They aren't actually "trick" questions, you know.

[remez]

Lion repeated an oft-seen Christian complaint. That people who question the details of Christianity are "disingenuous" or they are trying to "trick" christians, or the like.





I ponder that because it's an idea that doesn't really compute for a scientist. There is no point in being disingenuous, because the facts will make the case in the end. So it recalled to me some quotes from years past that I had kept. The first is from me, years ago, but the others are from other posters at the II.

Anyway, the discussion for this thread is,
IS it "disingenuous" to ask questions about a religion when that religion doesn't seem to make any sense at all? Or is that really logical manifestation of the curiosity that arises when some piece of evidence doesn't fit - one questions it.

Below are some quotes about this topic from the way-back machine.

An interesting observation about debate and the scientific method...


When using logic, reason and the scientific method, no one can trick you into a corner. If they try, either your logic stands up, or it doesn't. If your logic is sound, their Columbo-questioning is exposed as not relevant or not within the boundaries of discussion. If the question, or "trick question" that forces you to make a stand or show your hand is within the boundaries of the original claim, then you, the original claimant, have the privilege of learning something new and realizing your claim is not valid.


It's amazingly powerful, and amazingly uplifting to know that your claim has withstood debate.

But I find it very often that faith-based claims will not subject themselves to this process. Faith -based lifestyles will not compete on this turf. The claimants want to make their claim and end the conversation right then and there.

It is very frequent in those faith-based discussions that claimants will refuse to answer questions that they feel are "tricks" or "traps" with complete lack of comprehension that no one is trying to "trick" or "trap" them, they are only trying to understand the basis for the claim and whether it stands up to logical inquiry.


And for some reason, faith-based people feel that logical inquiry is somehow a "trick" or a 'trap"


Curious, isn't it?..............

snipped
I left Yahzi and Jobar out of it......

I have spent some time re-pondering your OP question. I have discovered something new through my experience here. Forcing me to re-evaluate my agreement with your question being FAIR. Let’s have another look at your question……. here……………..

Anyway, the discussion for this thread is,
IS it "disingenuous" to ask questions about a religion when that religion doesn't seem to make any sense at all? Or is that really logical manifestation of the curiosity that arises when some piece of evidence doesn't fit - one questions it.

What I have learned on this thread is the theists are not allowed on the field to play at all. You have already emoted that theists cannot have reasons for what they believe because theists believe without evidence or reason, they can only think according to authority. They only have blind faith. Blind faith is without reason.
For example….

When using logic, reason and the scientific method, no one can trick you into a corner. If they try, either your logic stands up, or it doesn't.

“If they try”…. If they try............. WHAT?

Any try is already ruled out because you have already forced me to your answer. We can only be your boundary of blind faith. According to your rule theists can only argue from a position of blind faith, which leaves no room for reason. Trust me I tried and I was not allowed to. Thus any attempt to answer your question (any hypothetical challenge pertaining to some aspect of theism) is already emoted to be irrational because you won’t afford me the chance to reason.
Further……………..

If your logic is sound, their Columbo-questioning is exposed as not relevant or not within the boundaries of discussion.

Nothing is being exposed.

We are not allowed to be relevant within your one boundary.
Boundary equals…….blind faith…..no evidence......no reasoning allowed....... you are blind faith.

So any questions challenging theism are a trick questions because of your emoted boundary for our answer. You are asking us to present reasons while not allowing us to reason.

Is it fair to ask a question you for which you will only allow YOUR one answer?

I’m guessing right now that you are raging something to this effect…..Of course we are allowing them to reason…… but really you are not. Your boundary of blind faith does not allow us to reason. I have tried.

If the question, or "trick question" that forces you to make a stand or show your hand is within the boundaries of the original claim, then you, the original claimant, have the privilege of learning something new and realizing your claim is not valid.

We’ll see ………did you learn something new? I did.
Or
Tell me where I’m wrong here.

Sorry it seemed like I doubted you on that one Lion.

 

[Rhea]

You’re wrong. I don’t rage. Are you projecting?

 

[steve_bank]

Theists can be elaborate and verbose in attempting to make a case. It all comes down to why one believes in a set of ancient wrings of unknown origin, and the supernatural events. That is it. There is nothing else to say or prove, only expressing the reason why for example Genesis is true.

The problem is as the questions get narrower theists run out of wiggle room.

As to a religious lifestyle, I expect out in the world most atheists could care what your philosophy is, secular or religious. Barring issues of discrimination such as gay rights or forcing religion in public schools.

 

[remez]

You’re wrong. I don’t rage. Are you projecting?

Ok my GUESS may have not matched your situation. No problem.

But please respond to the content. I directly responded as to why your questions are disingenuous. And to that you said nothing?

 

[Rhea]

You’re wrong. I don’t rage. Are you projecting?

Ok my GUESS may have not matched your situation. No problem.

But please respond to the content. I directly responded as to why your questions are disingenuous. And to that you said nothing?

Yeah, I was on my phone waiting for Taekwondo to start. That’s what you got. Now I’m home and watching tv before bed. You will need to be patient and I will answer tomorrow night.

 

[remez]

You’re wrong. I don’t rage. Are you projecting?

Ok my GUESS may have not matched your situation. No problem.

But please respond to the content. I directly responded as to why your questions are disingenuous. And to that you said nothing?

Yeah, I was on my phone waiting for Taekwondo to start. That’s what you got. Now I’m home and watching tv before bed. You will need to be patient and I will answer tomorrow night.

ne

 

[Rhea]

You’re wrong. I don’t rage. Are you projecting?

Ok my GUESS may have not matched your situation. No problem.

Also, “may” not have matched? No, I said it DOES NOT match. You are completely wrong. I do not rage. Your “guess” DID NOT match. Integrity counts. You may not, with any integrity, INFER something opposite to what I explicitly state. You were just wrong.

Although, it should be noted, that it reveals much about you that “rage” is an emotion that you associate with discussions. Why does that word even seem to appear in your thoughts? And so often in your replies. Something about yourself to ponder, eh?

 

[remez]

You’re wrong. I don’t rage. Are you projecting?

Ok my GUESS may have not matched your situation. No problem.

Also, “may” not have matched? No, I said it DOES NOT match. You are completely wrong. I do not rage. Your “guess” DID NOT match. Integrity counts. You may not, with any integrity, INFER something opposite to what I explicitly state. You were just wrong.

Although, it should be noted, that it reveals much about you that “rage” is an emotion that you associate with discussions. Why does that word even seem to appear in your thoughts? And so often in your replies. Something about yourself to ponder, eh?

Please examine the context. I was NOT speaking to you being physical violent or mentally unstable or of poor character in any way. I was expressing a guess as to how strongly you would disagree with my point. Like "the rage against Trump" or "the rage against governmental overreach." In that context it's a common expression of strong protest.

So please allow me apologize and amend ..............

I’m guessing right now that you are objecting something to this effect…..Of course we are allowing them to reason…… but really you are not. Your boundary of blind faith does not allow us to reason. I have tried.

Would that be ok?
and
Would you now please address the objection I lodged against your OP.

 

[Rhea]

Anyway, the discussion for this thread is,
IS it "disingenuous" to ask questions about a religion when that religion doesn't seem to make any sense at all? Or is that really logical manifestation of the curiosity that arises when some piece of evidence doesn't fit - one questions it.

What I have learned on this thread is the theists are not allowed on the field to play at all.

Hyperbole. The post is about whether the atheist can ever be genuine in asking questions. Asking questions of theists. In posts that welcome theists. Indeed, your comment is not even hyperbole, it’s a non sequitur. A whining, self martyring non sequitur. Of course you’re allowed. You’re here, right? Writing stuff? people are even responding to you despite the fact that you sling insults at them in every post.

You have already emoted

Emoted? That is a strange choice of word. My descriptions were quite clinical. “Emoted”?

that theists cannot have reasons for what they believe because theists believe without evidence or reason, they can only think according to authority. They only have blind faith. Blind faith is without reason.

Nah, that’s not what I’ve said at all. You missed the point. Theists believe something that has no evidence. That’s their claim. Even says so in their book. This is a different way of deciding whether something is true than non-theists use.

Knowing this, makes it less frustrating to talk to them. It’s good to try to understand others. When you’re a parent, you need to understand how kids think or you’ll be constantly angry and unreasonable. Especially if you have a foster child. Or if you work in a place with people who are very different, like you’re a liberal arts secretary in a department full of engineers.

Now, theists SAY they value blind faith - like the kind that makes you willing to kill your own kid, right? Abraham, Isaac. Their book says over and over again - faith is belief in things unseen, right?

This entire passionate embrace of decisions made without evidence is quite foreign to many people. We’re different.

For example….

When using logic, reason and the scientific method, no one can trick you into a corner. If they try, either your logic stands up, or it doesn't.

“If they try”…. If they try............. WHAT?

If someone tries to trick you into a corner, but you arrived at your belief by evidence and reason, the tricks won’t work. Inciidentally, theists try this all the time. If you ever read the Watchtower trash, or Jack Chick, you’ll see it. Their whole sales pitch is trying to trick people.

Any try is already ruled out because you have already forced me to your answer. We can only be your boundary of blind faith.

You seem to have confused cause and effect.

According to your rule theists can only argue from a position of blind faith, which leaves no room for reason.

What? I didn’t write their book. They decide this, I only observe it. They’re welcome to do different. They just dont tend to.

Trust me I tried and I was not allowed to.

That word, “allowed,” I don’t think it means what you think it means. I didn’t delete your posts, or even report them for warnings. I’m even answering you.

Hyperbole much? Baseless whinging much?

Thus any attempt to answer your question (any hypothetical challenge pertaining to some aspect of theism) is already emoted to be irrational because you won’t afford me the chance to reason.

“Emoted”?
That word, I don’t think it measn whaat you think it means.
You have all the chances you want. But you’re not really using reason, you know. Nevertheless, you’ve had pages and pages of chances to do whatever it is you are doing. I’m not stopping you.

Nor am I to blame for your arguments being hollow.

Further……………..

If your logic is sound, their Columbo-questioning is exposed as not relevant or not within the boundaries of discussion.

Nothing is being exposed.

We are not allowed to be relevant within your one boundary.
Boundary equals…….blind faith…..no evidence......no reasoning allowed....... you are blind faith.

So any questions challenging theism are a trick questions because of your emoted boundary for our answer. You are asking us to present reasons while not allowing us to reason.

You can be as relevant as you are capable of being.

Dude, None of this is about putting you in shackles. It’s primarily about how questions about religions are genuine curiosity, not deliberate tricks. Secondarily it’ss about how that misunderstanding comes to be.

Is it fair to ask a question you for which you will only allow YOUR one answer?

I’m guessing right now that you are raging something to this effect…..Of course we are allowing them to reason…… but really you are not. Your boundary of blind faith does not allow us to reason. I have tried.

You’ve tried... reasoning?
What is this nutty claim that you’re not being “allowed”? Are you attempting to say that I don’t accept your reasoning? Meh, you haven’t tried reasoning yet.

If the question, or "trick question" that forces you to make a stand or show your hand is within the boundaries of the original claim, then you, the original claimant, have the privilege of learning something new and realizing your claim is not valid.

We’ll see ………did you learn something new? I did.
Or
Tell me where I’m wrong here.

You’re wrong in
1. Missing the entire point of the thread; theists and atheists determine their truths differently, and this can lead to misunderstandings like falsely accusing people of “trickery”.
2. Missing the point of the background essays; describing how we think differently helps us to understand each oher and ultimately communicate better.

 

[remez]

The Kalam is logically deficient from its first argument "Whatever begins to exist has a cause". On a quantum level, that's not necessarily the case, so it's an invalid premise to start with. Then its second argument "The universe began to exist" is also not necessarily correct. The universe may very well be some kind of infinite series of expansions and retractions from singularities and the BB was just some uninteresting midpoint of that.

Kalam just uses unproven assertions as truths and comes to unwarranted conclusions as a result. That doesn't even start to get into how it then immediately goes and abandons its first premise by sticking this uncaused thing into the middle of it to be able to shoehorn a proof of God into the mix.

Sir Tom,
I think Steve is finished proving my point. So very briefly…………

The Kalam is logically deficient from its first argument "Whatever begins to exist has a cause". On a quantum level, that's not necessarily the case, so it's an invalid premise to start with.

Indeterminism does not mean uncaused. That counter fails.
Further.....
to deny the law of causality is to deny reasoning. To deny science. How does that render your position more logical?

Then its second argument "The universe began to exist" is also not necessarily correct. The universe may very well be some kind of infinite series of expansions and retractions from singularities and the BB was just some uninteresting midpoint of that.

The pedagogy is a mess there. So my guess is you are trying to challenge PREMISE 2 with a oscillation model of the universe. Thereby creating and eternal past causing p2 to fail.

Well..........your science fails you there..............

It is your counter that fails. The oscillation models have been discarded into the trash bin. 1. The conservation of entropy would still infer a beginning. Thus you only just kicked the can down the road. 2. There is not enough matter in space that could allow gravity to re-collapse the universe. 3. It fails the singularity theorem. This counter fails again and again and again and again and again.

Note how you were motivated to construct a model with an eternal past. Because that would mean that the universe has no cause. Because that which is eternal has no cause.

Kalam just uses unproven assertions as truths and comes to unwarranted conclusions as a result.

You have yet to counter the Kalam in anyway. Your presented counters fail logic and the science. No Theology required there. Thus your conclusion is based on nothing reasonable.
and this.......

That doesn't even start to get into how it then immediately goes and abandons its first premise by sticking this uncaused thing into the middle of it to be able to shoehorn a proof of God into the mix.

....also leads you nowhere. For that is a counter suggesting special pleading. A case you cannot make after revealing your motivations earlier to construct a cosmogony with and eternal past. See, you understand the reasoning. That which is eternal is uncaused.
Further………….
The counter of special pleading here is ignorant of history. The cosmological argument has been around for over two thousand years. It predates the SBBM. Prior to the SBBM the universe was also a very plausible candidate for the eternal uncaused cause. It wasn’t special pleading then. Only now that science has plausibly eliminated the universe from that list of the first cause you now emotionally desire to assert your pseudo fallacy.

Conclusion…..Nothing you presented comes close to refuting or rebutting the Kalam.

bump for Rhea

 

[remez]

What I have learned on this thread is the theists are not allowed on the field to play at all.

Hyperbole. The post is about whether the atheist can ever be genuine in asking questions. Of theists. In posts that welcome theists. Indeed, it’s not even hyperbole, it’s a non sequitur. A whining, self martyring non sequitur. Of course your allowed. You’re here, right? Writing stuff? people are even responding to you despite the fact that you sling insults at them in every post.

I’m not asserting that I’m not welcome here on this board. The playing field is the field of reasoning. There we’re are not welcome. Your OP emotes ( determines by emotion not reason) That theist don’t reason they just have blind faith. Here…………

Theists believe something that has no evidence.

Wrong.

That’s their claim.

Your claim.

Even says so in their book.

Cherry picking. Ignores all other references that assert the opposite of blind faith.

Now, theists SAY they value blind faith - like the kind that makes you willing to kill your own kid, right? Abraham, Isaac.

Dead wrong interpretation. Straw man fallacy.

Their book says over and over again - faith is belief in things unseen, right?

No
Dead wrong again….. the verse you are misquoting says…….faith is the evidence of things not seen.

This entire passionate embrace of decisions made without evidence is quite foreign to many people.

Me too.

If someone tries to trick you into a corner, but you arrived at your belief by evidence and reason, the tricks won’t work.

I have repeatedly told you I have reached my belief by evidence and reason. I have defended those beliefs with reason, science and evidence.
And you believe..….without evidence…… I have offered no reasoning or evidence.

According to your rule theists can only argue from a position of blind faith, which leaves no room for reason.

What? I didn’t write their book.

No you just cherry picked and misinterpreted it to match your emotions. Creating straw man after straw man.

They’re welcome to do different. They just dont tend to.

I certainly did……………..

Trust me I tried and I was not allowed to.

That word, “allowed,” I don’t think it means what you think it means. I didn’t delete your posts, or even report them for warnings. I’m even answering you.

You missed the point. I repeatedly offered science, evidence and reason to support p2 (Kalam…reasoned argument) and you still assert......

You have all the chances you want. But you’re not really using reason, you know. Nevertheless, you’ve had pages and pages of chances to do whatever it is you are doing. I’m not stopping you.

Nor am I to blame for your arguments being hollow.

Your conclusion that my arguments are hollow is what is hollow. You have yet to address anything in that area. No reasoning. No evidence. No science……..just blind faith in your emoted conclusion.

So defend your conclusion there
and
Tell me why bumped post 250 is not reasoning?

 

[skepticalbip]

^ ^ ^
For theists who accept the first chapter of Genesis as truth (or any other religious text as truth) their reasoning is quiet different than the reasoning employed in the scientific method. Everyone reasons from what they 'know' to be true.

For non-theist that 'known' is that which has been repeatedly verified evidence such as the laws of physics. From these basic 'knowns' an understanding of more complex problems can be reasoned and tested.

Theists begin reasoning from the ultimate 'known' accepted as such from revelation described in the authority of their religious texts. Reasoning is then from what they 'know to be true' to make sense of how any unknown fits into their worldview of that ultimate 'knowledge'.

Both reason but one starts at the bottom assuming nothing and works up while the other starts with ultimate revelation and works down.

For theists, the question of how they know the revelation is true is apparently a trick question.

 

[abaddon]

The frustrations shown by theists indicate they want to be believed. Whatever it is they're saying... "the Bible's true" or "I'm not a fool!", they badly want it believed.

 

[abaddon]

Theists begin reasoning from the ultimate 'known' accepted as such from revelation described in the authority of their religious texts. Reasoning is then from what they 'know to be true' to make sense of how any unknown fits into their worldview of that ultimate 'knowledge'.

I agree with this.

Theists start with what they feel is the truth, and then pile on reasons. It has to be like that, because it's the religious belief that saves the theist. Faith saves, not reason. Reasons (ie, rationalizations) are applied to prevent doubts of the myth. And so the theist can point and emote "See, I'm no blind faith fool!"

A Christian must accept the belief that God "saves" him. His soul is at stake over it. Nobody comes to a myth-based belief like that by logic. What he is limited to doing, given a worldview like this (one based on a central salvific belief), is test his reasons to find the strongest ones -- the ones that seem to him would stand up under test since he doesn't want to feel like a fool.

A theist cannot seriously try to determine if should become an atheist. That's godlessness, the worst thing possible. So instead he'll try to prove that the atheist is the fool, because somehow that makes him feel better about theism.

 

[remez]

I started this thread agreeing with you here, but then you taught me otherwise.

For theists, the question of how they know the revelation is true is apparently a trick question.

Now I reason …………..

It is a trick question if someone with your blind faith askes it.
Only b/c…………….
If it is asked by someone like you. You already blindly “KNOW” the answer. Or at least think you do. And that was my point to Rhea.

You blindly start with your “ULTIMATE KNOWN” …..that ALL theists ONLY have blind faith….no evidence …NO REASON…..top down. And then you build up more complex irrationalities like all knowledge must be absolutely true.

You blindly believe……..

Theists begin reasoning from the ultimate 'known' accepted as such from revelation described in the authority of their religious texts. Reasoning is then from what they 'know to be true' to make sense of how any unknown fits into their worldview of that ultimate 'knowledge'.

Both reason but one starts at the bottom assuming nothing and works up while the other starts with ultimate revelation and works down.

…….. and THAT is “ULTIMATE KNOWLEDGE” to you. YOU have No science. YOU have No evidence. You have No reason. You actually ignore reasons to the contrary. You believe against the evidence………blind faith.

SO when you and others with the same blind faith ask them…….

For theists, the question of how they know the revelation is true is apparently a trick question.

It is a trick question only b/c YOU (and others like you) will allow NO REASON to be provided. You already blindly believe that all theists arrived at their faith blindly.

Thank you for showing me that.

 

[skepticalbip]

I started this thread agreeing with you here, but then you taught me otherwise.

Now I reason …………..

It is a trick question if someone with your blind faith askes it.
Only b/c…………….
If it is asked by someone like you. You already blindly “KNOW” the answer. Or at least think you do. And that was my point to Rhea.

You blindly start with your “ULTIMATE KNOWN” …..that ALL theists ONLY have blind faith….no evidence …NO REASON…..top down. And then you build up more complex irrationalities like all knowledge must be absolutely true.

You blindly believe……..

…….. and THAT is “ULTIMATE KNOWLEDGE” to you. YOU have No science. YOU have No evidence. You have No reason. You actually ignore reasons to the contrary. You believe against the evidence………blind faith.

SO when you and others with the same blind faith ask them…….

For theists, the question of how they know the revelation is true is apparently a trick question.

It is a trick question only b/c YOU (and others like you) will allow NO REASON to be provided. You already blindly believe that all theists arrived at their faith blindly.

Thank you for showing me that.

You are allowed any answer to the question of how you know the revelation is true. You are not being shackled, gagged, or expelled from the forum. It is not a trick question. The question is asked to anyone who declares anything as true to anyone who does not share the same understanding. If someone declares that there is life on Mars, the natural question for anyone who thinks otherwise or admits to not knowing is, "how do you know that is true?"

You can freely give an answer and if it is convincing then I will agree with you. If it isn't convincing then we can discuss why I don't find it convincing and you can defend the answer by expanding on it. That is how a discussion works.

 

[remez]

You are not being shackled, gagged, or expelled from the forum.

I'm not asserting that at all. You completely missed the point.

You are allowed any answer to the question of how you know the revelation is true.

No.... you have already TOLD me my answer....I have no reason....no evidence.....no science.........here again...........

Faith is a matter of acceptance, belief without evidence e.g. "God said it, I believe it."

There is no room for reason in there. So how can you genuinely ask for reason? You are blindly stuck on this false dichotomy......

For non-theist that 'known' is that which has been repeatedly verified evidence such as the laws of physics. From these basic 'knowns' an understanding of more complex problems can be reasoned and tested.

Theists begin reasoning from the ultimate 'known' accepted as such from revelation described in the authority of their religious texts. Reasoning is then from what they 'know to be true' to make sense of how any unknown fits into their worldview of that ultimate 'knowledge'.

In short....non-theists reason and theists do not......... non-theists have evidence and theists do not........... non-theists have science and theists do not.

You blindly believe that. You provide no science. You provide no evidence. You provide no reasoning. You just blindly believe that on blind faith.

So if you begin with the blind faith acceptance that theists have no reason, evidence or science and ask then for reason, evidence and science you are being disingenuous.

 

[skepticalbip]

I'm not asserting that at all. You completely missed the point.


No.... you have already TOLD me my answer....I have no reason....no evidence.....no science.........here again...........

Faith is a matter of acceptance, belief without evidence e.g. "God said it, I believe it."

There is no room for reason in there. So how can you genuinely ask for reason? You are blindly stuck on this false dichotomy......

That was the definition of faith, look it up. It is not only the dictionary definition but also the definition offered in the Bible. If you are not relying on faith but instead are reasoning then it does not apply to you. So offer your reasoning if you have reasoned that there is a god that created the universe.

For non-theist that 'known' is that which has been repeatedly verified evidence such as the laws of physics. From these basic 'knowns' an understanding of more complex problems can be reasoned and tested.

Theists begin reasoning from the ultimate 'known' accepted as such from revelation described in the authority of their religious texts. Reasoning is then from what they 'know to be true' to make sense of how any unknown fits into their worldview of that ultimate 'knowledge'.

In short....non-theists reason and theists do not......... non-theists have evidence and theists do not........... non-theists have science and theists do not.

You blindly believe that. You provide no science. You provide no evidence. You provide no reasoning. You just blindly believe that on blind faith.

So if you begin with the blind faith acceptance that theists have no reason, evidence or science and ask them for reason, evidence and science you are being disingenuous.

You really need to get over your "alas, poor me I am being so persecuted" and try to engage in an actual discussion.

Also it would be nice if you actually addressed the post that you first linked to and didn't jump around to so many different clips from different post so your semi-responses could make some sort of sense.

Here, I will repeat the post you pretended to be responding to so you can have another chance to actually respond to it:

You are allowed any answer to the question of how you know the revelation is true. You are not being shackled, gagged, or expelled from the forum. It is not a trick question. The question is asked to anyone who declares anything as true to anyone who does not share the same understanding. If someone declares that there is life on Mars, the natural question for anyone who thinks otherwise or admits to not knowing is, "how do you know that is true?"

You can freely give an answer and if it is convincing then I will agree with you. If it isn't convincing then we can discuss why I don't find it convincing and you can defend the answer by expanding on it. That is how a discussion works.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You really need to get over your "alas, poor me I am being so persecuted" and try to engage in an actual discussion.

The Books promises that the true faithful will be persecuted for their faith.
If they're not being persecuted, how can they be sure they're faith is true?

Online apologists love to see themselves as taking up arms against a host.


An evil, bigoted, god-hating host.

 

[remez]

You really need to get over your "alas, poor me I am being so persecuted" and try to engage in an actual discussion.

I don't feel persecuted at all. So please drop all the emotional projecting.

I'm pointing out an overt blind spot in your reasoning.

That was the definition of faith, look it up.

Precisely my point. You are not going to accept a reasonable position on faith. Strict modern dictionary definitions only. (like atheism is the belief that no God/gods exist.) We ignore all common historical understanding.

Ok......Fine.......I'll go with that.

"Faith" has no reason, evidence or science.

SO.....
If
You know that for certain
Then
Why is it at all reasonable for you ask a theist for reason, evidence and science when you know none can exist?


Your own words................

If you are not relying on faith but instead are reasoning then it does not apply to you. So offer your reasoning if you have reasoned that there is a god that created the universe.

........expose your absurd reasoning.


Look at that again..... right there you are backing into fact of my point. Think about it.
Because
Theist = Blind faith

If I'm not a theist it does not apply. So I can NOW as a non-theist give reasons for my belief why God exists. (ABSURD?)
AND............ not but............AND...........
If I'm a theist then it would be disingenuous for you to ask for reasons you know don't exist.