What motivates theists to come here?

[Neo-Scholastic]

To the OP, robvalue, your questions seemed very leading to me. You seem to suggest that theists, as a general rule, post with an ulterior motive like hoping to convert atheists into Bible-thumping believers.  That may be true for the occasional shit-posting fundie that hops onto AF two days after learning about Kalam or Discovery Institute. However, most of the long-standing Christian members come and stay for a variety of reasons.

Do I hope that someone gets convert? Yes, but don’t fool yourself into thinking you are special. I hope the whole world becomes Christian! But it’s not my job to convince you or anyone else. That work belongs solely to the Holy Spirit.

My specific reasons for participating on AF have changed with time. First, I wanted to challenge my own beliefs. After long debate, I have altered some while others got confirmed. Now I just collect atheist arguments.  I share these with other Christians.  Once they learn how lame those arguments are, how they undermine reason and human dignity, I hope that their faith will be strengthened as mine has been.

I wouldn't say that atheistic position is lame. It is cynical, egoistical and realistical. Martyrdom towards invisible goals is strange and alien.

Some atheists can be nice people, but I see atheism, as an intellectual commitment, bleak and nihilistic and the arguments to support it are what I called lame.

[robvalue]

My questions were not meant to be leading in any way, other than to frame a detailed response. They were meant to be open. I did not mean to suggest any ulterior motive.

[abaris]

Some atheists can be nice people, but I see atheism, as an intellectual commitment, bleak and nihilistic and the arguments to support it are what I called lame.

Why are the arguments lame? Since I don't believe in the earth poofing into existence with fully equipped humans, I don't consider them lame. The other side arguing away the vast majority of the scientific community seems lame to me. Apart from the fact of the trinity not making any sense when it somes to Jesus' supposed suffering.

Also, you should know by now that most of our opinions and views of the world are anything but nilistic. Bleak maybe, but that's down to the stupidity of humanity or the powers that be. But never nihilistic.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Some atheists can be nice people, but I see atheism, as an intellectual commitment, bleak and nihilistic and the arguments to support it are what I called lame.

Why are the arguments lame?

The lame arguments, or more accurately skeptical objections, are those that don't reflect an accurate understanding of those rational demonstrations that support the god of classical theism. Mostly I hear the "Who created God?" response which is both inane and ignorant. This is not to say that there aren't good objections to the rational demonstrations for First Cause, Necessary Being, etc. There are, but those are very rarely raised on AF. These objections include Humes' denial of causality and Kant's denial that experience can access facts about nomena. It is pretty clear that denying causality and/or the validity of experience both come at great cost. As I see it the most compelling objection to the existence of God is the existence of evil.

Since I don't believe in the earth poofing into existence with fully equipped humans, I don't consider them lame. The other side arguing away the vast majority of the scientific community seems lame to me.

I have no disagreement with you or your apparent rejection of creationism. I see no conflict between faith and science.

...you should know by now that most of our opinions and views of the world are anything but nilistic. Bleak maybe, but that's down to the stupidity of humanity or the powers that be. But never nihilistic.

Not everyone is aware that what they expressly believe about the existence of God, value, and meaning rest on tacit assumptions about the efficacy of reason and the intelligibility of reality that are, at root, nihilistic.