No verifiable evidence is the Christian position

[FallentoReason]

This isn't about preference though.

You may be right but I'm not so sure. Perhaps it is just a preference. I've never heard him argue that he has reasons which he believes should convince us to believe too, have you? On the personal level we have many beliefs which amount to pre-made preferences. These don't all have to be justified.

I agree that choices made out of preference are in a sense personal business and non-negotiable, but I'm sure that the majority of us place a lot of value on truth. Now, I'm sure that you would agree truth is independent of any one person's preferences, and I'm also sure that you would agree that not a single theist here follows their particular religion out of preference. Naturally it follows that more is at stake than just discussion about preferences.

[fr0d0]

My reasons for choosing as I did are laid out already.

If you could point me to the post #, that would be much appreciated.

~

"The logically impossible is both undetectable and non-existent."

I don't see how this is refuting what I've said. All I see here is that from *your perspective* your god is half way to being logically impossible. The question is, how do you know that your god's undetectable attribute doesn't stem from pure non-existence?

#1 I think I only alluded to it in this thread. I think all religious endeavour covers the same subject. I find Christianity to be the currently ultimate evolutionary step, in that it goes one further than all others in making God directly accessible by making us perfect. This is no minor difference. It's a huge benefit in the removal of guilt and enhancement of life: the reason I give to support my faith.

#2 it refutes what you said by destroying it. God is totally logical where you're examples are the opposite. How I know is by using reason.

It's been a pleasure talking with you as usual FTR

[FallentoReason]

If you could point me to the post #, that would be much appreciated.

~

"The logically impossible is both undetectable and non-existent."

I don't see how this is refuting what I've said. All I see here is that from *your perspective* your god is half way to being logically impossible. The question is, how do you know that your god's undetectable attribute doesn't stem from pure non-existence?

#1 I think I only alluded to it in this thread. I think all religious endeavour covers the same subject. I find Christianity to be the currently ultimate evolutionary step, in that it goes one further than all others in making God directly accessible by making us perfect. This is no minor difference. It's a huge benefit in the removal of guilt and enhancement of life: the reason I give to support my faith.

Maybe whateverist was right. It's purely your preference to be a Christian and not a truth-based choice. The fact that you kudo'd my two posts entailing the *exact opposite* seems very worrying at this stage.

#2 it refutes what you said by destroying it. God is totally logical where you're examples are the opposite. How I know is by using reason.

Your justification for requiring faith is that God is unverifiable. Therefore, your argument is that "if x is unverifiable, then requiring faith to believe in x is justified". This allows garden gnomes to be x, dragons and the spaghetti monster too. Your rules = catastrophic outcome. But here you are saying my examples fail even though they meet the same criteria as your god. Where's the reasoning? Do I need to have faith you applied reason because it's unverifiable?

[Captain Colostomy]

You think theists are in the majority colostomy? And since when does one bad action deserve another? The hypocrisy is strong with you.

Majority? You damn Skippy. And that advantage has been used for plenty of nefarious reasons. Does one bad action deserve another? Well, in an ideal world, no. This ain't no ideal world, though, is it? Since when does 'turn the other cheek' equal 'take it up the ass'? Christians sure don't, why should anyone else...especially when the same religious asshats initiated the stupid? You would have dissenters meekly walk away, victorious in their taking the high road, all the while losing their voice? 'Just keep taking the beatdown, kid...you're the better man for it.'...Yeah. That'll put a bully to shame. Finger wag 'retaliators' all you want, Frodo...they have every right to meet challenges head-on.

Am I a hypocrite for wanting a level playing field? Are you a hypocrite for going after the guy who threw the second punch?

Hypocrisy. Bah.

[fr0d0]

Maybe whateverist was right. It's purely your preference to be a Christian and not a truth-based choice. The fact that you kudo'd my two posts entailing the *exact opposite* seems very worrying at this stage.

It's my preference because truth couldn't lead me to any other choice. I cannot believe that which I don't reason to be true. My history isn't Christian. For inherited preference to be true I'd have to be comfortable in any faith. My community is anti faith of any kind.

---

here you are saying my examples fail even though they meet the same criteria as your god.

A gross misrepresentation again. Unverifiable proof does not equal no proof. You make that logical omission, I do not.

I said the opposite to what you said above.

[FallentoReason]

Maybe whateverist was right. It's purely your preference to be a Christian and not a truth-based choice. The fact that you kudo'd my two posts entailing the *exact opposite* seems very worrying at this stage.

It's my preference because truth couldn't lead me to any other choice.

If you didn't have any other choice, then it's not a preference. That means I was right before in saying you believe because you think it's the truth, and truth has nothing to do with preference.

I cannot believe that which I don't reason to be true.

Which once again shows you're not believing out of preference. Contradictions all 'round here...

My history isn't Christian. For inherited preference to be true I'd have to be comfortable in any faith. My community is anti faith of any kind.

In that case, I think it's quite noble of you to believe the way you do.

A gross misrepresentation again. Unverifiable proof does not equal no proof. You make that logical omission, I do not.

I said the opposite to what you said above.

How is something proof if it's unverifiable? Proof by definition is what *makes* something verified or not.

I think your challenge in our discussion at hand is to explain why you would put faith in something unverifiable. You can't know if God exists, therefore you're actually not even justified in saying he's unverifiable. That's an assumption that's begging the question. This is why it's nonsensical for you to dismiss the gnomes that grow my grass on a whim because you effectively have a double standard. Fallacies aren't considered good reasoning.

And by the way, how do you know that your god's undetectable attribute doesn't stem from pure non-existence?

[Chas]

I think you are make a big error by staking your claims on the ability of human. Our whole reality is filtered through the flawed mechanisms of the human mind, which evolved to survive and adapt, not solve the reasons for existence.

Then science is on equally shaky grounds. Christianity is founded on reason which is why some say science was it's natural byproduct. Exploration and experimentation is key, but that doesn't mean the fashionable zeitgeist of materialism over sense should discount a whole swathe of human endeavour, which is what you are promoting here.

No, Christianity is founded on faith. It is only your justifications that you try to present as reason.

[Whateverist]

I agree that choices made out of preference are in a sense personal business and non-negotiable, but I'm sure that the majority of us place a lot of value on truth. Now, I'm sure that you would agree truth is independent of any one person's preferences, and I'm also sure that you would agree that not a single theist here follows their particular religion out of preference. Naturally it follows that more is at stake than just discussion about preferences.

I don't really mean to intrude on your conversation which is obviously important to you both. But here is my reaction for what it's worth.

If you make claims about the phenomenology of the mind, I can confirm what you say by comparing it to what I experience. If what you say does not reflect what I experience, then I can't rule out what you say. I can only say it is different from what I experience. Statements concerning the phenomenology of the mind can be assigned a truth value but he basis for that assignment is necessarily personal.

Perhaps neuroscience and the study of consciousness will take us beyond this stage in our knowledge of the mind, but it sure isn't there yet.

[Bad Writer]

We know that patriotism comes not from a belief in a deity, but from a belief in the values of one's country. Adhering to a sports team could be considered a form of patriotism, though I would argue that the rivalries it causes could be considered illogical and verging on insane in some cases. Being a fan should not necessity extremism, in my opinion, but at least the fans know that they have no reason to root for their team except that they like to. Again, this does not hinge on belief in a deity.

However, when it comes to believing in a deity, the results caused by this are something that we cannot stand idly by and watch happen. The argument between these religious factions becomes a war between whose illogical presupposition makes more sense in the realm of the supernatural? This affects judgement on everyday activities, government policies, and even on how sports teams are run and operated. Sometimes these policies are fine, and, I dare say it, good, but other times they are degrading in nature to other human beings.

On a similar note, eating shit is bad for one's health, so wouldn't agreeing with shit be bad for one's mental health?

[Faith No More]

Emphasis on 'solely'. And if we based our science solely on what we already know, and not theorised about possibilities we would also never have progressed beyond Newtonian physics.

There is an enormous difference between theorizing possibilities(which btw, are confirmed through verifiability) and claiming things are true based on a process that cannot be verified.

Then science is on equally shaky grounds. Christianity is founded on reason which is why some say science was it's natural byproduct. Exploration and experimentation is key, but that doesn't mean the fashionable zeitgeist of materialism over sense should discount a whole swathe of human endeavour, which is what you are promoting here.

Except the reason science is not on equally shaky grounds is through rigorous verifiability, which is why we are putting so much emphasis on it.

What I am promoting is the fallibility of the human mind's ability to come to correct conclusions about complex questions, which is why those conclusions must go through outside verification.

*blinkers necessary for students wishing to replicate this experiment

What?

No. As I'm saying: thinking that verifiable evidence is the new holy grail is a huge delusion.

The real delusion is thinking you can know something to be true without it.