"If I am right, I go to heaven, if you are right, you die anyway."

[wynn]

Its not so much that you choose not to run your life in such a matter but it is completely impossible for you to do so since a vast majority of "truths" one runs one's life from are beyond one's capacity to verify.

The only real question is why atheists insist otherwise on a question of god

Also because atheists are not part of a theistic community; atheists are categorically excluded from theistic community.

If one hasn't been born or otherwise accepted into a theistic group, then how could one possibly meaningfully and with proper justification take up their discourse and practices?

Unless one has a personal, direct revelation from God, how can one possibly be a theist while not a member of a theistic community?

 

[lightgigantic]

Also because atheists are not part of a theistic community; atheists are categorically excluded from theistic community.

If one hasn't been born or otherwise accepted into a theistic group, then how could one possibly meaningfully and with proper justification take up their discourse and practices?

Unless one has a personal, direct revelation from God, how can one possibly be a theist while not a member of a theistic community?

taking up discourses and practices = participation in the community

 

[wynn]

taking up discourses and practices = participation in the community

You did not address my questions.


If one hasn't been born or otherwise accepted into a theistic group, then how could one possibly meaningfully and with proper justification take up their discourse and practices?

Unless one has a personal, direct revelation from God, how can one possibly be a theist while not a member of a theistic community?


One cannot just take up theistic discourse and practices on one's own.
At least not meaningfully and with proper justification.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

JDawg-We have moved away from the initial point of contention. We have several issues going on and I feel it would be best to solve them as best we can one at a time. If we want to deal with the other issues we are discussing, they may best be moved to other threads of more specific, limited scope, referencing this one if necessary.

You contend that while there is no objective evidence to deny the existence of a god, the Abrahmic God can be shown to exist only in the imaginations of men,"beyond a reasonable doubt".

I contend that your contention is illogical as "reasonable doubt" is a subjective term that means many things to many people. The only possible way, therefore, to instill reasonable doubt to the minds of people would be to provide objective proof of nonexistence, which you do not have, as you stated initially.

(See there? I didn't you or your contention silly. Not even once in this post. Better?(Calling something silly is not "name-calling" as I understand it. Doodoohead, douchebag, goathead, chickenlips, donkey hole, platypus, all of those things would be name calling. Silly is more an affectionate way of jovial disagreement. Sorry if it offended you. Do you still love me?) )

 

[spidergoat]

So much like like any position one supports on the authority of another, there are parameters (as opposed to simply accepting anything an everything on a subject that is unassailable to one ... ie the popular strawman offered by atheists)


Its not so much that you choose not to run your life in such a matter but it is completely impossible for you to do so since a vast majority of "truths" one runs one's life from are beyond one's capacity to verify.

The only real question is why atheists insist otherwise on a question of god (apart from the obvious of sidelining a claim to a convenient non-important/dysfunctional category in order to strengthen or resolve competing values)

I think you're still just elaborating on your special pleading fallacy. You want to claim that God is of a category that only so-called authorities on the subject can be trusted, and furthermore that trust is simply a matter of personal judgement the same way we choose to believe other less important things. But it is not the case that empirical knowledge relies on trusting the authority of experts.

You are almost making a God of the gaps argument, where you are placing the evidence of your God in the place least understandable to the common person, with authorities of higher learning, in this case experts in the field of fiction, or what you might call theology.

 

[Balerion]

JDawg-We have moved away from the initial point of contention. We have several issues going on and I feel it would be best to solve them as best we can one at a time. If we want to deal with the other issues we are discussing, they may best be moved to other threads of more specific, limited scope, referencing this one if necessary.

You contend that while there is no objective evidence to deny the existence of a god, the Abrahmic God can be shown to exist only in the imaginations of men,"beyond a reasonable doubt".

I contend that your contention is illogical as "reasonable doubt" is a subjective term that means many things to many people. The only possible way, therefore, to instill reasonable doubt to the minds of people would be to provide objective proof of nonexistence, which you do not have, as you stated initially.

(See there? I didn't you or your contention silly. Not even once in this post. Better?(Calling something silly is not "name-calling" as I understand it. Doodoohead, douchebag, goathead, chickenlips, donkey hole, platypus, all of those things would be name calling. Silly is more an affectionate way of jovial disagreement. Sorry if it offended you. Do you still love me?) )

The term "reasonable doubt" is well-defined and self-explanatory, and doesn't particularly depend on, say, your concept of "reasonable." For example, my contention is not invalidated simply because you've decided that "reasonable" doubt includes the ability to cite the Three-Headed Winged Pig of Alpha Centauri as a statistical possibility. The whole point of calling it "reasonable" is to narrow the scope and talk in practical terms. We may always have to accept that nothing can be shown to be impossible, but this doesn't mean we have to accept outrageous claims.

I'm disappointed you're bailing on the conversation, but I will admit that it's getting a bit broad. Perhaps we'll refocus elsewhere.

 

[lightgigantic]

I think you're still just elaborating on your special pleading fallacy. You want to claim that God is of a category that only so-called authorities on the subject can be trusted, and furthermore that trust is simply a matter of personal judgement the same way we choose to believe other less important things.

Wrong on two counts

1 - I am saying that there is a category of knowledge that is only assailable by relevant authorities

2 - I am saying this makes up the majority of the quality and quantity of things we act upon

But it is not the case that empirical knowledge relies on trusting the authority of experts.

Depends on who is doing the relying.

As far as red shift et al is concerned, you most definitely are trusting authorities

You are almost making a God of the gaps argument, where you are placing the evidence of your God in the place least understandable to the common person, with authorities of higher learning, in this case experts in the field of fiction, or what you might call theology.

red herring - you are simply airing one of your favorite atheist monologues

If you go back to whatI have actually said, you will find I have talked about how there are a bevy of things (like the president, one's genealogical make up, or even your explanations/justifications of things like red shift) that don't arise out of empiricism in an effort to clearly delineate the scope of the discipline (and the absolute absurdity in trying to play it as having a monopoly on all knowable claims)

 

[lightgigantic]

You did not address my questions.


If one hasn't been born or otherwise accepted into a theistic group, then how could one possibly meaningfully and with proper justification take up their discourse and practices?

Unless one has a personal, direct revelation from God, how can one possibly be a theist while not a member of a theistic community?


One cannot just take up theistic discourse and practices on one's own.
At least not meaningfully and with proper justification.

I guess its the contribution of prescribed duties (of a community .. theistic or otherwise) that it becomes a foundation for surmounting the inevitable political fracas of a community (theistic or otherwise) ... at least for the successful candidate

 

[wynn]

I guess its the contribution of prescribed duties (of a community .. theistic or otherwise) that it becomes a foundation for surmounting the inevitable political fracas of a community (theistic or otherwise) ... at least for the successful candidate

And why should one perform duties of a community that one is not a member of?

Without being a member, how can one possibly know whether joining a community and their beliefs is worth it or not?

Esp. given the self-referential nature of a religious value system? (ie. the idea that "it's worth joining, and you'll see that only when you join, but not in advance.")



Again, I think you are failing to acknowledge the specific difficulties (and sometimes absurdities) of growing up and living in the modern, Western multicultural society.

Although various religions seem more available and accessible in such a society, they actually are not.

Epistemological and other problems of religious choice that are non-existent in a traditional monocultural society, are prominent in a multicultural one.
Other problems that exist in a monoculture, take on a new scope in a multiculture.
Heuristics that work in a monoculture don't work in a multiculture.


If anything, people in a modern multicultural society are suffering similarly as Tantalus: they have a strong desire for spirituality, they seem to be living in an environment that could cater to that desire - yet the moment they reach out to do so, that which they reached for eludes.

 

[spidergoat]

Wrong on two counts

1 - I am saying that there is a category of knowledge that is only assailable by relevant authorities

2 - I am saying this makes up the majority of the quality and quantity of things we act upon


Depends on who is doing the relying.

As far as red shift et al is concerned, you most definitely are trusting authorities


red herring - you are simply airing one of your favorite atheist monologues

If you go back to whatI have actually said, you will find I have talked about how there are a bevy of things (like the president, one's genealogical make up, or even your explanations/justifications of things like red shift) that don't arise out of empiricism in an effort to clearly delineate the scope of the discipline (and the absolute absurdity in trying to play it as having a monopoly on all knowable claims)

I say you are wrong because science doesn't depend on authorities proclaiming something. It is backed up by observable evidence. This is true even if a person isn't educated enough to correctly interpret that evidence.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Perhaps God would prefer someone who used his God-Given brains.
Who after much thought denied his existence.
Rather than reward "a person who tries to get an advantage from other people by being extremely pleasant to them in a way which is not sincere"

The above quotation is from a definition in the Cambridge dictionary.
There is actually a word which describes it.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/arse-licker

 

[lightgigantic]

I say you are wrong because science doesn't depend on authorities proclaiming something. It is backed up by observable evidence. This is true even if a person isn't educated enough to correctly interpret that evidence.

That may be true for a scientist but certainly not for you. If you were given the evidence to observe there is a good chance you wouldn't even be able to tell if it was upside down or not much less interpret it in a manner to evidence something - hence the italics of "you" and "your" in my comments.

In much the same way, the qualitative position of your parents or the president's wife is also beyond you ... even though the empirical foundation for (i)their(/i) claims of knowledge is not compounded by the technical and financial problems of science.

Thus the majority (in terms of quality as well as quantity) of the knowledge you act upon (in terms of thoughts, speech and action) arises from authorities well beyond your empirical capacity.

 

[lightgigantic]

And why should one perform duties of a community that one is not a member of?

Without being a member, how can one possibly know whether joining a community and their beliefs is worth it or not?

Esp. given the self-referential nature of a religious value system? (ie. the idea that "it's worth joining, and you'll see that only when you join, but not in advance.")



Again, I think you are failing to acknowledge the specific difficulties (and sometimes absurdities) of growing up and living in the modern, Western multicultural society.

Although various religions seem more available and accessible in such a society, they actually are not.

Epistemological and other problems of religious choice that are non-existent in a traditional monocultural society, are prominent in a multicultural one.
Other problems that exist in a monoculture, take on a new scope in a multiculture.
Heuristics that work in a monoculture don't work in a multiculture.


If anything, people in a modern multicultural society are suffering similarly as Tantalus: they have a strong desire for spirituality, they seem to be living in an environment that could cater to that desire - yet the moment they reach out to do so, that which they reached for eludes.

There are a host of reasons why someone would and someone wouldn't engage in the prescribed activities. Its up to the individual and at the end of the day it explains which communities they identify with, aspire for or ultimately reject or abhor.

 

[spidergoat]

That may be true for a scientist but certainly not for you. If you were given the evidence to observe there is a good chance you wouldn't even be able to tell if it was upside down or not much less interpret it in a manner to evidence something - hence the italics of "you" and "your" in my comments.

Thus the majority (in terms of quality as well as quantity) of the knowledge you act upon (in terms of thoughts, speech and action) arises from authorities well beyond your empirical capacity.

I could very well be as dumb as a box of rocks, but that doesn't make the non-empirical basis for faith any more rational. It's still based on the authority of subjective non-reproducible states of mind which are notoriously unreliable.

 

[wynn]

There are a host of reasons why someone would and someone wouldn't engage in the prescribed activities. Its up to the individual and at the end of the day it explains which communities they identify with, aspire for or ultimately reject or abhor.

Truisms have zero explanatory power. But you've been using them a lot lately.

What exactly is it that you would like to communicate with using truisms?

That you don't care about me?
That you wish to have nothing to do with me?
Frustration?
Evasion?
Contempt?
Self-doubt?
That you believe all is well anyway?

?

 

[wynn]

I could very well be as dumb as a box of rocks, but that doesn't make the non-empirical basis for faith any more rational. It's still based on the authority of subjective non-reproducible states of mind which are notoriously unreliable.

But with a stance like yours, you are implicitly considering yourself an authority in matters of faith. Thus you are perpetuating the same phenomenon that you otherwise take objection to.

 

[spidergoat]

I would not encourage anyone to take my statements on faith, research for yourself what faith is and I think you will come to the same conclusions. There is no authority on faith, since it is not a real field of study. You might as well call yourself an expert on smurf reproductive behavior.

 

[wynn]

There is no authority on faith, since it is not a real field of study.

It is a real field of study. To all those people who acknowledge the role it plays in our daily lives.

 

[spidergoat]

What's real about it Ms. Atheist?

 

[Balerion]

It is a real field of study. To all those people who acknowledge the role it plays in our daily lives.

No it isn't.