KnownUnknown:


I don’t have a dog in this fight because I’m neither atheist or theist. That being said, if this buffalo could ask Mr. God a question about his environment, I wonder what it would ask?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kZdO5C-EJA

I’m thinking, “WTF?!!!!”

I guess we speaking about man here not buffalo? Or do we have buffalo theist or Buffalo atheist? I'm thinking too.

LordReed:


Hmmm, that is something I never really considered but based on what I know yes their treatment would be different because the bible calls for people to believe not to know. An Agnostic-theist believes but doesn't claim to know while an Agnostic-atheist doesn't believe or claim to know. From my understanding the Agnostic-theist fulfils the condition of belief so he passes the test.

The bold isn't true.

Faith begins when God's will is made known (knowledge).

Bible teaches, to know and to believe. If Bible is about believing we wont have teachings there. The numbers of teachings in the scriptures are to enormous and that disprove what you wrote.

And hope you know the essence of teaching? It's to deliver knowledge.

hupernikao:


The bold isn't true.

Faith begins when God's will is made known (knowledge).

Bible teaches, to know and to believe. If Bible is about believing we wont have teachings there. The numbers of teachings in the scriptures are to enormous and that disprove what you wrote.

And hope you know the essence of teaching? It's to deliver knowledge.

Did those who didn't have the bible (in the OT) know and believe or they just believed?

hupernikao:


I guess we speaking about man here not buffalo? Or do we have buffalo theist or Buffalo atheist? I'm thinking too.

We have Buffalus Augustus.

KnownUnknown:


We have Buffalus Augustus.

. Okay. I have seen you

LordReed:


Did those who didn't have the bible (in the OT) know and believe or they just believed?

They were taught.

The primary role of a prophet is not as you see it falsely displayed today. Primary role of a prophet is to teach God's word. And you will see that evident in all the OT prophets. They taught so that men will believe.

Moses, is a central example. He was a teacher of the word. His teaching was the basis of every other writings in the Bible. That's to let you know how much he taught.

That is the primary role of a prophet. God's spokesman is to teach oracle of God. Other things are secondary.


So those in the OT were taught and have access to the teaching of God's Word through their prophets.

No one just believe in the bible sense. Believing in itself is a product of knowledge. Knowing who or what you believe.

And faith is a product of faithfulness which in itself comes from a proper knowledge, a knowing of the person or things.

Bible is an embodiment of teaching that provides knowledge of God's faithfulness thereby persuading you to have faith in him.

LordReed:


Did those who didn't have the bible (in the OT) know and believe or they just believed?

Also
Have you considered that the Bible has more instructions in it more than many ancient books of its days. Instructions in their time is the mode of communicating knowledge.

Instruction simple = education + training.

The word used for instruction in the Bible is what is used for teaching and nurturing a child from cradle.

Hence Bible is an embodiment of teaching that provides knowledge of God's faithfulness thereby persuading you to have faith in him.

2 Tim 3:15.
From a child, thou hath known the holy scripture, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation....

LordReed:


Hmmm, that is something I never really considered but based on what I know yes their treatment would be different because the bible calls for people to believe not to know.

A lot of times we use the word FAITH and BELIEVE synonymously even though they mean different things.

Faith is a trust in the integrity of a person. Faith is based on knowing the person on whom you based your trust upon

Believing on the other hand is a conclusion or judgement we make based on an incomplete knowledge/evidence about someone or something.

The connection between believing and faith with respect to a Personality is RELATIONSHIP!

Even when the word Believe is used in the bible, you need to look at the context. Is it a position taken based on a personality or a position based on rationality!

LordReed:

An Agnostic-theist believes but doesn't claim to know while an Agnostic-atheist doesn't believe or claim to know. From my understanding the Agnostic-theist fulfils the condition of belief so he passes the test.

An agnostic-theist doesn't believe anything. He is only being rational. He says "let be join them incase...".

Mat 7:21
"Not every one that said to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father which is in heaven."

Rev 3:15-16:
"I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot: I would you were cold or hot. So then because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth."

hupernikao:

. Okay. I have seen you

Augustus the divine Bull sees all.

TenQ:


An agnostic-theist doesn't believe anything. He is only being rational. He says "let be join them incase...".

How then is he a theist if he doesn't believe?

hupernikao:


They were taught.

The primary role of a prophet is not as you see it falsely displayed today. Primary role of a prophet is to teach God's word. And you will see that evident in all the OT prophets. They taught so that men will believe.

Moses, is a central example. He was a teacher of the word. His teaching was the basis of every other writings in the Bible. That's to let you know how much he taught.

That is the primary role of a prophet. God's spokesman is to teach oracle of God. Other things are secondary.


So those in the OT were taught and have access to the teaching of God's Word through their prophets.

No one just believe in the bible sense. Believing in itself is a product of knowledge. Knowing who or what you believe.

And faith is a product of faithfulness which in itself comes from a proper knowledge, a knowing of the person or things.

Bible is an embodiment of teaching that provides knowledge of God's faithfulness thereby persuading you to have faith in him.

Which prophet taught Noah or Abraham?

hupernikao:


It's likely you just want to firm an argument from this.

Lack of knowledge of God is not same at atheism. Ask an atheist he will tell you or likely refresh what you know about atheism.

Atheism is a rejection not an ignorance. A baby case is not a rejection but ignorance. Except you only want this in a circle, I think it's clear enough.

And mixing religion with a belief is affecting how you see and express your opinion on this issue. Religion and belief isn't same.

I think it's rather you who simply wants to defend your argument even blindly.

If you're taking the first man to be Adam according to the bible, then it's ok to say he was not an atheist cos he had a direct relationship with God.

But if the bible is not the only source of our history, then it's safe to also assume the first man had no prior knowledge of a god hence would have had no belief in God.

Atheism is simply lack of belief in any deity (god).
It has nothing to do with whether you have knowledge of God or not.
Atheism simply means you do not believe in the existence of a God.

Atheism is a state that can be as a result of various factors;

1. Lack of any information or knowledge about a god.
2. Rejection of the information about the existence of a god. (Which is your own definition).
3. Apostasy as a result of losing belief in a god. Etc.

So boxing every atheist as the same is more of a misnomer.

LordReed:


How then is he a theist if he doesn't believe?

Can you please tell me what you think he (the agnostic-theist) truly believes?

He is just a lottery player in a game of chance!

TenQ:

Can you please tell me what you think he (the agnostic-theist) truly believes?

He is just a lottery player in a game of chance!

I think the agnostic theist believes a god exists.

Myer:


I think it's rather you who simply wants to defend your argument even blindly.

If you're taking the first man to be Adam according to the bible, then it's ok to say he was not an atheist cos he had a direct relationship with God.

But if the bible is not the only source of our history, then it's safe to also assume the first man had no prior knowledge of a god hence would have had no belief in God.

Atheism is simply lack of belief in any deity (god).
It has nothing to do with whether you have knowledge of God or not.
Atheism simply means you do not believe in the existence of a God.

Atheism is a state that can be as a result of various factors;

1. Lack of any information or knowledge about a god.
2. Rejection of the information about the existence of a god. (Which is your own definition).
3. Apostasy as a result of losing belief in a god. Etc.

So boxing every atheist as the same is more of a misnomer.

Atheists would like to define atheism as a lack of belief in a deity BUT actually, it is a rejection of the supremacy of any deity.

The lack of information or knowledge about any deity should not be defined as a cause of atheism. This is simply IGNORANCE at its best. Without any information about Santa Claus, there is no opinion, belief or lack of belief I can have about him.

As per rejection of the information about the existence of God OR apostasy, they are still both about REJECTION of a Deity!
1. Rejection of the thought of a supreme being (Blocking of ears). Blocking God at an intellectual level
2. Rejection of the authority of the supreme being. (Rebellion). Blocking God at an emotional level.

A baby has no opinion about the power of electricity. Therefore, he can't be said to lack a belief or not in electricity. A baby probably doesn't have the intellectual capacity to even understand what electricity is in the first place to form any opinion.

An atheist could be likened to a man who never saw the power of electricity BUT was informed that the wires on the pole contained dangerous power that can maim, kill or burn.

The Ordinary Atheist argue the impossibility of ordinary cool, noiseless ordinary metal wires carry such energies.

The Rebellious Atheist seek a complete removal or destruction of such energy carrying wires (usually with an alternative).

The Agnostic-atheist argue the impossibility of an ordinary cool, noiseless ordinary metal wires carry such energies While still profesing his uncertainty

The Agnostic-theist argue the possibility of an ordinary cool, noiseless ordinary metal wires carry such energies While still profesing his uncertainty. It's better to be safe than sorry

The Ordinary Theist argue the possibility of ordinary cold, noiseless, ordinary metal wires carry such energies and thus behave appropriately.

LordReed:


I think the agnostic theist believes a god exists.

Not really.
He says in the case God exists, let me play safe.
If however God doesn't exist, I still have nothing to lose!

He is only trying to logically take a safe position

TenQ:

Not really.
He says in the case God exists, let me play safe.
If however God doesn't exist, I still have nothing to lose!

He is only trying to logically take a safe position

He is a theist, he believes in god.

LordReed:


He is a theist, he believes in god.

Agnostic before theist negates it.

I asked you a question:
What precisely does an agnostic-theist believe in? (I didn't ask what a theist believe in)

TenQ:

Atheists would like to define atheism as a lack of belief in a deity BUT actually, it is a rejection of the supremacy of any deity.

The lack of information or knowledge about any deity should not be defined as a cause of atheism. This is simply IGNORANCE at its best. Without any information about Santa Claus, there is no opinion, belief or lack of belief I can have about him.

As per rejection of the information about the existence of God OR apostasy, they are still both about REJECTION of a Deity!
1. Rejection of the thought of a supreme being (Blocking of ears). Blocking God at an intellectual level
2. Rejection of the authority of the supreme being. (Rebellion). Blocking God at an emotional level.

A baby has no opinion about the power of electricity. Therefore, he can't be said to lack a belief or not in electricity. A baby probably doesn't have the intellectual capacity to even understand what electricity is in the first place to form any opinion.

An atheist could be likened to a man who never saw the power of electricity BUT was informed that the wires on the pole contained dangerous power that can maim, kill or burn.

The Ordinary Atheist argue the impossibility of ordinary cool, noiseless ordinary metal wires carry such energies.

The Rebellious Atheist seek a complete removal or destruction of such energy carrying wires (usually with an alternative).

The Agnostic-atheist argue the impossibility of an ordinary cool, noiseless ordinary metal wires carry such energies While still profesing his uncertainty

The Agnostic-atheist argue the possibility of an ordinary cool, noiseless ordinary metal wires carry such energies While still profesing his uncertainty. It's better to be safe than sorry

The Ordinary Theist argue the possibility of ordinary cold, noiseless, ordinary metal wires carry such energies and thus behave appropriately.

An atheist did not define the word ATHEISM.
Atheism and Atheist are smply english words defined below;

As I said,there are different ways to be an atheist;
1. Not having any information about a god (deity) and hence not believing in the existence of a god.
2. Rejecting the belief of a god.
3. Apostasy which is also rejection of the belief in a god after once believing in the existence of a god.

Myer:


An atheist did not define the word ATHEISM.
Atheism and Atheist are smply english words defined below;

Definitions are not as important as the meanings words convey.

An ATHEIST is one who consciously

1. Reject of the thought of a supreme being (Blocking of ears). Blocking God at an intellectual level OR
2. Reject of the authority of the supreme being. (Rebellion). Blocking God at an emotional level.

TenQ:

Definitions are not as important as the meanings words convey.

An ATHEIST is one who consciously

1. Reject of the thought of a supreme being (Blocking of ears). Blocking God at an intellectual level OR
2. Reject of the authority of the supreme being. (Rebellion). Blocking God at an emotional level.

Check the dictionary definitions of the words-Atheist and Atheism in my previous post.

Then you can understand that Atheism is not only about rejection of a belief in god. But most importantly it is simply not believing God exists either by rejection o by lack or information or apostasy.

Myer:


Check the dictionary definitions of the words-Atheist and Atheism in my previous post.

Then you can understand that Atheism is not only about rejection of a belief in god. But most importantly it is simply not believing God exists either by rejection o by lack or information or apostasy.

You have stated what atheism isn't. But what then is atheism?

I actually have a problem with the definition of atheists as people who lack a belief or absence of a belief in any deity. To me, it's a senseless position for a rational human being to lack a belief about a subject he has taken a position upon.

I think the problem is the definition of belief in context of a deity.

I submit that the position of atheism itself is a belief irrespective of how you argue against it.

TenQ:

You have stated what atheism isn't. But what then is atheism?

I actually have a problem with the definition of atheists as people who lack a belief or absence of a belief in any deity. To me, it's a senseless position for a rational human being to lack a belief about a subject he has taken a position upon.

I think the problem is the definition of belief in context of a deity.

I submit that the position of atheism itself is a belief irrespective of how you argue against it.

You are not to decide that. These are simply english/grammatical words that have their definitions.

Theism means belief in a deity (god).
While its antithesis/opposite is Atheism which means lacking belief in a deity (god).

An atheist might have a belief in science or other philosophies but certainly not a belief in a god.
Cos by believing in a god, they are no longer atheists but theists.

Myer:


You are not to decide that. These are simply english/grammatical words that have their definitions.

Theism means belief in a deity (god).
While its antithesis/opposite is Atheism which means lacking belief in a deity (god).

An atheist might have a belief in science or other philosophies but certainly not a belief in a god.
Cos by believing in a god, they are no longer atheists but theists.

Is it the same meaning: disbelieving and lacking a belief?

How about a disbelieving in a deity as opposite to believing in a deity?

Do atheists disbelief in a deity (this would be an exact opposite)?

Opposite of Belief could also be DOUBT!
Is the position of atheism that of doubt?

TenQ:

Is it the same meaning: disbelieving and lacking a belief?

How about a disbelieving in a deity as opposite to believing in a deity?

Do atheists disbelief in a deity (this would be an exact opposite)?

Opposite of Belief could also be DOUBT!
Is the position of atheism that of doubt?

Disbelieving in a deity is in 2 parts;

1. You can disbelieve a particular god and choose to believe another god. Which is still theism. It is simply conversion from one god to another.

2. You can disbelieve in gods entirely. Which is still atheism. Just the same as lack of belief in a deity.

A state of doubt in a the existence of god is like I'm sure you know called Agnosticism.

Agnostic-atheist or Agnostic-theist is still an agnostic.

TenQ:

Agnostic before theist negates it.

I asked you a question:
What precisely does an agnostic-theist believe in? (I didn't ask what a theist believe in)

You mean what specific god? It would depend on the individual, there are Christian agnostic theists from what I gather. And no, agnostic does not negate his beliefs.

TenQ:

You have stated what atheism isn't. But what then is atheism?

I actually have a problem with the definition of atheists as people who lack a belief or absence of a belief in any deity. To me, it's a senseless position for a rational human being to lack a belief about a subject he has taken a position upon.

I think the problem is the definition of belief in context of a deity.

I submit that the position of atheism itself is a belief irrespective of how you argue against it.

Here we go again. How can the lack of belief be a belief? How can not playing sports be a sport? You are the one coming up with a senseless proposition. Someone says I don't believe Santa Claus exists and you say he is being senseless, no, you are being senseless.

KnownUnknown:


I don’t have a dog in this fight because I’m neither atheist or theist. That being said, if this buffalo could ask Mr. God a question about his environment, I wonder what it would ask?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kZdO5C-EJA

I’m thinking, “WTF?!!!!”

If I may ask.
If you're neither an atheist or a theist, then what are you?

Myer:


If I may ask.
If you're neither an atheist or a theist, then what are you?

I have my own personal philosophy which entails gaining understanding of concepts both profane and sacred. The concept of god is nonsense. All knowledge of god come from books written by people. The god people believe in is mostly dependent on the accident of birth.


God/Divine Providence/The Diety is an idea created by the earliest star gazers/priests/law givers who were at the head of nascent societies that later grew into different levels of civilization.

You can imagine how the night sky must have looked and how they must have inspired the ancient people. Over time, they realized they could predict natural events by looking at the movement of the heavens and that knowledge would have been used for profane reasons like agriculture.
They also made up stories about the heavens and those stories are what later developed into myths, allegories, and scriptures to serve sacred purposes, like rites and rituals.

Apart from salving existential fears, the concept of divine providence/god was used to buttress laws. If you have made people believe in a god through stories and other tricks, you can manipulate them using god as an unquestionable authority. The Pentateuch is a masterpiece.

The definition of god is dependent on the theist’s indoctrination, intellectual prowess, and vocabulary. But at the end of the day, once you parse the words, it becomes clear that this god is either an extrapolation of a human being or something defined so abstractly, they might as well be speaking gibberish. Whatever god they argue for is also dependent on the accident of birth. Who birthed you? Where were you born? That determines your god. You hardly see people on here arguing for the Hindu trinity because they weren’t indoctrinated with the Hindu trinity. They argue for (and don’t understand) the Christian trinity because of accident of birth.

My personal philosophy has lead me to a cogent explanation of god. The atheist is the other side of the god coin, with the theist on the over side. I have a good idea of what the coin is made of.
They argue about things like “original sin” but I have a very good idea(with evidence) of what tje “original sin” is. The greatest scam in the history of man is the Catholic Church. They are not the original scammers of course, but they perfected it.

I’m not saying there’s nothing independent of the physical world. There is no way to know that. That’d be like a 2 dimensional being trying to see a 3 dimensional object.

P.S. if you’ve seen a Marvel Comic movie, you’ve probably seen the creator of these characters appearing on screen. The man that appears is Stan Lee, the creator of Peter Parker a.k.a. Spider-Man, who was driving Peter Parker’s school bus in the movie Endgame.

Compare him to the Magi who gave Jesus gold, frankincense, and myrrh. The Magi made an appearance because they were earlier authors of the allegorical storytelling that is the story of Jesus.

KnownUnknown:


I have my own personal philosophy which entails gaining understanding of concepts both profane and sacred. The concept of god is nonsense. All knowledge of god come from books written by people. The god people believe in is mostly dependent on the accident of birth.


God/Divine Providence/The Diety is an idea created by the earliest star gazers/priests/law givers who were at the head of nascent societies that later grew into different levels of civilization.

You can imagine how the night sky must have looked and how they must have inspired the ancient people. Over time, they realized they could predict natural events by looking at the movement of the heavens and that knowledge would have been used for profane reasons like agriculture.
They also made up stories about the heavens and those stories are what later developed into myths, allegories, and scriptures to serve sacred purposes, like rites and rituals.

Apart from salving existential fears, the concept of divine providence/god was used to buttress laws. If you have made people believe in a god through stories and other tricks, you can manipulate them using god as an unquestionable authority. The Pentateuch is a masterpiece.

The definition of god is dependent on the theist’s indoctrination, intellectual prowess, and vocabulary. But at the end of the day, once you parse the words, it becomes clear that this god is either an extrapolation of a human being or something defined so abstractly, they might as well be speaking gibberish. Whatever god they argue for is also dependent on the accident of birth. Who birthed you? Where were you born? That determines your god. You hardly see people on here arguing for the Hindu trinity because they weren’t indoctrinated with the Hindu trinity. They argue for (and don’t understand) the Christian trinity because of accident of birth.

My personal philosophy has lead me to a cogent explanation of god. The atheist is the other side of the god coin, with the theist on the over side. I have a good idea of what the coin is made of.
They argue about things like “original sin” but I have a very good idea(with evidence) of what tje “original sin” is. The greatest scam in the history of man is the Catholic Church. They are not the original scammers of course, but they perfected it.

I’m not saying there’s nothing independent of the physical world. There is no way to know that. That’d be like a 2 dimensional being trying to see a 3 dimensional object.

P.S. if you’ve seen a Marvel Comic movie, you’ve probably seen the creator of these characters appearing on screen. The man that appears is Stan Lee, the creator of Peter Parker a.k.a. Spider-Man who was driving Peter Parker’s school bus in the movie Endgame.

Compare him to the Magi who gave Jesus gold, frankincense, and myrrh. The Magi made an appearance because they created the genre of allegorical story telling that is the story of Jesus.

You didn't answer the question

HellVictorinho3:



You didn't answer the question

I did. The second sentence and the rest of the post.

KnownUnknown:


I did. The second sentence and the rest of the post.

You talked about a coin.




You didn't state what you were......theist or atheist.... you can't be neither