Whatever, DIO. I never bother to argue with people who stand by their right to be offensive.
While “God = sky pixies” isn’t most useful argument, there are other more developed analogies (like the IPU) which are pretty useful to get across athiest feelings on the matter.
The thing is; we do believe that God is as likely as pixies (in general). We’re not belittling God, or your beliefs, because we do actually think that. You seem to be saying that an athiest who comes in a thread and says “God is as likely to exist as pixies are” is deliberately being offensive - and that’s just not the case. It’s a simple statement of beliefs. It’s analogous to a theist coming into a thread and saying “God exists and is great” - does that belittle athiests? No, because it’s a simple statement of your beliefs. I may not agree, but you’re not trying to offend me, and I am not offended by it.
It could also be stated that every assertion that Jesus is the Messiah is an insult to Judaism (or vice versa).
When I ask why I should have any more belief in gods than I do in pixies, I mean that question entirely seriously. Why can’t it be answered seriously?
There is another reason why people sometimes use “magic sky pixie” and the like. The first is a kind of shock therapy. “God” has a very loaded meaning for many theists - so much so that, until recently, you could get thrown into jail for misusing it. (And worse in Islamic countries even today.) Using magic sky pixie in place of God shows that God is just a word, and that granting it special power is already acknowledging the validity of the theist argument.
Show me evidence to support that good works come exclusively from the hand of God.
I stole $20.00 from my neighbor because I was hungry. I was able to justify this illegal activity because:
A) I am an atheist and have no morals.
B) I am a Christian and I am not perfect; therefore I occasionally sin.
C) Because Satan was influencing me.
The consequences for my actions will be:
A) My neighbor will be unhappy and my act caused mistrust and ill feelings.
B) Nothing. God will forgive me if I ask.
C) Nothing. All is predetermined; and God knew that I would steal the $20.
Does belief in God and Biblical tenent remove personal accountability from actions?
Christians have a built in forgiveness for any sin; (a cosmic Get-out-of-jail-free card) so what prevents a Christian from misbehaving?
Exactly the same values that prevent an atheist from misbehaving.
I feel strongly that the same moral compass exists in *all * humans in direct proportion to intelligence and experience.
Subscription to a religion does not guarantee good behavior.
You know you could help improve the situation by responding to rational arguments against religion, and not emotional ones. It is a sign of the strength of a position to refute the stronges arguments against it, and not concentrate on the weakest ones. For instance, you could respond to the several posters refuting your contention that atheist ethics are not rational, and not play put upon Christian martyr. Ted could respond to those who have shown big problems with his idea of absolute morality. Or, you could continue onwards as you have been.
As ‘god’ is a term that everyone can associate with a deity, the substitution of IPU or anything else is an inflammatory remark based solely on semantics. It has nothing to do with acknowledging the validity of the theist’s position.
Further, the term can be traced back as being revered through history so, even without acknowledging the existence of a deity, an atheist can use the term in a historical sense in order to communicate clearly.
The sky pixie remarks usually derail any discussion that is going on at the time.
Simply in the interest of the Straight Dope[sup]®[/sup], the word you wish to use is tenet.
(You may also wish to refine your strawman argument regarding Christian beliefs. There is a rather small segment of the Christian population who believes that asking forgiveness of God removes all consequences and responsibilities for one’s actions. That is not a general Christian belief (and even those who hold that belief tend to believe that thieves should suffer temporal consequences in this world).)
So ?
The Bible of course.
No, because that statement “People should not judge!” is itself a statement of someone’s morals.
This is the point at which people ask, “But doesn’t the Bible say, ‘Judge not’?” This stems from a severe misunderstanding of Matthew 7. The passage actually says, “You hypocrites! Judge not lest ye be judged.” It is a condemnation of hypocrisy, rather than judgment per se.
If you want to discuss religion with people who don’t believe there’s a god, you have to expect that they’re going to state their beliefs honestly. If you’re not interested in discussing or arguing your take on the matter, these threads are the last place you want to be.
Thank you for correcting my spelling error. But the strawman was a deliberate device: I was attempting to point out that Christians and atheists have the same individual ability to determine right from wrong.
We cannot assume that all Christians are bound to commit amoral acts because they can simply ask for forgiveness. We also cannot assume that all Christians will behave simply because they have an absolute motivator.
Morality can come from within the individual and is not solely derived from God. It shouldn’t be a contest. Both sides are equipped with the same ability to tell right from wrong.
IPU and magic sky pixie are used in very different contexts. Like Dio said, IPU (or FSM) is used as a substitute for god to show that arguments about god often have hidden assumptions., based on what God means to the speaker and the culture. If you “prove” that X has the property Y, and claim that this makes X special, you can be refuted by substituting Z for X and getting the same result. So IPU arguments have an important philosophical point, and anyone offended should really be thinking why God is fundamentally different from the IPU in terms of the argument.
The magic sky pixie shows this: almost all cultures believe in some supernatural things, and these are laughed at or dismissed by the cultures who do not believe in them. The Greeks were every bit as serious about Zeus as you are about God. Most Americans divide the supernatural into fairy tales (good for kids) and religion (very, very serious.) The use of magic sky pixie shows that, to atheists at least, there isn’t a lot of difference. I realize that it is difficult for theists to realize that the thing they have a lot of emotional investment in isn’t really different from Tinkerbelle when viewed without faith, and on the basis of evidence only. The reaction is from denial, and I don’t really blame people who react that way - it is very human.
Yes, God believers today are more in number and have bigger churches - but so were Zeus believers. Besides that, how are they different?
All those terms you listed, including IPU and MSP, refer to an entity, or the idea of an entity, that is outside our realm of experience. Which is my point entirely. It’s semantics and a deliberate method of shifting the conversation away from the present discussion*. If I am in a conversation with a muslim who mentions Ala, my reply will be something in kind. Same with Vishnu or anything else. The concept, or essence (I don’t want to go there), of a deity is referred to by all. When IPU is used, if it is associated with the same essential properties that are also associated with Ala, then the only reason that IPU is being used is for inflammatory purposes. Terms and phrases already exist for the idea of an entity, to introduce another in the manner that IPU is used serves no purpose, imo.
- I am still a little skeptical of the substitution argument. While I can appreciate the logic behind it, it seems disingenious to make a substitution which is in reference to the original term to begin with. X has property of Y. Z has property of Y, if only we define Z as being Z* ~= X (I think that is how pointers are used, my c++ is very rusty). So even though Z is being substituted, Z is a reference, though not necessarily literally equal, to X.
It is an effective term when calling attention to the absurdity of belief in god.
I’m not using variable in the programming language sense, but more in the logical proof sense. You’re not asserting that X has the property Y - you arte proving it. (For instance, that God is omnibenevolent.) If you stop there, some may think you have proven something useful. However, if you can run the same proof with IPUs or kumquats substituted for god, then it is clear that your proof has a problem - either it is incorrect, or the concusion is meaningless.
I don’t quite get your first point. Any god worthy of the name is outside our realm of experience. Or, do you mean that our Western God is somehow special since we grew up with him since childhood? I can appreciate that since, being Jewish, god has special meaning and Jesus does not. The concept and image of Jesus is not loaded with significance for me, any more than the concept of a cargo cult is loaded with meaning for you. (I got in trouble with Polycarp for this statement - he didn’t understand the context. It is all about reactions to religion, not their inherent value.
Or maybe you mean all gods are pretty much the same.
I already know your position, how does ridiculing mine contribute to a discussion?
in reference to Kalhoun
No, it’s used to demonstrate that the theist’s argument is NOT valid. If God can be switched out for other entities then the arguement. fails.
There’s no problem of communication. The IPU is not meant to be read as identical to God but as an examplar of an infinitie number of possible alternatives to God. If you can’t show why “God” is LESS absurd than pixies, then you have a problem.
If theists actually had a valid or compelling response to those comparisons, they wouldn’t be “inflamed.” What really bugs you is that you have no comeback, not that the questions are unreasonable (because they’re not).
It’s an observation.