My atheist opponent’s words will be in blue.
I guess it’s okay, if you read the Bible. Personally, I believe in the ability to believe. In the case of religion, I simply cannot. Anything can be said to be true without proof, but only religion requires us to do so.
It’s untrue that we believe without proof, or that this is required. That was the whole purpose of miracles, including the Resurrection. They verified the Christian faith, and the matter of Who Jesus was; tying into Who He claimed to be.
Faith is believing in things that we may not be able to totally understand with our own minds, but it doesn’t follow that it is irrational or that no evidences can be adduced in its favor.
I’ve devoted my life as a Christian apologist to showing that there are indeed many many such rational considerations, and that non-religious / atheist alternatives are ultimately irrational and incoherent (leading to existential despair and nihilism), and require every bit as much acceptance of unproven — indeed, sometimes even unprovable — axioms, as any Christian is required to believe.
If you care to read further in these matters, I have two web pages that might interest you:
Okay, let’s consider this. In America a Christian is more than likely the same faith as their parents and even grandparents. In America very few people, about 20% actually attend church. In America very few Christians have actually read the Bible.
Therefore in America, Christians base their faith and devotion out of a belief in hearsay. You investigate a cell phone more than you do your god.
There are millions of ignorant, uninformed Christians. No argument there. It’s precisely one major reason why I do what I do. Of course that’s absolutely irrelevant as to the true nature of Christianity and the truth with regard to rational defenses of same. It’s a variation of the ad populum fallacy.It’s also true that a great percentage of atheists don’t have a clue as to what actual Christianity is. I’ve debated them scores of times. And they are profoundly ignorant of basic considerations, to a person.
And so, in your ignorance, you pillory faith as “ridiculous.” I made a reasoned argument in the above paper. You ignored all that. So did my atheist opponent. I made him aware of my five critiques of his material. He utterly ignored them all.
Now you want to insult and say silly stuff.
I came to atheism by reading the Bible. Before that I was a Christian student, studying the Old and New Testaments for credit in high school. They used to let you do that. Bet they wouldn’t if they knew it would lead me to non-belief.
So, are you the same faith as Mom and Dad?
They were nominal Methodist. I hated church as a kid and learned virtually nothing. I became an evangelical Protestant Christian (1977) — after a period of being enthralled with the occult — and then a Catholic (1990): one of very few in my entire extended family. I don’t go with the crowd or what’s fashionable or popular. I go with what I think the truth is, as I continue to learn.
To the extent that people engage in groupthink, that has no bearing on the truth claims of a major world religion. It only reveals sociological facts about people. Apples and oranges. As I majored in sociology, I know a bit about that outlook as well.
A Catholic in 1990? I guess you missed out on being molested as a child? Unless it’s the same for Evangelical Protestant Christians as well?
Alright. See ya. Obviously, nothing of substance will be discussed.
Photo credit: Matte paper postcard showing sailing ships in moonlight. Back is divided and reads “P.C.D. Co., Select Line” (P.C.D. is The Post Card Distributing Company, which published many postcards of Atlantic City at this time), c. 1913 [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]