How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

[ken]

having and holding belief besides the beliefs in ones Self is an irrational way to view the world

Belief by definition is a faith position that can apply to belief in oneself as much as to anything else. Such a belief can be as irrational
as any other because it can lead to an exaggerated sense of ones actual capabilities. And Dunning Kruger is the classic example of this

No idea who that is, but anyway, of course depending on the actual belief in one's self can be irrational just like any belief can be irrational. But as I wrote it I was talking a belief in the Self. To express precision in writing what is not understood needs to be asked for clarification. I can not precisely for each and every human being here and now because of the diversity of each and every human being. I can only write precisely to the human beings who ask for clarity. What you wrote is obvious, what I have been writing is that by just having/holding beliefs is irrational. If that can not be understood on its own merits, then at the moment I do not know how else to express it.

[ken]

ALL people to some degree look for and want to find and see what they already believe is true. It is usually other people who look for and find the opposite unless of course when people openly admit that they found the exact opposite of what they believed to be true. But then they some
times start believing the opposite is true. As is the case with some people who actually believe that the expansion of Universe is accelerating
Besides the fact that they are believing that the Universe is accelerating they also start believing that that believed expansion is accelerating

The Universe is expanding so there is no need to believe it as it is actually true.

Is 'The Universe is expanding' an unambiguous fixed fact that can not be disputed nor changed forever more?

One of My whole points here in this discussion is about NOT having to believe (in) any thing, for the very simple fact that you have expressed and exposed here. If some thing is true, then there is NO need to believe (in) it. Thus the very reason I keep asking WHY believe (in) any thing at all? Unfortunately My clarifying questions are rarely answered. I hope some thought at least gets put into them even if they are not answered here.

Now did you not say that if something is true then it does
not have to be demonstrated to be so but simply stated as being so.

I do not recall saying that, but that does not mean I did not. Show us the quote, then we can take a look at it, and see in what context it was made, if it was. Otherwise it might just be an assumption or what you thought I have said and was expressing. It does not sound like some thing that I would say.

Yet here you seem to be doubting the fact of the Universes expansion

Of course I doubt it. I remain open to EVERYTHING, (except in My ability to do and achieve what I want to do and achieve). I also do not have first-hand experience if the Universe is expanding or not so how could I be so sure as you appear to be? If you are going to say you believe that the Universe is expanding because you trust the people labeled "scientists" who tell you that, well remember and take into consideration that you would believe (in) any thing depending on what period of time you lived in and what the "scientists" of that day told you. Therefore, if you lived in a time period where "scientists" told you tat the sun revolves around the earth, or that the size of the Universe began with a big bang, or whatever else you were told by "scientists", then you would believe it. No matter how true or false it actually was.

Have you, or many other human beings, actually thought about how believing and accepting what a "scientist" says just because they say it, is just the same as those human beings who believe and accept what a person labeled "priest" says just because they say it. Without first-hand experience how would you or any human being KNOW what IS true?

[surreptitious57]

Dunning and Kruger were two American psychologists who published a paper in 1999 that found that those
of low intelligence tended to overestimate their capabilities when performing specific mental tasks. Since
then the term Dunning Kruger effect has become a general reference for any example of the phenomenon

[surreptitious57]

The Universe is expanding so there is no need to believe it as it is actually true

Is The Universe is expanding an unambiguous fixed fact that can not be disputed nor changed forever more

It is a fact that the Universe is expanding now and that is all one can state from an empirical perspective

Whether it will carry on expanding forever or only until a finite point in time cannot currently be known

[surreptitious57]

Unfortunately My clarifying questions are rarely answered

I do not answer all your questions only those which I think are important enough to merit one

And so try not to expect one to every single question you ask of me or indeed of any one else

[surreptitious57]

I also do not have first hand experience if the Universe is expanding or not so how could I be so sure as you appear to be? If you are going to say you believe that the Universe is expanding because you trust the people labeled scientists who tell you that well remember and take into consideration that you would believe ( in ) any thing depending on what period of time you lived in and what the scientists of that day told you. Therefore if you lived in a time period where scientists told you that the sun revolves around the earth or that the size of the Universe began with a big bang or whatever else you were told by scientists then you would believe it. No matter how true or false it actually was

I have already said that I do not do belief. I say the Universe is expanding not because I believe scientists but because of the red shift of galaxies which is evidence of its expansion. The Sun revolving around the Earth was merely an assumption unsupported by science so it is not comparable You have therefore made two false assumptions. And you have no idea what I would have thought about anything at any point in the past beyond my current lifetime. That is both an unsupported and unsupportable assertion

[surreptitious57]

Have you or many other human beings actually thought about how believing and accepting what a scientist says just because they say it is just the same as those human beings who believe and accept what a person labeled priest says just because they say it. Without first hand experience how would you or any human being KNOW what IS true

What scientists say has to be capable of replication or observation and inter subjectively so too. And hypotheses have to be capable of potential falsification. And results have to be peer reviewed. The collective process is known as the scientific method and is the most brutal methodology ever devised. There is none more so. And so there is no place for belief. The scientific method does not do belief. Instead it tests hypotheses to absolute destruction or as close to as possible. As that is far and away the most reliable means that there is for studying observable phenomena

[ken]

So I will accept what you have posted as what you believe to be true

I could concise it down for you if that makes it easier to answer. What seems more rational to you?
1. believe every thing I say.
2. remain open.

I think that I have answered your question, I believe what you post till It is proven otherwise.

If this is true, then I am God.

Now you know who the 'I' IS in the question, Who am 'I'?

I also think that we are using "believe" in not the same way

I know how I am using 'believe', how are you using 'believe'?

And, remember I am God and you are not, therefore which use of 'believe' should you be using?

By the way you still never answered the actual question I posed to you.

[ken]

Sometimes I describe myself as an agnostic atheist and sometimes as an apatheist and
long as they are not mutually contradictory [ they are not ] then that is not a problem

WHY place another label with its own definition on a thing that already has its own label?

Could the reason be because people still do not know who they are and / or what they are yet?

The reason is that atheism is simply a general label to describe all those with a non belief in God
But within that general label are more precise definitions such as agnostic atheism and apatheism
And employing these more precise definitions allows for greater clarification of ones actual position

So why not just write 'I take this position of ...' instead of writing 'I am ... (this thing)?

The reason I ask this becomes more clear when 'you' are aware of what the 'I' actually is.

I am trying to get you to look more objectively at things instead of as subjectively as you are.

When human beings open up enough to be able to look at the question Who am 'I'? from a truly objective viewpoint, and thus are able to fully understand Who/what the 'I' actually IS, and who/what the 'you' actually IS, then everything I have been saying and asking here will be far better understood.

[ken]

Object A can have property B and property C where B and C are separate and distinct from each other but not mutually contradictory
This is a hypothetical rather than an actual example but it is sufficient to demonstrate the truth claim that you want clarification for

What is the real reason you just do not provide an example

It might detract from the general principle which is sufficient in itself and therefore easy to understand
Sometimes I do provide examples for the purpose of clarification but I do not think any is required here

Obviously you have NOT sufficiently demonstrated your truth claim at all. Because I do not see how one thing can be two separate and distinct things at the same time. And, without actual examples I will probably remain not seeing how two separate and distinct things can be the exact same thing.

One thing having the property of two separate and distinct things is NOT the same as the "general principle" of one thing being two separate and distinct things.

[ken]

Ken: Beliefs are necessary. One cannot know something without also believing in it. Knowledge is a subset of belief.

If that is what you believe, then you are free to continue to believe it. But if you did not have that belief, then you would be able to see, understand, and know how beliefs are NOT necessary. Once you can see, understand, and know that, then you will also be able to learn just how beliefs prevent human beings from being able to learn, understand, and reason far quicker, simpler, and easier than they really can.

Very young human beings and all other animals do not have any beliefs.
They know that they need water/nutrients to continue living.
They can and do keep living, without beliefs.
Therefore, beliefs are NOT necessary.

Do you really believe one can not know some thing without also believing in it.

I know there are human beings moving around on a planet called earth polluting the actual air and water that IS really necessary for their survival but I do NOT believe in it.

I know what food went into the bodies of My children at breakfast time "this" morning but I do NOT believe in it.

In fact I know a number of things but I do NOT believe in any of them. I and young human beings are living proof that we can keep living and surviving AND not necessarily have to believe in any thing.

Do you really believe knowledge is a subset of belief? If that were true, then you could not know some thing without having a belief first. Is this true, right, and correct?

[ken]

I'm looking at it too simply? I don't believe in the Bible,

Do you know the bible exists?

If so, then going on a previous piece of your logic, addressed to me, then you MUST believe in the bible also.

If "Ken: Beliefs are necessary. One cannot know something without also believing in it. Knowledge is a subset of belief." IS true, right, and correct, then you MUST be believing in ALL that you know too.

Do you know the story about a pregnant virgin? If so, then do you believe in that story?

Your logic is, you can not know some thing and not believe in it, right?

Further to this besides how you and attofishpi are talking to each other is proving what I have been saying about just how much holding and having beliefs can stop a person from finding and seeing the Truth, do you think the names you are calling, or 'labeling', of each other are real truths? Can you see just how much distraction and destruction of the discussion takes place because of beliefs and believing in particular things is? This believing that beliefs are necessary is even more evidence for Me in how distracting believing actually is. If you are believing that A story about a pregnant virgin for example is true (for the labeled "theist") and is meant to be true (for the labeled "atheist"), then that explains WHY you are not able to see the meaning behind, or within, the story. There is a truth meaning held within that story, which relates to forgiveness by the way but I will not go into that now.

Anyway, human beings do not give much thought into how some of them "grow up" to start knowing that the santa claus story is NOT real, but still continue on telling that false story to their children, yet they can not seem to "grow up" to start knowing that the pregnant virgin story is just that - A story also. It is just one of countless stories told and listened to that is just meant to be a story about some underlining thing.

Why do you still continue to believe that the pregnant virgin story is meant to be a real and true story?

In other words when are you, adult human beings, going to grow up and start finding the real and true meaning in your own lives?

Did you all really need to be told and shown that santa claus is not real?

Do you all really need to be told and shown every thing that is not real?

I have explained numerous times throughout this forum HOW to find what is true and real. But not one hint of curiosity has been shown back. You ALL believe that you already know what is true, right, and correct, and thus have closed yourselves off to that what is actually true, right, and correct.

and I don't like the numerous passages in the Bible that demonize atheists.

I have NOT seen any passages in the bible that supposedly ridicules or puts any one on a lesser or higher level than any one else. Everything written in the bible was directed at ALL human beings equally. Would you like to provide some passages, which you think looks at people differently? If you provide some, then we can take a look at them and discuss.

By the way how are you using the word 'demonize' here?

The reason I see things differently is because I read things from a different perspective than how you and others do. I come at things from a wholly and completely different way. I look from and see from an open perspective, whereas those people who believe that beliefs are necessary and those with beliefs only look from and see from those beliefs and thus only from what they believe is already true, and thus from a closed, perspective. How we each see, understand, and know things is due to how we look at things, and how we look at things is in relation to us either believing or not believing (in) any thing. Everything is, after all, relative to the observer.

Obviously coming from a believing perspective means the 'person' is a closed person, whereas, coming from a non believing (as long as a not disbelieving) perspective the 'person' is an open person. 'You', the person, can be a closed person or an open person, depending on whether there are beliefs or not. And, how you learn, see, understand, and reason things is depended upon either you are coming from an open or a closed perspective.

Most of us already know that we can learn more and anew only if we are open to a new idea, and, we can not learn some thing if we are closed, so that does not need saying. But how many of us actually know that, AND, also know that we do NOT necessarily have to believe (in) that - what we know? If we are already believing (in) some thing, then would we really be open to a new idea?

Even if you do not want to believe it, you can know some things, and even lots of things, AND still remain completely open at the same time. I can not do much more than just suggest just try it, and you will see what happens from first-hand experience. 'Only from first-hand experiences can you then truly under-stand things'. That is a question and a statement, which only you can and will find the answer to. What have 'you' got to loose by remaining fully and completely open?

By the way I just found, and gave, an actual example of one thing that is two separate and distinct things, which I had not seen before. That one sentence was a question and a statement, which is/are two separate and distinct things together as one, (which works in nicely for Me to finally showing and proving how the Universe is One, but two separate and distinct things also). I was asking surreptitous57 to provide an actual example of this two as one before, because I had not seen one yet, but they do not have to provide it any more. I have found one already, thanks any way.

I'm not sure why I need to add any thing additional to unduly complicate things.

I am not sure why you thought you would have needed to do that.

Probably all of us would prefer only that what simplifies things gets added. Do you have any thing to add that would simplify things?

[ken]

Dunning and Kruger were two American psychologists who published a paper in 1999 that found that those
of low intelligence tended to overestimate their capabilities when performing specific mental tasks. Since
then the term Dunning Kruger effect has become a general reference for any example of the phenomenon

Ah okay, thanks. Another trait of human beings. Trying to put each other into some sort of order of higher and lesser classes of 'intelligence'. I see things completely differently. To Me, ALL human beings have the ability to be equally 'intelligent' but they ALL have different levels of 'intellect'. 'Intellect' just being what one knows, and obviously ALL human beings know different things. 'Intelligence' is just the ability to learn, understand, and reason. ALL human beings are equal in that they ALL have intelligence, and can be equally intelligent as each other. If the truth be known a new born infant child is at the most intelligent stage of a human beings life. Anyway all human beings are all equal also in that they know things, some may know more than others, but this obviously comes from the more age the body is, and thus from the more experiences the body has. But no person is higher nor lower than another just because they have experienced more and/or remember more, and thus know more. In fact the opposite can be said to be true in that 'I' learned far more meaningful things about Life and living from the youngest human beings than I have ever learned from elder human beings. If and when adult human beings learn to listen fully and properly then they will see just how the greatest teachers in Life are children.

[ken]

The Universe is expanding so there is no need to believe it as it is actually true

Is The Universe is expanding an unambiguous fixed fact that can not be disputed nor changed forever more

It is a fact that the Universe is expanding now and that is all one can state from an empirical perspective

Whether it will carry on expanding forever or only until a finite point in time cannot currently be known

How do human beings KNOW that the Universe IS expanding NOW if they can NOT see past a point. Human beings can only see what is generally known as and has been labeled as the observable Universe?

The reason human beings think they see an "expanding" Universe can be easily explained. The hardest part I have is learning how to express to human beings how if they open up enough themselves then they see the truth of things for themselves.

By the way the reason human beings think that the Universe is expanding is because of the same reason they thought that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. Human beings believe what they see with the physical eyes, then they pass these beliefs on to others, usually younger ones, through teaching, by the telling of stories, AND, most young people believe ALL they hear, (they have no reason to not believe what they are told) especially if the stories are coming from the ones they look up to, usually the ones labeled as "parents" and "teachers", but also some times from the ones labeled "scientists" and "preachers" too. Then as most human being "grow" they tend lean towards an "atheistic" way or a "theistic" way, which can be proven here and now in this thread, then the way a person "leans to" has a bearing on who that person will believe (in), either they believe in what the labeled "scientist" or the labeled "priest" says. There are a multitude of different labeled persons that other people put their faith in and believe (in) but I hope what I am saying and meaning is getting understood here.

Believe in the Self, and not in others, in other words. The Self KNOWS what is true, right, and correct. The Self does not need to be told what is true, right, and correct.

[ken]

Unfortunately My clarifying questions are rarely answered

I do not answer all your questions only those which I think are important enough to merit one

And so try not to expect one to every single question you ask of me or indeed of any one else

I do not expect them. I just wish for the answers as they help Me to learn how to express better. Only through communication I learn how to communicate better.