"New Age" Atheism

Originally posted by @secondson
Oh the manifold rationalizations of them that depart from Word of God for the purpose of defining the human heart and mind.

God is not a crutch, nor is He a puppet master.

Agree or disagree sir.

When an atheist helps an old lady across the road they do so with free will. However, when a Christian does the same, their 'good work' is not an expression of free will but an inevitable/automatic consequence of having been saved already. - In other words, it is the 'God' in them that does the good work, as opposed to the 'man' in the athiest.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Agree or disagree sir.

When an atheist helps an old lady across the road they do so with free will. However, when a Christian does the same, their 'good work' is not an expression of free will but an inevitable/automatic consequence of having been saved already. - In other words, it is the 'God' in them that does the good work, as opposed to the 'man' in the athiest.

Disagree. If you what you wrote is true, there would be no struggle between the Spirit and the flesh that Paul extensively writes about in Galatians. Christians do not give up their free will after God’s Holy Spirit indwells them.

And as long as Christians are in the flesh and in a sinful world, the struggle between the Spirit and the flesh will go on. Those who have subdued the flesh have done so through regular reading of God’s Word and sincere prayer.

Edit: The above answer may not have properly answered your question, but humans retain their free will after accepting Christ and can certainly help a lady across the street if their flesh and not the Spirit is in control due to their being out of The Word and prayer.

But God’s Holy Spirit transforms the life of a believer on much more of a macro scale than you seem to be suggesting with individual acts of kindness.

Originally posted by @stellspalfie
Lacking certainty in what? How does an atheists conscience motivate them to 'hedge their bets'?

An atheist stops short of making the claim "God does not exist," clearly because the atheist is not certain God does not exist. Is that too complicated?

Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
An atheist stops short of making the claim "God does not exist," clearly because the atheist is not certain God does not exist. Is that too complicated?

"God does not exist." I have said this repeatedly.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
"God does not exist." I have said this repeatedly.

Ok, I guess I haven't been paying close attention because that's the first I've heard of it. Congrats, you are now a real atheist. Of course you now have stepped forward and made a claim. A claim which you can't possibly prove. How can one be certain of a claim which cannot be proven?

Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
Ok, I guess I haven't been paying close attention because that's the first I've heard of it. Congrats, you are now a real atheist. Of course you now have stepped forward and made a claim. A claim which you can't possibly prove. How can one be certain of a claim which cannot be proven?

Whether it is true or not, what makes ‘God does not exist’ impossible to prove?

Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
How can one be certain of a claim which cannot be proven?

Not sure you really wanna go there with this crowd.

"Isn't that what theists do?"






(Now I suppose here comes Romans to cover up my post with something, anything, just so he can see his name 25 times on page one.

I'm posting less often now, and this behavior just makes me more invisible. Thanks to him for making people even less likely to post.)

Edit: So I took a look and it seems like maybe he doesn't do this any more. If so, then thank goodness for small miracles.

Originally posted by @romans1009
Where did humans get the concept of eternity? What in the material world would give them the idea of eternity?

Why would a concept have to be exemplified in the material world for humans to conceive of it? Concepts are by definition immaterial. The infinitude of the natural numbers, for example, is not exemplified by anything in the material world, yet we have this concept. It is but a small step to transfer the idea of infinite numbers to the concept of time and arrive at a concept of eternity.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
Name another "need" for which relief does not exist.

Satisfaction of ungratified desire.

Yearning for permanence.

Originally posted by @moonbus
Why would a concept have to be exemplified in the material world for humans to conceive of it? Concepts are by definition immaterial. The infinitude of the natural numbers, for example, is not exemplified by anything in the material world, yet we have this concept. It is but a small step to transfer the idea of infinite numbers to the concept of time and arrive at a concept of eternity.

One doesn’t learn of infinity through numbers.

Originally posted by @suzianne
Not sure you really wanna go there with this crowd.

"Isn't that what theists do?"

Indeed! I saw it coming the instant I clicked the 'post' button but there is a difference. I have evidence--personal evidence. I can't prove it to someone else but God's existence has been proven to me. An atheist on the other hand has a lack of personal evidence as his or her only evidence. And it is fallacious to claim something is true due to a lack of empirical evidence that proves you wrong--especially when your position is a minority position and billions disagree with you. I can claim there is zero extra terrestrial life in the entire universe, because no one has presented me satisfactory empirical evidence to prove otherwise. But can my claim be proven? No.

Originally posted by @js357
Whether it is true or not, what makes ‘God does not exist’ impossible to prove?

It is not necessary for atheism to prove that God does not exist. It is sufficient for atheism to show that putative proofs of God's existence are faulty or inconclusive.

Similarly, it is not necessary to prove that fairies and phlogiston and ectoplasm do not exist; it is sufficient to show that putative evidence for the existence of such things is faulty or inconclusive.

In both cases, it is not necessary to have a reason to dis-believe fantastical claims (though some people may have such a reason); lack of a cogent and conclusive reason to believe such things is sufficient for rejecting the claims of existence of such things and withholding belief.

Originally posted by @js357
So are y9u saying that our ability to choose salvation depends, at least in part, on whether our heart has permanently stopped beating?

Romans disagreed with me,and now, I suppose, you.

You sound confused.

I'm saying that one has the "ability" to choose only as long as one is alive.

It's that simple.

Originally posted by @suzianne
Not sure you really wanna go there with this crowd.

"Isn't that what theists do?"






(Now I suppose here comes Romans to cover up my post with something, anything, just so he can see his name 25 times on page one.

I'm posting less often now, and this behavior just makes me more invisible. Thanks to him for making people even less likely to ...[text shortened]... it seems like maybe he doesn't do this any more. If so, then thank goodness for small miracles.

If I told you I hated President Trump, would you cut me some slack? If you don’t want to read my posts, don’t read them. No one’s forcing you to.

Why you think what I post “covers up” your post is beyond me. You know the posts follow each other and earlier ones are still visible, right?

Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
Indeed! I saw it coming the instant I clicked the 'post' button but there is a difference. I have evidence--personal evidence. I can't prove it to someone else but God's existence has been proven to me. An atheist on the other hand has a lack of personal evidence as his or her only evidence. And it is fallacious to conclude something i ...[text shortened]... l evidence--especially when your position is a minority position and billions disagree with you.

The number of people who hold a belief is no criterion of its truth. Nearly everyone once believed the Earth to be an immobile disc at the centre of the universe, that the planets and the stars all revolved round the Earth, and they were all wrong. Nearly everyone once believed that the health of the body depended on keeping the four humours in balance, and they were all wrong. Nearly everyone once believed in spooks and witchcraft, and they were all wrong. Shall I go on?

You say, on the one hand, that God's existence has been proven to you, but, on the other hand, that you couldn't prove it to anyone else. So, why are you posting here? Who do you think cares whether you have some proof that no one else can see or verify? I might as well claim that I have proof that Zeus and Apollo and Hera and Pan and Quetzelqualtl and the Flying Spaghetti Monster and space aliens and poltergeists and bigfoot and fairies and ectoplasm exist, though I couldn't prove it to anyone else. Such a claim proves doodlysquat in both cases.

I have no doubt that you have conviction and that this conviction changed your life. But "conviction" is not an equivalent term for "proof."