People can be stubborn. To admit being wrong is to admit defeat. I guess it depends on how one views making a mistake. Some people view failure as devastating. Proof of their own shortcomings. I prefer to think of mistakes and failures as just learning opportunities. I have learnt much from my many failures in life. More than my successes, in fact.People do not have to try to be humble, they either are or they aren't.
You are a refreshing change from the atheist poster I quoted in the OP.
In over five years of posting to him, I do not think he has ever admitted he was wrong, and he has never even met me halfway. That might sound rather extreme but it's the truth.
?
I will not comment on this person’s intentions or motivations, however, since I do not know that person at all.
Well, people tend to react to the environment they are surrounded by. Militant atheism certainly appears like a reaction, at least that’s what I think.I certainly do not know his motives for talking so much about a god he does not believe in and thinks would be evil if it existed, I would not waste my time talking about a god I felt that way about, but we humans are all so different.
I think that on some level he really wants to know if God exists, but he is not going to find out putting all these expectations on God.
And maybe they have a valid point. Maybe they grew up in a cult, maybe they have been hurt or seen people hurt by religion.
I don’t know.
I do follow some Ex JW and Ex Mormon YT channels. And whilst they are not militant atheists (some even retained their faith in God) I can see why, based on their experiences, they would come to certain conclusions about religion and religious folks in general.
I think it’s helpful to not assume anything about an opponent’s background or why they have the opinion they have. (Though I’m sure I’m guilty of doing that all the time.)
There’s usually a good reason, maybe not always logical, but a good reason nonetheless.
But we are not privy to another’s brains, nor are we psychologists. A person who constantly talks about God but is atheist might do so for any number of reasons. Who knows?
Well, thanks. Still, when one claims that a creator deity has unconditional love for creation (like some do) it is pertinent to ask what shape that takes on the physical plane.That is a good point. Human needs are not God's needs and God is under no obligation to fulfill our needs.
Well your path is your path. If that makes sense to you, fair enough..
Since I am a Baha'i, I have a religion, so I think that scriptures contain God's will for mankind through the Messenger of God. Some are what people want to hear but a lot are what people don't want to hear, like some of the laws.
Again, I appreciate your humility and open-mindedness. Those are rare qualities in humans.
According to my beliefs, there can never be any direct intercourse between God and ordinary human beings, and that is why God speaks through Messengers who have both a divine and a human nature, thus they can act as mediators between God and man. That seems logical to me and that is why I believe it.
Because humans are often logical with specific criteria in discourse, rules, if you will, for debate. It’s all very well to claim that you believe “insert messenger here” is evidence of God speaking to mankind. But that intrinsically falls short of the criteria demanded in logical discourse. Many times when evidence is asked, it is under the assumption that said evidence can pass at least mild scrutiny in say a scientific way. Something verifiable, something falsifiable and something testable. Messenger claims don’t cut it, often times, in such circumstances.For whatever reason, atheists have a problem with he idea of Messengers of God but in over five years of asking why I still have received no logical reason. The most logical thing they say is that they cannot know that any Messenger actually received messages from God and that is valid because nobody can prove that...The question is then why proof is necessary, why isn't good evidence sufficient?