Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

[Fervent]

As I did with the other poster take a look at that language: "proclaim to be atheists". We are. It is not a claim. We don't believe in God just the same as you do.

You seem to be missing an important necessary inequality of positions that creates this sort of language. As believers, we have to take the Bible as authoritative to at least some degree and within it there is Romans 1 which states that those who won't have God as God are not simply personally suspicious but are suppressors of the truth. So the question for the believer is who's word are they going to take more seriously, the atheist who may or may not be fully conscious of the underlying psychological issues at play in their disbelief, or God. So that language is naturally going to be an issue and we are, on some level, expressing suspicion towards your ability to make appraisals or honestly express yourself.

Oh, to make you defend it, but alas, the powers that be won't let me make the necessary arguments.

More than likely your idea of defending it, and that posters, are two very different things.

 

[partinobodycular]

The reason a lot of people proclaim to be atheists is that they are doing something that God would not like.

I really, really doubt this. Personally, I think that what atheists are actually rejecting is the arrogance and self-superiority of many of those who claim to speak in his name. They may see no reason to believe in God, but they certainly have no reason to blatantly reject Him either, at least not until someone tries to tell them that they're going to hell for doing so. Then they're pretty apt to get in your face about it.

As such they're not anti-God, they're just anti-self-righteousness. So the solution is simple, stop being self-righteous. Unfortunately a lot of Christians find that practically impossible to do. It's as if it's the only way that they know of to prove to us degenerates just how fervently they believe... as if either we or God is supposed to be impressed by the fervency with which they believe.

But if God is impressed by His followers acting like jerks, then that's reason enough to question whether He's worthy of the title. Better no God at all than a God like that.

 

[trophy33]

The reason a lot of people proclaim to be atheists is that they are doing something that God would not like. Maybe sex outside of marrage or something like that. If they acknowledged that there was a God, they would then be accountable to Him.

I do not think it works this way. Most Christians had sex before/outside of marriage and they will just say to God "forgive me" and repeat it again. There is no reason to proclaim there is no God, for that.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You seem to be missing an important necessary inequality of positions that creates this sort of language.

I am aware of the inequality. See, we atheists actually know what we believe and don't believe, as just like you believers do about yourselves, it is in our own minds. Our own understanding of ourselves (as is for your of yourselves) is superior to any other persons opinion or book.

As believers, we have to take the Bible as authoritative to at least some degree and within it there is Romans 1 which states that those who won't have God as God are not simply personally suspicious but are suppressors of the truth.

I am not impressed by the fanatical opinions of Paul of Tarsus.

So the question for the believer is who's word are they going to take more seriously, the atheist who may or may not be fully conscious of the underlying psychological issues at play in their disbelief, or God. So that language is naturally going to be an issue and we are, on some level, expressing suspicion towards your ability to make appraisals or honestly express yourself.

Someday, I hope you'll realize how rude and condescending this "position" is and you'll finally accept people for who they say they are.

More than likely your idea of defending it, and that posters, are two very different things.

No doubt, but it is such a problematic and unbelievable text.

 

[1Tonne]

They may see no reason to believe in God, but they certainly have no reason to blatantly reject Him either, at least not until someone tries to tell them that they're going to hell for doing so. Then they're pretty apt to get in your face about it.

Why would an atheist get angry over something that they do not believe exists?

As such they're not anti-God, they're just anti-self-righteousness.

I have not seen any Christian on here claim to be self-righteous. In fact, you will find that Christians will admit that they are sinners. And to be honest, if I told you my past, I would be the worst on this thread. Sadly, things I have done break my heart.

as if either we or God is supposed to be impressed.
But if God is impressed by His followers

The way you word things sounds like you do believe that there is a God, but you are not wanting to admit it.

I do not think it works this way. Most Christians had sex before/outside of marriage and they will just say to God "forgive me" and repeat it again. There is no reason to proclaim there is no God, for that.

If they continue in sexual habitual sin, then it is debatable as to whether they are a true Christian or just a Christian by name. God will be the judge.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I miss @Mountainmike

 

[AV1611VET]

Why would an atheist get angry over something that they do not believe exists?

Excellent question!

Tell an atheist he will spend eternity floating in a vacuum if he doesn't repent of his sins, and he will laugh it off.

But tell him he will spend eternity in a lake of fire, and it's a different story.

 

[trophy33]

If they continue in sexual habitual sin, then it is debatable as to whether they are a true Christian or just a Christian by name. God will be the judge.

The point is sin is not the reason to go to atheism. In single Christians virgins are mostly non-existent. And they are still in the church.

 

[AV1611VET]

The point is sin is not the reason to go to atheism.

Science is the reason they go to atheism today.

Specifically evolution.

In single Christians virgins are mostly non-existent.

Because of the Bible? or in spite of the Bible?

 

[trophy33]

Science is the reason they go to atheism today.

Specifically evolution.

There are plenty of Christian scientists, first scientists were also Christians and the majority of Christians accept evolution. So this is still not a great explanation.

 

[AV1611VET]

The point is sin is not the reason to go to atheism.

Science is the reason they go to atheism today.

There are plenty of Christian scientists,

Why do you think they're staying behind?

 

[trophy33]

Why do you think they're staying behind?

Behind what?

 

[AV1611VET]

Behind what?

Why do you think they aren't following their comrades into atheism?

 

[BCP1928]

Excellent question!

Tell an atheist he will spend eternity floating in a vacuum if he doesn't repent of his sins, and he will laugh it off.

But tell him he will spend eternity in a lake of fire, and it's a different story.

Because it is bullying.

 

[BCP1928]

Why do you think they're staying behind?

Because they weren't fooled by the Biblical literalist propaganda.

 

[trophy33]

Why do you think they aren't following their comrades into atheism?

Because science does not lead to atheism.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Agreed. We can all come to the foot of the cross in different ways. That is why I do not dismiss showing people the reality or hard truths. To not show them would be unloving.

The problem is that different people, even Christians such as myself, may have a different conceptualization about what truth is and how truth claims work and are even justified, especially where truth may reportedly lead us to, or be a manifestation of, actual knowledge.

This is where the intricacies and polysemous qualities of a truth come to a head and meet the road. And not everything that Evangelical or Fundamentalist Christians assert can be born out as evidentially true where words themselves are seen to have some sort of 'concrete' quality that they might not actually have. And that's where the problem lies.

Have you ever studied Wittgenstein?

 

[BCP1928]

Agreed. We can all come to the foot of the cross in different ways. That is why I do not dismiss showing people the reality or hard truths. To not show them would be unloving.

You have shown us what you evidently believe to be hard truths but you did not discuss or defend them. What are you working on now? To show that we are rejecting them because they would interfere with our sex lives?

 

[Jerry N.]

Appreciated.

As we all should.


"admitted"
"convinced themselves"
"because they are upset with [God]"
"deny God"

Whether you realize it or not, this is the kind of denial language that many believers use about those of use who no longer have faith. I'm sure you're not deliberately calling us liars, but some times it sure feels like it. Mostly we just want our actual positions to be respected and to avoid any unnecessary insinuations or counter claims. Cheers.

I realize I didn't have one, so the bet was cancelled.

What do you think a soul is?

 

[Jerry N.]

All you need to know:
View attachment 366940

Thanks. I haven't noticed that, but I live in a different religions environment.