I am 100% D.

However, when I first came to this site, it was partially option B. When I first arrived I thought I had the landmark case against atheism: that it was faith based. I received tons of "oh god, not this shit again" type replies and this immediately frustrated me. I began researching to figure out why I failed so miserably in my initial goals: to prove atheism wrong. Well, after reading up on atheism and later naturalism, I understood why I failed. Along the way, I have not given up my research and learning. Even though I still retain my faith, I will admit that it has augmented since I've begun searching. By augmented, I mean that it has become less certain in its claims, and less literal when it comes to how my faith dictates the way I understand the world. For example, I don't believe the Biblical story of creation to be the entire explanation of God made the universe; instead, I see it as merely a dumbed-down story of how God did what he did in terms that we could understand.

I have a strong desire to understand the things which I believe in and the things I don't believe in. Now, before you ask me if I've sought to understand the flying spaghetti monster, I will add a small qualifier to my statement: My understanding is limited, in this context, to attempting to understand the anti-thesis of what I hold to be true. For example, being a theist, the anti-thesis is atheism. Thus, according to my desires, I wish to understand and genuinely consider atheism's tenets and claims versus the beliefs I hold as a theist. By doing so, I feel that I can hold an intermittent position between both theism and atheism allowing me to converse freely with an atheist and have a fruitful discussion about important questions.

For instance, I have a very good friend at school who studied philosophy with me. I have since graduated, but I've still kept in contact with him. His is an agnostic atheist, and at first, we had a lot of trouble talking to one another. We frequently had problems with what the other said based primarily on a lack of comprehension of the other. However, since I've begun my intense reading and researching on the topic of atheism and naturalism and evolution, our conversations have become incredibly fruitful. We have awesome discussions about the wonder of evolution, the brilliantness of memes, and the utter awe at the universe and our small position within it, just to name a few of our topics. I believe that we are only able to now have these conversations because we both understand one another. We trust that the other isn't lying. We know that the other has read primary sources on the topic under discussion. Thus, if I disagree with a point he makes concerning evolution, I point to evidence, not emotion. If I say something that he disagrees with, he doesn't accuse my faith, he accuses my reasoning and comprehension. Essentially, we both have a common ground with which to marvel at the universe and life on Earth as it presently exists. The differences between us beliefs wise, does not hinder our understanding of one another. I firmly believe that this avenue is only available to the two of us because we both have put in the effort to understand the other's beliefs.

My ultimate goal is not to convert non-believers. My ultimate goal is to converse, meaningfully, with those who my faith would discourage me from speaking with, unless it was to convert them. I want to talk to who I want to, I am not afraid of what they will say. I will not be ignorant to a whole entire majority of this planet. I just won't.

Welcome aboard, but who is the "other" side exactly?

This is one of the better theist posts i have read....

well done...

D.

When I first came to the site, I was mostly in disagreement with Christian theism. I came to see if there were any arguments from Christians I hadn't heard before or if there were any arguments from atheists I wasn't yet familiar with.

But there is a lot more meat on this site than simply that. By sticking around, I expose myself to arguments and retorts to all sorts of theists. There is also a lot of knowledge to gain that is valuable even outside of the atheism/theism fiasco, such as science, news, and literature.

No I don't compare the creation story to today's modern scientific theories of how the universe came into being.

I thought dumbed down sounded right to me because a lot of believers choose to be ignorant of science and are hence "dumb" in regards to what may have actually happened. They instead choose to be believe in the simplistic creation account literally.

It could, but I don't adhere to that possibility.

Perhaps others will, but I don't think that plugging in the creation story where a scientific theory used to be would help anything by way of understanding.

The creation story is so vague that it could practically fit into any model.

I don't claim the supremacy of my beliefs over others.

Fine, I'll say it, from my childhood. That's undoubtedly where my first idea of God came from. Although, my particular beliefs have changed since I was a child. I really can't claim that in the scheme of things my beliefs now are drastically different. I went from being raised Mormon to just an average joe Christian with no particular denomination. For a stint, I was an introverted atheist. However, after beginning my then college major, I rekindled my belief in God. At that point, it was just God and no religion. A few years later after that, I went back to religion.