The reason why Christianity seems so unrealistic and naive

[PatternRec]

Quote from Ricter:

It is not reasonable, or unreasonable, that the word "dog" represents a certain four-legged, mammalian entity. It's arbitrary, ie. it's merely agreed upon.

Read back I bit. I think you are arguing a different point altogether.

As I said, the symbols you can distinguish via cognitive faculties. But if I say, "the dog waxed lyrical" what does that mean? You can through cognitive ability recognize most or all of the words. But when they are strung together what does it mean? How do you go about understanding it?

You reason it through.

As I said, your ability to understand is a function of reason.

 

[PatternRec]

Quote from Ricter:

With this I agree. The foundation of atheism is not evidence (as defined by science), it is faith.

You can't be serious. Faith in what? That unsubstantiated theist claims are untrue? You're presupposing that theist claims are true but atheists are having faith that they are untrue though they haven't actually set out to disprove them. As if they can be disproved without ever being proven.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from PatternRec:

Read back I bit. I think you are arguing a different point altogether.

As I said, the symbols you can distinguish via cognitive faculties. But if I say, "the dog waxed lyrical" what does that mean? You can through cognitive ability recognize most or all of the words. But when they are strung together what does it mean? How do you go about understanding it?

You reason it through.

As I said, your ability to understand is a function of reason.

Quite possible, the different point point ; ). I'm getting a bit schnockered, so I think you'll soon have the best of me.

I understand your statement because I understand the rules of English (the Game of English, if you will), and I apply the verb (modified by "lyrical") to the noun. Reason tells us nothing at this point, we're still in the realm of rules alone. Now, does the statement make "sense", ie. is it reasonable? To answer that we begin playing a different game. Will we play the game of science, compelling your statement to satisfy the definition of evidence, ie. five-sense replicable? Or will we play the game of religion, ie. "I feel dogs can communicate, and perhaps even lyrically"?

 

[Ricter]

Quote from PatternRec:

You can't be serious. Faith in what? That unsubstantiated theist claims are untrue? You're presupposing that theist claims are true but atheists are having faith that they are untrue though they haven't actually set out to disprove them. As if they can be disproved without ever being proven.

I'm not presupposing theist claims are true, no. I believe those also to be faith, accepting for the moment science's definition of what is "not faith".

 

[unretired]

There was this parasite
on a Flea
on a dog
in a forest
on a landmass
on a planet
in a solar system
in a galaxy

This tiny parasite claimed there is no God and that it's knowledge was superior to those claiming there is a God.

People fail to realize that many people claiming there is a God actually have sufficient proof beyond blind faith.

While the numbers of people are substantially larger who claim there is a God that haven't any viable experience ...
those who do claim so with viable experiences have every right to believe as they do.

 

[PatternRec]

Quote from Ricter:

Quite possible, the different point point ; ). I'm getting a bit schnockered, so I think you'll soon have the best of me.

I understand your statement because I understand the rules of English (the Game of English, if you will), and I apply the verb (modified by "lyrical") to the noun. Reason tells us nothing at this point, we're still in the realm of rules alone. Now, does the statement make "sense", ie. is it reasonable? To answer that we begin playing a different game. Will we play the game of science, compelling your statement to satisfy the definition of evidence, ie. five-sense replicable? Or will we play the game of religion, ie. "I feel dogs can communicate, and perhaps even lyrically"?

Point taken. And we're on the same page. Once we get past the the rules which require cognition, we now have to engage some form of reason.

I could be speaking metaphorically in which case neither science or religious point of view will help to understand it. One would still require more. Reason dictates that requirement.

So if I now say, "The dog waxed lyrical when he was in front of the window watching the cat skulk past the flower bed. I couldn't get him to shut up until I closed the blinds."

Reason now dictates that the most reasonable understanding is that I was speaking metaphorically about the dog and since dogs bark as a form of communication, that's what likely happened. And it barked in a very excited manner.

There are no rules that govern understanding. That is purely the realm of reason. Only rules to standardize the best way to assist in understanding.

Think of it this way... bibles have the same words and sentences for a given translation, but various interpretations. Why? Various forms of reason are used to comprehend it.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from PatternRec:


So if a scientist says, "all this complexity and patterns, gee the universe appears designed." Great. No assertion here because of the word "appears." He might get a proper ribbing from his colleagues. But most pioneering and inquiring minds do.

jem ,as usual, is fos. we have been through this many times with him. his nobel winning scientist that he claims supports fine tuning and therefore intelligent design very clearly says "it looks fine tuned but its not".
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=184731&perpage=6&highlight=appears designed but its not&pagenumber=16

in his own words:

Physicist Leonard Susskind Rejects Intelligent Design
Stanford University theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind rejects the idea of "intelligent design" as a theory for the origins of the universe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDgzRIiQ4b8

 

[Ricter]

Quote from unretired:

There was this parasite
on a Flea
on a dog
in a forest
on a landmass
on a planet
in a solar system
in a galaxy

This tiny parasite claimed there is no God and that it's knowledge was superior to those claiming there is a God.

People fail to realize that many people claiming there is a God actually have sufficient proof beyond blind faith.

While the numbers of people are substantially larger who claim there is a God that haven't any viable experience ...
those who do claim so with viable experiences have every right to believe as they do.

I think the argument revolves around "proof", ie. what is proof. And while I don't know if God believers have the "right" to believe as they do, I acknowledge that their belief is something that we're not going to change anytime soon. That is evidence all should agree (even grudgingly) on. : )

 

[PatternRec]

Quote from unretired:

There was this parasite
on a Flea
on a dog
in a forest
on a landmass
on a planet
in a solar system
in a galaxy

This tiny parasite claimed there is no God and that it's knowledge was superior to those claiming there is a God.

People fail to realize that many people claiming there is a God actually have sufficient proof beyond blind faith.

While the numbers of people are substantially larger who claim there is a God that haven't any viable experience ...
those who do claim so with viable experiences have every right to believe as they do.

Every person has a right to believe whatever they believe. No one has a right nor can take that away from them. Whether their experience is viable or not.

And there's no superiority claim. Those who say there is no god, do so based on the lack of any proof produced by those who say there is as they define it. Not everyone defines the same god. Go through history, travel around the world. Even in Christianity there are several gods, each with the same name, but having different attributes effectively making them distinct. It's so much so, that unless a certain congregation is ecumenical, they each declare the other heretical and keep to themselves.

Let's be real. If theists can't agree on which god is which based on a lack of evidence which would conclusively determine the answer for themselves and bring unity, what does an atheist have to work with?

 

[jem]

Quote from PatternRec:

You can't be serious. Faith in what? That unsubstantiated theist claims are untrue? You're presupposing that theist claims are true but atheists are having faith that they are untrue though they haven't actually set out to disprove them. As if they can be disproved without ever being proven.

Saying you know there is no God is far different than saying you doubt theists have it right.

Saying God does not exist -- takes faith and it is a bit nuts if you think you an prove it.

Saying you doubt theists have it right is a rational position to take.