-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Hi Dan, I asked Warchild if he had always been an atheist because he had said earlier that he had “no earthly idea why anyone would choose to believe in a god.” I’ve heard my own son say something very similar . You would need to know that my son has always been an atheist, because that is how I raised him. War child also confirmed in the post you objected to that his parents were atheists. Such ‘born and reared’ atheists find it very difficult to understand why anyone would believe in God. For a person raised in a Christian environment, especially one were faith is taken very seriously, believing in God feels completely natural. Such devout Christians often can’t grasp how anyone could be an atheist. Some won’t even accept that there truly are atheists. They imagine that down deep inside the atheist is really only in denial and that he actually knows God exists. They will even quote scripture to support their notion. Warchild and my own son are perhaps the atheist counterparts to your very devout Christians. For them believing in God is so foreign that faith actually seems irrational. For them it would be like meeting an adult who professed belief in the Easter Bunny. I say this not to be insulting, but to convey how removed such atheists are from connecting to belief in a God.
Last edited:
I hear you, but if you are going to make the argument that atheists can’t possibly deny God because they have not searched the entire physical universe for him, then you have to understand that you must also use the same logic in regard all the gods and spirits humanity has ever believed in and acknowledge that you cannot know for certain they do not exist. You can’t make an argument and then ignore the greater swath it cuts just because it doesn’t suit you. If you are going to make an argument you have to employ its use across the board; the alternative is – don’t use an argument that can be turned against you.
No, it's not. You misunderstand Hebrews 11, as would be clear if you had quoted it in context rather than pulling out a single verse. It would also help if you used a more reliable translation for this verse; the one you used doesn't match the Greek at all. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen."
The word translated "faith" here comes from the Greek word "pistis," which is most essentially "conviction." It's the noun form of "pisteo," meaning "to believe" or "to be convinced."
So the next question should be, "when in the Bible does it describe people with the verb 'pisteo' (becoming convinced) or the noun 'pistis' (having faith)?" The answer is, when they saw or experienced something that gave them reasons to believe.
John 20:3-10
[SUP]3 [/SUP]Peter therefore went out, and the other disciple, and were going to the tomb. [SUP]4 [/SUP]So they both ran together, and the other disciple outran Peter and came to the tomb first. [SUP]5 [/SUP]And he, stooping down and looking in, saw the linen cloths lying there; yet he did not go in. [SUP]6 [/SUP]Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; and he saw the linen cloths lying there, [SUP]7 [/SUP]and the handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself. [SUP]8 [/SUP]Then the other disciple, who came to the tomb first, went in also; and he saw and believed. [SUP]9 [/SUP]For as yet they did not know the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead. [SUP]10 [/SUP]Then the disciples went away again to their own homes.
Act 13:6-12
[SUP]6 [/SUP]Now when they had gone through the island[SUP][a][/SUP] to Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew whose name was Bar-Jesus, [SUP]7 [/SUP]who was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, an intelligent man. This man called for Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God. [SUP]8 [/SUP]But Elymas the sorcerer (for so his name is translated) withstood them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith. [SUP]9 [/SUP]Then Saul, who also is called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him [SUP]10 [/SUP]and said, “O full of all deceit and all fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease perverting the straight ways of the Lord? [SUP]11 [/SUP]And now, indeed, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you shall be blind, not seeing the sun for a time.”
And immediately a dark mist fell on him, and he went around seeking someone to lead him by the hand. [SUP]12 [/SUP]Then the proconsul believed, when he saw what had been done, being astonished at the teaching of the Lord.
All of Scripture is full of examples of righteous men trusting God, not based on a blind assumption, but because of their experiences with Him. They were obedient because they had confidence in Him because of what they had evidence of. We should be the same.
Romans 1:18-22
[SUP]18 [/SUP]For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, [SUP]19 [/SUP]because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. [SUP]20 [/SUP]For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, [SUP]21 [/SUP]because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. [SUP]22 [/SUP]Professing to be wise, they became fools, [SUP]23 [/SUP]and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
The word translated "faith" here comes from the Greek word "pistis," which is most essentially "conviction." It's the noun form of "pisteo," meaning "to believe" or "to be convinced."
So the next question should be, "when in the Bible does it describe people with the verb 'pisteo' (becoming convinced) or the noun 'pistis' (having faith)?" The answer is, when they saw or experienced something that gave them reasons to believe.
John 20:3-10
[SUP]3 [/SUP]Peter therefore went out, and the other disciple, and were going to the tomb. [SUP]4 [/SUP]So they both ran together, and the other disciple outran Peter and came to the tomb first. [SUP]5 [/SUP]And he, stooping down and looking in, saw the linen cloths lying there; yet he did not go in. [SUP]6 [/SUP]Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; and he saw the linen cloths lying there, [SUP]7 [/SUP]and the handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself. [SUP]8 [/SUP]Then the other disciple, who came to the tomb first, went in also; and he saw and believed. [SUP]9 [/SUP]For as yet they did not know the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead. [SUP]10 [/SUP]Then the disciples went away again to their own homes.
Act 13:6-12
[SUP]6 [/SUP]Now when they had gone through the island[SUP][a][/SUP] to Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew whose name was Bar-Jesus, [SUP]7 [/SUP]who was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, an intelligent man. This man called for Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God. [SUP]8 [/SUP]But Elymas the sorcerer (for so his name is translated) withstood them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith. [SUP]9 [/SUP]Then Saul, who also is called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him [SUP]10 [/SUP]and said, “O full of all deceit and all fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease perverting the straight ways of the Lord? [SUP]11 [/SUP]And now, indeed, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you shall be blind, not seeing the sun for a time.”
And immediately a dark mist fell on him, and he went around seeking someone to lead him by the hand. [SUP]12 [/SUP]Then the proconsul believed, when he saw what had been done, being astonished at the teaching of the Lord.
All of Scripture is full of examples of righteous men trusting God, not based on a blind assumption, but because of their experiences with Him. They were obedient because they had confidence in Him because of what they had evidence of. We should be the same.
Romans 1:18-22
[SUP]18 [/SUP]For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, [SUP]19 [/SUP]because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. [SUP]20 [/SUP]For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, [SUP]21 [/SUP]because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. [SUP]22 [/SUP]Professing to be wise, they became fools, [SUP]23 [/SUP]and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
Isn't this a bit like saying many atheists misunderstand atheism? I don't think Christians misunderstand faith at all. What's going on Avalon is that they often have a different understanding of it than us atheists. When I first visited a Christian forum many years ago I had a long drawn out disagreement over faith with two or three Christian members. About three days into the discussion I realized that I meant something quite different by faith than what they meant. You might try looking at the definiton you are using and determining whether or not it is also the one they are working with.
Atheism isn't based on a holy book; Christianity is.
In case I wasn't clear, what I was saying is that many Christians misunderstand faith as it is presented in the Bible. I myself am a Bible-believing Christian, and also a strong evidentialist - and the Bible supports this position by presenting, not men and women blindly believing something for no good reason, but men and women trusting YHWH because of what they had seen and experienced of Him.
In case I wasn't clear, what I was saying is that many Christians misunderstand faith as it is presented in the Bible. I myself am a Bible-believing Christian, and also a strong evidentialist - and the Bible supports this position by presenting, not men and women blindly believing something for no good reason, but men and women trusting YHWH because of what they had seen and experienced of Him.
D
In a sense that is true. But the first steps toward God are done in faith (Heb. 11:6). After you see God do things your faith changes into a faith that God can do anything. Gideon asked for proof and got it but asking God to wet a fleece on dry Ground and the next day to dry the fleece on dew soaked ground. He saw these two miracles and his faith grew into the kind of faith where he could trust God more. Gideon went to battle with no weapons and with only 300 men against 17 thousand. He then watched them flee in panic.
There are times we get our own "fleece" or evidence in God (Atheists are quick to point it out as being anecdotal). This "fleece" leads us to a deeper faith in God, not less faith.
There are times we get our own "fleece" or evidence in God (Atheists are quick to point it out as being anecdotal). This "fleece" leads us to a deeper faith in God, not less faith.
D
I disagree. There is a difference between faith and fact. I can state emphatically, there are no other gods, because the bible says so. I can even use some logic here. If the bible is true, then there are no other gods because it states this emphatically. I accept the bible as being true, axiomatically and can deduce or at least extrapolate things from this, even if you don't agree with my decisions.
M
Indeed. It backfires becuase the greek and roman gods were man-made gods. The God of the Bible was something invented by humans.
That oft quoted passage is often misquoted. Faith in the Bible is never defined in a sense that faith means belief without any sort of evidence. Here's a couple of exaples of what Hebrews 11:1 is NOT talking about.
1. Hebrews 11:1 is not talking about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
2. Hebrews 11:1 is not talking about God's existence.
The passage has nothing to do past events or the existence of God. Hebrews 11:1 is talking about FUTURE EVENTS. The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus was a past event (as of the time Hebrews was written). The existence of God is not a future event. What Hebrews 11:1 IS talking about is a person's admission into heaven, which would be a future event. Or say if someone is going through a rough spot in their life, and they have faith that God will see them through it, that is something else Hebrews 11:1 is talking about.
That oft quoted passage is often misquoted. Faith in the Bible is never defined in a sense that faith means belief without any sort of evidence. Here's a couple of exaples of what Hebrews 11:1 is NOT talking about.
1. Hebrews 11:1 is not talking about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
2. Hebrews 11:1 is not talking about God's existence.
The passage has nothing to do past events or the existence of God. Hebrews 11:1 is talking about FUTURE EVENTS. The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus was a past event (as of the time Hebrews was written). The existence of God is not a future event. What Hebrews 11:1 IS talking about is a person's admission into heaven, which would be a future event. Or say if someone is going through a rough spot in their life, and they have faith that God will see them through it, that is something else Hebrews 11:1 is talking about.
Nobody can truly be an atheist because they do not know He does not exist nor can they state it as a fact.They could say well there may be a God but He has nothing to do with this world but they would not be able to prove that either.
What I thought one time is during the evolution process why would evolution give people and animals eyes to see things when evolution does not know that there is anything to see to give them eyes to see it as well as hearing.
Why would evolution give people eyes to adapt to seeing when evolution would not know there is anything to see to give people eyes to see it.
Evolution knows nothing so how can it sense anything to cause people to adapt to it.It cannot see or hear or feel or anything else,and does not have eyes or ears,so why would it cause people to adapt to things that it has no sense of those things.
If evolution is true then when it first started it senses nothing.It cannot see or hear or anything else then how can it cause any living thing to adapt to anything that it cannot sense.
God said if He gave eyes cannot He see and that is because God can see and know there is something to see to give man eyes to see things.
How can evolution sense that seeing it cannot see or sense or know that there is something to see to give people eyes to see things.
Here is something else I thought.If evolution is survival of the fittest and causes us to be as strong and developed as possible for our survival and can do all those wonderful things like eyes and ears and such than how come evolution put a man's testicles on the outside of his body making him vulnerable where a 3 year old can kick him there and cripple him.
Does not that go against survival of the fittest that evolution is supposed to be about.That is a contradiction survival of the fittest and then put a man's testicles outside of his body which evolution should of known better seeing it can give eyes and ears.
In God's world it is not supposed to be about survival of the fittest seeing we are supposed to love one another so the testicles on the outside would not matter and maybe God is saying you may be the stronger sex physically but you are not all that when one swift kick to the groin will put you down.
What I thought one time is during the evolution process why would evolution give people and animals eyes to see things when evolution does not know that there is anything to see to give them eyes to see it as well as hearing.
Why would evolution give people eyes to adapt to seeing when evolution would not know there is anything to see to give people eyes to see it.
Evolution knows nothing so how can it sense anything to cause people to adapt to it.It cannot see or hear or feel or anything else,and does not have eyes or ears,so why would it cause people to adapt to things that it has no sense of those things.
If evolution is true then when it first started it senses nothing.It cannot see or hear or anything else then how can it cause any living thing to adapt to anything that it cannot sense.
God said if He gave eyes cannot He see and that is because God can see and know there is something to see to give man eyes to see things.
How can evolution sense that seeing it cannot see or sense or know that there is something to see to give people eyes to see things.
Here is something else I thought.If evolution is survival of the fittest and causes us to be as strong and developed as possible for our survival and can do all those wonderful things like eyes and ears and such than how come evolution put a man's testicles on the outside of his body making him vulnerable where a 3 year old can kick him there and cripple him.
Does not that go against survival of the fittest that evolution is supposed to be about.That is a contradiction survival of the fittest and then put a man's testicles outside of his body which evolution should of known better seeing it can give eyes and ears.
In God's world it is not supposed to be about survival of the fittest seeing we are supposed to love one another so the testicles on the outside would not matter and maybe God is saying you may be the stronger sex physically but you are not all that when one swift kick to the groin will put you down.
S
Personally, I can't say I had a lot of nice experience with atheists - a former friend of mine laughed at me while I was praying, asking me if I was talking to my "imaginairy friend" again. Another time back in high school some random person (also an atheist) spat at me because I was a christian. Extremely disrespectful behaviour.
Not saying all atheists are that way, but some of them are giving me a hard time respecting their choice of living life without God.
Not saying all atheists are that way, but some of them are giving me a hard time respecting their choice of living life without God.
Darwin himself actually discusses the evolution of eyes; if you're interested you should consider reading it. Eyes are a very, very important part of the history of animal life on this planet.
Here's a very brief summary. Certain creatures can gain a benefit by having light-sensitive cells on the surface of their bodies. If those cells are collected in one spot, they can gain an additional benefit. If those cells have a ridge around them, they gain additional benefit. If that ridge is more pronounced, so is the benefit. If that ridge almost covered the recessed eyespot, there is additional benefit. If that eyespot is covered by transparent cells, further benefit. If the eyespot is filled with transparent fluid, further benefit. If muscles under the eye can cause it to move relative to the body, further benefit.
We have examples, both living today and fossils, of animals at EACH of these stages of the development of the eye - and there's a clear pathway to get from each stage to the next.
In lighted environments, creatures that see survive better than creatures that don't. That, combined with a viable mechanism for sight to develop in some creatures, is enough for evolution to cause sight to dominate most of the multicellular animal world.
The reverse is also true - in dark environment, eyes don't do much. Hence we find cave lizards who have what were clearly at one point millions of years ago functional eyes, but are now completely overgrown by opaque skin because the eyes are vestigial. I don't see any purpose at all for God to design the lizards that way, but from an evolutionary perspective it makes sense - the lizards are descended from sighted ancestors.
Many mammals developed exterior testes because the ideal temperature for sperm to develop is lower than the animals' body temperature. And actually, your argument is more true in reverse - if you were designing a human from scratch you would never put the testicles there, but as an adaptation of reproductive systems over millions of years it's perfectly reasonable than they'd end up there. Evolution doesn't necessarily end up with perfect designs, just configurations that survive to reproduce.
Here's a very brief summary. Certain creatures can gain a benefit by having light-sensitive cells on the surface of their bodies. If those cells are collected in one spot, they can gain an additional benefit. If those cells have a ridge around them, they gain additional benefit. If that ridge is more pronounced, so is the benefit. If that ridge almost covered the recessed eyespot, there is additional benefit. If that eyespot is covered by transparent cells, further benefit. If the eyespot is filled with transparent fluid, further benefit. If muscles under the eye can cause it to move relative to the body, further benefit.
We have examples, both living today and fossils, of animals at EACH of these stages of the development of the eye - and there's a clear pathway to get from each stage to the next.
In lighted environments, creatures that see survive better than creatures that don't. That, combined with a viable mechanism for sight to develop in some creatures, is enough for evolution to cause sight to dominate most of the multicellular animal world.
The reverse is also true - in dark environment, eyes don't do much. Hence we find cave lizards who have what were clearly at one point millions of years ago functional eyes, but are now completely overgrown by opaque skin because the eyes are vestigial. I don't see any purpose at all for God to design the lizards that way, but from an evolutionary perspective it makes sense - the lizards are descended from sighted ancestors.
Many mammals developed exterior testes because the ideal temperature for sperm to develop is lower than the animals' body temperature. And actually, your argument is more true in reverse - if you were designing a human from scratch you would never put the testicles there, but as an adaptation of reproductive systems over millions of years it's perfectly reasonable than they'd end up there. Evolution doesn't necessarily end up with perfect designs, just configurations that survive to reproduce.