Theistic Reasoning

[bluegreenearth]

There are few things more intellectually dishonest than non-negotiable confidence in a theistic belief. Theists should, at the very least, be willing to acknowledge the possibility that they might be mistaken in their belief regardless of their level of confidence in it. So, if you are a confident theist, do the responsible thing and work with us to help you discover where any logical fallacies or other cognitive errors might exist in the reasoning process you are using justify your religious belief.

This isn't to presume that you haven't already performed this sort of critical analysis yourself or to imply that I or anyone else participating in the peer review process is your intellectual superior. To the contrary, if your reasoning process is demonstrably reliable or superior, then sharing it will do me and the other participants a great intellectual service. Alternatively, if any errors happen to be exposed in your reasoning process, you benefit from the opportunity to correct for those errors and it wouldn't mean your theistic belief is false. Therefore, you have everything to gain and nothing to lose from cooperating.

Now, if your theistic reasoning process is complex and nuanced, it won't be practical to post a lengthy dissertation on this thread. Instead, if possible, try to break-down your reasoning process into discreet components and permit us to evaluate it one step at a time.

Finally, despite my attempt to carefully word this OP in such a way to avoid or mitigate for potential misinterpretations, I'm fairly confident at least one theist is going to post an objection to something I wrote that was not deliberately intended. If you are that theist, please just ask for a clarification before submitting your objection or leveling accusations against me. Thank you.

[Divine Insight]

I feel your frustration and do not expect the type of theist you've described to respond positively to my OP.

Why think of it as frustration? That assumes there an emotional element to it. From my perspective the point I make are simply the obvious truth. No need to bring emotion into the mix at all.

However, having once been a theist myself, I suspect there are others out there who value intellectual honesty enough to appreciate a critical analysis of their reasoning process.

I too was a theist at one time. But had not been convince by logical arguments. Like Tart describe the theology. I was simply asked to believe on faith, and I did. I accepted that the theology was true based on faith.

But like you I also remained intellectually honest enough to accept the possibility that faith could have been misplaced. And it turns out that it most definitely was.

Also, intellectual honesty compels me to remain doxastically open to the possibility, however unlikely, that there may be a theist out there with reliable reasoning. If so, I would like to know what that reasoning might be.

Well, good luck with that.

I'm 70 years old and I've been at this since my late teens. I haven't seen a rational argument to support this religion in over 50 years. That's a half a century.

Not only this, but I've also recognized that it become an apologetic broken-record. I'm not finding anyone who has anything new to offer that I haven't already examined countless times already.

In fact, to be quite intellectually honest about it, I don't even see how anything new could be offered without going back and re-writing the ancient texts. Or flat out rejecting them and proclaiming that there could be an entirely different story-line behind it. But how is anyone going to support that kind of idea?

I realize that many theists do attempt to play that card. It appears to me that even Otseng, the owner of this site is attempting to claim that the Bible is lost in English translations and that to truly understand it a person needs to learn the original language the texts were first written in.

The problem with this approach is that it simply cannot be made to work. To begin with to even make this claim the theist would need to basically renounce the English Bible as telling completely wrong stories. But how is that going to work?

Do we still need to accept Jesus as our "savior". If so, then what's wrong with the current versions of the Bible?

They want to claim that we need to learn the ancient language only to simultaneously claim that this ultimately won't change anything anyway.

That doesn't fly.

Basically all it can ever amount to is theological avoidance and an unwillingness to accept that the theology clearly is not true. And so they just hide behind the idea that if we could read it in its original language it would somehow all suddenly make sens.

The other problem with this theological claim is that if the English versions of the Bible are that far off the mark, then all that says is that even if there is a God behind it that God couldn't possibly blame anyone for not believing in the English version for the Bible.

My position is that the Bible cannot be true, "as it is written in English".

If Otseng wasn't to claim that the English version of the Bible makes no sense, then he's actually supporting my position whether he realizes it or not.

Do I even care what the Bible might have to say in some ancient language?

No I don't. And the reason I don't is because it's absurd, IMHO, that any dictator God who demands that we must obey him would expect us to lean some ancient language in order to do that.

That's utterly absurd.

If a God can't make his directives known to me in my native language, then he has no business inspecting me to have a clue what his directives even are.

Theists arguments are not logically sounds. It's that simple.

If you ever find an argument for Christian theology that actually makes any sense, please to let me know. But based on everything I've learned about this religion there's just no rational reason to think that would ever happen.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 1 by bluegreenearth]

There are few things more intellectually dishonest than non-negotiable confidence in a theistic belief.

I agree. However, there are also "few things more intellectually dishonest than non-negotiable confidence in", "there would be no facts, and evidence to support the Christian claims", that one was so convinced of themselves, at one time.

Theists should, at the very least, be willing to acknowledge the possibility that they might be mistaken in their belief regardless of their level of confidence in it.

Again, I could not agree more, and have acknowledged to possibility of my error, many times on this site, and elsewhere.

With that being said, I also believe that, unbelievers "should, at the very least, be willing to acknowledge the possibility that they might be mistaken in their belief regardless of their level of confidence", which is something you seem to have ignored?

So, if you are a confident theist, do the responsible thing and work with us to help you discover where any logical fallacies or other cognitive errors might exist in the reasoning process you are using justify your religious belief.

First, allow me to explain what I have insisted that I am confident of. That would be, that there are facts, and evidence to support the Christian claims, which means there would be reasons to believe the claims.

I myself, am confident the claims are true, but I do not insist that there would be no reasons to doubt the claims, and I do not insist that the claims, must, and have to be true, which demonstrates that I do not insist that everyone must, and has to see things in the same way in which I do.

However, there are those here on this site, who claim to have been convinced Christianity would have been true at one point, who now go on to insist, there are no facts, and evidence to support what they were once convinced of.

My point is, why is it that you only call out the "confident theist", and not also call out those who would admit to being confident that Christianity would be true, who now are just as confident, there would be no facts, and evidence to support what they were once, so confident of?

Next, what in the world do you think we have all been doing for years here on this site? I came to this site, initially thinking that I would be debating other Christians concerning Christian doctrine, only to find out there seem to be more unbelievers, than believers? Therefore, I have been on this site for over six years now, continuing to "do the responsible thing by working with those who disagree with me, in hopes they can help me find where I may be in error", and there are those who are opposed to my position, who continue to do the same thing.

The problem here is, you seem to only point out that this would be, "the responsible thing for the theist", but somehow fail to consider the fact that this would also be the "responsible thing for the unbeliever as well", ignoring the fact, that this is what we have all been doing for years.

This isn't to presume that you haven't already performed this sort of critical analysis yourself or to imply that I or anyone else participating in the peer review process is your intellectual superior.

Well, thank you! Because, I believe this is what theists, and unbelievers have been doing here for years. And as for myself, the exact reason I have been doing this for years, is because I understand that there are very intelligent, and well educated folk who do not agree with my position, which causes me to clearly understand that I am not, "intellectually superior".

To the contrary, if your reasoning process is demonstrably reliable or superior, then sharing it will do me and the other participants a great intellectual service.

But the thing is, I am not insisting, "my reasoning process is demonstrably reliable or superior", which is exactly why I spend time here sharing what it is I believe, and why I believe as I do, not in order to insist that others, must, and have to be in error, but rather to determine where I may be in error.

Alternatively, if any errors happen to be exposed in your reasoning process, you benefit from the opportunity to correct for those errors and it wouldn't mean your theistic belief is false. Therefore, you have everything to gain and nothing to lose from cooperating.

And what I am trying to explain to you is, this is what we have been doing here, for years now. It is not my goal to convince anyone to believe as I do, but rather my goal is to determine if there may be some fault in my thinking process, and I am thankful to all those who participate, no matter if they happen to agree with me, or not. I can assure you that I am the one who benefits.

Now, if your theistic reasoning process is complex and nuanced, it won't be practical to post a lengthy dissertation on this thread. Instead, if possible, try to break-down your reasoning process into discreet components and permit us to evaluate it one step at a time.

And here is where it gets to the point of one thinking that it is all so simple. In other words, this is exactly why we have been here on this site, for years, because it is not that simple.

My point is, if there are those who think we can accomplish such a task, that would not take years, then I believe I can show you someone, who has not put a whole lot of thinking into the process, because they seem to be under the impression that it is all so simple.

In other words, there have been book volumes wrote, on both sides of the equation, and it took me years to come to the conclusions I have. Moreover, this debate has been raging for thousands of years, and for one to think that we can accomplish such a task in such a short time, sort of demonstrates one who is under the impression that it is not all that complicated. However, I would also wonder if this may be coming from one of the very ones, who claims to have been convinced themselves Christianity would have been true at one point?

Finally, despite my attempt to carefully word this OP in such a way to avoid or mitigate for potential misinterpretations, I'm fairly confident at least one theist is going to post an objection to something I wrote that was not deliberately intended. If you are that theist, please just ask for a clarification before submitting your objection or leveling accusations against me. Thank you.

I am confident, the theist you are referring to, would be none other than, me.

[Divine Insight]

I agree. However, there are also "few things more intellectually dishonest than non-negotiable confidence in", "there would be no facts, and evidence to support the Christian claims", that one was so convinced of themselves, at one time..

Agreed. But what relevance would that have here? No one here has made that claim.

Remember, believing on faith is not the same as having been convinced by evidence.

With that being said, I also believe that, unbelievers "should, at the very least, be willing to acknowledge the possibility that they might be mistaken in their belief regardless of their level of confidence", which is something you seem to have ignored?

Where is there any indication that anyone has ignored this?

First, allow me to explain what I have insisted that I am confident of. That would be, that there are facts, and evidence to support the Christian claims, which means there would be reasons to believe the claims.

What claims are you talking about? Can you be specific?

I myself, am confident the claims are true, but I do not insist that there would be no reasons to doubt the claims, and I do not insist that the claims, must, and have to be true, which demonstrates that I do not insist that everyone must, and has to see things in the same way in which I do.

I believe bluegreenearth is simply interested in hearing any reasons you might have to doubt them. That's all.

You just said that you do not insist that there would be no reason to doubt them. So perhaps you could elaborate on that?

However, there are those here on this site, who claim to have been convinced Christianity would have been true at one point, who now go on to insist, there are no facts, and evidence to support what they were once convinced of.

Really? Who are they? Could it be that you are mistaken and they merely said that they had been convinced to place their faith in the religion by adults that they trust?

Surely you can see that this would be a totally different thing from having been convinced that the religion was true.

Are you as quick to jump to unwarranted conclusions about Christian theology as your are about people you don't know?

That's probably an area worthy of some introspection.

My point is, why is it that you only call out the "confident theist", and not also call out those who would admit to being confident that Christianity would be true, who now are just as confident, there would be no facts, and evidence to support what they were once, so confident of?

There are most likely a very large numbers of ex-Christians who had had confidence that the religion was true, only to later realize that it can't be true.

Mother Teresa comes to mind.

Remember, being confident that something is true is not the same as being convinced that it's true. Many people confidently believe on faith alone. I'm sure Mother Teresa was one of them.

Also your argument appears to be an attempt to discredit any and all ex-Christians. Which I'm sure you would love to do. But it doesn't work that way.

Next, what in the world do you think we have all been doing for years here on this site? I came to this site, initially thinking that I would be debating other Christians concerning Christian doctrine, only to find out there seem to be more unbelievers, than believers?

What difference should that make? In fact, shouldn't the view of unbelievers be more credible since they aren't biased toward trying to trying to make excuses for the religion at all cost?

You should value the input of unbelievers the most, since their views will be the most critical.

I have been on this site for over six years now, continuing to "do the responsible thing by working with those who disagree with me, in hopes they can help me find where I may be in error", and there are those who are opposed to my position, who continue to do the same thing.

The problem here is, you seem to only point out that this would be, "the responsible thing for the theist", but somehow fail to consider the fact that this would also be the "responsible thing for the unbeliever as well", ignoring the fact, that this is what we have all been doing for years.

bluegreenearth is asking to address theological topics. Not to pass judgements on the credibility of believers versus non-believers.

I'm also here to address the theological topics but I find that to be almost impossible when all the theist can do is accuse me of being without credit for being a ex-Christian.

When will we ever get to actually addressing theological issues if all you can do is make derogatory personal accusations toward non-believers and ex-Christians?

Well, thank you! Because, I believe this is what theists, and unbelievers have been doing here for years. And as for myself, the exact reason I have been doing this for years, is because I understand that there are very intelligent, and well educated folk who do not agree with my position, which causes me to clearly understand that I am not, "intellectually superior".

And here we go. More ranting about believers versus non-believers.

Are we ever going to actually discuss the theology?

But the thing is, I am not insisting, "my reasoning process is demonstrably reliable or superior", which is exactly why I spend time here sharing what it is I believe, and why I believe as I do, not in order to insist that others, must, and have to be in error, but rather to determine where I may be in error.

Again, nothing about theology.

And what I am trying to explain to you is, this is what we have been doing here, for years now. It is not my goal to convince anyone to believe as I do, but rather my goal is to determine if there may be some fault in my thinking process, and I am thankful to all those who participate, no matter if they happen to agree with me, or not. I can assure you that I am the one who benefits.

Still nothing about theology.

And here is where it gets to the point of one thinking that it is all so simple. In other words, this is exactly why we have been here on this site, for years, because it is not that simple.

My point is, if there are those who think we can accomplish such a task, that would not take years, then I believe I can show you someone, who has not put a whole lot of thinking into the process, because they seem to be under the impression that it is all so simple.

In other words, there have been book volumes wrote, on both sides of the equation, and it took me years to come to the conclusions I have. Moreover, this debate has been raging for thousands of years, and for one to think that we can accomplish such a task in such a short time, sort of demonstrates one who is under the impression that it is not all that complicated. However, I would also wonder if this may be coming from one of the very ones, who claims to have been convinced themselves Christianity would have been true at one point?

Further attempts to dismiss others. And again, no theological issues mentioned.

I'm beginning to believe that your predicament is self created.

Finally, despite my attempt to carefully word this OP in such a way to avoid or mitigate for potential misinterpretations, I'm fairly confident at least one theist is going to post an objection to something I wrote that was not deliberately intended. If you are that theist, please just ask for a clarification before submitting your objection or leveling accusations against me. Thank you.

I am confident, the theist you are referring to, would be none other than, me.

Wow! Where did that confidence come from? I took bluegreenearth's comment to be totally generic to simply mean that those are the kinds of responses he typically gets from theists in general and so would expect at least one such comment.

But here we are at the end of the post and still nothing about the theology or reasons to believe it or question it.

Total avoidance of any theological discussions. How convenient.

[bluegreenearth]

With that being said, I also believe that, unbelievers "should, at the very least, be willing to acknowledge the possibility that they might be mistaken in their belief regardless of their level of confidence", which is something you seem to have ignored?

The OP does not indicate anything about my confidence level in any of my beliefs. Furthermore, the OP doesn't indicate that I am unwilling to acknowledge the possibility of being mistaken in any of my beliefs (FYI - It is my policy to routinely expect and welcome constructive criticism of any belief I might hold). So, your accusation that I've ignored that possibility is without merit.

Finally, since the burden of proof is on the theist making the positive claim, unbelievers have no obligation to defend their lack of a theistic belief or to have their lack of a theistic belief peer reviewed. The only reason this OP would apply to an unbeliever is if that individual made a positive claim about the non-existence of god. However, that would make the unbeliever a "believer" in the non-existence of god. Since I am not claiming to believe god does not exist or believe that Jesus did not resurrect, there is no belief for me to be mistaken about.

Now, if you don't want to have your theistic reasoning peer reviewed, then you are free to ignore this thread.

And here is where it gets to the point of one thinking that it is all so simple. In other words, this is exactly why we have been here on this site, for years, because it is not that simple.

There was nothing in the OP that implied I thought theistic reasoning was "all so simple." How in the world did you get that interpretation from the, "if your reasoning process is complex or nuanced," phrase in the OP? That is precisely the opposite meaning of the plain language I used in that statement.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 13 by Divine Insight]

Agreed. But what relevance would that have here? No one here has made that claim.

Oh, I think there are many folks here on this site who do in fact make the claim that they were convinced Christianity to be true, now to insist that they are just as convinced, that there would be no facts, and evidence to support that which they were once so convinced of.

You would be one of these folks, but as we have discovered, you claim to have been done with Christianity by the age of 20, and we are talking more about those who claim this to be the case, well into their adulthood, and, or made the decision to become a Christian as an adult.

Also, if I am not mistaken, the author of this OP is one who claims to have been convinced Christianity to be true at one point. However, I am not absolutely sure that this author would be under the impression that there would be no facts, and evidence to support what they were once convinced of?

Remember, believing on faith is not the same as having been convinced by evidence.

I understand this, but for one to be convinced something would be true, simply based upon faith, demonstrates one who is not doing a whole lot of thinking, and simply because the mind has changed, does not in any way indicate to us, the thinking has changed.

Where is there any indication that anyone has ignored this?

Because the fact of the matter would be, that we all need to be able to think through what it is we believe critically, but for some reason here only the theist is called out, and it sort of makes it sound as if the unbeliever does not have to think in this way.

What claims are you talking about? Can you be specific?

Any of the various claims that those who were so convinced of at one time, who now insist there would be no evidence to support what it is they were once so convinced of.

I believe bluegreenearth is simply interested in hearing any reasons you might have to doubt them. That's all.

Where did I ever say, "I might have reasons to doubt"?

You just said that you do not insist that there would be no reason to doubt them. So perhaps you could elaborate on that?

This is very simple. I understand that all any of us can do, is to explain what we believe, and why we believe as we do, based upon the facts, and evidence we have. With this being the case, I do not insist that unbelievers would not have reasons for their unbelief, and, or doubt.

Really? Who are they? Could it be that you are mistaken and they merely said that they had been convinced to place their faith in the religion by adults that they trust?

My friend, you would be one of them, and it makes no difference whatsoever, how they may have become convinced, once they become adults. In other words, we may have those who want to insist that they were convinced as a child by listening to adults, but I am referring to those who carried this belief well into adulthood, who want us to believe they were truly convinced as an adult.

Surely you can see that this would be a totally different thing from having been convinced that the religion was true.

I do not know exactly what you are attempting to say here, but there are those on this site who insist, to have "been convinced that the religion was true". As an example would be yourself. Either you claim to have been convinced the religion was true at one time? Or, you never were really convinced?

However, there are those on this site who claim to have been convinced the religion was true, and to demonstrate just how convinced they were, they go on to tell us the ways in which this belief impacted their everyday lives.

Are you as quick to jump to unwarranted conclusions about Christian theology as your are about people you don't know?

I am not "jumping to any unwarranted conclusions" simply by repeating exactly what they have to say themselves, and then going on to ask the natural questions that would arise. Asking a question, is not "jumping to conclusions".

There are most likely a very large numbers of ex-Christians who had had confidence that the religion was true, only to later realize that it can't be true.

Seems sort of strange how you change the wording to being "confident" as opposed to being "convinced"? Would there be a difference?

Next, I fully understand there are "large numbers of ex-Christians" and this is not shocking at all, when we come to realize that they admit they did not put a whole lot of effort into the thinking process to make such a decision.

Mother Teresa comes to mind.

What would "Mother Teresa" have to do with it? Was she once convinced Christianity would be true, only now to insist that there would be no facts, and evidence to support the claims? If so, then I cannot see any difference between her, and the rest who make the claim? Are you using her name thinking that it gives the idea, more credibility?

Remember, being confident that something is true is not the same as being convinced that it's true.

I am not sure that would be exactly accurate, but no matter, because I am talking about those who have actually used the words, "convinced" to describe themselves.

Many people confidently believe on faith alone. I'm sure Mother Teresa was one of them.

Which demonstrates a problem with the thinking process, and the question would be, how can we be sure the thinking is any better now? I do not see how adding Mother Teresa into the equation changes anything?

Also your argument appears to be an attempt to discredit any and all ex-Christians. Which I'm sure you would love to do. But it doesn't work that way.

This is simply false, and I have said as much. In other words, I have no problem at all with one claiming to have been convinced Christianity would be true, only now to change their position, who goes on to acknowledge that there would be facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the claims, but goes on to explain where they believe they may have made some sort of errors.

The problem is not with those who are thinking, and may have made what they believe to be errors in their thinking. The problem is with those who admit they did not put forth a whole lot of effort into thinking in order to remain to be a Christian, and or, made the decision to be a Christian, for years of their adult life, who now want to tell us, they are just as convinced, there would be no facts, and evidence to support what it was, they once believed.

What difference should that make? In fact, shouldn't the view of unbelievers be more credible since they aren't biased toward trying to trying to make excuses for the religion at all cost?

You should value the input of unbelievers the most, since their views will be the most critical.

You are correct, which is exactly why I have stayed. In fact, let us look at something I posted just last night,

And what I am trying to explain to you is, this is what we have been doing here, for years now. It is not my goal to convince anyone to believe as I do, but rather my goal is to determine if there may be some fault in my thinking process, and I am thankful to all those who participate, no matter if they happen to agree with me, or not. I can assure you that I am the one who benefits.

Now as far as, "unbelievers being more credible since they aren't biased toward trying to trying to make excuses for the religion at all cost" does not in any way mean they cannot be biased against the claims, and make excuses at all cost, and, or, claim one has said something they have never said, in order to avoid having to deal with what is actually said. Of course, I am not insisting that all unbelievers act in this way, but I can certainly demonstrate one who has.

bluegreenearth is asking to address theological topics.

My friend, my point is, hopefully all of us, no matter what side of the equations we are on, have put a lot of time, and effort into the thinking process here to come to our conclusions. This is why we do what we do here on this site, and have been doing it for years. In other words, we should not be under the impression that we are going to be able to settle this issue in one particular thread, as if it were all so simple, but we should all understand that we are here for the long haul, and we are doing everyday here on this site, exactly what is being ask for, in the OP.

However, I can certainly understand one who has admitted to being convinced of something, they now insist there would be no facts, and evidence to support, coming to the conclusion that it is exactly that simple, and that it would not take a whole lot of effort into thinking.

Not to pass judgements on the credibility of believers versus non-believers.

Oh really? The first sentence of this OP reads,

There are few things more intellectually dishonest than non-negotiable confidence in a theistic belief.

Okay? So, who is it, that is being called out here? Why are we ignoring the fact that, "this shoe fits the other side as well"?

I'm also here to address the theological topics but I find that to be almost impossible when all the theist can do is accuse me of being without credit for being a ex-Christian.

I believe we have both agreed that this would not include you, since you claim to have been done with Christianity by the age of 20. Next, you have failed to explain how it would be an attempt to discredit one, simply by repeating exactly what they have said themselves, and then going on to ask the natural questions that would arise?

When will we ever get to actually addressing theological issues if all you can do is make derogatory personal accusations toward non-believers and ex-Christians?

My friend, I only bring this fact up, when there are those who want to insist that there would be no facts, and evidence to support the Christian claims, and it is coming from one who admits themselves that they were once convinced of the claims. I cannot help if this would include the majority of those I engage.

[JehovahsWitness]

There are few things more intellectually dishonest than non-negotiable confidence in a theistic belief.

How is having non-negotiable confidence in someone "intellectually dishonest"?

If a man has absolute confidence in his wife (whether she is worthy of it or not), how is that "intellectually dishonest"? Is a belief that it is absoltely wrong to rape your child "intellectually dishonest" ? Would it be better to say "I believe it's wrong and I dont think I would never do it but.... I'm open to negotiation on that? Is the child particularly pretty? What does she look like in skimpy clothing?"" Are not some things non-negotiable?

If you are that theist, please just ask for a clarification before submitting your objection or leveling accusations against me. Thank you.

JW

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 14 by bluegreenearth]

The OP does not indicate anything about my confidence level in any of my beliefs. Furthermore, the OP doesn't indicate that I am unwilling to acknowledge the possibility of being mistaken in any of my beliefs (FYI - It is my policy to routinely expect and welcome constructive criticism of any belief I might hold). So, your accusation that I've ignored that possibility is without merit.

The fact of the matter is that you ignored this in the OP. In other words, all of us here are putting our beliefs out there everyday in order for those opposed to critic what it is we believe, and all of us need to continue to have our beliefs, "peer reviewed", and yet you only call out the theist who may have "non-negotiable confidence in a theistic belief", while not mentioning the fact that there are those who have "non-negotiable confidence in their unbelief"? So why not call them out as well?

Finally, since the burden of proof is on the theist making the positive claim, unbelievers have no obligation to defend their lack of a theistic belief or to have their lack of a theistic belief peer reviewed.

My friend! While there are certainly theists who hold "non-negotiable confidence in a theistic belief" (which would not include me) and they do indeed own the burden of proof, there are certainly unbelievers who hold "non-negotiable confidence in their unbelief", and with this being the case, they own the burden of proof as well.

So then, while unbelievers who do not insist the claims must, and have to be false, do not own the burden, those of us as Christians, who do not insist that we must, and have to be correct, do not own the burden.

So then, it is only those who hold "non-negotiable confidence in a belief", no matter which side they are on, who own the burden.

The only reason this OP would apply to an unbeliever is if that individual made a positive claim about the non-existence of god.

It is not only about the "non-existence" of God, but would also include those who insist the claims in the NT would be false.

Since I am not claiming to believe god does not exist or believe that Jesus did not resurrect, there is no belief for me to be mistaken about.

The bottom line is, it is only those who hold, "non-negotiable confidence in a belief" that own the burden of proof.

Now, if you don't want to have your theistic reasoning peer reviewed, then you are free to ignore this thread.

My point is, our beliefs are being "peer reviewed" everyday here on this site.

There was nothing in the OP that implied I thought theistic reasoning was "all so simple." How in the world did you get that interpretation from the, "if your reasoning process is complex or nuanced," phrase in the OP? That is precisely the opposite meaning of the plain language I used in that statement.

This is really comical! It is not something that has to be mentioned in the OP. It is the fact that there have been those on both sides of the equation who have written book volumes describing the thinking process that has lead them to the conclusions they have reached, and the OP seems to be suggesting that one can describe their thinking process in a few little sentences?

I cannot imagine anyone thinking this would even be a possibility? Unless of course, they may have been convinced of something at one time, that they now admit they did not put a whole lot of thinking into in order to be convinced, and they now simply suppose that anyone who believes as they once believed, must, and had to think in the same sort of simplistic way?

[bluegreenearth]

How is having non-negotiable confidence in someone "intellectually dishonest"?

If a man has absolute confidence in his wife (whether she is worthy of it or not), how is that "intellectually dishonest"?

You've made an understandable category error in your objection because a wife can be demonstrated to empirically exist while there is no empirical evidence demonstrating the existence of a theistic god. As such, non-negotiable confidence in the wife's existence is justified in that case. Nevertheless, there are circumstances where it would be intellectually dishonest to have non-negotiable confidence in a person. For example, it wouldn't be intellectually honest to have non-negotiable confidence in an unschooled and untrained person's ability to successfully perform brain surgery who has never before demonstrated proficiency in such a skill.

Is a belief that it is absoltely wrong to rape your child "intellectually dishonest" ? Would it be better to say "I believe it's wrong and I dont think I would never do it but.... I'm open to negotiation on that? Is the child particularly pretty? What does she look like in skimpy clothing?"" Are not some things non-negotiable?

Once again, you've made a category error in your objection because the belief upon which the non-negotiable confidence is applied in that example is based on your moral intuition and not your intellectual capacity. Therefore, it would not be intellectually dishonest to have a non-negotiable confidence in that moral belief.

[JehovahsWitness]

How is having non-negotiable confidence in someone "intellectually dishonest"?

If a man has absolute confidence in his wife (whether she is worthy of it or not), how is that "intellectually dishonest"?

You've made an understandable category error in your objection because a wife can be demonstrated to empirically exist ...

I didnt mean if a man has absolute confidence in his wife's existence, I meant if he can have absolute confidence in his wife's future fidelity, something that cannot in reality be proven since the future hasnt happened yet. Is he not expressing his belief in what he has come to know about her and projecting that into a faith based assessment? Even if there was no basis for his confidence, as long as he was honest in his belief has he not the right to mark that off as a non-negotiable according to his own moral criteria?

I can't quite put my finger on it but there is something off about someone saying that having absolute confidence in someone or something is "intellectually dishonest" ...

... there are circumstances where it would be intellectually dishonest to have non-negotiable confidence in a person. For example, it wouldn't be intellectually honest to have non-negotiable confidence in an unschooled and untrained person's ability to successfully perform brain surgery who has never before demonstrated proficiency in such a skill.

No that wouldnt be intellectually dishonest... It might be foolish, ignorant even, but one believes in what one believes in. The belief doesnt have to be justifiable. If R Kelly says he believes he can fly, the fitting response is "Well good for you" if he honestly believes he can then it isn't intellectual dishonesty. Psychopathic perhaps but not dishonest. He's either telling the truth or He's lying but if he honestly believes he can fly he is not being dishonest intellectually, spiritually, emotionally or in any other way.

[JehovahsWitness]

Once again, you've made a category error in your objection because the belief upon which the non-negotiable confidence is applied in that example is based on your moral intuition and not your intellectual capacity. Therefore, it would not be intellectually dishonest to have a non-negotiable confidence in that moral belief.

No I dont agree. You cannot make a moral judgement without intellectually grasping the issues involved. It is for this reason there was a shocking lack of 19th century earthworms protesting the slave trade. First one assesses the information and then one measures that information against ones moral code. Someone that has put child abuse on his or her list of nonnegotiables has first to learn what child abuse is and then make a decision based on what they have learnt whether or not it is something they have decided never to even consider doing as it violates their core moral values.

It's not for someone else to say they haven't got enough information to make that decision and they should keep an open mind about raping children until they have learnt more about it. Indeed its not for anyone to say where another person draws the line or what that line is based on.

JW