3 of 6
3
Boring
Posted: 20 July 2017 12:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  249
Joined  2017-06-25
JohnH - 20 July 2017 12:44 PM

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.

More empty personal ego blather clogging the threads.

 Signature 

Countdown To Zero - Nuclear Weapons Documentary

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 01:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4069
Joined  2009-10-21
Tanny - 20 July 2017 12:48 PM
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??

Alright, we’re done. I’ve answered your question every way ‘til Tuesday. I’ve explained your false equivalency. Is the only answer you would accept is for me to say I take atheism on faith? Because I don’t know what that means, so I guess you’re just smarter than me. I’ve already said that what you are asking science to do can’t be done. What more do you want?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 02:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2127
Joined  2013-06-01
Tanny - 20 July 2017 12:21 PM

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

That is not my intended thinking. Theism is around 10,000 years old. Started as animals and stars. Then evolved to part human and part animals. Ending up as human gods. This places theism as being around only 5% as long as atheism. The NT has only been around 1% of religious time. The buddha religion for example has no god, deity or creator.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 02:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2127
Joined  2013-06-01
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.

That depends on your viewpoint. I know theists who see god’s miracles every week. They pray for healing and someone gets healed. God answered the prayers. To the theist that is all the proof that is needed. Therefore, we cannot say that a theist does not have proof. Unless you want to create a circle argument.
Point being, what is original in the holy book? Most of the book evolved upon older religions.  I try to never get into discussions about the holy book. It is the most miss-read book ever. I like Jesus, but I really think Jesus was an atheist based upon his gnostic teachings. I had that reinforced when I read The Lost Gospel and was able to understand his political ambitions.

This is not complicated. It’s very simple. 

I agree. the simplest way for me to understand faith is to understand religion. And going back to the beginning god was a word that meant “knowledge”. Therefore most of the timeline of religion was based upon science and reason. Which created knowledge. Knowledge is the common factor of all the gods. To have or control some sort of knowledge. One has to ask, where did this knowledge originate? You’re right, if you start from the beginning it is quite simple.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 04:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  249
Joined  2017-06-25
Lausten - 20 July 2017 01:05 PM

Alright, we’re done. I’ve answered your question every way ‘til Tuesday.

You’ve not answered it at all.  You’ve relentlessly dodged the question, refusing to address it directly. 

Is the only answer you would accept is for me to say I take atheism on faith? Because I don’t know what that means, so I guess you’re just smarter than me.

Probably not smarter, probably just older.  Should you be a twenty something, know I didn’t get any of this at that age either.

What does “taking atheism on faith” mean?  It means that you accept the relevance of human reason to issues the scale of god claims without questioning.  You assume without proof that human reason is qualified to address what is, or is not, the most fundamental nature of all reality, an arena you can’t define in even the most basic manner.  You blindly accept the qualifications of human reason in the same way a fundamentalist Christian blindly accepts the qualifications of the Bible.

To be fair to you, many very smart and famous people do the very same thing, and have been doing so for centuries.  So you are not alone, but in some very good company.  Thus, I apologize for giving you such a hard time, which is my own little personal problem more than anything else.

I’ve already said that what you are asking science to do can’t be done. What more do you want?

What more do you want?  Do you want to continue with a faith based relationship with reason?  If yes, just say so, and I will respect that and walk away, just as I would with a Jehovah’s Witness.  If you instead dodge and weave and obfuscate to try to muddle up the decision beyond recognition, then I’ll assume you’re requesting more of the same from here.

 Signature 

Countdown To Zero - Nuclear Weapons Documentary

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 06:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4069
Joined  2009-10-21
Tanny - 20 July 2017 04:24 PM

It means that you accept the relevance of human reason to issues the scale of god claims without questioning.

That’s not even a sentences.

Tanny - 20 July 2017 04:24 PM

So you are not alone

Is this about loneliness? Are you lonely Tanny? It’s okay.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 July 2017 05:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  249
Joined  2017-06-25
Tanny - 20 July 2017 04:24 PM

It means that you accept the relevance of human reason to issues the scale of god claims without questioning.

1) You accept the relevance of human reason…

2) To issues the scale of god claims…

3) Without questioning.

 

To which we might add…

4) You’re starting to see that you’re a person of faith, but…

5) That conflicts with a wonderful personal identity you have constructed for yourself, so…

6) You’re endlessly dodging and weaving in an attempt to keep that pleasing self identity safe, and…

7) This is completely utterly normal, and…

8) To your credit, you aren’t running and hiding, which elevates you above most.

 Signature 

Countdown To Zero - Nuclear Weapons Documentary

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 July 2017 06:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4069
Joined  2009-10-21
Tanny - 21 July 2017 05:00 AM

3) Without questioning.

I have very specifically refuted this over and over. It’s a pretty key block in the tower you’ve built. A tower that is teetering.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 July 2017 06:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  249
Joined  2017-06-25
Lausten - 21 July 2017 06:11 AM

I have very specifically refuted this over and over. It’s a pretty key block in the tower you’ve built. A tower that is teetering.

More clogging of the thread with empty characterizations posing as arguments. 

See? You desperately want a victory, but you’re not willing to work for it.  You want to just declare victory, and then everyone should believe you, as a matter of faith.

You haven’t refuted anything.  You haven’t even directly addressed the challenge I’ve repeatedly presented. 

Where is the proof that human reason is qualified to comment upon the very largest of questions?

Why should the chosen authority of atheist’s be immune from challenge?

You never address any of this.  You just keep clogging the thread with distractions.

 Signature 

Countdown To Zero - Nuclear Weapons Documentary

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 July 2017 06:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4069
Joined  2009-10-21
Tanny - 21 July 2017 06:41 AM
Lausten - 21 July 2017 06:11 AM

I have very specifically refuted this over and over. It’s a pretty key block in the tower you’ve built. A tower that is teetering.

More clogging of the thread with empty characterizations posing as arguments. 

See? You desperately want a victory, but you’re not willing to work for it.  You want to just declare victory, and then everyone should believe you, as a matter of faith.

You haven’t refuted anything.  You haven’t even directly addressed the challenge I’ve repeatedly presented. 

Where is the proof that human reason is qualified to comment upon the very largest of questions?

Why should the chosen authority of atheist’s be immune from challenge?

You never address any of this.  You just keep clogging the thread with distractions.

I said “I agree, if someone says they are 100% certain God does not exist, then they are wrong. But that is not all atheists, it’s a minority. And it’s not how reason and science work.” I also said we can’t even know what percent of all knowledge we have because we don’t what “all knowledge” is. What do those statements mean to you?

So, to your first question in bold. There is no proof of that.
To, the second, it shouldn’t be.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 July 2017 09:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1307
Joined  2005-01-14
Tanny - 20 July 2017 12:48 PM

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.

Let me try to explain where I think you keep missing the ball.  You keep talking about these “very largest questions” but you never actually say what they are.  You imply that there’s some deep, dark, Matrix-like mystery at the root of all reality.  Personally the nature of reality seems pretty straightforward to me, but let’s assume for the sake of argument that you’re right and there IS some deep mystery.

Religious people say that the answer to these “largest questions” is “God”.  They can’t tell you anything at all about the nature of “God”, but they know that “God” is the only answer.  That’s what they call “faith”.  Fine.  Dandy.  As far as atheists are concerned, “God” is not an answer at all, let alone a good one.  Where did “God” come from?  Nobody knows.  “God” is just another whole series of those “largest questions”, so as an answer it performs no actual work.

Now this is important—atheists do not claim that we know the answers to these hypothetical “largest questions” (whatever they are).  We only claim that “God” is NOT a good answer.  That’s all.  That’s what “atheist” means—“God” is not a good answer.  How is that “faith”?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 July 2017 03:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  249
Joined  2017-06-25
Lausten - 21 July 2017 06:58 AM

So, to your first question in bold. There is no proof of that.
To, the second, it shouldn’t be.

Ok, thank you.  That concise clarity surely does help move things along.  I will try to reply in kind. 

So, having arrived at this agreement, we can if you wish explore what the implications are.

It seems to me that if there is no proof reason is qualified for largest of questions, then the situation with reason is little different than the situation with holy books, in regards to questions of that scale.

If it’s true that neither reason nor holy books have proven themselves qualified to address the largest of questions, and if we can’t come up with some third alternative, then our real world situation is one of ignorance.

Both theism and atheism would assume this ignorance to be a problem to be solved.  And both set out to try to solve it.  But after thousands of years of the most earnest effort by some of the brightest minds humanity has to offer, nobody has succeeded in settling anything.

Such a longstanding failure would seem to suggest a re-examination of the assumptions the theist/atheist debate is built upon.  As example, if you’re trying to fix your car, but the fix keeps failing again and again, at some point you’ll stop doing the same thing over and over, step back, and re-evaluate the assumptions your fix is based upon.  Right?

What if our ignorance on such matters is not a problem or failure, but an asset?  What if the longstanding failure of both theism and atheism to prove their cases arises from a faulty assumption they both share, that the point of the inquiry should be to defeat ignorance and establish a “knowing”?

This theory is of course debatable.  But before we debate it, let’s first stare squarely in to the failure of both theism and atheism.  To me, this seems essential, for so long as we are clinging to one of these failed approaches we’ll never really be ready to think outside the box, challenge our un-examined assumptions, and try something new.

I don’t waste much time here trying to defeat theism because I assume that for most on this forum it’s already defeated.  I’ve been focusing on defeating atheism because that would appear to be the failed ideology most here are still clinging to.

The point of working to defeat both theism and atheism is to get these failed ideologies out of the way, to stop doing the same things over and over and over again, so we can free our minds to explore other alternatives for exploring our relationship with reality.

Ok, I’m getting in to wall of text land here, so I’ll stop for now and hand the microphone over to you.

 Signature 

Countdown To Zero - Nuclear Weapons Documentary

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 July 2017 04:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4069
Joined  2009-10-21
Tanny - 21 July 2017 03:59 PM
Lausten - 21 July 2017 06:58 AM

So, to your first question in bold. There is no proof of that.
To, the second, it shouldn’t be.

Ok, thank you.  That concise clarity surely does help move things along.  I will try to reply in kind. 

So, having arrived at this agreement, we can if you wish explore what the implications are.

It seems to me that if there is no proof reason is qualified for largest of questions, then the situation with reason is little different than the situation with holy books, in regards to questions of that scale.

If it’s true that neither reason nor holy books have proven themselves qualified to address the largest of questions, and if we can’t come up with some third alternative, then our real world situation is one of ignorance.

Both theism and atheism would assume this ignorance to be a problem to be solved.  And both set out to try to solve it.  But after thousands of years of the most earnest effort by some of the brightest minds humanity has to offer, nobody has succeeded in settling anything.

Such a longstanding failure would seem to suggest a re-examination of the assumptions the theist/atheist debate is built upon.  As example, if you’re trying to fix your car, but the fix keeps failing again and again, at some point you’ll stop doing the same thing over and over, step back, and re-evaluate the assumptions your fix is based upon.  Right?

What if our ignorance on such matters is not a problem or failure, but an asset?  What if the longstanding failure of both theism and atheism to prove their cases arises from a faulty assumption they both share, that the point of the inquiry should be to defeat ignorance and establish a “knowing”?

This theory is of course debatable.  But before we debate it, let’s first stare squarely in to the failure of both theism and atheism.  To me, this seems essential, for so long as we are clinging to one of these failed approaches we’ll never really be ready to think outside the box, challenge our un-examined assumptions, and try something new.

I don’t waste much time here trying to defeat theism because I assume that for most on this forum it’s already defeated.  I’ve been focusing on defeating atheism because that would appear to be the failed ideology most here are still clinging to.

The point of working to defeat both theism and atheism is to get these failed ideologies out of the way, to stop doing the same things over and over and over again, so we can free our minds to explore other alternatives for exploring our relationship with reality.

Ok, I’m getting in to wall of text land here, so I’ll stop for now and hand the microphone over to you.

Oh how nice, I just sat down, and there you are!

The agreement problem has always been your problem. I tried to point out where we agreed, but I was also wary of what you were doing with the premises, the conclusions you were drawing. You weren’t secretive about this, so I still can’t figure out why you had so much trouble with me saying, “I agree with this, but not with that”. So, we didn’t “arrive” anywhere. You just finally caught up to what I’ve been saying since the beginning. And I don’t need to go point by point with this post either, because I’ve covered pretty much all of it. What I haven’t covered, you can google. Read some Dawkins, listen to some Harris.

I’ve covered the difference between reason and holy books, and how reason is not ignorance, how assumptions are re-examined all the time, how I’m not “clinging” to anything, and how my mind is perfectly free to explore. If you have anything else to say, go ahead.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 July 2017 04:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  249
Joined  2017-06-25

Let me ask you this my patient friend.

Do you still call yourself an atheist?

If yes, then you haven’t understood anything I’ve said, and thus are not in a position to agree with it.

We can leave it there if you prefer.  I do appreciate that you’ve hung in there through some of my less than ideal behavior, so I’m willing to let it go if that’s what you would like to do.

 Signature 

Countdown To Zero - Nuclear Weapons Documentary

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 July 2017 05:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4069
Joined  2009-10-21
Tanny - 21 July 2017 04:30 PM

Let me ask you this my patient friend.

Do you still call yourself an atheist?

If yes, then you haven’t understood anything I’ve said, and thus are not in a position to agree with it.

We can leave it there if you prefer.  I do appreciate that you’ve hung in there through some of my less than ideal behavior, so I’m willing to let it go if that’s what you would like to do.

I understand what you’ve said, it’s just that you are wrong. I can call myself Mary Bobbins if I want to, that’s none of your business. My definition of atheism is perfectly logical and fits just fine with current usage and historical precedent. I’ll defend your right to have an opinion on the matter, but that doesn’t mean your arguments are either sound or valid, or that your premises are correct or your conclusions follow logically.

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 6
3