Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't have much time but I just wanted to pick up on a few things.
1. Not all of 'the atheists' spend 'an inordinate amount of time attacking Christianity'. As I said in a previous post, I hardly ever even mention Christianity. Certainly nothing close to the amount of time you spend attacking atheism. If you have specific people in mind, they do not represent all of us.
I think you're taking umbrage at a series of things not worth taking umbrage at. Collectively, the atheists here do spend an inordinate amount of time attacking Christianity. That's pretty much irrefutable. I didn't have you in mind, but you have made your disdain clear on other threads. Surely, I'm allowed to make a general point without a bunch of qualifiers? "The atheists here - oh, except for Cruithne and Bubba and Big Ted - spend an inordinate amount of time ..."
Quote:
2. The bolded paragraph above.
Most people don't go shopping around to see which religion is the best fit. The vast majority of people stick with the religion in which they were raised, and the reason that religion is a good fit is precisely that, because they were raised in and shaped by the religion, so of course it's a good fit.
Some people couldn't switch religion even if they wanted to, either because the environment wouldn't allow it or they simply don't live in a world conducive to thinking outside the religion in which they were raised.
This is not a 'tactic' as you stated. It's just the truth.
You're missing my point. I agreed that most people find religious landing spots for reasons other than a diligent search for truth. My point was that they do all share some intuitive theistic sense.
It is indeed an atheist tactic to suggest that the diversity cuts against the truth of any one religion, specifically Christianity. I have observed this on multiple occasions. I said no it doesn't, for precisely the reason you and I both agree upon. The particular religion in which people land is merely a parentally, culturally, socially influenced expression of their basic, intutive theistic orientation toward life and reality.
Quote:
3
"theism simply explains the reality in which we live better than does atheism".
Yes, to YOU. Not to me.
Precisely as I acknowledged. If you will reread the paragraph, you will see that I was saying that most people WHO ARE THEISTS are theists for the reasons Christianity suggests, one of these being theism's greater explanatory power. Again, it seems to me you're taking umbrage at things not worth taking umbrage at.
But you'll have to admit, that brain fart argument is pretty solid and hard to refute.
It is self-refuting by combining things like mental illness (many of which have substantive brain dysfunction associated with them) with cognitive biases, sensory illusions, etc. Until we have a solid grasp of what consciousness IS and how it manifests (which my Synthesis and hypotheses address) what is and is not a brain fart will remain moot, IMO.
It is self-refuting by combining things like mental illness (many of which have substantive brain dysfunction associated with them) with cognitive biases, sensory illusions, etc. Until we have a solid grasp of what consciousness IS and how it manifests (which my Synthesis and hypotheses address) what is and is not a brain fart will remain moot, IMO.
I think you're taking umbrage at a series of things not worth taking umbrage at. Collectively, the atheists here do spend an inordinate amount of time attacking Christianity. That's pretty much irrefutable. I didn't have you in mind, but you have made your disdain clear on other threads. Surely, I'm allowed to make a general point without a bunch of qualifiers? "The atheists here - oh, except for Cruithne and Bubba and Big Ted - spend an inordinate amount of time ..."
...
It is indeed an atheist tactic to suggest that the diversity cuts against the truth of any one religion, specifically Christianity. I have observed this on multiple occasions. I said no it doesn't, for precisely the reason you and I both agree upon. The particular religion in which people land is merely a parentally, culturally, socially influenced expression of their basic, intutive theistic orientation toward life and reality.
Precisely as I acknowledged. If you will reread the paragraph, you will see that I was saying that most people WHO ARE THEISTS are theists for the reasons Christianity suggests, one of these being theism's greater explanatory power. Again, it seems to me you're taking umbrage at things not worth taking umbrage at.
Why don't you let that individual decide what bothers him?
Yes, we do attack various aspects of christianity. Because you people keep pushing it on us.
Don't overthink it. Millions of children have always been forced to go to church. Is it any surprise that some accept it and other rebel against it?
That "greater explanatory power" is in the eye of the beholder. My Buddhist friends and acquaintances don't see it. In fact there are Buddhist monks that thought I was joking when I explained the basic story of Jesus.
I take umbrage that you think you should be able to dictate what someone else takes umbrage over.
I think you're taking umbrage at a series of things not worth taking umbrage at. Collectively, the atheists here do spend an inordinate amount of time attacking Christianity. That's pretty much irrefutable. I didn't have you in mind, but you have made your disdain clear on other threads. Surely, I'm allowed to make a general point without a bunch of qualifiers? "The atheists here - oh, except for Cruithne and Bubba and Big Ted - spend an inordinate amount of time ..."
You're missing my point. I agreed that most people find religious landing spots for reasons other than a diligent search for truth. My point was that they do all share some intuitive theistic sense.
It is indeed an atheist tactic to suggest that the diversity cuts against the truth of any one religion, specifically Christianity. I have observed this on multiple occasions. I said no it doesn't, for precisely the reason you and I both agree upon. The particular religion in which people land is merely a parentally, culturally, socially influenced expression of their basic, intutive theistic orientation toward life and reality.
Precisely as I acknowledged. If you will reread the paragraph, you will see that I was saying that most people WHO ARE THEISTS are theists for the reasons Christianity suggests, one of these being theism's greater explanatory power. Again, it seems to me you're taking umbrage at things not worth taking umbrage at.
You don't see it as something to take umbrage at. Well I do.
I wouldn't presume to lump all theists in together about anything, not even what they believe about god. We are all individuals here.
Every time you type 'the atheists on these forums...', that phrase collectively includes all atheists on these forums... which includes myself. And then when you type something that I object to, I'm going say so.
You could just as easily type 'some of the atheists' rather than 'the atheists'. At least that would be accurate.
I'm quite sure when I type something that you take umbrage at, you'll be here to let me know.
But, but, but, . . . the atheists do not have the chops to address the central issue.
Except I have. Why we are here, why many of the theist arguments are self refuting. Which is why
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
All their arguments are geared toward the cartoonish (primitive and barbaric) caricatures of the extant religions, especially Christianity!!!
All? Very few here actually focus on Christianity. I have in the past when the Christians came to visit, but that now is a rare event.
And many of my arguments are against all gods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Their minds never venture into the zone wherein the central issue between atheism and theism resides.
I have been there, won the cup, left the stadium, celebrated in the hotel room, drank the champagne, and returned to training for the next game. You are still in the changing room learning how to tie the laces on your slip on shoes.
It is self-refuting by combining things like mental illness (many of which have substantive brain dysfunction associated with them) with cognitive biases, sensory illusions, etc. Until we have a solid grasp of what consciousness IS and how it manifests (which my Synthesis and hypotheses address) what is and is not a brain fart will remain moot, IMO.
A non sequitur, it is not self refuting. We do not need to know what consciousness is to know our brains are often irrational, and that mental illness, cognitive biases and optical illusions exist. You want to dismiss these because you are afraid religious beliefs may fall in to one or more of these categories. But you can not dismiss them, you need to look at all the alternative possibilities to decide which is the more probable.
And the fact different cultures have different beliefs, and that for some reason, all gods have human characteristics is a clue that god beliefs are us projecting our selves on to the universe. Perhaps a god did not make us in his image, maybe we make gods in ours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Darby
Perhaps, but it is fun to keep saying brain fart.
It is simply one of many possible descriptions, the phenomena it describes still exist. Perhaps the term enkefalosklanaei will protect your sensibilities.
Last edited by Harry Diogenes; 10-27-2023 at 03:20 AM..
Reason: Cultures, not vultures.
I don't disagree with anything you've said. At least in my experience and my quest, the debate at the level of theism vs. atheism does not involve religious texts at all. It is almost entirely a matter of philosophical/theological argument, evidence (both scientific and experiential), and inference to the best explanation. Is the best explanation theistic or atheistic? Simple (but not so simple) as that.
Once one has reached a theistic conviction, then the question becomes "Which species of theism?" It is here that religious texts at least become relevant. They may not be determinative - argument and evidence are still involved at this stage - but they may be highly relevant.
As a Christian, there are certainly things in the Bible that are problematical, unpersuasive or mysterious to me. But I maintain Christianity as my faith, my template, for what to me are sufficiently persuasive reasons. I don't believe Christianity "because of" the Bible, but I believe the Bible is in some sense the word of God "because of" my Christianity.
If a believer asked, "Why are you hear, Elyn", the simple answer (for me) would be because my two feet brought me here. This does not involve God and can be considered atheistic, with an emphasis on the -ic suffix. It can mean a person always thinks under the umbrella of atheism as an atheist. Or it can mean the person is just reporting what can be observed. Since I have yet to see a god, and want to stick with observations, my actions are considered to always be under the umbrella of atheism.
Is that the inference you speak of?
On the other hand, if the believer responded with, "No, God sent you here, Elyn", then that is more complex. It is more likely this person always thinks under the umbrella of theism.
Precisely as I acknowledged. If you will reread the paragraph, you will see that I was saying that most people WHO ARE THEISTS are theists for the reasons Christianity suggests, one of these being theism's greater explanatory power. Again, it seems to me you're taking umbrage at things not worth taking umbrage at.
Except theism does not have a greater explanatory power. It simply asserts explanations. For example, the oft misrepresented hard problem of consciousness is still a problem whether a god exists or not, and simply asserting a god is responsible for our consciousness does not explain the problem of how we perceive Qualia.
A book/text is of value when it adds to our knowledge by providing information that was previously unknown. While science tries to explain the world, religious texts explain the interior of our self, its nature, and our relation to the world. Each of them require their own methodology to unfold the information, and expand our knowledge. While a science or math book can persuade not all religious texts persuade. They provide information that is meant to be understood, contemplated upon, and then internalized or rejected. The methodology is different.
All texts convey their message in words. But words cannot always convey everything that is to be known, they are limited in that effort. Sweetness cannot be expressed in words, but is powerfully and instantly conveyed by placing a cube of sugar on the tongue. Spiritual knowledge is like that. Words are inadequate, the true import of the words, which is what is important, may go ununderstood or mistaken. It requires a different kind of discipline and preparation of the self, and proper guidance, to understand the meaning of these texts that words alone are inadequate to express completely. It is then upto the individual to decide if it makes sense to them, that they sense a value that would enrich their lives, and internalize that knowledge to guide them through their life.
Faith is a choice.
Am I to understand that the comment "faith is a choice" is about how much effort one puts into studying?
Choosing to believe can be as simple as wanting a heaven to be true. There is no need to learn to read or write. There is no need to learn discipline and preparation or to receive proper guidance to understand the meaning of other people's words. The methodology of conveying knowledge is not crucial to having faith in a heaven.
But if the answer to the question "Where do I go after I die" is the ground, that also doesn't require discipline, preparation, guidance, etc. to understand it. There is no choice for faith because a person can observe this is what happens. Not going beyond this answer is considered atheistic and unspiritual - a faithless choice, when it is just an observation being conveyed through language.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
