Forums | MacLife

At our church the label is "Christ follower" as we recognize the watering down of the term Christianity.  It doesn't mean what it should mean anymore.  Anyone and everyone claims it it seems regardless of their true faith/actions.

I think "Christ follower" is a more descriptive label anyways.

--Random User

user wrote:

Quite honestly, the empirical evidence should be provided by the folks claiming god's existence. I asked you about your atheism = faith statement because I have never gotten a good answer to that.

gotquestions.org wrote:

At the same time, it takes just as much faith to believe in atheism. To make the absolute statement “God does not exist!” is to make a claim of knowing absolutely everything there is to know about everything – and of having been everywhere in the universe there is to go – and having witnessed everything there is to be seen. Of course, no atheist would make these exact claims. However, that is essentially what they are claiming when they state that God does not exist. Atheists cannot prove that God does not, for example, live in the center of the sun, or beneath the clouds of Jupiter, or in some distant nebula. This cannot be proven, so it cannot be proven that God does not exist. It takes just as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a theist.

Just another viewpoint on the topic.


--Random User

radarman wrote:

I find it interesting that atheists don't see the glaring irony of stating another person's god doesn't exist.

No. It involves not believing in at least one more god than a believer does, or do you (as a Christian) believe in Vishnu, Ahura Mazda, Mithras, Zeus, Amida Buddha, Ra...?

Excellent example of redefining Faith™ every other post.

It is everything and nothing, apparently.

Additionally, calling yourself "Christ Followers"™ is yet another way to try to distance yourself from others. What happened to the beacon on the hill? Must you try to run away from everything in an effort to ignore the existence of problems?

gotquestions.org wrote:

At the same time, it takes just as much faith to believe in a-teapot-ism. To make the absolute statement “A magic floating teapot does not exist!” is to make a claim of knowing absolutely everything there is to know about everything – and of having been everywhere in the universe there is to go – and having witnessed everything there is to be seen. Of course, no a-teapot-ian would make these exact claims. However, that is essentially what they are claiming when they state that a magic floating teapot does not exist. A-teapot-ians cannot prove that a magic floating teapot does not, for example, live in the center of the sun, or beneath the clouds of Jupiter, or in some distant nebula. This cannot be proven, so it cannot be proven that a magic floating teapot does not exist. It takes just as much faith to be an a-teapot-ian as it does to be a teapot-ian.

mo' ron wrote:

radarman wrote:

I find it interesting that atheists don't see the glaring irony of stating another person's god doesn't exist. It wasn't without reason that the US Supreme Court called atheism a religion - it requires just as much, and possibly more, faith than any other.

Atheism requires far less faith than religion.

The type of "faith" required by atheist are things like "matter is made up of atoms." We (humanity) have no way to detect this for ourselves with our senses, we just have to have faith that the scientific community won't lie to us.

Religious people have faith that god will give them guidance in their lives, and this is based on believing that their religious texts and religious leaders won't lie to them.

The difference is that an atheist can go through a certain amount of work to "prove" their beliefs of faith are in fact based on concrete things, where as a religious person has no means of proving their faith.

I believe in the ability of science to answer questions just as much as you do. I'm an engineer, so I have to believe in science, or my work is meaningless.

What does that have to do with a belief in god? I can believe in quarks, even though I've never seen one, and I can believe in God, even though I've never seen Him.

However, this strongly implies something I've thought for a while. Atheists worship science, and human understanding, as the answer to everything; a belief that I believe is misplaced. (interesting sentence...)

In all seriousness, though; science can't help you here. As a Christian, you ask me to prove that there is a God. As an atheist, I ask you to prove that there is not. Who has the easier task?

But I haven't used that as an excuse to deny God. If anything, the more I learn of the world, and of science, convinces me that there is a god - I'm just not convinced He's found in the temples/synagogues/churches/(statehouses) as everyone claims.

I do believe in Christ; that he not only existed, but that he did what he claimed. I believe God exists, and that he is who he says he is. I also believe that what is written about God in the Bible is true, though I acknowledge that the Bible was written by many hands, over a very long period of time, and has biases that favor the Jews (they did write the Old Testament after all)

Your first paragraph doesn't seem to fit with your second paragraph here. How do you reconcile the 2 beliefs with each other? How do you feel about people of non-Christian beliefs, are they going to hell? What about the idea of evolution vs. creationism? Do you feel that Genesis is mostly figurative?

For the last 2 questions particularly, you may think that you have a good, logical basis for your answer, but there are also other smart people who are Christians who disagree with you  (note: it doesn't matter how you answer those questions, there are people who disagree with you) on what they feel are more empirical grounds.

The ambiguous nature of "Christianity" is reason enough I think not to want to call yourself a Christian. This has no bearing on spirituality however.

I've never met, and most likely never will, John Adams (the second president of the United States). I have read biographies, and histories, and even though I have never seen him, or even his grave, I believe that he existed. Are those biographies and histories completely accurate? Of course not. (though, in fairness, there wasn't a claim that they were.)

The "Bible" is not a single work. It is comprised of personal letters, memoirs, song books, histories, and a couple of guidebooks from a father to his son. The claim to inerrancy refers to the Bible's description of the character of God, not that there won't be problems with the number of times the Jews had to say a certain word during a certain ceremony, or other minutiae.

At the end of the day, though; I have made my decision, and I'm comfortable with it. One day, hopefully far in the future, I will find out if I made the correct one. Until then, I hardly think my life is being wasted believing in God. You are, clearly, free to disagree with that choice, as I'm free to disagree with yours. The fact that not everyone agrees or disagrees with me has nothing to do with my beliefs.

Ribtorus wrote:

Random User wrote:

Whoever said that "faith" was strictly a holy concept? 

We have "faith" in gravity everyday.  We have "faith" in the sun existing for another tomorrow.  We have "faith" in lots of non-holy things.

The concept of faith as it applies to religious belief is particular; it is central to the functioning and preservation of the religion itself. 
But the word faith can have many meanings and implications in the secular world.

Science does not grind to a halt when faith in a hypothesis is challenged. In fact, science thrives on just such challenges. It's how it works. Faith in an idea may lead to poor science at best, and anti-science at worst.

There is little need for faith in an honest athiest. They fare much better in the credibility department among their peers when they abandon faith as a concept in their investigations and learnings.

A lot of honest Christians and Muslims advanced science as well, and it is because they understood the nature of science that they were able to succeed. Many of the things we "believe" about God have no basis in fact. Although science may disprove those conceptions, it does not necessarily hinder faith.

Science is very good at showing us how things work, but it is very bad at proving anything. Even with DNA testing, the result is given as a probability. We have created the distinction between 'theories' and 'laws' based on popular acceptance, but in reality, all science produces is theories that either have, or have not, been disproven.

Thus, I see science as a tool with which we probe and explore the world. I do not see how it conflicts with faith in God, because each operates in a different realm. If anything, I believe that science, and understanding, can help eliminate misconceptions about faith by separating that which is natural from that which is supernatural.

The practical example is that I go to see doctors rather than relying on "faith" because I believe God gave those doctors the ability to understand the world, through science, in order to help those like me who need it. We weren't given these magnificent brains for nothing. It would be foolish to deny science in preference to faith when it is apparent that science is correct. However, it would be equally foolish to put all of one's faith in science, since science is an ever-changing thing.

In much the same way that I use Linux and Windows for different tasks, I can use science and faith for different tasks. Science tells me how, faith tells me why.

JakeTheTall wrote:

Atheists don't have to be so into science.

They could just be lazy about the world, and not care about any understand or belief system.


I think you should use an adjective like "militant" before the word "atheist" to maybe mean the atheists you're thinking of.


Their "god" setting doesn't have to be set to "God of Abraham" or "Zeus" or "Amon-Ra" or "None"....it could be <undefined> or NULL (to bust out a programming analogy).

Speaking if ironic, how about this little bit of irony: Christians, members of one of the two most violently imperialistic faiths on the planet, call foul when atheists promote their own world view.

resedit wrote:

SpacemanSpiff wrote:

Well if the most basic definition of Christian was a disciple as a "follower of Christ" (Acts 11:26), then no.

I haven't seen any group of people actually following Christ for some time now.

What is your standard for following Christ?

Remember - man looks at the outward appearance ...

.. yes...  and you will know them by their fruits

I too can prattle of bits of scripture.  You missed the point of my post (if there was one).

I am saying that I fail to see large groups of people exemplifying Christianity in America.  Maybe there are smaller groups and I am sure that there are persons who do so.  But name me a large "sect" of Christianity that truly is following a 2nd chapter of Acts model, in America.

I submit that there is none.

Pariah wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

Atheists don't have to be so into science.

They could just be lazy about the world, and not care about any understand or belief system.


I think you should use an adjective like "militant" before the word "atheist" to maybe mean the atheists you're thinking of.


Their "god" setting doesn't have to be set to "God of Abraham" or "Zeus" or "Amon-Ra" or "None"....it could be <undefined> or NULL (to bust out a programming analogy).

Speaking if ironic, how about this little bit of irony: Christians, members of one of the two most violently imperialistic faiths on the planet, call foul when atheists promote their own world view.

Atheists are responsible for communism, which is definitely up there in terms of imperialism. I would argue that they were pretty violent too. Stalin and Mao aren't remembered for being kind to little kittens, and neither are their modern day ideological descendents.

That said, I don't really give a rats behind if you do, or don't, believe in God. It's your call. I just call BS when I hear an atheist make the statement "there is no god" in the same breath as "atheists don't believe in faith". If they said "there is no evidence of a god", I wouldn't mind so much, but that would make them agnostic, wouldn't it...

radarman wrote:

Pariah wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

Atheists don't have to be so into science.

They could just be lazy about the world, and not care about any understand or belief system.


I think you should use an adjective like "militant" before the word "atheist" to maybe mean the atheists you're thinking of.


Their "god" setting doesn't have to be set to "God of Abraham" or "Zeus" or "Amon-Ra" or "None"....it could be <undefined> or NULL (to bust out a programming analogy).

Speaking if ironic, how about this little bit of irony: Christians, members of one of the two most violently imperialistic faiths on the planet, call foul when atheists promote their own world view.

Atheists are responsible for communism, which is definitely up there in terms of imperialism. I would argue that they were pretty violent too. Stalin and Mao aren't remembered for being kind to little kittens, and neither are their modern day ideological descendents.

That said, I don't really give a rats behind if you do, or don't, believe in God. It's your call. I just call BS when I hear an atheist make the statement "there is no god" in the same breath as "atheists don't believe in faith". If they said "there is no evidence of a god", I wouldn't mind so much, but that would make them agnostic, wouldn't it...

Gee wiz, for about 100 years a bad philosophy held forth that caused some bad things to happen. Put another way about 8.125% of the time Christianity has been steamrollering over cultures.
Historically atheistic communism is just a bump in the road.

user wrote:

radarman wrote:

That said, I don't really give a rats behind if you do, or don't, believe in God. It's your call. I just call BS when I hear an atheist make the statement "there is no god" in the same breath as "atheists don't believe in faith". If they said "there is no evidence of a god", I wouldn't mind so much, but that would make them agnostic, wouldn't it...

So you don't mind atheists, so long as they aren't atheists.

You really haven't shown that atheists have faith.

To state with certainty that something does or doesn't exist with no evidence either way is to have faith in something. You have as much faith that God doesn't exist, as I have faith that he does. Neither of us can prove our position with certainty.

user wrote:

radarman wrote:

Then, there is the question of why things occur, specifically as it pertains to good and evil. These forces result in actions which make no rational sense, and yet they are continually occuring.

This is only a problem for the religious. smurf happens. That's all there is to it.

Wow - I never realized that the forums automatically convert certain words to smurf. I figured it was just something everyone agreed to.

As for the idea that "smurf" happens, maybe it does sometimes. I tend to believe that a lot of things happen for a reason, though. Who's to say it doesn't?

radarman wrote:

I believe if you back up a bit, and start to take in the larger picture, you will find plenty of questions for faith. Besides, an untested faith is no faith at all. Anyone who blithely believes something without testing it isn't faithful, they are merely ignorant. Thus, it is imperative that we DO question our faith, and ask questions of it.

The religious idea behind questioning faith is that faith should be stronger afterward. If not, you've done something wrong.

Is this not the idea behind science as well? We question our understanding of something in order to further our understanding? Do we not test our theories to make our science stronger afterward?