Unbelievers - Regarding Your Thoughts and Questions

I happen to have far greater respect for you than I do the lazy people that don't think about these things at all. Most of you here are thinkers who have read the Bible, and some having obviously studied it at one time with fervor and zeal as new Christians. Some far less passionate, but no less studious.

I appreciate the fact that many thinker-unbeleivers rely on the philosophical works of great minds, such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. This makes far more sense than the lazy unbeliever who flat refuses to explore the basic questions in life.

The message I would like to convey to the thinker-unbeliever is this. There are many incredibly smart theists who've asked and attempted to answer virtually all of your questions. Why not give them a listen?

Maybe you have and you're still not persuaded. Ok. I get it. I'm not saying there's a magic bullet apologetics response out there. All I'm saying is that if you haven't researched apologetics from someone like Ravi Zacharias or John Lennox, that you do give it a try.

 

Dawkins and Harris use fallacies to sell books to rubes. Most atheists I have talked with claim to have studied the Bible at one time but really they haven't. They use science to try and cover for the fact they choose not to believe because they want to define their own morality.

 

I have and all I see is theories and supposed empirical evidence based on the Bible. To link any empirical evidence to the Bible means that the Bible itself needs to be proven as the word of God and not just man's interpretation of God. Or at least it needs to be proven that each and every author in the Bible gave an accurate account of events contained within. But when I read Genesis and get to the part of people living hundreds of years I just cannot suspend reality.

The resurrection is a seminal moment in Christianity as it was the moment a religion was born. If the resurrection never happened then the religion is founded on a lie. You cannot use the Bible to prove the resurrection anymore than I can use The Lord of the Rings to prove the existence of Elves and Orcs.

I found God back in the 80's and I did not have to go through Jesus to do so... that in a nut shell tells me all I need to know about Christianity. Faith begins were reason ends... and its an exercise in futility to prove the existence of a theological intangible... but it sure makes for some interesting debate.

 

How do you know they really haven't?

Nice assumption. I like how you create your own understanding of atheists rather than actually understanding them. Please post source of stated fact.

 

Most atheists are pretty much full of it. All you one has to do is have a long enough discussion with them to find that out. That is from my own experience. I have had many discussions with atheists. The honest ones just admit they want to define their own morality.

 

Now that was predictable. I ask for source of stated fact and all I get is opinion. Are the honest ones in your view honest because they say something that you agree with... and the ones who say things that you disagree with are hence dishonest? You think you have some infallible honesty detector?

 

Juvenile opinion at that. Never has sourced a claim. He is like the child of WR. No substance.

 

Meh, Dawkins may be a great evolutionary biologist, but he doesn't hold much weight in regards to rebutting the philosophical arguments for God's existent. Sam Harris is an interesting read, but I don't think that any apologeticists have even made it passed the critiques of Hume or someone like Thomas Paine.

So, anyways, I appreciate the nice things you had to say about us. It would be interesting if you could start a thread, or even say something in this thread, about the philosophical arguments you think hold weight.

 

Christians define their own morality, no reason to pretend you guys are special.

 

Well, even extraordinarily intelligent apologeticists fail to address important questions. They use a wide variety of linguistic gymnastics to avoid answering basic question about Omnipotence, Omnibelevolence, Omnipresence, etc.

I would wager I have listened to one of the personalities you mentioned, however I am mostly referring to William Craig.

 

My position has always been if ca.t apply the methods of science to prove a thing then its a non-issue in the realm of reality. That leaves Philosophy as in conjecture that is not science.

 

I'm not a believer, and I've listened to many arguments put forward by believers. I didn't find them very convincing though, as most are either fallacies, or making an appeal to practicality of relgion as if that counted as evidence for it being true. But, I know that many atheists, in particular those that make a big point our of their atheism, are just arrogant close minded fools. Yes, they may have rached the right conclusion in that god most likely doesn't exist, but they haven't reached that conclusion the right way. They haven't applied critical thinking skills, and they've just taken a contrarian position. It bothers me. It's these people who believe in stupid notions like that religion posions everything that make me reluctant to call myself an atheist, even though I clearly am. I just don't want to be associated with such intellectual wannabes.

 

I've listened to and/or read all of 'em. None of your apologists do anything but twist and bend when confronted with hard questions.

What I'd prefer, personally - if you don't mind, is to actually get direct (sans contortions) answers to our questions. Someone else mentioned the BIGGIE ... the Three O's. Could we start there?

 

Why should Iisten to anyone who has no proof that a god or gods exist? It doesn't make any difference if they're considered smart or not....with no proof they have nothing

 

And there are so many different gods that nobody can demonstrate to exist.
Why pick any particular one to believe or disbelieve or study the non facts about it?

I think the fact that so few scientists or people in academia are religious
would be a reason not to even bring up the thing about smart theos.

 

quite so.

 

I did like the tone of YLs post tho.

I almost hate to disagree with any of it, just for that.

 

exactly. if it doesn't impact on reality, it is merely an idea (or philosophy/conjecture). but this doesn't mean theists get to avoid answering questions directly and matter-of-factly. philosophers are able to expand on ideas, in practical terms, so theists ought to be able to do the same.

- - - Updated - - -

That's one of the better theist brains here, though he does sometimes get a irritable when backed into a corner. Say .... maybe backing him into corners has cleared his windscreen a little

 

Well, yes, for sure; talk to a philosopher, and try to find a ***** ( ) in the argument. Its as seamless as math.

Theistic arguments seem like vapourware by any comparison.

- - - Updated - - -

Im kind of a excitable sort myself, so I cant much criticize someone else for being betimes irritable.

 

Might I ask you to elucidate on some of those apologetics? It's not just that I don't want to look them up, but if you were to post something here then we could discuss them. Of course if your question is not really about what they are saying but whether we will look into them, then my answer would be this: I've not read those two specifically. I have read some of the most famous ones from history, and countless apologetics from less illustrious persons of today. None of them have given me any real food for thought, and if Zacharias or Lennox had produced something new then I'm certain someone would have parroted it here - I've certainly at least heard them spoken of before. Anyway, I am not keen to spend too much time looking at what is likely to be a fairly lengthy piece from one of those two, when based on what I just said, it is highly likely to be an unenjoyable waste of my time. (unlike a two-way dialog, on here, which is an enjoyable waste of my time

 

yes, else be left open to charges of a gish.

 

Zacharias is a master of obfuscation. Lennox, less so. They may both be smart men, but they've turned their smarts to the protection of deception and falsehood.

 

That's just my point. I've listened to a lot of them, and couldn't "parrot" them if I tried. I can highlight some of their points, which I do on occasion. You, me and the apologists are better served by me not trying to speak for them on some of the more complicated issues. I'm an immature Christian, meaning I don't have the depth of learning and years of study of these people.

 

What is a 'mature' christian?

 

One that is hopelessly brainwashed.