Atheism is reasonable, and Christianity is not

[2PhiloVoid]

That sounds a bit like one of my favorite dualistic positions, though one I thought would have been heretical from a Christian perspective, so... maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Or... maybe not.

I doubt you misunderstand me. In fact, at the moment, I'm not sure I understand me. And it might be possible that I am treading heretical territory, but I'm not really looking to be a heretic, if I can keep from it.

However, as even Hasker points out, “...Scripture does not mandate any particular mind-body theory...” (251). Furthermore, the closest metaphysical concept we have in Scripture is “the Image of God,” and as I'm sure you already know, all this implies is that we somehow reflect God's moral and creative being. So, from a practical standpoint, I don't see how one can really be a heretic on this issue: Not you, not me, and not really anyone for that matter. Moreover, and I've said this before elsewhere, it's not as if God has given us a comprehensive, systematic theology in the Bible, so it's also not as if Christians in any past age have been able to fully lay out how God contributes to the causation of our being, or to that of our world, or to the constructs of our brains which play a role in the nature and processes of our minds.

As far as “Christian Materialism” (CM) is concerned, Hasker tells us that it is “emergent” and that “This view must hold … that certain objects have properties and causal powers that do not exist in their simpler constituents and connot be predicted on the basis of the properties manifested by those constituents” (p. 253). What this position tells me then is that, in primordial form, matter is essentially inert and must be vivified by God's Spirit in some way to manifest consciousness, and this infusion can come from the outside or by an inherent potential that is built into the 'material' [evolution?].

If this is the case, I don't see why CM wouldn't also fit with Polkinghorne's dual-aspect monism, where monism is a descriptor, or an aspect, of the material brain/mind configuration. I also think CM can fit with Van Till's theory of “the Gifted Creation” as part of a model for theistic evolution [which isn't by the way, any kind of I.D., nor is it Lamarckian in nature, as far as I can tell]. But, in these last points, I'm going beyond what Hasker is saying and I am surmising this arrangement of metaphysical descriptions. So, I'm not saying I know this. (We're just playing with Play-doh right now.)

Hasker then gives objections to this CM, which are:

1. Basic Materialists will say that CM is still a bit too “spooky” and excessive.
   
   
2. CM doesn't explain “what exactly does the thinking” in the brain, or how it does it.
   
   
3. CM seems to imply no Immortal Soul and brings with it problems of Identity regarding whatever it is we are in the afterlife. (So, what then are we after death? Are we still us or a grandiose simulacrum?)

Sure, I can see how some of these objections may have some merit, but since my expectation to “know” any of this is low, I'm not overly bothered by the unanswered questions. Should I be? (If I should be, then what becomes of my subscription to some presence of Existentialism in my Christian Faith?)

I mean, does any of the above really seem 'dual' to you? Am I missing some problem here that should really wreck my faith if I don't know how to address it? I'm sure that I'm not aware of all of the metaphysical issues which could bring up and by which I could be asked, “but what about this, and this, and this, and this, etc.?”

Basically the transcendentalist approach, by which the brain is operating like a radio antenna and channeling something external instead of itself producing it. Maybe processing it to form something new. It's often taken in a very pantheistic direction, but you could also toy with the idea that there is an individual soul which is produced over time. I don't believe in ensoulment, but this type of approach is intriguing.

Yes, these are interesting angles. We could be 'receivers' of sorts, taking in God's own Signal Output. And the mind could still be internal, too..........something potentially there within the material, but which only emerges when the material make-up is arranged just right, as Hasker was describing. (But, again, I'm speculating ...)

You could take it in a Platonic direction and posit some passive Form of Mind engrained within the nature of reality, but I suppose you could also look at it as another aspect of God actively sustaining everything in being. I'm not sure if that's the sort of thing you're talking about with Christian materialism, though?

...that's possible. I mean, what was Paul talking about when he said that God “holds all things together, in all, through all”? [And yes, I realize some people don't think Paul actually wrote this... ... but let's just assume he did for the moment.]

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Earlier in the thread you said there were arguments in favor of materialism, but now you're saying it is instead an assumption. Weird how hard it is to get a consistent story.

The presence of an argument doesn't by necessity mean the premises or the conclusion are either valid or sound. Arguments can be 'bad arguments,' but still be arguments nevertheless. So, don't knock @Silmarien for something that can be in both states of exposition; you should know since you say you're attuned to Logic/Argumentation. (Remember that thing called Logic, which is a part of the Field of Philosophy?)

I get suspicious when people can't just explain what something is and instead have to explain why attempts to define it keep failing. It is almost as if it isn't really anything at all - kinda like the supernatural.

Why would you expect all things to be explainable? Which theory of 'explanation' do you adhere to? (Or maybe I shouldn't ask since to do so would take you directly into...philosophy, KC. But then again, why should philosphers have to always do the work that scientists themselves SHOULD be doing as a part of their science, but yet often fail to do or take to seriously?)

I tried to make it through the first few answers but there's not much there. Lots of hope that things might change in the next few decades but nothing with actual results - except for his faith that telepathy is real, of course. Was there anything specific in the interview you want to discuss? Peer-revieiwed experimental results using whatever non-materialist approach you think he's in favor of would be ideal.

That's nice, but the question isn't about reductionist materialism being right or wrong. It was about actual results from non-materialist approaches to studying the mind.

Yep. Still waiting for anything showing that non-materialist assumptions generate useful results.

This is a lie.

It's not a lie; it's a debate, and a lot of the practical, applied scientific outcome from the theorizing involving materialist/non-materialist, mind/body problems, even as they pertain to A.I., will depend on whether you think Ray Kurzweil is right or you instead think Bill Joy (along with Stephen Hawking) is right. Which of these guys do you think is right, KC?

 

[KCfromNC]

The presence of an argument doesn't by necessity mean the premises or the conclusion are either valid or sound.

That's nice, but it has nothing to do with my objection. The problem is that depending on the day, materialism is either a fatally flawed argument, or just an assumption like many others. But pick one or the other - if words are just going to change meaning willy-nilly there's no point in discussing anything.

Why would you expect all things to be explainable?

All things? Never said anything about that. Why do you ask?

As a reminder, my objection was that we couldn't even get an explanation of what the alternative to materialism actually is.

It's not a lie

It is if I can find a materialist who thinks consciousness exists. And luckily I can - myself. It is a lie that materialists think it doesn't exist. The real problem is just that supernaturalists can't comprehend that their ideas about it are fatally flawed.

 

[Silmarien]

As a reminder, my objection was that we couldn't even get an explanation of what the alternative to materialism actually is.

I gave @2PhiloVoid the rundown on theories of mind that are out there. The alternatives I'm most familiar with are: idealism, substance dualism, property dualism (including emergentism), dual-aspect monism, and panpsychism. And of course there are different theories within materialism as well, though the non-reductive ones tend to be property dualism in disguise.

It is if I can find a materialist who thinks consciousness exists. And luckily I can - myself. It is a lie that materialists think it doesn't exist. The real problem is just that supernaturalists can't comprehend that their ideas about it are fatally flawed.

It wasn't a lie at all. There are plenty of materialists out there who back away from the full implications of their position and try to make compromises. The non-reductive materialists, for one. Once you start trying to sneak dualism in under cover, you're no longer speaking for materialism, even if you call yourself a materialist.

And quit it already with the materialist fundamentalism. The strongest critics of materialism are actually atheists, so stop pretending that supernaturalism has anything to do with this.

 

[Silmarien]

So, from a practical standpoint, I don't see how one can really be a heretic on this issue: Not you, not me, and not really anyone for that matter.

Well... there are certain non-naturalistic positions which are pretty incompatible with Christianity. Fullblown pantheistic approaches which hold that everyone is divine and that individual identity dissipates upon death. That's the sort of stuff I associate with this particular theory, though you could certainly take it in a different direction easily enough.

As far as “Christian Materialism” (CM) is concerned, Hasker tells us that it is “emergent” and that “This view must hold … that certain objects have properties and causal powers that do not exist in their simpler constituents and connot be predicted on the basis of the properties manifested by those constituents” (p. 253). What this position tells me then is that, in primordial form, matter is essentially inert and must be vivified by God's Spirit in some way to manifest consciousness, and this infusion can come from the outside or by an inherent potential that is built into the 'material' [evolution?].

Oooh, I see now. Yes, I totally did misunderstand you. This is actually one of the handful of positions I'm sympathetic to, though now I have to wonder how it differs from emergent dualism! They're both emergent!

Sure, I can see how some of these objections may have some merit, but since my expectation to “know” any of this is low, I'm not overly bothered by the unanswered questions. Should I be? (If I should be, then what becomes of my subscription to some presence of Existentialism in my Christian Faith?)

The only major question is the third one, I'd say, but continuity of self is going to be a bit of a conundrum no matter what. I wouldn't be too concerned about it, no.

I mean, does any of the above really seem 'dual' to you? Am I missing some problem here that should really wreck my faith if I don't know how to address it? I'm sure that I'm not aware of all of the metaphysical issues which could bring up and by which I could be asked, “but what about this, and this, and this, and this, etc.?”

It does look like another take on property dualism, but I don't really think that's a problem. It's actually probably somewhat unavoidable, if you don't take any of the extreme positions.

Nobody knows how to address these issues, though, so I would not worry about needing to make sense of it all. That just can't be done. My favorite argument for maximum insanity is the Mysterian approach, which basically goes:

1. We know that the mind must be reducible to physical processes.
2. We have no idea how this could be possible even in principle.
THEREFORE
3. We are not and may never be sufficiently evolved to solve this riddle.

It's amusing to me that they somehow overlook that #3 invalidates #1, but that's indoctrination for you, I guess.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well... there are certain non-naturalistic positions which are pretty incompatible with Christianity. Fullblown pantheistic approaches which hold that everyone is divine and that individual identity dissipates upon death. That's the sort of stuff I associate with this particular theory, though you could certainly take it in a different direction easily enough.

Yes, the pantheistic option might be a bit questionable ...

Oooh, I see now. Yes, I totally did misunderstand you. This is actually one of the handful of positions I'm sympathetic to, though now I have to wonder how it differs from emergent dualism! They're both emergent!

The main difference is that one suggests a soul (dualism), and one doesn't (materialism). So, a Christian materialism would maybe start with a more Jewish view in which the body, mind and spirit are unified, and in that case we would not 'have' souls, but rather we would 'be' souls. Then, when our body dies, so does our soul/spirit, and these would await God's future intervention by resurrection. (But again, who knows for sure?)

The only major question is the third one, I'd say, but continuity of self is going to be a bit of a conundrum no matter what. I wouldn't be too concerned about it, no.

Me neither.

It does look like another take on property dualism, but I don't really think that's a problem. It's actually probably somewhat unavoidable, if you don't take any of the extreme positions.

Nobody knows how to address these issues, though, so I would not worry about needing to make sense of it all. That just can't be done. My favorite argument for maximum insanity is the Mysterian approach, which basically goes:

1. We know that the mind must be reducible to physical processes.
2. We have no idea how this could be possible even in principle.
THEREFORE
3. We are not and may never be sufficiently evolved to solve this riddle.

It's amusing to me that they somehow overlook that #3 invalidates #1, but that's indoctrination for you, I guess.

Maximum insanity, indeed.

 

[KCfromNC]

I gave @2PhiloVoid the rundown on theories of mind that are out there. The alternatives I'm most familiar with are: idealism, substance dualism, property dualism (including emergentism), dual-aspect monism, and panpsychism. And of course there are different theories within materialism as well, though the non-reductive ones tend to be property dualism in disguise.

Even ignoring that some of these are materialist ideas, which ones of these are used by neuroscientists to get results they've published in peer reviewed journals? And how are these results in any way different from what they would have obtained using a materialist approach?

It wasn't a lie at all. There are plenty of materialists out there who back away from the full implications of their position and try to make compromises. The non-reductive materialists, for one. Once you start trying to sneak dualism in under cover, you're no longer speaking for materialism, even if you call yourself a materialist.

So if we relabel materialists who think consciousness is real as non-materialists (regardless of their beliefs about materialism) all materialists think that consciousness isn't real. Uh huh. I'm not sure why you think you get to define what other people believe but it doesn't come across as a great approach to me.

Plus there's the fact that back here in reality people do actually think there's nothing to dualism but still believe consciousness is real. And because of that, you were lying when you said otherwise.

And quit it already with the materialist fundamentalism. The strongest critics of materialism are actually atheists, so stop pretending that supernaturalism has anything to do with this.

Atheism isn't incompatible with belief in the supernatural.

But in any case, how does that change the fact that I'm someone you claimed doens't exist - someone who rejects dualism and accepts consciousness is real?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It does look like another take on property dualism, but I don't really think that's a problem. It's actually probably somewhat unavoidable, if you don't take any of the extreme positions.

Nobody knows how to address these issues, though, so I would not worry about needing to make sense of it all. That just can't be done. My favorite argument for maximum insanity is the Mysterian approach, which basically goes:

1. We know that the mind must be reducible to physical processes.
2. We have no idea how this could be possible even in principle.
THEREFORE
3. We are not and may never be sufficiently evolved to solve this riddle.

It's amusing to me that they somehow overlook that #3 invalidates #1, but that's indoctrination for you, I guess.

The Mysterian approach. I actually hadn't heard of that one... Thanks, Silmarien. Something new to learn once again.

 

[Silmarien]

So if we relabel materialists who think consciousness is real as non-materialists (regardless of their beliefs about materialism) all materialists think that consciousness isn't real. Uh huh. I'm not sure why you think you get to define what other people believe but it doesn't come across as a great approach to me.

Plus there's the fact that back here in reality people do actually think there's nothing to dualism but still believe consciousness is real. And because of that, you were lying when you said otherwise.

If a Christian were to start arguing that Jesus only appeared to be human but had always been entirely a spiritual being, I would point out that this was a Gnostic teaching, not a Christian one. I'm not going to call someone non-Christian for holding heterodox beliefs, but those beliefs do not become consistent with Christianity merely because someone who identifies as Christian holds them.

Similarly, if a materialist starts to talk about the mind as an emergent property of the brain, they are arguing for a form of property dualism, even if they insist on labeling it materialism. It is not a lie to point out that their position is indistinguishable from a version of dualism simply because they have an irrational aversion to the word "dualism."

If a materialist thinks that the mind is irreducible, they are by definition a dualist. If they think the mind is reducible to physical processes, they are in some sense of another denying the reality of consciousness, usually by redefining what consciousness means so that it fits neatly into the categories they allow.

Here's an article from a materialist neuroscientist who actually recognizes that materialism is unfalsifiable and thus unscientific. And as he says, it makes no sense for materialists to talk about conscious experience at all.

But in any case, how does that change the fact that I'm someone you claimed doens't exist - someone who rejects dualism and accepts consciousness is real?

Several posts ago, you didn't know what non-materialism even entailed, so I'm skeptical that you understand dualism well enough to reject it. I'm not really sure how you view consciousness, though--you appear to be a computationalist, but I suspect that if I tried to defend computationalism, you would turn around and attack it.

You would need to explain your theory of consciousness more fully for me to know where precisely you fit in.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Here's an article from a materialist neuroscientist who actually recognizes that materialism is unfalsifiable and thus unscientific. And as he says, it makes no sense for materialists to talk about conscious experience at all.

That is an interesting article.

 

[KCfromNC]

Similarly, if a materialist starts to talk about the mind as an emergent property of the brain, they are arguing for a form of property dualism, even if they insist on labeling it materialism.

Imagine the nerve of labeling a view which holds that there's only material stuff at work as materialism.

Seems like there's lots of confusion here - mistaking free will for consciousness, asserting that materialists believe consciousness doesn't exist, confusing monism with materialism, and so on. I find this a common problem in lots of philosophy - it is entertaining creative writing but it breaks down if you actually stop and think about it.

redefining what consciousness means so that it fits neatly into the categories they allow.

Kind of like you're doing here by pretending that the "real" definition of consciousness requires something non-material. Projection?

Several posts ago, you didn't know what non-materialism even entailed

No, I was saying you seemed to have some difficulty explaining what it even was. And considering how much time you seem to be spending trying to explain how materialists are wrong rather than just telling us what non-materialism is and how useful it has become, I'm not seeing much hope of fixing that.

You would need to explain your theory of consciousness more fully for me to know where precisely you fit in.

Yes, I can see why it might be a nice distraction away from the difficulty of being unable to explain what non-materialism is actually talking about.

 

[Silmarien]

Imagine the nerve of labeling a view which holds that there's only material stuff at work as materialism.

Seems like there's lots of confusion here - mistaking free will for consciousness, asserting that materialists believe consciousness doesn't exist, confusing monism with materialism, and so on. I find this a common problem in lots of philosophy - it is entertaining creative writing but it breaks down if you actually stop and think about it.

Well, that's certainly true for materialism. The more you think about it, the more it looks like an unfalsifiable, fairly arbitrary assumption used to prop up an atheistic worldview (or non-worldview, if you prefer), despite having some serious problems.

Materialism is a form of monism, however. As is idealism. And I really have no idea why you keep on confusing free will and consciousness. They are different issues, so there's no need to conflate them.

Kind of like you're doing here by pretending that the "real" definition of consciousness requires something non-material. Projection?

It requires awareness. If you think awareness is a physical property, there's a word for that too: panpsychism.

No, I was saying you seemed to have some difficulty explaining what it even was. And considering how much time you seem to be spending trying to explain how materialists are wrong rather than just telling us what non-materialism is and how useful it has become, I'm not seeing much hope of fixing that.

Neuroscientists can be materialists or non-materialists. Their theory on the interaction between brain and mind really shouldn't affect their work, which ought to be primarily empirical, not interpretative. Metaphysical assumptions are not in and of themselves "useful" for scientific progress, whatever they might be. Though challenging assumptions that have hardened into dogma is always beneficial, and non-materialism certainly does that.

Yes, I can see why it might be a nice distraction away from the difficulty of being unable to explain what non-materialism is actually talking about.

Well, don't bring yourself up as a materialist who believes in consciousness if you're not going to explain what you mean by either of those terms. I can't account for your beliefs if you refuse to share them.

 

[KCfromNC]

]It requires awareness. If you think awareness is a physical property, there's a word for that too: panpsychism.

Wait, I thought you said that materialists reject consciousness? Now you're saying that not only is it not required that the do so but that you know the name they give their particular type of materialism. I have no idea why the story keeps changing.

Neuroscientists can be materialists or non-materialists. Their theory on the interaction between brain and mind really shouldn't affect their work, which ought to be primarily empirical, not interpretative. Metaphysical assumptions are not in and of themselves "useful" for scientific progress, whatever they might be.

The bigger question is are they useful for anything at all?

Well, don't bring yourself up as a materialist who believes in consciousness if you're not going to explain what you mean by either of those terms. I can't account for your beliefs if you refuse to share them.

No need to get upset - there's no reason for you to have to account for them to try and explain the contractions in your posts.

 

[Silmarien]

Wait, I thought you said that materialists reject consciousness? Now you're saying that not only is it not required that the do so but that you know the name they give their particular type of materialism. I have no idea why the story keeps changing.

Panpsychism is not materialism. If a materialist wants to affirm panpsychism, fantastic, but once you move that far away from the traditional understanding of materialism, I have no idea why you'd still call yourself a materialist. It'd be like a self-proclaimed atheist arguing for the existence of a non-personal God.

The bigger question is are they useful for anything at all?

Metaphysical assumptions? If you think science is at all grounded in reality, that's an epistemological presupposition called scientific realism. A pretty important one too if you don't think that all of science is an exercise in futility.

No need to get upset - there's no reason for you to have to account for them to try and explain the contractions in your posts.

I've tried to clarify these perceived contradictions multiple times. Might as well be talking to a wall, honestly.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

So I'm back from my ban now... did I miss anything?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So I'm back from my ban now... did I miss anything?

You were banned? When? I thought you were just on hiatus for some reason.

Yes, you've missed a whole lot in the meanwhile.

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

Matt Dillahunty has clarified the atheist position with the following gumball analogy, which I have paraphrased:

Suppose there exists a gumball machine, and we don't know how many gumballs are inside it. If you told me that there were an even number of gumballs in the machine, then I would reject your assertion. Your assertion is rejected on the grounds of insufficient evidence, and I am not claiming that there is an odd number of gumballs. The fact of the matter is that we don't know and can't know how many gumballs there are, and so any positive assertion is unreasonable.

This is why most atheists are the "lack of belief" type of atheist. Some of these atheists might positively assert that Jehovah cannot exist, but this is usually because of the fact that Jehovah is often saddled with self-contradictory properties. Make Jehovah's properties self-consistent, and most atheists will not positively assert that he does not exist.

Those atheists who do assert that no gods exist are (hopefully) operating under the null hypothesis. For example, we might say that adding racing stripes to a vehicle will not make it go faster. This is not a declaration that experiments have been performed to conclude this, but rather that, by the null hypothesis, this is the default position. So, in that sense, when atheists say that there are no gods, they are (hopefully) speaking formally under the null hypothesis.

If an atheist were to say that there are definitively, absolutely, positively no gods, then they would be unreasonable. For if they were not saying this under the umbrella of the null hypothesis, then they must be declaring it as some conclusion. But most of us can agree that there is no argument which will soundly and validly conclude that there are positively no gods.

But now that we've clarified this, we should turn our attention to the Christian and see that they are unreasonable. The vast majority of theistic arguments are only suited to advance deism, which allows for the existence of one, many, or infinitely many deities. While all of these arguments are flawed, they are at least deductive, whereas Christian-specific arguments are rarely, if ever, deductive. Proving to the satisfaction of an atheist that Jesus rose from the dead does not definitively disprove the existence of Zeus or Thor.

So if a Christian cannot argue beyond the existence of potentially many generic deities, then - just like the atheist - the Christian would be unreasonable to positively assert that Zeus, Thor, and the countless other deities definitively do not exist. Yet, Christian creed demands that this declarative statement is made.

Even if the Christian were to successfully prove the existence of a supreme deity, there is nothing that can be done to show lesser deities do not exist. And gods like Thor certainly are lesser deities, since they are not said to be omnipotent or omniscient. Their existence cannot be disproved.

This means that Christianity is fundamentally unreasonable. Christianity cannot be defended logically, but must be believed by faith. And faith is not a path to the truth: just look no further than Islam.

Even as an atheist, one is still taking a leap of faith. Faith is substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen. (Hebrews 1:11). One is taking a faith stance either way: to believe or disbelieve. But in view of "evidence", How exactly would a notion such as Jesus begin? ; There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus, his crucifixion, and his resurrection, which is the core of a Christian's faith. Given the fact, that God's word is, in fact, truth and not lies, rather supports an otherwise strong position concerning things that are not seen. Evidence and truth and eyewitness accounts tend to win court cases after all. One cannot see air, but we breathe it and feel it. One cannot see love, but Hallmark would have words with you for saying it doesn't exist. When you see your grandma die, do you not feel anything? Do you not feel sad? (A thing you can't see), or hope you will see her again? (can't see hope) I can show you evidence all day, but what would it really take for you to accept the facts? What would it take for you to stop pretending you don't see what is clearly in front of you? You've literally been down this road, a million times. You've asked the same wrong questions as every other atheist on planet earth since the beginning of time. Start asking the right questions. What if God were real? What if he did send Jesus to save you because he did love you? Why is that unreasonable to you when it comes down to faith: to believe or not believe, just the same? Unreasonable would denying truth, and facts. Two things which I have proposed here. No lies. No games. No judgment. Just simple questions. Remember when you were younger, how you learned things in school? It took a person admitting to not knowing something, to be able to have a mindset capable of learning. Empty the cup so that you can fill it, so to speak. Scriptures have something for that "Lean not on your own understanding". What is really keeping you away from the truth?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Even as an atheist, one is still taking a leap of faith. Faith is substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen. (Hebrews 1:11). One is taking a faith stance either way: to believe or disbelieve. But in view of "evidence", How exactly would a notion such as Jesus begin? ; There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus, his crucifixion, and his resurrection, which is the core of a Christian's faith. Given the fact, that God's word is, in fact, truth and not lies, rather supports an otherwise strong position concerning things that are not seen. Evidence and truth and eyewitness accounts tend to win court cases after all. One cannot see air, but we breathe it and feel it. One cannot see love, but Hallmark would have words with you for saying it doesn't exist. When you see your grandma die, do you not feel anything? Do you not feel sad? (A thing you can't see), or hope you will see her again? (can't see hope) I can show you evidence all day, but what would it really take for you to accept the facts? What would it take for you to stop pretending you don't see what is clearly in front of you? You've literally been down this road, a million times. You've asked the same wrong questions as every other atheist on planet earth since the beginning of time. Start asking the right questions. What if God were real? What if he did send Jesus to save you because he did love you? Why is that unreasonable to you when it comes down to faith: to believe or not believe, just the same? Unreasonable would denying truth, and facts. Two things which I have proposed here. No lies. No games. No judgment. Just simple questions. Remember when you were younger, how you learned things in school? It took a person admitting to not knowing something, to be able to have a mindset capable of learning. Empty the cup so that you can fill it, so to speak. Scriptures have something for that "Lean not on your own understanding". What is really keeping you away from the truth?

I stopped reading in the middle of this long post because it is apparent that you did not read and consider what I said.

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

I stopped reading in the middle of this long post because it is apparent that you did not read and consider what I said.

While you may believe I had not read your post, I did in fact read it. I don't just go blindly into something. I did find it not relevant to a non-existent deity platform such as atheism, which is what I am addressing. Zeus, Thor, and other "lesser deities" have nothing to do whatsoever with Christianity. So why would I address it? I addressed atheism. Isn't that what we are here for? I'm not going to debate stuff people really did make up. Because if that were the case, then flying spaghetti monsters would certainly qualify as relevant to the topic at hand. Reread my original response post then get back at me. And get through to end this time.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

While you may believe I had not read your post, I did in fact read it. I don't just go blindly into something. I did find it not relevant to a non-existent deity platform such as atheism, which is what I am addressing. Zeus, Thor, and other "lesser deities" have nothing to do whatsoever with Christianity. So why would I address it? I addressed atheism. Isn't that what we are here for? I'm not going to debate stuff people really did make up. Because if that were the case, then flying spaghetti monsters would certainly qualify as relevant to the topic at hand. Reread my original response post then get back at me. And get through to end this time.

We're here to discuss the OP. If you want to preach to atheists, there's the Exploring Christianity thread.

You can't just hijack my thread and tell me what it's supposed to be about. You stick to the OP, or there's no discussion.