re: Baylor University Survey On Religion: 'Almost No Atheists Voted For Trump'

quote:

---

Like I said, this ain't my first rodeo and no you won't be receptive to your bull shite logic being bull shite. It's the way your brain works since you've elevated things like "faith" and "conviction of belief" over things like knowledge, facts, substantiation, rationality, reason, etc.

---

Now who is making invalid assumptions? I don't put my faith above facts, knowledge, rationality, and reason because I believe they are all on the same footing and not contradictory to one another. I don't have to set aside any of those things to hold the faith that I hold to. In fact, I believe that those things are only possible because of the God of my Faith. I believe that logic, reason, rationality, and the ability to know anything at all are based on the existence of a logical, reasonable, rational God that upholds the universe in a way that is consistent, uniform, and predictable. Without God, I have no reason to trust my senses, to "know" anything for sure, or to believe that immaterial laws of logic can even exist.

quote:

---

You yourself have clearly and openly expressed and acknowledged this. Atheists are superior to agnostics, you said, because while flatly rejecting your notion of God, at least they've demonstrated your proclaimed virtue of closing your mind to doubt. "Conviction" you called it.

---

Conviction doesn't mean "closed", as you wrongfully believe, apparently. Conviction is confidence in what you believe to be true and conviction can be had by both "open" and "closed" people.

My statement about atheists being better than agnostics in this regard is based on their study and reasoning through the issue to come to a conclusion, albeit a wrong one. Granted, I'm painting with a broad brush for both atheists and agnostics, but generally speaking what I said is true. Agnostics who remain agnostics are so because they haven't spent a sufficient amount of time really thinking through the issue; they tend to take the middle road of thinking it's not possible to know God or that He even exists and therefore live their lives as if there isn't a God. Like I said, they are practical atheists but don't want to be numbered with the atheists. As much as I think atheists are foolish and wrong, at least I can admire their ability to take a stand on what they believe.

quote:

---

Let's start with this below. You profess all this to be unequivocally true with zero substantiation that would pass any semblance of scientific muster (which of course you attempt to thwart through terms like "special revelation"). You then expect discussion to hinge on this premise. It's pointless to engage someone using this method of discussion.

---

I made those claims based on what I believe about the Bible being the word of God and an account of history from an eye-witness (God) that is not capable of lying. If you'd like to have a discussion about the validity of my belief in the infallibility and trustworthiness of the Bible, we can do that. I've done it before and would be pleased to do so again.

I take exception with your standard for judgement, though. You said " with zero substantiation that would pass any semblance of scientific muster". With this statement you have told me that your worldview accepts only the natural and material world as being true because only the natural and material can be tested by scientific methodologies. Since we're talking about God, we're talking about a supernatural being that cannot, by definition, be subject to the scientific method. You have brought the wrong tools to this discussion.

quote:

---

You repeat this kind of thing over, and over, and over in long-winded, babbling, pretentious diatribes. You clearly see no issue with the absurdity of the above being presented as some factual truth.

---

Why is it absurd to present such things as factual truth? Either those things happened or they didn't happen. If they happened, then those things are factual truth regardless of your own opinion about their absurdity. Whether my "diatribes" are "long-winded, babbling, [or] pretentious" is irrelevant to the discussion except perhaps if they are logistically prohibitive to further discussion. I've found that if I try to make my statements shorter and leave out certain details, I don't express my beliefs as clearly and it actually adds to the confusion by those who don't understand what I believe or how I can believe it.

quote:

---

You make statements like agnostics don't believe because of "intellectual laziness" (direct quote) and that when it comes to the evidence or rational information regarding the existence or non-existence of a God, "the agnostic doesn't want to engage in that discussion and takes the easy way out by saying that there just isn't enough information to know for sure when the topic, itself, is one of faith." This, of course, does not at all support your argument that the agnostic doesn't engage in rational discussion of evidence. In fact, this entire statement is beyond fricking absurd into the realm of laughable.

---

I'll admit that I'm speaking from limited experience, though I have argued this point was probably dozens of atheists and agnostics. The agnostics rarely want to discuss the existence of God because they would have to take a stance and defend it. The atheists and the theists go toe-to-toe on this all the time because they have a firm belief and reasons for their beliefs and they try to convince the other side of the truth, as it is perceived. Agnostics don't really have a position which is why they don't usually get involved, other than to say the theists and the atheists are dumb for arguing over something that we can't possibly know for sure. If you disagree with me on this, I'd love to understand.

I said they are intellectually lazy because it's easy to not take a side and chalk it up to something that we can't know or understand and then live life like it doesn't actually matter. It's harder to review the information thoroughly, take a position, and then defend that position in the face of hostility from dissenters. Atheists get a hard time from theists. Theists get a hard time from atheists. But agnostics don't seem to get a hard time from anyone because they don't take a hard stance one way or the other.

quote:

---

Also, who is to say that the agnostic is "taking the easy way out?" Another false premise. I would argue that the easy way out, if any (and I don't use this term because it's quite presumptive and insulting to suggest that someone is being insincere in their beliefs to begin with), would be the one's subscribing to the more pleasant notion of eternal life in paradise. Trust me, agnosticism doesn't offer one great peace of mind that rewards skirting hard truths. Yet another of your absurd and logically invalid suggestions

---

I just explained why I think agnosticism is taking the easy way out; they don't have to think too much about the issue because they start with the premise that God is unknowable, if He exists, and therefore there isn't much point in spending your life worrying about it. That said, it's certainly not an easy way out to have strong convictions toward the Christian view of the world and of God.

My view in particular of a God that judges sin and has ordained salvation for only His elect is especially unpopular, even within Christian circles. I not only have to defend my position to atheists, agnostics, and those who practice other religions, but I have to defend them to the majority of Christians who disagree with me. Therefore, I have had to study a great deal about not just what I believe but why I believe what I believe in order to defend those beliefs to a completely hostile world that despises what I believe. Considering the hard questions I've had to come to grips with and find an answer for, I don't think I've taken an easy way out at all.