I think the arguments of reason were ignored in the adoption of empirical evidence and scientism.
Or people accepted that thousands of years of pure reason hadn't resolved anything and a new slant was if not required then at least interesting, and 'scientism' and empiricism have a track record that stands up against pure reason.
I think those who followed the horsemen of the non apocalypse and angry atheism not only see theism as wrong but dangerous.
Some of them, yes. Some of them have a point, especially when you place that movement's expansion in the aftermath of 9/11, an undeniably dangerous, religious event.
The upshot is an incorrect understanding of rationalism which sounds good but is effectively dismissed by empiricism, physicalism etc.
Given that 'rationalism' hasn't managed to either prove or disprove the idea of gods, empiricism lending reasonable arguments to the dismissal of the idea isn't invalid. Notwithstanding that, of course, the crux of the 'New Atheist' argument is not an argument from empirical roots, but rather that no-one has provided sufficient basis to accept the claim. That's purely rationalism - that the types of evidence they're expecting to see might be empirical is about how the argument is formulated and argued, but even if you restrict it to 'purely' rational arguments, it still stands up.
I can not only imagine it but knew someone who knew they believed they had encountered God, repudiated and supressed God to preserve his pride and eventually surrendered.
Sounds like someone in need of a professional diagnosis to my inexpert understanding.
And this is where your repudiation of reason, philosophy and subsequent lack of practice has let you down, for if the universe existed as a simulation the simulator is completely sovereign as far as we are concerned, it would have an intelligence and will.
And that's not the part of being 'god' that's not accepted; the parts that are problematic are the special pleading that gods are something fundamentally different, divorced from the chain of cause and effect and somehow their own origin point, and the idea that these gods are somehow infinite in power and beneficence in the face of a day-to-day reality that doesn't demonstrate that.
It wouldn't necessarily be governed by our laws of nature.
But it would, presumably, be governed by some sort of laws of nature.
These are precisely the arguments used by William Lane Craig I think it's up to people who believe that the creator of this unit to show that God does not have the properties are divine rather than atheistic.
You're misplacing the burden of proof, again. The claim is 'there's a creator' - fine, there's a creator. The claim is 'this creator is different', and the burden is then on you to prove it. You can't just 'presume' divinity, you have to demonstrate why, you have to show what that 'creator' is not a simulation in their own computer, and it's not silicon chips all the way down.
The implications are those that reasoned argument throw up and so the thing that must make you guys angry are mainly the possibility of Gods existence and One's possible moral position in relation to God's judgment.
No, they aren't. If you believe in god, and that's the end of it no-one is angry about it. If you believe in a god, and therefore gay people are second-class citizens we have a problem. It's not the belief in god that's the issue, its the idea that those beliefs give you the right to impinge on other people's lives.
Those two cannot but fail to have implications for the Ego.
Yeah, it puts a burden of responsibility on us, because we can't just abrogate our responsibilities to the sky-fairy, throw up our hands and say 'wasn't my idea, god wants this'.
I'm afraid, as I told Hillside he is aware only of empirical evidence and theists are aware of God so you are defending your Commitment and faith in a natural universe and nothing greater.
Firstly, some theists claim to be 'aware' of god - others don't, and of those that do the claim does not automatically equate to the reality. Secondly, I'm not 'committed' ideologically to nothing more than a natural universe, but there is consistent, reliable evidence of a natural universe, and not much evidence for anything else. Again, I'm making the claim of a natural universe, and you're free to argue against that, but you're making the claim 'magic', and it's on you to justify that, not on me to disprove it.
In terms of morality you guys are all over the place because you have to turn subjective morality, which should in reason exclude the notion of Judgment into rational judgement and yet you have already judged against the morality of theism.
Morality does appear to be subjective, yes, that's why we see such vast cultural differences in moral claims. Many people do take issue with theistic morality, and the reasons vary - for some it's because they work from a precept of individual responsibility, and the authoritarian 'do as you're told because you're told' take of some religious people doesn't sit well; for others it's a more a more consequentialist or utilitarian realisation that you're making claims of morally acceptable behaviour which can be seen to demonstrably harm more than it helps.
Now that's a conundrum I'd like to see an adequate solution to
I'm not sure that's possible - people vary, and finding one acceptable algorithm of all the moral precepts that's universally accepted seems unlikely. What seems certainly unlikely is accepting that it can be found in the Big Boy's Bedtime Book of Jewish Fairy Stories.
O.
