The evolution of an atheist.

You misunderstood me. I meant it as a straightforward question wondering what he had in mind. I'm not convinced that theology is the only way. I can even suggest that philosophy might be another way and I'm not at all convinced that in the long run science, or at least theoretical science might give us insights into an afterlife. Who knows? I'm not suggesting that I can prove any of what I believe to you, but on the other hand I don't have to. All I am giving are the reasons that I think that there is justification for believing that the basic tenets of the Christian faith are true. Some will say it's hogwash and there will be those like myself who say this sounds reasonable and on faith base our life on it.

Thanks Stile great post. Essentially I agree. I've pointed out in other threads, (or maybe even this one), that I believe that we have two scriptures. The first being the Bible and the second His creation. I would certainly include imagination in the second aspect of scripture.My experience has led to a strong belief in the scripture as laid out in the Bible as I find it completely consistent with the scripture of creation. I would include such things in that 2nd scripture as imagination, life experience, our relationships as well as science. I contend that this view is consistent with what the Bible tells us, when read as it, (in my view), was meant to be read. Paul writes in his letter to the Romans:

quote:

---

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

---

I was interested that you focused on imagination. Here is something from my imagination. When I was young I would look at older people and assume that their mind thought old. Now that I've gotten older I realize that isn't true. It seems to me that the mind just is. I still relate to myself and the world in the same way that I did when I was 20. Certainly I've gained knowledge and matured, (I gave myself lots of scope there), but I have a very real sense that I haven't aged at all. My body has certainly aged but the essential me is still the same as it was when I was 20. Even though the brain may not be as quick as it was, it hasn't changed the essential me. In other words it sure seems to me that my body is getting older but I'm not. This view of course comes strictly from imagination. Still when I've talked about this with family and friends I've found that most people seem to know what I'm talking about.Of course there is no verifiable evidence for that, and the only verifiable evidence for the Bible is the fact that it exists, but of course its accuracy can't be verified by any other means. In the end of course Christianity is a faith, but you have to believe in something even if it's nothing. As you pointed out, none of that is science.I'm sure we would agree that we should learn and form opinions by taking in as much as we can from wherever we can. Some things we'll reject and some things we'll take on board. I am quite open to changing my ideas based on new or better ideas or information. As a Christian, I can look back and say that there are many of my views that have changed over the last number of years as I continue to read and listen. I have no doubt that my views will change again in the future.

Absolutely but they are all brain things, that come partly from experience and partly from an aging brain. It just seems to me that there is something more fundamental.There is no question that many things have changed since I was 20. I'm now in my mid-sixties and I've changed my views on many things. At 20 I was agnostic for example. (Not that I thought much about it.) There is a sense that there is this "me" that perceives the world going by in a way that is unique to me but in a way that is more than just " beliefs, opinions, mental agility, memory/recall, spatial reasoning etc etc ". Certainly I have changed intellectually, (thank heavens) but still there is something, that I can't pin point that doesn't change. It's just me.However I agree it is completely subjective view point and we can all make what we want of it. It is anything but conclusive. I find it interesting to think about. I believe Rah doesn't exist.
You say that you are an atheist which means that you believe that there is no god(s). You can't prove it so therefore you have to believe that you are correct. Atheism is a belief just as much as Christianity is.

I might imagine winning the lottery but in doing so I know that it is unlikely to actually be true. (Particularly seeing as how I never buy lottery tickets.) I also might imagine that I'm going to a Thai restaurant with my wife tonight knowing very well that most likely will be the case. I guess we have to access the likelihood of the truth of where our imagination leads us. I didn't say that there isn't any evidence, I said that there is no verifiable evidence. I find the Christian ethos compelling. For example, Christ's message of love, forgiveness, mercy etc makes sense in that I can see that if we lived to the standard that He espoused, the world would be much more desirable place to live for all of us. Certainly that message can be found elsewhere, (Buddhism for example), but the whole Christian story from creation to new creation just rings true for me.Even though I do it poorly I base my life on the Christian faith. We all have to choose something to base our life on. It all boils down to faith in the end.As far as other religions are concerned, there are aspects of them I don't agree with. I don't believe in reincarnation for one thing. There are aspects of their faith I do agree with. As I mentioned I'm inclined to believe that the original Buddha was an inspired prophet in that he taught the whole concept of loving your enemy etc. His message was very similar to what Jesus taught.

I don't believe in the IPU. Can I prove that she doesn't exist? Therefor,e I have chosen to believe that that is the case. Can you define for me what you mean when you call yourself an atheist? Are you saying that you believe that there is no god, are you saying that he exists but you don't believe in what he stands for, or are you saying that there might be a god but he is ambivalent about us.In the end the fact remains that we exist and that we face what we call moral choices. Those choices have to be based on some standard. We have to have a general faith in where that standard comes from even if we believe that it is only from our own consciousness. In the end it is faith as none of us can conclusively prove the basis for our moral choices.

Hi BikermanI wrote up a rebuttal to your post on what is belief and what is unbelief but deleted it. Let's face it, we won't agree and it's a discussion that won't lead anywhere. The evidence as you see it leads you to not believe in God and the evidence as I see it leads me to believe that God does exist. How's that? Just curious as to where you think this universal ethic, (which I agree exists), comes from. Also, if we are just a chance combination of atoms why bother with it?By the way, just for the record I believe that God is a lot happier with the guy who humbly tries to adhere to this universal ethic or "tao' as CS Lewis writes about in The Abolition of Man, than He is with some Christian who with smug superiority thinks he's ok because he has his theology right. JMHO

I'm not sure what you are reading into my posts where you've gotten the idea that I believe, (there's that word again), that all beliefs are created equal. Obviously they're not.However when it comes to religious beliefs, (or lack of belief just to keep everyone happy ), then I think that we can agree that we can both look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions.I consider that the case that can be made for theism is much stronger than the case that can be made for atheism yet we might both be looking at the same information.In discussion with other theists I think that the case that can be made for Christianity is stronger than the case that can be made for other faiths. Having said that though I am quite prepared to agree that the case is more tenuous than the case for theism in general, and I will also concede that there is a great deal I don't know about my own faith let alone other faiths. There’s always so much more to learn.However, I absolutely agree that not all beliefs are equal and that there is more evidence for our belief that the earth revolves around the sun than there is for the bodily resurrection of Jesus. I guess I would add that it takes very little faith to believe that the earth revolves around the sun, it takes more faith to believe in the resurrection of Jesus, and more faith again to believe in the Roman gods.

Fair enough, but there do seem to me a number of people who are trying very hard to make the case for atheism. (Dawkins, Hitchens etc.)

I don't disagree with that at all, but on the other hand although I don't spend a great deal of time in the day thinking about God, (I spend a great deal of time thinking about me which is the basic problem), I have over the years developed a conditioned response to at least attempt to respond to whatever happens in the way that I believe God would want me to respond. (Not always with a great deal of success.) At my age the rhythm method works just fine and I'm not even Catholic. To be honest I do believe what my church teaches as I know do the majority of others in my church. (I spend time with them in home groups etc so I do know pretty much what it is they believe. It's a small Anglican church.)Edited by GDR, : No reason given.Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Absolutely but the same can be said for a theist. In order to accept atheism you have to accept that the universe and life evolved naturally from whatever there was at T=0. I can say that I can't accept that so I must be a theist.

Well some are certainly rational and consistent. You are, but it always concerns me as to how such a rational and consistent group can be so rationally and consistently wrong.

Not at all. If a person grows up without experiencing a case made for anything that would just leave them as agnostic. If one is to choose atheism they have to come to the conclusion that no god or gods exist. To make that choice they have had to either reject the message that a god exists or accept the case for atheism.

I think that you missed the intent of the post. Bikerman made the point that one could become an atheist by rejecting the case for theism and I was just attempring to point out that it works both ways.

It's a problem isn't it? However, when we look at human nature in some ways it makes sense. There are always going to be those who want things spelled out specifically so there aren't a lot of loose ends. These would be the literalists. There are those who aren't going to believe what they can't understand, and those would be the ultra-liberals. Next there are those of us who sit somewhere in the middle, just trying to sort things out as best we can. There is one truth but none of us will sort it all out in this life.Sure I have my beliefs but I have no doubt whatsoever that some of things that I believe are wrong. In the end it boils down to this. Do I believe in God's message of love, truth, mercy, forgiveness, justice etc, while living it out in my life for its own sake, or is my life based out looking out for number one. The thing about being a Christian is that it helps me understand the basis for that choice and I also believe that through prayer and faithfulness we can, in ways that are beyond my understanding, connect with God to help us lead a life style that continues to move us closer bit by bit to that ideal best expressed by "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

There either is an intelligence that accounts for our existence or there isn't. We can say that we can't know but that doesn't address the issue. There is a case to be made for the existence of that intelligence and there is a case to be made against it. We can evaluate either case and agree to it's veracity or we can evaluate either case and reject it and embrace the other.