Double Minded Atheist

[viole]

Whether he meant it literally or not, he still used it as a figure of speech.

Let me chack it out. His latest reply does not seem to confirm your theory.

By the way, how can something literally be a figure of speech?

Ciao

- viole

 

[SkepticThinker]

You will never see the evidence by staring in from the outside. Christianity is an individual relationship with Christ not a weekly event a someone's church.A person must first KNOW him in order to experience Him.

So you say.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

You will never see the evidence by staring in from the outside. Christianity is an individual relationship with Christ not a weekly event a someone's church.A person must first KNOW him in order to experience Him.

You can fly if you really believe it. If you fell, you didn't believe hard enough.

 

[LuisDantas]

For some unknown reason you already know the answer. Yes. God made us.

I know the answer that you want. I do not know that the question makes any sense, let alone the answer you propose.

As a matter of fact, I don't think "God" has any explanative power whatsoever. One of the reasons for the existence of the concept is to take the appearance of an explanation, but it can never truly be one.

 

[viole]

Who says that.

You. Unless, you tell me what else you mean with "beginning of time".

Ciao

- viole

 

[Willamena]

Let me chack it out. His latest reply does not seem to confirm your theory.

By the way, how can something literally be a figure of speech?

Ciao

- viole

Something is literally a figure of speech if it's used in that context.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Humans don't even need photos to realize that a famous spot exists in Paris because they can trust witnessing from other humans by faith. That's the most efficient way for humans to get to a truth of any kind.

Your talking about something being accepted on a provisional basis.

Its not actual truth of course, until comfirmation is established that it's indeed the case in fact.

In the case of Paris, all one has to do is actually go there first hand. Might take awhile depending where one lives. "0)

That's the problem. They are wanting and earthly result to a spiritual belief.

I suppose earthly books, scriptures, one's own physical voice and pen, abodes of worship and congregation will be taken out of the running.

Interesting.

Suppose everyone remained completely silent and refrains from any and all type of earthly mediums of contact and communication whatsoever. Nothing.

What would the result be?

 

[g2perk]

Your talking about something being accepted on a provisional basis.

Its not actual truth of course, until comfirmation is established that it's indeed the case in fact.

In the case of Paris, all one has to do is actually go there first hand. Might take awhile depending where one lives. "0)



I suppose earthly books, scriptures, one's own physical voice and pen, abodes of worship and congregation will be taken out of the running.

Interesting.

Suppose everyone remained completely silent and refrains from any and all type of earthly mediums of contact and communication whatsoever. Nothing.

What would the result be?

In not sure you understand. I believe we were talking about having evidence that God exist. God does not show evidence in a way that you are use to seeing. God shows evidences in a spiritual manner.

 

[g2perk]

@g2perk Why should an atheist believe god exist? How will that benefit him and how will this belief in god overrule his view of life without any such existent deity?

Since many atheist don't believe god exists, what can you give them (or what can you offer to them from god) that would change their mind of how they view life?

It's like of like this. I'm partial visioned. If I were born blind-no vision-and you came up to me and said "I can give you eyes to help you see?" What does that mean to me in the world of my reality? What is the benefit of "seeing?" to someone who is born blind?

Even better example. Deaf people are not a community because of their inability to hear. Many are born without hearing in one degree or another; however, their connection with other people of like experiences and shared culture takes away the hearing-culture's view of "you must hear" to more of living through communication not just voice (as hearing) but with Deaf, all aspects of the word-some voice, body language, and sign.

What benefits of hearing can benefit a Deaf person when a Deaf person's center of communication isn't based on inability to hear?

Compared to god...

A person whose be blind all their life or someone who is Deaf (upper case) I compare to an atheist. Someone who has full vision nad full hearing are people who believe in god.

What can you-who believe in god--offer an atheist to where he or she benefits from something that has never been a apart of that said atheist reality in his whole life?

How can the bible, words of other people, etc give proof that there is a god?

That is like saying to a blind person: "Well, John in 34 B.C. says the color red exists. Jesus says it's the color white. So it must be true."

What does that mean to that blind person?

What does that mean to an atheist?

Serious questions. How do you make something a part of someone's reality where it never and will never exists? That, and why would you or any christian think he is missing out on something that you have that, because of how he views the world, he can live life in the same happy manner without it?

I see your point. So you are saying what benefit does the gospel have to someone that never had it and is happy and content with the life they are living now.

Well I would have to say Eternal Salvation is the ultimate goal. Lets say you guys are wrong about God, heaven and hell. Wouldn't that be a waste of life here on earth. Even if you were the most successful person on this earth but didn't care about your soul you would lose out on eternal happiness. This is what God says. " If you deny me before men I will deny you before my father". This goes for everyone Christians included.

 

[Quintessence]

In not sure you understand. I believe we were talking about having evidence that God exist. God does not show evidence in a way that you are use to seeing. God shows evidences in a spiritual manner.

What is "spiritual" evidence? What is "spiritual?"

Well I would have to say Eternal Salvation is the ultimate goal. Lets say you guys are wrong about God, heaven and hell. Wouldn't that be a waste of life here on earth.

Why would it be? Why is the value of life conditional on an afterlife? That is a very strange way of thinking to me.

By the way, did you see my earlier post? Are you choosing not to answer those questions? It's okay if you aren't, I'm just not sure if you saw my post at all.

 

[g2perk]

Can I ask you a few questions to clarify where you're coming from on this? How do you feel about the human ability to know things just in general? Do you feel that humans can know anything with certainty? Do you feel that any human knowledge can be the "definitive answer" as you put it? If so, why? If not, why not? How does this "knowing" stuff work, in your opinion?

I see it now

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I see your point.

Thank you.

So you are saying what benefit does the gospel have to someone that never had it and is happy and content with the life they are living now.

Yes, from the atheist perspective not the Christian's.

Well I would have to say Eternal Salvation is the ultimate goal. Lets say you guys are wrong about God, heaven and hell. Wouldn't that be a waste of life here on earth.

No. It wouldn't be a waste of time. For example, I'm an atheist-I don't believe entities meant to be worshiped-exist. I live my life with the help of the spirits and ancestors. I follow The Buddha's law and understanding of rebirth-life/death-cause/effect. I find value in it and it shapes and defines how I see reality.

I don't see that as a waste of my time. Many atheist have things they value whether or not they are religious. From the atheist perspective, it isn't a waste of time.

Can you see that from their perspective? Even if it doesn't make sense to you, can you see how it does to them?

Also...

What if you are incorrect? It doesn't mean you are not saved today. Your experiences are real and so forth. I just find being uncomfortable with uncertainty (the point of The Buddha's teachings, actually) will help a lot. Claiming certainty that god doesn't take into consideration like with anything else, you could be wrong.

Can you see yourself being wrong? If not, how would that matter in this present moment if it were not true? Would that change your relationship with Christ? Why? and how?

Even if you were the most successful person on this earth but didn't care about your soul you would lose out on eternal happiness. This is what God says. " If you deny me before men I will deny you before my father". This goes for everyone Christians included.

That's from your perspective. Not all atheists are materialist just because they don't believe in the Christian god. I believe I have a soul. I believe in spirits. I believe that happiness comes from within not from without. I can't depend on external means-god or not-for my spiritual well-being. The Spirits help me and it's up to me to see the lessons they give.

Also, why would an atheist need to be saved? Again, from his perspective rather than a Christian's.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Chances are better

Well, I see I won't be getting an answer, but that's ok. I will just skip to the point.

You say the 'chances are better ' of your god existing than Zeus, while I say the 'chances are better ' that none of the thousands of mutually exclusive man made gods exist, including your own.

 

[g2perk]

Can I ask you a few questions to clarify where you're coming from on this? How do you feel about the human ability to know things just in general? Do you feel that humans can know anything with certainty? Do you feel that any human knowledge can be the "definitive answer" as you put it? If so, why? If not, why not? How does this "knowing" stuff work, in your opinion?

I think that our human ability to know things are limited to our education and culture when it comes to worldly issues. As for knowing things with certainty that comes from facts if dealing with worldly issues.

As you can tell these are two different aspects of life. One can only know what is taught but when God is involved He gives you revelation. Which is a divine or supernatural disclosure to humans of something relating to human existence.

 

[Laika]

To believe or not to believe that is the question. There are many atheist that proclaim to Know for certain that God doesn't exist. Most of these individuals ride the coat tails of George Lemaitre and Charles Darwin as if any of these men were died hard atheist. The truth of the matter is neither one of these men denounced God. George balanced his life with God and science and Darwin instead of saying there is no God, just kept silent and stated " In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God."

Evolution, as a continuation of the theory of transmutation of species, discredited the biblical account of Genesis. It also unseated humanity as having a "special" place in the universe as made in the image of God both as members of the animal kingdom and from being descended from apes. Evolution of was not the "proof" for atheism but critically weakened faith in the bible.
Those atheists who claimed to "know" there was no god were few and few between. They were helped by the reaction to evolution by natural selection, but themselves represented a different strand of thinking represented by materialism. At a time of immense industrial change and scientific progress, the belief that science could answer all questions- including those relating to the existence of God- meant that atheism was more acceptable (at least among the educated classes anyway). Whilst evolution is a materialistic explanation for the origin of species, it is not confirmation for materialism as a philosophy as a whole as a basis for atheism as a claim based on knowledge.

Latter re-evaluations on the scope and role of science as a path to knowledge in the mid twentieth century- as part of an intellectual and moral crisis resulting from attempts to apply scientific methods to totalitarian politics in both Nazi Germany and the USSR- meant there was a retreat away from atheism as a claim based on knowledge because this shift strengthened the view that knowledge of God was impossible. Most atheists nowadays therefore do not claim to "know" there is no God.

 

[Skwim]

In not sure you understand. I believe we were talking about having evidence that God exist. God does not show evidence in a way that you are use to seeing. God shows evidences in a spiritual manner.

Interesting, but what are your criteria for judging the validity of evidence in a spiritual manner? Or is all such evidence valid?

On another note, your argument is quickly turning circular here: God exists because god says he exists. Want to to stick with this?


.

 

[g2perk]

Evolution, as a continuation of the theory of transmutation of species, discredited the biblical account of Genesis. It also unseated humanity as having a "special" place in the universe as made in the image of God both as members of the animal kingdom and from being descended from apes. Evolution of was not the "proof" for atheism but critically weakened faith in the bible.
Those atheists who claimed to "know" there was no god were few and few between. They were helped by the reaction to evolution by natural selection, but themselves represented a different strand of thinking represented by materialism. At a time of immense industrial change and scientific progress, the belief that science could answer all questions- including those relating to the existence of God- meant that atheism was more acceptable (at least among the educated classes anyway). Whilst evolution is a materialistic explanation for the origin of species, it is not confirmation for materialism as a philosophy as a whole as a basis for atheism as a claim based on knowledge.

Latter re-evaluations on the scope and role of science as a path to knowledge in the mid twentieth century- as part of an intellectual and moral crisis resulting from attempts to apply scientific methods to totalitarian politics in both Nazi Germany and the USSR- meant there was a retreat away from atheism as a claim based on knowledge because this shift strengthened the view that knowledge of God was impossible. Most atheists nowadays therefore do not claim to "know" there is no God.

Discredited the bible. Please. Try again. No one has ever discredited the bible and never will. Just because you make assumptions does not mean the bible is not true. Every word is true. But you have to understand the meaning of all words and what they meant.

 

[LuisDantas]

Discredited the bible. Please. Try again. No one has ever discredited the bible and never will. Just because you make assumptions does not mean the bible is not true. Every word is true. But you have to understand the meaning of all words and what they meant.

Wishful thinking much?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Discredited the bible. Please. Try again. No one has ever discredited the bible and never will. Just because you make assumptions does not mean the bible is not true. Every word is true. But you have to understand the meaning of all words and what they meant.

It discredited a literal interpretation of the Genesis account. However, the vast majority of Christians (and Jews) view taking the literalist position quite silly (after all, the 6,000 year old Earth is a fairly recent view) Like saying that your faith will literally cause you to gain the power to move mountains. Or that being faithful means you're immune to snake bites. Or that there will literally be four horsemen of the apocalypse.

 

[g2perk]

It discredited a literal interpretation of the Genesis account. However, the vast majority of Christians (and Jews) view taking the literalist position quite silly (after all, the 6,000 year old Earth is a fairly recent view) Like saying that your faith will literally cause you to gain the power to move mountains. Or that being faithful means you're immune to snake bites. Or that there will literally be four horsemen of the apocalypse.

Again. Not all of the bible is to be taken literal. If you read and understand what Jesus is telling the Jews ( which was his enemy by the way) then you would be able to see that. Its clear as day. Some things are literal and some are metaphorical. Which ones you ask. Read the gospels. Do you know which books are the gospels.