Atheists who become Christians

[fr0d0]

Precisely. The door is shut. "Not interested". Subject closed.

The door isn't shut Frodo...you just picked the wrong door. The anti-theism "door" is not a stance of the existence of a god, and so your little "material substantiation" bit was garbage. Talk out of your ass, I'll point it out. Next time you summarize the final point of confluence between another's position and your own, at least know wtf you're talking about (I sometimes wonder, in these situations whether the issuer is unclear only on the position of others:leading to misapprehension...or whether they may be unclear on both their own position and the position of another - leading to hilarity). If you're having an issue of terminus at that door, the door of material proof or substantiation...then it isn't an issue you're having with anti-theism. Rgr?

All of your posts replying to me rhythm to me read like substantiation of my points. Somehow you always manage to winkle in some angst against me as well. I don't know if I should thank you or join you in beating on me.

---

I'm new to the forum, so I don't know your history and what you believe. It sounds like you might be a former atheist who converted to Christianity of some type? (Sorry if that guess is wrong.)

IMO the case against Christianity is lots of little things instead of one big thing - death by a thousand cuts. On so many data points, atheist explanations are natural and Christian explanations seem unlikely.

You are correct wmd.

Ditto the reasons against theism. Atheist explanations in those cases I would see as scientific and beyond doubt. Meaning and purpose however we derive from our world views. Which is most rational?

[robvalue]

I haven't got a clue what he believed, the fact that he won't state it makes me sceptical in itself as to its rationality.

We clearly can't agree on ground rules, so there's no point having any kind of debate. But I'll say a bit more to make things clear to others, and in case anyone else wants to debate me formally or informally.

I was not moving goalposts. The goalposts will always be the same. If you're making a claim, and wish to prove that the claim is true or reasonable, then you need to provide appropriate argument/evidence. What is required will vary depending on the claim. If you cannot or will not provide these, then your claim is indistinguishable from any old shit anyone makes up.

Material evidence may or not not be required, again depends on the claim. And for all I know you don't have supernatural beliefs, or believe you are God.

If you were just asking me to accept that you believe your beliefs are rational, then sure, I take your word for it. I have no reason to object. But if you want to demonstrate your beliefs are objectively/independently rational, then you need to back it up. Again, I have no idea what you are actually saying. That the type of method you used is rational, regardless of the details? I don't know.

I want to add that demonstrating something is not impossible is not nearly enough to demonstrate it is likely.

---

Also, these are not my personal goalposts, they are (hopefully) reflective of any sceptic.

[fr0d0]

Can you be truly skeptical and argue only using pure logic Rob? Or do you need your crutch of evidence?

[Mister Agenda]

You're a skeptic but I believe your bias prevents you from being skeptical in regards to this. You have a vested interest in preserving your own world view, as do I.

I have a history of changing my world view when it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I'd much rather actually be right than just think I'm right. The more things I'm mistaken about that I discover, the more right I will be.

All we can do is try to look at any problem from each others view. Admittedly it's harder for you if you haven't understood fully from a belief perspective the logic of that position.

I didn't read the Bible twice because I was a skeptic. I was far from it. I read it twice because I was a believer.

Every theist will, I presume, understand the atheistic position.

I've rarely encountered a theist for whom that's true. Some very intelligent theists seem completely unable to grasp the simplest things about atheism or atheists.

It's where we all came from.

But most of us who were raised religious can't remember the time before we started to believe in God, which was probably the instant someone told us about it, since willingness to believe what the adults in their lives tell them is a survival feature for very young children.

So skepticism should be the theists ace card. We are in the best position to assess both stances on their merit.

You've rarely uttered such profoundly complete BS here before. Small children are not atheists because of skepticism. They are simply ignorant of the concept. There's nothing easier than being a theist who has never had a skeptical bone in their body. It's probably just as easy for an atheist not to be a skeptic if they weren't exposed to the idea of God while they were still at the susceptible age. I suppose that's one way we get atheists who believe in astrology or homeopathy.

To the theist, atheistic logic is contradictory, in that it is self defeating, for example. I have discussed logic points on this board very many times and not once have my beliefs been successfully challenged, to the extent that I had to change my mind and change my beliefs.

We're all aware of your invulnerability to logic. Your belief that your own unwillingness to change your mind constitutes evidence that the logic you've been presented with fails is a good illustration of why it's wasted on you.

I personally don't think it's possible to have knowledge and then believe the contrary to that knowledge.

If you don't know the difference between 'knowledge' and 'opinion', I can see how it could be hard for you to grasp how that could be done.

Cognitive dissonance will get you in the end.

It certainly got me. That's why I'm an atheist.

[fr0d0]

So you were never a theist through sound reasoning then? Or were you?? If you weren't, then you don't know what that reasoning is, and cannot comment on it.

Personally I was brought up in an atheist family and so don't have that influence.

[Mister Agenda]

I'm new to the forum, so I don't know your history and what you believe. It sounds like you might be a former atheist who converted to Christianity of some type? (Sorry if that guess is wrong.)

You could converse with fr0do for ten years without learning his history or what he believes.

---

So you were never a theist through sound reasoning then? Or were you?? If you weren't, then you don't know what that reasoning is, and cannot comment on it. Personally I was brought up in an atheist family and so don't have that influence.

So you were never an atheist through sound reasoning then?

[Foxaèr]

So you were never a theist through sound reasoning then?

There is no such thing as sound theistic reasoning.

[Jenny A]

I think it's much more that people like to think, or even need to think, there is an afterlife.

The afterlife is the whole purpose of religion, any religion. That's what's so sad about it, since people are sacrificing their here and now on the altar of some reward waiting for them after death.

It's the purpose of Christianity and Islam anyway. But if you want to know why Christianity spread so quickly, that's it: immortality. Many religions didn't have any belief in an afterlife: Judaism and most of the pagan religions didn't or at least not in anyway that made the afterlife the point of the religion. Help in this world, not the next, was the original point of religion as far as I can tell.

[fr0d0]

So you were never a theist through sound reasoning then?

There is no such thing as sound theistic reasoning.

Proof?

[Foxaèr]

Proof?

You, along with every other theist.