Is there such a thing as an atheist?

[nl]

The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn. - Isaiah 61: 1-2

As reported in Luke 4:16-21, Jesus read from this prophecy but only from part of it and He declared that part He read to being in the state of being fulfilled.

And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up to read. and there was delivered to him the book of the prophet Isaiah. and when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book...And he began to say unto them: This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

Jesus stopped reading in the middle of the verse. The next part from Isaiah's prophecy that He did not read was: ...the day of vengeance of our God.

Sorry but that part of the prophecy remains for future fulfillment. Jesus stopped in the middle. The day of vengeance will be fulfilled when Jesus returns again.

God is both good and severe. Throughout eternity, God will demonstrate goodness and unending mercy upon some while demonstrating justice and vengeance upon others. Only God can justly implement vengeance justly. Others would implement vengeance unjustly. Personal rights and justice come from God. Just vengeance waits for God to implement it in the future.

The stakes in the matters of faith versus rejection of Jesus Christ are high. They are heaven and hell. Heaven and hell have been expressed in infinite terms and they describe an infinite state of relationship to an infinite God.

 

[nl]

Atheism is not making any claims. It's the rejection of a claim. Nothing else.

Imagine you had an unopened jar of sweets. And you said 'I think there is an odd number of sweets in this jar'.

If I reply saying that you don't have enough evidence to justify that... That doesn't mean I am declaring there is an even number of sweets in the jar. I'm not making any claim, I'm just doubting yours.

You'll get hungry if you only decide what not to eat and never decide to eat something.

 

[ColinCat]

You'll get hungry if you only decide what not to eat and never decide to eat something.

I Wont go hungry, I'm just not eating what's on your menu.

 

[nl]

I Wont go hungry, I'm just not eating what's on your menu.

Theists and atheists can share a meal. Sometimes, they can even agree to put their knees under the same table.

If they are to avoid hunger, the atheist won't reject every item in the kitchen.

 

[nl]

BTW, the career of the prophet, Isaiah, is dated around 740-700 years B.C. (Before Christ).

BTW, the prophet, Micah, was a contemporary of Isaiah, who prophesied the birth of Christ in Bethlehem Judah approximately 700 years before it happened (Micah 5:2).

Some prophecies from Isaiah and Micah were fulfilled when Jesus Christ came the first time.

As of today, many prophecies from Isaiah and Micah remain for future fulfillment when Jesus Christ returns and comes again and establishes his eternal government.

 

[nl]

London had a great plague (bubonic plague) during 1665-1666. London had a great fire during 1666.

How should we interpret such events?

Question: Should we conclude that Almighty God was displeased with that London generation of 1665-1666?
Answer: No.

Question: When some people today enjoy a comparatively smooth, prosperous and comfortable life with many conveniences, should we conclude that God is pleased?
Answer: No.

 

[Percepi]

The tangible difference in understanding between the saved and the unsaved only happens AFTER being regenerated by God.

Which requires you to believe in God first. And if you sincerely believe in God first, then there's no need to have supernatural evidence because you already believe.

And if supernatural understanding must be granted by God, then you can't blame people who haven't been granted this understanding for not believing because - they haven't been granted the supernatural understanding!

In the end, if you must believe in God in order to receive an understanding of how he exists, then you don't really need that understanding to begin with - which begs the question as to why you bring up supernatural proofs in the first place when debating the existence of God. If nonbelievers don't have access to these proofs, there's literally zero reason to bring them up with the expectations that you're arguments about the supernatural will be accepted.

It's like trying to explain how a car propels its self down the street, but completely rejecting the engine can exist.

Except we can open the hood of the car and view the engine. We can study how the engine works. But let's work on this analogy.

If a person who has never seen a car before saw one move, he might believe it moved by magic. If you explained to him "The care moves because an engine powers it, a contraption that eats oil," he might not believe you until you show it to him first. If you don't show him the engine or you don't have the means to showing him the engine, then there's absolutely no reason why he should believe the engine moves the car just because you told him to. Now, he may trust what you say because you apparently know more about the car than he does - which is okay too, but that doesn't mean the person who is skeptical is any less wise.

What if we're in a similar situation and I tell this person the car runs off of magic, and he believes I'm lying? Would you then call him unwise to doubt me? If both the person who claims the car runs off an engine and the person who claims the car runs off magic refuses to open the hood - why would you criticize the unknowing man for not believing either of them?

So if the supernatual exists, you can't criticize people for being skeptical - especially if you claim the only way to understand the supernatural is for God to pop open the hood of the car and show you.

 

[Jimbone]

Which requires you to believe in God first. And if you sincerely believe in God first, then there's no need to have supernatural evidence because you already believe.

And if supernatural understanding must be granted by God, then you can't blame people who haven't been granted this understanding for not believing because - they haven't been granted the supernatural understanding!

In the end, if you must believe in God in order to receive an understanding of how he exists, then you don't really need that understanding to begin with - which begs the question as to why you bring up supernatural proofs in the first place when debating the existence of God. If nonbelievers don't have access to these proofs, there's literally zero reason to bring them up with the expectations that you're arguments about the supernatural will be accepted.



Except we can open the hood of the car and view the engine. We can study how the engine works. But let's work on this analogy.

If a person who has never seen a car before saw one move, he might believe it moved by magic. If you explained to him "The care moves because an engine powers it, a contraption that eats oil," he might not believe you until you show it to him first. If you don't show him the engine or you don't have the means to showing him the engine, then there's absolutely no reason why he should believe the engine moves the car just because you told him to. Now, he may trust what you say because you apparently know more about the car than he does - which is okay too, but that doesn't mean the person who is skeptical is any less wise.

What if we're in a similar situation and I tell this person the car runs off of magic, and he believes I'm lying? Would you then call him unwise to doubt me? If both the person who claims the car runs off an engine and the person who claims the car runs off magic refuses to open the hood - why would you criticize the unknowing man for not believing either of them?

So if the supernatual exists, you can't criticize people for being skeptical - especially if you claim the only way to understand the supernatural is for God to pop open the hood of the car and show you.

Then by the same token you cannot criticize people He has shown it too just because He doesn't pop it open for you because you've never seen natural proof of the supernatural. How can He show Himself to you when you deny the very premise of the supernatural before you even start an investigation. You can't look at it objectively when you cut your self off from half the possibilities before you even start the investigation. How can you not see your view is the more close minded of the two. You won't even entertain the possibility it could be true in the first place, how can you claim to have made an objective decision when you will only look at natural proof of the supernatural, when it can't even exist? To find proof of the supernatural you have to seek it in supernatural ways (like prayer, soul searching, etc..).

 

[ColinCat]

The fact that there has never been any evidence of any supernatural activity whatsoever at any point in history is a pretty good reason not to believe it no?

 

[JimmieD]

From what I can tell, the differences between a theist and atheist boils down to foundational philosophical, metaphysical and epistemological systems. With some exceptions, I think most theists take belief in God as axiomatic. It's believed without argument of any sort.

 

[Jimbone]

The fact that there has never been any evidence of any supernatural activity whatsoever at any point in history is a pretty good reason not to believe it no?

No wrong, there has never been any NATURAL evidence of the supernatural you could take around to show the masses, I agree. There has been SUPERNATURAL proof of the supernatural in many peoples life throughout history since Jesus was crucified and rose again. AGAIN there CAN NOT be the kind of proof you are calling for, you are right. If that's what it would take for you to believe then you never will sadly, it simply can't exist. I've given my proof, yet because you (as in the atheist) can't have natural evidence of the supernatural to see touch and taste in front of your face, or even accept the possibility the supernatural can even exist then you really have no reason to talk to us about it. If all of you are so sure the supernatural can not exist then it's strange you would spend so much time conversing with us mentally delusional people, why waste your time with such nonsense? Why do you like us so much? I say it's because the God you don't believe in is compelling you to be around us to prepare you for a future event, what event? Only God knows but that's my opinion on why you like it here.

 

[Jimbone]

From what I can tell, the differences between a theist and atheist boils down to foundational philosophical, metaphysical and epistemological systems. With some exceptions, I think most theists take belief in God as axiomatic. It's believed without argument of any sort.

Not me, I thought I believed before evidence, but it took the hand of God changing me in such a way there was only one possible explanation, before I had the "proof" all atheist call for so often. Faith in a true Christian is not a blind faith.

 

[Elin]

Understood only by a faith?

You're essentially arguing, "The only way you'll understand how this is true is if you use faith to accept it as true." The problem with this logic

You seem to be under the impression that the Bible is governed by human logic.

And that's how God keeps interlopers from unlocking his book which is closed to them.

 

[Elin]

Where in the bible does it say you need faith to understand it?

If it doesn't say it in the bible... Where did you get this from?

Heb 11:6.

Prove it to yourself:

Do you understand the Bible?

Do you have faith?

There's your reason.

 

[Elin]

See the disconnect here is that it's not just "faith" that causes the understanding difference. The tangible difference in understanding between the saved and the unsaved only happens AFTER being regenerated by God. The biggest problem is you don't believe this can happen. You are under the impression, like even most modern Christians these days, that Christianity is only a belief system one "chooses for themselves" to join, and after a few words you're in the club. I thought this too most all my life. I've only thought otherwise the last year.

You don't just say to yourself "I believe this now" than gain a whole new understanding like you're implying. You are supernaturally changed COMPLETELY by God and made all new, then you have a new understanding. What you think true Christianity is, is a false view so there is no way to gain insight into why we believe so fully in something that can't be naturally proven when you can't even accept what really happens in the regeneration of a human, not to mention the fact you dismiss the fact anything like this change can happen at all because you've seen no natural evidence to prove the supernatural, which again can not exist by very definition. It's like trying to explain how a car propels its self down the street, but completely rejecting the engine can exist. I do understand why it sounds so silly to you though, and I don't think Elin is the best person to explain it. Not because she's incapable or doesn't know or anything like that, just the personality types clash and it's a hard thing to explain to someone who so fully thinks it's all fake.

Hey, Jimbone, I just love hearing how God has changed you.

And you're dead on. . .Elin is not the one to explain it.

A butterfly can't explain flight to a caterpillar.

Until a caterpillar is transformed (Gr: metamorphoo, Ro 12:2) into a butterfly,
no caterpillar can understand flight.

All one can really do is tell the caterpillar that simple fact.

Now if they want to know the way to transformation, that's another question entirely.

 

[Elin]

The fact that there has never been any evidence of any supernatural activity whatsoever at any point in history

Hockey puck. . .

 

[Elin]

From what I can tell, the differences between a theist and atheist boils down to foundational philosophical, metaphysical and epistemological systems. With some exceptions, I think most theists take belief in God as axiomatic. It's believed without argument of any sort.

Kinda' like gravity. . .and death.

 

[Cycel]

1. Getting Something from Nothing

Getting something from nothing doesn't bother much more than it does you. Saying God created the universe provides no clear answers as to how things came about. Saying "Let there be light" is not terribly informative (notice he never says, "Let there be water." It was already there). Nl, astrophysics explains how all the elements came to be. The Genesis account does not do that. It leaves us in the dark. Science explains so much more.

Theoretical physicists are attempting to learn why the Big Bang occurred. Are you attempting to learn where God came from? Who would you say is more content with something from nothing?

2. Getting Life from Non-Life

I know that you think getting life from inanimate matter is something only a god can do, but I don’t believe in gods of any description. It seems completely plausible to me that life arose from a biochemical event. We already have answers for the origin of most of the building blocks of life, if not all of them. The quest now is to figure out how nature assembled the first self-replicating molecule and what it looked like.

Nl, if biochemists discover the process and learn to replicate it what will you say then?

3. Getting Order from Chaos

Marduk and Yahweh both order the watery chaos to form earth. Their activities sound exactly like myths to me, but I can understand how nature, unattended by a god, formed galaxies and all that goes with them. I really don’t need the creative act of a deity to account for what science explains, and explains better.

4. Getting the Immaterial from Physical Matter

“Getting the Immaterial from Physical Matter”. What does that mean? Do you mean the soul? I don’t believe in the existence of the soul.

 

[Cycel]

You seem to be under the impression that the Bible is governed by human logic.

And that's how God keeps interlopers from unlocking his book which is closed to them.

Elin, it sounds as if you believe that God wants his sacred scripture understood only by a select group. You sound like a Gnostic.

 

[Elin]

Elin, it sounds as if you believe that God wants his sacred scripture understood only by a select group. You sound like a Gnostic.

Nope. . .knowledge is the basis of Gnosticism.

Faith is the basis of Christianity.

The word of God is for the people of God.