Why are there so many atheists on a Christian site?

[muichimotsu]

Jesus came for everyone, yes I'm familler with liberation theology and its Marxist roots. Slave is an inappropriate term to define the relationship between a child of God and his father.

Jesus faced life head on, in his faith religion wasn't a refuge from life.

Slave is meant to be used metaphorically: not in the sense of some absolute submission with no real reward. Then again, it's not that stretched to say slavery is asked when you want to go "all in" as you so eloquently put it, in relation to God

Didn't say it was a refuge, did I? Of course he engaged with the world, but only to the extent he could peddle his apocalyptic visions.

 

[Joshua260]

Even if it's an assertive claim, it's not necessarily made in the absolute sense of belief that you have in asserting God does exist. At most, this is a claim that, by your description, there is an inconsistency in the existence of God with suffering in the world, especially when it is both all powerful and all loving, to say nothing of bringing in all knowing.

The lack of belief is general skepticism, the assertion of nonexistence is in response to unsubstantiated claims of existence

You are incorrect. Atheists use the problem of evil argument in attempt to show that the Christian god does not exist.

Here's the syllogism from Wikipedia:

"The originator of the logical problem of evil has been cited as the Greek philosopher Epicurus,[11] and this argument may be schematized as follows:

1. If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist."

But never-the-less, feel free to clarify that you don't believe that the existence of the Christian God (as defined above) is incompatible with the existence of evil.

 

[muichimotsu]

You are incorrect. Atheists use the problem of evil argument in attempt to show that the Christian god does not exist.

Here's the syllogism from Wikipedia:

"The originator of the logical problem of evil has been cited as the Greek philosopher Epicurus,[11] and this argument may be schematized as follows:

1. If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist."

Bu never-the-less, feel free to clarify that you don't believe that the existence of the Christian God (as defined above) is incompatible with the existence of evil.

And what if I make an assertive claim? Your point is still moot that I'm making any sort of absolute claim, since the disbelief is based in the inconsistency of qualities you ascribe to it relative to the state of the world. You can wax theological to say it's because of free will, but you're not erasing vicarious responsibility of the creator for the created, especially if it's all knowing, having the cognitive capacity to perceive all possibilities that aren't logically invalid or unsound.

The world described still doesn't justify a deity being worshiped, even if one accepted it may exist. If anything, it suggests dystheism.

 

[Joshua260]

And? This is problematic because?

Have you not been paying attention? As I explained when I first began my exchange in this thread, someone had mentioned that atheists just have a "lack of belief", and I was using the problem of evil to test out the truth of that claim. The problem of evil is used to demonstrate that the existence of the Christian god, defined as all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving is incompatible with the existence of evil. In other words, they cannot both exist. Here's the argument shown on Wikipedia:

"The originator of the logical problem of evil has been cited as the Greek philosopher Epicurus,[11] and this argument may be schematized as follows:

1. If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist."

Therefore, if you believe the problem of evil argument is valid, then you do not simply suffer from a "lack of belief".

 

[Joshua260]

And what if I make an assertive claim?

The point I have been making is that if one believes that the problem of evil is a valid argument, then that person does not simply suffer from a "lack of belief". The problem of evil argument is an assertive aim that the defined god does not exist. See below:

The originator of the logical problem of evil has been cited as the Greek philosopher Epicurus,[11] and this argument may be schematized as follows:

1. If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist.

Btw, you didn't answer and I wanted to make sure you had the opportunity...
did you want to clarify that you don't believe that the existence of the Christian God (as defined above) is incompatible with the existence of evil?

 

[Colter]

Slave is meant to be used metaphorically: not in the sense of some absolute submission with no real reward. Then again, it's not that stretched to say slavery is asked when you want to go "all in" as you so eloquently put it, in relation to God

Didn't say it was a refuge, did I? Of course he engaged with the world, but only to the extent he could peddle his apocalyptic visions.

Peddle apocalyptic visions? He warned his apostles of the day of Gentile vengence that would destroy Jerusalem in 70 AD. so his apostles could get out ahead of the destruction.

 

[oi_antz]

The inconsistency is not solved by that. There is always these things that you have to do in order for this... test, conversion, faith... to work. If God makes you do it... it is not really you doing it.

I think this is caused by your understanding rather than mine and Gill's. It would be interesting to see whether Gill and I do agree that we have an inconsistency about this. I expect we will agree fully. Faith is a transaction involving two parties that doesn't work if either party fails to sustain it.

Then those are not atheists? By definition atheists "know no God".

I think there is very god reason to accept that someone who has really known Jesus has been tempted into sin. Then when forced to choose between sin and repentance, chooses sin. Once someone has chosen to believe atheist ideas, they will naturally become convinced that they are tue. You will notice that I was confronted this way and had to choose, as I described in #506. I did have the option at that point, to become atheist and continue my course of anger toward God. But it was thankfully not so difficult for me at that time, for some reason or another, to choose to take back all that I had said if I needed to, and when I compared that to finding out that I had been wrong and could be put right, I made the choice to open the door instead and to hear what He would say to me. On the other hand, if I had have hardened my heart at that time, I certainly would not have found it easier to repent and take back my words at a later time. I can imagine and fully expect that there are atheists who have completely lost their faith from similar processes, which did seriously know God at some earlier time in their life. Hence the statements I make that desire for sin conflicts our desire to commune with Holy God.

Good for you. What does this have to do with the fact that nothing in your original description of the test had anything to do with sin?

It gives me experience to know hat it is a highy likely cause for one to not perform the test properly. It is a cause that I am convinced is natural and normal for a human.

You're just throwing random assertions out there and claiming that they're knowledge. There's nothing more to explain.

No, there is actually. You feel that this gives you a right to say that you do not agree with me, because I cannot prove that when you perform this test, your sin will be exposed. I did not suggest your sins will be revealed to the public, but that when you open the door to Him, you will be aware of your sin, and then those watching you will know you have sin. BTW, this is what all Christians do when they perform this test, and then they become confident that He has accepted them despite their sin. But, it does not make it any less daunting to a person who is afraid for their sin to be exposed. And I know this, probably best out of all of us on this thread. So, you haven't explained why I am wrong to make the assertion, you have explained why you feel confident to disagree.

Weird that someone would worship a god who is rendered powerless by a human's choice in music.

I think the choice of music is a false cause. I am sure if anyone can love AC/DC's music, He can too. But you seemed earlier to be describing a person's character. I think the character and attitudes are what really makes a person ashamed in presence of Holy God. I don't know whether you think there is another way He can get through the door to eat with such a person, if the person will not open the door to Him. Can you imagine it? (I have this image in mind, of a kid who locked himself in his rom, and the parents getting the fire axe and breaking the door down just so they could cradle the kid in their arms). I wonder at this, whether you do believe there is a better way, or whether this is just ad-hominum.

Sure, I discussed many things during prayer and, as always, felt that the feeling "in my heart" was a response from the divine. I was a Christian, remember? You're asking me these questions as though I never once prayed in my life, or as though I never really believed what I did. I believed, and I prayed "with all my heart, mind, and soul." As far as I can tell, I performed your proposed test and yet the promised results did not materialise.

I am not sure why you said this:

"the promised results did not materialise."

when you also said this:

"the feeling "in my heart" was a response from the divine"

.. to me, it seems that you are saying that it did work, then saying that it didn't, without even taking a breath in between. Can you please explain that?

I've never been comfortable with that expression. It's not a rejection of an individual, it's a disbelief in the truth of the ideology. Moreover, and whilst I haven't bothered to actually research this, I would speculate that the lion's share of atheists came from a background of theism. Upon closer examination of what they were raised to believe, they can simply no longer believe. So, to use the theists vernacular, atheists know him, but only in the same way as we know Darth Vader.

To assert otherwise is to presume to know what I think.

Thanks.

As I said: "like any other religion". The behaviour is quite common, though Christianity is the only group that I am aware of that deliberately tries to conceal it.

Thank you, I will keep this in mind.

As I understand, you have met a group of "missionaries" who converse with you about your and their faith, explain their view, give you their answers to your questions... "educate" you.
I have been confronted with quite a number of "missionating" views - religious and others - in my life, and I know from experience that a view that you are directly exposed to, can question and discuss, perhaps even in direct personal contact... such a view is always more convincing than a view that you are only indirectly faced with, where you can only passively recept, without the option to question.

These people are very willing to discuss and engage in questions, and seem to enjoy it very much. It is a very uncommon characteristic, IMO. Only thing is, the last two weeks, we haven't even progressed theough their material at all, because we have been stuck on my objections to the substitutionary atonement doctrines, that I thought they were proponents of. But last week I discovered where these doctrines were formed, and yesterday while we were discussing my findings, it became apparent that what I thought they were saying is not what they were sayng, and they've been trying to explain what they are saying and finding it difficult to convey to me because there is more understanding that they have in mind that I don't know about them, and my lack of knowledge of their beliefs is making it difficult for me to really see what they do believe. Well anyway, let's see if this approach will help.

Bearing than in mind, my question was meant to ask: could you imagine being in contact with a group of a different persuasion, answering your question in a different way...don't you think you would feel similar as you do now?

I am not so good with hypotheticals, because my imagination is a bit limited. Reality surprises me when I try to do that I suppose my behaviour is a pattern that might contribute to an answer for you.

And, if it isn't too personal a question... what kind of "missionaries" are you talking about?

Seniors members of a local Jehova's Witness congregation.

I fear we will not be able to do that. It is part of the basic difference between our two positions.

Are you not interested in agreeing to what is true? Why would you expect that we cannot do that?

The best I could try to describe it in a neutral way: sin is the conscious acting against a relevant set of rules.

I am against inconsiderate (inflexible) appliation of rules, very strongly. I am for principle, very strongly. Therefore when I look at how rules should be applied, I look to the principle that the rule was formed for. So I look to the core principle that is common to all explicitely defined sin (ie 10 commandments, golden rule, and so forth). I reckon there is a consistent theme that all sin causes some kind of harm, and that the person is choosing to do this harm when it is not necessary, and that doing so will benefit them in a way that they desire. Will you accept this definition of sin? Do you think that definition of sin is not consistent with the rules that you have mentioned?

But I guess we won't find common ground to agree on what is "relevant" here.

I think I might have yanked it in a different direction than you thought I would, but let's come back to this if you think it still applies.

See, here we are already in the midst of the disagreement. What is "a problem"? When does you desire (of fruit) cause a problem? What are the relevant rules?

I think the problem in the real sense as it applies, is that we like our sinful desires, and we know that God does not like us to be sinful. That makes us ashamed to share a meal with Him. I don't have enough imagination to know why desiring fruit can be a problem. I do not want to get bogged down by hypothetical scenarios, when the truth can be found easily by observing reality.

I found my answer. I doubt you will accept it.

Still doubt it? Try me.

Well... yes. You do have a point here: there are people lying about their behaviour. These people, even in my understanding, "sin".
But the problem here is again a logical one: If someone doesn't sin, and doesn't lie about it... how would you be able to know that, when you can just assume that they dosin and do lie about it... because everyone does!

It is a pattern that is evidenced by every person I know and know of. I am surprised that you think I should need to prove it, and perhaps we will agree to this when we have agreed to what sin really is.

"All crows are black." is such a claim. How would you be able to disprove that, when you can assume that the white crow you are presented with is just a fake... must be a fake, because all crows are black?

I don't know, TBH. If I was really that concerned that the white crow is a fake, I would demand proof that it is a crow. This is again a hypothetical scenario and the truth is limited by our imagination. Reality doesn't have those limits.

So let's investigate!

I disagree. You still assert that you can evaluate the efficiency of the test based on the outcome, nothing else. Your example does not show that, for the reasons I provided. You could be starting with the wrong testobject. You could be using the wrong test procedure.

You are performing the test like this guy:

You have already discarded "reasonable doubt" at the very beginning of your test. Any result you will get will meet your expectations... because you have set your expectations accordingly.

I don't think sany results will do, I mean the results you are meant to get are actually communion with the Word of God.

As Christianity is designed to placate the unruly masses?

You really need to think outside of your box.

See, you think that the Invisible Pink Unicorn is a fake. A "straw man" (straw pink horse?) made up to go against certain theological arguments. A man made invention. Thus, based on this starting assumption, you are unwilling / unable to partake in this "test". Even if you did, you would interprete the results based on this your initial premise.

I think Christianity - like all religions - is a "fake". It is a set of ideas made up to answer certain theological, moral and ethical questions. A man made invention. I am aware of that premise, and thus understand that I would interprete the results of the proposed "test" (which still is too vague to follow) accordingly.

So I am not asking anything more from you than you are asking from me.

You have actually made a strawman argument here. That is not how Christianity came about. It is how it has been used for personal gain, which is sin. It is actually the breaking of the third commandment.

Here I am: I tell you and assure you that the Invisible Pink Unicorn is much more than a man made straw man argument, that She is real and that She will grant you revelation if you ask Her correctly.
You have nothing to lose with taking this test. Just do it.

And I predict that, if that test fails to get the promised result, you will see it as a problem with my / Her promise... not with your practice.

You are making this up though, and you are not hiding that fact. This is a strawman argument and you shouldn't be lying about that at this stage.

How many days has this thread been offtopic?

I am actually not off topic, I think, since I am explaining that there is a test that will give proof of God beyond reasonable doubt. I think every atheist will agree that is something that they are interested to find on a Christian forum.

 

[HammerOfThor]

I am actually not off topic

I wasn't referring specifically to you

 

[oi_antz]

I wasn't referring specifically to you

Ok, thanks.

 

[Colter]

PROBLEMS OF THE LUCIFER REBELLION

"EVOLUTIONARY MAN FINDS it difficult fully to comprehend the significance and to grasp the meanings of evil, error, sin, and iniquity. Man is slow to perceive that contrastive perfection and imperfection produce potential evil; that conflicting truth and falsehood create confusing error; that the divine endowment of freewill choice eventuates in the divergent realms of sin and righteousness; that the persistent pursuit of divinity leads to the kingdom of God as contrasted with its continuous rejection, which leads to the domains of iniquity.

The Gods neither create evil nor permit sin and rebellion. Potential evil is time-existent in a universe embracing differential levels of perfection meanings and values. Sin is potential in all realms where imperfect beings are endowed with the ability to choose between good and evil. The very conflicting presence of truth and untruth, fact and falsehood, constitutes the potentiality of error. The deliberate choice of evil constitutes sin; the willful rejection of truth is error; the persistent pursuit of sin and error is iniquity." UB 1955

 

[Ana the Ist]

The point I have been making is that if one believes that the problem of evil is a valid argument, then that person does not simply suffer from a "lack of belief". The problem of evil argument is an assertive aim that the defined god does not exist. See below:

The originator of the logical problem of evil has been cited as the Greek philosopher Epicurus,[11] and this argument may be schematized as follows:

1. If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist.

Btw, you didn't answer and I wanted to make sure you had the opportunity...
did you want to clarify that you don't believe that the existence of the Christian God (as defined above) is incompatible with the existence of evil?

I don't know why you keep going on about this Joshua...it looks to me like you've answered your own question.

If evil exists, then god couldn't possibly be "omni benevolent"...since god could've created a world without evil. Like what most christians imagine heaven is like.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Peddle apocalyptic visions? He warned his apostles of the day of Gentile vengence that would destroy Jerusalem in 70 AD. so his apostles could get out ahead of the destruction.

Chapter and verse?

 

[Songsmith]

You know that man is capable of killing out of passion, don't you? There is something that is called justified violence. It grants you the right to defend your self and your own life - even others - with whatever means it takes; one even have the right to kill an aggressor if necessary in certain circumstances. To say that a father has harden his heart if he beats up, or even kill, someone he sees tries to rape or murder his daughter is inhuman and show a lack of understanding of how human emotions can affects the human mind. It would only be a hardened heart if such father would be able to stand back and do nothing. We call such person, that do not react emotionally, a psychopath. (Emotions God gave us according to your own beliefs...)

Reality is not as Black&White as you try to present it...

The bolded selection is a strange statement I think. do you want God to stop you from doing something you have set your mind to do? Do you want to be forcibly kept from acting by an all powerful being with the ability to hold you captive? I would assume that you would not want that for yourself, yet you seem to want that for others. Now maybe it's a bad assumption that you do not want to be controlled. If that's the case then I'm sorry, otherwise please explain why it would be okay for God to control someone else. Why then stop at sins in which a person is hurting someone else? How about God controlling your actions when it comes to any sin. I can guarantee that you would be upset if God kept you from committing all sins. Wait, you wouldn't have the ability to to be upset or question God. So which will it be? Control or freedom? With control there is no joy. With freedom there is the potential for horrible evil to be perpetrated, but there is also the ability to know love.

You know that man is capable of killing out of passion, don't you? There is something that is called justified violence. It grants you the right to defend your self and your own life - even others - with whatever means it takes; one even have the right to kill an aggressor if necessary in certain circumstances.

Of course there are crimes of passion. Even then God is calling out to those involved. Man has the ability to kill out of passion, but he also has the ability to take captive his thoughts and actions. Even in a fit of passion he is able to control himself. And God is calling in that split second that a decision is made to act out the thought. Now, here we are talking about sinning, about being an aggressor toward another person.

I'm not talking about self defense. That is not a sin in most cases. It is not a sign of a hardened heart to defend yourself or someone else. As a matter of fact defending others is part of what I had in mind when I made the post which you quoted. Listening to God when he calls you to do something, even as simple as being in a place outside of your comfort zone, may lead to protecting someone physically.

I believe that for almost every evil thing that happens wherein it is human to human sin there has been a failure of someone to listen to God. I have been on the receiving end of those promptings as well. I was woken up at about midnight one night and felt an overwhelming need to call a friend of mine. I called and said I had a bad feeling about whatever she was going to do that night, though I didn't know what her plans were. I didn't think she should go. She did, and she was raped. She later told me that she had the same feeling, but that her desire to go to a club (she was only 18 at the time) was more appealing than the voice of the Spirit.

 

[Joshua260]

I don't know why you keep going on about this Joshua...it looks to me like you've answered your own question.

If evil exists, then god couldn't possibly be "omni benevolent"...since god could've created a world without evil. Like what most christians imagine heaven is like.

I have not been asking any question with regard to the problem of evil argument...I already know it is a non sequitur.

However, since you seem to believe it to be a valid argument, then you do not claim to be the type of atheist who simply suffers from a "lack of belief". Rather, you affirm the argument's assertion that the Christian god does not exist. Tell me then, do know that the Christian god does not exist, or do you believe that the Christians god does not exist?

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

Folks, this thread is closed. It is off topic to the forum.