I was just wondering if there's any previous Atheists out there who have turned to God. I'm wondering because I struggle. There's a part of me that does believe, a part that doesn't, and a part that wants too. I just don't think a "true atheist" even can turn to God. It just wouldn't make sense. If you have, what made you?
Just how many personas are you going to set up?
Yeah - one. That is why all your other ones got banned.
That's funny, I always hear about Christians turned atheist but I've never heard of atheists turned Christian. But you should probably remember that it's YOUR life, nobody else's, and YOUR decision can change YOUR own life forever. And your afterlife too, if you believe in it! Good luck, and try to educate yourself before you decide anything, it's a bigggg deal.
Thanks for the reply! It means a lot. Though, either way I think we're all fine. If we don't believe, we don't care. If we do, we are comforted and expect a good afterlife.
Maybe that's what others are led to believe, but Christianity definitely isn't an easy road; there's a Heaven beyond your best dreams and a Hell beyond your worst nightmares. And you live life knowing you're going to be judged for it. But then again, you live it knowing someone out there created you, is willing to forgive you, and loves you every second of your day!(:
Your answers will always come from within. Self reflection and true honesty is a sure fire way of finding them. Remember taking to heart every other persons experiences and ''truths'' may cause you to doubt your own.. So always, always remember, no one shares your unique experiences, and this means your answers presumably will be just as unique as you are. This is natural.
I agree folks should look at both sides of the debate, but the OP did not indicate this thread was for the purpose of having that debate. Looked to me like perhaps they were familiar with the atheist side and looking for who may have gone from atheist to Christian so they could get that side of things. Again, maybe I missed the point, but thought we would be seeing a thread with examples and information specific to the question posed. If it was really intended as yet another open debate thread I might have worded it different. I suspect my impression was correct though. Perhaps you would like to start one for the myriad of folks you know who have gone the other way. If so I may peruse it but promise not to break in trying to argue or debate with them if the OP does not ask for it.
How are you defining "atheist?"
Why are you an atheist, if you even are?
Most people aren't true atheist, because true atheists are quite dogmatic, just like overly fundamentalist religious folk.
You're more likely an open-minded "atheist," who accepts the possibility of God, but just doesn't believe in one, yet, because you've yet to see enough proof. If you do believe a god exists on an intellectual/knowledge level, just no specific one, then you are a deist, not an atheist (or agnostic, for that matter, people always use that word incorrectly).
I don't see how you can say all "true" atheist are fundamentalist while only some deists are. Not seeing a reason to believe in God is not intrinsically more fundamentalist than seeing a reason to believe in God. Both position occur on a spectrum.
First things first, I am only using the term "true" atheist because that is what the poster used, and so I am addressing him using that same term. He obviously is making distinctions, which I am trying to define. Usually the term "true" atheist is not someone who simply lacks belief in God, but who thinks that it is impossible that there is one (that's a different ballgame).
I agree, both do occur on a spectrum, but I never said any atheist or deist was "fundamentalist." I did say that "true" atheists were as dogmatic as the fundamentalist religious folk (these people are theists. No mention of deists here, as deists aren't religious). Deists aren't fundamentalists by definition. The point is though, that I never said "some" were because I never said any were. The only time I mentioned that word was when I said if he believes that a god or something like it exists on an intellectual/knowledge level(instead of by special/divine revelation), but no particular one (thus is not part of a religion) then he is a deist and not really an atheist. I should've mentioned that if he also thinks that this god is not involved in this world beyond when it sparked its creation, then this is also the mindset of a deist. But, yea, that's the only time I mentioned that term, so I'm not sure what you're referring to.
It wasn't a major part in the point of my post, I was just trying to get an idea of what he really believes to help him understand whether he is actually even a "true" atheist or not. I won't say he's agnostic, because most people use that term incorrectly. (Now that I've reread his post, I dont think he's a deist, so that portion was actually slightly unnecessary, anyway).
He does not come across to me as a "true" atheist because a true atheist declares that it is impossible for a god to exist. I don't believe in a god or gods because it's yet to have been proven to me with any quantifiable/sound evidence, so technically I'm an atheist (and I doubt it can be ever be proven because I am agnostic), but I don't believe that existence is impossible, so I am not a "true" atheist. I just believe that that kind of existence is improbable, unprovable and unnecessary. So most atheists are more agnostic than anything, but that's another discussion.
Vedantha suits the atheists because it talks about the consciousness as the only reality. A human being is a conscious reality.
You submit a good question but the answer is a little more difficult to give because you obviously refer to God as presented by the established religions. Mankind has a spiritual need and I will assume this is what sponsors the question.
Spiritual need requires some spiritual answers and many people become atheist in the first place because they don't receive spiritual answers from their religion or from that religions description of God, let alone all the mystery surrounding that occult. Which, going through a similar experience caused me to look into the occult, a word meaning hidden, so - hidden spiritual knowledge. Answers religion doesn't want you to know because it opens a whole gamut of questions about the source of their doctrine, but they are there. You only have to look hard enough.
The knowledge is out there Mark. It's a question of how deep do you want to go. I've posted a few hubs touching on the subject and working on more, but those who follow an occult path aren't into proselytising like religion, not because it is some sort of secret, but because of a spiritual principle outlined by Christ. No man can guide another, or save another. Each individual is responsible for the own path they follow, not some priest. But here's a clue. During the early days of the formation of the Church in Rome, Bishop Mercian argued that the God and Father Christ prayed to, was a different God to the god of Moses and Abraham. Christ came to free the people of Israel from the oppression of a Law that forbade them investigating spiritual truth. The Church reinvoked that Law. Do they not still quote the 10 commandments?
The 'Lost Gospels' those the Church did all in its power to destroy and keep hidden reveal a similar story and there's more. The rule is, don't believe anything I or anyone else might tell you. Don't follow like a blind man. Walk the same way if you wish, but its your path.
I had a roommate in college ask the very same question that your asking. It surely does seem unfair for God to create an athiest only for the purpose of sending them to hell. I guess the only thing that I can say is that there are some things about God that we're not going to understand unless He reveals them to us. I happen to believe what the scripture say in Jeremiah 29:13 " You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart".
God often offends our minds to get to our heart, another words we can't expect or demand to always understand God's way's because there would be no faith involved if everything made sense to us according to our human logic. And without faith its impossible to please God. Also remember that Gods ways are above our ways, we can't allow ourselves to exalt our human reasoning above God's revealed word. Hope this helps!
I found something very interesting this morning. While I personally believe, I also used to question His existence. I have posted a very detailed explanation of why I no longer doubt Him, but I do still have an open mind, because I think there are things to be explained that the bible, simply doesnt. Its normal to be curious and want to know everything, and I dont believe God would hold that against us , since thats the way he created us. So go to this link Im posting as well as the rest of the doubters. I think you will find it VERY INTERESTING.
That would be the reasonable and logical conclusion based on the fact an atheist would base his atheism on reason and logic, not belief or guesswork. The atheist understands completely they would first have to surrender all functions of the brain to the docility of blind acceptance without question or criticism. This of course, opens the floodgates to anything and everything that can be conjured from the imagination, to be accepted and believed, and never really understood. Reality and fantasy would be indistinguishable from one another.
Madness would prevail.
I used to be an atheist. and a very firm one. i always argued with people that believed and noone could keep up with my arguements. anad i'm still able to do that. When i was 17 i felt god. I had absolutely no stimulation whatsoever to do so, nor i was going through anything difficult. it just happened like that. The fact that i beleved in myself so much(i'm still kinda narcissist), is exactly why i didn't dismiss or ignore or fight what i had felt. so don't look from answers from other people. the most objective you can get, is YOUR subjective approach of things. so if you feel god , it exists, it does, if not, it doesn't. I hope it helps, even though it's been 11 months since you posted that:P
AN ATHEIST IN THE WOODS
An atheist was walking through the woods.
"What majestic trees!"
"What powerful rivers!"
"What beautiful animals!"
He said to himself.
As he was walking alongside the river, he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. He turned to look. He saw a 7-foot, grizzly bear charging towards him.
He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was closing in on him. He looked over his shoulder again and the bear was even closer.
He tripped and fell on the ground.
He rolled over to pick himself up, but saw that the bear was right on top of him; reaching for him with his left paw and raising his right paw to strike him. At that instant the Atheist cried out, "Oh my God!"
Time stopped. The bear froze. The forest was silent.
As a bright light shone upon the man a voice came out of the sky, "You deny my existence for all these years, teach others I don't exist and even credit creation to cosmic accident. Do you really expect me to help you out of this predicament?"
The atheist looked directly into the light, and said, "It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask you to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps you could make the BEAR a Christian?"
"Very well", said the voice.
The light went out. The sounds of the forest resumed. And the bear dropped his right paw, brought both paws together, bowed his head and spoke:
"Lord bless this food, which I am about to receive from Thy bounty through Christ our Lord, Amen."
Interesting. What if one was raised a certain way, does it make it their fault because of the way they are? I know one's beliefs are their beliefs and they are responsible for them, but still. Me personally, I was not raised to believe in a God.. though I wasn't raised to not believe in a God either. Which is the situation I'm in I guess. Atheists aren't necessarily saying God isn't real, they are just saying.. prove it. I am confused is all, I guess. One thing I also do, is keep my beliefs to myself. I let others believe in what they want.
@thevastydeep: What does your heart say? You don't have to have religion in order to have faith. So, What do you deeply believed in?
I guess wanting to believe that there's a God out there could be considered having faith?
No, actually believing it would.
And you are the only one who can say whether you actually believe that.
Maybe. It's hard to tell what's true and what isn't when so many people believe so many different things.
True. And if your sincere opinion is that there is know way to tell if there is a God or not, congratulations, you're agnostic.
There must be a way. I just haven't found it yet.
But atheists "believe" that there's no God, isn't it?
No. Atheism, by definition, is a lack of a belief in a god. Some hard atheists will go as far as to say that they believe that there is no god, but its not required. Atheism states that there has not been sufficient evidence to prove the existence of a god. It is an absence of belief, not the substitution of one belief for another.
Atheist see no reason to believe in God--thus it's an absence of faith. Lack of belief (or any other quality) being the default position.
@psycheskinner, I agree with your definition, but in the real world, so many self-proclaimed atheists insist that there is no God.
Take Mark Knowles, for instance. He refers to gods as "Majikal Super Beings." His monologue always includes ridicule. This goes far beyond a mere lack of belief.
Mere "lack of belief" is a more neutral position. Many "atheists" in the forums are anything but neutral on the subject.
How is that ridicule? It is a Majikal Invisible Super Being isn't it? Unlike yourself - I prefer direct honesty. You are correct that I am not neutral on the subject. I thought I had made it plain that I think your irrational self righteousness causes nothing but conflicts and we would be better off without it in our society.
I don't really proclaim that here is no god - that is self evident , but I tend to ask you guys to stop spouting nonsense and being so aggressive and nasty.
Lack of belief is not the same as asking you to stop creating conflicts.
Sorry you did not understand my position. I will try to be more clear in future. I don't believe you when you make irrational claims and I think your irrational self righteousness is the source of conflicts between people. Please keep your ridiculous beliefs to yourself in future.
Was that clear enough?
Freedom of speech goes all ways. You get to pretend you don't understand what you write in order to deny that you attempt to create conflict by ridiculing others and they get to spout what you consider to be ridiculous beliefs. Your wants do not supersede his rights. No matter how sanctimonious you appear to be.
What would make you think honesty bothered me? You have a right to be sanctimonious, if that is how you feel. I'm sure you have compelling reasons to attempt to ridicule random strangers.
The only thing that might be classified as bothering me is that I'm beginning to think those outside of the United States don't define free speech quite like we do. Which is fine, as long as it remains confined to internet conversations. Intolerance is not something I'd like to see imported into our society in general.
Because I am just being honest, therefore it must be that that bothers you. Intolerance in the USA? God forbid. Very tolerant you guys.
Free speech - sure - say what you want hidden away behind a fake user name and avatar.
So, does functioning as an internet troll work for you?
If you question our tolerance, as opposed to your own, I'm flabbergasted
Ah - personal attacks again. How very brave of you. Impressive how you do not show who you are and accuse others of what you patently are.
Well done - love how tolerant you are.
The problem with attempting to have a conversation with you is you display a maddening inability to comprehend the English language.
You insist that anyone who has a comment to make from a religious stand point not make it. Since it causes conflict for you. That is intolerance. I advocate free speech. That is tolerance. What part of that do you have difficulty comprehending?
Ah - you advocate free speech yet berate me for doing so. Interesting.
Me and Emile disagree on many things, Mark, but not this one. You create conflict in your so-called war against people and their ideas that cause conflict. It's circular and unproductive. While I understand that you're one of those people that's brutally honest without the least bit of tactfulness, the message that you send is not only that you're intolerant, but that you are also a hypocrite.
Most people, especially in the US, cannot take brutal honesty, and of course they will take offense to it as though it is some personal attack against them. But just because you do not agree with that does not mean you should throw all caution and courteousy to the wind! In order to have productive conversations, you can't consistently insult the people you're supposedly trying to "persuade" to a different mode of thinking.
Either you don't understand it, or you know and don't care because you enjoy trolling. I'm not sure, as I don't know you personally, but I don't think you're a fool.
You just disagree with my methodology. Fair enough. That doesn't mean it is not effective. I am not trying to persuade anyone of anything. I just tend to hold up a mirror for them. You might notice I speak to different people differently - or not. Like Emile - you probably just see the one side.
I don't think anyone has just one side. That's unrealistic. Of course, we all talk a certain way to certain people, depending the discussion, how much both parties agree or disagree, etc. But, I'm simply going from observation. And if your goal is not to persuade, then please do share what it is. Because it doesn't seem like you're here to learn. LoL. Why would one need a methodology if there is no goal? If you're "holding up a mirror" to people, then isn't your goal to persuade them to see from a different, more reasonable and realistic perspective and that they're not actually seeing themselves or the world "correctly?" You seem to be forcing upon them a 5x magnifying mirror that only highlights the negative points more than anything else, often making people want to turn away from it instead of becoming interested in learning how to accept and deal with what they see. Instead of making many of your arguments truthful, yet polite, you tend make them harsh, and the typical person just won't receive it any other way. Of course, the mockery (smiley faces) doesn't help much, either.
Thanks for the input. What is your goal exactly?
Odd you have failed to notice the same person using lots of troll personas. Bet you didn't even bother looking at how many of them have been banned either?
My goal with talking to you or my goal in the forums?
In the forums, my "goal" kind of varies. Sometimes I want people to see from a different perspective because they're very close-minded, but I've given up on changing any minds; I just introduce new ideas, whatever they choose to do with it is up to them. Sometimes I just want to know others' perspectives. Sometimes, if it's a silly forum, I just want to engage in the fun. On this particular forum, I was interested in helping this person be honest with themselves about what they really are in the first place and then go from there, because to me he didn't sound like a "true" atheist for starters.
Yes - it is a troll that has had multiple personas and been banned multiple times. Not an atheist at all.
Because I pay attention and it has a distinct "voice."
Pure speculation. Aren't we driven by facts here? What was troll-like about his/her post?
Driven by facts? No - we are discussing religion.
Try reading the thread.
What does that have to do with facts? By we, I mean all the people who have a problem with religious thought/dogma because of the lack of facts amongst other things. And yet, here you are claiming something as truth that you have no proof of...
Um, yea. I did and I didn't find anything troll-like about them.
Truth? I expressed an opinion. I still think it is a troll and have seen several similar personas using the same sort of wording get banned recently. You did not notice and think starting a hot button topic and then not responding to the answers you generate is not trolling. You are entitled to your opinion and I have no intention of educating you further.
Show another side and I'm sure it will be noticed. I don't read the forums much anymore, because there are so many constantly singing the same sad tune. One of intolerance for alternative views. I don't consider anyone right or wrong, we all have opinions we have a right to share without undue ridicule.
You can certainly claim you are creating a mirror, but you also play a role in creating the reflection of your reflection.
No, it actually shows that religions are more about what people want to believe rather then what God wants them to believe.
Nope, Just because you want an afterlife doesn't mean there is one. Who wouldn't want an afterlife? But, then again we have this thing called reality.
@paradigmsearch: Lol! I know an atheist whose expression is "OMG" and I keep on reminding him, "I thought you don't believed in GOD? So, why do you keep on calling him?"
For the same reason people say that during sex. It's not a literal expression.
I know, I was just teasing him and maybe, he'd actually stop saying it. I also have an officemate once, he's muslim but his favorite expression is "Jesus"! I also drew his attention on that and told him, "why don't you just say Mohamed instead of Jesus?" (:
I don't think most people (even believers) really think about the saying "Oh my God!" when they actually use it. It's lost it's true meaning nowadays.
Yup, just like how people say, "I love you" without really meaning it.
Similar to the British phrase, "blimey!" It is a contraction of "God blind me!" which became, at one point, "gorblimey," and then shortened further.
As for the OP, I know more and more former pastors, apologists and biblical scholars that have become atheist or agnostics than the other way around.
If you are questioning, then you need to consider the evidence. If there was evidence for god, it would be a worldwide phenomenon, and all of us would know about it.
Faith seems to shady for me. Another thing, wasn't there something about Jesus's bones being found at one point? Obviously wasn't true if so, haven't heard anything about it since.
Faith is a shady concept. When you look at it, the definition of faith is believing in something without evidence to justify your belief.
No one has found Jesus' bones. In fact, there is no evidence that is outside of the bible (which is admittedly faulty) that jesus ever existed at all.
I don't know about "out there", if there are former atheists here at Hubpages who have come to know God, but there are 'famous' atheists who became Christians. Probably the most notable in our own time (I mean like, the 20/21st century) is C.S.Lewis. A brilliant scholar and professor at both Cambridge & Oxford Universities (founding the chair of Mediaeval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge) Lewis was an atheist who studied the Bible to find fault with it and came to recognize it's truth.
Eventually appearing on the cover of Time Magazine as THE Christian apologist of the century, Lewis wrote an argument to non-believers demonstrating the reasoning and evidence that support Christianity as the truth in a short and popularly written book called "Mere Christianity". I would encourage you to get and read a copy of this work, it very directly and honestly addresses, from the beginning, why believing there is a god is not foolish but makes perfect sense, and why Christianity is the factual revelation of who God is.
@MickeySr: Listing down the book and will check. Interesting. Thanks.
I guess I could take a look into that. No harm in doing so. Thank you.
CS Lewis spoke utter nonsense. This is his argument for not not believing in Majikal Super Beings:
What I find funny is how desperate believers are to "prove" there is a "logical" "reason" for "faith.
Talk about not having any faith.
Like some folks like to do with the Bible, this is one remark, out it's context, and set forth to 'prove' an already held view - if you read Lewis, more fully, and to understand what his point actually was, whether you agree with his reasoning or not, he is far from speaking nonsense.
. . . and, I imagine there are indeed some believers who could be identified as "desperate" to 'prove' their faith is logical & reasonable, just as there are some materialists who are desperate to 'prove' there is no God - but there are also many levelheaded, sound & stable, Christians who feel no desperation but recognize the reasonableness & logical arguments that favor, not prove, but favor the authentic Christian message.
It is nonsense. Lewis is basically stating that the very same brain in which he cannot trust thinking about the arguments that lead to atheism is not being used to trust the arguments for belief in God when obviously it is.
ATM, basically what CS Lewis was saying is the brain that would result from atheism, one that is purely material with no spiritual mind, could not be trusted since it is purely driven by chance. He is then contrasting that the Christian view, that we are spirits utilizing the brain to interact with the body allows for reason rather than random activity and could be trusted.
LAWL that all the religious people need to "interpret" what he actually said.
This is why your - oh wait - you are the same troll with yet another persona? Crikey.
Yes I agree Mark. Seems strange I would need to interpret it as it seemed pretty clear, but it appeared neither you or ATM understood it. Yes, I get it...Mark and Atheists smart, all others stupid and their religion causes wars...no wonder. Yes we have spoken, I have never changed persona but did find an avatar I liked better. Wasn't trying to fool you with that though.
Btw, Mark, I am hoping I was sufficiently "snarky" with you to make Julie feel better. Thanks for not taking it personally.
Lol...actually I feel just fine, thanks. Just really get a kick out of pointing out inconsistencies, hypocrisies and double standards. You have sufficiently proven that I can't take anything you say seriously and that you lack a fundamental credibility so I shouldn't have to waste my time. Score one for proving something.
Good to hear you have proven yet another thing to yourself and freed up some of your time in the process.
Fortunately enough, you did it for me so I didn't even have to try. It makes reality so much easier that way. I'm just dying to know what you consider things that I've "proven to myself"
Was that negative? I would expect everything you have stated that you believe, you have first proven to yourself. So, one more thing. Good show.
Have I actually stated that I positively believe anything, or are you just guessing?
I am not trying to misrepresent you. If you believe nothing, that is fine. If I were to review all that you have posted and find that you represented no beliefs of your own...fine also. You do make me curious though. If indeed all that you have posted contains nothing you believe, would you care to share with the class what you do believe regarding our origin and destiny? Any meaning or purpose to life in your eyes? Trying to ask nicely, and understand if you aren't interested in sharing.
I'm not a scientist, but I believe that evolution is probably true, based on the current model that has been repeatedly proven. I don't know if it was a big bang or cosmic soup, but it doesn't really matter. My atheism is not contingent on evolution, and if it were proven wrong tomorrow, it wouldn't change my lack of belief. From what I've read, studied, reexaMined and discussed, there it's no need for a"creator, and no reason to believe that the universe or the earth were"created".
As far as destiny goes, I'm not sure what you mean. I was born because my parents had sex. While I'm alive, I try to be a good person by acting compassionately and kindly to others. Morality stems from social interactions. I am nice to others because it's the right thing to do - not because I believe I'll be rewarded in an afterlife, or punished. If this life is all we have, that is all the more reason to make it count. I have to tell people how I feel now, because I won't be reconnected with them in a"heaven"somewhere. Now is what counts. My purpose in life is to grow, to learn and to experience life to its fullest. I don't need more purpose than that. As a worldview, I typically see myself as a secular humanist. I want to do good and minimize harm. Does that answer your question?
Oh, okay....you just want to be snarky to ME. everyone else who does the exact same thing are cool. Good to know
So, Lewis goes beyond talking nonsense to lying. Where are those so-called "spirits" he refers and how do they interact with the brain? Obviously, he knows something no one else does. LOL!
It isn't lying if he believes it. I know I do. Why wouldn't I? Science has nothing. Let me see, the chemicals held a meeting and discussed the merits and moral ramifications of a particular action. Sometimes the meetings are fruitful, other times the chemicals fight like dogs, holding fast to their indoctrination. Gotta love it.
LOL! So, lies immediately become the truth when one believes it?
Uh, it's dishonest.
So sorry that reality is not palatable for you and you must embrace fantasies in order to get through life.
Science has given you everything, you would be living in a cave without it.
Sorry - you are mistaken. Lewis was never an atheist and believing in majikal Super Beings cannot ever be considered reasonable or logical. Logically - your Invisible Super Being cannot exist. No one needs to prove there is no god.
Odd you need to tell me I did not understand properly - but you did. This is why your religion causes so many fights.
No faith huh? I thought you guys believed by faith. No so?
Lewis spoke utter drivel. Nothing reasonable or logical about it.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/ … ss_8_2.htm
Mark, so, taking as established that believing whatever you're told is foolishness, that believing an absurdity like the planet rests on a giant space turtle who sits atop a giraffe who, etc, etc, is foolishness, and that people forcing others to believe as they do and warring against those who believe differently is all evil foolishness, and etc, still - believing that there is a reality beyond which our natural sense receptors are capable of perceiving is not foolishness . . . we know (now) there are living organisms the eye cannot see, sounds the ear cannot hear, etc, and (it seems to me) only a fool would assert that there is definitely impossible that there is any life on any other planet but earth, etc, etc. There are lots of thing we didn't used to know or believe possible and there are lots of things now we don't know.
The Biblical idea, no matter how much belligerence you may own toward those identifying themselves as 'Christian', is not comparable to fanciful notions of magical beings and pie in the sky hopes. Personally, I don't think I can imagine anything more foolish than to discount something other than natural to account for the material reality we find ourselves in. It's not foolish to consider and investigate the possibility of something beyond nature as bringing about the material universe - what is foolish is thinking that either material, matter, is eternal and has somehow always existed, or that it spontaneously came into existence out of nothing.
Materialists who reject any concept or idea of a supernatural reality are not the ones being logical while Christians are not . . . it's perfectly logical to walk into a room, see a box, and consider the possibility that someone put it there - it didn't just 'pop' into tat room out of nothing and for no reason.
that's still nothing more than your opinion, and is at best an argument from ignorance or argument from incredulity. Just because you cannot imagine how something could come from nothing (not that I'm saying it did, indeed come from NOTHING) does not mean that it's not possible. There are a lot of arguments against the idea of "creation" and lots of arguments against intelligent design, etc and all of the information is out there.
When you boil it down far enough it does come down to that doesn't it? You can believe someone brought the box and put it there, or you can believe it happened all by itself. Can't prove it either way. Which makes more sense?
in this particular scenario, we have no evidence that boxes magically appear, and it would be more likely that someone put it there. If you don't want to believe that someone put it there, however, it is just as likely that my purple pet dragon dropped it there as to assume that god made it. I don't think anyone has said that boom! All of a sudden the earth appeared out of nowhere.
I have much more respect for your purple pet dragon theory. The idea it got there by itself, if I may quote you, is "patently absurd".
I like purple, and I like dragons. Does yours have a name?
Let me ask you a question, and I'm not trying to be snide, honestly.
There are hundreds if not thousands of people alive RIGHT NOW who claim to have been abducted by aliens. They have pictures and/or videos. They maintain that it happened for years, if not their entire life. Yet, I somehow doubt that you believe them. Why is that? There are eyewitnesses.
Here's another thing. If I tell you that I have a pet cat, you may take me on face value. Having a cat is rather common. If, however, you came over to my house and I had no litter box, no cat toys, no cat food, no evidence of a cat whatsoever, you may start to question if I had a cat at all, right?
How about if I told you that I did, in fact, have a pet purple dragon. Would you take that on face value, or you would require proof? You would probably require proof because not many people believe in pet purple dragons. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You would agree with that, wouldn't you?
(also, as a sidenote, we're still not talking about the OP, and I digress)
Yeah, I was kind of hoping you wouldn't point out about the OP. ;~)
Here and in the other thread we have again reached the point where you get mad at me. Kind of makes me feel bad, having just learned about your pet and all. I thought we were getting somewhere.
I would expect you know the bible is not intended to convince atheists there is a God. People freak out when the word fool comes up, but there too it is the bible saying the fool hath said in his heart there is no God. It says more, but it is even less complimentary and doesn't make the point any better. I believe, and the bible also says, creation is the proof. What grander proof can there be? So grand, that those who don't see it are said to be without excuse. Once a person realizes there has to be a God, they can learn from the bible, but still not understand much more than the academic aspects of it. There is prophecy, which we have also touched on enough for me to have a pretty good feeling about what you think regarding it. Once a person recognizes their need, believes and accepts Christ's payment on their behalf, there is the Holy Spirit to guide in understanding the bible. We aren't told there is any point in skipping those steps and expecting someone who doesn't even believe in God will consider the bible to be anything more than foolishness, (although many unbelievers do give it much more respect).
So there you have my view, and I believe the bible's view. Fire away, if you think there is any point. I believe there is a vast amount you can't understand at this point. I would guess you believe there is a vast amount I don't, can't or won't see and/or understand. I'm fine with that.
firstly, before I respond to the rest - why do you think I am mad at you? I'm having an admittedly humorous but intelligent discussion. I'm not mad in the least bit. I haven't been mad the entire time. What makes you think I am?
Of course I'm going to point out the original OP :-) I told you before, I like pointing out hypocrisies, inconsistencies, double standards etc. It's just a thing that I do. That's it. But thanks for at least admitting it.
About the Bible - if it's not meant to convince atheists then how did anyone ever start believing? I mean, really. The bible is pretty much ALL you have to document your religion aside from personal experience. That's it. Also, if you were trying to convince someone that you were speaking from authority, wouldn't you say "only a fool would disagree with me?" Don't almost all other world religions contain the same admonition in one form or another? Say something to the effect of "oh this is true, and everything else isn't?" I can write something down - say I said I was god, and I wrote down "only a fool would disagree with me". Does that validate my validity? No, of course not. You have no problem discounting any of other religion's claim, but you have an apparent problem that I just discount one more god claim than you do. If the bible is not meant to convince nonbelievers, and the bible is the only account that you have of creation, what proof is there of creation? You can't observe creation in a lab. You can't duplicate it. You can't test it. Not to mention the creation account in the book of genesis (both of them, which disagree incidentally) is absurd. How can you make plants before you made the sun? How do you make something before you make its food? How do you have evening and morning without a sun? How is the moon a light that governs the night? The moon simply reflects the sun, it's not a "light". Additionally, the bible claims that there are four corners of the earth (which is what the flat earthers that exist to this day point to as proof that the earth is flat), it claims that bats are birds, it claims that the earth is the center of the universe, etc. The science in the bible is simply absurd. Evolution, on the other hand, is a FACT. Please, please don't go into the fact that it's a "theory". The word "theory" is the high point of science. You don't get any higher than a theory. It has been proven time and time again, peer reviewed, duplicated, observed, etc. I see the bible as foolish because I HAVE studied it. In depth. I've read the original languages. I've taken course after course in apologetics, theology, etc. I went to a bible college, for cripes' sake. If you take the bible at face value, it's absurd. I'm sorry if that seems disrespectful to you - I'm not meaning to insult you as a person. But I find it increasingly hard to reconcile rationally-minded people who view everything in the world skeptically EXCEPT this religion can genuinely believe it.
I genuinely want to know that you THINK I can't understand, since I was a christian for over 25 years, and even lived in Africa as a missionary for several years. I know the doctrine. I know the bible. I know theology and apologetics. I don't claim to know everything - not at all. I don't know where the origins of the universe came from, and I don't claim to. But if I were to believe that this world was created, there is no way I can also accept that it was created by an all-knowing creator.
What I've asserted here is not "nothing more than your (my) opinion" . . . I'm not saying because I cannot imagine something coming from nothing that I then believe it's impossible, I'm saying that there is no reason to make-up such a notion since there is no evidence of it. You guys (materialists who reject any notion of God) are quick, and frequently mocking, in your assertion that it's a flaw in reasoning to just 'make-up' a big magic guy in the sky to explain material existence - but it's more a flaw in reasoning to even consider something out of nothing. The assertion of a spiritual reality is that there is another reality beyond or outside of our material reality that we cannot discern, and there's no evidence against that. Without God, matter had to have just 'popped' into existence out of nothing, and there is all kinds of evidence that this is not something that matter can do . . . I'm not, as a personal opinion, saying that I just can't imagine this, I'm saying we live in the material world and we know that this is not something we have any logical call to expect to ever happen.
And of course, when you say "Just because you cannot imagine how something could come from nothing", I could easily say just the same thing to you regarding a spiritual reality existing apart from our material reality. And, as I said, I'm not merely saying I can't imagine this, I'm saying we, by scientific observation, have no reason to conclude such a thing.
Now, when you say there are "lots of arguments against intelligent design", I'm not at all sure that's true - I know there are many who don't like the idea, because of what they assume it's 'really' asserting, but the factual scientific consideration of the idea, that there are aspects of our material world that evidence design rather than natural evolution, is indeed substantiated by a good bit of research. If it wasn't called 'intelligent design' and if that didn't suggest a divine designer and if there wasn't an ongoing battle between evolutionists and creationists, etc, what factually is evidence of a purposeful construct for an intended function would not even be in dispute - it's there plain and simple.
The fact that one side here regularly runs to calling the other side stupid, ill-informed, ignorant, emotionally-based believism, etc, while the other side simply offers a differing view without asserting that those who see things differently must be dumb & emotionally frail, etc, to me is telling.
I didn't actually read your whole post, but you're making a few assumptions that are absurd and downright untrue. Firstly, I am not a materialist. Secondly, I'm an atheist - and that means that I lack a belief in a god. Period. Why do you assume anything to the contrary? I JUST posted above in the thread that I actually do believe.
I am not asserting that "something came from nothing" I don't know what initially sparked life, but I don't believe that it required a creator. I do not see the universe as created at all - it just is. What happened in the beginning? I don't know. I'm okay with not knowing, because overall it's unimportant. There is no EVIDENCE to point to the fact that something had to create it. Nothing at all. I've heard, seen, read, debated and investigated all the common christian apologetics arguments for creation like the watchmaker, TAG, etc and they've all failed to meet their burden of proof, in my opinion. That doesn't mean that they're NOT true, but I have not seen evidence that justifies belief in them. Period. There is no evidence FOR "the assertion of a spiritual reality is that there is another reality beyond or outside of our material reality that we cannot discern"
"The fact that one side here regularly runs to calling the other side stupid, ill-informed, ignorant, emotionally-based believism, etc, while the other side simply offers a differing view without asserting that those who see things differently must be dumb & emotionally frail, etc, to me is telling"
This is a straw man fallacy. I have not called you stupid, ignorant, etc. I have seen mudslinging on BOTH sides, and have endured sarcasm (no offense, B) simply for asserting my opposition to the idea of intelligent design. It is equally telling to me that so many theists are so insecure about their own faith that they have to lump atheists together and name call, generalize, assume, assert etc about the whole group as a whole, instead of responding to individuals. Everyone reacts to things differently, but if I was going to do the same thing you just did, you would be right up there with an inquisitor, witch-hunter or the Westboro baptist church. I imagine you wouldn't particularly like that, no? Then why do it to others that disagree with you? Additionally, disagreement is NOT persecution. It's disagreement and dissent - a right that I'm proud to be able to have in this country.
Yes, there is evidence of something coming from nothing, it is not something that was just made up.
There's no evidence to support such a realm, none. The assertion is therefore pointless.
Yes, there is evidence of matter popping into existence, plenty of it.
Obviously then, you know nothing of scientific observations.
You have just demonstrated those calls within this post.
Please stop speaking nonsense at me. There is zero difference between your Majikal Invisible Super Being and the Talking Snake and any other irrational belief such as the turtle. It is foolish to postulate Christian "pie in the sky" notions of eternal life.
In any case - you are a materialist yourself. You prove that every time you use a computer to spread your irrational beliefs. Attacking me as being a "materialist" because I don't believe in majick is silly and - untrue. I know you want to demonstrate your "superiority," but all you do is cause ill will.
I haven't asserted that there isn't life on any other planet. I have asserted that your beliefs are ridiculous and irrational. That is all. Not sure why you bought that into the conversation, because it has no bearing on your belief in majik.
Everyone has to believe in something. I am an atheist but if my dad got hit by a car I would turn to God just in case he's out there and ask for strength. But I'm still an atheist.
I'm not sure that's right. Plus if you're "turning to God", you obviously believe in it. Therefore you aren't an Atheist.
I know that C.S. Lewis was an atheist prior to his conversion and subsequent writings.
Also, I feel like I should share a passage from you. I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, otherwise known as a Mormon. This passage comes form the Book of Mormon:
Book of Alma, chapter 32, verse 27:
But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.
It sounds like that's where you're at. Let your desire work in you. Alma, the speaker here, expounds on this in the rest of the chapter. Here's a link to the rest of the chapter. It's one of my favorite ones. Feel free to ask me questions.
Simon Greenleaf was a principal founder of Harvard Law School and a world-renowned expert on evidence. Challenged by one of his students one day to “consider the evidence” for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, Greenleaf set out to disprove it, but ended up concluding that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was indeed fact, not fiction. Greenleaf’s most famous apologetic is an essay entitled, "Testimony of the Evangelists Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice". He should know about the process or evidence. He authored 3 volumes on it titled "a Treatise on the Law of Evidence." A standard textbook in American law throughout the Nineteenth century, it is still relevant today.
Also check out Lee Strobel. Strobel has a Master of Studies in Law degree from Yale Law School, and was an atheist. His wife converted to Christianity so in order to save her from what he believed was a mistake he began investigating the Biblical claims about Christ. He became a Christian because of the evidence he discovered. Worth a read if your curious. I believe two of his books, "A Case for Christ" and "A Case for Faith" are available combined in one volume now.
fyi, Lee Strobel's books have been refuted and debunked multiple times, point by point.
Check out Robert Price's The Case Against The Case For Christ: A New Testament Scholar Refutes the Reverend Lee Strobel.
Also, to talk about the historicity of jesus, check out David Fitzgerald's Nailed.
Also, listing out a crapload of accolades and degrees is nothing more than an appeal to authority.
One of Simon Greenleaf's points in his writings was why would the twelve apostles and paul be willing to die for a lie. He listed multiple other points, but this one is the one most often discussed, from the research that I've put into it. The fact of the matter is that people die for a lie all the time. It also doesn't consider the implications of whether or not they REALIZED that what they were believing in a lie. Christians would claim that muslims that go on suicide missions that fly planes into buildings are dying for a lie, because they believe in allah instead of the christian god. the muslims, however, believe that the christian god is not allah, and therefore christians would be dying for a lie.
Multitudes of people have died for a lie. Look at the inquisition. The point of torture sessions was to gain a confession. Even though these people were innocent of the majority of charges, they would confess to almost anything to make the torture stop. They would also lie to save their family members from undergoing the same treatment. Will people die for a lie? Absolutely. It has been demonstrably true throughout history.
There must have been much more to the OP than I realized. I thought it asked for examples of atheists who had turned to Christianity. I named two. Julie, you only took 8 minutes to come to rescue thevastydeep with a rebuttal of the recommendations, lest he investigate for himself. Good to see your right on it.
okay, is the sarcasm really necessary? I offered rebuttals to the examples you cited because their work (and overall their reason for conversion or questioning) has been thoroughly discussed, and ultimately debated. I thought that the OP would like both sides of the story. Pardon me for being thorough.
Additionally, I don't need to "rescue" anyone. Atheism's lack of belief is due to the fact that sufficient evidence to prove the existence of god has not been presented. Seeing as I understand the fundamental mindset of a lot of atheists I know, I thought that the OP could benefit from seeing the faults in the "evidence" presented by the two converts you named. Is there a problem with someone being presented with both sides of the evidence in order to make their own conclusions?
We are taught there is a beginning for everything. We are also taught there is a reason for everything. If this is the case, how can we explain things that defy logic but exist? To think if man was this smart to create and explain the phenomenons that occur that even sceince can't explain, the world will be better off than what it is. There obviously has to be a "higher power" that causes things to tick/happen. I choose to believe God based off personal encounters I've had with him. We believe in stuff we can't see all the time, yet we don't question it. We believe air but we don't see. We believe there is wind but we dont see it.-we feel it. Same we God. We don't see him but He's always there. We feel him. Its indescribable...
That is a fallacy. You are jumping to conclusions without a shred of evidence to support your conclusion. A higher power is not obvious at all.
You've had personal encounters with God? You realize that if you stated that in a court of law, they would cite you for psychological evaluation.
That is another fallacy and is nonsense. We do see the air and we know what it it comprised.
Hmm are you me? Absolutely not. So don't discredit my experiences. Ignorant. If they wanted to evaluate me in court, they could, I still say the same. Is that supposed to scare me? And what air do you see?! Got some new vision. We know what air is comprised of, yet, I have to actually hold it in a tangible sense.
How about you go make yourself a bologna sandwich and ask for God to help you.
And I believe I was addressing the originator of this question, not some man, who goes back the name of "A Troubled Man"
Sorry, but you're not special and have no magical powers.
Not sure, but it does demonstrate you might need to seek professional help.
It's called our "atmosphere" and can be detected and measured. You obviously can hold it in a tangible sense by simply holding out your hand. Planes couldn't actually fly without it.
Notice this is dramatically different from your invisible sky daddy?
Cris sp I think the Holy Spirit of God is tugging at your heart to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. The enemy of this world the devil hates God and hates those that love God. The enemy is the author of confusion, Not GOD. The devil wants to confuse you. Every person ever born has a desire to know God because we were created in His image. God put it in on our heart to know Him. Drugs, sex, rock n roll, alcohol, man, woman or work or job fills the hole. That is all a temporary fix. Only Jesus fills the empty hole, Salvation is not about religion but a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. We do have a choice. Love would not be love if we did not have a free will to choose who we would love. Faith is believing in what you can not see. When you invite Jesus into your heart and repent of sin you will be made new and a Child of God. You only have misery and sin to loose and eternal life to gain. That is why Jesus hung on the cross to pay the debt for our sin. Do not worry Jesus does the transforming. His loving grace is with you and on you. will The devil wants no one to be led to Jesus. But he looses he is hell bound. The day I accepted Jesus Christ into my heart and repented of sin was the best day of my life. I am heaven bound and I know it, as you will be if born again. My love, Skye
Beautifully put, @skye2day.
I just had a breakthrough on "free will" I wanted to share.
Would returning to God restrict us in any way? That was the question that suddenly crossed my mind. Would we no longer have free will?
The answer was just as sudden. We will always have free will. In the Garden, instead of the abundance and love of God, we chose scarcity, hatred and suffering of the physical world. It sounds too incredible to believe, but suddenly I remembered it -- and the universe groaned under the weight of it. Some of God's children had fallen into the Darkness of ego.
Only with ego can we ever be a victim or a perpetrator. Only with ego can we ever suffer. And it seems that ego is the self that Jesus said must die so that we may regain everlasting life and regain our righteous place as children of the Father most High.
Julie, good to know it is amusing for you and you don't get mad. Always happy if I can make someone smile. You did seem a bit perturbed last time I told you that regardless of how much time you may have spent associated with some form of Christianity, you couldn't have been a Christian or you still would be. Of course I suspect we have a different definition of Christian, so I should clarify. I realize there are countless folks out there claiming to be Christians. My definition would hinge on someone knowing they are a sinner, knowing they need forgiveness but don't deserve it, knowing God and accepting Jesus payment on their behalf, being born again then and receiving the Holy Spirit. In retrospect based on your beliefs none of that is possible and in fact I can't be a Christian either, so hopefully now you won't mind when I say by the bible's definition, you were never saved.
Evolution a well proven fact? Considering the incredible diversity and adaptability God engineered into living things and utilizing that information to make advances in medicine, etc is all fantastic. I owe my life and my families lives to true science. Wrapping your religion in that to say once upon a time a rock became a frog who then became a prince, (given enough time of course), or that one species becomes another, now who is living in fantasy land? Too simple you say? No, evolution boils down to that. A mystery spot or rock from nowhere blows up and makes everything with no purpose or direction, then bits somehow animate to diversify into different components and then come together and form thousands of chemicals needed, and arrange to make life even though most of it would have to happen simultaneously? Hmmm, and you were worried about how long a tree can live without the sun? Gnats and camels I tell you. Look at a cell, look at dna. Given artistic license to allow for the exploding imaginary rock, It would be mathematically incredible if the big bang could result in two identical square rocks balancing one on top of another by their corners, but compared to even the smallest bit required for life to begin with, that would be nothing. Fortunately what I believe does not require nearly that much blind faith.
So there you have it. Two folks, arguing from the middle, one entrenched in fantasy, but neither agree which one that is. I too, appreciate the humor.
The fact of the matter is that I run into the "if you're an atheist now, it's impossible that you were really a christian ever" a lot. Perhaps it's easier to say that I believed I was a christian at one point - for twenty something years. I taught it to other people. I wanted to go into the ministry permanently. I was raised in a southern baptist household, raised in the church and went to christian school through my college years. I believed that I was a sinner, that the only way to be saved was through faith in jesus christ, that I didn't deserve his sacrifice, and that ultimately, my belief in him was enough to get me to heaven and avoid hell. I believed it with all my heart. I laid my hands on people. I prayed daily. I feared hell. I feared god, but I loved him with my whole heart. I always questioned aspects of christianity, but i figured that was my humanity - my human nature was inherently sinful and I needed to overcome those questions in order to strengthen my faith. Ultimately, my skepticism won out as I studied the bible more and more at a higher and higher level. I could no longer justify my belief.
I'm curious why you believe that evolution has ANYTHING to do with how the earth was brought into being. Evolution, by definition, is "A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form". It doesn't have anything to do with the beginning of the world. The big bang is NOT evolution. Evolution is a fact. It has been tested and repeated under laboratory conditions. Scientists have studied fruit flies, for example, repeatedly in a lab, and over time, the fruit flies evolved into a different species that could not interbreed with the original form. That is evolution. I do not believe that a rock exploded into a frog, which then became a prince. I agree that concept is absurd. Evolution by natural or artificial selection is a fact. I suggest you go to talkorigins.org if you want to know the basic science of evolution - it may dispel a lot of the misconceptions that you seem to have. I will admit that it's possible that a god being may have originally put the earth into being, but if that is true, there is no evidence of it. It can't be demonstrated, tested, reviewed or duplicated. It's simply impossible. As to the beginning of the earth, I'm agnostic. I simply don't know - and I don't really care. It's not important to my life as a whole. Sure, I'm curious - but it's not something that I focus a lot of attention on. I'm not a microbiologist or a scientist at all. I simply take things on evidence and reason, rather than any faith at all. Evolution is a fact - a fact that is even accepted by a lot of theists. Arguing against it is simply blindly disbelieving proven science - and I'd also like to point out that although you didn't say outright that evolution is just a "theory" and therefore unreliable, the scientific definition of theory is a lot different than a layman's use of the word. Some simple research may do you some good, if you're curious about it.
I have an ever increasing appreciation for what all you have experienced and the efforts you have put forward to reach an understanding about these matters. I will check out the link. It appears we have different definitions of evolution and species, so maybe I will have a better understanding of your perspective after that. Perhaps the word "kind" is simpler. No evidence of turtles to dogs or whatever other pairing one could choose for illustration. Anyway, thanks for the further explanation and sorry for any misunderstanding I had about what you said you believed. It sounds like you are comfortable with having much that I attribute to God, unresolved, and I can respect that.
I appreciate and reciprocate that appreciation and respect, truly. While we may fundamentally disagree on a lot of the things that we see, experience and understand, I believe that the only way to truly reason together and come to an understanding to reach a common goal is through discussions like these that can break down a lot of the barriers between atheists/agnostics and believers. That's ultimately what I hope to accomplish in my small part. I talk and debate with people with many different beliefs - not to intentionally mock them or belittle them, but to learn from them and to grow in my own understanding of them. I think discussion is vital to common growth. I appreciate talking with you.
Thank you so much for sharing this. I have a similar background. It's conversations like these (between you and Berean) that are the most honest and I think the most productive.
You made this statement, "It can't be demonstrated, tested, reviewed or duplicated. It's simply impossible." You cant really make that claim. At one point in time, people would have told you it was impossible to fly, or travel into space. Obviously they were wrong : ) Im just saying, that just because you cant do it now, doesnt mean it it wont happen in the future.
You don't understand the basic scientific method. It evolves, much like life does. You're right, but the fact of the matter is that people have been trying to prove a god exists for over 2000 years, and they're no closer to doing it now than they were 2000 years ago. 2000 years of failure stacks up quite profoundly, don't you think?
Also what I was referring to as impossible was to go back and test the origins of the universe. You cannot prove creation now, nor can you ever. THAT is impossible.
This is an interesting discussion.
I enjoyed reading through the comments.
As far as a belief in a God...yep I believe there is a God, but not exactly as the religious folks describe Him.
Without getting much into it, after my husband died, I experienced the absolute knowledge of the existence of an after-life.
Now I find "religion" to be man made.
But God and religion are two different things.
I wish they had like buttons to click on, like they do on facebook, because I absolutely agree with you. I dont really think there is so much a "right" or "wrong" religion. I believe that all that matters is where you are comfortable with being in your relationship with God. If its in a particular church, or just at home, so be it.
This whole universe can't be drive without a God. All is not going with its own will. I hope on the research everyone finds a third power in the universe that is God.
I do not have much time but I do have an elder in our ministry that used to believe there is no God.
he is very anointed and a close friend. He is also on Face book as Harry Saxton and does not care for me to use his name. I also have helpful books on amazon that will answer a lot of ur questions.
they are at list cost which means that I do not profit from their sales. be blessed.
Im posting this as much as I can, simply because it is fascinating, and really makes you think.
From the link right near the very beginning...
"Atheists have concluded that God does not exist. These people represent a special category that God describes as, “The fool has said in his heart, There is no God” (Psa. 14:1). This scripture is repeated in Psalm 53:1. This booklet will explain why God calls atheists “fools.”
Over thirty-seven years ago, I learned of absolute proof that God exists."
Clearly, the author is spewing insults about atheists and decided to cower behind a verse in the Bible rather than take responsibility himself by claiming, "This booklet will explain why God calls atheists “fools.”
Soon after making claims of "absolute proof that God exists", the author regurgitates the same misunderstood nonsense regarding the process of evolution...
"blind, dumb luck and chance"
What a joke.
I find it truly sad that you are so close minded to anything at all other than what u personally believe. And continue to be rude and obnoxious to others who think differently than you. I only posted it because i thhought it was interesting and thought others might also. I did not say I believe or disbelieve every word of that article. You know, it really IS possible to state your beliefs and opinions without being so ugly about it. But you choose not to for some reason. Some one else said to you what I said before also, that people will be more inclined to listen to your viewpoint if you werent so hateful about the way you express it. I think your screen name is very fitting for you. And I dont say that with sarcasm, or anger, or mockery, I say it out of sadness for person who truly seems to be a troubled lost soul.
Fine, you found it interesting and others found it to be garbage. If anything, the websites author is rude and obnoxious for the very quotes I placed above.
So, it's perfectly acceptable and "interesting" that you post a link to a website with insults towards atheists, yet you find it hateful, ugly and angry that we call those insults garbage.
Lets clarify since you seem to enjoy twisting things around. What others??? YOU were the only one who called it garbage. Secondly, I dont think you voicing an opinion is hateful,ugly, or angry. I SAID... It's the WAY you do it! Im done now.
My friend who was athiest is now a muslim, its better that you talk to him about it, give me your e-mail or someway i can contact you.
I would like to address your original post, if you don't mind. I am a Muslim revert/convert.
"I was just wondering if there's any previous Atheists out there who have turned to God. I'm wondering because I struggle."
Indeed there are atheists out there, although it may seem farfetched, who do turn to belief in God, whether it be Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. Here is just one example of a atheist turned Muslim: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FD8AWqMUv18
"There's a part of me that does believe, a part that doesn't, and a part that wants too. I just don't think a "true atheist" even can turn to God. It just wouldn't make sense."
Sure it makes sense. Simply because a person grew up an atheist and never discovered the evidence for God (for which there is indeed evidence) doesn't make it impossible for them to then believe after having disbelieved.
I'd like to think that you are an open-minded and sincere person so if you would like, we can have a discussion. I await your response.
Message to others: I won't 'debate' anyone because I have found that far, far too many atheists are close-minded and insincere so if anyone is looking to try and form a debate, I won't bite the bait. I will simply deliver the evidence for the existence of God and if it makes sense, then all praise is due to the Creator alone, if it doesn't make sense, then you need to seek to be a bit more sincere with yourself in your search for establishing what is truth. For those who believe that truth is subjective and that there are countless different truths out there, it doesn't follow logically. Logically speaking, there would either be no absolute truth or a one, single absolute truth. If there is no absolute truth, then there is no point in searching, is there? If there does exist this absolute truth, then it should be incumbent that we search for what this truth is, not resting until we have found it.
Many people try to grasp what is the meaning of life: is it women, is it money, is it power, is it fame, is it being good to others, is there no purpose whatsoever? This should be what we seek to understand but many are complacent with remaining in ignorance, thinking that the answers will merely fall into their laps.
It can be concluded that he never was an atheist or has completely lost his mind.
If you are referring to myself, you have no clue who I am, nor do you know about my history. If you are referring to the brother in the video, please keep any and all assumptions to yourself as you don't have a clue about his story either unless you actually sat through the video. Do you normally speak out of ignorance?
It doesn't matter what his story is, he obviously lost his mind completely if he went from being an atheist to a Muslim, or he never was an atheist, which would then make him a liar.
That's a matter of your biased opinion Mr. Atheist. Of course you and all other disbelievers in God are going to think that anyone who went from disbelief to belief has lost his mind and has been brainwashed.. but it doesn't make it true. Plenty of theists out there say that atheists are brainwashed, does that make the statement true as well?
Thank you for all of the comments and short debates. I've opened my mind a little more.
So happy to hear that from you, just have one last thing to say,
Science is more like a small child, When you tell a child something he dosent know, the kid denies it completely, .........................and when the kid grows up slowly he eventually starts to understand, But this kid is a lot unique because when he understands he forgets that someone told him about this before.
And like any other kid, he thinks that he is the superior from others.
if you really want to give your heart a chance to unveil its doubts and questions, watch Dr, Zakir Naik's videos on youtube ,all your questions will be answered.
Sorry, but Zakir Naik is a liar and a fraud and only propagates Islamic nonsense.
if he is a liar, go ahead prove him wrong,
Maybe its just that you are too afraid to know the truth, your fear denies the Truth.................
My question is, are you so weak, that you can't withstand when your own logic bends....
When truth comes, Falsehood perishes, because falsehood was made to perish.
You're not the only Islamic propagandist to haunt a forum posting videos from Zakir Naik and you won't be the last. How that fraud can even call himself a doctor is beyond reproach.
It is not an atheist's job to prove your religion wrong. It is YOUR responsibility, since you are making the positive assertion, to prove your god right. You haven't done that. Neither did your video. Nothing I haven't seen before.
Abandon fear, confusion and distraction and turn to the lord. I'm sure he will help you make a journey from atheist to faithful.
One would have to abandon reason, logic, sanity, honesty and a host of other characteristics of being human, and instead embrace fear and confusion in order to become one of the faithful.
so you talk about logic, yet no atheist could ever prove anything in Quran which contradicts science,
You talk about sanity, knowing that the Gravitaional force was explained long before newton, in Quran
The explanation that the universe is expanding, which was recently discovered by scientists, was explained in Quran, and uncountable other scientific things, but if science has yet not discovered something , you deny its very existence
YET YOU DENY,....................
The troubled man, I dare you, i double dare you, to watch this video, atleast some part of it, you will eagerly watch it to the end
Assuming people who believe differently from you are less intelligent or less moral is essentially a form of vanity
@psycheskinner, i never said that, neither did i meant that in any way, i am a muslim and i have less knowledge of quran itself, if i read bible or any other religious scripture, i would have argued through them.
How do you jump to such a conclusion that you feel that Muslims think so highly of themselves?
The Quran has nothing to do with science, it is a book of myths.
Sorry, but the Quran does not explain gravity, that is entirely false.
Sorry, but the Quran does not explain universal expansion, that is entirely false.
LOL! Are you a child that you need to "double dare" me?
The video shows well beyond a shadow of a doubt that Zakir Naik is a liar and a fraud.
The big bang theory through Qura'n
Surah Ambiya, verse 30
""""""30. And have the disbelievers not seen that the whole heavenly universe and the earth were (all) joined together as one unit, and then We split them apart? And We originated (the life of) living organism (on earth) from water. So do they not accept faith (even after learning these facts brought forth by the Qur’an)?""""""
really book of myths, read it yourself then
http://www.irfan-ul-quran.com/quran/eng … /1/sid/55/
Okay, this guy is OBVIOUSLY trolling. I don't know why anyone is even giving him any more attention. He keeps making assumptions and accusations without any evidence whatsoever. He said that Nouman Ali Khan was never an atheist who turned Muslim... but where's the evidence? He says that the Qur'an doesn't explain the universe expanding, but where is the evidence? I however, can provide evidence that it does: "...We have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it.... " (Surah 51:47).
I will not be giving him any more attention as that is all he is seeking: attention. I advise that you guys do the same... unless you like to argue just for the sake of arguing, then go right ahead and continue feeding him what he wants.
I see this as a pure statement of prejudice--you assume non-siesta are these derogatory things
I apologize for arguing so much, Wont argue anymore here.
If there is anyone out there who is GENUINE in seeking the truth of things, to gain the ability to see through all the lies that are put before us day in and day out, then feel free to ask Abdul Wahabone and I questions. Of course if you are anything like The Troubled Man and are insincere, don't bother wasting our time, or at the very least, my time.
Actually - I have the truth of things. You can ask me any question and I will attempt to enlighten you as best I can.
Well if anyone has questions for us, lets see who can provide the most adequate answers. Sounds good?
But, we ARE the ones seeking the truth. Islam does support truth so there is no reason to ask you questions unless we are interested in hearing fables from a holy book.
To 'find' the truth of everything is simple. The truth if you wish to see is a paradox. Infinity exists seemingly finite things.
When does the color red fade to orange? At what time does one say, THIS is the breaking point. They are truly separate colors!! Truth is, everyone will point out a million different moments, because there really are a million different ways to see it! That is the truth. To each his own.
Your quest is now over? No. Learn to appreciate the truth and that it exists in everything and you will never 'find' the ultimate anything because all is the ultimate everything. Its right there before your eyes always.
How is there 'truth' in everything? That doesn't make any sense. If there was truth in everything, I could say that the sky is blue, that would be true. Then I could turn around and say that the sky is red, that would be true too. Then I could turn around and say the sky is rainbow colored, then that would be true as well. It only agrees with common sense that there is truth, then there are lies and deceptions as it is an highly illogical and impossible for everything to be true and nothing to be falsehood.
Blue is a physical thing, and yet millions will love, hate, or be neutral towards it. Thus, truth isn't always physical but incorporates the mental/emotional. Common sense isn't really worth much on a spiritual level because spiritual life is all about the connections you make. Seemingly static things like the color of the sky appear redundant to you, and yet others wonder at their life because their favorite color is blue, so seems the sky was made just for them... Are you going the tell them they are wrong?
Ahh, well if you are incorporating mental/emotional states into the mix as well, then I see where you are coming from with these seemingly infinite 'truths'. Thing is, I'm not questioning nor including whether an emotion of state of mind is real or not. Sure, anybody can make themselves feel happy, thus it becomes a true statement to say that this person's truth at this very moment is that he's happy. What I'm referring to is the real tangible world. Something which cannot be changed just by a simple thought. It's not like our minds create the very physical reality we all live in. This physical reality we live in isn't subjective, everything only has one truth. For example: collectively as a whole, we can conclude the sun is the sun and agree on it's description. No one is going to say otherwise. We aren't going to have anyone here claiming that it is a green, floating rectangular box in the sky, rather we would all agree that it is a bright ball of light in the sky, at least in a most basic description.
Anything can be made real in the mind. Gods come in all shapes in sizes in consequence to the imagination of those who created them. Why is that such a bad thing? Logically and bioLOGICALLY life is black and white, but humans aren't defined by logic alone, so let the imagination flow.. it adds more wonder and meaning to the human experience.
Fighting over which way to live is unwise. Because we can all see after hundreds of thousands of years of being on the planet, humanity still does not know for certain the answers to everything. In the end, what we can all agree on is that what is in the mind of a person is
real to them and that creates a personal connection with everything they interact with in their life. Logic alone will allow one to live a meaningful life, just like the person who believes in spirits, afterlives, past lives etc.
The human experience to me has no destination or goal or else we have all figured it simply in the very beginning. The sky is eternally unfolding everyday. So are the trillions of interconnected energetic processes that allow us to even exist in this universe. Stop bickering and learn to accept that the creator of the universe is infinite energy, and how you use it shapes your reality.
Well. Although I consider myself a christian, I still have an open mind and am always interested in other opinions and why that opinion was formed. I dont claim to have all the answers just because Im a christian. None of us do christian or not. So, having said that, I was soooo interested in watching this, and looking forward to hearing some intelligent thoughts. What an absolute disappointment! Mr. Hitchens tap danced around EVERY question put to him! Every time he gave an "answer" I was just like, WTH did he just say??? Honestly, the man never gave a single straight answer. Mr. Turek was right, he never actually responded to his specific questions. Now, Mr. Hitchens says, "There is no God, and I hate him" Well ummm...How can you hate him if he doesnt exist??? Hmmm...
just an example about how pre-existing bias can taint and limit one's ability to be open-minded. Hitchens was a great and wonderful man who was not afraid of any question. Instead of doing a video link war, why not actually discuss the issue. I find the "my youtube video that supports my bias kicks your youtube video" link war to be silly.
You know, Im not going to call you silly for believing what you believe. I wanted to watch that because I AM open minded. As I stated above, just because Im a christian doesnt mean I know everything, or have all the answers, nor does ANYONE else. I do believe in God, but I still have questions. Im still curious about the why and how. Im not an expert in religion or science. Im just an average woman with an average life, and a HUGE curiosity. I REALLY was prepared to listen to any logic the man had to say, but there just wasnt any. He honestly never answered a single question that was asked. And I am not trying to have a war, I posted it here hoping someone could make sense out of anything the man said and explain it in simple terms. I also still wonder how can he "hate" God, if God isnt real??? I would like to say, at least you are a lot more respectful than another poster here, and I do appreciate it.
I didn't call your beliefs silly. I said a YouTube link war silly. I haven't watched that particular clip, but I have seen multiple Hitchens debates live and online. He hates the concept of the Christian god for much the same reason I do. Its unjust, immoral and ridiculous. I don't have to believe in it to despise the message.
I see The Troubled Man is still looking for attention from me, like I said, won't bother paying him any mind as trolls will be trolls and it's best to leave them be, otherwise they keep begging for food.
But turning to those who are actually genuine in searching for the truth, can we discuss something that I would refer to as the clearest rational argument for the existence of a creator? If you wish to discuss, I will proceed.
*And those who have replied stating that they already have the truth and that the truth is that there is no God, well then we have nothing to discuss. You believe you already have all the answers so any discussions would lead nowhere ultimately. If you care to discuss your 'truth' with someone, go right ahead, but I will just be discussing my argument with those who are willing to listen and who feel they don't actually have the answers and are still searching as they happen to be the most open-minded, and not conditioned with information they believe is indisputably correct.*
There is no clear, rational evidence for a creator. Not in the Muslim world, not in the christian world, not in any of the other thousands of religions. I don't claim to have ultimate truth, and I do not assert that there is no god. I simply say that I have not seen any evidence to prove any god that I've yet encountered. Muslims have been trying to prove allah for 1400 years. Christians have been trying to prove jesus for 2000. Jews have been trying to prove Yaweh for 4-6000. All of them have failed. the burden of proof is on you - and using your own holy book to prove the existence of your god is circular logic - it's not actual proof. I have no reason to believe your holy book any more than I have any reason to believe that Aesop's fables were true stories. They're legends.
You see, there you go right ahead assuming. The least you could have done is say: "present your clearest, most rational argument if you are truthful." That would have been both respectful to the argument I wish to present and shown that you were open-minded. I can deduce that from that single message of yours that you are exactly the type of person I couldn't discuss anything with because you already have your mind made up that no proof for God exists so no arguments can prove the validity of a Creator existing (although you claim that you don't definitely assert that there simply is no God).
Furthermore, you jump to the conclusion that my argument relied upon text when it doesn't, rather it relies on rational logic and reason.
So is there anyone else who actually wishes to discuss my argument or is there no one out there who is willing to put their biases aside and open their minds and reflect?
Aren't you guilty of making assumptions here - just like you're accusing me of doing? I don't know if a god exists, but I don't believe in one. I've heard all the standard and not so standard arguments from the muslim belief and the christian belief, and a number of other random beliefs. I'm not convinced. I was a christian for over 25 years, attending theological seminary. I've studied it in depth. Granted, I'm more familiar with christianity, but I've spent several years studying muslim claims. Sounds to me like you're just excusing your ability to reason with me on a rational, evidence-based level, so you're discounting me entirely. That's a great way to prove your case honestly. Good job.
You can deduce whatever you want, but that doesn't mean that your deductions are actually true. I can deduce that you're arrogant and conceited based on your response, but you'd most likely argue the point. See what I mean?
I didn't jump to the belief that you would use your holy book, I was attempting to cut you off before you could. I don't find your book any more valid than any other, and I wanted to assert that using circular logic had no place in a reasonable, honest discussion based on evidence. From my own personal experience, no muslim or christian, unless they are a professional apologist, uses anything BUT their book to try to prove their case. Then you get into the other, more philosophical arguments from those who are trained to debate. I don't find those arguments convincing either. Granted, this is from the wrong religion, but if you want to make blind assumptions and judgments on me, you may want to evaluate your own position first.
Actually, I'm not assuming anything. You yourself said that no clear, rational evidence exists for God, thus I simply deduce that you don't want to hear what I have to say because you have your mind made up. It's not assuming, it's deducing. If you care to categorize it as the same thing, be my guest. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. If I'm right, then my deduction is proven. You say that it seems to you that I'm trying to dodge the bullet of having a debate with you, yet I clearly stated that I will not deal with close-minded individuals who feel they already have the truth and don't need to hear other positions. While you didn't state in your message that you feel that you have the truth or anything like this, you wished to squeeze yourself in the other category of those who feel no such proofs for God exists. I have come across plenty of people like that and they are just as close-minded as those who feel they already have the truth.
Indeed, I can assume and you can assume. The question is: which one of us is right?
You attempting to cut my off from using any religious book or source is a clear indication of you being close-minded, like I have been stating is your condition all this time, because that right there makes it sound like you have investigated all religious sources already indepth and have deduced that no religion could possibly contain the truth... and you speak about me being arrogant? That's an arrogant position.
Noted: my position has been evaluated and reviewed, from my perspective, there is nothing wrong with it. Feel free to differ.
There isn't anything you can say, deduce, debate... whatever. Until, a god shows himself to us, you're just blowing hot air.
I do differ actually. Quite a bit.
I said that there is no clear, rational evidence for a creator. Perhaps what I should have said, that I later clarified and you completely ignored was that I have not been presented with any clear, rational evidence for a creator. Every attempt made in the past 10000 years at least has come up short. I HAVE examined Islam, Christianity and Judaism in depth, at the college level and individually. Stating that no clear, rational evidence exists (at least not that I've seen) is not closed-mindedness. It's a statement of fact. I am not, by any means, claiming that I am not interested in pursuing any new evidence to the contrary. In fact, if I was not open-minded, I would hardly be engaging in a conversation about it. Assuming that I'm closed-minded is simple arrogance. I am more than open to other positions, but none of them thus far have been even the least bit convincing. When it comes to unheard proof, I'm agnostic, meaning I lack any knowledge to the contrary. I am also an atheist, which does not mean that I'm closed-minded - it means that I lack a belief in a god due to insufficient evidence. I never once claimed to have the "truth", nor have I EVER said definitively that no god exists. What you want to prove, however, is not the existence of a god - it's the existence of a creator.
As far as religious books go, I have shown time and time again in the forums and in hubs that I am more versed in at least the bible than believers - and several people have admitted as much. That's not arrogance, it's simple admission. While I've read the koran multiple times, I don't claim to be an expert by any means. Nothing I've read in either, however, has been the least bit effective. I doubt that something new is going to magically appear in either. That doesn't mean I can't be wrong. How willing are you to admit that YOU may be wrong? I'm guessing not much. That at least makes me more intellectually honest and open minded than YOU are. By all means, lump me in with the other people you're refusing to converse with. Pretty soon, you'll just be talking to yourself.
Well let me state that you haven't studied Islam enough, any Muslim out there can attest to that since you're still searching. You should try and investigate the religion again and dig further next time, although I applaud your efforts of searching the first time even though you didn't find what you were looking for.
And yes, I know I am on the truth because I have done more than my fair share of research. Some Muslims out there want to say that they believe they are on the right path but in reality, they know they are on the right path. I'm just straightforward enough to say that I know without a shadow of a doubt that I'm on the truth. You can state that it makes me close-minded, but in reality it just makes me close-minded to the lies and deception that are out there.
Anyway, I'm simply awaiting for someone aside from yourself (sorry!) and A Troubled Man, for the reasons I've stated above, to take me up on my rational argument for the existence of a Creator. Until then, I'm going to disappear off this posts radar. Peace be upon you and him as well.
so you're just not willing to discuss your evidence with me. Cool. Good luck finding someone that fits your own standards. It's hypocritical to tell me to look again but not be willing to be a messenger for your own beliefs, and I have no respect for hypocrites. at least you're honest enough to say that you are, outright instead of wasting a lot of time.
You assert that you have absolute truth. That means that your beliefs are unfalsifiable, which is the height of arrogance, hypocrisy and defies reason, evidence and rational thought. Scientists don't claim to have ultimate truth. No one does - except for closed-minded believers such as yourself.
Incidentally, this forum thread is not about proving a creator. It's about atheists that have turned to god. If you want to produce your "evidence" perhaps you should do it somewhere else where it can be refuted without varying away from the OP. Haven't you noticed that the majority of people that are actually WILLING to converse with you are the people you summarily dismiss as "unworthy"? Rich. perhaps this is why no one takes your posts seriously.
I'm not "searching". I'm open to discussion. Islam failed to provide any convincing evidence. Just like I don't believe in zeus, jesus or the great purple unicorn. they're all the same.
It's wonderful and fascinating that you've found your own personal truth, I for one wish you all the best of luck with it. Of course, there are a great deal of folks in the world who don't share your truth, probably because they have their own personal truths that they embrace and probably consider your truth as lies and deceptions, too.
So, while you all bicker back and forth as to whose truths are the lies and whose are the deceptions, the rest of us are observing nature and learning how it works.
And, it doesn't matter whether you believe your truth created our world or not, science has and always will continue to show us how nature works.
In fact, your gods and your holy books have absolutely nothing to say about science or it's findings, either.
No, we are just looking for some honesty from you when you post. Is that too much to ask?
There is no such thing as a rational argument for the existence of a creator. Sorry.
by Stacie L6 years ago
AN ATHEIST IN THE WOODSAn atheist was walking through the woods."What majestic trees!""What powerful rivers!""What beautiful animals!"He said to himself.As he was...
by Claire Evans5 years ago
It's easy to deconvert to atheism because they are disappointed, hurt or because they have lost their faith due to God making sense. It's harder to suddenly make a rational atheists convert to Christianity, which...
by Person of Interest6 years ago
AN ATHEIST IN THE WOODSAn atheist was walking through the woods."What majestic trees!""What powerful rivers!""What beautiful animals!"He said to himself.As he was walking alongside the...
by Brittany Williams3 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,...
by A Troubled Man4 years ago
Beth is attracted to ATM. She asks ATM out on a date. ATM isn't interested, maybe he isn't attracted to her or he's married. For whatever reason, he declines. Was Beth rejected? Yes.When someone is rejected, they're...
by Mahaveer Sanglikar3 years ago
Why God created atheists? Isn't it his invitation to self destruction?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.