Atheists, What's the point?

[seeking Christ]

I can be amazed at where existence comes from, but I seriously doubt it's so childish and simplistic as your imaginary father figure creating everything from nothing

What makes you suppose its childish and simplistic? And how could it be any different than what science finds?

 

[seeking Christ]

So rather than typing out that incredibly long post, you could have just said:

"Faith is believing something without evidence"

Oh, to be young again

 

[seeking Christ]

Every concept I am aware of I believe is man made, but there might be a concept I am not yet aware of, or evidence I am not aware of that would alter my views on existing claims.

But you'll never know as long as you're so totally unwilling to listen.

 

[seeking Christ]

Gnostic means you claim to know for a fact. Agnostic means you do not know, but are at least fairly sure.

Atheist says no gods, theist says god or gods.

So an agnostic theist says, "I believe there is a god or gods, but I can't know for sure."

Gnostic Atheist says, "I know for a fact there are no gods."

You'll find very few gnostic atheists, very few agnostic theists.

Problem with this is you just labelled all theists as gnostics, and gnosticism is heresy. Also you have to contend with the fact that a great many Christians are quite agnostic about a good number of things.

In short, you don't get to come along after a couple millenium and re-define words to suit your fancy.

 

[crimsonleaf]

subscribing.

 

[Tiberius]

Problem with this is you just labelled all theists as gnostics, and gnosticism is heresy.

I'm sorry, where did I say that? I only said that most theists seem to be gnositc, which is certainly my belief. Perhaps I should start a thread with a poll so we can see if the atheists and theists on these boards are gnostic or agnostic?

Also you have to contend with the fact that a great many Christians are quite agnostic about a good number of things.

I'm sure they are, but the issue is about whether they are gnostic or agnostic about the existence of God, isn't it?

In short, you don't get to come along after a couple millenium and re-define words to suit your fancy.

And what words did I redefine?

Is a theist someone who believes that a god or gods exists? An Atheist is someone who believe that god or gods do not exist? Does Gnostic mean to have knowledge? Does Agnostic mean that things about God are unknown?

 

[Tiberius]

Well, that's not really true, there's quite a lot of agnostic theists around. Anyone that says "I can't say for sure that God exists, however I believe he does because I feel it" etc... are Agnostic Theists.

I won't dispute that someone who claims, ""I can't say for sure that God exists, however I believe he does because I feel it" is an agnostic theist, but I can't say I've ever met many.

 

[seeking Christ]

And what words did I redefine?

Is a theist someone who believes that a god or gods exists? An Atheist is someone who believe that god or gods do not exist? Does Gnostic mean to have knowledge? Does Agnostic mean that things about God are unknown?

All of these words are newfangled except that one you ignored; gnosticism. If you create a poll you'll have to be careful to omit using that word because any Christian that knows anything at all about their own Faith is never going to answer in the affirmative to something like that.

Anyway I would think Christianity requires knowing God exists, but many Christians disagree with me about that. My point is that many Christians are agnostic about a good many things that atheists would prefer to pin us down on; I just wouldn't include the existence of God or the veracity of the Gospel, (more precisely His economia) personally.

 

[seeking Christ]

I won't dispute that someone who claims, ""I can't say for sure that God exists, however I believe he does because I feel it" is an agnostic theist, but I can't say I've ever met many.

Interesting aside: God would not call that faith at all. "We walk by faith, not by sight." Said "feeling" is part of "sight," as used in this phrase.

We need something better than that! (The one thing you can know for sure about feelings, is that they will change)

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Note the emphasized word; this is quite right. Where the difference comes in, is there is still not only validation, but evidence; just (sometimes) not via the normal 5 senses. Peter and doubting Thomas are both recorded as having this type of evidence, over the same fact, at different times.

Faith is the ability to "see" what's going on in the Spiritual realm, which itself is evidence. Therefore to say "blind faith," or "faith is believing without evidence" misses the point entirely.

So faith is self-validating?

 

[muichimotsu]

What makes you suppose its childish and simplistic? And how could it be any different than what science finds?

Science is amazed because we discover this stuff on our own and can still progress. With you, there's this perfect entity who has everything remotely under control and thus you don't have to worry as long as you surrender most of your reason and submit yourself to its will. If there was a God and it was even remotely perfect, I wouldn't care about it to begin with. I'd say I'd do worse, but I prefer to have some civility in this discussion.

 

[muichimotsu]

But you'll never know as long as you're so totally unwilling to listen.

Why listen to something so nonsensical and inscrutable as your faith system that prides itself on believing without remotely objective, logical or rational evidence of any kind and puts doubting Thomas below believers like yourself, who have never seen Jesus in the flesh or such? It's not that there's no arguments for your faith, not good ones anyway, but that your worldview is fundamentally irrelevant and unfulfilling to me, even though I was raised in it. Does that explain things well enough?

 

[muichimotsu]

Problem with this is you just labelled all theists as gnostics, and gnosticism is heresy. Also you have to contend with the fact that a great many Christians are quite agnostic about a good number of things.

In short, you don't get to come along after a couple millenium and re-define words to suit your fancy.

Piggybacking on your previous post about newfangled terms, Atheism isn't strictly a new term. Historically, it existed in Jesus' time and afterwards. The idea was somewhat different, but people were called atheists to one extent or another. Christians were atheists to the pagan gods and vice versa.

And gnosticism without capitalization is not strictly the same as Gnosticism capitalized. And many Gnostics would likely qualify what kind of Gnostic teachings they follow, since they did sprout up quite a bit post Xian explosion

 

[muichimotsu]

Interesting aside: God would not call that faith at all. "We walk by faith, not by sight." Said "feeling" is part of "sight," as used in this phrase.

We need something better than that! (The one thing you can know for sure about feelings, is that they will change)

Somehow I'd question that. Faith is an experience, a disposition towards experiences even, so it's not the same as the 5 physical senses. the idea I've gotten from you is that this is something we develop, we gain clarity and awareness of this "spiritual" realm. And while that can make more sense if we lived in some animist universe like many fantasy realms I like to generate in my head, yours is more incomprehensible, mostly on purpose, it seems.

 

[seeking Christ]

S With you, there's this perfect entity who has everything remotely under control and thus you don't have to worry as long as you surrender most of your reason and submit yourself to its will.

This is absurd. Whatever you're talking about, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity.

 

[Eudaimonist]

This is absurd. Whatever you're talking about, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity.

He might be mistaken about your personal views, but you should pay attention to Christians more.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[seeking Christ]

Why listen to something so nonsensical and inscrutable as your faith system that prides itself on believing without remotely objective, logical or rational evidence of any kind and puts doubting Thomas below believers like yourself, who have never seen Jesus in the flesh or such? It's not that there's no arguments for your faith, not good ones anyway, but that your worldview is fundamentally irrelevant and unfulfilling to me, even though I was raised in it. Does that explain things well enough?

You repeatedly demonstrate knowing nothing whatsoever about my world view. Do not confuse it with whatever you were raised in.

 

[seeking Christ]

Atheism isn't strictly a new term. Historically, it existed in Jesus' time and afterwards. The idea was somewhat different, but people were called atheists to one extent or another.

If the idea was different, the word is different. An "unbeliever" in the Bible bears no semblance to the atheists who post here. In the Bible, all the unbelievers knew God existed and Messiah was to come, no question. They just didn't think Jesus was Him.

Failure to account for this not-so-fine point makes a total mess out of a good many passages of Scripture.

 

[seeking Christ]

He might be mistaken about your personal views, but you should pay attention to Christians more.


eudaimonia,

Mark

If by that you mean that some may give you that impression? No lo contendere

 

[muichimotsu]

This is absurd. Whatever you're talking about, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity.

By all means explicate and give a remotely philosophical rendering of what your God is and why it should fill me with wonder in the slightest when it seems like the wishes of an immature person who can't accept the uncertain nature of the world?