Why did God create atheists?

[ironduck]

Narz, I don't think God created Atheists. He created human beings with free moral agency and the ability to choose whether or not to believe in him. About 90% of humans believe in him; that's a pretty good percentage.

Even assuming your number is true that 90% of all people believe in some kind of deity, how does that work out with hindus and others with multiple gods? Are they worshipping the same god you are?

 

[Ayatollah So]

2 Corinthians 4:4
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

By the way, the god of this age =

Aha, satanically-induced mental disfunction! I hadn't thought of that. But I wonder if you fully grasp the implications of what you're saying.

If I'm reading, say, your post, or even the Bible itself, how do I know that my understanding of what it's saying isn't also satanically twisted? I mean, if Satan can blind my mind, I have no way of ruling out the possibility that he does it whenever I try to read the Bible. For that matter, Satan could have blinded the minds of all the translators who rendered the Bible from Hebrew and Aramaic into English - for all I know.

Once one starts doubting one's own mental capacities, the whole enterprise of knowledge-seeking quickly goes, if you'll pardon the expression, straight to hell.

 

[JonathanValjean]

Uh... way too high percent, dude...

For Europe and Eastern Europe, yes, 90% is too high. When the scope is broadened to the worldwide population, 90% is the oft-quoted estimate by the experts. I have been hearing that number academicians for the past 10 years.

In Europe, the number who believe in God is around 70%; in Eastern Europe, it is around 77%; in America, the number is around 91%. When you factor in the population from the remaining parts of the world, the overall percentage of those who believe in a higher power rises to around 90%.

@ironduck:

Excellent point you made above. Yes, let's define God as "higher power or force."

 

[Azash]

What was He thinking?

That's quite offensive, you know.

 

[Iggy]

Why did God create atheists?
The men who formulated the various God stories, (in order to have power and control over the masses) perhaps let atheists be explained away as a suitable scape goat for the world's wrongs.

 

[mdwh]

About 90% of humans believe in him; that's a pretty good percentage.

Which "god"?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

The largest religion, Christiantity, has 32% of believers. Fairly good, but nowhere near 90%. I don't think it makes sense to group together believers in different versions of the idea of "god", just because they share some things in common - it's no more sense than to say so many percent of people believe in "supernatural beings", therefore the Easter Bunny would be pleased with such a high percentage.

Also bear in mind that Christianity is quite clear that other religions are the "wrong" religion, so grouping them altogether doesn't make sense at all. According to Christians, only those 32% will go to heaven, the rest to hell.

 

[mdwh]

In Europe, the number who believe in God is around 70%; in Eastern Europe, it is around 77%.

Though it should be pointed out that the figures are lower in some countries.

According to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/programmes/wtwtgod/pdf/wtwtogod.pdf , that figure is 56% in the UK.

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html shows several countries, including in Europe, where there are more than 30% who don't believe in God.

Excellent point you made above. Yes, let's define God as "higher power or force."

Well that includes all sorts of things which aren't "God" by any reasonable definition (the BBC survey found 11% of people believed in a higher power, but not God - I hate it when people try to count people who believe in "God or a higher power", in an attempt to up the numbers).

 

[JonathanValjean]

I hate it when people try to count people who believe in "God or a higher power", in an attempt to up the numbers).

If that quote is directed at me, you can hate the famous Gallup company who conducted the millenium poll. I got my numbers from this particular poll, and its definition was "higher power." Thanks.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

All of your points are extreme generalisations that could just as easily be turned around.

Please do.

They fail to examine the individual situation and instead paints with a broad brush in the direction you want them to.

So, I'm supposed to address the individual situations of every one of the 6.5 billion people on this planet, hmm?

1) *Some*

More than a few, to be sure.

failed romances may lead to that, most lead to just carrying on with one's life. Similarly, failed marriages lead to the same things you just listed in *some* instances, in most cases they do not.

Actually, those things tend to cause marriages to fail, not stem from the failure of the marriage.

And no, marriages do not mainly fail due to extramarital affairs,

Of course not...

but due to communication problems, lack of love in the first place,

...because marriage has been so watered down in its significance that no one sees it as worth working at.

or people growing apart as they they find new paths important for their well-being and growth as humans.

Case in point. Something hard comes up, and rather than help each other over the hurdle, the couple just goes their seperate ways. Back in the day, "Til death do us part" meant something.

2) Sure, multiple sex partners means higher risk of stds.

IE my point is valid.

Any sex at all means higher risk at stds than no sex! So let's just skip sex altogether and never create another child in this world, eh?

Ah, hyperbole, last refuge of a losing argument...

Making love is one of the most beautiful things in this world, to consider this a sin is so far beyond my understanding that you might as well claim murder to be a virtue.

Correction, making love...to your wife. Fornicating with a willing hole or member is just fornication.

Why? Because doing so with your wife is doing so knowing that if a baby does come about, the two of you are socially ready for the child. Nailing some random bimbo you met in a sleazy bar is done knowing that you'll never see her again, and if she gets knocked up, it's her money going to the abortion clinic.

Taking care with sex through testing and protection minimizes the risk of disease to a degree that they would be almost eliminated within a generation if anyone did so. The reason for spread of stds has everything to do with carelessness and ignorance like the kind you propose in point 4.

In fact, most diseases between humans spread through direct contact. Your argument could just as well be used for people always needing to stand 10 metres away from each other, and never touching. In fact, they should wear gloves and masks just to be sure. The point is, that diseases spread through all human interaction, and by far the most of them have nothing to do with sex.

But the one guaranteed way to avoid getting an STD is to not have sex, yes?

3) You know, I thought marriage was based on love, but I see that in your world it's based on terms like penalties and social stigma to keep it together.

Nice, when all else fails, deliberate misinterpretation. 'Penalties' refers to the legal status of marriage. If a spouse abandons their partner, their partner has certain legal rights, like custody of children, ownership of marital assets, etc... 'Stigmata' refers to how divorcees were once perceived, and how adulterers were once perceived. Obviously, these things have fallen away under the relentless assault of the forces of evil and lawlessness, but there's no denying that they used to exist and influence people to behave properly toward their spouses.

Again, this is the exact opposite of how I see the world. People get together because they love each other, and that is why they stay together.

And to symbolise this, they marry, exchange vows, and wear rings as symbols of that devotion, so everyone will know that they have taken themselves out of the game.

They should not stay together out of fear of how society might judge them. What kind of relationship is that, one of fear of other's judgement? Terrible. There is no less stability in a serious monogamous relationship regardless of a formal ceremony. Rather, what you suggest causes pain and suffering for so many people in this world that it is heart breaking. I know of a good deal of people who are trapped in marriages with a partner that no longer treats them fairly, yet they feel obligued to stay due to social stigma and judgement. All for nothing, they get no love from that, just pain.

Your own words contradict themselves. Compare the emboldened to the underlined. If a man is mistreating his wife, she should do something about it. No one lives in a vacuum, there are people all around that likely have vested interests in helping a mistreated wife: her parents/family, her husband's parents/family, her (gasp, horrors!) pastor/preacher/reverend/spiritual advisor, the police, her bloody Congressman. Someone out there is willing to help her, I guarantee it.

Women across the world are mistreated by their husbands and trapped due to various rules of marriage, both legally and socially.

Absolutely true. That doesn't mean marriage is bad. It means some men, and some cultures, are bad.

4) On the contrary, openness about sex is what is needed. Teaching teenagers about consequences makes them capable of making their own decisions. You cannot take the hormones out of them, they are human beings with desires. Instead, let them know how sex works so they don't make their discoveries in the dark without full knowledge of diseases and pregnancy. Sex becomes no less frequent because you shroud it under a dark veil, it just becomes hidden and secret. Why you would want to hide nature from people is beyond me, once again.

I find it difficult to comprehend how people can make the leap from wanting sex in the media removed or toned down to shutting down sex education (and for that matter, it boggles my mind how some people can confuse sex education with sex-based entertainment). I am a proponent of sex education with a heavy encouragement of abstinence.

Tell them about condoms? Sure, just make sure you remind them that condoms break, leak, and aren't a sure thing. The pill? Absolutely! But make sure they know it won't do a thing about STDs. Not telling children that abstinence is the only guaranteed safe path through teen pregnancy and STDs is lying to them. Telling them they can gamble on birth control and condoms to keep them safe and childless is the height of irresponsible parenting.

How did we get on this anyway? What's it got to do with atheists?

 

[FredLC]

Tell them about condoms? Sure, just make sure you remind them that condoms break, leak, and aren't a sure thing. The pill? Absolutely! But make sure they know it won't do a thing about STDs. Not telling children that abstinence is the only guaranteed safe path through teen pregnancy and STDs is lying to them. Telling them they can gamble on birth control and condoms to keep them safe and childless is the height of irresponsible parenting.

Sure, but at the same time its necessary to explain the odds of these things. A well placed condom will most likely not break. Combined with pills, they reduce the risk of pregnancy to almost zero. Combined with a sex life that is responsible even if active - meaning, being free to have sex does not equals being promiscuous - and keep constant counseling with doctors will also place the risk od STDs pretty low.

In short - no one advocates that sexual education should work as a way to blind kids of the risks of sex, but it also should not be an exageration of these risks to make a scarecrow out of sex. Either way it's not sexual education, but sexual un-education.

Regards .

 

[ironduck]

FearlessLeader2: I hope you are not leading anyone. You sadden my heart.

 

[mdwh]

If that quote is directed at me, you can hate the famous Gallup company who conducted the millenium poll. I got my numbers from this particular poll, and its definition was "higher power." Thanks.

It wasn't directed at you, but at the various polls that try to make the God-believers' numbers higher by including other things like "higher power".

 

[mdwh]

2) Sure, multiple sex partners means higher risk of stds.

IE my point is valid.

If you're also against divorce and remarriage. Given how many "monogamous" people get married many times, and have multiple partners in their lifetime, if you're going to argue in favour of reducing the risk of STDs, it's important to specify that you mean just one partner in your lifetime.

Not that marriage has anything to do with this. You could decide to be monogamous to just a single person in your lifetime, without having to get marriage.

Correction, making love...to your wife. Fornicating with a willing hole or member is just fornication.

Why? Because doing so with your wife is doing so knowing that if a baby does come about, the two of you are socially ready for the child. Nailing some random bimbo you met in a sleazy bar is done knowing that you'll never see her again, and if she gets knocked up, it's her money going to the abortion clinic.

This is an argument against one night stands with a stranger - if you feel that way, fine - but it isn't an argument against sex outside of marriage.

But the one guaranteed way to avoid getting an STD is to not have sex, yes?

And goodbye human race!

The new version of the Green Cross Code also says "Don't cross the road".

Tell them about condoms? Sure, just make sure you remind them that condoms break, leak, and aren't a sure thing. The pill? Absolutely! But make sure they know it won't do a thing about STDs.

Of course - is anyone suggesting otherwise?

Not telling children that abstinence is the only guaranteed safe path through teen pregnancy and STDs is lying to them. Telling them they can gamble on birth control and condoms to keep them safe and childless is the height of irresponsible parenting.

Well my sex education did point this out, but it's kind of pointing out the bleeding obvious, on the level of "you can avoid getting run over by not crossing the road", and not very useful for anyone who intends to have sex at least once at some point in their lives.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

If you're also against divorce and remarriage. Given how many "monogamous" people get married many times, and have multiple partners in their lifetime, if you're going to argue in favour of reducing the risk of STDs, it's important to specify that you mean just one partner in your lifetime.

See above comment RE: hyperbole and losing arguments. The situation you describe exists only because of your faction's relentless efforts to weaken marrieage and traditional families.

Not that marriage has anything to do with this. You could decide to be monogamous to just a single person in your lifetime, without having to get marriage.

Tell us all, good sir, what the benefit of not marrying someone you intend to remain in a monogamous relationship for the rest of your life is? I can tell you the benefits of not doing so. If you don't marry the bimbo you shacked up with, you can leave any time you want, you don't have to take any of her crap, and she can't take half your stuff if she catches you banging someone else.

This is an argument against one night stands with a stranger - if you feel that way, fine - but it isn't an argument against sex outside of marriage.

No, I covered that fairly well above, and while it may not apply as much to longer-term relationships, it still applies.

And goodbye human race!

The new version of the Green Cross Code also says "Don't cross the road".

See above comment RE: hyperbole and losing arguments. Married people (IE those responsible enough to commit to a monogamous relationship) are better suited to parenthood anyway.

Well my sex education did point this out, but it's kind of pointing out the bleeding obvious, on the level of "you can avoid getting run over by not crossing the road", and not very useful for anyone who intends to have sex at least once at some point in their lives.

The difference between crossing the road and having sex is that you sometimes absolutely need to cross the street, while you can go through your whole life never having sex and be just fine. In other words, apples and oranges.

Again, what does all of this have to do with atheism?

 

[Gothmog]

Married people (IE those responsible enough to commit to a monogamous relationship) are better suited to parenthood anyway.

This is where your argument breaks down FL2. You have equated marriage with those people responsible enough to commit to a monogamous relationship. While there is some overlap, these are not equivlent groups - never have been. In my case I committed to a monogamous relationship about five years before I got married, and I only got married at that point because it meant free health care for my significant other.

Tell us all, good sir, what the benefit of not marrying someone you intend to remain in a monogamous relationship for the rest of your life is? I can tell you the benefits of not doing so. If you don't marry the bimbo you shacked up with, you can leave any time you want, you don't have to take any of her crap, and she can't take half your stuff if she catches you banging someone else.

You see, this is just insulting. Obviously there are legal benefits to marriage in the US, that is why I got legaly married, but I never needed a pastor of any sort to legitimize my love or make me behave a certain way. Here you are equating people who do not get married (which I assume you are taking as a religious ceremony) with people of low moral character or otherwise unable to form intimate bonds with members of the opposite sex. Please piss off.

There is some risk involved with any sexual contact, actually the risk of being hurt emotionally is probably the biggest one for any quality person. But life is full of risk, I chose to perform many dangerous actions (scuba diving and hard core inorganic synthesis to name a couple) knowing full well the risks involved.

This has nothing to do with atheism, as you point out, because an athiest is just as capable (perhaps moreso, but that's another debate) as a religious person of entering into an intimate, life long, monogomous relationship. Judge a man by his actions.

As far as the OP, I don't have any reliable information about the characteristics of God/the creator.

 

[punkbass2000]

Well said, Gothy

 

[CurtSibling]

Why did God create atheists?

*getting in on the joke*

Perhaps god wanted to commit suicide.

It matters not. For all purposes on Earth, there is no god.

Any zealot who can show otherwise, please do.

 

[Quasar1011]

But I wonder if you fully grasp the implications of what you're saying.

I sure do. The implications are, that Christians have access to all knowledge. I only say that, because God says so.

From Colossians 2:2-3
My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

If I'm reading, say, your post, or even the Bible itself, how do I know that my understanding of what it's saying isn't also satanically twisted? I mean, if Satan can blind my mind, I have no way of ruling out the possibility that he does it whenever I try to read the Bible. For that matter, Satan could have blinded the minds of all the translators who rendered the Bible from Hebrew and Aramaic into English - for all I know.

Frankly, I am tired of hearing this argument. Satan did not blind the minds of the translators who wrote the Bible, because God preserves His word, and Satan is no match for God. From John 16:12-15, Jesus speaking:
"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.

You underestimate the Spirit of God, and overestimate Satan. A Christian has this very Spirit residing in him/her, guiding him/her into truth. In 1st Corinthians 2:9-16, we read:

However, as it is written:
"No eye has seen,
no ear has heard,
no mind has conceived
what God has prepared for those who love him"— but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment: "For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

 

[Narz]

wow, this is still going on? you guys are a trip

 

[mdwh]

See above comment RE: hyperbole and losing arguments. The situation you describe exists only because of your faction's relentless efforts to weaken marrieage and traditional families.

No, that doesn't defend your position. People who believe in "no sex outside of marriage" are still very much at risk of STDs.

Tell us all, good sir, what the benefit of not marrying someone you intend to remain in a monogamous relationship for the rest of your life is? I can tell you the benefits of not doing so. If you don't marry the bimbo you shacked up with, you can leave any time you want, you don't have to take any of her crap, and she can't take half your stuff if she catches you banging someone else.

I don't understand - so it sounds like you're in favour of not marrying?

Whether or not there are benefits to marrying is irrelevant - this has nothing to do with whether sex out of marriage is immoral or not. All your arguments against sex outside of marriage do not apply to sex in stable long term relationships.

The difference between crossing the road and having sex is that you sometimes absolutely need to cross the street, while you can go through your whole life never having sex and be just fine. In other words, apples and oranges.

Sometimes people need to cross the road, and sometimes people need to have sex (assuming we want the human race to not die out).

Sometimes people have sex for pleasure, and sometimes people cross the road for pleasure (eg, to go to the pub).

The fact is that people are willing to take all sorts of risks, rather than living their life in cotton wool and only doing things that are absolutely necessary. Sex is no different to anything else.