First up, thanks for a cogent comment, which is refreshing.
We might have differing experiences, but when I have debated an atheist, moving them to 'confess' their's is also a statement of belief has been relatively easy, structurally. For one particularly ardent atheist, I pointed out his repeated attempts to proselytize for his belief was a parallel, rather than opposing, stance. As I still see him occasionally, I am among the few he toys with about his 'belief,' for so it is. Letting a atheist get away with saying their's is not a belief is missing a bet rhetorically. One cannot even form the argument, atheism, without the word theism. I'd venture to say he is slowly amending his thoughts, given patience with him. We'll see.
As to weighing into controversies between "sola scriptura" as a formal stance and "prima scriptura," I tend to let individuals hash that out. After all, from the so-called "great schism" of 1054 ( before the Protestant revolutions, there having been more than one ) one can be driven back to questions such as "which Bible" -- 66, 73 or 81 -- is THE Bible. Rather a bit like "which translation" is THE translation. It becomes problematic as one finds schisms within schisms. After all, when discussing the rapture, for example, one finds at least three distinct and differing stances.
Of course, it comes down to language. In another period in my life, I had the chance to query a number of theologians as to those deep aphasias which destroy one's language facility. Question: without language, can one have a relationship with God? It is a serious question.
From different stances, I got back two views from a number of them. The initial view from all was "no." Why? Theology, scripture, apologetics, debate and liturgy of various forms are all conducted in language. "Our Father..." "The Creator." Language.
All then amended their views to "yes" as follows. Intuition. Not being willing to close avenues to God to language alone. It's a subtle thing, to be sure. I'll go with their views, which coalesce into a view. They were Protestant by denomination, non-denominational Christian, Roman Catholic and two Jews too. All who conduct their thoughts, thinking, study and prayer in language.
A small reflection. Even Darwin capitalizes "Creator," as he writes in a conclusion of his theory -- for it only a theory -- "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." Not advocating for him, but merely pointing out the use of language even in that text. That quote, by the way, is rarely cited because the Social Darwinists find it an anathema to their lunacy.
And of course, our wonderful Declaration of Indepedence relies on -- "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Definitely advocating for that founding document.
You wrote "Uncaused Cause" with that capitalization as well. Bravo.
Beyond this, one founds one's faith -- beliefs -- on one's "scriptura" and how it is read and understood. This nation's Creator who has "endowed" us with that striking perspective -- "unalienable Rights." Liberty. No wonder why so many of the political Left and the utterly corrupt would eat away at them, as they would tear away at our Creator, our Uncaused Cause.
As you say, we can " proceed from there to compare competing identities of that cause." Sounds darn fine to me.
Best wishes.
But try to do that with Google. Meanwhile, my debates with atheists usually manifested hard-to-reason recalcitrance, as in determined unbelief, rejecting the God even as a hypothesis. As Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger details journey from skeptic to 're-conversion' to Christianity, and who debated atheists on forums as Quora,
Unlike atheists who outright deny the existence of God, Sanger was open to exploring the possibility. "I was always willing to consider seriously the possibility that God exists. They [atheists] were not," he explains. "The atheists said that they simply lacked a belief that God exists, but their mocking attitude screamed that God indeed did not exist."But I can be unreasonably stubborn with God.
As to weighing into controversies between "sola scriptura" as a formal stance and "prima scriptura," I tend to let individuals hash that out. After all, from the so-called "great schism" of 1054 ( before the Protestant revolutions, there having been more than one ) one can be driven back to questions such as "which Bible" -- 66, 73 or 81 -- is THE Bible. Rather a bit like "which translation" is THE translation.
I have hardly ever seen that being a problem. TradCaths favor the Douay-Rheims which is usually quite close to the KJV. Usually we go to the original languages if warranted. . when discussing the rapture, for example, one finds at least three distinct and differing stances.
But I referred to basic fundamental beliefs, and distinctive doctrines that are basically treated as salvific.
without language, can one have a relationship with God? It is a serious question.
Not without communication.
Not advocating for him, but merely pointing out the use of language even in that text. That quote, by the way, is rarely cited because the Social Darwinists find it an anathema to their lunacy.
Yes, though some Christians try to make him one. But I quoted Sagan in supporting a systematically ordered universe, which an atheist had scoffed at. But there is disorder because there is order to reveal aberrations.
And of course, our wonderful Declaration of Indepedence relies on -- "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, You wrote "Uncaused Cause" with that capitalization as well. Bravo.
Yes, back in past capitalization could be very prevalent.
"unalienable Rights." ...No wonder why so many of the political Left and the utterly corrupt would eat away at them,
For them, "unalienable Rights" refers to the PC protected class, which even includes basis that upon subjective feelings and behavior. LGBTQAI+++ is essentially class as a religion. Nor any kind the founders would sanction.
As you say, we can " proceed from there to compare competing identities of that cause." Sounds darn fine to me.
Yes, and a pleasure to converse with one of th few who debate atheists.