All thinking men are atheists. – Ernest Hemingway

Before we begin, there are many reasons why a person is not a Christian. As discussed in another article Why does an Atheist Reject Christianity, a disbelief in the Christian God can stem from a multitude of life experiences. But, for the purposes of this article, I will focus on one type of Atheist that is prominent in Western Society, and that is the “Atheist who logically concluded that there isn’t a God.” I myself used to be this type of Atheist. Regardless of why or how I became an Atheist, I used logic to form my arguments against the existence of a God, especially the existence of the Christian God.

In order to better approach someone, who not only doesn’t believe in Christianity, but doesn’t even believe there is a Creator, one has to comprehend where the Atheist’s beliefs are rooted. Now, if your first thought is to say, “Their beliefs are rooted in the devil!” Then, please, control yourself. The goal is to love the people we are helping to convert, and with love comes understanding. And, in order to understand Atheists better, one must understand how he or she thinks, what he or she is thinking in regards to God, and why he or she thinks that way. Since this is a lot of ground to cover, let’s just dive right in.

First off, a person who doesn’t believe they were created by a supreme being tends to rely 100% on their own faculties, however they perceive the world to be is what they believe. When it comes to figuring out the ‘WHY’ of life, they will look to those who they believe are smarter than them, more studious, or those who are experts in a particular field. When I was an Atheist, I looked to accomplished physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers to help me understand my existence. These people helped form my understanding of reality . . . thus, when I believed in their understanding of reality, it eventually became my understanding of reality. Did I ever learn advanced physics or mathematics to verify if Stephen Hawking was right? Nope. But, he seemed like a smart guy, and a lot of other people, smarter than me and more accomplished than me, seemed to think that he was on to something with his theories, so I justified my belief in his explanation of the universe.

In short, our perception is our reality.

Now, while this may be true for the vast majority of humans, if not all, it is especially significant to an Atheist because they choose not to rely on practices like prayer, nor do they believe in divine miracles or gifts of the Spirit, to aid them in times of uncertainty. So, because they rely solely on their own intellect and understanding, it is very important that the information given to them be intelligible, justifiable, and practical.

When an Atheist looks at Christianity, they are looking at it without any emotional bias whatsoever. They do not feel anything about a particular belief system, they simply see it for what it is.

Oftentimes, you might hear an Atheist say, “I don’t believe in Zeus, why would I believe in Jesus?” While some Christians might have a hard time wrapping their brain around this question (most likely because they don’t see Zeus and Jesus as equals), to the Atheist, Jesus and Zeus are simply two options in a world full of deities to worship.

But, why is this significant?

In order for the Christian to approach an Atheist with any hope of that person listening, there has to be an understanding of that person’s paradigm. If you don’t know what a paradigm is, it’s essentially the lens through which we interpret the world around us. To many Christians, they interpret the world around them through a paradigm of ‘God being in control of everything.’ For example, if something tragic happens (e.g. the unexpected loss of a loved one), then he or she may say, “It was God’s will.” But, if an Atheist loses a loved one, then he or she might say something like, “That’s life.”

Here’s another example of how an Atheist might think. . .

A Christian might ask, “What if you die today, where will you go? Aren’t you afraid of what might happen if there really is a heaven?

Now, the reason this is an absurd question to an Atheist is because it is based on the premise that:

1) the Atheist is afraid of a god he doesn’t believe in; and

2) it assumes the Atheist actually cares about where he goes when he dies. 

More often than not, an Atheist has accepted his or her fate. They are going to die. You are going to die. Everybody dies. There isn’t anything they can do about it. To the Christian, the thought of an afterlife with God, in heaven, and seeing their loved ones is what gives them comfort. It’s a very strange notion to consider that there might not be anything after death! But, for the Atheist, that consideration, that perception, is their reality.

Now, I’ve talked to some atheists (usually agnostic) who might say something like:

I don’t believe in a heaven; but if there was one, then I would expect a just God to judge me based on the good life I have lived and not on me having worshiped him.

Do you kind of see how the Atheist’s mind works? I’m not saying we should agree with it, or even think like him. All I ask you to consider is to accept him, and understand him. That’s it.

Here are some additional paradigms (in the form of questions and answers) that a lot Atheists share, or at least might agree with, when it comes to popular topics regarding Christianity . . .

Morality

Q: If you don’t believe that there is a God judging you, or a heaven and a hell, why be moral?

A: I’m not moral because I fear judgement, I’m moral because I want to associate myself with other moral human beings. To me, being a moral and just person is essential to living a full and wholesome life. And furthermore, if you need religion to dictate to you how to be a good person, then you aren’t a good person.

Miracles

Q: How do you explain all of the miracles or spiritual experiences that people have on a daily basis?

A: To me, spiritual experiences are simply a a human’s way of making sense of the world around them. Hundreds of years ago, a lot of people believed that evil spirits caused diseases. Now, modern medicine has discovered the true origin of disease. I believe that eventually, as humans continue to understand more and more about the world around them, ‘miracles’ or ‘spiritual experiences’ that we can’t explain now will eventually be discovered through future research and technology.

Belief

Q: Isn’t Atheism a belief in nothing?

A: Well, if you are referring to a belief in a deity, then no. I don’t believe there is any one thing out there guiding everyone’s lives. But, if you’re asking me if I believe in anything at all, then yes, I absolutely believe in lots of things. I believe in the power of love, and not just romantic love, but love for all mankind and the earth itself. I believe in the power of human will to continue to advance and evolve. I believe in the joy of innovation and discovery. I believe in all of these things because I have seen the effects of these things for the betterment of mankind.

Creation of the Universe

Q: How can you believe the Universe was just randomly created?

A: Well, if you look at the evidence for the Big Bang, and compare it to the evidence for an invisible person who created the Universe, then the Big Bang Theory wins. Scientists can observe the leftover radiation from the Big Bang, there is no observable, physical evidence for God.

While there are many other topics that could be covered, which I will probably go over in another post, hopefully the point is clear:

Atheists do not see the world like Christians see the world. They do not fear God, they do not fear ceasing to exist after death, and they do not believe that morality is enforced by future judgement.

So, what can you do with this information?

The most important thing the Christian can do is to get on the Atheist’s level. If you truly want to help someone discover the joy of having Christ in their heart, you have to have compassion. Not pity, compassion. To have compassion, we have to understand them. We can’t always walk in their shoes, but we can at least comprehend the road that they’ve walked on.

The Christian might ask: “But, I don’t think that’s appropriate. Shouldn’t the Atheist get on MY level; I mean, after all, it’s THEM who needs the truth, not the other way around!”

And I would respond: “I don’t mean on an intellectual level, I mean on a spiritual level.”

Let me give you an example from the Bible:

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14).

The biggest problem that I have observed when a Christian attempts to talk to an Atheist is their inability to convey spiritual things. The Christian spends all of this time just throwing scripture passages (or what I like to call ‘Bible Bombs’). Or, they will talk about their conversion to God and all of the amazing experiences they had. Basically, it’s just spouting off a whole bunch of scriptures, or giving them a lot of ‘unrelatable’ experiences, and seeing if any of them stick. As for the ‘apologetic’ methods, while perhaps effective in certain situations, I’ve never really seen someone convert to God based on reasoned arguments.

As the scripture in 1 Corinthians explains, the things of God “. . . are spiritually discerned.” While rationalizing and arguing the case for God may be entertaining for you, and maybe even intellectually stimulating at best, it is not the most effective method for converting them to a belief in God.

What is effective, at least in my experience, is helping someone understand how spiritual things are discerned; then, when they have fully developed this sense of discernment, they are in a position to be taught about the benefits of living a Christ-like life.

Advertisements

9 Comments

  1. Interesting commentary. Thanks for the share. I wondered about this for years. After realizing I didn’t know everything, actually very little in comparison, that there must be One Who does know everything. Also, I didn’t create myself. But I have a mind, awareness, and a conscience, and I know materials can have none of this (No matter how intricate a robot can be made, it will never have consciousness. It can look like it does, but it can’t, just a very intricate programming. In Star Trek, Data never had consciousness, but a programming that thought it did.). But there’s one more thing. All of creation, myself and family included. And a cell could never have self-evolved. But now, I can just look at the moon or sunset and realize how amazing all of this is, all created. This is not from others. Not from books. On my own. So, I get each person has to follow their own paths. ***There’s one more thought. I heard this before, and it made something clear. To state their is no god is to claim to be god. For only a god could know everything to know there is no god. What this means is atheism is a contradiction in terms, but one has to be ready to self-examine all the way. We all struggle with this. ***Another thing. I don’t feel the need to understand how someone else sees things for I can only see things from my own eyes. I leave others’ opinions to them, respectfully. But I do respect others to follow their paths, wherever that might lead. As the bible explains, don’t judge others. This doesn’t mean not to discern or disagree, but not to resent others for their views.

    1. You bring up an interesting premise, similar to Descartes’ “I think therefore I am” type of logic. Unless I’m totally misunderstanding you (which is a definite possibility) LOL

      I would encourage you to explore more the spiritual benefits of Christianity, approach it as a philosophy and go from there.

      As for your opinion: “I don’t feel the need to understand how someone else sees things for I can only see things from my own eyes.” That is a safe way of living because you’ll never be in disagreement with anyone if you don’t even care what they think, right? But, how will you ever learn anything if you don’t at least have the conversation? How will you grow if you don’t step outside of your own head and consider another point of view? As my dad used to say, “I already know what I know, I’d rather hear what you’ve got to say.” 🙂

  2. While I can appreciate that you value the importance of understanding things from another persons perspective to better communicate with them there seems to be an overarching problems with your thesis about atheists.

    First of all you make it sound as if these world views are somehow a matter of perspective. You say perspective defines reality. Of course clearly you think that Christianity represents a real truth, making it more than just a worldview. If my worldview denied the existence of gravity, that might cause some problems even if I’m perfectly free to have that perspective. You also sort of lump the work of experts in with this idea that it is just a matter of perspective and ignore the whole process of knowledge acquisition which is better known as the scientific method. If I read something written by an expert it’s not just an opinion piece, it is going to be based on some sort of rigorous attempt to explain some phenomena through the scientific method which involves logic, experimentation, and analysis. It’s not just a comparison of two aesthetic preferences. I would also argue that your statement that perception defines reality is not completely accurate. For instance, one time I was getting my oil changed in a place that had glass walls. I was walking and looking at the mechanic working on a car when I rudely walked right into this clear glass wall. I neither perceived it, or was consciously thinking about the fact that glass is a hard substance that is impossible for me to pass through and yet I still hit it. Clearly reality does not hinge on my perception. The idea that humans can attempt to define reality through the scientific method is not just a matter of perspective. That’s not to say that we are going to get reality absolutely correct, but through the work of many scientists over time we do seem to march closer. Think of it like something that looks blurry from far away, but as we get closer things look clearer.

    Secondly while you offer many accurate counter arguments that atheists have for the existence of God, but you have not armed your proselytizer with any clues as to what to say in response to that. The reason I remain an atheist is because I have heard no fallacy free arguments for why there is a God or why Christianity should be consider more right than any other religion. As a person of science I am open to have my mind changed by evidence, or sound logical explanations that do not hinge on unverifiable premises. None of those have surfaced…at least not yet.

    You have also made an error regarding the atheist’s view on the creation of the universe. The big bang theory doesn’t, itself discount the idea of their being a creator, it merely calls into question the validity of nature of God as written about in the Bible and other Holy books. I have heard no argument regarding the creation of the universe that implies that the God who created the universe must be Yahweh. We simply don’t know the answer to the question why is there something and rather than nothing. God could be the answer to that question, but it need not be a personal God. It need not be just one God, it could be a group of Gods who got together and decided to make a universe one day. I would never use the Big Bang Theory as a reason to reject the idea of a God, but I would use it to absolutely reject the poppycock story about creation in the Bible. And yes I know many apologists love to then go, well you shouldn’t take that story literally. Then we get into a whole sea of who gets to decide what in the Bible to take literally and what we shouldn’t and that’s a whole other set of reasons why I think religions are absolutely invented.

    1. This is a HELL of a response (pun intended)! I truly appreciate you taking the time to write such a well thought out response to my post, it really motivates me to continue my work 🙂
      I’m gonna have to take your comment in sections because all of your points deserved to be acknowledged, and responded to . . . so, here we go.

      You said: “First of all you make it sound as if these world views are somehow a matter of perspective. You say perspective defines reality. Of course clearly you think that Christianity represents a real truth, making it more than just a worldview. If my worldview denied the existence of gravity, that might cause some problems even if I’m perfectly free to have that perspective. You also sort of lump the work of experts in with this idea that it is just a matter of perspective and ignore the whole process of knowledge acquisition which is better known as the scientific method. If I read something written by an expert it’s not just an opinion piece, it is going to be based on some sort of rigorous attempt to explain some phenomena through the scientific method which involves logic, experimentation, and analysis. It’s not just a comparison of two aesthetic preferences.”

      Response: I never wrote, nor do I believe, that Atheism is a matter of PERSPECTIVE. Atheism, as well a Christianity, is a matter of PERCEPTION. The difference is perspective is a point of view, perception is the way we interpret said point of view. Which means, you and I can look at the same data and interpret it two different ways, maybe even completely opposite ways! My belief in Christianity is a choice I make to perceive reality through the lens of Christ’s teachings. An intellectual Atheist may perceive reality through the lens of modern scientific discovery, or whatever she chooses to believe at the time. Perception is relative and subjective. As for Christianity representing ‘real truth,’ that’s a tough one because I never claimed to know what ‘real truth’ is . . . others do, I don’t. As for your analogy of gravity, I find it interesting that the concept of gravity has changed over the course of time . . . the scientific community swore up and down that Newton’s perception of gravity was it, they defended it and taught it to others. That was until Einstein’s perspective came along and changed our perception of reality. And who knows? Maybe one day someone else will come along and disprove Einstein’s theories . . . maybe it will be God, who knows? My point is this, no one has a monopoly on truth, not Christianity, not science, no one. Everything is relative, ever changing, always moving.

      You wrote: “I would also argue that your statement that perception defines reality is not completely accurate. For instance, one time I was getting my oil changed in a place that had glass walls. I was walking and looking at the mechanic working on a car when I rudely walked right into this clear glass wall. I neither perceived it, or was consciously thinking about the fact that glass is a hard substance that is impossible for me to pass through and yet I still hit it. Clearly reality does not hinge on my perception. The idea that humans can attempt to define reality through the scientific method is not just a matter of perspective. That’s not to say that we are going to get reality absolutely correct, but through the work of many scientists over time we do seem to march closer. Think of it like something that looks blurry from far away, but as we get closer things look clearer.”

      Response: You hitting a glass wall is less of an interpretation of the glass being there, than it is an oversight of its existence. You know Christianity exists, you can study it’s teachings. How you choose to perceive said teachings is what has lead you to reject them as false. The scientific method, in its infancy, did not allow for experimentation of things that couldn’t be observed. Nowadays, science makes theories on all sorts of phenomena that cannot possibly be recreated, directly experimented on, or often times, even observed! My point is, the scientific method is 100% based on perception of data, albeit by peer review. That being said, Christianity is a PHILOSOPHY, not a science. Basically, while a scientist may rely on one, hopefully objective method to find an answer to an observed phenomena, philosophy asks “how many methods are there and why do we care?”

      You wrote: “Secondly while you offer many accurate counter arguments that atheists have for the existence of God, but you have not armed your proselytizer with any clues as to what to say in response to that. The reason I remain an atheist is because I have heard no fallacy free arguments for why there is a God or why Christianity should be consider more right than any other religion. As a person of science I am open to have my mind changed by evidence, or sound logical explanations that do not hinge on unverifiable premises. None of those have surfaced…at least not yet.”

      Response: I’m glad you noticed that I did not put any counterarguments. I am not a Christian apologist, going down that road is a futile journey with no end. One cannot prove the incomprehensible. As for your conditions for belief in Christianity, I would encourage you to get rid of them if you ever want to truly open up your mind to the possibility that what is ‘real’ cannot necessarily be explained enough for you to understand it. Here is an example, if I were to explain the laws of thermodynamics to a 2 year old, would they understand? Unless they were a genius, probably not. But, if I were to tell the child, “if you touch this hot stove, you’ll get burnt,” they then have two choices. They can touch it and feel the effects of the law of thermodynamics or they can simply trust me as an adult and take my word for it. Either way, they still don’t know WHY they got burnt, or have the potential to get burnt, all they know is what they can understand (i.e. perceive). Christianity, to me at least, is a philosophy that attempts to teach people how to live a better life. I can’t prove the existence of God just as much as I can’t provide you with a unequivocal answer for how the universe works.

      You wrote: “You have also made an error regarding the atheist’s view on the creation of the universe. The big bang theory doesn’t, itself discount the idea of their being a creator, it merely calls into question the validity of nature of God as written about in the Bible and other Holy books. I have heard no argument regarding the creation of the universe that implies that the God who created the universe must be Yahweh. We simply don’t know the answer to the question why is there something and rather than nothing. God could be the answer to that question, but it need not be a personal God. It need not be just one God, it could be a group of Gods who got together and decided to make a universe one day. I would never use the Big Bang Theory as a reason to reject the idea of a God, but I would use it to absolutely reject the poppycock story about creation in the Bible. And yes I know many apologists love to then go, well you shouldn’t take that story literally. Then we get into a whole sea of who gets to decide what in the Bible to take literally and what we shouldn’t and that’s a whole other set of reasons why I think religions are absolutely invented.”

      Response: If you read my article again, the questions was: “How can you believe the universe was just randomly created?” I never wrote it was a counter argument for the existence of God. That being said, while you are correct that the Big Bang theory does not account for Time existing before the “Bang,” many Christians DO believe in the creation story as described in Genesis. In other words, Atheists don’t believe there is a creator (hence is why you call yourself an Atheist). Therefore, where did the universe come from? If there was no one to pull the cosmic trigger, then it must have been RANDOM, no? Also, the creation story is about the creation of the EARTH, not the universe. Perhaps the God of Christianity is a result of the Big Bang? (Wouldn’t that be funny?} BUT, that aside, you are now opening up the possibility that there might be a god, or many gods, but you just haven’t been sufficiently convinced enough to belief in it, or them. As for the creation story in the Bible being ‘poppycock’ (I do so love that word LOL), I would ask you this question: Do you understand the meaning of the creation story in the Bible? Is it literal or allegorical? And, here’s something that will REALLY cook your noodle: Is the creation story, as described in the Bible, even worthy of accurate interpretation? As for me, I’m more focused on what I’m doing now rather than where my home came from. Whether the earth was created in 6 days, 6 weeks, or 6 years has no bearing whatsoever on MY current existence. But, then again, I’m not an apologist. Oh, and as for religions being invented by man, I’m gonna let you in on a little secret, but you have to promise not to tell anyone, OK? . . . they were invented by man 🙂

      1. I never wrote, nor do I believe, that Atheism is a matter of PERSPECTIVE. Atheism, as well a Christianity, is a matter of PERCEPTION.

        Fair enough, but I think you might be playing a bit of a word game. The way I “perceive the world” (your words) is what gives me my perspective. So while I do understand what you were aiming at and why those words are different they are not totally unrelated at least in the context of the point I was making. Regardless of how to different people might perceive something, there is a perception that might be less accurate than the other. The fact that two people might look at the same body of data and arrive at two different conclusions is probably useful, but it doesn’t mean that both are right. Given our fallible nature it’s that at least one if not both would get it at least a little bit wrong.

        As for your analogy of gravity, I find it interesting that the concept of gravity has changed over the course of time

        I chose gravity because in an everyday sense, my belief that things will not fall to the ground, will not save me from hitting the pavement when I jump off a building. Sure the concept of gravity has changed since we’ve uncovered the macroscale of the universe as well as the quantum scale, but in an everyday sense, Newton’s Law of Gravity is all that is matters to any of us.

        You hitting a glass wall is less of an interpretation of the glass being there, than it is an oversight of its existence.

        But this doesn’t explain why it’s not in contradictory to your statement that perception defines reality. My reality was not defined by perception. I agree with you that I simply failed to acknowledge it’s existence, but it’s existence does not hinge on my perceiving it. And that’s the point. If there is a God then it is not important that I perceive it, God exists regardless. And if that is the case then that there is a reality that does hinge on perception and the question becomes how to we test or observe that reality? If we don’t know how yet, that’s fine, but then why worry about God now…maybe it’s yet to be discovered?

        You know Christianity exists, you can study it’s teachings. How you choose to perceive said teachings is what has lead you to reject them as false.

        I also know Lord of the Rings exists, but I still haven’t met a Hobbit or a Nazgul. The fact that there is a religion called Christianity doesn’t mean the content of that religion is true.

        Nowadays, science makes theories on all sorts of phenomena that cannot possibly be recreated, directly experimented on, or often times, even observed!

        Can you define what you mean by observed. The fact that I cannot observe the wind (with my eyes) doesn’t mean it can’t be measured. Given our ability to detect the EM spectrum beyond our visible range, to detect sounds outside our audio range, the measure the movement of objects so minute out of our ability to touch, doesn’t mean that it’s invalid. There are lots of ways to observe processes happening beyond our human limitations, more than that, it often provides reliable (prediction) and repeatable results.

        That being said, Christianity is a PHILOSOPHY, not a science

        That’s fine, but philosophy does not determine truth. The goal of philosophy is to determine what could possibly be truth. Without a way to test the philosophical conjecture we don’t consider a philosophy true, jsut possibly true. If Christianity is a philosophy it hinges on the premise that there is a God. You, yourself said you cannot prove that God exists and thus philosophy says that conclusions made on unverifiable premises only represent what is possibly true, not what is actually true.

        while a scientist may rely on one, hopefully objective method to find an answer to an observed phenomena, philosophy asks “how many methods are there and why do we care?”

        Philosophy asks…but what are the answers? What are other methods of acquiring knowledge? What is the reliability of that knowledge? If there is something that works better than the scientific method, I think many of us would be interested.

        As for your conditions for belief in Christianity, I would encourage you to get rid of them if you ever want to truly open up your mind to the possibility that what is ‘real’ cannot necessarily be explained enough for you to understand it.

        This may be true. Although it also may be true that I don’t want to change my perspective in order to avoid shutting myself from understanding something that can actually be understood. I mean if Einstein chose to believe that what was real was beyond his comprehension, why even try? It is because we have an expectation that we can understand that we end up understanding more of how things work. I’m willing to accept that understanding how computer people design artificial intelligence is also beyond my comprehension, but I’m sure if I spent enough time trying to understand I could at least get a better glimpse of what’s going on. And who knows…maybe I will understand it completely if putting in the effort. So I honestly don’t know that it’s better to assume that what’s real is beyond my understanding, because then why would I search for it in the first place? I might as well just give up and go home.

        One cannot prove the incomprehensible.

        I’ve always had a problem with this philosophy simply because, why is God incomprehensible? This is a definition we’ve given God. Now sure you may say, well God created the universe, therefore it probably isn’t easy to understand? But why not, that child that knows nothing about the first law of thermodynamics can easily be taught over the course of 15-20 years to understand it. I mean as children we immediately see the immense power our parents have. They don’t stand behind a curtain and pretend to have magic powers, they teach. Why does God hide. Surely God could just pop out and say,…oh here’s the next physics law you’re missing, and then say, and when you got that one, you’ll build this instrument and then you’ll get this one, and that’s how this one is applied, etc. I mean with all that knowledge surely there are ways of getting us at least partially up to speed on how it all works. The God is incomprehensible line just seems like a convenient dodge by theists so that they can explain away not being able to demonstrate God’s existence. A better analogy to the one you used would be just telling the child thermodynamics is too complicated so don’t even bother trying to determine whether or not the stove is hot, or even why its hot. Don’t ask any questions about the stove. It’s hot, because i say it’s hot and that’s all you need to know.

        Christianity, to me at least, is a philosophy that attempts to teach people how to live a better life. I can’t prove the existence of God just as much as I can’t provide you with a unequivocal answer for how the universe works.

        Every religion does this. But there are also psychologists, sociologists, therapists, communications experts, doctors, etc. And many of them do a better a job than what is in religious texts. Given how old most religions are, I don’t doubt that they were progressive attempts at the time. Leviticus reads like hygeine pamphlet to try to keep you disease free. I’m not deny it doesn’t make sense how these things came about, but much of the wisdom in the Bible is not unique to the Bible, it exists in earlier religions and there is much wisdom that is missing simply because not as much was understood about the world. If people derive some wisdom from the Bible…good for them…but there is much to draw wisdom from besides the Bible.

        then it must have been RANDOM, no?

        Not necessarily. It could be that the universe always was, just in different form. Given that time is relative, it could also be that there is no “before” the big bang given that the way we perceive time is according to the type of evolved beings that we are. I guess the big bang itself isn’t something that answers the question as to why there is something rather than nothing…it simply talks about why the something we see today looks and behaves the way it does, and what it must have looked and behaved like at the moment the big bang happened.

        Also, the creation story is about the creation of the EARTH, not the universe

        This isn’t true though since the creation story talks about the creation of the stars, the sun, and the moon. So at the very least it’s a creation story about the galaxy.

        Is it literal or allegorical? And, here’s something that will REALLY cook your noodle: Is the creation story, as described in the Bible, even worthy of accurate interpretation?

        I agree that almost none of the Bible should be taken literally and we have some pretty important lessons in there. BUt unfortunately different people, different denominations at least take a portion of the Bible literally, and everybody seems to decide which parts are literal and which parts are allegorical. In this sense there should be nothing to directly obey in the bible if I can decide that the part of the Bible that I don’t want to believe in, is just an allegory. I mean why does Christ’s resurrection have to be what literally happen other than without it literally happening, Christianity wouldn’t be a thing. I mean I could argue that what if that whole story is allegory, that it’s turning the other cheek and forgiving those who have wronged you, and that through forgiveness you can find peace, and you will no longer dwell on your sorrows but your joy will be born anew. Jesus, if he existed, would be an amazing example of someone who wanted to get the Romans to see the humanity in the poor and a oppressed people he represented. He didn’t want a bloody revolution and which his oppressors are killed. He didn’t want the Romans to fear him, but to live as equals and in peace with them. The story as portrayed in the Bible is pretty inspiring if say the more supernatural parts of it all are allegorical.

        As for me, I’m more focused on what I’m doing now rather than where my home came from. Whether the earth was created in 6 days, 6 weeks, or 6 years has no bearing whatsoever on MY current existence

        Same here. 🙂 Although I certainly find the vastness of time the universe has been around and how supernova after supernova eventually lead to me being here, over a full grown man created out of dirt and then breeding with his family for numerous generations in order to get all of humanity. Even if both of those were just stories, I still prefer the big bang over the biblical one. Intellectually I must take the position of agnosticism when it comes to God’s existence. But I’m fairly certain that I can disprove the idea of a personal God. As to whether there was a creator with a purpose for this universe who made it all happen, I simply don’t know. But I don’t see the need to worship such a being, because I don’t see any religion as having a handle on this being and everything that his been written seems much more a reflection of man’s own desires and fears than a description of the nature of God.

        Poppycock is a great word. 🙂

      2. Maaaaaaaan, if I went toe to toe with you, I’d probably lose LOL.
        You seem like you have your head on straight, and you’re a thinker (which is a lot more than I can say for most people).
        As much as I would, love to go point by point with you again, I would most likely be here all night . . . and I’ve got so many other things to do.
        But, I will leave you with this bit of wisdom that I have gathered in my life . . .
        Atheism is great if knowledge is the only goal. But sometime, knowledge just doesn’t cut it. Sometimes, all we need is a little bit of love, a little bit of understanding, and a whole lot of hope.
        I looked for love, and understanding, and hope in not believing in God. I searched and searched for answers and I was just as lost and overwhelmed as an Atheist as I was a Christian. But when I realized that I don’t have to have all the answers, I started to see that our choices in life are what truly makes us free. I choose to be a Christian, not because it has all the answers, but simply because it works for me . . . it makes sense FOR ME. Maybe it will work for you, maybe it won’t. But at least I can try and share my positive experiences with following Jesus, and leave the rest in God’s hands . . . or noodles, if you believe God is a flying spaghetti monster 😉

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.