When looked at closely with logic and reason, religion falls apart. It puts strain on the human brain to attempt to believe something that does not make sense. You become defensive because of this internal conflict you must feel between logic and fantasy.
That, and has already been mentioned, you don’t want your invested time/energy to go for nothing. For example, I wrote a 25 page final exam that took me 2 weeks to complete. I’ll take to the grave with me that it is the best damn paper ever written by anybody ever, even though I got a ‘B’ on it.
Ironically, your post followed immediately on one that characterises believers as being on the same intellectual plane as small children who still believe in Santa. Seems kinda hard to assert that that brush is one single bristle too broad.
So atheists should not hate believers, nor should they be condescending. I can only conclude that the only position you would allow atheists to express would be to deny reason and admit that there is a possibility that your god exists, *sans * evidence.
To those of you who have provided answers to the question originally asked in the OP: Thank you. You’ve offered very intelligent insights and I appreciate hearing them, no matter what belief affiliation (or lack thereof) you may have. I will be sure to examine them in further detail later.
To those of you who’ve launched into personal attacks, accusations of each other’s intolerance, and defense mechanisms: Thank you. You provide excellent illustrations of the phenomenon I was asking about in the first place.
As an even more pertinent example, suggest that the theist quit bringing up theoretical evidence for theoretical atheists, and actually provide real evidence for the very real atheists that have asked for it again and again. Not “The evidence is all around you-you just refuse to see it!” Not “Why should I give you evidence-you’d just say it didn’t count!” Not “I feel it in my heart, and that is evidence enough!”
The only position I would request from atheists is simple respect. You might believe that Elton John sucks and yet, remarkably, I can still respect you as a person.
You are free to demand whatever evidence you wish, no matter how irrelevant it may be. But you are not free by any reasonable convention to decide for me what evidence I must accept or decline. I’m not asking you to believe in God. I’m asking you to be civil. Why is that a problem?
But as has been said many times before, the only difference that atheists see between your incredible beliefs and claims and those of so many others is the number of people that ascribe to those beliefs and the amount of time they’ve done so. If you change the word “God” to “Santa”, “I.P.U”, or “Mordren, Spirit of the Most High Temple Of Atlantis” and demand this level of respect, what do you think the response of others would be? Hell, if someone else made this claim sincerely, what do you think your response would be, honestly?
Because you claim that there is evidence. I am making NO claims as to what evidence you must accept or decline-I am asking what that evidence is so that I might decide whether or not to accept it.
Why do you deny me this?
The “demand”, as you state it, is totally useless if you refuse to present the evidence, as you damn well know. It’s like have the “right” to breathe when there is no oxygen.
Although what she believes is an intrinsic part of a person, I wouldn’t say that the whole person is defined by what she believes. I’m talking about respecting people.
Swear before God and everybody here that if I list for you the evidence that I accept, you will acknowledge once and for all that you have been given evidence but that you are rejecting it, and I will comply. Otherwise, why should I waste time and effort that will result in yet another bullet shot from your gun of ridicule?
You demand respect for your beliefs, yet your first sentence asks me to make a false swearing before a god I do not believe in, and your last is a preemptive strike against something I supposedly will do? Well, try this on for size:
In the name of science, I will examine your claims of evidence individually, weigh them against what I know so far, and let them fall where they may between the categories of Totally Useless and Totally Convincing, while taking note of the fact that, as my knowledge base widens, their positions (for good or for bad) may change.
I think it has to do with things like the poll quoted in this thread. Those are the kinds of things that make me not want to bother “playing nice,” or play at all, anyway.
Just to be clear, Der Trihs is one person. Please don’t assume that he speaks for all, or even most, non-believers.
As for the OP, belief in a deity is not something that lends itself to reasoned debate. There are no facts to consider, no evidence to weigh. Your belief is a matter of faith, and the only way to defend it is, well, be defensive. Otherwise you have to just shrug it off and say nothing. But spiritual beliefs must serve some function in the human psyche, otherwise they wouldn’t be so pervasive.
Stop bobbing and weaving. Will you or will you not acknowledge that you’ve been given evidence even if it is evidence you reject? Yes or no. (Or leave me alone.)
Thanks. I’m mindful of that. It’s pretty easy to tell the hardasses from the reasonable people.
I think it’s because the less objective justification something seems to have (in the opinion of the person in question), the greater the defensiveness.
It’s like the arrogance of youth; the less you know, the more certain you act.
It’s some kind of overcompensation for the insecurity, I think; as if investing more emotional fuel into it on your side will somehow make up for the logical holes.
Personally, I’ve noticed that what often develops is a tendency to argue one’s point by claiming the other side didn’t prove their point and using that as an implicit proof of the validity of one’s own. Intransigence, obstinance, foolishness.
On a side note, I think it’s quite admirable of you to feel ashamed for latching on to a viewpoint during a discussion that wasn’t based on a reason you want to use as the premise for latching on. I think that shows more open-mindedness (which, of course, can itself be attacked as a ‘bad thing’ by those insistent on dogma LOL).
