Submitted by BernardJOrtcutt t3_y0fjnr in philosophy
-Sanguinarius- t1_iry1p35 wrote
Hey y'all, I got a question that has buggin' me for a while.
How reasonable is a theist position (any, deistic, pagan, muslim, etc.) in comparison to the atheist position?
Tell me in detail, heck, use 1-10 scales if you want just to bring the point home.
There is a lot of context for that question I want to add as well:
First, I would appreciate your own personal answer, and also another of a more objective kind; what is the academic consensus? World-wide, European, and American.
Second, as someone who is not currently enrolled in any college program, or has any relevant college background, what are the best authors, books, sources, etc that I could study for myself and learn about the issue concerning both the academic consesus, and developing my own thoughts on the matter?
Third, the reason why I brought myself here to ask, is that after so many years engaging philosophy, apologetics, history, science, you name it (I just like to read a lot of shit), I find myself noticing quite a handful of figures in the public scene taking king of the hill stances. For example theist Jay Dyer and Atheist Tom Jump. Quite frankly, such attitude is just plain repulsive, even with my biases, and it leaves me bamboozled thinking what the hell frick of a book or thing did I miss that made these people so confident in their positions. Am I plain retarded? Or are such people enduring severe psychological issues?
Give me hope, Reddit.
(The term agnostic is acknowledged and put away for the sake of the question, so theist should be defined as belief in an immaterial realm, and/or transcendent being(s), while atheist defined as a position which stands in DENIAL to that. The definitons are as such whether the evidence that prompted both positions be either sufficient, or beyond doubt.
I'll not take an atheist position which defines itself fundamentally skeptical as atheist, because that's just plain agnosticism.)
Segofer t1_isdv4tt wrote
- A theist's position is reasonable because of the faith of the people who believe in it as witnesses themselves of God being real. However, it is said also in the bible: "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them." If you really havent found a person of indisputably good moral character and understanding, the reasons God is real and Jesus is God are the following: For God: If you do not doubt the scriptures, which is the main argument against God's existance (to doubt them, for any reason) It is evident that God is real. You may call this argument a historic argument. For Jesus: The moral character argumebt applies to him, of which those who knew him knew he was without flaw.// If you do not believe him, you may believe his miracles// This is said by Jesus, (I placed it in bars /). The miracles of his disciples shortly after his death and resurrection also are proof. Historic argument again.
- I dont know.
- I dont know.
I myself am not ready to say I am of undisputably good moral character, so ask someone else.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments