Just as claimed:
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Cor. 2:14)
Of course this is the claim, but it works for absolutely any religious movement and even cults. Heavenâs Gate cultists could have said the same thing about their movement.
Second issue, is that a religious person âunderstandsâ their religion by faith, not by reason!
NIV Heb. 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at Godâs command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
And so there really is no reason to accept Islam over Christianity or vice versa. Believe first and then use faith to understand.
That is good! And the comparison also carries the reminder that just because a TV is turned off doesnât mean all activity has ceased. Yes, all TV-watching activity has ceased, but only to be replaced by other non-TV activities. So the non-belief âdefaultâ really only best applies to narrowly defined, organized religion.
1 Like
That is why I said it was a claim, not a proof of anything.
I disagree. My faith came supernaturally (either that or Iâm insane; both fit the data). But after that I never accepted the claims of the bible on faith. (1) Instead I put the bible to the critical test, to the best of my ability, and the driver behind my constantly adjusting theology (hopefully with decreasing amplitude) is not what doctrine I âlikeâ but a never fully satisfied compulsion for self-consistency. Faith has little to do with it.
You are (perhaps) going down a well-trodden path that (in my opinion) misuses the âblind faithâ described in Hebrews. (And often leads believers to elevate blind faith beyond its proper position.) The blind faith described in the beginning of Hebrews refers to the blind faith of the Old Testament saints, for whom the promised deliverance was unseen. What was invisible to them was made manifest and visible to us in the advent of Christ. I would back this thought upâthat blind faith is not the ultimate virtue, by the faith hall of fame in Hebrews 11, which praises the faith of saints like Gideon who, far from possessing blind faith in general, actually demanded physical proofâand yet there he is being displayed as a pillar of great faith. Whyâbecause there was one place (and it no longer applies to us) that his faith was necessarily blindâhe believed that at some point God would indeed send a redeemer as promised.
The other hall of famers had their own supernatural encounters with Godâtalking with him or witnessing miracles. They too had no need of faith in what was unseen, apart from faith in the promises of God.
(1) With the exception that I accepted the presupposition that the bible is the word of God.
Iâve never understood why it should matter to believers how those who do not share that belief define âatheismâ. Obviously it arises to note that disagreement but there may be many reasons for it besides holding the positive belief that God does not exist. Some do, some donât. In my experience most donât. In my own case it isnât God belief itself that I find suspect but only the exacting definition. There is something that supports belief in God/gods but it is extremely mysterious to me how any claim to know precisely what powers and purposes define Him.
2 Likes
Brain turned to the off position? That is rather insulting to atheists and doesnât describe any atheists I have known. If you claim that atheists donât believe anything or even donât believe anything about God then you are being absurd. To even decide you are an atheist or that there is no reason to believe in such a thing you first have to have beliefs about what the word âGodâ refers to (and this differs as greatly between non-believers as it does between believers). I know atheists are not as brainless as you suggest and this empty rhetoric definition to make the average atheist an infant with barely a thought in his head is ridiculous.
Oh come on! Get serious!
Fundies like to define theism as those who are not in rebellion against God. So you are not a theist? Then when did you decide to hate and war against God. That is they way they think however wrong it may be. Are you going to buy into rhetoric that it shouldnât matter to atheists how they choose to define theism. The definition of the theism and atheism are connected so of course it matters! The definition of the words by which we communicate is EVERYBODYâS business!
See now, this I agree with completely.
If I seem to be jumping back and forth between two sides of this, it is because this is not a team sport for me. It is a matter of principle, and I will dispute with both theist and atheist on matters of principle. Though I suppose you can say that I am arguing for the team that says theists and atheists are pretty much the same which is why I agree with the above statement. But this absurd definition of atheism to employ special pleading that makes them right by default is the height of dishonesty is on the side with which I will always disagree.
Both theist and atheist employ faith any time they make an argument. It is unavoidable. The atheist may choose to hide from the fact while the theist revels in it. But the difference in this case is empty rhetoric and the fact is that scientists (and that includes both theists and atheists) can be considered one of the best examples of faith in modern times while the religious/ideologues (and that includes both theists and atheists) are too often rather poor examples of faith.
I think definitions are in order. I believe my car will take me to my job is a different faith vs believing that I can be teleported to Mars. The word âbeliefâ is used in both cases, but they obviously talk about very different things. In the first case, the belief is firmly grounded in experience (i.e. itâs very common for my car to be reliable as a mode of transportation), in another case, teleportation has never been as reliably demonstrated as a car.
1 Like
Okay 
, Iâll play.
Indeed so long as I allow others to define what my beliefs should mean to me I could be kept very busy tilting at windmills. Thank you for setting that up for me.
I havenât seen any such rhetoric regarding how atheists had ought to position themselves but I wouldnât pay it any mind regardless. My position is as much theism lite as it is atheism lite.
Hey, thatâs what weâre trying to tell you.
And yet you havenât stated any.
If your point is that all faith is not the same, I couldnât agree more. In particular there is a big difference between faith which contradicts the objective evidence and faith which does not. The point of faith is that there are very few things if any with absolute proof or evidence. There is always some leap of faith however small. And there is a difference between faith which is reasonable and faith which is not. For example, there is no way to prove that the universe was not created this morning with all our memories as they are. But it is unreasonable to believe something contrary to all our memories and everything we see, for this would render too much of our experience and lives meaningless.
A more reasonable faith is one that makes our lives more meaningful rather than less. Of course, this isnât always like the above example where one choice is pretty universally more meaningful for everyone. In some cases what gives more meaning to life varies considerably between people. Theists think a belief in God and a context of life where there is an existence of life after we die makes life more meaningful. Atheists think it is more meaningful to be completely responsible for our own lives and to devote all our thoughts and efforts to the existence we can actually see and experience.
Nonsense!
You were trying to tell me that how atheists define atheism wasnât the business of any theist. And SuperBigV was trying to tell me that the proper definition of atheism was one which made the average atheist someone who hardly thought about anything at all just in order to make atheism a default position and put all the burden of proof on anybody who thought differently â one of the sleaziest examples of empty rhetoric there is.
So here are my (definitely modernized) definitions
Atheism: The belief that there is no sufficiently good reason to think that any of the gods described by religions actually exist.
Atheist: someone who has considered the question of Godâs existence and decided there is no sufficiently good reason to think such a thing exists.
But there are a lot of other definitions which are just fine like this from Wictionary
atheism (usually uncountable, plural atheisms) (narrowly) Belief that no deities exist (sometimes including rejection of other religious beliefs). (broadly) Rejection of belief that any deities exist (with or without a belief that no deities exist).
I say modernized because the oldest dictionaries simply give a definition like this:
The theory or belief that God does not exist.
But this is rightly rejected because it does not adequately describe the spectrum of those who self identify as atheist.
1 Like
Well I was agreeing with you that it is everybodyâs business. Meaning that although atheism takes its meaning by contrast with theism, it is not the prerogative of theists to decide why atheists take the stand they do. If you want to know, you can ask and you will get a variety of answers.
You were just agreeing with Vlad that even Christians are atheists in regard to some gods. If you grant that then you should see that there is room to disagree with the particulars of what counts as God/gods. What is really at issue between Christians and atheists isnât whether or not God/gods exist. It is whether there are authoritative historical reasons to accept that the Bibleâs account of God is the right one.
2 Likes
Iâm glad we can agree that not all faith is the same. Next step is to determine how we can determine whether our faith contradicts objective evidence.
I think the case for Deism can be made, and we would just agree to disagree on that one. Deism, as I understand it, is the belief that God created the Universe and then let it run itâs due course. I donât think this claim can be tested or disproven, and for me, the best approach is to remain agnostic on it. I just donât know and canât know. And Iâm okay with that.
But for theism, you must go a few steps further. You need to have God involved in his creation, answer prayers, reveal himself to people, direct their thoughts so that he is accurately represented, and also keep a watch on copying the manuscripts. From my experience and understanding, most theists become such due to their upbringing. It was certainly true in my case. And then, as people become rooted in their faith, they look for reasons.
Which is curious, because itâs as if people understand that IF their faith be true, it must have some reasons behind it. Theists are not content with just believing and leaving it at that.
Objective evidence means scientific evidence, and since God is an un-falsifiable hypothesis it is not a valid scientific idea. So the cases for both Deism and theism falls flat on their face right at the start. The only evidence for or against the existence of God is subjective â all of it.
Well of course it was your experience because that is always going to be the case when you live in a society where the large majority are theist. But in a society where the large majority are atheist this is not the case.
And not in my case.
1 Like
Very early in my Christian life I had this experience. https://discourse.biologos.org/t/my-turkish-translator-experience/40632
It was because of that experience that when I did do about 10-12 years of serious doubt about christianity, I couldnât get past that experience, which I feel strongly does show Godâs involvement in this world. I know you will call it a fluke but i would suggest that one would have to in order to maintain an agnostic/atheistic position.
Just so you will know my belief is not due to my upgringing, My father was an atheist and my mother a sociopathâyes she had religious beliefs, but the abuse she gave to her children certaintly didnât attract us to christianity.
PS: probably wonât be able to respond. I am spending large chunks of time at MD Anderson.
2 Likes
I have a ton of reading to do to have any kind of input here 
1 Like
Ahhh - donât let a little unfinished reading stop you from sounding off here. It doesnât stop most of us. Whatâs life without a little running off at the mouth prior to learning the material? It helps cultivate humility ⌠eventually.
4 Likes
By READING said literature and weighing in the arguments. If you want to base the decision primarily on emotion you refuse a rational engagement. I´m not a charismatic and don´t hold to sola scriptura and think both views are heavily wrong.
Throwing the ball back in your fiel, Ăf the basis you rely on about the God-question is emotion, can your atheism really be said to have a rational basis?
Then your experience is wrong. Though people often have an a priori sensus divinitatis, up until a few decades ago it was the role model for the pastor to be knowledgable about the philosophical and theological foundation.
If I weren´t convinced by the metaphysics underlying it, I wouldn´t be a theist. If the metaphysics would indeed support atheism, I would be one, although atheism entails nihilism and I would probably have to eventually arrive at a position like Nietzsche. Or even Rosenbergs eliminativism, if his arguments for the final end of naturalism holds.
Sometimes, maybe even most of the time, because God-belief, as the data shows, looks to be the natural position for a human. Anyway, taking that as an argument is a genetic fallacy, since it doesn´t take into account the strength of the metaphysical arguments supporting the position. I freely admit that I am sympathetic to the theistic worldview in the first place, but if the arguments wouldn´t have convinced me, I wouldn´t be one.
Sympathies for their respected position however can be found on both sides. Thomas Nagel is a prominent example for the atheist side of the debate (he doesn´t engage in philosophy of religion though).
As if I needed any more proof to know that you don´t know what you are talking about. The scholastic, rationalist or ontological arguments argue for God as a conclusion and don´t take him to be a premise. I can´t even conceive of a metaphysical argument for Santa Claus. God´s attributes however can be derived, sometimes by the nature of the proof, other times through additional arguments, by simply arriving at a necessary being. If they were simply asserted, wouldn´t you think that the debate within philosophy of religion would have been settled centuries or even millennia ago?
Read Ed Fesers âThe Last Superstitionâ for a treatment for that kind of objections. It is for beginners and shows why those points you make here have nothing going for them.
Quite frankly, I don´t think you can make an informed judgment on that one.
As Iâve said, there could be a case made for Deism, the Creator of everything that left us to our own devices. But the existence of a supernatural being who cares about people, and loves them and is omni- everything (i.e. omni-potent, omni-present, omni-benevolent, etcâŚ) that is contradicted by my and everyone elseâs experience.
But I would be open to correction. Where do you think my thinking is flawed?
I donât believe in Santa Claus. Have I ever been to the North Pole? Nope. Have I examined all âevidenceâ there is and every story about him? Nope. So, at what point am I justified in my A-Santa-Clauism?