent in study from reputable and unbiased sources would help dispel the myth.

                  1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                    oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I think some people want to believe in myths over dispelling them.  It sounds crazy but it would explain what we see in those cases.

                  2. OpenFreeLearning profile image61
                    OpenFreeLearningposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    There is a focus of the major problems in society, religion is just one of them. To discount the deaths religions have caused throughout history, and continue to this day, is just minimizing the vast amount of human suffering perpetuated by religion over the years.

                    The absolute amount of violence attributed to religion may or may not equal that contributed by other reasons but that doesn't excuse religion from it's role in the multitudes of war and death throughout the ages. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that eliminating one of the major reasons for conflict between people would actually be a good thing in the long run, whether the reason is nationalism, racism, or religion.

          2. 60
            HeatherAlexanderposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I also missed that segment on CNN or any other news outlet. As for outlandish claims, for myself, I find the claim that that the universe is a giant, cosmological accident in which non-living things become alive suddenly and then randomly form themselves into larger living entities and eventually thinking larger entities to be more outlandish than belief in God, but that's just me.

            1. JMcFarland profile image93
              JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              just a quick question Heather.  How deeply have you actually studied cosmology, abiogenesis and evolution, if at all?

              1. 60
                HeatherAlexanderposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Yes! I studied cosmology, abiogenesis and evolution through junior high, high school, college and graduate school and continue to keep up with current thought in these areas today. I just find it difficult on a personal level to consider that the watch (universe) did not have a watchmaker.

                1. JMcFarland profile image93
                  JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  You've studied evolution extensively and still think the watchmaker argument is valid for creationism?   Can you tell me why?

                  1. 60
                    HeatherAlexanderposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I'll come right back with a question of my own. Can you tell me why it is not valid?

                2. 60
                  HeatherAlexanderposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  An addendum to my post, I studied the above deeply enough to keep up with my acquaintances who are scientific in their thought processes and who profess to not believe in God. Many of them hold degrees at the masters or doctoral level in scientific fields. Some of them are relatives who are atheists. Some are Fellows of the Jesus Seminar. 99% of them keep up with the scientific journals and the latest thought in science, especially evolutionary thought. My own educational background is in literature, not science, but I do what I can to be able to keep up in thought and conversation with the people I come into contact with.

            2. oceansnsunsets profile image88
              oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Heather, I sure do feel lucky then if this is all truly just an accident, that came about from natural and undirected processes against all the amazing odds.  That we can even ponder it with our minds is even more incredible.  I am thankful for the opportunity to be a part of that.

              I haven't seen how natural and undirected processes can account for the beginning, the big bang and all that came after till now.  Yet it doesn't stop people from believing in just that, all the same.  (Those that do believe that.)

              1. 60
                HeatherAlexanderposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I  haven't either, oceansnsunsets! but to each their own!

      2. Oztinato profile image83
        Oztinatoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        People who mock all religions are exhibiting bigotry. Its the same as mocking another race.
        They forget that they are acting in a bigoted manner and seem to think its morally OK.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Is it OK to mock only a few religions?  Maybe Wicca, the gods of ancient greece and the worship of trees and rocks as gods?  And Buddhism and Islam?  And of course atheism (it's becoming common to call that a religion)?

          You know - all the religions except your own?  Is it OK to declare them all wrong and that the adherents will go to the mythical hell some believe is real?  Or is that bigotry, too?

          1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
            oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I have noticed also that many refer to atheism like or as a religion.  I forget at the moment the exact reasoning given but it was interesting.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I always get the impression that those claim atheism is a religion have the feeling that religion itself (actually religious people, not the religion) is somehow second class, inferior.  As they themselves are religious the speaker must then "bring down" the other side, in this case by declaring THEM to be religious, too.

              Ridiculous, that that's how it appears to me.

            2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
              EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              It's a fallacy, of course. A lack of belief in gods cannot be a religion, by definition.

              1. Oztinato profile image83
                Oztinatoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Check any dictionary and you will find the definition of religion includes when people
                stick to a belief even atheism.

                1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
                  Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Not believing in fairies is not a belief. Sorry for your loss. sad

                2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  lol So, in other words, you don't own a dictionary and have never opened one?

            3. Oztinato profile image83
              Oztinatoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Oceans
              its called a "dictionary": there you will find the Answer.

              1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I have a dictionary, and know what religion means.  They don't think they are a religion of course.  The things I was referring to were actual parallels made in how they are just like a religion.  It is that exact information I am referring to.

          2. Oztinato profile image83
            Oztinatoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            A person becomes a bigot when they mock an entire group be it one particular religion or race.
            Racial and religious tolerance is the sign of a civilized mind.
            The New Atheism of today has become quasi-religious. I have no problem with atheism but individuals who advocate total religious intolerance are plainly bigots.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I guess the question then is what you mean by "mock".  I don't think bigotry has anything to do with actually mocking, just declaring other beliefs, peoples, races, etc. to be either inferior or wrong.  Neither of which is mocking.

              1. Oztinato profile image83
                Oztinatoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                No wilderness unfortunately you are wrong. Please now read the dictionary plus the other reading I have recommended!
                The practitioners of bigotry always claim they "are not racist" and they "are not intolerant of religions" as they are in deep deep denial. Even the calm so called 'logical' claim that religions and races are inferior is ugly gross bigotry through and through (by all definitions of law, commonsense and basic ethics).

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  big·ot noun \ˈbi-gət\
                  : a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

                  rac·ist
                  ˈrāsist/Submit
                  noun
                  1.
                  a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
                  synonyms:    racial bigot, racialist, xenophobe, chauvinist, supremacist More
                  (racially) discriminatory, racialist, prejudiced, bigoted
                  adjective
                  noun: racist; plural noun: racists; adjective: racist
                  1.
                  having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another.
                  "we are investigating complaints about racist abuse at the club"

                  Nowhere in either definition is the word "mock" ("tease or laugh at in a scornful or contemptuous manner.") found.  Neither bigotry nor racism has anything to do with laughing at someone.

                  1. Oztinato profile image83
                    Oztinatoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Its implicit in the definition. Eg "blackface" humour is both mockery and highly bigoted.

          3. kayla shoemaker profile image60
            kayla shoemakerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            People are going to judge and "mock" not everything in this world can be perfect nor fixed. So what if people make fun of what you believe in or don't agree with you on a certain thing. You shouldn't care what anyone thinks or has to say about the matter. If all you look for in life is happiness then don't let the negatives get to you. If talking to a rock makes you happy by all means go for it.

            1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
              oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Fair points Kayla smile 

              I wish more and more people would worry about themselves than others.  If we all did that, can you imagine what a better world we would have?  That and wanting freedom for all.  Its good to focus on the positive I think, especially if things are getting us down ever.

        2. oceansnsunsets profile image88
          oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          That is pretty fair ( when talking about mocking).  Sometimes those that are theist bigoted don't see it in themselves, but are quick to say others are being bigoted when they are not.  Usually what seems to drive this at times, seems to be just a very string need for the other side to be "wrong."  I haven't agreed with you on much of anything as I would rather see the thing exhibited actually being done before accusing.  So thought I would mention it.

          To be clear, I don't think the bigotry is all from one group or anything.  It's whoever does it.

          1. Oztinato profile image83
            Oztinatoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Of course you can get a religious person who is bigoted against other religions.
            My point is that bigotry dismisses a person from being truly theist or truly atheist. They are just bigots like Dawkins or terrorists.

        3. EncephaloiDead profile image60
          EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          So, to mock an ideology is exactly the same thing as mocking people?

          When  did that contradiction become a reality?

          1. Oztinato profile image83
            Oztinatoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Clearly if a person mocks entire races or religions they are acting in an intolerant and bigoted manner eg hitler mocked the jews.
            Its basic stuff to understand unless a bigoted mindset is at work in denial like Dawkins.

            1. Robert Ransley profile image60
              Robert Ransleyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I remind you that Hitler was a christian, and yes, it is well documented.  Also look at the inscription on the belts of the SS troops.  Dawkins is not in denial of anything.  He is a scientist who is willing to change his views and beliefs if EVIDENCE can be supplied.  Ken Ham stated in the debate with Bill Nye, that he (Ham) would not change his belief in God even if presented with evidence showing him to be wrong.  Bill Nye said in the same debate that he would believe in God if he was shown evidence supporting this.  Who's in denial and who's more open minded?

              1. Oztinato profile image83
                Oztinatoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Ransely
                we all know that Dawkins is intolerant of religion hence he is a classic bigot.
                Its more than just a disbelief in God: he hates ALL religion. Its a common definition of bigotry to hate a race or religion or all religions. It can't be called science and is not amenable to scientific debate as a bigot won't change their minds about their hate.

      3. Austinstar profile image76
        Austinstarposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Lybrah, that was a really hateful thing you did to Link10103. I'm sure one of your Christian duties is to judge agnostics and atheists, even though you are guilty of the same crimes that you accuse them of. Christians judge atheists all the time and it's wrong. You can have your religion. My opinion of Christianity belongs to me.

        1. 0
          Motown2Chitownposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Hey, Austin!! I haven't seen you in such a long time!! BIG hugs, girl!! big_smile

    3. 0
      Mklow1posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Not sure. Did you guys discuss that at last weeks Annual Atheist Conference in Utah? I see all 700 of you showed up. lol

    4. tsmog profile image85
      tsmogposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      A very interesting question. However, a humble view and opinion, a christian, an atheist, or a whatever somewhat will with propensity always respond with generalities or personal opinion or a view. That of least occurs more than not with most (again a generalization) open forums. That is the nature of forums. A christian is lumped into being all Christians and an atheist is lumped into being all Atheists and etc.

      We know from simple reasoning and logic once 'all' is introduced in an argument it is considered not a truism. It is known as the 'bifurcation' fallacy. The bible is proof of that with not all created beings are of good moral since there is Satan and sin. There are angels of purity within the bible and of course the Christ - Jesus. That demonstrates reasoning regarding 'all' and lumping a single person into a mass of peoples as being the same as the generality is false, of least for this person.

      The atheist 'I' know with a personal nature (And some I have read here in these forums) do not dismiss all other religions completely as religion is defined, they simply do not accept there is a God(s). Therefore as most dictionaries have 3 or more definitions for religion an atheist rejects those associated with a God. They do accept those definitions centering around a principal, cause, or a system(s) regarding living. After all atheism has its religious trends as does the person who NFL football is there religion.

      Everyone has 'faith' and the arguments of 'faith' from any side denying 'faith' really does not hold water. The argument itself is having 'faith' what is stated in explanation or argument is a truism. 'Faith' is not prescribed to be only associated with a God(s) or a religion (again there are more than one definition) it is exercising a belief(s) and/or a belief system with truism(s) and those are at question. 

      Belief is of occurrence of basically three elements. If only two of those elements are exercised it is simply acknowledgement and not belief. The common elements of both of those are acceptance, trust, and faith. Some say the order is of importance too. The key is 'acceptance'. All arguments of faith are based firstly on acceptance. In other words one cannot argue trust and faith without first there being acceptance of something. An atheist does not accept the existence of God(s) [A supernatural nature of being]. Simple enough. Yet with definition they do accept science and reasoning. There is acceptance, trust, and faith therefore there is belief.

      Arguments of trust and faith of/in/with a God(s) are mute without there being acceptance. That (again a humble view or opinion) is where discussions falter between the generalizations of an atheist and any believer of God(s). You cannot argue Christianity as a truism until there is acceptance of God(s). Holy scriptures [of any faith based belief system of a deity(s)] are mute other than the reason or reasoning (principals of philosophy like logic) contained within. Some say that is the purpose with Pauline scriptures of a man educated with Greek knowledge of philosophy and logic. Also a man good with mathematics as he was a tax collector.

      Hypothetical could occur with 'presumptions' [Acknowledgement] and not acceptance seeking proofs or truisms with discussions whether argumentative or arguing. Those are different. [Example discussing with the presumption of a singular God - monotheism, concept and differences of either faith based or evidence based religion(s) or religious positions contrasting polytheism. An atheist could argue one side or the other based on evidence and reasoning within the definitions of the discussion]. One is emotionless and one is with emotion.

      Trust is a key element. Trust to stay within the prescribed definitions for the discussion even with presumptions. Having faith of the discussion is a key element. And, acceptance of the issue at argument is a key element. Therefore there is a belief in/of, with the process of the argumentative discussion [The atheist could conclude by discussion 'if' there is deity, then it could be a God vs. Gods or God vs Goddess and etc. Those are historical arguments seeking those truisms since say Descartes].

      Not as a defense, a very slight explanation, is what is sought with the question proposed with this forum is of ethics and morals. Morals are of right and wrong within the individual and with groups or groupings it is ethics. The forum question alludes to personality(s) being of question and of generalities. At stake is the morals of those who discuss and the ethics of the discussion of individuals. That is a good question that was proposed for this forum of least in my humble view or opinion. This specific forum question has a developing set of ethics led by the originality of the question or questioning. The authority is that and not the author. 

      The atheist I know will tire really quickly with those who argue with scriptures [or concepts derived from] of holy books for instance . They appear as an opponent because of the introduction of scripture as proof and the one who introduced that as authority appear as if lost to the atheist. The scriptures are mute as they have no authority since there is not a God(s) unless used for reasoning as argumentative and not arguing [with emotion(s)]. The atheist does have their belief system. There is acceptance of their truisms of which they exercise with trust and faith - science, reasoning, and etc. They simply do not accept there is a God(s).

      So as seen with a really long and maybe not necessary sharing of a view is cause for understanding arguing with emotion vs. argumentative discussion from a position without emotion. Once emotions are interjected then it is less of ethics and more of morals. As that occurs principals for morality are of issue (remember morals are of the person presenting character traits such as pride and associated emotions) hence religious views are interjected by one side or the other [Both at times]. Then, again, we see God(s) introduced for authority. Then comes what the holy scriptures are interpreted to say as authoritative contrasting science and reasoning.

      The atheist is worn out by that time (a euphemism) as they simply do not accept God(s). The argument becomes circular and never ending with emotions raised on both sides and the lowering of ethics. Thus, finger pointing, the taking of personal offenses (And, at times offense of lumped in generalities of a grouping known or not known, i.e. a specific denomination with the variances of dogma, doctrine, and social enterprise contrast differing views of atheism and those associated social enterprise), and maybe personal vendettas enter with personality conflicts. Then we discover assumptions are rendered as one (a specific person with personality traits and with emotions) or a few as being representative of all. We know all cannot be used with logic of reasoning.

      That is where the original question (remembering the question is the authority and not the author) runs slightly tilted with "Why is it so hard for Christians . . ." offering a conclusion of being 'all' persons of Christianity contrasting a view of singularity with 'Atheism' as a belief system - acceptance, trust, and faith vs. a contrast with 'atheists', which would be an equaled siding of position [There could be conflict of two individuals of liberty and autonomy contrasting / comparing with individuals or armies of such]. One side offers a belief system vs. another side of peoples. Those are different. There is not any position of argument until there is equality. Atheists vs. Christians or Atheism vs. Christianity [Both would require an accepted definition].

      Again realizing while asking forgiveness I took the liberty of explaining a view that simply is not representative of all Christians or Atheists. Yes, I accept God, yet I do not belong to an organized religion. What is the generalized assumption(s) to define what a Christian 'is' simply is at question from this point. Most definitely it is not the acceptance of God(s) as there is Judaism, Hinduism, Islamic, and other faith and evidence based belief systems with a God(s) as authoritative or of a supernatural nature. I have not any challenges or problems with any specific atheist [of least of civility] or Atheism. Such is as such is. My hope is we may work side by side building a bridge or constructing a building needed for the homeless. Belief is belief. We are then agreed and equal. The rest is, well, kinda' personal of any isn't it?

      1. Oztinato profile image83
        Oztinatoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Your opening premise is totally wrong.
        Once a person starts lumping groups together they have dropped the ball and are running but they dont know they dropped the ball!
        This lumping together is stereotyping which is a big mistake both logically and ethically.
        Racial and religious stereotyping is bigotry in another form.

        1. Weis on the rocks profile image61
          Weis on the rocksposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Meanwhile - the most prevalent religions are actively working to legislate, and perpetuate bigotry. I guess that's better than harmlessly teasing people who believe in ancient invisible sky fairies.

    5. Chris Neal profile image82
      Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Lumping all Christians together is about as safe as lumping all atheists together. Some Christians are like, "You're going to hell!" and some are like, "Whatever, it never really happened it's just something we should try really hard to do."

      Some atheists are like, "You dimwitted moron, I can't believe you're so stupid that you don't just automatically agree with me!" and some are like, "Well, I guess if it works for you, but I just can't see it myself."

      1. Oztinato profile image83
        Oztinatoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Thats right. Anyone who stereotypes is making a fundamental ethical and logical error.
        I see a place for atheism but gross intolerance of  all religion is NOT atheism.: it is bigotry and hypocrisy.

    6. oceansnsunsets profile image88
      oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I think most Christians just want a "live and let live" world with atheists.  In the areas that that might not be able to be the case, I think lies the problem.  I am a Christian and I truly just want peace with all people, including atheists.  Sometimes, it seems the atheists are not truly content with the Christians, with all due respect.  If we are all just having different views, and we are all truly tolerant, then what is the problem with Christianity if I am minding my own business and trying to get along in this world like everyone else?  If an atheist asks me my honest opinion on something including my views about life and the hereafter, I will share it.  It may sound  cheesy, but can't we all just get along?  All joking aside... 

      There does seem to be quite a lot of smearing of Christians and the teachings of Jesus going on, and this doesn't not promote peace among people that simply disagree with each other.  I wish there was more understanding from some atheists than I see. To those that practice a live and let live mentality, I have no problem, but to those seeming to need to demean and cause trouble, that seems a bit more strange to me.  If the atheists that do that kind of thing are truly just lacking a belief in god, what does it truly matter or hurt  if others believe in Jesus or not?

    7. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
      HeadlyvonNogginposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I, as a Christian, do not have a problem with atheism in and of itself. What I have an issue with are atheists who speak of their viewpoint as being the more intelligent, more enlightened view. It's often assumed that if one believes in God, they must also lack knowledge of science, they must reject modern scientifically gained wisdom, or they just must not have critically assessed their views very strongly. Believers are often spoken of as superstitious people clinging to antequated/outdated beliefs because they're not as forward thinking. I personally am a science fanatic. And I critically analyze everything. But I am often told, strictly because I'm a believer, that I don't REALLY understand. Many atheists I've spoken to seem to struggle to wrap their heads around how someone could properly understand science AND still maintain a belief in God. So they're assumption most often seems to be that anyone who continues to maintain a belief in God must not really get it.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        A really massive part of science is the scientific method, used to determine knowledge and truth of the world around us.  It cannot, however, be used to find anything at all about a god anywhere, yet the believer insists there IS such a god.

        If the believer is to understand science, then, they must willingly set aside all they know of the field, and specifically the proper methods of finding truth, when it comes to the religious field.  Live a life of two faces, so to speak.

        So yes, it is difficult to think that a believer understands science.

        1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Yet it's a proper understanding of science and what can be determined via the scientific method that answers that for you. Because science is only capable of measuring and observing matter/energy from the big bang forward, we can only really determine 'truth' about the natural world that resulted from that. If a God were involved in the creation of the singularity from which the universe expanded, or set the values of the natural laws, there would be no way to determine that. God would have to be a link within the causal chain to be detectable scientifically. So, belief in God does not change anything determined through science. In fact, most of the forefathers of science, including those who first established the scientific method, were themselves Christians. Through their viewpoint, science was the study of God's creation. Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Bacon, Pascal, Descartes, Boyle, Newton, Pasteur, and Kelvin were all Christians.

          Even today, there are a good number of members of the scientific community who are also Christians. And they do not compartmentalize their beliefs like you're suggesting, yet are able to make meaningful contributions. Ken Miller, for example, is a cell biologist who argues for evolution to be taught in schools. From his view...

          “By any reasonable analysis, evolution does nothing to distance or to weaken the power of God. We already know that we live in a world of natural causes, explicable by the workings of natural law. All that evolution does is to extend the workings of these natural laws to the novelty of life and to its changes over time. A God who presides over an evolutionary process is not an impotent, passive observer. Rather, He is one whose genius fashioned a fruitful world in which the process of continuing creation is woven into the fabric of matter itself. He retains the freedom to act, to reveal Himself to His creatures, to inspire, and to teach. He is the master of chance and time, whose actions, both powerful and subtle, respect the independence of His creation and give human beings the genuine freedom to accept or reject His love.”
          - Ken Miller, Cell Biologist/Brown University Professor/Christian, from his book 'Finding Darwin's God'


          To the believer, belief in God does nothing to change what's been determined scientifically. The only difference is we believe things work as they do and the universe exists as it does deliberately. We don't look for "magic" happenings, if God is the creator and designer of this natural/causal universe, then how things work is how they were designed. God, in our eyes, did not fashion a universe that requires constant maintenance and upkeep on His part, but rather He designed a universe that works on its own.

          Another believer is Dr. Richard Stannis. He is a high energy particle physicist who worked at the CERN supercolider and was part of the team who worked to learn many of the latest things determined about subatomic particles. Clearly his beliefs do not hinder him from being a contributing factor in the advancement of scientific understanding.

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Although many will highly disagree with you, a belief in a god does not change knowledge gained from scientific study. 

            But that sidesteps the entire question of why a belief at all?  We know knowledge comes from the scientific method, but believers refuse to use it when it comes to religious questions, for the obvious reason that it does not supply the answers they want to see.  Which is kind of what I said - believers live a two faced life; one face of science where they understand what "truth" means and the other where "truth" means whatever they wish it to mean today.

            As far as the old Christians that studied science; they either ignored the dichotomy of scripture vs knowledge or spun the scripture to say something it never meant.  Like your evolutionist saying god guides evolution while ignoring that the bible is very clear that it took just one day to produce all life.  You can pretend that the words in the bible, the Holy Word of God, agrees with what we know happened, but it is only a pretense and not true at all.

            1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
              HeadlyvonNogginposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              This, to me, just seems to be a case of having too much faith in the scientific method. Meaning, if you think a method devised by human minds could actually be capable of determining every truth about the natural world, and that it's the only method needed to determine all truth, and that anything that may be deemed beyond its jurisdiction can't be truth, then that to me seems short-sited.

              The reason I personally believe has a lot to do with my level of understanding of the natural world through science. I find it hard to believe that something like intelligence can just arise haphazardly and totally unintended. The mere fact that intelligence exists at all, that it seems to be a natural product of this universe, means the more likely answer is that some form of intelligence was involved in how the universe works. And then there are those human characteristics that lack any good explanation in that mindset, like laughing or crying. I find a purely scientific explanation of a god-less existence to be too hollow to fully encompass all that life is.

              I find the mindset your speaking from to be limiting in this regard. To me it is perfectly reasonable to postulate an intelligence being involved, but to most 'science minded' this postulation is totally out of bounds. When I look at things like DNA coding, which is a naturally self-organized system that makes possible the retention and passing on of information, I don't see how anyone can see that the complexity of life comes from naturally evolved code embedded in our make-up and come away from that thinking no intelligence was involved.

              Your example about the creation account and all life evolving in a day thing, I know you and I have had this conversation at great length. But think about this just for a minute. Imagine you were trying to explain the complexity of the geological and biological formation of the earth's history to someone from the bronze age. We today often do this, referring to large spans of time in the past as a 'day'. Back in the 'day'. This is just a literary method for conveying an idea. What I find most troubling with those who are so quick to dismiss things like the creation account based on reasons like what you stated, is there's no consideration given to maybe why it was told in this manner. Which enables people to quickly dismiss an ancient text that has clearly had a significant impact on the world. I'm sure you and I have discussed the way I read Genesis 1-11. From my view, Genesis 2-11 accurately describes how the modern human world was first set in motion. Whether you buy the God aspect of the story or not, I find it hard to believe that the parallels between that story and actual history are mere coincidence.

              Yet, because of views like the one you stated, many people are quick to dismiss it all categorically because it used the language of 'days' in its explanation. Nevermind that this story could offer profound insight into our history and what makes us who we are. Let's just assume that anyone who thought these books up to this point were significant in any way just weren't as smart and well informed as we are now, that they were all obviously duped by one of the world's oldest forms of propaganda, and dismiss it all.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                It is absolutely true that other methods than the scientific method can be used to find truth.  It is also absolutely true that none of the methods ever used in theology have EVER produced verifiable truth.  Only claims of truth.  Of the two, then, I know which I prefer.

                "I don't see how anyone can see that the complexity of life comes from naturally evolved code embedded in our make-up and come away from that thinking no intelligence was involved. "  And this is an excellent example of the type of thinking and conclusion drawing theologicians like to use: I don't understand it so it isn't true".  A conclusion based on ignorance, with zero observation or testing, and one that has no basis in reality.  Just in the imagination of the person making the claim.

                You cannot explain God's use of the word "day" to mean anything but "day".  Certainly the people then understand "many moons" or "lots of years".  "Day" means "day", not some longer period you would like to see because it fits reality.  Just "Day", and no, Genesis does not accurately describe how the world was first set in motion.

                I do agree, however, that the tale can offer insights not listed in biblical scripture.  It just doesn't offer anything along the lines of creation or where we came from.  No, the insights come from further work, from changing the words of that ancient text into something completely different from what it says.

                1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                  HeadlyvonNogginposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  The Hebrew word translated as 'day' in the creation account is 'yom', which also can be translated to mean 'age', or 'era'. And the 'evening' and 'morning' language used in conjunction is also not strange to be used in Hebrew to mean the beginning and ending of an 'era' or 'age'.

                  Here's a method I used to establish truth, that I have sense substantiated with significant amounts of supporting evidence. I created a template of the timeline of Genesis using the geneological lists from Gen5 and 10. I then looked at the known history of Mesopotamia and found a specific span of time that matches that timeline, where actual events that very much mirror events described, actually happened. And these events that actually happened were by no means small insignficant events. These events are recognized amongst the scientific community as being pivotal events in our human history.

                  Yet, without asking for any specifics, or giving any due consideration whatsoever, you feel it appropriate to simply say, "and no, Genesis does not accurately describe how the world was first set in motion."

                  Through this view, this theory I was looking to either disprove or substantiate through evidence, this framework actually made predictions that turned out to be true. One of which being a significant behavioral change in human history that can actually be seen in the archaeological record. This behavioral change was an expected result based on this theory. And there it was. Plain as day. I also had no knowledge of the Sumerians when I first embarked on this. I discovered them as another prediction made by this model.

                  Those kinds of findings, in scientific practices, are generally viewed as being indicators that a particular theory is close to the truth.

                  1. JMcFarland profile image93
                    JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Again,  headly.   If these are indicators that a particular hypothesis (not theory,  at least not in scientific terms) is close to the truth,  where are the peer reviewed historical or archeological journals?   Where is the input from scholars in the field who have degrees in this particular field of study?   Why is there not an outcry from the majority of Christians that this explains everything,  and archeological science and research is proving Genesis to be true?   Why is no one (that I've seen) saying anything like this except you?   Do you have a degree in archeology or sociology?   Have you published anything that has been peer reviewed by anyone who does?   What sources did you use to determine all of this,  and was confirmation bias ruled out?  Do you have anything other than your own claims and research that verify your conclusions?   You're always asking for journals and polls and articles from others.   Where are yours?   If this were true,  would it not be significant in the field of historical,  biblical scholarship?   Why isn't it?  You know as well as I do that history is not nearly as clearly defined as a science.   It's about probabilities and likelihoods to piece together what most likely happened when multiple primary sources are not available.   Mathematical theorems like Bayes can be used to try to identify the likely from the unlikely.   We clearly can't go back in time to test and verify our expectations.

                    Saying "iI don't know how dna could have happened without intelligence" is simply an argument from ignorance.   I know you know that.   I Don't know the answer either,  but that does not mean I'm justified to just assert it must be intelligence or anything else.

                2. jonnycomelately profile image84
                  jonnycomelatelyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I feel that Headly's later post about the use and correct interpretation of ancient language gives some good clues on that word "day."   Very relevant to this discussion I suggest.

            2. oceansnsunsets profile image88
              oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I think believers often don't use science to address religious questions, because science isn't capable of answering many questions that are common to man.  Science and self are almost gods to some people.  They nearly worship both, and think that all answers can be found there.  In looking at origins, science stops at a point.  That is a great reason to look to the tools that can shed more light on what CAN shed light on such things.  Its not about ignoring science though.  Its acknowledging its limitations.  It does have its limits. 

              It continues to be demeaning some to insist that you know WHY some people do things, as in they do things to get the right answers they want to see.  I am sure this happens sometimes, but it isn't limited to Christians, that is for sure.   That they lived a two faced life is also something I disagree with, at least with the ones I know, and for myself.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                You're right - science cannot answer theological questions.  Nothing can, unless truth is irrelevant (which is the case in most theological questions).

                There are no tools that can shed light on the great questions of religion.  Questions such as "Is there a god", "Did Jesus come back to life" cannot be answered with any degree of certainty at all, just faith and belief.

                I suspect that you misunderstood the "two faced" comments - it was intended to indicate that religious people, including Christians, do not require the same level of proof that they apply to other facets of their life when looking for religious answers.  They are two faced in that they look at the world with two different requirements; that of science in everyday life and a completely different requirement of meeting their desired conclusions in theology.

                1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I think truth is kind of everything.  Very relevant to all we are.  I didn't misunderstand, and I think you are not alone in your assuming the worst of people in these cases.  I also wasn't referring to just theological things, but other things in life.  I think it is assumed science can weigh in on everything.  I have been parts of many discussions in these forums for example, where we see examples of what I am talking about playing out.  People tend to let their beliefs often drive their discussion of many topics, and I am not referring to believers there! 

                  I do notice that you put great weight into your own opinions and beliefs about things you disagree with, and the people that you disagree with.  I am sure there is more reasoning behind it perhaps, but you aren't offering that at the moment, just the opinion part.  (Negative at that.)  This is part of the problem I think.  It is so ingrained in people that its just OK to talk like this about people, to the degree that they truly see nothing wrong with it at all. 

                  I hope one day people will see it the way I do, and see what I mean even if they don't know.  To test what I am saying, to see if it is true, watch some of the discussions in these forums to see who actually most often ends up relying heavily on their beliefs that aren't backed by science.  It can be a real eye opener.  Not just backed by science, but other things like logic, reason, and facts.  I think what you are assuming can be tested with open eyes, and the results can be repeatable and observable.  This is what I see, most often.  Look at what COUNTS as truth to people, and what the basis is.  This way, you don't just think I am disagreeing with you for my side or anything.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    "you are not alone in your assuming the worst of people in these cases."

                    Why is using emotion and desire as a reason to formulate a belief automatically bad?  Only when it negatively affects the believer or the people he interacts with would that be true; in the large majority of cases any harm from believing in a god is negligible.  It IS true that details often hurt those around (gay marriage, for example) but that is a separate belief from that of a god's existence. 

                    For a great many people the belief in a father figure watching over them, guiding them in what is right and wrong, is of great comfort and causes no particular harm.

              2. PhoenixV profile image80
                PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Just as the chasm between spirituality and carnality, Justice and letter of the law, rationalism and empiricism, a priori and a posteriori knowledge, so is the chasm between believer and non believer. You are dealing with strict dogmatic empiricists, materialist fundamentalists, who find a priori knowledge and rationalism, foreign, unfathomable concepts...

                because that is their nature, rather than their philosophy.

                1. jonnycomelately profile image84
                  jonnycomelatelyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  "...a priori..."   independent of experience  thus no one can argue the case on the basis of sensible, sound logic?

                  So, what you believe is all in your mind?  smile

                  1. PhoenixV profile image80
                    PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Arguing the case on the basis of sound logic is a priori. So, what you believe is out of your mind?

                2. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Materialist Fundamentalists.  I can see that.  Never thought about it quite like that though.

        2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Only the short-sighted cannot see that God is existing everywhere all the time in all things, whether they are scientists, believers or atheists/agnostics!  Personally I think some Christians border on being atheistic! especially if they do not acknowledge the discoveries of science!

        3. oceansnsunsets profile image88
          oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          No one could have made the point better, but I appreciate the honesty.

        4. 0
          Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          And, there is the start of the problem; in a nutshell. One person rejects a view for personal reasons and then attempts to marginalize the thinking of another.

          Great way to showcase the shortcomings of the human mind wilderness.

        5. Oztinato profile image83
          Oztinatoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Wilderness
          Try reading Godel. Try to study Einsteins ideas about God. Then your eyes will open and see, and your ears will hear.

    8. gmwilliams profile image86
      gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      To the more traditionalist, fundamentalist, and conservative Christian, the concept of atheism and atheists are the antithesis of all what is deemed moral and good to the Christian mind.  The more traditional, fundamentalist, and conservative Christian see atheism and atheists as the ultimate in evil as they maintain that since the latter does not believe in God; that in the Christian mind is considered to be grieviously and insidiously wrong.   Such Christians furthermore maintain that atheists are in moral error because of their beliefs.  They also believe that atheists are in mortal error because of the latter's beliefs that they have cut themselves off from the grace of God and thereby have damned themselves to hell.

      Besides the theological stance, many traditionalist, fundamentalist, and conservative Christians see the atheist as different from their belief ideology.   Atheism, in many such Christians'  mind is anti-belief and threatens the religious status quo.  To some of these Christians who are mired in their beliefs because of familial, societal, and religious pressure, the atheist represent going outside of such conventions.  The atheist has freedom to really express his/her individual beliefs and to live the life that many religionists can only dream of and wish for.   The atheist is an individual while the Christian religionist is parroting and following societal religious dictates.

      http://s1.hubimg.com/u/8907808_f248.jpg

      1. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Good morning all!!!
        I think what many tend to forget is that Christ is the determining factor in the life of Christians. He laid distinct lines for what is good and what is not so good.
        Not believing in God is the TOP no-no...
        Jesus also says who cut themselves off from grace and damns themselves to hell.
        The atheists here are NOT free. They want to be, but they look for freedom in knowledge (another biblical no-no). Christ gives freedom in ways the world has yet to think of.
        Yes, atheists think that they are free because they dont have to worry that their actions have no consequence other than what the world deems fit; but are they really free when all their time is spent refuting the imaginary/swatting at flies??? They want to be sure that we know that Christians suck! They want us to know that we live bogusly.
        And we return that favor... smile

        1. jonnycomelately profile image84
          jonnycomelatelyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          big_smile You have me shivering in my shoes!  Dead scared of nothing in any after life.  But real live fundies ?  Well they are a real worry.....

          1. Cgenaea profile image60
            Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Not to worry. wink
            Jesus has the keys... not me...

    9. Phyllis Doyle profile image94
      Phyllis Doyleposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Why does anybody have such a problem with anybody else? It is because most people do not allow others the right to their own belief system. This battle between Atheists and Christians will go on till Mt. Everest melts or hell freezes over, whichever comes first -- and frankly it is getting rather boring. It is all over the HP forums and WHY? Because some people have nothing else to talk about.

      Almost every day a new thread comes out with the age old question that starts a war. I think it is high time for people to just let it be. Ain't no way to win this war.

      1. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        This war was won thousands of years ago. smile we are followers of instruction left by Jesus the first-born of us Christian people. We were told to YELL until the wall falls flat. wink
        Someday...we may stop...and rest...

        1. PhoenixV profile image80
          PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          It wasn't much of a war, they saw that you were on God's side and instantly surrendered.

          1. Cgenaea profile image60
            Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            PHOENIIIIIX! smile
            I've been meaning to give you the groupie scream for a while now... I procrastinate regular.
            Thanks. I love the service I am able to give to one who has NEVER let me down. I am just a tool in the RIGHT hands. Im grateful. And you are definitely part of "our" team. Thanks for that too. ♡

      2. Oztinato profile image83
        Oztinatoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Its a time of great social change and the debate is hugely important.
        The intolerance shown by either side will lose in the courts. My money is on spirituality as it embraces all belief and looks for common ground. Total religious intolerance is really really REALLY bad.

    10. 0
      Lybrahposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I believe you have it backwards.  It's amazing how one who claims to not believe in God will write five thousand hubs on the topic of Christianity.  Why so much passion?

      1. Oztinato profile image83
        Oztinatoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Thats right! There is a determined push at total religious intolerance which inevitably suggests racial intolerance as whole societies are built on their religion. Look at oppressed indigenous people whose religion helps to keep their identity. Look at the american indians who lost nearly everything and whose religion has helped them to survive. To mock religion and trying to destroy it will destroy real people and real culture. Why? So people like Dawkins can sell a few more books??

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
          EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Entirely false, the intolerance is towards the intolerance of religions and what they teach.



          That would be the intolerance of a religion towards the indians that caused that.



          lol

          1. Oztinato profile image83
            Oztinatoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Enceph
            There is no logic or grammatical continuity here. Could you rephrase it in better English?

    11. Oztinato profile image83
      Oztinatoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      It is clear to any onjective observer that atheism has jumped tracks and its adherents are now trying to make atheism a great influence in science and philosophy etc.
      The simple one line dictionary meaning is not an excuse to claim that New Atheism is not a growing social force.
      I am not against atheism but gross bigotry against all religion is not atheism and will never be atheism.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        How does an atheist make a "great influence in science"?  All they can do is maintain the beliefs without supporting evidence not be substituted for knowledge and truth.  Is that the "influence" you refer to - that belief should no longer be the basis for our "knowledge" base?

        1. Oztinato profile image83
          Oztinatoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          All science until about the mid 20th Century was about the awe and majesty of the universe as created by God. Only later did it become an exercise in trying to disprove God.
          This is why Godel is so important: he knew the philosophical side of science was changing and he pointed out the conceptual errors to science itself. Conceptual errors that Stephen Hawking agrees with in his free online essay "Godel and the End of Physics".

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            No scientist worth their salt would ever try to disprove a creature defined as from another universe and invisible to all efforts to detect it.  An exercise in futility.

            1. Oztinato profile image83
              Oztinatoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I can only suggest you read about these scientists' personal motivations and ideas on this topic. Start with Godel as he was a part of it.
              Its important not to use what you "think" God is as the be all and end all of religious theory. I certainly don't see Him as a creature from another universe.
              The Hindus rightly believe that God permeates the entire universe, is pure intelligent energy, is the universe itself, and resides in every atom, and indeed is every atom. They have been claiming for millenniums that everything is a vibration and that God has created and is those vibrations.
              This is a much more sophisticated view than you present about what "you think" about God.
              String theory (a philosophy itself) also claims that everything is a vibration so science and religion once again meet at the same point.

            2. Chris Neal profile image82
              Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              True. But many scientists worth their salt have started from the assumption that God does not exist and then, whether they trumpeted this in public or not, have used various discoveries and scientific theories as further proof of that assumption.

              1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, like it's such a crazy idea to let the evidence lead things in the search.  It seems going wherever the evidence leads is only allowed in cases where particular favorable outcomes can be achieved. Others are not even allowed in the "table" for consideration.  Ruled out as non scientific and magical imaginings from ancient archaic writers.

                Lots of social conditioning goes on as well, people can be publicly ridiculed in all sorts of venues.  It teaches the "dissenter" to be quiet lest there be a repeat and the quiet onlookers learn very quickly from these "masters" of science. To be fair they are often incredibly intelligent, but not as often wise or fair.  Then things are set and they can carry on with the much less ridiculous and get on with the more scientific ideas.

                Many have observed this and in case they thought that the "experts" were totally fair and always reasonable with no biases deep within, I wanted to share for possible reconsideration of just letting the evidence lead no matter where it may go.  I think that us good science!

                (As we see in the discussion of our origins)

              2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                The naturalist disposition of science is necessary. Even those who first devised the scientific method, who themselves were Christians, understood this. You can't account for divine manipulation of natural processes in a controlled experiment. And anyone who uses scientific knowledge or discoveries who tries to speak as though any kind of proof can be established about God through these either don't get God, don't get science, or both.

                1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Then I have to ask what you mean there by the naturalist disposition so I'm not assuming anything.

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    naturalism - a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.

              3. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Most scientists are only interested in the fields they study and could care less about any gods existence, especially considering gods have never shown up in their work, very much like not having an assumption unicorns don't exist as they too never show up in their work.

                1. Cgenaea profile image60
                  Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I have actually heard of the religious scientist. God is likely presented to him mostly in his MANY UNanswered questions.
                  The unicorn is starting to become very popular in these discussions. Lol...

                  1. PhoenixV profile image80
                    PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    References to a Magic skydaddy, saddled up on a unicorn, makes me think I am debating Ernie, or the Grouch, on Sesame Street.

                2. Chris Neal profile image82
                  Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  a) That's completely beside the point. You didn't 'prove' anything by that, except that you yourself a biased.

                  b) The correct phrase is "couldn't care less." If anyone 'could care less' then I assume they often do, which even though it's not what they think they mean when using the phrase is more often than not the case.

                3. Oztinato profile image83
                  Oztinatoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Ehcap/phoenix
                  Maybe you
                  could
                  read about
                  Einsteins
                  interest in God.

                  1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                    EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    You mean the part where he considers God and religion childish?

              4. Oztinato profile image83
                Oztinatoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Thats right and Godel knew the urge of atheist science was skewing their results so he and Einstein formulated the Godel theorems to set the path straight again.
                Stephen Hawking agreed and posted a free online essay about Godel online called "Godel and the End of Physics"

                1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Obviously, you didn't read that essay. The point of the essay and his theorem is this:

                  "Any finite system of axioms is not sufficient to prove every result in mathematics."

                  It simply allows continuous work for mathematicians.

                  1. Oztinato profile image83
                    Oztinatoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    The philosophical implication is that science will never answer all questions. Hence the reason for Godel's "necessity" of God reasoning.
                    Otherwise its the illogical "chicken or egg" problem with science's explanation of the origin of the Universe.
                    But of course no atheist (here at least) will admit to this fundamental problem of necessity.

    12. Onusonus profile image87
      Onusonusposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Atheists actually experience the most freedom in Christian dominated countries. Try being atheist in a Muslim country and see how many freedoms you get, or if you are even allowed to live there.
      Now try being a Christian in an atheist dominated country like Russia or China. Those people experience true persecution, as opposed to this trumped up narrative against Christians.
      My question is, why do atheists have such a problem with Christians?

      1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
        EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Not true. Atheists have freedom in secular societies.



        Try being an atheist in a Christian dominated country, like Uganda.



        Christians are all over the place in Russia and China and are free to practice their religions.



        It's not Christians, it's religions that teach it's followers to be intolerant of others.

        1. Onusonus profile image87
          Onusonusposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Feel free to apply "secularism" to any society you choose, however every country is dominated by one particular ethos or another, The Untied States is overwhelmingly and without a doubt Christian in majority, and at the same time all minority groups experience the most freedom. Whereas in Islamic countries the exact opposite is true. In fact the question hardly ever gets asked enough towards people like Muslims who actually persecute their minority groups, as well as women and children.
          That is actual persecution by Muslims as opposed to this trumped up idea that a Christian disagreeing with an Atheist is persecution.

          The same goes for Atheist dominated Russia and China who both continue to pose actual human rights violations against their minorities. And if you think any differently then I suggest you read a couple of books on the subject. Or at least watch the news every once in a while.

          Now you say that " religions teach their followers to be intolerant of others" I would say that is true for some religions, such as Islam. But the truth is all groups, secular or not, have the potential to be intolerant towards others.
          Clearly atheists have proven their fair share of intolerance as well. You get zero moral superiority for being one. In fact having no book of standards bears the potential to be infinitely more dangerous that any other ideology. Thus Atheist dictators like Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Che Guevara, Ho Chi Min, have absolutely no remorse for the deaths they caused.

          Why? You may ask. I'll let George explain.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBZsTf6oLfY

          1. PhoenixV profile image80
            PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Don't forget Enver Hoxha and Jim Jones. 90% of them lived in my lifetime.

        2. Chris Neal profile image82
          Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, atheists have freedom in secular societies, but the point was that atheists have more freedom in Christian societies (on the whole) than in other types of religious societies, or than Christians do in atheist societies. Your examples of Russia and China are not exact because in both countries massive restrictions are put on Christian worship. China has an actual official state church and if you're not part of it, the state makes it very difficult (impossible if it can) to worship freely. And the official state church subverts Christianity in favor of the Communist state. Although Russia does not have an official state religion per se, the Russian Orthodox church has in the past worked very hard to make it impossible for Protestants or Catholics to practice their own Christianity. And they have gotten laws passed by the Duma.

          Uganda is one example. It might well be a very good example, as long as it's indicative of a large number of other Christian societies. The fact that it's in the news more often than any other tends to indicate that's not the case. If it's unto itself, then it's a false example and a fallacy.

          Some elements within religions do indeed teach intolerance, depending on who is doing the teaching, what religion we're discussing, what the emphasis is and how closely the actual religion is being adhered to. But it's fallacious to make it sound like religion is the only philosophical system that teaches intolerance. Human beings are, by nature, not super-tolerant. Just look at all the people posting in the forums, and tell me that the atheists are, as a group, more tolerant and loving than the Christians (as a group.) In an objective sense, it just ain't so.

          1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
            EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Sorry, but you'll need to provide evidence, studies, data, statistics, to back up your claim.



            In other words, religious groups persecuting other religious groups. Typical bigotry.



            It is indicative of Christian societies.



            Sources of your news, please.



            No one needs to teach it and we know what religions are intolerant. We can all read the bible, amongst other scriptures, my friend, and see the intolerance written there.



            No one said it's the only one, but it is one of the largest systems that teach intolerance.



            People just need to be tolerant, not "super-intolerant", and they are in secular societies, but they aren't in religious societies.



            Most Christians here are intolerant of others, while the atheists are intolerance of that intolerance.

            1. Chris Neal profile image82
              Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Um, no. Nice try but if you want me to prove your point for you, then you need to hold yourself to the same standard you're trying to hold me to.

              Where are your facts? Where are your studies? Where are your statistics? You take a factoid, draw a broad conclusion, then when I disagree with you demand the specifics.

              For instance, indicative how? What other Christian societies are just like Uganda's? Got the figures, the news reports, the studies? And which secular societies are inherently more tolerant than any Christian society?

              China is not an example of one religious group persecuting another. You don't have all the facts and your willingness to draw a broad conclusion from incomplete data is erroneous.

              And this one  Considering how often I'm accused of lying or mental imbalance right out of the box, simply for being Christian, that right there is wrong.

              So, to quote someone I think you respect

        3. Oztinato profile image83
          Oztinatoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Atheists usually are far more intolerant of all religions. How can they criticise intolerance and then practice it? Hypocrisy.

          1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
            EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Because they are intolerant of the intolerance from religions.

            1. Oztinato profile image83
              Oztinatoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              You miss the point: atheists practice religious intolerance just like some religious fanatics do. That's hypocrisy.

              1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Show us your evidence.

                1. Oztinato profile image83
                  Oztinatoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Richard Dawkins.
                  Most online atheists.
                  The proof is here in hub as well.
                  "Open your eyes and see" by JC.

                  1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
                    EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    That is entirely false. But, I understand religions teach people to be dishonest about such things.

      2. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I believe it's jealousy. "Wtf you mean you got something I cannot get? That's why ur a dummy anyway!"
        ...or something like that. smile

    13. Silent Cries profile image59
      Silent Criesposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      my parents split and so I grew up with Christian on one side and Catholic on the other and to me being a Christian made me feel lost in the teaching and preaching... and being a catholic felt to much like a cult to me so now I don't really believe in a religion, in my experience most if not all are caught up in the words of the book and being bible thumppers but not following the words they speak and preach... Thou shall not judge right there in the book but that's all they do on other religions and people who don't follow their ways... so that's my thought on it

    14. 0
      Dave36posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Your generalizing a bit there aren't you Brittany i mean "all" Christians?, i do get your drift though..I'm not actually religious at all, & yet I'm certainly not an Atheist..Bruce Lee said it the best: Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless, like water, what can flow, or it can crash, be water my friend....In my opinion both Atheists & Religious people are not flowing they've crashed, & now have "fixed beliefs" based/built on mainly what they've read/watched or heard from someone else..NONE of the evidence from either sides argument would stand up in court, as it's mostly either "hear say" as in religion, or "hypothesis's" that can never be proved as in evolution/big bang etc..So that's why i stick to Zen Buddhism the "middle way", that way i don't have a problem with anyone's views/opinions....I honestly don't mean to be rude, but what actual experiments did you do your self..To convince you that god doesn't exist, & evolution/big bang etc is true?..If you say that i should believe all those intelligent scientists etc, because they wouldn't lie..I would say that most of them work for massive corporations/companies, that ultimately determine the direction of the world..Also a lot are government funded with yours, & my tax dollars/pounds (uk)..Now i know for a fact that our government are corrupt, & big business is corrupt, politicians are corrupt, BUT, should we really believe the scientists that they all fund?..So it's the Zen way or the highway, you can flow or you can crash....Your question should have been  Ego's, "why do Ego's have a problem with Atheism/Religion"..Well that's because those negative people or people that "do" have a problem with other peoples views/opinions, are people being led to comment/reply by their emotional mind only which has been temporarily disconnected from their logical mind..There should be one along shortly, as I've probably offended both sides!lol..Unintentionally i assure you, but remember only ego's take offence or give offence.

      1. jonnycomelately profile image84
        jonnycomelatelyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Well said, Dave.   It's the way I lean to more than anything else.   Not being perfectly "this," or perfectly "that," I can only say I am on a parallel road to yourself.   What will be found at the end of the road, who knows?

        1. 0
          Dave36posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks jonnycomelately & yeah I'm not sure what i will find at the end of the road, but it does seem to be all down hill now as opposed to an up hill struggle like my life used to be..I've done emotions/feeling control practice & mindfulness training for nearly 10 months now, & was inspired mostly by Alan Watts, Eckhart Tolle, Joe Rogan & Bruce Lee..I now have a mind that's neutral, logical & works for me, & at 41 yrs old I'm honestly born again....I do love Zen Buddhism, & i do try to incorporate it in my day to day life..I have learn't loads about my self, & had to shed most of my fixed beliefs..That's what i mean't by my previous post about neither being religious or an atheist, I can't be either of them now because I'm now a logical thinker, that doesn't attach emotions when emotions aren't needed..So as neither sides argument would stand up in court, it won't stand up in my mind if you like..Anyway i was wondering who/what inspired you, or have you always thought like you have?..I was just lucky a year ago to find a certain vid on utube, & that led my mind to totally shift..Well it shifted eventually after a "shed load" of practice!lol, so did your mind "shift" over time or did you always think like you do?.

          1. jonnycomelately profile image84
            jonnycomelatelyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Dave, I was brought up in a basically christian family... I say "basically," because there was church at Christmas, church at Easter, church at Harvest Festival, etc..... and when old enough to understand it, Mum and Dad took us to a wedding.... even much older, to a funeral.   Church was traditional Anglican, but a "high church," with all the incense, candles, dressing up, etc.   I looked like an angel when dressed up in Server's garb, but the halo slipped and I fell from grace somewhere along the line.
            Was there anything that a person called Jesus would have approved?  I doubt it.

            On joining the Armed Services at 18, I got involved with Interdenominational christian meetings, learned to say Hallelujah at the right moments, called queers pufters because they were just outside the Flock of good people, became Born Again, at least that is what they told me.   Deep down I knew I was a queer pufter, but there was only one thing I could change... that of being a born-again christian, so all of a sudden I wasn't one.... and decided to explore the world of reality instead.

            Later, on arriving as an immigrant in Australia, I found a church that welcomed gay people and still called them selves christian.... this was amazing and I found good companionship after a long early life of very little (companionship I mean).  This still left me empty of anything that felt true and real.   Can't explain it really.   Anyway, then I came across an ashram devoted to the teachings of Swami Muktananda in Melbourne.   This was wonderful!  New aspects and understandings of scriptures, that sounded logical and appealed to me.   So, I followed that for a while, but on a visit to Ganeshpuri in India I felt there was very little love there that was likely to flow over onto myself.  It seemed a bit selfish - people running away from the christian churches trying to find their truth, yet carrying a lot of baggage with them.  So I took what I had learned so far, and continued my journey of search and discovery.

            Some of the teachings of Buddhism and the western followers like Eckhart Tolle have helped me enormously.   However, I don't consider myself Buddhist or anything specific now.  I am atheist (adjective, not noun) and very much skeptic of b/s and superstition.   But willing to live and let live provided no one tries to convert me to their superstitions.   I have a lot of love for others, even those who would ridicule me and call me definitely not "saved."  (Someone has to show the world how to be condemned to hell for eternity, it might as well be me! smile )

    15. Frank Menchise profile image16
      Frank Menchiseposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Because atheists seem to attack Christianity more than any other religion, so, Christians try to defend their religious beliefs. You see, most of us need religions; and God is there to fulfil that need for the needy, because God is hope for those that need hope most. Well at least that is the way I see it, and I am trying to say that in my religious articles.

      1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
        oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        It is true that Christianity is attacked more than other religions, to a really strange degree.  A lot of what we end up seeing is an attempt to defend the "why" behind that.  Those reasons usually given, are not usually based in fact, but exaggerations, or based on the heretics of Christs teachings.  By heretics, they like to look at people that act in direct opposition to Christs teachings, which strangely means Jesus did have a good philosophy.   I think the observance is a clue by examples given by humans to point to a truth.  Its just the way it would be if it is true, and it was also predicted.   All that is sadly still lost on some but I hope its not necessary for it to be an extended time.

      2. oceansnsunsets profile image88
        oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Hi Frank,
        I also wanted to comment on the hope Christianity or religion does bring to people.  I think there are some that criticize Christianity for example, because it DOES offer hope to people, as if that is the driving factor.  I can imagine a situation where someone is facing a deep crisis that has never really entertained the idea of theism.  If during this crisis they find hope in God, what is wrong with that?  What I mean is, does the fact it provides a possible hope negate the idea that God could exist?   I don't think the comfort that comes from God is meant to be a proof for skeptics or anything, but it is a nice gift from god himself I think.  It doesn't weigh in on the idea of his existence or not, but is in line with a god that extends a hand of forgiveness mercy and love to his creation that would want it and be drawn to him.

      3. EncephaloiDead profile image60
        EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        In your articles, do you write about how much Christianity disrespects and attacks other people, most likely the very same people who attack it?

      4. Oztinato profile image83
        Oztinatoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Frank
        the majority of online atheists forget that the religions of the world are helping people exist. Look at the Native Americans. The atheists don't consider that such people's religions help them to maintain their identity.
        By attacking all religions the atheists are denigrating entire races and cultures (text book bigotry).

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          So you are intolerant of atheists? Doesn't that make you...

          1. Oztinato profile image83
            Oztinatoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Rad
            I can only keep repeating to those with goldfish memories: I respect real atheism; real atheism is NOT unadulterated bigotry against all religions.
            Its easy just put on your thinking cap.

    16. jonnycomelately profile image84
      jonnycomelatelyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Church:   The Convenient, Hierarchical Use of Religion for the Control of Humanity.

      1. Robert Ransley profile image60
        Robert Ransleyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I must copy this!!!!  EXCELLENT!!!

        1. Oztinato profile image83
          Oztinatoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Try copying "text book bigotry" as well !!

          1. jonnycomelately profile image84
            jonnycomelatelyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Oz, would you lend me your copy of the text book on bigotry?  You seem to be an expert.... did you write it?

            1. Oztinato profile image83
              Oztinatoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              JCL
              I don't respond to personal attacks from the Hyena Club.

              1. jonnycomelately profile image84
                jonnycomelatelyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                lol

                1. Oztinato profile image83
                  Oztinatoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  What a coincidence! Hyenas always laugh too! Amazing. We could call it the Hyena Theorem perhaps.

                  file:///O:/Hardy_Har_Har_301.gif

    17. 60
      James Bonnyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Why do Atheists attack Christianity? Seems to me it is a message of hope and love at the core of it's values. See derogatory remark about Christians above.

      1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
        EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Christianity attacks everyone who is not a Christian, so as a result, Christianity is attacked for that intolerance towards others. It's only fair.

    18. PersianB2B profile image58
      PersianB2Bposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      you and your poor thinking. Don't use religious content for the betterment of humanity

    19. LoisRyan13903 profile image72
      LoisRyan13903posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I don't have a problem with a person who is an atheist.  I do have a problem if an atheist or a believer of another entity mocks me for my beliefs.

      1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
        Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Tell us your beliefs - if they are ridiculous I will mock them for you. wink

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          You, I hope, leave room for others to respond, in kind. smile

          1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
            Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Sorry if you are upset that I mock your beliefs. How very, very sad for you. LAWL

            1. 0
              Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Dear me. That's why your beliefs cause so much conflict. lol

              1. Righteous Atheist profile image60
                Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Trollin, trollin, trollin....... lol

                1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                  HeadlyvonNogginposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Please take it easy with that, Mark. The level of hypocrisy on display here is truly jarring. My eyes can only roll so far and this kind of stuff can lead to a serious injury ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plteXDmbA2I

                  1. 0
                    Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Hypocrisy is a word he doesn't quite understand the definition of, apparently. We should give him some slack. smile

    20. John of the Cross profile image61
      John of the Crossposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Some of (we Christians) do not and would never 'dismiss' other religions. Secondarily, it is the very dismissive, disrespectful,  and condescending tone that may be more of a problem with me than the fact that you are not a believer. It's fine with me that you do not believe. wonder why YOU mention hell, though.

    21. Zion Moulder profile image59
      Zion Moulderposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      There is a general misconception about atheism. Many Christians, including myself when I was Christian (I'm an atheist now), think of atheists as immoral, mocking, primitive folk. This misconception is due mainly because of internet trolls. Even when I was pretty sure I didn't believe in God, I refused to label myself as an atheist, despite the fact that I was essentially one, because I thought that, by becoming an atheist, I would become angry, depressed, and immoral. Of course, after I discovered that the majority of atheists aren't what way, I finally decided to declare myself as an atheist. The Internet really helped me out with my transition. (Especially the YouTube community)

    22. Philanthropy2012 profile image90
      Philanthropy2012posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Not sure anyone takes their fundamental beliefs being questioned all too well. A religious person invests a lot of time, effort and thought into their faith - even the mere idea that everything they believe in isn't true is a great offence, so the existence of atheism itself is naturally a great offence. It's not like another faith, where the general ideas are the same but the details differ - this is complete disagreement.

      Of course, then, when atheists take the time to actually point out all that is wrong and nonsensical, all that subconscious (and often conscious) resentment which was brooding around the concept of atheism is forced to be confronted.

      1. Chris Neal profile image82
        Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Well, that's one way to look at it. It's the wrong way, but it is one way.

        1. JMcFarland profile image93
          JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Well,  you could talk that way to a perfect stranger.   It's a jerky way,  but it is one way.

          Instead of just asserting that is wrong,  which is an opinion, not a fact,  you could explain why you think it's wrong and explain your position.   That is what a conversation is like. Right?   Or are you just turning into the christian version of a couple atheist posters for the fun of it,  while still complaining about the way those posters interact with you?

          1. Chris Neal profile image82
            Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Hmmm...

            1. JMcFarland profile image93
              JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Is that a yes,  or....

              It seems like you've sunk to a level that you seem to despise in others who treat you that way.   Towards people who never have treated you that way.

              1. Chris Neal profile image82
                Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I'm just an odd duck. An odd mixture of intellectualism, mysticism, artistic sensibility and lack of sleep sometimes lead me to say things in a certain way.

          2. Chris Neal profile image82
            Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Sometimes I almost think of you as my sister. You seem to get bugged by stuff that same kind of way.

            1. JMcFarland profile image93
              JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I'm okay with you seeing me as a sister, although I have a feeling that you may have said that sarcastically.    I kind of see you that way too.   The problem that I can't stand is hypocrisy.   I'm guilty of it myself at times,  and you have no problem pointing that out to me.   You cannot reasonably complain that people give you one liners dismissing your points without elaborating while doing the same thing to other people who haven't done that (at least from what I can see) to you.

              1. Chris Neal profile image82
                Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                No, I really kind of do see you like a sister. No sarcasm at all.

              2. Chris Neal profile image82
                Chris Nealposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Yeah, you have a point there.

                1. JMcFarland profile image93
                  JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  +1

                  1. 0
                    Motown2Chitownposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Chris and Julie, "stop with the nicey-nice!" People will think that people who are friendly are allowed to be in disagreement occasionally, and we can't have that! smile