Don't do it

lol, WHAT? What makes you think you are more perceptive than me, or the next person besides your own arrogant ego? That's not a very rational statement because it's not back up by facts.. It's clear that you value reconfirming what you already believe to be true instead of truth itself.

Give examples of your supreme perceptiveness if you are going to come out and claim it, otherwise just don't post because you have nothing substantial to add.

I also believe that a few of the philosophical arguments are solid and convincing. The Kalam Cosmological Argument as argued by William Layne Craig in particular. The teleological argument seems promising also. I saw OP's proposed refutation of it, and though I cannot yet verbalize a cogent and coherent rebuttal to it, I sense that a foundational error is present in his refutation.

Besides philosophical arguments, there are other reasons to believe. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the most well-attested miracle claim in human history. H.G Wells said that even though he was not a believer, he could not deny, as a historian, that Jesus Christ is the center of history. Considering this, anybody who does not fairly investigate the resurrection claim, would seem to be making a serious error concerning their spiritual and/or existential fate.

To simply assume a skeptical position, also, seems out of bounds with reasonable, unbiased weighing of evidences. In most cases, hardcore skepticism can be used to dismiss almost any theory or truth claim. Atheists often seem befuddled and frustrated with literalist creationists, but IMO, they are bedfellows. Both camps apply unreasonable standards to opposing truth claims, and in most cases- summarily dismiss contradictory evidence with emotionally-charged rhetoric, scorn, and a wave of the hand. Technically, there is no substantial difference in approach between a strong atheist and a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. They have both made conscious wagers of negation, and all new information they receive is colored and warped through this determination. Calls are screened by area code, as it were. Or they just aren't taking calls.

There is another kind of evidence, and that is biblical evidence, drawn from the word of the prophets. There is prophetic evidence, such as the startling accuracy of the Daniel 9 prophecy, or the messianic prophecy of Isaiah 53. But even putting aside prophecy, there is the inspired scripture itself. I've seen a pastor teach from the parable of the sower in Mark 4 for 14 straight mid-week services. There is a depth, or unction to the scriptures that poets have been trying to emulate and replicate for hundreds of years now. And when I speak of depth, I mean that one text may have manifold meanings. One text may be useful for teaching more than one lesson. You can read a certain passage 100 times, and passing over it for the 101st time, you may finally receive a revelation of how it fits into the wider architecture of the biblical message. There are two ways to read the scriptures: with the Holy Spirit or without the Holy Spirit. The difference between these two readins is substantial. It's not even the case that you have received a "correct" interpretation, but that the reading itself reveals a personal encounter with the living and active Word, for the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. The Word confirms itself inside of you after you have been born again. It becomes a living component of the self-authenticating witness. Those who seek it find it, and there's the rub.

Those without faith fail to experience the evidence of faith.
But still, word of this powerful encounter with the Word must count for something. Many a man has fallen in love with the scriptures and met God through that appreciation.

In all, I don't see evolution as an issue. Whoever was convinced to accept Jesus as Lord because of creationist literature? Hardly any, I would say. So why would anyone fall away because of evolutionist literature?

In a way, common descent is actually affirmed by the creation account. Before God blesses and creates man, God creates and blesses sea life. It is a very curious blessing. I once hypothesized that in the same way that God blessed Israel (because the savior of mankind would come out of that important lineage) God also blessed sea life, because man would one day come out of that lineage. God told man to be fruitful and multiply. God commanded sea life to be fruitful and multiply. Moses wasn't trying to deny common descent. I would suggest a deep, prayerful, detailed study of Genesis 1-3.

From my own studies I came upon a few curiosities in these texts. For example, I always held a suspicion about Genesis 2:3. It reads: "Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it he rested from all his work which God had created and made." It's a rather strangely costructed phrase containing a repetition. I discovered later a variant reading in the Young's Literal Translation which reads "PREPARED and made." Now look down at verse 4: "This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." A light bulb might go off now. The preparatory order on Genesis 1 might not matter. Now I am not claiming this is so, but just demonstrating how we might begin to work at a difficulty in the text, instead of outright rejecting Jesus Christ on a nominal technicality.

Just skimming, but this is pretty terrible. A 9/11 conspiracy theorist has to consciously ignore positive scientific proof of the contrary to get from A to B. What positive scientific proof of God's existence is a strong athiest denying?

personally, i think there's no reason to lie to them, but i wouldn't want to hurt them unnecessarily either. if they need to find out, or it drives u nuts not telling em, i think the passive way works best.

don't go out of the way to tell them, just drop a hint every now and then. nothing to strong or you'll probably start a confrontation. eventually they'll figure it out for themselves. hopefully they'll have been eased into it and you won't get yourself into an argument.

but i would avoid telling them they're wrong in a bit of a "i know better than u fashion". regardless of the subject, seems that parents don't respond well to that (at least mine don't). then of course if you're looking for a fight, go right ahead.

As far as I know, it's one potential explanation, but I don't know anyone who holds it as a true, proven belief. Regardless, I think claiming with certainty that there is no god is irrational as is becoming a theist.

You better stop and think why you personalize another person as arrogant because they don't agree with you.

I was looking at personality profile types several years ago and one of the descriptive attributes of my personality type (I took a test or two to determine it) was that I was perceptive. Perception is an ability or gift.

Someone else might have a different gift. Maybe they have mechanical aptitude, etc. But one of my gifts was perception.

So maybe you want to explain why someone perceptive has to accede to someone who's personality type they don't know.

If you're a math geek do you bounce your math thinking off of people who struggled with algebra?

That's not arrogance. That's looking at things objectively.

Yes. You bounce them off anyone willing to listen, and more importantly, you bounce them off anyone who disagrees with you. This is nothing but arrogance and cone-headed thinking.

People's disagreements on beliefs don't always come down to - I know more than he does/I am more perceptive/intelligent than he is - therefore he must be wrong. One day you will realize that there are people out there who are not only more perceptive than you, but are also far more intelligent than yourself, and when you find such a person who also happens to disagree with you, how will you explain that to yourself?

I think people oftentimes forget God is more intelligent than us all.

Why try to interrupt someone from learning from God? Faith is a building process where we're partakers in a divine nature. (cf. 2 Peter 1)

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2 Peter+1&version=KJV

Might go better than telling SMP about being a biologist

Does this mean that the more one knows about God, the more intelligent and perceptive one is?

Because if not, then what makes you more perceptive or intelligent than people here who disagree with you?

A psychological test of personality traits?

I would not tell them. You know that there is no God, I know that there is no God. But moving past that, why browbeat them? They believe, and they always will. It is their mistake to make, and like 95% of the globe, they have
made it. It's a fundamental defect in most humans, one that you are lucky to have avoided by implicitly dedicating yourself to rationality. Just enjoy your atheism and let it guide you to a life of Reason.

They test lots of things in psychology why not perception?

Splendour without quoting you word for word (in name of time have to study for a test), I would ask the following question with regards to your entire line of thinking..

How do you know you are more perceptive than anyone in specific? The test just told you how you score versus the field, which means on average, according to their own metrics, you score higher in a category they call perception. You are beating the average which is something, but certainly not everything. You are acting like it's everything, and I disagree strongly.

I don't know how that leads you to believe you are more perceptive than me or anyone else in specific. Do you know how I scored on that test? Do you know how I would score if I took the test compared to you? Nope, that's impossible to know yet you are basing just about everything from that assumption.

Since it's impossible to know if the most perceptive and intelligent person is the next person you conversate with, the prudent thing is to be willing to bounce ideas off of people so that in case you do come across someone that is more perceptive/intelligent, you stand to benefit from that exchange. You've essentially shut yourself down and eliminated the chance that you could ever benefit from someone which is an erosive mentality to say the least. It's also very arrogant and the opposite of humble. It's almost akin to some weird messiah complex where you think you have everything to offer other people and other people have nothing to offer you, ie: god like. Could your obsession with the Bible lead you to this type of thinking? Certainly is possible.

You are a human and to err is human. To remedy the err we must put ourselves out there and let the errs be pointed out, highlighted in neon yellow with a flaming "nuclear-orange" border.

I don’t think it’s so much about intelligence as much as religious/spiritual sensibility and the lack thereof. Some have the latter and some don’t. Just as some have the aesthetic sensibility to appreciate poetry and art and some don’t, or as some have mathematical sensibility and some don’t.

This is devolving into an atrocity, ie: Howard Gardner versus g.

It doesn't matter what we are talking about, thinking you have nothing to learn from other people is the epitome of arrogance and ignorance. If you disagree, get out more.

You better think again about who's more arrogant when some people have the nerve to think and state that theists are confirmation biased.

I use my own perception to weigh things. If you can't depend on your own senses how can you evaluate certain types of evidence?

That personality plays a role in evaluating evidence is demonstrated by jurist screening.

My vote is no, no need to upset your mom.

Senses are fallible. To say "I'm the most perceptive so my senses are infallible" is beyond ridiculous. I know I'm overstating what you do, but you lose sight of your fallibility all the time. You don't know when you missed something that someone else has understood; you don't know when someone else has something enlightening to offer you (nor do I, without hearing them out).

Many theists have confirmation bias because of the fallibility of their senses. Just because a couple tests online say you're a perceptive person does not make you immune to this.

"My parents are EXTREMELY religious. "
"should i tell them im atheist"
uhh wtf no?

I'm a human being so of course I'm fallible. Nevertheless we all on a daily basis have to think for ourselves and many times we're alone. So its better to have some confidence in your own thinking or else you could never make a decision and handle a problem.

All several atheists on here are trying to do is force their doubt onto theists like it is something noble.

It isn't. Materialism isn't noble. It's base. Materialistic worldviews are a modern type of idolatry.

In the OT God says people are guilty of worshipping idols made from lifeless objects by their own hands. When you worship an idol you falsely credit power in something that doesn't even have life.

There is no life residing in materialism. So why let it control your thought process?

You should try imagining thinking as having a magnetic pull on it.

Your thinking can be pulled up or down unless you yourself become aware of the pull on it and make a conscious decision to think one way or the other.

You have the freedom to decide which flow of thinking you will go with but the flow is inexorable. So choose wisely.

Stop trying to force doubt on atheists like its noble.

Most atheists have assumed a hardened position of extreme skepticism toward all things spiritual by philosophical default.

All they offer is negation.

Why are so many atheists here militant and bent on carnage?

Why is almost every thread filled to the brim with personal attacks?

Because the thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy.

A thief isn't in your home in order to add something to your household, but simply to take.

He does not come back the next day and offer to replace your stolen item with something else.

At least, most thieves don't even try to justify their behavior.

They have stolen something, and replaced it with nothing.

The skeptic destroys, and then rages at his intended victim for not being thankful or appreciative.

Most people will hold on to their abundant life in Christ, thank you very much, and leave the existential despair and emotional turbulence to the thief, who is bent on annihilating in all directions.

You dont have a hardened position on their views?

Again you do the same to their views. The only difference is you pretend you are a martyr when its done to you and a savior when you do it to others.


If expressing your views means you are a militant and bent on carnage. Then Christians are in just as much trouble. Less they are hypocrites and allow that form themselves but not others.

Personal attacks happen on all sides. As for why? People are *******s?

Yes atheists are thieves. I am a thief when i express my view. What was that about personal attacks?


I shouldn't speak for skeptics but they think they are replacing false thinking with correct thinking just like everyone else who express their opinion.

You give yourself that right and try to take it form others. Sounds like something a thief would do.

Its true atheists are in despair and emotionally turbulent. Do you have anymore personal attacks for me? So far ive learned im a thief, bent on annihilating, who is in despair and emotionally turbulent.