Atheists who become Christians

[fr0d0]

No, I was simply summarizing the explanations I have read so far.


If you are aware of some better explanations, then how about sharing them?

OK fair enough.

What exactly do you want explaining? Rational reasons for believing?

I learned of information on the subject and assessed it critically over a long period of time. I scrutinised people and conflicting theories on the subject. I trusted the information to be true enough to act upon it. This has been the standard accepted path to belief for centuries. Nothing I believe hinders or opposes scientific fact. I remain as skeptical as ever on all subjects especially faith and belief, as I understand I must be.

[robvalue]

If you want a random sceptic to believe you have rational reasons, you're going to need to provide more detail than that. Including what it is you actually believe.

What people, what information?

Note: if you actually manage this, you'll be the first in 2000 years. Well, depending on your claim. I still have no idea what that is.

[fr0d0]

No, if someone wants to convince me that their belief is objectively rational, not just "rational to them", then they should be able to demonstrate sound and reasoned arguments, backed up with evidence where appropriate.

" objectively rational " is you moving the goalpost exactly as I accused you of potentially doing, and dealt with already. I rest my case.

---

Anti-theism doesn't ask you for proof -of any kind-, Frodo, because anti-theism doesn't actually give a shit whether or not your god exists.

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

[robvalue]

What?

Objectively rational as in convincing to other people than yourself. If you can't manage that, then you've no ground to claim to anyone else that they should believe your claim. I would not make a claim without being prepared to back it up objectively.

I am certain beyond reasonable doubt that no one can do this, with any supernatural claim. Because any supernatural claim is unfalsifiable. Therefore it's not testable, so is useless. This is the the state of the scientific method today.

Go ahead and prove me wrong. But don't blame me for describing the standards of science. You can't convince someone else based on your own standards.

These are the goalposts and they never move. I don't understand your objection.

---

You haven't even presented your case yet. If you don't like those goalposts, then you cannot back up your belief beyond opinion and personal anecdote.

Further, if you don't like these goalposts, what ones would you set? Describe them please, and I'll see what claims I can make that would get through those posts as well.

[fr0d0]

You stated the case that I already dealt with Rob. I have nothing more I can say.

[robvalue]

What?

I have no idea what you're talking about, I give up trying to communicate, I've tried very hard.

It seems to me you don't like the scientific method for establishing the truth of a claim. If so, you are using some other standard for which proper evidence is not required, and I have no interest in it.

[The Grand Nudger]

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? In a great many cases, if you could provide material substantiation of god or things in the periphery of god - then it would suit anti-theism just fine. Specifically in that we would not have to discuss the merits of a hypothetical "something" or acceptance of that "something" in principle...but an actual thing. If, for example...god was demonstrably a flooder of worlds - do you think that this would alter the anti-theist position on.....anything?

[fr0d0]

What?

I have no idea what you're talking about, I give up trying to communicate, I've tried very hard.

It seems to me you don't like the scientific method for establishing the truth of a claim. If so, you are using some other standard for which proper evidence is not required, and I have no interest in it.

To try and explain the difference to you...

Science 101 is down the corridor. This is theology class. A different subject where scientific method cannot apply. Reason and logic alone must be used.

[watchamadoodle]

No, I was simply summarizing the explanations I have read so far.


If you are aware of some better explanations, then how about sharing them?

OK fair enough.

What exactly do you want explaining? Rational reasons for believing?

I learned of information on the subject and assessed it critically over a long period of time. I scrutinised people and conflicting theories on the subject. I trusted the information to be true enough to act upon it. This has been the standard accepted path to belief for centuries. Nothing I believe hinders or opposes scientific fact. I remain as skeptical as ever on all subjects especially faith and belief, as I understand I must be.

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

Special pleading hobbit. What was that about using logic and reason again?