Why are there so many atheists on a Christian site?

[bhsmte]

What are you asking me to demonstrate?

Two things:

The test you keep talking about in regards to people who have left Christianity.

The other is the statement you made about determining whether someone loves the truth and you stated, it is obvious if someone loves the truth or not. So, what is your reliable test to determine if someone loves truth or not, since it is so obvious.

 

[Freodin]

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

Yes. You said you read a book that had you admit that you were not an atheist. You said that you were given a verse as "proof for God" that "made the penny drop".
So what were they?

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

I am not in the presence of the holy God. I feel no shame about it. I see no reason to feel shame, nor do I see any reason to feel shame in the presence of the holy God. So why would this shame that I am not feeling keep me from 'opening the door'?

 

[oi_antz]

Two things:

The test you keep talking about in regards to people who have left Christianity.

I have not made such a claim. I have said that if someone wishes to have evidence of God, they can perform that test.

The other is the statement you made about determining whether someone loves the truth and you stated, it is obvious if someone loves the truth or not. So, what is your reliable test to determine if someone loves truth or not, since it is so obvious.

I know what is true and what is not, because I love the truth. Don't you?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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?

Hang on, this test sounds awfully biased. If you already believe that you are having a conversation with Jesus then that would suggest that you are most likely already a Christian, in which case the test will of course yield the desired result. In fact, in such a situation the test is superfluous; it doesn't lead you to Christianity; you are already a Christian. "Opening the door" is not the appropriate metaphor in this case, since you are already a believer, and not because you took the test. In summary then, your test is biased because to apply it properly one must already believe in Jesus. If the desired result already precedes the test, and is necessary for the test to work properly, then of what utility is the test?

 

[oi_antz]

Yes. You said you read a book that had you admit that you were not an atheist. You said that you were given a verse as "proof for God" that "made the penny drop".
So what were they?

I don't have enough faith to be an atheist ( I have not read it) and "do not trust every spirit but test them to see if they have come from God. Because many false spirits have gone into the world. This is how you can identify the spirit of the antichrist: any spirit that does not a knowledge that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is the spirit of the Antichrist. You have heard that this spirit is coming and ev n now it is in the world.

I am not in the presence of the holy God. I feel no shame about it. I see no reason to feel shame, nor do I see any reason to feel shame in the presence of the holy God. So why would this shame that I am not feeling keep me from 'opening the door'?

Similar to walking down the street naked.

 

[bhsmte]

I have not made such a claim. I have said that if someone wishes to have evidence of God, they can perform that test.

I know what is true and what is not, because I love the truth. Don't you?

Evasion much?

Does this mean, you can not demonstrate and verify, that you have a means to test whether someone loves the truth or not?

You keep questioning another poster on these boards who left Christianity about a certain test they should have performed and you were not satisfied with them performing this test. Please demonstrate the reliability of this test for us.

 

[oi_antz]

Hang on, this test sounds awfully biased. If you already believe that you are having a conversation with Jesus then that would suggest that you are most likely already a Christian, in which case the test will of course yield the desired result. In fact, in such a situation the test is superfluous; it doesn't lead you to Christianity; you are already a Christian. "Opening the door" is not the appropriate metaphor in this case, since you are already a believer, and not because you took the test. In summary then, your test is biased because to apply it properly one must already believe in Jesus.

Well, it does require that you have been informed and have acted to invite him. You call that bias, if you want.

 

[oi_antz]

Evasion much?

Does this mean, you can not demonstrate and verify, that you have a means to test whether someone loves the truth or not?

You keep questioning another poster on these boards who left Christianity about a certain test they should have performed and you were not satisfied with them performing this test. Please demonstrate the reliability of this test for us.

Yes it is true I cannot convince someone to accept then truth if ntheyndo not wish to. It does not mean I too am so constrained.

 

[oi_antz]

Yes it is true I cannot convince someone to accept then truth if ntheyndo not wish to. It does not mean I too am so constrained.

What I have asked of cearbhall is for him to answer, not me. If you wish me to question you, I can do that instead.

 

[GillDouglas]

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.

Whom do you think opened the 'door' you speak about? How exactly did you come to know and accept Him? Was it your doing or was it God's? It seems to me the discussion that has evolved out of this thread has been failing to illustrate one simple truth and that is man cannot save himself. Apart from the grace that comes from God, there is no glad submission to His sovereign authority. There is no condition a man can meet before God chooses to save him. Man is dead in trespasses and sins, plain and simple. So to blame the individual for him not being chosen to saved by God seems a bit pointless.

For those to have claim to have known Him and reject Him were never chosen by Him. The implication is that God will so work that those whom He has chosen for eternal salvation will be enabled by Him to persevere in faith to the end and fulfill, by the power of the Holy Spirit, the requirements for obedience.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well, it does require that you have been informed

So what happens when one hasn't been informed? Recall my earlier question about the test being biased by cultural familiarity with Christianity. What happens when someone who hasn't been exposed to Christianity takes the test?

and have acted to invite him.

What does that entail practically? You mentioned reading the Bible and prayer as examples. Is there anything else?

You call that bias, if you want.

Perhaps superfluous would be a better description. If the test requires you to already believe in order to yield the desired result (belief in Christianity), then the test is of no value. It doesn't lead people to Christian beliefs; it only confirms extant Christian beliefs.

 

[Freodin]

I don't have enough faith to be an atheist ( I have not read it) and "do not trust every spirit but test them to see if they have come from God. Because many false spirits have gone into the world. This is how you can identify the spirit of the antichrist: any spirit that does not a knowledge that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is the spirit of the Antichrist. You have heard that this spirit is coming and ev n now it is in the world.

There seems to have been a little quotation-fail on your part, so I hope I do get this right...

The book is called "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist"... and you haven't read it? What a way to convert someone! Maybe I shouldn't read this book either... perhaps it will convert me.

And the verse is about testing the spirits... where the test is whether "they" say agrees with doctrine? Yeah, that sounds convincing.

I won't make any judgements about your previous position... I can just assert that as truth: you have never been an atheist like I am.

Similar to walking down the street naked.

The "shame" (what small shame there is) of walking down the street naked comes from my expectation of what others would think about me. I believe that others exist, and that they do make judgements about others.

I do not believe that there is a "holy God" who exists and makes judgement about my behaviour. So why would I feel shame here?

 

[bhsmte]

Yes it is true I cannot convince someone to accept then truth if ntheyndo not wish to. It does not mean I too am so constrained.

That wasn't my question and I think you know that.

You stated, it is obvious to tell whether someone loves the truth. So please demonstrate to us, what is your test to determine if someone loves the truth?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Whom do you think opened the 'door' you speak about? How exactly did you come to know and accept Him? Was it your doing or was it God's? It seems to me the discussion that has evolved out of this thread has been failing to illustrate one simple truth and that is man cannot save himself. Apart from the grace that comes from God, there is no glad submission to His sovereign authority. There is no condition a man can meet before God chooses to save him. Man is dead in trespasses and sins, plain and simple. So to blame the individual for him not being chosen to saved by God seems a bit pointless.

For those to have claim to have known Him and reject Him were never chosen by Him. The implication is that God will so work that those whom He has chosen for eternal salvation will be enabled by Him to persevere in faith to the end and fulfill, by the power of the Holy Spirit, the requirements for obedience.

Of course that raises the question of why a good God would create certain individuals knowing that they are destined to be eternally damned. How is that different to creating them for damnation? Isn't that cruel?

 

[bhsmte]

Well, it does require that you have been informed and have acted to invite him. You call that bias, if you want.

Yes, I would call that bias.

 

[Freodin]

Whom do you think opened the 'door' you speak about? How exactly did you come to know and accept Him? Was it your doing or was it God's? It seems to me the discussion that has evolved out of this thread has been failing to illustrate one simple truth and that is man cannot save himself. Apart from the grace that comes from God, there is no glad submission to His sovereign authority. There is no condition a man can meet before God chooses to save him. Man is dead in trespasses and sins, plain and simple. So to blame the individual for him not being chosen to saved by God seems a bit pointless.

For those to have claim to have known Him and reject Him were never chosen by Him. The implication is that God will so work that those whom He has chosen for eternal salvation will be enabled by Him to persevere in faith to the end and fulfill, by the power of the Holy Spirit, the requirements for obedience.

Let me try to understand this: on the one hand there is OI, who claims that Jesus wants to save me / be my friend / whatever. On the other hand there is you, who states that Jesus / God alone can achive that... nothing I do will ever suffice. And on the third hand there is me, who still isn't saved / friend of Jesus.

So either God does not want to be my friend / save me / open the door... or else he would have... or God does want to do that, and it is me not opening.

Is the Jesus that you both claim to know the same? Do you both love the truth? With two positions this diametrelly opposed, how can you both have the truth?

 

[Paulos23]

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?

Sorry, really late to the party here, but I would like to answer the OP.

When I came here I was a new skeptic and came to the evo\creo forum to test my new skills. At the time my beliefs where close to deist with a little bit of Christian left. Back then there was still a GA forum and lots of posters. Things where a little wild back then. But I got exposed to lots of different thoughts on religion and faith. Which led me to Atheism.

Now I stick around to try to understand the way Christians think, and to see if there is any new ideas or arguments. Once in a while there is a new one, but most of the time it is a rehash. None of them have made me change my position on God, yet.

 

[GillDouglas]

Of course that raises the question of why a good God would create certain individuals knowing that they are destined to be eternally damned. How is that different to creating them for damnation? Isn't that cruel?

I agree that this does seem crappy from our perspective. When I was an unbeliever I loathed to think that God would allow such things to happen. To help us understand it from another perspective, its best to look at a good book and its relationship with the author. The author gets to decide what happens to the characters, regardless of how we or even they feel about it. God is the Author and regardless of the 'good' and 'bad' that happens in this story, it's all for good reason. Who are we with such limited perspective to judge the Author?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I agree that this done seem crappy from our perspective. When I was an unbeliever I loathed to think that God would allow such things to happen. To help us understand it from another perspective its best to view a good book and its relationship with the author. The author gets to decide what happens to the characters, regardless of how we or even they feel about it. God is the Author and regardless of the 'good' and 'bad' that happens in this story, it's all for good reason. Who are we with such limited perspective to judge the Author?

Except we aren't talking about fiction. If you are correct, we are talking about the eternal fate of every soul ever created. Some souls have been created only to be damned to Hell forever. That isn't merely "bad," it's cruel. On this view we are nothing more than mere playthings.

 

[bhsmte]

I agree that this does seem crappy from our perspective. When I was an unbeliever I loathed to think that God would allow such things to happen. To help us understand it from another perspective by looking at a good book and its relationship with the author. The author gets to decide what happens to the characters, regardless of how we or even they feel about it. God is the Author and regardless of the 'good' and 'bad' that happens in this story, it's all for good reason. Who are we with such limited perspective to judge the Author?

What is the good reason this is all for?