Lack of belief...

[EPH2:8]

Does the term lack of belief make any claims regarding the subject of the sentence? For example I lack belief in Santa clause. Am I making any claims regarding Santa clause? Does changing the subject of the sentence determine whether a claim is made or not?

[ttruscott]

The bottom line that you seem to have missed (or ignored) is that no arguments or evidence are required to NOT postulate the existence of an invisible God for which there is no evidence.

The Evidence for GOD:
- the Bible is evidence.
- The witness of millions is evidence; anecdotal evidence which is evidence.
- The indwelling Holy Spirit is evidence.
- The fulfillment of the promise that if we seek GOD our character (our true nature) will change from evil to good is also evidence.

It is an ordinary doctrine of most Christian churches that the reprobate mind cannot receive these things of the Spirit because they are spiritually discerned and the reprobate have no spiritual discernment.

The statement surely is mixing up a lack of proof with a "lack" of evidence based upon prior presumptions about reality...

[Divine Insight]

- the Bible is evidence.

Sorry, but even theists agree that the Bible is not evidence for God. Let's not forget that different religions have different "Bibles" and the theists of one religion reject the Bible of other religions as being evidence for God.

So clearly theists cannot claim that a Bible is evidence for any God. Not only this but any secularist who is familiar with these Bibles can easily show why there is no reason to think that these ancient fables are anything more than the superstitions of the cultures that wrote them.

So the Bible is not evidence for any God.

- The witness of millions is evidence; anecdotal evidence which is evidence.

The same principle applies here. Even theists reject any anecdotal reports of any God other than their favorite God. So even they reject anecdotal reports as evidence for any Gods. They can't have their cake and eat it too. But that's exactly what they attempt to do in this case.

- The indwelling Holy Spirit is evidence.

No one has ever been able to provide any evidence for the existence of an indwelling Holy spirit. So that's certainly not evidence either.

- The fulfillment of the promise that if we seek GOD our character (our true nature) will change from evil to good is also evidence.

There are many non-believers, secularists, atheists, and even theist from other religions that are good people and have always been good people without any need to seek any God. So this claim has been demonstrated to be a false claim.

It is an ordinary doctrine of most Christian churches that the reprobate mind cannot receive these things of the Spirit because they are spiritually discerned and the reprobate have no spiritual discernment.

And again, this has been demonstrated to be a false accusation being made by these religious theists. There are simply too many good atheists in the world to pretend that this sort of religious arrogance could ever be true.

The statement surely is mixing up a lack of proof with a "lack" of evidence based upon prior presumptions about reality...

Nothing you have mentioned has been credible evidence for anything. All you've done is regurgitate many theological ideals that have long since been demonstrated to be clearly false.

Also let's go back to one of these and look at it more closely with respect to Christianity:

- The fulfillment of the promise that if we seek GOD our character (our true nature) will change from evil to good is also evidence.

The Christian Gospels have Jesus proclaiming that those who believe in him will be able to lay their hands on the sick and that the sick will recover. He states that this will be a "sign" that will follow these believers. Yet no one has ever been able to do what Jesus had proclaimed here. So we have more than sufficient evidence to know that the claims made about the Christian Jesus are demonstrably false.

So there's clearly nothing to Christianity to be sure. Its own doctrine disproves itself.

So there is no evidence for any God in anything you have offered.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 21 by ttruscott]

The Evidence for GOD:
- the Bible is evidence.
- The witness of millions is evidence; anecdotal evidence which is evidence.
- The indwelling Holy Spirit is evidence.
- The fulfillment of the promise that if we seek GOD our character (our true nature) will change from evil to good is also evidence.

The Bible is a collection of stories purporting to be about a god. There is nothing in support of it being more than elaborate fiction. Anecdotes and claims of witnessing God are evidence of the extent to which people will go to shore up their indoctrinated beliefs. No actual gods necessary. There is no Holy Spirit and claims of having this thing indwelling is self-delusion at best and simply lies at worst. God does not change people, it is their strength of character that will allow them to do that. There are those who claim to be believers in God who are also clearly bad people. It's often hard to see the real person behind the facade.

It is an ordinary doctrine of most Christian churches that the reprobate mind cannot receive these things of the Spirit because they are spiritually discerned and the reprobate have no spiritual discernment.

Classic expression of ENCS (Emperor's new Clothes Syndrome). Things of the Spirit cannot be received because it is nothing more than a religious invention.

The statement surely is mixing up a lack of proof with a "lack" of evidence based upon prior presumptions about reality...

Inventing evidence where there is none is a more accurate description. Spinning a whole imagined reality from a few tales by ignorant, superstitious people from the distant past is what is truly presumptuous.

[Artie]

The Evidence for GOD:
- the Bible is evidence.

Which Bible? There are six different Bibles with everything from 24 to 81 books... http://bessel.org/bibles.htm

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 12 by Divine Insight]

So to say that people "lack a belief" in a God, is actually wrong. What is actually true is that they simply see no need to even postulate the existence of such an entity. In other words, there isn't even anything there to require a lack of belief in.

This underlines exactly what I am arguing. It is not theists who say that atheists 'lack belief in GODs' but atheists themselves.
Thus the confusion. IF "to say that people "lack a belief" in a God, is actually wrong" THEN atheists need to acknowledge that, and change the description of position to suit, rather than continue to use it.

I don't know why DI said that, but I don't agree with him.

Theists believe that gods exist. All non-theists are atheists.

I'm not trying to argue with DI. I'm just saying that he doesn't speak for me or for atheists generally.

[Divine Insight]

All non-theists are atheists.

And why are they non-theists?

Because they see no reason to postulate the existence of a God.

[FWI]

[Replying to post 18 by Divine Insight]

I am totally open to any evidence you can produce.

This is not what I'm referring to. You have made it clear that there is no evidence, which I could produce or any other human could that would convince you to change your position. What I'm asking: is there another source, which could? And, what would that evidence need to be?

There must be some type of hypothetical that could be appealing to your sense of being totally open to the right kind of evidence.

[William]

[Replying to post 25 by wiploc]

I'm not trying to argue with DI. I'm just saying that he doesn't speak for me or for atheists generally.

This is also part of the problem I am attempting to throw light on. Atheists don't seem to agree on the use of descriptive for the different positions...

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 25 by wiploc]

I'm not trying to argue with DI. I'm just saying that he doesn't speak for me or for atheists generally.

This is also part of the problem I am attempting to throw light on. Atheists don't seem to agree on the use of descriptive for the different positions...

Just like folks of faith ...

We don't agree on a bunch of stuff.

But this whole "define an atheist" business is just a common ploy that takes the spotlight off a total absence of evidence offered of any kind for any god ...

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 25 by wiploc]

I'm not trying to argue with DI. I'm just saying that he doesn't speak for me or for atheists generally.

This is also part of the problem I am attempting to throw light on. Atheists don't seem to agree on the use of descriptive for the different positions...

Just like folks of faith ...

We don't agree on a bunch of stuff.

I disagree, we agree on everything. Oh, wait...

There is no real problem here. Just another failed attempt to create an issue that isn't one.

But this whole "define an atheist" business is just a common ploy that takes the spotlight off a total absence of evidence offered of any kind for any god ...

Exactly. If theists had convincing evidence, they wouldn't be so frustrated and angry that their constant attempt to tell atheists what atheism really is results in absurd failures.

They certainly wouldn't play the silly game of asking what evidence an atheist would accept. This is an obvious ploy to blame the atheist for the how lousy the evidence for god/gods is.

If they had convincing evidence, they'd present it. They certainly wouldn't be shy about presenting evidence to support a claim that they experienced a revelation from God for instance. That'd be a slam dunk if they could support such a claim.

But no, they attempt to attack atheism by pretending to not understand an incredible straightforward definition.