Dear Atheists, Questions From A "believer"

[Algernon]

Priceguy: I’d have never guessed that English is your second language. English is my first language and I don’t often express myself as well as you have.

Regarding the nuances between illogical and irrational. I confess that the difference may exist in my head alone. Regardless, let me disclose in a little more detail what I mean.

If someone says: X happened; therefore Y is true. (For example: I prayed to God that my father who had a heart attack would live, and my father lived; therefore there is a God who answers prayers.)

I’d say that this is illogical because there is no proven link between X and Y. The expression is illogical. One can’t claim any proof from the “evidence”.

However, I’d claim that it is completely rational to believe that if X happened; that Y is true. I can’t rule out that there might be a link.

Because I cannot prove to that person that their belief in the link between X and Y is a false link, I conclude that their belief is rational, but not necessarily logical.

Does that make sense?

[Dunderman]

*Originally posted by Algernon *
Priceguy: I’d have never guessed that English is your second language. English is my first language and I don’t often express myself as well as you have.

Why thanks.

**If someone says: X happened; therefore Y is true. (For example: I prayed to God that my father who had a heart attack would live, and my father lived; therefore there is a God who answers prayers.)

I’d say that this is illogical because there is no proven link between X and Y. The expression is illogical. One can’t claim any proof from the “evidence”.

However, I’d claim that it is completely rational to believe that if X happened; that Y is true. I can’t rule out that there might be a link.

Because I cannot prove to that person that their belief in the link between X and Y is a false link, I conclude that their belief is rational, but not necessarily logical.

Does that make sense? **

Yes, but if that is the literal meaning of “rational” I’ve been using it wrong for quite some time. I’ve been using it as this sense 3. I don’t consider belief in God, especially not one based on the experience you describe, rational according to that definition.

[Algernon]

(smile) I cannot say you are wrong Priceguy. Based on definition 3 that you linked to, it indeed says “logical” and even points to synonyms to “logical”.

My usage tends to emphasize the other part of definition 3, which is “based on reason”. X does not prove that Y is true, but it is not unreasonable (irrational)to claim that it does.

I have no real argument with you. As I mentioned, the nuance my exist in my head only. You were kind enough to respond to my query for clarification and I attempted to disclose my own reasoning for my need for clarification.

The last thing I want to do is argue semantics.

[blowero]

*Originally posted by IWLN *
**But I really don’t have a “strong opinion of no existence”. I have the same opinion on God that I have on Leprechauns, Gremlins, and The Grinch who stole Christmas, i.e. there’s no evidence that they’re real. Remember that you started this thread specifically to ask questions of atheists. Were someone to start a thread asking “Is the Grinch real?”, I might very well jump in and explain why there’s no Grinch evidence. It’s not like I go around every waking moment thinking about “not God”. There’s really much more to life than that (like wasting time on the internet.;))
Notice that I said "behoove one and not behoove you. Got tired of saying not necessarily you, plural, etc. I really have a problem with being lumped in with “religions” in general so I “try” not to do it to other people. I can’t do the all or none approach on any religion.

Yes, I saw that you used the nonspecific “one” instead of “you”, but that still leaves the question of exactly who it is that you believe has a “stong opinion of no existence”, with which you are contrasting yourself. Is it even possible to have a “strong opinion of no existence?”. It’s almost an oxymoron; how can one have a strong opinion about a thing that doesn’t exist? You would just think it doesn’t exist; how would that get any stronger? One can have a strong opinion about people who believe in things that don’t exist, but I don’t see how one can have a strong opinion about non-existence.

I do have a wait and see attitude; I’ve waited and so far haven’t seen anything.
I think we find out what we need to know when it’s time for us to know.

But to me that just smacks of another argument of convenience. The argument falls flat because it could easily be applied to any non-existant thing. I hate to keep harping on the Santa Claus type examples, but one could just as easily say that Santa Claus will let us know he exists “when it’s time for us to know”. (And if you tell me the jury’s still out for you on Santa Claus, I’m going to have to start questioning your sanity.;)) It simply doesn’t provide any help at all towards answering the question of whether God exists.

And it’s not even good wine.
I’ve never tasted it. People have told me they have never gotten sick from this, while they’re coughing a lung up. I worked in the healthcare field and saw too many bacteria videos. I believe in God and bacteria. I pass on it and just let them go ahead and pray for me.

I always have a little silent chuckle at the churches that use a communal goblet, and wipe the rim with a cloth after each person drinks from it. Yeah, like you can just wipe the germs off.:rolleyes:

I would probably tell them the jury’s still out or you can use the same one I do.

I’m probably getting too nitpicky, but I can’t really say “the jury’s out”. It’s perhaps a subtle distinction, but I think it’s an important one. If overwhelming evidence of God were to appear tomorrow, I would of course change my mind. But that doesn’t mean I’m undecided. I’m quite sure there’s no evidence for God. To use an oft-quoted analogy, apples could start falling UP tomorrow, but today I am sure that they fall down. There is no ambiguity or undecisiveness about it.

[IWLN]

*Originally posted by blowero *

Yes, I saw that you used the nonspecific “one” instead of “you”, but that still leaves the question of exactly who it is that you believe has a “stong opinion of no existence”, with which you are contrasting yourself. Is it even possible to have a “strong opinion of no existence?”. It’s almost an oxymoron; how can one have a strong opinion about a thing that doesn’t exist? You would just think it doesn’t exist; how would that get any stronger? One can have a strong opinion about people who believe in things that don’t exist, but I don’t see how one can have a strong opinion about non-existence.
I’m not going to do a post search, but I have been told quite “firmly” that God is a fairy tale made up by weak and needy people, etc. Seems that some are sure they’re sure. My point was(somewhere way back there), that even if I didn’t believe, I’m not sure I would go the whole route to derisive certainty. I think I know something that you don’t know yet and if you think you know something that I don’t know yet, it doesn’t seem like “them should be fightin’ words.” So what you’re saying is the strong opinion is about “people like me”, not of God’s non-existence. Did that make sense?

But to me that just smacks of another argument of convenience. The argument falls flat because it could easily be applied to any non-existant thing. I hate to keep harping on the Santa Claus type examples, but one could just as easily say that Santa Claus will let us know he exists “when it’s time for us to know”. (And if you tell me the jury’s still out for you on Santa Claus, I’m going to have to start questioning your sanity.;)) It simply doesn’t provide any help at all towards answering the question of whether God exists.
No, it’s only a theory on why some people believe and others don’t. Definitely not an anwer to anything. BTW I still haven’t told my parents I don’t believe in Santa. My older siblings bribed me not to tell, so we could keep getting extra presents. So don’t tell my mom. You’ll have to get in line to question my sanity. There are many before you. An aside, totally irrelevent to anything, but are there any stats on whether there are more male or female atheists?

I always have a little silent chuckle at the churches that use a communal goblet, and wipe the rim with a cloth after each person drinks from it. Yeah, like you can just wipe the germs off.:rolleyes:
UGH!!! I thought about bring an alcohol wipe, but I don’t think they’d go for it.

**I’m probably getting too nitpicky, but I can’t really say “the jury’s out”. It’s perhaps a subtle distinction, but I think it’s an important one. If overwhelming evidence of God were to appear tomorrow, I would of course change my mind. But that doesn’t mean I’m undecided. I’m quite sure there’s no evidence for God. To use an oft-quoted analogy, apples could start falling UP tomorrow, but today I am sure that they fall down. There is no ambiguity or undecisiveness about it. **
Just trying to help. How 'bout. “I have a complex combination of beliefs and I’m also an Amway distributor. If you have an evening free, say 4 or 5 hours, I’ll come over and explain them both to you.” That should end the conversation. Didn’t think you were undecided and after I thought about it “the jury’s still out” is like asking them to witness. Bad choice. IWLN

[IWLN]

*Originally posted by Priceguy *

I’m starting to believe you’re insincere in this debate. I gave you an example of a good action with an irrational cause, to answer your question. That’s all it was. What a real Christian nurse, or rather a nurse you’d accept as Christian, would do is besides the point.
I know you’re possesive about your examples, so I’ll try to be more careful. You’re assigning motivations to fit your preconceived notion that “believers” are simply obeying commands and the atheist just does it out of the goodness of her heart. If you know God, you still are motivated by wanting to do good for people based on your own values. So are there any statistics on whether there are more Nurse A’s or Nurse B’s in Africa?

Let’s try again. Nurse A is an Atheist and goes to Africa to help sick children because she wants them to get better. Nurse B is a Snyervalian, worshipper of the great God Snyerv. She believes that Snyerv commands her to help sick children even though she doesn’t care about them, so she too goes to Africa to help sick children. The second action, provided they do an equally good job, is equally good as the first, even though it has an irrational base. OK?
Do you read your own posts. Do you know how ridiculous this sounds?

Circular logic. They believe just as strongly as you do, have as few doubts as you do, know with as much certainty as you do. You’re not close to demonstrating a difference.
They believe in their hate, not God. Let’s put it another way for you. If Nurse A goes to Africa and feels like the best way to help these children is a lethal injection; tell me what that has to do with being an Atheist, even if she lies and says it’s part of her Atheist mission. Your focus is on the relative minority that do bad and say it’s from God. You discount all the people who are willingly doing good and are better people because of their belief.

Prove it then. Or show even a hint of evidence.
Pass, but thanks for asking.

Because I couldn’t believe you’d be so far in error after I spent several posts explaining to you that I emphatically did not care about William of Occam. Take it as a compliment.
I’m having a hard time with the credibility of the issuer of the compliment.

I said nothing about a personal attack. I just said you lied about me. If I were to say “you’re an Atheist”, that would be a lie. You’d be right to call me on that.
No I brought up the personal attack. Calling someone a liar is an attack, not a good debate skill. Me an Atheist, I’ve never been so insulted, take it back.

Irrelevant. Explain why it’s not logical to assume nonexistence until evidence points otherwise.
There are billions of things that I don’t know exist, but have heard of. My logical assumption would be to wait until I get more information.

My ego? You asked me why I said God didn’t exist. I never have. What does that have to with my ego?
Because you said you were logical and believe it’s logical to assume non-existence. You have a talent for shortening a question and only answering what you want to. Again, do you believe name calling is a rational part of debate?

What Santa thing? Please answer my question. Do you say Santa Claus doesn’t exist?
I say your sense of humor left when your belief in him did.

Pure opinion. Why do these people hate? Rational reasons?
Hate isn’t rational or the primary emotion. It’s usually based on fear or hurt. I don’t have a rational reason for an irrational emotion. I can play pretend psychiatrist, but some people are evil simply because they have no good in them.
Elaborate.
God is the big guy, divine power. Can’t really give a good name for a being you don’t think exists. Religion is based strictly on how different groups of people perceive him and interpret what they think their purpose is with him. It contains people who really believe in God, people who don’t really know, but have been brought up in the habit of church going and people who really need something and are trying to figure out what “it” is. Religion is not all good or all bad. It is implemented by man, so has it’s faults.

Here’s my comment: Yes, Marx did talk about the good of the group. So do I. So?
Just sounded a little creepy. The good of the group, whether they want it or not. Opinion only.

So because perfect success is unlikely we shouldn’t even try?
No success because there is no one capable of using “pure reason or logic”. Man can be somewhat objective about some issues, but still brings his upbringing and life history into it. Most people think they are very reasonable. Their point of reference can never be the same as the next guys.
I don’t understand this, sorry.
Maybe I don’t get it. Can’t you take the razor and substitute the likeliness of God’s existence with the likeliness of “pure reason”?

Says who? Why would this be impossible? Besides, who says we need it?
If you don’t have a “worldwide standard” for your pure logic or reason dream, then you have just what you already have. All opinions and degrees of logic or reason. Welcome to my world.

Try me. Please.
Yah, you’ve been such a good friend, so patient, so kind. PASS!

Let’s see… a situation that exists independently of the meddling of living creatures? A basic fact of existence as we know it? They’re pretty close to what I mean.
I am completely lost on the point of this one. Recap?

And why do people fear gays?
It seems to be human nature for many people to fear or be repelled by any one they consider very different from themselves. We(plural) are typically more comfortable with people most like ourselves. That’s why homophobia, racism, exclusionary religion exist. Many are also very uncomfortable around deformities, injuries, handicaps, etc. IMHO this came from our evolutionary process. Animals sometimes do the same thing to each other. We should be able to use some of that reason or rationale to get over this and maybe we are, it’s just very gradual.

Do you believe in controlled studies? Do you think untested medicines should be available for sale?
Yes. Maybe, depends on the severity of what they’re needed for. If you’re dying and FDA meds aren’t helping, they should be available. I have heart damage from an FDA approved drug though and homeopathic medicine never hurt me. No guarantees of safety after controlled studies. I’ll bet they use the Razor.

I’m talking about the way I want the world to be. I’m not laying out a plan for world conquest.
Okay, I was just doing a reality check.

Yes it does. Belief in God is irrational.
I would agree. If you don’t know he exists, belief is rational.

Decreased church attendance and involvement doesn’t indicate increased rationality directly. If people ditch Christianity and join the Shirley MacLaine crowd, that’s not a good development. I’d rather see them in a liberal church.
So attending church doesn’t make you irrational. Irrational people attend church?

Go back two hundred years and try to find ten white guys who’ll happily have a black guy as a colleague. Then go back to now and do the same. When was it easier, do you think?
I agree on that. New laws didn’t change racism, but familiarity has helped.

They can have the same job today. They are paid. Huge improvement. And it’s getting better.
Sort of. The good news is we can do the same jobs. The bad news is less pay and generally women still do most of the work at home too.

Nope. I’m not pushing anyone, forcing anyone, inhibiting anyone’s religious freedom. It’s no conspiracy. Religion will just slowly become outdated and uninteresting, just like belief in elves and leprechauns.
Hasn’t worked so far. I have a feeling religion fluctuates too, depending on world events. I couldn’t even get a seat in church after 9-11.

**Rationals spreading the word. It’s the only way the world has progressed so far; it’s the only way it’ll keep progressing. **
If you really think this is a worthwhile mission, you would do it non-aggressively and limit your parallels with Santa, leprechauns, IPU’s, mass murderers, hate crimes, spoon benders, psychics, etc. People will listen to reason when it’s presented reasonably. You’ll never impact someone who has true belief in God, even if you believe it’s irrational, they’re not going to embrace your philosophy. IWLN

[blowero]

*Originally posted by IWLN *
I’m not going to do a post search, but I have been told quite “firmly” that God is a fairy tale made up by weak and needy people, etc.

Well I’m not going to get into defending what other people said, especially if I don’t even know what it was they did say.

Seems that some are sure they’re sure. My point was(somewhere way back there), that even if I didn’t believe, I’m not sure I would go the whole route to derisive certainty.

I agree; there’s no reason to be derisive, although my sense of irony is tingling just a bit at the hint of derisive certainty in your very first post (i.e. I’ve got the ‘I’m going to Disneyland’ feeling and you don’t.) I don’t think you meant to be derisive, but I can see how someone might interpret it that way.

But to me that just smacks of another argument of convenience. The argument falls flat because it could easily be applied to any non-existant thing. I hate to keep harping on the Santa Claus type examples, but one could just as easily say that Santa Claus will let us know he exists “when it’s time for us to know”. (And if you tell me the jury’s still out for you on Santa Claus, I’m going to have to start questioning your sanity.;)) It simply doesn’t provide any help at all towards answering the question of whether God exists.
No, it’s only a theory on why some people believe and others don’t.

Actually, I don’t think that even qualifies as a theory. It’s really just utter conjecture.

Definitely not an anwer to anything.

O.K., that I agree with.

I’m probably getting too nitpicky, but I can’t really say “the jury’s out”. It’s perhaps a subtle distinction, but I think it’s an important one. If overwhelming evidence of God were to appear tomorrow, I would of course change my mind. But that doesn’t mean I’m undecided. I’m quite sure there’s no evidence for God. To use an oft-quoted analogy, apples could start falling UP tomorrow, but today I am sure that they fall down. There is no ambiguity or undecisiveness about it. **
Just trying to help.

Well I certainly appreciate the thought.

[GodlessSkeptic]

*Originally posted by IWLN *
**I know you’re possesive about your examples, so I’ll try to be more careful. You’re assigning motivations to fit your preconceived notion that “believers” are simply obeying commands and the atheist just does it out of the goodness of her heart. If you know God, you still are motivated by wanting to do good for people based on your own values. So are there any statistics on whether there are more Nurse A’s or Nurse B’s in Africa?

**

Numbers of atheists vs. numbers of theistic nurses in Africa is irrelevant unless you are putting forth an ad numeri argument.

IF your motivation to do “good” still comes from “your own values” then what exactly do you need God for? In another thread you suggested the exact opposite, that people could have no values without God.

**They believe in their hate, not God.

**
There’s that “no true Scottsman” fallacy again. Those same militant fundementalists can argue that “Those christians believe in their own egotism. They do not follow the word of God.”

** Let’s put it another way for you. If Nurse A goes to Africa and feels like the best way to help these children is a lethal injection; tell me what that has to do with being an Atheist, even if she lies and says it’s part of her Atheist mission.

**
Bad analogy. Atheists can have no “mission” that is not part of something outside of atheism which they may subscribe to. Atheism has no tenets, doctrines, codified behaviors, etc… It is simply “without belief in gods”. If she lied and said such a thing that would more than likely make her a fundementalist theist of some sort. The thing is there are millions of God-fearing people throughout history who have done(and will continue to do) atrocious things as a direct result of their religiouys convictions.

I have yet to hear of an individual commiting atrocity because his lack of god-belief commands him to.

** Your focus is on the relative minority that do bad and say it’s from God. You discount all the people who are willingly doing good and are better people because of their belief.**

1)Hard to comment on the “relative minority” bit. It is a “relative minority” of Islamic fundementalists who are commiting atrocious acts but I still believe the belief system itself is a bad thing for humanity.

2)People who will willingly do good will do so regardless of whether they are indoctrinated into religion. They will do good out of liberal idealism, patriotism, secular humanism or just palin concern for fellow man. They do good IN SPITE of religion, not because of it.

Prove it then. Or show even a hint of evidence.
Pass, but thanks for asking.

**There are billions of things that I don’t know exist, but have heard of. My logical assumption would be to wait until I get more information. **

The rational thinker still makes decisions about the likelihood of existential claims based upon the evidence supporting those claims. We have mountains of evidence to support the existence of gravity, evolution, matter itself and lawyers. We judge the existence of these things to be as close to certain as we can get.
We have NO rational justification for fairies, gods, extra-terrestrial visitors, or ghosts. We judge those things to be as close to impossible as we can safely say. We have very little evidence for the existence of sasquatch, liberal media bias or compassionate conservatives so we judge these things to be slightly more plausible than the gods and fairies but still unlikely.

**

Hate isn’t rational or the primary emotion. It’s usually based on fear or hurt. I don’t have a rational reason for an irrational emotion. I can play pretend psychiatrist, but some people are evil simply because they have no good in them.

**
1)Hate is just as rational as love.

2)No emotions are rational/irrational. Love/joy do not get a free pass here because I find them more pleasant than anger/hate.

3)Evil is a subjective notion/quality. People are not evil because they lack some objective “good”. They are “evil”(to YOU or to ME) because what they do is at odds with YOUR/MY subjective morality.

**
God is the big guy, divine power. Can’t really give a good name for a being you don’t think exists. Religion is based strictly on how different groups of people perceive him and interpret what they think their purpose is with him. It contains people who really believe in God, people who don’t really know, but have been brought up in the habit of church going and people who really need something and are trying to figure out what “it” is. Religion is not all good or all bad. It is implemented by man, so has it’s faults.

**
Ignoring the various bald assertions about God for the moment, religion’s net contribution is a negative one IMO because anything beneficial that can be had with religion can still be had without religion but religion ALWAYS comes with the potential for REALLY bad stuff. There is no more powerful motivator or justification for inflicting harm and suffering on others than religion. In short, even if no churches existed we would still likely have soup kitchens and YES we would still have atrocity BUT we would lack the most powerful motivation/justification for atrocity. It is relatively easy to convince people that God commands them to subjugate and murder others but it is a bit harder to convince people that we should murder millions for the love of polka music.
I should further add that “worshipped as a god, IS a god” so Stalinists were not atheists since they worshipped Stalin as a divine emporer. In this context atheists are those who do not willingly worship gods, be they small idols, the sun, or divine emporers.

**No success because there is no one capable of using “pure reason or logic”. Man can be somewhat objective about some issues, but still brings his upbringing and life history into it. **

That is precisely what skepticism/critical thinking guards against. SKepticism can be thought of as a system of checks and balances to keep ourt personal biases in line while examining our reality.

**
Maybe I don’t get it. Can’t you take the razor and substitute the likeliness of God’s existence with the likeliness of “pure reason”?

**

OR simply states that we do not unnecessarily multiply our entities for explanation. God is not needed to explain anything(yet) about the universe so invoking God is like saying automobiles MUST have genies in their gas tanks.

**Yes. Maybe, depends on the severity of what they’re needed for. If you’re dying and FDA meds aren’t helping, they should be available. I have heart damage from an FDA approved drug though and homeopathic medicine never hurt me. No guarantees of safety after controlled studies. I’ll bet they use the Razor.

**
Sorry but all studies and independent tests show us that homepopathic remedies do absolutely nothing. Even if there were some undiscovered benefit to ingesting ground spider’s legs, when you dilute these ingredients until they are totally inert you have something less than snake oil. When you throw your rational faculties out the window and start handing your money over to snake oil salesmen, you hurt or help to hurt EVERYONE by empowering con-artists. Like it or not most people do not do a lot of critical thinking. WHat they believe is largely what the world tells them to believe and when they see Shark Cartiledge advertised as a cure for cancer and they go to a quack-doctor who prescribes Shark Cartiledge for their cancer they are giving money to thieves that could have gone to charity, cancer research, their children etc. and the quacks have that much more money to reinvest in their ever-growing empire. More infomercials means more poor saps who will give more money to more psychic surgeons/ snake-oil salesmen/therapeutic touch specialists.

I would agree. If you don’t know he exists, belief is rational.

This is backwards. If you do not know god exists and the inference is unwarranted then belief in such things is irrational, period. Again, you have to look at the likelihood. If there is no rational justification…nothing more than anecdotes to support the existence of God then belief in him is no more rational than belief that the earth is flat.

**
So attending church doesn’t make you irrational. Irrational people attend church?

**

No. You are assuming people are either wholly rational or wholly irrational. We all, at one time or another hold irrational beliefs. The lucky few discover skepticism and are able to trim away a good deal of these irrational convictions. An atheist can be totally rational about whether God exists but totally irrational as to the existence of psychics or crop circle manifestations.

**
Hasn’t worked so far. I have a feeling religion fluctuates too, depending on world events. I couldn’t even get a seat in church after 9-11.**

And many churches could no longer fill their seats after 9-11.

**
If you really think this is a worthwhile mission, you would do it non-aggressively and limit your parallels with Santa, leprechauns, IPU’s, mass murderers, hate crimes, spoon benders, psychics, etc. People will listen to reason when it’s presented reasonably. You’ll never impact someone who has true belief in God, even if you believe it’s irrational, they’re not going to embrace your philosophy. IWLN **

Exactly. Just as we will not convince people who truly believe in psychics by comparing psychics to “silly god beliefs” and we will not convince UFOlogists that there claims are irrational by comparing them to “ridiculous theism”. You are assuming that theism holds some default degree of rationality over these other claims. It doesn’t.

[Dunderman]

*Originally posted by IWLN *
Do you know how ridiculous this sounds?

That’s not the point. For the eleventeenth time: you asked me if actions not based on reason are always destructive and worthless. I said no, and used an example to explain why. That’s it.

If Nurse A goes to Africa and feels like the best way to help these children is a lethal injection; tell me what that has to do with being an Atheist, even if she lies and says it’s part of her Atheist mission. Your focus is on the relative minority that do bad and say it’s from God. You discount all the people who are willingly doing good and are better people because of their belief.

No I’m not. They’re there. It’s just that religion turns some people good and some people bad, if you want to use those words. Flawless reason does good, not bad. That’s why it’s better.

**There are billions of things that I don’t know exist, but have heard of. My logical assumption would be to wait until I get more information. **

Why?

I say your sense of humor left when your belief in him did.

Please answer my question. Do you say Santa doesn’t exist?

I can play pretend psychiatrist, but some people are evil simply because they have no good in them.

Don’t you realise that “evil” and “good” are arbitrary assignations with no counterparts in reality? They’re just abstracts.

Just sounded a little creepy. The good of the group, whether they want it or not.

Not whether they want it or not, as you should know by now. Rational people will choose it wilfully.

Maybe I don’t get it. Can’t you take the razor and substitute the likeliness of God’s existence with the likeliness of “pure reason”?

Ah. You think I should declare pure reason nonexistent via Occam’s Razor. I get it now.

The difference is that God either exists or doesn’t. Pure reason can be created,

I am completely lost on the point of this one. Recap?

You asked me to define natural law. I did.

It seems to be human nature for many people to fear or be repelled by any one they consider very different from themselves. We(plural) are typically more comfortable with people most like ourselves. That’s why homophobia, racism, exclusionary religion exist. Many are also very uncomfortable around deformities, injuries, handicaps, etc.

Due to irrational emotions or prejudices fed to them during their childhood. If you grow up being told that God hates gays, and you do not develop to be rational, you’ll believe it, and hate gays.

So attending church doesn’t make you irrational. Irrational people attend church?

I didn’t say that attending church doesn’t make you irrational. I said that not attending church doesn’t make you rational.

Sort of. The good news is we can do the same jobs. The bad news is less pay and generally women still do most of the work at home too.

Correct, but I wasn’t trying to prove we have a perfect world, just that it has improved, which you denied.

Hasn’t worked so far. I have a feeling religion fluctuates too, depending on world events.

It’s working fine. Religion’s place in the world is much smaller today than a thousand years ago. Many more are rationals now. And today, it is safe, even legal, to say you’re an Atheist.

If you really think this is a worthwhile mission, you would do it non-aggressively and limit your parallels with Santa, leprechauns, IPU’s, mass murderers, hate crimes, spoon benders, psychics, etc.

No. They’re good examples of why irrationality is bad, why belief in God is irrational, and so on.

What it gets down to here is this: you keep claiming you have proof God does exist, but refuse to tell me, with new excuses every time. And yet you use this proof as an excuse not to apply Occam’s Razor to God, expecting me to somehow accept that. With your logic, I can say I have proof God doesn’t exist but won’t show it to you. Should that really influence this debate?

[IWLN]

*Originally posted by blowero *

Well I’m not going to get into defending what other people said, especially if I don’t even know what it was they did say.
I agree; there’s no reason to be derisive, although my sense of irony is tingling just a bit at the hint of derisive certainty in your very first post (i.e. I’ve got the ‘I’m going to Disneyland’ feeling and you don’t.) I don’t think you meant to be derisive, but I can see how someone might interpret it that way.
It doesn’t really matter anyway, it’s just puzzling. I re-worded that damn go to Disneyland question a dozen times. I know you don’t know me, but I don’t have a derisive bone in my body. Well maybe for one poster here, but hey I’m human. I am excited about the thought of an afterlife, new discoveries. It’s not why I believe, but it is something I look forward to. I was genuinely trying to figure out how the person on the flip side viewed things. My first attempt was to compare it to how some music makes me feel, really full and joyous and I wasn’t talking about church music. But I didn’t know how to really describe that either. I finally gave up and went with Disneyland, should have just left it out or left how I felt about it out. Sometimes examples are unwise.

Actually, I don’t think that even qualifies as a theory. It’s really just utter conjecture.
More like hopeful thinking. If I get to go to “Disneyland”, I want everyone to go. The God that I know seems like a loving, fair kind of being, so shouldn’t be a problem, right. I don’t think it could be heaven if I thought there were people in hell, so I’m voting for the whole suffer for eternity thing being an Old Testament scare tactic. So yes I did word the question bad, but didn’t mean what it sounded like. I’m sorry, I’m sorry, I’m sorry…

O.K., that I agree with.
Well, one out of three is better than batting zero.

**Well I certainly appreciate the thought. **
Have to amuse myself someway and since I was hi-jacked by an Amway distributor in my own home under the guise of a social evening, it made me think of a witness hi-jack. IWLN

[blowero]

*Originally posted by IWLN *
It doesn’t really matter anyway, it’s just puzzling. I re-worded that damn go to Disneyland question a dozen times. I know you don’t know me, but I don’t have a derisive bone in my body. Well maybe for one poster here, but hey I’m human. I am excited about the thought of an afterlife, new discoveries. It’s not why I believe, but it is something I look forward to. I was genuinely trying to figure out how the person on the flip side viewed things

I understand that; I was just suggesting that sometimes, stating one’s views may seem derisive when it’s not. I’m not saying that none of the atheists in this thread are being derisive; a couple obviously are. But I think there are some things that theists tend to wrongly interpret as being derisive. For example, when we compare God-belief to Santa Claus-belief, it’s not to make fun of you, it’s an attempt to get you to look outside your belief system and imagine what it’s like for someone for whom God doesn’t have a special emotional standing in our consciousness. Theists often claim they want to understand our point of view, but it’s often really hard to get them to imagine their God on a level playing field with all other unproven ideas. But that’s exactly how atheists view it. It’s not derisiveness; it’s just our point of view.

Another example is when theists offer their evidence for God. I understand that it’s an intensely emotional and personal thing for you, but for us it’s not. So if we tell you why your personal evidence is unconvincing to us, it’s not to make fun of you, it’s to explain our point of view. If you can’t offer evidence that’s any more convincing than that for Santa Claus, then it doesn’t convince us. It’s not a joke, and it’s not a taunt; it’s just the plain truth.

So while I understand that some people may have said some derisive things to you, it’s not a generalization you can make about all atheists. That’s why I was a little taken aback when you contrasted your beliefs with this “derisive certainty”.

[IWLN]

*Originally posted by blowero *

I understand that; I was just suggesting that sometimes, stating one’s views may seem derisive when it’s not. I’m not saying that none of the atheists in this thread are being derisive; a couple obviously are. But I think there are some things that theists tend to wrongly interpret as being derisive. For example, when we compare God-belief to Santa Claus-belief, it’s not to make fun of you, it’s an attempt to get you to look outside your belief system and imagine what it’s like for someone for whom God doesn’t have a special emotional standing in our consciousness. Theists often claim they want to understand our point of view, but it’s often really hard to get them to imagine their God on a level playing field with all other unproven ideas. But that’s exactly how atheists view it. It’s not derisiveness; it’s just our point of view.
I agree. In general the response is incredulous, not derisive. I can completely understand the first one and have actually been able to see the point. I really hadn’t stepped back and thought about how a belief in God would seem to someone who didn’t believe. I had always just thought, how can “they” not. Didn’t change my belief, but gave me new perspective.

Another example is when theists offer their evidence for God. I understand that it’s an intensely emotional and personal thing for you, but for us it’s not. So if we tell you why your personal evidence is unconvincing to us, it’s not to make fun of you, it’s to explain our point of view. If you can’t offer evidence that’s any more convincing than that for Santa Claus, then it doesn’t convince us. It’s not a joke, and it’s not a taunt; it’s just the plain truth.
Although the Santa Claus comparison didn’t bother me, I think that it just doesn’t do the trick. Santa doesn’t have a few billion followers, ancient manuscript etc. I know it’s useful because everyone knows who he is, but hard to find the parallels after that.

**So while I understand that some people may have said some derisive things to you, it’s not a generalization you can make about all atheists. That’s why I was a little taken aback when you contrasted your beliefs with this “derisive certainty”. **

I didn’t think I was making it about all atheists or even most. I understand how someone can “not” believe, I was just saying I didn’t understand where the snotty part comes from. Why there is an emotion behind it? I think we can be offended by actions, but beliefs shouldn’t inspire that. Again, I think almost everyone here has been very patient and helpful and I have learned a lot. I do appreciate your honesty. IWLN

[blowero]

*Originally posted by IWLN *
Although the Santa Claus comparison didn’t bother me, I think that it just doesn’t do the trick. Santa doesn’t have a few billion followers, ancient manuscript etc. I know it’s useful because everyone knows who he is, but hard to find the parallels after that.

We’re kind of getting hung up on this one point, but I can’t really let that go unchallenged. Let’s take your points one at a time:

First, the number of followers is unconvincing. That’s known as argumentum ad populum, the fallacy of believing a proposition based only on the number of adherents. This is easily demostrated to be fallacious by looking at other ideas known to be false. For example, there was a time when almost everyone thought that the Earth was flat, which we now know is incorrect. Did the large number of people who believed it make it true? No. Argumentum ad populum is simply not a rational way to determine the veracity of a proposition. Also consider that while there may be billions of Christians, there are also billions of Muslims, and millions? of Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. whose beliefs directly contradict those of Christians. The tenets of each religion do not agree, so there are quite obviously things that lots of people believe that cannot be true. Two ideas that contradict one another cannot both be true. And finally, consider that millions of children believe in Santa Claus. If mere adherence to an idea makes it true, then we would have to consider that as evidence for Santa Claus.

Now let us take the ancient manuscripts. Frankly, I’m surprised you brought it up, since you have already conceded that they are unreliable. If we are allowed to use admittedly unreliable stories as evidence, I could provide plenty of stories about Santa Claus. In fact, if we have no standards as to the reliability of documents, and are simply allowed to arbitrarily decide which ones to believe, I could prove that the “Cat In the Hat” is a real cat. As a matter of fact, a walking, talking cat seems more likely to be possible than an invisible, all-powerful being capable of effecting changes to the universe while we remain unable to physically detect these changes.

So we can easily dismiss both of your reasons for treating God differently than Santa Claus, leaving us with the only difference being that you believe in one and not the other.

I was just saying I didn’t understand where the snotty part comes from. Why there is an emotion behind it?

O.K., fair enough - you’ll have to ask them. I would have the same question for snotty theists; if one believes in a God who ostensibly teaches love, where does the snottyness come from?

[IWLN]

*Originally posted by GodlessSkeptic *

Numbers of atheists vs. numbers of theistic nurses in Africa is irrelevant unless you are putting forth an ad numeri argument.
Since there are so many organized “religious” programs to provide help in other countries, just trying to point out that religion can have a positive side, even to someone who seems to think it is all bad.

IF your motivation to do “good” still comes from “your own values” then what exactly do you need God for? In another thread you suggested the exact opposite, that people could have no values without God.
You’re going to have to cite that thread, because I absolutely, beyond any doubt have stated that you can have good values without God. So either I said something incorrectly or you read it wrong. I don’t need God to function as my moral police.

There’s that “no true Scottsman” fallacy again. Those same militant fundementalists can argue that "Those christians believe in their own egotism. They do not follow the word of God."
There’s that reference to the Scottsman that somehow absolves you from answering questions, or forming your own opinions.

Bad analogy. Atheists can have no “mission” that is not part of something outside of atheism which they may subscribe to. Atheism has no tenets, doctrines, codified behaviors, etc… It is simply “without belief in gods”. If she lied and said such a thing that would more than likely make her a fundementalist theist of some sort. The thing is there are millions of God-fearing people throughout history who have done(and will continue to do) atrocious things as a direct result of their religiouys convictions.
No it is a good analogy. Don’t you get it, the atheist nurse can do something atrocious and blame it on whatever she chooses(her atheist beliefs or whatever), she is obviously lying about her motivation. The “Christian” who blames or credits God for his crime is also lying. His religious teachings also tell him not to kill, so they are not the cause of his actions either. You have to know they’re lying, since you believe there’s not a God, you are pretty sure He hasn’t been communicating with the killer.

I have yet to hear of an individual commiting atrocity because his lack of god-belief commands him to.
No, his lack of respect for human life and his value system is to blame, just like the Christian.

1)Hard to comment on the “relative minority” bit. It is a “relative minority” of Islamic fundementalists who are commiting atrocious acts but I still believe the belief system itself is a bad thing for humanity.
Violence was not in the original basics of their religious beliefs. Again, religion or God is the scapegoat, not the cause.

2)People who will willingly do good will do so regardless of whether they are indoctrinated into religion. They will do good out of liberal idealism, patriotism, secular humanism or just palin concern for fellow man. They do good IN SPITE of religion, not because of it.
I agree that they will do good whether they are religious or not, but since most religions encourage charity and have set up systems to implement it, religion can give people more opportunities to help.

The rational thinker still makes decisions about the likelihood of existential claims based upon the evidence supporting those claims. We have mountains of evidence to support the existence of gravity, evolution, matter itself and lawyers. We judge the existence of these things to be as close to certain as we can get.
We have NO rational justification for fairies, gods, extra-terrestrial visitors, or ghosts. We judge those things to be as close to impossible as we can safely say. We have very little evidence for the existence of sasquatch, liberal media bias or compassionate conservatives so we judge these things to be slightly more plausible than the gods and fairies but still unlikely.
I do make decisions or form opinions like you do, but if there is an assertion with no proof, I don’t immediately assume it’s false.

1)Hate is just as rational as love.
Hate that causes destructive behavior or bad health is irrational.

2)No emotions are rational/irrational. Love/joy do not get a free pass here because I find them more pleasant than anger/hate.
We were talking about an emotion that fueled an action. If you prefer, hate caused an irrational response.

3)Evil is a subjective notion/quality. People are not evil because they lack some objective “good”. They are “evil”(to YOU or to ME) because what they do is at odds with YOUR/MY subjective morality.
I agree that it can be subjective. But do think some are truly evil because they have no good in them.

Ignoring the various bald assertions about God for the moment, religion’s net contribution is a negative one IMO because anything beneficial that can be had with religion can still be had without religion but religion ALWAYS comes with the potential for REALLY bad stuff. There is no more powerful motivator or justification for inflicting harm and suffering on others than religion. In short, even if no churches existed we would still likely have soup kitchens and YES we would still have atrocity BUT we would lack the most powerful motivation/justification for atrocity. It is relatively easy to convince people that God commands them to subjugate and murder others but it is a bit harder to convince people that we should murder millions for the love of polka music.
I should further add that “worshipped as a god, IS a god” so Stalinists were not atheists since they worshipped Stalin as a divine emporer. In this context atheists are those who do not willingly worship gods, be they small idols, the sun, or divine emporers.
You still don’t get that God has nothing to do with murdering people. People murder to attain their own goals, their own sense of justice or just because they get a rush out of it. The most powerful motivator for atrocity is emotional and financial. If poof all religion was gone tomorrow, the people who are killing, etc. today would find a new reason for it. And you wouldn’t have as many soup kitchens either. Sure there would still be people helping people, but without those systems in place now, it would be a lot less likely. Oprah just can’t do it all.

That is precisely what skepticism/critical thinking guards against. SKepticism can be thought of as a system of checks and balances to keep ourt personal biases in line while examining our reality.
Was just disagreeing on the notion of “pure reason”. It’s not attainable, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t come as close as we can, but should not fool ourselves into thinking the “pure” part is attainable.

OR simply states that we do not unnecessarily multiply our entities for explanation. God is not needed to explain anything(yet) about the universe so invoking God is like saying automobiles MUST have genies in their gas tanks.
OR can determine that nothing has linked God with the universe. OR can not state that God does not exist. Ir you know God, you can’t discard him as unnecessary, even if you don’t have all the facts.

Sorry but all studies and independent tests show us that homepopathic remedies do absolutely nothing. Even if there were some undiscovered benefit to ingesting ground spider’s legs, when you dilute these ingredients until they are totally inert you have something less than snake oil. When you throw your rational faculties out the window and start handing your money over to snake oil salesmen, you hurt or help to hurt EVERYONE by empowering con-artists. Like it or not most people do not do a lot of critical thinking. WHat they believe is largely what the world tells them to believe and when they see Shark Cartiledge advertised as a cure for cancer and they go to a quack-doctor who prescribes Shark Cartiledge for their cancer they are giving money to thieves that could have gone to charity, cancer research, their children etc. and the quacks have that much more money to reinvest in their ever-growing empire. More infomercials means more poor saps who will give more money to more psychic surgeons/ snake-oil salesmen/therapeutic touch specialists.
So if it helped me personally, even though I was completely skeptical about it, I should discard that personal knowledge and go with the scientific studies. I won’t be healed, but I’ll look a lot smarter? That’s rational.

This is backwards. If you do not know god exists and the inference is unwarranted then belief in such things is irrational, period. Again, you have to look at the likelihood. If there is no rational justification…nothing more than anecdotes to support the existence of God then belief in him is no more rational than belief that the earth is flat.
I agree, belief in God would be irrational for someone who didn’t know him.

No. You are assuming people are either wholly rational or wholly irrational. We all, at one time or another hold irrational beliefs. The lucky few discover skepticism and are able to trim away a good deal of these irrational convictions. An atheist can be totally rational about whether God exists but totally irrational as to the existence of psychics or crop circle manifestations.
I agree, mostly. Just don’t agree that you should be to hasty to do the trimming. I never formed an opinion about crop circles, mostly because of apathy. So, did they solve that one?

**And many churches could no longer fill their seats after 9-11.**I was referring to in the months immediately after. There are statistics, the temporary growth was very large. Back to normal now.

**Exactly. Just as we will not convince people who truly believe in psychics by comparing psychics to “silly god beliefs” and we will not convince UFOlogists that there claims are irrational by comparing them to “ridiculous theism”. You are assuming that theism holds some default degree of rationality over these other claims. It doesn’t. **
Hey, I only know what I know, not what they know. I just think if I was going to try and convince you that my way was right, which by the way was not my intent; I would attempt to do this without being offensive. I would not compare you to obscure cults or find atheists who’ve committed horrible crimes, etc. It appears to me you are more interested in winning the argument than the battle. IWLN

[ammo52]

*Originally posted by IWLN *
**Although the Santa Claus comparison didn’t bother me, I think that it just doesn’t do the trick. Santa doesn’t have a few billion followers, ancient manuscript etc. I know it’s useful because everyone knows who he is, but hard to find the parallels after that. **

IWLN,
From my perspective, my bet would be that the example of Santa “doesn’t do the trick” for you because you insist on bringing the presupposition that god exists to the table with you…along with the (rational) assumption that Santa does NOT exist. In other words, you’re not really starting them both out on a level playing field and weighing the evidence for both objectively. Santa is dismissed out of hand-- and so is the notion that god could possibly NOT exist. (I know, we’re not really talking about having you, or anyone, weigh the merits of Santa vs. god, but simply to understand why an atheist sees belief in one of them as no more–or less-- compelling than the other one.)

Santa is a better example than the “Invisible Pink Unicorn” for this comparison, because a large number of people, right now, actually believe in Santa Claus, whereas the IPU is a construct of this particular forum which has taken on a “life of its own” as a debating tool. Kids actually believe in Santa, modify their behavior to “please” him, look forward to their rewards, allow his “supernatural” qualities (flying reindeer, jumping down chimneys) to override their natural “common sense” and attribute all sorts of kindly acts to him. I don’t see this as being fundamentally different than a believer’s faith in god.

We start kids out by telling them that both are real, Santa and god, and when they see the adults they trust acting in accordance with this, of course they buy it. The only difference is that at some point, we clue them in about Santa.

You don’t see parallels between “Santa belief” and “God belief” not because they aren’t there; they line up almost uncannily. Rather it is your foreknowledge that Santa is most assuredly NOT real (although it’d be an interesting thought exercise to see you empiracally PROVE that… hehe) coupled with your unwavering belief that god IS real – so asking you to compare the two is doomed at the starting gate.

Billions of people believing in god is irrelevant for the reasons outlined above. The “bloody moon monster” who colored the moon red (remember him from a week or so ago, during the lunar eclipse?) was just as popular at one point.
Didn’t make it true… and the same holds true for Santa… and god. This atheist would believe in god, or Santa, if compelling evidence existed that pointed to them.

It would be interesting to hear your thought process if you genuinely tried to see God in the same light as we see Santa… I mean, by truly setting aside your presupposition of god (just for a minute; he’ll still be there when you get done ;)) and seeing the parallels that abound there.

Again, I’d echo blowero’s sentiments that the Santa thing is not meant to be insulting. I’m just using him, instead of an IPU that no one really believes in ( I can hear already…cite?) as an illustration of the soundness of the logic we’d use to accept either one of them as being real.

Thanks for hanging in there-- by now, most theists would have bowed out and left us crazy, godless heathens to our fate. Hell, you sound like you’re just gettin’ warmed up!

[GodlessSkeptic]

*Originally posted by IWLN *
Numbers of atheists vs. numbers of theistic nurses in Africa is irrelevant unless you are putting forth an ad numeri argument.

Since there are so many organized “religious” programs to provide help in other countries, just trying to point out that religion can have a positive side, even to someone who seems to think it is all bad.

I agree that religious people…most religious people in fact, can be positive or at least not negative in their contributions. My only contention here is that these positive people would be so regrdless of whether they believed in gods. Homo sapiens survived for millions of years prior to having God-concepts adn organized religions because we are moral animals. We look after each other so that others will look after us.

IF your motivation to do “good” still comes from “your own values” then what exactly do you need God for? In another thread you suggested the exact opposite, that people could have no values without God.

You’re going to have to cite that thread, because I absolutely, beyond any doubt have stated that you can have good values without God. So either I said something incorrectly or you read it wrong. I don’t need God to function as my moral police.

It may have been THIS thread now that I think about it but as I recall a series of rather insulting “questions” were posed to atheists, some of which were based upon the assumption that atheists were immoral or amoral or somesuch. I could be mixed up here though so…not important. I will assume I have things wrong here.

There’s that “no true Scottsman” fallacy again. Those same militant fundementalists can argue that "Those christians believe in their own egotism. They do not follow the word of God."
There’s that reference to the Scottsman that somehow absolves you from answering questions, or forming your own opinions.

The Scottsman itself is an invocation to avoid answering questions or forming your own ideas/opinions.

You say : “No true follower of God does these atrocious things in his name!”

I say : what about THESE followers of God(terrorists, nazis or whoever)?"

Youy say : “Ah, but those are not true followers of God!They are just using God to justify their abhorent behavior!”

This also begs the question of how God can allow himself to be so used unless he desires such?Either he wants(for whatever reason) for people to commit horrible acts in his name OR he is powerless to stop them. There is no third option I can see. Even if you try invoking that “free will” chestnut it changes nothing. God STILL wants horrible things done(so that we will have free will…as bizarre as that sounds) in his name.

Bad analogy. Atheists can have no “mission” that is not part of something outside of atheism which they may subscribe to. Atheism has no tenets, doctrines, codified behaviors, etc… It is simply “without belief in gods”. If she lied and said such a thing that would more than likely make her a fundementalist theist of some sort. The thing is there are millions of God-fearing people throughout history who have done(and will continue to do) atrocious things as a direct result of their religiouys convictions.
No it is a good analogy. Don’t you get it, the atheist nurse can do something atrocious and blame it on whatever she chooses(her atheist beliefs or whatever), she is obviously lying about her motivation. The “Christian” who blames or credits God for his crime is also lying. His religious teachings also tell him not to kill, so they are not the cause of his actions either. You have to know they’re lying, since you believe there’s not a God, you are pretty sure He hasn’t been communicating with the killer.

The thing is we have no way of telling the liars and “truthtellers” apart. The only thing I have to suggest that islamic terrorists are not acting on behalf of God is YOUR(Your as in "you more or less liberal christians) assertion. The “wrathful” fundies assure me that YOU are the liar!
We have no objective evidence either way.

For the record I don’t think that either camp is necessarily lieing so much as they are simply mistaken.

I have yet to hear of an individual commiting atrocity because his lack of god-belief commands him to.
No, his lack of respect for human life and his value system is to blame, just like the Christian.

Agreed.

1)Hard to comment on the “relative minority” bit. It is a “relative minority” of Islamic fundementalists who are commiting atrocious acts but I still believe the belief system itself is a bad thing for humanity.
Violence was not in the original basics of their religious beliefs. Again, religion or God is the scapegoat, not the cause.

Disagree. The nature of God has always been dependent upon political and social climate. An enslaved/oppresed people nearly always worship a God of retribution/wrath. A prosperous people tend to worship an omnibenevolent God(easy to love one’s enemies when those enemies are of no signifigance). All it really takes is the perception that one is oppressed. The NOI for example have recreated the native American “Ghost Dance” myth(a spirit of reprisal that Native Americans believed would infuse them with invulnerability so that they could overcome the white man) in the form of a giant “Mother Wheel” hovering over AMerica as we speak…just waiting to blow the white man away. This despite the fact that the black man has never been so unoppressed as he is today.

2)People who will willingly do good will do so regardless of whether they are indoctrinated into religion. They will do good out of liberal idealism, patriotism, secular humanism or just palin concern for fellow man. They do good IN SPITE of religion, not because of it.
I agree that they will do good whether they are religious or not, but since most religions encourage charity and have set up systems to implement it, religion can give people more opportunities to help.

Again, I disagree. If we did not have theistic religion people would simply form organizations and still be doing charitable work. Whether religions actually encourage charity or not is dependent on the religion and the social climate of the practicioners.

The rational thinker still makes decisions about the likelihood of existential claims based upon the evidence supporting those claims. We have mountains of evidence to support the existence of gravity, evolution, matter itself and lawyers. We judge the existence of these things to be as close to certain as we can get.
We have NO rational justification for fairies, gods, extra-terrestrial visitors, or ghosts. We judge those things to be as close to impossible as we can safely say. We have very little evidence for the existence of sasquatch, liberal media bias or compassionate conservatives so we judge these things to be slightly more plausible than the gods and fairies but still unlikely.
I do make decisions or form opinions like you do, but if there is an assertion with no proof, I don’t immediately assume it’s false.

Niether do I. What I think you are forgetting here is the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary claims. I do not know if you have a velvet Elvis portrait hanging in your living room. If you told me just now that you did, I would accept that and not think much more about it. I have seen velvet Elvis paintings hanging in other peoples rooms before so the claim does not strike me as extraordinary.
However if you told me you had an actual elephant in your wallet, I would rationally conclude that you were mistaken or lieing. I know that elephants are too large to fit in a wallet and the the claim would directly violate physical laws. It would require some extraordinary evidence in order for me to accept it.

God is more like claiming an invisible polka-dotted, antlered, winged magical elephant lives in your wallet. I do not say it is 100% certainly false, I say that I am not going to assent to the claim without some acceptable evidence.

1)Hate is just as rational as love.
Hate that causes destructive behavior or bad health is irrational.

So is love that causes destructive behavior. FOr that matter so is love that causes foolish behavior(listening to NSync for example).

2)No emotions are rational/irrational. Love/joy do not get a free pass here because I find them more pleasant than anger/hate.
We were talking about an emotion that fueled an action. If you prefer, hate caused an irrational response.

Agreed. My point is that emotions themselves, be it love or hate or hope or sorrow are not rational.

3)Evil is a subjective notion/quality. People are not evil because they lack some objective “good”. They are “evil”(to YOU or to ME) because what they do is at odds with YOUR/MY subjective morality.
I agree that it can be subjective. But do think some are truly evil because they have no good in them.

And I am not interested in trying to convince you otherwise. I will point out however that such belief is not rationally justified. It is no more supported than belief that some humans are objectively pretty because they lack objective ugliness.

Ignoring the various bald assertions about God for the moment, religion’s net contribution is a negative one IMO because anything beneficial that can be had with religion can still be had without religion but religion ALWAYS comes with the potential for REALLY bad stuff. There is no more powerful motivator or justification for inflicting harm and suffering on others than religion. In short, even if no churches existed we would still likely have soup kitchens and YES we would still have atrocity BUT we would lack the most powerful motivation/justification for atrocity. It is relatively easy to convince people that God commands them to subjugate and murder others but it is a bit harder to convince people that we should murder millions for the love of polka music.
I should further add that “worshipped as a god, IS a god” so Stalinists were not atheists since they worshipped Stalin as a divine emporer. In this context atheists are those who do not willingly worship gods, be they small idols, the sun, or divine emporers.
You still don’t get that God has nothing to do with murdering people. People murder to attain their own goals, their own sense of justice or just because they get a rush out of it. The most powerful motivator for atrocity is emotional and financial. If poof all religion was gone tomorrow, the people who are killing, etc. today would find a new reason for it. And you wouldn’t have as many soup kitchens either. Sure there would still be people helping people, but without those systems in place now, it would be a lot less likely. Oprah just can’t do it all.

Bald assertions. What you say here indicates that you believe that if christians found out there was no God tommorrow they would just decide to be more apathetic and less charitable. I find that disconcerting.
I know that God does not likely murder people(because he likely does not exist). People will do horrible(and benign) things to each other regardless though so I will not dwell on how much blame to assign religion itself. I think religion unnecessary but otherwise I will concede this point to you.

That is precisely what skepticism/critical thinking guards against. SKepticism can be thought of as a system of checks and balances to keep ourt personal biases in line while examining our reality.
Was just disagreeing on the notion of “pure reason”. It’s not attainable, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t come as close as we can, but should not fool ourselves into thinking the “pure” part is attainable.

Fine, however what you were saying before was that (in a nutshell) rationality was not the only means of coming to sound conclusions(you sort of hinted that spirituality or faith were equally important). I say that rationality IS our best tool for examining the universe/reality and personal biases do NOT present a signifigant obstacle to the critical thinker. We CAN overcome our presuppositions and biases.

OR simply states that we do not unnecessarily multiply our entities for explanation. God is not needed to explain anything(yet) about the universe so invoking God is like saying automobiles MUST have genies in their gas tanks.
OR can determine that nothing has linked God with the universe. OR can not state that God does not exist. Ir you know God, you can’t discard him as unnecessary, even if you don’t have all the facts.

This is wrong. OR most certainly rules out God as an explanation in the same way that it rules out genies. It does not DISPROVE God’s existence(or genies), it just tells us the inference is unwarranted.

I will get back to the “knowing God” thing below.

Sorry but all studies and independent tests show us that homepopathic remedies do absolutely nothing. Even if there were some undiscovered benefit to ingesting ground spider’s legs, when you dilute these ingredients until they are totally inert you have something less than snake oil. When you throw your rational faculties out the window and start handing your money over to snake oil salesmen, you hurt or help to hurt EVERYONE by empowering con-artists. Like it or not most people do not do a lot of critical thinking. WHat they believe is largely what the world tells them to believe and when they see Shark Cartiledge advertised as a cure for cancer and they go to a quack-doctor who prescribes Shark Cartiledge for their cancer they are giving money to thieves that could have gone to charity, cancer research, their children etc. and the quacks have that much more money to reinvest in their ever-growing empire. More infomercials means more poor saps who will give more money to more psychic surgeons/ snake-oil salesmen/therapeutic touch specialists.
So if it helped me personally, even though I was completely skeptical about it, I should discard that personal knowledge and go with the scientific studies. I won’t be healed, but I’ll look a lot smarter? That’s rational.

1)Any benefit you THOUGHT you recieved was no more than placebo and placebo can only do so much to help you. There is no property in ground tarantula legs to treat ADHD and even if there were, dilluting it with a billion parts water would render it inert. Same goes for shark cartiledge, St. Jon’s wort etc.

2)You could not have been skeptical about it or you would have immediately recognised the fraud. It is not about looking smart. To date NO ONE has EVER been cured of any ailment by homeopathic treatments(that we know of).

Do not feel embarassed. It is a multi-billion dollar a year industry that has gotten the better of millions of people. The worse thing you can do though is to KEEP letting them screw you over.

This is backwards. If you do not know god exists and the inference is unwarranted then belief in such things is irrational, period. Again, you have to look at the likelihood. If there is no rational justification…nothing more than anecdotes to support the existence of God then belief in him is no more rational than belief that the earth is flat.
I agree, belief in God would be irrational for someone who didn’t know him.

See this is a common dodge that non-skeptics employ. Faced with the prospect of having to admit there is no rational justification for their claims they invoke “personal revelation” and not very convincingly. If it’s one thing I pay attention to it’s human nature.
If I am at a party with a dozen others and I suddenly see a man appear in a doorway, in front of everyone, holding a machete in one hand and a severd head in the other, yet no one else is reacting to this visage, I will assume either A)I am delusional or B)11 other people are delusional and then run like hell!

What I would not do is calmly stroll over to a PC and get on the net, surf to a message board and calmly try and convince other people that a head-severing maniac is staring at me from a doorway but no one else can see him.

If a human being had met God and truly “knew” he was not mistaken or delusional, I dare say his behavior would be other than what you display. I would also think that other people claiming to have met God would have similar behaviors adn sooner or later the accounts of meeting God would be subject to enough observation and testing to rationally confirm them.

As it stands God only appears to non-skeptics, when no one else is around and his appearance is apparently less than impressive.

Occam’s razor works here again. OR would suggest that the likely culprits of delusion, fraud and misunderstanding can not be ruled out so therefore there is no reason to assume ANYONE “knows God”.

No. You are assuming people are either wholly rational or wholly irrational. We all, at one time or another hold irrational beliefs. The lucky few discover skepticism and are able to trim away a good deal of these irrational convictions. An atheist can be totally rational about whether God exists but totally irrational as to the existence of psychics or crop circle manifestations.

I agree, mostly. Just don’t agree that you should be to hasty to do the trimming. I never formed an opinion about crop circles, mostly because of apathy. So, did they solve that one?

The “trimming” was not done hastily. It was done methodically.
College students using boards and ropes are able to reproduce any crop circle ever made and many hyave taken to video-taping their exploits so when a UFOlogist claims the circle that appeared over night could not have been made by man, they can hold up their tapes adn say “Oh yeah?”.

**Exactly. Just as we will not convince people who truly believe in psychics by comparing psychics to “silly god beliefs” and we will not convince UFOlogists that there claims are irrational by comparing them to “ridiculous theism”. You are assuming that theism holds some default degree of rationality over these other claims. It doesn’t. **
Hey, I only know what I know, not what they know. I just think if I was going to try and convince you that my way was right, which by the way was not my intent; I would attempt to do this without being offensive. I would not compare you to obscure cults or find atheists who’ve committed horrible crimes, etc. It appears to me you are more interested in winning the argument than the battle. IWLN **

You are dodging again.The point is that theistic claims are no more rational than fairy-claims, UFO cultist claims or Santa Claus.

This point is answered much better by someone else directly above.

[IWLN]

*Originally posted by blowero *

We’re kind of getting hung up on this one point, but I can’t really let that go unchallenged. Let’s take your points one at a time:
Of course you can’t. I’ve always enjoyed your posts though, except that one where you were ingesting raw meat or something beforehand.

First, the number of followers is unconvincing. That’s known as argumentum ad populum, the fallacy of believing a proposition based only on the number of adherents. This is easily demostrated to be fallacious by looking at other ideas known to be false. For example, there was a time when almost everyone thought that the Earth was flat, which we now know is incorrect. Did the large number of people who believed it make it true? No. Argumentum ad populum is simply not a rational way to determine the veracity of a proposition. Also consider that while there may be billions of Christians, there are also billions of Muslims, and millions? of Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. whose beliefs directly contradict those of Christians. The tenets of each religion do not agree, so there are quite obviously things that lots of people believe that cannot be true. Two ideas that contradict one another cannot both be true. And finally, consider that millions of children believe in Santa Claus. If mere adherence to an idea makes it true, then we would have to consider that as evidence for Santa Claus.
This is still only about the Santa vs. God comparison, right? Okay, I am having a tough time being serious about this. I hope I don’t have to tell God that Santa won. I was just pointing out that the number of followers and the longevity of “God belief” makes him somewhat different than Santa. There are scriptures a couple thousand years old that say the earth was a sphere and nothing was holding it up. They believed the earth was flat because they didn’t read their Bible. Religion is man created and even if the stories, rules, literature doesn’t agree, IMHO they are all about the same God. God is not religion, religion attempts to be an imitation of God, but we don’t do that well. Children will believe anything you tell them, adults usually go through more processes. I sorry I just don’t feel Santa’s presence, (really I’m not drinking, I just can’t get serious about this) like I do God’s.

Now let us take the ancient manuscripts. Frankly, I’m surprised you brought it up, since you have already conceded that they are unreliable. If we are allowed to use admittedly unreliable stories as evidence, I could provide plenty of stories about Santa Claus. In fact, if we have no standards as to the reliability of documents, and are simply allowed to arbitrarily decide which ones to believe, I could prove that the “Cat In the Hat” is a real cat. As a matter of fact, a walking, talking cat seems more likely to be possible than an invisible, all-powerful being capable of effecting changes to the universe while we remain unable to physically detect these changes.
I said the Bible was not infallible. I didn’t say it was all wrong. Far from it. A lot is symbolic and some is right and some wrong, but there is still a lot to be learned from it. I’m sure I’ve said this somewhere before, but the same people who used to laugh about God always being in existence are now coming to terms with a universe that always was. And no, I’m not saying the universe proves God either, so don’t go there. But man is not that smart yet, so if there were “physical changes to detect”, we wouldn’t know what we were looking at. It says a lot to me but is not a valid argument, yet.

So we can easily dismiss both of your reasons for treating God differently than Santa Claus, leaving us with the only difference being that you believe in one and not the other.
I’m sorry, is there someone else there with you. You’re speaking in plural and I am sadly not a part of your “we”. Again, I feel God’s presence, not Santa’s presents. Okay, I’ll stop. I really do understand what you’re trying get me to understand. I just have a tough time asking God to step away for a minute while I try and figure out if you guys know more than him.

**O.K., fair enough - you’ll have to ask them. I would have the same question for snotty theists; if one believes in a God who ostensibly teaches love, where does the snottyness come from? **
I did once and apparently I and “my kind” are responsible for almost everything that is wrong with the world. I hate it when that happens. Those snotty theists are probably just atheist masquerading as theists to make us look bad. Okay, I am kidding about that. There is IMHO no excuse for snotty from anyone, but we’ve all been there. I’m sorry I wasn’t more serious about this topic. I tried, I just couldn’t feel it. IWLN

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I was just pointing out that the number of followers and the longevity of “God belief” makes him somewhat different than Santa.

“Different” in what way?

There is no amount of time and no number of believers which can ever give one unsupported hypothesis any more credibility than another. You are using the ad populum argument which justs adds to the catalogue of logical fallacies you have employed in this thread. You seem to have difficulty understanding why these are fallacies but whether you understand them are not you would do better to refrain from using them in these GD threads. They are singularly ineffective and you will have to suffer the indignity of being called on them every time you use them. I’m not trying to belittle you, I’m just trying to warn you that we have certain style and method here and it’s customary for us to call each other on fallacies. It helps keep the debate more systematic and productive.

BTW, your continued insistence on employing the “Scotsman” fallacy is especially grating. Essentially what you are trying to do is to define “God” in your own personal (and unsupported) terms so that you can avoid making an argument as to why your beliefs are any more valid than someone else’s beliefs. It’s not an argument, it’s just a retreat behind more unsubstantiated assertions.

[IWLN]

*Originally posted by Priceguy *

**That’s not the point. For the eleventeenth time: you asked me if actions not based on reason are always destructive and worthless. I said no, and used an example to explain why. That’s it.
You just assigned your opinion of their motives for being there. I was trying to explain to you that God doesn’t “make” us do anything.
No I’m not. They’re there. It’s just that religion turns some people good and some people bad, if you want to use those words. Flawless reason does good, not bad. That’s why it’s better.
I haven’t seen flawless reason in any man yet. I’ll keep looking.

Why?
Let’s see, because I’m a skeptic and require more information. You seem to think I am somehow blindly led, but that’s hardly the case. I like things proved or a reasonable explanation just as much as you do.

Please answer my question. Do you say Santa doesn’t exist?
I have to warn you, I’m having a tough time being serious about Santa tonight. As far as I know he doesn’t physically exist and I don’t feel his presence or know anything about him, so I’m gonna say probably not.

Don’t you realise that “evil” and “good” are arbitrary assignations with no counterparts in reality? They’re just abstracts.
Not in our world. They may be subjective, but they are very real.

Not whether they want it or not, as you should know by now. Rational people will choose it wilfully.
But I thought the whole problem was irrational people and that was your project’s focus. The rational people are the one’s who don’t believe in God, right. Us irrationals are at church. Go to church Priceguy.

Ah. You think I should declare pure reason nonexistent via Occam’s Razor. I get it now.

The difference is that God either exists or doesn’t. Pure reason can be created.
On a computer, not in man.

Due to irrational emotions or prejudices fed to them during their childhood. If you grow up being told that God hates gays, and you do not develop to be rational, you’ll believe it, and hate gays.
I think I could give that one more credit if I didn’t know that kids don’t grow up and embrace all of their parent’s prejudices. We make our own choices as adults and if we have adequate self esteem, we don’t hate people that are not like us. Although my parents are wonderful people, I do not share all of their opinions or beliefs. I have been in two or three churches who touched on the gay topic and I left, noisily of course and didn’t return. Before I left, I heard that they thought it was wrong, but nothing about God’s hate.

I didn’t say that attending church doesn’t make you irrational. I said that not attending church doesn’t make you rational.
Had to read that one three times. Okay, I thought you said religious people were irrational.

Correct, but I wasn’t trying to prove we have a perfect world, just that it has improved, which you denied.
I don’t know how you can think it’s improved with all those killer Christians out there.

It’s working fine. Religion’s place in the world is much smaller today than a thousand years ago. Many more are rationals now. And today, it is safe, even legal, to say you’re an Atheist.
People go to church now because they have a choice about it. There used to be a lot more social pressure to be a “God fearing” person."

No. They’re good examples of why irrationality is bad, why belief in God is irrational, and so on.
No, they’re not. They’re good ways to alienate the people you hope to change. Just my opinion though.

**What it gets down to here is this: you keep claiming you have proof God does exist, but refuse to tell me, with new excuses every time. And yet you use this proof as an excuse not to apply Occam’s Razor to God, expecting me to somehow accept that. With your logic, I can say I have proof God doesn’t exist but won’t show it to you. Should that really influence this debate? **
They’re not new excuses, pretty much the same old ones. I didn’t start this thread to prove or witness. I don’t need OR, but understand why you do. I have told two very special people in my life what happened to me and don’t intend to go there on the Internet or possibly ever with any one else. Everyone needs to find their own way. I know it sounds like a cop out and it doesn’t matter to me if you think it is. If you were to tell me you had proof that God doesn’t exist, I would remind you that many of you have told me that you can’t prove non-existence. I would also assume that for whatever reason, maybe he really doesn’t exist for you. That one I doubt, but I’m still learning too. The one thing I don’t expect you to do is accept my reasoning. I don’t much like yours either, but I respect your right to your own process. IWLN

[IWLN]

*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic *
**“Different” in what way?

There is no amount of time and no number of believers which can ever give one unsupported hypothesis any more credibility than another. You are using the ad populum argument which justs adds to the catalogue of logical fallacies you have employed in this thread. You seem to have difficulty understanding why these are fallacies but whether you understand them are not you would do better to refrain from using them in these GD threads. They are singularly ineffective and you will have to suffer the indignity of being called on them every time you use them. I’m not trying to belittle you, I’m just trying to warn you that we have certain style and method here and it’s customary for us to call each other on fallacies. It helps keep the debate more systematic and productive.

BTW, your continued insistence on employing the “Scotsman” fallacy is especially grating. Essentially what you are trying to do is to define “God” in your own personal (and unsupported) terms so that you can avoid making an argument as to why your beliefs are any more valid than someone else’s beliefs. It’s not an argument, it’s just a retreat behind more unsubstantiated assertions. **

There is no indignity in being called on some fallacy when I don’t agree with the application at that given time. Can you point me to the rules that govern the use of these sacred things. I’m too old to be warned and too stubborn to be intimidated. If I am breaking a rule I will comply to the best of my ability, but otherwise I apparently have my own style too. If it is grating to you, why do you read it? My definition of God in my own “unsupported terms” is up to me. I have from the beginning said I can’t prove God to you. I honestly feel if he came to you and reversed the laws of gravity, had a long talk with you, shook you and then left, you would pass it off to a hallucination. So why would I share the most important events of my life with anyone who is eager to disprove any information they get. You believe yourself to be open and rational about all facts, but what if you were to receive knowledge that you can’t prove either? If you only want people who believe like you do here, then what would be the point? No competition? Pure logic? IWLN