Delicate Offers a Truce

[Delicate]

On reflection, I've found this thread illuminating.

I've seen some people respond with grace and restraint, to whom I want to extend the same grace and restraint back (and more).

And yet, I've seen some respond with rage and insults. Not just passive cynicism, but a demeaning sort of cynicism that actively tries to pollute good faith dialogue.

Then there are those in between. Those who WANT to respond in good faith but have unrealistic expectations of me doing 40 years of penance, or giving up on what I take to be true as derived from reason and evidence, etc.

I will add, that the overwhelming reason that the vast majority of atheists give for their disbelief is lack of demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument to support the claim that a god exists.

And you claim to have that demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument for the existence of a god. And not just any god, but a specific one that, according to many Christian sects, will punish us for eternity for the thought crime of not believing he exists. 

Aren't you bound by Peter 3:15 to try to convince us of the truth of your beliefs?

Thanks for the substantive response.

My argument is predominantly that the objections atheists raise, including the one you have, are false.

You haven't been able to refute the evidence provided, many in this very forum.

Pick an argument you think is evidently false. I'll either concede your point out give you good reasons to think your objections don't hold water.

[Crossless2.0]

Deleted: Intended post (see below) didn't fully appear when first sent.

[Crossless2.0]

How many times and in how many ways in how many threads have you been asked to provide this evidence?

But you don't understand why you're taken less than seriously? 

I've been asked for evidence for claims I haven't made or aren't interested in.

I've never been asked to demonstrate, for instance, why I take most atheists to be irrational.

When I provide reasons I see no analysis of my reasons. All I see is rage.

How dare I believe in reasons and evidence!

You're not interested in providing this evidence you say you have for your beliefs? Really? I should think as a born-again Christian you'd be all about that, given your obligation to spread the Good News.

That's the evidence people are interested in seeing.

You do remember your bio information, don't you?

I used to be an apatheist.

Then I heard Richard Dawkins speak, saw how ridiculous he was and I became a born-again Christian. Delicate

Leaving aside what a laughably bad reason that is for adopting a particular religious faith, it's your "evidence" for the truth of your alleged Christian faith that we're waiting on. Can I make this any clearer for you?

[Delicate]

[quote pid='1154920' dateline='1451341276']

How many times and in how many ways in how many threads have you been asked to provide this evidence?

But you don't understand why you're taken less than seriously? 

I've been asked for evidence for claims I haven't made or aren't interested in.

I've never been asked to demonstrate, for instance, why I take most atheists to be irrational.

When I provide reasons I see no analysis of my reasons. All I see is rage.

How dare I believe in reasons and evidence!

You're not interested in providing this evidence you say you have for your beliefs? Really? I should think as a born-again Christian you'd be all about that, given your obligation to spread the Good News.

That's the evidence people are interested in seeing.

You do remember your bio information, don't you?

I used to be an apatheist.

Then I heard Richard Dawkins speak, saw how ridiculous he was and I became a born-again Christian. Delicate

Leaving aside what a laughably bad reason that is for adopting a particular religious faith, it's your "evidence" for the truth of your alleged Christian faith that we're waiting on. Can I make this any clearer for you?
[/quote]
You're still working on the assumption that I want to prove theism.

I don't.

I want to (and have) proven that most atheistic claims are false.

[Heat]

I will add, that the overwhelming reason that the vast majority of atheists give for their disbelief is lack of demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument to support the claim that a god exists.

And you claim to have that demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument for the existence of a god. And not just any god, but a specific one that, according to many Christian sects, will punish us for eternity for the thought crime of not believing he exists. 

Aren't you bound by Peter 3:15 to try to convince us of the truth of your beliefs?

Thanks for the substantive response.

My argument is predominantly that the objections atheists raise, including the one you have, are false.

You haven't been able to refute the evidence provided, many in this very forum.

Pick an argument you think is evidently false. I'll either concede your point out give you good reasons to think your objections don't hold water.

LOL what!?

Atheists raise a mountain of objections, so your argument is that they are all false? Because why?


How can you even begin to define all the objections raised by atheists, they are so vast and different, and what makes you think that atheism should be required to substantiate their objections, before you even provide evidence?

You've just demonstrated how intellectually inadequate you are by the last statement alone, you've never made an actual argument, who can refute you when you generalize and never specify what you're actually referring to and instead try to pawn off your argument as casually just being "All atheists are wrong" that's not an argument, that's willfull ignorance and a determination to never specify in fear of being directly disproven.

[pocaracas]

I want to (and have) proven that most atheistic claims are false.

By definition, atheists don't make claims... well, at least, concerning divinities. It is the non-acceptance of the claims made by theists that define the atheist.

On the other hand, atheists, like all other humans, make claims about many things and some of those are entirely based on faulty reasoning, yes.
We are humans, after all.

[Excited Penguin]

[quote pid='1154920' dateline='1451341276']
I've been asked for evidence for claims I haven't made or aren't interested in.

I've never been asked to demonstrate, for instance, why I take most atheists to be irrational.

When I provide reasons I see no analysis of my reasons. All I see is rage.

How dare I believe in reasons and evidence!

You're not interested in providing this evidence you say you have for your beliefs? Really? I should think as a born-again Christian you'd be all about that, given your obligation to spread the Good News.

That's the evidence people are interested in seeing.

You do remember your bio information, don't you?

I used to be an apatheist.

Then I heard Richard Dawkins speak, saw how ridiculous he was and I became a born-again Christian. Delicate

Leaving aside what a laughably bad reason that is for adopting a particular religious faith, it's your "evidence" for the truth of your alleged Christian faith that we're waiting on. Can I make this any clearer for you?

You're still working on the assumption that I want to prove theism.

I don't.

I want to (and have) proven that most atheistic claims are false.
[/quote]

If you can't prove theism, then you didn't disprove atheism, so to speak. Atheism means not believing in Gods. You can only "dispel" atheism by convincing all atheists that God exists. If you can't convince me that God exists, then you didn't do a damn thing to atheism, even if I were the only atheist in the world.

[Heat]

You're still working on the assumption that I want to prove theism.

I don't. 

I want to (and have) proven that most atheistic claims are false.

How fucking ignorant, and misinformed are you?

1. Theism is REQUIRED to prove it's validity, otherwise atheism is the DEFAULT POSITION.

2. ATHEISM DOES NOT CLAIM A GOD DAMNED THING, STOP REINFORCING THIS WILLFULLY IGNORANT THEISTIC NOTION THAT IT DOES.

[Crossless2.0]

You're still working on the assumption that I want to prove theism.

I don't.

I want to (and have) proven that most atheistic claims are false.

You don't get it, do you? The only claim most atheists make is that they are unaware of any god and are unimpressed by theists' "evidence" and arguments. All you've proven is that you don't listen.

[Mudhammam]

If anything, that theory would suggest that it was in part due to the protection of the church that the opportunity for scientific enlightenment was made possible, as rather than squandering their talents in political conflicts, the brightest were left to themselves in monasteries to discover intellectual progress, where it was almost exclusively made in Europe, along with the preservation of ancient works, much of which would have been permanently lost without the Muslims. Hence, it's also interesting to note that it was religion, in the case of Islam, that initiated a rekindling of Greek science and philosophy which in turn led to solidify the rise of Arab civilization during the period in the West known as the dark ages. So, apparently, if you're going to blame religion in the one instance, you'd better be prepared to credit it in the other.

Yes, I know that, even though this wasn't addressed at me. But isn't it the case that the Dark Ages were, in effect, extremely religious? It seems to me like to take religion out of the equation like that is a little going too far. I rather regret more the fall of the Greek civilization, than the Roman one, by the way. And you can't expect me to credit religion simply for being the only game in town in Europe for such a long time. The Dark Ages were hell on earth for most people for a reason, and that reason is very intimately connected with religion - or at least that's my impression, based on what I learned and read. Am I wrong?

I wouldn't take religion out of the equation, by any means. That it often promotes superstition and demands that unsatisfactory theoretical answers to real world difficulties be accepted on insufficient evidence is a problem; my point is that it's a problem today as it was then, and it was then as it was long prior to the establishment of the state church. Can you think of a period that wasn't particularly religious, outside of perhaps the last 150 years in places like Europe, communist China or North Korea, and certain segments of the West?