Ask an Atheist
- Thread starter SkepticJosh
- Start date
-
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.
- Status
Modern Christian culture and pop doctrine makes much of "believing" and less about "following Jesus" and "making disciples".
Jesus gave the "golden rule" and the world would be a better place if more followed that whether they "believe" or not.
Jesus said: “In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets" (Matthew 7:12).
Cause and effect can go in two directions between "believing" and "following Jesus". I find it more credible when someone follows Jesus first. The believing or faith part can be discovered afterwards.
IMHO, there is a large amount of "head faith" around in the Christian community that isn't always matched by "heart faith" (Romans 10:9-10). Jesus warned that there would be "many" professing Christians who would be deceived in the end.
And then I will say to them openly (publicly), I never knew you; depart from Me, you who act wickedly [disregarding My commands]. (Matthew 7:12 AMP)
Ultimately, it's the Lord who know those who are his (2 Timothy 2:19) and not some pastors or people who decide when someone is ready to be baptized.
Let those who want to call themselves Christians depart from iniquity (2Ti 2:19)
Let those who know the "golden rule", do the "golden rule" whether they believe or not.
Jesus gave other commands and righteous that are wise and righteous. Some of them make sense only if there is another kingdom to come beyond this current world. The wise man built his house upon the rock.
So everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts upon them [obeying them] will be like a sensible (prudent, practical, wise) man who built his house upon the rock. (Matt 7:24 AMP)
Jesus gave the "golden rule" and the world would be a better place if more followed that whether they "believe" or not.
Jesus said: “In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets" (Matthew 7:12).
Cause and effect can go in two directions between "believing" and "following Jesus". I find it more credible when someone follows Jesus first. The believing or faith part can be discovered afterwards.
IMHO, there is a large amount of "head faith" around in the Christian community that isn't always matched by "heart faith" (Romans 10:9-10). Jesus warned that there would be "many" professing Christians who would be deceived in the end.
And then I will say to them openly (publicly), I never knew you; depart from Me, you who act wickedly [disregarding My commands]. (Matthew 7:12 AMP)
Ultimately, it's the Lord who know those who are his (2 Timothy 2:19) and not some pastors or people who decide when someone is ready to be baptized.
Let those who want to call themselves Christians depart from iniquity (2Ti 2:19)
Let those who know the "golden rule", do the "golden rule" whether they believe or not.
Jesus gave other commands and righteous that are wise and righteous. Some of them make sense only if there is another kingdom to come beyond this current world. The wise man built his house upon the rock.
So everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts upon them [obeying them] will be like a sensible (prudent, practical, wise) man who built his house upon the rock. (Matt 7:24 AMP)
A
Homo sapiens sapiens are the only extant members of the hominin clade Cycel which is a description that falls utterly short in description for a topic you know less about than myself because, as an atheist, you fail to understand what it even means to be human (a question that has captured a significant amount of scholarship, art, and literature over the centuries).
Read: Anthropology in Theological Perspective by Wolfhart Pannenberg as a suggested starting point.
Read: Anthropology in Theological Perspective by Wolfhart Pannenberg as a suggested starting point.
Based upon Darwinian evolution it is my conviction that we are all cousins.
I'm not quite that much of a geek. I don't know any Klingon vocabulary.
Sorry to disappoint Kerry, but I prefer girls.
I'm not quite that much of a geek. I don't know any Klingon vocabulary.
Sorry to disappoint Kerry, but I prefer girls.
Okay, I found the Wikipedia article on humans you cut and pasted this from.
What do you mean by saying it “is a description that falls utterly short in description”? You are telling me that you know more about anthropology than I do, and that may be so, but you are not showing it, not here.
A seemingly absurd statement. I would wager that all of us here knows what it means to be human, as we are all humans.
I am fairly well read in anthropology, but I have never heard of theological anthropology. How about you give me short synopsis? If you can pique my interest enough I might read it.
What do you mean by saying it “is a description that falls utterly short in description”? You are telling me that you know more about anthropology than I do, and that may be so, but you are not showing it, not here.
A seemingly absurd statement. I would wager that all of us here knows what it means to be human, as we are all humans.
I am fairly well read in anthropology, but I have never heard of theological anthropology. How about you give me short synopsis? If you can pique my interest enough I might read it.
A
I used "Homo sapiens sapiens are the only extant members of the hominin clade" as a naturalistic point of reference from which to assert that this definition is an incomplete view of us.
I then directed you to a scholarly resource that answers in detail what, why, and how that is so.
Read: Anthropology in Theological Perspective by Wolfhart Pannenberg as a suggested starting point.
Knowing what I know, someone who falsely asserts we're all born atheists (which was refuted both by the latest scientific studies and atheists themselves including Dawkins) as you did and who also rejects all empirical information about what it means to be human (such as Pannenberg provides in that scholarly resource I cite) beyond the myopia of positive atheism (especially in the context of reductive materialism) either does not know or is in denial with respect to what it means to be human.
I then directed you to a scholarly resource that answers in detail what, why, and how that is so.
Read: Anthropology in Theological Perspective by Wolfhart Pannenberg as a suggested starting point.
Knowing what I know, someone who falsely asserts we're all born atheists (which was refuted both by the latest scientific studies and atheists themselves including Dawkins) as you did and who also rejects all empirical information about what it means to be human (such as Pannenberg provides in that scholarly resource I cite) beyond the myopia of positive atheism (especially in the context of reductive materialism) either does not know or is in denial with respect to what it means to be human.
A
Read Rodney Stark's 'For the Glory of God' paying special attention to chapter two titled 'God's Handiwork: The Religious Origins of Science' which:
"shows that there was no 'scientific revolution' that finally burst through the superstitious barriers of faith, but that the flowering of science that took place in the sixteenth century was the normal, gradual, and direct outgrowth of Scholasticism and the medieval universities. Indeed, theological assumptions unique to Christianity explain why science was born only in Christian Europe. Contrary to the received wisdom, religion and science not only were compatible; they were inseparable. Hence the last portion of the chapter demonstrates that the battle over evolution is not a conflict between religion and science but between True Believers on both sides."
"shows that there was no 'scientific revolution' that finally burst through the superstitious barriers of faith, but that the flowering of science that took place in the sixteenth century was the normal, gradual, and direct outgrowth of Scholasticism and the medieval universities. Indeed, theological assumptions unique to Christianity explain why science was born only in Christian Europe. Contrary to the received wisdom, religion and science not only were compatible; they were inseparable. Hence the last portion of the chapter demonstrates that the battle over evolution is not a conflict between religion and science but between True Believers on both sides."
Thanks for clarifying. The difficulty is that this was never meant as definition of human. The statement is only making the observation that we are the only extant hominid remaining on the planet. So to claim that it’s an incomplete definition of what it is to be human is really wildly off the mark, for it was never intended as such.
I have a great deal of reading on my plate as it is. I asked if you could give a synopsis. Perhaps if you could provide me with his conclusions? Yesterday I purchased Lone Survivors: How We Came to be the Only Humans on Earth, by Chris Stringer. I expect to be reading this next.
I know that some atheists make the claim that we are all born defacto atheists. All of us are born without a concept of God, ‘tis true, but in my thinking an atheist also is capable of formulating a concept of God, and it is this concept (whatever it may be) that we are denying. Newborns and infants are not capable of contemplating the existence of gods and until they have this capacity I would not ever say we can be declare them atheists. Chimps are also born without a concept of God, but no one, least of all an atheist, would call any chimp an atheist.
There have been no scientific studies that refute the claim that newborns are atheists. There have been no scientific studies examining the matter. Am I misunderstanding you?
You seem frequently to misunderstand me. I have always argued against this claim, as I do above. Lately you’ve been making a number of claims about beliefs I hold that are actually misunderstandings on your part.
I don’t know that I have ever talked on this forum about what it means to be human. What exactly is it you think I am saying? Generally it is only empirical information I accept. So what is it you think I am rejecting?
I have a great deal of reading on my plate as it is. I asked if you could give a synopsis. Perhaps if you could provide me with his conclusions? Yesterday I purchased Lone Survivors: How We Came to be the Only Humans on Earth, by Chris Stringer. I expect to be reading this next.
I know that some atheists make the claim that we are all born defacto atheists. All of us are born without a concept of God, ‘tis true, but in my thinking an atheist also is capable of formulating a concept of God, and it is this concept (whatever it may be) that we are denying. Newborns and infants are not capable of contemplating the existence of gods and until they have this capacity I would not ever say we can be declare them atheists. Chimps are also born without a concept of God, but no one, least of all an atheist, would call any chimp an atheist.
There have been no scientific studies that refute the claim that newborns are atheists. There have been no scientific studies examining the matter. Am I misunderstanding you?
You seem frequently to misunderstand me. I have always argued against this claim, as I do above. Lately you’ve been making a number of claims about beliefs I hold that are actually misunderstandings on your part.
I don’t know that I have ever talked on this forum about what it means to be human. What exactly is it you think I am saying? Generally it is only empirical information I accept. So what is it you think I am rejecting?
A
You are obviously misunderstanding my posts. What I said was:
"I used "Homo sapiens sapiens are the only extant members of the hominin clade" as a naturalistic point of reference from which to assert that this definition is an incomplete view of us.
I then directed you to a scholarly resource that answers in detail what, why, and how that is so.
Read: Anthropology in Theological Perspective by Wolfhart Pannenberg as a suggested starting point.
Knowing what I know, someone who falsely asserts we're all born atheists (which was refuted both by the latest scientific studies and atheists themselves including Dawkins) as you did and who also rejects all empirical information about what it means to be human (such as Pannenberg provides in that scholarly resource I cite) beyond the myopia of positive atheism (especially in the context of reductive materialism) either does not know or is in denial with respect to what it means to be human."
The first definition was a reference point only to set the stage for my second assertion which is "Knowing what I know, someone who falsely asserts we're all born atheists (which was refuted both by the latest scientific studies and atheists themselves including Dawkins) as you did and who also rejects all empirical information about what it means to be human (such as Pannenberg provides in that scholarly resource I cite) beyond the myopia of positive atheism (especially in the context of reductive materialism) either does not know or is in denial with respect to what it means to be human."
As I'm including the entire body of positive atheism's epistemology with respect to what a human is, my assertion is on the mark. And, I'm stating that this is, of course, an incomplete definition of what a human is in reality.
The books to read after 'Lone Survivors' would be 'Who Was Adam?' by Rana and Ross and the one I suggested already. I'd supplement that with 'Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?: Who They Were and Why You Should Care' by C. John Collins.
Hey, I understand it takes time to read through the literature as I read so much myself. Just que everything up, make time for it, and you eventually get it done. That's how I do it.
And, I understand you just fine. As I said before:
"We are born unaware but with a predisposition to believe to believe in god/gods and the afterlife.
Here's an international Oxford study showing it: Humans 'predisposed' to believe in gods and the afterlife - University of Oxford in which Dr. Justin Barrett, an academic research at the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind stated, “Children are born believers in God and do not simply acquire religious beliefs through indoctrination.”
Children are born believers in God, academic claims - Telegraph
Even Dawkins admitted that much in 'The God Delusion' though he wrongly attributed it as an evolutionary by-product of various useful psychological adaptations.
So you're wrong that we are "born atheists." We are born unaware but with a predisposition away from atheism as one would expect to see in a species possessing the design attribute of Imago Dei."
As the Encyclopædia Britannica (2011) states under "Atheism," that atheism is "in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities." Note the word REJECTION OF BELIEF. A newborn hasn't rejected God and, in fact, is born with a predisposition against atheism and for a belief in a higher power.
Don't ever tell me that humans are born atheists. It's disingenuous.
"I used "Homo sapiens sapiens are the only extant members of the hominin clade" as a naturalistic point of reference from which to assert that this definition is an incomplete view of us.
I then directed you to a scholarly resource that answers in detail what, why, and how that is so.
Read: Anthropology in Theological Perspective by Wolfhart Pannenberg as a suggested starting point.
Knowing what I know, someone who falsely asserts we're all born atheists (which was refuted both by the latest scientific studies and atheists themselves including Dawkins) as you did and who also rejects all empirical information about what it means to be human (such as Pannenberg provides in that scholarly resource I cite) beyond the myopia of positive atheism (especially in the context of reductive materialism) either does not know or is in denial with respect to what it means to be human."
The first definition was a reference point only to set the stage for my second assertion which is "Knowing what I know, someone who falsely asserts we're all born atheists (which was refuted both by the latest scientific studies and atheists themselves including Dawkins) as you did and who also rejects all empirical information about what it means to be human (such as Pannenberg provides in that scholarly resource I cite) beyond the myopia of positive atheism (especially in the context of reductive materialism) either does not know or is in denial with respect to what it means to be human."
As I'm including the entire body of positive atheism's epistemology with respect to what a human is, my assertion is on the mark. And, I'm stating that this is, of course, an incomplete definition of what a human is in reality.
The books to read after 'Lone Survivors' would be 'Who Was Adam?' by Rana and Ross and the one I suggested already. I'd supplement that with 'Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?: Who They Were and Why You Should Care' by C. John Collins.
Hey, I understand it takes time to read through the literature as I read so much myself. Just que everything up, make time for it, and you eventually get it done. That's how I do it
.And, I understand you just fine. As I said before:
"We are born unaware but with a predisposition to believe to believe in god/gods and the afterlife.
Here's an international Oxford study showing it: Humans 'predisposed' to believe in gods and the afterlife - University of Oxford in which Dr. Justin Barrett, an academic research at the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind stated, “Children are born believers in God and do not simply acquire religious beliefs through indoctrination.”
Children are born believers in God, academic claims - Telegraph
Even Dawkins admitted that much in 'The God Delusion' though he wrongly attributed it as an evolutionary by-product of various useful psychological adaptations.
So you're wrong that we are "born atheists." We are born unaware but with a predisposition away from atheism as one would expect to see in a species possessing the design attribute of Imago Dei."
As the Encyclopædia Britannica (2011) states under "Atheism," that atheism is "in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities." Note the word REJECTION OF BELIEF. A newborn hasn't rejected God and, in fact, is born with a predisposition against atheism and for a belief in a higher power.
Don't ever tell me that humans are born atheists. It's disingenuous.
The OP was banned, so I guess I will try to respond to your question.
I joined this chat for four reasons:
1) I enjoy debate/discussion
2) As former christian, it is familiar and I can understand/relate to many of the posts.
3) To question fundamental beliefs that I think lack evidence and to provide a skeptical point of view.
4) To find any potential arguments for christianity that I had not heard before which may alter my beliefs.
I joined this chat for four reasons:
1) I enjoy debate/discussion
2) As former christian, it is familiar and I can understand/relate to many of the posts.
3) To question fundamental beliefs that I think lack evidence and to provide a skeptical point of view.
4) To find any potential arguments for christianity that I had not heard before which may alter my beliefs.
K
My mother stroke, my mother in law, brain cancer. My self asthma and alcoholism, my father from fused vertebrae caused by lightning. whom science said that he would not live to be 40 and would be completely doubled over he will be 79 in August. My second son who was born with fluid in his lungs and science said he wouldn't make and if he did he would be debilitated all his life just signed with a D1 college on baseball scholarship. all by the power of God that defied science. My brothers marriage where adultery was involved. Healed by God at church. My friend who was confined to a wheelchair and at church ran around the church and sold the wheel chair.
You haven't seen any of this, then find a church that still believes in the power of God.
You haven't seen any of this, then find a church that still believes in the power of God.
- Status