Using it as a basis of one's leap of faith, is that a lame argument? — 3017amen

An authentic leap of faith in the Kierkegaardian sense, has no basis (and proposes no propositions, neither).

Oh and I forgot to mention and give some love to the wisdom books in the OT.

In paraphrase there is scripture that talks about 'always remember the end of your life' ...

Basic introspection obviously has its virtues.

Really? I'm afraid of dying, aren't you? — 3017amen

I'd be infinitely more afraid of an eternity of suffering in Hell, if I believed it. So, it would seem that only the "milk toast" version of Christianity offers a belief which would be less frightening than the idea of simply being annihilated.

Indeed, it is... silent.

Yeah I don't believe in hell. There was a gentleman in the old forum that did extensive study on the subject/ problem of evil but can't remember what he uncovered.

I'm not a theist, but I need to be better versed on that subject. Otherwise, it's just a gut feeling or an intuition of sorts that everyone will feel love per the NDE phenomenon.

Not to mention William James & Maslow's study on the religious experience...

I'm not a theist — 3017amen

Wha? You're not a theist?

Hahaha ( Christian Existentialist)

Yet another mystery... — 3017amen

An argument from ignorance rather than just admitting you don't know...?
By the way, without you first postulating theism there's nothing to discuss.
Hence, the onus probandi is on you.
Yet, going by ignorance isn't the best evidence/justification around.

I will demonstrate [...] using logical inference [...] Deity — 3017amen

Tick tock tick tock — 3017amen

...

I thought Atheism was an alternative to Theism in the quest for those existential answers no? — 3017amen

This is the main reason why you're getting such incredulous responses. You've simply made a mistake here. Atheism is absolutely not "an alternative to Theism in the quest for those existential answers", and I don't think a single atheist would see it that way. Atheism (as the name specifies - the 'a' prefix) is the rejection of one means of explanation, not the provision of another. It's simply saying that we don't find 'God did it' a convincing explanation for the remaining mysteries, for whatever varying reason.

It's like trying to solve a murder - someone might say "Ms Scarlet did it", another might say "No, she has an alibi". In doing so they're not suggesting they know who did do it, only that the explanation offered is unsatisfactory for some reason.

It gets a bit rowdy on this ladder... — Banno

I like that expression.

He is one of those who thinks that anyone who disagrees with him or questions his reasoning is necessarily failing to understand what he has written and is thus displaying poor reading skills, or for some obscure reason, emotional problems and/or Asperger's. "Go figure", indeed!

Anyone who denies subconscious mental processes is, quite simply, a laughable fool. — Janus

Damn. I had just enrolled in some basic reading comprehension classes in the hope that I might one day agree with him understand what he's saying. Now you're suggesting me it's not just me...?

r. It's simply saying that we don't find 'God did it' a convincing explanation for the remaining mysteries, for whatever varying reason. — Isaac

And it's not because it doesn't work as an explanation... It's that it is far too successful. It explains everything; even stuff that ain't so. So as explanations go, it's of absolutely no use. One cannot do anything with it; nothing new comes out of it.

And it's not because it doesn't work as an explanation... It's that it is far too successful. It explains everything; even stuff that ain't so. So as explanations go, it's of absolutely no use. One cannot do anything with it; nothing new comes out of it. — Banno

Yes, exactly. The correct response to "God did it", I think, is "So what?"

TS denies subconsciousness.

He basically said when you're daydreaming while driving a car and crashing then killing yourself, that you do it consciously LoL — 3017amen

I'm skeptical about unconscious mental content. That doesn't imply that I believe that everything is mental and thus conscious mental content. Accidents do not stem from mental content.

He is one of those who thinks that anyone who disagrees with him or questions his reasoning is necessarily failing to understand what he has written and is thus displaying poor reading skills, or for some obscure reason, emotional problems and/or Asperger's. "Go figure", indeed! — Janus

Not at all. But that you think this underscores how poor your reading comprehension is. You're very similar to Isaac in that. It's rare that you don't post a response with reading comprehension gaffes.

Are you admitting then that there's mystery in the world? — 3017amen

It was already corrected for you many times, by many different people, that atheism has nothing to do with beliefs about whether there is any "mystery in the world."

I thought Atheism was an alternative to Theism in the quest for those existential answers no? — 3017amen

No. This is such a basic and simple thing to understand. Atheism isn't anything like an ideology, a body of theory, a school of thought. It's only a term for one simple thing: the absence of a belief in gods.

My faith is based on many things. But the seven concepts I mentioned in the OP provides more persuasive evidence that all events must have a cause... — 3017amen

It certainly wasn't clear that you believed those things suggested that all events must have a cause. That seems like a completely arbitrary idea in relation to them.

For your information, in puting my faith into words, that approach is essentially Apophatic or negative theology.

You've simply made a mistake here. Atheism is absolutely not "an alternative to Theism in the quest for those existential answers", and I don't think a single atheist would see it that way. — Isaac

Two concerns with your reasoning:

1. The opposite of Theism is Atheism. Unless you're trying to posit Nilhilism, then your argument works.

2. Terrapin Station, although certainly not an expert in atheism, said that his atheism is, and I quote " belief".

I still don't understand your point. And after reading your replies to others, I dont understand why they still try to engage you and participate in this thread. Oh well, I guess people are that bored.

This thread should be renamed, "Replies That Don't Follow".

Does mathematical abstract ability confer any survival advantage?

Does music theory have any biological significance at all?

Do all events must have a cause?

True, false or something else?

Is love a phenomenon or is it all logical?

Explain the ineffable feelings of love.

Explain the feeling of the color red.

Do any of those suggest life might be a little mysterious?

Or are you saying , as an Atheist, you have life all figured out?

And it's not because it doesn't work as an explanation... It's that it is far too successful. It explains everything; even stuff that ain't so. So as explanations go, it's of absolutely no use. One cannot do anything with it; nothing new comes out of it.
— Banno

Yes, exactly. The correct response to "God did it", I think, is "So what?" — Isaac

:up:

I thought Atheism was an alternative [???] to Theism ... — 3017amen

Lack of g/G belief isn't an alternative faith commitment to g/G belief any more than being celibate is an alternative sex act to sodomy.

Two concerns with your reasoning:

1. The opposite of Theism is Atheism. — 3017amen

Yes, but theism isn't a quest for existential answers either, it's a belief in god(s). One might believe in a god whose nature is such that their existence answers no existential questions at all, they'd still be a theist. Your conflation of belief/non-belief in god with answering existential questions like those you have posed is simply an error. Just reform your questions and then there might be something to discuss.

2. Terrapin Station, although certainly not an expert in atheism, said that his atheism is, and I quote " belief". — 3017amen

Well atheism is a description of one's state of belief. I wouldn't say it was a belief itself, but I expect that disagreement is probably just a reading comprehension error on my part... It usually is. Not sure why this would be a concern with my reasoning though either way.

This thread should be renamed, "Replies That Don't Follow". — Harry Hindu

Yes we are having unseasonably wet weather at the moment.

Just reform your questions and then there might be something to discuss. — Isaac

I'm not following that Isaac why would I need to reform the questions?

The Apophatic theologist would consider those existential questions as additional clues for a Deity or Creator or a First Cause.

On the other hand, the perplexing difficulty that you have is that apparently Atheism ignores any such clues from our existence ( not to mention our conscious experiences).

I even see complete denials... . For example, cognitive science says we have a subconscious. Some Atheist's believe we have no subconscious at all...go figure. I've even used the pragmatic example of daydreaming while driving a car and having a resulting accident... . But hey , just another reason why Atheism is just the opposite of fundamentalism: it's called hard headed-ness. God doesn't exist just cause I say so...LOL.

So I'm equal opportunity: I'm just as hard on fundamentalism as I am atheism LOL

Not sure why this would be a concern with my reasoning though either way. — Isaac

Any belief system requires logic to support one's belief. I use clues from the natural world including my conscious experiences; then chose to make a leap of faith.

The opposite of Theism is Atheism. — 3017amen

I disagree.

e.g. Deism (i.e. NOT INTERVENING g/G) is the opposite of Theism (i.e. INTERVENING g/G).

e.g. Pantheism / Animism (i.e. NOT TRANSCENDENT g/G) is the opposite of Theism (i.e. TRANSCENDENT g/G).

Atheism, as I understand it, is merely a 2nd order evaluation - dissent due to conceptual incoherence, inconsistent predicates, negative truth-values, etc - of 1st order (i.e. claims, or statements, about g/G) Theism. Meta-statement & object-statement, respectively, which is not an opposition (i.e. diametric or contradictory opposites).

The Apophatic theologist would consider those existential questions as additional clues for a Deity or Creator or a First Cause. — 3017amen

How can a question possibly be a clue pointing to the existence of something? I can't even make enough sense of that expression to tell whether I disagree with it or not. A question is just a request for clarity, why would the fact that there are things about which we are yet to be clear have any bearing whatsoever on whether there is a God?

Surely that's one of the things about which some people are yet to be clear.

God doesn't exist just cause I say so — 3017amen

No one has said anything like that. The main reason given here for people's atheism has been that they find the idea of God incoherent and have not found enough compelling evidence to the contrary. That's not "cause I say so", it is the means by which absolutely every judgement we ever make is derived. How is your theism any different? The concept obviously feels right to you and you've not found overwhelming evidence to contradict it. Atheism feels right to me and I've not found overwhelming evidence to contradict it. The mere existence of questions I can't answer is entirely insufficient because I cannot think of any way in which my uncertainty could somehow be impossible to maintain in a world without a god.

Any belief system requires logic to support one's belief. I use clues from the natural world including my conscious experiences; then chose to make a leap of faith. — 3017amen

Yes, so does everyone, I think. The fact is that they reach different conclusions thereby because they have different dispositional starting points, different experiences and different capabilities. I'm not sure what any of that has to do with a concern you may have with my reasoning.

2. Terrapin Station, although certainly not an expert in atheism, said that his atheism is, and I quote " belief". — 3017amen

There is "positive" and "negative" atheism.

Negative atheists simply lack a belief in gods.

Positive atheists have a belief that there are no gods (and therefore also lack a belief in gods).

, I dont understand why they still try to engage you and participate in this thread. Oh well, I guess people are that bored. — Harry Hindu

I consider myself an "irrational optimist." I keep, irrationally, having hope that he'll suddenly start having a worthwhile good faith conversation about this stuff.

Negative atheists simply lack a belief in gods. — Terrapin Station

We might call that agnosticism.