47 replies to this topic

[Loungehead]

I think you have an accurate point. I believe the spiritual battle is genuine and these statements made by atheists carry great weight from the perspective of commitment and the end result could be the real denial of the Holy Spirit that the Bible warns about.

I hadn't really considered the commitment it signals.

But if it were, as you say, a genuine spiritual battle, I don't really see a difference between stating non-belief and thinking non-belief. Presently, I have no desire to take the Blasphemy Challenge, but in my own dealings with people I inform them of my lack of belief, if important to the situation. For example, I selected "Atheist" in my identity when joining this forum, which might be seen as a commitment to the exact statements made in the Blasphemy Challenge, given that I share a general lack of belief, even though I haven't participated or stated the specific non-beliefs to a wide audience.

Can you elaborate on what the Bible warns, please?

[ikester7579]

The Bible says that blaspheming God or Jesus is forgivable, but to blaspheme the Holy Ghost is not forgivable.

Luke 12:10 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.

The difference between the Holy Spirit and the Holy Ghost is that the Holy Spirit is of God the Father (old covenant). The Holy Ghost is of Christ the Son of God (the new covenant).

But here is the deal on this where the blasphemy challenge to do this sin gets it wrong.

1) If a unsaved sinner can commit a sin that allows him to be eternally damned before he gets saved. Then that shows that sin itself is stronger than the shed blood of Christ. Which makes Satan more powerful. So that does not work.
2) The unsaved sinner is already headed for eternal damnation, so does blasphemy make him double damned? It sounds funny, but that is what it would be like if this were possible by the unsaved.

So you see it denies the power of Christ to forgive "all" sins so that the unsaved sinner can be saved. So the warning is actually to the saved.

Example: If a unsaved sinner goes to church, and goes forward to receive salvation. How would it make logical sense Biblically for the pastor to say: I know you have taken the blasphemy challenge. Because you told me that you did. Because of this salvation is denied unto you because your sin is stronger than the shed blood of Christ.

See how wrong that sounds? So the deception here is a deception within itself. Because if you believe the lie that you are locked into damnation because of what was done. Then the lie itself dams you because you will figure you can never be forgiven.

2thess 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

So basically, the Blasphemy challenge is a double deception. One where if you don't know the word and the power of Christ. Then some will believe the lie and by the actions of it. Be damned for being willingly ignorant. Because how many people will take their word for what they claim will happen to them through this sin, but never look to see the truth about it?

Basically, they are willingly damned because they choose to be willingly ignorant. So it's not the sin that is damming them. It's the belief in the power of that sin to deny salvation to those whom have not received it.

mk 3:28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:

sons of men = unsaved sinners.

mk 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.

To be in "danger" of eternal damnation means the saved. Why? The unsaved are already damned so the danger of it is already a factor in their life. But the saved do not have that same factor of being damned, so this sin puts them in "danger" of being damned.

Example: Do you tell a person who has aids that they are in "danger" of getting aids?

So the word "danger" reveals to whom this warning goes out to.

[Arch]

So you've accepted the challenge?

I'm not sure what you're asking, or what you think I was saying.

I didn't bother to watch any of the videos. I was put off by the thought of watching people swearing and taking God's name in vain. Just didn't appeal to me.

But if Loungehead is right, that's not what I would have seen. I didn't mean anything by my statement.

Regards,

Arch.

[Loungehead]

Thanks for explaining, Ikester. Much appreciated.

[Ron]

I hadn't really considered the commitment it signals.

But if it were, as you say, a genuine spiritual battle, I don't really see a difference between stating non-belief and thinking non-belief.  Presently, I have no desire to take the Blasphemy Challenge, but in my own dealings with people I inform them of my lack of belief, if important to the situation.  For example, I selected "Atheist" in my identity when joining this forum, which might be seen as a commitment to the exact statements made in the Blasphemy Challenge, given that I share a general lack of belief, even though I haven't participated or stated the specific non-beliefs to a wide audience.

Can you elaborate on what the Bible warns, please?

Non-belief is a misnomer. It is, in fact, a belief in something. In this case, a belief there is no God (or may not be a God for the agnostic).

[Loungehead]

Non-belief is a misnomer. It is, in fact,  a belief in something. In this case, a belief there is no God (or may not be a God for the agnostic).

You're creating a false dichotomy.

I have to know what God is before I can have any belief there is no God. And at the moment all God is to me, is an incoherent concept.

[Ron]

You're creating a false dichotomy.

I have to know what God is before I can have any belief there is no God.  And at the moment all God is to me, is an incoherent concept.

So, you believe there is no God then?

[Loungehead]

So, you believe there is no God then?

Like I said, I would have to know what God is, to know whether I believe there is no such thing or not.

As I stated in the post you commented on; I have no belief in God. Because IMO to say, I believe there is no God, is a different claim.

Firstly I think "I believe there is no God" is a categorical error, because I suspect you are equivocating "belief" with a "faith" there is no God. In my view, I could only say I believe there is no god, if I had a justification for believing there is no God.

And as I do not know what God is, because I find the concept incoherent, I cannot justify any belief there is no God. And I'm certainly not going to believe there is no God, on faith!!

So, I do not believe there is a God. Because I do not know what it is I would believe - if I were to believe there was no God. Therefore, I have no belief on the issue.

[Ron]

Like I said, I would have to know what God is, to know whether I believe there is no such thing or not. 

As I stated in the post you commented on; I have no belief in God.  Because IMO to say, I believe there is no God, is a different claim. 

Firstly I think "I believe there is no God" is a categorical error, because I suspect you are equivocating "belief" with a "faith" there is no God.  In my view, I could only say I believe there is no god, if I had a justification for believing there is no God. 

And as I do not know what God is, because I find the concept incoherent, I cannot justify any belief there is no God.  And I'm certainly not going to believe there is no God, on faith!!

So, I do not believe there is a God.  Because I do not know what it is I would believe - if I were to believe there was no God.  Therefore, I have no belief on the issue.

First, you need to look up the definitions of belief and faith if you are going to equivocate between the two.

Second, there are an abundant amount of definitions for God (not god or gods). You know exactly who I am talking about whether you care to admit that or not. This is another equivocation on your part to squirm out of admitting that you believe He does not exist. Which, of course, is still a belief.

Third, once you come face to face with your equivocation about your belief in “non-belief” (which, by the way, is still a belief) and the faith you have in your non-belief, you’ll be a step closer to having an honest conversation about the subject.



First, you need to look up the definitions of belief and faith if you are going to equivocate between the two.

Second, there are an abundant amount of definitions for God (not god or gods). You know exactly who I am talking about whether you care to admit that or not. This is another equivocation on your part to squirm out of admitting that you believe He does not exist. Wich, of course, is still a belief.

Third, you need to look up the definitions for "belief" and "faith"

[Loungehead]

I don't think "belief" and "faith" mean the same thing, so I'm not equivocating. If you read my post you would have seen, for me, to have a belief I need to justify it.

Recall what I said, "In my view, I could only say I believe there is no god, if I had a justification for believing there is no God." In short I am saying I need to justify the belief there is no God, in order to have it. But I know a belief in God generallly requires faith. So the claim "I believe in God" is generally a faith based claim. I do not have faith, thus cannot have a belief either way on that subject, given that beliefs about God require faith.

So clearly I am not equivocating, but I suspect you may be when you create the false dichotomy ("I believe there is no God", is the only alternative to "I believe there is a God")

And the fact everything seems to be equivocation to you, I can no longer take you accusations seriously.

Also, I've explained to you that I find God to be an incoherent concept. And you have yourself admitted there are an abundant amount of definitions. Yet, you want to insist I know "who" or what we are talking about.

You might want to consider going to the Testimonies Forum and reading my testimony. The only God can imagine is one of two possibilities; one that I have no idea and understanding about, or the one that appeals to my sense of what I would like God to be (which is really just my personal version and would not be the same as yours). So "who" or what ever I am talking about, as far as I'm concerned is something of my imagination. Therefore, I do not believe there is a God, because I do not know what it would mean to believe there is a God. For me to believe there is no God, I would have to know what it is I am denying. Do I deny God? No. I simply do not waste time contemplating whether there is a God or not, hence the non-belief.

And this is not squirming as you rudely put it. I simply do not have a belief that any assent or dissent can be attributed too, because I do not understand what it is to believe.

[scott]

So Loungehead... you claim to be a liar then???

Because we know that you know that the belief in God, and Creation exist. We know that you know that our beliefs exist. You know they exist, therefore you deny them, because you don't see any evidence for it.

Yes, you do deny God, because you do not believe in God. I have justification for my belief and faith in God. Do you really really really think we accept without thinking??? Or is your logic just flawed? You know exactly what your denying.

You don't see evidence for any religion in the world... therefore you deny them all. I deny that the Tooth fairy exist, and you deny that God exist... You know God is exactly what your denying... so just stop beating around the bush.

If I deny that the Tooth Fairy exist, it doesn't mean that the Tooth Fairy really has to exist for me to deny that the Tooth Fairy exist. In other words just say what you mean, and be done with it.

[Loungehead]

We know that you know that our beliefs exist. You know they exist, therefore you deny them, because you don't see any evidence for it.

I do not deny you have your beliefs. Let's keep some perspective here.

This conversation is about whether there is such thing as non-belief. Ron claims this is a misnomer. He thinks I believe there is no God.

The fact of the matter is, I haven't completely ruled God out, so his assertion is clearly wrong. I have unfortunately lost my faith. I have not replaced it with another belief, as you and Ron wish to believe, I simply lack a belief in God.

Yes, you do deny God, because you do not believe in God.  I have justification for my belief and faith in God.  Do you really really really think we accept without thinking???  Or is your logic just flawed? You know exactly what your denying.

I do not deny there is a God. Where have I said, I know or believe there is no God. There is a difference between not believing something and believing otherwise. I am of the former.

1. I believe there is God
2. I do not believe there is God
3. I believe there is no God

Each of those statements say something different. Please stop equivocating.

You don't see evidence for any religion in the world... therefore you deny them all.  I deny that the Tooth fairy exist, and you deny that God exist... You know God is exactly what your denying... so just stop beating around the bush.

You're being highly presumptious. There is plenty of evidence religion exists, so I can hardly deny them; Buddhism, Islam, or Hinduism.

I do not know all of their beliefs, so I definitely do not share any of their beliefs. So, obviously I do not believe whatever it is they believe. That is different from denying the object of their belief.

If I deny that the Tooth Fairy exist, it doesn't mean that the Tooth Fairy really has to exist for me to deny that the Tooth Fairy exist.  In other words just say what you mean, and be done with it.

Please answer this....Do you the believe in Ba'al? Or do you believe there is no Ba'al?

[scott]

I do believe that non-belief and denying mean the same thing.

I looked in the Webster dictionary for the defnition of Deny, and here is what I got: to declare untrue, 2 to refuse to recognize or acknowledge, 3 to refuse to grant ( a request) 4 to reject as false ( a theory)

So do you believe in the God of the Bible... or do you reject God as False based upon what evidence you see before you now or not??? If you are undecided then you will need to state yourself as being an agnostic, and not an atheist.

I deny the existance of Baal, or I do not believe in Baal.... same thing. I reject Baal as false.

[Loungehead]

I do believe that non-belief and denying mean the same thing.

We will just have to agree to disagree then. To continue would be wasting each others time.

I looked in the Webster dictionary for the defnition of Deny, and here is what I got: to declare untrue, 2 to refuse to recognize or acknowledge, 3 to refuse to grant ( a request) 4 to reject as false ( a theory)

This is a discussion about God as something that exists; not God as a theory. So your choice of meaning is wrong.

And as I said, I find the God Theory incoherent, which is why I do not believe in God. So it is the theory I reject, not God's existence.

[Ron]

We will just have to agree to disagree then.  To continue would be wasting each others time.

This is a discussion about God as something that exists; not God as a theory.  So your choice of meaning is wrong.

And as I said, I find the God Theory incoherent, which is why I do not believe in God.  So it is the theory I reject, not God's existence.

So, God exists then? I mean, since you don't reject God, He must exist for you then... Right??!???!

[Loungehead]

So, God exists then? I mean, since you don't reject God, He must exist for you then... Right??!???!

No. I do not reject the existence (of whatever God means), nor do I embrace the existence. God is a non-issue for me. I'm not even agnostic about it, because God does not mean anything to me. I cannot consider God's existence or non-existence because I do not know what it means for God to exist.

The only way you will be able to understand my position is if you first tell me what you think God is, because it probably differs from my understanding.

I was going to explain my position to you in terms of not knowing what it means for something to exist beyond the universe, but I'm not sure if your version of God exists in that way. So to avoid an unnecessary debate about my claims about God or the characteristics of God, its easier for you just to say what God means to you.

I think you'll find our concepts of God are so different that we aren't even talking about the same thing. So for me to say "I believe there is no God" is only believing there is no God as I understand God. That does not mean God does not exist, does it? So really "I do not believe God exists" because I do not know what it means for God to exist, to make any claim there is no God.

[Ron]

No.  I do not reject the existence (of whatever God means), nor do I embrace the existence.  God is a non-issue for me.  I'm not even agnostic about it, because God does not mean anything to me. I cannot consider God's existence or non-existence because I do not know what it means for God to exist. 

The only way you will be able to understand my position is if you first tell me what you think God is, because it probably differs from my understanding.

I was going to explain my position to you in terms of not knowing what it means for something to exist beyond the universe, but I'm not sure if your version of God exists in that way.  So to avoid an unnecessary debate about my claims about God or the characteristics of God, its easier for you just to say what God means to you.

I think you'll find our concepts of God are so different that we aren't even talking about the same thing.  So for me to say "I believe there is no God" is only believing there is no God as I understand God.  That does not mean God does not exist, does it?  So really "I do not believe God exists" because I do not know what it means for God to exist, to make any claim there is no God.

WOW, now that's circular

I'll try to get back to this later because I don’t have time right now. But, it sounds like you're so confused that you're trying to convince yourself of what you’re saying. And, I'm not trying to be mean (or argumentative), I'm just expressing what I'm reading from you.

Also, don’t attempt to paint me as dense, I currently have two degrees, and am aggressively pursuing two more. Further, I’m not saying I’m the sharpest tool in the shed, but I’m far from illiterate and un-read.

[Loungehead]

WOW, now that's circular 

I'll try to get back to this later because I don’t have time right now. But, it sounds like you're so confused that you're trying to convince yourself of what you’re saying. And, I'm not trying to be mean (or argumentative), I'm just expressing what I'm reading from you.

How is it circular? I accept what I describe may be convoluted, but I doing my best to express what its like to be an atheist.

You seem to assume that because you believe there is a God, that any other position is a positive denial. I could provide analogies to show why this is not the case, but I'm not sure you genuinely want to understand. I think you just want to maintain your view that "I believe there is no God". So it would be waste of time for me to go down that path.

I could admit, "I believe there is no jealous and proud of it; petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, blood thirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, H*m*ph*bic, racist, infanticidal, genecidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalonmaniacal, sado-masochistic, capriciously malevalent bully God."

But wouldn't you just deny that is what God is? And if so, what is it that I believe, if "I believe there is no God?" Aren't I merely believing there is no false god, because I have the wrong impression of God?

Even I recognise the limits of my understanding. Why can't you?

As many time as I have to repeat myself, "I DO NOT KNOW WHAT GOD IS, SO AM UNABLE TO FORM ANY BELIEF ABOUT GOD'S EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE."

Also, don’t attempt to paint me as dense, I currently have two degrees, and am aggressively pursuing two more. Further, I’m not saying I’m the sharpest tool in the shed, but I’m far from illiterate and un-read.

Don't bear false witness. If I have painted you in any such way, please point it out, so I can correct myself.

[Adam Nagy]

This article fits perfectly in this thread. A must read:

http://www.jewishwor...bubbleland.php3

[Ron]

This article fits perfectly in this thread. A must read:

http://www.jewishwor...bubbleland.php3