Leprechauns and Spaghetti monsters

[9-10ths_Penguin]

7 pages and what I observed on other forums. Not showing examples doesn't mean I'm wrong.

No, but it does mean that I won't believe you.

You're claiming that something happens "a lot" in discussions between theists and atheists on RF, yet I haven't seen it once in my 13 years here, participating in many discussions between theists and atheists.

In case it isn't clear: I know you're wrong. I've already dismissed what you're saying as false. I'm mainly asking for an example so that everyone else can see that you're wrong as well.

Can you imagine every RFian trying to pull example for every comment they read and reply to? Noneless weed out the discussions to get the right example in its given context?

Since you've been here for years, I'm sure you've seen that it's pretty standard to ask for people to back up their arguments.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Since I can't even parse what you're saying, I'll say "no."

Edit: but I can't rule out that this is your understanding of something I said.

Multiple people mentioned it as comparing fanatical claims. In experience, not defenses were fanatical comparisons. As for finding it,that's something you'd have to take my word for or not. I know I didn't make it up.

 

[PureX]

Some of is have learning issues, some not English native, and so forth. So, if you're going off this please don't reply. It's an insult to my intelligence.

I'm saying that the question "does God exist" (or unicorns, sprites, fairies, etc.) is absurdly vague. Which is why it never gets a sufficient answer. If your intelligence cannot grasp this, then perhaps it needs some insulting. In whatever language.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm saying that the question "does God exist" (or unicorns, sprites, fairies, etc.) is absurdly vague. Which is why it never gets a sufficient answer. If your intelligence cannot grasp this, then perhaps it needs some insulting. In whatever language.

It is absurd. Theist and atheist got their absurd arguments. The question is how it's logical to support god does not exist with monsters. They are both vague god and monsters. But I was told many atheists are just comparing fanatical claims. I don't see god as a fanatical claim so that's not the argument I presented just those from my observations most here seem to discredit.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Multiple people mentioned it as comparing fanatical claims. In experience, not defenses were fanatical comparisons.

I don't know what you're trying to say.

As for finding it,that's something you'd have to take my word for or not.

... which I don't.

I know I didn't make it up.

I'm not saying you did. I don't doubt you're sincere; I think you've misunderstood other people's arguments.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't know what you're trying to say.


... which I don't.



I'm not saying you did. I don't doubt you're sincere; I think you've misunderstood other people's arguments.

Judging from what I'm reading on the thread, I noticed some people use the argument to prove both claims are fanatical and in my observation, it is also used to show if one ridiculous thing doesn't exist, therefore the other thing doesn't exist. So whether fanatical or not, I've seen it mostly to defend the claim god doesn't exist. I didn't think it was too much of a big deal as in observations are more hearsay than correcting a person on subjects that can be verified true or false without regards to opinion.

You don't have to believe me, of course. That's just my observation and I'm not saying all atheists do it. There are many reasons why people use that argument against a theist. I guess it depends on the experience of the atheist who says it. Of course, it's not an isolated comment.

 

[PureX]

It is absurd. Theist and atheist got their absurd arguments.

Their arguments are absurd because they hide their ignorance and bias behind deliberately vague and illogical "reasoning". If they would stop and think through their questions, and be articulate, honest, and specific about them, they could have a productive and informative debate.

The question is how it's logical to support god does not exist with monsters. They are both vague god and monsters. But I was told many atheists are just comparing fanatical claims. I don't see god as a fanatical claim so that's not the argument I presented just those from my observations most here seem to discredit.

Atheists like to conflate the idea of God with the idea of fairies and unicorns and so on because they know they can't actually debunk the God proposition. And they feel they can debunk these others. Also, they do it to be deliberately insulting, because they have succumbed to their bias against theism.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Their arguments are absurd because they hide their ignorance and bias behind deliberately vague and illogical "reasoning". If they would stop and think through their questions, and be articulate, honest, and specific about them, they could have a productive and informative debate.

Well, I don't see it so harshly. The problem with the other the atheist position (not getting into nitty gritty readers about content only context) tends to go with their own criteria of what god is to them-maybe by their former experiences or what believers (so they're not all at fault) tell them which is a mix mesh of definitions of god and their religious belief systems.

Yes. I agree with you there. If they stopped to think through the questions. One thing I notice is the hostility of some theists that makes it hard for those atheist who Do want to think through questions. Also, another thing that's missing is experiences. Anyone can throw bible verses, but it makes more sense to talk about awed experiences. People relate more to living people and their experiences rather than historical people's experiences.

Atheists like to conflate the idea of God with the idea of fairies and unicorns and so on because they know they can't actually debunk the God proposition. And they feel they can debunk these others. Also, they do it to be deliberately insulting, because they have succumbed to their bias against theism.

The god position is by experience not by unicorns and fairies. In order to debunk the god position, they'd have to challenge believers' experiences not their bible and certainly not their claims that "god exists." Also, you have to give them the benefit of the doubt that god position, as an experience, can be challenged and because life is not static, people's beliefs change all the time. So, maybe believers are afraid of challenge?

Both believers and atheists don't need to be insulting to exchange differing points of view. Maybe if both sides (generalizing on purpose for easier reference) actually stop to think about each other's positions: the existence of god and the non-existence of god, they'd be a bit more open to others opinions regardless if either party accepts those opinions as facts. I do notice theists get more defended than atheists, though. Which tells how personal it is for theist and, thereby, they're more defensive than the atheist who just ask a question theist don't want to/or says they can't answer.

 

[PureX]

Well, I don't see it so harshly. The problem with the other the atheist position (not getting into nitty gritty readers about content only context) tends to go with their own criteria of what god is to them-maybe by their former experiences or what believers (so they're not all at fault) tell them which is a mix mesh of definitions of god and their religious belief systems.

Yes. I agree with you there. If they stopped to think through the questions. One thing I notice is the hostility of some theists that makes it hard for those atheist who Do want to think through questions. Also, another thing that's missing is experiences. Anyone can throw bible verses, but it makes more sense to talk about awed experiences. People relate more to living people and their experiences rather than historical people's experiences.

Most of this is because of the mistaken conflation of religion with theism. F we want to have a reasoned discussion of theism, we need to set religions, aside. Religious come into play only AFTER one accepts a given theistic position. Both theists and atheist constantly get lost in religiosity before they can even address the theist philosophical proposition.

Maybe if both sides (generalizing on purpose for easier reference) actually stop to think about each other's positions: the existence of god and the non-existence of god, they'd be a bit more open to others opinions regardless if either party accepts those opinions as facts. I do notice theists get more defended than atheists, though. Which tells how personal it is for theist and, thereby, they're more defensive than the atheist who just ask a question theist don't want to/or says they can't answer.

I agree that personal "beliefs" only serve to involve people's egos, and needless auto-defense mechanisms. But it's the atheists that INSISTS that belief (their UN-belief) define the discussion, not the theist.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Most of this is because of the mistaken conflation of religion with theism. F we want to have a reasoned discussion of theism, we need to set religions, aside. Religious come into play only AFTER one accepts a given theistic position. Both theists and atheist constantly get lost in religiosity before they can even address the theist philosophical proposition.

I can see that. A lot of atheist who have not experienced god to know he exist can only go by religion and what religious tell them whether indoctrinated, converted, and/or studied. When you don't have the religious "experience" it's hard to talk about it without something concrete like religion itself.

Do you mean philosophical proposition as god's existence without reference to religion?

I agree that personal "beliefs" only serve to involve people's egos, and needless auto-defense mechanisms. But it's the atheists that INSISTS that belief (their UN-belief) define the discussion, not the theist.

Which makes a whole lot of sense. If you're trying to explain to someone who does not know arithmetic that two and two is four, you have to show or explain what the numbers are so he can come to conclusions for himself and to understand yours.

How does a theist expect an atheist to have a philosophical conversation with a theist when the theist don't have a solid definition of their own position? For example, I can't go into a debate with someone else when the other doesn't know how to articulate and/or want to explain the subject of the debate.

Define god, then we can talk about it. Don't define him, there's nothing to talk about.

It has nothing to do with the atheist vs theist views but the fact of whoever brought the subject to the table needs to define the terms.

 

[PureX]

I can see that. A lot of atheist who have not experienced god to know he exist can only go by religion and what religious tell them whether indoctrinated, converted, and/or studied. When you don't have the religious "experience" it's hard to talk about it without something concrete like religion itself.

Do you mean philosophical proposition as god's existence without reference to religion?

Sure. Theology is the branch of philosophy related to the proposition that a God exists, and effects humanity. Religions are collections stories, images, rituals, practices and traditions intended to help people live according to a specific theological proposition.

Which makes a whole lot of sense. If you're trying to explain to someone who does not know arithmetic that two and two is four, you have to show or explain what the numbers are so he can come to conclusions for himself and to understand yours.

How does a theist expect an atheist to have a philosophical conversation with a theist when the theist don't have a solid definition of their own position? For example, I can't go into a debate with someone else when the other doesn't know how to articulate and/or want to explain the subject of the debate.

Unfortunately, when most theists are asked for that definition, what they give, instead, is their religious image, as depicted by their religious stories, icons, and so on, of God as they choose to imagine it. Which then drives the discussion into the religion, and away from the theology, where it immediately falls apart. I empathize with atheist's complaints that theists can't seem to give them a proper definition of the God being proposed. On the other hand, most atheists are materialist, who are intent on rejecting ANY proposition that is not material (physical) in nature. So in nearly all instances, the discussion is doomed before it can begin.

Define god, then we can talk about it. Don't define him, there's nothing to talk about.

It has nothing to do with the atheist vs theist views but the fact of whoever brought the subject to the table needs to define the terms.

Well, if the participants are intelligent, they should be able to recognize a general, common, historical/universal definition for God on their own. As it's not that difficult. The one I give is that God is the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. Most theists, I think, can agree with this definition, while most atheists cannot accept the "mystery" aspect of it. If they accept that the "mystery" is real, then they have to accept that "God" is real, as the label "God" simply refers to that profound mystery. And they don't want to do that, even though it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think you missed a "quote"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Judging from what I'm reading on the thread, I noticed some people use the argument to prove both claims are fanatical and in my observation, it is also used to show if one ridiculous thing doesn't exist, therefore the other thing doesn't exist.

If you think that people have been using the argument in this thread, then show me. If you don't feel like quoting them, just give a post number.

So whether fanatical or not, I've seen it mostly to defend the claim god doesn't exist. I didn't think it was too much of a big deal as in observations are more hearsay than correcting a person on subjects that can be verified true or false without regards to opinion.

I have no idea what you mean by your use of the word "fanatical."

You don't have to believe me, of course.

That's good, because you've given me no reason to believe you.

That's just my observation and I'm not saying all atheists do it.

But you are saying that enough atheists are doing it for it to happen "lots of times."

There are many reasons why people use that argument against a theist. I guess it depends on the experience of the atheist who says it. Of course, it's not an isolated comment.

Maybe establish that it's happening at all before trying to figure out why it's happening.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That's good, because you've given me no reason to believe you.

Quick. Why should I give you a reason to believe me?

What purpose does that serve?

 

[PureX]

I think you missed a "quote"

Sorry - fixed.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Couple of points. You don't have to believe me "and" it doesn't mean I'm lying or mistaken.

Another, the original argument I proposed based on that observation is that some (I'll say instead, then) atheist use "god does not exist because pixies do not exist" as a defense to theist who tell them that god does. Whether you feel it's a misinterpretation or not is your thing.

It seems that you may be trying to set up a strawman. Comparing gods to fairies is just one of many reasons to disbelieve gods.

Nevertheless, in many regards, the comparison is valid

The comparison (pixies, monsters, and god) are valid Penguin, even though I was going about it differently than ecco implied.

There is no fallacy in comparing one fantastical claim for which there is no verifiable evidence with another fantastical claim for which there is no verifiable evidence. The question becomes: If you don't accept fantastical claim A because there is no verifiable evidence, why do you accept fantastical claim B, for which there is also no verifiable evidence?

Fantastical rather than fanatical. Context is the same.

Which is a change from my observations. So, I learned something from a new perspective but that doesn't invalidate what I've observed myself. There is no generalization here so no one is wrong.

Not fanatical, fantastical.

You can't physically measure god and you can't physically measure magical pixies. God can do things that are supernatural. Magical pixies can do things that are supernatural. God exists outside of time and space. Magical pixies exist outside of time and space. Faith is required to believe in god and faith is required to believe in magical pixies. There is absolutely no verifiable evidence to support belief in the existence of either.

Pretty much my whole point. Penguin. I think this is the closest I can find looking up these comments. Mostly, they are from people telling me I got the wrong argument and debating based on their corrected argument rather than the one stated in the OP. The consensus seems that many don't care for attaching the argument to atheists. So, that's kind of messing things up too.

They do not. I thought that was established knowledge.

They, gods, easter bunnies, spidermans, kryptonite, psychic snowflakes are nothing more than the creations of man's imaginings.

I thought so too, Ecco. Would god be considered in the same catagory?

Maybe there is a feeling that a belief in God occupies a special category of belief that belief in leprechauns doesn't?

To me, the lack of belief has equal reasoning.

True, ecco. That's why I was comparing it to existence of god rather than the fantastical claim. But it seems many other people's conclusions of the same comment are from differing perspectives.

... it's just that the religions that believe in pixies and leprechauns have fallen out of popularity, while the religions that believe in gods and angels haven't.

Though they do happen to be in the same category.

Remember at the beginning of the thread when you were complaining about people misrepresenting others' claims?

Maybe take your own advice to heart.

I said I observed that atheists make the defense claim god does not exist because pixies do not exist.

Observation and stating an argument of what a group of people tend to say isn't a complaint. It's stating an argument.

I don't think I used the word misrepresenting. I said that atheists (generalizing on purpose as in the OP) use "god does not exist because pixies don't exist."

I'm saying these atheists use a fallacy as a counter-claim to their opponents claim.

So, all the other arguments other posts are putting up is mixing the main point I'm making. So, in that sense, it's hard for me to switch subjects.

Never said it did but it does show that leprechauns had the same basis as God

It is a comparison of items which have been claimed by some to exist at one point or another, The basis for comparison is the evidence (or lack thereof). I don't see a fallacy. If there is a fallacy, please list the particular fallacy, as you have not done so. You can find lists of both formal and informal fallacies readily on the internet.

The fallacy was in my argument not the "corrected" one.

Penguin. I'm not trying to prove you wrong. You have no basis on whether what I'm saying is correct or not. I can't go through the entire RF to pick and choose what you want to correct me on.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Couple of points. You don't have to believe me "and" it doesn't mean I'm lying or mistaken.

Another, the original argument I proposed based on that observation is that some (I'll say instead, then) atheist use "god does not exist because pixies do not exist" as a defense to theist who tell them that god does. Whether you feel it's a misinterpretation or not is your thing.



The comparison (pixies, monsters, and god) are valid Penguin, even though I was going about it differently than ecco implied.



Fantastical rather than fanatical. Context is the same.

Which is a change from my observations. So, I learned something from a new perspective but that doesn't invalidate what I've observed myself. There is no generalization here so no one is wrong.



Pretty much my whole point. Penguin. I think this is the closest I can find looking up these comments. Mostly, they are from people telling me I got the wrong argument and debating based on their corrected argument rather than the one stated in the OP. The consensus seems that many don't care for attaching the argument to atheists. So, that's kind of messing things up too.



I thought so too, Ecco. Would god be considered in the same catagory?



True, ecco. That's why I was comparing it to existence of god rather than the fantastical claim. But it seems many other people's conclusions of the same comment are from differing perspectives.



Though they do happen to be in the same category.



I said I observed that atheists make the defense claim god does not exist because pixies do not exist.

Observation and stating an argument of what a group of people tend to say isn't a complaint. It's stating an argument.



So, all the other arguments other posts are putting up is mixing the main point I'm making. So, in that sense, it's hard for me to switch subjects.





The fallacy was in my argument not the "corrected" one.

Penguin. I'm not trying to prove you wrong. You have no basis on whether what I'm saying is correct or not. I can't go through the entire RF to pick and choose what you want to correct me on.

Okay. I was right: you did misunderstand the arguments being made.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Quick. Why should I give you a reason to believe me?

You don't need to. Having some random person on the internet think that you're wrong is only as important as you decide it is.

 

[PureX]

Couple of points. You don't have to believe me "and" it doesn't mean I'm lying or mistaken.

"Belief" is irrelevant to an intelligent, logically-based discussion of the theistic proposition. Neither participant needs to "believe in" anything. And the discussion will proceed more reasonably if whatever they believe is simply set aside for the sake of the discussion/debate.

Another, the original argument I proposed based on that observation is that some (I'll say instead, then) atheist use "god does not exist because pixies do not exist" as a defense to theist who tell them that god does. Whether you feel it's a misinterpretation or not is your thing.

That statement logically rests on the supposition god and pixies are the same. Such that if one does not exist, then neither does the other. This is a supposition that the atheist has not validated, and cannot validate, because they are not the same, at all. Which then makes the statement quite disingenuous.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

"Belief" is irrelevant to an intelligent, logically-based discussion of the theistic proposition. Neither participant needs to "believe in" anything. And the discussion will proceed more reasonably if whatever they believe is simply set aside for the sake of the discussion/debate.

Yes. I noticed that. Proposing an argument leads one to tell the other their personal opinions rather than on the subject itself. I'm guilty of it, but I can see where it throws everything off.

That statement logically rests on the supposition god and pixies are the same. Such that if one does not exist, then neither does the other. This is a supposition that the atheist has not validated, and cannot validate, because they are not the same, at all. Which then makes the statement quite disingenuous.

Have you noticed that too?

I couldn't think of another word but fallacy, but they cancel out each other when that argument is made. Unfortunately, though, what else do atheists have to fall back on? The only god they seem to argue isn't what theists are talking about because theists got soooo many definitions of god, who can blame them for comparing it to things like pixies and dragons?

Going back to the first comment, if theists were more specific with their terms, it would be easier to argue without getting personal.