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.
Ditto.
Sometime back before he passed, Mr. Robinson had posted something and had expected it to be of interest to those in the forum. I responded, but that thread was 'unproductive' in terms of length and cogent responses.
As to those who so energetically use "God" -- Theos -- to be anti-Theos busy themselves with contemplating God, even if in the negative. So the ardent atheist busies himself with no-God! With a rather singular goal, to tell others of his faith in no-God. It is a belief, simply because "proof" ( or lack thereof ) is a decision made by belief.
Sometimes, I substitute "Being" because relatively few resent being itself. Of course there are maladies in which this is true, but ultimately they are self-destructive. The phrase, "in Whom we have our Being," can be written without capitalization. In whom we have our being.
A great challenge for any of us is to use science and secular philosophy ( think, proof or evidence ) to explain how consciousness forms out of matter. How does our awareness of being erupt from mere matter? Here, science fumbles big time. The rather unpleasant Dennett from Tufts talked a good game, until one found his own statement that among his goals was the destruction of religion, a foolish notion. It made his "Consciousness Explained" from 1991 ( which I read on a transatlantic flight after buying it in an airport bookstore ) an academic marvel; all sorts of examples leading to no real conclusion. Rather ¯\_(?)_/¯.... This is one reason why thinking LLMs will answer deep question is a losing proposition.
Thread lengthens in part by an exchange of "yes, there is" in response to "no, there isn't" and back and forth. It has been my experience that the "blind watchmaker" argument ( trotted out by Dawkins in 1986 ) and similar gambits fail to 'evangelize' for evolution as belief as opposed to just theory. Lots of "sciency" talk like Dawkins' and lots of philosophic chatter like Dennett's do little more than bounce back "belief."
Belief in no-God -- mired in our language itself -- is faith of its own. In part that is why its proponents need to say it again and again, as if repetition is some form of progress towards a conclusion. But like a webpage with a counter for 'number of visits' or a litany or repetition of "beads" and the like, it is simply repetition.
This forum is mostly political, though of broader impact than that. One finds differences between faiths, and the avid atheist is among the "believers," as they can only believe -- in the cognitive science sense / definition -- in their unsupported proposition. As we express faith as well. Stringent proofs are not for us. That "leap of faith" -- to use Tillich's phrase -- is required. The atheist leaps too. And to use Buber's phrase, sometimes it is goo counsel to treat others not as "it," but as in relation, "I and Thou," as worth being in relation. Using capitals, even if old-fashioned, Worth Being in Relation, by a leap of Faith. Therefore, at the minimum, trust -- Trust -- is wise. And there still will be disputation between those who wish to fight about it....
Best wishes.