Discussion in 'Community' started by Rogue_Ten, Jun 3, 2013.
that other newbie is an unironic calvinist according to his blarg
which, dont get me wrong, calvinism actually makes a lot of sense compared to competing theories of a loving god or free will being compatible with the presence of an all-powerful, omniscient being that created and controls the universe... but actual calvinists still seem somewhat quaint
The lack of strong evidence is, however, a fairly good reason to not believe in something
Reducing the atheist argument to simple "lack of evidence" is underselling it.
Grr still haven't gotten time to. Probably won't tonight either... But I'll try.
Just as a point of commonality, I think we can all agree that the bible exists.
The body of western literature is infused with its text. Shakespeare is in part a strong misreading of English translations of the bible, and Dante and Milton have practically been incorporated into the biblical text as constitutional amendments. The language of text, editing and textual criticism comes to us from the 1,300 or more years of work scribes and monks did copying and miscopying the text of the old and new testaments. Also, those monks brought priceless secular texts along for the ride. And modern scholars learned to do history in part from the honored tradition of chasing down and analyzing ancient biblical manuscripts. That part of the story of the bible is pretty much win win for everyone.
timmoishere would make a good a Jack Chick pamphleteer/peddler/artist.
It's like I always say: atheist abandons religion, but still keeps the 'fundamentalist' mindset.
Leftists behave similarly to Rightists*, like the lady in the cartoon, usually when it's THEIR favored 'ox' being 'gored':
"Birth control is a right!!!"
"Abortion is a right!!!!
Separation of Church and State is in the Constitution!!!!
*which is what I think the above really is, politics-as-religion, instead of religion/Christianity itself.
The Government has 'no right' to to tell a woman what to do with her body - i.e. make her keep the baby* - but it CAN legislate whether she doesn't put bad things into her body (tobacco, fat/cholesterol laden food, etc). Yeah, that's consistent. Don't get me started on the Right's attempts at legislating morality.
*it can also make a man who may or may NOT be the father of said baby pay child support for 18 years if she keeps the baby
You don't say....
And Socrates asks......what do you 'KNOW'????
What the **** does that even mean? Atheism and religion aren't exclusive (Nor for that matter are theism and religion mutually codependent), not every atheist started out as a religious fundamentalist, and we're not all trying to ram our philosophy down your throat at all times.
Yeah, there's a lot of open hostility towards religious ideas being peddled by some people in this thread, but this is a thread titled "God Exists" that people keep taking (rather ludicrously) at face value, so of course that's going to crop up in this thread.
You can usually tell though, which ones did start out as fundamentalists, usually by the quality of their arguments. I'm sure you've noticed timmoisphere's comics-as-rebuttal routine. Hence the Jack-Chick tract remark.
Atheism, agnosticism, and all types of skepticism and non-belief don't require overselling. They are what they are, believe them or not. But they are still real. They still over-deliver.
If by 'over-deliver', you mean defeating straw-men, making appeals to emotion in place of argument, or engaging in 'argument-by-outrage', then I agree with you.
Oh, and is it really 'non-belief' that sets them apart? I thought that the latest atheist slogan/meme-du-jour was that they are more thorough in their non-belief, they "disbelieve in ONE MORE god than (mono)theists do", or something.
Pretty sure he meant "over-delivers by being correct", but I guess that wouldn't be as fun a target for your petulant snark.
What I mean is the lack of evidence, empirical evidence, is very real. Now you and I may or may not choose to ignore that and couch our brains in the softer landing of "there is a creator behind all this vast cosmos". But, that belief wouldn't make it any more real. Denial is a helluva drug. It's built in. We wish to not confront certain realities that might make us too uncomfortable.
But, Dawkins, Fenyman, etc. etc are correct: the empirical evidence for a creator behind it all is non-existent as of now.
Now, they would admit it doesn't mean there is absolutely no god at all. It just means that at this present time, the scientific record does not support an omnipotent god.
Space aliens is more likely. That's where God is....trailing aliens.
Again, though, this is a stupid argument thread on the Internet, I'm not really sure anyone is obligated to provide you with a compelling rebuttal to realistic nuance. In addition, absolutely nothing timmo (Or indeed anyone in this entire thread, regardless of position) has posted comes even remotely close to the putrid, festering bile of hatred the typical Chick tract presents to the reader, so that comparison strikes me as unwarranted. And lastly the generalization that, in your own words, you say "all the time" continues to ring extremely hollow.
Tell that to those who posit the existence of (a) multi-verse(s). They didn't get that memo.
And the secular man-of-this-age believes a LOT of things 'lacking in evidence':
the 'transparency' of democratic government, the authenticity of the two-party political system, Union/Labor's 'solidarity' with the working man, the 'Allied Scheme of History' re: WW2 etc.
Replace 'god' or 'creator'/'deity' with 'multi-verse', and one is left with the same result.
edit to add:
And playing the belief based on 'comfort' angle is a double-edged sword. But, in my opinion, the 'comfort' meme is bit of dissembling smoke-screen. If lack of evidence is compelling, there's no reason to posit extraneous factors for epistemology. In other words, there could be a malevolent, or unfriendly god in existence, and NO after-life. Given that premise or presupposition, how much weight do you suppose 'comfort' would carry in determining whether the premise/claim is true or false?
Were it that simple with Dawkins. He muddies the waters with his 'complexity argument'. The Judeo-Christian/Biblical God is 'too complex', therefore highly unlikely or improbable. Not realizing that same argument would make us humans 'improbable', for starters.
Right. And somehow there would be no pressing need to know where THEY came from or more importantly, who/what 'created' them? Space aliens - no 'comfort' or wishful-thinking there. (maybe the LDS/Mormon Church are right about god/gods having their own planets.....).
But invoking 'space aliens' opens up Pandora's box, since it raises the possibility that those ignorant Bronze Age or Iron Age* Israelites weren't just inventing stories (the Old Testament)....thus depriving atheists of a favored scenario re: religion.
*why does the Chalcolithic or Copper Age always get shafted?
Kate edit: So much wrong with this post. Flaming and threatening is on our no-no list.
An even better 'target': asserting w/o argument i.e. "being correct".
Plus, I'm told all I have to do is give the 'diversity-of-belief' argument, i.e. "belief system X proponents believes they're "Correct" too!!!!!"
Actually a good argument.
If you constantly say "Where's the evidence!??!!" then what it comes to is a thread clogged with pissing contests. I don't think anyone wants that. The truth is, most theists on here don't even try to argue for the truth of Christianity along evidential lines anymore. Their case just isn't strong enough.
The Republocrat/Demican zombies/followers believe that their Overlords are 'correct' too, but don't for a minute, believe in the Lies of the 'Cathedral'
(The 'Cathedral' = the Washington/Potomac Establishment, Big Media, Big Pharma, Wall Street, Big Union, Hollywood Film industry, Global "The Sun is HOT!!!!" Scaremongers, etc.)
Oh my God. "Cathedral"? You are one of those people?
And we actually have the evidence on our side, unlike those Dan Brown groupies/followers.
It's all about not believing everything uncritically, man-bro-dude-sir-guy.
Or as Ray Charles used to say,
"YOU GOT THE RIGHT ONE BAYB-BAYB-BAYB-EEE!!! UH-HUH!!!!!"
"On here" is the key word.
I see the problem being more that when they DO argue along evidential lines, they are constantly being told by their fellow Christians (usually OTHER Protestants, not so much RCC or EO, etc. ) that they're 'betraying' the faith by 'reducing' everything down to 'evidentialism'. I'd call that 'fideism'. I wouldn't know how to categorize say, the RCC position in the debate: strongly 'fideist', however, they accept evolution.
Uh, yes they did get that memo. That's why they posit in the field of theoretical physics. Theoretical.
Religion claims absolute truth. There is a big difference.