3 of 10
3
What does it mean to be a Christian??
Posted: 19 July 2017 11:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  116
Joined  2017-06-24
Tanny - 19 July 2017 08:31 AM

What may be confusing you is that perhaps you think rejecting atheism is the same as embracing religion.  I’m not rejecting atheism because I’m religious, because I’m not religious.  I’m rejecting atheism because it’s not a product of reason, but is instead just another faith based ideology.

What may be confusing to you is thinking that your argument is relevant. If you and many, many others didn’t bring up any references to theism at all - ever, I wouldn’t even think about it. I deal with the realities of my life based upon experience guiding me to what I can expect to happen - regardless of whether some divine existence oversees it. Rationally the outcome seems to be the same for specific actions regardless of underlying beliefs. Ergo - underlying beliefs - religious or not make no difference. Or do you seriously believe that you can repeat the same thing over and over again and expect different results? There is a name for such a state of mind.
As for your last sentence, is there anything you don’t reject? Let’s hear about it - maybe we’ll agree.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 July 2017 01:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  249
Joined  2017-06-25
JohnH - 19 July 2017 11:44 AM

What may be confusing to you is thinking that your argument is relevant. If you and many, many others didn’t bring up any references to theism at all - ever, I wouldn’t even think about it. I deal with the realities of my life based upon experience guiding me to what I can expect to happen - regardless of whether some divine existence oversees it. Rationally the outcome seems to be the same for specific actions regardless of underlying beliefs. Ergo - underlying beliefs - religious or not make no difference. Or do you seriously believe that you can repeat the same thing over and over again and expect different results? There is a name for such a state of mind.

Thank you for that self absorbed rambling blah blah blah…

JohnH - 19 July 2017 11:44 AM

As for your last sentence, is there anything you don’t reject?

Yep.

JohnH - 19 July 2017 11:44 AM

Let’s hear about it - maybe we’ll agree.

You’re not working hard enough to make it worth explaining.

 Signature 

Countdown To Zero - Nuclear Weapons Documentary

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 July 2017 02:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4181
Joined  2009-10-21
Tanny - 19 July 2017 01:54 PM

You’re not working hard enough to make it worth explaining.

A bunch of people are now staring at me because I just hit myself on the forehead and shouted out “Are you ... kidding me?”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 July 2017 02:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  249
Joined  2017-06-25
Lausten - 19 July 2017 02:03 PM

A bunch of people are now staring at me because I just hit myself on the forehead and shouted out “Are you ... kidding me?”

Thank you for clogging the thread with yet another one of your clever little remarks which add no substance of any kind to the discussion.  I’ve tried to return the favor in kind.

 Signature 

Countdown To Zero - Nuclear Weapons Documentary

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 July 2017 03:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  116
Joined  2017-06-24
Tanny - 19 July 2017 01:54 PM

Thank you for that self absorbed rambling blah blah ....

I take it you mean that isn’t the answer you wanted and you didn’t have a meaningful response.

Tanny - 19 July 2017 01:54 PM

You’re not working hard enough to make it worth explaining.

And you are?

Tanny - 01 July 2017 02:43 AM

When did I claim to be an academic?......

However, it’s not going to be possible for me to read every book or article that generally science in some way…...

I’m not an academic, but for 50 years I’ve been an avid watcher of shows like Charlie Rose, Netflix documentaries, and I hear pretty much every show NPR produces etc etc. I spend hours a day on educating myself.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 July 2017 06:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4181
Joined  2009-10-21
Tanny - 19 July 2017 02:21 PM
Lausten - 19 July 2017 02:03 PM

A bunch of people are now staring at me because I just hit myself on the forehead and shouted out “Are you ... kidding me?”

Thank you for clogging the thread with yet another one of your clever little remarks which add no substance of any kind to the discussion.  I’ve tried to return the favor in kind.

Clogging? I haven’t seen anything on topic for the last page or so. Not since you started in. You try to turn every thread into your discussion about what reason is. You should be banned for that but we don’t have the moderation we used to.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 July 2017 08:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4314
Joined  2014-06-20
Tanny - 19 July 2017 05:22 AM
LoisL - 18 July 2017 04:51 PM

Except that human reason does deliver credible snswers and it’s been proven over and over again.

Agreed. Human reason does obviously deliver credible answers on very many issues.

Except that being useful for one thing, or many things, does not prove usefulness for ALL THINGS, particularly the very largest of questions.

As example, holy books have proven useful for many things.  The Bible is the most popular book of all time, so obviously a great many people have found enjoyment and meaning in reading it.  Entire civilizations have been built upon this book.  Billions of lives have revolved around it.

Does that automatically prove that the Bible is qualified to deliver credible answers on the very largest of questions?  Obviously it does not. 

I’m a very fast typist.  Does that prove I can type the next best seller?  Nope. 

You’re making a wild speculative leap from one thing, human scale issues, to something else entirely, the very largest of questions about the fundamental nature of all reality.

This unproven leap is the atheist faith I’ve been referring to.  It’s a faith so deep, so strong, so un-examined, that you don’t even realize that you have this faith.

That’s what all believers say. They have yet to show that expecting evidence of a god before embracing the claim is irrational—or a “faith.”

Holy books may be useful for many things and a great many people find enjoyment in them. You can say the same about heroin. Both can damage your brain and kill you.

Spam Nazi line. Spam Nazi line
Spam Nazi line. Spam Nazi line

[ Edited: 19 July 2017 08:17 PM by LoisL ]
 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 05:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  249
Joined  2017-06-25
LoisL - 19 July 2017 08:14 PM

That’s what all believers say. They have yet to show that expecting evidence of a god before embracing the claim is irrational—or a “faith.”

Speaking for myself, it is not my intent that you accept any god claims. 

Rather, I am suggesting you apply the very same process of challenge which you reasonably apply to theist authorities and claims to your own authorities and claims.  That is, I’m suggesting you become loyal to your own chosen methodology.

Theists claim holy books are qualified to address the very largest of questions.  Ok, challenge that, agreed.  But don’t stop there…

Atheists claim human reason is qualified to address the very largest of questions.  Why not challenge this claim too?

You aren’t a person of reason if you only challenge other people’s claims and authorities.  That’s not reason, that’s ideology, something else entirely.

Reason doesn’t care who wins.  Winning has nothing to do with reason.  Reason isn’t a weapon one uses to achieve an ego triumph, reason is a process one surrenders to.  It’s remarkably similar to faith in that way.

 Signature 

Countdown To Zero - Nuclear Weapons Documentary

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 05:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  249
Joined  2017-06-25
JohnH - 19 July 2017 03:50 PM

I’m not an academic, but for 50 years I’ve been an avid watcher of shows like Charlie Rose, Netflix documentaries, and I hear pretty much every show NPR produces etc etc. I spend hours a day on educating myself.

John, apparently you have some academic credentials beyond just a BA degree, and you think such credentials are very important, as is the lack of them.

Instead of just implying this, why not prove it with a series of careful, calm, thoughtful intelligent posts which display your advanced training in action.

 Signature 

Countdown To Zero - Nuclear Weapons Documentary

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 06:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4181
Joined  2009-10-21
Tanny - 20 July 2017 05:09 AM

Atheists claim human reason is qualified to address the very largest of questions.  Why not challenge this claim too?

Name one. Show me the claim you are claiming. I’ll argue the crap out of it. It’s what I do.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 07:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  249
Joined  2017-06-25
Tanny - 20 July 2017 05:09 AM

Atheists claim human reason is qualified to address the very largest of questions.  Why not challenge this claim too?

Name one. Show me the claim you are claiming. I’ll argue the crap out of it. It’s what I do.

Ok, here you go…

Atheists claim human reason is qualified to address the very largest of questions.

Lazy challenges = Lazy responses.

Raise your game, and I will too.

 Signature 

Countdown To Zero - Nuclear Weapons Documentary

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 08:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4181
Joined  2009-10-21
Tanny - 20 July 2017 07:36 AM
Tanny - 20 July 2017 05:09 AM

Atheists claim human reason is qualified to address the very largest of questions.  Why not challenge this claim too?

Name one. Show me the claim you are claiming. I’ll argue the crap out of it. It’s what I do.

Ok, here you go…

Atheists claim human reason is qualified to address the very largest of questions.

Lazy challenges = Lazy responses.

Raise your game, and I will too.

I know you claim that, but you do a poor job of defending. You defend it by saying some unnamed atheists are saying something. The challenge to you was to name the atheists and give either a summary, or better a quote. I’m not going to speak to some general statements that you believe are happening. I could go find plenty of scientists saying they aren’t interested in the God debate because the method is designed to address it. But this is not a vote, it’s a claim you made with no evidence.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 08:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  249
Joined  2017-06-25
Lausten - 20 July 2017 08:02 AM

I know you claim that, but you do a poor job of defending.

Ok, if I’m doing a poor job of making my claim, it should then be pretty easy to debunk.  Please proceed with that.

You defend it by saying some unnamed atheists are saying something. The challenge to you was to name the atheists and give either a summary, or better a quote.

What method other than referencing reason are atheists using to reject god claims? 

My claim is that the overwhelming vast majority of atheists are using reason to reject god claims, and that there is no proof that reason is qualified to meaningfully address questions of such enormous scale.

I’m applying exactly the very same challenge to human reason (chosen authority of atheists) as we reasonably apply to holy books (chosen authority of theists).

Could you please explain specifically what your objection to that process is?

Do you object to the qualifications of human reason being challenged?

Do you feel that there is proof of the qualifications in addressing the very largest questions?

I get that you object, and am asking you to be more specific in explaining why you object.

 Signature 

Countdown To Zero - Nuclear Weapons Documentary

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 09:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4181
Joined  2009-10-21
Tanny - 20 July 2017 08:38 AM
Lausten - 20 July 2017 08:02 AM

I know you claim that, but you do a poor job of defending.

Ok, if I’m doing a poor job of making my claim, it should then be pretty easy to debunk.  Please proceed with that.

That is the stupidest statement you’ve made yet. I’m not going to first straighten out your claim, then argue it. I can argue with myself in my own time.

Tanny - 20 July 2017 08:38 AM

You defend it by saying some unnamed atheists are saying something. The challenge to you was to name the atheists and give either a summary, or better a quote.

What method other than referencing reason are atheists using to reject god claims? 

They use the rule of falsifiability. If you don’t make a claim that is falsifiable, you can’t make an experiment to prove it is true. If you can’t make truth claims about what it says about a god in scripture then why would I believe? We can however come to agreement on what’s real. We can build on those agreements and get to the moon and eliminate diseases.

Maybe you don’t understand what you are asking. What do you mean by “what method other than referencing reason”? “Referencing reason” is not a method.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 09:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  249
Joined  2017-06-25
Lausten - 20 July 2017 09:34 AM

They use the rule of falsifiability. If you don’t make a claim that is falsifiable, you can’t make an experiment to prove it is true. If you can’t make truth claims about what it says about a god in scripture then why would I believe?

Right, this is what I mean by “referencing reason”.  The theist references their holy book in search of “the answer”.  The atheist references human reason, uses it as their chosen methodology.

I know we agree it is entirely valid to challenge the theist’s chosen authority.

My question is…

Why shouldn’t we challenge the atheist’s chosen authority as well?  Why should we take the qualifications of human reason for the largest of questions on faith?

Maybe you don’t understand what you are asking. What do you mean by “what method other than referencing reason”? “Referencing reason” is not a method.

My claim is that atheists use reason to come to their rejection of god claims.  Do you know of atheists using any method other than reason to come to their conclusions on the god topic?  Or can we simply agree that atheists use reason as their methodology, and then proceed to inspect and challenge that methodology?

 Signature 

Countdown To Zero - Nuclear Weapons Documentary

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 10
3