# Is belief in any God better than Atheism?



## Artfuldodger (Sep 20, 2013)

Some Christians feel it is better for somebody to believe in a god, any god at all, is better than atheism.
Boy Scouts and Freemasonry follow this belief.
It appears some Christians on this forum follow this belief also. I guess it might be easier to convert a Hindu to Christianity than an Atheist. At least he already believes in a god.
Even people of other religions find common ground in a belief in a supernatural being as in Freemasonry or scouting.

It's just strange to me knowing that, as a Christian, I know Jesus is the only way to salvation. I wonder if we had more followers of  Hinduism  and Shintoism on this forum if they would have as many negative post against their beliefs. I do see some debates against the Judaism believers but most of them on this forum are Messianic Jews and not Orthodox Jews.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 20, 2013)

Don't forget that many Atheists were once religious, some very religious and many especially in this country were Christians before they were Atheists.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 21, 2013)

I think a bible thumping muslim would be harder to covert than an atheist.  An atheist won't die for that kind of stuff.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 21, 2013)

> I wonder if we had more followers of Hinduism and Shintoism on this forum if they would have as many negative post against their beliefs.


As soon as they started spouting off nonsense like they are the only one with morals or Atheism means its ok to torture kids and all the other ridiculousness that gets posted here then the answer would be yes. Most of us couldn't care less if someone believes in a god and supports your right to do so. 99% of the negativity comes from when we are told why we are wrong for not believing the same or when what you believe is attempted to be force fed to us.


> Some Christians feel it is better for somebody to believe in a god, any god at all, is better than atheism


I find that very odd. To me its a stance based off fear or the need to feel justified in believing in something that cant be proven. In other words to be able to say even though he has faith in a different god it makes me feel more comfortable that I have faith in my god. Its a safer position in the mind. But to have to consider there are no gods at all? Far too threatening.


> I guess it might be easier to convert a Hindu to Christianity than an Atheist. At least he already believes in a god.


Interesting thought. IF true it brings up a good point. Its a predator prey concept. The predator goes after the weak. The weakness is that the prey already believes in a god. The atheist doesn't have that weakness and therefore is not considered prey so is not useful to the predator. It would mean the Atheist isn't considered bad for not believing in the god he's bad because he cant be considered as prey. The Atheist isn't a meal ticket and the predator doesn't like that.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 21, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> As soon as they started spouting off nonsense like they are the only one with morals or Atheism means its ok to torture kids and all the other ridiculousness that gets posted here then the answer would be yes. Most of us couldn't care less if someone believes in a god and supports your right to do so. 99% of the negativity comes from when we are told why we are wrong for not believing the same or when what you believe is attempted to be force fed to us.
> 
> I find that very odd. To me its a stance based off fear or the need to feel justified in believing in something that cant be proven. In other words to be able to say even though he has faith in a different god it makes me feel more comfortable that I have faith in my god. Its a safer position in the mind. But to have to consider there are no gods at all? Far too threatening.
> 
> Interesting thought. IF true it brings up a good point. Its a predator prey concept. The predator goes after the weak. The weakness is that the prey already believes in a god. The atheist doesn't have that weakness and therefore is not considered prey so is not useful to the predator. It would mean the Atheist isn't considered bad for not believing in the god he's bad because he cant be considered as prey. The Atheist isn't a meal ticket and the predator doesn't like that.



I really like the part in Red.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 21, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Interesting thought. IF true it brings up a good point. Its a predator prey concept. The predator goes after the weak. The weakness is that the prey already believes in a god. The atheist doesn't have that weakness and therefore is not considered prey so is not useful to the predator. It would mean the Atheist isn't considered bad for not believing in the god he's bad because he cant be considered as prey. The Atheist isn't a meal ticket and the predator doesn't like that.




Here's another way of thinking about it.  It's the "con man/mark" concept.  Satan is the Great Deceiver and the Ultimate Con Man.  He's just looking for easy marks.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 21, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Here's another way of thinking about it.  It's the "con man/mark" concept.  Satan is the Great Deceiver and the Ultimate Con Man.  He's just looking for easy marks.


Im not getting the correlation of that in regards of my response - 


> Interesting thought. IF true it brings up a good point. Its a predator prey concept. The predator goes after the weak. The weakness is that the prey already believes in a god. The atheist doesn't have that weakness and therefore is not considered prey so is not useful to the predator. It would mean the Atheist isn't considered bad for not believing in the god he's bad because he cant be considered as prey. The Atheist isn't a meal ticket and the predator doesn't like that


To this -


> I guess it might be easier to convert a Hindu to Christianity than an Atheist. At least he already believes in a god


Explain?


----------



## JFS (Sep 21, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Some Christians feel it is better for somebody to believe in a god, any god at all, is better than atheism.



To me there is a lot of truth in the saying "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."   It seems kind of funny to say "we know there are 1000 choices and it's ok to reject 999, just be sure you accept 1."   

Well, I would if I could find 1 that made any sense, it's just each one seems to fail for the same reasons as the other 999.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 21, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Here's another way of thinking about it.  It's the "con man/mark" concept.  Satan is the Great Deceiver and the Ultimate Con Man.  He's just looking for easy marks.



Your telling that to people that do not believe in the Devil either. We don't grasp that concept on anything but a pretend level.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 21, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Your telling that to people that do not believe in the Devil either. We don't grasp that concept on anything but a pretend level.


I figured that was a given  but I still don't see how it fits into what was being said.
I mean for that matter if this Satan dude is the Great Deceiver he might be great enough deceive every Christian into believing in the wrong god


----------



## TheBishop (Sep 21, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> I figured that was a given  but I still don't see how it fits into what was being said.
> I mean for that matter if this Satan dude is the Great Deceiver he might be great enough deceive every Christian into believing in the wrong god



Now thats one to think on. 

The bibles god commands obedience, or condemns those that fail, to eternal torcher. 

He has murdered, tempted, tested, and caused those he "loved" to suffer, to prove thier love. 

He  commited human sacrifice. 

He is all powerful, yet chooses to let "evil" exist. 

He creates a manual, that leaves massive room for interpretation, levying a price to buy your "salvation".

Yep, the bible has to be sham by the devil.  For an all powerful, all loving god, would have no requirements to be worshipped, he would just love you for who you are, and make sure your life was perfect.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 21, 2013)

Maybe the biggest rouse the Devil ever pulled off was to let people think there is a God that actually cares about them. 
If the Devil exists...or is capable of doing anything...it must be because there is nothing else capable of stopping him or a "loving" God needs the Devil to his work for him. Either way.....such a being is not worthy of my worship or love.


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 21, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> For an all powerful, all loving god, would have no requirements to be worshipped, he would just love you for who you are, and make sure your life was perfect.


Wouldn't you have to actually be an all powerful God to make such a statement?

You're telling me exactly how an all powerful, all loving God would do things, how do you know what you're saying is true?


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 21, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Im not getting the correlation of that in regards of my response -



Who is the "predator" in your scenario?


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 21, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Your telling that to people that do not believe in the Devil either. We don't grasp that concept on anything but a pretend level.



Understood.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 21, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Who is the "predator" in your scenario?


That's obvious. Either explain or don't. I was just trying to understand your point but its not important enough to me to play 50 questions with you.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 21, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Wouldn't you have to actually be an all powerful God to make such a statement?
> 
> You're telling me exactly how an all powerful, all loving God would do things, how do you know what you're saying is true?



We all have our own versions of what a God should be/is. No different than you.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 21, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> That's obvious.



So was post #6.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 21, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> So was post #6.


The meaning of #6 is obvious. How it pertains to what I said is not. Nor do I care any more what your point was.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 21, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> The meaning of #6 is obvious. How it pertains to what I said is not.



The pertinence is crystal clear.




WaltL1 said:


> Nor do I care any more what your point was.



I've never gotten the impression that you cared what anybody's point was.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 21, 2013)

> I've never gotten the impression that you cared what anybody's point was.


You are absolutely right. That's the exact reason why I didn't ask you to explain. Twice.
You sure got me figured out I'll tell ya. Your impressions are incredibly accurate.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 21, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> You are absolutely right. That's the exact reason why I didn't ask you to explain. Twice..



... and my request for clarification in post 14 was met with "That's obvious."  




WaltL1 said:


> You sure got me figured out I'll tell ya.



Oh, I had you pegged a long time ago.  




WaltL1 said:


> Your impressions are incredibly accurate.



I do a killer "John Wayne" -- got the walk down and everything.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 21, 2013)

So to the Christians, would you rather vote for, join a club or work with a bunch of supreme being believers, even if they aren't Christians or a bunch of Atheists?
Me personally, I don't see a difference. Atheist would probably be more neutral as in voting for one instead of a Muslim. An Atheist wouldn't be trying to convert me or talking about weird spiritual stuff I don't agree with.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 21, 2013)

centerpin fan;8107630[QUOTE said:
			
		

> ]... and my request for clarification in post 14 was met with "That's obvious."


Since you responded I assumed you didn't need clarification. Based on past experience I figured you were playing your 50 questions game again. To show that I can admit the possibility I am wrong the clarification is the "predator" is the Christian trying to do the converting.
To clarify that, I am not calling Christians predators I am using predator/prey as an example to make a point.





> Oh, I had you pegged a long time ago.


Im sure you were just as accurate then as you are now.






> I do a killer "John Wayne" -- got the walk down and everything.


That would be pretty darn funny at another time but not now based on the fact that you preceded that joke with multiple posts of run around instead of just simply explaining your point which would have been so easy to do.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 21, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> To clarify that, I am not calling Christians predators I am using predator/prey as an example to make a point.
> do.



... as I used the con man/mark example to make a point.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 21, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> ... as I used the con man/mark example to make a point.


Gotcha the Christian is the con man/Satan and the Hindu is the easy mark because he already believes in a god.
Sure would have been easy to just say that when I asked the first time. And its the same point.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 21, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Gotcha the Christian is the con man/Satan and the Hindu is the easy mark because he already believes in a god.



I can only assume you're being facetious.  Like you, though, I'm not interested enough to pursue it further.


----------



## Asath (Sep 23, 2013)

Ah.  It is so refreshing to see that, after my brief sojourn, nothing much has changed.  

We may now safely place the enormous taxpayer-funded experiment in universal public schooling, free public libraries, and the radically wide-open access to the world-wide-web among the other historic, and largely failed attempts to bring actual knowledge to the stubbornly sectarian masses.

Against, though perhaps also perversely adhering to, the narrow ‘definition’ of religion outlined above, we ought now also attach the stubborn adherence to not only superstitious but also political ‘belief’ in things that have long ago been proven to be quite wrong.  A recent humorously rendered definition of ‘Courage’ I have come across asserted that ‘true courage is knowing that you are wrong but steadfastly refusing to budge from your position.’  Or words to that effect.  Better to die a patriot to a lost cause than to lose face by wising up.  In an odd way, at least politically, one must admire that sort of spirit.

But, at the same time, one must also shake one’s head in private embarrassment for the true zealot, while easily tracing nearly all of the world’s serious human tragedies to that sort of human – all too common among us – and lay the responsibility at THEIR doorsteps.  Reality has it that the morons outweigh the thoughtful by sheer force of numbers, and always have – thus – history--  as witnessed and duly recorded.

The ‘god religions,’ characterized by false piousness contradicted immediately by condemnation of other thoughts and by their own daily conduct, as well as by aggressive proselytizing and the seeking of converts, by force and violence if necessary, are now joined by the ‘political religions,’ where, similarly, facts are no obstacle to their zeal to have all of humanity bow before their will.  Simple truth has no traction in the face of mass brain-washing accomplished by the endless repetition of falsehoods until those lies become ‘common knowledge.’  Witness: “Climate Change Science is Settled Fact.”   Ignorant, zealous folks like this outnumber us, and are difficult to deal with.

As in the thread above, we see yet again that Christianity is not a religion – it is a fact, in the truly dangerous minds of the zealous.  Is ANY god better than NO god, the question was asked?  The answer, of course, is obvious to all but those to still adhere to flat-earth theories, but still the rancor rages, the fires are stoked, and the animosities of ancient, primitive, tribal rivalries rage . . .  to the result of daily front-page news of new atrocities and massive, random  deaths visited by the ‘righteous believers’ against the ‘heathen infidels,’ –worldwide.  

Proud, stubborn, entrenched, well armed, zealous stupid people.  A world full of them.  ALL killing or threatening to do so, in the name of god.  The SAME god.  The god of Abraham.  The basis of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity.  Same fictitious fella, this god of theirs – quite different ideas concerning just what the characteristics and  message of this manufactured being might be.  Seems clear to each and all of them that their god put THEM  in charge of the planet.  A quick look around answers the OP convincingly.

Having no god is vastly superior, in human terms, to watching you immature little pukes kill us all in the endless fight you’ve concocted concerning your own version of just what your imaginary being wishes for you to do to the rest of us.  

In the end, patient knowledge will prevail.  It just takes awhile to get things through the True Believers skulls, which seem to be about an eighth of an inch thicker than a normal human skull.  It took about four hundred years, and countless intellectuals murdered and their work destroyed, to get it into the minds of the Western Bible zealots that the world was actually round, and was not actually the center of anything at all.  (For any real scholars in the audience I would note here that the Chinese already knew all of this, as did the Aztecs, and many others, and that the so-called European ‘explorers’ actually discovered nothing at all – they already had a map, smuggled out of China, that showed them a very accurate map of the entire big, round, world – all they did was follow those maps and find out that they were right, - I can prove this to be true).  

True enough, also, that those ancients, eyes wide open to realities observed as many of your personal realities STILL are not, still had unknowns, and had god-figures in their superstitions to account for those unknowns.  Their superstitious ‘gods’ were at least realistic, and limited to specific assignments.  It was easier, you see, in an age of constant discovery and aggressive advancement of knowledge to shove a minor god off the cliff into perpetual non-belief when something formerly ‘god-produced’ was easily explained, than to toss out one giant, singular, unquestionable, all-powerful imaginary construct.  Once THAT god turned out to be wrong – well that was the whole control-based religion out the door and buried in the churchyard at a stroke.  The ancient ‘priests’ knew better than to put all their eggs in one basket.

So, for those on the fence, or agnostic, or not quite sure, I’d recommend a polytheism of the old style – once something you formerly thought just HAD to be done by some divine power turns out to be easily explained (which continues to happen daily), you can just toss one minor god off your list as your education advances.  Thunder?  Check that one off.  Earthquake?  Darn. Simple plate tectonics – cross that one off . . . etc.

For the monotheists, who insist on having it as all or nothing in one basket – well, we’ll try to treat you with some sort of kindness in our history books in a few hundred years – but probably not, since we’re already openly laughing at your increasingly desperate rationalizations.  For you folks, you’d be far better off having no god than the one you’ve chosen.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 23, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


> Satan is the Great Deceiver and the Ultimate Con Man.
> 
> Wow... the devil even gets unnecessary capitalization....


----------



## TheBishop (Sep 23, 2013)

Asath said:


> Ah.  It is so refreshing to see that, after my brief sojourn, nothing much has changed.
> 
> We may now safely place the enormous taxpayer-funded experiment in universal public schooling, free public libraries, and the radically wide-open access to the world-wide-web among the other historic, and largely failed attempts to bring actual knowledge to the stubbornly sectarian masses.
> 
> ...



Well that killed this thread.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 23, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Wow... the devil even gets unnecessary capitalization....



"Unnecessary Capitalization" is my middle name.  (It was gonna be "Homer", so I'm actually kind of thankful.)


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 23, 2013)

Asath said:


> Ah.  It is so refreshing to see that, after my brief sojourn, nothing much has changed.
> 
> We may now safely place the enormous taxpayer-funded experiment in universal public schooling, free public libraries, and the radically wide-open access to the world-wide-web among the other historic, and largely failed attempts to bring actual knowledge to the stubbornly sectarian masses.
> 
> ...


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 23, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> Now thats one to think on.
> 
> The bibles god commands obedience, or condemns those that fail, to eternal torcher.
> 
> ...



What is the price?


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 23, 2013)

Asath said:


> We may now safely place the enormous taxpayer-funded experiment in universal public schooling, free public libraries, and the radically wide-open access to the world-wide-web among the other historic, and largely failed attempts to bring actual knowledge to the stubbornly sectarian masses.



While I agree that public schools are a failure, I think you are qualifying your assessment with a "must believe like Asath."

What if I did that?



Asath said:


> Reality has it that the morons outweigh the thoughtful by sheer force of numbers, and always have – thus – history--  as witnessed and duly recorded.



We agree on that^^^^but for very different reasons.




Asath said:


> Witness: “Climate Change Science is Settled Fact.”   Ignorant, zealous folks like this outnumber us, and are difficult to deal with.



At least we are in agreement politically.....if what you say about me is true (I am a believer in God), what does that say about you?



Asath said:


> Having no god is vastly superior, in human terms, to watching you immature little pukes kill us all in the endless fight you’ve concocted concerning your own version of just what your imaginary being wishes for you to do to the rest of us.



Asath, it's a very safe bet that nobody who is participating on this forum has ever been killed by a religious zealot.  I think you are being a bit dramatic here.  Horrible things have been done in the name of God, yes.  But, horrible things have been done in the name of empirialism, capitalism, socialism, or any other issue where folks tend to let their beliefs blind their better judgment.

Let's face it, what you said earlier is true.....the dumb greatly outnumber the not-so-dumb.  But, that fact is not limited to the religious.  They are just no immune from the same.



Asath said:


> So, for those on the fence, or agnostic, or not quite sure, I’d recommend a polytheism of the old style – once something you formerly thought just HAD to be done by some divine power turns out to be easily explained (which continues to happen daily), you can just toss one minor god off your list as your education advances.  Thunder?  Check that one off.  Earthquake?  Darn. Simple plate tectonics – cross that one off . . . etc.



Does a scientific explanation for thunder eliminate a God creating a universe with thunder in it?  Or an earth which shifting plates?



Asath said:


> For the monotheists, who insist on having it as all or nothing in one basket – well, we’ll try to treat you with some sort of kindness in our history books in a few hundred years – but probably not, since we’re already openly laughing at your increasingly desperate rationalizations.  For you folks, you’d be far better off having no god than the one you’ve chosen.



Welcome back.  I missed the condescension.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 23, 2013)

Asath said:


> Ah.  It is so refreshing to see that, after my brief sojourn, nothing much has changed.
> 
> We may now safely place the enormous taxpayer-funded experiment in universal public schooling, free public libraries, and the radically wide-open access to the world-wide-web among the other historic, and largely failed attempts to bring actual knowledge to the stubbornly sectarian masses.
> 
> ...



You have got to be kidding me.

How do you take yourself seriously Asath?


----------



## Asath (Sep 24, 2013)

“How do you take yourself seriously Asath?”

Well, I usually start with Milk of Magnesia.  It helps cleanse the bowels, I find, and leaves me greatly relieved and far less tense.  Also, I studiously avoid eating the yellow M&M’s (the pastor said they’re nothing more than seeds sown by the devil to tempt us); I always install the toilet paper over – never under; observe the sock, sock, shoe, shoe rule (never sock, shoe, sock, shoe); stir my oatmeal at all times in a counter-clockwise motion; and have never once been heard to utter the name of John Foster Dulles aloud.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 25, 2013)

asath said:


> well, i usually start with milk of magnesia.  It helps cleanse the bowels.



tmi


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 25, 2013)

Asath said:


> I always ... observe the sock, sock, shoe, shoe rule (never sock, shoe, sock, shoe);


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 25, 2013)

centerpin fan said:


>



That was pretty funny, I never knew I was doing it correctly all these years.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 25, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> That was pretty funny, I never knew I was doing it correctly all these years.



I never doubted you, AD.  Reading between the lines of your posts, I always knew you were "a sock and a sock" kind of guy.

I salute you!


----------

