Atheism is reasonable, and Christianity is not (Redux)

[Nihilist Virus]

Math as a system doesn't predicts anything about reality. It is the language that we use to predict something.

You have identified a reason to believe in mathematics. I have yet to see you identify a reason to believe in any religion. You keep lobbing vague statements at me, like, "Christianity is perfectly reasonable because it maps to a vast history and network of meaning that structured the stories and preferred behavioral patterns that it presents." Nothing about that statement makes Christianity true. Absolutely nothing. At best, if you can follow that topic sentence with the facts and examples that readers were expecting, then you can have an argument for why practicing Christianity is reasonable. But I have not seen a shred of a thread to show me why believing Christianity is reasonable, and I'm wondering if you even have any inclination to even try.

 

[devolved]

You have identified a reason to believe in mathematics.

You are abstracting way too much meaning when you are talking about complex frameworks as a monolithic "thing" that we believe or we don't. That's actually fairly unreasonable to do.

Mathematics is not a monolith. There's plenty of internal arguments as to which parts of Mathematics belong in that category, and which don't, and how these map to reality. There's mathematical realism, there's anti-realism, formalism, etc.

But, in terms of the "internal logic" and internal semantics of either of these views, "reasonable belief" only extends to these as far as how useful these are in reality when it comes to pragmatic applications of these frameworks.

There are plenty of scientific and philosophical frameworks that are not worthy of being believed on, because these don't present any pragmatic usefulness. Our belief systems are always evaluated in context of pragmatic utility of these beliefs.

You keep lobbing vague statements at me, like, "Christianity is perfectly reasonable because it maps to a vast history and network of meaning that structured the stories and preferred behavioral patterns that it presents." Nothing about that statement makes Christianity true. Absolutely nothing.

And you keep lobbing oversimplified semantics to the likes of "show me that Christianity is reasonable apart from it's pragmatic application", which you seem to somehow perceive as "Christianity is true" in such and only such context. It's an absurd request.

The word "true" only works inside "internal logic" that we frame. For example, if I show you a picture of apple and say "This is a picture of apple" ... that statement is true, because we share and agree on a communication framework that maps certain meaning to certain reality. Thus, if we call what we refer to apple as something else, then that statement would no longer be true. It doesn't change what the apple IS "out there" beyond what we refer to it. It only forms our "collective frame reference" that we use as communication framework to communicate certain patterns and function of these patterns. We then use these models to build tools, talk to each other, and recognize certain complex patterns that allow us to predict the future.

Such is the case with every framework we use, be it mathematics, physical sciences, philosophy, sociology, economics, and religion . We separate these into distinct categories, but these don't exist as such in our functional brain.


So, when it boils down to it, what you are REALLY ASKING ME, is to show you that this particular function of a brain is "true", and it's an absurd request. You are looking at these things backwards, as you brain abstracts these into patterns that you recognize. So, then you say "this is religion", "this is math", "this is science". In reality, there's only a collective network of brain function that:

1) Reads environment
2) Compares it to the existing model of the environment
3) Determines the adequate course of actions that are driven by the model
4) If no model exists, then it uses try/fail method to make choices and formulate a model
5) It then communicates that model to other brains for comparison and benefit of the collective being

THAT MODEL IS COMPREHENSIVE. You only see "science", "religion", and "communism", because you recognize certain distinct patterns... and that's how our brain works when it comes to perceiving reality. It works by filtering through chaos in search for patterns.

That's all we've got, and that's all we'll ever have. What you would call "true" in this process is purely pragmatic label that we derive based on observed outcome of adopting some model. And that process of "adotion" is always environmentally-driven. That's why we have word "In-formation", because it's a flow of signals that "froms" your cognitive interpretation from inside.

So, given the above, you have to see why your request is absurd.

At best, if you can follow that topic sentence with the facts and examples that readers were expecting, then you can have an argument for why practicing Christianity is reasonable. But I have not seen a shred of a thread to show me why believing Christianity is reasonable, and I'm wondering if you even have any inclination to even try.

Your request is severely unreasonable, because you are abstracting "belief" as some sort of function that exists separate from pragmatic function of our brain. You can't point to our brain neurons and say "hey... there's that false religious belief there, and here is this true science". It never exists as such.

In terms of our neuro-physiology, there's a network of complex signals that's reduced and filtered to "likely match".

The reason why a child recognizes a rectangle with two circles as a "car", is because that's how your brain stores the meaning of the car. It reduces details to simple concepts that either "hit" or "miss", and you end up with an abstract model of reality. It's very pragmatic.

So, what you are calling Christianity, on the level of the brain is a similar neural network of abstract "hits" and "misses" that maps to the pragmatic and functional meaning of reality.

So, what you are really asking me is to map my network of meaning (solidified through neural pathways) to your network of meaning in such a way that would trigger the same "valid" response in context of your brain network.

So, what I'm saying is that believing in Christianity is only reasonable is:

1) If your brain maps to reality using the framework that Christianity provides

OR

2) If I provide with some meaningful and analogous interface that would map similar meaning in context of your current existing framework

I can't demonstrate the Chrstianity as reasonable on the level of "mapped meaning of scientific reductionism",

YET

That's what you are forcing this conversation into without any a-priori demonstration that I should accept scientific reductionism as an adequate framework for interpreting reality... and you are justifying it solely via pragmatic applications of that framework.

So, you say something to the likes of "but science gives us a lot, what did religion give us"? And when I point out what religion gave us, you say "All you demonstrated that practicing religion is reasonable, but you need to show that believing in it is reasonable also". So, you switch and bate the contextual semantics here.

Thus what you are saying is "Please show me that X is true, using my maps of meaning", but when I ask you to demonstrate something as simple as time in your existing maps of meaning... you can't. You appeal to universal axiomatic, and necessary assumptions and you just run with it as valid and useful.

That's what religion is. You can't separate pragmatic aspects of it from what you would call as "truth". The meaning simply doesn't map to the same thing that it does in your framework. But it doesn't make it "less true" when we frame that meaning against, let's say ... mine.

Thus, it's easy to debate people who map to primitive and literal meaning of religious concepts. And that's what you seem to do, to which cudos to you! We need that.

But, in process you seem to ignore that there is a broader framework of meaning that does work, and that without it we wouldn't have science, we would not have functional societies. And that's an easily demonstrable fact.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You are abstracting way too much meaning when you are talking about complex frameworks as a monolithic "thing" that we believe or we don't. That's actually fairly unreasonable to do.

Mathematics is not a monolith. There's plenty of internal arguments as to which parts of Mathematics belong in that category, and which don't, and how these map to reality. There's mathematical realism, there's anti-realism, formalism, etc.

But, in terms of the "internal logic" and internal semantics of either of these views, "reasonable belief" only extends to these as far as how useful these are in reality when it comes to pragmatic applications of these frameworks.

There are plenty of scientific and philosophical frameworks that are not worthy of being believed on, because these don't present any pragmatic usefulness. Our belief systems are always evaluated in context of pragmatic utility of these beliefs.




And you keep lobbing oversimplified semantics to the likes of "show me that Christianity is reasonable apart from it's pragmatic application", which you seem to somehow perceive as "Christianity is true" in such and only such context. It's an absurd request.

The word "true" only works inside "internal logic" that we frame. For example, if I show you a picture of apple and say "This is a picture of apple" ... that statement is true, because we share and agree on a communication framework that maps certain meaning to certain reality. Thus, if we call what we refer to apple as something else, then that statement would no longer be true. It doesn't change what the apple IS "out there" beyond what we refer to it. It only forms our "collective frame reference" that we use as communication framework to communicate certain patterns and function of these patterns. We then use these models to build tools, talk to each other, and recognize certain complex patterns that allow us to predict the future.

Such is the case with every framework we use, be it mathematics, physical sciences, philosophy, sociology, economics, and religion . We separate these into distinct categories, but these don't exist as such in our functional brain.


So, when it boils down to it, what you are REALLY ASKING ME, is to show you that this particular function of a brain is "true", and it's an absurd request. You are looking at these things backwards, as you brain abstracts these into patterns that you recognize. So, then you say "this is religion", "this is math", "this is science". In reality, there's only a collective network of brain function that:

1) Reads environment
2) Compares it to the existing model of the environment
3) Determines the adequate course of actions that are driven by the model
4) If no model exists, then it uses try/fail method to make choices and formulate a model
5) It then communicates that model to other brains for comparison and benefit of the collective being

THAT MODEL IS COMPREHENSIVE. You only see "science", "religion", and "communism", because you recognize certain distinct patterns... and that's how our brain works when it comes to perceiving reality. It works by filtering through chaos in search for patterns.

That's all we've got, and that's all we'll ever have. What you would call "true" in this process is purely pragmatic label that we derive based on observed outcome of adopting some model. And that process of "adotion" is always environmentally-driven. That's why we have word "In-formation", because it's a flow of signals that "froms" your cognitive interpretation from inside.

So, given the above, you have to see why your request is absurd.



Your request is severely unreasonable, because you are abstracting "belief" as some sort of function that exists separate from pragmatic function of our brain. You can't point to our brain neurons and say "hey... there's that false religious belief there, and here is this true science". It never exists as such.

In terms of our neuro-physiology, there's a network of complex signals that's reduced and filtered to "likely match".

The reason why a child recognizes a rectangle with two circles as a "car", is because that's how your brain stores the meaning of the car. It reduces details to simple concepts that either "hit" or "miss", and you end up with an abstract model of reality. It's very pragmatic.

So, what you are calling Christianity, on the level of the brain is a similar neural network of abstract "hits" and "misses" that maps to the pragmatic and functional meaning of reality.

So, what you are really asking me is to map my network of meaning (solidified through neural pathways) to your network of meaning in such a way that would trigger the same "valid" response in context of your brain network.

So, what I'm saying is that believing in Christianity is only reasonable is:

1) If your brain maps to reality using the framework that Christianity provides

OR

2) If I provide with some meaningful and analogous interface that would map similar meaning in context of your current existing framework

I can't demonstrate the Chrstianity as reasonable on the level of "mapped meaning of scientific reductionism",

YET

That's what you are forcing this conversation into without any a-priori demonstration that I should accept scientific reductionism as an adequate framework for interpreting reality... and you are justifying it solely via pragmatic applications of that framework.

So, you say something to the likes of "but science gives us a lot, what did religion give us"? And when I point out what religion gave us, you say "All you demonstrated that practicing religion is reasonable, but you need to show that believing in it is reasonable also". So, you switch and bate the contextual semantics here.

Thus what you are saying is "Please show me that X is true, using my maps of meaning", but when I ask you to demonstrate something as simple as time in your existing maps of meaning... you can't. You appeal to universal axiomatic, and necessary assumptions and you just run with it as valid and useful.

That's what religion is. You can't separate pragmatic aspects of it from what you would call as "truth". The meaning simply doesn't map to the same thing that it does in your framework. But it doesn't make it "less true" when we frame that meaning against, let's say ... mine.

Thus, it's easy to debate people who map to primitive and literal meaning of religious concepts. And that's what you seem to do, to which cudos to you! We need that.

But, in process you seem to ignore that there is a broader framework of meaning that does work, and that without it we wouldn't have science, we would not have functional societies. And that's an easily demonstrable fact.

This just looks like a bunch of rambling and nonsense to me. Maybe bounce this off some other people and see what they say. I'd like to highlight this part, though:

So, what I'm saying is that believing in Christianity is only reasonable is:

1) If your brain maps to reality using the framework that Christianity provides

OR

2) If I provide with some meaningful and analogous interface that would map similar meaning in context of your current existing framework

So, what I'm saying is that believing in Nazism is only reasonable if:

1) If your brain maps to reality using the framework that Nazism provides


So, what I'm saying is that believing in Crystal Healing is only reasonable if:

1) If your brain maps to reality using the framework that Crystal Healing provides


So, what I'm saying is that believing in terminators from the future is only reasonable if:

1) If your brain maps to reality using the framework that terminators from the future provide

 

[devolved]

This just looks like a bunch of rambling and nonsense to me. Maybe bounce this off some other people and see what they say. I'd like to highlight this part, though:

I don't think you are doing a lot of careful reading, or try to understand what I'm pointing to. I don't see many leading questions. Quite a bit of triumphant dismissals, but it's not a very productive means to reasonable discussion.

So, what I'm saying is that believing in Nazism is only reasonable if:

1) If your brain maps to reality using the framework that Nazism provides...

I appreciate the humor, but . . "Buzzer sound" read what I said again more carefully.

I don't imply that just because you have a model... it's automatically useful and valid in context of reality. Some are less reasonable or useful, some are more reasonable and useful. We have to measure against some measurable outcome in order to determine these ratios.

Nazism would be a very reasonable and useful framework if you want to accomplish certain specific tasks. But it fails as a framework that facilitates flourishing of human societies in general.

"Crystal healing" can help people to relax, so it's not without benefit to people who believe in it... which can appeal to those benefits as reason why they adopt that framework, but it's demonstrably ineffective when it comes to healing most of the diseases out there (that are not stress-related or neurological).

When it comes to religion like Christianity, we are discussing a framework that:

1) Mitigates the animal instincts of food/sex/dominance that's prevalent in all of us and which is antithetic to formation of large-scale societies.

2) Provides social framework that points to ideals embedded in any given religious narrative. These archetypical ideals is something our brain recognizes as patterns that perhaps existed far longer than humans were around.

Perhaps Eric Weinstein can say it better here:

You can dismiss the points I'm making as something you don't understand, but that's just that. You keep trying to peg Christianity into a context where it doesn't belong.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I don't think you are doing a lot of careful reading, or try to understand what I'm pointing to. I don't see many leading questions. Quite a bit of triumphant dismissals, but it's not a very productive means to reasonable discussion.

Feel free to repackage what you think was your best point from that post.

I appreciate the humor, but . . "Buzzer sound" read what I said again more carefully.

I don't imply that just because you have a model... it's automatically useful and valid in context of reality. Some are less reasonable or useful, some are more reasonable and useful. We have to measure against some measurable outcome in order to determine these ratios.

The data is in. Secular nations are more prosperous across the board. They are less violent and less criminal in general.

Knowing this, Christianity would step aside if it truly had our best interests in mind. But let's not kid ourselves. Christianity is a cancer and it only cares about itself.

Nazism would be a very reasonable and useful framework if you want to accomplish certain specific tasks. But it fails as a framework that facilitates flourishing of human societies in general.

"Crystal healing" can help people to relax, so it's not without benefit to people who believe in it... which can appeal to those benefits as reason why they adopt that framework, but it's demonstrably ineffective when it comes to healing most of the diseases out there (that are not stress-related or neurological).

And if we want a framework that accurately models reality, then Christianity is a terrible choice.

When it comes to religion like Christianity, we are discussing a framework that:

1) Mitigates the animal instincts of food/sex/dominance that's prevalent in all of us and which is antithetic to formation of large-scale societies.

2) Provides social framework that points to ideals embedded in any given religious narrative. These archetypical ideals is something our brain recognizes as patterns that perhaps existed far longer than humans were around.

As I said, secular nations are more prosperous across the board. Do let me know if you dispute this. Furthermore, Christianity does not model reality and make accurate predictions - you don't seem to care to dispute this whatsoever.

So I'd like to know what exactly the use is for Christianity. If it doesn't further knowledge and if it is not the superior framework for a prosperous society, then what on earth is the point?

Perhaps Eric Weinstein can say it better here:

You can dismiss the points I'm making as something you don't understand, but that's just that. You keep trying to peg Christianity into a context where it doesn't belong.

Christianity doesn't belong anywhere. It's useless.

 

[devolved]

The data is in. Secular nations are more prosperous across the board. They are less violent and less criminal in general.

Knowing this, Christianity would step aside if it truly had our best interests in mind. But let's not kid ourselves. Christianity is a cancer and it only cares about itself.

First of all, you are ignoring that Christianity is not some monolith you can address in aggregate. It's a belief system containing certain principles that people adopt. You can't ask it to step aside, because you are essentially asking for a majority of the people of the world to step aside.

Secondly, "secular nations" concept is not the same as atheistic nations. It simply means that government is neutral because there are wide variety of religious views due to mixed global heritage that immigration results in.

Secular nations is a continuum of common (and previously) religious ideals that were consolidated under "we all agree with this" no matter what your religion was or is.

We did not arrive with these ideals apart from religion. We've arrived with these because of religion.

So, let's not re-package the lyrics of the song to a different tune and then call it "yours". You have no historical basis for emergence of legal and moral systems apart from religious foundations for those. Yet, you are claiming that it's a "new" mindset without any recognition of the continuum.

And if we want a framework that accurately models reality, then Christianity is a terrible choice.

Christianity is not a static framework. You are referring here to a snapshot that you don't like, but we can do it with any concept out there.

At one point eugenics was a part of "biological science". Should we look at that particular version of biological science and say "Biology should step aside" as a whole. It doesn't make any sense. Biology is a part of a continuum.


Again, you are picking the best parts and calling it "My song that I've written" , and you are leaving the dated parts and calling that "Christianity". You are ignoring the continuum here as to where you got those things from.

So I'd like to know what exactly the use is for Christianity. If it doesn't further knowledge and if it is not the superior framework for a prosperous society, then what on earth is the point?

We have THE MOST prosperous societies on earth - from Rome to GB to USA existed in continuum predominately due to Christian religion. There are are other common factors, but none as influential as that one. So, I'm not really sure what "superior framework" you are talking about.

What you are doing now with Christianity is wearing the cape of Captain Hindsight...

So... of course, looking back at various of iterations of religion, we can point out what we got wrong. But "Captain Hindsighting it" is absurd way of approaching this subject. We can do it with any framework out there that went through developmental continuum. We can identify variations of the framework that don't really work as well as some other variations.

So, you seem to be in the business of picking up the worst possible version of that framework... and conflating it with THE FRAMEWORK. We can do so with any system out there, especially with 20/20 hindsight.

I'm absolutely with you on necessity to re-evaluate and re-map certain concepts that don't fit well in the scope of certain fundamentalist approaches to religious beleifs. I'm not with you when you are smashing all of the Christianity as a monolith that you ascribe some things to but not the other, which you conveniently re-label as "secular".

 

[Nihilist Virus]

First of all, you are ignoring that Christianity is not some monolith you can address in aggregate. It's a belief system containing certain principles that people adopt. You can't ask it to step aside, because you are essentially asking for a majority of the people of the world to step aside.

This is Christianity: the belief that Jesus Christ was crucified and then rose from the dead.

Optionally, you can include the belief that Jesus is God in order to exclude Mormons and JWs.

Christianity absolutely is a monolith. How Christianity manifests politically is not monolithic at all, and this seems to be what you're addressing.

Please answer this directly:

Do you think it's reasonable to believe that Christianity is true?

That is the actual point of discussion. At least it was on my original thread. If you want to talk about this other nonsense, I'll go down the rabbit hole with you, but please just answer my one question while we're on the ride.

Secondly, "secular nations" concept is not the same as atheistic nations. It simply means that government is neutral because there are wide variety of religious views due to mixed global heritage that immigration results in.

I said "secular nations," so what are you arguing about?

Secular nations is a continuum of common (and previously) religious ideals that were consolidated under "we all agree with this" no matter what your religion was or is.

Lol. False. Religions do not acquiesce political power voluntarily.

We did not arrive with these ideals apart from religion. We've arrived with these because of religion.

Got evidence for that falsehood?

So, let's not re-package the lyrics of the song to a different tune and then call it "yours". You have no historical basis for emergence of legal and moral systems apart from religious foundations for those. Yet, you are claiming that it's a "new" mindset without any recognition of the continuum.

Again, where's the evidence?

Christianity is not a static framework. You are referring here to a snapshot that you don't like, but we can do it with any concept out there.

This is the best time in the history of the world to be an atheist. If you want to look at Christianity through history, things only get much worse. Do you dispute this?

At one point eugenics was a part of "biological science". Should we look at that particular version of biological science and say "Biology should step aside" as a whole. It doesn't make any sense. Biology is a part of a continuum.

So you're saying to not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Fine. Please tell me, then, what useful aspect of Christianity exists? Because if it has no use, and if it causes harm, shouldn't we dispose of it?

Let me clarify that I am not proposing a totalitarian state which criminalizes Christianity. I do think the Catholic Church should be forcibly dissolved for obvious reasons, but Catholics would certainly be free to practice on their own or even restart the church. What I'm saying is that if every human acted in their own best interest, there would not be a single Christian on earth.

Again, you are picking the best parts and calling it "My song that I've written" , and you are leaving the dated parts and calling that "Christianity". You are ignoring the continuum here as to where you got those things from.

Christianity has always opposed human rights. What on earth are you talking about?

Christians resisted emancipation just like Christians resisted gay rights.

We have THE MOST prosperous societies on earth - from Rome to GB to USA existed in continuum predominately due to Christian religion.

Really? They were prosperous due to Christianity? Surely you'll have no problem, then, explaining how there is some idea unique to Christianity and that this idea is demonstrably the linchpin of prosperity.

There are are other common factors, but none as influential as that one. So, I'm not really sure what "superior framework" you are talking about.

The superior framework of secular humanism prevents human rights violations that would otherwise occur under the approval of religion.

For example, some Christian parents refuse medication for their children, and instead they pray for the child. No such problem exists in a secular framework.

What you are doing now with Christianity is wearing the cape of Captain Hindsight...

But somehow it's not obvious to Christians that Christianity is bad. So I have to spell it out for them.

So... of course, looking back at various of iterations of religion, we can point out what we got wrong. But "Captain Hindsiding it" is absurd way of approaching this subject. We can do it with any framework out there that went through developmental continuum. We can identify variations of the framework that don't really work as well as some other variations.

Stop with this hindsight nonsense. I'm talking about right now. Secular nations right now are better than more religious ones.

So, you seem to be in the business of picking up the worst possible version of that framework... and conflating it with THE FRAMEWORK. We can do so with any system out there, especially with 20/20 hindsight.

Fine. Again, show me something useful that is exclusive to Christianity... or you can even reach across the seas for any religion on earth.

I'm absolutely with you on necessity to re-evaluate and re-map certain concepts that don't fit well in the scope of certain fundamentalist approaches to religious beleifs. I'm not with you when you are smashing all of the Christianity as a monolith that you ascribe some things to but not the other, which you conveniently re-label as "secular".

Again, show me where Christianity wilfully acquiesces power. It doesn't, and there absolutely cannot be a transition from Christianity to secularism. A population might make such a transition, but ideas cannot. Secularism is fundamentally different from Christianity.

 

[Jane_Doe]

This is Christianity: the belief that Jesus Christ was crucified and then rose from the dead.

Optionally, you can include the belief that Jesus is God in order to exclude Mormons and JWs.

Actually Mormons do believe Jesus was divine and God (He's the Son of God, to be specific). I can't speak for JW.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Actually Mormons do believe Jesus was divine and God (He's the Son of God, to be specific). I can't speak for JW.

Was?

 

[Jane_Doe]

Was?

Was/is/forever will be.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Was/is/forever will be.

So Jesus is God? Or do you *have to* qualify it as "Son" of God?

 

[Jane_Doe]

So Jesus is God? Or do you *have to* qualify it as "Son" of God?

Christ, the Father, and the Spirit are three different persons that are unified as ONE God.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Christ, the Father, and the Spirit are three different persons that are unified as ONE God.

Are you sure this represents mainstream Mormon views? I've never heard this from any Mormon before.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Are you sure this represents mainstream Mormon views?

It is.

I've never heard this from any Mormon before.

There are rampant misunderstandings of different groups view on God out there, LDS are no exception.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

It is.

There are rampant misunderstandings of different groups view on God out there, LDS are no exception.

But I've heard directly from Mormons that they don't believe Jesus is God. So I'm inclined to not believe what you're telling me here. Thanks anyway.

 

[Jane_Doe]

But I've heard directly from Mormons that they don't believe Jesus is God. So I'm inclined to not believe what you're telling me here. Thanks anyway.

We do believe that Christ bows to the Father and calls Him "my God". Christ also commands us to pray to the Father. (They are still one, but this is a respect and deference).

 

[devolved]

This is Christianity: the belief that Jesus Christ was crucified and then rose from the dead.

That's not Christianity. That's one of the central ideas of Christianity, but in isolation this statement is worthless apart from the framework it belongs to as a continuum of religious thought.

Really? They were prosperous due to Christianity? Surely you'll have no problem, then, explaining how there is some idea unique to Christianity and that this idea is demonstrably the linchpin of prosperity.

You can't have prosperous societies without a moral framework that allows for people to coexist in numbers greater than familiar tribes.

The progress of humanity from that of familiar tribes which were in constant territorial warfare... to what we have today is a civilization requires a framework of ideals that's passed on from one generation to another in order to maintain functioning societies.

So, you'll have to explain to me as how we CAN progress from primitive tribal humanity into societies we have today without have some sort of religious framework behind that progress.

It's not recent news. It's an established historical fact. You would be hard-pressed to find a decent modern historian who would debate that fact.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

That's not Christianity. That's one of the central ideas of Christianity, but in isolation this statement is worthless apart from the framework it belongs to as a continuum of religious thought.

And I at least mentioned this in passing, but you redacted that part. Why? So you could complain here?

I also asked a direct question and requested a direct response. You not only ignored this, but also redacted what I said on that issue as well.

I've asked you several questions repeatedly and you refuse to answer.

This conversation is over and you're going on my ignore list for wasting my time. Goodbye.

 

[GenemZ]

I'd like to review this particular thread, but give it a different perspective that NV may not see it from, hence I'd like to start it on this thread so any tangent discussions relevant to TOE and other tangent subjects may remain there.

With that in mind, I'd like to begin with a few definitions when it comes to the broader discussion of this topic, since the OP did make some narrow assumptions about semantic meaning of the words "Atheism" and "Christianity" than need to be unpacked.

First, let's agree that Atheism can't be reasonable or unreasonable. As it is defined lately, Atheism doesn't really make any positive claims... thus the attribute of "reasonable" doesn't really apply. It's nether, since it's a form of withholding judgement pending some further qualifying evidence. If that's the only qualification of "reasonable", our entire system of axiomatic knowledge will slide into the slippery slope of absurd.

Therefore, it seems that this discussion predominantly rests with Christianity (or more precisely, Christian claims) being unreasonable, which it will likely boil down to.

Let's begin with context of "reasonable", because context of any given logical and semantic framework matters quite a bit. "Reasonable" is always hangs on the contextual and axiomatic logical framework against which we measure and label something as such.

I think that it's convenient to debate literalim as absurd, and of course it is absurd. But any version of literalism would be. For example, let's take the literal model of electron. If we read it literally, that it's a point particle (not spacial), but it has a spin... the idea is non-sensical and absurd.

Yet, the language of science needs to be qualified prior to us diving into and labeling scientific literature as absurd.

Christianity is a systematic model, which like many other ancient religions, attempts to describe the process of reality based on "higher order" processes that exist in the scope of reality. Hence, if you do look at Christianity based on language that packs approximation (a model) of metaphysical reality ... I can readily defend it as reasonable... again, in the context that I would present it as such.

Perhaps we can first discuss whether the concept of God is reasonable or not, prior to moving on to Christianity ideas and ideals in general?

In a nutshell... Atheism is a form of apathy. Atheists just don't care if there is a God, or not. Its meaningless and does nothing for them...

Yet.. for some reason they will spend many hours debating Christians who I would be apathetic towards if I thought there were no God.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

In a nutshell... Atheism is a form of apathy. Atheists just don't care if there is a God, or not.

Nope. That's not what that word means.

Yet.. for some reason they will spend many hours debating Christians who I would be apathetic towards if I thought there were no God.

I'd love to be apathetic. I yearn for the day when religion is as innocuous as belief in fairies, or ghosts, or leprechauns or any other imaginary entity.

Unfortunately, since 'gods' are incapable of doing anything on their own, the people who purport to speak and act on their behalf continue to affect me and my loved ones on a daily basis. That is part of the reason I feel it necessary to interact with believers.