How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

[Dontaskme]

Jesus himself said: that salvation is purely an internal matter. That you are the only one qualified to define what God is for you. No one else is qualified to make that decision for you.

[Immanuel Can]

...you are the only one qualified to define what God is for you. No one else is qualified to make that decision for you.

Jesus most assuredly did not say this. Moreover, if it were true, then everybody would automatically "know" God, since there would be no such thing as a false view of God.

But what Jesus did say, on the contrary, is that there would be many false views of God, and even many people who deluded themselves that they knew God specially, when in fact they did not. (Mt. 7:22, for e.g.)

One can no more just "make up" his own "definition" of God than one can make up his own definition of Teresa May or Donald Trump. The way you know if someone knows real people is by whether or not they have the right view of who that person is, not simply that they have "made a decision" to imagine him or her a particular way.

Basic logic, that.

[ken]

Why believe in something that may actually be false? Since everything a person believes in "may" be false, that implied argument would rule out any and all beliefs, right?

Yes exactly right. The point I am leading you to is why believe in any thing, which may be actually false anyway, when you neither have to believe nor have to disbelieve in any thing at all?

That's so impractical, that as a practical matter, I cannot live my life that way.

Why believe you can not live that way, that is without believing?

The truth is you may in fact be able to live without believing, which brings us back to why believe in some thing that may again in fact be false?

Seems rather pointless to believe or disbelieve in any thing, especially when the truth is not yet known.

Moreover, if your claim is that I should believe in a god because I cannot prove a god does not exist, I don't see things that way. Since I see no credible evidence for a god, it is more rational to not believe in one, than to do so given the absence of evidence.

My claim was NOT any thing you are suggesting here.

Why would you jump to this conclusion, which is so far from what I was saying?

Anyway, to Me it is just as irrational to not believe in some thing that may actually exist as it does to believe in some thing that may not actually exist. Again, disbelieving (in) some thing is just as pointless, useless, and meaningless as believing (in) some thing.

Why not just remain open always?

If you did, then the truth is revealed.

[ken]

...you are the only one qualified to define what God is for you. No one else is qualified to make that decision for you.

Jesus most assuredly did not say this. Moreover, if it were true, then everybody would automatically "know" God, since there would be no such thing as a false view of God.

But what Jesus did say, on the contrary, is that there would be many false views of God, and even many people who deluded themselves that they knew God specially, when in fact they did not. (Mt. 7:22, for e.g.)

This reminds Me of someone immanuel can? Sounds like jesus was thinking of people just like you when talking about the deluded.

Are you deluded enough to think or believe that you have the true view of God?

If so, are you in anyway able to enlighten us on what is the true view of God?

If not, then could it be possible that you are one of those exact same deluded ones, themselves, that jesus was referring to?

One can no more just "make up" his own "definition" of God than one can make up his own definition of Teresa May or Donald Trump. The way you know if someone knows real people is by whether or not they have the right view of who that person is, not simply that they have "made a decision" to imagine him or her a particular way.

Basic logic, that.

Very basic logic. Now let us see if you know God or not. Can you show us if you have the right view of God?

So, what is the right view of who God is?

If you do not have the right view of who God is, then you have one of those many false views of God, and worst still you are one of even many people who deluded themselves that they knew God specially, when in fact they did not.

[Arising_uk]

... It simply shows that Atheism is inevitably a bad proposition.

And that's fair enough.

Not really, as the atheism that I understand just says "I don't believe in your 'God' or 'Gods' " and given the amount of 'God's' there appear to have been this is a pretty safe bet as you don't want to piss off the others.

[Dontaskme]

...you are the only one qualified to define what God is for you. No one else is qualified to make that decision for you.

Jesus most assuredly did not say this. Moreover, if it were true, then everybody would automatically "know" God, since there would be no such thing as a false view of God.

But what Jesus did say, on the contrary, is that there would be many false views of God, and even many people who deluded themselves that they knew God specially, when in fact they did not. (Mt. 7:22, for e.g.)

One can no more just "make up" his own "definition" of God than one can make up his own definition of Teresa May or Donald Trump. The way you know if someone knows real people is by whether or not they have the right view of who that person is, not simply that they have "made a decision" to imagine him or her a particular way.

Basic logic, that.

It's comments like yours, that sometimes makes me have a ton of empathy and sympathy for Atheists. You're just never going to know God DIRECTLY man no matter how much you believe you will or can. It's just a story we make up, it's a story we believe in, it's a story we're in love with so hopelessly as if our life depended on it....I know you don't like hearing that, but that's the real truth...and some people hate truth. As for Me, I love the truth...it releases me from the responsibility of ever having to prove and justify myself to another.

My personal belief is that those who genuinely seek truth will find it in their own heart where it permanently resides. Ultimately, God will be of your own understanding, aka one of your own imagination since no one has ever seen an understanding of God. Have you seen my understanding of God lately? how the heck would you know if it's a false definition or a right one, unless you were inside me right now experiencing my understanding. Just who the heck is going to play the role of the final judge, jury and arbitrator of what's false and what isn't?

Another point to consider, is how do you know for absolute certainty that God is not secretly evil and full of darkness and that this world reality we are living now is actually a living hell that we are never going to escape from, and that life is nothing more than an endless dose of misery and despair for every living creature to suffer for ever and ever and ever?

You're just never going to know what's going on mate...you're only going to imagine what you want to imagine and then believe in...what ever flavour takes your fancy.

.

[Immanuel Can]

Why believe in something that may actually be false? Since everything a person believes in "may" be false, that implied argument would rule out any and all beliefs, right?

Yes exactly right. The point I am leading you to is why believe in any thing, which may be actually false anyway, when you neither have to believe nor have to disbelieve in any thing at all?

Sounds sensible at first: but if someone reports to you that the building you're living in is on fire, you won't be able to forgo a decision, no matter how much you feel you don't need to believe it's on fire.

In matters where reality is involved, some decisions are mandatory. Sometimes, to make no decision IS a decision.

So...muted agreement there...you're point isn't wrong, but needs qualifying, it seems to me.

[Immanuel Can]

Are you deluded enough to think or believe that you have the true view of God?

Heavens, no. I'm no wiser than the average person.

However, no matter how skeptical you might be, you would surely recognize this: that if God spoke concerning his nature, and said something about the "true view," then I would have two choices: 1) believe Him, or 2) refuse to believe Him. However, the problem of my own ignorance would presumably not be so great that the Supreme Being could not overcome it, if He should decide to so do. Does that not seem perfectly reasonable -- for I am stating It only as a hypothetical here, for your consideration?

If so, are you in anyway able to enlighten us on what is the true view of God?

My suggestion is that you don't look to me, but to God Incarnate Himself -- to what He has revealed about Himself. If anyone would know, He would: if you wouldn't listen to Him, then I agree with you that nobody would know.

Either way, I'm not recommending myself.

[Immanuel Can]

It's comments like yours, that sometimes makes me have a ton of empathy and sympathy for Atheists.

I believe you. For you both cherish positions with a similar flaw.

You're just never going to know God DIRECTLY man no matter how much you believe you will or can.

And you have obtained this certainty...how?

It's just a story we make up, it's a story we believe in, it's a story we're in love with so hopelessly as if our life depended on it....

If so, it's no different from a delusion. For a delusion has the characteristics you describe above...the one lacking thing being it has no referent in reality.

I know you don't like hearing that, but that's the real truth

"Real truth?" So now you're saying there IS an objective truth, and I'm objectively wrong...and that it doesn't matter what "story" I tell myself to the contrary, or how passionately I may choose to believe it, I'll still be wrong?

You see, you can't even keep consistent with yourself. You've just declared yourself an objectivist there.

Just who the heck is going to play the role of the final judge, jury and arbitrator of what's false and what isn't?

Three letters will do it...

Another point to consider, is how do you know for absolute certainty that God is not secretly evil and full of darkness and that this world reality we are living now is actually a living hell that we are never going to escape from, and that life is nothing more than an endless dose of misery and despair for every living creature to suffer for ever and ever and ever?

A futile creed. If that were the case, there'd be nothing for us to do about it, and certainly no more merit in believing the truth than believing a lie.

You're just never going to know what's going on mate...

Is your suggestion here that the Supreme Being must necessarily prove incapable of speech? If He exists, must He necessarily stutter? Is the Creator of the Universe so weak that He cannot ever perform even a very basic action that every human being can perform every day? Or would you suppose that he is He so poor at delivering truth about Himself that He cannot possibly overcome the limitations of mere human cognition and speak clearly so as to reveal His nature?

It's hard to see that you'd ever have a reason for thinking any of the above. So why rule out the postulate that IF God wanted to, He could make Himself known?

[ken]

Why believe in something that may actually be false? Since everything a person believes in "may" be false, that implied argument would rule out any and all beliefs, right?

Yes exactly right. The point I am leading you to is why believe in any thing, which may be actually false anyway, when you neither have to believe nor have to disbelieve in any thing at all?

Sounds sensible at first: but if someone reports to you that the building you're living in is on fire, you won't be able to forgo a decision, no matter how much you feel you don't need to believe it's on fire.

In matters where reality is involved, some decisions are mandatory. Sometimes, to make no decision IS a decision.

So...muted agreement there...you're point isn't wrong, but needs qualifying, it seems to me.

If My point needed qualifying, then you certainly did not qualify it.

What has decisions got to do with believing or disbelieving (in) some thing?

Of course human beings make decisions. And, just as obvious is that they can make decisions without ever believing or disbelieving (in) any thing. I thought that was obviously clear. Or is this where I have been going wrong? Did some adult human beings actually believe that they could not make decisions without believing or disbelieving (in) some things?

Do some human beings actually believe that they have to believe (in) some thing before they can make a decision?

[Immanuel Can]

If My point needed qualifying, then you certainly did not qualify it.

What has decisions got to do with believing or disbelieving (in) some thing?

I'm sorry -- I thought I made that clear at the start, with the example of a fire.

It won't matter if you "believe" the fire alarm is a fake, and if you "decide" that you don't have to leave the building. In such cases, you can't not-make a decision, because not-making a decision has results anyway.

If there's a fire, you'll burn. It would be better to make a decision to investigate further, would it not?

Likewise, if you decide not to "believe" in God, because you lack evidence, then there are always two ways to go: 1) willful disbelief, and 2) skeptical further investigation, but without willful disbelief.

But like the fire, if God's there, then you'll need to know. So I'm suggesting #2. Sitting still in unbelief is just a bad option.

Did some adult human beings actually believe that they could not make decisions without believing or disbelieving (in) some things?

Yes. Empirical ones did. Empiricism (science, for instance) depends on experiences of phenomena that are totally mediated to us by senses. And we all have to decide whether or not to believe in the deliverances of empirical "fact" we receive by those mediated means.

If we're dreaming or hallucinating, those deliverances are deceptive; if we're awake and functioning well, we assume (but never know absolutely, of course) that we are receiving trustworthy information through our senses. But again, we have to believe -- we just don't know for certain. And yet that's a perfectly normal way to function, isn't it?

Do some human beings actually believe that they have to believe (in) some thing before they can make a decision?

As above, yes. Everybody's like that.

[Science Fan]

But, Phil X, the specific quote is not limited to ancient Jews, and specifically references "anyone."

"If anyone sins deliberately by rejecting the Savior after knowing the truth of forgiveness, this sin is not covered by Christ's death; there is no way to get rid of it. There will be nothing to look forward to but the terrible punishment of God's awful anger, which will consume all his enemies." (Hebrews, 10:26-27).

It obviously would apply to ancient Jews, but also applies to any modern-day atheist, as well as modern-day Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Pagans, etc. At least for people who are made aware of Jesus and reject him, which I have, this passage literally means that even if I accepted Jesus, right now, I am still headed for hell. So, are you saying that this Biblical passage is in error, and should be rewritten so that the word "anyone" is replaced with "ancient Hebrews"?

[Dontaskme]

"Real truth?" So now you're saying there IS an objective truth, and I'm objectively wrong...and that it doesn't matter what "story" I tell myself to the contrary, or how passionately I may choose to believe it, I'll still be wrong?

We don't know anything, we make it all up. That's the absolute truth, given by the absolute law giver. Humans were set up to fail, chocolate makes one feel good, it's addictive, we eat it and it makes us fat and may even kill us if we eat too much...but we can't stop doing the things that kill us, because the things that kill us are what we like doing... Salads and vegetables are good for us,they won't kill us, but they bore us to death ...how unfair is that?...we swallow food down the same tube we need for breathing, we can choke at any minute, it's so scary, so yeah, lets talk about flaws.

You see, you can't even keep consistent with yourself. You've just declared yourself an objectivist there.

Anyone who denies the bio-polar nature of the human being is deluded. Try being one sided and see how far that gets you. Yeah, lets talk about flaws...we're set up from the get go to fail.


We are broken.

Satan rules.

[Immanuel Can]

It obviously would apply to ancient Jews,...

Yep. Look at the heading: "Hebrews". Is that you?

Moreover, keep looking through the whole book, and you'll see it refers to things that would have no meaning to anyone but First-Century Hebrews, such as sacrifices, the Mosaic Law, circumcision, and so forth.

You've been reading "somebody else's mail." You are not being addressed there. You are not in their situation at all.

[Science Fan]

So, you are stating that the Bible is in error, because it uses the word "anyone" and not "ancient Hebrews" in the passage?