Firstly, I was an atheist myself. And not one of these I-am-atheist-because-I-read-a-book-once-but-cannot-think-myself-guys. I was a deeply convinced atheist and a scientifically motivated materialistic atheist. Since several years I am a christian, and again not an I-am-a-christian-because-my-parents-were-christians-guy or because I blindly believe something.

Myth No. 1:
---------------

The Age of Enlightenment showed that Christianity (and all other religions) are delusional and that scientific progress clarified all such irrationalities.

That is a popular and ever repeated myth of atheists, but it is still a myth. Actually, it is even a lie. It is certainly true that the preceeding Middle Ages in Europe and also the time of Absolutism and Monarchy and in particular the regime of the Roman Catholic Church during that times was terrible and evil. The increasing cry for liberty, equal rights, democracy and rational and intelligent thinking was a good and necessary movement. It was a great achievement of many good people to destroy Monarchy, Aristocratism, the dominance of the Roman Catholic church and unjust laws.

But at the same time, atheists "used" this movement to destroy also some other things, which were not bad, and that is faith in God, or seeing the world not just as a materialistic universe where things like love, ethics, etc. are irrational but explainable properties of matter.

Finally the successes and achievements of this good movement towards Liberty and Equal Rights was proclaimed as a solely atheistic success and a "Dawn of Atheism". Atheists were so succesful in this lie that nowadays it appears as the greatest triumph for mankind that the "Age of Enlightment" abolished all religion. And even more: They managed to inject such a strong notion into basically every society that "of course" everyone believing in God is "stupid" and retro.

To be clear:
I do not intend to attack atheists here. They have their right to choose their world view as freely as anybody else.

BUT: atheism is a world-view as any other world-view and cannot be proven or disproven as any other world-view. It is based on as many assumptions and axioms as any other world-view and religion. Atheism is NOT an assumption-free world-view. It is NOT proven to be more scientific. It is NOT the world-view of the intelligent people!

I have full respect before atheists and I do not intend to attack them. But when atheists use propaganda and lies to increase their impact, than this is on the same level as the Roman Catholic church used terror and brutality in the past to increase their impact. Both is bad and not allowed!

We all need more respect and understanding.


To be continued ...

@op,

OBSERVATION NUMBER 1: "I was a deeply convinced atheist and a scientifically motivated materialistic atheist."..............................And you went from there to christianity? Which means you were never convinced in the first place, and it also means that you were never scientifically motivated!!!


OBSERVATION NUMBER 2: "But at the same time, atheists "used" this movement to destroy also some other things, which were not bad, and that is faith in God"...................................................................The christian crusades, did they not use it to destroy the faith of muslims in the muslim god? The British Colonization of Africa, did they not use it to destroy the faith of the Congolese in the Congolese gods? When the Australian aborigines were invaded by the English missionaries, did the missionaries not destroy their faith in the kangaroo gods?

BONUS QUESTION: The president of the Atheists Society of Nigeria is my personal friend, you claim you were an atheist? Then your name should be on our register, what is your real name?

OBSERVATION NUMBER 3: "is on the same level as the Roman Catholic church used terror and brutality"..............................................The same level? Killing of thousands of innocent women, plus torturing innocents? It is the same?

Niflheim:
@op,

OBSERVATION NUMBER 1: "I was a deeply convinced atheist and a scientifically motivated materialistic atheist."..............................And you went from there to christianity? Which means you were never convinced in the first place, and it also means that you were never scientifically motivated!!!


OBSERVATION NUMBER 2: "But at the same time, atheists "used" this movement to destroy also some other things, which were not bad, and that is faith in God"...................................................................The christian crusades, did they not use it to destroy the faith of muslims in the muslim god? The British Colonization of Africa, did they not use it to destroy the faith of the Congolese in the Congolese gods? When the Australian aborigines were invaded by the English missionaries, did the missionaries not destroy their faith in the kangaroo gods?

BONUS QUESTION: The president of the Atheists Society of Nigeria is my personal friend, you claim you were an atheist? Then your name should be on our register, what is your real name?

OBSERVATION NUMBER 3: "is on the same level as the Roman Catholic church used terror and brutality"..............................................The same level? Killing of thousands of innocent women, plus torturing innocents? It is the same?

Reg. Obs. No. 1: So, you really mean that "once an atheist, always an atheist"? Or: a "real" atheist can never ever leave atheism? Wow!

Reg. Obs. No. 2: Did I write that the crusades were right? Did I write that colonialization was good? No. Let me clearly write: Evil things are evil, independent by whom they are committed or to which end they are done. The crusades were evil, colonialization was evil, killing of innocent women was beyond evil - I cannot say how much I hate those persons, who were involved in that, or any other brutality. Evil actions performed in the name of Jesus are so contradicting to Jesus!

Reg. Obs. No. 3: Ok, I admit, the crimes by the Roman Catholic Church were much greater. Ok, you are right. Atheists did not do any evil things, right? In the Soviet Union nobody was killed or "purged" because his faith contradicted Communism (which is congruent with Atheism)? In North Korea no christian is killed because faith in God is "stupid" and against the "Revolution" and hence must be destroyed? In the Nazi regime no SS officers interrogated christians, telling them e.g. to a christian: "You and your delusional Jesus. In few years and this is over." The Nazi ideology tried hard to destroy all kinds of religions and world views by their "superior" ideology.
You will say: but that were not atheists. Well, you accused all christians of all crimes which were done in the name of christianity. Then it is my right to summarize all crimes which were performed by convinced atheists.

To your bonus question: I never was member of the "Atheists Society of Nigeria" or any other Atheistic Society.

LMAO! This person went on to manufacture a myth and attribute it to atheists. Even when I was a Christian I cannot remember an atheist saying that the The Age of Enlightenment showed that Christianity (and all other religions) are delusional and that scientific progress clarified all such irrationalities. Sure the age of Enlightment undermined the Christian religion in Europe but I don't know of any atheist that has said it destroyed christianity. What it did was give people more tools to exercise reason towards themselves and their environment. Of course the natural outcome of such freedom is the dying of superstitious beliefs but yet even some of the great thinkers of this period were religious, Isaac Newton for example.

LordReed:
LMAO! This person went on to manufacture a myth and attribute it to atheists. Even when I was a Christian I cannot remember an atheist saying that the The Age of Enlightenment showed that Christianity (and all other religions) are delusional and that scientific progress clarified all such irrationalities. Sure the age of Enlightment undermined the Christian religion in Europe but I don't know of any atheist that has said it destroyed christianity. What it did was give people more tools to exercise reason towards themselves and their environment. Of course the natural outcome of such freedom is the dying of superstitious beliefs but yet even some of the great thinkers of this period were religious, Isaac Newton for example.

Well, I know many atheists who do say that. Many atheists even think, and express it also, and publish it, that any religion nowadays and especially such persons like me are a threat to the great achievements of the Age of Enlightment.

alxb19:


Well, I know many atheists who do say that. Many atheists even think, and express it also, and publish it, that any religion nowadays and especially such persons like me are a threat to the great achievements of the Age of Enlightment.

Can you post link to someone who published such a statement?

@op,


Did you just claim that North Korea is an Atheist nation?........................................THEY WORSHIP THEIR LEADER AND THE WORSHIP IS MODELLED AFTER THE WAY JEHOVAH WAS WORSHIPPED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT!!! YOU SHALL HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME!!!


What they practice in North Korea is called Juche, AND IT IS A RELIGION!!!..................................................https://www.billionbibles.org/north-korea/juche-religion.html

LordReed:


Can you post link to someone who published such a statement?

No problem. The world wide web is full with publications and opinions in this direction. Since I was an atheist myself, I can say that I personally did think what I critizise here. I also believed that religion and especially christianity is a threat to The Age of Enlightment. And I talked with many people and read many books. I could of course retrieve these things, but this work I am not going to do. Only one example: https://www.giordano-bruno-stiftung.de/. One post says e.g.: "why we need less religion"? If you read their texts you will find that they try hard to smoothen things and to stress that they have no problem with religion and that they like tolerance etc. but if one reads everything in total(!), it becomes completely clear that their mission is to destroy all religion, because it *is* against the great achievements of the Age of Enlightment. I really do not see why I should specifically prove it. When I was an atheist I completely embraced this thinking. But may be I was a then a very aggressive atheist and those people which I liked and read their publications?

I can only say: I completely understand such thinking. It is completely consistent with atheistic and in particular naturalistic thinking. If the atheistic world view is correct, then christianity and religion is in fact a threat to the atheistic naturalism, which considers itself as a pure and solely intellectual world-view, free of any "additional assumptions" (this would be Myth No. 2, if I find time to write this). Then, of course, religion is a threat which must be eliminated.

Niflheim:
@op,


Did you just claim that North Korea is an Atheist nation?........................................THEY WORSHIP THEIR LEADER AND THE WORSHIP IS MODELLED AFTER THE WAY JEHOVAH WAS WORSHIPPED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT!!! YOU SHALL HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME!!!


What they practice in North Korea is called Juche, AND IT IS A RELIGION!!!..................................................https://www.billionbibles.org/north-korea/juche-religion.html

Well I know that in communistic or socialistic countries (Soviet Union, DDR, China, North Korea) atheism is(!) taught in schools and Universities. One University course in the former Soviet Union e.g. is termed "Scientific atheism". Atheism is the(!) preferred and taught world-view.

alxb19:


No problem. The world wide web is full with publications and opinions in this direction. Since I was an atheist myself, I can say that I personally did think what I critizise here. I also believed that religion and especially christianity is a threat to The Age of Enlightment. And I talked with many people and read many books. I could of course retrieve these things, but this work I am not going to do. Only one example: https://www.giordano-bruno-stiftung.de/. One post says e.g.: "why we need less religion"? If you read their texts you will find that they try hard to smoothen things and to stress that they have no problem with religion and that they like tolerance etc. but if one reads everything in total(!), it becomes completely clear that their mission is to destroy all religion, because it *is* against the great achievements of the Age of Enlightment. I really do not see why I should specifically prove it. When I was an atheist I completely embraced this thinking. But may be I was a then a very aggressive atheist and those people which I liked and read their publications?

I can only say: I completely understand such thinking. It is completely consistent with atheistic and in particular naturalistic thinking. If the atheistic world view is correct, then christianity and religion is in fact a threat to the atheistic naturalism, which considers itself as a pure and solely intellectual world-view, free of any "additional assumptions" (this would be Myth No. 2, if I find time to write this). Then, of course, religion is a threat which must be eliminated.

Seriously? You are posting a link to a german website? And not even a link to the specific page or article? You need to do better than this.

If you are interested to discuss about world-views, then the only way is to discuss on a philosphical "meta level". This has nothing to do with esoterics. With "meta" I mean a world-view-independent level, on which it is scientifically philosphically possible to discuss and compare without the axioms and assumptions of a specific world-view. Then it is possible to see(!) the axioms underlying the world-views.

LordReed:


Seriously? You are posting a link to a german website? And not even a link to the specific page or article? You need to do better than this.

It has an English translation.

But the specific post is only in German, sorry: https://www.giordano-bruno-stiftung.de/termine?action=cal&id=2519&tab=cal_single

"EXIT: Warum wir weniger Religion brauchen" means "Exit: why we need less religion".

alxb19:


It has an English translation.

But the specific post is only in German, sorry: https://www.giordano-bruno-stiftung.de/termine?action=cal&id=2519&tab=cal_single

"EXIT: Warum wir weniger Religion brauchen" means "Exit: why we need less religion".

There is no place in the page that said the age of enlightenment showed Christianity was delusional and that scientific progress clarified all such irrationalities.

Giordano Bruno, my favourite heretic!

LordReed:


There is no place in the page that said the age of enlightenment showed Christianity was delusional and that scientific progress clarified all such irrationalities.

OK, I admit I do not find a book or web page so quickly which states: "the age of enlightenment showed Christianity was delusional and that scientific progress clarified all such irrationalities."

Nevertheless I know, that I myself thought like that, when I was an atheist, and many others as well. And I am 100% sure that if one asks an ultra-atheist about that, he will also confirm it. Moreover I am sure that after a thorough search I would find concrete citations supporting my statement. But, OK, I cannot proof it right now.

Therefore, what one can state is. You think, there are atheists which do not think like this? OK, I did not doubt that. Actually, this was the main motivation to start this thread. Because one has to distinguish between:

- Axioms and assumptions a world-view is based on,
- Evidences and facts which verify or falsify a world-view and
- Myths either created by the supporters of the world-view (internally) or myths created by non-supporters about a world-view (externally).

I wanted to focus on the myths, especially the myths of atheism. Why? Because no one speaks about the myths of atheism. Usually atheism is considered as totally "myth-free", and that is a myth in fact.

So, if you are an atheist (are you?) who does NOT think that "the age of enlightenment showed Christianity was delusional and that scientific progress clarified all such irrationalities", then this is great!

This is the point I wanted to stress: One can have a clear world-view without(!) necessity to attack others. That is the idea of this topic.

alxb19:


OK, I admit I do not find a book or web page so quickly which states: "the age of enlightenment showed Christianity was delusional and that scientific progress clarified all such irrationalities."

Nevertheless I know, that I myself thought like that, when I was an atheist, and many others as well. And I am 100% sure that if one asks an ultra-atheist about that, he will also confirm it. Moreover I am sure that after a thorough search I would find concrete citations supporting my statement. But, OK, I cannot proof it right now.

Therefore, what one can state is. You think, there are atheists which do not think like this? OK, I did not doubt that. Actually, this was the main motivation to start this thread. Because one has to distinguish between:

- Axioms and assumptions a world-view is based on,
- Evidences and facts which verify or falsify a world-view and
- Myths either created by the supporters of the world-view (internally) or myths created by non-supporters about a world-view (externally).

I wanted to focus on the myths, especially the myths of atheism. Why? Because no one speaks about the myths of atheism. Usually atheism is considered as totally "myth-free", and that is a myth in fact.

So, if you are an atheist (are you?) who does NOT think that "the age of enlightenment showed Christianity was delusional and that scientific progress clarified all such irrationalities", then this is great!

This is the point I wanted to stress: One can have a clear world-view without(!) necessity to attack others. That is the idea of this topic.

My first post already says you created this myth. It has nothing to do with atheism in general or else we would have heard it by now or you would have found something online stating it.

I don't know if atheism is myth free, most of us came from backgrounds laden with them and they don't get excised simply because we no longer believe in a god. However attributing one myth that is unique to you to atheism doesn't help your case. Find a myth that is being perpetuated in atheist circles, let's examine it.

LordReed:
LMAO! This person went on to manufacture a myth and attribute it to atheists. Even when I was a Christian I cannot remember an atheist saying that the The Age of Enlightenment showed that Christianity (and all other religions) are delusional and that scientific progress clarified all such irrationalities. Sure the age of Enlightment undermined the Christian religion in Europe but I don't know of any atheist that has said it destroyed christianity. What it did was give people more tools to exercise reason towards themselves and their environment. Of course the natural outcome of such freedom is the dying of superstitious beliefs but yet even some of the great thinkers of this period were religious, Isaac Newton for example.

Hello Sir,
Who was Jesus of Nazareth called Christ?
Was he a real person or just a fictitious figure?

Whoever fails to answer this questions could never have been a Christian at any given time! Because the group known as Christians were WITNESSES of Christ!
You might have been misinformed about what Christianity means but there is just one single person referred to as Christ throughout human history, he is Jesus of Nazareth.

Maximus69:


Hello Sir,
Who was Jesus of Nazareth called Christ?
Was he a real person or just a fictitious figure?

Whoever fails to answer this questions could never have been a Christian at any given time! Because the group known as Christians were WITNESSES of Christ!
You might have been misinformed about what Christianity means but there is just one single person referred to as Christ throughout human history, he is Jesus of Nazareth.

I will not discuss with you until you acknowledge you made a mistake.

Sir A: Air exists.
Audience: Can you prove it?
Sir A: You can prove air exists by blowing up a balloon. By doing this, it proves that air has weight and air takes up space. Lastly, the air is just made up of mainly nitrogen and oxygen. These things all prove that air exists.

************
Sir B: God exists
Audience: Can you prove it
Sir B: *stammers for a while* God exist because the Bible said he exists.

That was how atheism was born.

Instead of inventing a lame myth, while not prove the existence of this God. You will be saving millions of atheists. We are not dogmatic. We are ever ready to believe in the presence of substantial evidence.

LordReed:


I will not discuss with you until you acknowledge you made a mistake.

I don't need to have any discussion with you Sir!

I'm only here to prove before everyone that YOU WERE NEVER A CHRISTIAN!

That's all!

Maximus69:


I don't need to have any discussion with you Sir!

I'm only here to prove before everyone that YOU WERE NEVER A CHRISTIAN!

That's all!

You only prove that you are an unrepentant liar.

LordReed:


You only prove that you are an unrepentant liar.

Every other word i can digest easily except the bolded.
Please Sir, i know you to be an atheist.

So what exactly do you mean by UNREPENTANT?

Maximus69:


Every other word i can digest easily except the bolded.
Please Sir, i know you to be an atheist.

So what exactly do you mean by UNREPENTANT?

Unrepentant Liar

LordReed:


Unrepentant Liar

I'm not bothered about the accusation, my interest is in the bolded Sir!

Maximus69:


I'm not bothered about the accusation, my interest is in the bolded Sir!

I don't give 2 fućks what you are interested in. I won't discuss anything with you unrepentant liar.

LordReed:


I don't give 2 fućks what you are interested in. I won't discuss anything with you unrepentant liar.

Just the bolded Sir!

Maximus69:


Just the bolded Sir!

No, unrepentant liar.

LordReed:


No, UNREPENTANT liar.

GodWrites:
Sir A: Air exists.
Audience: Can you prove it?
Sir A: You can prove air exists by blowing up a balloon. By doing this, it proves that air has weight and air takes up space. Lastly, the air is just made up of mainly nitrogen and oxygen. These things all prove that air exists.

************
Sir B: God exists
Audience: Can you prove it
Sir B: *stammers for a while* God exist because the Bible said he exists.

That was how atheism was born.

Instead of inventing a lame myth, while not prove the existence of this God. You will be saving millions of atheists. We are not dogmatic. We are ever ready to believe in the presence of substantial evidence.

Finally!! Finally, someone who could summarize the major issue!! Thank you!!!

Firstly, Sir B, in your nice example did not provide a good answer. In fact, his answer I would call a "christian myth". Because how can the Bible proof that God exists. That makes no sense, because the starting point of christianity is to have this axiom ("assumption" that God does exist. When(!) He exists, then(!) it makes sense to consider the Bible as His Word, and not in the opposite direction.

So, why do I personally ("Sir C" if I may) stay with this axiom that God exists? Why do I apply this axiom in my life, as a world-view, and that means for me as a true model of reality, like a map or like a coordinate system? This is because of the following reasons:

- I was a hardcore materialistic atheist. One day I "found" God in my life. This is no evidence, I know. It could have been a singular emotional event without any significance.
- Moreover, I started to be a christian (someone who believes that God exists and that God has some further charactersistics, which I will need to describe separately some day, otherwise this sentence will become too long). During all my time as christian (approx. 20 years) and still I tested this path and my faith in God. I doubted and tested, I doubted and tested. What I have experienced in those 20 years including live altering experiences, miracles (yes, indeed, real miracles), answers, help from God - this is amazing!
Each single event in this chain of experiences one could interprete as possibly a random event or as an emotional moment or chance, but in the sum these amount of experiences makes it very vary very hard to simply reject as chance or illusion. I will say it scientifically: Presently, my degree of evidence and I mean with that: the statistical probability that God is real, from my experiences, is ca. 90%. Yes, I admit that I am not 100% sure. But I am 90% sure and that is quite good I would say.

the emoticon after "assumption" came somehow by the forum system... I did not put it there.

alxb19:


Finally!! Finally, someone who could summarize the major issue!! Thank you!!!

Firstly, Sir B, in your nice example did not provide a good answer. In fact, his answer I would call a "christian myth". Because how can the Bible proof that God exists. That makes no sense, because the starting point of christianity is to have this axiom ("assumption" that God does exist. When(!) He exists, then(!) it makes sense to consider the Bible as His Word, and not in the opposite direction.

So, why do I personally ("Sir C" if I may) stay with this axiom that God exists? Why do I apply this axiom in my life, as a world-view, and that means for me as a true model of reality, like a map or like a coordinate system? This is because of the following reasons:

- I was a hardcore materialistic atheist. One day I "found" God in my life. This is no evidence, I know. It could have been a singular emotional event without any significance.
- Moreover, I started to be a christian (someone who believes that God exists and that God has some further charactersistics, which I will need to describe separately some day, otherwise this sentence will become too long). During all my time as christian (approx. 20 years) and still I tested this path and my faith in God. I doubted and tested, I doubted and tested. What I have experienced in those 20 years including live altering experiences, miracles (yes, indeed, real miracles), answers, help from God - this is amazing!
Each single event in this chain of experiences one could interprete as possibly a random event or as an emotional moment or chance, but in the sum these amount of experiences makes it very vary very hard to simply reject as chance or illusion. I will say it scientifically: Presently, my degree of evidence and I mean with that: the statistical probability that God is real, from my experiences, is ca. 90%. Yes, I admit that I am not 100% sure. But I am 90% sure and that is quite good I would say.

This is called anecdotal evidence. If it were sufficient then the existence of aliens, Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Bushbaby, fairies, pixies, gnomes, goblins, etc will have been confirmed to exist because all of them have anecdotal evidence.

LordReed:


This is called anecdotal evidence. If it were sufficient then the existence of aliens, Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Bushbaby, fairies, pixies, gnomes, goblins, etc will have been confirmed to exist because all of them have anecdotal evidence.

I agree. I just checked the definition of "anecdotal evidence": "Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes: evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony."

I see your point. My first reaction was to feel insulted to be put in the same category as those people who claim to have seen the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot etc.
But, of course, scientifically and logically I understand that it appears identical. In both cases, i.e. a christian who give a testimony about his world view, and a person who claims to have seen Bigfoot giving his testimony, the evidence to a third person is in both cases provided by testimonies only.

I think there are only two possibilities here:

1. One stays at the conclusion that God, aliens, Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Bushbaby, fairies, pixies, gnomes, goblins, etc. are all in the same category and are productions of human phantasy and that the testimonies fall in t the same category and hence all these phenomena are non existing.

2. Or: one actively tries to verify or falsify the various assumptions. I think hundreds of persons have tried to observe Loch Ness yet. I think there are also arbitrarily many "hunters" who try to find and catch Bigfoot. I guess it is in principle impossible to veriify or falsify these things.
I think with God it is a bit different. If God exists and if he is as I assume that he is, i.e. a loving person, then it is possible to get to know him by asking him. And then the individual chain of personal experiences starts.
Eventually every person then has to decide for himself of course. Some might say: OK, I asked God but he did not answer, or my "experiences" were probably only self-delusion and random incidents which my brain interpretes somehow. And some might say: This chain of incidents and experiences with God gives me enough evidence that my faith is real and God exists.
I can understand both cases, actually that are three cases, because in (2.) there are again two cases. I choose the case, where I assume that God exists due to my chain of personal and individual experiences.

Yes, I cannot provide harder evidence to you, only an "anecdotal evidence" or better "testimonial evidence".