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?
  
  

____________

[Hector Barbosa]

[Replying to post 41 by Blastcat]

Thank you, that's really cool !!

I think you said that you were skeptical of the theory of evolution. Most people that I know who do that in here ARE creationists.

a

You're welcome and thank you.

Yes me too, but I am not "most people"

Everything that we call "alive" is composed of inorganic mater.
I don't pretend to know what is "immaterial matter", it sounds like an oxymoron to me

Life is matter? What evidence do you have of this? Could you tell me what elements on the periodic table life consist of?

By using perhaps, subjective morality... ?
And... quite subjective purposes, too.

Yes exactly! morality then becomes subjective without God or a purpose, but is it then really morals? Isn't it in fact just ethics since it comes from the material world? And if morals are subjective, who is to say what is right and wrong or even true or false then? What order is left without objective morality?

Here is a short 5 minute video of what Theists MIGHT mean with the term "objective morality" and it may also help you understand the point of my questions about morality from a non-theist point of view.

For I think this objective morality is a quite strong argument for theism.

I don't pretend to know what started evolution, and I don't pretend to know what caused the Big Bang, either. Want me to make something up for you?

I didn't think so Would you be surprised if I told you that neither do most scientists?

You ask if I want you to make something up for me. But I am neither theist or atheist, so what would you base your questions on?

I don't think the arguments we have available right now makes sense. I have investigated them thoroughly, and they STILL don't make sense and it is easy for me to find holes in them.

Unfortunately, those questions have nothing at all to do about my atheistic conclusion.
IF theists think I have formed my reasoning on ignorance are quite literally, asking the wrong questions.

Well I am not a theist and I don't know you, you just asked for questions and I gave you some hard one which no one I know, knows the answer to and I am not surprised you don't either. I am in the same boat.

I am all ears if you wish to explain YOUR atheistic conclusion as long as don't give me a hairball

[Zzyzx]

.
The ONLY rational question that can be asked of the position 'I do not believe in gods' is:

'Why don't you believe?'

'Insufficent evidence'

'Here is a book, and here are testimonials, and millions believe'

'Can any of those be verified as truthful and accurate?' 'Would I have to take someone's word for what is said?'

SILENCE

An unverifiable book is no assurance of truth and accuracy (millions of books say millions of different things -- which, if any, are truthful and accurate and how is that decided without verification?)

Unverifiable testimonials are no assurance of truth and accuracy (anyone can say anything if there are no means of verification)

'Millions believe' is no assurance of truth and accuracy (millions have or do believe that the Earth is the center of the solar system (and many equally erroneous ideas) -- which doesn't make it true)

[Zzyzx]

.

There is not much point in seeking a answer to a question with someone who doesn't know

I, for one, would far rather receive an 'I don't know' answer than an answer that pretends to know but cannot be shown to be truthful and accurate.

Ask the same questions of people with different theistic beliefs and get many different answers -- all claiming to be TRUE.

Thus, Theists have 'the answers' but not necessarily or demonstrably correct answers. Basing ideas on what ancient writers opined thousands of years ago is adequate or preferable for some people. Others disagree with that as the means of searching for truth.

[Hector Barbosa]

[Replying to post 43 by Zzyzx]

I would too mate, otherwise I would not be here.

Honesty and truth to me is first.
Second comes whatever good we can do with the truth that is known.

Dishonest answers no matter how good they sound, are really a stick in the wheel of progress.

Ask the same questions of people with different theistic beliefs and get many different answers -- all claiming to be TRUE.

Thus, Theists have 'the answers' but not necessarily or demonstrably correct answers. Basing ideas on what ancient writers opined thousands of years ago is adequate or preferable for some people. Others disagree with that as the means of searching for truth.

Yeah, in general most people claim to have the answers and know the truth regardless of if they are atheist, theist or even agnostics and with all you will find countless of different answers which obviously can not all be true.

You say Theists have the answers but not necessarily the correct ones. Yes I agree with that, though this too can be said of scientists, and having a incorrect answer is not really a much better or worse position than having no answer. Either way you are at ground zero.

In general I actually think the best approach is NOT to ask others questions who don't know, for you don't know if you will get an honest answer, but rather to seek out answers to the questions yourself in part by being open to argument with others who have different opinions.

I want to know the truth personally, not just to have to rely on someone else for the answers.

[theophile]

[Replying to Blastcat]

You are asking atheists do define what, exactly?
Every belief possible?

I'm asking atheists to actually provide a substantive position. If not theism, then what?

That is my question. It is not asking atheists to define every possible belief but what it is that they believe, and if they refuse to use that word, then what it is that they think.

Again, to reiterate my questions:

• On what vision of the world we should work towards.
  On what values we should base our decisions and actions.
  On how we should interact with each other.
  On what the relationship should be between man and woman, human and animal, human and world more broadly.

Those are my questions for atheists.


Table stakes to be able to question is to have something to question. Sorry if this is too elementary for you, but it's the way it is. I don't question atheists here because atheists don't provide substantive positions of their own in the place of theism. They just assault theism (and thus theists tend only to defend in conversations with them).

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 41 by Hector Barbosa]

I think you said that you were skeptical of the theory of evolution. Most people that I know who do that in here ARE creationists.

Yes me too, but I am not "most people"

____________

Questions:

• 
  
  
  1. Are you, or are you not a theist?
  2. Are you, or are you not a creationist?
  
  
  

____________

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1 by Blastcat]

Not the first I've wondered this. If one checks the Ask a Specific User section, one will find a list of questions from yours truly to a range of theists.

I wonder - has any theist on this site just asked point blank to an atheist their reasons for not believing in God, and then tried to resolve that?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 2 by Willum]

Can you link the thread in question please? I had a brief scan through the first three pages of the doctrine sub forum but none of the titles seemed to mention anything about Joan of Arc.

Also, idle curiosity. In your signature, you mention a specific date. Did you get that from anywhere? A brief Google search doesn't give me anything that might be linked to Christianity or theology or anything, other than the death of an antipope in that year.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to Blastcat]

You are asking us to guess at your belief? IF you have any, you tell US.

Not tracking. My point was that, how is a theist supposed to ask questions of atheists when atheists provide no positive content to critique / question.

You can't question a view which is essentially a denial, unless it's to ask "why do you deny this?" But that question is inherent in the question of the atheist to the theist (i.e. it is implicit in their critique of theism) and therefore requires no asking.

I really don't know how what you say here is a response.

Isn't that right there telling in and of itself? Some branches of Christianity say that non-believers (typically atheists) have all sorts of horrible reasons for not believing in their god, such as being enslaved to sin, etc...but if the atheist position is just a denial and nothing more...then Christianity is telling fibs about us, (or at least Paul is), right?

I mean...what's so horrible in not believing that a man rose from the dead 2,000 years ago?

[Zzyzx]

.

Honesty and truth to me is first.

When searching for truth does one form a conclusion first then look for conforming evidence, OR does one look at the evidence FIRST and base a conclusion on a thorough examination of all evidence available?

Yeah, in general most people claim to have the answers and know the truth regardless of if they are atheist, theist or even agnostics and with all you will find countless of different answers which obviously can not all be true.

If we are ill or injured is our best course of action to consult ancient writers or would it be prudent to seek modern medical attention?

You say Theists have the answers but not necessarily the correct ones. Yes I agree with that, though this too can be said of scientists, and having a incorrect answer is not really a much better or worse position than having no answer. Either way you are at ground zero.

I disagree. If one 'has' the wrong answer they are at less than zero.

For example, if a bulb does not light when the switch is turned on an immediate wrong answer 'the bulb is burned out' is far worse than 'I don't know' (so let's check). The actual problem may be a generalized power outage, defective switch, faulty wiring, circuit breaker problem, etc.

Fixating on a wrong answer interferes with the discovery process that leads to truth. The many centuries that Earth was considered the center of the Solar System (in spite of evidence to the contrary) is a larger scale example.

I want to know the truth personally, not just to have to rely on someone else for the answers.

What, exactly, do you want to know the truth ABOUT?