It's like bashing your head against a brick wall. Splendour will keep trotting out the same tired old argumenst no matter how many times she's told that she's wrong. She's RGT's broken record. Every week she'll trot out the following three arguments:

1) The Bible is proof of god due to the number of biblical prophecies that are described in the Bible as being fulfilled.
2) We have a "God gene" that makes us believe -- clearly this is proof of god.
3) Some nonsense about how the written accounts of Jesus' life and death would be considered admissible in modern courts.

There's probably a few more that I'm missing.

I was raised catholic. baptized, confirmed, etc. went to church most every week, up until about 13 or so. I hadn't thought much about whether I believed in religion, i just did because I was told. Then I realized that church was a huge waste of time for me. I went because i was supposed to go, and I just spaced out when I was there. So I stopped going. During high school, my amount of belief started dropping, because I started thinking more and more about why I did, and by 18 I realized that in my mind under "Reasons why I believe" there was basically "Because I should".

I kicked around trying to still believe for another year or two, even though I deep down knew i no longer did i just hadn't admitted it yet. So at like 19, I was talking to a friend and said that the only at all compelling reason to me to believe is the question of when was the beginning? the most logical answer is god began everything. he answered with, why is god starting everything more logical than time being infinite. and from then on i really have just absolutely no reason to believe, so i don't.

Deuteronomy is like a cheat code for Atheists.

4) She mentions coin flips a lot

Good, so we agree that 'design' is an empty concept; merely a placeholder for a collection of images, all of them ambiguous.

So let's go back to your sentence: "But given design it's far more rational to believe in a designer than not."

Which image were you alluding to in this sentence? How do you mean for your reader to use that image?

but if science can give a plausible explanation for how elementary particles become you and me without "conscious planning," then i must accept that it's plausible that something like the universe itself is not the result of conscious planning.

people who believe in a personal god without doubt, as i did, see no plausible alternatives.

i thought it was obvious i meant all religions.

woah, i think you must have overloaded the "god" word there because that's not obvious.

it is incredibly arrogant to believe that one religion is > 99% likely to be true. so much more so to claim it's 100%. it is not so arrogant, but i think a little foolish, to believe that one religion is > 50% to be true.

what? how does it show that? i agree that it would be rational to believe if christianity's untruth would be more miraculous than its truth. i think you mean "it might be rational to believe."

i don't follow you.

i'm saying i became an atheist because i could not help finally thinking about evidence. if you become an atheist it won't be because it's offering you anything, it will be because you finally surrender to the monstrous implausibility of your religion.

No, we don't. If there are no concepts, which seems to be your position, how can there be any content? If there is no content, how can there be any communication? If there is no communication, what does anything you say mean?

Science can never do that, by definition.

I mean the God of the Bible, because He doesn't lie.

No, it isn't.


If Christianity is unique in essential matters, including things like historicity, then it's rational.


Peter said he would continue to follow Christ because He had words of eternal life. Jesus didn't correct him or indicate that was a bad reason.

I think atheism is monstrously implausible. Plus it has nothing to offer. But suppose it was plausible and still had nothing to offer, and Christianity actually WAS implausible. On atheism, it would be silly to remain an atheist because there's nothing there, so if Christianity has at least some peace and happiness to offer, you should be a Christian. It's irrational it follow truth if the truth is irrational, which atheism is ultimately. Of course, this is a contradiction, because if the truth is irrational then truth is an illusion. So atheism loses by either argument. This is basically what Peter was saying - Jesus is the only hope for rationality and truth.

*Sigh.* From before:

So my story goes like this:

The concept 'design' exists as a relation between the word "design" and English-speaking minds. This relation is constituent for 'design.'

However, this relation is logically indeterminate. ('Design' is logically empty.) So the dictionary images are not constituent for 'design.' They are only interpretations; or idealized themes of 'design.'

I agree that the dictionary images are just fine, for MOST uses of the word "design." BUT if we want to claim that 'design' is a constituent property of reality (and not just an interpretative image), THEN we must explain what is constituent for 'design.'

----------------------------------------

Ok. So now you can either:
(1) Tell me a different story about concepts...what they are, and what is constituent for their meaning. Then apply this theory to 'design.'
- or -
(2) Accept my story, and then decide whether you are just using 'design' as an interpretative image; or as a metaphysical property.

...

So you (And Peter I suppose) believe in Christianity because you're freerolling? Either Christianity is correct and there's a reward, or it's not and there's nothing?

I don't speak your language and have no desire to learn it. I know what I mean by concept and most people who read this do. You haven't really explained yours. What I mean is what the dictionary says, which you haven't really addressed in English. You also haven't said if there are ANY concepts. Why don't you answer that? Design is an empty concept. Death is an empty concept. What isn't empty?

No, not freerolling. Because it's rationally defensible. But if you could prove atheism with absolute certainty it would still make sense to be a Christian. Even though, on atheism, nothing makes sense. See, it's impossible to discuss content and atheism together because atheism is irrational. It's impossible to be rational about the ultimately irrational.

Edit: As to your last sentence, yes. There's nothing. Which is what I mean by atheism has nothing to offer - nothing of value that is. Most philosophers of the 19th and 20th century agree. They are reduced to asserting that making your own meaning is somehow worthwhile. But I don't find that convincing. I think Peter knew that intuitively - philosophers of his day had nothing to offer, either. So he would follow Jesus because he saw no hope anywhere else. And Jesus accepted that reasoning - because He knows how weak we are, and the desire for hope is valid.

How, if I could prove atheism with ABSOLUTE certainty would it make sense to be a Christian? Surely you mean that there is no way to be absolutely certain, since if there was 100% certainty then that would mean there would be a 0% chance Christianity was correct. It would be impossible to decide either one to be fact, so it would always be +EV to be Christian, am I on the right track?

Then tell me?

*Deep breath.* For the third (fourth?) time:

All English words are symbols. (As well as almost all objects.) So of course concepts exist. Goodness.

'Design' and 'death' are logically empty, because only experience is constitutive for them. You must be a English-speaking mind in an English-language world to have 'design' and 'death.'

Nothing that I'm aware of.

What I'm getting at is if the ultimate reality is irrational or nonrational then NOTHING makes sense so it makes as much sense to be a Christian as anything else because 0 = 0. Stated another way existentialism says we can only make our own meaning so they can't logically object to me making Christianity MY meaning - even though that makes no sense.

I haven't read all the linguistic philosophers you have and plan to never do so - much more interesting things to do. I see no point in discussing anything if everything is empty. Seems the apotheosis of skepticism.

This sort of story is the OPPOSITE of skepticism. It is a severe realism, built on the observation that logic and language are too limited to represent constituent truth.

Only the world is big enough to explain the world. Words...meh.

Dear subfallen, you are able to place symbols is a design that conveys concepts in the form of words and sentences in the english language and yet you expect us to believe you do not know what those words (concept, design) mean in the english language.

Agreed. Finally

No, only God is.

*Sigh.* No...just, no.

I'm going to bed, but I'll leave you with this question:
- If the meaning of every concept is given by its definition (in terms of other concepts), then how did you learn your first concept?

Observation + pattern recognition.

yeah ok and you pretend not to know what i'm talking about, zzz...

if he did lie, you wouldn't necessarily know about it.

so we're done then?

i said what would make it rational.

so?

yeah you already said that. we've been down this road a thousand times.

you can't be much of a christian if you don't believe in god.

you have no idea what you're saying but no one is ever going to be able to convince you otherwise.

again.

i really don't think that's what he was saying.

I grew up in a Catholic family, went to Catholic schools and everything, so it was ingrained in me at an early age.. as the last line of "NCFOM" said, "Then I woke up". I need evidence.. realizing that if people were born in some other part of the world, they'd have a completely different set of beliefs just invalidated organized religion and it all seemed pretty silly. Just funny to think if North America followed Islam and The Middle East was Christian that all the current Christians would be none the wiser

Ernest Becker summed up my thoughts pretty well:

"Life is at the start a chaos in which one is lost. The individual suspects this, but he is frightened at finding himself face to face with this terrible reality, and tries to cover it up with a curtain of fantasy, where everything is clear. It does not worry him that his ideas are not true, he uses them as trenches for the defense of his existence, as scarecrows to frighten away reality."

No. You should rethink that in light of the material in the "omega point" thread. If time does not actually exist as we think it, then all of the indefinable quickly becomes definable.

we are the gentile people we do the things that the old teastament talks about ==God said to the jews dont go to that people for look at the abomination they do --- thats who we are==RC teaches worship the virgin Mary , worship saints ==do prayer beads ==lots of dos and donts == the protestant people have all sorts of teachings as well ==calvinist ---they say that Christ only died for some people==most have a one man ministry=when its the priesthood of all believers==fact of the matter is if you are a believer God declares you a son of his ===