Questions of religion

[Road Warrior]

Why don't people argue as vehemently for the existence or non-existence of unicorns? Or The Flying Spaghetti Monster, for that matter?

Point being - at some point, people without sufficiently compelling evidence who are all claiming something different (I'm speaking of the vast variety of theists and their claims here, obviously) are making things up to defend their positions. This is a given. If the Muslim makes claims about Allah that conflict with Christian claims of their God, someone's wrong, and their claim to knowledge is fallacious - the target of their belief is imaginary - it is make-believe. Not only this, but many more things have been said in defense of God than He ever said Himself, or sources have attributed to Him - this is, by definition, making things up - even if God exists and some of the things happen to be correct!

Even the atheist who makes the claim that "God does not exist" within a universe that actually does have God/gods is AT MOST "making up" one thing. ONE. That would be that "God does not exist," obviously.

So, there's a huge amount more of fabrication necessary in theism. There's not really a way around it.

They have....not not in the last hundred years or so. Why are atheists arguing at all? Unless a theist is seeking to impose their religion on them, why do atheists care? Likewise, unless atheists are seeking to stamp out religion like Stalin or Mao, why should they care what atheists choose to believe/disbelieve?

First, people are free to believe whatever they like. It's only when those beliefs start affecting others that a resolution must be made. Example: gay marriage. Seeking to deny all Americans their 14th Amendment rights is both unfair and unConstitutional so it is right that the wrong be addressed. Otherwise, why should anyone care what other consenting adults are doing? Second, People are not required to provide evidence of their own beliefs, sexual preferences or anything else. Only when they seek to impose those beliefs onto others should they be required to prove their case.

 

[Road Warrior]

Even for those Atheists who will attack and ridicule...

The loudest voices should not over rule those who are less dogmatic.

Agreed and that should work for all beliefs be they spiritual or secular, matters of faith or matters of politics.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

They have....not not in the last hundred years or so. Why are atheists arguing at all? Unless a theist is seeking to impose their religion on them, why do atheists care? Likewise, unless atheists are seeking to stamp out religion like Stalin or Mao, why should they care what atheists choose to believe/disbelieve?

First, people are free to believe whatever they like. It's only when those beliefs start affecting others that a resolution must be made. Example: gay marriage. Seeking to deny all Americans their 14th Amendment rights is both unfair and unConstitutional so it is right that the wrong be addressed. Otherwise, why should anyone care what other consenting adults are doing? Second, People are not required to provide evidence of their own beliefs, sexual preferences or anything else. Only when they seek to impose those beliefs onto others should they be required to prove their case.

You'll hear no disagreement from me. If people just kept their beliefs to themselves then we wouldn't be having this discussion, obviously.

But oh wait... that necessarily means that people DON'T keep it to themselves, doesn't it? Because we ARE having this discussion - just as thousands of others are. Honestly I would have thought this to be incredibly obvious. If no one ever talked about God, there would never, ever have been a single person who felt the need to call themselves "atheist". The fact that self-proclaimed atheists exist is proof positive that people are throwing their ideas of God all over the damn place.

 

[Road Warrior]

I don't think I've actually seen an atheist attack anyone, surprisingly. I've seen them make humor so complex the other side doesn't get it, yet I do, though.

You've never been in the receiving end of their angst. Like a teenager with a zit on their nose before their first date.

 

[Road Warrior]

You'll here no disagreement from me. If people just kept their beliefs to themselves then we wouldn't be having this discussion, obviously.

But oh wait... that necessarily means that people DON'T keep it to themselves, doesn't it? Because we ARE having this discussion - just as thousands of others are. Honestly I would have thought this to be incredibly obvious. If no one ever talked about God, there would never, ever have been a single person who felt the need to call themselves "atheist". The fact that self-proclaimed atheists exist is proof positive that people are throwing their ideas of God all over the damn place.

Exactly, hence my point. Atheists are no different than theists when it comes to jamming their beliefs down the throats of others. Fine. It's legal and why there's a forum for discussing it, just don't tell me they don't do it.

Of course not all people keep it to themselves. As posted elsewhere, it takes a certain amount of arrogance to post one's beliefs and argue it with others. Everyone posting on this forum is guilty of it....some more than others.

 

[dybmh]

You've never been in the receiving end of their angst. Like a teenager with a zit on their nose before their first date.

It sounds like @AT-AT does not have any evidence that some Atheists attack. No evidence, hmmmm what does that mean?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Exactly, hence my point. Atheists are no different than theists when it comes to jamming their beliefs down the throats of others.

And this is where you go wrong. Atheists who simply challenge people's outlandish beliefs and ask them to provide justification/demonstration/evidence are NOT cramming anything down anyone's throat. They simply aren't. That's the way you'd like to frame it up, so that you can feel righteous, and I get that, but it makes you mischaracterize atheists with comments like this - which makes it seem as if you are not intellectually up to the task of challenging them in the first place - you honestly don't even seem to know what you're up against.

Fine. It's legal and why there's a forum for discussing it, just don't tell me they don't do it.

This statement seems really awkward to me, and I know you can simply back-track out and say that all you were saying was that "it is legal" - but it appears to me as if this is a sort of exasperated "fine, I suppose it's legal" - as in, you really wish it weren't legal, but "fine, there's nothing I can do about it." While I, and most other atheists, wouldn't dream of outlawing private religious practice and belief. Using it as a force for public control is an entirely different matter... but yeah - have at it in your private spaces. Like I give a crap.

Of course not all people keep it to themselves. As posted elsewhere, it takes a certain amount of arrogance to post one's beliefs and argue it with others. Everyone posting on this forum is guilty of it....some more than others.

And how much arrogance does it take to ask someone to justify their position and ask for the evidence, eh? How much?

 

[Road Warrior]

It sounds like @AT-AT does not have any evidence that some Atheists attack. No evidence, hmmmm what does that mean?

...an unsubstantiated belief.

 

[dybmh]

...an unsubstantiated belief.

Neither of us ( @AT-AT and myself ) know whether or not it's an attack. The only one who knows is the source.

 

[ChristineM]

And there we have it folks. The atheist point of view is that an absence of evidence is factual evidence of absence.
Thank you, ma'm.

actually it amounts to proof by exhaustion. A mathematical and scientifically valid proof. It has been shown literally billions of times over ten thousand years or more that theists cannot provide evidence of god. All it would take was one success to break the proof. Just one out of billions.

Using proof by exhaustion shows that gods are the most unproven concept ever.

There are of course other evidences to disprove individual aspects of various god claims but there is no need to go into them because proof by exhaustion encompasses them all.

So now dont you feel silly showing yourself up with failed sarcasm?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Neither of us ( @AT-AT and myself ) know whether or not it's an attack. The only one who knows is the source.

I can tell you one thing... people very often seem to feel attacked... even by just questions. I would honestly find it hilarious if it weren't so disconcerting.

 

[dybmh]

I can tell you one thing... people very often seem to feel attacked... even by just questions. I would honestly find it hilarious if it weren't so disconcerting.

People do get upset by questions when they feel like they have all the answers. I agree, and it's a good point. Thank you for making it.

 

[ChristineM]

Even for those Atheists who will attack and ridicule...

The loudest voices should not over rule those who are less dogmatic.

Interestingly, i have never known an atheist to attack. I have known them to provide reasoned, logical and factual argument which may feel like an attack to those unprepared or unable to use reasoned, logical and factual argument to defend their claims of god magic

I wish i could say the same for theists who have attacked me (and my children) both verbally and physically.

 

[dybmh]

Interestingly, i have never known an atheist to attack. I have known them to provide reasoned, logical and factual argument which may feel like an attack to those unprepared or unable to use reasoned, logical and factual argument to defend their claims of god magic

The circumstances I'm talking about, from my observation, there is no claim made.

but it really doesn't matter. because. You're right. What I'm talking about is nothing compared to:

theists who have attacked me (and my children) both verbally and physically.

I repeat. Nothing that I have seen compares to what you have experienced. And because of that, I resolve not to use the word "attack" in this context. I am talking about teasing. The intention of the teasing is not to do harm. And I'm sorry for furthering that idea. I'll do better.

... ahem... if I may conveniently change the subject...

it amounts to proof by exhaustion

this is interesting, because I have never heard of this specifically before. it sounds similar a judgment of "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that is used in the American Justice system.

However, even in these cases where the jury determines that evidence has been provided that proves "beyond the shadow of a doubt" the guilt of the accused, there is still an appeal process, and these judgments can be over-turned. It's important to note, IMHO, that these cases need to have substantial evidence before going to trial.

Proof by exhaustion seems to be less convincing than the judgement of "beyond a shadow of a doubt" because there is no evidence. There is a lack of evidence.

What I hear from Atheists often is this: There is just as much reason to believe in God as there is to believe in [ thor , mother goose , sky fairies , etc... ]. To me this is a false equivalency. And the metric for "reason" is weighted unfairly because proof by exhaustion is deemed more convincing than "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Beyond a reasonable doubt allows for the judgement to be over-ruled. Beyond a reasonable doubt has substantial evidence to support it.

Proof by exhaustion, has no evidence. Shouldn't it allow for the judgement to be over-ruled too?

And most important, is it unreasonable for a person to leave that possibility on the table if in a court of public opinion people are divided.

Looking back at your statement:

It has been shown literally billions of times over ten thousand years or more that theists cannot provide evidence of god.

There is no scientific evidence that God doesn't exist. There is no scientific evidence that God does exist. It's not unreasonable to accept the possibility that God exists. Ergo, it is reasonable to accept the possibility that God exists.

And unless there are just as many people who believe in Mother Goose and Sky Fairies as there are who believe in God, the whole statement that is commonly made about Theists by Atheists from above is a false equivalence. Not to mention, Mother Goose and Sky Fairies are not omnipotent nor omniscient.

Is there a flaw in my logic?

 

[ChristineM]

The circumstances I'm talking about, from my observation, there is no claim made.

but it really doesn't matter. because. You're right. What I'm talking about is nothing compared to:

I repeat. Nothing that I have seen compares to what you have experienced. And because of that, I resolve not to use the word "attack" in this context. I am talking about teasing. The intention of the teasing is not to do harm. And I'm sorry for furthering that idea. I'll do better.

... ahem... if I may conveniently change the subject...



this is interesting, because I have never heard of this specifically before. it sounds like a judgment of "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that is used in the American Justice system.

Even in these cases where the jury determines that evidence has been provided that proves "beyond the shadow of a doubt" the guilt of the accused, there is still an appeal process, and these judgements can be over-turned. It's important to note, IMHO, that these cases need to have substantial evidence before going to trial.

Proof by exhaustion seems to be less convincing than the judgement of "beyond a shadow of a doubt" because there is no evidence. There is a lack of evidence.

What I hear from Atheists often is this: There is just as much reason to believe in God as there is to believe in [ thor , mother goose , sky fairies , etc... ]. To me this is a false equivalency. And the metric for "reason" is weighted unfairly because proof by exhaustion is deemed more convincing than "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Beyond a reasonable doubt allows for the judgement to be over-ruled. Beyond a reasonable doubt has substantial evidence to support it.

Proof by exhaustion, has no evidence. Shouldn't it allow for the judgement to be over-ruled too?

And most important, is it unreasonable for a person to leave that possibility on the table if in a court of public opinion people are divided.

Looking back at your statement:

There is no scientific evidence that God doesn't exist. There is no scientific evidence that God does exist. It's not unreasonable to accept the possibility that God exists.

Is there a flaw in my logic?

There are claims made often. Even on this there have been claims made.

Very considerate of you, cheers.

Of course you could appeal, for an appeal to be successful new, meaningful evidence would need to be presented. I offered the only possible means for appeal, just one incident that can be verified as gods work and the proof fails. And incidentally, so does atheism.

False equivalency??? I think not. Particularly in the case of Thor who it is claimed is also a god.

As to proof of aspects of god claims there are plenty from childhood leukemia, the mosquito, the futility of prayer. Scientific proofs, no... Solid evidence, yes.

The flaw in your logic is... there is no evidince that the universe is not the nasal expellation of the great green zigalog beast sneezing so is it not unreasonable that we should believe the great, worshipful beast... May his holey hanky be blessed... Created the universe.

Of course people are welcome to believe whatever they want and i soon expect to see s church to the great green zigslog

 

[dybmh]

May his holey hanky be blessed...

Amen

a church to the great green zigslog

May it be speedily built in our days

for an appeal to be successful new, meaningful evidence would need to be presented.

OK.

There are claims made often.

This is what I should look for and be careful of. Thank you.

 

[siti]

It's recognizing what we don't know which guides us on seeking to find out what we want to know. Some people think they already know everything they need to know so they stop looking.

I know...or do I?

 

[Road Warrior]

I know...or do I?

Hint: We don't. We fool ourselves when we think we do. Obviously we know some things, things close to us, but the big questions are just a guess.

 

[LuisDantas]

1. What are the positives and pitfalls of Panentheism?

Pro: Inspiring to certain people. Not too susceptible to manipulation from malicious people.

Con: Something of a fertile ground for certain delusions. A Panentheist may need to learn to watch out for that danger and course-correct on occasion.

2. What are the positives and pitfalls of Atheism?

Pro: Gets out of the way. Fails to enable certain dangerous delusions and superstitions.

Con: Some (fewer than most theists realize) people are not really compatible with it. Has little to nothing to offer in and of itself.

3. What are the positives and pitfalls of Spiritualism?

Which variety? There must be a few dozen definitions of Spiritualism running around.