And on this day, Chuck Norris loses all my respect...

Cyberwulf wrote:

TheHermit, you miss my point. If someone wants to use the Kanin study or evolutionary psychology to back up their argument, it matters not a whit that the specific study was disproved. Someone in a white coat gave it a veneer of authenticity. It will happen more and more with science as less people take religion seriously. It's human nature. Everyone wants to feel justified by a higher authority.

What I'm missing is how this is a problem with science, itself, and not merely a problem with appeal to authority and a failure of due diligence. I don't doubt that what you are saying is true and will happen, but you seem to be implying this should be a reason to distrust science as much as I distrust religion. If the only way you can still use those studies is if you reject the scientific method, how is the fact that people will still use them a problem with the scientific method?

Let me try putting it another way: I can use the scientific method itself to show those studies are wrong. Not just mistaken or that there is a difference of opinion, but objectively and unequivocally incorrect. Meanwhile, if I am a Christian who believes faith is as valid a method of discerning truth as reason and logic, I'm in a bit of a bind if someone decides to use scripture to do harm; I can say they're mistaken, I can say they're not reading the scriptures correctly, I can provide hundreds of alternative readings of the scriptures, and I could even provide other scriptures which argue against their goal, but I cannot prove them definitively wrong within the religious framework.

You're underestimating how major this difference is, and why what is good for the goose is not good for the gander in these circumstances.

Penguin wrote:

And that's the difference between scientists and XKCD fans.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

TheHermit wrote:

Worse, religion still has not learned from Hitler's example. There is a short little quiz relevant to this, actually. 1 Samuel 15:2-3 reads:

Quote :

Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Just so we're clear about the context here, Amaleks ambushed and raided the Jews a few hundred years ago while they were wandering the desert. And to repay them, here God is commanding his people to wipe them out. He is commanding genocide. Three questions:

1) Do you believe God commanded this?

2) Do you believe God could appear before you and issue this same command today?

3) If God did command this of you, would you follow this order?

This is typically used to destroy God's status as the arbiter of morality. If you deny 1, you deny the veracity of the Bible as holy word (and thus it should not and cannot be followed unconditionally and be called "moral"). If you deny 2, you admit morality is relative (because the actions committed in 2000 BC were considered moral than and are considered immoral now, hence a book from 2000 years ago may or may not be relevant to modern ideas on morality). If you say "no" to 3, you admit that moral good exists separate and apart from God, and there are things God the "most good" could command that you personally would consider it immoral to follow.

The real fun is when someone answers "yes" to all 3 questions. Think about what that says about them. Think long and hard, then despair. How many Christians would answer "yes" to all 3 questions with the full conviction that it would be a morally good act to do so (hint: the answer is greater than zero)? How many otherwise fine, upstanding people would have to before you had to admit something was deeply, deeply wrong?

I have to admit, I was raised Christian and questions like this do make me wonder. Because, yes, as TheHermit points out, any follower of God who considered what God said to be the final word on anything WOULD have to say "yes" to all three questions, and the mental picture painted by the result of that is pretty terrifying.

My only issue with Hermit saying that

Quote :

If you deny 2, you admit morality is relative (because the actions committed in 2000 BC were considered moral than and are considered immoral now, hence a book from 2000 years ago may or may not be relevant to modern ideas on morality).

is that I don't think that God interacts with Christians on the same level or in the same way that He did with the Old Testament Jews. Christians aren't being told to go into a strange land filled with hostile, pagan peoples and destroy them so that they can live in that specific area. (Which is why I think the phrase "Christian nation" as applied to any one country is so ludicrous.)

I have other issues, mainly involving stuff like God's command to the Israelites to circumcise their infant boys (never mind the fact that the circumcision carried out in those days involved far less damage and far less tissue removed than our standard American hospital -- it's still removing part of someone's penis without anesthesia and also exposing them to a risk of infection).

That, and stuff about my "Christian witness" being destroyed by wearing black metal band shirts and watching horror movies makes me feel like whatever my childhood faith was is being whittled down to a nub. And it's seriously depressing.

KelinciHutan wrote:

I know I can trust God because, when I was seven years old, I met Him. Personally. And have known Him ever since. Sometimes, when He speaks to me, it's so powerful that I can almost hear a physical voice. And I realize that sounds very arrogant, and even slightly crazy, but there it is. I know God. I know Him like I know my sister. He's a person that you can know. So I can ask all these questions and not like the answers I'm finding, and get mad at God, and pray whiney prayers (some of the Psalms are spectacularly whiney), and still trust God to be God because I know Him, and I know what He's like.

Maybe that's a bit personal, but I think any Christian would say the same. They don't believe in God because of some vague and nebulous maybe. They believe because of a real, concrete meeting with Him.

I can't say that I've experienced anything like what you've described. The closest I think I can say I've experienced any possible contact with supernatural entities is when I was around 13 or so and thought I was literally losing control of my mind. And I very much doubt those were good entities.

TheHermit wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

TheHermit, you miss my point. If someone wants to use the Kanin study or evolutionary psychology to back up their argument, it matters not a whit that the specific study was disproved. Someone in a white coat gave it a veneer of authenticity. It will happen more and more with science as less people take religion seriously. It's human nature. Everyone wants to feel justified by a higher authority.

What I'm missing is how this is a problem with science, itself,

Ooh, good thing I never said it was a problem with science itself, isn't it?

Quote :

I don't doubt that what you are saying is true and will happen, but you seem to be implying this should be a reason to distrust science

Well that's your own paranoia working there, because I said no such thing. What I AM saying is that people will use the trappings of science to back up their own position in much the same way people use(d) religion to do the same. Consider that before the advent of modern science, religion was pretty much the default method people used to explain the universe around them. Now that science is supplanting that, more people appeal to science as their higher authority.

Quote :

Let me try putting it another way: I can use the scientific method itself to show those studies are wrong.

But there's no guarantee that anyone will listen to you, especially if you're a layperson. If you're not a scientist yourself, who gives a fuck what you say? Did you get a paper published in a scientific journal? Don't talk to me like I'm an idiot, because I've argued with people who are using junk science, and I might as well be talking to the fucking wall. I'm some person on the Internet (even though I'm a scientist IRL). They're not obliged to take any notice of me. They're certainly not about to admit they're wrong.

Quote :

You're underestimating how major this difference is,

You're overestimating how easy it is to eradicate faulty notions with a supposedly scientific basis from the general population.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Well that's your own paranoia working there

... Okay, you got me. I don't mean to assume the worst of my debate opponents, but it happens anyway sometimes. I apologize, and concede your point.

Adagio wrote:

Anon wrote:

In other words, it works because an expectation of evidence is unreasonable. I think this applies to God for three reasons. You have yet to give any reason why it doesn't.

As for what those reasons are, the first is that God, being the creator of the universe, cannot be part of it and thus exists beyond the limits of our observations.

I'd contest that. Given that religions like Christianity (which is the one I'm most familiar with, so that's the one I'll use) explicitly state that God can and has impacted the world in very tangible ways (and seemed only too happy to do so once upon a time), an expectation of evidence is reasonable. Why is it that all these incredible acts of God used to occur and don't anymore? Why is it that any supposed contact anyone has with God is small and intensely personal (and therefore useless as evidence), rather than, say, the waters of the Hudson turning to blood?

Who knows? Who cares? What God may have done in the past in no way demonstrates that God should still be providing us with evidence. Any more special pleading?

Quote :

Honestly—and hey, perhaps that's just the view from where I'm sitting—arguing that religion/God (delete as appropriate) shouldn't have to make a solid, evidence-based case seems like a bit of a cop-out to me; like a way of winning the argument, so to speak, by stating that you don't need, or rather shouldn't be required, to make an argument at all. Dunno. It just seems cheap.

It would be, if this wasn't a straw man. Thing is, you don't have any actual evidence for the non-existence of God. You just claim that the fact that there is no evidence for God's existence proves that it doesn't. If there was any other evidence supporting the idea that god doesn't exist you might have a point. On its own, however, absence of evidence proves nothing.

Quote :

Anon wrote:

Finally, God's existence, while clearly necessary for these events, can't be shown to be sufficient for miracles. In other words, God's existence, on it's own, is not a reason why these events must occur. A sentient god doesn't have to decide to cause obvious miracles for everyone to see.

Again, that seems like a cop-out to me. (See above, etc. etc.) And He seemed only to happy to cause miracles left right and centre in the past, as well—why is it that, now that humanity as a whole is much more able to distinguish what has a natural cause from what could have no natural cause (the constant example: the waters of the Hudson turning to blood), it's suddenly unreasonable or unfair to expect some sign of life from God?

Again, special pleading.

Quote :

Anon wrote:

As opposed to your saying that an expectation of evidence is reasonable where God is concerned because... well, it just is O.K. Isn't it obvious?

You're right, I should have elaborated more. But hopefully now that I have you see my point.

Anon wrote:

Reason? Really? Reason dictates that when the only argument you have against something is that there's no evidence for it, that is a solid case for it not being true? This must be some form of reason I have yet to encounter.

Remember that episode of the Big Bang Theory where Sheldon goes to the North pole to discover some sort of special particle or whatever, only to come to the conclusion that there was no such thing at the North pole because he didn't find any evidence of it whatsoever? (Well, at first he thinks he's right but then he finds out that the test results were faked, but the end result is the same, yanno.)

Not that I'm using that as a pillar to support my abhorrence of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", particularly, but it's been popping into my mind throughout this debate.

I haven't watched Big Bang Theory. Would this be necessary for me to understand how it proves your point, or is it simply not relevant?

Quote :

Anon wrote:

Atheism is the flip side of the coin to religion. It is an irrational and unprovable belief in the non-existence of god with exactly the same mindset and reasoning going into both the belief and the justification behind it.

Actually I'd argue that a) atheism is much more rational than theism, at least, and b) it's really the exact opposite mindset and justification, etc. But I don't think I'll be able to convince you of this without putting much more thought into it than I'm currently inclined to put (well-fed and sleepy are not conducive to deep thought, apparently).

No. No it isn't. In the absence of any evidence on either side, the rational stance is to say that you can't tell either way. What's more, you and TheHermit are actively demonstrating my point by continually using the exact same lines of reasoning I'm used to from religious fundamentalists trying to 'prove' that their religion is correct.

Quote :

Anon wrote:

TheHermit wrote:

A/Gnostic is a statement of knowledge; "know"/"don't know". A/Theism is a statement of belief. Anyone who's being honest with themselves does not know there is a god. I am an agnostic atheist, "I do not know if there is a god but I believe there is not", and you are agnostic theist, "I do not know if there is a god but I believe there is". It is an atheist sign.

Stupid.

Being Agnostic means that you don't believe in either the existence or non-existence of God. It isn't like theism or atheism, both of which involve belief. It is an entirely different mindset altogether.

I'm an agnostic apathist: don't know, don't care.

Same here.

Notanoni wrote:

Don't try to say that all religions allow only questioning of at most the details, because it isn't true.

YESSAH! I MEAN NOSAH!

One day at work, a tech came to fix my computer. He was talking about religion, and said that he thought belief in something should be required to be a U.S. citizen. I told him I believed there was something wrong with my computer.

He was not amused.

Anon wrote:

Who knows? Who cares? What God may have done in the past in no way demonstrates that God should still be providing us with evidence. Any more special pleading?

I contend it is special pleading to insist that god does not need to provide any evidence of his existence, given that he never started and thus your use of the word "still" is incorrect. The miracles described in the Bible are third-hand accounts at best, completely unverifiable and impossible to believe.

Anon wrote:

Quote :

Honestly—and hey, perhaps that's just the view from where I'm sitting—arguing that religion/God (delete as appropriate) shouldn't have to make a solid, evidence-based case seems like a bit of a cop-out to me; like a way of winning the argument, so to speak, by stating that you don't need, or rather shouldn't be required, to make an argument at all. Dunno. It just seems cheap.

It would be, if this wasn't a straw man. Thing is, you don't have any actual evidence for the non-existence of God.

That's not what a straw man is. And you're trying to shift the burden of proof. Non-existence is the default position for any phenomenon. Until sufficient evidence is shown of God's existence, the only logical, rational choice is to assume and act as though God does not exist.

Anon wrote:

Quote :

Again, that seems like a cop-out to me. (See above, etc. etc.) And He seemed only to happy to cause miracles left right and centre in the past, as well—why is it that, now that humanity as a whole is much more able to distinguish what has a natural cause from what could have no natural cause (the constant example: the waters of the Hudson turning to blood), it's suddenly unreasonable or unfair to expect some sign of life from God?

Again, special pleading.

You keep using that term. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Anon wrote:

Reason? Really? Reason dictates that when the only argument you have against something is that there's no evidence for it, that is a solid case for it not being true? This must be some form of reason I have yet to encounter.

Read up on Russel's Teapot and get back to me. This form of reason is very, very common. Rational adults (including you, I assume) use it in every day of their lives.

Anon wrote:

No. No it isn't. In the absence of any evidence on either side, the rational stance is to say that you can't tell either way.

Story time! One day I tell you there is a dragon living in my garage. When you go to look, my garage is empty; I claim the dragon is invisible. If you attempt to walk into the garage to touch it, I claim the dragon is incorporeal. If you bring in an infrared scanner to try and find it by the heat it generates, I say the dragon neither gives off nor absorbs heat. If you spread flour along the floor and try to find the dragon by the footprints it leaves, I tell you it is constantly hovering just out of reach. Every method of detection you can think of, I come up with a psuedo-magical reason why such a detection method will show no evidence of a dragon.

Is it reasonable- rational, even- to assume the dragon exists?

Anon wrote:

What's more, you and TheHermit are actively demonstrating my point by continually using the exact same lines of reasoning I'm used to from religious fundamentalists trying to 'prove' that their religion is correct.

Unsupported assertion.

Anon wrote:

Being Agnostic means that you don't believe in either the existence or non-existence of God. It isn't like theism or atheism, both of which involve belief. It is an entirely different mindset altogether.

Gnostic comes from the Latin word gnosis, meaning knowledge. The prefix a, of course, means without: an agnostic is "without knowledge". It assumes nothing of belief. This is not a hard concept to grasp. Further, I cannot fathom how someone could be so blase about whether a creator deity exists or not. You really have no interest at all in the fundamental nature of reality? Really? That's beyond intellectual laziness, it smacks of outright intellectual cowardice.

On a lighter note, I don't understand the appeal of agnosticism. It's the worst of both worlds: you'll still go to hell when you die, but don't get to act smug in the meantime!

Chico: I can't think of the finish.
Groucho: That's strange, and I can't think of anything else.
Chico: I think I went past it.
Groucho: The next time you come around, jump off.

That's kinda where I think this thread is going.

TheHermit wrote:

Anon wrote:

Who knows? Who cares? What God may have done in the past in no way demonstrates that God should still be providing us with evidence. Any more special pleading?

I contend it is special pleading to insist that god does not need to provide any evidence of his existence, given that he never started and thus your use of the word "still" is incorrect. The miracles described in the Bible are third-hand accounts at best, completely unverifiable and impossible to believe.

It would be special pleading if I was arguing for the existence of God. It is perfectly possible for God to exist without giving us anything to use as evidence for its existence.

Quote :

Anon wrote:

Quote :

Honestly—and hey, perhaps that's just the view from where I'm sitting—arguing that religion/God (delete as appropriate) shouldn't have to make a solid, evidence-based case seems like a bit of a cop-out to me; like a way of winning the argument, so to speak, by stating that you don't need, or rather shouldn't be required, to make an argument at all. Dunno. It just seems cheap.

It would be, if this wasn't a straw man. Thing is, you don't have any actual evidence for the non-existence of God.

That's not what a straw man is. And you're trying to shift the burden of proof. Non-existence is the default position for any phenomenon. Until sufficient evidence is shown of God's existence, the only logical, rational choice is to assume and act as though God does not exist.

The default state for any assertion is "needs verification". I have not made an assertion that God exists. I have made an assertion that it is impossible to determine whether or not god exists. You have made an assertion that God doesn't exist. I have said that there is insufficient evidence to be certain of this - to be precise, I stated that there is no evidence of any kind either for or against your assertion and therefore it is impossible to determine its validity.

Quote :

Anon wrote:

Reason? Really? Reason dictates that when the only argument you have against something is that there's no evidence for it, that is a solid case for it not being true? This must be some form of reason I have yet to encounter.

Read up on Russel's Teapot and get back to me. This form of reason is very, very common. Rational adults (including you, I assume) use it in every day of their lives.

No. The thing about Russel's Teapot is that I can take what I know about the workings of the universe and deduce that the probability of a teapot existing there is negligible. Unicorns, leprechauns, fairies etc are all impossible according to everything we can observe about the universe. There is no evidence for their existence, so I assume they don't exist. The same cannot be said about God. The state of God's existence is unknown until there is evidence to demonstrate either way. Rational adults judging whether or not an assertion is true by extrapolating from their experiences of the world around them is one thing. The thing is, YOU CAN'T DO THIS WITH GOD. I have already explained why not.

Quote :

Anon wrote:

No. No it isn't. In the absence of any evidence on either side, the rational stance is to say that you can't tell either way.

Story time! One day I tell you there is a dragon living in my garage. When you go to look, my garage is empty; I claim the dragon is invisible. If you attempt to walk into the garage to touch it, I claim the dragon is incorporeal. If you bring in an infrared scanner to try and find it by the heat it generates, I say the dragon neither gives off nor absorbs heat. If you spread flour along the floor and try to find the dragon by the footprints it leaves, I tell you it is constantly hovering just out of reach. Every method of detection you can think of, I come up with a psuedo-magical reason why such a detection method will show no evidence of a dragon.

Is it reasonable- rational, even- to assume the dragon exists?

Please, show me where I have asserted that God exists. You keep making this mistake. I am not saying anywhere that God exists ergo, I don't have to demonstrate it. Also, everything we can observe about the universe tells us your dragon is impossible. This doesn't apply to God.

Quote :

Anon wrote:

What's more, you and TheHermit are actively demonstrating my point by continually using the exact same lines of reasoning I'm used to from religious fundamentalists trying to 'prove' that their religion is correct.

Unsupported assertion.

Typical mistake made by fundies number 1: Anyone who opposes you is taking a position that is the polar opposite of yours. Therefore, if I am arguing that you can't safely claim God doesn't exist, I must be claiming that he does.
Typical mistake made by fundies number 2: Your position, however weak or ill supported, is automatically rational and logical regardless of what anyone else may say.

Quote :

Anon wrote:

Being Agnostic means that you don't believe in either the existence or non-existence of God. It isn't like theism or atheism, both of which involve belief. It is an entirely different mindset altogether.

Gnostic comes from the Latin word gnosis, meaning knowledge. The prefix a, of course, means without: an agnostic is "without knowledge". It assumes nothing of belief. This is not a hard concept to grasp. Further, I cannot fathom how someone could be so blase about whether a creator deity exists or not. You really have no interest at all in the fundamental nature of reality? Really? That's beyond intellectual laziness, it smacks of outright intellectual cowardice.

I don't see how the existence or non-existence of god is so fundamental to the nature of reality.

Anon wrote:

Who knows? Who cares? What God may have done in the past in no way demonstrates that God should still be providing us with evidence. Any more special pleading?

My point was that, given that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God is specifically stated to be able to impact the world in extremely visible, tangible ways, an expectation of evidence to this effect is not unreasonable—a point which you seem not to have addressed, really.

Oh. In addition, I'd say that the only special pleading going on is on the part of those that God should be exempted from providing evidence of his existence without justifying why he should be exempted (beyond a vague "well, because he's God and we pathetic mortals shouldn't question him").

Anon wrote:

Quote :

Honestly—and hey, perhaps that's just the view from where I'm sitting—arguing that religion/God (delete as appropriate) shouldn't have to make a solid, evidence-based case seems like a bit of a cop-out to me; like a way of winning the argument, so to speak, by stating that you don't need, or rather shouldn't be required, to make an argument at all. Dunno. It just seems cheap.

It would be, if this wasn't a straw man. Thing is, you don't have any actual evidence for the non-existence of God. You just claim that the fact that there is no evidence for God's existence proves that it doesn't. If there was any other evidence supporting the idea that god doesn't exist you might have a point. On its own, however, absence of evidence proves nothing.

Straw man, eh? And where exactly, pray tell, have I distorted, radicalized, or otherwise altered your statements in order to attack them and thus give the illusion I have made a valid point?

Incidentally, TheHermit has a valid point—you seem to want to shift the burden of proof an awful lot for someone who seems so sure of their case. If one person makes a claim (like, oh, for example, "God exists"), and another person contests it, it is up to the first person to prove they are right, and not the second person to prove the first is wrong. I don't have to provide a whit of evidence, but I haven't seen you try to do so, either. Care to have a go?

(At a guess, you won't. Your posts are indistinguishable from one actually trying to argue for the existence of God, except that when the time comes to bit the bullet, you won't.)

[quote]

Anon wrote:

Finally, God's existence, while clearly necessary for these events, can't be shown to be sufficient for miracles. In other words, God's existence, on it's own, is not a reason why these events must occur. A sentient god doesn't have to decide to cause obvious miracles for everyone to see.

Anon wrote:

I haven't watched Big Bang Theory. Would this be necessary for me to understand how it proves your point, or is it simply not relevant?

Not really—it was more of an aside, actually—but I do recommend the show. I found the first episodes particularly amusing.

Anon wrote:

No. No it isn't. In the absence of any evidence on either side, the rational stance is to say that you can't tell either way.

The thing is that, in this case, absence of evidence is indistinguishable from evidence of absence. The only evidence theoretically possible is evidence for the existence of God/s. This being so, in the absence of any evidence for the existence of God/s, the rational stance is to say "probably not" and wait until evidence does come your way.

Anon wrote:

What's more, you and TheHermit are actively demonstrating my point by continually using the exact same lines of reasoning I'm used to from religious fundamentalists trying to 'prove' that their religion is correct.

Hah.

Actually no; I'm curious. Now that you've made a claim, would you care to back it up by revealing to us exactly what sort of 'lines of reasoning' these are? I know you've had a dismal track record in the whole 'evidence' department, but there's always the next post, isn't there?

This is the story wank that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friends...

Anon wrote:

It is perfectly possible for God to exist without giving us anything to use as evidence for its existence.

Perhaps it is possible, but it is not reasonable to make that assumption given how many assumptions we would have to make to allow that possibility.. Occam's Razor. Learn it, love it. To say God's existence can be declared a reasonable possibility given no evidence IS special pleading, weaseling aside.

Anon wrote:

No. The thing about Russel's Teapot is that I can take what I know about the workings of the universe and deduce that the probability of a teapot existing there is negligible. Unicorns, leprechauns, fairies etc are all impossible according to everything we can observe about the universe. There is no evidence for their existence, so I assume they don't exist. The same cannot be said about God.

Yes it can. Or at least, I could if you had the balls to define god in any sense whatsoever. I have explained several times in this very thread that you must do so before you can even claim that believing there may be a god is a rational position. But you won't; you'll simply stay up there in your ivory tower, disguising your ignorance and apathy as wisdom, never contributing to the discussion in any way other than a string of "Shut Up, That's Why" arguments.

Anon wrote:

I am not saying anywhere that God exists ergo, I don't have to demonstrate it.

Fine, you claim it is reasonable to assume God may exist. I present the exact same argument saying that is not a reasonable position. Are you going to join in the discussion, or are you going to keep fleeing like a coward? I know which one I'd put money on.

Anon wrote:

Typical mistake made by fundies number 1: Anyone who opposes you is taking a position that is the polar opposite of yours. Therefore, if I am arguing that you can't safely claim God doesn't exist, I must be claiming that he does.

Because I assume when someone joins in a discussion it means they have something to contribute, and is not going to scream "NUH-UH!" in my face without ever daring to make a claim or even an argument of his own. I apologize for thinking too much of you.

Anon wrote:

Typical mistake made by fundies number 2: Your position, however weak or ill supported, is automatically rational and logical regardless of what anyone else may say.

Begging the question. You haven't proven my arguments are weak, ill-supported, or irrational. As I have said many times, in any discussion I am more than willing to change my mind if it can be shown my arguments are in error. Is this a courtesy you wish to share?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Last chance. Are we having a discussion or not?

Anon wrote:

I don't see how the existence or non-existence of god is so fundamental to the nature of reality.

Really? The only way you could claim this with a straight face is by positing the existence of a deity which created reality but left no evidence of having done so, did so for no discernible reason, places no special importance on anything in reality, is unable to further affect reality in any way, and is unrelated to anything humans could ever conceivably experience in life or death.

I guess that isn't technically atheism, but for all intents and purposes it might as well be.

TheHermit wrote:

Really? The only way you could claim this with a straight face is by positing the existence of a deity which created reality but left no evidence of having done so, did so for no discernible reason, places no special importance on anything in reality, is unable to further affect reality in any way, and is unrelated to anything humans could ever conceivably experience in life or death.

I guess that isn't technically atheism, but for all intents and purposes it might as well be.

Are you done playing the know-it-all asshole yet

oh wait, everyone is playing the part, who am I kidding

and by saying this, it makes me one too

we're all assholes here

at least that's what I've heard

Jesus Christ Lady Anne

you realise that the popcorn smilie is short for 'I haven't a single original thought in my brainless little skull. Postcount UP!' don't you?

Loaf wrote:

TheHermit wrote:

Really? The only way you could claim this with a straight face is by positing the existence of a deity which created reality but left no evidence of having done so, did so for no discernible reason, places no special importance on anything in reality, is unable to further affect reality in any way, and is unrelated to anything humans could ever conceivably experience in life or death.

I guess that isn't technically atheism, but for all intents and purposes it might as well be.

Are you done playing the know-it-all asshole yet

oh wait, everyone is playing the part, who am I kidding

and by saying this, it makes me one too

we're all assholes here

at least that's what I've heard

The smug in this thread is reaching dangerous levels.

TheHermit wrote:

Anon wrote:

It is perfectly possible for God to exist without giving us anything to use as evidence for its existence.

Perhaps it is possible, but it is not reasonable to make that assumption given how many assumptions we would have to make to allow that possibility.. Occam's Razor. Learn it, love it. To say God's existence can be declared a reasonable possibility given no evidence IS special pleading, weaseling aside.

Positive assertion: God exists - needs evidence to back it up. Positive assertion: God doesn't exist - needs evidence to back it up. Claim - In the absence of any evidence to back up either of the above assertions, the best thing to do is to admit that either could be true. The logic is simple enough. How much evidence do you need?

As for Occam's Razor, well the simplest explanation for our existence is 'God did it'. Why is X wrong? The simplest explanation is 'God said so'. Whether or not the simplest explanation for what we observe is that God doesn't exist depends on how you approach the issue.

Quote :

Anon wrote:

No. The thing about Russel's Teapot is that I can take what I know about the workings of the universe and deduce that the probability of a teapot existing there is negligible. Unicorns, leprechauns, fairies etc are all impossible according to everything we can observe about the universe. There is no evidence for their existence, so I assume they don't exist. The same cannot be said about God.

Yes it can. Or at least, I could if you had the balls to define god in any sense whatsoever.

It can? I can treat what we have observed about the universe as evidence against the existence of God? Really? The point here is that in the case of Russel's teapot there is some evidence I can use, namely our observations about the way the universe works. I have stated before that this same evidence cannot be used about God because anything that created the universe cannot be a part of it.

Quote :

I have explained several times in this very thread that you must do so before you can even claim that believing there may be a god is a rational position. But you won't; you'll simply stay up there in your ivory tower, disguising your ignorance and apathy as wisdom, never contributing to the discussion in any way other than a string of "Shut Up, That's Why" arguments.

Um, yeah. You do realise that you have also given a load of "Shut Up, That's Why" arguments. You talk about 'shifting the burden of proof'. I'm not shifting it. You are claiming to know something to be correct and claiming that you know this because, while you have no actual evidence to support your assertion, the other side doesn't have any either. That was and is pretty much your entire argument, that you have repeated ad nauseum. What you haven't done is show why I should treat your assertion that God doesn't exist any differently from the way I treat the assertion that God does exist.

Let's see what I have said about God: God, for this purposes of this argument, is the creator of this universe and as such isn't a part of it. I am also treating God as a sentient being. This is all the definition I need in order for my argument to work. What further definition do you require?

Quote :

Anon wrote:

I am not saying anywhere that God exists ergo, I don't have to demonstrate it.

Fine, you claim it is reasonable to assume God may exist. I present the exact same argument saying that is not a reasonable position. Are you going to join in the discussion, or are you going to keep fleeing like a coward? I know which one I'd put money on.

See my first comment in this post. You are the one making the assertion. The level of evidence for that assertion is exactly the same as the level of evidence for its opposite. In order for me to be wrong, I need a concrete argument demonstrating that I should treat them differently. This is not what you have provided. Instead you have just been screaming "NUH-UH".

Quote :

Anon wrote:

Typical mistake made by fundies number 1: Anyone who opposes you is taking a position that is the polar opposite of yours. Therefore, if I am arguing that you can't safely claim God doesn't exist, I must be claiming that he does.

Because I assume when someone joins in a discussion it means they have something to contribute, and is not going to scream "NUH-UH!" in my face without ever daring to make a claim or even an argument of his own. I apologize for thinking too much of you.

Me? I claimed that your assertion that God doesn't exist isn't supported by the available evidence. The response has been one of two things.

1. Yes it is, because the logic we use where there is, actually, some kind of evidence to the contrary, also works here where there is absolutely no evidence either way.
   
2. Yes it is. If God exists, it should provide us with evidence of its existence because, well, I said so O.K.?

I reject number one because I think that having some evidence, such as say, rejecting the existence of something on the grounds that it would apparently have to violate the laws of physics in order to exist, is not at all the same thing as simply rejecting its existence. I shouldn't have to explain number 2. You have also ended up gearing your arguments against me to being ones against what my position would be if I was making the case that God exists, rather than the position I'm taking.

Quote :

Anon wrote:

Typical mistake made by fundies number 2: Your position, however weak or ill supported, is automatically rational and logical regardless of what anyone else may say.

Begging the question. You haven't proven my arguments are weak, ill-supported, or irrational. As I have said many times, in any discussion I am more than willing to change my mind if it can be shown my arguments are in error. Is this a courtesy you wish to share?

Not the point here. Point is that you are operating on the assumption that any rational person will automatically agree with you, and when others say that your logic is flawed, you scream 'OPPRESSION! WHY AREN'T I ALLOWED TO QUESTION THIS?' despite the fact that no one has said anything of the kind. You have also been operating on the assumption that my claim is similar to the assertion that God does exist, without having given any reason for why this is the case other than "SHUT UP. MY POSITION IS THE DEFAULT. HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST OTHERWISE.".

The reason my argument isn't like the assertion that God exists? I'm not claiming to know anything. I'm not stating that something is absolutely definitely true.

Quote :

Anon wrote:

I don't see how the existence or non-existence of god is so fundamental to the nature of reality.

Really? The only way you could claim this with a straight face is by positing the existence of a deity which created reality but left no evidence of having done so, did so for no discernible reason, places no special importance on anything in reality, is unable to further affect reality in any way, and is unrelated to anything humans could ever conceivably experience in life or death.

I guess that isn't technically atheism, but for all intents and purposes it might as well be.

What would the existence of God change for us? You have said yourself that there is no evidence for God's existence. The laws of physics are the same regardless. We live our lives in the same way regardless. If there is some being that is manipulating us and altering our choices, can we do anything about it? Does the existence of God mean there is an afterlife? Do we stop trusting anything we can observe for lack of certainty that some outside force hasn't changed it or that it might be changed in future? Do we suddenly start spending our entire lives trying to figure out what God wants us to do so that we can do it? Oh, wait. Never mind. Morals can exist without God. Our lives can have purpose and meaning without God. Even the afterlife can, theoretically, exist without God.

Anon wrote:

Positive assertion: God doesn't exist - needs evidence to back it up.

"God does not exist" is not a positive claim. Or do you not see the word "not" in there? This is why the default position during a criminal trial is the defendant is not guilty of the alleged crime. If the prosecution fails to prove the crime took place, that what took place was a crime, or the defendant was the one to commit it, the defense doesn't have to say a word; those who say it is not true win by default. An accountant does not assume there is someone cooking the books unless he goes through the numbers and they suggest money has disappeared somewhere along the line; no issue with the numbers, no embezzler. It is not rational to assume there might be a bear in your house waiting to tear your face off unless you are given some evidence a bear might be in the house. I could come up with dozens of examples real people use every day to rule out some theoretical idea despite no evidence either way (after all, there might theoretically be a bear in your house even if there's no evidence for it... but given humans have finite reasoning power it is irrational to consider the possibility unless some positive evidence is forthcoming). The burden of proof is not exactly the same for non-existence as existence in these situations. Arguing these same assumptions and rules do not apply to god is special pleading. I don't know how I can make this any clearer.

Anon wrote:

As for Occam's Razor, well the simplest explanation for our existence is 'God did it'. Why is X wrong? The simplest explanation is 'God said so'. Whether or not the simplest explanation for what we observe is that God doesn't exist depends on how you approach the issue.

Occam's Razor does not support the simplest idea, but the one with the least suppositions. I mentioned that earlier in the discussion, being ignorant of this is inexcusable. In this case, there are far fewer suppositions to saying "the universe was not created, it has always existed in some shape or form", so it is the superior explanation given the evidence we have.

Anon wrote:

I have stated before that this same evidence cannot be used about God because anything that created the universe cannot be a part of it.

And that is still an unsupported assertion. What evidence do we have that anything at all exists outside the universe? What evidence do you have that the universe has not existed forever in some way, shape or form? What evidence do you have that the universe was ever "created" at all? See, this is what I meant by Occam's Razor. You're making a LOT of assumptions to keep the door open for a god's existence when it is far simpler to assume there is none.

Anon wrote:

You do realise that you have also given a load of "Shut Up, That's Why" arguments. You talk about 'shifting the burden of proof'. I'm not shifting it. You are claiming to know something to be correct and claiming that you know this because, while you have no actual evidence to support your assertion, the other side doesn't have any either.

You don't know what I actually mean by a "Shut Up, That's Why" argument, do you? Not a single one of my posts has had the purpose of shutting down the debate (other than the one where I accused, correctly, that Notanoni was not arguing in good faith). I have always attempted to move the discussion forward by making my arguments and defending my positions. Asserting you are correct is not a "Shut Up, That's Why" argument. Claiming you don't need any evidence, or that it is unreasonable to make any claim about anything whatsoever, that is a "Shut Up, That's Why" argument. And you've basically been doing nothing else.

Anon wrote:

That was and is pretty much your entire argument, that you have repeated ad nauseum. What you haven't done is show why I should treat your assertion that God doesn't exist any differently from the way I treat the assertion that God does exist.

Yes I have. You just argue that the rules don't apply to you because, I don't know, they just don't. Special pleading all up in here.

Anon wrote:

Let's see what I have said about God: God, for this purposes of this argument, is the creator of this universe and as such isn't a part of it. I am also treating God as a sentient being. This is all the definition I need in order for my argument to work. What further definition do you require?

Finally, a positive claim! That only took what, five posts? But it needs a little more work. Prove there is anything at all outside the physical world (here defined as "anything that is observable, measurable, and confirmable by humans either by direct witness or that can be inferred by measuring its effects"). Further prove sentient beings exist outside the universe. Further prove these sentient beings are capable of creating a universe. Prove the universe was "created" at all. Prove a supposed creator would have to be a sentient being. Prove a supposed creator would have to exist outside physical reality. See how many assumptions you're making here? Do you see how incomplete your thesis is, and why it is unreasonable to treat it as an actual idea? By attempting to answer the question "How was the universe created?" you've only succeeded in raising further questions that cannot possibly be answered.

Anon wrote:

See my first comment in this post. You are the one making the assertion. The level of evidence for that assertion is exactly the same as the level of evidence for its opposite. In order for me to be wrong, I need a concrete argument demonstrating that I should treat them differently. This is not what you have provided. Instead you have just been screaming "NUH-UH".

So many words to say "NO U", in stark contradiction to the evidence available in the thread.

Anon wrote:

You have also ended up gearing your arguments against me to being ones against what my position would be if I was making the case that God exists, rather than the position I'm taking.

That's because they're functionally identical. "'God exists' is a rational conclusion" has the exact same problems and makes the exact same errors as making the direct argument that "god exists". Why should I not argue against them the same way? More correctly, how do these two arguments differ in a meaningful way? It looks as if you were trying to set a trap with semantics, but were unaware that your trap was flawed from the start.

Anon wrote:

Not the point here. Point is that you are operating on the assumption that any rational person will automatically agree with you, and when others say that your logic is flawed, you scream 'OPPRESSION! WHY AREN'T I ALLOWED TO QUESTION THIS?' despite the fact that no one has said anything of the kind.

Straw man. I've never claimed the board has been oppressing me.

Anon wrote:

What would the existence of God change for us? You have said yourself that there is no evidence for God's existence. The laws of physics are the same regardless. We live our lives in the same way regardless. If there is some being that is manipulating us and altering our choices, can we do anything about it? Does the existence of God mean there is an afterlife? Do we stop trusting anything we can observe for lack of certainty that some outside force hasn't changed it or that it might be changed in future? Do we suddenly start spending our entire lives trying to figure out what God wants us to do so that we can do it? Oh, wait. Never mind. Morals can exist without God. Our lives can have purpose and meaning without God.

You missed my point. How is a universe you describe different from one in which there was never any god? Why even bother holding onto some belief that god might exist when you've defined him to the point of irrelevancy?

Anon wrote:

Even the afterlife can, theoretically, exist without God.

Perhaps, but it is reasonable to conclude there can be no afterlife given the observation that no part of the human psyche survives brain death. This is a totally different discussion altogether and I have no intention of elaborating or arguing the point further.

TheHermit wrote:

How dare those atheists say they exist! How dare they share their ideas? Aren't those atheists such assholes, with all their "Hey, can't we have a discussion about this?" They oughtta just get back in the closet!

TheHermit wrote:

Anon wrote:

Not the point here. Point is that you are operating on the assumption that any rational person will automatically agree with you, and when others say that your logic is flawed, you scream 'OPPRESSION! WHY AREN'T I ALLOWED TO QUESTION THIS?' despite the fact that no one has said anything of the kind.

Straw man. I've never claimed the board has been oppressing me.

Looks like fish, smells like fish, Occam's razor would suggest it is...

Yeah but I think he meant he keeps running into that attitude and that's why he's so hostile towards theists, not that that's what he's hearing on WGW specifically.

TheHermit wrote:

Anon wrote:

Positive assertion: God doesn't exist - needs evidence to back it up.

"God does not exist" is not a positive claim. Or do you not see the word "not" in there?

When I say positive claim, I mean that you are asserting that something is true.

Quote :

This is why the default position during a criminal trial is the defendant is not guilty of the alleged crime. If the prosecution fails to prove the crime took place, that what took place was a crime, or the defendant was the one to commit it, the defense doesn't have to say a word; those who say it is not true win by default. An accountant does not assume there is someone cooking the books unless he goes through the numbers and they suggest money has disappeared somewhere along the line; no issue with the numbers, no embezzler. It is not rational to assume there might be a bear in your house waiting to tear your face off unless you are given some evidence a bear might be in the house. I could come up with dozens of examples real people use every day to rule out some theoretical idea despite no evidence either way (after all, there might theoretically be a bear in your house even if there's no evidence for it... but given humans have finite reasoning power it is irrational to consider the possibility unless some positive evidence is forthcoming). The burden of proof is not exactly the same for non-existence as existence in these situations. Arguing these same assumptions and rules do not apply to god is special pleading. I don't know how I can make this any clearer.

First of all, a not guilty verdict doesn't mean that someone didn't do it, it means that the prosecution were unable to satisfactorily prove that they did something. Did you miss the bit where I explicitly stated that these situations do, in fact, use evidence? You can tell me that there is a bear in my house waiting to rip my face off, but I know from experience that there shouldn't be any bears living within a 500 mile radius, I will disregard it on that basis, unless you can show that there is a reason for a live bear to be in the area.

Quote :

Anon wrote:

As for Occam's Razor, well the simplest explanation for our existence is 'God did it'. Why is X wrong? The simplest explanation is 'God said so'. Whether or not the simplest explanation for what we observe is that God doesn't exist depends on how you approach the issue.

Occam's Razor does not support the simplest idea, but the one with the least suppositions. I mentioned that earlier in the discussion, being ignorant of this is inexcusable. In this case, there are far fewer suppositions to saying "the universe was not created, it has always existed in some shape or form", so it is the superior explanation given the evidence we have.

The evidence we have tells us that at some point there was an event called the Big Bang which is, effectively, the starting point of our universe. Anything you say about things prior to that is an unfounded assumption.

Quote :

Anon wrote:

I have stated before that this same evidence cannot be used about God because anything that created the universe cannot be a part of it.

And that is still an unsupported assertion. What evidence do we have that anything at all exists outside the universe? What evidence do you have that the universe has not existed forever in some way, shape or form? What evidence do you have that the universe was ever "created" at all? See, this is what I meant by Occam's Razor. You're making a LOT of assumptions to keep the door open for a god's existence when it is far simpler to assume there is none.

I don't have evidence that the universe was created, but the question of 'Why did the Big Bang occur?' remains open regardless and you can't avoid making some assumptions somewhere, which will, pretty much inevitably, be completely unfounded.

The 'outside the universe' one is somewhat complicated. There is a theory with, I believe, some evidence for it, even if it is only speculative mathematics, that states that every event that can possibly happen will happen but you only ever experience one of them. The alternate events have to happen somewhere, which depending on how you think of it, may or may not qualify as being within our universe. The general interpretation is that they are different universes. This theory is only used for demonstrative purposes. While this isn't a particularly strong case for God existing, it is a reason to believe that something may exist outside of our universe. Any attempt to take this further in any direction means making unfounded assumptions.

Quote :

Anon wrote:

You do realise that you have also given a load of "Shut Up, That's Why" arguments. You talk about 'shifting the burden of proof'. I'm not shifting it. You are claiming to know something to be correct and claiming that you know this because, while you have no actual evidence to support your assertion, the other side doesn't have any either.

You don't know what I actually mean by a "Shut Up, That's Why" argument, do you? Not a single one of my posts has had the purpose of shutting down the debate (other than the one where I accused, correctly, that Notanoni was not arguing in good faith). I have always attempted to move the discussion forward by making my arguments and defending my positions. Asserting you are correct is not a "Shut Up, That's Why" argument. Claiming you don't need any evidence, or that it is unreasonable to make any claim about anything whatsoever, that is a "Shut Up, That's Why" argument. And you've basically been doing nothing else.

Demonstrating that something is true requires evidence. Demonstrating that something doesn't have to be false requires... well, less evidence.

Quote :

Anon wrote:

Let's see what I have said about God: God, for this purposes of this argument, is the creator of this universe and as such isn't a part of it. I am also treating God as a sentient being. This is all the definition I need in order for my argument to work. What further definition do you require?

Finally, a positive claim! That only took what, five posts? But it needs a little more work. Prove there is anything at all outside the physical world (here defined as "anything that is observable, measurable, and confirmable by humans either by direct witness or that can be inferred by measuring its effects"). Further prove sentient beings exist outside the universe. Further prove these sentient beings are capable of creating a universe. Prove the universe was "created" at all. Prove a supposed creator would have to be a sentient being. Prove a supposed creator would have to exist outside physical reality. See how many assumptions you're making here? Do you see how incomplete your thesis is, and why it is unreasonable to treat it as an actual idea? By attempting to answer the question "How was the universe created?" you've only succeeded in raising further questions that cannot possibly be answered.

If you had been reading my posts, you might have realised that, as I explicitly stated, I had already made those points. As for the sentient bit, well that isn't particularly relevant to this branch of the argument. It was more an underlying assumption in my discussion Adagio.

Quote :

Anon wrote:

You have also ended up gearing your arguments against me to being ones against what my position would be if I was making the case that God exists, rather than the position I'm taking.

That's because they're functionally identical. "'God exists' is a rational conclusion" has the exact same problems and makes the exact same errors as making the direct argument that "god exists". Why should I not argue against them the same way? More correctly, how do these two arguments differ in a meaningful way? It looks as if you were trying to set a trap with semantics, but were unaware that your trap was flawed from the start.

No. God could exist and God exists are two different things. I am not saying that 'God exists' is a rational conclusion. The logic in my argument can be applied equally to either assertion. That, however, is my point. Both assertions should be treated the same way for the same reasons.

Quote :

Anon wrote:

Not the point here. Point is that you are operating on the assumption that any rational person will automatically agree with you, and when others say that your logic is flawed, you scream 'OPPRESSION! WHY AREN'T I ALLOWED TO QUESTION THIS?' despite the fact that no one has said anything of the kind.

Straw man. I've never claimed the board has been oppressing me.

Not in so many words, but neither did anyone ever tell you that you weren't allowed to question faith, or even anything close to it.

Quote :

Anon wrote:

What would the existence of God change for us? You have said yourself that there is no evidence for God's existence. The laws of physics are the same regardless. We live our lives in the same way regardless. If there is some being that is manipulating us and altering our choices, can we do anything about it? Does the existence of God mean there is an afterlife? Do we stop trusting anything we can observe for lack of certainty that some outside force hasn't changed it or that it might be changed in future? Do we suddenly start spending our entire lives trying to figure out what God wants us to do so that we can do it? Oh, wait. Never mind. Morals can exist without God. Our lives can have purpose and meaning without God.

You missed my point. How is a universe you describe different from one in which there was never any god? Why even bother holding onto some belief that god might exist when you've defined him to the point of irrelevancy?

I simply won't rule it out without reason.

I am sorry for my behaviour in this thread up until now. I have done a poor job of defending my point.

Question to all the atheists. What exactly do you call this place seeing as it calls to a deity that you don't think exists? Why Oh Why?

Somath Cegem wrote:

Question to all the atheists. What exactly do you call this place seeing as it calls to a deity that you don't think exists? Why Oh Why?

Without getting into this argument (because seriously, guys? Neither side is gonna win. Jus' sayin'), I have no problem with using the word "god" despite not believing one exists (and, for the record, I also have no issues with anyone choosing to believe in one, as long as they don't bother me with it, although I don't have a very high opinion of organized religion as such). Consider it a multi-purpose exclamation whose intent is usually understood by most people (and really, using "gad" or "goodness" or similar things smacks of the self-censoring self-righteous parental units try to push on everyone, which I vehemently oppose, so this is to piss them off as much as anything).

^ Pretty much that. The word "God" used as an exclamation is so entrenched in the English language that a) it doesn't actually have a good alternative, and b) for a lot of people its use is barely even religious anymore.

Adagio wrote:

^ Pretty much that. The word "God" used as an exclamation is so entrenched in the English language that a) it doesn't actually have a good alternative, and b) for a lot of people its use is barely even religious anymore.

This. I know so many teenagers who whine "Oh. My. God." when told they cannot eat, drink, chew gum, wax their eyebrows, fuck, etc. in the library.