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

[Magic Man]

Just because I disagree with someone and think they're too dangerous to be allowed to be kept near people doesn't mean I think my opinion is more justified than theirs. I'm not that arrogant.

Really? Then why should your opinion be valued more than theirs? Why should they be locked up and not you?

Besides, saying someone else's idea is irrational or less rational than your own isn't inherently arrogant. There's nothing inherently arrogant in calling someone fat. It's simply stating the way things are.

And what's this about me being intellectually dishonest?

Well, you think people who claim that Satan made them kill someone should be put in a mental institute but you won't admit that you're more justified in disbelieving their claim than you are in believing their claim. You know you agree with me, and yet you feel the need to continue arguing that you're right. I'd call that arrogance.

 

[Magic Man]

Please show the evidence against any version of God.

All righty, but only really quick.

For instance, why would a God who knows everything and can do everything need to intervene in the universe he set up? There's no logical reason for it. If he knows how it's going to work, and he can make it any way he wants, then he never needs to intervene to change things once he's set it up.

Then there's the fact that there is no evidence for the Christian God other than some people's words for it. That's the most damning evidence against to me.

 

[DarkSun]

Really? Then why should your opinion be valued more than theirs? Why should they be locked up and not you?

Because more people agree with me. That's sort of how the law works. But since each of us have zero evidence for or against Satan making this man murder someone - we are both equally justified. Whether I think he's an idiot or not is immaterial - because that's not what I'm basing the "equally justified" statement on. I'm basing it on evidence: evidence which neither of us actually have.

Besides, saying someone else's idea is irrational or less rational than your own isn't inherently arrogant. There's nothing inherently arrogant in calling someone fat. It's simply stating the way things are.

It is arrogant when neither of you have any evidence for your view. Would you like it if a theist called you an idiot for no other reason than that they disagree with you? It'd be the same if you called a theist deluded for no other reason than you disagreeing with them - since both of you have equal amounts of evidence.

Well, you think people who claim that Satan made them kill someone should be put in a mental institute but you won't admit that you're more justified in disbelieving their claim than you are in believing their claim. You know you agree with me, and yet you feel the need to continue arguing that you're right. I'd call that arrogance.

I don't care if you think I'm right or wrong. That's your prerogative. I'm just trying to get you to see where I'm coming from... which you don't seem to.

 

[Smoke]

I said that I personally don't agree with him - and that most other people don't agree with him, and that he's a threat - which is why he should go into a psychiatric ward. Please highlight where I said anything other than that. Please illustrate where I said my opinion has more evidence than his. Please show me where I said I think my opinion is better than his.

If Satan made him do it, it's not the man himself who's a threat, but Satan. Satan might make you or me murder someone next -- you never can tell what he might do -- and there's no way to know whether he might make that poor man murder someone again, either.

And why would you put him in a psychiatric ward, of all places? How can psychiatry possibly help a person when his problem is that Satan made him do something? Psychiatry can't drive Satan away.

Yet you would institutionalize this poor man simply for having been a victim of Satan? That seems grossly unfair.

 

[DarkSun]

All righty, but only really quick.

For instance, why would a God who knows everything and can do everything need to intervene in the universe he set up? There's no logical reason for it. If he knows how it's going to work, and he can make it any way he wants, then he never needs to intervene to change things once he's set it up.

Then there's the fact that there is no evidence for the Christian God other than some people's words for it. That's the most damning evidence against to me.

1 - What if we have free will? Then he would know how everything's going to turn out, but still can't do anything because that would make us a slave.

2 - How is that evidence against it?

3 - Why stick to the Christian God-concept?

 

[DarkSun]

If Satan made him do it, it's not the man himself who's a threat, but Satan. Satan might make you or me murder someone next -- you never can tell what he might do -- and there's no way to know whether he might make that poor man murder someone again, either.

And why would you put him in a psychiatric ward, of all places? How can psychiatry possibly help a person when his problem is that Satan made him do something? Psychiatry can't drive Satan away.

Yet you would institutionalize this poor man simply for having been a victim of Satan? That seems grossly unfair.

Lol.

Yes. Because I don't believe he's right. But I still don't have proof for that belief. So him and I are both justified. Whether I think the whole scenario sounds like BS is irrelevant because that's not what I'm basing the whole "equally justified" on.

 

[Smoke]

Because more people agree with me.

You think it's okay to institutionalize people for holding minority beliefs?

 

[DarkSun]

You think it's okay to institutionalize people for holding minority beliefs?

If those beliefs are harmful to others, and if by minority, you mean two in 6.5 billion people have those beliefs, then yes.

 

[Magic Man]

All right. Let's break it down. When a claim is made, it should come with some evidence. If it doesn't come with evidence, the rational thing to do is doubt it until that evidence is provided. Now, in small claims like black swans in Australia, there can be a lower standard of evidence. In that case, a trusted friend's word can serve as sufficient evidence to believe such a claim (at least until further evidence comes to light).

In cases of fantastic claims, such as an omnimax theistic, interventionalist god existing, the evidence needs to be of a slightly higher standard.

If it's midnight and you and a friend are in your basement where there are no windows or doors to the outside, and your friend tells you that the sun is up, you're not justified in believing him unless he presents some evidence. You're, in fact, irrational for believing him in that instance. He may well be right, but since you've never seen the sun up where you live at midnight in 20+ years of living, and you know how the earth orbits the sun and how the daylight and nighttime work, you are more justified in doubting him. Not every claim is created equal.

 

[imaginaryme]

Thank you for saving me the trouble. My impression of that encounter was that Haggard made himself look like an ***.

The difference being, Haggard is an ***, whereas Dawkins just looked like one.

 

[DarkSun]

I have to go now. Sorry. I'll be back tomorrow.

 

[Magic Man]

1 - What if we have free will? Then he would know how everything's going to turn out, but still can't do anything because that would make us a slave.

Then, he wouldn't be omniscient, and therefore he wouldn't be that version of God.

2 - How is that evidence against it?

Why is what evidence against it? Which part are you referring to?

3 - Why stick to the Christian God-concept?

Because that's the easiest one to poke holes in and the one most often talked about. Why branch out? No one said all god concepts cannot exist, just some, even though you want people like me to have said that no god concept can exist.

 

[Magic Man]

Lol.

Yes. Because I don't believe he's right. But I still don't have proof for that belief. So him and I are both justified. Whether I think the whole scenario sounds like BS is irrelevant because that's not what I'm basing the whole "equally justified" on.

If those beliefs are harmful to others, and if by minority, you mean two in 6.5 billion people have those beliefs, then yes.

This is the most fun I've had in a while. Watching you try to rationalize this is a real treat. You're failing miserably, but at least your failure is providing entertainment.

By the way, what's harmful about the belief that Satan made him do it?

 

[Magic Man]

I have to go now. Sorry. I'll be back tomorrow.

That's ok, just come on back tomorrow, and rationalize away. I can't wait to see what you come up with next.

 

[DarkSun]

This is the most fun I've had in a while. Watching you try to rationalize this is a real treat. You're failing miserably, but at least your failure is providing entertainment.

By the way, what's harmful about the belief that Satan made him do it?

Are you incapable of understanding or just daft?

 

[Magic Man]

Are you incapable of understanding or just daft?

Nope, quite capable, but it is funny and ironic to be accused of something that just happens to be what you're guilty of.

So, what's harmful about a belief that Satan made him murder?

 

[Cobblestones]

It's a confusing life when you cannot decide for yourself what you believe... I wonder what you and I believe then... Let me know if you figure it out.

I'll take a poll of all the really smart people who know what defines an Atheist's belief system - right after I finish my new life-validating mission to make sure Pluto gets upgraded to planet status again.

 

[Cobblestones]

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.

Well stated. And very true, by the bye. I know very few atheists who would look on real evidence of the existence of God and still insist he/she/it is not there. That's not what reasonable people do with evidence. Nor do they make up evidence...

 

[Cobblestones]

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.

As is belief in Peter Pan, periwinkle dragons, and feathered fish... Except that no one ever killed in the name of Peter Pan.

 

[Cobblestones]

Ah, I see you added this little non sequitur. This has nothing to do with feeling superior. It's the way rational people work. When someone makes a claim of a fantastic nature that seems to go against everything we know about the world, the rational person tends to assume it's not true until evidence for its veracity is provided. As in my murder example. The jury isn't equally justified in believing that the murderer was controlled by Satan, which is why they would normally lock the person up.

I thought your analogy was rather good. I don't understand how one could have misunderstood it.