How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

[surreptitious57]

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

[surreptitious57]

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

[uwot]

I don’t think that the religious (spiritual/metaphysical) deducing of the possibility of there being a creator is based on the mere “existence” of the universe, but more on the unfathomable order of its workings.
_______

It depends on the argument, but the basic cosmological argument, which is promoted by William Lane Craig, as well as some contributors to this forum, really is that simple. This from wikipedia:

Craig states the Kalam cosmological argument as a brief syllogism, most commonly rendered as follows:[3]

Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
The universe began to exist;
Therefore:
The universe has a cause.
From the conclusion of the initial syllogism, he appends a further premise and conclusion based upon ontological analysis of the properties of the cause:[4]

The universe has a cause;
If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;
Therefore:
An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cos ... l_argument

There are other arguments which appeal to the unfathomable order, intelligent design and its variant irreducible complexity, but they are indistinguishable from 'god of the gaps'.

[ken]

Physicists base their beliefs on actual evidence,

WHY have beliefs BEFORE facts are gathered, AND, WHY even have beliefs after you have the facts?

Beliefs are not necessary and in fact they can get in the way of gaining more facts, so WHY have beliefs at all?

and the fact that they have refined their theories over time, is not a negative against physics in any way, but a positive sign that physics provides us with an ever increasing understanding of the world around us.

An extremely painfully slow increasing understanding that is. A solution to this ridiculously slow increase in understanding is to rid one's self of any and ALL beliefs, except the belief in one's ability. That way gaining 'understanding', itself, can happen almost immediately.

In contrast, religion rejects evidence, and does not admit its errors based on evidence.

'Religion' does not accept nor reject any thing. Human beings do and I see this type of behavior from ALL people, not just the ones with religious views.

Religion will change due to growing political pressures against its out-dated immoral claims, but that's the best we can expect from religion.

'Religion' does not change, human beings do, and you can expect much better if you choose to, but you will only be more disappointed than you are now.

When I expect things like adult human beings to be caring for and guiding children to what is right, and protecting them from what is wrong I inevitably feel disappointed, so instead of expecting any thing, I just wait patiently for the right adults to come along.

[ken]

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

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
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

There has never to date been any evidence or proof to demonstrate the existence of God. So till there is then atheism remains a more rational position than theism. But remember that atheism does not state God does not exist.

I only just worked out that 'atheism' does not state God does not exist, through a discussion with another. If I was made aware of this earlier then I would have agreed with you earlier. I had assumed that 'atheism' was the belief that God does not exist, thus the reason why i was writing the way I was. I had asked for clarity with questions like, What does 'atheism' mean exactly, but did not get a straight reply. Although I was making assumptions, which turned out to be wrong and which makes me look foolish and thus proves My point about it being better to not assume any thing, I was also somewhat open, although only a little, by asking for answers with clarifying questions from you. I do this in order to become wiser and for no other reason. I can learn so much from all people that is why I wish they were more open and honest with Me. But people appear not to like answering My questions, all that often.

It merely rejects the truth claim that God does exist upon the basis of there being no evidence or proof to support the truth claim. And truth claims with no evidence or proof to support them cannot be accepted as true because they could actually be false. So it is therefore not enough to just assert them. They also have to be shown to be true

I agree here wholeheartedly except that unfortunately truth claims even with no evidence nor proof to support them can be accepted, as has been proven countless times already. Although it is best not to accept things without proof nor evidence people can and do accept things all the time without proof nor evidence. We, human beings, are all probably guilty of this at times in our lives.

[ken]

Would you believe every thing I say? What seems more rational to you, to believe every thing I say, or to remain open and question, with clarifying questions, what I am saying?

I usually tend to believe what others tell me till I can discover proof one way or the other. Once I find that a person has not been telling me the truth, I question everything that they have told me in the past. Sometimes I will choose to treat what they say as the truth even when I know it is not, just to avoid conflict. So I will accept what you have posted as what you believe to be true

HOW MANY TIMES IN THIS THREAD AND IN THIS FORUM DO I HAVE TO SAY, "I DO NOT HAVE ANY BELIEFS", except the the belief in the ability of the Self?

Why is it so hard for human beings to understand and accept this one single point?

till I find out it is not. I really have no reason to doubt what others are posting as being what they actually believe, and I try to do the same, and occasionally I will change my belief when presented with sufficient compelling evidence.

I used to have a problem with believing that God could know our actions in advance, but we still had free will. God's foreknowledge does not determine our actions, our actions determine God's foreknowledge. Another poster had explained how that could be using the rules of logic.

Thanks for expressing all those things that you do, but I am not really that interested in what you do. I am far more interested in your views. If you have forgotten the actual question I posed was, "What seems more rational to you, to believe every thing I say, or to remain open and question, with clarifying questions, what I am saying?"

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.

[ken]

I also noticed you changed the label of your self again here

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

Back to WHY place another label, with its own definition, on a thing that already has its own label and is already defined?

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

[ken]

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

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?

[ken]

Religion doesn't necessarily reject evidence; it just makes absurdly inflated claims about that evidence. The universe exists; therefore it must have a creator is about as useless as a logical deduction can be.

I don’t think that the religious (spiritual/metaphysical) deducing of the possibility of there being a creator is based on the mere “existence” of the universe, but more on the unfathomable order of its workings.
_______

What is supposedly unfathomable in the order of the Universe's workings?

ALL is fathomable and very simply and easily understood.

[thedoc]

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

[surreptitious57]

I also noticed you changed the label of your self again here

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

[attofishpi]

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

Come up with any description that satisfies your folly, simpleton. Why the f@k does a thread exist purporting that as a Christian i expect to convert idiots?

[surreptitious57]

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

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

[surreptitious57]

Why the fuck does a thread exist purporting that as a Christian I expect to convert idiots

You should ideally address that question to the OP rather than me but I will nevertheless oblige you. You as a Christian are
under zero obligation to convert anyone. Far as the thread is concerned this is a philosophy forum which in principle means
any type of question can be asked. And also this is an active and interesting thread and not one that requires your approval

[Science Fan]

Why does the thread suggest a Christian should expect to convert "idiots"? It's really amazing how theists demonize atheists. So, now atheists are "idiots"? Why? For not believing in pregnant virgins, talking snakes, and a plague of frogs?