Why do sceptics and atheists post on this and other (marriage, homosexuality)
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.
Absolutely nothing I have said so far even remotely or minutely implies I think any too opposing views are harmful.
As I recall, you said that the potential for harm is what makes it "harmful", and any irreconcilable differences brings the potential for harm. If that isn't your stance, then I apologize for misrepresenting you... and must remind you you have no case
Quote:
A big fail in your Beatles analogy however is that it is more an example of subjective difference of opinion. We can disagree at length without much harm at all about who makes the best music or who the sexiest woman in the world is. But we would be arguing subjective only which is fine.
I don't think it's always argued with the understanding that it's subjective, actually. I mean, people argue quite fiercely over which video game is better. And you really do get the impression that they're believing what they say is fact, not opinion! But at any rate, it's good to know it isn't just irreconcilable differences that bring about this "potential for harm", but irreconcilable differences about factual statements.
Quote:
That is not really analogous to objective disagreements over facts about the world - specifically facts that matter in relation to our well being or even eternal well being.
I see. So now it isn't necessarily religion or even theism, but maybe doctrines on how to live and most probably the hell doctrine we can easily agree has potential for harm and therefore is "harmful".
Quote:
Over the years as an atheist you appear to be more an apologist for religion than many theists I see writing on this forum
Most of them are simply ill-equipped. This forum has very formidable opponents/critics of religious belief (you yourself being just one).
Quote:
but I have to be clear given what you said in the rest of your post in lines line "It would be very difficult to know whether the presence of religion has led to more harm than good." that when I write my points above I focus solely on religion here and now. Not what it has done - not done - or may have done in the past. If I think it ridiculous that an adult has training wheels on their bicycle _now_ I am not talking about what benefit it might have afforded them as a child. Similarly when I talk of the overall net harms of religion _today_ I am not discussing whether it had any benefit in the infancy of our species in relatively more ignorant and desperate times.
Fair enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
My problem with the 'emotional reactions' argument is it is an excuse that I see no evidence for, and in an attempt to dismiss atheism as invalid.
Pointing out when someone's merely appealing to emotion and not giving a logical argument is neither an excuse nor an attempt to dismiss atheism. It's just what you do when it happens.
Quote:
As for the problem of evil argument, it is an argument for a god who does not care about us, does not know about us, or a god that does not exist, ect.
And it's baseless, failing specifically because it doesn't show that god could not have morally sufficient reasons for permitting suffering/evil.
Quote:
So I need to explain myself here, it IS a rational argument for atheism,
Not in the slightest, no.
Quote:
But I see no one saying evil exists, therefore atheism is true, which is how I read your comment.
I see. Yeah, no one's saying it quite like that. But they are suggesting that the existence of evil is incompatible with an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving god. Fallaciously, but yeah, that's what they're suggesting.
Quote:
I find the words 'faith' and 'belief' are often used dishonestly by the religious as they are both flexible in their meaning. It is a way to dismiss atheism as a belief based on faith while ignoring the evidence.
For the purposes of this thread, I should be so lucky to have a working definition of these words! Then we can deal with whatever claim the theists as well as anti-theists make.
Pointing out when someone's merely appealing to emotion and not giving a logical argument is neither an excuse nor an attempt to dismiss atheism. It's just what you do when it happens.
That still does not dismiss the problem that some religious people use those excuses to avoid any logic. Especially the 'hurt by Christianity' argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
And it's baseless, failing specifically because it doesn't show that god could not have morally sufficient reasons for permitting suffering/evil.
What? Because you can propose a 4th option (without any evidence for it), that makes the first three options baseless?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Not in the slightest, no.
As it is one of the possibilities, then yes it does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
For the purposes of this thread, I should be so lucky to have a working definition of these words! Then we can deal with whatever claim the theists as well as anti-theists make.
That still does not dismiss the problem that some religious people use those excuses to avoid any logic.
I'm not sure what this is supposed to be relevant to. If you're just looking for me to say "If there's a logical argument, you should address it" I of course agree. But if a Christian or someone else is telling you "That's an appeal to emotion", they're saying they don't believe it is a logical argument but a fallacy. I guess I'll need to see what specific arguments you're thinking of, to comment.
Quote:
What? Because you can propose a 4th option (without any evidence for it), that makes the first three options baseless?
No, but it means that if god could have morally sufficient reasons to permit suffering/evil then the problem of evil argument fails. Because that argument specifically says that god cannot be omnibenevolent, omniscient and all-powerful while permitting suffering/evil.
Quote:
Dictionaries.
Dictionaries are not where you get working definitions. This is a term referring to the definition a group of people discussing something will be using in their arguments.
Dictionaries are not where you get working definitions. This is a term referring to the definition a group of people discussing something will be using in their arguments.
You mean bafflegab - the language of carnies, used car salesmen, late night TV ads, and evangelical mouthpieces.
I'm not sure what this is supposed to be relevant to. If you're just looking for me to say "If there's a logical argument, you should address it" I of course agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
But if a Christian or someone else is telling you "That's an appeal to emotion", they're saying they don't believe it is a logical argument but a fallacy. I guess I'll need to see what specific arguments you're thinking of, to comment.
The problem is that theists often use the same arguments you used (hurt by religion, emotional) to avoid even discussing arguments atheists make. Which was my point. You started arguing like a Christian without actually refuting anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
No, but it means that if god could have morally sufficient reasons to permit suffering/evil then the problem of evil argument fails. Because that argument specifically says that god cannot be omnibenevolent, omniscient and all-powerful while permitting suffering/evil.
Except atheists do not believe in ALL gods, so when they talk about the problem of evil, they are not just talking about an omnibenevolent, omniscient and all-powerful god. They are asking why any god would allow evil. Not the specific argument you introduced. And of the different possible answers, the none existence if any gods is one of them.
Religious forums? Seems like a waste of time and electrons. Why post on a forum of which is devoted to a subject of which holds no relevance to one. I don’t knit or fly airplanes. I don’t visit knitting or airplane forums. So why all the none-spiritual people on this forum? Uncertain about one’s belief system? Perhaps.
If I’ve asked this question before, forgive me. I am simply perplexed.
The problem is that theists often use the same arguments you used (hurt by religion, emotional) to avoid even discussing arguments atheists make. Which was my point.
It all depends on the context of the conversation. But typically, IME, the atheist will bring up the problem of evil specifically to claim or imply that if god exists he can't be all-powerful, all-knowing, and benevolent at the same time. And they're never able to show the logical incompatibility, usually resorting to "How could a loving god allow (the most unsettling and disturbing examples of evil/suffering we can think of)?"
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.
