Does it cease to be a valid argument because it’s well-known? 
A very good book for you to put on your reading list would be The Demon Haunted World, by Carl Sagan, in which he postulates a dialogue between a debunker and a believer in a dragon in his garage, which I find analgous to your aliens/cloaking question.
No, but since its so well known, wouldn’t it have worked by now if it were effective?
They are like our children. We wait for them to grow up and develop their own thinking. We were like them once and when we became able to think rationally ,we threw off our programming and learned critical analysis. It just flies against logic and hopefully they will get there. We don’t hate our children because they believe in Santa. or the Easter bunny. We know they will outgrow it or learn to see the truth.
Yes. Because rolling one’s eyes and saying “oh, that again” absolves one of the responsibility of offering any kind of rebuttal.
As a species, we know precious little to declare God does or does not exist. We might as well be arguing over why blue is a better color than red.
Ah. Sorry, I misread your opening post, and withdraw my slightly obnoxious question. You will find that on this board, the… ahem… interplay between the skeptics and the religious folks is indeed quite challenging.
It sometimes leads to some of the weirdest stuff you’ll ever read.
I used to be more active in CSICOP, and at some of their seminars I would often bring up the same question. I think it’s a legitimate concern. From informal conversations with some of the principals, they felt that a belief in UFOs or LGMs was not in the same class as religion. Religions tend to be inherited; passed down in families, and are deep-rooted. It is considered gauche to question a person’s religious beliefs in polite society.
In contrast, UFO proponents don’t have the backing of a formal, established church or the legacy of centuries of culture and belief.
So even if we agree that religion has a lot in common with other beliefs, it is harder to attack attitudes so strongly held and so much a part of an otherwise rational mainstream society. A CSICOP vs. Catholic Church et al debate would be a lopsided contest in many ways and some thought this kind of confrontation would do more hard than good to the skeptic “cause,” at least for the time being.
Personally, I agree with Sam Harris that religion shouldn’t be off-limits, but subject to the same examination and testing we give to other unproven beliefs.
We’re all color blind. I’m just blind against one more color than you.
Robert Todd Carroll doesn’t.
I agree, but not in the way most people would. A belief in UFOs and alien abductions is much more sensible than believing in God; it doesn’t require anything as physics-ignoring as an intangible all powerful being. Not that I believe in either, but I consider the fact that both get put in the same category a demonstration of the false respect religion gets.
Polite society - as defined by the majority, who are religious. Which is very lopsided, since it’s perfectly OK to push your religion on others in most American’s eyes; you just aren’t supposed to challenge the beliefs of those doing the pushing.
As far as the OP goes, it’s because the religious have the numbers and the power; people are both propagandized and intimidated into not questioning religion. Many atheists/agnostics won’t even mention they fact that they are atheists/agnostics, much less actually argue against religion.
If I say, “I know beyond any shadow of a doubt that there is no God,” it won’t take but seconds for someone to say, “Prove it.” And yet, that is how I conduct my life. That is why I don’t go to church. That is why I don’t waste time with prayer. Because, as surely as the Baptist preacher who records his program for my radio station every week says, “I know in my heart that there is a God and He works in my life,” I know in mine there isn’t. It’s called belief. So we have to give up “knowing” and fall back on “believing.” And if that’s giving believers a pass, well, there’s nothin’ I can do about it.
Here’s my best shot at a direct and fair answer to this question:
It depends on the skeptic.
Some don’t steer away; belief in God is high on their list of things to debunk.
Some skeptics believe in God (Martin Gardner is a famous example of a skeptic/theist).
Some don’t think the question of God is one that can be settled rationally.
Some think that belief in God, while false, is harmless, or even beneficial, and would rather spend their time debunking harmful beliefs.
Some have close friends, family members, or colleagues who are believers, and they avoid challenging such beliefs out of respect for those people.
Some think that the question of the existence of God is so broad, or has been around for so long and has been debated so much, that there’s nothing much they can add.
And there are probably other reasons as well.
The former are far more specific statements than the latter—hence, easier to investigate and falsify or argue against. The latter is more broad.
The obvious response to “I know there’s a God” is “How do you know?” Doesn’t anyone ever say that? (Or are you afraid they might have a good reason?)
The believers get a free pass because there’s no convincing them. Faith means believing in something you know isn’t true. If you know it’s true, that’s fact, not faith, so they don’t mind that they can’t prove it to you either.
I don’t worry about believers, it’s no skin off my ass if they want to believe, and almost all of them are already 99% of the way to atheism already. They don’t believe in Thor, or Zeus, or Mars, or Aphrodite. They don’t believe in Anubis, or Vishnu, or Shiva, or Quetzacoatal. There are 1000 gods they don’t believe in, and I don’t believe in those thousand either, plus I don’t believe in one more, or maybe three more depending on how hopped up they are on that whole trinity deal.
We’re not talking about a great deal of difference here, are we? Three gods out of a thousand. It is to laugh.
Now, the DH rule, there’s something significant to argue about.
Then you should read and comment on a few different threads. I see all of your posts are on this one.
That isn’t truly what faith means. But you go right on believing it if you want to.
[slight hijack] Is the OP really Quentin Smith - the one who debated with William Craig? [/slight hijack]
So we should give up on an idea because stubborn people refuse to accept it?
There goes Galileo trotting out that tired old “the earth isn’t the center of the universe” routine again. :rolleyes:
Dude, I came this close to spraying Diet Coke all over my monitor. Perfect timing.
A new poster has to start somewhere. I don’t see any reason why someone’s first few posts should be spread out over several different threads. In fact, I look with some suspicion upon guests who come in here and start spouting opinions scatter-shot over a variety of threads at the same time.
Focus.