Open discussion of the Christian Why We're Here thread

[Mystic]

Yet you are criticizing the stance of judging Atheists, and judging Theists who do...

No one likes condemning any human, no one. I primarily wanted to escape the visions I had, and deny everything I knew, and run away from God, mainly because I could not handle the idea of humans being condemned to the degree they are.

Right now,  I choose to abandon a world that has abandoned it's Creator rather then abandon the Creator who reaches out to them through his compassion, spoke the best words, spread his revelations all over the earth, and breathed in his spirit among every people, and left a legacy and trace of knowledge, that inshallah, soon will be unveiled and the truth of the sacred books all over the earth will be manifest.

[Edwardo Piet]

All I can say now is: Open discussion my ass. It's open discussion as long as you're not too rude about someone's poor little beliefs or you get someone spreading lies about you, in which their dishonest disingenuous ass receives a bunch of kudos in the name of political correctness, because they can't tell the difference between attacking stupid ideas verbally and attacking a person verbally, or the difference between aggressively verbal passion against a stupid idea and actual anger or hate... both of which is in fact very much clearly coming from the person who wishes to silence someone for attacking stupid ideas, and not from the person who is just enjoying attacking stupid ideas.

[RoadRunner79]

I would beg to differ.  There are plenty of people who come to believe in and have faith in God; later in life.  And many of them are quite intelligent, and do cite rational reasons for their belief that Christianity is true.  I would also point out that learning something when you are young, does not preclude a greater understanding and foundation for that belief later.  So I would say that you are just flat out wrong.  And I don't think that you have much to support the statements you make.

I think the clear context is that she's [Joods is] saying that if theists had any sort of rational thought about their theism then they wouldn't be theists in the first place. I don't think she's saying that all theists are irrational all 'round and if they were rational in any way about anything at all they wouldn't be theists (she's not calling all theists lunatics).

Of course it's not a generalization to say that all theists are irrational in their theism any more than it is to say all Trumptards are irrational in their Trumptardism or all [insert believer in something here] are irrational to believe in [insert belief here].

To be clear: If I thought there was even ONE theist who was rational in their theism then I'd BE a theist. Because it would mean that at least one theist had figured out logically sound arguments for, or found accurate empirical evidence that, a supernatural being really did create the universe so why on earth would I still be an atheist?

My issue is, that when looked at more closely, I have found that these type of claims have no depth.  They appear to be nothing more than a vague (un-falsifiable) generalization meant to do nothing more than to disparage the theists or possibly to try to make the atheists feel better about themselves by putting others down. So I don't get too excited, until this type of statement is supported with something specific.   It's like saying that theists just need to be educated (I ask in what). 

By your reasoning, I can say that atheism is irrational, otherwise I would be an atheist.... correct?  I think that you are setting up a false dichotomy Hammy.  And so; your reasoning doesn't follow.  Similarly it doesn't necessarily follow, that your reasoning is always rational, otherwise you would believe otherwise.  This is the type of thing that is shown over time, and by good reasoning.  Do we say that anyone who disagree's with us irrational?  While it is good to try to be rational, to examine ourselves, and our arguments as well as our interlocatur's, it is equally naive to assume that we are always right. 

I think that it is specific things, that are irrational.  Take for example the last poll I made on testimony.  How many people told me, that testimony is not evidence, and that a case would not be even tried, which was mostly based on just testimony.   How many of those same people applauded the Bill Cosby verdict recently, that was mostly based on testimony (which I was told is not evidence).  Too me, this is inconsistent, and thus irrational.

You might also note, that it is difficult to take one seriously, who when accusing someone else of being irrational; yet themselves append "tard" onto their opposition!

[Joods]

Some people really need to stop acting like they were attacked. I didn't agree with your post and spoke my mind about it. Is your ego so fragile that you can't handle any criticism at all? Maybe a forum isn't the right place for you since you can't handle someone telling you like it is. The world doesn't revolve around you and you aren't right 100% of the time, so whenever your ready to stop bringing your hatred into several threads, stop acting like a child and grow up, the rest of the world is waiting.

[RoadRunner79]

Some people really need to stop acting like they were attacked. I didn't agree with your post and spoke my mind about it. Is your ego so fragile that you can't handle any criticism at all? Maybe a forum isn't the right place for you since you can't handle someone telling you like it is. The world doesn't revolve around you and you aren't right 100% of the time, so whenever your ready to stop bringing your hatred into several threads, stop acting like a child and grow up, the rest of the world is waiting.

Are you talking to me... I thought that I addressed the issue. And would be curious what is being construed as hate?

[Joods]

Some people really need to stop acting like they were attacked. I didn't agree with your post and spoke my mind about it. Is your ego so fragile that you can't handle any criticism at all? Maybe a forum isn't the right place for you since you can't handle someone telling you like it is. The world doesn't revolve around you and you aren't right 100% of the time, so whenever your ready to stop bringing your hatred into several threads, stop acting like a child and grow up, the rest of the world is waiting.

Are you talking to me... I thought that I addressed the issue.  And would be curious what is being construed as hate?

No no no... sorry... you ninja'd my post. This was not directed at you at all. My apologies.

[RoadRunner79]

Are you talking to me... I thought that I addressed the issue.  And would be curious what is being construed as hate?

No no no... sorry... you ninja'd my post. This was not directed at you at all. My apologies.

Thanks for the clarification. I was confused.

[Joods]

No no no... sorry... you ninja'd my post. This was not directed at you at all. My apologies.

Thanks for the clarification. I was confused.

You're welcome.

[Fireball]

All the twisted logic I have seen here everywhere (no, I'm not going to publish it all, give me a break!  ) from both sides should give people pause. I can understand defending a position, but what it really comes down to is that a religious person has to have faith. There isn't a rational argument for or against that. Expecting one is a fool's errand. While most atheists realize this, some tilt at that windmill in the hope that those alleged religious or on-the-fence lurkers will be educated in some falsity or another. I don't generally have dialog with the religious because I've done it and seen it all, and it is a waste of time...for both "sides".

[Mystic]

Faith without proofs is not praised faith and disbelief without proofs is not condemned disbelief.