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.
Indeed, Nozz, and that is one of the most puzzlingly pervasive and persistent characteristics of Theist argument - this complete sidelining of the weight of evidence. I won't mention the name but one of the theists on the board for whom I have a lot of respect in a thread many many posts ago persistently failed to understand that it was NOT a 'believe or not' matter, but a question of which side of the scales of probability the evidence weighted down.
It is perhaps not the fault only of theists as agnostics, too seem to have this problem of assessing the evidence and (just realizing that nobody really knows one way or the other) think that agnostic means that nobody can logically decide whether to believe or not (1).
It goes on everywhere. If one can present a convincing argument (whether based on reason and evidence or just on political trickery) then the other person Buys In and 'believes' it and it becomes part of their mental make - up and must be defended with total personal conviction.
The logical and scientific method of impartially assessing the evidence and sidelining what you WANT to be true is a lot trickier (I should know, I've been trying to do it for years and still haven't quite got the knack ) so no wonder theists think that it is a question of believe or not and that the atheist demand for (total) evidence is unreasonable just as the evolutionists can't provide (total) evidence and therefore there is no 'proof'. Which explains why the anti - evos think that pointing to unanswered questions somehow destroys the whole theory.
It is a totally crummy way of reasoning, but very common, it seems.
(1) though I will allow some the credit (Like our pal Boxcar) of coming to the conclusion that the probability of a 'god' of some kind is so high that they just cannot live with the rather uncompromising title 'atheist' anymore.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-16-2012 at 04:25 AM..
Reason: need another caveat
As the responses to Wonderkid and Vansdad argue, Faith is not evidence of anything but Faith and the claims of evidence of a particular personal God turn out to be more excuses as to why the evidence is actually not there. Which is just excuses to prop up the faith.
To relate to the thread title, the claim of design in the universe is really an example of what theists refer to as 'limited human understanding'. The universe looks designed because physical matter persists in more or less stable ways because those that didn't would long ago have ceased to exist. It takes an act of volition (or a random encounter) to change such a 'way' like a recurring planetary orbit. It takes no volition to just carry on in the same way. Design or design of order in the universe is a human misunderstanding or delusion or faith - based wishful thinking. It is indeed trying to justify faith in a god -claim or to try to find some of the evidence for God which really isn't there.
It is very easy to rationalize but it takes the courage of an open heart to experience.
Absolute rubbish. It's his "responsibility"? Who says so? You? Really? You have that kind of authority?
It's not about awareness. It's about knowing. Think about it. Do you enjoy watching a movie or sports event knowing the outcome, knowing the result? Some people do like to rematch movies or see old clips but for the most part we all enjoy the experience more when we are held in suspense. If we knew g-d existed because he made his presence known, imagine the number of suicides or accidental seeming deaths. If heaven awaits, assuredly, it becomes much easier to take ones own life. Why not? Eternal bliss sure beats the trials and tribs of everyday life.
It's the not knowing, for sure, that keeps us going, working to make this life better for those of us around us. If eternity awaits, without doubt, why heal the old or sick? They have a much better place to go, and we all will join them there, if we just believe....
You see knowing the outcome, knowing the true nature of G-d, would totally undermine our existence on this
planet. To suggest otherwise is pure folly and just wishful atheist thinking. Demanding that G-d prove he exists or we reject him utterly, as if you folks make the rules. Funny and sad.
You have to admit, if there is a G-d, he's a heck of a lot smarter than you or me. Therefore to presume you can judge him based on your non knowledge of him is beyond arrogant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer
If you don't have all the info either, making the judgment that his system is actually sensible is also arrogant. These mystically hidden parts of knowledge about him, could be absolute garbage.
See, you are biased to assume that no matter what the evidence, God gets it right. Yet the evidence we do have supports the opposite.
EVERYthing he's ever made has been flawed. The creation, Man, the angels. He's never made anything that was actually as perfect as he claims to be; you could try submitting Jesus as the one example, but, he came long after the initial efforts, and he died, so, he wasn't really perfect; a perfect being would be immortal and immune or resistant to common harm. Otherwise why call it 'perfect' if it's as mundane as everything else? God had to resurrect him in order to erase the humiliating end he came to at teh hands of the Romans.
Then we have this immoral sin system. And the error-filled, confused Bible, which has led to countless offshoots and different interpretations of his religion [not counting the old, original one in Judaism and the newer upstart Islam]. Basically all his work is highly confused, often contradictory, or simply irrational.
The evidence is rather clear.
Wonderkid, your point is well proven here. Humans applying human standards and thinking they are absolute in their thinking. Keep the laughs coming guys.
Two wrong-thinkers ganging up on me making each other feel supported. Oh no, what shall I do.
I'm the one that's laughing.
Human standards are perfectly capable in this instance. That you cannot even use them yourself, is worth the chuckle to watch.
As we can see, gentlemen, Van and Wonder cannot produce actual evidence, and must then downgrade any possible evidence to the contrary, because they subconsciously see their own untenable positions. Nothing can invade their illusory space. They are crippled by an inability to cope with the chance that they have dedicated their lives to something that's obviously so false to others. In such a position they reject science they know little to nothing about, though it pervades their lives and they don't realize it, and dodge and choke in debate because the dissonance gets in the way. One even goes so far as to lie [by stating in what is a blatantly false manner that they are not religious], as if to remove the onus of very old, often repeated, very stereotypical failed arguments that have been thoroughly debunked. Repeated demands for evidences that have already been given, then total denial that any evidence is worthy; or the pretense that it was never given, or that they did not see it posted. It's all very common. And rather tragic, in adults.
It is very easy to rationalize but it takes the courage of an open heart to experience.
A common theist trick this one.
Rather than present any evidence what the theist does is paints people who agree with him in some positive light. The aim of the trick is to say "Only people who exhibit the positive traits I listed agree with me... so if you want to be seen as exhibiting those positive traits then you need to agree with me to do so".
"courage" "open mind" "open Heart" "love" are some examples of the type of thing the theist will list. "It takes courage to see it" "It takes an open heart to experience it" "You need an open mind to understand it" and so on.
It is a linguistic propaganda trick you are pulling and no more and it is as transparent as the newly cleaned windows of the office I am sitting in.
It is very easy to rationalize but it takes the courage of an open heart to experience.
How odd. I see it as the other way around. Perhaps because it seems so darned easy to get feelings under the body -belt and be convinced they are correctly interpreted, but is seems the most difficult thing to apply rationality - which is not by the way, the same thing a rationalizing.
p.s. by 'heart' I presume 'mind' is meant by metaphor
Two wrong-thinkers ganging up on me making each other feel supported. Oh no, what shall I do.
I'm the one that's laughing.
Human standards are perfectly capable in this instance. That you cannot even use them yourself, is worth the chuckle to watch.
As we can see, gentlemen, Van and Wonder cannot produce actual evidence, and must then downgrade any possible evidence to the contrary, because they subconsciously see their own untenable positions. Nothing can invade their illusory space. They are crippled by an inability to cope with the chance that they have dedicated their lives to something that's obviously so false to others. In such a position they reject science they know little to nothing about, though it pervades their lives and they don't realize it, and dodge and choke in debate because the dissonance gets in the way. One even goes so far as to lie [by stating in what is a blatantly false manner that they are not religious], as if to remove the onus of very old, often repeated, very stereotypical failed arguments that have been thoroughly debunked. Repeated demands for evidences that have already been given, then total denial that any evidence is worthy; or the pretense that it was never given, or that they did not see it posted. It's all very common. And rather tragic, in adults.
Golly, dont I wish I had as much free time to devote to this site as the atheist crowd.....are atheists often lottery winners, I wonder?
What's funny to me is HH feels the need to come here and bash Christians and Christianity. Meanwhile his own beliefs are likely not subject to similar direct assault. One wonders what drives the obsession....
Frankly, what HH describes above could be applied to the billions of believers.
Wrong thinkers, eh? Thats how I describe liberals and other such ilk who BELIEVE in wealth redistribution, huge government oversight and that anal sex is perfectly normal and healthy. Gosh, it seems to me there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, but yet liberalism persists. At least it does for now.
The absolute fallacy here is that one must reject science to believe in g-d. What an absurd notion. The beauty and wonder of science provides all the more evidence that there is a creator. At least compared to just plain old blind luck that we are the beneficiaries of such wonder. You know, the odds of which make winning the multi state lotteries look easy.
Repeated DEMANDS? I'm sorry hoss, did someone grant you the authority to DEMAND anything of me or anyone else here? I sure didn't. I guess you know what you can do with your demands.
Every Christian has doubts from time to time. The fact that you don't realize this shows a remarkable lack of comprehension of what really goes on in the hearts, minds and souls of those behind the heavy wooden doors you so abhor. Clearly your "knowledge" of Christianity is not based on a true understanding or familiarity with its essence. ignorance is not a position that one should argue from, hoss.
What's tragic is the atheist belief in no god. They can't prove the lack of one, but CHOOSE to believe there isn't one. They speak extensively about their self proclaimed superior intellect, and the Chrisitans lack of courage to accept the truth. The former is just ego, the latter is pure irony - ESP given the courage it takes to believe in what cannot be explicitly proven, yet is apparent to anyone who has an open mind and soul. Not to mention not being afraid of being held accountable for their actions one day.
Golly, dont I wish I had as much free time to devote to this site as the atheist crowd.....are atheists often lottery winners, I wonder?
Never.
Quote:
What's funny to me is HH feels the need to come here and bash Christians and Christianity. Meanwhile his own beliefs are likely not subject to similar direct assault. One wonders what drives the obsession....
I can't speak for him but what drives me is trying to make the world a better place by trying to introduce logic, reason and common sense to Christians, especially fundamental Christians.
"The FBI gave the standard profile of a serial killer, He is a person with few friends. He became much more religious just before he started murdering people. After reading all the available studies I could find and studying all the articles in the newspapers for over 30 years, I find what is most outstanding is Serial killers were sexually inhibited by their strong religious upbringing." "On TV a woman said she had interviewed more serial killers, just after they were caught, than any other person. She said "when you ask a serial killer questions like "Why did you murder this moral, loving married person with children?" "Didn’t you think of how terrible this would be to her husband, her children, her parents?" Almost all serial killers start quoting one verse after another from the Christian Bible. This shows most serial killers had strong religious upbringing, have been studying the bible for years and were still very Christian religious when they were murdering."
Nearly all serial killers are very devout men who were raised by members of Pentecostal sects, fundamentalist Catholics or were 'hard-shell' Baptists and Methodists."
What's tragic is the atheist belief in no god. They can't prove the lack of one, but CHOOSE to believe there isn't one.
Yes of course we do. Do you choose not to believe in Santa Claus or fairies? If you choose not to believe in Santa Claus or fairies you're no different from atheists.
Never.
I can't speak for him but what drives me is trying to make the world a better place by trying to introduce logic, reason and common sense to Christians, especially fundamental Christians.
"The FBI gave the standard profile of a serial killer, He is a person with few friends. He became much more religious just before he started murdering people. After reading all the available studies I could find and studying all the articles in the newspapers for over 30 years, I find what is most outstanding is Serial killers were sexually inhibited by their strong religious upbringing." "On TV a woman said she had interviewed more serial killers, just after they were caught, than any other person. She said "when you ask a serial killer questions like "Why did you murder this moral, loving married person with children?" "Didn’t you think of how terrible this would be to her husband, her children, her parents?" Almost all serial killers start quoting one verse after another from the Christian Bible. This shows most serial killers had strong religious upbringing, have been studying the bible for years and were still very Christian religious when they were murdering."
Nearly all serial killers are very devout men who were raised by members of Pentecostal sects, fundamentalist Catholics or were 'hard-shell' Baptists and Methodists."
Yes of course we do. Do you choose not to believe in Santa Claus or fairies? If you choose not to believe in Santa Claus or fairies you're no different from atheists.
Oh dear. You're here to help mankind and the world become a better place. How noble. I'm sorry but anyone who is under the belief that this blog is going to make the world better, whatever ones view, is living in lala land.
You suspect a lot of fundies are here? Moreover you BELIEVE that you, an absolute stranger, can convince lots (less than lots and the world is hardly likely to be better off, ya think?) of them that they are misguided. And they will then convert to atheism, eh? Wow. I'm starting to understand why you don't believe there is a g-d....other than yourself.....
You suspect a lot of fundies are here? Moreover you BELIEVE that you, an absolute stranger, can convince lots (less than lots and the world is hardly likely to be better off, ya think?) of them that they are misguided. And they will then convert to atheism, eh?
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.
) so no wonder theists think that it is a question of believe or not and that the atheist demand for (total) evidence is unreasonable just as the evolutionists can't provide (total) evidence and therefore there is no 'proof'. Which explains why the anti - evos think that pointing to unanswered questions somehow destroys the whole theory.
I see it as the other way around. Perhaps because it seems so darned easy to get feelings under the body -belt and be convinced they are correctly interpreted, but is seems the most difficult thing to apply rationality - which is not by the way, the same thing a rationalizing.
I'm sorry but anyone who is under the belief that this blog is going to make the world better, whatever ones view, is living in lala land. 
