Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Answer me honestly - don't you think that the implication that you wouldn't be honest otherwise is a bit insulting?In my opinion, honesty and objectivity go hand in hand. It takes an honest person to realize they can't be perfectly objective, they can only be honestly objective.
It's not wrong to assume there's honest objective atheists out there.
Answer me honestly - don't you think that the implication that you wouldn't be honest otherwise is a bit insulting?
God is always claimed to be "the perfect being"... by Christians. Don't you think atheists are aware of that? Don't you think that atheists are aware that this is always in the background when they talk with Christians?Only if you have something to hide.
If someone asks me to be honest I'm not going to be insulted because I always expect the same from others.
What I continue to discover however, is that athiest can't be honestly objective when talking about perfect beings, because God always comes up and they have already assumed God is not perfect.
God is always claimed to be "the perfect being"... by Christians. Don't you think atheists are aware of that? Don't you think that atheists are aware that this is always in the background when they talk with Christians?
Somehow I don't think you are honestly objective here.
Huh? Where do you get the notion that atheists don't do that?So why can't you assume God is perfect and then start questioning his perfection? Instead of assuming he's not perfect and then start questioning his perfection that you have already assumed is not perfect?
Huh? Where do you get the notion that atheists don't do that?
Or rather, where do you get the notion that atheists didn't do that previously, came by their questioning to the conclusion that God is not perfect and now just don't go through the motions of repeating their conclusions every time this is mentioned?
While I find that if someone assumes dishonesty in others as the norm, it is because he assumes other people are like himself - dishonest.Only if you have something to hide.
If someone asks me to be honest I'm not going to be insulted because I always expect the same from others.
What I continue to discover however, is that athiest can't be honestly objective when talking about perfect beings, because God always comes up and they have already assumed God is not perfect.
How can "truth" be a starting point? I agree that an ideal society would have a correct ethics, but the starting point is reason and evidence. The ethics of the nation would, presumably, be strongly justified by these.
In my society, people would be free to think and discuss ideas for themselves, and there would be no thought police. People with the right ideas would lead by example, and by good philosophical arguments. Falsehood would be dealt with by presenting good arguments as to why they are falsehoods. The law would only be present to maintain a free society, not enforced orthodoxy.
Truth cannot be a starting point. Rationality would be the starting point. Truth would hopefully be one of the products of rationality, and largely for the sake of the primary end point, which is the flourishing of the citizenry.
While I find that if someone assumes dishonesty in others as the norm, it is because he assumes other people are like himself - dishonest.
Most atheists of my acquaintance rather than assuming God is not perfect, assume God doesn't exist.
I think it makes sense that the desire for truth must come before rational thinking
I think there's a difference between free thinking and deep thinking. Free thinking allows you to think whatever you want to think, but deep thinking requires you to deeply think about the meaning behind everything. I'd say free thinkers desire ideas that are inline with what they think, while deep thinkers desire truth.
Hm... could it not also be that I could explain a lot about the reasonable doubts and criticisms atheists have towards Christian theology, and it would all make sense, but you still possibly would keep on believing because you've already assumed its true?I understand, but what if you think God is not perfect because you lack the full knowledge of God? Given enough time I can explain a lot about Christian theology and it would all make sense, but you still possibly would not believe because you've already assumed its wrong.
I understand, but what if you think God is not perfect because you lack the full knowledge of God? Given enough time I can explain a lot about Christian theology and it would all make sense, but you still possibly would not believe because you've already assumed its wrong.
Hm... could it not also be that I could explain a lot about the reasonable doubts and criticisms atheists have towards Christian theology, and it would all make sense, but you still possibly would keep on believing because you've already assumed its true?
Wouldn't it be better to simply present your arguments, have them discussed, have them analysed... instead of just accusing your opponent of discarding them from the start?
And another problem here, for exactly this argument: if we start from the assumption that "God is perfect"... what would we have gained that helps us for a logical argument? You would have defined your conclusion into existence!
Wouldn't it be better to start from the assumption that God isn't perfect, and then showed by a line of logical conclusions that even starting from this assumption, he still would have to be perfect?
You are filled with too many assumptions, all designed to protect your personal faith belief.
This is why, you get tripped up so easily, when critically questioned.
What you write in you're posts, is a big clue and it is there for all to see.
I'd actually argue that we try not to assume anything and just objectively observe and ask questions in order to find the actual truth. Truth being the motivation behind everything.
Is that why you asked atheists "So why can't you assume God is perfect..."?
Because you don't want to assume anything?
I'd say that you know for yourself that, while starting from an objective observation would be nice, it is quite impossible. You even said that people "can't be perfectly objective", and you are also aware that you can't even do a "honestly objectively" observation of the perfection or imperfection of God.
So we are left with assumptions again. Which one should it be?
Well, I can say for myself that I, too, have honestly sought out the truth, have tried to be as objective as possible when thinking about God... and I have come to the conclusion that such a being does not exist. It wasn't simple me me either, no way... but I dare to say that if you chose to describe that process as "real spiritual warfare" and won by "playing your trust in Jesus", you have lost your objectivity quite early... and most likely your honesty as well.All I can say for myself is that I've honestly sought out the truth and have tried to be as objective as possible when thinking about God and I've come to the conclusion that He must be perfect because only a perfect God can explain why we're all here. Of course it wasn't that simple, it was a real spiritual warfare and the only way I got through it was by placing my trust in Jesus.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?