Boring

This is all just so much talk. Let’s have Tanny and Lausten do a test. Each one will drive their cars on the expressway. Tanny, believing in Faith, will let go of the steering wheel and have faith that the outcome will be favorable to him. Lausten, believing in reason, and the science and physics that came from it, will NOT let go of the steering wheel because he has “faith” in science and knows what will happen. So let’s go and test each of these types of Faith. Tanny, you go first.

There seems to be a disconnect between professing to desire serious debate and taking the contents of a debate seriously. That seems to result in the boring dialog that was criticized in the OP.
What does this mean? Does it mean anything?
So I think we've pretty well established that you don't know what you are talking about. You say there are people doing something somewhere, but you can't produce any of these people. You just see an atheist and assume they haven't thought about how they arrived at their conclusions. You assume they worship at the altar of reason without knowing what it is.
Non-responsive dodging. Characterizing an argument offered in place of meeting the argument.
If this were a friendly conversation, I would set some ground rules. I would point out that every religion has a provision for not knowing everything. [=http://www.milepost100.com/AY_Proper24.html]Moses asked, but was not allowed to see the face of God.] Science does not claim to know anything with 100% certainty. It isn't really able to even measure what 100% is, so although scientists may use probabilities, they are always relative to what is known.
Again, non-responsive to the questions put to you. Hiding behind a wall of vague text.
I'm not "challenging" reason, I'm explaining what it is.
By not challenging reason, you are revealing you don't know what it is.
I don't challenge it with the same enthusiasm that I challenge theists, because they are not reasonable. They say things like, "I just know that I know" or "I know in my heart." Statements like that beg to be challenged.
More non-responsive dodging. The questions again are.... 1) Where is the proof that human reason is qualified to meaningfully address the very largest of questions? 2) Please explain why we shouldn’t challenge the chosen authority of atheists with the same enthusiasm with which we challenge the chosen authority of theists.
This is all just so much talk. Let's have Tanny and Lausten do a test. Each one will drive their cars on the expressway. Tanny, believing in Faith, will let go of the steering wheel and have faith that the outcome will be favorable to him. Lausten, believing in reason, and the science and physics that came from it, will NOT let go of the steering wheel because he has "faith" in science and knows what will happen. So let's go and test each of these types of Faith. Tanny, you go first.
This is just a huge pile of that stuff that comes out of the back end of cows. More pointless lazy thread clogging by people who can't be bothered to read what they want to debunk. 1) No where on the forum have I said I believe in faith. 2) I have been explicitly and specifically attempting to undermine the faith that atheism is built upon. So CuthbertJ, go back to the end of the line and sit down and be quiet until you have something of substance to add to the thread.

To get back on track, it seems to me that both theists and atheists function quite well in their everyday lives. Would it then be rationality suggest that their abilities to function in life are pretty much independent of their theism? In other words, real-world testing suggests that (a)theism is irrelevant to their everyday lives? This was the topic of the OP.
So, is God relevant to your every day life or not?
Are you concerned about anything more than your everyday life?
Do you believe that any God can change these things?
Can you influence God in your favor?
If not, why even worry about whether God exists?

Hi Tanny. I would like your view on the following statement.
How old is atheism? I am using the meaning that one does not believe in deities is an atheist.
It can be said that religion is 200,000 years old. Try and find a deity that is over 10,000 years old. So, there is no way that atheism can be built on a faith foundation. It is the other way around. Faith was built on atheist religions. Or put another way, religion in the beginning was doing nothing more than using reason and logic to create knowledge. Once the knowledge got controlled by greed (greedy religions and governments), faith was created.

Hi Tanny. I would like your view on the following statement.
Thank you.
How old is atheism? I am using the meaning that one does not believe in deities is an atheist.
Atheism is as old as theism it seems to me, using your definition.
So, there is no way that atheism can be built on a faith foundation.
Please prove that human reason is capable of delivering credible answers on the very largest of questions. If you can not provide such proof, but still declare yourself an atheist, you are a person of faith. This is not complicated. It's very simple. We say exactly the same thing about a theist who can't prove the qualifications of their holy book, but still they believe in it. All you need to do to get what I'm saying is apply the very same challenge to all points of view in an even handed manner. That process is called reason, intellectual honesty. Critical thinking guys. It's the theme of this site. Challenging theism while giving atheism a free pass is not critical thinking. That's ideology, something else altogether.
If not, why even worry about whether God exists?
Why are you worried about it? Why are you on this forum typing about the subject of god pretty much every day for who knows how long? This is not a personal slam, really it's not. I'm suggesting that the answer you seek is best found by examining your own relationship with the question. You will probably now claim that you don't really care, and it doesn't really matter etc, except the evidence of your own behavior shows that you do really care and it does really matter to you. That is, like most intelligent human beings you seek answers to the very largest questions. But no one can provide a proven answer. And so you make one up. And then your ego hijacks the answer and uses it for social competition agendas. There you go. Now you understand religion. Because you're doing it yourself, just under a different colored flag, that's all. No real difference.
Please prove that human reason is capable of delivering credible answers on the very largest of questions. If you can not provide such proof, but still declare yourself an atheist, you are a person of faith. This is not complicated. It's very simple. We say exactly the same thing about a theist who can't prove the qualifications of their holy book, but still they believe in it. All you need to do to get what I'm saying is apply the very same challenge to all points of view in an even handed manner. That process is called reason, intellectual honesty.
Ah, that's a little more clear, I see how you are connecting the two things now. Not being able to answer every question in the universe does not mean that I take things on faith. I don't know exactly where oxygen came from or exactly how my lungs work, but I keep breathing. I don't panic every time I exhale, wondering if inhaling will work this time, I just go about my day, knowing it's worked up until now. That's not faith. You are trying to call everything faith based on our not being able to explain every detail. That's not the same as believing God based on something a person wrote 3,000 years ago. I can demonstrate where a holy book came from with a high degree of accuracy and I can calculate a probability that what was written is true. I've never seen anyone part a sea by raising a stick in the air and there are laws of nature that prevent that. Determining that most likely didn't happen is not "exactly" the same as believing it's true. It's religion that breaks the rules of "even handedness". Religion says it's true because someone else said it's true and someone else said God said it and they feel it and they don't care about demonstrable evidence. That's not even handed, and it's not intellectually honest.

And now you provide a reason why so many answer you in the short quips you say you hate. You ignore any effort to engage in more thoughtful dialog with you unless it agrees with you. There were 4 other questions you failed to answer in my post. I won’t insist, as you so often do, that you answer them. I have no expectations of reasonable dialog.
On your present trajectory, you are at least in the enviable position of gaining a Godlike status. The forums have an ignore button.

Not being able to answer every question in the universe does not mean that I take things on faith.
What you take on faith is human reason's relevance to the very largest questions about the most fundamental nature of all reality (scope of god claims). If you wish to counter that claim, then please prove human reason's qualifications for addressing the very largest questions. Either you have proof, or you don't. If the later, you are a person of faith. Exact same equation we apply to theists.
It's religion that breaks the rules of "even handedness". Religion says it's true because someone else said it's true and someone else said God said it and they feel it and they don't care about demonstrable evidence. That's not even handed, and it's not intellectually honest.
I agree, so why are you replicating their mistakes? Where is the evidence that your chosen authority is qualified? I've asked this many times now, and every time you deliberately hide from the question, just as the theists I challenge do. I see no difference between you and them. My question is a very reasonable question, just as asking for evidence of a holy book's qualifications is reasonable. Why are you still dodging, dodging, dodging? Is that what critical thinkers do, dodge inconvenient questions??
And now you provide a reason why so many answer you in the short quips you say you hate. You ignore any effort to engage in more thoughtful dialog with you unless it agrees with you. There were 4 other questions you failed to answer in my post. I won't insist, as you so often do, that you answer them. I have no expectations of reasonable dialog. On your present trajectory, you are at least in the enviable position of gaining a Godlike status. The forums have an ignore button.
More empty personal ego blather clogging the threads.
Not being able to answer every question in the universe does not mean that I take things on faith.
What you take on faith is human reason's relevance to the very largest questions about the most fundamental nature of all reality (scope of god claims). If you wish to counter that claim, then please prove human reason's qualifications for addressing the very largest questions. Either you have proof, or you don't. If the later, you are a person of faith. Exact same equation we apply to theists.
It's religion that breaks the rules of "even handedness". Religion says it's true because someone else said it's true and someone else said God said it and they feel it and they don't care about demonstrable evidence. That's not even handed, and it's not intellectually honest.
I agree, so why are you replicating their mistakes? Where is the evidence that your chosen authority is qualified? I've asked this many times now, and every time you deliberately hide from the question, just as the theists I challenge do. I see no difference between you and them. My question is a very reasonable question, just as asking for evidence of a holy book's qualifications is reasonable. Why are you still dodging, dodging, dodging? Is that what critical thinkers do, dodge inconvenient questions?? Alright, we're done. I've answered your question every way 'til Tuesday. I've explained your false equivalency. Is the only answer you would accept is for me to say I take atheism on faith? Because I don't know what that means, so I guess you're just smarter than me. I've already said that what you are asking science to do can't be done. What more do you want?
Atheism is as old as theism it seems to me, using your definition.
That is not my intended thinking. Theism is around 10,000 years old. Started as animals and stars. Then evolved to part human and part animals. Ending up as human gods. This places theism as being around only 5% as long as atheism. The NT has only been around 1% of religious time. The buddha religion for example has no god, deity or creator.
Please prove that human reason is capable of delivering credible answers on the very largest of questions. If you can not provide such proof, but still declare yourself an atheist, you are a person of faith.
That depends on your viewpoint. I know theists who see god’s miracles every week. They pray for healing and someone gets healed. God answered the prayers. To the theist that is all the proof that is needed. Therefore, we cannot say that a theist does not have proof. Unless you want to create a circle argument. Point being, what is original in the holy book? Most of the book evolved upon older religions. I try to never get into discussions about the holy book. It is the most miss-read book ever. I like Jesus, but I really think Jesus was an atheist based upon his gnostic teachings. I had that reinforced when I read The Lost Gospel and was able to understand his political ambitions.
This is not complicated. It's very simple.
I agree. the simplest way for me to understand faith is to understand religion. And going back to the beginning god was a word that meant "knowledge". Therefore most of the timeline of religion was based upon science and reason. Which created knowledge. Knowledge is the common factor of all the gods. To have or control some sort of knowledge. One has to ask, where did this knowledge originate? You're right, if you start from the beginning it is quite simple.
Alright, we're done. I've answered your question every way 'til Tuesday.
You've not answered it at all. You've relentlessly dodged the question, refusing to address it directly.
Is the only answer you would accept is for me to say I take atheism on faith? Because I don't know what that means, so I guess you're just smarter than me.
Probably not smarter, probably just older. Should you be a twenty something, know I didn't get any of this at that age either. What does "taking atheism on faith" mean? It means that you accept the relevance of human reason to issues the scale of god claims without questioning. You assume without proof that human reason is qualified to address what is, or is not, the most fundamental nature of all reality, an arena you can't define in even the most basic manner. You blindly accept the qualifications of human reason in the same way a fundamentalist Christian blindly accepts the qualifications of the Bible. To be fair to you, many very smart and famous people do the very same thing, and have been doing so for centuries. So you are not alone, but in some very good company. Thus, I apologize for giving you such a hard time, which is my own little personal problem more than anything else.
I've already said that what you are asking science to do can't be done. What more do you want?
What more do you want? Do you want to continue with a faith based relationship with reason? If yes, just say so, and I will respect that and walk away, just as I would with a Jehovah's Witness. If you instead dodge and weave and obfuscate to try to muddle up the decision beyond recognition, then I'll assume you're requesting more of the same from here.
It means that you accept the relevance of human reason to issues the scale of god claims without questioning.
That's not even a sentences.
So you are not alone
Is this about loneliness? Are you lonely Tanny? It's okay.
It means that you accept the relevance of human reason to issues the scale of god claims without questioning.
1) You accept the relevance of human reason... 2) To issues the scale of god claims... 3) Without questioning. To which we might add... 4) You're starting to see that you're a person of faith, but... 5) That conflicts with a wonderful personal identity you have constructed for yourself, so... 6) You're endlessly dodging and weaving in an attempt to keep that pleasing self identity safe, and... 7) This is completely utterly normal, and... 8) To your credit, you aren't running and hiding, which elevates you above most.
3) Without questioning.
I have very specifically refuted this over and over. It's a pretty key block in the tower you've built. A tower that is teetering.
I have very specifically refuted this over and over. It's a pretty key block in the tower you've built. A tower that is teetering.
More clogging of the thread with empty characterizations posing as arguments. See? You desperately want a victory, but you're not willing to work for it. You want to just declare victory, and then everyone should believe you, as a matter of faith. You haven't refuted anything. You haven't even directly addressed the challenge I've repeatedly presented. Where is the proof that human reason is qualified to comment upon the very largest of questions? Why should the chosen authority of atheist's be immune from challenge? You never address any of this. You just keep clogging the thread with distractions.