You believe as I do because you took the time to dispute my beliefs.

This argument is ridiculous, yet people keep repeating it over and over. What am I missing? Why would anyone think that it makes any sense?

Originally posted by twhitehead
This argument is ridiculous, yet people keep repeating it over and over. What am I missing? Why would anyone think that it makes any sense?

Can you put this in context? It's difficult to tell what might have been meant by that without it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
This argument is ridiculous, yet people keep repeating it over and over. What am I missing? Why would anyone think that it makes any sense?

😕 This is my puzzled face, I wish there was a question mark face.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Can you put this in context? It's difficult to tell what might have been meant by that without it.

Posters keep claiming that because I come to this forum and take the time to discuss God, I must be a closet theist. Others claim that if I give myself the label 'atheist' then I must be a closet theist.

Most recently:
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I have no doubt of your belief in God, as you have made considerable effort to take a position relative to His existence.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Posters keep claiming that because I come to this forum and take the time to discuss God, I must be a closet theist. Others claim that if I give myself the label 'atheist' then I must be a closet theist.

Most recently:
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]I have no doubt of your belief in God, as you have made considerable effort to take a position relative to His existence.[/b]

It's interesting. From what I can tell, many Christians are uncomfortable in being content with the fact that their beliefs are based in "faith". So there's often a tendency to overcompensate. This manifests itself in claims such as having "evidence", "knowing" rather than "believing", having a "personal relationship", etc. Or what you've detailed here. Of course, none of it makes sense.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Posters keep claiming that because I come to this forum and take the time to discuss God, I must be a closet theist. Others claim that if I give myself the label 'atheist' then I must be a closet theist.

Most recently:
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]I have no doubt of your belief in God, as you have made considerable effort to take a position relative to His existence.[/b]

Let's see, Frank goes 'you profess to be atheistic but the fact that you like talking about religion must mean you are really a theist in disguise'. Is that about it? Seems a bit circular to me. Like they say, sometimes a banana is just a banana.

Originally posted by twhitehead
This argument is ridiculous, yet people keep repeating it over and over. What am I missing? Why would anyone think that it makes any sense?

That's not the only thing that Christians repeat over and over.

Your situation reminds me of my Friday nights busking (many years ago), when the midnight street preachers would come up to me and ask if they can pray for me,etc. It seems as if they are assuming way too much, and really come across as rude because they claim to know me and my problems in life when actually they have no idea.

well you like a good arguement, whatever that makes you

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
It's interesting. From what I can tell, many Christians are uncomfortable in being content with the fact that their beliefs are based in "faith". So there's often a tendency to overcompensate. This manifests itself in claims such as having "evidence", "knowing" rather than "believing", having a "personal relationship", etc. Or what you've detailed here. Of course, none of it makes sense.

To an atheist, one without faith at all, of course not.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
That's not the only thing that Christians repeat over and over.

Your situation reminds me of my Friday nights busking (many years ago), when the midnight street preachers would come up to me and ask if they can pray for me,etc. It seems as if they are assuming way too much, and really come across as rude because they claim to know me and my problems in life when actually they have no idea.

Now this is an argument that goes both ways, you know.

Originally posted by Suzianne
To an atheist, one without faith at all, of course not.

Perhaps you misinterpreted the last statement. It was meant to apply to the "overcompensating" claims.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Perhaps you misinterpreted the last statement. It was meant to apply to the "overcompensating" claims.

If you cannot relate to faith, then you obviously cannot relate to any kind of "overcompensating" (I wouldn't exactly use that word though), either.

Originally posted by Suzianne
If you cannot relate to faith, then you obviously cannot relate to any kind of "overcompensating" (I wouldn't exactly use that word though), either.

If they can't be honest with themselves about it, how can they be honest with others? What does it say about their regard for truth? If "God is truth", what does it say about their regard for God?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
If they can't be honest with themselves about it, how can they be honest with others? What does it say about their regard for truth? If "God is truth", what does it say about their regard for God?

But they ARE being honest with themselves.

You just don't see it that way because you don't believe in what they believe, so you call it lying. Simple enough.

Originally posted by Suzianne
But they ARE being honest with themselves.

You just don't see it that way because you don't believe in what they believe, so you call it lying. Simple enough.

First off, I termed it "overcompensating". Don't know why you ascribed the word "lying" to me.

Let's take a somewhat concrete example. The details may not be correct, but a while back, there was a poster who believed that "speaking in tongues" was necessary indicator of one's faith and claimed that he had done so himself. He later said that he no longer subscribed to this belief and seemed to distance himself from that claim. Seems like if he had been able to be honest with himself, he never would have believed that he had actually spoken in tongues. Do you believe that he was being honest with himself?

Or do you believe they are being honest with themselves when they say things like?:
"I have no doubt of your belief in God, as you have made considerable effort to take a position relative to His existence."