How do you feel about atheists?

[Faithdancer]

Back to the original question: I feel utterly unswayed by their “debating” which as we’ve seen time and again here, depend upon circular reasoning, transparent and clumsy sophistry, straw man arguments, and baiting. Atheists claim to come here seeking knowledge about the faith, yet few ask questions about the faith, only attack it based on their incredible misconceptions about it. Many demand empirical proof of the existence of a being who, by His very nature, is not subject to empirical proving. Ironically, though God is above and beyond empiricism, he did inspire it in man, so that man could better understand the *natural * world.

 

[RebeccaJ]

And the poster did not say he hated the sin of atheism but he found atheists “the sinners” revolting.

We are disciples of Christ, called to be as He is. We fail sometimes, if not often, and so you have experienced the evidence of our need for Him.

 

[Faithdancer]

And the poster did not say he hated the sin of atheism but he found atheists “the sinners” revolting.

Then you’ll have to take it up with him, since you are unwilling to concede that he may have not stated his meaning clearly.

 

[Faithdancer]

We are disciples of Christ, called to be as He is. We fail sometimes, if not often, and so you have experienced the evidence of our need for Him.

:clapping:

 

[MrEmpiricism]

Back to the original question: I feel utterly unswayed by their “debating” which as we’ve seen time and again here, depend upon circular reasoning, transparent and clumsy sophistry, straw man arguments, and baiting. Atheists claim to come here seeking knowledge about the faith, yet few ask questions about the faith, only attack it based on their incredible misconceptions about it. Many demand empirical proof of the existence of a being who, by His very nature, is not subject to empirical proving. Ironically, though God is above and beyond empiricism, he did inspire it in man, so that man could better understand the *natural * world.

I feel utterly unswayed by their “debating” which as we’ve seen time and again here, depend upon circular reasoning, transparent and clumsy sophistry, straw man arguments, and baiting.

You HAVE to be trolling???

*Theists claim there is a god…

Atheists do not accept that claim because theists have no evidence to support the claim…

Therefore, atheists do not accept the claim.*

Now please point out the “circular reasoning, transparent and clumsy sophistry, straw man arguments, and baiting”.

 

[josie_L]

And the poster did not say he hated the sin of atheism but he found atheists “the sinners” revolting.

Are you referring to this poster:

I really dislike atheists in almost all their manifestations
I find them rather simplistic but arrogant in their own intellectual desert
They seem to all have read one book The God Delusion by Dorkins
They continually appeal to authority in a fan boy style
Dorking said this and Dorkins said this
I find it very difficult to love them in a Christian way

He was relaying his own feelings rather than the actual teachings of Christ, which would make this anecdotal, and therefore, not admissible as evidence.

 

[Faithdancer]

My opinion is because they are not comfortable in their nonbelief. They feel if they can tear down others beliefs that somehow validates their nonbelief

I think many here have come to the same conclusion and that is why we tolerate all the attacks. They desperately want and need the healing Christ gives, but pride stands in the way. Even as Christians we frequently let our pride get in the way of Christ’s love, eh? I sure do.

One of the great paradoxes of faith is that there is freedom in the surrendering. Surrendering the illusion of control, surrendering pride, surrendering one’s life and destiny. Deo gratias!

 

[MrEmpiricism]

Are you referring to this poster:

He was relaying his own feelings rather than the actual teachings of Christ, which would make this anecdotal, and therefore not evidence of truth.

No this poster…

“With sets groups, though, there is always an personal undercurrent of** revulsion for me, because these are people **who have willingly rejected God”

 

[RebeccaJ]

Are you referring to this poster:

He was relaying his own feelings rather than the actual teachings of Christ, which would make this anecdotal, and therefore not evidence of truth.

Sometimes the evidence of our need for a Savior is hard to miss. The poster himself said he knew His feelings were not Christlike. It’s good evidence for Truth, which is for us a Person, Jesus Christ. He is the object of our Truth, our Faith.

I don’t now where Mr.E stands, but most atheists I know do not believe that sin is a reality. There is only good and bad behavior, subjectively defined.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

I think many here have come to the same conclusion and that is why we tolerate all the attacks. They desperately want and need the healing Christ gives, but pride stands in the way. Even as Christians we frequently let our pride get in the way of Christ’s love, eh? I sure do.

One of the great paradoxes of faith is that there is freedom in the surrendering. Surrendering the illusion of control, surrendering pride, surrendering one’s life and destiny. Deo gratias!

Are you for real??? We are on a thread that very title and first post is an attack on atheism. Show me ONE time on this thread where I have attacked anyone personally, where I have mentioned hating or pitying or feeling revolted, where I have said ANYTHING personal about anyone. The ONLY people here tolerating attacks are the atheists!!!

 

[Faithdancer]

I feel utterly unswayed by their “debating” which as we’ve seen time and again here, depend upon circular reasoning, transparent and clumsy sophistry, straw man arguments, and baiting.

You HAVE to be trolling???

*Theists claim there is a god…

Atheists do not accept that claim because theists have no evidence to support the claim…

Therefore, atheists do not accept the claim.*

Now please point out the “circular reasoning, transparent and clumsy sophistry, straw man arguments, and baiting”.

I merely display a general garment. If you claim it is cut to your particular fit, that is your choice.

As far as evidence, again, the only “evidence” atheists will accept is material evidence. This comes from a reductionist-materialist philosophy. God is immaterial, therefore, material evidence is the wrong standard of evidence.

However, there is abundant evidence for a historical Jesus. Jesus did many miracles, which were witnessed by his followers. Many of those followers taught others. Many of those followers were martyred., as were many of those taught by the immediate acquaintances of Jesus, His followers. Will you assert that they died for something they knew was false?

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

The topic, not each other please.

 

[josie_L]

No this poster…

“With sets groups, though, there is always an personal undercurrent of** revulsion for me, because these are people **who have willingly rejected God”

But you’re using anecdotal evidence to prove your point, which you yourself stated we shouldn’t use when trying to decipher the truth, i.e., I don’t doubt what he said was personal (as he himself attests), but it is not based on the teachings of Christ, wherein we are supposed to love the sinner (which is everyone), and not the sin.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

I merely display a general garment. If you claim it is cut to your particular fit, that is your choice.

As far as evidence, again, the only “evidence” atheists will accept is material evidence. This comes from a reductionist-materialist philosophy. God is immaterial, therefore, material evidence is the wrong standard of evidence.

However, there is abundant evidence for a historical Jesus. Jesus did many miracles, which were witnessed by his followers. Many of those followers taught others. Many of those followers were martyred., as were many of those taught by the immediate acquaintances of Jesus, His followers. Will you assert that they died for something they knew was false?

Not at all gravity is not material, the only evidence I will accept it verifiable evidence. I am baffled that anyone would accept evidence that they cannot verify? If one can’t verify it then what is the process of validation it, and if there is no process of validation the how the heck can you know it is valid?

As for historical jesus there is not a single contemporary account of jesus, NOT ONE. And don’t try to hit me with josephus he was not a contemporary.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

Sometimes the evidence of our need for a Savior is hard to miss. The poster himself said he knew His feelings were not Christlike. It’s good evidence for Truth, which is for us a Person, Jesus Christ. He is the object of our Truth, our Faith.

I don’t now where Mr.E stands, but most atheists I know do not believe that sin is a reality. There is only good and bad behavior, subjectively defined.

I do not believe in sin, I do believe that there are objective morals to a degree. The bottom line is god does nothing to further our understanding of morals. Morals can only be understood though evolutionary psychology.

 

[josie_L]

Sometimes the evidence of our need for a Savior is hard to miss. The poster himself said he knew His feelings were not Christlike. It’s good evidence for Truth, which is for us a Person, Jesus Christ. He is the object of our Truth, our Faith.

Yes, he does admit this.

I don’t now where Mr.M stands, but most atheists I know do not believe that sin is a reality. There is only good and bad behavior, subjectively defined.

Because it is a theological term, and since they do not believe in God, the devil, heaven or hell, why would they bother with words like sin?

p.s. What I find odd, is why they can’t believe that there are moral absolutes?

 

[Faithdancer]

Not at all gravity is not material, the only evidence I will accept it verifiable evidence. I am baffled that anyone would accept evidence that they cannot verify? If one can’t verify it then what is the process of validation it, and if there is no process of validation the how the heck can you know it is valid?

As for historical jesus there is not a single contemporary account of jesus, NOT ONE. And don’t try to hit me with josephus he was not a contemporary.

Actually there are two contemporary accounts of Jesus, very widely read. One is called the Gospel of St. Matthew, and the other is called the Gospel of St. John.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

Yes, he does admit this.

Because it is a theological term, and since they do not believe in God, the devil, heaven or hell, why would they bother with words like sin?

p.s. What I find odd, is why they can’t believe that there are moral absolutes?

Moral absolutes are a tricky one. There are certainly moral absolute, but they are situation dependent, but then calls into question if they are absolute. Can you give me an example of something you consider to be a moral absolute?

 

[Faithdancer]

p.s. What I find odd, is why they can’t believe that there are moral absolutes?

This is why the level of public trust in atheists is so low. Without absolute morality, one cannot be trusted to put the good of others (the public) above one’s own personal gain.

 

[josie_L]

As for historical jesus there is not a single contemporary account of jesus, NOT ONE. And don’t try to hit me with josephus he was not a contemporary.

There is no credible historian that I know of who denies the existence of Jesus, and if one goes by your understanding of contemporary, than we would have to forsake all ancient historical figures including those who preceded Jesus as real, i.e., many biographies and/or historical accounts were not written within the same time frame as the events or people that they were writing about.