Skeptics, a question from a believer?

[defacto7]

9. You have posed a very respectful honest question.

and that is all it takes. Respectful honest questions receiving respectful honest answers. That's the nutshell of it.

Now for the reality of it:

Most atheists have radar for logical or simple fallacies or they should. If an answer to a religious or philosophical question arises and it is purely illogical or a simple fallacy, atheists are likely to challenge it. Challenging beliefs with logical corrections is not something theists are comfortable with, but to an atheist or any skeptic logic and facts are what makes the universe what it is and so far it has never failed. Yes, logical conclusions at one time or another have failed, but not having faith to bind us to preserving a dogma, an atheist, a scientist, or skeptic can evolve with the change in facts and observations; the non-believer can change his mind and as a matter of fact, we are compelled to do so. We cannot hold on to an idea that has been found factually false or without evidential merit. The faith of a believer must not have fact or evidence by definition.

This alone creates a chasm that is very hard to bridge. When atheists challenge faiths, it is tantamount to heresy to the faithful. When believers challenge facts or propose acceptance of lack of evidence, it's only an argument to be challenged to an atheist. No believer in a faith wants to be corrected by facts because in doing so it nullifies their faith therefore they have to do everything in their power to destroy the facts and the fact provider even to the point of ad hominem or straw man tactics and that just won't fly with a non-theist. See my signature.

Being atheist I have no problem listening to the story of a person's faith or belief. Personally, I can just listen and not challenge it. But in an open forum there are other non-believers who will challenge it. It's not an attack, it's an open forum and people say what they need to say. There's the believer's point of view which must be unchangeable and acceptable under the banner of a deity, and there's the non-believer's point of view that cannot accept faith, I.E. beliefs without tangible evidence. If both sides can offer their positions without feeling insulted or have the need to make personal attacks on the other, I think we would get along fine. But as long as there is offense at being wrong, either side, then there will always be a problem.

Speaking for myself, I thrive on being wrong and I think most mature atheists feel the same. If I am logically incorrect I am happy to have been corrected because I can move on with new information that is better than what I had before. THAT is the atheist's path. If there is a God de facto, I will be compelled to change my position and become... not a believer, but knower and live in the knowledge and fact of a tangible God.

D7