# Evangelical Atheists Have A God Complex **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 29, 2005, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evangelical-atheists-have-a-god-complex/333193 "2005-11-29T12:11:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evangelical-atheists-have-a-god-complex/333193/141 "2005-11-30T08:10:36Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > First of all, you seem to be confusing “message board anger” with the real thing. In the context of this thread, I am “angry” at you for continualy refusing to answer my one simple question: What claim is it that I have made that you feel requires proof? In the real world, I am not angry at all. Fair enough, and I am “message board angry” at you for ignoring repeated comments that the claims I was refering to were in the post of yours I quoted and debated. > [@Weirddave](#): > > However, your post may have finally revealed what you are digging at (wouldn’t it have been easier to have just said what you meant in the first place? Perhaps it was your refrence to trolling, but you set me on edge. > [@Weirddave](#): > > _I_ would think so, but then again I discuss things openly, not trying to win phantom points off those who disagree with me for…some reason. Careful with the mindreading schtick. I chose not to debate with you, as I couldn’t see any possible reason why you didn’t understand what I was saying. I wasn’t trying to ‘win points’, I was refusing to get into a discussion. > [@Weirddave](#): > > You obstinate refusal to say what you are actually talking about is baffeling to me And this is why you got the reaction you did. Not only did I say what I was talking about, I said it several times. I did refuse to debate with you if you were going to pretend to be ignorant of what I was talking about, and to be honest I’m still dubious. How many times did I say that I’d quoted you? Hell, in the original post where I said you had to provide proof for your claims you claimed ignorance of what statements you were making. > [@Weirddave](#): > > You want me to prove that I believe in God, is that it? Yeah, that’s it. :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: I’ll lay this out real simple and then I’m going to drop this tangent as even I can only beat my head against a wall for quite so long: You said you believe in a God and that someone who believes that there isn’t a God is on the same epistemological footing as you are. I pointed out that your claim was the one that required proof, not its negation. One does not need to disprove extraordinary claims. We don’t need to sit in judgement and ponder whether or not my car is run on the tortured souls of the damned. > [@Weirddave](#): > > _I_ BELIEVE in God. “God” is an unprovable article of faith, one that works for me. What is your beef with that? I can’t think of one-unless you are looking for something you can point to to try and evangelize me with your superior knowledge that something for which there is no proof is actually a fact. Hmmm, help me out here, what group of people is it that does that the most in America, it’s on the tip of my tounge… Spot on… spot on. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evangelical-atheists-have-a-god-complex/333193/142 "2005-11-30T08:11:52Z")
> [@John\_Stamos'\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Not really. The key word is “faith.” They take it on faith. Nothing extraordinary about faith, is there? You either have it or you do not; if you do, that’s your evidence. If you don’t, that’s your evidence. I don’t belittle people for having it and I don’t belittle people for not. You’re either not clear about what the term “extraordinary claim” means, or you’re just using it differently from everybody else. Faith and the ordinary-ness of faith don’t make a difference. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evangelical-atheists-have-a-god-complex/333193/143 "2005-11-30T08:16:37Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > Nope. ~BX != B~X They are logically different constructs. The default position is not “it might exist,” you’re right, but neither is it “it does not exist.” If I claim that a box contains a spoon, it is not the default position that the box is _empty_ until proven. My specific CLAIM requires proof, but the truth value of what’s in the box is “undetermined/undeterminable.” If claim the box does not contain a spoon, they you put yourself in exactly the same put up or shut up position as I did with my claim. The null hypothesis is not the same as a claim of a proof of non-existence - it is a hypothesis, a provisional statement of non-existence until proven otherwise. The point is that we should act as if there are no gods until there is good evidence for one. Your example is invalid since we have evidence that some boxes contain spoons and some don’t. Now, if you truly believe that god’s existence is undeterminable, I trust that you are a weak deist at best. You certainly should not believe in a Bible which cannot be determined to have been inspired by a god, and you should not follow a moral code supposedly sent from a god. You absolutely should not try to convert anyone to anything, since you say it is impossible to provide evidence that your belief is true If you believe in anything but deism, you need to ask yourself why you believe in that god and not some other god, since they are all equally mysterious and unshowable. In particular, you should not believe in Jesus who did tricks demonstrating godhood, or most of the Torah, where God who you claim cannot be demonstrated demonstrated himself quite forcefully. It is all too common for the religious to claim that their god cannot be demonstrated and must be taken on faith with one side of their mouth, and on the other say that this god hates fags. I know you don’t, but your position is an enabler for those who oppress others in the name of god. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evangelical-atheists-have-a-god-complex/333193/144 "2005-11-30T08:23:31Z")
> [@John\_Stamos'\_Left\_Ear](#): > > The claim of most Theists come down to “I know God is there because of my faith.” So that doesn’t seem like such an extraordinary claim to me. Of course it’s extraordinary; rather crazy, in fact. If I _know_ I can fly because I have faith I can, am I not crazy for stepping off a cliff ? Faith is not even close to evidence; it means nothing at all. > [@John\_Stamos'\_Left\_Ear](#): > > I kinda went over it already. You know, the whole thing about how it has shaped all of human history and culture ince our inception. Possibly you didn’t get the memo… And look how screwed up human history is. Religion has had influence all right; a horrifying one. The Crusades, 9-11, antisemitism, blood eagles, the 30 Years War, witch burning, the flaying of Hypatia of Alexandria, slavery, the divine right of kings, the genocide of the Native Americans,the destruction of much of the world’s non-Christian cultures/languages/history, human sacrifice; religion had caused or excused enormous evil. It’s influence on the world is why I despise it. > [@John\_Stamos'\_Left\_Ear](#): > > I don’t think so. The only reason an Evangelical Atheist would compare a belief in God to a belief in (insert absurdist noun here, the sillier the better; bonus points for things that children believe and eventually grow out of) is to show how positively RIDICULOUS Theists are. In doing this, it makes the Evangelocal Atheist feel much better about themselves because that means that they are not RIDICULOUS. Or…because we honestly don’t see any difference between worshiping 5 dimensional pink flaming orcs and worshiping a god. Both are equally plausible. > [@John\_Stamos'\_Left\_Ear](#): > > To the Evangelical Atheist ALL of the religions are as ridiculous as (insert absurdist noun here, the sillier the better; bonus points for things that children believe and eventually grow out of), remember? Well, they are. > [@John\_Stamos'\_Left\_Ear](#): > > One doesn’t have to feel that there is a God to be aware of the impact that people _believing_ in God has caused on human history from inception to the present and future. To ignore this is folly and to say that (insert absurdist noun here, the sillier the better; bonus points for things that children believe and eventually grow out of) is the same as that ignores that impact. Just because there is the same amount of evidence for both doesn’t mean that their impacts on society are the same. To act as if they are is disingenuous at best and insulting for no other reason than to feel better about yourself at worst. Who has claimed otherwise ? > [@John\_Stamos'\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Not really. The key word is “faith.” They take it on faith. Nothing extraordinary about faith, is there? You either have it or you do not; if you do, that’s your evidence. If you don’t, that’s your evidence. I don’t belittle people for having it and I don’t belittle people for not. Once again, faith is not evidence. Faith without evidence is irrationality, simple as that. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evangelical-atheists-have-a-god-complex/333193/145 "2005-11-30T08:24:33Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > No, still an extraordinary claim, but now you’ve totally left the realm of even an attempt at proof. > > “Because I think it’s true” is not proof. Proof is something in math. Science deals in evidence. Faith deals in neither. > [@](#): > > No. You’re evading the question. I replied to what I think about this supposed quandary above this post. You are suffering from a false dilemma, I fear. See, you have decided that the religions are “competing” and your mind says that either one is correct or none of them are and since you cannot ever find a suitable yardstick to figure out which one is correct that must mean that none of them are. I don’t feel that way. I consider spirituality to be a personal matter. I consider different religions to be different people all trying to find the same thing - contentment. You know the phrase that we all make our own God? You probably even believe it. Well surprise, so do I. Consider language, for example. There are hundreds of different languages; within each language there may be many different ways to express the same word. Increasing this exponentially, the same thought can be expressed in an almost infinite number of ways. And just because someone might look at a feline creature bred for centuries as a domestic animal that doesn’t like mice and say it’s a cat doesn’t mean the person who says it’s a _gato_, or a \*kat \* or a \*Katze \* or a \*猫 \* is wrong. They’re just speaking a different language. Is any one language better than the rest? Just because you don’t understand (insert language here) doesn’t mean that those who do are any better than you. Or any worse. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 8:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evangelical-atheists-have-a-god-complex/333193/146 "2005-11-30T08:25:47Z")
On preview: **Marley** , I see you’ve tackled this quite well… but I don’t think I can just ignore it. > [@John\_Stamos'\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Not really. The key word is “faith.” They take it on faith. Nothing extraordinary about faith, is there? Are you putting us on? This has to be some sick joke, right? An extraordinary claim is still an extraordinary claim even if you have faith in it. You seem almost pathalogicaly unable to address any actual arguments and need to fight strawmen instead. Nobody has claimed that faith is extraordinary, and yet you see fit to ignore the actual point and debate against a strawman. The claim is still extraordinary, just because the (irrational) justification is common does not make the claim valid. It’s still an unproven extraordinary claim. > [@John\_Stamos'\_Left\_Ear](#): > > You either have it or you do not; if you do, that’s your evidence. If you don’t, that’s your evidence. I don’t belittle people for having it and I don’t belittle people for not. Again, wrong. Just flat out wrong. Faith is **not** evidence, for anything other than that you have faith. And there is actual evidence about the real world and it’s real physical laws, and no actual evidence of any God or Gods. > [@John\_Stamos'\_Left\_Ear](#): > > UUs believe in the inherent worth of people regardless of beliefs and that all paths are as valid as the next. Ahhh, I see, you _were_ projecting. What on earth does the ‘path’ someone is on have to do with their ‘inherent worth’? That’s just looney. > [@John\_Stamos'\_Left\_Ear](#): > > What prompted this thread is that I find those who say “you’re wrong so you’re going to hell” to be as misguided as those who say “you’re wrong because there is no evidence.” Yeah… because one tells you that you’re a bad person and they hate you, and the other says that a specific belief doesn’t have any rational foundation. > [@John\_Stamos'\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Thought frankly, I find the latter more irritating because they should in theory know better. They don’t like being told how “wrong” they are, but have no problems sharing with everyone how wrong THEY are, even demonizing kids in 4th grade Sunday School and their parents in doing so. Actually, judging by this thread it’s the theists who’ve flipped the fuck out when their beliefs are challenged, and the a-theists who’ve engaged in reasoned debate. I know this is too small a sample size, but it’s interesting none the less. And, besides, this bullshit about ‘demonizing’ is transparantly false. People stated, correctly, that young children are easier to indoctrinate. You flew off the handle. > [@John\_Stamos'\_Left\_Ear](#): > > You have to go out of your way to show how stupid anyone who has any belief must be since of course any God is the same as (insert absurdist noun here, the sillier the better; bonus points for things that children believe and eventually grow out of). Since you like making things up, maybe you can just invent someone to argue with? And since you like using the same tired and hackneyed “clever” phrase, maybe you can just post the same thing over and over again? Again, get this through your head: people are not their beliefs! Showing that a belief isn’t logical is not the same thing as attacking a person. But you, oh Janus faced one, have indeed attacked a-theists on a personal level for having and communicating their beliefs. > [@John\_Stamos'\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Really, I’m glad you’re an Atheist. That’s what works for you. I wouldn’t change it for the world and I wouldn’t call you stupid for it. So why do you feel the need to point out the flaws in everyone elses philosophies when at the end of the day they have as much evidence for their belief as you have for your disbelief? Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. There is infinitely more evidence for belief in the real world than anything ‘beyond’ it. “Reality is whatever doesn’t go away when you stop believing in it.” “Spit in one hand, wish in the other. See which fills up first.” ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evangelical-atheists-have-a-god-complex/333193/147 "2005-11-30T08:27:53Z")
Dave’s claim that he believes in god is not extraordinary, and I suspect most people would accept it by default. It is a lot different from the claim that god exists. In fact, if he were logically consistent, he would admit that an atheist not believing in god is very reasonable, since he has no external reasons for doing so. (A claim that an atheist can prove or know there is no god is different, but very few atheists make this claim.) In fact, wouldn’t it be reasonable to say that a belief in something you don’t even think can be demonstrated is irrational in a literal sense - not insane, but certainly not rational. Not that there is anything wrong with that, love isn’t rational either. But people in love with someone don’t go apeshit when other people say they aren’t. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evangelical-atheists-have-a-god-complex/333193/148 "2005-11-30T08:29:16Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > You’re either not clear about what the term “extraordinary claim” means, or you’re just using it differently from everybody else. Faith and the ordinary-ness of faith don’t make a difference. I will try and dumb this down even further: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but you’re misplacing the modifier. The claim is not of “God,” but in _faith_ in God. God may be extraordinary but faith is easy. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 8:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evangelical-atheists-have-a-god-complex/333193/149 "2005-11-30T08:34:12Z")
> [@John\_Stamos'\_Left\_Ear](#): > > I consider spirituality to be a personal matter. I consider different religions to be different people all trying to find the same thing - contentment. You know the phrase that we all make our own God? You probably even believe it. Well surprise, so do I. A foolish statement. Either there is a God, or not. You cannot “make a God”; no one can. > [@John\_Stamos'\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Consider language, for example. There are hundreds of different languages; within each language there may be many different ways to express the same word. Increasing this exponentially, the same thought can be expressed in an almost infinite number of ways. And just because someone might look at a feline creature bred for centuries as a domestic animal that doesn’t like mice and say it’s a cat doesn’t mean the person who says it’s a _gato_, or a \*kat \* or a \*Katze \* or a \*猫 \* is wrong. They’re just speaking a different language. Is any one language better than the rest? > > Just because you don’t understand (insert language here) doesn’t mean that those who do are any better than you. Or any worse. What relevance has this to anything ? > [@John\_Stamos'\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but you’re misplacing the modifier. The claim is not of “God,” but in faith in God. God may be extraordinary but faith is easy. And this matters because ? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 8:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evangelical-atheists-have-a-god-complex/333193/150 "2005-11-30T08:34:38Z")
Thanks, **Finn**. > [@John\_Stamos'\_Left\_Ear](#): > > The claim is not of “God,” but in faith in God. God may be extraordinary but faith is easy. I guessed that was what you were thinking (I was just about to say so, in fact). But it’s wrong. It’s obvious that faith in God exists, and the existence of faith is not something that needs to be proven. When we have these discussions and people talk about extraordinary claims, they’re talking about this being that exists outside of nature and so on. “Faith in God” isn’t even a claim. > [@John\_Stamos'\_Left\_Ear](#): > > You either have it or you do not; if you do, that’s your evidence. If you don’t, that’s your evidence. I don’t belittle people for having it and I don’t belittle people for not. I’m all for live-and-let-live, and that’s what I try to do. But if we’re having a debate about this and dealing in some kind of logic, which is what we have in here, “whatever you believe is your evidence” doesn’t cut it. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 8:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evangelical-atheists-have-a-god-complex/333193/151 "2005-11-30T08:34:39Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Of course it’s extraordinary; rather crazy, in fact. If I _know_ I can fly because I have faith I can, am I not crazy for stepping off a cliff ? Faith is not even close to evidence; it means nothing at all. Except that there is empirical evidence that the person will be unable to fly. So your analogy, to put it mildly, sucks. There is no empirical evidence of God and there is no way to gather empirical evidence that there is no God. > [@](#): > > Once again, faith is not evidence. Faith without evidence is irrationality, simple as that. You’re truly as bad as the fundies. In fact, you now sound exactly like those moronic Creationists who need to lie in order to manufacture evidence that will strengthen their faith. You, like the Creationists, are apparently unable to open a dictionary. If you could, you would know that a definition of faith is “firm belief in something for which there is no proof.” Faith doesn’t require evidence so your statement is a complete nonsequitur. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evangelical-atheists-have-a-god-complex/333193/152 "2005-11-30T08:38:18Z")
> [@John\_Stamos'\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Proof is something in math. Science deals in evidence. Faith deals in neither. … so? Or are you just admitting that faith is a useless tool for dealing with anything in the real world? Faith. Proves. Nothing. > [@John\_Stamos'\_Left\_Ear](#): > > I replied to what I think about this supposed quandary above this post. You are suffering from a false dilemma, I fear. Your fears are both unfounded and absurd. Glad I could help. > [@John\_Stamos'\_Left\_Ear](#): > > See, you have decided that the religions are “competing” and your mind says that either one is correct or none of them are and since you cannot ever find a suitable yardstick to figure out which one is correct that must mean that none of them are. Wow… you put forward a perfectly logical argument and then handwave it away. You’re also sounding like a loon. “My mind says”, eh? Now: Yes, mutually exclusive things cannot be all be true. That’s basic. And yes, if there’s no proof for any claim there’s no reason to believe any above any others. But more importantly, if there’s no proof for any claim, there’s simply no reason to believe any claim. > [@John\_Stamos'\_Left\_Ear](#): > > I don’t feel that way. Luckily ‘feelings’ ‘faith’ and ‘belief’ aren’t proof. Your feelings mean nothing. > [@John\_Stamos'\_Left\_Ear](#): > > I consider spirituality to be a personal matter. I consider different religions to be different people all trying to find the same thing - contentment. You know the phrase that we all make our own God? You probably even believe it. Well surprise, so do I. Ahhhh, now we get at the route of your position. Believe something you don’t have any evidence for believing is true… because it makes you feel better. Something about an opiate and masses, perhaps? > [@John\_Stamos'\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Consider language, for example. There are hundreds of different languages; within each language there may be many different ways to express the same word. Increasing this exponentially, the same thought can be expressed in an almost infinite number of ways. How about you use a metaphor that doesn’t involve a rather silly and incorrect view of linguistics? > [@John\_Stamos'\_Left\_Ear](#): > > And just because someone might look at a feline creature bred for centuries as a domestic animal that doesn’t like mice and say it’s a cat doesn’t mean the person who says it’s a _gato_, or a \*kat \* or a \*Katze \* or a \*猫 \* is wrong. :rolleyes: So? Or are you honestly going to claim that various Gods which are obviously contradictory aren’t… because we have different words for cat? > [@John\_Stamos'\_Left\_Ear](#): > > They’re just speaking a different language. Is any one language better than the rest? I could give you a linguistics answer, but it is totally off topic. Instead I’ll just say this has to be the single worst analogy I have ever, ever, seen on the Dope. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 8:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evangelical-atheists-have-a-god-complex/333193/153 "2005-11-30T08:40:28Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > A foolish statement. Either there is a God, or not. You cannot “make a God”; no one can. Atheists have claimed God as man-made forever so it is refreshing that you have gone against the party lines on this one. By the way, this may have escaped you in your religious furor, however every response that you and your ilk make attempting to show that I am wrong only serves to strengthen my initial point that you are intolerant of any views but your own. I have never denigrated Atheism as a belief system or logical deduction. Yet the mere fact that someone feels differently than you even someone who has made no judgment whatsoever about your beliefs is enough to have you in a tizzy. Kinda like a fundamentalist Christian board when the nonbeliever comes by… Everyone wants a conversion on their mark, even Evangelical Atheists. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 8:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evangelical-atheists-have-a-god-complex/333193/154 "2005-11-30T08:42:05Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I guessed that was what you were thinking (I was just about to say so, in fact). But it’s wrong. It’s obvious that faith in God exists, and the existence of faith is not something that needs to be proven. When we have these discussions and people talk about extraordinary claims, they’re talking about this being that exists outside of nature and so on. “Faith in God” isn’t even a claim. I disagree. > [@](#): > > I’m all for live-and-let-live, and that’s what I try to do. But if we’re having a debate about this and dealing in some kind of logic, which is what we have in here, “whatever you believe is your evidence” doesn’t cut it. If there’s no way to prove anything either way, why not? ---
**Author:** ![Testy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c37758/32.png) [@Testy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Testy)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 8:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evangelical-atheists-have-a-god-complex/333193/155 "2005-11-30T08:42:41Z")
> [@John\_Stamos'\_Left\_Ear](#): > > \ > That said, I am not the kind of person to tell people what should make the most sense to them in matters of unprovable philosophies, so I don’t even try. That pretrty much makes me a Unitarian Universalist. UUs believe in the inherent worth of people regardless of beliefs and that all paths are as valid as the next. Think of (happiness/salvation/heaven/whatever) as a destination with many roads that will get you there. And none of the roads are any worse or better than the other. > > I read the Koran and the Bible and the Torah. All of them seem to think they know Truth. And you’re right, there is no way to discern which is Truth because there are no experiments that you can run to figure it out. So, I choose to simply find something that works for me. I let people find out what works for them. Pretty simple. > > I can’t “prove” that I’m right and neither can anyone else so I’ll be happy knowing that I don’t _know_ for sure but using my intellect and my emotions and my imagination I came up with a “plan” that works for me. > > \ > > You have to demonize all religious pursuits as folly at best and pure evil at worst, and discourage anyone from ever seeking spiritual enlightenment because it’s a waste of time. > > \ John. Please pardon the snips but it was a heck of a long post and I wanted to pursue these two points. In the first point about the UUs allowing that “all paths are as valid as the next.” Doesn’t this allow for belief in almost anything as long as I can get some friends to agree and we can say it without laughing? It seems to boil down to a requirement for belief in something, anything at all, that is unprovable. So why _not_ Quetzalcoatl or Thor or Anubis or one of the thousands of other discarded dietys? As far as “demonizing” religious pursuits, I don’t. Religion takes care of that all by itself. If the religious would simply shut up about it and stop trying to grab the reigns of government I’d have nothing at all to say to them. Regardless of how childish I might consider them, private beliefs are exactly that. The problem is that religion either breeds or attracts zealots that will attempt to enforce their particular brand of faith on others. There are both historical and present examples of this if you want to look them up. That’s why atheists get “evangelical” at times, you people are dangerous. You have the credibility of an appeal to history and massive quantities of followers but there are no limits on what God might tell you to do next. Regards Testy ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 8:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evangelical-atheists-have-a-god-complex/333193/156 "2005-11-30T08:45:27Z")
> [@John\_Stamos'\_Left\_Ear](#): > > You’re truly as bad as the fundies. If you have a belief that is not based on facts then by definition it cannot be based on reason. Thus, it is irrational. Only fundies know logic now? > [@John\_Stamos'\_Left\_Ear](#): > > In fact, you now sound exactly like those moronic Creationists who need to lie in order to manufacture evidence that will strengthen their faith. If that’s how logic sounds to you then evidently the problem does not lie with the logical statement. PBKAC. > [@John\_Stamos'\_Left\_Ear](#): > > You, like the Creationists, are apparently unable to open a dictionary. If you could, you would know that a definition of faith is “firm belief in something for which there is no proof.” Oh, this is too rich. If you were “able to open a dictionary” you’d know that one of the definitions of illogical is “not governed by or according to reason”. > [@John\_Stamos'\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Faith doesn’t require evidence so your statement is a complete nonsequitur. And that’s why it doesn’t belong in the domain of **reason** , so your entire statement totally misses the point and betrayes a foolish anger at those who express opinions you don’t like. Notice how in this thread you’re insulting many, many people who believe differently than you, on a personal level… while they’re only pointing out that a belief devoid of factual confirmation is not based on reason? Funny, eh? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 8:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evangelical-atheists-have-a-god-complex/333193/157 "2005-11-30T08:46:16Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Faith. Proves. Nothing. As has already been said, the very definition of faith is belief without proof. As such, you couldn’t have gotten any oxymoronic unless you ate some Jumbo Shrimp while enlisting into Military Intelligence. > [@](#): > > Yes, mutually exclusive things cannot be all be true. You will now have to prove to me what is so mutually exclusive about religion. > [@](#): > > Luckily ‘feelings’ ‘faith’ and ‘belief’ aren’t proof. Your feelings mean nothing. I’m crushed. > [@](#): > > Or are you honestly going to claim that various Gods which are obviously contradictory aren’t… because we have different words for cat? Are you honestly going to say that mere incredulity at my premise somehow renders it false? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 8:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evangelical-atheists-have-a-god-complex/333193/158 "2005-11-30T08:50:47Z")
> [@John\_Stamos'\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Except that there is empirical evidence that the person will be unable to fly. So your analogy, to put it mildly, sucks. There is no empirical evidence of God and there is no way to gather empirical evidence that there is no God. There is plenty of evidence against God; such as the universe, which functions quite well without any need for being created, and has no evidence of his existence or interference. Then there is probability; with no evidence for him, his chance of existing is no greater than any other silly idea. If I step off of a cliff, there is the tiniest chance that all the random molecular and atomic motion in my body will spontaneously go in the same direction, allowing me to fly. As this violates no physical laws and involves things we know exist, I consider it more probable than God. So, yes, my analogy works just fine. > [@John\_Stamos'\_Left\_Ear](#): > > You’re truly as bad as the fundies. In fact, you now sound exactly like those moronic Creationists who need to lie in order to manufacture evidence that will strengthen their faith. > > You, like the Creationists, are apparently unable to open a dictionary. If you could, you would know that a definition of faith is “firm belief in something for which there is no proof.” > > Faith doesn’t require evidence so your statement is a complete nonsequitur. What the hell are you trying to say ? I know what faith is; I was calling it worthless - which you basically just said yourself. > [@John\_Stamos'\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Atheists have claimed God as man-made forever so it is refreshing that you have gone against the party lines on this one. No, we’ve claimed he’s fictional, not “man made”. A car is man made; Peter Pan is fictional. See the difference ? > [@John\_Stamos'\_Left\_Ear](#): > > By the way, this may have escaped you in your religious furor, however every response that you and your ilk make attempting to show that I am wrong only serves to strengthen my initial point that you are intolerant of any views but your own. I have never denigrated Atheism as a belief system or logical deduction. Yet the mere fact that someone feels differently than you even someone who has made no judgment whatsoever about your beliefs is enough to have you in a tizzy. Kinda like a fundamentalist Christian board when the nonbeliever comes by… Everyone wants a conversion on their mark, even Evangelical Atheists. I’m not “in a furor”, I’m baffled. You make no sense to me, or others apparently. What are you argueing _for_ ? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 8:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evangelical-atheists-have-a-god-complex/333193/159 "2005-11-30T08:54:03Z")
> [@Testy](#): > > In the first point about the UUs allowing that “all paths are as valid as the next.” Doesn’t this allow for belief in almost anything as long as I can get some friends to agree and we can say it without laughing? You can believe in something that nobody else can even fathom for all we care. > [@](#): > > As far as “demonizing” religious pursuits, I don’t. Then maybe this rant isn’t about you. > [@](#): > > Religion takes care of that all by itself. Or maybe it is. 🙂 > [@](#): > > If the religious would simply shut up about it and stop trying to grab the reigns of government I’d have nothing at all to say to them. You apparently have to reread the OP. I said quite clearly that I would be the first in line to attack those who wish to legislate their religious ldels in my country. The issue I had was that the Evangelistic Atheists in the crowd decided that a 4th grader drawing pictures of Heaven with crayons was the one pushing the law through. And eating their children. Whatever… > [@](#): > > That’s why atheists get “evangelical” at times, you people are dangerous. “You people”? That’s rich. > [@](#): > > You have the credibility of an appeal to history and massive quantities of followers but there are no limits on what God might tell you to do next. Nice slipepry slope. Anyway, if you were paying attention, I already said that my beliefs are more in line with Deism. If you knew anything about Deism, you’d be aware that means that I believe that God ain’t paying attention anymore. However, your position that anyone with a religious belief - even the 4th grader in Sunday School - has the potential to do something horrible because God tells them to at any given moment is telling. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2005, 8:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evangelical-atheists-have-a-god-complex/333193/160 "2005-11-30T08:57:15Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Only fundies know logic now? No, silly… I’m saying you’re as illogical as the fundies. > [@](#): > > If you were “able to open a dictionary” you’d know that one of the definitions of illogical is “not governed by or according to reason”. This assumes that faith is unreasonable. I don’t feel that is always the case. Otherwise nobody would root for the Cubs. > [@](#): > > And that’s why it doesn’t belong in the domain of **reason** , so your entire statement totally misses the point and betrayes a foolish anger at those who express opinions you don’t like. Projection. > [@](#): > > Notice how in this thread you’re insulting many, many people who believe differently than you, on a personal level… Projection. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evangelical-atheists-have-a-god-complex/333193.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evangelical-atheists-have-a-god-complex/333193.md?page=9)