Subject: Question: Why do people choose to be atheists?
Atheism doesn't truly exist, therefore there is no need for evidence of any sort. You only want to deny that there is a God. Theism, on the other hand, does exist, and it isn't based on a particular interpretation of data. It just is. We all know that there is a God. Whether or not we take much heed to God and what He has to say is something different altogether. Hand in hand with theism (the belief that there is a God) is the fact that there is a God, and this isn't based on our interpretation of data either. God exists independently of any interpretation or misinterpretation.
It is true that, if any gods exist, then they exist independently of any of our interpretations or misinterpretations of the data. But that's the only true statement in the above paragraph. The rest is just a mish-mash of arrogance and conceit dressed up for the purpose of making appear reasonable.
Even if a god exists, belief in that god cannot be independent of any interpretation of data because everything we belief depends upon the interpretation of data. I believe that my chair exists, but this belief is based upon my interpretation of various bits of data. That my chair actually exists doesn't change that fact. All it means is that my interpretation of the data is probably right. The same would be true of theism in the event that some form of theism out there were actually correct.
Richard is very enamored of the idea that atheism doesn't really exist. Why? I'm not really sure. I guess, however: by asserting that atheism isn't real, Richard can no longer be asked to provide any good reasons for anyone else to believe in his god. After all, he just asserted that we all already believe in his god. Why would he need to argue on behalf of a position when no one disagrees? Atheists aren't real atheists - they are theists who are in denial. Why this is so may vary - perhaps they are stupid, perhaps they refuse to accept divine rule, or perhaps they just hate God.
All Richard has to do is figure out what the atheist's psychological malfunction is and set them on the right path. Once that is accomplished, everything will be OK with the universe again.
The issue is whether or not you have admitted that there is a God. You have no excuse not to. The issue is not about whether or not you are a Christian. If you would admit that you know the way God is - that he is just, merciful, good, etc. that would ultimately lead you to admitting that you need God to save you.
Richard here goes a bit further than most, claiming that we don't just know that his god exists but also that we know what this god is like. Curious, isn't it? By his logic most of the people who have ever existed were "in denial" because they believed in a multitude of different gods but not his. Thus, other religions are not only false, but are in fact deliberate lies perpetrated by people who definitely know better. But Richard not only knows better than them, he is also able to see through their denial and what is afflicting them.
I would concede that you may not know how He has saved you, but you would see that when presented with the evidence of Jesus Christ that Jesus Christ is the best and only solution for you to be saved from sin, death, and guilt. I am in the same boat as you - there is no arrogance here. I knew when I wasn't a Christian that there was a God and that I was a sinner, but I refused to cry out to Him for help. My wickedness suppressed the truth. It isn't by own merits that I have come to believe as I have either - Jesus Christ revealed Himself to me and I responded to His call.
I don't know what is wrong with Richard that he thinks anyone would believe his claim that "there is no arrogance" in his writings. What he says about his past may indeed be true, but it is certainly arrogant to assume that others must be just like him. He shouldn't assume that his own failings can be attributed to the actions of others.
I have seen much in the way of claims that "Jesus Christ is the best and only solution to be saved from sin, death, and guilt," but I have not been given any good reasons to believe that this is true.
The data is quite clear and none of us have an excuse. We know that there is a God. That is how we know that there is value, purpose, truth, and morality. The issue of God is a simple one. I think that certain religions are what you are truly arguing against and not the issue of whether or not there is a God.
If the question of the existence of a god is a "simple one" for Richard, that just betrays the fact that he has simplified the issue beyond all recognition. That massive amounts of ink have been spilled on the philosophy of religion is not due to all the other philosophers and theologians of the world being stupider than Richard (an obvious implication from his writings, another sign of his arrogance). That ink has been spilled because it isn't always a simple issue and because there are very complex issues involved. The fact that Richard isn't even able to understand that they exist, much less understand what they are, is no credit to him.
More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...
Good analysis of the letter.
I wonder why so many theists write letters like this, full of emotional appeals and threats or insults, when atheists rarely write such emails to theists?
I cant wait for the day when atheism is the majority belief in the West, and atheists are writing arrogant, emotional, insulting emails to theists by the truckload, pleading with them to abandon their fringe “Jesus” cults.
I think this really shows who the “smug” ones are. It’s a good analysis. It is quite strange that they never try and present any legitimate arguments, instead they rely on insults and arrogance. It would be interesting to read a study into how someone can become so brainwashed.
I don’t know about the whole letter, but in the parts that are shown Richard never once used the word “faith”. It’s always “We all *know* that there is a God.” Does this mean he lacks faith, or just lacks an understanding of what it means?
And first it’s “God exists independently of any interpretation or misinterpretation”, followed later by “The data is quite clear and none of us have an excuse.” So which is it? No data could exist that could live up to his immeasurable presence, or there are mountains of data that should be obvious to everyone?
The people who find justifications around the contradictions of the bible are themselves living contradictions.
Why do people take what people have written them and take it apart. Did you give him a chance to correct or change viewpoint. He care about you. Maybe saying something like I like you, can we agree to disagree about our believes. So as to move humankind forward together you can be helpful by doing blank???????.
If you ask somebody for money they may leave you alone. i.e. Sorry bro I don’t believe in god just being honest. If you want to help me, some cash would be real nice anything, surly you have some pocket change you could spare?
So as to move humankind forward together you can be helpful by doing blank???????.
Continuing to stand up to theists who tell us what we do and don’t know, in essence calling us liars if we don’t agree? That takes care of the atheist side, on the theist’s part, maybe they could learn not to tell us what we think.
Frank – this Richard and others who write what he’s writing does absolutely not care about other people.
He and his only care about what they want to be true and to threaten and bully others into accepting what tthey beleive.
If you care about other people, you don’t dismiss or outright lie about their beliefs or experiences and assert your own over top.
Richard is clearly an insecure person who needs to validate himself by trying to force others to believe and act as he does.
Not everyone is a bad immoral person in need of instruction – and people can and do behave in a moral and decent manner without being threatened by beleivers or with hell to do so.
In fact, there is nothing loving, moral, just or forgiving in a god who would punish people with eternal hell or who allows their followers to threaten or use violence to impose those beleifs on society.
IF there is anything after this life, then it ’s a natural part of the universe and what happens will depend on the process, and will not be dependant onwhat we did or didn’t do with our genitals in this life.
It just shock me, now it dawn on me that Richard is helping other and the World become free form believes that nobody can live up to. I personally still would do it and probably can’t do it poor grammer and spelling skills.
I don’t “choose” atheism. I just use my mind and go with what makes sense.
>We all know that there is a God.
This is indoctrination talking. As a fundamentalist, I was “taught” again and again what “other people” believed–as though each group has homongeny. With regard to atheists, they know there is a god, they just choose to act like they don’t.
I have said this in other comments, but I will continue to hammer it. The reason for this inoculation indoctrination is so that the adherent can’t hear you. I dialogued with a guy once who repeatedly told me what I thought, even as I repeatedly told him that’s not what I thought, and corrected him. Inevitably, he wrote back making arguments against what he claimed I was saying–totally ignoring my statements and clarifications alerting him that he was not listening to me or understanding what I was saying. Eventually, I told him the conversation would end until he pulled the quote where I stated what he was claiming I stated. I am guessing he sought and did not find–because in his next reply he did acknowledge the difference between what I’d said and what he’d said I’d said, and he produced no quote to back is prior misstatements. Ultimately, however, he insisted that I was being slippery in my debate–and that somehow I had tricked him into thinking I’d said A rather than B. This even after several clear attempts on my part to honestly and openly correct his error. In other words, it was not within his grasp to understand that there was a fault in his capacity to LISTEN to others and HEAR them. But that’s what indoctrination does to people. He’s told over and over “atheists know there is a god, they just don’t want to accept it.”
You say, “No, really, I don’t believe there is a god.” And you get back, “I don’t know why you keep denying what we both know you know.”
Nothing you say will be heard. The person can’t learn because he’s convinced he already knows, based on what he’s been taught–and he can’t possibly be mistaken. What his preacher/church taught him can’t be wrong about what you believe (even though these people have never met you), so you must be wrong about you.
It’s insane, but indoctrination for a fundy is all about getting people to absorb insanity as though it makes sense.
Peoplel become atheists because they see through all the false gods and their rackets.