Why are there so many atheists on a Christian site?

[Archaeopteryx]

No. I'm following just fine, thank you. It is you that is not understanding my point. Christian's define our God as one who is all-powerful and all-loving. That is the God we are talking about and no other. If you argue that that specific God is not compatible with the existence of evil, then you are saying that the God we preach does not exist. So you are making an assertive claim that the God we preach does not exist and are no longer just claiming to hold to a passive "lack of belief".

And? This is problematic because?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes. Just as putting a car in gear and accelerating will produce movement. But if the car is not put in gear and only accelerated, it won't. Everyone who performs this test properly does get the same result.

As far I can tell, many people have performed the test and gotten a result other than Christianity.

I cannot imagine how this would be possible. Can you please describe how you imagine it?

As I recall, you stated that the test can be performed by anyone and that it will produce the desired result. I'm testing this claim by asking you what would happen if someone who was never exposed to Christianity performed the test. I think your test is culturally biased. It won't work for everyone because it requires cultural familiarity with Christianity, and even in individuals for whom it should work, it doesn't guarantee the desired result.

I don't remember saying that, but I will address your question. A person living in healthy faithful relationship has very constant, intimate, loving bond with Him, even though it is a spiritual relationship. This means that the man's heart is always aligned toward God in love, praising Him, thanking Him, consulting Him, relying on Him etc. At some point in a person's life (quite frequently for some), this intimate relationship is broken, and He gets put outside of the person's heart. The man goes on in his life as he pleases, but without having this companionship with Him. (The same man can still be well educated in Christian matters and have good intentions to preach the truth they know). Anyhiw, at this point Jesus is standing outside and the person has closed the door. Jesus doesn't barge in and demand better treatment as I would, but instead just knocks to inform us that He desires reconciliation.

That doesn't really address my question. I asked you what the test entails practically, and your answer seemed to suggest that it involves reading the Bible and prayer. Well, I've done that, and I am no longer a Christian.

Correct. But it is a reliable test, that everyone is invited to perform without discrimination, that will produce proof beyond reasonable doubt. That is all I wanted to say to begin with.

Yes, I know that's your claim, and you are wrong. The test doesn't produce the same result for everyone and it doesn't produce proof beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Chris B]

Yes, the Atheist find validation in the doctrines of doubt by communing with other nonbelievers in undermining faith. Atheist have Godless ideals that they promote in a setting such as this.

Absolutely. Faith is at least as often vice as it is virtue.
Faith can be had in *anything*. Having faith in something in no way assures its truth, but it very often acts to prevent truth claims being assessed.
Christian apologists want people to *stop* having faith in whatever they currently believe that isn't Christianity, and have faith in the latter.
But faith itself is almost useless in deciding what a person ought to have faith in. Faith doesn't really handle the "but is it true" question with neutrality.

If faith as an entity is good then my faith in Invisible Pink Unicorns is good, because I have faith.
But if that's not right then it's wrong to treat faith as some magical or infallible sense or instrument.

Chris

 

[Freodin]

Thank you, I have been looking for an example of this. I will keep this on hand. Just the other day I mentioned how apparent inconsistencies really aren't saying inconsistent things, they are saying different things. You will find that Gill and I do agree, but you think at this time that we don't. I was not able to put my finger on an example of this when I needed to a few weeks back.

So here you are, stating that you don't say inconsistent things... but you think that you don't have to explain it. This isn't helping.

That is correct. I told you that too.

Yes, you did. But I think you missed the importance of this statement.
Whenever you describe your experiences, they are based on your existing positions and beliefs. You interprete them under these existing conditions.
I do the same, but my preconditions are different. That is why we come to different conclusions.

The way to disolve this dilemma would be to find an objective baseline from which to start. Or to present objective evidence for one side or the other. But in regard to deities, such a thing does not exist. It is all subjective, all interpretation, all in the mind.

That doesn't make me right and you wrong. But it makes me at least as right as you... and while I cannot present objective evidence for the non-existence of deities, I can at least give reasons for my doubt in this existence.

I did. I was describing that I had come to believe it is all wrong. I don't know why you have taken this personally. I find the divinity is God, who will speak to us if we care to listen. It so happened that I started listening to what He was telling me as I read the bible. Truth is found in places outside of the bible too.

The only thing I take "personally" here our respective positions. These are personal. You explained what you thought. I don't think this way. How would I be able to follow your reasoning, when I don't support your premisses?

I would be surprised if we would agree to this at the end of that investigation.

What, you doubt me when I explain my position to you? How dare you! [/fake outrage] Does that mean that I can disregard everything you told me about your position as well?
Of course we can "investigate" that topic... I would love to know how you suggest we do that.

I have answered to Archaeopteryx in post #639, which might be useful. Please let me know if it helps or not, and why.

What you explained in this post rests on the premise that you believe all that... which neither an unbeliever nor a "lapsed" believer does. There is no objectively testable piece of information in that.
In a reliable test, a certain procedure will get me a certain result even if I do not initially believe that. That is missing here.

No, you have assumed this. You are committing association fallacy.

So, what other options did you include? Any thing that goes beyond "you did it wrong?" The option "the car is broken" perhaps?

No, you did exclude this option. The blame has to be with the tester... it cannot be with the tested object or the testing procedure.

No, I see a false cause here.

I explained how and why your analogy is false. You did nothing but claim that I am wrong. Not helping, again.

 

[Chris B]

... deep down they know that the world cannot just create itself there has to be a creator. Kent Hovind explains it all too well.

Err, no. I know nothing of the kind. It may not be intuitively obvious, but then neither is the whole quantum world. It just is.

And Kent Hovind of all people!

 

[Chris B]

God is open to all of his children, he loves each one us with a divine affection.

"Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
See particularly Paul's handling of this in Romans 9.

 

[Chris B]

Our TRUE GOD'S LOVE is from HEAVEN ABOVE, HE LOVES Ye All Forever through HIS SON YESHUA-JESUS CHRIST!!

Romans 3:23
“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God,”
We all have sin in our hearts. We all were born with sin...

Yes, I used to believe that. Then I studied the bible, its history and that of the Christian church.
I discovered there was an awful lot I had not been taught, alongside oft-quoted passages.
I started out only wanting to teach and share Christianity with greater accuracy (James 3:1 in mind)
I ended up roughly five years later becoming an atheist, as the only position I could hold with a clear conscience.

 

[Chris B]

Atheist have an idea of God but he doesn't live down to it, so they conclude that he does not exist because he wont make exceptions to the accidents of time in a material cosmos.

How can there be accidents in a universe with an omnipotent God?
There seem two basic choices: the arrangement of craters on the moon is either due to happenstance, (including chaotic motion of asteroids) or the pattern is exactly as it was intended to be.
If the former, then the events such as the extinction of the dinosaurs are by chance, which weakens or destroys the case for a divine hand.
If the latter, then sometimes hurling massive rocks at the Earth is a matter of deliberate policy and design. Hmm.

 

[Chris B]

These sweet non believers know somewhere deep in their heart that there is an ultimate being.

Oh no, one more failed Christian psychic. Assured of the ability to read my mind, evidence to the most marked contrary is then produced.

I find the concept of NO ultimate being behind the universe something quite thinkable, given observation of the parts of it to hand.
Shakespeare didn't find it unthinkable either, being able to conceive of life as "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
And he could put that in a play with seemingly little or no risk of being thought ridiculous, whether it was his actual belief or not.

 

[oi_antz]

This is not true. I do understand, I am attempting to identify and categorise the cause of the failure.

Why would you assume there is failure involved, if someone comes to a different conclusion than you?

I am happy to use a more appeasing word. Will you suggest one?

simply set up a trap for all humankind such as they all are accused for high treason even if they had no part of it and then torture them for eternity for that) .

Who taught you this, and can you please provide the scriptural basis for these beliefs? I do not accept these words because they appear to represent beliefs that are not derived from authentic Christian teaching, as the bible documents.

Well, it's a pretty long list. You could start at the Book of Genesis, but of course there's the main tenets of the belief system too; virgin birth and resurrection. I'm really not looking to discuss or debate it with you, but they're some of the more glaringly obvious ones that come to mind.

OK, I will respect that you don't want to discuss it. I don't mind your example of Genesis or virgin birth with this regard. But can you please describe why you are confident to believe the resurrection is not objectively believable?

As far I can tell, many people have performed the test and gotten a result other than Christianity.

That is not unexpected, tbh. All that is expected is that He will respond. There is no promise in that quote that any faith will be produced.

As I recall, you stated that the test can be performed by anyone and that it will produce the desired result. I'm testing this claim by asking you what would happen if someone who was never exposed to Christianity performed the test. I think your test is culturally biased. It won't work for everyone because it requires cultural familiarity with Christianity, and even in individuals for whom it should work, it doesn't guarantee the desired result.

Maybe the first part of the test will answer this: "if anyone hears me knocking".

That doesn't really address my question. I asked you what the test entails practically, and your answer seemed to suggest that it involves reading the Bible and prayer. Well, I've done that, and I am no longer a Christian.

Were you a Christian at the time, and did Jesus respond at the time as He said He would? Also, how many times have you heard Him knocking and invited Him in?

Yes, I know that's your claim, and you are wrong. The test doesn't produce the same result for everyone and it doesn't produce proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Did you feel that way at the time, or did you come to this opinion later?

 

[oi_antz]

So here you are, stating that you don't say inconsistent things... but you think that you don't have to explain it. This isn't helping.

I thought it was explained by a previous response in 637 where I responded to Gill's idea that he and I were not agreeing.

Yes, you did. But I think you missed the importance of this statement.
Whenever you describe your experiences, they are based on your existing positions and beliefs. You interprete them under these existing conditions.
I do the same, but my preconditions are different. That is why we come to different conclusions.

The way to disolve this dilemma would be to find an objective baseline from which to start. Or to present objective evidence for one side or the other. But in regard to deities, such a thing does not exist. It is all subjective, all interpretation, all in the mind.

That doesn't make me right and you wrong. But it makes me at least as right as you... and while I cannot present objective evidence for the non-existence of deities, I can at least give reasons for my doubt in this existence.

OK.

The only thing I take "personally" here our respective positions. These are personal. You explained what you thought. I don't think this way. How would I be able to follow your reasoning, when I don't support your premisses?

OK. I thought you had taken it personally but I read it now, I see that might have been read wrong. It takes effort to follow reasoning when you do not support someone's premises. I discovered this morning in fact, with some missionaries getting frustrated by me as our progress is painfully slow. We discovered the fault is, they have been trying to ensure that I accept their views as we progress through their material. But what we have found consistently is that later information in the course material provides the answers to most of the questions I raise. So we are going to try a different approach: make sure I understand the information instead of accepting it. We might just get somewhere if we do that! Plus it is going to be difficult for me, as I will need to accept it to some extent, even briefly or temporarily, in order to understand it, and that is going to make me want to ask questions, so yeah I wonder if it will even work at all..

What, you doubt me when I explain my position to you? How dare you! [/fake outrage] Does that mean that I can disregard everything you told me about your position as well?
Of course we can "investigate" that topic... I would love to know how you suggest we do that.

can you please tell me what the reason was that made you think it would b difficult?

What you explained in this post rests on the premise that you believe all that... which neither an unbeliever nor a "lapsed" believer does. There is no objectively testable piece of information in that.
In a reliable test, a certain procedure will get me a certain result even if I do not initially believe that. That is missing here.

I think you have departed from the specific test prescription.

So, what other options did you include? Any thing that goes beyond "you did it wrong?" The option "the car is broken" perhaps?

Oh, sorry, the test is meant to be performed with a working car. Thank you for reporting this mistake.

No, you did exclude this option. The blame has to be with the tester... it cannot be with the tested object or the testing procedure.

Correct. It is am test that produces a result affirming that a functional car when placed in gear and accelerated will produce movement. If that does not happen, the test has not been performed properly.

I explained how and why your analogy is false. You did nothing but claim that I am wrong. Not helping, again.

I think you have missed the point. I think that is more unhelpful, tbh. The point is plain, clear, obvious and right. I must apologise for having given you an example test that has not been sufficiently reviewed. That particular test is not yet used in production, it was just handy at the time

 

[Chris B]

We as Christians know the truth ,....

Oh dear, failure of theory of mind.
Try seeing a sincere believing Muslim or Hindu or... saying "We, as [insert faith here] know the truth.

It is a natural but dangerous thing to give priority or exceptional authority to one's own perspective or standpoint.
Yes, we assume our beliefs are true for making day to day decisions and choices: that's simply necessary, a lot of the time.
But to forget that's what we are doing when working in any area where the difference between belief and reality is up for question, that's unfortunate.
"We, as Christians, believe we know the truth " is nothing I can in the slightest object to.
"We as Christians know the truth" is a statement of an entirely different order, requiring the most rigorous evidential support if I am to take it seriously.

Chris

 

[Gottservant]

In answer to the title...

...we're more popular than the Devil.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That is not unexpected, tbh. All that is expected is that He will respond. There is no promise in that quote that any faith will be produced.

This seems different to what you claimed earlier.

Maybe the first part of the test will answer this: "if anyone hears me knocking".

?

Were you a Christian at the time, and did Jesus respond at the time as He said He would? Also, how many times have you heard Him knocking and invited Him in?

Yes, I was a Christian at the time, and yes, I believed that what I felt "in my heart" was a response.

 

[Freodin]

I thought it was explained by a previous response in 637 where I responded to Gill's idea that he and I were not agreeing.

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 must have said it a dozen times over the years: "God offers my salvation? Fine... then I am saved. I am still an atheist though." Christians cannot accept that. They need to insert their "acceptence" into this spiel.

OK. I thought you had taken it personally but I read it now, I see that might have been read wrong. It takes effort to follow reasoning when you do not support someone's premises. I discovered this morning in fact, with some missionaries getting frustrated by me as our progress is painfully slow. We discovered the fault is, they have been trying to ensure that I accept their views as we progress through their material. But what we have found consistently is that later information in the course material provides the answers to most of the questions I raise. So we are going to try a different approach: make sure I understand the information instead of accepting it. We might just get somewhere if we do that! Plus it is going to be difficult for me, as I will need to accept it to some extent, even briefly or temporarily, in order to understand it, and that is going to make me want to ask questions, so yeah I wonder if it will even work at all..

Whatever works for you... it didn't work for me.

can you please tell me what the reason was that made you think it would b difficult?

I did not say anything about it "being difficult". I have no idea of how you would approach that topic, so how am I to establish whether it will be difficult?
So what do you propose? I state that I have no desire to sin... you claim the opposite. How are you going to back up your position?

I think you have departed from the specific test prescription.

Oh, sorry, the test is meant to be performed with a working car. Thank you for reporting this mistake.

Your test is meant to be performed on a working God. How do we establish that we have a working car / God? That was what the test was meant to establish, wasn't it?

Correct. It is am test that produces a result affirming that a functional car when placed in gear and accelerated will produce movement. If that does not happen, the test has not been performed properly.

Yes... and that presupposes that we have a "functional car". This presupposition is missing from the divine test.

Have you ever asked the Invisible Pink Unicorn to reveal herself to you? You are not reluctant to take this test, are you?
So if you do, and nothing happens... what do you conclude: that there isn't any Invisible Pink Unicorn to answer your calls... or that there is, and you asked in the wrong way?

 

[Bex.]

OK, I will respect that you don't want to discuss it. I don't mind your example of Genesis or virgin birth with this regard. But can you please describe why you are confident to believe the resurrection is not objectively believable?

Resurrection isn't supernatural enough for me to find it unbelievable?

 

[oi_antz]

This seems different to what you claimed earlier.

I noticed that too. I think I got sidetracked by Cearbhall. Then when I saw the problem you identified here, I had to figure out what made it a problem. It is that the exact claim is not being addressed. So I have had to bring it back to the fore.

?

I cannot guess what you want this to mean to me.

Yes, I was a Christian at the time, and yes, I believed that what I felt "in my heart" was a response.

OK. Will you say the test worked for you? If not, please explain why. It seems to me, that if you heard Him knocking, opened the door to Him, and shared a meal with Him, the test worked.

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 have not followed this, because you have suggested that God makes a person do something. I don't know what that thing is, or what I have said that it relates to.

I must have said it a dozen times over the years: "God offers my salvation? Fine... then I am saved. I am still an atheist though." Christians cannot accept that. They need to insert their "acceptence" into this spiel.

Do you think I am doing that? Why do you think a Christian is motivated to do this?

Whatever works for you... it didn't work for me.

I hope it does work for me. I feel like I have been misunderstanding their position because of the traditional views ofmsubstitutionary atonement I have been exposed to, and the words they are using triggering me to think that is what they believe. But as I dig into it, it seems more like I have misjudged them by doing this, so now I should be looking to learn their point of view. I only realised this today.

I did not say anything about it "being difficult". I have no idea of how you would approach that topic, so how am I to establish whether it will be difficult?

It requires that you are to prove that you do not desire to sin. That would be superhuman.

So what do you propose? I state that I have no desire to sin... you claim the opposite. How are you going to back up your position?

I will ask you for a start, do you ever have sinful desires? Have you ever had sinful desires? If you answer yes, then no further proof is necessary. If you answer no, then I will begin investigating whether you are being deliberately dishonest or whether you have not understood what sin is.

Your test is meant to be performed on a working God. How do we establish that we have a working car / God? That was what the test was meant to establish, wasn't it?

It is not an analogy of how to perform the test. It is an example of how a test will produce expected results when properly performed, and vice versa.

Yes... and that presupposes that we have a "functional car". This presupposition is missing from the divine test.

Well, you are right. You will need to change your basic assumption about Him to perform this test.

Have you ever asked the Invisible Pink Unicorn to reveal herself to you? You are not reluctant to take this test, are you?
So if you do, and nothing happens... what do you conclude: that there isn't any Invisible Pink Unicorn to answer your calls... or that there is, and you asked in the wrong way?

IPU has not made this claim so it is a straw man argument. You are making many logical mistakes, is that unusual?

 

[TheBarrd]

And what do you think will happen with the people which do not believe after they die?

I'm not on the committee that makes those kinds of executive decisions. I'm just a simple Barrd.

 

[Colter]

Wasn't Jesus the one who said he was for the weak, the oppressed, those who feel they aren't being heard? Familiar with liberation theology? Ironically came from slaves who used the pretense of religion to note that they shouldn't be slaves to humans, but, at most, slaves to a God that actually values their freedom in a meaningful sense.

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.

 

[oi_antz]

Resurrection isn't supernatural enough for me to find it unbelievable?

What do you believe is the right explanation for the empty tomb and the accounts of those who claim to have witnessed Him? Are you saying that you automatically assume that supernatural is unbelievable? Is that the right thing to do? (Sorry to make you discuss this, I am trying to respect your wishes, just I have these questions, and thank you for your attention).