(January 28, 2010 at 8:20 pm)Watson Wrote: I joined here to further understand Atheism and Atheists since, no longer being one of them, I cannot say what it is like to be one completely. Ironically, the more I understand it, the less I understand why anyone would want to be it.

Let me give my own answer to that. Not believing in God(s) is not a matter of wanting or not wanting. It's a matter of being unconvinced.

EvF

agreed EvF

(January 29, 2010 at 11:38 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Let me give my own answer to that. Not believing in God(s) is not a matter of wanting or not wanting. It's a matter of being unconvinced.

I like it. The position wasn't a choice but you're proud of your position now that you're there right?

(January 28, 2010 at 9:11 pm)TruthWorthy Wrote:

(January 28, 2010 at 9:07 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(January 28, 2010 at 8:59 pm)TruthWorthy Wrote: What makes such sources acceptable for descerning Jesus/God is true?

Nothing. Everything has to be tested. In the end you have to go with your own rationalisations and continuously review them. hope that's what you were getting at?

How do you test something through rationalisation?

Your nagging is akin to trolling TW. Please be patient.

(January 28, 2010 at 9:11 pm)TruthWorthy Wrote: How do you test something through rationalisation?

Well you arrive at conclusions by weighing up conflicting information right? To test your conclusions you seek out contradictory ideas to see if your current conclusions stand firm. If they don't, you change your mind and adopt the more rational position. i don't know how it's possible not to. Could any person lie to themselves to the extent they would 'be' something contrary to their logical conclusions? I can't see how.

(January 28, 2010 at 9:11 pm)TruthWorthy Wrote: How do you test something through rationalisation?

(January 29, 2010 at 5:50 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Well you arrive at conclusions by weighing up conflicting information right?

This is rationalisation, reasoning rationally and being sensible about drawing conclusions.

(January 29, 2010 at 5:50 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: To test your conclusions you seek out contradictory ideas to see if your current conclusions stand firm.

Obtaining contradictory argument while attempting to validate any theory is not testing. Often the contradictory arguments against a theory are the results of other's actual tests and not based on subjective reasoning what so ever; the inference is in the data collected and is always presented as so.

(January 29, 2010 at 5:50 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: If they don't, you change your mind and adopt the more rational position. i don't know how it's possible not to.

Yes, something I can agree with for the most part. In the way I don't agree with your statement is where irrational beliefs are held onto for emotional, sentimental, etc reasons and where these irrationally held beliefs adversely affect change in perception, attitudes, etc.

(January 29, 2010 at 5:50 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Could any person lie to themselves to the extent they would 'be' something contrary to their logical conclusions? I can't see how.

A person might believe they're logic is sound and fail to recognise that it isn't. As you might be aware, when you're operating from within a context it is very difficult/impossible to obtain a trully objective point of view of that context. This is simply because you're in it (similar to not being able to see the forest for the trees). Also, while something might be correct to a certain context it wont be correct outside of that context.

(January 29, 2010 at 8:13 pm)TruthWorthy Wrote: Obtaining contradictory argument while attempting to validate any theory is not testing. Often the contradictory arguments against a theory are the results of other's actual tests and not based on subjective reasoning what so ever; the inference is in the data collected and is always presented as so.

We've reached a conclusion: Thoughts exist physically in themselves. We constantly question that conclusion and consider, as openly as we can, alternate solutions. Should another solution present itself that makes more sense logically, we will abandon our initial conclusion and adopt a new one. We mustn't fall back on our first conclusion as if there were no other possible explanation.

(January 29, 2010 at 8:13 pm)TruthWorthy Wrote:

(January 29, 2010 at 5:50 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: If they don't, you change your mind and adopt the more rational position. i don't know how it's possible not to.

Yes, something I can agree with for the most part. In the way I don't agree with your statement is where irrational beliefs are held onto for emotional, sentimental, etc reasons and where these irrationally held beliefs adversely affect change in perception, attitudes, etc.

...and I absolutely agree with that too. It's essential to avoid irrational ideas from emotion etc..

(January 29, 2010 at 8:13 pm)TruthWorthy Wrote:

(January 29, 2010 at 5:50 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Could any person lie to themselves to the extent they would 'be' something contrary to their logical conclusions? I can't see how.

A person might believe they're logic is sound and fail to recognise that it isn't. As you might be aware, when you're operating from within a context it is very difficult/impossible to obtain a trully objective point of view of that context. This is simply because you're in it (similar to not being able to see the forest for the trees). Also, while something might be correct to a certain context it wont be correct outside of that context.

Indeed. It's very important to error check your logic... without reference to outside influence and criticism I belief any logical position to be unsound.

(January 29, 2010 at 9:14 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: We've reached a conclusion: Thoughts exist physically in themselves. We constantly question that conclusion and consider, as openly as we can, alternate solutions. Should another solution present itself that makes more sense logically, we will abandon our initial conclusion and adopt a new one. We mustn't fall back on our first conclusion as if there were no other possible explanation.

What solution? You've just agreed to most of the ideas I put forward and then move into this imaginary plane of what was first agreed upon! rubbish!! put the first agreement here:
as an example and show what your made of. Otherwise agree finally what substantiates your belief.

Furthermore, don't bother posting nonsensical statements, when you find yourself running out of words either say so or tell the truth, as I'm running out of patience for the lack of clarity and integrity of the dialogue.

I'm sorry I have no idea what you're talking about. You made a point about testing a theory and I was attempting to show how that doesn't apply but how, given an example, rationalising from reconsidering ideas works. If you can't keep up and want to throw the dummy out of the pram, that's your choice. I'm addressing your questions, despite your increasing rudeness.

(January 29, 2010 at 2:20 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(January 29, 2010 at 11:38 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Let me give my own answer to that. Not believing in God(s) is not a matter of wanting or not wanting. It's a matter of being unconvinced.

I like it. The position wasn't a choice but you're proud of your position now that you're there right?

I didn't mention 'pride', that is not part of the definition of atheism. And if you're asking about me personally, no I am not 'proud' I wouldn't say so at all

EvF