One choice, two solutions and our preconceptions.

[achilles12604]

I am interested in the boiled down reason for accepting or rejecting religion.

After 2 years of debating those who refuse to accept religion and try their best to make me understand why, I think they have suceeded. I understand why they don't believe for the most part.

They have for the most part (a few details I feel are based on more faith than any Christian has) created a plausible solution to the formation, rise and continuance of Christianity, which completely negates the need for the supernatural.

On the other hand, my own views have grown and adapted until I am now able to fully see God's work through the facts of history. I am able to decide based on these same facts that God does exist, Jesus did come and teach, and die and rise again.


Since we are both basing our views on facts (much of the time the same facts), the major difinitive factor between non-theists and myself is in the analysis of these facts. Personal analysis is severely tainted by preconceptions. If a person understands the "truth" that there is no supernatural, then all of their analysis reflects this understanding. Hence any choice which includes a factor of the supernatural will be discarded immediately.


I feel that this understanding or rejection of the basic principles of the supernatural and God will ultimately form our final decisions about religion.


The bottom line is that there are at least two equally plausible solutions for solving this christian riddle. Our choice, is based on our "understanding" of "truth". Ultimately it is just that, a choice.

[bernee51]

I am interested in the boiled down reason for accepting or rejecting religion.

After 2 years of debating those who refuse to accept religion and try their best to make me understand why, I think they have suceeded. I understand why they don't believe for the most part.

They have for the most part (a few details I feel are based on more faith than any Christian has) created a plausible solution to the formation, rise and continuance of Christianity, which completely negates the need for the supernatural.

You bias is showing.

Are you asking why one might reject religion in general or christianity in particular?

Religion, in my analysis, and as I have stated elswhere, generally fulfils two roles. One translative, the other transformative.

For the vast majority of humanity the former is the primary and perhaps only role. Religious belief gives meaning and purpose to existence in the face of the slings and arrows of outrageuos fortune. It 'translates' the unknown into something that is 'knowable'.

Personally I do not need religious belief in order to fulfil that translative role.

On the other hand, my own views have grown and adapted until I am now able to fully see God's work through the facts of history. I am able to decide based on these same facts that God does exist, Jesus did come and teach, and die and rise again.

Since we are both basing our views on facts (much of the time the same facts), the major difinitive factor between non-theists and myself is in the analysis of these facts.

I dispute the 'facts' are the same. Is the resurrection i a 'fact' to you? To me it is a myth. Is the Jesus of the gospels a 'fact' to you? To me he is a myth.

What facts are you claiming that for theists and non-theists are the same. The fact that the universe exists?

Personal analysis is severely tainted by preconceptions. If a person understands the "truth" that there is no supernatural, then all of their analysis reflects this understanding. Hence any choice which includes a factor of the supernatural will be discarded immediately.

Unless, of course, there in undeniable evidence of the superatural.

The bottom line is that there are at least two equally plausible solutions for solving this christian riddle. Our choice, is based on our "understanding" of "truth". Ultimately it is just that, a choice.

I disagee on the word 'choice'. Choice implies two (at least) alternatives. For me there is no choice. There is no alternative. I did not choose, I came to a conclusion.

[achilles12604]

On the other hand, my own views have grown and adapted until I am now able to fully see God's work through the facts of history. I am able to decide based on these same facts that God does exist, Jesus did come and teach, and die and rise again.

Since we are both basing our views on facts (much of the time the same facts), the major difinitive factor between non-theists and myself is in the analysis of these facts.

I dispute the 'facts' are the same. Is the resurrection i a 'fact' to you? To me it is a myth. Is the Jesus of the gospels a 'fact' to you? To me he is a myth.

What facts are you claiming that for theists and non-theists are the same. The fact that the universe exists?

Most of what you asked about here are actually what I would call conclusions.

The Resurrection can not itself be a fact unless it is supported by other facts.


No when I refer to facts, I am refering to writings (biblical and not), archeology of the time, and other "hard" things we can accept in a multitude of lights.

Pliny's letter and its content would be a "fact" for example. That Christians were persecuted would be a conclusion.

Does this make sense?

Personal analysis is severely tainted by preconceptions. If a person understands the "truth" that there is no supernatural, then all of their analysis reflects this understanding. Hence any choice which includes a factor of the supernatural will be discarded immediately.

Unless, of course, there in undeniable evidence of the superatural.

True. However the vast majority of "evidence" which is accepted by non-theists revolves around science. Since science can not by definition even comment on the supernatural, their conclusion is that the supernatural doesn't exist. This line of reasoning is of course logically flawed and would be even if the supernatural didn't exist.

To conclude something after recieving no result from experimentation using improper tools is logically unsound, yet this demand is made over and over and over by non-theists.

You wouldn't use an electrometer to measure the chemical content of an unknown chemical.

The bottom line is that there are at least two equally plausible solutions for solving this christian riddle. Our choice, is based on our "understanding" of "truth". Ultimately it is just that, a choice.

I disagee on the word 'choice'. Choice implies two (at least) alternatives. For me there is no choice. There is no alternative. I did not choose, I came to a conclusion.

Granted. But your conclusion is one of the choices. The other choice is that I am right, however this choice is not a viable option for you based on both your experiences and your preconcieved notions of "truth" in the world. So I would suggest you still have two choices, but one of them you have rejected as implausible.

[bernee51]

On the other hand, my own views have grown and adapted until I am now able to fully see God's work through the facts of history. I am able to decide based on these same facts that God does exist, Jesus did come and teach, and die and rise again.

Since we are both basing our views on facts (much of the time the same facts), the major difinitive factor between non-theists and myself is in the analysis of these facts.

I dispute the 'facts' are the same. Is the resurrection i a 'fact' to you? To me it is a myth. Is the Jesus of the gospels a 'fact' to you? To me he is a myth.

What facts are you claiming that for theists and non-theists are the same. The fact that the universe exists?

Most of what you asked about here are actually what I would call conclusions.

Re: chistianity - in your view correct, in my view flawed

No when I refer to facts, I am refering to writings (biblical and not), archeology of the time, and other "hard" things we can accept in a multitude of lights.

I didn't realise there was archeological evidence of the existence of the Christ of the gospels.

Pliny's letter and its content would be a "fact" for example. That Christians were persecuted would be a conclusion.

No dispute that there were people who believed in Christ. Pliny wrote of christians not Christ. That does not make Christ a 'fact'

The existence of trekkies does not make Star Trek 'real'

Does this make sense?

Only in so far as apologetics makes sense

]
True. However the vast majority of "evidence" which is accepted by non-theists revolves around science.

This is a fallacy. There is no evidence of the existence of the Jesus of the gospels. Science or no science. It all has to do with probabilities. How often do people get raised from the dead? How many myths are there of god-men being raised from the dead? Get the picture?

]
To conclude something after recieving no result from experimentation using improper tools is logically unsound, yet this demand is made over and over and over by non-theists.

Observation of the naural world would suggest people live, people die.
I look for evidence of the supernatural - I see none. Objective.

Meditation and self-inquiry indicate to me the nature of the mind and the self. Subjective.

All this adds to my 'conclusion'

]
Granted. But your conclusion is one of the choices.

No my conclusion is the result of a number of choices. I look at each piece of evidence presented. Decide whether I think it is right or wrong. The conclusion then is indisputable. (in my mind)

[achilles12604]

No when I refer to facts, I am refering to writings (biblical and not), archeology of the time, and other "hard" things we can accept in a multitude of lights.

I didn't realise there was archeological evidence of the existence of the Christ of the gospels.

There was archeology of the time. For example the limestone tablet found in Nazareth circa 60CE which declared the death penalty for moving any bodies away from its tomb.

By itself this proves nothing except that there was a limestone tablet. Like I said, analysis is what is important.

Pliny's letter and its content would be a "fact" for example. That Christians were persecuted would be a conclusion.

No dispute that there were people who believed in Christ. Pliny wrote of christians not Christ. That does not make Christ a 'fact'

The existence of trekkies does not make Star Trek 'real'

I'm sorry. I must have missed the place where I declared that pliny's letter proved Christ's existence. Could you point it out or did you take a tangent which I never suggested and beat on that tangent for a bit?

]
True. However the vast majority of "evidence" which is accepted by non-theists revolves around science.

This is a fallacy. There is no evidence of the existence of the Jesus of the gospels. Science or no science. It all has to do with probabilities. How often do people get raised from the dead? How many myths are there of god-men being raised from the dead? Get the picture?

I get the picture just fine. Your preconceptions do not allow for these sorts of things thus the probabilities for you are different than for me.

Got it just fine.

PS - True. However the vast majority of "evidence" which is accepted by non-theists revolves around science. --- This is a fallacy.

Not it my experience on this forum. Non-theists are constantly harping that the only good evidence is scientific.

]
To conclude something after recieving no result from experimentation using improper tools is logically unsound, yet this demand is made over and over and over by non-theists.

Observation of the naural world would suggest people live, people die.
I look for evidence of the supernatural - I see none. Objective.

Of course not. If it were here it would be within a natural realm. Can you see the 4th dimension? Does time exist?

How come scientists can state that there are 11 dimensions and this can be accepted, but the idea of the supernatural (which could very easily fit into one or all of these dimensions) is ridiculous?

]
Granted. But your conclusion is one of the choices.

No my conclusion is the result of a number of choices. I look at each piece of evidence presented. Decide whether I think it is right or wrong. The conclusion then is indisputable. (in my mind)

Exactly. (emphasis mine)

[Furrowed Brow]

They have for the most part (a few details I feel are based on more faith than any Christian has) created a plausible solution to the formation, rise and continuance of Christianity, which completely negates the need for the supernatural.

I’d go much further and say the atheist stance against the supernatural is convincing.

The bottom line is that there are at least two equally plausible solutions for solving this christian riddle. Our choice, is based on our "understanding" of "truth". Ultimately it is just that, a choice.

I think you hit on something and are obviously aware that the real difference between the two is how we come to “understand“. Hence the quotation marks around “understranding”. For me, this is not about the eventual choice, it is about methodology. No amount of ancient text can be turned as evidence or proof of the supernatural. Neither can personal experience or personal conviction. So what becomes “plausible” seen from the differing perspectives also has to be put into quotation marks. Before rejecting the Christian conclusion I have already rejected the methodology. Thus a "choice" does not present itself.

[achilles12604]

They have for the most part (a few details I feel are based on more faith than any Christian has) created a plausible solution to the formation, rise and continuance of Christianity, which completely negates the need for the supernatural.

I’d go much further and say the atheist stance against the supernatural is convincing.

Out of curiosity what is this very convincing stance against the supernatural?

Thus far I believe it to be summed up as "Well I havn't seen it so it doesn't exist."

Is this the very convincing stance your refer to or did I miss something along the way.

[achilles12604]

The bottom line is that there are at least two equally plausible solutions for solving this christian riddle. Our choice, is based on our "understanding" of "truth". Ultimately it is just that, a choice.

I think you hit on something and are obviously aware that the real difference between the two is how we come to “understand“. Hence the quotation marks around “understranding”. For me, this is not about the eventual choice, it is about methodology. No amount of ancient text can be turned as evidence or proof of the supernatural. Neither can personal experience or personal conviction. So what becomes “plausible” seen from the differing perspectives also has to be put into quotation marks. Before rejecting the Christian conclusion I have already rejected the methodology. Thus a "choice" does not present itself.

I think you have it exactly.

The Christian option isn't an option to you based on the methodology of how you arrived at your conclusions.

I simply word it differently and state that it would be an option but that given your understanding of "truth" only one of those options would be logically plausible and the other would be non-sense.

[Furrowed Brow]

Out of curiosity what is this very convincing stance against the supernatural?

Thus far I believe it to be summed up as "Well I haven't seen it so it doesn't exist."

Is this the very convincing stance your refer to or did I miss something along the way.

Well we can start with I have not seen it so far. Then we can look at the scientific evidence against things like prayer. Then there is the hefty metaphysical superstructure one needs in place to explain stuff like prayer that the evidence shows does not really work anyway. We can look at the contradictory nature of the various dualisms required by slitting the universe into the physical and the metaphysical. When the subject gets on to stuff like ID then I have come to the conclusion that the theist point of view fails to get to grips with the logic and semantics of their own viewpoint. As much as stuff like dualism and design fail to really explain anything they are also guilty of purveying conceptual confusions. Then there is the theist's credulity in the face of claims for miracles, resurrection, soul, supernatural etc, with the seeming incomprehension that these notions are deeply problematic.

[achilles12604]

Out of curiosity what is this very convincing stance against the supernatural?

Thus far I believe it to be summed up as "Well I haven't seen it so it doesn't exist."

Is this the very convincing stance your refer to or did I miss something along the way.

Well we can start with I have not seen it so far.

ok

Then we can look at the scientific evidence against things like prayer.

Evidence against prayer. I'm not sure how this would impact the world of the supernatural unless you had conflicting information about prayer. Jesus says whatever you ask for in my name, it will be given to you. However this statement is usually translated in such a way as to make God into a vending machine. Obviously it can not be taken litterally. After all what if someone were to ask for God to cease existing in Jesus name?

Without a standard to measure against we can not assume prayer should always work how we want it to. If we can not be sure of how prayer works with regards to the physical world, then we certainly can not use it as proof against a non-physical reality.

Then there is the hefty metaphysical superstructure one needs in place to explain stuff like prayer that the evidence shows does not really work anyway.

Is this different from the previous one? You lost me.

We can look at the contradictory nature of the various dualisms required by slitting the universe into the physical and the metaphysical.

Scientists are constantly slitting the universe into multiple dimensions which all work together well. For now I am personally sure of 4 of them. And interestingly only 3 of these are visible.

When the subject gets on to stuff like ID then I have come to the conclusion that the theist point of view fails to get to grips with the logic and semantics of their own viewpoint.

Are we still talking about arguments against the supernatural or have we moved onto another subject?

As much as stuff like dualism and design fail to really explain anything they are also guilty of purveying conceptual confusions. Then there is the theist's credulity in the face of claims for miracles, resurrection, soul, supernatural etc, with the seeming incomprehension that these notions are deeply problematic.

Isn't this statement begging the question? Arguing for the supernatural is credulous because we obviously don't comprehend the logic and the problematic nature of the subject. Basically you are stateing that our position doesn't conform to our currect understanding of reality in any way and therefore it must not exist. But this doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Perhaps I totally misunderstood this last part.