Is there such a thing as an atheist?

[Cycel]

A person would have to be in all places at all times to know there is no God.

Or even to know that there is a God. This argument cuts both ways.

No it doesn't. Once you know there is a God, having met him or talked to him you don't need to be everywhere to know that he exists.

You have me there. If you believe you have personally met God or talked with him then, I suppose, you have no need to look for him. Unfortunately not everyone is in your boat. Many believe without the benefit of having met or talked with God. Should they use Notforgotten's argument, then mine would apply.

 

[mustaphadrink]

You have me there. If you believe you have personally met God or talked with him then, I suppose, you have no need to look for him. Unfortunately not everyone is in your boat. Many believe without the benefit of having met or talked with God. Should they use Notforgotten's argument, then mine would apply.

But you said the argument cuts both ways which means without exception as there were no qualifications. I have noticed that atheists are prone to vague generalisations the most obvious one is that religion does this and religion does that so I ask "which religion." On any given day one religion may be murdering the innocent and another is feeding the starving so one cannot say religion does this or religion does that.

the truth is SOME religions may do this and SOME religions may do that but until they are all doing the same thing you cannot make vague generalisations because to do so is to avoid the truth and spread lies.

 

[Cycel]

The entire purpose of the Gospel was and is to bring Love to us all and use this love, loving one another whether we agree or not. Now to me to do that is the fruit of true love from the creator of all we see, and was best shown through the man Christ Jesus...

Matthew 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

And this type of people are still out and about harming the Love God gives, using Father's name in vain

In Matthew 12 Jesus and his disciples being hungry took grain to eat from a field on the Sabbath, and the Pharisees criticize him. In the Talmud however, this is permitted in time of need. The Talmud would not have criticized Jesus. Also, it explains elsewhere that the corners of fields are not harvested so that the poor and the hungry may eat.

Some authors, noticing this, see this as an attack on the Pharisees from the author, not from Jesus, written at a later date when there was greater strife between the Pauline Christians and the Jewish Christian camp. Hyam Maccoby has much more to say about this in his book, The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity.

 

[phil112]

You have me there. If you believe you have personally met God or talked with him then, I suppose, you have no need to look for him. Unfortunately not everyone is in your boat. Many believe without the benefit of having met or talked with God. Should they use Notforgotten's argument, then mine would apply.

No man has ever, or will ever, see God. Me, I don't have to see the factory to know Chevrolet built my pickup.

 

[Cycel]

But you said the argument cuts both ways which means without exception as there were no qualifications.

Did I say without exception? No, you did. You have claimed you met and talked with God. If you think you have done this then naturally you don't feel the need to look for God. I simply pointed out that not all Christians have had your experience. Some never meet or talk with God, so if they should argue I cannot know there is no God until I have searched every corner of the universe then I will simply retort that as they have not met or talked with God either (ie. they have no personal confirmation of his existence), then they must find him by looking in every corner before they can claim he is there. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Now, should you ask me whether or not I think you have really met and talked with God, how do you think I would respond?

I have noticed that atheists are prone to vague generalisations the most obvious one is that religion does this and religion does that so I ask "which religion." On any given day one religion may be murdering the innocent and another is feeding the starving so one cannot say religion does this or religion does that.

the truth is SOME religions may do this and SOME religions may do that but until they are all doing the same thing you cannot make vague generalisations because to do so is to avoid the truth and spread lies.

I quite agree that generalizations gloss over the exceptions, of which there may be many, which is why I try never to make generalizations. Have you noticed that some Christians frequently make generalizations about atheists? Have you ever heard anyone say this: " I have noticed that atheists are prone to vague generalisations...."

 

[Cycel]

No man has ever, or will ever, see God.

Mustaphadrink, seems to imply that he has both met and talked with God. A few in this forum seem to believe this. I happen to agree with you, though not likely for the same reason as yourself.

Me, I don't have to see the factory to know Chevrolet built my pickup.

I drive a Chrysler product, and I agree. I've seen no evidence, however, that worlds and stars need factories. I understand how they form, just as I understand how hail forms. It's not the problem for me that it was for the author of the Book of Job.

 

[dcontroversal]

No man has ever, or will ever, see God. Me, I don't have to see the factory to know Chevrolet built my pickup.

Awesome hahaha so is Chevy what they drive in imaginary purgatory? HAHA everyone knows that a FORD makes the Pearly (muddy) gates hahahahha ...........I like the analogy by the way!

 

[Cycel]

Over the weekend, I alluded to a creed called the Apostles' Creed.

In his book, AD 381, Charles Freeman goes into great detail explaining how the Creed came about. It's a very interesting read, that is if you enjoy reading about the history of the early church.

FYE (for your entertainment and edification), please see the YouTube video below by thought-leader, organic church leader Alan Hirsch. Alan presents a credal statement in three words: Jesus is Lord.

It was interesting to hear how he explained the message as a virus, saying it spread with Jesus' sneeze. There is a term that was coined back in the 1970s to express this very idea of ideas spreading like viruses. It's called a meme. So, for example, Christmas traditions are memes, and I suppose the ideas contained in the Apostles Creed are also memes. The Oxford Dictionary of English says this, meme: an element of a culture or system of behaviour passed from one individual to another by imitation or other non-genetic means.

NL, I hadn't heard of Alan Hirsch. Interesting video. Thanks for sharing.

PS. What does organic ministry mean? Is it simply the idea that Jesus sneezed, as Hirsch say, and ever since that time the virus has been spreading? Or as someone else might say, Paul spoke and the message has been spreading, or the meme of Jesus as Lord has been spreading?

 

[phil112]

For our "atheist" friends:

Hypernaturalism: Integrating the Bible and Science

Much of the modern “creation debate” devolves into two competing perspectives: naturalism and supernaturalism. Naturalism, often considered the scientific point of view, states that the universe and all life-forms came into being via undirected, natural processes. Supernaturalism, considered the religious view, argues that a supernatural God created the entire universe and life itself.
We believe there is a third point of view that can unite religion and science. We call it hypernaturalism.

God the Creator is necessarily outside of the universe He made—hence, He is able to control the forces of nature. Natural law is God’s servant. God has the authority to use the forces of nature to implement His will. Hence, through hypernaturalism, many of God’s miracles can be explained as a combination of divine power and natural law. When God acts hypernaturally, He employs natural law and natural phenomena in an extraordinary way to bring about His will. This encompasses extraordinary timing (including both duration and start and stop time), an extraordinary selection of location, and/or extraordinary magnitude (including severity and intensity). An event is not necessarily hypernatural because it is extraordinary; it is hypernatural if God exercises extraordinary control for a particular purpose (since His miracles always have purpose).

http://www.reasons.org/articles/hyp...e-bible-and-science-to-explain-god-s-miracles

 

[phil112]

I believe these fellas understand how it works. This is exactly the way I see God working in our world.

The usual Christian understanding of a miracle is that God supernaturally brings about something that is otherwise impossible. An omnipotent God can surely do this—but hypernaturalism could provide an even greater demonstration of God’s power. A supernatural miracle overriding the forces of nature shows that God has greater power than nature—yet it could also imply nature is God’s adversary. Such a depiction was typical of ancient myths, in which pagan deities representing forces of nature competed to prove who had greater power.By contrast, a hypernatural miracle demonstrates that God created the forces of nature to serve His purposes. This is evident in Genesis when God commanded Earth and the waters to “bring forth” vegetation and animals, respectively, and nature complied (Genesis 1:11, 20, 24, KJV).
Before the scientific revolution, when humankind could observe but not explain natural phenomena, it seemed logical to believe God acted supernaturally. People believed rainfall (or lack thereof), fertility, and other natural phenomena were God’s supernatural will at work. Today we recognize natural laws and can explain many miracles as God’s extraordinary use of those laws.

 

[doseofreality]

For our "atheist" friends:

Hypernaturalism: Integrating the Bible and Science


Reasons To Believe : Hypernaturalism: Integrating the Bible and Science

I have no problem with hypernaturalism other than how do you distinguish it from just plain naturalism.

In both cases the results and processes are the same, only the source differs. Did God establish natural laws or did they come about randomly or some other unknown way?

 

[nl]

In his book, AD 381, Charles Freeman goes into great detail explaining how the Creed came about. It's a very interesting read, that is if you enjoy reading about the history of the early church.


It was interesting to hear how he explained the message as a virus, saying it spread with Jesus' sneeze. There is a term that was coined back in the 1970s to express this very idea of ideas spreading like viruses. It's called a meme. So, for example, Christmas traditions are memes, and I suppose the ideas contained in the Apostles Creed are also memes. The Oxford Dictionary of English says this, meme: an element of a culture or system of behaviour passed from one individual to another by imitation or other non-genetic means.

NL, I hadn't heard of Alan Hirsch. Interesting video. Thanks for sharing.

PS. What does organic ministry mean? Is it simply the idea that Jesus sneezed, as Hirsch say, and ever since that time the virus has been spreading? Or as someone else might say, Paul spoke and the message has been spreading, or the meme of Jesus as Lord has been spreading?

Terminology that is related to organic ministry includes missional movements, organic church, house church.

 

[homwardbound]

In Matthew 12 Jesus and his disciples being hungry took grain to eat from a field on the Sabbath, and the Pharisees criticize him. In the Talmud however, this is permitted in time of need. The Talmud would not have criticized Jesus. Also, it explains elsewhere that the corners of fields are not harvested so that the poor and the hungry may eat.

Some authors, noticing this, see this as an attack on the Pharisees from the author, not from Jesus, written at a later date when there was greater strife between the Pauline Christians and the Jewish Christian camp. Hyam Maccoby has much more to say about this in his book, The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity.

Quite interesting and thank you, your responses have shown love beyond what I have seen in a lot of claimed Christians.
Are you positive you do not believe God to be love? Your fruits show this to me and humility.

 

[mustaphadrink]

Did I say without exception? No, you did.

Yes you did because you made no exception or gave any qualification.

 

[HEIsRiSen]

Nobody can entirely shut out the idea of One true God, the creator of the universe and everything contained within. There is no proof against God, none. You can argue this and that have science try to explain everything under the sun and beyond, but you cannot disprove God.

Why is it that atheists say they flat out deny the idea of God? Is it because we haven't proven God with science? Is it because they have lived a rough life or see the hurt and pain in the world and do not see how a loving God would allow it to happen?

God isn't just some theory men made up thousands of years ago, theories can be disproven, God cannot. Just like I cannot prove that God exists to somebody, an atheist cannot prove to me or themselves that He does not. There is nobody that can deny that there is a God, they can only announce their disbelief and reasons for not believing. In order to completely deny even the possibility of a God a person would need proof.

There is no proof in science, we only explain what happens and accept it as truth because there are no exceptions. We can explain and predict behavior, but we cannot explain why it happens. We know an apple falls to the ground when it falls out of a tree, we know there is a force that brings the apple to the ground, we call this force gravity and know that it exists. BUT what is gravity and why does it happen? I'm sure science explains the behavior in even greater detail, but yet they can not explain everything about anything. Why? There is a unknown force behind everything that happens, this force cannot be seen and this force cannot be explained by science.

So my answer to the OP is:
Yes, by definition, there is such a thing as atheists, but there is no real reason for anybody to completely shut of the idea of God because they have no proof to prove their disbelief rational. Just as unbelievers have no proof to prove Christians or any other theist irrational.

Maybe that's why a Psalm says that the fool has said that there is no God.

 

[IntoTheVoid]

So by your logic you cannot 100 percent disprove the existence of that unicorn standing behind you that disappears when you turn around.

The 'you can't prove it's not' argument is absurd because it's opens the door to the existence of absolutely everything.

 

[Cycel]

For our "atheist" friends:

Hypernaturalism: Integrating the Bible and Science

Reasons To Believe : Hypernaturalism: Integrating the Bible and Science

An interesting article but not an explanation I can accept this late in life. Once belief in God is lost, so too is belief in things such as the parting of the Red Sea, and so on.

 

[JesusLives]

Cycel Hi just wondering if you ever read my post #1016?

 

[Cycel]

Quite interesting and thank you, your responses have shown love beyond what I have seen in a lot of claimed Christians.
Are you positive you do not believe God to be love? Your fruits show this to me and humility.

I have lost belief in God, I wouldn't lie to you about this. Nor am I deceiving myself. You might say though I am still seeking Jesus, but it is the historical Jesus I search for, the one who I believe has been hidden from our eyes. Jesus for me is a man, not a supernatural being, but God is not something I believe in any longer.

 

[Spokenpassage]

I have lost belief in God, I wouldn't lie to you about this. Nor am I deceiving myself. You might say though I am still seeking Jesus, but it is the historical Jesus I search for, the one who I believe has been hidden from our eyes. Jesus for me is a man, not a supernatural being, but God is not something I believe in any longer.

What is your purpose in life?