Why I Don't Believe In God

[Darcy88]

Apparently biblical literalists are also forced to believe that Noah brought dinosaurs onto his ark.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

It wasn't intended to be. Read the posts at which it was directed. I'm not going to baby-sit your lack of sarcasm detection on a literary forum. Read the context. I'm sorry, this response originally confused me because I assumed you understood that I was making an argument for materialism. I didn't know where you were coming from.
When I said, "Well, that's scientific. :lol:" I was just kidding around. Chill out. As to the purpose of this thread, deryk, read the idiotic OP. The purpose of this thread was a dumb joke. I can't believe it made it to a second page, much less spawned the discussion it did.

As for the triceratops picture from Bien, others have done the work for me by pointing out that the picture is a forgery. Try again.

[JuniperWoolf]

As for the triceratops picture from Bien, others have done the work for me by pointing out that the picture is a forgery.

The "artist" who admitted to creating the pottery was a paid leftist puppet, and carbon dating is invaild.

(this Biblical literalism stuff is easy)


Apparently biblical literalists are also forced to believe that Noah brought dinosaurs onto his ark.

Also, he managed to round up two of every individual non-flying insect on every continent of earth. I can't decide which sounds most unlikely.

[MystyrMystyry]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/Triceratops_prorsus_old.jpg/800px-Triceratops_prorsus_old.jpg

Triceratops skeleton 1898 ^ Still a fantastic looking head.

That 'Inca artist' really was quite creative.

[KCurtis]

I guess the late member Musicology was before your time. :lol:
Oh, was there someone on here who thought the earth is flat?:banghead:

[YesNo]

Oh, was there someone on here who thought the earth is flat?:banghead:
I think the universe is flat.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

[BienvenuJDC]

Apparently biblical literalists are also forced to believe that Noah brought dinosaurs onto his ark.

Please tell me why that would be far fetched? Do you think that the dinosaurs were hatched out in a colossal size?

[Darcy88]

Please tell me why that would be far fetched? Do you think that the dinosaurs were hatched out in a colossal size?

Try nabbing a bear cub from every bear species, polar, black, grizzley, ect, and if you have any limbs left then go get a young lion, tiger, cheetah, panther, ect. Good luck. I think getting two baby dinosaurs of every dinosaur species would be a task immeasurably more daunting than even that. Actually it would be impossible, since we know that dinosaurs went extinct long before man first drew breath.

And I don't see how he would even know whether he'd gotten every species. The science of taxonomy was crude if not non-existent back then.

[JuniperWoolf]

Oh, was there someone on here who thought the earth is flat?:banghead:

Yeah dude, I'm pretty sure he thought Mozart didn't exist too. Also, those vapor lines left after a plane flies overhead? Deliberately excreted poisonous chemicals orchistrated by the British government.

[BienvenuJDC]

Try nabbing a bear cub from every bear species, polar, black, grizzley, ect, and if you have any limbs left then go get a young lion, tiger, cheetah, panther, ect. Good luck. I think getting two baby dinosaurs of every dinosaur species would be a task immeasurably more daunting than even that. Actually it would be impossible, since we know that dinosaurs went extinct long before man first drew breath.

And I don't see how he would even know whether he'd gotten every species. The science of taxonomy was crude if not non-existent back then.

We KNOW? I'm sorry, but that goes against the evidence. Oh...but it's easier to just throw out the evidence instead of changing our beliefs.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Oh, was there someone on here who thought the earth is flat?:banghead:
He thought many things.


And I can't help but notice Bien has decided to just ignore how everyone pointed out that his wonderful piece of "evidence" was a fake. I think this would apply nicely to Bien himself:

You cannot offer any evidence that can disprove something that is obviously been proven. But be my guest....show us what you've got...

We KNOW? I'm sorry, but that goes against the evidence. Oh...but it's easier to just throw out the evidence instead of changing our beliefs.
That was added while I was writing. It's just hilarious. Speak for yourself, Bien.

[Darcy88]

We KNOW? I'm sorry, but that goes against the evidence. Oh...but it's easier to just throw out the evidence instead of changing our beliefs.

What evidence? Those fabricated stones?

[Darcy88]

Noah would have had to have ventured to the North and South poles, deep into the Amazonian rainforest, down to Patagonia, way over to the Galapagos Islands. And, assuming he somehow knew he'd gotten them all, he'd have had to have gone back and released them back into their native habitats. You'd think there might be some mention of these vast distant lands somewhere in the bible.

Edit: It appears that the bible says the animals "came unto Noah." Which means, I suppose, that God somehow commanded them to converge upon ancient Israel. Polar bears, mountain gorillas, kangaroos.... all migrated across continents, compelled by God, and embarked upon Noah's boat upon which they rode out the storm. In a world-view wherein nothing is impossible, I guess not even that is impossible. And since all things are possible with God, it would seem that once you're made the choice to believe in Him you can believe just about anything. Fair enough.

[mazHur]

What evidence? Those fabricated stones?

Why, man was also created from clay??:drool5:

[mazHur]

Enjoy!

The Power of Cosmic Thinking
Daniel Honan
Managing Editor
There is a Native American belief that one has the responsibility to think seven generations ahead. While this is a nice sentiment, it's not good enough, argue Nancy Ellen Abrams and Joel R. Primack in their book The New Universe and the Human Future: How a Shared Cosmology Could Transform the World. Abrams and Primack argue we are living in a cosmically pivotal moment today, and we have a higher level of responsibility than any generation that came before us. READ/Watch video »http://bigthink.com/ideas/41338

[BienvenuJDC]

What evidence? Those fabricated stones?

Yes, that is exactly how evidence is rejected. Have you investigated the evidence? What makes you think that they are fabricated? OH...because it is in contradiction to what you believe? That is AMAZING!!

[Darcy88]

Yes, that is exactly how evidence is rejected. Have you investigated the evidence? What makes you think that they are fabricated? OH...because it is in contradiction to what you believe? That is AMAZING!!

I think they are fabricated because the guy who supposedly "found" them has since confessed to having fabricated them. They also show pictures of ancient astronauts. Do you believe in them now too?

[cafolini]

I think they are fabricated because the guy who supposedly "found" them has since confessed to having fabricated them. They also show pictures of ancient astronauts. Do you believe in them now too?

I do. The secret of Himmler in Atlantis and Nepal. What's not to know is to believe or disbelieve and let it be. If it is to know, there will be an answer. If it is not to know, yet posed as knowledge, an arsenic pill.

[Paulclem]

If there isn't an influx of sodium or potassium or a chain of electrons to complete a synapse, then that thought you were about to have does not occur. Did you think perception was magic? This is decades old information. Neurologists have more recently observed things like love and have been able to replicate the conditions. There is no magical land of abstractions, only the tiny hard copies of reality inside our brains and our ability to manipulate those copies. EVERYTHING is material. That doesn't mean those things aren't special. It just means we don't live in a world of make-believe.


Bah - and I believed in fairies.

Yet I don't think that accounts for thoughts or the mind. The potassium and sodium etc etc - are the vehicles for thoughts to arise not the thoughts themseves. You said it yourself - if those conditions aren't there, then there is no thought manifesting.

There may be no magical abstractions - though I never mentioned magic - but you have this magical analogy of hard drives. I don't think science can account for the mind or thoughts, though they can see the process of the meat machine better these days. Or am I wrong?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Yes, that is exactly how evidence is rejected. Have you investigated the evidence? What makes you think that they are fabricated? OH...because it is in contradiction to what you believe? That is AMAZING!!
Have YOU investigated the evidence? The guy who found those stones ADMITTED that they were FABRICATED! Seriously, are you being intentionally obtuse now just to rile people up, or what?

[mazHur]

Evidence is like Big Foot. The question is: If there are imprints of Bib Foot then where is the so-called Big Foot???
Much is said about the UFO's but why these chiefly appear in the US and not in other countries, such as the Far East or the Middle East??

[JuniperWoolf]

My question is, what should we do when we bump into people with opinions like those of Bien? It's clear that the debates go nowhere. When you have a normal debate, sometimes you make good points or your opponent does and that changes someone's mind on an issue which is always cool because it means that there's been growth. Bien will NEVER change his mind, so do we just not bother to argue? If we don't argue against people like that, is doing nothing while they loudly insist on such outdated ideas going to have negative consequences (for example, are they going to start to force biology teachers to teach creationism in schools and push for them to cease teaching evolution altogether, or send kids to "learn how not to be gay with the power of Jesus" camps)? Arguing against them is tedious, and the subject is very very stupid which makes me feel stupid for giving it time in the first place, but should we argue anyway to prevent vocal fundamentalist Christians from getting too much attention which might lead to terrible decisions being made in politics and education?

[Darcy88]

Well Juniper, I think we should respect people's beliefs so long as they do not force them upon us or, as you say, introduce them into a school's curriculum. The scientific method should be the standard by which the material taught to children should measured. Beyond that I say let people believe what they want to believe. While I disagree profoundly with what Bien has said in this thread, I do respect his right to believe as he chooses and to freely express those beliefs.

[BienvenuJDC]

Bien will NEVER change his mind,

Would Juniper ever change hers?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Hey, Bien, what do you think about those pictures you posted of the fabricated drawings?

[BienvenuJDC]

I think we should respect people's beliefs so long as they do not force them upon us or, as you say, introduce them into a school's curriculum. The scientific method should be the standard by which the material taught to children should measured. Beyond that I say let people believe what they want to believe. While I disagree profoundly with what Bien has said in this thread, I do respect his right to believe as he chooses and to freely express those beliefs.

I totally disagree that the so-called scientific method should be taught to children. Let's just leave the THEORIES out of the curriculum. I as well respect your beliefs, but don't you see that your belief is just as subjective as mine?

[BienvenuJDC]

Have YOU investigated the evidence? The guy who found those stones ADMITTED that they were FABRICATED! Seriously, are you being intentionally obtuse now just to rile people up, or what?

I'll admit that is possible. Can you document that, or do I just take your word for it?

[Darcy88]

I totally disagree that the so-called scientific method should be taught to children. Let's just leave the THEORIES out of the curriculum. I as well respect your beliefs, but don't you see that your belief is just as subjective as mine?

The difference is that my beliefs can be empirically verified. Science is self-correcting, it refines itself through the ever ongoing interplay of hypothesis, evidence and theory. The bible, on the other hand, is set in stone. A scientific fact is reliable in a way that a biblical statement is not. What reason do you have for having faith in the bible? Its almost arbitrary. Why not the Book of Mormon, why not the Koran? What reason do I have for believing in evolution? The evidence indicates that the theory is true, that's my reason. Science relies on evidence, the bible relies on itself. Evolution is "true" because of what our observations of the natural world lead us to conclude. The bible is true why? Its true because its true?

[BienvenuJDC]

The difference is that my beliefs can be empirically verified. Science is self-correcting, it refines itself through the ever ongoing interplay of hypothesis, evidence and theory. The bible, on the other hand, is set in stone. A scientific fact is reliable in a way that a biblical statement is not. What reason do you have for having faith in the bible? Its almost arbitrary. Why not the Book of Mormon, why not the Koran? What reason do I have for believing in evolution? The evidence indicates that the theory is true, that's my reason. Science relies on evidence, the bible relies on itself. Evolution is "true" because of what our observations of the natural world lead us to to conclude. The bible is true why? Its true because its true?

I'm sorry....evolution cannot be empirically verified. What you call scientific fact, is NOT a fact. It's called the THEORY of Evolution for a reason. The Bible CAN be verified by archeological evidence. But I'm wasting my breath...

[Darcy88]

I'm sorry....evolution cannot be empirically verified. What you call scientific fact, is NOT a fact. It's called the THEORY of Evolution for a reason. The Bible CAN be verified by archeological evidence. But I'm wasting my breath...

I said the evidence "indicates" that its true. Of course its just a theory. I see that the main thrust of my response has been dodged. None of the supernatural claims in the bible can be verified, nor supported in any meaningful way. The theory of evolution has volumes of naturalistic observations backing it up, not proving it, but indicating the incredible likelihood of its being true.

A scientific claim refers beyond itself to the world at large. The bible refers to back onto itself. In the end all the believer can say is "its true because its true."

[JuniperWoolf]

Would Juniper ever change hers?

Every day. You'll have a hard time convincing me that Jesus rode a dinosaur, though.

Also, no one seems to understand the definition of the word "theory" as it's defined in science. I can tell, because they write the phrase "it's just a" beforehand. In science, a conclusion has to get battered and tested over and over, other scientists have to try their hardest to disprove the conclusion (and believe me, at the prize of having their names in textbooks all over the planet for decades, maybe for as long as textbooks exist, they tried their damned hardest to replace Darwin's theories with their own), and then, and ONLY THEN, after tireless research, does a conclusion earn the right to be called a "theory" in the scientific community. It's not just something that some random guy chucked out willy-nilly, it's a THEORY. Bien, YOU seem to be looking for a "law." You're not going to find one in this case, so you've invented one.

[BienvenuJDC]

I said the evidence "indicates" that its true. Of course its just a theory. I see that the main thrust of my response has been dodged. None of the supernatural claims in the bible can be verified, nor supported in any meaningful way. The theory of evolution has volumes of naturalistic observations backing it up, not proving it, but indicating the incredible likelihood of its being true.

A scientific claim refers beyond itself to the world at large. The bible refers to back onto itself. In the end all the believer can say is "its true because its true."

I'm sorry, but the whole idea of something from nothing, intelligence from non-intelligence, order from chaos seems pretty supernatural to me. It doesn't even make good sense.


I'm done arguing here. The funny thing is that you guys think that I'm the narrow minded one here.

[OrphanPip]

Theory in the scientific context means a set of tested hypotheses and applications that explain a specific phenomena. Such that the theory of gravity is the scientific explanation of the phenomena of gravity. The theory of evolution is the scientific explanation of the phenomena of evolution. Evolution itself is fact based on the fossil and genetic evidence.

The meaning here being derived from the original greek meaning, which is a way of looking at something.

[mazHur]

If science could be 'self-corrective' beliefs too. The number of planets keeps on increasing, new diseases are evidencing themselves, which fact itself tells upon the
inadequacy and impermanence of science with time. Beliefs are also self-corrective but depend on how to take them to be, when and where?

What is good at one place cannot definitely be the same at other. compare for instance, the Western beliefs against those of the Chinese or Japanese. There is always room for improvement both in science as well as belief but all depends on how one fairly and open-mindedly delves on his thoughts.

[Darcy88]

If science could be 'self-corrective' beliefs too. The number of planets keeps on increasing, new diseases are evidencing themselves, which fact itself tells upon the
inadequacy and impermanence of science with time. Beliefs are also self-corrective but depend on how to take them to be, when and where?

What is good at one place cannot definitely be the same at other. compare for instance, the Western beliefs against those of the Chinese or Japanese. There is always room for improvement both in science as well as belief but all depends on how one fairly and open-mindedly delves on his thoughts.

There is definitely some truth in what you say here. Being a believer by no means makes one close-minded or unreasoning, not at all. Religion, including Christianity, can be a dynamic, enlightened thing. The difference I think though is that with science EVERYTHING is on the table, nothing is above being potentially discredited. With faith that is not the case. In fact its this constant flux which has been science's greatest strength and claim to legitimacy. Nothing is sacred before the fact. It all depends on what the research shows. Every theory out there could be overturned, every law and every fact disproven, and still, science itself, the process and method, would remain unaltered. Again, with faith this is not the case.

[stuntpickle]

One needn't search out a debate in an internet forum between atheists and theists to witness a group of persons ganging up another one. It is perhaps a fundamental aspect of human nature exhibited on every school blacktop. Of course, secular philosophy tells us that the term "human nature" is unhelpful and prefers "the human condition"--all while presenting a fairly convincing demonstration of the former.

I have a question for all the atheists.

First, I want you to think about the most important person in the world to you. This could be a spouse, a parent, a child, a lover, a friend; it doesn't matter who, so long as none other is more important to you. I want you to imagine that this person is, in the next five minutes, struck by a moving automobile. You are then summoned to the hospital, where this persons is in the process of dying. You are at this person's bedside to receive his last words. He asks you whether there is a heaven, and if so, whether you two will meet again. My question involves neither proofs nor arguments, and we will presume that the person answering the question is an atheist.

Do you answer honestly and tell him there is no heaven and that these are his last moments of consciousness, or do you lie and tell him that you will see him again?

I ask you this not to persuade you to theism, but to demonstrate the stakes of the question. You see, this is precisely the question I asked myself a few years ago when I was, myself, an atheist. My answer was that I would lie; moreover, I would want the lie to be true. My theism is now no lie, but defeating my innate hostility to the idea was a necessary precursor.

The reason I mention this is because I also began to realize, in more than an academic sense, how we are all members in a community of the dying and how to disabuse any theist of his theism is to place him in that bed and tell him the truth, and so you will have to excuse me for finding your zest vulgar and thoughtless.

I don't think it is an accident that New Atheism is largely restricted to a younger demographic. We're all five metaphorical minutes away from that bed, but it's incredibly hard to understand this when you're young. The reason belief in God has been so historically persistent has nothing to do with the intellectual failings of people.

My point is not to suggest that theism is a lie or even self-deception, but rather to point out how the treatment of Bievenu is representative of the worst aspects of human nature.

[PoeticPassions]

It is an interesting questions, surely, and I am sure that the answer would really depend on the individual... As for my answer:
Beyond the love I have for humanity, and the love I have for the most important person in my life, I believe in being true to myself and to others. In this way, I would not lie. But I wouldn't say that there is no Heaven either... I would answer that I don't know (for almost nothing is certain), and that we may yet see one another in some next life.

If there is Heaven then that person's last thoughts won't matter, for they will go to a beautiful place. And if there is not, then there is nothingness, and in nothingness my answer won't matter. But at least I would not have betrayed my truth.

[stuntpickle]

It is an interesting questions, surely, and I am sure that the answer would really depend on the individual... As for my answer:
Beyond the love I have for humanity, and the love I have for the most important person in my life, I believe in being true to myself and to others. In this way, I would not lie. But I wouldn't say that there is no Heaven either... I would answer that I don't know (for almost nothing is certain), and that we may yet see one another in some next life.

If there is Heaven then that person's last thoughts won't matter, for they will go to a beautiful place. And if there is not, then there is nothingness, and in nothingness my answer won't matter. But at least I would not have betrayed my truth.


Let us suppose that there is only nothingness, wouldn't telling them the "truth" intensify the agony of the somethingness they had left?

How important is your "truth"?

The classic thought experiment involves having the Nazis come to your door and ask if you are hiding Jews. If you are, do you tell the truth? How important is your truth then?

[YesNo]

Regarding stuntpickle's deathbed scenario, which is quite real, I have no problem in saying to a dying loved one that bodily death is not the end, but a beginning, a new phase, and I would use the evidence of near and shared death experiences to justify it if need be.

This doesn't imply anything about the existence of a particular kind of God, but it doesn't hurt any such argument either.

I disagree with stuntpickle's claim that BienvenuJDC is being unfairly treated. However, in BienvenuJDC's defense, those opposed to him did not provide the evidence that he requested. He showed more of his own evidence than his opponents did. OrphanPip, for example, dogmatically states, "Evolution itself is fact based on the fossil and genetic evidence." We need to get out of a habit of expecting other people to swallow dogmatism. What is that fossil and genetic evidence? If it is too complicated to summarize, provide a link.

The main issue with evolution, as I see it, is whether it occurred by chance or whether an assortment of conscious choices were involved. It is not the issue of creationism denying it happened at all and a pseudo-scientific dogmatism expecting belief without putting the data on the table.

[Varenne Rodin]

Let us suppose that there is only nothingness, wouldn't telling them the "truth" intensify the agony of the somethingness they had left?

This is what I told my young son when he asked me what I think happens after we die: "I don't know, and we can't know for sure, but energy doesn't die, it moves. When we're born there is pain, and we're taken out of the world we know, but we have no memory of that pain and we will have no memory of the pain of death. Our selves might be gone, but if for some unknown reason we go on, I promise I'll find you." He seems very content with that. He imagines worlds and dimensions much more interesting and complex than the bible's heaven. He's open to all possibilities. He thinks it would be neat to be reincarnated as a chipmunk, or for the energy powering his movements to go toward powering a tree or ocean waves. Our physical particles after we die go back into the earth. They become other things. There isn't anything scary about that, other than knowing we should be aware of it and try not to screw things up for future generations.

If you're not raised with dogmas, you won't be so effected by dogmas. You can just enjoy life and understand that making the best of it is important.

[stuntpickle]

Regarding stuntpickle's deathbed scenario, which is quite real, I have no problem in saying to a dying loved that bodily death is not the end, but a beginning, a new phase, and I would use the evidence of near and shared death experiences to justify it if need be.

This doesn't imply anything about the existence of a particular kind of God, but it doesn't hurt any such argument either.

I disagree with stuntpickle's claim that BienvenuJDC is being unfairly treated. However, in BienvenuJDC's defense, those opposed to him did not provide the evidence that he requested. He showed more of his own evidence than his opponents did. OrphanPip, for example, dogmatically states, "Evolution itself is fact based on the fossil and genetic evidence." We need to get out of a habit of expecting other people to swallow dogmatism. What is that fossil and genetic evidence? If it is too complicated to summarize, provide a link.

The main issue with evolution, as I see it, is whether it occurred by chance or whether an assortment of conscious choices were involved. It is not the issue of creationism denying it happened at all and a pseudo-scientific dogmatism expecting belief without putting the data on the table.

You know, YesNO, I'll never claim to be a nice guy simply because I'm not. I do, however, find trying to disprove someone's faith in God to be subtly horrible. I understand that my question doesn't settle the disagreement, but I also think this unjustifiably optimistic atheism is fairly myopic. Nietzsche, who was himself an atheist, considered atheism something of a catastrophe.

Let me put it to you this way: if I were in the situation I describe, I would sacrifice evolution, literature, music, reason, itself, to provide five minutes of comfort to that person; moreover, I might be persuaded to sacrifice myself if that would just make it true. Trying to disabuse bienvenu of his theism is to fail in understanding that for someone, he is the person in the bed, and that he, himself, would be by some bedside. For anyone who answers that they would lie, I think they make the mistake of caring insufficiently for Bienvenu, whoever he is, because he is, after all, that person in the bed in a very real sense.

Again, it may seem hypocritical for me, who has proven himself something of a jerk, to chastise others, and yet it seems to me to be the truth.

[Varenne Rodin]

Also, if 23 people in a classroom answer a test question 1 way, and 1 student answers it another way (perhaps incorrectly), it doesn't mean the 23 are ganging up on the 1. Not even in a sort of open discussion forum. I try not to coddle people to the point of supporting and encouraging delusions, which I think are ultimately harmful to a society that is judged based on said delusions.

[stuntpickle]

Also, if 23 people in a classroom answer a test question 1 way, and 1 student answers it another way (perhaps incorrectly), it doesn't mean the 23 are ganging up on the 1. Not even in a sort of open discussion forum. I try not to coddle people to the point of supporting and encouraging delusions, which I think are ultimately harmful to a society that is judged based on said delusions.

Of course, that presumes that belief in God is, in fact, delusional, and demonstrating that is a tall order--something the foremost atheists have failed to do convincingly. Contrary to what many current atheists have said, believing in God is a fairly uncomfortable thing; Christians call it "being convicted in the spirit," and it involves the admission that you have been largely wrong throughout your life. So let us call it a humbling belief, which cannot be said of the belief that one knows what precisely is harmful to society.

[Varenne Rodin]

You know, YesNO, I'll never claim to be a nice guy simply because I'm not. I do, however, find trying to disprove someone's faith in God to be subtly horrible. I understand that my question doesn't settle the disagreement, but I also think this unjustifiably optimistic atheism is fairly myopic. Nietzsche, who was himself an atheist, considered atheism something of a catastrophe.

Let me put it to you this way: if I were in the situation I describe, I would sacrifice evolution, literature, music, reason, itself, to provide five minutes of comfort to that person; moreover, I might be persuaded to sacrifice myself if that would just make it true. Trying to disabuse bienvenu of his theism is to fail in understanding that for someone, he is the person in the bed, and that he, himself, would be by some bedside. For anyone who answers that they would lie, I think they make the mistake of caring insufficiently for Bienvenu, whoever he is, because he is, after all, that person in the bed in a very real sense.

Again, it may seem hypocritical for me, who has proven himself something of a jerk, to chastise others, and yet it seems to me to be the truth.

By giving respect to the one theory over all of the others are you not then, by your logic, disrespecting the other opinions? You're making it way too personal. No one has personally attacked Bien. His arguments are likely not credible. It's not a hate crime for me to say that. This is a discussion. It's not a dog fight on a playground.

[stuntpickle]

By giving respect to the one theory over all of the others are you not then, by your logic, disrespecting the other opinions? You're making it way too personal. No one has personally attacked Bien. His arguments are likely not credible. It's not a hate crime for me to say that. This is a discussion. It's not a dog fight on a playground.

Belief in God is a different variety of belief than, say, being a capitalist or a Marxist. I mean, to discuss someone's spiritual beliefs for the purpose of disproving them seems a little like trying to deprive someone of the mechanisms of comfort in the situation I earlier described.

[Varenne Rodin]

Of course, that presumes that belief in God is, in fact, delusional, and demonstrating that is a tall order--something the foremost atheists have failed to do convincingly. Contrary to what many current atheists have said, believing in God is a fairly uncomfortable thing; Christians call it "being convicted in the spirit," and it involves the admission that you have been largely wrong throughout your life. So let us call it a humbling belief, which cannot be said of the belief that one knows what precisely is harmful to society.

Belief in God can ONLY be delusional in a reality where God is never seen or heard. Add to that a person claiming to know how God wants us to live and treat others, and society has a problem. We should be accountable for our actions as individuals effecting other individuals. The burden of proof is with the religious. Atheists aren't asserting a knowledge of an afterlife or a prelife. Oftentimes, physical events can and have been proven to the best of our physical abilities. All of the evidence "supporting" atheism can't be found in a single link. It can be acquired over time and with much education which is, hopefully, offered in all schools.

I'm not talking about some belief set. I'm talking about identifying things in our physical world which we can all commonly witness and possibly interact with. If you want to say creationism is one of many possibilities for the answer to the big question, that's fine, but I don't have to support that narrow view, and I don't have to prove anything to deny that support; other than to say, perhaps, that I have never seen anything physical that does support it.

Again, who or what created God? Who created the thing that created the thing that created God? The universe seems pretty big, why must it have a beginning and an end? Maybe it just "is" and there's nothing scary or wrong with that. Maybe it's more like a wheel than an open and shut door.

[Varenne Rodin]

Belief in God is a different variety of belief than, say, being a capitalist or a Marxist. I mean, to discuss someone's spiritual beliefs for the purpose of disproving them seems a little like trying to deprive someone of the mechanisms of comfort in the situation I earlier described.

I'm not saying they can't believe it, but I am saying that they can't assert that it's my reality and everyone else's without something to support that. I'm not depriving them by saying "Hey, we both see the sun. We don't both see an angry, blue, giant goblin dancing on the sun". Religious belief has to happen without support from the physical world and, therefore, has no need for support from atheists.

It also can't be benefited by support from atheists. It still wouldn't make sense to the atheist earth we live on.

[PoeticPassions]

Let us suppose that there is only nothingness, wouldn't telling them the "truth" intensify the agony of the somethingness they had left?

How important is your "truth"?

The classic thought experiment involves having the Nazis come to your door and ask if you are hiding Jews. If you are, do you tell the truth? How important is your truth then?

The truth I speak of is not just based on sole facts (the sky is blue, there are people hiding in my attic, etc)... so of course I would lie to protect a life (in your hypothetical scenario). But that would be true to myself and my character. True to the way I feel about humanity and true to my integrity. That type of truth is very important to me.

I would tell the dying person the truth-- which is that I do not know-- because that would remain true to my existence and to theirs.

[stuntpickle]

Belief in God can ONLY be delusional in a reality where God is never seen or heard. Add to that a person claiming to know how God wants us to live and treat others, and society has a problem. We should be accountable for our actions as individuals effecting other individuals. The burden of proof is with the religious. Atheists aren't asserting a knowledge of an afterlife or a prelife. Oftentimes, physical events can and have been proven to the best of our physical abilities. All of the evidence "supporting" atheism can't be found in a single link. It can be acquired over time and with much education which is, hopefully, offered in all schools.

I'm not talking about some belief set. I'm talking about identifying things in our physical world which we can all commonly witness and possibly interact with. If you want to say creationism is one of many possibilities for the answer to the big question, that's fine, but I don't have to support that narrow view, and I don't have to prove anything to deny that support; other than to say, perhaps, that I have never seen anything physical that does support it.

Again, who or what created God? Who created the thing that created the thing that created God? The universe seems pretty big, why must it have a beginning and an end? Maybe it just "is" and there's nothing scary or wrong with that. Maybe it's more like a wheel than an open and shut door.

Okay, you asked for it. Unfortunately, I'm not nearly as nice as Bienvenu.

You make the assertion that "Belief in God can ONLY be delusional in a reality where God is never seen or heard." Please try and, consequently, fail to demonstrate that assertion logically. I would assert that there are any number of things I have never seen or heard that, nonetheless, exist such as the set of real numbers, love, logical absolutes, morality. Perhaps if you didn't subscribe to some 19th Century materialism you wouldn't say such things. Of course, it's fairly common for New Atheists to make sweeping indefensible assertions about the nature of existence. So please, I await your logical justification eagerly. Please also demonstrate how you navigate the treacherously inductive impasse of determining that no one has ever, anywhere, heard or seen God--unless, of course, you admit that it is possible that someone has in fact seen or heard Him, but then one would wonder why you're calling it delusional. Your justifications, if you succeed should be worthy of publication in the academic presses.

By the way, no one believes in a physical or contingent God; therefore, a discussion of identifying physical objects is irrelevant, as is asking who moved the prime mover, which is by definition impossible. That the universe had a beginning isn't simply Christian apologetics but current cosmology. Do you disbelieve the Big Bang theory?

[WyattGwyon]

I have a question for all the atheists.

Do you answer honestly and tell him there is no heaven and that these are his last moments of consciousness, or do you lie and tell him that you will see him again?



The scenario is nonsensical. Your premise is that you are at the bedside of the person closest to you in the world. Obviously, if you communicate at all, this person already knows your deepest beliefs on this matter and would know if you were lying anyway.

As for disproving whether or not god is a delusion: Unbelievers have no burden of proof. One needs no reasons or explanations or proofs to not believe something. Only those making a positive assertion (e.g., god exists) need proof.

[PoeticPassions]

The scenario is nonsensical. Your premise is that you are at the bedside of the person closest to you in the world. Obviously, if you communicate at all, this person already knows your deepest beliefs on this matter and would know if you were lying anyway.

As for disproving whether or not god is a delusion: Unbelievers have no burden of proof. One needs no reasons or explanations or proofs to not believe something. Only those making a positive assertion (e.g., god exists) need proof.

Thanks. Said way better than I would have thought to say it.

[stuntpickle]

The scenario is nonsensical. Your premise is that you are at the bedside of the person closest to you in the world. Obviously, if you communicate at all, this person already knows your deepest beliefs on this matter and would know if you were lying anyway.

As for disproving whether or not god is a delusion: Unbelievers have no burden of proof. One needs no reasons or explanations or proofs to not believe something. Only those making a positive assertion (e.g., god exists) need proof.

Wrong! Anyone making an assertion has the explanatory onus insofar as the assertion is concerned. The statement "God is a delusion" is an assertion and, thus, requires logical justification.

Traditionally, "nonsensical" refers to language having no sense or meaning. Since you have understood the content of my post, you cannot mean that it was this variety of nonsense, so I suspect you mean that the situation is inconsequential, which would seem wrong. Also, I think you ignore the fact that a person on his deathbed will necessarily act in accordance with his past behaviors. I think it's also presumptuous that this person will just take your previous beliefs for granted. I think death has the affect of making people reconsider things.

[Varenne Rodin]

Okay, you asked for it. Unfortunately, I'm not nearly as nice as Bienvenu.

You make the assertion that "Belief in God can ONLY be delusional in a reality where God is never seen or heard." Please try and, consequently, fail to demonstrate that assertion logically. I would assert that there are any number of things I have never seen or heard that, nonetheless, exist such as the set of real numbers, love, logical absolutes, morality. Perhaps if you didn't subscribe to some 19th Century materialism you wouldn't say such things. Of course, it's fairly common for New Atheists to make sweeping indefensible assertions about the nature of existence. So please, I await your logical justification eagerly. Please also demonstrate how you navigate the treacherously inductive impasse of determining that no one has ever, anywhere, heard or seen God--unless, of course, you admit that it is possible that someone has in fact seen or heard Him, but then one would wonder why you're calling it delusional. Your justifications, if you succeed should be worthy of publication in the academic presses.

By the way, no one believes in a physical or contingent God; therefore, a discussion of identifying physical objects is irrelevant, as is asking who moved the prime mover, which is by definition impossible. That the universe had a beginning isn't simply Christian apologetics but current cosmology. Do you disbelieve the Big Bang theory?

I don't know who you're talking about at this point, and I don't think you do either. It seems like you are fighting just to fight. Most Christians do believe in a physical God. If a thing created a physical world with physical beings, that thing should continue to be able to interact with the physical world.

Numbers are a system created by humans. Love and morality come from people, they are ideas. They are ideas that are still based on more physical cause and effect than religion is, but they're concepts. No one is claiming love and morality have their own consciousness and created a universe and thinking beings, no one I know of anyway.

The big bang theory is based on something you clearly don't understand. The universe we are familiar with is expanding. It doesn't shrink. It isn't constant. That, and other factors, mean that it used to be smaller. At some point it was probably very condensed, very very minuscule, before things began to grow into our universe. The big bang theory doesn't say what caused the big bang, it doesn't say what happened before, or what existed outside of compressed matter. Scientists and atheists don't use this as theism. It's not an answer to why we are here in a metaphysical sense, it's just another step in a physical timeline.

Man came along late in the game. He tried to insert a lot of different God and myth stories into our void of information (long before Christianity - see ancient China, Egypt, Greece), but we don't know what happened. It's ludicrous to say we do.

[Varenne Rodin]

I keep forgetting how futile these conversations are.

[stuntpickle]

I don't know who you're talking about at this point, and I don't think you do either. It seems like you are fighting just to fight. Most Christians do believe in a physical God. If a thing created a physical world with physical beings, that thing should continue to be able to interact with the physical world.

Numbers are a system created by humans. Love and morality come from people, they are ideas. They are ideas that are still based on more physical cause and effect than religion is, but they're concepts. No one is claiming love and morality have their own consciousness and created a universe and thinking beings, no one I know of anyway.

The big bang theory is based on something you clearly don't understand. The universe we are familiar with is expanding. It doesn't shrink. It isn't constant. That, and other factors, mean that it used to be smaller. At some point it was probably very condensed, very very minuscule, before things began to grow into our universe. The big bang theory doesn't say what caused the big bang, it doesn't say what happened before, or what existed outside of compressed matter. Scientists and atheists don't use this as theism. It's not an answer to why we are here in a metaphysical sense, it's just another step in a physical timeline.

Man came along late in the game. He tried to insert a lot of different God and myth stories into our void of information (long before Christianity - see ancient China, Egypt, Greece), but we don't know what happened. It's ludicrous to say we do.


You're just wrong--and arrogantly so. You don't simply get to avoid the logical justification of a flat assertion by making other flat assertions. Since you are unwilling to offer an argument ending with the conclusion "therefore belief in God can only be a delusion when he cannot be seen or heard," then I am justified in discounting the assertion.



It seems like you are fighting just to fight.

Following several pages of persons picking on one guy, I am all of a sudden fighting just to fight. Is it not possible that you are wrong? Being persuadable is the first criterion for engaging in reasonable dialogue.


Most Christians do believe in a physical God.

This is factually wrong. At most, Christians believe in a physical manifestation of an aspect of God in the person of Jesus. No Christian believes that Jesus, God or what is called the Holy Spirit ("Spirit" is a clue) is now physical. In fact, from Maimonides to Aquinas, Judeo-Christian theologians are united in the belief of God's immateriality. Just because you have already made the blunder, repeatedly insisting upon it doesn't change its wrongness.


If a thing created a physical world with physical beings, that thing should continue to be able to interact with the physical world.

I never stated that God couldn't interact with the physical world. So why the straw man? Is this getting to your argument with the conclusion that God is a delusion? You see, this is how rational conversations go. When you say something and fail to substantiate it, you generally lose the argument.


Numbers are a system created by humans.

Care to demonstrate the truth of this one while you're working on the other one? Ever hear of Roger Penrose? He's the guy who was working with Hawking on the blackholes and is considered one of the foremost mathematicians in the world. He thinks human minds are incapable of generating mathematical systems and that numbers are a part of manifest reality. Of course, he's probably deluded too. I'm sure he'd be interested in your logical justification of this bald assertion, as would every mathematician alive.


Love and morality come from people, they are ideas.

Morality as simply an idea derived from people is a philosophically rare notion. Most philosophers, regardless of their religion, consider it within the realm of metaphysics. So just out of curiosity, do you believe that morality exists as an idea? If so, does God exist as an idea?


No one is claiming love and morality have their own consciousness and created a universe and thinking beings, no one I know of anyway.

You see, this isn't how logic works. When someone makes an assertion, they imply that the assertion is true. The logical absolute concerning an excluded middle means that any assertion is either true or false with no third option. If one makes the assertion that belief in God can ONLY be a delusion exclusively on the basis that He is not heard or seen, one is also making the implicit assertion that believing in something unheard and unseen qualifies as being delusional. To disprove your assertion, I need only provide one example in which your assertion fails, so if I find one thing unseen and unheard that we both agree isn't a delusion, then it is reasonable to conclude that your assertion is false. Morality is NOT a delusion. Is this statement true or false without qualification? YOU don't get to wander aimlessly through unrelated ideas. The law of excluded middle means it MUST be true or false. Is the set of real numbers a delusion? You see, the vast majority of reasonable persons agree that morality and the set of real numbers are NOT delusions, and it is reasonable to assume that your criteria of judgment based on seeing and hearing are false. It does not matter what you have to say about God's personal attributes because they were not a part of your assertion. So do we agree that your assertion is false? You should be careful because your assertion is necessarily false and to say otherwise is to prove your own irrationality. You see, I have neither seen nor heard you. If I believe in you is it a delusion? I have neither seen nor heard every single automobile on the planet; are the ones I haven't seen delusions?


The big bang theory is based on something you clearly don't understand. The universe we are familiar with is expanding. It doesn't shrink. It isn't constant. That, and other factors, mean that it used to be smaller. At some point it was probably very condensed, very very minuscule, before things began to grow into our universe. The big bang theory doesn't say what caused the big bang, it doesn't say what happened before, or what existed outside of compressed matter. Scientists and atheists don't use this as theism. It's not an answer to why we are here in a metaphysical sense, it's just another step in a physical timeline.

Scientists gave up on eternal matter with the static models of the universe, and they gave up on static mechanisms with the steady-sate model. The orthodox Big Bang theory is, in fact, a theory of the universe's beginning. I never stated that the Big Bang named the cause. You, however, suggested a an eternal and wheellike universe in direct contradiction with the Big Bang. When you do that, you don't get to pretend I don't know anything about the theory. And reproducing here some wiki-style summary is completely irrelevant to justifying your assertion about God being a delusion. I simply want you to logically justify your assertion.

A reasonable response by you to this post can only be a justification of the assertion that belief in God who is unseen and unheard can only be a delusion. Any other response (besides admitting you were wrong) will be obviously irrelevant. If you cannot do this, you must admit to being wrong, which would demonstrate some measure of reason since the assertion is, by the way, evidently wrong.

[Darcy88]

Stuntpickle many if not most Christians do believe in a physical God. You are taking your own more sophisticated kind of Christianity and projecting it as the norm. And likening God to numbers and morality in that they are all things to believe in despite their being things we cannot see or hear is false. We cannot sense numbers or morality but we can perceive them. Not only can you not see or hear God, but you can find no trace of Him, no indication of His presence, whatsoever. Numbers and morality are apparent. God is not.

And I know very little of physics and cosmology, but I do know that in his most recent book Stephen Hawking came out with the claim that the universe did not need God in order to begin. Considering the esteem in which he is held by the scientific community, I think this ought to mean something.

I think the reason we all argued with Bienvenue is not that he believes in God, but that he believes dinosaurs existed alongside humans and that those fabricated Peruvian stones were evidence of this. I doubt you hold the same belief.

[stuntpickle]

Stuntpickle many if not most Christians do believe in a physical God. You are taking your own more sophisticated kind of Christianity and projecting it as the norm. And likening God to numbers and morality in that they are all things to believe in despite their being things we cannot see or hear is false. We cannot sense numbers or morality but we can perceive them. Not only can you not see or hear God, but you can find no trace of Him, no indication of His presence, whatsoever. Numbers and morality are apparent. God is not.

And I know very little of physics and cosmology, but I do know that in his most recent book Stephen Hawking came out with the claim that the universe did not need God in order to begin. Considering the esteem in which he is held by the scientific community, I think this ought to mean something.

I think the reason we all argued with Bienvenue is not that he believes in God, but that he believes dinosaurs existed alongside humans and that those fabricated Peruvian stones were evidence of this. I doubt you hold the same belief.

See, this is the problem. I never "likened" God to numbers or morality. Someone else made a sweeping statement about the nature of existence and I tested the truth of those statements by using numbers and morality. This is how logical arguments are supposed to go: someone makes an assertion and then someone else tests the truth of the assertion in all cases. What happens in these discussions is that the atheists continue to confuse the issues. I'm not making statements of equivalency between God and numbers; I'm simply demonstrating the falsity of someone else's assertion.

I was making no logical arguments about Beinvenu. I was appealing to perhaps a common humanity. Someone then made the wild assertion that belief in God can only be a delusion since He is unseen and unheard. I do not defend Bienvenu's ideas about dinosaurs. And your assumption that my Christianity is somehow a rare breed of sophisticated theism is a little funny since my theological views are fairly mainstream. You do realize that even the Catholic Church accepts evolution, right? The only group of Christians that believe dinosaurs existed alongside humans is a fairly small portion of American Evangelicals.

[Varenne Rodin]

You're just wrong--and arrogantly so. You don't simply get to avoid the logical justification of a flat assertion by making other flat assertions. Since you are unwilling to offer an argument ending with the conclusion "therefore belief in God can only be a delusion when he cannot be seen or heard," then I am justified in discounting the assertion.




Following several pages of persons picking on one guy, I am all of a sudden fighting just to fight. Is it not possible that you are wrong? Being persuadable is the first criterion for engaging in reasonable dialogue.



This is factually wrong. At most, Christians believe in a physical manifestation of an aspect of God in the person of Jesus. No Christian believes that Jesus, God or what is called the Holy Spirit ("Spirit" is a clue) is now physical. In fact, from Maimonides to Aquinas, Judeo-Christian theologians are united in the belief of God's immateriality. Just because you have already made the blunder, repeatedly insisting upon it doesn't change its wrongness.



I never stated that God couldn't interact with the physical world. So why the straw man? Is this getting to your argument with the conclusion that God is a delusion? You see, this is how rational conversations go. When you say something and fail to substantiate it, you generally lose the argument.



Care to demonstrate the truth of this one while you're working on the other one? Ever hear of Roger Penrose? He's the guy who was working with Hawking on the blackholes and is considered one of the foremost mathematicians in the world. He thinks human minds are incapable of generating mathematical systems and that numbers are a part of manifest reality. Of course, he's probably deluded too. I'm sure he'd be interested in your logical justification of this bald assertion, as would every mathematician alive.



Morality as simply an idea derived from people is a philosophically rare notion. Most philosophers, regardless of their religion, consider it within the realm of metaphysics. So just out of curiosity, do you believe that morality exists as an idea? If so, does God exist as an idea?



You see, this isn't how logic works. When someone makes an assertion, they imply that the assertion is true. The logical absolute concerning an excluded middle means that any assertion is either true or false with no third option. If one makes the assertion that belief in God can ONLY be a delusion exclusively on the basis that He is not heard or seen, one is also making the implicit assertion that believing in something unheard and unseen qualifies as being delusional. To disprove your assertion, I need only provide one example in which your assertion fails, so if I find one thing unseen and unheard that we both agree isn't a delusion, then it is reasonable to conclude that your assertion is false. Morality is NOT a delusion. Is this statement true or false without qualification? YOU don't get to wander aimlessly through unrelated ideas. The law of excluded middle means it MUST be true or false. Is the set of real numbers a delusion? You see, the vast majority of reasonable persons agree that morality and the set of real numbers are NOT delusions, and it is reasonable to assume that your criteria of judgment based on seeing and hearing are false. It does not matter what you have to say about God's personal attributes because they were not a part of your assertion. So do we agree that your assertion is false? You should be careful because your assertion is necessarily false and to say otherwise is to prove your own irrationality. You see, I have neither seen nor heard you. If I believe in you is it a delusion? I have neither seen nor heard every single automobile on the planet; are the ones I haven't seen delusions?



Scientists gave up on eternal matter with the static models of the universe, and they gave up on static mechanisms with the steady-sate model. The orthodox Big Bang theory is, in fact, a theory of the universe's beginning. I never stated that the Big Bang named the cause. You, however, suggested a an eternal and wheellike universe in direct contradiction with the Big Bang. When you do that, you don't get to pretend I don't know anything about the theory. And reproducing here some wiki-style summary is completely irrelevant to justifying your assertion about God being a delusion. I simply want you to logically justify your assertion.

A reasonable response by you to this post can only be a justification of the assertion that belief in God who is unseen and unheard can only be a delusion. Any other response (besides admitting you were wrong) will be obviously irrelevant. If you cannot do this, you must admit to being wrong, which would demonstrate some measure of reason since the assertion is, by the way, evidently wrong.

You think you have corrected me on several counts, but you have not. I compared the existence of matter to a wheel rather than an open and shut finite situation like Christianity. What I said in no way contradicts the big bang theory. Until God is proven, God is an idea of man. When a person has an imaginary friend, it's easy for other people to discern that the invisible person isn't there. Do you know what delusion is?

You can call me and cars delusions if you want to, but you're witnessing a physical manifestation of my self in text. The text is being witnessed by other people as well. The text can be replicated (I've posted hundreds). Many undoctored photographs of me exist. Videos and recordings of me too. Pictures I have drawn. Sculptures I have made. I am easily proven. Lots of people have seen and touched cars. They have ridden inside them, built them, repaired them. They appear in undoctored photos and videos. Do I really need to explain this to you? I don't think you are obtuse, I think you are obstinate. I hope you can be more comfortable with your choices (whatever they are) and less threatened by people who disagree with them.

[Varenne Rodin]

See, this is the problem. I never "likened" God to numbers or morality. Someone else made a sweeping statement about the nature of existence and I tested the truth of those statements by using numbers and morality. This is how logical arguments are supposed to go: someone makes an assertion and then someone else tests the truth of the assertion in all cases. What happens in these discussions is that the atheists continue to confuse the issues. I'm not making statements of equivalency between God and numbers; I'm simply demonstrating the falsity of someone else's assertion.

I was making no logical arguments about Beinvenu. I was appealing to perhaps a common humanity. Someone then made the wild assertion that belief in God can only be a delusion since He is unseen and unheard. I do not defend Bienvenu's ideas about dinosaurs. And your assumption that my Christianity is somehow a rare breed of sophisticated theism is a little funny since my theological views are fairly mainstream. You do realize that even the Catholic Church accepts evolution, right? The only group of Christians that believe dinosaurs existed alongside humans is a fairly small portion of American Evangelicals.

The person you are defending is of the mind that Catholicism is a robbery and a mockery of Christianity. He said most Christians are nothing like Catholics. So which sect is mainstream? He would probably also tell you that he doesn't need defending. You're acting like a frequent contributor here is some kind of weakling who can't handle himself in debate. Here's an idea for everyone involved, be nice. :)

[BienvenuJDC]

Stuntpickle many if not most Christians do believe in a physical God. You are taking your own more sophisticated kind of Christianity and projecting it as the norm. And likening God to numbers and morality in that they are all things to believe in despite their being things we cannot see or hear is false. We cannot sense numbers or morality but we can perceive them. Not only can you not see or hear God, but you can find no trace of Him, no indication of His presence, whatsoever. Numbers and morality are apparent. God is not.

And I know very little of physics and cosmology, but I do know that in his most recent book Stephen Hawking came out with the claim that the universe did not need God in order to begin. Considering the esteem in which he is held by the scientific community, I think this ought to mean something.

I think the reason we all argued with Bienvenue is not that he believes in God, but that he believes dinosaurs existed alongside humans and that those fabricated Peruvian stones were evidence of this. I doubt you hold the same belief.

I'm sorry, Darcy, but you are wrong. You seem to know nothing about God. He is not physical, but He is spirit. There is far more evidence that man existed with dinosaurs than just a stone. There's even Biblical accounts of the dinosaur. There's descriptions of dinosaurs in the book of Job. Not ONLY in the bible, but in many writings in many cultures. I can't help it that you are too narrow minded to accept anything beyond your own belief, but there's truth out there. Truth that you are just unwilling to accept.

[cafolini]

I keep forgetting how futile these conversations are.

But you keep going with it.:wave:

[Darcy88]

I'm sorry, Darcy, but you are wrong. You seem to know nothing about God. He is not physical, but He is spirit. There is far more evidence that man existed with dinosaurs than just a stone. There's even Biblical accounts of the dinosaur. There's descriptions of dinosaurs in the book of Job. Not ONLY in the bible, but in many writings in many cultures. I can't help it that you are too narrow minded to accept anything beyond your own belief, but there's truth out there. Truth that you are just unwilling to accept.

The so called references to dinosaurs in the bible are vague and prove nothing. Only through confirmation bias of the most abject kind can they be taken as definitive descriptions of dinosaurs. I've looked them up before after hearing a similar claim. You essentially have to believe that pretty much all scientists are corrupt in order to uphold this belief that dinosaurs co-existed with mankind. If your beliefs were supported in any meaningful way by the evidence gathered then they would become part of the science. God's intervening in the world would become part of the science if it were empirically demonstrated to have occurred. It has yet to be and I would not hold my breath.

[Varenne Rodin]

But you keep going with it.:wave:

True. :)

I always start in with the intention of sharing why I enjoy being an atheist, and how a person doesn't need a God or a savior to be happy. It's supposed to be comforting, but it gets taken as an attack and I get sucked into someone else's battle. It's really not important though. Mostly I hope people are happy and not using excuses to hurt others.

[Darcy88]

And about lying on one's death bed and hoping for life after death..... I think I'd prefer that there be the nothingness that I expect. Supposing there is a God, how could I be sure that its not only the Jews or the Muslims or the Mormons who will be saved? Better nothing than the chance of hell.

[mazHur]

There is definitely some truth in what you say here. Being a believer by no means makes one close-minded or unreasoning, not at all. Religion, including Christianity, can be a dynamic, enlightened thing. The difference I think though is that with science EVERYTHING is on the table, nothing is above being potentially discredited. With faith that is not the case. In fact its this constant flux which has been science's greatest strength and claim to legitimacy. Nothing is sacred before the fact. It all depends on what the research shows. Every theory out there could be overturned, every law and every fact disproven, and still, science itself, the process and method, would remain unaltered. Again, with faith this is not the case.

Change is forever. even science keeps on changing. Check out for history of science.

Yes, with science everything is on the table but also a shaker can turn the table anytime !

[BienvenuJDC]

The so called references to dinosaurs in the bible are vague and prove nothing. Only through confirmation bias of the most abject kind can they be taken as definitive descriptions of dinosaurs. I've looked them up before after hearing a similar claim. You essentially have to believe that pretty much all scientists are corrupt in order to uphold this belief that dinosaurs co-existed with mankind. If your beliefs were supported in any meaningful way by the evidence gathered then they would become part of the science. God's intervening in the world would become part of the science if it were empirically demonstrated to have occurred. It has yet to be and I would not hold my breath.

If you want to go that route, the evidence you put your faith in for evolution is vague as well, and proves nothing. I don't believe that all scientist are corrupt, there are MANY scientist that believe in a young earth. As we have seen through the ages, there has been corrupt science forever. Take the global warming scandal for example. Al Gore has made millions on a hoax. People are getting filthy rich off this stuff, and you're buying it (at a high price). You haven't really researched much about dinosaurs' existence, except that which supports your claims, have you? Have you checked out any sites that support the idea that dinosaurs have coexisted with humans? Or have you only checked out sites that try to disprove the idea? Be honest. Did you ever hear of the dead dinosaur-like sea creature that was recovered by a Japanese fishing vessel? I'm sure that it was just a hoax. Seems that those scientists that claimed that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago will do everything in their power to discredit all information that proves them wrong. That's the way people are.

[mazHur]

And about lying on one's death bed and hoping for life after death..... I think I'd prefer that there be the nothingness that I expect. Supposing there is a God, how could I be sure that its not only the Jews or the Muslims or the Mormons who will be saved? Better nothing than the chance of hell.

This world is infact hell or heaven depending upon how you spent your life here! The hereafter is merely a 'bonus' or 'penalty' for your deeds in this very world!

[BienvenuJDC]

Better nothing than the chance of hell.

Your belief in nothingness won't make it a reality, it will merely ease your conscience for the time...

[MystyrMystyry]

Caterpillars to butterflies, tadpoles to frogs - yeah, that's pretty vague, probably not even provable in the former case because it happens behind closed cocoons - all smoke and mirrors probably.

[stuntpickle]

You think you have corrected me on several counts, but you have not. I compared the existence of matter to a wheel rather than an open and shut finite situation like Christianity. What I said in no way contradicts the big bang theory. Until God is proven, God is an idea of man. When a person has an imaginary friend, it's easy for other people to discern that the invisible person isn't there. Do you know what delusion is?

You can call me and cars delusions if you want to, but you're witnessing a physical manifestation of my self in text. The text is being witnessed by other people as well. The text can be replicated (I've posted hundreds). Many undoctored photographs of me exist. Videos and recordings of me too. Pictures I have drawn. Sculptures I have made. I am easily proven. Lots of people have seen and touched cars. They have ridden inside them, built them, repaired them. They appear in undoctored photos and videos. Do I really need to explain this to you? I don't think you are obtuse, I think you are obstinate. I hope you can be more comfortable with your choices (whatever they are) and less threatened by people who disagree with them.

See, this is the problem: you are so wedded to your atheism that you can't even admit when you make flagrantly indefensible assertions. Delusional status accorded to belief in things unseen and unheard was not my argument, but yours. You don't get to side step your original assertion by multiplying your selective criteria. You don't get to pretend that I was somehow conflating belief in you to belief in God. I was just following your own premise to its logical conclusion. See, you don't seem capable of justifying that assertion. All you are doing now is making more indefensible assertions. I could ask you to justify those logically, but I would prefer to come to some mutual agreement about the first one. I will assume that you agree that the assertion is false since you are now changing your criteria. I will be happy to demonstrate the falsity of these new claims, the minute you admit the falsity of the previous one. If you do not believe the first assertion is false, then you should be able to easily to provide a logical justification for it, which should end with "therefore, belief in an unseen and unheard God can only be delusional."

You don't get to wriggle out of it. You're making wild claims that no philosopher, theistic, atheistic or otherwise, would agree with. You don't just get to wander aimlessly through new assertions because you don't know how to defend the first one. Moreover, when you are clearly demonstrating an unwillingness to justify the things you say, you don't then get to pretend that I am somehow "threatened."

This is my experience with New Atheists. They like to talk about reason and rationality, but when held to rational standards they try to escape them. If you can't form any logical justification for your assertion, then everyone is justified in ignoring it and anything you say after it, without you first admitting the wrongness of it. This is how rational discussions work.

Perhaps you think you're being clever, but I could make similar demands of most everything you are saying here. All you are doing is making bald assertion after bald assertion. When having a rational discussion, one should try to arrange one's statements in some sort of rational order of increasing consequence--not wildly flit from assertion to assertion.

By continuing to ignore your own original assertion, you impeach your credibility. This is what we call poor form when losing an argument. It's what people do when winning is more important than truth.

[Darcy88]

If you want to go that route, the evidence you put your faith in for evolution is vague as well, and proves nothing. I don't believe that all scientist are corrupt, there are MANY scientist that believe in a young earth. As we have seen through the ages, there has been corrupt science forever. Take the global warming scandal for example. Al Gore has made millions on a hoax. People are getting filthy rich off this stuff, and you're buying it (at a high price). You haven't really researched much about dinosaurs' existence, except that which supports your claims, have you? Have you checked out any sites that support the idea that dinosaurs have coexisted with humans? Or have you only checked out sites that try to disprove the idea? Be honest. Did you ever hear of the dead dinosaur-like sea creature that was recovered by a Japanese fishing vessel? I'm sure that it was just a hoax. Seems that those scientists that claimed that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago will do everything in their power to discredit all information that proves them wrong. That's the way people are.

The evidence corroborating the theory of evolution is staggering. I won't touch the global warming thing, except to say that the money is in denying it. You have a decomposed carcass that most think was a shark and that's the extent of your evidence? Where did the dinosaurs go? Why are there not any in the Amazonian jungle? There are few scientists percentage-wise who believe in a young earth, none of which I suspect could be deemed credible. Geology, biology, physics, climatology, its all one vast international multi-generational conspiracy of thousands of anti-Christian minds manipulating the evidence, out to discredit your beliefs.

[cafolini]

True. :)

I always start in with the intention of sharing why I enjoy being an atheist, and how a person doesn't need a God or a savior to be happy. It's supposed to be comforting, but it gets taken as an attack and I get sucked into someone else's battle. It's really not important though. Mostly I hope people are happy and not using excuses to hurt others.

I think I understand your position very well, although you know why, as I have said, I cannot declare my person atheist. I am basically a scientist and I cannot possibly discuss such religious nonsense by denying the value of belief or disbelief. I must, however, support you position reluctantly and also that of Sam Harris.
I am an older man, a child of John Lennon. Therefore, I must say IMAGINE, and also "Let it be...there will be an answer."

[Varenne Rodin]

I'm not ignoring or changing anything I have said. Invisible friends are delusions. I'm sorry if you don't understand what delusions are. Pick on someone else for a while. Your objections to me don't make any sense, unless you just hate atheists. I'm not interested. Have a good day. :)

[Darcy88]

Your belief in nothingness won't make it a reality, it will merely ease your conscience for the time...

But how do you know that its not the Muslims or the Mormons who have the inside-track on salvation?

[Varenne Rodin]

I think I understand your position very well, although you know why, as I have said, I cannot declare my person atheist. I am basically a scientist and I cannot possibly discuss such religious nonsense by denying the value of belief or disbelief. I must, however, support you position reluctantly and also that of Sam Harris.
I am an older man, a child of John Lennon. Therefore, I must say IMAGINE, and also "Let it be...there will be an answer."

Gotta love John Lennon, Cafolini. :)

[MattG]

...They like to talk about reason and rationality, but when held to rational standards they try to escape them.

My apologies for being a buttinski, but you piqued my curiosity.

Several posts back you say that you were an atheist but then imagined a scenario where you'd have to tell someone on his/her deathbed that heaven is real and that you would see them again after this life. You then said that it would be a lie, but that you would want it to be true, so you tossed atheism aside and became a believer.

For all the talk of reason and rationality does this not seem an (life altering) emotional response?

[Darcy88]

And Bien, even if that was a dinosaur, and it was apparently most likely a shark, but even if it was, all if proves is that a species of dinosaur managed to survive this whole time deep in the ocean's depths. You don't find t-rex and raptor skeletons lying alongside those of humans. The oldest cave drawings show deer and horses and other animals we are familiar with. They don't show dinosaurs.

[stuntpickle]

I'm not ignoring or changing anything I have said. Invisible friends are delusions. I'm sorry if you don't understand what delusions are. Pick on someone else for a while. Your objections to me don't make any sense, unless you just hate atheists. I'm not interested. Have a good day. :)

You can say whatever you want. But at this point, saying belief in God is delusional is just irrational. I'm not "picking on you." You're the one who erupted in a flurry of unjustifiable assertions. I'm just asking you to logically explain yourself, and you would rather write several paragraphs avoiding the question than writing three or four sentences answering it. At this point of our conversation, I think it might be easier to prove that belief in your assertion is delusional.

Oh, by the way, camels taste like strawberries and mountains are made of ice cream. I don't have to explain this all to you simply because you're threatened and don't understand the theory of gravity. You just hate camel worshipers.

This has been the form of your argument.

[stuntpickle]

My apologies for being a buttinski, but you piqued my curiosity.

Several posts back you say that you were an atheist but then imagined a scenario where you'd have to tell someone on his/her deathbed that heaven is real and that you would see them again after this life. You then said that it would be a lie, but that you would want it to be true, so you tossed atheism aside and became a believer.

For all the talk of reason and rationality does this not seem an (life altering) emotional response?

Yeah surprise surprise, that's not what I said. I said that it was a necessary precursor to my belief rather than the rational grounds for it.

[MattG]

Yeah surprise surprise, that's not what I said. I said that it was a necessary precursor to my belief rather than the rational grounds for it.

Then the rational grounds for your belief would be what?

[stuntpickle]

Then the rational grounds for your belief would be what?

I'd prefer not to excuse any of the atheists in this thread from their explanatory obligations by offering them a convenient target to ineptly criticize. My opinions on the subject are well publicized, and you can easily find them in this forum.

[Emil Miller]

In relation to this thread I would class myself as agnostic, which is why I have not come down on either side of the fence. I like to think that I am a rational person and on the 'available evidence' I should be on the side of the atheists, but rationality counts for little when the rationale for life itself has yet to be explained by science. So, with apologies to the Bard, it's really a question of:
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Dawkins, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

[Varenne Rodin]

You can say whatever you want. But at this point, saying belief in God is delusional is just irrational. I'm not "picking on you." You're the one who erupted in a flurry of unjustifiable assertions. I'm just asking you to logically explain yourself, and you would rather write several paragraphs avoiding the question than writing three or four sentences answering it. At this point of our conversation, I think it might be easier to prove that belief in your assertion is delusional.

Oh, by the way, camels taste like strawberries and mountains are made of ice cream. I don't have to explain this all to you simply because you're threatened and don't understand the theory of gravity. You just hate camel worshipers.

This has been the form of your argument.

I've answered every question you asked me, as simply as I could manage. I didn't avoid anything. There is nothing to avoid. Either you didn't understand or I did not make myself clear. Since you obviously haven't gotten the picture, I'll assume the error was mine. Ciao.

[stuntpickle]

I've answered every question you asked me, as simply as I could manage. I didn't avoid anything. There is nothing to avoid. Either you didn't understand or I did not make myself clear. Since you obviously haven't gotten the picture, I'll assume the error was mine. Ciao.

Could you please provide a rationally concluding series of statements ending with the conclusion "Therefore, because God is unseen and unheard, belief in him is delusional" so as to demonstrate the truth of your, as yet unsupported, assertion. I've been asking the same question this whole time, and that you would pretend to have answered it is hilarious.

[Hallword]

In relation to this thread I would class myself as agnostic, which is why I have not come down on either side of the fence. I like to think that I am a rational person and on the 'available evidence' I should be on the side of the atheists, but rationality counts for little when the rationale for life itself has yet to be explained by science. So, with apologies to the Bard, it's really a question of:
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Dawkins, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

What do you mean by "rationale for life"? Do you mean identifying the 'purpose' of life?

And hi. I have just joined this forum. :cornut:

[Hallword]

Could you please provide a rationally concluding series of statements ending with the conclusion "Therefore, because God is unseen and unheard, belief in him is delusional" so as to demonstrate the truth of your, as yet unsupported, assertion. I've been asking the same question this whole time, and that you would pretend to have answered it is hilarious.
Would you agree that the affirmation in the existence of anything at all would have to meet the conditions of falsification and empirical evidence? I hope so. If so, for instance, if I was to make astrological discoveries and if they're to be 'true', then it would have to be falsifiable and empirically proven. Scientists should be able to replicate my results, or see what I saw .. etc ..

Since science cannot prove the existence of God (that being the necessary condition for the existence of anything to be true), then such a belief cannot be logical.

It's not that theists lack 'evidence' (and, hence, irrational) - but that the evidence is such that it is subject to personal beliefs (sincere as they may be), gut feelings, and man's natural psychological conditions. A lot of people believe they have had ghost experiences, for instance ... And these don't meet the standards of science in the pursuit of truth.

[OrphanPip]

My point is not to suggest that theism is a lie or even self-deception, but rather to point out how the treatment of Bievenu is representative of the worst aspects of human nature.

I actually think people were saying that believing dinosaurs cohabited the Earth with humans, and that the Earth is geologically only a few thousand years old, and that Biblical myths, like the global flood, are literally true, all runs counter to reality as we know it.

There is nothing bullying about that, it's simply calling a ridiculous opinion out for what it is. Making a statement about a prime mover, or some unknown force in the universe is one thing. Making a statement that is objectively false is simply not open to being tolerated in order to spare the feelings of others.

[stuntpickle]

I actually think people were saying that believing dinosaurs cohabited the Earth with humans, and that the Earth is geologically only a few thousand years old, and that Biblical myths, like the global, flood are literally true, runs counter to reality as we know it.

There is nothing bullying about that, it's simply calling a ridiculous opinion out for what it is. Making a statement about a prime mover, or some unknown force in the universe is one thing. Making a statement that is objectively false is simply not open to being tolerated in order to spare the feelings of others.

I wonder if you could demonstrate having read the post in its entirety, Pip. I wasn't suggesting that Bienvenu was right. And I think I provided an explanation for why I said what I said. If my point was that, perhaps, one shouldn't try to disabuse him of his theism, DESPITE HIS BELIEFS ON DINOSAURS, I can't understand why you would reply in reference to his belief on Dinosaurs.

By the way, do you want to answer the question?

[OrphanPip]

I wonder if you could demonstrate having read the post in its entirety, Pip. I wasn't suggesting that Bienvenu was right. And I think I provided an explanation for why I said what I said. If my point was that, perhaps, one shouldn't try to disabuse him of his theism, DESPITE HIS BELIEFS ON DINOSAURS, I can't understand why you would reply in reference to his belief on Dinosaurs.

By the way, do you want to answer the question?

Because that was the only point of discussion immediately prior to your intercession, we were not discussing Bien's belief in God, but his use of this belief to justify an irrational belief in demonstrably false assertions. Thus, saying we were ganging up on him to dissuade him of his theism isn't quite an accurate description of what was happening.

I don't think it's possible to demonstrate God does not exist, I simply think there is not reason enough to believe he exists, so I don't believe. My only concern with religion is in its effects on society and individuals. Or, in other words, I don't particularly care about their theological claims, but merely their social impact. Such that I, as someone coming from the sciences, have an invested interest in the misguided attempts by some theistic circles to discredit the methodology of science so as to satisfy their a priori assumptions about the order of the universe. I object to the actions of certain organized churches in the power dynamics of their missionary actions. I object to certain Judeo-Christian systems of morality, because they depend on recourse to an authority, which because I discount their claim to a perfect deity determining that authority I argue merely reflects a subjective socio-culturally determined morality rather than some true guiding moral force. Such that I disagree with certain churches in their interpretation of this Moral Law through their resistance to gay rights, abortion rights, and more recently matters of redistribution of wealth.

[stuntpickle]

Because that was the only point of discussion immediately prior to your intercession, we were not discussing Bien's belief in God, but his use of this belief to justify an irrational belief in demonstrably false assertions. Thus, saying we were ganging up on him to dissuade him of his theism isn't quite an accurate description of what was happening.

I don't think it's possible to demonstrate God does not exist, I simply think there is not reason enough to believe he exists, so I don't believe. My only concern with religion is in its effects on society and individuals. Or, in other words, I don't particularly care about their theological claims, but merely their social impact. Such that I, as someone coming from the sciences, have an invested interest in the misguided attempts by some theistic circles to discredit the methodology of science so as to satisfy their a priori assumptions about the order of the universe. I object to the actions of certain organized churches in the power dynamics of their missionary actions. I object to certain Judeo-Christian systems of morality, because they depend on recourse to an authority, which because I discount their claim to a perfect deity determining that authority I argue merely reflects a subjective socio-culturally determined morality rather than some true guiding moral force. Such that I disagree with certain churches in their interpretation of this Moral Law through their resistance to gay rights, abortion rights, and more recently matters of redistribution of wealth.

Pip, you seem to be a reasonably intelligent person, and so it is frustrating that you inexplicably offer a justification for your atheism, when I was prompting you for something else entirely. I think it's fairly obvious in my post that I am suggesting that disabusing a person of his theism is to deprive him of the mechanisms of comfort in the situation I described. I'm just unsure of how that connects with what you're saying.

Oh, and I'll ask again: do you want to answer the original question?

[stuntpickle]

Because that was the only point of discussion immediately prior to your intercession, we were not discussing Bien's belief in God, but his use of this belief to justify an irrational belief in demonstrably false assertions. Thus, saying we were ganging up on him to dissuade him of his theism isn't quite an accurate description of what was happening.

I don't think it's possible to demonstrate God does not exist, I simply think there is not reason enough to believe he exists, so I don't believe. My only concern with religion is in its effects on society and individuals. Or, in other words, I don't particularly care about their theological claims, but merely their social impact. Such that I, as someone coming from the sciences, have an invested interest in the misguided attempts by some theistic circles to discredit the methodology of science so as to satisfy their a priori assumptions about the order of the universe. I object to the actions of certain organized churches in the power dynamics of their missionary actions. I object to certain Judeo-Christian systems of morality, because they depend on recourse to an authority, which because I discount their claim to a perfect deity determining that authority I argue merely reflects a subjective socio-culturally determined morality rather than some true guiding moral force. Such that I disagree with certain churches in their interpretation of this Moral Law through their resistance to gay rights, abortion rights, and more recently matters of redistribution of wealth.

Never mind. For some reason, I didn't see your first paragraph.

[Emil Miller]

What do you mean by "rationale for life"? Do you mean identifying the 'purpose' of life?

And hi. I have just joined this forum. :cornut:

But of course, what else does it mean?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

First, let me first extend an olive branch to Bien, by apologizing for belittling his beliefs and opinions. In all fairness, though, the snideness wasn't all one-way. Maybe I started it, I'm not sure--it wouldn't surprise me, and I don't feel like scanning the full thread to find out.

First, I want you to think about the most important person in the world to you. This could be a spouse, a parent, a child, a lover, a friend; it doesn't matter who, so long as none other is more important to you. I want you to imagine that this person is, in the next five minutes, struck by a moving automobile. You are then summoned to the hospital, where this persons is in the process of dying. You are at this person's bedside to receive his last words. He asks you whether there is a heaven, and if so, whether you two will meet again. My question involves neither proofs nor arguments, and we will presume that the person answering the question is an atheist.

Do you answer honestly and tell him there is no heaven and that these are his last moments of consciousness, or do you lie and tell him that you will see him again?

I would answer honestly as an atheist and say this (assuming that this incredibly close person in my life doesn't already know my ideas on the subject): "I don't know if there is an afterlife or not. I tend not to think so. I hope I'm wrong."


I'm sorry, Darcy, but you are wrong. You seem to know nothing about God. He is not physical, but He is spirit. There is far more evidence that man existed with dinosaurs than just a stone. There's even Biblical accounts of the dinosaur. There's descriptions of dinosaurs in the book of Job. Not ONLY in the bible, but in many writings in many cultures. I can't help it that you are too narrow minded to accept anything beyond your own belief, but there's truth out there. Truth that you are just unwilling to accept.
I accept that there is evidence out there that would suggest that dinosaurs existed with man. I also accept that there is evidence that suggest dinosaurs did not exist with men, and I would argue that there is more of this evidence and that it is more compelling. As someone who is not religious, someone who doesn't believe in what religious tomes say, what conclusion am I supposed to come to? It's an objective matter for me, not a subjective or personal one. Looking at both sides, I don't think dinosaurs existed with man.
I believe there is more truth in that statement than its counterpart.

[Hallword]

But of course, what else does it mean?

I ask merely because this is, from my view, a rather strange question to ask. The world is based on disordered randomness, and the very idea of a 'purpose' is directly opposed to any meaningful free-will. I also feel that probability and conincidences are a big problem here. Not forgetting that without the belief in a 'purpose', it seems to me, that some people would then equate that with meaningless. Naturally, we can all find 'meaning' in life without the supranatural ... I sometimes feel Aristotle was probably the closest by pointing to eudaimonia ... There is no such thing as destiny.

Arh. I have been talking about God a lot today!

[Hallword]

First, let me first extend an olive branch to Bien, by apologizing for belittling his beliefs and opinions. In all fairness, though, the snideness wasn't all one-way. Maybe I started it, I'm not sure--it wouldn't surprise me, and I don't feel like scanning the full thread to find out.

I would answer honestly as an atheist and say this (assuming that this incredibly close person in my life doesn't already know my ideas on the subject): "I don't know if there is an afterlife or not. I tend not to think so. I hope I'm wrong."


I accept that there is evidence out there that would suggest that dinosaurs existed with man. I also accept that there is evidence that suggest dinosaurs did not exist with men, and I would argue that there is more of this evidence and that it is more compelling. As someone who is not religious, someone who doesn't believe in what religious tomes say, what conclusion am I supposed to come to? It's an objective matter for me, not a subjective or personal one. Looking at both sides, I don't think dinosaurs existed with man.
I believe there is more truth in that statement than its counterpart.

There are dinosaurs amongst us today. They're birds ;).

[KCurtis]

I actually think people were saying that believing dinosaurs cohabited the Earth with humans, and that the Earth is geologically only a few thousand years old, and that Biblical myths, like the global flood, are literally true, all runs counter to reality as we know it.

There is nothing bullying about that, it's simply calling a ridiculous opinion out for what it is. Making a statement about a prime mover, or some unknown force in the universe is one thing. Making a statement that is objectively false is simply not open to being tolerated in order to spare the feelings of others.

Well stated. I can't understand why religion and science cannot co-exist. There are certainly scientists, and people who accept evolution, who are religious.
Also, the reason we have not provided scientific data to support facts concerning geology, dinosaurs, evolution,etc., on this forum is because it has already been provided, it's everywhere, but people just choose to believe what they do. This thread will change nobody's mind. My brother in-law is a creationist. I really like him, and I don't seek him out to insult him-I don't think he is unintelligent. I don't bring up the subject- but if I am asked, I will have more ammunition for my argument than he will.

[BienvenuJDC]

The evidence corroborating the theory of evolution is staggering. I won't touch the global warming thing, except to say that the money is in denying it. You have a decomposed carcass that most think was a shark and that's the extent of your evidence? Where did the dinosaurs go? Why are there not any in the Amazonian jungle? There are few scientists percentage-wise who believe in a young earth, none of which I suspect could be deemed credible. Geology, biology, physics, climatology, its all one vast international multi-generational conspiracy of thousands of anti-Christian minds manipulating the evidence, out to discredit your beliefs.

The money is in DENYING it? I don't even care to discuss anything with you any more. If you can't understand the total fallacy in global warming and the money that has been gained by pushing that agenda, then there's no discussing anything with you. You have your mind set on things.

[Varenne Rodin]

Again, Bien, where did the icecaps go? Why are polar bears going homeless?

[JuniperWoolf]

The difference I think though is that with science EVERYTHING is on the table, nothing is above being potentially discredited. With faith that is not the case. In fact its this constant flux which has been science's greatest strength and claim to legitimacy. Nothing is sacred before the fact.

I think that this is dead on, and likely the reason why there is so much debate between fundamentalist theists and science people (notice I'm not saying "athists" - there are many people who's opinions adhere to the scientific process who are also religious). For a person who forces themselves to accept things which are easy to disprove, the proof doesn't matter - the only thing that matters is their version of the truth. To a scientist, proof is ALL that matters. The truth changes depending on the facts. That's why I don't put any stock into the opinion that science is just another religion because it is another "belief" - the two are worlds apart, they're exact opposites on a fundamental level.


Do you answer honestly and tell him there is no heaven and that these are his last moments of consciousness, or do you lie and tell him that you will see him again?

I'd tell him the truth and say "I don't know." That's the only truth - NO ONE KNOWS. The most important person in the world to me wouldn't ask that question, though. He can think for himself.


and so you will have to excuse me for finding your zest vulgar and thoughtless.

A comfortable lie is still a lie, and there's nothing in the world that I find more vulgar and thoughtless than lies.


I don't think it is an accident that New Atheism is largely restricted to a younger demographic. We're all five metaphorical minutes away from that bed, but it's incredibly hard to understand this when you're young.

Actually, the person that I love most was born with a severe heart condition. He's been in a situation where his life expectancy was only 15% exactly five times (five heart surgeries). You want to know who he hates more than anyone in the world? All of the nosy dipsh*t Christians that he doesn't even know who come into his hospital room, and have done so ever since he was born, telling him that his suffering and likely death is all a part of "God's plan." Really? Then God is an a-hole. Get out.

Young people are atheists because they aren't aquainted with death, disease and suffering? Really? Mutatis is an atheist, and he's had skin cancer six times.


My point is not to suggest that theism is a lie or even self-deception, but rather to point out how the treatment of Bievenu is representative of the worst aspects of human nature.

It's because of people like Bien that young homosexuals have such a high rate of depression and suicide (more young deaths? I'm starting to see a pattern). I've had debates with him before, apparently they're abominations. Sorry, I'll never feel bad for a pushy fundie when people gang up on him. People SHOULD stand together against ideas like that. Because, you know, religion has never ganged up on anyone ever, especially for the last thousand years. At least no one is suggesting that we KILL vocal fundamentalists, which puts us in the plus column (and don't even try to twist my words - consider yourself officially informed that it is VOCAL FUNDAMENTALISTS that we are discussing here, not religious people in general).

[cafolini]

I'm not ignoring or changing anything I have said. Invisible friends are delusions. I'm sorry if you don't understand what delusions are. Pick on someone else for a while. Your objections to me don't make any sense, unless you just hate atheists. I'm not interested. Have a good day. :)

Well, keep going. Now I know you are preaching entanglement with nonsense. Have fun.

[YesNo]

Also, the reason we have not provided scientific data to support facts concerning geology, dinosaurs, evolution,etc., on this forum is because it has already been provided, it's everywhere, but people just choose to believe what they do. This thread will change nobody's mind.
I agree that the thread will change no one's mind. Personally, I like the divergence of opinions. It does give anyone who chooses to post opportunities to clarify their positions.

I disagree with the reason people do not provide supporting evidence for their claims. I don't think it is because the evidence is somewhere else. Rather, it is because we don't know what that evidence is and we don't want to clarify the basis of our ideas. Without supporting evidence, all one has is unquestioned dogmatism which we might as well stop pretending is science and call it what it is: a belief system.

Two of BienvenuJDC's arguments seem to go something like this, unless I misunderstood him:

1) The human species is less than 10,000 years old.

2) Evolution did not occur.

Now I think the human species is about 150,000 years old, but that is based on a claim I remember reading in Brian Sykes' The Seven Daughters of Eve. However, taking Sykes word for it doesn't seem like very strong evidence. There must be better evidence.

What is that evidence?

I also think evolution occurred, but if I were asked to provide evidence for this, what combination of fossils is necessary to do that? Again, what is the evidence?

[JuniperWoolf]

I agree that the thread will change no one's mind.

Threads change my mind all the time. It was in a thread that The Atheist convinced me that being tolerant of people who push ideas that promote inequality, suffering and ignorance is NOT the good kind of tolerance. Also, Darcy just convinced me a few pages ago to tolerate these ideas as long as the people who have them are willing to shut up about them and not try to change the government or school systems to suit their religion. That's why I like internet debates.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

This thread hasn't changed my mind, but it has taught my a lesson I refuse to learn, and will undoubtedly break in the future, and that is to not bother arguing with fundamentalists.

[YesNo]

Threads change my mind all the time. It was in a thread that The Atheist convinced me that being tolerant of people who push ideas that promote inequality, suffering and ignorance is NOT the good kind of tolerance.
Actually, they change my mind as well, come to think of it. It was a post by OrphanPip almost a year ago that contained a link to a lecture on cosmology that made me realize the Big Bang was not what I thought it was, but a radical beginning out of nothing.

That basically eliminated atheism as a viable position.

[JuniperWoolf]

Actually, they change my mind as well, come to think of it. It was a post by OrphanPip almost a year ago that contained a link to a lecture on cosmology that made me realize the Big Bang was not what I thought it was, but a radical beginning out of nothing.

That basically eliminated atheism as a viable position.

The thing that blew my mind was when my highschool physics teacher told us that the laws of physics would have had to exist (eg. expansion outwards from an internal heat source) before there was matter and energy for the rules to act upon.

[Varenne Rodin]

Well, keep going. Now I know you are preaching entanglement with nonsense. Have fun.

That wasn't directed at you, caf. I'm not preaching nonsense. "A delusion is a false belief held with absolute conviction despite superior evidence." This was to answer a question that was posed to me. Sometimes you make quick judgements about my intentions. If you want to assess me correctly watch "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" and soak up that carefree vibe to apply to my text. :)

[BienvenuJDC]

This thread hasn't changed my mind, but it has taught my a lesson I refuse to learn, and will undoubtedly break in the future, and that is to not bother arguing with fundamentalists.

Ever consider that you yourself are the type that you are refusing to argue with?

[JuniperWoolf]

Ever consider that you yourself are the type that you are refusing to argue with?

I'm just curious, if we were to look up "pot calling the kettle black" on wiki, would we find your picture?

[Varenne Rodin]

I think that this is dead on, and likely the reason why there is so much debate between fundamentalist theists and science people (notice I'm not saying "athists" - there are many people who's opinions adhere to the scientific process who are also religious). For a person who forces themselves to accept things which are easy to disprove, the proof doesn't matter - the only thing that matters is their version of the truth. To a scientist, proof is ALL that matters. The truth changes depending on the facts. That's why I don't put any stock into the opinion that science is just another religion because it is another "belief" - the two are worlds apart, they're exact opposites on a fundamental level.



I'd tell him the truth and say "I don't know." That's the only truth - NO ONE KNOWS. The most important person in the world to me wouldn't ask that question, though. He can think for himself.



A comfortable lie is still a lie, and there's nothing in the world that I find more vulgar and thoughtless than lies.



Actually, the person that I love most was born with a severe heart condition. He's been in a situation where his life expectancy was only 15% exactly five times (five heart surgeries). You want to know who he hates more than anyone in the world? All of the nosy dipsh*t Christians that he doesn't even know who come into his hospital room, and have done so ever since he was born, telling him that his suffering and likely death is all a part of "God's plan." Really? Then God is an a-hole. Get out.

Young people are atheists because they aren't aquainted with death, disease and suffering? Really? Mutatis is an atheist, and he's had skin cancer six times.



It's because of people like Bien that young homosexuals have such a high rate of depression and suicide (more young deaths? I'm starting to see a pattern). I've had debates with him before, apparently they're abominations. Sorry, I'll never feel bad for a pushy fundie when people gang up on him. People SHOULD stand together against ideas like that. Because, you know, religion has never ganged up on anyone ever, especially for the last thousand years. At least no one is suggesting that we KILL vocal fundamentalists, which puts us in the plus column (and don't even try to twist my words - consider yourself officially informed that it is VOCAL FUNDAMENTALISTS that we are discussing here, not religious people in general).

You're making great arguments, Jupiter. Well said.

[Darcy88]

I agree that the thread will change no one's mind. Personally, I like the divergence of opinions. It does give anyone who chooses to post opportunities to clarify their positions.

I disagree with the reason people do not provide supporting evidence for their claims. I don't think it is because the evidence is somewhere else. Rather, it is because we don't know what that evidence is and we don't want to clarify the basis of our ideas. Without supporting evidence, all one has is unquestioned dogmatism which we might as well stop pretending is science and call it what it is: a belief system.

Two of BienvenuJDC's arguments seem to go something like this, unless I misunderstood him:

1) The human species is less than 10,000 years old.

2) Evolution did not occur.

Now I think the human species is about 150,000 years old, but that is based on a claim I remember reading in Brian Sykes' The Seven Daughters of Eve. However, taking Sykes word for it doesn't seem like very strong evidence. There must be better evidence.

What is that evidence?

I also think evolution occurred, but if I were asked to provide evidence for this, what combination of fossils is necessary to do that? Again, what is the evidence?

I think if the overwhelming majority of persons who complete higher level study of the subject have reached a consensus, we can take that consensus to mean something. I shouldn't have to study evolution in order to believe in it. And my failure to study it should not lead to the equating of my belief to dogmatism. I believe the earth is round but I've never performed the calculations myself. Its an extreme example but it nicely illustrates my point.

[stuntpickle]

Would you agree that the affirmation in the existence of anything at all would have to meet the conditions of falsification and empirical evidence?

I adamantly disagree, as would most philosophers since the 1930s. What you are espousing here is a variety of logical positivism, which is self-refuting. Consider the statement "Empirical evidence is required to affirm the existence of anything." Okay, just empirically affirm the existence of empiricism. More importantly, empirically justify empiricism as a philosophical standard. The problem with logical positivism is that it requires an evidentiary standard that it cannot, itself, fulfill. And that's why its adherents were run out of the academy in the first half of the 20th Century. Its really only New Atheists who make such demands of people, much to the chagrin of more learned atheists. When Richard Dawkins says stuff like this, the loudest criticisms come from atheistic philosophers simply because they're embarrassed.



Since science cannot prove the existence of God (that being the necessary condition for the existence of anything to be true), then such a belief cannot be logical.

This statement is obviously wrong. Science is a fairly narrow enterprise concerned with observable aspects of the material universe. A few things science cannot even evaluate, much less "prove": mathematics, logic, science, itself. In fact, science must take all these things for granted, before one can do science. Godel's theorems of incompleteness suggest that the more exact a mechanism is, the less complete it is, and this is why there are no logical justifications of logic, no mathematical justifications of math. Science, itself, rests on a fairly thin inductive assumption that natural laws are uniform across space and time, which cannot be proved scientifically--ever. Science will never be in a position to observe enough to make a deductive argument about the conditions of the universe; it must always make some problematic inductive argument. You see, the biggest casualty for your empirical philosophical requirements is, in fact, science. This was Hume's greatest problem, and he never found a solution, nor did anyone else. If we had to sit around and wait for empirical evidence of the conditions surrounding every physical phenomenon in the universe, science couldn't operate: no reasonable statement could be made about anything. The variety of empiricism you espouse is known to be one of the most crippling world views in all of history, most specifically as it relates to science.

Additionally, lack of scientific “proof” doesn’t render something illogical. I wonder whether you understand what a “proof” is, as it’s a strictly formal arrangement of necessarily concluding statements most often relegated to the realm of mathematics. For instance, there’s no formal proof of evolution or gravity. Moreover, science isn’t the arbiter of what’s logical; logic, itself, is. Scientists don’t sit around trying to render judgments about the rationality of statements, but rather test hypotheses according to criteria of observation. Just because science, for structural reasons, can never attempt to prove the irrationality of the square root of two doesn’t mean that the statement, itself, is illogical.

Also, you make the mistake of conflating irrationality with being delusional. When someone makes a mistake of logic, we do not then commit them to an insane asylum.


It's not that theists lack 'evidence' (and, hence, irrational) - but that the evidence is such that it is subject to personal beliefs (sincere as they may be), gut feelings, and man's natural psychological conditions. A lot of people believe they have had ghost experiences, for instance ... And these don't meet the standards of science in the pursuit of truth.

Your notion that theistic belief can only be grounded in gut feelings and "psychological conditions" is plainly false. In fact, the vast majority of rational discourse in human history has hinged in some manner on the belief. Cosmological and ontological arguments for God are hardly "gut feelings." You do understand that, for instance, Descartes's work culminated with an ontological argument for God. The truth is the theistic worldview is more defensible--by a long shot--than what you're espousing as a worldview, which currently looks a lot like logical positivism. Though that's not saying much since, your worldview refutes itself. The interesting thing is that you're not even aware of this.

[stuntpickle]

Sorry, double post.

[JuniperWoolf]

What is that evidence?

I also think evolution occurred, but if I were asked to provide evidence for this, what combination of fossils is necessary to do that? Again, what is the evidence?

Point one: the animal species who's remains we have found in fossils no longer exist on earth today, and we can not find any (or ALMOST any) remains from animals which are currently alive (sharks and crocodiles have existed long enough to be fossilized and we've found a few). You don't find polar bear fossils, or housecat fossils. You find fossils which kind of resemble polar bears and housecats. Conclusion: housecats and polar bears are the descendants of these early relatives, and have replaced them.

Point two: natural selection is undisputed. You can watch it happen. Animals who aren't fit for their environment die, and those that are fit survive to breed. Mutation also happens. Sometimes mutations are beneficial, for example when a bird is born with a mutation that gives it a longer beak. This long-beaked bird will breed, and create more birds with longer beaks which are better suited to grabbing their food source (let's say, bugs that live in logs). They'll take most of the food and mates (because they will be healtheir, and animals always choose to breed with the healthiest mate) and the short-beaked birds will die off before they get a chance to procreate, so the long-beaked birds will become the new standard of hypothetical birds.

This scenario has occured many times, but the question is, are these birds a new species or just a variation of the old one? Well, we can sometimes find groups of animals in which the new trait hasn't mutated. This group is isolated from the other group of animals, so they retain all of the same traits that the species had before the new trait was introduced. After the new species breeds a few generations, they find that different traits are created because of the new development. To use the hypothetical bird example, maybe the new species doesn't need to use it's wings to catch food as much anymore so the wings get shorter and weaker. After a bit of time, the two species no longer resemble each other, but are they ACTUALLY different species?

We can tell that two species are different from one another if they can't create viable offspring. If we introduce the non-changed birds to the changed birds, we often find that the two are either physically incapable of breeding or that their reproductive cells are simply incompatible. The female bird either doesn't become pregnant, or the offspring dies right away. That means that they are different species which were members of the same species previously, which means that evolution has occured.

This has been simplified by the way, there's more to it. Sometimes it's not a mutation which causes the species to change, but various forms of isolation (and there are different kinds of isolation, each with it's own terminology) which cuts the population into two or more groups upon which natural selection acts differently and that causes them to become different species, or one of the populations stays in the old environment and maintains all of the traits of the old species but the other group of isolated organisms change. There's a lot to study and learn when it comes to evolution and natural selection, but the point is that we can and do watch it happen, so I'm pretty sure it exists.

[Darcy88]

I see tremendous irony in the fact that people attempting to undermine science do so using advanced technology provided by science. To refer to science as "narrow" is a wee bit of an exaggeration no?

[osho]

In fact this feud is timeless and a few believers throughout history always waged a series of wars against science and our great scientists' lives were mostly at stake and the same goes on even today with a few thinkers undermining the importance of science.

Without the thought of God things will go as they are but without science we will be again fall into savagery

[stuntpickle]

I see tremendous irony in the fact that people attempting to undermine science do so using advanced technology provided by science. To refer to science as "narrow" is a wee bit of an exaggeration no?

First, I'm not trying to undermine science. Calling science "narrow" is true. When you want to know the chances of getting your case through a court of equity, you don't ask a scientist. When you want to understand the meaning of a poem, you don't ask a scientist. The fact that you misunderstand the word "narrow" as a moral judgment of science demonstrates your lack of understanding. We require that science is narrow so that it works.

[stuntpickle]

a few believers throughout history always waged a series of wars against science

This is a fairly vacuous statement. It can also be said that a few non-believers slaughtered millions of people in the Soviet Union, which obviously doesn't impeach one's lack of belief, just as whatever "a few believers throughout history" did doesn't impeach belief in God.

[Darcy88]

First, I'm not trying to undermine science. Calling science "narrow" is true. When you want to know the chances of getting your case through a court of equity, you don't ask a scientist. When you want to understand the meaning of a poem, you don't ask a scientist. The fact that you misunderstand the word "narrow" as a moral judgment of science demonstrates your lack of understanding. We require that science is narrow so that it works.

I have difficulty thinking of a single thing as deep and diverse as science. It encompasses so incredibly much I balk at the task of delineating it here. Forgetting the theoretical, just in the way it has so radically transformed our environment and our lives through technology its results are patently astonishing.

I suppose art may compare in terms of richness and breadth. Its all I can think of.

[stuntpickle]

I have difficulty thinking of a single thing as deep and diverse as science. It encompasses so incredibly much I balk at the task of delineating it here. Forgetting the theoretical, just in the way it has so radically transformed our environment and our lives through technology its results are patently astonishing.

I suppose art may compare in terms of richness and breadth. Its all I can think of.

You can write a paean to science if you want, but it doesn't in any way relate to the statement of science being necessarily narrow. Being narrow in scope doesn't preclude being, as you say, "astonishing".

[JuniperWoolf]

You can write a paean to science if you want, but it doesn't in any way relate to the statement of science being necessarily narrow. Being narrow in scope doesn't preclude being, as you say, "astonishing".

I guess you missed his other adjectives which pertain to you claim that science is narrow, like "deep," "diverse," "rich," and also "It encompasses so incredibly much I balk at the task of delineating it here." You latched onto his admiration for science and said that it doesn't contradict your claim, but the rest of his post did. You tend to do that, you ignore every part of someone's post except for the little snippet that you feel that have the ability to use.

Also, you completely ignored my original post which responded to your scenario.

[stuntpickle]

I guess you missed his other adjectives which pertain to you claim that science is narrow, like "deep," "diverse," "rich," and also "It encompasses so incredibly much I balk at the task of delineating it here." You latched onto his admiration for science and said that it doesn't contradict your claim, but the rest of his post did. You tend to do that, you ignore every part of someone's post except for the little snippet that you feel that have the ability to use.

He can, of course, make claims about the breadth of whatever discipline he chooses, but if he really wants to make a point he would have to demonstrate how science is broader than math, logic, metaphysics, epistemology, law, government, dance, music, literature and I here I could on forever. I think your problem is that you (in the plural) revere science so much that you think you are required to defend it to the detriment of everything else. Every field of human inquiry is narrow in some sense, unless you have a literal theory of everything, which probably wouldn't do anyone much good. Let me just clearly state something here: to consider that science is necessarily in opposition to metaphysical truths or theological truths is a false dichotomy. Perhaps you could reread the original post and try to understand how the word "narrow" is applicable to an explanation of how science is limited to material phenomena and not wide enough to evaluate metaphysical statements. I find it interesting that you misinterpret a fairly banal statement as some attack on science. I am not opposed to science, but I AM opposed to scientism, which is when unsophisticated thinkers presume science to be broader than it really is. If I called capitalism a fairly narrow theory of capital in order to demonstrate how it cannot make determinations about the nature of gravity, would you get upset?

[JuniperWoolf]

Yeeeaaaahhh, I don't really care about semantics and refuse to get into a debate about something as boring as the definition of the word "narrow," so...


Also, you completely ignored my original post which responded to your scenario.

[stuntpickle]

Yeeeaaaahhh, I don't really care about semantics, so...

Well, then why the big fuss? That the people in this thread consider the statement "science is a narrow field of inquiry" to be some ideological attack is fairly telling.

You seem to be quoting yourself, so I'm not entirely sure if you're talking to me. If you made a response to me, you're going to have to point it out or restate it.

[osho]

This is a fairly vacuous statement. It can also be said that a few non-believers slaughtered millions of people in the Soviet Union, which obviously doesn't impeach one's lack of belief, just as whatever "a few believers throughout history" did doesn't impeach belief in God.

If you really seek historical evidence more numbers of people died in the name of religion or ideology than in others, geopolitical or commercial wars put together. The 9 /11 raid was ideological. Hitler emerged colossally and invincibly for an ideology and even today the world is being a worse place to live in because we are more threats from ideological wars.

[JuniperWoolf]

You seem to be quoting yourself, so I'm not entirely sure if you're talking to me.

Ugh! Yes, I'm talking to you. The post was directed at you. Is this going to be another teeth-pulling exercise?

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64189&page=24

Fourth one down, the one that says "JuniperWoolf."

[stuntpickle]

If you really seek historical evidence more numbers of people died in the name of religion or ideology than in others, geopolitical or commercial wars put together. The 9 /11 raid was ideological. Hitler emerged colossally and invincibly for an ideology and even today the world is being a worse place to live in because we are more threats from ideological wars.

Apparently, you missed the point of what I said, which was essentially that vague generalizations about who did what in no way impeach belief in God or lack of belief in God. But then you make more vague generalizations that are, frankly, irrelevant. You keep using the word "ideological," which is not, by the way, synonymous with theism. Are you advocating a society without ideology? What would this society look like?

[stuntpickle]

Ugh! Yes, I'm talking to you. The post was directed at you. Is this going to be another teeth-pulling exercise?

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64189&page=24

Fourth one down, the one that says "JuniperWoolf."

Looks like you edited it just now. It used to be largely devoted to someone else. So don't get upset about me missing your revisions. Teeth-pulling exercise? All I recall is a teeth-kicking one, and if you're ready for another, I'll oblige you.

[osho]

Apparently, you missed the point of what I said, which was essentially that vague generalizations about who did what in no way impeach belief in God or lack of belief in God. But then you make more vague generalizations that are, frankly, irrelevant. You keep using the word "ideological," which is not, by the way, synonymous with theism. Are you advocating a society without ideology? What would this society look like?

The kind of society I crave is not the one that fights for an ideology, or for their gods, for their religions, for their races, for their ethnic identity or customs. Maybe this type of society is only in our heads, thoughts now, but this is a scientific society.

[JuniperWoolf]

Looks like you edited it just now. It used to be largely devoted to someone else. So don't get upset about me missing your revisions. Teeth-pulling exercise? All I recall is a teeth-kicking one, and if you're ready for another, I'll oblige you.

...Teeth kicking?

Four hours ago one of my quote boxes had someone else's name on it because of an editing mistake (I copied and pasted the top quote box to make the fourth), but the other three had your name in the block header, not to mention all four were quoting you, and I fixed the wrong one. Sorry for the mix up.

Do I have to ask for your response again? If so, do I have to say something lame like "oblige me?"

Try not to get too rude and evasive this time though, just for the sake of fairness. My infraction points limit can't take it if I get stupid and respond with anger (I'm not trying to be cheeky, I'm totally serious).

[PoeticPassions]

A friend of mine once told me, never argue about religion and politics with people you like (granted you know they have very different opinions than you). Of course, I really like some of you on here (others I don't know), and it seems silly that we are all arguing about something, when we know that no one is going to change their mind. The point of discussion, however, is not to change other people's minds, but to expand their horizons, so to speak, and arrive at a greater (collective) understanding (or this is what I think). The problem here is that this has turned into some huge debate, which has become personal to some degree, and has involved attacks on personal character... that makes me quite sad. Particularly from those that started this discussion in defense of having an opinion, and then turned around and attacked other people's opinion. Voltaire would be turning in his grave right about now...

As for defending someone from being ganged up on-- I don't see why you would do that on this forum, and in this specific thread. Obviously, whoever posts in the 'Why I don't believe in god' thread, and then talks about why there is a God and why any other possibility is not acceptable or possible, is asking to become part of a debate. This is an anonymous forum-- one can step out of heated discussion at any point.

It is unfortunate, however, that no one really wants to have a dialogue about these things... instead most just want to disprove each other's points and find logical fallacies in each other's arguments or beliefs.

I'll end with a mention of Voltaire again, and quote him: ''What is tolerance? It is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other's folly — that is the first law of nature.''

[stuntpickle]

A comfortable lie is still a lie, and there's nothing in the world that I find more vulgar and thoughtless than lies.

What a horrible statement. So you don't believe in the noble lie? So if the Nazis knocked on your door and asked if you were hiding Jews and you were, you would tell the truth? And telling the lie would be thoughtless and vulgar, right?


Actually, the person that I love most was born with a severe heart condition. He's been in a situation where his life expectancy was only 15% exactly five times (five heart surgeries). You want to know who he hates more than anyone in the world? All of the nosy dipsh*t Christians that he doesn't even know who come into his hospital room, and have done so ever since he was born, telling him that his suffering and likely death is all a part of "God's plan." Really? Then God is an a-hole. Get out.

I actually stated that I was NOT trying to present an argument, but rather demonstrating the stakes of the dilemma. So now that you've called Christians "dip****s" in a forum about religious texts that explicitly requires respecting the belief of others, what reaction do you expect from me?


Young people are atheists because they aren't aquainted with death, disease and suffering? Really? Mutatis is an atheist, and he's had skin cancer six times.

Young people on average are less acquainted with mortality, which is a statement I think reasonable persons would agree with. That this or that person had health problems when young doesn't really contradict it.




It's because of people like Bien that young homosexuals have such a high rate of depression and suicide (more young deaths? I'm starting to see a pattern). I've had debates with him before, apparently they're abominations.

Please demonstrate some causal relationship with Bienvenu or some obvious counterpart and suicides among homosexuals. "Abomination" as used in the Pentateuch is a term firmly in the context of Hebraic ethics. Eating shrimp is an abomination. Am I now responsible for suicides among the eaters of shrimp? The word "because" is an explicit statement of causality. If I called you a poopy-face and you were so upset that you killed yourself, can I be said to have caused your suicide? I don't think so.


Sorry, I'll never feel bad for a pushy fundie when people gang up on him.

Perhaps you lack empathy. You know, regardless of whether you believe in Jesus as a divine figure and son of God, he does represent the Western ideal of goodness. And never is he more powerful in his goodness than when he suggests we should love our enemies, when he asks for God to forgive his murderers. Many observant thinkers have commented on the recent debate that the New Atheists and the fundamentalist Christians are similar groups in both attitude and method. To say you will "never feel sorry" for this or that variety of person is to demonstrate, I think, a fairly horrible psychology. Kurt Vonnegut, who was a humanist, attempted to find the humanity of even Hitler in Timequake by having Hitler say, just before he killed himself, "I never asked to be born." I think both Christians and humanists should endeavor to empathize with everyone, including awful persons like Saddam Hussein, whose head was nearly ripped off in a botched execution, and Osama bin Laden, who was shot in his underwear--despite both of those persons being murderous psychopaths. To proudly proclaim you relish the hardships of anyone is, I think, to be a self-righteous monster.


People SHOULD stand together against ideas like that. Because, you know, religion has never ganged up on anyone ever, especially for the last thousand years. At least no one is suggesting that we KILL vocal fundamentalists

This is what is called a moral equivalency claim. That some other group might have done something bad doesn't provide warrant for you to do the same. Moreover, any Christian ganging up on someone and suggesting that they be "killed" does so in direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus Christ--you know, the guy who said to turn the other cheek and let him who is without sin cast the first stone. Of course, the institutions of Christianity have not always behaved well. The medieval Catholic Church looked a lot like a royal demesne with an abundance of riches and a sizable army, but the interesting thing is how that contradicted the teachings of Christianity. It is no accident that one the biggest stories of European history is when the peasantry finally got their hands on the Bible and split from the church. Regardless of what you feel Christians have done in the past, you are not justified in repeating their mistakes. Moreover, Christianity has worked historically as a readymade package of criticisms for hypocrisy and worldly power so that the Civil Rights movement in America was derived from a Christian ethos, even though there is slavery in the Bible. I repeat Martin Luther King's words to you now: an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. And that, sir, is the essence of Christianity AND humanism.

[stuntpickle]

The kind of society I crave is not the one that fights for an ideology, or for their gods, for their religions, for their races, for their ethnic identity or customs. Maybe this type of society is only in our heads, thoughts now, but this is a scientific society.

Science cannot evolve its own moral judgments. So there are any number of possible societies that could be described as "scientific" and be horrific. Nazi doctors could be described as behaving in accordance with a scientific society because "science" is a morally neutral term. Do you like the idea of a scientific society that evolves practical applications of human embryos? How about a scientific society that manufactures persons in various genetic strata? A "scientific society" could be good or bad, but to ensure its goodness we need much more than science.

[JuniperWoolf]

The problem here is that this has turned into some huge debate, which has become personal to some degree, and has involved attacks on personal character... that makes me quite sad.

Don't worry, I have the feeling that we're both of the thick-skinned variety, and I literally can't get personal. Besides, even snarky back-and-forths between people with widely differing opinions still have merit.


What a horrible statement. So you don't believe in the noble lie? So if the Nazis knocked on your door and asked if you were hiding Jews and you were, you would tell the truth? And telling the lie would be thoughtless and vulgar, right?

Well, would you look at that - it's good old Goodwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law)! I was wondering when it would rear it's ugly head!


So now that you've called Christians "dip****s" in a forum about religious texts that explicitly requires respecting the belief of others, what reaction do you expect from me?

I didn't. I said that the strangers who butted their fat faces into my dying boyfriend's hospital room were dipsh*ts, and they were. They were selfish, self-righteous, nosy, insensitive dipsh*ts who just-so-happened to be Christian (well, he got one confused old Hindu woman, but that's beside the point). I didn't say "all Christians are dipsh*ts," I said "some dipsh*ts are Christian." I was also making the point that religion didn't cause Dave to feel relief in his time of near-death, it caused him to feel anger and bitterness, so your argument that we should preserve everyone's little faith bubble, no matter the cost, is flawed. Religion doesn't necessarily mean comfort in death, and the cost of keeping your mouth shut to ease the minds of those who facing hardship is too high (the cost being to allow fundamentalists say whatever they want unchallenged - EVERY idea must be challenged, and if it can't hold up, then there's something wrong with it and it needs to be looked at).


Young people on average are less acquainted with mortality, which is a statement I think reasonable persons would agree with.

But not the non-believers on this thread, they're aquainted with death, suffering and disease, myself included. Most people are. Death and suffering is a part of everyone's life. Our opinions don't become less valid because of our age. Maybe most young people are, on average, less familiar with death and suffering - but the atheists that I've met don't seem to be among them. In fact, the more injustice and suffering people witness in this world, the more likely they are to lose faith in God. Suffering/death is one of the main examples given for why people don't believe in a benevolent universal force. Read the stupid OP (calling it "stupid," by the way, isn't supposed to be awkwardly and randomly angry like it appears - it's a reference to someone else's hilarious post mix-up).


Please demonstrate some causal relationship with Bienvenu or some obvious counterpart and suicides among homosexuals.

Okie dokie.

1. Bien is a fundamentalist Christian. He believes that the world is eight thousand years old, he doesn't believe in evolution, he believes that the bible is literally true and he's called homosexuals "abominations."
2. Fundamentalist Christians cause homosexuals to become depressed because they feel sub-human. That's an unfortunate side effect of being called an "abomination," having people tell you that God (the supposed all-loving creator of the universe) hates YOU and being forced to live your life by different laws than "normal" people, and all of these things are amplified if you're just a kid.
3. Depressed people have been known to commit suicide, and homosexuals (especially teens) have a high suicide rate which indicates that they're depressed. Now why would they be depressed, again?


"Abomination" as used in the Pentateuch is a term firmly in the context of Hebraic ethics. Eating shrimp is an abomination.

Yes, I'm sure that's what they mean. Fundamentalists call homosexuals "abominations," but they intend for it to be taken in Pentatuech terms, so it's totally fine. I don't know what people get so upset about. I'm sure they mean the phrase "God hates fags" in Pentatuech terms as well.


"Perhaps you lack empathy.

Only for people who push ideas that cause suffering, ignorance and death. For example, fundamentalists sometimes blow up abortion clinics. Because they believe in souls, the law should be changed to suit them, and if it isn't they'll spew their hateful rhetoric all over the TV and some of them will take violent action. Nevermind that if abortion were criminalized many women would kill themselves in an effort to get the foetus out. Never mind that the people who work in abortion clinics also have souls. I also lack empathy for people who are against equal rights for women, homosexuals or minorities. Trying to force the government to deny legal HUMAN rights to a HUMAN just because you don't like how they were born or who they have sex with? I'll admit, I'm not very tolerant of that. Pushing for schools to change their textbooks in an effort to eliminate any knowledge of evolution and to push the story of YOUR religion (not any of the other origin myths, nope - it's YOUR religion that's the important one), all because you know that your version of reality doesn't hold up unless you employ censorship? Sorry, no empathy for you.


You know, regardless of whether you believe in Jesus as a divine figure and son of God, he does represent the Western ideal of goodness.

Sure, as a symbol and a story I'll admit to that, but that's a bit off topic. I don't think there's anything "good" about fundamentalist beliefs. One needs to simply leaf through any history textbook to see what happens when people take their beliefs and their holy books too seriously, too literally.


To say you will "never feel sorry" for this or that variety of person is to demonstrate, I think, a fairly horrible psychology.

I never feel sorry for them for being ganged up on (and in an internet debate, in a thread called "why I don't believe in God" for Christ's sake - he knew what he was getting himself into). Of course I would feel bad for Bien if he was on fire or something, but that's not the context in which I was speaking. Fundamentalist beliefs about homosexuality, women, education, people who don't share their particular brand of whatever religion they belong to (and you should hear what Bien has to say about Catholics - apparently, they're not Christian at all) or different races SHOULD have their beliefs challenged. I can't not challenge those beliefs, and I'm glad that other people feel the same way.



This is what is called a moral equivalency claim.

I know, it was a weak argument and I regretted it a few hours later. However, I did meet this Muslim once in real life who said that if he had one wish in life it would be that he be allowed to "hang the gays" though, so there are still murderous fundamentalists in existance and I can verify that because I met one.


Of course, the institutions of Christianity have not always behaved well. The medieval Catholic Church looked a lot like a royal demesne with an abundance of riches and a sizable army, but the interesting thing is how that contradicted the teachings of Christianity.

I know. I didn't say that the teachings of Christianity were bad, I said that some Christians were bad and that no one should feel guilty about disagreeing with them publicly. Fundamentalists seem to do things which are the exact opposite of what they're advised to do in their own holy book, like kill and discriminate. They pick the most hateful little blurbs of the bible and use them as an excuse to hate. I don't feel bad that many people are intolerant of vocal fundamentalism. In fact, I see hope in it.


Moreover, Christianity has worked historically as a readymade package of criticisms for hypocrisy and worldly power so that the Civil Rights movement in America was derived from a Christian ethos, even though there is slavery in the Bible.

I don't think we need the bible to teach us what's good and what's bad. To take your example, I think that America's founding fathers would have been able to figure out that murder is wrong and freedom of speech is good even without it being in the bible. Rationally, these things are obvious. We know these things because we have common sense. When people ignore their common sense and instead favour an old book to tell them what to think and feel, they end up with beliefs such as "people who don't think like me are tortured for eternity" and "the world is eight thousand years old, dinosaurs existed at the same time as humans, and NO ONE can tell me differently."


And that, sir, is the essence of Christianity AND humanism.

For future reference, I'm a "ma'am."

[stuntpickle]

Well, would you look at that - it's good old Goodwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law)! I was wondering when it would rear it's ugly head!

The Nazi soldiers question is a classic thought experiment that anyone every studying deontological ethics encounters. There's a humorous notion called reductio ad hitlerum, which is a variety of fallacy in which because Hitler did it, it is bad. So because Hitler brushed his teeth, brushing one's teeth is bad. Godwin's law is a joke and refers to this as it relates to a particular arrangement of statements that I have not made. Thought experiments concerning Nazis are a staple of any philosophy education simply because everyone is familiar with them. There is no mistake of logic made when referring to Nazis; I am not making a claim of equivalence with Nazi's, nor am I constructing a fallacious argument. I am testing the truth of your assertion that lies are thoughtless and vulgar. You see, when someone seems to make a claim of absolute truth, you test it by seeing if it is true in all cases; thus the Nazi thought experiment. Funny enough, you proclaim, thus far, a strictly deontological view, which is something you have in common with the severest varieties religious persons.

So if you are using Godwin's Law, which is, by the way, simply a joke as a justification for not answering the question, then you're the one actually making a ridiculous argument.

So if you don't like it purely on the basis of its use of Nazi's and you think citing some wikipedia page about a joke is sufficient reason to not answer, I'll rephrase it for you.

Someone is hiding at your house because a a gangster wants to kill him. The gangster's hit men show up and ask you if you're hiding him, which you are. Would lying be, as you claim, thoughtless and vulgar.

Please try to answer the question this time. Any response lacking that answer will reflect poorly on you.




I didn't. I said that the people who butted their fat faces into my dying boyfriend's hospital room were dipsh*ts, and they were. They were selfish, self-righteous, nosy, insensitive dipsh*ts who just-so-happened to be Christian (well, he got one Muslim woman, but that's beside the point). I didn't say "all Christians are dipsh*ts," I said "some dipsh*ts are Christians."


You said no such thing. You said "dip**** Christians."


you I was also making the point that religion didn't cause Dave to feel relief in his time of near-death, it caused him to feel anger and bitterness, so your argument that we should preserve everyone's little faith bubble, no matter the cost, is flawed. Religion doesn't necessarily mean comfort in death, and the cost of keeping your mouth shut to ease the minds of those who facing hardship is too high (the cost being to allow fundamentalists say whatever they want unchallenged - EVERY idea must be challenged, and if it can't hold up, then there's something wrong with it and it needs to be looked at).

Oh okay, if we must disabuse persons of their little "faith bubbles" and every idea must be challenged then perhaps you should start logically justifying a naturalistic morality, an evidentiary basis for truth, a materialistic worldview that begins by assuming a reality of physical structures or any of the other absurd ideas of most New Atheists. You don't get it. Materialism lost, buddy. You may not believe in God, but a theistic worldview is a workable philosophical position and scientism isn't. The problem is that a person linking to wikipedia pages about jokes in the hopes that it will allow him to avoid problematic issues, probably can't navigate the treacherous turns of his own worldview.







But not the non-believers on this thread, they're aquainted with death, suffering and disease, myself included. Most people are. What are you basing your conclusion on?

What am I basing it on? Obvious truth. For person A of age B, it is true that A of age B+10 is likelier be more acquainted with mortality. Give me a break.



Okie dokie.

1. Bien is a fundamentalist Christian. He believes that the world is eight thousand years old, he doesn't believe in evolution, he believes that the bible is literally true and he's called homosexuals "abominations."
2. Fundamentalist Christians cause homosexuals to become depressed because they feel sub-human. That's an unfortunate side effect of being called an "abomination," having people tell you that God (the supposed all-loving creator of the universe) hates YOU and being forced to live your life by different laws than "normal" people.
3. Depressed people have been known to commit suicide, and homosexuals have a high suicide rate which indicates that they're depressed. Now why would they be depressed, again?


You know that your argument stinks when there's no conclusion. Sorry, man, but that's a bad one. I give you props for trying though. At least, you have some manner of intellectual courage, which speaks in your favor. But the argument is still pretty bad. The argument would have to end with something along the lines of "therefore, people like Bienvenu cause homosexuals to commit suicide" to even have an argument. You have to bridge some fairly impossible territory by establishing multiple causal relationships between Bienvenu, depression and suicide. Moreover, you have to prove a causal mechanism rather than simply a correlation; otherwise, you commit a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. You were sunk even before you got started. We can easily determine that the assertion is false by simply understanding what suicide is. To commit suicide is to unambiguously and purposefully cause one's own death. To cause someone else's suicide is to relieve them of their own causal agency and, thus, prevent them from engaging in suicide. You have problems of definition before you even get started. But again, nice try.




Only for people who push ideas that cause suffering, ignorance and death. For example, fundamentalists sometimes blow up abortion clinics. Because they believe in souls, the law should be changed to suit them, and if it isn't they'll spew their hateful rhetoric all over the TV and some of them will take violent action. Nevermind that if abortion were criminalized women would kill themselves in an effort to get the foetus out. Never mind that the people who work in abortion clinics also have souls. I also lack empathy for people who are against gay rights. Trying to force the government to deny legal HUMAN rights to a HUMAN just because you don't like who they have sex with? Nope, I'm not very tolerant of that. Pushing for schools to change their textbooks in an effort to eliminate any knowledge of evolution and to push the story of YOUR religion (not any of the other origin myths, nope - it's YOUR religion that's the important one), all because you know that your version of reality doesn't hold up unless you employ censorship? Sorry, no empathy for you.

Okay, then we have firmly established that you lack empathy, a quality you share with psychopaths. Okay okay, you only lack empathy for people who disagree with you. Seriously, man, don't say this any more in public. It's bad publicity for your cause.

The conversation, at this point, is over. To engage in a rational discussion there must be a basis for agreement from which to start talking. On this issue, we have none. Empathy is not simply something someone experiences when another person's head is chopped off. Empathy is not reserved for persons of a particular political party. The rest of your post is simply more instances of moral equivalency and self-congratulation, but it wouldn't matter if it were a rational statement worthy of publication; the conversation is broken at this point.

Oh, and I'm sorry for thinking you were a man for the majority of this post.

[YesNo]

I think if the overwhelming majority of persons who complete higher level study of the subject have reached a consensus, we can take that consensus to mean something. I shouldn't have to study evolution in order to believe in it. And my failure to study it should not lead to the equating of my belief to dogmatism. I believe the earth is round but I've never performed the calculations myself. Its an extreme example but it nicely illustrates my point.
I guess we all do that.

At least you correctly equate this to a "belief" which is what it is. The "dogmatism" is the teaching. What makes it "dogmatic" in a negative sense is a refusal to question that teaching. Of course, no one has time to question everything.

However, if you want to get into an argument with someone about evolution or the age of humanity you need to find a justification for your belief. This is not so much to convince the other person as to re-examine the intellectual ground you stand on. To repeatedly tell the other person to accept the dogmatism you have learned is not a scientific attitude which makes me think there aren't too many scientists in this debate. A person with a scientific attitude and love of the subject would welcome BienvenuJDC's questions and respond with evidence, not with dogmatism.

I haven't performed any calculation to validate that the earth is round, but evidence of its roundness are communication satellites circling the earth that keep my mobile phone's date accurate. I understand an old form of evidence is to watch a ship seem to sink as it disappears into the horizon. If the earth were flat it would not sink, just get smaller.

The universe however is flat, but that can be validated by checking the NASA site.

Evidence is not difficult to communicate and should lead to further questions about the subject and the evidence provided, but not the personalities involved in the argument.

[JuniperWoolf]

You said no such thing. You said "dip**** Christians.

That's because they were dip****s, and they were Christians. They were dip**** Christians.

I'll respond to the rest tomorrow, it's 6am mountain time.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Ever consider that you yourself are the type that you are refusing to argue with?
I apologized to you for my behavior in this thread, Bien. I thought maybe I'd receive some reciprocation. I guess it was too much to expect.

And, Juniper, a word of advise: Don't even bother to indulge stuntpickle. He's one of the most intellectual trolls I've encountered, but he's still just a troll.

[cafolini]

That wasn't directed at you, caf. I'm not preaching nonsense. "A delusion is a false belief held with absolute conviction despite superior evidence." This was to answer a question that was posed to me. Sometimes you make quick judgements about my intentions. If you want to assess me correctly watch "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" and soak up that carefree vibe to apply to my text. :)

Ha! KEE-DOC.

[BienvenuJDC]

I apologized to you for my behavior in this thread, Bien. I thought maybe I'd receive some reciprocation. I guess it was too much to expect.


An apology with a jab...you're good at this aren't you?

What would you be apologizing for? What reciprocation are you expecting to see? I'm really confused about what you're getting at.

For those who have made it personal, I didn't really expect much less. But if we are just discussing our beliefs, and the reasons why we believe such, then there is no reason for apologies. I respect everyone's right to believe what they wish. I never thought of myself as a Christian Fundamentalist. I'm just a Christian. Yes, it is true that I think that homosexuality is wrong, maybe even an abomination, but I would NEVER call a homosexual, an abomination. It's easy to judge a person's motives, but it's not wise. For the record, I also think that some of my own actions are wrong as well, but I press on to be a better person.

I'm done responding to the petty arguing in this thread, but I have found some entertainment in watching you all go at it. I just thought that I would present some of the evidences that have been ignored to see what would happen. Well, it was rejected, just like I thought. Each of us (including me) is unwilling to budge from their position. That could either be considered stubborn, or steadfast. It could be a good thing or a bad thing. I guess we all think of ourselves as being steadfast in our beliefs, while others are just stubborn. I guess it's all perspective.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

You're not confused about what I'm getting at. Don't play the fool, please. It's beneath you.

[BienvenuJDC]

You're not confused about what I'm getting at. Don't play the fool, please. It's beneath you.

Ok...if that's the way you want to be.

[Varenne Rodin]

Yes, it is true that I think that homosexuality is wrong, maybe even an abomination, but I would NEVER call a homosexual, an abomination. It's easy to judge a person's motives, but it's not wise. For the record, I also think that some of my own actions are wrong as well, but I press on to be a better person.


Wow. Does that mean homosexuals should press on to be "better" people? For the record, they are human beings, not abominations. It doesn't hurt Christians, or their god, or anyone else for two people to love each other. Yet another reason I am not Christian. I could never lump people into groups to hate. I don't even hate Christians.

[BienvenuJDC]

Wow. Does that mean homosexuals should press on to be "better" people? For the record, they are human beings, not abominations. It doesn't hurt Christians, or their god, or anyone else for two people to love each other. Yet another reason I am not Christian. I could never lump people into groups to hate. I don't even hate Christians.

That is exactly what I was saying. No one should be hating anyone. NOBODY is an abomination, not even those who don't like books.

But it seems that there are some posts in this thread that labeled me as a fundamentalist that hates homosexuals. I do not hate anyone. ...and...yes, I think that those who practice homosexuality should try to strive to be "better" people, just like the rest of us. They have to make choices of who they are going to be, just like I myself do. Why should someone else get defensive about something that I believe? Does it hurt an atheist that I believe that dinosaurs have coexisted with mankind?

[Varenne Rodin]

It hurts people when others reject science and then scorn people for what they perceive as poor life choices, without being open to education changing that cruelly judgmental mindset.

[BienvenuJDC]

It hurts people when others reject science and then scorn people for what they perceive as poor life choices, without being open to education changing that cruelly judgmental mindset.

Science has been very subjective. Am I a bad person because I choose to believe those scientists that interpret the evidence differently? Am I scorned for my life choice in being a Christian?

[stuntpickle]

And, Juniper, a word of advise: Don't even bother to indulge stuntpickle. He's one of the most intellectual trolls I've encountered, but he's still just a troll.

You do realize that we're in a religious texts forum in a thread entitled "Why I don't believe in God" and that there are, in this forum, threads with names similar to "Why is God such a jerk" and "Catholic priests involved in slave trade." Can you not see the irony Mutatis?

[stuntpickle]

It hurts people when others reject science and then scorn people for what they perceive as poor life choices, without being open to education changing that cruelly judgmental mindset.

Should it hurt when others reject rationality and then scorn persons for their belief in God without even considering the issue and persist in the cruel and unjustified judgment that such a belief is a delusion?

Hypocrisy is a *****!

[Calidore]

...and...yes, I think that those who practice homosexuality should try to strive to be "better" people, just like the rest of us. They have to make choices of who they are going to be, just like I myself do.

Don't quite get this one. Who chooses what they're attracted to? It's a gut thing, like taste in music, food, whatever. We're all wired a certain way.

You also said earlier that you would never call a homosexual an abomination, but that you believed homosexuality may be an abomination. How does that work?

Some years ago I worked at a nonprofit that offered services to homeless teens. I was staggered when I learned that a large proportion of them were homosexuals who had been thrown out by their parents upon coming out to them and were now living on the streets. That's an abomination.

[BienvenuJDC]

You do realize that we're in a religious texts forum in a thread entitled "Why I don't believe in God" and that there are, in this forum, threads with names similar to "Why is God such a jerk" and "Catholic priests involved in slave trade." Can you not see the irony Mutatis?

I see the irony. I've always wondered why the atheists posts in the thread "Why I believe in God" so much. It seems that when someone believes in God that it threatens their disbelief.

[BienvenuJDC]

Don't quite get this one. Who chooses what they're attracted to? It's a gut thing, like taste in music, food, whatever. We're all wired a certain way.

You also said earlier that you would never call a homosexual an abomination, but that you believed homosexuality may be an abomination. How does that work?

Some years ago I worked at a nonprofit that offered services to homeless teens. I was staggered when I learned that a large proportion of them were homosexuals who had been thrown out by their parents upon coming out to them and were now living on the streets. That's an abomination.

Don't misunderstand what I'm saying here...I'm just saying that we ALL need to be better people. I'm not arguing the homosexual issue here. I'm not going to use this thread to defend my beliefs about homosexuality. Just let it go.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

You do realize that we're in a religious texts forum in a thread entitled "Why I don't believe in God" and that there are, in this forum, threads with names similar to "Why is God such a jerk" and "Catholic priests involved in slave trade." Can you not see the irony Mutatis?

I can see the irony. One could argue that the OP is a troll post. I was just giving Juniper a tip. Maybe calling you a troll is unfair, but I can't figure you out, and it's frustrating. I can't tell if you are out to just push people's buttons or not. You've gotten me quite riled up before, and I don't plan on letting that happen again, and since Juniper is one of the most fun posters on this forum, and a friend, I don't want to see her get banned because of arguing with you. Sorry for the run-on.

I've always wondered why the atheists posts in the thread "Why I believe in God" so much.
Well, this is the "Why I Don't Believe in God" thread. So, I guess I, as an atheist, should be wondering why a person who does believe in God is posting here so much . . . but I don't, because this is a forum where we exchange ideas, ya know?

[stuntpickle]

I see the irony. I've always wondered why the atheists posts in the thread "Why I believe in God" so much. It seems that when someone believes in God that it threatens their disbelief.

When I was an atheist, I was worse than anyone in these fora. I was a militant atheist before militant atheism was cool. I could outlast anyone on the subject of God. Now, I feel horrible about the things I said to various Christians, who ranged from relatives to ministers. In retrospect, the interesting thing was that I, who ostensibly did not believe in God, was so interested in discussing Him. For me, that sort of behavior was a sort of searching. The truth was, I think, that more than NOT believing in God, I was angry that I couldn't believe in Him. None think about God more than atheists--at least, none more than I.

[Varenne Rodin]

Should it hurt when others reject rationality and then scorn persons for their belief in God without even considering the issue and persist in the cruel and unjustified judgment that such a belief is a delusion?

Hypocrisy is a *****!

I didn't scorn anyone for believing in god. I am saddened by groups of people inflicting cruelty on others because their group tells them that's what's right. It's just very sad to adhere to something that tells you what to do, when that something is telling you to hate.

This is not only in regard to homosexuality. Yesterday my mother told me she justified my brother's slow, agonizing death (a horrible tragedy for her and our whole family) by saying he did bad things in his life so it was right for god to make him atone for them. The bad things he did were smoking pot and hanging around with people she didn't like. For that she hates her dead son, but she thinks she loves him, and that it was right for him to be tortured to death.

It's dangerous for people to allow a religion to tell them who to judge and how to judge them. It creates a mental sickness that does endanger us all.

[stuntpickle]

I didn't scorn anyone for believing in god. I am saddened by groups of people inflicting cruelty on others because their group tells them that's what's right. It's just very sad to adhere to something that tells you what to do, when that something is telling you to hate.

This is not only in regard to homosexuality. Yesterday my mother told me she justified my brother's slow, agonizing death (a horrible tragedy for her and our whole family) by saying he did bad things in his life so it was right for god to make him atone for them. The bad things he did were smoking pot and hanging around with people she didn't like. For that she hates her dead son, but she thinks she loves him, and that it was right for him to be tortured to death.

It's dangerous for people to allow a religion to tell them who to judge and how to judge them. It creates a mental sickness that does endanger us all.

It's dangerous for people to allow a discredited worldview to be the arbiter of truth. It creates a mental sickness that endangers us all.

[Varenne Rodin]

When I was an atheist, I was worse than anyone in these fora. I was a militant atheist before militant atheism was cool. I could outlast anyone on the subject of God. Now, I feel horrible about the things I said to various Christians, who ranged from relatives to ministers. In retrospect, the interesting thing was that I, who ostensibly did not believe in God, was so interested in discussing Him. For me, that sort of behavior was a sort of searching. The truth was, I think, that more than NOT believing in God, I was angry that I couldn't believe in Him. None think about God more than atheists--at least, none more than I.

It doesn't sound like you were ever really an atheist. That anger you're talking about seems like a wanting to believe in something, whether it be God or not God. I, for one, don't feel that way. I feel happy and free, so long as no one tries to hurt me for not joining a group. Maybe you were a Christian in your heart and mind all along and had an inner struggle with that. I won't presume to know. Generally though, I can tell you that a lot of atheists are happy to be without religion.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

When I was an atheist, I was worse than anyone in these fora. I was a militant atheist before militant atheism was cool. I could outlast anyone on the subject of God. Now, I feel horrible about the things I said to various Christians, who ranged from relatives to ministers. In retrospect, the interesting thing was that I, who ostensibly did not believe in God, was so interested in discussing Him. For me, that sort of behavior was a sort of searching. The truth was, I think, that more than NOT believing in God, I was angry that I couldn't believe in Him. None think about God more than atheists--at least, none more than I.

I think this is the case for many atheists, including me, though anger may be too strong a word--frustrated works better; it's a little less harsh. I became an atheist after trying to believe in God, or some sort of religion (several of which I tried), but just couldn't do it. It was almost a sort of jealousy that formed. I've said this before, but I think maybe one day I will leave the label of being an atheist behind.

[Calidore]

It's dangerous for people to allow a religion to tell them who to judge and how to judge them. It creates a mental sickness that does endanger us all.

I'll submit that religion is simply a tool. Some people use it to make themselves better, and some use it to justify and excuse their own evil. Religion isn't the problem; people are.

[Varenne Rodin]

It's dangerous for people to allow a discredited worldview to be the arbiter of truth. It creates a mental sickness that endangers us all.

Arbiter of truth? You don't know what my world view is. I love everyone. I'm sad when people hurt each other, and animals, and the earth. I don't judge people harshly for arbitrary reasons, I look at whether they're hurting someone and if they are I'll say it's not cool. How could that be dangerous to anyone?

[stuntpickle]

It doesn't sound like you were ever really an atheist. That anger you're talking about seems like a wanting to believe in something, whether it be God or not God. I, for one, don't feel that way. I feel happy and free, so long as no one tries to hurt me for not joining a group. Maybe you were a Christian in your heart and mind all along and had an inner struggle with that. I won't presume to know. Generally though, I can tell you that a lot of atheists are happy to be without religion.

I assure you that I was an atheist. In fact, I would have considered myself a truer atheist than you. Most modern varieties of atheism are fairly vacuous--especially the sort of absurdly peppy scientism I see here. You see, Sartre said it best, materialism can never distinguish between humans and rocks. I was what is called an eliminative materialist, and I followed the type of worldview that you dabble in to its ultimate nihilistic core. The happy atheism you're talking about is a fairly ridiculous modern phenomenon. The great intellectual atheism of Sartre was primarily concerned with terror. Nietzsche thought atheism was a catastrophe. Only people like Dawkins think atheism is a choice on par with picking out a pair of shoes. Only a lifelong love of art and literature defeated my bleak worldview. God is, after all, the greatest artist.

[Theunderground]

Nietzsche though atheism the starting point of a clean rigorous intellect,though maybe a massive hurdle for humanity at large.

[Varenne Rodin]

I'll submit that religion is simply a tool. Some people use it to make themselves better, and some use it to justify and excuse their own evil. Religion isn't the problem; people are.

I agree with that, but I never saw my mom as an evil person. She's not as bright as she used to be. Her church friends and bible study group cited biblical references for why my brother Kenny died, and she believed them. She cries as she talks about it. "At first I wanted to be mad at God, but he knows best. He has a plan." Pretty sick plan, if you ask me. Obviously, I don't believe it was the plan of a god. People contributed to his death, and people justified it. People who never met him gave her the reasons for how he had been "bad". It doesn't give her comfort, and she has become cruel to me when I say it's not a nice way to think about the son she loved for 34 years.

I can't place the blame on texts. People either drink the kool-aid or they don't. Scary times for those of us who don't.

[BienvenuJDC]

I'll submit that religion is simply a tool. Some people use it to make themselves better, and some use it to justify and excuse their own evil. Religion isn't the problem; people are.

This is a GEM of a statement. I've seen very pious individuals who were evil people use religion in the most heinous judgmental ways. Religion does not make one righteous. Having a good heart and a benevolent mindset is the first step to being righteous (but one can never truly be righteous). There are more evil religious people, than there are good.

[Varenne Rodin]

I assure you that I was an atheist. In fact, I would have considered myself a truer atheist than you. Most modern varieties of atheism are fairly vacuous--especially the sort of absurdly peppy scientism I see here. You see, Sartre said it best, materialism can never distinguish between humans and rocks. I was what is called an eliminative materialist, and I followed the type of worldview that you dabble in to its ultimate nihilistic core. The happy atheism you're talking about is a fairly ridiculous modern phenomenon. The great intellectual atheism of Sartre was primarily concerned with terror. Nietzsche thought atheism was a catastrophe. Only people like Dawkins think atheism is a choice on par with picking out a pair of shoes. Only a lifelong love of art and literature defeated my bleak worldview. God is, after all, the greatest artist.

Don't tell me I'm not a true atheist because I'm a "peppy" scientist. It has nothing to do with me if you dislike nice people. I'm not injuring you or offending atheism by being sweet. The only thing that could ever give me a "bleak world view" are people like you who hate me for no good reason. I like you anyway. You use a lot of big words and that is marvelous. You seem as much at war with yourself as you are with anyone else, and that's interesting, but I hope you will learn what it means to be kind to other human beings in your lifetime. It feels good to know you're not inflicting damage on anyone. Best wishes.

[stuntpickle]

Nietzsche though atheism the starting point of a clean rigorous intellect,though maybe a massive hurdle for humanity at large.

Nietzsche defined atheism as "..the awe-inspiring catastrophe of two-thousand years of training in truthfulness that finally forbids itself the lie involved in belief in God."

I don't think you fully grasp what Nietzsche thought, which was that atheism was an excruciating revelation.

[Varenne Rodin]

Nietzsche defined atheism as "..the awe-inspiring catastrophe of two-thousand years of training in truthfulness that finally forbids itself the lie involved in belief in God."

I don't think you fully grasp what Nietzsche thought, which was that atheism was an excruciating revelation.

Excruciating if a person is too weak to handle it. Many people are. They fall back on the crutch and feel angry with people who have successfully made it out. Go ahead and call me vacuous again, Christian.

[stuntpickle]

Don't tell me I'm not a true atheist because I'm a "peppy" scientist. It has nothing to do with me if you dislike nice people. I'm not injuring you or offending atheism by being sweet. The only thing that could ever give me a "bleak world view" are people like you who hate me for no good reason. I like you anyway. You use a lot of big words and that is marvelous. You seem as much at war with yourself as you are with anyone else, and that's interesting, but I hope you will learn what it means to be kind to other human beings in your lifetime. It feels good to know you're not inflicting damage on anyone. Best wishes.

What I'm saying is that I think you're about as atheist as the average person is existentialist. I think it's just a badge of identification like most anything in society, just like being Republican or pro-choice. I base this on my observation of what seems to be an inadequate capacity to justify the most basic assertions you make. You seem to believe things without knowing why, which is the foremost symptom of believing nothing. You can repeat parts of a script, but when pressed to depart from that script, you crumble. You don't even try, you simply run. Moreover, you seem unaware that you're doing that.

[Varenne Rodin]

What I'm saying is that I think you're about as atheist as the average person is existentialist. I think it's just a badge of identification like most anything in society, just like being Republican or pro-choice. I base this on my observation of what seems to be an inadequate capacity to justify the most basic assertions you make. You seem to believe things without knowing why, which is the foremost symptom of believing nothing. You can repeat parts of a script, but when pressed to depart from that script, you crumble. You don't even try, you simply run. Moreover, you seem unaware that you're doing that.

I don't believe things without knowing why. If it's inadequate for me to sit back watching you rant and refraining from giving you years long science lessons, then I concede to being inadequate to the task of removing your head from the dark place in which it is firmly lodged. Do you expect me to make you sensitive to my point of view by magic? Maybe if I had a special point of view gun, I could zap you full of life experiences. I don't pretend to know everything. It's close to the opposite. People have made guesses and formed groups around them. I'm not part of any group. Lots of atheists don't organize with one specific idea to push. I'm just living an enjoyable life of sculpting, and reading, and playing Xbox on Sundays instead of going to church to worship less-than-vapor. Don't worry, I'm not trying to make you have as much fun as I do.

If you think me so beneath conversation, you're pretty persistently vapid to continue to exchange words with me. I actually like this conversation. When you persist in engaging in an activity you hate, you've developed quite a fixation. Peace.

[papayahed]

~

R e m i n d e r

Please refrain from posting in this section of the Forum

if you feel you are unable to show respect towards those who do not share your thoughts and beliefs.

Posts containing personal and/or inflammatory comments will be removed without further warning.

[Varenne Rodin]

Am I the one ranting?

If you, as you say, don't believe things without knowing why, please demonstrate with a rational, consequential series of statements the truth of your assertion that belief in God, who is unseen and unheard, can ONLY be a delusion.

Done and done. People who want to know the definition of "delusion" can Google it or go back a few pages to where it was posted in this thread. That should conclude our conversation. Thanks. :)

[Varenne Rodin]

My first thought on reading this was that I certainly didn't mean to imply your mom was evil, which upon thinking it through made me realize where Bien was coming from with her "homosexuality is bad but homosexuals aren't." And of course, I already know perfectly well that you can't define an entire person by a single quality, so obviously I'm just thinking slow and typing fast this morning. My apologies for any mistaken impressions I've given.



Times have always been scary for non-lemmings, but they're not as bad as they used to be. The big question is whether our collective maturing will ever outpace our destructive capability.

Oh, no no. It's ok. I knew you weren't saying my mom was evil. You spoke well and I don't think I've ever seen an unkind post from you.

[Darcy88]

"To cause someone else's suicide is to relieve them of their own causal agency and, thus, prevent them from engaging in suicide. You have problems of definition before you even get started. But again, nice try."

Whoa back up a minute. Suicidal people are hyper-sensitive to how they are perceived by others. A depressed gay teen in middle America, pressed on all sides by a homophobic culture, is definitely at extreme risk of suicide. The homophobia may not entirely cause them to commit the deed, but it can be a necessary factor. You may be able to argue that the homophobia is not solely brought about by Christianity. It contributes though, that is not to be doubted.

I do agree that many atheists have yet to and likely never will realize the full ramifications of their atheism in the way that Nietzsche had.

[Darcy88]

"Whoever sought for signs of an ironical divinity's hand in the great drama of existence would find no small indication thereof in the stupendous question-mark that is called Christianity. That mankind should be on its knees before the very antithesis of what was the origin, the meaning and the law of the Gospels -- that in the concept of the "church" the very things should be pronounced holy that the "bearer of glad tidings" regards as beneath him and behind him -- it would be impossible to surpass this as a grand example of world-historical irony --"

-Nietzsche

This statement can be as accurately applied to the Christianity of today as that of the middle ages or any age. A meek hippy turned into the mascot of capitalism and discrimination. Such irony.

[BienvenuJDC]

"To cause someone else's suicide is to relieve them of their own causal agency and, thus, prevent them from engaging in suicide. You have problems of definition before you even get started. But again, nice try."

Whoa back up a minute. Suicidal people are hyper-sensitive to how they are perceived by others. A depressed gay teen in middle America, pressed on all sides by a homophobic culture, is definitely at extreme risk of suicide. The homophobia may not entirely cause them to commit the deed, but it can be a necessary factor. You may be able to argue that the homophobia is not solely brought about by Christianity. It contributes though, that is not to be doubted.

I do agree that many atheists have yet to and likely never will realize the full ramifications of their atheism in the way that Nietzsche had.

I also think that lying is wrong, but my belief has never caused any politicians or lawyers to commit suicide. I'm not sure why you think it is necessary to bash Christianity on this topic in the context of this thread. There's no doubt many insensitive Christians out there who use the wrong methods to preach Christ, but have you seen the insensitivity used in this thread and others by those who hate believers?

[Darcy88]

I also think that lying is wrong, but my belief has never caused any politicians or lawyers to commit suicide. I'm not sure why you think it is necessary to bash Christianity on this topic in the context of this thread. There's no doubt many insensitive Christians out there who use the wrong methods to preach Christ, but have you seen the insensitivity used in this thread and others by those who hate believers?

Well Stuntpickle made a comment on suicide which I felt I had to challenge. I did say that Christianity is not the sole cause of homophobia.

Everyone lies. Only about ten percent of individuals are attracted to members of the same sex. There's a difference.

I won't speak for others. The discussion thus far actually seems rather tame to me. I know I never went ad hominem.

[Varenne Rodin]

It's not bashing to say a person shouldn't hate a person who isn't hurting anyone. Christians have named this "abomination" as something to scorn as part of their faith. It's not bashing to say that Christianity got this one wrong. There are secular homophobes too. Let's not turn discrimination against gays into discrimination against Christians. That doesn't work.

[Darcy88]

Its called an abomination because Jewish culture was at that time in bitter competition with a Hellenistic culture which featured bisexuality.

[stuntpickle]

"To cause someone else's suicide is to relieve them of their own causal agency and, thus, prevent them from engaging in suicide. You have problems of definition before you even get started. But again, nice try."

Whoa back up a minute. Suicidal people are hyper-sensitive to how they are perceived by others. A depressed gay teen in middle America, pressed on all sides by a homophobic culture, is definitely at extreme risk of suicide. The homophobia may not entirely cause them to commit the deed, but it can be a necessary factor. You may be able to argue that the homophobia is not solely brought about by Christianity. It contributes though, that is not to be doubted.

I do agree that many atheists have yet to and likely never will realize the full ramifications of their atheism in the way that Nietzsche had.

Consider it this way. I say I am thirsty. You get in your car and drive toward the nearest convenience store to buy some soft drinks. On the way you are sideswiped by another car and die. Did I cause your death? See, the initial problem is establishing that I, in fact, caused you to get in your car and drive to the store. But the monstrous difficulty is involved with replacing the obvious cause, the other car, with another that isn't even directly involved with the accident.

Seriously, depression generally isn't the discrete effect of another person's opinion. There are huge problems in establishing the truth of a statement suggesting that one person's opinion can cause another's depression--not to mention the fact that believing homosexuality is wrong is not synonymous with treating homosexuals in any particular manner. So if the argument is that there exists an environment of hostility toward homosexuals, then you have a fairly impossible task of demonstrating how a person's religious beliefs are responsible for this environment. Moreover, this sort of deterministic model of human behavior is bizarre. Is there anything I can say to you to cause you to enter a depression?

Let us imagine that you find the existence of green hats oppressive and, thus, kill yourself. Did green hats cause your suicide?

Let us imagine that I tell you to go to a mountain, and you do. Once there you push someone off a cliff. Did I cause the other person's death?

Let us imagine you are, as you say, hyper-sensitive, and I say I don't like your shirt, so you kill yourself. Did I cause your suicide?

If you have two discrete events, it is difficult to ascribe the cause of one event to the effect of another--especially if this relationship between the two events is as complicated as that involving occurrences in someone's life.


Here's the biggest problem. If I can cause your death by suicide, where are you in the equation? Is it true that once I have committed you to some theoretically inescapable chain of events that you are compelled to kill yourself? Do you no longer have a choice? If I am compelling your death, then it would be not suicide, but homicide. There are insurmountable problems with the proposition.

I have trouble seeing how anyone can really think this is reasonable.

[Darcy88]

"Let us imagine you are, as you say, hyper-sensitive, and I say I don't like your shirt, so you kill yourself. Did I cause your suicide?"

If you said you didn't like my life-style, my sexuality, ME, calling me an abomination, somehow lesser, then you would have contributed to my suicide. Not entirely caused it but definitely contributed. So you think all these cases I keep hearing about of bullied teens ending their lives are mere sensationalized, unreasonable accounts?

[Varenne Rodin]

Asking someone to go for drinks is different than telling someone you think they're disgusting and hate them.

[stuntpickle]

"Let us imagine you are, as you say, hyper-sensitive, and I say I don't like your shirt, so you kill yourself. Did I cause your suicide?"

If you said you didn't like my life-style, my sexuality, ME, calling me an abomination, somehow lesser, then you would have contributed to my suicide. Not entirely caused it but definitely contributed. So you think all these cases I keep hearing about of bullied teens ending their lives are mere sensationalized, unreasonable accounts?

No, you can't get off that easy. The law of excluded middle says that any proposition is either true or false. So are you admitting that the statement that one can cause another's suicide is false? There's no third option.

Yes, I am saying any account in news media suggesting that any person or persons can cause another's suicide is unreasonable. As persons we have causal agency that cannot be retracted because someone doesn't like us. Why don't all bullied children kill themselves? There can be no causal relationship.

[stuntpickle]

Asking someone to go for drinks is different than telling someone you think they're disgusting and hate them.

Comparing two things never suggests that the two things are identical. In fact, comparing two things suggests they are different in some manner. For instance, you would never say a dog is like a dog. We are concerned with causal agency, and the example demonstrates this satisfactorily. Your statement is completely irrelevant.

[Darcy88]

No, you can't get off that easy. The law of excluded middle says that any proposition is either true or false. So are you admitting that the statement that one can cause another's suicide is false? There's no third option.

Yes, I am saying any account in news media suggesting that any person or persons can cause another's suicide is unreasonable. As persons we have causal agency that cannot be retracted because someone doesn't like us. Why don't all bullied children kill themselves? There can be no causal relationship.

You say science is narrow and then go on to reduce the baffling complexity of human experience to logical axioms? Of course others can contribute to another's suicide. We are social creatures. There is almost nothing worse than rejection.

How about this: one can contribute to another's suicide. Law of excluded middle aside, there is a difference in meaning between the word cause and the word contribute. This is what I've been arguing the whole time.

[Varenne Rodin]

The presupposition is that bullying is a potential factor leading to the victim's suicide. There is nothing bullying in asking someone for a drink, so it's not a proper comparison. If you want to say calling your friend's wife fat shouldn't lead to her suicide, that would make more sense. Still, it's much different when a person's only peers and loved ones are calling them disgusting for being different. Especially if they're young and in a situation they can't easily escape from.

[stuntpickle]

You say science is narrow and then go on to reduce the baffling complexity of human experience to logical axioms? Of course others can contribute to another's suicide. We are social creatures. There is almost nothing worse than rejection.

How about this: one can contribute to another's suicide. Law of excluded middle aside, there is a difference in meaning between the word cause and the word contribute. This is what I've been arguing the whole time.

I, alone, decide whether I kill myself. I find your deterministic ideas about behavior wrong and dangerous.

[Darcy88]

I understand where you're coming from Stuntpickle, I really do. But would you be especially cautious regarding what you say to someone just released from being on suicide watch in a psych ward? If so, why?

A young teen just killed herself less than a kilometre from my house. She was bullied intensely at school because her mother was gay and lived with another woman.

[OrphanPip]

Seriously, depression generally isn't the discrete effect of another person's opinion. There are huge problems in establishing the truth of a statement suggesting that one person's opinion can cause another's depression--not to mention the fact that believing homosexuality is wrong is not synonymous with treating homosexuals in any particular manner. So if the argument is that there exists an environment of hostility toward homosexuals, then you have a fairly impossible task of demonstrating how a person's religious beliefs are responsible for this environment. Moreover, this sort of deterministic model of human behavior is bizarre. Is there anything I can say to you to cause you to enter a depression?

The evidence says otherwise, gay teens in general have higher suicide rates and rates of suicidal ideation. However, when anti-homophobic teaching material is introduced, and social support groups, like gay teen peer groups, are present the suicide rate is significantly reduced. This suggests that there is a strong role in anti-gay rhetoric and anti-gay motivated social exclusion in contributing to the teen suicide rates.

Religious discourses in the US have contributed unambiguously to giving authority to an anti-gay, and sometimes violently so, rhetoric that invades all levels of society, from the family to the state. For example, we can look at anti-gay legislation in Africa and we can see Christianity and Islam being the main driving force behind the justification of these laws.




Let us imagine that you find the existence of green hats oppressive and, thus, kill yourself. Did green hats cause your suicide?

Let us imagine that I tell you to go to a mountain, and you do. Once there you push someone off a cliff. Did I cause the other person's death?

Let us imagine you are, as you say, hyper-sensitive, and I say I don't like your shirt, so you kill yourself. Did I cause your suicide?

If you have two discrete events, it is difficult to ascribe the cause of one event to the effect of another--especially if this relationship between the two events is as complicated as that involving occurrences in someone's life.

You are making light of a real documented problem of social exclusion. Would you really suggest that people have no effect on the behaviors of others? That it is impossible for one person to make the existence of another more difficult, to the point that they increase the seeming viability of suicide as an option.

What about the link between higher suicide and being sent to religious sexual conversion camps? Even if we remove the problem of suicide, there is definitely something wrong with camps that have been shown to have no success at changing sexual orientation, but engage in everything from shock therapy to libido reducing drugs to forcefully change sexual orientation. This despite the fact that the evidence suggests that sexual orientation is as much a product of development, and as generally immutable, as hair or eye colour. It's certainly more complicated and nuanced than eye or hair colour, but that doesn't change that it is something that people do not choose or change willingly.

I find it mildly hypocritical that you would criticize the efforts of atheist to disabuse someone of theistic beliefs as being intensely insensitive, but the efforts of religious institutions to criticize and attempt to change something that is not even a choice is perfectly OK. This is especially problematic when the ideas are internalized. The Christian is not mutually exclusive from the homosexual, there are many gay Christians, and what does it do for the mental health of a child to be raised in a tradition where they are to continually see themselves as defective and sinful without any way out.



Here's the biggest problem. If I can cause your death by suicide, where are you in the equation? Is it true that once I have committed you to some theoretically inescapable chain of events that you are compelled to kill yourself? Do you no longer have a choice? If I am compelling your death, then it would be not suicide, but homicide. There are insurmountable problems with the proposition.

I have trouble seeing how anyone can really think this is reasonable.

This is a strawman, Darcy never suggested anything of the like. All he claimed is that an environment of pervasive anti-gay attitudes, which Christianity contributes to, contributes to a suicidal state of mind. And the empirical evidence is on his side, since this is the consensus of the APA. To dispute Darcy's claim, as he formulated it, is to claim that we have no responsibility in the way we treat others.

Let's offer another thought experiment involving responsibility and causation. If in the dead of winter I go out and spray the road in front of me with water so that it becomes icy. Then a car, driving faster than it should, comes down the road and crashes. Certainly, the driver is partially responsible, he should have been driving more carefully, but I would still have a burden of responsibility for increasing his risk through a deliberate action I could easily avoid.

In the same sense, someone who goes out of their way to use Christian doctrine to justify their abuse and dehumanization of another human being is partially responsible for the death of kids who are affected by that rhetoric.

[stuntpickle]

I understand where you're coming from Stuntpickle, I really do. But would you be especially cautious regarding what you say to someone just released from being on suicide watch in a psych ward? If so, why?

A young teen just killed herself less than a kilometre from my house. She was bullied intensely at school because her mother was gay and lived with another woman.

Yes, I would be really nice to someone just being released from a psych ward, but not because I could cause this person's death otherwise. I would be really nice to someone just released from gall bladder surgery, but not because I could cause them to hemorrhage otherwise.

You should never bully persons--not because it will result in their suicide, but because bullying is mean.

[Darcy88]

Yes, I would be really nice to someone just being released from a psych ward, but not because I could cause this person's death otherwise. I would be really nice to someone just released from gall bladder surgery, but not because I could cause them to hemorrhage otherwise.

You should never bully persons--not because it will result in their suicide, but because bullying is mean.

If you persist on taking this tack then you must also uphold the opposite to be true. You must believe that showing love and acceptance to one who is suicidal will have no effect on whether they end their life or not.

[Varenne Rodin]

I, alone, decide whether I kill myself. I find your deterministic ideas about behavior wrong and dangerous.

I think this is stemming from a lack of empathy.

[Darcy88]

OrphanPip's example is spot on. We don't live in bubbles. Causal agency or not, things impact us. The ultimate responsibility may lie with the reckless driver, but the individual who made the road slippery contributed to the outcome and therefore bears some responsibility for it.

[cafolini]

I agree with that, but I never saw my mom as an evil person. She's not as bright as she used to be. Her church friends and bible study group cited biblical references for why my brother Kenny died, and she believed them. She cries as she talks about it. "At first I wanted to be mad at God, but he knows best. He has a plan." Pretty sick plan, if you ask me. Obviously, I don't believe it was the plan of a god. People contributed to his death, and people justified it. People who never met him gave her the reasons for how he had been "bad". It doesn't give her comfort, and she has become cruel to me when I say it's not a nice way to think about the son she loved for 34 years.

I can't place the blame on texts. People either drink the kool-aid or they don't. Scary times for those of us who don't.

I think you got it upside down. I think these are the least scary times of history in that regard. The delusional will never achieve hegemony again. They are a laughing stock.

[Varenne Rodin]

I think you got it upside down. I think these are the least scary times of history in that regard. The delusional will never achieve hegemony again. They are a laughing stock.

I wasn't saying these are the scariest times in history. Scary nonetheless. Religion is the norm in america, not the minority, but I hope you're right and that we won't slide back into worse times.

Sometimes around my city, it's like a body snatchers movie. They single out the ones who haven't been changed.

[stuntpickle]

The evidence says otherwise, gay teens in general have higher suicide rates and rates of suicidal ideation. However, when anti-homophobic teaching material is introduced, and social support groups, like gay teen peer groups, are present the suicide rate is significantly reduced. This suggests that there is a strong role in anti-gay rhetoric and anti-gay motivated social exclusion in contributing to the teen suicide rates.

Religious discourses in the US have contributed unambiguously to giving authority to an anti-gay, and sometimes violently so, rhetoric that invades all levels of society, from the family to the state. For example, we can look at anti-gay legislation in Africa and we can see Christianity and Islam being the main driving force behind the justification of these laws.

If I say that one’s depression isn’t the discrete effect of another’s opinion, and you say the evidence says otherwise, you are stating that there is evidence that demonstrates one’s depression results from someone else’s opinion. I demand you produce this evidence. You are essentially saying that there exists a mechanism by which my personal opinion can, simply by virtue of its existence, inflict depression upon another person. We both know no such evidence exists, so I wonder why you state the evidence says otherwise.

If a person develops cancer and kills himself to avoid the pain and suffering, it does not follow that cancer causes people to kill themselves. Persons have agency of which they cannot be liberated simply because someone else holds a belief.

Holding a belief that some behavior A is wrong is not synonymous with another behavior B. Believing that homosexuality is wrong is not synonymous with mistreatment of homosexuals.

Your statements about anti-gay rhetoric and social exclusion are misguided. If I am waiting on a cab and I wait for one with tinted windows, it does not follow that tinted windows compel me to enter cabs. Can a person make a decision about social exclusion? Yes. Can social exclusion compel a person to make a decision? No.


You are making light of a real documented problem of social exclusion.

No, I am not making light of anything; I am making a reductio ad absurdum, which demonstrates the falsity of a proposition by logically pursuing it to absurdity. This is the business of reason. Just because you don’t like the results doesn’t mean I’m making fun of something. Propositions are either true or false, not true when they look serious and false when they look silly.


Would you really suggest that people have no effect on the behaviors of others?

I would say that person A cannot compel a behavior in person B simply by holding a belief.


That it is impossible for one person to make the existence of another more difficult, to the point that they increase the seeming viability of suicide as an option.

It is, of course, true that person A can make life for person B more difficult, so much so that person B prefers to kill himself. It does not follow that person A can compel person B’s suicide. Person A can, however, murder person B. Does incarceration cause one to kill oneself? Or does one kill oneself because one prefers death to incarceration?

However, it is NOT possible for person A to make person B’s life more difficult simply by holding a particular metaphysical belief.




What about the link between higher suicide and being sent to religious sexual conversion camps? Even if we remove the problem of suicide, there is definitely something wrong with camps that have been shown to have no success at changing sexual orientation, but engage in everything from shock therapy to libido reducing drugs to forcefully change sexual orientation. This despite the fact that the evidence suggests that sexual orientation is as much a product of development, and as generally immutable, as hair or eye colour. It's certainly more complicated and nuanced than eye or hair colour, but that doesn't change that it is something that people do not choose or change willingly.

This passage seems entirely irrelevant.




I find it mildly hypocritical that you would criticize the efforts of atheist to disabuse someone of theistic beliefs as being intensely insensitive, but the efforts of religious institutions to criticize and attempt to change something that is not even a choice is perfectly OK.

You could only find it hypocritical if you misunderstood hypocrisy. I never stated that having an atheistic worldview could cause theists to kill themselves. You’re the one purposing thought assassination. And last I checked, no person can, in this country, be compelled by any organ of the state to attend a religious conversion camp. Moreover, no person can be compelled to attend such a camp simply by virtue of the existence of another person’s metaphysical belief.


This is especially problematic when the ideas are internalized. The Christian is not mutually exclusive from the homosexual, there are many gay Christians, and what does it do for the mental health of a child to be raised in a tradition where they are to continually see themselves as defective and sinful without any way out.

This is irrelevant. Moreover, it seems to suggest that you are bothered simply by the existence of Christianity because it results in some number of psychologically conflicted homosexual persons.




This is a strawman, Darcy never suggested anything of the like.

No, it isn’t. Darcy wasn’t a part of the original discussion. The argument wasn’t a straw man but the original issue.


All he claimed is that an environment of pervasive anti-gay attitudes, which Christianity contributes to, contributes to a suicidal state of mind. And the empirical evidence is on his side, since this is the consensus of the APA. To dispute Darcy's claim, as he formulated it, is to claim that we have no responsibility in the way we treat others.

This, however, IS a straw man. I am suggesting we have no CAPACITY to compel action in other persons by simply holding beliefs.


Let's offer another thought experiment involving responsibility and causation. If in the dead of winter I go out and spray the road in front of me with water so that it becomes icy. Then a car, driving faster than it should, comes down the road and crashes. Certainly, the driver is partially responsible, he should have been driving more carefully, but I would still have a burden of responsibility for increasing his risk through a deliberate action I could easily avoid.

This is a bad analogy. You are comparing holding a particular belief to physically sabotaging a roadway, and guess what? Your example leads to murder or, at the very least, manslaughter. You can’t make someone choose to kill himself by icing the roadway.


In the same sense, someone who goes out of their way to use Christian doctrine to justify their abuse and dehumanization of another human being is partially responsible for the death of kids who are affected by that rhetoric.

Believing that homosexuality is wrong is not synonymous with going out of one’s way to justify abuse and dehumanization. This is another straw man. No one has proposed dehumanization. In fact, dehumanization occurs when you render human beings little more than automatons in a deterministic system of behavior, which is what YOU’RE doing.

[togre]

It's not bashing to say a person shouldn't hate a person who isn't hurting anyone.

The two major fallacies are contained so beautifully in this single sentence.

1). Saying X is wrong, yes even sinful, does not equate to hating. The very manner in which this statement is formulated is an attempt to bully the terms and force one's set of value on all others.

2). Who says the behavior (or inclinations) under discussion do no damage. If a behavior damages a person, damages their relationship to God and thereby damages their relationship to all other people, can it truly be said to "not hurt anyone?" And if this situation truly does exist, would not the most hurtful, loveless thing be to tell someone, "It's okay, nothing is wrong?"

[BienvenuJDC]

The two major fallacies are contained so beautifully in this single sentence.

1). Saying X is wrong, yes even sinful, does not equate to hating. The very manner in which this statement is formulated is an attempt to bully the terms and force one's set of value on all others.

2). Who says the behavior (or inclinations) under discussion do no damage. If a behavior damages a person, damages their relationship to God and thereby damages their relationship to all other people, can it truly be said to "not hurt anyone?" And if this situation truly does exist, would not the most hurtful, loveless thing be to tell someone, "It's okay, nothing is wrong?"

This is well said, and I agree totally, but I know that this group will try to tear these words apart. You see....the liberal mind doesn't play fairly. They will demand for tolerance, while on the other hand, they are intolerant of other's opinions and thoughts. They say that one can believe in creationism, as long as evolution is the only thing taught in schools. There will be no "winning" in a debate in this group, unless it is their opinion that is given in to.

[Darcy88]

"This, however, IS a straw man. I am suggesting we have no CAPACITY to compel action in other persons by simply holding beliefs."

You are suggesting much more than that. You are suggesting that our actions and attitudes towards others have no impact on their mental state or their decision whether to kill themselves or not. Its a silly standpoint since we know that bullying contributes to the rate of suicide particularly among young people. Go into a psychiatric ward and start demeaning and insulting people. Call them ugly, stupid, failures, abominations. See what happens.

[BienvenuJDC]

"This, however, IS a straw man. I am suggesting we have no CAPACITY to compel action in other persons by simply holding beliefs."

You are suggesting much more than that. You are suggesting that our actions and attitudes towards others have no impact on their mental state or their decision whether to kill themselves or not. Its a silly standpoint since we know that bullying contributes to the rate of suicide particularly among young people. Go into a psychiatric ward and start demeaning and insulting people. Call them ugly, stupid, failures, abominations. See what happens.

So...you are saying that if you are bullying me, then the likelihood of me committing suicide will increase?

[stuntpickle]

"This, however, IS a straw man. I am suggesting we have no CAPACITY to compel action in other persons by simply holding beliefs."

You are suggesting much more than that. You are suggesting that our actions and attitudes towards others have no impact on their mental state or their decision whether to kill themselves or not. Its a silly standpoint since we know that bullying contributes to the rate of suicide particularly among young people. Go into a psychiatric ward and start demeaning and insulting people. Call them ugly, stupid, failures, abominations. See what happens.

Affirming the proposition "homosexuality is wrong" in no way constitutes an action toward others.

People are not automatons executing programs written by their environment. I freely admit that we can contribute to an environment that someone would prefer to avoid by committing suicide. I do not advocate creating these types of environments. But holding a metaphysical belief does not imply any variety of behavior. To state that lying is wrong doesn't mean that one persecutes liars, nor does it mean that one is responsible for the suicide of a liar.

I just don't understand how you can't see this.

[WyattGwyon]

Wrong! Anyone making an assertion has the explanatory onus insofar as the assertion is concerned.

This is incorrect. Consider the assertion: "There is no evidence that God exists." This requires no justification or explanation whatever. The only way to counter such a statement is to falsify it by providing evidence to the contrary. If anyone wishes to dispute it, they will have to make a positive assertion that such evidence in fact exists and then present said evidence.


Traditionally, "nonsensical" refers to language having no sense or meaning. Since you have understood the content of my post, you cannot mean that it was this variety of nonsense,

No, you don't get to pick one narrow definition of a term and then pretend it must be (or must not be) what I meant. By "a nonsensical scenario" I meant one that is logically incoherent—one that makes "no sense." Your scenario was nonsensical in that it postulates two people who have intimate knowledge of one another (the closest in the world to each other—call this proposition 1), and yet are apparently oblivious to each others' central beliefs on issues some consider the most important facing humans—the existence of a supreme being and the afterlife (call this proposition 2). The two propositions are incompatible and mutually contradictory. Thus the scenario makes no sense. It is nonsensical. Understand now?


so I suspect you mean that the situation is inconsequential, which would seem wrong.

You are not capable of anticipating my thought. I would not have dreamed up such a tortured reading of a perfectly straightforward concept like "nonsense."


Also, I think you ignore the fact that a person on his deathbed will necessarily act in accordance with his past behaviors.

So you are saying that someone on their deathbed cannot or will not conceive a new way of behaving or a new belief? On the contrary, I suspect many on their deathbeds arrive at new knowledge or perspectives. I'm not sure why you would make this dubious and unsupported assertion.


I think it's also presumptuous that this person will just take your previous beliefs for granted. I think death has the affect of making people reconsider things.

First, I will assume that you meant "effect" since "affect" is nonsensical in this context (just trying to reinforce a concept—nonsense—you seem to find challenging. Please note that I have understood exactly what you meant, and yet what you wrote was, strictly speaking, nonsensical. Also note that this is precisely the situation you said was impossible in the second quotation of your text above!). So, in your scenario, the person on their deathbed is thinking something like: "I've known you for a long time and throughout those years you have been a confirmed atheist. Despite knowing you to be (1) a person with long-standing beliefs that are a matter of deep conviction and (2) a person not inclined to sudden, cataclysmic shifts in your belief system, I will nevertheless ask if today you have become a theist and now believe in an afterlife." Sounds vanishingly unlikely to me—and truly sad if anyone would actually spend their last moments in such a fruitless discussion. No, your scenario is simply nonsensical (see definition above if you are still confused.)

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Nietzsche defined atheism as "..the awe-inspiring catastrophe of two-thousand years of training in truthfulness that finally forbids itself the lie involved in belief in God."

I don't think you fully grasp what Nietzsche thought, which was that atheism was an excruciating revelation.
So, is Nietzsche the only authority on what atheism is?

If I say that one’s depression isn’t the discrete effect of another’s opinion, and you say the evidence says otherwise, you are stating that there is evidence that demonstrates one’s depression results from someone else’s opinion. I demand you produce this evidence. You are essentially saying that there exists a mechanism by which my personal opinion can, simply by virtue of its existence, inflict depression upon another person. We both know no such evidence exists, so I wonder why you state the evidence says otherwise.

If a person develops cancer and kills himself to avoid the pain and suffering, it does not follow that cancer causes people to kill themselves. Persons have agency of which they cannot be liberated simply because someone else holds a belief.

Holding a belief that some behavior A is wrong is not synonymous with another behavior B. Believing that homosexuality is wrong is not synonymous with mistreatment of homosexuals.

Your statements about anti-gay rhetoric and social exclusion are misguided. If I am waiting on a cab and I wait for one with tinted windows, it does not follow that tinted windows compel me to enter cabs. Can a person make a decision about social exclusion? Yes. Can social exclusion compel a person to make a decision? No.



No, I am not making light of anything; I am making a reductio ad absurdum, which demonstrates the falsity of a proposition by logically pursuing it to absurdity. This is the business of reason. Just because you don’t like the results doesn’t mean I’m making fun of something. Propositions are either true or false, not true when they look serious and false when they look silly.



I would say that person A cannot compel a behavior in person B simply by holding a belief.



It is, of course, true that person A can make life for person B more difficult, so much so that person B prefers to kill himself. It does not follow that person A can compel person B’s suicide. Person A can, however, murder person B. Does incarceration cause one to kill oneself? Or does one kill oneself because one prefers death to incarceration?

However, it is NOT possible for person A to make person B’s life more difficult simply by holding a particular metaphysical belief.





This passage seems entirely irrelevant.





You could only find it hypocritical if you misunderstood hypocrisy. I never stated that having an atheistic worldview could cause theists to kill themselves. You’re the one purposing thought assassination. And last I checked, no person can, in this country, be compelled by any organ of the state to attend a religious conversion camp. Moreover, no person can be compelled to attend such a camp simply by virtue of the existence of another person’s metaphysical belief.



This is irrelevant. Moreover, it seems to suggest that you are bothered simply by the existence of Christianity because it results in some number of psychologically conflicted homosexual persons.





No, it isn’t. Darcy wasn’t a part of the original discussion. The argument wasn’t a straw man but the original issue.



This, however, IS a straw man. I am suggesting we have no CAPACITY to compel action in other persons by simply holding beliefs.



This is a bad analogy. You are comparing holding a particular belief to physically sabotaging a roadway, and guess what? Your example leads to murder or, at the very least, manslaughter. You can’t make someone choose to kill himself by icing the roadway.



Believing that homosexuality is wrong is not synonymous with going out of one’s way to justify abuse and dehumanization. This is another straw man. No one has proposed dehumanization. In fact, dehumanization occurs when you render human beings little more than automatons in a deterministic system of behavior, which is what YOU’RE doing.
It's not the belief alone that causes the problem. If a belief is kept private and to one's self, of course it's not harmful. If a belief compels someone to take actions against someone else, in this case someone who believes homosexuality is wrong and therefore ridicules someone who is homosexual, I don't think it can be denied that those actions can have a profound effect on a person. Do you deny that the abuse, whether physical or verbal, of someone due to a difference in that person can effect that person and cause that person to take actions he would not otherwise take? When it comes to suicide, I'm not sure one can ever point to one single cause and say definitively, "That's why he committed suicide, and that's the only reason why." I think it's also hard to say the opposite, that something like bullying (which can be caused be acting on certain beliefs) has no impact on someone's mental state.

Also, you demand evidence from Pip to show beliefs cause suicide. I'm sure it goes against logical debate rules or whatever and that you'll just hide behind that excuse, but can you show any evidence that suggests that beliefs don't cause suicide?

[Darcy88]

So...you are saying that if you are bullying me, then the likelihood of me committing suicide will increase?

Yes. Is that really so hard to believe?

[Varenne Rodin]

Affirming the proposition "homosexuality is wrong" in no way constitutes an action toward others.

Getting a bit hypocritical. In that case "Christianity is wrong" in no way constitutes an action against others. Christianity is an abomination and can lead to people being shunned and hurt by others, so Christians should try to stop being Christians. By your logic, there is nothing wrong with those statements, they don't and can't hurt anyone, and they certainly couldn't be insulting enough to lead to any sort of depression.

Homosexuals aren't second class citizens. A person can't say it's justifiable to treat them less well than the religious peers they defend.

[Varenne Rodin]

So...you are saying that if you are bullying me, then the likelihood of me committing suicide will increase?

Does Christianity condone bullying? Is it all on the up-and-up?

[cafolini]

I wasn't saying these are the scariest times in history. Scary nonetheless. Religion is the norm in america, not the minority, but I hope you're right and that we won't slide back into worse times.

Sometimes around my city, it's like a body snatchers movie. They single out the ones who haven't been changed.

We don't have unified religion in America. You can rest assured that there will be no unified religion in America. Apart from that, the separation of church and state is firmer than ever, apart from gossip sources that are unaccountable and come up in the media because they are scandalous.
Apart from that, for every ten people that tell you they are religious, nine tell you so because they think it's convenient to them, and they didn't even read the books. You are too preoccupied about this. They'll never come back as a power source to control our society. The point is that our religious poeple of thousands of denominations and non-denominations don't even care about that, except for PTL preachers making money.

[Varenne Rodin]

We don't have unified religion in America. You can rest assured that there will be no unified religion in America. Apart from that, the separation of church and state is firmer than ever, apart from gossip sources that are unaccountable and come up in the media because they are scandalous.
Apart from that, for every ten people that tell you they are religious, nine tell you so because they think it's convenient to them, and they didn't even read the books. You are too preoccupied about this. They'll never come back as a power source to control our society. The point is that our religious poeple of thousands of denominations and non-denominations don't even care about that, except for PTL preachers making money.

My son's public school dropped science and social studies and suddenly started sending home "grammar" lessons made up of bible verses. Separation of church and state? I would like to know where so I can go there.

[stuntpickle]

reconsidered

[Ecurb]

This is absolutely wrong. The assertion "there is no evidence God exists" has an impossible explanatory burden that involves either demonstrating a perfect knowledge of all possible locations of evidence, which would be complete and perfect knowledge of the universe, or some monstrous inductive argument that a PhD logician wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. This is precisely the sort of statement that no philosopher would make since it's completely indefensible. Besides there's obviously evidence for God. Evidence doesn't mean proof. There's also such a thing as bad evidence, which is still evidence. There's no question that the Bible constitutes some form of evidence. Maybe you don't think it's sufficient evidence, but it is evidence nonetheless. So what you're saying here is you can make assertions without backing them up just as long as they're really bad ones.

.

I have no idea why so many new atheists say, "There is no evidence that God exists" when it is clearly untrue. Perhaps Wyatt can explain it to me. Obviously, there are written eye witness accounts of miracles, of the Resurrection, of God appearing out of burning bushes, and of personal revelation. I think the new atheists might mean to say, "There is no 'scientific evidence' that God exists." This might be true, depending on how we define science. However, the notion that science constitutes the only form of "evidence" flies in the face of common sense (we all believe our own eyes, for example) and all evidentiary rules. Most history (for example) is non-scientific. It relies on written, eye-witness accounts -- very similar to the Bible. There might be as much "evidence" for the Resurrection as for the Battle of Issus (although, of course, it's reasonable to demand more evidence before accepting supernatural occurences, because they are so incredible).

It is also possible, of course, that atheists mean, "There is no persuasive (or convincing) evidence that God exists." However, the reams of evidence are so substantial that saying there is "no evidence" is ridiculous.

[Darcy88]

Christians will try to pick apart science and materialism but then when someone like Sathya Sai Baba, a reputed miracle worker, comes along they will resort to the same arguments used by atheists who resist the notion of Christ's divinity.

Furthermore, Christians follow the exact same line of reasoning when they reject the revelations of Muhammed that atheists follow when they reject those of Moses.

As much as most atheists fail to realize the consequences of their atheism, the same is true for their believing counterparts who fail to acknowledge the full ramifications of their faith. If the scientific method is relaxed or altogether discarded, well then anything goes. If the Bible then also the Koran and the Book of Mormon. If Christ's miracles then those of Sathya Sai Baba too.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

reconsidered

. . . Why?

[Ecurb]

Christians will try to pick apart science and materialism but then when someone like Sathya Sai Baba, a reputed miracle worker, comes along they will resort to the same arguments used by atheists who resist the notion of Christ's divinity.

Furthermore, Christians follow the exact same line of reasoning when they reject the revelations of Muhammed that atheists follow when they reject those of Moses.

Huh? I never said it was unreasonable to "reject the revelations" of anyone. In fact, I'm an atheist myself. I just think it's unreasonable to say there's no evidence for something, when there is book after book after book, filled with evidence (although none of it may be persuasive).

If a jury hears all the evidence in a case, they can decide "guilty" or "not guilty". But if the case has gone on for days, and dozens of witnesses have been examined and cross-examined, it would be silly for jurors to claim there had been "no evidence presented".

[Darcy88]

I can just picture St Peter reading all that I've written here back to me on the day of judgement, Bien and Stuntpickle standing arms-crossed shaking their heads from behind the gate. Hahaha.

[Varenne Rodin]

I can just picture St Peter reading all that I've written here back to me on the day of judgement, Bien and Stuntpickle standing arms-crossed shaking their heads from behind the gate. Hahaha.

Haha. I would have to pass on heaven if I saw them standing there. That would be the great thing about hell. All of my friends would be there. The best musicians too.

[Calidore]

Huh? I never said it was unreasonable to "reject the revelations" of anyone. In fact, I'm an atheist myself. I just think it's unreasonable to say there's no evidence for something, when there is book after book after book, filled with evidence (although none of it may be persuasive).

That's not evidence, but claims. None of it's reproducible. The jury you mention below wouldn't even hear that evidence, because it's only hearsay.

There's no evidence that God exists because he's supposed to be invisible, incorporeal, all-powerful, etc. etc. There's also no evidence that he doesn't exist for the same reason, plus the additional problem of proving a negative. That's where modern religion has it all over the ancients. They had gods and so on that essentially ceased to exist when we learned the reality behind the phenomena the gods were created to explain. This new God, however, can have any claim made about him that the claimant finds convenient.

[WyattGwyon]

I have no idea why so many new atheists say, "There is no evidence that God exists" when it is clearly untrue. Perhaps Wyatt can explain it to me.

I did not say this as a statement of fact. I only offered it as an example in the abstract of an assertion that does not require justification or evidence. By the way, I am not an atheist by at least one common definition. I do not deny the existence of God, for example, mostly because I don't have enough interest in this particular notion of a supreme being to bother about it one way or another. I believe in no supernatural phenomena.


Obviously, there are written eye witness accounts of miracles, of the Resurrection, of God appearing out of burning bushes, and of personal revelation. I think the new atheists might mean to say, "There is no 'scientific evidence' that God exists." This might be true, depending on how we define science.

Perhaps I should have said "no credible evidence." That takes care of your objection.


However, the notion that science constitutes the only form of "evidence" flies in the face of common sense (we all believe our own eyes, for example) and all evidentiary rules. Most history (for example) is non-scientific. It relies on written, eye-witness accounts -- very similar to the Bible.

There is little credible evidence that the Bible is based on eye-witness accounts. Wasn't all of the New Testament, for example, written by people living well after the events described took place? The case of the Old Testament is clearer still, right?


It is also possible, of course, that atheists mean, "There is no persuasive (or convincing) evidence that God exists." However, the reams of evidence are so substantial that saying there is "no evidence" is ridiculous.

Fanciful accounts of miracles and mysterious events are not evidence, they are fancy. Even if taken at face value, there is no reason to associate any of these accounts of mysterious "events" with the particular types of divine intercession inferred from them. Hence no evidence is correct—but I will make it "no credible evidence" if you prefer.

By the way: Is that Canyon Lands in your avatar?

[WyattGwyon]

. . . Why?

Now now! Everyone has the right to reconsider what they wish to post. And even if someone beats them to the punch and quotes them before they withdraw their statement, like Ecurb did in this case, I still consider it out of bounds to respond once an author demonstrates the intention to reconsider a post.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I don't disagree, Wyatt . . . well, I don't on the "out of bounds" part. I'm just curious as to why he reconsidered it. It seemed on par with all his other posts. Hell, it was less abrasive than a lot of his other posts, so I assume he didn't remove it because he felt it was too "offensive."

[BienvenuJDC]

Does Christianity condone bullying? Is it all on the up-and-up?

No...TRUE Christianity does not. I get quite frustrated with people even in my own congregation that seem to be over judgmental. I've been over judgmental myself, but I'm working on it. There are many...even most...Christians that think that they are better than others. I'm no better in my actions than any, but I'll condemn my own actions as well. There are man actions that are wrong, but none of them makes the person an abomination. There is a preacher who just left our congregation that I feel is a bully, and I was very outspoken that I think that the elders were wrong in not marking him as such. People have the right to make choices in their lives (short of those choices that hurt others). But there is a line that must be drawn as to when and where (and to what extent) that someone can voice their opinions about sin. But stating a belief is not bullying.

[Darcy88]

The humility you express in this latest post is admirable and Christian in the truest sense of the word Bien.