Calling Impartial Atheists

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
You'll need to explain that one.

Originally posted by apathist
"Atheists are full of institutional and religious bias."

In general, atheists find that theistic claims do not meet a presumably obvious standard.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Speaking of atheists in 'general' terms is the initial crack in your reasoning. Atheists often have very little in common, except living lives void of God. Such a lack of general congruity highlights the second crack in your reasoning, namely atheists operate outside of any institutional mentality. (They don't for example meet up once a week as a congre ...[text shortened]... done so due to leprechaun bias, rather than as an intellectual process of weighing up the evidence.

Originally posted by apathist
I merely meant that science does not oppose spirituality, and vice versa. Not a popular view, and I probably didn't express it well.

But talking asses and snakes is another thing, right. A 6000 yr old planet is another thing, virgin births are another thing, the ark is another thing. I find it extremely stupid to think the writings from people who didn't know about stars and atoms and everything else guides anyone's understanding of spirit!

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
...An atheist however would be in a position to give an objective interpretation of a given text, irrespective of his disbelief in God. (It would be a purely theoretical opinion).

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Atheists, by definition, are 'areligious' - meaning they are 'not influenced by or practising religion.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
They might be Buddhists - non-theistic, yet religious.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Fair enough.

In the context of this thread though, it is logical for atheists to be turned to for impartial opinions on religious text. (As we have 'no horse in the race,' if you get my meaning).

Take for example if the matter being discussed was transubstantiation. A Protestant and a Catholic would each come to the discussion with unavoidable ...[text shortened]... a given text, irrespective of his disbelief in God. (It would be a purely theoretical opinion).

Originally posted by KellyJay
Really, someone who doesn't believe God could do X, because He isn't real, comes without an opinion?

Calling Impartial People again.

Here is a passage from Peter. What is Peter saying here and what place does Peter give to Knowledge, particularly Knowledge of Christ and Faith.:

Sonship seems to be claiming that Knowledge and Faith is the most important thing. While the Apostle Peter is listing a whole lot of other qualities which if ignored means that the Christian is unfruitful in the Knowledge of Christ. Therefore there is a fruitful knowledge of Christ and an unfruitful knowledge of Christ.

Please let me know what you think Peter is saying here. Thanks atheists and unbiased Christians 🙂.

According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness,
through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises:
that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature,
having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue;
and to virtue knowledge;
And to knowledge temperance;
and to temperance patience;
and to patience godliness;
And to godliness brotherly kindness;
and to brotherly kindness charity.

For if these things be in you, and abound,
they make you that ye shall neither be barren
nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off,
and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. (2 Peter 1:3-9 KJV)

Originally posted by apathist
We all know how well Christians like logic and reason. Pretty sure you exercise in futility.

Originally posted by sonship
[b] We all know how well Christians like logic and reason.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you mean people should jury rig the definitions of logic and reason so that they, up front, rule out by default, the possibility of God, God's attributes and God's character.

I think you mean a reasoning and logic which along every step of the process excludes God.[/b]

Originally posted by JS357
The pope and Galileo worked out the separation of church and science (the latter being secular reason and logic) hundreds of years ago. You see this separation as rejection whereas it is merely a non-interference agreement. Of course there are some people in science who have strong negative views on religion, and vice versa. But holding them up - those on either side - as exemplars of their field, is well sort of a cheap shot.

"Come now and let us reason together, Says Jehovah. Though your sins are like scarlet, they will be as white as snow; Though they are as red as crimson, They will be like wool." (Isaiah 1:18)

You know when God forgets something it is gone into the oblivion of non-existence. And He says that my sins and iniquities He will by no means remember any more.

" For I will be propitious to their unrighteousnesses, and their sins I shall by no means remember anymore." (Heb.8:12)

Originally posted by sonship
I am not sure what the pope and Galileo worked out. But I include God in my reasoning and logic process.

God invites man to reason with Him concerning his sins and concerning what wonderful provision God has made for their removal and cleansing.

[quote] [b] "Come now and let us reason together, Says Jehovah. Though your sins are like scarlet, the ...[text shortened]... cludes and important part of my humanity. This is a logic which applies to my complete humanity.