kurt vonnegut said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

12thAngryMan said:

---

Can you say more about these miracles you and your acquaintances have witnessed firsthand? What if someone claimed to have seen a miracle performed by Allah or in the name of some other god? Apologies if I'm detailing or retreading old ground for the R&P board, but I'm curious how you can be confident 1) that it's your god performing the miracles, and 2) that there isn't some other logical explanation.

---

You missed the point. He has a philosophical bias that doesn't allow for the possibility of miracles. Miracles strictly speaking are acts of God. I know priests who've experienced Eucharistic miracles first hand. These are people who would not try to conjure something in their minds, and they would not lie. So the likeliest explanation is it's an act of God. Of course if I have a wrong predisposition, then it's easy to just reject it out of hand. You just say the one thing you know for sure is that it was not a miracle and explore all other possibilities to the exclusion of the possibility that the account is accurate. The super sensible is real. Why should we reject that as a possibility? Can you give a good reason?

---

I am open to the possibility of certain types of miracle.

The problem with revelation type miracles is the sheer volume and variety of conflicting 'miracles'. Your priest experienced a miracle that confirms the Christian God. A Muslim experiences one where he sees and hears Mohammad. A Hindu experiences their own miracle. And the Buddhist. And the Mystic. And then some lady hears a voice that tells here to drown her children in a bathtub.

I don't have any reason to not believe your priest. Or to not believe he is being genuine and sincere. However, to accept it as a miracle all of its implications is to reject all of the miracles experienced by non-Christians as simply false. If this is a miracle and proof of God, then it means that every non-Christian that has claimed a miracle is delusional or dishonest.

When you presuppose Christian miracles are real, its easy to believe Christian miracles from reliable sources. When you do not presuppose Christian miracles, skepticism is hardly an irrational reaction.

---

You can't examine miracles in isolation from logic and reason and truth. Their possibility doesn't mean all miracle claims are owed equal deference, and the fact that not all miracle claims are true doesn't diminish their possibility. I doubt you apply the same standard to other categories of truth claims.

Imagine serving on juries for two murder trials a year apart. You determine for the first the prosecutor was mistaken, and find the defendant not guilty. What does that tell you about the second trial? Pretty much nothing. The nature of the individual claims are the same, that the defendant murdered someone and you'll use your faculties of logic and reason to arrive at a conclusion about his guilt or innocence. Going into it, you at least acknowledge that it's possible for people to murder people, even after you've made a determination about the first defendant's innocence.

Bob Lee said:

---

You can't examine miracles in isolation from logic and reason and truth. Their possibility doesn't mean all miracle claims are owed equal deference, and the fact that not all miracle claims are true doesn't diminish their possibility. I doubt you apply the same standard to other categories of truth claims.

Imagine serving on juries for two murder trials a year apart. You determine for the first the prosecutor was mistaken, and find the defendant not guilty. What does that tell you about the second trial? Pretty much nothing. The nature of the individual claims are the same, that the defendant murdered someone and you'll use your faculties of logic and reason to arrive at a conclusion about his guilt or innocence. Going into it, you at least acknowledge that it's possible for people to murder people, even after you've made a determination about the first defendant's innocence.

---

Sure, there is a bias on my part against certain type of miracle claims. I think I categorically reject personal revelation claims because I do not find them to be consistent, testable, or reliable in any way. You could chalk it up to having a worldview that denies any possibility of miracle, but I would rethink that worldview and those presuppositions given the right push.

Imagine if every person on the planet received the same exact revelation from God at the same time right now. 7 something billion consistent revelations. Each revelation validated by 7 something billion other identical revelations. There is no standard of miracle claim evaluation I could use to deny something like this.

How do you approach a miracle claim from a Hindu? Lets take a devout Hindu man and lets say he is the absolute model of honesty and sincerity. He tells you that he experienced a miracle and a revelation from a Hindu god. And lets say the meaning and content of that revelation contradicts something in your faith. Do you apply similar standards to evaluating Hindu miracle claims as you do Christian claims? Or did you decide that the miracle was false or wrong the second I said 'Hindu'?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Fair enough. Online conversations area hard and I could have written my original post differently. The last two paragraphs of my response to one MEEN above maybe better describes my intention.

---

That's fair enough. I've considered quite often as it is a possibility God isn't real. I think I can honestly say that if it were proven God wasn't real, I would apply the following logic (sorry, it's a long one):

1. God isn't real so there is no set objective to life. No particular job I am here to do, and no particular "best" way to live. And certainly no objective morality. In that way I could say life absolutely has no true meaning. I would have to create my own.
2. If there is no objective "best" way to live and morality, I would do what suits me. My meaning/purpose in life would be to maximize my life as I view it. Sometimes what suits me will help others. Sometimes it will harm them. That will factor into my decision but only so much that I don't cause any undue harm. Undue harm would be determined by me alone, so those that I do harm to may feel differently. I could easily see a scenario in which failing to achieve what I want in life could lead to me ending it early. I've been fairly successful so far, so if you could convince me today that God isn't real, then the following changes would occur.

I can honestly say that I would be a very different person. Im sure society as a whole would force some guardrails on me, (can't exactly rob banks with impunity) but when you see the whole Epstein island ordeal, insider trading in Congress, etc, I feel fairly confident I could get away with quite alot. Maybe that makes me a bad person since I need an objective morality (and some divine help from time to time) to help me stay on the straight and narrow, but that's me being honest.

I wouldn't cheat on my wife, but I absolutely would have been very different with women in high school and college. Accumulating a high body count would have been high on my list of things to do.

I can very confidently say that 3 of my children would not exist if I had a different faith. Not due to abortion but because I would have been sterilized long before they had a chance to exist (although my views on abortion would do a total 180) Those 3 humans never would have had a life, and that haunts me and my wife both.

It may be terrible to say, but I am very confident I would operate in business differently. Not in terms of stealing or outright misdeeds, but I would certainly buy fully into the capitalist mindset of giving the customer as little as I can for as much money as I can get them to pay. I detest this business model because I think it devalues the humans we are supposed to serve, but if we're all just cosmic goo, I really couldn't care less. I'd churn through whatever employees are willing to work for the wages and conditions I set. I could take far more trips, buy far more stuff for my family and retire far earlier. Maybe I would find more satisfaction in making my employees and customers happy than I would making more money, but I doubt it.

I certainly would not give of my money as freely as I do now. Nor would I volunteer as much time. Church going away puts a lot of money and time back in my life.

The angry/hurtful things that I want to say but reword instead would stop being filtered. The only reason I'm not a genuine scathing ******* when dealing with some people is because I believe they have an inherent dignity. If that was gone, couldn't care less. This would likely be curtailed some by the need to hang on to certain clients/employees, but the ones that weren't important enough to move the needle would hear it.

While I wouldn't kill myself right now, I could see logic in ending it early. I don't know what it feels like to be 80 + but I could certainly see a point at which logically it makes sense to go out in some fun way than it would to extend life as long as I can, slowly falling apart.

Oh, and vigilante justice would definitely be on the table. The only thing stopping me there would be a police state.

This is a small sampling of things I think. I know I'm not alone in these thoughts, as I've had many conversations with different friends about how their life here and now would change. Men fully ok with cheating on their wives in this scenario, and not because they don't love her, but because their lustful. Obviously losing the marriage may stop them, but it wouldn't be an interior motivation. Men who would be in fist fights every other day because of their angry dispositions. Men that would steal. Men that have been very clear they would lie to make more sales. And that speaks nothing of how different their life would be in general because of the decisions they specifically made while they were still believers (in this scenario). Would I have even bothered getting married? Would I live somewhere different? Would I be in a sleazier industry that offered a chance to make more money? (not porn lol) would I have bothered with kids at all?

I don't know you nor your interior disposition, but this is the reality in my world. I applaud you that you seem to have less/no struggles with these basal desires, but I can't even begin to count the amount of times I made "better" choices because of my faith. I wouldn't be a serial killer but overall I would be a much, much more selfish person, much less restrained in my hurtful actions towards others and all around different because YOLO. I'd be on an all out mission to get mine and let everyone else outside of my circle fend for themselves.

And to be clear, I don't do this primarily for carrot/stick. Heaven and Hell definitely helps me make the right decisions on bad days, but the reason I do good things now is because I believe I was created to do good things. Heaven is a place where there is no more pain and suffering and I want to help people get there with me (hopefully). I'm not trying to earn a reward. I'm trying to do what I was made to do.

I hope this more accurately completed your thought experiment, and hopefully you don't consider me and my unnamed friends to be terrible people.

ETA: I know utility is not a good enough reason to believe, so I could take all of that out, but I feel it important to show why it's such a hot topic for Christians. It's deeply personal and might be another reason why the thought experiment isn't going well

Bob Lee said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

It's curious people seem completely unwilling to even engage with the hypothetical.

The entire premise is that you like all the non believers on this board become convinced that Christianity or theism no long offers truth, only comfort. What then?

---

The OP is basically saying that even absent eternity, we still have a temporal purpose, right? So what is that supposed to be? Accrual of wealth? What is man's ultimate end?

Once you answer that question you can start to see why the hypothetical is problematic. It's actually self defeating. Because it's the atheist who doesn't behave the way you expect him to if he were utterly convinced of the non existence of God, which is good evidence in itself in support of the existence of God.

---

I think you have it backwards. We find our fulfillment in all sorts of ways, but most strongly through our own interpersonal relationships. Finding out the religion you were raised in is false and no others have any more claim to the truth doesn't destroy this.

The truth is that the theistic view of how an "atheist should behave" is merely a caricature. It reduces life to merely what a god might derive from it, not how a human being might face their existence once they realize the falsehood of religion.

A huge percentage of the world is now irreligious. We have many countries we can look at that are on second generations of low religious belief. Why don't we see your caricature of atheism play out? Either your assertions are dead wrong or atheists the world over secretly believe in god or otherwise pretend one exists. This view I find too silly to take seriously. The idea that this is merely religious inertia of sorts is defied by the fact that things are not even trending in the directions your beliefs demand.

I very simply don't believe that you would behave so differently if you found out your religion is false and no other one is true either. We've seen this play out over countless individuals leaving every type of faith without the effects you demand, and it never seems to occur to you that you might have it wrong. Most of what you can point to is minor at best.

Further, I think the rejection of religion actually implies less than you are asserting here. I doubt a single non-believer on this board would state with certainty that there is no god. But you'll find much more confidence in the statement that YHWH isn't a real god, or Jesus didn't rise from the grave, or Muhammed was not a prophet.

What are you really going to do in your life that's so different if we had an "observation only" time machine and went back and saw that jesus died and stayed dead? Your assertions above I've simply not found to be true in people I've seen leave religion. To put it simply, I've seen no reduction in kindness of generosity in these people. And I find the theists that argue they only behave neighborly for fear of eternal punishment or hope for eternal reward, rather sad.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

"Besides if you are right and I am living my life poorly and will someday be judged by God - then let him do his job. Its not your job."

Kurt, think about what is on the line here. How much do I have to hate someone to not even share the reality of the world with them? Christians absolutely have the obligation to share the redemption available through Christ. And the first step of the good news is understanding that there is A) sin and death in this world B) sin and death are not good C) there is a savior out there that overcome sin and death. D) We can overcome sin and death by aligning our will and nature with God.

Do you realize what being judged by God even means or entails? It seems there already is this notion in the back of your mind that you'll get to live the life you like with the view of being a 'good person' and are prepared to present that to whatever God you didn't believe in. And that it will pass muster.

Do you want us to have apathy for your soul? Or miss out on the joy in this world?

We're addressing a well intentioned but ultimately nihilist worldview that doesn't even make it to page one of Ecclesiastes.

---

How do you know you are encouraging me toward a worldview that is correct and results in the afterlife that you say it does? What if you are encouraging me toward a worldview that the real God finds problematic and that He would actually feel more merciful toward an agnostic as opposed to a worshipper of a false God? I recognize what you say is on the line. Christianity makes a MASSIVE claim and then says "eh, just trust me! Besides, God will give you an even better prize if you believe without seeing."

I think its time to take religion 101 class here. There is no other god that makes the claims YHWH does. And YHWH makes them eternally, so you need to give credence here that a religion needs to exist today. Your arguing from silence that there might just be an agnostic god that has no motivations. Where is this god you, ironically, are going to ask a hail mary of? And you presuppose that you basically are entitled to any god revealing themselves to you in their full glory. Why do you suppose that? If you honestly believe we all just turn back into worm food at the end, and people are devoutly saying 'you don't have to you can live forever in bliss and love with your creator'. Wouldn't you run to go examine those claims? This whole conversation reads like someone at the beginning of their existential search, not the end.

Do I know what being judged by God means and entails? No, do you? How do you know? And how do you prove it to me? "eh, just trust me?"

The christian God, YHWH, declares they are the creator of all and that there will be The Day of The Lord which will bring judgement and justice to this world. That is what God has shared and has been kept as tradition of the church. Its not just me saying these things.

I have been trying on the R&P board to show that its way more than 'just trust me.' We've gone through textual criticism, the founding of the church, how christianity is different than other religions, and practically every other facet of christianity here over the last year or so. You sit back and say 'christians are saying just trust me' when we're trying to get you to come experience and hear about the preserved records of the church. Usually the response lobbed here is that A) everyone in the entire history of the church is lying. B) There are equal deities elsewhere.

I'm not asking for your apathy. I'm asking you to consider another perspective without using your Christian lens. I think I've become frustrated in this thread because I don't think anyone has been willing to remove their Christian lens and look through a different one. And part of me wants to attribute it to Christians here being unable to even consider the possibility that they aren't correct. A less judgy part of me realizes this isn't really fair and perhaps I've done a poor job of explaining the assignment.

I can't, not in any meaningful way, not see this through a christian lens. You're basically just asking for unconditional support of your lifestyle. We've gone over this, what specifically do you think is not correct about Christianity? That Jesus didn't exist? That he didn't fulfill the role of messiah? That everyone is just a weirdo who lied and then died for this cause? We can salesperson you pain points away here. We already started addressing miracles earlier.

When your presuppositions all confirm the existence of a God who provides meaning, then of course you will conclude that existence without God is meaningless. The spirit of the hypothetical is that you remove those presuppositions from your mind and consider the possibility of purpose using naturalist presuppositions. This is how empathy works. And how understanding perspective works. If a part of the purpose of the R&P board is to understand different perspective, then this is a base level ability we need to be willing to use.

To paraphrase Father Stephen Young here, empathy is not only useless, its bad. Empathy is just me having to unconditionally support your assertions, regardless of what they are. I cannot empathize with someone who ardently believes when we die nothing happens. I can see your viewpoint, and see how you arrive at the conclusions you do, but I cannot condone or just go, 'thats cool bro, you do you' on this subject.

Again, all of this, is said in love. If I had apathy for you, I'd just affirm what you want to hear and move along- because its all gonna be dust one day right?

---

It seems like you can say this about western countries that have lost faith. You can also easily point to the massive genocide conducted in atheist/communist nations where they behaved exactly as we'd expect atheists to behave (Russia, China, Africa)

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

You can't examine miracles in isolation from logic and reason and truth. Their possibility doesn't mean all miracle claims are owed equal deference, and the fact that not all miracle claims are true doesn't diminish their possibility. I doubt you apply the same standard to other categories of truth claims.

Imagine serving on juries for two murder trials a year apart. You determine for the first the prosecutor was mistaken, and find the defendant not guilty. What does that tell you about the second trial? Pretty much nothing. The nature of the individual claims are the same, that the defendant murdered someone and you'll use your faculties of logic and reason to arrive at a conclusion about his guilt or innocence. Going into it, you at least acknowledge that it's possible for people to murder people, even after you've made a determination about the first defendant's innocence.

---

Sure, there is a bias on my part against certain type of miracle claims. I think I categorically reject personal revelation claims because I do not find them to be consistent, testable, or reliable in any way. You could chalk it up to having a worldview that denies any possibility of miracle, but I would rethink that worldview and those presuppositions given the right push.

Imagine if every person on the planet received the same exact revelation from God at the same time right now. 7 something billion consistent revelations. Each revelation validated by 7 something billion other identical revelations. There is no standard of miracle claim evaluation I could use to deny something like this.

How do you approach a miracle claim from a Hindu? Lets take a devout Hindu man and lets say he is the absolute model of honesty and sincerity. He tells you that he experienced a miracle and a revelation from a Hindu god. And lets say the meaning and content of that revelation contradicts something in your faith. Do you apply similar standards to evaluating Hindu miracle claims as you do Christian claims? Or did you decide that the miracle was false or wrong the second I said 'Hindu'?

---

I reject claims out of hand that are mutually exclusive with the truth. I wouldn't necessarily doubt that he experienced something supernatural, but belief in miracles doesn't require we set aside what we know about the truth. There's also the possibility that the guy you're describing is being lied to. He's mistaking something that's merely supernatural for an act of God. There are a lot of claims of miracles and apparitions made by Christians that I don't positively claim are true. I will say they're consistent with the truth if they are. I leave it at that, and my faith doesn't hinge on their accuracy. Some are more compelling than others. If there are a lot of witnesses to something who demonstrate themselves to be completely sane before and since, then you'll have more of my attention than if the source for a claim is a single schizophrenia patient or something.

My knowledge of God informs what I believe about miracles. Not the other way around. Miracles can of course be evidence of the existence of God, but the existence of God necessitates a belief in the possibility of miracles.

The Banned said:

---

It seems like you can say this about western countries that have lost faith. You can also easily point to the massive genocide conducted in atheist/communist nations where they behaved exactly as we'd expect atheists to behave (Russia, China, Africa)

---

Russia is a western country culturally. And the common ground you have here is communism not atheism. It's not like the German people weren't overwhelmingly Christian or that it's any difficultly at all pointing to monstrous actions of religious peoples of most any faith. This is a pretty lazy take if you ask me. The negative behaviors you are asserting should happen are at the individual level, not of despots.

The Christian says that man's purpose is beatitude. Every move toward the beatific vision is in furtherance of fulfillment. We are fulfilling our purpose. Every move away from that end is contrary to our fulfillment.

You will assign things moral worth and use words like fulfillment and flourishing and good and bad. It's bereft of any meaning unless you can tell me to what end. What is our purpose? That you seek fulfillment and desire to know the truth and can gain a sense of self satisfaction in certain aspects of life is completely consistent with MY view of the human person.

The Banned said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

It seems like you can say this about western countries that have lost faith. You can also easily point to the massive genocide conducted in atheist/communist nations where they behaved exactly as we'd expect atheists to behave (Russia, China, Africa)

---

Russia is a western country culturally. And the common ground you have here is communism not atheism. It's not like the German people weren't overwhelmingly Christian or that it's any difficultly at all pointing to monstrous actions of religious peoples of most any faith. This is a pretty lazy take if you ask me. The negative behaviors you are asserting should happen are at the individual level, not of despots.

---

Zobel may disagree with you about Russian being culturally western, religiously or otherwise.

And you're correct in saying it's a lazy argument. It was merely a counterpoint to what I see as a lazy point that these European countries should be spinning out of control within 30-50 years of changing beliefs. If you consider abortion murder (which I know you don't) then I'd say Ireland has gone off the rails since their change. But most importantly is the fertility rate. Give it 100 years and see how the loss of faith causes irreparable damage.

---

I don't see how you can call my argument lazy when you literally make the exact word for word argument but merely change the timeline from 50 years to 100. Seems I had you completely pegged.

Fertility rate decline occurs across a wide array of cultures and is heavily driven by economic factors. And abortion or gay marriage ect., are exactly the sorts of social issues that rely overwhelmingly on religious grounds that don't support your argument. It's like a Muslim or Jew complaining of increased pork consumption. Of course a secular society won't care. Who argued otherwise. What about rape, or theft, or other violence. That's where your argument lies, it's also where it dies.

Aggrad08 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

It seems like you can say this about western countries that have lost faith. You can also easily point to the massive genocide conducted in atheist/communist nations where they behaved exactly as we'd expect atheists to behave (Russia, China, Africa)

---

Russia is a western country culturally. And the common ground you have here is communism not atheism. It's not like the German people weren't overwhelmingly Christian or that it's any difficultly at all pointing to monstrous actions of religious peoples of most any faith. This is a pretty lazy take if you ask me. The negative behaviors you are asserting should happen are at the individual level, not of despots.

---

Zobel may disagree with you about Russian being culturally western, religiously or otherwise.

And you're correct in saying it's a lazy argument. It was merely a counterpoint to what I see as a lazy point that these European countries should be spinning out of control within 30-50 years of changing beliefs. If you consider abortion murder (which I know you don't) then I'd say Ireland has gone off the rails since their change. But most importantly is the fertility rate. Give it 100 years and see how the loss of faith causes irreparable damage.

---

I don't see how you can call my argument lazy when you literally make the exact word for word argument but merely change the timeline from 50 years to 100. Seems I had you completely pegged.

Fertility rate decline occurs across a wide array of cultures and is heavily driven by economic factors. And abortion or gay marriage ect., are exactly the sorts of social issues that rely overwhelmingly on religious grounds that don't support your argument. It's like a Muslim or Jew complaining of increased pork consumption. Of course a secular society won't care. Who argued otherwise. What about rape, or theft, or other violence. That's where your argument lies, it's also where it dies.

---

Societies aren't built in a day nor do they fall in a day. I see absolutely no reason to assume people eschewing faith would lead to mass chaos overnight. In fact, if you read my other posts, that's the exact OPPOSITE of what I suggest. I stated that people leaving faith behind leads to death by 1000 paper cuts for society. It's actually quite a rare exception that societies go off the rails in a hurry, and those are instances where it's government implemented atheism.

Take the fertility rate again. Yes, there are plenty of factors that affect the rate, but it is quite clear that there is a difference between faith groups. Mormons clearly lead the way in reproductive rate, closely followed by evangelical Protestants and Catholics. Even anecdotally, how many truly devout Catholics, Mormons or Muslims do you know that have 1 kid (at least by choice)? I don't mean to commit the no true Scotsman fallacy, but numbers are what they are. Traditional parishes have massive families. Conservative Mormon churches have massive families. Traditional Muslims as well.

Fertility rate as it is will destroy western countries and that is primarily tied to faith. Why did we start prioritizing economic factors over families? It's almost like we replaced the commandment to be fruitful and multiply with "kids cost too much money". We've replaced non contraceptive sex that allows for life, even when inconvenient for "no way I can have more than 2 kids. It's just too hard". When did we replace large families with more vacations, travel ball, etc? The only economic factor involved is people becoming more absorbed in the material goods in life and less interested in what the traditional faith has taught for centuries.

I can go through more examples of the other paper cuts and why this would take anywhere from 100-300 years to destroy a culture but I don't think you'd care to go through any of it. I can also list all sorts of things that faithful people would consider atrocities that won't matter to you at all. As far as I'm concerned, we're committing mass murder every day at planned parenthood. We can go down the list, but you'll disagree with my concerns being valid so it'll be a failed exercise.

I think you have me co fused with Bob Lee. No where in this thread have I suggested that atheists at an individual level would abandon 100% of their prior moral precepts. In fact I've said the opposite on a number of occasions. Feel free to read them. I believe I would be less moral by my current standards, but I have stated clearly that would not mean I would proceed with hedonistic and violent abandon.

Bob Lee said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

You can't examine miracles in isolation from logic and reason and truth. Their possibility doesn't mean all miracle claims are owed equal deference, and the fact that not all miracle claims are true doesn't diminish their possibility. I doubt you apply the same standard to other categories of truth claims.

Imagine serving on juries for two murder trials a year apart. You determine for the first the prosecutor was mistaken, and find the defendant not guilty. What does that tell you about the second trial? Pretty much nothing. The nature of the individual claims are the same, that the defendant murdered someone and you'll use your faculties of logic and reason to arrive at a conclusion about his guilt or innocence. Going into it, you at least acknowledge that it's possible for people to murder people, even after you've made a determination about the first defendant's innocence.

---

Sure, there is a bias on my part against certain type of miracle claims. I think I categorically reject personal revelation claims because I do not find them to be consistent, testable, or reliable in any way. You could chalk it up to having a worldview that denies any possibility of miracle, but I would rethink that worldview and those presuppositions given the right push.

Imagine if every person on the planet received the same exact revelation from God at the same time right now. 7 something billion consistent revelations. Each revelation validated by 7 something billion other identical revelations. There is no standard of miracle claim evaluation I could use to deny something like this.

How do you approach a miracle claim from a Hindu? Lets take a devout Hindu man and lets say he is the absolute model of honesty and sincerity. He tells you that he experienced a miracle and a revelation from a Hindu god. And lets say the meaning and content of that revelation contradicts something in your faith. Do you apply similar standards to evaluating Hindu miracle claims as you do Christian claims? Or did you decide that the miracle was false or wrong the second I said 'Hindu'?

---

I reject claims out of hand that are mutually exclusive with the truth. I wouldn't necessarily doubt that he experienced something supernatural, but belief in miracles doesn't require we set aside what we know about the truth. There's also the possibility that the guy you're describing is being lied to. He's mistaking something that's merely supernatural for an act of God. There are a lot of claims of miracles and apparitions made by Christians that I don't positively claim are true. I will say they're consistent with the truth if they are. I leave it at that, and my faith doesn't hinge on their accuracy. Some are more compelling than others. If there are a lot of witnesses to something who demonstrate themselves to be completely sane before and since, then you'll have more of my attention than if the source for a claim is a single schizophrenia patient or something.

My knowledge of God informs what I believe about miracles. Not the other way around. Miracles can of course be evidence of the existence of God, but the existence of God necessitates a belief in the possibility of miracles.

---

In your previous analogy of sitting on two murder trial juries a year apart, you are telling me that it is not reasonable to assume the second defendant to be guilty/not guilty based on what I determined in the first trial. I am told that I should evaluate individual claims on their own merit rather through the bias of a lens of a previous claim. And, I believe that this was offered in the context of how I ought to examine Christian miracle claims.

So, how is your post above anything other than exactly what you suggested I should not do? Right off the bat, you admit to reject any claim out of hand that is not compatible with what you think is true. And than you proceed to offer skepticism and alternate explanations for the Hindu man's miracle. Now, at the end you agree that your understanding of God informs what you believe in miracles and not the other way around. But, you should consider that my understanding of reality informs my beliefs about miracles also.

In the end, I don't see what criticism you could assign to atheists regarding how they evaluate miracles that could not be assigned right back to the way you evaluate miracles.

Quote:

---

I'm not asking for your apathy. I'm asking you to consider another perspective without using your Christian lens. I think I've become frustrated in this thread because I don't think anyone has been willing to remove their Christian lens and look through a different one. And part of me wants to attribute it to Christians here being unable to even consider the possibility that they aren't correct. A less judgy part of me realizes this isn't really fair and perhaps I've done a poor job of explaining the assignment.

I can't, not in any meaningful way, not see this through a christian lens. You're basically just asking for unconditional support of your lifestyle. We've gone over this, what specifically do you think is not correct about Christianity? That Jesus didn't exist? That he didn't fulfill the role of messiah? That everyone is just a weirdo who lied and then died for this cause? We can salesperson you pain points away here. We already started addressing miracles earlier.

When your presuppositions all confirm the existence of a God who provides meaning, then of course you will conclude that existence without God is meaningless. The spirit of the hypothetical is that you remove those presuppositions from your mind and consider the possibility of purpose using naturalist presuppositions. This is how empathy works. And how understanding perspective works. If a part of the purpose of the R&P board is to understand different perspective, then this is a base level ability we need to be willing to use.

To paraphrase Father Stephen Young here, empathy is not only useless, its bad. Empathy is just me having to unconditionally support your assertions, regardless of what they are. I cannot empathize with someone who ardently believes when we die nothing happens. I can see your viewpoint, and see how you arrive at the conclusions you do, but I cannot condone or just go, 'thats cool bro, you do you' on this subject.

Again, all of this, is said in love. If I had apathy for you, I'd just affirm what you want to hear and move along- because its all gonna be dust one day right?

---

I only wanted to respond to what you wrote about empathy.

I believe that the way you've described empathy is a massive perversion of what the word actually means. And I'm curious what everyone else believes.

To feel empathy toward someone does NOT mean that you unconditionally support their assertions or their lifestyle. Empathy simply relates to the ability to imagine what someone else is thinking or feeling based on their perspective.

When someone experiences a tragedy in their life that you have not experienced, how do you relate to that person? For most people, we pull from our experiences of loss and pain and we listen to this person explain how and what they feel. And we try to build a model in our brain of how they feel and what they are going through from their perspective. Maybe this person also feels anger toward some cause of the tragedy. Empathy permits you to see the tragedy from their perspective and understand why they may feel anger. Understanding this anger is not the same as unconditional support of their anger.

Most of us use empathy consistently throughout the day. It is necessary for relating to people and to understanding them emotionally. I say 'most of us', because I recognize that some people have difficulty experiencing empathy. Medically, this is often associated with antisocial personality disorders, narcissism, and sociopathy.

If you are not willing to view the world from the perspective of your brothers and sisters, you will never understand them. Denial of empathy is a great way to ensure that you never make any sort of meaningful connection with anyone with a different worldview and that you fully insulate yourself and your views from anything that is 'other'.

Now, I don't think you are a sociopath. I think you use empathy every day like most of the rest of us. And this is why I reject your definition of empathy as relating to an unconditional support of something. I am very much not asking you to fully endorse my worldview. I am very much saying that if you wish to understand my worldview, you have to put in some work. And if you do not wish to understand anyone else's worldview, then thats fine. Like I said, its a great way to insulate yourself.

What you do not seem to understand after pages of responses is that we understand your world view. And reject it.

You seem to not understand that as a Christian, we are convinced that our beliefs are the Truth. And that Jesus Christ is the only way to God. An absolute like that is incompatible with your world view.

You keep saying we should look at things through non Christian "lenses", but you seem to refuse to look at things through our lens.

I think the biggest disconnect is that Christians, by definition, are generally not believers in moral relativism, which your belief system appears based one.

We tend to believe in absolutes. Right and wrong. Jesus Christ is lord. The Christian God is the Creator of the universe.

I do not think anyone on here is bashing you or feel you are a threat. And I do not believe atheists/agnostics are unhappy, vile hedonists.

We just completely disagree.

Did you read where one MEEN says "I can't, not in any meaningful way, not see this through a Christian lens."?

Kurt, you've mostly just described sympathy. Empathy, as a describer over and above sympathy (especially over the last 15 years and its rise in use in society) is to mean to go one step further. The full definition of empathy, connotatively, is that you role play yourself in the other persons shoes, imagine what it would be to be like them, and then affirm their actions given their circumstances. Anything short of that last action isn't empathy. Its just sympathy. There is also this hidden hook to empathy where when I state that I empathize with someone, I am liable to be on the hook to assist in whatever way the person says I need to help. And if I reject helping that person in the exact way they say they want to be helped- I am no longer empathetic to them or their cause. Very much like when I approach a panhandler and try to help with food or contacting a shelter, but they just want money and I refuse to give them money. I am not empathetic to their cause.

This is the full synapses of 'empathy' of me towards you.

**read your posts over the past year or so**,
**understand your viewpoints and take them seriously**
**try to put myself in your shoes, think about friends who have this viewpoint and my younger years when wrestling with the idea of God**
**think there is something missing in your worldview here**
**try to help you realize what I take to be a grave error**

Here's what you want out of the definition of empathy:

**read your posts over the past year or so**
**understand your viewpoints and take them seriously**
**try to put myself in your shoes, think about friends who have this viewpoint and my younger years when wrestling with the idea of God**
**think there is something missing in your worldview here**
**deny my thoughts, and affirm to you your line of thinking and how you came to the conclusion you did**

This is just dude-ism.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Did you read where one MEEN says "I can't, not in any meaningful way, not see this through a Christian lens."?

---

Should not you, with your moral relativism, understand that?

I do not know what you want us to do.

We are Christians. We have the mind of Christ. Whether we try to see things through your lens or not, we reject your worldview,

It seems you believe that if we truly used your "lenses", we would convert to your worldview. We understand what your world view is. We reject it and choose Christ. It is as simple as that.


What do you want from us? Approval? When as Christians we can not?

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Kurt, you've mostly just described sympathy. Empathy, as a describer over and above sympathy (especially over the last 15 years and its rise in use in society) is to mean to go one step further. The full definition of empathy, connotatively, is that you role play yourself in the other persons shoes, imagine what it would be to be like them, and then affirm their actions given their circumstances. Anything short of that last action isn't empathy. Its just sympathy. There is also this hidden hook to empathy where when I state that I empathize with someone, I am liable to be on the hook to assist in whatever way the person says I need to help. And if I reject helping that person in the exact way they say they want to be helped- I am no longer empathetic to them or their cause. Very much like when I approach a panhandler and try to help with food or contacting a shelter, but they just want money and I refuse to give them money. I am not empathetic to their cause.

This is the full synapses of 'empathy' of me towards you.

**read your posts over the past year or so**,
**understand your viewpoints and take them seriously**
**try to put myself in your shoes, think about friends who have this viewpoint and my younger years when wrestling with the idea of God**
**think there is something missing in your worldview here**
**try to help you realize what I take to be a grave error**

Here's what you want out of the definition of empathy:

**read your posts over the past year or so**
**understand your viewpoints and take them seriously**
**try to put myself in your shoes, think about friends who have this viewpoint and my younger years when wrestling with the idea of God**
**think there is something missing in your worldview here**
**deny my thoughts, and affirm to you your line of thinking and how you came to the conclusion you did**

This is just dude-ism.

---

Well said.

It seems as Kurt wants us to do what we can not do due to our Christian beliefs.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Did you read where one MEEN says "I can't, not in any meaningful way, not see this through a Christian lens."?

---

Because literally what you want, at the end of the day, is just me to affirm your life choices. I have spent a couple minutes wrapping my mind around how you came to your conclusions. But empathy requires action: Either I say or do something that is inline with you worldview. Only then am I being empathetic. You couldn't care less if I deny christian morality to just tell you what you want to hear. Because its not your morality anyway.

This is literally just the christian bait and switch on every single hot button issue.

"Empathize with the teenager going into the abortion clinic"
"Empathize with the gay man who doesn't see homosexuality as against God's will"
"Empathize with the local communist who just wants a fare wage."

And then I think to myself how bad it must be to be X. And then offer a christian based solution to their ills. But this isn't empathy. Empathy only allows me to do what the perceived victim wants. I have to affirm the abortion, the gay marriage, the tax increases. If I don't, I am no longer empathizing with them.

And of course, this direction of empathy is only one way. No one from the intersectionally lower groups is required to empathize with devout christianity. Because Christianity is seen as a barrier that creates victims. I don't ask of you to view, and affirm my life choices.

---

Amen.

First of all, just think if the early Christians had agreed with moral relativism. Instead of being persecuted, tortured, and killed for their belief in the absolute Truth?

And I have read some the book you recommended. Very convincing with little or non religious connections.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

You can't examine miracles in isolation from logic and reason and truth. Their possibility doesn't mean all miracle claims are owed equal deference, and the fact that not all miracle claims are true doesn't diminish their possibility. I doubt you apply the same standard to other categories of truth claims.

Imagine serving on juries for two murder trials a year apart. You determine for the first the prosecutor was mistaken, and find the defendant not guilty. What does that tell you about the second trial? Pretty much nothing. The nature of the individual claims are the same, that the defendant murdered someone and you'll use your faculties of logic and reason to arrive at a conclusion about his guilt or innocence. Going into it, you at least acknowledge that it's possible for people to murder people, even after you've made a determination about the first defendant's innocence.

---

Sure, there is a bias on my part against certain type of miracle claims. I think I categorically reject personal revelation claims because I do not find them to be consistent, testable, or reliable in any way. You could chalk it up to having a worldview that denies any possibility of miracle, but I would rethink that worldview and those presuppositions given the right push.

Imagine if every person on the planet received the same exact revelation from God at the same time right now. 7 something billion consistent revelations. Each revelation validated by 7 something billion other identical revelations. There is no standard of miracle claim evaluation I could use to deny something like this.

How do you approach a miracle claim from a Hindu? Lets take a devout Hindu man and lets say he is the absolute model of honesty and sincerity. He tells you that he experienced a miracle and a revelation from a Hindu god. And lets say the meaning and content of that revelation contradicts something in your faith. Do you apply similar standards to evaluating Hindu miracle claims as you do Christian claims? Or did you decide that the miracle was false or wrong the second I said 'Hindu'?

---

I reject claims out of hand that are mutually exclusive with the truth. I wouldn't necessarily doubt that he experienced something supernatural, but belief in miracles doesn't require we set aside what we know about the truth. There's also the possibility that the guy you're describing is being lied to. He's mistaking something that's merely supernatural for an act of God. There are a lot of claims of miracles and apparitions made by Christians that I don't positively claim are true. I will say they're consistent with the truth if they are. I leave it at that, and my faith doesn't hinge on their accuracy. Some are more compelling than others. If there are a lot of witnesses to something who demonstrate themselves to be completely sane before and since, then you'll have more of my attention than if the source for a claim is a single schizophrenia patient or something.

My knowledge of God informs what I believe about miracles. Not the other way around. Miracles can of course be evidence of the existence of God, but the existence of God necessitates a belief in the possibility of miracles.

---

In your previous analogy of sitting on two murder trial juries a year apart, you are telling me that it is not reasonable to assume the second defendant to be guilty/not guilty based on what I determined in the first trial. I am told that I should evaluate individual claims on their own merit rather through the bias of a lens of a previous claim. And, I believe that this was offered in the context of how I ought to examine Christian miracle claims.

So, how is your post above anything other than exactly what you suggested I should not do? Right off the bat, you admit to reject any claim out of hand that is not compatible with what you think is true. And than you proceed to offer skepticism and alternate explanations for the Hindu man's miracle. Now, at the end you agree that your understanding of God informs what you believe in miracles and not the other way around. But, you should consider that my understanding of reality informs my beliefs about miracles also.

In the end, I don't see what criticism you could assign to atheists regarding how they evaluate miracles that could not be assigned right back to the way you evaluate miracles.

---

Atheists don't allow for the possibility of miracles. That's my only criticism. I know you said you're open to the possibility of certain kinds of miracles, just not revelatory miracles. I just don't know how you can reconcile that with your disbelief in anything super sensible, super natural, metaphysical, etc.

You're pretending we're going about it the same way. In the example of my hypothetical, if I don't allow for the possibility of murder then I'm going to find everyone innocent all the time. You don't even acknowledge the most basic and obvious miracle. Creation ex nihilo.

There's another NDE focuses book, https://www.amazon.com/Imagine-Heaven-Near-Death-Experiences-Exhilarating/dp/080101526X that I want to read personally, but I don't feel compelled to recommend it on these forums because it'll get smoked by confirmation bias. 'Oh the christian pastor has only published the NDEs that affirm his positions- Pass'

The Self Does Not Die is about as academic, secular, dry, and verifiable as you're ever going to get on NDEs. These are scholarly groups attached to universities publishing this.

Baby steps here, I'm just trying to push atheist's worldview that there is more than just what can be described by physics. That is their god, gotta play on their court first.

Aggrad08, I've specifically brought up just a very short, highly incomplete list of miraculous things in modern times. People having their vision restored by St. Paraskevi, icons weeping myrrh, saint Seraphim of Sarov sharing interactions with the Theotokos with other people (like they both got to be visited by Mary), him seeing Jesus walk into his icon, his face shining as bright as the sun to another inquirer. The picture of St Lakovos being 10 months after his death. Father Ephraim, who was a stalwart in establishing monasteries in America being seen at multiple locations (the monasteries he founded) after his death. St Herman's life in Alaska, his strength, healing, and a bright light that shown when he passed.

Here's the long and short of it. I give you a list of miracles. You go, nuh uh, and then go on about your day. You want a tesseract, not a miracle. Something you can observe repeatedly, poke and prod at. You're not willing to learn about the lives of the saints, and interact with these very pious men.

You want to come visit Holy Archangels out in central texas? We can talk to the priest who knew Father Ephraim and if he discerns authenticity to learn about God, he might share some stories. But it won't be a press conference. It won't be a science experiment. You'll see what pious, quiet lives these men live in. They're not on street corners shouting down people. They worship God, go about their daily tasks, and aren't surprised when divine things happen.

You want the other end of the spectrum? Just youtube Chad Ripperger and see what he has to say about the exorcisms he does. About how they are real, these demons can move things in rooms when they don't want to come out. (FYI: He's a catholic priest, don't jump me for pointing to the catholics here).

Its time you start taking these claims a bit more seriously.

haha,

All of this thread was to provide part of an explanation of where I find meaning and purpose. No, I don't want your approval. No, I'm not asking for your approval. No, I don't care if you approve. No, I don't want you to denounce your Christianity. No, I have no expectations of your agreeing with me.

If you are interested in understanding my worldview any further, then great, lets continue a discussion.

I am asking you to evaluate a different worldview without a Christian lens. If you are unable or unwilling to do that, thats totally fine. I don't mean to sound rude, but, maybe this thread isn't for you.

Say one of you starts a thread about an interpretation of a specific scripture and I chimed in to say that the passage should be just discarded since it cannot be scientifically proven. If I am unwilling to engage in the base presuppositions implied in the thread, then I have no business responding at all. I'm being a troll if I do that. So, if you are not willing to engage in the base assumptions and hypothetical of my posts, then don't.

I think some of the responses in this thread are in the spirit of what I was looking for, but a lot of it is an explanation why atheism is meaningless through a Christian lens. I hope it is clear now that I am asking you not to do that in this thread.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Aggrad08, I've specifically brought up just a very short, highly incomplete list of miraculous things in modern times. People having their vision restored by St. Paraskevi, icons weeping myrrh, saint Seraphim of Sarov sharing interactions with the Theotokos with other people (like they both got to be visited by Mary), him seeing Jesus walk into his icon, his face shining as bright as the sun to another inquirer. The picture of St Lakovos being 10 months after his death. Father Ephraim, who was a stalwart in establishing monasteries in America being seen at multiple locations (the monasteries he founded) after his death. St Herman's life in Alaska, his strength, healing, and a bright light that shown when he passed.

Here's the long and short of it. I give you a list of miracles. You go, nuh uh, and then go on about your day. You want a tesseract, not a miracle. Something you can observe repeatedly, poke and prod at. You're not willing to learn about the lives of the saints, and interact with these very pious men.

You want to come visit Holy Archangels out in central texas? We can talk to the priest who knew Father Ephraim and if he discerns authenticity to learn about God, he might share some stories. But it won't be a press conference. It won't be a science experiment. You'll see what pious, quiet lives these men live in. They're not on street corners shouting down people. They worship God, go about their daily tasks, and aren't surprised when divine things happen.

You want the other end of the spectrum? Just youtube Chad Ripperger and see what he has to say about the exorcisms he does. About how they are real, these demons can move things in rooms when they don't want to come out. (FYI: He's a catholic priest, don't jump me for pointing to the catholics here).

Its time you start taking these claims a bit more seriously.

---

Even when there were Biblical miracles, there were a ton of skeptics.

There is truly nothing new under the sun.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Aggrad08, I've specifically brought up just a very short, highly incomplete list of miraculous things in modern times. People having their vision restored by St. Paraskevi, icons weeping myrrh, saint Seraphim of Sarov sharing interactions with the Theotokos with other people (like they both got to be visited by Mary), him seeing Jesus walk into his icon, his face shining as bright as the sun to another inquirer. The picture of St Lakovos being 10 months after his death. Father Ephraim, who was a stalwart in establishing monasteries in America being seen at multiple locations (the monasteries he founded) after his death. St Herman's life in Alaska, his strength, healing, and a bright light that shown when he passed.

Here's the long and short of it. I give you a list of miracles. You go, nuh uh, and then go on about your day. You want a tesseract, not a miracle. Something you can observe repeatedly, poke and prod at. You're not willing to learn about the lives of the saints, and interact with these very pious men.

You want to come visit Holy Archangels out in central texas? We can talk to the priest who knew Father Ephraim and if he discerns authenticity to learn about God, he might share some stories. But it won't be a press conference. It won't be a science experiment. You'll see what pious, quiet lives these men live in. They're not on street corners shouting down people. They worship God, go about their daily tasks, and aren't surprised when divine things happen.

You want the other end of the spectrum? Just youtube Chad Ripperger and see what he has to say about the exorcisms he does. About how they are real, these demons can move things in rooms when they don't want to come out. (FYI: He's a catholic priest, don't jump me for pointing to the catholics here).

Its time you start taking these claims a bit more seriously.

---

Yea these are nonsense. To believe in these miracles is to accept miracles of every single other faith. These are not of a different kind. They have no more evidence, they are no less explainable by ordinary events or simple people being wrong.

"The picture of St Lakovos being 10 months after his death."

For instance, this one is so absurd the only reference I found to it was on an orthodox subreddit, where most the believers even doubted it. It's just a picture, who's date is unconfirmed, and was suspected in the only reference I could find of it on the internet of simply being a picture of a picture to explain the unverified later date. I can't imagine the credulity required to believe this and then somehow acting as if I'm being unjustly dismissive.

quite humble pious men can be found in every faith I've every encountered. You offer nothing unique

Aggrad08 said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Aggrad08, I've specifically brought up just a very short, highly incomplete list of miraculous things in modern times. People having their vision restored by St. Paraskevi, icons weeping myrrh, saint Seraphim of Sarov sharing interactions with the Theotokos with other people (like they both got to be visited by Mary), him seeing Jesus walk into his icon, his face shining as bright as the sun to another inquirer. The picture of St Lakovos being 10 months after his death. Father Ephraim, who was a stalwart in establishing monasteries in America being seen at multiple locations (the monasteries he founded) after his death. St Herman's life in Alaska, his strength, healing, and a bright light that shown when he passed.

Here's the long and short of it. I give you a list of miracles. You go, nuh uh, and then go on about your day. You want a tesseract, not a miracle. Something you can observe repeatedly, poke and prod at. You're not willing to learn about the lives of the saints, and interact with these very pious men.

You want to come visit Holy Archangels out in central texas? We can talk to the priest who knew Father Ephraim and if he discerns authenticity to learn about God, he might share some stories. But it won't be a press conference. It won't be a science experiment. You'll see what pious, quiet lives these men live in. They're not on street corners shouting down people. They worship God, go about their daily tasks, and aren't surprised when divine things happen.

You want the other end of the spectrum? Just youtube Chad Ripperger and see what he has to say about the exorcisms he does. About how they are real, these demons can move things in rooms when they don't want to come out. (FYI: He's a catholic priest, don't jump me for pointing to the catholics here).

Its time you start taking these claims a bit more seriously.

---

Yea these are nonsense. To believe in these miracles is to accept miracles of every single other faith. These are not of a different kind.They have no more evidence, they are no less explainable by ordinary events or simple people being wrong.

You're halfway there, I do believe that other religions have tapped into some cosmic power and can perform some supernatural acts. I also believe that those behind all of that are demons.

"The picture of St Lakovos being 10 months after his death."

For instance, this one is so absurd the only reference I found to it was on an orthodox subreddit, where most the believers even doubted it. It's just a picture, who's date is unconfirmed, and was suspected in the only reference I could find of it on the internet of simply being a picture of a picture to explain the unverified later date. I can't imagine the credulity required to believe this and then somehow acting as if I'm being unjustly dismissive.

quite humble pious men can be found in every faith I've every encountered. You offer nothing unique.

You want to address any of the other miracles I listed? You want to learn a bit about the life of St. Lakovos? You want to come visit our church and hear from priests why he's a saint? If you're hung up on this athonite monk picture being fake I'll happily go digging and get in touch with the guy who took the picture. I'd rather you learn a bit about St. Lakovos's life and why he's revered though. Again, its all just 'you're lying.' I bet you could email Father Ripperger today and he'd set up a time to explain how demons manifest and have moved objects in his presence. That praying to Jesus to intercede is what removes them.

What miracle would you like to know more about that I've listed and I'll try to get them in touch with you.

Here's another one, very common is muslim countries. Jesus visiting in their dreams. This isn't the first time I've heard this. I've heard stories from middle eastern refugee missionary workers having people come up to them saying Jesus visited them in their dreams last night.



Again, this is the first step to disproving miracles right? That all of the men in this mosque visited by Christ the night before was just mass hallucinations? Again, point to what you don't believe and why. That hawaiian orthodox church with icons that stream myrrh is just one email away.

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

haha,

All of this thread was to provide part of an explanation of where I find meaning and purpose. No, I don't want your approval. No, I'm not asking for your approval. No, I don't care if you approve. No, I don't want you to denounce your Christianity. No, I have no expectations of your agreeing with me.

If you are interested in understanding my worldview any further, then great, lets continue a discussion.

I am asking you to evaluate a different worldview without a Christian lens. If you are unable or unwilling to do that, thats totally fine. I don't mean to sound rude, but, maybe this thread isn't for you.

Say one of you starts a thread about an interpretation of a specific scripture and I chimed in to say that the passage should be just discarded since it cannot be scientifically proven. If I am unwilling to engage in the base presuppositions implied in the thread, then I have no business responding at all. I'm being a troll if I do that. So, if you are not willing to engage in the base assumptions and hypothetical of my posts, then don't.

I think some of the responses in this thread are in the spirit of what I was looking for, but a lot of it is an explanation why atheism is meaningless through a Christian lens. I hope it is clear now that I am asking you not to do that in this thread.

---

It is almost like you want to have a discussion on an open discussion forum. But on your terms.