2 of 6
2
Boring
Posted: 20 July 2017 09:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4181
Joined  2009-10-21
Tanny - 20 July 2017 08:45 AM
Lausten - 20 July 2017 08:06 AM

I’ve answered on the other threads where you keep making the same point over and over.

Yes, but I’ve had you on ignore for some time because of your passion for the one liner quip thingys.  So if you already have a well thought out rebuttal to my points, could you please summarize it again for us?

There a way to reasonably discover what is real or not, even if you accept that we don’t know everything and could be wrong. That’s pretty much my point.

Ok, what is that way?  Could you please name it, and then explain why you feel that methodology is capable of credibly addressing this set of questions?

Here’s an idea that may help.  I’m asking you to work harder than you seem to be used to doing on forums, I get that.  However, I see you have invested a lot of time in to your blog.  Perhaps you could use my challenges and demands as fuel for new articles on your blog?  You wouldn’t have to type it all twice.  Answer my challenges here, and then copy and paste our exchange, and voila, you have a new article on your blog.  Just a thought.  Looking for what will motivate you to do here what you already do on your blog.

Finally, would you like to reveal your age?  I’m 65.  If it turns out that I’m three times older than you, then perhaps it’s not appropriate that I relentlessly challenge you to keep up.  If this is the situation, just say so, and I’ll back off a bit.  Nobody is born knowing any of this, me included.

How can you know what I’ve said elsewhere if you have me on ignore?

The blog explains how you use reason to determine truth.

If you want a conversation, fine. You made a claim, that atheists aren’t rational, that they say they can use reason to prove God doesn’t exist or something, I don’t care enough to go quote you. Show me someone doing that, and I’ll critique it. Otherwise, it’s just you saying someone did that. It’s called the straw man fallacy if you’d like to look up the technical term.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 09:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  249
Joined  2017-06-25

How can you know what I’ve said elsewhere if you have me on ignore?

Sigh…

I was referring to your statement that you’d already addressed and defeated my points.  I was giving you another chance to do so, while I was actually listening.

The blog explains how you use reason to determine truth.

That’s great, but I’m not on your blog, but on this forum. 

If you want a conversation, fine. You made a claim, that atheists aren’t rational, that they say they can use reason to prove God doesn’t exist or something, I don’t care enough to go quote you.

Right, you don’t understand the points you wish to debunk. 

Show me someone doing that, and I’ll critique it. Otherwise, it’s just you saying someone did that. It’s called the straw man fallacy if you’d like to look up the technical term.

Ok, here’s a specific atheist person doing what I’m claiming atheists do.

Lausten North

Please stop hiding behind a wall of vagueness and get down to business.

Where is the proof that human reason is qualified to meaningfully address the very largest of questions?  Please provide such proof, or admit that you can’t.

Please explain why we shouldn’t challenge the chosen authority of atheists with the same enthusiasm with which we challenge the chosen authority of theists.

 Signature 

Countdown To Zero - Nuclear Weapons Documentary

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 10:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  116
Joined  2017-06-24

YAWN…..
THE OP…

Lausten - 17 July 2017 10:08 AM

Understanding the need for religion is the far superior goal to bashing it. The central issue of atheism, which is the non-existence of god, strikes me as monumentally uninteresting. What do we gain by getting in a tizzy about something no one can prove or disprove?

—Frans De Waal
Then he quotes Botton

In 2012, Alain de Botton raised hackels by opening his book, Religion for Atheists, with the line, “The most boring and unproductive question one can ask of any religion is whether or not it is true – in terms of being handed down from heaven to the sound of trumpets and supernaturally governed by prophets and celestial beings.” Yet for some, this remains the only issue they can talk about.

Botton seems to be going right for Dawkins jugular, as he often brings up truth in debates. I think both of these guys miss the point. It’s not important to debate the reality of the supernatural, but it’s very important to understanding the meaning of the word and to teach that it can’t be proven and why it can’t. It is not “the only issue they can talk about”, the point of bringing it up is to talk about the real issue of what science is and how we determine truth.

THE MANTRA

Tanny - 20 July 2017 09:40 AM

Where is the proof that human reason is qualified to meaningfully address the very largest of questions?  Please provide such proof, or admit that you can’t.

There seems to be a disconnect between professing to desire serious debate and taking the contents of a debate seriously. That seems to result in the boring dialog that was criticized in the OP.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 10:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4181
Joined  2009-10-21
Tanny - 20 July 2017 09:40 AM

Where is the proof that human reason is qualified to meaningfully address the very largest of questions?  Please provide such proof, or admit that you can’t.

Please explain why we shouldn’t challenge the chosen authority of atheists with the same enthusiasm with which we challenge the chosen authority of theists.

So I think we’ve pretty well established that you don’t know what you are talking about. You say there are people doing something somewhere, but you can’t produce any of these people. You just see an atheist and assume they haven’t thought about how they arrived at their conclusions. You assume they worship at the altar of reason without knowing what it is.

If this were a friendly conversation, I would set some ground rules. I would point out that every religion has a provision for not knowing everything. [=http://www.milepost100.com/AY_Proper24.html]Moses asked, but was not allowed to see the face of God.[/url] Science does not claim to know anything with 100% certainty. It isn’t really able to even measure what 100% is, so although scientists may use probabilities, they are always relative to what is known.

That’s as close as I will get to agreeing with you. I’m not “challenging” reason, I’m explaining what it is. I don’t challenge it with the same enthusiasm that I challenge theists, because they are not reasonable. They say things like, “I just know that I know” or “I know in my heart.” Statements like that beg to be challenged.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 10:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1562
Joined  2012-04-25

This is all just so much talk. Let’s have Tanny and Lausten do a test. Each one will drive their cars on the expressway. Tanny, believing in Faith, will let go of the steering wheel and have faith that the outcome will be favorable to him. Lausten, believing in reason, and the science and physics that came from it, will NOT let go of the steering wheel because he has “faith” in science and knows what will happen. So let’s go and test each of these types of Faith. Tanny, you go first.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 11:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  249
Joined  2017-06-25
JohnH - 20 July 2017 10:04 AM

There seems to be a disconnect between professing to desire serious debate and taking the contents of a debate seriously. That seems to result in the boring dialog that was criticized in the OP.

What does this mean? Does it mean anything?

 Signature 

Countdown To Zero - Nuclear Weapons Documentary

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 11:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  249
Joined  2017-06-25

So I think we’ve pretty well established that you don’t know what you are talking about. You say there are people doing something somewhere, but you can’t produce any of these people. You just see an atheist and assume they haven’t thought about how they arrived at their conclusions. You assume they worship at the altar of reason without knowing what it is.

Non-responsive dodging.  Characterizing an argument offered in place of meeting the argument.

If this were a friendly conversation, I would set some ground rules. I would point out that every religion has a provision for not knowing everything. [=http://www.milepost100.com/AY_Proper24.html]Moses asked, but was not allowed to see the face of God.[/url] Science does not claim to know anything with 100% certainty. It isn’t really able to even measure what 100% is, so although scientists may use probabilities, they are always relative to what is known.

Again, non-responsive to the questions put to you. Hiding behind a wall of vague text.

I’m not “challenging” reason, I’m explaining what it is.

By not challenging reason, you are revealing you don’t know what it is.

I don’t challenge it with the same enthusiasm that I challenge theists, because they are not reasonable. They say things like, “I just know that I know” or “I know in my heart.” Statements like that beg to be challenged.

More non-responsive dodging. 

The questions again are….

1) Where is the proof that human reason is qualified to meaningfully address the very largest of questions? 

2) Please explain why we shouldn’t challenge the chosen authority of atheists with the same enthusiasm with which we challenge the chosen authority of theists.

 Signature 

Countdown To Zero - Nuclear Weapons Documentary

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 11:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  249
Joined  2017-06-25
CuthbertJ - 20 July 2017 10:36 AM

This is all just so much talk. Let’s have Tanny and Lausten do a test. Each one will drive their cars on the expressway. Tanny, believing in Faith, will let go of the steering wheel and have faith that the outcome will be favorable to him. Lausten, believing in reason, and the science and physics that came from it, will NOT let go of the steering wheel because he has “faith” in science and knows what will happen. So let’s go and test each of these types of Faith. Tanny, you go first.

This is just a huge pile of that stuff that comes out of the back end of cows.  More pointless lazy thread clogging by people who can’t be bothered to read what they want to debunk.

1) No where on the forum have I said I believe in faith. 

2) I have been explicitly and specifically attempting to undermine the faith that atheism is built upon.

So CuthbertJ, go back to the end of the line and sit down and be quiet until you have something of substance to add to the thread.

 Signature 

Countdown To Zero - Nuclear Weapons Documentary

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 11:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  116
Joined  2017-06-24

To get back on track, it seems to me that both theists and atheists function quite well in their everyday lives. Would it then be rationality suggest that their abilities to function in life are pretty much independent of their theism? In other words, real-world testing suggests that (a)theism is irrelevant to their everyday lives? This was the topic of the OP.

So, is God relevant to your every day life or not?
Are you concerned about anything more than your everyday life?
Do you believe that any God can change these things?
Can you influence God in your favor?
If not, why even worry about whether God exists?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 12:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2209
Joined  2013-06-01

Hi Tanny. I would like your view on the following statement. 
 
How old is atheism? I am using the meaning that one does not believe in deities is an atheist.
 
It can be said that religion is 200,000 years old. Try and find a deity that is over 10,000 years old.  So, there is no way that atheism can be built on a faith foundation. It is the other way around. Faith was built on atheist religions. Or put another way, religion in the beginning was doing nothing more than using reason and logic to create knowledge. Once the knowledge got controlled by greed (greedy religions and governments), faith was created.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 12:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  249
Joined  2017-06-25
MikeYohe - 20 July 2017 12:11 PM

Hi Tanny. I would like your view on the following statement.

Thank you.
 

How old is atheism? I am using the meaning that one does not believe in deities is an atheist.

Atheism is as old as theism it seems to me, using your definition. 
 

So, there is no way that atheism can be built on a faith foundation.

Please prove that human reason is capable of delivering credible answers on the very largest of questions.  If you can not provide such proof, but still declare yourself an atheist, you are a person of faith.

This is not complicated. It’s very simple.  We say exactly the same thing about a theist who can’t prove the qualifications of their holy book, but still they believe in it.

All you need to do to get what I’m saying is apply the very same challenge to all points of view in an even handed manner.  That process is called reason, intellectual honesty. 

Critical thinking guys.

It’s the theme of this site.

Challenging theism while giving atheism a free pass is not critical thinking.  That’s ideology, something else altogether.

 Signature 

Countdown To Zero - Nuclear Weapons Documentary

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 12:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  249
Joined  2017-06-25
JohnH - 20 July 2017 11:36 AM

If not, why even worry about whether God exists?

Why are you worried about it?  Why are you on this forum typing about the subject of god pretty much every day for who knows how long?

This is not a personal slam, really it’s not.  I’m suggesting that the answer you seek is best found by examining your own relationship with the question.

You will probably now claim that you don’t really care, and it doesn’t really matter etc, except the evidence of your own behavior shows that you do really care and it does really matter to you.

That is, like most intelligent human beings you seek answers to the very largest questions.  But no one can provide a proven answer.  And so you make one up.  And then your ego hijacks the answer and uses it for social competition agendas.

There you go.  Now you understand religion.  Because you’re doing it yourself, just under a different colored flag, that’s all.  No real difference.

 Signature 

Countdown To Zero - Nuclear Weapons Documentary

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 12:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4181
Joined  2009-10-21
Tanny - 20 July 2017 12:21 PM

Please prove that human reason is capable of delivering credible answers on the very largest of questions.  If you can not provide such proof, but still declare yourself an atheist, you are a person of faith.

This is not complicated. It’s very simple.  We say exactly the same thing about a theist who can’t prove the qualifications of their holy book, but still they believe in it.

All you need to do to get what I’m saying is apply the very same challenge to all points of view in an even handed manner.  That process is called reason, intellectual honesty. 

Ah, that’s a little more clear, I see how you are connecting the two things now. Not being able to answer every question in the universe does not mean that I take things on faith. I don’t know exactly where oxygen came from or exactly how my lungs work, but I keep breathing. I don’t panic every time I exhale, wondering if inhaling will work this time, I just go about my day, knowing it’s worked up until now. That’s not faith. You are trying to call everything faith based on our not being able to explain every detail. That’s not the same as believing God based on something a person wrote 3,000 years ago.

I can demonstrate where a holy book came from with a high degree of accuracy and I can calculate a probability that what was written is true. I’ve never seen anyone part a sea by raising a stick in the air and there are laws of nature that prevent that. Determining that most likely didn’t happen is not “exactly” the same as believing it’s true. It’s religion that breaks the rules of “even handedness”. Religion says it’s true because someone else said it’s true and someone else said God said it and they feel it and they don’t care about demonstrable evidence. That’s not even handed, and it’s not intellectually honest.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 12:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  116
Joined  2017-06-24

And now you provide a reason why so many answer you in the short quips you say you hate. You ignore any effort to engage in more thoughtful dialog with you unless it agrees with you. There were 4 other questions you failed to answer in my post. I won’t insist, as you so often do, that you answer them. I have no expectations of reasonable dialog.
On your present trajectory, you are at least in the enviable position of gaining a Godlike status. The forums have an ignore button.

[ Edited: 20 July 2017 12:47 PM by JohnH ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 12:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  249
Joined  2017-06-25
Lausten - 20 July 2017 12:35 PM

Not being able to answer every question in the universe does not mean that I take things on faith.

What you take on faith is human reason’s relevance to the very largest questions about the most fundamental nature of all reality (scope of god claims).  If you wish to counter that claim, then please prove human reason’s qualifications for addressing the very largest questions. 

Either you have proof, or you don’t. If the later, you are a person of faith.  Exact same equation we apply to theists.

It’s religion that breaks the rules of “even handedness”. Religion says it’s true because someone else said it’s true and someone else said God said it and they feel it and they don’t care about demonstrable evidence. That’s not even handed, and it’s not intellectually honest.

I agree, so why are you replicating their mistakes? 

Where is the evidence that your chosen authority is qualified?  I’ve asked this many times now, and every time you deliberately hide from the question, just as the theists I challenge do.  I see no difference between you and them.

My question is a very reasonable question, just as asking for evidence of a holy book’s qualifications is reasonable.  Why are you still dodging, dodging, dodging?  Is that what critical thinkers do, dodge inconvenient questions??

 Signature 

Countdown To Zero - Nuclear Weapons Documentary

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 6
2