Epistemology or "E did what to Imself?"

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm saying arguments should stand far more on their own merits rather than appeals to authority or what can be argued to be needlessly obfuscating systematic analysis that muddies the waters rather than making the issues clear to laypeople in general, which I imagine most posters are, not having the privileged status to read academic texts all the time

And how long should the 'argument' be? One syllogism in length? Is that ever REALLY adequate?

Personally, my standard for being convinced requires reams of writing, something like a library of books, really, both pro and con and positions in between, adding up to thousands of pages of argument for me to deliberate over and hundreds of hours by which I expect to have to engage in order to work through my existential deliberations on it all.

Call it a ... Journey into Argument.

 

[muichimotsu]

And how long should the 'argument' be? One syllogism in length? Is that ever REALLY adequate?

Personally, my standard for being convinced requires reams of writing, something like a library of books, really, both pro and con and positions in between, adding up to thousands of pages of argument for me to deliberate over and hundreds of hours by which I expect to have to engage in order to work through my existential deliberations on it all.

Call it a ... Journey into Argument.

It's a start, I didn't say it was adequate, don't put words in my mouth or insinuate such a thing, it's not helpful

If you need THAT much to convince you, it seems more like you're trying to add up a bunch of "sufficient" arguments to lead to a conclusion that seems likely rather than substantiated in a way that isn't pointed out to have holes in it with the justification made.

And as others point out, if you need this much time to be convinced of God belief, why did God only give us a limited amount of time and knowingly made a world that would eventually become such that our capacity to retain that kind of interest in a subject would be massively hindered? Seems like God sets humanity up for failure in that hypothetical scenario.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's a start, I didn't say it was adequate, don't put words in my mouth or insinuate such a thing, it's not helpful

If you need THAT much to convince you, it seems more like you're trying to add up a bunch of "sufficient" arguments to lead to a conclusion that seems likely rather than substantiated in a way that isn't pointed out to have holes in it with the justification made.

And as others point out, if you need this much time to be convinced of God belief, why did God only give us a limited amount of time and knowingly made a world that would eventually become such that our capacity to retain that kind of interest in a subject would be massively hindered? Seems like God sets humanity up for failure in that hypothetical scenario.

I won't disagree with you that what we corporately realize on an Existential level is both a dilemma and a seeming tragedy for all of humanity. But, the typical moral accusation against God only becomes a real moral accusation IF ... the God of the Bible is real. But if He's not real, then all that people like you are really doing, on an existential level, is turning all of this into a personal problem--a social and political one at that--and you're simply pushing against other people who do find value in the Bible. And you skeptics should be honest about this. You're not just arguing for arguments sake, are you? If you didn't think God existed and that He doesn't matter, then you more than likely wouldn't be here. Let's face it; most of you skeptics aren't here because you want to 'help' other people out of what you think is delusion. No, more likely, you're here because you feel threatened or socially interfered with in some way. So, like Lenin, you've taken the Train to Russia to stand upon your neo-political pedestal.

OR

Let's look at this from another hypothetical perspective perhaps, since you skeptics seem to like your hypothetical scenarios: IF the God of the bible is real in the way that the Bible says He is, then if you have enough sensibility, rationality and fortunate placement in the world to know that you are dealing with the God of the Bible, especially on this side of 2,000 years of Church Tradition and Preaching, then the individual excuses which we each have begin to pale in their efficacy because God has already told us 'how' He wants things to work and how all of this is going to go down in the long run ...

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Philo, if you want to know why atheists act as they do, why not try to find out rather than just assuming you know?

You might read Dan Barker, who said that the very qualities that drove him to become a preacher drove him to become an evangelical atheist: he wants to explore what's really true and help others find out about it as well.

You might read Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion - on the very first page, he says:
"As a child, my wife hated her school and wished she could leave. Years later, when she was in her twenties, she disclosed this unhappy fact to her parents, and her mother was aghast: ‘But darling, why didn’t you come to us and tell us?’ Lalla’s reply is my text for today: ‘But I didn’t know I could.’ I didn’t know I could. I suspect – well, I am sure – that there are lots of people out there who have been brought up in some religion or other, are unhappy in it, don’t believe it, or are worried about the evils that are done in its name; people who feel vague yearnings to leave their parents’ religion and wish they could, but just don’t realize that leaving is an option."

You might read Greta Christina's book, Why Are You Atheists So Angry? That'll certainly tell you plenty of reasons why atheists feel it is important to debate Christians.

And you skeptics should be honest about this. You're not just arguing for arguments sake, are you?

By all means, let me be honest. I am here for a number of reasons, and they do not contradict each other any more than it is a contradiction to go to a restaurant because you like the view, enjoy the food, and think it's important to help small family businesses.

I come here for fun. It's interesting to debate. It sharpens the thinking skills. It's amusing to point out logical errors.

I come here to learn. I have picked up a great deal at Christian Forums over the years. From Christians, I have learned interesting facts about the Bible, and about the details of different Christian beliefs. From atheists and other non-Christians, I have learned good arguments that expose logical flaws. From successes and failures in various debates, I have learned how to make arguments work, and developed my own views.

I come here to help others. There is no doubt at all that a great many people in recent years have deconverted from Christianity. This I see as a very positive thing, overall, and debates such as these can help in that process. Whether convincing a fundamentalist that they are incorrect to stick to a rigid and harmful interpretation of their religion, or convincing a liberal Christian that they are wrong to believe something if they have no real evidence for it, this is a good use of time, and helps the world in a small way. Converting people may not take place with the person you are in the process of debating, at least not straight away (although you never know). But more likely it is other people, browsing through the threads, who will be influenced.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Philo, if you want to know why atheists act as they do, why not try to find out rather than just assuming you know?

You might read Dan Barker, who said that the very qualities that drove him to become a preacher drove him to become an evangelical atheist: he wants to explore what's really true and help others find out about it as well.

...I've already read a couple of Barker's books over the last 20 or so years.

You might read Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion - on the very first page, he says:
"As a child, my wife hated her school and wished she could leave. Years later, when she was in her twenties, she disclosed this unhappy fact to her parents, and her mother was aghast: ‘But darling, why didn’t you come to us and tell us?’ Lalla’s reply is my text for today: ‘But I didn’t know I could.’ I didn’t know I could. I suspect – well, I am sure – that there are lots of people out there who have been brought up in some religion or other, are unhappy in it, don’t believe it, or are worried about the evils that are done in its name; people who feel vague yearnings to leave their parents’ religion and wish they could, but just don’t realize that leaving is an option."

I have this, actually, but I guess I should finish reading it and give Dawkins some of the same space in my brain as I've already given Sam Harris.

You might read Greta Christina's book, Why Are You Atheists So Angry? That'll certainly tell you plenty of reasons why atheists feel it is important to debate Christians.

I haven't read her book, but I have read an article she put out at about the same time she released that book. So, I'm familiar with her and here disgruntlement with Christianity.

By all means, let me be honest. I am here for a number of reasons, and they do not contradict each other any more than it is a contradiction to go to a restaurant because you like the view, enjoy the food, and think it's important to help small family businesses.

I come here for fun. It's interesting to debate. It sharpens the thinking skills. It's amusing to point out logical errors.

I come here to learn. I have picked up a great deal at Christian Forums over the years. From Christians, I have learned interesting facts about the Bible, and about the details of different Christian beliefs. From atheists and other non-Christians, I have learned good arguments that expose logical flaws. From successes and failures in various debates, I have learned how to make arguments work, and developed my own views.

I'd rather work through more prolific and expansive educational processes rather than simply rely upon so-called debate ... and I'd rather read a good book or article on various fields---like Logic or Hermeneutics---rather than indulge in constant fisticuffs with other people who don't really seem to want to engage what I might bring to the discussion table. (Which is why I purposely try to bring so little: why waste the time on those who "have it in" for my perspective because they see the presence of Christianity as a political and social outrage, right?)

I come here to help others. There is no doubt at all that a great many people in recent years have deconverted from Christianity. This I see as a very positive thing, overall, and debates such as these can help in that process. Whether convincing a fundamentalist that they are incorrect to stick to a rigid and harmful interpretation of their religion, or convincing a liberal Christian that they are wrong to believe something if they have no real evidence for it, this is a good use of time, and helps the world in a small way. Converting people may not take place with the person you are in the process of debating, at least not straight away (although you never know). But more likely it is other people, browsing through the threads, who will be influenced.

I can appreciate your interest(s) here, and I respect your having a space to express your own intellect and your own social perspective, even over and against the Christian faith. However, don't take it personally if I say that I do ...

Is it a coincidence, do you think, that I originally came here to help others, too ... ?

 

[muichimotsu]

I won't disagree with you that what we corporately realize on an Existential level is both a dilemma and a seeming tragedy for all of humanity. But, the typical moral accusation against God only becomes a real moral accusation IF ... the God of the Bible is real. But if He's not real, then all that people like you are really doing, on an existential level, is turning all of this into a personal problem--a social and political one at that--and you're simply pushing against other people who do find value in the Bible. And you skeptics should be honest about this. You're not just arguing for arguments sake, are you? If you didn't think God existed and that He doesn't matter, then you more than likely wouldn't be here. Let's face it; most of you skeptics aren't here because you want to 'help' other people out of what you think is delusion. No, more likely, you're here because you feel threatened or socially interfered with in some way. So, like Lenin, you've taken the Train to Russia to stand upon your neo-political pedestal.

OR

Let's look at this from another hypothetical perspective perhaps, since you skeptics seem to like your hypothetical scenarios: IF the God of the bible is real in the way that the Bible says He is, then if you have enough sensibility, rationality and fortunate placement in the world to know that you are dealing with the God of the Bible, especially on this side of 2,000 years of Church Tradition and Preaching, then the individual excuses which we each have begin to pale in their efficacy because God has already told us 'how' He wants things to work and how all of this is going to go down in the long run ...

The God doesn't have to be real except in the sense of someone claiming, because their actions tend to be motivated by that claim and belief that such an entity exists. That is the delusion I'm concerned with, not the entity itself, which might as well be imaginary as far as I'm concerned and only exist conceptually in the first place

True apatheists would not engage in that respect, but I don't use that label a huge amount of the time. But it still reflects some of my thoughts, which Christians never seem to care about in that if their god supposedly did exist, we'd reasonably have some way to verify it rather than just inferring it

I feel that Christians and theists in general are overselling their deity, first off, but also potentially using that notion to enforce even social, let alone legal, consequences in regards to people's nonbelief. Even something as minor as the stigma that still exists is, in no small part, due to theist's cultural hegemony.

So...you basically just want us to serve this deity because it's so powerful? You read Job often, because that sounds pretty much like the idea: how dare you question God, already assuming this entity in question exists rather than having the intellectual honesty and humility to consider that that presupposition may in fact be mistaken and you might have to fundamentally reconsider things, also an existentialist position and I'd argue, probably more common than Kierkegaard and the like in application

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The God doesn't have to be real except in the sense of someone claiming, because their actions tend to be motivated by that claim and belief that such an entity exists. That is the delusion I'm concerned with, not the entity itself, which might as well be imaginary as far as I'm concerned and only exist conceptually in the first place

Well, if this is the case in your thinking, then there's little point in someone like me making an effort to offer up any kind of explanation for my faith, now is there?

True apatheists would not engage in that respect, but I don't use that label a huge amount of the time. But it still reflects some of my thoughts, which Christians never seem to care about in that if their god supposedly did exist, we'd reasonably have some way to verify it rather than just inferring it

I feel that Christians and theists in general are overselling their deity, first off, but also potentially using that notion to enforce even social, let alone legal, consequences in regards to people's nonbelief. Even something as minor as the stigma that still exists is, in no small part, due to theist's cultural hegemony.

So...you basically just want us to serve this deity because it's so powerful? You read Job often, because that sounds pretty much like the idea: how dare you question God, already assuming this entity in question exists rather than having the intellectual honesty and humility to consider that that presupposition may in fact be mistaken and you might have to fundamentally reconsider things, also an existentialist position and I'd argue, probably more common than Kierkegaard and the like in application

Uh, no, I haven't ever thought anyone should 'just believe' nor have I been saying anything like that the entire time I've been on CF. So, with that, I'll just refer you to what I've said directly above.

 

[muichimotsu]

Well, if this is the case in your thinking, then there's little point in someone like me making an effort to offer up any kind of explanation for my faith, now is there?

There is if the belief in that entity motivates your behavior in a way that does not offer itself up to rational criticism of the foundational problems that arguably exist in that mentality, particularly that of authoritarianism and extreme deontological ethics

Uh, no, I haven't ever thought anyone should 'just believe' nor have I been saying anything like that the entire time I've been on CF. So, with that, I'll just refer you to what I've said directly above

You still fail to consider that a belief does not exist in a vacuum if it necessarily affects how people behave in their interactions with others and as regards attempts to solve perceived problems in what they believe to be effective

 

[Uber Genius]

I don't trust trances when there is common sense. When I was in Jr High, I dabbled in Christian Science, Science of the Mind, Occult and Word of Faith. There really was no big differences among them. I had trances often. For example, I once saw that one of my Teacher's husband was going to get in a car wreck at a specific curve in the road and I told her to warn him. Within a month, it happened. In looking back, I realized that I saw many people driving too fast around that curve and I overheard her say in class that her husband was a fast driver. There was no need for the supernatural to be involved, just observation and common sense. I also, saw many accidents at that curve too.

Many false religions got started from trances or visions.

Yet Peter and Paul are sent to the Gentiles by way of trances and visions, respectively.