Theists don't ask questions

[Blastcat]

Hi

I ask a lot of questions.. and SOMETIMES ( but not always ) get answers.

One of the reasons that I do ask a lot of questions, is that I don't actually learn anything new by proselytizing atheism. I do that a bit, of course, I think it's important that people get to know an atheist and what he thinks about the "big questions" and so on, but I am ALSO here to learn what OTHER people think.

So, the questions.

It just occurred to me that I RARELY get any questions from the theists.
Isn't that odd?

____________

Question for debate:

• 
  
  Why is it that theists don't seem very curious as to what outsiders to their beliefs think?
  
  

____________

[Willum]

[Replying to theophile]

No, I was referring to the fact that it deflects from the OP, and provides no information, since you ask...

Also, we have gone from an interrogative into why Theists don't ask questions, to everyone else asked deflected questions.

So, why don't you start up another topic that makes others defend themselves, and you just answer for theists on this one?

[Zzyzx]

.

Thought that is true, to keep in line with Christian apologetics, it also often seems that atheist don't feel the need to provide answers.

What answers are required to "I don't believe god tales'?

Both theists and atheist tend to make up their mind about what they WANT to believe, before they have the evidence to prove it.

Incorrect blanket statements do not enhance one's credibility – particularly with those who KNOW that was not the case with them. Several members of this Forum who are now non-theistic were long-term, committed, Christians who did NOT want to give up belief in God or their religion. Posts by OnceConvinced illustrate this point very well.

And then they just look for evidence within what they already believe to reaffirm that choice.

I consistently ask for evidence of supernaturalism and receive nothing more than 'Take my word for it (or his or this book)' – nothing that can be verified as truthful and accurate.

This is why it is rare to see either argument progress much.

Arguments have been progressing rather well for ten years here.

For most theists do not feel the need to question their beliefs, but most atheists don't feel the need either to question their disbelief and seek evidence for belief.

This Non-Theist consistently asks for verifiable evidence to justify belief.

This is one of the biggest reasons I came here. For I am tired of all the lies and false claims on these subjects, which tend to turn to personal attacks before there is evidence or a valid argument because most people are extremely insecure about their position.

See the thread, 'Why do Theists dominate the banishment list?' http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 65&start=0

I think this is also why there is so much hate, fear and intolerance when it comes to these differences.

Many religions seem to cultivate exclusivity – a 'us vs. them' mentality that encourages suspicion, distrust, intolerance, hatred toward 'Infidels, Heathens, Pagans, Atheists, Apostates, etc'.

'I don't believe your god tales' does not encourage any of the above.

For fact is that whether you believe in God or not. God has NOT been proven or dis-proven. So a true scientist should be open to both possibilities while doing their out most to find evidence.

Kindly refer to my signature.

Maybe we will never know, maybe we will know when we die.

Maybe. Until then 'I don't know' seems to be the most rational position.

Since we do not know, it is irrational to claim to know about gods or their supposed actions or expectations.

But to question owns own belief is not just a fault of the theist. I do not know many atheists who questions evolution, the big Bang or their confidence that there is no God either.

Atheism is NOT a belief in evolution, BB, or denial of gods'. None of those are inherent in 'I don't believe god tales.'

Kindly debate positions that HAVE been expressed in the thread – not against straw-men or windmills.

[theophile]

[Replying to Willum]

No, I was referring to the fact that it deflects from the OP, and provides no information, since you ask...

It was a direct answer I provided. No deflection.

Gave even more in my last post. But you ignored it. So all I said there still stands.

Either provide a clear (versus "anti") position that can be questioned, or else answer the questions that I posed.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 20 by Hector Barbosa]

Great! I open up all those questions to any atheists, here or anywhere else...

I would provide my "theist" answer, but I think now is the time for atheists and their apologies...

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 4 by Zzyzx]

Be careful, however, you don't stereotype all theists. Some are unreflective, true. But there are plenty of reflective theists out there as well. The same is also true of atheists. There are reflective and unreflective atheists. If some atheist feels he or she isn't being asked enough questions, then maybe they should stop and ask themselves how they are going about the dialogue, whether they are being truly reflective, or maybe just making insensitive remarks that turn others off.

[Zzyzx]

.

I would provide my "theist" answer, but I think now is the time for atheists and their apologies...

There are NO 'apologies' required for 'I don't believe god tales'.

The first question for a Theist to ask of an opposition debater might be, 'What is your theistic position'?

Of course, this would require that the Theist be aware that not all opposition debaters are Atheists. Some may be Agnostics, or Ignostics, Non-Theists or Non-Christians who follow a different religion.

Even within the label 'Atheist' there are some who deny that gods exist (sometimes referred to as 'Hard Atheists') -- and others who simply do not believe (without denying). Agnostics take the position that they do not claim to know whether gods exist or not. Ignostics take the position that 'gods' cannot be intelligently discussed until they are identified and characterized / defined / described (or 'we can't discuss what has not been properly identified').

I prefer 'Non-Theist' a rather generic term that has no connotations beyond indicating that I am not a Theist.


That said, most Theists / Apologists do NOT identify their theistic position beyond 'Christian' -- which is a largely meaningless umbrella term that includes 40,000 denominational variations and doctrines, not to mention millions of individual versions of Christianity.

Of course, being coy about one's version of Christianity creates 'wiggle room' that allows debaters to choose what parts of Christian literature and lore to defend in any given debate. It is not uncommon for debaters to distance themselves from people and beliefs that are in disfavor -- or even from the Bible by claiming that words are translated wrong (and the debater knows better 'what the Bible really means or says' than do theologians, scholars, translators and editors involved in producing the fifty versions of the Bible in English alone).

[theophile]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

There are NO 'apologies' required for 'I don't believe god tales'.

That is not at all what I said. In fact, I said atheism is a denial of a worldview, and has no positive content to critique. I also asked atheists to provide their views on the questions I posed in order to get at precisely that (i.e. positive atheistic content) as well as their apologies, which is to say defenses of them. I never said what you say here.

So, to what I actually said, do you have anything to say on that? Another question I have for atheists is why they like knocking theists down so much but seem to continuously avoid providing their own worldviews. i.e., independent of the question of God. Not just negative views but, for once, something truly positive...

It's much easier to tear down than to build up. So all atheists out there, please, build up. Say something positive for once.

The first question for a Theist to ask of an opposition debater might be, 'What is your theistic position'?

I agree that's a good question. Atheists tend to setup strawman versions of theism IMO that, as a theist, I would personally never associate with.

Of course, this would require that the Theist be aware that not all opposition debaters are Atheists. Some may be Agnostics, or Ignostics, Non-Theists or Non-Christians who follow a different religion.

Okay. Not sure what this has to do with the OP. The question was about atheists. I think theists are well aware that there is a spectrum of views out there.

That said, most Theists / Apologists do NOT identify their theistic position beyond 'Christian' -- which is a largely meaningless umbrella term that includes 40,000 denominational variations and doctrines, not to mention millions of individual versions of Christianity.

Again, what positive efforts have we heard from atheists or agnostics or whatever else? All we get is negative attacks on theism. Never positive efforts to truly think systematically and provide a coherent, atheistic worldview. I've yet to see that once. Hence my questions. (So much easier to tear down than to build...)

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 18 by Hector Barbosa]



[center]

Creation Science = Pseudoscience[/center]

Oh no creation is desert

You never answered me about what you call "creationist science" I am curious what you mean by that.

Would Quantum Physics, chemistry and philosophy be creationist science?

What is your science called?

Cat in the hat?

When this cat in the hat, I call it "ninja tactics".



"Creation science or scientific creationism is a branch of creationism that claims to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and disprove or reexplain the scientific facts,theories and scientific paradigms about geology, cosmology, biological evolution, archeology, history, and linguistics."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science


I think you said that you are skeptical of the theory of evolution.
These people feel the same:

Institute for Creation Research

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 6 by Hector Barbosa]


[center]

To claim knowledge ≠ to demonstrate it[/center]

Well it makes total sense both from the theistic and atheistic point of view.

For if a theists truly KNOW something the atheist don't. There is no point in asking questions about something you are sure about.

______________________

The very important qualifier "IF"


Yes, that IF is the whole of it, isn't it?

I am not surprised to hear that a theist will tell me that they believe in "God" with 110% certainty. And that's a joke, When I hear something like that ( and I get to on a regular basis ) I assume that they don't understand math very well, or they are engaging in some hyperbole.

I think that discussing that 110% assessment would be a waste of our time, so, I just take it to mean.. 100%.

These super-convinced theists don't really mean "IF" their god or goddess exists. When we are 100% convinced, there is no room for "IF" at all.

The people might be using the word "IF" just the way that you did above, but they don't seem to understand that the word MEANS a doubt or an investigation of some kind. When we HAVE the conclusion, and it is certain by 100%, there is no NEED to search any longer.

But of course, to an outsider, the whole IF question has NOT been resolved at all... And as an agnostic, I keep asking these people how they have ARRIVED as such a stunning amount of conviction.. and I get EXTREMELY poor reasoning and no evidence whatsoever.


Talk about your house of cards !!!

______________________



I mean you would not keep asking is Ketchup, Ketchup you know it is Ketchup so there is no point making that question.

Unless, of course, as they do sometimes in the sleezy restaurants, they substitute the Heinz in those bottles for some other "kinds".


Complete certainty STOPS the inquiry.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 15 by Hector Barbosa]




We can't know everything yet, so it's of no use to criticize a particular scientific theory about that.

Thanks. I very much agree with what you wrote.

You are right evolution is "to the best of our knowledge" but as most of my scientist friends, people like Sam Harris and others also state, it is at best a incomplete theory, for there is a lot of answers and understanding lacking in it.

No scientific theory is ever "complete", or "absolute" or "perfect".
NONE.

You are constructing an argument from ignorance, and I'm not too sure you know what that is, either.


Do you imagine that any human knows everything there is to know?

This is why it is a theory and not a fact, and should be treated as such, so we can keep investigating it, better it or discard it if it doesn't hold.

You seem unaware of the meaning of the term : "Scientific theory".
Before you continue, I suggest short Google search.


Because you aren't using the term the way that most scientists use the term.


Again, are you talking about conventional sciences or the ... other kinds?
I can refer you once again to the Institute for Creation Research.

They have a very nice website.