Atheism and Agnosticism - Is there a difference?

[secondtimearound]

Back in the early days they call them unregenerated or the reprobates. Goats and weeds. They have no choice to know or not to know. God first regenerates and then faith follows. No regeneration means no faith. No faith means they don't know and might not ever know.

TIP: Atheist can never reject God if they don't know what God is or are or even can be.

Even the arminian sheep thinks they can reject God via non-existent free will. They too are agnostics with a bucket over their heads to blind them

So they good come judgement day?

"What do you mean I rejected you? I never knew what you were?! I can come in now? Cool."

The Bible tells us that athiest, diest, monothiest, panthiest, pan-anthiest and so on who heard the message of Jesus and rejected it, rejected God.

 

[quatona]

However, I can't scoff at an opportunity to answer that question, although this is a little bit of copy and paste from William Lane Craig at the Reasonable Faith website and I think sums it up quite nice:

It’s easy to give content to the word “God.” This word can be taken either as a common noun, so that one could speak of “a God,” or it can be used as a proper name like “George” or “Suzanne.” Richard Swinburne, a prominent Christian philosopher, treats “God” as a proper name of the person referred to by the following description: a person without a body (i.e., a spirit) who necessarily is eternal, perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and the creator of all things. This description expresses the traditional concept of God in Western philosophy and theology. You might protest, “But how do you know God has those properties?” The question is misplaced. “God” has been stipulated to be the person, if any, referred to by that description. The real question is whether there is anything answering to that description, that is to say, does such a person exist? The whole burden of Swinburne’s natural theology is to present arguments that there is such a person. You can reject his arguments, but there’s no disputing the meaningfulness of his claim.

The best definition of God as a descriptive term is, I think, St. Anselm’s: the greatest conceivable being. As Anselm observed, if you could think of anything greater than God, then that would be God! The very idea of God is of a being than which there cannot be a greater.

I go with Craig on St. Anselm's greatest convievable being.

Thanks for answering my question. Your definition renders me a theist. I believe that there is and must be a "greatest conceivable being". Logic dictates it.
(For further discussion it would be necessary to take a closer look at the rather unspecific adjective "greatest", though).

That´s a good example for what I have been trying to tell you: Depending on the definitions I can label myself the opposite of what I used to be without changing my beliefs at all.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I take ANYTHING that a bear who can type says seriously. Of course you can have a position on a particular argument for God or even all the arguments. God belief does not depend on arguments, they only serve as a logical basis for our faith. The problem is all you do is play the role of the skeptic, not presenting a positive side for your case because you don't have a position to defend or even a case for that matter.

I think it was Carl Sagan who said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." It is the theist who is making the extraordinary claim that, not only are there supernatural forces under the direction of a deity, but that the deity has a particular nature that the believer's religion has revealed.

In a similar vein, a claim presented without evidence (such as the claims of theists) can be rejected without evidence. The atheist doesn't need to build a positive case against the existence of the Christian god any more than a Christian has to build a positive case against the existence of Zeus.

 

[RisingSpirit]

---I find it absolutely incredible how a Christian will claim to know the mind of an atheist while at the same time make the claim that atheists couldn't possibly understand the mind of a Christian.

I have PROOF that God physically caused certain men to write a book called the Bible. The writers were under complete trace and allowed their pen to be written by force and inspired by God.
Reading the Bible, anyone may learn more about the atheist.

So YES, the Bible is a complete guide to what, who, why, how, when and all about all atheists. That is my source and most perfect reliable truths about atheism.

Atheists can't understand God so how will an atheist understand what Christians understand about God? That easy to claim as it was stated in the scientifically PROVEN Bible.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I have PROOF that God physically caused certain men to write a book called the Bible. The writers were under complete trace and allowed their pen to be written by force and inspired by God.
Reading the Bible, anyone may learn more about the atheist.

So YES, the Bible is a complete guide to what, who, why, how, when and all about all atheists. That is my source and most perfect reliable truths about atheism.

Atheists can't understand God so how will an atheist understand what Christians understand about God? That easy to claim as it was stated in the scientifically PROVEN Bible.

Scientifically proven Bible?

 

[RisingSpirit]

So they good come judgement day?

I didn't understand your question

"What do you mean I rejected you? I never knew what you were?! I can come in now? Cool."

I don't know where you got that nor I said anything like that.

The Bible tells us that athiest, diest, monothiest, panthiest, pan-anthiest and so on who heard the message of Jesus and rejected it, rejected God.

When they heard, the Word only comes to them like any other fiction. Anyone can read the bible like reading Mark Twain.
There are two callings that happens simultaneously:

1.) The General Calling.
This is made to everyone hearing it. For the Elect it becomes the Effectual Calling. For the reprobate it only increases their condemnation

2.) The Effectual Calling.
This is for the Elect-only. It produces Saving Faith, and results in salvation.

The reprobates nor the Elects can't reject Jesus since both are 100% spiritually dead meaning NONE as in ALL of mankind came to God when He called. God called but NONE as in no one responded. Thats is the Calvinistic meaning of Total depravity as stated exactly in the scientifically proven Bible that the atheist can't deny. This is why the arminina style"Accepting Jesus" doesn't work in alter calls since NONE can desire God or will want to be saved

 

[quatona]

Capitalizing, colouring, underlining, bolding and huge font sizes do not really make up for the lack of substantiation.

 

[variant]

I believe that any sentence stating "faries or Zeus exists" expresses a false proposition.

Ok, so how is that different than atheism?

Do you have to argue for the non-existence of faries and Zeus or do the people who believe in them have to present some evidence?

 

[Non sequitur]

I always hear atheists say, "you can't prove a universal negative" but you can! All you have to do is show something is self-contradictory, like a square circle or a married bachelor.

Show me a square circle.

 

[Non sequitur]

What did you call me?

I said, "Lack of belief =/= belief".

I didn't call you anything... what do you think I called you?

 

[Non sequitur]

I have PROOF that God physically caused certain men to write a book called the Bible. The writers were under complete trace and allowed their pen to be written by force and inspired by God.
Reading the Bible, anyone may learn more about the atheist.

So YES, the Bible is a complete guide to what, who, why, how, when and all about all atheists. That is my source and most perfect reliable truths about atheism.

Atheists can't understand God so how will an atheist understand what Christians understand about God? That easy to claim as it was stated in the scientifically PROVEN Bible.

No you can't.

You can scientifically prove that your Bible is a book with words in it about things, but you can't prove a god inspired people to write it.

 

[RisingSpirit]

No you can't.

You can scientifically prove that your Bible is a book with words in it about things, but you can't prove a god inspired people to write it.

Yes I can. I can prove that man didn't write it alone. If no man didn't write it then who did? Chimps?
It wouldn't matter anyway to an atheist on proofs since NONE can accept the Saviour. Only God can regenerate the Elects and then the elects wouldn't need proof. Meanwhile proofs, as Dr Ivan Panin explains, are available but for what purpose? It will only make atheists stupider and embarrassing.

 

[Vanderhaust]

Yes I can. I can prove that man didn't write it alone. If no man didn't write it then who did? Chimps?

Do you actually read what you write? What are you claiming? That if God didn't inspire the bible then we're nothing more than chimps?

I do agree with you that man wrote the bible except that I think he wrote it using nothing more than his own imagination with no help from any outside supernatural forces.

 

[RisingSpirit]

Do you actually read what you write? What are you claiming? That if God didn't inspire the bible then we're nothing more than chimps?

I do agree with you that man wrote the bible except that I think he wrote it using nothing more than his own imagination with no help from any outside supernatural forces.

Lets say that you didn't know or speck French languages. You never owned a tv or a radio and never had access to learn French. Lets say that a Frenchman visited you and speak in that language. All of a sudden you start speaking in French as if a another person possessed your body and took over You spoke and spoke in French through that possessive invisible person and the French visitor understood every word perfectly flawlessly accurately spoken. Thats what happened on the day of Penticost. Never mind the Pentecostal wacky hooplas today. They don't know what they're talking about.
In other words, it very similar to automatic writing under trances as some describe it.

The PROOFS will rule out the last sentence in your quote above. I left a clue to the proofs on this page but I'd rather agrree that it is God that regenerates before faith occurs

 

[variant]

Never mind the Pentecostal wacky hooplas today. They don't know what they're talking about.

Brushing aside your intimate knowledge of exactly what happened on Pentecost despite being removed from the event by nearly two eons, several languages and authors.

Why doesn't it happen today?

 

[Vanderhaust]

I also believe that no one can actually lack belief of anykind as our entire perception of reality is nothing but belief.

I was going to ask you how view things like Santa Clause, Zeus and fairies, but your next quote answers it.

I believe that any sentence stating "faries or Zeus exists" expresses a false proposition.

So in other words, anything you don't believe in is nothing more than a false propsition.

God belief does not depend on arguments, they only serve as a logical basis for our faith. The problem is all you do is play the role of the skeptic, not presenting a positive side for your case because you don't have a position to defend or even a case for that matter.

Do you even hear yourself? What you don't believe in (Zues, faries), you cliam is nothing more than a false proposition. What you belive in (God) you seem to expect others to believe it without question. All the while the evidence to support your claim is the your belief the the bible is true and inspired by God. So your argument boils down to nothing more than this: the bible is true because God said so. God is true because the bible said so. Perhaps if you could produce something more than a circular argument someone might change their view and listen to you.

 

[RisingSpirit]

Brushing aside your intimate knowledge of exactly what happened on Pentecost despite being removed from the event by nearly two eons, several languages and authors.

Why doesn't it happen today?

The 66 books in Bible is perfectly completed as proven by Dr Ivan Panin and many others and no longer requires additional translations. Groaning and private babbling still happens but it ain't the same as Tongues used then when no one had the Gospel.
Why Tongues while the Bible tells the same Gospel?

 

[Vanderhaust]

I have PROOF that God physically caused certain men to write a book called the Bible. The writers were under complete trace and allowed their pen to be written by force and inspired by God.

That's your proof? According to you God has a bad memory. Look up the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and tell me what was written on the cross about Jesus when he was crucified. Maybe their hands were fighting the will of God?

Atheists can't understand God so how will an atheist understand what Christians understand about God? That easy to claim as it was stated in the scientifically PROVEN Bible.

Scientifically proven bible? Really? So you wouldn't mind posting some sources to back up that claim.

 

[variant]

The 66 books in Bible is perfectly completed as proven by Dr Ivan Panin and many others and no longer requires additional translations. Groaning and private babbling still happens but it ain't the same as Tongues used then when no one had the Gospel.
Why Tongues while the Bible tells the same Gospel?

I don't honestly care how confident you are in your biblical translation, you would never know if anything was lost in it.

The point is that these things never happen in the era of video cameras for a reason. They only happen eons ago where the people are so long dead and forgotten that you could never actually go ask what happened.

Perhaps God is camera shy.

 

[RisingSpirit]

I don't honestly care how confident you are in your biblical translation, you would never know if anything was lost in it.---.

The PROOF includes proof that not a single letter was lost in the 66 books. My confidence has nothing to do with scientifically proven facts. I very confident that 1 plus 1 equals two. The proofs can be repeated as often as one likes and still get the exact same results.