No one is denying that religious experiences exist. I’d suspect many atheists have had them. What we’re saying is that these experience are purely physical, and have nothing to do with any deity. Agreeing that UFO abduction experiences exist does not imply that you believe that ETs are actually responsible for them.
I don’t think Touched by an Angel is a particularly good reason to believe in God. Some assertions can be dismissed out of hand, and some require a bit more research to dismiss. But after you’ve evaluated 89 religious claims and found them to be unfounded, how much effort are we to put into the 90th. I’d think that in a universe with a god, that god would be very obvious, and that each tribe and nation wouldn’t go off inventiong their own mutually contradictory one.
I’d think finding a tribe who recites the Lord’s Prayer in their language (with the proper substitution for sheep) would be a powerful argument for god. Don’t you think the absence of any such case is an argument against?
And if Baal happens to be the right deity you might be in more trouble than me.
tomndebb, maybe we need a version of Godwin’s Law for Pascal’s Wager.
Which way? I’ve always found PW a wonderful arguments AGAINST any particular faith. As Homer Simpson once said (paraphrasing), “What if we’re praying to the wrong God and every time we go to church we’re just pissing him off?”
Just dipping in to comment as an interested bystander here; I just wanted to say I’m sure there must be a better way to word your argument than this, because it really does look like it is teetering on the edge of some kind of inductive fallacy (Note: I’m not saying it is one, only that it looks like one), i.e: Individual examples of X have properties P, Q, therefore, the whole class of X things has properties P, Q.
No, I am saying having the words’In God We Trust" or having public display of one’s religion doesn’t make the country any better. It has just become a fad to say"God Bless You"! It sure hasn’t made the USA any better. Being religious is not necessarily making the world a better place. If people just lived a good life( as most religions teach), and didn’t worry so much if everyone didn’t follow their beliefs (as they are just beliefs not facts) then there would be less arguments.
I use the silly argument( by some) that thier religion is being hijacked because the Tree in December is called a holiday tree,instead of a Christmas tree or the fact that the 10 commandments are not on public display,when they could display them on their church property. Now they are sending e-mails for people to send Christmas cards to the ACLU as if there were no Christian Lawyers in the ACLU. Belief comes from the inner side of a person and if their belief was strong enough they would not worry about having their religion taken away from them!
An example of this thread’s premise was just played out dramatically on the national news. Consider the Amish grandfather praying over the open casket of his slain grandaughter and telling the other children that it’s important that they forgive the person responsible. Those children will almost certainly do what he says without question. although someday they will have to make their own decision about the idea of forgiveness as circumstances arise in their own lives (hopefully not by being challenged with anything that horrific). The fact is, that the process of growing and maturing naturally involves assimilating values and attitudes (whether good or bad) from parents, and eventually a choice is made to accept or reject them for one’s self outside of parental influence. If the parents are successful, by the time children are old enough to make those independent choices, the benefits of the parent’s ways will be apparent against other available choices and the values will be internalized and truly become their own. Other than failures due to parental values that offend the conscience, disasterous failures in this process usually occur when the parents have a hypocritical belief system ie, they fail to actually practice the values they espouse. This invariably leads to confusion, anger, rebellion, and to a rejection of those values a priori (whether the values are good or not). However, IMO, only when the values being imparted are clearly against society’s best interests should this very natural process be termed “brainwashing” (suicide bombers and the Westboro Baptist church come to mind).
The point of the passage to which you are replying is that you were missing my point: That the position of the statement quoted by the OP does not distinguish true beliefs from false beliefs, and that due to this lapse, his position calls into question any belief that is accepted without demand of evidence, unless the fact is basically in agreement with previous experience. In essence, this lapse eliminates the distinctions between beliefs in religion and beliefs in science (excepting in cases where the science does not alter or expand the individual’s worldview).
One presumes that the point of statement quoted in the OP was to use hyperbole, exaggeration, and/or rhetoric to make a point that it. My point is that using such tactics to vilify your opponents opens you to reasonable attack. (And doesn’t do much for the respectability of your position, either.)
Which assertions can be dismissed out of hand? I say we dismiss integration. Never did like integration. Or relativity; that’s just spooky. Let’s dismiss that too.
I’m getting the impression that, merely because I criticize an anti-theistic argument, some people conclude from that that I must be a theist. How…disappointing. Still, if people want me to be a theist, I can play along:
There’s no tribe that I know of that has independently developed relativity. That’s supposed to be a universal concept; and finding a ‘tribe’ that had independently developed it would, I think, be be a powerful argument for it. Is the absence of such a tribe an argument against it?
I would think even a literalist read of the Bible would lead one to believe that the christian God prefers to chat with just a few members of his ‘chosen race’, and hardly ever speaks to anybody outside that race at all. He also clearly doesn’t put much priority in being obvious; he likes people to search for him. (Explanations for this may vary.) So why should anybody expect worship of him to be universal? It’s been universal in scriptures, what, twice? Just around Adam and Noah, right?
Bad arguments irritate me.
Kalhoun, I gotta ask, honestly curious, why would the fact that people actually believe in Religion X be a problem for you? People actually believe in all sorts of crazy things. How can that possible injure an argument that the thing in question is false? I would think you would do your position more damage by telling your opponents to their face that you magically know that they don’t think what they think they think.
I mean, I could see your point if you were arguing that they don’t know. But belief? :dubious:
This corresponds to an argument made by C.S. Lewis in his book “Mere Christianity”. He argued that a clear proof of God’s existence is based on the fact that each individual is born with a conscience, and therefore with the intrinsic ability to sense the difference between right and wrong along with an appropriate sense of guilt when violating it. The presence of such an intrinsic powerful force, universal to mankind, and which must be willfully overcome and deadened to set it aside, was presented by Lewis as an inescapable proof of the existence of a higher power.
Atheist: The only reason anyone believes in God is it’s written in some contradictory and unreliable old book. That’s not good evidence; thus, there is no God. Religious believer: Hey, wait a second. I believe because I met Him. Atheist: You just imagined it.
You could disprove anything with that line of reasoning. Is everyone brainwashed and irrational who isn’t a follower of David Hume?
AFAIK, Lewis’ arguments aren’t a very hard currency around here. This one, for example, contains at least the factual inaccuracy that not every individual appears to be born with a properly functioning conscience; there are congenital psychopaths, for example, and I’m pretty sure there some mentally handicapped folks who are incapable of grasping much in the way of values of right and wrong.
AFAIK, conscience is not actually a big stumper for anthropologists.
Add to Mangetout’s post that even the majority of people, who do have consciences, often still disagree; I have a fully functioning conscience, as do most religious people, as do people from different cultures etc, and yet we all disagree on what is right or wrong, and in what our consciences tell us is right or wrong. Using the existence of a conscience as an argument for God doesn’t really work if all people don’t share one universal conscience.
You missed a couple of steps: Atheist: Bring him around for tea sometime so I can meet him, too.
Credophile: Uh, sorry, ah, … he only talks to me and not to you unbelievers. <Yeah, that’s it! Hehe!> You only have to BELIEVE and he’ll talk to you, too. Btw, I’m sorry you’re going to hell.
There are exceptions that can occur even in the case of absolutes. And it’s quite understandable that a fact showing that 99.99% (or more) of all the people that ever lived on this planet have a characteristic that indicates a higher power formed them, would indeed be some very “hard currency” for those who desperately try to maintain the contrary viewpoint. Your grasping at that .01 is proof positive of one very definite fact - that there is never enough objective proof and never enough personal testimony to convince someone who has simply refused to believe. It’s not that you can’t believe because you haven’t been shown enough evidence, it’s simply that you won’t believe despite the evidence. Sorry to have disturbed your sleep with another fact that you can disregard, I won’t make the same mistake again.
Whoa, wait a minute, since when does " a conscience " indicate that a higher power formed life? (We all have tonsils and an appendix, even the psycopaths.) Seriously though, how about we have a conscience because cavemen who did unconscienable things couldn’t find a mate and continue their lineage?
Sorry for the slight highjack, but it is page 5, and I just couldn’t pass this argument.
If someone observed the end of a conveyor belt that was bringing computers equipped with the same hardware (hardrive, monitor, sound card, etc) it would usually be ample proof that an intelligent designer was at the source of the process. And in the case of human beings, not only is the hardware the same (tonsils,appendix,eyes, arms etc) but even the software (conscience) is the same, yet there are those who fail to acknowledge a creator. Unbelievers indeed have an amazing capactiy to be willfully blind.
Suburban Plankton, thank you for attempting to address the polytheism issue, and sorry for missing it earlier.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t make any sense to me. You say the Bible indicates that there are other gods. So, I’m guessing, you therefore believe that those other gods exist.
The holy books of the gods that you have just admitted you believe exist, say that those gods created the earth, run things, etc. in manners that are often contradictory to the Biblical explanation.
You have used a passage from the Bible to justify the existence of a God that is defined by the Bible, and you have failed to explain why your religion should gain any more credence, and not all the others - other than that you happen to believe the Bible.
Sadly I think your response reveals that you are so wrapped in your own religion, you have a fundamental lack of comprehension of how atheists view all religions, not just yours. The lack of comprehension of atheist thinking isn’t necessarily anathema to the religious. Amongst many others, friends Mangetout, tomndebb and Polycarp are all able to see things from our PoV, yet retain their faith.