What do you say to anti-theists on the formation of the universe?

[Oompa Loompa]

If they do have faith I don't see any reason why they should respond to your challenge.

If they are christ followers and believe the Bible is authoritative, following Peter's instructions is reason enough.

 

[BCP1928]

If they are christ followers and believe the Bible is authoritative, following Peter's instructions is reason enough.

It appears you are conflating reasonable with rational.

 

[partinobodycular]

If they do, I would challenge them to do their own research and find a reason for THEIR faith.

But that seems extremely disingenuous to me. To have an honest and forthright answer, and then be asked to go find a rational one instead, as if the honest answer wasn't good enough.

The first one seems like the truth, while the second one simply seems like an excuse, made up to save face, but not to actually convince anyone but the choir.

I don't have a problem with the bible asking believers to be ready to give an answer for their faith, I just wish that they'd have the integrity to give an honest answer, and not simply a nominally defensible excuse.

 

[Fervent]

What's with the "believe you don't believe" business? Can you not just accept that people genuinely don't believe. I don't "believe" I don't believe in your god any more, I know that I don't believe in it anymore.

The lady doth protest too much.

A false dichotomy. There are other options, if you actually listened to these atheists you say you have conversations with, you'd realize that they genuinely don't believe.

Nope. The choice is to either believe God or believe human beings. And once the excuses are stripped away the truth comes out more often than not.

I choose neither, and your assumptions about me are your problem, not mine.

They're not a problem at all.

 

[Fervent]

So if it's about a conflict of worldviews then the issue is not relevant to this forum at all, any more than the issue of whether God exists or not.

Worldviews alter how we interpret evidence, and on a Christian forum science board those worldview conflicts are relevant due to the hidden assumptions and the sleight of hand from the study of phenomena to ontology. Pretending that science is some idealized method free from bias and metaphysical issues does nothing but create a false privilege for a particular worldview. Or is how science is interpreted not relevant to a science board?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

But that seems extremely disingenuous to me. To have an honest and forthright answer, and then be asked to go find a rational one instead, as if the honest answer wasn't good enough.

The first one seems like the truth, while the second one simply seems like an excuse, made up to save face, but not to actually convince anyone but the choir.

I don't have a problem with the bible asking believers to be ready to give an answer for their faith, I just wish that they'd have the integrity to give an honest answer, and not simply a nominally defensible excuse.

Are you a theist?

 

[partinobodycular]

Are you a theist?

I wouldn't describe myself as such. As my profile indicates, I'm quite comfortable being classified with the agnostics. I find their company to be more to my liking. But I've been known to invoke theistic positions from time to time. So classify me however you like. As I'm prone to saying, you do you, and I'll do me.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

I wouldn't describe myself as such. As my profile indicates, I'm quite comfortable being classified with the agnostics. I find their company to be more to my liking. But I've been known to invoke theistic positions from time to time. So classify me however you like. As I'm prone to saying, you do you, and I'll do me.

Do you know why you are agnostic?

 

[Larniavc]

And as far as I'm concerned, it's not an intellectual issue. It's a moral one, because the atheist wants to be his own god.

Atheists don’t believe in gods. Why would we believe we are gods? That’s silly. Adding an extraneous entity into where it isn’t is not very parsimonious.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Atheists don’t believe in gods. Why would we believe we are gods? That’s silly. Adding an extraneous entity into where it isn’t is not very parsimonious.

It is a phrase not to be taken literally. It means atheist find comfort believing that there is no accountability for their actions in the afterlife and unafraid of sinning against some invisible deity. They want to live their lives how they wish and control their own destiny as if they were their own personal God of their own little universe. Moral relativism is their standard for morality.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes. Remember my basement dragon? You demanded physical evidence, and I provided physical evidence. But that evidence wasn't enough.

Obviously not.

For the theist, the evidence is everywhere and have come to a reasonable conclusion that God exists. But because they cannot know with absolute certainty, faith is required.

Ifyou want to incorporate faith to make up for the uncertainty, then that's fine.

But it is a reasonable faith grounded on evidence.

No, the faith is not based on evidence. If there's not enough evidence then it's not true. If you need faith to believe, if you need faith to get you over the line in addition to evidence then you must want to believe. That makes no sense to me whatsoever.

The atheist rejects the evidence and claim no evidence exists because evidence is subjective.

That's a contradiction. I can't examine some evidence, reject it and then claim it doesn't exist. Think about what you are writing.

But they have their own evidence and have reasonably concluded that there is no God.

I have no evidence for God's non existence. Again, that makes no sense at all. What I have is the evidence that people like yourself present for His existence.

But because they cannot know with absolute certainty, faith is required.

As I have said, nothing is certain. All I can do, again as I have said, is state a position based on the evidence presented and I will hold to that position with a great deal of certainty until evidence is presented that will change that certainty. That will somehow slow that flywheel, somehow get it to eventually stop and then reverse its direction.

Again I emphasize that I am speaking of atheists who make the truth claim. This does not apply to agnostics.

As psalm 14:1 says, the fool says there is no God. But don't confuse that with absolute certainty. If you ask me if God exists, I will say no. If you ask me if I'm 100% certain, then I'd say that I'm not 100% certain that someone didn't drop some acid in my beer at that party in 1975 and the last 50 years has been a fast forward hallucination.

I have no evidence that it happened, but I don't need faith to be able to reject it. You're using the wrong word in the wrong context.

 

[partinobodycular]

Do you know why you are agnostic?

See @Bradskii's preceding post.

 

[Bradskii]

It means atheist find comfort believing that there is no accountability for their actions in the afterlife and unafraid of sinning against some invisible deity.

I can't be unafraid of offending something I know doesn't exist.

They want to live their lives how they wish and control their own destiny as if they were their own personal God of their own little universe.

Well, that's true to an extent. But we all consider, or should consider others when we try to do that.

Moral relativism is their standard for morality.

That makes no sense. Moral relativism isn't a standard. It means that what I think is is right or wrong will be different to what you think. The standards to which we all hold will vary from person to person.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

See @Bradskii's preceding post.

Are you an agnostic agnostic, or a gnostic agnostic?

 

[Ophiolite]

Read the thread. I have already explained it. If you are making the truth claim, "there is no god," it is a faith based claim. Because the reality is that you do not know there is no god, you just have faith that their is not

You have explained nothing. You have made an unevidenced assertion. You are venting empty opinions and blithely ignoring, with an astounding level of arrogance, delusion and self deception, the repeated observations by individuals who have a far superior understanding of their owh character and motivation than your biased, rigid mindset could ever provide. Fortunately, I've found the off switch.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

You have explained nothing. You have made an unevidenced assertion. You are venting empty opinions and blithely ignoring, with an astounding level of arrogance, delusion and self deception, the repeated observations by individuals who have a far superior understanding of their owh character and motivation than your biased, rigid mindset could ever provide. Fortunately, I've found the off switch.

I understand you're expressing frustration, and I apologize if my previous response didn't meet your expectations.

If you'd like to share more details about the topic or specific points you feel were misrepresented, I'd be happy to engage more thoughtfully with your perspective. Everyone deserves to have their viewpoints and experiences respected and properly considered.

I appreciate your feedback about perceived assertions without evidence. You're right that understanding someone's character and motivations requires listening carefully to their own accounts rather than making assumptions.

If you wish to disengage from this conversation, that's completely understandable. Should you want to continue the discussion with more context in the future, I'll be here to listen more carefully.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The lady doth protest too much.

Seriously, why are you insist on insulting me. I don't believe in your god. Period. The end. Billions of people don't believe in your god. It's time to grow up an accept that.

Nope. The choice is to either believe God or believe human beings. And once the excuses are stripped away the truth comes out more often than not.

These aren't "Excuses". From the evidence I've seen the choice about your god is to either believe the claims of the people who believe in it, or not. I don't have any direct contact with it.

They're not a problem at all.

Someday insistently and rudely telling people to their face false things about themselves may backfire on you. That is the problem you likely face. There is time to correct this problem behavior.

 

[Fervent]

Seriously, why are you insist on insulting me. I don't believe in your god. Period. The end. Billions of people don't believe in your god. It's time to grow up an accept that.

The lady doth protest too much.

These aren't "Excuses". From the evidence I've seen the choice about your god is to either believe the claims of the people who believe in it, or not. I don't have any direct contact with it.

So you say.

Someday insistently and rudely telling people to their face false things about themselves may backfire on you. That is the problem you likely face. There is time to correct this problem behavior.

It's not on me that people can't handle being told their deeds are evil.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Moral relativism isn't a standard. It means that what I think is is right or wrong will be different to what you think. The standards to which we all hold will vary from person to person.

Not entirely true. Both moral absolutist and relativist recognize that people have different moral standards and principles. The difference is that the absolutist believes there is an absolut right and a wrong standard. The relativist doesn't think any standard is absolutely right or wrong. They just are.

 

[Bradskii]

Not entirely true. Both moral absolutist and relativist recognize that people have different moral standards and principles. The difference is that the absolutist believes there is an absolut right and a wrong standard. The relativist doesn't think any standard is absolutely right or wrong. They just are.

Then the fact that someone realises that morality varies depending on very many aspects of any given situation is not, in itself, the standard.

And I've been down this path so many times, but if there is a moral absolute then it must come from God. And how many interpretations do we have regarding what God wants? And leading from that, if you have a command from God that you say cannot possibly be misinterpreted then you must either follow it without consideration or you must make a personal decision whether it is right to follow it.

The latter means that whether it is right or wrong is relative. The former results in planes being flown into buildings.

I'll take the latter.