• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Arguing Against Atheism is Silly

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
If someone lacked belief that murder was wrong, wouldn't you try to convince them that it is?

Not having a belief can have just as many consequences as having one.
If you were an ancient Incan or Mayan, and someone lacked a belief that it was necessary to cut the hearts of out living victims to please the gods, would you try to convince them that it was?

That is not so far-fetched an analogy as you might suppose, either, since belief in gods has -- right up until this very day -- been the proximate cause of people doing very bad things to other people, for no other reason than that their god-beliefs told them it was necessary (see Islamic terrorism, hatred for LGTBetc., etc.)
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Atheism is the southern baptists of pantheism. They have a knuckle dragging awareness that nature might be important they just can't figure out how it could be more important than them so they go onto religious forums and Mock Ken ham the bible genius!!! All be "cuz" mocking Ken ham is so profoundly deep!!!. Lol btw atheists have zero sense of humor about being atheists.. like being proud you can't dance in rythmm and you sing terribly out of tune, pretending it's in tune and harmonious. They get all defensive when people go you SUCK!! . Which they then shout Ken ham sucks more than us!!! True you got me on that one. Barely.
Well, that was about as ad hominem as one can get...and totally lacking any sort of rational argument.
 

Falvlun

Earthbending Lemur
Premium Member
If you were an ancient Incan or Mayan, and someone lacked a belief that it was necessary to cut the hearts of out living victims to please the gods, would you try to convince them that it was?

That is not so far-fetched an analogy as you might suppose, either, since belief in gods has -- right up until this very day -- been the proximate cause of people doing very bad things to other people, for no other reason than that their god-beliefs told them it was necessary (see Islamic terrorism, hatred for LGTBetc., etc.)
Not sure how your post relates to mine.

My point was that not having a belief can have an effect too.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Well, that was about as ad hominem as one can get...and totally lacking any sort of rational argument.
Reductionism tends to be clueless like that!! If it for doesn't fit into its brain its, well, either accidental randomness or magical wizard !!! You are lost in the what someone thinks as being primary, I am talking about the how someone thinks. reductionism can't do that easily it's hyper literal, hyper mechanical , hyper linear. Are you an engineer may I ask? Ken ham certainly is of that caliber of thinking except in religious drag is all. Goethe already said this more that 200 years ago so nothing new actually.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Not sure how your post relates to mine.

My point was that not having a belief can have an effect too.
Yes, quite true. So would it not be a good idea if beliefs were actually based on good reason for holding them?

But very often, not having beliefs is pretty much vanilla, in terms of informing one's actions. Consider Carl Sagan's Dragon.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
The Dragon In My Garage
by Carl Sagan

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Reductionism tends to be clueless like that!! If it for doesn't fit into its brain its, well, either accidental randomness or magical wizard !!! You are lost in the what someone thinks as being primary, I am talking about the how someone thinks. reductionism can't do that easily it's hyper literal, hyper mechanical , hyper linear. Are you an engineer may I ask? Ken ham certainly is of that caliber of thinking except in religious drag is all. Goethe already said this more that 200 years ago so nothing new actually.
I would certainly not put Ken Ham in the "Engineer" category. In order to hold the beliefs that he does, he absolutely must completely ignore an absolutely vast amount of very strong, very compelling evidence, and replace it with .... well, next to nothing except some old myth and scripture. The "man of science" who ignores all contrary evidence in order to get the result he wants is most assuredly NOT a man of science.
 

Falvlun

Earthbending Lemur
Premium Member
Yes, quite true. So would it not be a good idea if beliefs were actually based on good reason for holding them?
Of course.

But very often, not having beliefs is pretty much vanilla, in terms of informing one's actions. Consider Carl Sagan's Dragon.
It might not matter much but it still constitutes a part of your worldview, and as such, will influence how you interact with the world.

As for invisible, incorporal dragons, I suppose they only matter if they decide to eat you. While we can't live in fear of every possibility, that doesn't mean that there isn't nothing to fear.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I would certainly not put Ken Ham in the "Engineer" category. In order to hold the beliefs that he does, he absolutely must completely ignore an absolutely vast amount of very strong, very compelling evidence, and replace it with .... well, next to nothing except some old myth and scripture. The "man of science" who ignores all contrary evidence in order to get the result he wants is most assuredly NOT a man of science.
It's how he thinks. That his thinking is primary. Sort of like that inbred moron Galileo " math is the language of the cosmos. All we have to do is learn it" identical to an earlier moron named phythagoras. Total cargo cult science. Math or "the word of God" same thing just books and just city folk prattling on about nothing really.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
It might not matter much but it still constitutes a part of your worldview, and as such, will influence how you interact with the world.

As for invisible, incorporal dragons, I suppose they only matter if they decide to eat you. While we can't live in fear of every possibility, that doesn't mean that there isn't nothing to fear.
And that's my whole point. If my beliefs are bizarre and unfounded, there is at least a reasonable probability that they will influence me in ways that are counterproductive. If I believe that "everybody is scheming to get me," as some paranoid personalities do, then there is a pretty good chance of that eventually seeming -- to me, at least -- a self-fulfilling prophecy. Maybe nobody is gunning for me, but I will be unlikely to find myself surrounded be friends and admirers.

As for non-existent dragons "deciding to eat me," I use the fact that there have so far been zero reports of any such thing happening, and thus I tend not to tremble with fear when I go into my garage -- or anyone else's.

I think that a healthy combination of rationality and skepticism is a pretty good formula for getting it right most of the time -- even though we know nothing is perfect and things can still go wrong.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
It's how he thinks. That his thinking is primary. Sort of like that inbred moron Galileo " math is the language of the cosmos. All we have to do is learn it" identical to an earlier moron named phythagoras. Total cargo cult science. Math or "the word of God" same thing just books and just city folk prattling on about nothing really.
Sorry, no idea what you're going on about. Brilliant minds who solve great problems are still brilliant minds, even if later science surpasses them.

What does that "brilliant mind" Ken Ham suggest, except that perhaps Adam & Eve could have had a pet just like Dino of the Flintstones? Not much there to take the world another leap forward, in my view.
 

Falvlun

Earthbending Lemur
Premium Member
And that's my whole point. If my beliefs are bizarre and unfounded, there is at least a reasonable probability that they will influence me in ways that are counterproductive. If I believe that "everybody is scheming to get me," as some paranoid personalities do, then there is a pretty good chance of that eventually seeming -- to me, at least -- a self-fulfilling prophecy. Maybe nobody is gunning for me, but I will be unlikely to find myself surrounded be friends and admirers.

As for non-existent dragons "deciding to eat me," I use the fact that there have so far been zero reports of any such thing happening, and thus I tend not to tremble with fear when I go into my garage -- or anyone else's.

I think that a healthy combination of rationality and skepticism is a pretty good formula for getting it right most of the time -- even though we know nothing is perfect and things can still go wrong.
I don't disagree.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Sorry, no idea what you're going on about. Brilliant minds who solve great problems are still brilliant minds, even if later science surpasses them.

What does that "brilliant mind" Ken Ham suggest, except that perhaps Adam & Eve could have had a pet just like Dino of the Flintstones? Not much there to take the world another leap forward, in my view.
definitly we are not communicating which is fine. My concern is actually is enviromental , not atheism or theism.
 

1AOA1

Active Member
for no other reason than that their god-beliefs told them
It's not a god-belief. What it is goes well beyond what is presented here, but it is something that contains the attribute of using the word God as a reference to something.

The same might be said about whether or not a perfect Ming tea pot is right now orbiting Saturn -- neither he who thinks so nor he who denies it actually knows for certain.

However, one can at least fall back on some reasonable rules of inference, beginning with a very simple question: "is there any reason for me to imagine that there is a Ming tea pot orbiting Saturn?" And I think that one might reasonably conclude the answer is far more likely to be "no," than the reverse question: "is there any reason for me to suppose that there is no Ming tea pot orbiting Saturn, or any other non-terran planet?"
The "Ming tea pot" is presented to the instrumentation you use.
 
Last edited:

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
It's not a god-belief. What it is goes well beyond what is presented here, but it is something that contains the attribute of using the word God as a reference to something.


The "Ming tea pot" is presented to the instrumentation you use.
Sorry, but for me these are incomplete statements, providing nothing substantive, nor any reason to give them credence or try to unravel what they might mean.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
It's not a god-belief. What it is goes well beyond what is presented here, but it is something that contains the attribute of using the word God as a reference to something.
So you're talking about using God as a metaphor and not literal belief in a literal god?
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Reductionism tends to be clueless like that!! If it for doesn't fit into its brain its, well, either accidental randomness or magical wizard !!! You are lost in the what someone thinks as being primary, I am talking about the how someone thinks. reductionism can't do that easily it's hyper literal, hyper mechanical , hyper linear. Are you an engineer may I ask? Ken ham certainly is of that caliber of thinking except in religious drag is all. Goethe already said this more that 200 years ago so nothing new actually.

If the use of a series of simpler processes can bring about the complex result consistently then we can view reductionism as a success. If it can't then we accept there is something missing, something unknown and we keep looking.

We don't blame gremlins. Supernatural explanations do not provide consistent results. Rarely can they be tested and were they can they universally fail. That's not the scientist's fault.

There are many things we didn't understand before we understand now. There are many things we were wrong about before that we have later corrected. Acceptance of supernatural explanation was not necessary for any of that.

Spirituality can alter your perspective and that can be a good thing. However to alter reality you need actual knowledge about how reality physically operates.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
If the use of a series of simpler processes can bring about the complex result consistently then we can view reductionism as a success. If it can't then we accept there is something missing, something unknown and we keep looking.

We don't blame gremlins. Supernatural explanations do not provide consistent results. Rarely can they be tested and were they can they universally fail. That's not the scientist's fault.

There are many things we didn't understand before we understand now. There are many things we were wrong about before that we have later corrected. Acceptance of supernatural explanation was not necessary for any of that.

Spirituality can alter your perspective and that can be a good thing. However to alter reality you need actual knowledge about how reality physically operates.
I didn't know that reality and physical were separated seems circular. interesting. Sort of hard to point to reductionism (supernatural) to justify reductionism without being circular which supernaturalism is actually.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
If the use of a series of simpler processes can bring about the complex result consistently then we can view reductionism as a success. If it can't then we accept there is something missing, something unknown and we keep looking.

We don't blame gremlins. Supernatural explanations do not provide consistent results. Rarely can they be tested and were they can they universally fail. That's not the scientist's fault.

There are many things we didn't understand before we understand now. There are many things we were wrong about before that we have later corrected. Acceptance of supernatural explanation was not necessary for any of that.

Spirituality can alter your perspective and that can be a good thing. However to alter reality you need actual knowledge about how reality physically operates.
I didn't know that reality and physical were separated seems circular. interesting. Sort of hard to point to reductionism (supernatural) to justify reductionism without being circular which supernaturalism is actually.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
If the use of a series of simpler processes can bring about the complex result consistently then we can view reductionism as a success. If it can't then we accept there is something missing, something unknown and we keep looking.

We don't blame gremlins. Supernatural explanations do not provide consistent results. Rarely can they be tested and were they can they universally fail. That's not the scientist's fault.

There are many things we didn't understand before we understand now. There are many things we were wrong about before that we have later corrected. Acceptance of supernatural explanation was not necessary for any of that.

Spirituality can alter your perspective and that can be a good thing. However to alter reality you need actual knowledge about how reality physically operates.
I didn't know that reality and physical were separated seems circular. interesting. Sort of hard to point to reductionism (supernatural) to justify reductionism without being circular which supernaturalism is actually.
 
Top