The definition of sin

[GenemZ]

There is no such thing as atheistic dogma.

mid 16th century: via late Latin from Greek dogma ‘opinion,’ from dokein ‘seem good, think.’

You're right on that one.

 

[GenemZ]

False, since atheism entails no beliefs.

You only believe it doesn't.

 

[John 1720]

There is no such thing as atheistic dogma.

You're welcome to that opinion of course but many would disagree.
Atheist vs. Atheist—What?!

You seem to be quite dismissive of subjective claims. Why, then, should I care about your subjective claims?

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.

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.

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 ​

• Strongs # Greek Translit. English Equivalent
• G1108 γνῶσις gnōsis knowledge, science

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.
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.

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.”

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.

I'm fully objective on the topic at hand. I never said I was objective in my personal life about everything.

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

False, since atheism entails no beliefs. But I appreciate your tacit admission that faith is a bad means for finding the truth.

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:

1. Nothing exists beyond this life
2. The universe exists by chance
3. We, the human race are the ultimately the judge of all things – there is no final judgment or cosmic meaning to the universe.
4. Hence there is no value or purpose to life that can be worked out from the wisdom of mankind or imputed by God
5. Everything can be discovered by science - by physical means and nothing else because nothing but the physical actually exists.
6. 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.

 

[John 1720]

PART II

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.

My apologies to you sir as I thought I had also posted the link but the statements were from a medical symposium not heresay.

• Spirituality and Healing | HMS

There are many studies out there here's a few more off the cuff

• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4760860/
• In U.S., Very Religious Have Higher Well-Being Across All Faiths

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, as noted above you are the one who brought it up.

When you talk to God, do you ever hear anything back?

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.

 

[GenemZ]

False, since atheism entails no beliefs. But I appreciate your tacit admission that faith is a bad means for finding the truth.

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!

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. For we can be shown it on the map (so to speak) what is so... But, we are not going to go there until later on. Then we won't need faith.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You're welcome to that opinion of course but many would disagree.
Atheist vs. Atheist—What?!

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.

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.

Look at what I said in my post. Post 480. I think it's pretty clear what I meant.

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 ​

• Strongs # Greek Translit. English Equivalent
• G1108 γνῶσις gnōsis knowledge, science

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.
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.

Why is he talking about Judgment Day and then going back to the last days?

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.

So your position is that Jesus was prophesying that three men would not die within the next six days?

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's clear by the context what was meant. Please stop being obtuse.

It also takes faith to be an atheist and maybe even more faith than it does to follow Christ. - John 17:20

It takes faith to be an atheist? How?

Yes, you have faith, or believe and trust that there is no God

I never said that. My position is that God's existence has not met the burden of proof.

and that you can get along quite fine without Him.

It appears that we all can.

Similar to other faiths atheism carries with it some central beliefs, which may vary amongst it adherents of their atheistic creeds.

False. Please stop telling me what I believe.

Suffice to say this is just like any other religion and we even have variance across atheist believers – like any other religion.

I'm sorry but this is utterly moronic. Atheism has no deities, prophets, holy texts, holy days, or rituals.

There are even atheistic fundamentalists who are intolerant to any other worldview, and evangelistic in spreading atheism.

I'm intolerant to toxic ideas that destroy society. Islam, for example, is the absolute most obscene thing on this planet. As for the Catholic Church, it is a criminal organization that needs to be forcibly dissolved. The continued existence of these things is an insult to all of us.

Some of the common creeds that define atheists would be:

1. Nothing exists beyond this life
2. The universe exists by chance
3. We, the human race are the ultimately the judge of all things – there is no final judgment or cosmic meaning to the universe.
4. Hence there is no value or purpose to life that can be worked out from the wisdom of mankind or imputed by God
5. Everything can be discovered by science - by physical means and nothing else because nothing but the physical actually exists.
6. Death is our ultimate destiny - the grave wins and we shall all cease to exist.

None of those things follow directly from atheism. One can be an atheist and deny all of those things, although such a person would admittedly be an anomaly.

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.

For the most part those things seem to be plausible, but they are claims that I ultimately cannot prove. So I don't make such claims, and most atheists don't either.

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.

• Spirituality and Healing | HMS

There are many studies out there here's a few more off the cuff

• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4760860/
• In U.S., Very Religious Have Higher Well-Being Across All Faiths

I skimmed the first one and didn't see anything specific. Should I look at the others?

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.

So... you agree that is is plausible, based on your sources, that praying to either Jesus Christ or a half full milk jug can both produce the same positive results on average?

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.

I see that I have blundered in a massive way and you have taken the high road here on top of that. So it seems that I owe you an apology. Sorry. Also, I see now that prayer effectiveness is a topic I'm saddled with defending here.

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.

Confirmation bias for you and schizophrenia for them.

 

[GenemZ]

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 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.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You're welcome to that opinion of course but many would disagree.

Why do theists always feel like they know better then their conversation partner, what that person believes?

If a person says "this is what I believe", then just accept that.
What's the point of responding with "wrong, this is what you believe"?

It makes no sense.

Yes, you have faith, or believe and trust that there is no God and that you can get along quite fine without Him.

Not what atheism is.

Look, 2 claims are possible concerning the existance 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.

Similar to other faiths atheism carries with it some central beliefs, which may vary amongst it adherents of their atheistic creeds.

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.

Suffice to say this is just like any other religion

Atheism is not a religion, just like "off" is not a TV channel or like "barefoot" is not a type of shoe.

and we even have variance across atheist believers – like any other religion.

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.

The only thing you can know about an atheist, purely by the label alone, is what the person does NOT believe.

Consider calling someone a "non football player". Can you derive what other hobbies this person has, from that label alone? Or what other sports he does? Or if he even does a sport at all? Off course not. All you know, is that he doesn't play football.
Just like all you can know by the label "atheist", is what that person does NOT believe.

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:

lol

1. Nothing exists beyond this life
2. The universe exists by chance
3. We, the human race are the ultimately the judge of all things – there is no final judgment or cosmic meaning to the universe.
4. Hence there is no value or purpose to life that can be worked out from the wisdom of mankind or imputed by God
5. Everything can be discovered by science - by physical means and nothing else because nothing but the physical actually exists.
6. Death is our ultimate destiny - the grave wins and we shall all cease to exist.

The only statement of that list that I would agree with, is the last one.
And I can tell you that it doesn't flow from my disbelief in supernatural realms.
It rather flows from the evidence at our disposal. It is the conclusion that seems most in line with the data of reality.

This is to name but a few of the things that are out there that atheists actually believe

As said, plenty of atheists believe lots of things.
But what defines their atheism is not what they DO believe... instead, their atheism is defined by what they do NOT believe.

but I think you get my drift that it sounds an awful lot like a belief system.

It rather sounds an awfull lot like a PRATT that needs to be addressed every other day on this site.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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!

No. Einstein didn't dream up theorems out of thin air. Science doesn't work like that.
Instead, Einstein looked at the frontier of science and focussed on the stuff that wasn't explained, that didn't work. He did research, gathered data and then went on to try and build a hypothesis to explain said data. Then that hypothesis is tested to hell and back. And if testing is succesfull, a theory is born.

At no point in this process, is there an appeal to "faith". It is all data/evidence driven.

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!

For crying out loud...............................

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.

Kind of like how hallucinations of psychotics, can't be heared and seen by others.

Then for those who have entered into that state of regeneration, and know something real has happened to them?

How do you know it is real, if you can't have it validated by third parties?
Have you ever talked with an alien abductee? They also "know" what happened to them. They even pass lie detector tests. Do you believe that they were actually abducted by aliens and had weird sex experiments performed on them?

No?

So then that must mean that you understand that a person can be absolutely convinced to have experienced a very specific thing, and yet be utterly mistaken about it....
So, how do you know that you aren't such a person?

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

Just like you need "faith" to believe the claims of alien abductees.
Here's an honest question for you... is there ANYTHING that you can NOT believe by appealing to "faith"?

 

[DogmaHunter]

You're working with a premise. That we are imagining things.

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.

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.

There's no need for such arrogant condescension.

 

[GenemZ]

No. Einstein didn't dream up theorems out of thin air. Science doesn't work like that.

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. Though there are superstitious people who will believe anything that their ignorance and fear has an affinity for. Those religious types have vain faith. For the country Yikintilopowlo they were told about does not exist as they sell all their goods to go there.

Einstein accepted certain realities by faith. That is why it was called a "theory."

 

[GenemZ]

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.

Why a supernatural thing? Why must it always be a supernatural thing? That sets you in a safe place to be with your presumption.

 

[John 1720]

Why do theists always feel like they know better then their conversation partner, what that person believes?

• .. "and we even have variance across atheist believers – like any other religion." - John 17:20

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

I wasn't aware the journal publication of Psychology Today was a theistical publication. Are you sure about that?

• Atheist vs. Atheist—What?!

​

If a person says "this is what I believe", then just accept that.
What's the point of responding with "wrong, this is what you believe"?
It makes no sense.

• Yes, you have faith, or believe and trust that there is no God and that you can get along quite fine without Him. - John 17:20

Not what atheism is.
[/QUOTE]

Well sir, of course I respect what a person says and what they say they believe and do not believe; but aren't you also ignoring what he stated to me verbatim? You see he only disagreed with half of my statement. I believe he readily stated he could get along fine without God and then stated the belief I could as well. Let's revisit my statement and his response shall we:

• Yes, you have faith, or 1. believe and trust that there is no God and that 2. you can get along quite fine without Him. - John 17:20
  1. "I never said that. My position is that God's existence has not met the burden of proof." - Nihilist Virus
  2. "It appears that we all can". - Nihilist Virus
• So you see what I was stating really wasn't radical but the majority opinion considering what has been defined regarding atheism. With reference to the first part of my claim NV appears closer to the position of an agnostic than atheist as defined, not by me but by Meriam Webster.
• 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

 

[DogmaHunter]

What makes you think I said that?

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.

I will try again, because it seems to have a prejudice and preconceived idea whenever you hear the word "faith."

No. I just object to the equivocation.
Consider these statements:
"He believes on faith that god will cure his cancer"
vs
"He has faith that the boeing 747 will get him safely to his destination"

The word "faith", doesn't mean the same thing in both sentences.
In the second, it means "trust" based on an extensive track-record, ie: evidence.
In the first, it just means "belief without evidence"

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.

Not by faith. You understand what maps are.
Consider being shown a map from Middle Earth.

You'ld instantly recognize the difference, would you not?
Having said that, you can easily find evidence for the existance of Russia, without every setting foot on that continent.

Faith is not about fantasy.

It is, when "faith" means "belief without evidence".

Einstein accepted certain realities by faith. That is why it was called a "theory."

Germ theory of desease.
Tectonic theory.
Atomic theory.

In science, a "theory" is not some guess taken "on faith". In science, a theory is a well tested, testable, verifiable and demonstrable body of knowledge, backed by evidence.

It is the highest status a scientific explanation can ever get.
Really good theories, do not become "facts" or "laws"./
Theories, instead, explain facts and laws.

There is nothing above theory.

Hence: germ theory of desease. "still" a theory.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why a supernatural thing? Why must it always be a supernatural thing?

That is what theism is about. Claims about supernatural things.

That sets you in a safe place to be with your presumption.

What presumption?
Is the christian god, not a supernatural entity?
Is a divine miracle, not a supernatural event?

 

[John 1720]

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.

​

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​

1. 
   
   • 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. Namely it's the belief that airplanes are to be distrusted. Unbelief therefore construes a belief. One who fully distrusts them will not board an airplane, while perhaps one who is only somewhat unsure might be convinced to at least try. 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?

 

[GenemZ]

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.

As a boy seeing Russia on the map in a world atlas was "evidence." I still needed to accept the fact Russia exists by faith.

I think your problem is seeing faith as something its not. And, have accepted it as being what it is.
If your mom told you you were going to the fishery next week... You accepted it by faith.

Since you do not know God exits? And, others have been blessed to know so? You can not comprehend how we can have faith in what we are told is true.

Its quite simple. You don't have faith in God. But, you do have faith in other things. Faith is not a bad word. Though I must admit that there moronic Christians in this world who do give faith a bad name. Its almost as bad as assuming matter magically appeared out from nothing and formed into rational breathing life. Now, that's moronic as well. So be careful how you judge. Or, you will end up having your own thoughts judging you.

“Do not judge so that you will not be judged.
For in the way you judge, you will be judged;
and by your standard of measure, it will be
measured to you."​

God is allowing you to feel at ease with your negativity as a means to collect a personal dossier on you.

Now... you do not have to believe that. Better if you don't for the time judging you comes. For at that time, you will be your own judge.

If you continue on your chosen path? You will find out that you have become your own judge and executioner. Its one reason God does not satisfy certain stubborn ones who have rejected His drawing them? With sight evidence. Evidence, so they could see that there may be something is to it, and then do something to try to save their butt rather than finding God for the right reasons.

God does not just want to save you. He wants you saved for the right reasons. Scaring the hell out of you will not get you to turn to God for the right reasons. Even Hitler could have been forced into
obeisance to God if God wanted to. But Hitler would never have allowed for right thinking towards God.

Now...

If I and some others can get through the morons who make fools of themselves? That leaves your excuse at the door when its time for you have to face reality. No excuses. For every excuse an atheist gives, there will be an equally intelligent believer who faced the same obstacles. Those ones will be shown to leave that atheist to be without excuse.

God saves all kinds. He does not turn anyone away just because they lack common sense. For God knows once they are given their resurrection body, that they will have entered into a realm of ultra - super genius with the new brains they will be given. They will not remain stupid for eternity.

 

[DogmaHunter]

• 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

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?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I believe you're missing my point sir. Disbelief and belief are indeed cut from the same cloth​

But they are not the same thing.

A disbelief, is not a belief.
A belief, is not a disbelief.

A belief, is a commitment to accepting something as true.
A disbelief, is not having such commitment.

and I am far from alone in believing that to be true. Let's look at the dictionary
dis·be·lief

noun: disbelief

1. 
   
   • 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"

Nothing in this defintion, disagrees with what I am saying.
Nothing in this definition, defines a disbelief as being a form of belief.

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.

False analogy, because we actually have data to justify such a belief.
In the case of theistic claims, we do not have such data.

For it to be a valid analogy, we would have to have no track record of plane safety at all. So we would not have the required information to make an informed decision one way or the other.

In that case, both claims (it will arrive safely or not) would be unfustifiable and as a result I'ld commit to neither.

See?
Another problem with this analogy, is that the plane example deals with outcomes of demonstrably existing things. ie, both claims (safe or not safe) are testable.

While the theistic claims are about the existance of things. The claim of non-existance is not testable and thus useless. And the things being claimed to exist are defined in such a way that they are unfalsifiable.

Which is another reason why they are unacceptable, since they are indistinguishable from things that don't exist.

However unsure represents the agnostic position and not the one the dictionary defines as holding strongly to unbelief.

I'm an agnostic atheist.

(A)gnosticism and (a)theism, are not mutually exclusive positions. if anything, one is a qualifier of the other.

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?

False equivocation.
Trust-faith is belief based on a track records of actual evidence.
Religious faith is not. Religious faith is belief based on no evidence.

 

[GenemZ]

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?

Who cares?

You can not know God exists. Therefore, according to you, He does not exist. Fine.

Should we care much about you not believing God is real?