You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
And a logical fallacy as well: ad logicam.
I’m not bobbing and weaving, and your last post was a direct insult in more ways than one.
If you lay the evidence before me, I will consider each piece of evidence individually.
- You show me the evidence.
- I look at the evidence.
- I tell you what I think about the evidence.
No bobbing, no weaving and most of all, no more stalling.
To follow up on that, the problem with posters like Der Trihs is that their obsession with religion skews the impression of all atheists: most atheists (in my personal experience) don’t care about God or religion in general. And because of that, they don’t get involved in religious discussions. With a few exceptions, the only atheists who pay attention to religious debates are the ones with a big chip on their shoulder about religion. If that’s the only arena in which you’re encountering professed atheists, it can give you the impression that most atheists have a chip on their shoulder about religion.
Can we agree on “A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment”? (American Heritage)
I don’t care what you think about the evidence.** I ONLY WANT YOU TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU’VE BEEN GIVEN THE EVIDENCE.** That’s the claim you’ve been making, that I’m denying you benefit of the evidence. I couldn’t give less of a rat’s ass whether you think it’s great or horrible. I just want you to quit hounding and harrassing me for something that I believe I’ve given you over and over in several venues here at the Dope. What I want from you is assurance that if I list them all here, you will shut up about it.
Yes or no? Any more weasling, and I won’t respond to you further.
I’m sorry, but would you mind pointing out the places where you’ve given this evidence, since you refuse to actually give it here and now, so that I may examine said evidence and tell you what I think of it? I do recall you stating several times that you have this evidence, but I don’t seem to recall you actually presenting it, so please enlighten me, so that I might be enlightened.
Thank you.
In case my last post is taken by Liberal as some sort of weaseling, if someone else could point out where he presented this evidence, I would very much appreciate it.
Again, thank you.
Well, OK, but the use of the word “things” implies physical objects. Is what you intended?
Wow, that really nails it.
That’s just how I feel; funny thing is they no doubt “snicker” (like little kids, IMO) at us as the ‘children’ that have deluded ourselves into not believing in god (I’ve even heard it said that I’m “angry at god” which is an astonishingly blind thing to say LOL)
I’ve had discussions and even heated arguments about other subjects with people where we each get defensive like politics, etc. but there’s more of an ‘out’ in those situations than there is with religious arguments with fundamentalists in my experience. Politics can’t be as core as heaven and hell to a religious type who sincerely believes those things literally and devoutly. Both are difficult and very hard to come to any agreement about, but as we will see with the post 9/11 world while it’s excruciatingly difficult to negotiate politics with countries it’s of a different order of difficulty when you include religious fundamentalists with god issues with which you want a detente. It literally has to be within their own doctrine for it to be considered; someone upthread mentioned something about their doctrine requiring them to be kind or polite or whatever; the fundamentalists likewise have to keep going back to their religion to see how to act or for permission. It’s their guide to behavior in a way that is not the same as what guides an agnostic.
A religious (fundamentalist) person’s actions are profoundly guided by their belief in god, but an agnostic is not guided by their lack of belief in a god. It’s different.
No one likes to be told they are insane. For the religious person, their religion forms the entire basis of their worldview. Saying God does not exist is akin to saying, “Everything you know is wrong”.
Why do atheists get offended if I say they are blind because something that so clearly exists such as God is invisible to them?
In my experience, that attitude is useful for religious apologists by providing a strawman against which they can rail rather than against the actual points raised. Again, it’s a tactic of attempting to prove their point by showing that the opposition can’t prove theirs. Which, of course, proves nothing about their own views and simply leads to ultimately solipsistic absurdities like ‘nothing can be proven.’
Fundamentalists would collapse all logic and rational thinking to hold on to their dogma. God is beyond logic. Lovely.
Progress is being made over time though in my view; religious people often now insist that ‘fundamentalist’ be used to distinguish them from their ‘religious’ views that are not so literal and dogmatic. Such a schism can only be a good thing for those of us that look forward to the collapse of organized religion in the future.
I am never offended by what believers say. I am frequently offended by the actions they take because of their beliefs.
The only kind of atheists who are “offended” by such a statement are ones who are insecure about their own position. I don’t think you’ll find more than a handful of such atheists on this board-- most of us really don’t care.
It’s too bad the attack on the religious ‘disease’ can’t be separated from an attack on the person that’s religious; I guess it can’t be, but that is unfortunate.
In fairness to your analogy about loving god/mom, I will say that it did seem clear to me that the comparison you were making was for the sake of conveying the subjective sense of insult when a person loves their mom or their god; even if I believe there is no god, it doesn’t follow that the love you feel for “god” isn’t real. The object of your love doesn’t have to really exist, in my view, for you to feel it.
So, I understood what you meant; on the other hand, Czarcasm’s point brings up the fact (or opinion, if you like) that since the object of your love (god) is nonexistent (to him) it’s already problematic for a non-religious person because mom is objectively real so that comparing the two calls into question the entire underlying premise.
And there we are.
I don’t have a problem with that. And I’ve never asked him to believe in God or even believe the evidence I’ve offered. All I’ve asked is that he will finally acknowledge that I’ve given him the evidence if I bother to list it here. He won’t answer that question, so I’m done with him.
That’s a really astute point in that last sentence, I think. One theory of mine is that it developed thousands or millions of years ago when our brains were literally smaller as the species was evolving to serve functions at that time and that it’s passed down to us now and can be viewed like the reptilian part of our brain – still there, exerting influence, perhaps even useful, but being evolved out over time perhaps.
Yoohoo, guys. The snakes and vipers are still in the room. 
(Congrats to you, by the way, on being further evolved than we.)
Good point. And, in my experience, religious apologists’ arguments are “theologically” helped by the notion that atheists have a chip on their shoulder about religion – it categorizes those atheists as ‘backslidden’ or ‘angry at god’ or somehow else in need of prayer.
In other words, it suborns them into the religious paradigm. For a fundamentalist, there can be no other possibility. The atheist is included in their religious worldview.
Wow.