[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] When should we change our reasoning / beliefs?

[anonymous person]

That sounds circular. Would you not have to first believe that "gods" were possible, and Jesus was more than a character in a book in order to "seek him"?

Yep.

I find the idea of getting free stuff appealing, but I do not find myself writing letters to Santa.

Being a follower of Jesus is not free. It costs.

Read Bonhoeffer's work entitled the Cost of Discipleship.

I find this to be such a cop out. What have you to say?

You're not the only one.

"I believe Bigfoot exists. I think I have seen him, and do not doubt my experience. You don't believe me? I guess nothing I say will convince you."

I believe you.

 

[Davian]

Neither do we accept your irreligious opinion as truth.

Thanks though.

I am not the one here proffering my opinion as truth.

 

[Davian]

Yep.

Circular reasoning it is then. A powerful tool in the hands of the religionist.

Being a follower of Jesus is not free. It costs.

Read Bonhoeffer's work entitled the Cost of Discipleship.

Not to mention the cost of my intellectual integrity.

You're not the only one.

I believe you.

I was paraphrasing you.

 

[Chriliman]

I do not accept your religious opinion as truth.

Serious question: Do you post this to get laughs or are you actually being serious? Because every time you post this I lol at it, so I'm sorry if you're actually being serious.

 

[anonymous person]

I am not the one here proffering my opinion as truth.

Then we have something in common, for neither am I.

 

[anonymous person]

Circular reasoning it is then. A powerful tool in the hands of the religionist.

Not to mention the cost of my intellectual integrity.

I was paraphrasing you.

I do not accept your irreligious opinion as truth.

Thanks though.

 

[paulm50]

And you did what I asked you not to do. You over thought it. Let me bring it back to a more simplified version.

If Bill is telling you something that makes perfect sense to you, you'd be silly to assume that what he's saying isn't true, instead you'd be intelligent in asking bill questions about his claim in order to obtain more truth. If there comes a point in your questioning when what Bill is saying no longer makes sense to you, you are then justified in thinking that Bill could be wrong, but if that point never comes then you are justified in believing Bill until he begins to say things that don't make sense, but if that never happens then Bill is eternal truth. In other words Bill would be God. So when someone truly finds God, they can inquire about anything and the answer always makes sense and will make sense for eternity. Is this an acceptable explanation of God?

Oh btw, Sam is satan.

So tell us something that makes perfect sense.

 

[paulm50]

Your either saying that truth really shouldn't be expected to make sense and therefore can never really be understood by humans or you're assuming that truth can't possibly come from God.

So which is it? <honest question expecting honest answer

Truth will make sense, so all you have to do is prove the Earth was made in 6 days, Moses and Noah are true stories so can see your truth. And there's your Wall. No one can prove any of the claims you make, other than Jesus, and a few more disciples existed.

Requesting of evidence is going to be negatively labeled, because they have none.

Now that makes sense.

 

[Cearbhall]

Lets say Bill tells you something that makes perfect sense to you, since it makes perfect sense to you doesn't this mean you believe Bill?

There is quite a difference between possibility and truth. It's quite possible that we're living in the Matrix, or that I'm a brain in a jar, but I don't see any reason to actually entertain those possibilities.

 

[Chriliman]

So tell us something that makes perfect sense.

Well I wouldn't say anything if I didn't think it made sense. However, I understand that what makes sense to me does not necessarily mean it will make sense to everyone I explain it to, this is why its critical to be honest with yourself first and then ask questions.

If you don't have knowledge of God, what you should be honestly saying to yourself is that you don't actually know if God is real or not. So claiming non-belief in God is like claiming that you have personal or physical evidence to not believe in God, which if you really think about that you realize non-belief in God is actually irrational because there is no personal or physical evidence that points to the truth that God does not exist.

Because if you claimed to have personal evidence that God does not exist, but can't provide a sound reason for your claim, then no one is going to believe you. And none of you are claiming to have this personal evidence, which must mean you actually don't know if God exists or not, thereby rendering you agnostic, and also rendering atheism irrational because there is no personal or physical evidence to justify the non-belief in God. Sure there's lack of personal evidence, but does that really mean God does not exist, just because you lack personal evidence? No, it just means you don't really know if God exists yet.

It'd be like me saying I have non-belief in a specific star that someone is telling me exists a million light years away. Does my non-belief in this star have any effect on the truth about whether or not this star exists? No, the star would exist whether or not I believe in it. Do I have reason to believe that a star exists a million light years away if someone tells me this is true? Yes. Would I then investigate to find out the truth for myself if I really cared to, yes. Does claiming non-belief in this star get me any closer to figuring out whether or not the star exists? No, asking honest questions and applying myself in a physical way will drive me to figuring out the truth for myself.

We're telling you God exists, because we have personal evidence of God. You continue to claim non-belief in God which is not going to get you anywhere in figuring out if God is actually the truth.

 

[Cearbhall]

If you don't have knowledge of God, what you should be honestly saying to yourself is that you don't actually know if God is real or not. So claiming non-belief in God is like claiming that you have personal or physical evidence to not believe in God, which if you really think about that you realize non-belief in God is actually irrational because there is no personal or physical evidence that points to the truth that God does not exist.

For starters, it's good to recognize that atheism is not about the Abrahamic God specifically. It's a statement about all potential deities.

The issue which you describe is what marks the difference between hard and soft atheism. Hard atheists assert that there are no deities. Soft atheists only conclude that there is no deity, or even just don't worship any (a more literal take on the word "atheist"). It might seem like a minor distinction, but soft atheists stop short of what you're identifying here as a logical fallacy. This is why an atheist can also be an agnostic. A conclusion is different than a claim of proof.

 

[anonymous person]

For starters, it's good to recognize that atheism is not about the Abrahamic God specifically. It's a statement about all potential deities.

The issue which you describe is what marks the difference between hard and soft atheism. Hard atheists assert that there are no deities. Soft atheists only conclude that there is no deity. It might seem like a minor distinction, but soft atheists stop short of what you're identifying here as a logical fallacy.

You are talking with Christians now. You do understand that right?

 

[Cearbhall]

You are talking with Christians now. You do understand that right?

Yes, I'm well aware that there are many Christians participating in this thread, and that Chriliman is Christian. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Chriliman was speaking about atheists, not Christians. As was I, which I thought I made quite clear. Do you have an objection to what I said about atheists?

 

[bhsmte]

That's their problem.

That would be their personal conclusion.

 

[anonymous person]

Yes, I'm well aware that there are many Christians participating in this thread, and that Chriliman is Christian. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Chriliman was speaking about atheists, not Christians. As was I, which I thought I made quite clear. Do you have an objection to what I said about atheists?

We are gonna walk through this step by step ok?

I am a Christian.

Chriliman is also a Christian.

What are you?

 

[Cearbhall]

We are gonna walk through this step by step ok?

I'd rather you just say what you meant, since I'm not sure. I don't wish to derail the thread. If you don't have an objection to the clarification which I made about atheism, that's fine. If you do, I'd be happy to discuss it.

 

[anonymous person]

I'd rather you just say what you meant, since I'm not sure. I don't wish to derail the thread. If you don't have an objection to the clarification which I made about atheism, that's fine, too.

I am tying this back into the OP.

Are you a Christian?

Yes or no?

 

[Cearbhall]

I am tying this back into the OP.

I'm not really interested in playing games. I can't know what your objective is, and I'd like to keep this thread constructive and on-topic. This discussion is not about my religious status. I gave you multiple chances to present your apparent objection to what I said, and you have not, so there's nothing for us to discuss. If you would like to address one of my posts directly, I would be happy to talk with you, but otherwise I will move on to other posters.

Because if you claimed to have personal evidence that God does not exist, but can't provide a sound reason for your claim, then no one is going to believe you. And none of you are claiming to have this personal evidence, which must mean you actually don't know if God exists or not, thereby rendering you agnostic, and also rendering atheism irrational because there is no personal or physical evidence to justify the non-belief in God.

No, that's not quite how these terms work. Atheism is not a knowledge claim. There are many different types of atheism, but inherently, it's just a conclusion. Agnosticism is the claim that one does not have proof, but without that label, you can't know for sure how an atheist feels about it.

I don't mean to degrade your concept of God, but usually the best comparison I can think of is some sort of mythological animal. I wouldn't consider someone irrational for asserting that there are no unicorns on this planet, even though it's impossible for him or her to have personal evidence that there are no unicorns on any corner of this Earth. There's a certain point where a lack of evidence in favor of a concept makes it reasonable to draw a conclusion against it. I don't expect everyone to agree with that conclusion, however. I wouldn't fault someone for saying "There could be unicorns in some place that hasn't been explored yet."

 

[anonymous person]

You won't even tell me whether or not you are a Christian.

Thank you. My point had been made.

 

[Cearbhall]

I believe you.

Fair enough, but would you expect anyone to believe him based on words alone?