Ask an Atheist.

[Asanima]

All I can say to this statement is wow! Please think about this. So I guess brains did not exist until they were discovered that people had physical brains, hearts, etc? Sorry, but this is just like hitting a brick wall. I cannot believe you actually made such a statement.

Well, no, we had evidence of brains ever since people died and their heads were split open. Same goes for hearts.

What their functions were, however, is a different story entirely.

Im not talking about whether this is true or not. Im talking about whether you are justified in your belief.

Yes, God may or may not exist. The question is, how are you justified in your belief that God exists.

Your analogy with the cat makes no sense at all and irrelevant anyway.

May i ask, how so?

GOD is real, He exists. I invited you already to visit some links and evidence and prophecy forum to read some sticky threads. Did you? Apparently you did not. So you're speaking about beliefs, facts, evidence yet you're rejecting it before your own eyes when offered to you.

So in essence, your points are all moot.

Well, actually, yes, i am going through that bit by bit, i missed your initial comment until like an hour ago, otherwise i wouldve responded to it first, which i apologize, as your comment was the very bottom. And i do intend to ask questions when i encounter problems within the threads. But whether or not a belief is justified, whether there is evidence of God, is irrelevant to the faulty reasoning pointed out by ByGraceAlone. I will examine the evidence and come to a conclusion, but it is not faulty to reject the existance of something when there is no evidence, which is what ByGraceAlone claimed.

In other words, if ByGraceAlone's argument was "It is faulty to reject the existance of something if there is evidence to support it", i would agree, my point would be moot and you would be right to call me out on it. Instead, his/her argument was "It is faulty to reject the existance of something based on no evidence". In which case, pointing out that there is evidence to support the existance of God, runs contrary to what ByGraceAlone is talking about.

 

[Asanima]

This is your reply,

You said before that you cannot define God or his characteristics, and yet you come
here telling me that God has love or is love or associated with love.
Youre telling me of a characteristic of God, while denying that we cannot know
anything about that characteristic. So how do you know the "Love" that you speak
of that God has, is in any way related to what we know and define as "Love"?

I do understand the point you have made.

The Bible is the inspired words of God, I quote the Bible.

In the Bible the definition of love is provided for us.

Here is an example of love defined.

4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up;

5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil;

6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth;

7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

8 Love never fails. ( 1 Corinthians 13 )

This is not my definition Asanima, this is God's definition.

I have not broken any rules, nor is contradiction occurring.

Now for mans definition;

1. a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.

You may spot the difference between the two definitions.

The latter definition is more romance than love.

That is one reason why I prefer God's definition.

Isnt the bible inspired by God but written by men? I mean, Christian scholars have been writing about the definition of Omnipotence since the beginning of chrisitanity. So there are Christian scholars who wrote about the definition of Omnipotence etc, and generally accepted to be inspired by God, and you reject their definitions. But you accept the definition of scriptures written by Man, inspired by God. Could you possibly explain this contradiction?

 

[David777]

Yes Asanima.

Isnt the bible inspired by God but written by men? I mean, Christian scholars have been writing about the definition of Omnipotence since the beginning of chrisitanity. So there are Christian scholars who wrote about the definition of Omnipotence etc, and generally accepted to be inspired by God, and you reject their definitions. But you accept the definition of scriptures written by Man, inspired by God. Could you possibly explain this contradiction?

If the so called "Christian scholar" is using the Bible as the basis for the definition then it is valid. If revelation is used for definition then
the definition has been correctly sourced.

Now to the point Asanima, if a scholar defines God on the basis of Biblical passages. Does this imply that we understand God?

If omnipotence is defined do we understand it? We only accept it by faith Asanima.

I will repeat myself, humans are limited creatures, we are constrained by our own thought. Revelation releases us from this condition.

Still no contradiction Asanima.

 

[Asanima]

If the so called "Christian scholar" is using the Bible as the basis for the definition then it is valid. If revelation is used for definition then
the definition has been correctly sourced.

What do you mean by "if revelation is used for definition then the definition has been correctly sourced"?

Now to the point Asanima, if a scholar defines God on the basis of Biblical passages. Does this imply that we understand God?

Depends on what you mean by "Understand God". I dont fully understand an apple, but i do understand its general characteristics and what those characteristics entail.

If omnipotence is defined do we understand it? We only accept it by faith Asanima.

Sure, but the same could be said of the definition provided in the bible, too.

I will repeat myself, humans are limited creatures, we are constrained by our own thought. Revelation releases us from this condition.

Still no contradiction Asanima.

Ill save my response to this after youve explained what you mean at the beginning of this comment.

 

[David777]

Thanks Asanima.

Revelation is the revealing of information that is concealed.

Meaning that we cannot know Jesus unless it is revealed.

Jesus Christ is the revelation contained in the scriptures.

These scriptures state that Jesus is the truth.

Hence, truth is defined as Jesus.

Mankind may debate the concept of truth, but without
the correct definition the debate will never cease.

An example Asanima is "knowledge", for a very long
period of time philosophers have been debating what
knowledge is. It is still undefined in philosophy Asanima.

Sourcing the Bible on the word "knowledge" a definition
would be: spiritual information concerning Jesus Christ.

Do you see the vast difference between the idea or
concept of a word and the correctly sourced definition
of a word.

Hope that provides some clarity for you Asanima, this
is a very difficult subject to discuss. My usage of a word
like revelation may be quite different from your usage.

 

[Asanima]

Revelation is the revealing of information that is concealed.

Meaning that we cannot know Jesus unless it is revealed.

Jesus Christ is the revelation contained in the scriptures.

These scriptures state that Jesus is the truth.

Hence, truth is defined as Jesus.

No, i know what the definition of Revelation is. Sorry, i shouldve been clear, what i was asking, was for you to explain what you meant by "then the definition has been correctly sourced". i dont understand that part of your comment.

Mankind may debate the concept of truth, but without
the correct definition the debate will never cease.

An example Asanima is "knowledge", for a very long
period of time philosophers have been debating what
knowledge is. It is still undefined in philosophy Asanima.

Well, no, there is a standard definition of what is deemed as Knowledge, otherwise we wouldnt be able to discuss it. Yes, there are different modes of thought on what the true definition is, but they all unanimously agree on the baseline of the definition of knowledge.

Sourcing the Bible on the word "knowledge" a definition
would be: spiritual information concerning Jesus Christ.

Do you see the vast difference between the idea or
concept of a word and the correctly sourced definition
of a word.

I already know and understand the difference you are talking about. What i dont understand is why you reject the revelation, or correctly sourced definition from a christian scholar, and accept one from scripture, i.e. Paul.

EDIT:

I suppose its that i do not understand the difference between supposed divine revelation given to a scholar who defines the word, and the revelation given to Paul or the authors of the gospel who also defines a word.

Hope that provides some clarity for you Asanima, this
is a very difficult subject to discuss. My usage of a word
like revelation may be quite different from your usage.

I appreciate your taking the time to discuss this with me.

 

[David777]

Further Asanima.

I do enjoy discussing such topics and I do appreciate your patience.

Philosophy has a definite problem with the definition of knowledge.

What is true knowledge? What knowledge should mankind pursue?

If you examine the two questions above Asanima, these are the
two problems philosophy is trying to resolve.

It must be evident that the problem itself must lie within the definition
of knowledge or base definition that philosophy has employed.

Without knowing what knowledge is and its application, debate will ensue.

Asanima I am wary of Christian scholars as they vary in what they hold to be true.
Some Christian scholars deride the inspiration of the scriptures.
Some have social agendas that they address.
Some are political creatures.
Some want to sell books, or have you attend their church, etc.

Why do I accept Paul? I hear the voice of God speaking through Paul.
Paul's statements are consistent and inspired, Paul speaks from the spirit.

 

[Rev T.S.Perkins]

youre right in saying this is based on asumption that God exists....and so youres is based on the fact He dosent exist ...? If i may ask ..have you ever tried to ask God if He exists ..instead of assuming he dosent ..?It Takes much more Faith to say He dosent exist than to openly accept God does exist ..Its a double edged sword with an eternal judgement ..besides that you cant see air but for some strange reason YOU need it to breathe..We need Christ as much as we need air to breathe .we know we need to breathe air no one has to tell us that fact .even if you dont breathe the air is still there for those who choose to take in a lung full and not DIE..lots of doulbes on this but in the end OUR GOD reigns and i Hope someday you see just how much He loves you even if you deny Him ,,He still is there just like the air around us ....And now here is the real kicker...you were led here by God to seek proof that He does indeed exist.you cuold have went any where but came to this room and this group of believers not by chance but by devine appoinment...BECAUSE HIS LOVE FOR YOU IS SO GREAT .Bless you much ...rev

 

[jiggyfly]

http://www.talkjesus.com/images/element/misc/right-logo.gif

 

[SpiritLedEd]

Yes, God may or may not exist. The question is, how are you justified in your belief that God exists

Asanima, have you begun to read the Timothy Keller book I suggested?

SLE

 

[Asanima]

youre right in saying this is based on asumption that God exists....and so youres is based on the fact He dosent exist ...? If i may ask ..have you ever tried to ask God if He exists ..instead of assuming he dosent ..?It Takes much more Faith to say He dosent exist than to openly accept God does exist ..Its a double edged sword with an eternal judgement ..besides that you cant see air but for some strange reason YOU need it to breathe..We need Christ as much as we need air to breathe .we know we need to breathe air no one has to tell us that fact .even if you dont breathe the air is still there for those who choose to take in a lung full and not DIE..lots of doulbes on this but in the end OUR GOD reigns and i Hope someday you see just how much He loves you even if you deny Him ,,He still is there just like the air around us ....And now here is the real kicker...you were led here by God to seek proof that He does indeed exist.you cuold have went any where but came to this room and this group of believers not by chance but by devine appoinment...BECAUSE HIS LOVE FOR YOU IS SO GREAT .Bless you much ...rev

Yes, i have. When i was 12 years or so, i tried kneeling and praying to God on the behest of my christian friend. This was before i even knew what the concept of an atheist was. I also read the bible, although it was a really SMALL bible, like a pocket sized one, but it still covered the old testament and all 4 gospels as well as the epistles and such.

But ive never understood the "It takes more faith to be an atheist" argument. We necessarily assume that something doesnt exist until we have good justification to say it does. This goes true for almost every single mythical or fictional character.

And if what you say is true, thats great. But so far i havent seen any proof that he exists. Im having a discussion with Strages who seems to have gotten busy and hasnt responded for about 2 weeks now.

 

[Asanima]

Asanima, have you begun to read the Timothy Keller book I suggested?

SLE

Actually, to be honest, i had read this book several years ago. But my memory was fuzzy, and i wasnt sure if this was the book you were talking about, so i went out and lightly re-read it again. And im sorry to tell you this, but as a skeptic, this book doesnt really address most of the arguments made by most skeptics out there. He seems to borrow from C.S Lewis alot, but my main problem with his chapters, is that they could not possibly convince someone who has actually done some research into both christianity and logical fallacies.

But id love to discuss this more with you if you have the time.

 

[David777]

Hello asanima.

Perhaps, I should make a number of points.

You did say;

"But so far i havent seen any proof that he exists."

Here is what I say;

"But so far i have not seen proof that He does not exist".

See how they cancel one another out.

1) Man cannot know God unless God initiates the contact. Fact!

2) Man is a dark creature, sinister at times, I claim human history
as the proof. Torture, genocide, the need for law, etc. Fact!

3) The Bible is the proof of God's contact with man. Fact!

4) The Bible says Jesus is God. Fact!

5) I claim Jesus has not been in contact with you
hence, you do not know God.

6) Remedy, asanima you need to ask Jesus to let you in
to the understanding of who God really is.

God is not a definition, or a concept, He is spirit that is
why you cannot see Him. You can view the Gospels to
see God in the flesh, have a look yourself and ask.

 

[Asanima]

Perhaps, I should make a number of points.

You did say;

"But so far i havent seen any proof that he exists."

Here is what I say;

"But so far i have not seen proof that He does not exist".

See how they cancel one another out.

Again, i bring up our previous discussion.

We are talking about Justified reasonable belief.

Is it ever justified belief if your reasons for belief are "I have not seen any evidence against the existance of 'X', therefore i believe"? I mean, all the mythical, fictional creatures have no evidence against their existance.

1) Man cannot know God unless God initiates the contact. Fact!

Rev T.S. perkins just asked me if i have ever tried seeking God. I suppose it makes sense why i never received an answer when I did, if he is the one who initiates the contact and not me.

2) Man is a dark creature, sinister at times, I claim human history
as the proof. Torture, genocide, the need for law, etc. Fact!

Sure. But man is also a greatly loving, decent creature too.

3) The Bible is the proof of God's contact with man. Fact!

Well, no. The bible isnt proof of Gods contact with man to anyone who doesnt believe the bible to be true. I mean, Muslims can claim the same thing about the Quran. How is this a Fact to me?

4) The Bible says Jesus is God. Fact!

Sure.

5) I claim Jesus has not been in contact with you
hence, you do not know God.

Okay.

6) Remedy, asanima you need to ask Jesus to let you in
to the understanding of who God really is.


God is not a definition, or a concept, He is spirit that is
why you cannot see Him. You can view the Gospels to
see God in the flesh, have a look yourself and ask.

I never asked to "see" god. I asked whether there is justification in belief. And yes, i did read the whole bible, several times now.

But the reason i say this, is because of the nature of belief. Belief, true belief, isnt simply a switch that you can turn off or on. I cannot possibly believe that, for example, gravity does not exist, and truly believe it. The only way that i could possible believe such a thing is if i suddenly had a mental defect. Its not simply a choice, you have to be convinced that your belief is true.

I did ask Jesus to come into my life. Now, you can, as many have, claim that i wasnt sincere, that i had hardened my heart, that i hadnt truly believed and therefore God never came. But as i said above, true belief is something that you have to be convinced about.

But this is also a point of contention for me. We have examples of God, arriving, showing up, and revealing himself to people like Paul, like Moses, etc, even when they didnt ask for it. Paul is probably the prime example, as he was running around persecuting christians, and despite that, he received a revelation and vision from God that physically blinded him for 3 days. And this isnt special to Paul, ive heard testimonials where people claimed that they werent searching for God, it was the last thing they were looking for, but somehow God found them and revealed to them that he exists, or that they were in a car accident and had an experience, etc, or that guy who said he died and went to hell and that was what convinced him. None of them were asking God to reveal himself to them, yet they received the revelation nonetheless. I am, and yet i do not.

 

[Rev T.S.Perkins]

All i know is how much love the Lord has poured out on you and yet you still doubt in youre heart ..if we trust in the Lord it becomes apperant ..If we lean to our own understanding we will never come close to the Love of God ..many seek to prove God dosent exist ..youre not the first and by no means will be the last ..But Gods love will endure the test of time .Faith in God is a blind faith ..That kind of faith is unshakable and dosent need proof of any kind .no matter what is said or thrown at it ..HIS LOVE FOR US NEVER CHANGES..im glad we met and i will not throw a bunch of Scripture at you but will tell you this ..if you honestly want to know Him He is waiting to talk to you .! Waiting for a chance to show you and fellowship with you ,,But first we have to put down all the walls that tell us it cant be that easy and except it on faith That God has a plan for us over and above any thing we can prove in this world ..YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE AND ALL TO GAIN..I encourage you to take the leap and just ask God to show Himself to you in Glory and then hold on for the ride of youre life......In jesus name ...rev :wink:
in answer to God not making the first move !! The cross is the First example of God trying To bridge the gap between Him and Man ..He made the first move ..second example is the prodical son and how the Father waits and watches for the return of the wayward son (us) to come home ,,and then rushes to meet him and celebrates His childs return to Him... God is waiting for us to return to a realationship with Him ..He made the first move ..! what are you gonig to do??...Its youre move now..

 

[David777]

In reply asanima.

Hello asanima, I must say that this conversation is becoming
more interesting with each post, thanks for the replies.

You asked about justified belief.

Belief;
something believed or accepted as true

Justify;
to demonstrate or prove to be right, or valid.

Is it possible given the definitions asanima to prove a belief?

Let me demonstrate from a scientific viewpoint.

Below are the assumptions of science, since
you are interested in science, please read.

Basic assumptions of science (Nachmias and Nachmias 1996, pp. 5-7)

1. Nature is orderly, i.e., regularity, pattern, and structure.
Laws of nature describe order.

2. We can know nature. Individuals are part of nature.
Individuals and social exhibit order; may
be studied same as nature.

3. All phenomena have natural causes.
Scientific explanation of human behavior opposes
religious, spiritualistic, and magical explanations.

4. Nothing is self evident.
Truth claims must be demonstrated objectively.

5. Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience.
Empirically. Thru senses directly or indirectly.

6. Knowledge is superior to ignorance.

Let's focus on assumption number three for now.

"All phenomena have natural causes."

Now for the definition of 'assumption',
something taken for granted or accepted as true without
proof; a supposition: a valid assumption.

Notice in the definition of assumption "accepted as true without proof".

Hence, science is in fact a belief system due to the third assumption.
A belief system of faith which is accepted as true without proof.

If I was to ask you to prove that science was true, you could only ever reply.
"I believe it is true", the emphasis is on "believe".

I am an incurable skeptic asanima, so I would reply "you have nothing
to support your third assumption other than faith. All your findings
in science are of course assumed to be true. Is it possible to prove
anything in science, probably not, it is only a construction of faith
in the end. Absolute knowledge would be necessary to ultimately
know whether something was objectively true.

Lets revisit assumption three, you will notice that science is
opposed to religion. One faith against another faith?

I must say at times I struggle with these ridiculous intellectual
constructions of thought. How can a system of thought based
on assumptions be opposed to another system of faith not based
on assumptions (Christianity).

 

[Asanima]

Hello asanima, I must say that this conversation is becoming
more interesting with each post, thanks for the replies.

You asked about justified belief.

Belief;
something believed or accepted as true

Justify;
to demonstrate or prove to be right, or valid.

Is it possible given the definitions asanima to prove a belief?

Let me demonstrate from a scientific viewpoint.

Below are the assumptions of science, since
you are interested in science, please read.

Basic assumptions of science (Nachmias and Nachmias 1996, pp. 5-7)

1. Nature is orderly, i.e., regularity, pattern, and structure.
Laws of nature describe order.

2. We can know nature. Individuals are part of nature.
Individuals and social exhibit order; may
be studied same as nature.

3. All phenomena have natural causes.
Scientific explanation of human behavior opposes
religious, spiritualistic, and magical explanations.

4. Nothing is self evident.
Truth claims must be demonstrated objectively.

5. Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience.
Empirically. Thru senses directly or indirectly.

6. Knowledge is superior to ignorance.

Let's focus on assumption number three for now.

"All phenomena have natural causes."

Now for the definition of 'assumption',
something taken for granted or accepted as true without
proof; a supposition: a valid assumption.

Notice in the definition of assumption "accepted as true without proof".

Hence, science is in fact a belief system due to the third assumption.
A belief system of faith which is accepted as true without proof.

Well, no.

The reason why the third one isnt an assumption, is because it is something that has been demonstrated, countless times.

Lightning, volcanic eruptions, ocean currents, these things have been demonstrated to have natural causes.

Supernatural events, Palm readings, personal revelations, black magic, prayer, have not been demonstrated that they are true, as claimed by the person who is experiencing/claiming the event occurred.

If you have a personal revelation, im fine with that. And if i received the same revelation, i might be a believer too. But it would be something that i cannot demonstrate to anyone outside myself. It would be something that is only self evident, only evidence to me, and no one else.

If I was to ask you to prove that science was true, you could only ever reply.
"I believe it is true", the emphasis is on "believe".

Sure. But dont you believe that Gravity exists? Is your belief in gravity, without evidence?

Belief isnt an assumption. You can believe because of evidence, proof.

I am an incurable skeptic asanima, so I would reply "you have nothing
to support your third assumption other than faith. All your findings
in science are of course assumed to be true. Is it possible to prove
anything in science, probably not, it is only a construction of faith
in the end. Absolute knowledge would be necessary to ultimately
know whether something was objectively true.

I would agree with you that i do not know, with absolute certainty, that the world around me is true. It could be, that we are all brains in vats, sharing a virtual reality, like in the movie The Matrix. I would have no way of knowing for certain.

But is it a belief without evidence? No. My senses confirm, provide evidence that what i experience is real. And my interaction with other people, also confirm this.

If by "Prove", you are talking about providing evidence, providing a reasonable amount of evidence and arguments that support that something in science is true, then yes, i can "prove" things in science.

If by "Prove", you are talking about absolute proof, 100% knowledge, then no, i cannot "prove" anything in science. But such a definition of proof, is useless. It serves no practical use.

Lets revisit assumption three, you will notice that science is
opposed to religion. One faith against another faith?

I must say at times I struggle with these ridiculous intellectual
constructions of thought. How can a system of thought based
on assumptions be opposed to another system of faith not based
on assumptions (Christianity).

Science isnt "Opposed" to religion. The problem here, is that religion has yet to provide actual, reliable, demonstrable evidence to back up its claims. Until it can, it isnt science, but just because something isnt accepted by science, doesnt mean its opposed by science. Science hasnt accepted Cold Fusion, but science isnt opposed towards the concept of cold fusion.

Its why christians can be scientists, Muslims can be scientists, etc.

 

[CircleOfFriends]

Hey guys!

I would like to clear up a few misconceptions here:

Atheism - disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or being

Theism - belief in the existence of a god or gods ( opposed to atheism )

If anyone has any questions, feel free to direct them at me.

 

[strages]

I find it quite ironic that Asanima was the one to say that man is a decent loving creature (remember that God made man and that He said that it was "very good" Gen:1 31). Also, Asanima was the one to say that science and (real) religion cannot contradict each other. After all, God made both and He is perfect, He cannot make mistakes. How could He make something that contradicts something else created? Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." Jesus said THE truth, there is only one. Asanima is searching for the truth through the study of God's creation (science), if he is looking for the truth, he will find It. Remember also that God is a just judge, if Asanima is searching as hard as he can to find the Truth, why wouldn't God judge favorably upon him?

Asanima will find God, make no mistake of that, but I do not think that one can find God through a false idea of Faith (the believing of things unseen, not unprovable). When Jesus walked the earth and said He was God, He didn't just say "Believe in Me," He also worked miracles to prove it. And when Thomas did not believe that Jesus had risen until he, "put his fingers in His hands, and hand in His side," remember that Thomas ended up finding Him.

 

[David777]

Hello Asanima.

You stated the following in reply.

But is it a belief without evidence? No. My senses confirm, provide evidence that what i experience is real. And my interaction with other people, also confirm this.

If by "Prove", you are talking about providing evidence, providing a reasonable amount of evidence and arguments that support that something in science is true, then yes, i can "prove" things in science.

If by "Prove", you are talking about absolute proof, 100% knowledge, then no, i cannot "prove" anything in science. But such a definition of proof, is useless. It serves no practical use.

Your last line is by far the most crucial argument Asanima.

Absolute proof is impossible!

So with what certainty??

"Certainty" is impossible to measure, ultimately you do not know!

No scale may be established to measure certainty.

Pyrrho is credited as being the first Skeptic philosopher. The main principle of Pyrrho's thought is expressed by the word acatalepsia, which denotes the ability to withhold assent from doctrines regarding the truth of things in their own nature; against every statement its contradiction may be advanced with equal justification. Secondly, it is necessary in view of this fact to preserve an attitude of intellectual suspense, or, as Timon expressed it, no assertion can be known to be better than another. (wikipedia)

No argument may be proposed without there existing a counter argument(s).

Your senses Asanima may in fact be your greatest hindrance.

In Christianity, senses are the hindrance.

A reasonable certainty may not exist either.

Without absolute knowledge it is impossible to pursue knowledge,
as you do not know just what knowledge avenue you should take.

What is the certainty that you have chosen the correct field
of knowledge is unknowable.

What assumptions are justifiable? Are they ever justifiable?

You may believe that you can make an assumption, but this is only
in the end a faith system.

"Practical purposes"?, are nuclear weapons practical asanima?