Strong Atheism starts from faith

[tavarish]

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.

If the very basis of something is unverifiable, unobservable, and subjective, it is not based in reality and exists merely as a concept.

re·al·i·ty (r-l-t)
n. pl. re·al·i·ties
1. The quality or state of being actual or true.
2. One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual: "the weight of history and political realities" (Benno C. Schmidt, Jr.)
3. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.
4. That which exists objectively and in fact .

con·cept (knspt)
n.
1. A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences.
2. Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion. See Synonyms at idea.

Since it isn't based in reality, it is safe to say your definition of God is not real.

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.

It's left open to you in the form of fear mongering and pandering by authoritative figures. Religion works better when there is no choice, the dark ages was quite possibly the best thing to happen to christianity. They were THE AUTHORITY on nearly everything. Society, Science, Politics, Cosmology and Philosophy.

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.

Read above. Your concept of God cannot exist in reality.

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

Other than Evangelical Christians not accepting it as authoritative because it's not in the Bible. Not to mention The Church of New Jerusalem (A denomination of Christianity) outright reject it.

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

Go on...

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.

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.

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.

I still don't understand where you make the distinction between metaphorical text and literal text. Are there specific cues? What about those who believe in its entire literal interpretation? Are they wrong?

Do you believe the Bible is inerrant? Or can any internal issues be dismissed on the grounds of the "bigger picture"?

[fr0d0]

Since it isn't based in reality, it is safe to say your definition of God is not real.

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

It's [the choice is] left open to you in the form of fear mongering and pandering by authoritative figures. Religion works better when there is no choice, the dark ages was quite possibly the best thing to happen to christianity. They were THE AUTHORITY on nearly everything. Society, Science, Politics, Cosmology and Philosophy.

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'.

Other than Evangelical Christians not accepting it as authoritative because it's not in the Bible. Not to mention The Church of New Jerusalem (A denomination of Christianity) outright reject it.

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.

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'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.

I still don't understand where you make the distinction between metaphorical text and literal text. Are there specific cues? What about those who believe in its entire literal interpretation? Are they wrong?

Do you believe the Bible is inerrant? Or can any internal issues be dismissed on the grounds of the "bigger picture"?

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.

[Purple Rabbit]

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?

friggin' fabulation!

[Snake]

Once we've agreed on those two we'll continue.

I'll ignore this premise, and give you an answer anyway:

If there were no believers there would be no atheists. We would surely be talking about any other interesting matter.

However, there are believers stating that a non-existant being is out there -everywhere to be precise- leading our lives.

And then, we, atheist, reply: this in not true. There is not such a thing. There is no eternal life, no inmortal soul will "float" anywhere after death. There is not such a thing as spiritual life in this universe.

I do not believe, I know some things and ignore too many others, but I don't believe.

And now...:

a) Reason. Proof and error -sorry if this is not the correct expression, English is far from being my mother tongue-.

b) Purely emotional self-delusion. No one knows about god's existence: people may feel god, because our brains were trained for that by religious indoctrination when we were children. But you never really know, do you?

Do you agree on this?

[Purple Rabbit]

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.

Yet another way to push the agenda for carte blanche fabulation as a method of knowledge.

[TruthWorthy]

Hi Snake, how was the 28 page read a thon?

[Ashes1995]

a) trial and error.

B) i believe faith is when you know or fully believe that something is real, but faith is more of an opinion, wich others will disagree on, but fact cannot be disagreed on because it has been proven.

[Snake]

Hi Snake, how was the 28 page read a thon?

Ops!

I was misled by the quick reply box at the bottom of each page, and I didn't realize that I was answering an almost one month old post.

[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.

[chatpilot]

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

I think that is the most inaccurate statement I have ever heard. You give the bible way too much credit, it is in fact a horrible and discordant work of fiction mixed with history and a mess of ancient plagiarized myths. That also includes all the bad editing and retelling of the same tales several times throughout usually in ways that contradict previous versions of it throughout the book itself. This is obviously due to the many authors involved and the attempt to transcribe tales that were originally oral traditions. Otherwise I agree with you on your entire post and your refutations of fr0d0s beliefs regarding the veracity of god.