Seattle,
I've noticed that in these arguments the religious person (whether they know it or not) is generally insincere with their arguments.
in·sin·cere adjective \ˌin-sin-ˈsir, -sən-\
: not expressing or showing true feelings : not sincere
Okay.
This is because their mind isn't really open to change regardless of how the argument goes so they are just trying to win a debating point.
For example, when they say that believing in God and atheism are both just differing beliefs. They know that not believing in something isn't just a different belief but they make this argument anyway.
I gave an example earlier that gave some clarity (i think) to this concern, maybe you missed it.
My point was: I do not believe in eating flesh and blood animals, but I believe that sacrifising them for the pleasure of of our pallete expresse a lack of outstanding human qualities like compassion and empathy. IOW, my atheism (so to speak) of eating flesh and blood animals, is connected to my belief (theism) that to do so for no other reason than for our pleasure, somehow diminishes good qualities that can be used to make the society we live in more humane. Now I'm not interested in the claim I'm making (so please don't digress). The argument that ''atheism'' is nothing more than a lack of belief falls down unless you are okay with being classed as mindless numpties without reason, and I doubt that.
If they were having a serious argument with their kids (about something important) they wouldn't use such insincere logic. Therefore they don't really believe most of their arguments.
I'd love to hear your version of one of ''their arguments''.
My second point is this. Religious people frequently make the argument that not everything is material, something that we can touch and see and therefore they are implying that religion or God is the same and are just as real.
I think you need to re-evaluate your understanding of ''Religion'' and ''God'', and what that means to different people. Once you do that, you will be able to see the basis of those religious traditions, because as it stands at this moment, all the talk is aimed at Evangelical Christianity, as if that is the be all end all of religious tradition. What is worse, I find, is that you are not even prepared (like evangelical christians) to venture out into the broader picture. You are completely content with the idea, that a rebuttal of of these views is sufficient to cover all religious tradition (and more importantly the scriptural origins).
The examples are generally God and love. Everyone knows, believes, feels love. They say they experience God in the same way and therefore God is just as real.
Again, this is just a gimmick however. Comparing God and love is comparing apples and oranges. There is no connection.
Again you appear inapreciative of the broad dynamic range of ''Love'', by simply comparing it to ''apples and oranges''. I think a good measure of it's dynamic range can be likened to the range of colours and shades, and of the harmonic content expressed with intention, within the vibetory aspects of frequency. We know that threre exist three primary colours, and seven notes of the harmonic scale, but the variation which can be produced with active intention is infinitesimal.
People believe in God and then sometimes later in life they no longer believe in God. At one point they may claim to see him and talk to him and say that he is just as real (to them) as love.
Later they may no longer be a believer. They still believe in love however. No one becomes a non-believer in love.
But, if ''Love'' was being quanified as nothing more than a chemical reaction that occurs in the brain, as an evolutionary, survivalistic process (which I believe it is in some circles, or definately used to be), then to believe in ''Love'' as something other than a materialistic process, is no different than believing in God.
One thing to note here is that, saying ''I believe in God'' is not the same as actually believing in God. So again it bolis down to what is God. The explicit atheist is at home with the idea that God is an arbitary concept, one that is concoted for the sole purpose of explaining why the world is the way it is, and how it came to be. This shows what their idea of God is, and within this idea everything beyond it is superfluous. It is just a construct to support that notion. That being said, there is no need to understand anything more about the scripture, the process of invention of such a concept is simply an evolution of earlier, more primitive ideas. It is therefore understandable how one can think one believes in God at some point in their life (before information explosion), but due to modern scientific development have no more need for that pacifier. But this is only successful because of the wilful ignorance of who, and/or what God is, and how we are related to Him.
Even among fairly hard core believers they say that they have doubts and that it's even healthy to have doubts. They say they want "thinking" believers and it only makes them stronger.
However, there are no people who sometimes "have doubts" regarding love.
Are you kidding?
It's just not an honest comparison and that's my point. They aren't really being open and they aren't trying to be intellectually honest in these debates.
Well obviously you are wrong, because there are people who make this comparison, and unless you are exerting some kind of elitism, by implying that these people are lying to themselves and others, and have no understanding of their own experiences at any time of their existence, and are completely devoid of reason and human intelligence, and pitting yourself and other like minds as the opposite, then you have no intelligent basis or right, to make that assumption.
The only people who would do that are people who actually aren't sure and are having some cognitive dissonance regarding religion (as most anyone would have to have on such a subject unless they were totally delusional).
That is nonsense. Of course you're not even taking into account the naturalistic process. From that perspective anything that occurs within nature is factual, but not the entire truth. So God must be factual, mental disorder must be factual, and everbody who is a product of nature, who expresses any opinion must be factual. To say this is wrong, and that is right is factual as long as it resides within the constuct of nature.
You are attempting to use something, which you regard as a purely naturalist process, to counteract another purealy naturalistic process. But i''m pretty sure that with a little thought you would know that that is not the case. You are using your intelligence, your conscious awareness, to make an observation about something other than your own intelligence. You are counteracting the naturalisitic process with intervention, meaning that you see yourself as something other than that which you counteract. Otherwise what is the point of your intervention?
jan.
