...Continued

But unlike theists (and going back to my point about theism and atheism not being equally opposing views) atheists don’t need to use a defence mechanism to protect their lack of belief as they are not emotionally tied to it, and lets face it, what possible reason could anyone have for passing on an eternity of bliss if it was shown to be real? Hardly something you’d want to put a barricade up for. But losing the belief in such a promise? Now that’s a different story!

But let me remind you of the last time you appeared to try to make it seem like I was feeling threatened and getting all defensive:

“Let me repeat: I am not trying to take away your world-view certainties...” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10496#179145)

To which I replied:

“Yes, and it’s a pity. What better way for me to help ensure that my beliefs are as close to true as possible?” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10496#179293)

Please don’t confuse my passion for truth and reason with defence mechanisms.

Thank you.

AJ Philips,

>>Please don’t confuse my passion for truth and reason with defence mechanisms.

Thank you.<<

Thank you too, for another exposé of your “passion for truth and reason” (masquerading as “defense mechanisms”, or vice versa). After all, “passion for Truth”, and implicitly also for reason, is a traditional Christian virtue. I shall keep on reading them - and hopefully learn more about these “passions” of yours - but I don’t think any more responding to them will get us anywhere.

George,

<<Thank you too, for another exposé of your “passion for truth and reason” (masquerading as “defense mechanisms”, or vice versa).>>

So what about my posts makes you think that the logic and reasoning in them is simply a passion for truth and reason masquerading as defence mechanisms, or vice versa? Can you provide any examples or reasoning as to why this is the case?

If you’re going to make such a claim, you could a least have the courtesy to back it up.

I had provided some reasoning as to why this wasn’t the case when I mentioned the absurdity of putting up a barrier that would result in the passing up of an eternity of bliss, along with the total absence of an emotional need to cling on to disbelief. Not to mention that response of mine, to a past post of yours assuring me that you’re weren’t trying to take my world-view away, that I quoted.

But I don’t think you had considered any of that because there’s a block there to protect you from absorbing anything that may force you to concede that atheism and theism are anything more than two equally opposing views.

<<After all, “passion for Truth”, and implicitly also for reason, is a traditional Christian virtue.>>

Interesting qualifier there with the capital ‘T’. By that I assume you mean the subjective adulteration of truth that amounts to mere belief. But I’m more interested the real objective truth - facts that have been, or can be verified - the kind of truth that Christianity is not only disinterested in, but that many Christians spend a lot of time hiding from.

Theists like to think that their chosen religion is a pathway to truth, and it CAN be in the same sense that a wild guess about anything, could be correct. But it’s not a pathway to truth in any real, demonstrable or reliable way.

The pathway to truth is evidence and applied reasoning based on logical absolutes. This is the only way that has proven itself reliable given what we currently know.

Continued...

...Continued

<<I shall keep on reading them - and hopefully learn more about these “passions” of yours...>>

Ah, you see, George? There’s a block here too.

If learning more about my passions is all you’re going to get from my posts, then that’s pretty sad.

My passions are the driving force behind my posts, not the content - as you are trying to make out.

I made it clear before (and as evidenced in my posts) that I usually stick to logic and reasoning and avoid my personal opinion when I said: “Yes, well this is why I try to avoid my personal outlook and focus on logic and reasoning.” When I state my personal opinion, I usually include qualifiers such as “in my opinion” or “Personally I think” or something along those lines.

But as a defence mechanism, you try to pass everything off as mere opinion.

Yes, when all is said and done, you’ll have your opinion and I’ll have mine - as you are trying desperately to implicitly emphasise here. But at the end of the day there is still such a thing as truth - objective truth - and only one proven reliable method of uncovering it.

And it doesn’t include religion.

<<...but I don’t think any more responding to them will get us anywhere.>>

On the contrary, I think this discussion has been most productive and if you read through the thread again, you’ll notice just how much we’ve established. An agreement doesn’t have to be reached to 'get somewhere', nor does the lack of any agreement mean that we’re going around in circles - as you seem to be implying.

At the very least - and as someone who often expresses a desire to learn about others - you should have learned a bit more about me, such as my take on the Christianity’s compatibility with science, and what I consider to be the only reliable method for establishing the truth.

We learn the most when we’re pulled out of our comfort zone, but you just seem to clam-up instead.

Pity.

A J Phillips

Although I am a fellow traveller in your attitude to religion I don't think a series of long and multiple posts dedicated to answering criticisms of your motives/beliefs/logic etc. is doing your case much good. The believers that so annoy you are never going to change their minds (as is the nature of a true delusion)and in any case you are getting right off the topic of Peter's article which, although I disagree with almost all of it, raises some interesting discussion topics which should be addressed calmly.
Lets forget the Ad Hominem stuff.

The problem with the church and science is that it has so often found itself in the position of trying to defend the indefensible. As an example, it took a long time for it to admit that Galileo was right and it was wrong. Certain sections of the Christian church still insist that the world was made in six days etc., despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This means that in the eyes of the unbelievers, any pronouncements by the Church will be treated with something more than scepticism, perhaps disbelief more likely.

The problem then arises, that for any argument based on logic to be credible, the starting point must be not only true, but credible and this is where science wins almost every time.

David