Atheism is just as irrational as Theism.

[Erinome]

I went straight to the human rights section and it said, "You are not authorised to view this resource."

Do you have to prove you aren't gay first or something?

[Ace Otana]

Oh I love questionairs.

Is faith blind?

Yep.

Is God love; good; our moral guide?

No reason to assume that, you must first demonstrate that a god exists before claiming what he is, gives or does. Just as it isn't rational or logical to assume the tooth fairy magically collects people's teeth without first demonstrating it's existence.

Did his sacrifice for us enable us to be like him?

No, he was executed. Publicly, which is why he became a martyr. If the Romans simply made him...disappear, that should of been the end of it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Frodo, how exactly would one consider something if it didn't make sense? On what grounds? What would be the criteria? How would we map that data? You've tried to define your god to many people on this forum, if the only person who seems to understand it is you, that may be an issue that you need to deal with. Your personal god may make sense to you, but that doesn't mean that there's actually anything to it. You're probably just twisting yourself in knots.

[reverendjeremiah]

I like Frodo's view on politics..its his view on religion that makes me go...

[fr0d0]

Frodo, how exactly would one consider something if it didn't make sense? On what grounds? What would be the criteria? How would we map that data? You've tried to define your god to many people on this forum, if the only person who seems to understand it is you, that may be an issue that you need to deal with. Your personal god may make sense to you, but that doesn't mean that there's actually anything to it. You're probably just twisting yourself in knots.

Appeal to fictitious "no one else shares your view" when every Christian here does, as well as universally. I don't think the atheists here understand it either, if that's what you meant. Thanks for the free psychoanalisys either way. Seems rather a low blow.

Let me guess what you're talking about.. apologies if it's not.

Our current ontology bias, the one prevelant in modern society, is material (the ontology of X being what it means for X to exist). We are strongly science focussed, so we tend to think of existence in terms of what we can sense, rather what we can rationalise. A chair exists because we can touch, feel and see it. God doesn't exist because we can't sense him.

But what about a committee, a curriculum, havoc, a business... those things aren't evidenced materially. At what point does a business exist? Is it when the idea is concieved; premises bought; stock purchased; when it posseses a licence to trade? There isn't a material existence here, but a functional one.

So to map data we can look at function. That is where the criteria apply. Those are the grounds for consideration. That's how you make sense of it.

[The Grand Nudger]

The existence of a business is cut and dry Frodo, at least in any country with an even remotely passable set of laws. Bad analogy. Still unable to make your own case? Is this the business major theory of god? I want to buy stock in your immaterial business btw, it has to be the only show in town. I still find it hilarious that you're dead set on bullshitting your way into sort of christian majority, as if such a thing exists. Why don't we limit ourselves to arguing for one non-existent thing at a time?

"God doesn't exist because we can't sense him" would be fine, except that there are many things which we cannot sense (without machines) which plainly do exist. Until you have something of substance, there is nothing to consider.

The idea that the function of god is how we would map out the data concerning god falls flat on its face. There would have to be a god before function could be determined. If we were to allow function to provide a sort of indirect observation that function would have to align itself to some actual observation. For example, if the function of god was to save human beings and bring their spirit closer to itself, one would need to observe a spirit. If it were to punish the wicked, one would have to show that the wicked are punished along the lines drawn in a manner that is beyond our control or ability. If it were to create us, one would need to show that we were in fact created. See, it's not difficult to think these things up, and you should know that, since that's what classical apologetics are all about, start to finish.

Merely stating that "the function is the map" or that "Our ability to know god comes from understanding of his/our function" without any justification is trash. Back it up or drop it.

When you complain that atheists "just don't get it" you're only complaining that they don't get you. Cry me a river. Whatever arguments you feel you have for or against any particular christian belief are meaningless the minute we disengage you and speak to the next theist in line. You all need to get your shit together before you put it on the table.

Ultimately I do agree with the op, in that overall the concept of god is unintelligible when taken without dogma. The theist adds plenty of this and so their god is well defined. Unfortunately for them the definition is utter garbage. Can I imagine the unimaginable and then declare that it doesn't exist? No. But I don't have to. Theists have books that have that pretty much taken care of, and those I can take line by line and at the end confidently call bullshit.

[downbeatplumb]

But what about a committee, a curriculum, havoc, a business... those things aren't evidenced materially. At what point does a business exist? Is it when the idea is concieved; premises bought; stock purchased; when it posseses a licence to trade? There isn't a material existence here, but a functional one.

So are you saying that god 'only has a functional existance'.

or in other words.

'God does not in fact exist, but the idea is usefull'

[Captain Scarlet]

You completely miss the point, but that is to be expected because you don't understand the subject you're objecting to, which is the point.

Theism is vacuous, an empty bag of tricks based on obtuse reasoning and with meaningless definitions. Try to accuse me of missing the point if you like, but it won't make your position and argument any more credible, especially when you never present a single argument in favour of your position.

It's rational if you have adopted an irrational position. That is: materialism over function as your descriptor for everything. You flail at knocking down something you see as woo and subsequenty fail to see what the rational point that POV is making.

Moving the goalposts and creating a straw man. You clearly stated that atheism was irrational because "it is formed from a lack of understanding of something". Now it is apparently irrational because it has to subscribe to materialism. There are atheists who do not subscribe to materialism at least in it's most narrow definitions. But then you probably don't understand as you believe magic and mysticism can be rational. As for flailing I have presented a short version of an argument for the meaningless of theism and you've presented diddly squat, yet again.

[fr0d0]

A business's existence is cut and dried Rhythm, in several ways, but it is never existant from sensual experience, as you are uniquely demanding of this subject. You are happy to have business defined by function, whereas you refuse to understand God from function. Therin lies the dissonance.

Point 1. "Until you have something of substance, there is nothing to consider."

So how is a business 'substance'? before it exists or after its function is defined?

Point 2. "If we were to allow function to provide a sort of indirect observation that function would have to align itself to some actual observation."

We observe what's in the universe to have certain function. To make sense of the universe, we apply God. God is that answer.

You might propose another answer. This is the subject in hand: function & not material.

" For example, if the function of god was to save human beings and bring their spirit closer to itself, one would need to observe a spirit. If it were to punish the wicked, one would have to show that the wicked are punished along the lines drawn in a manner that is beyond our control or ability. If it were to create us, one would need to show that we were in fact created. See, it's not difficult to think these things up, and you should know that, since that's what classical apologetics are all about, start to finish. "

All of which we can see to be true from a Christian perspective, so you have proved it.

---

You completely miss the point, but that is to be expected because you don't understand the subject you're objecting to, which is the point.

Theism is vacuous, an empty bag of tricks based on obtuse reasoning and with meaningless definitions. Try to accuse me of missing the point if you like, but it won't make your position and argument any more credible, especially when you never present a single argument in favour of your position.

A bag full of fallacies there. What about the many conversations we've had where I did actually convincingly dismiss your many propositioons? I guess you've reduced this to insults and have given up trying.

It's rational if you have adopted an irrational position. That is: materialism over function as your descriptor for everything. You flail at knocking down something you see as woo and subsequenty fail to see what the rational point that POV is making.

Moving the goalposts and creating a straw man. You clearly stated that atheism was irrational because "it is formed from a lack of understanding of something". Now it is apparently irrational because it has to subscribe to materialism.

Yes: it is a lack of understanding of the subject, which isn't material but function based.

There are atheists who do not subscribe to materialism at least in it's most narrow definitions. But then you probably don't understand as you believe magic and mysticism can be rational. As for flailing I have presented a short version of an argument for the meaningless of theism and you've presented diddly squat, yet again.

I don't at all believe that magic and mysticism can be rational. And I know atheists can be many things. What I'm discussing here specifically is the materialist perspective, as that is the only opposition that I see presented.

You say I've proved diddly squat, which is nice. But you have no reasoning to support that. So we are forced to disregard your statement.

[Epimethean]

God is a business. I can see that: Financially profitable, logically bankrupt, kept afloat by the same sort of people who loved Charles Atlas because he promised to keep them from ever having sand kicked in their faces again.