Atheism vs Antitheism

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

No doubt, Izdaari Eristikon would have worshipped the same God as she does now, she just wouldn't have known the details. In other words she would have come to realise that the cultural gods (Viking or whatever) as well as atheism is untenable and that there must be a true God Who would provide a way unto salvation for mankind despite man's sin. As such Izdaari Eristikon would have been like those in Acts 17:23 "For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you."

Also, your loaded question does nothing to show atheism as a default position.

I know this is a response to viole but I'm curious about the part that I bolded. How would Izdaari necessarily "come to realize" that these other gods would be untenable and that there "must be a true God" who provides salvation? I'm lost on that. Agnostos Theos was specific to the Greeks I'm not sure what that would have to do with Izdaari if she were born into the ancient Norse culture. Paul was trying to introduce his version/understanding of God into the dialogue of the Greek listeners at the time [using this "unknown" God of theirs]. I don't believe the Agnostos Theos is a catch all for anything, Odin and Thor etc are not unknown vague gods, at least not to the vikings.

Allow me to cut in here for a moment.

First of all, viole's question is fallacious because it is a genetic fallacy. A belief may be true regardless of the origins of a belief.

Secondly, viole's question is silly because it suggests that the tenants of Judeo-Christianity would not be accepted by individuals in other cultures if those cultures didn't hold to such beliefs. The simple fact of the matter is that the argument simply fails on the grounds of consistency. If I'm only a Christian because of exposure to Christianity, then you're only an atheist because of exposure to atheism, so your belief is no more valid or independent of cultural bias than mine. Ergo we divert back to the first point and this is simply a genetic fallacy.

The third point is that there are notable examples of people coming to believe such things despite cultural objections. Socrates was executed for disowning the Greek pantheon and advocating a less material deity, for example. The explanation for how this was possible is revealed, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1: 18-22).

If God makes Himself known by revelation then that's how people who seek the truth come to realize the truth.

So, the point is fallacious, inconsistent and falsely-predicated.

It seems to me then that the Christian has a perfectly consistent reason to suppose that God can and does make the objective truth of Himself known through the revelation of nature and special revelation of scripture, which transcends immediate cultural values.

By stark contrast, all the atheist could possibly boast is cultural memes.

Therefore, the atheistic view contains a defeater that the theistic view lacks in this regard.

By definition then, our position is sound, but you've demonstrated by the point that you press exactly how yours is inescapably self-defeating.

In conclusion, we have good reason to suppose that you’d be worshipping Oden, but not such as strong case that we would be.

[UndecidedFrog]

It is a simple question that asks for one's defauilt position, and does not assume anything.

Viole said in response to the answer (which was not the answer she was hoping for), "But I am pretty confident that the default position of a Viking was to believe in Thor and Odin".

It's really quite obvious that it was a loaded question.

Viole may be confident of the answer, but that does not make her question an assertion. She may be asking for the opinion of the person to which she directed the question, regardless of her confidence of the answer.

I often ask questions of others, even when I am confident of the answer. It is a good thing to ask questions and confirm things to avoid misunderstandings. Asking questions is not asserting anything.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

It is a simple question that asks for one's defauilt position, and does not assume anything.

Viole said in response to the answer (which was not the answer she was hoping for), "But I am pretty confident that the default position of a Viking was to believe in Thor and Odin".

It's really quite obvious that it was a loaded question.

Viole may be confident of the answer, but that does not make her question an assertion. She may be asking for the opinion of the person to which she directed the question, regardless of her confidence of the answer.

I often ask questions of others, even when I am confident of the answer. It is a good thing to ask questions and confirm things to avoid misunderstandings. Asking questions is not asserting anything.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

Uh, UF... are you really not understanding what viole's asserting there with that question?

Can you describe to me how viole was asking for clarification by stating "But I am pretty confident that the default position of a Viking was to believe in Thor and Odin"?

How is that really similar to when you ask for clarification?

[UndecidedFrog]

Uh, UF... are you really not understanding what viole's asserting there with that question?

Can you describe to me how viole was asking for clarification by stating "But I am pretty confident that the default position of a Viking was to believe in Thor and Odin"?

How is that really similar to when you ask for clarification?

Hi OES,

Sorry, I don't see viole's question as any assertion.

Viole asked "how would then be your default position if you were born in Saudi Arabia or in Sweden at the time of the Vikings?"

Basically she is asking what would be your default position if you were born in Saudi Arabia or in Sweden at a certain time. What do you think she is asserting here with her question?

Whether or not viole is confident that the answer is that she would believe in Thor and Odin had she been born in Sweden at a certain time, it is irrelevant to the question that she has directed to another. This other could answer with something totally different and break viole's confidence. It doesn't signify that viole's original question was asserting anything.

That's the way I see it.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

Edited November 22, 2011 by UndecidedFrog

[LuftWaffle]

Viole may be confident of the answer, but that does not make her question an assertion. She may be asking for the opinion of the person to which she directed the question, regardless of her confidence of the answer.

I often ask questions of others, even when I am confident of the answer. It is a good thing to ask questions and confirm things to avoid misunderstandings. Asking questions is not asserting anything.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

You're either playing games, or you're suffering from a selective inability to comprehend the difference between an honest inquiry and challenge posed in question form.

It was as much as a challenge now as it was the previous 3 or 4 times that Viole has tried running that line of reasoning.

I suppose the *wink* emoticon right after Viole's "question" is just a typo? At cat tread on her keyboard and added that typical "take that" type wink that follows a loaded question, right?

Either way if Viole's going to play along with your game and submit that she was really just wondering (out of pure curiosity) what people in Sweden during the Viking age generally believed, or what people in Saudi Arabia generally believed then you've inadvertently turned her challenge into just a really stupid question.

[UndecidedFrog]

Viole may be confident of the answer, but that does not make her question an assertion. She may be asking for the opinion of the person to which she directed the question, regardless of her confidence of the answer.

I often ask questions of others, even when I am confident of the answer. It is a good thing to ask questions and confirm things to avoid misunderstandings. Asking questions is not asserting anything.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

You're either playing games, or you're suffering from a selective inability to comprehend the difference between an honest inquiry and challenge posed in question form.

I am not playing games, and I do not suffer from an inability to understand the difference between an assertion and a question. A question has a "?" at the end, and asks for an answer. An assertion is a stated claim, and never has a "?" at the end of the claim.

Example 1: Is he god? <------ That is a question.

Example 2: He is god. <------ That is an assertion.

Yes, there can be challenging questions, in that they may not be easily answered, or that the answer is not one that you would prefer to provide (since the answer would diminish your preferred position). But questions are not assertions. If you differ, please provide me with several examples of questions that you believe are assertions.

It was as much as a challenge now as it was the previous 3 or 4 times that Viole has tried running that line of reasoning.

I suppose the *wink* emoticon right after Viole's "question" is just a typo? At cat tread on her keyboard and added that typical "take that" type wink that follows a loaded question, right?

The issue was not whether the question was a challenge. The issue was whether the question was an assertion.

Since questions cannot be assertions, your previous argument that she provide evidence to support her assertion is invalid, since she did not make any assertion of that type. She merely asked a question.

Example 3: Is he god? ;) <---------- no matter how many winking emoticons it may contain, it still remains a question.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

[LuftWaffle]

I am not playing games...

So you're basically a liar as well? <- Question mark. Would you say my question makes an assertion or not?

From : http://philosophy.la...ic/complex.html

I. Complex Question: the fallacy of phrasing a question that, by the way it is worded, assumes something not contextually granted, assumes something not true, or assumes a false dichotomy. To be a fallacy, and not just a rhetorical technique, the conclusion (usually the answer to the question) must be present either implicitly or explicitly.

1. The fallacy of complex question is usually (but not always) in the form or a question. Usually it's just the fallacy of giving a question that assumes something not generally granted or given unto evidence.
2. If an argument is present, the question, itself, must be considered as a statement, i.e., it implicitly has a truth value.

As the bolded indicates, if an argument is present, as in this instance where the question suggests that Izzy's belief would be different had she been born in a different time and place (as shown by Viole providing the desired "conclusion" in her response to the answer), then the question must be considered as a statement as per the article on the introductory rules of logic.

Again,

"Either way if Viole's going to play along with your game and submit that she was really just wondering (out of pure curiosity) what people in Sweden during the Viking age generally believed, or what people in Saudi Arabia generally believed then you've inadvertently turned her challenge into just a really stupid question."

Since questions cannot be assertions...

Not according to any introductory course on logic.

Yes, there can be challenging questions, in that they may not be easily answered

Now, you're equivocating challenge in the sense of difficult, with challenge in the sense of a call to engage/provocation. This too is a rather dishonest tactic and confirms that you're just playing semantic games, which in turn shows that your claim that you're not playing games, is a lie, yes?

Shall I point you to an introductory level article on equivocation as well?

[LuftWaffle]

Please read again what I wrote, "...would have worshipped the same God as she does now, she just wouldn't have known the details"

I did not miss the word "details". I simply do not know what you mean with it. Can you give more details about "details" ?

You said, "How can you know the details of Christianity, if you never heard of them?". This question is framed in a way that suggests that I stated that one can know the details, but my original statement was precisely the opposite. I said that people such as those in Acts sought the true God, but didn't have the details. So you've misrepresented my question which is why I corrected you by repeating my original statement.

I have also already explained that it is faith in the True God and faith that He provides a Way unto salvation, that saves. Jesus Christ is this way unto salvation. I'm not minimising Christ's sacrifice at all. In fact as I mentioned to Stargaze, God will reveal Himself to those who truly seek Him. Just like revelation came to those who sought God in Acts, likewise God will reveal Himself (and thus make what was once unknown, known) to persons no matter where they find themselves.

It is not a dilemma, is a tautology. Either you need external help or you don't. This is valid for understanding the nature of everything.

In the context of your previous posts "external help" referred to missionaries. Are you now conveniently expanding that definition to mean something different?

but when Christians say that Jesus is necessary for salvation...

Not once did I say that Jesus isn't necessary for salvation. Abraham didn't know the details of how God would provide a way unto salvation, but he trusted God and his faith was justified. It's an "is" of identity.

Abraham trusted that God would provide a Way. This Way is Jesus. Thus, Jesus is the object of Abraham's faith even though Abraham did not have access to the specifics.

To use another example. Astronomers noticed the erratic movement in Uranus' orbit and concluded that there had to be another object beyond Uranus. Later pluto was discovered. Before it's discovery the object of those scientists search was still Pluto, even though hadn't seen it, and given it a name yet.

The following statements are both true:

The identity of the object that influenced Uranus which scientists looked for is pluto.

The identity of the Object that realised salvation for mankind and in whom Abraham trusted, is Jesus.

So, if a person in another place and time, looks upon the cultural gods and sees them for what they are, and sees their cultural religion for what it is, manmade, and they earnestly seek the true God, and call unto Him and trust in Him that He will/has provided a means of justification, I see no reason why such a person wouldn't be vindicated. In fact, I believe that God will reveal Himself to such a person, as Jesus stated "Seek and ye shall find". The Object of such as person's faith is the very same God that I worship.

Another example of such a person would be Job. Most Bible scholars believe that Job probably did not have access to the scriptures as concluded by his ignorance how satan's fall related to his ordeal, yet we see that he had a real and living relationship with the true God of scripture.

Notice how this isn't a licence to reject Jesus when you've actually been presented the gospel, and think that you'll be justified.

[Guest]

.... I didn't think anyone was suggesting you can't break free from the beliefs of your social group, it's obvious that you can, I'm proof....

Proof

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Matthew 7:13-15

Positive

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. Revelation 3:20

See?

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

For by it the elders obtained a good report.

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Hebrews 11:1-3

____________

_________

______

___

.... From where I sit today, we'd both be wrong no matter what god we used to explain the world around us....

So

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6

True

Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? John 11:25-26

And Wise

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. Matthew 2:1-2

____________

_________

______

___

Believe

Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. Hebrews 12:2

And Be Blessed Beloved

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8

Love, Joe

[LuftWaffle]

I have to admit that this is the best explanation I have heard until now, concerning this issue.

Unfortunately, I don't think it holds up against critical thinking

Thanks for the compliment. As for the critical thinking part, that seems to be missing in your response. I never stated that the two examples are the same in every way. As I presented them, they're merely an illustration of an "is" of identity. Taking an analogy further than its intended purpose, to an irrelevant discussion of epistomology is rather petty and beside the point.

For the same reason, how could one person that does not know anything about the theological framework of Christianity (sin, fall, purpose of the atonement, etc.) come to the conclusion that an atonement is needed or even morally conceivable (not everyone agrees that an innocet person should pay for the sins of another)?

Almost every culture knows that there is something intrinsically wrong with mankind, and as such there is an underlying angst and with it a knowledge of guilt. Most religions attempt to deal with this guilt by proposing that humans do certain tasks or rituals, be a certain way, or perform certain duties to attain some higher level. An honest person will realise that no amount of rituals or good deeds or meditations or sacrifices are capable of covering that human condition. The procrastian sword, if you will, remains floating above one's head.

People crawl for miles on their knees to the statue of Fatima, and they do it again next year because it doesn't work.

Some women who have had abortions cut themselves, thinking that inflicting pain on themselves with undo what is wrong.

Some tribesmen pierce themselves, starve themselves, flog themselves but the furies still haunt them.

Other people, driven by guilt, try to cover it through good deeds, obsessive self-denial and the like, but the feeling remains and they continue.

Some cultures believe that this life is a punishment, and in the next life they'll do better.

Other cultures cast virgins down volcanos to make the feeling that they've angered a higher power go away, but there aren't enough virgins to hide that feeling.

In secular societies people will deny even the existence of this guilt, they'll compare themselves to other people and try to rationalise it away, but deep down the knowledge of a debt that must be paid remains, or they'll drown out the reality in drugs and alcohol or the pursuit of other empty diversions.

There has to be a way that makes that which is wrong right, and it does not lie within human ability.

Perhaps something that you'll find helpful in understanding this concept is an article by professor of government and philosophy (specialising in ethics) J. Budziszewski, entitled The Furies of Conscience. http://www.touchston...?id=16-07-027-f

Perhaps you'll notice that those who gravitated to Jesus were the prostitutes, the tax collectors, the thieves and murderers. There's a good reason for this, they knew what they were and couldn't deceive themselves into thinking that they're allright. Like C.S. Lewis puts it you cannot fool yourself into thinking that dirt is gold, but you can fool yourself into thinking foolsgold is real gold. In Western society we have become masters of fooling ourselves. Our teenage songs and our heavy-metal lyrics confirm that there's something wrong with the world, but we believe we're not the problem, we're allright. But it's those who are honest who seek righteousness, and they find it in Jesus.

Notice the progression here:

Mat 5:2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,

Mat 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 5:4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

Mat 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

Mat 5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

Mat 5:7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

Mat 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

Mat 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Mat 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

First comes the realisation that one is poor in spirit. That a debt is owed.

Then comes the mourning, true remorse and truly sorrow at the state in which one finds oneself

Then comes meekness, instead of rationalising one's guilt, or drowning it in noise or works, but truly admitting it and acknowledging that no one else is to blame.

Then comes the hunger for righteousness. The desire for it all to be right. As the puritans used to say, "You know you've been saved when your life changes". When the sins one once loved, you now hate.

Then comes mercy. God will forgive. The price has been paid.

Then comes the purity that was sought, not through oneself but through the mercy that was obtained and the sanctification through a changed life. A heart of stone has once again been made flesh.

Then comes peace, and the serenity that one is once again reconciled with God.

But then the world will hate you, mock you, make fun of you, persecute you, revile you and make false accusations, but the inner peace will not shatter, because all is well.