Are people who claim to know God liars?

[Willamena]

So does certainty alone give a person authority to make claims about God. If the certainty is equal or all these claims equally true?

Even delusion gives a person authority to make claims. Making claims isn't the same as truth.

If they are then great, each individual can experience the existence of any God they choose. Or in the case of an atheist choose not to experience the existence of a God.

If this is not the case, then how do you know which claims are valid and which are not.

If it doesn't matter, to each their own in your opinion, then I don't really have an argument with that.

However if you came across a theistic Satanist who based the certainty their beliefs on their own personal experiences. Would you argue that their view of God was wrong? If so, based on what?

It's not a matter of which claims other people make are valid and which are not. The only ones that matter are the ones you make.

 

[Nakosis]

Even delusion gives a person authority to make claims. Making claims isn't the same as truth.


It's not a matter of which claims other people make are valid and which are not. The only ones that matter are the ones you make.

Right, in which case it's best not to make any claims that you don't have some means to validate.

Which leads back to the original point. What judgement does one make of folks who are unable to validate their claims.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Is God as self evident to Muslims? Are they lying when they say Jesus is not the Son of God?

Most Muslims, like most persons, say God is self-evident to them.

The Qu'ran teaches the non-divinity of Jesus Christ.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The skeptic understands that theists are projecting their own internal psychological experiences onto reality and calling it a god out there. How do we judge that? No two of you can agree about what it is that you are seeing. If you had been encouraged to interpret your dreams as messages from a deity, you would also be misinterpreting those endogenous experienced for something real that originated outside of your mind.

Here's a good question: How do we decide which is correct when one group of people tells us that they had a sensory experience of some type, and another group of people in similar circumstance say that they have not?

How about if I found myself in a world in which people told me that they could see red and green, but I couldn't. How could I decide whether it was me that could not see something that existed, or if they were seeing things or perpetrating a hoax?

Easily. I test them. I ask somebody to put a red sock in my left hand and a green one in my right hand, socks that look identical to me and are thus indistinguishable. Then I interview a number of people not in communication with one another who claim to be able to discern red from green, and ask them to tell me which sock appears red and which appears green to them.

When I get the same answer from them all, I know that they can see something I can't. When they're unable to come to a consensus and more or less half tell me that the sock in my left hand is red and the other half tell me it's green, or that both are red or green, I know that they are not seeing any more than I do.

Those are the kinds of answers I get from people that tell me that tell me about God. Just look at the assortment of opinions about God expressed in just this thread.

On that basis, I don't believe anybody making such claims, however certain and sincere they may be.

I understand your point of view. You are thus stating that over 95% of persons throughout human history have been "projecting their own internal psychological experiences onto reality and calling it a god".

I call (respectfully) baloney. Why? Because I talk to God-believers of different persuasions all the time, no matter their religion or denomination, they have unifying, univocal expressions. For example many Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, etc. tell me:

* I know the divine and that the divine is love

* I see where my atheist friends are missing divine love and empathy

* Those on a god-path are more and more loving

* No one is perfect, people are seeking either transformation unto perfection or the forgiveness of a god so they can be part of a utopia

Comparing an invisible metaphysical being to red or green socks is a shortchange.

 

[Nakosis]

I understand your point of view. You are thus stating that over 95% of persons throughout human history have been "projecting their own internal psychological experiences onto reality and calling it a god".

I call (respectfully) baloney. Why? Because I talk to God-believers of different persuasions all the time, no matter their religion or denomination, they have unifying, univocal expressions. For example many Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, etc. tell me:

* I know the divine and that the divine is love

* I see where my atheist friends are missing divine love and empathy

* Those on a god-path are more and more loving

* No one is perfect, people are seeking either transformation unto perfection or the forgiveness of a god so they can be part of a utopia

Comparing an invisible metaphysical being to red or green socks is a shortchange.

So you've created your own version of God which encompases any concept of God as long as the main message is one of love.

This is a virtuous and safe position but this does not really make it anymore valid.

Atheists can be as caring, loving and compassionate without God as anyone can with God.

Your God is not the God of the OT. Maybe not even the God of the NT.

This seems more in support of "projecting their own internal psychological experiences onto reality and calling it a god" than an argument against it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I understand your point of view. You are thus stating that over 95% of persons throughout human history have been "projecting their own internal psychological experiences onto reality and calling it a god".

I call (respectfully) baloney. Why? Because I talk to God-believers of different persuasions all the time, no matter their religion or denomination, they have unifying, univocal expressions. For example many Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, etc. tell me:

* I know the divine and that the divine is love

* I see where my atheist friends are missing divine love and empathy

* Those on a god-path are more and more loving

* No one is perfect, people are seeking either transformation unto perfection or the forgiveness of a god so they can be part of a utopia

Comparing an invisible metaphysical being to red or green socks is a shortchange.

Texas sharpshooter fallacy - "an informal fallacy which is committed when differences in data are ignored, but similarities are stressed. From this reasoning, a false conclusion is inferred.

That's what you just did. You culled the little bit you could think of that you say most believers claim in common while ignoring the myriad differences. It's that huge number of differences here that are significant and which reveal that the claimants are vamping.

Ask them to describe the sun or an ear of corn, and I'll bet that you'll see a lot more correlation in their descriptions. That's how you can tell what they have actually experience and what they have not.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Most Muslims, like most persons, say God is self-evident to them.

The Qu'ran teaches the non-divinity of Jesus Christ.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Most Muslims, like most persons, say God is self-evident to them.

The Qu'ran teaches the non-divinity of Jesus Christ.

Most persons -- of whatever religion or culture -- say that many things are "self-evident" to them. Those "self-evident" things, however, almost always turn out to be the things that their parents and community believed, and taught them.

Does this surprise you?

Let me ask you a question that I hope you will try to answer with great honesty: if 3 children born of 1 Jewish, 1 Christian and 1 Muslim family, were abducted at birth by a Hindu family and raised as their own -- do you think that any of those children would at some point deny what their "new family" taught them? Do you suppose that the child born to Christian parents would somehow intuit the divinity of Christ, while his adoptive brother and sister couldn't see it at all -- while the adoptive brother (born to Muslim parents) would at the same time recognize the primacy of the message of Mohammed as "God's final Prophet?"

I admit freely that I'm trying to lead you. I'm trying to get you -- and everybody else -- to see that what we think of as "self-evident" is almost always a prejudice instilled in us before we could understand, and the defense of which we cannot undertake except to say, "well, that's self-evident to me, no matter what the external evidence says."

 

[Thief]

Most Muslims, like most persons, say God is self-evident to them.

The Qu'ran teaches the non-divinity of Jesus Christ.

shall we do a thread on that topic?

 

[Rick B]

Most persons -- of whatever religion or culture -- say that many things are "self-evident" to them. Those "self-evident" things, however, almost always turn out to be the things that their parents and community believed, and taught them.

Does this surprise you?

Let me ask you a question that I hope you will try to answer with great honesty: if 3 children born of 1 Jewish, 1 Christian and 1 Muslim family, were abducted at birth by a Hindu family and raised as their own -- do you think that any of those children would at some point deny what their "new family" taught them? Do you suppose that the child born to Christian parents would somehow intuit the divinity of Christ, while his adoptive brother and sister couldn't see it at all -- while the adoptive brother (born to Muslim parents) would at the same time recognize the primacy of the message of Mohammed as "God's final Prophet?"

I admit freely that I'm trying to lead you. I'm trying to get you -- and everybody else -- to see that what we think of as "self-evident" is almost always a prejudice instilled in us before we could understand, and the defense of which we cannot undertake except to say, "well, that's self-evident to me, no matter what the external evidence says."

Hello @Evangelicalhumanist. The conclusion that you have come to regarding self-evident truth implies that we are all unwittingly preprogrammed with prejudicial information that we are unable to justify empirically or rationally in spite of objective affirming or contradicting arguments. In other words we are robots with no free will. (I am not here addressing man's nature in Adam or in Christ.)

Self-evident, on the other hand, means that there are some truths that are obvious to rational beings that don't require scientific investigation. They are obvious, self-evident truths. For example, you pull into your driveway. You see and know as a self-evident fact that that is your house without any further support.

As for your question, there is no relevance to the meaning of self-evident truth. But since you included a religious content in the story I will answer it from the Christian worldview. Inheriting our human nature from the first man - Adam, we are all, by nature born spiritually separated from God i.e "dead in our trespasses and sins". We are all, by nature, "children of wrath". Our wills are free according to our nature. We can freely chose to do what we will. But because of our "fallen" nature our wills are in bondage to sin. It takes the supernatural act of God in renewing our minds, giving us a new heart, new life (born-again, born from above), a new nature in union with the last Adam, which is Christ, that frees us from the "old man" making us the "new man".

So, no, the sovereign grace of God is required to open a person's eyes to the Divinity of Christ and grant to that person the forgiveness of their sins, the imputation of Christ's righteousness to their account and eternal life in heaven with Him.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Hello @Evangelicalhumanist. The conclusion that you have come to regarding self-evident truth implies that we are all unwittingly preprogrammed with prejudicial information that we are unable to justify empirically or rationally in spite of objective affirming or contradicting arguments. In other words we are robots with no free will. (I am not here addressing man's nature in Adam or in Christ.)

"Preprogrammed" and robots? Nowhere did I suggest any such thing. Rather, I suggested that we are preconditioned by nature -- for our very survival to reach adulthood -- to trust and believe our parents and our community. That programming is not going away, or if it does, so will our species.

Free will and Adam have squat to do with it. However, another faculty that we are born with -- and that is evolutionally necessary -- is our reason. There will arise in every human life a million things that they were not "programmed" for, and have to work out for themselves. And we do that by observing what happens and what results, drawing generalized conclusions, and attempting to use those conclusions to guide us where there is no other help.

But I do very much suggest that some of the "programming" done in childhood can have a lasting, practically insurmountable effect into adulthood -- and that it can and does override our capacity for reason.

(As a side note, by the way, I think that this essential conflict in our nature may well be the eventual cause of our extinction as a species.)

Self-evident, on the other hand, means that there are some truths that are obvious to rational beings that don't require scientific investigation. They are obvious, self-evident truths. For example, you pull into your driveway. You see and know as a self-evident fact that that is your house without any further support.

Are you sure that's "self-evident?" Nobody could possibly have constructed two identical houses, on two similar driveways?

As for your question, there is no relevance to the meaning of self-evident truth. But since you included a religious content in the story I will answer it from the Christian worldview. Inheriting our human nature from the first man - Adam, we are all, by nature born spiritually separated from God i.e "dead in our trespasses and sins". We are all, by nature, "children of wrath". Our wills are free according to our nature. We can freely chose to do what we will. But because of our "fallen" nature our wills are in bondage to sin. It takes the supernatural act of God in renewing our minds, giving us a new heart, new life (born-again, born from above), a new nature in union with the last Adam, which is Christ, that frees us from the "old man" making us the "new man".

So, no, the sovereign grace of God is required to open a person's eyes to the Divinity of Christ and grant to that person the forgiveness of their sins, the imputation of Christ's righteousness to their account and eternal life in heaven with Him.

While you may think that you gave a thoughtful answer to my question, you did nothing of the kind. In fact, you ignored my question entirely, and gave me a sermon.

I consider that "non-responsive," and therefore your bid is rejected.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So you've created your own version of God which encompases any concept of God as long as the main message is one of love.

This is a virtuous and safe position but this does not really make it anymore valid.

Atheists can be as caring, loving and compassionate without God as anyone can with God.

Your God is not the God of the OT. Maybe not even the God of the NT.

This seems more in support of "projecting their own internal psychological experiences onto reality and calling it a god" than an argument against it.

Not at all. I was answering a different question.

The God of both testaments is consistent in showing love and justice.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Texas sharpshooter fallacy - "an informal fallacy which is committed when differences in data are ignored, but similarities are stressed. From this reasoning, a false conclusion is inferred.

That's what you just did. You culled the little bit you could think of that you say most believers claim in common while ignoring the myriad differences. It's that huge number of differences here that are significant and which reveal that the claimants are vamping.

Ask them to describe the sun or an ear of corn, and I'll bet that you'll see a lot more correlation in their descriptions. That's how you can tell what they have actually experience and what they have not.

I have no problem with the differentiation of God experiences among people. Why would you seek a non-personal God who is the same to all His children?

I also have no problem asserting that while there are loving atheists, the true loving people are religiously inspired.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Most persons -- of whatever religion or culture -- say that many things are "self-evident" to them. Those "self-evident" things, however, almost always turn out to be the things that their parents and community believed, and taught them.

Does this surprise you?

Let me ask you a question that I hope you will try to answer with great honesty: if 3 children born of 1 Jewish, 1 Christian and 1 Muslim family, were abducted at birth by a Hindu family and raised as their own -- do you think that any of those children would at some point deny what their "new family" taught them? Do you suppose that the child born to Christian parents would somehow intuit the divinity of Christ, while his adoptive brother and sister couldn't see it at all -- while the adoptive brother (born to Muslim parents) would at the same time recognize the primacy of the message of Mohammed as "God's final Prophet?"

I admit freely that I'm trying to lead you. I'm trying to get you -- and everybody else -- to see that what we think of as "self-evident" is almost always a prejudice instilled in us before we could understand, and the defense of which we cannot undertake except to say, "well, that's self-evident to me, no matter what the external evidence says."

I appreciate the thought that went into your post, but my experience was quite different. I was taught from a young age to be a zealous Jew and to distrust all Christians and Christianity.

There are numerous stories of twins raised in households where one becomes a Christian, one an atheist, one a loving philanthropist, one an ax murderer.

And while many things are self-evident to many persons, yes, please name all the other things that are invisible, for which the facts speak against, that are self-evident to most people who've ever lived:

1.

2.

3.

 

[Thief]

and when you go to pray.....privately....
you see God?

 

[Rick B]

"Preprogrammed" and robots? Nowhere did I suggest any such thing. Rather, I suggested that we are preconditioned by nature -- for our very survival to reach adulthood -- to trust and believe our parents and our community. That programming is not going away, or if it does, so will our species.

EQUIVOCATION, RED-HERRING

You stated ""self-evident" is almost always a prejudice instilled in us before we could understand".
"prejudice" is defined as: preconceived notion, preconception, predispose, indoctrinate, pre inclination. And you claim that pre program does not fit in that category and that you nowhere suggested such a thing? If we are predisposed and pre inclined to think or act in a certain way I think suggesting we are "robots" is quite appropriate.

In an attempted defense you say: "Rather, I suggested that we are preconditioned by nature -- for our very survival to reach adulthood -- to trust and believe our parents and our community. That programming is not going away, or if it does, so will our species."

Nowhere, I repeat, nowhere did you suggest or imply "that we are preconditioned by nature".

You stated: "Those "self-evident" things, however, almost always turn out to be the things that their parents and community believed, and taught them."
I should not have to inform you that "by nature" means something we are born with not something we are taught by our parents or community.

Though you deny my observation of "pre program" you nevertheless use that state of affairs to defend your position by "suggesting that we are "preconditioned by nature" and "That programming is not going away, or if it does, so will our species."

No you didn't. You sought confirmation of your theory by interjecting religion into your proposition.

But I do very much suggest that some of the "programming" done in childhood can have a lasting, practically insurmountable effect into adulthood -- and that it can and does override our capacity for reason.

You've made that painfully obvious.

Are you sure that's "self-evident?" Nobody could possibly have constructed two identical houses, on two similar driveways?

MEANINGLESS, HYPOTHETICAL DISTRACTION

For you to be consistent with your naturalistic, Atheist worldview, that cannot account for any abstract, universal, invariant laws, you have no foundation to believe that the future will be like the past. So it would be no surprise if you couldn't distinguish your home from a similar one or that it would be at the same address today as it was the day before or will be tomorrow. But you can and do because you steal from the Christian worldview, that does account for those laws, to function in this life.

While you may think that you gave a thoughtful answer to my question, you did nothing of the kind. In fact, you ignored my question entirely, and gave me a sermon.

NON-RESPONSE, UNSUPPORTED EMOTIONAL DENIAL

Your question:

do you think that any of those children would at some point deny what their "new family" taught them? Do you suppose that the child born to Christian parents would somehow intuit the divinity of Christ, while his adoptive brother and sister couldn't see it at all

My answer:

But since you included a religious content in the story I will answer it from the Christian worldview. Inheriting our human nature from the first man - Adam, we are all, by nature born spiritually separated from God i.e "dead in our trespasses and sins". We are all, by nature, "children of wrath". Our wills are free according to our nature. We can freely chose to do what we will. But because of our "fallen" nature our wills are in bondage to sin. It takes the supernatural act of God in renewing our minds, giving us a new heart, new life (born-again, born from above), a new nature in union with the last Adam, which is Christ, that frees us from the "old man" making us the "new man". So, no, the sovereign grace of God is required to open a person's eyes to the Divinity of Christ and grant to that person the forgiveness of their sins, the imputation of Christ's righteousness to their account and eternal life in heaven with Him.

Even though you don't like it and feel like a sermon is being preached to you, because of your enmity towards God, this is quite evidently a thorough and to the point answer to your question.

Everything can be checked and verified that you have fallaciously misrepresented yourself in your second response in an attempt to escape your illogical assertions in your first response digging yourself into a deeper pit of irrational argumentation.

Most persons -- of whatever religion or culture -- say that many things are "self-evident" to them. Those "self-evident" things, however, almost always turn out to be the things that their parents and community believed, and taught them. UNSUPPORTED SUPPOSITION, MEANINGLESS OPINION,

Does this surprise you?

Let me ask you a question that I hope you will try to answer with great honesty: if 3 children born of 1 Jewish, 1 Christian and 1 Muslim family, were abducted at birth by a Hindu family and raised as their own -- do you think that any of those children would at some point deny what their "new family" taught them? Do you suppose that the child born to Christian parents would somehow intuit the divinity of Christ, while his adoptive brother and sister couldn't see it at all -- while the adoptive brother (born to Muslim parents) would at the same time recognize the primacy of the message of Mohammed as "God's final Prophet?"

I admit freely that I'm trying to lead you. I'm trying to get you -- and everybody else -- to see that what we think of as "self-evident" is almost always a prejudice instilled in us before we could understand, and the defense of which we cannot undertake except to say, "well, that's self-evident to me, no matter what the external evidence says."

I consider that "non-responsive," and therefore your bid is rejected.

It is certainly no surprise that you "reject" my refutation of your argument considering it a non-response. However your reply has, once again, demonstrated equivocation, red-herrings, inconsistency. And inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.

I, on the other hand, welcome with open arms your replies. The more you express your feelings the more obvious it becomes that you are feeling the pressure of suppressing the knowledge of that God that exists.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools," Romans 1:18-22

No sermon. Evidence.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

EQUIVOCATION, RED-HERRING

You stated ""self-evident" is almost always a prejudice instilled in us before we could understand".
"prejudice" is defined as: preconceived notion, preconception, predispose, indoctrinate, pre inclination. And you claim that pre program does not fit in that category and that you nowhere suggested such a thing? If we are predisposed and pre inclined to think or act in a certain way I think suggesting we are "robots" is quite appropriate.

In an attempted defense you say: "Rather, I suggested that we are preconditioned by nature -- for our very survival to reach adulthood -- to trust and believe our parents and our community. That programming is not going away, or if it does, so will our species."

Nowhere, I repeat, nowhere did you suggest or imply "that we are preconditioned by nature".

You stated: "Those "self-evident" things, however, almost always turn out to be the things that their parents and community believed, and taught them."
I should not have to inform you that "by nature" means something we are born with not something we are taught by our parents or community.

Though you deny my observation of "pre program" you nevertheless use that state of affairs to defend your position by "suggesting that we are "preconditioned by nature" and "That programming is not going away, or if it does, so will our species."

No you didn't. You sought confirmation of your theory by interjecting religion into your proposition.



You've made that painfully obvious.

MEANINGLESS, HYPOTHETICAL DISTRACTION

For you to be consistent with your naturalistic, Atheist worldview, that cannot account for any abstract, universal, invariant laws, you have no foundation to believe that the future will be like the past. So it would be no surprise if you couldn't distinguish your home from a similar one or that it would be at the same address today as it was the day before or will be tomorrow. But you can and do because you steal from the Christian worldview, that does account for those laws, to function in this life.

NON-RESPONSE, UNSUPPORTED EMOTIONAL DENIAL

Your question:

My answer:

Even though you don't like it and feel like a sermon is being preached to you, because of your enmity towards God, this is quite evidently a thorough and to the point answer to your question.

Everything can be checked and verified that you have fallaciously misrepresented yourself in your second response in an attempt to escape your illogical assertions in your first response digging yourself into a deeper pit of irrational argumentation.





It is certainly no surprise that you "reject" my refutation of your argument considering it a non-response. However your reply has, once again, demonstrated equivocation, red-herrings, inconsistency. And inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.

I, on the other hand, welcome with open arms your replies. The more you express your feelings the more obvious it becomes that you are feeling the pressure of suppressing the knowledge of that God that exists.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools," Romans 1:18-22

No sermon. Evidence.

My, my, you do go on. "Have at thee, heathen!" might be your rallying cry.

And yet, you fall into the simplest of errors. Your complete inability to understand the difference between such things as: "preconceived notion, preconception, predispose, indoctrinate, pre inclination."

Or, instinct -- and that is an extremely important concept, and the one to which I referred -- "pre-conditioned" -- which, curiously, you left out of your list. I wonder why?

Yes, there are things that are instinctual -- that we are pre-conditioned by nature (or rather, but our genetic inheritance) to. Drawing breath, which we never once did in the womb would be one of those. The instinct to suckle would be another. Interestingly, infants will suckle on a breast -- which is useful in that it supplies milk -- but also on a thumb or a pacifier, which will not. Thus, there is no "information" implied, no "knowledge that sucking is good for something." It is simply a reflex action that happens to sustain life.

And I say that very young children (we're not talking newborn infants now) are likewise preconditioned to believe what they learn from their parents to a hugely greater degree than what they might accept from others. This is an absolute necessity in a species that experiences a helpless infancy and a dangerous learning curve through youth. Nowhere did I suggest they are preconditioned to believe any specific notion, because that is not true: rather, they instinctively give more credence to close family than elsewhere -- whatever family or others might be selling.

And finally, we humans also don't remain children forever, and another part of our natural preconditioning is to eventually begin distancing ourselves from parents, and beginning our own lives, leading to becoming parents ourselves.

My personal view leans toward the idea that the stronger our parental influences were in shaping our beliefs -- and the weaker our own desire to learn what the world really is about for ourselves -- the more likely we are to remain doctrinaire and unreasonable about those very things to which we assign the label "religious belief."

And one of the ways in which I constantly observe people doing just that is when they quote scripture rather than do what I'm doing with you right now -- telling you why, in my very own words, I think the way I do. Read your post again -- you went the scripture route.

Thundering sermons about the "wrath of God" against me don't impress me in the least. If there were a wrathful god with me in its sights, it's hardly likely I'd still be here saying what I am.

 

[Rick B]

My, my, you do go on. "Have at thee, heathen!" might be your rallying cry.

And yet, you fall into the simplest of errors. Your complete inability to understand the difference between such things as: "preconceived notion, preconception, predispose, indoctrinate, pre inclination."

Or, instinct -- and that is an extremely important concept, and the one to which I referred -- "pre-conditioned" -- which, curiously, you left out of your list. I wonder why?

Yes, there are things that are instinctual -- that we are pre-conditioned by nature (or rather, but our genetic inheritance) to. Drawing breath, which we never once did in the womb would be one of those. The instinct to suckle would be another. Interestingly, infants will suckle on a breast -- which is useful in that it supplies milk -- but also on a thumb or a pacifier, which will not. Thus, there is no "information" implied, no "knowledge that sucking is good for something." It is simply a reflex action that happens to sustain life.

And I say that very young children (we're not talking newborn infants now) are likewise preconditioned to believe what they learn from their parents to a hugely greater degree than what they might accept from others. This is an absolute necessity in a species that experiences a helpless infancy and a dangerous learning curve through youth. Nowhere did I suggest they are preconditioned to believe any specific notion, because that is not true: rather, they instinctively give more credence to close family than elsewhere -- whatever family or others might be selling.

And finally, we humans also don't remain children forever, and another part of our natural preconditioning is to eventually begin distancing ourselves from parents, and beginning our own lives, leading to becoming parents ourselves.

My personal view leans toward the idea that the stronger our parental influences were in shaping our beliefs -- and the weaker our own desire to learn what the world really is about for ourselves -- the more likely we are to remain doctrinaire and unreasonable about those very things to which we assign the label "religious belief."

And one of the ways in which I constantly observe people doing just that is when they quote scripture rather than do what I'm doing with you right now -- telling you why, in my very own words, I think the way I do. Read your post again -- you went the scripture route.

I go to Scripture because I have an objective final authority that informs me of all things necessary for life and godliness - that guides into all truth. You, on the other hand, tell people what you think because you only present a subjective ultimate authority (your personal opinion) which is relativism that can only lead to epistomological skepticism. While the Christian's ultimate authority supplies justified true belief.

BTW it's not my "complete inability to understand the difference between such things as..." it's your lack of referring to support and trusting in your prideful self-sufficiency being ignorant of, or disregarding as inferior to your perceived intellectual prowess, such references as dictionaries or a thesaurus that defines these terms as synonyms. Just in case: synonym - a word or phrase that means the same or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language. Merriam Webster Dictionary.com

The reason I left out any reference to "instinct" is because that word was nowhere used by you in the two posts. So your accusation and innuendo are a fabrication. If you are making some kind of derogatory remark about me not using the word "preconditioned" it certainly could be added to that list of synonyms. It in no way bolsters you case. However, it does support my rebuttal of yours even though it would be redundant.

Keep on talking.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I go to Scripture because I have an objective final authority that informs me of all things necessary for life and godliness - that guides into all truth. You, on the other hand, tell people what you think because you only present a subjective ultimate authority (your personal opinion) which is relativism that can only lead to epistomological skepticism. While the Christian's ultimate authority supplies justified true belief.

Well, if you find anything completely riddled with self-contradiction, obvious error, and occasional complete nonsense to be an "objective final authority" for anything, then you must be forever deluded. And quite obviously you haven't the vaguest idea of what JTB actually means. (Here's a hint: "justified" doesn't mean "because it's written in the bible." It means that you an demonstrate that you have a valid reason for holding the belief.")
[

BTW it's not my "complete inability to understand the difference between such things as..." it's your lack of referring to support and trusting in your prideful self-sufficiency being ignorant of, or disregarding as inferior to your perceived intellectual prowess, such references as dictionaries or a thesaurus that defines these terms as synonyms. Just in case: synonym - a word or phrase that means the same or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language. Merriam Webster Dictionary.com

What have you accomplished by calling me "prideful" and attempting to slag my knowledge of the English language? (Which, by the way, as someone who actually creates cryptic crossword puzzles, might just be a tad stronger than your own. www.crossword.info/BigAl)

 

[Thief]

My criticism of Religion is the claim to know anything about God, at all.

My position is man knows nothing about God. I assume this is the default position of atheists. Am I wrong?

People who say God is whatever... loving, all powerful, Just, merciful, has a plan for all of us etc.
From whence does this knowledge about God come from?

I know nothing about God and neither do you. You can have faith that God possesses whatever properties you feel God should possess, but based on what? Imagining if a God did exist, this is what God ought to be like?

You have the Bible, Quran etc... So why do you feel these folks were in any better position than you to have knowledge about God.

Not that I'm going to go about calling believers liars. I just think they feel a certainty that they don't actually possess.

perhaps this thread should have been framed with a different title
sure you 'claim' to not call believers liars.....but....
you're choice of title betrays you