What Convinced you God Exists?

[Paulomycin]

Well, we are Team Atheist. It's actually codified in our playbook under section 2, 538B.

^ 3rd response continuing to stall.

As a "Christian," you should know there's no "one Christian answer" to anything.

CHRINOs don't count.

Ultimately came to the conclusion there were no longer good reasons for my faith.

You are not sovereign over what constitutes good reasoning.

Do you have a scab fetish?

If you're still here, then it's not a clean break from Christianity at all. It's obvious you still have issues with it. Thus, your compulsive need to continue picking at it.

Back to expecting others to prove everything that's never existed?

You have no way of demonstrating that conclusion.

I thought you recognized the folly of your position earlier in this thread. Your line of "reasoning" is why no serious scholar takes your solipsistic special pleading seriously. You want others to believe as you do, then put up, or shut up, as the saying goes.

I'm only referring to serious scholars. Again, don't shoot the messenger.

You do you, I'm best at doing me. If it weren't for projection, you'd have no 'jection at all. I recommend you spend less time guessing as to the motive of others, and more time sharpening your syllogisms.

They remain objectively unrefuted, so I guess they're sharp enough.

This is nonsense.

And, as predicted, you keep repeating ineffective assertions.

Of course. What's the point of discussion if an interlocutor is dishonest?

You have no evidence of an objective standard of truth, and thus no standard of honesty to speak of. You can't leech off of a Christian standard of honesty.

 

[Paulomycin]

Is that a joke answer, or an emphatic serious answer? Are all of your interactions with atheists here simply to antagonize them and to try to make them cry?

I literally want you to fall to your knees before a sovereign God in tears of repentance. If not, then tears of frustration at the failures of atheist ideology will do just as well.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Was it a philosophical argument such as the cosmological argument or was it some type of personal experience? or something other than one of these?

I'm not really sure how I fully came to my own Christian view; mine has always been a kind of counter-cultural knee jerk reaction to the diabolical evil I know exists in the World.

I said: So, for me, in sum Diabolical Evil exists, therefore Jesus is Lord.

They said: "Well, that doesn't make sense, 2PhiloVoid! That's crazy!!"

And I said: Ok.

 

[Paulomycin]

I'm not really sure how I fully came to my own Christian view; mine has always been a kind of counter-cultural knee jerk reaction to the diabolical evil I know exists in the World.

I said: So, for me, in sum Diabolical Evil exists, therefore Jesus is Lord.

They said: "Well, that doesn't make sense, 2PhiloVoid! That's crazy!!"

And I said: Ok.

I can see it make total sense from the POV of the classical moral argument.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I can see it make total sense from the POV of the classical moral argument.

Yeah, I suppose so. But mine would be the "Screwtape" version of it.

 

[Moral Orel]

Because all atheists want to do is make believers cry.

Atheist activists are only here to antagonize religion.

Where's your evidence?

You're the evidence. You're an activist. You're here what, 7 days a week? This isn't much of a challenge, you know.

Okay, so I pop in a lot. And?

Are all of your interactions with atheists here simply to antagonize them and to try to make them cry?

YEEEEAHHH!!!

I literally want you to fall to your knees before a sovereign God in tears of repentance. If not, then tears of frustration at the failures of atheist ideology will do just as well.

Okay. So your goal here is to make atheists cry by frustrating them. And you're also only talking to atheists to antagonize them, yes yes? Posting a lot is proof of that, yes yes?

 

[Paulomycin]

Okay. So your goal here is to make atheists cry by frustrating them.

Truth is very frustrating to atheists.

And you're also only talking to atheists to antagonize them, yes yes?

Talking truth is antagonizing to atheists.

 

[HitchSlap]

Truth is very frustrating to atheists.



Talking truth is antagonizing to atheists.

Truth is the one luxury theists can’t afford.

 

[Moral Orel]

Truth is very frustrating to atheists.

Talking truth is antagonizing to atheists.

Okay, so you're only hanging around here to frustrate and be antagonistic. Just wanted to make sure that was clear for everyone. That's not why I'm here, so I'm afraid you're projecting there with your accusations, buddy.

 

[Paulomycin]

Truth is the one luxury theists can’t afford.

You can't account for truth, remember?

BTW, keep stalling.

 

[Paulomycin]

Okay, so you're only hanging around here to frustrate and be antagonistic.

To atheists who refuse to be convinced of anything, and view their own flat-earth forced incredulity as some kind of amusing game. Yes.

Just wanted to make sure that was clear for everyone.

Not "everyone." Just atheists.

 

[Moral Orel]

Not "everyone." Just atheists.

No, I didn't mean you're hanging around to be antagonistic to everyone. I meant that it's clear to everyone that you're hanging around to be antagonistic to atheists. Yes yes?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Truth, like, "Existence magically came about all by itself!"

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I am serious as a heart-attack here. Atheist activists are here to set nominal and/or weak believers against their own upbringing. If there are new believers who weren't born into Christianity, then atheist activists are setting them against the solution to existential dread as adults. Across the spectrum, skeptics are the killjoys of life itself.

Well I am the happiest and have the best mental health I have ever had since I became an unbeliever.

Are you not an activist? <-- You keep dodging this.]

No, I do not consider myself an activest.

Are you not here to overturn the Christian religion?

No, I don't think I can do that.

Is Christianity not an obstacle to Progressive utopia?

I do not believe there is a progressive utopia. I am probably the most conservative politically atheist here.

Should Christianity not be subverted, undermined, or destroyed by any means necessary?

No, it should be left behind through education and better epistemology. I just want people to think about why they believe what they believe.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I'm not really sure how I fully came to my own Christian view; mine has always been a kind of counter-cultural knee jerk reaction to the diabolical evil I know exists in the World.

I said: So, for me, in sum Diabolical Evil exists, therefore Jesus is Lord.

They said: "Well, that doesn't make sense, 2PhiloVoid! That's crazy!!"

And I said: Ok.

I don't think it is crazy but I do think it does not make sense. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Truth, like, "Existence magically came about all by itself!"

I believe that there is a reason or explanation for our existence. The fact that I do not know what that reason is does not mean a god did it. I don't know of any atheist or scientist that claims magic had anything to do with it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't think it is crazy but I do think it does not make sense. Thanks for sharing.

That's understandable. And I don't expect it to make sense to anyone unless they've lived my life and read the dozens upon dozens of books and journal articles that I've read which coherently (but not necessarily correspondingly) "fill in the connective conceptual tissues."

The point is, my view is filled with too many details for me to place in some singular, brief posts on a forum.

But, if one wants a 'nutshell' summary of why I believe in Jesus, the above signifies why.

Have a good morning!

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

That's understandable. And I don't expect it to make sense to anyone unless they've lived my life and read the dozens upon dozens of books and journal articles that I've read which coherently (but not necessarily correspondingly) "fill in the connective conceptual tissues."

The point is, my view is filled with too many details for me to place in some singular, brief posts on a forum.

But, if one wants a 'nutshell' summary of why I believe in Jesus, the above signifies why.

Have a good morning!

Do you think it is reasonable for God to require people to read dozens upon dozens of books and journals just to believe in Jesus? Most people in the history of the humans did/do not have access to these resources.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you think it is reasonable for God to require people to read dozens upon dozens of books and journals just to believe in Jesus? Most people in the history of the humans did/do not have access to these resources.

First off, I said nothing about God requiring people to read dozens of books in order to believe. You asked in your OP why any one of us current Christians here believes and... I answered you as to 'why' I believe. I don't expect my existential peculiarities to layout some kind of program by which all other people (or God) must follow.

Secondly, keep in mind that you've asked me this same question a few times before. But in answer, I'll just say that within a more or less 'Inclusivist' approach to world evangelism (and communication theory) and the issue of individual salvation, I'd say yes, it is reasonable for God to expect people to form belief at least partially through the daily acquisition of additional education.

 

[HitchSlap]

I'd say yes, it is reasonable for God to expect people to form belief at least partially through the daily acquisition of additional education.

Exactly! I’d like to think, that if your god exists, that we’re judged on the basis of ‘daily acquisition of additional education.’