Faith, religion, and the afterlife: A form of denial

[YoungKusher]

@Czarcasm

“Neutral” is not the first word that comes to mind when it comes to your postings about the “IPU” and its comparison to “God” in this thread.

That’s because that’s not what I meant. I was referring to the topic of the thread when I said neutral. As for my stance on the IPU I have plainly stated/defined it multiple times.

My most recent explanation of my stance was in post #276 when I said, “At the core of what I’m saying, I think that the IPU is not the most productive way to get a believer to see the ridiculousness of their faith. By saying otherwise you are condoning the act of being derogatory towards something personal in an attempt to enlighten. That’s a fundamental contradiction. How can someone take your point seriously when it is condescending in nature?”

I also have been pretty clear as to how I agree with the IPU. I agree with the point it’s trying to make, and I agree when it’s used as a rebuttal argument. There were several people claiming specifically that the IPU was in and of itself, always helpful and productive when trying to guide a believer to enlightenment. That is what I disagree with. I also disagree with the presentation of the IPU argument as detailed in post #252.

The reason this has gone on for so long is because I have essentially been crowd-surfing. A new person pops up to question one facet of a very detailed, contextually restrained point, just when I’m ending the discussion with another, thus extending the discussion farther and not allowing to be set down.

[Czarcasm]

@YoungKusher

I also have been pretty clear as to how I agree with the IPU. I agree with the point it’s trying to make, and I agree when it’s used as a rebuttal argument. There were several people claiming specifically that the IPU was in and of itself, always helpful and productive when trying to guide a believer to enlightenment.

There were?

[Trinopus]

@YoungKusher

. . . A new person pops up to question one facet of a very detailed, contextually restrained point, just when I’m ending the discussion with another . . .

DerTrihs, go in for Trinopus. Pass blitz, deep safeties.

[YoungKusher]

@Czarcasm

There were?

Yeah basically. People advocating it’s productiveness, and simultaneously denying the aggressive nature of it.

Der Trihs

Me-“Well that may be, but comparing a God to an IPU is still ridiculous.”

@Der_Trihs

No, it isn’t. It makes perfect sense to demonstrate the ridiculousness of “God” by comparing it to something else ridiculous that people haven’t been enculturated into taking seriously.

Me-“It seems like it would be more aptly used as an inflammatory analogy directed towards believers. If the atheist who is making the point wants to have any success at a productive discussion then they should use a more reasonable approach.”

Nonsense. It’s the “inflammatory” arguments that work, because an argument working against religion is in itself inflammatory. And making the point of how ridiculous religion is to believers is very effective; that’s why they constantly demand that unbelievers stop, and insist that the unbelievers instead pretend that religion isn’t silly.

@simster

Its more than an ‘argument’ - it has exactly the same amount of evidence as any deity -

@simster

Why does a debate have to be “politically correct” ? Why do I have to make the “god believers” feel “good” about their delusions?..

@YoungKusher

Those images in our head make the IPU politically incorrect, because many religious folk’s proof(to them) of God is partially or mostly BASED on their spiritual relationship with God. That proof is not inherently comparable to an IPU because the same sort of relationship would not exist with an IPU.

While some certainly do - that is not the point of the argument - the point is to start the believer down a path of logical thinking - or atleast to admit that the amount of objective evidence is equal - and to re-iterate the other point - they really should not care that there is ‘no evidence’ - as the entire mantra of ‘religious faith’ is that it is belief without evidence.

Just seems like a contradiction to say you are starting someone down their journey of enlightenment while simultaneously saying you are disregarding the person’s feelings. How is that productive?

Anyways, I guess there aren’t “several” people as others have been more reasonable and have found a common ground with me.

[cmyk]

I am actually way behind on this thread, but in just talking with a believer I brought up this point:

If God has a plan, and there is a pre-ordained destiny, or fate if you will, for everyone, then every action I make, whether or not someone has interceded on my behalf, is of no surprise to God.

Therefore, every shitty thing I do is God’s fault.

Bad God! Bad!

[Der_Trihs]

@YoungKusher

The straightforward answer, is I’m pretty much neutral on the topic.

You’ve been a Christian partisan in all but name.

@YoungKusher

My most recent explanation of my stance was in post #276 when I said, "At the core of what I’m saying, I think that the IPU is not the most productive way to get a believer to see the ridiculousness of their faith. By saying otherwise you are condoning the act of being derogatory towards something personal in an attempt to enlighten. That’s a fundamental contradiction.

No, it isn’t; it’s the only practical way to argue with someone who is that emotional invested and that delusional about a really foolish idea. Sucking up to them and pretending that their beliefs are anything other than stupid only reinforces them. You need to make them realize that not everyone takes it as a given that their beliefs make sense, break them out of their bubble.

And besides; believers take anything other than total agreement with them as “derogatory”. For that matter, many take it as derogatory and oppressive if you restrain them from oppressing and attacking people.

@YoungKusher

Der Trihs

Me-“Well that may be, but comparing a God to an IPU is still ridiculous.”

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]

No, it isn’t. It makes perfect sense to demonstrate the ridiculousness of “God” by comparing it to something else ridiculous that people haven’t been enculturated into taking seriously.

Me-“It seems like it would be more aptly used as an inflammatory analogy directed towards believers. If the atheist who is making the point wants to have any success at a productive discussion then they should use a more reasonable approach.”
[/quote]
Pointing out that what they believe is ridiculous is a reasonable approach, as well as true. A person certainly isn’t going to win any arguments if they essentially concede them ahead of time, which is what you are demanding. And simply admitting to being an atheist is inflammatory to them, anyway.

@YoungKusher

Just seems like a contradiction to say you are starting someone down their journey of enlightenment while simultaneously saying you are disregarding the person’s feelings. How is that productive?

That’s the only way to argue with people who have invested their feelings in their beliefs. Nor is “enlightenment” a synonym for “feel good”; more often, it’s the opposite.

[YoungKusher]

@Der_Trihs

You’ve been a Christian partisan in all but name.

Wrong. You just like to view me that way because I am the opposition in this thread.

If a believer were to come in here and say that it is stupid, ridiculous, and blatantly obnoxious to NOT believe in God, then I would be doing just the opposite of what I am doing with you.

To claim that God exists = unsubstantiated with objective evidence

To claim that God does not exist = unsubstantiated with objective evidence

That’s the bottom line no if, ands, or buts about it.

No, it isn’t; it’s the only practical way to argue with someone who is that emotional invested and that delusional about a really foolish idea. Sucking up to them and pretending that their beliefs are anything other than stupid only reinforces them. You need to make them realize that not everyone takes it as a given that their beliefs make sense, break them out of their bubble.

-It is extremely narrow minded to say that “it’s the only practical way to argue with someone.”

-Nobody said anything about sucking up to them.

-It does not reinforce someone’s beliefs to not regard their beliefs as stupid. You can simply say they are unfounded, just like you’re assertion tht “science proves God does not exist” is completely unfounded.

It’s fine if you want to burst their bubble, as a matter of fact, IDC if you want to insult them or anything, just don’t act like it’s “the only way” to do so. There is nothing a believer can do when you keep shoving facts in their face. If they get hostile, THEN use the IPU. Otherwise, you can make the same exact point as the IPU by simply asking them, “What objective evidence do you have that your God exists?”

And besides; believers take anything other than total agreement with them as “derogatory”. For that matter, many take it as derogatory and oppressive if you restrain them from oppressing and attacking people.

Bullshit. If they are behaving that way, I get the distinct feeling it is because of something YOU did.

Pointing out that what they believe is ridiculous is a reasonable approach, as well as true. A person certainly isn’t going to win any arguments if they essentially concede them ahead of time, which is what you are demanding. And simply admitting to being an atheist is inflammatory to them, anyway.

Why do you have to concede anything by not using the IPU? That doesn’t make sense since I just gave you an alternative option if you want to make the same exact point.

That’s the only way to argue with people who have invested their feelings in their beliefs. Nor is “enlightenment” a synonym for “feel good”; more often, it’s the opposite.

That is simply your opinion. If you’re true goal is to deconvert people, then why would you put them into a position where they might just argue for the sake of arguing and not actually get anything meaningful out of the discussion? I have generally found people to be more open-minded and accepting of strange, new ideas when they aren’t being aggressively made to feel ridiculous. If you attack their beliefs, they might just argue to get you off their back, not argue because you’re not right.

[Der_Trihs]

@YoungKusher

To claim that God exists = unsubstantiated with objective evidence

To claim that God does not exist = unsubstantiated with objective evidence

No. Claiming that gods don’t exist is perfectly consistent with all the evidence we have; claiming that one does exist is inconsistent with the evidence we have. Which is why people trying to defend god-belief deny the validity of everything from physical laws to logic, as you have been.

@YoungKusher

Bullshit. If they are behaving that way, I get the distinct feeling it is because of something YOU did.

:rolleyes: What, now I’m a figure of worldwide influence? When some believer on the other side of the country complains about anti-discrimination laws being oppressive, it’s my fault?

[Kobal2]

@YoungKusher

If a believer were to come in here and say that it is stupid, ridiculous, and blatantly obnoxious to NOT believe in God, then I would be doing just the opposite of what I am doing with you.

To claim that God exists = unsubstantiated with objective evidence

To claim that God does not exist = unsubstantiated with objective evidence

That’s the bottom line no if, ands, or buts about it.

To claim that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists = , etc etc…

Do you reckon we should keep an open mind, not be so dismissive of the IPU ? Do you think we should humour hypothetical True Believers of the IPU ? Do you think we shouldn’t make fun of or dismiss people who believe in the IPU ? Are you pretty neutral on the topic of the existence of the IPU ?

Why does god get a pass ?
And, trick question : if shoving the absurdity that is the IPU in a believer’s face is “disrespectful” and “aggressive”, why is their shoving the absurdity of whichever god they’re bothering in my face not deemed, by you, similarly disrespectful and aggressive ?

[QuickSilver]

@YoungKusher

Well, assuming were all still human, we learn well from trial and error, not just being divinely privileged.

What would be the point of this life if we just given something like that? If you want to say that you think God could have done it differently, I won’t disagree, but the answer to these philosophical questions can be found just by looking at human nature.

This is precisely the problem with god-think. The baseless assumption that there’s a devine plan and we’re all part of it and you can’t possibly understand what it is but just relax and don’t question it. Simply submit and try to stay on his good side…

@HipGnosis

Maybe they would, or maybe they would just sit on their ass and eat cheetos all day because there is no impending reason to do anything at all.

…oh, and try to look busy.

@HipGnosis

I learned to appreciate what I have. As for the mentally handicapped, a believer would tell you that God always gives people the tools they need to achieve their goals in this world, therefore if God gave these people less “tools” they must not need them in order to achieve the purpose they were put here for.

Ah, there but for the grace of god… eh?

I know exactly what nonsense a believer might espouse. Is this what you believe as well?

[Voyager]

@YoungKusher

That’s because that’s not what I meant. I was referring to the topic of the thread when I said neutral. As for my stance on the IPU I have plainly stated/defined it multiple times.

My most recent explanation of my stance was in post #276 when I said, “At the core of what I’m saying, I think that the IPU is not the most productive way to get a believer to see the ridiculousness of their faith. By saying otherwise you are condoning the act of being derogatory towards something personal in an attempt to enlighten. That’s a fundamental contradiction. How can someone take your point seriously when it is condescending in nature?”

Vas you dere, Charlie?
The IPU is certainly not the place to begin a discussion, and it wasn’t invented for that reason. As I said before, it had a particular purpose - to address special pleading. Before the IPU we got a lot of “Krishna, Buddha, Zeus are silly, and there is no evidence for them. Evidence for my God? That’s different. Prove he doesn’t exist, otherwise he does.” Plus we got some people very offended at “insults” to God, because he is different.
Productive in the sense of changing minds? No expectation of that - the drive-by theist in a.a. was no more amenable to reason than the drive by theist here (and no one in this thread falls into that category.)

Inflammatory? No doubt, but true believers tend to get upset by anyone not being serious enough about their god. Remember blasphemy laws? Remember that Lenny Bruce got into deep shit in Chicago because he said things about the Pope that the Irish cops were offended by. People brought up in a religious tradition have a hard time seeing their religion from the outside. Being Jewish, Christianity seemed absurd to me long before I became an atheist.

The reason this has gone on for so long is because I have essentially been crowd-surfing. A new person pops up to question one facet of a very detailed, contextually restrained point, just when I’m ending the discussion with another, thus extending the discussion farther and not allowing to be set down.

Welcome to the Dope. This happens when you are the only poster in a thread with a certain point of view. It happened to me in the brain dead kid thread. You are doing a pretty good job of it, in my opinion. We understand you can’t answer everything.

[cosmosdan]

@Trinopus

Oops! Has anyone been doing that in this thread?

Um, you’ve seen who’s posting right? ;)

Neither I, nor the Christian faithful, have the right to prevent others from saying things that might be felt to be offensive. “You’ll go to hell” is protected, and so is, “Your Invisible Pink Unicorn.”

.

Agreed

[cosmosdan]

@Voyager

I’m talking from the viewpoint of god, not us.

So am I. That’s my point. We see it as an act withing a time frame. A timeless God does not.

[Voyager]

@cosmosdan

So am I. That’s my point. We see it as an act withing a time frame. A timeless God does not.

So, can God do contradictory things at the same moment in the same universe? Being able to step outside of time does not mean that time does not exist - just that God is not limited by it the way we are.

[cosmosdan]

@Voyager

More about this. Say God is outside of time, that is, he sees all of eternity as one moment. Then he sees exactly what has been done as you see all that happens in a novel by flipping through its pages, not constrained by reading it in sequence.
No problem, right? God, being omnipotent can write the novel of the universe any way he wants, unconstrained by laws, just as I can write a novel any way I want.

But I can revise. If God see it all, it is like the novel has been published and then even I, as the omnipotent author, can’t change anything. I’m not longer omnipotent then, I’m constrained by the words on the page. If he revises, then his knowledge of what was on page 47 is no longer correct, and he is no longer omnipotent. And if he switches back - it is infinite loops all the way down.

Interesting, but again you’re fixing a point in time. {page 47} so the argument is faulty.

[cosmosdan]

@simster

Well - lets count the delusions -

“Faith” == entirely based on believing things without evidence, belief in an afterlife, belief in the supernatural, sometimes to the extent of visible fear of “demons” and “Satan”, faith healing, at best, has a “placebo” affect on a persons ability to deal with stress, primarly by shoving that stress off thru prayer or having other people praying to the same invisible god for you and “waiting, hopeing” that “gods will” is done (in your favor, of course) and when it doesn’t go your way “well, god acts in mysterious ways” —

“Atheist” = requires none of the above -

hmmmm…

grat example of what I’m talkiong about. All people have a belief system that requires some faith, that is, belief in things as factual that they have not personally verified.

If the point is that we are all to some degree and/or at times irrational and delusional, I can buy that as just part of being human. What bugs me is treating god belief as if it in particular is far worse.

[cosmosdan]

@QuickSilver

I agree with this. Religion and faith is a symptom of the human condition, not the cause of it.

more than that, all people operate with some belief system that is built on certain things and subject to intellect and emotion. All people opertate in certain aspects of thier life on faith.

[cosmosdan]

@Kobal2

To claim that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists = , etc etc…

Do you reckon we should keep an open mind, not be so dismissive of the IPU ? Do you think we should humour hypothetical True Believers of the IPU ? Do you think we shouldn’t make fun of or dismiss people who believe in the IPU ? Are you pretty neutral on the topic of the existence of the IPU ?

Why does god get a pass ?
And, trick question : if shoving the absurdity that is the IPU in a believer’s face is “disrespectful” and “aggressive”, why is their shoving the absurdity of whichever god they’re bothering in my face not deemed, by you, similarly disrespectful and aggressive ?

If you think that most people deserve basic human respect and consideration and that should be reflected in your treatment of them , then there’s no need to make fun of and dismiss anyone unless their beliefs adversly affect you or someone. It doesn’t matter if it’s god IPU ghosts or aliens.

If someone does feel the need to mock the beliefs of someone who isn’t harming them in any way, then they are being a bit of a dick.

[cosmosdan]

@Voyager

So, can God do contradictory things at the same moment in the same universe? Being able to step outside of time does not mean that time does not exist - just that God is not limited by it the way we are.

I thought that’s what eternal and timeless meant. For God time does not exist.

I imagine that means that although we would see and measure things by time and make choices and react in time, god does not. Hence my point, we don’t have this sipposed god’s perspective and arguments founded on our human perspective are faulty at thier foundation for that reason.

[Gateway]

SOOoooo, I haven’t read every post on here as I am just jumping in right now. I’ll say this: Not all spirituality is a form of denial or of blind faith (blind hope that you are right). It could be an educated guess or a certainty.

Can you really say as a human with a limited amount of knowledge of the universe AS WE KNOW IT so far to think that God may be too big of a concept for us to say for sure that God is false, and in the same way as “I got a feeling about going left right now,” or “I got a feeling that things will go well for me this year,” you can have a feeling that God is the center of the universe and has meaning for us. There is nothing wrong with that, or delusional. Besides, just because God isn’t thought certain by many doesn’t mean he is not revealed to others.