But when you say in your response that the human mind is just a "material machine", how can you possibly believe that it truly understands anything at all? How can the movement of matter result in the genuine understanding of reality?

At the risk of sounding facetious: Why not?

Seriously, I'd give a longer answer if you presented a cogent chain of reasoning here, but all I can get out of this is a simple argument from incredulity. All living beings with sense organs and brains possess some degree of understanding of reality. Our minds, being of greater complexity, possess a higher degree of understanding. I see nothing problematic in any of this.

If the evolution of matter is blind, and we are simply and solely products of the evolution of matter, then we too are blind: since our reason is inherently reducible to matter, which is incapable of true understanding...

This is a basic fallacy of composition. A whole can possess qualities that do not exist in any of its separate parts. I could use this same reasoning as you to argue that atoms are colorless, and cats are made of atoms, so cats must be colorless.

The point you make about the possible subversion of evolution from within (when we use our intelligence for "other purposes" than survival) assumes its own possibility...

No, I provided an argument for this, which was as follows:

...evolution is not an intelligent or forward-looking process. It could not "foresee" that it was going to bring forth creatures that could act against it, nor did it "desire" to "prevent" that from happening.

Evolution is a blind algorithm. It has no bias against exploring any particular region of probability space. Any outcome that is physically possible will therefore be capable of being produced by evolution, even if some outcomes are less likely than others. If you think some particular outcome is off-limits to evolution as it occurred in our universe, then the onus would be on you to show why that is, just as the burden of proof would be yours if you claimed that shuffling a deck of cards could not result in one particular ordering.

I made my case with OMGF.

I know and understand that atheists don't believe in any God, gods, goddesses, etc. What can I say? I don't fault anyone for the conclusion they make. I don't think an atheist is any better or worse than I am. The entire debate is a matter of perspective. The atheist looks at the Bible and sees a book of hate, error, and lies; the believer looks at the Bible and sees a book of love, logic, and truth. I mean, everyone's experience is different and that's why nobody can really judge the next person. Given different life experiences you might be a reasonable believer and I might be a fulfilled atheist. To you or someone else, "all belief is irrational," but there are people for whom belief is perfectly rational. In so many respects I really find the entire debate a moot point, but on the other hand, on occasion people learn from each other as well so who's to say?

I do, however, share the atheist's sentiments for organized, mainstream, politicized, imperializing religion. I am with you on that.

I do recall such and honestly, it's a great question, but irrelevant in the issue of whether OMGF accurately paraphrased John D

To be honest I don't think this comment thread is about whether OMGF accurately paraphrased John D or not. I was more interested in engaging in a conversation on the OP which is what atheism is. To that end my comment

but if you recall it was me who explicitly said to an atheist this implied using some sixth sense. John does say "not accessible the five human senses" so iin what manner can John sense god other than by some esoteric channel he cannot explain or demonstrate to anyone else?

was intended to highlight the fact that as atheists (forgive me if I'm re-stating something you already acknowledge)"sixth sense" and "transcendence" are meaningless concepts. Let's take the idea of transcendence as it is pertinent to your spat with OMGF. To me describing god as transcendent is actually more like defining what he is not: Not present, not corporeal, not physically measurable, not showing any effect,not apprehensible by any of the senses we know about. As Ebon says in the OP (and I'll paraphrase) atheists don't just not believe in the xian god. we don't believe in any of them, or the associated woo woo that goes with them. We don't believe in mysterious channels of communication or divine revelation or... well you get the picture. Any thoughts on this or would you rather continue pursuing semantic dead ends with OMGF?

But I'm guessing you'll claim I'm misrepresenting you...

You guessed right, you are misrepresenting me. The god we were talking about was John D's god that can not access us through the five senses. You asked about whether some other god that can access us through the five senses could do so. I answered yes. I'm glad to note that you continue to do exactly what you accuse others of.

That's incorrect. John D said God is not 'accessible' via the standard five senses; You misinterpreted this to mean we cannot sense God.

And you also claimed you are not talking about another sense. If our senses can not be used to access god, then we can not sense god, and if there is no other sense, then you are stuck at an impasse. Now, go away.

Note how you dropped 'five'...

Because you are not claiming there are more than five, so there's no need to continue saying the word "five" when there aren't any more. Since five is the extent of your senses, then it is wholly correct to simply drop the five and call all five of them "your senses" you dolt.

Will you also introduce a red herring by 'pointing out' all the areas where you think I've been rude to you...

No, because I'm not as whiny as you are.

Many times before insulting me you've said, "Take this in the spirit it's given."

And those times I was not intending to insult, so shove it.

As a believer, much of what atheism concerns itself with eradicating is a noble cause that I support.

What is noble about irrational belief? Is it noble when our president takes us into a bad war to kill millions of people because god told him to? Is it noble when religious zealots kill people with suicide bombs? Is it noble when people that believe as you do seek to usurp my rights? Save me the "noble religion" speech.

Though I will not insult you...

Another lie. Let's add that one to the list of the known falsehoods that I've pointed out. You're racking up a pretty good resume.

...that you're just putting another dumb theist in place...

Yup, works in this case.

...you thought I misunderstood Chet's argument and subjectivity, when I didn't.

More lies. Simply because you caught on to part of his argument at the end doesn't mean that you understood it all the way through. And, may I point out, yet again, that I was mocking you for your false bravado, which you continually ignore!

One does not gain converts making baseless insults and mockeries.

I'm not mocking you to convert you. I'm mocking you because you are odious.

No,

Thank you for agreeing with that. I didn't think so either.

...but if you recall it was me who explicitly said to an atheist this implied using some sixth sense. John does say "not accessible the five human senses" so iin what manner can John sense god other than by some esoteric channel he cannot explain or demonstrate to anyone else?

I do recall such and honestly, it's a great question, but irrelevant in the issue of whether OMGF accurately paraphrased John D, which we both agreed he did not. That notwithstanding, although I don't have the complete answer to your question, proposing an esoteric sixth sense is unnecessary. As in the example of the transcendent God who appeared to me and OMGF on the street, God could usurp any of our standard senses at any given time. Also, perhaps John D might sense God through prayer, which is an action. Neither of these involve an esoteric sixth sense unavailable to the atheist.

OMGF,

End of story.

Agreed. After my final two cents I'll rest as well. Ours is a new week ahead of us.

I never argued otherwise.

Yeah, you did actually, November 23, 2008, 12:20 am. Anyone can go look. You told me John D's statement precluded God's ability to send us a message via the standard five senses. Then, after my example of the transcendent God who appeared to us on the street and sent us a message via sight, sound, or touch, you said,

I would suppose that an omni-max god could appear to us using our senses.

But I'm guessing you'll claim I'm misrepresenting you, tell me to 'get a life,' or introduce any other non-cogent misdirection that facilitates evading further concession or explaining this variance between your two statements.

As for,

He said god is not accessible to our senses. This means we can not sense god.

That's incorrect. John D said God is not 'accessible' via the standard five senses; You misinterpreted this to mean we cannot sense God. It actually means either 1) we cannot sense or 'access' God at all, as you correctly identified and suggested; or 2) that if we can sense or 'access' God, then such occurs of God's volition or via some other route than our volitional use of the standard five senses - an option which you didn't correctly identify until such was suggested to you.

Here's more proof, in your own words:

...god is not accessible through our five senses according to John D, meaning that you can't use your senses to detect god.

No - meaning that you can't use your five senses to detect God, not that God can't use your five senses to establish presence to you. Note how you dropped 'five' and that for all your telling me to 'get a life' and all your blathering under the pretense of cogent logic, not only did you clearly strawman John D, yours was the classic either-or fallacy: admitting limited options when other options exist. Just because we can't of our own volition see, hear, taste, feel, or touch God as John D implies doesn't mean we can't sense God. Such simply means that if we can sense God, it must occur some other way than via our volitional use of the five senses. Slow down and think of other options.

When John D alluded to himself sensing God in this world, you snarkily tried to call him on contradicting himself with, "Make up your mind." He didn't contradict himself. You misunderstood the man, then snarked him, and that's rude. Will you also introduce a red herring by 'pointing out' all the areas where you think I've been rude to you, as opposed to addressing the issue at hand and apologizing to John D for your role in the confusion?

Many times before insulting me you've said, "Take this in the spirit it's given." Now it's fine if you perceive me as 'the enemy,' but I'll say this: As a believer, much of what atheism concerns itself with eradicating is a noble cause that I support. Though I will not insult you, I suggest you take the following in the spirit it's given: Although you may think while you're goading believer X, Y, or Z abruptly, insultingly, and condescendingly that you're just putting another dumb theist in place and doing enlightened society a favor, in light of the comments other atheists have made on this thread regarding Dawkins, realize that such behavior actually works strongly against your cause, especially when it turns out you were wrong. Over 15 of 40+ insults and mockeries of yours came because you thought I misunderstood Chet's argument and subjectivity, when I didn't. All those insults and mockeries were thus baseless. One does not gain converts making baseless insults and mockeries.

We, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society... This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so persuaded of their being right in any controversy. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. -Alexander Hamilton

Steve, I believe you're an intelligent and honest guy - IYO, did John D ever say that he cannot sense God, or that God was beyond all of his senses?

No, but if you recall it was me who explicitly said to an atheist this implied using some sixth sense. John does say "not accessible the five human senses" so in what manner can John sense god other than by some esoteric channel he cannot explain or demonstrate to anyone else?

Well, thank you for admitting you were incorrect about that, at least.

I never argued otherwise.

Such was NEVER John D's statement to amend, but rather your statement inaccurate paraphrase of John D's statement.

Sigh. FFSMS, it's not inaccurate based on what he wrote. End of story. I'm done saying the same things to you over and over and you not willing to comprehend. Have the integrity to simply accept it. He said god is not accessible to our senses. This means we can not sense god. If that is not what he meant, then he can "make up his mind," and rephrase in a way that better means what he meant.

Yes, I would suppose that an omni-max god could appear to us using our senses.

Well, thank you for admitting you were incorrect about that, at least.

As for...

If so, then (John D) should amend his statement that we can not sense god---[SNIP]

and,

Again, if John D wants to clarify his statement, that's fine, but the way he wrote it means what I said.

NOPE - sorry, no switching:

"Didn't you also say that we can't sense god at all? Please make up your mind." (OMGF to John D, November 16, 2008, 3:17 pm)

Such was NEVER John D's statement to amend, but rather your statement inaccurate paraphrase of John D's statement. Regarding this matter, John D's position has been consistent the entire thread, so when you told him snarkily to "Make up his mind," such was not only rude, but ironically based on your own ill caricaturization of the man's words.

Hence, strawman.

So can you agree with me that if the transcendent God appeared to you and I on the street today as a fully human being we could see, hear, and touch, and then told us something about life, that the transcendent God would be both 'accessing' us via our standard five senses and 'sending us a message' via said senses?

Yes, I would suppose that an omni-max god could appear to us using our senses. I'm sure John D feels the same way. If so, then he should amend his statement that we can not sense god, because the way it was stated precludes our ability to see god with our senses. So, the answer to your question, based on what John D originally said would be "No."

2) revert to the claim that the transcendent God John D was referring to in his original statement was not the God of the Bible, and refute the evidence already offered on this point

I'm sure John D feels that he does worship the god of the Bible. I was simply pointing out that the statement that we can not sense god is at odds with the god described by the Bible. Again, if John D wants to clarify his statement, that's fine, but the way he wrote it means what I said.