Atheism's Offer

Originally posted by josephw
Imagine you had no physical senses.

What would remain? Your thoughts? Your emotions?

You wouldn't even know you had a body. Then if your body died, what would remain?

Nothing?

Only your atoms would remain.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, it could be a descriptive term. But can you back it up by showing that an atheist is a fool? If not, can you show that you truly believe it is an accurate description (even though you cannot prove it)? If not, then it is merely intended as an insult.

RJHinds calls me 'arrogant'. In what way am I arrogant? Can you or he explain further? If it is ju ...[text shortened]... .
3. I so not believe that animals are as unintelligent as many people make them out to be.

Scripturally if anyone says there is no God they are labeled a fool, it is one of the
ways fools are defined in scripture. I'm not attempting to insult anyone when I say
they are sinners, since I call everyone a sinner, because the scripture say that
everyone has sinned we all fall short of the Glory of God, that to is not intended
as an insult, but a descriptive point of view according to scripture.

I've not called you arrogant, so you'll have to take that up with RJHinds. I actually
hold you in high regard as far as people go; you are just one I hardly ever
agree with, but respect nonetheless. We have been debating for years not weeks,
and I know I have gotten highly upset with you and you with me from time to time,
but if I could pick some people to be my neighbors in real life from this chess site;
you’d be on that list. Mainly for the debates we would have and chess games we
could play. I don't agree with you, but I do trust you when you and I talk.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Scripturally if anyone says there is no God they are labeled a fool, it is one of the ways fools are defined in scripture.

Come on! That is not a definition at all. It is saying "If you are an atheist, then you fit the definition of 'fool'". It is not saying "A fool is someone who (a) is an atheist, or (b) ......, (c)...... ."
Even if it was redefining the word, it would be guilty of deliberately trying to pass off the old definition onto the new one (a popular practice amongst theists).

I'm not attempting to insult anyone when I say they are sinners, since I call everyone a sinner, because the scripture say that everyone has sinned we all fall short of the Glory of God, that to is not intended as an insult, but a descriptive point of view according to scripture.
Here, I agree with you. If you show that your statement is intended to be an accurate description and it is not intended with malice, then it is not an insult.

I've not called you arrogant, so you'll have to take that up with RJHinds. I actually
hold you in high regard as far as people go; you are just one I hardly ever
agree with, but respect nonetheless. We have been debating for years not weeks,
and I know I have gotten highly upset with you and you with me from time to time,
but if I could pick some people to be my neighbors in real life from this chess site;
you’d be on that list. Mainly for the debates we would have and chess games we
could play. I don't agree with you, but I do trust you when you and I talk.
Kelly
Thanks for the compliments. I have similar respect for you.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Come on! That is not a definition at all. It is saying "If you are an atheist, then you fit the definition of 'fool'". It is not saying "A fool is someone who (a) is an atheist, or (b) ......, (c)...... ."
Even if it was redefining the word, it would be guilty of deliberately trying to pass off the old definition onto the new one (a popular practice amon ...[text shortened]... ou and I talk.
Kelly
Thanks for the compliments. I have similar respect for you.[/b]

"Here, I agree with you. If you show that your statement is intended to be an accurate description and it is not intended with malice, then it is not an insult."

I don't see why you'd say it is okay to take scripture on its word in one case and
not the other. As I see it we are told that everyone will stand before God without
excuse. Now you can disagree with me on any topic for any reason you'd like;
however, I don't think you'll have that same ability standing before God. Everything
will be clearly seen, including our rejection of that which we know is true.
Kelly


Romans 1:18-23
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that
which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto
them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly
seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and
Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God,
they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their
imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be
wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an
image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and
creeping things.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't see why you'd say it is okay to take scripture on its word in one case and
not the other.

I do not 'take scripture on its word'. I accept that scripture honestly believes me to be a 'sinner' (as do you) and am even willing to accept the description to be accurate as I realize that 'sin' is a somewhat flexible word that could be defined as 'that which the speaker believes to be wrong' or 'that which is wrong according to God'.
(Of course I do not believe myself to be a sinner, because I do not believe in the existence of God.)

Similarly, the writer in the Bible may honestly have believed atheists to be fools. But in this case I do not think there is any reasonable argument to support it being an accurate description and I would not use the label on myself.
The writer may however have intended it as an insult, or he may have intended it as a caution to theists or theist leaning agnostics (more likely) - and this apparently is what RJHinds was going for. Not so much 'your a fool' but more of 'you'd be a fool to ...'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I do not 'take scripture on its word'. I accept that scripture honestly believes me to be a 'sinner' (as do you) and am even willing to accept the description to be accurate as I realize that 'sin' is a somewhat flexible word that could be defined as 'that which the speaker believes to be wrong' or 'that which is wrong according to God'.
(Of course I do ...[text shortened]... ds was going for. Not so much 'your a fool' but more of 'you'd be a fool to ...'.

" 'you'd be a fool to ...'"

I can see that, I accept to mean that God has revealed Himself to everyone and
those that reject Him as being real have done so inspite of what truth has been
revealed to them thus turning away from reality.
Kelly

Originally posted by RBHILL
If there is no God then it is still arrogant to think we came from apes.
The Bible says you are a fool for not believing in God. You are stereotyping the word fool if you say you are not one.

“...If there is no God then it is STILL arrogant to think we came from apes. ...” (my emphasis)

why on earth would it be “arrogant” to think we came from apes?
None-human apes are not god-like nor even anything like as intelligent as humans.
How is it NOT arrogant to think that you are so important or special as to attract the interests of a god and to think the Earth and the entire universe was all created by a god for our benefit?

“...The Bible says you are a fool for not believing in God. ,,,”

then the Bible is wrong -no surprises there 😛
Given that you are a theist, it is quite arrogant for you to believe that any non-theist is a fool.
How can it be NOT arrogant to believe that anyone that doesn’t share you beliefs is a fool?
I Certainly don’t believe that all theists are fools!

Originally posted by KellyJay
" 'you'd be a fool to ...'"

I can see that, I accept to mean that God has revealed Himself to everyone and
those that reject Him as being real have done so inspite of what truth has been
revealed to them thus turning away from reality.
Kelly

I am not entirely clear about what you are saying, but for my part, I believe there is no God based on a rational analysis of the evidence available to me. I do not believe that 'fool' or 'foolish' is appropriate. They imply lack of intelligence or wisdom, neither of which I am particularly lacking in. I may be lacking information that would lead me to a different conclusion, but that could hardly be my fault (thus the label is not justified).

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not entirely clear about what you are saying, but for my part, I believe there is no God based on a rational analysis of the evidence available to me. I do not believe that 'fool' or 'foolish' is appropriate. They imply lack of intelligence or wisdom, neither of which I am particularly lacking in. I may be lacking information that would lead me to a different conclusion, but that could hardly be my fault (thus the label is not justified).

I believe that was the point, you do not lack this extra knowledge and due to that,
you will be without excuse. I'm not the one you have to deal with in this respect,
I'm simply reading it and accepting that point of view. I believe you would have
an excuse if you were some how denied something that showed you God is real,
but I don't believe that is the case.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe that was the point, you do not lack this extra knowledge and due to that,
you will be without excuse. I'm not the one you have to deal with in this respect,
I'm simply reading it and accepting that point of view. I believe you would have
an excuse if you were some how denied something that showed you God is real,
but I don't believe that is the case.
Kelly

And I believe something similar in the reverse ie I believe you are in full possession of enough knowledge to convince you that God does not exist, but for some reason you choose to ignore that knowledge. But I do not call you a fool for making that decision.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I believe something similar in the reverse ie I believe you are in full possession of enough knowledge to convince you that God does not exist, but for some reason you choose to ignore that knowledge. But I do not call you a fool for making that decision.

No, you have called me other things for not accepting blindly that which you
believe. Either way truth will win out in the end, you may not accept that, but
I do.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, you have called me other things for not accepting blindly that which you
believe. Either way truth will win out in the end, you may not accept that, but
I do.
Kelly

I have never asked you to accept anything blindly.
And, no, truth cannot 'win out' my way so it will only happen if you turn out to be right.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have never asked you to accept anything blindly.
And, no, truth cannot 'win out' my way so it will only happen if you turn out to be right.

You've asked me to accept your assumptions about several topics, and you have
in deed had some things to said about me when I didn't accept them. Truth wins
out because that is the only thing that cuts through the noise of opinion and lies.
With respect to truth cannot win out if your right, it is because as I have pointed
out Ahteism does not offer anything, its whole point is to point to nothing as a
cause and end.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You've asked me to accept your assumptions about several topics, and you have
in deed had some things to said about me when I didn't accept them.

But I have not asked you to accept anything blindly. I have always backed up my claims and asked you to understand them and only accept them once you do.

Truth wins out because that is the only thing that cuts through the noise of opinion and lies.
That just doesn't make any sense to me.

With respect to truth cannot win out if your right, it is because as I have pointed
out Ahteism does not offer anything, its whole point is to point to nothing as a
cause and end.
Thats because atheism isn't a religion, it isn't creed, it isn't trying to offer anything. It is a description for people who don't think there is sufficient reason to believe in the existence of God.
So you are ultimately incorrect so say it has a point.

It is common sense that points to nothing as a cause and an end.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But I have not asked you to accept anything blindly. I have always backed up my claims and asked you to understand them and only accept them once you do.

[b]Truth wins out because that is the only thing that cuts through the noise of opinion and lies.
That just doesn't make any sense to me.

With respect to truth cannot win out if your right so say it has a point.

It is common sense that points to nothing as a cause and an end.e

[/b]We have covered this ground before, do you really want to do it again? You
assume a lot, you assume because you see some process going on now, that
automatically means it has always behaved that way, you assume time, you
assume the odds of something occuring without a plan and purpose just happened,
because you think it may have had a chance to. All of those are reasons for your
beliefs, and reasons I believe you are not standing on very solid ground with
your beliefs. You also insult me by saying if I understood your claims I'd accept
them, while I maintain understanding your claims does not automatically mean
anyone has to accept them, that is also a tad bit arrogant as well if you think
about it.

Truth does not rely on opinion, it does not rely on assumptions, it doesn't rely
on beliefs, it is what it is. Our understanding, our beliefs, our acceptance or
our rejections does not change what is true. If there a judgment coming your
rejection of it will not change it is coming, and if there isn't one, my believing in
it will not make one occur. Truth is reality, our opinion of it can be spot on or not.

My point in this debate is that Atheism has nothing to offer, it defines itself as
a rejection of something. What was the source of all things, nothing, where is
everything going, no where, what do you get if you believe in nothing that you
you don't have if you believe in God, nothing. All you are talking about is you
have a a different point of view which means you already had a point of view it
just is now different. People are always changing their minds about this or that
so nothing new there either, Atheism offers nothing.

Common sense points to nothing as a cause and end? Really, in this life can you
point to anything you know for a fact had nothing as a cause or an end for that
matter?
Kelly