Theists - I want to know what you think

[Joods]

Back on ignore you go, Ham. I knew it was a bad idea to take you off it to begin with. No one can tell you when you are out of line without receiving an angry wall of text salad in return. Your post is there for others to see and they can draw their own conclusions as to how over the line you went.

Yeah - many of us don't like certain members here or some of the posts they make. But that doesn't give any of us the right to follow them all over the forum and bully the fuck out of them simply because we don't like them. I'm done replying to you.

[Angrboda]

[Minimalist]

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.

I disagree, Joods.  The only way to have a "conversation" with them is to sit there and go "uh-huh...uh-huh.... tell me more."  Most of them cannot speak without preaching.  For an example, look at the dreck that MK just posted.

[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.

I disagree, Joods.  The only way to have a "conversation" with them is to sit there and go "uh-huh...uh-huh.... tell me more."  Most of them cannot speak without preaching.  For an example, look at the dreck that MK just posted.

Yeah, but we can accomplish so much more without all of the bullying and shit posting right? I know I could stand to do better myself in that area, as could some others. They do it. We do it. 

When does it end? I think LFC has a nice thread going here. If we could just allow the questions to be answered without making asinine threads to follow it, life would be nicer.

[Mystic]

Min, I think I answered her questions... I think she has better comprehension then most Atheists here, and I don't need to answer 1 by 1, but she can derive all the answers to her questions by that, and it's just a matter of perception and belief for her, she understands my perception better then almost everyone here probably.

If any of what I said was off-topic to her questions, I apologize.

[Mystic]

With what I said, LadyForCamus, I do believe you are striving.  I don't believe you are a disbeliever or anything like that, though you may call yourself Atheist, it's just a label.

Sometimes proofs take a long time to digest, and it's download speed is by how we reflect.  The most important thing is you continue to reflect and strive while balancing that with enjoying life and activities.

Reflection to me is like downloading info and insight, it takes time.

I already vowed to God seriously this Ramadan, I would cut off forums and video games for the rest of my life,  so as to strive day and night to help alleviate oppression and help God's cause.

I won't be here to articulate when I learn to articulate. Perhaps I will move to youtube videos or books, who knows.

[Edwardo Piet]

...Huh? Do you mean because of Joods making up irrelevant and false bullshit about me and my intentions, that had absolutely nothing to do with the thread, when I just participated on the thread like everybody else did?

[Quick]

Someone said I was a theist because I was a pantheist. I think my beliefs are not really necessarily fully synonymous with pantheist and by extension theist, but I thought I would answer anyways.

1. Do you think lacking a belief in god is rational?  Why, or why not?
I don't think beliefs and by extension lack of belief is rational because they hinge on our perception of the world which is fallible.
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?
No, I don't. I think evidence has very little to do with what we actually believe or do not believe because of how inherently biased we are as a species. This is very different than making an informed decision, which is directed based on our motivation of needs as opposed to what one believes. In short, I think there is a connection in all ways between our thoughts, emotions, behaviors and beliefs and that beliefs are at the core of our directive action and that cannot be changed much.
3. Do you think rational skepticism is the correct perspective to be coming from when considering god-belief?
Absolutely not. I don't think anyone is purely rational and as such I don't think it's something that is possible to go to the closest to the top of a hierarchy to inform the bottom of the hierarchy. I think the bottom of the hierarchy is made up of instincts and a priori knowledge and rationalization is at the top of the hierarchy.
4. Do you think an atheist and/or rational skeptic can reason their way to belief in god?  
No.
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?
In regards to their lack of belief in God? Again, no, because belief is at the bottom of the hierarchy and rationalization is at the top. Something more needs to trigger a change in belief besides evidence. One needs to first come to grips with the idea that they were wrong before they can accept a new belief and I don't think evidence alone is enough to trigger the realization that one was wrong.
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 the idea of being an atheist is in some senses a rebellion of the belief in god. They choose to belief an antithesis because it fits with their primordial instincts to fight against an injustice.
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.
I'm just here for Mafia I wanted to know who was representing AF in the Mafia Championships which is why I created an account here in the first place. My reason for being here has nothing to do with religious beliefs at all.

[LadyForCamus]

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.

Thank you for taking the time to offer me a thoughtful response, Neo.  I have just a couple of follow up questions if you don’t mind.

With regard to this truth proposition, do you think that believing god does not exist is less reasonable than believing he does?  

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 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.

Would you mind expanding on that a bit?  What would be an example of a position that is rational on the surface but incoherent on a deeper level?

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.

I appreciate your honesty here.  Do you find that this acknowledgment complicates discussions with atheists who need a reason for belief first?  I feel like this is the root of why theists and atheists end up talking at each other instead of to each other.  Atheist says, ‘why should I believe?’, and theist says, ‘well, you just have to believe.’  Do you think we ever move through such a monumental barrier between us?  Should theists even try to convert atheists?

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.

So then it comes down to being willing to leap to that belief in spite of the fact that it’s perfectly reasonable to not believe?

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.

Yes, that makes sense.

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.

What reasons, or lack of reasons lead you to toss atheism out the second time?  Only if your comfortable answering, Ofc.

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.

Do you think it irrational of an atheist to reject Christian testimony as evidence?


Thanks again for your participation!

---

Yes, I think so.

Thank you, girlie! ❤️ I really do appreciate you guys opening up.

With regard to reasoning to god belief, do you think it could be done in the absence of personal testimony?

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.

What do you think of folks like Matt Dillahunty, who was having a crisis of faith and was desperate for any sign from god to hold onto his belief, but got no answer?

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 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.

I 100% agree with this.

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.

That’s interesting.  I find the moral argument to be one of the least persuasive arguments for god, lol.  😛

---

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.

While I don’t think you hit many of my specific questions, I do appreciate you coming in and speaking from the heart.  I know I give you shit from time to time, but I do believe that you are a genuine person.  I think it’s clear from your posting history that you believe the moral argument is the strongest and most convincing argument for god.  Personally, I don’t think not believing in god makes me an evil, ugly, or immoral person, because I value human life without god belief, and how I treat others is going to have the same effect on those others, whether or not I believe in a god.  Just some thoughts.  Thanks for participating!

[John V]

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?

That position can be rational. But, it's incomplete, as it leaves origins questions unanswered.

When an atheist takes a stronger stance and asserts a positive belief that there is no god, that's not rational in my experience. There's no evidence that a universe can come from nothing (or however they want to phrase it), or that life can come from inanimate matter. But, those things must be explained in order to have a complete world view. The same person will disparagingly refer to creation as "magic," but has no problem believing that the all the matter and energy of the universe were compacted to a single infinitely dense point, and then expanded for no known reason, etc. Point being that if you're withholding belief in absence of conclusive evidence, and doing so honestly and consistently, you'd be agnostic, not atheist.

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

First, define rational skepticism. Frequently an atheist dresses up an a priori materialist philosophy as rational skepticism or some such. In that case, no, it's not a correct perspective, as god has been defined as an an impossibility.

If properly defined, then rational skepticism is a valid component of considering the god proposition. I wouldn't call it the correct perspective on its own. Atheists tend to vastly overrate the role of reason in the human experience. We're more emotional and intuitive than rational. Reason has allowed us to build some cool stuff, but when it comes to earthly life's most important decisions, we frequently ignore it and just go with our gut. I see no reason why religious belief should be any different.

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

Yes, since the mainstream scientific view (which most atheists adopt) is that the universe had a beginning, the Kalam cosmological argument reasonably gets you to at least a deist god. An oscillating universe was proposed to overcome this, but the rate of expansion of the universe was later found to be inconsistent with that model. The nature of the universe itself points to a creator.

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?

An avowed atheist would generally need divine intervention to believe. As already explained, a rational skeptic is able to reason his way to a creator god of some sort.

6. Why do you think so many atheists were once theists?

Because most people are nomimally theists and bring their children up to be the same.

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?

Could? Sure. Evidence is abundant or lacking depending on the standards of evidence used.

Would? Generally not. Lack of evidence usually isn't the real issue. The real issue is that people don't like being judged. Surely you've seen people here say that even if god were proven to exist, they wouldn't worship. It's much more comfortable to not believe, than to believe but be in open rebellion.

People convert, but usually it's based on emotion or intuition rather than evidence.

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.

As noted, Kalam gets you to a creator god.