Atheists - is there anything about faith that appeals to you, would you like to believe?

[Italiangreyhound]

Hi, I've been reading a few threads and I've heard atheists say stuff in the past about belief in God. Stuff like they don't believe in God but they would like to or they can see why it would maybe give peace or would be nice etc. I am just curious how atheists feel a bout this and if they want to talk about it?

I am a Christian, I hope I am an open and tolerant person and I would not want to cause offence. I am just curious, as we come into Easter if anyone wants to chat about this.

If not, may I wish you a peaceful and happy Easter, even if all it means to you is some chocolate eggs.

Self confessed,it's just my opinion, I'm not ruling the world. Why does this turn into a discussion about secularism? I was trying to explain about how I can think critically because the world doesn't see things the way I do, how does this equate with my wanting to run a theocratic state??. I am the most mild mannered Christian I know. I barely even show up to church, I am utterly utterly powerless, I find it funny how threatened people seem to find my opinions. I don't like certain secular things, much like you might not like godly things, you see how it works having opinions? It doesn't make you Pol Pot, it doesn't make me the Pope.

How do you feel about secularism, then?

And I stand by my statement that opposing secularism means wanting faith to have special privileges- I don't see how it can mean anything else.

I agree with Seeker.

Either you treat all/no faiths equally or unequally. I also don't see a grey on this issue, if you aren't treating all with equal importance you are favouring one.

The problem with favouring one of course is that it might not be yours that is favoured.

Oh and I don't mind godly things. I'm not trying to convert anyone. I'm trying to let everyone be left alone in their beliefs.

I don't like certain secular things

Which secular things don't you like? Perhaps that will help others to understand where you're coming from.

Elliearroway, getting back to your original point which I missed cos I only noticed your second post earlier... You said faith is believing Without reason and/or evidence.

I would say that's not quite a true picture... I have faith in God because of the person who is Jesus Christ. Now he lived on earth 2000 years ago and so I haven't seen him doing his thing and his miracles and I didn't see him die on the cross or get resurrected. So I suppose it does take blind faith for me to read about it and believe it happened from the Bible. If that is blind faith then yes, I have used blind faith to come to a position of belief.

However, I am not without reason and or evidence for my beliefs. Think of it like a bridge, where faith is on one side and non belief is on the other. The bridge is made of the evidence as presented in the Bible and in wider readings and in common sense (by this I mean, there is no real plausible explanation for how come Christianity got started if you don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead, there's no easy way to explain how a religion with a murdered leader went on to spread like wildfire across the world unless the tales were true, human nature would dictate that if your leader of your wacky new cult Christianity got murdered before your very eyes you would give it up sharpish in the face of hostile Jews/Romans etc). So it's a bridge made up of evidence and it's a incomplete bridge so I did take a leap of blind faith to get from me side to the other. But reason and evidence do come into it. They don't contradict the story. I'm not believing in Jesus while going "lalala I'm not listening" to all the evidence against him existing. Cos the evidence is actually in Christianitys favour.

Sorry if I seem not to understand secularism, I do understand it, I just don't want to get caught defending opinions I don't even hold.

there is no real plausible explanation for how come Christianity got started if you don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead

So how do you explain the rise of Scientology, or Mormonism, or Hinduism? There's pretty convincing explanations for how religions spread without their basis being factual. Breaking the Spell by Daniel Dennett is a stimulating read on this topic.

What secular things don't you like?

You would need to ask a Mormon or a Hindu or a Scientologist about these things Selfconfessed. I believe what I believe... Other religions are available.

Sorry I meant Pedropony not Selfconfessed. My bad.

Sorry, did you miss when people were asking what secular things you didn't like?

I saw it Seeker.. I think it's an exercise in pointlessness to post about something I couldn't really care less about.

You are determined to see me as a theocratic despot... I don't fit the bill.

There are sneery secular things printed in the Guardian all the time, I invite you to read them and conclude "that's the sort of thing Greencolorpack doesn't like".

If the speed and reach of a religion spreading are a guideline to how true it is then you should probably be a muslim.

so how would you like us to keep referring to Christianity as smug, arrogant or pompous? Please try and be respectful of others beliefs.

But you said specifically "I don't like certain secular things" I just seemed reasonable to ask you what they are.

I read the guardian regularly- and I agree that it is written from a secular perspective.

You can if you like shrug I don't understand what point you are making.

Every religion claims to be true, so it would be pretty pointless to be offended that Muslims believe Islam is true and Christianity is false. Of course they would believe that otherwise they would be Christians! And as for them being smug or pompous... It doesn't really bother me. Why should it?.

So really, you want the conversation to be on your terms?

Seeker I tend to be interested in use of language because I did an English lit and language degree, I am interested in places where people play the victim in order to make themselves look good/the Christians look bad. So my best example of secularists playing the victim and trying to make the church look bad would be ... google "church targets two year olds", it's about the church making evangelical advances to parents of toddlers, which is surely what the church has done for thousands of years and not just in 2009... For me the use of the word "targets" makes the church sound hostile and militaristic and is the kind of headline designed to make secular readers shiver with fear and hug their poor two year olds closer...

I post this as an example. Please do NOT now assume I want to close down the Guardian and issue in a glorious theocratic world of oppression.

I would post a link but I tried that and it didn't work. The Daily Mail also have similar language in another article so it's not just the Guardian.

You would need to ask a Mormon or a Hindu or a Scientologist about these things

I was asking you because you seem to conclude that the only possible way a religion could spread would be if its basic facts were true. I'm trying to understand how you come to that conclusion without believing all religions.

But it sounds like you are unwilling to actually answer any of the questions asked of you, so never mind.

Pedro I am a human poster, I am not some awesomely well read brain of Britain type sitting in a room surrounded by millions of books on comparative religion.... Are you like that? If you were that highly intelligent and high powered why are you posting on an Internet forum instead of being out there running the world? We make our choices in life, personally I am trying to raise my kids and work to keep a roof over my head and in my down time sometimes I post on the Internet.

If you really need superhuman highly intelligent posters to be worthy of your time in debating... Good luck finding them.

green

Do you think there's any possibility, in all honesty, that you actually haven't truly understood what secular really means? You seem to want to have it both ways. NOBODY is accusing you of being theocratic - actually, I've gone out of my way to say I don't think you're that at all.

Secularity removes religion from the state. This does NOT mean religion or religious practices are banned, but it makes the state neutral in these matters. So everyone is given the same rights as everyone else - the government does not play favourites, and treats the non-religious with the same equanimity as the religious. Hinduism and Islam (for example) have the same rights as Christians. No one religion gets precedence over any other when it comes to representation in Parliament, for example (as is the case currently).

It's about equality.

By saying that it goes against your Christian beliefs, you're saying that equality with others is not Christian. Really? Is that honestly what you think?

I have faith in God because of the person who is Jesus Christ. Now he lived on earth 2000 years ago Did he? Without resorting to hearsay, can you prove that?

So I suppose it does take blind faith for me to read about it and believe it happened from the Bible. If that is blind faith then yes, I have used blind faith to come to a position of belief Fair enough - but you cannot then take issue with me for raising my eyebrows when you claim your faith is based on "critical thinking".

The bridge is made of the evidence as presented in the Bible and in wider readings and in common sense (by this I mean, there is no real plausible explanation for how come Christianity got started if you don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead, there's no easy way to explain how a religion with a murdered leader went on to spread like wildfire across the world unless the tales were true, human nature would dictate that if your leader of your wacky new cult Christianity got murdered before your very eyes you would give it up sharpish in the face of hostile Jews/Romans etc)

The Bible is a book - words on a page. It was written by people who were already part of the cult - so not unbiased, impartial observers. Therefore, on it's own, it's not actually evidence of anything.

Your religion is one of over 10,000 that have existed through human history. They all got started with some myth that got bigger and bigger and bigger. That's what Christianity did, and it collected rather a lot of important people as followers along the way - people with the power to kill and persecute those who didn't adhere to the faith they favoured.

Christianity did not spread like wildfire around the world. And if your only defence is "Why would so many people believe it if it wasn't true" then kindly explain how so many people believe in Hinduism and Islam? They can't be true if yours is.

Also Pedro, I never said that that was the only argument that swayed me, I believe I said further up thread that I became a Christian through perceiving my need for God and then after that fact, I found the evidence to be persuasive, and so I do not present it as the only means to my belief system, but it's just one of the compelling arguments that I find quite effective.... You are free to disagree.

Also I think it's presumptuous of me to pretend I know all about every single world religion. I don't know many people who would fit that bill.

I just posted that while the conversation was ongoing - so have gone over the same ground. Sorry.

recruiting drive targets two year olds

This is the article mentioned. It's about a plan to evangelise at, among other places, Sure Start centres.

The use of the word "targets" about a recruiting drive is surely perfectly usual? And the National Secular Society's objection in the article is surely perfectly measured?

I became a Christian through perceiving my need for God and then after that fact, I found the evidence to be persuasive

So you began with the conclusion and then found evidence that you thought made it fit, disregarding that that didn't?

I like your honesty. It's refreshing.