PLease read (or reread) the thread, just my posts on this last page should do. We—I—have not been talking about the Christian God. From a post not too long ago:
I have read it, thank you. This thread was about America not trusting atheists, remember? About Christians not trusting atheists. You are the odd one out, inserting a vague concept of what ‘a god’ is or could be, one that is not held by mainstream America. You are taking exeption to an arguement not aimed at you.
I’m not sure I understand you, but let me just point out again that the flip-side of Atheism is not Christianity. It’s Theism, maybe Deism.
No. This is a discussion board, not a “shut up and listen” board.
How about if I asked you poitely to not read any of my posts? Would that work?
Of course not.
No problem. Just thought I’d ask. I’ll just go to Plan B, imperfect as it is.
“!=” means “is not equal to”. It’s convenient symbolism for those who don’t know their Alt+ four digit shortcuts by heart.
If it’s possible for A Thing That Doesn’t Require A Cause to exist, then why can’t the universe itself be just such a thing? Why introduce this new entity – “God” – into the model at all?
You are saying that the analogy is invalid because you, personally, do not believe in The Bearded Sky God.
The Pink Unicorn is aimed at people who do believe in a bearded sky-god. People that can’t grasp that their mythical being can be viewed as just another mythical being, among many.
If you have a different belief, that’s fine but then the IPU is not talking to you.
You are not mainstream America, which is what the OP was talking about, not personal definitions of a vague god that is called “Will”.
When most people talk about God they refer to their own god. Not some nebulous entity at the dawn of time. And if that god can manifest itself as a burning bush or a voice that passes on messages to prophets then it can make itself corpreal and is thus as valid as the Invisible Sky Pixie.
Why is god eternal and not a universe without god? Who created god? We already have the universe, why add more elements to it for which there is no evidence for?
People are the ones who ask why are we here and attempt to answer it with religion. Any discussion an atheist finds himself involved in will most likely involve a person who follows a religion that has a relatively large following. I’m not sure how many converts you have in your congregation? 1, maybe 2 (your pet goldfish?)? Insulting you is not my goal, but your definition of a potential god is far from the mainstream. If it was it probably wouldn’t bother atheists because such a god would have no bearing on our lives and those religionists who insist on trying to enforce their particular beliefs on the rest of us would have no leg to stand on. It is only an entity that can act in our world that could possibly be the god that the vast majority of people follow and thus relegates itself to IPU status. Anything else is irrelevant.
Geez,
This is what happens when you go to lunch before hitting submit: Everyone else has made your point by the time you get back. 
I have relatives who are priests and nuns. According to them you must be Baptized Catholic,have made your first communion, and be in the state of grace, (If you have committed a mortal sin you must go to confession first or you commit a sacrilege). You do not need to be confirmed,First communion comes before confirmation.
Monavis
But I really don’t think such examples are having the effect you intend. I don’t think they’re helping believers in God to understand your point of view; I think they’re making believers think you don’t understand—if you’re being honest and not just trying to ridicule them. When you liken God to a big bearded man in the sky, or a wizard or genie or whatever, a theist is going to say, “Well, if that’s what you think God is, then of course you don’t believe in God. Duh! I don’t believe in anything like that either. If you have such a mistaken idea of what God is, then of course you’re not going to believe in him, and you’d be right not to. You’ve got an overly primitive, simplistic, or just plan wrong notion of what God is, so therefore you have a simplistic or wrong idea of believers in God.”
And, if what you’re really trying to do is to get the other side to see what it feels like to (dis)believe what you do, consider this: Is it really fair or effective, in any kind of argument, to state the opposing position in caricatured terms to try and show your opponents what it looks like not to believe what they believe? Imagine if I were a racist, and I truly believed my “race” was superior to others. And imagine I refer to people of other races as “monkeys” or “chimps” or whatever. Hey, I’m only trying to get you to see how I perceive the issue. I see those “inferior races” the way you see monkeys, as sub-human.
[Please, please, nobody quote me out of context here! Obviously I don’t believe any such thing. Nor do I wish to imply that atheism is in any way as offensive or as ludicrous as racism. I was just trying to come up with an example, extreme though it may be, of the same rhetorical approach applied to a different context.]
And if you then have an a-racist come along and point out that your ‘superior race’ are only just chimps as well, then you would have a valid analogy
I’m sorry but it is you who are exercising the faulty, dumb, and dishonest arguments here. The reality of the earth does not imply the reality of all possible explanations. Please explain why a bearded sky-god, or whatever abstract deity you personally favor, is a better explanation than the invisible pink unicorn. And I’m not being frivolous here, I’m dead serious. I know you can’t demonstrate the difference. I’m sorry if this fact is distasteful to you; it is not my fault that fact is often not as pleasant as fantasy.
You’re still not getting it. From an empirical standpoint the inherent plausibility of your sky god is still exactly the same as it is for the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Analogies like the IPU are not intended to ridicule or caricature the other side so much as they are intended to clarify the terms and parameters of debate. You still haven’t explained why your sky god deserves any more default plausibility than any other god or imaginary being. Incidentally, it desn’t matter if you think God isn’t literally a bearded man in the sky. Defining him more abstractly does not make him any more plausible.
This is an asinine comparison. The comparisons of sky gods to other mythical creatures are not gratuitous and not intended to insult so much as throw light on what has to be proven. A lot of people have never really thought about just how extraordinary a belief in sky gods really is. It bothers you to have that belief compared to beliefs in other kinds of gods or in pixies and so forth but you still can’t really articulate a reason why sky gods should be considered any more likely to exist than volcano gods or why I should take them any more seriously. The brutal truth is that there is just as much evidence for goblins as there is for Yahweh the Sky God.
I’ve seen these comparisons quite a few times on the SDMB. I understand the premise and see it in part as a valid comparison. In other ways I think it is not. To me the question of God or a god, is connected to some very basic questions that occur in many people. Was there something before this physical life? IS there something after? Does my life has a purpose greater than survival and acquisition?
Invisible Pink Unicorns, Pixie’s and such are not connected to those questions. Although Odin and other gods may have been at one time they are no longer.
That’s why I don’t think the comparison is completely valid. I accept that you are completely sincere in your responses to people. If you can’t entertain the possibility of God any more than pixies, can’t you acknowledge that there are still unanswered questions, mysteries yet unsolved, even if for you God is not the answer to any of them?
Please, then, teel us which not flawed argument we should use…
Maybe you aren’t, but many people involved in such discussions are. They’re talking about a god who manifests itself as a burning bush or as a jewish carpenter. They believe that wine is turned into blood. They believe that god is manifesting himself through themselves when they utter an incoherent babble in a church. They beleive in a god whose best friend put image of herself onto underpasses.
then you’re refering to some very vague from of deism or pantheism whose adherents are unlikely to bother atheists. At best. At best because your definition is so vague that there’s a lot of “stuff” that we could then call “god”. If god is just energy, then we could call the univese “god”. If god is only the original cause, then we could call the big bang “god”. If god is something yet to be discovered, then we could have called “god” things like gravitation before it was discovered.
There’s no reason to assume that whatever we’ll discover in the future will be in any way similar to what people usually call god, or the IPU. but if you strech the definition of “god” to include pretty much anything that explains something about the universe, then this debate is pointless, because it has nothing to do with debates happening in real life between atheists and believers.
“I kinda just think it” or “because i’ve been told so” sum up quite well the reason why many people believe in god.
It was a completely arbitrary explanation. There’s zero reason, once again, to assume that the existence of the universe requires a cause and no evidence whatsoever that if it does this cause would have anything to do with what people generally envision when they refer to a god/gods.
What you’re refering to to is a “god of the gaps”. Volataire used to state that the fact pears don’t grow on apple-trees was a valid argument in favor of the existence of a creator. I yet don’t understand something, so i’m going to make up an explanation, I’m going to call it “god” and I’m going to give this “god” various totally arbitrary attributes because it looks better that way.
“I don’t know” is a perfectly acceptable answer, you know. There’s no need to make up one, and I’ve no reason to take you seriously if you do.
Not. It’s not the same at all. Not anymore than gravitation is the same thing as god. Indeed, theorizing dark matter was based on applying deductions to observed facts. Theorizing god is is just making up things up out of thin air without any basis in fact. Except of course, once again, if you stretch the definition of god so much that the word becomes meaningless and can be used for any kind of explanation yet to be discovered, or anything we can’t comprehend.
Believe it or not, few atheists are going to use a “sky pixie” analogy when faced with some kind of extremely vague pantheist belief.
Well, everything, except in quantum physics. The fact that we’re not wired to grasp the concept of an uncaused effect doesn’t mean that such a thing isn’t possible. And if there is a cause, once again, deciding arbitrarily that this cause is anything like what we usually call a god is totally arbitrary. There’s actually no reason to assume that apes with a big brain are actually able to comrehend the Utimate Truth ™, assuming there’s any such thing. If we don’t know, we don’t know, period. Maybe we will someday, maybe we won’t. “I dont understand this big bang stuff so it must be god” is exactly as valid a statement as “I don’t understand this thunder stuff so it must be god”.
And finally, more importantly, god doesn’t answer the question of the ultimate cause. What is the cause of God? Why is there a god rather than nothing? I fail to see how “god” could be an intellectually satisfactory ultimate answer.
Generally speaking if believers actually supported the kind of undefined concept of god you’re discussing, if religious beliefs could be summed up by “I believe there’s actually an ultimate cause of undefined nature” there wouldn’t be many arguments between “religious” people and atheists. I actually suspect that many, if not most, atheists would have to be requalified as “believers” using such a definition. But you know as well as I do that it’s not at all this kind of “religious belief” atheists are faced with. So, what about coming back to earth and actually discussing the actual issues?
{bolding mine}
Here I quite agree. If someone asks or especially if someone has the audacity to preach, then they shouldn’t complain about direct blunt answers. I expect a little mutual respect and consideration. If someone asks politely out of genuine curiosity then I try be honest but not brutally honest. If someone wants to preach or I sense that “slightly superior” attitude, then I tend to be less polite.
That goes for smug believers or non believers.