It might seem like I pick on Derek a fair bit. He did piss me off, when he started posting under his full, legal name; but, in the end, I suspected he might be too valuable to run off. I wasn’t wrong. He consistently brings up interesting stuff, and his comments of yesterday are excuse enough for me to segue into a discussion of what I think atheism is, and isn’t.
Derek writes:
I see we are going to be distracted by the meanings of words again. Indeed, atheism is a proposition, or more accurately a set of various independent propositions. One such proposition is the following: “I know that there is no God.” There are others of various formulations, but those that can be distinguished from agnosticism are logically incoherent. Some are outright self-refuting. If you don’t find them to be such, I’ll just leave you to that.
Derek is a computer scientist who is also a Christian priest. For him to have such a shallow understanding of atheism (not to mention of propositional logic) is a bit off-putting. I believe he’s being jocular with this nonsense, but even if that’s true, he’s the best kind of troll.
One might be tempted to see ‘atheism’ as a long set of conjoined propositions, one of which declares that no gods exist. This is not a very coherent definition. For one thing, there exists no accepted definition of “god”. For polytheists, who worship multiple gods (and I count Christians in this category) omniscience and omnipresence are out. Jesus, for example, begged his father to save him from death. Taking the text at face value suggests that while Christians view Jesus as a god, he is less powerful than his father. He also didn’t know, for sure, what was going to transpire the next day. The Christian goddess Mary needed comfort from the angel who announced that she was going to give birth — and rightly so. It probably seemed to that young girl that she was going to be cast out of the tribe as a skank-ho single mom. The Hebrews didn’t go for that shit.
Who is cooler or more powerful: Wotan or Thor? Can Zeus catch Apollo in a foot race? No one knows.
So, given that we can’t really define what a god is, it’s difficult for an atheist to declare that he knows such indefinite characters don’t exist, someplace in the universe. Lots of things might exist: Superman, the present king of France, three-eyed fish in the cooling pond near Springfield’s reactor.
It’s also difficult to pinpoint existence. Does Superman exist? It seems like he doesn’t. Yet, he has a particular set of properties that seem to be true. If I say “Superman wears a cape,” I think that’s right. If I declare that “unicorns have one horn,” that seems to be an analytic truth, even if the signified is empty. A philosopher named Meinong set all this stuff down in a paper, a long time ago, arguing for the existence of every possible object. Well, maybe not existence. Perhaps persistence is the right word.
Linsky and Zalta are a couple of logicians who argue for the possibility of a God who is neither abstract nor concrete. Their paper is dense and technical, but I’ve hosted it locally. It seems to me that one could make the case for the non-existence but possible persistence of such a God. Meillassoux argues for a speculative realism, which allows for the atheist, who is sure that there exists no God, to entertain the possibility that a God might pop into existence, at some point in the future, and start telling us all what’s what. Why couldn’t such things happen? There are no universal laws that declare that the universe needs to suit us.
Now now .. who’s trollin who ..
SMH .. sniff .. I smell a troll.
Now you’re jus’ being silly ..
Jesus Christ is and was real. The others are not and never were. Do I hear you say .. facts not in evidence .. funny you can read the Bible and the Miracles performed and yet .. you don’t believe Jesus when He said He could have legions of angels if He so desired (re: to save Himself)?
He could have freed Himself but .. why not?
Because He knew His purpose and fate .. the cross. Our propitiation.
He didn’t beg to not die .. He willing walked to the cross from day one .. till the fulfillment of scripture. He was easy to find .. He didn’t run off and hide. He behaved as any man would’ve .. He would prefer a different way .. but He followed His Fathers commands. He actually knew what it was like to lose fidelity with The Father while on the cross .. The Father turned his back on His son but for a moment .. Jesus suffered for us all brother. He suffered our death for us .. can you imagine paying for all the past and current sin and all future sin of the elect in one moment .. I can’t imagine paying for my own sin debt. Much less anyone else’s.
Do we have examples of bring someone back to life after death? Yes.
Jesus did .. His Father did .. He (Jesus) knew this .. they are ONE .. so do you really think He was scared and begged to not die?
People can play Atheist all they want .. some of the best and broghtest people I’ve ever known were such .. very bright folks they were .. most kinder than some so-called christians I’ve known. You wouldn’t have known it if they hadn’t talked about it at some point. Heck it’s normally around this time of year. And yes .. atheists play holidays with all the other so-called myth believers. Imagine that.
What you miss is this .. the human condition has a worshipping nature .. those that know God worship Him .. But even non-believers worship .. some are pagans (etc) .. and some worship their own intelligence .. the Bible speaks of them .. but they all worship something. So tbey believe in something .. most of the time it’s in themselves.
I’ve noticed a core-uh-lay-shun with atheists and intelligence .. the smarter you are .. the less likely you believe in God.
Nice try trollin’ us Mr smartypants ..
As for me .. I self-Identify as a God fearing man that is counting on the atonement of Jesus Christ soley as my hope and Savior.
[Also .. even if someone can’t prove God exists .. that doesn’t exclude His Omni-presence and Diety. You can’t prove a negative btw.]
Peace Out
[Yes I’m over simplifying my discussion.]
Which, as we both know, is not really the case. If I can’t hold my own, I deserve to be smacked down.
I once filled out the pre-ordination paperwork with the district office. I never submitted it. That’s how close I was to actually going through with it, following in my father’s footsteps. Instead, I got a family with 5 kids. I also stumbled upon and quite unexpectedly embraced heresy.
I’d say informal rather than jocular. I’ve never been all that funny.
Let me clarify my position for the benefit of readers. Boxer is not wrong that there are coherent definitions of atheism. One can participate in the academic exercise and formulate many definitions. However, the demands of mathematics and philosophy require very high IQs (at least the 1st percentile). The Boxer persona and my real self (along with some readers here) appear to have these qualifications (which I suspect is a reason why Boxer is perplexed with some of my arguments). Now honeycomb comes along and says:
I was not referring to atheism in the formal academic or philosophical sense, nor was I even approaching a refutation of the higher level concepts of atheism. Instead, I was referring to it in the street sense. How does the man on the street, in his practical day-to-day dealings with religion in his life, view atheism in totality? These are the people you meet on Twitter or blogs, at work or the MRI waiting room.
The common atheist holds incoherent views, almost universally. This includes the famous (and highly intelligent) New Atheists like Dawkins who boldly assert logical contradictions with the faith and fervor to rival the most ardent traditional Trinitarian. When I’ve debated such atheists (e.g. Bob Seidensticker) I’ve found the experience to be very disappointing. I have yet to personally run into a single atheist who holds a logically consistent view.
My opinion is thus. Many of these atheists are not actually concerned about the existence of God, per se, or even what the definition of God is. They don’t really want the answers and they really don’t appreciate it if you attempt to give them answers anyway (they don’t consider them to be answers, for one thing). They are more concerned with the human questions (like the problem of evil/suffering). For example, take the common belief “God cannot exist because there is evil and suffering in the world.” Whether God exists or not, they have a problem with evil and suffering. The existence of God is pretty much irrelevant to their underlying purpose.
Boxer’s original questions had a whole host of unstated assumptions. I could not begin to seriously answer those questions without a whole lot of probing. Perhaps I’ll go back and try again.
She’s not a goddess. She is what women were supposed to be before the serpent got involved with Eve. Free from sin and followers of God’s will. In fact Gabriel announcing the message of God’s will is the direct opposite of Satan announcing to Eve to defy God’s will.
A goddess would imply she is or THE creator…she is the receptacle of God’s will.
There’s an interesting metaphysical claim on your blog, to.wit.:
Most priests are part-timers, I’d guess, given that most of them work only a few hours, on Sunday mornings (and perhaps Wednesday nights, too).
At what point does a Christian priest become such? I suspect it’s a little like becoming a university professor. After a year of grad school, one gets asked (told, truth be told) to T.A. some lazybones’ class. Said candidate begins lecturing, and soon finds himself addressed as “professor.” I remember when this happened to me. I thought it was especially laughable when the actual instructor of record addressed me this way. But, really, was she wrong?
You’ve been ministering here on this blog, in a figurative sense, for over a year. You’ve never solicited donations, but otherwise you’ve been filling the role. I don’t think the title is misapplied.
That’s actually a serious problem among brainy Christian theologians. It’s called theodicy.
The fact that you showed up here to argue this proves my point. People who want to talk about atheism need first to define what makes a god.
How do you figure Jesus is a god, and Mary isn’t, incidentally? Could there have been a Jesus without Mary?
I don’t think that your definition is coherent.
I say prayers to Mary. Among the people I pray with, many sincerely believe that she’ll do them favors in return. There are, incidentally, popes who held similar sentiments…
40. Hence the revered Mother of God, from all eternity joined in a hidden way with Jesus Christ in one and the same decree of predestination, immaculate in her conception, a most perfect virgin in her divine motherhood, the noble associate of the divine Redeemer who has won a complete triumph over sin and its consequences, finally obtained, as the supreme culmination of her privileges, that she should be preserved free from the corruption of the tomb and that, like her own Son, having overcome death, she might be taken up body and soul to the glory of heaven where, as Queen, she sits in splendor at the right hand of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus.html
Well, I am addressing this (mostly) to Derek, who has claimed in the past to take the text at face value. If you read it (as I do) as symbolic literature, then you ought to explain what problems you have with my interpretation.
And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
Not only are you wrong, but if you read the text at face value,
If Jesus and God are the same person, who is Jesus addressing as ‘father’ in this verse?
Is Jesus his own father?
Is God his son?
Where does the Holy Spirit figure into all this? Is s/he also the son of the father, or is he the son of the son?
Wouldn’t that make the Holy Spirit the grandson of the father?
I don’t think this is true at all. Look at most of these skank-ho wimminz and male feminists. Where do you see ‘worship’ in the lifestyle of one of these cunts who murders her kids?
I think most people spend as little time as possible on contemplation. That includes the so-called Christians and Jews that I meet on Tinder. I look around at wimminz and male-feminists and see people with no greater awareness than a barnyard animal.
I find humor in the very same text you use to confirm my point un-true to you .. yet for me the opposite is true.
[There are 3 truths .. The Truth .. the Whole truth .. and Nothing But the truth .. in a court of law.]
I mentioned this early in my rebuttal. He was also a man. He’s not asking for the cup to be taken from Him. It is this fidelity with God the Father that He asks this question. We are given a peek inside the man of Jesus. And in the same breath .. He Gladly accepts the Fathers will. Which was the cross. He is merely asking if it is possible to avoid the cross .. knowing full well the Father wishes and thusly accepting His roll as the sacrifice for us all. This doesn’t not rise to the level of “begging” [sic]. He never negotiates a different path. He doesn’t belabor his request .. and it’s not the only time He makes a plea to God only to immediately say .. that the Will of God will be done. This isn’t a stance of begging. It is a stance of a man talking to God and showing His obedience to Him.
Again .. He hasn’t went into hiding or running away from His appointed roll. Sacrifice.
So how am I wrong? Where does He “beg” [sic] to live? He clearly asks if it’s possible .. to which He immediately affirms the orders given by the Father.
The problem we have is you read the Bible as just a book .. and that I read the Bible as the Divinely written Word of GOD. So .. I’ll ask this .. to whom do you think this book applies? The Believer or the Non-Believer?
In a word brother .. Narcissism .. lovers of self .. look at the selfie nation; once just a mirror .. once a perversion; now normal behavior. We are the aberrant (counter) culture (aka the minority).
These folks are worshipping themselves brother .. and they don’t have to give it any more thought than breathing air .. it’s a wickedness that consumes and kills.
Attention Whores (men and women) / Drama Queens are in effect a cancer on our human condition .. but I would also argue .. it’s the base state of mankind .. lovers of self .. What was it that finally got Eve to betray God? What did the serpent persuade her with .. (we know the answer).
Women have been the conduit to filth and deception in worship for as long as recorded time. Does a leopard changes its spots? I’ll wait.
Now you are being silly again.
Jesus never usurped His Fathers place / roll. Even when He fasted and the Devil tempted Him.
So Jesus is the Son. He had perfect fidelity with the Father as well. Jesus was God and Man .. that means He could suffer all the emotions and afflictuons of a man and yet it did not deminish His Godly Authority. He was a man who knew no sin .. how many men can say that? Of course NONE.
So He was God walking in the flesh.
When He spoke to man He spoke with the Authority of God. When He spoke to God (perfect fidelity) He spoke as the son.
The Holy Spirit is here for us to intercede with us and Jesus. The Holy Spirit was given after Jesus’s arising to Heaven.
All three have their roll .. they have an order .. GOD .. JESUS and the Holy Spirit. All three are important.
So no .. The Holy Spirit is not His own Grandpa. heh
I was backup for the lead pastor whenever he was unavailable. I filled in at another church when they were without a pastor. The Church of the Brethren allows lay ministers, but they don’t have full rights of ordination (for example, I couldn’t legally marry anyone).
While you are obviously being critical of lazy priests, every church requires full time staff for a range of functions, including visitations of the sick and home-bound, baptisms, marriages, funerals, preaching, communion, teaching, and one-on-one meetings with parishioners. I recommend this guide as the definitive handbook for Protestant ministry.
Correct. In the priesthood of all believers, any can serve. They need only to receive the call and act upon it. It’s one of those bizarre, ironic, and unexpected life twists that your “heathen” blog attracts Christian priests.
Lol. I don’t want your money.
Indeed. While I can present dozens of arguments from multiple branches in favor of the existence of God and the Christian God specifically, the problem of evil is by far the strongest argument against Christianity. If you look carefully at what I said (most atheists don’t actually care about the existence of God, per se, but about the existence of evil) it also implicitly implicates Christians: they have to answer the problem of evil whether or not God actually exists. It goes both ways.
You must be being somewhat facetious. I take the text seriously. A number of passages and details are symbolic. For example, the census numbers (14,000 fighting men of this or that tribe) and the claims of utter and total destruction of enemies are not to be taken literally (compare to, say, our soccer team completely murdered your soccer team or the complete victory over the Israelites described in the Merneptah Stele). I’ve written elsewhere that it doesn’t necessarily matter if the miracles of Jesus (for example) actually happened precisely as described. That said, I do take the gospel accounts as generally describing real historical events that should be taken at face value, where face value is the proper narrative context.
I acknowledge the difficulties you are pointing out and have thus concluded the obvious: Jesus was not divine. I challenge any Christian to a debate on this topic. The Trinity is so non-intuitive that, without first looking it up the answer, most people cannot even correctly describe the doctrine in a non-heretical fashion, let alone defend it.
This is an argument of equivocation, often found out in the wild in the form of “The Christian God is no different than Zeus, Santa, and the flying spaghetti monster.” The problem isn’t that there exists no accepted definition of god: this is an unremarkable fact. More important is why, out of all the possibilities, should the Christian God be taken seriously? This is a meaningful question with meaningful responses.
Difficult in what way? I think you’ll find that most of us have no difficulty answering that question. Where the problem lies is why you won’t accept those answers. But let’s say that the universality of religion is not about existence but persistence of God. Yes, that’s possible, but is it plausible?
The citation for the claim that most believe in heretical doctrine is here.
Commonly held heresies are illustrated in this satire video.
Most Atheists just want to have lively dicussion and / or split hairs into oblivion and get the discussion so parsed that you get into a loop of gotcha’s that you never said.
Sometimes it’s fun and other times it’s a waste of time. Because they don’t want anything other than debate.
Hence .. why I said this below .. [1]
Once I find out they think the Bible is just a book no different than any other book you do a report on .. I politely skip ahead to the exit. You aren’t changing anyone’s mind (i.e. heart).
I do like discussions of doctrine with Bible believers .. because this is where the fun happens. So much of what people think they know is wrong doctrinally.
And it can be enlightening how hard and fast they believe what they believe. Heretically that is to say.
[1] https://v5k2c2.androsphere.net/2018/11/22/coca-colonialism/#comment-4506
Speaking of Her-e-ticks ..
https://m.france24.com/en/20181127-metoo-era-theologians-publish-womens-bible
They seem nice. HEH
Take my contested comment. I acknowledged that Boxer does not think the Bible is the inspired word of God, so I clearly can’t use it as evidence. Skipping for the exit is often highly recommended at this point, which is perhaps the reason for my “shallow understanding.”
Now, Boxer does have reasonable questions, but it’s reversing cart and horse to discuss those questions prior to establishing what God is and why we should agree that the Christian God exists.[1] For this one necessarily has to reject atheism and agnosticism.[2] I’ve prepared many arguments from various domains (science, history, math, philosophy, etc.) to establish this baseline.[3] If Boxer is interested, I can present them. But if there is no real desire, skipping to the exit is often preferable.
[1] This isn’t the only strategy, but it’s the best one. Once we’ve established that the Christian God exists, the discussion of the problem of evil becomes completely different.
[2] Many skeptics have a problem in that they don’t have a consistent standard for evidence and belief. Many hide the goalposts: I have no idea what Boxer would consider a proper argument to answer his questions.
[3] These are not formal proofs, they are compelling arguments of probability. I don’t believe you can formally prove the existence of God, nor would reasonable persons want or expect that.
Derek ..
Like you .. I like Boxers site a lot because he’s on point with the world we live in today .. he’s a smart and consistent guy .. and he likes reasoned debate .. and he thinks about things in the same way I do (re: skank-hoes) .. [also I appreciate he’s a trollin foolz .. and I can connect with anyone who is a master troller of modern stupidity] ..
On the flip-side he probably thinks we’re a lil looney (re: beliefs) .. but I’m good with that.
Before we go too much further down that rabbit hole…atheists by their very definition don’t even believe a God exists. So how can you define something they already assume is nonexistent? Do atheists believe idolatry is something that exists? Are they completely devoid of worship?
I can reasonably see why agnostics exist, as well as pagans who worship trees or Zeus, I don’t get atheism.
Honeycomb and I have given you some attributes of Gode…the Father in Heaven, the Creator, Christ the Son, the Holy Spirit. You’ve seen the holy sacrifice of the Mass…that’s something Jesus himself said to do in memory of Him.
Mary is a created creature. God has the power to create His own mother.
I got no problem with that…in fact I’d encourage it. The pushback I’m doing is calling her a goddess.
And I’ll take a break from our atheist discussion to remind all just how far this feminist gynocracy goes. I think I remember Boxer posting a video where the guy stated your kids belong to the state if you have the state marry you.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/38728/mom-says-6-year-old-son-transgender-dad-disagrees-amanda-prestigiacomo
‘Mom Says 6-Year-Old Son Is Transgender. Dad Disagrees. Now He Might Lose His Son. ‘
Yes Earl .. that’s a sad story of interference ..
I’m surprised that more wimminz ain’t been gun-shot straight to grave-yard-dead by ex-husbands for crap like this (*in my best southern draw*).
There are no atheists, only different gods.
Most people choose me, myself, and I.
Hey Boxer…you favorite ‘pastor’ is back to her no good hijinks again.
‘Liberal Lutheran pastor to melt purity rings into vagina sculpture to ‘take down’ church teachings about sex’
https://www.christianpost.com/news/liberal-lutheran-pastor-to-melt-purity-rings-into-vagina-sculpture-to-take-down-church-teachings-about-sex.html
You either worship the true God or the golden calf…I mean vagina.
Humor me for a moment if you will and assume that the God of the Jewish and Christian Bible exists. All questions here are rhetorical – meant to stimulate thinking.
1. Hebrews 11:6 says that, without faith, it is impossible to please God.
— Where proof exists, faith is not required.
— Where faith is required, proof cannot exist.
So what’s with all the converstion about proving or disproving that God exists?
2. Hebrews 9″22 says that, without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin.
Sinner comes to God and asks for forgiveness. God responds, I’d like to forgive you, but where is the shed blood that I require? Sinner responds, well, you said that the blood that Jesus shed on the Cross was acceptable to you as the shed blood you need before you can forgive me of my sins. You have learned your catechism well, says God. Go on your way. You are indeed forgiven.
Serious question here, but rhetorical: if the entire point of the Christian life is to hear “enter this day into the joy of the Lord” at the Judgement Table*, and if the transaction in the previous paragraph will make that happen for us, why does the average believer need to know anything more than what is in that previous paragraph?
*I’m ignoring things like “go forth and make disciples of all nations” for the moment, just to make a point.
3. Said the created one to the creator: “I have this list of things here that I need you to be before I can believe that you created me.” I think this one is sufficiently obvious that no comment is necessary – other than to state the obvious: the thing created knows far less that the creator of the thing.
4. This thread, and associated links, is a good discussion.
Update on that female Dallas cop that shot the black guy after she ‘forgot’ which apartment she lived in. She got mansluaghter which is up to 20 years. How many years will the p-pass take off?
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/30/us/dallas-police-officer-botham-jean/index.html
“You either worship the true God or the golden calf”
Turns out the Bible has a translation error after all. It was a Golden Cankle.
Correction to Earl ..
She got Murder charges. Newly elected DA will try case.
Probably no Pu$$y Pa$$ available from a newly elected DA.
We shall see ..
Pro-Tip .. if you are a CCW permit holder .. and you go to choot someone .. you are required to identify the target before the festivities can kick-off. Shooting someone for not following commands (and not agress-ing you) should be murder .. if they are agress-ing you and violating commamds .. then bye-all-mines choot’em.
But a man standing in a dark apartment not coming at you .. and you have a path to retreat (she hadn’t entered the home and the door is still open to egress into the hallway) .. do yourself a favor .. retreat if you can’t id your target ..
If you are already in your home and someone enters un-announced .. still identify your target before you blast th evva livin h3ll outta’em .. no commands required.
She .. in my opinion went to his apt intentionally .. she let her-emotional-hormoned-drunk-self into his unlocked jarred open door apartment .. jaded wimminz with a badge are not your friend!
Second Pro-Tip .. Always keep your door closed and locked!
Dear Richard:
Both of those gods can’t exist simultaneously. They’re completely different characters. The Jewish god is not a human being, with human characteristics. The Christian god is a human being named Jesus.
There are ways around this, but they’re all clumsy. My people attempted to get back to monotheism by making Jesus a non-god, while stating that he’s the best possible human being regardless (I’m sure Joseph Smith and Brigham Young come close to Jesus, in the minds of many Mormons).
Even so, this incoherence is the best argument for atheism.
You mean… a skank-ho wimminz is attention-whoring again? I’m shocked, really. :p
If you’d like to contribute something serious to this discussion, you’d be welcome.
@Boxer said: Both of those gods can.t exist simultaneously. … The Christian god is a human being named Jesus.
Or you could deal on the level of what the New Testament actually says – which is that the Jewish God exists independently outside of the form of Jesus. That which existed in the Old Testament also exists in the New Testament. It is not that this God was transformed between the time of the Old and New Testaments. It is that the entity we know as “Jesus” was added.
Not that this has anything to do with the point I was making. Perhaps I should have started my post by saying “for the sake of my points below, assume that the Old Testament and New Tesament are true. If the Bible is not true, then my points are irrelevant. It the Bible is true, then my points are relevent, but only within the context of what the Bible says.
And, Boxer, like you say – therein lies the rub. None of us have the ability on our own to determine whether the Bible is true or not. This seems to be the point everyone likes to avoid in discussions such as these. If the Bible is true, then it is also true that something outside of ourselves and the natural world is necessary to open our eyes to its truth. I said something about this in the next thread before I came here and created this post.
But it has everything to do with my introduction to the topic, specifically, defining terms like ‘god.’ Your response wasn’t on the topic you responded to, and I was returning.