The problem here is a lack of clarity and specificity. "Reality" is a cognitive phenomena. It is our cognated experience of existing. So there is no "reality' independent of the human mind (independent of human cognition). There is no "objective reality" as the materialists and others commonly proclaim.
We can surmise, however, that the realm of 'existence' both includes, and yet extends far beyond that which we humans are thus far able to cognate. And nearly all of us will agree on this. The materialist, however, for some inexplicable reason, wants us to presume that the realm of existence is limited to and defined by it's physicality. That what "truly exists" is the physicality of existence (the interaction of matter and energy), and that everything else is merely a fiction created in the human mind by the brain's physiology. And is therefor, 'false'. (Except when it's the result of scientific and/or empirical deduction, of course.)
It's all quite absurd, as it's a metaphysical conclusion that tries to negate the valid existence of metaphysical reality. They seem to desperately want to eliminate fiction from reality, when reality IS FICTION. We humans are living in a self-generated fiction that we call "reality". And there is no way around it. Not by science, nor by empirical reasoning. Because both of these are part of the fictional "reality" that we want them to overcome.
What science and empiricism can do for us is help us to understand the physicality of existence. And that can be very helpful. But that understanding does not determine the limits of existence. And so does not negate metaphysical existence.
"
The problem here is a lack of clarity and specificity." This is how you clarify?
First you say that, ""
Reality" is a cognitive phenomena. It is our cognated experience of existing" and that there is "
no "reality' independent of the human mind (independent of human cognition). There is no "objective reality"" as well as, "reality IS FICTION "
Then you say, "
We can surmise, however, that the realm of 'existence' both includes, and yet extends far beyond that which we humans are thus far able to cognate" and "
What science and empiricism can do for us is help us to understand the physicality of existence. And that can be very helpful. But that understanding does not determine the limits of existence. And so does not negate metaphysical existence."
This seems incoherent to me. At times, you claim that reality is entirely within the human mind, and then you go on to discuss what else is out there.
I know from past experience with you that it's futile to ask you why you think this is helpful to know, or what you think other formulations such as naive realism or ontological naturalism miss, because you never answer such questions. Furthermore, I'm trying to remove rhetorical questions for which I know faith-based thinkers have no answers from my repertoire (you can see an example of me slipping into old habits below, where I asked questions I knew the answers to), so I'll just tell you that there is no advantage to your schema for reality, and likely disadvantages, since it's not clear or consistent. I've given you my take on it before - how I view the relationship between the map and the terrain, and it works very well. Also, I can articulate it clearly and coherently.
you don't have the capacity to engage with people because you have already decided their belief systems are "delusional" and are "Superstitions
Neither you nor any other poster has tried to rebut him. If you disagree, you can give your best answer as to why you believe he is incorrect. Or, you can decide in advance without any inquiry that HE has decided things in advance, and choose not "to engage with" him beyond a dismissive comment about him being unable to engage with others.
People who think like this are generally very ignorant in theism.
He's a former theist. He wrote, "So for many years I pretty much believed in God. But not now." He's telling you that he considers his former beliefs delusion and superstition. Virtually every born again atheist considers his former beliefs false. He understands that they were believed without sufficient justification. He calls that delusion and superstition. I call it faith, but I mean the same thing. What would you call it if instead he said that he believes leprechauns exist and keep pots of gold at the end of rainbows? How is believing in gods and heaven any different apart from being normalized, that is, commonly believed? Consider this from Sam Harris:
- "George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and Christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd."
I'd bet you'd call that delusional, too, with the hair dryer thrown in. That's not the only delusional part, but it's the only part that hasn't been normalized, and so the only part that gets that name for most people. But Harris is correct. It's absurd with or without the hair dryer.
I reply: God made it all.... You are rejecting the obvious! (I answered your questions you have to open up your post)
Yeah, I know. You said that already. Furthermore, I'm not rejecting the obvious. ou're rejecting the subtle.
And no, you didn't answer my questions. I asked, "
Why is [the deity] there? What can theists offer comparable to the Big Bang theory, which explains how the universe came to be as we find it, to account for a god?" and you told me about a Lemaitre. I rebutted two fallacious arguments about probabilities, and you just repeated yourself again: "
You are arguing against yourself! The odds of it all coming together so perfectly are astronomical!" and another nonresponsive reply.
There is a difference between debate and dissent. Debate is a specific kind of dissent. You dissent with your answers - you obviously don't agree with me - but you don't debate. The sine qua non of debate is rebuttal, which is counterargument. Counterarguments need to have conclusions that, if correct, makes the rebutted comment incorrect. If that can't be rebutted, the debate is over and the issue resolved in favor of the last plausible, unrebutted claim. Now, you're just repeating claims that are still unsupported and which have been rebutted. Unless you can scare up a rebuttal of my arguments that contradicted yours, the debate is over, and the issues in dispute resolved.
Thanks for your participation and good cheer, but if you do more that say you disagree.
Can I really express negative approval? Even for "bravo" 
