Atheists/Agnostics & Death

[Eudaimonist]

It was assumed that Jesus would soon return. Luke interviewed eye witnesses.

That's just shifting the goal posts. I'm not talking about Luke. I'm talking about Paul's mention of "500" witnesses. This is what was offered earlier as evidence of Christian truths.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chris B]

The scripture tells us that God has blinded their eyes to the truth so they cannot see and that the natural man cannot discern the things of the Spirit.

Well it's not going to say anything else, is it?
And unless you have established it to your satisfaction on other grounds, that "the bible says it" settles nothing.
(I was taught that the bible was God's word and inerrant, and I used to believe it. Careful and prolonged study required me to change my mind.)

if you insist on trying to understand God with natural thoughts and ideas you are going to end up the creek without a paddle.

Any system that requires the setting aside of natural, logical or rational thought has got to stir the suspicion that it is trying to defend itself from that approach of enquiry, and it is also setting up problems for itself, especially if it contains assertions on exclusivity.
"if you insist on trying to understand Invisible Pink Unicorns with natural thoughts and ideas you are going to end up the creek without a paddle."
What's the difference? No answer containing logic or reasoning will be considered adequate.

Faith is an unknown quantity for an atheist because he relies entirely on his own logic which most of the time is not logical.

Bit of a straw man, there, I suggest. Planting a supposed characteristic on atheists, and then condemning us for it. I know something of faith. Enough to know it can be as bad as it can be good, and many people of faith appear not to have realised that, probably because they only see faith from the inside perspective.

If you think that faith is unequivocally a good thing, then you could not object to my faith in Invisible Pink Unicorns, beings so wondrous and useful that did they not exist it would be necessary to invent them.

There is a decided *two-way* traffic in people changing their minds, something inevitable inevitable in such a large sample size. That one particular direction pleases you indicates solely where you are standing. There are plenty of "names" on the atheist side too, if one must play that game. I'd prefer not to. None of them on either side is infallible, so it settles little.

Chris.
(edit for spelling and punctuation only)

 

[Buggins]

I've lost a friend recently who was an atheist. As he would put it, a 'dogmatic' atheist.' I consider myself to have an atheistic view, but also agnostic. I was once a Christian, a very pious one. I keep wondering about an after life, since his passing. If there is one, and if there is...what might a religious person tell an atheist in such a case?

Just thinking out loud, I guess.

No one knows exactly what happens after death, but in one sense it doesn't matter. The essence of Christianity is our belief in the Creator God, salvation through the Son Jesus Christ, and the new life enabled, inspired and sustained by the Holy Spirit. It's about our relationship with God in this life. If you accept that the only real explanation for this wonderful universe and the incredible complexity and diversity of life is the Personal and Meaningful rather than the Impersonal and the Meaningless; then the Christian life is all about getting to know Him, getting to know yourself and getting to love other people.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

If the universe is impersonal and meaningless, where do those concepts come from? God? Is it only through revelation?

 

[Armoured]

 

[As I was saying]

Well it's not going to say anything else, is it?
And unless you have established it to your satisfaction on other grounds, that "the bible says it" settles nothing.
(I was taught that the bible was God's word and inerrant, and I used to believe it. Careful and prolonged study required me to change my mind.)

Any system that requires the setting aside of natural, logical or rational thought has got to stir the suspicion that it is trying to defend itself from that approach of enquiry, and it is also setting up problems for itself, especially if it contains assertions on exclusivity. "if you insist on trying to understand Invisible Pink Unicorns with natural thoughts and ideas you are going to end up the creek without a paddle." What's the difference? No answer containing logic or reasoning will be considered adequate.


Bit of a straw man, there, I suggest. Planting a supposed characteristic on atheists, and then condemning us for it. I know something of faith. Enough to know it can be as bad as it can be good, and many people of faith appear not to have realised that, probably because they only see faith from the inside perspective.

If you think that faith is unequivocally a good thing, then you could not object to my faith in Invisible Pink Unicorns, beings so wondrous and useful that did they not exist it would be necessary to invent them.

There is a decided *two-way* traffic in people changing their minds, something inevitable inevitable in such a large sample size. That one particular direction pleases you indicates solely where you are standing. There are plenty of "names" on the atheist side too, if one must play that game. I'd prefer not to. None of them on either side is infallible, so it settles little.

Chris.
(edit for spelling and punctuation only)

Sorry but I don't base what I believe and think on what you believe and think. Your views have no interest to me because over the years I have studied atheism I have found it to be totally unconvincing but as I know, atheists don't like people thinking for themselves and coming to a contrary view.

And one could say that any system that sets aside the supernatural has got to stir the suspicion that it is trying to defend itself from that line of enquiry.

I am intrigued that you know something of faith as I read a post by an atheist this afternoon who says he doesn't have faith. I do not know where you got the idea that I object to you having faith in invisible pink unicorns. You can believe in anything you want, even nothing which is what most atheists believe in as long as you don't expect me to give up what I have got for what you haven't got.

And I don't know what you mean when you say "something inevitable inevitable is rather a large sample size." As for numbers on each side being plenty, that is rather as fanciful claim. In my country atheism claims about 2.1% of the population. Christianity claims about 64%. I suppose one has to boost one's ego when you are such a small minority.

 

[As I was saying]

What about Dan Barker, Jerry DeWitt, Seth Andrews, Matt Dillahunty, Ryan Bell, Vyckie Garrison, and all the members of The Clergy Project?

What about them?

 

[Eudaimonist]

If the universe is impersonal and meaningless, where do those concepts come from?

Last I checked, human beings. What is the mystery here?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Colter]

That's just shifting the goal posts. I'm not talking about Luke. I'm talking about Paul's mention of "500" witnesses. This is what was offered earlier as evidence of Christian truths.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I'm trying to recall other characters in history that come with sworn testimonies, names and addresses of people who witnessed their existence? Paul was preaching in the generation that Jesus was known in.

 

[Colter]

What about Dan Barker, Jerry DeWitt, Seth Andrews, Matt Dillahunty, Ryan Bell, Vyckie Garrison, and all the members of The Clergy Project?

What about Lucifer? He fell away and launched the Atheist meme on our world. He was a very high celestial administrator with powers and authority over the earth until, in his own brilliance, he thought his way out of faith.

Sometimes religious leaders have the shallow foundation of a kind of theological intellectualism as opposed to the solid foundation of the spirit birth. But sincere doubts are often part of the growth, throwing out the scaffolding of old ideas after they served the purpose of advancing us forward.

 

[KCfromNC]

The 'extraordinary claim' is not that God exists

I never said anything about claims about gods existing being extraordinary, just that there's no particular reason to accept them as accurate. Considering how quick you are to try and shift the burden of proof, it appears you're well aware of this problem with those claims.

An idea that the universe came from nothing is frankly radical, because it has no backbone that the belief in God has.

What backbone? Anyone can make up stories about magical beings - that doesn't automatically make them the default unless otherwise proven wrong.

 

[redleghunter]

I don't believe that I said you did. The point remains, whether it is "depressing" or not has no bearing on what I can believe.

You are listing 500 people who I cannot verify the existence of (outside of the Bible), cannot talk to and, honestly, cannot determine were not on serious drugs.

I don't need faith to determine that I have no reason to believe in God. Sorry. That's not a faith based belief. Not even a belief. It's a lack of one.

So you reject the NT as a reliable source communicating witness testimony. Apply the same standard to Caesar's Gallic Wars (or any written historical account from the time period) is called into question along with thousands of written manuscripts describing historical events. That is called a double standard and being predisposed.

 

[bhsmte]

So you reject the NT as a reliable source communicating witness testimony. Apply the same standard to Caesar's Gallic Wars (or any written historical account from the time period) is called into question along with thousands of written manuscripts describing historical events. That is called a double standard and being predisposed.

I don't know if you have ever studied the work of well credentialed NT historians, who utilize the historical method in their work, but you may be disappointed in their conclusions on NT historicity.

 

[Cute Tink]

So you reject the NT as a reliable source communicating witness testimony. Apply the same standard to Caesar's Gallic Wars (or any written historical account from the time period) is called into question along with thousands of written manuscripts describing historical events. That is called a double standard and being predisposed.

I simply don't accept that the Bible stands alone as a self-validating document. Other historical references are often validated with other sources. Show me a source, other than the Bible, that establishes what this group of 500 people saw and you'll be getting somewhere.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

What backbone? Anyone can make up stories about magical beings - that doesn't automatically make them the default unless otherwise proven wrong.

Isaiah was persecuted- pawed in half for writing what he put down in scripture, foretelling the Messiah seven centuries before his coming.

It's easy to dismiss things when you leave out important details.

 

[Colter]

I don't know if you have ever studied the work of well credentialed NT historians, who utilize the historical method in their work, but you may be disappointed in their conclusions on NT historicity.

The New testament wasn't written by historians.

 

[bhsmte]

The New testament wasn't written by historians.

No kidding!

Historians don't write history, they examine it, to determine what is credible, using the historical method.

 

[Colter]

I simply don't accept that the Bible stands alone as a self-validating document. Other historical references are often validated with other sources. Show me a source, other than the Bible, that establishes what this group of 500 people saw and you'll be getting somewhere.

Spiritual truth is self validating like any other transcendent phenomenon recognized by a mind conscious of values. For instance, the Sermon on the Mount speaks spiritual truth regardless of accounts of eyewitnesses or not. The true flock knows the voice of the shepherd when one speaks it.

 

[Colter]

No kidding!

Historians don't write history, they examine it, to determine what is credible, using the historical method.

The so called "historical method" is not infallible, it's just the opinion of people far removed from the events. We cant even get consistent recollections from a group of eye witnesses that saw something yesterday.

 

[bhsmte]

The so called "historical method" is not infallible, it's just the opinion of people far removed from the events. We cant even get consistent recollections from a group of eye witnesses that saw something yesterday.

I never said the historical method is infallible, did I?

A method does not have to be infallible to produce reliable results, which is why the historical method relies on much more than eye witness accounts.