Strong Atheism starts from faith

[tavarish]

If we can think of it then it features in our reality. The effects of belief are very real.

WHAT?! I clearly said it exists as a CONCEPT only, and does not reside in the reality. I can believe that there are invisible 70 foot green dragons flying around in space somewhere it would have just as much reality as your definition of God. A concept, whether it is true or not can have effects that manifest in reality through subjective experiences. This does not, in any way make them real, since we have methods to judge what we perceive to be reality.

You clearly can't or won't understand the difference between something that exists as a concept in your head and something that exists in reality.

You're talking here of religion used as a tool of power. Yeah sure religion is no exception. It's an absolute meaningless statement about religion per se tho'.

I was illustrating the fact that religion held vast amounts of social and political power in the world for most of man's history. Don't for a second think that that's not their goal now. Every year we get lots of challenges to the separation of church and state, we as a country oppose gay marriage and abortion due to religious ideology, and have "In God We Trust'" on our money. It all stems from the need to control people's actions. Religion in itself is, at its core, another force to divide people and it does so quite efficiently.

All evangelical Christians accept it without exception. The Church of New Jerusalem isn't accepted as Christian. Well done tho' that's a far better effort than we usually get with Mormonism and Jehovas Witnesses claimed to be mainstream Christian.

http://christianity.about.com/od/christi...ecreed.htm

"Some evangelical Christians, however, reject the Creed, specifically its recitation, not for its content, but simply because it is not found in the Bible."

http://www.wikinoah.org/index.php/Nicene_Creed

"However, other evangelical Christians who take an extreme view of sola scriptura reject the Creed (and especially the reciting of it), not necessarily because it contains objectionable content, but simply because it is not found in the Bible."

I never said JW and Mormonism was mainstream anything. They are denominations of Christianity, and the fact that they reject this creed creates a rift between the faiths.

I examine and question what I believe constantly and it remains the most logical conclusion. I've studied other religions, beliefs, and non beliefs. I've not believed far more than I've believed. Currently I believe.

It remains the most logical conclusion to believe something to be true on the basis that it cannot have evidence or be based in reality, then make vague assumptions as to how much you can interpret as being literal? Did you hit your head? That is simply making shit up as you go along to form a cohesive belief system. I also want to make it clear that the sole fact that you believe in this does not make it true.

May I remind you of the logical fallacy that you're committing requiring validated evidence of something that has none. I make no vague assumptions only clear logical ones. Likewise your beliefs aren't true to me either.

You haven't made any clear logical conclusions about anything we've discussed.

You say your God is real and in everything, then you say he's unverifiable, the bible is a metaphor, and the basis of Christianity is at best a nice story. I'm making the statement that if something is real, it exists in reality. Your god does not exist in reality, therefore he is NOT real. At best he is a concept in your mind. Can you understand that?

If there is no verifiable evidence for his existence, the question becomes moot. Due to this, I reject your claim that such a God exists. The fact that he does not need evidence to be supported only reinforces the fact that he is a fabrication of rationalization in your mind tailored to your belief system. I can say my imaginary fairies made your God and it would be in the same realm of plausibility by your standards. You see how that works?

You're not talking about logic here you're talking about a narrow field of logic concerned with evidential propositions. My personal beliefs would be quite different and not shared with millions of other subscribers to my faith. Skepticism is healthy and I certainly try to remain open and grounded.

I'm talking about the basis of judging the world around us to determine what is real,and make a distinction between fact and fantasy. This falls into the fantasy category, as it does not and cannot exist in reality. It's not a narrow field of logic if everything we know to be real is judged by these criteria.

A reconstruction of your use of the fallacy. If B isn't A it can't be A.

Anything that exists in reality has evidence of its existence. Otherwise is it simply not real. Love is an emotion, a concept in the mind that can manifest itself into reality via human interactions and gestures. Because a concept can make you feel a certain way does not mean the concept itself is real, same as my invisible space dragons. I can believe with all my might in them, but that doesn't change the fact that they're not real and the probability of them actually existing is so close to zero you might as well call it nothing.

here's a good page on the subject:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/views/reality.htm

I've said a few times to you now that nothing is literal and what it's all about. Those that interpret it as such are wrong, yes. You may think there's a point in trying to find evolutionary traits for snakes talking and evidence of the beginning of the universe being around 6000 years old, I don't.

It's good that you see it for what it is, a beautifully written work of fiction.