Athiest tough questions

[mead]

Hello and welcome to Worthy

[Guest yod]

Those verse mean we shouldn't answer according to his foolishness but rather speak to his heart's condition.

An appeal to emotion, you mean? I hope not, because that is certainly not a good answer.

Did I say that? no...not even close. Why are you being so contentious?

BTW, this is how Yeshua answered foolish questions. When people would test him with foolish questions designed to trap Him, He would speak to the wickedness of their heart instead of answering the question asked.

Maybe you could take this up with Him?

[lekh l'kha]

Did I say that? no...not even close.

Well, that's why I asked. "Speak to his heart's condition" certainly sounds like "appeal to emotion" to me. It's a vague turn of phrase. If that's not what you meant, fine, but it'd be nice of you to clarify what you did mean.

Maybe you could take this up with Him?

Oh, sure. I'll just give him a call.

Do you know how?

[Hunterpoet]

1 Cor. 1:18, For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness, but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

I believe it was St. Francis of Assisi that said, " always teach the bible, and when necessary use words ".

Mt. 5:14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid.

Let them first see, then when they are ready they will hear.

[nebula]

If your arguments aren't working, it's all very easy to say "Oh, they mustn't want to believe, then" but consider the possibility that your arguments just aren't very good.

Like I said - people didn't believe Jesus. Were His arguments bad?

The Bible is full of people who didn't believe the prophets even when what they prophesied happened to them.

When the Roman soldiers told the Pharisees that Jesus rose from the dead, they bribed the guards to tell lies about what happened. They had every reason to believe Jesus rose, but they chose not to believe in Him anyway.

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

[lekh l'kha]

Like I said - people didn't believe Jesus. Were His arguments bad?

Unless anyone here is Jesus, I don't see how this is relevant. Nobody here can predict the future to prove their point. Nobody here can walk on water or heal the sick or rise from death to prove their point.

Are you encouraging people to make the assumption that there cannot possibly be anything wrong with their arguments and that anyone who rejects them must be a stubborn fool?

It's totally relevant. Those who don't believe, don't believe. I can make you believe in Christianity as much as you can make me believe in Hinduism - which means I can't make you believe in Jesus and you can't make me believe in Hinduism - that's what "you can lead a horse to the water but you can't make him drink" means.

Must we draw pictures for you? You're arguing for the sake of arguing. I think you understand a simple concept for what it is.

[nebula]

Like I said - people didn't believe Jesus. Were His arguments bad?

Unless anyone here is Jesus, I don't see how this is relevant. Nobody here can predict the future to prove their point. Nobody here can walk on water or heal the sick or rise from death to prove their point.

Are you encouraging people to make the assumption that there cannot possibly be anything wrong with their arguments and that anyone who rejects them must be a stubborn fool?

I am saying that even the best argument, rather even the best proof, in the world just won't convince people.

You just need to stop blaming everyone else for what you believe or don't believe and take ownership of them.

[nebula]

I'm not going to play your games, Thracius.

If you are waiting for the "right" argument, you'll never find it. For there is always a "spin" to find on anything people say.

Lawyers, for instance, make a living off of doing this.

[MorningGlory]

It's totally relevant. Those who don't believe, don't believe.

This is what I'm talking about. Automatically assuming stubbornness on the other person's part (even if they actually have a good rebuttal) rather than considering the possibility that your arguments just aren't good enough, or that you aren't expressing yourself clearly enough, or any other possibility that might make the fault yours instead of theirs. For an adherent of a religion that goes out of its way to point out how flawed and silly mankind is, you certainly seem quick to assume that you aren't doing anything wrong.

I put it to you that I will never ignore a valid point just to preserve my beliefs. A Christian could get me to believe if they had a sufficiently convincing argument. They just don't seem to have one.

As an aside, I find the "Hard time with smart people" part of the thread title to be mildly amusing. The subtle implication that those who don't believe in God are actually the smart ones. Those crazy atheists with their intelligence and their "logic"!

Being an atheist doesn't mean someone's crazy....just blind, deaf and completely deluded.

[MorningGlory]

Games? What games? I'm not playing games. I'm making a point. Do you assume that all atheists are stubborn and unreasonable or don't you?

Being an atheist doesn't mean someone's crazy....just blind, deaf and completely deluded.

What a quaint little notion.

Directed at a quaint little atheist. What is your opinion on that statement?