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.
You're welcome to that opinion of course but many would disagree.There is no such thing as atheistic dogma.
What subjective claims are you referring to sir. The accusation is subjectively structured and contains no object or content which I can address for you. But, if you are referring to what follows ignore the request.You seem to be quite dismissive of subjective claims. Why, then, should I care about your subjective claims?
No sir, that is incorrect. Daniel is not reiterating in that verse about Judgment Day; which occurs at the culmination of mutable time. Even a quick look at the context illustrates that the world at large is still active and therefore mutable - things are happening more quickly - i.e. running to and fro, knowledge increasing. If we look at Daniel 12:4 in the Septuagint btw - the Greek word for knowledge is gnosis by which the Greeks meant more appropriately "science".If you read the context of Daniel 12:4, it's talking about Judgment Day. So that has nothing to do with the information age. You took it out of context in order to bolster your point. I need not bother looking up your other references until this is resolved.
Well that certainly was not a failed prophesy if you truly read it in the context of the transfiguration. Probably the scribe who decided the chapter ordering didn't realize he was creating some obfuscation in ending chapter 16 so abruptly. Let's thread 16 & 17 together shall we.And we also have the failed prophecy in Matthew 16:28, which says:
28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
Actually sir you implied you were, as in "I am", "objective" because you were like most atheists, which is a false supposition.I'm fully objective on the topic at hand. I never said I was objective in my personal life about everything.
Yes, you have faith, or believe and trust that there is no God and that you can get along quite fine without Him. Similar to other faiths atheism carries with it some central beliefs, which may vary amongst it adherents of their atheistic creeds. Suffice to say this is just like any other religion and we even have variance across atheist believers – like any other religion. There are even atheistic fundamentalists who are intolerant to any other worldview, and evangelistic in spreading atheism. Some of the common creeds that define atheists would be:False, since atheism entails no beliefs. But I appreciate your tacit admission that faith is a bad means for finding the truth.
My apologies to you sir as I thought I had also posted the link but the statements were from a medical symposium not heresay.I don't recall you posting any link. Copy/pasting "2015 symposium on faith and healing Neal Krause of the University of Michigan School of Public Health" into Google yielded no study that I saw. If I missed anything at all, do let me know. Otherwise I'm the one with facts and references while you're the one with hearsay.
Well I never stated the study was specific to Christianity. Perhaps you read that into it. This is what I actually stated, "according to Harvard Medical School, which is not historically well known for any strong stance on theism, faith and healing are very much linked." I suppose if you wanted to do a study and drill down further pitting one theism vs the other one could do that. The studies do show, however atheism has the least healthy effect on people.I did skim this, but I didn't see anything specific to Christianity. So effectively you're saying that belief in some kind of supernatural reality is associated with good health, even if the beliefs are utterly false. That says absolutely nothing about whether or not Christianity is true. It would indicate to me that if prayer does indeed work, it makes no difference whether you pray to Jesus Christ or a half full milk jug.
This is what you stated:So... you take the conversation off topic into something that does not interest me, then declare victory when I won't provide a source despite the fact that you provided nothing that could be researched, and you follow it all up with a snarky remark that I finally joined in on the off-topic issue in which I was disinterested.
Well, as noted above you are the one who brought it up.While I am good at math, I don't do statistics and so I am not qualified to analyze the data that you are yet to provide. I also stay away from evolution because I prefer to know what I'm talking about.
Your topic of prayer and healing is thread worthy in its own. While I am not so formal that I absolutely refuse to veer off topic, and while I do enjoy to explore rabbit holes when there is mutual interest, I do insist, for the reasons provided above, that you uproot your victory flag here and instead try to formulate an intelligible definition of sin.
Well perhaps this is also off topic relative to your thread, but yes. I personally haven't heard the audible voice of God but I have been led by the Spirit of God to do certain ministerial deeds which I believed were directed towards me that were later confirmed to have been correct. This was especially true in my missionary work. If you want I can give examples. I have known other Christians, however, that have heard from God audibly and see no reason to disbelieve them. If St Paul and Saint Francis heard from Jesus then why should I doubt? God, by definition, can make Himself known in many ways; for instance many Muslims are have been having dreams about Jesus. It's not a rare phenomena but has been the start of many a conversion to become a Christ follower.When you talk to God, do you ever hear anything back?
False, since atheism entails no beliefs. But I appreciate your tacit admission that faith is a bad means for finding the truth.
What subjective claims are you referring to sir. The accusation is subjectively structured and contains no object or content which I can address for you. But, if you are referring to what follows ignore the request.
No sir, that is incorrect. Daniel is not reiterating in that verse about Judgment Day; which occurs at the culmination of mutable time. Even a quick look at the context illustrates that the world at large is still active and therefore mutable - things are happening more quickly - i.e. running to and fro, knowledge increasing. If we look at Daniel 12:4 in the Septuagint btw - the Greek word for knowledge is gnosis by which the Greeks meant more appropriately "science".
Dan 12:4
καὶ σύ Δανιηλ ἔμφραξον τοὺς λόγους καὶ σφράγισον τὸ βιβλίον ἕως καιροῦ συντελείας ἕως διδαχθῶσιν πολλοὶ καὶ πληθυνθῇ ἡ
γνῶσις
However, the verse does indeed imply the state of the world just prior to the end of the Age. It's meaning is a matter of interpretation but a good exegesis always allows Scripture to interpret Scripture and we certainly can go deeper if you like.
- Strongs # Greek Translit. English Equivalent
- G1108 γνῶσις gnōsis knowledge, science
This is an extract from one commentary
Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase: Here, Daniel is describing a characteristic of the time of the end. Many take this prediction as being fulfilled in the travel (run to and fro) and information explosions (knowledge shall increase) of our modern age.
While , as he says, "many" agree this interpretation to be true others believe the meaning to infer something different. However, no one I'm aware of believes this verse is in context with the actions taking place during the final judgment but rather the actions leading up to the end of the Age.
Well that certainly was not a failed prophesy if you truly read it in the context of the transfiguration. Probably the scribe who decided the chapter ordering didn't realize he was creating some obfuscation in ending chapter 16 so abruptly. Let's thread 16 & 17 together shall we.
Mat 16:28 "Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."
Remembering Jesus was speaking to His Apostles and calling out a select group would not see death until they witnessed the glory of His coming as Christ the King of glory.
Matthew 17
The Transfiguration of Christ
1 Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, led them up on a high mountain by themselves; 2 and He (Jesus) was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light. 3 And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him. 4 Then Peter answered and said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, let us make here three tabernacles: one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.”
5 While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and suddenly a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!” 6 And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their faces and were greatly afraid.
Peter speaks of this event later, just before his execution circa AD 65, implying this event was even greater than the resurrection to him, since he forementions this above all else he witnessed as what the coming of Christ will be like
2Pe 1:16-19 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty.
For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts;
There were 3 witnesses that day that did not suffer death. James was martyred by Herod, Peter by Nero, and John would die an old man at the turn of the century in Ephesus but they all sa the glory of the Lord that will be at His coming, as Peter reiterates to us in his letter.
Actually sir you implied you were, as in "I am", "objective" because you were like most atheists, which is a false supposition.
- Nihilist Virus said: Like most atheists I am objective. If you truly are saddened by my situation, then you should consider making a good argument.
It also takes faith to be an atheist and maybe even more faith than it does to follow Christ. - John 17:20
Yes, you have faith, or believe and trust that there is no God
and that you can get along quite fine without Him.
Similar to other faiths atheism carries with it some central beliefs, which may vary amongst it adherents of their atheistic creeds.
Suffice to say this is just like any other religion and we even have variance across atheist believers – like any other religion.
There are even atheistic fundamentalists who are intolerant to any other worldview, and evangelistic in spreading atheism.
Some of the common creeds that define atheists would be:
- Nothing exists beyond this life
- The universe exists by chance
- We, the human race are the ultimately the judge of all things – there is no final judgment or cosmic meaning to the universe.
- Hence there is no value or purpose to life that can be worked out from the wisdom of mankind or imputed by God
- Everything can be discovered by science - by physical means and nothing else because nothing but the physical actually exists.
- Death is our ultimate destiny - the grave wins and we shall all cease to exist.
This is to name but a few of the things that are out there that atheists actually believe but I think you get my drift that it sounds an awful lot like a belief system.
I'll address the rest of your post later, since this has already become quite long and tangential to the topic.
PART II
My apologies to you sir as I thought I had also posted the link but the statements were from a medical symposium not heresay.
There are many studies out there here's a few more off the cuff
Well I never stated the study was specific to Christianity. Perhaps you read that into it. This is what I actually stated, "according to Harvard Medical School, which is not historically well known for any strong stance on theism, faith and healing are very much linked." I suppose if you wanted to do a study and drill down further pitting one theism vs the other one could do that. The studies do show, however atheism has the least healthy effect on people.
This is what you stated:
Nihilist Virus said: ↑
Religion in general, and Christianity in particular, does not always want things to be clear. If, for instance, a clear outcome is expected after a session of prayer, then the effectiveness of prayer will be shown to be statistically equivalent to randomness.
You are reading way too much into what I say, as I never claimed any victory. We are simply having a conversation sir. I do, however, think your statement above is false.
Well, as noted above you are the one who brought it up.
Well perhaps this is also off topic relative to your thread, but yes. I personally haven't heard the audible voice of God but I have been led by the Spirit of God to do certain ministerial deeds which I believed were directed towards me that were later confirmed to have been correct. This was especially true in my missionary work. If you want I can give examples. I have known other Christians, however, that have heard from God audibly and see no reason to disbelieve them. If St Paul and Saint Francis heard from Jesus then why should I doubt? God, by definition, can make Himself known in many ways; for instance many Muslims are have been having dreams about Jesus. It's not a rare phenomena but has been the start of many a conversion to become a Christ follower.
Well, do you positively affirm, for example, that Thor does not exist? If so, I demand your proof. If not, then you should understand the default atheist position.
You're welcome to that opinion of course but many would disagree.
Yes, you have faith, or believe and trust that there is no God and that you can get along quite fine without Him.
Similar to other faiths atheism carries with it some central beliefs, which may vary amongst it adherents of their atheistic creeds.
Suffice to say this is just like any other religion
and we even have variance across atheist believers – like any other religion.
There are even atheistic fundamentalists who are intolerant to any other worldview, and evangelistic in spreading atheism. Some of the common creeds that define atheists would be:
- Nothing exists beyond this life
- The universe exists by chance
- We, the human race are the ultimately the judge of all things – there is no final judgment or cosmic meaning to the universe.
- Hence there is no value or purpose to life that can be worked out from the wisdom of mankind or imputed by God
- Everything can be discovered by science - by physical means and nothing else because nothing but the physical actually exists.
- Death is our ultimate destiny - the grave wins and we shall all cease to exist.
This is to name but a few of the things that are out there that atheists actually believe
but I think you get my drift that it sounds an awful lot like a belief system.
When Einstein would create a theorem it was based upon having faith in that what he was writing as he went along, was so! Faith!
When you first learned that Russia is located on the map where you were shown it is? You accepted it by faith that Russia exists. No one had to take you there to prove to you that Russia exists. Faith!
Kind of like how hallucinations of psychotics, can't be heared and seen by others.When it comes to knowing God? When you are truly born again its experienced. Its personal and private. It can not be seen by others.
Then for those who have entered into that state of regeneration, and know something real has happened to them?
Something that can not be explained unless you too have the same encounter? From that point on? All we can know about God is to be accepted by Faith
You're working with a premise. That we are imagining things.
It gives you the freedom to dogmatically presume as you have been doing. But, we're patient. We know you have been rejected (so far), and you sense that if we are real that you have been rejected by God. So,... hence the resentment.
We understand.
No. Einstein didn't dream up theorems out of thin air. Science doesn't work like that.
That's not a premise. That's a conclusion.
A conclusion drawn from the fact that you can't demonstrate a single supernatural thing, yet you believe it to be real and even proudly admit that you accept it on "faith".
To a third party, such a belief is indistinguishable from just imagining things.
That's why I conclude it. I don't start with that assumption.
There's no need for such arrogant condescension.
I wasn't aware the journal publication of Psychology Today was a theistical publication. Are you sure about that?
Why do theists always feel like they know better then their conversation partner, what that person believes?
Wrong. What we have in atheism, are a bunch of individuals who believe all kinds of things, whose believes are not connected to their atheism. - Dogma Hunter
- .. "and we even have variance across atheist believers – like any other religion." - John 17:20
What makes you think I said that?
I will try again, because it seems to have a prejudice and preconceived idea whenever you hear the word "faith."
I was shown as a boy that Russia exists on a map. If I say someday I am going to visit Russia? Did I dream it up?
No! I believed Russia exists by faith.
Faith is not about fantasy.
Einstein accepted certain realities by faith. That is why it was called a "theory."
Why a supernatural thing? Why must it always be a supernatural thing?
That sets you in a safe place to be with your presumption.
Look, 2 claims are possible concerning the existence (sic) of god:
- god exists
- god does not exist
Now get this: in the atheist/theist debate, ONLY the first claim is being addressed.
An atheist, is someone who does not accept the first claim. That's it.
Sure, MAKING the second claim is compatible with atheism but not inherent to the idea of atheism.
I, for example, do not make that claim, because I tend to not see the point in making unfalsifiable, undemonstrable claims.
As just explained, it does not.
The exact opposite, actually.... central in atheism is a DISbelief, of theistic claims.
"Not a belief", is not a belief.
You said he build it on "faith".
He did not. Theories are build on evidence.
In fact, hypothesis are build on evidence. Theories are well-tested hypothesis.
- Definition of atheism
1 a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
I believe you're missing my point sir. Disbelief and belief are indeed cut from the same cloth
and I am far from alone in believing that to be true. Let's look at the dictionary
dis·be·lief
noun: disbelief
- An inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.
"Laura shook her head in disbelief"
synonyms: incredulity, astonishment, amazement, surprise, incredulousness; More
skepticism, doubt, doubtfulness, dubiousness;
cynicism, suspicion, distrust, mistrust;
formal dubiety
"she stared at him in disbelief"
- lack of faith in something.
"I'll burn in hell for disbelief"
synonyms: atheism, nonbelief, unbelief, godlessness, irreligion, agnosticism, nihilism
"in the film religious faith and disbelief are interwoven"
For example: If I state I believe, hence trust, airplanes can safely fly and save me significant travel time. Therefore, acting upon my belief, I will take a flight tomorrow to San Francisco
The opposite of this, or rather disbelief and distrust that airplanes safely fly, also construes a belief system that incurs quite opposite actions.
However unsure represents the agnostic position and not the one the dictionary defines as holding strongly to unbelief.
What we believe and trust in therefore is something we all do. If I have faith the raft will survive the river rapids I will take the run. If I disbelieve it is safe it is the same as saying I believe the raft is unsafe and will reject taking the risk of running the rapids. Does that make it any clearer sir?
Who cares?You know what the word "or" means, right?
So what you have there, is a defintion wich defines atheism as the DISBELIEF of the existance of gods or gods.
Just like I said. Atheism is about what you do NOT believe. It doesn't tell you anything about what IS believed.
See?
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?