Why I am a member here even though I am a Christian

[Shadowy Man]

dont worry you are in right place tom

Don't worry, you are in right place, Tom.

Don't worry; you are in the right place, Tom.

 

[Ruth Harris]

And truthfully, don't you all get tired of someone who insists that their "logical proof" of God is all that should be needed when in actuality the overwhelming majority of those posters are seriously lacking any training in apologetics or semantics? I have no training in either one and therefore I refuse to subject others to my lack of knowledge in these areas.

Yeah, you wouldn't want it Said that you were Lumped in with such others

Oh, you naughty naughty person

 

[bigfield]

My atheism is tested once a week on Tuesday afternoon when the Devil drops by to see if there's anything I'd like to trade my soul for.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So, these two statements are curious together. I the attitude in your second statement. However, the reason I like reading intelligent discussions is because I have respect for rational thought and evidence as the most valid way by which any idea can be evaluated. So, I want to hear the most informed and rational arguments, so i can inform and change my own beliefs to be more accurate. The #1 sign that one's beliefs are wrong is that you have no rational argument that can support them, so much so that you don't even attempt to do so. Thus, I would change any belief that I cannot provide something that at least seems to me to be a sound rational argument. Yet, you admitted in the your first statement above that you cannot even bother to muster a rational argument for your most core beliefs.

And you find my reasons for not trying to argue my position logically in the paragraph following your first quote from my post. Let's be honest here - I have never known an atheist who had their core belief changed here on this board by any attempt at a rational step by step argument for the validity of a believer's faith. All I am doing with my post is attempting to explain why as a Christian I find this an interesting place to read intelligent discussions on wide ranging subject matter.

And truthfully, don't you all get tired of someone who insists that their "logical proof" of God is all that should be needed when in actuality the overwhelming majority of those posters are seriously lacking any training in apologetics or semantics? I have no training in either one and therefore I refuse to subject others to my lack of knowledge in these areas.

Ruth

Even without logical proofs and apologetics, when you say "I am a Christian", you are essentially saying "I think that my belief in Christianity gives me a more accurate view of the universe than someone without it has". Would you agree with that statement?

When you make a statement such as that, the most obvious reply is along the lines of "Why would you think that?". If your answer is along the lines of "Because I have faith", then that will be fine for some people, but others will feel that it's somewhat of a non-answer. Most atheists are atheists simply because they find no compelling reason to view any of the various religious claims to be accurate and when they ask to back it up, they are essentially asking "What is a reason that I should view your claims as accurate?".

If you're talking about faith and they're talking about evidence, you're really just having two separate conversations and talking past each other.

 

[Ruth Harris]

I am not sure what you want tested about my faith since it is a personal viewpoint. Let's turn this around; can you test your atheism? And how?

Ruth

My atheism is constantly tested, as it is difficult to go even a day without being exposed to some reference to gods and/or other supernatural forces.

Well, I don't really consider it a "test" when it is just hearing from or about an atheist. That includes no conceptual proof of its validity and the same would be true for atheists hearing about a deity.

Unless I am completely blowing past the idea that you are using irony - if so, accept my apologies for being too dense to recognize it

Ruth

 

[ronburgundy]

So, these two statements are curious together. I the attitude in your second statement. However, the reason I like reading intelligent discussions is because I have respect for rational thought and evidence as the most valid way by which any idea can be evaluated. So, I want to hear the most informed and rational arguments, so i can inform and change my own beliefs to be more accurate. The #1 sign that one's beliefs are wrong is that you have no rational argument that can support them, so much so that you don't even attempt to do so. Thus, I would change any belief that I cannot provide something that at least seems to me to be a sound rational argument. Yet, you admitted in the your first statement above that you cannot even bother to muster a rational argument for your most core beliefs.

And you find my reasons for not trying to argue my position logically in the paragraph following your first quote from my post. Let's be honest here - I have never known an atheist who had their core belief changed here on this board by any attempt at a rational step by step argument for the validity of a believer's faith. All I am doing with my post is attempting to explain why as a Christian I find this an interesting place to read intelligent discussions on wide ranging subject matter.

And truthfully, don't you all get tired of someone who insists that their "logical proof" of God is all that should be needed when in actuality the overwhelming majority of those posters are seriously lacking any training in apologetics or semantics? I have no training in either one and therefore I refuse to subject others to my lack of knowledge in these areas.

Ruth

You didn't just say that you don't see the point in presenting a rational argument for your position, you said you "can't" do it, implying that are not aware of a rational argument for your beliefs and yet you believe it anyway.

We only get tired of theists claiming rational proof when it is clear they have no idea what a rational argument consists of and have never bothered to honestly try to construct one. There is nothing special about rational arguments for or against God. They have the same features as rational arguments about anything else, including all the things that you and most atheist here likely agree about.

The problem is that theists (including the worlds most "respected" theologians) are dishonest and only ever present "arguments" for God that violate every principle of rational thought and that they would never accept as reasonable arguments about other things. So, if you actually have a rational argument that applies the same basic principles you apply to believing more mundane things like that air temperature impacts whether water is in a liquid or solid state, then we'd be happy to hear it because that would be a first on this board or in the history of human thought.

 

[Shadowy Man]

My atheism is constantly tested, as it is difficult to go even a day without being exposed to some reference to gods and/or other supernatural forces.

Well, I don't really consider it a "test" when it is just hearing from or about an atheist. That includes no conceptual proof of its validity and the same would be true for atheists hearing about a deity.

Unless I am completely blowing past the idea that you are using irony - if so, accept my apologies for being too dense to recognize it

Ruth

No, I'm not being ironical at all. When you realize that your thinking is in the small minority, it is easy to question whether it is valid. Having references to gods and other supernatural forces constantly surrounding you, and very often coming from people who you consider to be good, smart people, can easily make it seem like the conclusions you've come to might be lacking. Maybe I'm missing something that everybody else is seeing? What could that be? Is my thinking wrong? Could all those millions and millions of people in the world who believe in a god simply be wrong? What happens when I die if I'm wrong? I'm actually scared of living in a world where the supernatural exists. I am much more comforted by atheism than theism. But, it is easy to have the emotional side of you pull at your intellectual side and you have to keep rethinking what it is that makes you not believe. Remember, as much as we might claim that "atheism is the default position", the point is that most people aren't atheists, so by becoming an atheist you really are going against 'mainstream' thought and really have to defend it, even though you aren't making a claim that logically needs defending.

 

[another1]

Can you put the tiny "sliver of land" into a numbers machine, ask it how likely even that is, and please get back to me with the percentages?
...

The probability is 1. It already exists.

And how many zeros before the decimal point, which comes before that tiny one? Is there even enough room to write it? Thank you for the help with math.

 

[Sarpedon]

That includes no conceptual proof of its validity and the same would be true for atheists hearing about a deity.

Perfect! Exactly! We have NEVER had anything more than 'hearing' about a deity. Have you, in fact, ever had anything more than hearsay about the deity?

I used to teach sunday school. Then one day I had the horrible realization that I the only reason I believed what I was teaching the children was that I, myself, had been taught it just as I was teaching them. No other reason.

 

[Ruth Harris]

And you find my reasons for not trying to argue my position logically in the paragraph following your first quote from my post. Let's be honest here - I have never known an atheist who had their core belief changed here on this board by any attempt at a rational step by step argument for the validity of a believer's faith. All I am doing with my post is attempting to explain why as a Christian I find this an interesting place to read intelligent discussions on wide ranging subject matter.

And truthfully, don't you all get tired of someone who insists that their "logical proof" of God is all that should be needed when in actuality the overwhelming majority of those posters are seriously lacking any training in apologetics or semantics? I have no training in either one and therefore I refuse to subject others to my lack of knowledge in these areas.

Ruth

Even without logical proofs and apologetics, when you say "I am a Christian", you are essentially saying "I think that my belief in Christianity gives me a more accurate view of the universe than someone without it has". Would you agree with that statement?

When you make a statement such as that, the most obvious reply is along the lines of "Why would you think that?". If your answer is along the lines of "Because I have faith", then that will be fine for some people, but others will feel that it's somewhat of a non-answer. Most atheists are atheists simply because they find no compelling reason to view any of the various religious claims to be accurate and when they ask to back it up, they are essentially asking "What is a reason that I should view your claims as accurate?".

If you're talking about faith and they're talking about evidence, you're really just having two separate conversations and talking past each other.

And this is the road I was trying (apparently unsuccessfully) to avoid. When I started this thread I just wanted to answer the question in the thread title and make my personal stance as a Christian clear.

Each of us thinks that we have a "more accurate view" due to our beliefs. That is a fair characterization. I did try to make it very clear that I was speaking from faith only and knew that there would be those who would pounce on that and demand "proof" of the validity of my faith. That was never my intent and I thought it was clearly stated in my opening post. You might think that this is a cop out and maybe it is on my part, but I honestly don't think that I can ever provide sufficient evidence for you of the existence of God, or you provide the same for me that there is no God.

Your last sentence is exactly right. That is why I did not attempt to make the standard arguments part of this conversation and in fact was trying very hard to be perfectly clear that I would not.

Ruth

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The probability is 1. It already exists.

And how many zeros before the decimal point, which comes before that tiny one? Is there even enough room to write it? Thank you for the help with math.

Well, we don't know. Life may be common or it may be rare. If the odds of a planet having life are 1 in 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 and there are 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 planets in the universe, then there's nothing exceptional about ours being one of the vast number which has it. Given that we don't know how many planets there are in the universe and we don't know the odds of a planet having life, we can't plug any numbers into the equation to give any kind of answer to determine what the probability of us being here is.

 

[ksen]

Personally, I don't care for the word 'proof' in studying history, I much prefer my friends: possible; plausible; & probable. But I get your thinking.

There are apparent contradictions in the gospel narratives but we don't know if they are simply due to human error or a rewriting of the gospel to make it fit someone's preconceptions. But none of these conflicts is sufficient to cause me doubt about my faith. The scriptures were written by men, and this is one of the things where I part company with the Southern Baptists; I don't think that these men's writings were simply "narrated" to them by God. They were men writing about things happening around them and they imparted these occurrences as best they could given their knowledge.

Ruth

Yep, the whole God-breathed Bible thingy. You sound a lot like a UMC or ELCA theological type if I may say... Anywho, thanks again.

You are welcome. But the "God-breathed" part is not really accurate for me; I totally disagree with it due to the whole inerrancy stance based on it.

Yep, I was trying to note that atypical aspect of the SBC people, not you.

And yes, the ELCA comes very close to my beliefs - but there is that "top down leadership" thing that I don't much like.

Don't know if you have spent any time in an ELCA church, but their top-down is pretty modest. Each church even has full control of who their preachers are.

Oops - thought you were referring to me with the "God-breathed" comment. Sorry for misunderstanding.

I haven't spent a lot of time in an ELCA church, but I do know our local Lutheran church (Missouri Synod) is die-hard 5 point Calvinistic and that is something I don't agree with and will never completely understand why they think it is so important. And they also require prospective members to take a new members class and agree with their church covenant - which includes the aforesaid 5 points. Not going to happen with me as I don't subscribe to creedalism - which is a big reason I am a Baptist. Soul competency, you know... probably the biggest Baptist distinctive there is.

Ruth

I like to tip-toe through the T.U.L.I.P.'s myself.

Wanna fight?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?10507-DERAIL-So-the-Crucifixion-What-s-up-with-that

 

[ksen]

theists, why not test your faith instead of proclaiming it?

this is probably the best kys post i've read in a long time :clap:

 

[Treedbear]

“In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas.”

“In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity,”

St. Augustine

A wise and charitable principle, sadly largely ignored during the Christian Era.

A Humanist principle to be sure.

 

[sdelsolray]

The probability is 1. It already exists.

And how many zeros before the decimal point, which comes before that tiny one? Is there even enough room to write it? Thank you for the help with math.

No zeros, no decimal point, unless you want to express it as 1.00000, but that is not needed. 1 as in "one". The probability of any current part of reality existing is 1.

 

[bilby]

You're here.

I'm a freethinker and a skeptic.

You may want to remove your pants from this area, as there is currently a total fire ban in effect.

 

[Ruth Harris]

RonBurgundy in post #66:

You didn't just say that you don't see the point in presenting a rational argument for your position, you said you "can't" do it, implying that are not aware of a rational argument for your beliefs and yet you believe it anyway.

Not quite. "Can't" as in not capable of performing this action, or not something I consider to be in my skill set.

We only get tired of theists claiming rational proof when it is clear they have no idea what a rational argument consists of and have never bothered to honestly try to construct one. There is nothing special about rational arguments for or against God. They have the same features as rational arguments about anything else, including all the things that you and most atheist here likely agree about.

Well, I will agree with you that I don't consider myself capable of constructing a rational argument for the existence of God. I never claimed to be able to do this.

So, if you actually have a rational argument that applies the same basic principles you apply to believing more mundane things like that air temperature impacts whether water is in a liquid or solid state, then we'd be happy to hear it because that would be a first on this board or in the history of human thought.

And I rest my case. How do you propose to construct what would be considered a rational argument about something that is not physically evident? I don't think a rational argument is possible on this subject; it would be like trying to explain why I love my son. There is no rationality in love; it is entirely subjective. And so is my faith.

I don't know how to explain things any better than this. I do hope you understand what I am saying.

Ruth

 

[Ruth Harris]

That includes no conceptual proof of its validity and the same would be true for atheists hearing about a deity.

Perfect! Exactly! We have NEVER had anything more than 'hearing' about a deity. Have you, in fact, ever had anything more than hearsay about the deity?

I used to teach sunday school. Then one day I had the horrible realization that I the only reason I believed what I was teaching the children was that I, myself, had been taught it just as I was teaching them. No other reason.

I have seen that happen with people I know well. I do understand what you are saying, and as for whether or not I have had any personal encounter or physical proof of God my answer is no. But yet I still have my faith.

Ruth

 

[Ruth Harris]

I haven't spent a lot of time in an ELCA church, but I do know our local Lutheran church (Missouri Synod) is die-hard 5 point Calvinistic and that is something I don't agree with and will never completely understand why they think it is so important. And they also require prospective members to take a new members class and agree with their church covenant - which includes the aforesaid 5 points. Not going to happen with me as I don't subscribe to creedalism - which is a big reason I am a Baptist. Soul competency, you know... probably the biggest Baptist distinctive there is.

Ruth

I like to tip-toe through the T.U.L.I.P.'s myself.

Wanna fight?

Bless your heart. Aren't you just the sweetest thing?

(Now you have really done it. You have driven me to let out my Southern side!)

Ruth