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.

I'm not sure if I explained myself properly before. I should make a distinction between evidence and proof, I think there is evidence for the Christian faith but I would agree with you that I can't produce concrete scientific proof, Ellie.

Can I ask a genuine question?

We're all talking about "proof" and "evidence". I can quite understand that a Christian might accept evidence for the existence of God that I, as a rationalist, can't. And I understand that God doesn't actually have to prove his existence. What I don't understand is how, in 2000 years he hasn't done something which, as a sort of unintended consequence,proves his existence beyond reasonable doubt. Like, as a crude example, growing somebody's leg back on. Why are prayers always answered ambiguously?

How much of the leg needs to grow??

Proof of absolute truths is extremely rare and potentially impossible. What we can do, however is obtain evidence to 'prove' beyond reasonable doubt that our perceptions of the world are accurate as far as our senses will allow.

Imagine a goldfish in a spherical tank. The fish could look upon the world outside the tank and make observations and measurements of everything it can see or detect (this is obviously a hypothetical goldfish which has access to scientific instruments!). It could very accurately measure the size and shape of objects and how they move, even predict exactly how things work and re-measure to confirm those predictions, but it sees our world distorted by the curve of the glass bowl so it's perception of everything would be wrong despite the very accurate results.

The goldfish could perhaps realise that the curvature of the bowl had a profound effect on the way it views the outside world and could find new equations to fit this theory also. It would find that the mathematics are more elegant by assuming the curvature and could correctly surmise that this model has more weight because of that (this is an analogy to the discovery of the movement of celestial bodies around the sun rather than the earth). But unless the goldfish can actually get outside the bowl to see, it can never really know for sure.

And so it is with our world. We can only measure what we have the tools to measure with. More elegant solutions have been shown time and time again to be a more accurate perception so it is those elegant solutions which must be trusted over those less elegant by the rational mind. Take evolution, planetary motion, relativity, etc. These are hugely elegant solutions. God, religion, ghosts, fortune telling, are things with very little elegance and things to which far more rational ideas exist.

How much of the leg needs to grow??

All of it, if that's what is prayed for.......

I don't think tales of legs growing back would confirm it for some. There are plenty of stories of people coming back from the dead etc. I just think that how would that prove it, for the people who actually saw it? What about others?

The reason I asked how much leg was because I googled and was looking for leg growing stories! I am being flippant because I would not believe things I read on the Internet necessarily so I would not expect anyone else to take it all as proof. I guess what I am saying is I am not sure that that kind of proof would be acceptable.

I mean I do believe these things are possible but I would not expect anyone to take it as proof.

What about shifting the burden of proof or evidence, what evidence if there for the world existing without being created?

There is evidence supporting the "big bang" theory, through development of stars and thus planetary systems and we are discovering now that there are enough of those to make the evolution of life on just one planet in one system likely.

If God did create the universe why have so many barren planets?

Coming back late to the conversation... sorry, have the equivalent of half-term here

"I could have said "anti Christian" newspaper reports but that doesn't reflect the fact that newspapers are anti Muslim and anti other religions too."

Why not say "anti-religious" if you feel that way. It is not the same thing as secular. The two are not synonymous.

"Atheists might have met a brutal and unloving parent or authority figure who was religious."

Lovely.

It could be that they realised they didn't believe what everyone else around them did. That's what happened to me. I don't believe there is no god. I simply lack a belief in any gods. Not the same. I do know some atheists who have a strong belief that there is no god. I'm just not one of them.

"You would not be happy if God suddenly appeared in the sky ridding the world of all doubt"

Actually this is probably the #1 reason I'm not Christian. If you take the position that a god is all knowing, all powerful and all loving then he would know that having him appear before me would be very convincing and I'd be a convert and he should know that. As he hasn't he either isn't the above, doesn't care or doesn't exist.

There are "leg growing stories" - that's why I chose that as an example. Derren Brown describes exactly how it's done.

Italiangreyhound- is there a non flippant answer to my question?

And yes,but here is loads of evidence for how the world came into existence- or at least the current theory of how it did. The crucial thing is that if more evidence comes to light, the theory changes to fit the evidence. That's what science does.

Italian and Green: a little late in wondering this (and apologies if it's been addressed already) are either/both of you people who don't have English as a first language? I am beginning to wonder if there may be a translation issue with some of the points raised here.

Green says she has an English degree, which is why I find it odd that she doesn't know the difference between the words secular and anti-religious.

No that actions of love are an expression of love and that my faith is built on receiving that love Well, I have no idea what you're talking about then. And behaviour motivated by an emotion is an expression of that emotion. I think that equating love with any kind of faith position is a big mistake who ever says it, or why.

You implied that atheists were more moral because they did things out of the good of their heart where as Christians/people of faith did it for a pat on the head from God That would be the case if they were only doing it because they were Christians. People have lots of different motivations for doing anything, some noble, some not. I was matching like for like. I've also said that I think for most Christians their motivation lies more in them being decent people than anything else. It's also worth mentioning that traditionally Christianity has gone abroad to help the less fortunate as a way of "spreading the word". While this isn't as overt anymore, it's not gone away entirely.

I apologise if what I said about you speaking for all atheists was offensive Not offensive in the slightest, I was just pointing out that we were doing the same thing - generalising. This is a general conversation, we're both going to end up doing that to some degree.

I have evidence of God?s love for me And therein lies the rub - I don't think you do.

BUT...having said that.....

It's not impossible that actually you do, really, truly have evidence for God....that he spoke to you & revealed himself in a way that left little room for doubt.

But I highly doubt it - for logical reasons and not as a personal judgement about you. In any event, the miraculous/supernatural MUST and IS the least likely explanation for anything and any possible natural explanations must be considered before we start attributing something to the supernatural.

I know that it's enough for you, whatever it is, but since it's not verifiable or checkable and you can't demonstrate the truth of it to me, then I am justified in dismissing it from a conversation about evidence for God. I have no choice in that. I am not just being bolshy or closed minded. If we accepted revelatory experiences as evidence of anything, then we'd be in the unfortunate position of having to accept an awful lot of unlikely sounding stories as "evidence" that they really happened.

Extraordinary claims (as a visit from God is) require extraordinary evidence. No evidence at all will simply not do.

I think there is evidence for the Christian faith but I would agree with you that I can't produce concrete scientific proof, Ellie What evidence do you think there is? It's not really about "concrete scientific proof" - - I'll take anything.

You express yourself very well :)

Seeker "We're all talking about "proof" and "evidence". I can quite understand that a Christian might accept evidence for the existence of God that I, as a rationalist, can't. And I understand that God doesn't actually have to prove his existence"

We have to have some standards of evidence, though - and wanting to believe something should not be a reason to lower those standards. Of course, that's something we all do - my standard of evidence for proving that my son is a genius is rather lower than if I was making that assessment about someone else's son*. It's called confirmation bias.

*(He's not, in case anyone thinks that's a stealth boast).

I don't think tales of legs growing back would confirm it for some

You're right, we'd be investigating possible natural explanations first. Limbs can grow back elsewhere in the animal kingdom. But that's not the point.

Let's say someone is diagnosed with a potentially fatal cancer. The doctor gives them a reasonable chance of recovery and schedules the necessary surgery and chemotherapy etc. The person is a Christian so prays night and day for God's help.

The person recovers completely - and thanks God. (And probably his doctors too since he is a polite person).

Was that God or was it the chemotherapy? There's no way to know - and God appears to do that a lot. He cures people (if he does at all) in such a way that it's impossible to know whether it was him or the treatment. Why?

And his cure rate, by the way, has risen in line with advances in modern medicine - and his success rate conforms with the same rate we'd expect to see if he didn't exist to help people at all.

So the question is rather more important than just about missing limbs - it's that why does God only ever answer prayers in a completely ambiguous way?

A spontaneously regenerating limb in response to prayer would impress me, I have to admit. But it never happens - and no one thinks it will. Even Christians. So you don't actually expect your God to perform real miracles any more than we sceptics do.

What about shifting the burden of proof or evidence, what evidence if there for the world existing without being created?

Well, BB theory, cosmology and evolution, for a start.

But you can't do that, I'm afraid. We can't look for negative evidence (that the world wasn't created) only for positive evidence. In other words - what evidence is there that is was.

A big fat zero thus far.

"I don't think tales of legs growing back would confirm it for some"

Not 'tales' no. There seems to be an automatic assumption there that it would be a tale and I think we all know why.

Someone could post on MN that their second cousin knows a lady whose friend's brother grew a leg back, but why shouldn't it be something that happens to someone in plain view of a crowd of people, on an operating table or perhaps on CCTV?

There are a lot of Christians out there who claim that prayer works and specifically works for healing people. Many even offer it as proof that god exists. Therefore healing from prayer must happen all the time.

Now God isn't restricted on how he does it so if you are walking down the road and see a child with a missing leg you could pray and there'd be a good chance god would replace it there and then in the street. It wouldn't have to get gradually better. The child could go from a wheelchair to turning cartwheels in seconds.

Except that Christians know that won't happen. When a Christian hears that Auntie Sally has lost a leg they are upset. They don't say "Hey, that's a shame, but god will fix it" because the vast majority of Christians knows full well that there is no healing.

When there's a serious car crash you don't see scores of Christians kneeling in the road to put the drivers back together. They may kneel in church later. Usually to pray that the victims families get over it and understand that it was all in a good cause.

Christians pretend to believe it and the rest of us pretend that we believe the Christians believe it.

Someone will say that I shouldn't speak for Christians, but I'm not reading their minds. I'm pointing out that the actions of the vast majority demonstrate that they don't really believe in prayer/healing.

Selfconfessed Hope you are enjoying half term.

Seeker in answer to your question about why God has not done something that will prove to you or anyone else in particular beyond doubt his existance, my non-flippant answer would be I don't know. The Bible seems to suggest that we live by faith not by proof but aside from that I don't know.

Sorry, that was my mistake, when I said what evidence if there for the world existing without being created? I think I meant the entire universe coming into existance.

Mrshoarder I've no idea why so many barren planets.

Solidgoldbrass I am English and English is my first language. Can you tell me which bits sound confusing and I will explain. Not sure why I said world ealier on I am pretty sure I was thinking universe! Oh and yes, I have an English degree and I have taught English as a foreighn language but I am afraid my spelling is appalling!

No that actions of love are an expression of love and that my faith is built on receiving that love, well Ellie what I mean is that as a Christian I believe Jesus lived a loving life, healed people and died for me. Those are the living actions and I believe I have a relationship with Jesus now because in my teens I made a decision to become a follower of Jesus. It was because I felt that love that I chose to follow him. I am not sure if that makes sense, I mean I know you will not agree with it or believe it but does it makes sense?

It's not really about "concrete scientific proof" - - I'll take anything. To me it makes sense that God made the world, it doesn't make sense that there is no creator, if there is a creator I think he/she would want to be known, as a parent does with a child. I have learnt a bit about other religions and what I see as different about Christianity is that it starts with God reaching out to people not people trying to reach God. I spent a while going to church and being involved in Christian things before I made a committment but my commitment felt for me like the response to God's love, as I was told about it. Over the last 30 years I think I have never doubted my faith to the point of leaving it but I have certainly thought through many issues. I think I am hogging the thread and have said enough for now!

Ellie you said You express yourself very well - thank you, right back at your Ellie.

"Seeker in answer to your question about why God has not done something that will prove to you or anyone else in particular beyond doubt his existance, my non-flippant answer would be I don't know. The Bible seems to suggest that we live by faith not by proof but aside from that I don't know. "

That wasn't my question. My question was, why has he never done anything that has the unintended consequence of providing evidence. Like curing somebody under conditions where the cure could be unequivocally proved- somebody who had no chance or recovery at all without divine intervention. Like growing a leg back. Or mending a severed spinal cord. Why dos he only ever cure things that might very well have got better anyway?

Seeker in answer to your question, I am afraid I don?t know. I mean that I have heard of miracles and I am sure some people have been convinced by them, but I don?t know why you have not seen any. If this answer doesn?t satisfy you I am sorry but I don?t have all the answers. And I expect some would say I don't have any answers.

Ellie do I expect miracles? Sometimes. I don't live day by day by them in the sense if someone is ill I will just as much expect a medical answer as a miraculous one. I would never not seek medical help as well as praying. If that makes sense.

I do not think miracles are the norm in the Christian life. Maybe they should be!

backonlybriefly99 sorry by tales of legs growing back what I meant was that nowadays if anyone says they read something on the internet or have a photo of something or whatever then probably many people would rightly be quite suspicious. Well, let's say I would be, I would think airbrushing, I would think mocked up photos etc. So something would have to happen in front of my face for me to see it as proof or evidence etc. But because I am a Christian who does not need proof of God (speaking completely on behalf of myself) the lack of my seeing a leg grow back on doesn't bother me in terms of faith.

I personally do believe healing from prayer does happen, but not all the time. I don't think that that is the kind of 'evidence' that would convince atheists. I mean I am happy to be proved wrong! Also, I am aware that many times prayer is offered for people and they are not healed. That can cause a lot of pain. That can lead to a lot of additional pain because them people wonder why their prayer was not answered. I believe God answers prayers but I also believe that prayer is about more than just getting things done. Prayer for me is a kind of entering into discussion with God. Someone else on Mumsnet put it so well and I can't remember who it was, they said that God changes the person who is praying. So one might pray about problems in the world and then feel moved to make a difference. Yes, I know people can make a difference without praying!

I also think that praying for those who are in need is a way of connecting. Of entering into the problem with the person. Again this is not meant as evidence of anything, I am just saying what I think in response to backonlybriefly99.

I am off to Spring Harvest tomorrow and I am not sure I will get to log in much. I just wanted to say this in case anyone wants to ask me any tough theological questions for which I can provide my stock non-flippant ?I don?t know? reply!

I am genuinely grateful to those who have taken the time to ask questions or reply to my questions.

Italiangreyhound: Well, you seem to have a different definition of the words 'secular', 'evidence' and 'proof' to many other posters on this thread, and I would have been prepared to believe that your first language was one with a different set of idioms or something.

Solidgoldbrass I don't think I said much about the word 'secular'. I've tried to talk about evidence as I see it, as it has satisfied me and many other people but have acknowledged that this is not proof and I understand it will not satifsy many of the people who have been posting on this thread.

It is not my intention to try and convert anyone here but simply to talk and understand the thoughts of people who are athiests and respond to any questions anyone may wish to ask me.

I am sorry if you do not think I have used the words in the way you would use them but I can only say that I have tried to be honest and express myself as honestly as I can.

The issue I take with how much prayer works is that it works exactly the amount you would expect it to if it didn't work.

You say you would always seek medical attention which is great, but not everyone does, which is not so good. In fact I seem to remember a news story (within the last couple of years) about a couple who's child died because they needed urgent medical attention but it was decided simply to pray for them. I have a feeling the parents were sentenced to jail, but they genuinely didn't think they'd done anything wrong.

Now I know cases like this are isolated in the Western world, but in developing countries it happens all the time and it saddens me that people really think it works.

Power of prayer?

If ten million people are rounded up into concentration camps, and exterminated, is that because they didn't pray?