No Such Thing as Atheism.

[Wryetui]

See the quote I posted.

Sorry, I did not see it. I agree with what he says but I doubt that he actually followed hesychasm, katharsis and the sacramental witness of the Orthodox Church in order to reach that conclusion, I think it comes from the protestant movement called: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-orthodoxy

 

[Wryetui]

I doubt that you actually know a deity that exists to begin with.

That is irrelevant to the question, but I agree with you, my own sinfulness haven't let me see Christ's grace yet, but I'm struggling to become pleasant to Him through His Church. I know a deity that exists, He's the only God that exists, the alive God.

Can you answer my question, please?

 

[Loudmouth]

I know a deity that exists, He's the only God that exists, the alive God.

What evidence do you have to back up this claim?

Can you answer my question, please?

Your question is not related to what I said or meant. Let me put it a different way. How is God distinguishable from a God that doesn't exist. If you read Sagan's essay, this question might be more understandable.

"Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head."
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Sorry, I did not see it. I agree with what he says but I doubt that he actually followed hesychasm, katharsis and the sacramental witness of the Orthodox Church in order to reach that conclusion, I think it comes from the protestant movement called: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-orthodoxy

You're shifting the goal posts. You said, "Orthodoxy puts reason and intellect in their place, a fairly secondary place." In gesturing toward Craig, I pointed out that this isn't just true of Orthodoxy.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Archaeopteryx and Mark -- I was actually trying to lighten the mood a wee bit .

Thank you.

Just didn't want you to think that Christians all check their brains at the door, drink some cosmic Kool-aid and mindlessly follow what the guy up front says.

I never did think that. I was once one of those people looking at Christianity from the inside. I know that there are reason-friendly Christians because Catholicism (while perhaps too "pagan" from the Orthodox viewpoint) is fairly reason-friendly.

Many of us study and make what we consider to be a rational decision about the branch of faith we follow. And some of us are actually able to reconcile the teachings of the church with the teachings of science - giving us the best of both worlds.

I hope that works out for you, and I truly mean that.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Wryetui]

What evidence do you have to back up this claim?


Your question is not related to what I said or meant. Let me put it a different way. How is God distinguishable from a God that doesn't exist. If you read Sagan's essay, this question might be more understandable.

"Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head."
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

Evidence? You didn't wanted to ask me that. Christians see with the eyes of the Holy Ghost, because God is within us, so everything I see, talk, act, do, touch or smell is for me evidence of Jesus Christ, I look myself in the mirror and I am happy to know that Jesus Christ clothed with my sinfulness just out of love. Everytime I look at the sky I see God's wisdom for creating such a beautifulness. You wanted to ask: which evidence that pleases me and fit into my vision have for God? For a believer, there is no need for evidence. For an non believer, there is no such thing as evidence.

I seriously doubt about your intelectual level when asking something like the existence of that supposed dragon and comparing it with Christ. First of all the analogy of the dragon is created only with the purpose to denigrate God comparing it with the vague divagations of the human mind, you dragon doesn't exist because there is no proof for its existence, all the proofs point to a creation of your mind.

 

[Loudmouth]

Christians see with the eyes of the Holy Ghost,

Evidence, please.

You wanted to ask: which evidence that pleases me and fit into my vision have for God? For a believer, there is no need for evidence.

Why not?

Do you apply the same criteria to everything in your life? If you do, I have a bridge for sale.

For an non believer, there is no such thing as evidence.

I am a non-believer, and I know there is such a thing as evidence. The problem is that you don't have any.

I seriously doubt about your intelectual level when asking something like the existence of that supposed dragon and comparing it with Christ. First of all the analogy of the dragon is created only with the purpose to denigrate God comparing it with the vague divagations of the human mind, you dragon doesn't exist because there is no proof for its existence, all the proofs point to a creation of your mind.

How are your God claims any better supported than the Dragon claims?

If I said that I saw with the eyes of the Holy Dragon which allowed me to see the fire of the Garage Dragon, would you be convinced? Or would you think I was talking nonsense?

 

[Wryetui]

Evidence, please.



Why not?

Do you apply the same criteria to everything in your life? If you do, I have a bridge for sale.



I am a non-believer, and I know there is such a thing as evidence. The problem is that you don't have any.



How are your God claims any better supported than the Dragon claims?

If I said that I saw with the eyes of the Holy Dragon which allowed me to see the fire of the Garage Dragon, would you be convinced? Or would you think I was talking nonsense?

What evidence can I bring for you regarding the eyes? Could you enter into my eyes and see? You can only believe it. What I meant that we see with the eyes of the Holy Ghost meant that we see God's work in everything, we see the presence of God upon anything.

No, I do not apply the same criteria for everything in my life.

I don't have any evidence? How so? The Gospel is an evidence Jesus Christ existed, the living experience of the Church is an evidence of His work and the living experience I have, even as a sinful man I am, proofs me the experience of God. But it's all about experience, as I posted above. If I tell you I know someone you can only believe me, or meet that person by yourself.

My God claim is a reality, in fact, only God exists for real, we are only creatures. If there was no Revelation then you could say that there is no evidence, but since God revealed Himself to mankind, both in presence and in flesh, you have no excuse. The evidence of the Revelation is what makes everything real, we lived in confusion but God revealed Himself, He told us why are we here, with which purpose, why everything is how it is and so on. So you can't compare your dragon with God.

 

[Loudmouth]

What evidence can I bring for you regarding the eyes?

The same as you would for any other eyes.

If I said that I could see a space station through a telescope, what type of evidence would you expect me to provide?

Could you enter into my eyes and see? You can only believe it.

Or not believe it.

Do you believe everything that people say? If I said that I saw the the eyes of the Holy Dragon and it allowed me to see magical kingdoms, would you believe me?

I don't have any evidence? How so? The Gospel is an evidence Jesus Christ existed, the living experience of the Church is an evidence of His work and the living experience I have, even as a sinful man I am, proofs me the experience of God.

When have stories in books ever been evidence that someone existed?

Do you think Harry Potter is a real person?

Are you aware that humans are able to write stories in books about people who never existed?

My God claim is a reality, in fact, only God exists for real, we are only creatures. If there was no Revelation then you could say that there is no evidence, but since God revealed Himself to mankind, both in presence and in flesh, you have no excuse. The evidence of the Revelation is what makes everything real, we lived in confusion but God revealed Himself, He told us why are we here, with which purpose, why everything is how it is and so on. So you can't compare your dragon with God.

If you claim it is a reality, then you should be able to produce evidence that it is a reality. If it only a belief, then it isn't a reality.

 

[Loudmouth]

I know this seems odd for someone in the West because of their dependence on reason, logic and intellect, but in order to enter in the sacred space of apophatic theology, of actually seeing God through theoria one must learn to make their reason, logic and intellect, subordinate to their hearts.

You don't depend on reason, logic, and intellect? I highly, highly doubt that.

Do you walk off the edge of cliffs? No, you say? Why not? Could it be that reason, logic, and intellect tell you that you will fall to your death? Methinks so.

Almost every second of your continuing life critically depends on reason, logic, and intellect. What you need to explain is why you stop using those things when it comes to deities.

 

[Wryetui]

You don't depend on reason, logic, and intellect? I highly, highly doubt that.

Do you walk off the edge of cliffs? No, you say? Why not? Could it be that reason, logic, and intellect tell you that you will fall to your death? Methinks so.

Almost every second of your continuing life critically depends on reason, logic, and intellect. What you need to explain is why you stop using those things when it comes to deities.

I see that you got nothing from my message.

Logic, reason and intellect is perfect and extremely needed for our everyday life but, regarding God, not reason and intellect will restore the communion with Him, but prayer, purification of passions and so on. So not logic and reason are bad, bad is how some people use it and for which purposes.

Like your very hands, you use your hands to hug a person the same way you can use them to punch them in the face, but in neither way the hands are guilty for how you use them.

 

[Wryetui]

The same as you would for any other eyes.

If I said that I could see a space station through a telescope, what type of evidence would you expect me to provide?



Or not believe it.

Do you believe everything that people say? If I said that I saw the the eyes of the Holy Dragon and it allowed me to see magical kingdoms, would you believe me?



When have stories in books ever been evidence that someone existed?

Do you think Harry Potter is a real person?

Are you aware that humans are able to write stories in books about people who never existed?



If you claim it is a reality, then you should be able to produce evidence that it is a reality. If it only a belief, then it isn't a reality.

No, Harry Potter is fictional so he is not real, he was made to be fictional and for entertainment. The apologetics site, CARM, does a good apology confronting the position you hold with the dragon and Harry using Santa Claus:

First of all, Jesus is presented as an historical figure by reputable people in both secular and sacred historical writings. Santa Claus is simply presented as a fictional character.

Second, Jesus is presented as a real person who claimed to be divine and who performed miracles. These accounts are attested to by reputable witnesses and have been transmitted to us reliably. The New Testament documents are 99.5% textually pure. Santa Claus is intentionally and knowingly presented as a fictional character who lives at the North Pole.

Third, the intention of the Gospel writers was to convey the physical reality of Jesus to responsible adults whereas the accounts of Santa are intended to entertain the wild imaginations of children. This is why the vast majority of healthy, mentally competent adults do not believe in a real person known as Santa who can travel through air being pulled by several flying reindeer, who can carry in his sled enough presents for all the good children in the entire world, and who can descend and ascend through chimneys even though he is quite overweight.

Fourth, the writings concerning Jesus exhibit a historical, cultural, religious, and political context with verifiable names, events, and places being an integral part of the record of that context and reality. Santa Claus stories do not contain any such integral contextualization except to state that there is a North Pole and that there are cities and countries where Santa visits at night.

Fifth, the facts are that parents buy, wrap, and deliver presents to children, and we know of no documented occurrences where Santa Claus has been caught breaking and entering, tripping home alarm systems, caught on film, vanishing up a chimney, and riding a sleigh through the air pulled by flying reindeer. This latter point is worth a comment since we additionally have no evidence at all that reindeer can fly. This further adds to the irrationality of the Santa Claus story. Additionally, if a large sleigh (sufficient to carry millions of toys) approached the Washington D.C. area (surely there are at least some good children there), we would expect to hear of military fighter jets being scrambled to intercept the intruder. No records of this have yet surfaced.

Sixth, given that the Gospel accounts were written by individuals who knew Jesus personally (or were under the guidance of those who knew Him) and that the Gospels are historically accurate and superbly transmitted to us through the copying method, we can then assume at the very least that Jesus was an actual historical person. But, we have no hard evidence to establish the validity of Santa Claus. We have found no reindeer tracks on the roofs of millions of snow-covered homes on Christmas Eve. There are no video accounts of Santa roaming throughout peoples' homes. We know of no flying reindeer, and no one has yet established how Santa can live at the North Pole for hundreds of years without being detected--particularly in this technologically advanced culture. Add to that the lack of Santa Disciples going about the world risking their lives, being ridiculed by religious and political adversaries, writing inspirational text, performing miracles, etc., and you really don't have much evidence at all that Santa exists except in the minds of children.

Finally, it really comes down to whether or not either one can reasonably be proven to exist. Very few people deny the historic reality of Jesus. Though millions of children affirm the existence of Santa, we know well that the minds of children are not capable of differentiating between fantasy and reality--particularly when the parents they are trusting tell them Santa is real.

For an atheist to reject Jesus' existence based on arguments found against Santa Claus demonstrates the inability for the atheist to distinguish between historical, verifiable documents and known, constructed children's stories. Jesus was an actual historical figure. Santa, of course, is not.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, Harry Potter is fictional so he is not real,

Would you be using reason, logic, and intellect to reach that conclusion? If you looked with the eyes of the Holy Potter, you would see the evidence and know that you are wrong.

Are you convinced?

First

of all, Jesus is presented as an historical figure by reputable people in both secular and sacred historical writings. Santa Claus is simply presented as a fictional character.

Haile Sellasie is a very real historical figure. That doesn't mean that he was the second coming of the Christ.

The Hale-Bopp comet was a very real thing and part of a very real history. That doesn't mean that there was an alien spacecraft hidden in the tail of the comet where you spirit could be transferred after dying, as claimed by the Heaven's Gate cult.

You do realize that people can write fictional stories about real historical people, right?

Second

, Jesus is presented as a real person who claimed to be divine and who performed miracles. These accounts are attested to by reputable witnesses and have been transmitted to us reliably. The New Testament documents are 99.5% textually pure. Santa Claus is intentionally and knowingly presented as a fictional character who lives at the North Pole.

The New Testament is the claim, not the evidence.

Do you understand what the difference is between a claim and evidence?

Third

, the intention of the Gospel writers was to convey the physical reality of Jesus to responsible adults whereas the accounts of Santa are intended to entertain the wild imaginations of children. This is why the vast majority of healthy, mentally competent adults do not believe in a real person known as Santa who can travel through air being pulled by several flying reindeer, who can carry in his sled enough presents for all the good children in the entire world, and who can descend and ascend through chimneys even though he is quite overweight.

The intention of the Book of Mormon is to convey the physical reality of the Golden Plates. Doesn't make them real. Again, you need to learn the difference between a claim and evidence.

Fourth

, the writings concerning Jesus exhibit a historical, cultural, religious, and political context with verifiable names, events, and places being an integral part of the record of that context and reality. Santa Claus stories do not contain any such integral contextualization except to state that there is a North Pole and that there are cities and countries where Santa visits at night.

Haile Sellasie was said to be the very real prime minister of the very real country of Ethiopia. Guess what, it's completely true. That doesn't make him the second coming of the Christ.

Fifth

, the facts are that parents buy, wrap, and deliver presents to children, and we know of no documented occurrences where Santa Claus has been caught breaking and entering, tripping home alarm systems, caught on film, vanishing up a chimney, and riding a sleigh through the air pulled by flying reindeer. This latter point is worth a comment since we additionally have no evidence at all that reindeer can fly. This further adds to the irrationality of the Santa Claus story. Additionally, if a large sleigh (sufficient to carry millions of toys) approached the Washington D.C. area (surely there are at least some good children there), we would expect to hear of military fighter jets being scrambled to intercept the intruder. No records of this have yet surfaced.

There have been as many verified instances of Santa Claus going down chimneys as there has of God doing anything in our universe.

Sixth

, given that the Gospel accounts were written by individuals who knew Jesus personally (or were under the guidance of those who knew Him) and that the Gospels are historically accurate and superbly transmitted to us through the copying method,

Claims don't become true by simply assuming that they are true.

For an atheist to reject Jesus' existence based on arguments found against Santa Claus demonstrates the inability for the atheist to distinguish between historical, verifiable documents and known, constructed children's stories. Jesus was an actual historical figure. Santa, of course, is not.

Do you reject the existence of the Hale-Bopp comet or Haile Sellasie?

 

[Wryetui]

Would you be using reason, logic, and intellect to reach that conclusion? If you looked with the eyes of the Holy Potter, you would see the evidence and know that you are wrong.

Are you convinced?



Haile Sellasie is a very real historical figure. That doesn't mean that he was the second coming of the Christ.

The Hale-Bopp comet was a very real thing and part of a very real history. That doesn't mean that there was an alien spacecraft hidden in the tail of the comet where you spirit could be transferred after dying, as claimed by the Heaven's Gate cult.

You do realize that people can write fictional stories about real historical people, right?



The New Testament is the claim, not the evidence.

Do you understand what the difference is between a claim and evidence?



The intention of the Book of Mormon is to convey the physical reality of the Golden Plates. Doesn't make them real. Again, you need to learn the difference between a claim and evidence.



Haile Sellasie was said to be the very real prime minister of the very real country of Ethiopia. Guess what, it's completely true. That doesn't make him the second coming of the Christ.



There have been as many verified instances of Santa Claus going down chimneys as there has of God doing anything in our universe.



Claims don't become true by simply assuming that they are true.



Do you reject the existence of the Hale-Bopp comet or Haile Sellasie?

You obviously don't read what I post. I have already answered your first question:

I see that you got nothing from my message.

Logic, reason and intellect is perfect and extremely needed for our everyday life but, regarding God, not reason and intellect will restore the communion with Him, but prayer, purification of passions and so on. So not logic and reason are bad, bad is how some people use it and for which purposes.

Like your very hands, you use your hands to hug a person the same way you can use them to punch them in the face, but in neither way the hands are guilty for how you use them.

 

[Davian]

...
Finally, it really comes down to whether or not either one can reasonably be proven to exist. Very few people deny the historic reality of Jesus. Though millions of children affirm the existence of Santa, we know well that the minds of children are not capable of differentiating between fantasy and reality--particularly when the parents they are trusting tell them Santa is real.

For an atheist to reject Jesus' existence based on arguments found against Santa Claus demonstrates the inability for the atheist to distinguish between historical, verifiable documents and known, constructed children's stories.

Or, the inability of the religionist to establish that distinction. That burden lies with you.

Jesus was an actual historical figure. Santa, of course, is not.

"Saint Nicholas of Myra was a 4th-century Greek Christian bishop of Myra (now Demre) in Lycia, a province of the Byzantine Empire, now in Turkey."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus#Predecessor_figures

 

[Wryetui]

Or, the inability of the religionist to establish that distinction. That burden lies with you.

"Saint Nicholas of Myra was a 4th-century Greek Christian bishop of Myra (now Demre) in Lycia, a province of the Byzantine Empire, now in Turkey."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus#Predecessor_figures

I know Santa Claus is based on Saint Nicholas (I am an Eastern Orthodox and he is one of the greatest saints in my Church, we celebrate him on december 6th), but you can't tell me that everyone in the world when it comes to Santa actually thinks he is Saint Nicholas or venerate him as a saint.

 

[Ken-1122]

In order to don't believe in a God, you must have received the idea of God, studied it and refuted, so that's why you are an atheist.

There are hundreds of different ideas of God; each of them different. Have you received, studied, and refuted each of them? Or do you believe in them all!

If you didn't receive the idea of a God then you are an atheist out of ignorance.

So; are you a Theist our of ignorance?

Ken

 

[Davian]

I know Santa Claus is based on Saint Nicholas (I am an Eastern Orthodox and he is one of the greatest saints in my Church, we celebrate him on december 6th), but you can't tell me that everyone in the world when it comes to Santa actually thinks he is Saint Nicholas or venerate him as a saint.

And not everyone in the world thinks Jesus was a god. I don't see reality as being put up to a vote.

 

[Wryetui]

There are hundreds of different ideas of God; each of them different. Have you received, studied, and refuted each of them? Or do you believe in them all!


So; are you a Theist our of ignorance?

Ken

I did.

I am not.

 

[Wryetui]

And not everyone in the world thinks Jesus was a god. I don't see reality as being put up to a vote.

If they don't believe it doesn't mean it's not real, since when reality is conditioned by human desires?