Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


You see? That's what I've been trying to say. You said what I said but in a more technical manner. I love it when you come in and clean house on these threads. God bless you, Bluejay!

reply to post by Locoman8

Thanks Locoman.

Actually as I was reading this thread and I saw you had the closest correct answer up that point compared to everybody else.

Somebody quoted saying the higher the level of knowledge with God's spirit the greater the fall, well it's true, but God does forgive some pretty major sins too. Just look at King David, he was found guilty of Conspiracy of Murder and Adultery two very big sins, and he knew better, he was anointed as King of Israel by God himself. Under God's Mosaic law he should have died for that, as Jesus had not died for our sins yet. God intervened and applied the future ransom to him there and then. It is one of the most amazing accounts of forgiveness in the bible. God can and will forgive murderers and rapists and many other terrible sins, what he can't stand is people being like the Devil, they absolutely know with no doubt that God exists and what his purpose is, but are actively fighting against him as rebels because they know what God's purpose is, and reject his sovereignty over them and this planet.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


...evolution doesn't contradict Christianity. The majority of worldwide Christians accept scientific fact in this matter, but that's a topic for a different thread.

Secondly, I started out as a Christian because I happened to be born into a Christian family. Now I am an atheist. I have only been an atheist for a bit over 6 years. Never returned to Christianity in that time. I spent the nearly 16 years before that believing in Yahweh and Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

But the problem is that your statements say nothing about me. I don't know in my heart that there is a deity, and my heart breaks a little every time that I hear someone says that I do.

I am an 'apostate', I turned away from a religion. And I actively seek to help others who wish to do so. But I haven't turned my back on something that isn't there. Now, you may claim that I'm turning my back on god, but I'm an atheist, so there's nothing for me to turn my back on.

reply to post by truthiron


I contend on the subject, but I'm severely doubtful that any religious claim is true. I don't even engage on people for my sake, I do it for the sake of others who I think are wrong. Like you.

Here is the category of things that I think are in the same category:

Leprechauns
Quetzalcoatl
Garage Dragons
Jesus
The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Vishnu
The Invisible Pink Unicorn
Odin
The Celestial Teapot
Yahweh
Garden Faeries
Zeus
Allah
Cthulu
etc


All of those claims hold equal merit because none of them are falsifiable.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


You know, I don't think there is anyone on this planet who really falls into the category of what I'd call an 'oppositional theist'. They believe in a deity that they oppose.

I mean, I grew up being very devout and suddenly I realized that I believed in the God who wasn't there. Might as well have believed there was a Dragon in my garage.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Ex-Christians that converted themselves to atheistic dogma are almost never blasphemers, so don't worry about it. Although they have other issues relating to long term salvation, blasphemy is not one of them.

As to an "oppositional theist" as you call it, they exist, you have just never met one.

James 2:19

You surely believe there is only one God. That's fine. Even demons believe this, and it makes them shake with fear.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Ex-Christians that converted themselves to atheistic dogma are almost never blasphemers, so don't worry about it.

There cannot be 'atheistic dogma', as atheist entails a single rejection of a piece of dogma, the belief in a deity.

1 nonbelief =/= dogma

Although they have other issues relating to long term salvation, blasphemy is not one of them.

Such as?

I do my best to be a good person for the sake of being a good person, I don't expect any sort of reward for it in this life or the next.

As to an "oppositional theist" as you call it, they exist, you have just never met one.

James 2:19

You surely believe there is only one God. That's fine. Even demons believe this, and it makes them shake with fear.

...I'm not going to take a book that is wrong about a lot of things as a good source.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
There cannot be 'atheistic dogma', as atheist entails a single rejection of a piece of dogma, the belief in a deity.

Acceptance and rejection are two poles of the same thing.

Just because atheists reject the existence of a Intelligence(s) that organized the laws that govern the manifestation, sustenance, and de-manifestation of the Cosmos'; doesn't mean that such Intelligence does not exist.

Likewise, just because theists accept the existence of a personal god, doesn't mean that such a god exists.

Therefore both theism and atheism are beliefs, and neither are necessarily facts, as neither can be proven or disproven with the physical senses.

"How Could You Be Anything But Agnostic?"

reply to post by Tamahu


No, that's simply a bald-faced rejection of the rules of logic. You're essentially calling not X the equivalent of X

Non-belief cannot be a belief anymore than not-banana can be a banana.

In logic we have X and not X

A theist believes X, X being that god exists. It is phrased as such: "I do believe god exists"
Atheists reject these notions, thus their position is phrased as such: "I do not believe god exists"

Opposites aren't equivalents. Non-belief isn't belief, just like cold isn't hot, and black isn't white.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

...I'm not going to take a book that is wrong about a lot of things as a good source.

That's the standard line from non-believers, but really you can't expect it to be ignored with a christian as it is the basis of our faith and belief God. Plus how can we even have this discussion on blasphemy without it, it's the bibles point of sinning against the Holy Spirit with blasphemy that makes you ask the question. So if it is such a poor source then why even ask the question, as from your perceptive it's wrong anyway

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Atheists reject these notions, thus their position is phrased as such: "I do not believe god exists"

What you've described above, describes an agnostic more than it does an atheist.

Atheists say: "I believe that God does not exist"(which is different than saying "I do not believe that God exists.")

Agnostics say: "I don't know if God exists or not, therefore I do not believe in God."

Agnostics don't believe anything, in regard to Divinity.

However an atheist is a believer, just as much as a theist; because atheists believe in the non-existence of Divinity.

Agnostics don't accept God(as theists do), nor do agnostics reject God(as atheists do). Although agnostics usually never bother to awaken their Consciousness as to implement their Will-Power in order to find out. (The Gnostics teach that to completely know one's Inner God, one has to practice the science of Meditation in order to go beyond intellect and emotion).

Now let me say, that atheists can also say: "I do not believe that God exists"; however, atheists also have to say: "I believe that God does not exist." If atheists say only the former statement; then they are not atheist, but agnostic. If atheists say either the latter statement only, or both statements, then they are atheist. Although, while agnostics can say: "I do not believe that exists", agnostics also have to say: "I do not believe that God does not exist".

Because if one says: "I believe that God does not exist", then by default that one can also say: "I do not believe that God exists". So atheists both believe(by rejecting the existence of God) and disbelieve(by not accepting the existence of God) at the same time, whereas agnostics simply do not believe.

Anyhow, it seems that the focal point of our debate rests on the difference between saying: (Atheist):"I believe that God does not exist" versus: (Agnostic):"I do not believe that God exists".

Atheists believe in the absence of Divinity; whereas agnostics don't believe either way, in regard to the absence of Divinity or the presence of Divinity.

To accept the existence of God without knowing, is a belief. To affirm the absence of God without knowing, is also a belief. To admit that one doesn't know either way, is non-belief.

reply to post by Tamahu


I like your logic, it is objectively assess the state of all three categories.
It's rare to meet a true to the core of their soul atheist, what was the old saying there are no atheists fox holes.
Most atheists are actually agnostics like you say. Atheists and agnostics are around for three major reason.

1)They perceive God isn't doing anything to help humanity, so they doubt/know he does not exist.
2)Historical evils and hypocrisy in organized religion.
3)Belief in Evolution.

"for the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is Eternal Life"

"while we were sinners Christ died for us"

basically sin leads to death but Jesus came into this world and lived a perfect life, and yet he was still crucified. he paid the price for yours and my sin. SO basically all you have to do is accept God, these are the basic teachings of Christianity. If you have any more questions please feel free to message me. I'll be praying for you

reply to post by Tamahu

Originally posted by Tamahu
Although, while agnostics can say: "I do not believe that exists", agnostics also have to say: "I do not believe that God does not exist".

Typo. I meant to say:

Although, while agnostics can say: "I do not believe that God exists", agnostics also have to say: "I do not believe that God does not exist".

Originally posted by Tamahu

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Atheists reject these notions, thus their position is phrased as such: "I do not believe god exists"

What you've described above, describes an agnostic more than it does an atheist.

No, it is an atheist. Atheism is a lack of belief, not a positive position.

Atheists say: "I believe that God does not exist"(which is different than saying "I do not believe that God exists.")

No, that would no be atheism, that would be oppositional theism.

Agnostics say: "I don't know if God exists or not, therefore I do not believe in God."

I do no know if Invisible Pink Unicorns exist either, but I do not believe in them. I do not believe in anything without valid proof.

Atheism = no belief.

Agnostics don't believe anything, in regard to Divinity.

And neither do atheists. In fact, there is debate in the non-believer community about the semantics of it. Some people argue that atheism is just agnosticism writ strong while others say that agnosticism is atheism writ polite.

However an atheist is a believer, just as much as a theist; because atheists believe in the non-existence of
Divinity.

Nope. Simply redefining things doesn't make it true.

Agnostics don't accept God(as theists do), nor do agnostics reject God(as atheists do).

Atheists do not reject "God". Atheists instead do not believe in aforementioned being.

Although agnostics usually never bother to awaken their Consciousness as to implement their Will-Power in order to find out. (The Gnostics teach that to completely know one's Inner God, one has to practice the science of Meditation in order to go beyond intellect and emotion).

...meditation is not a science. Please do not besmirch the good name of science that gave us the computers we are using.

Now let me say, that atheists can also say: "I do not believe that God exists"; however, atheists also have to say: "I believe that God does not exist."

Again, no they do not.

This shows the complete lack of understanding of formal logic that most people have. I'm frankly confused as to why it isn't taught in grade schools around the world.

You have a positive statement: "I believe in God", let's call this statement 1
You have a negative statement: "I don't believe in God", let's call this statement 2
You have an indifferent/neutral statement: "I don't know", let's call this statement 3
You have another indifferent/neutral statement: "I don't care", let's call this statement 4

Statement 1 is theism
Statement 2 is atheism
Statement 3 is agnosticism, which is compatible with both 1 and 2. You can believe in God and admit you're not sure and you can not believe in God and admit that you're not sure.
I am a statement 3 + 2 person. I know you can never be logically certain on the issue, but I will take the null position until there is enough evidence for any statement.

Statement 4 is the closest you get to actual agnosticism on its own.

If atheists say only the former statement; then they are not atheist, but agnostic.

The problem is that you're not actually demonstrating this, you're simply stating it. Unfortunately, this is a problem that is rampant throughout ATS, the lack of understanding that you have to back up your claims iwth reasoning or evidence.

If atheists say either the latter statement only, or both statements, then they are atheist. Although, while agnostics can say: "I do not believe that exists", agnostics also have to say: "I do not believe that God does not exist".

...yep, definitely not studied formal logic.
"I do not believe that God does not exist" = "God may exist", which shows that it is not a position based upon belief but certainty.

Atheism/theism are two positions on the same issue.
Agnosticism/gnosticism are two positions on any issue.

I am an agnostic atheist, I leave open the possibility that I am wrong, but I do not believe in a deity, though I am open to allowing proof.

Because if one says: "I believe that God does not exist", then by default that one can also say: "I do not believe that God exists".

But nobody really says "I believe that God does not exist" unless they're unfamiliar with the formal logic of it.

You cannot have a positive belief about a negative position, it is logically contradictory.

So atheists both believe(by rejecting the existence of God) and disbelieve(by not accepting the existence of God) at the same time, whereas agnostics simply do not believe.

No, that is again false. Atheists cannot believe, they disbelieve. Agnostics do not know
Agnosticism, if broken down into its root words, comes from "to know" why theism vs atheism is based on belief.

Anyhow, it seems that the focal point of our debate rests on the difference between saying: (Atheist):"I believe that God does not exist" versus: (Agnostic):"I do not believe that God exists".

Nobody can make a positive belief out of a negative claim.

Atheists believe in the absence of Divinity; whereas agnostics don't believe either way, in regard to the absence of Divinity or the presence of Divinity.

No, atheists disbelieve in the existence of any deity.

To accept the existence of God without knowing, is a belief. To affirm the absence of God without knowing, is also a belief. To admit that one doesn't know either way, is non-belief.

You cannot affirm a negative claim.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Tamahu

 

I like your logic, it is objectively assess the state of all three categories.

I knew you would like a lack of formal reasoning or evidence.

It's rare to meet a true to the core of their soul atheist, what was the old saying there are no atheists fox holes.

Except Pat Tillman and countless others...

Most atheists are actually agnostics like you say. Atheists and agnostics are around for three major reason.

Nope, most atheists are 'agnostic atheists'.
Richard Dawkins came up with a lovely way of putting it. There's a scale from 1 - 7, where 1 is "I am absolutely certain that a deity exists" and there is 7 which is "I am absolutely certain in my disbelief of deities". Very few people are hard 7s, though many are hard 1s.

I am a 6, which is "I really don't see any evidence for a deity at all, nor do I think that the evidence is ever going to present itself, but I cannot be logically certain of my disbelief in a deity"

Tamahu's post was basically a three sided false dilemma.

And now you repeat claims I've already demolished, a habit of yours:

1)They perceive God isn't doing anything to help humanity, so they doubt/know he does not exist.

Nope, I still reject deism, which is the position that a deity existed to start things off and buggered off.
If a deity existed, I'm not so egocentric as to think aforementioned being would be too bothered with humanity.

2)Historical evils and hypocrisy in organized religion.

No, that would simply be an issue with belonging to an organized religion, not with accepting or rejecting the claim of a deity.

3)Belief in Evolution.

Has absolutely nothing to do with theism. One of the biggest defenders of evolutionary biology is a theist, Dr. Ken Miller. One of the most prominent paleontologists (who was the guy who first put forth the idea of dinosaurs as warm blooded creatures) both accepts evolution and is a pentecostal minister.

Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with religion. It has about as much to do with religion as a ham sandwich, possibly less.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with religion. It has about as much to do with religion as a ham sandwich, possibly less.

Should have said "lettuce and tomato" sandwich to avoid pulling in Jewish and Muslim dietary law, lol.

However, I agree that evolution and religion are not necessarily incompatible, even for the fundamentalist, who can likely accept the notion of evolution, as it is observed today, but reject the notion that human beings evolved (time factor, if nothing else.) I am not a fundamentalist, though, so I personally see no issue with any aspect of evolution thus presented.

Considering that God can do whatever he wants, and knows the outcome of what he does before he does it, declaring that he couldn't have used evolution to build the world and everything in it (including you and I) is an unnecessary limitation that man is applying to God.

My years of study, both theological and scientific, have led me, and I think would lead anyone, to the conclusion that God is a heck of a lot more complex than anyone gives him credit for. We may prefer a "simple" God, who snaps his fingers and magic happens, but that does not make it his true nature.