Discussion with an Atheist - Explaining Faith with Reason

[navedub]

If they are beyond human comprehension, then no human comprehends them, and any human who pretends to know the truth about them is lying. This should be extremely basic. If you cannot comprehend it, then what business do you have claiming to comprehend it so well that you have no doubt of its truth?

seee, again you didn't read the discussion. "instinct and an innate universal understanding"

 

[navedub]

What obsession? do you think this is my day job?
So much for proof, you haven't even shown the reasoning you promised in the OP.

Probably since we found that questions had real answers, then more things and now there is reason to believe that there is no need for God to conveniently explain anything.

Firstly, don't mistake scepticsm for narrow mindedness.
Without them we'd still be sitting in trees cleaning each other's fur.

Example of thing beyond comprehension: God?
No, that's easily within comprehension just look at how human it is, it hates, loves, spites, gets lonely, wants attention, gets angry.
It's an old, invisible bloke.

reason is left to personal interpretation and the intent behind the reasoning.

probably? what makes your arrogant assumption any different from people who lived thousands of years ago and believed they knew all the answers?

i'm glad you're a skeptic, so am i. find that eternal, unchanging truth and you'll better understand my beliefs.

p.s. read it all and you'll know my intent.

 

[navedub]

Navedub, read the above over very carefully -- very carefully -- and see if you can't grasp why this debate is now over and I have nothing more to discuss with you. If you can't learn to respect your opponents, then there is no point in having a debate. Have a good life.

again, insecurity. pursuit truth, be honest in your intentions behind discussing things. BE HONEST, thats the core of truth. self honesty as well as honesty with those you disagree with. if i'm wrong in my assumptions prove me wrong, but human intention is very comprehensible. why would you discuss something you already know the answer to? for the sake of truth, no, for the sake of self. i admit it, why can't you? push beyond the veil of your ego and try to unlearn that which you think you know. walk a path, don't just talk about it.

 

[navedub]

again, insecurity. pursuit truth, be honest in your intentions behind discussing things. BE HONEST, thats the core of truth. self honesty as well as honesty with those you disagree with. if i'm wrong in my assumptions prove me wrong, but human intention is very comprehensible. why would you discuss something you already know the answer to? for the sake of truth, no, for the sake of self. i admit it, why can't you? push beyond the veil of your ego and try to unlearn that which you think you know. walk a path, don't just talk about it.

p.s. no disrespect intended, just blatant honesty. i respect your beliefs, i respect you as a part of the collective whole. continue believing as you do and i hope you also have a good life. what i don't respect is that you claim to be pursuiting an understanding of something which EVERYONE knows can not be understood with mere logic. how long have you all been on this quest to find the answer as to why people have faith in something outside of logic, science, matter (as we understand it today)? any results? do you have a better understanding? no, because you don't seek an answer, you only seek to continue a question. an unanswerable question to you in which no truth will be found because you live in a boxed in logic. the human heart is not understood with logic, neither is the conditioned ego until honestly viewed by one's self. i am a hypocrite, i am, i am, i know i am. i honestly view this about myself. i lie, i lie, i know i do. that i also view. these are all unchanging truths that can only begin to change once one admits they're a part of their intent. but i also know i love, i love and that i care. i do honestly care if i hurt your feelings in any way Ledifini. you are of great value to all existence and i pray you find that truth and constant rebirth if you haven't already. i respect all atheists, i do not respect falcities, but the people who hold them, myself included i will always respect.

 

[Ledifni]

p.s. no disrespect intended, just blatant honesty.

I beg to differ. You intend great disrespect, or you would not choose your words as you do.

i respect your beliefs, i respect you as a part of the collective whole.

You do not. If you did, then you would show respect. You believe I will respect you for saying you respect me, but I will not; I'll respect you for respecting me.

There are so many things wrong with your replies to me that I'm glad I didn't opt to continue this discussion -- it would be incredibly frustrating. I said I don't intend to continue the debate, and I meant that. Unless your attitude changes, my decision is not going to change. Please stop replying to my posts unless you are prepared to change your attitude.

 

[Tenka]

reason is left to personal interpretation and the intent behind the reasoning.

Look at the title of this thread, your reasoning has never become a part of it.

You want to come in to a discussion/debate forum and say, won't you all let me have my belief??
Thewn you accuse anyone trying to engage you of being insecure in their own beliefs, where have you come from that this is acceptable behaviour?

I can show you the reasoning behind my atheism, it is quite simple and doesn't rely on subjective experience or wishful thinking.

i'm glad you're a skeptic, so am i.

What are you sceptical of? for example?

find that eternal, unchanging truth and you'll better understand my beliefs.

Lose your superstition and you'll understand me.

 

[navedub]

I beg to differ. You intend great disrespect, or you would not choose your words as you do.



You do not. If you did, then you would show respect. You believe I will respect you for saying you respect me, but I will not; I'll respect you for respecting me.

There are so many things wrong with your replies to me that I'm glad I didn't opt to continue this discussion -- it would be incredibly frustrating. I said I don't intend to continue the debate, and I meant that. Unless your attitude changes, my decision is not going to change. Please stop replying to my posts unless you are prepared to change your attitude.

ok, i'll admit many of my words were harsh but looking back on them, is there still no truth to be found in them? can, we, as human beings get past arguing a point and really get to what the heart of the matter is, which is what i was discussing throughout this whole post and that is.......not whether you or i are correct in the conclusions we come to about existence, rather what shapes our intent behind discussing them? is it to serve the conclusion (to reinforce it) or is it to serve a better understanding of truth? i deeply apoligize for any disrespectful comments, you seem to be one of the few atheists i've run into that actually care about respect on the whole, if you'd like to continue the discussion.

 

[navedub]

seee, again you didn't read the discussion. "instinct and an innate universal understanding"

doubly, in the same way a child may not comprehend their own reflection. that does not make the child of any less value to existence, neither below a creature that does recognize its own reflection, just in a different place on the path of understanding. words are dead symbols used to express what each individual observes, if you can not get past the words and recognize individual perception you can not comprehend personal truth, individuality and therfore will never know MY truth. continue reading part 2 of "discussion with an atheist" RE: my truth, your truth, the truth.

 

[FreezBee]

Discussion with a client. Why faith cannot explain anything.

Client: Hi I'd like to pay for that.

Cashier: Sure. It's ten bucks please.

Client: Here (gives a monopoly money ten bill)

Cashier: Uh... it's ten dollars.

Client: I just gave you ten dollars.

Cashier: I mean, ten real dollars.

Client: They are real.

....

Client: Exactly! I'm so glad that you respect my right to believe silly things.

Cashier: So am I. SECURITY!!!

Very, very excellent

Archaeologists have found trade documents from Achaemenid Persia, wherein it's stated that payment should be in uncoined silver. Reason? The face value of a coin might say 1 dareic, but noone accepted that at faith value. It was known to not contain 1 Dareic's worth of silver.


cheers

- FreezBee

 

[navedub]

Look at the title of this thread, your reasoning has never become a part of it.

You want to come in to a discussion/debate forum and say, won't you all let me have my belief??
Thewn you accuse anyone trying to engage you of being insecure in their own beliefs, where have you come from that this is acceptable behaviour?

I can show you the reasoning behind my atheism, it is quite simple and doesn't rely on subjective experience or wishful thinking.

What are you sceptical of? for example?

Lose your superstition and you'll understand me.

i fully understand you, but you do not make an effort to understand me because you think it is a step backwards but fail to see MY truth.

" Lose your superstition and you'll understand me. " incomprehensible hypocrasy is all i see in that statement.

 

[Tenka]

i fully understand you, but you do not make an effort to understand me because you think it is a step backwards but fail to see MY truth.

What is it you'd like me to understand? That your faith is truth because I don't comprehend it?
It's not a matter of me not understanding, it's that it isn't going to fly with me.

When are you going to show the reasoning? Comeon, I'll show you mine if you show me yours

" Lose your superstition and you'll understand me. " incomprehensible hypocrasy is all i see in that statement.

Are you joking? Did you read what I replied to with that? ..sheesh

Consider this for a second, religion, faith, God aren't something that everyone is trying to find and possibly aren't a greater understanding or enlightenment.
Where you are might not be where everyone is supposed to get to eventually, it might not even be a reasonable position.

 

[navedub]

Very, very excellent

Archaeologists have found trade documents from Achaemenid Persia, wherein it's stated that payment should be in uncoined silver. Reason? The face value of a coin might say 1 dareic, but noone accepted that at faith value. It was known to not contain 1 Dareic's worth of silver.


cheers

- FreezBee

uhhh, ok, relevancy.......oh, none. put some thought behind your comments..or, READ THE ENTIRE POST!!! i'm convinced, you people don't read, you just don't, you refuse to. for the life of me i can't figure why.

 

[Eudaimonist]

no, i meant beyond comprehension, which your quote from Seneca supports.

My quote from Seneca is on a totally different subject. Perhaps you'll explain to me what you see in that quote?

 

[navedub]

What is it you'd like me to understand? That your faith is truth because I don't comprehend it?
It's not a matter of me not understanding, it's that it isn't going to fly with me.

When are you going to show the reasoning? Comeon, I'll show you mine if you show me yours

Are you joking? Did you read what I replied to with that? ..sheesh

Consider this for a second, religion, faith, God aren't something that everyone is trying to find and possibly aren't a greater understanding or enlightenment.
Where you are might not be where everyone is supposed to get to eventually, it might not even be a reasonable position.

its not worth it. don't discuss philosophy if you don't understand philosophy. things like perception.....what do you know about it? enlighten me. even a 5 year old understand the concept ...."if a tree falls in a forest"....ever heard that on? ever put any thought behind it?

 

[navedub]

My quote from Seneca is on a totally different subject. Perhaps you'll explain to me what you see in that quote?

sift through the many replies, the posting and you'll find the answer. that is, if you're really seeking one. or, just make an effort to look deeper into his quote. frankly, i just don't have the time to explain something that should already be understood. i hope the lightbulb in your head goes off for you.

 

[Eudaimonist]

uhhh, ok, relevancy.......oh, none. put some thought behind your comments..or, READ THE ENTIRE POST!!! i'm convinced, you people don't read, you just don't, you refuse to. for the life of me i can't figure why.

That's not what is happening. I've seen this sort of thing many times before.

When two people discuss ideas from a very different philosophical perspective, there is often a great deal of difficulty in effectively communicating with each other. I'm not suggesting that successful communication is impossible, but it takes more effort to communicate than it would with someone who has a similar perspective. People may use terms differently, or they may have different standards for what makes for a successful argument, or they may have a different network of conceptual relations in their worldview, etc. There is much that can go wrong in communication.

The only cure that I have ever seen is to continue the discussion and try to resolve the misunderstandings by tracing them back to their conceptual roots. It never helps to insist that you know the other person's intent or motivations, as if you had the power of mindreading. It doesn't take dishonesty for someone to misunderstand what seems perfectly straightforward and obvious to another.

 

[navedub]

its not worth it. don't discuss philosophy if you don't understand philosophy. things like perception.....what do you know about it? enlighten me. even a 5 year old understand the concept ...."if a tree falls in a forest"....ever heard that on? ever put any thought behind it?

and, again, since you don't read the post. i'm not discussing what god is, who god is, if you're wrong, i'm right. just that no one knows everything and we ought to ALL recognize, honor and respect that, theists and atheists alike. if you refuse to understand my truth, though i fully explain it and then you still refuse you and i do not have the same goal. so then we ought to discuss the goal...........which, none of you seem to want to do.

 

[Eudaimonist]

sift through the many replies, the posting and you'll find the answer. that is, if you're really seeking one. or, just make an effort to look deeper into his quote. frankly, i just don't have the time to explain something that should already be understood. i hope the lightbulb in your head goes off for you.

I have been reading Seneca's letters -- I have read the whole letter that includes this quote, so I know the context -- I have studied Greek philosophy, so I know the issue Seneca was touching on.

I honestly seek truth and I don't see any connection to anything you have written in this topic.

Perhaps it's not something obvious after all? Please be explicit and explain what you think is obvious.

 

[navedub]

That's not what is happening. I've seen this sort of thing many times before.

When two people discuss ideas from a very different philosophical perspective, there is often a great deal of difficulty in effectively communicating with each other. I'm not suggesting that successful communication is impossible, but it takes more effort to communicate than it would with someone who has a similar perspective. People may use terms differently, or they may have different standards for what makes for a successful argument, or they may have a different network of conceptual relations in their worldview, etc. There is much that can go wrong in communication.

The only cure that I have ever seen is to continue the discussion and try to resolve the misunderstandings by tracing them back to their conceptual roots. It never helps to insist that you know the other person's intent or motivations, as if you had the power of mindreading. It doesn't take dishonesty for someone to misunderstand what seems perfectly straightforward and obvious to another.

wow! that is the most intelligent meaningful thing i've read yet. finally, some truth!

never helps to insist that you know the other person's intent or motivations, as if you had the power of mindreading. It doesn't take dishonesty for someone to misunderstand what seems perfectly straightforward and obvious to another.

i agree, it doesn't help. infact its destructive in nature. but is that destruction necessarily a bad thing? doesn't it at times infuse some energy into thought? in my estimation its only incidental that one finds it negative or positive. hence, the heart of this discussion. is it ok that theists and atheists find different perspectives on truth. in fact, isn't it healthy? and if it is, shouldn't we make an effort to honor and understand individual truth?

 

[Eudaimonist]

is it ok that theists and atheists find different perspectives on truth. in fact, isn't it healthy? and if it is, shouldn't we make an effort to honor and understand individual truth?

Sure, when we are convinced that "individual truth" is in fact true.

There are possibly two basic ways we may speak of "truth".

1) Truths of reality or logic. E.g. "It's raining out", "2+2=4"

2) Personal truths.

Personal truths are of a totally different sort than type 1. They are ideas that are so basic to our worldview that we feel in our gut they must be true. They may be based on life experience, or were learned when young. They seem obvious, and often go unquestioned. It can be very difficult to even imagine that a personal truth could be wrong.

There is one big problem with personal truths -- at least as seen by those people used to type 1 truths -- they aren't necessarily true in the sense that type 1 truths are. Personal truths are not necessarily true of either reality or logic.

While an atheist may be tolerant of other people holding type 2 truths, they usually place a high priority on type 1 truths. If someone asserts a type 2 truth as true, the atheist wants to make sure it is also a type 1 truth.

It seems that you are more of a type 2 truth kind of guy, so you may need to keep this in mind.

Does that make sense?