• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New York Atheists Angry Over 'Heaven' Street Sign Honoring Sept. 11 victims

The Barbarian said:
chuckles- this whole thread is a fair tale.

Religion is a belief either you believe or your don't. There is no fact needed. Asking one to prove his belief is just asinine ..
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The assertion that Jesus Christ is the son of the one true god, and any number of the propositions contained in scripture are literally true, is a scientific claim, and a horrifically bogus one, at that. There is absolutely nothing that purports to represent anything true about the real world that can be said to be 'outside' of science. That, by definition, is science.

The Barbarian said:
Usually I come back to them with prove to me that you love your wife or kids. give me undeniable proof. They can't either, so I guess using the same system .. .they don't love their wife and kids either.
Click to expand...

Probably because they aren't neurologists, or are unwilling to submit to blood tests and an fMRI. However, using these tools, it would, indeed, be possible to verify this contention.

The Barbarian said:
Atheists choose not to believe in God, and there is nothing wrong with that what-so-ever,
Click to expand...

It's not an issue of 'choice', any more than I 'choose' to 'believe' in gravity.

The Barbarian said:
but for them to claim that science is on their side is just as silly,
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. If one is truly scientifically minded, Atheism is the only option, everything else is irrational.

The Barbarian said:
science has offered up their view of how the universe was created, but that is all it is their view.... after all we all know that science have never been wrong before right ? Believing in a science that is claiming how something .. anything happened a billion years ago ….. is nothing more then a belief … it's certainly cannot be called factual.
Click to expand...

Ok, here's the root of the problem; you are suffering from a very poor understanding of science.

Like the Dude said; 'Yeah, well, y'know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.' Except that isn't it at all. There are a number of fundamental problems with this.

You're talking as if scripture and science were on equal footing; they aren't even close. Scientists base conclusions on mountains of data and physical evidence, and they tend to be conservative. Scripture makes very extreme and completely unsubstantiated claims, which we are supposed to accept, wholeheartedly, at face value.

You're assertion that scientists have been wrong in the past, and will probably be wrong again in the future, is, at it's face, a banal and obvious truism. However, what you are really doing is expressing a deeper skepticism about science as a project, or, more fundamentally, even the concept of truth, itself. This is bogus for a number of reasons. First and foremost, science is really unique in that it gets better over time, it continually gives us better tools and better answers, to make better tools to get even better answers. Also, science has progressed substantially from the dark ages. We are within arm's reach of a unified theory of physics which explains everything in the universe,; from subatomic particles, to supermassive black holes, etc. Medicine, biology, you name it, we're running out of mysteries. The list of questions science can't, or hasn't, answer(ed) is getting shorter by the day. The prospect that we're going to find out we're horribly mistaken about some fundamental truth, like consciousness exists in the brain, (I think we're going to disagree on that one.) or gravity is a force exerted by bodies proportional to their mass, etc., that this will turn out to be wrong, at this stage in the game, is ****ing preposterous.

True to form, you are making very authoritative statements about Astrophysics that you are completely unqualified to make. Rather than making bold, unsubstantiated assertions, I recommend you check yourself out a textbook, or simply ask a scientist, who, I'm sure, would be happy to explain this to you. How can we know, definitively, what happened a billion years ago? For one thing, we can measure Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation with satellites like WMAP, which gives us a picture of the universe over 12 billion years ago, roughly 400,000 years after the Big Bang. There are also a number of other techniques and tools, which one could easily find out about if one was inclined to look. The proposed Laser Interferometer Satellite AKA LISA, proposed for 2018/2020, which measures gravity waves, will be far more accurate, giving us a picture of the universe within one trillionth of a second after the Big Bang.

The Barbarian said:
Those that choose to not believe, will believe what “fits” their beliefs, those that chose to believe choose to believe what “fits” their beliefs... it's really all nothing more then a matter of what one believes …
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. See above.
 
BDBoop said:
And now you are generalizing as well?
Click to expand...

After a bit of thought, yes, I am. Because this one is true. In fact, it's true of everyone. Everyone wants their beliefs respected.

And I'm happy to do that on a legal level. But in a debate? No. You have to tell me why your beliefs deserve respect. Claiming immunity due to the fact that religion is socially safeguarded against being questioned is not a good enough reason, and that is something I hear a lot of.

So I'll refine my concept: Most of the people I see demanding their beliefs be respected as valid within a debate when they can provide no reason why they should be are religious.
 
theplaydrive said:
there is evidence, it's just no objective.
Click to expand...
Such as?

theplaydrive said:
although to be fair, you're qualifications for reliable evidence aren't very good considering that sound and the color green can't be verified by "anyone" either - it would have been best to stop at reliable and consistent.
Click to expand...
The senses of color and sound are consistent, reliable, and verifiable by others. Even the colorblind or deaf because we can devise a simple test to PROVE that a color or sound exists.

Get a whole bunch of cards that look identical to whatever the colorblind see green as and 1 card that is actually green. On the green card we will right "green" and put it face down. Now mix all the cards up and I'll pick out the one card that has "green" written on the back without actually looking at it. I've just proven that green exists or that I'm magical.

Similar experiments can be done for other senses.

theplaydrive said:
I already understand why people don't believe in God, what are you talking about?
Click to expand...
There is no evidence against unicorns because a unicorn-believer's beliefs can be unfalsifiable. Similar unfalsifiable beliefs (such as certain Christian beliefs) show this same pattern.


theplaydrive said:
no, you're not understanding. a holybook does not necessitate that God created the laws of nature - the existence of God as creator of the universe alone necessitates that.
Click to expand...
And how do you know that god is creator of the universe and exists? Could not unicorns or leprechauns and all manner of others things be claimed to exist using the exact same standard of evidence you used to determine that god exist and created the universe? E.G., god exists and created the universe because my holy book says so; unicorns exist and are invisible because a holybook says so.

theplaydrive said:
If God created the universe, he created its laws and can therefore break them - no book actually says this i don't think - it's just reason. you should be able to see this.
Click to expand...
And if unicorns are born with magic hair that makes them undetectable then it makes sense that so few people find them. Are you starting to see that when there is no basis for falsifying a claim then ANYTHING can be presented to prop up that claim?


theplaydrive said:
Right, God is the ultimate falsifiable idea, so the unicorn analogy is correct in that very limited connection.

However, there are reasons to believe God exists and can manipulate the laws of nature
Click to expand...
There are no REASONS. They are only unsubstantiated ASSERTIONS and CLAIMS that are fundamentally indistinguishable from any other supernatural claim whether it be unicorns, leprechauns, gods, spirits, ghosts, auras, chakras, etc. Unicorns are presented as an example of a belief that is not contingent on the "evidence" because all data can be interpreted by the unicorn narrative. Likewise, Christians interpret all evidence in relation to their narrative. Muslims in relation to theirs, Hindu's in relation to theirs , Native Americans in relation to theirs, and so on and so forth.


theplaydrive said:
It isn't falsifiable with our current technology
Click to expand...
And neither are unicorns or leprechauns..... and hence you are left with the following "arguments:
1) My holy-book says so.
2) I really honestly believe unicorns exist so you should too!
3) My grandmother saw one when she was about to die from cancer and it saved her. Her cancer is gone! Are you calling my grandmother a liar?
4) ..... etc.

theplaydrive said:
but believers don't make it falsifiable - human beings don't have the power to make a belief unfalsifiable or not. We believe and the nature of that belief exists on its own.
Click to expand...
You can believe whatever you like. All i can do is point out that you believe unfalsifiable ideas based predominately on unverifiable holy book tales and personal testimony. I would stress the importance of establishing beliefs on better standards and criteria.

It can also be pointed out that thousands of gods, spirits, demons, auras, and other supernatural claims are EQUALLY supported in the same respect as your god. It just so happens that you were born/raised into a family/country/society with a particular bias to one supernatural narrative over others.


theplaydrive said:
sure, anything can answer any question, but why would i believe in a unicorn when we've scoured the earth for all animals?
Click to expand...
[playing unicorn advocate] Because they are undetectable unless they want you to see them. Its all right here in the unicorn-holy-book! Don't you want to know the truth? Don't you want to obtain everlasting life?

theplaydrive said:
If I ask a unicorn believer, "why can unicorns break the laws of nature and become invisible?" Their only answer is "just because".
Click to expand...
You suffer from a failure of imagination.
Click to expand...
theplaydrive said:
Thank you.
Click to expand...

Argument from incredulity/Lack of imagination

Arguments from incredulity take the form:

P is too incredible (or I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
It is obvious that P (or I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false) therefore P must be true.

These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.

unfalsifiable claims are impossible to prove wrong. That is part of the point being made.
Click to expand...
theplaydrive said:
right and that doesn't have any effect on the possibility that God exists
Click to expand...
correct. It doesn't have any effect on the possibility that God, unicorns, leprechauns, spirits, ghosts, chakras, auras, etc exist. The reasonable thing to do is to withhold belief until reason and/or evidence presents itself. And we've already covered the unreliability or holy book tales and unverifiable testimony.

theplaydrive said:
and that god's possible existence rests on different foundations than unicorns.
Click to expand...
Never said otherwise. The unicorn analogy is only to demonstrate that by putting the god concept beyond evidence and falsification provides the ultimate paradigm of how not to think about stuff. When God is so abstracted, what is left is zero evidence, no falsification criteria, and just the narrative in which the God concept is wielded; a point which means belief in the God concept acts out just like belief in unicorns. Yet not many theists accept unicorns as anything other than fantasy.


theplaydrive said:
Also, I don't think any scientists would think asking about the cause of the universe is a nonsensical question - big bang theory is evidence of that.
Click to expand...
The big bang is a description of what happened after some point in time. it does not describe how everything came into existence or whether it was always there or not. That is a common misunderstanding.

theplaydrive said:
Human beings like to know where things came from and the idea that the question is nonsensical is just as detrimental to critical thought as believing blindly in religion.
Click to expand...
You claim that everything has a cause. Causality requires time (A causes B which causes C ...which causes Z) If there was no time before or right at the moment of the big bang then causality breaks down making your question nonsense.
 
Erod said:
Atheists are funny. They've created an existence out of nothing. I don't believe in unicorns, but I didn't fashion a title for myself, nor do I practice within a group, to acknowledge that I don't believe in unicorns.
Click to expand...

Do over 5 billion people believe in unicorns?
 
American said:
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you this time. Maybe you're different, but I've found most atheists I've met online to be assholes when discussing or debating religion. They usually turn into mouthfoaming rabid animals, shortly after the debate begins. Don't believe me, just hang around. They're not just non-believers, they hate religion with a passion. Words like "Flat-earthers" usually pops up at least once in every debate with them. Then they'll start talking about how the founders were deists or atheists and hated God with all their souls, especially Thomas Jefferson.
Click to expand...

That's probably because most atheists you've met online are responding to threads like the one you created: http://www.debatepolitics.com/church-and-state/78570-without-god-there-no-inalienable-rights.html . From the looks of it, you don't wish to discuss religion more than you wish to blast those who don't share the same belief. After reading the first page of that thread, perhaps you may wish to change your opinion up a bit, because it doesn't look like the atheists are the guilty party here.

I brought up that thread to illustrate a point. Most folks who have problems with atheists think that society should be a lot more Christian. It isn't enough to have "in God we trust" on our cash, or that a kid in school can pray silently. They believe that public schools should have classroom prayer led by a teacher or principal involving everyone, and science classes should teach Creationism as well as Intelligent Design (despite the fact that neither is science). Gay marriage should not be allowed because homosexuality is an abomination to many Christians, and then of course there are the religious-fueled arguments against other social issues - abortion, stem cell research, etc. When the Christian god is invoked to support a position in any of these debates, anyone who actually counters with "well, I don't believe in God" is demonized as someone who is trying to take away the rights of Christians because they are an atheist.

Another example is this. I attend the Southern Modified NASCAR events, and they always have a racer's prayer before the National Anthem. I don't bow my head and pray, but I am respectfully silent. I had a person at one of these events tell me once to bow my head and pray with the rest of them, to which I replied with a "no thank you". Long story short, this person was pissed off enough at me to make a scene because I wasn't praying, which in turn pissed me off because she couldn't respect my choice not to pray. I'm sure in her mind I constituted someone who was warring against Christianity, when the reality of the situation is that I simply wanted to watch the race without worshipping some deity.

My view is probably that of the typical everyday atheist. I have nothing against religion when it is used for noble purposes. When religion feeds the homeless, helps the poor, and gives people hope, it's a good thing; however, when it says who can or can't get married, labels a perfectly normal lifestyle as 'wrong', or shuts down the local strip clubs, then it's a bad thing.
 
NGNM85 said:
Nonsense. The assertion that Jesus Christ is the son of the one true god, and any number of the propositions contained in scripture are literally true, is a scientific claim, and a horrifically bogus one, at that. There is absolutely nothing that purports to represent anything true about the real world that can be said to be 'outside' of science. That, by definition, is science.



Probably because they aren't neurologists, or are unwilling to submit to blood tests and an fMRI. However, using these tools, it would, indeed, be possible to verify this contention.



It's not an issue of 'choice', any more than I 'choose' to 'believe' in gravity.



No, it isn't. If one is truly scientifically minded, Atheism is the only option, everything else is irrational.



Ok, here's the root of the problem; you are suffering from a very poor understanding of science.

Like the Dude said; 'Yeah, well, y'know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.' Except that isn't it at all. There are a number of fundamental problems with this.

You're talking as if scripture and science were on equal footing; they aren't even close. Scientists base conclusions on mountains of data and physical evidence, and they tend to be conservative. Scripture makes very extreme and completely unsubstantiated claims, which we are supposed to accept, wholeheartedly, at face value.

You're assertion that scientists have been wrong in the past, and will probably be wrong again in the future, is, at it's face, a banal and obvious truism. However, what you are really doing is expressing a deeper skepticism about science as a project, or, more fundamentally, even the concept of truth, itself. This is bogus for a number of reasons. First and foremost, science is really unique in that it gets better over time, it continually gives us better tools and better answers, to make better tools to get even better answers. Also, science has progressed substantially from the dark ages. We are within arm's reach of a unified theory of physics which explains everything in the universe,; from subatomic particles, to supermassive black holes, etc. Medicine, biology, you name it, we're running out of mysteries. The list of questions science can't, or hasn't, answer(ed) is getting shorter by the day. The prospect that we're going to find out we're horribly mistaken about some fundamental truth, like consciousness exists in the brain, (I think we're going to disagree on that one.) or gravity is a force exerted by bodies proportional to their mass, etc., that this will turn out to be wrong, at this stage in the game, is ****ing preposterous.

True to form, you are making very authoritative statements about Astrophysics that you are completely unqualified to make. Rather than making bold, unsubstantiated assertions, I recommend you check yourself out a textbook, or simply ask a scientist, who, I'm sure, would be happy to explain this to you. How can we know, definitively, what happened a billion years ago? For one thing, we can measure Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation with satellites like WMAP, which gives us a picture of the universe over 12 billion years ago, roughly 400,000 years after the Big Bang. There are also a number of other techniques and tools, which one could easily find out about if one was inclined to look. The proposed Laser Interferometer Satellite AKA LISA, proposed for 2018/2020, which measures gravity waves, will be far more accurate, giving us a picture of the universe within one trillionth of a second after the Big Bang.



No, it isn't. See above.
Click to expand...


Science as you say is always evolving, some things that were scientific fact 50 years ago, have proven to be nothing but fantasy, and 50 years from now, things that are deemed as scientific fact today will again be proven to be fantasy. To even suggest, as you seem to be doing, that we have reached the pinnacle of scientific fact is absurd …. unless you believe yourself to be a seer into our future.

I'm sorry you took it that I was comparing science and religion to be on the same footing, I certainly was not doing any such thing. I even stated that one's belief in God could not be proven, it is ones belief ….it's faith that God..... or a supreme being exists.

You're contention that love can be proven with a blood test or an MRI is just laughable, it might prove that you are related but nothing more, love is a feeling, nothing more … if as you seem to think it can be proven, then perhaps that needs to be done before anyone can get married, or have children … after all wouldn't that science solve the divorce rate and single parents raising kids ??

You seem to feel the need to put down anyone that doesn't conform to your way of thinking, maybe to make yourself feel important and better educated them others … and that too is fine .. whatever you need to do to make yourself feel good.

Unlike you I am not asking anyone to believe the way I do, even th unicorn guy … if he wants to believe in unicorns that is his choice ….most people believe in something that has yet to be proven … a classic example is intelligent life ( above ours) on another planet.

Then there is the simple way of looking at things ….. if you are right … and there is no supreme being, those of us that held that belief have lost nothing .. we certainly don't have to worry about someone like you coming to us after death and saying see I told you so.
 
Erod said:
New York Atheists Angry Over 'Heaven' Street Sign Honoring Sept. 11 Victims - FoxNews.com



Ah, yes, here's your American atheist in full form.

Question: If you truly believe there is no such thing as God, and therefore our lives and deaths don't really mean anything, why do you care? Why is this such a big deal? Is this not like scolding people for watching vampire movies, or children for watching Barney?

Or is it......you crave worth and attention and must be acknowledged no matter what.

Atheists are funny. They've created an existence out of nothing. I don't believe in unicorns, but I didn't fashion a title for myself, nor do I practice within a group, to acknowledge that I don't believe in unicorns.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, atheists like this give us all a bad name, and inadvertently give virulent anti-atheists more fuel to stoke their fires.

These people don't speak for the majority of atheists.

I'll also assume Erod doesn't speak for most religious folk...
 
Singularity said:
That's probably because most atheists you've met online are responding to threads like the one you created: http://www.debatepolitics.com/church-and-state/78570-without-god-there-no-inalienable-rights.html . From the looks of it, you don't wish to discuss religion more than you wish to blast those who don't share the same belief. After reading the first page of that thread, perhaps you may wish to change your opinion up a bit, because it doesn't look like the atheists are the guilty party here.

I brought up that thread to illustrate a point. Most folks who have problems with atheists think that society should be a lot more Christian. It isn't enough to have "in God we trust" on our cash, or that a kid in school can pray silently. They believe that public schools should have classroom prayer led by a teacher or principal involving everyone, and science classes should teach Creationism as well as Intelligent Design (despite the fact that neither is science). Gay marriage should not be allowed because homosexuality is an abomination to many Christians, and then of course there are the religious-fueled arguments against other social issues - abortion, stem cell research, etc. When the Christian god is invoked to support a position in any of these debates, anyone who actually counters with "well, I don't believe in God" is demonized as someone who is trying to take away the rights of Christians because they are an atheist.

Another example is this. I attend the Southern Modified NASCAR events, and they always have a racer's prayer before the National Anthem. I don't bow my head and pray, but I am respectfully silent. I had a person at one of these events tell me once to bow my head and pray with the rest of them, to which I replied with a "no thank you". Long story short, this person was pissed off enough at me to make a scene because I wasn't praying, which in turn pissed me off because she couldn't respect my choice not to pray. I'm sure in her mind I constituted someone who was warring against Christianity, when the reality of the situation is that I simply wanted to watch the race without worshipping some deity.

My view is probably that of the typical everyday atheist. I have nothing against religion when it is used for noble purposes. When religion feeds the homeless, helps the poor, and gives people hope, it's a good thing; however, when it says who can or can't get married, labels a perfectly normal lifestyle as 'wrong', or shuts down the local strip clubs, then it's a bad thing.
Click to expand...

TOTAL FAIL, the thread you referenced has nothing to do with gay marriage, forcing prayer in classrooms or at NASCAR events. Most people in that thread don't even understand the premise on which the title is based. But we're not going to derail this thread with that one here, are we? You ascersion in the first sentence of your second paragraph has no support.
 
As with all small groups, the idiot minority (of an already small minority) that is most vocal is the image that said group is going to have to the larger population. And idiot jackasses like these are what ends up being the example of "athiests" to the average person.

They shouldn't take down the sign, and there's nothing unconstitutional about it.
 
scourge99 said:
Such as?
Click to expand...
Personal experience, experiences shared with other believers and religious texts.

The senses of color and sound are consistent, reliable, and verifiable by others. Even the colorblind or deaf because we can devise a simple test to PROVE that a color or sound exists.

Get a whole bunch of cards that look identical to whatever the colorblind see green as and 1 card that is actually green. On the green card we will right "green" and put it face down. Now mix all the cards up and I'll pick out the one card that has "green" written on the back without actually looking at it. I've just proven that green exists or that I'm magical.

Similar experiments can be done for other senses.
Click to expand...
You said verifiable by ANYONE - my point was that that is a poor measurement of anything. Now you've changed it to verifiable by OTHERS. Thank you for recognizing your mistake.

There is no evidence against unicorns because a unicorn-believer's beliefs can be unfalsifiable. Similar unfalsifiable beliefs (such as certain Christian beliefs) show this same pattern.
Click to expand...
What does this have to do with you telling me "you can now understand why people don't believe in your god"? I already understand why people don't believe in God; you should stop making assumptions.

And how do you know that god is creator of the universe and exists?
Click to expand...
Strawman. I don't know - never said or implied I did. I said I believe.

Could not unicorns or leprechauns and all manner of others things be claimed to exist using the exact same standard of evidence you used to determine that god exist and created the universe? E.G., god exists and created the universe because my holy book says so; unicorns exist and are invisible because a holybook says so.
Click to expand...
Strawman: I don't believe in God because of a "holy book" - the same applies to many many others.

Also, sure, unicorns and the like could be posited to exist from "personal experience" and "religious texts". However, most people don't believe in things like that anymore because they are contradicted by science and our near complete discovery of all physical things on the planet. When things are disproved, educated people stop believing in them and things like unicorns fall into that category. The only thing that could have the power to "trick" us and break the laws of nature is the one who created them - this ability goes to one idea - God.

And if unicorns are born with magic hair that makes them undetectable then it makes sense that so few people find them. Are you starting to see that when there is no basis for falsifying a claim then ANYTHING can be presented to prop up that claim?
Click to expand...
You seem to to think you're teaching me a lot of things in this post, but you're not. I actually made this exact same argument in the previous post:
theplaydrive said:
sure, anything can answer any question, but why would i believe in a unicorn when we've scoured the earth for all animals?
Click to expand...
The point is that a unicorn has no practical ability to break the laws of nature - God does. You should be able to understand that.

God is just the name given to something that may have created the universe. Can you understand that a thing that would have created the laws of nature could break them just like human beings can break the laws of society?

There are no REASONS. They are only unsubstantiated ASSERTIONS and CLAIMS that are fundamentally indistinguishable from any other supernatural claim whether it be unicorns, leprechauns, gods, spirits, ghosts, auras, chakras, etc. Unicorns are presented as an example of a belief that is not contingent on the "evidence" because all data can be interpreted by the unicorn narrative. Likewise, Christians interpret all evidence in relation to their narrative. Muslims in relation to theirs, Hindu's in relation to theirs , Native Americans in relation to theirs, and so on and so forth.
Click to expand...
Reason: there is a cause for everything else in the universe, maybe the universe itself has a cause to.

And neither are unicorns or leprechauns..... and hence you are left with the following "arguments:
1) My holy-book says so.
2) I really honestly believe unicorns exist so you should too!
3) My grandmother saw one when she was about to die from cancer and it saved her. Her cancer is gone! Are you calling my grandmother a liar?
4) ..... etc.
Click to expand...
Three strawmans. Logic is absent from this quote considering: 1)I don't believe in a holy book. 2)I could CARE LESS if you believe in God. 3)Who do you think you're talking to?

You can believe whatever you like. All i can do is point out that you believe unfalsifiable ideas based predominately on unverifiable holy book tales and personal testimony. I would stress the importance of establishing beliefs on better standards and criteria.
Click to expand...
Strawman. I don't believe in a holy book and the idea of God exists independently from any holy book or religion.

It can also be pointed out that thousands of gods, spirits, demons, auras, and other supernatural claims are EQUALLY supported in the same respect as your god. It just so happens that you were born/raised into a family/country/society with a particular bias to one supernatural narrative over others.
Click to expand...
1. I don't care if you "respect" my God, so another strawman for you.
2. I don't believe "my God" is anymore worthy of respect than others, so another strawman for you.

[playing unicorn advocate] Because they are undetectable unless they want you to see them. Its all right here in the unicorn-holy-book! Don't you want to know the truth? Don't you want to obtain everlasting life?
Click to expand...
Unicorns don't have any rational basis for breaking the laws of nature. The only one who can break those laws is the one who created them. That said, you can believe what you want. No harm, no foul.

Argument from incredulity/Lack of imagination

Arguments from incredulity take the form:

P is too incredible (or I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
It is obvious that P (or I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false) therefore P must be true.

These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.
Click to expand...
Right.

correct. It doesn't have any effect on the possibility that God, unicorns, leprechauns, spirits, ghosts, chakras, auras, etc exist. The reasonable thing to do is to withhold belief until reason and/or evidence presents itself. And we've already covered the unreliability or holy book tales and unverifiable testimony.
Click to expand...
The reasonable thing is do believe what you believe and not tell others what to do.

Never said otherwise. The unicorn analogy is only to demonstrate that by putting the god concept beyond evidence and falsification provides the ultimate paradigm of how not to think about stuff. When God is so abstracted, what is left is zero evidence, no falsification criteria, and just the narrative in which the God concept is wielded; a point which means belief in the God concept acts out just like belief in unicorns. Yet not many theists accept unicorns as anything other than fantasy.
Click to expand...
Until unicorns become the name of an idea for the potential creator of the universe, then theists will not accept the analogy because it does not acknowledge at all the reasons people believe in God.

The big bang is a description of what happened after some point in time. it does not describe how everything came into existence or whether it was always there or not. That is a common misunderstanding.
Click to expand...
right. it describes how our universe came to be how it is and it is one step in answering the question everybody wants to know - how did everything come to be?

You claim that everything has a cause. Causality requires time (A causes B which causes C ...which causes Z) If there was no time before or right at the moment of the big bang then causality breaks down making your question nonsense.
Click to expand...
Uh. Not so much. What does this have to do with the fact that everything in the universe has a cause?

Question #1: Why do you think that 4-5 billion people believe in God but not unicorns?
Question #2: Why do you think that people still believe in God but let go of literal interpretations of the Bible (the latter is more applicable to the unicorn theory)?
 
American said:
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you this time. Maybe you're different, but I've found most atheists I've met online to be assholes when discussing or debating religion. They usually turn into mouthfoaming rabid animals, shortly after the debate begins. Don't believe me, just hang around. They're not just non-believers, they hate religion with a passion. Words like "Flat-earthers" usually pops up at least once in every debate with them. Then they'll start talking about how the founders were deists or atheists and hated God with all their souls, especially Thomas Jefferson.
Click to expand...

I've actually had a conversation with a few staunchly religious people on this board and we came to the conclusion that, most often, it isn't a matter of atheists being rabid and aggressive assholes, so much as it's a matter of two fundamentally opposed ideologies crashing into one another. Atheists believe the bible is an allegorical tale written by man and, as such, is just a really, really well-selling fiction book. Because of this, many religious practices and beliefs are just ridiculous. There is a fine line between pointing out a personal opinion regarding how ridiculous some religious practices are, and not offending somebody who is religious. Sometimes, people cannot remove themselves from the argument and take things personally. For example, I asked in a rapture thread if any Christian felt that the text of the rapture, or the premise for it, seemed even slightly illogical or impractical to them. In posing that question, I offended several Christians in the thread. It was not my intent to ridicule their entire belief system, but they certainly took it that way. Is it my fault for not posing a question that wouldn't have derived the answer I was looking for, or generated the train of thought I was seeking to take part in? Is it their fault for having trouble understanding that my perspective is diametrically opposed to theirs?

People assume that an atheist's approach is hostile and offensive because it can't be perceived any other way by the staunchly religious. We aren't mocking the person, we're challenging the system. If that differentiation can't be made then the debate won't move forward. Religious adherents will think we're hateful, mocking bastards, and we'll think that religious adherents are close-minded and incapable of questioning themselves.
 
Last edited:
American said:
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you this time. Maybe you're different, but I've found most atheists I've met online to be assholes when discussing or debating religion. They usually turn into mouthfoaming rabid animals, shortly after the debate begins. Don't believe me, just hang around. They're not just non-believers, they hate religion with a passion. Words like "Flat-earthers" usually pops up at least once in every debate with them. Then they'll start talking about how the founders were deists or atheists and hated God with all their souls, especially Thomas Jefferson.
Click to expand...

That's not an assessment of atheists, but of atheists that debate religion. The vast majority of atheists don't debate religion in the first place.
 
spud_meister said:
That's not an assessment of atheists, but of atheists that debate religion. The vast majority of atheists don't debate religion in the first place.
Click to expand...

And if we do, it isn't to "debate" it, so much as to understand it. When I asked about the rapture I was looking for somebody to explain it from a religious point of view, in a thoughtful, well conceived manner. I wasn't looking for a chance to tear apart their beliefs.
 
tessaesque said:
And if we do, it isn't to "debate" it, so much as to understand it. When I asked about the rapture I was looking for somebody to explain it from a religious point of view, in a thoughtful, well conceived manner. I wasn't looking for a chance to tear apart their beliefs.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and at least a third (give or take a few) of all my posts in the Religion forum are defending against attacks on religion, but American has a point if he limits his assessment to those who argue religion, a lot of them are bastards, but that doesn't apply to all atheists on teh interwebz.
 
spud_meister said:
Indeed, and at least a third (give or take a few) of all my posts in the Religion forum are defending against attacks on religion, but American has a point if he limits his assessment to those who argue religion, a lot of them are bastards, but that doesn't apply to all atheists on teh interwebz.
Click to expand...

I don't even think that's true. I think the "rabid" sort of folk he's talking about are the anti-theists, and those are a very small percentage of the overall atheist population. The anti-theists just happen to also be the loudest.
 
spud_meister said:
That's not an assessment of atheists, but of atheists that debate religion. The vast majority of atheists don't debate religion in the first place.
Click to expand...

Of course not. Why would they? It would be like debating Santa Clause to an atheist.

Just so we're clear here (reading over this thread makes me believe that we may not be, not all of us anyway)

A theist or deist is someone who believes that there is a god. A Christian is a theist, and so is a Muslim. Both believe that there is a god, even if their concept of god is different.

An atheist is someone who believes that there is no god. Atheism is different from agnosticism, which holds that we don't know whether there is a god or not. Atheism is a positive belief, not simple disbelief.

I think there is a little bit of agnosticism in everyone, however religious or atheistic they may think they are. Little niggling doubts are going to be in the back of everyone's minds. What if my deeply held belief is wrong? What if there really is (isn't) a god? There is, after all, no empirical proof one way or the other.
 
Just another special interest group who thinks their special and want what they want when they want it...all these groups think they are supposed to get whatever they want just because....pfffffffffft
 
Dittohead not! said:
I think there is a little bit of agnosticism in everyone, however religious or atheistic they may think they are. Little niggling doubts are going to be in the back of everyone's minds. What if my deeply held belief is wrong? What if there really is (isn't) a god? There is, after all, no empirical proof one way or the other.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you there.


TED,
Apatheist.
 
The Barbarian said:
Science as you say is always evolving, some things that were scientific fact 50 years ago, have proven to be nothing but fantasy, and 50 years from now, things that are deemed as scientific fact today will again be proven to be fantasy.
Click to expand...

Not really. Again, scientists tend to be very conservative in their asessments. Certainly, fundamental truths, like evolution, that consciousness exists in the brain, that gravity is a force exhibited by objects proportional to mass, these will never be disproven. Also, science, as I said before, becomes more accurate with time. Bogus theories like Phlogiston, or Phrenology could only exist because people had such a rudimentary understanding of biology and physics, at the time. This is no longer the case.

The Barbarian said:
To even suggest, as you seem to be doing, that we have reached the pinnacle of scientific fact is absurd …. unless you believe yourself to be a seer into our future.
Click to expand...

We are running out of frontiers. Like I said, we're closing in on a unified theory of physics, after that point, physics will, essentially, cease to exist as a discipline. There will be nothing more to know. The human body, likewise, has very few secrets left. etc., etc. The expanse of virgin territory is rapidly dwindling.

The Barbarian said:
I'm sorry you took it that I was comparing science and religion to be on the same footing, I certainly was not doing any such thing. I even stated that one's belief in God could not be proven, it is ones belief ….it's faith that God..... or a supreme being exists.
Click to expand...

No, no, no, no, no. To say that you believe god exists is a scientific claim. To make any assertion about how the world actually is is to make a scientific claim. No such thing can be said to be 'outside' of science.

The Barbarian said:
You're contention that love can be proven with a blood test or an MRI is just laughable, it might prove that you are related but nothing more, love is a feeling, nothing more … if as you seem to think it can be proven, then perhaps that needs to be done before anyone can get married, or have children … after all wouldn't that science solve the divorce rate and single parents raising kids ??
Click to expand...

By measuring increased bloodflow and activity in the brain, as well as measuring hormones and neurotransmitters in the blood, we can fairly accurately identify the phenomena we know as 'love.' This has been borne out by medical studies. So, yes, with a team of qualified doctors, an fMRI machine, and some blood tests, I could definitively prove to you that I was in love.

I see no legal, or rational basis for comelling people to submit to said tests as a prerequisite for a marriage license.

The Barbarian said:
You seem to feel the need to put down anyone that doesn't conform to your way of thinking, maybe to make yourself feel important and better educated them others … and that too is fine .. whatever you need to do to make yourself feel good.
Click to expand...

In no other sphere of conversation are we under any obligation to respect eachothers' views. People engage in raucous debate over everything from politics to sports. The idea that I should sit idly mute while some true believer makes extreme claims about the nature of the universe without any evidence, whatsoever, is ridiculous. To paraphrase Carl Sagan; extreme claims require extreme evidence. If you're going to assert that the scripture is, at least to a great extent literally true, you are going to have to be ready to meet the burden of proof for that assertion.

The Barbarian said:
Unlike you I am not asking anyone to believe the way I do, even th unicorn guy … if he wants to believe in unicorns that is his choice ….most people believe in something that has yet to be proven … a classic example is intelligent life ( above ours) on another planet.
Click to expand...

Yes, you have the right to believe anything you want, just as I have the right to say it's absurd.

These claims are not comperable. First of all, we already know life exists on one planet, given the size of the universe, the number of earth-like planets out there, the fact that we have found evidence of the basic chemical precursors to life out there in space,... there's a big difference. Also, no-one claims to know with absolute certainty that extraterrestrial life exists, only that it's a likely possibility. Christians don't say god is a likely possibility, they're absolutely sure of it. they make all sorts of extreme, and unsubstantiated, claims in total confidence.

The Barbarian said:
Then there is the simple way of looking at things ….. if you are right … and there is no supreme being, those of us that held that belief have lost nothing .. we certainly don't have to worry about someone like you coming to us after death and saying see I told you so.
Click to expand...

You have the right to believe whatever kind of nonsense you want to believe. However, I'm under no obligation, whatsoever, to respect that any more than I'm obligated to respect Young Earth Creationism, Holocaust Denialism, or Neo-Nazism. My biggest complaint is not simply the irrationality of religion, that's just irritating, but, rather, the horrible social problems that go along with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom