Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Invitation To Believers: Will You Describe How You Arrived At Your Belief?


M4rio

Recommended Posts

 

 So I ask atheists to skeptically appraise atheism just to see if anyone is willing. So far, no takers. 

 

You are asking the impossible.  What do you mean we won't try?   How are we suppose to skeptically appraise following empirical evidence to it's logical conclusion?

 

Fine, if the universe is alive and playing ticks on us then all bets are off.  If reality is schizophrenic then all bets are off.  If there is a magical evil genius who fools us into thinking science works then all bets are off.  If we don't really exist and all of reality as we know it is a dream run by some computer in another universe, the real universe, then all bets are off.  

 

Am I skeptically appraising atheism now?  It is unclear what you are asking for. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me it depends on what the religion is about. Some religions come close to not pushing any specific dogmas on people, but rather are just about people caring about each other, the community, and the world at large. They seem to be few and far between however. Maybe humanism could grow in this direction, but with humanism...there are no ages old institutions and there is no fear, and fear is a powerful binding agent.

 

It seems like...in the absence of the ability to disprove that any supernatural god or godlike beings exist, there will always be people who think one does or some do and use that to rally followers and unfortunately control them in many cases.

 

Because of this...I sometimes think it's a wise idea, strategically, to support the general idea of "god is love", but then vigorously engage in pointing out how particular notions of god do not measure up to the idea of love. For example, I've yet to see a valid explanation for why it's OK for the Old Testament god to order the murder of innocents, nor the acquisition of women (who have not lain with men) for their own purposes.

 

Certainly there is a subset of religious believers who will argue the whole mysterious ways and author of life angle, but if you look at the Pew forum statistics, an overall majority of people believe that atheists can go to heaven. Yes, that sounds absurd, but what it shows is that a huge number of religious believers look past the wooden doctrine and prcolamanations of contractually bound religious spokespersons and instead use their own judgement.

 

A statement like "god is love", while obviously amorphous and open to any and all interpretation does still provide a starting point for argument or discussion that doesn't force the more traditional believer into the corner of feeling like their entire foundation and sacred beliefs are entirely under attack, invoking strong defense mechanisms and behavior protective of their group / individual identity.

 

In my own mind, I am free to interpret the statement as "god" being an emergent property of the real world actions of love, and not as an otherworldly being micromanaging the universe and performing miracles (at least in the past, as some believers think miracles are from a bygone era).

 

OK...I'm done speculating...I haven't tried any of these statements or ideas elsewhere, but I am hopeful. I am very skeptical of the idea that religion is just going to vanish. It's actually km the rise in developing countries, and rather than praying, I mean hoping, that the most harmful and wooden forms of it are going to just vanish or modernize without the engagement of people outside their fold seems like pure fantasy. This is why I admire what people like Peter Rollins and Michael Dowd are doing.

 

So I ask atheists to skeptically appraise atheism just to see if anyone is willing. So far, no takers.

 

 

Do people ever return to Christianity after being atheists (or agnostics or general non-believers)? Did they skeptically (as in doubted, maybe rationally or irrationally) appraise something about their worldview and decide they didn't like it so they switched back? Or was it the church potlucks that brought em back? smile.png

 

..........

 

I'm not suggesting Christianity, nor atheism, nor agnosticism is correct or incorrect. I agree that atheism is not really a thing, more a lack of a thing. But it does seem to be an assertion that has a name, at least. smile.png

I snipped some things to shorten your post, midniterider.

 

I suppose that there are people who decide, "religion is bunk," and then later return to religion. Whether their rejection of religion was based on a serious analysis of it, I don't know.

 

I think the usual arguments against philosophical skepticism amount to ways of trying to show that the skeptic is inconsistent - that the skeptic lives as though truth can be known.

 

I have no idea how to argue against a skeptical attitude toward religious dogma, though. I can think of only two ways:

1. point to alleged miracles and try to show that they could not have occurred by natural processes so must be results of direct, divine action in contravention of natural processes;

2. point to alleged negative consequences of unbelief and argue that, since those consequences are unacceptable, the premises of unbelief are false - or at least, doubtful.

 

I don't see either 1 or 2 as successful strategies of logical argument. I do see powerful rhetorical appeals basing themselves on 1 or 2.

 

I suppose skeptics can reach points where they feel a need for religion in their lives. They then can say to themselves, "I could be wrong, I don't know everything," and go on from there to turn or return to belief. I don't know anyone personally who's done that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So I ask atheists to skeptically appraise atheism just to see if anyone is willing. So far, no takers.

 

 

Do people ever return to Christianity after being atheists (or agnostics or general non-believers)? Did they skeptically (as in doubted, maybe rationally or irrationally) appraise something about their worldview and decide they didn't like it so they switched back? Or was it the church potlucks that brought em back? smile.png

 

..........

 

I'm not suggesting Christianity, nor atheism, nor agnosticism is correct or incorrect. I agree that atheism is not really a thing, more a lack of a thing. But it does seem to be an assertion that has a name, at least. smile.png

I snipped some things to shorten your post, midniterider.

 

I suppose that there are people who decide, "religion is bunk," and then later return to religion. Whether their rejection of religion was based on a serious analysis of it, I don't know.

 

I think the usual arguments against philosophical skepticism amount to ways of trying to show that the skeptic is inconsistent - that the skeptic lives as though truth can be known.

 

I have no idea how to argue against a skeptical attitude toward religious dogma, though. I can think of only two ways:

1. point to alleged miracles and try to show that they could not have occurred by natural processes so must be results of direct, divine action in contravention of natural processes;

2. point to alleged negative consequences of unbelief and argue that, since those consequences are unacceptable, the premises of unbelief are false - or at least, doubtful.

 

I don't see either 1 or 2 as successful strategies of logical argument. I do see powerful rhetorical appeals basing themselves on 1 or 2.

 

I suppose skeptics can reach points where they feel a need for religion in their lives. They then can say to themselves, "I could be wrong, I don't know everything," and go on from there to turn or return to belief. I don't know anyone personally who's done that.

 

 

Thanks for your reply.  That's all I was looking for. A hypothetical disagreement with your own personal outlook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 So I ask atheists to skeptically appraise atheism just to see if anyone is willing. So far, no takers. 

 

You are asking the impossible.  What do you mean we won't try?   How are we suppose to skeptically appraise following empirical evidence to it's logical conclusion?

 

Fine, if the universe is alive and playing ticks on us then all bets are off.  If reality is schizophrenic then all bets are off.  If there is a magical evil genius who fools us into thinking science works then all bets are off.  If we don't really exist and all of reality as we know it is a dream run by some computer in another universe, the real universe, then all bets are off.  

 

Am I skeptically appraising atheism now?  It is unclear what you are asking for. 

 

 

Fair enough. :) Thanks. As in my previous message that's all I was looking for. A hypothetical disagreement with your own personal outlook, which is what is being asked of IH.

 

I will now sink back into my marsh. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well really the only way to skeptically appraise a lack of belief in something is to assume that thing is true and evaluate the results.  So if we assume gods exist and find that solves a bunch of problems without creating any new problems then sure, atheism would not make sense.  But this evaluation is based on the evidence we have and the data does not support theism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Furball

1. Maybe humanism could grow in this direction, but with humanism...there are no ages old institutions and there is no fear, and fear is a powerful binding agent.

 

2. It seems like...in the absence of the ability to disprove that any supernatural god or godlike beings exist, there will always be people who think one does or some do and use that to rally followers and unfortunately control them in many cases.

 

 

 

1. Christians like todd friel are attacking humanism as a form of satanism and self worship. Your right, fear is powerful, it's why christians use it as their main recruiting method. 

 

2. I am not sure what abscence you are talking about. All gods can be proven false by the same -0- evidence to back them up. If their is a god, he/she/it either is pure evil based on what we see in reality, or he/she/it doesn't care that all people and creatures are suffering which would again make god evil, or, god simply is a human construct and a security blanket for adult-children who need to have certainty in this life. 

 

I am always fascinated that people think you cannot disprove god. It is actually very easy. One simple way/example is as follows. All religions that claim to speak for god give rules to follow with promises of blessings/good luck if you do follow them. Obey what their version of god says. When nothing happens, as is the case with all reward/punishment man made religions like christianity, you now know that what you were told by their version of god was a complete lie. You move on to the next religion and do what they say their god says to do and watch as nothing happens when you obey their rules as well. Oh, by the way, there is -0- evidence that god exists, and what I do find seems to prove that a god doesn't. 

 

21623_522424617927203_26626879601290348_

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1. Maybe humanism could grow in this direction, but with humanism...there are no ages old institutions and there is no fear, and fear is a powerful binding agent.

 

2. It seems like...in the absence of the ability to disprove that any supernatural god or godlike beings exist, there will always be people who think one does or some do and use that to rally followers and unfortunately control them in many cases.

 

 

 

1. Christians like todd friel are attacking humanism as a form of satanism and self worship. Your right, fear is powerful, it's why christians use it as their main recruiting method.

 

2. I am not sure what abscence you are talking about. All gods can be proven false by the same -0- evidence to back them up. If their is a god, he/she/it either is pure evil based on what we see in reality, or he/she/it doesn't care that all people and creatures are suffering which would again make god evil, or, god simply is a human construct and a security blanket for adult-children who need to have certainty in this life.

 

I am always fascinated that people think you cannot disprove god. It is actually very easy. One simple way/example is as follows. All religions that claim to speak for god give rules to follow with promises of blessings/good luck if you do follow them. Obey what their version of god says. When nothing happens, as is the case with all reward/punishment man made religions like christianity, you now know that what you were told by their version of god was a complete lie. You move on to the next religion and do what they say their god says to do and watch as nothing happens when you obey their rules as well. Oh, by the way, there is -0- evidence that god exists, and what I do find seems to prove that a god doesn't.

 

21623_522424617927203_26626879601290348_

The biggest issue with telling the so-called True Believer that there is no evidence for their god is that they believe there is a ton of evidence. They think prophecy and eye-witness accounts are real and amazing. They think that the willingness of disciples to die rather than give up their faith is evidence. It may work on some individual believers to reason and argue them out of these conclusions, but because not all are willing to participate in such study and because of the Fear Factor and the appeal to infinite security and eternal life in an otherworldly afterlife, millions are willing to just go along with what they are told, and the rest of us get stuck with all the other baggage that comes along with their unwillingness to go deeper.

 

And, what I mean by you cannot conclusively disprove the existence of some form of god or godlike being is a lot like saying we cannot prove conclusively that there isn't a teapot orbiting the earth, or whatever that old phrase is. People who want power or who want security will always be willing to invoke something like this in favor of their desires. What I'm hoping is that when people engage with them to try to direct them toward better ways of thinking and better results in real world behavior is that those interactions do not rest upon a personal desire to be completely right and to completely disprove everything about the believer's foundational ideas -- because it's very rare that such an approach is actively sought out by otherwise comfortable people. It's only when people reach a level of doubt or skepticism that they actively seek more knowledge that they are not turned off by harsh criticism.

 

I guess what I'm boiling it down to is something like, for me at least, being willing to forget about trying to debate whether some force that can be called "god" does or does not exist (because such a force could be equivalent to the universe itself or the multiverse, etc), and moving into critiques or discussions lower down on the scale of beliefs, such as how to unite with enough people who believe in a "god" of whatever sort, so long as that god is NOT speaking to them about conquering other people, killing people, forcing other people to believe Exactly the same things about a specific holy book, or even about a specific Edition of a given holy book... I would much rather work in solidarity against the spectre of fundamentalism with people who believe in a "god of love" who don'to literally believe that the old Testament god command murder and who believe, even if they are Wrong when one closely reads the Gospels, that Jesus was all about love and peace. I don't think fundamentalism will ever vanish entirely , but I think we need to find more commonality with people of moderate "god belief" who already stand against fundamentalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Furball

As long as people are being indoctrinated, they will continue to not want to discuss their version of god or try to find some common ground. The fact that there are over 2 billion christians supposedly on earth means it would take something on a grand scale to get that many people to change their beliefs or at least re-evaluate their doctrinal beliefs and ways and be open to discussing some other concept of a god. The new agers have been trying for a long time now to bring into the public conscious a loving and caring god who doesn't punish or kill people and who would never create a place called hell. I think religion will always exist in some form. Like rock and roll, it will never die. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as people are being indoctrinated, they will continue to not want to discuss their version of god or try to find some common ground. The fact that there are over 2 billion christians supposedly on earth means it would take something on a grand scale to get that many people to change their beliefs or at least re-evaluate their doctrinal beliefs and ways and be open to discussing some other concept of a god. The new agers have been trying for a long time now to bring into the public conscious a loving and caring god who doesn't punish or kill people and who would never create a place called hell. I think religion will always exist in some form. Like rock and roll, it will never die.

Yeah, that's true, I think it's wishful thinking to imagine that it will just vanish. I like what they are doing over at the Interfaith Youth Core to build collaboration across religious and nonreligious identities though, because it doesn't start with conversation or discussion to try to influence anyone to change. Instead it starts with gathering people who have different reasons and motivations for behaving in the same positive ways for community service projects that benefit others. People can discuss their motivations or their similarities and differences outside of the service events, but the primary goal is focusing on looking past the religious identity and focusing on shared human identity.

 

I didn't realize how big they had grown until looking them up again. Years ago I asked them about humanism and atheism, but they hadn't done anything about it yet. However they do now incorporate nonreligious and humanist groups.

 

Chris Stedman, a humanist chaplain from Harvard, did an interview about it here: https://www.ifyc.org/resources/common-knowledge-podcast-atheism-humanism-interfaith-chris-stedman

 

Another example is an interview with a Christian Environmentalist who believes that God calls people to take care of the Earth, not waste it and plunder it. It's linked from here: https://www.ifyc.org/podcast.

 

They have a ton of information and resources on YouTube as well: https://m.youtube.com/user/InterfaithYouthCore. So, while it may be true that even these people are not necessarily changing their deepest beliefs about gods or god, they are going past mere discussion and collaborating for common good. I feel like behaving in solidarity is itself a change of belief already, and I hope their experiences together help them and more people understand that we are all just human and none of our private or professional doctrines is 100% correct and all other ideas are just shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If metaphysical naturalism is NOT an accurate description of reality, then the scientific method might be blind to forms of reality that don't fit that assumption. Science expects knowledge to jump through certain hoops to qualify. Maybe some types of important knowledge are missed by the scientific filter. I can't think of an example, but maybe somebody else can.

 

Another objection to atheism might be the lack of belief. Some religious beliefs might be beneficial to the believer even though they are false. Maybe these religious beliefs are even beneficial to society in general. Again, I can't think of an example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I replied to that effect in post #41. Apply some non-logic to it, or a religious logic to it. It's just a hypothetical. Not asking for you to turn away from your official worldview. 

 

IH says he sees God all around him. Religious evidence.

Atheists don't see God at all. Scientific evidence. 

 

BAA wants IH to skeptically appraise Christianity and I really doubt that's going to happen, at least not in an acceptable fashion to non-believers here. So I ask atheists to skeptically appraise atheism just to see if anyone is willing. So far, no takers. Mario did make a hypothetical skeptical appraisal of science and materialism in post 35. I appreciate that.

 

Does IH feel that his belief in Jesus is rational, or logical or well reasoned? I bet he does. As a Christian did you feel that your belief was reasoned, logical, rational? I applied what seemed like logical reasons for why God allowed bad stuff to happen and other religious questions I had. But I changed my mind later when God was no longer on my radar. smile.png

 

Do people ever return to Christianity after being atheists (or agnostics or general non-believers)? Did they skeptically (as in doubted, maybe rationally or irrationally) appraise something about their worldview and decide they didn't like it so they switched back? Or was it the church potlucks that brought em back? smile.png

 

..........

 

I'm not suggesting Christianity, nor atheism, nor agnosticism is correct or incorrect. I agree that atheism is not really a thing, more a lack of a thing. But it does seem to be an assertion that has a name, at least. smile.png

 

I won't demand you actually answer my questions. But if you like, please do.

Ok, I think I see what you're getting at.

 

Yes, I am capable of engaging in apologetics. I used to make a regular practice of it. I definitely took a reasoned approach to my faith, and vigorously attempted to defend it. What I found was that there are insurmountable problems with belief which cannot be avoided. But that doesn't mean that I don't understand what might make someone think that there is a God, or an ultimate meaning, or whatever.

 

There are definitely people who return to the faith. I can't compile an exhaustive list of the reasons why they do, but I suspect that in most cases it is due to the latent effects of indoctrination, or to fear, or to a lack of education, or to delusion or to a combination of the these factors.

 

The only way that I can think of of trying to critique atheism is to put a religious hat on. And the only religious hat that I've worn before is the Christian one. I could put it back on and wax poetic about how without God, any worldview is ultimately baseless. Such an argument would be met with criticism, to which I would eventually reply with something about how God's ways are not ours, and so we cannot expect to understand him. And that is where things really fall apart. The thing about Christianity is that it requires us to believe a proposition which we cannot, even in principle, understand (let alone know to be true), and then to base our entire lives on it. I know the arguments. I can make them all day long. But I can't make them seem convincing to anyone who doesn't already want to believe them.

 

I don't have sufficient experience with other religions to try and argue that they might be true. But, until someone gives me a reason to think they are, I'm not about to live as if they are. So that leaves me with atheism, for better or for worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could only find this in a quick search https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism

 

It's from Alvin Plantinga, a Christian philosopher. I haven't read the whole summary yet. His argument is...not without its skeptics.

 

 

If metaphysical naturalism is NOT an accurate description of reality, then the scientific method might be blind to forms of reality that don't fit that assumption. Science expects knowledge to jump through certain hoops to qualify. Maybe some types of important knowledge are missed by the scientific filter. I can't think of an example, but maybe somebody else can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If metaphysical naturalism is NOT an accurate description of reality, then the scientific method might be blind to forms of reality that don't fit that assumption. Science expects knowledge to jump through certain hoops to qualify. Maybe some types of important knowledge are missed by the scientific filter. I can't think of an example, but maybe somebody else can.

This is true. It may very well be the case that the scientific method is not the optimal way of obtaining knowledge. In my opinion, it is certainly the case that there are types of knowledge which are inaccessible to science. But this does not preclude atheism, it merely precludes scientism.

 

Another objection to atheism might be the lack of belief. Some religious beliefs might be beneficial to the believer even though they are false. Maybe these religious beliefs are even beneficial to society in general. Again, I can't think of an example.

 

I suppose there could be a kind of pragmatic objection to atheism on these grounds. This sort of objection would do nothing to show that atheism is objectively false, as it would not establish the objective truth of any particular religion, but it might suffice to show that atheism is not useful. I actually agree with this assertion. Atheism isn't really a thing, so I don't really think that it can be useful. But I do not agree that theism makes pragmatic sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a study (I will update when I find it again) that showed a positive correlation for lower crime rates when the society typically believed in a hell where bad people would be punished when they die; and a positive correlation for Higher Crime Rates when a society believes in Heaven. Yes, less crime when societies believe in Hell, but more crime when they believe in Heaven.

 

I can't remember what it was for societies that believe in neither

 

The belief of course does not make it true.

 

 

If metaphysical naturalism is NOT an accurate description of reality, then the scientific method might be blind to forms of reality that don't fit that assumption. Science expects knowledge to jump through certain hoops to qualify. Maybe some types of important knowledge are missed by the scientific filter. I can't think of an example, but maybe somebody else can.

This is true. It may very well be the case that the scientific method is not the optimal way of obtaining knowledge. In my opinion, it is certainly the case that there are types of knowledge which are inaccessible to science. But this does not preclude atheism, it merely precludes scientism.

Another objection to atheism might be the lack of belief. Some religious beliefs might be beneficial to the believer even though they are false. Maybe these religious beliefs are even beneficial to society in general. Again, I can't think of an example.

I suppose there could be a kind of pragmatic objection to atheism on these grounds. This sort of objection would do nothing to show that atheism is objectively false, as it would not establish the objective truth of any particular religion, but it might suffice to show that atheism is not useful. I actually agree with this assertion. Atheism isn't really a thing, so I don't really think that it can be useful. But I do not agree that theism makes pragmatic sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a study (I will update when I find it again) that showed a positive correlation for lower crime rates when the society typically believed in a hell where bad people would be punished when they die; and a positive correlation for Higher Crime Rates when a society believes in Heaven. Yes, less crime when societies believe in Hell, but more crime when they believe in Heaven.

 

I can't remember what it was for societies that believe in neither

 

The belief of course does not make it true.

Certainly it is the case that religions have some good effects. I would argue, however, that their benefits are far outweighed by their costs. There may, of course, be some religions for which this is not true, but if this is the case then I am not familiar with these faiths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I just got into a long discussion about this in face to face after I brought up the story of the couple in Oregon that is going to jail because they didn't seek medical care for their newborn for a very treatable disease. Instead they used prayer and oil. I said I was glad that the law had been changed to allow them to be prosecuted and not protected.

 

She said I was focusing on a very narrow category of harm done to children done by a very small minority of religious people.

 

 

 

There was a study (I will update when I find it again) that showed a positive correlation for lower crime rates when the society typically believed in a hell where bad people would be punished when they die; and a positive correlation for Higher Crime Rates when a society believes in Heaven. Yes, less crime when societies believe in Hell, but more crime when they believe in Heaven.

 

I can't remember what it was for societies that believe in neither

 

The belief of course does not make it true.

Certainly it is the case that religions have some good effects. I would argue, however, that their benefits are far outweighed by their costs. There may, of course, be some religions for which this is not true, but if this is the case then I am not familiar with these faiths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could only find this in a quick search https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism

 

It's from Alvin Plantinga, a Christian philosopher. I haven't read the whole summary yet. His argument is...not without its skeptics.

 

 

If metaphysical naturalism is NOT an accurate description of reality, then the scientific method might be blind to forms of reality that don't fit that assumption. Science expects knowledge to jump through certain hoops to qualify. Maybe some types of important knowledge are missed by the scientific filter. I can't think of an example, but maybe somebody else can.

 

My impression of Alvin Plantinga, from what I've read of him, is that he is a forerunner of and model for William Lane Craig, and is a bit less obnoxious.

 

Plantinga doesn't present positive evidence for theism. He serves up word salads that amount to something like:

 

"If [insert unfalsifiable claim here] isn't false, then [insert something else] may be true. And [insert something] really should be defined as [insert something else]. And only that something else accounts for [insert some element of human experience].

 

Therefore God."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So you're a reader?

 

So how about writing something?

 

So how about writing that skeptical appraisal of your faith for us.

 

Right here.

 

Does a skeptical appraisal of faith necessarily result in losing one's faith? Or is it possible for a believer to admit that there are logical problems with his faith yet still maintain his belief ? Why or why not?

 

Maybe an atheist here could write a skeptical appraisal of science or materialism? smile.png

 

Why would anyone want to write a skeptical appraisal of their world view? What's my motivation? smile.png

 

 

 

Your first questions, I think, are well worth trying to answer:

 

Does a skeptical appraisal of faith necessarily result in losing one's faith? Or is it possible for a believer to admit that there are logical problems with his faith yet still maintain his belief ? Why or why not?

 

I have been here two years and I'm not rattled that many disagree with my views here or think I'm an idiot for being a Christian.

That's fine with me. We all make our choices for various reason, we all have different life experiences and so on. I like hearing other points of view. That is one of the reason i am here. 

 

But I'm not going to question a member's sincerity or honestly just because their conclusion does not agree with my conclusion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

But I'm not going to question a member's sincerity or honestly just because their conclusion does not agree with my conclusion. 

 

 

 

Ironhorse, you make it sound like we went "What, you are a Christian . . . well then we are your enemy forever!".   Having a different conclusion isn't what makes us question your claims.

 

 

You claim that for years you have done the work skeptically appraising the Christian religion but when others ask to see this work all you give are excuses.  It would be better to admit that you never skeptically appraised Christianity and you take it purely on faith.  You don't seem to know the first thing about skeptically appraising an idea.  You give the impression that you couldn't do so even if you wanted to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

So you're a reader?

 

So how about writing something?

 

So how about writing that skeptical appraisal of your faith for us.

 

Right here.

 

Does a skeptical appraisal of faith necessarily result in losing one's faith? Or is it possible for a believer to admit that there are logical problems with his faith yet still maintain his belief ? Why or why not?

 

Maybe an atheist here could write a skeptical appraisal of science or materialism? smile.png

 

Why would anyone want to write a skeptical appraisal of their world view? What's my motivation? smile.png

 

 

 

Your first questions, I think, are well worth trying to answer:

 

Does a skeptical appraisal of faith necessarily result in losing one's faith? Or is it possible for a believer to admit that there are logical problems with his faith yet still maintain his belief ? Why or why not?

 

I have been here two years and I'm not rattled that many disagree with my views here or think I'm an idiot for being a Christian.

That's fine with me. We all make our choices for various reason, we all have different life experiences and so on. I like hearing other points of view. That is one of the reason i am here. 

 

But I'm not going to question a member's sincerity or honestly just because their conclusion does not agree with my conclusion. 

 

 

Ironhorse,

 

What kind of Christian reads the many patient and polite requests that I've put to him over the past six months about him presenting his skeptical appraisal of his own faith...

 

...doesn't answer them and doesn't present this skeptical appraisal...

.

.

.

...then when the Midniterider poses further questions to him, off the back of mine...

 

...still doesn't respond to me, but instead responds to the Rider, telling him that, 'Your first questions...are well worth an answer'...?

.

.

.

A rattled one, perhaps?

 

You say that we all make choices for various reasons.

 

I wonder why you are consistently and persistently choosing to avoid answering me on the subject of this skeptical appraisal you claim to have made of your Christian faith?

 

Rattled, maybe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

 

 

 

So you're a reader?

 

So how about writing something?

 

So how about writing that skeptical appraisal of your faith for us.

 

Right here.

 

Does a skeptical appraisal of faith necessarily result in losing one's faith? Or is it possible for a believer to admit that there are logical problems with his faith yet still maintain his belief ? Why or why not?

 

Maybe an atheist here could write a skeptical appraisal of science or materialism? smile.png

 

Why would anyone want to write a skeptical appraisal of their world view? What's my motivation? smile.png

 

 

 

Your first questions, I think, are well worth trying to answer:

 

Does a skeptical appraisal of faith necessarily result in losing one's faith? Or is it possible for a believer to admit that there are logical problems with his faith yet still maintain his belief ? Why or why not?

 

I have been here two years and I'm not rattled that many disagree with my views here or think I'm an idiot for being a Christian.

That's fine with me. We all make our choices for various reason, we all have different life experiences and so on. I like hearing other points of view. That is one of the reason i am here. 

 

But I'm not going to question a member's sincerity or honestly just because their conclusion does not agree with my conclusion. 

 

 

Ironhorse,

 

What kind of Christian reads the many patient and polite requests that I've put to him over the past six months about him presenting his skeptical appraisal of his own faith...

 

...doesn't answer them and doesn't present this skeptical appraisal...

.

.

.

...then when the Midniterider poses further questions to him, off the back of mine...

 

...still doesn't respond to me, but instead responds to the Rider, telling him that, 'Your first questions...are well worth an answer'...?

.

.

.

A rattled one, perhaps?

 

You say that we all make choices for various reasons.

 

I wonder why you are consistently and persistently choosing to avoid answering me on the subject of this skeptical appraisal you claim to have made of your Christian faith?

 

Rattled, maybe?

 

 

 

 

Rattled?

 

No, I don't think I am.

 

I'm happy to be here.

 

I try to to answer questions. Whether they are considered honest answers or not is up

to the readers to decide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Rattled?

 

No, I don't think I am.

 

I'm happy to be here.

 

I try to to answer questions. Whether they are considered honest answers or not is up

to the readers to decide.

 

 

 

Are you trying to tell us that you already gave your very best effort?  It isn't your fault if your answers were not helpful?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

So you're a reader?

 

So how about writing something?

 

So how about writing that skeptical appraisal of your faith for us.

 

Right here.

 

Does a skeptical appraisal of faith necessarily result in losing one's faith? Or is it possible for a believer to admit that there are logical problems with his faith yet still maintain his belief ? Why or why not?

 

Maybe an atheist here could write a skeptical appraisal of science or materialism? smile.png

 

Why would anyone want to write a skeptical appraisal of their world view? What's my motivation? smile.png

 

 

 

Your first questions, I think, are well worth trying to answer:

 

Does a skeptical appraisal of faith necessarily result in losing one's faith? Or is it possible for a believer to admit that there are logical problems with his faith yet still maintain his belief ? Why or why not?

 

I have been here two years and I'm not rattled that many disagree with my views here or think I'm an idiot for being a Christian.

That's fine with me. We all make our choices for various reason, we all have different life experiences and so on. I like hearing other points of view. That is one of the reason i am here. 

 

But I'm not going to question a member's sincerity or honestly just because their conclusion does not agree with my conclusion. 

 

 

Ironhorse,

 

What kind of Christian reads the many patient and polite requests that I've put to him over the past six months about him presenting his skeptical appraisal of his own faith...

 

...doesn't answer them and doesn't present this skeptical appraisal...

.

.

.

...then when the Midniterider poses further questions to him, off the back of mine...

 

...still doesn't respond to me, but instead responds to the Rider, telling him that, 'Your first questions...are well worth an answer'...?

.

.

.

A rattled one, perhaps?

 

You say that we all make choices for various reasons.

 

I wonder why you are consistently and persistently choosing to avoid answering me on the subject of this skeptical appraisal you claim to have made of your Christian faith?

 

Rattled, maybe?

 

 

 

 

Rattled?

 

No, I don't think I am.

 

I'm happy to be here.

 

I try to to answer questions.

 

Then why have I been met with dead air from you for over a year on the question of exactly what evidence you see in the universe that convinces you of the hand of God?

 

If you cannot or will not answer this question...

 

 (No! You haven't been specific, when you have touched upon this topic.  "I believe" and "I see" are general, not specific.  Specifically what evidence?)

 

...then at least have the courtesy to tell me, so that I don't have to persist in asking you this question, over and over again, IH.

 

Whether they are considered honest answers or not is up

to the readers to decide.

 

Isn't the onus on you (as a Christian) to be honest when answering questions?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.