Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How would you answer this for a reasonably mature 12 year old? I would like to cover different reasons, not just my gut reaction which is usually a thought like "I don't believe there is a man in the sky who helps football players make touchdowns but it's 'god's will' that a 5 year old die of cancer."
My response to just about every question relating to how likely a god is to exist is stated below in following paragraph. This thought process is the reason why I don't see a reason to worry about ticking off a god for not having the correct religion despite not having thoroughly researched any religions:
A god is usually described as being omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, and sometimes omnibenevolent. I don't see patterns pointing to any of those characteristics in nature. I don't see organisms that are omniscient. I don't see organisms that are eternal. I don't see organisms that are omnipotent...so I see no reason to believe all those characteristics exist within a single being.
If there were time, I'd make a longer argument, adding the following:
Maybe we could say the existence of psychics could be evidence of omniscience in nature...but I have yet to see proof that psychics are real. Maybe telepathy...the ability to move objects with a mind would be evidence of a kind of omnipotence in nature, but I see no proof of telepathy. Additionally, so far as we've discovered, thoughts only can form from delicate brains. These brains are not eternal. If they're talking about a god of a specific religion I might mention the characteristics of that god that I also see no signs of in nature and emphasize that it having those characteristics makes it even less likely to exist to me.
I like my argument because I get all my most important ideas out of the way before the other person gets a word out, so it makes the conversation more efficient over the long run.
I like Troutdude's idea of asking what they think a god is too though. That would seem like another way to speed up the conversation, because without that the definition of god can be quite hazy.
Your gut idea seems alright...if you're willing to irritate some people. I prefer behaving like a politician.
I like Troutdude's idea of asking what they think a god is too though. That would seem like another way to speed up the conversation, because without that the definition of god can be quite hazy.
In the US at least the standard invisible, personal, interventionist god, almost always some Christian version is what people believe in ... so it is easy to assume (usually correctly) that this is the case. But Trout is right, it's very useful to establish definitions up front. If nothing else it forces the person to be more mindful of their own assumptions. I have seen Christians switch at will between the approachable, entreating, loving, merciful, benevolent version of their god and the vengeful, thin-skinned, needy, angry version, and then the mysterious, ineffable version, depending on what they are defending. I have seen them ignore the clear logical incompatibility with the standard all powerful, all loving, all knowing god and human suffering. When pinned down they will throw one of those attributes under the bus (usually all loving or all powerful or both) to save their theodicy and then go right back to arguing as if the tri-omni attributes remain in place. They really can't help themselves because they are arguing from a foundation of memes that have been in place often since childhood, cemented by taboo and fear and supported by authority and confirmation bias.
The problem of course is that if you keep pinning them down like this they will just cut and run or resort to personal attacks such as accusing you of being mean and nasty or whatever they have to do to escape the discomfort of their own cognitive dissonance -- which they MUST do in order to protect their beliefs which are supported not by facts or logical argument but by religious faith.
Perfect example in these fora just yesterday -- a theist saying they don't care for my eternal soul or have any desire to educate me about their views (after castigating me for being nasty and uncaring!) -- that's entirely on me to suss out if I want to. All cover for the fact they had been pinned down for substantiation of their claims and are not just unwilling but entirely unable to provide it.
Sometimes it seems like a pointless going around in circles with these folks but I still have reason to believe that the discussion is very helpful to thoughtful lurkers and genuine questioners, thinkers and doubters. I know it would have been to me at the right times in my own past.
Perfect example in these fora just yesterday -- a theist saying they don't care for my eternal soul or have any desire to educate me about their views (after castigating me for being nasty and uncaring!) -- that's entirely on me to suss out if I want to. All cover for the fact they had been pinned down for substantiation of their claims and are not just unwilling but entirely unable to provide it.
Sometimes it seems like a pointless going around in circles with these folks but I still have reason to believe that the discussion is very helpful to thoughtful lurkers and genuine questioners, thinkers and doubters. I know it would have been to me at the right times in my own past.
I agree it still serves an ultimate good, for lack of a better word.
But I think it also is helpful to the theist in the discussion. Because even if they don't admit it, most of the points made to them do resonate at some level, even if subconsciously. Some are probably a lost cause (Jeff, for instance) as their perceived self-preservation at their dissonance is greater than their cognitive abilities, but the rest I suspect strongly begin the process they never considered previous to that point....actually demonstrating why they ought to believe. Which, I'm sure they thought they did prior to debating an atheist. But you're right about the personal attacks, and they seemingly come out right at the point of peak dissonance.
I would be surprised if we ever see a (prominent and fundamentalist) theist debater come back and admit their debates on this board led them to atheism. But I would be (perhaps more) surprised if it didn't happen to a few.
I would be surprised if we ever see a (prominent and fundamentalist) theist debater come back and admit their debates on this board led them to atheism. But I would be (perhaps more) surprised if it didn't happen to a few.
I believe it has actually happened a couple of times. Can't remember the screen names or whether the people involved are still active here, perhaps someone else does.
I believe it has actually happened a couple of times. Can't remember the screen names or whether the people involved are still active here, perhaps someone else does.
NorthSouth who has had several screen names is one. She began as DOTL (Day of the Lord) a fundamentalist Warrior for God.
NorthSouth who has had several screen names is one. She began as DOTL (Day of the Lord) a fundamentalist Warrior for God.
Yeah I think I recall that as well.
Perhaps I should caveat my previous statement to really mean, "men". Because admitting to being wrong is a suspension of ego and well....men seem to be less good at that. I'm a work in progress myself, so I hold no delusions of perfection there.
Perhaps I should caveat my previous statement to really mean, "men". Because admitting to being wrong is a suspension of ego and well....men seem to be less good at that. I'm a work in progress myself, so I hold no delusions of perfection there.
There was a guy who left fundamentalism for deism if I recall correctly, perhaps a year or two ago; he may have become inactive. He was fairly active as an apologist, and he faced some concerns from his fundamentalist wife. He was pretty big about coming clean with us.
And how could I have forgotten our own NorthSouth? My only excuse is that her theist days predates my time here.
There was a guy who left fundamentalism for deism if I recall correctly, perhaps a year or two ago; he may have become inactive. He was fairly active as an apologist, and he faced some concerns from his fundamentalist wife. He was pretty big about coming clean with us.
And how could I have forgotten our own NorthSouth? My only excuse is that her theist days predates my time here.
Good stuff to hear that.
And NorthSouth conversion predates me as well but I do recall her talking about. Just didn't occur to me until Mystic mentioned it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
