Atheists, define 'God'

[Dave Ellis]

I believe that God created the heavens and earth.
I believe that God exists as a trinity, God the father, God the son, and God the Holy Spirit.
I believe that Jesus Christ (the son) was born of a virgin.
I believe that Jesus Christ was crucified.
I beleive that Jesus Christ was fully man and fully God.
I believe that Jesus Christ arose from the dead and ascended to heaven.
I beleive that He has forgiven me my sins through the blood of Jesus Christ.
I believe He continues to forgive as I as for forgiveness in my daily life.
I believe that when I die, my spirit will be with Him in heaven.
I live my life just like you do. When I need a doctor, I see one. I watch tv, I listen to the radio, I read books (yes, even books that are not the Bible) granted I am careful about what I watch and listen to and read.
I work, and if it is required, I even work on Sunday.
I eat the same foods and probably shop at some of the some stores.

These are the things I believe. There are more less important things, but this is the core of it. I am asking that you or anyone else, not pick this apart, because I am not looking for a debate on it. You stated that you didn't know what I believed, so I decided to tell you.

Are there other folks in the world that call themselves christians that believe differently than this? More than likely so.

You asked that I don't pick it apart, so I will respect your request.

But I will ask as a blanket statement, why do you believe those things?

 

[gav1nzdad]

It is not an insult.... the reason why it's not an insult, is because there's a distinct possibility that he is correct.

If God actually does not exist, then he is simply no more than a character in a book. If you find that insulting that's your problem, It's not an insult.



You're committing a logical fallacy here, as well as misrepresenting my position.

First off, when did I assert that I believe there is no god?

Secondly, We don't need to demonstrate your position is wrong in order to not accept it as true. You have made the positive claim that God exists, therefore you have a burden of proof to meet to demonstrate your claim is correct.

If you do not meet your burden of proof, we can not rationally accept what you're saying. It doesn't mean we are asserting you are wrong, it means we are unconvinced you are right.

Lastly, beliefs are not choices. You can't choose to believe anything, you believe it, or you don't. You an claim to believe anything, but the act of actually believing it is not within your control.

I was with you up until that last part about believing something is not about choice.

First, I made the mistake of assuming. I assumed you believed there is no God. If you are of the mind that you can not be sure one way or the other, then I applaud your honesty. By conceding that, you are also conceding that it just as likely He does exist as He doesn't exist. I was of the same thought before I became a christian. And I could have gone the way of others who say He does not exist, but I chose to open my mind and my heart to the possibility. I chose to read my Bible, I chose to allow my heart to be receptive and He found me.

And s far as the burden of proof is concerned. For me the proof is around us everywhere. We are in the midst of His creation. I am His creation. I don't require more proof than that. If you do, then that is you. But if you are sincere in wanting to know God, it's not that far of a walk. But it is a personal walk, that no one else can do for you. And no amount of debating on any forum is going to "prove" it for you.

Cheers.

 

[Davian]

In case you missed the quote that was the reason for my post, your partner in atheism stated my God was a character in a book. This is an insult.

Is not God a character in a book? In the absence of demonstrations to the contrary, that is all we appear to have at this time.

And I am not lloking for sympathy, nor am I asking for any special consideration.

Like that of which you mentioned here?

I was merely stating that I would not carry on a conversation with any one who would insult me. If you observe my previous posts, I have in no way insulted anyone about their choice to not believe.

Is belief a choice? Can you choose not to believe in "God" on Tuesday and go back on Thursday?

What I find most interesting about this post is that you state, I may be right and I may be wrong but I can not demonstrate that I am right.

Then why do you think you are right?

You or any other athiest can not demonstrate that I am wrong, either.

A desperate statement, I see. Actually, your deity can be proven to not exist, depending of how it is defined. Contradicting properties and impossible atributes will relegate a deity to the "can't exist" pile.

You just CHOOSE to believe there is no God.

No, belief does not work like that. Not for me.

In that, you have more in common with me than you would probably like to admit. I have also made a choice, I CHOOSE to believe He does exist.

And why would you choose that, if he cannot be demonstrated to exist?

 

[gav1nzdad]

You asked that I don't pick it apart, so I will respect your request.

But I will ask as a blanket statement, why do you believe those things?

Fair enough question.

I believe those things because I have read them in His word. I know you will probably say that it is a fairy tale. And admittedly, for someone who does not have a spiritual relationship with God, it would seem that way.
But that's not all, I also believe them because of the change that has happened in my life. People who knew me before my conversion, do not recognize me now. The change in my life has been so profound that there is no other was to explain it, except that the old man is dead and I am a new creation.

When I am talking with someone who has experienced salvation, it is much easier to explain, because we have shared a similar experience. When I am talking with someone who hasn't experienced that, it is decidedly more difficult.

It is sort of like trying to explain what being in love is like to someone who never has.

 

[Davian]

I did not ask you for a definition, so you can save your sarcasm, snideness, and or snark for the OP.

It was certainly not my intent to put any of those things into my post. Do you know what theological noncognitivism is?

Why did you not include it as an option in your recent post here?

 

[gav1nzdad]

Is not God a character in a book? In the absence of demonstrations to the contrary, that is all we appear to have at this time.

Like that of which you mentioned here?

Is belief a choice? Can you choose not to believe in "God" on Tuesday and go back on Thursday?

Then why do you think you are right?

A desperate statement, I see. Actually, your deity can be proven to not exist, depending of how it is defined. Contradicting properties and impossible atributes will relegate a deity to the "can't exist" pile.

No, belief does not work like that. Not for me.

And why would you choose that, if he cannot be demonstrated to exist?

A character in a book maybe all you have, but He is more to me. Yes, belief begins with choice (open your mind to one idea and close it to the other). I don't think I am right. I have faith that I am right, my faith is more powerful than that, it is more like knowing. And what is desperate about stating that you can no more "prove" that He doesn't exist, than I can "prove" that He does. If belief does not work like that for you, then what do you believe about the existence of God? Why would I choose what I believe? Why not? It explains everything to me. Makes perfect sense.

 

[Dave Ellis]

First, I made the mistake of assuming. I assumed you believed there is no God. If you are of the mind that you can not be sure one way or the other, then I applaud your honesty.

Thank you, and no problems on your mistake.

By conceding that, you are also conceding that it just as likely He does exist as He doesn't exist.

No, that's not true. Just because you have not asserted a truth claim one way or the other does not mean you view it as a 50/50 proposition.

Given the biblical self-contradictions, inaccuracies, total lack of compelling evidence and the litany of fallacious arguments for the existence of God, while no logically sound arguments exist, I would argue it's far more likely that God does not exist.

However, I can not prove he doesn't exist, so I do not assert that he doesn't exist.

I was of the same thought before I became a christian. And I could have gone the way of others who say He does not exist, but I chose to open my mind and my heart to the possibility. I chose to read my Bible, I chose to allow my heart to be receptive and He found me.

My mind is also open, and I have also read the bible, cover to cover.

To be honest, I'm a little bit puzzled how you came to accept Christianity after reading the bible.... it's usually one of the major things that turn people away from Christianity.

And s far as the burden of proof is concerned. For me the proof is around us everywhere. We are in the midst of His creation. I am His creation. I don't require more proof than that. If you do, then that is you. But if you are sincere in wanting to know God, it's not that far of a walk. But it is a personal walk, that no one else can do for you. And no amount of debating on any forum is going to "prove" it for you.

Cheers.

How can you demonstrate you, or anything else is his creation? Simply asserting yourself as such is not evidence.

Basically all you're stating is that Christianity is not provable... which by definition means it is a logically unjustified belief. I fail to see how anyone can accept something as absolute truth, which is totally unprovable.

 

[gav1nzdad]

It was certainly not my intent to put any of those things into my post. Do you know what theological noncognitivism is?

Why did you not include it as an option in your recent post here?

No, I'm not completely sure, though I have heard something to the effect that it has something to do with etymology.

So if it's "God" we are stuck on, we'll call Him Abba.

 

[gav1nzdad]

Basically all you're stating is that Christianity is not provable... which by definition means it is a logically unjustified belief. I fail to see how anyone can accept something as absolute truth, which is totally unprovable.

This is so much better when people are civil.

Christianity does not need proving, it is well document that it is a reality. But I know what you meant. No, God is not provable. That's where faith comes in.
Just as you cannot see how anyone can accept it as absolute truth, I can not see how anyone could not. So we have to agree to disagree.

I have never read the Bible cover to cover, although I have read the whole Bible. I tried once to do that from Genesis to Revelations, but it was difficult. I much rather preferred finding a place to start, say with Romans and then through cross-referencing and researching items of interest. That's the only way I have found that it keeps my interest. In that way I have covered the majority of the Bible several times, but certain parts only once. To be honest, when I first started trying to understand what I was reading I had a lot of trouble. A friend told me that I should begin any reading of the Bbile with a sincere prayer that He would give me understanding. That's when it all began to become clearer to me.

 

[Illuminaughty]

I looked up Ignosticism and found a link to Verificationism on good ol wikipedia. It had this quote which I thought was interesting.

To say that P is a sentence in a private language is to say that there does not have to be any public consequences if P is true [....] But then 'P seems right to me' will always be a sufficient condition for 'P is right'. There is nothing that would count as evidence for or against the private linguist's claim that she is using a term in the same way or that she is picking out the same property by the term. Nothing would count as evidence to an observer and nothing would count as evidence to the speaker herself.​

 

[Eudaimonist]

In case you missed the quote that was the reason for my post, your partner in atheism stated my God was a character in a book. This is an insult.

No, it isn't, and I'll explain why.

"God is fictional" isn't an insult. "You are a fool for believing in God" is.

Why? Because the latter statement is directed towards the character of the person. The first is not; it is just a personal view on a philosophical subject, and was never directed towards you.

If someone were to say to me: "Capitalism is evil", that is not an insult. If someone were to say to me: "You are evil for believing that capitalism is good", that would be personally very insulting.

I understand that people may have thin skins and feel that disagreement is a personal attack, but it isn't. Disagreement is merely disagreement. To some people, God really is just a fictional character. If you don't like that, it's up to you to grow a thicker skin, or hide from anyone who disagrees with you.

You or any other athiest can not demonstrate that I am wrong, either. You just CHOOSE to believe there is no God.

No, I never made that choice. In fact, I had only realized that I was an atheist in hindsight.

I must correct you on one point, and that is that I don't "believe there is no God". Rather, I don't believe there is a God. That's not the same thing.

Furthermore, I no more choose to lack belief in a God than I choose to lack belief in hobbits. Without evidence to back up belief, nonbelief is natural.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dave Ellis]

This is so much better when people are civil.

Christianity does not need proving, it is well document that it is a reality. But I know what you meant. No, God is not provable. That's where faith comes in.

I don't get why you believe faith is a virtue. Faith is often proven to be laughably wrong.

And Christianity is not well documented to be reality. Many Christians obviously believe it is, however if it's not provable, then you can't properly document it as reality.

Just as you cannot see how anyone can accept it as absolute truth, I can not see how anyone could not. So we have to agree to disagree.

Perhaps, or we could discuss the issue and explain our points of views in greater detail to grow that understanding one way or the other.

I have never read the Bible cover to cover, although I have read the whole Bible. I tried once to do that from Genesis to Revelations, but it was difficult. I much rather preferred finding a place to start, say with Romans and then through cross-referencing and researching items of interest. That's the only way I have found that it keeps my interest. In that way I have covered the majority of the Bible several times, but certain parts only once. To be honest, when I first started trying to understand what I was reading I had a lot of trouble.

It is a tough read, however I'd recommend reading it cover to cover at least once, and take note of all the strange sounding, and self-contradictory bits.

A friend told me that I should begin any reading of the Bbile with a sincere prayer that He would give me understanding. That's when it all began to become clearer to me.

So you read the bible with the mindset to accept it from a Christian point of view, rather than question it from a critical point of view. It's no wonder why you accepted it. Next time read it openly, honestly and critically to give you fair balance.

 

[quatona]

your partner in atheism

(your partner in not playing rugby)

 

[gav1nzdad]

I lead the young adults sunday school class at my church. Ironically, the lesson this week is entitled Choosing God.

 

[gav1nzdad]

I'm wondering something. With all respect, why would an atheist join a forum called Christian Forums? Is it because they are interested in hearing what "the other side" has to say? Or is it to try to convince someone to renounce God or their faith? Or is it just to entertain themselves by ridiculing someones belief? I don't ask this in the spirit of anger, I just want to know so that I can better understand the mindset of those I may be conversing with.

 

[gav1nzdad]

I don't get why you believe faith is a virtue. Faith is often proven to be laughably wrong.

And Christianity is not well documented to be reality. Many Christians obviously believe it is, however if it's not provable, then you can't properly document it as reality.



Perhaps, or we could discuss the issue and explain our points of views in greater detail to grow that understanding one way or the other.



It is a tough read, however I'd recommend reading it cover to cover at least once, and take note of all the strange sounding, and self-contradictory bits.



So you read the bible with the mindset to accept it from a Christian point of view, rather than question it from a critical point of view. It's no wonder why you accepted it. Next time read it openly, honestly and critically to give you fair balance.

Yes, I did choose to believe what I read, but I do remain critical when I find something that doesn't add up. That's when I pray for more understanding. I believe the Bible is a collection of books that was "given" through inspiration from God to various people throughout history. The contradictions you mentioned can be explained if you consider the fact that the Bible was written by fallible man. Were there things interpreted differently by different people? Sure. Has their been numerous translations over the years? Of course. The inconsistencies, are of little importance. The "message" of the Bible is what is central, what is important.
The fact is, I read the Old Testament as sort of a "required reading" to gain an understanding of history as it applies to the here and now. And yes there are some great stories in there about how man has been delivered and also great stories of warning about the wages of unrepentant sin. But I spend most of my time in the New Testament since it applies more directly to our current age.

 

[quatona]

I'm wondering something. With all respect, why would an atheist join a forum called Christian Forums?

Presumably the same variety of reasons that may prompt a Christian come to the open-to-all forums of CF.

And, of course, to answer the questions of Christians ( e.g. the OP of this thread).

 

[Skavau]

I'm wondering something. With all respect, why would an atheist join a forum called Christian Forums?

Debate and discussion.

Atheists broadly in my experience aren't so interested in fellowship like Christians and Muslims.

Is it because they are interested in hearing what "the other side" has to say?

Always. At least for me.

Or is it to try to convince someone to renounce God or their faith?

Not interested in that. I'm interested in getting fundamentalists and evangelicals to understand common ground and understand their viewpoints and how they are viewed objectively.

Or is it just to entertain themselves by ridiculing someones belief?

I will ridicule bigotry only.

I don't ask this in the spirit of anger, I just want to know so that I can better understand the mindset of those I may be conversing with.

You'll get a different answer per atheist.

 

[Skavau]

Yes, I did choose to believe what I read, but I do remain critical when I find something that doesn't add up. That's when I pray for more understanding.

That's not being critical, that's informing a confirmation bias. You basically presume that if you disagree with something in the Bible that it is an error on your part and not in the books. You then use emotional means to try and remove this doubt. That sounds like an active repression of critical thought.

 

[Eudaimonist]

With all respect, why would an atheist join a forum called Christian Forums? Is it because they are interested in hearing what "the other side" has to say? Or is it to try to convince someone to renounce God or their faith? Or is it just to entertain themselves by ridiculing someones belief?

No to all of the above.

I like to discuss intellectual issues, and I also wish to challenge some of the stigmas atheists have, especially with American christians.


eudaimonia,

Mark