Ever notice how atheists are virtually always on the opposite side from God on many issues?

[Valjean]

Repent and accept God's grace.
Quit making excuses and sitting on the fence, trying to over complicate things because you don't want to abide but the simple reality of it all - good and evil.

The reality is simple. No evidence = unreliable narrative.
First, establish the reality of this God. Second, establish what He is, His nature, power and and desires. Then you can begin making recommendations.

 

[Valjean]

Faith is wisdom - those without it will fail miserably in all the conclusions that they draw from life's evidences.
That's why there's different denominations - one's heart guides their perception

People have had faith for thousands of years, and this "wisdom" has generated thousands of conflicting narratives, and very little understanding of the world

Science has been the go-to modality for only one or two hundred years, and we've achieved more, intellectually and technologically, in this short period than in the entire period of faith-based 'wisdom'.

 

[Valjean]

Thus is probably the most nonsensical thing I’ll read all day.

Why? Atheism is a rational conclusion, is it not?
It's religion that is culturally and emotionally based, as opposed to atheism's reason, and logical analysis of demonstrable facts.
So how is atheism nonsensical?

 

[MonkeyFire]

The problem with evil is suffering, but if it is to save a female it is noble. God was never going to prevent suffering, in all his might he did create suffering so wrath can have a fighting chance, and so that lady sorrow may be delivered. Maybe God loves war more than your kushy little dream life. Moreover, a messiah can not be ruled out of the realm of possibilities. IMO the fallen truth will save us all. Thoughts?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Why? Atheism is a rational conclusion, is it not?
It's religion that is culturally and emotionally based, as opposed to atheism's reason, and logical analysis of demonstrable facts.
So how is atheism nonsensical?

What is nonsensical, is the suggestion that atheists - who are, by definition, universally human - are somehow immune from thinking emotionally or talking nonsensically.

 

[Windwalker]

What is nonsensical, is the suggestion that atheists - who are, by definition, universally human - are somehow immune from thinking emotionally or talking nonsensically.

Didn't you know that Atheism promises us salvation? Haven't you heard the good news?

 

[F1fan]

What is nonsensical, is the suggestion that atheists - who are, by definition, universally human - are somehow immune from thinking emotionally or talking nonsensically.

Who would suggest this that leads you to mention it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is nonsensical, is the suggestion that atheists - who are, by definition, universally human - are somehow immune from thinking emotionally or talking nonsensically.

Sorry, but you are wrong. It does not such thing. Where did you even come up with that idea?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who would suggest this that leads you to mention it?

He misinterpreted a post of mine where I refuted a silly verse from the Bible.

 

[RestlessSoul]

He misinterpreted a post of mine where I refuted a silly verse from the Bible.

By misrepresented, I think you mean quoted?

 

[Windwalker]

Who would suggest this that leads you to mention it?

I believe she was quoting from post #83 where this was stated:

"Why? Atheism is a rational conclusion, is it not?​

It's religion that is culturally and emotionally based, as opposed to atheism's reason, and logical analysis of demonstrable facts.​

So how is atheism nonsensical?"​

​

That is of course absurd. It is as much a statement of faith as the claims of theistic religion is. Only atheism is the rational conclusion about things we lack concrete evidence of? That's faith.

 

[F1fan]

​

That is of course absurd. It is as much a statement of faith as the claims of theistic religion is. Only atheism is the rational conclusion about things we lack concrete evidence of? That's faith.

How is it faith? Is it faith to acquit a person accused of a crime when there is no evidence for it? Atheism is the logical default to religious claims. Non-belief is where a rational mind should always begin when introduced to claims of truth. We rational beings should approach ideas with skepticism and seek evidence for them before we judge them true, or likely true.

Faith is trusting what others say is true without our own effort. This is how religion is installed in the minds of the young, along with other ideas, both true and false. Ideally adolescents should be taght critical thinking skills so they can assess and judge ideas independently and be accurate in their beliefs. As we see there are many folks who lack these skills, or have them but can't assess cultural ideas because it would cause an inner conflict, cognitive dissonance.

 

[F1fan]

Very few atheists make the error of thinking emotionally. So we are safe from that particular bit of nonsense.

Thus is probably the most nonsensical thing I’ll read all day.

Has it not occurred to you that it seems nonsensical because you don't use critical thinking yourself? Of course not, critical thinking is a skill that has to be learned and applied to understand truthful statements.

Critical thinking skill is the way out of magical thinking and belief, and without this skill those trapped in this can't understand that they are trapped. They think the trap is freedom.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Has it not occurred to you that it seems nonsensical because you don't use critical thinking yourself? Of course not, critical thinking is a skill that has to be learned and applied to understand truthful statements.

Critical thinking skill is the way out of magical thinking and belief, and without this skill those trapped in this can't understand that they are trapped. They think the trap is freedom.

And a little context. that remark was made specifically about the "one who believes in his heart there is no good . . . " nonsense. I do not know of any atheist that became an atheist due to emotions. I know that there is the rare atheist that is "mad at God", but those people do not tend to stay atheists. If one becomes an atheist for emotional reasons one is likely to go back to their God beliefs and say "I used to be an atheist". Most of the ex-Christian atheists became atheists in spite of their emotions. One's emotions are the usually the last barrier to atheism, they are very rarely the cause.

 

[Altfish]

There's a reason for that, but they cannot understand it due to spiritual blindness. It's not necessarily their fault. God doesn't permit everyone to believe in him - yet. In the end, ALL will believe and follow Jesus.

I'd say the opposite is true. Religious people are on the opposite side to atheists because they are stuck with religious dogmas and cannot adapt and change to reflect new evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By misrepresented, I think you mean quoted?

Quoting out of context is usually a misrepresentation.. There is even a term for it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Do you have an explanation for why some are not permitted to believe in God?

Like so many things in religion, "it's a mystery."

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

But two religions cannot be simultaneously true, unless one modifies its precepts. And, therefore, yes, of course, there is an absolute truth - do the principles of the universe change, are there not constants that dictate the weather, the seasons, all creature's gestation period, where food comes from, a herbivore or omnivore's diet, man's disposition towards one another?
Does the sentiment of greed ever change as we knew it several millennia ago, compared to what it is today? The same with love and hate, charity and abuse. Is racism a new concept, did torture or war ever cease to exist?

There are objective truths, and I don't mean that altruism or selfishness will always exist, but that the source behind them is precise and predictable. I say this due to the fact that wickedness is senseless, hypocritical and self-destructive - it defies our intellect and sense of pragmatism. Why then is it so prevalent, and again, anticipated. There is a catalyst behind these acts that does not follow the laws of nature, life or humanitarianism by necessity i.e. good and evil.

Something is very real, very consistent, very predictable. I know for sure, that come tomorrow, someone will fall in love with another, someone will abuse another, someone will have a nightmare, get drunk, obtain a degree, regret their actions, win a trophy. Life has rules, restrictions, limitations, savagery, and compassion. Is there anyone wise enough to establish absolutes based on all the information that we have before us?

I conclude that a divine Being exists, and that man is in need of a saviour. And that saviour is Jesus Christ.

What a strange analysis!

In what way does your conclusion follow from the arguments that precede it? I can see no connection whatever.

 

[Valjean]

What is nonsensical, is the suggestion that atheists - who are, by definition, universally human - are somehow immune from thinking emotionally or talking nonsensically.

Nobody's suggesting atheists are all Vulcans like Mr Spock, but withholding belief in something with no empirical evidence of existence is the only rational and logical position, is it not? This is the intellectual basis underlying atheism.

So, again, how is this reasonable lack of belief nonsensical?

 

[Valjean]

I believe she was quoting from post #83 where this was stated:

"Why? Atheism is a rational conclusion, is it not?​

It's religion that is culturally and emotionally based, as opposed to atheism's reason, and logical analysis of demonstrable facts.​

So how is atheism nonsensical?"​

​

That is of course absurd. It is as much a statement of faith as the claims of theistic religion is. Only atheism is the rational conclusion about things we lack concrete evidence of? That's faith.

Atheism has faith? Faith in what? Atheism has no beliefs or doctrine to have faith in. It makes no positive claims.

Again, faith is unwarranted belief. Withholding belief in something with no concrete or empirical evidence of existence is not an unwarranted belief, it is reasonable; in fact, it's the only rational conclusion.

If faith in God is rational or sensible, than so is belief in unicorns, Isis, and leprechauns, no? The empirical evidence is equal for each.