Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
But you'll never know as long as you're so totally unwilling to listen.
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.
Oh, to be young again
I'm completely willing to listen. I'm just willing to accept arguments that have clear flaws in them that the claimant is unwilling or unable to address, or those that are not backed by empirical evidence.
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?
I never denied that there was cultural context for the term. I wouldn't call people who believed/knew God existed unbelievers in the sense of atheism and I didn't argue as such. It's possible that back in the day, a Jew could have accused a Christian of being an atheist to the true God YHWH or some such thing, like Christians could accuse pagans or Jews of not following the true God conversely. Atheism today is more nuanced because there is not nearly the kind of fear and persecution of atheists that existed back in the time Jesus and such, not to mention education has improved greatly. Many factors come into consideration here.
faith
/fāTH/
Noun
- Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
- Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
The second definition is what applies to this particular subject, which is a re-worded version of my definition.
So yeah... my definition stands.
You're also completely willing to post typos that completely reverse your position.
I'm completely willing to listen. I'm just not willing to accept arguments that have clear flaws in them that the claimant is unwilling or unable to address, or those that are not backed by empirical evidence.
Don't care, neither did my comment pertain to that. That you will engage this discussion which is clearly along religious lines and totally ignore the 11th chapter of Hebrews when its posted makes you and your opinion irrelevant. That you don't realize this speaks to the ignorance of your youth, which was the gist of my comment. No, I did not kid myself that you might grasp any of this.
What are you doing to enjoy this winter?
Bolded is what pertains. This is not reasonable, considering the topic. Therefore you conclude that any argument at all is flawed, even the good ones. This is synonymous with not being willing to listen
I read his post about the 11th chapter of Hebrews... is starts off with this line:
Hebrews
Chapter 11
By Faith
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
The conviction of things not seen.... Belief without evidence.
Working lots and curling a fair bit. Yourself?
It's not reasonable to demand to see empirical evidence in order to accept your claim? How do you figure that, and what would you rather have me accept your claim based on?
You're still muddling things up unacceptably. "Back in the day," a Jew wouldn't have accused a Christian of being an atheist. They all believed the same God, and worshiped in the same Temple. The problem the Jew had with the Christian was the worshiped a man, as God. I think the appropriate term was blasphemy, rather than heresy.
Likewise the Christian wouldn't consider even a pagan an atheist. You then go on to mention "fear of persecution" that atheists had, yet you haven't identified a single atheist. They are non-existent in that time of history, which was my original point. I'm not saying no such people existed, just that the term is an anachronism, rather than pertinent.
You're not going to find empirical evidence of the Spiritual realm. That's pretty much a tautology there. Also, faith is not about accepting the claims of others, but finding out for yourself. Whatever you may find after applying yourself to that will result in "claims" of your own, that will certainly not be identical to my own nor anyone else's. People then share and compare, not for the purpose of accepting another's claim, but to broaden the experience.
At least you're not overtly militant with your atheism, like some are. Some people simply aren't drawn to the Spiritual realm, or haven't been yet. Where do you put yourself along that spectrum?
You've kind of created a tautology yourself in saying that the spiritual realm exists, but there is no objective way to discern its existence.
If I had to answer your question, the idea of spiritual has to be defined prior to any real response. Spiritual can be argued to be more psychological and existential in nature, not a transcendental and mystical sort of thing.
Except I didn't say that. I responded to Dave, saying there isn't empirical evidence.
Very good observation! Spiritual: that which is in control of the physical. The underlying cause. See: heaven is above earth. See also: Jesus' teachings, always illustrating the Spiritual via the physical, but never separating the two. Your objective evidence is existence itself, although I see no way to bring this into being empirical. Not quite pantheism, but panentheism
You're creating a tautology in that there is no way to verify it except the way you describe
I wouldn't say in control absolutely speaking. The physical can subsist apart from the spiritual
which I'd prefer to call psychological.
You're not going to find empirical evidence of the Spiritual realm. That's pretty much a tautology there. Also, faith is not about accepting the claims of others, but finding out for yourself. Whatever you may find after applying yourself to that will result in "claims" of your own, that will certainly not be identical to my own nor anyone else's. People then share and compare, not for the purpose of accepting another's claim, but to broaden the experience.
At least you're not overtly militant with your atheism, like some are. Some people simply aren't drawn to the Spiritual realm, or haven't been yet. Where do you put yourself along that spectrum?
What happens when faith alone is not enough?
When faith is used to justify actions that have consequences for those who do not share in the faith? For example, denying medical care to children in the belief that faith and prayer are sufficient for healing?
You seem to be assuming that atheists are closed off from spiritual experiences. I like Sam Harris' point on this. There is nothing to preclude an atheist from having a experience that might be called 'spiritual'. The term doesn't need to connote anything supernatural.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?