Evidence, anyone? (baptize, Abraham, choices, rejecting)

[mordant]

Originally Posted by victorianpunk

In short: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, I ADMIT, BUT I BELIEVE ANYWAY. Now what?

It is irrational, illogical, and all that and I don't care.

That is perfectly within your rights and it has the virtue, at least, of honesty. Which I have said before.

But then I am baffled as to what basis you have to come here and argue that this religious faith (believing without a requirement of substantiation) is the basis for you to deride rationalists with your facepalm collection as if it were a valid epistemology for anyone but yourself. And one could argue that it's not really even doing justice to YOU.

[sylvianfisher]

Originally Posted by mordant

It is an model of understanding that has proven to be both explanatory and predictive.

You bet.

Originally Posted by mordant

Speak for yourself. I want something more than mere survival, and while I don't have complete control, there are things I can do to improve my lot and that of my loved ones and the society I live in. Some of those effects will outlive me, some won't. I get pleasure and satisfaction from it while I'm alive, which is all that matters.

Well, I was noticing the futility of maintaining a species that has no purpose except to cope with the fact that it is here. Hard to justify why some people freak out like they do about the end of mankind if mankind permanently ends for each person once they die.

Originally Posted by mordant

I think you believe this because you've been told it.

Sorry, I don't quite follow what is the "this" in your above statement. Are you saying that I believe I am a better person because I have been told I am a better person? That would be a gentle no, because I've moved around too much geographically for any one person to have known me before and after to draw the comparison that I draw in myself. It is I who say I am a better person, having lived the comparison. In my twenties and thirties, used to have great facility to verbally rape people in a debate and the kicker is that I did it without apparent malice. I merely employed intellect and zeal. I thought everybody could do that, so what was stopping them? I was horrible. I can't say that my belief in God reformed me, or maybe was it my own self-reformation that had me subsequently include a belief in God. Frankly, I don't remember! Sometimes I joke with appropriate caution that I am a fallen devil. I view my life as several themes interweaving like a braid. But, yeah, I get told nowadays that I am cute and fun to have around! And my intellect is still there, although the jury is still out on that. LOL.

When I was 16, I was alone in my bedroom, thinking about aspects of my life and my own intellectualism and how incongruous I felt to everything and everybody, and I mentally looked out at the life I predicted I would have for the following sixty-plus years, at all of the mental hard work that I just knew I was going to have to face for my entire life, not just in terms of digesting God but also in terms of why I was so always candid in ways where everyone else was fearful, and what did that mean for me, and what does it mean that my sexual feelings do not fit neatly in any box, and why do people pick on me so much, and if they hate me now then wait 'til they hear the rest, and at that moment I spoke out loud to the empty room, declaring, "My life is going to be a b*tch." What 16-year old says that? Forty-plus years later, I remember that moment.

Funny enough, around the time when I was twenty or so, I took the bull by the horns, charting optimism for myself, and told myself I will be a bitchin' 25. (The term bitchin' being a positive thing, you see.) When I was 25, I told myself I will be a bitchin' 30. When I was 30, I told myself I will be a bitchin' 35. And so forth. I still say that today. I say it, and then I work to head towards it.

I never had the "nuns hitting knuckles with rulers" or any of the stories that others have had before they fled from religion. Or parents who forced me to do anything one way or the other. I am oblivious to the pain that others have felt at the hands of religion. I don't assign each and every action to God's hand but rather, within the model of reincarnation, I look to incrementally identify areas of myself that could use a bit of improvement (as defined by the Bible and, yes, by me) and hope I guess correctly at fixing the rights things (damn this veil thing) that were assigned for me to address when I negotiated my current life prior to my birth. It pleases me how I investigated the model of reincarnation long after I had set upon paths/ideas/notions that I later found was supported by that model. Not the other way around, as would befit if I merely became a member to a subscription service. Hey, I wonder if believing in reincarnation is a violation of its Terms Of Service? LOL.

Originally Posted by mordant

I was converted to Christianity before my 6th birthday and I was a compliant, conflict-averse child, so I didn't have a history of being a "bad boy" to live down or get control of. People I met who were mired in besetting "sins" or bad habits or authority issues did find in religion a fulcrum to get a grip on themselves. But it was them doing the work. It was just less scary to assume god intervened and fixed them than to take personal credit for it, because what if they slipped up again? And all the guilt and shame around sin doesn't help with those fears.

I also was a compliant, conflict-averse child, and of course if there's anything worth doing, it's worth overdoing, ha. But, I see that same child in me as I was then, and I am thankful today for those qualities even though they helped bring about the frictions later in life.

[sylvianfisher]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

And I am not seeing anything wrong with that. We do not have to "be there" to argue or discuss something that may or may not have happened. I am honestly not seeing what your point of "exasperation" even is here now.

Nothing wrong. I see we are starting to go point for point here. There is no point for discussion in that exasperation. I meant only to explain that my unfortunate use of the broad word "everybody" was due to an unanticipated moment of mild exasperation while thinking of this topic in general, but not anything you or anyone here had said. Sometimes emotions slip into the things I type. You did not exasperate me.

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

"Sure" about what? The whole point I was making was in fact one about not being "sure" about anything. But that belief should be, even if it LATER turns out to be wrong, based on the CURRENT data set. So I am not "sure" there is an after life or not for example. But I am as "sure" as I can be that at THIS time there is no reason to think or expect there is one.

But I am not "sure" about anything in life. I just conclude what is most LIKELY to be true given the CURRENT data set. No more. No less.

You had written, "None of the evidence we have at this time suggests otherwise." The word "None" is as inclusive as is the word "everybody" in that it allows no exceptions. It sounded to me like you were sure. I simply cannot agree with the certainty that I inferred from that statement. However, I am now in receipt of your subsequent statements that you are not "sure" about anything in life. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

Sure, and the first thing I would say about such people is they did not die. It is called NDE for a reason. It was a NEAR death experience. NEAR. The near tells you they did not actually die. So their experiences were experiences of this life. Not of death or after death. So BY DEFINITION they testimonial is not only not evidence for an after life, it is irrelevant to the topic at all.

"Definitions? We no care about no steenking definitions!" Why do they call it a donut hole if there is no donut in it? Why don't they call it a near-donut hole? The label NDE is a handy one, not to be dissected for accuracy. I'm not going to invalidate the stories by that term! I'll group them by that term, but that's it.

Where you the one at the party the other night, while everybody was out on the dance floor dancing and having a good time, you remained at the refreshments table the entire night, trying to inform everybody who passed by that the crystal punch bowl was not actually made of crystal? Was that you?

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

The second thing I would say is that the word clinically in "clinically dead" is monumentally important here. The brain is NOT dead. It is still doing things. It is still receiving inputs from external sensory organs. And it is still processing some or all of them at some level.

Yeah. I chose to say "clinically dead" to imply a deadness as measured by medical tools. That's all. I agree that I don't have to believe that the brain shuts down uniformly, all at once.

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

The entire reverence for NDE testimonial is based on a baseless assumption that DURING "clinical death" the brain should be doing nothing, sensing nothing, processing nothing. At all.

Hmm... your absolute language in this last statement has a bit of relish to it as compared to your others. I remain in receipt of your statements that you are not "sure" about anything in life so I'll try to wipe off the relish.

I think proponents of NDE are saying that things are indeed happening during a time when most people expect nothing to be happening. They are not saying that the brain should be doing nothing during that time. They are clarifying to point out that the time that they are talking about is that time when, yes, people call it being dead, or being clinically dead.

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

The third thing I usually say about reference to NDE is that in fact there is a double assumption at place that no one has actually shown the E part of NDE even did happen during the period of "clinical death" in the first place. People just assume that was when the Experience must have occurred. But based on what? Nothing at all that I know of!

I am amazed that you can say this when the experiencers themselves place their experiences as having occurred after they died and before they returned. It's so fundamental to the stories that you might as well say they did not utter their stories. Or, are you suggesting these stories were experienced before or after death? Or, they overlapped the death moment and/or overlapped the return moment? I don't assume when the story occurred. I believe these people as to how they sequence their story events. Also, in those instances where the experiencer can later relate an event that happened while they were dead, the event itself places itself during the time between when the experiencer died and when the experiencer returned. The time points in these stories so far are not themselves disruptive, although I seem to have recalled reading about instances that fell outside of the usual narrative as often amalgamated into a composite narrative by people such as Dr. Raymond Moody.

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

The fourth thing I would say is that some aspects of NDE, especially OBE, have been tested quite well. Even by people (Sam Parnia jumps to mind) with a positive bias towards a positive result. And they did not just find little to support those things...... they found nothing AT ALL. And in fact given the structures of SOME of those tests I would see SOME of those lack of findings as being actually proof positive that the things like OBE were not just false, but entirely imagined.

I don't doubt that. Are you asking me to throw everything out because the apparent initial results of your personal investigation are to your liking? Or is it a passion that I sense in your presentation that you need to have these things be proven false?

Next, when you are ready, tell me about the ones you've investigated that do tend to support OBE and NDE.

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

"Sometimes" does not show the full picture here. That is like saying "Sometimes" people get hit by lightning while eating a waffle. Yes "sometimes" it happens but statistically it is very rare indeed. And every case of these incredibly rare cases is outside controlled environments and was established as "true" in very dubious ways and circumstances, not the least of which is the "interview effect".

I am not aware of a SINGLE case in fact that has any substance to give any pause whatsoever. But feel free to cite some.

You shoot me down when I say "everybody" for being absolute. You shoot me down when I say "sometimes" for not being absolute. I have a hunch your fortress has been years in the making.

Feel free to cite some cases? Nice try, bud. I'll never know what gives you pause. That's for you to decide. We all have our learning curves. We must each live them. How much effort shall I spend to isolate an example just so you can shoot it down because I served it with mustard and not ketchup? You already have shown me that incidentals such as labels can decide your truths for you. We are far apart.

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

"I am not seeing how this is actually an answer to my question though. I asked you why there needs to be a reason for it, and all you did is list some facts about it without connecting them to the question. Except to stick a fuzzy narrative after the word "may" in the rest of the paragraph.

And he can see no reasons
'Cause there are no reasons
What reason do you need to be shown?
- Boomtown Rats


Let me try again, please. I will attempt to show you how and why it is possible I can have reasons for believing in God or in anything else that you cannot accept. To do it, I am going to use the common atheist concept that the universe just IS. There's nothing I can do to help you, according to this model. If you fight this model without improving upon it then I will try to insist you do not believe that the universe just IS. Here we go:

The universe just IS. No reasons behind its operation other than laws of physics. The universe does not have need or want. It just IS. It's systems do their thing under no sentient control. Trees do their tree things, growing, leafing, dying, in response to other physics preceding what they do and causing them to do these tree things. Galaxies do their galaxy things, rotating, giving off energy, etc. All are responding to physical actions, grand or minute, that precede and cause these things they do. All within the laws of physics are the movements we see, being pushed to happen by prior physical movements.

I am part of this universe of IS. All of me. Not just my body, but my mind as well. That includes my brain and its contents. Since there is no God or other sentient overlord, my thoughts are physical only, and for now I'll assume they likely reside in my brain (I personally don't really know where. Wherever my thoughts reside, they seem to accompany me wherever I go, so I figure they are in my body someplace. Could be in my heart, for all I know.)

The universe manifests itself constantly and everywhere. As a part of the universe, I am fully operating within the laws of physics and that includes not just how my thoughts are formed but whatever it is physical that precedes them and that pushed them into forming. I am not in control. My thoughts are not mine. They are made by nothing I do. Physical action at a minute level pushes the formation of my thoughts. What is the pusher? The same universe that pushes the motion of the galaxies and the trees. Why does it push? I don't know, it just does.

Trees, for instance, do not get pushed identically or by identical pushers. Two elm seedlings growing side by side may grow differently. The seed for each may be of different sizes. The soil nutrients for each may be non-identical. The angle of the wind places one tree as protector of the other from the wind so its trunk grows sturdier than the other. The rain falls and drains in different amounts for each tree. In these ways, multiple pushers (seed, location, food, weather) affect each tree but in non-identical combinations. One tree ultimately dies before the other one does. Why is there no universe mechanism to compensate for the differences such that sameness is achieved for all elms? I don't know. In fact, why does there have to be such a mechanism? The universe just IS.

You and I just don't choose to think. Something physical has to first happen. Something physical in the universe pushing our physical thoughts into formation. Multiple pushers, I suspect, such as micro-particles in the brain, ganglia, and the physical signals created by our senses, and more. You and I can hear the same music at a concert but the shape and efficiency of your ear brings a physical effect into your brain matter that is non-identical to the effect that my ear brings to my brain matter. Heck, we may derive non-identical physical thoughts as a result. How could we not? You might hear music while I hear noise.

With all of the countless and endless moments and micro-moments of physical pushing going on, causing physical thoughts to form in the brains of what is now seven billion people, occurring relentlessly over the years of each individual life, it's no doubt there will be variation on the thoughts formed among these many people even if they may experience similar or near-similar inputs, while all thoughts still being subject to the physical laws of the universe. Nobody ever gets too far out mentally, ya know. Even psychopaths operate within the laws of physics. So, there is plenty of variation going on. All in this universe of IS.

Along the way, when some of the pushers of our thought formation happen in just the right combination, instead of thinking about ice cream we think about this thing called God, or Buddha, or Allah. Maybe only briefly. Maybe only once. Some of us get pushed once, some more than once, some never. Some get a random rat-a-tat-tat of pushers having God or near-God responses in our thoughts, then it switches to ice cream or anything else. Might take some random future push to combine with the residual effects of a prior push to become a new push. A certain right amount and combination of pushing and whoops, a Christian is born. Others might jump to the piano instead.

You're not a Christian? You're not pushed enough to arrive at that? Ok. You're something else, then. The universe indifferently manifests differently to people.

Who can know why the universe does this in the manner that it does it? It just does. It's all physical. Why is there no universe mechanism to compensate for the differences such that sameness is achieved for all people? I don't know. In fact, why does there have to be such a mechanism? The universe just IS.

So, my brain has an accumulated response for forming a belief in God. Your brain does not. I can't explain why my thoughts are there, or how they got there. Maybe in a general sense I could try to explain but of course that can never be enough. Until, some day, it becomes enough, and all of a sudden you're thinking is tweaked. But, don't blame me if that happens. Blame the universe. I'm merely typing on a keyboard to an illuminated screen in response to how reading Latin characters push me to think. Some other day, someone or a billboard might push me and I think about going to France finally.

I have no Christian reasons that will make sense to the atheist. I can't explain why a 12-year old pianist can play Carnegie Hall. Right now, my words you are reading are pushing into your brain, this is true, but either they will have an apparent effect or no apparent effect, depending on if and how they combine with the residue of other pushers that have already left their mark on your physical brain matter. Their effect may be overpowered by prior pushers caused by physical abuse, or alcoholism, or those nuns who rapped your knuckles with the ruler too many times.

You want a reason that defies the laws of this world, don't you? No one can give you one. I cannot defy the laws of this world to give you one.

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

I will have to take your word for it because in my experience on this forum and many many other places there are two kinds of people espousing THE KIND of thing you are:

1) People who say if they have evidence, they would give it (such as yourself)
2) People who say they have LOADS of evidence but give you many many reasons for NOT giving it to you. Reasons that are usually constructed to blame YOU not THEM for this. (such as users like JeffBase40).

I have yet to meet a single category "3" person with the evidence of category 2 and the motivations of category 1. Which tells me that EITHER:

1) Something about obtaining this evidence compels you never to share it or
2) All the people in category 2 are simply outright lying to us.

I doubt I need to explain to you where my suspicions lie.

I think you accidentally omitted category 3 from your list?

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

Depends what kind of experiences you are seeking them to have. Sam Harris for example, one of the top known atheists in the western world, espouses at great length...

Poor Sam has become part of the thing that he used to criticize. He's everywhere on youtube debating religious authorities. Egos On Parade. How many times can you flip a coin, huh? I suppose when one side challenges the other side to a public debate, the other side has no choice but to respond or else get made fun of. At some point it becomes entertainment. At some point, they all need to be reminded that Christianity is like playing Blackjack. It's everyone against the Dealer. No side bets!

[mordant]

Originally Posted by sylvianfisher

Sorry, I don't quite follow what is the "this" in your above statement. Are you saying that I believe I am a better person because I have been told I am a better person?

No, I am saying you believe your religious faith has made you a better person because that is a false association others have schooled you in. Association is not cause. You are a better person because you decided to be and worked to improve yourself. That was you, not god.

Originally Posted by sylvianfisher

... at that moment I spoke out loud to the empty room, declaring, "My life is going to be a b*tch." What 16-year old says that?

Quite a lot of them. It's called teenage angst.

Don't feel bad. I felt that the world was my oyster when I was 16, that I had it all figured out (after all, I knew my Bible!) and all I had to do was not screw it up. That didn't go so well, either. That's the other teenage issue, namely, teenage hubris.

Originally Posted by sylvianfisher

It pleases me how I investigated the model of reincarnation long after I had set upon paths/ideas/notions that I later found was supported by that model. Not the other way around...

Thinking up something and later finding that others have thought of it -- or stumbling upon others thoughts and making them your own -- either way, it says nothing about the truth of the thoughts. It just says your thoughts aren't new and original ... nor are mine nor anyone else's. There is nothing new under the sun.

Originally Posted by sylvianfisher

I also was a compliant, conflict-averse child, and of course if there's anything worth doing, it's worth overdoing, ha. But, I see that same child in me as I was then, and I am thankful today for those qualities even though they helped bring about the frictions later in life.

I don't go to the sorts of places in my head where I wish I were different than I am. It's pointless. But I must admit that in some ways I was not very viable in such a competitive world. I got taken advantage of quite a bit. And I haven't seen that on balance I've been treated with more respect, loyalty, appreciation or affection for all that compliance and "niceness". Indeed, certain personality types see such things as weakness that invites exploitation. Such is the perversity and absurdity of the world.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by sylvianfisher

.... Physical action at a minute level pushes the formation of my thoughts. What is the pusher? The same universe that pushes the motion of the galaxies and the trees. Why does it push? I don't know, it just does.

... Something physical has to first happen. Something physical in the universe pushing our physical thoughts into formation. Multiple pushers, I suspect, such as micro-particles in the brain, ganglia, and the physical signals created by our senses, and more. ...

A long old post, forgive the snip, but the essential point is the above which seems to be arguing First cause and all the rest follows from the conclusion that a Planning Mind must be behind it.

There is no compelling reason to suppose this to be so. The physical processes we know of need no Cosmic Mind to make them work. The unexplained aspects of the physical workings of the universe are simply unexplained - as yet. That does not mean that "God" has to be the answer. Neither do the supposed evidences of a Planning Mind look too convincing. If the evidence is correct, we have evolved to fit the conditions, and in the process ended up with a body that is not well designed for the habitual upright stance we have adopted. That process required two major extinctions to give mammals the chance to dominate. We are, it seems, here by chance, and the fact that the processes are predictable and complex does not alter that.

[sylvianfisher]

Originally Posted by mordant

No, I am saying you believe your religious faith has made you a better person because that is a false association others have schooled you in. Association is not cause. You are a better person because you decided to be and worked to improve yourself. That was you, not god.

That's your belief. Neither you nor I will ever know how much of me is due to me and how much of me is not. However, if reincarnation theory holds, after death we should both find something out about this.

Originally Posted by mordant

Quite a lot of them. It's called teenage angst..

My intent was to (quasi-rhetorically?) ask about the depth of my comment, not so much the motivation behind it.

Originally Posted by mordant

Thinking up something and later finding that others have thought of it -- or stumbling upon others thoughts and making them your own -- either way, it says nothing about the truth of the thoughts. It just says your thoughts aren't new and original ... nor are mine nor anyone else's. There is nothing new under the sun.

I find value in the sequence in which this information has presented itself to me.

Originally Posted by mordant

I I got taken advantage of quite a bit. And I haven't seen that on balance I've been treated with more respect, loyalty, appreciation or affection for all that compliance and "niceness". Indeed, certain personality types see such things as weakness that invites exploitation. Such is the perversity and absurdity of the world.

Well that's just rotten if you don't get treated as well as desired. I'm glad I'm a better jerk than I used to be. LOL

[sylvianfisher]

Originally Posted by snipped from sylvianfisher

.... Physical action at a minute level pushes the formation of my thoughts. What is the pusher? The same universe that pushes the motion of the galaxies and the trees. Why does it push? I don't know, it just does.

... Something physical has to first happen. Something physical in the universe pushing our physical thoughts into formation. Multiple pushers, I suspect, such as micro-particles in the brain, ganglia, and the physical signals created by our senses, and more. ...

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

A long old post, forgive the snip, but the essential point is the above which seems to be arguing First cause and all the rest follows from the conclusion that a Planning Mind must be behind it.

There is no compelling reason to suppose this to be so. The physical processes we know of need no Cosmic Mind to make them work. The unexplained aspects of the physical workings of the universe are simply unexplained - as yet. That does not mean that "God" has to be the answer. Neither do the supposed evidences of a Planning Mind look too convincing. If the evidence is correct, we have evolved to fit the conditions, and in the process ended up with a body that is not well designed for the habitual upright stance we have adopted. That process required two major extinctions to give mammals the chance to dominate. We are, it seems, here by chance, and the fact that the processes are predictable and complex does not alter that.

In that long post of mine from which you snipped its beginning, I absolutely was not trying to point towards a Cosmic Mind, or God. Where did I mislead? Was it where I first asked "What is the pusher" that ruined it for me, as if my words resembled when theists are arguing for a Creator?

I was trying to say something to the effect that all motion in the universe is prompted by prior motion of physical laws, not by a Higher Power. I thought up the basic idea just yesterday, and wrote that long post as first draft only today, right there on the Reply screen, so my unrehearsed wording may inadvertently suggest things familiar to atheists but were not in my head. I am sure it's quite imperfect for what I intended to say. I have no choice now but to let that post stand and hope that others won't get tripped up by my unfortunate wording.

Thank you.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by sylvianfisher

In that long post of mine from which you snipped its beginning, I absolutely was not trying to point towards a Cosmic Mind, or God. Where did I mislead? Was it where I first asked "What is the pusher" that ruined it for me, as if my words resembled when theists are arguing for a Creator?

I was trying to say something to the effect that all motion in the universe is prompted by prior motion of physical laws, not by a Higher Power. I thought up the basic idea just yesterday, and wrote that long post as first draft only today, right there on the Reply screen, so my unrehearsed wording may inadvertently suggest things familiar to atheists but were not in my head. I am sure it's quite imperfect for what I intended to say. I have no choice now but to let that post stand and hope that others won't get tripped up by my unfortunate wording.

Thank you.

I do apologize if it looks like I was quotemining you, but that really is the nub, and if you meant something other than a First Cause argument, then that would be great to settle. because if you don't buy First cause, then the default is 'Don't know'. And Don't know mandates Don't believe until you do know.

If that looks like agnostic -based disbelief in any God claims (or atheism, as it is called) it is because it is.

If we are essentially talking unbelief in a god claim of any kind, then we are on the same page and with that understanding we can look at the rest of your post.

If however, you were arguing for some kind of First cause, then we should be clear about what sort of first cause.

Note that the LAST thing I intend is to force you into any position you didn't intend. I want to understand and clarify and you can explain and revise as much as you like. We do not force people into 'You said this and I interpret it Thus, and I insist that you accept it' positions. That doesn't help mutual understanding at all. It also gives me wiggle -room to go back and reconsider what you wrote and correct any misunderstandings of mine. But let's start with this Cosmic origins idea, which is really where belief and disbelief part company.

[sylvianfisher]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

If we are essentially talking unbelief in a god claim of any kind, then we are on the same page and with that understanding we can look at the rest of your post.

The above. My long post from which you excerpted it beginning was attempting to talk on the basis of no claim to a god of any kind.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Note that the LAST thing I intend is to force you into any position you didn't intend. I want to understand and clarify and you can explain and revise as much as you like. We do not force people into 'You said this and I interpret it Thus, and I insist that you accept it' positions. That doesn't help mutual understanding at all.

Thank you for saying that. I have not really had much of any discussion with atheists nor do I know the lingo and I have concern that any choice of my phrasing that might be new to my mind might also accidentally coincide with phrasing that has been previously weaponized by anybody in previous conversations here or anywhere.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by sylvianfisher

I have not really had much of any discussion with atheists nor do I know the lingo and I have concern that any choice of my phrasing that might be new to my mind might also accidentally coincide with phrasing that has been previously weaponized by anybody in previous conversations here or anywhere.

I am sometimes guilty of being fussy about terminology ... it probably seems pedantic until you realize that so often in conversations between theists and atheists, the parties are using the same words to mean different things and/or to conjure different subjective responses. Or in the alternative, I frequently deal with people who use semantic tricks to try to maneuver me into some kind of perceived "gotcha". So it's almost automatic that I'm a little defensive in hedging against these typical maneuvers -- not to mention typical stereotypes about unbelievers (we are supposed to be angry, hateful, bitter, rebellious, immoral, shifty, perverse and connivingly subversive to all that is good and holy -- and even to some liberal believers, we just don't provide sufficient automatic respect and deference for some kind of inherent claimed validity for other's asserted truths).

So be patient and keep showing yourself to be an honest actor and in time the conversation will relax as we get to know you ;-)