The Atheist Experience

If you believe a just a little tiny bit you're not agnostic, you're still a believer.

You're being awfully strict for no good reason that I can see. If someone really doesn't feel there's much ground for belief but doesn't want to give up on it completely so holds on to the possibility, I think that could fairly be described as agnosticism: he's saying he doesn't know, can't prove it one way or the other, won't commit to all-out atheism but also not to religion either.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You don't commit to atheism, you just don't believe in god.If you're anything other than an someone who doesn't believe in god, then you're someone that does; you're a theist of some kind. It's definitional.

It certainly can. For many people it seems like an escape from reality. Look at the little old lady who believed that God would save her from the flood - so fervently that she ignored the reality of the salvation that was available. For others, there seems to be a downright avoidance of reality. Look at Faith, who viciously denies reality in favour of her spoon-fed interpretation of the Bible. There's no such thing as subjectively real. 1. All belief is unevidenced. If there was evidence, it wouldn't be belief.
2. Belief can be based on wishful thinking, or on ignorance of the evidence that does exist, or it can just be a temporary filler for areas where there isn't enough evidence. 1. There's no such thing as subjective evidence.
2. Evidence has nothing to do with the court of public opinion.Evidence, by definition, must be evident. A bullet hole in a body is evident to everybody. The interpretation of the evidence may be subject to some differences of opinion.

Which explains why you never became born again...your insistence on objective evidence blinded you to allowing change. Perhaps you never wanted to let go of your control...and I can see an argument that supports your view. If everyone else drinks the kool-aid, ringo surely won't. You are honest with yourself and I can't fault you for that...but understand that when I did let go of my rational mind, I gained inner peace.

This was brought up before Phat. But to reiterate, you cannot chastise people for insisting on objective evidence. As indicated, anything that is fact or data based is objective while anything that is feeling or emotion based would be subjective. But only one can be effectively used as evidence. If you were about to have a critical operation performed by a surgeon, would you want that individual to utilize objective or subjective methods? Then the stance here is that you are effectively asking people to be irrational. That is essentially the opposite of rational. Honestly, does that make sense to you?

That makes a lot of sense.
You are the sole owner and highest authority on your personal claims about your own experiences in this way. That does not make much sense
Try not to guess other people's motivations/abilities... you'll be wrong much more often than you'll be right.
Just because you know how you feel doesn't mean you have any inkling at all on how someone else feels (or thinks).Do you think "God" is the only place to go when someone "lets go of their rational mind?"
God, and even any/all religions, are only one small section of letting your mind roam freely.Although certain aspects of theism will require a leaning towards subjectivity over objectivity... this shouldn't confuse you into thinking that subjectivity is equivalent to theism.There are many things within religions that are objective and rational (eg. meeting together at least once a week builds a sense of community).
There are many subjective things that have nothing to do with religion at all (eg. Miami Dolphins are the best football team).

You've never had a rational mind Phat. Trust me.

That's an awfully underhanded remark, Tangle, and totally false anyway.

Faith, Phat's every post points to his total lack of understanding of what 'rational' actually is.

Phat is no more irrational than you or anyone else here. He says some things I consider to be pretty confused at times but that doesn't mean he himself is irrational.

You're not the best judge of what is rational and what isn't Faith.

Stop it. I was as "born again" as you ever were. What? It's objective evidence that motivates change. If all we had to do was appease the gods, we'd still be sitting in caves eating raw mammoth. We used objective evidence, not faith, to make life better. On the contrary, I'm willing to take control - and responsibility - instead of relying on an alien overlord. So how come the "inner peace" isn't reflected in outer peace?

I bet I'd pass an objective test of rationality higher than most here. But if it's designed just to debunk religious belief, which is all you mean anyway, that's something else.

I'll take that bet. How much?