It seems to me that if you examine the philosophy of an Atheist, you will find they make a jump of faith in their reasoning just like the Theist. It is just a jump in the wrong direction.
Couldn’t the same thing be said of Catholics too (if you accept generalizations)? Why do Catholics debate on this board?
Yes, I think they do. But that wouldn’t justify the ad hominem that was hurled against them. It also doesn’t prove that their jump is the result of a moral failure.
It’s only not fair if there is no Truth.
I agree that it’s not a moral failing but an intellectual one. Atheists claim to base their world view on logic and reason and then, many of them, deny they make a leap of faith.
Ok. I just wasn’t aware that theists held reason and logic to be created or that they had to. It would (could) matter in that if reason and logic were primarily in God (God’s mind, whatever) and then manifest in the world which was ordered by God’s reason, that we could come to know something about God by reason (going from effects to cause). If, on the other hand, reason and logic were created , there is no necessary connection between our reason and logic and the mind (will, plan) of God. The former allows for reasoning by the analogy of proper proportionality (which also grounds religious language), the latter does not. The former allows for a natural theology that seems excluded from the latter (at the very least the former allows a more robust natural theology). The philosophical question is similar to the “Euthyphro problem” in Plato. That is why I asked my original question.
Since that is what is at question with the atheists, I don’t see how it helps. Isn’t that close to what AnAtheist was complaing about that started the “No you’re the one who’s arrogant” discussion? Isn’t that: We (I) have truth therefore we (I) can try to get you to change your views; you don’t have truth, therefore it is unfair for you to try to get me to accept your view of truth. What happened to honest dialogue and humility? AnAtheist seems to be honest, sincere, and fairly intelligent. Might we not have something to learn from him?
Yes, many do and they are wrong to do so. I didn’t mean to imply that it is never a moral failing, only that it isn’t necessarily one. I don’t think you mean it is never a moral failing but always an intellectual one. Right?
The only way I can see Atheism as a moral failing is when they blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
Bingo - the only unforgivable sin.
So, then is it almost always an intellectual failing? If so, then is intellectual argument the best (only?) way to reach atheists? Most people I have talked to who have moved from atheism (or anything else) to Christianity did not do it based on intellectual proof, reasoning, or argument. If atheism is volitional, then it would seem to be closer to being a moral question than an intellectual one.
I believe the biggest one is reasoning from a position of so little knowledge.
Scientism.
God is Infinite, Eternal, Intelligent and Good. These properties can be deducted by reason.
All atheists or only some are guilty of this? I don’t think all can be shown to be true and some doesn’t get at a problem with atheism per se but only with some atheists (perhaps as a general tendency?).
Really? What is that “position”? I have seen more than a little ignorance (and even gross stupidity) from Christians on this, and other, Christian sites. Do you mean that they don’t have much to start with in their reasoning? Something like they are forced to start with experience, etc. which is the “position of so little knowledge”? Do Christians start with innate ideas that atheists don’t have? Do you mean that atheists have a harder time justifying morality, meaning of life, explaining the origin of the world, etc.?
What do believe an atheist (or any human for that matter) posesses as a percentage of the sum total of all the knowledge in the universe? .0000000000000001%, 1%, 5% 50% etc…
Perhaps you see the relevance of this question but I don’t. I don’t know the answer. So what?