Calling Impartial Atheists

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
You'll need to explain that one.

"Atheists are full of institutional and religious bias."

In general, atheists find that theistic claims do not meet a presumably obvious standard.

Originally posted by apathist
"Atheists are full of institutional and religious bias."

In general, atheists find that theistic claims do not meet a presumably obvious standard.

Speaking of atheists in 'general' terms is the initial crack in your reasoning. Atheists often have very little in common, except living lives void of God. Such a lack of general congruity highlights the second crack in your reasoning, namely atheists operate outside of any institutional mentality. (They don't for example meet up once a week as a congregation to reinforce shared beliefs). This then brings us to the final crack in your reasoning, that of religious bias. Atheists, by definition, are 'areligious' - meaning they are 'not influenced by or practising religion.' - To describe an atheist rejecting a particular claim by a theist as religious bias is like saying a man unconvinced by 'evidence' for the existence of leprechauns has only done so due to leprechaun bias, rather than as an intellectual process of weighing up the evidence.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Speaking of atheists in 'general' terms is the initial crack in your reasoning. Atheists often have very little in common, except living lives void of God. Such a lack of general congruity highlights the second crack in your reasoning, namely atheists operate outside of any institutional mentality. (They don't for example meet up once a week as a congre ...[text shortened]... done so due to leprechaun bias, rather than as an intellectual process of weighing up the evidence.

I merely meant that science does not oppose spirituality, and vice versa. Not a popular view, and I probably didn't express it well.

But talking asses and snakes is another thing, right. A 6000 yr old planet is another thing, virgin births are another thing, the ark is another thing. I find it extremely stupid to think the writings from people who didn't know about stars and atoms and everything else guides anyone's understanding of spirit!

Originally posted by apathist
I merely meant that science does not oppose spirituality, and vice versa. Not a popular view, and I probably didn't express it well.

But talking asses and snakes is another thing, right. A 6000 yr old planet is another thing, virgin births are another thing, the ark is another thing. I find it extremely stupid to think the writings from people who didn't know about stars and atoms and everything else guides anyone's understanding of spirit!

Fair enough.

In the context of this thread though, it is logical for atheists to be turned to for impartial opinions on religious text. (As we have 'no horse in the race,' if you get my meaning).

Take for example if the matter being discussed was transubstantiation. A Protestant and a Catholic would each come to the discussion with unavoidable bias and interpret a given text according to their own belief as to whether or not the wine of Christ 'literally' turned into his blood. - An atheist however would be in a position to give an objective interpretation of a given text, irrespective of his disbelief in God. (It would be a purely theoretical opinion).

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
...An atheist however would be in a position to give an objective interpretation of a given text, irrespective of his disbelief in God. (It would be a purely theoretical opinion).

We all know how well Christians like logic and reason. Pretty sure you exercise in futility.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Atheists, by definition, are 'areligious' - meaning they are 'not influenced by or practising religion.

They might be Buddhists - non-theistic, yet religious.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
They might be Buddhists - non-theistic, yet religious.

Sure. I wasn't thinking of Buddhists. (Hence the danger of speaking of atheists in general terms).

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Fair enough.

In the context of this thread though, it is logical for atheists to be turned to for impartial opinions on religious text. (As we have 'no horse in the race,' if you get my meaning).

Take for example if the matter being discussed was transubstantiation. A Protestant and a Catholic would each come to the discussion with unavoidable ...[text shortened]... a given text, irrespective of his disbelief in God. (It would be a purely theoretical opinion).

Really, someone who doesn't believe God could do X, because He isn't real, comes without an opinion?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Really, someone who doesn't believe God could do X, because He isn't real, comes without an opinion?

Someone who is
- not influenced church doctrine
- who is more educated
- who has better reading comprehension
this person is more likely to give an unbiased opinion on the meaning of a Bible passage.

Belief in God has nothing to do with it. In fact it has been proven that claims of God speaking to some Christians because they believe, is a sham as they all have opposing interpretations and opinions.

Calling Impartial People again.

Here is a passage from Peter. What is Peter saying here and what place does Peter give to Knowledge, particularly Knowledge of Christ and Faith.:

Sonship seems to be claiming that Knowledge and Faith is the most important thing. While the Apostle Peter is listing a whole lot of other qualities which if ignored means that the Christian is unfruitful in the Knowledge of Christ. Therefore there is a fruitful knowledge of Christ and an unfruitful knowledge of Christ.

Please let me know what you think Peter is saying here. Thanks atheists and unbiased Christians 🙂.

According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness,
through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises:
that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature,
having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue;
and to virtue knowledge;
And to knowledge temperance;
and to temperance patience;
and to patience godliness;
And to godliness brotherly kindness;
and to brotherly kindness charity.

For if these things be in you, and abound,
they make you that ye shall neither be barren
nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off,
and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. (2 Peter 1:3-9 KJV)

Originally posted by apathist
We all know how well Christians like logic and reason. Pretty sure you exercise in futility.

We all know how well Christians like logic and reason.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you mean people should jury rig the definitions of logic and reason so that they, up front, rule out by default, the possibility of God, God's attributes and God's character.

I think you mean a reasoning and logic which along every step of the process excludes God.

Originally posted by sonship
[b] We all know how well Christians like logic and reason.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you mean people should jury rig the definitions of logic and reason so that they, up front, rule out by default, the possibility of God, God's attributes and God's character.

I think you mean a reasoning and logic which along every step of the process excludes God.[/b]

The pope and Galileo worked out the separation of church and science (the latter being secular reason and logic) hundreds of years ago. You see this separation as rejection whereas it is merely a non-interference agreement. Of course there are some people in science who have strong negative views on religion, and vice versa. But holding them up - those on either side - as exemplars of their field, is well sort of a cheap shot.

Originally posted by JS357
The pope and Galileo worked out the separation of church and science (the latter being secular reason and logic) hundreds of years ago. You see this separation as rejection whereas it is merely a non-interference agreement. Of course there are some people in science who have strong negative views on religion, and vice versa. But holding them up - those on either side - as exemplars of their field, is well sort of a cheap shot.

I am not sure what the pope and Galileo worked out. But I include God in my reasoning and logic process.

God invites man to reason with Him concerning his sins and concerning what wonderful provision God has made for their removal and cleansing.

"Come now and let us reason together, Says Jehovah. Though your sins are like scarlet, they will be as white as snow; Though they are as red as crimson, They will be like wool." (Isaiah 1:18)

Why is that not reasonable ?
I could argue that my sins are NOT red as crimson (ie. blood guilty).
But my conscience might not let me get away with this reasoning.
My conscience might respond -

"Well, you know sonship, that you did this and that person rather dirtily."

This may not be as interesting as quantum fields, quarks, and black holes. But it is a reality that I have to deal with. And here is an offer from God that He is able to totally cleanse these stains on my character and wounds on my conscience completely away.

At some point God came to me in Christ inviting me to reason with Him. Instead of saying "Galileo! Galileo!" I sit down and think of the reasonableness of God's offer for me to COME to Him for forgiveness, cleansing, and a relationship.

There is a logic and a reasonableness to God's offer. This is a reasoning which includes and important part of my humanity. This is a logic which applies to my complete humanity.

You know when God forgets something it is gone into the oblivion of non-existence. And He says that my sins and iniquities He will by no means remember any more.

" For I will be propitious to their unrighteousnesses, and their sins I shall by no means remember anymore." (Heb.8:12)

For God to forget my sins so that He will "BY NO MEANS" remember them anymore ? That may not be so interesting as E=mc2, but it is something pertaining to my life on a deep level. That is a reasoning and a logic which I want to muse on to make an important life decision.

So when someone implies reason and logic are thrown away by the man who comes to Jesus Christ, I am not sure what in the world they mean. Well, I understand that they mean to leave out a legitimate part of my total makeup as a man. That total makeup includes an intimate relationship with God. I mean as opposed to being cut off, distant, unaware, comatose, and deadened in my spiritual part to God.

My reasoning process and logic include the needs of the hunger for reconciliation with my own conscience and with my Maker.

Originally posted by sonship
I am not sure what the pope and Galileo worked out. But I include God in my reasoning and logic process.

God invites man to reason with Him concerning his sins and concerning what wonderful provision God has made for their removal and cleansing.

[quote] [b] "Come now and let us reason together, Says Jehovah. Though your sins are like scarlet, the ...[text shortened]... cludes and important part of my humanity. This is a logic which applies to my complete humanity.

"I am not sure what the pope and Galileo worked out. But I include God in my reasoning and logic process."

My point is it was not science that turned its back on theology, it was religion that said get your empirical noses out of religion and we'll let you alone. This eventually led to a materialistic bent in science.

Suggested reading:

https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vida_alien/warinheaven/warheaven-III_01a.htm

Selected quote:

"The fact that the Pope didn't carry through and effectively silence Galileo is evidence he didn't consider the debate over the Copernican theory important in itself. He was punishing Galileo for openly challenging his political and spiritual authority, not for doing scientific research.

"The Pope was sending a very clear message to all of the early scientists without saying it in so many words:
"If you confine your scientific research to the physical world, the Church will leave you alone."