Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Honest Atheist?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    Shuny,

    I have come to accept that you are sort of a theist, but why do you feel the need to be an apologist for atheism? Don't you think the atheists an speak for themselves, or do you feel sorry for them and consider them too stupid to argue on their own behalf?

    Just promise me not to ever try to be an apologist for Christianity. We don't need ya. Thanks.
    I feel the HONEST representation of beliefs is important in dialogue. I do not see this honesty concerning the nature and motivation of atheist beliefs by traditional apologetic Christian dialogue. I see sort a warped sense of sarcasm, accusations of the weird and bizzaro sort. I do see some of this unrealistic extreme distortion from some atheists, for example Dawkins. Some of his arguments are good against archaic views of God, but he still uses the trench warfare extremes of belief. I have gone head to head Jim on atheism, and he generally, like Dawkins, has difficulty dealing with a more universal view of the Divine not anchored in archaic world views of God which I also reject as reflecting an ancient human worldview of God and Revelation.

    I believe atheists and strong agnostics consider the lack of evidence of the God(s) of ancient worldviews. I actually agree, but their arguments fail to consider a more universal view of apophatic God

    John Scotus Erigena (9th century): "We do not know what God is. God Himself does not know what He is because He is not anything. Literally God is not, because He transcends being."
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-23-2014, 01:42 PM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      I feel the HONEST representation of beliefs is important in dialogue. I do not see this honesty concerning the nature and motivation of atheist beliefs by traditional apologetic Christian dialogue. I see sort a warped sense of sarcasm, accusations of the weird and bizzaro sort. I do see some of this unrealistic extreme distortion from some atheists, for example Dawkins. Some of his arguments are good against archaic views of God, but he still uses the trench warfare extremes of belief. I have gone head to head Jim on atheism, and he generally, like Dawkins, has difficulty dealing with a more universal view of the Divine not anchored in archaic world views of God which I also reject as reflecting an ancient huamna worldview of God and Revelation.

      I believe atheists and strong agnostics consider the lack of evidence of the God(s) of ancient worldviews. I actually agree, but their arguments fail to consider a more universal view of apophatic God

      John Scotus Erigena (9th century): "We do not know what God is. God Himself does not know what He is because He is not anything. Literally God is not, because He transcends being."
      since you are neither a Christian or an atheist, your opinion on what each group thinks is likely wrong and definitely unwanted. I think each side would rather defend their own position instead of having someone like you step in and tell each side what they really mean and what they really think.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        I believe atheists and strong agnostics consider the lack of evidence of the God(s) of ancient worldviews. I actually agree, but their arguments fail to consider a more universal view of apophatic God

        John Scotus Erigena (9th century): "We do not know what God is. God Himself does not know what He is because He is not anything. Literally God is not, because He transcends being."
        Or we find such arguments irrelevant. I could readily grant a deistic god. I simply see no need to do so. The existence (or lack thereof) of such a deity would not impact my daily life one whit.
        I'm not here anymore.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          Shuny,

          I have come to accept that you are sort of a theist, but why do you feel the need to be an apologist for atheism? Don't you think the atheists an speak for themselves, or do you feel sorry for them and consider them too stupid to argue on their own behalf?

          Just promise me not to ever try to be an apologist for Christianity. We don't need ya. Thanks.
          Yes, it needs more people who think Job is pure recorded history.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            Don't you think the atheists an speak for themselves, or do you feel sorry for them and consider them too stupid to argue on their own behalf?
            If an error needs correcting, I don't see what difference it makes who does the correcting. When I see skeptics mischaracterizing Christianity, I speak up and try to set them straight.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
              If an error needs correcting, I don't see what difference it makes who does the correcting. When I see skeptics mischaracterizing Christianity, I speak up and try to set them straight.
              Shuny can do what he wants, but he is mostly just a smug know-it-all who thinks he knows what everyone else really means, and tends to be just a teeny bit overzealous in defending atheism, while claiming to be a theist.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                If an error needs correcting, I don't see what difference it makes who does the correcting. When I see skeptics mischaracterizing Christianity, I speak up and try to set them straight.
                Agreed.




                (WTB an Amen button)
                I'm not here anymore.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  but he is mostly just a smug know-it-all who thinks he knows what everyone else really means
                  Such a demeanor does get old in a hurry.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                    Or we find such arguments irrelevant. I could readily grant a deistic god. I simply see no need to do so. The existence (or lack thereof) of such a deity would not impact my daily life one whit.
                    OK, my point was most arguments, like those of Dawkins go after ancient archaic views of God. There is possibly further dialogue on the subject. This fits my dominant view of atheists as 'they see no reason to believe or evidence for the existence of a Source call God(s).'
                    Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-15-2014, 02:30 PM.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      since you are neither a Christian or an atheist, your opinion on what each group thinks is likely wrong and definitely unwanted. I think each side would rather defend their own position instead of having someone like you step in and tell each side what they really mean and what they really think.
                      WOw! A strong arm Pascal Wager claim. I have never based posting on what you want or not. Your vain attempt at character assassination is equally problematic.
                      Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-14-2014, 06:17 PM.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        WOw! A strong arm Pascal Wager claim. I have never based posting on what you want or not. Your vain attempt at character assassination is equally problematic.
                        zoom goes the point over your head (as usual)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          zoom goes the point over your head (as usual)
                          Your point came with a sledge hammer, no point to this hammer. It was swung at my head.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                            Well, there are some who are legitimately, innocently, ignorant of the facts, however, those types of atheists are certainly in the minority. The mass majority of atheists, I would say, yes, they do suppress the truth through their own wickedness and self-deception.
                            Which facts do you mean?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JohnnyP View Post
                              Sorry for jumping in to giving a 2 cents. But for me if it could be absolutely refuted, it wouldn't be authoritative for me, and we may be off doing something else instead of talking about Scripture. I'm kinda going between watching The Fonz on Bravo with my girlfriend and typing this. But for some reason I believe in Scripture. And for some reason you haven't absolutely refuted Scripture and are still trying. So here we are.
                              For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

                              This bit refutes it for me

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Bob the builder View Post
                                Which facts do you mean?
                                Good question!
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                186 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                428 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                305 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,517 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X