Christian motivations for joining AF

[TruthWorthy]

Ok, I'm not taking the piss out of you here, instead think of it as an example of being shown something you might not have seen before ok?

How do you test something through rationalisation?; [leading the witness]

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.

I'm only focusing on the italisized text here, the rest has already been covered. I suppose you can either admit fault, deny as a typo or some other playing the game excuse, or take a new position as you did last time and pretend it didn't happen and then say you don't know what I meant.

[fr0d0]

What's the problem with that? Currently I stand by it. Please explain.

The point of my response to your objection to that statement last time, was that this isn't validate-able as scientific theories are:

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.

My answer to you back then:

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.

...was an example of how this isn't scientific theory where validatable evidence leads to a position of validated fact. There's nothing ever that can be validated.

I wonder if you can now continue and answer the reply I already gave you on this?

[TruthWorthy]

No, I don't disagree with your response here (above):

---

What's the problem with that? Currently I stand by it. Please explain.

The point of my response to your objection to that statement last time, was that this isn't validate-able as scientific theories are:

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.

My answer to you back then:

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.

...was an example of how this isn't scientific theory where validatable evidence leads to a position of validated fact. There's nothing ever that can be validated.

I wonder if you can now continue and answer the reply I already gave you on this?

---

There are some minor details which should be addressed here, since some of the argument seems not to correspond with the content.
You use the word test instead of compare, etc. Tests aren't performed through rationalisation, you learn through tests but you hypothesize through mental functions.
Something else which isn't consistent in what you assert, that belief contributes to evidence, completely contradictory to your agreement of thoughts only pertaining within their own properties.

[fr0d0]

'Compare' doesn't seem accurate. 'Challenge' maybe. I not only 'hypothesize' I actually conclude. Not many times could you rationalise equally for or against anything, concluding a draw. I learn and then apply that learning to other ideas... and may draw new conclusions.

I don't understand what you're saying in the 3rd paragraph. My belief is in something which, if believed, is evidenced. The evidence isn't proof. And my rationalisation isn't without physical manifestation.

[TruthWorthy]

There are some minor details which should be addressed here, since some of the argument seems not to correspond with the content.
You use the word test instead of compare, etc. Tests aren't performed through rationalisation, you learn through tests but you hypothesize through mental functions.
Something else which isn't consistent in what you assert, that belief contributes to evidence, completely contradictory to your agreement of thoughts only pertaining within their own properties.

'Compare' doesn't seem accurate. 'Challenge' maybe. I not only 'hypothesize' I actually conclude. Not many times could you rationalise equally for or against anything, concluding a draw. I learn and then apply that learning to other ideas... and may draw new conclusions.

Challenge might be too strong a word regarding rationalisation as well. You might decide on one perspective over another and this becomes your conclusion. The process used in determining your final belief is not testing and the only real challenge is against perspective.

---

Something else which isn't consistent in what you assert, that belief contributes to evidence, completely contradictory to your agreement of thoughts only pertaining within their own properties.

I'm bloody sick of you playing dumb mate.

---

I don't understand what you're saying in the 3rd paragraph. My belief is in something which, if believed, is evidenced. The evidence isn't proof. And my rationalisation isn't without physical manifestation.

Your interpretation of events is where you see the evidence. Nothing more.

[LEDO]

Ok but why choose the atheist forums for this, of all people who are interested??

Here it's possible to get to the core. Faith heads only want to further a train of thought.

I like to learn stuff about Christianity and have plenty of heroes there to check out. Mutual ego stroking doesn't attract me, and I haven't found anywhere online that doesn't fail there.

When I attended classes sponsored by the Biblical Archaelogical Society, there were people of various beliefs there, including ministers and former ministers. One minister mentioned how interesting it was to be able to discuss the Bible in a higher criticism. These were things he confessed, he could never discuss with his own congregation.

What church Bible study class discusses comparative mythology? Midrash? Judaic Law?

[tackattack]

my 8-12 year old sunday school class. It gets deeper with the older youth.

[fr0d0]

[nothing to say]

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm not talking about Atheism, I'm talking about you. Do you not feel any sense of connection with fellow atheists then? If so, I can't see why you state that you'd want to have a relationship with another atheist, for example. You come out with statements like 'you hate theism but not theist' and 'it'd be great if there were no religion' - that's not non belief in God(s) either but you state it. It's your personal opinion. Stop dodging.

Dodging? You claim that/ask if I'm proud and I say that, no I am not. How's that dodging?

I am against religion yes. I do hate religion but not religious people, yes. But what has this got to do with pride?

As I have said, I don't think I'd want a relationship with a theist because I don't think it would be very reasonable if I felt the need to debate with them 24/7... which is a need that I WOULD feel. So unless they let me do that and it was somehow at all liveable then I don't think I would ever want to.

What the fuck has this got to do with pride? Do I have a connection with other atheists? Well, by definition we all share the commonality that none of us believe in God. Other than that it is just correlation where we may have similarities due to our non-belief - but there are certainly a lot of similarities too.

I already answered your question at least twice I believe. And I think this is the third time: I am not proud. Got it? This has got nothing to do with pride. Answering your question more than once is the very opposite of dodging it. And not only that - but the accusation is very laughable indeed coming from you.

EvF

[fr0d0]

I'd moved on from pride Evie, but then of course I didn't spell that out in words of one syllable for you. Apologies there. From here it looks like you're in denial. Like school kids who all wear the same fashion but think they're individuals in their fashion tastes.