My cheerful analysis of sarcasm is that it’s not meant to be taken literally or subjected to minute analysis.
Whoever wrote that remark is pointing out that the claim that there is a God is unsupported and thus has exactly as much gravity as a claim about the existence of the Easter Bunny, yet many adults believe the former and not the latter. I can’t say I see this as a claim to be supported by evidence - it just points out an inconsistency in the a claim of another. Valid replies include providing evidence that God does exist (and thus has a stronger basis than the still-unproven Easter Bunny) or withdrawing the claim.
As for CP’s statements about Santa Claus, I admit he’s citing a theist argument without actually quoting any specific theist. I don’t think he’s mischaracterizing common theist beliefs, though, so I remain unclear on the nature of your objection.
Everyone trained in theology knows the Ontological argument and knows the rebuttals. Granted, some training may go no deeper than Anselm but the modal formulation (which has been kicked to death on this forum) is also fairly well known and would be covered by any serious course of study.
I assure you they can all be rebutted with next to zero effort and anybody who has any education in philosphy or theology is well aware of it. Your sophist attempts to atack my statements in their most hyper-literal sense are (typically for you, it seems), rhetorically immature, pointless and obfuscatory.
There was nothing extreme about my claim and if you had any education in philosophy or theology you would know that. If you’d like, I can show you how each classical proof is typically rebutted. You aseem to be afraid of actually having to engage in a real EoG debate, though, which is why you are employing your amateurish campaign of sophistry and fallacy.
You don’t have to. It’s obvious that you believe it but that you’re terrified of actually having to defend it.
Speaking as an agnostic/atheist, I think you’re wrong about this.
We could live in a universe in which the laws of physics as we know them apply at all times. Or we could live in a universe in which the laws of physics as we know them apply at all times EXCEPT when God steps in and modifies any or all of them in any way shape or form he chooses with his omnipotent will. But God has not so chosen for the past 2000 years.
Nothing in the second definition is self-contradictory, and no conceivable experiment could prove that we were in the 1st not the 2nd.
The only way to choose between them is Occam’s Razor, which is back where we all started.
Perhaps you should ask Diogenes. He knows that he knows, and he’s never wrong:
Surprising similar to the theist claim that all atheists know in their heart that god exists but are afraid to admit it.
I have already explicitly stated my position in another theist/atheist thread that included a number of the participants in this thread. Do I have to do so in every thread? And, a careful reading of my posts in this thread reveals what my position is.
Please explain why it’s relevant.
And, why are you “trying to argue [me] out of a position”? I didn’t realize that this thread was directly aimed at arguing someone out of a position.
Anyway, I will answer your request to explicitly state my position in this thread, but under one condition: Diogenes must admit that he was wrong, and he must apologize to me for acting like a jerk.
Anyway, the last time that I was subjected to so much browbeating was in a discussion with the apologist Robert Turkel, who is a lot a worse than a jerk.
So we have to jump through hoops to get a direct answer?
You don’t want to dabate-you want to play games, and I’m not in a game playing mood right now. From what position are you arguing from?
I myself do not believe in the existence of any supernatural beings, but I have never understood the attractions of using a comparison of god(s) to the Easter Bunny, Flying Spagetti monster, magic unicorns, etc.
What is the point of such a comparison? It will not convince a theist that he or she is incorrect; it will only convince a theist that he or she is arguing with someone who thinks he or she is a moron, which is usually not the first step in convincing someone they are wrong, or at least that they should seriously consider the validity of the other side.
Sadly, and one of the reasons I don’t participate much in these arguments, the religious position tends to be attacked on this board essentially with a loud chorus of “you are a moron” expressed in various ways by many people. In keeping with the OP, I’d say that outside of the confines of a message board this isn’t the best or most convincing form of argument, since even people with the most open of minds tend to react negatively to being characterized as a moron.
At this point in the thread I would like to recommend Over Three Hundred Proofs of God’s Existence. Most of them are meant for comedic effect, although I have seen some used on this very board. For example…
No, it’s just a lot of experience with these kinds of debates (I moderate on an atheist message board so I argue with a lot of theists. Your pattern of trying to reverse burdens of proof and obfuscate debates with pointless semantic pedantry is something I’ve seen a lot from theists. If I got you wrong, it’s only because you argue exactly like a fundy.
Not everybody reads or remembers every post. It is generally considered polite to let people knpw where you’re coming from in a debate like this
Because it’s a debate. It’s only polite to let people know what side you’re on.
I haven’t tried to argue you out of anything. I’ve only tried to help you out and let you know how bad your logic and your rhetoric are.
I searched your post history and you claim you’re not a theist. I got you wrong only because your debate style is so fallacious and off point and digressive that you looked just like a fundy. Don’t hold your breath for an apology. I haven’t been unfair to you.
Now THATS something we can agree on.
(For those who don’t know, Turkel is the real name of internet apologist, J.P. Holding, a particularly nasty personality)
Heh. I’ve debated with Metacrock. He was singularly incoherent as both a debater and typist. I remember that “aribitary necessity” thing of his. He was pretty amusing. Temperamental but really sort of toothless. Nowhere near as big a jerk as Turkel.
I’m afraid it doesn’t, so I’ll stop requesting clarification.
Well, that proves you’re a theist, praying for miracles and all.
I’m not after the theist, though. I’m after the people watching the debate who are not yet firmly decided on theism or atheism, in hopes of getting them to see the flaws in the former and seriously consider the latter. The advantage of using an Easter Bunny analogy is that it’s something a Christian child might have once wholly believed in but in adulthood came to understand was fake. Comparing it to God might cause that person to question how he came to believe in that, too - for no other reason than he was told in childhood to believe it. I have no illusions that a determined theist will suddenly “click”. I’m hoping for the reader who has a bit of doubt, magnified when he sees that the theist cannot defend belief in God with any greater evidence than the myths fed to children about Easter bunnies.
If the theist feels insulted by the process, that’s not my concern. My position is the theist is spreading lies and since I can’t stop him, I can do my part to make the lies appear less attractive. I could be oblique and indirect about this in the hopes of not hurting anyone’s feelings, but what’s the point? I’m up against a religion industry that is well-organized, long-established, can freely sell directly to children and is promoting a product that is very seductive. Why should I deny myself an important and useful tool (ridicule) and give them an even greater advantage?
I consider the goal of such comparisons to the get the person thinking. If they actually start thinking about what they believe and why, regardless of their response, then you’ve helped them take a step forward. Theistic belief cannot be overcome all in one go, you have to help them past the ‘this belief is important to my life and I need it’ point. Showing them that the reasons they use to justify that belief are silly is one way to do this, even if it does sound insulting.
That’s the problem with theistic belief, it has a ‘get out of reason free’ card. Someone thinks that there are invisible pink unicorns in their back yard and they talk to them? Insane. Someone thinks there are invisible people in the sky and they talk to them? Devout & moral individual. Pointing out that religious belief is or can be silly is ‘bad’, unless it’s not their religion.
Well, I think the main problem here is that a lot of us have heard just about all the arguments before, and tend to skip to the big conclusion. No, it’s not necessarily good, but it saves time. When you’re confronted with someone who thinks that ‘I feel it’ is rock solid proof, and expects you to think the same thing, it’s difficult to stay nonconfrontational about it.
My point is that it is an ineffective tool. It infantilizes the user, not the receipient of the ridicule.
It also debases the debate.
I am not of the opinion that all those who believe in a diety are part of some sinister “religion industry”, or are “liars”. I have more respect for my opponents than that. Underestimating the opposition and resorting to tactics of ridicule, demonization and abuse - is that really the best way to convince the uncommitted?
My point is that it does not work that way, any more than point-blank telling anyone that anything they believe in strongly is “silly” is likely to be an effective argument.
It will not I think have the benefits you are assuming. Telling someone that their beliefs are “silly” does not generally make them re-think their beliefs. It is a put-down, plain and simple.
Moreover, I do not myself assume that “the big conclusion” is that those who are religious are, in fact, morons. Many religious people have been (and are) more intelligent than I am. Many are good and honest people.
A better and more convincing and constructive form of argument is to assume this to be true of those you are arguing with.
For example, when I am called upon to argue with a theist, I generally take the tack of trying to pin them down as to what they mean by “faith”. Usually, this means in the end some sort of emotional and intuitive rather than rational way of “knowing”. Then, one can point out that the two realms - emotion/intuition and reason - need not be in conflict; whether dinosaurs evolved lies within the realm or reason, it cannot be “known” emotionally/inuitively; similarly, (for example) whether Jesus is your personal saviour can only be known emotionally/intuitively, it is not a matter that can be proved or disproved by reason.
This creates some common ground, a basis for moving forward. After all, I am fundamentally uninterested in whether or not someone believes in Jesus as their personal saviour - but I am very interested in preventing those who do from interfering with (say) the teaching of evolution. The idea in my mind is not to convert anyone, but rather, to gradually confine religion to its proper sphere - of a personal matter of emotional comfort.
