No it is not... provided you are accurately representing their position.
Assuming you're correct, which you're not, I'll take you up on your suggestion. Here goes.
You believe in an unseen, unmet, non-physical being, that gave you free will, whether you wanted it or not. You've convinced yourself that you can actually have a relationship with this unseen spiritual being, including, but limited to, talking with him inside your head, asking him to be with you when you lack courage, and knowledge that only you could know because of your relationship with it. There is much to be learned about this spiritual being that resides in your heart and fills up your mind, like; he wants you to go to a church building on Wednesdays, and twice on Sunday, wants you to sing pop songs to worship him, and expects that you'll give at least 10% of your money to the church so the pastor can feed his family and take a two week vacation once a year.
Additionally, this non-material spiritual being loves you so much, that there was even a time 2,000 years ago the the non-material spirit being sent himself/son to earth in the material form of a human to be a blood sacrifice, to save you from the sins that began when he created A&E. What's more, there's a third part to this non-material being in the form of a ghost that will be with you all the time, to help you whenever you need it.
During your time here on earth, this ghost has told you what people who don't have this ghost really believe, and you're certain you're right, because ghost. And the reward for knowing the ghost, is eternal life - life forever, in heaven, with all three father/son/ghost. And there will be much rejoicing.
Hey, you're right. It is pretty easy to know what people believe.
It's simple really, you claim god/s exist, and I'm not convinced you're correct.
and the theories of the origins, there are not a lot of options.
Right, you believe G1:1, and I don't. IMO, you have no justification to believe one creation myth over another.
Either you hold that a God was active in the beginning,
I don't.
or you have to postulate that it happened "by itself"...
Or... or... we just don't have enough information to say really, and I don't feel compelled to make something up
without the involvement of a God.
The same one that you communicate with inside your head? Or a different one?
That's what the naturalist proposes.
No, that's what you proposed.
I'm not misrepresenting anyone's views...
Yes, we all know what your views are and what you know we think.
because they have already stated they do not believe in a God,
I definitely don't believe in your god.
so the only option they have left is naturalism.
Which still doesn't justify making up an explanation. I'm ok with the fact I might never know.
So... if I'm wrong that naturalism isn't the only other option
Well, naturalism does seem to enjoy 100% of all observed evidence (that is to say, we've only ever found naturalistic evidence, and never god).
besides theistic involvement, t
No might be a good time to ask him to show up.
hen no one has bothered to even attempt to articulate an alternative.
Which would, what, make you winner by default? But this isn't how the real world works, and you still need to demonstrate the existence of your god.
If someone will actually articulate an viable alternative that is both atheistic and different than what I articulated about what Atheists believe, then I will concede that I created a straw man.
Well it kinda' goes like this:
things with evidence > things with no evidence
Ok with you if I take a step back and proportion my beliefs to the evidence?
But absent ANY effort to "correct" my representation of what Atheists actually believe about the four points I raised, I cannot admit "straw man."
Well, you can't say I didn't try.
The entire concept of "straw man" is that I have inaccurately represented someone's belief for the purpose of "burning" down the false representation.
Right.
Unless you're twelve or autistic, no rational human being presumes to know what other people's beliefs are.
(FTR, being twelve or autistic is not a derogatory comment, but rather an acceptable explanation for such persistent behavior after they've been corrected multiple times on it.)
summarize someone's belief, that's not straw man, that's effective debate.
The arrogance necessary to suggest they know someone's beliefs without asking said person, is nothing short of laughable.
I wanted honest dialogue, but honestly now, I just feel like a heal having wasted my time with you.
Here are my 4 issues worded as questions for the Atheists.
- What do believe about how matter came into existence?
- No idea. I've read a few books suggesting some plausible scenarios, so I consider myself informed.
2.What do you believe about why there's Order in the universe?
For the same reasons I believe there's chaos in the universe. I'm not as impressed by the anthropic principle as theists are. I've pretty much dialed back my credulity on these things, as I find it satisfying to only accept what I can justify.
3.What do you believe about how could life ever develop from non-life?
It's really not that much of a stretch to accept that chemistry happens.
4.What do you believe about where the coded information in DNA came from?
Stars.
These are honest questions, and they are significant questions in the realm of scientific inquiry.
Right, which always baffles me when theists without any scientific understanding butt their nose in and tell us what we believe. lol
Come one, Come all... tell me what you really believe.
I would, but you already know what I believe.
