Ask God for Me

[2PhiloVoid]

If they're only convincing for you, then why should anyone take them seriously at all? Seems like you just rendered any kind of knowledge or belief claims both as effectively relative and needing no basis beyond individual conviction

But as for the reasons

1)I could predict there will be an earthquake this year and it could happen, does that mean I have special powers? Jesus getting something right is not the same as him actually predicting to the year, unless you can substantiate such a claim

2) The New Testament documents being reliable in the sense that we can conclude the authors aren't lying, is not the same as reliable in the truth of the claims they make being what actually happened objectively. I can disagree with claims and it doesn't mean I'm saying someone is lying, but that they are, instead, mistaken.

3)Your prayers and the resultant effects are honestly as subjective and unreliable a standard as prophecy in general, because your assessment proceeds FROM your preconception that God will answer, but that preconception does NOT mean God's answer will always be yes, I learned this when I was 12 in Sunday School, I don't think that's some controversial thing in Christianity, because God's "plan" is mysterious and thus someone praying for a job, a spouse, etc, doesn't mean it will happen and just because it might happen is not a reason to attribute agency to the events being effectively set up that way, because it not only suggests your choices don't really matter (including your prayers), but that the events themselves are inconsequential in contrast to the infinite rewards you get in heaven (which don't include being married and such, so...why should that matter?)

4) Just because people can make vague predictions or we can interpret them in a way that would seem to fit doesn't make those predictions and texts that they emerge from, as reflective of reality. Or is Nostradamus just as reliable then? It's like you haven't even considered the problem of self fulfilling prophecies or even just that they don't make precise predictions in any falsifiable manner because that very idea is foreign to ancient people?


5)And Christian apologetics are perfect and without any epistemological or evidential problems? Seems to me you're projecting a great deal, to say nothing of being disingenuous with the capitalization of atheist and skeptic when neither really warrants it in the general context (at best skeptic might be capitalized if referring to the original school back in ancient Greece, but even that's pushing it in terms of the idea that it was or is comparable to Christianity, because skepticism is no more a worldview than atheism, only pieces of something broader that has various names and manifestations)

One word: hermeneutics.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Did you miss that I said documents outside of the Bible? There are other sources, non-Christian ones that verify and corroborate the points I was making.

Such as?

I didn't claim any confirmed the resurrection.

So what does confirm the resurrection?

Your confirmation bias is showing. The old testament doesn't say crucified but uses the same description as the New Testament for what happened to Jesus.

No, The new testament says he was crucified. The verses you referenced say he was pierced. Nowhere in the verses you gave does it describe a crucifixion.

As a matter of fact Psalm 22:16 is pretty controversial with scholars. No one knows what the word karah really means. It most likely means dig or dug not pierce. The Hebrew word for pierce or pierce through is daqar. Daqar is used in Zech 12:10 that you mentioned but it says nothing about pierced with nails or pierced in the hands and feet and hung on a cross. So no, these reference you gave do not support the claim that they are talking about crucifixion.

Intelligence for one.

What does this mean? What is the criteria for determining design?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

You don't necessarily 'need' it. I didn't say you need it. I said, if you're paying attention, that it is supplemental (which means it's not necessary but it can be a big help).

Ok, I will drop it but if the 5 things are sufficient then why do you need help with them. I guess we will just disagree.

Moreover, let's ask ourselves: Is the bible written in human language or some kind of special "Holy Spirit" language that needs a special decoder pen to see the invisible ink? I think you know the answer. So, if it's the former (which we both KNOW it is), then it IS subject to human communication analysis (i.e. hermeneutics) just as ANY humanly written or spoken form of communication is open to the same analysis.

Many people would disagree that it was not inspired by god. If it was written by humans then why should I even bother with it. There are more moral books out there written by humans to learn from.

But here's an additional consideration: If Virtue Epistemology has any bearing upon how we read or listen or understand texts or communication from and with other people, then on some level, we should consider ourselves accountable for learning and applying hermeneutics to all human communication, as best as we each can, respectively. And if we don't, we may very well be morally at fault--at least partially--for failing to do so.

Ok, but it seems that reading the bibkle has "special" hermeneutics that don't apply to other human writings. People often write paragraphs of explanations to try to convince others a passage does not mean what it plainly says. I don't see this is other human writings.

 

[Ed1wolf]

When I experience the energy of Love, I'm awakened to substance that has texture, is vibrant and is very much alive.

What kind of substance?

db: It's the same when I experience the energy of the Life Force/Spark of Life that runs through all of this Creation

And it's the same when I experience the consciousness that also runs through all of this Creation.

While experience is evidence, it is very weak evidence. There has to be hard biological evidence that something is alive in order to prove that it is alive. And for energy there is no hard evidence that it is alive. There is also no hard evidence that the creation is conscious. Only personal beings, such as God and humans, and some of the more intelligent animals have consciousness.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ok, I will drop it but if the 5 things are sufficient then why do you need help with them.

Why do I need help to read or interpret these things (among a wide number of other things, whether those things are facts/evidence)? ...because facts and evidence, especially those belonging to history [or even to Natural History] and to religion, do not "explain" themselves, especially not in relation to our attempts to reach some substantial conclusion about what they may infer to us simply because we think we're "facing" them.

I guess we will just disagree.

That's fine if you want to disagree, but I'd contend that by doing so, this implies that your essentially sticking your head in the sand, all the while mumbling, "I see, I see, I see...in fact, I see better than those other folks.

Many people would disagree that it was not inspired by god. If it was written by humans then why should I even bother with it.

...I didn't say that I 'know' that it is written 'merely' by humans, because as with any religious book, I don't 'know' that so it's good to at least remain open to attempting to understand the epistemic contexts in the world which might have contributed to the nature of the writings.

There are more moral books out there written by humans to learn from.

Oh? Like what exactly? And based on what? Something approximating the same ontological 'nothing' that undergirds today's human rights conceptualizations?

Ok, but it seems that reading the bibkle has "special" hermeneutics that don't apply to other human writings. People often write paragraphs of explanations to try to convince others a passage does not mean what it plainly says. I don't see this is other human writings.

I wouldn't call it 'special' hermeneutics, especially if ---as I've said before---there is a 'human side' to our handling and interpreting of the Bible. The fact that we can determine that the Bible uses and/or draws upon ancient Jewish idioms doesn't require a special revelation from some divine being for us to realize this. No, it just requires the application of hermeneutics, whiche any good historian does in his/her work, and even scientists do in their work. Do you want to disagree with this too?

 

[muichimotsu]

One word: hermeneutics.

And I can counter with one word in the implications: solipsism. Call me cynical

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And I can counter with one word in the implications: solipsism. Call me cynical

Ok. You're cynical. I'd also say you're grasping for straws with your implied definition of "solipsism," muichimotsu. Because, if anything, Philosophical Hermeneutical pretty much drives a 10 foot stake right through the bloody heart of the vampire called solipsism. In fact, once the hammering starts in hermeneutically aware study, it doesn't stop (as merciless as that sounds ....... !)

I've got another word for you: Critical Realism

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Why do I need help to read or interpret these things (among a wide number of other things, whether those things are facts/evidence)? ...because facts and evidence, especially those belonging to history [or even to Natural History] and to religion, do not "explain" themselves, especially not in relation to our attempts to reach some substantial conclusion about what they may infer to us simply because we think we're "facing" them.

I understand, I used commentaries, histories, hermaneutics etc. to help me understand the bible. My point is that if salvation is so important that our souls hang in the balance then the bible should be clear and understood just from the plain reading of it including if a God actually exists. It isn't.

That's fine if you want to disagree, but I'd contend that by doing so, this implies that your essentially sticking your head in the sand, all the while mumbling, "I see, I see, I see...in fact, I see better than those other folks.

I am just saying that what you think is important to understand God most people in the world do not have access.

...I didn't say that I 'know' that it is written 'merely' by humans, because as with any religious book, I don't 'know' that so it's good to at least remain open to attempting to understand the epistemic contexts in the world which might have contributed to the nature of the writings.

Why do you choose only the Christain writings? Have you looked at all the other religions?

Oh? Like what exactly? And based on what? Something approximating the same ontological 'nothing' that undergirds today's human rights conceptualizations?

Based on reason and logic instead of an immoral book.

I wouldn't call it 'special' hermeneutics, especially if ---as I've said before---there is a 'human side' to our handling and interpreting of the Bible. The fact that we can determine that the Bible uses and/or draws upon ancient Jewish idioms doesn't require a special revelation from some divine being for us to realize this. No, it just requires the application of hermeneutics, whiche any good historian does in his/her work, and even scientists do in their work. Do you want to disagree with this too?

You are back in a circle that excludes many people without access to the education required. You said that you spent 10 years at universities getting degrees, that is a privilege that most people don't have in the world. You said that all your studies have "helped' you to understand the nature of god and your reasons for belief.

You say these studies are so important and deride me for not studying them, then say you don't need them for belief but you do need them to support your belief. It is a cake and eat it too situation.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Such as?

Lucian Samosata: Lucian was a second century Greek satirist who liked to ridicule Christianity. His main objection was that it was utterly foolish to worship a person who was crucified — a death for the worst of criminals. He writes:

The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day — the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account.

Tacitus: The great Roman historian Tacitus gives us another source for Jesus’ death. His purpose in writing this section is to describe Nero’s brutality, but he makes a reference to the crucifixion. He says:

Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.

Julius Africanus writing around AD 221:
Though writing in the third century, Africanus quotes from an ancient history book on the Eastern Mediterranean world written by a historian named Thallus around the year AD 52.2 That is to say, Thallus wrote his history even before the Gospels were written, and thus, he’s reporting independent of them.

Other ancients reference this same work by Thallus also, so we know Africanus isn’t making up this source. Interestingly, Thallus happens to reference the earthquake and darkness at Jesus’ death. The quote reads:

On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.

Crucifixion Earthquake and Darkness Referenced Outside the Bible - Jesus is Not Fake News

So what does confirm the resurrection?

Actions of the Disciples for one. The multitude of people who become Christians after His crucifixion. All of which seems very strange if it wasn't true that people saw Jesus after He was put to death.

No, The new testament says he was crucified. The verses you referenced say he was pierced. Nowhere in the verses you gave does it describe a crucifixion.

AS you ignore that old and New Testaments speak of casting lots for His clothes, even if it is correct that the word pierce is translated incorrectly it still speaks about them being at His hands and feet. These are scriptures that tell much of what happens to Jesus long before He is even born.

As a matter of fact Psalm 22:16 is pretty controversial with scholars. No one knows what the word karah really means. It most likely means dig or dug not pierce. The Hebrew word for pierce or pierce through is daqar. Daqar is used in Zech 12:10 that you mentioned but it says nothing about pierced with nails or pierced in the hands and feet and hung on a cross. So no, these reference you gave do not support the claim that they are talking about crucifixion.

See above.

What does this mean? What is the criteria for determining design?

Purpose and goals in the universe for instance.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Lucian Samosata: Lucian was a second century Greek satirist who liked to ridicule Christianity. His main objection was that it was utterly foolish to worship a person who was crucified — a death for the worst of criminals. He writes:

The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day — the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account.

He wrote these things in mid 2nd century. What were his sources? He is just recounting a story how could he know it happened?

Tacitus: The great Roman historian Tacitus gives us another source for Jesus’ death. His purpose in writing this section is to describe Nero’s brutality, but he makes a reference to the crucifixion. He says:

Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.

So what, how does he know this is true? He is also just recounting a story he has not verified.

Julius Africanus writing around AD 221:
Though writing in the third century, Africanus quotes from an ancient history book on the Eastern Mediterranean world written by a historian named Thallus around the year AD 52.2 That is to say, Thallus wrote his history even before the Gospels were written, and thus, he’s reporting independent of them.

No writings of Africanus exist today. No writings of Thallus exist today. We only know this by third hand.

Other ancients reference this same work by Thallus also, so we know Africanus isn’t making up this source. Interestingly, Thallus happens to reference the earthquake and darkness at Jesus’ death. The quote reads:

On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.

Crucifixion Earthquake and Darkness Referenced Outside the Bible - Jesus is Not Fake News

As I said no writing of Thallu sexist today, we only know Thallus existed by Eusebius quoting Africanus who quoted Thallus. Eusebius translation of Thallus never mentions Jesus and the dates don't fit for the eclipse.

Why is there not any good direct sources for the resurrection? Where is someone who witnessed the resurrection and wrote it down. Where is that document? All we have is copies of copies in the bible.

Actions of the Disciples for one. The multitude of people who become Christians after His crucifixion. All of which seems very strange if it wasn't true that people saw Jesus after He was put to death.

People became Christians becasue they believed the story not that they witnessed the events.

AS you ignore that old and New Testaments speak of casting lots for His clothes, even if it is correct that the word pierce is translated incorrectly it still speaks about them being at His hands and feet. These are scriptures that tell much of what happens to Jesus long before He is even born.

So a mention of hands and feet with a word that means dig or dug as best we know is a reference to a crucifixion? It is a stretch. many books mention hands and feet. Your standards of evidence is too low.

Purpose and goals in the universe for instance.

If I find an object that I don't know what is. How do I detect design or natural causes. What is the criteria?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I understand, I used commentaries, histories, hermaneutics etc. to help me understand the bible. My point is that if salvation is so important that our souls hang in the balance then the bible should be clear and understood just from the plain reading of it including if a God actually exists. It isn't.

I know. It isn't. And from the epistemic indices we find within the Bible, that situation has been made by God on purpose.

I am just saying that what you think is important to understand God most people in the world do not have access.

Yes, I understand what you're saying. And it's true. But it remains that a number of people still become Christians on much less understanding about the Bible than I've been privileged to have. So, there's a linchpin in all of this somewhere ... maybe multiple pins, really. One of them is, I'll assert, with God. The other is in your back pocket.

Why do you choose only the Christain writings? Have you looked at all the other religions?

... I've looked at (and studied) significant concepts and precepts in most of the major World Religions. So, yes, I have.

Based on reason and logic instead of an immoral book.

Alright. I get it. But at the same time, you can't just resort to saying "reason and logic" as if saying those words are some kind of magic formula that will automatically produced consistent, robust, irrefutable, and most importantly, correct Supreme answers about morality. No, you'll have to be a bit more transparent than that, and as you probably know, the principle of transparency is one that abides these days among the notion of accountability and integrity.

You are back in a circle that excludes many people without access to the education required. You said that you spent 10 years at universities getting degrees, that is a privilege that most people don't have in the world. You said that all your studies have "helped' you to understand the nature of god and your reasons for belief.

Ok. But there are a number of teachers (as well as libraries and ...... now the internet.....) who offer 'free' help to the masses.

You say these studies are so important and deride me for not studying them, then say you don't need them for belief but you do need them to support your belief. It is a cake and eat it too situation.

.... I thought you said above that you studied hermeneutics, among other things. And I haven't said that anyone absolutely needs or doesn't need the topics I've studied; no, I think what I've been consistently saying is that people believe for various reasons as they live life and think their own thoughts as they engage some entity that has come to them from the Christian faith, whether that be time spent at church, the preaching of someone like the Pope, or Billy Graham, or just a friend or neighbor or family member, or ..................some source.

The fact of this matter as it pertains to you is that you have now engaged here at CF, quite voluntarily I might add, and you've already stated that you've been a former Christian, so it seems you just need to be transparent about what EXACTLY it is that is holding you back from coming back to faith. Otherwise, not only can we not attempt to help you, but we won't be able to really commiserate with you over some suffering or loss you've experienced in your own life that has something to do with your present feelings about Christianity.

 

[Oncedeceived]

He wrote these things in mid 2nd century. What were his sources? He is just recounting a story how could he know it happened?

So what, how does he know this is true? He is also just recounting a story he has not verified.

No writings of Africanus exist today. No writings of Thallus exist today. We only know this by third hand.

As I said no writing of Thallu sexist today, we only know Thallus existed by Eusebius quoting Africanus who quoted Thallus. Eusebius translation of Thallus never mentions Jesus and the dates don't fit for the eclipse.

And there it is. You asked what sources supported the Bible and then when you are given them you start moving the goalposts. These are outside sources that support the Biblical points I presented. Do you equally discount other historical documentations? I doubt you hold anything to the standard that you have set for the Bible and the other historical documentation as support of it. You make claims that you are open to the truth but I am sensing a completely different motivation in your answers.

Why is there not any good direct sources for the resurrection? Where is someone who witnessed the resurrection and wrote it down. Where is that document? All we have is copies of copies in the bible.

Copies of copies? Explain.

People became Christians becasue they believed the story not that they witnessed the events.

Now you can time travel? Now you can determine mindset of those who lived 2,000 years ago? The gospels were written in a time where there were still people around that could have discounted what they were claiming. Instead, Christianity took off with people being killed due to it.

So a mention of hands and feet with a word that means dig or dug as best we know is a reference to a crucifixion? It is a stretch. many books mention hands and feet. Your standards of evidence is too low.

I believe your standards are based solely on your confirmation biases and you dismiss everything according to the Bible. That is just my humble opinion of course.

If I find an object that I don't know what is. How do I detect design or natural causes. What is the criteria?

Do you recognize intelligence?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I know. It isn't. And from the epistemic indices we find within the Bible, that situation has been made by God on purpose.

Yes, I understand what you're saying. And it's true. But it remains that a number of people still become Christians on much less understanding about the Bible than I've been privileged to have. So, there's a linchpin in all of this somewhere ... maybe multiple pins, really. One of them is, I'll assert, with God. The other is in your back pocket.

... I've looked at (and studied) significant concepts and precepts in most of the major World Religions. So, yes, I have.

Alright. I get it. But at the same time, you can't just resort to saying "reason and logic" as if saying those words are some kind of magic formula that will automatically produced consistent, robust, irrefutable, and most importantly, correct Supreme answers about morality. No, you'll have to be a bit more transparent than that, and as you probably know, the principle of transparency is one that abides these days among the notion of accountability and integrity.

Ok. But there are a number of teachers (as well as libraries and ...... now the internet.....) who offer 'free' help to the masses.

.... I thought you said above that you studied hermeneutics, among other things. And I haven't said that anyone absolutely needs or doesn't need the topics I've studied; no, I think what I've been consistently saying is that people believe for various reasons as they live life and think their own thoughts as they engage some entity that has come to them from the Christian faith, whether that be time spent at church, the preaching of someone like the Pope, or Billy Graham, or just a friend or neighbor or family member, or ..................some source.

The fact of this matter as it pertains to you is that you have now engaged here at CF, quite voluntarily I might add, and you've already stated that you've been a former Christian, so it seems you just need to be transparent about what EXACTLY it is that is holding you back from coming back to faith. Otherwise, not only can we not attempt to help you, but we won't be able to really commiserate with you over some suffering or loss you've experienced in your own life that has something to do with your present feelings about Christianity.

Agree, Agree, Agree....on and on.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

The fact of this matter as it pertains to you is that you have now engaged here at CF, quite voluntarily I might add, and you've already stated that you've been a former Christian, so it seems you just need to be transparent about what EXACTLY it is that is holding you back from coming back to faith. Otherwise, not only can we not attempt to help you, but we won't be able to really commiserate with you over some suffering or loss you've experienced in your own life that has something to do with your present feelings about Christianity.

I don't get mad very easy but this really hacks me off. I have done nothing here but explain why I don't think the evidence is convincing to believe Christianity is true. And you just say I must have had a bad experience or something so I just won't believe, calling me a liar.

I did not have a bad experience, I don't believe because I am unconvinced by the evidence, period.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Agree, Agree, Agree....on and on.

Hope things are going ok for you, Oncedeceived. Good to see you here.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Hope things are going ok for you, Oncedeceived. Good to see you here.

Things are going pretty well, I hope the same is true for all of you. I've missed reading your posts.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Things are going pretty well, I hope the same is true for all of you. I've missed reading your posts.

And I've missed reading yours too, sister.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't get mad very easy but this really hacks me off. I have done nothing here but explain why I don't think the evidence is convincing to believe Christianity is true. And you just say I must have had a bad experience or something so I just won't believe, calling me a liar.

I did not have a bad experience, I don't believe because I am unconvinced by the evidence, period.

Honestly, it wasn't my intention to imply that you're a liar. I'm glad you haven't had any bad experiences that drove you away from Christ. That's always good to hear. And as long as you're not some anarchic, satanic style atheist who has just come to CF to raise Cain, I have no good reason to think you're lying about the epistemological conundrums you're wrestling with in relation to Christianity.

However, with that said, it would be good to know what you'd like to accomplish in your persistent presence here, especially if it seems that NO ONE is going to be able to magically give you the answers or the evidence you'd like to have, especially if that evidence has to be conveyed according to some particular subjective requirements you hold to be non-negotiable.

I wish I could provide more for you in the way of explanation than I've been able to, but there are some things that ONLY God, Himself, can give you; but if He's said in His Word that even He's not willing to provide that kind of evidence to most people, then I don't know what else to tell you. On the other hand, I could suggest that you 're-check' your epistemological logistics and telemetry and see if you actually have all of your epistemic ducks-in-a-row.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Not sure what you remotely mean by real individuality, because you;'d have to be able to demonstrate that rather than simply waffling by saying it seems more likely: abductive reasoning is hardly what we should use in terms of areas of concern that aren't on a grandiose scale like cosmology.

By real individuality I am saying that we are separate beings. Most scientific theories are based on abductive reasoning.

mm: My perception, or anyone's, of their individuality is not an absolute fact, it's a phenomenological experience that, while potentially accurate in the sense that we can delineate between people, it doesn't mean individuality in the sense of us all being, say, independent of each other in relationality or such is true, but that we necessarily have a social impulse, that no one is an island

I am not saying that even though we are individuals that we dont need each other relationally or even for basic survival. As personal beings, having personal relationships is part of our nature.

mm: "Historical" is a relative term: and you really think other religions cannot reference historical places and claim their stories are based on historical events? That seems highly naive to say nothing of intentionally vague as to what you consider "historical". Jesus as a historical person does not mean that the events associated with him are falsifiable...mostly because historical falsifiabilty is far more vague in nature than falsifiability as applies to natural sciences.

And with a severe lacking of serious contemporary sources that aren't specious in their links to the Christian cult, the historicity seems to hinge on secondhand accounts, 4 of which we don't even know the authors of (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John little more than traditions, nothing concrete there)

Yes, one of the evidences that is potentially falsifiable deals with Jesus' death and resurrection. The other deals with the origin of the universe having a definite beginning. If it was ever discovered that the universe was eternal then that would pretty much falsify Christianity. The evidence for the authors of the gospels is more than just external tradition there is also internal evidence.

ed: No, most educated Christians dont claim it is a scientific text, but on the few areas it does touch on science, it has been shown to be basically correct when we realize God wants us to use His other book, Nature to understand it.

mm: Again, not sure you remotely understand what survival of the fittest means outside of caricatures of evolution or social Darwinists (which aren't the same as people who merely believe in natural selection as a descriptive phenomenon that varies by population and context). Fitness is not based on superiority, because evolution is not the contest we humans can unfortunately frame it as mistakenly

Believe me, as a professional biologist, I know what survival of the fittest means and you are right it is not based on superiority, it is just based on survivability. But that was not the point I was making, my point was that sometimes circular reasoning is correct.

mm: There is no objective external meaning to life, meaning is not imposed upon us, it is determined by our assessment of things and seeking out answers in a manner that can be compatible with society as a whole, the closes to a purpose that might be imposed, but more by necessity, not by religious twaddle masquerading as helping humanity with dogmatic moralizing.

If there is no God then there is no such thing as "helping humanity". If there is a God then there is objective meaning to life.

mm: There can be meaning in life as individuals seek it out and a meaning for people functioning in society, but function and purpose are quite distinct, one being pragmatic, the other being personal.

My purpose is individually determined, any outside influences secondary to my choices about how to live my life, my function is aiding the human society I live in and benefit from, as well as aiding future generations, you're oversimplifying the whole discussion to suggest atheists have to be nihilists, when God is not, and has not been demonstrated to be, required for determining purpose or function in human existence.

I didn't say that atheists have to be nihilists, in fact to do so goes against their nature so that the ones that are, are not going to live happy lives. As humans it is our nature to believe that our lives do have real objective meaning, because we reflect the fact that such meaning does exist because of our personal origin. Only if God exists, can there be real objective meaning to life.

 

[muichimotsu]

Ok. You're cynical. I'd also say you're grasping for straws with your implied definition of "solipsism," muichimotsu. Because, if anything, Philosophical Hermeneutical pretty much drives a 10 foot stake right through the bloody heart of the vampire called solipsism. In fact, once the hammering starts in hermeneutically aware study, it doesn't stop (as merciless as that sounds ....... !)

I've got another word for you: Critical Realism

That's 2 words, first off. Also, that notion seems to skirt awfully close to Objectivism in some respects and just brings up more problems than what it purports to solve in terms of epistemology and the sciences

The problem is whether you can be absolutely sure of even the hermeneutical basis itself or if you have to open yourself up to genuine critical examination of those principles and whether they are rational given the nature of what is being investigated (hermeneutics still has an association in general with the more specific analysis of the bible rather than more esoteric ideas that generally go over the layperson's head)