Is there such a thing as an atheist?

[AgeofKnowledge]

I believe he's referring to the Greek word sarx which is often used in the context of one's "sinful nature." In other words, sarx or “flesh,” is a common metaphor that Paul often uses for inherent human sinfulness.

The image of sarx as rebellious human nature occurs most frequently in Romans and Galatians. Particularly in Galatians the image seems to be gauged to subvert the ideology of those who are promoting the circumcision of the “flesh.”

Against these Judaizers, who wish to boast in the Galatians’ circumcised flesh, Paul produces this counter-image of flesh as opposed to the “Spirit” (Gal 3:3) and its fruits (Gal 5:16–17).

The picture is further refined in Romans, where “flesh” is a member of a trilateral alliance of spiritual powers: sin, flesh and death (Rom 6–8).

I'm not sure exactly what his point is except perhaps to assert that you were attempting to do something from your unregenerate state.

I went through that as well initially and failed as you did. Only later, as I continued exercising my will in pursuit of God, did I finally connect with Him only to discover to my amazement that He was always present.

Not to sound trite but one may not always hit a home run the first time up to bat.

Sounds to me like you are not paying attention to anything I said.

 

[Cycel]

Looks to me like you were waging a spiritual war with weapons of the flesh and lost.

Sounds to me like you are not paying attention to anything I said.

Sorry Sirk, I should have asked you to explain your comment in light of what I wrote. Instead I snapped at you. Perhaps you could explain? What is a spiritual war? What is a weapon of the flesh? -- and please explain with reference to the particulars of my post.

 

[Sirk]

Sorry Sirk, I should have asked you to explain your comment in light of what I wrote. Instead I snapped at you. Perhaps you could explain? What is a spiritual war? What is a weapon of the flesh? -- and please explain with reference to the particulars of my post.

Well thank you. I appreciate that very much and I apologize if I have come across as course to you. It's easy to do in the typed word!
First of all obviously every relationship with the Lord is different. After all it is a "personal" relationship. That being said, it is a father/son relationship and it implies correction out of love from the father when He deems it necessary. I don't know how many times I have said something to my own children and they either didn't hear me or misinterpreted what I said.

We are told in scripture that we are in a war...a war not of flesh but of "principalities and powers in the heavenly realms". We are given the tools of this war and they are prayer, the belt buckle of truth, the breast plate of righteousness, feet with the readiness of the gospel, the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation and the and the sword of the spirit.

I don't know you but from what I have read of you, it looks like you laid down your weapons and asked God to do for you what you needed to do for yourself. You became passive in the war for your soul and a passive adversary is no adversary at all.

 

[Lad]

I am an atheist, but I am not one to assert independence over my life, or to feel better or for any other emotional reason especially "wanting to run the show"

If I could be convinced through evidence of God's existence then I would believe. I used to be a christian but stopped believing because science and reality, in my opinion, shows the christian beliefs to be false. I became an atheist because logic tells me the existence of a deity/deities is highly improbable.

Either way, what does it matter if atheists exist or not in your way of thinking? The thing is there are people out there in the world who have chosen a different belief system to you and if they want to identify having those beliefs as being an atheist then so be it. Everyone has the rights to choose their own opinions.

 

[phil112]

I am an atheist, but I am not one to assert independence over my life, or to feel better or for any other emotional reason especially "wanting to run the show"

If I could be convinced through evidence of God's existence then I would believe. I used to be a christian but stopped believing because (1)science and reality, in my opinion, shows the christian beliefs to be false. (2)I became an atheist because logic tells me the existence of a deity/deities is highly improbable.

Either way, what does it matter if atheists exist or not in your way of thinking? The thing is there are people out there in the world who have chosen a different belief system to you and if they want to identify having those beliefs as being an atheist then so be it.(3) Everyone has the rights to choose their own opinions.

1. I disagree, as do many scientists. True Christians have already been convinced. Since you "used to be christian", you know what the bible says about faith (Hebrews 11:1), so we need not go there.
2. Logic, and science, testifies of intelligent design. It is illogical to think all things are here as some kind of cosmic accident.
3. That is correct. This America, and (at least for now) we have the right to make our own choices.

 

[mustaphadrink]

Mustaphadrink, philosophers of science have long made the point that scientific theories that are presently believed to be true may have to be discarded in the future as additional evidence emerges or new theoretical interpretations develop.

Furthermore, there are many present assertions that are statistically impossible and improbable within a purely naturalistic atheistic worldview and the result is that critically necessary assertions and mechanisms which are unproven are presently assumed to keep the model viable. I don't have a problem with that as every model has those. It's the dogma that they are facts, when they are not, I have a problem with.

Transcending that discussion is the fundamental issue confronting the sciences of how to make sense of a highly complex, multifaceted, multilayered reality that materialism doesn't adequately address. This fundamental question in human knowledge has been much discussed by philosophers of science, and often ignored by those who, for their own reasons, want to portray science as the only viable route to genuine knowledge.

The natural sciences depend on inductive inference, which is a matter of "weighing evidence and judging probability, not of proof." Despite the dogma, there are competing explanations evident at every level of the human endeavor to represent the world... from the details of quantum mechanics to what Karl Popper termed the "ultimate questions" of meaning.

This means that the great questions of life (some of which are also scientific questions) cannot be answered with any degree of certainty within the materialistic construct. Any given set of observations can be explained by a number of theories. To use the jargon of the philosophy of science: theories are underdetermined by the evidence. The question then arises: what criteria can be used to decide between them, especially when they are "empirically equivalent"?

An orthodox atheist would simply revert back to a fundamentalist position that favors their atheistic worldview in the exact same manner as a young earth creationist would revert back to a fundamentalist position that favors their particular worldview. This behavior hinders discovery.

The truth is that given the limits of science: science, philosophy, religion and literature all have a legitimate place in the human quest for truth and meaning. This is a widely held view, both in Western culture at large and even within many sections of the scientific community itself. Naturalistic science and other disciplines are not at war. It is the atheist (whose core, incontrovertible, foundational assumption is that there is no God) that places them so and tries to force us to choose between them. Worldviews promoted in such a way leans toward fanaticism.

Nice to see someone who knows what he is talking about.

 

[Sirk]

Well thank you. I appreciate that very much and I apologize if I have come across as course to you. It's easy to do in the typed word!
First of all obviously every relationship with the Lord is different. After all it is a "personal" relationship. That being said, it is a father/son relationship and it implies correction out of love from the father when He deems it necessary. I don't know how many times I have said something to my own children and they either didn't hear me or misinterpreted what I said.

We are told in scripture that we are in a war...a war not of flesh but of "principalities and powers in the heavenly realms". We are given the tools of this war and they are prayer, the belt buckle of truth, the breast plate of righteousness, feet with the readiness of the gospel, the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation and the and the sword of the spirit.

I don't know you but from what I have read of you, it looks like you laid down your weapons and asked God to do for you what you needed to do for yourself. You became passive in the war for your soul and a passive adversary is no adversary at all.

Maybe you were asking the wrong question. What is it in me that is keeping me from seeing you instead of.....why won't you show yourself to me.

 

[phil112]

Nice to see someone who knows what he is talking about.

I appreciate the shoutout there,mustaphadrink!

 

[mustaphadrink]

If I could be convinced through evidence of God's existence then I would believe.

There are millions of sites on the internet that show God exists. How much evidence do you need?

 

[mustaphadrink]

I used to be a christian but stopped believing because science and reality, in my opinion, shows the christian beliefs to be false. I became an atheist because logic tells me the existence of a deity/deities is highly improbable.

And how does it do that pray tell me? if you can't then I assume that your atheism is a response to some hurt you experienced from the church.

And what logic is that? If you can't explain I will assume that is your opinion but not the truth.

 

[mustaphadrink]

Either way, what does it matter if atheists exist or not in your way of thinking? The thing is there are people out there in the world who have chosen a different belief system to you and if they want to identify having those beliefs as being an atheist then so be it. Everyone has the rights to choose their own opinions.

It doesn't matter except they seem to have this idea that assailing the beliefs of Christians is their mission in life so try to avoid them as we may, they won't leave us alone.

Whilst you so blithely state that everyone has a right to their own opinions, it is not a sentiment subscribed to by atheist. If they did, they would not flood Christian sites spending most of their day telling us we are wrong.

 

[nl]

...The thing is there are people out there in the world who have chosen a different belief system to you and if they want to identify having those beliefs as being an atheist then so be it. Everyone has the rights to choose their own opinions.

...This [is] America, and (at least for now) we have the right to make our own choices.

The USA is one country and significantly isolated from many other countries by two big oceans on either side of it.

Even under a strongly totalitarian government or in a prison, a man or woman retains an ability for independent thinking (and prayer).

Freedom is a wonderful thing. Almighty God has given us all life, breath, earth, atmosphere, water, many blessings and a measure of freedom to enjoy them all. "To whom much is given, much is required.". There is no place that we can go to hide from God. After we die, indications are that we will live again and face judgment. As a children's catechism has stated: I cannot see God but He always sees me.

Lord, have mercy on us all.

 

[mustaphadrink]

I'd caution about asserting Einstein's religious views as they were all over the map so to speak.

Wikipedia states:

"Albert Einstein's religious views have been studied extensively. He said he believed in the "pantheistic" God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized. He also called himself an agnostic, while disassociating himself from the label atheist, preferring, he said, "an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."

^ I'd say that probably comes close.

Frustration AoK, frustration. I get so exasperated at the stupidity and arrogance of the atheists as in "Have you heard of Aristotle" that all I can do is say something as stupid as in getting down to their level. There is no doubt that the atheist is so blinded by satan that they cannot see the obvious and that is we don't live according to the gospel of Aristotle, Einstein, Joe Blow or any Tom, Dick or Homosexual.

The fact is we read a lot of authors who can give us wisdom and insight but at the end of the day it is the Word of God that informs us and that is probably why they attack it so much even though when they do they are talking complete nonsense.

I could do a Paul with the word of God with them falling out of the upstairs window but I don't because it would fall on deaf ears, so I keep things short and let the atheists wallow in their supposed superiority as the Word tells me that "But God chose the foolish things of this world to put the wise to shame. He chose the weak things of this world to put the powerful to shame." 1 Corinthians 1:27

That means all the superiority that the atheists keep on bleating about is all hot air.

 

[mustaphadrink]

Maybe you were asking the wrong question. What is it in me that is keeping me from seeing you instead of.....why won't you show yourself to me.

Good point Sirk and probably the true one.

 

[mustaphadrink]

I believe he's referring to the Greek word sarx which is often used in the context of one's "sinful nature." In other words, sarx or “flesh,” is a common metaphor that Paul often uses for inherent human sinfulness.

The image of sarx as rebellious human nature occurs most frequently in Romans and Galatians. Particularly in Galatians the image seems to be gauged to subvert the ideology of those who are promoting the circumcision of the “flesh.”

Against these Judaizers, who wish to boast in the Galatians’ circumcised flesh, Paul produces this counter-image of flesh as opposed to the “Spirit” (Gal 3:3) and its fruits (Gal 5:16–17).

The picture is further refined in Romans, where “flesh” is a member of a trilateral alliance of spiritual powers: sin, flesh and death (Rom 6–8).

I'm not sure exactly what his point is except perhaps to assert that you were attempting to do something from your unregenerate state.

I went through that as well initially and failed as you did. Only later, as I continued exercising my will in pursuit of God, did I finally connect with Him only to discover to my amazement that He was always present.

Not to sound trite but one may not always hit a home run the first time up to bat.

There is saying "If you can't find God, guess whose moved." I found time and time again if I can't find God, and then eventually do, he was where he was all the time.

 

[mustaphadrink]

What it comes down too is that there 3 types of people in the world......Red Light , green light and yellow light people. In my experience, most if not all atheists fall squarely in the red light category......esp when it comes to Christianity. I wonder why that is?

I don't really know Sirk but could I advance this theory. When a person has nothing to fall back on except himself, they have to create a defence mechanism to protect themselves from those things they see as the enemy. That means they are forced to live on their wits and what they think they know so it follows that every possible negative has to be met with a red light because it may be damaging to the ego of the person concerned.

Because they are on the defensive all the time it follows that the red light is working overtime and they never know the true peace of God which passes ALL understanding. In other words God's peace is superior to understanding or not understanding and when you experience that, you don't need to know all the answers.

They have to create their own peace and with the red light working overtime, they don't get much of that as they have to look over their shoulder all the time because it is evident that they don't really know what they are talking about most of the time. It is all hypothesis, hypotheticals, maybes, could be's, potentials and we think.

None of them can say like we do "I KNOW MY REDEEMER LIVES."

 

[Sirk]

I don't really know Sirk but could I advance this theory. When a person has nothing to fall back on except himself, they have to create a defence mechanism to protect themselves from those things they see as the enemy. That means they are forced to live on their wits and what they think they know so it follows that every possible negative has to be met with a red light because it may be damaging to the ego of the person concerned.

Because they are on the defensive all the time it follows that the red light is working overtime and they never know the true peace of God which passes ALL understanding. In other words God's peace is superior to understanding or not understanding and when you experience that, you don't need to know all the answers.

They have to create their own peace and with the red light working overtime, they don't get much of that as they have to look over their shoulder all the time because it is evident that they don't really know what they are talking about most of the time. It is all hypothesis, hypotheticals, maybes, could be's, potentials and we think.

None of them can say like we do "I KNOW MY REDEEMER LIVES."

I view red light people as those who really don't want to solve the problem. They just want to continue in their sophisticated temper tantrum that whatever problem is screwing up their lives.

 

[mustaphadrink]

It is commonly postulated by atheists that religion is evil as many bad deeds have been done by religious people. Both Dawkins and Hitchens have said this.

Lets unpack this a bit. Religion? What religion? This means nothing and is akin to saying that cars are evil because many cars have been used in carrying out evil deeds.

Religion is a word that encompasses a belief system and as there are too many to number to say religion is evil is not acceptable as one has to identify which religion you are talking about.

Islam is the bloodiest and most violent religion in the world at the moment. So are we going to lump in the Amish who would not hurt a fly in with Islam? Atheism was the bloodiest religion in the world last century so are we going to lump in the Anabaptists who were pacifists in with them.

No, unless you identify which religion you are talking about you do not have a case.

Next, when an atheist says that religion is evil they never seem to address the real evil of religion aka Islam and they always ignore what is good about Christianity. In fact when they say religion is evil, they never mention the most evil religions of all. That of atheism and Islam. In fact they go out of their way to deny that atheism does anything evil and to deny that what was atheism was not atheism and I have yet so see a critical comment about Islam.

The other thing is that when they refer to religion (meaning Christianity) is evil they totally ignore the good aspects of it. They always talk about a select few incidents that happened a thousand years ago implying that Christianity is the same today as a thousand years ago.

I don't know if they do this but it is the same as blaming the Germans today for what Hitler did 75 years ago.

The fact is that the daily actions of religious (Christian) people have accomplished millions of good deeds throughout history, alleviating suffering, feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, starting hospitals, running orphanages for AIDS orphaned children in Africa, providing palliative care for those dying of AIDS, providing homes and clothing for the homeless, getting slavery abolished in the UK, paying for the education of poor African children, looked after lepers in leper colonies, financing widowed mothers to start up their own business in poor countries, training poor people to grow their own crops, running soup kitchens for the homeless, helping prostitutes out of prostitution, helping those with an unwanted same sex attraction, providing emotional and financial support and material goods to those women who choose not to abort their baby, volunteering their time for free in Op Shops which raises money for may charitable concerns from donations of goods to the shop. One could go on and on and on and on about the selflessness of Christians.

However, according to atheists, because a few have tarnished the majority, everyone is tarred with the same brush so no matter how much good you do, you are evil. Claims of this kind clearly show that atheism is a crusade to rob people of the truth and is to be treated with the contempt it deserves.

P.S. You have better think twice about driving your car as cars are used for evil purposes.

 

[Cycel]

(3) Everyone has the rights to choose their own opinions.

3. That is correct. This America, and (at least for now) we have the right to make our own choices.

Phil, I am just curious by what you mean when you said, "at least for now"?

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

There is a nugget of gold here. People often look for God in the wrong places. The exclusivist view is that there is only one way to God, and that that way is to be found in Christianity.

The serious Buddhist lives as if the eightfold path of Buddhism will lead to spiritual enlightenment. They cannot prove that their tenets of faith are sound but carry on in the hope that these are the right ideas that will lead to the best possible outcome. The dedicated Hindu banks on the belief that reincarnation is real, and that through constant effort and faithful devotion over many lifetimes, will result in liberation from this illusory "maya." They cannot prove it will happen, but they seek to live as if it is true. Devout Muslims try to live by the five pillars of Islam. They can't know for certain that these things are true but they live by faith that they are right. The committed atheist lives as if there is no God, no higher moral law to which they are accountable, no divine judgment, and no afterlife despite being surrounded by a great body of emperical collaborative evidence for God. Committed Christians live in relationship with the living creator God having experienced a spiritual rebirth. Every genuine Christian is an eye witness to this.

Paul had further confirmation in that he was an eyewitness to the risen Christ:

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also." 1 Corinthians 15:3-8

...the result:

"More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith."
Philippians 3:8-9

Faith in the Hebrew and Greek which is anchored in Hebrew meaning with respect to scripture is very different than the modern English definition as I show here: http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/85887-there-such-thing-atheist-106.html#post1501223

There is saying "If you can't find God, guess whose moved." I found time and time again if I can't find God, and then eventually do, he was where he was all the time.