The end of religious discussion in GD

[Voyager]

@mswas

It’s ok, I think atheism is laughable nonsense.

Cool. Now all you have to do is produce a decent argument about why your thoughts are correct.

[Voyager]

@RedFury

I rather like this one instead:

       ** 
        /'\
        |.;
   ,_   ;;|   _,
   \ '-.|'|.-' /
  __'.`_\;/_`.'__
 `._ - =.'. = -_.`
   .-'``/|\``'-.
    ``'` | `'``**

Surely we agree that what really we need is one hot smokin’ Og!

Is that a Canadian maple leaf with an erection?

[Der_Trihs]

@mswas

It’s ok, I think atheism is laughable nonsense.

The difference is, you have no rational reason to believe that, assuming that you actually do. Whereas atheists have every reason to consider religion laughable nonsense. Atheism, after all, is completely consistent with science; there’s no evidence of a God, no evidence one is necessary to explain anything, or even evidence one is possible. As opposed to religion, which has nothing to support it.

You are again pretending that religion has an intellectual value to that of science, and it doesn’t. Religion is worthless by it’s nature; religion is where all the worthless beliefs get put so they can be shielded from mockery by calling them religious.

[Tristan]

@Der Trihs

You are again pretending that religion has an intellectual value to that of science, and it doesn’t. Religion is worthless by it’s nature; religion is where all the worthless beliefs get put so they can be shielded from mockery by calling them religious.

For some folks, religion fulfills the same role as psychiatric help. With similarly therapeutic results, in some instances. Whether it’s for the psychological effects of confession, or some mystic guy with a beard in the sky, does it matter what the reasoning is if it allows someone to be happy and at least marginally healthy in dealing with society?

[LurkMeister]

@Guinastasia

Look, can’t we just have say, the religious people will stop telling the atheists that they’re unfufilled and that their morals have no basis, and the astheists will stop making remarks about magical sky fairies and such?

Or does that make too much sense?

Of course it makes sense, which is why the fanatics on both sides will never agree to it. Religious people who feel that it is their mission in life to convert everyone to their way of thinking are not interested in being told that that their beliefs are illogical, and atheists who are convinced that all theists are deluded and, in certain cases, responsible for all that is wrong in the world are not interested in hearing any explanations for their beliefs.

I may be an atheist, but I’m a “live and let live” atheist. I am not personally offended by the beliefs of others, as long as they respect my choice to not share in their beliefs. Fanatics of all types annoy me, as all they do is make it harder for non-fanatics to engage in rational discussion.

[Malthus]

@Voyager

Insulting? By echoing what a witness (who as it said was not welcome) says?

Well, yes. Mind you, I would regard “witnessing” where it is clearly not welcome to be insulting, too - and in much the same way: it is insulting to the intelligence to make an argument or proposition that only people who already agree with your position will find in any way valid, to an audience that doesn’t agree.

In short, making the IPU “argument” in response to witnessing may be insulting, but then, witnessing to athiests is an activity deserving of insult. In short, I have no argument with the FAQ.

But I left long before that faq was revised, and viewed some threads attempting to be serious. The IPU website, from the beginning, never attempted to be serious.

However, while there is an attempt to bug witnesses, you can see the germ of the serious argument there - which is that the same arguments for the traditional god can be used for the IPU, with pretty much equal validity. (Except for age and that we don’t pretend to believe in it.) Which is the whole point, really.

However, I do have an argument with using the IPU outside of the circumstances mentioned in the FAQ - in that it tends to encourage the lowest common denominator of religious debating.

[Malthus]

@Ensign Edison

You know what, forget it. That was too abrasive. I just wanted to get it on the record that I never meant to suggest it was an emotional response, just to say that I couldn’t come up with another explanation myself. Which is why I was asking. Obviously, anyone who reads the thread will see I ended up agreeing with the argument I initially couldn’t imagine, so it’s a stupid point for me to be all pissy over now.

I hope you aren’t pissed at me, I never thought to imply you were a liar.

[nd_n8]

@Voyager

@mswas

It’s ok, I think atheism is laughable nonsense.

Cool. Now all you have to do is produce a decent argument about why your thoughts are correct.

Well then, after reading Dawkins’ The God Delusion, given this as the presented basis of atheism around the beginning of this year, I agree with mswas and find atheism, at least based on this book, laughable nonsense.

I would need to reborrow the book from the library to cite specifics but in general I found the condecending tone of the book distracted greatly from the point Dawkins was trying to make in a way that mirrored religious apologetics perfectly. Once I put that aside and tried to approach the rest of the book with the appropriate grains of salt prescribed by the tone, I found the rest to contain roughly the same amount of straw as Iowa, nicely tied into many different man shaped statues. The problem being that each of these strawmen was followed by it’s personal tin of red herring that drew the reader away from supposing actual questions about the subject the strawmen represented thus denying questionability.

As I said, I am unable to quote specifics right now but can later if relavant. However given the above as my opinion only and based on one book only (I have not read anything else, but am strongly considering reading The Blind Watchmaker to see if it is as condecending and apologetic or if it actually makes some decent arguements, specificaly against long day creationism and indirect thiestic involvement) I fully hold the opinion that athiesm is indeed, laughable nonsense.

[nd_n8]

… not that there’s anything wrong with that.

[hotflungwok]

@nd_n8

As I said, I am unable to quote specifics right now but can later if relavant. However given the above as my opinion only and based on one book only (I have not read anything else, but am strongly considering reading The Blind Watchmaker to see if it is as condecending and apologetic or if it actually makes some decent arguements, specificaly against long day creationism and indirect thiestic involvement) I fully hold the opinion that athiesm is indeed, laughable nonsense.

So, you base your opinion that ‘athiesm is nonsense’ on the very obviously biased reading of one book? Wow. I sincerely hope that you are the exception, and this is not what normally passed for reason amoung the religious.

Oh, who am I kidding.

[Czarcasm]

@nd_n8

Well then, after reading Dawkins’ The God Delusion, given this as the presented basis of atheism around the beginning of this year, I agree with mswas and find atheism, at least based on this book, laughable nonsense.

Who told you that Dawkins’ book was the basis for atheism? It may discuss atheism, but it is not the only book on the subject. If you want my basis for atheism, here it is: No one has shown me any evidence that gods exist. Now, if you wish to back up your claim that this is laughable nonsense, all you have to do is come up with some evidence.

[nd_n8]

@hotflungwok

So, you base your opinion that ‘athiesm is nonsense’ on the very obviously biased reading of one book? Wow. I sincerely hope that you are the exception, and this is not what normally passed for reason amoung the religious.

Oh, who am I kidding.

Ya’ know, now that I think about I guess a lot of religious reason comes from the biased reading of One Book rather than the rational discussion of not only the doctrine contained in that book but how that doctrine and tradition relates to other traditions and histories as well.

Sorry, bad habit I guess, I’ll try to do better.

[nd_n8]

@Czarcasm

Who told you that Dawkins’ book was the basis for atheism? It may discuss atheism, but it is not the only book on the subject. If you want my basis for atheism, here it is: No one has shown me any evidence that gods exist. Now, if you wish to back up your claim that this is laughable nonsense, all you have to do is come up with some evidence.

I can’t, the only evidence is circumstantial at best and apologetic at worst. No evidence for or against exists.

Reason for exist and Reason against exists but that’s about it, no evidence either way to be found. My beef is with those on either side of the coin who refuse to accept this. I can’t prove God exists, you can’t prove God doesn’t exist. I can reason and rationalize a belief that God exists, you can reason and rationalize that He doesn’t. Both of these reasons, even though they contradict each other are perfectly valid.

Neither are exclusive though.

Whereas I see irreducable complexity as being a valid reason you may not. Whereas you see lack of tangeable evidence as being a valid reason I may not. The point is not whether or not God exists, the point is whether or not a concept of a higher power exists and to what extent does our existance depend upon that concept from creation through evolution to personal birth, death and what lies beyond not only our own short lives, but what lies beyond all that we view as reality.

This is the point of debating religious issues. There is no need to debate scientific issues, where there are proofs or at least terribly strong validations for a given theory there is no need for debate (one can debate the meaning or influence of a theory but not the theory itself). Thus providing proof of God or proof of No God effectively ends the debate right there.

And, as I develop beyond the casual study and debate of issues perhaps my opinions will change. However for now, looking at all of existance, at least all of “known” existance and considering the unknown as well, and declairing that God does not exist is laughable.

[hotflungwok]

@nd_n8

Reason for exist and Reason against exists but that’s about it, no evidence either way to be found. My beef is with those on either side of the coin who refuse to accept this. I can’t prove God exists, you can’t prove God doesn’t exist.

If there is no evidence god exists, why would you believe that he does?

I can reason and rationalize a belief that God exists, you can reason and rationalize that He doesn’t. Both of these reasons, even though they contradict each other are perfectly valid.

Rationalize yes, I’ve seen that, but reason? What reason can you give to justify belief in something that you have absolutely no evidence for?

Whereas I see irreducable complexity as being a valid reason you may not.

Because nothing has ever been shown to be irreducably complex, and it’s a very popular moving goalposts type argument.

Whereas you see lack of tangeable evidence as being a valid reason I may not.

Why?

The point is not whether or not God exists, the point is whether or not a concept of a higher power exists and to what extent does our existance depend upon that concept from creation through evolution to personal birth, death and what lies beyond not only our own short lives, but what lies beyond all that we view as reality.

Um, no. The concept of a higher power exists, of course. Humanity has imagined thousands of gods, demons, etc. But it has also imagined aliens, which are always thought of as much better than us. And what the hell, wizards too. That isn’t what’s in doubt.

This is the point of debating religious issues. There is no need to debate scientific issues, where there are proofs or at least terribly strong validations for a given theory there is no need for debate (one can debate the meaning or influence of a theory but not the theory itself).

Um, what? You can’t debate science? Wow. Really. You have no idea how science works.

And, as I develop beyond the casual study and debate of issues perhaps my opinions will change. However for now, looking at all of existance, at least all of “known” existance and considering the unknown as well, and declairing that God does not exist is laughable.

And there we have it. Athiests do not declare god does not exist.

[hotflungwok]

@nd_n8

Reason for exist and Reason against exists but that’s about it, no evidence either way to be found. My beef is with those on either side of the coin who refuse to accept this. I can’t prove God exists, you can’t prove God doesn’t exist.

If there is no evidence god exists, why would you believe that he does?

I can reason and rationalize a belief that God exists, you can reason and rationalize that He doesn’t. Both of these reasons, even though they contradict each other are perfectly valid.

Rationalize yes, I’ve seen that, but reason? What reason can you give to justify belief in something that you have absolutely no evidence for?

Whereas I see irreducable complexity as being a valid reason you may not.

Because nothing has ever been shown to be irreducably complex, and it’s a very popular moving goalposts type argument.

Whereas you see lack of tangeable evidence as being a valid reason I may not.

Why?

The point is not whether or not God exists, the point is whether or not a concept of a higher power exists and to what extent does our existance depend upon that concept from creation through evolution to personal birth, death and what lies beyond not only our own short lives, but what lies beyond all that we view as reality.

Um, no. The concept of a higher power exists, of course. Humanity has imagined thousands of gods, demons, etc. But it has also imagined aliens, which are always thought of as much better than us. And what the hell, wizards too. That isn’t what’s in doubt.

This is the point of debating religious issues. There is no need to debate scientific issues, where there are proofs or at least terribly strong validations for a given theory there is no need for debate (one can debate the meaning or influence of a theory but not the theory itself).

Um, what? You can’t debate science? Wow. Really. You have no idea how science works.

And, as I develop beyond the casual study and debate of issues perhaps my opinions will change. However for now, looking at all of existance, at least all of “known” existance and considering the unknown as well, and declairing that God does not exist is laughable.

And there we have it. Athiests do not declare god does not exist.

[tomndebb]

@hotflungwok

And there we have it. Athiests do not declare god does not exist.

Shame on you declaring that atheists have either a platform or an agenda.

Atheism does not require that one declare that god does not exist, but there are, indeed, some atheists who do declare that god does not exist.

[hotflungwok]

@tomndebb

Shame on you declaring that atheists have either a platform or an agenda.

Atheism does not require that one declare that god does not exist, but there are, indeed, some atheists who do declare that god does not exist.

Eh, alright, but that’s up to them to defend. The one who makes the positive delcaration is the one who has to provide the evidence. I may behave as if there was no god, but I’m not going to try to assert it.

[nd_n8]

If there is no evidence god exists, why would you believe that he does?

Personal choice, I could just as easily choose the other way.

Rationalize yes, I’ve seen that, but reason? What reason can you give to justify belief in something that you have absolutely no evidence for?

See above, personal choice is a reason not a rationalization.

Because nothing has ever been shown to be irreducably complex, and it’s a very popular moving goalposts type argument.

Then tell me, what is a molecule made of? Atoms you say? Then what are the atoms made of? Oh, electrons and protons and such. Then what are the electrons made of? What are these bosons made of? Just tell me what the primary componant of the vibrating strings in M-theory are and I will admit that nothing is irreducably complex other wise everything is irreducably complex.

Why?

Simple, my personality exists, completely independant from any other organism other than myself. Can you touch it? Can you see it? Perhaps it is a function of my physical form. If so where is it? The most likely place is in my brain. If my brain were removed, kept fully functioning and placed in a different body would I retain my personality? Would I adapt the new host body’s personality? Would there be a third option of a melding of the two? Perhaps that which is essential to being “Me” is not located in any physical part of my form. Yes, I am alluding to the concept of a soul. Again can you touch it? Can you see it? There is no tangeable evidence for the existance or the non existance of the soul. Again it is a personal choice.

Um, no. The concept of a higher power exists, of course. Humanity has imagined thousands of gods, demons, etc. But it has also imagined aliens, which are always thought of as much better than us. And what the hell, wizards too. That isn’t what’s in doubt.

Then what is? The arguement of whose God is better? Rubbish.

Um, what? You can’t debate science? Wow. Really. You have no idea how science works.

Hmm… water contains two hydrogens and one oxygen. Really? I think not. I think water is a singular element and should be defined as such. We can list this element on the periodic table in one of the newly emptied spaces created from the removal of elements that cannot be tangabley proven to exist, only reactionary or mathematical. No of course you can’t debate science. Proof is proof. You can debate the implications and uses or even the ethics but not the proofs themselves. Otherwise I may not have any idea how science works.

And there we have it. Athiests do not declare god does not exist.

Then what do athiests delcare? God is not necessary? Isn’t the unnecessary arguement the basis of the non-existance arguement? Doesn’t the term athiest mean one who is opposed to thiest? If a thiest is a follower of a God or Gods then would not an athiest be one who is opposed to being a follower of a God or Gods? If a thiest is a believer, wouldn’t an athiest be a non-believer?

[Czarcasm]

nd_n8, are there any other entities, for which no evidence exists, that you believe exist anyway?

[the_PC_apeman]

Arg. How many times must this be said.

Then what do athiests delcare?
Atheists declare they have no theistic beliefs.

God is not necessary?
If pressed, an atheist might well point this out. It demonstrates that there is no incoherency in being an atheist.

Doesn’t the term athiest mean one who is opposed to thiest?
No. The prefix a- typically denotes without as in a- theos -ism or (crudely) without god belief. More to the point, most atheists are (without (god belief)) as opposed to ((without god) belief).

If a thiest is a follower of a God or Gods then would not an athiest be one who is opposed to being a follower of a God or Gods?
Mu. Atheists are only opposed to following god in the same sense that you (presumably an aleprechaunist) are opposed to following leprechauns. In other words, that’s not a meaningful question.

If a thiest is a believer, wouldn’t an athiest be a non-believer?
Yes.

Rant over. Please continue.