Why are there so many atheists on a Christian site?

[Colter]

My point was not about the beliefs of bronze age people, but current modern belief of present living Christians. You seams to ignore the fact that my example with iron chariot was just an exmaple to highlight what it means to be inconsistent.



I don't care where Christian prefer to store their wine. The issue is if the Christian God is all-powerful or not, and how such notion of God fits in with modern Christians beliefs. For instance do you require that God must be logical self-consistent and if so why?

You are very hostle to my consessions, let me be more clear, the Bible books are for the most part man made, there are terrible inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

I am no longer a Christian, so you tell me: did the test work?

 

[Bex.]

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).

No, it's fine.

Supernatural is, by definition, unbelievable. Every mystery ever solved turned out to not be magic. In fairness, if you could prove the supernatural it would cease to be supernatural and just be natural, but then resurrection wouldn't be unbelievable, would it?

Regarding the tomb, I can only point to Ockham's razor as how best to approach that question. One must profess to not knowing the answer but whatever answer one reaches, it must have the fewest assumptions to be probable. Resurrection, as a supernatural event, is highly improbable and must therefore be ruled out next to other far more simpler explanations that do not require the supernatural. Like grave robbers, for instance.

 

[Colter]

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.

Accidents due to the freedom of will granted to subdeity creatures, but not a surprise to the infinite.

Omnipotence and Compossibility

"The omnipotence of Deity does not imply the power to do the nondoable. Within the time-space frame and from the intellectual reference point of mortal comprehension, even the infinite God cannot create square circles or produce evil that is inherently good. God cannot do the ungodlike thing. Such a contradiction of philosophic terms is the equivalent of nonentity and implies that nothing is thus created. A personality trait cannot at the same time be Godlike and ungodlike. Compossibility is innate in divine power. And all of this is derived from the fact that omnipotence not only creates things with a nature but also gives origin to the nature of all things and beings.

In the beginning the Father does all, but as the panorama of eternity unfolds in response to the will and mandates of the Infinite, it becomes increasingly apparent that creatures, even men, are to become God’s partners in the realization of finality of destiny. And this is true even in the life in the flesh; when man and God enter into partnership, no limitation can be placed upon the future possibilities of such a partnership. When man realizes that the Universal Father is his partner in eternal progression, when he fuses with the indwelling Father presence, he has, in spirit, broken the fetters of time and has already entered upon the progressions of eternity in the quest for the Universal Father.

Mortal consciousness proceeds from the fact, to the meaning, and then to the value. Creator consciousness proceeds from the thought-value, through the word-meaning, to the fact of action. Always must God act to break the deadlock of the unqualified unity inherent in existential infinity. Always must Deity provide the pattern universe, the perfect personalities, the original truth, beauty, and goodness for which all subdeity creations strive. Always must God first find man that man may later find God. Always must there be a Universal Father before there can ever be universal sonship and consequent universal brotherhood." UB 1955

 

[Freodin]

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

Several interconnected reasons. Basically, Christianity like any other religion is based on identification via group. It defines those within the group and those outside. In order to do that, there needs to be indentifiable characteristics for both sides. A truly sovereign God who alone "saves", without the participation of the "saved" would offer no such markers... so this cannot be accepted.

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.

Can you imagine that you would think different, if you were subjected to a group who teached and explained that "traditional views of substitutionary atonement"?

It requires that you are to prove that you do not desire to sin.

That now is difficult... potentially logically impossible. It's so much easier to show the opposite.

That would be superhuman.

That is a wrong deductive conclusion. You would have to show your premise to be correct first.

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.

What I "ever had" is irrelevant. I do not now, this is enough.

If you answer no, then I will begin investigating whether you are being deliberately dishonest or whether you have not understood what sin is.

Not that leads us into a connundrum: assuming that I am "deliberatly dishonest" (short: lying) is just a cop-out.
As for the understanding of "sin": maybe my understanding of sin is superior to yours?

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.

It is a false example... we have already shown that. A text will only produce expected results "when properly performed" AND is started from a accepted and verified point of origin.

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

Assumptions are fallible. In order to be used as a valid premise, they need to be verified (or axiomatic, which is not the case here). And verification is what we expect from the test... that would be circular reasoning, wouldn't it?

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

You need to change your basic assumptions about Her. Could it be that you are reluctant to take this test, because you like to keep your sinful ways?

 

[Colter]

No, it's fine.

Supernatural is, by definition, unbelievable. Every mystery ever solved turned out to not be magic. In fairness, if you could prove the supernatural it would cease to be supernatural and just be natural, but then resurrection wouldn't be unbelievable, would it?

Regarding the tomb, I can only point to Ockham's razor as how best to approach that question. One must profess to not knowing the answer but whatever answer one reaches, it must have the fewest assumptions to be probable. Resurrection, as a supernatural event, is highly improbable and must therefore be ruled out next to other far more simpler explanations that do not require the supernatural. Like grave robbers, for instance.

To God nothing is a miracle, to the lessor universe personalities there are few miracles such as the creator Son incarnate in the person of Jesus. To those mortals who witnessed the miracles of Jesus, they just didn't know how those things were done behind the scenes. To the Bantu tribe, a Tylenol would be a miracle or magic.

 

[Bex.]

To God nothing is a miracle, to the lessor universe personalities there are few miracles such as the creator Son incarnate in the person of Jesus. To those mortals who witnessed the miracles of Jesus, they just didn't know how those things were done behind the scenes. To the Bantu tribe, a Tylenol would be a miracle or magic.

You're trying to make magic or the supernatural relative. It's not.

 

[Colter]

You're trying to make magic or the supernatural relative. It's not.

Not relative to what? You are on a religious form among religious people for whom God is quite relative. Your skepticism is at least super-material.


"The acid test for any religious philosophy consists in whether or not it distinguishes between the realities of the material and the spiritual worlds while at the same moment recognizing their unification in intellectual striving and in social serving. A sound religious philosophy does not confound the things of God with the things of Caesar. Neither does it recognize the aesthetic cult of pure wonder as a substitute for religion.

Philosophy transforms that primitive religion which was largely a fairy tale of conscience into a living experience in the ascending values of cosmic reality." UB 1955

 

[oi_antz]

I am no longer a Christian, so you tell me: did the test work?

It seems that it did. Did you discuss anything with Him while He was your welcome guest?

 

[visionary]

Attraction brings atheists. Answering the heart felt questions keeps them coming. Meeting our Savior changes everything. Atheists are people who have not met Him.

 

[oi_antz]

No, it's fine.

Supernatural is, by definition, unbelievable. Every mystery ever solved turned out to not be magic. In fairness, if you could prove the supernatural it would cease to be supernatural and just be natural, but then resurrection wouldn't be unbelievable, would it?

Regarding the tomb, I can only point to Ockham's razor as how best to approach that question. One must profess to not knowing the answer but whatever answer one reaches, it must have the fewest assumptions to be probable. Resurrection, as a supernatural event, is highly improbable and must therefore be ruled out next to other far more simpler explanations that do not require the supernatural. Like grave robbers, for instance.

Ockham's razor does not work for grave robbers. I am not sure that supernatural is that which is unproven, but rather that which is not easily observable or controllable. Either way, you have given me sufficient information now to know why you have believed it is not objectively believable. But it seems to me that it is objectively believable. Genesis and virgin birth, OK I accept your position without question at this time.

 

[oi_antz]

Several interconnected reasons. Basically, Christianity like any other religion is based on identification via group. It defines those within the group and those outside. In order to do that, there needs to be indentifiable characteristics for both sides. A truly sovereign God who alone "saves", without the participation of the "saved" would offer no such markers... so this cannot be accepted.

Interesting view. Do you think this is a necessary result of being Christian, or just a common one?

Can you imagine that you would think different, if you were subjected to a group who teached and explained that "traditional views of substitutionary atonement"?

Sorry, this question doesn't make sense to me, but I will take am stab at it. If you are asking whether I should have expected any different than what I have, then no, I see my understanding of the words in these materials to be totally the result of what those words have been used to mean to me, as consistent patterns in my past. If you are asking if I am able to break that understanding and apply new meanings to the same words and phrases I an misunderstanding, yes I do think that is possible, but I will need educating accordingly. I expect these missionaries have used these words because they appeal naturally to those who accept substitutionary atonement doctrines. Most Christians are of that persuasion.

That now is difficult... potentially logically impossible. It's so much easier to show the opposite.

OK.

That is a wrong deductive conclusion. You would have to show your premise to be correct first.

OK, let's come back to that once we have agreed to a definition of sin.

What I "ever had" is irrelevant. I do not now, this is enough.

I do not agree with this. The reason I do not agree with it, is because sin is not a constant problem, but it is only a problem that occurs at times. Just as desiring fruit. If for some reason you found that desiring fruit was a problem, and sometimes you desired fruit, then your desire for fruit is a problem. You might not desire fruit right now, but you have in the past, and there is no real guarantee that you will not again desire fruit.

Not that leads us into a connundrum: assuming that I am "deliberatly dishonest" (short: lying) is just a cop-out.

Not necessarily. It sure is a common tactic for some people. In fact, I believe everyone does this to some extent sometimes. Eg, speeding when they know a police is not watching, yet when they see police, they will be honest about their speed. Because people calculate that the truth can be concealed, if the truth is not convenient to them, they can conveniently choose to conceal the truth, knowing they cannot be proven to be lying. I know it happens, so it definitely is not a cop-out. It is a serious possibility to be investigated.

As for the understanding of "sin": maybe my understanding of sin is superior to yours?

You have added a judgment to this that is not necessary, and it seems to indicate this probably is what you feel could be the right idea to investigate.

It is a false example... we have already shown that. A text will only produce expected results "when properly performed" AND is started from a accepted and verified point of origin.

You have not shown that it is a false example. You have shown that you are not following instructions properly, by using faulty equipment in your test.

Assumptions are fallible. In order to be used as a valid premise, they need to be verified (or axiomatic, which is not the case here). And verification is what we expect from the test... that would be circular reasoning, wouldn't it?

Yes. But it would produce proof beyond reasonable doubt, which you might have not had before performing the test.

You need to change your basic assumptions about Her. Could it be that you are reluctant to take this test, because you like to keep your sinful ways?

No, you need to stop using fallacies and use convincing arguments. IPU is designed to be a straw man.

 

[oi_antz]

Attraction brings atheists. Answering the heart felt questions keeps them coming. Meeting our Savior changes everything. Atheists are people who have not met Him.

Are you sure? I bet there is atheists who have rejected Him.

 

[visionary]

Are you sure? I bet there is atheists who have rejected Him.

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

 

[KCfromNC]

Have you successfully performed the test? I have.

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?

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.

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

 

[KCfromNC]

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

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

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It seems that it did. Did you discuss anything with Him while He was your welcome guest?

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.

 

[Colter]

Conditions of Effective Prayer

"If you would engage in effective praying, you should bear in mind the laws of prevailing petitions:

*You must qualify as a potent prayer by sincerely and courageously facing the problems of universe reality. You must possess cosmic stamina.

*You must have honestly exhausted the human capacity for human adjustment. You must have been industrious.

*You must surrender every wish of mind and every craving of soul to the transforming embrace of spiritual growth. You must have experienced an enhancement of meanings and an elevation of values.

*You must make a wholehearted choice of the divine will. You must obliterate the dead center of indecision.

*You not only recognize the Father’s will and choose to do it, but you have effected an unqualified consecration, and a dynamic dedication, to the actual doing of the Father’s will.

*Your prayer will be directed exclusively for divine wisdom to solve the specific human problems encountered in the Paradise ascension — the attainment of divine perfection.

* And you must have faith — living faith."​

UB 1955

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Conditions of Effective Prayer

"If you would engage in effective praying, you should bear in mind the laws of prevailing petitions:

*You must qualify as a potent prayer by sincerely and courageously facing the problems of universe reality. You must possess cosmic stamina.

*You must have honestly exhausted the human capacity for human adjustment. You must have been industrious.

*You must surrender every wish of mind and every craving of soul to the transforming embrace of spiritual growth. You must have experienced an enhancement of meanings and an elevation of values.

*You must make a wholehearted choice of the divine will. You must obliterate the dead center of indecision.

*You not only recognize the Father’s will and choose to do it, but you have effected an unqualified consecration, and a dynamic dedication, to the actual doing of the Father’s will.

*Your prayer will be directed exclusively for divine wisdom to solve the specific human problems encountered in the Paradise ascension — the attainment of divine perfection.

* And you must have faith — living faith."​

UB 1955

A very nebulous set of conditions. But I'm still confident that I would have satisfied them.

 

[Bex.]

Are you sure? I bet there is atheists who have rejected Him.

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.