Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Atheism as a religion:

Pages: (11) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,11:08    Quote (Assassinator @ Dec. 28 2007,07:47) Quote On a totally different topic, does anyone else think that skeptic, when presented by, well, anything, plays an intricate game of mental tetris to assimilate the information without letting himself be wrong? I think that's completly natural, and that lots of people do that without noticing. The amount of how much they do that differs a lot. People will make up all sorts of nutty stuff to justify their irrational and unsupported beliefs.  It's required if you're going to have faith.  Inescapable. That's why converastions with true believers can be so fascinating.  The more questions you ask them the more they appear to be mentally ill, or have a marginal grasp on reality. -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,11:25    Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 27 2007,18:03) I'm going to let Christopher's post speak for itself but if I was a shrink I think I'd have a field day. Funny that in your book someone who is comfortably grounded in reality and who's life is not based on make believe is fertile grounds for a shrink. It's a threat to people like you to see people like me who are comfortable in their own skin and have no need for an imaginary sky pixie to coddle them.  It sort of shatters your world view.   I don't blame you for wanting to portray me as being mental.  Guys like you do this all the time.  I'm surprised you have not suggested I'm "angry" (yet).   Skeptic you're a nice enough guy but you're pretty transparent to me.  And on the subject of mental health and shrinks, I'm not the one who lives in an imaginary, make believe world.  I don't pray to or believe in imaginary sky pixies for which there is zero evidence for.  Youre a grown man who publicly admits he believes in santa claus and you want to play shrink with me?   That is a howler, can you not see that? Finally I am not the one who is trying to get others to validate and co-sign my imaginary beliefs on an evolution based forum, but my comments are worthy of fisking by a shrink?  Do you not see what a laff riot that is? You're a funny if not predictable guy :-) -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,11:51    Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 27 2007,20:18) Again, this is not my field but this paragraph:   Quote What good would belief in a god do for me?  I don't need a sky pixie to tell me I'm ok, nor do I need him to love me.  Nor do I need special favors to be granted.  Any adult is capable of being immune to low self-esteem so what's the point?  Any adult is capable of creating a slice of happiness for themselvs, regardless of their lot in life.  So, again, what's the point?  There is nothing that could happen to me that I could not reasonably face and deal with without the aid of an imaginary friend.  So what's the point?  What possible good would a belief in a god do for me? This is not a reasoned-based response but a completely emotionally-based response, IMO.  Not the tone, but the underlying content, does that make sense? I don't see the underlying content as being emotionally based at all.  The first sentence is a question.  It's rational to ask questions.  The second and third are a statement of fact, rational fact.  He does not require the love/etc. of a god.  The next is an observation about low self-esteem.  The rest is another statement of fact that humans are quite able to deal with on their own through rational means.  IOW, I'm not seeing what you see.  Perhaps you could parse the paragraph to give me a better sense of why you see what you see?

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,11:54    Quote (Whois @ Dec. 27 2007,22:38) Without the presence of The Creator there would be no creation and without the presence of religion atheism would not exist. Actually, if there were no religion, we would ALL be atheists, just under a different term.  The fact that we are called "atheists" is based on the historical bias towards theism that has been in our culture.  Without religion, we would all be non-believers, we just wouldn't have the term "theist" and the cultural bias to go with it in order to express the term "atheist."

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,12:27    A big "high-five" to Jim Wynne over at BeastRabban's . You in Chicago, Jim? -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,12:53    I have to hurry to try to catch up today.  First, the original question why theists jump to the conclusion that atheism is religion is what I was trying to get at.  When theists think about God then they are naturally invoking emotion and religion.  So when an atheist talks about non-God, or no God, the theist just falls back on what they know and viola, religion.  You asking a theist what they think of a given situation and they're going to look at it through a theist's eyes. Now, as for people having a reason to believe, I don't necessarily agree with that.  In many cases I think belief comes first and reason comes second.  Here I'm very biased because I only really know one case of faith, mine, and I know I have no reason to believe.  Which explains why I think your response was so emotional.  Look at from my perspective for a second, imagine God exists.  God exists as an independent entity.  Whether or not you choose to believe, whether or not you see a purpose in your life, whether or not you feel happy or sad, whether or not you see any evidence makes zero difference whether or not this entity exists.  Reality is not shaped by your needs, desires, wants, feelings, etc.  By effectively flipping off God and saying I have need for you and I have no use for you becuase I can do it all on my own you have personalized, or attempted to, an independent entity.  What if God doesn't care, or worse, isn't even aware of you?  This, of course, works both ways for the theist or the atheist. In that response I read immaturity and hostility.  In fact, I believe the hostility is misplaced becuase what you're really upset with is religion, a human construction, and not God, the possible independent entity.  For example, describe to me how faith is bondage.  Faith has nothing to do with bondage, you're talking about your impression of religion.  Anyway, this is just an exercise in seeing through the eyes of a theist.

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,13:16    Quote skeptic said - Look at from my perspective for a second, imagine God exists Skeptic, do you have a reading comprehension problem?  Did you not read a word I said?  I spent the first 28 years of my life imagining a god existed, just like you are doing now.  In fact I spent years debating doubters myself.  I used many of the same ignorant (uninformed) arguements you use and I had uncritically bought into many of the ignorant (uninformed) ideas about atheists and doubters that you hold now.   For someone like me, every thing you say is so predictable.  I've not only heard it 1000 times, I've used the same arguements myself.  I was a believer for 28 years or so.  I was a serious seeker too, not some new age crystal worshipping zombie for that matter. Please read my comments if you are going to reply to them.  I'll extend the same to you. The thing that keeps you so intellectually stunted is you've never learned how to be skeptical of your own ideas.  This is why all your posts have this "see it my way "theme" to them.  What you fail to hear is we've been there and done that. You play this dishonest cat and mouse game here with the others as you pretend to be skeptical or even portray yourself as intellectually curious (which you are not) but the thing that will always hold you back is your inability toi be skeptical of your own beliefs and ideas.  You are what is known as a true believer.  Nothing wrong with that so to speak, but it has limitations. Anytime you're busted you either change the subject or skirt the issue (as you are doing now).  To your benefit you do it in a nicer manner than say vmartin or afdavetard.   Others here seem to have fun playing this endless game with you, I don't. edit - and please don't confuse my hostility for your ideas and ignorance as hostility towards you personally.  I have no doubt you'd be a fun guy to chat with over coffee, scotch or a bowl.  Ideas don't have feeling, we can kick them around and no one gets hurt. -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,14:01    Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 28 2007,13:53) I have to hurry to try to catch up today.  First, the original question why theists jump to the conclusion that atheism is religion is what I was trying to get at.  When theists think about God then they are naturally invoking emotion and religion.  So when an atheist talks about non-God, or no God, the theist just falls back on what they know and viola, religion.  You asking a theist what they think of a given situation and they're going to look at it through a theist's eyes. So, it's a case of projection? Quote Now, as for people having a reason to believe, I don't necessarily agree with that.  In many cases I think belief comes first and reason comes second.  Here I'm very biased because I only really know one case of faith, mine, and I know I have no reason to believe.  Which explains why I think your response was so emotional.  Look at from my perspective for a second, imagine God exists.  God exists as an independent entity.  Whether or not you choose to believe, whether or not you see a purpose in your life, whether or not you feel happy or sad, whether or not you see any evidence makes zero difference whether or not this entity exists.  Reality is not shaped by your needs, desires, wants, feelings, etc.  By effectively flipping off God and saying I have need for you and I have no use for you becuase I can do it all on my own you have personalized, or attempted to, an independent entity.  What if God doesn't care, or worse, isn't even aware of you?  This, of course, works both ways for the theist or the atheist. You have no reason to believe?  Then, why is it an emotional response when others say the same thing, and then follow through with the act? Also, I don't see Mr. Chris as saying anything even approaching a belief that his needs, etc. shape reality.  If anything, he's saying that to the theists, which, no offense, are the ones that are usually guilty of this. Quote In that response I read immaturity and hostility.  In fact, I believe the hostility is misplaced becuase what you're really upset with is religion, a human construction, and not God, the possible independent entity.  For example, describe to me how faith is bondage.  Faith has nothing to do with bondage, you're talking about your impression of religion.  Anyway, this is just an exercise in seeing through the eyes of a theist. I sense that he might be frustrated, but there's nothing wrong with that.  I too get frustrated with theists, especially when they try to make bad arguments about what I believe or don't believe.  He's not expressing anger at god, just pointing out that he doesn't need belief in a god, especially one that he finds no evidence for.

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,14:48    One of the more idiotic notions uncritically adopted by theists is that an atheist is somehow angry at god.  Like "flipping him off" or some such nonsense.  To be angry at an imaginary entity requres a belief in that entity.   I hate you god.  You let my dog Sniffy get hit by a car!  YOU bastard!  To show you how mad I am I'm not going to believe in or even pray to you anymore.  So THERE!"   Riiiiight.... But then again theists typically regard atheists as angry if not bitter people in general.  Atheists to them are folks who could not possibly truly be happy or well adjusted without a belief in an imaginary sky pixie.  Only someone mental or angry would reject god's love and the kingdom of heaven, right? Um, right.   And I am not actually frustrated with skeptic.  If I were trying to sell him something or change his mind I'd be frustrated.  I not interested in doing either.  You don't sell or convince a true believer.  What you can do with a true believer is waste an awful lot of time. I am simply calling a spade a a spade.  His ideas that he has presented to me are ones I know well and they're all utterly full of shit.  Rather than smile and ignore his ignorance on the subject I'm pointing it out.  Not for his benefit so much, he doesn't and won't get it, but for the sake of the discussion.  Obviously others here do get it.   And Skeptic is only echoing the exact sort of ignorance regarding atheism/humanism we hear from the Dembski's of the world and most all religionists for that matter.  Again, I've heard it all 1000 times and made the same ignorant statetements myself.   If you think skeptic is nutty you should have heard/seen me a few years back :-) Funny thing is I suspect skeptic's god, like everyone else's, is impotent and useless when he's most needed.  I bet when skeptic has a absess he seeks atheist treatments from a licensed dentist.  I bet his god does not lift a finger to cure any cavity or bone rot in any of his teeth.  Faith certainly has it's limitations (try praying for world peace if you doubt me).  And to hear these whack job justify how god allows children to die senseless deaths makes me want to puke.   I think it was Camus who said something close to when a christian sees a child whose eyes have been burned out he either abandons his faith or burns his own eyes out.  Most all religionists burn their own eyes out in order to ignore the obvious contradictions and immorality they learn from the bible. So this relationship with an imaginary sky pixie seems to have little value other than to feed ones narcissistic bliss and possibly help them cope with their child like fears and inability to face the uncertainties of life.   Whatever gets you through the night I suppose. My 4 yo daughter has a fluffy stuffed dog, my 2 yo son has a stuffed curious george and skeptic has a personal pocket pal he calls god. So be it. Furthermore, learning think critically and skeptically is a skill that very few adults ever develop.  It's an issue of maturity I think and when you drill down to it, most adults are children trapped in an aging body.  In fact religion teaches us it is virtuous to be little children if not lambs.  WTF?   Where in the bible is critical thinking portrayed as a virtue?  Where in the bible is skepticism and a demand for evidence held in high esteem?  The bible teaches quite the opposite.  If THAT isn't a fucking clue something isn't quite right I don't know what is... If I have any issue with skeptic it's that he chose to name himself something so profoundly dishonest.  it would have been more honest to name himself something like "true believer" or "charming but closed minded" or "victim of my own uncritical thinking" or "try to see it my way".   Anyhow, lovely thread/subject thanks to whoever started it.  I'm just getting warmed up :-) Chris -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

Jim_Wynne Posts: 1208 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,15:02    Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 28 2007,12:27) A big "high-five" to Jim Wynne over at BeastRabban's . You in Chicago, Jim? Thanks.  Although I lived in Chicago most of my life, I now reside an hour to the north, across the line in Cheesehead Land. -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,15:05    Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Dec. 28 2007,15:02) Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 28 2007,12:27) A big "high-five" to Jim Wynne over at BeastRabban's . You in Chicago, Jim? Thanks.  Although I lived in Chicago most of my life, I now reside an hour to the north, across the line in Cheesehead Land. So uh, Dallas and Green Bay in the NFC championship I'm thinkin'... -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

swbarnes2 Posts: 78 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,15:34    Quote On a totally different topic, does anyone else think that skeptic, when presented by, well, anything, plays an intricate game of mental tetris to assimilate the information without letting himself be wrong? (Not that you ARE always wrong skeptic, I'm just saying when you are...) Everyone has that same instinct.  Everyone wants to protect their favorite ideas. What is needed is for a person to try to overcome that.  And really, the best way to do so is to listen to what other people think of your argument, and if people tell you over and over again that you are aren't arguing fairly, that you are dodging informative questions, and committing rhetorical fallacies, then you probably are doing just that, and an honest person would admit that they had a bias, and at least try to start arguing rigorously and fairly. Lots of people try.  Skeptic won't try.

Jim_Wynne Posts: 1208 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,15:49    Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Dec. 28 2007,15:05) Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Dec. 28 2007,15:02) Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 28 2007,12:27) A big "high-five" to Jim Wynne over at BeastRabban's . You in Chicago, Jim? Thanks.  Although I lived in Chicago most of my life, I now reside an hour to the north, across the line in Cheesehead Land. So uh, Dallas and Green Bay in the NFC championship I'm thinkin'... It's killin' me.  My only solace in this season was seeing the Bears beat the Packers twice.  As far as the Packers and the Cowboys are concerned, if they meet for the NFC title, I hope both of them lose. -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,16:41    In a sense, everything is a case of projection.  I'm the only thoughts I know and the world must be filtered for me through my brain.  For that and the obvious nature of the internet discussion a "been there and done that" argument must be ignored as it has no value to any but the individual making it. Quote You have no reason to believe?  Then, why is it an emotional response when others say the same thing, and then follow through with the act? The distinction, if there is one, is probably a matter of semantics.  Here I'm just talking personally, but my belief was not based upon a rational examination of the facts, it was more a feel thing then a think thing.  So initially it was totally emotional or irrational.  The opposite would be for me to say to myself, "I need to feel loved" and then to create an illusionary God to love me.  To me that is an absurd proposition. Chris's response was not a reasoned one IMO because it went beyond a rational analysis.  For one, as I pointed out, God's existence has nothing to do with an individual's needs, two, an analysis of God's existence would rationally focus on physical proof for or against existence and not the subjective needs and desires of the inspector.  Chris's insistence in justifying his position by declaring his independence, his self-esteem, decrying the callous nature of a God that allows children to die, or won't do his dental work says everything about Chris and nothing about the existence of God.  A reasoned explanation would have been equally valid for Chris as it would have been for John Doe and that's why, IMO, it is not based upon reason but Chris's emotions, memories, personal experiences, etc.

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,17:07    Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 28 2007,17:41) In a sense, everything is a case of projection.  I'm the only thoughts I know and the world must be filtered for me through my brain.  For that and the obvious nature of the internet discussion a "been there and done that" argument must be ignored as it has no value to any but the individual making it. Do you really think everything is a case of projection?  When we think logically and rationally, are we projecting? Quote The distinction, if there is one, is probably a matter of semantics.  Here I'm just talking personally, but my belief was not based upon a rational examination of the facts, it was more a feel thing then a think thing. So, what might you conclude if you did examine the facts rationally? Quote Chris's response was not a reasoned one IMO because it went beyond a rational analysis.  For one, as I pointed out, God's existence has nothing to do with an individual's needs... I don't think he was arguing against god in that part, but against belief in god.  He has no need for belief in god.  The two are different things, no? Quote ...two, an analysis of God's existence would rationally focus on physical proof for or against existence and not the subjective needs and desires of the inspector.  Chris's insistence in justifying his position by declaring his independence, his self-esteem, decrying the callous nature of a God that allows children to die, or won't do his dental work says everything about Chris and nothing about the existence of God.  A reasoned explanation would have been equally valid for Chris as it would have been for John Doe and that's why, IMO, it is not based upon reason but Chris's emotions, memories, personal experiences, etc. It seems to me that talking about a god that doesn't show up when needed is talking about the existence of god.  If the common conception of god is one that cares about our individual needs, has the power to look after us, etc. yet is nowhere to be found when we need him, then that is an argument against the existence of that god.  It doesn't matter who he makes that argument to, it should concern everyone who thinks that their god conforms to the above norms.  I'm still not seeing what you see, and I don't think you are capturing what his meaning is.

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,17:37    This, from the Scientific American about relgious feelings, may be interesting to read in connection with this topic for skeptic but actually everyone.

clamboy Posts: 299 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,18:09    skeptic's armchair psychoanalysis of Mr_Christopher's posts makes me chuckle, as the same thing happened to me just recently. I had made disdainful remarks about religion in an e-mail to a, I guess now former friend, and he wrote back wondering who had done what to me in my life to make me so mean-spirited and angry. Fascinating that atheists are unable to express their perspective without someone assuming that it was some awful experience or other that made us atheists. BTW, I say "former friend" because, although I sincerely apologized for my word choice and tone (in the interest of keeping the friendship going), he would not accept my apology and has decided that I am a poisonous person and wants nothing to do with me.

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,18:22    So what might I conclude if I reexamined the facts rationally?  I submit that the premise is impossible as there is no rational analysis of the existence of God.  There is no physical proof for or against the existence of God and therefore, IMO, any debates can only be founded upon emotion, faith, personal experience, etc.  So if I were confined to a rational review of God the only thing that I could honestly conclude is that it was inconclusive. Maybe that is what an agnostic is and both atheists and theists make the same "mistake" and come to a conclusion.

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,18:45    How could rejecting an idea for which there is absolutely no evidence for be a mistake?     I call myself an atheist only because describing my views as agnostic seems to be a cop-out for me.  I've examined the evidence, I find no, I mean NO compelling evidence to even entertain the idea that maybe, just maybe a personal sky pixie exists.  Therefore I have concluded there is no god or creator or celestial IDiot. And I am not attached to my conclusion, I could change my view in light of compelling evidence in a heart beat.  But again, in the history of the world there has never been a shred of compelling evidence that a god exists, so why call myself agnostic? There is no evidence that god exists, there is also no evidence that the soul of elvis lives in my rectum. I am not an agnostic about elvis inhabiting my rectum, so why be an agnostic about god.  Both ideas have the same amount of evidence (zero).  I reject both ideas without fearing I am making a mistake. -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,19:09    Quote (clamboy @ Dec. 28 2007,18:09) skeptic's armchair psychoanalysis of Mr_Christopher's posts makes me chuckle, as the same thing happened to me just recently. I had made disdainful remarks about religion in an e-mail to a, I guess now former friend, and he wrote back wondering who had done what to me in my life to make me so mean-spirited and angry. Fascinating that atheists are unable to express their perspective without someone assuming that it was some awful experience or other that made us atheists. BTW, I say "former friend" because, although I sincerely apologized for my word choice and tone (in the interest of keeping the friendship going), he would not accept my apology and has decided that I am a poisonous person and wants nothing to do with me. Did your dog get hit by a car too, and that drove you to become and angry atheist ?? I hate it when that happens! Yeah it's a crack up, and the sheer irony about the arm chair psychoanalysis is *I'm* not the one praying to imaginary deities for which no evidence exists.  I'm not the one living in a fantasy world spawned by an ancient book about ghosts, zombies, talking donkeys and winged humanoids.  I'm the guy rejecting the unproven nonsense and I'm fertile grounds for psychoanalysis?  And who cares what my reasons are, emotional, rational, psychological, it makes no difference because rejecting utter nonsense is not a sign of bad mental health.  One need not justify their reasons for rejecting stupid ideas. And they think *we're* crazy :-) Then of course the religionists rationalize/justify their nutty ideas by claiming those parts in the bible (the REALLY stupid moronic sections) are not literal, yadda yadda yadda.  Yeah save it for the judge.  In a court of law belief in god would lose big time.   Or...they just make up their own "spirituality" based on collecting the less offensive parts from the bible and related sources.  Well if you're going to indulge in such obvious make believe why go down that path in the first place?   I actually worked in the mental health field for 10 years (I've hired and fired more psychiatrists than most people will ever meet) and often times it is exactly like that.  Those who reject popular ideas for which there is no evidence for get singled out as being mentally ill and in need of "treatment".  It's very scary.   Nutty stuff, magical thinking. -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,19:12    Statement: God Exists. Now prove that true or false.  It can't be done.  As you say, there is no evidence that God exists but there is also no evidence that God doesn't.  There is no rational solution but you arbitrarily choose one.  Why?  Isn't it just as justified to say that God exists?  If you truly were not attached to your conclusion then you wouldn't make one because either one could be considered wrong in a rational argument.

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,19:15    Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 29 2007,01:12) Statement: God Exists. Now prove that true or false.  It can't be done.  As you say, there is no evidence that God exists but there is also no evidence that God doesn't.  There is no rational solution but you arbitrarily choose one.  Why?  Isn't it just as justified to say that God exists?  If you truly were not attached to your conclusion then you wouldn't make one because either one could be considered wrong in a rational argument. It's not an arbitrary choice skep, it's that the default position is "no". I am Julius Ceasar. Prove me wrong. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,19:24    Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 28 2007,19:12) Statement: God Exists. Now prove that true or false.  It can't be done.  As you say, there is no evidence that God exists but there is also no evidence that God doesn't.  There is no rational solution but you arbitrarily choose one.  Why?  Isn't it just as justified to say that God exists?  If you truly were not attached to your conclusion then you wouldn't make one because either one could be considered wrong in a rational argument. Tiny Elvis lives in my butthole.  Prove me wrong or at least irrational. Or..I have a better idea.  Keep praying to your imaginary sky pixie and we'll call it even. Skeptic, you don't know how to critically think or reason and I do not have the time or inclination to teach you.  That is the bottom line and the only relevant point in this discussion. When and if you ever learn how to think and reason we can have a more rewarding discussion. -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,19:53    Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 28 2007,19:22) So what might I conclude if I reexamined the facts rationally?  I submit that the premise is impossible as there is no rational analysis of the existence of God.  There is no physical proof for or against the existence of God and therefore, IMO, any debates can only be founded upon emotion, faith, personal experience, etc.  So if I were confined to a rational review of God the only thing that I could honestly conclude is that it was inconclusive. Maybe that is what an agnostic is and both atheists and theists make the same "mistake" and come to a conclusion. Why do you say there is no rational analysis of the existence of god?  You are aware that the conceptions of god put forth by Xians have been squarely trounced by logical disproof, right?  True, one can not disprove that there is an entity out there, but why should one have to disprove god?  The burden of proof lies on the theist, because the theist is the one making the statement that god exists.  The atheist is denying that statement and saying, "I'll believe it when you show me some evidence.  Until then, I will remain skeptical of your beliefs."  How is that not a rational position?  Note, the atheist is not saying that god necessarily doesn't exist or that she can prove that god necessarily doesn't exist.  The atheist is saying that no evidence exists of this god or any god, and most conceptions of god are logically impossible.

Annyday Posts: 583 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,20:27    An atheist is just an agnostic who's relatively sure they'll never be convinced of God's existence. An interventionist God tends to seem particularly unlikely. Or to put it another way: "agnostic" is a word for atheists who want to be inoffensive or who are considering becoming theists. The difference, and most of this debate, is semantics and rhetoric. Seriously. -------------- "ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

UnMark Posts: 97 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,20:58    Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 28 2007,19:12) Statement: God Exists. Now prove that true or false.  It can't be done.  As you say, there is no evidence that God exists but there is also no evidence that God doesn't.  There is no rational solution but you arbitrarily choose one.  Why?  Isn't it just as justified to say that God exists?  If you truly were not attached to your conclusion then you wouldn't make one because either one could be considered wrong in a rational argument. Ok, you're Christian and you insist God exists.... Let's assume some premises: 1: The Christian God exists (or none of this makes sense) 2: The Christian God can interact with the universe.  (Bible) 3: The Christian God is omnipotent and omniscient (I argue omniscience comes with omnipotence).  (Bible) 4: The Christian God is morally perfect.  (Bible) Agree?  If not, support your objection(s) please. On December 26, 2004, nearly 230,000 people were killed by the Indian Ocean Tsunami (so says wikipedia).  By the premises above, God knew about it, had the power to do something about it, and would have been morally obligated to do something.  Yet He did not.  Therefore, at least one of the four premises is incorrect: which one do you think it is? There's my proof for the non-existence of God.

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2007,21:11    ask FtK, according to her god allows evil stuff to happen to make things more interesting. -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 29 2007,00:09    It always comes back to this at some point or another.  No, Ian, the default position is not no and no, GCT, the burden of proof does not lie on the theist.  Both aspects of this statement are a positive statement and both require proof.  Neither rises to the occasion but you can not point to the failure of one side as decisive knowing that the alternate position is equally fruitless. If your position is that atheism says that there simply is no evidence for a God then you can not come to a determination because the nature of evidence is fluid.  I think that is more of the agnostic position whereas atheism actually says there is no God based upon the lack of evidence.  We may quibble here over the semantics but I think most atheists are willing to take the position that God doesn't exist even if they don't want to accept that they're making a positive claim. Why is this a positive claim?  The fundamental question is not what kind of God exists, or how does God work in our lives or even why does God allow evil.  These are all questions of human perception and have nothing to do with the existence of God.  That is why UnMark's argument fails.  The question at hand is whether or not God exists. Our answer to this question is irrelevant to the subject as the question has already been answered by the Universe at the moment of existence.  Either God, of whatever nature, exists or It doesn't.  This is a fifty-fifty proposition and there is only one logical course to follow in assessing it.  The fact of existence period presents the possibility of a First Cause.  All other arguments, that I'm aware of, require a human interpretation of the nature of God and are irrelevant.  Being right for the wrong reasons doesn't count in this game. So, again, either God exists or doesn't and we have no direct evidence in either case so either proposition is equally viable.  From this point our feelings, needs, wants, desires, contemplations,interpretations, and hunches have zero impact upon the question.  Flip a coin and you have just as much chance of being right as anyone else but being right or wrong still doesn't impact the subject.  At any time when we choose a side, we're making a positive claim because the question has already been answered. IMO, what most atheists actually have a problem with is religion, as I stated before.  Most never really address the existence of God they just reject the [insert here] God.  The problem with that is that the [insert here] God may bear no resemblance whatsoever to God and they are basing their entire argument on an illusion.  A strawman, as my good friend Louis is so fond of saying.  Once you get past the question of God's existence then any attributes of God become arbitrary.  These are simply our feeble human attempts to put a face to a name. So, UnMark, that is why your premises are false if you're looking for evidence disproving the existence of God.  And, just for the record, in the Old Testament God destroyed nearly to a man two entire cities, so what! That is why, Ian and GCT, that any claims on either side are positive claims and fall victim to the same fallacy. And that is why, Chris, you're really outmatched in this discussion because you refuse to look at the question rationally and continue to rely on your irrelevant emotional response that has no connection to the actual question.  It's time to disengage your heart and engage your mind.  Without doing that you'll never get anywhere on this topic and you probably won't even be aware why you're wrong.

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 29 2007,00:43    Quote burden of proof does not lie on the theist this invisible thing that no-one has ever seen and no one can interact with than leaves no positive trace of its existence is real. Uh-huh. Magic invisible unicorns are also real, then. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

UnMark Posts: 97 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 29 2007,01:37    Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 29 2007,00:09) Why is this a positive claim?  The fundamental question is not what kind of God exists, or how does God work in our lives or even why does God allow evil.  These are all questions of human perception and have nothing to do with the existence of God.  That is why UnMark's argument fails.  The question at hand is whether or not God exists. The question IS whether or not a God exists.  You are Christian, therefore you must believe in the four qualities of God that I posted.  Yes?  If any one of those qualities cannot exist, your God cannot exist.  These are simple rules of logic.   Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 29 2007,00:09) Our answer to this question is irrelevant to the subject as the question has already been answered by the Universe at the moment of existence.  Either God,of whatever nature, exists or It doesn't.  This is a fifty-fifty proposition and there is only one logical course to follow in assessing it.  The fact of existence period presents the possibility of a First Cause. If God existed to create the universe, the God was not the "First Cause."  What caused God?   Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 29 2007,00:09) So, UnMark, that is why your premises are false if you're looking for evidence disproving the existence of God.  And, just for the record, in the Old Testament God destroyed nearly to a man two entire cities, so what! Hitler slaughters millions and is condemned by history for it.  God slaughters millions and is worshipped by billions for it? Rich - I'v got some unicorn tail hair I can sell - only 6 sickles a piece!  :D

Pages: (11) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard