Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Are Atheists more honest than Christians?

Oh, I do. It's cuzz some book told you that you're important and special, why, because you need that self affirmation.


I have no doubt that you, Eyeball, are indeed SPECIAL.

You want to bet money on that.

Just because you grew up in an age and place of miracles doesnt mean His prophecy in that regard has not been fulfilled.

The pygmies would consider meds that would cure TB or heart transplant surgery a miracle. No animals you two are the same as can contemplate, much less, accomplish that. So you have the stupid excuse, well they dont have fingers. So, I guess He was right, we, the special ones, would perform miracles.

Join the Christians guys. Be all that you can be. Good night.

Lying is saying we are no more than animals.

As He said, we would perform miracles, if you dont believe so, let a dog operate on you.

Why Atheists are more honest than Christians

"First, let's discuss one of my favorite subjects--semantics. It would seem that we live in an age of word manipulation. Perhaps this has always been so...

Many logical fallacies depend on the straw man of distorted definition. This can be seen on many internet threads pertaining to religious and political themes (not to mention News networks). Before one tackles a certain issue or makes claims upon such, it behooves one to be clear on just exactly WHAT they mean when they use a certain term. To that end, let's define some notably pliable and problematic words...

For this discussion I define the term 'Christian' as it is commonly (if rather loosely) understood and used in American Evangelical and Protestant world. "One who claims to believe that Jesus was/is God incarnate and who believes in a penal/substitutionary atonement theological (and soteriological) view." There are several a priori and post hoc beliefs involved with that definition but they tend to be self evident. I believe this to be a misleading and false definition of true Christianity but that is irrelevant to this discussion.

Now when it comes to the term "atheist" there is far more confusion and confabulation than in regards to something as broad and murky as "Christian". Too often, it's the religious folk who decide that THEY are the ones who get to define exactly what an atheist "is" or believes. A sneaky backdoor to the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy, as it were. This obfuscation and redefining to suits one purpose has deep roots in mankind's psyche--and not just in the religious realm.

To be fair and honest one only needs to ask true atheists how they define themselves.
Here is the American Atheists Association definition:

---------------------
What Is Atheism?
No one asks this question enough.

The reason no one asks this question a lot is because most people have preconceived ideas and notions about what an Atheist is and is not. Where these preconceived ideas come from varies, but they tend to evolve from theistic influences or other sources.

Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."

Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."

The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints.

--------------------



For a further in depth look at the differences between lack of belief, disbelief and denial here is a short lesson...

http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/DisbeliefDenial.htm
-------------------

Where am I going with all of this and how does it pertain to the title? Simple.



There is no concrete, verifiable proof of gods/God. Period. (Please don't even start with the circular 'nature' argument.) Without that proof all you are left with is, indeed, faith. And, to head you off at the pass, this isn't an attack on faith. There's nothing inherently wrong with faith itself (its by-products can be another story). The problem is with those 'believers' who talk out of one side of their mouth about the importance of faith and then state that said faith is 'fact' and can be proven. THAT'S where the belief stops and the Bullschit starts...



I can count on one hand (with leftovers) the Christians who have the moral, intellectual and spiritual honesty to say, "I choose to believe this not because of facts or proof but because I want to'. And, again, let me stress...that's ok. However, it leads to at least two questions for me..



One, because it is a matter of pure 'faith' (belief without or in the face of facts) how do you regard your version as any better or 'truer' than another's?

Two, (and this is the big, important one for me) how does your 'faith' then make you a better person? Because most Religious people I've met end up using their beliefs to judge others and make themselves feel superior--sometimes 'innocently' and often maliciously.



In the end, both atheists and Christians have the same evidence for God/gods...none. The Christian chooses to believe anyway and tries to convince you it's fact. The atheists chooses no belief and doesn't try to convince you of anything.

Who's more honest?"

Oh, I do. It's cuzz some book told you that you're important and special, why, because you need that self affirmation.


I have no doubt that you, Eyeball, are indeed SPECIAL.

MojoHand;
Good evening to you sir, I trust this finds you well and keeping well away from the fires and smoke.

If I may, I've got a question for you since it appears to me there's a category of folks that have been omitted.

Where or how do you or the author classify people who have had experiences in their lives that cannot be explained by science or logic?

We can call them "supernatural" or "miracles" or simply leave the experiences as unexplained - but where will we put those folks?

I'm cognizant that my experiences are not yours as yours are not my own and neither one of us can truly understand or perhaps even empathize with someone else whose life experience is vastly different from our own.

But supposing there are people out there who have had such things happen to them that cannot be explained - would it be acceptable for those individuals to believe in "something more" than we can see, feel, touch or explain with currently understood science?

Just curious is all sir.

As I age I'm increasingly leery of anyone who says, "these people" are "always that way" and this is why - if you know what I mean?

All the best to you in the remaining fleeting days of summer sir and good luck on your hunts this fall.

Dwayne

An honest man needs nor is defined by religion or not; he is simply honest regardless of faith or lack thereof.

Sean,

Let me skip ahead to reply to your post.

The question wasn't about general honesty..it was about honesty regarding faith vis-a-vis the facts.

In fact, you make a good point against many Christian claims that morality and ethics cannot exist apart from their version of religion/God.

I will be honest with you. I believe in God and Jesus Christ, the Son OF God. Why, because I want to, I made that choice myself without any need for proof. In fact I will go on record as saying not only is their no proof but it may even be a sin to try to find a proof. I believe because I believe and that's all I need.

Just out of curiosity, which finger am I? I won't be upset if you say the middle.

"Show me a good action that can be taken by a Christian, that cannot be taken by an Atheist."

Maybe bringing comfort to the dying by affirming the existence of a kind and merciful God?

Wow!

You guys have been busy today. At least posting, if not thinking!

I find the variety of responses from the Christians to be fascinating and I shall attempt to address some of them that I found 'interesting'...

For most of the rebuttals Antelope Sniper has done a fine job and I can add nothing further.

Just wanted to note some special ones.

Why Atheists are more honest than Christians?

Faith needs not facts, and facts need not faith. They are not mutually exclusive, nor are they mutually required. An honest person is honest; one that is not, will not be regardless of faith or the lack thereof.

So if a person tries to claim they have proof of their 'faith' (which is patently dishonest) you would say they are an all around disingenuous person?

As a group, Christians smoke the atheists when it comes to reaching out to others. I am sure that antelope and others that will say that we are bad people, but many lives are helped by the efforts and generosity of Christian people.