Thank God, i'm an atheist!

Originally posted by whodey
What is ironic is that I feel the same way after I came to Christ.

I had the same thought.
It's interesting how a sinner can come to God through Christ and be freed from sin and guilt. Knowing that he is a sinner, he turns to Gods' provision, and it is God that does the work of making that person free of sin and guilt.
And then on the other hand, a man will try to find a way to excuse his guilt by his own methods. But if he would only look in closely at his heart, he will, if he is truly honest with himself, see he is still the same.

Originally posted by whodey
What is ironic is that I feel the same way after I came to Christ.

A change is as good as a holiday, they say.

Originally posted by josephw
Good bye God, i'd like to say it was nice knowing you but i've finally realised you were me all along.
******************************************************
This is why I posted my comments. They were not meant to be accusatory. His statement simply evoked me to express a thought.

I had read something the other day about atheism that went something li ...[text shortened]... e in order to claim that one knows there is no God one would have to possess all knowledge".

They were not meant to be accusatory. His statement simply evoked me to express a thought.

Indeed, it's the sign of a healthy thread that people can chime in with things, and we can then discuss them. Don't feel any need to explain or apologise!


"Atheism is a philosophical impossibility because in order to claim that one knows there is no God one would have to possess all knowledge".

However, this is rubbish. Atheism is not knowing conclusively there is no God. Theism isn't knowing conclusively there is a God (or it would be like believing in the kitchen sink - it just exists, and you don't believe in things which exist, they just do). Thus, either both are philosophical impossibilities, or neither are. I suspect the latter. I also suspect this came from an issue of "watchtower" or similar.

Originally posted by josephw
I had the same thought.
It's interesting how a sinner can come to God through Christ and be freed from sin and guilt. Knowing that he is a sinner, he turns to Gods' provision, and it is God that does the work of making that person free of sin and guilt.
And then on the other hand, a man will try to find a way to excuse his guilt by his own methods. But if ...[text shortened]... n closely at his heart, he will, if he is truly honest with himself, see he is still the same.

In my opinion, all the person who "comes to God for redemption" is doing is forgiving himself, if only by (imaginary) proxy.

Originally posted by josephw
I had the same thought.
It's interesting how a sinner can come to God through Christ and be freed from sin and guilt. Knowing that he is a sinner, he turns to Gods' provision, and it is God that does the work of making that person free of sin and guilt.
And then on the other hand, a man will try to find a way to excuse his guilt by his own methods. But if ...[text shortened]... n closely at his heart, he will, if he is truly honest with himself, see he is still the same.

To say that one is completly free of guilt there entire life, one would be either a liar or a sociopath whether there be a God or not. Guilt is, in fact, a healthy warning that you are in violation of a moral code of some kind. The question then becomes what to do with the guilt? For some they ignore it or suppress it. For others they wallow in it. As for me, however, I lay it at the foot of the cross. Granted, for some Christians that is not good enough. For some Chrisitians the thought of being free of their guilt, even though it is covered under the blood of Christ, is unthinkable. They reason that God could never forgive them for what they have done or that they really don't deserve to be forgiven etc. However, I am not one of them. For me, both ignoring guilt or wallowing in guilt are equally as unhealthy. I think the best method for dealing with guilt is to first recognize the guilt and then address the transgression so that one may repent or turn from such behavior.

So why is God necessary in all of this you may ask? Well the world condemns you for your transgressions as where God uses conviction. Conviction is a type of reproof rather than condemnation. Condemnation is only punitive in nature so as to deal out justice accordingly. Responding to such conviction is akin to a murderer being forgiven for their sins upon repentance to God even though he is on death row. God is able to forgive him but not those within the world. ONLY through Christ do we have an alternative for our transgressions other than condemnation.

Another reason that God is important in dealing with guilt is that often times God is the only vehicle for change upon repentance. Christ once said that when one sins one becomes a servant or slave of that particular sin. Only Christ has the keys to the shackles that bind us. Often times we hate what we do but feel compelled to continue much like a dog returning to its vomit.

Originally posted by josephw
Ok. We can do that. But wait till I find such a book, and I'll contact you when I have it. But I think postage will cost too much. I'm in the US and you're in GB.

Ok sure, which ever works out cheaper/easier. 🙂

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Thanks Marinka, I really enjoyed this.

I'm glad you have stepped out into the cold morning light of reality. However, a couple of observations, if I may. 1) Don't not go to your fathers orchestra things just because they are in a church. The church is unimportant, your father is. 2) [b]Richard Dawkins, dear boy, Richard. Now write it out 1000 times!!!![/b]

Doh!! I knew i was going to do that before i did it. I am constantly mixing him up with Hawking for obvious reasons. 😳

Originally posted by josephw
I had read something the other day about atheism that went something like this. "Atheism is a philosophical impossibility because in order to claim that one knows there is no God one would have to possess all knowledge".

I think we have discussed this before but maybe it was with somebody else.
The statement you are quoting is false and is based on the pretense that the word 'God' could be correctly used to mean absolutely anything. I think we both know that the word 'God' does not fit a being that exists solely as an entity hiding behind the invisible pink unicorn in my fridge. If you agree with that then you must agree that knowledge of the contents of my fridge is not required in order to know whether or not God exists. Hence your quote is false.

Originally posted by Marinkatomb
It's a Miracle! I have had an epiphany! For 28 years i have existed on this Planet and finally, i don't believe in God!

Having been born an innocent impressionable child, it wasn't long before i was sent to school to receive my education. Catholic School to be precise. From the age of 4 (i was the eldest in my year) i was taught the Gospels. I ...[text shortened]... finally realised you were me all along.

Alleluia!!

God bless you!!!

Originally posted by Jay Joos
God bless you!!!

How did you know i sneezed? Are you omnipresent or something?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
They were not meant to be accusatory. His statement simply evoked me to express a thought.

Indeed, it's the sign of a healthy thread that people can chime in with things, and we can then discuss them. Don't feel any need to explain or apologise!

No, it's a sign of a healthy thread when people will explain and apologise. The conversation could so easily have degenerated if JosephW had not realised that the reaction to his comment was an indication that the comment needed clarification.

I also think it is superb that JosephW and Marinkatomb are willing to read the literature of the other side. However, I would agree that The God Delusion is probably not the book to read. I haven't yet read TGD but my view of Dawkins' writing is that he shows too little empathy with the religious viewpoint and is likely only to wind you up. He explains evolution extremely well though in The Blind Watchmaker.

This is a superb thread so far!

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
I haven't yet read TGD but my view of Dawkins' writing is that he shows too little empathy with the religious viewpoint and is likely only to wind you up.

--- Penguin.

You are right, Dawkins shows little empathy for religion. However, he gives good reason not to. The point of the book is not so much to convert the religious to atheism, it is to convert Agnostics to atheism. There is a big difference! His major gripe appears to be with theism (funnily enough), as it is given a status it doesn't deserve. Scientists do research into reality and try to make some sense of it all. Theists look at scientific discovery and try to disprove what has been discovered which is a totally valid thing to do i might add, but only when the refutation is based in science, NOT some religious text or other. More often than not they end up rejigging religion so that God is responsible for the phenomena in question. I take major issue with this! Religion down the years has become a succession of truisms expounded by men who do NOT base their beliefs on anything other than the pretext that God is responsible for everything, therefore i will always be right in my assumptions provided i always use God as the reason. This is clearly rubbish!

As soon as something is beyond science, or rather, as soon as something is deemed unknowable through present methods of understanding, theists step in and attribute this phenomena to God. Most of the book is dedicated to revealing the futility of this, as science generally progresses to a greater level of understanding and theists are pushed back into some other unknowable. The belief that 'God' is behind it all is like putting blinkers on. You are no longer looking at the Universe and trying to discover what it is, you are looking at the Universe and trying to see how God made it. As we have no evidence that God exists, then all this can do is confuse the issue.

He makes many other points about many other things, but this point is what got me. I have a scientific outlook on life. I'm no scientist, but i want us all to progress in understanding rather than simply swim around in dogma. Having been agnostic for years (as i said before, believing in science but open to a God figure behind the scenes) i saw no conflict between religion and science. Now i do and that is why I am now an atheist.

Originally posted by Marinkatomb
It's a Miracle! I have had an epiphany! For 28 years i have existed on this Planet and finally, i don't believe in God!

Having been born an innocent impressionable child, it wasn't long before i was sent to school to receive my education. Catholic School to be precise. From the age of 4 (i was the eldest in my year) i was taught the Gospels. I finally realised you were me all along.

Alleluia!!

must feel good, you've taken a very big step in a direction, i hope for you it's in the right direction; if it's not, you're doomed. you'll find out when you die...

Originally posted by Marinkatomb
How did you know i sneezed? Are you omnipresent or something?

God loves you !!!

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
must feel good, you've taken a very big step in [b]a direction, i hope for you it's in the right direction; if it's not, you're doomed. you'll find out when you die...[/b]

I look at it like this. If i was an all powerful God capable of creating the Universe, what use would i have for worship? If i catch a fly in my house and let it go free out of the window, do i expect it to pay homage? Of course i don't. I haven't completely ruled out the possibility that there is a God, what i have done is taken the choice to relieve myself from men who claim to know Gods will. I base my beliefs on reason. I don't believe everything science has to say, i look at the evidence and either agree or disagree. I am doing the same with religion. I am looking at the evidence and choosing to disagree. I have long since rejected the idea of Heaven/Hell, this idea is a gloriously human frailty!