RE: On Hell and Forgiveness
August 30, 2018 at 12:39 pm
(This post was last modified: August 30, 2018 at 12:41 pm by Neo-Scholastic.)
(August 30, 2018 at 12:08 pm)Kit Wrote:(August 30, 2018 at 12:03 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: How is that different from a believer accusing you of willful ignorance and degeneracy for refusing to believe? Accusing other people of intellectual stubbornness and professing things they don't actually believe sounds to me like an excuse to deny the possibility that Christians could have genuine and innocent reasons for their beliefs.
Think of it this way:
Theist: god is real / unicorn is real
Atheist: god is not real / unicorn is not real
It is not willful ignorance on part of the atheist when there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of that for which the believer is making a positive claim of existence.
It is not a difficult concept to understand, yet theist tend to make it doubly so merely based on an ignorant adherence to faith.
Faith is nothing of which to be proud or to cling. It should be discarded, because it is useless. It corrupts the mind, which becomes more apparent the more we debate.
That reads like a polemic. I wouldn't be so certain. There are things that are evident about the world. People can reason from some of those observations that God exists. You may believe that that specific conclusion does not follow from particular observations, but saying flat out that there is "no evidence" inverts the relationship between evidence and the conclusions one could possibly draw from the evidence. As such it is an unfounded assertion. Let me show you the difference...
Step 1: There is something evident about the world.
Step 2: Some conclusion follows from what is evident.
Step 3: What is evident supports the conclusion.
versus
Step 1: No conclusions can be drawn from something evident about the world.
<insert profound quote here>
