Convince and Convert an Atheist

Beanbag said:
If it's a matter of taking time to stop and appreciate the beauty and wonder around you, I do that frequently. That might be because I'm visually driven and detail-oriented, where I can spend hours appreciating small parts of larger congregations.

The finest night I ever spent was in a meadow in the Galiuro (?sp) Mountains, flat on my back, watching a clear sky, seeing meteors and orbital objects.

The difference is I see the beauty and appreciate the wonder, but I don't see the divinity behind it.

Beanbag
Click to expand...
Your dishonesty is showing, he who protesteth too much.

Not even a nice try.

This IS NOT being done in an antagonistic fashion -- I'm not out to argue with you, or attempt to convert you to my way of thinking
Click to expand...
The term that comes to mind is "lying sack of __________."
Nice supposition, but totally without any support.
Click to expand...
Yep.
Same token: you can't prove there IS an afterlife.
Click to expand...
Yep.

"Don't want to argue."

Liar.

DR
 
Last edited:
Darth Rotor said:
Your dishonesty is showing, he who protesteth too much.

Not even a nice try.

DR
Click to expand...
And out of left field comes....
Gee, where did that come from? Huh? What?
'Scuse me, I gotta go scratch over that one. Interesting collection of partial quotes and words, but it parses like the holographic gibberish in THX-1138 (director's cut).

Beanbag
 
Darth Rotor said:
"Don't want to argue."

Liar.

DR
Click to expand...
Never said I was going to just nod and agree with you. Those aren't "arguments," they are statements. The OP, as I recall, couched this as a discussion, not a lecture. Just because I don't take what you said as solid gold, it isn't any reason to clam up.

The chip, I would say, is on your shoulder. I'm willing to talk and also listen and consider. If you're willing to take up the latter two, we might actually have some movement, either pro or con.

Beanbag
 
Beanbag said:
Never said I was going to just nod and agree with you. Those aren't "arguments," they are statements. The OP, as I recall, couched this as a discussion, not a lecture. Just because I don't take what you said as solid gold, it isn't any reason to clam up.

The chip, I would say, is on your shoulder. I'm willing to talk and also listen and consider. If you're willing to take up the latter two, we might actually have some movement, either pro or con.

Beanbag
Click to expand...
The words in your posts on two pages of this thread suggest otherwise. Go fish.

DR
 
mfaison said:
Ooh, is there evidence up there? I spend a lot of time looking up, and I'm not seeing it. In fact, the more I look out at the Universe, the more evidence I see that there's no need for God.
Click to expand...

Man spent a long time on their knees, trying to find answers beyond themselves. Galileo just used a telescope and looked into the night sky.
 
Beanbag said:
Yeah, but I'd rather keep it in the family. I've found it easier to connect with the people here. JREF works as a prefilter of sorts. While there are a few people here that get on my nerves, for the most part I like the folks here.
Click to expand...

Understand. Just wanted to offer the option. Have you given any thought to more ecumenical religions like Unitarianism or Ba'hai? What about Thereveda Buddhism?

mfaison said:
Their forum layout and ads are very annoying. And I'm astonished to see that every controversial topic has a Christian and a non-Christian section.
Click to expand...

The ads are annoying. I'm a site supporter just to be rid of them. One great irony of the Christians Only section is that far from a safe haven, some of the most furious debate occurs between denominations.

logical muse said:
I just checked out that forum, and saw this in the "Christians Only Section".

View attachment 5753

I make no comment.
Click to expand...

I just noticed this the other night.
http://www.christianforums.com/f46-mens-corner.html
I wonder if anyone but me found the "Sticky" masturbation thread hilarious.
 
Hey Beanbag!
I heard someone was channeling Huntster so I came by to take a look.

I think they are right about faith being something that is caught rather than taught. Atheism or unbelief is different from faith, I doubt you could 'catch' being an atheist.
 
Beanbag said:
Never said I was going to just nod and agree with you. Those aren't "arguments," they are statements. The OP, as I recall, couched this as a discussion, not a lecture. Just because I don't take what you said as solid gold, it isn't any reason to clam up.

The chip, I would say, is on your shoulder. I'm willing to talk and also listen and consider. If you're willing to take up the latter two, we might actually have some movement, either pro or con.
Click to expand...

Having a rational discussion on religion is difficult, moreso when you actually act skeptical or require evidence (or use Occam's Razor...). A major part of religion is making a "Leap of Faith", where you have to lack skepticism for one part and make that leap... and suddenly you can accept a few portions that other skeptics may not.

Without leap, however, you will find most arguments to be rather lacking. However, if anything is appealing when it comes to argument, it is historical studies or philosophical arguments. Historical studies of the ancient past (I.E., showing that some man named Jesus may have existed at one time) tend to be somewhat shakey, as the farther back in time you go, the more shakey the records tend to be, depending on what society you're dealing with. With philosophical arguments, most of the ones I've seen have been very shakey at the least. The one argument that makes you question is the Cosmological Argument, though; the argument that there needs to be a First Cause. Now, there may not need to be an intelligent First Cause of reality, but it's somewhat hard to accept that it's just "random" (I.E., stuff just happened because it did), and it's hard to accept the idea of an existance that has no beginning. At the same time, the idea of something appearing from nothing is difficult to contend with. So this is a tough one; it's hard to really remain logical and not just pick a choice that merely fits the preference of the thinker.

Personally, I think that we have further yet to go to understand the universe around us. But I would not trust that knowledge to faith.
 
Last edited:
Beanbag said:
I want to hear and understand why I should become a Christian.
Click to expand...
Because if God exists and is something like what Christianities point to then it is true!

Because you would be starting something that could lead to a deeper, better, more selfless, more exciting and fulfilling life.
 
Beanbag said:
I deal with what I can see or detect. I don't do "believe, then you'll see." If something can't be measured or detected reliably and repeatedly, then there's something wrong, either with what you're trying to measure or in your experimental design. I don't think it is wise to depend on something unreliable for issues as weighty as those religion purports to mediate.

I love it when I'm shown to be wrong, or let's make that "in error"; wrong has such criminal connotations.

Beanbag
Click to expand...
One still has to make decisions in life based on incomplete evidence because we only have one life and one can't run a serious of experiments on different choices. Relationships are an interesting item because people don't like being tested so commiting oneself is a stepping out of one's comfort zone into the unknown.
 
Blutarsky said:
Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning[/COLOR]-- CS Lewis[/I]
Click to expand...

Consequently Lewis's argument turns out to be too simple. If the universe has a God, we should never have found out that there is no God: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning
 
Humphreys said:
Consequently Lewis's argument turns out to be too simple. If the universe has a God, we should never have found out that there is no God: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning
Click to expand...

Sometimes when a person suffers a stroke that renders him/her blind, it also wipes out the entire concept of vision with that person. There is no visual memory and no sense that one is missing anything.

Trying to discuss vision with these people would be like an alien from another planet, who possesses a sense called "furfle" (which can only be described in terms of "furfle"), trying to discuss "furfle" with us. There would be no frame of reference.

I guess my point is that our brain contains structures that endow things with meaning. Some of these things give us a clear evolutionary advantage, some don't appear to at all. Regardless, it all comes from within our brains, not the Universe.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Sometimes when a person suffers a stroke that renders him/her blind, it also wipes out the entire concept of vision with that person. There is no visual memory and no sense that one is missing anything.
Click to expand...

I didn't know that, that's really interesting though.

aggle-rithm said:
I guess my point is that our brain contains structures that endow things with meaning. Some of these things give us a clear evolutionary advantage, some don't appear to at all. Regardless, it all comes from within our brains, not the Universe.
Click to expand...

Yes, so when Lewis says the Universe has no meaning, he is actually wrong in a way. It does have meaning, to us. Meaning is a subjective thing anyway, it's not something that actually exists, out there somehow, and it certainly isn't a property of the Universe. Such a thing doesn't even seem to make sense.

Anyway, I agree with you.
 
Humphreys said:
Consequently Lewis's argument turns out to be too simple. If the universe has a God, we should never have found out that there is no God: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning
Click to expand...
I've heard some really good responses to his point. This is one of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom