Q: do you, Christian, claim that God exists, rather than you believe that he exists?

[discipulus]

I do not have any evidence that cannot be explained away by someone who is unwilling to accept it.

In other words, the evidence I have is of the sort that it can be explained away if it is presented to a person who does not want to accept it.

I hope you can see how this differs from what you have suggested I have said. I have mentioned nothing about "prior belief" at all.

But you are clearly implying it. The "evidence" you have presented clearly only works with a presupposed belief in god.

You understand that a desire to accept evidence has nothing at all to do with the quality of that evidence, right? If you present evidence that is unconvincing, that is your problem, not ours.

Remember: you are that theist that came to an atheist forum. It is absolutely ridiculous to come in here and claim that we are the ones with the problem if we don't accept what you say. It's just beneath rationality.

That is your opinion. I thank you for sharing it. I engage people here on a personal, case by case, individual level. I do not make blanket statements about all atheists nor do I lump all atheists together. I believe some are willing to hear me out on what I have to say and I believe some are unwilling.

I believe desire plays a very big part in whether someone accepts or rejects a truth claim. I do not believe that some here are as objective in their pursuit of knowledge as they claim to be. I believe we all have desires and they do influence our beliefs, myself included.

---

No. That is a non-sequitur.

It could be that the person is willing but that they have judged the evidence to be weak.

Fair enough. So a willing person who judges the evidence to be too weak to adopt Christian belief is condemned by your loving god, or do they get a mulligan for good intentions?

A person is condemned because they reject God's offer of salvation found only in the person of Christ.

[Bad Writer]

You condemn a person in your mind...at least until you prove a god exists that can do all his own condemning.

[SteelCurtain]

That is your opinion. I thank you for sharing it. I engage people here on a personal, case by case, individual level. I do not make blanket statements about all atheists nor do I lump all atheists together. I believe some are willing to hear me out on what I have to say and I believe some are unwilling.

I believe desire plays a very big part in whether someone accepts or rejects a truth claim. I do not believe that some here are as objective in their pursuit of knowledge as they claim to be. I believe we all have desires and they do influence our beliefs, myself included.

You don't believe that we are as objective in our pursuit of knowledge? Really? Come on, man. You can't be real. You are too smug for words.

Tell me, is there anything that would cause you to not believe in God?

[Crossless2.0]

Fair enough. So a willing person who judges the evidence to be too weak to adopt Christian belief is condemned by your loving god, or do they get a mulligan for good intentions?

A person is condemned because they reject God's offer of salvation found only in the person of Christ.

What burden of responsibility and measure of condemnation then does the believer who fails to present adequate reasons for belief bear? Any? Is it really only on the person who rejects the claims, in spite of their willingness to listen impartially? So weak evidence can never be weak evidence? Irreversible guilt accrues for exercising honest skepticism? Nice system you have there.

[Angrboda]

So, a belief doesn't have to be unsound, a person just has to be unwillling to believe, and they can demonstrate that any evidence or belief is unsound. Got it.

Why don't you demonstrate. Explain away the theory of relativity. Show us how it's done.

[Whateverist]

In other words, you don't have any evidence that doesn't require prior belief in order for it to be received as true. If you don't see the problem with that, you are truly lost.

I do not have any evidence that cannot be explained away by someone who is unwilling to accept it.

In other words, the evidence I have is of the sort that it can be explained away if it is presented to a person who does not want to accept it.

I hope you can see how this differs from what you have suggested I have said. I have mentioned nothing about "prior belief" at all.

I must be thick because I don't see a difference either. What sort of evidence is it that one would want to accept without having a prior disposition to agree?

[Faith No More]

I do not have any evidence that cannot be explained away by someone who is unwilling to accept it.

Every time the Christian plays this card but is eventually coerced into sharing said evidence, it always ends up being something fairly ridiculous, like feeling the presence of god.

I also love the attempt to deflect the blame for a terrible argument and/or evidence by declaring that others that won't accept it are just unwilling to do so.

From what I can tell from the discussions on this forum, there is no argument for Christianity that doesn't work if you don't already accept that Christianity is most likely true.

[max-greece]

I started from reality my friend. Reality is Christianity is the religion which boasts the most adherents. That is a fact about the world I live in. From there if I find Christianity to indeed be true via investigation of its truth claims then I have found the truth. The crux as I stated is: Is Christianity True? Is Christ the Son of the Living God? He either is or He is not.

If I come to find the truth is that He is, then He is. It is plain and simple.

The above statement appears to be unsound to me.

All you can get to from the above is that you believe the Christ story to be true, not that it is true.

[fr0d0]

I am sorry, but science is neither omnipotent nor omniscient.

Masterful. Very well played my friend.

[Esquilax]

I have said science has its limits. You agree, at least I hope. I sure hope you are not espousing scientism, for it also is self-refuting. But I digress....

Saying "science has limits," isn't actually an argument for not using science or distrusting what it has to say. It's just a statement that we don't know everything yet. I'm fine with that statement, but if you want to devalue science because it has limitations you'd first have to present some alternate way of knowing things that doesn't, or at least that covers those limits that science has. So far, you're been remarkably evasive as to how you know that christianity is true, instead focusing on telling us what you claim to know.

I have nothing at all against science. As I said I am enthralled by it. I believe that science is possible only because God sustains and orders the world to begin with. In fact, if you research the issue, you will find that modern science was birthed in a particular geographical location dominated by a Judeo-Christian worldview. Why?

Ever heard of the dark ages, perchance?

More importantly, you're looking at a correlation, not a causation, and a rather oversimplified one at that. To say that modern science was born to christianity as though one caused the other not only ignores the contributions to science by those of other nations and faiths, but also skips over the fact that, at the time, there was no properly secular nation that could have birthed such a thing.

This worldview is far more conducive to science than a naturalistic/atheistic worldview. For in such a worldview, it is said, that things are they way they are by pure chance. That there is no rhyme or reason, no creative mind behind it all. No assurance that what has been will be in the future. Such a worldview completely undermines science, for science, in order to flourish, must be undertaken with a view that our observations and measurements are reliable and that we live in an ordered and consistent universe. A naturalistic universe affords none of these things which science depends on.

I'm so fucking tired of hearing this idiotic canard: for one, you have no clue what atheism is if you'll relegate it to pure chance, so congratulations there on not actually knowing what you're talking about before you decided to tell me what I believe. Good going on that one.

More importantly, you have no assurance that "what will be will be in the future," on numerous counts. First of all, given your inability to confirm the existence of your god, you have no reason to believe he's maintaining anything. Second, your bible is rife with examples of the natural order being suspended by such a figure, so of the two of us, me and my atheism that observes that the natural laws have never once been different, and you and your christianity who fully believes that the natural laws have been changed by god or satan or angels repeatedly, which of us has less reason to believe physics and so on will remain the same?

This argument of yours is pathetic, and you should honestly be ashamed of yourself for the strawmanning and scientific ignorance you've brought to this discussion.

I started from reality my friend. Reality is Christianity is the religion which boasts the most adherents. That is a fact about the world I live in. From there if I find Christianity to indeed be true via investigation of its truth claims then I have found the truth. The crux as I stated is: Is Christianity True? Is Christ the Son of the Living God? He either is or He is not.

If I come to find the truth is that He is, then He is. It is plain and simple.

Funny how unwilling you are to demonstrate how you came to your conclusions, then.

God cannot be put under a microscope or in a test tube. Nor can He be measured. You would have better luck trying to pull your thoughts out of your head a place them on a set of scales to see how much they weigh. Science is not the only means we have of learning about reality my friend. I am sorry, but science is neither omnipotent nor omniscient. This is something you will have to come to terms with or be forever stunted and limited in your knowledge of the world in which you live.

Propose another way of knowing things that would lead you to believe a god exists, and then demonstrate its effectiveness.

It seems to me you are espousing some sort of scientism.

And don't make up words.

And since we have no instruments which can detect God then He cannot be detected. This is what the naturalist must conclude. But why believe that the only things that exist are those which can be detected by humans via man made instruments? Is man omniscient? No. Then why rule out the supernatural a priori?

I'm not ruling anything out, I'm saying that without a way to detect something we have no reason to believe it exists, and that the time to believe something does exist is when we have reason to do so. If I'm unable to ascertain the existence of a god, why not just suspend judgement until we can ascertain that?

Why not rather admit ignorance and use other disciplines at your disposal?

Propose another method, and demonstrate its effectiveness.

God is a person. You keep speaking about Him as if He is some object. This belies your misconception of Him.

That doesn't answer the question. You can detect people, how do you detect god?

I have plenty of support for my views. But nothing at all in the way of evidence that cannot be explained away by them that are unwilling to accept it. You see, I am not the one asking for evidence. You are. I am completely persuaded that Christ came in the flesh in accordance with scripture.

It is my contention that your reasons are insufficient and based on logical fallacies and wishful thinking.

I believe you do have innate knowledge of God, though it be distorted by sin. I have support for this belief and evidence for this belief as well. But once again, nothing in the way of evidence that cannot be explained away by them unwilling to receive it.

I don't care what you believe, I care what you can demonstrate. Do you notice that I'm not sitting here telling you that you have an innate knowledge that atheism is true, and that I have plenty of support for that belief? Do you understand how unproductive it would be if we both just sat here flinging accusations about what the other person knows?

Do you understand how unfair and sad it is that you're content to lower yourself to that, while I am not?

Go ahead and explain it away. You simply prove the point I have been speaking of. Any explanation other than that Flew was right. You stoop so low as to say the man's dementia was the reason he abandoned his atheism. This is incredible! hock:

I actually don't care about his dementia so much. I'm more concerned about the fact that he was a deist, and so didn't actually believe what you do. You're misrepresenting the position of a dead man in order to smear the reputation of a live one. Classy.

More importantly, as I've said, resorting to "Flew believed X!" is just an argument from authority. Flew isn't even an authority that I recognize, and it's clear that he had no better evidence for your position than you do, or he would have presented it. That doesn't mean I'm desperate for him to be wrong, it means I didn't find his position compelling, and fuck you for intimating otherwise as baselessly as you did.

See, I did something that might seem crazy to you: when you brought Flew up, I actually went and read up on his position and final writings before I replied. I made sure I knew what was up, rather than jut taking your word for it. So this isn't just me dismissing you, this is me spending some time acquainting myself with the facts and then deciding that they pose an insufficient reason for belief.

In response, you started acting like a child.

I have evidence. It is of such a nature that it can be explained away by those that are unwilling to accept it.

And if I genuinely find it insufficient?