Atheism has not done that either since it has never claimed anything at all, it's just a process. — Christoffer

Atheism claims that process is relevant to issues the scale of gods. So prove that claim please. Please be loyal to your own chosen methodology. Apply that process with equal enthusiasm to all positions. Be intellectually honest.

Or, another option would be to relinquish any claim to be a person of reason in regards to these particular topics, and declare yourself to be an ideologist. There's no crime in that, all of us are entitled to adopt a position for no other reason that we wish to.

Reason is similar to faith in that it involves an act of surrender. Like with faith, to be reasoners we must follow reason where ever it takes us, we don't get to choose where the trail will lead. Ideologists on the other hand are free to pick any destination, travel there, and then build a little fort.

I'm offering no judgement as to whether a person should be a reasoner or ideologist in regards to any particular subject. That's their choice to make. All I'm saying is...

Ideologists don't get to claim to be reasoners with impunity.

Atheism does not have a claim, it's a process of reasoning — Christoffer

The problem here is that, like most atheists, you sincerely don't realize that atheism is built upon a claim. The next problem may perhaps be that you've built a self flattering personal identity out of atheism, thus creating a substantial built in bias against any threat to that worldview.

The premise and conclusion from it are based on your own perspective. It is your interpretation which concludes for you that the existence of those deities would entail a contradiction. — BrianW

No, that's not really the case. Whether or not a contradiction is entailed is based on rules and logic. There are unwritten rules about appropriate language use, and so long as these rules are abided by, there can be unambiguous cases where a contradiction is entailed. An example would be a square-circle. Unless you decide to be silly with words, we both know what that means, and that what it means entails a contraction. If someone doesn't want to abide by these rules, then they ought to be clear from the outset so that the problem can be quickly dealt with.

From my experience, nobody worships a dead god, which means those who believe in them have a contradicting argument. — BrianW

There probably are people with such beliefs, but they either don't realise the inconsistency, or they accept it on the grounds that God is above logic.

The claims and statements that you express, which are based on your reason infer a choice. Reason does not just conduct itself arbitrarily. The fact that you are adhering to a particular set of beliefs in accordance with certain points of reference, especially now, when you have the capacity to understand and determine whatever actions to engage in, means you have made a choice. — BrianW

You still haven't properly explained anything on this one, you've just said that a choice is inferred, or that such-and-such means that there's a choice, but it doesn't, at least not in the relevant sense: the sense that I'm taking issue with. But we don't seem to be getting anywhere with this, so I think I'll just explain where I stand and then drop it if you can't provide the explanation that I'm seeking.

I didn't choose to become convinced by what I did, I just became convinced. I can choose, at least so it seems, to do this or that, like read a book or think about something, perhaps something which provides a set up where I might become convinced, but that's not the same thing. I can't choose what I believe or do not believe. For example, I literally cannot help but believe that I'm alive or disbelieve that I'm a butterfly. There's no choice in that whatsoever. I couldn't believe things like that, whilst I'm in the right state of mind, if I tried. And even if I were delusional as a result of mind altering drugs or mental illness, it would still be out of my hands, not a matter a choice.

You cannot determine by logic how scientific hypothesis are much greater in probability than religious assertions when both reference points are unknown. That is, we don't know what the origin of everything is and our perspective of reality is insufficient. Also, both religion and science can be logical concerning this discussion. — BrianW

Okay, well of course I agree that where there's sufficient evidence, as in the origin of everything, if by that you mean an explanation beyond where the current scientific consensus takes us, with the big bang and such, then I accept that for what it is. We only know so much. But the origin of the universe is not necessarily going to be what the discussion is about. These discussions can go in many varied directions, so what you're addressing only touches upon part of a much broader topic.

And yes, both religious-based thinking and scientific-based thinking can be logical or illogical.

Metaphysical part of religion is the part not determined by practical experience and cannot be explicitly defined logically (primarily involving God). — BrianW

Okay, so then you were saying that any beliefs against the metaphysics of religion are not determined by practical experience and cannot be explicitly defined logically. Why not? I don't think that that's necessarily the case.

I'm okay with scrutiny if it means a logical unbiased analysis not an attempt to impose personal bias on others. — BrianW

Well, I for one am not trying to impose anything at all. I'm just expressing what I think and the like.

...or they accept it on the grounds that God is above logic. — S

I'm not claiming a God exists, or that any doctrines that arise from that belief need to be believed. However, should a God exist, it seems reasonable and sensible to propose that it is, or may be, above logic.

God is typically proposed to be the essence of reality, the creator of reality, a form of hyper-intelligence etc. That is, the God idea is in one way or another attempting to explain the very largest of scale.

Logic is the poorly developed ability of a single half insane species recently living in caves on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies etc. Human reason exists on a tiny local scale.

It seems quite speculative to presume that something as small and imperfect as the rules of human reason would be binding on everything everywhere (scope of God claims), a realm we can't even define in even the most basic manner. If someone wishes to assert this to be true it seems entirely reasonable to ask them to prove it, just as it's entirely reasonable to ask theists to prove the huge claims being made in their holy books.

We might reflect on the influence of scale upon observation.

The classic example of course is that from the surface of the Earth (a very local scale) there is a compelling illusion that all of reality is orbiting around the Earth. When the scale is enlarged to give a wider perspective this perception is seen to be thoroughly untrue, entirely wrong.

Another more modern example is the discovery that time runs at different rates, depending on the relationship between the observer and large bodies such as planets. On the surface of the Earth, a very local scale, the different rates of time are so small (billionths of a second) that they aren't noticed and are a meaningless factor. However, when the scale is expanded, we see that GPS satellites have to take the time speed difference in to account or their location data would be way off.

What's happening with our relationship with logic is that from our human scale it seems an obvious given that logic is binding on everything, and in our day to day lives this is true. But the sample of reality being examined here is extremely small. It's huge to us, but in comparison to reality it barely exists.

Another problem is that we are comparing our intelligence to the only other forms of intelligence ever observed, animals on Earth. And in that limited local scale comparison we look like geniuses, and thus this comparison is very popular. :smile: But when discussing infinite scale ideas like God, that comparison is worthless. If there is any God like thing capable of creating galaxies etc, it's intelligence would be so far beyond our own as to render the concept of intelligence meaningless.

Finally, we've all observed how Christians presume that all of reality is basically about us. We are Gods most important project etc. If one is not a Christian it's extremely easy to doubt such a wild assumption.

But atheists are doing essentially the same thing. They are assuming without proof, and typically without even realizing it, that human logic is binding on all of reality, and thus upon any gods who may be contained within. And like the Christians, their human-centric bias is so strong that it rarely seems to dawn on them that we can't define "all of reality" in even the most basic manner, such as size and shape.

Both Christians and atheists are attempting to reduce all of reality down to human scale so that we can comfort ourselves with the fantasy that we have at least some idea what is going on. This might be compared to little children who have absolute faith in their parents, an assumption born of the fear which arises from a near complete dependence.

I'm not claiming a God exists, or that any doctrines that arise from that belief need to be believed. However, should a God exist, it seems reasonable and sensible to propose that it is, or may be, above logic. — Jake

Big difference between it being reasonable and sensible that it IS, and that it MAY BE.
Do you intend the former to be a claim you are making or was it more of a semantical slip?
Also, when you say “logic”, do you mean strictly in the sense of making valid reference (such as in mathematics ie given the values assigned to the numbers “1” and “2”, 1+2=3) or do you mean something more?

Big difference between it being reasonable and sensible that it IS, and that it MAY BE. — DingoJones

I'm not sure I understand your question, but I see where my choice of words could be confusing.

My personal opinion is that IF there something like a God it doesn't seem credible to me that it would be bound by rules created by a species as small as ourselves. That's kind of like assuming that ants could understand the Internet, except very much more so.

By "logic" I just meant human reason, and should have used that phrase instead.

But if an atheist simply believes that God does not exist, without trying to make their beliefs seem authoritative or binding on others, I don't see a problem. — Pattern-chaser


I don't see a problem either, but their belief is still based on faith, faith in the ability of human reason to meaningfully analyze the very largest of questions. — Jake

I'm in agreement with your general observations. :up: In fact, they don't go quite far enough. I think, with Objectivity being what it is, that more or less everything we believe and (think we) know is actually a faith-based thing. Almost nothing is certain or justified, in absolute terms, so almost everything is a faith position. But I'm not happy using the term "faith" for all of them.

There's something about the word that captures something specific about religious faith. It also applies to an atheist actively dismissing the existence of God, and a few other things too. But I think the term is diluted if we use it to describe every situation where we believe something without justification.

Finally, there are those (not you, Jake?) who seem to think faith is a Bad Thing. It isn't. It's a reasonable, rational, pragmatic and practical response to a world where there is little or no certainty. This, I think, is the matter that we're all failing to see: that our world, in practice, and for humans, is an uncertain place. There is no certainty, which for some means there is no comfort, no security. So we seek solace in faith. And we gain the most solace by not looking at faith closely enough to remember it means we're uncertain. On the contrary, we have faith, so how could we be uncertain? :smile: :smile: :smile:

Finally, there are those (not you, Jake?) who seem to think faith is a Bad Thing. It isn't. It's a reasonable, rational, pragmatic and practical response to a world where there is little or no certainty. — Pattern-chaser

Yes, agreed, up to a point. When faith is purely personal it can often be labeled as a positive force. When the faith starts trying to influence the society beyond the personal it has sometimes been deadly, and sometimes constructive.

When I label atheists as being people of faith I'm not trying to pin a crime on them, I'm reaching for clarity. It's not clarity if one thinks one is above faith when one is not.

I have faith that if I keep patiently typing day after day after day on these subjects for another twenty years nothing at all will be accomplished, but I'll still be typing, and that seems to be my bottom line. :smile:

Ok, i understand.
Why does reason have to be a human created thing? Aren’t you just assuming that? I don’t see why it couldnt be like morality, a standard set or created by god IF he existed.

When I label atheists as being people of faith I'm not trying to pin a crime on them, I'm reaching for clarity. — Jake

:up: Clarity is next to Godliness, as the old proverb should say. :wink:

I have faith that if I keep patiently typing day after day after day on these subjects for another twenty years nothing at all will be accomplished... — Jake

If Lord Cthulhu grants me another 20 years, I'll still be at it too. :smile:

Again, right perspective is a philosopher's greatest tool. Don't mistake what religion was with what modern day philosophy is. Religion was not about mere teachings, it involved social and political dimensions as well. Anyway, this discussion is past due. We can't keep insisting on personal perspective in the hopes it will somehow overcome those of others without being based on actual proof.
I prefer to add other people's perspective to mine so as to have a more comprehensive view of the situation.
I understand why religious practice is flawed, I understand which teachings are often misunderstood due to wrong perspective and a misconception of its aims, I understand why there is an increasing number of people against religion, however, I also understand what value religion has had in our society, I understand why there's still many who choose to hold on to religion, I understand that ignorance is the primary cause of the faults and corruption in religious practice not religious teachings in themselves, etc.
If it were up to me, religions would need to be revised into purely ethical teachings, which is what Jesus did to the religious doctrines by the previous prophets, Krishna also gave a revised version of Hinduism in The Bhagavad Gita, and Buddha revised most of the religious oriental doctrines into Buddhism, an ethics/morality based doctrine.
There have been exceptional people who not only believe in a religious God(s), but who understand the significance of choice and responsibility and they act accordingly. There have been great scientists and philosophers, accomplished in reasoning ability, who choose to adhere to a religion in full recognition of its limitations and the limitations of science and philosophy as well.

It's not that the information isn't there, it's just how we choose to interact with it.

We can choose to bombard others with our idea of reason, but we'll end up receiving the same because like begets like. Reason is not just pure mental logic, it should also reflect in the tactical configuration of our actions towards the aims we hope to achieve. It should also reflect our identity not just as thinking humans but also in our capacities for empathy, sympathy, etc.

As to choice, I think our disagreement is based largely on our definition of choice.

I define choice as idiosyncratic cause or idiosyncratic initiation of an impulse. It is the same definition I give to will. So, for me, to will is to choose. It also encompasses all activities carried out by a human internally and externally. For example, digestion may begin automatically when the presence of food is detected but because we determine when food is consumed, we therefore initiate the mechanism, thus, choice. The same goes for reason, we initiate the process, the mind/brain being the tool we use to carry it out.

Also, belief being a choice is again dependent on the definition we give to it. I define belief as a consequence of knowledge. For me, acquisition of knowledge is a choice. So, belief is the reference point we create to determine the measure of new experiences and a mirror through which we reflect past experiences in order to determine what value to extract from them.

I know more than I let on, but I'm attempting to fulfill my social duties here, and not tell people what to believe, but how to get their soul back, and see some things for themselves. Other drives, based in the appetites block the way, and are literally lower in the body than the heart. Need to be cleaned out, detoxified, overcome. Unlike the heart, they can just be completely tamed. The heart is too powerful for that, and requires devotion to purify -- but upon its awakening, a new dimension of language comprehension becomes available to you. Without the requisite sensitivity, it becomes far more difficult to track one's true feelings, and opinions, to stay honest. The soul is completely necessary for self-knowledge. Without it, "lifeless words carry on", language loses its personal meaning, and you start talking nonsense. Will the soul know everything about God, and have all of the answers? No, it won't, but it offers a whole new level of discernment, and allows one to transcend good and evil.

I'll punctuate it with more songs, as artists, poets really do exemplify a connection to the heart, and contrition really can skyrocket you to the celestial realm. Not the highest level, but that isn't practical for most, and I don't know of a straight forward easy method to get there at this time... plus, I'm not entirely selfless, and prefer to keep a few laps ahead.

When I said that I won’t reply again to aggressive-Atheists about their issue, I didn’t say that I wouldn’t comment on the their peculiar issue itself. I’d like to post this review and summary--these comments on the “discussion”--now that I’m not busy replying to individual aggressive-Atheists.
.
If Atheists post to argue with or comment on what I say here, I won’t reply. As I said, that gets way too time-consuming. If anyone doesn’t like what I say here, and contradicts it, then he gets the last word, because I won’t resume the pointless and humungously time-consuming task of replying to aggressive-Atheists about their issue.
.
…and it is their issue, not ours. As I said, nearly everyone starting threads about that issue is an Atheist. Theists don’t care what Atheists believe, and wouldn’t take the time to start an issue about it.
.
Where should I start?
.
From the start, it’s quite odd that someone else’s belief can be so important. What’s that about? What’s the motivation? Maybe save that question for last.
.
Then what’s the general framework in which the “issue” is brought up? To those starting it, it’s a debate. What does it take, and what would it mean, to “win” that debate?
.
Well, maybe a debate has judges, or an audience that serves as judges. Which party proved the rightness of their position? There are some obvious rules applying to the determination of the winner of a debate. This isn’t supposed to be a complete discussion about debate, but one obvious thing is that if your position is that some position of mine is unsupported, and if I don’t provide support for my position, then you win the debate.

.
Say we have a debate in which one faction, a Theist faction argues that there’s a God, and the other faction, an Atheist faction argues that the Theists have no evidence for their claim. Saying that there’s a debate assumes that that claim is being made. That’s the first problem with the debate. Sure, some Theists are making a claim to Atheists. But not the Theists here. So any meaningful debate would have to be with the Theists who are claiming and asserting. Start, for example, with the pair of suited gentlemen who knock on your door proselytize you.
.
But anyway, if we disregard that for the time being and say there’s a debate here, what we’ve been hearing from the aggressive-Atheists is that they win because the Theists haven’t provided them with evidence for their beliefs.
.
Of course, if the debate is about whether or not there’s support for one party’s position, and that doesn’t provide the opposition and the judges with evidence for their position, then the other side wins the debate.
.
I’ve been telling Atheists that they don’t know all Theisms, and therefore aren’t in a position to say that they’re all unsupported. The answer is always something like, “If you can’t point to a Theism that is supported by evidence, and if you and some other Theists won’t join this debate and provide a Theism for which you tell us the evidence, then we win the debate.”
.
And yes, if 1) it’s first assumed that there’s a debate among people here; and 2) we apply the standards for winning debates (…such as the winning by default if the debate is about evidence for at least one version of a belief, and that evidence isn’t provide to the judges) then the Atheists indeed win their debate.
.
But what does that mean? …winning a debate because some who believe differently from you aren’t participating in your debate, and won’t debate you?
.
What conclusions can you draw from that victory? Not a whole lot. Yes, Atheists, you win your “debate” by default. Subject closed. (...or should be.)
------------------------------------
Someone could say, “It isn’t just a matter of debate. We’re just advising you that your beliefs aren’t reasonable. You shouldn’t believe as you. We’re more scientific than thou.”
.
[Yes, I realize that “Thou” is singular, and we’re talking about groups, but I used it because it’s part of a familiar phrasing.]
.
But, for one thing, that ignores the fact that there are many Theists whose beliefs you don’t know. Their nonparticipation with you lets you win a “debate”, but it also makes nonsense of the statement in quotes in the paragraph directly below the dotted-line above.
.
Unsurprisingly, from the point-of-view of aggressive-Atheists’ belief, it’s their perception and blanket-generalization that they’re right and all who don’t share their belief are wrong. What else is new? Anything surprising about that? No one denies that that’s their perception, from the point-of-view of their belief-system.
.
Why not leave it at that?
.
We get that. You’ve already said it. But you keep on starting more threads to say it endlessly.
-----------------------------------
One more thing: We keep hearing from Atheists about “evidence”. I’ve defined evidence and faith in a previous post to this thread, and there’s no need to repeat those definitions.
.
But (and I acknowledge that others here have pointed this out) all this talk about evidence misses the fact that faith is defined as belief without evidence. Even if you could prove that there’s no evidence for any Theism, that doesn’t mean that faith isn’t justified.
.
Without debating it with you (You win your debate by default), I’ll just mention that, for Theism, there are the kind of reasons that qualify as “evidence”, as I and Merriam-Webster have defined that word (…but it isn’t a matter for proof). But, aside from those reasons, there’s also discussion that justifies faith, which I define as trust, without or aside from evidence.
.
It has been pointed out that Theists aren’t saying that Atheists are unreasonable. It’s only Atheists that are claiming that Theists are unreasonable. I and other Theists have been emphasizing that there’s no reason for you to believe what you don’t know of reason to believe. No problem. …except to you.
.
…but it’s regrettable that you can’t disbelieve it less loudly, aggressively and stridently. Your aggressive loudness suggests insufficiency, and un-satisfied need. …evidently resulting in a need to attack. Maybe it isn’t a coincidence that the starting of these debate-threads, and the use of abusive attack-language and characterizations, is almost entirely coming from Atheists.
.
In fact, as I’ve said once before here, it’s plausible that rudeness, abusiveness and attack aren’t the result of your brand of Atheism, so much as a motivation for it. …due to some personal character fault or insufficiency-feeling, or self-esteem problem.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Just to clarify, though we've been talking about aggressive-Atheists, no one here is criticizing Atheists per se, just for being Atheists.

As I've been saying, no one here would criticize you for not believing what you don't know of reason to believe.

Here's what a not-aggressive Atheists might say, if asked:

He doesn't know of any reason to believe what Theists seem to be saying. He knows what the Fundamentalist LIteralist Theists are saying,that they believe, but he probably doesn't claim to know what all Theists believe. How is he supposed to know that? It isn't any fault of his. Nor should anyone expect him to believe anything that isn't well-described or explained to him. He might reasonably point out that if various wanted ;him to believe as they do, then they'd give him some explanation, or some better more detailed explanation. If they don't tell him why they believe, or why it would make sense for him to believe, or even what they believe, then he can be excused for not believing that their beliefs are supported--not having heard those argued for, or even defined. Without knowing what people believe, of course it goes without saying that he doesn't know that there's reason to believe it.

He can reasonably say all that, and no one would criticize him.

Do you really need to say more than that, to take it farther than that?

Michael Ossipoff

As to choice, I think our disagreement is based largely on our definition of choice.

I define choice as idiosyncratic cause or idiosyncratic initiation of an impulse. It is the same definition I give to will. So, for me, to will is to choose. It also encompasses all activities carried out by a human internally and externally. For example, digestion may begin automatically when the presence of food is detected but because we determine when food is consumed, we therefore initiate the mechanism, thus, choice. The same goes for reason, we initiate the process, the mind/brain being the tool we use to carry it out.

Also, belief being a choice is again dependent on the definition we give to it. I define belief as a consequence of knowledge. For me, acquisition of knowledge is a choice. So, belief is the reference point we create to determine the measure of new experiences and a mirror through which we reflect past experiences in order to determine what value to extract from them. — BrianW

But when I say that there's no choice, I'm not talking about any initial steps which might or might not lead to becoming convinced, I'm talking about the situation at a more immediate point, the actual becoming convinced. An initial step could be choosing to pick up a book, choosing to read about the book, and choosing to spend time thinking about it. At the very least, there seems to me to be a choice in that respect. But I can't choose the outcome of whether or not I'll be convinced. There doesn't seem to be a choice in that respect at all.

And it's a similar thing in other situations, like your food example. I can choose, or so it seems, to eat an apple. But I can't choose whether or not to digest it. That's out of my hands. My body will simply digest it automatically, even if I try to choose otherwise.

So, going back to your original comment, contrary to what you said, you don't have a choice of whether to believe or disbelieve in the existence of any deity or deities. You only have a choice to take steps which might or might not lead to you believing or disbelieving. The one and the other are not the same and so should not be conflated.

P1 - God is, is not a fact
P2 - God is not - is not a fact
P3 - Theism - a claim that God is - is supported by reason
P4 - Chrisoffer is not making any claim about anything

Conclusion - neither God is or whatever Chrisoffer believes is a superior position

Tell me which proposition is false and why , or how the conclusion does not follow. — Rank Amateur

The argument is self-defeating unless you define "fact" differently to what many here, myself included, would expect. It's self-defeating because the first premise and the second premise cannot both be true without contradiction.

I laughed at this, it was very funny, truly :smile:
But you are mixing together claims and facts. A claim demands facts, the claim itself isn't a fact. — Christoffer

I also pointed out this error, or a very similar one, to him, earlier on in the discussion, the difference being that, in my assessment, he seemed to be confusing justifications and facts.

But obviously, since then, the problem has persisted.

A claim demands facts[...] — Christoffer

I challenge this. One can claim by either reason or faith something to be true and act accordingly with only caveat that it can not be in conflict with fact. — Rank Amateur

A claim demands justification, otherwise it can rightly be dismissed.

If your attempt at justification falls below a required standard, then it can also rightly be dismissed in accordance with such a standard. And as to whether or not such a standard is the right one, that can be discussed.

Faith falls below any intellectual standard worth having, as it would open the floodgates to all kinds of wild imaginings or commit the fallacy of special pleading.

Better to present an argument, but arguments can fail for various reasons, and I haven't seen an argument for theism which doesn't fail in some way. What's interesting is finding out how they fail.

A claim demands justification, otherwise it can rightly be dismissed. — S

Hmm, it seems what you meant to say was...

Other people's claims demand justification, otherwise they can rightly be dismissed.

you don't have a choice of whether to believe or disbelieve in the existence of any deity or deities. You only have a choice to take steps which might or might not lead to you believing or disbelieving. The one and the other are not the same and so should not be conflated. — S

I think you've just created a paradox. Isn't taking steps towards believing/disbelieving the act of choosing to believe/disbelieve? Anyway, even accepting a sequence of unfolding events is itself a choice. Back to the food analogy: there are many (ill-advised) ways to stop digestion, the fact that you allow it implies a choice, though implicit. And even at an immediate point in a situation, if there's initiation of impulse, then there's choice.

However, I think I get your position in the argument. You mean deliberate choice. What I'm saying is that there are choices which are not as deliberate as others, or better yet, are predominantly reactive.

Hmm, it seems what you meant to say was...

Other people's claims demand justification, otherwise they can rightly be dismissed. — Jake

Oh shush. I meant what I said. If you want me to justify a claim that I've made then quote the claim and request a justification, assuming I haven't already provided one.

I think you've just created a paradox. Isn't taking steps towards believing/disbelieving the act of choosing to believe/disbelieve? — BrianW

No. Where's the supposed paradox? Taking steps towards believing/disbelieving is just taking steps towards believing/disbelieving, and the act of choosing to believe/disbelieve is a category error. We no more choose to believe than a lamppost chooses to light up. But, unlike us humans, a lamppost isn't capable of mistakenly thinking that it has a choice where it doesn't.

Anyway, even accepting a sequence of unfolding events is itself a choice. Back to the food analogy: there are many (ill-advised) ways to stop digestion, the fact that you allow it implies a choice, though implicit. And even at an immediate point in a situation, if there's initiation of impulse, then there's choice. — BrianW

I don't think that acceptance of an unfolding sequence of events has anything to do with the point that I was making, nor allowance for that matter. That is changing the subject.

And seeking out exceptions to what I was saying about digestion misses the point. Sure, I could choose to blow myself up with dynamite and thereby stop my body from digesting the apple I just ate. But that's not what I was getting at.

The point that I'm making is that I don't have a choice when something is out of my control. And without taking drastic measures, I have no real choice over whether or not digestion is going to kick in. All else being equal, it will kick in automatically. But maybe a better example would be walking out directly in front of a car speeding along at 70mph. I can choose whether or not to walk out directly in front of it, but I can't choose whether or not it will hit me. It's just going to hit me, even if I "choose" otherwise. It would be delusional to think that you could really choose the outcome in that scenario.

Going back to belief, I can't choose to believe, say, that I'm dead right now. How can I possibly choose to believe otherwise? And again, choosing to act is not choosing to become convinced or to believe. Choosing to read or listen or observe or think about something is what it is, and ain't what it ain't. At best, it could only be choosing to do something which might or might not lead to me becoming convinced or believing, which obviously isn't the same thing.

However, I think I get your position in the argument. You mean deliberate choice. What I'm saying is that there are choices which are not as deliberate as others, or better yet, are predominantly reactive. — BrianW

It seems to me that making a choice is necessarily deliberate. You can't accidentally make a choice. So yes, I mean deliberate choice, because there's no alternative.

Maybe there are choices which aren't as deliberate as others, or better yet, are predominantly reactive, but what does that really mean? And what's the relevance of that in relation to what I've said?

Like I said, the disagreement is based on our different definitions of choice and belief.

How can you accidentally make a choice? — S

Someone walks into their spouse having sex with another person and in a blind rage commits a crime of passion. It would still be choice but the degree of deliberateness would be questionable. I think this explains the point of a predominantly reactive choice. Also, our reactions are within our purview of control.

As to the relationship between choice and belief, what's your definition of belief?

Someone walks into their spouse having sex with another person and in a blind rage commits a crime of passion. It would still be choice but the degree of deliberateness would be questionable. I think this explains the point of predominantly reactive choice. Also, our reactions are within our purview of control. — BrianW

Okay, thanks, I know exactly what you mean now, and I agree that there can be a variance in the degree of control.

As to the relationship between choice and belief, what's your definition of belief? — BrianW

A belief is that of which you're convinced.

If you want me to justify a claim that I've made then quote the claim and request a justification — S

It would be more interesting to see you challenge one of your own claims. Then you could claim to be a person of reason, instead of just another holy war ideologue waving a flag.

As example, my claim is that nobody knows. But if nobody knows, how could I know that nobody knows??

Imagine that you are an attorney. You might be hired to represent those suing, or you might be hired by those defending against the suit. Can you effectively argue both sides of the case? Or only one side?

The solution would be... The only thing one can know is that they do not know. And this would be the case if it was a circle. But it has another dimension, which makes it a spiral.
And this is where the confusions lays.

This added dimension is the human-phenomenal dimension.

Religion is socialized art and socialized expression. There are many stages of its development, and in every crystallization of it will be something different, more or less beautiful, more or less poetic, more or less brainwashed or of a simulacra and simulation.

It would be more interesting to see you challenge one of your own claims. Then you could claim to be a person of reason, instead of just another holy war ideologue waving a flag.

As example, my claim is that nobody knows. But if nobody knows, how could I know that nobody knows??

Imagine that you are an attorney. You might be hired to represent those suing, or you might be hired by those defending against the suit. Can you effectively argue both sides of the case? Or only one side? — Jake

Yeah, that might be an interesting exercise, but I'm not here to play devil's advocate. I understand that that's what you want me to do, but I'm more concerned with a genuine discussion than pretend play.

What do you think religion's purpose is & how does one interact with it? — MountainDwarf

One could think of humanity in terms of a single individual life. We're born and we grow up. From that perspective God is the imaginary friend little children have. A phase one could say.

There are more mature religions though. Take Buddhism for instance. It's position is a reasoned argument and you need to be an adult to understand it.

Of course, God has been philosophically studied but, from what I see, the result isn't a pretty picture. Quite what one would expect given that it's the work of immature minds - inconsistencies abound.

That said, I'm still confused over whether a full grown rational adult is better than a little child with an imaginary friend.