Interesting article on religious doubts

[The Pixie]

You're entitled to believe whatever you want. By the sounds of it, you've already decided to ignore the article and just complain about my having posted it.

It is an article directed at Christians who are suffering with doubt. If it addressed why we can be certain Christianity is true, it would be interested, but as it is just looking at how Christians can deal with mental issues, why would you imagine I would care at all?

It is almost like you have not read the article, and erroneously think it gives certainty to Christian claims.

It does not.

Just as long as you believe that you're right, the truth is obviously immaterial.
Pity. I was hoping you'd actually read the article and discuss it.

So discuss it.

I note you did not do that in the OP, or in any subsequent post. What do you think is the most salient point in the article, Steve? Do you think it is true or not? How does it relate to your worldview?

Or do you think quoting the abstract without comment counts as discussing something?

And?
You make it sound like we are not humans.

I have no idea where you get that from.

Which means that you don't actually know what we're doing.

So tell me.

Point me to the bit of the article you think is most important, and we can discuss it.

You can also tell me why we are already on page two and you have so far failed to do that.

Blind faith is the purview of the atheist.

No it is not.

Biblical faith requires doing what Jesus said, and being doers of the biblical teachings, testing all things, abhoring the evil, and clinging to the good.

And given the level of evidence I see Christians bring to CARM, that is blind faith.

Am I wrong? Can you tell me the best evidence for the resurrection, Steve? Show me your faith is not blind by showing me I should believe the Bible is true.

Even better, show me in this article! You seem to think atheists are doging the issue in the article - show us how the article provides evidence for Christianity.

The atheist mindset is-- I don't actually have to do anything to know whether or not it's true. I can just work through it intellectually and plainly see that it's false, because there's no way that history actually happened like that.

I.e., blind faith.
And you're clearly so good at it.

That is not blind faith because it is based on intellectually working through it.

And thanks, by the way.

I'd say that you don't actually want to know the truth and prefer pussyfooting around your own disbelief because taking responsibility for yourself is too great a burden to bear.

Well we will see if you are willing to actually go out on a limb and tell us what you think is the salient point of the article, so we can discuss it. I am guessing you are not.

 

[SteveB]

For someone who constantly invents things that others didn't say...you sure spend a lot of time inventing things that others didn't say.

Reminds me of the Billy Preston song...
Will it go round in circles

You've got a song with no melody, and yet you continue to sing it.

You've got a story with no moral, and no matter what, the bad guy wins when you decide that he needs to.

You've got a dance with no steps, and yet your lack of music still moves you around.

Will you continue to go round in circles?
Will you continue to fly high like a bird up in the sky?
Will you?

 

[SteveB]

It is an article directed at Christians who are suffering with doubt. If it addressed why we can be certain Christianity is true, it would be interested, but as it is just looking at how Christians can deal with mental issues, why would you imagine I would care at all?

Then you've already decided that there's nothing to discuss with you.

It is almost like you have not read the article, and erroneously think it gives certainty to Christian claims.

It does not.


So discuss it.

I was giving you the opportunity to.
But it's quite clear that is not what you want, so, I'll leave you alone with your rants.

I note you did not do that in the OP, or in any subsequent post. What do you think is the most salient point in the article, Steve? Do you think it is true or not? How does it relate to your worldview?

Or do you think quoting the abstract without comment counts as discussing something?


I have no idea where you get that from.


So tell me.

Point me to the bit of the article you think is most important, and we can discuss it.

You can also tell me why we are already on page two and you have so far failed to do that.


No it is not.


And given the level of evidence I see Christians bring to CARM, that is blind faith.

Am I wrong? Can you tell me the best evidence for the resurrection, Steve? Show me your faith is not blind by showing me I should believe the Bible is true.

Even better, show me in this article! You seem to think atheists are doging the issue in the article - show us how the article provides evidence for Christianity.


That is not blind faith because it is based on intellectually working through it.

And thanks, by the way.


Well we will see if you are willing to actually go out on a limb and tell us what you think is the salient point of the article, so we can discuss it. I am guessing you are not.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Reminds me of the Billy Preston song...
Will it go round in circles

You've got a song with no melody, and yet you continue to sing it.

You've got a story with no moral, and no matter what, the bad guy wins when you decide that he needs to.

You've got a dance with no steps, and yet your lack of music still moves you around.

Will you continue to go round in circles?
Will you continue to fly high like a bird up in the sky?
Will you?

Will you continue to make up falsehoods about others?

 

[SteveB]

Will you continue to make up falsehoods about others?

In other words, you reject as falsehoods the opinions others perceive you as.

Pity. Seems to me that if you don't like how others perceive you, it'd behoove you to change your practices.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

In other words, you reject as falsehoods the opinions others perceive you as.

Nope. They're not other words for anything I said. Once again you ignore what an atheist says and put your own spin on it.

Atheists have been telling you that for ten years on here. Don't you think it's about time you listened?

 

[The Pixie]

Then you've already decided that there's nothing to discuss with you.

Based on the fact you will not discuss it, I think my position is safe.

I was giving you the opportunity to.

And I gave YOU the opportunity to.

You are the one who thinks the article is worthy of discussion, not me. I am the one who has already decided there is nothing to discuss, remember?

And yet you refuse to discuss it.

Why is that Steve? Why are you so dead set again discussing this article that you insist is worthy of discussion?

Perhaps if you could lower yourself to actually start a discussion, we could have a discussion, or perhaps you could have a discussion with others. But no. You steadfastly refuse to start a discussion, then whine when others will not discuss the article.

Perhaps you need to sort out that beam in your eye, Steve. Just saying...

 

[SteveB]

Nope. They're not other words for anything I said. Once again you ignore what an atheist says and put your own spin on it.

I've ignored nothing the atheists are saying.
I've explicitly taken their statements and posts into account.

The problem here isn't that I'm ignoring what you're saying.
It's that I take into account what you're saying and then take into account what YHVH has explicitly stated because I know that whatever you want to believe, YHVH is truth and only speaks truth.
So anything you say, when it contradicts what YHVH says, YOUR truths are lies, and you are just deceiving yourself.

Atheists have been telling you that for ten years on here. Don't you think it's about time you listened?

I haven't been here for 10 years.
I've only been here since November 2012.
So I've only been here for 8 years, 8 months and 3 weeks.
So, it's now you who're spouting lies. Or more accurately, speaking out of your ignorance.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

I've ignored nothing the atheists are saying.

You constantly ignore what atheists say.

I've explicitly taken their statements and posts into account.

...and then you ignore what they say and make up something else, as you did in post #45 in this thread.

The problem here isn't that I'm ignoring what you're saying.

Yes, it is, as atheists have been telling you for a decade.

It's that I take into account what you're saying and then take into account what YHVH has explicitly stated because I know that whatever you want to believe, YHVH is truth and only speaks truth.
So anything you say, when it contradicts what YHVH says, YOUR truths are lies, and you are just deceiving yourself.

Has nothing to do with it. You constantly ignore what atheists say and invent things for them. As you did in post #45.

I haven't been here for 10 years.
I've only been here since November 2012.
So I've only been here for 8 years, 8 months and 3 weeks.
So, it's now you who're spouting lies. Or more accurately, speaking out of your ignorance.

Not remotely interested in this sort of childishness.

 

[SteveB]

Based on the fact you will not discuss it, I think my position is safe.

No. It just means that you are not willing to consider that you are in grievous danger and your refusal to follow Jesus will be your downfall.

And I gave YOU the opportunity to.

What you "offer" wasn't yours to give or take.

You are the one who thinks the article is worthy of discussion, not me. I am the one who has already decided there is nothing to discuss, remember?

In other words, your offer to discuss is/was disingenuous at best and fraudulent at least.

And yet you refuse to discuss it.

There's nothing which you believe is worthy of discussing, so I'm not the one who is refusing.

Why is that Steve? Why are you so dead set again discussing this article that you insist is worthy of discussion?

You're the one who said you don't believe that the article is worthy of discussing.

Perhaps if you could lower yourself to actually start a discussion, we could have a discussion, or perhaps you could have a discussion with others. But no. You steadfastly refuse to start a discussion, then whine when others will not discuss the article.

Perhaps you need to sort out that beam in your eye, Steve. Just saying...

I'm guessing that means the one you said isn't worth discussing.

 

[SteveB]

You constantly ignore what atheists say.

...and then you ignore what they say and make up something else, as you did in post #45 in this thread.


Yes, it is, as atheists have been telling you for a decade.

Has nothing to do with it. You constantly ignore what atheists say and invent things for them. As you did in post #45.

Not remotely interested in this sort of childishness.

Actually it has everything to do with it.

You do however make a good point...

Truth doesn't matter to you. Only what you think and want.

So, since you don't want the truth, I'll leave you alone.

Rom 1:28-31 WEB 28 Even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, malice; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil habits, secret slanderers, 30 backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, unforgiving, unmerciful;

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Actually it has everything to do with it.

You do however make a good point...

Truth doesn't matter to you. Only what you think and want.

So, since you don't want the truth, I'll leave you alone.

And here you go again. Do you ever actually respond to atheists, or do you always make up something and then address that instead?

By your own admission atheists have been saying the same things to you since you joined this forum. You should really put your pride in the back seat for a while, stop being so desperate to 'win' and listen to what people are saying to you.

 

[The Pixie]

No. It just means that you are not willing to consider that you are in grievous danger and your refusal to follow Jesus will be your downfall.

So have you abandoned all pretence of wanting to discuss the article you linked to?

What you "offer" wasn't yours to give or take.

Right, only Christians get to offer is lesser people the opportunity to discuss something. What was I thinking!

In other words, your offer to discuss is/was disingenuous at best and fraudulent at least.

I was pointing out that you had already declared "you've already decided that there's nothing to discuss with you."

There's nothing which you believe is worthy of discussing, so I'm not the one who is refusing.

From the way you so carefully avoid discussing the article, looks like we agree it is not worthy of discussing.

You're the one who said you don't believe that the article is worthy of discussing.

That is what you told me I had decided. Who am I to disagree?

I assume you did so to head off any chance of a discussion.

We are on page three of this thread, and you have managed to avoid having a discussion about the article you started a thread with of about ten other posters who have contributed to this thread The only question is; why did you start it in the first place if you had no interest in discussion? I am sticking with my original theory; all the evidence indicates you started the thread to pimp the guy's blog post.

 

[SteveB]

So have you abandoned all pretence of wanting to discuss the article you linked to?

You were quite clear that you don't actually believe it's worth discussing, so I won't waste your time.

Right, only Christians get to offer is lesser people the opportunity to discuss something. What was I thinking!


I was pointing out that you had already declared "you've already decided that there's nothing to discuss with you."


From the way you so carefully avoid discussing the article, looks like we agree it is not worthy of discussing.


That is what you told me I had decided. Who am I to disagree?

I assume you did so to head off any chance of a discussion.

We are on page three of this thread, and you have managed to avoid having a discussion about the article you started a thread with of about ten other posters who have contributed to this thread The only question is; why did you start it in the first place if you had no interest in discussion? I am sticking with my original theory; all the evidence indicates you started the thread to pimp the guy's blog post.

 

[The Pixie]

You were quite clear that you don't actually believe it's worth discussing, so I won't waste your time.

It is not worth discussing - it is about Christians dealing with mental issues arising from doubt. Why should an atheist be interested?

The point, Steve, is that from your behaviour you have made it equally clear you do not think it is worth discussing. So why post it in the first place?

 

[SteveB]

It is not worth discussing - it is about Christians dealing with mental issues arising from doubt. Why should an atheist be interested?

The point, Steve, is that from your behaviour you have made it equally clear you do not think it is worth discussing. So why post it in the first place?

And yet here you are...

Still talking.
Apparently you don't actually know what you're talking about, but you need to continue talking, so you can feel better about not knowing jack.

 

[The Pixie]

And yet here you are...

Still talking.

Sure. I think a useful discussion can be had around why you posted an article supposedly to discuss it, and yet at every opportunity have chosen not to discuss.

I still think you started the thread to pimp the blog post, with no intention or desire to discuss the article. That is to say, I think you had an ulterior motive.

Apparently you don't actually know what you're talking about, but you need to continue talking, so you can feel better about not knowing jack.

On what basis you you opine that I do not know what I am talking about?

• I have read the article, and I stand by my comment that it is about Christians dealing with mental issues arising from doubt. I note you do not dispute that claim.
• I have looked at your comments o this thread, and I stand by my comment that you have chosen to avoid discussing the article. That is what the evidence points to and I note you do not dispute that claim.
• I think it highly likely - but not certain - that you started this thread to pimp a blog post. That is what the evidence points to and I note you do not dispute that claim.

 

[SteveB]

Sure. I think a useful discussion can be had around why you posted an article supposedly to discuss it, and yet at every opportunity have chosen not to discuss.

I still think you started the thread to pimp the blog post, with no intention or desire to discuss the article. That is to say, I think you had an ulterior motive.


On what basis you you opine that I do not know what I am talking about?

• I have read the article, and I stand by my comment that it is about Christians dealing with mental issues arising from doubt. I note you do not dispute that claim.
• I have looked at your comments o this thread, and I stand by my comment that you have chosen to avoid discussing the article. That is what the evidence points to and I note you do not dispute that claim.
• I think it highly likely - but not certain - that you started this thread to pimp a blog post. That is what the evidence points to and I note you do not dispute that claim.

Which article?
The Wallace piece or the journal article?

 

[The Pixie]

Which article?
The Wallace piece or the journal article?

In your OP you reference an article about how Christians can deal with mental issues surrounding doubt. I call this the "article".

You later in the OP reference a blog post by Wallace. I call this the "blog post".

 

[SteveB]

In your OP you reference an article about how Christians can deal with mental issues surrounding doubt. I call this the "article".

You later in the OP reference a blog post by Wallace. I call this the "blog post".

Ok.

I see no point in discussing the article with you because you explicitly stated that you believe it's a waste of your time.

So, you have achieved what you wanted.

To be ignored.