Well I agree with most of that, except where you say that faith and reason are opposites.

Have you heard of me? I'm the guy that pointed out that by nature faith is not passive. I am going to have to mill the idea of "acting actively" around in my head for a bit because I can figure how to do any different.

You appear to admit something can't be tested. It seems more reasonable to me to think of faith as an admission that our tests aren't perfectly reliable.

Everything comes down to faith.

I tend to agree

At some point within our lives we all choose to evaluate the world through some sort of means.

The primary means are always the intellectual constructs of the individual.

Some of these means are the Bible, while some of these means involves reason.

There are various external record keeping tools like the bible that that are used to create standardized intellectual constructs found to be beneficial. ALL of these involve reason.

you cannot use the very thing that you have chosen for evaluation to give credibility to the means.

That doesn't make sense to me. If I have a rubber ball, and I claim that it bounces, what should I use to give credibility to my claim?

Continued, it is to say that reason cannot be used to advocate reason.

Yet I am doing so right now!?

An outside source from your means of evaluation must be used to advocate and give credibility to your means.

If you are concerned with being credible...I agree

I have faith in the Bible.

Me too, I have faith that it's useful for promoting atheism

Others have faith in reason.

If you are on a debate site you have faith in reason.

It is when a source that is hostile to your means, advocates your means that one can fully trust that very thing you have so much faith in.

WTF?

Reason is automatic. It's how we think.

No disagreement there

One doesn't need faith to merely think.

One doesn't think without a reason. Not trying to equivocate here, but thought is an endeavor toward some underlying hope, and hope requires faith.

One needs faith to accept an ideal without evidence.

How is it possible for an ideal to be formed in the mind without some sort of evidence?

How one reasons can be different from the others. For example: a Christian can reason that evidence is not necessary in order to hold a belief, therefore having faith-based reasoning. An Atheist, on the other hand, finds that unless evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe in an ideal, therefore evidence-based reasoning.

Would you seriously claim that beliefs are formed without evidence? I would say that standards for what constitutes convincing evidence varies, but invariably all beliefs are based on evidence.

You don't have to have faith in reason.

If you are going to make use of reason you have to believe it will be worthwhile.

Reasoning is demonstrably accurate, as it uses the laws of logic inherent in the structure of the universe.

Faith is demonstrably accurate/inaccurate too. For example, even though I might be wrong, because there is surely a great deal of evidence I haven't considered, I have faith that the sun wont explode tomorrow. Tomorrow my faith will be tested.

I'd be interested in reading any proof you can provide that the laws of logic are inherent in the structure of the universe.

You only need faith in things you have no evidence for.

You need faith if you admit you are likely missing seriously important evidence.

Please don't think that I am in any way trying to discredit "the scientific method"....but are you are saying that the conclusions we come to by utilizing the scientific method are not fundamentally dependent on our judgments and perceptive ability? You do realize that we are always working with incomplete data sets, and none of our controls are without flaw, right? As I see it, we may mitigate, but we cannot escape that all of our judgments are subjective when it comes down to it. I don't see faith as "belief without evidence" I think of it more like not being paralyzed by the realization that not all evidence has been taken into account. I have great faith in the scientific method but I realize that it is a set of improvable standards.

I understand that your argument is based on the "belief without evidence" interpretation of the word faith, but this statement.... We've developed a method that--while is still observed by humans who are using reason--removes much of the dependence of human recognition. .... I don't understand. Please help

The flying spaghetti monster is a function of your own personality, (and exists as least as such) an imaginative construct that you pay too much attention to if your claim to worship it was honest.

God, if you go by the traditional theistic definition, is the proper object of worship.

I don't go by it, and I wonder why any atheist would.

If you do not assume this is true, then you are attacking a straw man.

I do assume that the definition you provided above is the traditional theist definition. AND FURTHER I think only a theist could go by such a definition.

I am arguing with you and I'd prefer not to argue against a stereotype or strawman. So tell me what you (not the traditional theists) think god is?

However, even if you do, you are also begging the question because such an assumption is based on evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that God exists.

That comes across as rather nonsensical but here I go responding anyway..

How my assumption (that you have indeed given the traditional theistic definition of god) would make you think my argument (which is that what gods are are real people who are worshiped) is begging the question is to put it mildly, unclear to me.

Thus, no matter how you look at it, your argument is invalid.

A statement like that is evidence that you completely trust a judgment you've made to be infallible.

My argument doesn't assume that it's proper to worship or that anyone's obligated to worship. Merely that worship occurs and that therefore gods exist.

You are arguing against a strawman.

So then......

if god is the unintentional Anthropomorphization of nature, which many people mistake for a literal supernatural agency responsible for the creation of the Universe and personally involved in our every day lives.

and The unintentional Anthropomorphization of nature, which many people mistake for a literal supernatural agency responsible for the creation of the Universe and personally involved in our every day lives is still happening

then god exists

Fine what do you think god is? :)

As I am atheist, I don't think there is being worthy of worship. This doesn't mean I can't realize that others judge differently and that the beings they worship do exist.

Ah but an individual CAN communicate with themselves can they not? Messages are sent from one part of the body to another, are they not?

Do you disagree that prayer is a form of internal self dialog? Do you disagree that what is regarded as god is actually an element of a persons personality that is mistakenly judged to be infallible?

The communication is coming from "what god really is" which is an intellectual construct (based on personal interpretation of events and messages) that's regarded as infallible.

My definition of god might be in need of refinement, but I think it's more rational than an alternative that refers to a supposed non-existent.

How can you address a problem while claiming it doesn't exist?

Oy vey! I knew what he meant .

A message or two ago, you weren't acting as if you regarded the argument as being clearly with out merit. A comment such as "I think this is perhaps where the flaw in the argument lies." displays doubt about your ability to clearly expose a flaw.

By all means expose the flaws. I am here to be shown the error in my thinking.

Perhaps you can help make it clear to me, by asking pointed questions and establishing a set of undisputed logical premises. I'm prepared to take the time to be held accountable. Even if no one else will commit to building a logical argument from the ground up, I will.

When a theist prays and "hears" (imo imaginatively conjures) a response, that response originates from a being that exists and is represented as god.

Every communication purported to come from god comes from a real living being.

I'll try a different angle.

The problem of theism is not a believing in non existent entity problem it's an excessive and uncritical trust in (worshiping of) existing entities problem.

Declaring atheism does not make one immune to the problem of worship. Modern atheism doesn't amount to much more than constantly reiterating "I don't believe in fairies"

when you say 'god exists as a term' i suppose you mean that god exists as a concept?

It's a term that can represent a wide variety of concepts. Rather than talking about which are most popular, I'd prefer to address the concept you maintain in your mind about what god is.

are you making an ontological argument for the existence of 'god'?

Please treat me as an individual and don't try to stereotype me. I didn't find the articulations of what is referred to as the ontological argument very convincing or compelling myself.

this type of argument has already been defeated.

I'm sure there's a number of people who disagree, so it hasn't been completely defeated.

concepts 'exist' in the minds of men, but imaginary things are held in the mind as concepts that we acknowledge to have no actual existence.

I'll argue that with you if you don't think it would be a waste of time.

"An imaginary problem is a real problem" ~atypican

lots of ppl have unwavering trust in their parents or siblings,. that doesn't qualify anyone as a god.

I suppose that lots of ppl receive false teachings through communication with such a ppl, and when asked they'll say they learned it from god. The lessons aren't coming from nowhere.

'god', generally denotes a supernatural being.

If you want to use the word supernatural I'll expect you to define it logically. Are you sure you want to digress in that way just yet?

so it's like someone already said: you can call a beer can a god but that wont make it any more likely for gods to exist.

Everything exists. Well described or not.

there is no point in even using the word god here because you've not defined any exclusively godlike qualities.

How about a being that is regarded as being worthy of lifelong unwavering trust, and is considered incapable of error.

we cannot agree on the usage of the word god.

I think you would you agree that god is an imaginative construct.

you may have noticed that theists, clergy and other theologians have a completely disingenuous vocabulary where they use words in ways that warp & often contradict their generally accepted definitions, just to sweet talk the masses into blindly accepting notions that are generally only explicitly defined, after the fact.

Yeah I have. And it really bugs me that so many atheists accept and use the definition of god thats offered by them. Lets talk in terms of what is.

thats called 'scriptural interpretation' but really its just blatant dishonesty.

We can do our own scriptural interpretation. I hope you don't think I am being dishonest. I am just looking to refine the way I think and express my thoughts. If you want to help sweet, if not I understand.

There is some nuance here that may require some digging to clearly flesh out. But for the sake of argument, if god is defined as a worshiped being, I don't think that worship being improper would invalidate that definition, or somehow disprove their existence.

If there is no proper object of worship, either God's existence is unknown to us or that there is no God.

I think thats a false choice argument.

I don't think so. But atheism perhaps is itself a thought tradition in philosophy.

Indeed but I am thinking about a core principle that rules out certain intellectual activity that is absolutely regarded as something one ought not take part in. A ruling logic. I'm sure I could clarify...its late going to bed.

I never said it did, and I agree with you that the premise doesn't necessarily imply it. I'll go further and say the premise doesn't imply an ought at all. Are you thinking I am a theist? I'm not. Perhaps we could have an interesting discussion about theology. Do you think that even atheists have the intellectual equivalent of a theology?

yessir. Now how does a determination of whether or not a being is worthy of worship effect the validity of the statement?

I've reiterated and rephrased and been redundant :) a few times, so in the interest of clarity please copy/paste premise 1, then I'll try again to understand how it depends on a well informed "ought to be worshipped" judgment.

You won't get any arguments in support of worship from me unless you succeed in dislodging a very deeply held belief of mine. I equate worship with excessive trust.

We disagree then. I would be happy to dig deeper if you have a pointed question or two to ask.

Isn't that reverence of an idea they hold then ?

And you suppose reverence can be for a non-existent ?

I was just hoping to access your thoughts a bit more directly.

And what are those? Should I expect personal anecdotes?

I'll save it for a later debate.

Define worship as you understand it. Take a risk and don't reference a dictionary.

Thanks Bohemian. Perhaps I will edit the debate decription again. Or start a fresh debate. Funny check my post I made possibly simultaneously.

So your argument is only that trusted people exist

Not only do trusted people exist, but individuals who are uncritically trusted exist. Uncritical and unwavering trust shapes my understanding of what worship is and worship is essential to what I think a god is. People seem to want me to only think of god in terms I cannot logically support. Can you understand why I refuse?

Not everyone who is unwaveringly and uncritically trusted is thought of as a god, but the term god does not need to exist for the practice of worship to exist and flourish. Since I think god most generally is thought of (by those who admit god's existence) to be unquestionably deserving of unwavering trust, this trust and who it's given to is what I think of while considering what gods are.

how is this a proof of God?

If anyone becomes convinced by my argument:

1. That beings that do exist are worshiped.

2. That a being that does not exist cannot be worshiped

3. That god is a term especially appropriate to what's going on during worship

Then I have proven the existence of god to them.

Talking to God is not difficult, getting him to talk back.....now, that's the tricky part.

I've got controversial opinions about prayer too. If your tendencies aren't too strongly dismissive. :)

Without having to admit the poorly defined terms "supernatural" "creator" and "universe" you could poll people who admit the existence of god and I'd wager they would invariably state that god is a being who deserves unwavering trust. I think god is more clearly and logically defined as a worshiped being.

Ismalia. Is god someone you unwaveringly trust?

Do you know anyone who admits god exists that doesn't think god is deserving of unwavering trust?

It actually depends on which conception of "God" you are talking about.

I am talking about the one that exists because worship exists.

However, this argument still does not hold any water.

I am happy to read your thoughtful challenges

In traditional Abrahamic religions, God is said to be a maximally great being, if he exists

Most high is another way of putting it, I said in the debate description "most trusted" (until I changed "most" to "unwaveringly") because I see the practice of worship as involving great (Plenty often excessive) trust.

What this means is that God is believed to be an actual rational moral agent and not a mere metaphor.

And I suppose only an actual agent can be worsiped.

Thus, it is obvious that if "God" here refers to the Judeo-Christian God, then premise 1 is false.

It's referring to an individual or group that is worshiped.

If the premise is false, the argument is invalid and therefore, it doesn't prove the existence of God.

True. If you can show me how the premise is false, you'll be doing me a favor.

Even if you were to refer to God in the pantheistic sense, it still fails as the pantheistic "God" refers to nature. It thus is a metaphor for nature, and not "a person or group who is trusted".

I'm not referring to god in the pantheistic sense. I am referring to the type of gods invloved with the tradition of worship.

1st of all you have clearly shifted the burden of proof. if you hold that a god exists as anything, it is up to you to demonstrate that.

Ok anything that can be discussed exists at least as a term. God exists at the very least as a term. So unless you disagree with that statement, you agree that god exists. The next step is to determine what is being referred to by the use of that term.

its not up to others to disprove it.

No one has to respond at all. But what objection can you give to the statement, "God exists at least as a term?" Unless you can give a reasoned objection, I'll note your agreement with it and move on.

I'd like to start with a logical definition of god instead of attempting to discuss things that don't exist.

you havent even provided evidence of a god.

Why bother try unless we can agree on the meaning of the word god?

you have simply used the word 'god' to define something that generally no one in the modern world considers a god.

I'd love to see you support that assumption with what you call evidence. I'd say that in order for a being to qualify as a god it must be considered worthy of unwavering trust. Find someone to disagree with that in the general population of the modern world and I'd be surprised.

you have attempted to redefine god into existence through equivocation or for the sake of argument 'metaphor'.

I am unable to accept an illogical definition of the word. So if I am to use the word at all in good conscience, I'm should be able to define it logically. A great number of other people such as yourself, may not mind using an ill-defined word, but I do.

taking the word 'god' (thought of by most westerners as 'an eternal magical deity who created the universe)

Here you go again claiming to know what most people think and not presenting evidence. Let's not muddy the waters by introducing additional poorly defined terms. We need to create a series of agreements and begin our dispute from where we first disagree.

and equated it to 'a group of respected beings' as in clergy, police officers, teachers, firemen, parents

No I said most trusted. And here I clarify that I am talking about individuals who are worshiped or afforded unwavering trust.

then you ask others to argue against your 'proof' which is really just unjustified and naked comparison.

I am looking for someone to take the time to respect my point of view and challenge me. Not dismiss me. Challenge me. If you aren't equipped or willing so be it, and I'll do my best to make it clear if that is the case.

now you claim you cannot argue about the qualities of a nonexistent being.

That's right. I think doing so is retarded.

if you think of god's as nonexistent why are you asking ppl to argue against your 'proof of a god?

The habit of worship exists. It's impossible to worship a being that doesn't exist. Worshiped beings are what's being referred to by the use of the term god. Argue against the logic or slink away, it's your choice.

this really makes no sense.

That's the neat thing about polite debate, you can ask for clarification. And there's nice respectful people like me who won't try to make you seem stupid they'll just explain themselves.

this really makes no sense.

There's a difference between respecting someone and worshiping them, I'll explain it if you promise to quit misrepresenting what I said.

is it just to attract ppl to have a debate about something that technically no one holds true?

I fancy myself as one who likes to challenge popular misconceptions. If by the way, I am challenged and can refine my thinking, all the better.

parents are gods in the eyes of their children' and such?

Worship is useful early on, but it's a habit to outgrow. :)

you know what? nevermind

If you didn't want me to mind you wouldn't have responded. You should examine the disrespectful habit that underlies such pointless comments. I may not be a super genius, but I'm not an idiot. I know that such statements are made to say "This guys perspective is not worth considering" And it's insulting.

I am not doing any equivocation, I am talking about what a god is in reality. I can hardly argue about the qualities of a non-existent being. You might enjoy doing that, but you aren't being logical when you do. Face it.

My argument isn't self defeating, it's poorly considered.

Then what is this being or group of beings?

People who are extremely trusted.

If god is a metaphor for them, then they are not god.

This could help convince me to change the word "metaphor" in the description to "label" or "title". I'll grant that a title that describes something is only a reference to that something, and not the thing itself.

Patently false. I have had great trust in dogs that were unable to communicate.

Whats patently false is your belief that dogs are unable to communicate.

We are taking about an entity of which there is no objective evidence.

There is no such thing as objective evidence. Without an observer exercising their interpretation and judgement skills, evidence itself does not exist.

People think it exists and thin they communicate with it.

If you are admitting that people communicate with it, you are admitting that "it" exists. Which is the point you can't communicate with a non-existent being.

Your first point destroyed the proof all on it's own. if god is a metaphor the those entities are not god. Goes downhill from there.

The "map is not the territory" realization, or the realization that the words we use to describe things are not the things themselves, shouldn't lead to a lack of belief in the territory, or that something real is not being (albeit perhaps inadequately) described.

What question ?

I don't disagree. What do you think is being referred to when people speak of god? I think it's typically an excessive trust relationship they have with someone or some group. Do you disagree?

Not really, I proposed that the term "god" is metaphor that refers to a trusted being (or group) that does exist, and that it can not logically refer to a non existent being.

Do you disagree with any of that?

Well articulated. upvote!

Here's the article that prompted me to post the debate : http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/01/ 20/145535551/administration-stands-firm-on-birth-control-coverage

Is one obliged to strengthen those who would do one harm?

Those who desire to continue living are obliged to breathe, drink, eat food, etc.. Those who desire to improve living conditions for themselves are obliged to help improve the living conditions of others. I don't think that excluding those who would do you harm is wise. You make your own determination of that.

So the code only applies to those living under the auspice of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and where those rights are actively enforced? What for North Koreans? What for Somalians?

The code applies to whoever will honor it. As I see it there are rights that are legally articulate, and those that aren't. For instance I think I have a right to make a recording of anything I witness and keep it in a private library.

Though you presume the authority to dictate the terms whereby a moral individual ought to live?

I can use language however I please. To promote whatever suits my fancy.

Then surely you cannot, sir, render a commandment that inhibits one's right to wish harm upon others?

I am not sure how much influence words I type might have. I do however have some experience with how idea complexes can take root and spread like wildfire.

Ah, humour. Very good, sir.

I appreciate your critical consideration. If you ever help me find a fault with my logic I'll paypal you $10 :)

Yes (if I am understanding you correctly). My primary contention is with the over-generalization. I admit that not all rhetoric which might be characterized as anti-religion overgeneralizes.

If an argument is against religion in its broadest sense, it's an over-generalization. Being more specific decreases the likelihood of over-generalization.

You have supposed that I have made a generalization about "all" anti-religious rhetoric, but you could have just as easily assumed that I meant "lots of". It's your disposition to think of these things in such an absolutist manner, not mine. It's you who thinks there's a useful logical distinction to be made between what is religious and what is secular, but won't take the time to explain one.

Anti-Anti-religious Rhetoric is lame.

Not if it's the kind that helps disrupt the destructive habit of constantly blaming "them" instead of looking for our own flaws.

Your ancillary argument seems to be that anti-religious speech is not going to change the minds of the already religious.

I think everybody is religious and those who claim otherwise are poorly informed about what religion is. So no, that is not my ancillary argument.