How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

[thedoc]

If you are going to make comments like that, then expect open, clarifying questions from Me.

What is the 'fence' you are talking about?

What do you mean by 'religion' when you wrote, "... when it comes to religion?

Who/what is satan?

How does satan own that fence?

What do you give satan a captial S?

Until you provide some clarification I have no idea what you are talking about here.

By the way, if you can provide an answer to who/what is satan, can you provide an answer to who/what is God also please. I am very interested on your perspective of this.

"Sitting on the fence," is a common expression to indicate someone who has not made a decision or taken a side in an issue.

Since Satan is a proper name or title it is usually capitalized.

There are several interpretations of who Satan is, a fallen angel who was expelled from Heaven by God. One that is less well known is that Satan refers to one's self so God would be talking to God's self when talking to Satan, as in the book of Job.

Religion is usually a belief in God however that God is defined.

I have no definite knowledge about God except that God exists and I believe that God is good and loving, so I accept that God will act in my best interest, but I have no proof of this.

[ken]

Atheism and theism can neither be rational nor irrational. Only human beings can be either rational or irrational. Atheism and theism are both
sets of views formed by human beings of which both sets are equally irrational. If there is no conclusive evidence for some thing then there is
no use nor purpose in believing either way for that thing. To believe or disbelieve some thing is true or not without any evidence IS irrational
If evidence however is said to have already been obtained but that person is unable to or unwilling to share that evidence or remain open to
the fact that what they have may not actually be evidence when and if they do share it then that also IS just as irrational. In fact any time a
person is not truly open then they are being irrational

Atheism and theism are definitely not equally irrational. All manifestations of theism assume the existence of God for which there is no evidence
To accept something as true for which there is no evidence is irrational.

And, what is just as irrational is to accept some thing as NOT true for which there is no evidence also. To accept or to not accept some thing as true without evidence IS equally irrational.

It would still be so even if God did exist but knowledge of said existence was merely assumed instead of actually known. The default position is actually agnosticism not atheism.

A so called "default" position was not in question. You used the word 'atheism' and that was what I was replying to. If you now change the word 'atheism' to 'agnosticism' because you are either now starting to see and understand what I am saying, or for some other reason, then please to not try to deflect away from what I was actually replying to.

You BELIEVE atheism is not irrational while theism is irrational. Just because you BELIEVE some thing does not make it true, real, nor correct.

You BELIEVE theism is irrational because 'All manifestations of theism assume the existence of God for which there is no evidence.' Well, the exact same can be said for atheism, 'All manifestations of atheism assume God does not exist for which there is no evidence'. Therefore, atheism AND theism are BOTH irrational. Any BELIEF in any thing for which there is no evidence IS irrational.

In fact, to Me, having and/or holding any belief in any thing, (besides one's own abilities), anyway is not based on or in accordance with reason or logic. Having/holding beliefs means that that person is not open. If a person is not open, then they are unable to discover, learn, and understand more. A person with beliefs already believes that they already have the truth, and thus they believe that they already know the truth.
Therefore, a person with beliefs is not able to use reason and logic to discover or find actual true facts.

Having or holding any and and all beliefs, including disbelief, in any thing, besides in one's own abilities, IS irrational.

If 'atheism' is the disbelief in God, for which there is no evidence, then atheism is just as irrational as theism IS.

However I am an agnostic atheist and so accept in principle the probability of God existing because that cannot be completely disproven.

I do not really care how you label your self nor with what label you place on the real self with. I have already explained how any and all labels placed on human beings are false anyway. If you accept in principle the probability of God existing, then so what? You are the one who said, atheism is rational and that theism is irrational, which is what I replied to. Changing words around now does not change what I was replying to.

If 'atheism' means disbelief in God or a belief that God does not exist, then without evidence, atheism is just as irrational as theism is, without evidence.

But just because a proposition cannot be proven or disproven does not automatically mean that both possibilities are equally likely. They may be. But one may also be more or less likely than the other. In this particular case atheism is more likely than theism and it shall remain so unless actual evidence for God can be provided.

You did not actually state what atheism is "more likely" to be of here, but I will take a guess, which is based on your very obvious BELIEFS, that you are saying that atheism is more likely to be true than theism is. Feel free to correct Me if I am wrong here.

By the way, how exactly is atheism "more likely" to be true than theism is? What evidence do you have for this?

Why can it not be the case that theism is more likely to be true than atheism and it shall remain so unless actual evidence for no God can be provided? I am pretty sure the people with theist views believe theism is more likely to be true than atheism is.

Your beliefs seem to be blinding you so much to what is actually obvious. And that is, without evidence, what are you basing your beliefs on?

If there is NO evidence for God's existence nor NO evidence that God does not exist, then why decide your view is "more true" than the opposite view of what you have? If there is NO evidence either way, then why is atheism supposedly more likely to be true then theism is?

Believing (in) some thing even if there is evidence for it IS ridiculous enough but to believe (in) some thing without any evidence for it is even more ridiculous, if that is possible.

And that is
evidence in the true sense of the word. Namely that which can satisfy the rigour of the scientific method. Since every other type would be invalid

What evidence do you have that satisfies the rigor of the scientific method that God does not exist?

If the truth be known, some of the statements made by people with atheist views AND some of the statements made by people with theist views are so totally ridiculous that I find all of this totally hilarious and amusing. Neither of you people with atheist or theist views actually KNOW what God IS. You do not even know who the real Self is yet, let alone what God is, but you all go on disputing and fighting with each other over what you each BELIEVE is true, for which neither of you has one shred of evidence for.

So, from My perspective you are all fighting for some thing, which you all have no idea of what God actually IS yet.

Why do you so called 'atheists' and 'theists' not just discuss together and come to an agreement of what 'God' actually IS BEFORE you fight for "It's" existence or not? Then you may also discover just how funny all of this actually is. Does fighting for and over some thing that you do not even know what It is yet really seem a rational thing to do? This kind of mis/behavior appears very irrational to Me.

I could suggest that if you all just remain open, be totally honest about all of your wrong doing, and are serious about wanting to and are willing to change, for the better, then what God actually IS will be discovered and/or revealed to you, and thus then you will KNOW, for sure, if God exists or not. Then you will be able to 'argue', logically reason, for your position, instead of 'argue', fight, for your position. But why would I suggest that, no person appears to be really listening to logic and Me anyway.

[ken]

They can be both as labels are descriptors that apply not just to one thing but to many things

But can one thing actually be two separate and distinctly different things

If so then could you provide some examples please

Something cannot be two separate and distinct things that are mutually incompatible

Because that would constitute a paradox and so violate the law of non contradiction

But something can be two separate and distinct things where that law is not violated

Again, you say one thing can be two separate and distinct things, so again could you please provide some examples of how one thing can be two separate and distinct things, where the law of non contradiction is not violated?

[ken]

If you are going to make comments like that, then expect open, clarifying questions from Me.

What is the 'fence' you are talking about?

What do you mean by 'religion' when you wrote, "... when it comes to religion?

Who/what is satan?

How does satan own that fence?

What do you give satan a captial S?

Until you provide some clarification I have no idea what you are talking about here.

By the way, if you can provide an answer to who/what is satan, can you provide an answer to who/what is God also please. I am very interested on your perspective of this.

"Sitting on the fence," is a common expression to indicate someone who has not made a decision or taken a side in an issue.

If "sitting on the fence" IS (another label placed on) a person, who has not made a decision or taken a side in an issue, then how exactly can and does satan "sit" on this type of person?

Since Satan is a proper name or title it is usually capitalized.

If satan is a proper name, then what is it a proper name for, actually?

What is the proper or "real" thing that has been labelled 'satan'?

There are several interpretations of who Satan is, a fallen angel who was expelled from Heaven by God. One that is less well known is that Satan refers to one's self so God would be talking to God's self when talking to Satan, as in the book of Job.

But I did not ask what are some of the several interpretations of who satan is. I asked, who/what IS satan?

If you do not know, then you could just say, "I do not know". I am certainly NOT going to judge you in any way for not knowing some thing.

Religion is usually a belief in God however that God is defined.

You wrote, "I would think that remaining open is like sitting on the fence, just remember when it comes to religion, Satan owns the fence."

So, is this what you are saying here, "remaining open (is like sitting on the fence) and when it comes to a belief in God, however God is defined, satan owns this openness. To Me it seems rather contradictory that satan would own what is sometimes referred to as "open(mindedness)", as this would somewhat infer that God would then own "closed(mindedness)". This also seems particularly contradictory since 'God' has not even been defined yet. Would satan really own openness, which is what actually allows truth to be found, whereas God owns the idea that the belief in a thing that does not even have a definition yet is the right thing to do?

I have no definite knowledge about God except that God exists and I believe that God is good and loving, so I accept that God will act in my best interest, but I have no proof of this.

So, you believe in some thing of which you have no definite knowledge about and which you also have no proof of?

Do you think/believe your best interest is any different than any other person?

Do you think/believe you deserve more or better than any other person?

[ken]

Your belief is If labels and definitions are in common usage then they must by definition be sufficient and successful

Would you like to delve into this more

The common usage of words or labels is the way that human beings communicate with each other in written and spoken form
Without them there would be either no communication or a far more limited type such as sign language. And while individual
words may come and go language shall remain. Because as a social species zero communication would be entirely impractical

If I recall correctly I have somewhat already acknowledged and agreed with this. But would you like to reply to what I wrote? That is at any particular point in time obviously what is "common usage" IS sufficient and successful in that that is the way human beings communicate with each other at that particular point in time, but that is about all 'common usage' is "sufficient" and "successful" in.

The common usage of words or labels, at any particular point in time, is probably not be very sufficient and successful in obtaining what it is that all human beings truly want. There is no use in repeating what I wrote before but if you read it, you will notice that what you wrote does not have much at all to do with that what I was referring to. For example, "the sun revolves around the earth" was common usage at a particular point in time but it is NOT at all sufficient and successful for making life better. Besides the fact that 'common usage' can invariably be proven wrong, what is common usage usually has no bearing on what is actually sufficient, successful, and needed in making the world better for everyone.

[surreptitious57]

You BELIEVE theism is irrational because All manifestations of theism assume the existence of God for which there is no evidence. Well
exact same can be said for atheism. All manifestations of atheism assume God does not exist for which there is no evidence. Therefore
atheism AND theism are BOTH irrational. Any BELIEF in any thing for which there is no evidence IS irrational

I do not believe theism is irrational. I think theism is irrational. I say that because I do not do belief particularly the religious type. All that is necessary to disprove atheism is the existence of God. Which has never been demonstrated. Theism is therefore more irrational than atheism
as the truth value of the proposition God exists has never satisfied a burden of proof. Atheism does not actually state God does not exist only
that the truth claim is rejected because of said burden. Although as I am an apatheist then the question is academic as far as I am concerned

[surreptitious57]

But can one thing actually be two separate and distinctly different things

If so then could you provide some examples please

Something cannot be two separate and distinct things that are mutually incompatible

Because that would constitute a paradox and so violate the law of non contradiction

But something can be two separate and distinct things where that law is not violated

you say one thing can be two separate and distinct things so again could you please provide some examples
of how one thing can be two separate and distinct things where the law of non contradiction is not violated

No because while you think specific examples are more important I think the general principle is
Were I to provide any examples they would distract from the general principle so I will not do so

[surreptitious57]

The common usage of words or labels at any particular point in time is probably not be very sufficient and successful in obtaining what it is
that all human beings truly want. There is no use in repeating what I wrote before but if you read it you will notice that what you wrote does
not have much at all to do with that what I was referring to. For example the sun revolves around the earth was common usage at a particular point in time but it is NOT at all sufficient and successful for making life better. Besides the fact that common usage can invariably be proven
wrong what is common usage usually has no bearing on what is actually sufficient successful and needed in making the world better for everyone

You select one example to justify a probable truth claim. You provide none to support an opposite truth claim even though that would have
been equally valid. You use words to suggest their fallibility even though that is all you have to convey your own thoughts here on the forum

[thedoc]

So, you believe in some thing of which you have no definite knowledge about and which you also have no proof of?

I believe that there are subatomic particles, but I have never seen them nor do I have a particle accelerator to detect them, so I rely on those people who do have access to such machines and trust what they have discovered.

I have never detected the red shift of distant galaxies because I do not have access to a large telescope or the spectrometer equipment to detect it, but I rely on the information of those who do have access to such equipment.

Why is it so difficult to believe one set of information and not another when you have the same level of proof for both?

Scientists report that they have detected traces from various subatomic particles, but I have never seen them. Astronomers claim to have detected the red shift of distant galaxies, but I have never seen the evidence. People report that they have seen evidence of God working in their lives, but I have not seen the evidence in their lives. Who am I to doubt what they are telling me?

[thedoc]

Ken, please excuse me for only answering only one point of your post, but the rest will take more thought.

[uwot]

Indeed; you either believe, or you don't.

I do neither. I remain open.

Well, I think I know what you mean, and would wholeheartedly agree, but do you not think that remaining open is the same as not believing?

[ken]

You BELIEVE theism is irrational because All manifestations of theism assume the existence of God for which there is no evidence. Well
exact same can be said for atheism. All manifestations of atheism assume God does not exist for which there is no evidence. Therefore
atheism AND theism are BOTH irrational. Any BELIEF in any thing for which there is no evidence IS irrational

I do not believe theism is irrational. I think theism is irrational. I say that because I do not do belief particularly the religious type. All that is necessary to disprove atheism is the existence of God. Which has never been demonstrated. Theism is therefore more irrational than atheism
as the truth value of the proposition God exists has never satisfied a burden of proof. Atheism does not actually state God does not exist only
that the truth claim is rejected because of said burden. Although as I am an apatheist then the question is academic as far as I am concerned

Again, whatever label you place on your real self has no real importance here. I also noticed you changed the label of your "self" again here. But anyway if as you say here, and try to argue for;
P1. All that is necessary to disprove atheism is the existence of God.
P2. The existence of God has never been demonstrated.
C. Theism is therefore more irrational than atheism

Then, it could also be argued that;
P1. All that is necessary to disprove theism is the proof of no existing God.
P2. The none existence of God has never been demonstrated.
C. Atheism is therefore more irrational than theism.

As you can see 'your' type of argument could work both ways, but what can also be seen is how irrational both type of arguments are.

Just because some thing has not been demonstrated YET does NOT mean the belief in that thing is less irrational then a disbelief in that thing. Especially if the actual thing in question has not even been defined nor determined yet. The existence or the none existence of God may well be easily demonstrated if you human beings could actually determine what God IS or is meant to be, first.

As I have clearly stated on numerous occasions already believing or disbelieving (in) some thing is irrational in of itself. Life is not fixed with unchanging events and occurrences, therefore to believe or disbelieve (in) some thing that could actually quite easily change or be demonstrated, to Me anyway, is totally irrational. If human beings want to believe or disbelieve (in) things, then that is their prerogative. But to Me it is obviously an irrational thing to do.

If, as you suggest, 'atheism' does not actually state 'God does not exist', then what does 'atheism' state exactly?

Clarify this point then you might be able to argue successfully that theism is more irrational than atheism is.

[ken]

Something cannot be two separate and distinct things that are mutually incompatible

Because that would constitute a paradox and so violate the law of non contradiction

But something can be two separate and distinct things where that law is not violated

you say one thing can be two separate and distinct things so again could you please provide some examples
of how one thing can be two separate and distinct things where the law of non contradiction is not violated

No because while you think specific examples are more important I think the general principle is
Were I to provide any examples they would distract from the general principle so I will not do so

If that is not the most obvious excuse for not doing some thing that one is not able to do, then I do not know what is. Well it is the most obvious excuse since the last one that you used.

[ken]

The common usage of words or labels at any particular point in time is probably not be very sufficient and successful in obtaining what it is
that all human beings truly want. There is no use in repeating what I wrote before but if you read it you will notice that what you wrote does
not have much at all to do with that what I was referring to. For example the sun revolves around the earth was common usage at a particular point in time but it is NOT at all sufficient and successful for making life better. Besides the fact that common usage can invariably be proven
wrong what is common usage usually has no bearing on what is actually sufficient successful and needed in making the world better for everyone

You select one example to justify a probable truth claim. You provide none to support an opposite truth claim even though that would have
been equally valid. You use words to suggest their fallibility even though that is all you have to convey your own thoughts here on the forum

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. If you are wanting Me to provide examples, then I will do it. However, you have tried to say that the "general principle" is more important and specific examples is less important. You even stated that any example distracts from the "general principle" and that you would not provide any examples.

A few things now,
If you are not wanting Me to provide examples, then I am more confused about what it is that you are actually trying to say here.
If you want Me to select one example to justify a probable truth claim, then provide the probable truth claim and I will provide one example that justifies it or not.
You claim that I have provided none [example?] to support an opposite truth claim. For your information I am not here to give examples and justify or not "truth claims". If some thing is true, then it is true. If some thing is not true, then it is not true. Neither of these things need Me to justify them or provide examples for them. If people are making truth claims then it would be up to those people to 'try to' to justify those truth claims. I am here to learn how to express better. I seek to be challenged and questioned about what I write so that I can learn more. I am not here to "try to" justify people's truth claims. I will however provide examples if people want Me to. But firstly they have to stipulate the actual truth claim that they want Me to provide examples for or against. But as I have stated before be prepared for Me to ask you for clarity with open-ended questions about what it is you actually mean and are seeking.

Obviously all I have is words to convey My messages here on this forum. And that is why I seek to learn how to express words better. I also seek to use words as precisely and concisely as I can. I do not want to assume any thing from the written words in front of Me and I also would like others not assuming the meaning of any of the words I use also. Assumptions lead to mistakes and mistakes lead to misinterpretations, and misinterpretations can lead to disagreements, and disagreements can very easily lead to fighting, and fighting obviously leads to warring.

To show just how easily assumptions can lead us all the down the wrong path, as above, I have used this thread and especially your view that 'theism is more irrational than atheism is' to do this. When you reply to My clarifying question "If, as you suggest, 'atheism' does not actually state 'God does not exist', then what does 'atheism' state exactly?", then we can look at how 'beliefs' and 'assumptions' themselves have actually played a part in us having two completely opposing views on the exact same issue. What the definition of that one word 'atheism' was believed and/or assumed to mean has infected and influenced how this whole issue was looked at and viewed.

Depending of 'your' perspective of the word 'atheism' and its definition, and if that is correct or not, then will influence if your argument is more sound and valid than what I said. However, the question remains how will we know if 'your' definition of the word 'atheism' is acceptable and/or agreed upon, or in other words correct? The answer to that is simple and easy, when combined with all the other "stuff" I have been saying here.

By the way this brings us back around to how irrational it is to be "arguing" over a word when it's definition has not even been in question yet. For example the word, God. What is It's definition and/or what does God actually mean?

One of the biggest and most common causes of why human beings actually argue, fight, with one another is just because of differing definitions and or meanings about the words they are conveying back and forth to each other. For example, if you said, "I do not want to argue with you", then I would be wondering why do you not want to logical reason with Me. Whereas, you might be thinking some thing completely different, even completely opposite than I am, which if I replied to you without clarifying what you actually were saying and meant could lead us both to further 'arguing'. See how simple making an assumption about what was meant when just one word can have very many different meaning, which sometimes can have the completely opposite meaning.

I can provide many examples of how one word can have many different definitions and meanings, which can so easily lead to disagreements, disputes, disruptions, et cetera, leading to utter confusion some times. I can also show how placing these different and sometimes opposing meaning words on actual things can cause even more confusion. You have stated that, "one thing can be two separate and distinct things", but I have not yet seen one thing being two separate things, or in other words the one thing being labeled with two different words, so that is why I asked you if you could provide some examples. There may well be for all I know, I just have not seen it yet.

What I might suggest here is words, themselves, are not fallible, as you suggest I have, but it is the meanings human beings have placed on words and how human beings use words that fallibility can occur quite often. But, by the way, it is with clarification that through words ALL will be revealed. But that is for another discussion.

[uwot]

If, as you suggest, 'atheism' does not actually state 'God does not exist', then what does 'atheism' state exactly?

'I don't believe that god exists.' It's not a claim about truth. An atheist can accept that god might exist, but not believe it. By the same token, a theist can accept that god might not exist, but believe it anyway. In either case, it's a statement about what you believe.

Clarify this point then you might be able to argue successfully that theism is more irrational than atheism is.

When it comes to beliefs, they don't require rationalising to remain beliefs. It is only the arguments that are used to promote a belief to a knowledge claim that can be subjected to logical analysis. There is no argument that can prove that god exists, nor is there one that can prove it doesn't. In that respect, neither view is 'rational'.