No. I am not agnostic about the existence of leprechauns. I am confident saying that according to all the evidence available to us, they don’t exist.
The difference is that we have evidence that intelligent civilisations could exist in other galaxies, because we have proof that intelligent life can be created spontaneously - us. It does not violate any natural laws, and we know it can happen on its own, so it is reasonable to consider it probable, but currently unproven.
I’ve seen Christians smugly laugh at how X person will burn in hell. So I certainly don’t think he’s alone.
That you didn’t read the post particularly well, apparently.
Regards,
Shodan
Allow me to translate for the Shodan Impared. “What, lil’ ol’ me?”
If you feel this is not appropriate for the forum, then report it. Otherwise, since it was not off-topic, save it.
Look, I realize you don’t want to see any examples of why the aggressive asshole atheist is a recognizable type, especially on the SDMB, but nonetheless it is. Deal.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t think that’s always the case. Chrisitanity has a lot of self-contradictions due to the way it originated. But Islam, for example, seems to be pretty consistent within itself.
There are a thousand pushy fundies for every O’Hair.
Except we do have some evidence in this case. We know that an intelligent civilization is a possibility because we exist. There’s no equivalent evidence regarding God.
Others have already responded to this but O’Hair is no more representative of atheism than Fred Phelps is representative of Christianity.
Do you agree that believers, by definition, do not believe solely through logic and evidence? Do you understand that it is not a matter of proof?
Since atheism is a statement about lack of belief, it is perfectly possible for an atheist to be an atheist for purely emotional and non-logical reasons. But there are very good logical reasons to hold the position. I’m quite aware of the logical arguments for the existence of god, and know holes in all of them.
Pray tell us which Doper you might find that is anything like your cartoonish version of Ms. O’Hair.
You are the one with the loaded deck-you deal.
That is wrong in several ways.
First, the null hypothesis is often used in the design of experiments, and these never result in any type of proof. So, using proof is incorrect. In any case, it is not an assumption at all to say that something for which the experiment is not yet done is unproven, in fact it is as trivially true to say the thing to be demonstrated in a proof by contradiction is unproven. Of course it is, at the beginning, but the real assumption is that the think to be proven false is true.
Now, as for gods, the null hypothesis that no god exists is quite simple and elegant. If you want to go the other way, which of the many types of gods should be assumed to exist as the null hypothesis? Even Christians believe in many varieties. How about gods which are unfalsifiable? Experiments are similar - the null hypothesis is that there is no effect, not that the effect is 10% or 15% or whatever. You don’t want a situation with a near infinite number of equally good null hypotheses, do you?
The null hypothesis here is clearly that there is none. I say that as someone who thinks it quite likely that there other civilizations. Those involved in SETI clearly think the same, since they are actively trying to falsify the null hypothesis, not asking doubters to prove that no other life exists. The null hypothesis is a tool in the demonstration of something, it is not a statement of belief. A theist who is prepared to argue for a god using logic should start at the null hypothesis of no gods as should any atheist. Where you go from there will differ.
I assume you also think the people at the Stonewall were obnoxious jerks. Martin Luther King also. In an environment which stifles differences, you are more likely to find that the few who challenge the status quo are not necessarily people you want to have over for tea. And your pissing on her grave is disgusting.
You know there are churches out there who don’t teach that gays are going to hell, right? And that said guy could still believe in God and be gay, right? Or, he could be an atheist and a closet case.
An agressive ANYTHING is being a dick. Yeesh.
I’m not OK with comparing O’Hair and Phelps. O’Hair was certainly aggressive and abrasive, but there were things that needed to be fixed really badly, and the truth is that it took an aggressive person to fix them. In spite of her personality flaws, she had a record of doing really good work.
Slightly greasy, with vacant eyes? Sure, I guess…
In case there is anyone who still. Ares about the topic…
Your situation is similar to mine 20 years ago. I love discussing religion with people who want to discuss it - but my wife is just not one of those people. I don’t think any good could come from forcing the point.
20 years later and my wife is functionally atheist but nominally still catholic. One child is full bore atheist and the other is too young to have thought about it very much - though she is fascinated by the topic. I’m confident that she’ll make the right choices when the time comes.
I might give different advice if your wife was a a fire and brimstone type, but since she is not… Let it go dude… Talk about it if she brings it up.
Only to the extent that you had a pre-existing belief that O’Hair was right and Phelps is wrong (which admittedly I do). Then you can argue that O’Hair was aggressive and abrasive but justified because she was right and was fixing things while Phelps is aggressive and abrasive but isn’t justified because he’s right and isn’t fixing things.
But if you take the premise (just for the sake of argument) that God really does exist and hates homosexuality enough to cause wars and natural disasters, then Phelps is doing good work. He could justify his actions by agreeing that he’s highly offensive but he’s willing to sacrifice his reputation and make some people unhappy if that’s what it take to prevent tens of thousands of deaths.
No; that just means that God is evil too.
It’s the “Weak Godwin’s Law”.
I’m an atheist quick to argue religion but I give my loved ones slack. Just the way it is. I’d rather have my friends than my atheism. And no, that doesn’t make me any less of an atheist.
Edit: Thought this thread was only a page long!
Shouldn’t that be “Weak noGodwin’s Law?”