Who Speaks?

[Locutus]

Is that supposed to be a problem for me?



I am a Christian and claim Jesus rose bodily from the tomb He was buried in on the Sunday following His crucifixion. This was a supernatural event and there is evidence that it happened. Check out N.T. Wright's work on the subject for starters.

There is a story that it happened. There is no evidence that it happened.

If all you require for belief is a story, why don't you believe every supernatural claim ever made on paper, and allegedly 'witnessed'?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I think it is where it makes claims about reality. I have good reasons to think it is and have none to think it isn't.

Yeah, but you would continuing believing even if you had no good reasons to think it is and many to think it isn't.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You think Craig's arguments are ridiculous. I have known this for quite some time. But you have not made even the first step in showing that they are not good arguments. The only thing therefore that I see ironic is you thinking that irony would be lost on me.

Have a look at all the threads you started (and abandoned) for starters.

 

[anonymous person]

There is a story that it happened. There is no evidence that it happened.

Then how do you explain the empty tomb?

If all you require for belief is a story, why don't you believe every supernatural claim ever made on paper, and allegedly 'witnessed'?

Some are better evidenced than others.

 

[anonymous person]

Yeah, but you would continuing believing even if you had no good reasons to think it is and many to think it isn't.

No I would not.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No I would not.

Yes you would. You even admitted as much. Do you want me to find the posts?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Then how do you explain the empty tomb?

 

[anonymous person]

Have a look at all the threads you started (and abandoned) for starters.

None of those threads contain instances where Davian successfully demonstrates that Dr. Craig's arguments are not good arguments. None of them. In fact, no one here has shown that any of his arguments are not good arguments. No atheist here has made a good case for atheism either. True, some attempts have been made to appeal to evil as a positive case for atheism, but all such arguments either necessitate one presupposing the existence of the very One whom they are attempting to disprove, or simply redefining evil in such a way that makes the issue trivial.

There are a lot of posts here that are sophomoric and replete with ad hominems sure. These are not good arguments for atheism or against theism though.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

None of those threads contain instances where Davian successfully demonstrates that Dr. Craig's arguments are not good arguments. None of them. In fact, no one here has shown that any of his arguments are not good arguments.

Okay, whatever you say Jeremy.

 

[anonymous person]

Yes you would. You even admitted as much. Do you want me to find the posts?

Sure, if it is so important to you to try and prove me wrong, I won't try to encourage you to do otherwise.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Sure, if it is so important to you to try and prove me wrong, I won't try to encourage you to do otherwise.

You make this too easy, Jeremy.

 

[anonymous person]

You make this too easy, Jeremy.

That is my intention.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That is my intention.

To fall below the lowest standards?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No atheist here has made a good case for atheism either.

See 1:22.

 

[anonymous person]

To fall below the lowest standards?

To make all of this as easy for you as God allows. To remove every obstacle from the gospel that can be removed according to the will of God. You are my friend. My battle is not with you.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

To make all of this as easy for you as God allows. To remove every obstacle from the gospel that can be removed according to the will of God. You are my friend. My battle is not with you.

Ah Jeremy, if only you knew how you come across.

 

[anonymous person]

See 1:22.

I get what he is saying.

He is saying that there is a difference between claiming to not be convinced God exists, and claiming God does not exist. I agree.

If anyone tells me they are not convinced God exists, I take them at their word. I take your word for it if you tell me that.

But if you tell me God does not exist, which is a knowledge claim I associate with the term atheism, then I will ask for a case.

So again, to reiterate, no case has been made here for the claim "God does not exist".

I am persuaded Christ is God incarnate, Saviour and Light of the world. You are not persuaded of this and that is fine.

I maintain that it is possible, and in fact is the case, that some people are not convinced that Jesus Christ is God incarnate Saviour and Light of the world. You have told me you are such a person and I believe you.



When I use the term atheism, I use it to signify the worldview that God does not exist, not some psychological state of a particular thing. Using it the way some do really trivialize the whole issue, for animals and babies and the like would be considered atheists.

Nor do I think any of us is so much concerned with what people call themselves as much as how people live.

From my experience, atheists aren't so concerned with the fact that some call themselves Christians, but that some, who by their actions, hinder them from doing whatever they want to do. If Christians never acted on their beliefs and convictions, I doubt atheists would be concerned about what they called themselves. It's when atheists feel wronged or persecuted, that they say things like, "who are you to try and stop me from living how I want to?" The underlying assumption in the rhetorical question is that there is in fact, no one who can rightfully stop them from doing whatever they want. There is no objective moral law to which they are accountable.

Practically therefore, the distinction you draw is really one without a difference. For you live as if God does not exist, you act as though God does not exist. All the while saying with your mouth, "I am merely not convinced, so don't read anymore into it than that."

 

[anonymous person]

Ah Jeremy, if only you knew how you come across.

If I come across to you the way Christians came across to me before Christ came into my heart then in general, you find me to be condescending, stuck up, obnoxious, annoying, weak, and a soft simpleton.

Maybe you are more charitable than I was. I hated Christians vigorously and passionately and on rare occasions I found myself wondering why.

You may see me more as an odd curiosity than anything else. Or maybe you pity me.

Who knows?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

When I use the term atheism, I use it to signify the worldview that God does not exist,

Then you are not using the term as atheists use it.

From my experience, atheists aren't so concerned with the fact that some call themselves Christians, but that some, who by their actions, hinder them from doing whatever they want to do. If Christians never acted on their beliefs and convictions, I doubt atheists would be concerned about what they called themselves. It's when atheists feel wronged or persecuted, that they say things like, "who are you to try and stop me from living how I want to?" The underlying assumption in the rhetorical question is that there is in fact, no one who can rightfully stop them from doing whatever they want. There is no objective moral law to which they are accountable.

Then they should find Christianity very appealing, particularly your version of it.

Practically therefore, the distinction you draw is really one without a difference. For you live as if God does not exist, you act as though God does not exist. All the while saying with your mouth, "I am merely not convinced, so don't read anymore into it than that."

You live as though Islam is not true, as if Xenu never lived, as if there were no FSM, etc.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If I come across to you the way Christians came across to me before Christ came into my heart then in general, you find me to be condescending, stuck up, obnoxious, annoying, weak, and a soft simpleton.

Maybe you are more charitable than I was. I hated Christians vigorously and passionately and on rare occasions I found myself wondering why.

You may see me more as an odd curiosity than anything else. Or maybe you pity me.

Who knows?

Oh, I don't see you as I see other Christians, so don't worry... Your reputation doesn't generalise. You're not that important.