When will theists bring something new and fresh?

[Ryantology]

One minute religious claims never change, the next they're always changing

If you only had a feeling that what you believed was truth, then no wonder you think faith is groundless. My faith is rationalised.

Rampant : you seem to be scared to address me directly. Nothing you write following any of my posts is remotely pertinent to me or anything that I've said here on AF. That's called trolling.

The basis underlying religious claims never changes. It's the specific horseshit justifications that are constantly forced to change. Simply admitting ignorance is not an option. The largest example is the invention of the concept of the supernatural.

[Chas]

Conversely, it takes understanding. It's not something you need to see, like your hands in front of your face.

Proof can also be non verifiable, non transferable, personal. It's still proof, none the less.

What an odd use of the word 'proof'.

[Rampant.A.I.]

It's not that odd. Just another one of those words like "Truth" believers change the definition of whenever it suits them.

[fr0d0]

One minute religious claims never change, the next they're always changing

If you only had a feeling that what you believed was truth, then no wonder you think faith is groundless. My faith is rationalised.

Rampant : you seem to be scared to address me directly. Nothing you write following any of my posts is remotely pertinent to me or anything that I've said here on AF. That's called trolling.

Your definition of "rational" is clearly different than what it actually means thus, changing the goal posts. Faith isn't rational no more than believing that the tooth fairy or big foot actually exist. It isn't rational to believe in hearsay stories that have never been proven to be true. The Bible isn't proof that your god exists. It only seems that way because you have rationalized it as such.

But to those who believe in such things, they will attempt to "rationalize" if only to themselves.

You're proving my point about a strawman game.

---

And you don't know me, and you have no idea what my thoughts about faith were. You are not better than atheists because you choose to believe in a deity.

No, I think my definition of "rational" is exactly the same as yours. What we define differently is faith.

I quoted you exactly and based my observations on your own words. I'm not belittling your faith as you held it. I'm saying it's nothing like what I understand faith to be. And exactly what I understand superstition to be.

Branding me with your own understanding, which I've already pointed out is different to mine, is meaningless.

If there's a straw man it's the one you're forcing me to wear.

You don't seem to want to accept that there could be actual reason for theists to believe in God. That's incorrect.

[*Deidre*]

Your definition of "rational" is clearly different than what it actually means thus, changing the goal posts. Faith isn't rational no more than believing that the tooth fairy or big foot actually exist. It isn't rational to believe in hearsay stories that have never been proven to be true. The Bible isn't proof that your god exists. It only seems that way because you have rationalized it as such.

But to those who believe in such things, they will attempt to "rationalize" if only to themselves.

You're proving my point about a strawman game.

---

And you don't know me, and you have no idea what my thoughts about faith were. You are not better than atheists because you choose to believe in a deity.

No, I think my definition of "rational" is exactly the same as yours. What we define differently is faith.

I quoted you exactly and based my observations on your own words. I'm not belittling your faith as you held it. I'm saying it's nothing like what I understand faith to be. And exactly what I understand superstition to be.

Branding me with your own understanding, which I've already pointed out is different to mine, is meaningless.

If there's a straw man it's the one you're forcing me to wear.

You don't seem to want to accept that there could be actual reason for theists to believe in God. That's incorrect.

But since the 'actual reasons' vary from person to person, it would still seem that religion is based on subjective truths, not objective. That said, that's fine, but the problem is that religious people take those subjective truths and debate against non-theists who are using objective truth. It just doesn't work, it's not apples to apples.

You can believe whatever you wish, but your beliefs are not based on anything objectively truthful. That's all anyone here is saying.

Your faith seems real to you, because you have allowed yourself to put faith over reason. That's not a jab at you, that's reality. When I was a believer, reason and logic isn't what led me there, but rather a desire to believe in something unknown.

Unknown to anyone.

[fr0d0]

Paragraph one and two: I agree wholeheartedly. That's exactly what I've said above.

Paragraph 3. Bollocks Straw man again. Your projecting your own understanding onto me again. My faith is rationally based.

Faith is knowable to everyone. The rationale that leads to belief. Apparently you've never heard of it. Or am I presuming too much?

[Cato]

Paragraph one and two: I agree wholeheartedly. That's exactly what I've said above.

Paragraph 3. Bollocks Straw man again. Your projecting your own understanding onto me again. My faith is rationally based.

Faith is knowable to everyone. The rationale that leads to belief. Apparently you've never heard of it. Or am I presuming too much?

You presume too much.

[fr0d0]

Apparently you've never heard of it. Or am I presuming too much?

You presume too much.

Well last time I said it I was accused of telling Deirdre what she thinks. I was trying to put it more politely.

---

When I was a believer, reason and logic isn't what led me there, but rather a desire to believe in something unknown.

Unknown to anyone.

Please walk me through what led you to believe

[Clueless Morgan]

In my previous topic I was complaining about hearing same arguments billion times. They are spoken in a different way but are still about the same thing.
Do you think we will ever hear new arguments? Where will they come from? Or we will hear same arguments for another 10000 years?

You're assuming humans will still be around in 10,000 years, that we won't have killed ourselves off in global resource wars when the Earth becomes overpopulated, or that the Earth won't have been involved in a global-killer asteroid strike that kills off all humans, or any of the other horrible and perhaps inevitable ways in which the species could be wiped out of existence...

But you're optimistic. I like that.

Yep. And the people making the will continue to think they are original.

A new argument would by definition be original. I don't understand what you're saying.

(To be clear, I'm referring to new arguments that are actually new arguments, not arguments that are a slightly different take on an old argument, like Kalam.)

Just to be clear, I'm applying tors point to the arguments from atheist against theism as well as vice versa. It's all pretty well trod ground. .

Are you referring to strong atheists with this statement? Because weak atheists can only counter theistic arguments, like I said in the other thread; we have no way to introduce "new" arguments to the discussion until the theist introduces something new for us to refute.

If you are referring to strong atheists, than I'd say that there is the possibility of introducing new arguments "disproving" God or gods because we could always find actual evidence that there are no gods and that evidence would be used to support a new argument refuting God or gods existence. To the same effect, theists will have new arguments the second they get some evidence. But until either of these things happen, no, there will probably be no new arguments being made.

I see, Jacob(smooth), that you are now a Trainee Atheist? What's that about?

[*Deidre*]

Please walk me through what led you to believe

Nobody here cares, so it doesn't matter. No point in going into all that.

You believe and that's your choice. Guess we all make choices.