Strong Atheism starts from faith

[fr0d0]

No PR we have your jocular parody to go on which really doesn't start to seriously consider the text. I verify the book through personal experience & confirmation of others taking my position, not the book. I don't know where you get that idea. Indeed your logic is looking a lot like illogic at the moment.

[Purple Rabbit]

So you want us to believe you thought up your own position first independently of christianity. Get real and get some sense into your reasoning. Then it is unverifiable, then again it is verifiable. Make up your mind if you have one. That you can't follow what I'm saying in my last post is either a sign of cognitive dissonance or lack of brain power. It isn't rocket science.

[fr0d0]

Resort to personal insult again huh +1 fallacy to you

How would any of us know where our first thoughts originated ...there's a whole world of influences out there. I was raised in a non religious family with no direct influence like that BTW.

I haven't moved position at all as you frivolously state. Of course you're simply trying to float a smokescreen as you've seen Evie play the card with some success. God, by his nature is not independently verifiable. Christians can verify God _personally_, and can confirm and test this with others adopting the belief.

[tavarish]

Resort to personal insult again huh +1 fallacy to you

I've been reading along to many of your posts, none of which shed any light on anything, other than the fact that you can't understand the basic concepts of logic and reasoned arguments. You dodge questions left and right, and when you do give answers, they're dismissive of any of the concepts spoken about. God cannot be verified, yet the Bible describes him and has detailed portrayals of his intentions, attitudes and transgressions. Most of it can be relayed to the realm of history research, many elements of which are verifiable and falsifiable. Unless the bible is completely allegorical and bears no resemblance to anything requiring rational thought to digest.

How would any of us know where our first thoughts originated ...there's a whole world of influences out there. I was raised in a non religious family with no direct influence like that BTW.

How do I know reality is real? Am I really typing this?

I haven't moved position at all as you frivolously state. Of course you're simply trying to float a smokescreen as you've seen Evie play the card with some success. God, by his nature is not independently verifiable. Christians can verify God _personally_, and can confirm and test this with others adopting the belief.

This is why you should read your posts before you hit the "Post reply" button. You have a sentence saying God is not independently verifiable, then say in the next sentence that Christians can verify God. To prove his existence you would ALREADY have to assume he exists on the basis of no observable evidence. What kind of ass backwards reasoning is that? If something is testable, it is testable everywhere, not just in the confines of a group of like-minded people.

That's like me saying for me to become an astronaut, I have to first fly the space shuttle.

[fr0d0]

Hello ignorant one tavarish. Welcome to AF

Resort to personal insult again huh +1 fallacy to you

I've been reading along to many of your posts, none of which shed any light on anything, other than the fact that you can't understand the basic concepts of logic and reasoned arguments. You dodge questions left and right, and when you do give answers, they're dismissive of any of the concepts spoken about. God cannot be verified, yet the Bible describes him and has detailed portrayals of his intentions, attitudes and transgressions. Most of it can be relayed to the realm of history research, many elements of which are verifiable and falsifiable. Unless the bible is completely allegorical and bears no resemblance to anything requiring rational thought to digest.

None of which negates the fallacy quoted.

Thanks for your interest. Your basic misunderstanding of the bible is to be expected. Never ever in history, in the bible, or to the present day has God ever left verifiable evidence of himself. *Of course we're talking non personal now. We Christians even go so far as to say this is a signature of God. This is in his nature. Literalist only interpretation is for the scientist and not the theologian. Of course you take the classic position of claiming that nothing can be understood without literal and verifiable proof. No religion works to this principle, leaving your standpoint impotent. Of course this is the point where you shout "dodge ...he's not answering the question". But of course the question is answered. There's just an unwillingness to break from a literalist mindset. Perhaps this is what Creationists also feel.

My favourite post on the topic: http://atheistforums.org/thread-1540-pos...l#pid25166

How would any of us know where our first thoughts originated ...there's a whole world of influences out there. I was raised in a non religious family with no direct influence like that BTW.

How do I know reality is real? Am I really typing this?

Existentialist bullshit. +1 atheist point

I haven't moved position at all as you frivolously state. Of course you're simply trying to float a smokescreen as you've seen Evie play the card with some success. God, by his nature is not independently verifiable. Christians can verify God _personally_, and can confirm and test this with others adopting the belief.

This is why you should read your posts before you hit the "Post reply" button. You have a sentence saying God is not independently verifiable, then say in the next sentence that Christians can verify God. To prove his existence you would ALREADY have to assume he exists on the basis of no observable evidence. What kind of ass backwards reasoning is that? If something is testable, it is testable everywhere, not just in the confines of a group of like-minded people.

That's like me saying for me to become an astronaut, I have to first fly the space shuttle.

What you cannot do is have proof of God that transfers from one person to another. It's a personal verification thing. Does that make it clear?

[tavarish]

Hello ignorant one tavarish. Welcome to AF

Pot, meet kettle.

None of which negates the fallacy quoted.

It was simply an observation. I did not wish to negate the fallacy.

Thanks for your interest. Your basic misunderstanding of the bible is to be expected. Never ever in history, in the bible, or to the present day has God ever left verifiable evidence of himself. *Of course we're talking non personal now.

Thanks for the reply. Your basic misunderstanding of the argument was not expected, but is quite comical. God is not verifiable by traditional means, but only through personal means, such as personal revelation. Correct?

Is it too much to understand that you cannot pre-emptively accept a concept's existence when you're trying to verify its existence?

It's like saying "in order for me to find out if there's a Lamborghini in front of my house, I'm first going to accept beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a Lamborghini outside my house. Then I will never go outside to check. No one on my block has seen it, but I have heard it revving its engine and I even smelled the fumes a few times. I believe."

Wouldn't it be easier to say "I wanted to see if there is a Lamborghini in front of my house. I went outside, nothing was there. I have concluded that there is no Lamborghini outside my house."

No matter how much you believe in something, that does not give it a grain of truth.

We Christians even go so far as to say this is a signature of God. This is in his nature. Literalist only interpretation is for the scientist and not the theologian.

Christians say a lot of things. Some christians also say dinosaurs wore saddles and 900 year old men lived with them in perfect harmony. I digress.

Literalist only interpretation? Seriously, the way we judge things is by evidence and reasonable doubt based on experience. If you are saying the entire bible is metaphorical, then say it. Don't insult others' intelligence by assuming it's easy to decipher and interpret in a way that it coincides with your personal beliefs. There are thousands of interpretations of the same book. What kind of signature is that? A message that is supposed to enlighten and unify people as a whole sure does send mixed messages.

Is the bible a metaphor to be interpreted? Or does it have some literal texts? If so, where, and how do you know this?

Of course you take the classic position of claiming that nothing can be understood without literal and verifiable proof. No religion works to this principle, leaving your standpoint impotent.

No religion works to this principle because there is no verifiable proof to come to a logical conclusion. Correct?

This statement illustrates that belief in God (by your own account is not verifiable by reasoned means) is unreasonable and illogical. Whether you care to admit that your belief is based in this field is up for discussion. You don't seem to cope well with the fact your religion is just as illogical as believing Homer's Odyssey was a true story.

Of course this is the point where you shout "dodge ...he's not answering the question". But of course the question is answered. There's just an unwillingness to break from a literalist mindset. Perhaps this is what Creationists also feel.

My favourite post on the topic: http://atheistforums.org/thread-1540-pos...l#pid25166

Creationists are not deluded, they're just gloriously vapid. Or malinformed. Whatever the case may be, I've never heard any creationist say "there is no evidence for God". Quite the contrary. I digress yet again.

Tell me, how do you, personally know your God is true? This question has been asked a few times before to no answer.

Existentialist bullshit. +1 atheist point

I just high five'd Jesus.

What you cannot do is have proof of God that transfers from one person to another. It's a personal verification thing. Does that make it clear?

Sure. There can be no evidence of God that is observable through independent means. Do you understand how it can be construed as a delusion to believe something on the basis of nothing rational or logical? Do you not see how that, in its very essence is illogical?

Is it not doubly perplexing to think that if a creator made humans to think with deductive reasoning, he would make it easier for his children and make his existence plainly demonstrable? If there is a God, he has no idea what he's doing.

Or am I just being ignorant again?

[fr0d0]

You are being incredibly ignorant tavarish. But you are in good company, and I certainly won't hold it against you.

You seem to have spent that entire post trying to bat away the fact that theology requires that there be no verifiable proof of the existence of any god, and explicitly the Christian God. You can't deal with that. Fair enough. But lets establish this and remember it's the focus of the problem.

How would you propose faith would work (being "belief in something there can be no proof of") should there be external proof to negate it? Sound illogical to you? If it does.... good, we can agree on something.

This, although a central precept of mainstream (ie 99%) Christianity, seems to be a new concept to you. hence my unkind 'ignorant' label. forgive me, I'm sure it was an innocent mistake, and like I said, very well supported.

Christianity isn't a mixed message - it's a very direct one. You'll find all of us agree on the essential fundamentals.

How do I know personally that my God is true? I test my notion of God every moment and it pans out. Did I dodge again?

It is even more logical for this God to need your response rather than forcing knowledge of himself onto you. The cornerstone of belief is faith... faith is an incredible thing and the catalyst for logical enquiry. A god that negated faith would be a puny god indeed to a real God, one which necessitated it.

[tavarish]

You are being incredibly ignorant tavarish. But you are in good company, and I certainly won't hold it against you.

Jesus says hi.

You seem to have spent that entire post trying to bat away the fact that theology requires that there be no verifiable proof of the existence of any god, and explicitly the Christian God. You can't deal with that. Fair enough. But lets establish this and remember it's the focus of the problem.

I can deal with it. The fact of the matter is that it's ILLOGICAL to think that way. As long as we're on the same page with that, we're good.

How would you propose faith would work (being "belief in something there can be no proof of") should there be external proof to negate it? Sound illogical to you? If it does.... good, we can agree on something.

From the Merriam Webster's Dictionary:

(as it appears in this context)

Faith - : firm belief in something for which there is no proof

Belief - conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

If your religion and God are true as you believe and convey in your arguments, then an answer should be abundantly clear, not only for you, but for ANYONE seeking the information. You seem to lack the understanding that you can't make up your mind about something before you examine it. It's illogical to do so.

It is a belief system, which requires evidence. Whether your evidence is personal and metaphysical is your deal, but when the religion decides to proselytize and influence people on something that is logically unfounded and unreasonable, it becomes an issue for those who hold it to the standard to which we judge all things: reality.

I understand that it is the nature of religion to dance around logic, evidence and reason. But we're out of the infancy phase and we can observe things in our universe with a much broader understanding. Thus, we need to hold our beliefs to a higher standard.

Religion makes many claims dealing with physics, chemistry, cosmology and biology. Why wouldn't we examine the claims made by those who so adamantly attest to a divine creator? Is religion above reasonable scrutiny?

This, although a central precept of mainstream (ie 99%) Christianity, seems to be a new concept to you. hence my unkind 'ignorant' label. forgive me, I'm sure it was an innocent mistake, and like I said, very well supported.

Christianity isn't a mixed message - it's a very direct one. You'll find all of us agree on the essential fundamentals.

Such a direct message that there are 33,280 denominations. What are the essential fundamentals? Jesus?

How do I know personally that my God is true? I test my notion of God every moment and it pans out. Did I dodge again?

You'll have to excuse me, I have no idea what the hell you mean.

It is even more logical for this God to need your response rather than forcing knowledge of himself onto you. The cornerstone of belief is faith... faith is an incredible thing and the catalyst for logical enquiry. A god that negated faith would be a puny god indeed to a real God, one which necessitated it.

Faith is a catalyst for logical inquiry? How about SKEPTICISM is the catalyst for logical inquiry?

Faith is a catalyst for an illogical thought process, where you can circumvent the rules of logic to fit your own personal beliefs, more often than not to make you feel fuzzy inside and hopefully not so alone in the world.

Why would he be a puny God?

Also,

Is the bible metaphorical or literal? How do you know?

Please, if not anything else, please address the questions in RED to the best of your ability.

Thanks.

[fr0d0]

It's not illogical to consider God as non verifiable.. it's the only logical way to consider God. That all faiths have this basic precept makes this pretty conclusive. If you want to consider a god that is verifiable then that would be an incredibly naive undertaking and pretty laughable to be honest. If your idea of sound logic is that which would have small children laughing in your face then I don't rate your idea of logic much.

The point of all major religions is that the choice is left open to you, the individual to decide to believe or not. Without the choice the whole thing falls apart. Like in the Dark Ages, there was no choice to believe.. you either believed or were put to death. You couldn't 'choose' to be a Christian, therefore you weren't a Christian. Belief requires an active choice, and your liberty to make that choice.

If God was provable then no one would need a choice to believe. Natural laws would dictate what is naturally possible. Any being that developed supernatural powers would simply cause a shift in natural law, demoting supernatural. Only the God we've formulated as humans perfectly trumps all other notions of superiority.

All of the 33,280 denominations accept the Nicene Creed. It's what unites us all, and that's the crux of the religion.

Regarding me knowing how I know personally how my God is true...

You'll have to excuse me, I have no idea what the hell you mean.

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.

Faith is a catalyst for an illogical thought process, where you can circumvent the rules of logic to fit your own personal beliefs, more often than not to make you feel fuzzy inside and hopefully not so alone in the world.

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.

Lastly the Bible is never literal because common sense tells me so. The point of the stories are mostly plain to see. The historicity isn't clear sure, but the historicity isn't the core of the message. A clear perspective on human understanding of God is.

I hope I answered all of your questions/ or you can see my answers to you.

[Zen Badger]

How do I know personally that my God is true? I test my notion of God every moment and it pans out. Did I dodge again?

And what do you test it against?