I knew he shoulda taken that left turn at Albuquerque.
I’d like to add a point to the general one Der Trihs is making-
I see no reason to believe in god or anything supernatural, and I dismiss it (meaning, I treat it with the same ~0 degree of likelihood) just as I would for any claim of Russell’s Teapot or the invisible pink unicorn.
I make this judgement, as anyone does, based on my own experiences and observations. I think humility is appropriate, though, in this sense: other people have different experiences and observations. When someone tells me that they’ve talked to God, I know it’s very likely that they’re either lying or they hallucinated. If someone says they’ve felt the presence of God, I know it’s very likely that that they’re lying, they hallucinated, or they had some sort of neurological event that made the brain think something special is going on.
I haven’t had any experiences like that. I have no idea what they’re like. I assume that even if I had one, I would recognize that it was probably just synapses and neurological stuff, but I can’t say for sure.
If someone sees a yeti, than they might just have a different perspective on the existence of yetis than I do. It doesn’t necessarily mean that this person is a fool.
I’ve had the experience. I was educated and critical minded enough to understand that it was self-generated.
Perhaps I just don’t like to call people fools. I think it’s from my experience in the Navy- who knows (or even cares) what the beliefs are of the guy that risks his life to pull you out of a fire, but whatever they are, I’m not going to call him a fool!
In all defense, I think that atheists tend to use more subversive tactics, inviting a conversation rather than outright initiating it.
Regardless, the whole problem with any these arguments (and I’ve seen a few examples already in this thread) is that they rely on the interchangeability of “think” and “believe,” or, reason and faith. Both sides try to use reason to change a person’s faith. That will never happen unless a person has bad faith… not to say that they are a bad person, just that they don’t really believe in their beliefs.
Ultimately just about any religion comes down to just being a good person. Atheists can take the same approach. I did, and the down and out born again Christian who was talking to me in the parking lot by my house respected that enough to let it be.
Last thing, FWIW, agnosticism is the most rational religious position, if you believe that “all I know is that I know nothing.” <–but that’s no excuse from living and learning
Because zeus isn’t in The Bible.
I haven’t called anybody a fool, and I’m married to a Christian, but it isn’t atheists who typically have the problem with other people’s beliefs. I was in the Navy too. I remember being forced to pray to Jesus in Boot Camp.
Agnosticism is not a neutral position between belief and non-belief. It’s a position on the evidence, not on belief. One can be both an agnostic and a theist or an atheist.
Having said that, I get tired of this “admit you don’t know,” angle. It’s specious at best. The existence of fairies and the non-existence of fairies do not have an equal chance of being true or deserve equal consideration. The most rational position is to assume that fairies don’t exist unless and until some kind of evidence or necessity is shown to the contrary. There are an infinite number of imaginary entities which can be dreamed up, and the mere ability to imagine them does not automatically give them a 50/50 chance of existence which must be taken seriously.
A lot of theists seem to get really annoyed by “Spaghetti Monster” type analogies, yet they can never give a rational reason why their Canaanite sky god should be taken any more seriously.
I am an atheist who probably knows more about Christianity than most Christians.
I never start debates with Christians, but I do end them.
To the OP: personally, I get involved in debates with xians not to convince the xian, but to address points of fact and logic, so that undecided or wavering third-party observers can have a better basis for any decisions they might be contemplating. I don’t hope to change any particular xian’s mind, but there might be some young (or not-so-young) person reading the thread to whom some of the standard xian boilerplate (Pascal’s Wager, Anselm’s Argument and its variations, Cosmological and Anthropic arguments and various other logical fallacies) is Terra incognita, and they run the risk of falling for them. But if they see them for the poorly-constructed apologetics they actually are, they could be spared that mistake. it’s a public service, really.
I think you’d do well to take your own advice.
That’s precisely what I said.
This is why I find the faux intellectual superiority of atheists to be rather humorous. Perhaps you should go back and try reading? You said that God was created after the universe came into existence. Your ‘evidence’ for this assertion rests on the notion that He was only worshiped after the earth had cooled and life evolved on it. Now what could be the problem with this assertion?
…Oh, wait. I know. You’re assuming that existence is contingent on being worshiped, where one who is worshiped thus exists and one who is not, does not. This is nonsensical, especially as it relates to God, since He exists regardless of whether or not He is worshiped or if there is anyone around to worship Him. If, for example, there is a king in some far off land yet no one has heard of him or knows who he is, he still exists regardless. To say that God only came into existence once humans began worshiping him is as much asinine as it is ridiculous. In fact, it’s not even an argument and/or a rebuttal.
It can? Oh, wait. No it can’t. I direct you back to the semi-facetious exchange we were having regarding this. I’m still waiting for you to submit the 13 animation cells supposedly created by Tex Avery against the wishes of the benevolent master Daffy Duck for analysis.
If you want to get down to it, I provided no argument insomuch as I bothered to humor some of the faux intellectual superiority that typically follows these thread.
Which demonstrates how irrational, baseless and thus worthless religious beliefs are.
Religion isn’t about being a good person, it’s about believing in and following the dogma and rules of the religion regardless of consequences. Being religious is at best about being amoral. Being good is anathema to religion, since being good requires that you take account of the real world, and the real effects of your actions. And yes, religious people can be good - but only by being bad religious people; by being willing to put people and reality above their religion.
As said, no. Agnosticism is sucking up to religion, giving it a privileged position, treating it much more seriously than it deserves. People aren’t agnostic about the existence of Santa Claus; they think an adult who believes in Santa is an idiot.
Keep focusing. I know you can get this…
Actually it is. Your position takes as a given that God not only exists, but created the universe. That’s what you’re trying to argue for. If you take as a given that what you’re arguing for is true, you aren’t really arguing.
Since you evidently have trouble forming logical arguments, you should keep notes.
I’ll turn them over when you provide the tablets the ten commandments were written on.
Don’t you see? The only difference between Daffy and Yaweh is that you’re assuming that Yaweh always existed. That’s a profoundly stupid position to take. It’s so silly that it’s coloring your ability to reason.
Irony!
Look, I can’t make you argue rationally. If you’re dead set against even trying, all I can do is illustrate for the peanut gallery how utterly worthless your arguments are.
You’re really missing the point. The point was not that gods can’t exist unless they’re worshiped, but to show you how weak your own argument against Daffyism was. Why couldn’t Daffy Duck have preexisted Tex Avery and simply “inspired” him at the time of his own Daffy choosing in accordance with his own Daffy plan?
To simplify even further, the point is that any defense you can make for the existence of Bible God can be made for any other imaginary entity as well. The inverse is also true. Any argument you can make against Daffy Duck can also be made against Bible God.
I don’t think all agnosticism is like this, which implies agnosticism means believing there’s a 50/50 chance or something. I say I’m agnostic, but I don’t think any particular religion is more likely than any other- they all have a near zero likelihood, to me.
If you don’t have any god beliefs, you’re an atheist. You may also be an agnostic (if you think the available data is insufficient to to prove or disprove the existence of gods), but that doesn’t mean you’re not also still an atheist.
But the character of Daffy can be shown to change as different people have written his exploits, quite unlike the character of Go…uh, well…
Sorry-I’ve got nothing. Balls back in your court, OaBC.
I’m not sure that the Problem of Evil works against Daffy Duck…
“If Daffy is good, than why does he let bad things happen to little children?”
And because of that, if they weren’t religions you almost certainly wouldn’t claim to be “agnostic” about them; you’d just call them wrong. Calling yourself an agnostic is giving religions special privileges, unless you call yourself an agnostic about *every *idea that can be conceived no matter how ridiculous. Are you agnostic about the claim that you are secretly controlled by an invisible, intangible rubber duck that lives inside your skull? That’s more plausible than pretty much any religion; if you are willing to be agnostic on religion, then you should be agnostic about Skull Ducks.
“Canaanite God, you’re desthpicable!”