Arguing semantics is pretty weak. I was being honest from the start. I simply made a statement without including "I believe that ...". Since I'm not publishing a scientific paper, any statement I make can be assumed to be what I believe. it's pretty disingenuous to argue my point simply because I didn't point out that my statement is not a scientific fact.
You stated it as if you were stating a fact.
The reason this probably appeared that way is because of the path the conversation took. You started out making metaphysical claims that you were acting as if they were facts. Claims like "it is imposible to actually know the creator while you are alive". When called on that, you followed through with "it is a fact that there is no widely held...". So, that's the line of discussion we were on. That probably explains why I'm still viewing your posts as if you are making claims of fact when in fact you are just sharing your opinions.
While you will hide behind having technically said that it is a fact that others hold these beliefs, you clearly mean to convey that the beliefs they hold are the facts, and that I am wrong in my belief.
I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion. To make matters worse, you claim it's "clear".
That's not what I am trying to convey at all. What I am trying to convey is that your statement is a matter of belief, not a fact. That's all.
Critter7r said:
Those choices are one and the same.
No, they aren't. One of them illustrates people discovering something that had always been true but people hadn't realized it yet. The other illustrates people creating a new thing.
Critter7r said:
Which means that - to you - your beliefs are right and mine are wrong. How is that fundamentally any different from what you are accusing me of doing?
I'm calling my beliefs beliefs. I'm not treating them as if they are facts.
Now, you are claiming that all along you didn't mean to put them across as if they were facts and I misunderstood you. If that's the case, then there is no difference. But my impression was that you were coming at this from the point of view that all of these things are true facts because...science.
Critter7r said:
You're asking them why they believe in God, of course nobody is going to say, "Because no one can prove he doesn't exist". Of course they're going to tell you, "because of all he's done for me" and rattle off an anecdote. But if you were giving them all of the logical reasons why he doesn't exist, they would eventually run out of anecdotes and resort to, "well, you can't prove he doesn't exist, so I'm going to keep believing".
I find it highly unlikely. But here's the bottom line on this. We have two different views on this and here is how they are informed:
My understanding of how Christians think is based on: being one of them, working within the church, traveling across the world meeting, talking to, and living with Christians, and being intimately familiar with Christian culture and thinking in addition to extensive reading of Christian literature and interaction with other believers via blogs and social media. That is the basis on which I think you are mistaken about your view.
The basis of your view is that a handful of personalities on an internet forum have made such arguments. We know nothing of who these personalities really are and we have some fairly compelling evidence that more than one of them is actually a fictional character that a non-Christian is playing. Some of the other personalities may wind up being: teenagers who think they know a lot more than they actually do, internet trolls who may or may not believe what they are saying but get off on getting people worked up about these issues, etc...
Who is more likely to be correct? It's baffling to me that you believe so strongly in this despite the fact your evidence is so weak and you are being told by people with more knowledge of the topic that you're probably wrong. You've even admitted that no Christian literature exists to support your view. Continuing to believe this, especially doing it so strongly, is unwarranted. You seem genuinely convinced that this is how Christians think, even in the face of contradictory evidence and you base your strong conviction on a few internet personaliities?? Come on.. Why not just complete the irony by saying that since I can't prove Christians don't think that way, you will continue to believe they do?
