”don’t think you were ever what I would call a “thinking atheist”.”
Sticks and stones.

”Which facts are you referring to?”
I fully intend to getting into that topic in the thread that you linked to above. I have knocked off the Hitler thing. That is next on the list I gave in there for things I want to do when I get time.

”While I respect the right of others to believe what they want, I don’t and can’t respect beliefs ...”

That sure is a significant qualification. I suspect that that is about the size of it with the added proviso that you decide what evidence is “real” evidence. Respecting the right of others to believe what they want is a worthwhile general rule that may require people who adhere to it to allow exceptions. However have you considered that some exceptions destroy the whole point of the rule?

”...lack of belief in a god is not a “dogma”.”

But the belief that anyone who forms a belief in God is being irrational appears to be dogma for TBC and you.

“ ...is how I know you were never really a ‘thinking’ atheist.”

That seems a rather generous assumption particularly the one where I typed that I became a theist through reason but it makes sense to you.

“I suspect you were more like one of these people who didn’t believe because they just didn’t have any experience with religion growing up.”

I probably was one of those people who didn’t believe because they just didn’t have any experience with religion growing up. Then I decided to give the matter thought and reached a conclusion.

”They liked to say they were once atheists, but they were only ever atheists because they never really thought about the topic of religion at all until tragedy or hardship struck ...”

How is it like that? I refer you to the first quote that you gave from me. Falling into faith in crisis seems to be prima facie the opposite of choosing faith because it makes the most sense to the decider.

Squeers,

Hang on I just looked it again. There is a bone to pick. "conceding defeat". You were the one who acknowledged the lack of time and then when I am away a few days you call it "conceding defeat".

Ah, glad you took the bait :-)

I'm referring to my two posts earlier on in the thread, where I obligingly elaborated my position for you.
But look, I'm frantically busy too and spending too much time here, so if you're too busy that's fine---and you can keep your armour :-). Not that I wouldn't like to read what you have to say..

If you're interested, I've elaborated a little more in the last couple of posts here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10496

mjpb,

You’ve spoken a lot about not being able to accept non-belief and religious belief being based on facts and good reasoning, but you are still yet to provide one single solitary bit of fact or reasoning. I’m always willing to learn different points of view, so please, by all means, spill it.

<<Blind seems to be putting it too strongly (and I don’t accept that hope and desire are necessarily required for faith)>>

I don’t think it’s putting it too strongly at all. Hope and desire for security in an omnipotent father figure and the promise of eternal life is essentially what the mainstream religions are all about. If that’s not hope and desire, then I don’t know what is.

<<Situation 1 may be blind in the sense that it isn’t actual knowledge or perhaps from actual experience. However it is typically distinguished from situation 2. Situation 2 is commonly referred to as blind faith. I don’t believe that the two should be conflated.>>

Yes, but they’re both still ‘blind’, as you’ve admitted.

You’re saying “the best someone can do is examine the evidence and form a conclusion” and that it’s “blind in the sense that it isn’t actual knowledge” and “typically” distinguishable from ‘Situation 2’, but the glaring gap in what you’re saying is the actual evidence itself. Without this evidence you’re referring to, I can’t make an informed decision on the whether or not the two situations can actually be “typically” distinguishable.

<<Sticks and stones.>>

I didn’t mean that in an offensive or condescending way. I simply meant that I don’t think you were an atheist who ever gave the topic of religion much thought. There’s nothing bad about that. Many people don’t for many reasons. Some just have more important things to do.

<<I fully intend to getting into that topic [facts are were referring to] in the thread that you linked to above.>>

If you can’t list these “facts” in a few minutes, then they’re probably not really facts. Facts can be rattled off rather quickly, if not, then it’s usually just sophistry.

Continued...

...Continued

I suspect you don’t actually know what these facts are yet.

Anyway, that thread is dead now. I’m sure you’ll get the opportunity to make your points in the not-too-distant future.

<<I suspect that that is about the size of it with the added proviso that you decide what evidence is “real” evidence.>>

Nope. By “real evidence” I mean something you can easily show/demonstrate to others.

Saying you’ve had some sort of personal revelation might be sufficient reason for you yourself to believe, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good reason for anyone else to believe. It would also beg the question as to why you are so special that the evidence has been personally delivered to you, while it is hidden from the rest of us.

Others on OLO argue that you need the presupposition that there is “something else” out there, but that hardly seems fair to those who aren’t gifted with this presupposition considering they’re going to miss out on an eternity of bliss because of this. Pretty pathetic and irrational god too if they require that people presuppose their existence before they reveal themselves.

<<However have you considered that some exceptions destroy the whole point of the rule?>>

Could you give an example? I’m not sure I know exactly what you’re getting at here.

<<But the belief that anyone who forms a belief in God is being irrational appears to be dogma for TBC and you.>>

I can’t speak for TBC, but this is an observation of mine that has remained consistent despite seeing many different cases.

<<That seems a rather generous assumption particularly the one where I typed that I became a theist through reason but it makes sense to you.>>

Again, you’ve never explained your reasoning, so I can only go by experience and assume that it’s not very good. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have to call your belief “faith”. But please, by all means, prove me wrong here. Nothing would blow my mind more than to have my beliefs shown to be wrong on this topic.

Continued...

...Continued

<<I probably was one of those people who didn’t believe because they just didn’t have any experience with religion growing up. Then I decided to give the matter thought and reached a conclusion.>>

As above.

<<Falling into faith in crisis seems to be prima facie the opposite of choosing faith because it makes the most sense to the decider.>>

I find your implication that you gave it some thought and just decided that, not only does god exist, but that the Christian faith is somehow the one true faith, hard to believe. Sorry, mjpb, but people just don’t start believing like that.

But who knows? You may be different to every case I’ve ever personally witnessed (and I’ve witness a LOT of conversions), and if you could provide me some of the reasoning, then great. I’ll consider it. Who knows, you may even fulfill your obligation to be a fisher of men.

Unfortunately though, I’m not too confident that you can provide me with any solid reasoning. Over many years I’ve heard it all - many times over - and even used them all when trying to convince others of the existence of god. But I’m afraid none of them hold.