The reason why Christianity seems so unrealistic and naive

absolute agnosticism is a cop out. You are conceding that you are not competent enough to make a rational analysis based on fact. There is no absolute certainty in this world, yet it is safe to make general assumptions based on proven facts. I know there is no big foot, I know there are no wizards and witches or god, because I put my trust in the concept of verifiable evidence

 

"Are you content to just let them be or would you like to help them further to see what's wrong with their reasoning? And if they can't be helped, perhaps someone else who might come to an unthinking conclusion may be helped."

The reasonable hope is not for the bitter atheists to come clean and admit to their childhood wounding.

The reasonable hope is that someone will actually listen to the arguments made, and see if they are sound.

I don't think anyone will ever find where I stood in opposition to someone opting for atheism as their faith. I don't even think I have said they are wrong.

However, what invariably happens around here is the mass delusion expressed as a fallacy of a false dilemma.

"If I can show the theist where they are wrong, that makes me right be default."

No, it doesn't.

"If I can show the atheist that the are just practicing their own brand of faith, it makes it right for me to practice faith."

No, it doesn't.

There is science which is pure.

There are scriptures and ideas of great men of God which is pure.

Then there are the followers who have neither the inner vision of the true men of God, nor the scientific foundation and/or logical discipline of great scientists and philosophers of western society.

 

No chance agnosticism is merely the result of knowing that science changes with new observations, ie. the facts change?

 

Whatever they wish. That is the beauty of it.

 

"There is no absolute certainty in this world."

Are you suggesting that death is not an absolute certainty?

Really?

 

Well, let's see.

Take Optional777's "god." He/she thinks he's/she's being clever by defining it as totality. Something which is indistinguishable from everything else in the universe. There's a few other contradictory concepts about this god which render it illogical. Could it be paradoxical? Sure. But what Op777 fails to provide is any testable proof.

Can we assume that since OP777 can't prove the assertion that totality is God that it is safe to assume that Totality is not god?

Or let's take the the ancient Romans and their family of Gods. To you and I, I'm sure we can safely agree that those gods are as nonexistent as the defunct religion that serviced them. No proof they thy still exist today.

OR let's take the god of say a particular Amazonian tribe's god(s). They will undoubtedly attribute such things as rain or food to this god and think it proof of its existence. But we sort of know better. Can we safely discount this god as nonexistent?

So let's say you and I go through every religion or philosophical thought and find that none of the gods that has ever been conceptualized pan out. What are our possible conclusions?

1. We didn't exhaust every conceivable conceptualization of god, therefore there might yet be a God. Trouble is, all the conceptualizations have the same common denominator. That being some unseen, conscious force which has influence on the natural world. I say "trouble is" because if they all have the same common denominator, if that denominator fails proof, every other attribute piled on top has no value.

2. We simply stop there and reason that since no gods have ever panned out, that there must not be a god. But if one is conceptualized that does pan out, to that God will go the spoils of approval. Of course we will have to double check. Something this monumental requires it.

 

Not when it comes to gods. They only have theist conceptualizations of gods to work with.

 

"Can we assume that since OP777 can't prove the assertion that totality is God that it is safe to assume that Totality is not god?"

In addition to falsely stating my position, you can't seem to be consistent on when to capitalize or not...

How about using direct quotes? They are easily found in this thread...

 

Go for it. Since you assert improper stating if your position, the onus is on you to prove and correct. You might be right.

 

You are making a claim of what I said, and I am asking you to quote directly.

You can do that, right?