Why are there so many atheists on a Christian site?

[Crump]

I mean, not that I want them gone, but it just seems strange to me that so many atheists would choose to spend their time and eergy on a site that is antithetical to their worldview.

I am a Christian and do my best to follow the teachings of our Lord. I do not however accept the supernatural or believe in the existence of god. There is nothing self contradictory in my beliefs

 

[oi_antz]

My statement was a factual one - there's no talk of discussing sins or preferring to meet in private in the bible verse you quoted earlier in the thread. Seems like there are lots of unstated assumptions in play here that we're supposed to take for granted just because you believe them.

Have you successfully performed the test? I have. I know sin was a topic, and I know I prefer for it to be private. I expect no different for anyone else. If you think this is wrong, please explain why.

 

[bhsmte]

Have you successfully performed the test? I have. I know sin was a topic, and I know I prefer for it to be private. I expect no different for anyone else. If you think this is wrong, please explain why.

As another poster has already asked, demonstrate to us how one can verify, your test produces reliable results.

You see, if you can't demonstrate this, why would anyone take your test seriously?

 

[jmldn2]

I mean, not that I want them gone, but it just seems strange to me that so many atheists would choose to spend their time and eergy on a site that is antithetical to their worldview. The interesting thing to me is that they don't seem to be here to proselytize, which would make sense to me. I assume that they, or many of them anyway, feela sense of community here if they've been here for a while. So, if not to show the poor theist the freedom of atheism, what is the draw?

That's a good question. Hope the atheists will reply. They are in abundance as well on other sites. But I personally have no problem with it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

As another poster has already asked, demonstrate to us how one can verify, your test produces reliable results.

You see, if you can't demonstrate this, why would anyone take your test seriously?

It's a classic sales trick. In selling a product, guarantee that it will yield results if the appropriate procedure is followed. When those results fail to materialise as expected, then blame the customer for not following the procedure correctly. Importantly, the procedure must be intelligible enough so that the customer thinks he is following it correctly, but also vague enough so that the salesman can blame the customer when the product fails to work as expected. The salesman can thus avoid accountability for his product's shortcomings, shifting the blame onto the consumer.

 

[oi_antz]

How do you know that?

it is evidenced by those that have done it.

Any evidence that suggests this is the reason? It could also be that the test is unreliable.

Essentially you are suggesting. Should trust any man. I am suggesting I rather trust Jesus. Honestly, I do not think your approach will survive. But you are welcome to try. Only, if you think deceit is sufficient, it still appears as deceit. Likewise for speculation.

You haven't actually detailed what this "inviting" looks like practically. Could you provide some examples? This would help us to confirm whether we have properly conducted the test and is therefore directly relevant to the claim that the test produces the desired result "every time." If we have properly conducted this test, and we still don't subscribe to Christianity, then that casts doubt on your claim that the test produces the desired result "every time."

OK. I really had to do a 180 degree when I did it. But I was not atheist. I was anti Christian, aggressively opposed to it. Vocally and publicly. Then I was confronted: if you are such an atheist, read x book. Well I had to admit, I was not atheist. But why then, if I did want to praise God, did I not know Him like they did. Then I struggled with my pride all night, then I askd them to show me proof of God. The verse they gave me made the penny drop. Then I read the bible form them first time in years and years and every thing I read made sense like nothing before. The whole process of that discovery and decision took three weeks. I did not set out for it and I did not I know it was coming. But I know that I did beg Him to give me the knowledge of the truth, and He granted it in the exadt same moment I asked for it and He personally taught me for two weeks following. I know how real He is. I do not tolerate malarki.

 

[oi_antz]

As another poster has already asked, demonstrate to us how one can verify, your test produces reliable results.

You see, if you can't demonstrate this, why would anyone take your test seriously?

Depends whether someone loves truth or not.

 

[Freodin]

I know sin was a topic, and I know I prefer for it to be private. I expect no different for anyone else. If you think this is wrong, please explain why.

So there is Jesus, knocking at my door and wanting to spend some quality time with me... but even if I invite him in, he won't come until I redecorate my house, remove my AC/DC posters and get rid of the pink curtains. The quality time that we will be spending will of course not consist of talking about AC/DC or my taste in curtains, but of me telling him how great he is...

... yeah, sounds totally legit. If you already believe that.

Which I don't. So what's that about "sin"? What kind of "sin" should I be talking here in the open? And how will it get Jesus into my house?

 

[oi_antz]

It's a classic sales trick. In selling a product, guarantee that it will yield results if the appropriate procedure is followed. When those results fail to materialise as expected, then blame the customer for not following the procedure correctly. Importantly, the procedure must be intelligible enough so that the customer thinks he is following it correctly, but also vague enough so that the salesman can blame the customer when the product fails to work as expected. The salesman can thus avoid accountability for his product's shortcomings, shifting the blame onto the consumer.

It is obvious when the consumer is lying about the hair in their burger.

 

[bhsmte]

Depends whether someone loves truth or not.

Do you also have a reliable verifiable test to determine if someone loves truth?

Or is it simply; they disagree with me, so they must not love truth?

 

[oi_antz]

So there is Jesus, knocking at my door and wanting to spend some quality time with me... but even if I invite him in, he won't come until I redecorate my house, remove my AC/DC posters and get rid of the pink curtains. The quality time that we will be spending will of course not consist of talking about AC/DC or my taste in curtains, but of me telling him how great he is...

... yeah, sounds totally legit. If you already believe that.

Which I don't. So what's that about "sin"? What kind of "sin" should I be talking here in the open? And how will it get Jesus into my house?

It is shame. It is preventing you from opening then door to Him.

 

[Freodin]

it is evidenced by those that have done it.

Essentially you are suggesting. Should trust any man. I am suggesting I rather trust Jesus. Honestly, I do not think your approach will survive. But you are welcome to try. Only, if you think deceit is sufficient, it still appears as deceit. Likewise for speculation.

OK. I really had to do a 180 degree when I did it. But I was not atheist. I was anti Christian, aggressively opposed to it. Vocally and publicly. Then I was confronted: if you are such an atheist, read x book. Well I had to admit, I was not atheist. But why then, if I did want to praise God, did I not know Him like they did. Then I struggled with my pride all night, then I askd them to show me proof of God. The verse they gave me made the penny drop. Then I read the bible form them first time in years and years and every thing I read made sense like nothing before. The whole process of that discovery and decision took three weeks. I did not set out for it and I did not I know it was coming. But I know that I did beg Him to give me the knowledge of the truth, and He granted it in the exadt same moment I asked for it and He personally taught me for two weeks following. I know how real He is. I do not tolerate malarki.

So, what book, what verse? You are not helping here, you know. Just consider if "they" (whoever they were) acted in the same way towards you as you do now towards us.

Don't you not want "Him" to teach us as well?

 

[Freodin]

It is shame. It is preventing you from opening then door to Him.

What shame? Do you even know me?

 

[oi_antz]

Do you also have a reliable verifiable test to determine if someone loves truth?

Or is it simply; they disagree with me, so they must not love truth?

Yes, and it is obvious. Do you think I do not know truth and untruth?

 

[oi_antz]

So, what book, what verse? You are not helping here, you know. Just consider if "they" (whoever they were) acted in the same way towards you as you do now towards us.

Don't you not want "Him" to teach us as well?

I don't know what you are requesting. Are you asking what verse I was given that converted me?

 

[oi_antz]

What shame? Do you even know me?

No. I know the shame feel in presence of holy God.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes, and it is obvious. Do you think I do not know truth and untruth?

If it is obvious, demonstrate how this test is reliable for us please.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

it is evidenced by those that have done it.

I have done it, and I'm not a Christian. So either I did it wrong or perhaps the test isn't as reliable as you claim it is.

Essentially you are suggesting. Should trust any man. I am suggesting I rather trust Jesus. Honestly, I do not think your approach will survive. But you are welcome to try. Only, if you think deceit is sufficient, it still appears as deceit. Likewise for speculation.

My approach is to investigate the basis of this test and to determine whether it's reliable or not. I can't properly evaluate your test until you elucidate what it entails in more precise terms.

OK. I really had to do a 180 degree when I did it. But I was not atheist. I was anti Christian, aggressively opposed to it. Vocally and publicly. Then I was confronted: if you are such an atheist, read x book. Well I had to admit, I was not atheist. But why then, if I did want to praise God, did I not know Him like they did. Then I struggled with my pride all night, then I askd them to show me proof of God. The verse they gave me made the penny drop. Then I read the bible form them first time in years and years and every thing I read made sense like nothing before. The whole process of that discovery and decision took three weeks. I did not set out for it and I did not I know it was coming. But I know that I did beg Him to give me the knowledge of the truth, and He granted it in the exadt same moment I asked for it and He personally taught me for two weeks following. I know how real He is. I do not tolerate malarki.

So the test involves reading the Bible and prayer, is that correct?

 

[oi_antz]

If it is obvious, demonstrate how this test is reliable for us please.

What are you asking me to demonstrate?

 

[oi_antz]

I have done it, and I'm not a Christian. So either I did it wrong or perhaps the test isn't as reliable as you claim it is.



My approach is to investigate the basis of this test and to determine whether it's reliable or not. I can't properly evaluate your test until you elucidate what it entails in more precise terms.



So the test involves reading the Bible and prayer, is that correct?

Jesus said " You study the scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have life, yet the scriptures point to me and you refuse to come to me to have life". So no, I do not believe that a knowledge dgemof then scriptures is the qualifier. I believe it is opening then door and getting to know him that is then qualifier. You say you have performed the test, what did you discuss with him in that meeting?