Dear Atheists

[iangb]

Just how are the bible? Or "Gut feelings" proof? What a terrible standard...

My thanks for displaying the hostility that I (and others) have been complaining about. Firstly, we've already gone down one of the roads I said we would - we've accepted that both sides have 'proof', now we're just haggling over standards.

For the first, let's relate this to the analogy I've brought up in the very same post. I'd hoped that would be an obvious move, but it seems not.

How do you know that I exist? All you have to go on is the fact that you can read some of the things (allegedly) written by/about me on these forums.
How does a (hypothetical) theist know God exists? All they have to go on is the fact that they can read some of the things (allegedly) written by/about God in the Bible.

And, switching analogies at the speed of type...

How do you 'know' that you're in love? All you have is your gut feelings.
How does our (hypothetical) theist know God exists? All they have is their gut feelings.

Everyone has faith in something - if I get a good excuse, I'll go into the philosophy of science; which shook me up a few years ago. We shall see.

ANTI-EDIT: If you saw an edit here - don't respond to it! It's coming in a later post...

 

[rivrrat]

How do you know that I exist? All you have to go on is the fact that you can read some of the things (allegedly) written by/about me on these forums.
How does a (hypothetical) theist know God exists? All they have to go on is the fact that they can read some of the things (allegedly) written by/about God in the Bible.

I can visit your home. I can ask you to post something and watch you post it. I can predict actions that you will take. I can watch actions that you take in real time. I can go to your home, touch you, hear you, smell you. Even taste you if we want to get really kinky.

How do you 'know' that you're in love? All you have is your gut feelings.

Love is an emotion, chemical reactions in our brain. Tangible, measurable chemical reactions. Easy to tell if someone is experiencing love.

How does our (hypothetical) theist know God exists? All they have is their gut feelings.

Yes, they have a belief.

 

[iangb]

Actually, I CAN prove to you I exist. Simply by showing up on your doorstep, or vice versa. Let's see one of the gods or goddesses do that. Or leprechauns. Because they're favorite mythological beings. Well, them and Hathor, I do have a fondness for Hathor. And Dionysus. ****... there are so many. How the hell do you guys CHOOSE? Seriously.

I remember talking to my friend while I was India and he explained to me why he chose the god that he worships in Hinduism. I liked his attitude about it. Made me want to pick one of them to be MY favorite. I chose Kali.

But she still never showed up on my doorstep. /pout

But you haven't shown up on my doorstep yet - and yet I still believe you exist. Is that a 'silly faith'?

Incidentally, I'm an agnostic atheist. I haven't chosen. But I can empathise (to a certain extent) with those who have.
Incidentally #2: Note also I'm only talking about beliefs. Acting upon those beliefs now, that's a whole 'nother matter.

I can visit your home. I can ask you to post something and watch you post it. I can predict actions that you will take. I can watch actions that you take in real time. I can go to your home, touch you, hear you, smell you. Even taste you if we want to get really kinky.

Do we even have DebatePoliticsCons?

ontopic: What about people who, 50 years from now, look at the archives of this forum (which will still be going, obviously) and just see what has been? Should they believe that we exist?

Love is an emotion, chemical reactions in our brain. Tangible, measurable chemical reactions. Easy to tell if someone is experiencing love.

So you need to measure the chemicals in your brain before you can tell that you're in love?

There's a big difference between proof being available and you actually having it. I'm willing to bet that there are many theists who believe that God could also knock on their doors, etc. - just as I believe that you could do the same to mine.

EDIT: Incidentally #3: Also, I'm totally up for debating people's beliefs if they're also up for it. Just 'cos I respect the difference between us doesn't mean I necessarily agree with it - it's like moral relativism.

 

[reefedjib]

I chose Kali.

I never had any doubt.

But she still never showed up on my doorstep. /pout

She makes her appearance in your dreams.

 

[reefedjib]

That's not exactly what he said, but I can see how it could be taken that way. I can reject a claim, and yet make no claim to the contrary.

He said: "Since none of these claims, including the God one, has ever been supported by the merest shred of objective evidence, it is perfectly reasonable and rational to reject these claims as false."

He is claiming they are proved false.

 

[rivrrat]

But you haven't shown up on my doorstep yet - and yet I still believe you exist. Is that a 'silly faith'?

Given that I respond to your posts in a predictable manner, I would say that no - it's not a "silly faith". There is evidence that something is responding to your questions. Predictably. Measurably. There is a tangible interaction.

Do we even have DebatePoliticsCons?

We should

So you need to measure the chemicals in your brain before you can tell that you're in love?

I do not, since I can sense the chemicals released into my body via the emotional and physical triggers they induce.

There's a big difference between proof being available and you actually having it. I'm willing to bet that there are many theists who believe that God could also knock on their doors, etc. - just as I believe that you could do the same to mine.

Yes, I'm sure there are people who believe that some god could knock on their door. After all, there are people who believe in all sorts of silliness. Alien anal probing. The Loch Ness Monster. Fairies. That the earth is only 6000 years old. That HalleBop is a spaceship coming to get them. Etc.

 

[mbig]

Just how are the bible? Or "Gut feelings" proof? What a terrible standard...

Iangb is attempting to 'go absurd'... in the service false equivalence.

I call this 'the everything is just a belief' Fallacy/Strawman.

By calling everything "just a belief", it seeks to put Voodoo on an equal plane with 2+2=4 or evolution. The latter two being fact-based.

 

[mbig]

Just how are the bible? Or "Gut feelings" proof? What a terrible standard...

My thanks for displaying the hostility that I (and others) have been complaining about. Firstly, we've already gone down one of the roads I said we would - we've accepted that both sides have 'proof', now we're just haggling over standards.

That's Not "hostility" that's a perfectly rational response.

How do you know that I exist? All you have to go on is the fact that you can read some of the things (allegedly) written by/about me on these forums.
How does a (hypothetical) theist know God exists? All they have to go on is the fact that they can read some of the things (allegedly) written by/about God in the Bible.

How do you 'know' that you're in love? All you have is your gut feelings.
How does our (hypothetical) theist know God exists? All they have is their gut feelings.

And here further "going absurd'.. and with the [stale] "how do you know I exist". And throwing in the Emotion "love" for good/worse measure.

This is intentional dissociation seeking to muddy rather than clarify.

Everyone has faith in something -
.

Again with a variant of the 'everything is just a belief' Fallacy/strawman.

 

[scourge99]

There is a difference between “I don’t believe X” and “X does not exist”
The first usually means “I have not been convinced that X exists”. The 2nd usually means “I am certain that X does not exist”.

By your assertion that these beliefs are false,

Please indicate where I have asserted with absolute certainty that gods do not exist.

I make no claims about gods. Only believers make claims about their favored gods. I reject the claims of believers as unfounded and unsupported.

WHICH YOU CANNOT PROVE

no one has claimed to prove the non-existence of gods, or celestial teacups.

What I do claim is that those who propose gods cannot rationally defend their claims with evidence. The only "evidence" for proposed gods is testimony, opinion, conjecture and holy-book tales. Such things cannot be verified as true and are indistinguishable from fraud, myth, mistake, and imagination. Hence I reject the claims others make until reason or evidence is presented.

you are claiming that "X does not exist".

No I am not. Repeating the same thing over and over again does not improve your argument.

 

[iangb]

Iangb is attempting to 'go absurd'... in the service false equivalence.

I call this 'the everything is just a belief' Fallacy/Strawman.

By calling everything "just a belief", it seeks to put Voodoo on an equal plane with 2+2=4 or evolution. The latter two being fact-based.

How is is a fallacy?
OK, let's go into the Philosophy of Science. I present: a very quick faux-dialogue!

Q: How do you know that a ball will fall when you let it go?
A: Because science tells me that gravity will pull it in that direction. That's a Fact.
Q: How does science know?
A: In a sense specific to your question: we've observed lots of balls being dropped, and they've all fallen. In the wider sense; we know that 'gravity' exists, because we've observed it and verified it over and over again.
Q: So in other words, it'll go like that because it's always gone like that?
A: Basically, yes. That's the Scientific Method boiled down to it's fine points - the posh name for it is the Uniformity Principle.
Q: So, here's the kicker. How do you know that the uniformity principle is a good way of predicting the future?
A: Well, it's always worked for us so far...

To summarise: the only reason that we expect things to act predictably is from past experience. The only reason we expect this method to work is... past experience. It's circular reasoning - Hume called this the Problem of Induction. Very much not a fallacy.

Given that I respond to your posts in a predictable manner, I would say that no - it's not a "silly faith". There is evidence that something is responding to your questions. Predictably. Measurably. There is a tangible interaction.

Is 'interaction' needed for belief, then? What of the people who have just seen us interacting and not participated; should they believe in us?

I do not, since I can sense the chemicals released into my body via the emotional and physical triggers they induce.

In other words, a gut feeling.

Yes, I'm sure there are people who believe that some god could knock on their door. After all, there are people who believe in all sorts of silliness. Alien anal probing. The Loch Ness Monster. Fairies. That the earth is only 6000 years old. That HalleBop is a spaceship coming to get them. Etc.

That you could knock on mine.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

My thanks for displaying the hostility that I (and others) have been complaining about. Firstly, we've already gone down one of the roads I said we would - we've accepted that both sides have 'proof', now we're just haggling over standards.

The standards are the rules of logic, and the laws of non-contradiction. My standards are sound, they do not allow for contradictions. Yours can be used to support every mutually incompatible belief, including the demonstrably false.

This is no haggle.

For the first, let's relate this to the analogy I've brought up in the very same post. I'd hoped that would be an obvious move, but it seems not.

How do you know that I exist? All you have to go on is the fact that you can read some of the things (allegedly) written by/about me on these forums.

I know you exist just as I know I exist, these things are axiomatic in order for this debate to even happen. You should study axioms in logic, they defeat their opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it.

How does a (hypothetical) theist know God exists? All they have to go on is the fact that they can read some of the things (allegedly) written by/about God in the Bible.

Which is a terrible reason to believe something.

And, switching analogies at the speed of type...

How do you 'know' that you're in love? All you have is your gut feelings.
How does our (hypothetical) theist know God exists? All they have is their gut feelings.

Wrong, to love a thing is to know and value its nature.

Everyone has faith in something - if I get a good excuse, I'll go into the philosophy of science; which shook me up a few years ago. We shall see.

ANTI-EDIT: If you saw an edit here - don't respond to it! It's coming in a later post...

Wrong again, I have no faith (belief without evidence) in anything.

 

[iangb]

The standards are the rules of logic, and the laws of non-contradiction. My standards are sound, they do not allow for contradictions. Yours can be used to support every mutually incompatible belief, including the demonstrably false.

This is no haggle.

I'll grant that for 2+2=4 - but maths is pure, logical, and provable. Science is not provable, or sometimes even logical - try non-contradiction and wave/particle duality!

I know you exist just as I know I exist, these things are axiomatic in order for this debate to even happen. You should study axioms in logic, they defeat their opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it.

Actually, I was about to bring up axioms. Axioms in logic are "a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it. "

Belief in any axiom is an act of faith; and we all have axioms. Again, for many theists, God is one of their axioms; which rather scuppers your entire argument.

Which is a terrible reason to believe something.

And yet you believe that the Founding Fathers existed, based purely on writings about and by them. Were you there?

Wrong, to love a thing is to know and value its nature.

Many people claim to love God; and I bet there's a measurable response from that.

Wrong again, I have no faith (belief without evidence) in anything.

As I said above - theists also have their evidence. That you disagree with it does not make it any less in their eyes; that's the nature of subjectivity.

 

[rivrrat]

Is 'interaction' needed for belief, then?

Not necessarily, but interaction IS evidence. If I am interacting with something, then that something must exist. Otherwise, I couldn't interact with it.

What of the people who have just seen us interacting and not participated; should they believe in us?

That's up for them to decide.

In other words, a gut feeling.

I dunno about you, but I don't feel love in my gut. :shock:

That you could knock on mine.

I don't see the fact that I could knock on your door as being a silly notion, since all evidence indicates that I do exist and that I have appendages.

 

[iangb]

Not necessarily, but interaction IS evidence. If I am interacting with something, then that something must exist. Otherwise, I couldn't interact with it.

True enough, from your POV. What of those people who believe that they have interacted with God?

That's up for them to decide.

Indeed - just as it is up for people reading interactions between God and Moses* to decide.


I totally mindblanked and couldn't remember a single Biblical name for half a minute or so. Megafail.

I dunno about you, but I don't feel love in my gut. :shock:

Actually...

Gut Feelings: The Mind-Body Connection | My Online Wellness

"From the bottom of my heart" may be ther wrong way around

I don't see the fact that I could knock on your door as being a silly notion, since all evidence indicates that I do exist and that I have appendages.

To me, the only evidence is the forum, and our interactions. To someone else reading this, their only evidence is our interactions. For all they know, we might both be sockpuppets of the great, handome, amazing CaptainCourtesy. And yet they (or at least, most of them!) choose to believe that we exist.

If they want to believe otherwise, I'm quite content to let them, unless they act against me or are up for the challenge.

 

[rivrrat]

True enough, from your POV. What of those people who believe that they have interacted with God?

I dunno. What of those people who believe they interacted with aliens on the Hallebop comet?

Indeed - just as it is up for people reading interactions between God and Moses* to decide.

You mean, reading the words that a bunch of other men wrote down claiming that they were interactions between some supposed 'god' and some man named Moses?

Yes, it is up for them to decide, of course. Just as it is up for me to decide if the stories Tolkien wrote are real or imaginary. Or Homer.

To me, the only evidence is the forum, and out interactions. To someone else reading this, their only evidence is our interactions. For all they know, we might both be sockpuppets of the great, handome, amazing CaptainCourtesy. And yet they (or at least, most of them!) choose to believe that we exist.

If they want to believe otherwise, I'm quite content to let them, unless they act against me or are up for the challenge.

Absolutely, we could be. But we would still exist. We would just both actually be the same person.

 

[iangb]

I dunno. What of those people who believe they interacted with aliens on the Hallebop comet?

It's all comparable. As long as they don't try to take us all there with some sort of tasy beverage, I have no problem with it.

You mean, reading the words that a bunch of other men wrote down claiming that they were interactions between some supposed 'god' and some man named Moses?

Yup.

Yes, it is up for them to decide, of course. Just as it is up for me to decide if the stories Tolkien wrote are real or imaginary. Or Homer.

*shrug* or the people who write the news.

Some things are true, others are false. We believe as best we can, but that doesn't mean we get it right all the time - and it doesn't mean that we aren't acting with belief.

Absolutely, we could be. But we would still exist. We would just both actually be the same person.

Close enough for my analogy. I'm talking about the nature of all beleif, in that we all have it. No-one 'believes in nothing' - at least, that's my belief!

Irritatingly enough, my copy of What we believe, but cannot prove is out of sight/reach/knowledge. It's good reading, if you get the chance.

 

[rivrrat]

It's all comparable. As long as they don't try to take us all there with some sort of tasy beverage, I have no problem with it.

I don't have a problem with it, but I will laugh at it. I'm certainly not going to "respect" such nonsense just because some people came up with some irrational belief.

 

[Captain America]

Throughout history, the fear of death has caused mankind to believe in the strangest things. Too bad we won't be around to see how rediculous the next god/religion will be.

It's kinda hard to believe that in 2010 people STILL hang on to those ancient superstitions and myths. But whatever. If it helps keep people sane I say go for it. Just don't tread on me.

 

[Dezaad]

Actually, yes; you do get to continue to believe whatever you wish. Just as I do.

What I don't understand is why you think your opinion matters to a person of faith. It's THEIR faith. It is not for you to give a pass or fail to. It's really not.

It sounds like a control issue to me.

Actually, it is for me to share my judgement as to whether their arguments for their faith are legitimate when I am in an appropriate social context, such as on a debate forum. It really is. If I am at a party, on the other hand, and someone shares about their faith, I judge the context according to the circumstances.

 

[BDBoop]

Nope. Who taught you that you had some right to do so? You don't. You can think you are, but we'll just be doing the 'water off a duck's back' routine.

Actually, it is for me to share my judgement as to whether their arguments for their faith are legitimate when I am in an appropriate social context, such as on a debate forum. It really is. If I am at a party, on the other hand, and someone shares about their faith, I judge the context according to the circumstances.

 

[Ikari]

Nope. Who taught you that you had some right to do so? You don't. You can think you are, but we'll just be doing the 'water off a duck's back' routine.

Freedom of speech. It's a two way street. You are free to express your religious beliefs, others are free to comment on it. If you don't like it, ignore it. I don't particularly appreciate being told I'm going to hell because I attended college. Yet, every year there's always a guy in middle of campus saying exactly that. Que sera sera. He can say what he wants, if I want to engage in the conversation, I'm free to do that too. Though I just ignore it since it's a fruitless endeavor to argue with those nuts. Regardless, they can say anything they want, I can respond if I want. There's no rules saying that if someone says "Oh, X is out of bounds" that I have to obey that. In fact, since we are in a free society and freedom of speech is protected, I don't have to obey that.

 

[Dezaad]

He said: "Since none of these claims, including the God one, has ever been supported by the merest shred of objective evidence, it is perfectly reasonable and rational to reject these claims as false."

He is claiming they are proved false.

Not precisely. "reject these claims as false" is a shorthand way of saying "reject these claims as if they were assuredly false". There is a difference. I live my life "as if" many many possible claims are false. People used to claim that the gods of Olympus were real, and we all almost universally reject these claims as if they were false, even though we can't prove that these gods don't exist. Why do you get to do it with the gods of Olympus, and I don't get to do it with Jehovah, Allah, Kali and the rest of our modern pantheon?

 

[Dezaad]

Nope. Who taught you that you had some right to do so? You don't. You can think you are, but we'll just be doing the 'water off a duck's back' routine.

I am afraid you are mistaken. I do it all the time, and I'll keep on doin' it. Just try and stop me.

You actually are not very good at that routine, by the way. Perplexed, indeed. Practice up, it's going to be a long haul for you, I think.

 

[BDBoop]

And we go round in circles. I AM free to express my religious beliefs - or not. I chose not to, and all proverbial hell broke loose.

Freedom of speech. It's a two way street. You are free to express your religious beliefs, others are free to comment on it. If you don't like it, ignore it. I don't particularly appreciate being told I'm going to hell because I attended college. Yet, every year there's always a guy in middle of campus saying exactly that. Que sera sera. He can say what he wants, if I want to engage in the conversation, I'm free to do that too. Though I just ignore it since it's a fruitless endeavor to argue with those nuts. Regardless, they can say anything they want, I can respond if I want. There's no rules saying that if someone says "Oh, X is out of bounds" that I have to obey that. In fact, since we are in a free society and freedom of speech is protected, I don't have to obey that.

 

[Goshin]

Scenario 1: Someone comes up to you and begins to tell you about their religious beliefs. You tell them that you are not intrested. They persist, annoyingly. You tell them what you really think about their beliefs, bluntly... perhaps even scathingly.

Fine. No problem. Maybe a bit undiplomatic, but they kind of asked for it, after all.


Scenario 2: You are at a party. Off to one side, a group of religious people are having a discussion about some of their beliefs; you happen to overhear them as you pass by. Stopping to insert yourself into the discussion, you proclaim them all to be idiots who believe in a ludicrous sky fairy and ask if they also think Santa Claus is real.

No, this is NOT okay: it is very rude and disrespectful, and needlessly so: you could have just walked on.



I see Scenario Number Two happening at DP quite a lot, and it ain't cool.