Nature of Reality: A Challenge to Atheists

[Kurieuo]

So are you saying Atheists are 5 year olds? Perhaps Micah should be challenged.

Sorry, I thought you had the ability to read into an analogy a bit better than that.


In this instance, Micah is at home and has every right to play how he wants in this situation.

Of course in other instances he will be challenged but I wasnt using those instances in the analogy.

You cant always force someone to play by the rules

Ok Nessa. I just don't understand the relevance of your analogy.

[Nessa]

no suprises there...

People have accused kenny of changing the rules...I take it he was someone you had in mind when you vented in the opening post among thinking about other atheists.

Satan has blinded the eyes of people in this world...its not going to be a straight level playing feild when you argue. Kenny may already feel he has met the challenge? That hes explored and given what he considers answers and hes been 'honest'.

Sometimes you might have to play by someone elses rules and find a way to work with it instead of complaining about how you want them.to play the right way. And in this case do all the things you wanted.them to do and say in the opening post.

[patrick]

Only, I've never come across someone like you whose blinders just fell off short of them coming to Christ.
Perhaps you were truly seeking with an open heart, and God opened your eyes so you could at least see the truth of his existence?

I had to give this a lot of thought, because the problem isn't I know I'm not a Christian quite yet (and could become one a bit later) but that while I could already be a Christian, I'd rather not jump the gun and claim I am only to realize I misunderstood what it means to be a Christian.

The question I ask myself is "where am I?" About a week before joining this forum, I felt I stepped into something (or perhaps it'd be more accurate to say something stepped into me). It reminded me of many things of my childhood. Nothing extraordinary or miraculous needed to be assumed, this something could even just have been an overactive imagination my part, one neuron reaching out to another or something. But the important thing is that it was my experience, and I decided to make up my mind what I would call this.

This attitude, as I've read about and questioned people here and elsewhere, seems to be one that atheists either reject or are largely uninterested in. They seem only interested in what they need to know. If they have doubts about something, they try to avoid having to have a belief about it at all. If they have beliefs in one area and beliefs in another area, connecting those beliefs with plausible, but unprovable, beliefs is "irrational." They avoid doing so as long as they can function without it, even if it means being inconsistent. (Any atheists reading this do feel free to object to my understanding of you.)

So I think in light of all that, you're quite right. I'm not here trying to disprove or dismantle anyone's beliefs, I am merely seeking to see what the inner experience is of both sides. What is it like to be an atheist? What is it like to be a theist? Was what I experienced a short time ago what Christians, specifically, experience? I still don't know the answers to any of these, but in all this seeking I came to read your words and saw a great philosophical difference in attitude between your position and of those you hoped to argue against. The more I read, the more I realized all the "data" so to speak is justifiable either way, just with wildly different implications. And from there, all I can say at the moment is your attitude struck me as truer.

There is also another topic discussed there on how vastly different "belief in gods" versus "belief in God" is.
And yet, many Atheist-leaning people cry foul of Theists who write of Atheism as a more positive belief and assertion,
and then they quite freely love to talk about gods and God in the same breath (as though they're the same) to Christians.

There does seem to be a great difference between what makes something a god (of many gods) and God (of which philosophically there can be only one), regardless if we may disagree on the exact nature and teachings of God. This I think is the main area I yet have much to learn.

This is also why I find it unfortunate that Ed dropped out of that discussion without comment. I'm quite curious to know what Atheists make of the distinction between gods and God.

[Kurieuo]

no suprises there...

People have accused kenny of changing the rules...I take it he was someone you had in mind when you vented in the opening post among thinking about other atheists.

Satan has blinded the eyes of people in this world...its not going to be a straight level playing feild when you argue. Kenny may already feel he has met the challenge? That hes explored and given what he considers answers and hes been 'honest'.

Sometimes you might have to play by someone elses rules and find a way to work with it instead of complaining about how you want them.to play the right way. And in this case do all the things you wanted.them to do and say in the opening post.

Sorry Nessa, but like domokunrox I feel you are mistaking my opening post as a vent.
It wasn't at all a vent. It was an provocative yet honest challenge.
My words were carefully constructed.

Regarding Kenny, I actually feel a little insulted here.
In my debates with Kenny, I believe I'm quite respectful as he usually is with me.
While we never seem to agree, and we might get frustrated at times with each other,
I'm sure he'll vouch for the respect with which we otherwise have while debating each other.

As for people I had in mind in my opening post 2 years ago, they were Atheists at large.
I've only been debating and communicating with them for almost the past 20 years online.
So why can't I put up a challenge to what I've seen?

I would be delightfully surprised if any points made in my original post were proven wrong.
I'd love an Atheist to take up the challenge in an intellectually honest way.
I was making a challenge at large to Atheists.

If it's fine for them to challenge Christian beliefs, or beliefs in God all the time, then I see that I'm very much playing by their rules in dishing it back. What is good for the gander is good for the goose. Right? Only my questions are quite fair I think. Don't you think my questions are fair?

Finally, I really still don't know how your analogy applies to me.
But, in what I do perceive you to be saying, I feel somewhat saddened by some negative insinuations I'm detecting
-- which is why I wouldn't mind you explaining further.

[Nessa]

Sorry Nessa, but like domokunrox I feel you are mistaking my opening post as a vent.
It wasn't at all a vent. It was an provocative yet honest challenge.
My words were carefully constructed.

Regarding Kenny, I actually feel a little insulted here.
In my debates with Kenny, I believe I'm quite respectful as he usually is with me.
While we never seem to agree, and we might get frustrated at times with each other,
I'm sure he'll vouch for the respect with which we otherwise have while debating each other.

As for people I had in mind in my opening post 2 years ago, they were Atheists at large.
I've only been debating and communicating with them for almost the past 20 years online.
So why can't I put up a challenge to what I've seen?

I would be delightfully surprised if any points made in my original post were proven wrong.
I'd love an Atheist to take up the challenge in an intellectually honest way.
I was making a challenge at large to Atheists.

If it's fine for them to challenge Christian beliefs, or beliefs in God all the time, then I see that I'm very much playing by their rules in dishing it back. What is good for the gander is good for the goose. Right? Only my questions are quite fair I think. Don't you think my questions are fair?

Finally, I really still don't know how your analogy applies to me.
But, in what I do perceive you to be saying, I feel somewhat saddened by some negative insinuations I'm detecting
-- which is why I wouldn't mind you explaining further.

lets take a sledge hammer to the 'analogy' and never bring it up again..

Okay,

Yes, I did take the thread in a similar way to domokunrox.
So apologies for any misunderstandings about the intent of your thread.

My replies were based on what I saw the thread to be about.

No, I don't think your questions were unfair at all. More of a matter of expectations - what can we expect to hear from atheists that we haven't already heard before? I'm not sure? And by 'not sure' I mean I could be wrong.

In no way was I devaluing or disrespecting your relationship with Kenny at all. No need to feel insulted there.
As far as I'm aware you've never accused him of any rule changing so I hope you aren't saying that is what I'm doing.
But even that to me isn't as much an insult as it is the truth. At least to me.

I was referring to the fact that instead of staying frustrated about something, it can be best to focus on what you do have and keep working on that.

I wasn't implying you weren't already working on it though and building a relationship.

I feel you have taken this post too personally because I wasn't insinuating anything. At worst, I mentioned you were complaining and technically it was a complaint you had - a valid one - though obviously I mis read the intent as I said before.

Do you think theres a chance I honestly misread your intent and you are taking this too personally?

Edit: Unless you mean the opening line? No I wasn't insinuating anything, I was stating it as fact I do get tired of being misunderstood
though amongst the few here that don't get me there are the few that do get me, and by few I mean one

You might want to take your 'insinuaton detector" in for a check.. it looks like it's broken

[Kurieuo]

Thanks for clarifying Nessa.
I won't venture further to play this game, but I do feel there is more.
How about I shoot you a PM? That's probably the better medium.

[Nessa]

Seriously, I'm not playing any games. I added humour.

People do that to me (including you)
when they have misunderstood me.

I thought it would help lighten things among the serious stuff.

But sure, pm - I'm fine either way.

[Kenny]

In other words, Theism and Atheism is about what you believe, Agnostic is about what you know; a totally different subject.

Would you agree with this then?

Gnostic Theist: evidence for God, therefore belief in God
Agnostic Theist: can't have evidence; I choose to believe in God
Agnostic Atheist: can't have evidence; I choose to not believe in God
Gnostic Atheist: evidence for no God, therefore belief in no God

I would say evidence could be a factor but is not a required factor. I prefer this:

Gnostic Theist:
A person who KNOWS God exist. Weather this knowledge is based upon evidence, or something else is irrelevant; the point is he has no doubt about God’s existence

Agnostic Theist:
A person who BELIEVES God exist, but admits to the possibility that he could be wrong. Weather this lack of knowledge is based upon lack of evidence or something else is irrelevant; the point is he only believes; he doesn’t know.

Agnostic Atheist
A person who Believes God doesn’t exist, but admits to the possibility that he could be wrong thus he doesn’t know. Weather this lack of knowledge is based upon lack of evidence or something else is irrelevant; the point is he only believes; he doesn’t know.

Gnostic Atheist:
A person who KNOWS God doesn’t exist. Weather this knowledge is based upon evidence or something else is irrelevant; the point is he has no doubt that God doesn't exist.

Do you agree? If not tell me where I'm going wrong.

Ken

I think I understand better why you disagreed before then. I admit to not having looked up the terms in a while, so let's go with this for now. It would seem you see yourself as an Agnostic Atheist who is arguing against Gnostic Theists. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I believe some of the theists I argue against are agnostic theists as well, but thus far I agree.

From there, the problem you see is that Gnostic Theists are making a claim which they must defend

Again; I agree.

but you are at a disadvantage because you don't know regarding this subject.

I wouldn’t claim to be at a disadvantage, but I do recognize what I believe to be right could be wrong.

Thus to be fair, the burden of proof lies with the Gnostic Theists,

Yes the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim

but your beliefs are irrelevant because you claim no such knowledge.

I wouldn’t say my beliefs are irrelevant; I am always open to discussing my beliefs and opinions.

Again, please correct me if I'm wrong.

I think you are definitely on the right track

Ken

[patrick]

but you are at a disadvantage because you don't know regarding this subject.

I wouldn’t claim to be at a disadvantage, but I do recognize what I believe to be right could be wrong.

Thus to be fair, the burden of proof lies with the Gnostic Theists,

Yes the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim

but your beliefs are irrelevant because you claim no such knowledge.

I wouldn’t say my beliefs are irrelevant; I am always open to discussing my beliefs and opinions.

My point with these three claims is unpacking the question of where the burden of proof lies. If I come to you and say "personally I believe the Bible is the word of God, but I don't know the Bible is the word of God yet the Bible says homosexuality is wrong," why would you or anyone else be moved to change your position regarding homosexuality? I have claimed no knowledge; the only claim I have made is what I believe.

The reason, from my understanding, that the burden of proof does not lie with Agnostics is that they make no claim regarding whether God exists or not. So when I say you are at a disadvantage and that your beliefs are irrelevant, I say this because you are claiming you don't have knowledge about this. This is key, and I imagine you disagree with this, so I'd like to hear where and why.

[Kenny]

but you are at a disadvantage because you don't know regarding this subject.

I wouldn’t claim to be at a disadvantage, but I do recognize what I believe to be right could be wrong.

Thus to be fair, the burden of proof lies with the Gnostic Theists,

Yes the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim

but your beliefs are irrelevant because you claim no such knowledge.

I wouldn’t say my beliefs are irrelevant; I am always open to discussing my beliefs and opinions.

My point with these three claims is unpacking the question of where the burden of proof lies. If I come to you and say "personally I believe the Bible is the word of God, but I don't know the Bible is the word of God yet the Bible says homosexuality is wrong," why would you or anyone else be moved to change your position regarding homosexuality? I have claimed no knowledge; the only claim I have made is what I believe.

Just because you claim to KNOW the bible as the word of God doesn’t mean I am going to take your word for it any more than if you just claimed to believe it was, and my response would be the same; Prove it!

The reason, from my understanding, that the burden of proof does not lie with Agnostics is that they make no claim regarding whether God exists or not.

The Atheist agnostic may have a claim; its just that this claim is not based upon knowledge, it’s based upon belief.

So when I say you are at a disadvantage and that your beliefs are irrelevant, I say this because you are claiming you don't have knowledge about this. This is key, and I imagine you disagree with this, so I'd like to hear where and why.

[/quote]

I may not have knowledge; (100% absolute certainty) but I do have beliefs and am always happy to discuss them. I don’t see how having beliefs puts one at a disadvantage when compared to one who claims know.

[patrick]

I may not have knowledge (100% absolute certainty)

Can anyone have 100% absolute certainty of anything? If so, who, and how?

If not,

Just because you claim to KNOW the bible as the word of God doesn’t mean I am going to take your word for it any more than if you just claimed to believe it was, and my response would be the same; Prove it!

How can anything be proven? Why bother distinguishing between what we know and what we believe?'


By the way, I think you misunderstood my reply:

My point with these three claims is unpacking the question of where the burden of proof lies. If I come to you and say "personally I believe the Bible is the word of God, but I don't know the Bible is the word of God yet the Bible says homosexuality is wrong," why would you or anyone else be moved to change your position regarding homosexuality? I have claimed no knowledge; the only claim I have made is what I believe.

Just because you claim to KNOW the bible as the word of God doesn’t mean I am going to take your word for it any more than if you just claimed to believe it was, and my response would be the same; Prove it!

I am claiming that I don't know. How can I prove that I don't know?

[RickD]

kenny wrote:
All you doing is spittin out a bunch of noise; you’ve said nothing here. If there were an ounce of merit to what you’ve said, you would have pointed out how I’ve cherry picked, misrepresented, or whatever it is you claim I’ve done. I stand by what I’ve said; if you disagree I challenge you to point out something I’ve said that was wrong.
Up to the challenge?

Up for a vacation?


7 day ban.

[RickD]

I temporarily banned Kenny for 7 days.

It's been a long time coming.

[patrick]

I temporarily banned Kenny for 7 days.

It's been a long time coming.

Even from the short time I've been here, I'm not too surprised.

Happy to work with him when he gets back but I doubt I'll be able to convince him of much.

[abelcainsbrother]

I temporarily banned Kenny for 7 days.

It's been a long time coming.

Even from the short time I've been here, I'm not too surprised.

Happy to work with him when he gets back but I doubt I'll be able to convince him of much.

I think you were making an excellent point because Kenny morphs back and forth between an atheist and an agnostic and does not even realize he is doing it.Intellectual honesty is important if a person is to ever come close to discovering the truth.This is why I say all people who deny God live by their own imagination whether it lines up with the truth,reality,etc or not,and all to reject God.I think you are noticing it.