Yeah, sorry, Trav, you goofed.

I argued that applied reasoning based on logical absolutes was the only reliable pathway to truth given what we currently know; you responded with claims of absolutism on my behalf, then when I asked you to support your claim with an example of another reliable pathway, you couldn’t provide one.

You stuffed up. Admit it.

<<I’ve made genuine attempts to understand you here.>>

Okay, I’ll take your word for it then. It just seemed a little co-incidental that the way you'd misinterpret me just happened to help your argument every time. Almost as if there were another force at work there or something.

<<In your opinion there would be no point trying [to reason]...>>

Example #3 of a response to something I didn’t say.

I said there’d be “little point”, not “no point”. A surprisingly big difference there.

<<In my opinion, we DO have little control over our biases…>>

I know. I even went to the effort of inserting the word “virtually” into my comment in acknowledgment of that. So, why do you capitalise “do”?

<<…but this does not imply that there is no point trying to reason objectively.>>

No, it certainly does not.

<<…I’m surprised that an enlightened free thinker such as yourself would make such a logical blunder.>>

Nah, I’ve humiliated you enough. Let’s move on…

<<You have also stated plenty of opinions here in this discussion!>>

Yes, but I don’t use them as evidence for anything. For the tenth freaking time!

You are absolutely determined to miss my point here, aren’t you, Trav?

<<Instead of sitting here implying that my views are worthless because they are “opinions”, you should actually show them to be false or improbable.>>

I already have - multiple times. You still forget those all important stats I provided you with along with the moral shifting zeitgeist I mentioned.

And since when have I ever implied that your opinions were worthless? Your opinions have a lot of worth as they help to make up who you are, but they are not evidence of anything!

Continued…

…Continued

<<So, in your opinion my arguments have fallen down? Well, that’s complete nonsense because you are only stating an opinion.>>

Give me one example of where I have said opinion = nonsense. In any case, my opinion there is demonstrated by our entire discussion.

<<Why are you trying to wriggle out of the implication you made?>>

Why are you so determined to believe that I consciously implied that? Do you have an argument you’re busting to use?

I’ll tell ya what… How about you present this argument anyway and I’ll see what I think. Whaddya reckon?

Or would it not have the same effect that way?

<<Your position is that freethinkers can alter their presuppositions, but religious believers cannot.>>

No, more that they don’t allow themselves to.

<<Your point may be correct in some cases, but it is not warranted if you are making a general, blanket statement about believers and non-believers.>>

Well I can’t speak for all non-believers as the common denominator between us is a belief/non-belief that doesn’t have a doctrine. With believers, on the other hand, it is in the very nature of the doctrine in which they share to discourage them from ever questioning the core fundamentals of it.

<<If by free thinker you mean someone who thinks critically, examines their own presuppositions and is willing to alter them, in other words thinks as freely as they possibly can, then there is plenty of Christians throughout history and alive today who have fitted into that boat.>>

Yes, like me. They’re what you would now call “atheists”.

<<…there are plenty of atheists who claim to be freethinkers, yet they have a “dogmatic belief system” built on the view that nature is all that can ever exist.>>

There is nothing “dogmatic” about naturalism because, unlike the Abrahamic religions, there is nothing within it to say that one cannot question it.

Consider the contrast between how often atheists say that evidence is all it would take for them to believe and theists stating that no amount of evidence will shake their belief.

A J, Trav, Pericles,

I wonder if I dare throw a little clarification in here. Faith has two meanings in accepted usage for all purposes here - in this thread at this point of proceedings: The "Faith" that an individual holds in the pursuance of or commitment to their "Faith" - the second representing the particular religion or belief system they subscribe to. Ok? The other usage of the word "faith", which is a usage we must avoid in the current context (because it can only create further confusion), is the faith a person expresses that the sun will rise, that it will rain eventually, etc, and which has nothing whatever to do with religion or personal religious belief.

That said, I will do my best to avoid using the word altogether, here at least.

I don't really want to throw cold water, and you fellows are free to disregard anything I have to say and to go on regardless. That is always your right and your choice.

You fellows have been at it for a fair while now, and have analysed and re-analysed, but I haven't observed much progress, and all seems to be stuck in a round robin. The question was what? - Spiritual Atheism? The very construct has a reasonable absurdity to it. By definition, atheism really should avoid any relation to spirituality - as in accepted usage this would have to mean in relation to some religious order. Sure, people can be spirited in their holding of this position or that, but, this is not "spirituality".
TBC>

Cont'd:

Atheism and agnosticism have to be held as reasonable viewpoints, for the holding of such positions harms no-one. Religious fervour on the other hand, has been definitively shown to be destructive in some scenarios, and strictly without the least justification. For that, religion has a capacity to be "used" and "abused" for deleterious action. My conviction is, however, that this conflictive use of religion is generally a smoke-screen for true motives of covetousness, emanating from material or political inequity or corruption, or simply for purpose of domination (see Taliban). The solution remains equitability in all things, compromise and tolerance, together with revision of "separatist" doctrine and dogma. Unfortunately we have a long wait to see genuine improvement, or possibly a genuine "religious war" to totally clear the decks - God forbid.

On the latest trend in discussion, I find no value in attributing or denying religious intolerance - it is alive and well, along with racism, stereotyping, bigotry and all manner of prejudice - and fundamentally no better or worse.

On conflict - the past is the past, but it is revealing when we see thousands of people in Belgrade barracking, in "nationalistic" fervour, for the release and glorification of the "butcher" Vladco Miladich (however you spell the B's name). That demonstration is a salutary reminder of just how backward mankind remains, in spite of significant political, scientific and socio-economic advancement. Our world remains a harsh and troublesome environment, because of the existence and success of one unreliable creature - Homo Sapiens - resplendent with immense potential and creativity, and burdened with an unavoidable desire to conquer all, in the interest of personal superiority at any cost (some altruistic and idealistic persona excluded). Wish it were a brighter picture. We can go to the moon, but we can't say hello without offending someone. Sad.

In future I am going to try to avoid the term "Humankind", for inhumanity is rife - including in "Halal" animal slaughter methods.

Religion itself is not so much responsible for conflict and intolerance, it is the underlying fundamental nature of the beast, of "Man".

Oh blow it.

I was going to make this clarification after it was pointed out in order to ration posts for a full response before bed, but after emerging conspiracies about “wriggling out” and laying blame on my inability to make my points clearer, it’s probably best I clarify this now. Even if it means waiting until tomorrow afternoon before I can post my next response. And besides, Saltpetre’s post is beckoning me.

Yes, Trav. I realise there is nothing specific about the Abrahamic religions preventing one from questioning them. Maybe I should have said “should not”. But the point remains that there is nothing inherently authoritative about naturalism and so to use the term “dogmatic” when referring to it - in any situation - is ludicrous.

Besides which, we all remember our parents telling us that we should never question god. It prevented us from straying to that place called “reason” where religious beliefs go to die. One other OLO’er (who is hostile to the suggestion that parents “indoctrinate” their children) once freely admitted to me that that is what they were told too. This person also seems to agree that not questioning god is something Christians are all taught... http://hubpages.com/hub/Questioning-God.

Saltpetre,

Thanks for your thoughts. The part that caught my eye was the bit about faith, although I'm not entirely sure what your first definition was supposed to mean.

Theists tend to can come up with all sorts of false - albeit colourful - definitions of faith. We already have a word for your second definition, it’s “knowledge”, so I don’t think it’s helpful to use the word “faith” there and as you pointed out (and Trav is demonstrating in his posts) it can cause a lot of confusion. But essentially, faith is just belief without any good reason.

Personally, I have reasonable expectations based on evidence. I have trust that has been earned and I will grant it tentatively. But I don't have faith. Faith is the excuse people give when they don’t have any evidence. (http://tiny.cc/jo4yh)

Dear Saltpetre,

Why are you saying that the concept of Spiritual Atheism is absurd? Would that include Buddhism for example?
I rather tend to think that Spiritual Theism is absurd, because if God existed, that would make Him (God forbid) an object, which lands you straight back into materialism - the opposite of spirituality!

(but although it is logically absurd, I think that the idea of God's existence still has a legitimate place for beginners while taking their first steps on the path of faith and still finding it hard to completely detach from worldly ideas)

A materialist may like the idea of an objective God because then, supposedly, God could do nice things for him/her, such as grant salvation and eternal life in heaven; or 72 virgins; and in some cases (such as in Judaism) national success.

A spiritual/religious person on the other hand, loves God unconditionally, not because He exists and hands out lollies - s/he couldn't care less about such requirements (to exist and to be omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent). It is through this unselfish love and faith that the worshiper eventually unites with God.

[The first definition of] Faith describes a state of mind: a steadfast trust along the surrendering of doubt, thus it is unrelated to belief (the third definition).