The only way to prove atheists wrong is to prove that God exists.
Okay, it's true than there is a tendency for atheism to be about acknowledging God simply by their focused rejection of God.
But, there are many others for whom that term doesn't apply at all.
How about "Irrelevance" - God is beyond human understanding. She, He, It really doesn't matter in the real scheme of our lives.
To imagine a super human god worried about human affairs is nothing but a narcissistic reflection.
To take the notion of Heaven seriously is a nightmare beyond description.
There is no rational, and for the spiritually attuned introspective, no visceral substance to the notion,
once you start to become acquainted with the realities of our physical world, deep time and how we arrived at this juncture in our planet's evolutionary story, all your blood soaked holy Abrahamic tribal text are just that, blood soaked literature, spiritual art, and that's about it. Most certainly not the reflection of a being we can't comprehend. Your Jesus is a saint and wonderful brother, Your God is figment of your imagination. And that's all folks.
Nope, we just have to prove that they don't have the ability they assert that they have. Here's how that works, and it will sound very familiar to you.
THEISM: When theists make god claims, we reasonably ask them to prove that their chosen authority, typically some holy book, is qualified to deliver credible answers on the very largest of questions. {Which right there is a red flag warning - these are holy tribal books, books who's first priority was in keeping the tribe together in a difficult world. But GOD is the fuk beyond those petty human issues, don't you think? - Can you imagine that?}
ATHEISM: When atheists make their claims, we reasonably ask them to prove that their chosen authority, typically human reason, is qualified to deliver credible answers on the very largest of questions. {Here you get way the hell ahead of yourself. The INTELLECTUAL ENLIGHTENMENT was about realizing that learning about this physical world we are part of demands observation based learning. Measurements, repeatable experiments and observations, and dedication to utmost honesty in taking measurements, reporting results and when representing the world and ideas of their intellectual opponents.}
Neither party can prove the qualifications of their chosen authority. Thus, both parties are faith based believers. Thus, nobody wins.
{This is unmitigated bullshit. The one party demand obedience to ancient tribal leaders and their oh so limited world outlook.
The other side says - SHOW ME!
One side likes stoning opponents into silence,
the other side listens and learns from them.
...
The hell there is anything in common between the two ! ! !}
All that I've done above is apply the very same challenge to both parties and their claims in a fair even handed manner.
{Nonsense you created a tailor made straw man that deliberately ignores who we really are. But then how would a 'faithful' have any clue what goes on in our minds.} The name for this process is...
Reason.
{Bullshit, it was how to create straw men, while ignoring the real questions.}
What trips up many atheists is that they confuse reason with ideology.
Similarly the only way for Christians to prove themselves not deluded is to prove Christ existed.
Ah, so we're back to the burden of proof already, eh?
I hear you saying that theists bear that burden for their claims, but atheists don't bear any such burden.
Yes, atheists are making a claim, even though they often don't realize it. They are claiming that human reason is qualified to deliver credible answers on the very largest of questions (scope of god theories){NO, NO, NO, we couldn't care less about "god theories" or "god's theory"! We are concerned with understanding how our real four dimensional world functions, and how this fantastic planet of our's got here. Oh and that's a perfect example of you making up bullshit for your own convenience. . It's the same kind of claim theists make in regards to their holy books, and with the very same lack of proof.{lordie, lordie, lordie, so you're actually an impartial arbiter, hmmm my mistake and I thought you were a partisan, my, my. .
Tragically the only way for you to prove your points is to ...
Now if only you didn't so hideously misrepresent one side and what they actually believe.
Can someone tell me? Can you still call yourself a Christian if you don't believe in the resurrection?? How about rejectiing the virgin birth? Can you still be a Christian? Redemption? Salvation?
Anyone able to answer?
I really don't know. You'd have to ask a Church leader. I don't know what the obligations are for being a Christian beyond believing Jesus us your savior, whatever that means. . But, then, religion always has seemed weird to me. I can't make head or tail of it. It's too esoteric.
It means you've prone to delusion. What other answer would you expect from a humanist forum?
Ah, I would expect a forum about critical thinking, a center for rational inquiry, to request that you please prove your claim that Christianity equals being prone to delusion.
Your claim, your burden of proof. Let's see it.
If you believe in something that's never been proven to be true or to exist then your belief is delusional, by definition. That's all the proof anyone should need that anyone who embraces Christianity (or any supernatural religion) is prone to delusion.
Lois
Can someone tell me? Can you still call yourself a Christian if you don't believe in the resurrection?? How about rejectiing the virgin birth? Can you still be a Christian? Redemption? Salvation?
Anyone able to answer?
I really don't know. You'd have to ask a Church leader. I don't know what the obligations are for being a Christian beyond believing Jesus us your savior, whatever that means. . But, then, religion always has seemed weird to me. I can't make head or tail of it. It's too esoteric.
Notice how tanny refuses to answer
Except that human reason does deliver credible snswers and it's been proven over and over again.
Agreed. Human reason does obviously deliver credible answers on very many issues.
Except that being useful for one thing, or many things, does not prove usefulness for ALL THINGS, particularly the very largest of questions.
As example, holy books have proven useful for many things. The Bible is the most popular book of all time, so obviously a great many people have found enjoyment and meaning in reading it. Entire civilizations have been built upon this book. Billions of lives have revolved around it.
Does that automatically prove that the Bible is qualified to deliver credible answers on the very largest of questions? Obviously it does not.
I'm a very fast typist. Does that prove I can type the next best seller? Nope.
You're making a wild speculative leap from one thing, human scale issues, to something else entirely, the very largest of questions about the fundamental nature of all reality.
This unproven leap is the atheist faith I've been referring to. It's a faith so deep, so strong, so un-examined, that you don't even realize that you have this faith.
The only way to prove atheists wrong is to prove that God exists.
Okay, it's true than there is a tendency for atheism to be about acknowledging God simply by their focused rejection of God.
But, there are many others for whom that term doesn't apply at all.
How about "Irrelevance" - God is beyond human understanding. She, He, It really doesn't matter in the real scheme of our lives.
To imagine a super human god worried about human affairs is nothing but a narcissistic reflection.
To take the notion of Heaven seriously is a nightmare beyond description.
There is no rational, and for the spiritually attuned introspective, no visceral substance to the notion,
once you start to become acquainted with the realities of our physical world, deep time and how we arrived at this juncture in our planet's evolutionary story, all your blood soaked holy Abrahamic tribal text are just that, blood soaked literature, spiritual art, and that's about it. Most certainly not the reflection of a being we can't comprehend. Your Jesus is a saint and wonderful brother, Your God is figment of your imagination. And that's all folks.
Nope, we just have to prove that they don't have the ability they assert that they have. Here's how that works, and it will sound very familiar to you.
THEISM: When theists make god claims, we reasonably ask them to prove that their chosen authority, typically some holy book, is qualified to deliver credible answers on the very largest of questions. {Which right there is a red flag warning - these are holy tribal books, books who's first priority was in keeping the tribe together in a difficult world. But GOD is the fuk beyond those petty human issues, don't you think? - Can you imagine that?}
ATHEISM: When atheists make their claims, we reasonably ask them to prove that their chosen authority, typically human reason, is qualified to deliver credible answers on the very largest of questions. {Here you get way the hell ahead of yourself. The INTELLECTUAL ENLIGHTENMENT was about realizing that learning about this physical world we are part of demands observation based learning. Measurements, repeatable experiments and observations, and dedication to utmost honesty in taking measurements, reporting results and when representing the world and ideas of their intellectual opponents.}
Neither party can prove the qualifications of their chosen authority. Thus, both parties are faith based believers. Thus, nobody wins.
{This is unmitigated bullshit. The one party demand obedience to ancient tribal leaders and their oh so limited world outlook.
The other side says - SHOW ME!
One side likes stoning opponents into silence,
the other side listens and learns from them.
...
The hell there is anything in common between the two ! ! !}
All that I've done above is apply the very same challenge to both parties and their claims in a fair even handed manner.
{Nonsense you created a tailor made straw man that deliberately ignores who we really are. But then how would a 'faithful' have any clue what goes on in our minds.} The name for this process is...
Reason.
{Bullshit, it was how to create straw men, while ignoring the real questions.}
What trips up many atheists is that they confuse reason with ideology.
Similarly the only way for Christians to prove themselves not deluded is to prove Christ existed.
Ah, so we're back to the burden of proof already, eh?
I hear you saying that theists bear that burden for their claims, but atheists don't bear any such burden.
Yes, atheists are making a claim, even though they often don't realize it. They are claiming that human reason is qualified to deliver credible answers on the very largest of questions (scope of god theories){NO, NO, NO, we couldn't care less about "god theories" or "god's theory"! We are concerned with understanding how our real four dimensional world functions, and how this fantastic planet of our's got here. Oh and that's a perfect example of you making up bullshit for your own convenience. . It's the same kind of claim theists make in regards to their holy books, and with the very same lack of proof.{lordie, lordie, lordie, so you're actually an impartial arbiter, hmmm my mistake and I thought you were a partisan, my, my. .
Tragically the only way for you to prove your points is to ...
Now if only you didn't so hideously misrepresent one side and what they actually believe.
Please learn how to use the quote function, and please don't attribute words to me that I didn't write. Thanks.
The reason many atheist "movements" arose was a reaction to God being pushed in their faces all the time and even being used to discriminate. (Look how important religion is in elections). I have little interest in whether God exists or not. It is irrelevant to me and many other atheists other than the perils of the loony decisions made in His name, some of which do this day are killing and maiming people. And before you get all huffy about any particular God not doing that, pause and think about what has been done in the name of that God in the past and wonder if such "rational" religious thinking could repeat itself again sometime.
Sorry, this is standard issue atheist ideology dogma chanting.
Over the last century WAAAAAY more people have been killed by atheists in explicitly atheist regimes than by the religious.
And you could care less, and would never reference that historical fact unless someone forces you to do so.
This illustrates that you aren't interested in the subject of violence and oppression at all, unless those subjects can be used to honk the atheist ideology horn. If you're only interested in religious violence, you aren't actually interested in violence.
Next objection please.
The reason many atheist "movements" arose was a reaction to God being pushed in their faces all the time and even being used to discriminate. (Look how important religion is in elections). I have little interest in whether God exists or not. It is irrelevant to me and many other atheists other than the perils of the loony decisions made in His name, some of which do this day are killing and maiming people. And before you get all huffy about any particular God not doing that, pause and think about what has been done in the name of that God in the past and wonder if such "rational" religious thinking could repeat itself again sometime.
Sorry, this is standard issue atheist ideology dogma chanting.
Over the last century WAAAAAY more people have been killed by atheists in explicitly atheist regimes than by the religious.
And you could care less, and would never reference that historical fact unless someone forces you to do so.
This illustrates that you aren't interested in the subject of violence and oppression at all, unless those subjects can be used to honk the atheist ideology horn. If you're only interested in religious violence, you aren't actually interested in violence.
Next objection please.
That's right, totally ignore his point and go off on a wild goose chase of finger-pointing. It's about the only tool you have in your arsenal, isn't it? :)
And are you just enjoy trying to rub your religious bullshit in every face you can?
Is that question directed to me? If so, which "religious bullshit" of mine exactly are you referring to?
I'm not rubbing religion in anybody's face. I'm rubbing reason in your face.
What may be confusing you is that perhaps you think rejecting atheism is the same as embracing religion. I'm not rejecting atheism because I'm religious, because I'm not religious. I'm rejecting atheism because it's not a product of reason, but is instead just another faith based ideology.
Over the last century WAAAAAY more people have been killed by atheists in explicitly atheist regimes than by the religious.
And you could care less, and would never reference that historical fact unless someone forces you to do so.
This illustrates that you aren't interested in the subject of violence and oppression at all, unless those subjects can be used to honk the atheist ideology horn. If you're only interested in religious violence, you aren't actually interested in violence.
Next objection please.
Tanny has a way of taking interesting discussion and reducing them to his version of common wisdom. Soooooo many people have tried to tally up the death counts, but whomever does it always leaves something out. Be it percentage of population, inter-religious wars, religion motivated politics, labeling a war secular and by association claiming it is atheist motivated, just to scratch the surface. But don't bother trying to peel back layers, Tanny don't play that.
What may be confusing you is that perhaps you think rejecting atheism is the same as embracing religion. I'm not rejecting atheism because I'm religious, because I'm not religious. I'm rejecting atheism because it's not a product of reason, but is instead just another faith based ideology.
What may be confusing to you is thinking that your argument is relevant. If you and many, many others didn't bring up any references to theism at all - ever, I wouldn't even think about it. I deal with the realities of my life based upon experience guiding me to what I can expect to happen - regardless of whether some divine existence oversees it. Rationally the outcome seems to be the same for specific actions regardless of underlying beliefs. Ergo - underlying beliefs - religious or not make no difference. Or do you seriously believe that you can repeat the same thing over and over again and expect different results? There is a name for such a state of mind.
As for your last sentence, is there anything you don't reject? Let's hear about it - maybe we'll agree.
What may be confusing to you is thinking that your argument is relevant. If you and many, many others didn't bring up any references to theism at all - ever, I wouldn't even think about it. I deal with the realities of my life based upon experience guiding me to what I can expect to happen - regardless of whether some divine existence oversees it. Rationally the outcome seems to be the same for specific actions regardless of underlying beliefs. Ergo - underlying beliefs - religious or not make no difference. Or do you seriously believe that you can repeat the same thing over and over again and expect different results? There is a name for such a state of mind.
Thank you for that self absorbed rambling blah blah blah...
As for your last sentence, is there anything you don't reject?
Yep.
Let's hear about it - maybe we'll agree.
You're not working hard enough to make it worth explaining.
A bunch of people are now staring at me because I just hit myself on the forehead and shouted out "Are you ... kidding me?"
Thank you for clogging the thread with yet another one of your clever little remarks which add no substance of any kind to the discussion. I've tried to return the favor in kind.
Thank you for that self absorbed rambling blah blah ....
I take it you mean that isn't the answer you wanted and you didn't have a meaningful response.
When did I claim to be an academic?......
However, it's not going to be possible for me to read every book or article that generally science in some way......
I'm not an academic, but for 50 years I've been an avid watcher of shows like Charlie Rose, Netflix documentaries, and I hear pretty much every show NPR produces etc etc. I spend hours a day on educating myself.
A bunch of people are now staring at me because I just hit myself on the forehead and shouted out "Are you ... kidding me?"
Thank you for clogging the thread with yet another one of your clever little remarks which add no substance of any kind to the discussion. I've tried to return the favor in kind.
Clogging? I haven't seen anything on topic for the last page or so. Not since you started in. You try to turn every thread into your discussion about what reason is. You should be banned for that but we don't have the moderation we used to.
Except that human reason does deliver credible snswers and it's been proven over and over again.
Agreed. Human reason does obviously deliver credible answers on very many issues.
Except that being useful for one thing, or many things, does not prove usefulness for ALL THINGS, particularly the very largest of questions.
As example, holy books have proven useful for many things. The Bible is the most popular book of all time, so obviously a great many people have found enjoyment and meaning in reading it. Entire civilizations have been built upon this book. Billions of lives have revolved around it.
Does that automatically prove that the Bible is qualified to deliver credible answers on the very largest of questions? Obviously it does not.
I'm a very fast typist. Does that prove I can type the next best seller? Nope.
You're making a wild speculative leap from one thing, human scale issues, to something else entirely, the very largest of questions about the fundamental nature of all reality.
This unproven leap is the atheist faith I've been referring to. It's a faith so deep, so strong, so un-examined, that you don't even realize that you have this faith.
That's what all believers say. They have yet to show that expecting evidence of a god before embracing the claim is irrational--or a "faith."
Holy books may be useful for many things and a great many people find enjoyment in them. You can say the same about heroin. Both can damage your brain and kill you.
Spam Nazi line. Spam Nazi line
Spam Nazi line. Spam Nazi line
That's what all believers say. They have yet to show that expecting evidence of a god before embracing the claim is irrational--or a "faith."
Speaking for myself, it is not my intent that you accept any god claims.
Rather, I am suggesting you apply the very same process of challenge which you reasonably apply to theist authorities and claims to your own authorities and claims. That is, I'm suggesting you become loyal to your own chosen methodology.
Theists claim holy books are qualified to address the very largest of questions. Ok, challenge that, agreed. But don't stop there...
Atheists claim human reason is qualified to address the very largest of questions. Why not challenge this claim too?
You aren't a person of reason if you only challenge other people's claims and authorities. That's not reason, that's ideology, something else entirely.
Reason doesn't care who wins. Winning has nothing to do with reason. Reason isn't a weapon one uses to achieve an ego triumph, reason is a process one surrenders to. It's remarkably similar to faith in that way.
I'm not an academic, but for 50 years I've been an avid watcher of shows like Charlie Rose, Netflix documentaries, and I hear pretty much every show NPR produces etc etc. I spend hours a day on educating myself.
John, apparently you have some academic credentials beyond just a BA degree, and you think such credentials are very important, as is the lack of them.
Instead of just implying this, why not prove it with a series of careful, calm, thoughtful intelligent posts which display your advanced training in action.