The plight of atheism, is this why the incessant arguing?

[blü 2]

You play fast and loose with the facts, make them up as you go along

Name a 'fact' I've 'made up'. Name them all, since you use the plural.

Your factual credibility with me is very low,

What, that I disagree with you? That creationism is full of falsifiable statements that have been effortlessly falsified? That the earth isn't flat? That ID has no basis in science and can explain nothing? That the theory of evolution is a robust and fully scientific theory in excellent standing? What?

If you want to attack my "factual credibility", be specific. Spell it out.

 

[Skwim]

God knows everything that has occurred. He know's his created beings as well as possible, and can predict behavior based upon that knowledge. There is nothing that has occurred that cannot be known by God. All your verses fit within this paragraph.

And cover much more.

It doesn't describe omniscience, try again

Of course your limited example doesn't describe omniscience. But as the definition of "everything" reads,

eve·ry·thing
ˈevrēˌTHiNG/
pronoun
pronoun: everything
1.all things;​

"omniscience," "knowing everything, 'ALL THINGS'" fits beautifully. NOT just "some things," or "past things," but all past, all present, and all future things: ALL THINGS. EVERYTHING

That it doesn't conform to your beliefs or needs is too bad I guess, but trying to play fast and loose with the word doesn't change its application.

Suck it up. You know you're beat. Everyone here does.

1 John 3:20
for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.
​

Knowing everything (all things) = omniscience

​

The Bible nowhere describes a flat earth, for example.

Does it describe god as triune? I have a small bet with another member that you believe in the trinity.

I have no need to re examine my beliefs,

And don't want any reason to. Gotcha.

.

​

 

[JPK]

This cite gnosticteachings.org helps you see that it isn't about belief or non-belief but rather it teaches methods of meditation and alchemy that help you experience the divine for yourself.

 

[blü 2]

This cite gnosticteachings.org helps you see that it isn't about belief or non-belief but rather it teaches methods of meditation and alchemy that help you experience the divine for yourself.

What does 'experience the divine' mean, exactly?

Is 'the divine' an objective phenomenon?

Or is it a self-induced mental state?

Or do you have to fuel it?

 

[Revoltingest]

Atheism, is, a minority group. Religion(?) Probably not a religion, however since it involves religion, we can include it in that context.
People find religion, and atheism is left with a few spokespeople, and small but loud group on the net, etc.
Is the plight, the fact that atheism as a preaching or preached religious perspective, simply cannot compete with the theistic religions?

Is this causing the often over emphasis, of argumentation?

I say that arguing isn't a "plight" at all.
It's just the human condition....one which we're all here on RF to enjoy.
As for competing with theists....we have the unfair advantage of dueling with unarmed opponents.

 

[corynski]

Atheism, is, a minority group. Religion(?) Probably not a religion, however since it involves religion, we can include it in that context.
People find religion, and atheism is left with a few spokespeople, and small but loud group on the net, etc.
Is the plight, the fact that atheism as a preaching or preached religious perspective, simply cannot compete with the theistic religions?

Is this causing the often over emphasis, of argumentation?

Syncretic, you've got atheism all wrong, a complete distortion in fact. No, atheism is NOT a religion, or even a belief system. Each atheist simply asserts that he or she SEES NO EVIDENCE of any supernatural being. True atheism applies only to those who say "I have no evidence of the supernatural". Not that there are no gods, or heavens or trolls, it's just that I can't perceive them, they are not part of my consciousness. In short, as I have written elsewhere and will soon expand upon, gods and religions are forced upon our minds as infants, by parents and preachers, they are cultural devices, or artifacts, that facilitate human group relationships, from tribes to societies. Gods and religions go back hundreds of thousands of years, long before sophisticated thought and science. And they worked to foster group identity and solidarity, or oneness, of each group.... of each tribe. For evidence, just look at Michael Jordan's book "Encyclopedia of Gods", as well as Marjorie Leach's book "Guide to the Gods", a tome running to nearly 1000 pages, both of which list thousands of gods. As Jordan puts it, "Deities have been identified with the human psyche for at least 60,000 years." Science, i.e. the examination and study of reality, is the logical next step, but is meeting such fierce resistance from those who 'know' a god or goddess, and are convinced of its' existence.

 

[shmogie]

And cover much more.


Of course your limited example doesn't describe omniscience. But as the definition of "everything" reads,

eve·ry·thing
ˈevrēˌTHiNG/
pronoun
pronoun: everything
1.all things;​

"omniscience," "knowing everything, 'ALL THINGS'" fits beautifully. NOT just "some things," or "past things," but all past, all present, and all future things: ALL THINGS. EVERYTHING

That it doesn't conform to your beliefs or needs is too bad I guess, but trying to play fast and loose with the word doesn't change its application.

Suck it up. You know you're beat. Everyone here does.

1 John 3:20
for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.
​

Knowing everything (all things) = omniscience

​

Does it describe god as triune? I have a small bet with another member that you believe in the trinity.


And don't want any reason to. Gotcha.

.

​

You haven got anything, and you must feel your argument is less powerful than you think, as YOU now know what EVERYONE here thinks, Are you omniscient ?

You are attempting to use a dictionary to apply a definition to a word as it is used within a theological context. God knows everything, true. When is the context of the verse, and is there any definer within the chapter that identifies what ¨ all things ¨ John was speaking of ? I suggest you research that. The issue is the ¨everything¨.

The theological term for my belief on omniscience is the Open View of God. It has been held by many for many years and is represented by the writings of many theological scholars past, present, and I can only assume, the future. Itś adherents exist as faculty members at many universityś and seminaries. It concerns predestination and free will. So, God knows ¨all things¨. Using your clever idea that ¨ all things ¨ includes things that don;t exist, how can nothing be something, i.e. a ¨ thing ¨ ? or for that matter a thought, idea or choice ? The future doesnt exist, it is an empty file, knowing all things doesn;t mean what isn;t in the file can be read. One may know everything there is to know about every other file in the cabinet, and know all things therein contained, but the empty file remains empty. I own a Ferrari, it just isn´t in my driveway, but I know all things about my driveway, so it is really there. Of course I believe in the Trinity, or rather, the Godhead.

 

[columbus]

Would you please explain why you are an agnostic Christian, what does that mean, I've never heard of that before?

1) Your evidence that God does not exist.

An agnostic atheist ? I was once an atheist, then an agnostic, how can one be both ?

I will try to respond to all three of these by describing myself. It's a little complicated, but I honestly believe that my sort of thought processes are more common than religionists realize.

In casual discussion I usually refer to myself as a nontheist or atheist. That's because "culturally Catholic, agnostic, atheistic deist " is pretty long and cumbersome. And irrelevant to the discussion, usually. But each of those terms describes a facet of my world view.

The "cultural Catholic " is easy. I was raised in a huge Catholic family that was really a bit insular. My parents didn't have friends, they had relatives and parishioners. Even my schools were extensions of the church. I knew no other world until my teens. I have as my Catholic friends put it, a "C" engraved on my heart. No change to my theological beliefs can change that.

The "agnostic" is a bit more complex. It is not really about God or the supernatural at all. It is the recognition that human beings aren't too perceptive or smart, but we have a batch of instincts and mental processes that commonly result in beliefs about the ineffable and unknowable. That's religion. Believing in implausible things about aspects of reality we don't and cannot understand, at least at this time. We humans are just too limited to any important understanding of God, and that decidedly includes me. So I believe that the usual image of God is a fictional character that people re-imagine over and over. Creating God in their own image.

Which leads me to "atheistic". Theism isn't really the belief that "God exists". That's Deism. Theism is really the belief that one knows important stuff about God(s). God's history and character, plans and methods, wishes and feelings, etc etc. I am not able to believe that human beings know any of that, much less the primitive warlords and such who invented the foundations of the religions I mostly live with, the various Abrahamics.

But given all that, I do believe in God(sort of) . The universe does exist. I don't pretend to understand that, but I have no problem using the word "God" to refer to "the reason that there is something, rather than nothing ". But that doesn't tell us anything about God. Making up explanations seems a miserably poor substitute for the rigorous investigation of Creation. So I believe in scientific inquiry, not religion. I believe in using reason to improve our ethics, not revelation.

Does this make me, and likely a lot of other atheists, a little more understandable?
Tom

 

[ChristineM]

God is omnipotent. You are now confusing omnipotence with omniscience. Take a deep breath and try and decide exactly what it is you are talking about

I am not confusing anything and you are grasping at straws.

Edit: the bible and/or god believers say god is omni everything

 

[shmogie]

I am not confusing anything and you are grasping at straws.

Edit: the bible and/or god believers say god is omni everything

You don't know what you are talking about. Some believers do, some don't. Those that don't have strong Biblical and theological reasons for not believing so. You don't know them, so your participation is limited by your knowledge. In other words, it doesn;'t count for much if anything.

 

[ChristineM]

You don't know what you are talking about. Some believers do, some don't. Those that don't have strong Biblical and theological reasons for not believing so. You don't know them, so your participation is limited by your knowledge. In other words, it doesn;'t count for much if anything.

It matters enough for you to protest too much

What matters is that some Christians follow the word of the bible and those who don't can hardly be identified ad Christian, can they?

 

[shmogie]

I will try to respond to all three of these by describing myself. It's a little complicated, but I honestly believe that my sort of thought processes are more common than religionists realize.

In casual discussion I usually refer to myself as a nontheist or atheist. That's because "culturally Catholic, agnostic, atheistic deist " is pretty long and cumbersome. And irrelevant to the discussion, usually. But each of those terms describes a facet of my world view.

The "cultural Catholic " is easy. I was raised in a huge Catholic family that was really a bit insular. My parents didn't have friends, they had relatives and parishioners. Even my schools were extensions of the church. I knew no other world until my teens. I have as my Catholic friends put it, a "C" engraved on my heart. No change to my theological beliefs can change that.

The "agnostic" is a bit more complex. It is not really about God or the supernatural at all. It is the recognition that human beings aren't too perceptive or smart, but we have a batch of instincts and mental processes that commonly result in beliefs about the ineffable and unknowable. That's religion. Believing in implausible things about aspects of reality we don't and cannot understand, at least at this time. We humans are just too limited to any important understanding of God, and that decidedly includes me. So I believe that the usual image of God is a fictional character that people re-imagine over and over. Creating God in their own image.

Which leads me to "atheistic". Theism isn't really the belief that "God exists". That's Deism. Theism is really the belief that one knows important stuff about God(s). God's history and character, plans and methods, wishes and feelings, etc etc. I am not able to believe that human beings know any of that, much less the primitive warlords and such who invented the foundations of the religions I mostly live with, the various Abrahamics.

But given all that, I do believe in God(sort of) . The universe does exist. I don't pretend to understand that, but I have no problem using the word "God" to refer to "the reason that there is something, rather than nothing ". But that doesn't tell us anything about God. Making up explanations seems a miserably poor substitute for the rigorous investigation of Creation. So I believe in scientific inquiry, not religion. I believe in using reason to improve our ethics, not revelation.

Does this make me, and likely a lot of other atheists, a little more understandable?
Tom

Yes,it does. You believe in God, without believing in the revelations he gave to humanity to explain himself. You semi see that there are huge questions that science can never explain, but considering yourself rational, you hope it does. Your god is like Einstein's, I think.

 

[shmogie]

You don't know what you are talking about. Some believers do, some don't. Those that don't have strong Biblical and theological reasons for not believing so. You don't know them, so your participation is limited by your knowledge. In other words, it doesn;'t count for much if anything.

You now have switched your focus from what the Bible says to what believers believe., Not applicable

 

[blü 2]

The future doesnt exist, it is an empty file, knowing all things doesn;t mean what isn;t in the file can be read.

First, the logic of omnipotence says that if you aren't omniscient already, you can make yourself omniscient whenever you want to.

Second, if you're omnipresent, you're present throughout Einsteinian spacetime, not stuck in the strange NOW that humans experience. As you know, there's no NOW in physics.

Third, if you're perfect, then you can guess the future with 100% accuracy, as far in any direction as you wish.

The alternative is a god gazing in all too human puzzlement at the busy busy world [he]'s created, never knowing what's going to happen next, unable to anticipate problems, constantly being blindsided and completely unable to plan a destiny for [his] creation, let alone bring that destiny about.

Meanwhile, we observe that the universe behaves exactly as though no gods exist outside of imagination. So if a real god were shown to exist, I'd have to agree that your explanation accounts for what we observe.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Skepticism is a lemon.

 

[blü 2]

What matters is that some Christians follow the word of the bible and those who don't can hardly be identified ad Christian, can they?

I don't see literacy mentioned as a test in the Bible. Instead I've seen estimates that in Jesus' era, if 10% of the Eastern Mediterranean population could read, they'd be doing extremely well ─ with the additional hurdle that we're talking about literacy in Greek.

As far as I can tell, if you believe you're a follower of Jesus, then you're a Christian. It's up to you, not anyone else, to say whether you're a Christian or not.

I know that irritates certain kinds of Christians who want to disown other kinds of Christians by saying they're not Christians at all; but if they're relying on anything in the NT when they say that, I've missed it.

 

[blü 2]

Skepticism is a lemon.

Love that lemonade!

 

[DavidFirth]

I will try to respond to all three of these by describing myself. It's a little complicated, but I honestly believe that my sort of thought processes are more common than religionists realize.

In casual discussion I usually refer to myself as a nontheist or atheist. That's because "culturally Catholic, agnostic, atheistic deist " is pretty long and cumbersome. And irrelevant to the discussion, usually. But each of those terms describes a facet of my world view.

The "cultural Catholic " is easy. I was raised in a huge Catholic family that was really a bit insular. My parents didn't have friends, they had relatives and parishioners. Even my schools were extensions of the church. I knew no other world until my teens. I have as my Catholic friends put it, a "C" engraved on my heart. No change to my theological beliefs can change that.

The "agnostic" is a bit more complex. It is not really about God or the supernatural at all. It is the recognition that human beings aren't too perceptive or smart, but we have a batch of instincts and mental processes that commonly result in beliefs about the ineffable and unknowable. That's religion. Believing in implausible things about aspects of reality we don't and cannot understand, at least at this time. We humans are just too limited to any important understanding of God, and that decidedly includes me. So I believe that the usual image of God is a fictional character that people re-imagine over and over. Creating God in their own image.

Which leads me to "atheistic". Theism isn't really the belief that "God exists". That's Deism. Theism is really the belief that one knows important stuff about God(s). God's history and character, plans and methods, wishes and feelings, etc etc. I am not able to believe that human beings know any of that, much less the primitive warlords and such who invented the foundations of the religions I mostly live with, the various Abrahamics.

But given all that, I do believe in God(sort of) . The universe does exist. I don't pretend to understand that, but I have no problem using the word "God" to refer to "the reason that there is something, rather than nothing ". But that doesn't tell us anything about God. Making up explanations seems a miserably poor substitute for the rigorous investigation of Creation. So I believe in scientific inquiry, not religion. I believe in using reason to improve our ethics, not revelation.

Does this make me, and likely a lot of other atheists, a little more understandable?
Tom

Thanks for sharing that, Tom.

But do you think scientific inquiry into the physical and materialistic things in the universe are going to answer your questions about who or what God is?

 

[corynski]

Atheism, is, a minority group. Religion(?) Probably not a religion, however since it involves religion, we can include it in that context.
People find religion, and atheism is left with a few spokespeople, and small but loud group on the net, etc.
Is the plight, the fact that atheism as a preaching or preached religious perspective, simply cannot compete with the theistic religions?

Is this causing the often over emphasis, of argumentation?

Syncretic..... I'll follow my earlier comments with a few more, assuming you are serious about understanding atheism....... Atheists are generally people who can welcome being in the minority opinion without fear or discomfort, because they understand that knowledge evolves along with everything else, and that being in a minority could mean one is closer to the truth regarding reality. Religious belief requires one to look backwards to the past, to revealed knowledge. Religious believers believe, and think they know, the power that drives the universe, while atheists are content to say that we just don't know, and that we have not had any experiences of the supernatural. Atheists think that knowing reality and moving forward is what matters, and corroboration of scientific evidence is a way to achieve that end. So when you suggest that atheism "simply cannot compete with the theistic regions", I would say you're missing the point, no atheist is trying to compete. If anything, an atheist is more interested in what science is discovering, that is our reality, and our future. What does your religion or your god say about the future? If there were just some evidence for any creator god that can be corroborated, and agreed upon....... Instead, the reality is few can agree upon anything regarding religion, thus there are hundreds and thousands of gods and goddesses, and as many beliefs.

 

[blü 2]

The Bible nowhere describes a flat earth

O shmogie, shmogie! You KNOW it does. I gave you a few of the references ─ and you'll recall you got back to me on one (with no particular damage to it), but you never went near the others. To take just one of many examples, how can the spherical earth have four corners?

And you accuse me of making up my facts!

A universe cannot create itself from nothing, that is reality.

This would be no problem if my hypothesis that time and space are qualities of energy, rather than vice versa, were on the right track. I don't pretend to have a demonstration that it's correct at this stage, but it means that your conclusion is only one of the possibilities ─ and far more hypothetical than mine since it involves entities undescribed as to their form and nature and the manner in which they might exist and act. Whereas energy is the economy of the universe.

no doubt you scoff at Paul when he speaks of powers, principalities and princes unseen. Get real.

Paul's the guy who invented the rule that congregations have to pay their pastors. Thinks like the head of Franchising, does Paul. Consider this: in my view it's likely that the antisemitism in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 and the denigration of women in 1 Corinthians 14:33-36 aren't by Paul, but glosses by later copyists grinding their own axes. Unfortunately, those who insist on an inerrant bible are stuck with them. I think Paul's dreamy orders of angels such as you refer to, are fairly harmless compared to that.