Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
@3RU7AL
Tarik were you perhaps responding to 3ru7al when you said the following?
Sure, let’s go with that.
And was it in regards to this question?
Does the practical application of your ontology still boil down to, "always do what you think is morally correct"?
And if so how does one go about thinking something is morally correct without being of the subjective opinion, right or wrong, that something is morally correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You mean your “subjective” moral intuition. That’s in doubt so yes you have to prove it.
There is no doubt that I have opinions regarding what is moral and so do you. This isnot assuming the correctness of my moral intuition only that I have one and that I have no choice but to believe I am correct just as you do. I can hardly disagree with myself.
Where was that in my argument, do I have to quote it again for you?
I'm getting a little tired of this merry go round.
I don't have to prove that people have moral opinions or that those opinions, being only opinions, are subjective. Someone, not necessarily you, would have to prove something beyond those opinions exists before I would be able to maintain a beleif.
That doesn’t make sense how can I be correct if it doesn’t apply?
It doesn't matter what is or is not the case for a nihilist since none of us identifies as a nihilist. Also I do not believe that you can read minds and so if I want to know what any nihilist thinks I believe I would be better served asking them then trusting in your dubious insights.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Not if your a nihilist.
I don't think anyone involved in the conversation identifies as a nihilist whatever point you are trying to make by pointing this out doesn't apply here even if you are correct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You’ve yet to prove subjective morality.
I'm not talking about subjective morality I am talking about my moral intuition. I don't to prove that I have opinions regarding morality.
In fact quite the reverse. You would need to prove that some morality beyond human moral opinion exists. If that means there isno "true" morality so be it. I don't need objective morals to determine what kind of world I would like to live in or to deduce what human actions are likely to lead to that world.
Please please please stop trying to shift the burden of proof here.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
I am a skeptic and I don't pretend to have answers I am not privy too.
Created:
-->
@janesix
@FLRW
atoms aren't physical. Nothing is.
Go stand in front of a tornado and see if it is non-physical.
Even if matter does not "exist" in a really real for reallzies way that precludes the problems of soft solipsism and the clans of certain spiritualists it still observable interacts with other (not) "existing" matter so your proposed experiment has zero effect on the unfalsifiable nature of Jane's claim. That the possibly (not) "existing" tornado interacts with the possibly (not) "existing" Jane as we have observed possibly (not) "existing" matter interact before doesn't necessitate that it is for reallzies real.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Punishment is immaterialThat’s easy to say when your not being punished.
I'm not sure what your point is. I don't have to agree with the moral correctness of an action tocapitulate with the demands of a mafia boss because I fear he will break my legs. I also do not have to capitulate. I am still an independent actor. Inserting a god into the role of the mafia boss and replacing the leg breaking with whatever you consider punishment does not in any way resolve these issues. Punishment is immaterial in determining my personal moral intuition REGARDLESS of what I was threatened with and also REGARDLESS of my capitulation under duress and also REGARDLESS of whether I am explicitly told what is expected of me to avoid punishment or if I am expected to guess.
The approval of some god(s) is immaterial especially if they are completely undetectable unknowable and of unknown moral quality.That’s not applicable to the discussion because the narrative was if that weren’t the case.
As explained previously the moral dictates of the "antimoral" god are immaterial to determining my personal moral intuition.
the fittest social animals are those that work and cooperate with others the best.Or the one that’s the last man standing, nonetheless your argument isn’t applicable to your hypothetical scenario because if the goal was to kill as many people to receive your reward then most likely consensus would jump on it, I mean that’s not the message that’s currently being pushed yet we still have killers among us.
You misunderstood. My scenario is that you only find out after you die. Just like real life where according to you we can't know until we die. At this moment as far as your argument supports a "moral" god it also supports a "antimoral" god. Nothing in my hypothetical situation makes the purpose clear to us. In fact if I may clarify in this hypothetical universe the god in question has not communicated his wishes directly in any way and so people have made a number of imaginary "moral" gods and as social organisms they mostly cooperate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
"Ever wonder where popcorn came from?" Asks this article.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
neither want nor need such validation.As opposed to punishment?
Punishment is immaterial
It would not make me feel validated the way that being a free moral agent doesAnd you know this how?
The approval of some god(s) is immaterial especially if they are completely undetectable unknowable and of unknown moral quality.
survival of the fittest
Many people seem to misinterpret this phrase, as you have, to mean kill or be killed. That is seriously misleading. Humans are social animals and the fittest social animals are those that work and cooperate with others the best. So if we were in a universe without any god(s) were survival of the fittest was the only rule we would expect to see people mostly getting along within their social groups with competition between social groups... just like the universe we live in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Now that we got that scenario out the way let me say that I’m not advocating that you stop caring (by all means care away) but why is it so hard for you to believe there’s validation for it?
You have offered no validation you have only "said what it would require" and u neither want nor need such validation. It would not make me feel validated the way that being a free moral agent does and what's more would not stop me from being a free moral agent.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Since i have no reason to believe in any supernatural figures I must conclude organisms are the chief (apparently the only) source of purposeful deception including but not limited to camouflage, scent disguises, false warning colors and the telling of lies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I know exactly what you mean. I must start with the assumption "this is real". I cannot falsify that assumption so it can never get beyond working hypothesis which is not a standard of much confidence really.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Well according to your hypothetical scenario you would be the monster and that’s a fact.
According to the hypothetical situation where things that are objectively harmful to all humans like theft, murder and dishonesty are also objectively morally correct I am perfectly happy to be an objectively morally incorrect even if that does make me a monster. I just can't choose to not care about humans. That is not under my control.
Created:
-->
@janesix
Then you may come up against your epistemological limitations long before you know whether or not any god(s) are reasonable to believe in let alone which god it might be. Still I wish you luck.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Then I would be of the opinion that you and your god are moral monsters even in the face of an objective and unalterable moral standard that calls for murder, dishonesty and theft as hallmarks of goodness. Of course that would only be my opinion.
Created:
-->
@janesix
I support your efforts. If you are serious about finding the one true god then your job is to do everything possible to disprove each god. So first you must imagine what the world would be like if the god you are examining didn't exist. As a short cut I recommend imagining that no god(s) exist.
Can you describe a world with no god(s)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Unless you have any support for these hypothetical questions,
I don't know what you mean by support. Doesn't your whole argument hinge on our support being completely divorced from objective morals? Like if I disagree with objective morality objective morality wins right?
Anyway a hypothetical situation is just that. It isn't an argument for how the world is or should be but designed specifically as a thought exercise. The whole point is to see if you can agree with "true meaning" and "objective morality" if you find them horrible.
I think if you examine your (subjective personal opinions about) morality you will disagree with any god(s) whose moral pronouncements differ too drastically from your personal moral intuition.
I have every right not to take them seriously, I don’t know.
You are under no obligation to take anything I say or suggest seriously. Indeed it is not meant to be taken seriously exactly. I'm not seriously suggesting such a figure actually exists. In fact I don't believe in a god with moral pronouncements the polar opposite of your moral intuition any more than I believe in one whose more intuition matched yours. Yes I would say I think those two prospects are equally unlikely. The point is just to see this from a different perspective. To maybe get some insight that is hard to see unless you look at things from a different point of view.
I can answer this question. If any god(s) exists and if they disagree with me about what constitutes morally correct (human wellbeing is "good"), especially if I consider their morality particularly egregious (pointless and preventable human suffering is "good") I would not change my perspective. I would have the same reaction based on their actions and moral pronouncements. I am self accountable for my own moral integrity even under your model.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Nihilism exists in contrast with the concept of god(s).
You are right. That isn't precisely what you said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I don’t know
That can be a hard thing to admit but it is sometimes the only honest answer. Still if you are willing I think we can find out. We just need to make the situation as extreme as possible. Let's say that you die and meet the creator and his perfect objective standard is exactly the opposite of what you consider to be "obvious" that you should murder as many people as possible and lie with every breath and steal everything you can. If you do all that then you are rewarded and if you were kind and honest and didn't cheat or steal you are to be punished. Can you bring yourself to agree with that position?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Soluminsanis
This is simply not true. There are constants in the universe that are so precisely tuned it is truly alarming. The cosmological constant, the strength of gravity, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force. Just a few that if altered by an infinitesimal number would preclude the universe from even existing in a fashion where life could even evolve to begin with
How have you calculated the base odds that any given potential universe would or even could develop differently? Is there some reason to believe that this isn't just what naturally occurring universes look like? This is the gamblers fallacy.
Created:
-->
@Soluminsanis
Skeptics can't see God not because there's no evidence, but because there's so much evidence they have shut their eyes.
Please detail what you consider your very best evidence for your preferred god(s). It would not hurt to start by explaining exactly which god it is if you can.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Why use the word nihilism? You’re having to almost redefine it to mean its opposite.
You have defined nihilism not 3ru7al. You did so when you defined all atheists as nihilists. Atheism is not defacto nihilism unless NIHILISM=SUBJECTIVE AXIOLOGY.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Then you’re gonna have to prove that meaning is personal, otherwise you leave me no choice but to reject your argument.
Let's say for a moment that there is a god. Let's further say that you then believe that your behavior is meaningful because you believe you will be judged by your actions. Let's also say that when you die you are judged by the true objective morality of the creator of the universe and it is this. Left handed people are wrong. Being left handed is the only morally incorrect action a person can take. Can you bring yourself to agree with that position?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
You’re right. If only you gave what 3RU7AL said the same level of critique.
(IFF) NIHILISM = SUBJECTIVE AXIOLOGY (AND)
(IFF) GOD = OMNIPOTENT OMNISCIENT OMNIPRESENT CREATOR (AND)
(IFF) GOD ALONE DETERMINES OBJECTIVE AXIOLOGY (AND)
(IFF) GOD DOES NOT MAKE OBJECTIVE AXIOLOGY OBVIOUS TO HUMANS (AND)
(IFF) HUMANS SINCERELY DISAGREE ABOUT AXIOLOGY (THEN) ALL HUMANS ARE DE FACTO NIHILISTS
I see no readily apparent logical flaw with this and it each dichotomy included is a true dichotomy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
forming sound and reasonable arguments that is sufficient to meet your challenge.So what did you mean by this?
Only that I am justified in rejecting the idea that any higher power exists or necessitates any objective meaning of any kind even if semantically speaking I can't be objectively certain.
Even if there is some god(s) only I can determine what I personally find meaningful. Even if some higher power has an opinion of the subject I am under no obligation to adopt their standards and in fact will be quite unable to if they disagree with my personal opinion about what has meaning and what that meaning is.
Would you agree with that?
You should ask 3ru7al about the difference between quallia (meaningfull but abstract) >>the sun is beautiful<< and quanta (measurable but lacking any intrinsic meaning) >>the sun emits solar flares<<.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
the right faith is catholicism
See this actually weakens theistic claims rather than strengthening them.
IF faith is sufficient to lead to truth and IF Catholicism is the truth that faith leads to THEN we would not expect faith to lead to other religious doctrines.
Created:
-->
@ronjs
It seems that most skeptics are unwilling to see the proof (evidence) of Gods existence and mainly ask questions that are not relevant to the subject, because, i think, they really don't want an answer.
I will not claim that there is no evidence but there is certainly no sufficient evidence which which I have ever been presented. That is really all it would take is sufficient independently verifiable evidence. I think perhaps part of your frustration here is in the word sufficient.
I've been asked before what sort of evidence it would take to convince me and that question is actually a nonstarter. Newton had no idea that an apple was going to prove gravity to him (in a much as the story of Newton's apple isnot apocryphal) until it literally hit him in the head. In the same manner I'm not going to know what evidence of a deity would look like until I see it.
I can think of a few things that definitely won't convince me. Looking at trees for example. Trees are not evidence of any deity only of trees. Reading the bible or any other holy book is also insufficient. Books of scripture are not evidence of any deity only of books.
Another thing that will not convince me is any argument from ignorance or appeals to popularity. If I don't have a better answer (to questions like why are we here and where did the univercome from for example) I am still not obligated to adopt the insufficient answer put forth by someone else and the number of someones saying it is absolutely immaterial.
That in mind did you have anything to submit or were you just saying how annoying it is when people dismiss your unfalsifiable claims?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
No you have not. You have merely pushed me back to ONLY you would seem to decide what is meaningful to you and ONLY I seem to decide what is meaningful to me.
As a discussed previously that is my answer regarding alien abduction and santa claus as well. In other words I know that I can decide what is meaningful to me and the idea that anything else could decide for me is exactly as plausible to me as Santa claus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I don’t know but it probably depends on the action.
Well can you at least give us an example of a meaningful act and a meaningless act with a rigorous review of what makes each meaningful or not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
ONLY you can decide what is meaningful to you and ONLY I can decide what is meaningful to me.Prove it.
If you want to be pedantic and reach for 100 percent certainty I can't but what I can do is dismiss any higher meaning that has not been demonstrated and for the purposes of forming sound and reasonable arguments that is sufficient to meet your challenge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Nihilism exists in contrast with the concept of god(s).Maybe try to think outside the box.
I'm afraid that any problem with soft nihilism (the idea that one cannot prove any intrinsic message or value) you think I must grapple with are not really resolved in any way by appeals to some god and also that even if we definitionally equate nihilism with religiosity theism and nihilism are not the only possible positions (atheist Buddhists for example) nor are they mutually exclusive (a deists for example might believe in a god but not in intrinsic meaning and value) so this is in all ways a false dichotomy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It's called "affirming the consequent" or "motivated reasoning" or "poisoning the well".(IFF) NIHILISM = NOT-THEISM (AND)(IFF) NIHILISM = UNACCEPTABLE AND MUST BE AVOIDED AT ALL COSTS (THEN) THEISM = TRUETHERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE (TINA).Unfortunately, even if we accept this without any scrutiny whatsoever, we're still completely lost.WHAT DOES YOUR GOD WANT ME TO DO?
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
No you can’t because I didn’t argue in favor of it I just argued what it requires.
Ok so let's assume there is no meaning. If that's the case then you don't have meaning either and are also therefore a nihilist. Unless there is meaning then your question becomes silly because if there is no meaning as you define it then you are just doing things for reasons of your own and it doesn't matter what you imagine those reasons are and I'm not questioning your right to believe what you believe I'm asking why.
You by contrast seem profoundly disinterested in my explanation of why I believe those things I do in favor of questioning my right to even believe as I do without measuring it against a system whose rules I don't know enforced in some unspecified way by a deity you are not even willing to argue exists.
Not making the claim that your preferred god exists EXPLICITLY does not absolve you of the burden of proof IMPLICIT in demanding I justify not believing in one.EXPLICITLY > IMPLICITLY
Yes but you don't get to suggest that only a god can offer meaning and act as though you then don't have a burden of proof for both or you cannot justify having any meaning either. You have painted yourself into a corner where you must demonstrate god BEFORE you can justify that your life has meaning.
How do I justify my life without a god? How do you justify your life with one? You keep saying there is no reason to have this conversation if no god(s) exists and I just care about what I care about anyway by extension there is also no reason to have this conversation and you just care about what you care about anyway and that includes caring about what is possibly just a gentle fiction concerning some ultimate caretaker of human morality. Can you demonstrate that your half of the conversation has had meaning? If not then why expect anyone else too?
May I ask if you looked into the matter logically without being primarily concerned with your personal confusion or comfort and come to the uncomfortable and confusing conclusion that you cannot in fact demonstrate any god even to yourself, do you think you would stop living life and trying to be kind rather than cruel in as much as you can even identify the two?
The baseline reason not to just give up.Which is?
Which is subjective to each person.
It’s not up to you to decide what is and isn’t meaningful.
On the contrary. ONLY you can decide what is meaningful to you and ONLY I can decide what is meaningful to me. At least when MEANING=REASON TO LIVE/OBSERVE SELF ACCOUNTABILITY/TRY TO BE KIND RATHER THAN CRUEL IN AS MUCH AS WE CAN EVEN TELL THE DIFFERENCE.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
our internal realityElaborate please.
The thought picture your brain makes of the world so that you can "know" what is "true".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
It’s not up to you to decide what is and isn’t meaningful.
I think you are trying to have your cake and eat it to with this whole "I'm not trying to say there is a god but how do you find meaning without one" schtick that you have going on here. I think you are trying to get at the point that there HAS TO BE some god without actually making the claim because you know you can't demonstrate that claim.
I could just as easily ask how you justify believing in meaning if you can't demonstrate any god(s) and don't know the specific criteria some god(s) would judge you based on and you don't have a more satisfactory answer than I do. At least you haven't shared it.
Not making the claim that your preferred god exists EXPLICITLY does not absolve you of the burden of proof IMPLICIT in demanding I justify not believing in one. Especially when I have explained why I do not believe repeatedly.
IF you think there is meaning (as you define it) and IF you believe that meaning is contingent upon some god(s) THEN you have to demonstrate some god before your belief in meaning is justified.
Also I would like to share a possible alternative definition of meaning just between us and just for the purposes of this conversation.
ALTERNATIVE TO THE ONLY POSSIBLE DEFINITION OF MEANING a reason to get out of bed in the morning. Purpose. Direction. The baseline reason not to just give up.
I believe that this encompasses your definition in your case and I put it forward as therefore being more acceptable to us both. I think it could have great utility furthering any conversation regarding some justification for living. If you need a reason beyond I want to keep living whatever living is.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
It is so good to hear that you have NEVER EVER DONE ANYTHING WRONG AND DON'T HAVE TO APOLOGIZE AND WON'T APOLOGIZE AND IT IS ALL THEM. I want you to know that I recognize the emotional maturity of that position.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
What actually is belief?
Excellent question. When I get a better answer than "the stuff I suspect is true" I'll get back to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
regardless of your inability to prove meaning without reward and/or punishment?
I don't find punishment or reward meaningfull at all. Your conception of meaning is not meaningful to me. My life is not worth more to me if what you call meaning exists. I need you to understand that moving forward.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Soluminsanis
And who or what is changing these constants? You can't have changing constants without a constant changer.
No real reason to think it isn't a what. Say mindless processes guided by natural forces for example but whether there is a god or not there isn't one in evidence and whether there are other universes or not none is in evidence so really there is no answer readily available. In fact with just the one universe and no real notion where it came from or what happened before its formation if where and when are even terms that have meaning in that context. Honestly this one physical universe is already to big to fully explore and to mysterious to fully understand at least for the foreseeable future so maybe positing things outside of it is a little beyond what we might consider reasonable.
Created:
Posted in:
THE ONLY POSSIBLE DEFINITION OF MEANING a universal system of punishment and reward as yet undefined and governed by rules as yet undetailed.
THE ONLY POSSIBLE DEFINITION OF MORALITY an objective moral system as yet undefined and governed by rules as yet undetailed whereby humans are subjected to punishment or given rewards as yet undefined
THE ONLY POSSIBLE DEFINITION OF NIHILISM any system of thought beliefs or accountability that does not include both meaning and morality as necessarily existent and possibly all systems of belief whatever if there turns out to be no meaning as above defined.
This is just a rough draft and feel free to make corrections. Also sorry if I'm flooding you with messages I'm just trying to be as complete as possible in communicating my ideas.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Before you said my definition of MEANING was unorthodox, morality wasn’t apart of my argument.
Oh wait I did say that you are right. I meant there being punishment and reward in the afterlife. That is not synonymous with meaning as far as I know although you have adopted it as the ONLY POSSIBLE definition of meaning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Before you said my definition of MEANING was unorthodox, morality wasn’t apart of my argument.
No I was talking about your definition of morality specifically and I'm sorry if I was unclear.
Nihilism being okay you’ve simply said as much.
If I am a nihilist by your definition (and I don't self identify as a nihilist just to be clear) then yes I am 100% on board with nihilism though I am not ok with the idea of just not caring about anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I'm not interested in arguing the semantics. Humans hold each other accountable for their actions including self accountability in many cases even if the universe doesn't right? Like we can observe them doing it. Putting each other in jail and other penalties.It’s misleading to just say that without mentioning the other side we also wrongfully convict when we put in jail and other penalties and we also wrongfully don’t convict and other penalties under our system. Lastly accountability is meaningless in a meaningless life.
Well whether there is any higher power or meaning in life (and again whether there is a thing you call meaning or not I still care about what I care about and that is close enough actual meaning for me) humans do hold each other accountable and the way you define meaning I am perfectly ok with there not being any. In fact I think I prefer that we are responsible for and only to ourselves. I think that makes us more accountable not less. If there is no god and no devil then you can hardly blame them when things don't go your way or when you don't live up to the standards of accountability that society sets for you or that you set for yourself.
Also yes we get things wrong and convict people wrongfully and there may never be TRUE JUSTICE in the end if that is even a coherent concept but even if that is true and the universe is every bit as fundamentally unfair as it appears to be we still have to just keep going and doing our best to the best of our understanding. There just isn't an alternative to just keeping going and doing the best we can with what we have to work with whether there is a god or any justice or any meaning or even if none of those things exist. In fact if there is no afterlife I would argue that it is even more important to make the best of this life and leave behind a legacy that you can be proud of.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
What is it you think I'm signing off on exactly? I'm not advocating for example that everyone should just behave however they like regardless of who they hurt only that there doesn't need to be any higher (than human) power to enforce these rules or give me these feelings.
Your definition of morality is unorthodox in that you disqualify any secular or humanist systems from consideration (and possibly disqualify morality from existing at all). As far as most people are concerned your morals are your list of behaviors that are preferable and acceptable whether personal or shared and whether religious or secular. If you just can't countenance calling my list of preferred and acceptable behaviors morality that is your business but that is very different to saying I don't have one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I'm ok with human systems of accountability.To some degree you can argue that accountability isn’t a system rather just a fact of life.
I'm not interested in arguing the semantics. Humans hold each other accountable for their actions including self accountability in many cases even if the universe doesn't right? Like we can observe them doing it. Putting each other in jail and other penalties.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Also it doesn't matter if I'm ok with it or not.Then why mention it?
You asked if I was ok with there being no meaning in the unorthodox way you describe it and this was part of my answer.
Not if you off yourself and get punished for it in the afterlife.
Or indeed if there is no afterlife but either way I rather enjoy my life and am not prepared to engage in any self harm so you don't need to worry.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I'm more or less ok with human systems of accountability. Especially my own private system of self accountability. Also it doesn't matter if I'm ok with it or not. I have to live in this universe whether meaning and morality as you define them exist or not right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
like in order to have meaning reward and/or punishment is required,
Let's say this is true what is your point? Let's say ther is no meaning at all of any kind. Then what? That doesn't give us any actionable data. It does nothing to inform our decisions or change the way we live as far as I can tell. I am totally ok with that and don't feel like there has to be any further validation. Why is this sticking in your craw?
a tiny fraction of the stuff ergo we are mostly woefully ignorant.Tiny is subjective considering size is limitless, also that statement requires you to know how much “stuff” there is which I doubt.
I don't care to argue the semantics with you. There is a lot human beings don't know and neither of us is the exception to that rule even if there is an exception.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You keep saying ignorant and I feel like you mean it to be an insult. I would like to point out before we finish that ignorance is a quality we share and that it is not in and of itself a bad thing. Humans can only know those things which can be tested and that is only a tiny fraction of the stuff ergo we are mostly woefully ignorant.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
I once believed things on faith. I searched within myself earnestly in faith and thought I knew the truth by that faith. Upon honest examination of my reasons for belief I found that I wasn't actually justified at all. In my attempt to hold on to some faith I read the whole bible. Then I read it again and although I had never self identified as a Christian I must admit it was the Christian bible at least in part that lead my to atheism. On other words the method you are right now advocating led to me being a nonbeliever. I did search in faith and I found it insufficient.
At this point I find that a lot of believers tell me that I have gotten the magic formula wrong. That I couldn't have had "true" faith originally would have found god. This is very convenient for someone who has an unfalsifiable position and if carried to its logical conclusion a little rude since it is tantamount to calling someone a liar.
If you were not about to make that or a similar point I apologize for the misunderstanding and am prepared to give your actual response fair consideration. If however that is where you are going you really could save it because I don't think much of the no true scotsman argument.
I noticed also that you said that jesus said some stuff. That's really nice and all but jesus saying stuff, doing stuff and being more than human is the claim and under no circumstances can a claim ever act as conclusive evidence for itself. The bible does not prove the existence of god it proves the existence of books. I don't dispute for a moment that books exist.
Created: