A Gutsy Preacher

[psalms 91]

Why presume that those with a well developed theology do not live a godly life?

I dont

 

[Josiah]

I would agree that faith (or any method of belief that lacks evidence we can show others)

1. I think the whole point of the op and of this thread is that NOTHING is "provable" in the absolute, objective sense. Yes - you CHOOSE some things to accept as real/valid/existing and you CHOOSE to limit any "evidence" you'll consider to that (creating a bit of a circle). Frankly, it's unavoidable (apart from radical Nihilism) - as I think the "preacher" was trying to convey: In this uber-philosophical, absolute, object sense, NOTHING is "evidenced" or "proven." We are ALL people of faith, people who walk by faith.


2. "Faith" is what you trust, rely upon - and yes, it ultimately involves an assumption or choice that YOU make (consciencely or not). You BELIEVE certain things (perhaps, in YOUR case, you call it "science" or "physics" or "nature" or "materialism" I don't know) and you RELY on such ( your faith). You can't PROVE such without a bit of a circular argument, you can't PROVE such is or is not without the other having much the same faith that you have. Frankly, it always works that way, ultimately.


3. True - one need not provide any defense if the position is unchallenged. However, of course, if one DENIES the position (such as Atheism does) it's not unlikely they'll deny the position. And of course, in my experience, nothing typifies Atheists more than a loud, persistent, DEMAND for PROOF of the reality of the divine - object, absolute PROOF with "evidence" that excludes anything supernatural and thus makes it impossible to provide such proof. Nothing characterizes Atheism more, in my experience, than this demand. Often accompanied with ridicule, mockery, accusations of low IQ and ignorance and psychological illness and occasionally with mentions of the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny. This is why I think you comment about "burden of proof" gets to the very heart of this very new position, as you posted, "My only motivation in using the definition is so that theists understand that when someone says they are an atheist, this doesn't necessarily mean the atheist is in the same boat regarding burden of proof."


4. While I "get it" (ABSOLUTE, object proof for ANYTHING is impossible), I think the reasonable response is not to conclude such PROOF is demanded of all but self, of all positions except those of self. I think the more reasonable approach is to not frame positions OR apologetics in such radical, absolute terms. Theists never claim that the divine can be PROVEN in such radical, uber-philosphical, objective manner requiring no assumptions/acceptances/faith/belief.... and their apologetics should not be held to that impossible (and a bit absurd) standard. The same is true for ALL positions, ultimately.



- Josiah





.

 

[MoreCoffee]

If you have a good relationship with God you know nothing about theology and shout halleluja praise the Lord to everyone lol.

That's the myth but some of the people I've known who shouted Hallelujah (or alleluia) a lot later gave up believing in God and became atheists. Maybe their expectations were unbalanced and when God didn't say "How high?" when they said "O Lord, Jump!" they lost interest in him.

 

[Rens]

That's the myth but some of the people I've known who shouted Hallelujah (or alleluia) a lot later gave up believing in God and became atheists. Maybe their expectations were unbalanced and when God didn't say "How high?" when they said "O Lord, Jump!" they lost interest in him.

Yes, better know the Word and do it if you don't want your house to become a ruin and have your theology right if the storm comes. I saw them too, ex evangelicals on an atheist site telling me satan was nicer than God. They knew absolutely nothing. Some of those churches don't teach anything more than some milk and Jesus loves you or they had had false teaching in their church.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes, better know the Word and do it if you don't want your house to become a ruin and have your theology right if the storm comes. I saw them too, ex evangelicals on an atheist site telling me satan was nicer than God. They knew absolutely nothing. Some of those churches don't teach anything more than some milk and Jesus loves you or they had had false teaching in their church.

You are right. It does appear as if some groups teach almost no sound theology and that some of their members leave, become atheists, and then complain how incredible Christianity is even though they know almost nothing about it.

 

[Rens]

That's the myth but some of the people I've known who shouted Hallelujah (or alleluia) a lot later gave up believing in God and became atheists. Maybe their expectations were unbalanced and when God didn't say "How high?" when they said "O Lord, Jump!" they lost interest in him.

Oh now I get it. How high? LOL yes.
We played the flute and You didn't dance.

 

[MarkFL]

You are right. It does appear as if some groups teach almost no sound theology and that some of their members leave, become atheists, and then complain how incredible Christianity is even though they know almost nothing about it.

For me it was simply a matter of a realization in my mid-teens that faith was an insufficient reason to accept an extraordinary claim. I will admit I do find many of the actions of God as depicted in the Bible to be morally bankrupt. But, that's just how I read it I suppose.

 

[Rens]

For me it was simply a matter of a realization in my mid-teens that faith was an insufficient reason to accept an extraordinary claim. I will admit I do find many of the actions of God as depicted in the Bible to be morally bankrupt. But, that's just how I read it I suppose.

But then I think you never had a personal relationship with Him. If I meet someone I'm sure the person exists. If I know my dad because I spent years with him and they take everything he wrote and did wrong without knowing the man, you don't fool me. I know he's good. Science can stand on its head and give proof all they want, I don't care. And they can say what they want how evil God is in the O.T., I know God is good and the devil is evil. I experienced them both.

 

[MarkFL]

But then I think you never had a personal relationship with Him.

Yes, I never felt I had any tangible experience regarding anything supernatural. I do happen to care a great deal what evidence shows and what it doesn't show.

 

[MoreCoffee]

For me it was simply a matter of a realization in my mid-teens that faith was an insufficient reason to accept an extraordinary claim. I will admit I do find many of the actions of God as depicted in the Bible to be morally bankrupt. But, that's just how I read it I suppose.

If you were brought up in an evangelical/fundamentalist religion and left in your mid-teens then it is likely that at the time you left you knew almost nothing about Christianity - theologically speaking.

 

[MarkFL]

If you were brought up in an evangelical/fundamentalist religion and left in your mid-teens then it is likely that at the time you left you know almost nothing about Christianity - theologically speaking.

Before I began to really question my beliefs, I studied the Bible a great deal (read it cover to cover several times), and still know it better than my family members who are still Christians. However, I am certainly no expert on Biblical theology, nor do I really have to be to realize that I have no choice but to reject the claims of all supernatural based religions. I know next to nothing about other major religions, but if they make claims regarding the supernatural (specifically on the existence of gods), then I automatically know I reject them based on lack of evidence in the truth of their claims.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Before I began to really question my beliefs, I studied the Bible a great deal (read it cover to cover several times), and still know it better than my family members who are still Christians. However, I am certainly no expert on Biblical theology, nor do I really have to be to realize that I have no choice but to reject the claims of all supernatural based religions. I know next to nothing about other major religions, but if they make claims regarding the supernatural (specifically on the existence of gods), then I automatically know I reject them based on lack of evidence in the truth of their claims.

Perhaps you should view the religions or rather their respective core scriptures as what man perceives as right by the will of life, for the peaceable advancement thereof. There are exceptional teachings and truths within those writings. I know that you don't consider yourself to be the highest power in all existence. I'm also relatively certain that you don't think all existence came from an utter lack of existence.

Try not reading them to decide if there is a GOD based om their writings, but rather is there an objective purpose to life. It isn't needed to consider GOD to be a man in order to discern what is actually true. Your perception can be clouded by your preconceptions and bias against what you have witnessed no evidence for, or what hasn't been shown in the right light.

All I'm trying to say is to not jump into any endeavor with negative connotations as they do affect conclusions.

If it is the will of GOD to prove IT's existence to you, then it will be done. If you do choose to read them you will see quite plainly that they all speak of the same things for the same reasons. This spans time and geography. They are generally unified in their message and origin and reasons.

Not trying to preach and do not mean to offend...anyone.

Peace

 

[MarkFL]

Perhaps you should view the religions or rather their respective core scriptures as what man perceives as right by the will of life, for the peaceable advancement thereof. There are exceptional teachings and truths within those writings.

Sure, many religions have what I consider to be positive philosophies, but this doesn't validate all of their claims either. And the majority of those teachings actually predate the respective religions they've come to be associated with from what I've gathered.

I know that you don't consider yourself to be the highest power in all existence. I'm also relatively certain that you don't think all existence came from an utter lack of existence.

I am aware of no higher intelligence than that of human beings, but I find it quite probable that there are intelligences in this universe much greater than ours. I suspect we may even create intelligences vastly superior to our own within this century. As for how all of existence came to be, I am content to say, "I don't presently know."

All I'm trying to say is to not jump into any endeavor with negative connotations as they do affect conclusions.

My main goal is to believe as many things that are true as possible, and to reject anything that is not yet backed by evidence. That's it...no negativity, only a healthy skepticism of claims made without evidence.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Sure, many religions have what I consider to be positive philosophies, but this doesn't validate all of their claims either. And the majority of those teachings actually predate the respective religions they've come to be associated with from what I've gathered.



I am aware of no higher intelligence than that of human beings, but I find it quite probable that there are intelligences in this universe much greater than ours. I suspect we may even create intelligences vastly superior to our own within this century. As for how all of existence came to be, I am content to say, "I don't presently know."



My main goal is to believe as many things that are true as possible, and to reject anything that is not yet backed by evidence. That's it...no negativity, only a healthy skepticism of claims made without evidence.

But how can you limit what you consider to be true using yet to be fully defined terms? Science is an attempted explanation of the readily observable. A lot of theories. These theories are based on sound tested hypotheses but don't fully even relate to one another; let alone encompass an utter understanding of all existence or truth. So to use it as a sole criteria to define what is true is in itself a false constant.

Peace

 

[MarkFL]

But how can you limit what you consider to be true using yet to be fully defined terms? Science is an attempted explanation of the readily observable. A lot of theories. These theories are based on sound tested hypotheses but don't fully even relate to one another; let alone encompass an utter understanding of all existence or truth. So to use it as a sole criteria to define what is true is in itself a false constant.

Peace

Just because science can't explain everything doesn't mean it can't explain anything. And we don't get or need to just invent unfalsifiable explanations to fill those ever receding pockets of ignorance. Such assertions have no real explanatory power. Where science offers a theory (a scientific theory), we have knowledge, and where it doesn't we simply have ignorance at that point in time. The best we can do is continue to investigate, hypothesize, and test...that's how we make real progress.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Before I began to really question my beliefs, I studied the Bible a great deal (read it cover to cover several times), and still know it better than my family members who are still Christians. However, I am certainly no expert on Biblical theology, nor do I really have to be to realize that I have no choice but to reject the claims of all supernatural based religions. I know next to nothing about other major religions, but if they make claims regarding the supernatural (specifically on the existence of gods), then I automatically know I reject them based on lack of evidence in the truth of their claims.

If you see evidence as measurement or detection with physical devices then you are probably right about lack of evidence for angels and God.

 

[MarkFL]

If you see evidence as measurement or detection with physical devices then you are probably right about lack of evidence for angels and God.

What other kind of compelling evidence did you have in mind?

 

[MoreCoffee]

What other kind of compelling evidence did you have in mind?

Witness testimony. And even though it can be unreliable it is the only evidence available for historical events that do not leave behind archeology. For example, we have historical evidence for the ideas of Greek philosophers in the form of books and stories about the philosophers but we have no physical detection or measurement of the philosophers. They are dead. I do not think we have any idea where they were buried or cremated. So we have witness testimony. Similarly we have witness testimony about Jesus, the Prophets, miracles and so forth that one finds in the holy scriptures.

 

[MarkFL]

Yes, but claims that certain philosophers lived doesn't need as much evidence as claims that a God in human form rose from the dead. We have good evidence that some people will be philosophers, but we have no good evidence that any people rise from the grave after 3 days or that anyone is divine. I will naturally be less skeptical of ordinary claims than I will for claims that are extraordinary. However, I don't say I know these claims aren't true, only that I personally have found no reason to accept them. Others may feel convinced, and I'm okay with that. I only ask for evidence if a claim is put forth to me and effort is made to convince me I should accept the claim as well...that's when I ask what reason(s) they give to change my mind. Thus far, on the subject of theism, I have been given no reason that I personally find compelling.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes, but claims that certain philosophers lived doesn't need as much evidence as claims that a God in human form rose from the dead. We have good evidence that some people will be philosophers, but we have no good evidence that any people rise from the grave after 3 days or that anyone is divine. I will naturally be less skeptical of ordinary claims than I will for claims that are extraordinary. However, I don't say I know these claims aren't true, only that I personally have found no reason to accept them. Others may feel convinced, and I'm okay with that. I only ask for evidence if a claim is put forth to me and effort is made to convince me I should accept the claim as well...that's when I ask what reason(s) they give to change my mind. Thus far, on the subject of theism, I have been given no reason that I personally find compelling.

I do not know what evidence could convince a sceptic that God became a man, died, rose from the dead, and ascended to heaven. These are past events which no scientific instrument which we know may detect and display. We have only the testimony of those who say they saw it. And since it is testimony it will never meet the sceptic's demand for extraordinary evidence to support an extraordinary claim. Regarding Gandhi its is said that Albert Einstein testified "Generations to come will scarce believe that it was possible for one such as this ever to have walked the Earth" and Gandhi worked no miracle, was not God manifest in the flesh, stood for principles that many living today hold dear yet Einstein was probably right. Only the testimony will survive and many will doubt it. Jesus even more so than Gandhi stood out among men in his age and scarce anybody would be willing to believe it except for the religion that has taught as he taught for two thousand years.