What is the meaning of your life?

[ephraimanesti]

This is what I find fascinating about Christian thinking. How can you both think this when it is plainly contradicted by reality? Some people are innately superior to others in human qualities such as strength, intelligence, visual ability, aural ability, susceptibility to disease and longevity.

As an additional answer/response to your question, please consider the following:

"There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works ALL of them in ALL men.

"Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirit, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. ALL THESE ARE THE WORK OF ONE AND THE SAME SPIRIT, AND HE GIVES THEM TO EACH ONE, JUST AS HE DETERMINES."(I Corinthians 12:4-11)

All are equal--God alone is superior to all. ​

"Fascinating"--you betcha!

A BROTHER/FRIEND/BOND-SLAVE OF OUR LORD/GOD/SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,
ephraim

 

[NewToLife]

Good grief. You know, I would have thought it was obvious that to come to a reasonable conclusion that something exists, you need to base that conclusion on sound evidence and valid reasoning. How else could one reliably distinguish reality from make-believe? Consequently, I would like to see some sound evidence and valid reasoning supporting your claim that your God exists before I conclude that is true. I only ask for evidence that doesn’t contain errors, fallacies or misapprehensions and reasoning that is well grounded, justifiable and logically correct. I would ask for the same sort of evidence and reasoning before I concluded that anything else exists. It isn’t an unusual or unreasonable request.

You entered this thread and made absolutely no attempt to answer my original question; you evade almost all my questions; and you claim that my request for sound evidence and valid reasoning is unreasonable. I really don’t think you have anything of value to offer me here.

It all sounds so reasonable until one realises that in your dealings with us you conflate 'sound evidence and valid reasoning' with actual proof, if we make your actual meaning clear by explicitly using the word proof instead of obscuring the reality of your position with less demanding phrases it goes from looking positively reasonable to being exposed as an absurd demand for a proof of God. The conflation here is of course simply a form of the logically fallacious means of arguement known as equivocation. Just to strengthen this observation I note that your failure to demand actual proof to verify your own underlying beliefs is good evidence that you are in fact equivocating here because you are inevitably accepting an inductive reasoned arguement in the place of the actual proof you require of us. That is you mean something different by the words you use when you are applying them to your own beliefs from when you are applying them to our beliefs.

If you are genuinely interested in a reasoned arguement for God's existence examples are readily available to anyone with an honest desire to find them. The emminent philosopher William Lane Craig for instance has a pretty compelling arguement from 5 points which would certainly be adequate to reasonably justify belief in the Christian God. If it's history instead that is your area of concern then the work of people like the emminent historian NT Wright also makes compelling arguement for belief in the existence and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Either way, from a philosophical angle or a historical angle Christian belief can be justified quite reasonably.

As for why I entered the thread, I'm here helping people understand what it is you are actually requesting, most people do not equate proof with evidence and clarification that this is how you use these words is probably helpful to others forming an opinion as to whether your demand is reasonable and indeed relevent.

 

[ephraimanesti]

Good grief. You know, I would have thought it was obvious that to come to a reasonable conclusion that something exists, you need to base that conclusion on sound evidence and valid reasoning. How else could one reliably distinguish reality from make-believe? Consequently, I would like to see some sound evidence and valid reasoning supporting your claim that your God exists before I conclude that is true. I only ask for evidence that doesn’t contain errors, fallacies or misapprehensions and reasoning that is well grounded, justifiable and logically correct.

Good grief, man! Do you realize that in one fell swoop you have emasculated 90% of all atheist dogma related to the alleged "non-existence" of God.

How in the world will the atheist high priest Richard Dawkins be able to continue preying on the credulous--and making a darn good living at it?

ephraim

 

[3sigma]

All of God's gifts are of equal value, and all those who have received them are equal in His eyes and in His Love.

As an additional answer/response to your question, please consider the following:

"There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works ALL of them in ALL men.

I’m sorry, but these responses appear to be non sequiturs to my comment. Do you think all human beings have equal abilities or not? If they don’t all have equal abilities, which seems to be the reality, then surely some humans are superior in ability to others, are they not? How do you reconcile that with your and aiki’s comment that no human being is superior to another.

For example, compare the Judeo/Christian principles upon which the United States was founded with those upon which the atheist states of China and Russia were built. Neither side, of course, has lived up to their founding principles, but note the diametrically different outcomes.

Again, this appears to be a non sequitur to my questions. In what way is Christianity creation and love? In what way is atheism destruction and hatred?

Perhaps you owe God a huge "Thank You" for the blessings of the location of your birth!

I seriously doubt that, but then I doubt that you even know the location of my birth.

 

[3sigma]

It all sounds so reasonable until one realises that in your dealings with us you conflate 'sound evidence and valid reasoning' with actual proof, if we make your actual meaning clear by explicitly using the word proof instead of obscuring the reality of your position with less demanding phrases it goes from looking positively reasonable to being exposed as an absurd demand for a proof of God.

Why do you and aiki have such a concern with the distinction between the words ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’? You appear to be located in the UK so here are the meanings of those words from the Compact OED.

evidence – information or signs indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
proof – evidence establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.

And here are the meanings from Merriam-Webster.

evidence – something that furnishes proof.
proof – the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact.

Proof is the accumulation of evidence that compels belief. You and aiki appear to have been compelled to believe that your God exists. If anything, I should be asking you for proof instead of evidence, even though all I’ve asked for here is sound evidence and valid reasoning. However, why do you say that it would be absurd to ask for proof that something exists? Why is it absurd to ask you to show me that your belief is true?

If you are genuinely interested in a reasoned arguement for God's existence examples are readily available to anyone with an honest desire to find them. The emminent philosopher William Lane Craig for instance has a pretty compelling arguement from 5 points which would certainly be adequate to reasonably justify belief in the Christian God. If it's history instead that is your area of concern then the work of people like the emminent historian NT Wright also makes compelling arguement for belief in the existence and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Either way, from a philosophical angle or a historical angle Christian belief can be justified quite reasonably.

I’m sorry, but I don’t find Craig’s resurrection of the Kalam Cosmological Argument compelling in the least. Please tell me what compelling historical evidence there is for the existence or resurrection of Jesus. I’m hoping you aren’t considering the Bible to be compelling historical evidence.

As for why I entered the thread, I'm here helping people understand what it is you are actually requesting, most people do not equate proof with evidence and clarification that this is how you use these words is probably helpful to others forming an opinion as to whether your demand is reasonable and indeed relevent.

Again, all I have asked for is sound evidence and valid reasoning that shows your God exists. Whether you call it evidence or proof makes little semantic difference. I just want you to show me that your belief is true.

 

[NewToLife]

First I'll start by noting that the definitions you provide for proof and evidence do not establish that these two terms are synonymous, as such, if you mean proof you should just say so to avoid accidentally misleading people.

However, why do you say that it would be absurd to ask for proof that something exists? Why is it absurd to ask you to show me that your belief is true?

We are making progress now that you are basically admitting that despite the misleading wording you are in reality requiring a proof. As you are aware no proof is actually available. That said it's telling that as usual you fail to apply to your own beliefs these supposedly reasonable demands yet persist in demanding that others do. I will allow the reader to draw his own conclusions as to the nature of your demands on the basis of your own failure to meet them.

I’m sorry, but I don’t find Craig’s resurrection of the Kalam Cosmological Argument compelling in the least.

Ignoring that Kalam is only a portion of Craig's case I have to ask 'so what?' You are not the final arbiter and there are plenty of people who do find Craig's arguements compelling. The reality is that people can read his arguements and decide for themselves, your approval is simply not required. I will note your reaction as usual to any actual presentation of reasoned arguement though, you simply said that it does not convince you and then carried on asserting that no reason had been offered. You are clearly in error here, something does not vanish from existence simply because you deny it.

Please tell me what compelling historical evidence there is for the existence or resurrection of Jesus.

Go read Wright, his works are freely available and i am unlikely to effectively summarise the 3 fully annotated academic works that he has so far devoted to this subject. Certainly for me to imagine that I could achieve as much in a messageboard exchange would be both arrogant and foolish. If I tried there would inevitably be eternal questioning as I failed to cross all the T's and dot all the I's. Wright of course is more thorough, if you read him I am sure you will find him quite comprehensive in dealing with many of the objections you would doubtless have should a synopsis be attempted. The works concerned are 'The New testament and the People of God', 'Jesus and the Victory of God' and 'The Resurrection of the Son of God'. I will note that the fact you ask for evidence even that Jesus existed ( an uncontroversial historical assertion ) does prompt me to wonder just how you have arrived at a conclusion that you are in a position to judge what is or is not compelling historical evidence? Yet as the next line reveals you do indeed believe this to be true.

I’m hoping you aren’t considering the Bible to be compelling historical evidence.

Evidence should be judged on it's merits not on the prejudices you bring to it's examination. I think your comment here illustrates precisely the way in which you attempt to raise the bar to exclude any evidence that might point to a conclusion other than the one you are pre-committed too. The New Testament accounts are generally accepted as worthwhile historical sources and as such should certainly be considered when weighing the evidence.

Again, all I have asked for is sound evidence and valid reasoning that shows your God exists.

Well, we've seen with your attempts to handwave Craig's arguements along with any evidence furnished by biblical accounts ( and no doubt any other Christian source ) just how reasonable your request really is so lets read between the lines to try and get a clearer picture;

'Again, all I have asked for is sound evidence [ which will be denied for no reason beyond your personal opinions ] and valid reasoning [ with the evidence rejected no real chance here either ] that shows your God exists.'

Whether you call it evidence or proof makes little semantic difference.

Small differences are not necessarily insignificant, certainly in this case the distinction between proof and evidence is not insignificant.

I just want you to show me that your belief is true.

Surely what you mean to say is that you just want to show that I cannot convince a skeptic. Big deal, as the old saying goes; 'You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.'

 

[3sigma]

First I'll start by noting that the definitions you provide for proof and evidence do not establish that these two terms are synonymous, as such, if you mean proof you should just say so to avoid accidentally misleading people.

I’ve given the meanings and links to the web pages. Other readers can make up their own minds about who is being misleading here.

We are making progress now that you are basically admitting that despite the misleading wording you are in reality requiring a proof.

No, I am not the one being misleading. You are the one who said it is absurd to demand proof. All I’ve been asking for is sound evidence and valid reasoning. Again, though, you evaded my question. Why are you so concerned with maintaining a distinction between evidence and proof when it appears that they are similar in meaning?

As you are aware no proof is actually available. That said it's telling that as usual you fail to apply to your own beliefs these supposedly reasonable demands yet persist in demanding that others do. I will allow the reader to draw his own conclusions as to the nature of your demands on the basis of your own failure to meet them.

So if no proof is actually available then there is nothing to compel you to believe that your God exists, yet you still believe it. Why do you believe it when there is no proof actually available?

Other readers can indeed draw their own conclusions from this conversation and I would be quite interested to hear those conclusions. Do other readers think it is absurd for me to request sound evidence and valid reasoning to support the belief that something exists? Do other readers think there is a meaningful distinction between the meanings of the words ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’? If so, what is it?

Ignoring that Kalam is only a portion of Craig's case I have to ask 'so what?' You are not the final arbiter and there are plenty of people who do find Craig's arguements compelling. The reality is that people can read his arguements and decide for themselves, your approval is simply not required.

Plenty of people also find the arguments for astrology to be compelling so I hope you can see why I don’t find your argument from popularity to be convincing. Tell me which arguments of Craig’s you find compelling and we can discuss them.

Your comment that my approval is not required for other people to reach a conclusion is superfluous. However, I am the final arbiter for what I believe and I don’t believe you when you tell me that your God exists because you continually fail to provide any sound evidence or valid reasoning to support your assertion.

I will note your reaction as usual to any actual presentation of reasoned arguement though, you simply said that it does not convince you and then carried on asserting that no reason had been offered. You are clearly in error here, something does not vanish from existence simply because you deny it.

You haven’t presented a reasoned argument yet. All you’ve said is William Lane Craig has a compelling argument, but you provide no details of what that argument may be. I say that Craig’s cosmological argument is not in the least compelling to me and you tell me other people find it compelling, but that isn’t a reasoned argument. It’s just a fallacious argument from popularity. Please present a reasoned argument rather than making some vague statements about other people’s arguments. Explain Craig’s cosmological argument and why you find it compelling (if you do).
Tell me which of Craig’s other arguments you find compelling and why. Explain the argument here in your own words so that we can discuss it.

Go read Wright, his works are freely available and i am unlikely to effectively summarise the 3 fully annotated academic works that he has so far devoted to this subject.
…
The works concerned are 'The New testament and the People of God', 'Jesus and the Victory of God' and 'The Resurrection of the Son of God'.

I couldn’t find any of these books freely available online, but I did find this review of The Resurrection of the Son of God. Having read the review, I’m disinclined to actually buy this book. If you can provide a link to somewhere it is freely downloadable, I’ll take a look at it, but based on the review, I don’t expect much.

I will note that the fact you ask for evidence even that Jesus existed ( an uncontroversial historical assertion ) does prompt me to wonder just how you have arrived at a conclusion that you are in a position to judge what is or is not compelling historical evidence? Yet as the next line reveals you do indeed believe this to be true.

There may have been an actual man named Jesus of Nazareth, though there is scant, non-Christian, historical evidence for this and there is absolutely zero historical evidence to show that this man (if he existed) was the son of your God or that your God exists.

Evidence should be judged on it's merits not on the prejudices you bring to it's examination. I think your comment here illustrates precisely the way in which you attempt to raise the bar to exclude any evidence that might point to a conclusion other than the one you are pre-committed too. The New Testament accounts are generally accepted as worthwhile historical sources and as such should certainly be considered when weighing the evidence.

Evidence should indeed be judged on its merits. However, the New Testament is hardly credible considering that it speaks of Jesus performing miracles that are physically impossible and provides zero evidence to support those stories. How can we trust that anything else it says about Jesus is not similarly fabricated or exaggerated due to the religious zealotry of its authors?

Well, we've seen with your attempts to handwave Craig's arguements along with any evidence furnished by biblical accounts ( and no doubt any other Christian source ) just how reasonable your request really is so lets read between the lines to try and get a clearer picture;

How about instead of reading things into what I say, you actually provide or link to one of Craig’s arguments that you find compelling and we can discuss it. And please don’t try to pass the Bible off as being sound evidence for anything when it is obvious that it contains fabrications and wild exaggerations.

Small differences are not necessarily insignificant, certainly in this case the distinction between proof and evidence is not insignificant.

Again, why do you think there is a significant distinction between evidence and proof? If you disagree with the dictionary meanings then tell me what you think the words mean and show me why you think there is a significant distinction between them.

Surely what you mean to say is that you just want to show that I cannot convince a skeptic. Big deal, as the old saying goes; 'You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.'

I see from your profile that you’ve only been a Christian for two years so the evidence and reasoning that compelled you to believe that your God exists must still be fresh in your mind. Please tell me what it was. I presume that you wouldn’t have used evidence that contained errors, fallacies and misapprehensions or employed reasoning that wasn’t well grounded, justifiable and logically correct to convince yourself that your God exists. So please show me the sound evidence and valid reasoning you used to convince yourself that your God exists.

 

[ephraimanesti]

I’m sorry, but these responses appear to be non sequiturs to my comment. Do you think all human beings have equal abilities or not? If they don’t all have equal abilities, which seems to be the reality, then surely some humans are superior in ability to others, are they not? How do you reconcile that with your and aiki’s comment that no human being is superior to another.

MY BROTHER--For God and for those who Believe in Him and think as He thinks, the worth of a human being is in their VERY humanity--the image and likeness of their Creator which they bear--and NOT in their talents, abilities, or their value to the herd.

Atheists, being self-labeled evolved animals, judge each other by one criteria--usefulness--which explains the creation of "Gulags: and "Re-education Camps" to house those the atheistic society considers of "no value" to, or "less than", the herd and its alpha males.

Christians, however, judge by a different criteria: "You are all sons and daughters of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."(Galatians 3:26-28)

Again, this appears to be a non sequitur to my questions. In what way is Christianity creation and love? In what way is atheism destruction and hatred?

i understand that any REAL answers to your questions MUST, to protect you from reality, be considered "non sequiturs". If you considered reality a friend rather than a threat, perhaps our conversations could have some meaning and purpose.

AGAIN (said he, patiently), compare the United States--founded upon Judeo-Christian beliefs and values--with Soviet Russia which founded upon an atheistic denial of moral absolutes and eternal intrinsic values. "By their fruits ye shall know them."(Matthew 7:16)

I seriously doubt that,

More's the pity! Thanking a Giver of great gifts is considered a common courtesy in some circles.

A BOND-SLAVE/FRIEND/BROTHER OF OUR LORD/GOD/SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,
ephraim

 

[3sigma]

For God and for those who Believe in Him and think as He thinks, the worth of a human being is in their VERY humanity--the image and likeness of their Creator which they bear--and NOT in their talents, abilities, or their value to the herd.

So when you said, ”Christians are not ‘superior’ to atheists in anything”, what exactly did you mean by “anything”? Apparently it wasn’t such things as strength, intelligence, visual ability, aural ability, susceptibility to disease or longevity. Was it just this unquantifiable notion of “worth”? In your eyes and your unprovable God’s eyes, is the worth of an atheist is equal to the worth of a Christian? If so, what does that equal “worth” mean in practical terms? Does it mean that you treat atheists as you would treat Christians? Would you vote for an atheist as you would for a Christian? Do you respect and admire atheists as much as you respect and admire Christians? Does your unprovable God give equal treatment to atheists and Christians? Does this equal “worth” mean anything at all in a practical sense or is it just paying lip service to equality?

AGAIN (said he, patiently), compare the United States--founded upon Judeo-Christian beliefs and values--with Soviet Russia which founded upon an atheistic denial of moral absolutes and eternal intrinsic values.

If you think that the United States was founded specifically on Christian beliefs then perhaps you should read Liars for Jesus by Chris Rodda. The Soviet Union was founded on the Marxist ideal of an egalitarian, classless, workers’ state. It would be closer to the truth to say that the United States was founded on capitalism and the Soviet Union was founded on communism. But that’s beside the point because the United States isn’t Christianity and the Soviet Union isn’t atheism, which is why your comparison is a non sequitur.

Christianity exists in many countries around the world and developed long before the United States ever existed. Christianity is a set of religious beliefs that guide its followers’ behaviour, which gave rise to the Crusades, the Inquisitions, witch hunts, conflicts between Christians and Muslims, conflicts between Protestants and Catholics, blasphemy laws and harm to children. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods and makes no demands on behaviour whatsoever. How a person behaves is independent of atheism.

So please explain what you meant by this comment.

Christianity is indeed as far superior to atheism as creation is superior to destruction and Love superior to hatred--not because Christians are superior innately in some way to atheists, but because they have the God of all creation dwelling within their hearts and guiding their lives.

How is Christianity creation? Where is the love in the Crusades, the Inquisitions, witch hunts, religious conflicts, blasphemy laws and harm to children? Were Christians guided to do these things by their belief in your unprovable God?

 

[ephraimanesti]

So when you said, ”Christians are not ‘superior’ to atheists in anything”, what exactly did you mean by “anything”? Apparently it wasn’t such things as strength, intelligence, visual ability, aural ability, susceptibility to disease or longevity.

MY BROTHER--You are correct. These things have no real meaning and no real value in a spiritual sense, and are certainly not a factor in determing who is "superior" and who is "inferior." (Your shopping list of desirable "superior" qualities reminds me a lot of that used by the Nazis--"blond hair, blue eyes, at least 6 foot tall, etc.")

Was it just this unquantifiable notion of “worth”? In your eyes and your unprovable God’s eyes, is the worth of an atheist is equal to the worth of a Christian?

Most assuredly!

If so, what does that equal “worth” mean in practical terms?

That they are infinitely and eternally Loved.

Does it mean that you treat atheists as you would treat Christians?

Yes.

Would you vote for an atheist as you would for a Christian?

Not knowingly.

Do you respect and admire atheists as much as you respect and admire Christians?

No.

Does your unprovable God give equal treatment to atheists and Christians?

Yes.

Does this equal “worth” mean anything at all in a practical sense or is it just paying lip service to equality?

It means EVERYTHING!

If you think that the United States was founded specifically on Christian beliefs then perhaps you should read.

Thank you for the referral, but i have already done my homework--long before i became a Christian actually--and chose to get my information from the source--it is called "THINKING FOR ONESELF"--rather than depending on the delusions, exagerations, twisting of truth, and innuendoes of those who cut and paste together blogs for the sole purpose of feeding the desperate needs of the credulous to avoid the obvious.

Consider this: President John Quincy Adams raised the connection between Christianity and the Declaration at a speech given on Independence Day, 1837 at Newburyport. He asked, regarding this connection, "IT IS NOT THAT THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE FIRST ORGANIZED THE SOCIAL COMPACT ON THE FOUNDATION OF THE REDEEMER'S MISSION UPON EARTH? THAT IT LAID THE CORNERSTONE OF HUMAN GOVERNMENT UPON THE FIRST PRECEPTS OF CHRISTIANITY?"

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods and makes no demands on behaviour whatsoever. How a person behaves is independent of atheism.

On the contrary, how a person "behaves" is ENTIRELY controlled by his/her worldview. Put succinctly, a Christian is motivated by an agape Love for all humanity, each one desiring to Love all others as they have been Loved by their Creator God. Atheists, on the other hand, seeing themselves and others as nothing more than evolved animals, and, in the best Darwinian fashion, live--or rather exist--on the basis of the survival of the fittest.

Thus, Christianity at its best (most authentic) produces soup kitchens, orphan homes, food banks, homeless shelters, 3rd world medical assistence, Freedom Marches, etc.--prime examples being Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King Jr. and Dr. Paul Brand.

Atheism, on the other hand, when it is able to grab the power to run things in a society, produces Gulags, Concentration Camps, Re-education Camps, and general death, misery, and destruction. Prime examples could include Stalin, Mao, Margaret Sanger, Larry Flynt, and others of their ilk.

How is Christianity creation? Where is the love in the Crusades, the Inquisitions, witch hunts, religious conflicts, blasphemy laws and harm to children? Were Christians guided to do these things by their belief in your unprovable God?

No, they did these things because they chose to ignore their Lord's Commandments and act like evolved animals, using their own twisted "knowledge of good and evil" and thus forfeiting the right to call themselves "christians." Christianity is based on Agape Love. Those who do not Agape are not, by definition, "christians." In order to be considered "Christian", their words and acts must meet the admittedly cliche "What Would Jesus Do?" criteria. (The "No Proper Scotsman Fallicy" is a Fallicy ONLY for non-believers.)

But to perhaps put your statement above into perspective: By best estimates, atheists slaughtered approximately 100 million people in the last century in China, the Soviet Union, Cambodia, North Korea, etc. In contrast, approximately 2000 people were excuted by the Inquisition. One person, of course would be too many, and 2000 is deplorable, but comparing murders by atheists in one century alone, with the admittedly evil acts of those claiming to be "christians" over the last 2000 years, i think is more than a "non-sequitur" response to your blog-acquired self-righteous red-herring ploys regarding the "evils" brought about by Christianity.

A BOND-SLAVE/FRIEND/BROTHER OF OUR LORD/GOD/SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,
ephraim

 

[NewToLife]

Why are you so concerned with maintaining a distinction between evidence and proof when it appears that they are similar in meaning?

Why are you so concerned to conflate the meanings of distinct terms?

So if no proof is actually available then there is nothing to compel you to believe that your God exists, yet you still believe it. Why do you believe it when there is no proof actually available?

You also believe things without proof and therein lies the weakness in your position because by your belief without proof you implicitly acknowledge that human beings do not require proof to believe and worse from your point of view you implicitly acknowledge that you yourself do not consider it an unreasonable act to believe without proof.

Other readers can indeed draw their own conclusions from this conversation and I would be quite interested to hear those conclusions. Do other readers think it is absurd for me to request sound evidence and valid reasoning to support the belief that something exists?

Thats the thing though, you arent demanding what you claim. You are demanding proof. That you are refusing to differentiate the two terms should alert any reader to the reality.

Plenty of people also find the arguments for astrology to be compelling so I hope you can see why I don’t find your argument from popularity to be convincing. Tell me which arguments of Craig’s you find compelling and we can discuss them.

Craig's arguements are hardly those of an astrologer and it is hardly an arguement from popularity to note that others can decide for themselves and are not compelled to believe as you demand they do.

Your comment that my approval is not required for other people to reach a conclusion is superfluous.

No. I do not think so, your dismissal of Craig went beyond a note that you personally do not find him convincing and to note that your opinion is only one is I think relevent on that basis.

You haven’t presented a reasoned argument yet. All you’ve said is William Lane Craig has a compelling argument, but you provide no details of what that argument may be.

Irrelevent, that he prsents the arguement disproves your claim that no reasoned arguement exists. Others can judge his arguements for themselves by a simple use of google to find them.

I say that Craig’s cosmological argument is not in the least compelling to me and you tell me other people find it compelling, but that isn’t a reasoned argument.

It's a reasonable observation when you are trying to hand wave Craig in the fashion you did.

Explain Craig’s cosmological argument and why you find it compelling (if you do).
Tell me which of Craig’s other arguments you find compelling and why. Explain the argument here in your own words so that we can discuss it.

Your request is superfluous, that Craig demonstrates it is sufficent to destroy your accusation that no reasoned arguement exists. Your inane request that each individual justifies himself would damn most atheists to irrationality along with the theists you target.

I couldn’t find any of these books freely available online, but I did find this review of The Resurrection of the Son of God. Having read the review, I’m disinclined to actually buy this book. If you can provide a link to somewhere it is freely downloadable, I’ll take a look at it, but based on the review, I don’t expect much.

The reviewer is hardly likely to like Wright given that Wright is in essence quite critical of the Jesus seminar in which the reviewer has an interest. Aside of that I'm not at all sure that you do yourself any favours here, you refuse to read some of the leading work on the historical aspect of the question on the basis that you dont want to pay for it. In itself that would be fine if you then werent offering your opinion as in someway educated and authoritative by making assertions.

There may have been an actual man named Jesus of Nazareth, though there is scant, non-Christian, historical evidence for this and there is absolutely zero historical evidence to show that this man (if he existed) was the son of your God or that your God exists.

Most of the evidence for any Roman figure is Roman. Should we therefore doubt their existence on the basis of a lack of non-Roman evidence? Your comment, at first sight seems powerful but given any thought it quickly becomes obvious that it is a specious nonsense. As for the evidence of Godhood, I would offer that you are in no position to judge it due to your self admitted failure to familiarise yourself with even the leading scholars in the area ( Wright undoubtedly qualifies ). we all have an opinion and I'm fine with recognising this as yours but that is all it amounts to.

Evidence should indeed be judged on its merits.

Amusingly you immediately contradict yourself by refusing to treat the evidence on its merits preferring your own prejudices as a basis, that you immediately felt the need to use 'However' is a huge clue to any reader;

However, the New Testament is hardly credible considering that it speaks of Jesus performing miracles that are physically impossible and provides zero evidence to support those stories. How can we trust that anything else it says about Jesus is not similarly fabricated or exaggerated due to the religious zealotry of its authors?

The evidence does not agree with your required conclusion so you dismiss it? That is not an approach I would be happy to accept as intellectually honest in myself but I guess each person operates to a different standard. I dont dismiss evidence based on my own prejudices. We could afterall dismiss the evidence of pretty much anything if we decide up front that it's impossible and therefore cannot be evidenced. This, in a nutshell, is why it's not worthwhile to answer your requests for evidence. In essence they are disingenuous.

How about instead of reading things into what I say, you actually provide or link to one of Craig’s arguments that you find compelling and we can discuss it.

You already demonstrated you can google by digging up a review for Wright it's hard to imagine that for these questions that you are so genuinely interested in you have lost the ability.

And please don’t try to pass the Bible off as being sound evidence for anything when it is obvious that it contains fabrications and wild exaggerations.

You want evidence but are pre-committed to handwaving it away, in what way is your demand reasonable I wonder.

Again, why do you think there is a significant distinction between evidence and proof? If you disagree with the dictionary meanings then tell me what you think the words mean and show me why you think there is a significant distinction between them.

I dont need to disagree with the definitions because they already differentiate between the 2 terms. On a side note I'd also observe that dictionaries as we all know do not define words they simply attempt to reflect usage.

I see from your profile that you’ve only been a Christian for two years so the evidence and reasoning that compelled you to believe that your God exists must still be fresh in your mind. Please tell me what it was. I presume that you wouldn’t have used evidence that contained errors, fallacies and misapprehensions or employed reasoning that wasn’t well grounded, justifiable and logically correct to convince yourself that your God exists. So please show me the sound evidence and valid reasoning you used to convince yourself that your God exists.

My profile hasnt altered since I joined the site and is such a number of years out of date. As for presenting my reasoning for you, I am afraid you would need to convince me of a lack of bias to stand any chance of that happening and honestly that would be an uphill task given the conversation we are having now and have previously had.

 

[3sigma]

(Your shopping list of desirable "superior" qualities reminds me a lot of that used by the Nazis--"blond hair, blue eyes, at least 6 foot tall, etc.")

Godwin’s Law.

3sigma: Does it mean that you treat atheists as you would treat Christians?
Ephraim: Yes.
3sigma: Would you vote for an atheist as you would for a Christian?
Ephraim: Not knowingly.

So you would vote for a candidate based on her policies, platform and abilities if you didn’t know she was an atheist, but if you found out that she was an atheist, you wouldn’t vote for her, simply because she was an atheist? That is hardly treating atheists and Christians alike.

Consider this: President John Quincy Adams raised the connection between Christianity and the Declaration at a speech given on Independence Day, 1837 at Newburyport.

However, this isn’t relevant to your comment that Christianity is creation and love because Christianity is not the United States. Christianity is a set of religious beliefs far more widespread and far older than the United States. The United States is just one country where the population is predominantly Christian.

On the contrary, how a person "behaves" is ENTIRELY controlled by his/her worldview.

Yes, but atheism is not a worldview. It is simply a lack of belief in gods, nothing more. It has nothing to say about how a person should behave (unlike religions). Atheism is just one aspect of much broader and widely ranging philosophical positions such as Philosophical Naturalism, Secular Humanism, Buddhism or even Jainism.

Atheists, on the other hand, seeing themselves and others as nothing more than evolved animals, and, in the best Darwinian fashion, live--or rather exist--on the basis of the survival of the fittest.

No, they don’t. You are hacking at a straw man. When Philosophical Naturalists, Secular Humanists, Buddhists and Jainists are all examples of atheists, you cannot generalise about how they see themselves.

Atheism, on the other hand, when it is able to grab the power to run things in a society, produces Gulags, Concentration Camps, Re-education Camps, and general death, misery, and destruction. Prime examples could include Stalin, Mao, Margaret Sanger, Larry Flynt, and others of their ilk.

The ideology driving Stalin and Mao was communism. They were motivated by a desire for power and a strong anti-elitism not a lack of belief that there are supernatural beings. I don’t recall Margaret Sanger or Larry Flynt constructing gulags or concentration camps and I don’t think they ever killed anyone.

No, they did these things because they chose to ignore their Lord's Commandments and act like evolved animals, using their own twisted "knowledge of good and evil" and thus forfeiting the right to call themselves "christians."

So when Christians proposed and enacted laws against blasphemy, they were ignoring the commandment not to make wrongful use of the Lord’s name and not behaving like True Christians, is that it? And when Christians put witches on trial, they were ignoring Exodus 22:18 “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”?

By best estimates, atheists slaughtered approximately 100 million people in the last century in China, the Soviet Union, Cambodia, North Korea, etc. In contrast, approximately 2000 people were excuted by the Inquisition.

I think it would be closer to the truth to say that Communist despots with a thirst for power killed those who were a threat to their position, though I think you will find that most of the deaths you attempt to attribute to a lack of belief that there are supernatural beings were due instead to starvation.

One person, of course would be too many, and 2000 is deplorable, but comparing murders by atheists in one century alone, with the admittedly evil acts of those claiming to be "christians" over the last 2000 years, i think is more than a "non-sequitur" response to your blog-acquired self-righteous red-herring ploys regarding the "evils" brought about by Christianity.

Oh please. Murders by atheists, indeed. Come down off your high horse and stop jousting at straw men. Atheism is not an ideology and it doesn’t motivate people to commit atrocities. It is simply a lack of belief in gods. Atheism makes no demands on how people should behave; that’s religion’s domain. No one wages wars, becomes a suicide bomber or flies planes into buildings in the name of… what… a lack of belief that there are supernatural beings? However, all those things are done in the name of one god or another. As Voltaire once said, “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities”.

 

[3sigma]

Why are you so concerned to conflate the meanings of distinct terms?

That’s right, evade a question with a question. I’m not conflating the terms. I’m just pointing out the connection between them.

evidence – something that furnishes proof
proof – the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact

You also believe things without proof…

Ah yes, an ad hominem tu quoque response. That’s always a reliable retort when you want to evade a question, isn’t it? You believe that your God actually exists; yet you acknowledge that you have no proof of that. Why do you believe it when there is no cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of that claim? And by all means, please tell me what entity it is I believe actually exists without any proof of its existence?

Craig's arguements are hardly those of an astrologer and it is hardly an arguement from popularity to note that others can decide for themselves and are not compelled to believe as you demand they do.
…
No. I do not think so, your dismissal of Craig went beyond a note that you personally do not find him convincing and to note that your opinion is only one is I think relevent on that basis.
…
Irrelevent, that he prsents the arguement disproves your claim that no reasoned arguement exists. Others can judge his arguements for themselves by a simple use of google to find them.
…
It's a reasonable observation when you are trying to hand wave Craig in the fashion you did.
…
Your request is superfluous, that Craig demonstrates it is sufficent to destroy your accusation that no reasoned arguement exists. Your inane request that each individual justifies himself would damn most atheists to irrationality along with the theists you target.
…
You already demonstrated you can google by digging up a review for Wright it's hard to imagine that for these questions that you are so genuinely interested in you have lost the ability.

I didn’t say that Craig has not provided reasoned arguments. I said that you have not provided a reasoned argument and I asked you numerous times to describe or link to one of his arguments that you find compelling so we can discuss it. Why do you constantly evade my request?

Aside of that I'm not at all sure that you do yourself any favours here, you refuse to read some of the leading work on the historical aspect of the question on the basis that you dont want to pay for it.

No, I didn’t refuse to read it at all. I said I would take a look at it if you can provide me with a link to where it is freely available. You said [post=49825495]before[/post] that it is freely available so please provide a link.

Most of the evidence for any Roman figure is Roman. Should we therefore doubt their existence on the basis of a lack of non-Roman evidence? Your comment, at first sight seems powerful but given any thought it quickly becomes obvious that it is a specious nonsense. As for the evidence of Godhood, I would offer that you are in no position to judge it due to your self admitted failure to familiarise yourself with even the leading scholars in the area ( Wright undoubtedly qualifies ). we all have an opinion and I'm fine with recognising this as yours but that is all it amounts to.

Jesus supposedly lived in Roman times in Roman territory so perhaps you could provide some contemporary, Roman, historical evidence for his existence. One would think that someone performing miracles before thousands of witnesses would have been noted somewhere in Roman records. Was Jesus noted? And is there any objective historical evidence that this Jesus (if he existed) was the son of your God or that your God exists? If so, please provide it or a link to it. Or perhaps you could just admit that there isn’t any.

The evidence does not agree with your required conclusion so you dismiss it? That is not an approach I would be happy to accept as intellectually honest in myself but I guess each person operates to a different standard. I dont dismiss evidence based on my own prejudices. We could afterall dismiss the evidence of pretty much anything if we decide up front that it's impossible and therefore cannot be evidenced. This, in a nutshell, is why it's not worthwhile to answer your requests for evidence. In essence they are disingenuous.

No, I don’t believe it because it is contradicted by reality and it is unsupported by any sound evidence. It is physically impossible for a person to walk on water as described in the New Testament. It defies natural laws. Failing sound evidence to support such a claim, any reasonable person would withhold belief. Is there any sound evidence to support the claims of various miracles attributed to Jesus in the New Testament? If so, please provide it or a link to it. Or perhaps you could just admit that there isn’t any. Given the physically impossible claims in the New Testament and the apparent lack of sound evidence to support them, why should we trust any of its other dubious claims?

As for presenting my reasoning for you, I am afraid you would need to convince me of a lack of bias to stand any chance of that happening and honestly that would be an uphill task given the conversation we are having now and have previously had.

Your evasiveness suggests that you didn’t have any sound evidence and didn’t use valid reasoning to come to your conclusion that your God exists.

 

[NewToLife]

Ah yes, an ad hominem tu quoque response. That’s always a reliable retort when you want to evade a question, isn’t it? You believe that your God actually exists; yet you acknowledge that you have no proof of that. Why do you believe it when there is no cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of that claim? And by all means, please tell me what entity it is I believe actually exists without any proof of its existence?

Pointing out your inability to apply your own standards to your own beliefs isn't an ad-hominem but merely illustrates the unreasonable nature of your request ( it is based on an internally inconsistent belief afterall ). I also did not state you believed in an entity without proof, simply that you hold beliefs without proof. But then you are aware of both on these things already yet still said what you said.....

I didn’t say that Craig has not provided reasoned arguments. I said that you have not provided a reasoned argument and I asked you numerous times to describe or link to one of his arguments that you find compelling so we can discuss it. Why do you constantly evade my request?

It's good that you admit Craig makes a reasoned arguement. I will happily quote your words here if you state in future that no reasoned arguement exists. I have no personal interest in a discussion with you on Craig's arguements.

No, I didn’t refuse to read it at all. I said I would take a look at it if you can provide me with a link to where it is freely available. You said before that it is freely available so please provide a link.

I dont think the terms 'freely available' and 'available for free' are actually synonymous. Perhaps that is an American thing ( though you could try a public library if funds are an issue for you).

Jesus supposedly lived in Roman times in Roman territory so perhaps you could provide some contemporary, Roman, historical evidence for his existence. One would think that someone performing miracles before thousands of witnesses would have been noted somewhere in Roman records. Was Jesus noted?

Quite possibly but you illustrate your ignorance on historical matters here. Given that very little Roman material of any type actually survives from 1st Century Palestine the absence of such surviving records says remarkably little.

And is there any objective historical evidence that this Jesus (if he existed) was the son of your God or that your God exists? If so, please provide it or a link to it. Or perhaps you could just admit that there isn’t any.

Objective according to whom? There is historical evidence to be drawn from a number of historical sources, that you reject anything you dislike does not alter the fact of it's existence. I will happily admit that there is nothing likely to convince one who is precommitted to your conclusion.

No, I don’t believe it because it is contradicted by reality and it is unsupported by any sound evidence. It is physically impossible for a person to walk on water as described in the New Testament. It defies natural laws. Failing sound evidence to support such a claim, any reasonable person would withhold belief. Is there any sound evidence to support the claims of various miracles attributed to Jesus in the New Testament? If so, please provide it or a link to it. Or perhaps you could just admit that there isn’t any. Given the physically impossible claims in the New Testament and the apparent lack of sound evidence to support them, why should we trust any of its other dubious claims?

What, in your opinion, would constitute sound evidence of something that you assert is physically impossible or contradicts reality? Could such evidence ever actually exist? If you believe it could then I think you owe it to others to let them know what it would consist of as it is surely extremely far from evident what it could possibly be. I cannot imagine anything that would qualify. If you dont believe it could exist then your demands for evidence are in reality as disingenuous as they appear, to me, to be. The simple reason being that any evidence produced will in your mind always be judged 'unsound' because it contradicts the conclusions you are precommitted to.

Like i said your position all hinges on those dubious premises and being able to make them appear reasonable, I doubt anyone reading the whole thread could honestly see them other than they are at this point. Thanks for the game..... Check Mate.

Your evasiveness suggests that you didn’t have any sound evidence and didn’t use valid reasoning to come to your conclusion that your God exists.

Or perhaps I do not like to waste time on what would essentially be a waste of time. Afterall, in your case it is not essentially a lack of evidence or reason that underlies your demands. You have afterall decided that it cannot exist before you even ask.

 

[ephraimanesti]

So you would vote for a candidate based on her policies, platform and abilities if you didn’t know she was an atheist, but if you found out that she was an atheist, you wouldn’t vote for her, simply because she was an atheist? That is hardly treating atheists and Christians alike.

The missing ingredient of a belief and faith in God can never be replaced by "policies, platforms, and abilities."

An atheist, who by definition makes decisions based solely upon his/her own reasoning and understanding, will never be fit for any kind of public office where their decisions can affect the lives of others.

By the same token, i would never vote for a candidate who claims to be a "christian" but doesn't speak or act as Jesus would.

However, this isn’t relevant to your comment that Christianity is creation and love because Christianity is not the United States. Christianity is a set of religious beliefs far more widespread and far older than the United States. The United States is just one country where the population is predominantly Christian.

Our Founding Fathers and most of our great Presidents would disagree with you. President Eisenhower, for example states, "The real fire within the builders of America was faith--faith in a Provident God whose hand supported and guided them; faith in themselves as the children of God . . . faith in their country and its principles that proclaimed man's right to freedom and justice." And President Reagan warned, "Without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure. If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under." One only has to read the morning paper or watch the evening news to see the truth of President Reagan's prophetic warning.

Yes, but atheism is not a worldview. It is simply a lack of belief in gods, nothing more. It has nothing to say about how a person should behave (unlike religions). Atheism is just one aspect of much broader and widely ranging philosophical positions such as Philosophical Naturalism, Secular Humanism, Buddhism or even Jainism.

Of course atheism is a worldview--that worldview being that man is the highest power in the universe--a god in his own kingdom--and therefore entitled to think and act as he pleases or thinks "best". However, as Scripture warns, "There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death." (Proverbs 16:25) Again, refer to morning paper or evening news for verification.

No, they don’t. You are hacking at a straw man. When Philosophical Naturalists, Secular Humanists, Buddhists and Jainists are all examples of atheists, you cannot generalise about how they see themselves.

Either you are a Creation of God and thus have the gift of a life full of meaning and purpose, or you are an accidental creation of impersonal cosmic forces and thus are merely existing in an empty and purposeless animal mode of life. There is no middle ground.

All those "belief" systems you listed above were invented as means of escape from this inescapable reality.

The ideology driving Stalin and Mao was communism. They were motivated by a desire for power and a strong anti-elitism not a lack of belief that there are supernatural beings. I don’t recall Margaret Sanger or Larry Flynt constructing gulags or concentration camps and I don’t think they ever killed anyone.

Without the atheistic underpinnings, Stalin and Mao and the evil they weere able to do would have been impossible. Theistic communism was practiced with great success by the early Christian Church with glorious results. Atheistic communism, on the other hand, led to horrors hard for the mind to conceive.

Margaret Sanger and Larry Flynt are examples of the prodigious negative effects atheists can have in a society--completely disproportionate to their numbers. What these and others of their ilk have killed, of course, is our society's sense of right and wrong, good and evil, and left us with a "whatever" attitude towards the moral principles and values upon which our Nation was originally founded.

So when Christians proposed and enacted laws against blasphemy, they were ignoring the commandment not to make wrongful use of the Lord’s name and not behaving like True Christians, is that it? And when Christians put witches on trial, they were ignoring Exodus 22:18 “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”?

They were ignoring our Lord summation of God's Commandments, "Thou shalt LOVE the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul, mind, and spirit and LOVE your neighbor as yourself."(Matthew 22:37-40)

I think it would be closer to the truth to say that Communist despots with a thirst for power killed those who were a threat to their position,

Only a denial of the reality of God and His moral standards could have allowed the great slaughters of the 20th Century. Atheism is a poison which kills all it touches--be it individuals or entire societies.

though I think you will find that most of the deaths you attempt to attribute to a lack of belief that there are supernatural beings were due instead to starvation.

The mass starvations, such as in the Ukraine, were instituted and facilitated by the atheists in control as a part of state policy.

Not to sound critical, but you exhibit a serious lack of honesty in your attempts to deny the obvious consequences of your atheistic beliefs.

Oh please. Murders by atheists, indeed. Come down off your high horse and stop jousting at straw men. Atheism is not an ideology and it doesn’t motivate people to commit atrocities. It is simply a lack of belief in gods.

Of course atheism is an ideology. In fact many consider it a religion in and of itself. i don't accept this because most religions that i am aware of have some good incorporated into them somewhere. i have not been able to find the good in atheism--it appears to be total darkness to me.

Atheism makes no demands on how people should behave; that’s religion’s domain. No one wages wars, becomes a suicide bomber or flies planes into buildings in the name of… what… a lack of belief that there are supernatural beings? However, all those things are done in the name of one god or another. As Voltaire once said, “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities”.

The atheist's "god", of course, is himself. With this belief, anything, no matter how horrible, can be--and is--possible and excused--for example, your assertion that "It wasn't murder, it was starvation.".

A BOND-SLAVE/FRIEND/BROTHER OF OUR LORD/GOD/SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,
ephraim

 

[3sigma]

I also did not state you believed in an entity without proof, simply that you hold beliefs without proof.

However, you do believe in an entity without proof and that is what I’m asking you to explain. Why do you believe that your God actually exists when, as you say, there is no cogency of evidence to compel you to believe it? You keep evading that question.

It's good that you admit Craig makes a reasoned arguement. I will happily quote your words here if you state in future that no reasoned arguement exists. I have no personal interest in a discussion with you on Craig's arguements.

Craig may make reasoned arguments, but it is unlikely that the reasoning is valid. You said, “The emminent philosopher William Lane Craig for instance has a pretty compelling arguement from 5 points which would certainly be adequate to reasonably justify belief in the Christian God”. If, for some reason, you are unwilling to discuss his arguments then, please, at least tell me what this particular compelling argument may be so that I can explore it for myself. Why won’t you even tell me what the argument is?

Given that very little Roman material of any type actually survives from 1st Century Palestine the absence of such surviving records says remarkably little.

So what you are actually saying is that you cannot show me any Roman historical evidence that Jesus ever existed, correct?

There is historical evidence to be drawn from a number of historical sources, that you reject anything you dislike does not alter the fact of it's existence.

You keep saying this, but you haven’t yet shown me any of it. What is it? Where is it? Does it contain errors, fallacies and misapprehensions?

What, in your opinion, would constitute sound evidence of something that you assert is physically impossible or contradicts reality? Could such evidence ever actually exist? If you believe it could then I think you owe it to others to let them know what it would consist of as it is surely extremely far from evident what it could possibly be. I cannot imagine anything that would qualify.

Yes, I assert that the miracles attributed to Jesus in the New Testament are physically impossible. Do you disagree? Do you think it is physically possible for a man to walk on water as described in Matthew 14? If so then please explain exactly how it is physically possible? If you agree that it is physically impossible then how do we explain the story?

When we read stories of people performing physically impossible feats then what is the most reasonable and logical explanation for the stories? For example, imagine you read in a Superman comic that a man can fly. Here you’ve asked a good question. What evidence could there possibly be that a man could perform this physically impossible feat? As one would naturally expect, there is no sound evidence that a man can fly as described in a Superman comic. So how do we explain the story? The most reasonable and logical explanation is that the story is simply make-believe.

Likewise, you read in Matthew 14 that a man can walk on water. Again, what evidence could there possibly be that a man could perform this physically impossible feat? As one would naturally expect, there is also no sound evidence that a man can walk on water as described in Matthew 14. So how do we explain that story? Again, the most reasonable and logical explanation is that the story is simply make-believe.

Having concluded that the story of a man flying in Superman comics is make-believe, should we still believe everything else in the comic? Shouldn’t we perhaps consider that the fanciful stories of Jor-El and the Phantom Zone are also probably make-believe? Similarly, having concluded that the story of a man walking on water in Matthew 14 is make-believe, shouldn’t we perhaps consider that the fanciful stories of God and heaven are also probably make-believe?

Or perhaps I do not like to waste time on what would essentially be a waste of time.

No, that doesn’t seem likely… I think it is more likely that your evasiveness is due to your basing your conclusion that your God exists on unsound evidence and invalid reasoning and that you are too embarrassed to admit it.

 

[3sigma]

An atheist, who by definition makes decisions based solely upon his/her own reasoning and understanding, will never be fit for any kind of public office where their decisions can affect the lives of others.
…
Of course atheism is a worldview--that worldview being that man is the highest power in the universe--a god in his own kingdom--and therefore entitled to think and act as he pleases or thinks "best".
…
Atheism is a poison which kills all it touches--be it individuals or entire societies. …
…
Of course atheism is an ideology. In fact many consider it a religion in and of itself. i don't accept this because most religions that i am aware of have some good incorporated into them somewhere. i have not been able to find the good in atheism--it appears to be total darkness to me.

As an atheist, I think I am in a far better position than you to know what atheism means to me and I am sick and tired of Christians telling me what they mistakenly think that is. I can see it would be pointless to discuss this any further with you because you apparently will go right on believing what you want to believe about atheism regardless of what I say. I’ll leave you to your fantasies.

 

[ephraimanesti]

As an atheist, I think I am in a far better position than you to know what atheism means to me and I am sick and tired of Christians telling me what they mistakenly think that is. I can see it would be pointless to discuss this any further with you because you apparently will go right on believing what you want to believe about atheism regardless of what I say. I’ll leave you to your fantasies.

MY BROTHER--If you are not interested in answers, why ask questions? Do you really expect those who know the Truth from personal experience to agree with you when you hold beliefs which are 180 degrees separated from that experiental Truth? Do you think that "straining at gnats and swallowing camels" and "vain disputing about words" is a substitute for the Truth or can cover up its existence?

i would suggest to you that a Christian's understanding of atheism is alot more accurate than an atheist's understanding of Christian beliefs, if for no other reason than many Christians were once atheists, but no atheists were ever Christians.

ephraim

 

[3sigma]

If you are not interested in answers, why ask questions? Do you really expect those who know the Truth from personal experience to agree with you when you hold beliefs which are 180 degrees separated from that experiental Truth?

I ask questions because I am interested in the truth, the body of real things, events and facts, which as you correctly point out, is the opposite of what you choose to call the “Truth”. So if you are not interested in answering with the truth (real things, events and facts) then perhaps you should bow out of this conversation right now.

i would suggest to you that a Christian's understanding of atheism is alot more accurate than an atheist's understanding of Christian beliefs, if for no other reason than many Christians were once atheists, but no atheists were ever Christians.

However, I very much doubt that a Christian’s understanding of how an atheist thinks and behaves is more accurate than an atheist’s understanding of how an atheist thinks and behaves, yet that is what you are trying to claim with your assertions about atheism. It is the height of arrogance.

I don’t know where you got the idea that no atheists were ever Christians. There are plenty of atheists who were formerly Christians right here on this forum. Oh, wait—don’t tell me—they weren’t ever "True Christians", is that it?

 

[ephraimanesti]

I ask questions because I am interested in the truth, the body of real things, events and facts, which as you correctly point out, is the opposite of what you choose to call the “Truth”. So if you are not interested in answering with the truth (real things, events and facts) then perhaps you should bow out of this conversation right now.

MY BROTHER--Well, that sounds good, but in point of fact you have stacked the deck--through your "rules of evidence: i.e., photographs or lab samples required, as it were--in such a way that evidence which you would be willing to accept as such is impossible to obtain, given we are dealing with spiritual realities and not material realities. Christianity is not a science--it is a way of life, based upon love, with our Heavenly Father as the prime focus and Love of God and all humanity as its primary desired outcome. Neither "relationship", "Love", or God are subject to investigation through scientific methodology--THEY HAVE TO BE PERSONALLY EXPERIENCED TO BE VALIDATED--spiritual objective realities only becoming real subjectively.

So, if you are really looking for the "truth," why are you asking the same questions over and over, receiving the same answers--which you disallow on grounds that they can't be "proven"--over and over--and then avowing all the while that you are a seeker of "truth," in spite of your redundant refusal to accept it. The Truth you are seeking can only be validated and proven by exercising it--which you refuse to do, apparently finding it easier--or more fun--to argue about it than to live it.

I don’t know where you got the idea that no atheists were ever Christians. There are plenty of atheists who were formerly Christians right here on this forum. Oh, wait—don’t tell me—they weren’t ever "True Christians", is that it?

YES--you are correct--they were, indeed, never "True Christians." Being a Christian is NOT a result of believing the right doctrines, going to the right church, or avoiding the right sins.

Being a Christian is based soley upon meeting God face to face in Jesus Christ and developing a life-long Loving relationship with Him through the power of the Holy Spirit which is provided to dwell in the Christian's heart in order to keep the relationship intimate and on track in spite of the chaos and madness in the world around us.

Once you have met God face to face--(if i may state it with reverence as) up close and personal--you can never again return to being an atheist anymore than you can turn a pickle back into a cucumber. You may choose--exercising your God-given freewill--to turn away from God and return to the world--although i can't imagine many, if any doing so,--but you can never erase your knowledge that He exists--which would be a requirement for returning to atheism. Even satan knows God exists as did Judas who betrayed Him.

Well, enough of this mostly pointless wrangling!

God grant that you have a wonderful Christmas--and may the Christ Child be born in your heart, that you may be blessed abundantly in the year(s) to come.​

A BOND-SLAVE/FRIEND/BROTHER OF OUR LORD/GOD/SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,
ephraim