Theists - I want to know what you think

[LadyForCamus]

I’ve spent some time thinking about what you guys have expressed in the theist-only debate thread, and it occurred to me that I spend most of my time here at AF considering my own reasons for lacking god-belief, but I’ve never closely considered what you guys think about the lack of god-belief.  In doing so, I realized I have genuine questions.  So, for once, I’m going to shut up about what I think, and listen to what you all think about what I think.  This is not meant to be a debate thread (though I’m sure it will inevitably evolve in that direction, which is fine), and I have no intention or desire to deride anyone’s answers, so long as they answer honestly and respectfully.

1. Do you think lacking a belief in god is rational?  Why, or why not?

2. Do you believe atheists who say they don’t believe because of lack of evidence?  If so, do you think that is a rational reason to not believe in god?

3. Do you think rational skepticism is the correct perspective to be coming from when considering god-belief?

4. Do you think an atheist and/or rational skeptic can reason their way to belief in god?  

5. Do you think an atheist and/or rational skeptic could be convinced by reasons, or do you think God would have to intervene in some way?

6. Why do you think so many atheists were once theists?  Is it realistic to think a person could re-believe in god after deciding they could no longer believe due to lack of evidence?  Why or why not?

7.  Some of you had mentioned ‘sowing the seed’ as a reason to be here at AF.  If you were going to explain to an atheist what the best reason is to believe in god, what would it be?  I’m not trying to set up a ‘burden of proof’ trap.  I just want to know what you think would be, or should be the most convincing to an atheist and/or rational skeptic.


Thanks!

[Neo-Scholastic]

1. Do you think lacking a belief in god is rational? Why, or why not?

Lacking belief is a state of innocent ignorance, i.e. not having an opinion about a question you’ve never been asked. However, after becoming aware of a truth proposition one can react in three ways: consider the proposition true, consider it false, or not care. That IMO exhausts all the options. Innocent ignorance has ceased to be an option.

2. Do you believe atheists who say they don’t believe because of lack of evidence? If so, do you think that is a rational reason to not believe in god?

I take such statements at face value except when I observe someone repeatedly confusing evidence with proof. I believe it is reasonable to be an atheist but I do not think it is philosophically justified. To be clear, a rational person can hold opinions that on deeper study can be demonstrated to be incoherent. I see areas of legitimate debate both in favor of theism and against it. I also see poor arguments being accepted uncritically on both sides of the question.

3. Do you think rational skepticism is the correct perspective to be coming from when considering god-belief?

Yes. One should be able to see both sides of a question. That is different from a kind of hyper-skepticim, such as that of Hume and later the post-modernists, that eats its own tale.

4. Do you think an atheist and/or rational skeptic can reason their way to belief in god?

No. There must first be an acknowledgment of the Holy Spirit by a receptive heart. Faith is the position we reason from, not the position we reason towards.

5. Do you think an atheist and/or rational skeptic could be convinced by reasons, or do you think God would have to intervene in some way?

Reason can only remove objections to faith but ultimately faith comes from the Holy Spirit.

6. Why do you think so many atheists were once theists? Is it realistic to think a person could re-believe in god after deciding they could no longer believe due to lack of evidence? Why or why not?

I consider that a statistical artifact. The majority population is religious so most atheists come from that pool. In my own faith journey, I was not sufficiently fed to understand the reasons behind specific doctrines such as the hypostatic union and the Trinity. For this reason, I abandoned the Christian faith. Once I properly understood the doctrines, I found Christianity more reasonable than the logical conclusions of atheism.

7. Some of you had mentioned ‘sowing the seed’ as a reason to be here at AF. If you were going to explain to an atheist what the best reason is to believe in god, what would it be? I’m not trying to set up a ‘burden of proof’ trap. I just want to know what you think would be, or should be most convincing to an atheist and/or rational skeptic.

Find some people you consider good Christians (not me apparently) and ask them for their personal testimony. Apologetics are all fine and good, but the most compelling argument for the Christian faith is how it changes the lives those who embrace it.

[Catholic_Lady]

Hey girl, thanks for this. Let me answer your questions when I get home!

[Catholic_Lady]

1. Do you think lacking a belief in god is rational?  Why, or why not?

I think it is rational.

Why? Because there is no solid proof. I can see why someone wouldn't believe.

2. Do you believe atheists who say they don’t believe because of lack of evidence?  If so, do you think that is a rational reason to not believe in god?

Yeah, I believe them. Yes, I think it is a rational reason.

3. Do you think rational skepticism is the correct perspective to be coming from when considering god-belief?

I think it is a reasonable perspective to be coming from. I wouldn't say it's the only "correct" perspective though. Some people are more comfortable taking a leap of faith than others, and that's fine as well.

4. Do you think an atheist and/or rational skeptic can reason their way to belief in god?

Yes, I think so.

5. Do you think an atheist and/or rational skeptic could be convinced by reasons, or do you think God would have to intervene in some way?

I think some could be convinced by reason. Some would need direct intervention. Just depends on the person I guess.

6. Why do you think so many atheists were once theists?  Is it realistic to think a person could re-believe in god after deciding they could no longer believe due to lack of evidence?  Why or why not?

Because it's what they were taught from their parents as children.

Yes. I know of several people who have done that.

Because if a person is committed to searching for truth and willing to go wherever it would lead them, it makes sense that they may change their stance more than once, depending on what they are finding and learning.

7.  Some of you had mentioned ‘sowing the seed’ as a reason to be here at AF.  If you were going to explain to an atheist what the best reason is to believe in god, what would it be?  I’m not trying to set up a ‘burden of proof’ trap.  I just want to know what you think would be, or should be the most convincing to an atheist and/or rational skeptic.

Probably the origin of the universe, morality, and the rapid spread of early Christianity.

[Edwardo Piet]

4. Do you think an atheist and/or rational skeptic can reason their way to belief in god?

No. There must first be an acknowledgment of the Holy Spirit by a receptive heart. Faith is the position we reason from, not the position we reason towards.

LMFAO! And there you have it folks! A total and complete admission of total irrationality on Neo's part. Next he'll be telling me I'm twisting his words because he didn't precisely and literally say word for word "I admit I am coming from a position of total irrationality".

LFC asked if it's possible for an atheist to reason their way to belief in God.... Neo says no. And yet he has a problem with me calling him irrational?!

Start with the conclusion first and then come up with obfuscation and smarm to pretend to support it... that's the Neo way.

Bloody hell Neo saying "Faith is the position we reason from, not the position we reason towards" would be going right in my signature if there hadn't been a rule against it. Just so he can't keep pretending to be rational in a debate. I guess I'll just bookmark it and quote his own words right back at him when he next pretends to be rational.

Oh wait. I know what I CAN do. It's Hall of Shame time!

Neo, if this was a debate on whether Christianity is true any reasonable person would have considered an admission like that from you to be an admission of defeat. In a debate if you basically say that reason can't get you to your position then you've basically forfeited any chance of reasonably saying that your position is true. You may as well just be wearing a t-shirt saying "My whole worldview is irrational."

[Joods]

And this is why conversations break down and theists don't want to have sincere discussions with us. Because of stuff like this. Hammy I'm sorry but your post was a total bait post and designed to hinder further discussion.

[Edwardo Piet]

And this is why conversations break down and theists don't want to have sincere discussions with us. Because of stuff like this. Hammy I'm sorry but your post was a total bait post and designed to hinder further discussion.

No it bloody well wasn't. Period. Neo just said that he reasons from faith and not to faith so I was commenting on how ridiculous that was. What part of my post do you actually disagree with? And I'm sorry but your claim that my post was a "total bait post designed to hinder further discussion" is completely baseless and does nothing but bait me and make it falsely appear to others like I'm trying to do something that I'm not trying to do at all. I just said what I think and you misread destructive intentions into it that aren't there that just came straight out of your own brain. Like I said, what part of my post do you actually disagree with? It's bullshit like your post here that ruins discussions because I wasn't trying to do what you falsely claim I was trying to do at all and you criticize my post without even saying what you disagree with. It's you who just put a lid on discussion here. I was participating in it. I was talking about how irrational it is to start from a position of faith instead of reason... do you disagree with that? What do you actually disagree with that I said? You just appear to be going on an irrelevant digression when I was actually addressing Neo's response to LFC and explaining how ridiculous and irrational it was.

[Joods]

And this is why conversations break down and theists don't want to have sincere discussions with us. Because of stuff like this. Hammy I'm sorry but your post was a total bait post and designed to hinder further discussion.

No it bloody well wasn't. Period. Neo just said that he reasons from faith and not to faith so I was commenting on how ridiculous that was. What part of my post do you actually disagree with?

He answered LFC's questions to the best of his ability, based on what he knows. Again - I don't generally agree with a lot of what he posts, but he wasn't flaming or trolling anyone and he was sticking to the topic. Why do you have to be like this? I disagree with all of the parts of your post where you were being an ass when clearly, you could have handled it better.

[Edwardo Piet]

No it bloody well wasn't. Period. Neo just said that he reasons from faith and not to faith so I was commenting on how ridiculous that was. What part of my post do you actually disagree with?

He answered LFC's questions to the best of his ability, based on what he knows. Again - I don't generally agree with a lot of what he posts, but he wasn't flaming or trolling anyone and he was sticking to the topic. Why do you have to be like this? I disagree with all of the parts of your post where you were being an ass when clearly, you could have handled it better.

I wasn't flaming or trolling anyone and I was sticking to the topic as well. How was I being an ass? I was talking about how ridiculous he was being. I don't think I even insulted him in that post?! WTF. What's wrong with you? What's your obsession with reading all these imaginary intentions into me? I was laughing at how irrational he was being and explaining why he's being incredibly irrational. What's wrong with that? I put him in The Hall of Shame because that's what the Hall of Shame is for. I can't understand people sometimes. WTF. He said he faith is reasoned from and not to. I ranted about how irrational that was and explained why it was irrational and your response was to ignore all my actual points and just call me an ass? We don't disagree and you're just imagining intentions in me that do not exist, once again. I'm sick of it. It's just like all those times you've called me a liar when I'm the complete opposite to that. This discussion was a discussion until you pretended like I had some sort of malicious motive or I was being an ass. I was being rude, but I wasn't trolling or flaming and there's no polite way to laugh at someone for admitting that their belief in an imaginary friend isn't based on reason. I've seen you make similar posts to the post you just had a problem with yourself elsewhere. Hypocrite much?

Your objection to me was an irrelevant digression and a false accusation that I was trying to do shit I wasn't trying to do. What the fuck is your problem with always telling me what I'm trying to do? I was just saying what I think and if you keep seeing in me malicious intentions that don't exist that says a lot more about you than me. See what's happened now? Because you HAD to do what you always do when I speak my mind... make up shit about what I'm supposedly trying to do when I'm not actually trying to do any such thing at all. The only one shitting on this thread here is you. Ugh. I shouldn't have even responded to your bullshit but if you're going to make up bullshit about me and falsely accuse me of causing trouble when I'm just participating on the thread what the fuck am I supposed to say?

If anyone said anything designed to hinder further discussion it was fucking YOU when you pulled the false accusation that I was doing that straight out of your ass when all I did was literally EXPLAIN WHY I thought Neo's answer was ridiculously irrational. You're going back on ignore because I'm not prepared to defend myself from false accusations from you all over again.

[Mystic]

I think God channels goodness through those he vested his light and authority in, and any ignorance of them is ignorance of goodness, and ignorance of goodness and confusion and following desires with respect to it as opposed to discovering truly what it is, is the great injustice by definition.

I understand empathy and what you say regarding it, but I see reality is, is people are just clothing themselves with light while immersed in worship of darkness and it's many ugly devil heads. And this is the reality I see and there is no real significant good in that by which your actions can have weight, when good and evil is equated, and when idols are valued as much as God.

And if you don't want to know the source of goodness nor care to know who is valued most, it leads to all sorts of corruption in the earth, and it makes people followed as names of what is to be valued most, rather then the true images and names of God he appointed like Samuel (means name of God).

If it was like a invisible dragon in the basement, it would not matter if we acknowledge it or don't care for it, but when it comes to foundational purpose of who we are, you have to care enough to strive and you have to strive till you find him as he is the Great One who you should live your life for.

I looked all your questions and I think what I said answers them all.