Over the next several days or so, I should begin posting a variety of arguments for the existence of God. The purpose of this thread is to give context to those arguments so that people have a bird's eye view of them when they are presented and evaluated.
I don't care if you become a Christian or not, nor do I care if you end up becoming any other kind of theist. Rather, my goal on this forum is to persuade you of the following proposition.
"It is not unreasonable to be a Christian theist."
Obviously, this core proposition should be distinguished from the proposition that Christian theism is unreasonable - i.e., crazy, stupid, insane, dishonest, and so on.
My core proposition should also be distinguished from the proposition that Christian theism is true, because something can be false yet reasonable for people to believe. This seems to happen a lot in science. For example, for a long time there could be reasonable disagreement between cosmologists regarding whether the Big Bang theory or the Steady State theory was true. I think atheism and theism are like that: There are a lot of arguments that go both ways, and someone can arrive at either conclusion without broaching rationality (of course, it is also possible to arrive at either conclusion irrationally).
Having said all of that, I'd like to ask whether anyone will agree to my core proposition without argument. I know that some atheists believe that Christianity can be reasonable, so the question is just how many such atheists post on this site.
As I mentioned, I tried to edit my above post to recognize that possibility, as I am extremely hesitant to make assumptions.
Actually, C., Tom created his own Bible by cutting everything out of the KJV that smacked of anything miraculous, so if in your mind, the "god" of the Bible had any capability of accomplishing miracles, then Tom was not a theist, or even a Deist.
Perhaps your approach should first come from the deistic perspective. As we are no respecter of a particular specific god(s) then it would make more sense to offer argument for the existence of a generic god. That is a huge hurdle in and of itself. If successful you could then offer further argument as to the specifics of your particular god - Yaweh, Jehovah, etc. You will need to be creative though as most of us are weary of the common theistic arguments that remain grounded in logical fallacies.
I think once a lot of us tell him "Been there, done that" he will be forced to be creative.
My mind is jumbled on this post. OP is christian or what? Either way, I come here to talk about why theistic belief in God is silly, not to hear reasons why he might exist. The rest of the world can give me those reasons as they've been doing since I was little and I'll keep ignoring them, as I've been doing since I was little. There is no such thing as reasonable Christianity in my mind- they believe a dude came down from the sky, said some things, got killed and turned into a zombie (short version). That's just not reasonable to me. Btw when I say zombie I mean in the living-dead sense, not the eat-your-brains sense.
OP is christian or what?
I'm a liberal Christian.
I come here to talk about why theistic belief in God is silly, not to hear reasons why he might exist.
Is that a common sentiment here? I certainly don't want to present arguments if people aren't interested in discussing them.
Atheist Nexus and Atheist Universe are more for those kinds of discussions (theists aren't even allowed at either, as far as I know). Think Atheist is open to theists wanting to debate. It's not, however, open to trolls (from either side).
if it were a common sentiment, you would have gotten a whiff of it in your earlier exchanges in this thread and the other that you made.
Not sure if it's common but it's definitely the way I feel. What got me thinking is, if you don't care if we believe, why bother presenting the argument anyways?