Christianity - A respectful dialogue

[MrFungus420]

Now since there excist no valid evidence for ANY god excisting, none whatsoever, the default position must be atheism.

That's a non sequitur; that you personally don't see any evidence for God, it does not follow that God does not exist.

That is not what he said. To pare it down:

Without evidence, there is no reason to accept the claim.

Without evidence of a god existing, there is no reason to accept the claims that a god does exist.

An atheist is a person who does not accept the claims that a god exists. SOME atheists (as in a subset of atheists as a whole), do definitively state that there is no god. But the only commonality to all atheists is not accepting the claims of a god existing.

[MattHunX]

If God wants a relationship with all, and some humans don't believe in Him, the corollary conclusion is that there must be something wrong with the nonbeliever all-knowing, all-powerful God that can't figure out how to have that relationship.

Forgive the intrusion, I'd just like to add: ...and ordering people to kill others of different creeds isn't helping or doing the god in question any justice.

[MrFungus420]

You haven't even bothered to provide any evidence that it exists!

So what? You have not even started to provide a semblance of an explanation as to why I should provide any evidence to you.

How about because YOU were the one that started this "discussion".

So how about trying to participate in it?

[MrFungus420]

You are asking everyone else to dedicate their lives and those of others on the vague feeling that there is something bigger than us,something outside every single human, animal or plants experience .

I don't recall asking everyone anything in particular. I'm only looking for a dialogue.

I think there is some misunderstanding here. The SD is not a "vague feeling", it's the inner conviction that the proposition "God exists" is true, without having any evidence that God exists, the same way I'm convinced the universe is real and not an illusion, even though I don't have a shred of evidence the universe is real.

If that is true, then there is nothing more to say. Because if you truly believe that, then you accept everything only on faith because there is no evidence for anything.

[Chinaski]

For religious people, "respectful" means agreeing with them. They could at least have the decency to drop the pretense and ask for disrespectful dialogue.

I'm tempted to lock the thread unless thedistiller answers at least some of the direct queries given to him. Especially Seraph's. Otherwise this discussion will go nowhere and simply end up in users risking rule-infraction due to a patience overload.

Let's see how nutty this guy can drive us.

[thedistillers]

I'm tempted to lock the thread

It took 8 pages before the censorship threats (typical of atheism of the last century) begin. What rules exactly did I break? Am I under the obligation to reply to each reply, especially considering how repetitive some of them are (not to mention that I have to browse through immature posts, unfunny images, rude replies, silly smileys, etc) and that I have a life outside discussing with nonbelievers? Each of my reply do address some points that are being make in the previous page.

Most comments seem to indicate that I'm under some sort of obligation to provide evidence for God's existence, or the sensus divinitatis. I asked why should I provide evidence, and I did not get one philosophically rigorous reply as to why am I under the obligation to provide evidence for God's existence. A dialogue goes both ways, you know.

[Chinaski]

I'm tempted to lock the thread

It took 8 pages before the censorship threats (typical of atheism of the last century) begin. What rules exactly did I break? Am I under the obligation to reply to each reply, especially considering how repetitive some of them are (not to mention that I have to browse through immature posts, unfunny images, rude replies, silly smileys, etc) and that I have a life outside discussing with nonbelievers? Each of my reply do address some points that are being make in the previous page.

Most comments seem to indicate that I'm under some sort of obligation to provide evidence for God's existence, or the sensus divinitatis. I asked why should I provide evidence, and I did not get one philosophically rigorous reply as to why am I under the obligation to provide evidence for God's existence. A dialogue goes both ways, you know.

It's not censorship. You're welcome to expose whatever views you like. I just don't see this discussion going anywhere productive.

As far as the replies regarding why you should provide evidence, they seem quite compelling. Furthermore, the parameters of rational discourse necessitate evidence to back up claims- which means that your position is either irrational, or that it lacks the need for rationality. You might want to specify which of the two it is, and justify the position. Assertions without justification don't merit rational response, being without rationale themselves.

[Elessarina]

Most comments seem to indicate that I'm under some sort of obligation to provide evidence for God's existence, or the sensus divinitatis. I asked why should I provide evidence, and I did not get one philosophically rigorous reply as to why am I under the obligation to provide evidence for God's existence. A dialogue goes both ways, you know.

You are not under obligation but the fact that God's existence can't be proven is indicative of why some people don't accept that there is a God - as with many other things for which there is little or no proof - the Loch Ness Monster, Big Foot etc.

For me there is no evidence to support the idea of a God, I don't feel anything, I don't see anything and I have looked ..

[MattHunX]

I asked why should I provide evidence

Yes, why should you, other than to have an actual argument. Maybe, because you're the one who's 100% about the existence of your god. And without any evidence on your part, this "argument" is pretty much one-sided.
You're practically doing the same thing most theists do, saying "you believe it, others who don't are in denial, you're right, we're wrong, and you don't even need to prove it because you have faith."

Those who deny that the proposition "God exists" is true purposely reject the spirit in their wickedness.

[Thinking Aloud]

(not to mention that I have to browse through immature posts, unfunny images, rude replies, silly smileys, etc)

Oh - you've noticed you're on Rationalia now, then? Par for the course here.

[Elessarina]

(not to mention that I have to browse through immature posts, unfunny images, rude replies, silly smileys, etc)

Oh - you've noticed you're on Rationalia now, then? Par for the course here.

He got it down to a tee....

[Thinking Aloud]

(not to mention that I have to browse through immature posts, unfunny images, rude replies, silly smileys, etc)

Oh - you've noticed you're on Rationalia now, then? Par for the course here.

He got it down to a tee....

Perhaps we should all meet at the 19th hole.

[Bella Fortuna]

(not to mention that I have to browse through immature posts, unfunny images, rude replies, silly smileys, etc)

Oh - you've noticed you're on Rationalia now, then? Par for the course here.

He got it down to a tee....

Perhaps we should all meet at the 19th hole.

This thread is a sand trap.

[maiforpeace]

(not to mention that I have to browse through immature posts, unfunny images, rude replies, silly smileys, etc)

Oh - you've noticed you're on Rationalia now, then? Par for the course here.

He got it down to a tee....

Perhaps we should all meet at the 19th hole.

This thread is a sand trap.

If it's a trap, where's the cheese?

[Thinking Aloud]

If it's a trap, where's the cheese?

The mouse ate it.