When you ask an atheist why they are an atheist, it’s not uncommon for them to respond, “Because there is no good evidence that God exists.” If that is their only justification for atheism, they have made a gross logical blunder.
In the case of genuine dichotomies (such as God’s existence: God exists, or God does not exist), the lack of evidence for A is neither evidence against A, nor evidence for B. In order to conclude that A is true or B is true, one must have positive evidence for the truth value of A or B. The absence of evidence for both A and B simply means that we must suspend judgment.
Applied to the debate over God’s existence, even if one wants to argue that there is no good evidence for theism, it does not follow that theism is false, and it certainly does not follow that atheism is true. To conclude that theism is false one must present positive arguments against theism. Likewise, to conclude that atheism is true, one must present positive arguments for atheism. Atheism is not the default position in the absence of evidence for God’s existence.
Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga made this point in a poignant fashion in a recent New York Times interview. He said, “Lack of evidence, if indeed evidence is lacking, is no grounds for atheism. No one thinks there is good evidence for the proposition that there are an even number of stars; but also, no one thinks the right conclusion to draw is that there are an uneven number of stars. The right conclusion would instead be agnosticism.” Precisely. Even if there is no evidence for God’s existence (a claim I would reject), the proper conclusion would be agnosticism, not atheism. Atheism, like theism, requires a positive argument before it is worthy of being believed.
HT: Stand to Reason
Thinking to Believe 
February 21, 2014 at 9:50 am
like this post…short and to the point…
LikeLike
February 21, 2014 at 10:04 am
“The absence of evidence for both A and B simply means that we must suspend judgment.”
No. The absence of evidence for A leads to a lack of belief in A. Which is all atheism is.
“but also, no one thinks the right conclusion to draw is that there are an uneven number of stars.”
Correct. But if someone asked you “do you believe that there is an even number of stars?” your rational answer would be “based on the evidence, no, I don’t believe that.”
Which is what the position of atheism is.
LikeLike
February 21, 2014 at 10:12 am
NotAScientist,
You can continue to redefine atheism if you wish, but you’re no more right than someone who tries to redefine “butter” as “margarine.”
No, if someone asked me if I believed there is an even number of stars my answer would be, “I have no idea.” There is no evidence to base any belief on in regards to the matter, so how could I say “based on the evidence…” and how could I possibly say I do NOT believe there are an even number of stars? I have no reason to believe it or disbelieve it. I can only suspend judgment, which is agnosticism.
How can you take such a clear example of the point and twist it to make it fit your preconceived notions?
Jason
LikeLike
February 21, 2014 at 10:17 am
“You can continue to redefine atheism if you wish”
I am an atheist and the definition I gave you is the one I use. You can refer to me by anything you wish.
“No, if someone asked me if I believed there is an even number of stars my answer would be, “I have no idea.””
And if someone claimed that there were even ones, you would be well in your right to tell them you didn’t believe them.
There is not only A and B. There is A and ‘I don’t believe in A’. Just because I don’t believe in A, doesn’t say anything about my position on B.
“I have no reason to believe it or disbelieve it”
But I have plenty of reasons to disbelieve the god claim. The lack of evidence being high on the list.
“How can you take such a clear example of the point”
Because you’ve taken a relatively complex claim and are trying to compare it to a very simple one.
LikeLike
February 21, 2014 at 10:28 am
I would call myself agnostic not atheist if I didn’t believe in theism. IMO, most atheists are against theism not for atheism. However, when I see what organized religion has done to theism I understand their point.
LikeLike
February 21, 2014 at 10:35 am
I call myself both because they’re about different things. Atheism is about belief. Agnosticism is about knowledge. Knowledge and belief are not the same thing. Thus, I can be both.
LikeLike
February 21, 2014 at 10:39 am
NotAScientist,
Since definitions are self-definable now, I’m also an atheist. The definition of atheist I use is “someone who believes in God.” So from now on, that’s what it means and don’t bother trying to tell me otherwise. Dictionaries and philosophy be damned. I’m my own dictionary!
No, if someone told me that they believed there was an even number of starts, I wouldn’t tell them I don’t believe them. I would ask them how they could possibly know that to be true. But I have no reason to believe they are wrong. They could be right, or they could be wrong. I would simply point out that their conclusion is not justified given the absence of evidence for either claim (even or uneven).
You write, “But I have plenty of reasons to disbelieve the god claim. The lack of evidence being high on the list.” This is the illogical position I am trying to demonstrate is illogical in this post. How can you possibly not understand that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? Having no evidence for A does not mean A is false, and B is right. To conclude that A is wrong one must have evidence against the truth of A. And to conclude that B is right one must have evidence in favor of the truth of B. This is about as basic as it gets.
Jason
LikeLike
February 21, 2014 at 10:50 am
“Since definitions are self-definable now, I’m also an atheist.”
Whatever floats your boat. Doesn’t bother me.
“How can you possibly not understand that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?”
Because it is evidence of absence when one would expect evidence.
If the god you believe in could exist without providing any evidence for its existence, then it is indistinguishable from no god at all, and thus not worth thinking about.
If the god you believe in does things that would leave evidence, then the lack of evidence is evidence that it doesn’t exist.
” To conclude that A is wrong ”
I haven’t concluded A is wrong. I don’t believe in A because those who propose A haven’t met their burden of proof.
Saying “I don’t believe this” is not the same as “this is wrong.” Someone who is so obsessive over supposed definitions should know that.
LikeLike
February 21, 2014 at 10:52 am
NotAScientist,
Theism, atheism, and agnosticism are the only three logical options when it comes to answering the question, “Is the proposition ‘God exists” true?” If you affirm that the proposition is true, you are a theist. If you deny it is true, you are an atheist. If you cannot determine whether it is true or false, you are an agnostic. These are the only possibilities. What so many are guilty of doing today is changing the issue from ontology to epistemology, and defining these terms (and inventing new ones) in terms of one’s epistemic certainty regarding the question. Only then does it “make sense” to talk about an “agnostic atheist,” and other bizarre combinations. But epistemology and certainty are not the issues. Ontology is. And there are only three possible answers we can give to any question of ontology: it exists (theism), it doesn’t exist (atheism), I don’t know if it exists (agnosticism).
And please, stop making a radical distinction between belief and knowledge. They are distinct concepts, but inseparable because all knowledge entails belief. One cannot know something is true without simultaneously believing it to be true. Modern atheists tend to confuse “belief” for “mere belief.” Mere belief is not the same thing as belief. Knowledge is impossible without belief, though mere belief (belief without proper justification) can never rise to the level of knowledge. This is basic epistemology, and it only serves to confuse things by creating a dichotomy between belief and knowledge.
Jason
LikeLike
February 21, 2014 at 10:59 am
Sorry, but we’re just not going to come to common terms here.
Re-reading…I really don’t see how it matters one bit.
I don’t believe your claim (‘your’ in the general sense) that a god exists. I don’t believe it due primarily to the lack of evidence.
That is my position.
Now, based on that position, I call myself an atheist. You can call me whatever it pleases you to call me. But that title will not change my position: I lack belief due to the absence of evidence and the failure of believers to meet their burden of proof.
LikeLike
February 21, 2014 at 11:30 am
NotAScientist
“Re-reading…I really don’t see how it matters one bit.”
It matters a LOT because you have been shown the irrationality of your position and yet you still cling to it. This exposes a hidden bias. Scream as loud as you like, there is ANOTHER reason why you don’t believe in God and it has nothing to do with evidence as Jason has masterfully shown. QED.
LikeLike
February 21, 2014 at 11:32 am
“This exposes a hidden bias.”
Not terribly hidden. I’m biased towards evidence.
Crazy, right?
LikeLike
February 21, 2014 at 12:57 pm
Wrong. Google “burden of proof”.
LikeLike
February 21, 2014 at 1:09 pm
NotAScientist
This is becoming painful. The lack of evidence leads to “I don’t know if there’s a God” NOT “There is no God / I don’t believe there is a God.”
The simple fact is that every claim, be it theism or atheism, has a burden of proof or else, the UNBIASED must maintain agnosticism. That is the point. No matter how improbable something is (to you), that does not CONFIRM its nonexistence.
LikeLike
February 21, 2014 at 1:24 pm
“The lack of evidence leads to “I don’t know if there’s a God” NOT “There is no God / I don’t believe there is a God.””
No.
Not having investigated the topic leads to ‘I don’t know’.
Having investigated and found no evidence leads to “I don’t believe, and won’t unless or until there is evidence.”
LikeLike
February 21, 2014 at 2:14 pm
Just substitute unicorns for God.
Who has the burden of proof – those who claim that unicorns exist or those who deny the claim? Well, if we say that “deny the claim” is incorrect and assert that the deniers are the ones making the claim of non-existence, then the burden could be placed on both the believers and deniers.
NAS says the lack of evidence for unicorns, when there would certainly be bountiful evidence if unicorns existed, is evidence of their absence. He is, of course, correct. Thus, regardless of whether the burden is on the believers or the deniers, the deniers satisfy the burden of proof.
LikeLike
February 21, 2014 at 2:23 pm
From Wikipedia: “Absence of evidence is a condition in which no valid conclusion can be inferred from the mere absence of detection, normally due to doubt in the detection method. Evidence of absence is the successful variation: a conclusion that relies on specific knowledge in conjunction with negative detection to deduce the absence of something. An example of evidence of absence is checking your pockets for spare change and finding nothing, but being confident that the search would have found it if it was there.”
By this definition, NAS is correct. The lack of evidence for God when one would expect there to be such evidence is evidence of absence.
LikeLike
February 21, 2014 at 7:35 pm
I am a theist. God exists. He is the Great I AM, The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Amongst the evidence of His existence is the Holy Bible. The truth of the Holy Bible is evinced by its prophecies. Read the Bible’s Book of Daniel for it exemplifies this characteristic of the Holy Bible.
“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Messiah: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believes; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, THE JUST SHALL LIVE BY FAITH. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shown it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and God-head; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.” (ROMANS 1:16-25)
To the atheists: onus pro bandi is on you.
LikeLike
February 21, 2014 at 11:38 pm
You believe in a personal, supernatural god; you are a theist…
I do not belief in a personsl, supernatural god; I am a-theist- I think we are the same; we are a-theist,,…..
LikeLike
February 22, 2014 at 6:14 am
Jbesuden,
Unicorns are (by the theory of what a unicorn would be if they existed) a natural being and thus would be provable with natural evidence. This article is speaking of God not unicorns. Since you appear not to know, I’ll give you a basic definition of God: a supernatural person/mind, that which no greater can be thought.
Now, do you see the difference between God and unicorns ( or leprechauns, fairies, goblins,the tooth fairy, santa claus etc…)???
This is basic philosophy, the realm of which most atheists do not expound. The reality is, that when the atheists make the claim “what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence,” they then throw themselves under the bus. As we’ve seen in this post, atheism cannot disprove the supernatural with natural evidence and therefore is not a reasonable position.
LikeLike
February 22, 2014 at 6:58 am
Patrick and jasondulle,
I think you’re both missing the point. Your definitions are seemingly flawed, but I’m here to make this understandable for you both and lay this argument over semantics to rest.
A claimant must needs provide evidence for their claim in order to lend the required support others need to believe the claim. Here the claim is that the theistic god exists. Hand in hand with that claim lies the attributes of said god (e.g. omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, omnipresence, etc.) but for the purpose of this argument we shan’t look at the evidence that exists counter to that part of the claim (SPOILER: there’s loads). So we are left with there being no evidence for the existence of any god/gods claimed to exist by theists.
Now as I hope we all know, we never test the null hypothesis. We don’t look for evidence that there is no giant pink elephant in the centre of the sun for obvious reasons. We’d be searching for evidence to dispute EVERY claim ever made. It makes no logistical or logical sense. Now, as jasondulle rightly said, if someone claims that there is an even number of stars in the universe, evidence must be provided to support that claim. As there is none, jasondulle says that he DOES NOT KNOW. That’s fine, because he doesn’t. However, that is not the whole picture. Because you do not know, you have a LACK OF BELIEF in the claim. You are agnostic, and non-believing. Nothing has convinced you to the point of belief. Likewise, nothing has convinced you to the point of belief that there is a prime number of stars, or an odd number. So while you do not know, you also, DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THERE IS, although you acknowledge the possibility that there could be.
Agnostic atheism is the position that there is not enough evidence to support the theistic claim and thus, belief has not been roused. Gnostic atheism is the position that there is no evidence supporting the god claim and thus, god does not exist. Do you see the difference? I am an agnostic atheist toward the god concept as a whole, because definitions and attributes of gods vary. Someone could theorise a being which could quite possibly exist and call it a god. But the claim of omnipotence is a non starter in itself. As are the simultaneous claims that there’s an omniscient god with a plan who has had to do things that he didn’t want to have to do. When one makes an honest consideration of such concepts, you logically reach the position I have with regard to this individual god; he DOES NOT exist (gnostic atheism). So one can claim “I do not believe that exists” (a subjective claim of lack of belief) or one can claim “that does not exist” (an affirmative and objective claim for the null hypothesis). Seeing as we can test, with basic logic, whether omnipotence can exist alongside attributes like immortality or omniscience alongside emotions such as disappointment, we can conclude the null hypothesis after testing the hypothesis that these things exist.
Consider this your first class in philosophy 101 🙂
LikeLike
February 22, 2014 at 7:08 am
“Agnostic Atheist= I don’t believe in God(s), but don’t claim to know
Agnostic Theist= I don’t know if God (s) exist, but I believe
Gnostic Atheist= I know no God(s) exist, besides just not believing
Gnostic Theist= I know God(s) exist and believe.
All in all agnosticism is a CLAIM of knowledge”
LikeLike
February 22, 2014 at 9:51 am
If you claim there is an elephant in my pantry, eating all my peanutbutter, looking in and finding a lack of evidence is a pretty convincing argument. To be agnostic regarding its existance would be silly.
LikeLike
February 22, 2014 at 10:47 am
Re: Jbesuden
1. There is that which exists beyond which a greater cannot be thought. That is the premise in philosophy and I agree with that. I would be comfortable calling that, beyond which a greater cannot be thought, LIFE but not God. God is hazy, nebulus, artificial, vague, indistinct and confused and was the reason that when the Gods were invented they were invented to represent everything there was in the human experience; for example, god of the rock, god of the moon, the sun, water, crop, rain, smile, enjoyments, happiness yada yada and yada, thousands of Gods. Eventually all the gods of everything were lumped into one God which I now call the “One Lump God”
2. Nobody can prove that a non existent entity does not exist; it is an impossiblity but one that theists rely on to counter the demand for them to prove what they claim to “know”: that their BELIEF is true. The bible philosophy about this is clear in the NT for it says that simply the Belief in something is evidence for its existence. So with that kind of non reasoning nonsense, it is no small wonder why so many people are deluded.
Some people can be hypotized to believe they are a chicken but we want to see the evidence; say, show us a few eggs, and we’ll believe you are a chicken.
LikeLike
February 22, 2014 at 1:38 pm
From the New Testament of the Holy Bible:
“And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power. That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory. Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written, EYE HATH NOT SEEN, NOR EAR HEARD, NEITHER HAVE ENTERED INTO THE HEART OF MAN, THE THINGS WHICH GOD HATH PREPARED FOR THEM THAT LOVE HIM. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.” (1 CORINTHIANS 2:4-11)
LikeLike
February 22, 2014 at 1:45 pm
My “Theist Theory” is my attempt within my limited capacity to understand my existence. I was born into the Christian faith and after studying some other theist ideas am still a Christian — for me it makes the most sense even though I still have many questions. It is hard for humans to put their preconceived notions a side and using the Bible to “prove” the existence of God I find problematic. Also, all the different religions and beliefs confuse the theist position. However, when I observe the complexity of creation and the explosion of life on this earth as evident in the fossil record I find it would be mathematically improbable that this all occurred by chance, so I’m left with the theist position. Also, if the atheist position is correct how does that help me anyway? Wars and problems in this world are caused by all kinds of people not just theists. I’m reminded of a saying (I don’t know origin)
LikeLike
February 22, 2014 at 3:53 pm
1. There is that which exists beyond which a greater cannot be thought. That is the premise in philosophy and I agree with that. I would be comfortable calling that, beyond which a greater cannot be thought, LIFE but not God. God is hazy, nebulus, artificial, vague, indistinct and confused and was the reason that when the Gods were invented they were invented to represent everything there was in the human experience; for example, god of the rock, god of the moon, the sun, water, crop, rain, smile, enjoyments, happiness yada yada and yada, thousands of Gods. Eventually all the gods of everything were lumped into one God which I now call the “One Lump God”
2. Nobody can prove that a non existent entity does not exist; it is an impossiblity but one that theists rely on to counter the demand for them to prove what they claim to “know”: that their BELIEF is true. The bible philosophy about this is clear in the NT for it says that simply the Belief in something is evidence for its existence. So with that kind of non reasoning nonsense, it is no small wonder why so many people are deluded.
Some people can be hypotized to believe they are a chicken but we want to see the evidence; say, show us a few eggs, and we’ll believe you are a chicken.nm
LikeLike
February 22, 2014 at 3:53 pm
Everything I write is in the power of God as witnessed b y the spiritin myself.
Anyone can write anything about whatever but just because the laud of god and spirit are invoked in the word what does it mean really?
Look how many scoundrel preachers were approved by your ancestors! because of their gift of gab?
LikeLike
February 22, 2014 at 4:56 pm
So could some unknown source of life (ie. creator) fit in with the atheist position as long as this “creator” allowed things to unfold by chance, took no sides, made no moral absolutes, etc…? Is the atheist concern that theist’s have called this “creator” God and are using God to impose beliefs on others? Don’t forget — atheists kill people too. I’ve never meet a perfect human being but most people (atheist, agnostic or theist) I’ve talked to have no problem with the golden rule — do unto others.
LikeLike
February 22, 2014 at 5:27 pm
Paul:
The answer to your question seems academic “,,,could some unknown sourceof life fir in ith the atheist poisition…..etc?” the simple answer is no.
I sumit there is no unknown source of life since life can only come from life and life is known and understood; therefore, both creationists and evolutionists are wrong if either proposes that life came from nothing.
However as I understand the evolutionist position to be is not that life comes from nothing but that life itself evolves, adapts and changes according to the dictates of enviromental factors and deals with the survival of the species and specifically to survival and evolution of the fittest of the species or adaptability of the species or the malleability to accomodate the life living in the changing environment.
LikeLike
February 22, 2014 at 6:15 pm
NotAScientist,
Yes, that’s true. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence ONLY in cases where we would expect for there to be evidence and yet the evidence is lacking. When it comes to God’s existence, I do think there is evidence where we would expect it. But that’s beside the point. As I went on to say, “Having no evidence for A does not mean A is false, and B is right. To conclude that A is wrong one must have evidence against the truth of A. And to conclude that B is right one must have evidence in favor of the truth of B.” That’s the issue. And if B is atheism, then you need evidence in favor of atheism before you can conclude that atheism is true. It’s not the default position unless and until evidence is presented for A.
I know there is a difference between lack of belief and believing something is false.
Jason
LikeLike
February 22, 2014 at 6:15 pm
NotAScientist,
You say, “I lack belief due to the absence of evidence and the failure of believers to meet their burden of proof.” Someone who lacks belief is neutral on the question. They have no opinion one way or the other. Can you honestly say you have no opinion one way or the other on the question of God’s existence? Do you honestly think God’s existence is just as possible/likely as God’s non-existence?
Jason
LikeLike
February 22, 2014 at 6:18 pm
John,
I fully understand what burden of proof means. And this post is not about who has the burden. Everyone who has any belief about the truth value of any proposition (positive or negative) has a burden of proof. This post is to address the nonsense that many atheists put forward when they say that if the theist doesn’t meet his burden, then this alone justifies the truth of atheism. Google that.
Jason
LikeLike
February 22, 2014 at 6:18 pm
Jbesuden,
The question isn’t whether the theist has a burden of proof. He does. The question is whether atheism is justified solely from the theist’s inability to meet his burden of proof. And the answer is clearly no. Atheism is the claim that God does not exist, and anyone making that claim has a burden to demonstrate it as well.
Jason
LikeLike
February 22, 2014 at 6:18 pm
Brian,
Right, that would be silly because absence of evidence is evidence of absence when we would expect there to be particular kinds of evidence for the proposition, and yet we find none. That definitely applies to the elephant in your pantry.
Jason
LikeLike
February 22, 2014 at 6:24 pm
SonofMan,
If you think the NT “says that simply the Belief in something is evidence for its existence,” you and I aren’t reading the same Bible. Or, you aren’t reading the Bible. Nowhere is such a claim made.
And it’s false that you can’t prove an entity does not exist. You can prove it if it’s logically impossible (e.g. square circle), or by showing that if entity X existed, we would expect particular kinds of evidence of its existence, and such evidence is lacking. For example, you could prove that no one lives in a particular house by showing that no one ever enters or leaves the house, there are no utilities going to the house, and when you walk through the house, no one is there.
Jason
LikeLike
February 23, 2014 at 1:05 am
Son of Man,
In my conversations/interactions with atheists, I find them to be more what I would call agnostic as I understand the definition. This is usually evident when discussing creation when taking into account the law of conservation of matter — the usual atheist response is “nothing is something”. If an atheist doesn’t know what caused the big bang, isn’t he/she really agnostic?
LikeLike
February 23, 2014 at 6:52 am
Jason, doesn’t the Bible say that faith is the evidence of things not yet seen?
LikeLike
February 23, 2014 at 12:49 pm
Paul:
Atheists have at least one thinking in common as far as I am concerned; and that is, Atheists do not believe in God(s). Further, which seems to be a niggling point in some circles, this atheist does not believe in the proposition that God(s) exists.
This atheist also does not believe that the Big Bang happened either. This probably makes me an ABigBangist as well.
LikeLike
February 23, 2014 at 12:53 pm
jbesuden,
The verse as it is written: “NOW faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (HEBREWS 11:1)
Commentary states, ” HEBREWS 11:1 is not so much a definition of what faith is, as it is a description of what faith does (cf. HEBREWS 11:6). Two truths concerning its activity are stated here. First, faith provides SUBSTANCE (Gr. hypostasis).Though broad in its usages, this Greek word normally has the meaning of “assurance” in the New Testament (cf. HEBREWS 3:14; 2 CORINTHIANS 9:4; 11:17) and this seems to be the best sense here. Second, faith provides EVIDENCE (Gr. elegchos). It is evidence in the sense of proof that results in conviction. The difference between assurance and evidence would be minimal were it not for the phrase qualifying each: OF THINGS HOPED FOR and OF THINGS NOT SEEN. The first involves future hope; the second involves present realities that are unseen. The first includes the hope of the resurrection, the return of Messiah, and the glorification of the saints. The second involves unseen realities, such as the forgiveness of sin through Messiah’s sacrifice and the present intercession of Messiah in heaven. Hope is faith relating to the future; conviction is faith relating to the present.”
Truly,
Frank
LikeLike
February 23, 2014 at 1:01 pm
jbesude3n:
Hebrews 11:1
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
This is one of the silliest scriptures in the bible; nevertheless, christians love to cite it because they think that just because they have faith, or believe it, therefore that is the evidence that proves the proposition that God exists!
LikeLike
February 23, 2014 at 2:30 pm
Son of Man,
I describe creation as — something created something out of nothing. Otherwise, wouldn’t have something always existed or nothing created something out of nothing? Obviously quite a few of my fellow theists would state their thoughts differently from mine. Most agnostics I’ve talked with regarding creation — adhere to the big bang theory but admit there are questions that still need answers. How would you describe creation?
LikeLike
February 23, 2014 at 5:09 pm
Paul:
I do not believe in Creation. The Creation stories have always been made by man’s imaginings to explain existence, not the least of which is his own. I think every society made up their stories to try and explain it; Christian Creation is no different. The common thread in all the Creation Stories is where the buck stops in the philosophical idea of, “…there is that which exists beyond which a greater cannot be thought….” The Gods.
As far as religionists and evolutionists go I jest that Creation and Evolution are exactly the same event except for the Poof Poof of Creation in a 6 day scenario(nothwithstanding that a day is like a thousand years to the Lord, or a million and that a thousand or millions years to the Lord is like a day); in other words, Creation is Evolution speeded up and Evolution is Creation slowed down.
Personally I am of the belief that Eternity, Infinity, Forever are current concepts and the cause of their own effect. The Universe has no beginning and has no end; it is the root of everything and everything is a participant in the cycle. But I cannot explain it anymore than that nor can I claim to know if that is a correct theory but at least it is one that satisfies my brain and I don’t have to kill anyone yo prove it and I don’t have to die to prove it. Whatever is, IS. Do you agree with me?
LikeLike
February 23, 2014 at 9:00 pm
Here’s testimony from one of the most learned philosophers in all antiquity on God’s existence; that God Himself will champion his cause and bring him vindication through resurrection of his human body.
“Oh that my words were now written! Oh that they were printed in a book! That they were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever! For I know that my Redeemer lives, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.” (JOB 19:23-27)
LikeLike
February 23, 2014 at 10:42 pm
Son of Man,
We do have some common points of agreement and some others I have a different POV because of my Christian beliefs. And the more I talk in depth with people I find the lines between atheist, agnostic and theist get blurred. I find the question do you believe in God produces a black and white answer. As I study more, I’m finding this world has lots of grey. I find questions like how would you describe creation allows for a better exchange of information where the involved parties can not only gain a better understanding of others but learn something. For example, because of comments to this post I looked into atheism again and discovered I had slightly misunderstood the atheist position. If it wasn’t for the NT I’d possibly be agnostic not theist. I believe in a “Creator” that has no beginning or ending. I can’t comprehend Him except for what His Son Jesus Christ revealed in the NT, even though the NT leaves me with questions. I believe our Universe had a beginning but don’t rule out it may have expanded and contracted before in the past. The creation account appears mostly symbolic and although I don’t know the exact mechanism we got here, the “Theory of Evolution” leaves me with questions. However, I agree with survival of the fittest and natural selection. I can’t comprehend eternity, but believe in a world with out end. Who knows, could even be other dimensions. Apologies to others for getting off topic.
LikeLike
February 24, 2014 at 6:28 am
Jason,
” And if B is atheism,”
This is the problem. Because I don’t accept that B is atheism.
“Someone who lacks belief is neutral on the question”
No. Look up one of the other comments that explains ‘agnostic atheists’ and ‘agnostic theists’.
LikeLike
February 24, 2014 at 9:33 am
Paul:
I have to acknowledge that I believe you are a very sound person, a seeker of truth capable of viewing different points of view and capable of accepting things you hadn’t thought about before perhaps; at the very least flexible enough to discern understanding with an mind open to “grey” matters, no pun intended and there are plenty of grey matters as you well noted.
You said: “I can’t comprehend eternity, but believe in a world with out end.” That’s a conundrum if I ever heard one; I don’t know the difference between “eternity” and “without end”. Can a world begin and then be without end? Or can a world end without having a beginning?
If Christians can so easily say God is eternal, infinite, forever, without beginning and without end, where is the difficulty in believing that the Universe is such an entity? there’s nothing magical about the word “God”
I wrote something about beginnings and ends earlier.
“Religious preachings and teachings are based purely on belief and nothing that religion says is based on knowledge; otherwise, it wouldn’t be a belief system, it would be a knowledge system.
First of all, in the beginning, nobody was there, nobody heard anybody say anything at anytime to anyone, anywhere; nobody saw anything and statements to the contrary are fraught with assumptions. And without those assumptions nothing serious could ever be said about it.
The first assumption is that there was a “beginning”,
The second assumption is that there was a creator, god,
The third assumption is that someone, (the writer of the bible) knows what he is talking about and has personal knowledge of what went on in the beginning.
Why does everyone think that there must be a “beginning”? I suppose one could argue that the cycle of life is a series of beginnings and ends, so one might reasonably conclude that everything has a beginning and end. In the universe, stars and planets are born and eventually die. The tree, buds, flowers, wilt and die and the cycle repeats itself. The tide goes in, the tide goes out. The seasons start and end and change is everywhere.”
I see the Universe as a garden…always there, always available. Everything in the garden begins, grows, has its season, and ends but the Garden remains, plants come and go, stars come and go but the garden of flux, of change, of life, continues. And when we are able to live a few billion years, we’ll see just how the macroscopic happens in a microsecond, faster than a New York minute.
I don’t know if the Universe breathes or not but if it does how would we know? One generation would live in the expand moment, where we apparently are now, and another generation would live in the contract moment, which we are apparently not in. On the other hand if the Universe was fashioned like a giant inner tube and the skin of the tube itself was rotating, inner to outer to inner(that is, I don’t mean rotating as a wheel), the outer skin would appear to be expanding because of its greater area while the inner skin would appear to be contracting as the objects(stars galaxies) within the skin would appear to be contracting, the donut theory.
And how can one generation know the other generations’ experience in a small lifetime of human years and not light years?
LikeLike
February 24, 2014 at 9:48 am
Think Atheism for a change and let your mind enjoy the wonders of the Universe free to imagine anything without some personal intervening George NSA God Orwell watching you, monitoring your very thoughts! Very Scarewy.
Work within the parameters of the GEM Universe(Gravity, Electricity, Magnetism) and may the Force allow you to work within its parameters that make natural sense for inner/outer space, medical exploration, knowledge and understanding; for instance, don’t be lured by religious belief systems pregnant with assumptions, rife with superstition amid pylons of supernatural Caca del Toro repetitive vain imaginations because the truth is nobody knows everything for certain about any of it, scientists, scientology, theologians, atheists, philosophers, popes or peons and in there somewhere falls, you and I.
LikeLike
February 24, 2014 at 3:17 pm
Paul,
In regards to your comments in REPLY # 45. As to whether we live in a finite universe; that’s a settled issue. The universe is finite: it had a definite beginning and will eventually reach an ultimate end. This was one of the great discoveries of the twentieth century. It has to do with the Second law of thermodynamics. It’s considered we live in a universe containing as many as ten dimensions; length, width, height, time plus six others coiled up so small we can’t participate in them. Google: Stephen Hawking or Hugh Ross or Chuck Missler, and you’ll find much information and confirmation of these facts. There’s no mystery here.
I understand your thoughts concerning the Creator; that you can’t comprehend Him. We’re human beings. He’s the Supreme Being. We can never fully understand Him and His ways. But you are onto something when you say you can comprehend what His Son reveals of Him in the New Testament. You need to examine the complete integrated message of the Old and the New Testaments, the entire message, the Holy Bible. When you make the effort to search out the entire Bible you’ll discover that Jesus pervades every Book from GENESIS to REVELATION. In fact He tells us this, “Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me. I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.” (PSALM 40:7-8) in the Old Testament and, “Wherefore when he comes into the world, he says, SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU WOULD NOT, BUT A BODY HAVE YOU PREPARED FOR ME: IN BURNT OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES FOR SIN YOU HAVE HAD NO PLEASURE. THEN SAID I, LO, I COME (IN THE VOLUME OF THE BOOK IT IS WRITTEN OF ME) TO DO THY WILL, O GOD.” (HEBREWS 10:5-7) in the New Testament. The New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed and the Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed. You need to get a solid grasp of both Testaments to get a clear picture of Who God is; how He created all things and why it became necessary for Him to redeem His creation; all according to Scripture. Check out the website http://www.jesusplusnothing.com it will provide you much light on this. The LORD tells us, “And you shall seek me, and find me, when you shall search for me with all your heart.” (JEREMIAH 29:13)
Lastly, “But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;” (2 TIMOTHY 2:23-25)
Peace by His Spirit,
Frank
LikeLike
February 24, 2014 at 7:02 pm
Mr Adam:
Those scripture show a very condescending attittude if I do say so. Obviously if you make the rules and the rules are not followed, it follows there are penaties for disobedience; the penalties and negative consequences; something; like “He who has the Gold makes the rules.”
If God will give them repentance, Why? because in the writer’s eyes he needs repentance, this is nbot godly this is ego decideds who needs repentance before God. This is normal for clergy, preaching words of conclusion to support their premise. And claim they are talking for God because they understand but having said that, then this: “We can never fully understand Him and His ways.” Well what is it, do you understand his ways or don’t you? Or only in a few things like who needs repentance; the people who do not follow what you say, perhaps?
Hawkings, Ross, Missler all theorists, there’s nothing factura; about a theory unless you can prove it, replicate it, demonstrate its use as in light buld demonstrates electricity, etc. Until then it is just a blck hole but don’t get too close or you’ll get suck into it; eventually. however, hawkings says, the black holes just dissipates like it never even happened.
LikeLike
February 24, 2014 at 10:01 pm
Son of Man,
I still have some things to iron out for sure. When I get to a “what came first” type of question I go to the supernatural answer. For me, this seems as logical as an archeologist finding some stones shaped like tools and saying there was an ancient camp site here. To turn a phrase I just learned, I’m a “hard theist”. It’s not just my upbringing, for me Christianity just seems right. My belief in the Universe having a beginning and a world without end, of course are because of my Christian upbringing which I still believe. I believe in a God without beginning and end not a Universe just because of intelligent design. I have tested many of the teaching/doctrines from my former denomination (HRCC) and have rejected the ones I found didn’t jive with first century teachings. Unfortunately most theists aren’t free, but it’s not God’s fault. Sadly some religious leaders want power and money and they oppress believers. That is why I’ve checked out of organized religion and seek out posts like this.
LikeLike
February 25, 2014 at 6:08 am
Paul:
To turn a phrase, it blows my mind to think that people would look for answers in the supernatural. That’s incredible. There is not one single event in the bible or in the world at large that sugest, let alone proves that the supernatural is anything but the imagination of theists and hollywood.
Goodness you can go back to the early Old Testament to see how the ancients tried to prove and promote the supernatural god and could not. The elders: how did the elders try to prove and promote the supernatural in Moses? Through magic tricks.
How did Moses try to promote the supernatural to Pharaoh; try to prove his God was the most powerful? Through magic.
4:1 Then Moses answered and said, “But suppose they will not believe me or listen to my voice; suppose they say, ‘The Lord has not appeared to you.’”
2 So the Lord said to him, “What is that in your hand?”
He said, “A rod.”
3 And He said, “Cast it on the ground.” So he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from it. 4 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Reach out your hand and take it by the tail” (and he reached out his hand and caught it, and it became a rod in his hand), 5 “that they may believe that the Lord God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has appeared to you.”
4:21 And the Lord said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do all those wonders before Pharaoh which I have put in your hand.
4: 30 And Aaron spoke all the words which the Lord had spoken to Moses. Then he did the signs in the sight of the people. 31 So the people believed;
7:8 Then the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, 9 “When Pharaoh speaks to you, saying, ‘Show a miracle for yourselves,’ then you shall say to Aaron, ‘Take your rod and cast it before Pharaoh, and let it become a serpent.’” 10 So Moses and Aaron went in to Pharaoh, and they did so, just as the Lord commanded. And Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh and before his servants, and it became a serpent.
11 But Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers; so the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments.
The Supernatural? Magic tricks and Hollywood are its support and scoundrel characters like Peter Popoff……..
LikeLike
February 25, 2014 at 7:49 am
Frank,
Much shorter response then the several others I tried sending yesterday, been having some computer problems. Hopefully only one of the several posts I sent show up. Anyway, I’ve been studying the OT for a few years now. You obviously have a different opinion, but for me viewing the OT seems foreign without the NT. Not sure exactly why, possibly without the NT I wouldn’t feel the OT was relevant for me because I’m not a Hebrew. If you’ve ever looked into Judaism you may have an idea what I’m talking about.
LikeLike
February 25, 2014 at 8:54 am
Son of Man,
I’ve thought a lot about the theist and atheist positions on creation/origin of life. As I understand, the atheist position is — there must be a natural explanation that we just haven’t discovered yet. Regarding the theist “proof” God exists, I can understand why atheists and agnostics find this unbelievable/not convincing. Why am I a theist generally and Christian specifically? I can’t really explain, perhaps it’s the way my brain is wired or my upbringing.
LikeLike
February 25, 2014 at 10:32 am
Paul V:
About me and my ideas:
I was never vaccinated against religion and immune to the ways of the religious world.
I was brought up in a catholic community where in those older days we could not eat meat on Friday and if we did we could not receive communion without first confessing this “sin” to the priest; the anti meat law was the reason that “Fish Friday” was always on the Menu List at restaurants and in many cases persist until this very day.
I went through the parental pride of becoming an altar boy, practicing the rituals, when just doing the rituals correctly made them “Right”, made them “True”. Such is the result of ritualism.
My early recollections of being in church however was when I started reading the Sunday Missal as the priest monotoned his way in and out of Latin incantations amid sermons in the French dialect. The missal ( in English) was my focus, which was centered on the teachings of Jesus from the New Testament scriptures; even at 12, I loved the profound words of wisdom and the obvious logic in his thinking and felt he was talking directly to me, unlike the ones who could not understand the parables because they were blind, I understood everything he said perfectly.
You mentioned th OT seems to be remote to you without the NT.
Remember Jesus never had the New Testament Bible, not because he didn’t like it, he just never had it. The only bible Jesus ever had in his hand was the Old Testament scriptures but when Jesus got up to read and explain the scriptures, EVERYONE was on the edge of his seat wondering what A-MAZING thing he would say next because he taught them as one having authority, not like the Scribes and Pharisees or preachers on YouTube.
When the preachers got up to speak everyone curled up and went for a quiet doze until the benediction was over, waking up, preferably, just after the Offering. Jesus and I and the Father are one, and that is one of the simplest things to understand. Has nothing to do with ego, has nothing to do with blasphemy, it has only to do with an understanding that Jesus knew he was a microcosom of the whole human race by simply looking inside himself to see the “Father” there, playing the role of Conscience, the Self Witness, the Good Guide, Good Gosh, Holy Spirit, Memory in harmony with the brain through a bundle of sensory experiences bringing to mind only things that would help, benefit, warn, please, prevent or direct us [ (the Son(s) ] and that is the role of Father.
The Father then, in performing only those things that “please you”, you cannot help but please him; by following that guiding light, discerning good and evil, right and wrong and doing what is right, doing the Father’s will; in other words, “all there is of Good is available to the man who is available to all there is of Good.”
LikeLike
February 25, 2014 at 11:54 am
Paul,
The OT is incomplete without the NT. That’s why it needs to be considered as an INTEGRATED MESSAGE. It needs to be considered IN ITS ENTIRETY. That’s how it’s designed by the Author.
We live in the digital age. There’s all sorts of meaningful ways for us to communicate, including sites like these. Keep up your search, my Brother.
“The LORD YHWH bless you, and keep you: The LORD YHWH make His Face shine upon you, and be gracious unto you: The LORD YHWH lift up His Countenance upon you, and give you peace.” (NUMBERS 6:24-26)
Truly,
Frank
LikeLike
February 25, 2014 at 4:31 pm
Frank:
The Old Testament is a stand alone book; it doesn’t need the New Testament, that’s religious nonsense trying to connect that which was written(The OT) to that which was not written(the NT).
The only Book Jesus ever had was the Old Testament; are your requirements more than the requirements of Jesus?
You talk too much church and not enough Jesus.
LikeLike
February 25, 2014 at 5:48 pm
To clarify my thoughts on the OT,
There are of course many similarities between the OT and NT, agreed Jesus Christ was Torah observant. Grace and Law to an extent are in both the OT and NT, perhaps it is my focus on certain things but I get a different vibe from each. I’ll give a couple of general examples to explain: OT — seems a very Hebrew story NT — anyone who accepts Jesus Christ is included; OT — God as Creator, Man/Woman as Created NT — God as Father, Man/Woman as Children; OT — Man gathering sticks on the Sabbath is to be stoned show no mercy NT — Woman caught in adultery, he who is without sin cast the first stone show mercy; OT — If you strike your “slave” and he dies no penalty it’s your financial loss NT
LikeLike
February 25, 2014 at 7:13 pm
You apparently don’t know what atheism is. Please check this out: http://believervsnonbelievers.wordpress.com/2014/02/25/an-atheist-dictionary-clearing-up-definitions/ It’s an article I wrote. Or, you could also… I don’t know, open a dictionary? I don’t know.
LikeLike
February 25, 2014 at 8:32 pm
Star-Splitter,
atheism, n.: “[Fr. atheisme, from Gr. atheos, without a god; a priv., and theos, god.] the belief that there is no God.
A little philosophy inclineth men’s minds to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds to religion. -Bacon.”
WEBSTER’S NEW TWENTIETH CENTURY DICTIONARY UNABRIDGED SECOND EDITION / WILLIAM COLLINS PUBLISHERS, INC. 1980
LikeLike
February 26, 2014 at 6:18 am
Frank:
It is IMPOSSIBLE for someone to have a BELIEF in something they do not believe exists; therefore, an atheist is NOT someone who BELIEVES there is no God; an atheist is someone who does NOT BELIEVE in God(s). How can this not be clear as mud? NO Belief as opposed TO Belief? And Frank-ly I don’t care how a dictionary defines it; if the dictionary does not define an atheist as “someone who does not belief in God(s)”, it is wrong. How can someone have a “belief” and a “non belief ” at the same time about the same thing? It is Impossible.
About Bacon:
Bacon defended his religious belief as one who believed in the god of that religion saying that man could only aspire to nobility only through a god whose higher nature man could not attain otherwise. Bacon likened a dog’s courage and generosity that increased when maintained by a man because a man’s higher nature rubbed off onto the dog; thus does a man have nobility likewise in the seeking of the higher nature of the god he aspires to and that search in and of itself rubs nobility onto the man because he is more confident when he aspires to a that higher nature; the obvious conclusion is that the higher power must therefore exist.
On the other hand, Bacon disparaged the Gods:
The title page from Bacon’s Instauratio Magna has an image of a ship passing through the pillars of Hercules, which (god(s) symbolized for the ancients the limits of man’s possible explorations. The image represents the analogy between the great voyages of discovery and the explorations leading to the advancement of learning. In The Advancement of Learning Bacon makes this analogy explicit. Speaking to James I, to whom the book is dedicated, he writes: “For why should a few received authors stand up like Hercules columns, beyond which there should be no sailing or discovering, since we have so bright and benign a star as your Majesty to conduct and prosper us.” Besides flattering the King with this comment, the image also suggests that using Bacon’s new method, the boundaries of ancient learning will be passed. The Latin phrase at the bottom from the Book of Daniel means: “Many will pass through and knowledge will be increased.” Thus Bacon defied the ancients’ belief that discovery of knowledge was for the God(s) only and man’s access thereof was limited. Perhaps not endorsing atheism but suggesting nevertheless that man would eventually find all that was hidden and secret in that higher nature he called God.
Bacon saw himself as the inventor of a method which would kindle a light in nature – “a light that would eventually disclose and bring into sight all that is most hidden and secret in the universe.” This method involved the collection of data, their judicious interpretation, the carrying out of experiments, thus to learn the secrets of nature by organized observation of its regularities. Bacon’s proposals had a powerful influence on the development of science in seventeenth century Europe.
LikeLike
February 26, 2014 at 6:21 am
Saying not believing in something is a form of belief is like saying that celibacy is a form of having sex, or that not smoking is a form of smoking.
LikeLike
February 26, 2014 at 6:36 am
accoladeatheist:
Great analogies!
LikeLike
February 26, 2014 at 4:14 pm
Paul,
As to your thoughts in REPLY # 58. – I recommend a paperback entitled: The Ancient Love Song Finding Christ in the Old Testament by Charles D. Drew
P&R Publishing Company copyright 1996, 2000 by Charles D. Drew
The Foreword by Edmund P. Clowney reads:
“If you love the Bible, you’ll love this book. If you find the Bible rather puzzling, this book will open for you the greatest book of all. A hymn compares the Bible to a ‘golden casket where gems of truth are stored.’ I’m glad that verse doesn’t stop with jewels, but concludes, ‘It is the heav’n-drawn picture of Christ the Living Word.’
Since everyone knows that the Bible is full of gems of truth, we may be tempted to use it like the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations (which has a long section of famous Bible quotes). Scripture does yield a vast treasure of golden texts that are suitable for calligraphy and framing.
But the Bible is not a loose collection of verses, like some parts of the book of Proverbs. Stories fill the Bible: tales of love, like Ruth’s; of courage, like David’s against Goliath; of forgiveness, like Joseph’s for the brothers who sold him into slavery. These stories, however, are not organized as a book of values, a collection of stories offering us good examples. The best and the brightest, like King David, can be guilty of shocking lapses, even crimes.
Rather, the Bible has one story line, featuring not great men and women, but the great and holy God. It is the story of God’s saving love through the ages, and his triumph in Jesus Christ, who is Immanuel, God with us. Amazing grace is its theme, saving faith is its goal, and the Savior is its focus. Because that story was written to bring you life, you may well jump at once to the New Testament Gospels to see how it comes out. Yet the story does not begin there, and you miss much more than entertainment if you come in only for the last act.
When Jesus found Cleopas and another disciple leaving Jerusalem in shock on the very day of his resurrection, he withheld his identity and walked them through the Old Testament as he accompanied them on their journey. It was not enough to show them that he was really alive. He had to show them from the Old Testament why he died and rose again. Jesus’ teaching became the heart of what the apostles also taught: ‘that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures’ (1 Corinthians 15:3-4).
This book is an invitation to take a walk with Charles Drew, and, yes, with Jesus, for it is a fresh and vivid retelling of the greatest story in the world. Read it a chapter at a time, and reflect on questions that will lift your horizons. Better still, use it with a group of friends and share your discoveries. Cleopas and his friend couldn’t wait! (Luke 24:32-33).”
I also recommend some sound advice from your namesake, the Apostle Paul: “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1 THESSALONIANS 5:21)
Frank
LikeLike
February 26, 2014 at 4:56 pm
Frank,
I seem to be having problems posting on this subject so I’ll be leaving the conversation. Thanks for your thoughts, Paul
LikeLike
March 2, 2014 at 12:19 am
True. Atheism however is a belief. It is a positive affirmation of there being no divinity. This is not a personal, self-serving opinion; it is a dictionary definition, and the point of this post.
I acknowledge that many self-proclaimed atheists prefer another definition. Absence of belief seems to be a favorite. If you do, then this article will not make sense to you. It may even seem logically incoherent and offensive. But it is the dictionary definition of atheism referred to.
On the topic of absence of evidence and evidence of absence and burden of proof, I would be curious to know how many atheists (by any definition) participating in these comments actually believe and affirm God does not exist, as opposed to not believing that He does. And more broadly, the supernatural.
One request: Please do not commentate on my question; a simple yes or no and reasons as to why you hold such a belief will do.
Thanks!
LikeLike
March 2, 2014 at 12:31 am
Theologically speaking, the appropriate relationship of God to man is condescension. Condescension is abhorrent in man because no man has a right to “make the rules”. God does. And He does not usurp that right from mankind; He is granted that right by his very nature. A generation that sees God’s right to make the rules as unjust is a generation that has made man out to be God.
Cheers
LikeLike
March 2, 2014 at 12:47 am
You are correct — if faith is no more than an act of the will. Unfortunately, this is not the Biblical definition. Faith is “the evidence of things unseen” according to scripture. This is not semantics. Faith is an evidence in the soul of what lies beyond which persuades one to believe. Biblically speaking, faith is not the same as belief; faith precedes it.
Said differently, faith is the evidence which atheists claim is lacking, but which theists claim is present. This does not mean there are no intellectual grounds to suggest there is a God. On the other hand, no one to my knowledge came to a saving faith in Jesus Christ through a good intellectual argument.
Cheers
LikeLike
March 2, 2014 at 10:29 am
dpatrickcollins:
Here are a few dictionary definitions you obviously ommitted in your reference to the “dictionary definition of Atheism.
DICTIONARY.COM:
Atheism.
“1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.”
I agree with the second definition; you want to use number one only because it suits your idea that since religinists have bastardized their belief system they want to pull atheists down to thier low intellect level of a belief system when it is not such thing.
MERRIAM-WEBSTER:
“a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity”
a : in this case a: means “does not believe”; of course you prefer b. because it supports your spin.
OXFORD DICTIONARY:
Atheism: Noun
“Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.”
This atheist “does not believe” in a God(s)
This atheist “does not believe” in the proposition that God(s) exist.
This atheist “does not believe” in the supernatural
Believers “believe” without reason, logic, knowledge
This atheist “does not believe” without reason, logic, knowledge; certainly not based on the Magic of Moses where the attempt was made to show and prove the existence of Moses’ God as noted in Post #52 above:
Goodness you can go back to the early Old Testament, EXODUS 4, to see how the ancients tried to prove and promote the supernatural but could not. The elders: how did the elders try to prove and promote the supernatural in Moses? Through magic tricks. That is what Believers base their Belief on, Miracles on and their Supernaturalism on and atheists are not buying what you are selling as the ancients tried to sell and continue to sell with miracle water in ketchup packaging.
How did Moses try to promote the supernatural to Pharaoh; try to prove his God was the most powerful? Through magic.
4:1 Then Moses answered and said, “But suppose they will not believe me or listen to my voice; suppose they say, ‘The Lord has not appeared to you.’”
2 So the Lord said to him, “What is that in your hand?”
He said, “A rod.”
3 And He said, “Cast it on the ground.” So he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from it. 4 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Reach out your hand and take it by the tail” (and he reached out his hand and caught it, and it became a rod in his hand), 5 “that they may believe that the Lord God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has appeared to you.”
4:21 And the Lord said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do all those wonders before Pharaoh which I have put in your hand.
4: 30 And Aaron spoke all the words which the Lord had spoken to Moses. Then he did the signs in the sight of the people. 31 So the people believed;
7:8 Then the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, 9 “When Pharaoh speaks to you, saying, ‘Show a miracle for yourselves,’ then you shall say to Aaron, ‘Take your rod and cast it before Pharaoh, and let it become a serpent.’” 10 So Moses and Aaron went in to Pharaoh, and they did so, just as the Lord commanded. And Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh and before his servants, and it became a serpent.
11 But Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers; so the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments.
LikeLike
March 2, 2014 at 10:59 am
dpatrickcollins:
FAITH:
To use your dictionary defintion reference:
DICTIONARY.COM
faith [feyth]
noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another’s ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
THESAURUS:
FAITH: acceptance, belief, confidence, conviction, hope
MERRIAM-WEBSTER:
1faith noun \ˈfāth\
: strong belief or trust in someone or something
: belief in the existence of God : strong religious feelings or beliefs
THESAURUS:
belief and trust in and loyalty to God
a body of beliefs and practices regarding the supernatural and the worship of one or more deities
adherence to something to which one is bound by a pledge or duty
firm belief in the integrity, ability, effectiveness, or genuineness of someone or something
mental conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon
OXFORD DICTIOARY:
NOUN
[NOUN]
1 Complete trust or confidence in someone or something:
this restores one’s faith in politicians
2 Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof: bereaved people who have shown supreme faith
THESAURUS:
NOUN
1 he completely justified his boss’s faith in him
trust, belief, confidence, conviction, credence, reliance, dependence; optimism, hopefulness, hope, expectation
2 she gave her life for her faith
religion, church, sect, denomination, persuasion, religious persuasion, religious belief, belief, code of belief, ideology, creed, teaching, dogma, doctrine
The truth is that faith is nothing more than the deliberate suspension of disbelief. It’s an act of will. It’s not a state of grace; it’s a state of choice. Because without evidence, you’ve got no reason to believe apart from your willingness to believe.
Nothing more than, a belief, hope, wish, conviction, prayer that some Almighty personal intervener is going to champion your cause, nice dream but not a reality on this earth, YET!
All Faiths divide into cults believing only they, have the true Religion, true Church, true Prophet and true God; then, in self righteousness denigrate and slander infidels (the outsiders) and fellow humans with whom they disagree, if not hate outright.
LikeLike
March 2, 2014 at 1:19 pm
Thanks, Sonofman. We will address faith first:
First thank you for the dictionary definitions. I was giving you a Biblical and theological definition. If you wish to hold to the idea that faith is no more than an act of the will (and consequently, faith in Jesus Christ as no more than an act of the imagination), I have no intention of convincing you otherwise.
Cheers
LikeLike
March 2, 2014 at 1:56 pm
Thanks again, Sonofman. And now to the definition of atheism:
I am astounded at how many times thoughtful intellectual individuals who pride themselves on reserving belief on matters without sufficient evidence are so quick to profess to know my thoughts and intentions, which reside in the unseen. 🙂
Besides, my point was not so much that is the only definition of atheism; rather, it was the definition of atheism referred to in this blog post. And such a definition may not be preferred by some, but certainly it cannot be criticized too strongly, since after all, it is found in the dictionary and in most cases is first on the list.
If your definition of atheism is different, I would expect a response like: “That may be true of that dictionary definition of atheism, but it is not true for the definition I use.”
Lastly, thanks for sharing your position concerning God, the supernatural and reasons thereof. I can see why holding to such a position makes sense if you are convinced that “Believers ‘believe’ without reason, logic, knowledge.” Thankfully, I do not feel the need to check reason, logic or knowledge in at the door, but I did feel at one time that was what was required.
Thanks again for your comments and Cheers.
LikeLike
March 3, 2014 at 7:05 pm
dpatrickcollins:
AND Thanks for your reply also.
On Atheism:
I point out the reason for my reponse to your definition of Atheism as a “belief”. In post 66 you referred to the “dictionary” definition of Atheism not a biblical or theological definition and it is such that I commented on by giving you definitions of Atheism from three dictionaries: Online Dict.com, Merriam-Webster and Oxford; one lists your spin of Atheism as the first definition and two lists my spin as the first definition. You said, in that Post # 66 : “This is not a personal, self-serving opinion; it is a dictionary definition…..” So you may well understand how your phrasing in that sentence did not sound to me as a biblical or theological definition.
On Faith:
I don’t understand what you mean about “faith in Jesus. Of course Faith is an act of will; it is a deliberate suspension of disbelief, in God, in the Supernatural and Jesus has nothing to do with either. First of all I do not need to believe(have Faith) in Jesus because I believe I have knowledge of him from the words attributed to him, not all the words attributed to him from others are true but his words ring true to me and I have no reservations about saying that Jesus was a hero of mine since my early age of 12yrs of age.
Knowing Jesus’ mindset, then, I find it very easy to sort out diamonds from dung in biblical scripture. For your information the following is the only Jesus to believe in from where I sit.
Now if you don’t have the time to read, what many Christians on these Posts of Jason, comment on I write as “rants”, so be it. I’m sure there are very well meaning Christians commenting here but if one disagrees with the doctrines they have “Faith” in, contrary ideas are referred to as “rants” or “off topic” and they are unanimous in their support of each other against the interloper.
Nevertheless, I write the following FYI to give you a broader base from which to draw: Okay, I’ll grant you it may be a little longer than Twitter will allow because attention spans are wanting but…….:
Jesus, not the fanatical supernatural street preacher that religion has made him out to be; Jesus, in my mind was none of those things that people called him when they tried to kill him and today, as they try to venerate him for their own agenda of pence and power. To me Jesus was not supernatural, he did despise the clergy and only went to the Church for interaction with the people who were brainwashed by the clergy with the supernatural mindset instilled by deceptive men; Jesus called them the downtrodden, the poor, the uneducated, the common people who were kept in the dark from the truth so that they, unable to understand the events Jesus performed viewed them through the eyes of the supernatural as they were taught from birth; they said he was like a God, the Son of God, claims that Jesus never made, never endorsed and never accepted except as he referenced in the old Testament scriptures,(psalms 82 ex.) the only bible Jesus ever had, not the New Testament, not because he didn’t like it, he just never had it.
It is very difficult to alter someone’s perception of Jesus; aka, the Son of God and even though Christians have long settled for Jesus as the Son of God by the supernatural brainwashing technique of the clergy, did you ever get to know him as the Son of Man? As he claimed to be? Most Christians have long settled for the Deity myth but most Christians never take the time to imagine Jesus as he really was, a human being, like the rest of us.
They never imagine him as a little kid playing with his fellows in the village square, falling and scratching his elbows and knees, clinging to his mother’s skirt as a youngster, crying for comfort. THIS MAN. He was the one who came and fixed your window when it jammed. This man, was too ordinary.
Jesus wasn’t born with a silver spoon in his mouth; he never went to this university and that university only to come home with this Degree and that Diploma. This Man, Jesus, was much too ordinary to be understood on the basis of his mere humanity. His common sense eluded the masses.
And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and they said, “Whence hath this man this wisdom, whence hath this man these mighty words? And you might wonder why they said of him, THIS MAN.
Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A man is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.
————————————
THE ONLY JESUS TO BELIEVE IN!
The life of Jesus covers the whole spectrum of human experience. The characters he encountered range from tyrants, murderers, bullies, thieves, jealous schemers, liars and assassins to noble kings, tender lovers, doting parents, roistering drunks, swaggering soldiers, philosophers, gravediggers and country bumpkins. How could one man, who lived all his life within a small area of the Middle East, have achieved such an encyclopedic knowledge of mankind?
The answer of course is by looking inside himself. In his own head and heart he found every possible trait of character and twist of emotion. His dialogue rings true because Jesus knew that he himself was Everyman. He had only to consult his own soul to imagine how any character would react in a given situation because he—-as a human being—- was also a microcosm of the whole human race.
Since each of us is a human being, each possesses within himself the whole potential range of emotions, urges, fears, anxieties, appetites, physical and emotional needs, instinctual drives and reactions common to all. This is not just idle philosophizing, it’s a fact of key importance to your own personal life and to your understanding of Jesus, the Son of Man.
Jesus never claimed to be God but alluded to being the “Son of God” as per Psalms. When asked if he was the Son of God, he said: “It is you who say it”. And they did: Jesus was labeled as the Son of God by the masses and hence he was popularly portrayed as something he himself never claimed. Luke 22, 69-71
Then said they all, “Art thou then the Son of God?” And he said unto them, “Ye say that I am”.
And they said, “What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.”
Revisionist historians include erroneous claims that Jesus claimed he was God but that’s not true. Jesus referred to himself as the Son of Man. Jesus also referred only to the self witness, within, that was the God he called his Father, not the supernatural gods created by men in every generation before him and every generation since.
Cheers and thanks for being nice in your comments.
LikeLike
March 9, 2014 at 6:12 am
Reblogged this on WhateverForeverAmen and commented:
A great post by Jason Dulle, especially the conversation in the comments section. Check it out.
LikeLike
April 18, 2014 at 3:48 am
Reblogged this on paarsurrey and commented:
Paarsurrey says:
I mostly agree with your arguments in the post.
Regards
LikeLike
September 6, 2014 at 1:11 pm
Most atheists I know are also agnostic, as follows.
Do you believe in a deity or deities? No, I am an atheist.
Do one or more supernatural deities exist? I cannot prove they don’t, so I am agnostic in regard to that question.
One must be assumed to be the expert on his or her own beliefs; thus claims of theism or atheism require no proof. On the other hand, claims of fact do require proof, and since supernatural deities can be neither proved nor disproved (negations, in general, are difficult to prove), most reasonable people identify as agnostic in this regard, regardless of their person faith beliefs or lack of them. Even Richard Dawkins admits there is a slight chance that a super natural deity could exist, but this does not make him any less an atheist.
LikeLike
September 6, 2014 at 4:01 pm
Atheism is not a Belief system, Theism is a belief system, Atheism is a non belief system.
Every religionist says the same thing as you do trying to defend Theism by denigrating Atheism; but Atheism is merely a reaction to Theist’s gods; well of course, because man keeps creating fake gods in every generation and every generation accepts the fake god of the time. That’s no different from the food you eat, culture you grew up with, religion you practiced, language you spoke.
We didn’t understand why it rained, so we created a Rain God. When we came to understand meteorology, the Rain God was sacrificed on the alter of science. We have murdered our Gods in the name of progress. Now we have only a few gods left, and when we are a stronger minded species…we will kill them too.
All humans ever born were born as atheists; that is, without a belief in God, then along comes religion. Religion, trying to prove the existence of the supernatural in the face of god myths, miracles and magic, is like shearing a pig – lots of squeals but little wool.
The only evidence that exists for Theism is the evidence that Moses began making magic tricks and calling them miracles to prove his God to Pharoah as clearly outlined in Exodus 7:8-11. In the beginning Man created God…and not just God but Gods, many gods, a multitude of gods, thousands of gods to represent everything man surveyed and finally after the Gods came and went Abraham decided to put all the Gods together into a ONE LUMP GOD and that’s what we have now a ONE LUMP GOD, a composite from the multitude of failed gods before. Albeit ONE LUMP CHRISTIAN GOD, ONE LUMP MUSLIM GOD, ONE LUMP JEWISH GOD is exactly the same credence a thousand separate fake gods.
God was created by man, fostered by magic, perpetuated by wannabee pseudo mediators, called Prophets, Priests and Preachers drilling absurdities into childrens’ minds and still the hoax persists. Children are abused by every absurd imaginatin when their minds, like putty, are molded into believing everything from Santa to Satan at the same time they learn language, food, and culture; in other words religion….HARD WIRES the brain for the rest of their lives. Such are the atrocities of child abuse allowed to continue in the name of religion.
LikeLike
September 6, 2014 at 4:12 pm
I am amazed when I see a tiny egg become a larvae and then a chrysalis than a caterpillar that weaves a cocoon, crawls into a time machine and comes out as a new generation butterfly. I wonder if the DNA of the caterpillar species has the same DNA profile as the butterfly species it became; do you know?
I don’t credit the life cycle process to caricature concepts the Theist’s Gods; I am agnostic about the life cycles in the Cosmos, from the birth and death of stars to the life cycle of the liver fluke parasite.; an Atheist is free to say “I don’t know” because Atheists do not operate on the drug of Absolute Certainty. Theists cannot operate on an “I don’t know” idea because they have belief (non-knowledge) to rely on. Huh?
LikeLike
September 6, 2014 at 4:24 pm
There are things that not even the best scientists today can explain but that doesn’t mean that we should block off investigation by resorting to phony explanations invoking magic or the supernatural which don’t actually explain at all.
Just imagine how a medieval man, even the most educated man of his era would have reacted if he had seen a jet plane, a laptop computer, a cell phone, a satlab device; he would have called them supernatural, miraculous but these devices are now commonplace; we know how they work.
People have built them, following scientific principles. There never was a need to invoke magic or miracles or the supernatural. We now see that the medieval man would have been wrong to do so.
And we don’t have to go back as far as medieval times to make the point: a gang of Victorian international criminals equipped with modern cell phones could have coordinated their activities in ways that would have looked like telepathy to Sherlock Holmes. In Holme’s world a suspect in a murder case who could prove he was in New York the evening after the murder was committed in London would have a perfect alibi because it was literally impossible , in the 19th century, to be in New York and London on the same day.
The eminent science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke summed the point up as Clark’s Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
The very idea of levitation has long been a byword for the supernatural, for mysterious magic. And I am going to show you a little film now, a demonstration from the superconductivity group of Tel Aviv University: of a feat of levitation that’s done by purely naturalistic physics, quantum physics. Levitation is no longer a miracle, it’s physics.
LikeLike