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.
Why do you think atheists are irrational?
Ha, you think atheists exist who believe that they have sufficient evidence to believe in God but nevertheless do not believe in him? Apparently you think atheists are more irrational than I do. ...It seems that you are willing to say almost anything to support your strange position.
My point was that I do not believe that atheists tend to be irrational to the extent of seeing sufficient evidence and not believing. I suppose I could be wrong. Other than that, it depends on the atheist. Some are more rational than others.
I think it is possible, yes. Do you have an actual rebuttal?
You have no case. You reject my description of atheists based on a performative self-contradiction.
If someone sees that there is sufficient evidence for some proposition, then they see that it ought to be believed. If someone sees that there is sufficient evidence for some proposition and does not believe it, then they contradict themselves. They see that something ought to be believed and at the same time do not believe it.
When you need to claim that atheists tend to contradict themselves as a way to reject a description of atheism, you're really running out of ideas!
It's explained right there in my post.
To someone who prefers not to believe it? I seriously doubt it.
Then you won't mind my saying it again...I don't believe it.
Again, you aren't paying attention, it's ll there in my post.
No, it's not. You have asserted that I've committed a fallacy, however you haven't said which fallacy and where I committed it specifically.
So, which fallacy, and where?
I prefer to believe that which is true. If god really exists, then I would prefer to believe that. If he does not exist, then I would prefer to believe that.
What one prefers to believe is irrelevant though, what matters is what beliefs are justified. Without evidence, I have no reason to accept that a god exists. That means regardless of what the truth is, the only intellectually honest position I can take is to withhold belief until the evidence is shown.
That's an amazing display of arrogance.
It takes a lot of gall to assert you know more about someone's beliefs and motivations than the actual person who holds those beliefs and motivations.
Refer to the first section above
"The fool says in his heart there is no God." Since I am already committed to believing the bible, where does that take me?
"Do not answer a fool according to his folly." I have already bent the heck right out of that rule. But no more.
A line saying essentially "the people who don't believe what's in this book are dumb" isn't exactly all that meaningful.
Especially when the only way to accept what's in the book requires unjustified leaps of logic and blind faith.
No, it's not.
I prefer to believe that which is true. If god really exists, then I would prefer to believe that. If he does not exist, then I would prefer to believe that.
What one prefers to believe is irrelevant though, what matters is what beliefs are justified. Without evidence, I have no reason to accept that a god exists. That means regardless of what the truth is, the only intellectually honest position I can take is to withhold belief until the evidence is shown.
That's an amazing display of arrogance.
Refer to the first section above
You have no case. You reject my description of atheists based on a performative self-contradiction.
If someone sees that there is sufficient evidence for some proposition, then they see that it ought to be believed. If someone sees that there is sufficient evidence for some proposition and does not believe it, then they contradict themselves. They see that something ought to be believed and at the same time do not believe it.
When you need to claim that atheists tend to contradict themselves as a way to reject a description of atheism, you're really running out of ideas!
It is.
Again, I seriously doubt it.
I still don't believe it
No it is not a legitimate question, rather a heartful, intentional and wilful attack on the Christian religion.
For one to ask a comparative question, one must be looking for the best answer. For example if I compare insurances for the cheapest quote, I'm intent on shopping for the best deal right?
So I must be looking and considering the best answer for the question, for this is an honest persuite. An Athiest isn't looking for an honest answer and neither is their question an honest one, rather the aim is to peg all the false religions against Christianity, in an effort to contaminate and to play down Christianities pearl of good price so to speak.
The Athiests use this line of questioning in an effort to defame Christianity and this is their calling out as the many dishonest advocates of the Devil. For the Devil is the Father of lies and his seed certainly use his line of questions and reasoning.
No, it seems that I meant to type "who believe that there are", and missed the "there". Typos do happen.Presumably you meant "who believe there are."
I might have phrased it a little vaguely in my post - sorry, it was late and I am in a lot of pain right now - but I did address this in my post. The argument was not between sufficient reasons against God existing and sufficient reasons for God lacking.But you are mistaken, for my definition does not exclude those who believe there are sufficient reasons to reject the existence of God. Consider the two compatible claims:
These are perfectly compatible. Similarly, I can say that there are insufficient reasons to believe there is an elephant in the room, and there are sufficient reasons to reject the existence of an elephant in the room.
- There are insufficient reasons to believe in God.
- There are sufficient reasons to reject the existence of God.
If you consider the concept of "holding a (positive) belief" as a component of the term in question, and consider that "holding a belief" is limited to entities that are capable of holding beliefs - conscious living beings - then there are only two potential options: one either has such a belief, or one does not. Atheists are those people who do not have such a belief. Babies, if they don't have such a belief, fall into this group.Beyond that, I don't think the claim that infants are atheists is even remotely tenable.
Wrath is not a sign of love. If that is the kind of love that you are meant to show, the kind of love that reflects your God... I would advise you to reconsider it.
I fail to see how that is in any way relevant to my view of your lack of understanding.
Don't tell me that... tell that to Section9+1.God does not show His wrath anymore. Even if He did, it would not be so different from let's say your mom punnishing you for not doing your chores.
Don't tell me that... tell that to Section9+1.
You know, this is one of the other things about "Christianity" that... how to phrase it... does annoy me a little.
You are having a conversation with a Christian, talking and arguing about certain points, back and forth... and suddenly a different Christian chimes in to tell you, the unbeliever "No, you are wrong. It is completely different from what the first Christians says."
They criticise/correct you on a position that another Christians does indeed hold. But they (mostly) never bother to address the other Christian directly.
So what is an unbeliever to think? Who is he to believe? The Christian who tells him A? The Christian who tells him NOT-A?
Hey, I alone own at least four Bibles. Inherited, gifted, pressed on me by missionaries.A picture is worth a thousand words. And what this picture is telling me is that people who buy the Bible are one with God: they are in Him and He is in them. This is what I understand.
In that regard, you Christians are also outnumbered by a great deal. So what?You atheists are outnumbered by a great deal, and no definitions of atheism will ever change this I hope.
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?