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

[whereismynotecard]

So "The God Delusion" isn't about atheism?

 

[freethinker44]

[Perhaps you can give us a few examples of his anti-religious foolishness, you know, something that he presents that is untrue or unsupported, something extremely illogical or unreasonable.

I actually agree with imaginaryme about dawkins. I agree with just about everything dawkins says about religion and atheism but he isn't very good at debating and it makes him look foolish. I mean if ted haggard could make him look like an *** while debating biology of all things then what's left to say. So I agree, he is a great scientist but his lack of skills in debating make him (and consequently his topics) look foolish even though I agree with what he is saying, that is only because I already understand the topic, he doesn't present it very well. Good guy though.

 

[Commoner]

So "The God Delusion" isn't about atheism?

Not his only book (although probably the most popular).

 

[gnomon]

I actually agree with imaginaryme about dawkins. I agree with just about everything dawkins says about religion and atheism but he isn't very good at debating and it makes him look foolish. I mean if ted haggard could make him look like an *** while debating biology of all things then what's left to say. So I agree, he is a great scientist but his lack of skills in debating make him (and consequently his topics) look foolish even though I agree with what he is saying, that is only because I already understand the topic, he doesn't present it very well. Good guy though.

In what way did Ted Haggard make Dawkins look like an ***?

I'm very sorry but I have to ask this.

 

[Amill]

3 - You're walking passed a church one day. The year is 2010 and your life is going pretty darn well. Suddenly, a small child strolls out and asks you why you're not inside. Not believing in a God of any kind, you smile to the boy and say you don't belong there. The boy frowns and walks back inside. You sigh. That poor child is being brainwashed. He's deluded and his parents are feeding lies to him. Prove this to be true.

Your analogies only work with the assumption that atheists don't consider god to be an option at all. That's not true, most atheists are simply not convinced that there is one. I don't ask for direct evidence of god before I believe(like contact from him), I just need enough evidence or reason to think there is one. Right now I see no reason or evidence that suggests that a god does exist. And the existence of one doesn't solve the unanswerable question of 'why is there something instead of nothing', so I'm still logically unsatisfied.

 

[Magic Man]

As far as I'm concerned, DarkSun is a genuine thinker;

He very well might be, but he's sure not showing it with this thread.

not to be dismissed lightly.

No, he's not, but the OP is.

Yet, that's what seemed to happen once passions were inflamed.

No, that's what happens when someone puts out an OP as thoughtless and ignorant as this one.

Does this mean that atheists are passionate in their "non-belief?" Uh-oh, sounds like religious furor to me.

Tell you what, go back and read the thread...oh, and try a new pair of glasses.

 

[DarkSun]

Your analogies only work with the assumption that atheists don't consider god to be an option at all. That's not true, most atheists are simply not convinced that there is one. I don't ask for direct evidence of god before I believe(like contact from him), I just need enough evidence or reason to think there is one. Right now I see no reason or evidence that suggests that a god does exist. And the existence of one doesn't solve the unanswerable question of 'why is there something instead of nothing', so I'm still logically unsatisfied.

That's called agnosticism, not atheism.

 

[DarkSun]

1. Why is the native american living in europe?

Typo.

 

[DarkSun]

Dark Sun:

You didn't ask for evidence or proof, and you didn't tell us what on earth your obscure point is. Then you replied that people had not provided evidence or proof, and missed your point. Not very effective.

If you want evidence (or proof) that there is no God, then ask for it.

No, my view is that there is no scientific, empirical evidence for or against God's existence. Therefore, both belief and disbelief in God are each equally justified.

 

[Commoner]

That's called agnosticism, not atheism.

That's incorrect. Atheism has nothing to do with agnosticism or gnosticism. Unless you believe in god(s), you're an atheist.

 

[Magic Man]

No, my view is that there is no scientific, empirical evidence for or against God's existence. Therefore, both belief and disbelief in God are each equally justified.

Great. And that view is completely wrong, as has been pointed out to you.

 

[imaginaryme]

In what way did Ted Haggard make Dawkins look like an ***?

I'm very sorry but I have to ask this.

Ted didn't do it. Dawkins did it to himself. I mean, that Haggard guy just gives me the creeps, but he kept his cool whereas Dawkins let himself get heated. Bad form, as they say across the pond. Personally, I used to say that Dawkins was just an a-hole, based on these types of debates; but I have since read his work. He is a good guy (and Haggard is a creep), but Dawkins should really get a "mouthpiece," a front, if you will.

 

[DarkSun]

Sure.

When someting is very rigidly defined - like "a square", you can logically disprove the existance of something like a "round square". But, a "swan" is much more than just "a white bird". The question there is, could a black swan still be a swan, even though one of its attributes is not typical of a swan? How far can the definition of a swan be stretched?

If a child were born with two heads, would we not call it human anymore, since a human being has one head, two arms, two legs? Of course not, the child has all the other attributes of a human being, so it's human.

So, it really depends on the context. I couldn't just flat out say, "no, there are no black swans" like I could say "there are no round squares". There might indeed exist a black swan, so I wouldn't find it impossible. I wouldn't consider my friend's letter as proof though, and I certainly wouldn't go around convincing others that black swans exist.


BTW Darksun, haven't we already been through this "it's equally justified to believe as it is to disbelieve in something if there is no proof either way" crap? I'd hate to have to repeat myself!

Do you want me to reply to your earlier post from the other thread so you don't have to repeat yourself?

 

[DarkSun]

Great. And that view is completely wrong, as has been pointed out to you.

It hasn't.

But if you like to feel superior to eighty or ninety percent of the world then that's up to you.

 

[DarkSun]

Sorry, I just skimmed page six. I'll respond later. :sarcastic

 

[Magic Man]

It hasn't.

No, no, it has. Whether or not you want to accept it is a different story, but your view there has been shown quite soundly to be false.

For instance, the example of me murdering someone with plenty of witnesses and evidence to convict me, and me saying that Satan made me do it. Should people believe me and let me go, or should they chalk that up to delusion and lock me up? I mean, they should be equally justified in believing that Satan made me do it, right? So, they should just let me go since they can't prove me wrong, right?

 

[gnomon]

Ted didn't do it. Dawkins did it to himself. I mean, that Haggard guy just gives me the creeps, but he kept his cool whereas Dawkins let himself get heated. Bad form, as they say across the pond. Personally, I used to say that Dawkins was just an a-hole, based on these types of debates; but I have since read his work. He is a good guy (and Haggard is a creep), but Dawkins should really get a "mouthpiece," a front, if you will.

Ah yes. Attempting to debate the foolish often makes one look the fool. Ted Haggard who served a career speaking lies was definitely apt at making others struggle.

Still though, I don't think Dawkins came across as an *** but it was more of the sheer frustration of dealing with a complete idiot.

 

[DarkSun]

I see what you are trying to say here. I like your scenarios, very nice. The burden of proof is on the believer though. It is hard to prove a negative.

I agree completely - people will believe whatever makes sense to them.

 

[imaginaryme]

Tell you what, go back and read the thread...oh, and try a new pair of glasses.

I was kidding about that last part. Didn't you see the big smilie? I can't be mad at you today, because we're all agreeing on the "free will" thread.

 

[imaginaryme]

Ah yes. Attempting to debate the foolish often makes one look the fool. Ted Haggard who served a career speaking lies was definitely apt at making others struggle.

Still though, I don't think Dawkins came across as an *** but it was more of the sheer frustration of dealing with a complete idiot.

Yeah, but... never let 'em see you sweat. Cardinal rule.