Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
When you say 'as far as I know' it means that if there were any, you are ignorant about them, right?

It means that I continue to be open minded and willing to listen.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Actually I have a few questions for you as well.

Do you agree that atheism is an intellectual position? What reasons do you have for holding that position? Are your reasons based upon logic and/or evidence or lack of it? So, is there any reason/evidence for you holding your position that you defend?
If you say that atheism needs no evidence or rea ...[text shortened]... nst the idea that God exists, then aren't you behaving in a manner consistent with your beliefs?

You say there is enough evidence to support the existence of God. = Theist.

I say there is insufficient evidence to support the existence of God. = Atheist.

You tell me if these are intellectual positions and why one, if any, is more intellectual than the other. - We can each only speak for ourselves if we find such evidence or lack of evidence compelling. Neither of us has absolute knowledge in this area, meaning neither of us can can give more than an opinion, even if we are pretty certain of our elected position. (And to reflect your question back at you, 'Your theism then, is nothing more than an opinion. But, if it is, should you derogatorily argue against atheists and in favor of your opinion?' ).

Your ant analogy needs reworking to warrant addressing.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Assuming there is no God, is there any cause to believe you are in touch with reality at all.

The problem is that we are all well aware that some people are not in touch with reality at all. Therefore, even if you assume God exists, that is not cause for you to believe you are in touch with reality. You necessarily need something other than the assumption that God exists to test whether or not you are in touch with reality. If such a test exists, and is reliable, then it should work reliably even in the absence of God. Sadly, neither you, nor CS Lewis are in touch with reality.

One easy test for whether or not you are in touch with reality is whether or not you need to be illogical to support your claims.

Originally posted by FMF
I will be able to answer that once something convinces me.

Have you ever wondered why some people are convinced by certain evidence and you are not? Is it because they are stupid and you are smart?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Have you ever wondered why some people are convinced by certain evidence and you are not? Is it because they are stupid and you are smart?

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Originally posted by FMF
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

I have never beaten my wife, thanks for asking though. How about you, why do you think some people are convinced by evidence that you reject? Is it because they are stupid?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I have never beaten my wife, thanks for asking though. How about you, why do you think some people are convinced by evidence that you reject? Is it because they are stupid?

I don't know why some people are convinced by what they see as evidence which, in turn, does not convince others. I imagine it to be a highly indivual and personal process and experience.

I have been discussing issues on this forum for more or less a decade and I've never attributed the fact that atheists reject evidence accepted by theists to "stupidity" just as I have never attributed the fact that a theist accepts that evidence to "stupidity".

I'm not sure what your insights are into how people come to realize that they have certain beliefs and how others realize that they don't, but if you think it is some kind of smart-stupid dichotomy, and if that's the kind of thinking that's underpinning your question, then I think you are mistaken about human nature.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
How about you, why do you think some people are convinced by evidence that you reject?

Why do you think that juries in trials are very often not unanimous in their verdict?

Originally posted by FMF
I don't know why some people are convinced by what they see as evidence which, in turn, does not convince others. I imagine it to be a highly indivual and personal process and experience.

I have been discussing issues on this forum for more or less a decade and I've never attributed the fact that atheists reject evidence accepted by theists to "stupidity" ju ...[text shortened]... of thinking that's underpinning your question, then I think you are mistaken about human nature.

You are indeed a rare breed and I salute your sincerity and humility. There are many people who who are just too arrogant to admit what you have. I personally think that there are barriers to belief. I highly recommend this MP3 entitled 'barriers to belief', that helped me during a time when I was questioning my own faith.

http://rzimmedia.rzim.org/LMPT/LMP20151121.mp3

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
You are indeed a rare breed and I salute your sincerity and humility. There are many people who who are just too arrogant to admit what you have.

Thanks. But what is it you are claiming I have "admitted"? I didn't say anything just now that I haven't openly talked about for many years here.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I highly recommend this MP3 entitled 'barriers to belief', that helped me during a time when I was questioning my own faith.

http://rzimmedia.rzim.org/LMPT/LMP20151121.mp3

Regarding the mp3, what effect do you think it's had on the way you debate things like morality, the meaning of things like being "absolutely sure", as you put it, and how disagreements between people and different perspectives might be caused by them being "smart" or "stupid", as you attempted to frame it earlier? Has the way you're conducting yourself here been influenced by the mp3?

Originally posted by FMF
Regarding the mp3, what effect do you think it's had on the way you debate things like morality, the meaning of things like being "absolutely sure", as you put it, and how disagreements between people and different perspectives might be caused by them being "smart" or "stupid", as you attempted to frame it earlier? Has the way you're conducting yourself here been influenced by the mp3?

Maybe if you listen to it you will find out 🙂

Actually I can relate a lot to you, grew up Christian became disillusioned almost lost my faith due to the beviour of 'so called' Christians. But when I listened to some of Ravi Zacharias's messages I think the little faith I had left was rekindled. You can find a lot of his stuff on YouTube as well. I would also recommend his book, "Jesus among other gods."

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Have you ever wondered why some people are convinced by certain evidence and you are not? Is it because they are stupid and you are smart?

And what is your opinion on the matter? Why do you think Muslims are convinced by the evidence that the Quran is the correct Holy Book? Do you think they are stupid and you are smart?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Actually I can relate a lot to you, grew up Christian became disillusioned almost lost my faith due to the beviour of 'so called' Christians. But when I listened to some of Ravi Zacharias's messages I think the little faith I had left was rekindled. You can find a lot of his stuff on YouTube as well. I would also recommend his book, "Jesus among other gods."

What makes you think I'd want my Christian faith "rekindled"?

Originally posted by twhitehead
And what is your opinion on the matter? Why do you think Muslims are convinced by the evidence that the Quran is the correct Holy Book? Do you think they are stupid and you are smart?

I will answer your question once you have answered mine.