'True lies of new Atheism'.

Aye! Jesus! The body wherein is inhabited by the Son of God. The Christ. IF only people would open their spiritual eyes (mind) and see for themselves.

 

Not divulging proof is not lying. Secondly there is no such thing as incorrigible irrefutable 100% accurate proof of anything! Even in Math. However there is evidence to support the existence of God. And we Christians have both evidence and faith as well as logic and critical thinking on our side. Lastly we are not afraid to defend our paradigm, the same can not be said of many, perhaps the majority of atheist who claim that they are not required to defend their view of reality, and their universe works. To my eyes the religious are being open and honest, while some atheists are being deceptive and disingenuous about their what their paradigm consists of and the defense of it.

RevA

 

I'm not sure I buy the idea of the presumption of atheism. I think a presumption of agnosticism makes more sense.
Of course, I would not say that the "There is a God" and "There is no God" concepts are quite as equivalent as you claim. The "There is a God" side is far narrower in its criteria, especially when you consider that most of the time people seem to be claiming a specific conception of God when making this claim.
The various conceptions of God vary so deeply as to be a rather pointless concept.
For instance a deist is closer to an atheist than a believer in a personal God in all practical manners.

Would a believer in a personal God truly believe a deist to believe in God?
What about a pantheist or a polytheist or an animist or a Gaean (or whatever the hell you call the "living earth" people)?
How is God being defined?
It seems to me that too broad a definition of God is rather pointless when discussing metaphysics and the implications thereof.

 

　
　
Declaring you have proof of God and not sharing it, makes you (not necessarily you)either a liar, or a selfish bastard. Either is completely the opposite of what a Christian is supposed to be.
　
　

　
　
Sounds arrogant and stingy too.
　
　
This little light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine...
　
　
If you have proof let it shine, my friend. Otherwise stop being so evasive. You either have proof or you don't. Since you obviously do not, you are not being truthful.

 

It does make sense, though, from the perspective of the burden of proof.

Of course the burden of proof works both ways when someone says "there is no God" but I find this to be the rarest form of atheism. In most cases atheism is doubt about what people say about God.

Too broad and the term loses distinction. Too narrow and you risk strawmanning. This is why I frequently refer to "the normal God" as shorthand for the usual omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent one.

This is a problem inherent to words, since the function of words is to distinguish. An astute observer might then reply that perhaps God is not the kind of thing that can be confined to lingual constructs.

To him I quote Wittgenstein: If you can't talk about it, shut up.

 

Aw bull. You wouldn't need faith if you had evidence. And you don't need evidence if you have faith.

John 20:29

"Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Jesus says it's better to believe than to have evidence. Of course I disagree with Jesus on this point.

 

The definition of a subject matter (thing) can be said to place that thing in a box where the six walls of the box are the complete definitions of the subject that is contained in the box. Leave even one conceivable definition unaccounted for or unmentioned, then there is also the conceivable notion that the subject is not totally confined in the box. . . thus leaving some aspect of the thing being not considered and when that one aspect is not considered, then there can be no true scientific explanation, because ALL of the attributes of the thing were not given consideration. To base a claim on a lack of sufficient information (ALL the FACTS -- ALL there is to conceivably know about the subject matter) is speaking from a condition of ignorance of the subject matter. On the other side of that same coin, when someone has EXPERIENCED a condition/circumstance/event, then there is left no uncertainty with regard to that subject matter.

 

I see only one major God, the God that created the universe. Religions attempt to describe that one God.

RevA

 

You are addicted to measuring from your own cup kmisho. Some do not need evidence. Some do. Blanket statements of black and white are rarely if ever true. Evidence is a hint, a portion, a piece of the puzzle. Faith is the ability to know what the finished puzzle will look like and the ability to know that all the pieces are there because the maker told him it was so.

John 20:29

"Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Hmmm denying Jesus eh? ; Isaiah 66:24, And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be abhorring unto all flesh.

Isaiah 14:99-11, 15 (referring to Lucifer), Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee...all they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us? Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee...thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Ha ha I will side with Jesus even if the scriptures indicate that not doing so may not bode well for them that make that decision! ... (ahhhh’ well some of the above is out of context, but it sounded cool)

Of course Jesus knows its better to have faith than to have evidence! Faith can move mountains, and the Christian God has human attributes, and God pays back the loyalty of his flock for believing in him. I also believe that Jesus is suggesting that faith is far more powerful than we know. Romans 10:17 says “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the WORDS of God ie Romans 10:17 (King James Version) 17So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, so I am not surprised that you have little or no faith.

RevA

 

Your rhetoric is growing tiresome.

To the rational mind evidence, not faith, supports beliefs.

Quoting bible verses does nothing for your argument because you have no evidence for the divine origin of the bible.

 

Yes! To someone exercising a mind full of rationalizations (excuses) would tend to support your beliefs.

 

That is undoubtedly your position, and an irrational one at that.

 

Well thank you for acknowledging that I am not one who is constantly making excuses (rationalizations).

 

Your empty headed sixth grade prattle (words) has been growing very tiresome with me as well.

JavaBlack used scripture to prove a point and I used scripture to counter and support my point. BTW why are you in the religious section sniveling about quoting scripture? Lastly if you would have read my post instead of just running that jaw on autopilot you would have seen where I said I support my beliefs with evidence (more) than Faith (less). However, personally I admire the faithful far more than those like myself because of my need for evidence. I consider it a weakness and dim to require evdience. The more evidence one needs the less I admire a man, so I suppose that means I don’t admire you at all, eh?

However I do love you and hope that you do not lose your soul ie;

King James Bible
For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

Indeed!

RevA

 

Personally I think avatars tell something about a member, lets have a look at yours...ha ha it’s a freaking cartoon !...ok what about dreadpiratejaymo HA HA Ha ...ha ha ha....wait the Judge? Bawatahh ha ha...thanks for the comedy guys!

RevA

 

This is a non-answer. I am not "measuring from my own cup." I am simply employing the meaning of the terms involved. If you have faith, you do not need evidence. it doens't matter who we're talking about. It is about what faith means. If you have evidence, then you do not need faith because the function of faith is to stand in for evidence to fill the hole left by the lack of it. This is about what faith and evidence mean.

 

Your opening statement above is correct. Your input past that point is just another example of rationalizations (making excuses).... which translates into .... "This is a non-answer".

 

What about my avatar? I originally chose it just to say "Hey, I like chess and Star Trek and here's both." It was only later that i realized it was perfect for a political debate forum, chess implying the combat of debate and Spock implying the necessity of reason as a precondition for substantive debate.

 

Ahhhhh Yes! That profound ability of "NORMAL THINKING". Such an outstanding trait that is commonly found in mankind.

 

Faith IS making excuses. It is literally belief for no reason, for if you had a reason to believe you would not need faith.

I guess I must quote John 20:29 yet again:

Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Jesus is commending belief by faith over belief by evidence. An absurd perspective in my view because ANYTHING can be believed by faith. There is nothing in faith to direct you toward a particular, presumably desired belief.

 

Not normal thinking. CONSISTENT thinking. It's called making sense, something you need to practice.

 

No! The condition you describe would be more akin to 'irrational'. "belief for no reason" would be more akin to the condition of someone who is not capable of 'normal thinking'.

Precisely. Jesus is describing that condition of 'FAITH', not the condition of 'rationalization'. Thus the 'reason' (normal thinking process) is allowable under the condition that Jesus established and which you have quoted. Therefore, we (those of faith) need not make any excuses.

Wrong again. The restatement of the alleged quote from Jesus is the 'evidence' [testimony]..... an affidavit of sorts.

If what you say is true, then there is no logical rationale for anyone to make against the use of 'faith'.

Wrong again. Scriptural definition of 'faith' clearly shows that 'faith' is 'substance' therefore, there is 'something in faith' that leads Christians to align themselves with a preferred (desired) belief.

 

No it is a complete answer a full answer an corrrect answer.

You sure were and this reply proves it, its simply a reworded longer copy of your first reply...

Not true. I do not know what version of Webster’s you use but its corrupt.If one has 100% faith he may need no evidence. No one has 100% faith, even the bible agrees with what I say. Jesus tells his disciple this; Matt 17:20 ;

King James Bible
And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

So even though they were sitting with Jesus Christ they still had less than perfect faith. This is one of many examples. I know myself, I have faith in God. However the science and other evidences that support that faith helps. I am not the only one that relies on evidence to buttress my faith Kisimo you have a lot to learn about life psychology and such.

WRONG! Evidence is not infallible not even close! You have to have faith in evidence! Have you ever took a course in philosophy? You should, it would open your eyes.

True, however you have faith AND evidences one complements the other.

With my input it now is more correct than the mess you began with.

RevA

PS; You are confused about what the terms mean. Why have a KCA? Its an augment for the existence of God? Does an atheist need it? If everyone were a 100% faithful the bible would be about half as big as it is! Even your beloved science tells you nothing is 100% certain. You have faith in many things, maybe not religious faith in God but everyone has faith in other things etc.

 

A cut and past for kmisho~

Does faith ever doubt? Finding your mustard seed

Faith requires doubt in order to be faith. Apply the faith you have, and God will give you more. God doesn’t expect mountain-size faith. A mustard seed will do!

How can I believe what I cannot see?
“Sure” and “certain” in the above Scripture indicate lack of doubt. “Hope for” and “do not see” indicate doubt. How can these two opposites be compatible in the Biblical definition of “faith”? Can I believe and have unbelief at the same time? Can I be sure of something and hope for it at the same time. Can I be certain of something, having never seen it?

One of the most profound statements in God’s Word is, “Immediately the boy’s father exclaimed, ‘I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!’” (Mark 9:24). We tend to think of faith as being 100% sure. But being 100% sure is having it in our hands. Faith requires doubt in order to be faith.

read more at;

http://www.hopeundivided.com/2009/04/24/05-does-faith-ever-doubt-finding-your-mustard-seed/

RevA

 

If evidence was needed in any way then there could be no religiousity.

Now, some may need to justify their faith to themselves but that's an entirely different subject.