putting religion in it's proper place

[Scott Mayers]

I think i speak for all atheists when i say, a reasonable person who understands knowledge will never believe in anything for which they cannot see the evidence themselves...

I agree. And that's why refusing to look at the evidence is so self-defeating. It betrays that Atheism is merely a wish, not any evidence-concerned belief at all.

Look, I told you that I don't talk about others I KNOW. So given you have the superior high ground on 'faith', trust that I know and have had real involvement in the various authors you speak of with participation of debate. I AM very well read and you are pushing to get me to divuldge personal information, something that I will NOT do unless I feel it is limited to me and that I HAVE read as well as UNDERSTOOD the sources you think I lack invested time in.

There is a tactic commonly used by lawyers defending corporate clients on trial where they know that their clients are likely guilty: Overburden the discovery of evidence so that it delays the process indefinitely. If the prosecution wants a simple particular piece of paper, for instance, the defense might give them a whole storage unit worth of mostly useless paper that the prosecution is required to read. For religious arguers, this is what you are doing here: demand that there is still MORE 'evidence' that I must gleen through in order to definitively and fairly rule out religion. But in this case, religious material is endless and impossible to cover for just ONE religion, let alone all.

Also, you disrespect FORMAL logic where sometimes a single case suffices to justify tossing out the whole.
Example:
(1) The sources of religious 'scripture' are merely books written by real people no different than a novel or some textbook
(2) The underlying demand of the religious is to whether something called, 'God' is a fact or not.
(3) And the kind of evidence you have about the existence of this God is OF these fallible forms of literary interpretation
(4) But not even 'official' written documents today can prove nor disprove the literal FACTS claimed in them exist. This includes formal legal documents of 'fact' or to socially accepted declarations, like whether 6 Million Jews died or not, contrary to fact that this 'official' truth of 6 million Jews died. [This is how the Holocaust denier would rationally attempt to contest the literal validity of 'evidence', for instance.]
(5) Fact of any history are 'reconstructions' from what we know today. So while it is believable that people die that lends some justice to gamble in the claim about the 6 million people to POSSIBLY die, a historical assertion about people flying in some possible source lacks even THIS kind of reconstructibility.

(Conclusion)Thus, no amount of written sources that assert historical validity about phenomena we do not literally witness as even possible, have to be treated as unable to confirm nor deny FACTS but lends weight to it being extremely unlikely.

Note too that if one asserts claims about some whole, like if someone asserted that they NEVER lied in their life, ...all it takes is ONE instance to catch the person in a lie to dismiss this logically. So if you asserted for instance that the bible is the literal inerrant book of god that does not lie or deceive as a whole, all it would take is to demonstrate ONE asserted claim to be false or deceptive to justify dismissing the whole.

Why should you think it rational for one to STILL look for other evidence beyond this point? You are acting like Trump, who in turn likely has Brian Greene's "48 Laws of Power" in mind to the tactic of merely DENYING that you accept the obvious truth against all logic to justify the delusion that no proof will be satisfactory. The election is rigged, he would claim. And if he finds one provide doubt about this, they MUST be one of the enemy in disguise (because it COULD be possible, right?). So he dismisses the credibity of the person doubting as qualified any longer because he fired him and so cannot possibly 'qualify' without being on pay roll.

This rationale is cyclic and never ending. And so don't push. If you were just talking about taking your Christianity as a mere set of ideals you hold WITHOUT concern to whether the LITERAL parts are mapped to a specific reality, I would not be concened....and why many 'liberal' religiouns ae more about a philosophy BASED on the character of Jesus. Why does it matter that this being is real unless those DEMANDING this is significant is to have some practical justification for them to behave in some suspicious way, like to declare they have a 'right' to some specific property because their LITERAL 'GOD' decrees it. In this way, it is an easy to prove that those espousing such literalism is intending to use their literalist argument for some POLITICAL justification and not some compassionate concern to 'save the souls' of others.

[Scott Mayers]

Religion is just the hopes and dreams of those most fearful of death, that believe themselves worthy of nothing less that everlasting life, usually hypocrites with their free pass. Historically they've seen it as the "power" they so rightfully deserve, that is achieved passive aggressively, that has no proof of it being divine whatsoever. So largely religions are pipe dreams based upon fear.

The only Religion I have any real respect for is Buddhism.

The kinds of 'religion' that is more about embracing the lessons taught rather than to focus on whether they are literal Gods that must be respected turns these types of beliefs into a 'philosophy' only. I have no problem with them. But note that there are distinct kinds of Buddhism to which some ARE religoius, like that of the Daliah Lama, versus the material set of sources that are only concerned to help live life here on Earth without concern to believing a real Buddha existed, such as Zen Buddhism. I'm for the latter but, while technically not as harmful as other forms, not for the former.

[Advocate]

[quote=SpheresOfBalance post_id=482462 time=1606754001 user_id=6407]
Religion is just the hopes and dreams of those most fearful of death, that believe themselves worthy of nothing less that everlasting life, usually hypocrites with their free pass. Historically they've seen it as the "power" they so rightfully deserve, that is achieved passive aggressively, that has no proof of it being divine whatsoever. So largely religions are pipe dreams based upon fear.

The only Religion I have any real respect for is Buddhism.
[/quote]

Buddhism has a philosophical aspect but many of it's precepts are still dogmatic nonsense.

[Greatest I am]

Religion is just the hopes and dreams of those most fearful of death, that believe themselves worthy of nothing less that everlasting life, usually hypocrites with their free pass. Historically they've seen it as the "power" they so rightfully deserve, that is achieved passive aggressively, that has no proof of it being divine whatsoever. So largely religions are pipe dreams based upon fear.

The only Religion I have any real respect for is Buddhism.

A good choice as they, like Gnostic Christians like me, put man above god, in recognition that all the gods are man made.

Seeking knowledge and wisdom makes sense as compared seeking what a moral person can only discern as a genocidal satanic Yahweh.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Religion is just the hopes and dreams of those most fearful of death, that believe themselves worthy of nothing less that everlasting life, usually hypocrites with their free pass. Historically they've seen it as the "power" they so rightfully deserve, that is achieved passive aggressively, that has no proof of it being divine whatsoever. So largely religions are pipe dreams based upon fear.

The only Religion I have any real respect for is Buddhism.

Buddhism has a philosophical aspect but many of it's precepts are still dogmatic nonsense.

There is a lot more dogmatic garbage in the god religions, like Christianity and Islam, than in the religions that seek knowledge and wisdom.

Regards
DL

[Immanuel Can]

I AM very well read

You've read the Theists? Which ones? I'm happy to discuss what you've found.

...you are pushing to get me to divuldge personal information,

Not a bit. You did voluntarily use your own name, but when you pointed out that this would violate confidences with other people, I said no more about that at all...despite the fact that I remain interested in what led you to Atheism, and what experiences you've had. I think you'll find that I've "pushed" for nothing at all.

But on a helpful note, this is why so many of us think it wise to opt for a pseudonym, and so few opt to use their own names. Some folks mistake that for hiding, but it' really that by not telling people exactly who you are, you can be more free to be explicit without violating any confidences or putting anyone else at risk. And that's a better way to go.

But in this case, religious material is endless and impossible to cover for just ONE religion, let alone all.

Two points are well worth making here. Firstly, the material is not "endless." Not at all. If you want to know a particular religion, just read its most sacred book. In one summer, I read the Koran, the Dhammapada, the Gita, and the Tao, and had lots of time for reading other things. If you want to know about Christianity, it's even simpler: just read the gospels. Because if Jesus is not who He said He is, then the rest is utterly immaterial. Christianity stands or falls on Him. And that's a check you could do in a week or two of casual reading time.

Heck, just do what I did, when I wanted to know: just read ONE gospel, and make up your mind for yourself.

The other point worth making is that if you do not do such an investigation, the rational thing to do is to have no opinion about them at all. The claim, "This stuff is too long/hard/much work/etc. to look at" does not rationalize the Atheist claim, "Therefore I reject it." It only rationalizes a suitably modest determination to hold to no opinion at all.

Most Atheism, I have found, is of this sort: minimal in knowledge, maximal in dismissal.

(1) The sources of religious 'scripture' are merely books written by real people no different than a novel or some textbook
(2) The underlying demand of the religious is to whether something called, 'God' is a fact or not.
(3) And the kind of evidence you have about the existence of this God is OF these fallible forms of literary interpretation
(4) But not even 'official' written documents today can prove nor disprove the literal FACTS claimed in them exist. This includes formal legal documents of 'fact' or to socially accepted declarations, like whether 6 Million Jews died or not, contrary to fact that this 'official' truth of 6 million Jews died. [This is how the Holocaust denier would rationally attempt to contest the literal validity of 'evidence', for instance.]
(5) Fact of any history are 'reconstructions' from what we know today. So while it is believable that people die that lends some justice to gamble in the claim about the 6 million people to POSSIBLY die, a historical assertion about people flying in some possible source lacks even THIS kind of reconstructibility.

Heh. Now who's trying to "load up" the "prosecution." Not me. I just explained how to handle the masses of info. But I'm happy to deal with any of these issues. Which shall we start with? Maybe this one...

(Conclusion)Thus, no amount of written sources that assert historical validity about phenomena we do not literally witness as even possible, have to be treated as unable to confirm nor deny FACTS but lends weight to it being extremely unlikely.

Actually, the use of written sources is quite routine in historiography. We would, in fact, have hardly any history worth having at all if we didn't have documents. They're a great source, because they don't morph over time, like memory does sometimes, but hold their form. So they're actually excellent testimony, whether in history or in a court of law.

But again: Christianity affirms miracles, but does not rest upon all the miracles. It rests on the character and identity of Jesus Christ, and the sole miracle of His resurrection. So I'd suggest you focus on those, so as to manage all the variables comfortably for yourself.

See? I'm not picking a fight with you, Scott. I'm helping you sort out the essentials.

[Greatest I am]

It rests on the character and identity of Jesus Christ, and the sole miracle of His resurrection. So I'd suggest you focus on those, so as to manage all the variables comfortably for yourself.

Reliance on a barbaric human sacrifice and the punishment of the innocent instead of the guilty.

Interesting. Do you see that as moral?

Do you see mankind's condemnation as justified and moral?

Regards
DL

[Immanuel Can]

Do you see mankind's condemnation as justified and moral?

Read for yourself...

“There is no righteous person, not even one;
There is no one who understands,
There is no one who seeks out God;
They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt;
There is no one who does good,
There is not even one.”
“Their throat is an open grave,
With their tongues they keep deceiving,”
“The venom of asps is under their lips”;
“Their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness”;
“Their feet are swift to shed blood,
Destruction and misery are in their paths,
And they have not known the way of peace.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God...

(Romans 1:10-19)

[Scott Mayers]

I AM very well read

You've read the Theists? Which ones? I'm happy to discuss what you've found.

The onus is on you to prove something, not me. I already demonstrated that you are suspect for being selective about when or where you accept logic I present. If I prove X and it doesnt' affect you or supports something you approve of elsewhere, you concur. But when I use the same logical form to another argument you don't like the conclusion to, you dismiss it and/or use some distraction or other common socio-political tactic to dismiss it.

I just gave you the example of "overburdening the disovery of evidence" as your tactic and you just asserted this wasn't the case curtly with a laugh, not to mention isolated the premises of an argument to a conclusion as though they were distinct.

The Atheist is not required to disprove you nor all the other beliefs in the world. All that makes an athiest even require a label at all is due to the ubiquitous imposition of religion that is imposed as a barrier to real freedoms being lost by the abuses of Kings who think we should respect their New Invisible wardrobe, blackmailing us to conform or be barred from our freedom to exist without shackles. You expect us to PROVE that your clothes are not real, and turn the secular lesson against this very kind of thinking by those like the Jesus Christ anecdotes were invented to dispell. You keep demanding that you have MORE and MORE evidence without respecting the meaning of 'evidence'.

You are playing BULLY POLITICS, not debating LOGICALLY.

If you want to play, begin by defining what 'religion' means with appropriate genus-specie definition, given it is YOU who is trying to sell it.

[Greatest I am]

Do you see mankind's condemnation as justified and moral?

Read for yourself...

“There is no righteous person, not even one;
There is no one who understands,
There is no one who seeks out God;
They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt;
There is no one who does good,
There is not even one.”
“Their throat is an open grave,
With their tongues they keep deceiving,”
“The venom of asps is under their lips”;
“Their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness”;
“Their feet are swift to shed blood,
Destruction and misery are in their paths,
And they have not known the way of peace.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God...

(Romans 1:10-19)

That incompetent creator god of yours sure screws up our natures eh?

Do you really feel that you have to or can justify yourself to a satanic genocidal god?

What do you find compelling in a satanic genocidal god and his homophobic and misogynous religion?

Is it as compelling as what the S.S. had for Hitler?

Regards
DL

[Immanuel Can]

I AM very well read

You've read the Theists? Which ones? I'm happy to discuss what you've found.

The onus is on you to prove something, not me.

Interesting. So you haven't actually read any Theists.

I see. Why not try? How about just one?

I just gave you the example of "overburdening the disovery of evidence" as your tactic and you just asserted this wasn't the case...

Well, because it wasn't.

I pointed out to you the solution: that you don't have to read everything, so you' re not "overburdened" in your "discovery" at all. I pointed out that you could read a very limited amount, and still get all the evidence you would need. So why not do it? I've made it easy for you.

Meanwhile, I've been reading the Atheists. So why would I suppose you to be "overburdened" by doing exactly what I have already done?

The Atheist is not required to disprove you nor all the other beliefs in the world.

You weren't asked to. And you don't need to. As I said, all you need to do is to examine the key evidence. It's all very doable.

But as it happens, Atheism has its own burden of proof, one far bigger than it can bear. That's because it contains a claim that no Gods exist. So it has to prove that. Otherwise, it should be merely agnostic, and say, "I have nothing upon which to decide either way."

So why aren't you agnostic? On what do you base your Atheism, Scott?

If you want to play, begin by defining what 'religion' means with appropriate genus-specie definition, given it is YOU who is trying to sell it.

Wow. I rarely get to see three completely wrong things in one sentence. That's impressive. But okay.

My answer: 1. I don't want to play, 2. "Religion" is an Atheist concept with no fixed definition, and 3. I would never sell "religion."

[Immanuel Can]

That incompetent creator god of yours sure screws up our natures eh?

Jesus said:

"But I tell you that for every careless word that people speak, they will give an account of it on the day of judgment." (Matthew 12:36)

[Greatest I am]

That incompetent creator god of yours sure screws up our natures eh?

Jesus said:

"But I tell you that for every careless word that people speak, they will give an account of it on the day of judgment." (Matthew 12:36)

You spoke of all the defects your genocidal p**** of a god builds into us, and I agreed w8ht you on his incompetence in creating us to be what he wants us to be.

You have been unjustly judged and do not seem to care as all you seem to have is fear.

That fear is what has corrupted your moral sense into adoring a satanic genocidal p**** of a god.

Get your head out of your god.

Regards
DL

[Immanuel Can]

That incompetent creator god of yours sure screws up our natures eh?

Jesus said:

"But I tell you that for every careless word that people speak, they will give an account of it on the day of judgment." (Matthew 12:36)

You spoke of...

You spoke of your own judgment. As Jesus said, "For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

And that I may not induce you to make it worse for yourself than it already is, I will speak to you no more.

[Scott Mayers]

You've read the Theists? Which ones? I'm happy to discuss what you've found.

The onus is on you to prove something, not me.

Interesting. So you haven't actually read any Theists.

I see. Why not try? How about just one?

You first!


Wait, ...are you NOT a 'theist'?

I just gave you the example of "overburdening the disovery of evidence" as your tactic and you just asserted this wasn't the case...

Well, because it wasn't.

I pointed out to you the solution: that you don't have to read everything, so you' re not "overburdened" in your "discovery" at all. I pointed out that you could read a very limited amount, and still get all the evidence you would need. So why not do it? I've made it easy for you.

Meanwhile, I've been reading the Atheists. So why would I suppose you to be "overburdened" by doing exactly what I have already done?

Great. Now if you are a 'theist', tell me what a "theist" is, I'll read it, and then get back to you and we can discuss it. Fair enough?

The Atheist is not required to disprove you nor all the other beliefs in the world.

You weren't asked to. And you don't need to. As I said, all you need to do is to examine the key evidence. It's all very doable.

But as it happens, Atheism has its own burden of proof, one far bigger than it can bear. That's because it contains a claim that no Gods exist. So it has to prove that. Otherwise, it should be merely agnostic, and say, "I have nothing upon which to decide either way."

So why aren't you agnostic? On what do you base your Atheism, Scott?

I am 'agnostic' here and now: I don't know who you are but want to be enlighted by your wisdom. And given I haven't read anything about a theist, tell me about yourself. Pretend that YOU are an author that I'm reading on here and now and tell me what you know so that I can satisfy your expectations. I am curious to learn what this concept of "theism" or "religion" is. If this is too difficult, tell me something much more basic, like what is a "God"?

If you want to play, begin by defining what 'religion' means with appropriate genus-specie definition, given it is YOU who is trying to sell it.

Wow. I rarely get to see three completely wrong things in one sentence. That's impressive. But okay.

My answer: 1. I don't want to play, 2. "Religion" is an Atheist concept with no fixed definition, and 3. I would never sell "religion."

Then tell me something,... anything. I mean, I'm here to appeal to your expectation to read a "Theist". So, let's re-begin. I'll begin by opening your next post here once you've published....