Those who believe there is no God live by faith

[3rdAngel]

3rdAngel said: ↑ How can I not understand it? I simply quoted the dictionary definition of athiesm. What is there to not understand? You have already told me elsewhere you do not beleive in the existence of God did you not?[/QUOTE]
Your response...

As a supposed Christian you really should not break the Ninth Commandment.

Pehaps you need to look up the definition of lying. How in your view is asking you a question on something you have said lying? Just thought I would post this again for fun since you accused me of lying just now...

3rdAngel said: ↑ So if you do not believe in God and you are an Athiest how can you believe in the existence God?

Your response...

Subduction Zone said: ↑ I don't believe in the existence of a god or gods.

From your post # 403 linked in your words in the closed thread "Setting the bible reader straight".

and again...

3rdAngel said: ↑ Sure but it was you that said you did not believe in God not me.

Your response...

Subduction Zone said: ↑ Right I do not believe in God. Or god. Do you believe in Allah? I don't. Is there a burden of proof upon you to prove that Allah does not exist? You might get this right.

From your post # 415 linked in your words in the closed thread "Setting the bible reader straight".

Seems you are not being honest again and simply digging a hole for yourself .

 

[3rdAngel]

My thought.....another useless thread where someone doesn't realize that religion is not about God.

Dwell on that thought for a bit.

And what is relgion about in your opinion and what religion are you talking about?

 

[3rdAngel]

First, thank you for an excellent and thoughtful post! I'm assuming you are traditional Bible based theist so I applaud you for having the guts to think deeply about your beliefs. So here are my answers to your questions.

Thanks for your informative post and the time you put into it dfnj. I will only reply to the sections I think are worth replying to or it may be too long.

People who are philosophical materialists usually take the position if there is no evidence for the existence of something then it simply does not exist. The problem is the way the atheists define the word "God" to be a certain way. Most theists do not share the same definition of God as the atheists. So both atheists and theists are always talking past each other.

Most atheists are philosophical materialists: Materialism - Wikipedia

Most theists are philosophical idealists: Idealism - Wikipedia

Most theists ideas about God are much bigger than the narrow-minded view of God atheists have. Most theists will argue all of existence is evidence and proof for the existence of God. Atheist reject this argument and dismiss it out of hand and do so for very specific reasons. Objects have boundaries. Atheists will not accept a definition of God not having precise boundaries. Most theists think of God as being both finite and infinite at the same time. God is both knowable and unknowable at the same time.

You might appreciate my thread on why atheists are just wrong about the Universe we live in:

Why atheism and atheists are just wrong

There is a lot ot truth in what you post here thanks for sharing.

Atheism is not a religion. Atheists define atheism as being someone who does not have a belief in god or gods.

Possibly as a technicality based on definition but even on this silly word there is so many different definitions. Although that aside my application here has a deeper meaning and that is that many athiests treat athiesm the same way as those who believe in God as their religion although the application is to those who do not believe in a God or gods or the existence of them.

3rdAngel said: ↑ 3. Now for those who do not believe in God and you have no evidence for this belief (faith)

Your response...

People who do not believe in god simply do not believe in god.... Your logic here is just wrong. There simply is no way to have evidence for not having a belief in God. Your words string together but do make any sense.

I disagree. Your actually agreeing with me in your very first sentence. "People who do not believe in god simply do not believe in god". Which ever way you want to spin it people that do not believe in God have a belief that there is no God. This is there belief and if they have no evidence for their belief their belief is not based on evidence but faith just the same as those who believe in God but cannot prove God exists.

Asking this question means YOU are the one who does not have faith in your own beliefs. If you truly had STRONG convictions in your own faith you would not care one iota what atheists think. It seems to me it is YOU who is doubting whether or not the scriptures are true. If your faith were true, then you would realize the only way to think the scriptures are "right" is by having faith in them.

Not at all my friend, you confuse my reasons for asking question which is based on faith in the existence of God and the non existence of God. If someone cannot prove that there is no God their belief is faith based just as much as those who believe in God due to the lack of evidence either side may have. If that is the case then if we are being honest with ourselves there is the possibilty that those things revealed to us from the scriptures are true. The fact that I am the minority here making this thread only demonstrates I do not care what athiests think. I freely admit that as a christian I live by faith as I cannot prove definitively that God exists although I have experienced God revealing himself to me personally. I am at peace with my faith and I believe the scriptures are Gods' Word as this is where I found God. As a christian I am here because I have a duty of love to share my faith with all that will hear. I am here because I love God and believe his Word and have a duty of love to share it with my fellow man.This is something that those who choose not to believe can never understand because they do not know God or his Word.

However, I do not agree with you God's judgments are something we must fear. I think it is just the opposite. God is a God of unconditional love. No matter what sins human beings commit against each other God sits back and continues to love everyone equally. If God did not do something with regards to the bombing Dresden during WWII then I think we are safe.

I guess it depends if you believe the bible or not. Although I do agree that God is a God of unconditional love and that is why he made the plan of salvation and has offered it as a free gift to all those who believe and follow his Word. I do disagree with you however God does indeed love the sinner but hates the sin. According to the scriptures sin separates us from God and our God is a consuming fire to sin where ever it is found. According to the scriptures Judgement is coming to this world. God is not willing that any of us should perish and that all of is come to a knowledge of the truth of God's Word and be saved. If there is only one way to be saved my friend are you confident you have found it and if so why?

Besides, in my mind a God who is to be feared is not a God worth worshiping. My faith in is a God of unconditional love. Everyone is loved. Everyone is sacred. Everyone is saved. If your fears are preventing you from accepting my way of thinking then it just means my faith in God is stronger than yours. Maybe I am wrong and it will end badly. How bad can it be it can't be worse than living in New Jersey! All I know is my faith is so strong I am not afraid of what scripture is saying I should fear. My faith in God's infinite love is stronger than your fear of scripture!!

I believe the scriptures teach both. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom and leads us to the cross of Chrsit that we might be forgiven by faith. It is sin that God is coming to put an end to and wherever sin is found will be consumed by the presnece of God. Those who accept the gift of God's dear son however have nothing to fear. Perfect love casts out all fear. They are safe in him and he in them and follow him because they love him and he gives them power to walk in newness of life.

I enjoyed this discussion with you my friend. Thanks for sharing. May God bless you as you seek him through his Word.

 

[3rdAngel]

@Everyone, sorry I was away for a bit and so far behind in this thread at the moment. I will try and catch up a little latter when I get some more time. Forgive me if I have not caught up to you yet and feel free to give me a nudge if you feel the need. Late my time now so thanks everyone for the great discussion. Will chat more latter.

 

[sojourner]

Ah so, god made us imperfect, so we can't understand his message without middlemen?

God made us perfectly human — the image of God, but not God. It is we who distort that image through our own misapprension.

 

[stvdv]

For me I guess it deopends if what you believe is right or wrong to begin with

Yes, that could be

Now according to the bible if you are ignorant then you have an excuse not to believe but if you have been shown the truth and reject God's Word and continue in unbelief you will be judged by your unbelief

Seems fair.
So, read no more than you can digest

continue in unbelief you will be judged by your unbelief

And only God knows His judgment
Become like children, to enter heaven
Innocence like a child seems a way to go

I know I am on the right track
Wish you a good journey with Jesus
Stick to His commands is all you can do

 

[sojourner]

So, what part has been missed and what the "storytellers" have added? Is there just a gap or a wide

The canon texts stop at about the year 125. I’d say there’s a fairly wide gap in the story between then and 2020 that needs authoring by something other than the Bible, wouldn’t you?

Is there any truth in it or the whole thing is Paul's and other peoples' build-up

I believe there is great truth in the story.

We do not have a video or audio of the God and Son of God

We contain the breath of God and we can remember the heartbeat of creation. And we have each others’ faces.

If the message is garbled or in knots why blame anyone else? Your God cannot do a simple thing right

If we misapprehend messages, that’ our doing.

Paul is neither God nor Son of God, why should anyone believe him

Mozart was neither God nor Son of God, why should anyone imagine that he created beauty?

He was just a snake-oil seller

If you like.

 

[sojourner]

This is the line with which shamans, priests, charlatans and founders of religions have instilled fear in the minds of humans. They have been very successful with it.

Many do; many don’t. Why fall into the falsehood of generalizing?

 

[sojourner]

in my mind a God who is to be feared is not a God worth worshiping. My faith in is a God of unconditional love. Everyone is loved. Everyone is sacred. Everyone is saved. If your fears are preventing you from accepting my way of thinking then it just means my faith in God is stronger than yours. Maybe I am wrong and it will end badly. How bad can it be it can't be worse than living in New Jersey! All I know is my faith is so strong I am not afraid of what scripture is saying I should fear

This ^^^

 

[Polymath257]

For me this argument can go both ways as both those who believe in God and those who do not both claim they have some evidence though like you state not conclusive. My question was asked to show that if you have no conclusive evidence for your belief then it is simply a belief based on faith no matter how you want to spin it.

And with all things, the issue is the weight of the evidence or lack thereof and not whether it is 100% conclusive. Is it, perhaps at the 99.9999% level of confidence?

And I would say the lack of evidence for a deity *when there should be such evidence* puts me at that level of confidence.

Your repsonse...

I would disagree here as you already have in your first point above you said that the lack of evidence that there is a God does not mean there is no God. This is the same as electricity and radio waves before they were discovered by science. The lack of evidence for their existence before they were discovered does not mean they never existed. It simply mean't there was not evidence until they were discovered dispite being prestent all the time.

OK, give me a reliable method of detection. Nobody claimed radio waves existed before they were a part of a broader scientific theory. And at that point, the way to detect them was clear and they were observed soon after that.

Would it have been reasonable for someone to claim the existence of radio waves without evidence? No. Would it have been reasonable for someone to claim their existence without stating a method of detection? No.

You have made a claim of existence, but not one based on evidence, that has no method of detection, and that has no predictive theory to back it up.

At that point, it is reasonable to simply ignore the issue until someone does a lot more work on the 'theory'.

It is a tricky question this one and not easily answered. It was made to show that it is impossible to find the correct faith (if there is one) without help from God asking him to guide and teach you. It is a faith question. Many religions live by faith and not by sight. According to the scriptures no one finds God by looking for him this way. Yet he reveals himself to those who seek him.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Poly.

Why is it only when it comes to religion that one must believe *before* the evidence? Doesn't that alone suggest 'self-deception' more than anything else?

No one believes in unicorns and leprechauns do they, let alone make a religion based around them. In many religions many millions of people claim that God has revealed himself to them and given them messages to give to the world this is their belief so your example here is not relavant to the OP. If you believe there is no God or you do not believe in the existence of God that is your belief for which you have no evidence. Therefore your living by faith just as much as those who believe in God and the existense of God.

No, nobody does this, but why not? The evidence for them is *exactly* as strong as it is for a deity. The only reason I can see that people make a special exception for deities is that they *want* to believe in deities. I see it as a type of self-deception.

For example, if you train yourself to imagine talking to leprechauns. If you do this day in and day out, always imagining what the leprechaun would say, you *will* eventually start thinking leprechauns are talking to you. But this is precisely what religious folk do all the time.

 

[sojourner]

My thought.....another useless thread where someone doesn't realize that religion is not about God.

Dwell on that thought for a bit.

I agree that the premise of the OP is fairly useless. But I’d like to have more clarification of your second observation: what precisely do you mean by “about God?” If I understand you correctly, it’s about us, but it’s about us as we understand ourselves from a theological perspective and how we relate to God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your response...



Are you being honest now my friend? These are your words not mine in context...



Your response...



From your post # 403 linked in your words in the closed thread "Setting the bible reader straight".

and again...


Your response...



From your post # 415 linked in your words in the closed thread "Setting the bible reader straight".

There are others but I these will do could not be bothered chasing them.

Seems you are not being honest again and simply digging a hole for yourself .

Yes, sorry, I did screw up in this one case. But since you far too often conflated not believing in god with believing that god does not exist, and because your past false and dishonest claim was that I believed god did not exist this one error was understandable.

 

[sojourner]

Jimmy Page is awesome on guitar.

Tall invisible white rabbits on guitar are earth-shattering. They do a pretty good 'Immigrant Song' too.

Jimmy Dean makes good sausage. When Jimmy Page eats sausage, his virtuosity increases exponentially.

 

[HonestJoe]

1. If one does not believe that there is a God and they have no evidence that there is no God does that mean that God does not exist?

Of course not, just as believing a god does exists doesn’t make it true either. That’s why they’re beliefs.

2. If one believes there is no God and cannot prove there is no God then is this belief simply another religion that is based on faith and not evidence?

No. Neither “not believing in a god or gods” nor “believing in a god or gods” are religions, they’re just individual beliefs. Just because I kick a ball around in my garden doesn’t mean I’m on a football team.

Individual beliefs can be based on all sorts of different combinations of experience, thought and evidence so you can’t really make any definitive statements about them as a whole. The reasons I don’t believe in gods could be entirely different to why some other atheist doesn’t believe in gods and the reason you do believe in a god could be entirely different to why some other theist believes in a god (or gods).

3. Now for those who do not believe in God and you have no evidence for this belief (faith), does it not worry you that you could be wrong if the scriptures are true?

Worry no. If I’m wrong, that would just mean that there is (or was) some kind of god or gods out there. The consequences of that scenario could be good, bad or indifferent to me depending on the specifics. I personally don’t believe because I see no way of even beginning to know the answer to this question. Worrying about any specific kind of god existing feels like worrying about a piano falling on my head when I step out of the house.

4. Finally if there is a God obviously not all religions can be correct as many are contradictory to each other. How would one go about finding what is the correct faith? Seems we all live by faith IMO wheather we believe or do not believe in God.

We can’t. I’d argue this is an even bigger question than just gods. There could be some kind of consequences to how we behave in this life that we know nothing about even without the existence of gods as we think of them. All we have to work on is what we do know, involving the here and now of the world we live on and the people who live on it with us. I focus on living a “good” life in that context rather than trying to imagine all the things that could possibly be.

I believe God's judgments are coming to this world to all those who do not believe and follow God's Word according to the scriptures. Can you prove they are not

Of course not, though you can’t prove they will either. You also can’t know that your specific interpretation of those scriptures is entirely correct and that you aren’t inadvertently doing something terribly wrong because of some tiny quirk in translation or interpretation.

 

[Polymath257]

\
I was not making an argument about senses. Simply making a point that if you cannot see something does not mean it is not there.

The difference is that if there is NO POSSIBLE way of detection, then it makes no sense to say it exists. We *do* detect the wind. After the prediction of radio waves, we *did* detect them soon after.

Sight is one sense of many, and pretty limited at that. We can, and do, extend our senses using technology and that allows us to detect much more about the universe.

But yet, nobody has even suggested a way to detect deities. Why not?

Before it was discovered one would not know what those things were. Although would you not agree with the examples you have provided that those who God revealed himself to is evidence to those who believe in God?

Nobody suggested those things existed thousands of years prior to their discovery either.

Sorry, but the evidence from eye-witness accounts is the worst possible: it is subject to numerous biases, memory distortions, and mistakes of re-telling. How about an *actual* method of detection that is publicly available, repeatable, and clear? That is the standard for everything else, after all.

No need as a Christian we freely admit we live by faith in the existence and belief of God because no one has any definitive evidence that God exists although some evidence is there of course. I am at peace with what I believe. On the other hand those who claim there is no God and that God does not exist also have no evidence that there is no God and that God does not exist therefore just like the Christian and others who believe in God they also live by faith in their belief although they will simply not be honest about this IMO.

And yet you will freely discount the existence of leprechauns without evidence. Do you see that as a matter of faith?

This only proves my point. If you have no evidence then you live by faith if you believe in God or do not believe in God because no one can prove God exists or does not exist.

No more than it is faith to say that I don't believe in leprechauns for exactly the same reason.

I ask for reliable, public, repeatable detection methods. Just like for everything else. Without such, a lack of belief is exactly what reason dictates.

And, just to be clear, before radio waves were proposed, it was quite reasonable to *lack* a belief in radio waves. In fact, that is how everyone 200 years ago felt about them: a lack of belief.

 

[sojourner]

Deliberately and with malice, withholding evidence is EVIL

Consider that there is evidence that we’re just not perceiving for the most part?

Not all religions can be correct: yes, this is true.

Why not? If all descriptions of the Divine are metaphor, and if metaphors speak to what they illustrate, cannot all religious metaphors speak to the Divine from different perspectives?

 

[Polymath257]

If one does not believe in God it is a belief that there is no God the same as someone who does not believe in the existence of God is a belief that God does not exist. Which ever why you want to spin it if you have no evidence for your belief then your belief is based on faith.

I disagree with this. Go back 200 years. Nobody believed in radio waves. But nobody *disbelieved* in radio waves either. They simply had no belief one way or the other. There was no evidence for the existence of radio waves, and no proposals for their existence, so *everyone* lacked belief in them.

The reasonable position under lack of evidence for the existence of something is *lack of belief*.

 

[sojourner]

But yet, nobody has even suggested a way to detect deities. Why not?

Sure they have. Not everyone agrees that the methods are valid — oddly enough, as with any new technology.

 

[Audie]

And with all things, the issue is the weight of the evidence or lack thereof and not whether it is 100% conclusive. Is it, perhaps at the 99.9999% level of confidence?

And I would say the lack of evidence for a deity *when there should be such evidence* puts me at that level of confidence.



OK, give me a reliable method of detection. Nobody claimed radio waves existed before they were a part of a broader scientific theory. And at that point, the way to detect them was clear and they were observed soon after that.

Would it have been reasonable for someone to claim the existence of radio waves without evidence? No. Would it have been reasonable for someone to claim their existence without stating a method of detection? No.

You have made a claim of existence, but not one based on evidence, that has no method of detection, and that has no predictive theory to back it up.

At that point, it is reasonable to simply ignore the issue until someone does a lot more work on the 'theory'.



Why is it only when it comes to religion that one must believe *before* the evidence? Doesn't that alone suggest 'self-deception' more than anything else?



No, nobody does this, but why not? The evidence for them is *exactly* as strong as it is for a deity. The only reason I can see that people make a special exception for deities is that they *want* to believe in deities. I see it as a type of self-deception.

For example, if you train yourself to imagine talking to leprechauns. If you do this day in and day out, always imagining what the leprechaun would say, you *will* eventually start thinking leprechauns are talking to you. But this is precisely what religious folk do all the time.

I think he kind of gave his game away by saying that

"Many religions live by faith"

For lo, they cannot all the correct, or true in any sense.
They can, though, all be false.

He added "and not by sight"

In that sentence, I see two things that look wrong
to me. It is not "many" but all religions that rely
on faith. And, with that, is that NONE can rely on
sight.

 

[Audie]

Consider that there is evidence that we’re just not perceiving for the most part?


Why not? If all descriptions of the Divine are metaphor, and if metaphors speak to what they illustrate, cannot all religious metaphors speak to the Divine from different perspectives?

Divine from a different perspective????
aztec sacrifice - Google Search