There's just something about theists that say they were once atheists....

by logansrun 21 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  lisaBObeesa

  Why is it so presumptious? Agnosticism in whatever flavor (theism or atheism, with extra credit for atheism because of the lack of extraordinary evidence) is the only rational decision.

  It is presumptuous because you are presuming that all theists have not thought things through.

  You saying that agnosticism is the only rational decision is just the sort of comment I was talking about in my ‘number three.’ It is just so…smug. (sorry.)

  But you have a right to your belief that you and people who believe like you are the only rational and correct people in the world.

  I thought “Mere Christianity” was a logical explanation of Christianity. Others here do, too. And, of course, some others do not. (That would be all the thoughtful, rational, smart, correct people, right?)

  Thanks for letting me rant again, and please have the last word. :)

  -LisaBOBeesa
• 

  rem

  LisaBOBeesa,

  Really, I'm just trying to get a rise out of ya!

  But seriously, is it presumptuous to think that a flat earther really hasn't thought his belief through? Now I can definitely respect someone's beliefs, but when they try to claim that their beliefs are rational when they are clearly not, is it presumptuous to correct them?

  Nobody knows with any confidence whether or not there is a god. There are no facts to prove or disprove the existence of gods. Many people believe there is a god and many people don't believe in any gods. People who "know" there is or is not a god are being irrational.

  I believe it presumptuous to be 100% sure there is a god as most Christians seem to assert. They've already made up their minds - many even say that nothing could change them. That's not being open minded.

  I thought “Mere Christianity” was a logical explanation of Christianity. Others here do, too. And, of course, some others do not. (That would be all the thoughtful, rational, smart, correct people, right?)

  An argument can be analyzed objectively. There usually is not much subjectivity in determining whether an argument is logical or not. Thus people's opinions don't matter. The fact that his apologetics have logical fallacies in them shows that he has not provided a logical foundation for his faith. It might seem logical to someone who doesn't know how to spot logical fallacies, but it's not.

  Thanks for letting me have the last word, but I don't mind if you reply.

  rem