Is eating shellfish less of an abomination than homosexuality?

[Satya]

>.> Most Negative Atheists first believe there is no God and then justify their position just like everyone else. There's a very scanty handful of people of any stripe that believe something about God and then change their viewpoint based on logic or evidence.

What? There are countless people who were Christians who became atheists simply because there wasn't sufficient evidence to believe in it. In fact, most atheists in the United States were probably raised Christian. What do you base your assumption on?

I posted a thread of a whole series of youtube videos by a Christian who deconverted into an atheist.

 

[Roger]

>.> Most Negative Atheists first believe there is no God and then justify their position just like everyone else. There's a very scanty handful of people of any stripe that believe something about God and then change their viewpoint based on logic or evidence.

Agree, i have two friends who are atheist. They are always asking for one thing, proof of god. They are saying they can't believe god because god is not visible. They only believe those things which are visible.

Atheism is wastage thing. They always ask about proof, how come this? But they never try to put their trust or never try to have faith for the thing.

 

[TheLastMohican]

>.> Most Negative Atheists first believe there is no God and then justify their position just like everyone else. There's a very scanty handful of people of any stripe that believe something about God and then change their viewpoint based on logic or evidence.

Do you have any stats to back that up?

 

[Satya]

Agree, i have two friends who are atheist. They are always asking for one thing, proof of god. They are saying they can't believe god because god is not visible. They only believe those things which are visible.

Atheism is wastage thing. They always ask about proof, how come this? But they never try to put their trust or never try to have faith for the thing.

Why should people put faith in something of which there is no evidence to support? If I put faith in unicorns, will that make them exist?

 

[Morpheus]

>.> Most Negative Atheists first believe there is no God and then justify their position just like everyone else. There's a very scanty handful of people of any stripe that believe something about God and then change their viewpoint based on logic or evidence.

When I was little I asked my mother if there was a god or not. She said, that a lot of people believed there was, and a lot of people believed there wasn't. I asked her if she believed in god or not, and she said she didn't know. Back then I was a pure agnostic in a way, that is only possible when you combine a deep ignorance with a deep curiosity.

Later in school we were told about the supposed battle of Jericho, and how the israelites made the walls of the city fall by blowing a horn. This sounded curious yet extremely suspicious to the nine-year-old me. So I asked the teacher how it was possible to destroy stone with a horn, and she couldn't explain it to me. I thought about it, and became an atheist.

Since then my metaphysical beliefs have changed a lot vaguer as I have learnt more of science and philosophy. I still consider myself an atheist though, as I don't believe in a personal god, but if you stretch the terminology enough, I can be classified anywhere from a deist/pantheist to a militant atheist.

So, based on empirical evidence, I would say that you are wrong: people do change their positions on gods according to evidence. At least I have.

 

[Roger]

Why should people put faith in something of which there is no evidence to support? If I put faith in unicorns, will that make them exist?

No doubt you are right.

 

[Solar Empath]

What? There are countless people who were Christians who became atheists simply because there wasn't sufficient evidence to believe in it. In fact, most atheists in the United States were probably raised Christian. What do you base your assumption on?

I posted a thread of a whole series of youtube videos by a Christian who deconverted into an atheist.

And an equal number of people who were atheists and became Christians because of the same evidence.

The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel

If the evidence is good enough for you then that's fine. But the belief that only atheism is reasonable is incorrect.

Here's Negative Atheism

"I do not believe in God." Fine. Since neither Logic nor Empiricism can test for the truth of the statement, to claim it is the most reasonable position (not just for you) is no different than Lee Strobel claiming that Christianity is the most reasonable one. Both are a rationalization of a nonrational belief. I'm sure I've offended Rational Christians and Atheists both now, but... :shrug:

 

[Solar Empath]

When I was little I asked my mother if there was a god or not. She said, that a lot of people believed there was, and a lot of people believed there wasn't. I asked her if she believed in god or not, and she said she didn't know. Back then I was a pure agnostic in a way, that is only possible when you combine a deep ignorance with a deep curiosity.

Later in school we were told about the supposed battle of Jericho, and how the israelites made the walls of the city fall by blowing a horn. This sounded curious yet extremely suspicious to the nine-year-old me. So I asked the teacher how it was possible to destroy stone with a horn, and she couldn't explain it to me. I thought about it, and became an atheist.

Since then my metaphysical beliefs have changed a lot vaguer as I have learnt more of science and philosophy. I still consider myself an atheist though, as I don't believe in a personal god, but if you stretch the terminology enough, I can be classified anywhere from a deist/pantheist to a militant atheist.

So, based on empirical evidence, I would say that you are wrong: people do change their positions on gods according to evidence. At least I have.

You can certainly change your belief in literal biblical christianity based on evidence against major miracles, but that doesn't prove logically that that there is no God of any type as you note. Your disbelief in biblical miracles is stretched into disbelief in any type of deity for nonrational reasons.

More generally, Unicorns = God is a slogan

'Only Atheism is rational' is an assertion as well, since there are always assumptions underlying every intilectual system. and the only thing available to Logic or Empiricism related to the potential existence of a Prime Mover is assumption.

 

[TheLastMohican]

And an equal number of people who were atheists and became Christians because of the same evidence.

Satya and I have both asked for your source(s). Making yet another unsubstantiated claim along the same lines does not answer the question.

While we're on the subject, I'd like to see what you base this assumption on as well.

 

[Sithious]

Why should people put faith in something of which there is no evidence to support? If I put faith in unicorns, will that make them exist?

Yes

 

[The Jester]

Why should people put faith in something of which there is no evidence to support? If I put faith in unicorns, will that make them exist?

Are you claiming that unicorns don't exist?

 

[Satya]

Are you claiming that unicorns don't exist?

Of course unicorns exist! They are mentioned in the Bible!

"Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee."

-Job 39:9-10

 

[Satya]

"I do not believe in God." Fine. Since neither Logic nor Empiricism can test for the truth of the statement, to claim it is the most reasonable position (not just for you) is no different than Lee Strobel claiming that Christianity is the most reasonable one. Both are a rationalization of a nonrational belief. I'm sure I've offended Rational Christians and Atheists both now, but... :shrug:

Negative atheists don't say, "I do not believe in God," they say, "I don't believe in things of which there is no evidence to support, there is no evidence to support God, and therefore I do not believe in God." As such, the belief in God is contingent upon evidence. Now if you would like to argue that there is valid evidence of God, or that it is wrong to need evidence to believe in something, you could probably make a rational case.

 

[Satya]

Satya and I have both asked for your source(s). Making yet another unsubstantiated claim along the same lines does not answer the question.

While we're on the subject, I'd like to see what you base this assumption on as well.

You can have that one. You know one of my biggest pet peeves is when people repeatedly make unsubstantiated claims and refuse to back them up, and I'm likely to get angry if I follow that up.

 

[BenW]

Actually as a former Seventh Day Adventist, I think they're about equal sins...
I never tasted shrimp or anything like that until I was like, fourteen.

 

[Solar Empath]

Satya and I have both asked for your source(s). Making yet another unsubstantiated claim along the same lines does not answer the question.

While we're on the subject, I'd like to see what you base this assumption on as well.

I already quoted one published book for the above line. There are more just like it out there including..

Not a Chance by R.C. Sproul.

I'm tired, and angry, and sick and tired. Read those. I'm dropping from the site.

 

[TheLastMohican]

I already quoted one published book for the above line. There are more just like it out there including..

Not a Chance by R.C. Sproul.

I'm tired, and angry, and sick and tired. Read those. I'm dropping from the site.

You mentioned Lee Strobel, presumably as an example of an atheist who converted to Christianity. One or two such cases do not lend any credence to what you claimed.

Now, if those books you mention also contain relevant statistics, that's another matter. Still, it's unreasonable to expect me to read two whole books just to get at the few paragraphs buried therein that would back up your claims, and since you have not even said what exactly is to be found in those books, I have no reason to believe that you had any statistics in the first place.

 

[Barnabas]

You mentioned Lee Strobel, presumably as an example of an atheist who converted to Christianity. One or two such cases do not lend any credence to what you claimed.

Now, if those books you mention also contain relevant statistics, that's another matter. Still, it's unreasonable to expect me to read two whole books just to get at the few paragraphs buried therein that would back up your claims, and since you have not even said what exactly is to be found in those books, I have no reason to believe that you had any statistics in the first place.

The point he is trying to make is that conversion based on evidence is not uniquely claimed by athiest.
he mentioned names like C. S. Lewis, Lee Strobel, and R. C. Sproul to prove this point, while it does not give you statistical data on how many simaler situations there are. It does show that it does happen.

 

[TheLastMohican]

The point he is trying to make is that conversion based on evidence is not uniquely claimed by athiest.
he mentioned names like C. S. Lewis, Lee Strobel, and R. C. Sproul to prove this point, while it does not give you statistical data on how many simaler situations there are. It does show that it does happen.

Nobody here said that it never happens.

 

[Satya]

The point he is trying to make is that conversion based on evidence is not uniquely claimed by athiest.
he mentioned names like C. S. Lewis, Lee Strobel, and R. C. Sproul to prove this point, while it does not give you statistical data on how many simaler situations there are. It does show that it does happen.

As TLM indicated, nobody was arguing that atheists don't become Christians. The issue were these claims.

Most Negative Atheists first believe there is no God and then justify their position just like everyone else.

And an equal number of people who were atheists and became Christians because of the same evidence.

There is no way to substantiate those claims. They are simply assumptions. Being called out on them seemed to be enough for Solar Empath to decide to leave the forum. Some people really don't like it when their assumptions are questioned.