Atheists, What's the point?

[Dave Ellis]

But you'll never know as long as you're so totally unwilling to listen.

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.

 

[muichimotsu]

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.

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.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Oh, to be young again

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.

 

[seeking Christ]

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.

You're also completely willing to post typos that completely reverse your position.

 

[seeking Christ]

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?

This is a valid point, if not a couple of them. It will take more mental effort and focus than I have right now, but I want to get back to this. If I still haven't responded in a couple days, please remind me.

 

[seeking Christ]

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.

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.

 

[seeking Christ]

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.

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?

 

[Dave Ellis]

You're also completely willing to post typos that completely reverse your position.

My bad


Thanks for pointing it out, my post is corrected

 

[seeking Christ]

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.

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

 

[Dave Ellis]

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.

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.

His post then goes on to describe a number of situations where people acted on faith.

So you see, I am basing what I write on his post. But thanks for the Ad Hominem.

What are you doing to enjoy this winter?

Working lots and curling a fair bit. Yourself?

 

[Dave Ellis]

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

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?

 

[seeking Christ]

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.

Your paraphrase smacks of not applying yourself to what was said.

Working lots and curling a fair bit. Yourself?

Curling, I've never done that. Taking this season off from skiing, which is kind of a bummer. Was planning on skiing behind a kite on the local lake, but this year and last its just not freezing like it used to. We used to have over 3 months of reliable ice. Last year we only had winter for a week, and this year even since a safe thickness has formed, we've had 2 major melt-downs with tons of water on top of the ice, leaving conditions such that I could easily find myself in an unsafe area and not know it.

 

[seeking Christ]

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 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?

 

[muichimotsu]

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.

Blasphemer was probably more accurate, though it's possible that back in the day, godless and blasphemous were synonymous anyway. The concept of someone actively disbelieving in God was virtually foreign. Maybe the Lucretians and Epicureans, but those were probably somewhat unknown in Jesus' area.

Nonexistent, no, but fairly rare still and I don't have to identify them if the point I'm making is that atheists were pretty much closeted because if they were outed they would be killed. The term isn't anachronistic, etymologically and historically speaking. we have stones/signs of some sort dated to at least 2 AD that use the term atheos, in Greek meaning godless.

Perhaps a bit late past Jesus's alleged life, but it's not as if the idea of a godless philosophy was completely foreign, especially in Greek culture, though the idea of being godless wasn't necessarily a matter of disbelief but improper belief, impiety towards gods, not lack of conviction that they existed. Socrates, for instance, was accused of atheism in that sense, corrupting youth being the explicit accusation.

 

[muichimotsu]

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.

This whole experiential based system of proof and truth is absurd and smacks of relativism, a position I imagine you don't find appealing and have heard arguments against from apologists of the theistic and Christian variety.

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.

 

[seeking Christ]

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.

Except I didn't say that. I responded to Dave, saying there isn't empirical evidence.

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.

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.

 

[muichimotsu]

Except I didn't say that. I responded to Dave, saying there isn't empirical evidence.

You're creating a tautology in that there is no way to verify it except the way you describe

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

I wouldn't say in control absolutely speaking. The physical can subsist apart from the spiritual, which I'd prefer to call psychological. Not to say the physical and psychological are so radically separate, but I wouldn't involve metaphors of heaven or the like. Psychological, psyche, mind, spirit, spiritual. It's a connection of 4-5 degrees, but I like Andre Comte Sponville's text that explained it, "The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality"

I'm not asking strictly empirical, I'm asking for a logical and reasoned out argument that doesn't have huge holes in it. Panentheism just seems like an excuse to incorporate the "Dharmic" ideas into Christianity without actually taking out any significance of the Xian god.

 

[seeking Christ]

You're creating a tautology in that there is no way to verify it except the way you describe

I'm not sure that's what tautology really means

And even then that's still not correct, because A) you're really saying I defined what I was asked to define, and B) there are many other Spiritual people. While not every single one will have a distinct definition, many will have something different and you can use the collective statement to assist your own quest and understanding. Sometimes the more info is helpful, sometimes it is just more confusing; depending on the individual. Myself, I like more info rather than less.

I wouldn't say in control absolutely speaking. The physical can subsist apart from the spiritual

Well now that we're all here yes, its easy enough to say that. Our existence, we can self-determine to be apart from any Spirituality, certainly. A poor choice, especially during Lent.

which I'd prefer to call psychological.

The 2 are distinct. Close, even related; but distinct.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

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?

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 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.

 

[seeking Christ]

What happens when faith alone is not enough?

Faith alone is never enough. Good question! I've been trying to say that, I guess.

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?

Stupid is as stupid does. I don't think this is an example of your point, but I see the problem you raise nonetheless. (Actually I don't really see it, never having met anyone as you describe; I understand your point for purposes of discussion.)

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.

Well ok, ya got me. Never have I encountered an atheist describing a spiritual experience. It seems mutually exclusive to me, but maybe not? Could be interesting.