The stumbling block for atheists.

[Radrook]

Went left and right on how to answer atheist/agnostic. Finally, it dawned on me. With nothing.

Good choice since you would be wasting your time.

 

[variant]

I guesss we disagree on that.

You can't disagree on what I find obvious.

Sorry. You don't get to speak for me.

 

[variant]

Good choice since you would be wasting your time.

This is apparently the thread where some of us talk about people in front of them and tell them what they think.

It is a waste of your time to insult people rather than have discussions with them, I agree.

 

[variant]

But atheism has one fatal flaw. It assumes that the sum total of reality is what can be detected by the senses. Drop this assumption and the "magic" of miracles appears, the "pink unicorns" disappear, and the Creator God can become known.

I do not think dropping this supposed assumption does anything for us in terms of knowing Gods.

HOW would we know about them?

 

[Radrook]

This is apparently the thread where some of us talk about people in front of them and tell them what they think.

It is a waste of your time to insult people rather than have discussions with them, I agree.

My apologies.

 

[variant]

My apologies.

There is no point in apologizing for things if you meant them and don't intend to right anything.

Hollow words are meaningless.

It's just a disagreement, don't take it too personally. There is no reason to stop listening to people who disagree with you or try to assume they don't really believe what they say. It doesn't get you anywhere.

Fare thee well.

 

[Michael]

dysert said: ↑
But atheism has one fatal flaw. It assumes that the sum total of reality is what can be detected by the senses. Drop this assumption and the "magic" of miracles appears, the "pink unicorns" disappear, and the Creator God can become known.

I do not think dropping this supposed assumption does anything for us in terms of knowing Gods.

HOW would we know about them?

Sure it does. Atheists don't typically impose a direct detection standard of evidence in "science", hence their typical acceptance of concepts like space expansion and exotic matter based on the "effect" that it presumably has on other things. God has always been assumed to have an "effect" on humans, and that "effect" can be measured.

If one embraces the concept of Panetheism, God can even be empirically detected by the senses in fact.

 

[Michael]

Space expansion isn´t a statement of faith - it´s a personal relationship.

Humans can only have a relationship with redshifted photons. The cause remains an "act of faith" for space expansion proponents.

 

[HenryM]

My apologies.

It's a nice sentiment to give apology, even on some occasions when it's not warranted, but I'm thinking what your apology here means.

There are people on this forum who have left tens of thousand of messages against God, in one way or another. Can you imagine that? I was an agnostic once, is there anyone who was born again as a child? But it never ever occurred to me to even once go to a Christian site and argue against God. Never ever, not even once in some recess of my mind. How many hours (years in fact) and energy one has to invest in his or her quest to stand against God to do such a thing? To leave thousands upon thousands of anti-God messages. On Christian site of all places. It almost boggles the mind, if we didn't know in what world we are living.

To be clear, what I mean by anti-God messages are all messages that are against God's revelation He gave us through the Bible. Isaiah 8:20 says: "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

Now, that doesn't mean such person won't be saved sometime in future. God has plan and He is working His plan. But I am not sure that unwarranted apology to such person is what's needed. It's like adding gasoline to fire. It's like pampering spoiled child. My guess is your apology is trampled upon. (I just checked the reply you got for your apology, and it's labeled as "hollow words" and that you "don't intend to right anything", whatever that means. So, there you go. And... after my comment here he or she changed their comment a bit and added picture of kittens. That's charade in real time.)

The one to whom we should apologize is God.

 

[Michael]

There are people on this forum who have left tens of thousand of messages against God, in one way or another. Can you imagine that? I was an agnostic once, is there anyone who was born again as a child? But it never ever occurred to me to even once go to a Christian site and argue against God. Never ever, not even once in some recess of my mind. How many hours (years in fact) and energy one has to invest in his or her quest to stand against God to do such a thing? To leave thousands upon thousands of anti-God messages. On Christian site of all places. It almost boggles the mind, if we didn't know in what world we are living.

I'd be careful about lumping all atheists and/or agnostics that post here into the same "anti-God" category. Some are simply honestly 'seeking' answers to their legitimate questions. Others tend to be more "evangelical'. It depends on the individual.

I think honest skepticism is healthy actually, and I enjoy discussing the topic of God with atheists, even the evangelical atheists.

 

[Radrook]

It's a nice sentiment to give apology, even on some occasions when it's not warranted, but I'm thinking what your apology here means.

There are people on this forum who have left tens of thousand of messages against God, in one way or another. Can you imagine that? I was an agnostic once, is there anyone who was born again as a child? But it never ever occurred to me to even once go to a Christian site and argue against God. Never ever, not even once in some recess of my mind. How many hours (years in fact) and energy one has to invest in his or her quest to stand against God to do such a thing? To leave thousands upon thousands of anti-God messages. On Christian site of all places. It almost boggles the mind, if we didn't know in what world we are living.

To be clear, what I mean by anti-God messages are all messages that are against God's revelation He gave us through the Bible. Isaiah 8:20 says: "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

Now, that doesn't mean such person won't be saved sometime in future. God has plan and He is working His plan. But I am not sure that unwarranted apology to such person is what's needed. It's like adding gasoline to fire. It's like pampering spoiled child. My guess is your apology is trampled upon. (I just checked the reply you got for your apology, and it's labeled as "hollow words" and that you "don't intend to right anything", whatever that means. So, there you go.)

The one to whom we should apologize is God.

He seemed to be saying that his mind wasn't as hermetically sealed as I was describing and that I had misjudged him personally. So if I did misjudge him personally or if I gave the impression that I misjudged him-then I felt that an apology was needed.

I am definitely not apologizing for describing the stubborn general tendency to shut the mind and refusal to reason that I described as typical atheist reaction to anything that hints of God. Also, I don't apologize to garner accolades from people. If I apologize it is to please God who might want me to choose my words more carefully next time in order to avoid an overgeneralization.

You say he responded with snide remark? Well, if he did, that is his character flaw not mine.

 

[Radrook]

There is no point in apologizing for things if you meant them and don't intend to right anything.

Hollow words are meaningless.

It's just a disagreement, don't take it too personally. There is no reason to stop listening to people who disagree with you or try to assume they don't really believe what they say. It doesn't get you anywhere.

Fare thee well.

My apology was in reference to possibly having stated an overgeneralization and perhaps in having chosen a rude way to convey my opinion as you pointed out. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

 

[variant]

Now, that doesn't mean such person won't be saved sometime in future. God has plan and He is working His plan. But I am not sure that unwarranted apology to such person is what's needed. It's like adding gasoline to fire. It's like pampering spoiled child. My guess is your apology is trampled upon. (I just checked the reply you got for your apology, and it's labeled as "hollow words" and that you "don't intend to right anything", whatever that means. So, there you go.)

The one to whom we should apologize is God.

Yeah, the "such a person" and "spoiled child" stuff you've got here is a real winner, I wouldn't accept an apology from you either.

I merely disagreed with you and radrook, and it was the two of you who were being extremely rude when all I did was reply to a post in a very neutral manner of general disagreement.

But radrook was at least big enough to look at their delivery. What my reply meant is I consider apology's hollow, and will look to future actions instead of them.

 

[HenryM]

I'd be careful about lumping all atheists and/or agnostics that post here into the same "anti-God" category. Some are simply honestly 'seeking' answers to their legitimate questions.

If one is honestly seeking answers on a Christian site I would expect such person to be kind, careful about his or her words when they are guests, inquisitive, not displaying smugness or smirkness, not being argumentative for argument's sake etc... I can't recall one such atheist/agnostic on this site. Especially not in those people with thousands of replies in their profiles. Not that I frequent these sub-forums much, though, so I guess there are those people too.

Again, what I mean by anti-God messages are all messages that are against God's revelation He gave us through the Bible. Isaiah 8:20 says: "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

So, it is very clear what is and what is not God's message and it doesn't depend on one's carnal character. Do you agree that what would be called an earthly good person can go to hell? I guess you know that being "good", "honest", "seeking" is not a condition to salvation, because there is no one good, we all are sinners, and all in need for a saviour, Jesus Christ (Romans 3:10-12). Only belief in Jesus Christ saves. And Jesus' sheep know His voice, so there is no need for extensive evangelization (John 10:27). Jesus' advice is not to push and push, but to shake the dust off your feet and move on (Matthew 10:14).

 

[variant]

If one is honestly seeking answers on a Christian site I would expect such person to be kind, careful about his or her words when they are guests, inquisitive, not displaying smugness or smirkness, not being argumentative for argument's sake etc... I can't recall one such atheist/agnostic on this site. Especially not in those people with thousands of replies in their profiles. Not that I frequent these sub-forums much, though, so I guess there are those people too.

Feel free to point out anything in my original post that was outside the bounds of a normal disagreement.

You've gotten no attitude from me that you haven't richly deserved.

 

[variant]

Sure it does. Atheists don't typically impose a direct detection standard of evidence in "science", hence their typical acceptance of concepts like space expansion and exotic matter based on the "effect" that it presumably has on other things. God has always been assumed to have an "effect" on humans, and that "effect" can be measured.

If we drop the "sensation" from the equation, we would also drop the detection of effects.

But you are essentially right. To know something has an effect, the effects would need to be detectable in some way and attributable to the phenomena.

And, you have to measure any effect in a manner that you can actually draw conclusions from the data.

If we drop the assumption of sensibility then detectability and knowabilty goes along with it.

If one embraces the concept of Panetheism, God can even be empirically detected by the senses in fact.

If we define God to include the physical universe you mean? Seems like a cop out.

 

[Radrook]

O ye of little faith ... and imagination.

Is God easier to visualize accurately?

Yes!

 

[Michael]

If we define God to include the physical universe you mean? Seems like a cop out.

How so? How is any more of a "cop out" than claiming "inflation, space expansion, exotic energy and exotic matter did it"?

I'm not necessarily introducing *any* supernatural constructs into the discussion by equating God with the physical universe, whereas current "scientific" theory requires no less than four supernatural constructs to describe the physical universe that we live in.

 

[variant]

I'm not necessarily introducing *any* supernatural constructs into the discussion by equating God with the physical universe, whereas current "scientific" theory requires no less than four supernatural constructs to describe the physical universe that we live in.

Any weakness of our modeling of the universe is just an issue of our ignorance.

It's a cop out because defining the universe as a God, can make you a theist, but it doesn't differentiate you from an atheist, it just makes the word meaningless.

 

[Michael]

If one is honestly seeking answers on a Christian site I would expect such person to be kind, careful about his or her words when they are guests, inquisitive, not displaying smugness or smirkness, not being argumentative for argument's sake etc... I can't recall one such atheist/agnostic on this site. Especially not in those people with thousands of replies in their profiles. Not that I frequent these sub-forums much, though, so I guess there are those people too.

I've met all types here on this forum over the last decade or so. Sure, some of them are smug evangelical types, but not all of them. Most of them are really looking to see if they can find actual "evidence' (whatever that means to them personally) of God. The real gunslingers tend to get themselves shot up pretty badly in short order in my experience.

Again, what I mean by anti-God messages are all messages that are against God's revelation He gave us through the Bible. Isaiah 8:20 says: "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

Even among Christians themselves there is often controversy in terms of one's "personal interpretation' of the Bible. Why would atheists be any different? Everyone is bound to interject some personal subjectivity in the discussion sooner or later.

So, it is very clear what is and what is not God's message and it doesn't depend on one's carnal character. Do you agree that what would be called an earthly good person can go to hell?

I believe in universal salvation that is consistent with the teachings of Christ in Matthew 5 and Luke 6, not perpetual torment. There's not even a concept of perpetual torment to be found anywhere in Judaism, at any point in history and Origin taught early "Christians" about universal salvation, not perpetual torment. The concept of perpetual torment began in the pagan religion of the Romans, and was unfortunately introduced into "Christianity" many centuries later by a pagan who converted to Christianity, namely Augustine.

I guess you know that being "good", "honest", "seeking" is not a condition to salvation, because there is no one good, we all are sinners, and all in need for a saviour, Jesus Christ (Romans 3:10-12). Only belief in Jesus Christ saves. And Jesus' sheep know His voice, so there is no need for extensive evangelization (John 10:27). Jesus' advice is not to push and push, but to shake the dust off your feet and move on (Matthew 10:14).

I believe that Christ cares every bit as much for the 1 lost sheep as he does for the rest of the flock. I'm personally quite happy to "evangelize" to the atheists at their insistence, even the evangelical types.