How much faith does it take to be an atheist?

Who says there's no one home by the mere fact there isn't a TV on?

I, personally, feel that an atheist's life has to be empty. Another view is they feel this way because it gives them freedom to do what they want, when they want, and not answer to anyone....much like a spoiled brat. Whatever feels good, they do it. It takes no faith to be an atheist. It's for this reason also, they believe in humanism, liberalism. They've more than likely been highly educated by the leftist school system, and have taken drugs at some time in their lives.

The scenario is taking me far away from religion. Being someone who believes in a higher power(God), the comparison is lame. If God lived in that house, I would feel the prescence. An athiest would not because it is not who they are, as long as they are true to who they are.
Belief is an opinion.
Faith is loyalty and cofidence to a religion or belief.
A fact is something that occurs, and that is far more than a belief. For a theist, (not sure that is the right word) For someone who believes in a higher power: it is a fact to them that God or whatever exists. It is more than opinion if your entire life, eating sleeping, breathing religion is based on a higher source. The athiest has a belief that the theist is wrong. Neither can prove to the other if they have faith in who they are.

So to get away from that house thing with some one home. Yeah, that's right, I'm saying someone is home because I can just tell, ok?
I have a sixth sense and theists and athiest do not believe in those powers. So there.
Anyway, I will say, according to my explanation story, I'm saying an athiest has an incredible amount of faith in their belief.
BUT! An athiest, if I remember right, does not believe in anything so this whole thing is a silly waste of time.
This subject needs to be living in that house where no one knows if anyone is home or not. The stranger in the neighborhood.

oh...my...God......you know what... good grief, talk about empty.




was I saying that out loud???

The short answer is, not very much.

To start with, I'm not sure I'd use the words 'faith' or 'belief' in your example. Opinion maybe. So where's the boundary? Not sure. Maybe when someone takes action based on their opinion. Suppose these guys were robbers and trying to decide if this was a good house to hit. Based on their opinion of whether the house was occupied or not, then they would indicate belief or faith by deciding to break in it or move on to another one.

But that's just playing with words and not so important really to the question of how much faith it takes to be an atheist. Let's suppose these two guys decide they have more than just a casual interest in this question. They really want to know so they spend some more time watching that house. What they observe is that no-one ever goes in or out. There's never any cars in the driveway, no sounds from inside the house, no mail or newspaper delivery, and once a week a local landscaping company comes by to mow the lawn.

The only thing is that stupid light. It turns on and off and not at the same time each evening so it's not just hooked up to a simple timer. It never turns on during the day so it's not purely random, turns on regularly in the evenings, after the sun goes down, but at varying times.

Eventually, they find a device in a catalog that says it turns lights on and off semi-randomly. It has a light sensor so it knows when the sun is up and a timer so it turns the light off when people might be expected to go to bed, and it varies the times around to it looks more natural. It can even throw in an extra on-off cycle as if someone got up to go to the bathroom after going to bed.

Now we still have the two guys who have their two different opinions. And they're still just opinions. Based on the facts at hand, neither opinion can be proven. However, I don't see a whole lot of faith being needed to hold the opinion that no-one is at home. It's just the more likely of the two explanations. Thus my conclusion that it doesn't take much faith to be an atheist.

None

From my perspective, the example in your explanation is incomplete. It implies the existence or lack of existence of God is roughly a 50/50 chance or something. It implies that there is no other evidence besides that which can be viewed as faith. So, in an attempt to elucidate my position, I will add to your example:

These two people have actually been walking down a long street together passing by many houses. At each house they stop and pose your question, "Is anybody home?". Originally, the theist said there were many people in the house and that the people were responsible for various aspects of life (things like whether the sun rose in the sky every morning or whether the crops would be plentiful come harvest time). But, as the two people kept walking and encountering new houses, the theist's story changed. The theist is now mostly convinced that there is only one person in the house and he's mostly done away with the idea that the person inside has much to do with whether the sun rises every morning or whether the crops are plentiful.

The atheist patiently continues to walk down the street with the theist, hoping that eventually there will not even be a need to wonder if someone is home or not since it barely even matters and seems like something the theist will eventually outgrow.

Yeah, but the house is a metaphor, not a real question. I would submit that to declare there is no God cannot be based on any fact, which leaves the distinction between opinion and faith. In terms of atheism, I would suggest that the degree of atheism dictates the level of faith vs. opinion. Someone whose attitude can be categorized as "I don't think there is a God," has more likely formed an opinion. However, if the attitude is more emphatic, like "There is no God anywhere; it's a mythic invention of man," etc., and that person is vehement in his assertions, an amount of faith is implied because it is no longer disbelief in one idea, but steadfast belief in something else. Thus, vehement atheism requires faith; after all, how can anyone claim to know the entirety of the universe?

Well, there's the scenario played out in the explanation, which goes something like this...

Bob: Check out that house.
Carl: Oh yeah. I wonder who lives there?
Bob: Probably no one.
Carl: How can you say that? It's more likely that someone does live there.
Bob: Clearly our opinions are both based on a set of differing assumptions about what is the more likely, leading us to opposing default positions.
Carl: You're right. Let's go to the pub.

And here's the same scenario played out as it is in real life...

Bob: Check out that house.
Carl: Oh yeah. I wonder who lives there?
Bob: Probably no one.
Carl: Dont say that! You'll offend the guy that lives there.
Bob: But we don't even know if anyone does live there. You've not even been inside!
Carl: Ignore my friend, guy in the house!! He knows not what he says.
Bob: What are you talking about? How can you establish the motivations of someone you've never seen, never mind someone you don't know is even there.
Carl: I don't need to see him to know he's there, I just feel that he's there. You wouldn't understand.
Bob: Try me.
Carl: Well.. do you notice the curtains?
Bob: Yes?
Carl: They're red!
Bob: ... and?
Carl: Oh come on! Don't you see? It's a sign! We must eat fresh fruit and vegetables.
Bob: But we ought to be doing that anyway, it's common sense. Fruit and vegetables are good for you. I don't need an invisible guy in a house to tell me that. Besides, how do you know it's a guy? It could be woman.
Carl: The guy in the house said you'd say that.
Bob: Oh, you're on speaking terms now?
Carl: Of course! He says there's another guy who lives in the basement. They don't get on. The guy in the house says that the basement dude has twisted your mind.
Bob: But you don't even know if that house has a basement
Carl: Why would the guy in the house say there was a basement if there wasn't one?

etc

That seems like a baited analogy to me; the eventual conclusion would always be that there is no God once the theist realized his mistakes. Plus, the theist's opinion may not have chnged much at all.

In an attempt to make it more accurate, I could also point out that this walk would have had several participants, lasted thousands of years, many of the theistic participants would have argued amongst each other, several theists would have held the same belief for thousands of years without much change, and several theists would consider their opinions related, but nuanced. It doesn't seem like a good idea to completely stay within the confines of an anology, but rather to use the analogy to set up the larger questions.

Doesn't a convinced, strong belief that can't be based on any real facts, or facts that could easily be used to prove a number of ideas, constitute faith? To emphatically state there is no God anywhere in the universe can't possibly be verified. So how could anyone really believe that without a certain amount of faith?

Perhaps the connotative meaning of faith implies a certain religousness and thus, flies in the face of atheism. After all how could a denial of faith actually mean faith? I get that, but so what? Why can't vehement belief of any kind be considered akin to a religion? You see for yourself that in society some people believe in something with such conviction that there is almost a cultish air to it. Sean Hannity, Michael Moorer, and many others.

I'm am not trying to say that atheists are fundamentally hypocritical because atheism is equally faithful. Indeed, I tried to avoid that implication as I created the survey, and hopefully, it didn't come across that way. For me, the larger issue was that people will always find something to beleive in, even if that belief is a disbelief of something else.

But, don't you see that the atheist could just as easily say "I know no one's home; I can just tell; I have that ability." And wouldn't such a statement constitute faith as well?

Those are extreme stereotypes, and for the most part, inaccurate ones.

None. Atheism is faithlessness.

Using this horribly inaccurate scenario, no one is home. Even if the atheist goes up to the door with the theist and knocks on the door waiting for someone to answer, nobody comes to the door. Do you know why? *drumroll* It's because no one is home.

Well, I think if pressed, most atheist will say that there's probably no God (this is actually the exact phrase they have on buses in the UK now). Very few, myself included, emphatically state there is no God. From what I perceive and understand, it's seem unlikely there is a God. Thus, I believe there is not God.

I think history shows that humans tend to use the idea if God to explain things they don't understand, especially scary things (bad crops, death). I assume you'll agree that humans invented the Greek gods and that in general there's a lot of human-invented mythology in our history. Thus, I feel that's it's not so much of a stretch to admit that humans also invented the currently-popular Judeo-Christian-Muslim God. That was the point I meant to be making by my expansion of your example.

Sure, I can't disprove the existence of God. But, I can't disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny either. As a shorthand, I may say that I don't believe in the Easter Bunny. But, if pressed, I'd have to admit that the Easter Bunny may exist.

I think I get what you're saying about atheism being a kind of belief that requires faith. But, I don't really agree. Lack of faith is not the same as faith. Not believing something exists doesn't matter as much as believing.

> I, personally, feel that an atheist's life has to be empty. Another
> view is they feel this way because it gives them freedom to do what
> they want, when they want, and not answer to anyone....much like a
> spoiled brat. Whatever feels good, they do it. It takes no faith
> to be an atheist. It's for this reason also, they believe in humanism,
> liberalism. They've more than likely been highly educated by the
> leftist school system, and have taken drugs at some time in their
> lives.

By this logic the only reason you behave yourself is because you're either a supreme butt kisser (to your god) OR your god has you living in overwhelming fear with the promise of hell if you misbehave. How can you love anything that would have you live in this state of terror?

I don't understand why or how a person who is not doing anything wrong needs to be held accountable for anything. It reminds me of authority figures who dole out punishments in the name of "responsibility for your actions" and the actions weren't even irresponsible in the first place.

It's the way of the world.

Fair enough, I understand your viewpoint.

BTW: The Easter Bunny was invented by Hallmark in the 30's as a way to boost Easter card sales. So, I can prove he doesn't exist.

So long as you understand that this nonsense is not what I feel.

Of course the house is a metaphor and I tried to continue in that vein. Along those lines, the light controller device is a metaphor for evolution.

Leaving the metaphor, your question was about how much faith is needed to be an atheist. If someone came along and declared emphatically, "there absolutely is no god" then my response isn't to think they have a great faith. Rather I think they just don't understand the nature of proof. Of course there is no proof of the absence of god, there can't ever be because the definition of god can change to match whatever lack of evidence comes along.

I look at it this way. This is a simple, binary question of does god exist or not. There's no proof one way or the other. Now you can't ever prove the non-existence of something but in all the years people have looked, there's no proof of its existence either. Every bit of evidence for god's existence has alternative explanations. Certainly none of that proves god's non-existence (that's why you can't prove something doesn't exist) but after millennia of looking, the most likely answer is that there is not in fact a god. Going with the obvious choice doesn't take a lot of faith. Going against that obvious choice, believing despite the lack of evidence, that's faith.

Thus, again, I conclude that it doesn't take much faith to be an atheist.

Finding internal Hallmark memos describing how they were going to invent the Easter Bunny would not constitute proof that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist. The true believers could just say that the people are Hallmark were just tapping into the pre-existence of the Easter Bunny for their own business purposes. Or maybe that they didn't know that the Easter Bunny was real and just happened to create what they thought was a fiction that matched reality. Or perhaps that the Easter Bunny influenced their minds because it wanted its existence more widely known.

I understand your point.

Nah

Instead of personally feeling whether or not atheists have empty lives, wouldn't it be better to personally know it by asking them?

You could substitute God for anything that you're passionate about and claim that without it one's life is empty. Some people are passionate about their spouse. Some people have fulfilling and rewarding lives without ever getting married. Some people are passionate about being a parent. Some people have fulfilling and rewarding lives without ever having children. Some people are passionate about surfing. Some people have fulfilling and rewarding lives without ever having seen the sea.

Our lives are complex and wonderful and scary and beautiful and they're the only ones we'll ever have. Absence of God doesn't make life empty, any more than an absence of wind surfing. Belief in God is a way of experiencing life, but not the only way.

Absence of God does not also mean that I, as an atheist, have carte-blanche to do what I like, when I like and be answerable to no one. On the contrary. I am answerable to society, to my fellow man. Atheists are not spoiled brats. In fact, atheists divorce less than non-atheists and are statistically less likely to be in prison than non-atheists. That doesn't sound like a section of the population who are selfish and only out for themselves, does it?

Atheists tend to have more education and higher IQs as well, but honestly, why do you bother with that kind of response? Don't you sometimes feel that responding to such baseless, yet strong opinions is like trying to empty the sea with a spoon?

Oh, I'm well aware of the futility of it. I'm not going to pretend that I can beat decades of confirmation bias, but sometimes I'm interested to see where it comes from.

For me, it's the difference between having feelings about something that can't be proven (like God) and feelings about things that can be proven (like Obama not being a Muslim).

It's not that she has faith in God that's interesting (good for her). What fascinates me is that she has 'feelings' about things that can actually be ascertained.

Just about the same amount of faith that it takes to not believe in unicorns.

I don't choose that analogy to be flippant, but because absence of evidence is evidence of absence and theists apply that principle in daily life all the time, by not believing in all kinds of far-fetched things including unicorns and the flying-spaghetti monster. Obviously, it isn't absolute but if you want to take it to that extreme, then we can't know anything for certain.

All that said, there are atheists whose beliefs are entirely based on faith. If you come across a very vocal and aggressive but ill-informed atheist who makes constant references to people like Dawkins or Hitchens , they probably fall into that category.

A most excellent survey

I see. I would submit the "source" is an indoctrination and general feeling of personal and cultural superiority to others. I believe this applies to all aspects of her life, even her brand of Christianity, which I don't see as being very Christian.

However, for me, it is disconcerting far more than it is interesting. People can point to beliefs such as these and use them to denigrate segments of the population...white, protestant, conservavtive, etc. to create more division and thus, more social problems. That is of course, in addition to how such people go about their lives.

But for me the point is that I don't see any particular bent, political, religious, or otherwise as a source of contention. I see the unwillingness or even inability to reason as displayed by her, to be the biggest societal ill.

This of course, begs the original question of whether to engage these individuals or to ignore them, and I suppose you have taken the more noble route. But, just keep in mind, the only thing royal about me is that I'm a pain in the ass.

Well, thank you. I think achieved what I wanted...a very reasonable discourse with many viable and illuminating points of view. And on a personal note, all the responses from the atheists have given me insight into atheism, particularly how varied atheism can be. After all, there's no atheistic "church" where someone can engage athesists to gain a better understanding. I'm rather enjying this survey.

That's a good question...but I have no idea what an athiest truly feels about such things. If I am right, they do not believe in anything (I am only going on some survey memories from some time ago) And I can't in good conscience assume what an athiest would think. That is why the story of the house doesn't work for me right now to explain my answer to the question.
It would be like a Christian, a Rabbi and a Lawyer pass the house. It appears empty, but the Rabbi uses his powers of deduction from his lifelong years of faith and service and dedication to come up with "there is someone home because I can tell..." and the Christian, who has spent his entire life spreading his faith to all the people he meets, says "no one is home because ..."; but the lawyer is thinking about a case of how to get the thief off of charges that he robbed this house if someone was home, or someone wasn't home.
I think asking an athiest how they feel about having 'faith' in an opinion of theirs would be in order.

Yes, well, I would suggest reading the gamut of responses here; it's pretty interesting. I have come to find out there are quite a few bents of atheism. I hope you come to enjoy this survey as I have.

>Another view is they feel this way because it gives them freedom to do what
> they want, when they want, and not answer to anyone....much like a
> spoiled brat. Whatever feels good, they do it.

That's an interesting opinion. I'm an atheist who has chosen my profession (medicine) because I believe that working in the service of others is the best thing that I can do with my life. I am disciplined and I work hard to develop my knowledge and skills so that I can help to relieve people's suffering once I qualify. When I worked in nursing, I spent hours bathing and toileting people, many of whom were confused and reacted with violence or insults; I cared for them anyway and not just because it was my job. I try to do my duty, even when that is difficult, painful or boring.

I'm not trying to make myself sound special because I'm not. There are millions of atheists out there who would be as offended by your generalisation as I was. It has no basis in reality. I know good, kind, disciplined people of all faiths and of no faith. And I know spoiled brats of all faiths and of no faith.

I am well-educated, I am left-wing and I am a humanist and I am proud to be all of those things, but I have never taken recreational drugs. There are atheists who do use drugs, but there are plenty of Christians who take drugs too (in fact, I have personally had many more drug-using patients who described themselves as Christian than drug-using patients who described themselves as atheists or as having no faith).

Oh, and my life doesn't seem empty at all

I love your continuation of the house metaphor

It's a good one Matty. I will come back to it and take more time reading all the lengthy responses.

*runs back to click 'good'.

Thank you. It seemed to work so I went with it. When I came up with the light controller as metaphor for the theory of evolution, I was especially pleased.

Please give me a clue to why you think a person is atheist.

There are different 'flavours' of atheism, certainly, but I actually don't think that many different types have been expressed on this page so far. The atheists who have given detailed answers, all seem to be essentially expressing the same argument.

I posted this about a year ago and I still think the broad groupings are reasonable:

There are four types of atheist. There are the passive atheists who never really believed in God, haven't thought about it all that much and generally don't get involved in debates about religion, but will usually describe themselves as non-believers (but perhaps faintly "spiritual") if pushed. Most atheists are probably passive in that way (just as many people who claim to belong to a particular religion are actually passive believers - they go to church because they were raised going to church, but they haven't given much thought to the finer points of theology or worried themselves too much about whether it really *is* all true).

Then there are the active atheists who have, for whatever reason, carefully looked at the evidence for or against, and come down against the existence of God. They tend to be fairly well read (in religious, philosophical and scientific texts) rationalists. Richard Dawkins, for example, would fall into that category. (There are religious equivalents too. Although ultimately their beliefs have to be based on faith, many believers do have a very good knowledge of their religion and understand the contradictions and theological problems that exist within it. I'm not sure that the passive believers have really made a leap of faith at all - but the active believers have to do so if they don't wish to abandon their beliefs.)

Next, there are the Don Quixote atheists. They are looking for a fight, and want to charge into battle, but they don't really understand what they are tilting at. They are faith-based atheists, not rationalists at all. They have a few half-baked ideas, unsupported by the evidence, and off they go. They repeatedly and dramatically miss the point - their intentions are good, but they don't understand their enemies (believers) who can therefore make them look foolish, and they don't understand their allies (atheists) who will therefore try and disown them. (Again, there are obvious religious equivalents such as the example icurok gave of those who regard the "If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" as a profound argument against evolution.)

Finally there are flaming atheists (and believers) - those whose intentions are not good by any stretch of the imagination. Perhaps they have a commercial interest in what they are peddling, perhaps they want power and control, or perhaps they just want to make others suffer."

Did you know that Christianity actually bans the practice of celebrating birthdays?

So far, I think all the comments by atheists on this survey have fallen into the 'active atheism' camp - that's probably for the best if you want to get to grips with 'real' atheism though, just as I have to talk to active Christians if I really want to learn about Christianity rather than those who identify as Christian but do not practise, those who identify as Christian but have very distorted understanding of the religion, or those who just want to rant...

I would be interested to read responses from atheists whose beliefs are not based on rationalism or an understanding of the scientific method, but I'm not sure I've ever come across one, except where they instantly fell into one of the more negative categories!

(It's essentially the same argument because it is based on rationalism and an understanding of the scientific method - it's been expressed in many different ways, but it seems to boil down to much the same thing - though I suppose you could say something similar about all the many divisions of Christianity!)

I see what you're saying. For me, what was interesting wasn't so much the conclusion as it was the pathway. I.E. I enjoyed seeing how people derived the "same" conclusion.

A little healthy fear can't hurt you. I have sinned while in the flesh, but try to show some restraint, discipline. Because of how a person is designed...God knows best for his people. I ache often, I could let go on some things, but I don't, out of the love of my children, my grandchildren, now great granddaughter, I don't want to hurt their lives...and a fear of God.

Recently, more now than ever I know I'm right about some of my decisions. My youngest son told me, thanks mom for keeping the family together. My oldest son just this week, concerned for my health, said please try to stay alive we need you. He said he just likes knowing I'm here, said he loves talking to me. I have others to think of other than myself. If it had not been for my children, now my grandchildren, I'd have been gone a long time ago. I think God would understand, however, disappointed. But, you see I have to live with the choices I made in life, good and bad.

I know one atheist, he's a very nice man. I do not hold it against him. We're in a group together, work well together. He's married, never had children. He's a successful business man, a good Patriot. I like Steve. We never discuss religion.

A little fear? He's the only reason you behave. Without him, you'd be immoral just like an atheist. A little fear is not liking spiders. Your god has a death hold on you. Don't kid yourself.

Fighting fire with fire only makes bigger flames; try a little water.

BUT, you were educated in the government school system. Of course, there are people that are not atheist, that do drugs, sad, but true. Drugs, are a scourge, a plague to the nation.

I, too, worked in the medical field, very difficult for me at times. I cried often.

I feel so blessed to have had my parents. My years as a youth, being raised in the church were my fondest years. I thank God for blessing me. I'm by no means special either, but I feel I was blessed with my parents. I'm no scholar on the Bible, but have read the Bible. I have faith.

I'm not using fire. I'm using blocks of ice.

I don't need faith, because I believe I am using logic. I find a God unnecessary. I do not have 'faith' that there is no God, I don't have a feeling in my heart (there was a Mormon on the bus yesterday trying to convert a chav, who kept saying this). I just don't want him, I don't need him, and all signs seem to point to 'Nah'.

I was educated in the state-school system of my country, but I doubt you're familiar enough with our educational system to make any assumptions about me on that basis! In particular, you may not be aware that in the UK we do not have the separation of Church and State - we have the Church of England as the official state religion with the Queen at its head. State schools are legally required to provide a Christian faith-based assembly each day and we all study religious education (which tends to be comparative, but still largely based on Christianity). I had to say grace before I could eat lunch at primary school. When I went to (a state) university to do my first degree, each college had its own Christian chapel and we had a chaplain who was responsible for leading services and for pastoral care of the whole student body. You really think that the school system I attended was trying to brainwash me into being an atheist? Surely it must be clear that they were actually trying to promote Christianity?

All of which has nothing to do with your original post. I wasn't offended by your suggestion that I am well-educated, liberal or humanist because I am proud to be all of those things. I was offended that you suggested that I must be a spoiled brat simply because I do not believe what you believe.

It's called faith. To put it simply, when we do things that aren't good for us, we hurt, and hurt others.

Just one example...this last Sunday, at our home, we had an 18th birthday party for my granddaughter. We had about 30 people here. One of those people was a guest of one of her friends. The girl was a very petite girl, in her late teens. The girl had an adorable baby with her. We started talking, the girl was bitter. She was bitter because her boyfriend left her, the moment she found out she was pregnant. She told me she had to raise the girl on her own, but with the help of her parents. I could feel her pain. BUT, she is feeling the pain of not being chaste, disciplined, she slept with someone outside of marriage. The female has to use better judgment because she is the one that literally is left with the responsibility. The boy also has children now by another female. She wasn't happy. I said nothing, just listened. She is presently dating someone else, but you can see, hear, feel her bitterness. I hope she finds some happiness.

Matty spent many minutes knocking my discussion on religion on SC. Then, he creates a survey that evokes more discussions.

It's a bit like an adult that snatches candy off a baby because it's annoying him, then starts to eat it himself.

Is that what you see? I thought this as more of an invitation for you to speak your mind where no one could accuse you of flame throwing and where we could exchange thoughts reasonably? Apparently, that's not what you wanted...your loss.

> Is that what you see? I thought this as more of an invitation for
> you to speak your mind where no one could accuse you of flame throwing
> and where we could exchange thoughts reasonably? Apparently, that's
> not what you wanted...your loss.

I don't see a difference between this survey and the forum post I created earlier this week.

You do, however!

Obviously, I created this with you in mind. I was hoping you would respond "on neutral ground." Certainly you see the difference between posing a hypothetical question and posting an article about some nut.

> Obviously, I created this with you in mind. I was hoping you would
> respond "on neutral ground." Certainly you see the difference between
> posing a hypothetical question and posting an article about some nut.


It's double standards. I wouldn't tell someone to stop talking about A and then create a survey on A, rather than B-Z

But let's leave it...

So you tell me, why did you turn atheist? Are your parents atheist? I know England has changed in the last few decades. Perhaps you felt you just as well join the worldliness around you. I know England and Europe have been bombarded with unChristian peoples. I'm sorry if I offend you, it's not my intention, I'm truly interested.

> So you tell me, why did you turn atheist? Are your parents atheist?
> I know England has changed in the last few decades. Perhaps you
> felt you just as well join the worldliness around you. I know England
> and Europe have been bombarded with unChristian peoples. I'm sorry
> if I offend you, it's not my intention, I'm truly interested.

Unfortunately, most Britains are still religious, despite what you may think!

The differnce for me was I invited a discussion, deliberately trying to avoid offense to anyone. Your post seemed to be the exact opposite. By posting an article about someone with a sordid sense of relgion, it was as if you were saying that religion is generally like this. Further, I never said to stop talking about it. Rather, I suggested that you not act obnoxious about it.

But, whatever, call me what you like. What I can tell you is that this was meant as a venue for us to discuss this reasonably. You take it as you wnay, the only qualification is that you understand my intent.

She's lucky. Could you imagine what a mess she'd be if she were raised by gay parents?

What you're calling faith is self-discipline to others. You don't need to believe in any particular god to want to carry yourself well and conduct yourself in an appropriate manner.

> The differnce for me was I invited a discussion,
> But, whatever, call me what you like.

What do you post a forum message for if it is not for a discussion? Because that is what I post one for!?

Why not look at my latest one

Because they need proof before they'll believe. They are scientific thinkers. It has absolutely nothing to do with wanting to be unaccountable for anything.

I agree most British peoples are Christian. Unfortunately, they have been invaded with peoples that are not Christian....Muslims

You understand what I mean.... We cause much of our own pain, by not following good advice.

You made my point, they're depending on science, instead of God's Word. This is college higher learning...which they've proven that most scientists are atheists.

> I agree most British peoples are Christian. Unfortunately, they have
> been invaded with peoples that are not Christian....Muslims


Unfortunately? Are you having a laugh?

If you was you invading Britain, it would be unfortunate. There is nothing wrong with Muslims, in the same way there is nothing wrong with MOST people...

I like to think most people are good. I know a man that lives in England, he says it's not looking good. I know a woman, who travelled to Europe, England, on research for a book she was writing, and said the lands are being trampled on by the Muslim influence. They are destroying the land.

Sorry to disappoint you Wicksy, but I am of British descent, and proud of it.

I appreciate what you're saying, and at some level I agree that atheism is also an act of faith, in the sense that it is fundamentally about belief. However, you have left something out in asking "Aren't both opinions based on belief rather than fact?" Both opinions are based on an assessment of the evidence presented to the people. How each of them decides to interpret the evidence is different, and with belief in God as with all interpretations that require moving beyond the evidence in order to make a conclusion, there is no firm ground. Every answer is an interpretation and an act of faith. So it just comes down to which explanation is more plausible to you. However, belief in God is different in that theists really have no concrete evidence at all for the existence of a god, whereas atheists have considerable physical evidence that argues against the existence of a god. Ultimately, though, that doesn't really matter, since the whole point of faith is that you have it regardless of the evidence.

> I like to think most people are good. I know a man that lives in
> England, he says it's not looking good. I know a woman, who travelled
> to Europe, England, on research for a book she was writing, and said
> the lands are being trampled on by the Muslim influence. They are
> destroying the land.
>
> Sorry to disappoint you Wicksy, but I am of British descent, and proud
> of it.


And who is this man that said it's not looking good? What is he? British?

There is no so thing as British! Not one person living in Britain comes from the original inhabitants of the British Isles during the Neolithic period. Everyone from the Celts, Jutes, Saxons, Normans etc are all immigrants. Just like these Muslims that are apparently destroying the land.

Maybe your man friend needs to be reminded of this! He is as much an immigrant as the destroyers!

What point? Most of what you said in your first post was wildly inaccurate. Do you think all these scientists are only disbelievers just so they can do whatever they want with no accountability?

Most of them are Atheists before they even enter college, and some were never believers to begin with. People don't 'depend' on a book they never thought was important in the first place. That has nothing to do with the school system.

> So you tell me, why did you turn atheist?

I didn't "turn" atheist. Atheism is the default position - it's an absence of belief rather than necessarily being an active choice. In that sense, I have been an atheist since I was born. My mother is an atheist too, but I don't remember us ever discussing the concept of God when I was young. She did read us the Christmas and Easter stories and we had a children's Bible which I liked to read, but they were never presented as true and I never thought they were any more real than any of the other stories I read.

I became much more knowledgeably and actively atheist when I was about 20 years old. That was the point at which I feel I really became fully aware of what the concept was that I was refuting. That was when I stopped passively not believing and truly started to actively disbelieve. Part of the reason was that I had gone away to university and my two best friends there were both Christians. We talked a lot about faith and religion and that was in contrast to my degree where I was studying a lot of evolutionary biology. One of my friends invited me to attend a weekly course run by a local church (similar to the alpha course). It was really interesting to get the opportunity to discuss Christianity with a large group of people, some of whom were committed believers, some who wanted to believe but seemed to feel they needed permission to do so and the occasional disbeliever. Actually, I think I was the only real disbeliever in the room... They were lovely people, warm, friendly, articulate and intelligent. They talked about God and Christ with passion and love. I felt myself wanting to be part of their community, because it seemed very welcoming and comforting, but none of their answers really stacked up. They made some ridiculous claims that seemed sensible on the surface, but when I looked into them I realised that they had been made up or blown out of all proportion. Crucially some of the arguments they were making on the basis of the gospel they chose for the course (Mark) simply didn't hold up when you looked at any of the other gospels. I read more and more and I thought more and more about it. I considered different perspectives, I examined whether my confidence in the scientific method was somehow blinding me, but I found no significant holes in my logic whilst their arguments were full of holes that they struggled to explain away.

Throughout the course, I watched other people become more and more convinced that what they were being told was true. I was able to observe them going from wanting to believe but not quite being able to make the leap of faith to actually making that leap. It was a fascinating process to observe, because it seemed far more dependent on the fact that the people running the course were nice people who kept telling stories about intelligent people who had become Christians than any presentation of evidence. In other words, these were people who desperately wanted to believe, who were looking for that warm and welcoming community, who just worried that being Christians would somehow reflect badly on their intelligence and reasoning ability. All they wanted was 'permission' to believe. I thought a lot about that and every time I did, I came to the same conclusion: they were being brainwashed. That was really my final step from passive atheism to active atheism. Since then, I've read a lot on the subject, from both perspectives, some of which made me think a lot, but ultimately I am confident that there is no God.

I'm not sure if anything that I have written here will make sense to you, or if you are able to understand it at all, but you said you were truly interested, so there you go.

My friend Bob is a Brit, born and raised. He said he doesn't hardly recognize the land anymore, he said it looks like Bangledesh, and his taxes have become unbearable, because of the influx of third world peoples.

There are boundries, God set borders, to families of like kind, but the nomads, wonder around the world, invading other countries. It seems they like what the European white Christian countries have. Do you feel I have the right to invade your home Wicksy? Trample on it, causing great expense to you?

Satan is doing his bidding, causing confusion around the world, and helping bringing on the One World Economic system...the BEAST.

So, in essence atheists go into the scientific field.

Not always.

Very well said.

> My friend Bob is a Brit, born and raised. He said he doesn't hardly
> recognize the land anymore, he said it looks like Bangledesh, and
> his taxes have become unbearable, because of the influx of third world
> peoples.
>

Muslims born in the UK are also Brits, born and raised. GET OVER IT!

> There are boundries, God set borders, to families of like kind, but
> the nomads, wonder around the world, invading other countries.

No, continental drift set borders.


> It seems they like what the European white Christian countries have.
> Do you feel I have the right to invade your home Wicksy? Trample
> on it, causing great expense to you?

I see no reason why people can't live anywhere on the planet, regarding race, colour or creed.


> Satan is doing his bidding, causing confusion around the world, and
> helping bringing on the One World Economic system...the BEAST.

There are Brits, and then there are people that call themselves Brits.....they're guest Brits. It's like if I were to be born in Africa, China, Mexico, I am not African, Chinese, or Mexican, I would be a guest citizen. I would be European born in another nation.

Ok, with your reasoning, you feel people can live just anywhere on this planet, well, I guess you're ready to invite anyone into your home? Sit down at your dinner table? Are you going to invite anyone, even though you have nothing in common?

God set the borders, with families of like kind.

There's a difference between having someone in your house and having them in your neighborhood.

I am not British because my father is white.
I am not British because my father was born here, or because his father was born here.
I am not British because although my mother was born in West Germany, it was on a British military camp.

My best friend's dad was born in Morocco. But she's British, because she doesn't have anywhere else. Nor do I.
He's also British, because he calls Britain his home.

Would I invite him round for dinner? No, he's not well.
Would I invite my own mother round for dinner? No, she's a dog.
Would I invite a North Korean man I've never met before into my home? No, I have no reason to.

My house is my house, but I am not the keeper of my country.

You identify as a European, so doesn't it then follow that you are a guest citizen of America?

You appear to believe in a world that is split into 'families' and distinct racial cultures. So there is a European family and an African family and a Chinese family and the borders are set by God.

So, why is it that you do not speak Cherokee? When God 'set the borders' as you say, America was not a country inhabited by Europeans. The modern borders of the United States are not divinely inspired but derived from a combination of war, the Louisiana Purchase and driving Native Americans off their land.

> You appear to believe in a world that is split into 'families' and
> distinct racial cultures. So there is a European family and an African
> family and a Chinese family and the borders are set by God.
>
> So, why is it that you do not speak Cherokee? When God 'set the borders'
> as you say, America was not a country inhabited by Europeans. The
> modern borders of the United States are not divinely inspired but
> derived from a combination of war, the Louisiana Purchase and driving
> Native Americans off their land.

Well said. I don't expect LJD to understand it though

Yes, God set borders. My great grandfather intermarried, something he should not have done. Native Americans are not that native, they migrated here from the regions of Asia. They were not driven from their borders. We had as much a right to this country, as the Indian. We, the European made this country great, not the indian. Once this country was created, developed, then all the third world countries want a piece of the action.

Hmmmm good point. I think it takes just as much faith as a theist to be an atheist. Neither can prove or disprove the other's beliefs.

> Yes, God set borders. My great grandfather intermarried, something he should not have done. Native Americans are not that native, they migrated here from the regions of Asia. They were not driven from their borders. We had as much a right to this country, as the Indian. We, the European made this country great, not the indian. Once this country was created, developed, then all the third world countries want a piece of the action.

If the Indians would have murdered all of your European males ancestors, than it would still belong to them. But they didn't. They were willing to share till they found out what murderous thugs the white Europeans were.This has got to be the stupidest...most ignorant and selfish...narrow minded....assinine egotistical white trash sentiment I have ever heard.

A heck of a lot.

This is precisely why I am an agnostic. I don't know if there is a god or not. And I have always held that it is as great an act of faith to believe there is no god as it is to believe there is a god. I simply do not have that much faith.

None. It only takes intelligence and clear logical thinking.

> Native Americans are not that native, they
> migrated here from the regions of Asia.

Actually, the term 'native' refers to wherever a person was born, regardless of where there ancestors were born. Anyone born in America is a native American. That's why I don't use Native American when I speak of American Indians. The term does not mean what the proponents of it's use want it to mean. The words they are looking for are either 'Aboriginal American' or 'Original American'. A native American though, is simply anyone born in America. I'm sure you what a 'Nativity scene' is right? What does such a scene depict?

Yes, it means a process of being born. I know you are agnostic Curt., We do not believe the same. There are identifications which separate peoples. I am of European descent, as well as Cherokee Indian.. If my parents were of European descent, and I happen to be born in Africa, it does not mean I am an African. There were borders, I believe in borders. I believe for a happier people, there would be less intermingling. I get along well, am respectful of others, but believe in separatism. As we can see in America today, and around the world, intermingling causes trouble. Even if there were more than one ethnic group within a border, no intermarrying should take place. This is the reason we once had a law forbidding intermarriage...on the Biblical basis. Intermarriage has hurt the innocent children. Satan causes confusion, he is the god of confusion. God likes order.

> Yes, it means a process of being born. I know you are agnostic
> Curt., We do not believe the same. There are identifications
> which separate peoples. I am of European descent, as well as Cherokee
> Indian..
> If my parents were of European descent, and I happen to
> be born in Africa, it does not mean I am an African.

It would just mean you were native African. That term, native African, says nothing about your heritage, your ethnicity or your citizenship. It simply supplies a bit of general information about where you were born. A native San Franciscan is someone who was born in San Francisco. I am a native Norfolkian...Norfolkite? Ahh, whatever, I was born in Norfolk.

> I believe in borders. I believe for a happier people, there would
> be less intermingling. I get along well, am respectful of others,
> but believe in separatism.
> As we can see in America today, and around
> the world, intermingling causes trouble.

As I see it, it's not the intermingling that causes trouble, but troublemakers.

> Even if there were more
> than one ethnic group within a border, no intermarrying should take
> place. This is the reason we once had a law forbidding intermarriage...on
> the Biblical basis. Intermarriage has hurt the innocent children.
> Satan causes confusion, he is the god of confusion. God likes order.

As far as I know, the Bible forbade marriage out of the Hebrew religion and had no racial or ethnic basis. The only requirement was that if you wanted to marry someone outside the Hebrew religion, that someone had to accept the Hebrew religion. When Isaac's daughter Dinah was supposedly raped by Shechem, Shechem fell in love with her and his father Hamor went out to strike a deal with Isaac and his sons. They agreed with the deal so long as Hamor and Shechem and all the Hivites under their rule would circumcise themselves. Now, as it turned out, this was actually a rather treacherous ploy on the part of Isaac's sons, as the Hivites agreed, circumcised themselves and, while they were all still recovering from the operation, Isaac's sons attacked them and razed their city. All because of a rather dubious supposition of rape. The reason I am sceptical of the rape charge against Shechem is that rape is an act of contempt. I have strong doubts that any rapist would ever fall in love with their victims.

Moses married the daughter of a Midianite, or Moabite, depending on which chapter and book of the Old Testament you consult. In Exodus, Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, was a Midianite, but in Joshua and I believe, Judges, he was occasionally referred to as a Moabite.

I understand your what your definition of "native" means.

Curt, why would God refer to others by a name such as a Midianite, Moabite, Hittite, or such? Because there were differences in landscape.

Yes, there are those that are going up against God's Word, and they are causing problems in the World..

We should try to make life simple, not confuse it.

>
> We should try to make life simple, not confuse it.
>

Keep things as simple as possible, but no simpler. This saying is attributed to Albert Einstein, but in fact the original source is hard to track down. We have to beware of making things more simple than they ought to be.