¿Really?
The God said:
You know, I'm going to use this as an example of a particular idea. See, every once in a while, someone suggests certain arguments are somehow forbidden. So let's try this one. "[Tiassa] made a mess of it". Okay, now we have a working thesis.
In your early posts, your angry stand apart, you appeared to be a theist ....
How about on this occasion I just skip the part where I ask you to explain that, and simply look at my early posts.
•
#44↑: Criticizes selection bias in faithful attributions of God's will: "It's not 'faith'. It's a mass-delusional faery tale, a massive, ultimately dangerous game of make-believe"; "Those Christians treat God and Christ like shit. It isn't faith." I'm just curious what about this post suggests I'm theistic.
•
#47↑: Criticizes "usurpers―those who wish to possess, determine, and execute God's judgment and authority in their earthly endeavors", and complains about how "Christian apologists squirm on the hook while trying to excuse themselves from the actual instructions given by Jesus Christ". While I suppose it is possible to mistake a basic literary analysis ...
Basically, what is happening is that God will reckon with each sinner, and these self-proclaimed Christians simply don't trust His Judgment and Justice to satisfy their aesthetics―so they want it for themselves.
... for some manner of profession of faith, something seems rather ... presupposing? ... exclusive? ... about it. Perhaps you've just offered an insight into Jan Ardena's strange treatment of the word "theism".
•
#51↑: Honestly, challenging the faith of identifying Christians who deliberately and consciously defy Christ in Jesus' name just doesn't say a damn thing about theism or atheism. It's still pretty much a literary analysis: Bible says Jesus says this, preacher man says that. Jesus? Preacher? Jesus? Preacher? Hmm ... I wonder who's right, Jesus or the Preacher? This is neither mystic faith nor neurosurgery.
•
#53↑: More on usurpation and faithlessness. Honestly, do you think only believers are capable of reading and analyzing Scripture? And, you know, while we're on the subject, what of those who are apparently
incapable? What the hell is anyone supposed to do about
them?
•
#69↑: Criticizes an atheist for overestimating God.
•
#72↑: In truth, I'm going to stop the review here, since this, my sixth post in this thread, includes the actual answer:
I am neither theist nor atheist nor agnostic; I am apathetic. I genuinely don't care whether or not God exists, because in the end it's all the same, anyway. The math is the math, and the reason we spend time developing intricate rituals and concomitant obligations―the creed, code, and cult of religion―is pretty much because we don't like what the math tells us.
Don't feel badly, you weren't the only one who missed it.
As to your points of complaint, if I could tell what you're actually referring to it would be easier to answer. Nonetheless:
You questioned the intellectual ability of theists here.
Which time?
You sounded as if theists here are intellectually compromised and not able to defend the position cogently.
Depends on what you're referring to, and given your track record (
cough! ... #72↑ ... hack! wheeze!) it's probably best to wait for you to clarify.
Suggesting that you don't know that a theist is not required to give any defense or ground for his faith in God.
Honestly, this is one of those weird things that evangelicals do, whether theistic or atheistic.
In the abstract, you are correct. Your faith is your faith is your faith. However,
if your faith is to have any effect on anyone else,
then yes, you are required to justify the faith in order to justify that effect. And it's kind of strange, because as my society, for instance, has been wrangling about all manner of effects on other people, and in these discussions at Sciforums, it's almost as if who we're hearing from are factions (theistic and atheistic alike) that disdain ... I don't know ... how about,
disdain actually putting any effort into it?
I mean, I get some of our atheistic neighbors' disdain for the effects of religion, but apparently their arguments have nothing to do with those aspects. And, you know, hell, try getting some of them to tell you why they're bothering with their superstitious denunciations in the first place. Yet at the same time, so are so many of my theistic neighbors so stubbornly uncommunicative for all they seem to wish to express. And in my society, it is a perpetual fight: One person's religious faith obliges another person to _____. It's a fight we've been having pretty much my whole life. And yes, that's the thing.
If people are supposed to constrict their own lives for the sake of someone else's religious assertion,
then yes, that assertion needs to be justified; outside that context, though, well, right. Just why is anyone discussing anything, again?
Honestly, it's starting to sound like I'm in the wrong thread; nobody actually seems to be talking about anything, but instead just reciting words or platitudes or what the hell ever.
There are hints of an interesting theological question buried in your points two and three, but I could be mistaken; it's still pretty difficult to decipher whatever it is you're on about.
PS : intellectially calculative, people who are extremely objective, need evidence or basis for faith also. Absence of true faith in them, inability to accept anything which does not appear rational to them.
Okay, then. Thank you for clarifying.