Posted on 09/23/2017 8:21:17 AM PDT by Raymond Pamintuan
Atheism, the rejection of the possibility that “God” exists, has become the dominant thought amongst intellectuals in the past century and has been around longer than most people think. For over 2000 years, it was based on philosophical arguments that can roughly be summed up as the atheist saying, “I don’t know how ‘X’ came to be, but you can’t prove it came from God.” This mindset has been highly effective because it places the burden of proof on the theist to prove the positive of God’s existence, which, superficially, is impossible to do – because no evidence exists that provides “proof” that can be independently verified and repeated at a five-sigma (5σ) confidence level and above that God is real.
During the Age of Enlightenment in the 18th century, atheists were no longer content to use philosophical arguments and started using positive claims that basically said, “‘X’ proves God does not exist.”
Most recently, the highly influential New Atheism spearheaded by Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and Hitchens has modified the positive arguments, but reinforced and justified a dangerous trend that started in the late 20th century that roughly states, “Because you do not accept that “X” proves God does not exist, you are not credible and must not be allowed to be in a position of influence over others.”
The New Atheism mindset has had an enormous effect among atheists in positions of power in academia: For the “thought crime” of believing God exists, theist scientists have actually been blocked from jobs and tenure, they have been prevented from getting their works funded or published, and many have actually been terminated from their jobs. One now sees university campuses where openly theist professors are becoming rarer by the year,
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
So this very notion that there is one particular way to debate an atheist is incorrect. First you have to figure out what belief system they have, if any. Personally, I don't have one. I'm not a nihilist. I'm not a scientist. I'm not particularly philosophical. I don't "believe" anything. I have some ideas, but I don't know if they are the truth, and I don't think that mankind has, at the moment, the wherewithal to learn the truth. Therefore I don't concern myself much with it.
And that is the belief that drives your worldview. That's what I mean when I talk about a belief system. Your decision "not to worry about it" is grounded in the belief that you can't really know the truth anyway. So paradoxically, that belief becomes a truth in itself.
The Post-modernists believe that there is no truth, that all so-called facts are relative. Oddly, they consider that to be a truth, which belies their entire assertion. People like Jurgen Habermas have observed the inherent contradiction in pomo nihlism and as a consequence, have rejected it.
And why should I be impressed with one whose "right" belief censors others who censors others whose belief conflicts with theirs. You may not realize it, but you are also censoriously asserting a right belief, in this case about how those who believe Truth is exclusive by nature should respond to those who contradict their belief.
A parable (some details based on speculation).
There was a great conference of demons in the unseen realm of darkness on day, with a number of successful demons testifying to their tactics in keeping souls away from the Enemy, God.
One demon said, "I have found much success in telling them that the Bible is full of contradictions, and how science explains the origin of the Universe, so that they cannot even believe its warning about us" (to some cackles of laughter).
Another crafty demon explained, "After sowing doubt in the words of the Enemy, I work to bring them into thinking that God's requirements for blessings and punishments for evil are not fair, that He needs to (as one of our instruments has said), 'share the wealth' without requiring obedience, and that instead it is their right to what others merit, and thereby even exclude mercy and grace. Once they swallow this then more deception can follow, till they are rather securely captives to Darkness, even if they think they believe in God."
Another followed, with one masquerading as an angel of light explaining how he presented a false christ, and a "different gospel" thru the various religions his class created, to keep them away from the Divine Son of God, sent by the Father, who purchased their pardon from sins with His own sinless shed blood, to save those who believe with effectual faith, on his account.
A demon specializing in the Christian realm also told how he diligently worked to bring souls to hold onto their natural tendency to believe that they can actually becoming good enough to be with God, or that God will grade on a scale and if their good deeds outweigh their bad ones they will escape Hell, and will attain to glory, maybe thru postmortem purifying torments and the help of their church and merits of others, to their eternal horror" (cheering erupting).
One other like-demon spoke on how he seduced those who professed faith in the Christ to believe that saving faith need not be a faith which effect characteristic obedience, including repentance when convicted of sin, but need only mean believing that Christ will save them, regardless of what their life evidences they truly believe in contrast to who He is and commands.
Another demon said, "I point out all the hypocrites in churches, which of course we work to make them, and so much appreciate, and how they are better than them, which lie they usually readily believe, and thus they never feel that dreaded conviction that leads to conversion to the Other Side."
Another demon testified "I work to focus them on all the things they will have to give up in other to follow the Son of God (to loud hissing at the mention of Him), and work to form a firm attachment to certain practices we seduce souls to engage in, to that they are dissuaded from any feelings toward the Enemy."
Another boasted "Using that innate sense of morality that they Enemy has given them, I try to use the suffering in the world (which we cause) to bring them into thinking God could not allow such, and even into thinking they are morally superior to the God they so much want to deny."
A few others followed, but finally one demon arose to speak and there fell a great hush over the domain of spiritual wickedness, for he was the most successful tempter of them all. Speaking softly sat first he stated, "My brethren have shared the tactics they used to keep souls from the Enemy, and we are grateful for their degree of success. However, while some are dissuaded by alleged contradictions in the Bible, sooner or latter they may meet someone who can sufficiently explain such and thereby we lose them.
And it is true that we have seduced many by charging the Enemy with injustice, and inculcating the "victim-entitlement" mentality, yet sooner or latter the folly of this is exposed and they are attracted to that abhorrent Christian ethos of mercy and grace, and blessings of obedience.
And certainly multitudes have been seduced by our false christs, and false gospels and spirits, from Communism to that which is within Catholicism, but too often the light of that deplorable gospel of grace penetrates their darkened heart as the Enemy gives grace, and all our labor is in vain.
It is also true that we have damned many by turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, or otherwise bring them to believe an inert faith is salvific, but there are many who preach repentance toward the Enemy and faith in His Christ (hissing again) and so are brought to saving, enduring effectual faith, instead of being a trophy for our illustrious Lucifer, the Son of the Morning.
Likewise, pointing out hypocrites in churches and reminding souls about how good they are is quite useful, but sooner or latter they can meet real believers and we lose them and thus the glory due to our Prince of Darkness.
It is also true that focusing souls on all the things they will have to give up in order to follow our adversary, the Son of God, is very often effective, but there are too many who testify that what they gave up was only what they call evil, and is replaced by a greater quantity and quality of things that they now can do.
The premise that science removes any warrant for believing in the Enemy, and the seduction of proud souls into into thinking they are morally superior to the Enemy, thereby justifying atheism (which successfully keeps them in the dark about us also), has especially been more effective of later. However, their presumptions are too often countered by reasonable believers in the Lord Christ, and an increasing number have become so, to our grievous loss.
I myself use all these tactics to varying degrees of success, but failing all else, my final most successful recourse is this: I tell convicted souls that the Bible indeed warrants believing, and is True (as we ourselves know too well) in all it teaches as the preserved word of God, and even affirm that the horrible resurrection of Christ (moaning) is evidenced in the changes of heart and life which faith in Him brings, and thus they they should indeed repent and believe on Him to save them.
Yes, you are hearing my correctly. I affirm that they should! Tomorrow. Always Tomorrow. Their consciences become pacified that they are no longer fighting against what they know deep down is True and must be done as they are persuaded to put off this decision to believe, and be baptized and follow Christ until later. Maybe after they graduate, or get married, or retire. And once you get them to put their day of salvation off once then it can become easier to do it again.
And so Tomorrow turns into other Tomorrows which turn into other Tomorrows until death comes unexpectedly, or their conviction is never again awakened (sometimes this delay tactic enables us to successfully employ the other tactics mentioned) and so we have them!"
At that all of the habitation of darkness exploded with demonic glee, and they were dismissed by their master to add this tactic to their repertoire of deception.
We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain. (For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.) (2 Corinthians 6:1-2)
Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices. (2 Corinthians 2:11)
And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. (Revelation 20:10)
Actually, the argument is not that "life" cannot exist without having been created, but that you either give Divine attributes to matter, that of self-existence and intelligent design, or you allow for a actual Being or beings that do. The universe does not evidence the former, but the latter does since it evidences order and design.
Even extraterrestrial theories are more respectable than blind, purposeless chance, but once you allow for that you should allow for a creator God, but which is typically not tolerated even as a hypothesis by militant atheists.
But I don’t believe that I have truth. You could be as right as I am. I don’t believe that anyone knows truth. To me, there’s just individual truth, not universal. I would never try to bully you to tell you you’re wrong when you could be right. But so could I be. I want you to continue in whatever you believe as long as what you believe doesn’t impinge on my beliefs. That’s the problem with Muslims. They can’t draw a line.
But I absolutely support creches in parks and Merry Christmas everywhere. I believe gays should have gone for legal arrangements rather than impinge on a definition of marriage that was important to so many people. People should be able to cry out their joy at religion, as well as people who don’t follow those beliefs crying out their joy of life. And poetry that praises God will sometimes offer suggestions of how to be the sort of person you want to be, whether your desire for goodness comes from a divine source or from a social contract. One of my favorite poems is:
Without distinction, fame, or note
Upon the tide of life I float,
A bubble almost lost to sight
As cobweb frail, as vapor light;
And yet within that bubble lies
A spark of life which never dies.
To you that spark may be a soul. To me that spark might be remembrance. But we both see a spark that has value.
It serves no purpose to allow for a god, other than to end the debate and send the searcher off on a scavenger hunt for “what, then, does this god want?”
They do know, since we have an objective, substantive transcendent supreme standard/rule/authority which we profess to hold to, even if it is somewhat open to some interpretation, and thus due to shared beliefs in core teachings and moral values the evangelical movement began and has continued .
In contrast, atheists have no such standard, even if subject to interpretation, but what seems "reasonable" to each individual is their supreme standard, even though this results in very divergent moral values (some belief in marriage, others not so, etc.).
Incorrect. Belief is to hold something to be true despite the lack of evidence. There is plenty of evidence that man is not yet able to explore the origins of the universe.
You seem eager to ascribe the word "belief" to things that are actually just observations.
Which is not much of a basis for your position, but which is still a position by which you seem to censure those Truth claimants who censure other claimants. If you are criticizing them then you are thus implicitly contending for a position and condemning those who are contrary to it.
If you are criticizing those who disallow others the right to believe something, even if wrong, then what Christians do that? .
And the purpose of disallowing God is that it overall gives man a greater purpose for existing and doing good over believing that there is one? The purpose of seeking God is also warranted by the proven benefits, if it is the Christian God of Scripture.
It is even strange that you would want to be on an officially pro-God forum yet see no purpose to allow for a god.
Mairdie rocks. Hope you’re well!
Just went for lunch with old friends. Wonderful to see people you’ve cared about for over forty years. They make the world so worth while. One husband just turned ninety. He bought a two-story barn from the 1700’s, had it taken apart board by board, and rebuilt it in his backyard. He used to work on refurbishing steam locomotives. There are such fascinating people everywhere you turn.
I did not ‘respect’ my child’s ‘right’ to play in traffic when he was 3.
If I admit there is a GOD; then somehow and in some way; I must be subject to her.
If there is no god; then there is no such thing as ‘good’ or ‘evil’.
One
step
at
a
time
>> Atheism, the rejection of the possibility that “God” exists
No it’s not. Atheism is the rejection of another man’s faith — something the atheist cannot know.
"And I do NOT believe in a WRATHFUL god; so...
I'll accept that you have no belief system; if you can explain it to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.