Why Would An Atheist Trust God?

Good luck, Socrates. I'm plumb worn out from all the snotty Christian bashing that's been the bread and butter of the vine so I'll just read along for a bit.

Why people can't disagree with a Christian without getting some kind of ridiculously rude "jab" in in the process is beyond me but it seems most of them can't. It's like trying to talk to a wall.

So...good luck.

How can this be.....if God isn't real?

The question of the existence of God is irrelevant to the abilities or potential of a group of humans in a society.

This is why I said: "... to any group, religious or not."

In other words, if God is powerless, doesn't protect one's rights, and simply does not exist, then why the oppostition to Christians, and other religious groups?

Sorry which God are we talking about?

thelopes...I suggest that where you are wrong is in the irrelevancy.

Why?

You asked why people are opposed to groups of people.

You didn't ask why "atheists" are in opposition to God.

I'm not an atheist, but I don't think there would be a problem if Christians didn't try to force their theology down the country's throat.

The concept of god is very relevant. The concept of god stunts the mind and slows the progress of humanity. The concept of god leads to exclusionism, death and violence. Of course, there is no objective god to have any relevance, but certainly the concept is quite relevant.

Because, you said that God is irrelevant. If that's the case, why worry about Him?

No - I said "The question of the existence of God is irrelevant."

Also, what atheist worries about God? Again, you said people standing in opposition to people.

The reason, in my opinion, is because He is relevant.

The actions people can perform and how they can affect others is what is relevant.

Their personal reasoning or justification for any given action can become relevant in terms of communication or analysis.

I can say I trust God more than Man.

And what do you mean when you say that? What are you trusting about God more than Man?

as an atheist,

I trust God

The fact that I can point to a "higher law"

How do these three statements reconcile?

The fact that I can point to a "higher law" when entertaining such thoughts as liberty and freedom.

What is the source of this "higher law" concept?

God.

So, you trust in/point to a concept you believe originated from God. This would exclude you from being an atheist.

How can you state that you trust god over man and then claim to be an atheist? How can you trust in something that you inherently believe does not exist?

thelopes...we just went over it....it has to do with that "concept" thing.

And you aren't being clear.

At a guess - are you saying the 'concept' of higher law comes from the 'concept' of a God, not the actual deity?

Aren't you the one who suggested that God can have a negative impact through those who believe in him, even absent his existence?

I don't remember ever making any kind of suggestion like that.

If anything, I would have suggested religion, as a function of men, could have a negative impact, not a god.

Same difference...in this case.

In light of your original question, it makes all the difference. You specifically asked how an atheist could attribute something to a deity they don't believe in - this only works if they actually do that.

I'm attributing things to the religion of men, not to a deity I lack belief in.

Negative/positive influence...both, or neither, are possible.

I disagree that either are possible influences from God absent the existence of that deity.

Then you are being inconsistent.

Could you identify the two stances that are inconsistent? I mean, in post 1.22, you were unsure if I had expressed what you wanted to pin on me, were you not?

My opinion, I think you are so intent on "winning" that you are completely missing the chance to do some thinking.

My opinion is that your entire premise is based on an atheist blaming an action on a God they have no faith in existing. You pulled that out of nowhere in post 1.1 - and need that to justify the reverse in 1.22, but haven't presented such an example.

You want to pin it on me by brushing away it as 'making no difference' when I suggested I would point to the human community of 'religion' and not a deity concept - but that won't work, the difference between the actions of humans and a supernatural 'god' is far too great for your leap to work.

Am I thinking about your point incorrectly? Would you kindly identify your issue with that outlook?

"God" works through those who believe in him, for good or for ill.

If "God" doesn't exist, it is simply man working for good or for ill. So your trust in "God" over man would just be... trusting man over man.

The reason so many atheists are intolerant is because of their belief that Man reigns supreme.

You've agreed with me that atheism is valueless, right?

And now you want to attribute a value globally to atheists? Bit of a disconnect there, eh?

In Christianity, for example, the individual has value.

Except, you know, all those cases in which Christianity has decided the individual didn't matter and should be killed for blasphemy, or disagreement, or when Christianity condoned slavery.

In the case of an atheist, its a matter of numbers.

You've claimed to be an atheist - so are you speaking from your own perspective here?

I think we'll have to end this discussion as we did the last one.

With trash throwaway posts like 1.22? Where you put words into my mouth and then conclude you're right because the words you're attributing to me fit with your logic?

I'm afraid that you are exhibiting no ability to follow logic, even your own,

"Atheists are valueless" as you've said before...

"Atheists are intolerant is because of their belief that Man reigns supreme" as you've said just now...

How are you following your own logic right there?

and, again as I said before, I believe it to be due to your apparent inability to start from the beginning and build on that foundation, rather than starting at the end, and than attempting to prove your point.

... what you're accusing me of is precisely what this article does. Hilarious.

You begin at the end - "my concept is an atheist trusting God" - and you work backwards, saying you want to answer confusion you've shown - so you are attempting to post-prove your point.

There's then no building of any foundation in that article - you conclude with "the answer is easily understood" without presenting any answer.

Here's my suggestion - please do start at the beginning and build on a foundation. Craft a thesis and then continue to present paragraphs with topic sentences that support the topic sentences and subsequently the thesis itself. As my high school teachers said - outline your thoughts, it'll help you go far.

I did start at the beginning.

No, you started at the end - you started at "When I say x, people are confused."

To start at the beginning, you would start at what lead you to that X, not the reaction.

I will apologize for my frustration.

Please don't. It was the most interesting thing so far. A self-hating atheist of all things.

Here's where you seem to have problems....

Religion has been shown to instill tolerance in societies which practice religion A.

Religion has been shown to support intolerance in societies which practice religion B.

How do you reconcile the religions that instill tolerance in one society, and intolerance in another?

I examine those who are part of "my" group, and suggest where they might improve.

By trusting a God concept they lack belief in above the elements of Man that use and sometimes abuse that concept?

I can only assume your last question is facetious....while at the same time suggesting I have already answered it.

I don't have much faith in this question - but could you identify which post you already answered it in?

ok the short, short version. Some people are against the idea of a fictional being being used as the justification of some of the worlds most horrible atrocities.

I find it funny you mention religious controlled countries held value in the individual. You mean the individual who was murdered because he thought for himself? The individual who was murdered for being who he/she was born as. Take a look at iran and see some of that religious love, take a look at previous societies run by religion. The individual was no more valuable in a theocracy, than a communist dictatorship. How many cultures were wiped out, or nearly wiped out thanks to religio-facism? How many innocent men, women, children, and babies were "purified"(IE murdered brutally) at the hands of the xtians

I dont deny such people exist. I do deny that the so called "god" exists

I dont, I counter when Im having the bibull, and "god" shoved down my throat nearly every day, and seeing "god", and the bibull crammed into secular law every day(IE anti-gay bigotry, anti-separation of church, and state, anti-women's rights, topped off with lies, lies, and more lies) you must do this, you must vote this, you cannot do this the bibull says so, the bibull says so kraaawwwk! polly wanna cracker.

I honestly dont care if other people believed in fiction, so long as they keep it to themselves, and keep it out of law, and leave people alone. But they dont. Hell Id keep my yap shut if others of a certain nature would be so kind as to. But they dont. Id keep to myself if others would keep to themselves, alas they dont. Which is why we have anti-gay bigotry so rampant(my main beef against religion, besides the brutal murdering of the past). I get so sick and tired of hearing every time, a perfectly natural disaster hits some nimrod is on the air screaming CONVERT!!! give me money!!!! god is this, and god is that, and jesus is blah blah. Just like the nimrods crowing that japan had the tsunami because they were not xtian. pfffft puulease.

When the BS stops, the bigots stop blocking people's rights, leave women's bodies to the women, stop leeching off of society(IE pay their taxes), and stop trying to cram, and shove the bibull, and a theocracy down our throats, then Ill shut up. Like I said I wouldnt say a thing if they would keep to themselves, and followed the supreme law of the USA, the Constitution. Atheists rail against religion because religion cannot leave people alone, they think that everyone has to submit to them, and follow their book of fairy tales, and fantasy.

LMFAO you have got to be kidding me, or must have lived in the most liberal state in the country. Talking about hysterical, hysterically funny dude. ROTF :) thanks for the good laugh on that one.

at least my mind is based in reality, and not fantasy.

hey the truth is usually where it all stops.

which we see every day from the right wing, and the religious. ESP when they are forced to, you know obey the law, and common decency.

Tick, tick, tick

Vlad's dog...not really...my underlying issue is how atheists can both blame God, and than suggest he is irrelevant.

I can't recall ever having heard an athiest blame God for anything. Do you have examples that might add to the discussion?

And when I do?

If you have an example of an atheist seriously, genuinely, blaming God for anything - I'd be rather very surprised.

And when I do?

At the very least, it would give this discussion a direction to proceed.

Because you don't want too.

I agree with you, Baron. If Christians would just live Christian lives and allow others to live theirs I don't think there would be any problems. The problems start when theology starts creeping into our laws and government.

Let me say the same thing but from the other side of the fence:

If Atheists and anti-religionists would just live their own lives and allow others to live theirs I don't think there wold be any problems.

See how that works? There's two sides to every coin.

See how that works? There's two sides to every coin.

I do!!! How do we get that to happen???

What do you want us to do? We aren't out to stop you from practicing religion, we are just out to stop you from injecting your religion into laws which govern us all. What you want is for us to be quiet and pretend we don't exist. Why should we have to? You certainly don't. What we want is to uphold the constitution. How could it be any different? We have no dogma to inject into law. We have nothing in common but a lack of belief in any deity, and we want to be allowed to live according to the laws of this nation and free of religious tyranny. That is all.

mrsrachelm, you make no sense. What are Christians forced into? Who is interfering?

If Atheists and anti-religionists would just live their own lives and allow others to live theirs I don't think there wold be any problems.

See how that works? There's two sides to every coin.

Great. So we reach a secular government, stay out of each other's lives and beliefs, and everybody's happy.

One problem; a secular government depends on religion (Christianity) to maintain its secularism.

One problem; a secular government depends on religion (Christianity) to maintain its secularism.

It relies on understanding all religions in order to remain allied to none.

I agree that understanding each other is important; however, my point was 'absence' and the effects of it, moreso, than "understanding."

however, my point was 'absence' and the effects of it, moreso, than "understanding."

What would those effects be?

Loss of balance (no 'check').

As another viner once stated that I often quote, " The separation of religion from State is a guarantee that the State will become the religion."

Loss of balance (no 'check').

How would Christianity in government be 'balance'?

As another viner once stated that I often quote, " The separation of religion from State is a guarantee that the State will become the religion."

So, your suggestion is that it is inevitably a theocracy - just a question of which theocracy you prefer?

The separation of religion from State is a guarantee that the State will become the religion."

Except that last I checked, not very many religions were open to elections of its members to determine the tenets of faith. Sorry--that's a GIANT distinction there.

I'm not suggesting promoting the specific tenets of doctrine as in a Theocracy (e.g. many of the Muslim countries). I'm suggesting that without religious moralism as a 'check' in the system, then the system has no one of which to be accountable. It would be nice if "We, the poeple" could be that; however, too many layers of government have been created. We are too far removed from where the corruption happens. Sure, corruption is most likely going to happen either way, but I do believe that without the religious "check," it would be even worse.

I'm also suggesting the freedoms that are afforded us, as a result of religious influence. A State is likely to be Totalitarian in foundation, whereas, Christianity stresses freedom and choice for the individual.

but I do believe that without the religious "check," it would be even worse.

What religious check currently happens in government?

Hehehe... knew you'd catch me with that one, huh?! ☺

I'm not wanting to suggest that I want to see a run-away, Far-right situation; the Left is supposed to be keeping that in-check (and the reason why they aren't is because they are part of it..but anyway..). Nor, am I saying that the Christians are right or wrong in other issues (e.g. same-sex marriage or abortion), and should be there just to dissent opposition to their beliefs. I'm merely saying that we can't have a government that is either fully 'one' or the other. Each keep the other in check--or, atleast are supposed to.

Maybe someone else can chime in with a good example for your question. Personally, what comes to mind for me is more political than 'social.' Basically what I've already suggested..protection to the individual in concerns of human rights, physical-emotional-financial harm (treatment..not social constructs).

What you want is for us to be quiet and pretend we don't exist. Why should we have to?

Many a person of various religions have made this exact same statement and asked this same question as well.

As I said, there are two sides to that coin.

except religion is forcing others to adhere to it's unproven, and outmoded model of life(example: DOMA, anti-abortion laws, etc)

Anti-abortion laws? Last time I checked abortions have been are are still legal and available in the Country. Let me know when that actually changes because we all know it won't regardless of protests etc.

AS far as it being an outmoded model of life......I'll use the same argument all the pro-choice people use.....if you don't want to live or believe that way then don't. You really aren't being forced into practicing any spiritual system here in the USA.

What many people, possibly even you, fail to realize is that freedom of speech and freedom of religion cuts BOTH ways. You are free to feel it's outmoded and thereby not practice it or "approve of it" just as other are free to feel it's still valid and current and practice it all they want. You are no more correct in your assumption that they may or may not be in theirs. Welcome to the land of the free.

The problems comes when you behave the exact way you accuse them of behaving. Meaning, when you force -your- ideals down their throats by verbal bullying, trying to limit their free exercise thereof by silencing them as much as possible. We see this happening in schools where children are not allowed to even wear religious jewelry and many many other places as well. If -you- want them to be neither seen nor heard....then you also should be following those same prohibitions. But that's not what anti-religionists want. They want to continue to express their freedoms (to the point of even twisting the meaning of the Constitution to be "freedom -from- religion) while limiting the freedoms of others via that same Constitution who have been granted "freedom OF religion" which allows them the freedom to not only practice their religious Faiths in general but also in public. (And don't bring up a drama-lama example of child sacrifice or some such lame thing to make your point)

How so? We have no dogma to impose. We have no unity except in terms of our lack of belief. We simply have nothing to impose on others except the constitution of the country in which we live.

atheists, by their own admition (sp), are valueless, ie. share no common values, people walk away in disgust....interesting...

Your problem is likely in your language - I doubt everytime you say they are 'valueless' you include your i.e. reference.

The difference being that 'atheism' has no dogma, no set of values. Atheists themselves likely have a variety of values. Those values would be independent of their atheism.

Try saying "Atheists share no common values" and I doubt an atheist would walk away in disgust. Tell them simply that "atheists are valueless" is a judgment about them as an individual, not about the concept as a whole.

I guess Christians are valuless as well because one can't ascertain their values from the fact that they claim to be Christian either.

Saying that we have no dogma as atheists, is not the same as saying we are valueless. We have values, we just don't get them from a magical sky-man. Atheism is without doctrine on morality, in which sense you can say that atheism has no morality, but to say that atheists have no morality is patently false.

atheists are valueless...one cannot ascertain one's values from the term.

Again, you problem is in your use of words.

The term valueless doesn't mean "one cannot ascertain their value from the term" - it means (among other things) without moral or spiritual values.

Atheists aren't without moral values, they just take them without referencing that categorization.

No, atheists are without any particular value system....

Any given atheist will have a value system, and so "atheists" will have all sorts of value systems.

atheism, itself, according to its practitioners, is valueless.

Right, atheism is valueless, not atheists.

Just to end the discussion...fine...we'll see how it goes when I say atheism is valueless.

Just so we're clear - 'atheism' is valueless because atheism doesn't deal in values. Just like, I don't know, "being a fan of snow" is valueless.

Perhaps I'm not seeing the point you are trying to make but I'm not aware of any atheists that would suggest that.

Me either... Sometimes it can be challenging to get Socrates to explain his reasoning... I have seen him say something like... (paraphrase) The meaning is self-evident. If you don't understand there is nothing I can say that will help. This statement in this article...

The answer, in my opinion, is quite easily understood.

...put me on alert for getting the "self-evident" argument. Socrates is an interesting guy, but not easy to engage in meaningful discussion.

...instead of simply answering why you think that this dichotomy is false.

Socrates does that quite often...

I'd still like it spelled out, please

Don't hold your breath...

MalamuteMan,

I kind of figured from his name...

But why play his game?

:)

It will be an interesting experiment, the battle of the questions. Will any information be passed - or will heads thicken?

Find out...

When?

:D

flameaway,

Will any information be passed...

Usually there isn't much "passing of information" when one or more of the participants is determined to be "right" at any cost... Although, I must say in my efforts to communicate with him I have glean a little information about Socrates' conversational tactics... not a whole lot else. *shrug*

Except that when you say that you trust god (or capitalize god like it means a name) you are implying an existance to trust in (and name).

Whether you do so to provoke an inquiry or not, you have done so.

On the other hand, I tend to agree that if someone is confident enough to be an athiest on no more evidence than the believer, they probably shouldn't be worrying about god at all.

It's a case of protest too much. Follower or anti-follower it does not matter.

If, as I see so often, people suggest that God is irrelevant, than why the problem with God's existence?

I don't suggest that God is irrelevant. As you rightly point out,

whether He exists or not, can have an effect on how people act.

That is "the problem." I have no issue with his existence, real or not. My concern is with the way SOME of his followers act.

Oh Socrates...... you're at it again......let's give you a bit of logical reaction here...... do atheists care if others worship their conception of a higher power?...... not at all....... everyone has their own way of establishing their place in a very large cosmos....... do we blame god for the actions of man?.......not at all......what we blame is that man can use a construct that they have developed to enslave and destroy others....that is wrong......people act because they have sentience, a mind that makes so many electrical connections that more questions arise, than answers........ some act on that sentience through the study of science......some act on that sentience through the study of religion......some act on sentience by following the word of others.... to each his/her own. ...... but to argue that it is a conceptual frameword like a god image that drives atheists is a massive failure of logic.......I, as an atheist, want all of humanity to thrive in every important realm to each of them.......if that includes the practice of religion, fine..... what I don't want is to waste my time in fending off the prosyletization of the religious to those who do not believe or believe differently......if religion is kept at home or in the church, people are free to worship as they please......just not in the public square.

if religion is kept at home or in the church, people are free to worship as they please......just not in the public square.

that statement totally supports my earlier point which was:

But that's not what anti-religionists want. They want to continue to express their freedoms (to the point of even twisting the meaning of the Constitution to be "freedom -from- religion) while limiting the freedoms of others via that same Constitution who have been granted "freedom OF religion" which allows them the freedom to not only practice their religious Faiths in general but also in public.

and also points out that this statement...

What you want is for us to be quiet and pretend we don't exist.

made as a complaint against the religious on behalf of atheists also applies to what many atheists and anti-religionists expect of people who practice various religious Faiths. They want them to ONLY practice their religious freedom as limited to ONLY in their places of worship or their private residence. As soon as anyone makes such a statement the "freedom" portion of their Constitutional rights of freedom OF religion is made null and void.

People of various spiritual Faiths have every right to practice those beliefs not only out of sight in their places of worship or homes but -also- in the public square as well....just as atheists are free to do so.

The billboards at Christmas and other religious holidays are a perfect example. Not only can various religious institutions put up billboards with their message, so do atheists with theirs. Both are protected under the Constitution. Atheists are free to be annoyed by Christian billboards and Christians are free to be annoyed by the atheist ones but neither group has the right to silence the other.

Don't fear atheists. Most are not amoral or the anti-Christ. As an atheist, I still love and respect my religious friends. Anyone can share their values with me, but please don't impose them.

I don't reject all Christian values. I simply lost faith, as biblical evidence is not convincing. I often trust in the aspirations of those seeking higher principles, but I do not trust our god (concepts), which, IMHO, humanity has failed to understand. Regardless, the added line, In God We Trust, doesn't offend me. I see nothing wrong with stating a higher authority (above mankind) that represents a supreme set of values. I consider it as a metaphor.

Peace to you.

I don't think the 'point' is about what God 'does,' rather man's interpretation of his 'word.'

But then, I might be missing the point, as well.

well for one thing the ones who do believe in this so called "god" use this so called "god" to justify oppressing minority groups(past & present), to slander them, legislate against them, or....worse.

I wouldn't blame gods for that, save for allah. I think atheists manage the same thing quite as well. For instance they feel it is necessary to attack the Christians, because they think that there is no "God". Or the Jews, not because of their religion, but because they are, well, Jews, which should be reason enough for anyone.

Xtians use their fictional being as a excuse to try, and circumvent the constitution(which is actually what guarentees our rights, tho our rights are born in)

Oh, I see, the very document that guarantees them freedom of their belief, including freedom from oppression by atheists. Like I said - one does not have to believe in god to find a reason to "oppress others, to slander them, legislate against them or...worse". Just re-read your post, look in the mirror, and try to recognize that you're doing the very thing you're accusing them gawd-fearing people of doing. Not sure is this should be classified as blind irony, or hypocrisy.

I wouldn't blame gods for that, save for allah.

You do know that Allah is the same God as the Christian and Jewish God right?

All the same dude, however you guys can't agree on anything about him :-)

You do know that Allah is the same God as the Christian and Jewish God right?

Being personally on familiar terms with all three, as well as having studied the evolution of the teachings, as well as deeds and views of their followers, I can assure you - they are not the same being.

All the same dude, however you guys can't agree on anything about him :-)

You guys? You meant to say - we atheists? Of course we can - we all have no need for gawds.

Are you saying Abrahamic religions don't share the same God?

"you guys" ... sorry that was poor.

Sorry, Soc, but since there is no God, and we know the exact names and times when specific people invented and augmented the idea - they came with three very-very-very different works of art. I was in Israel in some Christian Orthodox monastery, where orthodoxes from around the world send pictures of St. Mary with baby Jesus (yes it was around Christmas), and I cannot convey how astonished I was to see the differences in the almost everything - built, color, facial expression all of love and care, but what a variety, and even baby Jesus had as many faces as there were countries present, including a very Asian-looking child from Japan. So, no, not semantics - specifics, three very different images, for three very different purposes.

I know, but I am going back to your observation about majority's severe handycap for conceptual thought.

and thus the reason I trust God, more than Man.

You trust God to what? Trust what about God?

and thus the reason I trust God, more than Man.

Wait, are you saying you're an atheist now?

Stop thinking in bits, and attempt to think in concepts.

How do you trust a concept?

That would be a question that I will leave to your imagination.

So, the statement is meaningless?

No, the question is.

Then what's the meaning to the statement? :)

I have to agree with you here, lib, which doesn't happen often. But when you're right...you're right.

Why thank you, mrsrachel. That was unexpected! : )

I know! Damn, those tiny patches of common ground every now and then are messing with my mind!

;-P