Which would be fine if this thread was filled with theists insisting on the existence of (a) god. However, it is not; it is, instead, filled with atheists insisting on the non-existence of any god.
As the first ones out of the gate with assertions, the atheists do not get to put the burden of proof on the theists.
I find this thread (along with 99% of similar threads) to be a serious waste of electrons as each side talks at the other, but it (like 99% of similar threads) is hardly doing anything to prove the calm rationality of the unbeliever. (It is making no strong case for the believers, of course, but the point of the OP was civility, not TRUTH.)
Anecdotal evidence? Do you mean life experience? Just in case you don’t know the difference, if I say that John’s belief in God is evidence, that’s anecdotal. But if I say that I’ve experienced God in my own life, that’s not. The experience is the evidence, just like if you tell me what you dreamed about last night. By what other means would you expect to convince me that the topic of your dream was indeed what you say?
Incorrect. The theists have the burden of proof because they are the ones claiming that something exists. Without evidence for it, or even evidence that it’s possible. It’s always the logical burden of the person claiming that something exists to provide evidence. Especially something that violates known physical laws.
And even if you were right, theists have a multi-thousand year head start on making assertions anyway.
Not at all the same thing. A dream is a subjective experience. Claiming that you have experienced God is claiming to have encountered something objective. As well, dreaming doesn’t violate any scientific facts; God does.
You’re just another believer demanding a special standard of evidence for his delusions.
I’m not privy to the inner workings of another’s mind (hint: neither are you), but I can think of many reasons why someone would oppose the distribution of condoms in Africa. Perhaps they are ignorant as to the scope of the disaster. Perhaps they’re prudes who don’t like the idea of anyone having sex without procreation. Perhaps they just don’t like black people. And so on
Could you please be more specific? Which conflicts are you referring?
I posed you these questions last night, and I’ve noticed that though you have replied to several other posts since then, you have ignored mine. This is the second time since joining the SDMB that I have posed direct questions to you regarding your hyperbolic belief system, and each time you have declined to respond. I have a feeling that this will mark the third occurence of non-response, but I shall try once more anyway:
Do you stand by your statement: “People do evil and stupid things all the time in the name of religion that they’d NEVER do without religion, for the simple reason that there’s no other motivation to do them.”? You offered one example of such behavior (condom distribution in Africa), which I feel I effectively counter-argued. Do you have any other examples, or are you perhaps willing to concede that many harmful acts which perpetrators explicitly attribute to their religious convictions may have alternate motivational bases?
No, I’m not requiring *you * to believe in the existence of anything I can’t prove, am I?
No, we’ve been over this before too. First prove the truth of the proposition “He who believes in any undisprovable thing necessarily believes in all undisprovable things”, and then we’ll discuss it. I’m prepared to wait, though. I’m not an unreasonable man, and I’m aware I’ve just set you a hard task.
Then what is the point of mentioning any of your beliefs in the first place?
This is pretty disingenuous, don’t you think? We’ve only recently been able to question religious beliefs without being burned at the stake, ostracized, stoned, or what have you. Recently a person in Africa was threatened with beheading because a stuffed bear was called ‘Mohammed’, fer Christ’s sake. Imagine if she had stood on a soapbox and proclaimed that Mohammed was a fake and a pedophile?
Calling atheists “the first ones out of the gate with assertions” is really funny. If the atheists had actually been “the first ones out of the gate with assertions,” I think the reaction would have been more like “Uh, what? Did he just say that something or someone doesn’t exist? WHO doesn’'t exist? Did he say ‘Gob’? ‘Gog’ doesn’t exist? Speak up, man,” instead “Kill the infidel,” don’t you think?
But this isn’t just anyone. It’s the archbishop, and he’s effectively wrapping the smaller lie of condom contamination in the bigger lie of christianity. He’s using his position as spiritual leader to further his cause…a cause that is unfounded and dangerous.
He is calling them irrational on this issue. The surgeons and engineers and the others make it even more baffling. These are people who have chosen to apply a different standard to this particular area of their lives. He’s holding to a rational standard by not believing in things that have no evidence to back them up.
I know good theists, too. But none that I know of follow their religion’s teachings to the letter.
Um, because the existence of my belief - not the correctness of it, still less any insistence on my part that anyone should share it - was relevant to the argument in the context where I mentioned it?
The bible doesn’t say it (the bible doesn’t say A LOT of things) but the church says it, making up rules and positions as they go along. If the church says it, it had to come from god (the pope IS god’s instrument here on Earth, right?), and so the people go.
I was asking Der Trihs a very specific question regarding the motivational bases of actors that explicitly attribute their biases to religion. I neither know nor care which specific archbishop you are referring to, as it is immaterial to my larger point.
If theists, of whom I am not a member, cannot justifiably take pride in Bach’s fugues, St. Basil’s cathedral, or the Abolitionist movement, then neither should they have to take the blame for misdeeds done in the name of religion.
Eyewitness evidence is wrong about 80% of the time, if I remember that stat correctly. We know that the mind can trick us into believing things that aren’t true. I actually thought I heard Rudolph and the rest of the team tap-tap-tapping on my rooftop when I was a child.
Pseudotron Ruber Ruber addressed this above and I answered it. To sum up, what you’re saying above is more or less right, but that’s not what Trihs is saying. He calls them irrational, murderous, immmoral, and stupid. There is no qualifier.
Look, that’s why I have a problem with this flake. I mean, I read things like
And I think “Wait a minute. Der Trihs lives in the real world? Is he any good at dealing with real people?” Because I don’t see it. Trihs has three main trains of thought on the board:
He thinks religious people are murderous baby killers who would kill him if they got a chance, blah, blah, blah . . . Pretty much what he’s said in this thread.
He thinks US soldiers in Iraq should be all killed, 'cause they’re all rapists and murderers.
He reads sci-fi. A lot.
Now sci-fi is awesome. But nothing about what I’ve listed really gives me the sense that Trihs is even on speaking terms with the real world or real people. He’s a closet case.
Again, I will agree with you that in the strictest sense of the word, believing in a God is irrational. That’s why I don’t believe in a God. Still, to one extent or another everyone’s irrational, including the atheists. I believe in shit that if I paused to examine it would prove to be irrational. So do you and so does everyone else, I would imagine. We’re human. The world’s too big. We can’t be rational about everything. Der Trihs is an extreme case of that fact. And just like the Phelpses, everyone else in the world is more irrational than him, and he’s a fucking genius. And sooooo well adjusted. I mean, he’d have to be if he’s passing judgement on all theists, right? Because otherwise, he’d be a cowardly hypocritical loser. Right?
Not to answer for Der Trihs, but if they’re attributing it to religion in order to control behavior, the end result is the same. They’re using the weak spot in their followers’ minds to alter behavior.
The same holds true for anyone who uses religion to get people to do things, whether that’s their true motivation or not. The followers are following the suggestion BECAUSE it was deemed correct by their religious leaders. If you remove religion from the equation, the leader is just another schmoe with no authority and people will be free to make their own choice based on fact.
If someone just believed that there was “something” out there and didn’t try to control the behavior of others through that belief, I’d agree. But we’re talking about people who give money and lip service, and therefore tacit approval of the larger organization that does bad things to people.
The Boy Scouts of America do good things for kids. But supporting them would mean I would also be supporting the homophobia they embrace. Therefore, I don’t give them money.