There’s a concerted effort by a lot of atheists to redefine “atheist” from the metaphysical claim that God does not exist to a personal claim about one’s psychological state, namely that they lack a belief in God. It’s a strategic move to remove any burden of proof for their position (God does not exist). This redefinition has some interesting implications:
- Atheism and theism could both be true at the same time.
- Atheism is just an autobiographical assessment and tells us nothing meaningful about whether God exists or not.
- Atheism cannot be true or false.
- People who have evidence to believe in God are atheists.
- Babies and cats also qualify as atheists.
Lacking a belief in God makes one an agnostic, not an atheist. Besides, while most of these atheists lack belief in God, they do not lack beliefs about God. They think he (probably) doesn’t exist, and that belief must be justified.
Thinking to Believe 
January 25, 2016 at 4:17 am
Since a while now I am calling myself ‘atheist’, however, I do believe in a source of everything, which I call ‘God’ or ‘nothing’. This is more of a philosophical approach. I don’t adhere to any religion as proclaiming some ‘truth’. Maybe this is all more ‘agnostic’? The predicate ‘agnostic’ sounds to me more spiritual than I am!
LikeLike
January 25, 2016 at 12:34 pm
Hello and greetings to all my fans; I have more fans than Donald Trump.
I am doing life outside the box at this time but I will be back later to give you the skinny on the true Atheism definition, redefinition with a little realism. Stick around for this captivating message.
Take care #-o :-0
LikeLike
January 25, 2016 at 12:36 pm
:), #-o, :-0, 😉
LikeLike
January 25, 2016 at 7:14 pm
Jason, never before heard of this. Sounds like they are trying to make their point by changing definitions. As I see it, atheists have no duty to prove that God does not exist, since one cannot prove a negative. However, unless one can prove there is no God, then he should not call himself an atheist. So, logically, everyone is either an agnostic or a believer. Believers have the duty to prove there is a God, and we have done it, over and over and over.
LikeLike
January 25, 2016 at 11:55 pm
Hi Entropy.
I am glad to hear you believe in a source of everything, but that source can’t be “nothing” since something can only come from something else. If you start with nothing you’ll always have nothing. Since something exists now, that means something must be eternal. Science and philosophy make it clear that the universe cannot be eternal, so the eternal something must be something else. Since the universe encompasses all matter, space, and time, the eternal source/cause of the universe must be immaterial, non-spatial, and non-temporal. Furthermore, to create the order and energy in the universe, the cause must be intelligent and powerful. Finally, there are only two types of causes (mindless events, personal agents). The beginning of the universe marks the first event. Whatever caused the universe cannot be an event cause because you can’t have an event that precedes the “first event.” That means the cause of the universe must be a personal agent. By logic alone, then, we have identified the cause of the universe as an immaterial, non-spatial, non-temporal (eternal), powerful, intelligent, and personal being. That is exactly what theists have always meant by “God.” Philosophy, then, brings us to God.
Which God? That’s the question. To determine if the creator God has truly revealed Himself and his truth in any religion, one can examine the holy books of the world’s religions to see if they bear the marks of divine revelation. Obviously, as a Christian, I think the Bible does. I think its claims ring true to human experience in the world. And ultimately, the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection is very good. And if Jesus claimed to reveal God, and in confirmation of His teachings God raised Him from the dead, then that tells us that Jesus is who He said He was, and the God He preached about is the true God.
Jason
LikeLike
January 26, 2016 at 12:01 am
Randy,
What they are trying to do is avoid having to make a point by changing the meaning of “atheist.” They are trying to avoid the burden of proof to defend their belief that God does not exist.
Actually, one can prove a negative. And one can prove that God does not exist if there is a lack of evidence for His existence where we would expect to find such evidence, or if there is something logically incoherent about the very concept of God. Others attempt to show that God cannot exist because the presence/amount of moral evil is incompatible with such a being’s existence.
One need not be able to prove that God does not exist in order to be an atheist. The meaning of “theist” and “atheist” describe one’s beliefs concerning the proposition “God exists.” Those who believe this proposition is true are called theists while those who believe the proposition is false are called “atheists.” One can believe the proposition is true or false with or without evidence for such a belief.
You’re right that we have proven there is a God – not beyond any doubt, but beyond reasonable doubt.
Jason
LikeLike
January 26, 2016 at 3:05 pm
Atheism always meant no belief, it has never meant belief. It is theists who are trying to redefine atheism not Atheists. Atheists do not have a belief that God does not exist; they simply do not believe that God exists. That is different than believers who have a belief that God does exist; they just can’t prove it. Nobody can have a belief that no thing exists. Who in the world can have a belief about non-existence Nobody! Not believing in somebody’s God does not constitute a belief that somebody;s God does not exist, Atheists simply do not believe. There is nothing complicated about it, you think it is, but it isn’t; it’s so logical even a caveman can understand it.
It’s saying exactly what the hole in the bucket means; nobody can believe in the hole in the bucket because there is no hole in the bucket, what we conveniently call the hole in the bucket simply means that a piece of the bucket is absent but that doesn’t make the hole anything, because it is no thing. The “hole” like darkness is no thing, just the absence of some thing.
INTENTIONAL SIN is to avoid knowledge, deceitfulness is by hiding it; not going in and not allowing others to go in who want to.
I have said that the Father, the Spirit of conscious thought and Memory about it, is within you, in your brain; it’s the only God that makes sense and I will elaborate a little further(maybe even a lot further)
The Ghost is Memory. Holy, being another word for Good, I call memory, the Good Spirit, Good Memory, the Holy Ghost; AKA, Good Gosh. We deem it good because it is our internal savior by which experience, understanding and knowledge becomes the Discerning Man, the Wise Spirit.
Jesus referred to the Self Witness as, The Father that includes the brain The Internal Guide, the internal Companion within, that sees everything you do in secret. That my friend, is the Father and Holy Ghost housed in everyone; or, in other words, in the Sons/Daughters, S/HE.
The functional Memory is distinct from the mechanical Brain but cannot be separated from the Brain anymore than the Brain with its Memory can be separated from S/he in whose body and life it plays a pivotal role. A Triune Godhead in oneness with humanity.
According to simple Hindu legend… Once upon a time human beings abused the divinity so much that Brahma decided to take it away and hide it. Brahma called the God Council. Bury it deep in the earth, said some. Others: In the deepest oceans; on the highest mountains. NO,they’ll dig, dive and climb the mountains to find it. We’ll hide it deep in the center of their own being. And since that time humans have been digging, diving, climbing, and exploring–searching for something already within themselves as Jesus told you over and over and over again. Lk 17:20, 21
Religion is a form of mental illness which is embraced by people using ritualisms imposed by religion, in days of old and even today, in some cases on pain of death as the demands for conversion are heard in the news daily. I don’t necessarily blame people for being indoctrinated by ritual cultism but I do blame them for becoming proselytes for the very indoctrination that has spawned their mindless convictions after being told about the truth by others; of particular note, Jesus himself.
This is what religion does to people: it tries to explain light and shadow, wind, haze, smoke and cloud, in terms of the supernatural. Religion is based purely on the hoaxes of supernatural myth, superstition and magic played to the reptile dysfunction of the primitive brain where it cannot discern the visual difference between the wind blowing a dead twig across the path and a twig, alive, running across the path, simply because it has movement. The reptile brain is stunted from evolving to the higher rational brain by ritual indoctrination whereby chants and prayers and finger beading by repetition creates a false impression that lies, repeated over and over often enough, make them true.
The reptile way is an inability to discern the movement of a twig blowing in the wind so it readies from fright, for a fight or flight response that religion loves to use because ritual, non discernment and fear of the unknown resides in the reptile brain of mankind. The only way to conquer reptile supernaturalism is with the rational brain where knowledge, will set you free, because belief NEVER CAN.
Believing in a supernatural God is like believing in a hole in the bucket. You know that water will leak out of the hole you apparently see in the bucket but there is no hole in the bucket; what you think you see as a hole is really “nothing”, the “hole’ is an absence of a piece of the bucket that would otherwise cause it to be leakproof. We say, we “see” the hole for convenient communication but there is nothing of a “hole” to see; in that sense God is a hole in a person’s mind in the same way that satan is a hole in the mind, both are the essence of absence like darkness is the absence of light. Darkness has no existence by itself any more than a mirror that reflects your image; your image is not in the mirror, the image is a mirage, not there.
Jesus was not a doctor of theology who graduated with an expertise in the unknowable; Jesus was a person who operated with common sense from a knowledge base, premised on the principle that “All there is of Good is available to s/he who is available to all there is of Good”. And from that foundation he set the standard for his “coming out”.
Jesus despised the Church, despised Religion, despised ritualism, despised dogmatism and most especially despised the Clergy, calling them poisonous vipers. Jesus also incurred the Clergy-poisoned peoples’ wrath by debunking the institution of religious insanity based on supernaturalism: the “hole in the bucket”, God. (Luke 4:23-30.)
Now the Father within man is something considerably more than a mere bundle of experiences which phrase many people use to despoil the real truth and value of the brain and its powerful ability of memory.(All conceived concepts and understanding comes from the brain and not one single concept comes from anywhere else.) The brain is one’s constant companion from birth, the centre of all perceptive abilities and with a phenomenal capability of memory that is only and purely and totally the solitary guide for the good and protection of every single human being.
Jesus knew that that Father in him was the Father in everyone and the Father in everyone is the Guide for every human, if you let him. Having faith in the Good that resides within you is your just award; you just need to make the connection and understand the simplicity that is in you and that was in Jesus, because it is available to everyone who is available to what you already have. All there is of Good is available to s/he who is available to all there is of Good. Just in case I said that too fast. You see, we are past masters at complicating the issue by neglecting to recognize the simplicity in just, “be-ing” human without the gobbly gook of magic, sleight of hand and the deception of being stuck in the “hole” concept.
Revisionist biblical historians include erroneous claims that Jesus claimed he was God but that’s not true. While he alluded to the Father within occasionally, some infer he was talking about himself but Jesus referred to himself, and not himself exclusively, as the (Son) Son of Man. Jesus also referred only to the self witness within, in most of the three Gospels Matthew, Mark & Luke as the Father; that was the God he called his Father, that guided him, that he followed, and that he credited the Father with everything he ever did and said, not the supernatural gods created by men in every generation before him and after him but very few Christians today understand what Jesus was talking about because religion hijacked Jesus to stay with the line of supernaturalism, the “Hole in the Bucket” that is naught.
John 5:41-44: ”I’m not interested in crowd approval. And do you know why? Because I know you and your crowds. I know that love, especially the Father’s love, is not on your working agenda. I came with the authority of my Father, and you either dismiss me or avoid me. If another came, acting self-important, you would welcome him with open arms. How do you expect to get anywhere with the Father when you spend all your time jockeying for position with each other, ranking your rivals and ignoring the Father?
John 12:42-43 On the other hand, a considerable number from the ranks of the leaders did believe. But because of the Pharisees, they didn’t come out in the open with it. They were afraid of getting kicked out of the meeting place. When push came to shove they cared more for human approval than for the Father’s glory.
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 read and explained 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 Religious Blogs and YouTube. When the preachers got up to speak everyone curled up and went for a quiet doze waking up for the benediction; and preferably, just after the Offering.
Jesus and I and the Father are one, and that is one of the simplest things to understand, and easy to him who has understanding. Has nothing to do with ego, has nothing to do with blasphemy, it has only to do with your 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. Performing only those things that “please you” you cannot help but follow that guiding light, discerning good and evil, right and wrong and doing what is right, always, pleasing him, doing the Father’s will….to your own personal benefit. The Father is only there to guide you and using that guide pleases him and benefits you.
The Bucket Hole, you must understand, you will never “see” because the “Hole” you are looking for, like the God you believe in, isn’t there! And never was since the beginning of time. Get out of the Hole and into the bucket! That was Jesus’ message; the light of the world and the world received it not because it preferred the religious “Hole in the Bucket” of supernaturalism instead of THE IMMANENCE.
You, I, Jesus, JeSuis and all mankind are Immanent human beings; that is our Humanity, if we acknowledge it, if we accept it, if we let it! THE NEW DAY AND THE NEW WAY IS HERE. GRAB IT! Name it and Claim it. IMMANENCE….WITHIN YOU.
LikeLike
February 3, 2016 at 1:41 pm
Of course it’s a tactic and a good one at that but they are only fooling themselves. When discussing the existence of God with an “atheist” I now first ask a few questions to quickly confirm whether they are “new atheists” or hold to the traditional definition of atheist. I’ve had some very enjoyable discussions regarding the existence of God but unless a person is open to the possibility of the supernatural it is a waste of time. You can plant a thought in their mind but it’s no good unless God wants to reveal Himself to them. The sad part is I’ve noticed a growing anger on both sides and now more often than not the discussions turns into insults. I’m a Christian that has some questions, so although I disagree with atheists I’m sympathetic to many of their concerns about theism.
LikeLike
March 10, 2016 at 9:18 pm
I’ve been very frustrated by this myself. But it makes me feel better to know that someone else is pointing out the problem (which always seems to come back to shirking their share of the burden of proof).
Thanks for that.
LikeLike
March 11, 2016 at 8:24 am
Debilis:
Theists are the ones who try to re-define Atheism FROM THE TRUE DEFINITION which is the claim of one’s psychological state, their mindset; namely, that they lack a belief in God
It is the Theist who tries to re-define Atheism. Atheism (A-THEISM) means that it does not have the belief of THEISM which is the belief that God exists; the Atheist defined means s/he DOES NOT BELIEVE that God exists. God is not the subject of the definition here, BELIEF / NON BELIEF, that is the verb, state of being is, God the object.
BELIEF:
Assent to a proposition or affirmation or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty.
NON BELIEF:
The absence of (without) assent to a proposition or affirmation or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty.
LikeLike
August 20, 2016 at 8:32 pm
Looks like I missed this one!
Personally, I try not to argue positions in debate. I simply point out that it is only those who take a position on whether or not God exists that are actually entering into the debate on God’s existence. However one defines atheism, simply “not believing” is neither here nor there.
That is the main point, though I would also like to point out that this popular piece of etymology is actually wrong. The-ism is the position that at least one God exists. Athe-ism is the position that there is a lack of Gods. A lack of belief in Gods would be A-pisti-the-ism.
At least, that is the case if one is aware of how the suffix “-ism” is applied to words in the English language. Still, language changes, and doesn’t always follow the rules it sets for itself. I’d have no problem with that at all if I could think of a single good reason why we should define atheism as a “lack of belief”.
I see no reason why atheists should be so passionate about this issue—save that it allows them to avoid having to defend a claim. Is there any reason, other than that, why people who have heard of the idea of God and reject it passionately enough to be writing blog comments (often in caps) about how much they hate religion should be afforded this rather soft definition.
I’m really open to hearing other views, but, so far, it seems rather obvious to me that avoiding responsibility in debate is the actual reason.
LikeLike
August 20, 2016 at 10:39 pm
Debilis:
One believes and One does not believe. One can’t get much clearer than that definition.
If there is a god I would like to meet her.
There is the Believer in the Belief System of Theism (theist) and there is the non believer in the Belief System of Theism (atheist).
Atheism is another word for reality, it means not seeing any need to apologize for being human. And to be happy to live the life we have and not just wish it away on some celestial wingnut that tells me heaven is right there waiting and all you’ve got to do, is DIE.
But surely people need Theism to answer certain questions; well, yes, questions like, How best can we stifle the human spirit? How much can we squeeze from the poor and gullible? and how many palaces can we live in at once? without blushing. These questions Theism answers very well indeed. But unfortunately there are other questions to which it doesn’t have answers so it makes them up. This is where atheism comes in.
Atheism says, Hey you just made that up. And Theism says no, this is what we call theology.
Okay, okay, we get it. Atheists may not believe in god but at least theist organizations do a lot of good work especially in the third world. Surely you can’t knock that? So what are you telling me? If they weren’t theists, they wouldn’t be doing this work? It’s not really coming from their hearts? They’re just doing it because they’re following orders? Is that what you’re saying?
To be fair I do actually sympathize to some extent, I mean, it must be quite galling for theists to see atheists like me going about their business without a shred of guilt or self loathing and not in the least inclined to pray or to do penance of any kind and not in the slightest bit worried about any form of eternal punishment.
I have to admit, if I was a theist, I’d probably think to myself, well, how come I’ve got all this weight on my shoulders while these bums are getting a free ride. And I don’t even think I’d be comforted either as some of you clearly are by the prospect of their eternal torture in the flames of Hell, roasting in agony, and tormented by demons because I don’t really buy that scenario.
I think if Hell does exist, it’s not a place where you physically burn forever, but perhaps a metaphor for something more subtle that consumes from within. Something like eternal regret perhaps, something not done, not challenged, not risked, not loved enough. Or maybe it’s just burning in fire, I don’t want to get heavy about it.
Theist says I see it because I believe it.
Atheist says I believe it because I see it.
Secularist says prove all things by knowledge, belief proves nothing.
LikeLike
August 21, 2016 at 11:55 am
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. Theists accept God. Atheists reject God. Then again, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. What matters is what something is, not what it is called.
LikeLike
August 21, 2016 at 3:53 pm
What religion did Jesus belong to? What denomination did he uphold? NONE!
Jesus was not a Theist unfortunately for Theists. Theists try to make Jesus out to be one of them just like the Pharisees tried after they crucified him but Jesus had no part of religion and no part of Theism other than the God he tried to show mankind was the only God that existed and that is the Father within each and every human being born.
Go outside Jesus, outside of that, and you delve in folly, futility and the foolishness of mankind’s imagination.
LikeLike
August 23, 2016 at 9:03 pm
@LeoTheGreater,
I didn’t claim that the typical atheist “lacks belief” move isn’t clear. It’s transparently clear (for whatever that’s worth). I claimed that it is neither defended by the typical argument from etymology, nor useful, nor worth pressing for any reason other than to avoid having to defend a position.
I’m willing to be corrected on that last, but, so far, I’ve never encountered anyone willing to support a counter position on that.
“Atheism is another word for reality”
I thought atheism, according to you, was disbelief in theism. This is a completely different definition.
So, if you are going to make the claim that rejection of theism is equivalent to reality, I’d like to see a case made for that (supported by arguments and evidence, of course).
“it means not seeing any need to apologize for being human.”
Here, we have yet another definition of atheism. Personally, I’ve never seen a need to apologize for being human, yet I most definitely believe in God. Are you claiming that it is possible to be an atheist and believe in God at the same time?
“And to be happy to live the life we have”
So, Nietzsche, Camus, Sartre, etc. weren’t atheists?
“not just wish it away on some celestial wingnut”
This is definition #5, in case you’re counting.
I don’t recall anything about theism that requires people to “wish [life] away”. I’m rather enjoying my own, as a case in point.
Nor do I recall theism meaning that one has to do that wishing on, or even believe in “some celestial wingnut”, but that should go without saying.
“that tells me heaven is right there waiting and all you’ve got to do, is DIE.”
I’m struggling to think of any religion which claims this. I’ve read extensively on quite a few and have never encountered this claim.
Let alone have I ever seen any support for the idea that all theism requires this.
“But surely people need Theism to answer certain questions; well, yes, questions like, How best can we stifle the human spirit?”
Do you seriously believe that someone intentionally created religion for this purpose, or are you simply claiming that this is what religion has come to be?
If so, could you provide reasonable support for that massive claim? I’ve never encountered any expert on religion (whether that expert was religious or not) that would claim anything at all like this, and I wonder where you’ve been getting your information if you seriously believe this.
“How much can we squeeze from the poor and gullible?”
Are you claiming that atheists are more ethical in their treatment of “the poor and gullible” than theists are?
If so, what is your support for this claim? What anthropological or sociological study supports it?
If not, this seems a rather misleading rhetorical statement that is hardly willing to set aside emotional agendas for the sake of uncovering the truth.
“Atheism says, Hey you just made that up.”
Now you’ve moved right back into the definition for atheism I was suggesting (the traditional one). Someone who says “you just made that up” isn’t merely “not believing”; that person is claiming that theism is false.
And that is correct. We should take the claim that an idea is true and compare it to the claim that it is false, and see which has better support.
“Atheists may not believe in god but at least theist organizations do a lot of good work especially in the third world. Surely you can’t knock that? So what are you telling me? If they weren’t theists, they wouldn’t be doing this work?”
I don’t remember telling you anything about this issue. I didn’t mention it at all in my comment.
Similarly, my main thought here is that you seem to have drifted from “theism causes people to be evil” to “theism doesn’t make people better than atheists”.
I tend to agree with the second claim, but I have no idea how it supports the first.
“To be fair I do actually sympathize to some extent, I mean, it must be quite galling for theists to see atheists like me going about their business without a shred of guilt or self loathing and not in the least inclined to pray or to do penance of any kind and not in the slightest bit worried about any form of eternal punishment.”
Speaking personally, I can’t seem to recall ever being galled by that. I’ve known quite a few atheists, and am struggling to remember any moment that I’ve been bothered by that in the slightest.
Admittedly, I’d probably be bothered if those same people jumped into an angry rant about (since they were atheists) how much kinder and smarter they were than me, and that my life’s goal is a waste—and that I’m stupid and gullible and a terrible person. In general, that’s the sort of atheist that tends to get theists angry.
Personally, I suppose that would hurt me if that sort of rant came from someone whom I’d thought was a friend, but them simply going about living life as best they can? No, I’m not bothered by that.
“I have to admit, if I was a theist, I’d probably think to myself, well, how come I’ve got all this weight on my shoulders while these bums are getting a free ride.”
I’d hope that, if you were to become a theist, you’d get better instruction than that. As someone who’s been both an atheist and a theist, I don’t find atheism to be a “free ride” at all.
Personally, the only thing that would be a “free ride”, in that sense, would be a close-minded approach to either theism or atheism. People who think that their view is so superior that only stupidity or evil could lead others to disagree don’t have to bother much with thinking or trying to be better people.
But I can’t say I envy those types.
“And I don’t even think I’d be comforted either as some of you clearly are by the prospect of their eternal torture in the flames of Hell”
In that case, good for you.
I’m not comforted by that thought in the slightest. I hate the idea of anyone going to Hell.
“I think if Hell does exist, it’s not a place where you physically burn forever but perhaps a metaphor for something more subtle that consumes from within.”
That is correct.
The idea is that all of us have dark impulses that, if we give into them, will (however slowly) cause us more and more pain.
“Theist says I see it because I believe it.”
All theists say this?
I don’t recall ever saying this—or anything like it. And it isn’t just me. Thomas Aquinas, Maimonedes, Avicenna, Scotus, William Lane Craig, Leibnitz, Descartes, Hart and every other theologian I’ve ever encountered can be counted among those who have never said that.
They all have given specific philosophical arguments for their position. You may not agree with those arguments, but it is quite a different thing to pretend that they didn’t give them.
“Atheist says I believe it because I see it.”
This is closer to true. I’ve encountered several atheists who seem to think that everything that exists has to be something they can see (or, at least, test empirically).
I often wonder, though. This idea (that we shouldn’t believe any idea without scientific evidence for it), what is the scientific evidence for that?
LikeLike
August 25, 2016 at 1:24 pm
Debris:
“Atheism is another word for reality”…….metaphorically……..speaking. I didn’t think I needed to explain language usage to anyone who has ever read the bible or any book of fiction.
Metaphor is a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.
“it means not seeing any need to apologize for being human.”
Here, we have yet another example of a metaphor.
It’s easy to defend the position of a-theism, it is one who does not believe in a personal supernatural God or Gods. Theism is a cross between mythology and magic trickery for supernaturalism.
“……..someone intentionally created religion for this purpose……….” to keep a few con men in financial/food/cares/riches/pleasures of the world without having to lift a finger, being an appointed or self appointed prophet of the gods they created. AKA, psychics.
Jesus was .”….more ethical in his treatment of “the poor and gullible” than theists of his day were? The poor and gullible were classes as sinner and to be avoided while Jesus was attacked for sitting and communing with sinners….Matt 9:11; And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” because the Theists always held that the poor and the crippled and disabled and the afflicted with disease was a manifestation of their sin.
Are you claiming that it is possible to be an atheist and believe in God at the same time? Yes that is exactly what I am claiming and it is exactly what Jesus meant because believing in the God of Theists is to believe in the supernatural somewhere up in the norther sky god but that was not the God that Jesus believed in and not the God I believe in. My definition of God is the same definition of Jesus God. Do you think Jesus was persecuted because he was a Theist? I don’t think so if you ever read the life and times of Jesus, the Son of Man and a microcosm of Everyman.
“theism causes people to be evil” Theism debits and credits (justification) their God for everything they say and do whether it’s burning enemy villages to the ground and killing everyone therein, babies and women and their cattle as well or stoning adulterous people or putting to death anyone not obeying the Laws like working on the Sabbath and killing homosexuals in word and deed.
Now could argue that atheism is also metaphorically used to say that Theism is false, not the belief of theism but the object of their belief; that is the God or the Gods of man’s creation depending on which time in history you live through such as when mythology was the way and the Oracles (prophets) practiced what the theistic prophets practiced. Whether it is Apollo, Zeus or plain old God of the desert; they’re all from the same grab bag aren’t they?
How about forgetting the Theist says and we’ll simply rewrite it to mean that Theists “see it because they believe it” that is the essence of the statement, “says it”, or “lives it”, or “by deed is known by it” or “manifests it be behavior”.
Indeed Debilis, you can be a niggler………
Scientists knew about radiation before they could see it or measure it or hear it which is something akin to the supernaturalist, so they doggedly pursued their idea to prove it and presto came the invention for a Geiger Counter. Now until Theists come up with a Geiger Counter for the supernatural, it shall remain in the imagination of the believer’s mindset.
They see God because they believe. They see the placebo because they believe the placebo. When the data can be charted empirically that is what the atheist and the scientist accepts, not believes because once knowledge is had belief is supplanted like the darkness that flees as the rooster heralds the coming day when the darkness of deceptions upon which vampires feed disappears with the light.
LikeLike
August 25, 2016 at 7:03 pm
Published on Aug 21, 2016
Crossroads Community Church – Lecture by Brett Kunkle (of str.org). This videos is part of the Engage Ignite 2016 Apologetics Conference: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list…
God is a Crutch (and Other Atheist Objections) | Brett Kunkle
LikeLike
August 25, 2016 at 9:45 pm
“Metaphor is a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.”
I’m trying to think of a non-literal meaning of the phrase “Atheism is another word for reality” that wouldn’t be subject to something like what I’ve already said.
The most likely case is that you were simply using hyperbole, but I would have basically the same objection: if you are claiming that atheism is the more rational position, then you need to support that claim.
“It’s easy to defend the position of a-theism, it is one who does not believe in a personal supernatural God or Gods.”
That fits perfectly with what I claimed in my opening remark: that this definition is insisted on precisely because it is so ridiculously easy to defend.
I only added that it accomplishes this by ceasing to be any kind of position on whether or not God exists.
“Theism is a cross between mythology and magic trickery for supernaturalism.”
Please offer me some reason to believe this (whether you mean it literally or not). Theism is a metaphysical position which doesn’t require anything like “magic trickery”. Nor does it require mythology in anything but the broad technical sense of the word.
It does, of course, require “supernaturalism” in the sense of proposing that there is more to reality than the natural, but it requires nothing like the silly caricatures that are constantly tossed around on atheist websites.
You claim that religion was created “to keep a few con men in financial/food/cares/riches/pleasures of the world without having to lift a finger, being an appointed or self appointed prophet of the gods they created. AKA, psychics.”
But I see absolutely nothing to support this claim in your comment—and have never found anything like support for it elsewhere (in spite of quote a bit of reading). If you want anyone to believe this, you need to offer reasons to think it is true.
You also claim that “Jesus was ….more ethical in his treatment of the poor and gullible than theists of his day were”
I completely agree that Jesus was very ethical. I simply disagree with two other claims one would need to accept in order for this to be relevant.
1. The claim that Jesus was not a theist (more on this below)
2. The claim that Jesus is the average example of an atheist, and that what you call “the theists of his day” are the average example of theists.
I don’t see any reason to believe either of these things.
“The poor and gullible were classes as sinner and to be avoided while Jesus was attacked for sitting and communing with sinners”
I agree that this is wrong. I simply don’t see any valid reason to think that atheists are more like Jesus in this respect than theists are.
You claim that it is possible to be an atheist and believe in God at the same time, but I genuinely don’t understand that. You’ve been claiming that atheism is a disbelief in “a personal supernatural God or Gods”.
But God is, by definition personal, and “supernatural” only means something more than the natural. There doesn’t seem to be any way to believe in God without believing in something personal that is not part of the natural order.
“believing in the God of Theists is to believe in the supernatural somewhere up in the norther sky god…”
I’ve never met, read, or heard about any theist who believes that this is what theism is. You can claim that it is a non-literal statement, but I can’t think of any way to take this statement that isn’t wildly misleading. Theists believe many different things, and it is horribly unfair (and just wrong) to wave away all those beliefs with a careless comment like this.
“but that was not the God that Jesus believed in”
I’ve read a great meany people, with a great many differing views about what Jesus believed. If you feel that you’ve settled that argument among experts, then I’d be very interested to hear about it.
But I definitely agree that Jesus didn’t believe in the god you associate with theism, or any of the strange things Dawkins and his fans attack. I simply take a broader view of theism and a more careful approach to claiming what Jesus believed.
“Do you think Jesus was persecuted because he was a Theist?”
Of course not. I merely question why you seem to think that means he was persecuted for being an atheist. This ignores quite a few other possibilities, including the thing I actually think on this matter.
“Theism debits and credits (justification) their God for everything they say and do”
Some forms of theism do this, some don’t.
Even if this is more metaphor (by which you seem to mean “hyperbole”), it is a very misleading one. This isn’t at all a fair-minded description of what theists believe.
“Whether it is Apollo, Zeus or plain old God of the desert; they’re all from the same grab bag aren’t they?” I don’t think so. And, I thought, neither did you. You claim that there is a different sort of God (one believed in by you and Jesus). How do you know that there aren’t a lot of theists who, when they say they believe in God, are talking about that sort of God, rather than the sort you keep claiming they believe in?
“How about forgetting the Theist says and we’ll simply rewrite it to mean that Theists “see it because they believe it” that is the essence of the statement”
That wouldn’t change my objection.
Had you written it that way, I would still have listed the same names. I still would have pointed out that these people have given philosophical demonstrations for God that don’t remotely depend on seeing something because they believe it.
At this point, the only thing I’d add is that the things they believe are a lot more like the God you claim to believe in than the God you claim that theists believe in.
“Now until Theists come up with a Geiger Counter for the supernatural, it shall remain in the imagination of the believer’s mindset.”
This only works if we dismiss the fact that the philosophical demonstrations I’ve already mentioned are, indeed, a “geiger counter for the supernatural”.
Of course, I reject the implication that all knowledge is to be viewed on the model of science, but perhaps you didn’t mean to imply that?
“They see God because they believe.”
Again, how do you know? I’ve never been given a reason to think this.
“They see the placebo because they believe the placebo.”
How do you know it is a placebo? How do you know they really think of God the way you say they do?
You keep answering me as if simply restating/clarifying what you mean will convince me. But I didn’t ask for clarification. I asked for reasons to think that any of these claims are true.
“When the data can be charted empirically that is what the atheist and the scientist accepts”
I’m well aware of that. I pointed that out myself.
What I asked for wasn’t an echo of something I’ve already said. I asked for some scientific evidence in support of this idea that scientific evidence is the only thing a person should accept.
“once knowledge is had belief is supplanted like the darkness that flees as the rooster heralds the coming day”
I agree, but haven’t been given the slightest reason why any of the claims made here count as knowledge. I asked several times for support for specific claims, and have only received repetitions of those claims.
I agree that clarification is a good thing, but I also need some kind of support for all this if I’m going to have anything like a rational reason to believe any of it.
So far, this is simply more claims.
Theists believe a wide range of things—some of them much more sophisticated and humane than the statements here allow. It is neither rational nor civil to simply accuse the bulk of humanity of believing terrible things without any evidence that they actually believe these things, and in spite of the fact that many, if not most, of them claim to believe otherwise.
LikeLike
August 25, 2016 at 9:57 pm
“Jesus – The Son Of Man?”
Mike Licona
http://www.bethinking.org/jesus/jesus-the-son-of-man
From the above article:
Although Jesus claimed to be the divine Son of God, His favorite self-designation by far was ‘Son of Man’. How do we know that Jesus actually referred to Himself as the Son of Man and what does it mean?
“In my vision, there before me was one like a Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven.” Daniel 7:13
When we ask how we know that ‘Son of Man’ was a title Jesus claimed for Himself (rather than a legendary title later ascribed to Him by the Gospel writers), we ask this for the benefit of the sceptic. The sceptic is one who does not accept the Bible by faith. He is the one who wants ‘just the facts.’ It is for this person that we ask the questions, ‘Can we know whether Jesus actually referred to himself as the Son of Man?’ And ‘What does it mean?’ So we begin….
LikeLike
August 26, 2016 at 9:55 pm
If one does not believe then one does not believe; there is nothing more than that needed to support the claim that one does not believe. Now if one claims that one believes than you may be required to support the claim based on something other than belief for belief then has an object, an idea or a notion that supports the belief.
Therefore “does not believe in a god or gods”; aka, atheism is a metaphor for reality. That is not difficult to understand from where I sit.
I am not saying that atheism is a rational decision; I am implying that theism is an irrational decision and I do not believe in irrational decisions that has no geiger counter…another metaphor.
I believe the three main religions of the world, Judaism, Islam and Christianity all offer the heaven scenario after you die, Resurrection, Jannah, The Jewish afterlife is called Olam Ha-Ba (The World to Come); Jewish views on death are discussed in the Talmud and other Jewish texts, where heaven is called Gan Eden, the Garden of Eden, or Olam HaBa.
You claim that religion was created “to keep a few con men in financial/food/cares/riches/pleasures of the world without having to lift a finger, being an appointed or self appointed prophet of the gods they created. AKA, psychics.”
But I see absolutely nothing to support this claim in your comment—and have never found anything like support for it elsewhere (in spite of quote a bit of reading). If you want anyone to believe this, you need to offer reasons to think it is true.
I suppose you have never heard the news of the wealth con men have jilted the masses…you never read the bible, in particular Matt 23: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: You never read that the Vatican wealth is too enormous to calculate? Clerical riches formed another source of religious tension, however, and though some clerics defended clerical wealth, it produced widespread unease.
Theism is a metaphysical position which does require “magic trickery” that started with the elders and Moses using magic to convince Pharaoh of the legitimacy and power of their God.. Read it in Exodus.
Jesus was not a theist in the sense you believe theism and your definition of God is “supernatural” but that was not Jesus definition of God and the reason you do not understand how that could be.
You state: “I don’t see any reason to believe either of these things.”
But you see reason to believe in the supernatural God but what reason could you possibly see accept merely being a theist according to the definition that was conjured up by the ancients, rebutted by Jesus and a plot to return to the supernatural and ritualisms of nonsense after the crucifixion when the Pharisees hijacked the following of Jesus, the Trojan Horse effect, and which effect which still permeates the mindset of believers today which you miss entirely the life and meaning and messages of Jesus after he emerged from the “closet” to begin his campaign aimed at revolutionizing the religious concept of the supernatural God, as being false, insignificant and useless in changing society into a state of a more virtuous existence.
So what reason do you have to support your belief in the supernatural God?
The reasons that support my not accepting the supernatural God, is from the bible in general; and in particular, the life and time of Jesus, his messages, his hidden life as a fugitive, the crucifixion and the escape from the the Tomb, the Belly of Sheol, a metaphor here as it was a metaphor for Jonah’s brush with death in the sea. The bible supports atheism.
LikeLike
August 27, 2016 at 7:04 pm
Vincent van Gogh and the Gospel (David Wood)
Published on Aug 27, 2016
http://www.acts17.net
On December 23, 1888, Dutch painter Vincent van Gogh cut off his own ear with a razor and delivered the ear to a girl named Rachel at a local brothel. Many have assumed that van Gogh’s ear was some sort of twisted present for a prostitute he loved. However, recent research has shown that Rachel wasn’t a prostitute. She was a farmer’s daughter who had been mauled by a rabid dog. This new information about Rachel affects our understanding of van Gogh’s tragic episode.
In this video, I discuss van Gogh and the Gospel.
* * * * *
1 Corinthians 1
18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written,
“I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE,
AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE.”
20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
22 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom;
23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness,
24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble;
27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong,
28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are,
29 so that no man may boast before God.
30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption,
31 so that, just as it is written, “LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.”
LikeLike
August 31, 2016 at 1:28 pm
“If one does not believe then one does not believe; there is nothing more than that needed to support the claim that one does not believe.”
I don’t recall anyone challenging the claim that one does not believe. That seems a straw man.
Rather, what has been challenged is the idea that one can hear a claim, actively reject it, spend time arguing against it, live one’s life as if it were false, then rightly claim to merely “not believe”.
In addition to that, I tend to challenge the idea that anyone simply claiming to “not believe” is worth listening to on the subject. Someone claiming that God does not exist is saying something about the existence of God. Someone claiming to simply “not believe” is making an irrelevant autobiographical point.
“Now if one claims that one believes than you may be required to support the claim”
It’s just as easy for a person to support the claim that he/she believes something as to support the claim of not believing. Those are both pointless claims to anyone but the person and his/her loved ones. The relevant claims are not about what a person does/does not believe. They are about whether or not God exists. Anyone not making a claim about that has no position in the discussion.
And people who enter into a debate to challenge others while simultaneously refusing to take a position are almost always doing so to keep their real (unstated) position from having to defend itself from those same sorts of challenges.
Really, it is very easy to dismiss materialism (the view that only the scientifically testable is all we can know exists-which is the New Atheists’ worldview) on the same grounds as they dismiss religious views. It is only their refusal to put their position up for examination which hides this.
“Therefore “does not believe in a god or gods”; aka, atheism is a metaphor for reality.”
I definitely don’t see any reason to think that not needing to support a claim (even if I agreed with that), is a metaphor for reality. I’d say that it is an example of avoiding defending one’s real view (materialism).
“I am implying that theism is an irrational decision”
If you want anyone to think that, you need to make a case for it.
“I suppose you have never heard the news of the wealth con men have jilted the masses”
I’ve heard many stories to that effect. But that is not what I requested. I asked how you knew that these people were the founders of religion and created it for that purpose (as opposed to grabbing an existing thing, created for another reason, and making use of it for that purpose).
“Theism is a metaphysical position which does require ‘magic trickery'”
Simply referencing Exodus does nothing to support the case that this is necesarily true of even the people of that time, let alone all of western monotheism (not to speak of all theism).
If this is the ease of support you would accept for a claim, it makes no sense at all to dismiss the much more rigorous and well-defended support theistic philosophers have given for the metaphysically necessary God.
“Jesus was not a theist in the sense you believe theism and your definition of God is ‘supernatural'”
I have no idea how you know either what my belief about theism is, or what Jesus’ view of God was. Both of these conclusions seem like highly contentious, unsupported claims that—were they made in support of theism-would be quickly berated for lack of evidence.
And this is a consistent problem I see in New Atheism: the amount of evidence demanded by atheists tends to vary wildly based on the claim being made.
“You state: ‘I don’t see any reason to believe either of these things.’ ”
“But you see reason to believe in the supernatural God but what reason could you possibly see accept merely being a theist according to the definition that was conjured up by the ancients”
I’ve not said much at all about what I believe along these lines, and nothing about why I believe it.
Why are you assuming that, simply because you can’t personally think of a reason, that there is none?
More to the point, what does that have to do with giving me a reason to believe either of your claims above?
Also:
“a plot to return to the supernatural and ritualisms of nonsense after the crucifixion when the Pharisees hijacked the following of Jesus, the Trojan Horse effect, and which effect which still permeates the mindset of believers today”
Could you give me any expert on historical studies who would defend this case? I really will read up on it if you do.
I can’t imagine what support there could possibly be for such a wild claim, but am open to hearing what you have. Please let me know.
“So what reason do you have to support your belief in the supernatural God?”
Whatever it is you think I believe, I can honestly say that I have many reasons for what I actually believe.
But, frankly, I see no reason to answer that until I see some support for the claims already made and, even more pertinently, some kind of case being made for the materialism that is simply assumed by modern atheists.
“The reasons that support my not accepting the supernatural God, is from the bible in general”
So far, all I have is quotations reporting the fact that Jesus was critical of certain popular beliefs of his day. I see nothing to indicate that one of the beliefs he was critical of was theism itself.
Could you please provide support for that?
“The bible supports atheism.”
One would think that, if this were true, at least the atheist historians of the first century would have made a case for it. Can you point me to any such person?
LikeLike
September 2, 2016 at 8:45 am
‘The bible supports atheism.’
“One would think that, if this were true, at least the atheist historians of the first century would have made a case for it. Can you point me to any such person?”
Christians were called atheists:
The First Apology (1. Apol 1,6) from Justin Martyr (AD 100-165)
“[…] Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort [=Roman Gods] are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity.[…]”
Roman History (LXVII) from Cassius Dio (AD 155–235)
Another source to examine could be Cassius Dio (Roman History lxvii. 14.) about the case of Titus Flavius Clemens who was sentenced to death on charge of atheism – being a Christian – AD 95:
“[…]And the same year Domitian slew among many others Flavius Clemens the consul […] The complaint brought against them both was that of atheism, under which many others who drifted into Jewish ways were condemned. Some of these were killed and the remainder were at least deprived of their property. […]”
IN the bible some synonyms of gentile: agnostic, atheist, heathen, heretic, pagan, unbeliever, non worshiper,….Romans 2:14-15
“I see nothing to indicate that one of the beliefs he was critical of was theism itself.”
You will need to read the Gospels and know Jesus of whom it speaks; then maybe you can “see”.
“I can honestly say that I have many reasons for what I actually believe.
But, frankly, I see no reason to answer that.”
You demand answers from me while remaining unwilling to answer questions from me so I really cannot deal with lopsidedness.
LikeLike
September 2, 2016 at 12:01 pm
Debris:
“I can ————- say that I have many reasons for what I actually believe.”
That’s fantastic but how many reasons does it take to make a happy meal for you.
So I would like to hear one reason…..do you have one main reason?
LikeLike
September 2, 2016 at 12:36 pm
Devilis:
There is a kind of man whose teeth are like swords And his jaw teeth like knives, To devour the afflicted from the earth And the needy from among men.
The leech has twin daughters, “Give,” & “Give.”
There are three things that will not be satisfied, Five that will not say, “Enough”:
Sheol, the barren Womb, Earth that is never satisfied with water, Fire that never says, “Enough.”
LikeLike
September 3, 2016 at 7:34 am
“Christians were called atheists”
Every identifiable group has been called many things, that does not automatically make it true—much less does it mean that the term is being used in the same sense.
Christians were called atheists because the metaphysical God of the Christians was completely unlike the physical gods believed in by the pagans. This is a point that many modern Christians are trying to impress upon modern atheists, who don’t understand the difference.
“IN the bible some synonyms of gentile: agnostic, atheist, heathen, heretic, pagan, unbeliever, non worshiper”
Please give me some support for the idea that these were considered synonyms.
“I see nothing to indicate that one of the beliefs he was critical of was theism itself.”
“You will need to read the Gospels and know Jesus of whom it speaks; then maybe you can ‘see’.
I’ve read the Gospels. Simply saying that I should “know” Jesus isn’t support for your position, any more than a Christian saying that if you “knew” Jesus, you’d see that Jesus is God.
“You demand answers from me while remaining unwilling to answer questions from me so I really cannot deal with lopsidedness.”
I’m perfectly willing to offer answer questions when we get to my beliefs. I responded in this way because I received a demand for support for my own views in response to my question. I had no interest in the red-herring argument we were drifting into.
So, I’m more than happy to answer questions when we get to that. But, so far, we haven’t been discussing my particular views. We’ve been discussing the claim that Jesus was an atheist. The only belief I have on that issue is that he was not.
And, frankly, the Bible is pretty clear on that. Such as:
“Whoever does the will of my father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
“So do not worry saying ‘What shall we eat?’, ‘What shall we drink?’, or ‘What shall we wear?’. For the pagans run after these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them.”
“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment.”
One can always choose to reinterpret these statements to not imply belief in God, but the Bible itself offers no reason to do that. It is evidence that Jesus was a theist. If anyone wants to believe that he was not, reasons for doing so will have to come from elsewhere.
“So I would like to hear one reason…..do you have one main reason?”
I have one main reason for my belief that Jesus was a theist. This is what the historical record (gathered into the New Testament) reports.
My beliefs on other topics have other reasons. But this line of conversation keeps getting derailed. I asked you how you know that Jesus was an atheist. You’ve responded by saying that the early Christians were accused of being atheists by the Romans.
We’re having that discussion above, but I also asked why you thought this supported the claim that religion was simply a matter of corrupt people fooling others for money. (Insofar as you used the claim that Jesus was more ethical than the Pharisees as support for the idea that religion is universally corrupt).
I asked you how you know that Jesus/the Pharisees perfectly represent the average atheist/theist. So far, the response I’ve been given to this is requests for support of my beliefs. It felt to me a bit like we’re trying to sidestep the point by shifting to my general views about theism, atheism, and Christianity.
So, I’m wary to answer this because I thought it was getting us further from the original issue: what does this line of claims do to support the claim that all religion was invented by corrupt people, for corrupt reasons.
My answer to that: nothing. Religious belief is too universal in human culture, and too resilient—even when there are no clear financial motivators—for that to be its basis.
If you agree, I’m happy to switch topics to something else, and discuss the reasons for and against that. I just didn’t want to get derailed, as seemed to be happening.
“There is a kind of man whose teeth are like swords…”
I have no idea what this is meant to communicate in the current context. I’ll not comment until you’ve clarified.
LikeLike
September 3, 2016 at 11:19 am
“One would think that, if this were true, at least the atheist historians of the first century would have made a case for it. Can you point me to any such person?”
I pointed you to the New Testament: Romans 2:14-15
My main thought here was with “In the Bible” before quoting Romans…. but in my haste omitted
It should have read: “In the dictionary some synonyms of gentile: agnostic, atheist, heathen, heretic, pagan, unbeliever, non worshiper…..” so that Romans 2:14-15 would simply read:
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles,{Atheists} which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another;) ………..This supports Atheism; it also supports the notion that morals exist outside theistic Christianity……
The Proverbs I quoted refers to the person who wants but doesn’t give …such as the leech’s twin daughters, “Gimmee & Gimmee which was the scripture that came to my mind as you continuously refused to answer questions while demanding answers to your questions…(Give & Give)
I don’t know how you conclude that the Gods of Mythology were physical but the God of Christianity is metaphysical.
Surely you must have read about the physical manifestations of the Christian God.
One is noted in Deuteronomy 23: 12 Thou shalt have a place also without the camp, whither thou shalt go forth abroad:
13 And thou shalt have a spade upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee:
14 For the Lord thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy: that he see no unclean thing in thee, and turn away from thee.
It seems to me that that is a physical God.
Let me further clarify for you:
When it comes to the supernatural God, I am an atheist
When it comes to the God as described by Jesus as the “Father that lives within you”, I am a theist
So from where I sit there are two different Gods, the Supernatural God that Christians and Superstitious people believe in(the religious God) and then there is the God that of Jesus spoke of, believed in, accessed and described as the Father that lives in his Kingdom and that the Kingdom “is within you”
Luke 17:20 “And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
We are talking two different concepts of God, The God of the Ancients, of the Pharisees, of Christianity, of Miracles, Myth, Magic and Mayhem and God the Father that lived within Jesus, that “lives within you”.
LikeLike
September 4, 2016 at 8:44 pm
“One would think that, if this were true, at least the atheist historians of the first century would have made a case for it. Can you point me to any such person?”
“I pointed you to the New Testament: Romans 2:14-15”
I understand that you choose to read this passage that way. I disagree with your interpretation.
I was wondering if anyone had made a case for your interpretation—just pointing to the Bible itself isn’t making such a case.
I don’t need more quotations from the Bible. I need a reason why I (or anyone) should interpret those quotations as you do.
“In the dictionary some synonyms of gentile: agnostic, atheist, heathen, heretic, pagan, unbeliever, non worshiper…..”
Thank you for the full line, though I caught the meaning here the first time through.
I simply disagree that these are synonyms in all contexts. I also disagree with the notion that this somehow supports atheism. The passage you quote from Romans claims that those who don’t believe in God still act according to God’s truth. This does nothing to support atheism by any of the definitions given in this conversation so far.
All it is saying is that one needn’t believe in God in order to be a decent person. I agree with that much. This does nothing to support either the claim that Jesus was an atheist, or that atheists are better people than the religious.
But you do also say this:
“it also supports the notion that morals exist outside theistic Christianity”
If by ‘outside theistic Christianity’ you mean ‘it supports the notion that non-Christians can be moral, then yes. Absolutely.
But, if by ‘outside theistic Christianity’ you mean ‘it supports the notion that morality doesn’t require God to exist to make sense’, then no. It doesn’t support that idea.
“I don’t know how you conclude that the Gods of Mythology were physical but the God of Christianity is metaphysical.”
By comparing the theologies of the two religions. The first claimed that the gods were in physical places, had bodies, and were the efficient causes of typical physical phenomena. The second (Christianity) claimed that God does not reside in this world, was spirit (rather than physical), and was a transcendent, sustaining cause of the entire physical order.
The first name that comes to mind in that context is David Bentley Hart. He’s a theologian who’s done a fair bit of writing on the subject.
“Surely you must have read about the physical manifestations of the Christian God.”
Yes, of course.
Without getting too deep into what these ‘physical manifestations’ actually are, it seems perfectly clear to me that one only needs a physical manifestation in the first place if one isn’t physical.
“When it comes to the supernatural God, I am an atheist
When it comes to the God as described by Jesus as the ‘Father that lives within you’, I am a theist”
I appreciate the clarification. Thank you. I’ll keep that in mind.
“So from where I sit there are two different Gods, the Supernatural God that Christians and Superstitious people believe in(the religious God) and then there is the God that of Jesus spoke of, believed in, accessed and described as the Father that lives in his Kingdom and that the Kingdom ‘is within you’ ”
I can see that. I’d simply add a third option on that table:
A God that is more than something that is within people, but not a physical entity flying around in space or a superstitious explanation for anything. Rather, it would be as real an entity as any of the platonic forms are presented as being, a universal truth that does not depend on something so vague and changing as the human heart, but not physical.
That’s the option which, in my view, Jesus spoke of and believed in. I doubt he’d have had much time for a God who, as far as I can tell, isn’t distinguishable from a feeling.
In general, I’d find it hard to believe that ancient people (or anyone who faces suffering and injustice like they did) would hear talk of the kind of beliefs you ascribe to Jesus and fall to their knees and cry ‘At last! I was enslaved, but now I am free!’. Most people, most times in the world, need something far more substantial than that.
I doubt that, were that Jesus’ real message, it would have gone anywhere.
Certainly, if that were the reality behind Jesus’ teachings, I’d be disinterested. I could get the same from most any self-help book in print—with as much support for the claims involved.
LikeLike
September 5, 2016 at 8:39 pm
Does Evil Disprove God? | Frank Turek, PhD
Theology, Philosophy and Science
Published on Sep 4, 2016
LikeLike
September 5, 2016 at 10:53 pm
The Rape of Morality
Oct 31, 2013 by Dr. Joel McDurmon
http://americanvision.org/5559/the-rape-of-morality/
From the above article:
The best way to refute an atheist is to quote a more consistent atheist. Modern atheists get angry and some even feel justified in ridiculing Christians when we recall Dostoevsky’s refrain (paraphrased), “If God does not exist, all things are permissible.” The ridicule comes with pointing out that Dostoevsky didn’t actually write this exact line, although a character in The Brothers Karamazov does get close to the sentiment. “You idiots are so ignorant: Dostoevsky never said that!” Of course, the protest only skirts the real point of the saying. Whether Dostoevsky said it or not, who cares? The issue is the impossibility of justifying moral laws in a godless universe.
LikeLike
September 11, 2016 at 6:49 am
The Case for God pt 1 | J. P. Moreland, PhD
Theology, Philosophy and Science
Published on Sep 10, 2016
Shoreline Community Church – Is there a God? JP Moreland gives examples showing there is a God. This video is part of the Apologetics Conference with JP Moreland playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list…
Think critically. Know God and make Him known.
LikeLike
September 11, 2016 at 6:54 am
The Case for God pt 2 | J. P. Moreland, PhD
Theology, Philosophy and Science
Published on Sep 10, 2016
Shoreline Community Church – Is there a God? JP Moreland gives examples showing there is a God. This video is part of the Apologetics Conference with JP Moreland playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list…
Think critically. Know God and make Him known.
LikeLike
September 11, 2016 at 6:27 pm
Questions and Answers | J. P. Moreland, PhD
Theology, Philosophy and Science
Published on Sep 11, 2016
Shoreline Community Church – This video are questions people thought of when we had our question and answer time after each session. So they are broke up into 3 parts. This video is part of the Apologetics Conference with JP Moreland playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list…
LikeLike
September 15, 2016 at 12:29 am
The Consequence of Atheism – J. Warner Wallace
Theology, Philosophy and Science
Published on Jan 3, 2014
J. Warner Wallace speaks on the inevitable consequences of an atheistic worldview. From atheist “Laddymac”:
===============================
Robert and all my Atheist friends.
Let us stop sugar coating it. I know, its hard to come out and be blunt with the friendly Theists who frequent sites like this. However in your efforts to “play nice” and “be civil” you actually do them a great disservice.
We are Atheists. We believe that the Universe is a great uncaused, random accident. All life in the Universe past and future are the results of random chance acting on itself. While we acknowledge concepts like morality, politeness, civility seem to exist, we know they do not. Our highly evolved brains imagine that these things have a cause or a use, and they have in the past, they’ve allowed life to continue on this planet for a short blip of time. But make no mistake: all our dreams, loves, opinions, and desires are figments of our primordial imagination. They are fleeting electrical signals that fire across our synapses for a moment in time. They served some purpose in the past. They got us here. That’s it. All human achievement and plans for the future are the result of some ancient, evolved brain and accompanying chemical reactions that once served a survival purpose. Ex: I’ll marry and nurture children because my genes demand reproduction, I’ll create because creativity served a survival advantage to my ancient ape ancestors, I’ll build cities and laws because this allowed my ape grandfather time and peace to reproduce and protect his genes. My only directive is to obey my genes. Eat, sleep, reproduce, die. That is our bible.
We deride the Theists for having created myths and holy books. We imagine ourselves superior. But we too imagine there are reasons to obey laws, be polite, protect the weak etc. Rubbish. We are nurturing a new religion, one where we imagine that such conventions have any basis in reality. Have they allowed life to exist? Absolutely. But who cares? Outside of my greedy little gene’s need to reproduce, there is nothing in my world that stops me from killing you and reproducing with your wife. Only the fear that I might be incarcerated and thus be deprived of the opportunity to do the same with the next guy’s wife stops me. Some of my Atheist friends have fooled themselves into acting like the general population. They live in suburban homes, drive Toyota Camrys, attend school plays. But underneath they know the truth. They are a bag of DNA whose only purpose is to make more of themselves. So be nice if you want. Be involved, have polite conversations, be a model citizen. Just be aware that while technically an Atheist, you are an inferior one. You’re just a little bit less evolved, that’s all. When you are ready to join me, let me know, I’ll be reproducing with your wife.
I know it’s not PC to speak so bluntly about the ramifications of our beliefs, but in our discussions with Theists we sometimes tip toe around what we really know to be factual. Maybe it’s time we Atheists were a little more truthful and let the chips fall where they may. At least that’s what my genes are telling me to say.
===============================
LikeLike
September 15, 2016 at 1:00 am
The Psychology of Atheism – Paul C. Vitz, PhD
Theology, Philosophy and Science
Published on Nov 17, 2013
Psychologist Dr. Paul Vitz (PhD in Psychology from Stanford University) speaks on a number of influential atheists (like Friedrich Nietzsche, David Hume, Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre, Sigmund Freud, etc.) and how they may have become atheists. It ends up that many of these atheists had abusive or weak fathers who influenced the way the saw God. Read Vitz’s book Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism: http://www.amazon.com/Faith-Fatherles…
LikeLike
September 15, 2016 at 12:22 pm
Frank:
It is no small wonder you would re-publish this article since it reveals your own inner treasures of your heart.
First of all the salutation itself is perverse:
“Robert and all my atheist friends”.
This person, if this is an atheist, has no friends. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy and that would be his own life and would be on the verge of suicide daily.
What I believe we have here is a theist posing as an atheist order to describe what the fundamentalist theist believes atheism entails which could not be further from the truth. Atheists are not nihilists, anarchists, terrorists or other revolutionary activists. Atheists have all the hopes and dreams of ordinary humans who just don’t happen to have a supernatural god to live for or die for to pray to or expect to, intervene in human affairs to save some of of us and destroy others.
An atheist’s humanity is the same as the humanity of Jesus and the theist’s humanity follows along the same lines.
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 and he believed that every human being born was so endowed, and I agree with Jesus insight and understanding.
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.
Here is another comment to the pseudo-atheist “Laddymac’s” view of atheism.
CAFEEINE says:
My problem is that I am skeptical as to the honesty of the views presented, not so much the brutality of it. His language is far more reminiscent of theistic descriptions of what atheist morals are than what atheists usually claim for themselves:
” Eat, sleep, reproduce, die. That is our bible.”
Why would an atheist frame their moral code as a bible substitute? That is how theists often frame it, but it doesn’t connect with how atheists view morality in general.
He’s claiming that he sees no need for morals outside a narrow gene-centered reproduction impulse, yet he also feels the need to chastise other atheists to “come clean”. Why would he do that, if all he cared about was his own reproductive success?
“Just be aware that while technically an Atheist, you are an inferior one. You’re just a little bit less evolved, that’s all.”
Again, he assumes that there is a superior way to be an atheist, when that doesn’t follow from his earlier position. If he really claims a nihilistic position, then what is there to be superior or inferior about? He’s using the genetic imperative as a substitute of divine command, another thing Christians often accuse atheists of that I find absurd. His claim about being ” more evolved” also points to the familiar misunderstanding of evolution as leading up to a pinnacle form, that evolution is directed, that I find among Christians online.
If I was looking to create a caricature of the worst things Christians have accused me of about my moral views, I would have created something very much like Laddymac. Combined with the fact that there seems to be no other presence of his online with that handle, and that he has been jumped on by several apologists as an example of “unvarnished atheism” makes me doubt the authenticity of the claims therein.
Yet even if they are a man’s honest opinion, that still doesn’t speak to the hidden views of every atheist, any more than Fred Phelps’ clan represents the hidden desires of every Christian.
LikeLike
September 15, 2016 at 12:58 pm
Who ever came up with the notion that the “gene pool” was “la raison d’être” world life to procreate? We know that one of the most powerful forces governing behaviour on the planet for all living things is sexuality but to say that is it for survival of the species is a specious speculation.
Who can know why and for what purpose the pleasure principle derives as scholars of academia anemia suppose it not to be otherwise.
Please provide evidence; if there is any, and upon what evidence the evidence is based and arrived at to the exclusion of all other possibilities.
What are the Life Forces? How many are there? Is there a cosmic connection? Is Consciousness itself a pervasive Life Force like Gravity, Electricity, Magnetism? SOL speed? The Elements? Black Holes? White Holes? Dark Matter? Dark Energy? Quantum spontaneity appearance/disappearance of particles? Spontaneous Generation?
When I look at a light source such as the sky I see thousands of appearances and disappearances moving throughout my vision: transparent forms with translucent ridges giving them visibility, darting in and out of existence…what does it all mean quantumly speaking?
LikeLike
September 17, 2016 at 10:35 pm
Constitution Mythbuster
The First Amendment guarantees you freedom of religion not freedom from religion.
Posted on June 6, 2011
https://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/06/06/the-first-amendment-guarantees-you-freedom-of-religion-not-freedom-from-religion/
From the Response section of the above article:
Question:
Jefferson wrote in the Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom that “to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical”. Should this be taken into account when considering how the Founders understood the Establishment Clause? Does taxing an atheist to pay for public property where prayers are held or religious symbols displayed constitute compelling him to “furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves”? – Michael Isenberg
Response:
When Jefferson wrote the Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom he was trying to de-establish the Anglican Church as the official church of Virginia. He was objecting to taxes being used to support that church directly. He was not objecting to taxes being used to pay for parks or other public land where religious activity may or may not take place. The government is not directly funding the religious activity. People are free to use those public parks and land as they wish. If religious activity takes place on public land the government is in no way compelling you to participate in it. If you are offended by traditional religious activity and symbols on public land you can simply walk away from them. Only a very small percentage of people are offended by traditional religious activities and symbols on public land because these activities are conflicting with their religious beliefs. Atheism is a religious belief. Denying the existence of God is still a religious belief. If these religious activities are removed from public land the government is forcing the religious beliefs of atheists on non atheist violating the religious freedom of religious people. Here is the complete text of the Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom[:]
http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-02-02-0132-0004-0082
Here is the second to last paragraph from that act[:]
“Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”
He[r]e is Jefferson’s view on the [matter].
Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General [Federal] Government. It must then rest with the States[.]
That is from a letter Jefferson wrote to Samuel Miller in 1808. Well after the adoption of the Bill of Rights[.] – Constitution Mythbuster
LikeLike
September 18, 2016 at 8:46 am
Atheism is a religious belief. Denying the existence of God is still a religious belief. Caca del toro!
Sorry but belief is the domain of the religious, supernatural and superstitious among us and that not always the opinion of those people with these mental afflictions but by the programming, brainwashing and indoctrination of people since childbirth when their minds were like malleable putty.
Religious beliefs is a form of child abuse and should be against the law to teach until the age of maturity, the same restrictions imposed on alcohol, tobacco and firearms for religious teaching has the same threatening effect on the humanity of the person that the other restrictive influences have.
Creating in them not young, vibrant, healthy, inquiring minds but rather stunted little freakish bonsai minds that are no use to anyone but a perverted proselytizing preacher.
We not only allow this abuse, we actively encourage it; we throw public money at it. What we’d be better off at is subsidizing the tobacco industry because that does less harm. At least cigarettes carry a health warning. How about a mental health warning? On the holy scriptures?
Now, maybe that’s okay with you, maybe you’re fine with that because maybe, you, don’t want experience, maybe you prefer dreams. Maybe you want your head to go to that special place where god wreaks abuse vengeance on anyone whose lifestyle, you don’t personally happen to approve of and where the Clergy strokes you like a puppy dog.
Well if that’s the case you may as well take drugs because you’re already on the most dangerous drug there is. Absolute certainty is a drug that can make people do the strangest things. It’s the devil’s drug.
And you don’t want to be around anyone who’s on that stuff because they’re no longer in control, you can see it in their eyes, the drug is controlling them so that, suddenly, no action is too callous or too spiteful or too cruel to be justified.
And if you get hooked on it and if you keep taking it, you too could wake up one day, so full of righteousness that suddenly the only thing that makes sense to you anymore is somebody else’s death. And you’ll realize that your mind is
no longer your best friend.
So if someone offers you, Absolute Certainty, they’re going to make it sound attractive and you will be tempted; but, just say no. Your mind and your children’s minds will thank you for it and that really is, an absolute certainty.
LikeLike
September 18, 2016 at 4:02 pm
There is nothing about “belief” that is virtuous. Nothing! Belief is the imaginative account of the unknowable. Calling “belief”, “faith”, is like calling, ignorance, obtuseness and expecting it to have a definition other than ignorance!
Freedom from religion has the same protection of the Constitution as freedom of religion; in that, no law shall abridge,
*Vancouver, Canada, *
*Life at Peace in a Clean Healthy Environment World Capital* Highlight the quotation marks below See a special message
“Our Mountains Peak To You” Leonard (Leo), Director, Marketing Religion: “I see it because I believe it”
Atheism: “I believe it because I see it”
Secularism: “Prove all things by knowledge, not Belief”
On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 10:35 PM, Theo-sophical Ruminations wrote:
> Frank Adamick commented: “Constitution Mythbuster The First Amendment > guarantees you freedom of religion not freedom from religion. Posted on > June 6, 2011 https://constitutionmythbuster.com/2011/06/06/the-first- > amendment-guarantees-you-freedom-of-religion-not-fr” >
LikeLike
October 15, 2016 at 5:31 am
1 John 5:20
20 And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.
Dr. David Wood Proves the Resurrection of Christ
Trinity Apologetics
Published on Sep 17, 2016
David Wood (Ph.D) presents an excellent case for the historicity of Christ’s resurrection from the dead. And these are just a few pieces of evidences – volumes of scholarship have been done on the resurrection! The empty tomb is also very well attested even by the enemies of the disciples. If the disciples stole the body (as the ancient Jews held to) then this would never result in the conversion of Paul (an enemy of the church) and James (the skeptic unbelieving brother of Jesus). And why would the disciples knowingly suffer and die for something they know is a lie? This idea simply cannot account for all the facts.
Christianity would have DIED in the 1st century hadn’t Jesus rose from the dead!
See also my own video on the historic evidence: http://bit.ly/2bGGJ5k
LikeLike
November 13, 2016 at 5:22 am
On Atheists & Skeptics:
Scooby-Doo and the Case of the Silly Skeptic (David Wood)
Acts17Apologetics
Published on Nov 12, 2016
Support my videos on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=3615911
In “Scooby-Doo on Zombie Island,” the gang encounters real zombies and ghosts for the first time. But Fred explains away the evidence by appealing to increasingly absurd naturalistic explanations. In the end, even Fred recognizes that his explanations simply can’t account for the facts.
Atheists often call themselves “skeptics.” But when we consider the methodology they apply when questioning God’s existence, we find that the atheist’s methodology rules out all evidence for God’s existence even before considering what the evidence is.
In this video, David Wood uses some clips from “Scooby-Doo on Zombie Island” and some clips from his recent debate with Dr. Michael Shermer to show why it’s becoming impossible to take atheists seriously when they demand evidence for God’s existence.
* * * * *
Luke 6
6 On another Sabbath He entered the synagogue and was teaching; and there was a man there whose right hand was withered.
7 The scribes and the Pharisees were watching Him closely to see if He healed on the Sabbath, so that they might find reason to accuse Him.
8 But He knew what they were thinking, and He said to the man with the withered hand, “Get up and come forward!” And he got up and came forward.
9 And Jesus said to them, “I ask you, is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save a life or to destroy it?”
10 After looking around at them all, He said to him, “Stretch out your hand!” And he did so; and his hand was restored.
11 But they themselves were filled with rage, and discussed together what they might do to Jesus.
12 It was at this time that He went off to the mountain to pray, and He spent the whole night in prayer to God.
LikeLike
January 1, 2017 at 1:44 pm
Christians and Muslims alike believe that they have the perfect word in the Creator of the universe and why do they believe this? because it says so in the Book. Sorry, not good enough. So the term “atheism” really is misleading. We’re talking about specific truth claims and their evidence or lack thereof. The atheist is simply saying as Carl Sagan did, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If ever there was an antidote to dogmatism this is it. sharris
LikeLike
February 4, 2021 at 5:28 pm
“Lacking a belief in God makes one an agnostic, not an atheist.” Nope.
LikeLike