To any Atheists, I Have a Few Scenarios for you to Look At.

[Magic Man]

Originally Posted by DarkSun

I see you still haven't given me any evidence.

Your ignoring of the evidence does not mean I haven't provided it. you even agreed to some of it. It's kind of stupid to refuse to see it now, especially when it just came up a page or so ago.

[Alceste]

Originally Posted by DarkSun

To Alceste.

I'm sorry for responding to your wonderfully written post so crudely, but I don't think you've been understanding me.

You're claiming that disbelief in God is the only factual view of the world which can be of any use.

Where?? Is this how you address a point you can't find fault with? Misrepresentation? Or did you honestly fail this badly to comprehend anything I wrote?

In fact, science doesn't even address God, because by nature, the scientific method can't prove one way or the other. So to say atheism is more rational than theism is a misnomer - because both sides have the same amount of empirical evidence supporting them - even if both sides feel justified through their inductive reasoning.

No, you're simply wrong. It is NOT "rational" to commit to a belief without any positive empirical evidence supporting it. It is NOT "logical". Yes, lots of people feel (your word) justified in believing implausible things in the absence of positive evidence, but when it comes to the subject of the existence of God, atheists do not.

You're cocking this up in the standard Western theistic way: because you overvalue "rationality" and "logic", you mistakenly assume pointing out that a belief is irrational or illogical is some kind of a dig. It isn't. It's a value-neutral statement of fact.

If you asked Painted Wolf whether her belief in god is "rational" or "logical", or "evidence-based" she would probably tell you frankly that OF COURSE it isn't. But Native American culture does not overvalue rationality, so this acknowledgment wouldn't make her belief less meaningful to her.

So I'm sorry, but if you are claiming that belief is illogical... and that you're more logical than everyone else... but despite such claims, you have no evidence besides a lack of evidence... then if that isn't indicative of a superiority complex, then I really am confused.

Again, your over-esteem for logic is your value judgment, not mine. When I describe something as logical or illogical, it's a value-neutral statement of fact. I happen to be a logical person. I'm content with that. Many of my closest friends are just as content with a powerful creative imagination, and I respect and admire them for it, and enjoy their company.

However, NONE of my closest friends, and nobody I admire, is unable to distinguish between logic and creative imagination, as you seem to be.

[dorsk188]

Originally Posted by DarkSun

I see you still haven't given me any evidence.

DarkSun, you began this topic claiming that there is no evidence against God, and that proposers and dismissers are equally justified in their beliefs. I presented evidence in this post. And I demonstrated how this evidence can be used to reach the conclusion that belief in the tooth fairy is not equally justified (as you claimed) in this post.

This appears to be the crux of your original post and the fatal flaw in your reasoning. You've posted 19 times since my posts, and have not attempted to respond.

Your apparent evasion is noted.

[Cobblestones]

You started this post with the title:

To any Atheists, I Have a Few Scenarios for you to Look At.

You then posited three scenarios.

Have you noticed that whatever it was that you were hoping to convey to the atheists on the RF has not been conveyed in over 280 posts?

[Magic Man]

Originally Posted by Cobblestones

You started this post with the title:

To any Atheists, I Have a Few Scenarios for you to Look At.

You then posited three scenarios.

Have you noticed that whatever it was that you were hoping to convey to the atheists on the RF has not been conveyed in over 280 posts?

Well, clearly that's because the many atheists who have commented on this thread just don't understand DarkSun. Clearly, it just means he has to talk louder.

In fact, he does seem to be treating us like many Americans treat people who don't speak English. "What is your name?" "Uh...no ingles" "WHAT...IS...YOUR...NAME?"

[DarkSun]

Originally Posted by Alceste

Where?? Is this how you address a point you can't find fault with? Misrepresentation? Or did you honestly fail this badly to comprehend anything I wrote?

No, it's how I address a point that doesn't dicredit anything I've previously said

Originally Posted by Alceste

No, you're simply wrong. It is NOT "rational" to commit to a belief without any positive empirical evidence supporting it. It is NOT "logical".

Disbelief in God has as little empirical evidence supporting it as belief. Are you now saying you're not logical?

Originally Posted by Alceste

Yes, lots of people feel (your word) justified in believing implausible things in the absence of positive evidence, but when it comes to the subject of the existence of God, atheists do not.

I've never actually denied this. Relevance?

Originally Posted by Alceste

You're cocking this up in the standard Western theistic way: because you overvalue "rationality" and "logic", you mistakenly assume pointing out that a belief is irrational or illogical is some kind of a dig. It isn't. It's a value-neutral statement of fact.

First off, I don't over-value rationality and logic. Who are you arguing against?

Secondly, how is it an indication of neutrality if you're making a statement one way of the other, without any evidence, and saying that anyone who disagrees with your way is illogical? That's called bias, not a value-neutral statement of fact.

Originally Posted by Alceste

If you asked Painted Wolf whether her belief in god is "rational" or "logical", or "evidence-based" she would probably tell you frankly that OF COURSE it isn't. But Native American culture does not overvalue rationality, so this acknowledgment wouldn't make her belief less meaningful to her.

I'm the same. I'm willing to admit that because my belief is based on inductive reasoning, with no scientific empirical evidence to support it, then that belief isn't rational or logical. But then again, neither is atheism, because of the lack of evidence supporting that too.

Again... who are you arguing against again? You don't seem to be arguing against what I've been saying, so it mustn't be me.

Originally Posted by Alceste

Again, your over-esteem for logic is your value judgment, not mine. When I describe something as logical or illogical, it's a value-neutral statement of fact. I happen to be a logical person. I'm content with that. Many of my closest friends are just as content with a powerful creative imagination, and I respect and admire them for it, and enjoy their company.

Okay.

Originally Posted by Alceste

However, NONE of my closest friends, and nobody I admire, is unable to distinguish between logic and creative imagination, as you seem to be.

Why are you saying it's more logical to disbelieve than it is to believe when there is no scientific evidence either way?

It has been said that the default for any statement made without evidence should be skepticism, correct? Well, what if someone came up to you and said there was no God. Would you still meet that statement with skepticism? No? Why not? Because it doesn't make sense to you that there would be a God of the description they're describing to begin with, right?

It makes sense to them, though.

What you are both doing is using your own inductive reasoning, your personal experiences, to come to the conclusions about God's existence/inexistence. But this reasoning is subjective, and varies depending on the individual. Neither party is being more logical than the other, because both people are only believing what makes sense to them.

If someone goes up to you and claims that your personal beliefs are wrong, then you're going to want the empirical evidence, right? But there is none. And visa versa. So who is more justified considering both people can't back up their claim with anything more than: "But in my opinion, your belief/disbelief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster makes no sense, so you're being illogical." Without empirical evidence, such statements remain entirely subjective viewpoints.

Well, based on the empirical evidence, no one is right or wrong, because science, by nature, cannot prove or disprove such a thing.

[DarkSun]

Originally Posted by mball1297

Well, clearly that's because the many atheists who have commented on this thread just don't understand DarkSun. Clearly, it just means he has to talk louder.

In fact, he does seem to be treating us like many Americans treat people who don't speak English. "What is your name?" "Uh...no ingles" "WHAT...IS...YOUR...NAME?"

Please don't talk about me as if I'm not here. People might mistake that for arrogance.

[DarkSun]

Originally Posted by mball1297

Your ignoring of the evidence does not mean I haven't provided it. you even agreed to some of it. It's kind of stupid to refuse to see it now, especially when it just came up a page or so ago.

I agreed with evidence which discredited certain attributes of God. True. But you and I both know that isn't the evidence I asked for.

By the way, can you please stop assuming I'm an idiot who's refusing to accept what you're saying? I am reading everything you're saying and thinking about it. But I still disagree and I can't see how it disproves anything.

[DarkSun]

Originally Posted by dorsk188

DarkSun, you began this topic claiming that there is no evidence against God, and that proposers and dismissers are equally justified in their beliefs. I presented evidence in this post. And I demonstrated how this evidence can be used to reach the conclusion that belief in the tooth fairy is not equally justified (as you claimed) in this post.

This appears to be the crux of your original post and the fatal flaw in your reasoning. You've posted 19 times since my posts, and have not attempted to respond.

Your apparent evasion is noted.

I can't evade an argument I haven't read yet. It's not as if I spend all 24 hours of the day on the internet.

Sorry, I'll get back to you tomorrow.

[Commoner]

Originally Posted by DarkSun

I'm the same. I'm willing to admit that because my belief is based on inductive reasoning, with no scientific empirical evidence to support it, then that belief isn't rational or logical. But then again, neither is atheism, because of the lack of evidence supporting that too.

Atheists have no belief regarding the matter. We don't believe it! How do you not get this?

Originally Posted by DarkSun

Why are you saying it's more logical to disbelieve than it is to believe when there is no scientific evidence either way?

Because, while it is overwhelmingly probable that a claim made without evidence is false, it is very unlikely that a claim without evidence is true. It could be true, but without evidence, it would be nothing more than a lucky guess. I once took the time to explain this to you in considerable detail, didn't I?

Originally Posted by DarkSun

It has been said that the default for any statement made without evidence should be skepticism, correct? Well, what if someone came up to you and said there was no God. Would you still meet that statement with skepticism?

YES!!! Has anyone indicated otherwise?