So, if I were to

Post Reply New Topic

No.

I've been in a debate on this topic before and needed to come up with an example of something that nobody, no matter how delusional their perceptions, would ever believe in. The purple cheese wombat was the first thing to come to mind and I decided to re-use it in this discussion.

It exists only as a fictional concept I use to illustrate a point about faith.

TM:

I could dredge up evidence about the authorship of at least certain parts of the NT, but it would be going off on a tangent from the point I was originally trying to make. I'd rather not Christianize the discussion at this point because we'll go off on a tangent. The point is people don't believe in something unless they feel they have some sort of reason to. If you don't believe what is written in the Bible is credible, that's a different matter. It doesn't make it impossible for a religious belief to be held on credible evidence and therefore rational.

People having a reason to believe something is not the same as it being rational. Secondly, credible evidence for any faith does not exist at this point in time, therefore no religious belief can be rational.

You were the one who brought up the bible I believe, I was just pointing out that the Bible is not credible by any reasonable standard.

'twas Mr. Gareth who brought up the Bible.

Maybe not from a scientific standpoint, but every christian I know seems to have some personal experience of a miracle, from something that defied all plausible probability to something that outright defied the laws of physics. You can assume these people are delusional or liars, but that is an assumption. If their experiences were real, that would be credible evidence, at least to that person.

I never intended to argue the validity of religious texts, only to state that the fact such texts exists is evidence of God. You could ask for evidence that the evidence is credible, and If I were present such evidence, you would probably ask for evidence that the evidence that the evidence is credible, but I'll take this in a different direction:

Dubious evidence is still better than no evidence at all.

What evidence, even if it is only dubious, exists that supports atheism?

Atheism is not a positive doctrine. It is the denial or refusal of belief. An atheist would say "I do not believe your god exists because I have no evidence to support that god's existence which convinces me"

In short there is nothing to prove.

How am I to prove I don't believe in unicorns? You will just have to take my word for it.

ruveyn

Not really.

As an Atheist, I don't make any claims other than the fact that I don't consider the existence of a deity, any deity.

If you're let's say a Christian, you're not only making the claim that there is in fact a deity, something which there is 0 evidence for. You are also making the claim that all other deities do not exist.

So, the difference between you and myself, is that I've taken a more logical position among the 3 possible choices.

1. All gods are true.
2. All gods are false.
3. All gods except 1 is false.

You are at the same time a believer and a non-believer, because while you may believe in the Christian god, you do not believe in Thor, Odin, Brahma, Vishnu, or many of the others mentioned in H.L Mencken's "Where is the graveyard of dead gods" (http://nowscape.com/atheism/dead_gods.htm)

If you take the position that all gods are true, that does creates problems since the claims attributed to these gods are mutually exclusive. For instance, we have 1 world, and we would have hundreds of claims from various religions about which god was that ultimate creator. Also, you cannot claim that they are all the same god, because you cannot have a "just" and "merciful" Christian God who dressed up as Tezcatilpoca and consumed virgins on the weekends.

My position is simply that all of this is.. for the lack of a better and more descriptive word "BS". There is no evidence to support the existence of any god. I put no doctrine on display, because there is none, except non belief in deities.

The whole "Atheism is not true" is a fallacy engaged in by one William Lane Craig, or as I like to jokingly refer to him "William Lame Craig" which he should know better than to commit given his doctorate in philosophy.

In essence, I cannot refute a belief that someone holds (objectifying the belief) but I can refute everything they say about the world that is based in their belief.

Specific claims that are based in belief such as "The earth was made in 7 days", "Illness is caused by being cursed", "human beings were created "as is, no assembly required" by a deity" are all claims that can be refuted by science.

Claims about morality based in belief, can likewise be refuted on the basis of among other things philosophy, psychology and neuroscience.

I think that's where the major disconnect between atheists and the religious exists.

Last edited by TM on 17 Oct 2012, 11:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

Even the old/fat ones?

I get the feeling that we'd all end up on a penal colony.

I don't think so

I want to believe.

I was going to write "all the hot women" but I figured that if I did my thread would be invaded by a feminist Schutzstaffel, derailed into yet another thread on how I'm a misogynist a**hole and thus become utterly pointless.

The way to avoid that is to not say sexist things.

"Those who are determined to be 'offended' will discover a provocation somewhere. We cannot possibly adjust enough to please the fanatics, and it is degrading to make the attempt." Christopher Hitchens.

He was describing religious ideas, which are optional. The sex you were born with, isn't optional. Not saying sexist things is as easy (and as justified) as not saying racist things.

The quote still applies, he was using it to describe religious ideas, but the general principle of it is that fanatics who seek to find offense will find it regardless.

Certain groups of people tend to irrationally view things as being "sexist" or "racist" when they are not simple as that.

For instance, if I had said "All the sexy women would have to wear nothing but Victoria's secret" that wasn't sexist, it was merely acknowledging the fact that some women in thong underwear look quite exhilarating, while others more resemble a bean bag chair with carrying straps.

that was sexist

But I can't be bothered arguing with you because you'll never be able to see why.

"1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender"

I would go with objectification of women, but that can't be it, because I did that in the part where I said that some look quite exhilarating and you didn't call that sexist.

"1. The act of discriminating.
2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners."

This doesn't really fit either, because "prejudice" is in essence synonymous with "pre-judging" and I'm not pre-judging, I'm judging.

I didn't say I'd treat them differently or really indicate preference.

I did not advocate a special social role based on gender, or stereotype based on gender.

What I did was insulting, it was offensive and it helped me prove my point, that fanatics will find offense and label it where they see fit, regardless of the actual act or definition of words.

I can't believe that you don't treat women differently when you place such a high premium on what they look like. Of course 'non-hot' women don't look like bean bags with straps, that's a ridiculous comparison. The fact that you went to that extreme to describe women you aren't attracted to reflects your attitudes towards them, which is shown to be sexist.

There are tonnes of men I'm not attracted to, but I don't write off that huge number of people as resembling anaemic chihuahua puppies, or whatever - because they don't look like that. I can't believe you can write about people that way and not treat them differently.

Tbh, I'm offended by very few things. I'm not offended sexism because I'm so used to it, and it would be a waste of my mental energy to get offended. I was just calling out your comment for what I percieved it to be.

How do you know I'm not attracted to them? You're assuming a lot about me, the intention behind what I wrote and how I wrote it. It didn't occur to you that I wrote and worded that sentence to make you react in a certain way and thus prove my point?



What you did, was what I wanted you to do, read the comment as sexist and reply selectively to the part of the sentence you deemed sexist but isn't, rather than the fact that the whole sentence could easily be argued to be sexist.

It proves that my quote was accurate.