Ah, but does that automatically make them unreasonable and irrational? I don’t think so, and I don’t think YOU think so.
That’s the point I’m trying to make.
Gobear, I completely agree with you in relation to fundamentalist censorship. I understand that when you believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that you’re right and everyone who doesn’t believe needs your help or they’re fucked that you’ll try to keep them from “bad things.”
It should be noted that in my experience, most fundamentalist Christians were once VERY “sinful”… but they “saw the error of their ways” and want no one else to make the same “mistake.” And it all goes back to children. If you believe something’s bad, the only way to keep it from your kids without seeming like a horrible parent to them is to keep it from everyone’s kids. Seriously. If every other child has Pokemon but you don’t want your kid to have it, your kid is gonna get it from a friend somehow - and they’re gonna think you’re horrible. Why not just keep ALL kids from getting it.
It’s the only remaining problem (save politics) keeping safe drugs like pot from being legal. “I don’t think it’s right and I don’t want my kid to try it - so neither can you!” It’s a big problem, but who’s gonna solve it?
but why does religion get a free pass from skeptical analysis? It’s OK to debunk UFO believers, astrologers, psychics. crystal mongers, palmists, and so on, so why not religion. Is there any real difference between, say, John Edward and a member of the clergy?
Gobear, you have proved very enlightening. I now know exactly what the pro-choice side feels like when I join in an abortion debate.
Look, religion from your point of view is wrong. All well and good. The bits of statistical theory and hypothesis testing that us atheists use against the tsunami of proterilization are equally invalid to Dreamer.
Since Dreamer is starting from the postulate that science is invalid (or less valid than religion) no scientific argument will sway her.
Gobear, I haven’t hit my 500th post yet, and I’ve learned that of the 20,000 people at the SDMB, 19,000 disagree with me and 10,000 are smarter than me.
And I agree with you totally, btw. The Judeo-Christian religion is logically impossible, and has no evidence supporting it. But if ya believe, ya believe.
I wish. Actually it’s a very defensible position because there is no answer to it.
It is, however, the ultimate discardible position.
Dreamer, I have a few comments to make on some of your remarks that aren’t suitable for this forum. So, although I don’t dislike you as a person, I’m going to open a thread in the BBQ Pit.
“I believe it because I believe it” may the ultimate definition of faith. Faith doesn’t require proof. I require proof, and so do many other people. However some don’t, and although we may disagree with them. They have every right to do so.
Of course, that doesn’t mean they’re free from debunking. Those of us who don’t believe have every right to say so also.
One thing to remember is that a proper debate can only occur when both sides agree on some basic propositions and terminology. Arguing evolution or cosmology vs. creation with a creationist is impossible unless both people are willing to consider the arguments of the other side and are prepared to accept if the opponent presents a better case.
If the argument was over two different theories of evolution, such as continuous gradual change vs. sudden radical changes, both sides could at least agree on some propositions, such as that evolution does occur. If one person can’t even accept that idea to begin with, a debate turns into " ‘Is not’ ‘Is too.’ "
I never said they were free from skeptical analysis.
But, I don’t think it’s okay to imply (and I’m not directing this at YOU PERSONALLY, so calm down), that those of us who DO believe in a higher power are irrational people. I don’t think Polycarp or Jodi could be called irrational, do you?
Yet, on the other hand, there are also some really nutty athiests out there.
Takes all kinds.
GOBEAR –
Which do you want, proof that faith is logical, or proof that God exists? They’re not the same, you know, and I might be able to round up a pretty good argument for the former, but I can’t do the latter. But, see, one of the delights of being a person of faith is that I don’t really have much invested in proving the existence of God – because it’s something I take on faith, see? You, on the other hand, are a devotee of rationalism and proof. So let’s see your conclusive demonstration, with irrefutable evidence, that God does not exist. If you can’t prove that – and you can’t – maybe you shouldn’t be so damn snarky about it. And implying that any person of faith is both irrational and not an adult is snarky, no matter how you slice it.
What do you mean by “get a free pass from skeptical analysis”? Faith is, by your own assertion, irrational and, to the extent that term may be defined as “extra-rational, or beyond rational,” it is. So feel free to apply skeptical analysis to the whole endeavor and see where that gets you – no closer to the truth than you are now. You have as much proof for your position as I do for mine, which is to say none. You have presumably applied your skepticim to the issue and reached one conclusion; I have applied my skepticism (by which I mean rigorous questioning and intellectual thought) and reached the other. Who are you to say that I am wrong?
The bottom line is that true skeptics do not concern themselves much with religion, precisely because they are fundamentally concerned with that which can be tested and proven (or disproven). And they know religion cannot be. Most of them don’t give a shit about religion; it is beyond their purview.
UFOs, astrology, palmistry, fortune-telling, etc., on the other hand, are “phenomena” that generally assert themselves to be provable. If you’re told you’ll meet a handsome dark-haired man, we can watch and see whether you do. If your “star sign” asserts that you have certain characteristics, we can test whether people born under that sign can really be said to have those characteristics, or not. A UFO is asserted to be an existing, physical item, that presumably will leave traces as other existing physical items do. These are things that purport to be “provable” within the frame of rationality and proof. And, when put to the proof, they IMO always fail. Logical conclusions may be drawn therefrom. But you can’t shoehorn God into that framework of proof, as you yourself admit. But if you acknowledge He is beyond proof, why do you then assert that you are right regarding His nonexistence? Seems a strange position for you to take.
Your disbelief in God is as much a product of faith as is my belief in Him, because we both have the exact same amount of quantifiable evidence, which is to say zero.
Do you not see that by speaking in terms of “debunking” (which is to say “disproving”) religion (or, more fundamentally, the existence of God), you are implicitly asserting: (A) God can in fact be proven or disproven and (B) you can actually disprove Him?
Surely you can see that neither of these is true.
But then what the hell do I know? I’m just some irrational child, seeing as how no “grown rational person has any business believing in” God.
Satanism is harmless fun for the whole family. Almost as good as Husker-Du.
I can’t prove God doesn’t exist any more than I can prove there isn’t an invisible cat in the room. However, as astronomers deduce the existence of a planet by observing gravitational effects on its neighbors, so one should be able to detect the presence of God.
Children are born limbless, with AIDS, are beaten and abused. Where is God?
The wicked flourish and the innocent suffer. Where is God?
The universe shows no evidence of an all-powerful , all-compassionate being.
Let’s say that God exists. He still does not deserve worship because He is a monster. The Bible is full of horrifying incidents; God ordered the Israelites to slaughter whole tribes because they were on land God had promised to the Jews. God sent two she-bears to tear some children limb from limb because they mocked an elderly prophet’s bald head. God orders an old man to slaughter his son just to test his obedience. God visited hideous boils on a faithful servant and slaughtered his family just to win a bet with the Devil. The God of the Bible makes the Greco-Roman gods seem virtuous by comparison.
He deserves my worship because he gave me life. I don’t have to question his actions for how he runs the world he created. His love is enough.
Since you don’t believe in God, how do you explain these things? The natural course of life? I’m curious.
Funny. I remember playing AD&D 2nd ed. at a friends place when I was about 17. In the middle of a game this old lady who lived next door, who I had never seen, walked in and and said,“That game is evil! Dice are evil!”. I was shocked and pointed towards a television set and replied after a moment, “No more evil then that TV.” She was stumped and just stared and walked out of the room!
Which is why, when Christians tell me such-and-such is true according to their framework of belief, then I want them to know their Bible. That’s all; I’m not going to argue the Apostles’ Creed vs. the Nicaean Creed with them, delve into Thomism, or any such–just know the Bible.
Just look at it as a spiritual exercise. 
This seems logical to me. By this same logig if she gave me a horrible life then she would deserve my loath and derision. No?
Or maybe she should be hated for not giving life to others? Maybe for (if you so believe) raping a young woman and causing her to give birth to herself/her son whom she later deprived of life to fulfil a promise that could have just been made and kept out of generosity.
All well within the constrains of the logic you have laid out.
To paraphrase Heinlein on conscription “Any god that demands my servitude isn’t worth my service.”
GOBEAR –
Really. Why would you not be able to prove there is not an invisible cat in the room? Do you not know, to a logical and provable certainty, what the thing we call “cat” is? Is it not an observable thing? Do you not know, to a logical and provable certainty, whether or not a cat may be invisible? Why do you limit your ability to prove that which is obviously provable? Because I don’t. Cats – all cats – exist in the natural world and are therefore presumably and to a reasonable degree of certainty subject to natural law. We can prove that through observation and experiment. God does not exist solely in the natural world; you can’t prove much about Him through observation or experiment.
[qupte]However, as astronomers deduce the existence of a planet by observing gravitational effects on its neighbors, so one should be able to detect the presence of God.
[/quote]
Why does this follow? (It doesn’t, of course.)
Children are born healthy, they beat disease through modern medicine, they live through the love of their parents. There is God.
The wicked meet justice through the rule of law and the innocent are protected by law, by morality, and by the human impulse to protect the young and through them the species. There is God.
No evidence you can see, you mean. No evidence you accept. Bu then, you’re not the arbiter of what evidence is, or what it is worth, despite the astonishing arrogance of your apparent desire to make yourself that arbiter.
Ah, yes, the Bible. Where God gave the land of Israel to the descendants of Abraham. Where He brought the suffering Israelites out of Egypt. Where He sent Ruth to Naomi, to pledge to her, “wither thou goest, I will go.” Where He gave David Jonathan to love. Where Esther saved her people. Where the Son of God died for the love of mankind.
The Roman gods are self-centered idols by comparison.
What, you disagree? Say it isn’t so! Well, you’re allowed to, I suppose, because you’re entitled to your opinion. But if you can’t prove your opinion as fact – and you know perfectly well you cannot – then give some thought to maybe being less of an arrogant jerk about your personal articles of faith.
By having them kill the inhabitants of that land.
By visiting horrors and death upon Egyptians, most of whom had nothing at all to do with the enslavement of the Jews.
They’re certainly less prone to mass murder, and to murdering innocents.
God, the original terrorist.
Fact: God claims to love us.
Fact: God’s actions as recorded in the Bible and implied throughout history imply that He is not willing to act, or at least act in a way distinguishable from blind chance.
Conclusion: God does not love us, and any definition of a God that does is flawed.
I don’t think that’s necessarily fair, and perhaps overly dismissive. Both the Bible and the individual denominiations claim that, when one chooses to take that step of faith and believe in Christ as Lord and Savior, that a change takes place in that person’s heart. Presumably, this also means a change in their life and their behavior.
If we are to take that claim as presented, and if we are to accept as sincere those who claim that they accept and worship Christ as Lord and Savior, then there should be a detectable through-line in behavior and attitude, no matter how small. It’s my personal observation – nothing more, nothing less – that there is not. The gulf that separates Jodi from . . . who’s that one who just got banned? Live.org? . . . is as wide as the gulf separating me from Bill Gates.
I know about the “By their fruits you shall know them” and “There will be those who cry, ‘Lord! Lord!’” verses; but if that’s the standard, I would have to believe that many SDMBers who vehemently claim allegiance to Jesus are, in fact, not Christians.
I misspoke. When I said fundamentalists can be debunked, I should have said that atheists are free to present our side of the argument. However, that being said, I believe that much of what the bible recounts CAN be debunked, and has been through the various sciences.
Of course, if it’s pointed out that incidents described in the bible are physically impossible, the argument turns to “god can make it happen.” Well, if there is a god, then, okay, I suppose that could be true, but it could also be true that the story is just that. A story.