T Clark seems to be claiming, unless I'm misinterpreting him, that believers only believe in the ineffable, not anything particular, and not the words that are preached to them. Atheists come up with the particulars, all the words, the so-called 'boxes'. — praxis

If I'm wrong why you don't try to clarify what you mean?

If I'm wrong why you don't try to clarify what you mean? — praxis

All I ever said was 1) Atheists put theist ideas in boxes, by which I meant they mischaracterize their beliefs based on their own biases. 2) Claiming that Christians believe the bible is infallible is a very common example of that process. 3) It is not true that Christians in general believe the bible is infallible.

Everything else you say I said, I didn't say.

I agree that there are atheists who intentionally mischaracterize religious ideas out of prejudice. There are also theists who intentionally mischaracterize atheist ideas out of prejudice. Basic tribalism really. Not everyone relates to those they disagree with on that level though, you know.

Atheists put theist ideas in boxes, by which I meant they mischaracterize their beliefs based on their own biases. — T Clark

Well, speaking only for myself, I take theism at face value and demonstrate that its sine qua non claims about g/G are not true (i.e. either incoherent or false). I suppose the relevant "bias" here is I reject untrue claims.

I agree that there are atheists who intentionally mischaracterize religious ideas out of prejudice. — praxis

I wasn't talking about intentional mischaracterization. I think many atheists don't think twice when they say things like that.

There are also theists who intentionally mischaracterize atheist ideas out of prejudice. — praxis

But that's not what we're talking about here. I don't think atheists need to be defended here on the forum. Elsewhere they do.

Well, speaking only for myself, I take theism at face value and demonstrate that its sine qua non claims about g/G are not true (i.e. either incoherent or false). I suppose the relevant "bias" here is I reject untrue claims. — 180 Proof

[snarky]Yes, well 180P, you're such a good boy. [/snarky]

your contention that Christians consider the bible "infallible truth." — T Clark

It's God's word when it suits them, on some subjects. Pick'n'choose. I added:
"Or claim to believe, even while they deny that what's written there means what is written there. Oh, yes, God really means it about resurrection for the ones He likes, but he was only kidding about drowning all the bunny-rabbits, and stoning all the homosexuals. He's dead serious about transubstantiation... well sorta serious... no, that was a metaphor, it's really just a cracker.... but He changed his mind about witches in 1728(AD), but didn't get the word to the New World until 1879... but all the other stuff is true... except Abraham and the badger game... well maybe the frogs in Egypt were an exaggeration, but He really, really meant it about saving everybody who sincerely repents of their sins. Original sin ...weeeeellll....um....
And again we come back to: Where else did they get their image of God?

believers only believe in the ineffable, not anything particular, and not the words that are preached to them. — praxis

...so they put on black cassocks and sail around the world to tell the heathen.... What, exactly? "My dear savages, I feel in my bones that Something ineffable exists, so I want you to renounce your own version of it and embrace mine. It's so much better, trust me!"

I wasn't talking about intentional mischaracterization. I think many atheists don't think twice when they say things like that. — T Clark

I'm afraid only a theist can correct a mischaracterization of their ideas, particularly if it's unintentional. They can be rather odd and unintuitive.

Again, all I said was:

1) Atheists often put theist ideas in boxes, by which I meant they mischaracterize their beliefs based on their own biases. 2) Claiming that Christians believe the bible is infallible is a very common example of that process. 3) It is not true that Christians in general believe the bible is infallible. — T Clark

Note - I added "often" to soften the claim a bit.

...so they put on black cassocks and sail around the world to tell the heathen.... What, exactly? "My dear savages, I feel in my bones that Something ineffable exists, so I want you to renounce your own version of it and embrace mine. It's so much better, trust me!" — Vera Mont

I'm afraid only a theist can correct a mischaracterization of their ideas, particularly if it's unintentional. They can be rather odd. — praxis

I hate it when I'm the calm, understated poster in a thread. It means something is out of whack. Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria.

:smirk: Why don't you take issue with the strongest arguments against theisn made by principled atheists (like me or other disbelievers I can name if you can't find them), son, rather than just lazily picking the low-hanging fruit of 'contrarian rabble rousers' as representative strawmen to torch so smugly?

Why don't you take issue with the strongest arguments against theisn made by principled atheists (like me or other disbelievers I can name if you can't find them), son, rather than just lazily picking the low-hanging fruit of 'contrarian rabble rousers' as representative strawmen to torch so smugly? — 180 Proof

I made a couple of simple statements back at the beginning of this thread in response to the OP and a post from @Wayfarer. Since then, I've just been responding to criticism of those statements. My posts were not any kind of comprehensive attack on atheist arguments. They were simple and focused. These "strongest arguments" you speak of have not been on the table.

Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria. — T Clark

They do. It isn't.
So... No missionaries? No conversions to the God of the Bible? No cathedrals? Atheists imagined the whole thing?

They do. It isn't. — Vera Mont

Look. It's not that difficult a question.
Do Christians believe in the God of the Bible, or don't they?

Why don't you take issue with the strongest arguments against theisn made by principled atheists (like me or other disbelievers I can name if you can't find them), son, rather than just lazily picking the low-hanging fruit of 'contrarian rabble rousers' as representative strawmen to torch so smugly? — 180 Proof

He just wants it to be known that he's well above the din. I'm grateful for it personally, because it has allowed me the opportunity to use the expression 'above the din' which I didn't realize until now would be so satisfying.

Look. It's not that difficult a question.
Do Christians believe in the God of the Bible, or don't they? — Vera Mont

Of course, but it is my understanding, based on 15 minutes on the web, that most do not consider the Bible infallible or inerrant. If you want to go any deeper into Christian doctrine or history, I'm not the one to be talking to.

it has allowed me the opportunity to use the expression 'above the din' which I didn't realize until now would be so satisfying. — praxis

Sometimes an opportunity to use a favorite word, phrase, or quote is the best thing about a discussion.

If you want to go any deeper into Christian doctrine or history, I'm not the one to be talking to. — T Clark

I don't.
I'm asking the most superficial, obvious question - not necessarily of you, but of any or all apologists:
If not from the Bible, where does the character of God come from?

I'm asking the most superficial, obvious question - not necessarily of you, but of any or all apologists:
If not from the Bible, where does the character of God come from? — Vera Mont

I grew up in the Baptist tradition. We were taught that the Bible stories were allegories to tell a broader truth about the nature of god and man. Literalist interpretations are more of a recent phenomenon within Protestant traditions - according to people like Karen Armstrong and David Bentley Hart (two theist writers of note).

God it would be argued comes first. Stories which capture the deity come second. Hence the evolving nature of theology over time. Most theists I grew up in the 1970's-80's with would argue that all religions are human attempts to capture the same truth about the transcendent or 'oneness' using a language that belongs to a particular time and place. This is known as the perennial tradition.

We were taught that the Bible stories were allegories to tell a broader truth about the nature of god and man. — Tom Storm

Okay. So, none of the stories are true? What is this "broader truth"? For that matter, what is it broader than? Who are these allegorical stories really about?
In Whom, exactly do you* believe?
* Not necessarily you, personally, but anyone who reads the stories, knows they're not true, but thinks they're about something or somebody wider than the god depicted in them?

Pascal's wager is very clear on what one has to do vis-à-vis theism-atheism in a Christian context. I don't see where the confusion lies mon ami. It involves some basic probability math and the conclusion is inescapable - we should believe in the Christian God. Sophia (wisdom) is not limited to facts alone, mon ami.

"Pascal's Wager" is a false dilemma.

"Pascal's Wager" is a false dilemma — 180 Proof

Expand and elaborate ... please.

Are you pushing for honesty (agnosticism)?

Pascal (deliberately) leaves out e.g. 'one does not believe and yet one lives forever' ... 'one believes and yet one does not live forever' ... etc.

Are you pushing for honesty  (agnosticism)?

Confused / uncertain about g/G-belief, agnostics are not particularly "honest". As you know I'm a disbeliever.

Pascal (deliberately) leaves out e.g. 'one does not believe and yet one goes to heaven' ... 'one believes and yet one goes to hell' ... etc. — 180 Proof

That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. — Romans 10 :: NIV

Agnostics are confused / uncertain about g/G-belief, not particularly "honest". As you know I'm a disbeliever. — 180 Proof

Sorry for the double reply. You added the above later so I suppose it won't come as a surprise.

Agnostics are essentially skeptics. Are skeptics confused or rational?

Agnostics are essentially skeptics. — Agent Smith

Skeptics, however, are not "essentially" agnostics.

Okay. So, none of the stories are true? What is this "broader truth"? For that matter, what is it broader than? Who are these allegorical stories really about? — Vera Mont

Plenty of books on this by people like Paul Tillich, David Bentley Hart and Shelby Spong and the like. I'm not a progressive Christian, so I'm not involved. I never had the interest to go look for subtext and interpretative value.