Hey, Atheists...

[Bradskii]

This Lover of God does not believe that it's about Eternal Life.

Virtually all religions offer it. One wonders how Christianity would have fared if it didn't.

 

[dlamberth]

Virtually all religions offer it.

I don't believe that's true at all.

One wonders how Christianity would have fared if it didn't.

It would be different, for sure.

 

[Bradskii]

I don't believe that's true at all.

It's true of all the major religions. And most folk religions. Which covers...what? 99% of them? I think that's close to 'virtually all'.

It would be different, for sure.

It's not exactly an afterthought though. If you're bad then it's eternal punishment. But...

'...God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.'

I'd suggest that it wouldn't exist without that. It's Rule Number One: 'Believe in me and you'll live for ever'.

 

[d taylor]

This Lover of God does not believe that it's about Eternal Life. Rather I feel it's about learning to be a more human, Human Being and having God as one's reality in life. I'm just throwing that out there as another option to the Eternal Life Christian goal.

-
​

What kind of comment is that the lover of God does not believe it is about eternal life.

That is all it is about, with out The Life of God residing in a person. Upon that persons death they are permanently separated from God and their name will not be found in the book of life.

You can love God all you want, but if you have never believe in Jesus to receive God's free gift of Eternal Life. Then your love has been misplaced. Because before a person can actually love God they first must believe God.

And God states
You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

 

[Tinker Grey]

-
​

What kind of comment is that the lover of God does not believe it is about eternal life.

That is all it is about, with out The Life of God residing in a person. Upon that persons death they are permanently separated from God and their name will not be found in the book of life.

You can love God all you want, but if you have never believe in Jesus to receive God's free gift of Eternal Life. Then your love has been misplaced. Because before a person can actually love God they first must believe God.

And God states
You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

@dlamberth said "This lover of God"

 

[d taylor]

@dlamberth said "This lover of God"

-

​

I stand corrected, but it still does not change the point i was making. That could be addressed to anyone holding this belief and i am sure she/he is not the only person that believes this way.

 

[dlamberth]

-
​

What kind of comment is that the lover of God does not believe it is about eternal life.

For this Lover of God, God is the ONLY real being from whom all life flows. Everything else is a manifestation or reflection of His existence. So it's not about getting "eternal life", but for myself it's having God as my reality, today, where He is needed the most. You might say it's an "everywhere one looks, there God is" sort of thing. That's part one. The second part is learning to be a more human, Human Being. Jesus spent a fair amount of time teaching that lesson. Everything else beyond that, be it eternal life or what ever one believes, I have totally left all of that up to God. Because, when I truly look at myself, I have absolutely no idea of God's thoughts.

 

[stevevw]

But what other kind of evidence can we qualify as valued? We were talking about personal experience for a while. But even that turns out to be emperical because we would be looking for positive changes in a believer's life that can been observed and measured.

The point is the atheist and materialist and the theist or believer in God would see the evidence of that change differently. The materialist like say with pray and miracles will attribute the cause to some matertial cause even if this cannot be explained at the time. They would still attribute it to some unknown material cause.

But the theist will attribute this to God actively working in a persons heart and mind and spirit. In fact from my understanding an atheist or materialist could not believe in spirituality full stop and this would be attributed to feelings or imagination. Which ultimately is deterministic and within the closed phyiscal causes.

There may be some physical effects and changes that come with miracles or God working in peoples lives but those physical changes will be attributed to physical causes as opposed to believers in God believing that the ultimate cause was something beyond from God.

But even without appealing to God or gods many changes cannot be adequately explained by the material and physical causes. Take mind over matter and positive thinking. Or belief itself in something positive and transcedent that may change your life. THis cannot be explained by neurons or electrical signals controlling your body.

Mind and consciousness pose many problems for the atheist materialist. What Chalmers calls the 'Hard problem of Consciousness.

 

[stevevw]

And how do you empirically measure that?

exactly

 

[stevevw]

I've seen no evidence they believe otherwise. (Just like I've seen no evidence of their god.)

In this case 'beauty isin the eye of the beholder'. Or evidence of God is in the belief or the believer. The bible speaks of some who 'look but do not see'. That the evidence for God is in His creation, the invisible laws that govern reality.

So the atheist and materialist will only see what they see in the material and physical. But the theist will see something non physical that has real presense and substance giving it a realness that transcends the material world.

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

This is the amplified version
Now faith is the assurance (title deed, confirmation) of things hoped for (divinely guaranteed), and the evidence of things not seen [the conviction of their reality—faith comprehends as fact what cannot be experienced by the physical senses].

 

[Hans Blaster]

In this case 'beauty isin the eye of the beholder'. Or evidence of God is in the belief or the believer.

In their heads to be sure.

The bible speaks of some who 'look but do not see'. That the evidence for God is in His creation, the invisible laws that govern reality.

So what? Why should I care what your religious text says? It is a claim, not evidence, and a claim I do not accept.

So the atheist and materialist will only see what they see in the material and physical. But the theist will see something non physical that has real presense and substance giving it a realness that transcends the material world.

First, you need to understand that atheist/theist is not the same as materialist/spritualist. Second, I have never seen any evidence of a non-physical reality.

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

All you need to prove Paul is wrong is to find someone who does not honestly see the "devine power" Paul claims is clearly seen. (And I don't.)

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Always sounds like a cheap platitude or a poor excuse for belief.

This is the amplified version
Now faith is the assurance (title deed, confirmation) of things hoped for (divinely guaranteed), and the evidence of things not seen [the conviction of their reality—faith comprehends as fact what cannot be experienced by the physical senses].

What can be asserted without evidence can be discarded without effort.

 

[stevevw]

In their heads to be sure.

Lol, of course where else could it be. Its all in the head. Those people are imagining things and believing in fairies at the bottom of the harden and all that. I mean thats obvious for the atheist and materialist.

That just proves my point that there is no sense in providing evidence to a atheist/materialist because they alreadcy assume its in the head.

The ironic thing is metaphysically we can argue that the materialist belief that 'matter' is all there is and the cause of reality is also 'all in the head'. We cannot get outside our heads to determine if there really is such a real thing as 'matter'. When you consider that matter only makes up around 5% of the universe then I don't think we can make big claims about what exactly fiundemental reality is.

For all we know we may be living in a simulation and what we see is just a interface of something that is beyond. This is not a religious understanding but one from science itself. It seems to me we have multiple lines of support which point to some reality beyond the material and its not make believe.

So what? Why should I care what your religious text says? It is a claim, not evidence, and a claim I do not accept.

Maybe thats the problem that you don't care. The cultural and religious oral narratives are an insight into ourselves and form a vital part of the evidence for understanding human thinking, belief and behaviour. You have just wiped out maybe 50% of the possible evidence when you consider, cultural psychology, anthropology, and sociology.

First, you need to understand that atheist/theist is not the same as materialist/spritualist.

I understand the difference. There is some nuance but I think we can reason each position down to either supporting the supernatural or not. Often the spiritualists or mystics are based in paganism which is grounded in nature, the stars, harvests, mother nature ect.

Any belief that allows any sort of supernaturalism beyond nature, the physical world even in spells and potions lol is opening the door for all supernatural beings, spirits ect that can have influence besides the material world and causes.

But I agree there is not a clear line between what is natural and supernatural and that is the problem. So we have to make clear what that line is or make clear that what is assumed to be the line is not necessarily the line.

Second, I have never seen any evidence of a non-physical reality.

If you only looking for physical reality then thats all you will see. As mentioned earlier as far as belief goes its in their 'eye', their 'minds eye' that they see the evidence which doesn't have to be physical.

Yet has all the hallmarks as far as being a proper belief or a persistent belief that stands up despite contrary evidence making it real to the person. Real enough that it influences them in profound ways. Their belief also being confirmed or denied by the way it works in their life.

How can anyone then say to this person you are imagining things as in its not real and has no real effect apart from some deterministic and physical reason that drives them towardds basic needs. THis will just strip them of 'self' So whether its belief in God or in some 'self' beyond the material world either way its real enough to matter and have a real influence on reality.

I don't think neurons, electrical signals and chemical reactions quite explain this.

All you need to prove Paul is wrong is to find someone who does not honestly see the "devine power" Paul claims is clearly seen. (And I don't.)

That you say that shows you don't know Paul and missed reading a whole lot on why someone who has accepted Christ and is a new person tranformed in heart and mind compared to the old. THis is a common idea in the bible and even Christ said this so Paul was only repeating the same.

Always sounds like a cheap platitude or a poor excuse for belief.

Of course to you it would sound that way. But don't discount another who sees it as the most valuable thing ever. Certainly not cheap.

What can be asserted without evidence can be discarded without effort.

Hum, look like you just wiped out another big chunk or reality. So can we scientifically prove, love, colors, phenomenal belief and experiences, consciousness. All the transcedent realities that have changed humankind.

Before Enlightenment and the scientific revolution we do have 1,000s of years of lived reality which basically was living for the gods and we seem to do pretty good. Its only since the modern age that we are now coming under threat. So which belief is exactly the real one.

 

[d taylor]

Yes, that's because it is many of the words of Jesus that I have found very positive and inspiring, but - unlike you - I believe them to be the words of a man, not a God. For me, this does not diminish their value in any way, if anything it enhances them.

-
​

You know this is Jesus. Any time the angel of the Lord is used in The Tanakh it is a reference to the preincarnate Christ.

And it came to pass on a certain night that the angel of the Lord went out, and killed in the camp of the Assyrians one hundred and eighty-five thousand; and when people arose early in the morning, there were the corpses—all dead.

Here is another an example
And the Angel of the Lord said to him, “Why do you ask My name, seeing it is wonderful?”
So Manoah took the young goat with the grain offering, and offered it upon the rock to the Lord. And He did a wondrous thing while Manoah and his wife looked on— it happened as the flame went up toward heaven from the altar—the Angel of the Lord ascended in the flame of the altar! When Manoah and his wife saw this, they fell on their faces to the ground. When the Angel of the Lord appeared no more to Manoah and his wife, then Manoah knew that He was the Angel of the Lord.And Manoah said to his wife, “We shall surely die, because we have seen God!”

 

[BCP1928]

-
​

You know this is Jesus. Any time the angel of the Lord is used in The Tanakh it is a reference to the preincarnate Christ.

According to who?

 

[BCP1928]

Before Enlightenment and the scientific revolution we do have 1,000s of years of lived reality which basically was living for the gods and we seem to do pretty good. Its only since the modern age that we are now coming under threat. So which belief is exactly the real one.

But the enlightenment and the scientific revolution are no more the source of our morality than "living for the gods" (whatever that may mean.)

What "threat" comes from the modern age that hasn't always been present?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Lol, of course where else could it be. Its all in the head. Those people are imagining things and believing in fairies at the bottom of the harden and all that. I mean thats obvious for the atheist and materialist.

That just proves my point that there is no sense in providing evidence to a atheist/materialist because they alreadcy assume its in the head.

Then why did you respond to my post in the first place? Huh?

The ironic thing is metaphysically we can argue that the materialist belief that 'matter' is all there is and the cause of reality is also 'all in the head'. We cannot get outside our heads to determine if there really is such a real thing as 'matter'. When you consider that matter only makes up around 5% of the universe then I don't think we can make big claims about what exactly fiundemental reality is.

Invoking dark energy & dark matter isn't going to change anything as those are things that only interact *gravitationally*. They have no direct impacts (or even indirect) on our daily lives.

For all we know we may be living in a simulation and what we see is just a interface of something that is beyond. This is not a religious understanding but one from science itself. It seems to me we have multiple lines of support which point to some reality beyond the material and its not make believe.

"Simulation theory' is one of the dumbest things I've heard of and it clearly is being pushed by people who have never simulated anything. It would be easier to just build a physical universe from scratch than to simulate a whole one on a "computer".

Maybe thats the problem that you don't care. The cultural and religious oral narratives are an insight into ourselves and form a vital part of the evidence for understanding human thinking, belief and behaviour. You have just wiped out maybe 50% of the possible evidence when you consider, cultural psychology, anthropology, and sociology.

You didn't offer a "cultural narrative", you offered cheap platitudes. One asserts that believing in stuff is evidence of the stuff (it is not). The other claims that we can all see the power of the author's god in nature. This is not true. Some do, some don't and we aren't lying or denying as the author would claim (and please do read carefully the explicit and implicit penalty for "not seeing"/"denying" in that bit of text). (Just keep reading to the end of the chapter.)

ITEM 1: The difference between atheist positions and materialist positions

I understand the difference.

I'm not so sure you know the difference between "atheist" and "materialist" things and the rest of your reply to point 1 would seem to support that.

There is some nuance but I think we can reason each position down to either supporting the supernatural or not. Often the spiritualists or mystics are based in paganism which is grounded in nature, the stars, harvests, mother nature ect.

Any belief that allows any sort of supernaturalism beyond nature, the physical world even in spells and potions lol is opening the door for all supernatural beings, spirits ect that can have influence besides the material world and causes.

But I agree there is not a clear line between what is natural and supernatural and that is the problem. So we have to make clear what that line is or make clear that what is assumed to be the line is not necessarily the line.

This was about your usage of materialist and atheist as if they were the same regarding people and their positions, not about the existence of supernatural things. (And there *is* a clear line between natural and supernatural in actuality.)

ITEM 2: On the lack of evidence for non-physical reality:

If you only looking for physical reality then thats all you will see.

Where else should we look? All you've offered reduces to "if you believe in it you will find it", which is no way to go through life.

As mentioned earlier as far as belief goes its in their 'eye', their 'minds eye' that they see the evidence which doesn't have to be physical.

Are you talking about the psychological phenomenon where by people can recall imagery from their past or create new imagery in their heads? One is just a form of memory (not the greatest form of evidence) and the other is imagination which is not evidence at all, but fine if you know it is not real.

Yet has all the hallmarks as far as being a proper belief or a persistent belief that stands up despite contrary evidence making it real to the person. Real enough that it influences them in profound ways. Their belief also being confirmed or denied by the way it works in their life.

How can anyone then say to this person you are imagining things as in its not real and has no real effect apart from some deterministic and physical reason that drives them towardds basic needs. THis will just strip them of 'self' So whether its belief in God or in some 'self' beyond the material world either way its real enough to matter and have a real influence on reality.

Are you still talking about "mind's eye" or something else. I have no idea what you are trying to convey here.

I don't think neurons, electrical signals and chemical reactions quite explain this.

That's how brains work.

On to Paul:

That you say that shows you don't know Paul and missed reading a whole lot on why someone who has accepted Christ and is a new person tranformed in heart and mind compared to the old. THis is a common idea in the bible and even Christ said this so Paul was only repeating the same.

Paul speaks of universality of those feelings and he is wrong. Not all non-Christians feel that way. Not even all *Christians* feel that way. I never did.

Of course to you it would sound that way. But don't discount another who sees it as the most valuable thing ever. Certainly not cheap.

Perhaps "empty platitude" would be better. It is not about what people gain, or perceive to gain, from belief it is about standards of evidence. Saying belief in something is evidence for it is just bad epistemology.

Finally, the use of Hitchen's razor

Hum, look like you just wiped out another big chunk or reality. So can we scientifically prove, love, colors, phenomenal belief and experiences, consciousness. All the transcedent realities that have changed humankind.

No this is about what is good evidence. You have not offered any evidence of anything and instead offered excuses to not use evidence. That's why I pulled out Hitchen's Razor

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

As for these "trancendent realities you mentioned, I would suggest you go read some psychology of perception, etc. about them. I learned some of this stuff in HS psychology, so it is pretty basic stuff.

Before Enlightenment and the scientific revolution we do have 1,000s of years of lived reality which basically was living for the gods and we seem to do pretty good. Its only since the modern age that we are now coming under threat. So which belief is exactly the real one.

I have exactly zero desire to live in the pre-enlightenment world with out modern industry, technology, and medicine, I doubt you really do either.

 

[d taylor]

According to who?

-
​

The Bible.

 

[Tinker Grey]

-
​

The Bible.

Retrojection.

 

[dlamberth]

-
​

You know this is Jesus. Any time the angel of the Lord is used in The Tanakh it is a reference to the preincarnate Christ.

And it came to pass on a certain night that the angel of the Lord went out, and killed in the camp of the Assyrians one hundred and eighty-five thousand; and when people arose early in the morning, there were the corpses—all dead.

Somehow I'm having the hardest time believing that Jesus would kill anyone let alone 185,000 in one night.

 

[Ophiolite]

-
​

You know this is Jesus. Any time the angel of the Lord is used in The Tanakh it is a reference to the preincarnate Christ.

And it came to pass on a certain night that the angel of the Lord went out, and killed in the camp of the Assyrians one hundred and eighty-five thousand; and when people arose early in the morning, there were the corpses—all dead.

Here is another an example
And the Angel of the Lord said to him, “Why do you ask My name, seeing it is wonderful?”
So Manoah took the young goat with the grain offering, and offered it upon the rock to the Lord. And He did a wondrous thing while Manoah and his wife looked on— it happened as the flame went up toward heaven from the altar—the Angel of the Lord ascended in the flame of the altar! When Manoah and his wife saw this, they fell on their faces to the ground. When the Angel of the Lord appeared no more to Manoah and his wife, then Manoah knew that He was the Angel of the Lord.And Manoah said to his wife, “We shall surely die, because we have seen God!”

Doubtless you feel there was a relationship between what I posted and this response of yours. The only relationships that I can see is that both posts appear on CF and are written in English. The best explanation I can come up with is that you saw the word Jesus in my post, suffered a knee jerk reaction and started preaching at me. If there is a better explanation, please do share it with me.