I think many people will agree that a certain level of doubt, no matter how small, is present within most theists. Some might even believe that doubt exists within all theists and all people in general. I am of the latter.
People lie for many reasons. We do it for personal gain, to protect our self-esteem (and that of others), and to avoid conflicts. Would we still do it, though, if we knew we were going to be caught? Unless the goal is to be caught, the answer is no. Naturally, then, if the chances of getting caught are high, the less likely we are to tell the lie. The same can be applied to crime. We are more likely to commit a crime alone, than we are with a cop present.
People, theists included, do in fact commit crimes. Why, though, would a person commit a crime, that is viewed as a sin, while "knowing" an omniscient god exists? This is a simple question, on its own, that could be explained by theists and their holy books, but why would this criminal most likely not commit the same crime in front of a cop? Would not the resulting misery (even as self inflicted mental anguish) of disappointing a vengeful god be greater than going to jail? I would imagine that with the complete absence of doubt, the presence of the cop would not effect the persons decision to commit the crime. I can only assume the cause of this to be the unconscious presence of doubt. Because of this, I believe we intuitively "know" god is not there. I do not claim to call this intuition knowledge of gods non-existence, but am merely suggesting that this intuition exists.
Because of this lingering intuition, I think the majority of theists are constantly looking for validation in their beliefs. It might be the reason people care so much about miracles, for example. When I was a catholic, I would occasionally hear rumors of miracles. Sure I was happy for the person or people that were "healed", but it was secondary to the overwhelming sense of joy I felt while the words "it's real" we're being repeated in my head. Intuition was telling me god is not real and I believe that is why I was so willing to trust the rumored miracles to be true. I needed that validation. I understand this was only my personal experience, but I see no reason it can't apply to most other people as well. Why else would people care about a piece of toast with the image of Jesus on it?
If intuition tells us god is not real, then does anybody really believe in god?
I doubt many people 100% believe in gods.
For example with the Christian god, the bible says that god will provide (food, water, clothing) for those whom first seek the kingdom of god, and yet all Christians take care of food, water and clothing for themselves before seeking the kingdom of god.
Another interesting part of the bible
(Mark 16:15-18 NIV) He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. {16} Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. {17} And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; {18} they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."
How many Christians drink poison or play with snakes?
Well we do know of a recent Christian whom died playing with snakes, just as his father had died before him. How many Christians would think this family foolish?
Quote from: Genericguy on July 12, 2012, 10:54:01 AM
People lie for many reasons. We do it for personal gain, to protect our self-esteem (and that of others), and to avoid conflicts. Would we still do it, though, if we knew we were going to be caught? Unless the goal is to be caught, the answer is no. Naturally, then, if the chances of getting caught are high, the less likely we are to tell the lie. The same can be applied to crime. We are more likely to commit a crime alone, than we are with a cop present.
People, theists included, do in fact commit crimes. Why, though, would a person commit a crime, that is viewed as a sin, while "knowing" an omniscient god exists? This is a simple question, on its own, that could be explained by theists and their holy books, but why would this criminal most likely not commit the same crime in front of a cop? Would not the resulting misery (even as self inflicted mental anguish) of disappointing a vengeful god be greater than going to jail? I would imagine that with the complete absence of doubt, the presence of the cop would not effect the persons decision to commit the crime. I can only assume the cause of this to be the unconscious presence of doubt. Because of this, I believe we intuitively "know" god is not there. I do not claim to call this intuition knowledge of gods non-existence, but am merely suggesting that this intuition exists.
I wonder about this too, and till now haven't gotten a satisfactory answer. There are theists who say that their god "knows their heart" and then turn their backs and commit what they say their gods say are sins. The justifications that people make are the weirdest thing ever. Their gods are indistinguishable from simple simulacrums.
Like this one guy, who's really into porn. He's also a religious nut (or was, idk) of the kind to want to talk about Jesus in prep-school. How does a person like that rationalise away what he'd done?
Others say that it's ok to commit "adultery with one's eyes and in their heart" as long as there's no penetration. WTF? So which is it? Is committing adultery in one's heart a sin or not?
I even came across a piece of info that says that theists are
more likely to commit crimes and people who don't have an easy excuse to fall back on. When it's convenient, they blame the devil or some demon. Unfortunately I won't be able to find it now...
Many more Christians should drink poison and play with snakes. If they believe hard enough, Jebus will protect them. ;D
I think that people who tell me that "deep down you know God exists whether you can admit it to yourself or not" are simply incorrect. By the same token, I cannot agree that "deep down all Christians have doubts" is a correct statement. Some do, some don't. Also, there are plenty of Christians (and other theists) whose intuition tells them that their god or gods exist. I cannot buy into the thesis of the OP.
A true believer can compartmentalize and rationalize just as well as anybody, and perhaps better. As well, out of sight, out of mind, and "God will forgive me" can explain a lot.
People look for validation of their beliefs because validation feels good. I don't need to read any more into it than that.
* * *
I don't think that it would be a good thing if more Christians risked their lives to validate their beliefs, and I don't think that joking about Christians harming themselves is all that amusing.
Quote from: Recusant on July 12, 2012, 05:18:04 PM
I think that people who tell me that "deep down you know God exists whether you can admit it to yourself or not" are simply incorrect. By the same token, I cannot agree that "deep down all Christians have doubts" is a correct statement. Some do, some don't. Also, there are plenty of Christians (and other theists) whose intuition tells them that their god of gods exist. I cannot buy into the thesis of the OP.
A true believer can compartmentalize and rationalize just as well as anybody, and perhaps better. As well, out of sight, out of mind, and "God will forgive me" can explain a lot.
People look for validation of their beliefs because validation feels good. I don't need to read any more into it than that.
* * *
I don't think that it would be a good thing if more Christians foolishly risked their lives to validate their beliefs, and I don't think that joking about Christians harming themselves is all that amusing.
I agree with this. I hate it when theists try to tell me that I actually do believe, I'm just not willing to admit it and presumably live with the consequences of admitting it (i.e. have to change my sinful ways...) so I'm not going to pull the same crap on them. If you asked a theist, I'm sure they would say that they still sin because people are are imperfect by nature, which I also agree with.
Quote from: Recusant on July 12, 2012, 05:18:04 PM
I think that people who tell me that "deep down you know God exists whether you can admit it to yourself or not" are simply incorrect. By the same token, I cannot agree that "deep down all Christians have doubts" is a correct statement. Some do, some don't. Also, there are plenty of Christians (and other theists) whose intuition tells them that their god of gods exist. I cannot buy into the thesis of the OP.
A true believer can compartmentalize and rationalize just as well as anybody, and perhaps better. As well, out of sight, out of mind, and "God will forgive me" can explain a lot.
People look for validation of their beliefs because validation feels good. I don't need to read any more into it than that.
* * *
I don't think that it would be a good thing if more Christians risked their lives to validate their beliefs, and I don't think that joking about Christians harming themselves is all that amusing.
I hope you won't be offended, but I agree with you completely.
Quote from: En_Route on July 12, 2012, 05:28:29 PMI hope you won't be offended, but I agree with you completely.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg826.imageshack.us%2Fimg826%2F4195%2Flolbymissbangles.gif&hash=a459a670b2fef67538964246ce892a4b5f7d96e2) Nope, not a scintilla of offense taken. In fact, I can live with that very comfortably, thank you.
Well, I had a friendly God-based discussion with my mom yesterday, where I asked her, "If you made a decision that you would not believe, and you willed yourself not to, could you make yourself stop believing just like that?" I was trying to make the point that it would be as impossible to make myself believe as it would be for her to not. The answer I got went something like this: "Every day I have to decide to make God a part of my life and talk to him, ask him why things happen or don't happen." This comes from one of the most devout Christians I know. Everybody has doubts, it's just the extent to which they allow the doubts to influence their lives that varies. Yes, they are promised in the Bible never to worry for creature comforts if you believe, but most hedge their bets by getting a job, saving money, and shopping. They still buy security systems, even though they are certain that God is watching over them. It also seems that the more devout the believer, the more likely they are to believe in a "hands-on" God, one that actively interacts and intervenes in human lives. The more casual believer may see God as more of a passive observer and judge-at-the-end-of-all-things.
As Ali pointed out, we are imperfect by nature. It is human nature to lie, steal, cheat, etc. I'm sure everyone would agree, all humans are guilty of these "imperfections" to one degree or another. This is the foundation of my belief (not knowledge. I very well could be, and probably am, assuming too much :D ) that everyone has doubt. I think the following paragraph explains why I consider "sin" to be a sign of doubt fairly well (despite if you agree or not).
Quote from: Genericguy
People, theists included, do in fact commit crimes. Why, though, would a person commit a crime, that is viewed as a sin, while "knowing" an omniscient god exists? This is a simple question, on its own, that could be explained by theists and their holy books, but why would this criminal most likely not commit the same crime in front of a cop? Would not the resulting misery (even as self inflicted mental anguish) of disappointing a vengeful god be greater than going to jail? I would imagine that with the complete absence of doubt, the presence of the cop would not effect the persons decision to commit the crime. I can only assume the cause of this to be the unconscious presence of doubt. Because of this, I believe we intuitively "know" god is not there. I do not claim to call this intuition knowledge of gods non-existence, but am merely suggesting that this intuition exists.
Quote from: Recusant on July 12, 2012, 05:18:04 PM
A true believer can compartmentalize and rationalize just as well as anybody, and perhaps better. As well, out of sight, out of mind, and "God will forgive me" can explain a lot.
I can agree that this may be the case. People, in a biased manner, do justify their decisions to follow through with a crime. How does one rationalize the fact that god is omniscient, though? To rationalize the crime they would have to think "god will understand" (agrees that the "sin" is not a sin but justified). So now (if you agree) we are left with "god will understand", "god will forgive me", and "out of sight, out of mind".
The only way I can see the latter being the case is if it was not premeditated. Even then, I still can't understand "out of site, out of mind" to be the most likely reason for the person to follow through with the "sin". If one believes in a god
with the lack of all doubt, wouldn't this person at all times try to please their god? Because of this, the likelihood of "out of sight, out of mind" and "god will forgive me" being the case is considerably diminished. In my opinion, "god will forgive me" and "out of sight, out of mid" are signs of doubt, admittedly, I could be wrong though.
I personally believe, with the removal of all doubt, "god will understand" is (most likely) the only contender. How often, though, is this really the case? And can a person go their entire life with only using "god will understand (and agrees that the "sin" is not a sin but justified)" as justification for their actions?
I understand this is speculation, but to me doubt is a more likely explanation of "sin". Because I understand it's speculation, I can never go around telling theists that "deep down they know god is not real", nor would I ever want to.
Edit: wow, the bold looks so angry... :D.
1. "Rationalization," as I understand it, doesn't necessarily involve rational thought. Rather it involves a person convincing themselves that the action makes sense, that really it was necessary to do X. The process of this may not even be completely conscious; taking place on a much more primal level than that of logic. Once that has taken place, then it's an easy step to believing that an omniscient god will forgive (assuming that the action is sinful).
2. You ignored compartmentalization, which I think is vital to understand how a true believer may carry on with sinful actions.
3. Christian doctrine acknowledges the inherent imperfection and sinful nature of humanity, and glories in the unconditional forgiveness that the true believer enjoys from the "god that is love." I don't know why human nature (imperfection and sinfulness, as the Christians see it) would preclude a firm belief in such a god; it's built into the doctrine and completely accounted for. Their god knows that they will sin, and has sacrificed himself so that in accepting him as their savior, they will be washed clean. To me, nothing in that says that these people must have some doubt. Of course some do, and I'm sure that at times they all (or almost all) experience an occasional dark night of the soul, but I don't think that it makes any sense to assert that they all really have some doubt on this basis.
From what I can tell, you're trying to say that because no Christian is perfectly sinless, it's a sign that they doubt the existence of their god. That just doesn't make sense to me. "If Christians really knew that their god was always watching, they'd never sin." The mind boggles.
Your whole thesis seems to be built on a deep misunderstanding of the nature of the Christian message. It's not that "God will understand and agree with me that this isn't actually a sin." It's that "God knows that I'm a sinner, and yet because I believe in him, and ask for his forgiveness, his loving nature means that I will be forgiven my sins."
I believe this seeming contradiction in theists is dealt with mainly through compartmentalization. The incredible anxiety that would/could result from a set or series of fundamental beliefs being consciously recognized as mutually exclusive or contradictory triggers a psychological defense mechanism, a type of dissonance which can compartmentalize and keep separate these contradictory concepts.
Imagine a man who was raised in a conservative religious environment (many of you won't have to imagine) in which he is taught that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. When he is first exposed to the scientific process of carbon dating, he is going to be highly, highly skeptical of this method, so skeptical as to maintain an impossible threshold of proof for even a trained and experienced geologist. And yet, if that same geologist were to warn that machinery designed to detect early warnings of dangerous volcanic activity were predicting an impending eruption nearby, that man would undoubtedly flee. This is an example of compartmentalization.
I don't like these new gods with their mamby pamby forgiveness, give me a good old smitey god with some kind of offensive weapon.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on July 13, 2012, 02:21:40 AM
I don't like these new gods with their mamby pamby forgiveness, give me a good old smitey god with some kind of offensive weapon.
Yeah what happened to the "I let you live, you are on my time; I handed you life and I will snatch it back; kneel before me, love me, do as I command for I am benevolent, but if you don't do what I say I will beat you, rape you, torture you, then kill you". Ahhh the good old god fearing days.
Quote from: Crow on July 13, 2012, 02:53:22 AM
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on July 13, 2012, 02:21:40 AM
I don't like these new gods with their mamby pamby forgiveness, give me a good old smitey god with some kind of offensive weapon.
Yeah what happened to the "I let you live, you are on my time; I handed you life and I will snatch it back; kneel before me, love me, do as I command for I am benevolent, but if you don't do what I say I will beat you, rape you, torture you, then kill you". Ahhh the good old god fearing days.
Yes! And he must have a beard and float around on a cloud.
Quote from: Tom62 on July 13, 2012, 04:56:50 AM
Quote from: Crow on July 13, 2012, 02:53:22 AM
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on July 13, 2012, 02:21:40 AM
I don't like these new gods with their mamby pamby forgiveness, give me a good old smitey god with some kind of offensive weapon.
Yeah what happened to the "I let you live, you are on my time; I handed you life and I will snatch it back; kneel before me, love me, do as I command for I am benevolent, but if you don't do what I say I will beat you, rape you, torture you, then kill you". Ahhh the good old god fearing days.
Yes! And he must have a beard and float around on a cloud.
With a drapey white robe/tunic?
Ok, compartmentalization makes sense. I, apparently, didn't fully grasp it's meaning and the severity of its potential.
Quote from: Recusant on July 12, 2012, 11:26:46 PM
Your whole thesis seems to be built on a deep misunderstanding of the nature of the Christian message. It's not that "God will understand and agree with me that this isn't actually a sin." It's that "God knows that I'm a sinner, and yet because I believe in him, and ask for his forgiveness, his loving nature means that I will be forgiven my sins."
I willingly admit that I was wrong, but I wouldnt agree at all with the bold statement. I see you used the word "seems" but I just wanted to be clear. I was, and still am (less adamantly, though), implying that the "Christian message" does not match reality if we remove doubt. Compartmentalization is a nice fit, though.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 13, 2012, 05:14:35 AM
Quote from: Tom62 on July 13, 2012, 04:56:50 AM
Quote from: Crow on July 13, 2012, 02:53:22 AM
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on July 13, 2012, 02:21:40 AM
I don't like these new gods with their mamby pamby forgiveness, give me a good old smitey god with some kind of offensive weapon.
Yeah what happened to the "I let you live, you are on my time; I handed you life and I will snatch it back; kneel before me, love me, do as I command for I am benevolent, but if you don't do what I say I will beat you, rape you, torture you, then kill you". Ahhh the good old god fearing days.
Yes! And he must have a beard and float around on a cloud.
With a drapey white robe/tunic?
Zeus resurrected?
Quote from: Recusant on July 12, 2012, 05:18:04 PM
I think that people who tell me that "deep down you know God exists whether you can admit it to yourself or not" are simply incorrect. By the same token, I cannot agree that "deep down all Christians have doubts" is a correct statement. Some do, some don't. Also, there are plenty of Christians (and other theists) whose intuition tells them that their god or gods exist. I cannot buy into the thesis of the OP.
A true believer can compartmentalize and rationalize just as well as anybody, and perhaps better. As well, out of sight, out of mind, and "God will forgive me" can explain a lot.
People look for validation of their beliefs because validation feels good. I don't need to read any more into it than that.
In all honesty I have doubts from time to time, but on balance personal experience sustains my faith. There are Christians who have no doubts, as you note, and by the same token, most atheists I have encountered have no trace of belief whatsoever. I do know some who are in the "maybe" category, but most aren't, at least among the ones I've known. The presence of some doubt it not antithetical to faith in my view, as faith proper does not claim absolute knowledge. If there were absolute knowledge, no faith would be required under my definition of faith. However, most Christians I know claim absolute certainty of God's existence. I consider that an error of logic, but very few of them care what I think. I just go on with my not-absolutely-certain faith.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 15, 2012, 02:18:08 AM
However, most Christians I know claim absolute certainty of God's existence.
Can you understand how these people claim to have 100% faith in god but still are weary about cooking chicken and pork properly or in not eating meat that is too old, or being worried about snakes or poisonous spiders.
The bible says that they will be immune to poison.
Also how can these people commit crimes when "no-one" is watching but be on the straight and narrow when being watched?
Quote from: Stevil on July 15, 2012, 02:31:46 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 15, 2012, 02:18:08 AM
However, most Christians I know claim absolute certainty of God's existence.
Can you understand how these people claim to have 100% faith in god but still are weary about cooking chicken and pork properly or in not eating meat that is too old, or being worried about snakes or poisonous spiders.
The bible says that they will be immune to poison.
Also how can these people commit crimes when "no-one" is watching but be on the straight and narrow when being watched?
As has been pointed out before, various forms and degrees of compartmentalization does the trick.
And as I have pointed out before, in my experience christians are in a class of their own when it comes to compartmentalizing their dissonant beliefs and experiences.
Hi, I'm an atheist, and i worry about snake bites and poison when I am in the grasslands. :D
Wouldn't doubt be the cause of compartmentalization? Intuition conflicting with indoctrinated beliefs, for example.
That's how I see it. You have to hold two contradictory versions of reality in the same head.
Quote from: OldGit on July 17, 2012, 09:25:22 AM
That's how I see it. You have to hold two contradictory versions of reality in the same head.
It can be called a "supplemental version" of reality rather than a contradictory one. Sort of like Euclidean Geometry works fine at some distances but not others.
It has been pointed out before that some people's intuition is that some higher power, some all-encompassing creator must exist. I think that some who fall into this category are also the ones who say to atheists that, "deep down you know that God exists." They say that, not to be purposely overbearing, but because they actually believe it; their intuition tells them that their god exists, and they can't imagine how somebody else's intuition says anything different.
It may be that your intuition tells you that no god exists, Genericguy, but if you insist that believers' intuition must agree with yours, you are simply making the same mistake that the overbearing believers are.
Quote from: Recusant on July 17, 2012, 05:32:15 PM
It has been pointed out before that some people's intuition is that some higher power, some all-encompassing creator must exist. I think that some who fall into this category are also the ones who say to atheists that, "deep down you know that God exists." They say that, not to be purposely overbearing, but because they actually believe it; their intuition tells them that their god exists, and they can't imagine how somebody else's intuition says anything different.
It may be that your intuition tells you that no god exists, Genericguy, but if you insist that believers' intuition must agree with yours, you are simply making the same mistake that the overbearing believers are.
I would disagree with this for a few reasons. First, that I have never met a Christian that has never struggled with doubt at times. Doubting God and 'the faith' is a fairly common subject of discussion in the context of how to overcome them, especially between youth pastors and their young following. Doubt is discussed in the Bible in several areas, typically with the lesson that one must have faith in the face of it and will be eventually shown that their faith has been justified. When someone tells another person to "have faith", it is an encouragement to disregard the doubt and carry on in the hope that God is paying attention and will affect an outcome in the way he knows is best. There are also the features of repetition and reinforcement within the religion that hint at the natural tendency to lose or lack faith when isolated or exposed to the world of unbelievers. There may indeed be people who have never had cause to question or falter, and are 100% secure in their belief, but I highly doubt that they are the majority.
Quote from: Recusant on July 17, 2012, 05:32:15 PM
It has been pointed out before that some people's intuition is that some higher power, some all-encompassing creator must exist. I think that some who fall into this category are also the ones who say to atheists that, "deep down you know that God exists." They say that, not to be purposely overbearing, but because they actually believe it; their intuition tells them that their god exists, and they can't imagine how somebody else's intuition says anything different.
It may be that your intuition tells you that no god exists, Genericguy, but if you insist that believers' intuition must agree with yours, you are simply making the same mistake that the overbearing believers are.
I agree with this. Some theists I've talked to repeatably say that the existence of god is self evident, and they're sincere in their beliefs. When I asked them how their god is self evident, they treat it more or less like a mathematical proof (which is weird) or comparing it to 'love'. How they go from 'some higher power exists which created an ordered universe' to 'the god of this particular cult with these particular views exists' is beyond me. A whole load of non sequiturs.
I can only imagine a self evident god would be the projection of a believer's own face onto the universe, and there are good evolutionary explanations behind this.
Quote from: Recusant on July 17, 2012, 05:32:15 PM
It has been pointed out before that some people's intuition is that some higher power, some all-encompassing creator must exist. I think that some who fall into this category are also the ones who say to atheists that, "deep down you know that God exists." They say that, not to be purposely overbearing, but because they actually believe it; their intuition tells them that their god exists, and they can't imagine how somebody else's intuition says anything different.
It may be that your intuition tells you that no god exists, Genericguy, but if you insist that believers' intuition must agree with yours, you are simply making the same mistake that the overbearing believers are.
It's incredibly rude of you to say "you insist that believers' intuition must agree with yours" as if it's the driving force of my argument. The
only reason I believe all people have doubt is because I have evaluated the potential reasons a theist might "sin". At the moment, all potential causes can be linked to doubt. I am 100% open to other explanations, though. My belief in this is not steadfast and I don't care in the slightest about being right. My only concern is analyzing reality. I sincerely apologize for not being able to accept your assertion that some people are without doubt, but I can't change the way my brain works. Simply saying some people are without doubt is not enough for me to concede and based on the explanations provided, I am not yet convinced.
Quote from: Genericguy on July 17, 2012, 06:16:52 PMIt's incredibly rude of you to say "you insist that believers' intuition must agree with yours" as if it's the driving force of my argument. The only reason I believe all people have doubt is because I have evaluated the potential reasons a theist might "sin". At the moment, all potential causes can be linked to doubt. I am 100% open to other explanations, though. My belief in this is not steadfast and I don't care in the slightest about being right. My only concern is analyzing reality. I sincerely apologize for not being able to accept your assertion that some people are without doubt, but I can't change the way my brain works. Simply saying some people are without doubt is not enough for me to concede and based on the explanations provided, I am not yet convinced.
I would apologize,
Genericguy,
if I had said what you accuse me of saying. In fact what you quoted was a conditional clause, signified by the word
if, which for reasons of your own that I'm not privy to, you chose to ignore.
It isn't my intention to goad you, and the fact that you've chosen to view my post as rude signifies to me that my involvement in this discussion with you has become counterproductive. I'll leave it at that.
Quote from: Genericguy on July 17, 2012, 06:16:52 PM
Quote from: Recusant on July 17, 2012, 05:32:15 PM
It has been pointed out before that some people's intuition is that some higher power, some all-encompassing creator must exist. I think that some who fall into this category are also the ones who say to atheists that, "deep down you know that God exists." They say that, not to be purposely overbearing, but because they actually believe it; their intuition tells them that their god exists, and they can't imagine how somebody else's intuition says anything different.
It may be that your intuition tells you that no god exists, Genericguy, but if you insist that believers' intuition must agree with yours, you are simply making the same mistake that the overbearing believers are.
It's incredibly rude of you to say "you insist that believers' intuition must agree with yours" as if it's the driving force of my argument. The only reason I believe all people have doubt is because I have evaluated the potential reasons a theist might "sin". At the moment, all potential causes can be linked to doubt. I am 100% open to other explanations, though. My belief in this is not steadfast and I don't care in the slightest about being right. My only concern is analyzing reality. I sincerely apologize for not being able to accept your assertion that some people are without doubt, but I can't change the way my brain works. Simply saying some people are without doubt is not enough for me to concede and based on the explanations provided, I am not yet convinced.
But the trouble is that your assertion that all people doubt at some point is equally unconvincing for exactly the same reasons you decline to accept Recusants point.
It is also worth noting that Recusant is probably the most polite poster on this forum. I have never, ever known him be 'incredibly rude' to anybody so I doubt he was being 'incredibly rude' to you.
I agree, tank, I have never seen recusant post anything rude, ever. The fault is my own for taking offense. Still, though, I don't think it was even necessary to bring up as a possible concern, as I have provided reasons for my believe. I apoligize for taking it as offensive, recusant.
I admit it is speculation and have never denied this. However, I have provided my reason for believing it. Could someone tell me what I'm missing? I'd appreciate it.
So far, recusant has provided explanations that he believes explaine why theists follow through with "sin". I suggested that they lead to doubt and gave my reasons. No one has provided any reasons why his explanations do not lead to doubt. I have been trying to think of any, but haven't been successful.