The stumbling block for atheists.

[dysert]

I think I can understand why atheists are atheists. After all, professing Christians don't love each other as we should. We judge each other too harshly. We get hung up over all kinds of unimportant minutia. To the atheist, Christianity probably just looks like any other kooky cult because we generally don't accurately reflect the nature of our Creator.

But atheism has one fatal flaw. It assumes that the sum total of reality is what can be detected by the senses. Drop this assumption and the "magic" of miracles appears, the "pink unicorns" disappear, and the Creator God can become known.

 

[Radrook]

I think I can understand why atheists are atheists. After all, professing Christians don't love each other as we should. We judge each other too harshly. We get hung up over all kinds of unimportant minutia. To the atheist, Christianity probably just looks like any other kooky cult because we generally don't accurately reflect the nature of our Creator.

But atheism has one fatal flaw. It assumes that the sum total of reality is what can be detected by the senses. Drop this assumption and the "magic" of miracles appears, the "pink unicorns" disappear, and the Creator God can become known.

Their aversion to an ID is what I find to be their main stumbling block. Religious aversions stem from it.

 

[Nithavela]

I think that your understanding is severly lacking.

 

[Freodin]

I think I can understand why atheists are atheists. After all, professing Christians don't love each other as we should. We judge each other too harshly. We get hung up over all kinds of unimportant minutia. To the atheist, Christianity probably just looks like any other kooky cult because we generally don't accurately reflect the nature of our Creator.

But atheism has one fatal flaw. It assumes that the sum total of reality is what can be detected by the senses. Drop this assumption and the "magic" of miracles appears, the "pink unicorns" disappear, and the Creator God can become known.

So I guess those who have managed to evade this fatal flaw found the magic of miracles and got to know the Creator God.

Why then do they still not love each other as they should, judge each other too harshly, get hung up with unimportant minutia and generally don't reflect the nature of your Creator?


No, sorry, I do not think you understand why atheists are atheists. Nor are you very good at defending your own position.

 

[Radrook]

I think that your understanding is severly lacking.

Are you referring to me or to the OPED?

 

[Freodin]

Are you referring to me or to the OPED?

I cannot speak for Nithavela, but I would say: both of you.

Merry Christmas!

 

[Radrook]

I cannot speak for Nithavela, but I would say: both of you.

Merry Christmas!

Atheists have no aversion for towards the concept of an ID? If so, why do they argue against it as soon as it is mentioned?

BTW
I don't celebrate Christmas.

 

[dysert]

So I guess those who have managed to evade this fatal flaw found the magic of miracles and got to know the Creator God.

Why then do they still not love each other as they should, judge each other too harshly, get hung up with unimportant minutia and generally don't reflect the nature of your Creator?


No, sorry, I do not think you understand why atheists are atheists. Nor are you very good at defending your own position.

Avoiding the fatal flaw is a necessary but not sufficient reason for living a Christian life.

And I'm not trying to defend anything. I'm just trying to understand you guys. Are you saying that you DO accept the possibility that reality consists of more than can be detected by the senses?

 

[Freodin]

Atheists have no aversion for towards the concept of an ID? If so, why do they argue against it as soon as it is mentioned?

Because this concept usually doesn't do what its proponents claim it does. Most atheists do have an aversion against "lying for [insert deity of choice]"

BTW
I don't celebrate Christmas.

Neither do I.

Merry Christmas!

 

[Radrook]

Because this concept usually doesn't do what its proponents claim it does. Most atheists do have an aversion against "lying for [insert deity of choice]"


Neither do I.

Merry Christmas!

I never insert a deity of choice when discussing an ID. The ones who insist on inserting deities into the discussion are the atheists.
Also, you say that ID proponents claim that the ID does what exactly that you say it doesn't do?

 

[Freodin]

Avoiding the fatal flaw is a necessary but not sufficient reason for living a Christian life.

So it seems it is only the sufficient reason that is missing. Well, that does rather counterindicate the theistic claims, wouldn't you say?

And I'm not trying to defend anything. I'm just trying to understand you guys.

I feel with you. I try for years - decades! - now to understand you guys. I haven't reached it yet (mostly because every time I managed to understand one of you, another tells me that I get him totally wrong).
But I have found that a much better approach to understanding other people is to ask them about their position instead of personally deciding that you have found their "fatal flaw".

Are you saying that you DO accept the possibility that reality consists of more than can be detected by the senses?

We would have to talk a little more about the concept of "senses" here. But from what I have gathered in previous exchanges with... you guys... I can safely answer: yes, of course.

So here am I: an atheist who says that reality consists of more than our senses can detect. A counterexample of your "fatal flaw".

So what do you do next?


Merry Christmas... whether you celebrate it or not!

 

[dysert]

Merry Christmas... whether you celebrate it or not!

Thanks! And Merry Christmas to you as well.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

No, sorry, I do not think you understand why atheists are atheists. Nor are you very good at defending your own position.

I fully agree.

The OP is wrong on both why Atheists are atheists and why Christians are Christians.

 

[Freodin]

I never insert a deity of choice when discussing an ID. The ones who insist on inserting deities into the discussion are the atheists.

Yeah, that must be the cause why all the ID proponents are non-religious.

Also, you say that ID proponents claim that the ID does what exactly that you say it doesn't do?

The ID arguments don't argue for ID. They argue for an unknown, supernatural, omnipotent force that somehow, in an unknown and unknowable (you might call it "mysterious") way "caused" something else. This concept is usually shortened to "deity"... except by people who want to introduce their respective deity into science, but know that they are not legally allowed to. Thus: liars for [deity of choice].

Merry Christmas!

 

[Freodin]

I fully agree.

The OP is wrong on both why Atheists are atheists and why Christians are Christians.

I would say that your opinion, at least on why atheists are atheists, isn't any more correct... but as I don't know you and you didn't deign to provide your version, this would only be a hunch. Or an extrapolation based on previous experiences with a rather large number of theists.

Merry Christmas!

 

[Nithavela]

Are you referring to me or to the OPED?

Yes.

 

[Radrook]

Yeah, that must be the cause why all the ID proponents are non-religious.


The ID arguments don't argue for ID. They argue for an unknown, supernatural, omnipotent force that somehow, in an unknown and unknowable (you might call it "mysterious") way "caused" something else. This concept is usually shortened to "deity"... except by people who want to introduce their respective deity into science, but know that they are not legally allowed to. Thus: liars for [deity of choice].

Merry Christmas!

Wrong! The ID argument is an argument for Intelligent Design as manifested in nature which indicates a creative mind. What the nature of that mind is not part of the argument. True, there are those who might feign to be arguing non-religiously while their intention is religious. But that is just as true for atheists who push atheism via their propositions of a mindless abiogenesis while feigning to be defending science. So I really don't think that you can take the moral high ground in that area.

Happy Hanukkah!

 

[Radrook]

Yes.

Yes what?

 

[Nithavela]

Wrong! The ID argument is an argument for Intelligent Design as manifested in nature which indicates a creative mind. What the nature of that mind is not part of the argument. True, there are those who might feign to be arguing non-religiously while their intention is religious. But that is just as true for atheists who push atheism via their propositions of a mindless abiogenesis while feigning to be defending science.

Happy Hanukkah!

ID was invented as a way to sneak creationism into schools after creationism itself was banned.

One of the first ID school books (Of Pandas and People) was first written as a creationist book, and then "transformed" into an ID book by simply replacing every instance of the word creationism with intelligent design.

 

[Nithavela]

Yes what?

Yes, I think that you both are wrong.